Adirondack Forum

Adirondack Forum (http://www.adkforum.com/index.php)
-   Northville Placid Trail (http://www.adkforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=72)
-   -   bear canisters on the NPT (http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=27270)

snapper 09-04-2019 02:50 PM

bear canisters on the NPT
 
Hey Folks - I'm not always the brightest bulb on the porch but I do try to pay attention to changes in rules and regulations as they pertain to NYS lands. In a recent YouTube video the person making it said that as of 2020 bear canisters would be required over the entire length of the NPT. My first reaction was when did this happen? My next question was is this correct? So if anyone out there has the answer, I'd appreciate hearing about it. No sense in not playing by the rules on future trips if a canister is going to be required.

And hey, if nothing else, I can actually put something down on my Christmas list when my kids ask me what I want this year :D

That's all for now. Take care and until next time...be well.

snapper

dundee 09-04-2019 03:02 PM

No, not the entire length, but in the Western High Peaks (the Cold River section.)

snapper 09-05-2019 11:36 AM

Dundee - Thanks for that. I knew about the change coming to the High Peaks and forgot that stretch along Long Lake up to the northern terminus was in that range so it looks like it's time to retire the Ursack and get a canister.

As for the YouTube "personality," this is why I always take the information gained from those videos with a bit of suspicion. Hey, just because some person says it, doesn't make it true.

That's all for now. Take care and until next time...be well.

snapper

dundee 09-05-2019 05:11 PM

personally, I don't like the can law for the WHP. It's not necessary and I've written a letter. I invite you to do the same , if you're interested.

ILikeRocks 09-05-2019 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dundee (Post 277783)
personally, I don't like the can law for the WHP. It's not necessary and I've written a letter. I invite you to do the same , if you're interested.

I agree, I think Iíll do the same, not sure what good it will do it canít hurt.

dundee 09-05-2019 06:51 PM

Maybe if enough people write....

There are places that see very little traffic and will never have a bear problem, Number Four LTs, the Cold River horse trail and most if not all of the NP.

Justin 09-05-2019 09:04 PM

I could be wrong but I’m thinking it’ll probably be one of those new DEC regulations that exist on paper but is not necessarily strictly enforced, and is mostly on the discretion of the Ranger in charge. In other words, if you’re careful & responsible with your food & keep a clean camp along the NPT portion of the WHP region then you’ll probably be ok. If you’re not & give DEC a hard time about it when confronted then...when it becomes a problem it will be a problem that needs to be enforced more.

Terasec 09-06-2019 12:01 PM

haven't seen such reg for 2020, not even in public comment stage
will only go by current regs
NYSDEC requires the use of Bear Resistant Canisters, as defined in regulation, by overnight users in the Eastern High Peaks Wilderness between April 1 And November 30.
NYSDEC encourages campers to use bear resistant canisters throughout the Adirondack and Catskill backcountry.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7225.html

DuctTape 09-06-2019 12:45 PM

https://www.adk.org/changes-to-high-...oming-in-2020/



UMP Amendment pdf to download:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...AO3wqVMbeFGs7j

Terasec 09-09-2019 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DuctTape (Post 277802)

see change they are implementing is as follows

 Bear canister regulation o Adjust dates of requiring a bear canister to the beginning of May till the end of October
o Add that bear canisters used by the public must be from a Department- approved list, which will be updated annually on our website.
o Change bear canisters required in Central High Peaks Zone and Outer High Peaks Zone

DSettahr 09-11-2019 03:50 PM

Yeah, the planned changes are due out sometime next year. The public comment period for the changes was the same as the public comment period (last year) for the High Peaks UMP Amendment- the regulatory changes were proposed as part of that amendment.

As pointed out the changes are two fold:
  • Instead of going with a general definition of what constitutes a "bear canister," the new regs will refer to a list promulgated by the department of approved brands and models. I.e., the BearVault brand canisters will no longer be legal to use.
  • The bear canister requirement will be expanded to the Outer High Peaks- which comprises the former Dix Mountain Wilderness as well as the former Western High Peaks.
Of note is that (under the proposed regulation) the bear canister requirement will not be expanded to cover the Adirondack Canoe Route- which includes the NPT lean-tos and tent sites on the shore of Long Lake. In other words, NPT thru-hikers (at least northbound ones) won't legally need to fit everything into their bear canisters until they leave Plumleys and arrive at the Cold River at Shattuck Clearing. This does give some "wiggle room" in regards to canister usage as for most thru-hikers, only 2-3 nights worth of food (at most) will need to fit in the canister.

dundee 10-01-2019 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DSettahr (Post 277906)

Of note is that (under the proposed regulation) the bear canister requirement will not be expanded to cover the Adirondack Canoe Route- which includes the NPT lean-tos and tent sites on the shore of Long Lake. In other words, NPT thru-hikers (at least northbound ones) won't legally need to fit everything into their bear canisters until they leave Plumleys and arrive at the Cold River at Shattuck

This is incredibly stupid! If there is going to be a bear problem in the WHP it will be at one of the Long Lake lean-to, not at Ouluska Pass or Cold River 1&2. And virtually no one goes to the LTs on the horse trail. Is anyone at DEC thinking?

DuctTape 10-01-2019 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dundee (Post 278373)
This is incredibly stupid! If there is going to be a bear problem in the WHP it will be at one of the Long Lake lean-to, not at Ouluska Pass or Cold River 1&2. And virtually no one goes to the LTs on the horse trail. Is anyone at DEC thinking?

Yeah. Especially considering their stated rationale for expansion is to eliminate exclusions and complexities so that user groups know where they are required, as in "the entire zone". Yet the canoe route exclusion still exists and is more difficult for the average user to determine. And if not, then an NPT corridor of 500' from the trail is also easily understood.

TCD 10-01-2019 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dundee (Post 278373)
This is incredibly stupid! If there is going to be a bear problem in the WHP it will be at one of the Long Lake lean-to, not at Ouluska Pass or Cold River 1&2. And virtually no one goes to the LTs on the horse trail. Is anyone at DEC thinking?

"Is anyone at DEC thinking?" Simple answer: No.

They are scrambling with inadequate resources to follow orders from above. I know from conversations that these orders are not allowed to be questioned. So wherever in the higher bureaucracy that these orders are coming from, you've got people that don't know sh** and never set foot in the woods passing dictates that the poor bastards at the work level have to try to follow and promulgate.

I took my dog up Dix mountain the other day. Nice hike. Took an hour to find the "dog rules" for Dix on the messed up DEC site. all sorts of obsolete pages that contradicted each other. No time to fix it - busy spraying out new rules.

supertaco 10-02-2019 02:04 PM

Funny sidebar, I purchased the smaller BC450 canister because of this thread mainly for weekend overnight hikes with my wife :) I think my wife thinks using a canister will absolutely keep bears away! Let's keep that going.

Terasec 10-03-2019 10:03 AM

 A designated primitive campsite is one identified by a DEC permissive sign or disk and campers may not camp in excess of 15 feet from such signs or disks. To define proper camp locations, disperse use and limit adverse impacts to resources and other campers, a regulation will be adopted to prohibit camping further than 15 feet from a camping disk throughout the HPWC.
---------------------
no more primitive camping as I know it
expect this to eventually go beyond high peaks region
as other states have been doing

DSettahr 10-03-2019 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terasec (Post 278426)
 A designated primitive campsite is one identified by a DEC permissive sign or disk and campers may not camp in excess of 15 feet from such signs or disks. To define proper camp locations, disperse use and limit adverse impacts to resources and other campers, a regulation will be adopted to prohibit camping further than 15 feet from a camping disk throughout the HPWC.
---------------------
no more primitive camping as I know it
expect this to eventually go beyond high peaks region
as other states have been doing

I believe (not 100% sure on this) that the sentence stating that camping will be permitted at designated sites only across the entire High Peaks Wilderness Complex is a typo. Rather, the new regulation will apply to the Central High Peaks (the former Eastern High Peaks) and the Canoe Route only.

What other states used to allow dispersed camping that have recently restricted it to designated sites only? I'm not aware of any off the top of my head.

EDIT: The UMP amendment says different things depending on where you look. One section says camping at designated sites only across the entire HPWC. At least one other section says just the Central High Peaks and the Canoe Route only.

Lucky13 10-03-2019 12:37 PM

This would be a good thing to communicate to the plan managers.

Woodly 10-03-2019 12:44 PM

We're going to need rules and regulations books to carry on our hikes and camping trips. Of course maybe when we buy our permits they'll be included in the price...not.

tenderfoot 09-24-2020 08:25 AM

I see this conversation is a year old... But my question is almost the same so I am reviving this. Recent Trip Report from TomCat mentioned wanton attacks by the apex predator of the Northwoods - the field mouse. Pillaging by airborne rodents was also mentioned.

It would be rather inconvenient to lose ones food on trail. A properly hung bear bag did not seem to help - and at the end of the day, frequently after sundown, I struggle with a properly hung bear bag. Not a big struggle, but more time consuming than pacing off 50' and wedging canister under log.

We regularly borrow a Garcia keg, has served us well. Last time out we rented a Counter Assault bear keg and I was surprised it seems bigger and is listed as heavier. Definitely more cumbersome in the pack. The Bear Vault (clear canisters) are frowned upon if not outride banned by DEC (legend of yellow-yellow lives on) but the BV450 is smaller and lighter.

And there is some confusion over regulations....

So my question:
  1. Irresponsible storage of food in open
  2. Bear bag
  3. Outlaw canister (BV450?)
  4. Properly approved cannister

I would think #4 of course is best. But #3 is better than #1 or #2? Like I am sort of ok with using a canister throughout the Adirondacks just to keep the vermin at bay but am whining a bit about size and weight. Solution may be those handy canister bags you can strap to outside of pack and remove when stashing.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.