Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Food storage lockers in Sequoia and Kings Canyon

While planning for my JMT section hike, I came across this bulletin. Are they really going to eliminate all of the food lockers in the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks?

Temporary Food Storage Restrictions
Effective 5/23 to 10/31/08 for the areas listed below.
To preserve the natural behavior of bears and to protect visitor safety, portable, park-approved, bear-proof food canisters or panniers (with the capacity to store all garbage, scent and food items) are required for all overnight parties both entering and exiting the restricted areas below:
* Rae Lakes Loop & Vicinity—All area users with the exception of: Long distance
through hikers on the Pacific Crest Trail with a valid wilderness permit must use portable, park-approved, bear-proof food canisters or panniers or camp at sites with food storage lockers and use the lockers.
* Dusy Basin Area –
* Rock Creek Area –
The techniques of counterbalancing or hanging food by other methods, or posting a guard to protect improperly stored food, are prohibited in the above areas. These regulations will be in effect the Friday of Memorial Day weekend through October 31. Outside this time period, counter-balancing of food will be allowed only when snow prevents access to food storage lockers.

Note: In order to improve wilderness character by eliminating undesirable installations the above restrictions will apply to all (not just the three listed) wilderness areas in these parks beginning as early as 2009. A strategy of eliminating all food storage lockers from these parks over the next ten years will be implemented. In 2008, all wilderness travelers are strongly recommended to use park-approved bear-proof food canisters or panniers in areas where counter-balancing or a 24-hour alert guard are currently permitted.

http://www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/upload/2008GeneralBulletin.pdf


Another bulletin:
..."In the mid-1980s, a few metal food-storage lockers were placed in the wilderness as an experiment. By 1989, many more had been put in. Unlike other methods, bears could not obtain food from these lockers and bear-human incidents dramatically decreased. Unfortunately, other problems developed. The lockers require frequent maintenance and are not large enough to hold all of the food that people want to put in them. All too often, they are used for garbage which must then be hauled out by others. Lockers are also seen by many as an intrusion in the wilderness, where the "imprint" of humans is required to be minimal."

http://www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/upload/2008ContainerBulletin.pdf

Yep, they are. This says it all:

"The lockers require frequent maintenance and are not large enough to hold all of the food that people want to put in them. All too often, they are used for garbage which must then be hauled out by others. Lockers are also seen by many as an intrusion in the wilderness, where the "imprint" of humans is required to be minimal."

I've had several conversations with the backcountry rangers regarding the food storage lockers. The problem is real - and like most problems where an attempt is made to optimize distribution of limited resources to the maximum number of users - is caused mainly by the actions of an inconsiderate few. The garbage problem is obvious, but an equally frustrating issue is the fact that a few people use the storage lockers as long term caches, limiting use by hikers camped at that spot for a single night.

While we may think of the Sierra as pristine (I count the number of pieces of trash I see/pick up during my 2-week treks, and have never reached double digits) the rangers tell a different story. Don't remember the exact number, but the rangers at Crabtree and Tyndall Creek tell of regularly collecting many pounds of trash throughout the summer.

Never ceases to amaze me how the simple concepts of "Pack it in - pack it out" and "Leave no trace" are just too hard for some folks to understand - or how some come to the conclusion that the rules don't apply to them.

Pine trees must not be the best type of tree to counterbalance or hang food from:

http://www.jmthiker.com/JMT2003PhotoAlbum/photos/photo25.html


A bear canister is the way to go:

http://www.bearcant.org/61.htm

> Pine trees must not be the best type of tree to counterbalance or hang food from

Good grief! They hung it about 5 ft off the ground, on the trunk of a tree -- just perfect for a bear to work on.

> A bear canister is the way to go:

Best quote from that page: "Hoping to remind my fellow thru-hikers of what can happen when you foolishly refuse to carry a bear can..."

I'm very sorry to hear this. I think the lockers are an excellent way to protect human food from bears, and vice-versa. Been backpacking in the Sierra since 1972, with 60+ multiday trips under my belt, and have lost food to a bear once, in 1975, due to my own poor judgement. My judgement got a lot better after that.

Increasing wilderness "purity" seems silly, since a locker is less visible, less colorful, and of smaller volume than the average two person tent. Ban tents? This has to be an issue of maintenance. We all know that the underfunding of the Park Service should be a national shame. I'd guess physical maintenance of the integrity of the box itself would likewise be minimal--welded heavy gague metal, continuous bottom hinge, and chains would seem to be awfully durable, although periodic change of the spring-loaded fasteners is probably needed.

So my guess is that the problem is abuse--garbage accumulation and illegal caches. I submit that the knuckleheads who are dumping their garbage in the boxes are going to leave their garbage at their campsites instead. The self-entitled packers or through-hikers who comandeer boxes for caches is a more troublesome phenomenon, since these folks should know better. Unfortunately, a ranger can't simply dump the garbage or the caches--they have to be packed out. But then, the only way to eliminate human stupidity and selfishness from the wilderness would be to ban human beings.

Bear cannisters are a way of "privatizing" the problem, requiring hikers to bear the cost of the cannisters and their weight. A national government that was interested in easing citizen access to the wilderness would install more boxes--at regular intervals wherever bears' acess to human food was a concern. I thought that the network of boxes in SKC was a model program, and could be expanded to the rest of the Muir trail. But then, the money problems of our government, and the Park Service, are just beginning. I'd settle for preservation, not removal, of the current network.

Here is the problem. The wilderness act, which is a law passed by Congress, and is required to be upheld, says:

"DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS

(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable"

And

"PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES

(c) Except as specifically provided for in this chapter, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area"

So are they going to be pulling out all of the foot bridges in the wilderness areas? I imagine that there are some older ones in what is now wilderness. Are ranger cabins on the way out, also?

The comment about red, white and blue tents being more intrusive is pretty close to hitting the mark even if they are not permanent intrusions. Brown, low-profile bear boxes are not all that intrusive. I guess there are elements who really do want to limit as much as possible human "intrusions" into the wilderness. Intrusions being any entry.

I can see the problems with the boxes but I'm not sure that the remedy is going to work any better. As also noted, those who dispose of trash in the boxes will just dump it elsewhere in the wilderness.

I'm as sorry to see rabid wilderness protectors as I am to see those who want none at all.

Most of the time, ranger cabins and bridges predate the wilderness. Maintenance on the existing structures is okay, but rebuilding them if they burn or building more isn't allowed. Trail and trail signs are about the only improvements allowed, and even signs are becoming more and more rare.

The Wilderness Act was passed in 1964. I'm not sure but weren't those wilderness bear boxes installed or improved after the Wilderness Act of 1964 was passed?

Same applies to the solar toilets which came and went on the Whitney trail.

"Something is happening here
But you don't know what it is"
      Bob Dylan Ballad of a Thin Man

I sure don't know what it is. Maybe the delightfully zany adventures of incompetent management?

Well, Bob, that is one possibility. However, I have another interpretation. I think that back in the 60's, the managers came from a different ethos. Passing the Wilderness Act was an action that took things in a different direction.....which might have been repealed shortly. My observation is that gov't employees change directions v e r y slowly. So it does not surprise me that things take awhile to change direction. Clearly, there is a new generation that has come into office in the last ten years. This new group wants to follow the act exactly, and consider it something of a holy document.

I guess that is should not be a surprise that there is now a "strict interpretation" of the Act.

There was also the wilderness act of 1984.....
At any rate, new wilderness areas are added from time to time. Doesn't really apply to Seki though. I have a feeling that was established in 1964.