Well I guess I will be the first to break that rule. But seriously since its only for a 5 mile section I will just make sure not to camp there. Good to know thanks for the info, I will mark it on my guide.
Well I guess I will be the first to break that rule. But seriously since its only for a 5 mile section I will just make sure not to camp there. Good to know thanks for the info, I will mark it on my guide.
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.
Also in New Jersey campsites in bearcountry they supply big metal bear containers for public use that stay at the camp site, seems like this would be a better option than requiring each individual to carry a heavy container.
Considering the time frame of this regulation it seems to be aimed at the thru-hiking crowd, I just dont see anyone actually buying this container.
So whats the problem and how would you fix it?
This likely will not be a heavy-handed enforcement strategy at first, the forest service has to understand that this isn't the best time to roll-out something like this, but there never really is a good time. Untill the outfitters have a chance to set up an easy rental system (like there is all over the place where canisters are required) i suspect there will be a lot of warnings given out.
This is better in my mind than a general camping ban, at least folks have the opportunity to stay there if they want to.
As far as the Ursack goes, I'm guessing that this was not an oversight, but that the wording was carefully selected to be accurate. I'm guessing that if you have a Ursack and you encounter a Ranger, that they will thank you for being a conscientious protector of wilderness.
Fact of the matter is that people are a problem up there; fires in shelters, trash, fire rings, bear behavior. Too many folk were not acting their age and we all suffered as a result. I bet many hikers will understand this and either carry a can or change their schedule. Its the "goofers" that will have a problem with this and will incur the punishment.
Good point they dont say what qualifies as bear resistant. So I think my sea to summit Sil-Nylon will be plenty bear resistant, after all a bear has never gotten it before.
Requiring bear canisters for a five mile section ain't gonna achieve crap. Even if there's 100% compliance on the 5 mile section the problem bear(s) will just move up or down the line a little.
Of course there's probably gonna be another "bear" problem: FS rangers hanging out close to Neels Gap handing out citations.
Me no care, me here free beer. Tap keg, please?
Primarily, this is not intended to have an impact on the BEARS, this is intended to have an impact on the PEOPLE that affect the bears. So what will this achieve? What its intended too, people will be presented with the fact that negative impacts on wildlife from humans who are actin' a fool is a serious problem and the people who are charged with managing wildlife are going to respond accordingly.
You think the bears will move? probably but blood has been the best place for them to eat people food because of the range of people that use it. If they move away from blood they will be moving to a place that does not see the wide range of users and therefore it may not be as easy to get food.
Less people go to Cowrock than blood mountain and a higher percentage of Cowrock's visitors are thru-hikers who are "seeking a fellowship with wilderness" right?
I don't know I don't use bear canisters or resistant bags, but I always though a bear resistant container relates only to hardcase containers and NOT bear resistant bags. But I could be wrong. Their wording just makes me believe they are talking about hardcase canisters, because of this:
U.S. Forest Service officials said the containers can seal in odors from garbage, toiletries and food. They are also tamper resistant against extreme force.
Also when the rent them out in other places: http://www.outsideonline.com/blog/us...r-attacks.html
And those are the hardcases http://thegoat.backcountry.com/2010/...le+Feedfetcher
But I admit it can be interpreted the other way, in any case I don't see how their wording can be characterized as what you say: "wording was carefully selected to be accurate." So in that sense it's still an oversight, judging by the article, but I haven't seen the actual directive.
They could do the same thing the TSA does when going through airport screening- have a whole bunch of containers at one end, grab one, then drop it off at the other end when your done with the section. Hire somebody to shuttle the empty containers to the start point.
Heck, we could probably get a Federal grant and call it a Jobs Creation Program. Yeehaw!!
"Fish Camp Woman.... Baby, I like the way you smell"
- Unknown Hinson
You can assume and read into the vague wording all you want, but the bottom line is that what it really means it what the Ranger standing in front of you thinks it means.
I'm not worried. I will just go eat in town before I go camp up there.
I've been using a bear canister (BV500) for years for a number of reasons: 1) I camp in areas where bears are a problem and/or canisters are required, 2) sooner or later, so many areas will fall under category 1 that you may as well get used to using one, and not be part of creating the "bear problem", 3) my food stays nice & dry & whole - no crushing, 4) bears aren't the only critters that want your food...
well it reads bear proof containers for overnights on 5 miles of trail pretty easy to not overnight and not need a bear canister on that section.