View Full Version : Bear Canisters to be Required on Parts of the AT
ldsailor
10-24-2019, 13:26
Just received my electronic issue of the ATC's magazine "Journeys." There is an article in it about food storage on the trail. Here is an excerpt from the article titled Harmful Habits.
"Land management supervisors in North Carolina are close to ratifying food storage regulations for the A.T. that will require the use of hard-sided canisters. Whether hikers like them or not, canisters may soon become the de facto storage method for the A.T. in most of the southeast, as well as in Vermont’s Green Mountains."
So, pretty soon it could be time to dig deep and buy a bear canister if you want to hike the AT.
As much as I don't want to carry one, this has been a long time coming. It will probably force me out of the smaller packs that I typically use on weekend trips though.
ldsailor
10-24-2019, 13:39
As much as I don't want to carry one, this has been a long time coming. It will probably force me out of the smaller packs that I typically use on weekend trips though.
You're right about the larger pack. My current Zpack Arc Haul was bought with the possibility of having to carry a bear canister in the future.
I usually use an MLD Core. Starting with 25 liters really doesn't allow for a canister...
Sarcasm the elf
10-24-2019, 13:42
Just received my electronic issue of the ATC's magazine "Journeys." There is an article in it about food storage on the trail. Here is an excerpt from the article titled Harmful Habits.
"Land management supervisors in North Carolina are close to ratifying food storage regulations for the A.T. that will require the use of hard-sided canisters. Whether hikers like them or not, canisters may soon become the de facto storage method for the A.T. in most of the southeast, as well as in Vermont’s Green Mountains."
So, pretty soon it could be time to dig deep and buy a bear canister if you want to hike the AT.
https://www.ranger-forums.com/attachments/snapshots-69/57395-girls-ranger-pics-post-them-up-grumpycatgood..jpg
HooKooDooKu
10-24-2019, 14:05
https://www.ranger-forums.com/attachments/snapshots-69/57395-girls-ranger-pics-post-them-up-grumpycatgood..jpg
Only if people use them...
GSMNP has bear cables A EVERY SINGLE CAMP SITE. Yet every year, camp sites are closed due to bear activity... meaning someone didn't use the bear cables, and a bear got to people food and became a problem bear (LeConte Shelter is currently closed because someone left an unguarded pack with food in the shelter a bear was able to access).
Yet every year, camp sites are closed due to bear activity... meaning someone didn't use the bear cables,
along with not using the cables----but also bad food habits such as having crumbs and all that get on the ground.........
ldsailor
10-24-2019, 14:14
Only if people use them...
GSMNP has bear cables A EVERY SINGLE CAMP SITE. Yet every year, camp sites are closed due to bear activity... meaning someone didn't use the bear cables, and a bear got to people food and became a problem bear (LeConte Shelter is currently closed because someone left an unguarded pack with food in the shelter a bear was able to access).
The first year I hiked the AT, I was camped at a shelter not many miles from Springer at the beginning of April. There were so many campers there that all the bear cable spots were taken, so hikers threw lines over the cable and hoisted their food up on their own lines. Well, in the night the weight of all that food brought down the entire cable and everyone's food was in the dirt the next morning. I often wondered if anyone lost food to a bear that night.
Sarcasm the elf
10-24-2019, 14:18
Only if people use them...
GSMNP has bear cables A EVERY SINGLE CAMP SITE. Yet every year, camp sites are closed due to bear activity... meaning someone didn't use the bear cables, and a bear got to people food and became a problem bear (LeConte Shelter is currently closed because someone left an unguarded pack with food in the shelter a bear was able to access).
One advantage of canisters versus cables/poles from a practical standpoint is that there is an investment in both time and effort to use a canister before the trip begins. I’d contend that that sort of required buy-in is going to at least partially filter out the least responsible hikers before they even hit the trail. What’s more is that since food is already packed in canisters beforehand, it takes very little effort to remember to use them once in camp.
meaning someone didn't use the bear cables,
also----people need to use a redundant system of clipping a carabiner onto the cable...
this is the one fault that the Park Service should have known about these cables with the open faced hooks...
bears have learned to shake the cables to get bags to drop...
chknfngrs
10-24-2019, 14:42
I have a Kumo, my BV450 slides right in. My MLD core is SOL.
Hard to say I’m surprised by reading this. Even if ten times out of ten we comply some bozo will mess it up
HooKooDooKu
10-24-2019, 16:37
also----people need to use a redundant system of clipping a carabiner onto the cable...
this is the one fault that the Park Service should have known about these cables with the open faced hooks...
bears have learned to shake the cables to get bags to drop...
If you don't have a carabiner, you can utilize the fact that the open faced hooks come in pairs to better secure your hang...
Rather than simply passing your "loop" over the hooks, instead, place the "loop" behind the hooks. Then separate the hooks and have the ends of the loop hang down between the hooks. The weight of the item will pinch the hooks together giving some "hold" power.
Alternately, you can separate the hook and pass your loop between the hooks. Then close the hooks and run the loop over the ends of and to the bottom of the the hooks.
The idea is the same between the two... the only difference is whether the loop is in front or behind the ends hanging down between the hooks.
But most people won't utilize what you just described and especially if trying to hang multiple bags.....
And then again, there's a lot of people who use the closed hook---the one that goes to the eye hook on the tree---to hang bags which evidentially stretches the cable and leads to breakage...
TwistedCF
10-24-2019, 18:41
I didn't purchase anywhere near the most expensive versions of any of my equipment for my upcoming 2020 thru hike and I'm in a little over $1000.00. That includes around $70.00USD for a BV-500. The price wasn't prohibitive when compared to the other equipment. My decision was based on my perceived ease of use and the bear canister seemed to offer the best chance of keeping the food away from bears, and rodents. The down side is the bulk and the weight but it's not so bad. Without the canister I could have dropped from a 65 liter pack to a 50 or 55 liter and managed all the rest of my load out plus loosing a little over two pounds with the canister. As it stands my sleep system is good to go down to 0 to 10f and with the canister, two liters of water and four days food I'm tipping the scales at 31lbs. Maybe too heavy for some and it's certainly not "ultra light", but it's manageable for me and much lighter than my early years in the outdoors. I'm not a big fan of Government regulations but if it's happening maybe it will have a positive impact on wildlife and hiker health and welfare. I've watched videos of hikers munching on snacks after a mouse has spent the night, doing what mice do, in their food bag. Besides being gross it's a real health concern eating after critters. The canisters make good camp chairs and a decent improvised washing machine if you're so inclined. If you have to pack it, embrace it and make the most of it!
Five Tango
10-24-2019, 19:47
When bear cables are available I have always hung my food and the pack separately and correctly as far as I know.
I will gladly carry my BV-500 and let it double as a stool although I wonder if the bear problem will be all that improved because then you have the problem of the food being on the ground.Even if it is in an impenetrable container,what's to keep the bear from coming into camp to try and get into it?Not every bozo is going to put their bear can far enough away or line their can with an odor proof bag,are they?
From my perspective the large metal impenetrable boxes you see in places are the best bet for the camper and the wildlife I would think;sorta hard to do that one the wrong way.
My daughter and I were stunned by the ridiculous bear hangs we saw on our thru hike this year both south and north. In truth they were little more than sacrificial offerings or, perhaps, training exercises for bears who have yet to figure out how to pull down hiker food. A month into our hike we bought bear canisters and packs to carry them. No more lost food. No more staying up all night throwing rocks and chasing bears through the woods. Best of all, we could finally get a good night's sleep. Worth every penny and the extra weight we had to carry.
As a beekeeper I am surprised that wildlife officials do so little with negative reinforcement of bear behavior, but perhaps having to deal with PETA and other "animal rights" organizations precludes such an approach.
I predict it will be only a matter of time before bears figure out how to access food in some of the cheaper canisters. It is already happening out west.
-Slumgum
devoidapop
10-24-2019, 20:27
I felt really guilty after losing my food bag to a bear near Mt Mitchell this summer. I was pretty confident in how my food was hung but in the morning my line, carabiner, and toggle were all still hanging and my food was gone. Time for me to get a canister.
Sarcasm the elf
10-24-2019, 21:22
My daughter and I were stunned by the ridiculous bear hangs we saw on our thru hike this year both south and north. In truth they were little more than sacrificial offerings or, perhaps, training exercises for bears who have yet to figure out how to pull down hiker food. A month into our hike we bought bear canisters and packs to carry them. No more lost food. No more staying up all night throwing rocks and chasing bears through the woods. Best of all, we could finally get a good night's sleep. Worth every penny and the extra weight we had to carry.
As a beekeeper I am surprised that wildlife officials do so little with negative reinforcement of bear behavior, but perhaps having to deal with PETA and other "animal rights" organizations precludes such an approach.
I predict it will be only a matter of time before bears figure out how to access food in some of the cheaper canisters. It is already happening out west.
-Slumgum
One of our former members put this together after his second A.T. thru hike:
http://nighthikingtomars.blogspot.com/2015/10/new-calendar-idea-spectacularly-crappy_3.html?m=1
FreeGoldRush
10-24-2019, 21:34
Metal bear boxes were greatly appreciated when available at shelters on my thru hike this year. Why would they require everyone to carry a bear canister prior to trying to solve the problem with bear boxes? Most people camp near a shelter. The bear boxes work great and are convenient. And bear issues are almost exclusively at shelters.
And you would almost certainly get a higher level of compliance with bear boxes over a bear canister requirement.
Why would they require everyone to carry a bear canister prior to trying to solve the problem with bear boxes?
that's easy to answer----money........
cost money to build the boxes, cost money to have them installed......
Most people camp near a shelter. And bear issues are almost exclusively at shelters.
I and many other hikers avoid shelters unless it is mandated that we camp there. It was not my experience that bear issues are almost exclusively at shelters. If reports of bears' amazing sense of smell are true, then our food becomes the bait no matter where it is.
As pointed out, money is likely the main issue regarding the lack of bear boxes. Also, I encountered some pretty nasty bear boxes. How do you keep some hikers from using them as garbage cans?
-Slumgum
Lone Wolf
10-25-2019, 07:00
If reports of bears' amazing sense of smell are true, then our food becomes the bait no matter where it is.
-Slumgumthen why is it nobody gets attacked while walkin' with a pack full of food?
Starchild
10-25-2019, 07:34
What I have seen in the Adirondacks High Peaks, which requires a bear canister is that it's been a mess. Bears have figured out how to get into some of them, which then disqualifies that type, further some of them I have seen have broken mechanisms, but people still use them, hikers either have to buy new ones, or sneek the old ones. I have seen paint cans used as well. The bear hanging issue has also been a mess there, actually a bigger mess, so the canisters are a improvement. However the Adirondacks is designated what is called 'forever wild' by the NY state constitution and any installed structures including food storage structures is hard to accomplish.
What I saw on the AT, boxes, cables, poles really makes the most sense to me as the authorities can insure proper bear proof storage is available, and they can make sure it is up to date and working properly.
Also I have to wonder if the manufactures of the bear storage canisters have anything to do with trying to push this into law.
Mockernut
10-25-2019, 07:44
I have had mice get into steel bear boxes and chew into my food bag. For the life of me, I don't see how they squeeze in.
I do carry a BV-500 most of the time now and appreciate the convenience. I don't miss the time and hassle of trying to do a decent bear hang each night at all.
Starchild
10-25-2019, 08:23
I have had mice get into steel bear boxes and chew into my food bag. For the life of me, I don't see how they squeeze in.
I do carry a BV-500 most of the time now and appreciate the convenience. I don't miss the time and hassle of trying to do a decent bear hang each night at all.
FWIW I try to stay on a low carb diet while hiking and I have never had this problem. Perhaps I am just lucky but have been in situations that my bag was the only one without a hole in it. I have also done some experiments with mice in my vacation house. They will selective feed on seeds over crunchy cat food kibble, picking out the seeds, but they will go for the cat food kibble a few days later.
What I have seen in the Adirondacks High Peaks, which requires a bear canister is that it's been a mess. Bears have figured out how to get into some of them, which then disqualifies that type
I thought it was one specific type of canister that had been broken into once or twice, and in each instance they had traced it to the same bear?
FreeGoldRush
10-25-2019, 08:37
that's easy to answer----money........
cost money to build the boxes, cost money to have them installed......
It's a LOT cheaper than for everyone to buy a bear canister. The right leadership can most certainly get this done. If they need someone in GA to hike out with components for assembling the box just let me know. You can find other volunteers for this as well. It would be a shame to hit the easy button and mandate something as opposed to getting it done the right way.
Regarding trash, I used a number of bear boxes between SNP and BSP. They had all been kept quite clean. You do sometimes see things left in high use areas, but the AT is amazingly clean in general.
It's a LOT cheaper than for everyone to buy a bear canister. The right leadership can most certainly get this done. If they need someone in GA to hike out with components for assembling the box just let me know. You can find other volunteers for this as well. It would be a shame to hit the easy button and mandate something as opposed to getting it done the right way.
Bear boxes are a good idea in high traffic locations, but they don't make sense -at all- as a direct substitution for a bear canister requirement. The two should go hand in hand. It's not about hitting 'the easy button', it's about solving the complete problem.
Paleolith54
10-25-2019, 08:52
You do sometimes see things left in high use areas, but the AT is amazingly clean in general.
It's easy to read past this point, but this is the crux of the problem, IMO. You only need a small percentage of users who are too lazy to haul out a couple of ounces of food scraps, or are too stupid to dig a proper cat hole, or who think getting a few extra miles on a given day entitles them to settle for a poor hang (or none at all) to screw things up for the rest of us, and leave land managers with ever-diminishing options.
I also wonder if many of us tend to take HYOH too far and look the other way instead of calling people out when we see this stuff. I'm seeing lots of discussion here about what "they" should do, but "they" didn't cause the problem.
Starchild
10-25-2019, 09:16
I thought it was one specific type of canister that had been broken into once or twice, and in each instance they had traced it to the same bear?
IIRC there were several disqualified, including some suggested modifications to make some of those ones legal again.
The 'one bear' you speak of was named 'Yellow Yellow' due to her 2 yellow ear tags. She was used to test the canisters by DEC, and it was noted that she taught her cubs her techniques. If she got in then that canister style was no longer fit for being used. She was legally shot during hunting season a few years back. But she was not the only bear to figure out hot to defeat them just the one used as the test.
FreeGoldRush
10-25-2019, 09:16
It's easy to read past this point, but this is the crux of the problem, IMO. You only need a small percentage of users who are too lazy to haul out a couple of ounces of food scraps, or are too stupid to dig a proper cat hole, or who think getting a few extra miles on a given day entitles them to settle for a poor hang (or none at all) to screw things up for the rest of us, and leave land managers with ever-diminishing options.
Where are you seeing bear boxes full of trash?? I hiked the entire trail, used many bear boxes, and never found this. I suppose it “could” be a problem, but the reality is that it is not.
Christoph
10-25-2019, 09:29
I don't think a canister is going to solve the issue (if it's really that big of an issue). Until people can finally figure our how to not be slobs leaving food, wrappers, clothing, etc. in fire pits, in and under shelters, and along the trail, bears do what bears do best... find food.
Mouser999
10-25-2019, 10:36
I carried one going from shelter to shelter in New Jersey and every shelter has a huge bear box. The only place in New York i saw that had one is Wildcat. In one spot in Harriman, I had to stealth camp and was glad for the cannister
It's a LOT cheaper than for everyone to buy a bear canister.
why should the ATC or some other organization have to dole out funds for bear boxes?
what about personal responsibility?
Time Zone
10-25-2019, 10:58
why should the ATC or some other organization have to dole out funds for bear boxes?
what about personal responsibility?
Because a bear box is a permanent installation, not something that is individually carried by the responsible hiker?
and to be effective, all need to be able to use it, and must use it, not just those who voluntarily chip in for its cost.
I personally like my bear canisters. Using one for the Pinhoti in a couple of weeks and will be using it on the AT next year. Once people quit bandwagoning on the weight/bulk issue and actually try one, I think some minds will be changed. It definitely changed mine.
For the small volume pack crowd, I used a BV500 strapped to the top of my Exos 38 last year. Granted the frame helped keep if from swaying , I could have packed it inside but found it carried better horizontal.
We had multiple nights were people were wishing they had a canister when there were no good places to hang or they realized they needed something from their hang.
Paleolith54
10-25-2019, 11:36
Where are you seeing bear boxes full of trash?? I hiked the entire trail, used many bear boxes, and never found this. I suppose it “could” be a problem, but the reality is that it is not.
I’m astounded at how many people reply to posts that they obviously haven’t read.
HooKooDooKu
10-25-2019, 13:14
then why is it nobody gets attacked while walkin' with a pack full of food?
Generally speaking, bears are attracted to food, but avoid people.
The problem is when people with food use the same spot over and over, and either leave food unattended or leave food scraps behind. Eventually the bears find this food, and eventually learn to associate packs with food or people with food. They then become problem bears when they then start to loose their fear of humans as they attempt to access this new found source of food.
Bears are a problem at shelters because they've learned people sleep there WITH FOOD every night. When you have more dispersed camping where the same spot isn't used night after night, then it takes longer for the bear to ever associate that spot with food. Otherwise, a commonly used camping spot is just as much a problem as a shelter.
This is one of the issues with camping in GSMNP. EVERYONE has to camp in the same limited number of camp spots, and the bears know where those spots are. So if the camper's don't properly protect their food and utilize the bear cables, bears quickly learn to associate food with people and become problem bears shutting down camp sites until the bear is retrained to not expect to find food at the campsite.
When you have more dispersed camping where the same spot isn't used night after night
and dispersed camping will not work for GSMNP.....
too many novices and one night stand backpackers and there would be people camping at the top of waterfalls and other places where they need not be....
along with not using the cables----but also bad food habits such as having crumbs and all that get on the ground.........
The number of bear boxes Maine to Vermont has exploded.
Started seeing them in Georgia a couple years ago but they just keep spreading.
I am expecting just about every shelter on the trail to have one in two years.
globetruck
10-25-2019, 16:32
I hate my Bear Vault 500. Ugh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Generally speaking, bears are attracted to food, but avoid people.
Bears are a problem at shelters because they've learned people sleep there WITH FOOD every night. When you have more dispersed camping where the same spot isn't used night after night, then it takes longer for the bear to ever associate that spot with food. Otherwise, a commonly used camping spot is just as much a problem as a shelter.
HooKooDooKu makes a good point regarding regarding bears being attracted to "food" and their tendency to avoid people. Many hikers sleep with food in their tents (not something I would ever advocate) and get by with it for this reason.
However, the notion that bears target certain spots is not entirely true in my opinion. This summer I camped south of Damascus and knew I was in trouble when shortly before dark a wide-eyed hiker said he packed up and was moving on because a bear tried to get his food and would not leave. Sure enough, the bear then showed up at my campsite at 8:30 PM trying to get my food and I used rocks and bear spray to chase it off 8 times until 3:00 AM. The next morning I passed food strewn all over the trail at least a mile from where I camped. I feel certain it was "my" bear. This bear was clearly on the prowl and not targeting a specific spot. It is possible that this bear was an exception ... I suspect not. These were all isolated campsites along the trail.
-Slumgum
However, the notion that bears target certain spots is not entirely true in my opinion.
well.........
don't ever leave a pack unattended at Russell Field or Cosby Knob........
ask Patman.........
I will qualify my statement: If a bear finds a place that results in a "sure thing" they will certainly return for seconds, and thirds, etc. But the idea that remote camping away from shelters or heavy use campgrounds will make your food hang safer ...? That has not been my experience.
devoidapop
10-25-2019, 18:14
I will qualify my statement: If a bear finds a place that results in a "sure thing" they will certainly return for seconds, and thirds, etc. But the idea that remote camping away from shelters or heavy use campgrounds will make your food hang safer ...? That has not been my experience.
Completely agree
This is unfortunate because a bearvault makes a crappy pillow. My food bag on the other hand works quite well. This was bound to happen after seeing some pathetic hangs over the years.
Bear boxes are a good idea in high traffic locations, but they don't make sense -at all- as a direct substitution for a bear canister requirement. The two should go hand in hand. It's not about hitting 'the easy button', it's about solving the complete problem.
There’s a level of personal responsibility that comes with supplying your own solution, i.e. a bear canister compared to relying on someone else to solve your problem by hauling in a box, which as noted, becomes a trash box PDQ.
This is unfortunate because a bearvault makes a crappy pillow. My food bag on the other hand works quite well. This was bound to happen after seeing some pathetic hangs over the years.Lol, but it makes a fantastic seat, table, and food prep area.
Mouser999
10-26-2019, 06:21
I had 4 hikers decide to cook and eat IN Morgan Stewart Shelter, that's when I decided to set up tent after a long hard day with no regards for animals.
This site has no bear box, and they hung their food real low
BlackCloud
10-26-2019, 10:49
Gov't knows best
Gov't knows best
45787
Vermont; September 2019. This was not staged. These are actual food bags from a group of hikers.
Hikers espouse HYOH and will not police themselves. I would prefer the gov't not have to step in either. However, when hikers get mauled by bears guess where fingers will point ... the gov't. At this point they have no choice. BTW, without "the gov't" there would be no A.T.
ldsailor
10-26-2019, 12:14
I had 4 hikers decide to cook and eat IN Morgan Stewart Shelter, that's when I decided to set up tent after a long hard day with no regards for animals.
That's nothing. I spent the night at Eagles Nest Shelter a couple of years ago. There were two hikers there already both of whom were sitting and eating in the shelter. I was tired and didn't want to tent. After they were finished, they prepared to leave to setup their hammocks. when they informed me that they were going to hang their food in the shelter. I swear - true story. I told them no they weren't. They were very unhappy with me. So, they went about 50 yards away and tied their food to the trunk of a tree. I wish I had taken a picture of it. If someone told me this story, I probably wouldn't believe it.
Our ancestors didn't have these problems. They would have been thrilled with a bear which entered their camp--easy to collect high-fat food wrapped in a valuable, warm skin.
nsherry61
10-26-2019, 15:03
Our ancestors didn't have these problems. They would have been thrilled with a bear which entered their camp--easy to collect high-fat food wrapped in a valuable, warm skin.
And that's why you would always carry a high powered rifle when hiking the AT.
Time Zone
10-26-2019, 16:41
Our ancestors didn't have these problems. They would have been thrilled with a bear which entered their camp--easy to collect high-fat food wrapped in a valuable, warm skin.
Easy to collect?
Gave up hanging two years ago. Don't miss it and the extra bulk/weight of my small can more than pays for itself in time saved looking for suitable hang spots, etc. I had one try to get into my can in Ocala National forest late last year. The same bear went into multiple tents over the next few weeks looking for food but never came back to my camp areas. Cans work if everybody is using them.
Sarcasm the elf
10-26-2019, 18:28
And that's why you would always carry a high powered rifle when hiking the AT.
Same, I never hike without my Garand strapped to the ice axe loops of my ULA Circuit. :rolleyes:
Time Zone
10-26-2019, 19:29
Gov't knows best
If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
- JMads, F#51
Paleolith54
10-26-2019, 20:27
Gave up hanging two years ago. Don't miss it and the extra bulk/weight of my small can more than pays for itself in time saved looking for suitable hang spots, etc. I had one try to get into my can in Ocala National forest late last year. The same bear went into multiple tents over the next few weeks looking for food but never came back to my camp areas. Cans work if everybody is using them.
I wouldn't argue with a word of that, but would also point out that LOTS of things work if everyone does it right. When I learned about backpacking back in the old days, I learned to hang between two trees, not from a single tree limb. This is much simpler and I think inherently more effective than the PCT method that folks seem to regard as some sort of gold standard for hanging, and I've never spent more than five minutes selecting trees and another five setting the line. Odor-proof sacks inside another sack that are well-hidden far from camp work well (plenty of BWCA trippers do this.) Bear boxes work well (trails in parts of Colorado used to have 2-3 ammo cans attached to a tree.) IMO, the container is not the real issue.
I continue to contend that the real issue is that our ranks as backpackers are somewhat contaminated with a small but persistent group of slackers and slobs, and my experience is that we don't do much in the way of self-policing. The stories some have told above are probably more common than we'd like to believe, and it is those morons who are backing the land managers into a corner. They can't institute IQ tests as part of the permitting process, so they end up settling on something than "can" work and that they can get some consensus on, then mandate it across the board. I don't really blame them, but I sure hate the thought of carrying an extra 2-plus pounds to solve a problem that will probably persist regardless of the measures put in place.
FreeGoldRush
10-27-2019, 08:29
At this point they have no choice.
That’s the narrow minded thinking we want to avoid. You may be convinced of your favorite solution to this problem, but I assure you there are others.
gpburdelljr
10-27-2019, 09:17
That’s the narrow minded thinking we want to avoid. You may be convinced of your favorite solution to this problem, but I assure you there are others.
What, for example?
Squirrel29
10-27-2019, 10:20
along with not using the cables----but also bad food habits such as having crumbs and all that get on the ground.........
Better food habits would not only help with the bears, but would also help with the mice.
Which bear container is legal everywhere? How would I know if it is legal ?
thom
Agree with FreeGoldRush, make more bear boxes available. the Land Management supervisors/ officials in all states could work with the local AT clubs to install good quality bear boxes at every shelter (or adding additional to popular spots). AT clubs can help out by including these in fundraising efforts. I'd happily donate (PATC in my area) if it meant better bear boxes rather than schlepping canisters.
Good story here on a club in Virginia that did this, kudos to the great volunteers - https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/bear-resistant-lockers-installed-along-section-of-appalachian-trail/article_1c045fce-a74d-550c-8a62-ede967a4a150.html
That’s the narrow minded thinking we want to avoid. You may be convinced of your favorite solution to this problem, but I assure you there are others.
I am in agreement that this is narrow minded (mandated canisters) thinking. But the powers that be will always place the onus on the hikers. Bears, on the other hand, are treated with kid gloves so to speak. As I mentioned earlier, as a beekeeper I KNOW there are ways to change bears' behavior through negative reinforcement. A baited electric fence is the only way I can keep marauding bears out of my apiaries. Bleeding hearts will pitch a hissy fit because "Winnie the Pooh" gets shocked, but in the end it is what is best. It keeps wild bears wild. This is just one of many possibilities that could give a bear pause before grabbing packs or pulling down food hangs. If they are capable of learning how to rob, they can learn that there are consequences to such robbing. Good luck getting through to the convoluted chain of command that runs the A.T.
In 2018 there were reported bear encounters from GA to MA along the AT. These resulted in over 20 shelters either closed or had warnings or alerts. In the 2019 Goddard shelter incident a bear box did not deter the bear and as a result he had to be euthanized. Hikers created this problem. Hikers need to solve it. Hikers should take personal responsibility for proper food storage, remove all trash and food scraps, and cook away from where one sleeps.
I wouldn't argue with a word of that, but would also point out that LOTS of things work if everyone does it right. When I learned about backpacking back in the old days, I learned to hang between two trees, not from a single tree limb. This is much simpler and I think inherently more effective than the PCT method that folks seem to regard as some sort of gold standard for hanging, and I've never spent more than five minutes selecting trees and another five setting the line. Odor-proof sacks inside another sack that are well-hidden far from camp work well (plenty of BWCA trippers do this.) Bear boxes work well (trails in parts of Colorado used to have 2-3 ammo cans attached to a tree.) IMO, the container is not the real issue.
I continue to contend that the real issue is that our ranks as backpackers are somewhat contaminated with a small but persistent group of slackers and slobs, and my experience is that we don't do much in the way of self-policing. The stories some have told above are probably more common than we'd like to believe, and it is those morons who are backing the land managers into a corner. They can't institute IQ tests as part of the permitting process, so they end up settling on something than "can" work and that they can get some consensus on, then mandate it across the board. I don't really blame them, but I sure hate the thought of carrying an extra 2-plus pounds to solve a problem that will probably persist regardless of the measures put in place.
In my experience, it's more than a small group. Backpacking has become much more popular in the last 5-10 years. A lot of people want to "get out there" but don't take the time to learn how to do things correctly. Food handling is probably near or at the top of the list. It is a rare occasion when I see people out in the backcountry eating away from their tents, for example. Most of the hangs I see are almost comical and would easily be taken by a novice bear. For most casual backpackers (the majority, I feel) a bear can is the least harmful for all involved.
Paleolith54
10-27-2019, 18:23
In my experience, it's more than a small group. Backpacking has become much more popular in the last 5-10 years. A lot of people want to "get out there" but don't take the time to learn how to do things correctly. Food handling is probably near or at the top of the list. It is a rare occasion when I see people out in the backcountry eating away from their tents, for example. Most of the hangs I see are almost comical and would easily be taken by a novice bear. For most casual backpackers (the majority, I feel) a bear can is the least harmful for all involved.
Yeah, you’re probably right. Sadly.
I am in agreement that this is narrow minded (mandated canisters) thinking. But the powers that be will always place the onus on the hikers. Bears, on the other hand, are treated with kid gloves so to speak. As I mentioned earlier, as a beekeeper I KNOW there are ways to change bears' behavior through negative reinforcement. A baited electric fence is the only way I can keep marauding bears out of my apiaries. Bleeding hearts will pitch a hissy fit because "Winnie the Pooh" gets shocked, but in the end it is what is best. It keeps wild bears wild. This is just one of many possibilities that could give a bear pause before grabbing packs or pulling down food hangs. If they are capable of learning how to rob, they can learn that there are consequences to such robbing. Good luck getting through to the convoluted chain of command that runs the A.T.
I have been on ATC trail crews in GSMNP and in NJ where we used an electric fence around our kitchen. An electric fence was used as a temporary solution at Mt Rogers last year. I don't see electric fences being a practical and year long solution. Where and what is the power source? Why does the solution have to come from the land managers? They did not create the problem. I would much rather have the limited dollars available used to maintain trails and not correct the irresponsible actions of hikers.
Five Tango
10-27-2019, 20:09
Sadly,it's not just backpackers involved with rule breaking.I have known too many people in other venues that think for some reason that the rules apply to someone else.
Properly designed bear cables and bear boxes go a long way in solving the problem and I think most people will at least hang their food,but not always their packs,even when the rules require packs to be hung.I've seen it firsthand.
I have been on ATC trail crews in GSMNP and in NJ where we used an electric fence around our kitchen. An electric fence was used as a temporary solution at Mt Rogers last year. I don't see electric fences being a practical and year long solution. Where and what is the power source? Why does the solution have to come from the land managers? They did not create the problem. I would much rather have the limited dollars available used to maintain trails and not correct the irresponsible actions of hikers.
Grrrr. Nor do I think electric fences are a practical solution! It works for apiaries. Not for habituated bears in the forests. I simply used this as an example of negative behavioral reinforcement. As I pointed out earlier, the oversight of the A.T. is something of an algorithmic nightmare. Just who is in charge? The ATC? The National Park Service? The US Forest Service? The various trail clubs? Does it make sense to you that "land managers" handle a wildlife problem? It is going to take someone with a modicum of training in animal behavior (specifically bear behavior) to reverse their dangerous habits.
Your post makes it clear that you believe "hikers" are the problem. Funny you should mention Mt. Rogers because I was hiking through the Grayson Highlands this spring when a member of a trail crew accused me of contributing to the "bear problem" by feeding bears. I was gobsmacked. The Mt. Rogers area, as you well know, is home to a population of wild ponies. Throughout the summer months hundreds of "day hikers" haul packs full of food for the ponies, ignoring signs advising not to do so. Maybe, just maybe, that could be a factor contributing to the bear problem. As a thru hiker my priority is to feed myself and only myself. I do not carry extra food for the bears and every thru hiker I know is on board with this practice.
So perhaps we should consider the underlying circumstances contributing to this issue. What factors are common to the problem areas (GSMNP, SNP, Grayson Highlands, NJ, southern Vermont)? All these areas have high numbers of occasional or short term hikers. These are weekend warriors with little understanding of bear issues or wilderness etiquette in general. Even if they did, they have so little stake in the matter that it is of little consequence to them how they behave. Sure, there are irresponsible thru hikers(and most of those drop out before they get out of Georgia), but they pale in comparison to the number of day hikers, group outings, and weekend warriors. In my opinion, that is where the problem lies. There should be a distinction made when making a generalization about "hikers".
There goes the neighborhood!
Meanwhile, National Parks along the Continental Divide in Wyoming, Montana, Alberta and British Columbia manage a large number of backpackers and a healthy bear population without resorting to bear canisters.
Grand Teton National Park, NOT on the Continental Divide, furnishes bear canisters for backpackers.
Y’all have fun!
Wayne
All these areas have high numbers of occasional or short term hikers. These are weekend warriors with little understanding of bear issues or wilderness etiquette in general. Even if they did, they have so little stake in the matter that it is of little consequence to them how they behave. Sure, there are irresponsible thru hikers(and most of those drop out before they get out of Georgia), but they pale in comparison to the number of day hikers, group outings, and weekend warriors. In my opinion, that is where the problem lies. There should be a distinction made when making a generalization about "hikers".
That's just good old thru hiker elitism. Thru hikers aren't anything special, and day hikers aren't irresponsible or unaware. Day, section, or thru, it's always the few, whether inconsiderate or uneducated or otherwise, that make things difficult for others.
There goes the neighborhood!
Meanwhile, National Parks along the Continental Divide in Wyoming, Montana, Alberta and British Columbia manage a large number of backpackers and a healthy bear population without resorting to bear canisters.
Wayne
Ahhhh. Let's close the A.T. and just move out west.
Ahhhh. Let's close the A.T. and just move out west.
Nope. Enjoy the east.
Wayne
Your post makes it clear that you believe "hikers" are the problem. Funny you should mention Mt. Rogers because I was hiking through the Grayson Highlands this spring when a member of a trail crew accused me of contributing to the "bear problem" by feeding bears. I was gobsmacked. The Mt. Rogers area, as you well know, is home to a population of wild ponies. Throughout the summer months hundreds of "day hikers" haul packs full of food for the ponies, ignoring signs advising not to do so. Maybe, just maybe, that could be a factor contributing to the bear problem. As a thru hiker my priority is to feed myself and only myself. I do not carry extra food for the bears and every thru hiker I know is on board with this practice.
So perhaps we should consider the underlying circumstances contributing to this issue. What factors are common to the problem areas (GSMNP, SNP, Grayson Highlands, NJ, southern Vermont)? All these areas have high numbers of occasional or short term hikers. These are weekend warriors with little understanding of bear issues or wilderness etiquette in general. Even if they did, they have so little stake in the matter that it is of little consequence to them how they behave. Sure, there are irresponsible thru hikers(and most of those drop out before they get out of Georgia), but they pale in comparison to the number of day hikers, group outings, and weekend warriors. In my opinion, that is where the problem lies. There should be a distinction made when making a generalization about "hikers".
I believe hikers have caused the problem. Regardless if one walks for a day, a weekend, or a summer, I classify them as a hiker. No distinction is necessary. People attempting a thru hike are not immune to bad behaviors. I did an overnight north of Pearisburg this summer and when I got to Rice Field shelter two thru hikers had left their packs unattended at the shelter to go get water. They had just resupplied as loaves of bread were strapped to the outside of their pack and other snacks were on the picnic table. I know there are bears in this area as I have spotted them on a couple of occasions. These people had already hiked over 600 miles so they probably have done this before. Just because one has hiked a long distance or for a long period of time does not mean one is experienced.
FreeGoldRush
10-28-2019, 08:07
I believe hikers have caused the problem. Regardless if one walks for a day, a weekend, or a summer, I classify them as a hiker. No distinction is necessary. People attempting a thru hike are not immune to bad behaviors. I did an overnight north of Pearisburg this summer and when I got to Rice Field shelter two thru hikers had left their packs unattended at the shelter to go get water. They had just resupplied as loaves of bread were strapped to the outside of their pack and other snacks were on the picnic table. I know there are bears in this area as I have spotted them on a couple of occasions. These people had already hiked over 600 miles so they probably have done this before. Just because one has hiked a long distance or for a long period of time does not mean one is experienced.
On my thru hike it was absolutely overwhelmingly obvious that weekend warriors are primarily the ones with bad behavior. There are FAR more of them, they are less experienced, and did less research before hitting the trail. I’m not complaining or bragging. Just stating how it is out there.
Sarcasm the elf
10-28-2019, 09:03
On my thru hike it was absolutely overwhelmingly obvious that weekend warriors are primarily the ones with bad behavior. There are FAR more of them, they are less experienced, and did less research before hitting the trail. I’m not complaining or bragging. Just stating how it is out there.
While you’re absolutely correct in terms of sheer numbers, I would argue that in my years of hiking it has ways been thru hikers who I have observed to be more cavalier about food storage. Then again, the thrus also seemed more apt to keep a clean campsite in general foodwise which is likely just as big a factor as how the food itself is stored. I guess in summary my opinion is it’s more nuanced than we often like to think. 🤔
peakbagger
10-28-2019, 09:40
Over 10 years of sectioning I never had a bear issue. The closest we go was NJ where we met someone who had been bluff charged by a mother bear while her cubs tried to get into the food box at High Point the night before. The next day we saw a bear leaving the next shelter south after car spot. The whites didn't have bear issues along the AT until ten years ago, they now have bear issues at every AT shelter and have installed bear boxes. Even sites with caretakers who in theory keep an eye on proper camping techniques have significant issues.
BTW in the whites unattended food boxes quickly become trash cans for lazy hikers. They all get pretty disgusting after a few weeks. They are not the solution.
BTW plenty of folks use solar powered electric fences for farms. As long as there is place that gets enough sun to put up a panel they work. Bears figure out fence quick and they will avoid them. I went a year without mine plugged in after a couple of years of using it on my raspberries.
TexasBob
10-28-2019, 10:30
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Your safety depends on the next guy doing the right thing as much as you doing the right thing. As long as folks sleep with their food in their tent, hang their food poorly or leave food/snacks/trash unattended then there will be bear problems and bear boxes at shelters might help but won't solve the problem. I was car camping this summer in Canada where every campground had bear proof food boxes and trash cans. I never left food unattended and stored it properly and still had a bear come into my campsite in a crowded and noisy campground in the middle of the day. No doubt others in the past weren't so careful and that bold bear learned an easy meal could be had there.
HooKooDooKu
10-28-2019, 10:45
Which bear container is legal everywhere? How would I know if it is legal ?
thom
The rules are different everywhere you go...
Hopefully, if the AT starts to require a canister, the rules will be the same for the full length of the trail.
But I've generally seen bear canister requirements fall into three categories:
1. Areas that allow any commercially made bear canister with hard sides.
{I believe that one area on the AT in the South East that requires a bear canister for over night stays falls into this category}
2. Areas that allow any bear canister with IGBC certification.
{I believe Yellowstone National Park is like this}
3. Areas that only allow canisters from a pre-approved list.
{I believe Yosemite National Park is like this}
Some things will over lap in these categories, some things will not.
One example: the light-weight Bearikade brand bear canisters. They are on the approved list for Yosemite National Park (and for the full length of JMT thru hikers). But the Bearikade is NOT IGBC certified, so it's not legal in Yellowstone National Park.
Reasons for the discrepancy include that IGBC tests canisters against grizzly bears (something you will encounter in Yellowstone). But Yosemite doesn't have grizzly bears, so you don't need a canister that has been tested against grizzlies, only black bears.
ldsailor
10-28-2019, 11:19
I think I have read most of the posts, so I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone say they couldn't use a bear box because it was full. I encountered this problem several times in New Hampshire and Maine over the last couple of years.
stephanD
10-28-2019, 13:32
I received 'Journeys', the ATC magazine fall 2019 issue this weekend. Here's two lines from the article "Harmful Habits" by David McDowell Schafer:
1. "Land management supervisors in North Carolina are close to ratifying food storage regulations for the AT that will require the use of hard-sided canisters."
2. "The regulations that may soon pass in the national forests in North Carolina do not include language that allows for an Ursack."
Now, what am i suppose to do with my new $135.00 AllMitey Ursack? This makes no sense.
gpburdelljr
10-28-2019, 14:02
I think I have read most of the posts, so I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone say they couldn't use a bear box because it was full. I encountered this problem several times in New Hampshire and Maine over the last couple of years.
I can see where full bear boxes might be a problem at the start of hiking season, when so many people are starting out at the same time.
"It's all about the money" may be the easy answer, but like most easy answers to complex problems, it is a wrong answer. Bear boxes work well where they exist, but it would be impractical or even impossible to put a bear box at every campsite, which far outnumber the number of shelters. Anyone who has hiked the Georgia AT has seen campsites just about every mile or so. And that's just on the AT. There are dozens of other trails in the forest. Bears don't care if the blaze is white or blue or green. If you think it's a problem for the government to solve, you are part of the problem.
gpburdelljr
10-28-2019, 14:31
If you think it's a problem for the government to solve, you are part of the problem.
So, what’s your solution?
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Your safety depends on the next guy doing the right thing as much as you doing the right thing. As long as folks sleep with their food in their tent, hang their food poorly or leave food/snacks/trash unattended then there will be bear problems and bear boxes at shelters might help but won't solve the problem. I was car camping this summer in Canada where every campground had bear proof food boxes and trash cans. I never left food unattended and stored it properly and still had a bear come into my campsite in a crowded and noisy campground in the middle of the day. No doubt others in the past weren't so careful and that bold bear learned an easy meal could be had there.
Question - you say the bear came into your campsite, but since it wouldn't find anything there (as you say you stored everything correctly), one might suspect it would just leave?
If that was the case, then did what others did really bother you (having the bear walk through doesn't seem to be a big problem, as one might expect a wild animal to be there no matter what)?
Seems what others do would only be a problem if the animals started going after those who didn't provide them food (people like you who are following the rules) - if they only bother those who don't (or don't want to) follow the rules of safe storage, then it's only those people who are at fault for whatever happens to them, not anyone else.
So, what’s your solution?
Requiring canisters seems like an obvious and effective response.
2. "The regulations that may soon pass in the national forests in North Carolina do not include language that allows for an Ursack."
Now, what am i suppose to do with my new $135.00 AllMitey Ursack? This makes no sense.[/QUOTE]
If a bear gets to an Ursack, the food within is turned to a stew of contents saturated with bear saliva. I met a woman south of Damascus who had a bear rip open her Ursack. They are very effective against mice, raccoons and chipmunks. When you find a good solution for what to do with your Allmitey Ursack let me know.
If a bear gets to an Ursack, the food within is turned to a stew of contents saturated with bear saliva. I met a woman south of Damascus who had a bear rip open her Ursack. They are very effective against mice, raccoons and chipmunks. When you find a good solution for what to do with your Allmitey Ursack let me know.
There are three different types of Ursack. To my knowledge the Major and Allmitey haven't been an issue against bears when used with the aluminum liner. The Minor is another story altogether.
There are three different types of Ursack. To my knowledge the Major and Allmitey haven't been an issue against bears when used with the aluminum liner. The Minor is another story altogether.
If a bear gets to an Ursack, the food within is turned to a stew of contents saturated with bear saliva. I met a woman south of Damascus who had a bear rip open her Ursack. They are very effective against mice, raccoons and chipmunks. When you find a good solution for what to do with your Allmitey Ursack let me know.I'd be more curious as to how many people actually use the aluminium liner.
HooKooDooKu
10-28-2019, 16:11
If a bear gets to an Ursack, the food within is turned to a stew of contents saturated with bear saliva.
That's the issue Ursack has been facing out in Yosemite for years... The company has tried over and over, and has resorted to law suits because Yosemite National Park has refused to include any Ursack in their list of allowed bear canisters.
I'd be more curious as to how many people actually use the aluminium liner.
I use my Ursack, never had an issue in Maine or NH. I put my metal pot and fuel canister in the bottom of the bag and tie it to a tree. Guyot campsite has two bear boxes. That campsite has over a hundred people there on a popular holiday weekend. Those boxes aren't enough. Liberty Springs tentsite had a problem bear or two this fall. One was bluff charging hikers to get their packs. Caretakers were running after the bears, banging pots and pans together to scare them off. Reports from Owlshead were that a bear was taking people's packs at the base of the slide. I still didn't have a problem when I spent the night there.
Five Tango
10-28-2019, 18:20
My Ursack with liner weighs in at 19 oz or so,makes a fairly good stool,requires no perfect limb,and looks like it would be hard for the bear to get its mouth around enough to do much damage.The S29 All White I have is not rodent proof but since I have always avoided shelters it has yet to be a problem.
Since it's white I carry it inside the pack;especially during deer season.Too bad they don't make it in orange.
Greenlight
10-28-2019, 20:49
As a hammock hanger, I and my hiking buddies often set up pretty far from the shelters, even if we're in "hollerin'" distance. I'm not walking 1/3 to 1/2 mile back to the bear box to get my food. I hate the design and weight of most of the higher end bear canisters, but you know what? Sometimes you just have to suck it up and hike on. Looks like I'll be getting a canister. I like to eat, and I like to sleep at night. :)
stephanD
10-29-2019, 08:29
If a bear gets to an Ursack, the food within is turned to a stew of contents saturated with bear saliva. I met a woman south of Damascus who had a bear rip open her Ursack. They are very effective against mice, raccoons and chipmunks. When you find a good solution for what to do with your Allmitey Ursack let me know.[/QUOTE]
But this is exactly why I purchased the Allmitey, which is supposed to take care of those issues. I understand there were problems with the old models. even without the aluminum liner (which I don't have), the Allmitey is quite tough, so i do not worry about the food being mushed. as for saliva, you can just wipe it and wash it.
warren doyle
10-29-2019, 08:30
Yet another good reason to day hike the entire AT.
But this is exactly why I purchased the Allmitey, which is supposed to take care of those issues. I understand there were problems with the old models. even without the aluminum liner (which I don't have), the Allmitey is quite tough, so i do not worry about the food being mushed. as for saliva, you can just wipe it and wash it.
I bought my Allmitey two years ago. If the aluminum liners were available then I was unaware of it. I can see how the liner might protect food within a little better. However, bears are stronger than you can imagine. I saw two Ursacks that bears had "worked on". Neither had the aluminum liner. None of the food within was edible. The bear accessed food in one. The other was successful in keeping the bear from getting a reward. In both cases, complete resupply was necessary. I had an Opsack to line my Allmitey, but the seal failed within a couple of weeks. Too many problems with this system to suit me. I cut my losses and went with a canister and have no regrets.
stephanD
10-29-2019, 09:43
So an Ursack with aluminum liner is a "hard-sided" canister? According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, a canister is described simply as "cylindrical container". Because i rather keep my Allmitey with the liner than carrying a bear canister.
HooKooDooKu
10-29-2019, 11:16
So an Ursack with aluminum liner is a "hard-sided" canister? According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, a canister is described simply as "cylindrical container". Because i rather keep my Allmitey with the liner than carrying a bear canister.
Before you start throwing out definitions... you first need to determine what the "rules" are for where ever you might be going that requires a "bear canister".
For example, I found the regulations for bear canisters for the Adirondacks (https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7225.html#Regulation) that read in part:
"a commercially made container constructed of solid, non-pliable material manufactured for the specific purpose of resisting entry by bears."
I think a bag around an aluminum liner fails that description in two regards:
1. The ends of the cylinder are still "sides" of the device and they are not "solid".
2. The liner isn't even a solid cylinder. It's (if like the ursack) a sheet of aluminum rolled up in a cylinder. So that "cylinder" is pliable.
stephanD
10-29-2019, 12:49
You just can't win........:mad:
TexasBob
10-30-2019, 10:26
Question - you say the bear came into your campsite, but since it wouldn't find anything there (as you say you stored everything correctly), one might suspect it would just leave?
If that was the case, then did what others did really bother you (having the bear walk through doesn't seem to be a big problem, as one might expect a wild animal to be there no matter what)?
Seems what others do would only be a problem if the animals started going after those who didn't provide them food (people like you who are following the rules) - if they only bother those who don't (or don't want to) follow the rules of safe storage, then it's only those people who are at fault for whatever happens to them, not anyone else.
It left when the campers next to me and I made a lot of noise and shooed it off. After it left my campsite you could hear folks shouting and honking car horns across the campground as it wandered its way through the campground. No, the bear did not harm me but don't you think a bear that bold will at some point tear up a tent etc. and eventually could harm someone? Obviously that bear was bothering everybody whether they followed the rules or not.
Requiring canisters seems like an obvious and effective response.
Thanks. Couldn't have said it better.
It left when the campers next to me and I made a lot of noise and shooed it off. After it left my campsite you could hear folks shouting and honking car horns across the campground as it wandered its way through the campground. No, the bear did not harm me but don't you think a bear that bold will at some point tear up a tent etc. and eventually could harm someone? Obviously that bear was bothering everybody whether they followed the rules or not.
Doesn't sound like it was doing anything unusual - it was out walking through an area where it lives, when it sensed that people were there and didn't want it (with the noise being made), it left.
If at some point it went after a tent without any reason (that is, one that someone like you set up who wouldn't leave anything in the tent that an animal would want), then yes it would be an issue.
We had that in the Adirondacks at a camp back in the early 1990's - they would collect all food/trash after dinner time, but that didn't stop the bears from wandering through camp in the evening. They looked around, maybe picked up a scrap or two that someone dropped while cooking, sniffed around the cooking area (maybe licked a pot or two if someone didn't wash it well) and then continued on - never went after anyone or the tents, since everyone was well warned not to have food (or even other scented items) in them.
No harm to anyone or to the animals.
The Old Chief
11-01-2019, 13:02
We have a second home in the mountains of North Carolina in a small neighborhood of 10 homes. A bear or bears regularly pass through and we've learned to take in our hummingbird feeders at night and keep the garbage can in the garage. Bears haven't tried to break into any house, even though the scent of our cooking must be present several times a day. We've learned to live with the bear population and the bears evidently have learned to live with us.
Uncle Joe
11-01-2019, 19:13
Doesn't sound like it was doing anything unusual - it was out walking through an area where it lives, when it sensed that people were there and didn't want it (with the noise being made), it left.
If at some point it went after a tent without any reason (that is, one that someone like you set up who wouldn't leave anything in the tent that an animal would want), then yes it would be an issue.
We're told bear are naturally afraid of people. If true, then any behavior where a wild bear fails to demonstrate that fear is by extension "unusual." If walking through a camp full of humans isn't unusual, I'd argue the notion that bears have a natural fear of humans is suspect. I'm not discounting that humans acclimate bears to not fear them with behaviors like leaving food out. But that just bolsters the point that it's not "natural" for a bear to be cavalier about humans.
A lot is said about our changing our behavior with storing food and for good reason. But in an area where bears aren't showing natural fear AND getting into food it would seem only concentrating on the storage of food is leaving another issue left undone. Namely, what to do to try to re-instill a fear of humans? Ultimately, canisters are probably inevitable but they really only solve one problem. Perhaps a bear will simply move on and never frequent a shelter or camp again but is that what is happening? Has that been demonstrated?
mateozzz
11-02-2019, 12:46
We're told bear are naturally afraid of people. If true, then any behavior where a wild bear fails to demonstrate that fear is by extension "unusual." If walking through a camp full of humans isn't unusual, I'd argue the notion that bears have a natural fear of humans is suspect. I'm not discounting that humans acclimate bears to not fear them with behaviors like leaving food out. But that just bolsters the point that it's not "natural" for a bear to be cavalier about humans.
A lot is said about our changing our behavior with storing food and for good reason. But in an area where bears aren't showing natural fear AND getting into food it would seem only concentrating on the storage of food is leaving another issue left undone. Namely, what to do to try to re-instill a fear of humans? Ultimately, canisters are probably inevitable but they really only solve one problem. Perhaps a bear will simply move on and never frequent a shelter or camp again but is that what is happening? Has that been demonstrated?
I have a feeling that hundreds of years ago black bears were not that afraid of people. Once they started getting hunted regularly with guns any bear that didn't run was a dead bear. Kind of a big science experiment in natural selection. So now we have this population of bears that are genetically predisposed to timidity. Once the hunting tapers off the population should diversify again and we may have to treat them more as predators instead of cute animals. Food is just the lure that draws in the least timid so we need to get smarter in how we store it, i.e. bear canisters.
gpburdelljr
11-02-2019, 13:06
I have a feeling that hundreds of years ago black bears were not that afraid of people. Once they started getting hunted regularly with guns any bear that didn't run was a dead bear.
American Indians hunted black bears long before Europeans arrived. They were prized for their meat, fat, and warm robes that could be made from the fur.
Sarcasm the elf
11-02-2019, 20:09
I have a feeling that hundreds of years ago black bears were not that afraid of people. Once they started getting hunted regularly with guns any bear that didn't run was a dead bear. Kind of a big science experiment in natural selection. So now we have this population of bears that are genetically predisposed to timidity. Once the hunting tapers off the population should diversify again and we may have to treat them more as predators instead of cute animals. Food is just the lure that draws in the least timid so we need to get smarter in how we store it, i.e. bear canisters.
The prevailing theory is it was natural selection that predisposed black bears to timidity, but it happened long before humans arrived. Remember that they really are omnivores that eat a plant heavy diet, they were never major predators and this makes sense if you think about it in the context of when they evolved. Until humans first entered North America there were a number of large predator species that dominated the land including the (huge) American shortnosed bear, the sabertooth tiger, the American lion, several larger wolf species usually referred to as dire wolves, as well as a number of other megafauna species.
Back then, black bears were only mid way up the food chain and survived by fleeing danger first and asking questions later. It wasn't until humans entered the scene and killed off the more dangerous animals that black bears became the most powerful creature in the Eastern woods, purely by default. The reason that black bears survive to this day is largely because of their instinct to run away, they never posed enough of a threat to early humans or to later european settlers to warrant being killed off entirely.
stephanD
11-03-2019, 09:15
The prevailing theory is it was natural selection that predisposed black bears to timidity, but it happened long before humans arrived. Remember that they really are omnivores that eat a plant heavy diet, they were never major predators and this makes sense if you think about it in the context of when they evolved. Until humans first entered North America there were a number of large predator species that dominated the land including the (huge) American shortnosed bear, the sabertooth tiger, the American lion, several larger wolf species usually referred to as dire wolves, as well as a number of other megafauna species.
Back then, black bears were only mid way up the food chain and survived by fleeing danger first and asking questions later. It wasn't until humans entered the scene and killed off the more dangerous animals that black bears became the most powerful creature in the Eastern woods, purely by default. The reason that black bears survive to this day is largely because of their instinct to run away, they never posed enough of a threat to early humans or to later european settlers to warrant being killed off entirely.
I'm not an expert by any means, but I think you are right. Look what happened to the grizzly bear in California. They are eradicated completely and exist today only on their flag
Uncle Joe
11-03-2019, 11:52
Food is just the lure that draws in the least timid so we need to get smarter in how we store it, i.e. bear canisters.
One could argue that in areas where they're not hunted they become a problem. Anecdotally, that would certainly seem the case. GSMNP being a prime example. And, per their new GPS study, those bears are venturing into the neighboring communities to plunder trash. This was shocking to the rangers who thought the majority of bears stuck to the back country to feed on more natural sources and that plundering bears were not the norm.
That said, better food storage is a must. Wholesale slaughter of bears so hikers don't have to hang food and weekenders can leave trash in fire pits is selfish, arrogant, and entitled. I don't by any means discount that need. But when a bear shows no propensity to re-learn timidity towards humans you're probably far better off dispensing with the bear. Long before that, we need to find ways to do everything to re-instill it into every such bear.
Traveler
11-04-2019, 10:30
One could argue that in areas where they're not hunted they become a problem. Anecdotally, that would certainly seem the case. GSMNP being a prime example. And, per their new GPS study, those bears are venturing into the neighboring communities to plunder trash. This was shocking to the rangers who thought the majority of bears stuck to the back country to feed on more natural sources and that plundering bears were not the norm.
That said, better food storage is a must. Wholesale slaughter of bears so hikers don't have to hang food and weekenders can leave trash in fire pits is selfish, arrogant, and entitled. I don't by any means discount that need. But when a bear shows no propensity to re-learn timidity towards humans you're probably far better off dispensing with the bear. Long before that, we need to find ways to do everything to re-instill it into every such bear.
Once animals become habituated around people, or more specifically where people are careless with food, there is not much that can be done to change learned behavior. The key remains with people to keep food and trash with food in it secure. Unfortunately, there are still many people who reinstall bird feeding stations when bears tear them down for a snack or toss unwanted food off to the side of trails that culminates in habituated bears.
It's not the bears who need to "re-learn", its people who need to become less ignorant.
Lynnette
11-04-2019, 11:23
Consider that your Dogs food goes into canister too. I have always hung her pack w food and her little dish or stored in b boxes with mine.
https://whiteblaze.net/forum/images/Eloquent/miscgreen/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Slumgum https://whiteblaze.net/forum/images/Eloquent/buttonsgreen/viewpost-right.png (https://whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=2257364#post2257364)
If reports of bears' amazing sense of smell are true, then our food becomes the bait no matter where it is.
-Slumgum
then why is it nobody gets attacked while walkin' with a pack full of food?
Bears are being attracted to where humans en masse sloppily cook, eat, leave food odors and food trash and then store their food en masse while sleeping all at the same site. The human problem, and it is a human problem not a bear problem, unless bears being euthanized is included, is not solved with mandatory hard sided canisters. I suspect you're aware of that LW.
...You do sometimes see things left in high use areas, but the AT is amazingly clean in general.
No. Too many looksies under trail shelters noting all the left over human trash which includes food trash, food waste in fire rings, and food scraps left on and under food prep areas(the same places where people sleep and store food) and in shelters, and food wrappers left along the trail including overflowing at TH's tell me otherwise. After hiking most of the trails in the U.S. comparatively the AT overall is one of the most beaten down dirty trails I've experienced. Some AT shelters like in GSMNP are so ridiculously beaten down, over used and a strong unnatural wildlife attractant and promotor much like an unnatural human attractant. I can smell food and other attracting odors as a human at AT shelters with a much less keen sense of smell than bears. Can we imagine to what degree bears are triggered?
Perhaps, an AT quota system and different shelter food storage food prep areas should have been considered long ago? None of this matters if proper policing and enforcement doesn't occur. I'm in favor of us policing ourselves abiding by known guidelines as Andrew and others have written but that will not occur. Some will bitch but higher authorities will step in because we don't do what we know we should be doing. Preaching about expecting stubborn human centered hubris filled humans to examine and change their behaviors themselves is an uphill battle.
American Indians hunted black bears long before Europeans arrived. They were prized for their meat, fat, and warm robes that could be made from the fur.
Bears were very difficult and dangerous to kill for stone age people with bows and arrows and spears. A brave who could kill a bear by himself was considered chief material. One reason bear claws and other parts of the bear were so valued was because they were so difficult to get.
This changed dramatically with the introduction of the gun, especially more modern guns (Kentucky-style rifles and also shotguns) in the early 1800s.
Bears were not always so universally shy--there are written reports of bears walking into colonial settlements and farms in daylight, and into hunter and trapper camps in the west.
Some will bitch but higher authorities will step in because we don't do what we know we should be doing.
Amen.
Too many of us embrace the HYOH concept as meaning "mind your own business". Standing aside to allow a handful of irresponsible or under educated hikers degrade the trail results bad outcomes for everyone.
gpburdelljr
11-04-2019, 17:29
Bears were very difficult and dangerous to kill for stone age people with bows and arrows and spears. A brave who could kill a bear by himself was considered chief material. One reason bear claws and other parts of the bear were so valued was because they were so difficult to get.
Flint tipped arrows and spears are deadly. Flint arrowheads are sharper than the best steel scalpels. Plains Indians could kill a 1000 lb bison with one well placed arrow. The Clovis people hunted the Colombian Mammoth, which could reach 10 tons, with spears with flint spearheads. Black bears would be no problem, although Grizzly Bears are a different story. Even the members of the Lewis and Clark expedition had problems killing Grizzly Bears with firearms.
Uncle Joe
11-04-2019, 18:58
Once animals become habituated around people, or more specifically where people are careless with food, there is not much that can be done to change learned behavior. The key remains with people to keep food and trash with food in it secure. Unfortunately, there are still many people who reinstall bird feeding stations when bears tear them down for a snack or toss unwanted food off to the side of trails that culminates in habituated bears.
It's not the bears who need to "re-learn", its people who need to become less ignorant.
Let's say everyone starts putting away food properly. Do you think that a bear that has already learned where there is people there is food is going to just stop going where people are? As you said, "Once animals become habituated around people...there is not much that can be done to change learned behavior." If the bear cannot re-learn then it will likely be, eventually, put down. Either because its behavior will escalate or because it will turn to dumpsters and get trapped and put down.
Don't get me wrong, people need to better store their food but we can't just leave habituated bears out there without attempting some sort of solution to that problem as well. In Alaska, nuisance bears are shot with rubber bullets and it seems to have a decent effect on keeping them away from dumpsters. I don't think I've ever heard of that being used in the East but perhaps it should be.
orthofingers
11-04-2019, 19:17
[QUOTE=ldsailor;2257318]Just received my electronic issue of the ATC's magazine "Journeys." There is an article in it about food storage on the trail. Here is an excerpt from the article titled Harmful Habits.
"Land management supervisors in North Carolina are close to ratifying food storage regulations for the A.T. that will require the use of hard-sided canisters."
I've read every post so far on this thread. We can argue about canisters vs Ursacks, thru hiker slobs vs day hiker slobs, steel bear boxes vs canisters vs bear behavior etc. but, does anyone know how close the above mentioned Land management supervisors are to ratifying the requirement for canisters?
If this becomes a requirement/rule/law before the 2020 season, I'm going to need a canister and a larger pack to hold it.
Food can be stored properly out of my sight and away from where I can get at it by absconding with it but food smells at Dominoes or a restaurant or kitchen still make me stop, seek the source, and follow them to the source when I'm desperately hungry. It's not the food stored in freezers or dry stored I'm truly after. It's where the food is cooked and consumed and the food smells left behind on clothing, etc that are the biggest attractant. Now take that in context of being a 200-500 lb bear who has to scavenge as an omnivore with that species sense of smell and strength. What we're doing is going into someone elses's home/house during the Super Bowl with piping hot pepperoni pizza and a 12 pack of beer expecting the owners to not take notice.
On the other hand, I rather enjoyed watching three black bears open up a sedan like a sardine can with big can opener claws in Yosemite Valley seeking food left opened and out stored overnight inside the car. Yosemite Rangers asked the surprised and obviously irate owners upon arrival if any food and specifically any open food had been left in the car, a blatant violation of well communicated Yosemite NP Rules. The humans said no, no food was left in the car. They lied! The Rangers found two grocery receipts among the food fray paid with credit cards. They asked the Tourons without giving away their investigation direction if they had any credit cards. Sure enough the credit card numbers and food remains on the receipts matched ownership to the humans credit cards that owned the sedan. The Tourons were ridiculously attempting to hold the NPS liable for the damage. The moral of the story is investigate enough and negative bear/human encounters can most often be solely blamed on human behavior including ignoring of rules. Then, in human specie's hubris attempt to deny or lie about the extent of it's specie's involvement. I have a pic somewhere of one bear sitting like a human rear legs spread eating cheese Doodles out of a bag like a human child sitting in front of the TV eating. I couldn't help myself but applaud the Rangers. Sedan had to be flat bedded undrivable.
Ahh, the mistaken world view humanity is above and separate from Nature/the environment not another predatory animal in Nature. What goes along with this view is mistakenly defining the "take dominion of the Earth and subdue it" command to one in which raping, pillaging, and unwise stewardship becomes the standard human behavior. The connection humanity once had with Nature is replaced with a connection to the economy/money/rampant unbridled consumption/waste/conquest.
Yeah it's preachy but humanity especially here in the U.S. likes to ignore the consequences of such a world view.
HooKooDooKu
11-04-2019, 22:35
Let's say everyone starts putting away food properly. Do you think that a bear that has already learned where there is people there is food is going to just stop going where people are? As you said, "Once animals become habituated around people...there is not much that can be done to change learned behavior." If the bear cannot re-learn then it will likely be, eventually, put down. Either because its behavior will escalate or because it will turn to dumpsters and get trapped and put down.
Don't get me wrong, people need to better store their food but we can't just leave habituated bears out there without attempting some sort of solution to that problem as well. In Alaska, nuisance bears are shot with rubber bullets and it seems to have a decent effect on keeping them away from dumpsters. I don't think I've ever heard of that being used in the East but perhaps it should be.
The idea behind bear canisters is to retrain the bears people (and their canisters) are not a source of food.
They are supposed to find the canisters, try getting into it for a while, and eventually five up. Then the next time they find a bear canisters, they've learned not to waste their time.
FreeGoldRush
11-04-2019, 22:40
The idea behind bear canisters is to retrain the bears people (and their canisters) are not a source of food.
They are supposed to find the canisters, try getting into it for a while, and eventually five up. Then the next time they find a bear canisters, they've learned not to waste their time.
If everyone used canisters it would almost certainly solve bear problems. I don’t want to carry a bear canister. So people need to stop being stupid with their food. This isn’t hard to figure out. Either store your food property or (Gasp!) sleep with it.
So you're lazy and don't care to make an effort. At least you've shown your true colors. Thanks for that.
Traillium
11-05-2019, 00:05
Yeah it's preachy but humanity especially here in the U.S. likes to ignore the consequences of such a world view.
Keep preaching, brother!
HooKooDooKu
11-05-2019, 00:17
If everyone used canisters it would almost certainly solve bear problems. I don’t want to carry a bear canister. So people need to stop being stupid with their food. This isn’t hard to figure out. Either store your food property or (Gasp!) sleep with it.
While that might work where people are sparsely camping... that is VERY bad advice for areas where people repeatedly camp... specifically GSMNP where everyone is required to camp at limited camping spots where bear cables are provided... you should NOT sleep with your food in GSMNP.
The idea behind bear canisters is to retrain the bears people (and their canisters) are not a source of food.
They are supposed to find the canisters, try getting into it for a while, and eventually five up. Then the next time they find a bear canisters, they've learned not to waste their time.
What about food not stored when being cooked, eaten and food trash discarded in the same place humans sleep? What about when cookware is washed in the same general sleeping location? What about the odors on apparel worn while cooking? Do you truly assume bears will no longer make the connection with food and humans. I've seen both brown and black bears many times much more attracted to where cooking and eating was being conducted compared to where food was being stored literally crashing the feast. They went right by huge stashes of uncooked food and headed directly towards the much stronger cooking odors and food scraps and food trash humans created when presented with the choice. This is made worse when humans in masse are behaving the same way as they do on the AT and NP's.
Canisters are a step in the right direction but are not the bear/human issue panacea some make it out to be.
This is how I too avoid bear problems. It's about changing my behavior accordingly not so much the bears.
Bear Avoidance
Regardless of whether I have a failsafe way to protect my food, I do not want a bear coming into my campsite, unless a good night of rest is not a priority, which it almost always is. Plus, I don’t want to find out the hard way that my “failsafe” technique was, in fact, not. So whenever I’m in bear country I practice a number of “bear avoidance” techniques. These include:
I do NOT camp where I cook. I cook at least a few hundred yards away from my campsite, downwind, preferably in an airy area where there is a gentle breeze to disperse the scents. Wiser still, I sometimes stop around 8pm near a water source, cook dinner, and then hike another hour before setting up camp.
I do NOT carry strongly scented food or other items. These would include things like fresh T-bone steaks, slabs of bacon, deodorant, or sweet-smelling toothpaste.
***I do NOT camp in established sites or near popular trails. The bears live in the backcountry (duh!), and they know exactly where their “neighbors” live. And in heavy-use areas, it is more likely that a previous backcountry user has acted improperly and encouraged problem bear behavior (e.g. by leaving trash at their campsite, or leaving food unprotected on a log while they went to get water or watch the sunset). Bears are more likely to visit these areas regularly because they know their odds of obtaining an easy meal are better.
I DO camp in undesignated, non-established sites. When the bears make their evening “rounds,” they are less likely to come across me. If I am in an area where camping in designated areas is required (e.g. Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks), this is sometimes not possible, but thankfully there is usually good food-protection infrastructure at these sites.
I DO carry my food in odor-proof bags. These bags (such as the OP Sacks from Watchful Eye Designs) will help make me “invisible” to the bears.
I DO burn my trash every few days. This helps to reduce my scents, especially if some of my trash is laced with food remnants, like chocolate coatings from energy bars.
I DO start hiking early and finish hiking late. The bears are most active in the morning and evening. So if I start hiking when the bears start roaming, and if I settle into camp at around the same time that they are bedding down, then I help to reduce the odds of an in-camp encounter. And, finally,
I DO travel and camp where the bears are not, when I can. Bears are most likely to be encountered near their food sources, so if you know what they are eating, you can avoid those areas and elevations. Grizzly bears in Yellowstone, for example, emerge from hibernation in the spring and descend to lower elevations with the hope of catching an elk or bison calf. During the summer they feast on roots, tubers, grasses, rodents, moths, and berries. And, just before hibernation, they head into sub-alpine white bark pine forests in order to eat the pine nuts.
https://andrewskurka.com/food-protection-techniques-in-bear-country/
If we don't want to experience the common dont act as the common.
HooKooDooKu
11-05-2019, 12:38
True, the use of bear canisters alone isn't going to totally make bear/people encounters go away. As you say, a step in the right direction, but not the universal solution.
Berserker
11-05-2019, 20:06
Yes, I am glad to hear this.
I have been a proponent of the canister for a while now. I've hung my food and slept with it in my tent in the past, and the canister is just easier to use without the risk of having food in the tent. Once one gets used to the weight it just becomes another part of the gear like the pack, tent and sleeping bag.
Five Tango
11-05-2019, 20:10
True, the use of bear canisters alone isn't going to totally make bear/people encounters go away. As you say, a step in the right direction, but not the universal solution.
Totally agree.I can see it now-someone is going to buy more food than they can put in their canister and leave the excess in the wrong place.You know it's bound to happen.
I met a guy in the GSMNP that had a bent up pot from a bear in the Shining Rock Wilderness.I wonder how many hang their cook set or will not have a canister that will hold it plus their food.