[pct-l] water caches and bear feedings and related musings

Wed Jan 2 13:02:18 CST 2008

Kinda like Welfare for hikers and bears ???

PCT MOM

On Jan 2, 2008 10:01 AM, Donna Saufley <dsaufley at sprynet.com> wrote:

> Great post -- very interesting thoughts.
>
> I would answer your question that yes, feeding the bears and placing
> caches
> are similar in that they create dependent behavior. In all fairness, so
> does
> providing a hiker hostel.  However, the similarities are limited. Feeding
> bears and leaving caches both defy LNT principles, and are both impacting
> our environment.  It's the ultimate consequences for each action that
> differ.
>
> The bear becomes habituated to people which often results in emboldened or
> aggressive behavior, putting people at risk and ultimately leading to the
> killing of the bear.
>
> The consequence of water caches has led to lower attrition rates on
> thru-hike attempts, thus higher numbers of hikers on trail (exceeding the
> trail's capacity), hiker-generated trash and debris permeating the
> environment in places, and a pile of stuff that some view as a welcome and
> appreciated resource, and others see as a blight on the environment that
> doesn't belong.
>
> L-Rod
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
> On Behalf Of David Hough on pct-l
> Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 7:59 PM
> To: pct-l at mailman.backcountry.net
> Subject: [pct-l] water caches and bear feedings and related musings
>
> Why not combine two topics... a recent post clarified
> for me the question:   what's the difference between
> feeding the bears and providing water caches for
> hikers?
>
> Don't both lead to dependent behavior?
>
> I don't have a definite opinion on this.    As a
> section
> hiker I have both used and resupplied water caches,
> perhaps in roughly equal amounts (although not in the
> same place in the same year).     Never out of
> necessity
> as much as out of convenience.
>
> There are all kinds of compromises made for
> convenience.
> A physical trail, for one, instead of a cross-country
> route or a road.    Routing the trail by water sources
> instead of closer to the real crest.
> Drivers stopping to offer hikers
> a lift to and from town to resupply.
>
> Finishing the trail
> in one season would certainly be a more exclusive
> accomplishment if none of that happened, but is that
> really the goal?     After all the successful through
> hikers
> are a negligible drop in the statistical bucket
> of all national scenic trail users.      The political
> clout that made the national scenic trail system
> happen and keeps it alive is from a vastly larger
> population of users and supporters.
>
>
> Of course, anybody is free to decline to use caches
> and decline to hitch to town and decline to follow
> the constructed trail, especially away from the crest.
> Almost all the caches are close to roads for very good
> reasons as anybody who carries much water realizes.
> Thus they are seldom found in statutory wilderness.
> A bunch of bottles rattling in the wind doesn't bother
> me if they are tied together and near a road.
>
> What I find far more disturbing in populated areas
> is too many trails and roads and too few signs that
> survive vandalism of various sorts.
> That's a far greater inconvenience.
>
> But there are even those who feel that trail signs
> do not belong in wilderness.     My understanding
> (SoCal hikers of that era might correct me) is that
> there were
> no backcountry trail signs in San Jacinto STATE
> wilderness during the 1970's.     But eventually
> somebody decided the SAR activity did more harm than
> the signs, especially since the tramway enabled
> anybody to get high enough to get lost or have a heart
> attack.
>
> My conclusion is that although Federal and State law
> partially define what wilderness is, the definition is
> much more in the mind and attitude of the wilderness
> user.
>
> The Feds say no motorized vehicles in wilderness.
> They don't say that you have to go barefoot or
> make footwear from native materials using native
> tools.
> Nor do they say you can't, although there are
> restrictions on gathering native tools and materials
> in  National Parks.
>
> (I recall signs - possibly in Colorado -
> encouraging hikers to avoid lug soles to reduce
> trail impact and to walk in wet ruts rather than
> widen trails by walking on the sides of the ruts.
> So far these are just suggestions.     But look how
> suggestion has evolved into statute at Mt Whitney,
> creating lots of extra incentives to become fit
> enough to do Whitney as a dayhike.   Good thing or bad?)
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008
> 11:29 AM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008
> 11:29 AM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080102/4985d18c/attachment.html 