Do I really need a bear canister in RMNP?

ABB,
Thanks for the good info and insight.

ABB wrote:Rangers are not going to humor anyone with silly search, hide 'n seek games. Produce a bear-proof container on demand, if required by permit, or get an escort to the trailhead and, likely, a citation. Same with the bivy permit; produce or walk out.

Does the 4th amendment not apply in National Parks?

Brad6260.......sorry, I wasn't making an attempt to be a jerk. The function of the bear can is to stop the bears from gaining access to food packed in by climbers and hikers. Unfortunately, the cans are large, bulky, and inconvenient, but help save the lives of bears, by reducing their reliance on human food (negligence). My point was NOT to be a prick, but to impress upon you the need to not try to avoid the bear can, because you think you don't need it, and think UNSELFISHLY about saving some bears.

Benjamin Chapman wrote:Brad6260.......sorry, I wasn't making an attempt to be a jerk. The function of the bear can is to stop the bears from gaining access to food packed in by climbers and hikers. Unfortunately, the cans are large, bulky, and inconvenient, but help save the lives of bears, by reducing their reliance on human food (negligence). My point was NOT to be a prick, but to impress upon you the need to not try to avoid the bear can, because you think you don't need it, and think UNSELFISHLY about saving some bears.

The point is he is camping well above treeline, in the Boulderfield. There are no bears there. So you're attempted self-righteousness is irrelevant.

Many years ago, there were critter-proof canisters at the Boulderfield site - old ammo cans IIRC. Are they not there anymore? That would be the best solution for everyone - NPS puts animal proof containers at each site. Greater compliance, tons of bang for the buck and doesn't inconvenience backpackers/climbers (and hence greater compliance as noted). Oh, right, it would spoil the wilderness experience.

What self-righteousness? Get over YOURSELF and consider that bears are bright, intelligent, resourceful creatures and the NPS doesn't require a bear can, above tree line or not, so that they can issue citations. Just follow the regulations, FOR THE BEARS SAKE!! It's not about you Brad or SDY.

SDY wrote: The point is he is camping well above treeline, in the Boulderfield. There are no bears there. So you're attempted self-righteousness is irrelevant.

Now I'm not perfectly knowledgeable about black bears in RMNP, but I know that some bears in some parts of the US travel above treeline (to boulder fields) in order to forage for moth larvae. While foraging for moths, the bears would likely lick up any crumbs that they find under the bivy sites (which would simultaneously reek of humans and risk making a fatal association in the bear's mind). Even if said climber is camping higher than any bear has ever been seen, why should we be jerks and demand RMNP micromanage for our needs, saying we can forego the bear canister requirement if you camp in places A, C, and F, in order to make life mildly easier for climbers who can deal with the minor inconvenience of carrying a bucket? That is terrible PR for climbers.

Alex....very salient points and well stated.

Benjamin Chapman wrote: the NPS doesn't require a bear can, above tree line or not, so that they can issue citations. Just follow the regulations

What? I feel like there are a lot of contradictions there.

I think that you may have misread something earlier. The NPS requires bear canisters below tree line, not above.

Alex Washburne wrote: why should we be jerks and demand RMNP micromanage for our needs, saying we can forego the bear canister requirement if you camp in places A, C, and F, in order to make life mildly easier for climbers who can deal with the minor inconvenience of carrying a bucket? That is terrible PR for climbers.

Micromanage to our needs? You mean require bear canisters where they are needed? How is that micro-managing? Its adding a few sentences to the regs! Seems logical to require something where it is needed, not a blanket requirement for areas it is frivolous.

Very good comments about the bear canisters being used to keep the bears from becoming dependent on humans for food. If bears in RMNP learn that humans equal food, they will be relocated or more likely killed. Remember: "a fed bear is a dead bear". Also, the bears are just now waking up and have a serious case of the munchies. Because of the late spring snowstorms, there isn't much for the bears to eat yet, so they will be checking everywhere for food including campsites. This is especially true of females with cubs.

Concerning the ammo cans at the Boulder Field: we had to remove them because people were using them as trash cans or leaving the lids open so that they could fill with water and become rusty inside. Basically, they were getting so nasty that no body would want to put their food in them. The marmots up there would not hesitate to chew a hole in your tent if they thought that there was food inside. A bear/marmot canister left outside your tent is a good idea while you are climbing the mountain.

SDY wrote: Micromanage to our needs? You mean require bear canisters where they are needed? How is that micro-managing? Its adding a few sentences to the regs! Seems logical to require something where it is needed, not a blanket requirement for areas it is frivolous.

The rangers at RMNP have a lot of other shit to deal with besides such a ridiculously frivolous issue of one climber being too big of a wuss to carry a tiny bucket before climbing a big wall. If you, SDY, have such a big (self-righteous) issue with bear canisters, then you should seek out the appropriate venues for changing the regulations in the park (which usually involves abandoning the cowardly cloak of anonymity). Until then, I emphatically encourage you and others to respect the incredible job that the rangers are doing at protecting this precious national resource with an extremely limited budget, going to great lengths to allow backcountry permits specifically for climbers who want to take on the beautiful alpine walls in RMNP (not to mention assisting with rescues should someone get hurt). Because you know what's a lot easier and a lot lower-budget? Closing regions of the park to bivy's or climbers in general. And in the spirit of self-government, I can't say I'd vote against such closures if climbers or people at bivy sites consistently showed such callous disregard for the sensible regulations that the park service has put in place in their well-informed effort to protect the natural resource for ALL of its users.

Pick your battles, and pick your battlefields. If this bear canister issue is one of your battles, then fight it by petitioning to RMNP or the National Park Service, not whining on MP.

jmeizis wrote: Does the 4th amendment not apply in National Parks?

4A isn't germane. Know your rights.

Ben,
I do understand where your coming from and support what is best and reasonable for the environment and those in it there.

Alex, you have some good points. And yes we should all love our police force,
err I mean rangers....

But when you experience them going above and beyond what they should,
it does get annoying!

I have been heading into Long's for years. One time while picking up our permit at the Long's station we were instructed that in order to get our permit we needed a bear can for the Mills Glacier bivy site. The rules say otherwise, but when dealing with the man, you just have to listen and accept, because they are "the law!" So he gave us a can to use (how nice of him!)
and we carried it the whole F'n way up and back.

Now with budgets at a shortfall, maybe that ranger could do some productive work,
like sweeping the porch of the station or something! :)

Basically the park service needs to get all the ducks in order!,

ABB wrote: 4A isn't germane. Know your rights.

So when talking about whether a ranger can search your backpack the fourth amendment isn't relevant? I did drop out of law school so I'm not a legal genius or anything but is the fourth amendment not the only amendment that covers whether someone's backpack can be searched by an agent of the law?

Demanding you show proof of a bear canister before ticketing you or booting you out of the park is no different from demanding you show proof of a parking pass before ticketing you or towing your car. You can't hide your parking pass in the glove compartment and demand the officer have reasonable suspicion or probable cause - the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your compliance with the rules and regulations. That doesn't mean the ranger can forcibly enter your pack(any ranger doing so may be overstepping their authority) but it does mean they can ticket you and take other measures to get you out of the park (I'm not sure the full jurisdiction of park rangers, but certainly a police officer could 'escort' you off the premises). Where exactly this falls in constitutional law, I'm not sure (may also have an interstate commerce aspect as the parking pass analogy suggests), but where it falls under the law of common sense is perfectly clear to me.

All this said, I'm not a rubber-stamped fan of "police states" or "the man" or any of that, but I do believe that in this particular case the park service is doing the right thing and a rubber-stamped "f*** the Man" attitude is not warranted in response to the NPS' attempt to safeguard our precious wild places.

Benjamin Chapman wrote:What self-righteousness? Get over YOURSELF and consider that bears are bright, intelligent, resourceful creatures and the NPS doesn't require a bear can, above tree line or not, so that they can issue citations. Just follow the regulations, FOR THE BEARS SAKE!! It's not about you Brad or SDY.

You should also think of the CHILDREN!!!

Ben, you're missing the point about the rule regarding below tree line and perhaps a lot of points. Bear canisters only work for storage of food, you don't cook in them and you don't eat in them the people food association can be made many ways.

Brad, your permit requires it, bring it.

Copied straight from the NPS website:
________________________________________________________________________________________
Bear canisters are required at all backcountry campsites below treeline. These are the carry-in/carry-out style. Bear canisters are available for rent or for purchase at many sporting goods shops including shops in Estes Park and Grand Lake. There are also sources available on the internet.
________________________________________________________________________________________

Can anyone show me where the trees are in the Boulder field camping area, or near it?

Why use a canister when you can do an electric fence?
electrobearguard.com/Kit_Co…

What is the hassle in carrying a bear canister? They are light, fit more or less conveniently into packs (at least my Osprey Argon) and besides keeping food safe from bears, they also protect against the far more likely event of small critters or marmots getting into your food.

As your can empties from eating the food, you can use the space for other gear so you aren't wasting the "dead space".