Grizzly Question

[Chance09]

So I'm just curious as to when/where exactly Grizzlies no longer really are a concern? I'm planning on mostly FBC meals for ease of cleanup in grizzly territory (although as i make them i salivate a little bit at how tasty i think they'll be compared to previous hiking fare) and am trying to plan how many meals I'll be needing.

Just going to go ahead and start this thread out with a sarcastic comment since I've definitely set myself up for some:

Grizzlys are no longer a concern once you are already inside it's belly

Thanks in advance for the help.

[Dont Panic]

I think the official answer is that you can see grizzlies in any part of Montana and in Wyoming from the Winds North (essentially the 1100 or so Northern miles of the trail). In practice the areas with the most Grizzly activity are Glacier NP, the Bob Marshall Wilderness, and Yellow Stone NP. Since concern is obviously very subjective, it is up to you to decide when to be concerned (we only bothered hanging our food in the 3 areas mentioned above and slept with our food the rest of the trail).

[chiefiepoo]

Yeah you're going to get some blowback here. I wanted to learn about griz so I signed up for a 3 day class with Glacier institute a few years back. I have spent time these past 4 years packing around Glacier and Montana and have enjoyed close encounters with two griz and one black. For some experience base knowledge, buy and study a copy of Hiking with Grizzlies. For $10 you get a wealth of knowledge from a guy who claims >800 bear sightings and encounters. He truthfully relates his failures when he did not follow best practices.

http://www.amazon.com/Hiking-Grizzli...0316286&sr=1-1

So spend the $10 and buy the CounterAssault spray for $40 when you head out into the griz backcountry.

[fiddlehead]

The problem is more about surprising a griz than him stealing your food I believe.
I slept with my food in all but the national parks in those areas (from yellowstone north)

But I was more worried when I saw a griz who obviously didn't know i was there (wind direction was towards me) and he or she was headed my way.
Instead of yelling to let him/her know i was there, I just hiked as fast as I could and got over the pass.

I was carrying bear spray and had it out and hand on the safety pin.

[garlic08]

I saw grizzlies in each of the three areas mentioned above--GNP, the Bob, and YNP. From my understanding, there are very few animals outside of those protected areas and I did not see any or any sign of them.

[SunnyWalker]

Chieiepoo: Thanks for the link. I bought a copy of the book used for $1.98 from that link. Thanks again.
Me, I ahve hiked and done mtn climbing in Pacific NW and NM and TX. I am 57 and have done this off and on summers and sometimes for 6 weeks at a time. And you won't believe this-I have never seen a bear on those outings. Am planning a thru of CDT in 2013. Maybe I'll get lucky then. Right now I am prone to carry the spray for bears.

[bearcreek]

The real shame about the "sleeping with food" attitude is that once bear finds easy food they will return again and again. Once they are deemed to be a nuisance they are destroyed. Occasionally a Black Bear will seriously injure or kill someone in the rockies. It is almost always because of food in the tent.

[Mags]

I saw grizzlies in each of the three areas mentioned above--GNP, the Bob, and YNP. From my understanding, there are very few animals outside of those protected areas and I did not see any or any sign of them.

Yep. That seems to be the main areas. They are in the Winds, but very rare.

FWIW, I hiked mainly solo and did not carry bear spray (but that was a personal choice).

[Colter]

So I'm just curious as to when/where exactly Grizzlies no longer really are a concern?

I would think grizzlies would most likely be spotted from the Canada border through the Scapegoats, and then in the Yellowstone area. I saw a grizzly or two in Yellowstone, at least four in the Scapegoats, and several in Glacier, including one that loped past my tent in the falling snow the last morning of my hike.

Regardless, the danger from grizzlies and bears in general is vastly exaggerated in my opinion. Grizzlies are way, way down on the list of dangers on the CDT. People, falling, drowning, hypothermia, lightning, bees, car rides; each pose greater risk to CDT hikers than grizzlies. And as you well know from your other thru-hikes, a little common sense will help you avoid all those dangers.

I wrote up a blog post applying some real world statistics to help quantify the risk from bears.

[SunnyWalker]

I don't think ignorance is bliss when you are planning on hiking thru an area that frequents Black Bears and/or Grizzlies. I think one ought to become informed at least. From this site I bought a recommended book and it is real informative. Title: Hiking with Grizzlies Lessons Learned. By Tim Rubbert. This book is not a scare book on bears. I bought it used for under $2.00! Even if one was not to carry bear spray or something like that, I think becoming informed about bears would be wise. This is just my opinion for what its worth.

[Nean]

The real shame about the "sleeping with food" attitude is that once bear finds easy food they will return again and again. Once they are deemed to be a nuisance they are destroyed. Occasionally a Black Bear will seriously injure or kill someone in the rockies. It is almost always because of food in the tent.

This is true for people who hang their food -in my experience.

[Colter]

This is true for people who hang their food -in my experience.

I agree with Nean to a point. The way bears become habituated to people food is by actually getting food to begin with. In campgrounds that usually means unattended coolers or unattended picnic tables or the like. In thru-hiking it's very often poorly hung food. I often, if not usually, see food hung in such a way that a smart bear could get it down: it's hung too low (bears can reach surprisingly high) or too close to the trunk (black bears can climb) or a bear can just chew the line off and let the food drop.

I usually sleep with my food. But I don't do it where it's forbidden, and I try not to do it where bears are habituated to stealing food and I usually don't sleep with my food in grizzly country.

[Nean]

I think we are on the same page Colter- you just explained it better.

[bamboo bob]

Are bear attack statistics worth anything? Really dividing fatal bear encounters by all the people who enter national parks or some such is not meaningul to me. Also death statistics. How about injuries from bears per bear encounter? That might be relevant to me. In over 10,000 miles I've encountered many bears but they all have run away lickity split. AT or PCT the bears were of no concern. I only hung food if there was bear sign during the day. Are grizzlies smarter or just bigger? I find that "official" procedure is often overkill but I would like to know what actual thruhikers do.

[bamboo bob]

Further in the high sierras where canisters were required (and were effective because I never saw a bear there) I also had way more food than fit in the canister so I hung food too. Acutally in some camp sites there was no real hang place but I gave it my best shot.

[rsmout]

Bumping into a grizzly unawares in his/her territory is always a coin toss. More happy outcomes than unhappy, but witness events in Yellowstone this year. And then you have statistics and damn statistics. Past history is no guarantee of future results.

Best practices are the triangle rule and PCT rules. Never cook, eat, or store food where you sleep (see Bear Fence Mountain in the Shenandoah this May). When this isn't practical, separate your food storage, cooking, and sleeping locations at the corners of a triangle, 100 yards apart. Put everything that can be considered food to anything in your storage (even used toilet paper). A bear canister (Bear Vault, Garcia, etc., but not UrSack) is effective and approved everywhere for bears, which is important if you are many days away from a resupply.

[modiyooch]

So I'm just curious as to when/where exactly Grizzlies no longer really are a concern? I'm planning on mostly FBC meals for ease of cleanup in grizzly territory (although as i make them i salivate a little bit at how tasty i think they'll be compared to previous hiking fare) and am trying to plan how many meals I'll be needing.

Just going to go ahead and start this thread out with a sarcastic comment since I've definitely set myself up for some:

Grizzlys are no longer a concern once you are already inside it's belly

Thanks in advance for the help.

now that you hiked the CDT, can you give us your answer?

[Colter]

Are bear attack statistics worth anything? Really dividing fatal bear encounters by all the people who enter national parks or some such is not meaningul to me. Also death statistics. How about injuries from bears per bear encounter? That might be relevant to me. In over 10,000 miles I've encountered many bears but they all have run away lickity split. AT or PCT the bears were of no concern. I only hung food if there was bear sign during the day. Are grizzlies smarter or just bigger? I find that "official" procedure is often overkill but I would like to know what actual thruhikers do.

Good statistics are important for making rational decisions.

I think that often a good way to get a perspective on things is to flip them around. In the U.S. there are about 1.3 people killed per year by bears. People then say "the stats don't apply if I'm that one exception."

Well what if bears killed everyone per year except one or two people. Would they then say "the stats don't apply if I'm the one survivor?"

As far as injuries go, serious bear maulings are also extremely rare compared to other serious injuries suffered in the back country. Grizzlies are somewhat bigger and more aggressive but the level of concern is still often not at rational level.

Statistics can also apply the other way around. 25 years straight of no fatal bear attacks in Yellowstone did not mean there was no bear danger. After that first fatal mauling this year, a Yellowstone bear expert pointed out that only one out of 3 million Yellowstone visitors are INJURED, and that that first grizzly sow was just acting normally (defensively) and was no more likely to kill someone again. I argued that statistics proved she wasn't acting normally. Running down and killing a distant person is NOT normal, so stastically she was MUCH more likely to kill somebody else. Apparently she did.