[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[pct-l] Bear Canister requirement
- Subject: [pct-l] Bear Canister requirement
- From: wjj2001@yahoo.com (AsABat)
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 19:38:46 -0700
- References: <20010731220318.47071.qmail@web11604.mail.yahoo.com> <009301c11a16$4aeaf780$8c4efea9@oemcomputer>
> Hey, Bill - did SeKi & Inyo discontinue their Ursack Ultra provisional
> permission?
Yes, Seki did discontinue their Ursack Ultra conditional approval. From
http://www.nps.gov/seki/snrm/wildlife/wildlife_data/container.rtf :
--------------------------------------------------
"Conditional Approved REVOKED - Ursack Ultra
"Despite valiant efforts by the developers of Ursack to design a lightweight
container, the Ursack Ultra has proven to NOT BE bear-proof in these areas
and therefore may no longer be used in the Parks. If you arrive at a SEKI
trailhead with an Ursack Ultra during the summer of 2001, we will loan you a
Garcia can for your trip, free of charge. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Thanks for saving bears.
"On July 7, a bear ripped into an Ursack Ultra in Kings Canyon National
Park. An Ursack Ultra was damaged in Inyo National Forest the following
week. On June 26, a Yosemite backpacker illegally used a regular Ursack and
a bear ripped into it. During the July 21st weekend, a bear ripped into an
Ursack Ultra at Shadow Creek on the Inyo National Forest."
--------------------------------------------------
I'm not aware that Inyo has ever published a list of "approved" containers,
but given that 2 of the 3 failures quoted above were in Inyo, I would guess
they would not be "approved." Inyo's web site
http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/inyo/vvc/bear/bear_wilderness_regs.htm uses the term
"bear-resistant canister" although the order Christine cited used
"bear-proof container ."
It might be worth mentioning that legislation often leaves implementation to
the agency, with the courts to resolve conflicts. Therefore, it is possible
an agency could determine the Ursack Ultra is not a "bear-proof container"
since it failed. Likewise, "another manner designed to keep bears from
gaining access to the food or refuse" (36 CFR 261.58(cc)) could be
interpreted to exclude counterbalancing, rock piles, and submersion if they
have been found unsuccessful in keeping bears from getting food. (No flames
please! These are possibilities which I will neither support nor oppose
here.)
AsABat
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com