[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [pct-l] The Bear Story (even more...)
- Subject: Re: [pct-l] The Bear Story (even more...)
- From: Brick Robbins <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 14:29:58 -0700
At 09:09 PM 10/1/99 +0000, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>He was obviously
>cited based on an action that took place before the emergency order was
>made so I think it is fair to conclude that this method of storing food is
>illegial, then and now.
The law just requires "proper storage" and never gives a definition. If a bear gets your food, and you get cited, then obviously it wasn't stored properly. If you got cited without a bear getting you food, then you could pretty easily fight it by asking for a list of "proper food storage methods" which doesn't exist. Just because a ranger writes a ticket for something, it doesn't mean it is illegal. It means the ranger THINKS it is illegal, and you pissed them off enough that they decided to spend the energy to write.
My only point in persuing this as long as I have is that Tom has made a point of calling thru-hikers who don't use canisters "scoff-laws." With the exception of Onion Valley, there is no law to scoff at except for the one that has been in existence for several years that requires "proper food storage." Even the Onion Valley Forest Order simply defines what "proper food storage" means in this one area.
Once again I'm not debating the usefulness of canisters, just this casual use of a non-existent law to promote their use.
* From the Pacific Crest Trail Email List | http://www.backcountry.net *