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...<br>
<br>-Taildragger<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 3, 2008 11:33 PM, Carl Siechert <<a href="mailto:carlito@gmail.com">carlito@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>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: <a href="http://dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdffiles/2007HuntingDigest-BigGamePages43-45.pdf" target="_blank">http://dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdffiles/2007HuntingDigest-BigGamePages43-45.pdf</a>, 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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">
<div> </div>
<div><br> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 2, 2008 10:04 PM, Craig Stanton <<a href="mailto:craigstanton@mac.com" target="_blank">craigstanton@mac.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Whoa, whoa, whoa,<br><br> Who said there were too many bears? Who said they aren't<br>
sustainable on the available (natural) resources? Aren't they just<br>
curious about the smells we give off and then find we've got better<br>snacks they they do? I for one do not advocate a bear cull to make it<br>easier for hikers to go through the sierras. Carry a canister, take<br>no food, sleep at bear-boxes, I don't mind. But please don't shoot<br>
the bears so we can encroach on them more.<br><font color="#888888"><br>~Craig<br></font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div><br><br><br>On 3/02/2008, at 6:52 PM, Bob Bankhead wrote:<br><br>> The problem - in one man's opinion - is one of too many bears in<br>> too small an area. The natural food supply therein is insufficient<br>
> to feed them all.<br>><br>> Whenever there are not enough resources (in this case, food) to<br>> support an established population, that population must either find<br>> a new food source in the area (in this case, people food), relocate<br>
> to another area that has the needed resources, or die off until it<br>> reaches a level that can be sustained by the available resource<br>> supply. That's nature's way and it has worked since life began.<br>
> When man tries to fool around with that natural balance, all he<br>> does is cause trouble.<br>><br>> So, I'll take the politically incorrect (but ecologically sound)<br>> position: immediately start a massive reduction (kill or relocate)<br>
> of the Black Bear population in the Sierras. Reduce that population<br>> to the level that their natural habitat can actually support (aka<br>> "the wild state") without the dependence on people food. Add an<br>
> economic benefit by opening the hunting season and let license fees<br>> help fund the reduction. Other state and federal land managers<br>> routinely selectively cull wildlife populations to prevent mass<br>> starvation, and adjust the lengths of hunting and fishing seasons<br>
> or the number of animals allowed to be taken when needed to<br>> maintain a healthy population level.<br>><br>> THEN you can really regulate, enforce, and penalize people who do<br>> not properly store or handle food in the area. No free passes. No<br>
> tiny slap-on-the-wrist type fines. Make it hurt. This will help to<br>> "motivate" compliance.<br>><br>> Now I seriously doubt that any bureaucrat or politician is going to<br>> risk ending their career by defying the animal rights activists and<br>
> outraging the public by suggesting, let alone actually doing, such<br>> a thing in the Sierras. It is far easier to control, regulate, and<br>> fine the people than to actually control the bears.<br>><br>> End rant.<br>
><br>><br>> Wandering Bob<br>><br></div></div>
<div>
<div></div>
<div>> _______________________________________________<br>> Pct-l mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:Pct-l@backcountry.net" target="_blank">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>_______________________________________________<br>Pct-l mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pct-l@backcountry.net" target="_blank">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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div><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></blockquote></div><br>