Bear containers are coming to ADKs

[Remix]

So, cannisters are going to be required....

Lets start a pool to predict when the first thread gets posted next year involving a ranger and hiker camping without a cannister .

Im gonna say Dec 20th of this year for the hiker without snowshoes and the ranger thread.

(pssst ... On the internet, no one knows your a bear)

 

[rhihn]

Another alternative is the use of food poles (Canadian Rockies near Banff use these). along the lines of the Marcy cables, but up, not out. More useful at some backcountry sites, aesthetics notwithstanding.

I was wondering if anyone would be mentioning these. The only place I've ever experienced one is in Gros Morne, Newfoundland. A long pole was provided to hoist your food bag on a metal spoke of a tall, metal pole, something like the spokes of an umbrella. At the time they struck me as being an excellent idea.

 

[lumberzac]

Another alternative is the use of food poles (Canadian Rockies near Banff use these). along the lines of the Marcy cables, but up, not out. More useful at some backcountry sites, aesthetics notwithstanding.

I was wondering if anyone would be mentioning these. The only place I've ever experienced one is in Gros Morne, Newfoundland. A long pole was provided to hoist your food bag on a metal spoke of a tall, metal pole, something like the spokes of an umbrella. At the time they struck me as being an excellent idea.

A good idea, but why would the state spend the money to install these when they can make campers spend money to buy canisters?

I think whether we like it or not we will have to get use canisters if we want to camp in the Eastern High Peaks Wilderness.

 

[Holdstrong]

A good idea, but why would the state spend the money to install these when they can make campers spend money to buy canisters?

But I wonder how much the state will have to spend on proper enforcement of the canister policy.... or which programs and efforts will be ignored while rangers focus on it's enforcement.

And if they dont plan on properly enforcing it, well then, we'd be right back where we started.

I still can't help but think that a more thoroughly thought out and well implemented self storage effort (like lockers, or cables, or poles) would save money and regulation hassles... while achieving the same level of protection.

I can only assume that the powers that be have taken all of these questions into consideration, and even though it doesnt seem like the best solution to me, it may very well be just that.

 

[ALGonquin Bob]

The canister that I've been renting for all my overnight trips over the past year fits well inside my pack. I just stuff other items inside to fill it, so as not to have any wasted space in there. If you buy one of the bags/cases for your canister, remove it before you stash the barrel overnight, so the bear doesn't have so much to grab onto. And you'll be able to find it in the morning.

As much as I don't like another rule being imposed, I think that this will work. Be prepared to be fined, or even told to hike out if you ignore this new requirement. We'll be sure to see many more discussions like this through next year, when this new mandate is imposed on the hiking public.

By the way, although there won't be bears to worry about in the winter, our friend the Pine Marten will be happy to steal your food from improperly stored bags. I may still use a canister just to prevent nibbling by other forest creatures.

 

[stoopid]

Be prepared to be fined, or even told to hike out if you ignore this new requirement. We'll be sure to see many more discussions like this through next year, when this new mandate is imposed on the hiking public.

I agree, much more will be made of this in the coming months.

Just a note, I don't bring my wallet or any form of id. Not that I expect to cause trouble, but rather... this past weekend I camped about 200-300 feet from the leanto, nowhere's near water on a level piece of land in the Lake Colden area. I completely forgot about the 'camp where designated' rules in certain spots when I setup camp (and will note this next time I'm in a high traffic zone)...

So I come back from hiking Saturday to a red ticket warning me about not camping in a designted spot. Now, I'm a VERY responsible camper, even thought enough to bring a bearcan for my own protection, and the benefit of the bear. I even take out trash I see along the trail. Granted, a ranger doesn't know this, but I would think they have more critical things to focus on in that area then me finding a perfect fine, non-impacting place to camp that just doesn't happen to have a yellow disc nearby .

So, I didn't move and was told afterwards that they were even near my tent later that night while I was asleep, but I wasn't ticketed. Funny, if it was important enough to warn me why not ticket me? Is it suddenly NOT important?

Rules are meant to protect us from ourselves, but I think alot of enforcement is ego and not genuine concern. In the time the ranger took to write me the love note about my choice of camping spot that would have been legal in 95% of the rest of the park, they could have been doing anything else more useful.

Point of mentioning not carrying my wallet/id? I want to see them drag me miles through the woods to a patrol car and haul me away. If they bother you (like I felt I was in my above example), simply sit on the ground and tell them to carry you to jail. If they woke me from my slumber to tell me to move I would have had some choice words before zipping the door to my 2 man tent closed. Maybe I'm disrespectful or have issues with authority, but when you nit-pick you automatically lose some credibility in my eyes.

If the rangers/dec are going to enforce the cannister law in the same manner they are enforcing other things now, they're going to ruin the entire point. Check people heading in at all major trail heads. Once on the trail/at camp, there isn't anything anyone can really do (that won't create awkward situations where authority is challenged/diminished or people's enjoyment of the weekend ruined).

Raise people's awareness to how it helps us AND the bears. But for heaven's sake, don't use it as an excuse to harrass the people that ensure your job's security by using the park you're paid to maintain.

[I hope this sounds sincere. I don't want to cause a fuss, but I think we surrender too many rights to regulations and the last place I expect to be told that my 'salad fork is on the right' is in the middle of nowhere!]

 

[masshysteria]

In case no one noticed, Pandora's Box has now been officially opened!
After talking for an hour with the Wildlife officer on Monday at The Garden, I came away with some definite opinions about bears;
1) Bears are not the problem, WE ARE!
2) The bears are not going to suffer because we took away one of their opportunistic sources of food. Bears are omnivores, they will eat anything. The bears will suffer when they loose all fear of humans, and then two things will happen. First, the bear will come too close to a persons safe-space, and the Wildlife officer will have to cull that bear. Second, the bears lack of fear for a human will result in it being lined up in the sights of a hunter's rifle.
3)The bear bag thing just isn't cutting it. I venture to guess that all of the people on this forum know how to properly hang a bag. But we are all small percentage of the population who uses the ADKs. The majority of the rest of the users do not. I saw that this weekend with a group who didn't hang their food, and a group who hung it very improperly. Every one of them went hungry that weekend.
4) I, for one, will have no problem conforming to a bear canister regulation. I'll make do with carrying a bulky piece of equipment, we all will. And let's face it, I'm getting tired of having to throw ropes through trees so that I can eat the next morning. In all the years of camping and hiking in the ADKs and the Berhshires, I have never had a bear problem. I don't do anything to attract their attention.
5) The EnCon and Wildlife officers both informed me that there will be penalties for failing to follow these rules,if they go into effect. A fine of anywhere from $0 to $250, and they even suggested that flagrant violators in high use areas like Marcy Dam and Lake Colden may have their food removed and brought to the Ranger Station. There you can pick it up when you can show that the right steps are being taken to prevent a 'bear problem'. This may sound a little Draconian. No one likes Big Brother breathing down their necks, but something has to be done. We didn't complain too much when they made you fill out a use permit everytime you go out. Nor when they made camping above 3500ft illegal, or outlawed fires. I think this is a small price to pay for the continued use of our outdoor assets.

The guy who can set up a canister rental business is going to make a pretty penny!

 

[Silverback]

So, I didn't move and was told afterwards that they were even near my tent later that night while I was asleep, but I wasn't ticketed. Funny, if it was important enough to warn me why not ticket me? Is it suddenly NOT important?

Rules are meant to protect us from ourselves, but I think alot of enforcement is ego and not genuine concern. In the time the ranger took to write me the love note about my choice of camping spot that would have been legal in 95% of the rest of the park, they could have been doing anything else more useful.

Point of mentioning not carrying my wallet/id? I want to see them drag me miles through the woods to a patrol car and haul me away. If they bother you (like I felt I was in my above example), simply sit on the ground and tell them to carry you to jail. If they woke me from my slumber to tell me to move I would have had some choice words before zipping the door to my 2 man tent closed. Maybe I'm disrespectful or have issues with authority, but when you nit-pick you automatically lose some credibility in my eyes.

If the rangers/dec are going to enforce the cannister law in the same manner they are enforcing other things now, they're going to ruin the entire point. Check people heading in at all major trail heads. Once on the trail/at camp, there isn't anything anyone can really do (that won't create awkward situations where authority is challenged/diminished or people's enjoyment of the weekend ruined).

Raise people's awareness to how it helps us AND the bears. But for heaven's sake, don't use it as an excuse to harrass the people that ensure your job's security by using the park you're paid to maintain.

[I hope this sounds sincere. I don't want to cause a fuss, but I think we surrender too many rights to regulations and the last place I expect to be told that my 'salad fork is on the right' is in the middle of nowhere!]

So, I guess every individual can set the parameters of each rule? When does enforcing camping in non-designated spot go beyond nitpicking? when does a container become non-conforming? at what point does exceeding the speed limit really become speeding? If I decide to camp on your lawn, why should you care? Just another stupid law, right? I mean all land should be free to use as anybody sees fit, yes?.

This problem came about because individuals made decisions to violate either the rule of law or the "rule of responsible camping" Attitudes like "that doesn't apply to me", or "my way of hanging a bag is fine', or "I can camp where I want to and no one is going to tell me what to do" have a tendancy to multiply, and ultimately bring us over the line. I posted a message in this column 5 years ago warning about the attitude of campers at Marcy Dam, that seems very similar to yours. They decided that they were responsible campers and knew what was right as well. I predicted that it was only a matter of time before we had major problems with the bear, and would have to deal with canister regulations. I got creamed in this forum, because everyone knew they had the right way to do things and that the Adirondack bears were not a threat (apparently, the ADK bears went to a different school than the rest of their species).

Trust me, I hate additional regs as much as the next guy, maybe more so. The fact is, however, the more we think we are defending "the cause" by practicing "civil disobedience", the more likely, we will get more regulations to deal with the scofflaws. Feel free to do your "sit-in". Tie up more Rangers time, so they have to hire more. Get prepared to pay a hefty "user's fee" to pay for those rangers.

You said it yourself, "rules are meant to protgect us from ourselves". Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot by stretching these rules and inviting more.

 

[stoopid]

Silverback, while I agree that we need regulation, I think the use of exagerration in your post doesn't help 'the cause'. You also conveniently dodged a few of my key points for sake of trying to tackle the more grey areas of my post. [classic "look at the rabbit!" diversion]

Unless your front lawn is in the adirondack high peaks or wilderness area, I'm likely NOT interested in camping there. If I exceed the speed limit it's a personal safety choice. Excessive speed accounts for a very small percentage of 'other driver' fatalities. 99% of the time someone speeding harms only the speeder. The law enforcement agencies are supposed to issue tickets as a deterrent, but more often it becomes a source of funding and justification. For example, I received a moving violation recently. Between lawyer and court fees it cost me $300 to fight it. Someone else got rich, not I... and I was innocent and just defending my rights!

A non-conforming cannister will need to be clear to all those entering high bear traffic zones, and the enforcement of the rules is going to inevitably cause the management to increase the number of rangers in the high peaks area (no other choice if they want the rules to be taken seriously). This will happen regardless of my attitude on the matter, and as I explained it will need to happen at the trail heads and not at the camps/leantos.

Law enforcement officers have a right to interpret the rules any means they see fit. I recently shared that I passed a ranger wearing crampons while decending Algonquin last February and they didn't say a thing because the trail was rock solid (I could have bare-booted the trail was THAT hard). I had my snow shoes with me, so if I needed them I had them. Here's an example of exercising good judgement on that ranger's part. They could have stopped me and issued a ticket right then and there, or told me to put the snowshoes on, but an intelligent decision was made based on the trail conditions. It's that same intelligence that was lacking this past weekend in my camping example. While I could have moved my camp site Saturday it was obvious that someone was exercising their ticket book and not their brains, which would also explain why no ticket was issued in my defiance -- the ranger knew all along that they were issuing the warning out of spite and not because of an elevated sense of preservation.

I feel the more self-governence, the less rules and rule enforcers. I guess that's why there's more than one political party, brand of soda, shoe size. To each their own, but don't impose your own on me .

 

[mavs00]

Another take...............

//-- Change in wording --//

Who cares about the damn bears. I just don't want to go hungry.

Just Kidding, I agree, is a sad state of affairs, but if the end result is that most bears will EVENTUALLY return to thier more natural food sources and thus, be spared the "firing squad", than I'm for it.

My first statment was joke, but truth be told, on a backpack, food protection is very important. It's the fuel that allows the adventure to continue. It's more important to than most people think.

I watched my son, get hyperglycemic (no he's not diabetic) after hiking (in the Sewards) a good part of the day without proper nutrition. A lack of proper nutrition will impair judgement, cause excessive fatique and has a hugely negative impact on performance. Impaired judgement and excessive fatique leads to accidents in the backcountry. It's up there in importance with dehydration in my book. A raided and detroyed food cache, in most cases, ENDS (or modifies) a backpacking trip for my family, particularly if a difficult hike was planned for the next day.

So yes, it's for the bears first (and rightly so), but it is also has a very important value to you, the hiker. Pack the damn canister, for the cute fuzzy bears and to ensure you fuel the machine that you will soon ask to do (questionable insane) physical activities.

Besides, how many times have you shared your valuable food and/or water to ill prepared hikers (with no food/water) in the past. Of course we'll do it, and keep doing it, but ain't it annoying

 

[Grumpy]

Well stated, Tim!

I think you hit the real points on this.

G.

 

[spaddock]

If I exceed the speed limit it's a personal safety choice. Excessive speed accounts for a very small percentage of 'other driver' fatalities. 99% of the time someone speeding harms only the speeder.

I really hope you don't ever have to explain your actions to that 1% of the population. Ask Danny Heatley what he thinks of speeding now...


S.

 

[Silverback]

Stoopid. The front lawn thing was a bad analogy, perhaps, so I'll kill that rabbit.

To say that following the speed limits is a "personal safety choice" strectches credulity and ignores the facts. Statisically, a significant number of fatalities are related to excessive speed. Do your passengers get to vote on your "safety choice"? Do the occupants of the other vehicles get a say in your "safety choice"? You would put all these people at risk because you believe that your opinion of the proper speed is a "personal safety choice"? If you only wreck your car, or suffer severe injuries because of your "choice", I still have to pay for that choice through higher insurance bills and medical insurance costs. I have to pay for the public servants to scrape you and your vehicle off the road.

My ultimate point was, which you conveniently chose to ignore, was this: If all individuals decided to make their own "choices" on the proper application of the laws/rules or whatever, the result will be either destruction of a valuable resource, or a need to "super-regulate" it to protect it.

The very fact that we have this issue with canisters is proof of that. All those "personal choices" have led to habituated bears and another regulation.

 

[mavs00]

I beg to differ

If I exceed the speed limit it's a personal safety choice. Excessive speed accounts for a very small percentage of 'other driver' fatalities. 99% of the time someone speeding harms only the speeder. The law enforcement agencies are supposed to issue tickets as a deterrent, but more often it becomes a source of funding and justification.

Sorry, can't pass this one up.

I work in the Law Enforcement / Medical Examiner field and I can tell you, with certainty, that EXCESSIVE SPEED is a significant factor in ALL Motor Vehicle Fatalities NATIONWIDE. And there is significant data to back that up.

Go -HERE- and download "Traffic Safety Facts 2002 - Speeding" (towards the bottom) for more info.

Another thing, the purpose for speed control measures (i.e. tickets) used by Law Enforcement is not REVENUE PADDING, it's an attempt to stem the over $40 BILLION economic cost of speed related accidents each year in the US.

That's not conjecture that's fact..........

 

[SherpaKroto]

I carried a canister for the first time this summer (Bear Vault) in my pack. No big deal, but it did add the 2.5 lbs. The peace of mind that I had while hiking made it worth it. Just my personal observation - no comment on the regulations.

 

[percious]

I think it is very easy for this topic to become political. My question to you guys is: Of those of you who have lost food to the bears, how many of you carry those blasted containers around now?

I have had my cache stolen. I carry a bear container now. Much easier, and I sleep better at night, knowing my breakfast is safe, and my trip is not in jeopardy. I could care less what others do.

-percious

 

[WalksWithBlackflies]

Does anyone know the geographical extent of the regulation? All of the park... high peaks only... etc?

 

[spaddock]

I often finish hikes pretty late at night, it's been as late as 3am.

Taking a canister is much easier since I don't have to throw rope at that hour and wake everybody else up with my swearing when I get hit in the head with the rope on its way down.

Chuck the canister in the bush, go to sleep, so much easier. Plus on short trips I've eliminated the weight of my rope, beaner, and food stuff sack. I'm a pretty big guy, 2 or 3 lbs is not going to break this camels back.

Not to mention for most of my overnight adventures I hike in (normally not more than 4 or 5 miles) set up camp and fastpack up the summits.


S.

 

[TCD]

I've camped in the Adirondacks for years, hung my food, and never had it taken. But I do see plenty of "bear hangs" that are very inadequate (if I can stand on the ground and reach up and touch the food bag, then the bear can get it easily).

But the convenience of simply tossing the canister in the brush, as someone mentioned, just about has me sold. It IS hard to set up a good bear hang by headlamp! I'll probably pick up a canister for next year.

But let's start a thread on over regulation, under resourcing of Rangers, and selective enforcement. It could be fun!

TCD

 

[spaddock]

A bear canister even saves me weight in the ADK's in a sense. If I'm hiking to say Lake Colden but on the way I want to bag Phelps and Tabletop, I'm WAY more likely to carry all my food to the top instead of hanging it at the turn off. Dumping the canister off trail and coming back for it is much easier.

I can keep up a good jogging pace on the flats or even slight elevation with a "heavy" pack, once I get to the steeps is where I start feeling the weight big time.


S.