Bear Incident

[Martin]

I was talking to my friend, she works at Sail Canada Outdoor Store near Montreal(Neil, you may know that place). Well a guy told her he camped out somewhere off The Gardens Trailhead. So my guess is near JBL. He hung his food, pots and burner. He had left for a hike in the evening. When he came back, his cable was cut, food eaten obviously, pots and burner destroyed. But the most suprising was that the bear swiped his claws into the fabric of his tent two or three times. There was nothing in the tent except the sleeping bags. Now that is an aggressive bear!!! My guess is the bear would not have approached the tent feeling that someone was inside, but you never know.

[lumberzac]

But the most suprising was that the bear swiped his claws into the fabric of his tent two or three times. There was nothing in the tent except the sleeping bags. Now that is an aggressive bear!!!

My greatest fear is that there will be more incidents like this when canisters become mandatory. I have already heard of bears making bluff charges at people to get them away from their packs so the bear can get the food inside. This isn't good news for campers or bears.

[Johnnycakes]

My greatest fear is that there will be more incidents like this when canisters become mandatory. I have already heard of bears making bluff charges at people to get them away from their packs so the bear can get the food inside. This isn't good news for campers or bears.

I think the opposite will be the case (in the long run) once the bear canisters become mandatory. Some bears associate tents with food because some campers are lazy and have kept food, dirty pots, etc. in their tents. If a bear has been successful in the past at getting food by ripping into a tent, it may try again (even if there is no food in the tent), especially when hungry. If the canisters are required, campers would have to be ridiculously lazy not to use them. Although certainly not as light, they are much easier to use than bear bags.

It may take a while (perhaps even a bear generation) for bears to stop associating tents with food, but once the bears realize they can't get an easy meal by ripping into a tent, they will likely stop ripping into tents. Unfortunately, I think the DEC has been way too slow in addressing the bear problem in the popular camping spots in the High Peaks. Even after a solution is in place, it will take a while for the bears to be reconditioned. I suppose I can see your conern in this regard Lumberzac. There could be an initial time period where bears, desperate for food now that all campers are using canisters, become even bolder and rip into more tents.

I know some people don't want to carry canisters and feel that they are competent enough to hang a bear bag properly. Quite frankly, I certainly wouldn't want to carry a canister myself in many situations, but I believe that sometimes the good of the many outweighs the rights/privileges of the few. I think that the bear situation in the High Peaks is one of these situations. The problem, as is evident from Martin's post, is that bears may still associate your tent with food even if you've done everything correctly. So, mandatory canisters should benefit everyone, even those that can hang a perfect bear bag. I don't think canisters are the only solution (bear boxes also come to mind), but they are a viable solution nonetheless that will at least get the ball rolling.

John

[redhawk]

I know some people don't want to carry canisters and feel that they are competent enough to hang a bear bag properly. Quite frankly, I certainly wouldn't want to carry a canister myself in many situations, but I believe that sometimes the good of the many outweighs the rights/privileges of the few. I think that the bear situation in the High Peaks is one of these situations. The problem, as is evident from Martin's post, is that bears may still associate your tent with food even if you've done everything correctly. So, mandatory canisters should benefit everyone, even those that can hang a perfect bear bag. I don't think canisters are the only solution (bear boxes also come to mind), but they are a viable solution nonetheless that will at least get the ball rolling.

John

Thats the best I've heard it put.

All those who "don't want to have to carry a bear canister" just don't realize that it's not about them. That one should go through life being unselfish for the better good of all.

It amazes me that people will carry a six or twelve pack miles, yet will bitch like hell about having to use a canister. It's called self centeredness,

Right on John!!

[Martin]

John, I thinks you make a very accurate vue on what will is likely to happen with the cannister mandatory future. Bears will be more aggressive for a while since they will be deprived of the hunting technique. Some of them probably depend on a human letting food within their grasps. Once deprived of that with cannisters, who know what their behavior will be like, but I also think it will be for a while (a generation maybe, like you said). They'll eventually need to realize that they must find other ways to do their groceries.

[lumberzac]

I'm just worried that the canisters are going to be just a band-aid fix like the cables were/are.

[Martin]

I'm just worried that the canisters are going to be just a band-aid fix like the cables were/are.

Could be, but there's only one way to find out.

[Neil]

I read that a bear will pack away up to 30,000 cals/day to get ready for winter. I wonder what percentage of all the calories consumed by the 4500 or so bears in the park comes from hikers (not the hikers themsevles!). I bet its very low in the overall park but higher in certain specific areas. It might be wise to avoid those specific areas when the cannister rule takes affect.

[Kevin]

It might be wise to avoid those specific areas when the cannister rule takes affect.

I won't be camping at Marcy Dam or Lake Colden next summer, I can tell you that much! lol

If I want peaceful car camping, I find the eastern shore of Lake George, Ticonderoga, and Vermont work well. Most of these areas don't have a rampant bear issue and are generally much less crowded (depending on which time of the year you go). I camp in the high peaks to hike mountains, simple as that. I'll simply hike the high peaks as day trips or camp elsewhere when I want a weekend in the woods.

[Tom McG]

Canisters

I agree with Johnnycakes, now is the time to change the bear’s behavior. They are already associating people with food, the next logical step is to associate people AS food. Use the canisters they work.
Tom

[Johnnycakes]

I really believe that the canisters will work. Yosemite (where the canisters are required for backcountry travel) is a good example of their success. Worth noting at Yosemite is that bears will rip open and destroy a car to get at food, but yet cannot get into a canister. The fact that the bears prefer to rip open a car (which takes a lot of effort) rather than rip open tents (which takes very little effort) says a lot about a bear's instinct to avoid confrontation with humans. It also shows that they are not associating tents with food anymore. I don't mean to imply that tents don't get ripped into from time to time, but I think a heck of a lot more cars get destroyed than tents. I'm also willing to bet that the tents that do get ripped into probably have food, used pots, toiletries, etc. in them.

The biggest issue with the success of a canister program will be dilligent enforcement by rangers. If they implement the canisters as necessary, there should be zero tolerance for those ignoring the regulation, and fines should be issued.

As I understand, the canisters will not be mandatory everywhere in the High Peaks. This may take some of the pressure off the more popular camping spots (where the canisters will likely be necessary) as those that do not want to carry the canisters may choose to spend their overnights in other parts of the park.

John

[O'Castr]

The only way for the bear cannisters to work is to kill the current crop of problem bears and start new. This is a true statement if the false-charge assertion is true. Otherwise, the only thing you are doing is making the current crop of bears smarter by teaching them new ways that people carry food and un-necessarily inconveniencing people by making them carry those stupid containers.

If, in fact, the problem is limited to the hot spots, which my experience teaches me that it is, then why should we have to carry bear cannisters there? Why not follow the pattern of national parks across the country and install food containers in those sites? This, in the long run, would be cheaper and easier for the majority. Why they ever tried the stupid cable thing to begin with is beyond me, when there is tried and true methods learned from other places. A metalized and sealable food container is no less obtrusive to the wilderness experience than a lean-to or a privy or the hq buildings that are already at these locations.

Making people purchase and carry a rubber bucket is the easy way out for the state, which pisses me off to no end cuz I pay their salaries. Looks like it's letter writing time.

[Johnnycakes]

The only way for the bear cannisters to work is to kill the current crop of problem bears and start new. This is a true statement if the false-charge assertion is true. Otherwise, the only thing you are doing is making the current crop of bears smarter by teaching them new ways that people carry food and un-necessarily inconveniencing people by making them carry those stupid containers.

The bears false-charge because they have learned that this is effective. The bears will often false-charge as soon as people get into camp and before they have time to hang their bear bag. The idea with the canisters is to carry your food in the canisters at all times. That way, as soon as you get to camp, you can pull the canister out of your pack, and you're done. A bear may false-charge, and you may abandon your camp, pack, etc., but the bear will not get any food because it is in the canister. Eventually, the bears will learn that this is not effective anymore.

I agree with you that bear boxes at these hot spots are certainly another good alternative, and in some ways a better one than the bear canisters. The bear boxes have also worked very well at Yosemite. Some would argue that a bear box would take away from their wilderness experience. They may have a point, but I really don't think a bear box would detract from my own wilderness experience in the least. Others will disagree, and they're certainly entitled to do so.

You bring up a good point about leantos, privies, interior outpost cabins, etc. A bear box is not really any more of a "nonconforming structure" than these other structures. I'm not sure what the resistance is to metal bear boxes at these hot spots, but I suspect that rangers feel they will become garbage men, constantly cleaning them out. If this is truly the case, based on experience in other areas of the country, then perhaps the canisters are a better solution. Paying rangers, helicopters, etc. to cart out trash can become very expensive, not to mention that rangers (and other DEC employees) can no doubt utilize their time more effectively in other ways (education, summit stewards, etc.). I'm in favor of any measure that will make a difference, and would favor whichever measure can be implemented the quickest.

John

[lumberzac]

Another solution, though not a popular one, is to close the area to camping. In addition to preventing bear problems it would also allow the area to recover from years of over use and abuse.

[Martin]

Another solution, though not a popular one, is to close the area to camping. In addition to preventing bear problems it would also allow the area to recover from years of over use and abuse.

The area would loose alot of tourism. Some people drive many hours to get to the High Peaks. Day hiking would be impossible, and not everybody has the money to spend in a hotel or other. These same people will stop by a local restaurant or pub for food and refreshments after their journey. I think this option would take away a hiking destination from some distant hikers and at the same time loose business for locals.