Sleeping Wth Your Food in Black Bear Country

[BC Bob]

Great video. A very good (research based) talk.

[HkNewman]

Due to negligence of campers over the last few years, now bear canisters are required in the backcountry of Colorado's Maroon Bells "West Maroon Pass" drainage:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/alerts/whiteriver/alerts-notices/?aid=22689

I finished my trip before the new regs went into effect so in the words of comedian Larry the Cable Guy, … "don't affect me none", but I'd rather not see other backcountry areas require them. Apparently, Big Bend now requires canisters without a hiker confrontation that I'm aware of (maybe more a state endangered species re-establishment sorta thing, who knows?- point being the more problems get reported, the easier it is for enforcement to say let's avoid future problems ( both federal and state, an example of the later being bear cans required in certain parts of the Adirondacks)

One the plus side, it means more business for those making ultralight, framed packs ;-)

Ed: add a little

[Ralph Burgess]

I just read Aaron's comment above from 3/19.

"Be a part of the solution, not the problem."

I have to say, I think anyone attempting an unsupported JMT FKT without a bearcan is inevitably making themselves part of the problem. I don't want to be preachy about this, because I totally understand the motivation to push the rules to breaking point under these circumstances, and I may overcome my own ethical qualms and try it myself next year. But really, going through bearcan-obligatory areas without a bearcan on the assumption that you will only sleep in locations with a bear box? With multi-day sleep deprivation how can you possibly be certain that there's not a major chance that you fall asleep somewhere else? And in places where you can legally hang, how can you possibly think that you can do it competently in a state of exhaustion?

As I say, I understand the motivation, bearcans are a particular pain in the ass for fast attempts. But you have to come to terms with the fact that it's ethically dubious – no question that you are putting bears at risk.

And as a footnote, aside from ethical concerns, I think it's technically illegal. Yosemite specifically does allow you to be without a can if you only camp at locations with a bear box. But it appears that Inyo does not, see here:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5418860.pdf

There is a prohibition on "possessing or storing any food or refuse in the areas…unless the food or refuse is stored in a container designed to prevent access by bears."

If "possessing" food without a bearcan is prohibited, that would appear to mean that it's illegal even to ENTER the specified Inyo areas at all (if unsupported & carrying your food) without a bearcan, even if your plan is to hike through the area without camping.

[Howie Schwartz]

Ralph,
Since we are talking about this sort of thing on other relevant threads right now I thought I would add my agreement with your assessment about FKT attempts and bear cans.

I think the general rule should be that all validated FKT records should be 100% in compliance with current laws and regulations of the land. Otherwise, you rule out law-abiding athletes from competition. Regarding the JMT, It should be pointed out that in the Inyo NF and Sierra NF Ursacks are considered bear proof storage containers. I am not sure if Sequoia and Kings Cyn NPs have the same rules as Yosemite regarding mandatory travel with bear cans, but this could be worth looking into. With Yosemite, as you say, you don't know where you will end up sleeping. Therefore, if you end up sleeping somewhere without a bear can or bear box, your FKT attempt should be disqualified.

An Ursack is really a light way to go though compared to a hard canister. Probably still advisable to hang it high with a counterbalance, but if the Ursack is considered legit then it could be part of a good strategy for FKT's supported or unsupported on the JMT.

[Ralph Burgess]

Thanks, that's good to know. I didn't realize Ursacks were legit in Inyo. That seems like a good compromise. I you keep your food in the Ursack the whole time, even if you fall asleep inadvertently before making proper preparations, it would still be far from ideal but would greatly reduce the risk of the bear getting a food reward.

[Lori P]

They train search and rescue dogs to find human remains in a variety of environments, including working from a boat to find a body lodged in rocks in a river – SAR dogs have been known to find centuries-old Native American burials. And yet, bears have better noses….

Sinking food in water, putting it in OP sacks or doing anything with the idea of hiding it from the bear's nose is delusional. (Article on Backpacking Light about drug sniffing dogs finding stuff stashed in OP sacks, anyone?)

There are rumors that certain bears in Yosemite have figured out how to toss a can off a cliff and break it open. A bear in SEKI pops open Bear Vaults by deforming the body of the can so the lid pops off the threads. Yellow-Yellow is dead now but trained her cubs, no doubt, that biting BV tabs off lids gets yummy rewards.

Ursacks have met untimely demise at the teeth of bears along the JMT – pictures of shredded sacks exist. Rangers have told me of knots pulled so tight that bolt cutters were necessary to remove the Ursack rope. Give a bear enough hours and they will shred anything fabric. They can taste the food through the fabric, it's theirs, and they will not be driven off by rocks or shouting.

My canisters haven't been messed with much, but they are easier insurance. It's really hard to properly hang food in a stand of firs with downsloping branches, and I've only contributed to the huge number of snarled, knotted, broken paracord nests in trees up and down the range once. Properly placed canister plus the willingness to drive off the bear when it shows up at night is about all that's left….

We have seen bear poop in many alpine settings. Bears use our trails… followed bear prints many times above tree line.

As for sleeping with your food… Too many people tell too many stories of close encounters. A friend who worked trail crew in SEKI for years had and saw many bear encounters – she is a careful and religious Bearikade user, clearing the pack and the tent of anything with a smell.

If anyone reads the pages in Secor about bears – there's a story of a lost ear in there.

Food storage is one of those hot topics – it's like anything else you can do 1,000 times successfully. The bear may not come by 1,000 times, but the 1001st time may make you a believer of the Holy Order of the Canister.

[Art …]

ok, so I started this thread months ago, and after a few contentious days from responders moved on and forgot about it.

now here it is revived and going strong, yet all the comments just ultimately affirm my belief that sleeping with your food is the best thing to do.

1. the bears can get into any container with enough time.
2. no matter how well you clean your pack and your tent the bears will smell it as a food source.
3. hanging is pathetic at best in most cases in the High Country.

may as well sleep with your food and trust that ""Black Bears"" will be put off by the human scent and leave well enough alone.

[Ralph Burgess]

Art, I'm sorry but this is a horribly misguided conclusion. Anecdotes about occasional failures of bear canisters is not a good basis for rejecting them. And this is not even an anecdote, it's just invented speculation:

"Yellow-Yellow is dead now but trained her cubs, no doubt, that biting BV tabs off lids gets yummy rewards."

This seems like little more than rationalization to justify the selfishness of people who dislike the inconvenience of bearcans. And let's be clear – the use of bearcans is primarily for the sake of the bears, who are often ultimately euthanized if they get accustomed to seeking food rewards from humans. "I'm prepared to take the risk of losing my food" is not a justification for leaving your bearcan at home.

There is good evidence showing that enforcing bearcan use had a major effect on bear behavior in problem areas. Here's a good summary from John Ladd that he posted on the JMT Yahoo group, I'm sure he won't mind me reposting:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9Fz_vc-zml_d0k4U3JWTXFsVW8/edit

[HkNewman]

@Art – the problem with sleeping in an area with problem bears is they lose their fear of human shelters and sleeping, one is in a vulnerable position. Witness the bites and swats though shelter walls in Colorado in recent years. In an area with a problem bear (which raided a Boy Scout camp with multitude of males, amongst other acts of "ursine bullying"), I was asleep in my quilt when something furry tried to lift the vestibule …. and that was no fun. In the moonlight I saw a striped tail leave the vestibule, so it was likely a marmot …. or skunk. Also a reminder some things are worse than a bear to be attracted to a campsite, so off to shop for a collapsible tub and 25 gallon tin of tomato juice to keep in the vehicle next hiking season.

[Randy Martin]

@Lori

This statement is blatantly misleading and false

"Sinking food in water, putting it in OP sacks or doing anything with the idea of hiding it from the bear's nose is delusional. (Article on Backpacking Light about drug sniffing dogs finding stuff stashed in OP sacks, anyone?)"

Putting food in a hardened container or hanging without addressing odor reduction/elimination is simply starting down the path of Bears learning that Camps = Food because they smell whatever you are putting inside the hardened container. Opsaks ARE very effective in reducing odor. Putting contents inside your Opsak and then putting that inside your container is best approach.

[d k]

Unfortunately, some people will ultimately put their own convenience above the safety of the bears, and other humans for that matter.

[Ralph Burgess]

Yup,

I'm never going to use a bearcan because I hear that one broke one time.

I'm never going to make any effort to reduce the odor of my food because it's impossible to make it completely undetectable.

I also hear that a condom failed once, and that an aeroplane once crashed, so it's unprotected sex and ocean liners for me.

[Lori P]

Read the article before you judge it false – dogs had no problem finding OP sacks with drugs in them. Bears have a keener sense of smell. Ponder this.

I am a strong proponent of bear can use and require that people use them on all my Sierra trips regardless of location. If you misrepresent me as saying otherwise you are the one being misleading.

[Art …]

my point is simply that until momma Black Bears (not Grizzlies) start teaching their cubs to yank campers out of their sleeping bags and steal the food from inside the sleeping bag, that storing food this way may actually be the best way to protect the bears.

to counter the just because one bear broke into a Bearikade argument … just because one guy lost an ear to a hungry black bear does not mean no one should sleep with their food.

and to counter the failed condom argument … well we ALL know the answer here is abstinence. maybe we shouldn't go back packing :-)

[Ralph Burgess]

"to counter the just because one bear broke into a Bearikade argument … just because one guy lost an ear to a hungry black bear does not mean no one should sleep with their food."

Well, no. But that doesn't "counter" my point. My point was precisely what you are reiterating – that we should not base our conclusions on anecdotes or one-off incidents. We should base our conclusions on data, evidence, research. Once again, that link to a data showing that bearcans are having strong positive effects:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9Fz_vc-zml_d0k4U3JWTXFsVW8/edit

[Greg Mihalik]

"My point was precisely what you are reiterating – that we should not base our conclusions on anecdotes or one-off incidents. "

Well, that takes care of Lori's post.
Thanks.

[Ralph Burgess]

"Read the article before you judge it false – dogs had no problem finding OP sacks with drugs in them. Bears have a keener sense of smell. Ponder this."

Ok, I've read and I've pondered. And I still can't believe that you're seriously persisting with the notion that because you can't reduce odor to zero that it's pointless to try to reduce odor at all. Do you not believe that bears could be attracted more to strong smells, and less to weak smells? The fact that bears have an incredibly keen sense of smell is a reason to be MORE careful about odors; you seem to be perversely concluding the opposite.

I don't want to keep giving examples to mock your logic, but –
Do you ever lock your car? Why? People can still break the window and get in. I could show you an article.

[edit to add:]
On re-reading, perhaps I'm being unfair. If your primary point is that (say) using an opsack alone, or submerging in water, is inferior to (say) using a bearcan, then sure. But cite some evidence for that. I really don't think the fact that dogs can find drugs in opsacks is evidence of that – few methods are absolute. And you made the stronger assertion that "doing anything with the idea of hiding it from the bear's nose is delusional", which seems to suggest that you disregard standard advice to try to minimize odors – but perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning there.

[Larry De La Briandais]

If you have a failure with a bear can (or other approved food storage device) it is the bear that suffers. If you have a failure with sleeping with your food you suffer. Maybe I'm selfish, but I'd rather have a failure with the bear can.

I think those pointing out that bears can smell your food no matter what you do are using that as an argument that masking the odor is not good enough since you can't effectively do it (mask the odor). That's how I am reading it anyway.

[Randy Martin]

@Larry

You are missing the point. If the Bear smells the food in your approved container and cannot get it then yes you have accomplished the Bear not getting the food that time but you have helped establish the association of Food with Humans/Camps. The next time a Bear sees a Human/Camp, they will come back, smell or not because the association has been made. I realize that association may take several times to become established but you get the point.

Opsaks or other bags like Mylar bags are the MOST IMPORTANT device in reducing Bear encounters because they do more to help avoid the Bear encountering your camp in the first place. The Bear container is really the LAST line of defense not the first.

[Mitchell Ebbott]

Randy, that's not true. Bears are smart, if they associate human camps with unobtainable food they'll stop bothering.

[Billy Ray]

"If the Bear smells the food in your approved container and cannot get it then yes you have accomplished the Bear not getting the food that time but you have helped establish the association of Food with Humans/Camps. The next time a Bear sees a Human/Camp, they will come back, smell or not because the association has been made."

Hmmm… maybe we need to call in a bear psychologist :)

Because this layman thinks there is an equal chance that after such an encounter or three the bear associates the smell of backpacker food with defeat… with putting out an effort and NOT getting fed… and thereafter does not bother

My evidence? Well, I've been backpacking in the Sierra for about 40 years… and there are FAR FAR fewer bears visiting the popular camps now than there were before bear canisters… And I would bet that a very low percentage of bear canisters contain odor barrier sacks lining them…

billy

[Bob Gross]

I agree with what Billy wrote.

Bear canisters were first recommended in Yosemite around 1999 or so. In the early years, the bears would come into camp in the middle of the night, and they would go directly to the bear canisters. They would play soccer with them for 1-5 minutes, and then they would move on for easier pickins. After about ten years of that action, the bears would come into camp the same way, but they wouldn't give the bear canisters more than a few seconds of sniff test. Somehow they recognize bear canisters and that they are virtually impossible to break open.

In Yosemite, the bears have changed from operating at night only. Now they will prowl out on the trails in broad daylight, hoping to intimidate some backpackers into the abandonment of packs. Packs can be carried off by a bear, whereas, a bear canister can't be.

–B.G.–

[Larry De La Briandais]

A few year ago I was in LYV (in Yosemite) when a bear came through. I had two bear canisters (don't ask) and I thought all of my food was in them. However, later I realized that I had left a "candy bar" in my pack. Even though the bear was within 50 feet of my pack and bear canisters nothing was disturbed. I was NOT using an OP Sack. There were PLENTY of human food smells.

It is my belief that because I had bear canisters and no other obvious food outside of them the bear did not bother investigating our camp. It had learned that bear canisters equals no available food.

Additionally, you CANNOT mask the odor of your food. You can reduce it, but the bear still knows it's there. You have to convince them that it is not food they can eat. If they can't eat it then they are not interested in it.

[Bruce Tolley]

I just read through this whole thread.

It started with a question about the risk to the human if the human backpacker did not properly store his or her food in the manner required by the respective land management agency. But we should also be asking, as others have noted above, about how to keep the bears wild and safe.

Now at the end of the thread, it is has become a discussion about the effectiveness of bear canisters themselves.

Stephen Herrero and others have used empirical research since the 1980s to demonstrate how as bears both black and grizzly get habituated to human food, the probably of danger to humans increases, especially in grizzly country. With black bears, most of the danger is to the bear. "A fed bear, is dead bear."

Bears are smart and in many areas many of them have learned how to bring down even good hangs. So more agencies have been recommending hard canisters.

The goal of the agencies (esp Yosemite) since the late 1990s as observed by Bob G has been to train BOTH the humans and the bears in order to reduce the incidence of bear-human encounters. All evidence points to the fact that this policy is working. The more we all store our food in hard containers or in a manner approved by the respective land agency, the more the number of bear-human encounters decrease.

Finally, just because folks do not see the bears, does not mean they are not there.

We are going light to get out in the WILDerness and enjoy it. The bears are part of that wilderness. IMO carrying the weight of a canister when required by law or prudence, is worth it since it helps keep the bears wild.

[Aaron Sorensen]

"The more we all store our food in hard containers or in a manner approved by the respective land agency, the more the number of bear-human encounters decrease."

As far as the Sierra's go, I have seen about 20 bears while hiking.
Every single one of them has been within a few miles from a campsite.

Other than being on the JMT or Rae Lakes Loop, most of my time hiking is as far away from a campground as you can get.
No bears. You have to worry about other critters getting into your food.
Bears require a vast amount of land to themselves for foraging and hunting.
If they can maintain an area that involves 5 campgrounds that they can visit and get food they will do that.

From my experience, those 5 campgrounds in any area include the grounds of almost every bear in the back country.

Either that or these bears are looking at a "Campground" as food and not a "Camping Spot" that a hiker is staying at away from a campground.

[Author]

Posts