[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[pct-l] PCT-L digest, Vol 1 #229 - 11 msgs



Send PCT-L mailing list submissions to
	pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	pct-l-request@mailman.backcountry.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	pct-l-admin@mailman.backcountry.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of PCT-L digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?) (ROYROBIN@aol.com)
   2. Re: Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?) (Carl Siechert)
   3. RE: Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?) (Reynolds, WT)
   4. RE: Craig's Dillema (Welter, Ed)
   5. Fires in the Olallie Lakes Basin (Steve Queen)
   6. RE: RE: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?) (The Dude)
   7. Re: RE: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?) (AsABat)
   8. RE: RE: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?) (Reynolds, WT)
   9. RE: RE: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?) (Brick Robbins)
  10. RE: RE: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?) (Reynolds, WT)
  11. RE: RE: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?) (Brick Robbins)

--__--__--

Message: 1
From: ROYROBIN@aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:25:21 EDT
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?)
To: campy@mtnhighwest.com, pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net

In a message dated 8/12/01 2:51:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
campydog@earthlink.net writes:

<< A large Sequoia bear learned how to crack a cannister by leaning on it
 with its elbow, according to a news article I read long ago. >>

Still another secondhand report about a bear canister failure.  I have never 
seen a firsthand account, but am anxiously awaiting my chance to see if Monte 
is smarter than the average bear, or beer!  Does anyone have an eyeball 
experience of a failure of a Garcia or any other commercially available bear 
canister that wasn't left open or improperly closed?

The Ursack, from reports on this list, may not be quite up to an extended 
assault by a Yosemite Yogi, but I have two of them, one large and one small, 
and am not yet ready to write them off.  

First, in other than our most popular National Parks where WE have trained 
the bears to expect handouts from us, I still believe the Ursack provides 
adequate protection till we can get to the scene and scare them off.

Second, in areas where bears are not a major threat, an Ursack makes a lot of 
sense to carry as a primary protection against mice and other rodents 
(marmots, in particular.)  Bears are not a major problem on the AT because 
you can stay in the shelters.  But the shelters are heaven-on-earth for 
rodents.  

Bears are usually not a problem at high altitude on the PCT or anywhere else. 
 (Okay, Kearsarge Pass is an exception, but WE trained them to expect dinner 
there by camping enmass just over the pass from the trailhead.)  You will not 
have serious bear problems above 11,000 feet in most of the Sierra or 
anywhere else.  Tell me if I'm wrong.  It's just a simple matter of bear 
economics.  There isn't enough food of any kind at high altitude for a bear 
to waste its energy going there.  Bears habituate forests, streams and 
established campgrounds where they can find food, either natural or what WE 
provide.   

--__--__--

Message: 2
From: "Carl Siechert" <csiechert@hotmail.com>
To: <ROYROBIN@aol.com>, <campy@mtnhighwest.com>,
   <pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?)
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:44:51 -0700

Roy repeatedly brings up a point that my fellow '77 hikers don't seem to
appreciate: hikers feeding bears has created the problem. It's not the NPS,
the NFS (sic; it's actually USFS), or black helicopters. And I fail to see
how using canisters to deny bears the food they've learned to love is
"bleeding heart" or "pampering" them.

It's great to instill fear in the bears. It's great (okay, maybe not so
great) to camp in a site that hasn't been used in years. But if you let 'em
get your food one time, they're smart enough to come back for more.


----- Original Message -----
From: <ROYROBIN@aol.com>


> First, in other than our most popular National Parks where WE have trained
>
>  (Okay, Kearsarge Pass is an exception, but WE trained them to expect
dinner
>
> established campgrounds where they can find food, either natural or what
WE
> provide.


--__--__--

Message: 3
From: "Reynolds, WT" <reynolds@iLAN.com>
To: "'ROYROBIN@aol.com'" <ROYROBIN@aol.com>, campy@mtnhighwest.com,
   pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
Subject: RE: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?)
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:05:29 -0700

As you know I have tracked bear canisters for more than a dozen years. Since
1988, when plastic canisters were redesigned to have triple latchs [one
latch, two turnbuckles] I have heard of zero failures to plastic canisters.
If they are latched properly they seem foolproof. This doesn't mean that
bears can't learn to break them. Monte makes a good point that modern,
lightweight plastic canisters are not as sturdy as the older 4 pound models.
However, to date, bears can't crush them or claw them open. Bears don't seem
to pick up canisters very much but this isn't to say that they couldn't. I
am also interested to see if/how Brer Montebear cracks a Garcia next year at
ADZPCTKO.

The Bearicade has about 500 copies in use with zero failures. It has VERY
sturdy connections but is aluminum covered with graphite fiber for
stiffness. How a significant impact will affect it is unknown, and since the
current price is $200, I ain't volunteering mine.

The Aluminum Gia is, IMHO, less foolproof. It could fail. Mine did but not
to a bear.

As for Ursacks, I believe that they will work wherever counterbalancing will
work. Like counterbalancing, the Ursack depends on the hikers ability to
scare off the bear. However, if a bear gets to the Urscak, the food may be
crushed and the knot pulled very tight. My analysis is that the Ursack is
far more convient than counterbalancing .....unless the bear shows up.

Sleeping with your food seems VERY dangerous in the Sierra these days. The
combination of more bear canisters and a poor berry crop has yeilded some
very agressive bears. I would advise thruhikers who plan to sneak through
the sierra next year by stealth camping to simply throw their food bag on
the ground and hope for the best. If you are simply hungry another hiker can
help you but a two inch deep gash across the face is beyond the talents of
most hikers/first aid kits.

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: ROYROBIN@aol.com [mailto:ROYROBIN@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 10:25 AM
To: campy@mtnhighwest.com; pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?)


In a message dated 8/12/01 2:51:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
campydog@earthlink.net writes:

<< A large Sequoia bear learned how to crack a cannister by leaning on it
 with its elbow, according to a news article I read long ago. >>

Still another secondhand report about a bear canister failure.  I have never

seen a firsthand account, but am anxiously awaiting my chance to see if
Monte 
is smarter than the average bear, or beer!  Does anyone have an eyeball 
experience of a failure of a Garcia or any other commercially available bear

canister that wasn't left open or improperly closed?

The Ursack, from reports on this list, may not be quite up to an extended 
assault by a Yosemite Yogi, but I have two of them, one large and one small,

and am not yet ready to write them off.  

First, in other than our most popular National Parks where WE have trained 
the bears to expect handouts from us, I still believe the Ursack provides 
adequate protection till we can get to the scene and scare them off.

Second, in areas where bears are not a major threat, an Ursack makes a lot
of 
sense to carry as a primary protection against mice and other rodents 
(marmots, in particular.)  Bears are not a major problem on the AT because 
you can stay in the shelters.  But the shelters are heaven-on-earth for 
rodents.  

Bears are usually not a problem at high altitude on the PCT or anywhere
else. 
 (Okay, Kearsarge Pass is an exception, but WE trained them to expect dinner

there by camping enmass just over the pass from the trailhead.)  You will
not 
have serious bear problems above 11,000 feet in most of the Sierra or 
anywhere else.  Tell me if I'm wrong.  It's just a simple matter of bear 
economics.  There isn't enough food of any kind at high altitude for a bear 
to waste its energy going there.  Bears habituate forests, streams and 
established campgrounds where they can find food, either natural or what WE 
provide.   
_______________________________________________
PCT-L mailing list
PCT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l

--__--__--

Message: 4
From: "Welter, Ed" <Ed.Welter@nike.com>
To: pct-l@backcountry.net
Subject: RE: [pct-l] Craig's Dillema
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:56:21 -0700

I noticed Craig's site was the 15th most requested site on the net for the
last 30 days beating out such biggies as Ebay, CNN, and AOL.  He was so
close to edging out Amazon too.  Now that's impressive!!!    (sorry for the
off topic post though...)  Swoosh
----------------------------
Very cool site Craig! When I checked it out after your first announcement
here on PCT-L, I immediately sent a link to a number of friends and
luminaries.

> Craig Giffen, author of the Great PCT planning program (
http://www.pctplanner.com/ )is victim of his own creativity and success.

> A while back he created http://www.humanclock.com/ when he had a little
too much time on his hands.



--__--__--

Message: 5
From: "Steve Queen" <steve@longtrails.com>
To: "PCT List Server" <pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:25:38 -0700
Subject: [pct-l] Fires in the Olallie Lakes Basin

Here's the latest on the fires in the Olallie Lakes Basin that were started
by lightning strikes:

Good progress was made yesterday on the Powerline fire by crews working
to contain it.  The Lemini fire also received some hard work and is
expected to be contained today.  Shifting winds pressed the
Olallie/Monan Lake fire to the southeast as crews worked to corral it.
No expected date of containment is predicted.  The total acreage of the
Olallie Complex fires is now 1400 acres.  The fire passed through
Peninsula Campground yesterday.  A structure protection specialist along
with fire engines and crews worked to protect the structures in the
campground.  The fire is receiving two more helicopters to assist with
the suppression effort.  We also have a standing order for more crews
that will be filled as crews become available.  There are now 339 people
working on the Olallie Fire Complex.  A mandatory evacuation order
conducted by the Clackamas County Sheriff's office began on August 13,
2001 at 2 pm and will continue to be in effect.  Campgrounds that are
closed are:  Camp Ten, Horseshoe Lake, Lower Lake, Olallie Meadows, Paul
Denis, Peninsula and Triangle Lake Equestrian.  Trails that are closed
are:  Lodgepole (#706), Gibson Lake (#708), Horseshoe Saddle (#712),
Ruddy Hill (#714), Russ Lake (#716), Fish Lake (#717), Red Lake (#719),
Top Lake (#719), Monon Lake (#729), Olallie Lake (#731), Monolallie Lake
(#732), Timber Lake (#733), Double Peaks (#735), Pacific Crest Trail
(#2000), and Potato Butte (#719A).  Road Closures:  46/4690,
4680/4680-150, 4220/4230.  Information provided by the USFS.

Steve Queen
Mount Hood Area Coordinator
Pacific Crest Trail Association
http://www.longtrails.com/mthood/


--__--__--

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:42:49 -0700
From: "The Dude" <dude@coruscant.net>
To: pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
Subject: RE: RE: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?)

This is way too long and really absurd, but I wrote it, so I might as well send it.  If you hate the bear topic by now, you'd better delete this now.  Otherwise, read on...

>Sleeping with your food seems VERY dangerous in the Sierra these >days....

Before passing judgement on sleeping with your food, I'd like to know some stats:

1.  How many people have lost their food to a bear while sleeping with it?  I have never heard of one.  Although I did hear a story (from a ranger) about an idiot who left food in his tent while day hiking, then came back to find a bear munching on his grub and was injured while foolishly attempting to take the food back from the bear! Rule: Once the bear has your food, its HIS food.

2.  How many people have been attacked by a bear trying to get food that they were sleeping with?  Again, I have never heard of one.  I am not saying that it doesn't happen, but I have not heard of a case.

3.  If people have been attacked, how many many people have been injured (or killed) by bears due to sleeping with their food?

I have never heard of anyone being seriously injured by a bear in Yosemite.  Here is the only article of a bear attack in Yosemite that I could find which did result in a minor injury: http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/bear_attack_in_yosemite.html

I should also point out that I found many stories of people killing bears.  Many of them foolsih and irresponsible acts.

Its actually very very rare for black bears to attack people, and even more rare for them to seriously injure or kill people.  No one has been killed in an attack by a California black bear: http://www.urbanlegends.com/animals/bear_attacks.html  
It so rare that there has only been one killing ever in the entire southeastern U.S. (I realize that this is not the PCT area, but it illustrates the behavior of bears): http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/woman_killed_by_bear_in_tennessee2.html


>The
>combination of more bear canisters and a poor berry crop has yeilded >some
>very agressive bears. 

Actually, the facts show that the trend is that bears are becoming LESS AGGRESSIVE:

1.  Bear Incidents were down 70% in 1999 over 1998: http://www.nps.gov/yose/news_99/bear0914.htm

2.  Bear Incidents were down 40% in 2000 over 1999: http://www.nps.gov/yose/news_00/bear0822.htm

3.  Bear incidents are down over 50% thus far in 2001 over 2000:
http://www.nps.gov/yose/bearf.htm

Are you implying that bear cannisters actually encourage bears to become more aggressive?  That doesnt seem to support your case for their use.

I found no articles indicating that berry yeilds in recent times are less than historical levels.  However, I didn't find any that indicated there were great yeilds either.


If you think like a bear, sleeping with your food makes sense:

1.  Bears know that if they don't eat, they will die.  The lack of grocery stores in the back country and the bears relativley low income makes them treat food as a very valuable and indespensible necessity.  They will defend their food with their life because with out food, they will die.

2.  The bear thinks that you (and all animals) will protect your food with the same vigor that he will.

3.  If a bear encounters you sleeping with your food and he knows (based on his experience) that there are others nearby who leave their food out in the open, he will go bother them, rather than fight you for your food.

Back in 1998, the worst bear year on record in Yosemite, I was not using stealth and camped near Cathedral Lakes along with about 5 other random groups of campers.  My hiking partner and I were sleeping with our food.  I woke up in the middle of the night and saw a bear outside in the full moon looking in the mesh door of our tent.  I stared him down until he went away.  He finally did go away, and never came back.  However, he bothered everyone else in the area all night and I got no sleep due to the whistles and pot-banging that I heard throughout the night. 

On a similar note, why do people scramble and fumble to find pots to bang when yelling works better anyway because it make you appear more aggressive?  IMHO, this is a big part of the problem: People have become so far removed from our natural state that they have become so dainty and unfamiliar with nature that most of us now view other animals as dangerous and ferocious, when the exact opposite behavior (extreme aggression) has put us in the position of dominant species.  The truth is that primitive people armed with little more than sticks and stones have successfully and frequently hunted whales, elephants, buffalo, alligators, lions, panthers, gorrillas, and BEARS.  

Perhaps we have forgotten what the back-country is all about.  If you want to eliminate your risk of a potentially dangerous animal encouter, then stay home.  Personally, I don't want a sterile wilderness experience that has the same chance of encountering a wild animal as sitting in my office on the 18th floor of downtown Houston.

I go to the back country to become one with nature, and if I get killed by a bear while sleeping with my food, then I say that is better than being hit by a bus on my way to work or getting killed by a mugger for a few bucks in my wallet.  I'll tell you one thing: if a bear really wants my food, he will probably win (and if he wants to kill me, he easily could), BUT the bear had better pack a lunch because the fight will be an all-day affair.  And I'll tell you another thing: if more people had that attitude instead of acting like wimps and wondering what to do when they see a bear, then fewer people would lose their food and there would be fewer bear encounters because the bears would still be afraid of us.

sorry, for the rant. :-)

peace,
dude

------------------------------------------------------------
Powered by the Coruscant Holonet at http://www.echostation.com

--__--__--

Message: 7
From: "AsABat" <wjj2001@yahoo.com>
To: <pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
Subject: Re: RE: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 06:44:59 -0700

From: "The Dude" To: <pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net>

> 1.  How many people have lost their food to a bear while sleeping with it?
I have never heard of one.

Case One: One of my former Scouts, on family backpack with his church, took
a nap at lunch using his backpack as a pillow. A bear took a swipe at his
pack, ripping off a side pocket that contained his day's snack food, and
just missing the young man's head by inches. Verified by his parents and his
pastor who were both present, and I myself saw the pack damage the next
week.

> 2.  How many people have been attacked by a bear trying to get food that
they were sleeping with?  Again, I have never heard of one.

Case Two: Two separate incidents last year at a youth camp near San
Gorgonio, where the camper had candy or something in their tent, and a bear
injured the sleeping camper while getting their munchies. These were
reported in newspapers, but I'll let someone else try to find them.

AsABat



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


--__--__--

Message: 8
From: "Reynolds, WT" <reynolds@iLAN.com>
To: "'The Dude'" <dude@coruscant.net>, pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
Subject: RE: RE: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 06:56:23 -0700

One of the two incidents that led to the requirement of bear canisters in
Kings Canyon were a case of someone sleeping with his food. It happened at
Center basin. Last year an incident happened at 1000 Island Lake. Finally, I
posted a LA Times artical where a person was bit by a bear trying to get
food.

Bear incidents are down because of canisters [and other methods]. When
canisters are required bears go elsewhere. My posting of agressive bears was
based on the LA Times Artical, the Inyo and SEKI Rangers and a couple of
trips this year where I talked to people.

Humans are the dominant species ONLY because they are tool users. Use tools
agains a bear you win. Use your strength, you lose!

-----Original Message-----
From: The Dude [mailto:dude@coruscant.net]
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 12:43 AM
To: pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
Subject: RE: RE: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?)


This is way too long and really absurd, but I wrote it, so I might as well
send it.  If you hate the bear topic by now, you'd better delete this now.
Otherwise, read on...

>Sleeping with your food seems VERY dangerous in the Sierra these >days....

Before passing judgement on sleeping with your food, I'd like to know some
stats:

1.  How many people have lost their food to a bear while sleeping with it?
I have never heard of one.  Although I did hear a story (from a ranger)
about an idiot who left food in his tent while day hiking, then came back to
find a bear munching on his grub and was injured while foolishly attempting
to take the food back from the bear! Rule: Once the bear has your food, its
HIS food.

2.  How many people have been attacked by a bear trying to get food that
they were sleeping with?  Again, I have never heard of one.  I am not saying
that it doesn't happen, but I have not heard of a case.

3.  If people have been attacked, how many many people have been injured (or
killed) by bears due to sleeping with their food?

I have never heard of anyone being seriously injured by a bear in Yosemite.
Here is the only article of a bear attack in Yosemite that I could find
which did result in a minor injury:
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/bear_attack_in_yosemite.html

I should also point out that I found many stories of people killing bears.
Many of them foolsih and irresponsible acts.

Its actually very very rare for black bears to attack people, and even more
rare for them to seriously injure or kill people.  No one has been killed in
an attack by a California black bear:
http://www.urbanlegends.com/animals/bear_attacks.html  
It so rare that there has only been one killing ever in the entire
southeastern U.S. (I realize that this is not the PCT area, but it
illustrates the behavior of bears):
http://www.igorilla.com/gorilla/animal/2000/woman_killed_by_bear_in_tennesse
e2.html


>The
>combination of more bear canisters and a poor berry crop has yeilded >some
>very agressive bears. 

Actually, the facts show that the trend is that bears are becoming LESS
AGGRESSIVE:

1.  Bear Incidents were down 70% in 1999 over 1998:
http://www.nps.gov/yose/news_99/bear0914.htm

2.  Bear Incidents were down 40% in 2000 over 1999:
http://www.nps.gov/yose/news_00/bear0822.htm

3.  Bear incidents are down over 50% thus far in 2001 over 2000:
http://www.nps.gov/yose/bearf.htm

Are you implying that bear cannisters actually encourage bears to become
more aggressive?  That doesnt seem to support your case for their use.

I found no articles indicating that berry yeilds in recent times are less
than historical levels.  However, I didn't find any that indicated there
were great yeilds either.


If you think like a bear, sleeping with your food makes sense:

1.  Bears know that if they don't eat, they will die.  The lack of grocery
stores in the back country and the bears relativley low income makes them
treat food as a very valuable and indespensible necessity.  They will defend
their food with their life because with out food, they will die.

2.  The bear thinks that you (and all animals) will protect your food with
the same vigor that he will.

3.  If a bear encounters you sleeping with your food and he knows (based on
his experience) that there are others nearby who leave their food out in the
open, he will go bother them, rather than fight you for your food.

Back in 1998, the worst bear year on record in Yosemite, I was not using
stealth and camped near Cathedral Lakes along with about 5 other random
groups of campers.  My hiking partner and I were sleeping with our food.  I
woke up in the middle of the night and saw a bear outside in the full moon
looking in the mesh door of our tent.  I stared him down until he went away.
He finally did go away, and never came back.  However, he bothered everyone
else in the area all night and I got no sleep due to the whistles and
pot-banging that I heard throughout the night. 

On a similar note, why do people scramble and fumble to find pots to bang
when yelling works better anyway because it make you appear more aggressive?
IMHO, this is a big part of the problem: People have become so far removed
from our natural state that they have become so dainty and unfamiliar with
nature that most of us now view other animals as dangerous and ferocious,
when the exact opposite behavior (extreme aggression) has put us in the
position of dominant species.  The truth is that primitive people armed with
little more than sticks and stones have successfully and frequently hunted
whales, elephants, buffalo, alligators, lions, panthers, gorrillas, and
BEARS.  

Perhaps we have forgotten what the back-country is all about.  If you want
to eliminate your risk of a potentially dangerous animal encouter, then stay
home.  Personally, I don't want a sterile wilderness experience that has the
same chance of encountering a wild animal as sitting in my office on the
18th floor of downtown Houston.

I go to the back country to become one with nature, and if I get killed by a
bear while sleeping with my food, then I say that is better than being hit
by a bus on my way to work or getting killed by a mugger for a few bucks in
my wallet.  I'll tell you one thing: if a bear really wants my food, he will
probably win (and if he wants to kill me, he easily could), BUT the bear had
better pack a lunch because the fight will be an all-day affair.  And I'll
tell you another thing: if more people had that attitude instead of acting
like wimps and wondering what to do when they see a bear, then fewer people
would lose their food and there would be fewer bear encounters because the
bears would still be afraid of us.

sorry, for the rant. :-)

peace,
dude

------------------------------------------------------------
Powered by the Coruscant Holonet at http://www.echostation.com
_______________________________________________
PCT-L mailing list
PCT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l

--__--__--

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:17:57 -0700
To: pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
From: Brick Robbins <brick@fastpack.com>
Subject: RE: RE: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?)

At 06:56 AM 8/17/01, Reynolds, WT wrote:
>Humans are the dominant species ONLY because they are tool users. Use tools
>agains a bear you win. Use your strength, you lose!

Use a tool....Like, maybe, uhh.....

A wrist rocket?


--
Brick Robbins                       mailto:brick@fastpack.com


--__--__--

Message: 10
From: "Reynolds, WT" <reynolds@iLAN.com>
To: "'Brick Robbins'" <brick@fastpack.com>, pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
Subject: RE: RE: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?)
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:39:57 -0700

.....or a 44 magnum......or 10% pepper spray. We didn't become the
dominating species by [censored] around with wrist rockets. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Brick Robbins [mailto:brick@fastpack.com]
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 8:18 AM
To: pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
Subject: RE: RE: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?)


At 06:56 AM 8/17/01, Reynolds, WT wrote:
>Humans are the dominant species ONLY because they are tool users. Use tools
>agains a bear you win. Use your strength, you lose!

Use a tool....Like, maybe, uhh.....

A wrist rocket?


--
Brick Robbins                       mailto:brick@fastpack.com

_______________________________________________
PCT-L mailing list
PCT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l

--__--__--

Message: 11
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:23:31 -0700
To: pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
From: Brick Robbins <brick@fastpack.com>
Subject: RE: RE: [pct-l] Bear Cannister, (and Ursack?)

At 08:39 AM 8/17/01, Reynolds, WT wrote:
>.....or a 44 magnum......or 10% pepper spray. We didn't become the
>dominating species by [censored] around with wrist rockets.

However, carrying a 44magnum in a national park is illegal (and heavy!). 
10% pepper spray is illegal in California.

A wrist rocket is light, and legal <g>.

Tom since you called thru-hikers who stealth camp without bear cans "scoff 
laws" you wouldn't want to encourage illegal behaviour would you?
________

Side comment, from me personally, not as list admin.

The bear can thing has gotten kind of banal.

I KNOW that when i read a post from Mad Monte he will be anti-cannister, 
anti-regulation, anti-gov't and warning the black helicopters will come 
soon. I KNOW when I read post from Tom R that he will be pro canister, pro 
law, pro ranger/USFS/NPS, and anti thru hike.

The only reason I read the posts is to monitor flames.

Keep posting if you want, but if  ** I ** am bored with it (and ** I ** 
care...), I hate to think what the rest of the list is feeling......


--
Brick Robbins                       mailto:brick@fastpack.com



--__--__--

_______________________________________________
PCT-L mailing list
PCT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l


End of PCT-L Digest