Bear canisters are silly–at least I think so

From Larin:  “I have spent lots of money to go SUL too and I have the experience to back it up… professionally and privately.

I am not, however, pretentious enough to state that every hang I have ever done is bear-proof because that would assume empirical/ statistical testing of my bear hangs throughout my life and would negate human error. What that means is, in heavy bear country, I respect the rules because I am willing to admit that I too am able to make mistakes.”

From David:  “I will maintain, as I have throughout this thread, that no method is 100% guaranteed to be failure proof.  Such is the nature of wilderness travel, let alone UL backpacking. ”

“I’m not claiming to be an expert here, I’ve just found no need for a bear canister in the wilderness areas I frequent (mostly Colorado). ”

While I have OP and Larin,  a guy who obviously knows what he’s talking about, on the same page, I’d like to ask a few questions, along with a statement or two of my own.

For Larin:  I’m curious as to how you go about protecting your food in areas where canisters are not required.  Do you rely solely on hanging?  Or do you also employ other techniques as well, even where you can execute a proper hang?  Do you ever use the PCT hang?  There is obviously a lot of leeway for various solutions, depending on the situation, but I am interested in hearing at least a few of your solutions.

For David:  You alluded to ideas in passing, other than hanging, to reduce the risk of a bear getting your food in areas where a bear canister is not required..  Would you mind recapitulating and perhaps expanding on the techniques you employ?

After following this thread from the beginning, I think a very sound case has been made for carrying a canister where they are mandated.  If for no other reason, it seems to me David would carry one simply to avoid having a trip cut short by a ranger escorting him unceremoniously out of the mountains and presenting him with a citation carrying a substantial financial penalty.  The other reasons are also at least worth reflecting on, for the reasons previously stated by many posters.

I am also curious as to Larin’s opinion on sleeping with one’s food, carefully and extensively protected by odor proof bags.  Eminences like Skurka are known to do so, as are more than a few back country rangers.  Pros?  Cons?

Similarly, I am interested in knowing why David feels sleeping with one’s food is “doing nothing”.

Other posters’ contributions are welcome as well, but I would appreciate if the discussion were kept rational and devoid of the snarkiness that has permeated this thread so far.

Thanks in advance for what I am sure will be some interesting replies.

@Larin

I agree with you that education is what is needed.  People feeding bears, leaving trash/food around their campsite, and generally just being careless.  I just don’t think that mandating a cylindrical piece of plastic is the only way to go–at least not for every problem when it comes to dealing with bears.  Sure, you can mandate the canister, but who is there to watch every step of the way to ensure that it is actually being used properly?  The idea of a certification program for backcountry travelers doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me…I think we agree a lot on some of these issues.  I’m just a bit suspicious when the gut reaction to a bear problem is requiring people to carry the cylindrical pieces of plastic.  If you have information on why said agencies have ruled out alternatives, I’m all ears.

“Maybe.  But I’ve eaten at Arby’s more than once.”

Touche!

the first thing you learn is that nobody reads any signs!
Try telling a judge you did not see the 50 mph sign when you have been booked for doing 80 mph through suburban streets.

People see the signs, but sometimes they wilfully ignore them. When you have made the penalty for ignoring the signs high enough, they will see them and (mostly) obey them.

“Caution: Wild Bulls. Survivors WILL be prosecuted.”

Cheers

@TomK

To respond to your question, for one I use a PCT hang, as I have been doing the last 10 years since the first day I set foot on the trail.  I also utilize the triangle technique (hang food at least 100 yards away from your campsite and eat at least 100 yards from your campsite and bear hang).  Another thing that I will occasionally do is cook on the trail so that I am not generating food vapors near my campsite.  As for sleeping with your food in your tent, I’m aware that some quite experienced individuals (such as Skurka) do so, and I have respect for them.  But I never quite understood their reasoning.  If I understand correctly, the aim is to prevent bears from associating humans with food.  Sleeping with food in your tent doesn’t do much to mitigate this connection.  :)  By eating well away from your campsite and hanging your food well away from your eating spot, you are dissociating humans as much as possible from food scents.  Now I’m no expert on bear habituation, but I’m guessing these techniques, along with camping well away from established areas, does quite a bit to mitigate bear problems. In any case, I certainly don’t want to encounter a bear near my campsite at night!  Anyway, I’m curious to hear what others do to minimize the chance of a bear encounter (or a subsequent problem for others).  Thoughts?

“I just don’t think that mandating a cylindrical piece of plastic is the only way to go–at least not for every problem when it comes to dealing with bears.

If it was considered the only way to go, canisters would be required everywhere, which they’re not.  Other ways are considered legitimate in areas where habituated bears are not a problem.  I speak from 44 years of experience in this regard, having carried a canister on only 2 recent trips, both over Kearsarge Pass, where canisters are required.  The remainder of my trips have been in some of the most magnificent areas of the Sierra, where canisters are not required, and the other techniques I have employed have been 100% successful.  Luck?  Perhaps, but not all of the time.  Hell, I have only seen 6 bears in that period, which I think says something about how to avoid bear problems when not carrying a canister.  So obviously, at least in my case, both ways have proven effective in context.  Could I have gotten away without a canister in the Kearsarge area?  Probably, but I wasn’t going to test that hypothesis, not only for fear of getting caught, but also for the reasons others have posted here.  All it takes is one mistake, which I am eminently capable of making, and I have created a problem that affects others, both human and ursine.  It is not a chance I am willing to take.  I suspect the same applies for a lot of experienced backpackers.  The canister requirement is not going away any time soon, so why not just grit your teeth and carry one where they are required, or avail yourself of some fine backpacking in the many areas where canisters are not considered the only solution to bear problems?

” I’m just a bit suspicious when the gut reaction to a bear problem is requiring people to carry the cylindrical pieces of plastic.”

I wouldn’t call it a gut reaction when human-bear confrontations have been reduced to almost zero in areas where they are required.  Yes, there have been a few failures, some probably due to improper usage,  others due to some bear too smart for its own good figuring out how to bounce on a canister to pop the lid or roll it off a cliff to crack it open.  But the bottom line is that they work a vast majority of the time, certainly better than any solution yet devised, for the large majority of backpackers who do not have your skill set.  That is the level the requirement is, and has to be, designed to address.

“Anyway, I’m curious to hear what others do to minimize the chance of a bear encounter (or a subsequent problem for others).”

Hike where they’re not.  Most bears hang out where there is an abundance of food, and hikers have become a prime source down through the years.  Get away from the main trails, or any trails at all, and the likelihood of encountering a bear is greatly reduced.  Same goes for off trail, especially above tree line.  No people up there most of the time, no natural food = no bears.

Go stoveless.  Cooking food, or even rehydrating odorous food drives odor producing compounds into the air to be wafted far and wide.  To paraphrase Field of Dreams, If you cook it, they will come.

Do not pack odorous foods like chocolate.

Store your food in odor proof bags.  I use nylofume bags, and double bag my food sack.  I wash my hands before slipping the second bag over the first to reduce the chance of any trace of odor getting out.  The double bagged food sack is then placed in a waterproof stuff sack with a roll top to further reduce the chance of detectable odor at any distance that would cause a bear to come and investigate.  This I am comfortable sleeping with.

If I am at all concerned about bear, and this is based on a combination of experience and instinct, I will eat early and then move on a mile or two before setting camp.

Where a good hanging tree is available, I will do a PCT hang of my odor proofed food sack.

So far, so good.

@  Tom K. – I’ve used every mentioned method in this article before, including sleeping with my food but those conditions have to be right (or a total catastrophe, hahah) for me to do that. Two things I always do: 1. food & toiletries are always in opsack. no food out until I’m snacking or eating a meal. 2. meals nor snacks or clean-up are not at my camp unless I’m packing up to leave in the morning.

I usually resort to a PCT hang unless it is impossible or there are cables/ bear box/ etc set up. I consider the people population of the area before I consider the bear population because this isn’t a bear problem, it is a people problem. Lots of people and I’ll err on the side of canister occasionally.

@ David – I understand your suspicions. I think my experience with people not following the rules regularly because they think they know better than the rangers living and working there daily is what set me off. One thing you’ve done, however, is made my already large interest in this topic, larger, which is a positive thing so I must say thank you. I intend to try and find out more details to the story of the canister and will report back here. This will take time though.

The one thing I’ve learned dealing with bears in so many places is that they are like people… they differ in creativity, culture and behavior. Like people, you never know if you’re in front of a psycho bear or a bear that just wants you to leave him alone, but the majority are the latter I think.

Some bears will rip apart a tent with a girl sleeping in it although there is nothing smelly there, it will sniff her, step on her without bearing any weight, bat her around with its paws, push her over with its nose and even lick her through the tent…but not harm her except for fear, all while she is screaming. Then that same bear in that same night (they told me) will walk 1000 ft of elevation down the mountain to an established site, pull a 7yo boy out of his tent and maul him. Bear is now dead of course. All in a very low visitation area with high sources of food.

@Larin,

I think we agree on many points.  For the record, I do appreciate rangers and all the work they do.  I know it is a tough job.  And re. most bear issues–I agree, it’s mostly a people problem.  My solution–stay away from other people (if possible).  This summer, while thru-hiking the Colorado Trail, I was appalled at the number of people who gave no thought to eating right in their tent vestibule.  (If you are reading this and we hiked together on the trail–please don’t take offense, I don’t mean it personally!)  I ended up sometimes eating in camp, regrettably, because others were doing the same and it wouldn’t have mattered if I ate elsewhere since we were camped at the same spot.  While on the CT, there were several reports of a problem bear in a particular valley, including a report of an Ursack failure (I think it might have been an older model?).  My solution was to hike through the valley and camp elsewhere.

I do have a question which I’m hoping you can answer: Are most bear encounters in established areas that are well populated such as Yosemite, etc.?  This is my general take on things.  While backpacking in Colorado, I rarely camp with others, although I ended up camping with others during my CT thru hike this year since there quite a bit of people on the trail and I also formed a “hiking bubble” with several of them after meeting on the trail.

Believe me, I am far from careless when it comes to food storage.  I have a healthy respect (no, fear) of bears and try to take whatever precautions I can to avoid them.

nm

“Do not pack odorous foods like chocolate.”

Ok, I just had a gut reaction to the above. This kind of craziness is where I draw the line.  Take away my chocolate, well give me cocopuffs or give me death.

(All said tongue in cheek, and with tongue slightly chewed because the mention of chocolate illicited hunger).

illicit: illegal
elicit: to draw forth

Hum ….. I wonder what he meant?

Cheers

JR, it makes sense that copper itself doesn’t have a smell, but you had me worried there for a bit that all these years I’ve been hallucinating a smell of copper…until I read the part about bio reactivity.  Wooh, a weight I didn’t even know existed till just then, was lifted quickly, thankfully.

(Someone gave me a stone held in copper wire awhile back, and having it worn it off and on over the years, I’ve noticed a “metallic” like smell associated with the copper wire).

Very observant Roger, twas a bit of play on words. Course, the italics kind of overly gave it away I suppose.

(Someone gave me a stone held in copper wire awhile back, and having it worn it off and on over the years, I’ve noticed a “metallic” like smell associated with the copper wire).

Maybe I’m also imagining it, but I think copper has a smell. And this is not counting the long strips I buy that have some sort of varnish/lacquer on them to prevent oxidation… at least until I burn it off.  :-)

@ David – I do not think we can know if most bear encounters are in mainly populated areas or not because many go unreported (I mean I bet many BPL members have encountered a bear at least once uneventfully so didn’t report) and *to my knowledge* (disclaimer), there is no sharing of data between parks, forests, wilderness areas, etc, unless you specifically ask a location and they decide to share it. If there is sharing, i’ve never seen it. There is reporting if injury is involved. Like I said, I’ll try to get some data from the powers that be… if there is any. Just need time. BPL Peoples- you guys mind if I request said data as a BPL representative?

That said, last week I was doing an overnight and ran into a bear. It was about 4 miles away from the nearest “populated area” but in a closed area entirely so no people within that 4 mi radius.

Last summer, I hazed bears pretty much every day working in a different location and range than now. There were not a ton of people and the place had bear boxes. The bears were NOT afraid of humans which started to become problematic…

“Maybe I’m also imagining it, but I think copper has a smell. And this is not counting the long strips I buy that have some sort of varnish/lacquer on them to prevent oxidation… at least until I burn it off. :-)”

I looked into it after JR’s post and it seems the scientific consensus is that elemental copper itself doesn’t have a smell, but it’s reactions with oils, bacteria, etc can create smell.  Maybe intense heat and/or some oxidation can also make smell from otherwise fairly inert, non sublimating copper?

I’d might disagree a bit with portraying it as a tedious and difficult process to get copper smelling enough for bears to associate zaps with that range of smells.  I think humans are pretty messy creatures as a rule and have no problem with contaminating things with various bio based matter.  I do think it’s likely that bears would come to associate these smells with copper infused bags or containers and the zap-ouch part of it.  After all, whatever we can smell, a bear can smell it much, much more acutely.

@Larin “I’ve used every mentioned method in this article before, including sleeping with my food but those conditions have to be right (or a total catastrophe, hahah) for me to do that. Two things I always do: 1. food & toiletries are always in opsack. no food out until I’m snacking or eating a meal. 2. meals nor snacks or clean-up are not at my camp unless I’m packing up to leave in the morning…..I usually resort to a PCT hang unless it is impossible or there are cables/ bear box/ etc set up.”

Eminently sensible techniques, IMO.

“I consider the people population of the area before I consider the bear population because this isn’t a bear problem, it is a people problem. Lots of people and I’ll err on the side of canister occasionally.”

The most critical factor, IMO/IME, and one of the main reasons I hike in remote, difficult to access areas.

Thank you for your responses.

BPL Peoples- you guys mind if I request said data as a BPL representative?
No problem at all if you say that you are collecting the data for publication at BPL.

Cheers
Roger Caffin

I’d like to remind long-time BPL subscribers, and point new folks to Ari Jutkowitz’s great article testing odor proof sacks against the searching capability of trained scent dogs.  He elicited the help of local K-9 officers to test the efficacy of odor proof sacks compared to average ziploc bags in concealing odors of drugs (since that is what the dogs were trained to alert on).

https://backpackinglight.com/odor_proof_bags_study/

Here are the results:

However, there are a number of other factors that should probably be taken into consideration:

1. A bear’s olfactory sense may be keener than that of the domestic dog. One popular estimate based upon olfactory surface area suggests that a bear’s sense of smell is 7 times stronger than that of the bloodhound³. 
2. Additionally, foods like salami, cheese, and pouches of fish tend to be more odiferous than most of the substances used in this study.
3. These foods sit in the hiker’s food bag considerably longer than the few hours it took to complete our study, allowing ample time for odors to develop and permeate the bags.
4. The average hiker does not demonstrate anywhere near the meticulousness we used to prevent contamination of the bag surfaces. Interpret as you see fit, but my money is on the bear.

<h2>Conclusion</h2>
Before the study, I had asked the officers if I would be able to use the odor-proof bags once they had been contaminated with the odors from illicit substances. After I had completed data analysis, I wondered why I should bother. The bags tested in this study are not 100% odor-proof as advertised and should not be relied upon as a stand-alone food protective strategy when travelling in bear country.

I no longer line my bear canister with an odor-proof sack–why bother?  It takes up valuable space, since those bags aren’t barrel-shaped like the canisters.  Don’t believe it helps any at all with Ursacks, either.  I do use OP sacks for my garbage sack, but that is to protect my nose, not to keep it from bears (my nose is not as good as a bear’s).  I also call BS on sleeping with your food, when protected by OP sack–it’s not the fact that you are sleeping with it or that the bear isn’t going to smell it, you just aren’t camping where there’s an interested bear.

If no one said it before, awesome work, Ari! Science trumps opinion.  I’d be curious to see a similar test run with nylofume bags; I can’t believe they would fare better.

Yes, Diane, that was a fun experiment of Ari’s. However, I’m not certain that it was truly a scientific one. For example, I asked if there was a possibility that the dogs actually smelled the unique odor of the bags (canvas?) that the drug was stored in, and not actually the drug itself. No response to my question. So while I believe that they proved that Ziploc and OP bags seemed to perform the same regarding odor-proofness, I’m a little dubious as to the actual scientific validity of the study.

Regarding bear canisters – yep, it does suck to have to carry the extra weight. But last week I was sure happy we had a ;arge Bear Vault with us. My modified stool had a cuben seat failure and I ended up on the ground. The canister was a great backup seat to sit on while having dinner. RMNP has crappy logs to sit on, so we always take along a camp stool when going to that special campsite to peep at the aspen leaves.

The hallmark of science is repetition: can someone else get the same data, using the same study design?  I’ve been tempted to ask my local sheriff’s department if they’d be willing to play with me in a similar fashion.

As to the dog’s smelling the unique odor of the bags themselves, they may well have done so, but that’s not what they are trained to alert on.  They are trained to communicate with their handlers when they smell the drugs they are trained to detect.  If a ziploc bag or odor proof sac were laying around, they wouldn’t care.  I’m not sure what you mean by canvas.  Are you saying the dogs could have alerted to the bags that transported the drugs to the study site? Those would have been excluded from the testing room.  If you look carefully at the first photo, you can see black plastic containers labeled with illegal substances–those contained the scent pouches used in training.  Again, the dog is alerting on the specific odor of the drug: that is part of the training.  Criminals have the drugs in many different containers. I saw no mention of canvas bags in Ari’s write-up of study design.

As for study design, I think that Ari took great pains to avoid have confounding odors on the bags themselves.  He had a positive control, a simple ziploc bag.  A negative control would have been either empty odor proof sacs, or scent pouches with no bag at all. Ari remarked in the comments that it was the point to see if the odor proof sacks were better than ziplocs, they did not test whether the plastic bag would slow detection at all–that’s a different study. The only issue in my opinion is the study size. N=32 is not a large study, but that is often the problem in scientific studies, because it costs money to set up the study.  The other issue is proximity–do the bags reduce wind-borne odors bringing a hungry bear to your camp?  Once the bear is there, it may not work, but as a bear is searching for food, will it be attracted?  If you are camping in impacted areas where bears know that people and food may be, it’s worth it to stroll by and check it out.  Then, the OP sack won’t deter them, unless just plastic alone slows the transmission of the odor.  I’m pretty sure it doesn’t: I bet a high proportion of campers have some or all of their food sealed in ziploc bags these days.

Several folks refuted the study results based on experiences with their own dogs.  Is the drive for food stronger than the drive to alert for the scent of drugs to the handlers?  Usually these dogs have a really strong drive to work, or they would wash out of the program.  Any test that just tests one dog (or one raccoon) does not account for individual differences, and is not an equivalent test to the study.

I think he did a pretty scientific job, myself.

“I also call BS on sleeping with your food, when protected by OP sack–it’s not the fact that you are sleeping with it or that the bear isn’t going to smell it, you just aren’t camping where there’s an interested bear.”

You speak with a lot of confidence for one who says in the next breath that she would like to see the experiment performed with nylofume bags, which many of us use.  Further, there is no question that each layer of nylofume reduces the remaining, if any, odor that escapes the preceding bag.  Consider further, the selection of less odorous foods and going no cook, both of which also greatly reduce the chances of odors getting far enough from your campsite to chum a bear in for further investigation, particularly if you do not camp where you eat, and I’d say you are on shaky ground in drawing such a black and white conclusion.  This is not to say the technique is recommended in areas with a population of habituated bears.  That is what canisters are for, mandated or not, and that is where judgment comes in.

“Science trumps opinion.  I’d be curious to see a similar test run with nylofume bags; I can’t believe they would fare better.”

Agreed, so let the experiment be performed in a realistic, preferably in the field, situation.  Then we can see if the science supports your opinion.

Diane, in the 4th photo it shows a man placing the sample into a bag which his assistant held. The ‘drug’ was seemingly in some kind of a pouch, which sort of looked like maybe canvas, but perhaps it was parchment paper, who can say? Still, if you can talk someone of your peers to replicate this experiment, I would definitely appreciate seeing the results. You know, to satisfy a scientific curiosity.

Washington State University has a colony of bears that they research hibernation with.  I’m curious if they would consider having their bears test out food rewards with zip locks, OP sacks, and nylofume bags.  Testing under field conditions isn’t really science, and isn’t ethical:  too many variables (how do you know that a bear would have happened by to investigate your food?  Failure of sack=rewarded habituated bear=dead bear).  I figure one would need to test smelly food, neutral food like oatmeal or crackers, and a bag with a non-food/attractive product, to see whether they investigate without an odor cue.

This time of year probably isn’t good, as they may be preparing for hibernation, but maybe they’d consider it next spring when the bears reawaken.