bear-proof containers

[Blissful]

There were problem way past a mere five mile radius, esp after the news from last year of issues at Low Gap, etc. I'd carry one throughout GA, (and even suggested it last year). Beg or borrow one. Maybe some JMT hikers will rent theirs out.

[Speer Carrier]

what happens when 15-20 people are setting camp there a day? enforcement seems illogical. i guess they could set up a temporary ranger station, give fines, and telling hikers to scurry along. you would figure there would be more warning than right before thru-hiker season started. i guess its something the hiker hostel, dave's shuttles, and others could carry and convince all those hikers that had no idea to buy or rent.

I've hiked and done trail maintenance on the mentioned section on many many occasions, and have yet to see any forest service personnel of any kind in the woods. They're mostly just desk jockey policy makers. I wouldn't worry about temporary ranger stations, or anything like that. Any kind of interface with an official of any sort might be the ridge runner.

[Amanita]

Ursack is a commercially available "bear resistant" container. When used with the odor proof sack it blocks bears from smelling the food. As long as the bears aren't getting food rewards whether or not a hiker is willing to risk their food getting crushed a little should be their choice.

[Sandy of PA]

I always carry a Bearicade canister for my food. I never was any good at throwing rocks, I guess I am just ahead of the curve. I built my pack to accomadate it. Volume in my pack is always the same, always carrys the same.

[MuddyWaters]

If it protects Yogi, I suppose its OK. Although I think many would work around it before carried a 3 lb bear can. Eat last of food for big dinner before entering area, then continue to Woods Hole w/no food. Get up next morn and go to Neels without eating, eat there. etc

[mateozzz]

I know they attract trash, but maybe it is time to bite the bullet and put bear boxes at all the shelters and campsites in the area. They work and you don't have to carry anything extra (except other people's trash, if you are nice enough to clean up). When I hiked through the area a couple of years ago, the bears were even getting packs off the cables, so that didn't work well, plus many of them were broken or jammed. And there were very few reachable branches for hanging your food bag and most of the good ones had big clumps of rope and rock bags around them!

[Slo-go'en]

A couple of bear proof food lockers like they use here in the Whites would solve the problem.

[dink]

I worked as a river raft runner in DWG one summer and all the campground had big bearproof lock boxes for the campers...if georgia wants us to use bearproof food boxes they should do like new jersey and provide them at all campsites...just my 2 cents!

[HT1]

can anyone find the actual "regulation" rather then just the article

[Choo Choo]

Another reason for the Forest Service in GA to hassle hikers. Just string up cable like in the Smokies

[Digger'02]

too much trash for nice people to hike out.

And two speed, its a crafty retort you have engineered, with your footer and all... i get it, very clever. I'm not interested in calling you an idiot, and I'm fairly sure I'm no idiot (maybe a fool) so if you want to talk if you want to present an argument we're all ears. I'll listen.

[RichardD]

It does not suprise me. There were many many stories during my thru last year of people losing food to bears in Georgia, even off Bear cables at shelters. My observation, at the shelters where people lost food bags off bear cables the food bag attachments were simply hooks. if they were replaced with carabiners the food bags would not fall off when the bear shook the cable. A simple inexpensive fix that might have made this rule unneccesary.
At shelters where there were no cables the quality of the food hangs that I observed were, for the most part, laughable.
It seems rather silly to have this rule for only a 5 mile section, who is going to buy or rent a bear proof container for 5 miles. Install a proper bear cable or metal box at the shelter and be done with it.

[Rain Man]

Too bad, but ignorant/lazy people are who cause this problem for the bears and the rest of us.

Rain Man

.

[RetroGear]

It seems rather silly to have this rule for only a 5 mile section, who is going to buy or rent a bear proof container for 5 miles. Install a proper bear cable or metal box at the shelter and be done with it.

RichardD is correct. Although I'm 100% in favor of doing whatever is necessary to prevent bears from becoming problem bears, I don't think the Forest Service has thought this through. Is the USFS going to loan/rent anti-bear cans like the NPS does out west? I doubt it. Are they going to install proper bear cables or boxes? I doubt that too. How many hikers are going to purchase a heavy, expensive BearVault (or similar) for a 5-mile section of trail? Very few. Of the relatively small number of eastern-US hikers who have BearVaults, how many will bring them for such a short section of trail? Very few. So the alternatives for the vast majority of hikers are (a) don't RON in the prohibited area or (b) ignore the reg. My personal guess is that many (most?) people will choose option (b), which will do nothing for the bears and will only further hassle hikers.

If you are going to legislate a solution to a problem (yeah, I know, it's a reg, not legislation ... machts nicht), you should try to tailor the legislation to solve the problem. The only thing the USFS's "solution" will do is create a bunch of scofflaws ... it isn't going to do squat to solve the problem.

(Maybe what really happened is, some supergrade USFS supervisor realized that the only real solution to the problem bear problem is to install bear boxes or proper cables, but couldn't find any money in the budget ... so, being the bright star that he is [he's supergrade, remember?], he decided that what we'll do is, we'll create an unworkable reg that most of those dumbass hikers will violate. Then we'll increase ranger patrols in that area, so they'll catch the violators and cite them. We'll use all the money we get from the fines to have bear boxes built.)

[Two Speed]

1. Actually my sig line isn't my very favorite rule.
2. My favorite rule is keep it short and sweet.
3. A corollary to my favorite rule is if you can't keep it concise break the concept down into bullet points.
4. Did I mention I like bullet points? Not as much as good coffee, but they definitely have their place.
5. Mmmmm, bullet points!
6. Of course some people don't know how to use bullet points judiciously.

[Panzer1]

Why don't they just shoot the problem bears. Problem solved.the bears would shoot us if tbey had guns.

[TOMP]

Why don't they just kill the problem bears.

or problem hikers

[burger]

I'm 100% in favor of this. I've hiked 2/3 of the AT, and the Georgia section had more food-related trash (wrappers, leftover food, etc.) left at firepits and shelters than any other part of the trail (with the possible exception of Harriman SP in NY). I'm not surprised that they have problem bears down there. And if requiring canisters prevents bears from getting in trouble and killed, I'm all for it.

The big picture is that it's 5 miles. Neel's Gap has a hostel. Beyond that, if you don't want to carry a canister, just hike past the 5-mile section. If you can't make it the 5 miles, you probably shouldn't be hiking.

[Pedaling Fool]

Ursack is a commercially available "bear resistant" container. When used with the odor proof sack it blocks bears from smelling the food. As long as the bears aren't getting food rewards whether or not a hiker is willing to risk their food getting crushed a little should be their choice.

After looking into it I now think you're correct. http://www.ursack.com/ursack-catalog.htm


BTW, I saw this on TP, it's the actual directive: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&p...xOTEx&hl=en_US

[xokie]

No. . . . . . .

Could I trouble you to explain your "no"