Local News

[1ADAM12]

I thought this was cool! The Adirondack High Peaks made the news in my area today. Check out this link (http://www.wetmtv.com/news/state/story.aspx?content_id=94B1251F-C666-43FF-921C-28B6B9E1E561)

Anyone know how many tickets were issued? I was up there hiking Street and Nye and never heard anything!

Adam

[peak_bgr]

It's simple $75 for a canister or $250 for the fine of not having one. No brainer. Actually, this is very important to the DEC right now ever sence that bear incident. From conversations with a ranger friend I know. The bear canister is the #1 priority. Not that other regulations are being overlooked, but expect to be fined if not complying.

[pete_hickey]

It's simple $75 for a canister or $250 for the fine of not having one. No brainer. Even better than that. Thhanks to the Nature Conservancy, there are places that 'rent' them for nothing, or next to nothing.

[knuckledragger]

Even better than that. Thhanks to the Nature Conservancy, there are places that 'rent' them for nothing, or next to nothing.
Then why doesn't Dec provide them at all legal camp sites?

[AlpineSummit]

A very good question friend - very good.
They should.......

[Neil]

Then why doesn't Dec provide them at all legal camp sites?
People would steal them, defecate in them, light fires in them, leave their dirty underwear in them, butt their stogies out in them, throw up in them...

Otherwise, I think it's a great idea. :D

[adkdremn]

Pete mentioned free rentals thanks to the Nature Conservancy. When I was up a couple of weeks ago the High Peaks Cyclery in Lake Placid was one of the places that was offering free rentals.

Not sure why it's so hard for some people to use these things. It's really not a big deal.

[hawk]

Then why doesn't Dec provide them at all legal camp sites?

It's not their resposibility. The canisters are available cheap through rentals or loans. Why should taxpayer dollars subsidize hikers?

[ElectricMan]

People would steal them, defecate in them, light fires in them, leave their dirty underwear in them, butt their stogies out in them, throw up in them...

Wow, another way to further encourage the “Leave no Trace” philosophy. :D

[1ADAM12]

Pete mentioned free rentals thanks to the Nature Conservancy. When I was up a couple of weeks ago the High Peaks Cyclery in Lake Placid was one of the places that was offering free rentals.

Not sure why it's so hard for some people to use these things. It's really not a big deal.

The hikers that wont use them say they are to bulky to carry. I dont seem to have a problem. :)

[hawk]

The hikers that wont use them say they are to bulky to carry. I dont seem to have a problem. :)

Same ones that haul in a six pack?

[knuckledragger]

It's not their resposibility. The canisters are available cheap through rentals or loans. Why should taxpayer dollars subsidize hikers?
What is cheaper providing a few bear boxes at camp sites or spending a summer dealing with unruley bears not to mention the loss of money from campers not willing to deal with the bears?

[AlpineSummit]

From a practical point of view:
The DEC wants to have campers use a bear can and they feel it is important enuff to make it an official decree. A safety issue even. While it's true that the responsibility lies with the 'informed camper' the reality is that many people show up utterly clueless as to the new rule. Even those that aren't clueless may not have had the op to rent one, the store may have been outta them, etc. So they either go into the woods sans canister or they turn around and go home. I'm sure the latter are in the minority. I mean, if you park your car at dusk and start hiking, there is nobody there to challenge you if you have no canister - the cloak of darkness is irresistable. So have a teenager doing a summer job there to take a deposit and an ID for the can and let people take 'em.

No, I'm not crazy about the state buying them but neither am I thrilled with the thought of a bunch of DEC guys raking in the OT to play enforcer all weekend either. AND, as a New Yorker, I am frequently being stopped for 'sobriety checks' and 'seat-belt checks', 'border patrol checks'. The thought of being scrutinized around the campsite by a DEC'r is enuff to make me wanna upchuck my freeze dried tettrazini.
If ya want people to use them - Supply them, either free or for a nominal fee AT THE POINT OF ENTRY.

I maintain that once people get within the shadow of the woods, they are going camping, broken rule or not.

[Neil]

Great post (as usual) Alpine. The fact of the matter is: the harder and more complicated you make it for aspiring but unexperienced woodspeople to get out there and gain experience the fewer there will eventually be. Who knows, if numbers drop off too low then no one will be left to care about the wilderness and lobby for it. Then paradise might become paved and tree museums will charge a dollar just to see 'em.

[lumberzac]

The hikers that wont use them say they are to bulky to carry. I dont seem to have a problem. :)
Actually I can understand that argument. When using my old backpack I couldn't fit a canister larger than a bearvault solo.

Still since DEC has made canisters a requirement they need to enforce the rule. A regulation means nothing if it has no teeth to make the unwilling to comply.

[knuckledragger]

Great post (as usual) Alpine. The fact of the matter is: the harder and more complicated you make it for aspiring but unexperienced woodspeople to get out there and gain experience the fewer there will eventually be. Who knows, if numbers drop off too low then no one will be left to care about the wilderness and lobby for it. Then paradise might become paved and tree museums will charge a dollar just to see 'em.

Not to mention a good shot at collecting a (for me)a hefty fine.

[Fitz]

"If ya want people to use them - Supply them, either free or for a nominal fee AT THE POINT OF ENTRY."

Should they provide a leash for my dog when I take her hiking? They require that now too.

By that logic, the government should pay for or subsidize costs for my seatbelts and other required safety equipment in my car, home and office. Watch what happens to your taxes then.

Getting a canister is just not that hard. Buy, rent, borrow. Its now standard gear. People will get used to it. And if they don't, they can shell out $250. The information is out there. Ignorance is no excuse.


Same ones that haul in a six pack?

I just checked. My Bear Vault will fit a 18 pack and my toothbrush :D

[Neil]

Excellent post Fitz but in all friendliness let me present this:

Leashes for dogs and seatbelts for cars are intimately interwoven into everyday North American life.

Bear cannister are not. They are new.

Ask a preztel seller on a New York sidewalk if he knows what a dog leash is. Then ask him if he knows what a bear cannister is.

I agree that a bear can is easy to buy. I got one 2 years ago. Nevertheless, in spite of what we read on the forums the word has not gotten out to Joe Blow Once-in-a-While hiker who, unlike me probably has a life other than hiking.

[knuckledragger]

If I were cynical and ditrusting of authority figures I would say it is another way for the state to make money off unsuspecting people good thing I am not.

[hawk]

What is cheaper providing a few bear boxes at camp sites or spending a summer dealing with unruley bears not to mention the loss of money from campers not willing to deal with the bears?

Fining the hell out of the campers that fail to comply with the regulation should put some funds into pot.

If the campers don't want to deal with unruly bears, then they should use canisters. If they don't want to deal with unruly bears and they don't want to use canisters, then best they stay away. Thats the mentality that caused the problem in the first place.

I am quite sure that this decision to require canisters was reaced after several years of research into what methods were available in other places and what the results were.

From what research I have done on the canisters, they seem to be the most effective solution. in fact, the only flaw in the canister method is the lack of co-operation from some humans.

[hawk]

Excellent post Fitz but in all friendliness let me present this:

Leashes for dogs and seatbelts for cars are intimately interwoven into everyday North American life.

Bear cannister are not. They are new.

Ask a preztel seller on a New York sidewalk if he knows what a dog leash is. Then ask him if he knows what a bear cannister is.

I will as soon as I meet a petzel vendor in the woods. he probably doesn't know anything about a water filter either, and even more importantly he doesn't know what a bear bag is or how to properly handle it. In short he hasn't taken the time to learn what he needs to know about the wilderness, and therefore he shuldn't even be there.



I agree that a bear can is easy to buy. I got one 2 years ago. Nevertheless, in spite of what we read on the forums the word has not gotten out to Joe Blow Once-in-a-While hiker who, unlike me probably has a life other than hiking.

And you might say that in many cases it is because of people like that who do it more on a whim then as a passion that their ignorance has helped to create the current bear situation.

It would be nice if one were able to rent bear canisters at trailheads, but that would require manpower just to rent the canisters. Even if they were "loaned" you would need manpower to take a deposit or drivers license or something.

I must have come from a completely different generation or something. I have always felt that it was my responsibility to know what was required for whatever I did and to know what the rules were. I never thought that my endeavors should be subsidized by government or other people.

[hawk]

If I were cynical and ditrusting of authority figures I would say it is another way for the state to make money off unsuspecting people good thing I am not.

Actually I am (cynical and distrusting of authority figures), but not in this case.

All one needs to do is follow the rules, which are posted at trailheads and the conjecture about the canister becoming mandatory had been going on for over aa year before it became mandatory.

if the public follows the rules, they won't be fined, the government maakes nothing, the bears go back to being bears and humans can feel "safer".

This regulation came about because too many people were either too lazy, too ignorant, or just didn't give a dam. So it was brought on by humans, not bears and not government. So, it's only fitting that the burden of correcting the problem be carried by humans.

[Fitz]

Leashes for dogs and seatbelts for cars are intimately interwoven into everyday North American life.

I'm sure we can argue this to death (and probably will) :D . Leashes and seatbelts were also new once. I do not remember the introduction of the leash (although I do remember the intro of leash laws). I am old enough (barely) to remember the introduction of seatbelts and then the manditory use of them. There was considerable opposition when seatbelt laws were introduced. (but the government had mandated seatbelt installation long before seatbelt use laws).

Universal acceptance in the outside world (everyday North American Life) vs acceptance in our "woods" or everyday ADK life........ that could then be used to excuse Chickendude hacking the hell out of the Santanonis - people hack up trees all the time in the outside world. Extreme example, but.....

I'm sure use of the cannisters will become widespread soon, especially when word gets out that it will cost you $250 if you don't. The unfortunate early finees (is that a word?) will set the example that will compel quicker compliance with the regulation.

I just don't see any long term advantage to getting the government to supply cannisters. DEC is hitting the issue hard right now. Newspapers are apparently reporting it as far away as Elmira. Word will get out. People will comply. DEC will back off somewhat. If they provide cannisters, it will be a never ending program that will suck up valuable resources. And what if you are the guy who gets the old beat-up cannister that should have been replaced twenty-five trips ago, but the funding was cut and they dont have $$$ to buy replacements right now?

[Fitz]

And the point of entry idea - just not practical. Lets see, ADK Loj (both sides of the road?) , South meadow, The Garden, Elk Lake, Upper Works, then also Roostercomb, Round Pond, Cascade, St Huberts, AMR, Coreys...... How may cannisters at each spot? What if they run out? What if you hike point to point? How late is someone there - dark? after dark? how early? Do they build cannister huts? What does the person do when only 3 people come through all day on a nasty rainy day (and they all have their own cannisters.) How are they going to clean and sanitize the cannisters?

I don't like DEC poking around my camp either, but how different is it than your typical Ranger "fly-by" when they check you out and make sure you're not an idiot that they're going to have to rescue later?

[Mavs00]

I actually agree with Hawk a bit on this one (say it ain't so) :eek:

What ever happened to personal responsibility. Now I know that this won't be a popular thought amount you free wheeling flower-power :hippy2: types out there ( :twisted: ), but ..

Nowadays going for an overnight hike in a wilderness area should involve more then showing up at the gate with an old army surplus rucksack, and a bunch o' weinies to roast over an open fire. There may be some places were that is okay of course, but not everywhere.

A designatied wilderness is a finite resource, as such, you the personal user has THE RESPONSIBILITY to use in a manner chosen by those that whos responsibility it is to manage it (i.e. DEC). If you can't take the time to educate yourself about the proper useage of the resource before starting out then I really do not feel sorry for you if you get fined or turned back for violations. That's common sense, is it not?

Now, we can debate (and have to death on occasion) weather this tactic is the best, or right one to employ in this situation, or even if the DEC is doing a good job, or whatever. To me those are seperate issues, and personally, there are many things that I would do differently if I was "the man" making choices, but the bottom line, I'm not.

IMO, If you are gonna be a user of this particular resource, it's YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to know and understand the rules/regulations that are requisite to use of the said resource.

For me, a canister is a better option than to have them take other steps like closing down a particular area to all usage for a given length of time. Come to think of it, thats not altogether a bad idea for a few places.

[Grumpy]

... since DEC has made canisters a requirement they need to enforce the rule. A regulation means nothing if it has no teeth to make the unwilling to comply.

That hits the nail right on its head.

I'm one of those who very grudgingly -- or reluctantly -- came to believe that a bear canister regulation was the right thing to do. That's a big step for an old goat who has libertarian leanings and generally howls and increasingly intrusive laws and rules that dictate individual behavior. But something had to be done about rthe bear problem, and among alternatives (which included lengthy moratoriums on camping in the High Peaks) the canister regulation seemed to be the most reasonable one offering an opportunity for success over time.

My own guess is that some people don't comply because they are unaware of the regulation. How many of us actually read the regulations and rules posted at trailhead registers and kiosks, anyway? (I do, but have come to realize that I'm a peculiar bird in that and a number of other respects.) My guess, also, is that a lot of people who "go camping" in the High Peaks each year approach it as a lark, and don't do a lot of pre-trip research on things like regs before they go. This is, after all, the North Woods, wild and wooly and free ... . Isn't escape from the usual rules and restrictions of civilization, to find a simpler, more natural life one the main reasons we go?

Of course ignorance does make one innocent of intent to violate the rule. But it still doesn't excuse doing so.

And then, at the other end of the spectrum we have those who think canisters are for the inept "because I am an expert at hanging a bear bag and never have had my chow swiped by a bruin."

No excuse for them, either.

So turning loose the rangers on bear canister enforcement sweeps seems to me like a fairly reasonable means of gaining compliance. Call it a tough love education program.

For many years the village I live in did little or nothing to enforce speed limits. It was not an especially comfortable place to drive through, walk through, or have pets (or small children) because of fast-moving unregulated traffic. About 15 years ago the village fathers decided that "enough is enough," and ordered a clampdown on speeders. Much howling about "speed traps" and the like ensued. But traffic did slow down, and our village became a more comfortable place to live. Nobody who promotes going back to the old no-enforcement days is taken seriously now.

So I think enforcement is important, if you're going to have rules in the first place.

I'd bet that once some bear canister violation tickets are issued the word will get out quite broadly that the canister rule is (a) in effect and (b) for real. That will be a step in the right direction. Camping in the High Peaks may become more "comfortable" or enjoyable (at least bear-wise) once again. That's a positive outcome to be anticipated.

G.

[AlpineSummit]

Those that disagree w/me make excellent points and being someone who does believe in personal responsibility they have much validity to me. In short, you're at least as right as I am and maybe more.

MY point is only that new backwoods regs do not receive the kind of major broadcasting that say a seat belt law does. Only those that are into these forums, local to the area or otherwise 'plugged in' are likely to know about them. USING THAT LINE OF THINKING as square one, my opinion is simply that folks will show up w/no canister nor any inkling that one is needed. Therefore, many will just break the rules and enter the woods anyway. Sooooo, if ya wanna have 'em use 'em - make it real easy to get 'em.

Just like 'mud season'. How many people do you think show up to hike totally unaware of the situation? Of those, how many do you think say 'I'm going anyway' since they're already at the trailhead?

Oh yea, final thought. Somebody mentioned all of the possible trailheads - good point. I guess in my little mind I just see the (Barnum & Bailey) Adirondac Loj as a starting point. Trying not to sound too awfully arrogant, that seems to be the major concentration of the utterly clueless. And no, I have never hiked in the Adirondacks as 'utterly clueless'. I was lucky to have had an excellent teacher and role-model who taught us very, very well. This well before my first trip to the Adirondacks. And I do realize that everyone has to start somewhere.

[Rusty and the Maniac]

Sorry this is so long, I prefer the quick joke, but I had to speak up on this one...I was up at Feldspar Brook on Friday night, and I can tell you that the DEC did their best to get the word out to campers that they were doing enforcement. At the loj there were 2 rangers 2 ECOs and 2 assistants hanging out and they talked to every group going in. Also, at Marcy Dam and at Lake Colden, the assistants were talking to every group.... What they were doing was making sure that everything people took with them made it into the canister, not just on the ground next to it... Which has been the brand new food source in the high peaks that red-green and yellow-yellow bears, among others, had found. It turns out that johnny-new-bear-canister-user was cramming everything into it, and putiing the extra on the ground....Free Food! Those people who were "smart" enough to not leave the extra food on the gorund were "smart" enough to leave it in their packs in their leanto on the inside back wall... Those rocket scientests were some of the lucky ones who were able to wake up with a 26 year old bear straddling their 11 and 12 year old kids, man, adrenaline like that doesn't usually come for free!!! Unfortunately, after that first incident, red green encountered more "smart" people with food in their leantos... after that second time he just started hopping randomly into leantos at night to see what he could see... The final straw for him was cornering that 11 year old in a leanto and growling and popping his jaw... I'm not defending the bear here, I'm attacking people who try to get around the canister thing, it's here, lets do it.
Oh, and as far as DEC providing a place for food, they experimented with a big yellow communal bear vault that red green got into in 2 hours... And building those metal bear proof food boxes, that's an APA issue over nonconforming structures. On the plus side, since they shot red green, there hasn't been much reported bear activity. Mort de la Resistance!

[rdl]

Two weeks ago on a Monday I hiked in from Upper Works to Lake Colden with my son and our dog, bear canister strapped on my pack in full view. We met a DEC Ranger between Flowed Lands and Lake Colden: he averted his eyes while I put a leash on my dog -- if my dog had not been trotting by my side and/or had been acting aggressively I hope I would have received a fine, but I didn't ask. The Ranger was obviously happy we had a canister and made some small talk -- he was on his rounds of all the lean-to's and campsites checking on canisters. Education is the initial priority, if someone acts arrogant or overly stupid and ignorant they'll recieve a fine. It's the Rangers call what to do.

The next day at the Opalescent lean-to, two different Rangers came by checking on canisters. The first Ranger offered the use of an additional canister if the one we had was not large enough -- he said just stop by the outpost and he'd give us one to use for our stay. So they stock them at the outposts(Colden at least) for people to use.

Bob

[Rusty and the Maniac]

They do have 'em at the outpost, but not for long! Right now it's kind of like a way to ease people into it if they come from south meadows, or Tahawus... but they said they will be getting rid of them soon so people don't start using the DEC as a place to get free canisters.

[ADKParrotHead]

Don't think I've seen this idea in the thread so far......how about some signage on the roadways to the high peaks. A little pull off area with some pamphlets people could grab (although there's a refill issue there). Also signage and pamphlets in the rest areas would be nice too! Perhaps the rest area thing is already covered but we stopped at a rest area on the Northway a couple weeks ago on our way to Giant and I don't recall seeing anything.

OK, now go easy on the new guy!

[hawk]

OK, now go easy on the new guy!

NO WAY!!!

Is an ADKParrotHead a Jimmy Buffet fan that's searching for a Wilderness Margaritaville?

[AlpineSummit]

Hey Parrothead, if you've got loud printed shirts and are partial to putting your hands over your head and singing "Fins to the left, fins to the right..."
Then you are my kinda guy.....

[Grumpy]

Sorry this is so long, ...

... The final straw for him was cornering that 11 year old in a leanto and growling and popping his jaw... I'm not defending the bear here, I'm attacking people who try to get around the canister thing, it's here, lets do it.

Oh, and as far as DEC providing a place for food, they experimented with a big yellow communal bear vault that red green got into in 2 hours... And building those metal bear proof food boxes, that's an APA issue over nonconforming structures. On the plus side, since they shot red green, there hasn't been much reported bear activity. Mort de la Resistance!

Great post!

This is a realistic way to look at the nuisance bears issue. When the things lose all fear of humans -- or reticence in dealing with people -- they gotta go. Now to make sure the successor bears do not become comparably "habituated."

I have a powerful natural aversion to things like the trailhead "pack inspection" routines by armed (or even unarmed) minions of the gubmint as described earlier in the post. It seems pretty extreme. On the other hand, if doing that for a while will help bring the "bear problem" under control, maybe it's OK. Let's just hope -- and all do our own part to make sure -- it doesn't become a permanent aspect of the Adirondack hiking and camping experience. Such a thing would be awful.

G.

[Daniel Eagan]

I am quite sure that this decision to require canisters was reached after several years of research into what methods were available in other places and what the results were.

I think you're being far more lenient towards the DEC than you usually are.

The DEC essentially ignored the bear problem until bears became a real danger. Then they found the easiest solution they could, one that absolved them of any real responsibility at managing the wilderness. If you camp in other states, you will find bear lockers--neat, clean, free, easy to use, basically foolproof. Not just out West, but in places like Thirteen Falls in New Hampshire. The DEC refused to consider bear lockers, offering a variety of excuses (for example, people would use them as trashcans). What it boiled down to was that the DEC didn't want to assume the responsibility of monitoring bear lockers. They passed the cost on to consumers instead.

Bear cans are expensive, don't hold much, get dirty fast, and will be useless once bears figure out how to pop them open. I can fit one into my current backpack--as long as I don't pack anything else. Of course, YMMV.

[pete_hickey]

I'll disagree with Daniel herre. The lockers are ugly, non-conforming, and they are putting the expense onthe DEC, not the user. Even if they would install them, they would still have to have a canister law to take care of the areas further away from Marcy Dam, and Lake Colden....

This is typically what is done out west. Canisters guve the users the responsibility, but it also gives them flexibility, in where to camp.

[Mavs00]

I'll agree with Pete, who disagrees with Dan ;)

I just got back from BC, and on one of the hikes we strolled by a camp area that had a Bear Locker. I found it rather unsightly in an area of such beauty. Of course of the 1100 pictures we took, I didn't take on of that. Trust me, it was unsightly though. A canister trucked in and out by the user is far less obtrusive to the wilderness and serves the same purpose.

Of course this is also in an area with BIG bear issues (Grizzly and BB), and there are HEFTY fines for simply not putting garbage in designated containers. Not just in the back-country either, I'm talking right in Whistler village too. Of course, this time of year 350-550 lbs bears are known to stroll right into town in broad-daylight (almost daily). You think we have bear issues?????

--------------------

Also, wilderness enforcement is all relative too, and we're not picked on cuz its the Adirondacks either. Happens all over.

I watched a ranger dump the contents of two hikers packs right in front of the station to check there gear at Sunrise station in Mt. Rainier National Park. The were applying for permits to climb the peaks unguided, and he wasn't giving one unless he thought they were prepared enough.

[hawk]

I think you're being far more lenient towards the DEC than you usually are.

The DEC essentially ignored the bear problem until bears became a real danger. Then they found the easiest solution they could, one that absolved them of any real responsibility at managing the wilderness. If you camp in other states, you will find bear lockers--neat, clean, free, easy to use, basically foolproof. Not just out West, but in places like Thirteen Falls in New Hampshire. The DEC refused to consider bear lockers, offering a variety of excuses (for example, people would use them as trashcans). What it boiled down to was that the DEC didn't want to assume the responsibility of monitoring bear lockers. They passed the cost on to consumers instead.

Bear cans are expensive, don't hold much, get dirty fast, and will be useless once bears figure out how to pop them open. I can fit one into my current backpack--as long as I don't pack anything else. Of course, YMMV.

I am going to strongly disagree with you on this. I was employed 'in the trade" so to speak, out west and the park service removed the cages and replaced them with canisters.

Bears and raccons had figured out how to get the cages and bins open, and they also acted like magnets for the critters because most of the food stored in them by campers was stored in stow bags and could be smelled from miles away. And in all too many cases, we found the bins filled with garbage! (So it looks as if the DEC did some homework)

Within a year of the canisters being made mandatory and the regulation heavily enforced, the problem was drasticly reduced.

Ask any of the guides out west. the canisters are the most efficient method of discouraging the bears from scavaging campsites for food.

Maybe trailpatrol will ring in on this subject.

And just because there are no announcements about what the DEC might be doing it doesn't mean that they are "doing nothing".

I may not agree with the DEC much of the time, but in this particular instance, based on my own observations, experience and knowledge, the right course was taken. in order for them to arrive at the correct conclusion one would have to surmise that they researched the situation.

And incidently, there are only two known cases of bears getting canisters open and as best as can be figured, it was either 'operator error" or a defective product.

There was one case that was actually a 'setup" by a person who was unhappy with a canister regulation and rigged the canister by filing down the threads so it would open easily.

[hawk]

I watched a ranger dump the contents of two hikers packs right in front of the station to check there gear at Sunrise station in Mt. Rainier National Park. The were applying for permits to climb the peaks unguided, and he wasn't giving one unless he thought they were prepared enough.

Now, that would be a great idea for here, along with requiring permits. That would bring people to the rangers who could then assess whether the people were prepared to hike or not.

[adkdremn]

My problem is with the whole preparedness thing. People keep making excuses for the ones who don't know about the regulations. Well, if you don't know about the regulations then you shouldn't be out there in the first place. There's a certain amount of research that goes into trip planning, especially if it's your first trip to the High Peaks. You have to see this stuff somewhere, whether it's the guide book, online or where ever....the regulations are listed. If you go into the woods without knowing you need a bear can, there are no campfires allowed, no tents in a lean-to etc, etc then you are not prepared and you shouldn't be out there!

The info is available and if you take the time to properly plan your trip, whether it's your first time or one-hundredth time, then you need to know the regulations. Otherwise, you deserve to get a hefty fine! It's for your own safety and in this case the bear's safety.

[Neil]

Now, that would be a great idea for here, along with requiring permits. That would bring people to the rangers who could then assess whether the people were prepared to hike or not.
How do the rangers get inside the hikers brains? That's where the most important preparation takes place.

[knuckledragger]

I also know that states on the A.T. in the south where there are big black bear problems along with putting up chain link fences in front of their shelters as well as provide bear boxes.

[adkdremn]

I also know that states on the A.T. in the south where there are big black bear problems along with putting up chain link fences in front of their shelters

Chain link fences??? I've heard of that as well, I'd feel like I was in the state prison! So much for a wilderness experience! I'd rather take a chance of having a bear as lean to mate than stare out the shelter through a fence!

[knuckledragger]

The wife brought home a book about a guy who did the trail as a fund raiser for the organization that was taking care of his disabled brother, can't rember the name. But he talked about being trapped in one till the bear decided he could not get in. Now that is not what I call fun.

[hawk]

I think what a lot of people have to understand if that if you are going to be mad an anyone, it's the people who for whatever reason(s) failed to properly keep thaeir food unavailable to bears and the many who left garbage in firepits and around campsites.

it is THEIR fault that the rest of us are subject to inconveniences today in order to correct the problem. It's not the bears fault nor the DEC's.

The biggest victims have been the bears who normally will shy away from humans. And some of the bears have been killed as a result of human encroachment, carelessness and callousness. So it seems to me if anyone needs to feel sorry for themselves or put on, it's the bears.

[bignslow]

I think what a lot of people have to understand if that if you are going to be mad an anyone, it's the people who for whatever reason(s) failed to properly keep thaeir food unavailable to bears and the many who left garbage in firepits and around campsites.

it is THEIR fault that the rest of us are subject to inconveniences today in order to correct the problem. It's not the bears fault nor the DEC's.

The biggest victims have been the bears who normally will shy away from humans. And some of the bears have been killed as a result of human encroachment, carelessness and callousness. So it seems to me if anyone needs to feel sorry for themselves or put on, it's the bears.

Aggreed!

I was in one of the groups asked to leave flowed lands so the DEC could kill the problem bear, and you have no idea how much of a damper it put on my trip knowing that an animal had to be "destroyed" because people couldn't properly secure their food (including both groups in the leantos the night before).

My only gripe with the bear canisters is the costs, to me it seems like manufacturers and retailers are taking advantage of a bad situation as the markup on the canisters must be tremendous. Also retailers like EMS do little to help the problem by charging $15 to rent a canister for a weekend, that means they pay it off after renting it 5 times which I think is a bit unreasonable. (once again, this is not a complaint about the canisters, but rather the people trying to make a quick buck by selling "giant nalgenes" for $75)

The canisters are a minor inconvenience when you think about the safety of the bears and the people.

I say fine every person found without a canister, no warning, no stern talking to, a nice $250 reminder should prevent them from forgetting again (then again, a $175 fine, and a $75 manditory canister purchase might be a little better :p ). Before my first trip to the daks I spent days reading up on rules, regulations, and conditions, trying to understand what to expect. I think anything less than putting 10 minutes into finding out the regulations is reckless.

[knuckledragger]

I had the oportunity to take a seminar on bear behavior put on by the biologist who runs the bear program for Vt. fish and wildlife.A guy by the name of tom decker, aand he said one of the reasons why Vt does not have as much of a problem with bears is that they are hunted fairly agressivly so they have a greater fear of humans. i have seen about 5 bear in the woods in 30 years of hunting and hiking and all except one was moving in the oposite direction from me. The other was late in the season and he was more interested in finding his den. this was also the biggest i had ever seen.

[hawk]

I had the oportunity to take a seminar on bear behavior put on by the biologist who runs the bear program for Vt. fish and wildlife.A guy by the name of tom decker, aand he said one of the reasons why Vt does not have as much of a problem with bears is that they are hunted fairly agressivly so they have a greater fear of humans. i have seen about 5 bear in the woods in 30 years of hunting and hiking and all except one was moving in the oposite direction from me. The other was late in the season and he was more interested in finding his den. this was also the biggest i had ever seen.

So, the dead bears tell the live ones that humans are dangerous? :eek:

Lets see if I can explain this simply.

6.Bears NATURALLY avoid humans (they are very smart animals)

7.Bears will only attack humans if they perceive them as a threat, or in the case of grizzly's, if you invade their territory.

8. Bears will become conditioned to human food, only if humans are dumb enough or lazy enough to make it available to them on a daily regular basis and the bear learns that the reward is greater then the risk.

9. Shooting bears with rubber bullets will sometimes be effective in teaching the bear that the risk is greater then the reward.

10. Killing a bear sends no message to other bears in any way shape or form. However, bears who have been conditioned to human food and have become a problem is often used as justification by some to try to open up a hunting season for bears. it benefits no one except the hunters.

1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. I'm sick and tired of people who seem to think that it's better to kill a few bears then inconvenience themselves.

I have had the pleasure of being in the company of bears. Given my druthers, I prefer their company to most humans.

[adkdremn]

Please Hawk, I beg of you......
We all know by now, that in your opinion, animals are the far superior creature than humans.
Let's not turn this thread into one of those debates yet again! :smash: Where's that dead horse icon when you need it. :p

It's still all about preparedness.
Before my first trip to the daks I spent days reading up on rules, regulations, and conditions, trying to understand what to expect. I think anything less than putting 10 minutes into finding out the regulations is reckless.

This is what I talked about before. It takes a certain amount of planning before a trip into the wilderness. If you're not taking the time to learn as much as you can about regs of a certain area, then you're not prepared and shouldn't be making a trip like this.

[knuckledragger]

HE's the expert not me, but the posibility of human cotact is much greater over here. There are very few areas where you are more than a mile away from a road in Vt and when you throw in to the mix a great deal of human presence in the woods from the first of september until the first of december i can see his point. Versus accross the lake where I am sure a lot of areas may never see any human presence for months or years at a time.

[knuckledragger]

I was looking on the Green Mountain Clubs web site and there is a story and link stating that over nite hikers in to the Adirondaks are required to have and use a canister. So aparently they are trying to get the message out.

[ken]

Knuckledragger- I agree with Mr. Decker on the correlation between hunting pressure and bear/human interaction.

[LionRoar]

I was looking on the Green Mountain Clubs web site and there is a story and link stating that over nite hikers in to the Adirondaks are required to have and use a canister. So aparently they are trying to get the message out.

But, from my observations in the Dixes, on 9-1, people are still hanging their food from trees and building fireplaces and campfires at lean-to's....

Change happens v-e-r-y slowly.

[Mavs00]

Actually, canisters and campfires are only banned in the Eastern High Peaks regions. in the DIX wilderness wilderness, the UMP has no such provisions. I still use a cansister, but I can scrounge enough dead and down, a little fire is nice.