Mount Adams Firetower\Bear Canisters

[ADKEsq]

Grumpy touched on an interesting point. As part of the same regulation change that would require the use of bear canisters, DEC would like to amend NY State Part 190.13 regulation by deleting the word "reasonably" from the following:

No person shall [ reasonably] fail to keep food, food containers, and garbage from bears.

I am concerned about this change. I think that if you use a bear canister or cable system faithfully and still lose your food to a bruin, you should not face a ticket. If you are surprised while your food is out during dinner, you should not face a ticket.

By the way, my guess is that the bear cables will come out of Lake Colden and Marcy Dam in favor of the bear canister approach.

I am interested in your thoughts, this will be an issue in the fall regulatory process.

Neil Woodworth

 

[Pete_Hickey]

I am interested in your thoughts, this will be an issue in the fall regulatory process.

Judgment calls are a pain. How does a ranger judge that 'reasonable' steps have been taken? Judgments lead to challenges. This seems more and more to be the way the world is headed, not just the DEC.

Canisters are nice clean and objective. You have an approved canister or not.

Canisters have been shown to be an effective solution in many places. They WILL work.

I don't like the concept of bear lockers or permanant devices. They're fine in car-camping areas, but don't belong in the interior.

Yeah, be real careful with the wording. We all know what the intention is, so there shouldn't be any problem.

Them's my 2 cents

 

[Jaytrek57]

Being a "black/white" type of person...I agree that wording is important.

A 'seasoned' veteran who loses food v. a total novice... still adds up to a bear getting food and I think that, when it comes down to it... is the crux of the problem/concern.

As Pete mentioned...and to paraphrase....canisters work. Outside of kitchen etiquette, they are almost 'dummy' proof...although I am sure people have some stories.

Initially I think there will be some natural resistance but in my travels to Alaska, Canada and out west it is common practice to pick up canisters at Ranger stations.

I will add that I don’t do a lot of backpacking in the ADK’s, my first trip was less than 3 months ago…however, FWIW, I commend all on this “debate” and being a ‘lurker’ on VFFT…have found it very thought provoking and educational.

 

[Pete_Hickey]

A group hit by the canister regulation

Ahhh. After my above post, I remembered one group who would be seriously effected by the a canister requirement. The ADK pro trail crew. They do NOT take low volume food. (eg 6-8 loaves of bread). They do hang their food very well, BTW, however if a required canister rule comes into effect, they will either have to bring a LOT of canisters, or change their style of eating, when in the HPWA.

A similar thing happened to us (46ers trail crew) when reduced group size restrictions came into effect. This has an effect on some kinds of projects (eg sidecutting) where a larger group can work effectively.

 

[Mark]

Implementing a bear canister requirement would not be without some logistical hurdles. However, we should be able to look at the hiking areas out west that require bear canisters and learn from them. How do they deal with violators, day hikers, large trail crews, etc? Is the nature of hiking/camping out west so different that we can’t model our program after theirs?

 

[Willie]

Bear canister reg.

In my opinion, 6 NYCRR 190.13(f)(3)(xiv) is worded just fine. Enforcement of that section is needed - not more regulations.

However, if more regulation is deemed necessary, rather than making bear canisters required in the Eastern High Peaks Zone, generally, I would prefer that the regulation make bear canisters a requirement at specific designated campsites (i.e. Marcy Dam, Lake Colden, Flowed lands, etc.). Thus, the problem areas are targeted and, more importantly, unintended restrictions on other users can be avoided (i.e. trail crews, day hikers, etc.).

 

[Grumpy]

Solve the problem; don't move it around . . .

Those who promote the idea that a bear canister regulation should be applied just to certain areas, (Marcy Dam, Lake Colden, etc.) where bears are a particular problem now, should consider the nature and history of bears in the High peaks and Adirondacks in general.

These beasties are opportunistic camp raiders (that is, they will seek chow where it is available). Bears also are quite capable of covering considerable territory in making their foraging rounds. So if we successfully choke off the bears’ food supply at Marcy Dam (etc.), the bears will move elsewhere to do their raiding.

I would hope the goal(s) in any canister regulation is to put an end to camp raiding by bears, put an end to close bear-human encounters, and to put an end to the litter that marauding bears leave in their tracks. That means cutting off bear access to campers’ vittles everywhere throughout the High Peaks. That is what will cause bears to disperse throughout the entire region and become "natural" creatures once again. Moving the problem around is not an acceptable goal.

G.

 

[DeadFred]

Some have suggested here that they will be required to carry a canister for day hikes. While I certainly am not the definitive authority on the regulations (as they are currently written, or the new proposed regulations to carry canisters), I would think if you abide by those regs on a day hike ("...no person shall fail to adequately protect food...blah blah") that you'll be ok. Now, if you set down your pack to go to a swimming hole and get raided (I know this has happened to day hikers before) you'll be breaking the reg. But if you do your day hike and keep your pack on your back and keep it with your person when taking breaks, hanging on a summit or eating, then using common sense, you'll be fine without using a canister.

 

[Willie]

G's comments are well taken. In fact, I do not disagree with G's analysis, nor do I disagree with the appropriateness of the "goal" of the proposed Bear Canister Regulation ("BCR"). What I am advocating is an approach to promulgate and implement such a regulation, to include an evaluation of the results of the implemented regulation before additional regulation takes place.

In other words, rather than promulgating and implementing a prophylactic BCR as the next step to control the bear problem (e.g. bear canisters required by all campers in the Eastern High Peaks), I advocate a less restrictive approach - at least initially. That is to say, initially implement a BCR that's relatively less restrictive (e.g. bear canisters required by all campers at March Dam, Lake Colden, and Flowed Lands). Should the results be satisfactory (the measure of success is a separate issue), the regulation is a success. However, if the results are less than desirable, then DEC can amend the regulation and make it more restrictive (e.g. bear canisters required by all campers in the Eastern High Peaks).

 

[jbrown]

Marcy Dam

Sorry, couldn't let it pass...

 

[rondak46]

You love that one Alpine....

... but you don't like camping anyway! C'mon!

Mike

 

[jbrown]

Yes, you're right, $75 is NOT inconsequential. Luckily there are alternatives to all of us going out and plunking down 75 smackers for a bear canister. Last summer, I rented one from EMS. 5 bucks a day wasn't too steep for me. Due to my schedule, I'm mostly a day-hiker, with 3-4 multi-day overnight hikes during the summer thrown in, so I don't see buying a bear canister as being too cost effective for me. I'm sure the Mountaineer rents them too.

I must agree that they do make a good seat/table when I'm eating too. I just hate the weight.

And what are you doing putting up your bear bag after dark anyway? Shame-shame.

 

[Doc McPeak]

I believe there are a few national parks out west that provide the bear cannisters free, though I think you pay for the camping permits. Yosemite could afford to put in the tons of bear lockers spread around the park because every car entering the park plunks down $20 bucks per week for entrance. Therefore they have the cash for such programs, as well as keeping a solid crew out cleaning sites and checking the containers for garbage. But it's also Yosemite, and there is usually competition to get work there. I was amazed with how spotless this overcrowded park was.

I agree with some others that the Adks are a unique situation in that we don't charge any money for the pleasure to hike and camp here, so our options are therefore limited, especially in today's age of shrinking budgets.

I initially thought bear boxes could be great... but they will probably end up being trash cans, and until we have de-polymerization privy units (in fifty years you will dump your garbage into the privy and it will be turned into the gas you use in your stove), so a widespread container plan may not work nearly as well as out west. Unless of course we start charging for camping so we can hire clean-up crews.

As far as containers (I have one and don't like the weight but use them on the majority of my overnights... and I know how to hang a bear bag and have never been hit by bears and blah blah) I don't see why the DEC can't bargain for a bulk price or special order, and maybe divert some of the funds designated for the program to subsidize the cost and offer them at a substantial discount. I think people would be more inclined to buy one of these for $25-45, and the program would be off and running.

Again, the more ideas presented and explored, the better chance we have at coming up with the most effective and painless plan for handling some of these problems in our high traffic areas. And the sooner they are implemented the better. I'm afraid of a couple of band-aid treatment failures followed by Draconian gauntlet style response.

And with spring erosion season coming, let's start talking up some great alternatives to hiking in the high peaks, before a BAN has to be imposed on the trails up there. I'll be exploring some of the firetowers and doing some bushwhacks until the trails harden up in June.

 

[Mark]

Someone pointed out that bear canisters make a nice seat, and this reminded me of another factor in their favor. Since bear canisters are pretty easy to open and close, it's common to keep all the food that you dont' need locked up, even in your cook site. If you get raided by a bear during dinner (and they have learned to time their raids to dinner hour), you will loose only what you are cooking and not your whole stash. With a bear bag, it's questionable whether you will have enough warning and/or time to get your bear bag back up into the trees.

I suppose you could take out what you need for dinner and rehang the bag, but personally, I need to get things out of my food bag several times during meals.

 

[ken]

massachusetts still has 57 firetowers standing - i guess they have no "designated wilderness" there and aren't as quick to tear them down - - they once had 92 firetowers in mass.
http://www.firelookout.org/towers/ma/mass.htm

by the way - there is a book out listing all the firetowers that are still standing (and the ones that are gone) in new york - there are 45 that have public access (and a few more on private land) - who wants to be a Firetower 45er?
http://www.nysfiretowers.com/

here is a n.y. website
http://www.telenet.net/~ranger/

here are some more
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/4192/nhtpage2.htm
http://www.nhdfl.org/fire_towers/fp_firetowers.htm
http://www.firelookout.org/towers/vt/vermont.htm
http://www.firelookout.org/towers/ct/ct.htm