[pct-l] remove

[Sydney Weaver <sydney@joshgrin.com>]

pct-l-digest wrote:

> pct-l-digest        Thursday, September 3 1998        Volume 01 : Number 570
>
> In this issue:
>
>     Re: [pct-l] bear manners
>     [pct-l] Feeding the Bears
>     RE: [pct-l] bear manners
>     Re: [pct-l] bear manners
>     Re: [pct-l] bear manners
>     Re: [pct-l] Feeding the Bears
>     RE: [pct-l] bear manners
>     Re: [pct-l] bear manners
>     [pct-l] Re: feeding bears
>     Re: [pct-l] bear manners
>     [pct-l] How bears apparantly act
>     [pct-l] bear cans
>     Re: [pct-l] bear cans
>     [pct-l] Bear cans' Volume?
>     Re: [pct-l] Bear cans' Volume?
>     Re: [pct-l] Bear cans' Volume?
>     [pct-l] Poster Kids for the Idiot Faction
>     Re: [pct-l] Bear cans' Volume?
>     Re: [pct-l] bear cans
>     Re: [pct-l] bear cans
>     [pct-l] NOT bear cans
>     Re: [pct-l] bear manners
>     [pct-l] Emergency logging without public review  upheld
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1998 21:55:13 -0700
> From: Brick Robbins <brick@ix.netcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] bear manners
>
> At 09:40 PM 9/1/98 -0700, Tom Reynolds wrote:
> >Why do I need to hike 2600 miles to understand what an extra 3 pounds
> >means?
> <snip>
> > I have a real problem understanding why you don't agree that this the
> >absolutely best solution today to keeping food from bears!
>
> I think that you just made Jim's point. You have not walked the walk, so it is YOU who don't understand.
>
> After  a month or two of walking, your viewpoint changes. A series of two week hikes spread over a few years to compelete the PCT does not provide the same change to your outlook and your soul as a through hike does.
>
> You cary an extra 3# if you want to. I'll do something different.
>
> The only problem, as I see it, is people like you always want to legislate others around you into doing things your way.
> - --
> Hike your own hike.
> Brick
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 06:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
> From: nogrhi <nogrhi@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] Feeding the Bears
>
> Hello All,
>
> I don't wish to inflame this bear issue but I would like some
> (shudder) opinion about some thoughts I am having.  I am going to be
> thru hiking the PCT next year with my wife.  She as some may know,
> just hiked from Soda Springs to Cascade Locks with The Weathercarrot.
> After the first try, they never hung there food - just cleaned up well
> and kept everything in the tent with them.  My understanding is that
> the bear repellent they planned to use was a couple rocks in the pot
> to make a loud noise - fortunately this never got tested.  I DO NOT
> want to even consider an extra 3# can if at all possible.  What I want
> to know is how dangerous keeping the food on our person is while on
> the 'lower' California portion of the PCT.  In advance, thank you for
> your input...
>
> Darin
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:50:16 -0400
> From: "Mayer, Jim" <JMayer@crt.xerox.com>
> Subject: RE: [pct-l] bear manners
>
> Tom,
>
> I hear you, though I don't know where I fall in all this.  Just one
> note... I easily polish off 1.5 lbs. of dehydrated food per day from the
> start of a hike.  My longest hike is a bit over a week (so I make no
> pretence of "walking the walk"), but from what I've heard I wouldn't be
> surprised to see my food consumption go up to 2.5 or more pounds per day
> on a long distance hike.  That would require two canisters, or somewhere
> between 4.5 and 5.5 pounds (roughly, depending on the brand of canister)
> of extra weight.  If my "base" pack weight was 17 lbs., we are talking
> about a 26 to 32 percent increase.  Even if we count fully loaded weight
> (say about 42 pounds if I was carrying 2.5 pounds of food for 10 days),
> we are talking about a 10 to 13 percent increase in total weight.  That
> seems like a lot.
>
> Of course, I suspect everyone would be willing to carry the extra weight
> if they agreed that it was the only way to make sure they got to eat
> their food.  The disagreement seems to be one of scale.  For example,
> the following two statements are NOT equivalent:
>
>         The only general solution to the problem of bears getting at
> human food is for
>         people to use bear canisters.
>
>         The only way for an individual to keep their food safe is to use
> a bear canister.
>
> I can see why the NPS and the USFS could recommend the use of bear cans.
> The only way for them to manage the environmental impact of mass use of
> the backcountry is to concentrate people in hardened camping areas.
> This is generally easy, since most people want to camp on a prepared
> flat spot near water.  Unfortunately, the repeated use of camping areas
> dovetails neatly with animal food search patterns... thus the bear
> problem at known camping sites.  Also unfortunately, with people being
> as silly as they are (e.g. "oh look at the tame bear, isn't she cute") I
> doubt that the bear can "solution" will work.  My guess (as a non
> hunting, non gun owning, environmentalist type) is that some form of
> limited hunting or non politically correct adverse conditioning of bears
> will be needed.  One could try adverse conditioning of people, but the
> bears learn faster and can't vote :-)
>
> Anyway, while I have little experience with bears, many animals
> (including, I believe, bears) have surprisingly fixed feeding patters.
> Raccoons, for example, may travel over a 30 or 40 mile range moving from
> "good feeding spot" to "good feeding spot".  In many areas, this is
> "garbage can" to "garbage can".  For human acclimated bears, I suspect
> it is "campsite" to "campsite."  Thus, the notion that "stealth camping"
> could work doesn't surprise me at all.  If one camps well away from both
> man made and natural feeding sites, and avoids advertising the presence
> of food by cooking at the camp site, then the probability of being
> visited by a bear might well be very, very low.  No facts here, just
> opinions based on general reasoning.
>
> Cliff Jacobson, while hardly an "ultralight" camper, has written some
> very sensible books (including many of the "Basic Essentials of ..."
> books).  He says something similar to the above about bears.  I remember
> him suggesting that acclimated bears quickly learn all of the good "food
> hanging" trees in an area and start visiting them on a regular basis.
> For those bears, a brightly colored bag hanging from a tree is kind of
> like an "Eat at Joe's" sign.  Jacobson suggests putting your food in one
> (maybe two, I can't remember) layers of plastic bag and leaving it on
> the ground well away from any food preparation area.  I'm haven't tried
> this technique and am not recommending it, but just want to note that
> "stealth camping" significantly predates the "Ray Way".  Jardine's style
> of not camping near water and not eating dinner at the campsite ought to
> be even more effective [as long as he avoids camping in a berry patch!
> :-)].
>
> Anyway, I'm rambling.  But I suspect that the crux of the current
> dispute has something to do with the difference between what works for
> large groups of people and what works for individuals.  There may very
> well be solutions that work for small numbers of people (e.g.
> thru-hikers) that really aren't applicable on a large scale.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> - -- Jim
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Reynolds [mailto:Tom.Reynolds@ilan.com]
>
> > That said, the current, non-Garcia, Bear Can weighs 2# 3 oz. Properly
> > loaded it weighs 20.5 pounds. That's 18 pounds of food or
> > 10-12 days for
> > the average backpacker.
> >
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Karl Brandt <brandt@snf.Stanford.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] bear manners
>
> On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Tom Reynolds wrote:
>
> > Why do I need to hike 2600 miles to understand what an extra 3 pounds
> > means? Seriously, this is an insulting statement. Anyone who hikes 8-10 or
> > more days without resupply knows the pain of each extra pound once you're
> > at the limit.
> >
> > The PCT is a series of 8-10 day hikes between resupplies. True, as your fat
> > goes away the need for calories increases but then you carrying ability
> > will typically increase correspondingly.
> >
> > That said, the current, non-Garcia, Bear Can weighs 2# 3 oz. Properly
> > loaded it weighs 20.5 pounds. That's 18 pounds of food or 10-12 days for
> > the average backpacker.
>
> I'm afraid here's where your not having thru-hiked alters your
> perspective. 18# of food may well be enough for a single 10-12 day
> trip but it's nowhere near enough while thru-hiking. That's more on
> the order of a 6-8 day supply.
>
> >  I have a real problem understanding why you don't agree that this the
> > absolutely best solution today to keeping food from bears!
>
> I think the trouble is that you're presenting this as an absolute
> without any room for alternative opinions. Bear boxes are a viable
> alternative solution. They may even be better as even the idiot fringe
> is likely to use them since they're such a no-brainer. On the other
> hand, these folks aren't going to have the wherewithal to understand
> why they should go out and purchase/rent a bear canister. Stealth
> camping will work for a limited number of people. Make some room for
> alternative opinions and folks will be more willing to agree with your
> own.
>
> > Even if you can expertly hang food every time and are willing to take the
> > energy to do so, I'd question why you'd want to. Hanging food is a pain,
> > almost as bad as camping near a bear box. For 2 pounds you can camp where
> > and when you want without hassel. Instead of walking 16 miles a day for 10
> > days, walk 18 miles for 9 days. You can save an extra two pounds of food
> > for the last day and easily walk the extra two miles per day in the time it
> > takes to hang your food! You can pick up the canister at Kennedy Meadows,
> > refill it at Mammoth and dump it at Kennedy Meadows north of Yosemite.
> > Whats the big deal?
>
> The big deal is that we don't want to have canisters forced upon us. I
> would urge folks to carry them and will the next time I'm in the JMT
> area. But yet more rules/regulations about carrying canisters is in
> fact taking something away from the wildness of the wilderness. It's
> just as bad as the taming of bears by poor food storage.
>
> - -Karl
>
> *********************************************************************
> Karl "Birdman" Brandt PCT97 LT98                       (650) 725-3686
> http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~kbrandt/
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:42:49 -0700
> From: "Tom Reynolds" <Tom.Reynolds@ilan.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] bear manners
>
> Outlook? Soul???? I'm not talking about spiritual stuff. I'm talking about
> weight. Do you mean that I CAN carry 2 pounds because I only walk two weeks
> but you CAN'T carry 2 pounds after two months on the trail? Get real!!
>
> 1. I didn't propose you carry an extra two pounds. I suggested that you
> walk an extra two miles in the time it takes to hang food. You didn't
> respond to this. Why?
>
> 2. I have never advocated legislating anything -- ever -- in these
> discussions.
>
> Brick, what I see is anger at authority coloring your judgement.
>
> I used bear canisters when the NPS/NFS were still telling campers to throw
> rocks at bears to scare them away from hung food. I positively railed the
> NPS/NFS for that advice. This is not about the NPS/NFS. It's about the best
> way to keep food from bears
>
> Tom
> PS: Don't make it 3 pounds. It is 2 pounds 3 ounces including the
> screwdriver. A carabiner and cord for hanging is somewhere around 6-7
> ounces so the delta is less than 2 pounds.
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:48:34 -0700
> From: "Tom Reynolds" <Tom.Reynolds@ilan.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Feeding the Bears
>
> I don't think anyone can answer your question about danger. I hate this
> idea because once a bear gets the idea that he can crash a tent for food,
> the tent he crashes may be mine. I suggest that you plan to stop at bear
> boxs along the way. There ought to be a list posted somewhere. Where there
> is no bear box plan to camp high and away from the trail. Your #1 danger
> area will be Yosemite. Plan a long day to Tolumne and a long day out of
> Tolumne.
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 08:59:23 -0700
> From: "Tom Reynolds" <Tom.Reynolds@ilan.com>
> Subject: RE: [pct-l] bear manners
>
> Re: Food calculations.
> You food calculations are correct. However, I don't consume that kind of
> food anymore. I focus on food that has a high caloric value relative to its
> weight and volume. For example: Typical trail meals use precooked rice. 1
> cup rice + 1 cup water = 2 cup rice. However regular Japanese rice 1 cup
> rice + 2 cups water = 3 cups rice. [In this case the extra fuel probably
> make up for the weight advantage but not the volume advantage but you get
> my point]. Also, i use a BakePacker to bake things. 1/2 cup of cake mix
> yeilds a very nice, very high caloric content HOT CHOCOLATE CAKE. This is
> nice.
>
> I believe that I have saved more that the weight of the bear canister by
> paying careful attention to the weight/volume of food. I would talk about
> it herebut Brick would accuse me of trying to legislatewhat he eats! Still
> my analysisof howpeople try to save weightis that people spen too little
> time focusingon food weight
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 09:10:32 -0700
> From: "Tom Reynolds" <Tom.Reynolds@ilan.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] bear manners
>
> Karl,
> You are accusing me of what is not true. I am not advocating that anyone be
> forced into anything. I am advocating DO NOT BELIEVE THAT COUNTERBALANCING
> WORKS because, it usually doesn't.
>
> Assuming double the food weight after the fat leaves you can still get 6-7
> days of food in a canister. The first day's food need not be in the
> canister. That gives you 7-8 nights [8-9 hiking days] between resupply. At
> 18 miles a day that is 162 miles between resupply {Kennedy Meadows [south]
> to Mammoth}
>
> Actually I prefer bear boxs to canisters for the average joe. Most people
> will not take the time to properly pack a canister and won't make the hard
> decision to leave the Pringles home. I ran across a group doing the JMT.
> They had canisters but lost food anyway because all the food wouldn't fit
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:08:56 -0700
> From: bjensen4@juno.com (Birgitte Jensen)
> Subject: [pct-l] Re: feeding bears
>
> >  Jacobson suggests putting your food in one
> >(maybe two, I can't remember) layers of plastic bag and leaving it on
> >the ground well away from any food preparation area.
>
>    Laying food out on the ground is about the easiest way to FEED bears -
> you won't get your fingers nipped, and, if you place the bag far enough
> away, you won't even have to be disturbed by the bear feeding/carting it
> away - good thinking, duh! Wow! That's a new one! There is alot of
> misinformation about bears out there (like bears are attracted by
> "brightly colored" items) but THAT's the nuttiest/most irresponsible
> "idea" I've seen yet. Calculating the odds as to whether a bear may visit
> your particular site on a particular night is gambling, pure and simple -
> gambling with the lives of bears and other campers elsewhere. Nobody who
> lays food out on the ground unguarded anywhere in the Sierra should
> consider backpacking there. Outrageous!
>     For the record, I personally am not making a fetish of bear
> canisters: as I've stated many times, they are not the only means of
> preventing a bear from getting human food.  If you feel the canisters are
> an unmanagable burden, financially or otherwise, you should use an
> alternative _100% foolproof_ method of food storage. Proper
> counterbalance (no shortcuts/excuses about unsuitable trees) in areas
> where it's  effective (ask a ranger), which is most places still, 24-hour
> guarding (works also as a backup if you can't find the right tree), bear
> boxes, all are fine if you use them correctly. Leaving your food lying
> around/counting on a bear not coming by is no method at all, and is
> illegal besides in all wildlife management areas of the Sierra.
>     The reason, I believe, that there is so much current emphasis on
> canisters, is that they are fairly idiot-proof: as Tom says, they can be
> used anywhere/anytime, and they require minimal skill, equipment, effort.
> You can be exhausted, lazy, drunk, sloppy, anti-authoritarian,
> animal-hating, whatever, and they'll still keep your food from
> contributing to the bear problem - sounds good to me! In places where
> canisters are required, legally or because nothing else works, you still
> have choices: use canisters, 24-hour guard, or go elsewhere. On a PCT
> thruhike that means rent a canister (or guard your food) for a very short
> stretch,  use bear boxes (placed conveniently all along the Sierra PCT to
> Yosemite, and counterbalance the rest of the 2000+miles. Not such a great
> hardship, is it, c'mon - especially for those who want the glory of
> enduring the hardhips of a thuhike...
>     Please don't degrade the important issue of food storage in bear
> country with head-butting squabbles over statistics, or whether a
> thruhike is more Important orManly than intensive backpacking or even
> easy weekend trips.  Bears certainly don't give a sh*t, and will happily
> eat ANY camper's food; rangers don't care - I wish there were more
> citations given for careless food storage; those of us who care about the
> fate of wildlife - or of other campers - don't care about backcountry
> C.V's., either. A person's mileage statistics (daily, yearly, or
> lifetime) have little bearing on their wilderness "expertise", and
> definitely do not excuse anyone from acting responsibly.
>     Hunting, rubber bullets, etc belong in another discussion - one about
> how to AUGMENT proper food management by backcountry visitors. Nothing a
> government agency can do can overcome the effects of hiker
> carelessness/apathy. BTW, after seeing so many anxious posts about
> deer-hunting season (drunken, trigger-happy hunters, stray bullets, etc),
> I'm curious as to why you guys want MORE hunters running around the
> places you hike.....?                           bj
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
> Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 10:12:41 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Karl Brandt <brandt@snf.Stanford.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] bear manners
>
> On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Tom Reynolds wrote:
>
> > Karl,
> > You are accusing me of what is not true. I am not advocating that anyone be
> > forced into anything. I am advocating DO NOT BELIEVE THAT COUNTERBALANCING
> > WORKS because, it usually doesn't.
>
> If what I said came across as an accusation, I'm sorry about that. It
> wasn't meant as such.
>
> If "DO NOT BELIEVE THAT COUNTERBALANCING WORKS" is all that you're
> advocating, then great! I'll agree with you there. Counterbalancing
> seems like a good idea in theory but in practice it doesn't work all
> that well.
>
> The reason I chose to respond was that your tone have been so full of
> absolutes. I'll say it again. Make some room for alternative opinions
> and folks will be more willing to agree with your own. Softening your
> tone and accepting that Brick and other folks aren't going to agree
> will make for some much better discussion.
>
> > Assuming double the food weight after the fat leaves you can still get 6-7
> > days of food in a canister. The first day's food need not be in the
> > canister. That gives you 7-8 nights [8-9 hiking days] between resupply. At
> > 18 miles a day that is 162 miles between resupply {Kennedy Meadows [south]
> > to Mammoth}
>
> Doing 18 miles/day in there would help immensely but that's asking a
> lot for the average thru-hiker. Most of us slowed down to 14-16 miles/day
> in there. Going through there in June made for some tough going. I was
> overall quicker than the average thru-hiker at 132 days total but
> personally, I couldn't have done 18 miles/day in the high Sierras.
>
> That's a good point that the first day's food doesn't need to be in
> the canister. If I understand you're scenario, you're assuming no food
> is eaten on the last hiking day. Most people wouldn't go for that.
> Still, I'll revise my estimate up to 7-9 hiking days on a bear
> canister. For a typical thru-hiker in June that give a range of 120
> miles (8 days * 15 miles/day) which is still workable. Some
> thru-hikers will feel differently. For them, I'd hope they do a good
> job of counterbalancing, using bear boxes, or stealth camping.
>
> > Actually I prefer bear boxs to canisters for the average joe. Most people
> > will not take the time to properly pack a canister and won't make the hard
> > decision to leave the Pringles home. I ran across a group doing the JMT.
> > They had canisters but lost food anyway because all the food wouldn't fit
>
> Hey now, Pringles have a pretty good calorie to weight ratio. :) Of
> course you're right. They have a volume problem that makes them not
> work well in a canister. It's too bad. I really like Pringles while
> hiking.
>
> But anyway, I do hope that the various regulatory agencies continue
> and even expand the placement of bear boxes.
>
> Just a point of discussion. It would help us if you'd quote the
> material that you're responding to. Sometimes it sounds like you're
> responding to things out of context. I'm pretty sure you're not but
> without the previous post at hand it's difficult to tell.
>
> - -Karl
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 13:36:07 -0700
> From: "Tom Reynolds" <Tom.Reynolds@ilan.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] How bears apparantly act
>
> What I have been told is that bears can smell food 4,385 miles off even
> through 2 foot steel plate but they have poor eyesite. What I have seen is
> bears walking through a campsite looking for food hung from a tree and
> apparantly not using their nose at all.
>
> I have camped within 1/2 mile of a heavily frequented campsite and not, to
> my knowledge, been visited by bears, then walk through the next morning and
> hear harrowing tales of how the bears outsmarted every absolutely perfect
> hanging job and bagged the food.
>
> I have heard stories of bear cubs on their mothers backs, about a bear
> climbing a tree at one end of a bear cable and vibrating the cable until
> the food reaches the other end, then going to the other end to retrieved
> the food. Closer questioning, however, reveals these perfect hanging jobs
> as BS. They did a poor job. The food was too low, too close to the tree
> trunk or the food was accessable from another, lower branch. In almost all
> cases, the hanging was poor or the campers forgot some food and had their
> pack ripped up or their wasn't enough room in the bear canister or bear box
> so the camper decided "What the hell. If the bear gets some food I'll still
> be OK". These stories would lead me to conclude that hanging food doesn't
> work because people are idiots.
>
> In Yosemite and in the Kearsarge area, however, I have heard a different
> story. The bear climbs the tree, climbs out on the limb as far as possible,
> then jumps on the limb until either the bag shakes free from the cord or
> the limb breaks! This is called "Taking the fall". Obviously, once a bear
> is willing to "Take the fall" he will defeat any counterbalancing system.
> This story was prevalant in Yosemite along the JMT and PCT trail.
> Interestingly, I was camping less than 1/2 mile away, my bear canister in
> plain sight less than 100 yards from the trail yet the bear didn't bother
> with it [This was in the early days of Bear canisters so I doubt the bear
> was familiar with them]. I thus concluded that the modern "with it"
> Yosemite bear uses eyesight more than previously reported. I have theirfore
> concluded that, in "Bear Alley" the JMT between Donahue Pass and the Valley
> and the PCT between Tolumne Meadows to 5 miles past the High Sierra Camp,
> bear bagging simply won't work. The intelligent solution for the thru hiker
> is to avoid camping in this section with food.
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 16:49:55 -0400
> From: Virginia Owen <OWEN@TheAdvisoryGroup.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] bear cans
>
> The only bear canisters I have actually seen for sale weighed 3.5- 5.5 lbs
> each and held about 3 days worth of food.  (Really low volume!) Given that
> you are supposed to keep all human smelling items out of reach of bears
> (i.e. sunscreen, mosquito repellant, water bottles that held Koolaid, etc.)
> - - you are talking about needing to carry 3 or more for a ten day stretch.
> For  a weekend in Yosemite, a bear canister is feasible, and maybe
> desirable - but for a long hike????  Given that the Yosemite bears have
> taken to tearing off the doors of cars in order to get to food hidden in
> the trunks - the solution  to their bear problem is likely to be more than
> requiring backcountry  users to carry 10-15 extra lbs of plastic.
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 15:20:20 -0700
> From: "Tom Reynolds" <Tom.Reynolds@ilan.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] bear cans
>
> There are two bear canisters available for sale. Both  hold 50 cups of
> food. The Garcia Bear Cache weighs 2.7 # (2#12oz.). The aluminum Bear Can
> weighs 2.1# (2#1.5oz) the bear can requires a screwdriver 1.5 oz or swiss
> army knife. The Garcia requires a coin.
>
> How much food can be stored in 50 cups depends on lots of things. I get 18+
> pounds of food in mine. [18 pounds of peanut butter is 45,000 calories] The
> consensus seems to be that a 1-2 week hiker needs about 1.5 pounds/day but
> a through hiker needs about 3 pounds a day of high caloric content food so
> that makes 10-13 days for the two week hiker and 5-7 for the through hiker
> [The first day's food and the last day's dinner are not stored in the
> canister giving the thru hiker a range of 6-8 days, possibly stretching to
> 9]
>
> On the other hand, if you eat freeze dried cardboard and decline to repack
> the Mountain House Taste Supreme you could easily get only 3 days and
> potato chips in the canister.
>
> How safe are they? The plastic garcia is well tested. bears can't get into
> them because they can't grip on them. The aluminum cans use the same
> principal but this is the first year of use.
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 16:38:36 -0700
> From: Kevin Corcoran <kevin@hughes.net>
> Subject: [pct-l] Bear cans' Volume?
>
> Tom Reynolds wrote:
> >There are two bear canisters available for sale. Both hold 50 cups of food.
>
> What's their volume in cubic inches or liters, does anyone know?
> Kevin Corcoran
> Palmdale CA
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 17:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Karl Brandt <brandt@snf.Stanford.EDU>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bear cans' Volume?
>
> On Wed, 2 Sep 1998, Kevin Corcoran wrote:
>
> > Tom Reynolds wrote:
> > >There are two bear canisters available for sale. Both hold 50 cups of food.
> >
> > What's their volume in cubic inches or liters, does anyone know?
>
> According to REI's web page the plastic one (Garcia ?) has a volume of
> 331 cubic inches. I believe that's around 5.4 liter. They also list
> for $78 but I could have sworn that I've seen them for $65 somewhere
> else.
>
> - -Karl
>
> *********************************************************************
> Karl "Birdman" Brandt PCT97 LT98                       (650) 725-3686
> http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~kbrandt/
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 17:14:53 -0700
> From: "Tom Reynolds" <Tom.Reynolds@ilan.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bear cans' Volume?
>
> 10 quarts x .9 quarts /liter =9 liters 9,000cc about
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 17:41:58 -0700
> From: Kevin Corcoran <kevin@hughes.net>
> Subject: [pct-l] Poster Kids for the Idiot Faction
>
> .....lately with all the List talk on bears, could we change the subject to
> something a bit less contentious, maybe?.....I don't know.......something
> like.....
> GUNS?
>
> Monday August 31 5:17 PM EDT
> Campers mistake friend for bear, shoot him
>
> ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Teenagers camping in the Alaskan wilderness
> shot and killed a
> companion who they mistook for a bear, state troopers said Monday.
>
> They said Michael Callaway, 17, of Anchorage, was shot on Sunday when he and
> another boy hid
> in the woods and tried to scare the rest of the party as they walked past.
>
> At least some of the group of seven -- three boys and four girls aged
> between 16 and 19 -- had
> been drinking, the troopers said.
>
> The teenagers had hiked to an abandoned mining cabin about 60 miles south of
> Anchorage.
> Callaway was shot in the leg and taken to a hospital in the city where he
> died, the troopers said.
>
>
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 17:33:43 -0700
> From: Brick Robbins <brick@ix.netcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bear cans' Volume?
>
> At 04:38 PM 9/2/98Kevin Corcoran <kevin@hughes.net> wrote:
>
> http://www.sierrawilderness.com/store.html#bear
>
> has both bear cans for sale (plastic and metal). No volume stats, but it does have pictures.
>
> - -Brick
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 20:57:02 -0400
> From: Mark Damish <mdamish@bbn.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] bear cans
>
> > How safe are they? The plastic garcia is well tested. bears can't get into
> > them because they can't grip on them. The aluminum cans use the same
> > principal but this is the first year of use.
>
> Hi,
>   I'll spare you the details of how a bear created a pendulum motion
> after 30 minutes of work to foil my counterbalanced soaps and misc stuff,
> but *after* going for the counterbalanced bags, he went for my aluminum
> can, which was sitting on a rock right next to the bag tree.
>
> It spent only about 30-60 seconds with the container between It's paws,
> before leaving the area.  I didn't see that it aggressively tried to
> open it, but none the less the food remained intact, while my container
> of hanging deet was bit through.  I realize that this is a small sample
> size, but ya gotta start somewhere... ...Bears 0, humans 1 with Al containers.
>
> ...Mark
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 18:23:21 -0700
> From: "Tom Reynolds" <Tom.Reynolds@ilan.com>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] bear cans
>
> It's good news that the aluminum canisters survived at least one attack. 2
> pounds is a lot less than 4 pounds. One problem with the aluminum cans,
> however, is their internal bracing system. To pack the sucker tight you
> transfer everything to baggies. As I was packing the Al canister I had
> trouble with the plastic ripping. It took a while to get the hang of the
> proper packing method. After two tries I got up to 20.5 pounds total. I
> suspect 21-22 is possible.
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 00:07:58 -0400
> From: Owen <jrowen@ibm.net>
> Subject: [pct-l] NOT bear cans
>
> I just got this - maybe it'll clear some of the garbage off the list.
>
> Walk softly,
> Jim
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> (From the American Hiking Society Capitol Trails Broadcast)
>
> A new bill in the House of Representatives will make telecommunications
> towers "ubiquitous," including in national parks, forests, and wildlife
> refuges. This bill takes the position that there is nothing more
> important than a good connection on one's cell phone - not even
> preserving the wilderness and natural qualities of our public lands.
> Please contact your House Member and ask him or her to oppose Section
> 715 of Rep. Tauzin's Wireless Communication and Public Safety Act (HR
> 3844).
>
> Under current law - the Telecommunications Act of 1996 -
> telecommunications companies are allowed to site towers in national
> parks and forests. However, they must comply with environmental laws,
> such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and guidelines
> established by the National Park Service, Forest Service, and Bureau of
> Land Management to protect the natural and scenic qualities of the lands
> they manage. This bill would change all of that.
>
> HR 3844 would open up public lands to a grid of telecommunications
> towers, practically eliminating the ability of the Park Service, Forest
> Service or BLM to object. Over the next three years, over 100,000 new
> towers will be erected. When consumers demand better connections and
> more privacy, telecommunications companies must site towers closer
> together - even as close as one mile - to access higher frequencies.
>
> American Hiking Society believes that trails and natural areas can
> co-exist with telecommunications technology. However, we must preserve a
> balance between the needs of business and the lands Americans have
> strived to protect for over a century. Please call or write your
> Congress Member before Labor Day and urge him or her to oppose Section
> 715 of HR 3844.
>
> If you haven't written a letter to your Congressman about the Cell Phone
> Tower issue, here's an easy way to do it - visit this site:
>
> http://www.house.gov/writerep/
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 23:55:41 -0400
> From: Owen <jrowen@ibm.net>
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] bear manners
>
> Tom Reynolds wrote:
> >
> > Why do I need to hike 2600 miles to understand what an extra 3 pounds
> > means? Seriously, this is an insulting statement. Anyone who hikes 8-10 or
> > more days without resupply knows the pain of each extra pound once you're
> > at the limit.
>
> Tom -
> We're both engineers, we're both hikers.  Does that mean we both know
> the same things?  Of course not. I don't know what kind of engineering
> you do, but how much do you know about spacecraft operations
> engineering?  That's probably about how much I know about what you do as
> an engineer. So we don't even have the same knowledge about the
> engineering side of our lives.
>
> We both know about weekend and "vacation" hiking because we've both done
> it, although I haven't been in the Sierras - and you haven't been where
> I've been. I also know about thruhiking because I've done it.  How much
> thruhiking have you done?  We both know the answer to that - and I'd
> like to know why you expect your past experience to give you that
> knowledge. You know better than that.
>
> There's nothing insulting at all about what I said - it's nothing but
> common sense.
>
> > The PCT is a series of 8-10 day hikes between resupplies. True, as your fat
> > goes away the need for calories increases but then you carrying ability
> > will typically increase correspondingly.
>
> That's where you lost it - one 8-10 day hike is one thing. The second,
> third and fourth 8-10 day hikes are a transition region.  By the fifth
> 8-10 day hike you're in a totally different world, my friend.  And
> you've never been there.
> You've oversimplified the process because you have no idea whatever
> about the personal, emotional, spiritual - or physical effects of your
> multiple 8-10 day hikes.  If you want to know -- then go find out.  Do
> it - with or without the bear can.
>
> > That said, the current, non-Garcia, Bear Can weighs 2# 3 oz. Properly
> > loaded it weighs 20.5 pounds. That's 18 pounds of food or 10-12 days for
> > the average backpacker.
> >
> >  I have a real problem understanding why you don't agree that this the
> > absolutely best solution today to keeping food from bears!
>
> C'mon Tom - you're an engineer. You deal with facts. First, you're
> talking about thruhikers - and so far I haven't seen a single thruhiker
> pipe up and admit to having lost their food to a bear.  Where are they?
> If there are any out there, how about letting us know. What I'm seeing
> here - at least as far as the thruhiking community - is a solution
> looking for a problem. Is there a problem?  Absolutely - among the
> weekenders and the section hikers and those who basecamp.  But I'm
> talking about thruhikers - ONLY. And up to this point, I've seen NO
> indication of a thruhiker/bear problem except what's been foisted on
> them by Brick's (or was that Birgitte's) idiot faction.
>
> Secondly, you're talking about weight.  2# you say. What's Jardine's
> base pack weight? 12# maybe? Possibly less.  Wolf's pack is 9# base
> weight.  Mine is about 25 - and much too heavy.  And ALL of us have
> worked very hard to get that weight down.  And now you want us to
> arbitrarily add 2+#. You REALLY don't understand, do you?  And that's
> the answer to your first question.
>
> I'm not attacking you here, Tom - all I want is for you to realize that
> your experience doesn't cover all the bases. Nor does mine - but I'm
> working on that.  Are you?  Before you start telling thruhikers what
> they should be carrying, you need to learn a few things. I'll repeat
> what I just told someone else in a private post - there's an old maxim
> that says - "Nothing's impossible for someone who doesn't have to do
> it."
>
> > Even if you can expertly hang food every time and are willing to take the
> > energy to do so, I'd question why you'd want to. Hanging food is a pain,
> > almost as bad as camping near a bear box.
>
> I've never found that to be so.  Hanging food is just part of the
> experience
> and I've never had a problem with it.
>
> > For 2 pounds you can camp where and when you want without hassel.
>
> I do that now.  I will do that next year - and I'll do it again when I
> get to the PCT.
>
> > Instead of walking 16 miles a day for 10
> > days, walk 18 miles for 9 days. You can save an extra two pounds of food
> > for the last day and easily walk the extra two miles per day in the time it
> > takes to hang your food! You can pick up the canister at Kennedy Meadows,
> > refill it at Mammoth and dump it at Kennedy Meadows north of Yosemite.
> > Whats the big deal?
>
> 300+ miles and 40,000 vertical feet of climbing with an extra 2+#. But
> by your math I can save the same 2# of food, plus the 2+# of bear can
> and walk 20 miles. :-)
>
> Now - let's get back to the basic question again -- where are the
> thruhikers who have lost their food to the bears?  If there are none,
> then there is no problem in that regard, is there?  And if that's true,
> then why should they carry bear cans?
>
> C'mon guys - I want to hear from you. If I'm wrong, then lets eat the
> crow and get it over with.  :-)
>
> Walk softly,
> Jim
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 10:01:16 -0700
> From: Brick Robbins <brick@ix.netcom.com>
> Subject: [pct-l] Emergency logging without public review  upheld
>
> from http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/thu/index.html
>
> Emergency logging without public review  upheld
>
> By Bob Egelko   ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> September 3, 1998
>
>  SAN FRANCISCO -- Loggers with financial emergencies will be allowed to cut trees for  up to four months, with state approval but without public review, under an appellate  ruling that became final yesterday.
>
> The state Supreme Court denied a hearing sought by Santa Cruz County, which argued  that only fire hazards and other health or safety emergencies should exempt loggers  from having to file formal timber harvest plans for public inspection.
>
> Justices Stanley Mosk and Joyce Kennard voted to review the case, with four votes  needed for review by the seven-member court.
>
> The appellate ruling upholding the exemption, issued in June, now becomes binding on  trial courts statewide.
>
> The regulations were passed by the state Board of Forestry in 1981. They allow a  logger, with state approval, to conduct immediate operations for up to 120 days to avoid  a previously unexpected financial loss. The logger must declare that the operation was  previously unavailable and will be feasible only for a short time.
>
> The logging must follow some environmental standards, keeping heavy equipment off  steep slopes and unstable areas, avoiding protected species and restocking vegetation  disturbed by the operation.
>
> But Santa Cruz County said the exemption has been used increasingly in recent years to  sidestep reviews by the public and local agencies that are supposed to protect the  public interest.
>
> "We're concerned that it is a loophole and that the way it's written it is susceptible to  abuse," county counsel Dwight Herr said after the appellate ruling.
>
> Although state Department of Forestry approval is required for a financial exemption,  the regulations require approval as long as the logger's self-certification of eligibility is  complete, Herr said.
>
> But Christopher Rooney, executive officer of the Board of Forestry, said exemptions are  not common and are not granted for every claim of financial losses.
>
> The case involved a financial exemption granted to Roger A. Burch to build a 1,000-foot  logging road in the Coast Range summit area. Burch applied to the state at the end of  September 1995, saying his contractual right to build the road would end five weeks  later and he could not complete a timber harvest plan by then.
>
> He got state authorization the same day, built the road in two weeks and later submitted  and won approval for a logging plan.
>
> Santa Cruz County sued in August 1996, saying Burch's emergency was self-created by  the contract he had negotiated and did not justify an exemption.
>
> The county did not challenge Burch's road, which was already built, but contended that  the exemption for financial emergencies was unauthorized by state law.
>
> San Francisco Superior Court Judge William Cahill disagreed and was upheld by the 1st  District Court of Appeal.
>
> The court noted that the 1973 law that requires timber harvest plans for logging  operations contains an exemption for emergencies. Emergencies are to be "defined by  the Board (of Forestry) and may include, but are not limited to," the need to remove  dead, damaged or infected timber, the law states.
>
> That language is "the broadest possible grant of legitimate powers to an administrative  agency" and was intended to let the board define the scope of emergencies that would  bypass normal review, said Justice Ignacio Ruvolo in the 3-0 ruling.
>
> The case is County of Santa Cruz vs. California State Board of Forestry, S071972.
>
> Copyright 1998 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pct-l-digest V1 #570
> ***************************
>
> * From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *



--
JOSHUA GRINDLE INN
POBox 647
Mendocino, California 95460 USA

http://www.joshgrin.com
1.800 GRINDLE

Distinctive lodging in historic Mendocino village.


* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List |  http://www.backcountry.net   *

==============================================================================