View Full Version : Lassen Requiring Bear Canisters
Lassen Park started requiring bear canisters in August 2016.
https://www.nps.gov/lavo/learn/news/bear-canisters-required.htm
Peters will blow through Lassen faster than ever now. Shame because the best of Lassen NP is really not being relegated to the PCT only.
DuneElliot
09-30-2016, 10:03
I still don't understand the reason for not permitting Ursacks in these places. They have been approved by the IGBA (or whatever it is) and work just as well, if not better than canisters. Sure, you may end up with crushed food, but that's our problem, not the NPS!
Tipi Walter
09-30-2016, 10:26
I see it as the nanny state trying to make wilderness totally controlled and safe in all ways. Next they'll close the park during lightning storms. Or require all backpackers to camp away from all trees in case one falls. Or pave every trail to avoid stumbling.
DuneElliot
09-30-2016, 10:34
I see it as the nanny state trying to make wilderness totally controlled and safe in all ways. Next they'll close the park during lightning storms. Or require all backpackers to camp away from all trees in case one falls. Or pave every trail to avoid stumbling.
Sadly, I don't think this is too far from the truth.
I see it as the nanny state trying to make wilderness totally controlled and safe in all ways. Next they'll close the park during lightning storms. Or require all backpackers to camp away from all trees in case one falls. Or pave every trail to avoid stumbling.
Nanny state? Please. This is a National Park, and they are doing what they are required by law to do--protect the animals in the park from humans.
This is a non-issue for PCT hikers. You can stop at Drakesbad, get a meal and shower/soak, camp at the campground just up the road, and be out of the park the next day. Or you can just blow through the park in an afternoon--it's 19.3 miles from border to border.
SouthMark
09-30-2016, 11:32
I see it as the nanny state trying to make wilderness totally controlled and safe in all ways. Next they'll close the park during lightning storms. Or require all backpackers to camp away from all trees in case one falls. Or pave every trail to avoid stumbling.
I see it as a litigation state. More and more people are suing the park service and forest service because they were too stupid to be in the back country in the first place. That is what rules are for... To protect stupid people.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sadly, I don't think this is too far from the truth. I'd disagree. If you really want a permit in California, the best time to show up is on a rainy Thursday. Rangers are happy to send you out into a thunderstorm. :)
We have to sign a "Terms and Conditions" form before being issued a Wilderness Permit in lots of California. 36431
The form has an entire paragraph about how search and rescue may take days, or if is too dangerous, may not happen at all. Before we headed out, a Ranger cautioned us that that there's lots of dead trees and branches and specifically said, "We don't cut them. Don't put your tent under them".
I was an EMT outside of SEKI in the 1970's and participated in drowning recoveries. People die in SEKI and Yosemite all the time. Two people died in the backcountry while I was out there two weeks ago. One fall and one drowning. The park service has had decades to shut down the parks under the guise of keeping us safe. As far as I can tell, the government has no intention of stopping us from offing ourselves in the backcountry. "The wilderness is a place where self- reliance and preparedness is essential" is in bold on the form. Or in other words, "Don't rely on the nanny state to save you from yourself". :)
I really do think that it's all about the bears, and protecting them from us. I've seen the most unbelievably cr@ppy PCT bear hangs. Honestly, I'm pretty happy that a bear will walk right past a bear can and continue flipping rocks, looking for moths. My experience is that the bears do their bear thing and ignore the bear cans.
Sure, I'd like to use something lighter than a 2-3 lb canister, but suspect that a young bear could be way too conditioned to humans and our food, chewing on a Ursack. So I'm resigned to hauling the stupid thing and have gotten my pack weight down to 13 lbs, with a 2 lb bear can.
Somebody named Zak makes a good argument against Ursacks, including bears puncturing cans of tuna thru the Ursack.
http://andrewskurka.com/2016/ursack-bear-bag-interview-ceo-founder-tom-cohen/
The NPS has a mandate to protect the wilderness and that includes wildlife. I support the canister requirement in the Sierra Nevada. I don't have an opinion on Lassen as I haven't been there or studied the issue. I think it is fine for the public to question the decision and debate it but it also needs to be respected. I suspect nearly all pct thrus will just hike through the park without camping.
DuneElliot
09-30-2016, 12:19
It's a hyperbole to state everything Tipi stated. And using California isn't the greatest argument, although that is predominantly where they seem to require canisters. I do agree that half of this stuff is to protect stupid people from themselves, as well as protecting the animals from said stupid people and those people that come after. I hate that the government has seen a need to have to step in and do this. I don't camp or hike in NPs, and this article and requirement are reasons that I will continue to avoid them unless absolutely essential for a LD hike.
Starchild
09-30-2016, 12:26
I still don't understand the reason for not permitting Ursacks in these places. They have been approved by the IGBA (or whatever it is) and work just as well, if not better than canisters. Sure, you may end up with crushed food, but that's our problem, not the NPS!
Partly because of the chewtoy effect I suppose and belief that was the stated reason for not allowing them in the Adrondacks in NY where near
Cans are required. As such it may encourage bears.
. Pets return over and over to these chewtoys but get little substance out of it. Just enough to keep them coming back. And bears love scents and that might be enough to encourage chewing.
Perhaps with enough data or a redesign this will not be an issuer I'll then that image will persist.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tipi Walter
09-30-2016, 13:28
The NPS has a mandate to protect the wilderness and that includes wildlife. I support the canister requirement in the Sierra Nevada. I don't have an opinion on Lassen as I haven't been there or studied the issue. I think it is fine for the public to question the decision and debate it but it also needs to be respected. I suspect nearly all pct thrus will just hike through the park without camping.
The NPS has a mandate to protect wilderness??? This is just not true. Study the pics of traffic congestion and roads going thru our National Parks---
http://www.hcn.org/articles/arches-crowds-tourism-national-parks-utah/DevilsGardenParking.jpg/image
For others see---
https://www.google.com/search?q=traffic+congestion+in+national+parks&biw=1408&bih=649&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihgd2rzLfPAhXDPCYKHYvWC2UQ_AUIBygC#imgr c=_
And in my beloved GSMNP---
https://www.google.com/search?q=traffic+congestion+in+national+parks&biw=1408&bih=649&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihgd2rzLfPAhXDPCYKHYvWC2UQ_AUIBygC#tbm= isch&q=traffic+congestion+in+cades+cove
It's a hyperbole to state everything Tipi stated. And using California isn't the greatest argument, although that is predominantly where they seem to require canisters. I do agree that half of this stuff is to protect stupid people from themselves, as well as protecting the animals from said stupid people and those people that come after. I hate that the government has seen a need to have to step in and do this. I don't camp or hike in NPs, and this article and requirement are reasons that I will continue to avoid them unless absolutely essential for a LD hike.
It's funny that for 20,000 years humans camped in bear country without bear canisters. What were they thinking? Fast forward to 330,000,000 people. Too many people, too few bears. Bad interactions. I guess when we reach 500,000,000 humans and every park has traffic jams no one will be allowed to backpack or hike or camp. Requiring canisters is just the tip of the spear.
The most mind-boggling thought is while every canister is tabulated and surveyed and annotated and approved---and with every hiker being sufficiently Okayed, a million more cars pass thru our Parks without limits.
Ok, Fair enough, my statement was overly broad. I should have said that there is a mandate to protect designated wilderness areas, as specified by the wilderness act. Wilderness is a subset of public lands.
Tipi, I get, and share to some extent, your motor vehicle numbers rant but that's a bad example of motor vehicles in NP's given the situation in Arches NP near Devils Garden TH. That is not a through road. There is a dead end road. One main dead end paved road in all of Arches NP. It is actually a two lane road you're viewing at the, if not one of the, most popular THs in Arches NP close to another usually congested area near the 50 CS CG also near several other TH's that lead to the CG. FWIW, IMHO GREAT because so few ever venture away from their motor vehicles it leaves the backcountry of Arches NP left to careful backcountry pedestrian and dirt road travel and helps decrease the amount of backcountry foot travel that would damage the cryptobiotic nature of Arches NP. There are still solutions to get away from the congestion of vehicles in A NP not only by taking to pedestrian use only either.
https://www.nps.gov/arch/planyourvisit/upload/ARCHmap.pdf
What will happen are motor vehicle entrance quotas or some hindrance to lessen increasing motor vehicle numbers in NP's especially at NP's like Yellowstone, Yosemite in the Valley area, Mt Rainier, Grand Canyon, etc.
And, PALEESE don't expect NP's to be managed against their sometimes conflicting dual mandates of conservation, protection and, for the enjoyment of the people. i.e.; road access in NP's is here to stay!
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/education/classrooms/duelingmandates.htm
Most federal land management agencies allow for “multiple uses” for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. On the other hand, through the National Park Service Act (1916), Congress authorized the National Park Service to promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations…by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. The mission—preservation of wildness for the enjoyment of the people—is appealing, but it is difficult to accomplish.
Park managers must forever struggle with this dual mandate to both preserve and use. The challenge becomes increasingly difficult as more people visit parks. As the value of wild places becomes increasingly clear, we are struggling to decide, with limited resources, just what can and should be saved.
And, let's not kid ourselves by pointing fingers at motor vehicles as if that's the only issue in NPs . Even pedestrian use causes foot traffic only issues trails are being loved to death. i.e.: AT, PCT, JMT.., People are working on this issue.
Perhaps, the #1 issue of all for the NPS is it's budget shortage which is trying to be addressed, at least in part, by selling off to corporations.
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2016/05/park-advocates-concerned-nps-plans-revise-fund-raising-guidelines
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/national-parks-are-losing-their-pristine-beauty-to-corporate-branding
If you are really concerned about your NP's make authorities, including those now in gov't, accountable for making the NPS budget shortage a priority so they have enough to just maintain what's already existing instead of just publicly heralding newly designated conservation as if they truly care about conservation and the environment as they suggest.
Traveler
10-01-2016, 08:16
Hyperbole and selective hysteria usually obfuscate simple truths, which in this instance is bear canisters are used to protect wildlife. Once bears become habituated to humans, associating them with food, they usually are destroyed once they become aggressive.
Now, back to our regular program of whining and aspersion casting....
Nanny state? Please. This is a National Park, and they are doing what they are required by law to do--protect the animals in the park from humans.
This is a non-issue for PCT hikers. You can stop at Drakesbad, get a meal and shower/soak, camp at the campground just up the road, and be out of the park the next day. Or you can just blow through the park in an afternoon--it's 19.3 miles from border to border.
Exactly. I was in and out in a day.