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

[pct-l] why is are Tom and Marge so mad?



Matt Geis wrote:

> Here's what I can't figure out.  Tom feels the need
> for all hikers to cary bear cannisters.

I believe you are mistaken.  I believe his initial resolution was that
people in the back country should not, under any circumstances, sleep
with their food.  Tom has written on multiple occasions, for at least
three years, that thru hikers can generally get away without a canister
by using the combination of hiking early in the season, stealth camping,
fixed bear boxes and competent food hangs.  The bear which is able to
get the hiker's food under those circumstances, would have to be out and
about early in the season, be looking for food in unusual (not heavily
camped areas) and have training in the art of snagging a hang.  At
worse, a thieving bear would receive reinforcement that hanging sacks
have food, and the hiker would be faced with the nuisance of hiking out
for a resupply.  The bear probably has learned nothing new...and is no
more of a threat to other campers and hikers after the fact, than he was
before the fact.

But a bear that has received a food reward for the behaviour of entering
a tent (regardless of whether or not a hiker was sleeping there) would
be expected to check out other tents for food, including my tent, or
Marge's tent, or even Tom's tent.  Food from a tent is sure easier to
acquire than food in a tree.  If bears could be limited to checking out
only those tents occupied by thru hikers which sleep with their food, a
thru hiker could then justifiably say, "I'll take responsibility for my
actions."

>From a different, and slightly metaphorical perspective, one could
say..."I'll drink my stream water without treating it, and if I get
sick, well that's my responsibility."  And it would be.  Or one might
say..."I'll cross the stream now, rather than wait for lower water in
the morning, I'll take the responsibility."  And one rightfully could.

But to say, "I'll take the chance that sleeping with my food won't lead
to a encounter with a tent entering bear, it's my responsibility", or
"the only one it will hurt will be me", is to be short sited at best,
and under cold examination could be described as selfish, immoral, and
downright wrong. I've tried to understand why a person might adopt a
stiff necked attitude opposing hanging, hiding or containing their
food.  And all I can come up with is that these people are too tired to
deal with it at the end of their hiking day.  It is just to easy to take
the gamble (good odds I'll admit) and sleep with the grub.  A grump
might label that action as stemming from irresponsible laziness, but for
a thru hiker after a twenty or thirty mile day...well I'll allow
exhaustion.  But that don't make it right.

I equate tent feeding bears with those bears in Yosemite valley which
have learned to thieve from parked cars.  It's been going on for a long
time, but at one point there was a "first bear".  And it's so easy for
me to picture the owner of that victimized vehicle, saying something
like, "I'll only be in the store for a bit...I don't have to hide the
picnic basket in the trunk, bears don't break into cars...and if one
does, well...it's my car isn't it."

If people in the backcountry keep food in their tents, in my opinion, it
will eventually happen that bears will begin to investigate tents for
their suppers, just as surely as they started investigating the park
dumps, then the dumpsters, then cars, then food hangs...bears do have a
track record.  So, if this meandering line of thought has any basis in
reality, the question becomes one of how to effectively keep people from
storing their food in their tents.  Conversations of this sort haven't
done it.  Postings of signs haven't done it. Threats of unenforceable
fines haven't done it.  Fixed bear boxes in the backcounty haven't done
it.  Even the option of portable bear-proof storage cannisters haven't
done it.

Maybe Mr. Reynolds can.

Eckert