[pct-l] water caches and bear feedings and related musings

[Donna Saufley]

Great post -- very interesting thoughts.  

I would answer your question that yes, feeding the bears and placing caches
are similar in that they create dependent behavior. In all fairness, so does
providing a hiker hostel.  However, the similarities are limited. Feeding
bears and leaving caches both defy LNT principles, and are both impacting
our environment.  It's the ultimate consequences for each action that
differ. 

The bear becomes habituated to people which often results in emboldened or
aggressive behavior, putting people at risk and ultimately leading to the
killing of the bear.  

The consequence of water caches has led to lower attrition rates on
thru-hike attempts, thus higher numbers of hikers on trail (exceeding the
trail's capacity), hiker-generated trash and debris permeating the
environment in places, and a pile of stuff that some view as a welcome and
appreciated resource, and others see as a blight on the environment that
doesn't belong.

L-Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
On Behalf Of David Hough on pct-l
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 7:59 PM
To: pct-l at mailman.backcountry.net
Subject: [pct-l] water caches and bear feedings and related musings

Why not combine two topics... a recent post clarified 
for me the question:   what's the difference between
feeding the bears and providing water caches for
hikers?

Don't both lead to dependent behavior?

I don't have a definite opinion on this.    As a
section
hiker I have both used and resupplied water caches,
perhaps in roughly equal amounts (although not in the
same place in the same year).     Never out of
necessity
as much as out of convenience.

There are all kinds of compromises made for
convenience.
A physical trail, for one, instead of a cross-country
route or a road.    Routing the trail by water sources
instead of closer to the real crest.
Drivers stopping to offer hikers
a lift to and from town to resupply.     

Finishing the trail
in one season would certainly be a more exclusive
accomplishment if none of that happened, but is that
really the goal?     After all the successful through
hikers 
are a negligible drop in the statistical bucket
of all national scenic trail users.      The political
clout that made the national scenic trail system 
happen and keeps it alive is from a vastly larger
population of users and supporters.


Of course, anybody is free to decline to use caches
and decline to hitch to town and decline to follow
the constructed trail, especially away from the crest.
Almost all the caches are close to roads for very good
reasons as anybody who carries much water realizes.
Thus they are seldom found in statutory wilderness.
A bunch of bottles rattling in the wind doesn't bother
me if they are tied together and near a road.

What I find far more disturbing in populated areas
is too many trails and roads and too few signs that
survive vandalism of various sorts.
That's a far greater inconvenience.

But there are even those who feel that trail signs
do not belong in wilderness.     My understanding
(SoCal hikers of that era might correct me) is that
there were
no backcountry trail signs in San Jacinto STATE
wilderness during the 1970's.     But eventually 
somebody decided the SAR activity did more harm than
the signs, especially since the tramway enabled
anybody to get high enough to get lost or have a heart
attack.

My conclusion is that although Federal and State law
partially define what wilderness is, the definition is
much more in the mind and attitude of the wilderness
user.

The Feds say no motorized vehicles in wilderness.
They don't say that you have to go barefoot or
make footwear from native materials using native
tools.
Nor do they say you can't, although there are 
restrictions on gathering native tools and materials
in  National Parks.

(I recall signs - possibly in Colorado -
encouraging hikers to avoid lug soles to reduce
trail impact and to walk in wet ruts rather than
widen trails by walking on the sides of the ruts.
So far these are just suggestions.     But look how
suggestion has evolved into statute at Mt Whitney,
creating lots of extra incentives to become fit 
enough to do Whitney as a dayhike.   Good thing or bad?)
_______________________________________________
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: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008
11:29 AM
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008
11:29 AM