Best UL rope for food hanging/multi-purpose?

[Anonymous]

"With the PCT method, I am not tying off to any tree. The bear can come and gnaw on the line hanging down all it wants and it won't affect my food bag. My food food bag is suspended midway between the ground and the branch. Besides being easier for heavy food loads, I don't see the advantage of the technique you describe."

+1 That is what I was trying to get Bob to address. Unsuccessfully so far. Also, the double hang, as explained, seems incredibly complicated to execute.

[Matthew H]

Agreed, the PCT method is great and easy to execute.

[Bob Gross]

I suppose that if you have a very light food bag, then one bag and one rope is all you need. Back when I led group trips, we were dealing with a lot of food, so splitting it up into two bags always made sense, so doing the double rope counterbalance method always seemed to work best.

I can't attest to this, but it was once claimed that a bear can get to the (PCT method single rope), bite it, and pull it until the stick breaks, thereby releasing the food bag to drop.

I think that with any method, as long as the rope is not tied off to a tree, and if the food bag or bags are high enough that a person can't reach them or any dangling ropes, then it ought to work. It certainly demands that the rope be over the tree branch way out from the trunk so that the little cubbies can't get to it, and the tree branch has to be tapering out from the trunk, yet strong enough to support the food weight plus the weight of anybody hauling the ropes.

In summary, the PCT method might be best for a small amount of food, and for a single rope, assuming that you have a carabiner and a stick. The two-rope method might be best for a larger amount of food and for two ropes.

The big fly in the ointment for beginners was that they would always select a tree branch that was too low. Then, by the time you split that height and add some rope dangles, you ended up with food hanging that was just barely out of reach. An enterprising black bear might get lucky with that.

I found it interesting that you thought the two-rope technique was incredibly complicated to execute. That is exactly what I thought of the PCT method. To each, his own, I guess.

–B.G.–

[Bob Gross]

Most of my friends gave up on the PCT method after their lightweight carabiners kept breaking. Maybe that says something.

–B.G.–

[M B]

Done right, a hang can be effective.

Problem is, in my experience, most are done very poorly. People are either stupid, lazy, or both.

[Marko Botsaris]

I'd be very interested in knowing how often a bear can solve the problem of getting at a pct hang, with the rope left hanging down. This type of thing has been used as a classic test of animal intelligence – where you have to, to a certain extent, reason out a procedure to get at food rather than just flail about(I'd place just gnawing at the rope in the thrashing camp). Parrots and Ravens (and other Corvids like Jays) can solve simple problems like this with ease.

For a bear presumably this would involve several "un-natural" (non-flailing) steps like pull on line, sit or stand on line, pull again, repeat until you can clamp onto the bag/pinata while holding down the line. I doubt if many bears could do that. Still, I doubt if NO bears can do it.

On the other hand, I guess there is still available the flail++ method – grab the the free rope end and pull hard until something happens. When I give my Grey Parrots a new foraging/puzzle toy for the first 5 minute, even with their certified genius-level animal intelligence, they just shake the crap out of it, pulling all the leavers and pushing all the buttons like crazy. Only when nothing useful happens for the first 5-10 minutes do they fall back on intelligent analysis. I guess people are like that most of the time as well.

I do like the modified pct hang for non-ideal branches where you put the clove hitched stick ABOVE the carabiner, and then pull the bag up from and away. But Bob would probably rightly point out that that reduces the level of difficulty to that of a regular tie-off hang.

Possibly you could combine the two methods by rigging the line in a PCT hang in such a way that is was pulled up with the bag, but where you could fish out the line the next day with a long stick. On the other hand, if something goes wrong and gets tangled you could easily end up with the same problem as the bear.

[Bob Gross]

Oh, yes, the long stick.

It really helps if you find your long stick in the evening when you hang your food. If you wait until morning, you are cold and hungry. If you have to search for a long stick then, there won't be any to be found.

It seems to me that bear canisters came to Yosemite around 1998-1999. For a while, some of us were still hanging while the others accepted canisters. However, all we had back then were the old black Garcia canister types. Now that hanging is no longer recommended and canisters are the norm, it seems that bears are less visible in the backcountry. So, I guess that is sort of good and bad.

Hey, Marko, do you want to put your Grey Parrot up against my Black Bear?

–B.G.–

[Bob Gross]

"People are either stupid, lazy, or both."

Agreed, and black bears are neither.

Black bears are not intelligent in the human sense, but they are very savvy about what it takes to score some backpacker food. They are quiet and sneaky. Above all, they are persistent. I've seen bears work at a tree for half the night, give up, and then return in the morning when breakfast is being cooked.

Black bears -Own- those campsites. They know where they are and which trees will be used by the backpackers. They know which limbs can be attacked and which cannot. They know which trees require bear cubs versus which trees can be attacked by mama bear herself.

Backpackers have to get out of the thinking that they are smarter than the bears. Instead, you should think like a bear. If you were a bear, where would you look first for the backpacker food? Bears don't always understand humans very well. They do know that the smaller human of a pair is more easily intimidated than the large human of the pair, so sometimes they try some games on them.

–B.G.–

[Marko Botsaris]

"Hey, Marko, do you want to put your Grey Parrot up against my Black Bear?"

This sounds like a challenge from a old Kung Fu movie – "My Grey Parrot style Kung Fu is unbeatable, Ha Ha Ha!"

I can even say it where the words don't match up with my lip movements.

[Anonymous]

"I suppose that if you have a very light food bag, then one bag and one rope is all you need. Back when I led group trips, we were dealing with a lot of food, so splitting it up into two bags always made sense, so doing the double rope counterbalance method always seemed to work best.

"I can't attest to this, but it was once claimed that a bear can get to the (PCT method single rope), bite it, and pull it until the stick breaks, thereby releasing the food bag to drop."

I'll remain dubious of this kind of anecdote, repeated second hand, in the absence of documented reports. The UL ropes generally used for the PCT method are very slippery and thin, which basically turns said rope into very expensive bear floss in the event one should try to clamp down and pull on it. One thing for sure; he'd have the cleanest teeth in the 'hood. That said, in real bear country it would be prudent to use a spare tent stake instead of a stick, and a heavier biner.

"I think that with any method, as long as the rope is not tied off to a tree, and if the food bag or bags are high enough that a person can't reach them or any dangling ropes, then it ought to work. It certainly demands that the rope be over the tree branch way out from the trunk so that the little cubbies can't get to it, and the tree branch has to be tapering out from the trunk, yet strong enough to support the food weight plus the weight of anybody hauling the ropes."

Mostly agree, although I have long been dubious of the counterbalance method. It is hard to get both bags to weigh the same and, therefore, a bear can start pulling the branch up/down/sideways and cause one bag to slowly slide down into reach from the ground.

"In summary, the PCT method might be best for a small amount of food, and for a single rope, assuming that you have a carabiner and a stick."

A carabiner and a stick/stake are the essence of the PCT method. The method has worked for me quite nicely up to ~10# of food. Above that, it gets to be uncomfortable to haul the bag up. Your point about wrapping the rope around a stick is well taken, and will be incorporated into my technique.

"The two-rope method might be best for a larger amount of food and for two ropes."

Or just divide the food and do 2 PCT hangs. ;0)

"The big fly in the ointment for beginners was that they would always select a tree branch that was too low. Then, by the time you split that height and add some rope dangles, you ended up with food hanging that was just barely out of reach. An enterprising black bear might get lucky with that."

Nothing can be made foolproof in the hands of fools. ;0))

[Anonymous]

"I found it interesting that you thought the two-rope technique was incredibly complicated to execute. That is exactly what I thought of the PCT method. To each, his own, I guess."

+1 BYOF is the operating principle, I guess.

[Anonymous]

"Most of my friends gave up on the PCT method after their lightweight carabiners kept breaking. Maybe that says something."

Yeah, use a beefier biner.

[Bob Gross]

"It is hard to get both bags to weigh the same and, therefore, a bear can start pulling the branch up/down/sideways and cause one bag to slowly slide down into reach from the ground."

Tom, this doesn't make any sense. With a double rope hang, the bear can't touch any ropes or branches, so there is nothing that it can pull or move.

One weakness for any of these methods is that the rope or cord can get caught on the tree limb. That is why getting the right texture of rope or cord is smart. I think that braided is best, and twisted is next. I do not think that monofilament would be good, although I have dabbled with that.

If you start with a (single rope) PCT hang, and if you get that caught in the branch bark, then you are screwed. Now you have nothing.

On the other hand, if you start with a (double rope) counterbalance hang, and if you get one rope caught on the branch bark, you still have your second rope available, so you can still use it for a single rope hang.

I used to always test my hanging methods on a beginner trip. I would get all of the food hung at sunset. Then I would appoint some beginner to start getting the food down for breakfast. Very rarely could a beginner get it.

I've gotten too used to a bear canister now. Besides, it is a multipurpose item. It makes a dandy camp stool, or a large water bucket, or a food cutting board.

–B.G.–

[Anonymous]

"Tom, this doesn't make any sense. With a double rope hang, the bear can't touch any ropes or branches, so there is nothing that it can pull or move."

Uh….what exactly then are the bags suspended from?

"If you start with a (single rope) PCT hang, and if you get that caught in the branch bark, then you are screwed. Now you have nothing."

Yep, in theory that could happen, but so far it hasn't. To me.

"On the other hand, if you start with a (double rope) counterbalance hang, and if you get one rope caught on the branch bark, you still have your second rope available, so you can still use it for a single rope hang."

See above comment. I'll take my chances. Hypotheticals don't much interest me if they deal with remotely possible scenarios.

[Justin Baker]

You don't need a carabiner to do a pct hang.

[Bob Gross]

"Uh….what exactly then are the bags suspended from?"

The two food bags are tied onto one rope and counterbalanced. One bag is tied onto the first end, and the second bag ends up tied onto the middle of the rope (with the remainder of the rope hung on the second bag). This is what shows in the diagram.

There is nothing hanging down to the ground, and there is only one small rope loop remaining around the second bag (as a pull-down loop that only a human can manipulate by way of a long stick).

There is only one way for the bear to get to the food. The bear must climb the tree and get out on the branch to the rope. If you have selected the branch wisely, the branch is large enough that an adult bear can't chew the branch, and it is small enough that the bear can't walk out on the branch far enough. A downward tapering branch is the best.

It has been my experience that, due to the friction of the tree branch bark, it is necessary to balance the weight of the two food bags only to about 20% error.

No carabineers required and no bears were harmed in the operation.

–B.G.–

[Bob Gross]

"You don't need a carabiner to do a pct hang."

Man, to some people, those are fightin' words.

–B.G.–

[Anonymous]

"The two food bags are tied onto one rope and counterbalanced. One bag is tied onto the first end, and the second bag ends up tied onto the middle of the rope (with the remainder of the rope hung on the second bag). This is what shows in the diagram."

That is still a counterbalance, the classic one at that, and with one rope, not two, from your description. A bear can easily climb up to the branch, reach out and start reefing on the limb with one arm where it starts to narrow. They are strong enough to cause the branch to move erratically. At that point it is probable that one bag will start to slip lower if they are not equal in weight. That is a known weakness of the counterbalance technique.

"There is nothing hanging down to the ground, and there is only one small rope loop remaining around the second bag (as a pull-down loop that only a human can manipulate by way of a long stick)."

Nothing needs to hang down to cause a failure, as described above.

"There is only one way for the bear to get to the food. The bear must climb the tree and get out on the branch to the rope. If you have selected the branch wisely, the branch is large enough that an adult bear can't chew the branch, and it is small enough that the bear can't walk out on the branch far enough. A downward tapering branch is the best."

I maintain all the bear has to do is to cause the branch to move erratically to unbalance the counterbalance. This can't happen with the PCT hang. If you have selected that mythical perfect branch, and a sow happens along with astute cub(s), they will crawl out on the limb and achieve the same effect from up close. Of course, the PCT hang is in peril in this case as well, but much less so if you have executed it well and your bag is far enough down that the cub can't reach it. The key here is to select a branch ~20 feet off the ground, so the bag is suspended 5 feet or more below the branch and 8-10 feet above the ground.

I suspect we're back to HYOF again at this point, so I will excuse myself. It's a moot point for me most of the time anyway, as I seldom hike in areas where this kind of hassle is much of a concern, and the bears are much less sophisticated than the slick cons that you seem to encounter frequently.

[Bob Gross]

Tom, I wish that you had looked at the diagram that I furnished. There are two ropes, and that is why it is called the two-rope hang. One rope is used to counterbalance the two food bags, and the second rope is used only to pull down the one food bag so that it is level with the other food bag. The second rope is called the pull-down rope. It is possible to do almost the same thing with a push-up stick, but that gets unwieldy with heavy food bags.

It seems to me that one method might be easier for getting the food hung in the evening, and one method might be easier for getting it down in the morning.

Incidentally, I watched all of this unfold one night when the bears visited. Our group had the food hung sometime well after dark. I wasn't crazy about the way that our leader had hung it, and I thought that the food bags were too close to the tree trunk. So, I had a mini-tent right at the base of the tree. I wasn't in the tent long when I heard claws on the tree trunk, so I came running out with my light. A half-grown bear was already up the tree trunk and was wandering around looking for the correct branch. Unfortunately, the bear had chosen the wrong tree trunk. He was in the wrong one about six feet off. It kept breaking branches and making a fuss, and it wasn't getting the food (as we watched from the ground). It came back to the tree trunk, descended, and ran off into the night. The leader said that he was glad that it was over, but I told him that it wasn't over. We all went back into our tents, but I was staying ready for the next act, so I kept my boots on. Very quickly, I heard more claws on the tree trunk, so I came charging out again. This time it was the little cub brother of the first bear, and he was already up the tree trunk, but again it was the wrong tree. He broke branches and tried to find the food, operating by smell, but he was too far from the food to get to it. The little cub didn't know how to down-climb, so he called for mom. Then we heard the woofing of the mother bear off in the bushes, so we did not want to get between the mother and her cub. We got photos, and all that, and we can see the food bags still hanging. Eventually, the cub descended just a bit and then jumped the rest of the way. Immediately, the mother bear and the half-grown emerged from the woods and all three bears ran off as we chased them. In the morning, our food was still hanging until I got it down, so we started breakfast. Other nearby backpackers came over to ask if we had any extra food. It turned out that the bear family had returned and had hit every other campsite around the lake, and ours was the only place where they did not score any food. Our neighbors got our excess food, but the bears got none of ours.

–B.G.–

[Billy Ray]

I used the counter balance method (with a single rope) for many decades before bear canisters. Never lost so much as a candy wrapper to a bear… not one scrap. That despite having bears up the tree and out on the hang limb many times. No amount of shaking of the limb ever made the bags slide in any direction. But I am pretty careful about picking the tree, the limb, and making the hang… did the whole JMT with the counter balance and I'm sure thousands of others have done the same.

One thing that would concern me regarding the PCT hang is that with all the food weight in one bag it seems to me the rope would be much more inclined to saw into the limb than with the counter balance method. If it did to cut deep enough, the friction could be so great that you could end up with all of your food up at branch height and no way to get it down… except the bear out on that limb :)

Billy

[Jeremy and Angela]

The second rope is called the pull-down rope. It is possible to do almost the same thing with a push-up stick, but that gets unwieldy with heavy food bags.

Years ago we used the push-up stick method on Scout trips. I think Tom's point is that the 2nd rope is only used to set up the hang, and is not a structural component of the hang after that initial use. The other half being, if you only need to get the weight of the bags within 20% for them to stay put, would the target still be 20% if the limb is being jumped up-and-down on by a bear cub, or does it decrease to something like 10%?

[Bob Gross]

"I think Tom's point is that the 2nd rope is only used to set up the hang, and is not a structural component of the hang after that initial use."

I don't think that anybody ever claimed that the second rope was used directly during the counterbalance, only in the setup.

I've never seen any bear that would venture out more than about one foot onto a tree branch, so I don't know how much jumping up-and-down they are capable of.

What got really odd was to watch people putting a bear canister into a nylon bag, and then hoisting that up into the tree. If the bear does succeed in dislodging the bag and it falls to the ground, then maybe the bear canister will be cracked open by the impact. Otherwise, the bear can bite the bag and carry the whole thing off.

–B.G.–

[Billy Ray]

You guys are way too fixated on the bags being exactly the same weight or one side will slip down… not going to happen… there is sooooo much friction when the rope saws into the limb as often happens that it is often actually WORK to get it down…

billy

[Bob Gross]

"You guys are way too fixated"

Who?

I'm not.

I saw that problem once about 35 years ago, and I've never seen it since.

In fact, many times we didn't even balance the two bags by weight. We would balance them by size, and that was close enough.

Back in those days, some people used to stick a couple of moth balls into the top of each food bag. That was intended to mask the food smell and throw the bears off from which tree to climb. Then one time, a bear managed to score the food anyway, and he discovered the moth balls in there. From then on, the bear would go seeking the moth ball smell as a hint to where the food was.

–B.G.–

[Hiking Malto]

I suspect a properly executed PCT or counterbalance method works great. The issue with both methods is that there are often a lack of those perfect trees to do either method so you usually see a bear piñata.

Bob,
Your contention that a bear will pull from the ground on the thin lines referenced in this thread is laughable. The Achilles of both methods are if the bear climbs out on the branch and bats at the hanging line. Either method will be at risk though personally I see the PCT as more robust but the first point is much more critical.

Every now and then you find that perfect tree.

To the OP,
I had great luck with the MLD bear hang system.

[Author]

Posts