[pct-l] Bear Canister "required" areas on PCT in the Sierra...

Mon Feb 4 16:38:07 CST 2008

I would only qualify this to say that Sierra black bears do not want to eat
hikers.  The same does not apply to brown bears and Grizlies, for which
humans may very well be on the menu.  

L-Rod

   _____  

From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
On Behalf Of Steel-Eye
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 6:45 AM
To: Joel Ramey
Cc: PCT-L MailingList
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bear Canister "required" areas on PCT in the Sierra...

Good morning, Taildragger,

Bears are opportunist who will take the most and easiest food that’s
available, however that does not include sacks of pink, fleshy, protein with
no horns or claws.  Bears don’t want hikers; bears want hiker’s food.  The
only significant risk to a hiker is if he/she tries to take a food sack back
from the bear.  While the hiker has possession of the food, a bear will not
aggressively try to take it away, but once the bear gets its paws on it ….
literally and figuratively …. the food immediately becomes “his” and he will
probably actively defend it.  Some of the reports of “bear attack” resulted
from unwise attempts to chase down a bear and take back a food sack.

Steel-Eye

^^^^^^^^^^  Serious hikers gather at:  HYPERLINK
"http://www.aldhawest.org/"http://www.aldhawest.org/  ^^^^^^^^^^

----- Original Message ----- 

From: HYPERLINK "mailto:joel.ramey at gmail.com"Joel Ramey 

To: HYPERLINK "mailto:carlito at gmail.com"Carl Siechert 

Cc: HYPERLINK "mailto:Pct-l at backcountry.net"PCT-L MailingList 

Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 6:11 AM

Subject: Re: [pct-l] Bear Canister "required" areas on PCT in the Sierra...

I think an issue with bears nabbing food would come more from them needing
the calories in early summer. A hiker carrying 10 lbs of high calorie food
must really look like an easy meal for a bear. After all, we're just a pink
fleshy sack of protein with no horns or claws to defend ourselves...

-Taildragger

On Feb 3, 2008 11:33 PM, Carl Siechert <HYPERLINK
"mailto:carlito at gmail.com"carlito at gmail.com> wrote:

I have no idea whether there are more bears than the land can support.
However, the fact is that about 1800 per year are already being culled.
Check this link: HYPERLINK
"http://dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdffiles/2007HuntingDigest-BigGamePages43-45.pd
f"
\nhttp://dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdffiles/2007HuntingDigest-BigGamePages43-45.p
df, which leads to a PDF from the California Department of Fish and Game.
(The first page of the PDF is about wild pigs; scroll down to the second and
third pages for bear info.) Although bears are hunted throughout California,
the stats indicate that most are in northern California rather than the
Sierra Nevada. Warning for those with a weak stomach: these pages include a
few pictures of dead bears.

Btw, Wandering Bob usually makes lots of sense, but I had to scratch my head
about his suggestion that the way to solve the problem of "man [trying] to
fool around with that natural balance" is for man to fool around even more
by "immediately start[ing] a massive reduction" of the bear population. 

On Feb 2, 2008 10:04 PM, Craig Stanton <HYPERLINK
"mailto:craigstanton at mac.com" \ncraigstanton at mac.com> wrote:

Whoa, whoa, whoa,

               Who said there were too many bears? Who said they aren't
sustainable on the available (natural) resources? Aren't they just
curious about the smells we give off and then find we've got better
snacks they they do? I for one do not advocate a bear cull to make it
easier for hikers to go through the sierras. Carry a canister, take
no food, sleep at bear-boxes, I don't mind. But please don't shoot
the bears so we can encroach on them more.

~Craig

On 3/02/2008, at 6:52 PM, Bob Bankhead wrote:

> The problem - in one man's opinion - is one of too many bears in
> too small an area. The natural food supply therein is insufficient
> to feed them all.
>
> Whenever there are not enough resources (in this case, food) to
> support an established population, that population must either find
> a new food source in the area (in this case, people food), relocate
> to another area that has the needed resources, or die off until it
> reaches a level that can be sustained by the available resource
> supply. That's nature's way and it has worked since life began.
> When man tries to fool around with that natural balance, all he
> does is cause trouble.
>
> So, I'll take the politically incorrect (but ecologically sound)
> position: immediately start a massive reduction (kill or relocate)
> of the Black Bear population in the Sierras. Reduce that population
> to the level that their natural habitat can actually support (aka
> "the wild state") without the dependence on people food. Add an
> economic benefit by opening the hunting season and let license fees
> help fund the reduction. Other state and federal land managers
> routinely selectively cull wildlife populations to prevent mass
> starvation, and adjust the lengths of hunting and fishing seasons
> or the number of animals allowed to be taken when needed to
> maintain a healthy population level.
>
> THEN you can really regulate, enforce, and penalize people who do
> not properly store or handle food in the area. No free passes. No
> tiny slap-on-the-wrist type fines. Make it hurt. This will help to
> "motivate" compliance.
>
> Now I seriously doubt that any bureaucrat or politician is going to
> risk ending their career by defying the animal rights activists and
> outraging the public by suggesting, let alone actually doing, such
> a thing in the Sierras. It is far easier to control, regulate, and
> fine the people than to actually control the bears.
>
> End rant.
>
>
> Wandering Bob
>

> _______________________________________________
> Pct-l mailing list
> HYPERLINK "mailto:Pct-l at backcountry.net" \nPct-l at backcountry.net
> To unsubscribe or change list options (digest, etc):
> HYPERLINK "http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l"
\nhttp://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l

_______________________________________________
Pct-l mailing list
HYPERLINK "mailto:Pct-l at backcountry.net" \nPct-l at backcountry.net
To unsubscribe or change list options (digest, etc):
HYPERLINK "http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l"
\nhttp://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l

_______________________________________________
Pct-l mailing list
HYPERLINK "mailto:Pct-l at backcountry.net"Pct-l at backcountry.net
To unsubscribe or change list options (digest, etc):
HYPERLINK "http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l"
\nhttp://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l

   _____  

_______________________________________________
Pct-l mailing list
Pct-l at backcountry.net
To unsubscribe or change list options (digest, etc):
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1258 - Release Date: 2/4/2008
10:10 AM

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.19/1258 - Release Date: 2/4/2008
10:10 AM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/attachments/20080204/6a38b7b8/attachment.html 