Proposed Bear Canister Regulation - Eastern High Peaks

[kalberga]

Below and attached is the press release on the proposed bear resistant canister regulation. Here is a link for the proposed regulation and how to provide comment:
www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/propregs/index.html#190p

It is also posted on the State register at: www.dos.state.ny.us/info/register/2005/may18/pdfs/rules.pdf


For Release: IMMEDIATE
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Contact: Michael Fraser
(518) 402-8000
DEC REGULATION TO HELP REDUCE BEAR ENCOUNTERS IN HIGH PEAKS
Proposed Regulation Will Require the Use of Bear Resistant Canisters

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) today announced a proposed regulation that will require overnight campers in the Eastern Zone of the High Peaks Wilderness Area to use bear resistant canisters for the storage of food, toiletries, and garbage during the period of April 1 through November 30 of each year.

The proposed regulation defines bear resistant canisters as a commercially made container constructed of solid, non-pliable material manufactured for the specific purpose of resisting entry by bears. Bear resistant canisters are usually made of hard plastic, weigh three to five pounds, and can hold up to six days worth of food for campers.

Bear resistant canisters have proven to be an effective means for preventing bears from obtaining campers food. Preliminary data collected by DEC during the summer of 2004 shows that of the approximately 400 reported bear interactions with humans in the Eastern High Peaks, half resulted in bears taking campers' food. More than 75 percent of the people who reported using tree hangs lost their food, and half of the people who used DEC bear cables lost food as well. Only one person who used a bear resistant canister reported a loss of food, due to failure to properly secure the canister's lid.

Requiring bear resistant canisters is just one step in DEC's comprehensive effort to significantly reduce negative encounters with bears in the Eastern High Peaks. In addition, DEC has undertaken the following:

• implementing an extensive education and outreach effort to make campers in High Peaks aware of bears, the problems they can cause and the means to avoid those problems;
• enacting a more systematic program for negatively conditioning bears; and
• studying the bears and their interactions with humans to more precisely define the problem and the means to address it.

More information on bear resistant canisters, the High Peaks Bear Study and ways to avoid problems with black bears in the back country may be found on the DEC's web site.

The proposed regulations are published in today's issue of the State Register and the public may provide comments on these changes during the formal 45-day comment period that begins with publication in the Register and ends on July 5, 2005.

To send written comments on the proposals, go to www.dec.state.ny.us and select Proposed Environmental Regulations from the left column, or mail to: Bear Resistant Canister Regulation, NYSDEC, Bureau of Wildlife, Route 86, P.O. Box 296, Ray Brook, NY 12977-0296.

###

05-54

---
Kristofer A. Alberga, Supervising Forester
NYS, Dep't of Environmental Conservation
Division of Lands & Forests, Region 5
1115 NYS Route 86
PO Box 296
Ray Brook, NY 12977

(518) 897-1276
(518) 897-1370 FAX
kaalberg@gw.dec.state.ny.us

The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain confidential or privileged Information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately or reply via e-mail and destroy all copies of the message and any attachments. Thank you.

[masshysteria]

Well, well, there it is! Let the parade begin. According to the UPS tracking system, my Bear Vault will be here on Monday.

[Mavs00]

Been using one for a few years. They're big, clunky and akward, but yet to lose food to Mr. Bear, so that makes it worth it to me.

Thanks for posting it Kris.

[lumberzac]

Originally Posted by masshysteria

Well, well, there it is! Let the parade begin. According to the UPS tracking system, my Bear Vault will be here on Monday.

Got mine yesterday. I would have bought one sooner, but I was waiting for BearVault to come out with a solo model.

[AlpineSummit]

Nice fish Tom......

All in all, pain in the ass to pack acknowledged, I gotta say it's a good thing. The way things are headed, somebody is due to get hurt as the bears are getting far too brazen.

[masshysteria]

As has been stated before, the bears have been, are, and will be the ones who also suffer from this interaction with people. I think this is an excellent idea, and I am behind this 100%.
Thanks Bruce, 15lb. North. Pike caught in Lenox Dale. I caught a 21 lb.er in the Housatonic in Salisbury Conn. this past summer, on a rod. What a thrill. All catch, picture and release.

[lumberzac]

Bear canisters are probably the best of the options DEC has to choose from. It’s rather unfortunate that things have gotten so bad to the point that this legislation needs to be past.

[peak_bgr]

Lumberzac- I don't think they will come out with a solo canister. Isn't the size of it one of the secutity features? It's big enough so a bear can't get its mouth around it.

[lumberzac]

Originally Posted by peak_bgr

Lumberzac- I don't think they will come out with a solo canister. Isn't the size of it one of the secutity features? It's big enough so a bear can't get its mouth around it.

Actually they have. I just bought the BV250 and considering it approved for Grizzlies, it should work for Black bears as well.

http://www.bearvault.com/bearvault_details.php

[peak_bgr]

I stand corrected. Have to think about that one.

[pete_hickey]

Originally Posted by peak_bgr

I stand corrected. Have to think about that one.

No, you're not corrected. It is still not smaller than the smallest dimension the the full-sized one. They've 'shortened' it, rather than 'thinned' it. Most people talking about smaller ones talk about a 4" diameter thing, which would let a bear get his jaws around. This thing is 8".

[lumberzac]

Originally Posted by pete_hickey

No, you're not corrected. It is still not smaller than the smallest dimension the the full-sized one. They've 'shortened' it, rather than 'thinned' it. Most people talking about smaller ones talk about a 4" diameter thing, which would let a bear get his jaws around. This thing is 8".

Pete is correct. This shortened size was what I was waiting for. The problem I was having was that a full sized canister would take up most of the room in my Golite pack and I had no good way of strapping one to the out side. This shorter version should give me enough room for the rest of my gear. An even smaller version would be nice, but wouldn’t be effective at keeping a bear out of my food.

[Snohm Eizer]

I cant find any more recent info on canister requirements.....are they required after November 30th?

Thanks
Scott

[Dick]

Here is the most up-to-date info I'm aware of. Assuming this is correct, they are not required between December 1 and March 31 inclusive. Perhaps a call to DEC (Gabrielle Done: 518-402-8000) would answer your question?

Dick

[masshysteria]

Wow, never noticed the 15 days in the Big House clause! I'm sure one would have to be a complete jerk to warrant that penalty!

[adirobdack46r]

I think the 15 days in the brink thing must be a standard statement for breaking any of the regs, because I believe the reg about snowshoes/skis being worn in the Eastern High Peaks whenever there is 8" or more of snow also says you could be fined and also jailed for 15 days. We can only hope that it would have to be a serious offense to warrant such a penalty.

[hawk]

Originally Posted by adirobdack46r

I think the 15 days in the brink thing must be a standard statement for breaking any of the regs, because I believe the reg about snowshoes/skis being worn in the Eastern High Peaks whenever there is 8" or more of snow also says you could be fined and also jailed for 15 days. We can only hope that it would have to be a serious offense to warrant such a penalty.

Breaking the law by not complying with the regulations is not serious offense enough to warrant the penalty?

I wonder why they wrote the law?? Possibly to force people to have the snowshoes or skis so they would not become stranded and die?

[adirobdack46r]

I don't for moment think regs are bad. No matter how much some people complain about them, they are written in an effort to keep us safe and protect the environment. I know that the purpose behind the showshoe/ski reg is so people don't post hole while barebooting, messing up the trail so others are likely to turn an ankle in the holes.