View Full Version : Hanging Packs in the GSMNP?
So, just curious, do you hang your pack on the cables when you are in the GSMNP? Or do you keep your pack with you, separate out all your smellables and just hang food bags?
I have just been hanging all my smellables in food bags for years now. But the most recent rash of pack stealing bruins has made me start to rethink that. I know the park recommends hanging packs... and I'm thinking that would be the best route when I visit the park again this fall.
What say ya'll?
SGT Rock
09-03-2014, 15:29
I usually just hang my food bag. Sometimes I don't even do that.
Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk
HooKooDooKu
09-03-2014, 16:46
Park regulations REQUIRE that you hang your food bag (or 'odorous items' as they frequently refer them to).
Instructions on use of bear cables 'recommend' that you hang your entire pack.
I usually only hang my food bag from the bear cables and hang my pack from a shelter nail or on the side of a tree.
However, recently there was a bear that stole someone's pack (with food in it) from a shelter. Until that bear was "dealt with", the park service posted signs at that shelter requiring entire packs be hung from the bear cables at that shelter.
Starchild
09-03-2014, 17:23
Park regulations REQUIRE that you hang your food bag (or 'odorous items' as they frequently refer them to).
Or the term 'smellables'
Instructions on use of bear cables 'recommend' that you hang your entire pack.
Not all do, most AT shelters don't at all mention this, the exception is a bear waring poster if such a shelter is under that warning of a known bear.
My empty pack is part of my sleep system and I've never hung it anywhere and see no need to do so as long as all food is out of it.
Starchild
09-03-2014, 17:29
My empty pack is part of my sleep system and I've never hung it anywhere and see no need to do so as long as all food is out of it.
bold mine
Except that you have had food stored inside your pack.
bold mine
Except that you have had food stored inside your pack.
Sure. I have made it a habit to use Aloksak bags within my food bag, although I have no illusions that all food scents are contained. But then again, I'm sure that my clothing smells like food as well with odors related to cooking, etc. Outside of grizzly country, I haven't heard of anyone recommending total segregation of cooking clothing and sleep clothing. I'm pretty sure that the critters know that we have been around food and can probably tell when there is enough of an odor to warrant the risk of investigating and possibly pissing off a human.
FWIW, on my recent Colorado Trail thru hike I used the Aloksak bags and a zPacks cuben food bag. I admit to not hanging my food and sleeping with it about half of the nights on the trail and hanging the other half. It depended mainly on whether I had a suitable tree available. I had about the same ratio of hang/no hang on the AT segment I did this spring (not in GSMNP). I'm not familiar with the Smokies so it could be that things are so bad there with bears that hanging a pack is needed. Then again, Yosemite has major bear problems in the Valley and popular backcountry spots and I always kept my pack with me at night.
HooKooDooKu
09-03-2014, 17:53
Not all do, most AT shelters don't at all mention this, the exception is a bear waring poster if such a shelter is under that warning of a known bear.
Not instructions at the shelters...
...the instructions on the back side of the Back country Trail Map. Those instructions "require" your food bag be hung and "recommend" your entire pack be hung.
And even the back country trail map used various terminology for what I would call your "food" bag:
'odorous items must be stored...'
'Regulations require proper food storage.'
'Secure all food and other attractants...'
SGT Rock
09-03-2014, 18:25
You stuff all has the smell of cooked food after a couple days on the trail. Pack, tent, clothing, etc. Do what makes you feel comfortable, but if you hang your pack 'cause it may have a food smell then you may as well sleep hanging from a cable.
Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk
misterfloyd
09-03-2014, 19:02
I hung the food bag, which was full of food, snacks, and cookware. I kept the pack in the shelter, all the way back at the end. I was worried about mice but none...............didn't have any problems.
I have always made a habit of hanging a bag no matter where I am.
Floyd
Depending on time of year (gsmnp), most shelter fronts will be covered with hanging packs, and hey you got cables so why not hang the food. I've only seen it stolen a couple times...:)
SGT Rock
09-03-2014, 20:20
Slightly off/on topic. I was thinking about hiking the JMT next year and hoped that the lighter, easier to pack Ursack would be approved by then. Ursack has not been approved until recently, and even then there are a few parts of the JMT where it isn't allowed yet. However, after reading this post I probably wouldn't trust an Ursack.
I know that the GSMNP has bear cables and I have only heard a couple of anecdotal stories about bears knowing how to get bags off the cable. It usually involves bouncing the cable to get food off the hook that hasn't been clipped to the line with a carabiner. Anyhow, it gives a good idea of how bad a bear can screw up a food bag, even one made of spectra
http://giantdumpster.wordpress.com/tag/ursack-failure/
OK, so we may differ on the hang your food / pack issue, what about any hooch (whiskey) - sleep with it or hang it, and risk a bear getting that?
My approach is to hang my food, keep pack in my tent...............hooch stays with me. If the bear wants to fight for that, we are going to have an issue!
SGT Rock
09-03-2014, 20:53
OK, so we may differ on the hang your food / pack issue, what about any hooch (whiskey) - sleep with it or hang it, and risk a bear getting that?
My approach is to hang my food, keep pack in my tent...............hooch stays with me. If the bear wants to fight for that, we are going to have an issue!Of course. What if you get thirsty in the middle of the night. Or need something to help you sleep with all them dang bears after the food cables.
MuddyWaters
09-03-2014, 22:24
Hanging your pack and unused items:
1. Keeps them out of your and everybody else's way
2. Keeps mice from gnawing on them
3. You don't have to worry as much about leaving your stuff when you go to crap
#1 is nice when the shelter is full. #2 is nice all the time.
I hung my pack there, wouldn't do it any other way if I did it again.
globetruck
09-03-2014, 23:17
I just hang my food. But on one night, I accidentally left a few M&Ms in my hip belt's pouch and a mouse chewed a hole right through it. Oops! Lesson learned - hanging food isn't just for bears.
I just hang my food. But on one night, I accidentally left a few M&Ms in my hip belt's pouch and a mouse chewed a hole right through it. Oops! Lesson learned - hanging food isn't just for bears.
If little feller chewed thru material, where's your sew kit? If through Zipper... go shoppin'
Starchild
09-04-2014, 08:00
Of course. What if you get thirsty in the middle of the night. ...
What if the bear is also thirsty in the middle of the night :eek:
Better bring 2 bottles then ;)
Starchild
It's bad enough that bears go after our trail food, but now you are openly advocating giving firewater to the bears.... What has this world come to. Next thing you know, bears will be knocking over liquor stores.
sliderule
09-08-2014, 23:40
Hanging your pack and unused items:
2. Keeps mice from gnawing on them
It's apparent that you have not experienced all that the Smokies have to offer.
It's apparent that you have not experienced all that the Smokies have to offer.
+1
Walnut Bottom (campsite 37) is the most mouse infested stretch of land on the planet. We had a mouse get in to our food bag (on the cables) and transfer about a cup of trail mix to another persons pack on the other set of cables. The mouse was apparently attempting to den up for the winter. Mice indeed are capable of great feats when it comes to the cables.
Another time I was staying at 37, I had a mouse in my tent. I didn't realize it until it ran over my face. Then the battle ensued with me trying to force him out of the tent via headlamp. The guys in the tent next to me thought it was all rather funny.
Walnut Bottom (campsite 37) is the most mouse infested stretch of land on the planet.
in my experience, i have found or seen mice at most of the GSMNP campsites.........
the only ones that i havent seen mice at, are the ones that arent used the most (like new 88 a few years ago)..
but, yeah 37 is one of the worst...
but, thats what happens with one of the most popular campsites in the park.....
+1
Walnut Bottom (campsite 37) is the most mouse infested stretch of land on the planet. We had a mouse get in to our food bag (on the cables) and transfer about a cup of trail mix to another persons pack on the other set of cables. The mouse was apparently attempting to den up for the winter. Mice indeed are capable of great feats when it comes to the cables.
Another time I was staying at 37, I had a mouse in my tent. I didn't realize it until it ran over my face. Then the battle ensued with me trying to force him out of the tent via headlamp. The guys in the tent next to me thought it was all rather funny.
It is funny but notso much while it's happening :) Somewhere nears Clingmans we had laid down for the night and the shelter was PACKED, and raining hard. I had just drifted off to sleep and all of the sudden... did something just run accross my forehead??? Oh well, back to sleep, then, few minutes later the lil f..$%#@!$ ran back accross my forehead. Did,nt see him again the rest of the night, at least he did not run accrooss me again...
The shelters are much nicer than they used to be. Yes, they still have mice. But man, before they took the chain link fences down and put up the cables, the shelters were a mouse playground. You could spend all night tracking the same mouse with your headlamp as he made one attempt after another to get down the cord, past the tuna can, and onto your pack.
SGT Rock
09-09-2014, 13:10
+1
Walnut Bottom (campsite 37) is the most mouse infested stretch of land on the planet. We had a mouse get in to our food bag (on the cables) and transfer about a cup of trail mix to another persons pack on the other set of cables. The mouse was apparently attempting to den up for the winter. Mice indeed are capable of great feats when it comes to the cables.
Another time I was staying at 37, I had a mouse in my tent. I didn't realize it until it ran over my face. Then the battle ensued with me trying to force him out of the tent via headlamp. The guys in the tent next to me thought it was all rather funny.I saw something like this happen at Enloe Creek one night, to someone else thank goodness. I used the bear pole on a lark. That was a pain in the butt.
swisscross
09-09-2014, 14:11
Mice (rodents) are filthy animals that can carry over 10 different diseases.
Yeah, yeah...most are not here in the states.
Mice are the only reason I loathe shelters.
Sure wish GSMNP and others trial organizations would try to control/eradicated the little buggers along the trail.
I used the bear pole on a lark. That was a pain in the butt.
the pole is still there but they have put a set of cables on the bridge......
Dadburnet
09-09-2014, 14:59
I carry gym shorts and a shirt that I only sleep in. I cook in and eat in and wear the same clothes I walked in, then change before I go to bed. I know its a little paranoid,but hey no bears,possums or raccoons. I do put my pack under my feet to elevate them at night, but my stove , cozy , food and anything connected to my food hangs. My clothes get semi-washed and hung up too. Never been threatened by a bear. Other than my stuff hanging everywhere, I make an effort to be clean and keep my camp area as clean as possible.
Mice (rodents) are filthy animals that can carry over 10 different diseases.
Yeah, yeah...most are not here in the states.
Mice are the only reason I loathe shelters.
Sure wish GSMNP and others trial organizations would try to control/eradicated the little buggers along the trail.
you do realize that this would be close to impossible to do?
and, in a way, the park is trying to do it by way of the reservation system....
swisscross
09-09-2014, 15:33
you do realize that this would be close to impossible to do?
and, in a way, the park is trying to do it by way of the reservation system....
The Pied Piper had success. ha....
How does the reservation system control the mice population?
One who applies for a reservation does not guarantee cleanness.
Not just referring to GSMNP but many other shelters are infested.
While considering the control of chipmunks that have destroyed my yard I ran across this...
http://www.thetrapmaker.com/bfoxtrap.htm
Seems to me this would work with persistence.
Mice/rats darn nearly wiped out half of the European population.
Without treatment the Bubonic plague will kill within 4 days. (not reality on the trail today, just an example of their nastiness).
One of my best friends hiking partner almost lost his life from hantavirus that he contracted while thru hiking the AT.
(I cannot validate the story but enough for me to have concern)
SGT Rock
09-09-2014, 15:50
the pole is still there but they have put a set of cables on the bridge......
I know.
Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk
SGT Rock
09-09-2014, 15:55
The Pied Piper had success. ha....
How does the reservation system control the mice population?
One who applies for a reservation does not guarantee cleanness.
Not just referring to GSMNP but many other shelters are infested.
I think he is implying that the reservation system is reducing the number of people wanting to go into the back country because of the general dislike of the system. There by reducing the food for the mice, which results in mouse population depletion.
Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk
How does the reservation system control the mice population?
One who applies for a reservation does not guarantee cleanness.
Not just referring to GSMNP but many other shelters are infested.
if you limit the amount of people at a site, then it will limit the amount of damage done to a site......
I'm glad they put in cables at Enloe Creek. I haven't been through that site in several years. Last time I stayed there though, I wasn't man enough to wrestle my relatively light food bag into place on the pole. I ended up hanging my food under the bridge.
Nice site though!
I think he is implying that the reservation system is reducing the number of people wanting to go into the back country because of the general dislike of the system. There by reducing the food for the mice, which results in mouse population depletion.
No.....while I am saying the reservation system will cut down on people----it's not because of the "general dislike" of the system...
because, quite honestly, even those who dislike the system area still going into the backcountry of the park...
SGT Rock
09-09-2014, 17:53
I've not in over a year
Sent from my SCH-R970 using Tapatalk
But you're in the minority.....
And while I haven't been backpacking in the park in three years---it's not because of the new system...
Its because of goals I have set for myself...
I agree, the smells transfers into everything.................sleep with my pack, food hung so that the critters and I don't eat it all.
SGT Rock
09-10-2014, 07:10
But you're in the minority.....
And while I haven't been backpacking in the park in three years---it's not because of the new system...
Its because of goals I have set for myself...I may be in a minority, but I don't know how big or small that minority is. I do know that most people I have hiked with around here have either drastically cut their time in the park or stopped all together because of the system. I'm not even sure how you would go about measuring that. So anyway...
HooKooDooKu
09-10-2014, 09:41
I could see how the new fees would affect locals more than people like me who have to make it a journey to hike in GSMNP.
The additional fee for a camping permit is relatively small compared to the cost of 1.5 tanks of gas it takes me to get to the Smokies.
And I've been loving the ability to check on campsite availability 24/7 compared to the previous telephone system. I still hate how much the fee is... but that's just because its costing me as much to take a family in the back-country as it does for front-country camping... without nearly as many amenities. (I don't oppose the fee entirely... the 24/7 availability of the online system is definitely worth something and I don't mind paying for that. But the bulk of my back-country fee is NOT going towards paying for the online system).
But on the subject of hanging your food... hanging alone does not keep your food from mice. They definitely have the ability to simply climb the cables.
spoonfan
09-10-2014, 10:31
I could see how the new fees would affect locals more than people like me who have to make it a journey to hike in GSMNP.
I find it ironic that the people who are opposing the fee and brought the lawsuit, and had a so called "boycott" of the Park due to the fees, are still backpacking in the Park on a regular basis (for the most part--weekly).
It shows that they don't stand true to their beliefs.
But on the subject of hanging your food... hanging alone does not keep your food from mice. They definitely have the ability to simply climb the cables.
that is correct------cause it really boils down to having and keeping a clean campsite.....
if there arent food scraps left all over the place, the population of mice would decrease........
Thinking bout this - what is "the" mouse predator?
Owls? or what?
Maybe what we're talking about can be cured by re-indroducing more Owls?
Maybe Owl eggs suffered just as much from the DDT shell thinning as the Eagles?
Pedaling Fool
09-10-2014, 11:49
Actually, I think snakes would be more of an significant predator for shelter mice. More foxes would also be a plus. http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/lyme-disease-outfoxes-deer-12-06-18/
HooKooDooKu
09-10-2014, 12:09
So what you're saying is if we want to increase the fox, owl, and snake population in the GSMNP... we need to leave more food for mice ;)
SGT Rock
09-10-2014, 14:02
I could see how the new fees would affect locals more than people like me who have to make it a journey to hike in GSMNP.
The additional fee for a camping permit is relatively small compared to the cost of 1.5 tanks of gas it takes me to get to the Smokies.
And I've been loving the ability to check on campsite availability 24/7 compared to the previous telephone system. I still hate how much the fee is... but that's just because its costing me as much to take a family in the back-country as it does for front-country camping... without nearly as many amenities. (I don't oppose the fee entirely... the 24/7 availability of the online system is definitely worth something and I don't mind paying for that. But the bulk of my back-country fee is NOT going towards paying for the online system).
But on the subject of hanging your food... hanging alone does not keep your food from mice. They definitely have the ability to simply climb the cables.
I find it ironic that the people who are opposing the fee and brought the lawsuit, and had a so called "boycott" of the Park due to the fees, are still backpacking in the Park on a regular basis (for the most part--weekly).
It shows that they don't stand true to their beliefs.
While I am quite sure some people oppose it simply because there is a fee, I'm not one of those. And I know others that opose the fee are doing it because of issues other than the money. It's simple to label us as cheap, however as I've written here before, as I've said at the open houses to talk with the park officials, and in my input to the park as I actually worked with the park on the implementation of the current policy, I just want them to modify some of the rules that seem arbitrary under the new fee system. The whole time explaining that we recognize budget problems in the park and support them in ways to get those dollars they need. To avoid another long rehash of the debate of our issues with the policy (by us I mean the people of like mind like me, not all people who oppose the fee). I'm sure I've spent more in gas going to other places to hike in order to hike than I would have had I just gone and paid the fee, for the record I can be on a trail in the GSMNP 10 miles from my house.
I'll also say that we continue to try and work with the park as partners of trail management. We opposed a lawsuit against the NPS as being counter productive and a waste of their money and time as well as ours. Hopefully someday we can get them to make some sensible changes to the program for the benefit of hikers. I also haven't "boycotted" the park. I still go there. I've camped since the fee, I'm even going in a few weeks. But a few years back I was doing a couple hundred miles a year in the park, now I probably do less than 20. And it is the rules, not the fee. So simply assume people avoid the park because of the money is lumping us together in a category that simplifies the issue.
So yes, we may be a minority, but we are there. I don't know how much it has reduced the participation overall in the back-country, it may be a minority, but up to 49.9% would still be a minority. And if they are like me, they haven't totally stopped using it completely, so we probably do not count in that "minority" anyway - but it has reduced usage by people like me up to 80% in my case. And my reduction does not help the supposed "overcrowding" since I rarely used those places either, I suspect others like me were also not the culprits in overcrowding.
So it isn't a "boycott", it is more of an apathy to the park overall that is created by attitude of the park managers. I just feel II have better places to go and better uses of my time and money (that I am willing to spend) and I know others that feel the same way.I didn't come here to debate all this,. so I'll leave you with those thoughts and move along to something else to post about.
spoonfan
09-10-2014, 15:04
so I'll leave you with those thoughts and move along to something else to post about.
Surely you would expect some sort of rebuttal, so I'll throw in some thoughts before moving on.
So it isn't a "boycott", it is more of an apathy to the park overall that is created by attitude of the park managers
No. What I am saying is that the people who brought the lawsuit cause they didn't like the fees and went public with a "boycott" of the Park (saying they wouldn't enter the Park at all ever since the fee was enacted), are still going into the Park on backpacking trips.
To me--that's hypocritical.
It's not (literally) putting your money where your mouth is.
We opposed a lawsuit against the NPS as being counter productive and a waste of their money and time as well as ours
And yes, I feel like the lawsuit is a total waste of money.
That's another ironic thing---all the money that the opposition is spending on this lawsuit---they could have gone backpacking in the Park paying the fees for years.
And my reduction does not help the supposed "overcrowding" since I rarely used those places either, I suspect others like me were also not the culprits in overcrowding.
That's the other ironic thing---the people who brought the lawsuit were ones that were abusing the old system.
Not only were they breaking other rules (like riding bicycles on the trails, doing their "business" in a campsite and not in the woods, and other things that they post publicly on their website) but they were notorious (and proud it seemed if you read their website) for having more people in a campsite than what it was rated for.
Having 19 to 20 people in a site based on 8 people---well, it's no wonder that the Park wanted to make changes.
It kinda seems like they brought the fee system upon themselves.
HooKooDooKu
09-10-2014, 15:27
That's another ironic thing---all the money that the opposition is spending on this lawsuit---they could have gone backpacking in the Park paying the fees for years.
But that's only true in the short run.
Given that I think about 100,000 man nights are spent in the back country (and therefore the park is collecting ~$400,000/year), if the lawsuit were to succeed, that ruling would stand for decades saving back-packers ~$10,000,000 over just the next 25 years.
But I do agree that I think the lawsuit is a waste of money... only because, as I see it, I don't think they have a legal leg to stand on:
1. There is already a precedent for a National Park to charge a fee for camping in the back-country (Grand Canyon comes to mind, where I think it's a $25 application fee, plus $5/person/night).
2. The deed restriction that prevents GSMNP from charging an entrance fee was all about preventing Hwy 441 from becoming a defaco toll road. (From what I understand of the deed restriction, GSMNP could charge an entrance fee if they wanted, so long as the fee was collected in such a way to allow unfettered access to Hwy 441).
spoonfan
09-10-2014, 18:33
But that's only true in the short run.
Given that I think about 100,000 man nights are spent in the back country (and therefore the park is collecting ~$400,000/year), if the lawsuit were to succeed, that ruling would stand for decades saving back-packers ~$10,000,000 over just the next 25 years.
No.
What I meant was, the actual group itself that is suing. Not just all backpackers.
So the actual group themselves could have gone hiking for years and years and even decades, if they had just saved their money.
The group that is suing---it would take them decades to get 100,000 bags nights like you are suggesting.
I have to agree with HooKooDooKoo. Yeah, the dudes who are suing would have been fine just paying the fee and saving themselves a bunch of money. But they perceive what they are doing to be a public good. They want to keep the backcountry in the GSMNP free for all users. It's not about the money, it's about the principle. If we used a balance sheet as our only justification for all things legal, we would live in a pretty crappy world.
Don't get me wrong. I am happy to pay the fees to camp in the backcountry. Yeah, I would prefer it were still free, but that is not going to keep me from backpacking in the park a few times every year.
I also agree with HKDK regarding entrance fees to the park. I wonder if it would pass legal muster to use a system like they do at Olympic National Park. There, you are free to drive through the park all you want, but if you want to stop in a parking area you have to have a pass in your window. To some extent, Acadia National Park is the same. There is one entrance station where you have to show your pass, but you can get to most of the park without going through that entrance station. But you still have to have a pass to use any parking lot in the park.
I also agree with HKDK regarding entrance fees to the park. I wonder if it would pass legal muster to use a system like they do at Olympic National Park. There, you are free to drive through the park all you want, but if you want to stop in a parking area you have to have a pass in your window
the park could do this if they want.....
the road can't have an entrance fee based on the agreements with the states over the state road (441) that runs through the park...
I just got my permit for an october backpacking trip in the GSMNP. One of the "I agree to..." checkboxes you have to click before getting a permit states that you need to hang your pack since some bears associate packs with food on sight.
28317
I just got my permit for an october backpacking trip in the GSMNP. One of the "I agree to..." checkboxes you have to click before getting a permit states that you need to hang your pack since some bears associate packs with food on sight.
28317
Bear cables are also a great place to resupply if you're running low between town stops.
Pedaling Fool
09-12-2014, 15:59
Bear cables are also a great place to resupply if you're running low between town stops.Damn, that's a good idea...why didn't I think of that...