<div>Kinda like Welfare for hikers and bears ???</div>
<div> </div>
<div>PCT MOM<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 2, 2008 10:01 AM, Donna Saufley <<a href="mailto:dsaufley@sprynet.com">dsaufley@sprynet.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Great post -- very interesting thoughts.<br><br>I would answer your question that yes, feeding the bears and placing caches
<br>are similar in that they create dependent behavior. In all fairness, so does<br>providing a hiker hostel. However, the similarities are limited. Feeding<br>bears and leaving caches both defy LNT principles, and are both impacting
<br>our environment. It's the ultimate consequences for each action that<br>differ.<br><br>The bear becomes habituated to people which often results in emboldened or<br>aggressive behavior, putting people at risk and ultimately leading to the
<br>killing of the bear.<br><br>The consequence of water caches has led to lower attrition rates on<br>thru-hike attempts, thus higher numbers of hikers on trail (exceeding the<br>trail's capacity), hiker-generated trash and debris permeating the
<br>environment in places, and a pile of stuff that some view as a welcome and<br>appreciated resource, and others see as a blight on the environment that<br>doesn't belong.<br><br>L-Rod<br><br>-----Original Message-----
<br>From: <a href="mailto:pct-l-bounces@backcountry.net">pct-l-bounces@backcountry.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:pct-l-bounces@backcountry.net">pct-l-bounces@backcountry.net</a>]<br>On Behalf Of David Hough on pct-l<br>
Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2008 7:59 PM<br>To: <a href="mailto:pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net">pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net</a><br>Subject: [pct-l] water caches and bear feedings and related musings<br><br>Why not combine two topics... a recent post clarified
<br>for me the question: what's the difference between<br>feeding the bears and providing water caches for<br>hikers?<br><br>Don't both lead to dependent behavior?<br><br>I don't have a definite opinion on this. As a
<br>section<br>hiker I have both used and resupplied water caches,<br>perhaps in roughly equal amounts (although not in the<br>same place in the same year). Never out of<br>necessity<br>as much as out of convenience.<br>
<br>There are all kinds of compromises made for<br>convenience.<br>A physical trail, for one, instead of a cross-country<br>route or a road. Routing the trail by water sources<br>instead of closer to the real crest.<br>
Drivers stopping to offer hikers<br>a lift to and from town to resupply.<br><br>Finishing the trail<br>in one season would certainly be a more exclusive<br>accomplishment if none of that happened, but is that<br>really the goal? After all the successful through
<br>hikers<br>are a negligible drop in the statistical bucket<br>of all national scenic trail users. The political<br>clout that made the national scenic trail system<br>happen and keeps it alive is from a vastly larger
<br>population of users and supporters.<br><br><br>Of course, anybody is free to decline to use caches<br>and decline to hitch to town and decline to follow<br>the constructed trail, especially away from the crest.<br>Almost all the caches are close to roads for very good
<br>reasons as anybody who carries much water realizes.<br>Thus they are seldom found in statutory wilderness.<br>A bunch of bottles rattling in the wind doesn't bother<br>me if they are tied together and near a road.
<br><br>What I find far more disturbing in populated areas<br>is too many trails and roads and too few signs that<br>survive vandalism of various sorts.<br>That's a far greater inconvenience.<br><br>But there are even those who feel that trail signs
<br>do not belong in wilderness. My understanding<br>(SoCal hikers of that era might correct me) is that<br>there were<br>no backcountry trail signs in San Jacinto STATE<br>wilderness during the 1970's. But eventually
<br>somebody decided the SAR activity did more harm than<br>the signs, especially since the tramway enabled<br>anybody to get high enough to get lost or have a heart<br>attack.<br><br>My conclusion is that although Federal and State law
<br>partially define what wilderness is, the definition is<br>much more in the mind and attitude of the wilderness<br>user.<br><br>The Feds say no motorized vehicles in wilderness.<br>They don't say that you have to go barefoot or
<br>make footwear from native materials using native<br>tools.<br>Nor do they say you can't, although there are<br>restrictions on gathering native tools and materials<br>in National Parks.<br><br>(I recall signs - possibly in Colorado -
<br>encouraging hikers to avoid lug soles to reduce<br>trail impact and to walk in wet ruts rather than<br>widen trails by walking on the sides of the ruts.<br>So far these are just suggestions. But look how<br>suggestion has evolved into statute at Mt Whitney,
<br>creating lots of extra incentives to become fit<br>enough to do Whitney as a dayhike. Good thing or bad?)<br>_______________________________________________<br>Pct-l mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Pct-l@backcountry.net">
Pct-l@backcountry.net</a><br>To unsubscribe or change list options (digest, etc):<br><a href="http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l" target="_blank">http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l</a>
<br><br>No virus found in this incoming message.<br>Checked by AVG Free Edition.<br>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008<br>11:29 AM<br><br><br>No virus found in this outgoing message.
<br>Checked by AVG Free Edition.<br>Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1207 - Release Date: 1/2/2008<br>11:29 AM<br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Pct-l mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Pct-l@backcountry.net">
Pct-l@backcountry.net</a><br>To unsubscribe or change list options (digest, etc):<br><a href="http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l" target="_blank">http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l</a>
<br></blockquote></div><br>