Bear Canister Regulation

[sdg75]

I saw a post on Views From The Top from Neil Woodworth, he is the Deputy Executive Director of the Adirondack Mountain Club. He mentioned that the DEC may start making bear canister use mandatory in the Eastern High Peaks between Indian Pass and Route 73.

Has anyone else heard anything about this? Morrell12 and I just got our bear canister. I know alot of people don't like the idea of the canister taking up room in their pack. We purchased a carrying case with straps so it can be attached to the exterior of the pack. How does everyone feel about a bear canister regulation?

[nattie bumpo]

Probably inevitable

Even though this is an issue that has been hotly debated in this and other forums. It is probably the best conduct to enforce to reduce incidents.
We mostly agree that the real victims often turn out to be the "problem" bear (which was created with improper storage techniques) that often suffers the greatest harm and indignity.
Enforced regulations tend to protect the masses from themselves. As readers and contributors to this forum, we often seperate ourselves from the masses, but we are all victimized by the few (or many) who misbehave or ignore commom sense.
If it leads to less confrontation and "problem" bears then we will all win.
besides it won't be long before the bear learn to kick and punt these things around at night for fun and recreation.
this may be "win" for the bear

[okpik]

How to speak Karelian.

Bear Cannister




Karelian Bear Dogs used to retrain bears to avoid Humans

I just purchased one and it will be delivered in May.
Beats carrying rope, bags and now cannisters (except where dictated by law).

[Kevin]

Originally posted by okpik
How to speak Karelian.

Bear Cannister

Karelian Bear Dogs used to retrain bears to avoid Humans

I just purchased one and it will be delivered in May.
Beats carrying rope, bags and now cannisters (except where dictated by law).

But bear canisters can't poo on my sleeping bag...

[okpik]

How many of us have not done that ourselves in a drunken stupor? I know I ha....

Oh, wait, did I say that out loud?

[strat]

Yet another example of the NYS DEC dictating judgement and behavior which I'd rather do without. Yes, it is indisputable that the bear cannister is a good tool, but, why do I have to buy another piece of gear and why must I carry a bulky and heavy item when I know how to use a cord, carabiner, and stuff sack and in in 19 years have never had my food taken or disturbed by bears?

It's just like snow shoes in the high peaks. I *must* have and wear snow shoes even if the trail is hardpack. So, I just get done soloing the trap dike, in very good time, I might add and I'm running down the trail because I want to catch dinner in LP with my friends. The trail is hard pack enough such that my 205lbs plus cloths and pack hardly make a scratch in the surface when here comes Miss NYS Ranger-lady on skis slipping and sliding all over the near-ice trail. "WHERE ARE YOUR SNOWSHOES?" To which I turn around and show her that they are hanging neatly off of my ice axes. "WHY AREN'T YOU WEARING THEM?" Because the conditions don't warrant them and it's just a nuisance. "THE REGULATION IS THAT YOU MUST HAVE YOUR SNOW SHOES ON." etc etc etc.

Instead of letting me use my skills and good judgement, instead I have to wear worthless snow shoes that do nothing but make walking more tedious and make a lot of noise.

Spend their time, energy, and my hunting license dollars on educating land users instead of making up for their skill/judgement deficiencies with regulation!

[redhawk]

What we have is a conundrum!

I do believe that the regulations are absolutely necessary. I have had to rescue many people who were "knowledgable and experienced" hikers. I have also seen the damage to the envirnoment and injuries to people as a result of the actions of those same "Knowledgable and experienced" hikers.

Now here is the conundrum..

There are many people who would consider themselves experienced hikers, yet in reality they are but amatuers. So who decides? And if someone is wrong about their skills it could lead to serious injury or death, to themselves or to someone else.

So you either have to regulate, or else require peopel who are out there ro be licensed, to be sure they are experienced.

As far as the bear canisters go? I have talked to a lot of rangers and in the high peaks area the bears have figured out the "bear proof bags" and the bags tied to trees in most cases.

My other argument is that the ones who are in the most danger are the bears, From the ignorance of a great many people. They find an easy source of food and take the "human" approach and when bears and humans tangle, it is inevitable that the bear usually ends up dead eventually.

Just like the thread on the snowshoes, the regulations are necessary becasue of the ignorant, the cocky and the ones who just don't care.

So, I would opt for the regs to save the lives of the bears and also for the humans that don't have a clue. It also makes it a lot easier on the rangers who have enough work to do anyway.

[sdg75]

The Bears Are Smart!!

I agree with you redhawk. Last summer morrell12 and I were camped in a lean-to at Marcy Dam. When we got to the cable to hang our food we saw a shredded backpack, that was still hanging, and the remains of the feast that the bear enjoyed.

When we talked to one of the rangers he had mentioned that the cubs will get on their mothers shoulders while she is standing to get to the hanging food bags.

We didn't have a bear get into our food, but one of the friendly tree climbing critters did chew a hole through our bag and help itself to our trail mix. To avoid this from happening again we decided to invest in a bear canister not just for the bears, but any of the furry woodland animals out there.

[Kevin]

I don't like the idea of carrying more weight, but I understand why (just like the snowshoe regulation). Understanding helps me grin-n-bear-it .

OMG I'm lame!

[strat]

I'm being intentionally controversial....

Redhawk,

You wrote "So, I would opt for the regs to save the lives of the bears and also for the humans that don't have a clue. It also makes it a lot easier on the rangers who have enough work to do anyway."

Bearing in mind
that we are talking about a regulation created by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, I believe the first part of your statement is valid. Yes, preserving the lives of the bears because they are a valuable component of NY's environment is critical. But, you start down a very very slippery slope when the DEC starts regulating things to protect these 'humans that don't have a clue".

Implicit in any form of outdoor recreation is an acknowledgement and acceptance of risk. This is as true for an action as simple as sitting on the side of Chapel Pond as it is climbing the ice climb "Positive Thinking" at Poko-Moonshine. When you start creating regulations, according to the suggestions you make, to protect the clueless humans, then, you undoubtedly inconvenience a large population of those who do not need it. And, I wonder if the regulating body begins to grow liable for injuries that occur when people are "following the rules"?

There is a great story associated with the development of Rock Climbing at the Shawangunks that you may or may not be familiar with. It has legendary appeal because it captures alot of the renegade behavior that so many people often associate with rock climbers (that is until it became popular to be in Xtreme sports! ). But, I think it's also an interesting case study in how a body (The Appalachian Mountain Club) tried to regulate "people's behavior" and put systems, tools, and procedures in place that took away people's abilities to make their own judgements. The AMC was ultimately sent flying by "The Vulgarian Mountain Club" and we, as rock climbers are much much better off.

The DEC should *educate* people on their behavior patterns, not *regulate* them.

[morrell12]

The canister that SDG75 and myself bought is just over 2 pounds. To me it is very worth the extra weight. I would rather carry the weight than have the chance of my food stolen. It can be easily strapped on the outside of your pack or put it in your sleeping bag compartment! Personally I think the canisters should be made mandatory in the high use areas. I know they can be rented on the Adirondack Lodge for just pennies a day.

[daxs]

There has been alot education about the bears, hanging food and keeping "clean" camps. It isn't helping. The bears are just too smart and too habituated to humans and their food. I have used bear canisters in other places and yes, they add weight and yes they are bulky but they help to prevent bears from getting your food, associating humans with the food, and ruining your trips. There are always options to not using the bear canisters; day hikes only or hike and camp in the parts of the ADK's where the bear problem isn't an issue. If you can't afford to buy a canister, you can rent a canister at EMS for a few bucks. You can also choose to hike without a canister and risk a fine. But there are options.

[redhawk]

Re: I'm being intentionally controversial....

Originally posted by strat
Redhawk,

You wrote "So, I would opt for the regs to save the lives of the bears and also for the humans that don't have a clue. It also makes it a lot easier on the rangers who have enough work to do anyway."

Bearing in mind
that we are talking about a regulation created by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, I believe the first part of your statement is valid. Yes, preserving the lives of the bears because they are a valuable component of NY's environment is critical. But, you start down a very very slippery slope when the DEC starts regulating things to protect these 'humans that don't have a clue".


************************
Reply

I'm not protecting them. I'm protecting me. If the idiots can't leave food where a bear can smell/get it, there is less of a chance of the bear raiding my camp just because there is a possibility of food being there .

**************************

Implicit in any form of outdoor recreation is an acknowledgement and acceptance of risk. This is as true for an action as simple as sitting on the side of Chapel Pond as it is climbing the ice climb "Positive Thinking" at Poko-Moonshine. When you start creating regulations, according to the suggestions you make, to protect the clueless humans, then, you undoubtedly inconvenience a large population of those who do not need it. And, I wonder if the regulating body begins to grow liable for injuries that occur when people are "following the rules"?

******************************

Reply
I should only have to accept the risk that nature provides, not the added risk of other people stupidity, insensitivity or self centeredness.
If the rules make it safer for everyone then the "inconvenience" is justified. If a rule inconveniences 10,000 people, but saves the life of just 1 person or one animal, is it worth it? What is the value of life, human or otherwise?

********************************

There is a great story associated with the development of Rock Climbing at the Shawangunks that you may or may not be familiar with. It has legendary appeal because it captures alot of the renegade behavior that so many people often associate with rock climbers (that is until it became popular to be in Xtreme sports! ). But, I think it's also an interesting case study in how a body (The Appalachian Mountain Club) tried to regulate "people's behavior" and put systems, tools, and procedures in place that took away people's abilities to make their own judgements. The AMC was ultimately sent flying by "The Vulgarian Mountain Club" and we, as rock climbers are much much better off.

**************************************
REPLY

Let see, Bear Canister Regulations, Rock Climbing Regulations. I'm talking about the former. And let me make something else clear so that you know what my rationale is. I usually avoid the high peaks like a plague. I would estimate that over half of the people there are really clueless about the outdoors, wilderrness and wildlife in general. Many are self centered, wishing only to brag about how many peaks they have "bagged". They never really take the time to stop and look and listen and enjoy the beauty that is abundant around them. Many of them could care less about how their actions (whether it's tramping through delicate flora off the trail or discarding a candy wrapper or empty bottle or can) affect others. As a result of their actions Regulations become necessary (key word, necessary) to protect and preserve what is left of the wildlife and the wilderness for those who truly appreciate it. If the price I have to pay is to carry something extra and do the sensible thing which is also a regulation, then so be it. The alternative is unthinkable! The reason I go to places that are not accesible is because the fact there are no hobbiests or amatuers there, I am not subject to regulations. I am not a rock climber so I cannot knowledgeably comment on that.

*****************************

The DEC should *educate* people on their behavior patterns, not *regulate* them.

***********************
Reply

There are people who are so self centered and insensitive to what and who is around them that education makes no difference at all. Unfortunately they cannot be flogged publicly and if they do screw up we have to rescue them, we can't just let them die. So I guess we do need regulations!

**************************

Please note, the counterpoints are between the asterisk separators in the quote above.

Hows that for an argument?

[strat]

I'm not disputing the need for regulation to protect the environment! I even said that.

I'm disputing the need for regulations by the conservation department that are aimed at 'protecting people'!

And I'm sorry that you can't see the parallel between a regulating body trying to impose safety regulations on one activity (climbing) and of the dec (a regulating body) trying to impose regulations on another activity (camping) that you suggest have a foundation in personal safety.

[rondak100]

I think , Strat,....

... that the DEC is trying to protect the environment here, not you. If people want to go hungry, and lose their food toothpaste and such, the DEC could care less. The problem is an environmental concern. The bears leave piles of garbage (garbage to them) all over the woods after their raids. This is the main concern I think. There may be a safety concern too, but in all the years there has been talk of bears raiding campsites, I've never heard of an injury. It is about GARBAGE!!!!

I saw some Canadians at Lake colden show up late and make camp right next to the trail. they mishung their bag and shooed away people trying to explain. They got skunked in the middle of the night. The ranger took a little pitty on them at first, but they refused to pick up the garbage from the bear (this bear ate his catch right nearby) saying that the bear was responsible. He ticketed them for using an illegal campsite and doing dishes in the river. They deserved it for refusing to listen to people who were obviously knowledgable campers.

Repetition is a good thing so.....

IT IS ABOUT GARBAGE, GARBAGE, GARBAGE.

Mike