Ursack

After reading the excellent link provided above by Tom K to what looks like last year’s hot bear problem thread and the comments by Chris Servheen; it seems to me that one possible problem with trying to run some definitive study of unconditioned bear’s responses to human food smells, distances, diffusion, screening(bags) etc (besides that the intricacies of setting up such a study are kind of mind boggling) would be that you’d run a pretty good likelihood/certainty of conditioning a number of wild bear to human food wouldn’t you?

Like my dentist says; if it was easy everybody would be doing it.

So we’ve heard that it’s fine to use an Ursak because:

–bears don’ t have that fine a sense of smell after all (I’ve read that this sense exceeds that of bloodhounds, but whatever)

–they have a poor sense of sight so they can’t see you, much

–no word on their hearing but you see how this is trending so they’re doubtless nearly deaf

(and well all animals in the wild have poor senses, right?)

–nylofume bags make your food nearly odorless to bears, or at least do for  slow molecules, or anyway restrict the smell range except when you open the bag to take out your food

–cooking smells and human smells can be ignored when considering Ursaks

–having a bear gnaw on your Ursak is actually beneficial to bears and other hikers because it’s training them that they can’t get into them (!!!the Yikes argument) so when your Ursak fails it’s all good

–a hiker can survive for three days without food so it’s not a problem when your Ursak fails

–how bad can bear slobber mush be anyway

–there are no bears in the high country so simply helicoptering in and out makes an Ursak a good option

–one never camps within range of other campers ever ever so bears won’t find you ever

OR: you could use a Bearikade

Jeff, yes that does just about sum it up. ;-)

I’ve heard a bear’s sense of smell is as much as seven times more sensitive than a bloodhound’s. And it’s not as though there is a single measure of smell that for bears simply turns the knob up to 11. Their sense of smell is qualitatively different than ours. If someone makes a stew, we smell a single “stew” smell, but bears can discern the individual smells of the carrots, the peas, the meat, the spices, etc. Same as dogs (which is why trying to mask the smell of illegal drugs with another odor doesn’t work, the dog can discern the two odors distinctly).

Their eyesight is believed to be about equal to ours. Their sense of hearing is believed to be at least as good as ours. Their ability to engage in pedantic debates is well known to be considerably less than ours.

Alrighty I’ve learned a new word today:

A pedant is a person who is excessively concerned with formalism, accuracy, and precision, or one who makes an ostentatious and arrogant show of learning.

That’s helpful, friendly and instructive.

“OR: you could use a Bearikade”

I have both an Ursack and a Bearikade and I could not with a straight face say I think my food is as secure in a Ursack then a Bearikade.  However, for arguments sake, I will add there are a few places where the Ursack is an approved and legal method of food storage, but the Bearikade is not.

Ha, ha, ha, Hey. Laughing at Jeffery’s post….I love it….

So we’ve heard that it’s probably not fine to use an Ursak because:

–Well, Jeffrey doesn’t like them.

Hmmmmm. Short post I guess, can’t think of other valid reasons….

“Jeff, yes that does just about sum it up. ;-) ”

Hmmm, well Doug is nicer than I am, so I’ll say it a little more plainly.  Nope, Jeffrey’s post was a rather biased, subjective one, and which even outright twisted some of the good points previously made by folks like Tom, Doug, William, and myself.

It’s an appeal to emotion, more than straight holistic and internally consistent logic.

Now, David Thomas added an interesting variable and dimension to the discussion (and without Jeffrey’s unnecessary slight snark), and I’m definitely open minded to that aspect. But I suspect there are ways to help minimize this issue.

But whatever the case, again, let’s actually test it before being too certain one way or another. Let’s put “beliefs” to the test and come to actual knowns.

How could that be a controversial stance?  Or, perhaps we humans aren’t always as logic and reason based as we like to believe about ourselves?  Perhaps we tend to like beliefs and being “right”, more than straight, potent truth?

“We’re on a road to nowhere, come take this ride. Taking a ride to nowhere, we’ll take this ride.”

As thread entropy goes, this one proved more resistant than most.  But, in the end………….

I move that BPL pay jeffrey to summarize every thread as soon as it hits its third page.

“But, in the end………….”

We’re on a road to nowhere?      ; )

Justin, that comment was quite tongue-in-cheek (hence the winky).

Ah, I see J.R.

“it seems to me that one possible problem with trying to run some definitive study of unconditioned bear’s responses to human food smells, distances, diffusion, screening(bags) etc (besides that the intricacies of setting up such a study are kind of mind boggling) would be that you’d run a pretty good likelihood/certainty of conditioning a number of wild bear to human food wouldn’t you?”

I guess I have been running an informal experiment of one since nylofume bags came on the scene;  8 years or so?  It hasn’t been rigorously structured to introduce a single variable at a time, or double blinded, nor peer reviewed, but I have not seen hide nor hair of a bear nywhere near my camp sites.  Ever.  They are definitely in the areas I visit, as indicated by scat, tracks, and 2 visual sightings, but have not come near my camp sites, insofar as I can tell.  Now some would call that blind luck, and they are free to do so, of course, but I’m inclined to think I might just be on to something.  At least in areas inhabited by unhabituated bears.  I also think it wouldbe a fairly simple thing to set up tests of the nylofume/mylar bagging protocol by doing so with the stuff sack suspended from a tree using a PCT hang.  Observers hiding nearby would be in position to drive any curious bears off before they got the food and became habituated, in the event of a failure of the protocol.  This scenario would allow the introduction of variables in a structured setting, e.g. 1-3 nylofume bags, mylar, low odor food, cooked food, low wind, high wind, etc.  Just some thoughts from one who has been willing to risk his trips in pursuit of an ultra light food protection system, based on a lot of thinking about the issue over the years.

The only study done was <span>https://backpackinglight.com/odor_proof_bags_study/</span>  done by Ari Jukowicz(sp?).  Generally he found that dogs could smell through the OP bags fairy reliably. Bears, of course, have about 5-10 times the “smelling” power.  There was little to no difference in detection between ziplocks and OP sacks.

One conclusion was (actually a different study done on bears) that multiple sacks worked better, but did not eliminate the smells, even though three bags were used. This was in the notes by Ari (hmm…sometime in 2013, I believe.)  Yes, multiple bags slightly delayed opening by about 2-3 seconds. If you have not done so, read the study and the notes. This pretty much meant I don’t rely on them for additional protection with my hangs.

“One conclusion was (actually a different study done on bears) that multiple sacks worked better, but did not eliminate the smells, even though three bags were used. This was in the notes by Ari (hmm…sometime in 2013, I believe.)  Yes, multiple bags slightly delayed opening by about 2-3 seconds. If you have not done so, read the study and the notes. This pretty much meant I don’t rely on them for additional protection with my hangs.”

You and I have been through this before, in the link I supplied above.  Those studies were all conducted in a scenario where animals were brought into close proximity to the bags.  This is quite different from a scenario where unhabituated animals wandering around in their natural surroundings would have to detect odors emanating from said bags from afar at a strong enough intensity to overcome their natural fear of humans, whose odors, unsuppressed by bags,  would also be present in the mix;  if indeed they detected the food odors at all.  But, you have your opinion and should certainly act on it, just as I will on mine.  The difference, as far as I can tell, is that I am willing to test my opinion in the real world, time and again, whereas you prefer to rely on studies conducted in highly structured lab conditions.  But hey, this is BPL, where diversity of opinion is treasured.  Vive la difference!   Should we ever run across each other, the beer’s on me.  ;0)

“Those studies were all conducted in a scenario where animals were brought into close proximity to the bags…”

+1

“But hey, this is BPL, where diversity of opinion is treasured.”

Good thing I wasn’t drinking anything when I read the above…

Tom K, Do I think that scientific lab work is a substitute for field work? No. It really takes both, because labs hold variables to minimum effect and field work has a lot of variables that ARE minimized in a lab. There is nothing wrong with qualitative field work. Like I said, triple bagging WILL deter bears for a few seconds. Do they stop smells from penetrating out? No.  Especially in the field, where your hands transfer the odor to the bags, they simply do not work well.

“Work well” means, as you say, a reduced radius of dissipation. This simply cuts down on the probability of it being detected. Whether it works with more aggressive Grizzy’s, due to human smells, is another question beyond the scope of this thread. I use zip locks and a hang. In some cases, hangs have been shown to be ineffective at keeping a black bear from your food. I agree, I can live for a while without food. Hell, I can go for two months with my fat old carcass. So, for a week out, it doesn’t bother me that a bear can smell through a bag at all. For over thirty years I used zip locks as a convenience. For the past 10-20 years I do it more because it eliminates 75%-80% of my garbage (packing mostly bulk.) I have seen people use OP sacks and Ursaks placed 20′ away from their tents (not a good scenario for dealing with Grizzies.) Nothing is absolute, The probability of a bear getting the food or being drawn into camp is much higher. Bears know a campsite is more likely to have food scraps. Some people advocate sleeping with their food as a pillow, their assumption is “human” smells will overpower food smells. (Let us just agree this is a poor scenario.)

Anyway, these all rely on the probability of a bear locating and getting food. I do not use a cannister (or rarely…I believe they have widened the area where the law requires their use, though.) Yes, I agree OP sacks cut back on the probability of detection by a bear. It does not eliminate it, though. And, it only takes one bad bear encounter to show they are powerful, potential killers.

The avoidance of humans due to smell, is a myth. I have had bears walk through camp, between me and the fireplace, less than 5′ from me. I have seen habituated bears sit and eat berries or leaves while my daughter played with the bear’s cub (well allowed the cub to come within an inch for a good “sniff.” She was laughing because the bear had tickled her.) The bear had little to no fear of me. I have met several wild bears on the trail, bears use trails, too…regardless of the human smells. Any trail on a map has been used by humans, yet, bears still use the trails. Many human smells linger for months if not years. We got a new varmint catcher (a cat)  that spent hours sniffing at the places where our previous cat had been…the old cat had died two years before. Bears have better noses than cats.

No, I don’t believe that OP sacks are enough deterrent to bears. You have to hang stuff, or, put it in a canister to be safe…well, safer…even cans have a way of being broken into.  If I am going to hang, or use a canister, why bother with expensive OP sacks?  A bear knows a good hang is not easily accessible. He knows a can is not easily openable. We can agree to disagree about their value.

(Edit to note that Ursacks and cans are close to the same, just more work.)

” We can agree to disagree about their value.”

Yup. That’s where we left it last time around.  I will only add that the scenarios you present all involve habituated bears, from your description of their behavior.  I have gone to great lengths to emphasize that my protocol is designed to work with UNHABITUATED bears.  So, as was the case last time around, we appear to be talking past each other.  I also mentioned last time around that in areas where the bears are habituated, I would use a canister just like everyone else, mainly because they are required, but also out of prudence.  That is a totally different situation.  It appears you backpack in areas where the bears are habituated, whereas I almost always hike in areas where bears are few and completely unhabituated, to the point I have seen only 6 bears in 45 years of hiking and all but the two habituated bears I encountered along the JMT early in my hiking career fled upon sighting me.  You have adapted to your situation, and I have adapted to mine;  not surprisingly our methods are quite different, and apparently quite effective in both cases.

To be honest, in the Sierra at least, I wonder if we can make a sharp distinction between habituated and unhabituated bears. I honestly don’t know. But bears can cover a lot of territory, including large leaps in elevation; and so wander through trafficked and less trafficked country. Most of them doubtless like to hang out near campers for the food. So being largely off trail has to be an advantage for backpackers.

I’m really not against Ursaks in the right hands. I just like to quibble. After all I hung my food for decades.

One thing that always bothered me about the Jutkowitz odor proof bag study (https://backpackinglight.com/odor_proof_bags_study/) is that even though the dog was able to find the locker with the bag in it – I always wondered if the dog was following the food smells or if it could find the locker because it could track which lockers the people had walked to and opened. Dogs are very tuned into human scents.

“To be honest, in the Sierra at least, I wonder if we can make a sharp distinction between habituated and unhabituated bears. I honestly don’t know.”

Nothing is completely black and white up there, Jeffrey.  As you said, bears can cover a lot of territory, but, AFAIK, only if they have to in search of food or to stake out their own territory.  Otherwise they would be wasting precious calories that could be the difference between surviving hibernation, or not.  Natural selection is a harsh judge.  Where there are a lot of hikers, as along the JMT, they have long been able to find ample food without having to travel very far.  That may well change as the canister rule begins to take effect, forcing them farther afield in search of new food sources.  I have been following the situation with keen interest, because the Upper Kern Basin, for all practical purposes a bear free area I frequently visit, is only 3 miles west of the JMT.  So far there has been no observable change, save for my encounter with a sow and two cubs in 2010 as I descended to the Kern Canyon trail junction.  They could not get the hell out of Dodge fast enough.  They were the first bears I had seen there in the 36 seasons since my first visit, and they were most definitely unhabituated.  In the years since then I have not seen a single bear, in spite of the proximity of the area to the JMT, and I speculate that it is because there is not enough natural food there to support many bears, and few hikers.  This leads me to how I tentatively conclude that an area is not likely to have habituated bears:  1)  Does the terrain offer rich food sources(generally lower elevation)?  2) Does it get a lot of human traffic?  This is not foolproof, and depends a lot, I think, on experience and instinct.  For me, human traffic has been the most reliable indicator.  I have long given precedence to it as the main criterion that determines whether I am willing to invest in a trip to a new area that seems attractive, or keep returning to an old favorite.  As a corollary, remoteness and difficulty of access naturally factor into the likelihood of human traffic.  So far, it has paid off for me, but as I said, the impact of canister regulations has me a bit nervous, in a selfish way.  NIMBY!

.

Tom, for the most part, I see a few habituated bears and the rest are unhabituated black bears. I think I have seen a dozen or so, as you say, only the rump end usually. In the High Peaks Area there are definitely habituated bears. You cannot dump 500,000 people a year without that happening. For the rest, I believe thay likely have seen people, but I see too much foraging, movement, and few people in most of the places I go. On the NPT, there is a 90% chance of bumping to a wild bear. On the Oswagatchie to Bog River trip, most campsites are unused well over 50% of the time, even in summer. Even the bear that walked into camp was very startled to hear me move and trotted off rather rapidly.  I keep a clean campsite, but I never had one intentionally walk, head down, casting around for any tidbits. A very different experience to startle a bear in the evening 5-6′ away from you.

The rest of the park is much more wild, once you get away from the High Peaks. They did some tracking up there and discovered that female bears do NOT travel far, maybe a 20 mile radius, usually in a circuit. Elsewhere, bears are not accustomed to people food at all. But, they can recognize a “people.” (There are many hunters up there too. One of the best ways to avoid bears, is simply set off a firecracker. You won’t see a bear within earshot.)  Whether that is a habituated bear or not, well, they couldn’t live on raiding food from campers, they usually don’t even try.

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the true reason for Ursscks not being approved in SEKI and Yosemite.  Ursacks need to be tied to something or they will be carried off by a bear when found.  When 25%+ of the Parks are above treeline, they can’t be secured.  True that the bear probably won’t get to the food, but you now have a problem with Ursacks laying scattered throughout the parks for decades.

This is besides the fact that it doesn’t make sense to me that anyone tying an Ursack to a tree trunk would think that a bear couldn’t figure out how to chew through the rope holding it to the tree. At least that’s what I was thinking every night I tied it off last year during my CDT thru-hike. .

That’s pretty tough rope on an Ursack; chew-through is not on my list of worries.  The rope does need to be longer, though.  It’s sometimes tempting to settle for a limb the bear could break off or chew through.  Longer rope would help.