[pct-l] Bear Canister "required" areas on PCT in the Sierra...

Mon Feb 4 09:24:23 CST 2008

Thats more what I was saying, but I do think that the bears know that we
cannot easily defend our food (hence the pink fleshy sack of protein, or
maybe a better description would be a pink fleshy sack that has a bag full
of protein in another bag, but that just sounds complimacated).

That being said, I hope to see one of these overgrown raccoons while out in
the Sierra's. It's been too long since I've seen one in the daylight.

-Taildragger

PS to Bob, I dunno if I'm related to Samuel Ramey, although I've been
related to almost all Ramey's that I've met.

On Feb 4, 2008 8:44 AM, Steel-Eye <chelin at teleport.com> wrote:

>  Good morning, Taildragger,
>
>
> Bears are opportunist who will take the most and easiest food that's
> available, however that does not include sacks of pink, fleshy, protein with
> no horns or claws.  Bears don't want hikers; bears want hiker's food.  The
> only significant risk to a hiker is if he/she tries to take a food sack back
> from the bear.  While the hiker has possession of the food, a bear will
> not aggressively try to take it away, but once the bear gets its paws on it
> …. literally and figuratively …. the food immediately becomes "his" and he
> will probably actively defend it.  Some of the reports of "bear attack"
> resulted from unwise attempts to chase down a bear and take back a food
> sack.
>
>
> Steel-Eye
>
>
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^  Serious hikers gather at:  http://www.aldhawest.org/
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Joel Ramey <joel.ramey at gmail.com>
> *To:* Carl Siechert <carlito at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* PCT-L MailingList <Pct-l at backcountry.net>
> *Sent:* Monday, February 04, 2008 6:11 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [pct-l] Bear Canister "required" areas on PCT in the
> Sierra...
>
> I think an issue with bears nabbing food would come more from them needing
> the calories in early summer. A hiker carrying 10 lbs of high calorie food
> must really look like an easy meal for a bear. After all, we're just a pink
> fleshy sack of protein with no horns or claws to defend ourselves...
>
> -Taildragger
>
> On Feb 3, 2008 11:33 PM, Carl Siechert <carlito at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have no idea whether there are more bears than the land can support.
> > However, the fact is that about 1800 per year are already being culled.
> > Check this link:
> > http://dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdffiles/2007HuntingDigest-BigGamePages43-45.pdf,
> > which leads to a PDF from the California Department of Fish and Game. (The
> > first page of the PDF is about wild pigs; scroll down to the second and
> > third pages for bear info.) Although bears are hunted throughout California,
> > the stats indicate that most are in northern California rather than the
> > Sierra Nevada. Warning for those with a weak stomach: these pages include a
> > few pictures of dead bears.
> >
> > Btw, Wandering Bob usually makes lots of sense, but I had to scratch my
> > head about his suggestion that the way to solve the problem of "man [trying]
> > to fool around with that natural balance" is for man to fool around even
> > more by "immediately start[ing] a massive reduction" of the bear
> > population.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 2, 2008 10:04 PM, Craig Stanton <craigstanton at mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Whoa, whoa, whoa,
> > >
> > >                Who said there were too many bears? Who said they
> > > aren't
> > > sustainable on the available (natural) resources? Aren't they just
> > > curious about the smells we give off and then find we've got better
> > > snacks they they do? I for one do not advocate a bear cull to make it
> > > easier for hikers to go through the sierras. Carry a canister, take
> > > no food, sleep at bear-boxes, I don't mind. But please don't shoot
> > > the bears so we can encroach on them more.
> > >
> > > ~Craig
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/02/2008, at 6:52 PM, Bob Bankhead wrote:
> > >
> > > > The problem - in one man's opinion - is one of too many bears in
> > > > too small an area. The natural food supply therein is insufficient
> > > > to feed them all.
> > > >
> > > > Whenever there are not enough resources (in this case, food) to
> > > > support an established population, that population must either find
> > > > a new food source in the area (in this case, people food), relocate
> > > > to another area that has the needed resources, or die off until it
> > > > reaches a level that can be sustained by the available resource
> > > > supply. That's nature's way and it has worked since life began.
> > > > When man tries to fool around with that natural balance, all he
> > > > does is cause trouble.
> > > >
> > > > So, I'll take the politically incorrect (but ecologically sound)
> > > > position: immediately start a massive reduction (kill or relocate)
> > > > of the Black Bear population in the Sierras. Reduce that population
> > > > to the level that their natural habitat can actually support (aka
> > > > "the wild state") without the dependence on people food. Add an
> > > > economic benefit by opening the hunting season and let license fees
> > > > help fund the reduction. Other state and federal land managers
> > > > routinely selectively cull wildlife populations to prevent mass
> > > > starvation, and adjust the lengths of hunting and fishing seasons
> > > > or the number of animals allowed to be taken when needed to
> > > > maintain a healthy population level.
> > > >
> > > > THEN you can really regulate, enforce, and penalize people who do
> > > > not properly store or handle food in the area. No free passes. No
> > > > tiny slap-on-the-wrist type fines. Make it hurt. This will help to
> > > > "motivate" compliance.
> > > >
> > > > Now I seriously doubt that any bureaucrat or politician is going to
> > > > risk ending their career by defying the animal rights activists and
> > > > outraging the public by suggesting, let alone actually doing, such
> > > > a thing in the Sierras. It is far easier to control, regulate, and
> > > > fine the people than to actually control the bears.
> > > >
> > > > End rant.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wandering Bob
> > > >
> > >  > _______________________________________________
> > > > Pct-l mailing list
> > > > Pct-l at backcountry.net
> > > > To unsubscribe or change list options (digest, etc):
> > > > http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Pct-l mailing list
> > > Pct-l at backcountry.net
> > > To unsubscribe or change list options (digest, etc):
> > > http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pct-l mailing list
> > Pct-l at backcountry.net
> > To unsubscribe or change list options (digest, etc):
> > http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> >
> >
>  ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-l mailing list
> Pct-l at backcountry.net
> To unsubscribe or change list options (digest, etc):
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/attachments/20080204/112a9d55/attachment.html 