BEAR

With bear encounters declining in the BWCAW, officials extend food storage order
U.S. Forest Service said run-ins have dropped ‘sharply’ from an average of 58 per year.

By Bob Timmons

The Minnesota Star Tribune
January 15, 2026 at 2:08PM
A black bear browses the shoreline looking for food across from the canoe party's camp site on the Wolverine River.
The U.S. Forest Service, which manages the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, will extend its food storage order another five years to deter encounters with bears. (The Minnesota Star Tribun
Managers of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness say they will extend stricter food storage requirements for visitors, noting the rules have reduced encounters with black bears over the last two years.

The order was set to expire this spring, but now will be enforced for another five years, the U.S. Forest Service announced Thursday, Jan. 16.

Planning for another season of canoe camping, when hundreds of thousands of people visit the wilderness, is underway for many Minnesotans and out-of-state residents. Visitors can begin booking reservations Jan. 28 for the quota season, which runs May 1 through Sept. 30.

“Continuing the order is the most effective and responsible path forward for protecting both visitors and the wilderness’s black bear population,” said the agency in an official document released to explain the reasoning behind the decision.

In 2024, the Forest Service stiffened the rules for storing food and other “smellables” like garbage, soap and toothpaste, citing increased interactions between humans and bear sows and their cubs in search of food.

While many canoe campers already hang food packs from trees and out of reach of wildlife, the Forest Service’s order was more exacting: Visitors must hang food at least 12 feet above the ground and 6 feet out from a tree trunk or store it in a specially certified grizzly bear-proof container. Many of the common polyethylene blue barrels aren’t on the approved list.

The order was unprecedented. The agency, which oversees the Superior National Forest, has had temporary rules in limited areas in past years. The 2024 requirements were wilderness-wide for the first time. The agency said documented bear encounters were on the rise, with 58 cases per year, on average, between 2021 and 2023.

Visitors reported fewer than 10 brushes with bears after the 2024 season, Forest Service spokesperson Joy VanDrie said after the first year of the order.


Over the last two seasons, there has been a “sharp decrease in reported conflicts, justifying the continuation and robust enforcement of this mandate,” the Forest Service added in the Jan. 15 release.

Changing behavior
The agency has fielded questions from visitors, and others have expressed concerns on social media platforms about the dearth of campsites with suitable trees to comply with the rules. The Forest Service said its rangers consider campsite conditions when enforcing the order.

A public FAQ document from the agency stated that requests to set up food storage lockers aren’t realistic and would be “cost prohibitive.” There are almost 2,000 campsites across the million-acre BWCAW.

Boundary Waters campers faced tougher food storage rules this year to keep bears away. Here's how it worked.
The agency also has emphasized educating the public about storing food, directing wilderness visitors to online instruction and best practices on its website and through how-to videos on YouTube.

Generally, visitors complied with the order, the agency said. Citations were low and focused on blatant or repeated violations. The fine is $50.

The order applies April 1 through Nov. 30, when bears are most active.

A few longtime wilderness outfitters agreed that the order has made an impact.

Ginny Nelson, of Spirit of the Wilderness in Ely, said she has been renting out more approved storage canisters and bags, like Ursacks.

“In the past few years, our guests have had less bear encounters,” Nelson told the Minnesota Star Tribune. “There is a good possibility that the food storage order is the reason. People have always been asked to keep a clean campsite and not feed the wildlife.”

Dave Seaton, of Hungry Jack Outfitters, said he is in “bear central” off the Gunflint Trail. Hungry Jack advises customers to never leave their food alone in any circumstance. He said the education campaign by outfitters and the agency, coupled with the order, is sinking in.

“People’s behavior has changed,” Seaton said.

With this extension, I hope to see food hanging poles added to camp sites.

(Whispering softly.... give me a Q. Give me a U. Give me an E...)

OCDave: "With this extension, I hope to see food hanging poles added to camp sites.
"

I'd rather have bear boxes, but neither is going to happen.

LindenTree: "

OCDave: "With this extension, I hope to see food hanging poles added to camp sites. "

I'd rather have bear boxes, but both are not going to happen."

I wonder how much one bear box costs?

Jackfish: "(Whispering softly.... give me a Q. Give me a U. Give me an E...)"

I can't imagine what you mean... ;)

Forest Service Buffoonery…

You’ll have to pry my blue barrel out of my cold dead hands…well I already converted years ago…but still buffoonery and lack of common sense by the FS.

Except for this site (really good knowledgeable people) in the wild, or on YouTube, or in pictures I’ve probably seen several hundred food bags hung and almost zero percent are hung correctly. I could get them on my tippy toes (bear Piñatas)…and I am vertically challenged :)… Not even counting all of the burn areas which I believe is between 25-50% of the BWCAW doesn’t have a tree suitable to meet the current requirements….yet the blue barrels or hiding are the issue???

If they outlawed hanging (the most often breached food storage method) altogether I’d buy in…otherwise this is just fake window dressing.

T

I don’t think you can make good decisions or assumptions based on anecdotal data, that’s all the article provides. I didn’t know we were suppose to report bear encounters and I never have. I wonder how much the reduced hours and limited permit issuing at FS offices played in the dramatically lower number of reports of encounters with bears?

Can't say I'm surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised.

Thanks for the update, USFS. I will not be participating.

Mike

OCDave: "With this extension, I hope to see food hanging poles added to camp sites.
"

The over/under life expectancy at any given campsite for the average pole system in a well-traveled area (Lake One, Mudro-Fourtown, Moose Lake and beyond) will be about one and a half seasons. We already have groups flaunting size limits, leaving garbage, chopping down live trees, peeling birch bark, and on and on and on...I think they'll be misused, repurposed, or vandalized in short order.

Probably the same with any box system.

I'm sorry I'm such a downer, but my cynicism often overtakes me.

Mike

Doesn't matter what we think or on what basis the decision was made. It's the rule for the next five years. You either abide by the rule, or you don't. If you start picking and choosing which rules to follow, don't come down on those who pick and choose as well their set of rules they will follow (cans, numbers of people in camp, dogs on leashes, etc.).

Jackfish: "(Whispering softly.... give me a Q. Give me a U. Give me an E...)"

Hahahahahaha! Yup! Next year it’s Q only!

So basically if the ban DID NOT reduce encounters the last two years they would extend the ban and if the ban DID reduce encounters they would extend the ban. Hmm.

ockycamper: "Doesn't matter what we think or on what basis the decision was made. It's the rule for the next five years. You either abide by the rule, or you don't. If you start picking and choosing which rules to follow, don't come down on those who pick and choose as well their set of rules they will follow (cans, numbers of people in camp, dogs on leashes, etc.)"

That's kind of the point. When the rules don't make sense or fail to address the problem correctly, it encourages people to start picking and choosing which rules they are going to follow. It's the start of a slippery slope that leads to the type of people that don't think that they need to follow the rules and do whatever they want.

A1t2o: "

ockycamper: "Doesn't matter what we think or on what basis the decision was made. It's the rule for the next five years. You either abide by the rule, or you don't. If you start picking and choosing which rules to follow, don't come down on those who pick and choose as well their set of rules they will follow (cans, numbers of people in camp, dogs on leashes, etc.)."

That's kind of the point. When the rules don't make sense or fail to address the problem correctly, it encourages people to start picking and choosing which rules they are going to follow. It's the start of a slippery slope that leads to the type of people that don't think that they need to follow the rules and do whatever they want."

You said that much better then I did! There are already those posting they won't follow this rule and will continue using blue barrels.

ockycamper: "

A1t2o: "

ockycamper: "Doesn't matter what we think or on what basis the decision was made. It's the rule for the next five years. You either abide by the rule, or you don't. If you start picking and choosing which rules to follow, don't come down on those who pick and choose as well their set of rules they will follow (cans, numbers of people in camp, dogs on leashes, etc.)."

That's kind of the point. When the rules don't make sense or fail to address the problem correctly, it encourages people to start picking and choosing which rules they are going to follow. It's the start of a slippery slope that leads to the type of people that don't think that they need to follow the rules and do whatever they want."

You said that much better then I did! There are already those posting they won't follow this rule and will continue using blue barrels."

1. I agree with your post. I can disagree with the rule. I will still follow the rule. We can't pick and choose.

2. I didn't read one post that said they would keep using the Blue barrel? I complained (surprise, surprise :) ) it isn't based on real data and it fails to address the recent fires as well as the most often breached method by bears (hanging). One person said they won't participate :) doesn't mean they are using barrels.

T

I just don't get all the fuss over this rule. This is a common and wide spread rule used on public lands (federal and state) throughout areas with frequent human-bear interaction. Backpackers all over the mountain west have been dealing with these requirement for decades and these rules are never going away.

It is also NOT that difficult to comply with these rules for those that were already camping in an ethical manner. If you use a blue barrel (as I prefer to), put your food into a couple Ursacks, put the Ursacks into the blue barrel and you're done. For those that hang, you're already complying. I fail to see how this is some great encumbrance on any of us.

I trip in Quetico and comply with this rule (via Ursacks in my barrel) and I am not even required to. If I was a BW tripper, I'd be much more aggravated by the folly of the permit system than this issue... But maybe I'm in a small minority.

Sunburn: "I just don't get all the fuss over this rule. This is a common and wide spread rule used on public lands (federal and state) throughout areas with frequent human-bear interaction. Backpackers all over the mountain west have been dealing with these requirement for decades and these rules are never going away.


It is also NOT that difficult to comply with these rules for those that were already camping in an ethical manner. If you use a blue barrel (as I prefer to), put your food into a couple Ursacks, put the Ursacks into the blue barrel and you're done. For those that hang, you're already complying. I fail to see how this is some great encumbrance on any of us.


I trip in Quetico and comply with this rule (via Ursacks in my barrel) and I am not even required to. If I was a BW tripper, I'd be much more aggravated by the folly of the permit system than this issue... But maybe I'm in a small minority.


"

I think a big difference between the BWCA and other areas with similar regulations is that folks weren't already hauling around blue barrels in those areas.

It may not be difficult to comply with these rules, but for those who were using blue barrels and want to continue doing so it is expensive and requires hauling extra unnecessary gear (i.e. Ursacks).

The blue barrel has/had kind of become a mainstay, or you could even say an icon of canoe camping in the North (still is in Canada), and now this order is saying it's not good enough. Kind of akin to saying you can no longer carry an axe, use wooden canoe paddles or wear wide brim hats, etc for whatever reason...

timatkn: "

ockycamper: "

A1t2o: "

ockycamper: "Doesn't matter what we think or on what basis the decision was made. It's the rule for the next five years. You either abide by the rule, or you don't. If you start picking and choosing which rules to follow, don't come down on those who pick and choose as well their set of rules they will follow (cans, numbers of people in camp, dogs on leashes, etc.)."

That's kind of the point. When the rules don't make sense or fail to address the problem correctly, it encourages people to start picking and choosing which rules they are going to follow. It's the start of a slippery slope that leads to the type of people that don't think that they need to follow the rules and do whatever they want."

You said that much better then I did! There are already those posting they won't follow this rule and will continue using blue barrels."

1. I agree with your post. I can disagree with the rule. I will still follow the rule. We can't pick and choose.

2. I didn't read one post that said they would keep using the Blue barrel? I complained (surprise, surprise :) ) it isn't based on real data and it fails to address the recent fires as well as the most often breached method by bears (hanging). One person said they won't participate :) doesn't mean they are using barrels.

T"

Clearly some of the posts, such as timatkn's above, are indirectly addressing my post about "not participating" in the food storage rule.

After some reflection, I will change my overall attitude to: Yes, I don't like the rule. But yes, I will follow the rule. I do not want to be a hypocrite in terms of the BWCA, or else I have no right to complain about how others do or don't follow BWCA rules. It's this kind of community here that, on occasion, makes me (and likely others) really think about what we do and what we say in terms of the wilderness in general, and BWCA in particular.

So, consider this my mea cupla on the issue. Sincerely.

Now, can we talk about some less controversial, like innies vs. outies?

Mike

I feel compelled to jump in and defend the blue barrel a bit just in case those less familiar with the rules are reading these threads. Let's just use the right verbiage when describing the restrictions. Blue barrels are not banned and not illegal to use which seems to be the message spread across social media and sometimes this forum. Yes, the manner in which they are used (i.e. hanging or ursack inside is required) has changed. Get yourself a rope and pulley and do some backyard practice hanging. Inconvenient in some situations, sure. Difficult to comply, not really. Deal breaker for a BW trip, not likely.

I sure got a good chuckle out of timatkn's

"You’ll have to pry my blue barrel out of my cold dead hands"

I saw someone here say once that the food storage requirement that effectively requires an expensive outlay in gear, and the increased permit fees, have the potential to, or were specifically intended to, passively keep a certain crowd with a certain income level out of the BWCA, and at time you do have to wonder if this was intended by the creators of this policy.

I don't think if that was the specific purposes, that would be right. But I also don't support any violation of the rules by any user of any income level.

Yawn…. I for one am happy for ya.

The article clearly says there has been a significant decline in bear encounters in the last 2 years - from an average of 58 to 10 per year. How is that not a good thing all the way around.
Why is it so hard for some to follow some simple rules but so easy for others. Spare me the mea culpa.

I think this is the right choice. One thing that people often forget is that the impact of proper food storage is two-fold. Bears don't the initial "win" of food. Lack of success stealing human food/habituation makes it less likely the bears will come into campsites. This further reduces human-bear interactions.

I doubt the cost of acquiring/renting/borrowing bear-proof storage is a primary factor preventing those will less financial means from experiencing the BWCA. There are many higher costs, like travel to and from the wilderness, having to take time off of work, bigger ticket gear items like canoes and packs, etc.

scat: "The article clearly says there has been a significant decline in bear encounters in the last 2 years - from an average of 58 to 10 per year. How is that not a good thing all the way around."

The data mentioned in the article is self-reported and 100% anecdotal, therefore it means nothing.

I think the main reason reports of bear encounters were down from 2024 was because FS stations had reduced hours and did not issue as many permits. Fewer people in their doors means fewer people reporting their experiences. I've been going to the BWCA for over 25 years and have never reported my encounters with bears.

From the article the FS says they historically had 50+ "encounters" a year , and 10 "brushes" after the new rules were in place. What the hell is a brush?

Ok if you say so…

Again why is it a bad thing.

scat: "Ok if you say so…


Again why is it a bad thing."

I never said it was a bad thing. I am fine with the changes.

It does not matter "if I say so", its well established that in most cases self-reporting data is not considered scientific.

geotramper: "I think this is the right choice. One thing that people often forget is that the impact of proper food storage is two-fold. Bears don't the initial "win" of food. Lack of success stealing human food/habituation makes it less likely the bears will come into campsites. This further reduces human-bear interactions.


I doubt the cost of acquiring/renting/borrowing bear-proof storage is a primary factor preventing those will less financial means from experiencing the BWCA. There are many higher costs, like travel to and from the wilderness, having to take time off of work, bigger ticket gear items like canoes and packs, etc. "

Well said.

The data mentioned in the article is self-reported and 100% anecdotal, therefore it means nothing.

I think the main reason reports of bear encounters were down from 2024 was because FS stations had reduced hours and did not issue as many permits. Fewer people in their doors means fewer people reporting their experiences. I've been going to the BWCA for over 25 years and have never reported my encounters with bears.

From the article the FS says they historically had 50+ "encounters" a year , and 10 "brushes" after the new rules were in place. What the hell is a brush?"

Just as a counterpoint, the outfitter we use in Ely has been marking bear encounters on a map behind the counter for decades. They ask every returning party about bears. Most years when we tripped in July, there would be 15-20 encounters marked on the map, along with warnings at the EP about recent bear activity. In 2024 we tripped in September and the outfitter had 1 bear encounter marked on their map. Last year in September they had zero. This data is also all self-reported, but the FS shut downs had no impact on it.

Personally, I believe a clean campsite with properly stowed food (meaning packed away without open bags of chips left out at night) has more to do with bear encounters than what color the barrel is. But regardless of the container type, the regulations are supposed to “force” campers to properly stow their food. Is it working? The map on the wall says it is.

Well it’s as scientific as it can be. What is your science based on, your own experiences... I would think most bear encounters are reported to outfitters renting gear then hearing a story about a bear when checking out. The article clearly says that a few long time wilderness outfitters agreed that the order has made an impact. Fewer encounters reported. From 58 to 10, that is the figures reported, I believe that more than I trust your attempt at disputing it for whatever reason.

Was 2 posts behind. Soundguy has the science I’m going with that.

It’s not really science, it’s common sense. Oops did I really say that…

YaMarVa: "

scat: "The article clearly says there has been a significant decline in bear encounters in the last 2 years - from an average of 58 to 10 per year. How is that not a good thing all the way around."

The data mentioned in the article is self-reported and 100% anecdotal, therefore it means nothing.

I think the main reason reports of bear encounters were down from 2024 was because FS stations had reduced hours and did not issue as many permits. Fewer people in their doors means fewer people reporting their experiences. I've been going to the BWCA for over 25 years and have never reported my encounters with bears.

From the article the FS says they historically had 50+ "encounters" a year , and 10 "brushes" after the new rules were in place. What the hell is a brush?"

I am curious how you would propose to collect "non-anecdotal data" on bear encounters?

As someone with a research background, I have a reasonable knowledge of scientific data collection and statistical significance. While it is true that data from blinded and controlled studies are superior, anecdotal data is definitely not meaningless, just subject to more confounding variables. There are many examples of important medical breakthroughs that are based off anecdotal data. For those old enough to remember, the thalidomide crisis of the 1970's was discovered purely from anecdotal data. As are many of the less common adverse drug reactions, even involving very commonly used medications.

MikeinMpls: "

OCDave: "With this extension, I hope to see food hanging poles added to camp sites.
"

The over/under life expectancy at any given campsite for the average pole system in a well-traveled area (Lake One, Mudro-Fourtown, Moose Lake and beyond) will be about one and a half seasons. We already have groups flaunting size limits, leaving garbage, chopping down live trees, peeling birch bark, and on and on and on...I think they'll be misused, repurposed, or vandalized in short order.


Probably the same with any box system.


I'm sorry I'm such a downer, but my cynicism often overtakes me.


Mike"

While a food hanging station might see some abuse, that would avoid that same abuse being inflicted on the nearest suitable tree.

geotramper: "
I doubt the cost of acquiring/renting/borrowing bear-proof storage is a primary factor preventing those will less financial means from experiencing the BWCA. There are many higher costs, like travel to and from the wilderness, having to take time off of work, bigger ticket gear items like canoes and packs, etc. "

It may not be the primary factor, but it's one of many and we certainly don't need to be adding to these unnecessarily. Across the board costs have already been increasing at a pretty alarming rate in the last 4-5 years.

I don't know how someone with an average income can even afford fishing lures these days...

Pinetree: "

LindenTree: "

OCDave: "With this extension, I hope to see food hanging poles added to camp sites. "

I'd rather have bear boxes, but both are not going to happen."

I wonder how much one bear box costs?"

1,200 - 1,500 bucks on this website.

I swear...I may need to rethink my order of all-time BWCA controversial thread topics...

>Food Storage/Bears
>Permit Hording/System
>Dogs in BWCA
>Firearms in BWCA

What am I missing?

scat: "Well it’s as scientific as it can be. What is your science based on, your own experiences. I would think most bear encounters are reported to outfitters renting gear then hearing a story about a bear when checking out. The article clearly says that a few long time wilderness outfitters agreed that the order has made an impact. Fewer encounters reported. From 58 to 10, that is the figures reported, I believe that more than I trust your attempt at disputing it for whatever reason.

Was 2 posts behind. Soundguy has the science I’m going with that.

It’s not really science, it’s common sense. Oops did I really say that…"

Saying something is common sense in an argument is a lazy logical fallacy.

I don’t think most bear encounters are reported. Prove me wrong.

The quotes in the article from the outfitters prove nothing. I’ve met both of them and respect them and their businesses.

Sunburn: "

YaMarVa: "

scat: "The article clearly says there has been a significant decline in bear encounters in the last 2 years - from an average of 58 to 10 per year. How is that not a good thing all the way around."

The data mentioned in the article is self-reported and 100% anecdotal, therefore it means nothing.


I think the main reason reports of bear encounters were down from 2024 was because FS stations had reduced hours and did not issue as many permits. Fewer people in their doors means fewer people reporting their experiences. I've been going to the BWCA for over 25 years and have never reported my encounters with bears.


From the article the FS says they historically had 50+ "encounters" a year , and 10 "brushes" after the new rules were in place. What the hell is a brush?"

I am curious how you would propose to collect "non-anecdotal data" on bear encounters?


As someone with a research background, I have a reasonable knowledge of scientific data collection and statistical significance. While it is true that data from blinded and controlled studies are superior, anecdotal data is definitely not meaningless, just subject to more confounding variables. There are many examples of important medical breakthroughs that are based off anecdotal data. For those old enough to remember, the thalidomide crisis of the 1970's was discovered purely from anecdotal data. As are many of the less common adverse drug reactions, even involving very commonly used medications.
"

Im not proposing they do anything different, I was strictly pointing out the data is pointless.

I also work with data for a living, and while you point out some good exceptions, they are not the rule. You admit anecdotal evidence needs to be subject to confounding variables. This article provides none.

I don’t understand what your point is but that’s ok. I think I’ll try to follow the rules.

scat: "I don’t understand what your point is but that’s ok. I think I’ll try to follow the rules."

It’s pretty simple to understand, I don’t trust the data reported in the article. I will also follow the rules.

iCallitMaize: "I swear...I may need to rethink my order of all-time BWCA controversial thread topics...


>Food Storage/Bears
>Permit Hording/System
>Dogs in BWCA
>Firearms in BWCA


What am I missing?"

Cell phone coverage. Because if you can't argue with strangers on the Internet while on your trip, why bother going?

NEIowapaddler: "

iCallitMaize: "I swear...I may need to rethink my order of all-time BWCA controversial thread topics...



>Food Storage/Bears
>Permit Hording/System
>Dogs in BWCA
>Firearms in BWCA



What am I missing?"

Cell phone coverage. Because if you can't argue with strangers on the Internet while on your trip, why bother going? "

Did someone say Innie vs. Outie yet?
How about meeting people on a portage and “violating” the 9 person rule…
Dropping a pack off at a site to “claim” it then paddle around for another hour?
People coming in late in the day to an entry lake and asking to share your camp?

T

Sunburn: "

YaMarVa: "

scat: "The article clearly says there has been a significant decline in bear encounters in the last 2 years - from an average of 58 to 10 per year. How is that not a good thing all the way around."

The data mentioned in the article is self-reported and 100% anecdotal, therefore it means nothing.


I think the main reason reports of bear encounters were down from 2024 was because FS stations had reduced hours and did not issue as many permits. Fewer people in their doors means fewer people reporting their experiences. I've been going to the BWCA for over 25 years and have never reported my encounters with bears.


From the article the FS says they historically had 50+ "encounters" a year , and 10 "brushes" after the new rules were in place. What the hell is a brush?"

I am curious how you would propose to collect "non-anecdotal data" on bear encounters?


As someone with a research background, I have a reasonable knowledge of scientific data collection and statistical significance. While it is true that data from blinded and controlled studies are superior, anecdotal data is definitely not meaningless, just subject to more confounding variables. There are many examples of important medical breakthroughs that are based off anecdotal data. For those old enough to remember, the thalidomide crisis of the 1970's was discovered purely from anecdotal data. As are many of the less common adverse drug reactions, even involving very commonly used medications.
"

Previous to the new rule the FS had data online each year as to the number of bear encounters and the circumstances of that encounter as well as if food was taken by a bear.

Prior to this new rule…that data was removed or relocated…at least I am no longer able to find it.

That previous data reported that most food was taken either during the day or from improperly hung food. There was minimal data/reports of Blue barrels.

Since the new rule there is not any public access. Just anecdotal statements. To say there were only 10 reports of bear issues last year is laughable. There were more than 10 reports on this very website last year.

So…if you are a research guy? Why would the FS continue to allow the most often breached method (hanging) to continue? How can you hang a pack properly in the 30% of the BWCAW that has been burned recently (news flash…you can’t) hanging should be outlawed based on their own previous data. Why did the FS remove their previous data? Why does the FS say encounters were 10 when all other sources have that higher?

I think some of us just don’t believe the new leadership…there is less transparency, more anecdotal statements that seem to defy previous data…more opinion than fact. Just a complete lack of trust.

T

timatkn: "

Sunburn: "

YaMarVa: "

scat: "The article clearly says there has been a significant decline in bear encounters in the last 2 years - from an average of 58 to 10 per year. How is that not a good thing all the way around."

From the article the FS says they historically had 50+ "encounters" a year , and 10 "brushes" after the new rules were in place. What the hell is a brush?"

I am curious how you would propose to collect "non-anecdotal data" on bear encounters?



"

Previous to the new rule the FS had data online each year as to the number of bear encounters and the circumstances of that encounter as well as if food was taken by a bear.


Prior to this new rule…that data was removed or relocated…at least I am no longer able to find it.


That previous data reported that most food was taken either during the day or from improperly hung food. There was minimal data/reports of Blue barrels.


Since the new rule there is not any public access. Just anecdotal statements. To say there were only 10 reports of bear issues last year is laughable. There were more than 10 reports on this very website last year.

"

Beg to differ. In the bear, bugs and blueberry thread in 2025, there was only a single report of a bear getting any food in a campsite. There were numerous other reports of bear sitings, but that is not a bear encounter. There was one other report of a bear visiting a site but not disturbing anything or getting near the humans. The posts about bears in other parts of the forum were vastly decreased this past year.

I really don't understand all the whining about food storage rules. It is easy to properly store food via numerous methods. Pick the one that works best for you and protect the bears. I would use my same bear resistant (nothing is bear proof) methods whether I was in the BWCA, Quetico or areas further north. Be a true woodsperson and step it up people. I know we try to be respectful of different perspectives on this site, but this is not one of those topics.

Perfectly said. If I have to read the word ‘anecdotal’ again I might hurl. Where else are you going to get reports on bear encounters than from people that have encountered bears. And from the ‘anecdotal’ reports to outfitters as noted here a few times in the article and posts, encounters are way down. Read soundguy’s post, bear encounters reported to the outfitter he uses went from 15-20 encounters a year to zero. That is real numbers, data if you prefer, not an opinion, they track bear encounters every year. It’s a rule to protect the bears as much as humans, where is that lost. There will always be a segment of any group that is convinced they are smarter than the rest of the world willing to follow the rules. Like anything, it’s not really harder to do something correctly than it is to half ass it. Over and out.
Maybe a shoutout post to outfitters on here asking for feedback might shed some further light and ‘data’ on this topic. I might do that.
Cheers, scat

The most scientific way to collect bear data would be for recreation.gov to include these questions in their email surveys to permit holders (trip leaders). Make them required questions and differentiate between encounters and sightings. Then drill down with additional questions to “did they get into your food/gear” and finally, noting that there would be no penalty for answering truthfully, ask all campers, “in what manner was your food stored during your trip?”

The map on the wall at our outfitters IS scientific (albeit casual) but we have to acknowledge that it does not represent all BWCA campers. It only represents the % that uses that outfitter, which in turn is slanted to Ely entry points and lakes, which in turn is slanted to a certain group of campers and their income level (since there are outfitters in town that are more and less expensive) and completely ignores campers that don’t use an outfitter. Oh, and by the way, this outfitter doesn’t rent or sell Bear Vaults or Ursacks. They rent blue barrels and hanging pulleys.

Still, using data from only a % of campers is representative of the overall trend, especially when the dip is this large.

straighthairedcurly: "Beg to differ. In the bear, bugs and blueberry thread in 2025, there was only a single report of a bear getting any food in a campsite. There were numerous other reports of bear sitings, but that is not a bear encounter. There was one other report of a bear visiting a site but not disturbing anything or getting near the humans. The posts about bears in other parts of the forum were vastly decreased this past year.


I really don't understand all the whining about food storage rules. It is easy to properly store food via numerous methods. Pick the one that works best for you and protect the bears. I would use my same bear resistant (nothing is bear proof) methods whether I was in the BWCA, Quetico or areas further north. Be a true woodsperson and step it up people. I know we try to be respectful of different perspectives on this site, but this is not one of those topics. "

Very well said, on both counts.

Sorry I should have been more clear…I guess my whining is they still allow hanging.

1. I think we can all agree a lot of the BWCAW you cannot hang per the FS Guidelines. This is a significant part of the BWCAW due to recent fires and storms. So much that the FS had to issue a statement they understand and if you are those areas you won’t get a fine for improper hanging. See the initial post. Huh? They essentially are telling us it’s okay to not use an effective method for food storage for a large area of the BWCAW…

2. When we had previous information…I mean real data…not opinions and for Scat anecdotal :) statements…which wasn’t that long ago…the most often breached food method was hanging.

3. Even when hanging conditions are good, the vast majority of campers DO NOT hang properly. This site is the rarity a lot of you do a great job. That is not the norm…the norm are bear piñata’s.

For the thousandth time I have the BV500’s and I have Ursacks. I converted many years ago. It isn’t hard for me at all to follow the rules. I do follow the rules…I did BEFORE they went into place. Just because I follow the rules doesn’t preclude me to comment on how they aren’t based on common sense and previous statistics. I’d rather see someone use their blue barrel in a blow down or fire area than hang a bag in what the FS already admits is ineffective but won’t get a fine… or I’d rather an inexperienced person use a Blue Barrel than hang a Bear Piñata…

Now if all of the new inexperienced people or poor hangers switched to BV500’s or Ursack’s I’d buy in that the rules were more effective. I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya if ya believe that’s what happened with these rules.

Outlaw hanging… require all IGBC containers…then I will believe the FS is making a lasting move to help Bears.

T

Uh… I’m not the one calling bear encounter reports anecdotal, that is someone else’s angle.

timatkn: "Sorry I should have been more clear…I guess my whining is they still allow hanging.


1. I think we can all agree a lot of the BWCAW you cannot hang per the FS Guidelines. This is a significant part of the BWCAW due to recent fires and storms. So much that the FS had to issue a statement they understand and if you are those areas you won’t get a fine for improper hanging. See the initial post. Huh?


2. When we had previous information…I mean real data…not opinions and for Scat anecdotal :) statements…which wasn’t that long ago…the most often breached food method was hanging.


3. Even when hanging conditions are good, the vast majority of campers DO NOT hang properly. This site is the rarity a lot of you do a great job. That is not the norm…the norm are bear piñata’s.


For the thousandth time I have the BV500’s and I have Ursacks. I converted many years ago. It isn’t hard for me at all to follow the rules. I do follow the rules…I did BEFORE they went into place. Just because I follow the rules doesn’t preclude me to comment on how they aren’t based on common sense and previous statistics. I’d rather see someone use their blue barrel in a blow down or fire area than hang a bag in what the FS already admits is ineffective and won’t get a fine…

Outlaw hanging… require all IGBC containers…then I will believe the FS is making a lasting move to help Bears.

T"

I'm with you one this one. It would be so much easier if the FS would just amend the rule to not permit any method of food storage system not listed on the IGBC web site. Hang or not, your choice, and everyone is in compliance.

We all decided to not even deal with the hanging issue in our groups and simply went to the Lifetime IGBC coolers.

I would not be surprised if people not wanting to risk getting fined are part of the reason reports went down.

It bothers me that the claims made are so vague and lack any details. Surely they must know what methods were breached the most, otherwise how would you even make new regulations? Why won't they show that data? I agree with others, it's not so much the rules that we are concerned with, I have been following them and will continue to do so. It's the lack of transparency to justify their implementation. I get the strong sense that they don't really know much at all and are simply winging it and it makes me wonder how often they do that with other regulations that we argue about here.

Common sense! Hope it becomes permanent.

Minneapolis tribune: The agency has fielded questions from visitors, and others have expressed concerns on social media platforms about the dearth of campsites with suitable trees to comply with the rules. The Forest Service said its rangers consider campsite conditions when enforcing the order.

A public FAQ document from the agency stated that requests to set up food storage lockers aren’t realistic and would be “cost prohibitive.” There are almost 2,000 campsites across the million-acre BWCAW.


Boundary Waters campers faced tougher food storage rules this year to keep bears away. Here's how it worked.
The agency also has emphasized educating the public about storing food, directing wilderness visitors to online instruction and best practices on its website and through how-to videos on YouTube.

Generally, visitors complied with the order, the agency said. Citations were low and focused on blatant or repeated violations. The fine is $50.

The order applies April 1 through Nov. 30, when bears are most active.

An interesting thread to catch up on

Using a very small sample size to make conclusions about causation usually requires a random sampling of data. In this case, the self reporting data does not appear to be random.

plmn: "I would not be surprised if people not wanting to risk getting fined are part of the reason reports went down."

This is a very good point. I would also like to know what they consider to be an encounter. A bear that got their food, one that tried to get food, in camp at all? How about the one that snuck up behind us last trip but took off when it realized we were still up?

Many reasons could of happen. Much more natural food this year, maybe past years it was only a couple bears that had repeated offenses and yes I think people were actually trying to do a better job last year.

Over my lifetime in the BWCA and Quetico I had zero problems with bear but always practice common sense. Also areas with less human activity usually had less bear problems due to they never got habituated to human carelessness.

Call me crazy….I have been on something like 20 BWCA trips over 20 years and I still don’t understand what changed about the rules a few years back.

I thought it has always been hang it in a tree or use a certified container.

And, as I read this, any barrel is fine. If it’s not certified, hang it in a tree. Many people are talking about the barrels…just looking for clarification.

What am I missing?

Nobody is talking about the (only) winner here. Outfitter retail sales. Government regulation is always profitable for someone in the short term.

My unpopular opinion is to remove the troublesome bears. Luckily, the MN DNR exists. Get this, they have well educated people on staff whose full time job is to monitor game populations and make recommendations about management and harvest. And they're great at their job, when we let them do it! However, the number of permits for the BWCA has remained stagnant at 50 for as long as I can remember while most other units in the state change yearly. Now the trout lake unit has been added to zone 22 so the entire BWCA is now in the same unit, much larger than the old unit... but still 50 permits. I would guess there is a political reason for this, as the science indicates varying the quota every year, that's the entire idea behind the quotas and the millions in tax dollars that pay the salaries and support the work of these biologists and scientists. There also exists at least one group that purposefully applies for these permits with no intention of using them, undermining the science and most assuredly inflating problem bear encounters.

Check out the data here. Let the DNR cook!

brp: "Call me crazy….I have been on something like 20 BWCA trips over 20 years and I still don’t understand what changed about the rules a few years back.


I thought it has always been hang it in a tree or use a certified container.


And, as I read this, any barrel is fine. If it’s not certified, hang it in a tree. Many people are talking about the barrels…just looking for clarification.


What am I missing?"

In a way you aren’t really wrong…The reality is most people aren’t doing anything different than they always did…but the FS is breaking their arm patting themselves on the back :)

T

Z4K: "Nobody is talking about the (only) winner here. Outfitter retail sales. Government regulation is always profitable for someone in the short term.

My unpopular opinion is to remove the troublesome bears. Luckily, the MN DNR exists. Get this, they have well educated people on staff whose full time job is to monitor game populations and make recommendations about management and harvest. And they're great at their job, when we let them do it! However, the number of permits for the BWCA has remained stagnant at 50 for as long as I can remember while most other units in the state change yearly. Now the trout lake unit has been added to zone 22 so the entire BWCA is now in the same unit, much larger than the old unit... but still 50 permits. I would guess there is a political reason for this, as the science indicates varying the quota every year, that's the entire idea behind the quotas and the millions in tax dollars that pay the salaries and support the work of these biologists and scientists. There also exists at least one group that purposefully applies for these permits with no intention of using them, undermining the science and most assuredly inflating problem bear encounters.

Check out the data here. Let the DNR cook!"

I’m not disagreeing, just respectfully asking.

-Would a troublesome bear removal require a permit? I assume this would be action taken by the authorities and wouldn’t really be regulated within the scope of traditional hunting permits.

-Is a bear that eats food that has been left behind or poorly secured a troublesome bear in a technical sense?

-If Jon Doe Hunter got a bear permit, would he somehow be incentivized to hunt troublesome BWCA bears? How would he know which bear to hunt? I also wonder about bear baiting, which wouldn’t be allowed in the BWCA.

Thanks.

I am under the opinion the DNR Manages problem bears very aggressively. With that being said, it’s only about 6 bears that are removed each year. Their first defense is obviously education.

They do encourage hunting in problem areas as a form of management. I have heard of the BWCAW problem bears being targeted in a sense by providing information/encouragement to potential hunters.

You cannot use an established bait station in the BWCAW, but you can utilize a Honey Burn to attract them.

MN Bear hunting rules were developed by Lynn Rogers on what is the most humane.

The DNR stopped the practice of relocating bears in 2000. I believe the issue was the Bear that was relocated usually had issues in the new territory.

T

It seems to me that the big resistance to the food storage orders stems from experienced BWCA campers who have done their best to follow the rules, including responsible consideration of food storage practices. They've developed a food storage method that made sense to them and, based on experience, have confidence that it's effective, and who are now being told that if what they are doing does not align with what others have decided is the accepted method, that they are "wrong".

They must abandon what they were doing and now must perform food storage with a method their experience says not to trust, that they find sometimes is impossible to perform or really just replicates what they had already been doing but now is with "official" gear that they must additionally purchase regardless of the success they've had with their current gear.

This, coupled with the source data generated from circumstances that don't always align well with the BWCA parameters and environment, was generated from what happened because there were those who were not conducting thoughtful food storage practices.

I think this is always going to be a hard sell.

Well, so much for the FS using their trip surveys to collect bear data. I just completed my survey and there were no questions about bears, wildlife, food storage, etc.

bottomtothetap: "...they must additionally purchase regardless of the success they've had with their current gear. "

Very thoughtful response overall...this is what get's us blue barrel crowd I think...if you have been tripping for XX years with barrels and never once had a negative bear encounter, it's difficult to say they're not an effective storage method when combined with clean camp practices. Not arguing the policy mind you...just stating an opinion.

soundguy0918: "Well, so much for the FS using their trip surveys to collect bear data. I just completed my survey and there were no questions about bears, wildlife, food storage, etc."

Yea, seemed like it was more geared about if you could find a campsite or not?

T

Pinetree: "Minneapolis tribune:
Generally, visitors complied with the order, the agency said. Citations were low and focused on blatant or repeated violations. The fine is $50."

I don't think the vast majority of people would have a problem with a $50 fine. But it reminded me that the penalty is actually up to $5000 and six months in jail, and as far as I know there are no legal restrictions on when the maximum penalty can be applied. It is totally subjective and dependent on the government's good faith.

That overreach alone is reason enough to oppose this regulation, IMO.

plmn: "

Pinetree: "Minneapolis tribune:
Generally, visitors complied with the order, the agency said. Citations were low and focused on blatant or repeated violations. The fine is $50."

I don't think the vast majority of people would have a problem with a $50 fine. But it reminded me that the penalty is actually up to $5000 and six months in jail, and as far as I know there are no legal restrictions on when the maximum penalty can be applied. It is totally subjective and dependent on the government's good faith.

That overreach alone is reason enough to oppose this regulation, IMO."

I just looked it up and the fine is the same for more then nine people and/or four canoes at a campsite. Is that rule overreach? Do you oppose this rule as well? When we start picking and choosing the rules we will obey based on our definition of overreach or data, the system falls apart.

ockycamper: "

plmn: "

Pinetree: "Minneapolis tribune:
Generally, visitors complied with the order, the agency said. Citations were low and focused on blatant or repeated violations. The fine is $50."

I don't think the vast majority of people would have a problem with a $50 fine. But it reminded me that the penalty is actually up to $5000 and six months in jail, and as far as I know there are no legal restrictions on when the maximum penalty can be applied. It is totally subjective and dependent on the government's good faith.

That overreach alone is reason enough to oppose this regulation, IMO."

I just looked it up and the fine is the same for more then nine people and/or four canoes at a campsite. Is that rule overreach? Do you oppose this rule as well? When we start picking and choosing the rules we will obey based on our definition of overreach or data, the system falls apart."

I said earlier that I obey the rules. But yes, I very much disagree with such steep penalties whose enforcement is not defined. I really don't understand why anybody would support that.

Darn it.

So, hang the barrel where it’s highly visible instead of hidden away. Got it.

bottomtothetap: "It seems to me that the big resistance to the food storage orders stems from experienced BWCA campers who have done their best to follow the rules, including responsible consideration of food storage practices. They've developed a food storage method that made sense to them and, based on experience, have confidence that it's effective, and who are now being told that if what they are doing does not align with what others have decided is the accepted method, that they are "wrong".

They must abandon what they were doing and now must perform food storage with a method their experience says not to trust, that they find sometimes is impossible to perform or really just replicates what they had already been doing but now is with "official" gear that they must additionally purchase regardless of the success they've had with their current gear.

This, coupled with the source data generated from circumstances that don't always align well with the BWCA parameters and environment, was generated from what happened because there were those who were not conducting thoughtful food storage practices.

I think this is always going to be a hard sell. "

Couldn't have said it any better.

iCallitMaize: "I swear...I may need to rethink my order of all-time BWCA controversial thread topics...


>Food Storage/Bears
>Permit Hording/System
>Dogs in BWCA
>Firearms in BWCA


What am I missing?"

Double-bladed paddles. ;-)

Z4K: "Nobody is talking about the (only) winner here. Outfitter retail sales. Government regulation is always profitable for someone in the short term.

My unpopular opinion is to remove the troublesome bears. Luckily, the MN DNR exists. Get this, they have well educated people on staff whose full time job is to monitor game populations and make recommendations about management and harvest. And they're great at their job, when we let them do it! However, the number of permits for the BWCA has remained stagnant at 50 for as long as I can remember while most other units in the state change yearly. Now the trout lake unit has been added to zone 22 so the entire BWCA is now in the same unit, much larger than the old unit... but still 50 permits. I would guess there is a political reason for this, as the science indicates varying the quota every year, that's the entire idea behind the quotas and the millions in tax dollars that pay the salaries and support the work of these biologists and scientists. There also exists at least one group that purposefully applies for these permits with no intention of using them, undermining the science and most assuredly inflating problem bear encounters.

Check out the data here. Let the DNR cook!"

As far as I know, I'm the only person posting in this thread who has hunted bears in the BWCA. The notion that the number of available permits is a limitation on the effectiveness of the management tool is laughable, to put it mildly. This is one of the most difficult bear hunts in the country in terms of available methods.

And the phony permit purchasing (not merely applying) is a fine old urban myth. Unpurchased permits go up for sale every August and are snapped up by the people who meet the requirements for buying a hunting license. They're not hipsters drinking lattes in the Cities, I can assure you.

The bear permit area for the BWCA is 22. The results over the last several years clearly show that the number of available permits is not affecting the number of bears taken:

ockycamper: "Doesn't matter what we think or on what basis the decision was made. It's the rule for the next five years. You either abide by the rule, or you don't. If you start picking and choosing which rules to follow, don't come down on those who pick and choose as well their set of rules they will follow (cans, numbers of people in camp, dogs on leashes, etc.)."

Spot on.

Here's the thing. Strict rules on how food is stored on public lands is commonplace in the West--especially in grizzly country. People take it seriously, because habituated bears get both people and bears killed.

Personally, I couldn't care less if your carelessness/laziness leads to your food pack being destroyed and your food eaten by a bear (it's happened to me back in the day), just as I don't care if your personal choice to avaid vaccines leads to your illness or death. Ya can't fix stupid. But when your choices affect other people, like when bears get habituated to finding food on campsites, then I take issue.

arctic: "

ockycamper: "Doesn't matter what we think or on what basis the decision was made. It's the rule for the next five years. You either abide by the rule, or you don't. If you start picking and choosing which rules to follow, don't come down on those who pick and choose as well their set of rules they will follow (cans, numbers of people in camp, dogs on leashes, etc.)."

Spot on.


Here's the thing. Strict rules on how food is stored on public lands is commonplace in the West--especially in grizzly country. People take it seriously, because habituated bears get both people and bears killed.


Personally, I couldn't care less if your carelessness/laziness leads to your food pack being destroyed and your food eaten by a bear (it's happened to me back in the day), just as I don't care if your personal choice to avaid vaccines leads to your illness or death. Ya can't fix stupid. But when your choices affect other people, like when bears get habituated to finding food on campsites, then I take issue."

Good write

Some thoughts implied not stated:
-Correlation isnt causation.
-Bears arent habituated by rule followers. So increased rules effect rule followers more than bears.
-The years of data mentioned in the article compare 2021, 2022 to 2023, 2024. The former years were well known as having an influx of 1st time visitors due to COVID. The later years more of a return to normal. What were numbers for "bear encounters" like in say 2017,2018?
-Statistical relevance is based on ratios of "reports" to sample size. The OP doesnt reference sample size, only an estimate of visitors.

Disclaimers:
-I follow rules for smellables, dispite my opinions.
-I value "reports" of bear encounters no matter how anecdotal or negative the encounter.

Now, as you were. Discuss.

arctic: "

ockycamper: "Doesn't matter what we think or on what basis the decision was made. It's the rule for the next five years. You either abide by the rule, or you don't. If you start picking and choosing which rules to follow, don't come down on those who pick and choose as well their set of rules they will follow (cans, numbers of people in camp, dogs on leashes, etc.)."

Spot on.


Here's the thing. Strict rules on how food is stored on public lands is commonplace in the West--especially in grizzly country. People take it seriously, because habituated bears get both people and bears killed.


Personally, I couldn't care less if your carelessness/laziness leads to your food pack being destroyed and your food eaten by a bear (it's happened to me back in the day), just as I don't care if your personal choice to avaid vaccines leads to your illness or death. Ya can't fix stupid. But when your choices affect other people, like when bears get habituated to finding food on campsites, then I take issue."

Exactly!