Another Article About Bear Canisters and Their Future on the AT

[ldsailor]

A few months ago, I posted about about an article in the ATC's magazine "Journeys" that talked about the coming of bear canisters to the AT. Now the Trek has posted an article here (https://thetrek.co/appalachian-trail/the-case-for-bear-canisters/) that goes into more detail. It seems clear that we are being prepped for what is coming - required bear canisters.

BTW. There is a pretty interesting video in the article of a bear trying to get into a bear box.

[Tipi Walter]

It's funny to read about "resource protection" of black bears on the AT by using canisters and yet in TN bear hunters killed 760 black bears in 2018 and in my county of Monroe which contains Citico Creek wilderness and a few hundred miles of foot trails bear hunters have killed 131 black bears in 2018. So what's the point of using a bear canister to protect black bears when hunters are allowed to come out and kill them????

[ldsailor]

It's funny to read about "resource protection" of black bears on the AT by using canisters and yet in TN bear hunters killed 760 black bears in 2018 and in my county of Monroe which contains Citico Creek wilderness and a few hundred miles of foot trails bear hunters have killed 131 black bears in 2018. So what's the point of using a bear canister to protect black bears when hunters are allowed to come out and kill them????

Wow! I didn't know that. In Florida where I live, a couple of years ago they held a bear hunt. As I recall the limit was 300-something bears. The hunters killed over three hundred in the first weekend and the hunt was called off. Because of the public outcry, no further bear hunts have been allowed.

Now if they can just stop the carnage cars are doing to the panthers here in Florida that would be a real accomplishment.

[peakbagger]

It's funny to read about "resource protection" of black bears on the AT by using canisters and yet in TN bear hunters killed 760 black bears in 2018 and in my county of Monroe which contains Citico Creek wilderness and a few hundred miles of foot trails bear hunters have killed 131 black bears in 2018. So what's the point of using a bear canister to protect black bears when hunters are allowed to come out and kill them????

There is no point. Some PR person is just desperately trying to come up with reasons to convince people to stop feeding bears by poor food storage practices which leads to more bear human interactions. In the vast majority of states the bear populations are over management levels. The problem is generally too many bears not to few.

[FromNH]

A very sad but excellent point. Hikers safe the bears so that a frustrated 9 to 5 guy can feel like a man by shooting an unarmed creature. Before anyone gives me a lecture, I am former spec ops with lots of combat experience. I do not shoot anything that’s unarmed or doesn’t otherwise pose an immediate risk to myself or others.

[John R.]

Let us never forget to defend our right to arm bears

[RockDoc]

Tipi dude, so correct but you forget that regulators are immune to common sense arguments.

Like Jordon Peterson says, the people making the rules are the last people that you would ever want to make the rules!

[Slo-go'en]

When a bear becomes a nusense bear, which it will once it starts scoring hiker food, it becomes a dead bear. Otherwise, it has a fair chance of avoiding the hunters.

So using canisters can save a bear from certian death. It will also save you from having to deal with a possibly aggressive bear in the mean time.

That said, I will resist using a canister as long as I can...

[FromNH]

I don’t like the term nuisance bear. If anything we are the nuisance for entering and disturbing their territory. Not blaming you for this word in any way.
I read a great book once were a couple from Canada went to Kamtschatka to proof that bears are not dangerous to humans as long as they never had a bad experience. All went well until hunters moved it. The giant grizzlies they have there became dangerous. To be honest , I would get ticked off too if anyone would start killing my friends and family.

I use an UrSack mostly for mice etc. I never had an issue with a bear in the woods just people from MA.

[soilman]

USFS in NC has proposed the use of bear canisters in National Forests there. With increased bear encounters it just a matter of time until canisters will be required in more locations along the AT.

[HooKooDooKu]

USFS in NC has proposed the use of bear canisters in National Forests there. With increased bear encounters it just a matter of time until canisters will be required in more locations along the AT.
I would agree... bear canisters seem to be working well in places like Yosemite National Park that now requires them...
Buy contrast, even though EVERY campsite in Great Smokey Mountains National Park, fools continue to not use them properly and we still produce problem bears in the park.
But if people are REQUIRED to carry a canister, they are unlikely to carry it and not use it.

[George]

It's funny to read about "resource protection" of black bears on the AT by using canisters and yet in TN bear hunters killed 760 black bears in 2018 and in my county of Monroe which contains Citico Creek wilderness and a few hundred miles of foot trails bear hunters have killed 131 black bears in 2018. So what's the point of using a bear canister to protect black bears when hunters are allowed to come out and kill them????

IMO a large influence on hunting law is that it generates revenue, fees, excise tax, and tourist spending - much more so than hikers ever will

not to mention 300 years ago bear encounters were rare, although the habitat was undoubtedly more favorable - why? unlimited hunting

[LazyLightning]

I just picked one up but it wasn't for the protection of black bears, it was for the protection of my food from bear's, rodents, bugs, ect. I'm done with hangs (mainly cause of flying squirrels).

[needlefish]

i hope they do consider this as an alternative (take from the article) “I can use a soft-sided bear bag.” Yes. There are IGBC-approved soft-sided bags on the market. Consider, though, that it needs to be properly secured to substantial objects so the bear can’t just carry it off, and that anything inside will be pretty much pulverized when a bear starts working on it. They are not rodent proof; it’s surprising how small a hole a mouse can get through.

[BlackCloud]

I am so relieved that the gov't is going to, once again, step in to protect me from both myself and an extremely rare risk of a dangerous bear encounter. I look forward to learning what my gov't will do to protect me from lightning, flash floods and rabid raccoons.

If they make it a requirement, I will not carry one of those big bulky things, but instead will continue to hang my food on the AT as I have been doing for 20 years w/o incident.

This isn't Yellowstone...

[Tipi Walter]

I am so relieved that the gov't is going to, once again, step in to protect me from both myself and an extremely rare risk of a dangerous bear encounter. I look forward to learning what my gov't will do to protect me from lightning, flash floods and rabid raccoons.

If they make it a requirement, I will not carry one of those big bulky things, but instead will continue to hang my food on the AT as I have been doing for 20 years w/o incident.

This isn't Yellowstone...

Totally agree as I'm trying to imagine how I'd get 21 or 24 days worth of backpacking food into what? Four canisters? And where would I put all of these canisters? On a llama??

And if we get hit by lightning or stalked by angry raccoons the guvmint will close the forest permanently so no one breaks a nail. But if our diapers get full we're on our own.

Beyond all this---Ursack makes 30 liter kevlar bear sacks which are approved in the GSMNP which I assume would also apply to the length of the Appalachian Trail so no worries. A 30 liter bag could hold two weeks of food---so two bags would work for me even tho each sack weighs 15 ozs.

[4eyedbuzzard]

I just picked one up but it wasn't for the protection of black bears, it was for the protection of my food from bear's, rodents, bugs, ect. I'm done with hangs (mainly cause of flying squirrels).Ah, yes, the flying squirrel problem.

[HooKooDooKu]

...Ursack makes 30 liter kevlar bear sacks which are approved in the GSMNP which I assume would also apply to the length of the Appalachian Trail so no worries. A 30 liter bag could hold two weeks of food---so two bags would work for me even tho each sack weighs 15 ozs.
Curious about your source indicating kevlar bear sacks are approved for use in GSMNP?

The GSMNP Compendium of Rules and regulations only lists the cable system as an allowed food storage method in the back country (or hanging when cables are full or otherwise unavailable).

Now I'm not saying a ranger is going to write you a ticket if he catches you storing food in a bear canister... but I just don't know anything in writing allowing anything but the cables.

[renais]

Ursack lists GSMNP as approving of a number of their products for food storage: https://ursack.com/pages/where-ursack-is-approved
I'd ask at the backcountry office to confirm latest regulations.

[AsoloBootsSuk]

A very sad but excellent point. Hikers safe the bears so that a frustrated 9 to 5 guy can feel like a man by shooting an unarmed creature. Before anyone gives me a lecture, I am former spec ops with lots of combat experience. I do not shoot anything that’s unarmed or doesn’t otherwise pose an immediate risk to myself or others.

Spec ops, neat. I'd be too scared to do combat like you. I do hunt for about 30% of our meat. 1-3 whitetails each year and a BB if I'm really lucky.

[needlefish]

Curious about your source indicating kevlar bear sacks are approved for use in GSMNP?


https://ursack.com/pages/where-ursack-is-approved

[Paleolith54]

Ursack lists GSMNP as approving of a number of their products for food storage: https://ursack.com/pages/where-ursack-is-approved
I'd ask at the backcountry office to confirm latest regulations.



I'd definitely ask, as I seriously doubt an Ursack can be used instead of the cable systems. The Park's backcountry rules online still say this:

"9. All odorous items (e.g., food, trash, lip balm, toothpaste, stock feed, hay etc) must be hung on the bear cable system at each campsite or shelter. "

The world of advertising being what it is, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Ursacks are "approved" as long as they're hung from cables, but that we are left to incorrectly infer from the wording that "approved" means they can be used instead of the cables.

I do not claim to know, just reinforcing that I'd trust but verify 😊

[HooKooDooKu]

Ursack lists GSMNP as approving of a number of their products for food storage: https://ursack.com/pages/where-ursack-is-approved
I'd ask at the backcountry office to confirm latest regulations.


Given that that information is coming from the manufacturer... you need to take it with a grain of salt. Because I have no doubt that GSMNP does indeed allow Ursack... so long as it's hanging from the bear cables.

I notice the Mt Rainier is also listed by Ursack. While I am NOT familiar with the reg for Mt. Rainier as I am with GSMNP, from what I've read, Mt. Rainier is like GSMNP in that camping is only allowed at designated camp sites, and those camp sites have bear cables. So again, I could see where Mt. Rainier has no issues with someone using a Ursack... when it's hanging from the installed bear cables.



A few other things I'm noticing that might be a pattern with the Ursack provided info:
1. Parks listed as NOT being approved are parks that do not have designated campsites (i.e. no bear cables).
2. Parks without known bear populations are listed as being approved (i.e. some of the parks listed as approved seem to be parks that don't have strong food storage regulations).

[martinb]

After hanging or 25+ years I've been using a bear can for the last four years and don't miss hanging one bit. Rather than searching for the right tree and getting everything just right, I'm relaxing and enjoying the wilderness. For an extra pound of carry weight it's well worth it. For someone like Walter obviously it's not going to work but for most AT hikers, with resupply every 5 days or so, cans make sense in keeping camp areas and wild creatures safer.

[needlefish]

so currently in GSMNP a bear canister is not an approved method of food storage, am i correct?

[Paleolith54]

so currently in GSMNP a bear canister is not an approved method of food storage, am i correct?

This seems pretty clear. Unless the web page is wrong, which I doubt on something like this.

"9. All odorous items (e.g., food, trash, lip balm, toothpaste, stock feed, hay etc) must be hung on the bear cable system at each campsite or shelter. "

[ldsailor]

Ursacks are not odor proof unless you purchase and use the Opsak within the Ursak. So, even if you have an Ursak in the Smokies, you still have to hang it. The main issue is attracting bears through smell. The only thing an Ursak will do is keep the bear from getting into your food bag. Stomping on your food if left tied to the trunk of a tree or just thrown on the ground isn't really protecting your food.

[4eyedbuzzard]

My biggest concern on canisters isn't the added weight. It's having a bear or other creature decide it's at a tryout for Manchester United using my canister as the ball. Get one of those things rolling any distance away in the woods and good luck finding it. I've been told that putting a clean, empty pot on top of it to create some alarm noise if its disturbed might help. But who wants to intervene with a hungry bear and a food container?

[Tipi Walter]

My biggest concern on canisters isn't the added weight. It's having a bear or other creature decide it's at a tryout for Manchester United using my canister as the ball. Get one of those things rolling any distance away in the woods and good luck finding it. I've been told that putting a clean, empty pot on top of it to create some alarm noise if its disturbed might help. But who wants to intervene with a hungry bear and a food container?

Once discovered the bruins will roll a canister wherever they want. I had two Bearvaults set up in a cache and Mr Bear found it and swatted the things a couple hundred feet off the hill and did some gnawing but never got the food. I guess he got frustrated cuz he came back and found my emergency Prolite sleeping pad and got to chewing---

https://photos.smugmug.com/Backpacking2010/16-Days-with-a-Miracle-Dog/i-TmKPR4J/0/47295284/L/BEAR%20DAMAGE%20006-L.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Backpacking2010/16-Days-with-a-Miracle-Dog/i-2NTDH7q/0/b206f1e8/L/BEAR%20DAMAGE%20007-L.jpg

[HooKooDooKu]

so currently in GSMNP a bear canister is not an approved method of food storage, am i correct?
Technically correct.

But I don't think a GSMNP ranger is going to issue you a citation if your food storage method can immediately make them think "that food is protected"...
...which is what I think would be the case if you are properly using a commercially constructed hard-sided bear canister (such as the Bear Vault, Garcia, Bearikade, Lighter 1).

By contrast, a ranger NOT familiar with a Ursack would NOT immediately think food in a sack tied to the trunk of a tree is adequate.
And a ranger that IS familiar with a Ursack would likely know other parks specifically do NOT allow its use and therefore wouldn't allow you to use it in GSMNP.



I think in the not too distance future, bear canisters are going to become a required method of food storage along the AT, and when that happens, I believe GSMNP will follow suit... at LEAST for those hiking on AT thru permits.

[martinb]

My biggest concern on canisters isn't the added weight. It's having a bear or other creature decide it's at a tryout for Manchester United using my canister as the ball. Get one of those things rolling any distance away in the woods and good luck finding it. I've been told that putting a clean, empty pot on top of it to create some alarm noise if its disturbed might help. But who wants to intervene with a hungry bear and a food container?

A black bear tried to get into mine Nov 2108. It was in a thicket of small bushes about 75' from my tent. The can was moved about 10 yards from where it was placed. Placing reflective tape on the can can help with finding it should it be investigated. Fears of it rolling off the cliff, or similar, can be avoided with careful selection of its overnight resting place.

[Paleolith54]

Technically correct.

But I don't think a GSMNP ranger is going to issue you a citation if your food storage method can immediately make them think "that food is protected"...
...which is what I think would be the case if you are properly using a commercially constructed hard-sided bear canister (such as the Bear Vault, Garcia, Bearikade, Lighter 1).

By contrast, a ranger NOT familiar with a Ursack would NOT immediately think food in a sack tied to the trunk of a tree is adequate.
And a ranger that IS familiar with a Ursack would likely know other parks specifically do NOT allow its use and therefore wouldn't allow you to use it in GSMNP.



I think in the not too distance future, bear canisters are going to become a required method of food storage along the AT, and when that happens, I believe GSMNP will follow suit... at LEAST for those hiking on AT thru permits.

I’d say this is about right but I would absolutely not count on avoiding a citation if I wasn’t using the cables.

[martinb]

Once discovered the bruins will roll a canister wherever they want. I had two Bearvaults set up in a cache and Mr Bear found it and swatted the things a couple hundred feet off the hill and did some gnawing but never got the food. I guess he got frustrated cuz he came back and found my emergency Prolite sleeping pad and got to chewing---

https://photos.smugmug.com/Backpacking2010/16-Days-with-a-Miracle-Dog/i-TmKPR4J/0/47295284/L/BEAR%20DAMAGE%20006-L.jpg


Walter, this is why I shied away from BV and Berikade when I decided on my can, they are too round. I have a mini garcia (bare boxer) and their shape makes them harder to roll. It will spin in circles if swatted.

[HooKooDooKu]

I’d say this is about right but I would absolutely not count on avoiding a citation if I wasn’t using the cables.
Yeah, I left out the "YMMV" disclaimer before hitting the post button.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Once discovered the bruins will roll a canister wherever they want. I had two Bearvaults set up in a cache and Mr Bear found it and swatted the things a couple hundred feet off the hill and did some gnawing but never got the food. I guess he got frustrated cuz he came back and found my emergency Prolite sleeping pad and got to chewingCouple of hundred feet is quite a distance. That's a pretty big area to search off trail in the woods.


A black bear tried to get into mine Nov 2108. It was in a thicket of small bushes about 75' from my tent. The can was moved about 10 yards from where it was placed. Placing reflective tape on the can can help with finding it should it be investigated. Fears of it rolling off the cliff, or similar, can be avoided with careful selection of its overnight resting place.And had it been moved hundreds of feet as in Tipi's case, how easy would it have been to find? Especially if it were in an area where there is a lot of cover or steeply downhill?

I just have this (future) vision of lost bear canisters littering the woods in the southern Appalachians (yes, likely an exaggeration, but maybe not given the sheer number of and skill level of many hikers) - and ultimately, bear canisters winding up hoisted on metal poles or secured in bear boxes at shelters and camp areas. Losing a canister likely isn't going to happen to most hikers. But if---WHEN that happens (especially so if it's you or me), losing one's food supply and canister when several days from resupply is more than just a inconvenience. There are many areas on the AT where "careful selection" or a level area to avoid a canister rolling off a significant distance, especially with help from a bear, isn't a reasonable option due to terrain (on the side of a mountain). I guess I could hang the canister, but that kind of defeats its reason for existing in the first place and gives the bear a better way of holding it should it get to it.

There's one sure thing though - the canister manufacturers would be thrilled if they became mandated on the AT.

[martinb]

4 eyed, in Walter's case he cached these containers so who knows how long a bear (or several bears) had time to work them. While it is very possible containers would be lost the big difference is the bear still doesn't get the food. Also, whether your container is "lost" or your hang gets purloined, you will still be inconvenienced. I'm sure far more food is lost from improper hanging than we hear about on the Internet.

[skiBee]

I have not tested it yet but I purchased some "Tiles" for finding your keys or what ever.
Going to put one in the bear vault and pack it full of food and see how far away I can detect it with my phone.

The Tile is suppose to have a 300 to 400 foot range.


https://www.thetileapp.com/store/tiles/pro%E2%80%8B

[4eyedbuzzard]

I have not tested it yet but I purchased some "Tiles" for finding your keys or what ever.
Going to put one in the bear vault and pack it full of food and see how far away I can detect it with my phone.

The Tile is suppose to have a 300 to 400 foot range.


https://www.thetileapp.com/store/tiles/pro%E2%80%8B
Yeah, I was wondering about using such a device and smartphone compatibility, especially the range.
Please post results when you do this. Sounds like a good idea.

[4eyedbuzzard]

4 eyed, in Walter's case he cached these containers so who knows how long a bear (or several bears) had time to work them. While it is very possible containers would be lost the big difference is the bear still doesn't get the food. Also, whether your container is "lost" or your hang gets purloined, you will still be inconvenienced. I'm sure far more food is lost from improper hanging than we hear about on the Internet.Agreed. And I'm not saying that there isn't a need to protect against bear/human interaction, I'm just not sure thousands of hikers, many somewhat inexperienced, with canisters scattered all about up and down the AT is a great long term solution. There is existing concern with the compacting/hardening of areas around shelters and tent sites from overuse, especially in the south. Stashing canisters the recommended (and this varies, Yosemite NP says 25 to 50 yards) 100 - 200 feet away from shelter or tent site expands the impacted areas further. Canisters aren't foolproof either - lots of stories out there about lids coming loose from damaged latches, lids not put on properly, etc. Personally, I'd rather see bear boxes or poles with enough capacity to handle the hiker load and stay with the concept of concentrating the human impact. No, that doesn't address the situation in relation to dispersed camping, but those incidents are more rare and don't lead to bears frequenting a specific location. Most bear/human incidents occur at shelters and established campsites, where most of the food is, and where the bears expect it to be. Just my opinion, people can disagree. I don't think there is any one size fits all perfect solution.

[Tipi Walter]

The canister recommendation for the AT seems to be wild overreach by the tent police. I'd like to see the statistics for bear maulings or killings of hikers on the AT for the last---say--- 50 years. And just because you store all your food in a canister does not mean a bear can't smell you inside a tent---you're a human cheese stick, remember?---and decide to have a meal.

And then let's compute the chances of dying on the trail or in camp from a falling tree or tree limb---or hikers who have been pit viper bit. What will the tent police do about these dangers? If a bear gets my food he gets my food. Hitch out and restock. If he becomes a "problem" bear and is killed, well, thousands of bears are killed every year by hunters in the Southeast mountains and no one seems to care.

[HooKooDooKu]

...I just have this (future) vision of lost bear canisters littering the woods in the southern Appalachians (yes, likely an exaggeration, but maybe not given the sheer number of and skill level of many hikers) - and ultimately, bear canisters winding up hoisted on metal poles or secured in bear boxes at shelters and camp areas. Losing a canister likely isn't going to happen to most hikers. But if---WHEN that happens (especially so if it's you or me), losing one's food supply and canister when several days from resupply is more than just a inconvenience. There are many areas on the AT where "careful selection" or a level area to avoid a canister rolling off a significant distance, especially with help from a bear, isn't a reasonable option due to terrain (on the side of a mountain). I guess I could hang the canister, but that kind of defeats its reason for existing in the first place and gives the bear a better way of holding it should it get to it.

There's one sure thing though - the canister manufacturers would be thrilled if they became mandated on the AT.
The Sierra Nevada Mountains (and other places where bear canisters are required) are not littered with missing canisters.

They are a tested and proven technology. Are they perfect? No. But I don't see how using a bear canister is going to make your food MORE prone to disappearing than using a food sack.

And yeah, you don't want to hang a canister... but again, you don't see that being an issue in places where bear canisters are mandatory.

About the only problem I've heard with canisters is the occasional campsite near a cliff that the bear has access to both the top and bottom of the cliff. In these cases, the bears occasionally learn that if the cliff is high enough, rolling the canister off the cliff will cause it to bust open under it's own weight. But the locations this sort of thing happens is limited and the community finds ways to deal with it (issues warnings, finds alternate locations, or installing bear boxes at the troubled site).

[ldsailor]

Yeah, I was wondering about using such a device and smartphone compatibility, especially the range.
Please post results when you do this. Sounds like a good idea.

These trackers are sold on Amazon. There are 2,051 reviews of which 79% are 5 star. Here is a link - Tile Pro.
(https://www.amazon.com/Tile-RE-20004-Pro-4-Pack/dp/B07W9B83YV/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=tracker&qid=1581975434&sr=8-6#customerReviews)

[Huntmog]

Complete nonsense in my opinion. I worry more about the amount of trash I find along the trail or at campsites than I do from food storage.

I am a firm believer in making good judgement calls in the woods...limit exposures by being smart not by being ordered. I hang my food in bear heavy areas (i.e. SNP) or when I have my small kids with me.

Otherwise? Sleep in my tent with it or empty shelter. A bear will smell a lot of other stuff on me as easy as it will the food in bags.

[Tipi Walter]

Complete nonsense in my opinion. I worry more about the amount of trash I find along the trail or at campsites than I do from food storage.

I am a firm believer in making good judgement calls in the woods...limit exposures by being smart not by being ordered. I hang my food in bear heavy areas (i.e. SNP) or when I have my small kids with me.

Otherwise? Sleep in my tent with it or empty shelter. A bear will smell a lot of other stuff on me as easy as it will the food in bags.

My thoughts too. "Complete nonsense" about sums it up. Like with trash, I worry more about human turds dropped on the ground with a big wad of toilet paper and the idiot is no where to be found.

"Being ordered" seems to be a coming trend in the backcountry. Look what happened in the GSMNP---I think Ed Abbey mentioned it---"Have fun but only in a clockwise direction."

[4eyedbuzzard]

We are the BORG (Bureau of Outdoor Required Gear). Your existence as you know it is over. You and your technological distinctiveness will be assimilated to service us. Lower your hang bags and surrender. Resistance is futile.

[Five Tango]

This idiot is a firm believer in packing out the toilet paper along with all the other trash.And I almost feel guilty about being a freezer bag cooker but I'm not ready to give them up just yet.Maybe one makes up for the other... I would carry a bear cannister if it were the law,but not until then.

[AsoloBootsSuk]

In places that require the use of bear canisters, who does the mandating? Local, state, Fed? Ordinances, state laws? Also how do enforcement and fines work?

[soilman]

Bear canister use regulations were enacted by the USFS in Pisgah and Chattahoochee NF. The 5 mile stretch of the AT with a bear canister requirement is in the Chattahoochee. Don't know about fines. What is interesting to note that the bear canister requirement in the 5 mile GA stretch was considered as an alternative to closing that area to camping.

[rmitchell]

When a bear becomes a nusense bear, which it will once it starts scoring hiker food, it becomes a dead bear. Otherwise, it has a fair chance of avoiding the hunters.

So using canisters can save a bear from certian death. It will also save you from having to deal with a possibly aggressive bear in the mean time.

That said, I will resist using a canister as long as I can...

Yeah. 2lbs. +

[August W.]

There's way more nuisance humans than there are nuisance bears throughout the trail corridors. Bring on the hard-sided food canister requirements, and if not, require a backcountry competency and ethics exam before allowing folks to overnight on our public lands.

[AsoloBootsSuk]

There's way more nuisance humans than there are nuisance bears throughout the trail corridors. Bring on the hard-sided food canister requirements, and if not, require a backcountry competency and ethics exam before allowing folks to overnight on our public lands.

Who would administer such an exam? Pay for it? Enforce? To be tax neutral, you'll need to create a back-country permit system. It's multi state, so you better go federal. Given the number of AT hikers and the required size of such a program, I think $250 per year per person would work. Neither humans or black bears are an endangered species, let God sort it out. We don't need more mumbo-jumbo regs. Just my opinion, YRMV

[C4web88]

I do not shoot anything that’s unarmed or doesn’t otherwise pose an immediate risk to myself or others.

I'll bet you eat it if it's from a restaurant or store though.

[Tipi Walter]

Who would administer such an exam? Pay for it? Enforce? To be tax neutral, you'll need to create a back-country permit system. It's multi state, so you better go federal. Given the number of AT hikers and the required size of such a program, I think $250 per year per person would work. Neither humans or black bears are an endangered species, let God sort it out. We don't need more mumbo-jumbo regs. Just my opinion, YRMV

Since the AT is a National Park, why not do what they do in the Smokies?

#1---get every AT backpacker and/or thruhiker to pay $4 per night while on the trail.
#2---set up an extensive list where a hiker must name every campsite he/she will stay at for the entire trip (this is what they do in the Smokies).
#3---camp only at designated campsites.

There you go. I just destroyed any incentive or motivation to go backpacking.

[AsoloBootsSuk]

^^^^Eleventymillion percent agree

[Tipi Walter]

^^^^Eleventymillion percent agree

98% of the 11 million Park visitors are in cars rolling thru the park or dayhiking---where there is not an entrance fee for autos or a permit or fee for dayhikers. All the rules I mentioned for the Park only apply to overnight backpackers. And so of course without any kind of fees those 11 million would totally agree with the rules and fees for backpackers.

[Paleolith54]

Since the AT is a National Park...

Huh? I missed that memo.

[Tipi Walter]

Huh? I missed that memo.

It's a unit of the National Park System.

[peakbagger]

There is post elsewhere about a pipeline case that is going to the Supreme Court next week regarding what federal agency calls the shots on the AT. The USFS had given approval to cross the AT corridor and lower courts have ruled that the NPS (Department of Interior) has control over the entire length of the corridor. All of the trail maintaining clubs sign contracts with NPS and all volunteers sign a contract with the NPS.

[Paleolith54]

There is post elsewhere about a pipeline case that is going to the Supreme Court next week regarding what federal agency calls the shots on the AT. The USFS had given approval to cross the AT corridor and lower courts have ruled that the NPS (Department of Interior) has control over the entire length of the corridor. All of the trail maintaining clubs sign contracts with NPS and all volunteers sign a contract with the NPS.


It's a unit of the National Park System.

I knew that NPS has had what I guess you could call "cognizance" over it since it is a National Scenic Trail, but was unaware of the extent to which their role seems to have pre-empted that of other agencies, like USFS.

[martinb]

Since the AT is a National Park, why not do what they do in the Smokies?

#1---get every AT backpacker and/or thruhiker to pay $4 per night while on the trail.
#2---set up an extensive list where a hiker must name every campsite he/she will stay at for the entire trip (this is what they do in the Smokies).
#3---camp only at designated campsites.

There you go. I just destroyed any incentive or motivation to go backpacking.
This is why I no longer overnight in GSMNP. I like going where the wind blows me and not where I'm supposed to be. I did get a "permit" for sites in the maddron bald loop not long after all this was implemented. I get to #29 and only me and another guy had permits. Three other parties did not.

[August W.]

To help fund the enforcement of the required hard sided food canisters on public lands we need to expand and rename the Pitman Robertson act. The act's excise taxes need not only apply to recreational hunting/shooting equipment, but to most all other outdoor recreational equipment that is used on our public lands. From ATV tires to trail runners and backpacks, paddles and climbing harnesses to binoculars and trout flies, lets put it all under one funding umbrella and create a new managing agency that we all have equal voice in staffing and overseeing. And just as a hunter's safety course is required prior to getting a hunting license, there should be required competency & ethics courses and testing for those who wish to backpack amongst bears and coyotes, fish and float in native trout waters, graze stock animals and do donuts all over back of beyond, etc... Unification, education, and equal representation of all outdoor public lands users is critical to our land and all the life forms who rely on it. In the mean time, sleeping with food in your tent, storing food in puncturable porous bags, and being sloppy with your food hangs are the very best ways to insure that you will soon be required to cary a food canister. It's already working.

[Paleolith54]

To help fund the enforcement of the required hard sided food canisters on public lands we need to expand and rename the Pitman Robertson act. The act's excise taxes need not only apply to recreational hunting/shooting equipment, but to most all other outdoor recreational equipment that is used on our public lands. From ATV tires to trail runners and backpacks, paddles and climbing harnesses to binoculars and trout flies, lets put it all under one funding umbrella and create a new managing agency that we all have equal voice in staffing and overseeing. And just as a hunter's safety course is required prior to getting a hunting license, there should be required competency & ethics courses and testing for those who wish to backpack amongst bears and coyotes, fish and float in native trout waters, graze stock animals and do donuts all over back of beyond, etc... Unification, education, and equal representation of all outdoor public lands users is critical to our land and all the life forms who rely on it. In the mean time, sleeping with food in your tent, storing food in puncturable porous bags, and being sloppy with your food hangs are the very best ways to insure that you will soon be required to cary a food canister. It's already working.

I can agree with this part: sleeping with food in your tent, storing food in puncturable porous bags, and being sloppy with your food hangs are the very best ways to insure that you will soon be required to cary a food canister. It's already working. I can't get on board with the rest, sounds too much like a ready-made solution in search of a problem. The fact that lots of people discuss this on the internet in hyperbolic language doesn't mean the situation is actually dire, and certainly not enough to justify the leap to draconian control you describe.

[AsoloBootsSuk]

To help fund the enforcement of the required hard sided food canisters on public lands we need to expand and rename the Pitman Robertson act. The act's excise taxes need not only apply to recreational hunting/shooting equipment, but to most all other outdoor recreational equipment that is used on our public lands.

LOL, the official IT uniform at my company is an oxford shirt with a Patagonia/Columbia fleece vest. Those guys have never been to the woods. They (and most everyone else) will rightfully throw a fit over such a tax.

[Christoph]

Who would administer such an exam? Pay for it? Enforce? To be tax neutral, you'll need to create a back-country permit system. It's multi state, so you better go federal. Given the number of AT hikers and the required size of such a program, I think $250 per year per person would work. Neither humans or black bears are an endangered species, let God sort it out. We don't need more mumbo-jumbo regs. Just my opinion, YRMV


THIS ^ exactly! Seriously, you can't honestly think the weekend party goers that drive up and trash the nearest shelter for a fun overnighter are going to take a test before they head out? So now, there's more regulations and a test on the ones that are doing it the right way to begin with? Competency and ethics exam to walk in the woods. Absolutely not. It's bad enough there's consideration where everyone must carry a bear canister because a few that can't seem to get the food storage thing right. No class or exam is going to keep someone from throwing wrappers trailside or in the fire pit, etc.. There's already a simple LNT which everyone already knows about but choose not to do it. One more thing comes to mind before I end my little rant... Oh look! There's a bear. Let's get as close as humanly possible to get that cell phone pic for everyone on Facebook/Instagram to see how cool and wild I am.

[greentick]

Spec ops, neat. I'd be too scared to do combat like you. I do hunt for about 30% of our meat. 1-3 whitetails each year and a BB if I'm really lucky.

LOL. Range flags up!

[BillyGr]

LOL, the official IT uniform at my company is an oxford shirt with a Patagonia/Columbia fleece vest. Those guys have never been to the woods. They (and most everyone else) will rightfully throw a fit over such a tax.

Of course, if you note the original listing, such items aren't listed, more actual equipment (tires, backpacks, climbing harnesses etc.) than clothing (trail runners being the one exception, but one can get other shoes that aren't particularly for that).


The act's excise taxes need not only apply to recreational hunting/shooting equipment, but to most all other outdoor recreational equipment that is used on our public lands. From ATV tires to trail runners and backpacks, paddles and climbing harnesses to binoculars and trout flies, lets put it all under one funding umbrella and create a new managing agency that we all have equal voice in staffing and overseeing.

[2adad1974]

When a bear becomes a nusense bear, which it will once it starts scoring hiker food, it becomes a dead bear. Otherwise, it has a fair chance of avoiding the hunters.

So using canisters can save a bear from certian death. It will also save you from having to deal with a possibly aggressive bear in the mean time.

That said, I will resist using a canister as long as I can...

Right on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Another Kevin]

Once discovered the bruins will roll a canister wherever they want. I had two Bearvaults set up in a cache and Mr Bear found it and swatted the things a couple hundred feet off the hill and did some gnawing but never got the food. I guess he got frustrated cuz he came back and found my emergency Prolite sleeping pad and got to chewing---
The one wilderness area near me that requires them doesn't allow the BV450/BV500. Too many Adirondack bears know how to open them. (I probably have a Bearikade in my future, now that NYSDEC has decreed that bear canisters are required everywhere in High Peaks. It used to be that hanging was lawful west of the Street-Nye ridge or in th Boreas Ponds or Dix Mountain areas, but no more.)

[Another Kevin]

I can agree with this part: sleeping with food in your tent, storing food in puncturable porous bags, and being sloppy with your food hangs are the very best ways to insure that you will soon be required to cary a food canister. It's already working.

Sleeping with food is OK, but you have to have the discipline to bring it with you _whenever_ you step away from it, _including_ those 3 am calls of nature.

Very few hikers are both too lazy to do proper food storage and disciplined enough to keep their food with them at all times.

Up where I am, sleeping with food is also tolerable from about December to March, when the bears are asleep. Even when they go for a stroll in a winter warm spell, they're too groggy even to notice food. Down South, they never go properly to sleep. (I still avoid sleeping with food since the time I was awakened in the middle of the night in -8 °F weather by a raccoon dragging my pack away.)

[HooKooDooKu]

Sleeping with food is OK...
Depends upon the local bear population and the camping regulations for where you are located.

Perhaps along the bulk of the AT, where bear density isn't very high and camping is a bit dispersed... it might be ok.

But places (such a GSMNP) where bear population is high, and everyone camps at the same sight every night, sleeping with your food leads to ploblems (often problems for those that come after you).

Now of course in GSMNP, every campsite has bear cables, so there is no excuse to NOT hang (not to mention it's illegal to sleep with your food). But every year, people do it, and every year, camp sites get closed down for a month or more because of it.

[Trail Money]

I have read through this thread and can see both sides of the argument for canisters. I am new to hiking, but have hiked a couple of times, last year from winding stair gap to the NOC and the year before I hiked the Fiery Gizzard. I am still working on getting all my gear right and am looking for a reasonable way to store my food. When I have hiked, I do hang my food, but should i stick to an opsack stored in a regular dry sack or should I get an Ursack? I don't think I want to get a canister, just yet, they seem too bulky for packing. Thanks.

[Paleolith54]

I have read through this thread and can see both sides of the argument for canisters. I am new to hiking, but have hiked a couple of times, last year from winding stair gap to the NOC and the year before I hiked the Fiery Gizzard. I am still working on getting all my gear right and am looking for a reasonable way to store my food. When I have hiked, I do hang my food, but should i stick to an opsack stored in a regular dry sack or should I get an Ursack? I don't think I want to get a canister, just yet, they seem too bulky for packing. Thanks.

If you're hanging, an Ursack is a waste of money, IMO.

Regarding the discussion above on sleeping with your food: obviously there are times of the year and locations where it's OK. Obvious, but beside the point. The point is that for the AT and environs during what most think of as hiking season land managers are being driven to require hard-sided canisters by those who are too stupid or lazy to hang properly; who teach bears to investigate tents for food by sleeping with their food; or by (incredibly) "hiding" food away from camp on the ground. Oh, and leaving trash behind. Whether canisters will actually accomplish much is debatable, but the drivers are pretty clear.

[Trail Money]

If you're hanging, an Ursack is a waste of money, IMO.


Good point,makes sense. Thanks.

[med2]

There is no point. Some PR person is just desperately trying to come up with reasons to convince people to stop feeding bears by poor food storage practices which leads to more bear human interactions. In the vast majority of states the bear populations are over management levels. The problem is generally too many bears not to few.
CORRECT!
Bear management has increased the population. Longer hunting seasons could help this. If there were no hunting of the black bear, the bear/human interaction would be greater. I have seen bear on the trail, not once have they seemed interested in me except a quick glance. Generally, I smell them before I see or hear them.

[med2]

:clap
We are the BORG (Bureau of Outdoor Required Gear). Your existence as you know it is over. You and your technological distinctiveness will be assimilated to service us. Lower your hang bags and surrender. Resistance is futile.
The new slogan for GSMNP "Best seen from the comfort of your own Vehicle".