[pct-l] Bear Safety Devices BSDs (was "Using the Ursack without

[Laura Fox]

I am too lazy to really read it in detail right now, but in response to
Matt's message (below), this federal court decision discusses the legal
status of the SIBBG bear canister requirements, which Ursack apparently
challenged (Ursack lost):



Ursack, Inc. v. Sierra Interagency Black Bear Group, 2009 WL 2422784 (N.D.Cal.
2009)

I don't think the list can accept attachments, and the decision is long so I
don't want to include the text in an email, but if anybody is curious to
read some legal mumbo-jumbo, email me and I will send you a PDF of it.

Truant

P.S. I wish I was nearer to the PCT ... preferably hiking it ... rather than
sitting here doing legal research.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Thyer" <matt_thyer at hotmail.com>
To: "'PCT MailingList'" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 2:46 PM
Subject: [pct-l] Bear Safety Devices BSDs (was "Using the Ursack without
thealuminum")

I just found the following CFR (Title 36 2.10), which, while it makes
reference to a method of storing food in the backcountry, it does not create
a list of approved, commercially available storage devices.  Nor does it
compel such a list.  In fact, per the regulation, as long as your food and
garbage are "suspended at least 10 feet above the ground and 4 feet
horizontally from a post, tree trunk, or other object" while you're camping
you're good to go.

"(d) Food storage. The superintendent may designate all or a portion of a
park area where food, lawfully taken fish or wildlife, garbage, and
equipment used to cook or store food must be kept sealed in a vehicle, or in
a camping unit that is constructed of solid, non-pliable material, or
suspended at least 10 feet above the ground and 4 feet horizontally from a
post, tree trunk, or other object, or shall be stored as otherwise
designated. Violation of this restriction is prohibited. This restriction
does not apply to food that is being transported, consumed, or prepared for
consumption."

(http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr
<http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=e3de3382e8d7bf30cb
ce7d69346d65d7&rgn=div8&view=text&node=36:1.0.1.1.2.0.1.6&idno=36>
&sid=e3de3382e8d7bf30cbce7d69346d65d7&rgn=div8&view=text&node=36:1.0.1.1.2.0
.1.6&idno=36)

Any exceptions to the above for specific areas such as Yosemite should be
called out in Title 36 7.x, but I find no mention of containers or bears in
this part of the CRF.  I'm actually starting to wonder what's happened, at
least within the NPS, that they've decided to endorse one set of products
over another.  Perhaps I'm missing something in the CFR, but I don't see a
legal requirement for these lists nor is there a compelling jurisdictional
case made to limit food containers.

Maybe later I'll start looking for a compelling CFR that the NF might use to
justify a list?  Not a lawyer (engineer actually who worked many years as a
backcountry guard), but from what I can tell from the regulation, those
"approved containers" lists are not legally enforceable.

2 cents .

Matt
http://bigear.wordpress.com/