Ursack

@James

As near as I can tell, your bear population density is far greater than up in the Sierra interior.  That is not surprising, given the difference in elevations and corresponding difference in natural food sources.  With the exception of iconic areas like Yosemite and the JMT/HST/Bubbs Creek corridors, bear population density diminishes rapidly, due to lack of natural food sources and far fewer inexperienced visitors to make up the deficit.  IME, this presents options for lighter weight solutions to protecting one’s food due to lack of habituated bears, or the diminished likelihood of encountering even an unhabituated bear.  Solutions change according to local conditions, however, an example being the lower elevation western approaches to the Sierra interior.  There, natural food sources support a larger general bear population, the easier terrain attracts more humans, and results, inevitably, in more habituated bears.  It led me long ago to prefer the more austere, difficult East Side approaches, which make my lighter weight approach to protecting my food a reasonable risk.  In short, I do not believe there needs to be a one size fits all solution to the problem.  In my neck of the woods, I consider canisters to be overkill and  Ursacks mostly an example of packing one’s fears.  So far, so good.  As always, past performance does not guarantee future results, and I am constantly assessing conditions for indications that I need to change my approach.  As more and more people begin to use the East Side approaches, there will almost certainly be an increase in habituated bears and an increase in risk that will result in either a blanket imposition of a mandatory canister rule or me concluding that the risk of my approach has become too great to continue.  But not quite yet.

Definitely the area needs to be considered.  However, would note, that just because an area is both highly bear and human dense in population simultaneously, does not mean automatically that bears are so habituated to be as brazen/fearless as James described for that particular area.

One of the places that I most frequently hike, has one of the most bear dense populations on the East coast, and is fairly human dense as well.

The bears here are quite shy when it comes to humans (as a general trend).  Perhaps because they have ample amounts of natural food sources, they don’t need to be as cavalier and brazen.

It’s rumored that there might be some Mountain Lions also within and/or near this area, but they are even more shy/fearful of humans.

“However, would note, that just because an area is both highly bear and human dense in population simultaneously, does not mean automatically that bears are so habituated to be as brazen/fearless as James described for that particular area.”

Perhaps, but I would tend to view that as the exception that proves the rule, given the general careless tendencies of hikers when it comes to managing their food in the backcountry.

And of course hunting factors in. Bears in areas that allow hunting are far more gun shy, so to speak, about humans even out of season.

But even there the picture is mixed.  Desolation Wilderness and Ansel Adams Wilderness are full of habituated bears.

My guess is that Tom and others are correct that high country doesn’t afford enough food for bears, and they avoid it. But I’d also guess that most bears that might be encountered there are familiar with people and associate them with food, even if they scamper off in daylight. I’ve seen a bear waiting on a hill somewhere off of my camp to see what the food situation might be past dusk.

“But I’d also guess that most bears that might be encountered there are familiar with people and associate them with food, even if they scamper off in daylight.”

Not true, IME.