[pct-l] Why remove Bear Lockers

[kmurray at pol.net]

Hey, I was asked for the reasoning, I answered.  It is not MY reasoning.

I don't neccessarily disagree with you, and I suppose that it comes down
to a variety of interpretations of the act.

I know, for example, with respect to trails, that one of the reasons to
maintain trails well, is that it has a very significant effect on silt in
streams, which causes stream degradation, and if a trail is not well
maintained, people/stock tend to go off of it, causing massively greater
resource damage, especially in meadows.  So in that case, I guess it is a
decision being made about what impacts the resource LESS, and causes the
impact of humans to be minimized?

This would certainly not be the case with bear lockers, where no resource
damage would likely be caused by their removal and unavailability, that I
can think of.

However, I've no insight or contacts with respect to the actual decision,
so I'm only guessing, based upon my discussions with other land managers,
and how they address such issues.

>
> On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:09 PM, kmurray at pol.net wrote:
>> I can't really imagine sitting at a campsite with a bear box, and
>> honestly
>> thinking that it met that definition.  I'm not sure who you would
>> call in
>> the gov't who you could convince to ignore the law.
>
> Using that same line of reasoning you would also have to conclude   that
> there should be no trails in Wilderness areas either. In fact,   trails
> would seem to be much more of a blight on the wilderness than   a steel
> box according to the text you quoted.
>
> Radar