Boundary Waters Quetico Forum :: Trip Planning Forum :: Food Storage Order
|
Author | Message Text | ||
mschi772 |
andym: "I guess for Ursacks it is either hang them or get the company to lobby the FS. The guy who developed them definitely would do that but I don't know if the BW is a big enough market to get the new owners to work on this issue. It makes no sense to have them approved for grizzly bears via the IGBC and not for brown bears in the BWCA. While I wrestled with their reluctance to explain anything last year, eventually they did say that Ursacks are rejected because food can be punctured and leak, providing a reward to the bear despite them never breaching the bag fully. I asked them to provide ethological science to support their claim that leaking food residue is rewarding enough to bears despite the effort and the lack of any true return of a meal. They did not provide any behavioral studies or any other supporting evidence. The Ursack policy is based on assumptions, not science. One of my specialties is animal behavior. Yes, food can leak from an Ursack, but without any proof from science, it cannot be assumed that a bear would consider the effort to be worthwhile enough to be encouraged by it. Maybe, maybe not--need to actually do the science to know. I doubt they'll change. I've learned to always be ready for disappointment when it comes to the USFS--not always their fault, but whether it is their fault or not, I find myself facepalming far too often. |
||
Shepaddles |
|
||
billconner |
|
||
boonie |
|
||
John Moore |
I feel that resistant canisters are the most effective portable option available. I also think that the hanging option may be included because the Forest Service is aware that without larger more suitable size resistant containers available many visitors would be unwilling to comply. Information about the pros and cons of hanging, hiding, ursacks, resistant canisters, and other methods of protecting items is available with a simple search. A critical thinking person should be able to figure out whether or not he or she is able or willing to comply. It may be expensive, inconvenient, or unpopular but when there is a will there is often a way. |
||
andym |
I doubt that Ursacks provide bears with a higher likelihood of a good reward than packs hung in trees. I know hanging can be done well but that is not always accomplished. Finally, I doubt changes in the SNF will drive changes in what is available because I doubt that this is a substantial fraction of the US camping market. So unless a niche, local company takes this on to meet BW rules, I don’t see changes. Maybe someone could sell blue barrels that have been tested. And as a government scientist, I also agree with being transparent with the public. |
||
Lightfoot |
thistlekicker: "I've said it before...segregate the BWCA Wilderness into "frontcountry" and "backcountry" zones and manage the two zones differently in terms of permit numbers and types, ranger patrols, campsite infrastructure, even portage maintenance. They already do this to some extent with the PMAs. |
||
Jasonf |
Given the above I think the real answer is to reduce the number of permits. " This is the easy answer that no one the make money off this industry want to here. Permits per entry could be halved and those with a single per day could go to every other day. Two summers with most entries booked solid will lead to the issues seen this year. |
||
tumblehome |
yogi59weedr: "Your a little hard on government employees.. +1 You can catch more bees with honey than vinegar. Tom |
||
martian |
|
||
ockycamper |
Buy the Bearvault and pay two teenagers to carry them through for you. . .and still have money to eat at Trail Center Lodge. |
||
TechnoScout |
andym: " A few years ago my son and I did a five day four night backpacking in the rockies. We used the BV500 for our food...it all fit. We ate MH meals and pilot crackers. |
||
GraniteCliffs |
timatkn: "The vast majority of hanging food packs I see are bear piñata’s and do not comply with FS standards for height and how far they are away from a tree. Is the FS really going to ticket them? Are they even going to check? |
||
billconner |
|
||
Fishman53 |
Video |
||
mschi772 |
yogi59weedr: "Your a little hard on government employees.. It was all via email which you can read for yourself, and as a citizen that pays their salary, I think I'm entitled to know how my government agency is reaching its decisions, especially, but not limited to, decisions regarding rules that apply directly to me. There was nothing unreasonable about my requests. An agency that manages forests should not be a stranger to science and should be perfectly capable of communicating on that level. |
||
Fishman53 |
|
||
John Moore |
I was a hanger and found useful information on his site about hanging technique and creative rigging to aid in the process. Whether you choose hanging or canisters you should consider protecting your food as well as possible. I package and handle food, trash, and scented with care to reduce the scent. I am also careful while transporting or storing my canister. I do not leave my canister in my pack or with a carrying harness attached unattended for a bear to walk off with. I have seen unattended food packs on portages. I single portage but if I wanted to leave my canister unattended I would remove it from my pack or remove the carry harness. Food for thought. |
||
Jaywalker |
Last year there was an order very similar to this, but it was only for a couple lakes around Alpine. The SNF clarified in that order they did NOT consider blue barrels to be acceptable due to failures in that special testing machine they use. There are a LOT of people and outfitters using blue barrels, and there have been a LOT of arguments on this forum about just how bear resistant they are (or are not). Last year's order also excluded the use of Ursacks because bears might puncture or crush some items inside (like a tube of syrup or something). This order looks the same to me as last years, but it does not limit these more strict rules to any part of the BWCA - in fact is says throughout the Superior National Forest. And the rule is in effect today, so it could be that anyone using an Ursack or blue barrel could be in a bind. Did I miss something?? Edit: Here is last year's order - the wording is very similar, but note they changed the requirements for hanging a bag! Full disclosure: I use a blue barrel and an Ursack for my dog food. |
||
cmanimal |
Some only focus on the food and not the other items that may/will attract visitors depending on the environmental conditions. I have used resistant containers, hanging in odor proof bags and stashing based on the trip and time of year. Generally I stash in the end of Oct, Jan and Feb, as the critter threat is low. The rest of the year I prefer to hang as I find bear container to be a pain. Given how dry its been I'm surprised it took this long for the order to be issued. I was expecting it in May. |
||
billconner |
Eve.n less cost and weight, and a 45' x 45' area. Party in you tent! Another example |
||
LindenTree |
John Moore: " I have seen unattended food packs on portages. I single portage but if I wanted to leave my canister unattended I would remove it from my pack or remove the carry harness. Wow, good advise, and never gave this much thought. "I feel stupid now" I carry a BV 450 or 500, I solo on sholder seasons more, double portage and leave my BV in my pack at the bottom because it fits better there. I will refigure my packing in the future so I can take it out of my pack when I'm at the other end. |
||
jillpine |
LindenTree: "John Moore: " I have seen unattended food packs on portages. I single portage but if I wanted to leave my canister unattended I would remove it from my pack or remove the carry harness. Was thinking same. Thanks again - received a lot of help from this thread. Appreciate it. |
||
yogi59weedr |
. If you started asking me heated questions about what kind of science was used to determine results, I'd have hung up on your azz. |
||
Fishman53 |
Given our encounter, we shared that with others we saw on portages, paddling, etc…. It was during these exchanges we learn that others had encountered bear activity on the same lake. After listening to their stories, I kept thinking, boy I wish I had known this, but understand the difficulties of reporting “real time” information. My mistake (not to be repeated), but I did not ask our outfitter about any bear activity in our area prior to departure. Nor did we receive any information about bear activity. The bear activity on this site was in other areas. While it was a pain in the rear to stash our barrel far from camp, your damn right we did so to avoid additional encounters. After cooking our ribeye steaks that evening we had convinced ourselves that we had rung the dinner bell for a return visit, but care was taken on cleanup and we didn’t hear a thing that night. The point is that we will do what is necessary to avoid any bear encounter for a host of reasons, the primary one being self preservation on the off chance we get the crazy eyed bear visit. My hope is that in the future there is more communication from USFS through some mechanism regarding “bear reports” from individuals and outfitters. Had we known of bear activity on this lake we could have chosen a different option for storage, started with the long distance stash, chosen a different lake, etc…. Can’t help but think that if such info is made available and folks act in a manner to avoid such encounters USFS might be able to avoid such orders as was implemented last week. |
||
thistlekicker |
In terms of this specific issue, you could require more secure food storage in frontcountry zones and/or install bear poles at certain campsites. It would take some time, effort, and expense on the part of the managing authority but could make a world of difference in terms of maintaining the resource we all love and enjoy, while not requiring wholesale changes in trip character for those of us who gravitate towards the backcountry and already abide by Leave No Trace principles (including "Respect wildlife"). |
||
ockycamper |
|
||
THEGrandRapids |
|
||
goblu79 |
|
||
billconner |
|
||
John Moore |
Jackfish: "John Moore: "jillpine, as a guest I am not allowed to to post links or photos but there is a link posted of the actual order in the third post from the top of this thread." jackfish, I read your post the day you made it and was not clear on how or whether to respond. Thank you for the encouragement but having spent time reading and responding on several threads I feel that there is little audience here. I am genuinely enthused about many of the topics however I don't feel the same enthusiasm from others. It appears that many of the most outspoken members do little or no research prior to posting. Often the questions posted have been answered several times earlier in the thread but the individual is not interested enough or too lazy to read the previous comments. I am better suited as a troll. John |
||
John Moore |
EddyTurn: " I didn't mean to condemn sharing in any way, sorry if it sounded as if I did. I kinda concern that people looking for advice sometimes tend to over-rely on opinion of more experienced trippers. Or anecdotal evidence. Or statistics. Often enough I find opinions of highly respected by me members of these forums to be totally irrelevant for me personally for no other reason but differences in experience and style. And I might be reluctant sometimes to share some of my knowledge, however humble it is, especially when my technique is not in the mainstream. As for food storage capacity, it's obviously totally safe to share opinions. But on the matter of safety of different ways to store food in the woods, I'd say that proper technique is much more important than bomb-proofing the containers. As I understand it, if a bear found your food - may be the food is not lost, but the game is :)." EddyTurn, I am also reluctant to share my none mainstream techniques and feel that people rely on the opinion of others without first understanding how the equipment or technique applies to their tripping style. What works well for one person may not for another. I prefer to research and understand how equipment functions to determine if it will work for my application. Where I find the most value in the opinions of others is in the application or technique applied in using the equipment. I see excellent equipment used improperly or inefficiently receive bad revues. I also see equipment that has worked well for many that is useless for my application. Examples: Gravity water filters have been given poor reviews for slow flow rates while the the people reviewing may not understand or apply efficient technique in their use. Obtaining cleanest water available, saturating the filter element to eliminate vapor lock, using a long leader hose with the filter located at the correct end to increase water pressure, and back flushing the filter properly are important factors often overlooked. Equipment water protection using plastic trash bag pack liners work for many but is useless in my application . With little cost or effort I am able to keep my critical equipment dry in harsh wet conditions that would be unlikely or impossible using plastic trash bags. |
||
rdgbwca |
Fishman53: "The attached pic shows some of the damage. Wow. It is cool that the pack survived and you could still carry an overloaded food barrel with it. I also over packed a 60L food barrel on my first trip. Getting the amount of food correct is an ongoing problem for me. What date did you enter? That pack retails for $181. I would think you would have noticed the bill unless they charge based on a depreciated value. |
||
Ockycamprr |
|
||
RRHD |
I have not noticed any changes and doubt they will make any. Their bears will also be hungry due to drought, but a major contributor to the BWCA bear-human problem is the high concentration of humans in some places, namely larger lakes with lots of campsites fairly close together and fairly close to entries.. We always hear of trouble bears on Agnes and Ensign and Alpine, but rarely on Cap or Fat or Muskeg. With Quetico having something like 1/10th the visitors in the same space, and WCPP and Wabakimi having less than 1%, there is far less opportunity for the same problem. " Given the above I think the real answer is to reduce the number of permits. |
||
ockycamper |
In this whole conversation, I think it ironic the number of people that get upset over motion alarms, flags, etc (which are allowed), and state on a forum that they will not comply with a regulation because it is inconvenient. |
||
John Moore |
RRHD: "Blatz: "You already have a Fire Grate, Vault toilet, why not add a metal food box chained to a tree while you're at it. " I apologize for my excessive number of posts but this is a hot topic for me. I try to stay away from this site but find myself drawn back to it because of the enjoyable trips I have made to the BWCA. It is refreshing to see positive suggestions. This mandate will effect a lot of people who have learned to enjoy the BWCA and I feel it is worth investing time and energy in finding solutions so that those who want to may continue to visit. I would be in favor of a pilot program with regards to this. I don't see it completely replacing knowledge and skill training in food protection but it my allow base campers and less skilled people to gain access in specified areas. It may also provide alternatives in areas that do not have adequate resources for the more skilled visitors. |
||
RatherbeDuffing |
ockycamper: "We have yet to have one go off. We attach them to the Bearvaults with duct tape. If I was in a camp site near where a motion alarm went off, I would much rather be alerted to the presence of a nearby bear, then mind a short alarm. Define "a short alarm". If you are out on the day trip, does the alarm cease after a period of time? I imagine the sound is quite loud. |
||
LindenTree |
ockycamper: "We use "pull apart" alarms. One end tied to the tree, the other taped to the Bearvault. We don't tie them to the bearvault as we don't want anything a bear can get hold of to haul one off. If the bear tries to roll it, the pieces pull apart the the alarm sounds. We only arm the bearvaults at night when we are in camp. We don't arm them if we are away." Interesting, do you have a link? |
||
yogi59weedr |
I myself, I'm going to concentrate on things that don't cause me stress. Ya seem to be wound up tight on this. |
||
boonie |
|
||
John Moore |
billconner: "If I missed this I apologize but if you have an approved container, say a BV500, do you just leave it on the ground in camp? No lashing to a tree, hanging, or stashing away from site? Same if using an IGBC listed cooler?" Yes, you just leave it on the ground 50 ft away from an occupied area. It is important that the canister is not in a pack or has anything attached to it that an animal can use to carry it off with. Also best to place it in an area in which it is not easily knocked into the water or off a cliff. Bears will spend time batting canisters around until they loose interest. I have seen videos of bears forcing the canisters against large rocks in an effort to break them open so take that into consideration. It is also recommended that some canisters be place with the opening facing down because the openings on some will allow rain to get inside. Bright colors and reflective tape aid in locating the canister, especially if it has been batted around by and animal. Canisters have limitations but I know how difficult it is to protect food by hanging. Hanging is the first chore and is required before other camp chores, after meals, while fishing, swimming, and anytime the food, trash, or scented items are left unattended. Better have a good easy to use hanging system because to use effectively your food may be up and down several times a day. |
||
RRHD |
Blatz: "You already have a Fire Grate, Vault toilet, why not add a metal food box chained to a tree while you're at it. " I'd personally prefer wires and pulleys, but I am in agreement with you. At least do a pilot program with say ~25 set ups and put them at Agnes and other known bear hang-outs? |
||
John Moore |
John |
||
ockycamper |
|
||
John Moore |
ockycamper: "In my camp we attach a movement sensor to the bearvaults when not using them. If a bear moves it, the sensor alerts us and we can deal with the bear. The sensors are supposed to be bear deterrents as well. Haven't had opportunity to see if that works yet." I have attached movement alarms to my food bag when I hanged. There are people on this site that frown on the use. I personally would rather hear momentary noise from someone protecting their food than having their trip and possibly others ruined by a habituated bear. It is not possible to please everyone. Some don't mind flags displayed at campsites while others consider them visual noise. Doesn't matter what the issue there will be controversy. |
||
ockycamper |
We have had blue barrels, Ursacks, food packs, coolers, and Bearvaults. The only thing that kept out bears, mice, squirrels, and chipmunks every time was the bearvaults. I am not sure what the resistance is to them. |
||
freeandcold |
ockycamper: "Compliance does not seem that hard. If you don't want to hang food containers, you use a Bearvault. Otherwise use whatever you want and hang it. I think the resistance to BV’s is $420 for the volume of one 60l barrel. But, that would allow for organization…. Personally, I’m disappointed because I spent a couple of hundred dollars to switch to a system that “did” not require hanging… I’ve hung for over 40 years and have never had a problem with any critters. I finally decided to switch due to the many near misses and a couple of injuries from hanging… thought it was time to try something new… I chose my new gear poorly. But, I know how to hang, and will not have a problem doing it again… |
||
mschi772 |
Ausable: "Ausable: "Although I doubt that it will make a difference, I wrote (email) to the FS about this order. I asked them to ... Luke Laaveg was the same person I dealt with last year at first until I pushed beyond him and ultimately ended-up getting useless responses directly from Ann Schwaller, herself. |
||
ockycamper |
|
||
mschi772 |
John Moore: "mschi772 did you read Wharfrat63 post in this thread? Reported 2 ursacks breached by bear on Agnus." Nothing is bear-proof, especially if a bear is allowed to go ham on it uncontested. BV500s have also been breached, not only by the now cliche example of Yellow-yellow, but by other bears who have learned that they can be shattered open with the assistance of jagged rocks and gravity. Even when I stash, it isn't enough to stash correctly. I always rig something out to act as an alarm so that we can be notified to respond and drive a bear away. |
||
A1t2o |
freeandcold: "I think the resistance to BV’s is $420 for the volume of one 60l barrel. But, that would allow for organization…. Personally, I’m disappointed because I spent a couple of hundred dollars to switch to a system that “did” not require hanging… " Yep. This pretty much describes me right now. Between this and Covid, I apparently only get to use my blue barrel and CCS pack once. So I should go and spend hundreds on BearVaults and possibly a pack for them now? Hanging doesn't work. It is too unreliable and prone to being too low and too close to the tree. Injuries are a real risk too. BV's are expensive and not big enough, they might be perfect for some people, but not for my situation. Who knows if they might even change their mind in the future and say even those aren't good enough. This order simply doesn't leave us with many good options. I just hate how cost is looking to be more and more of a barrier. Or maybe that is part of the goal here with so many "tourists" flocking to the BWCA during Covid. |
||
Jackfish |
John Moore: "jillpine, as a guest I am not allowed to to post links or photos but there is a link posted of the actual order in the third post from the top of this thread." Hi John... Welcome to BWCA.com. As a new poster here, you've already added a lot to this discussion. I would encourage you to become a registered member here. Lots of good discussions with good people. |
||
Ausable |
Ausable: "Although I doubt that it will make a difference, I wrote (email) to the FS about this order. I asked them to ... I received a reply from Luke Laaveg who is with the visitor services and information group in the Superior National Forest Supervisor's Office. Regarding #2 above, he replied, "The ‘solid, non-pliable’ products listed within the IGBC’s certified bear-resistant products list would be your best resource." Regarding #3, his reply was basically the same as that given previously to mschi772. |
||
billconner |
Are Quetico or any of the Canadian parks changing their regulations? I don't think the order will do much other than result in a few less cordial conversations between campers and rangers, who I feel bad for having to enforce the order. |
||
Fishman53 |
GraniteCliffs: “If you want compliance you warn people far in advance when the change will be made." Prior to even a warning how about sharing info on the reported bear encounters. I for one would like to know if we are dealing with a bunch of yardbirds who leave food and garbage about the camp, do not hang packs, etc… and caused the encounter or are we at a point that bears are entering camps that are properly maintained? Would have little sympathy for those yardbirds, but if others who are doing things correctly have bear interaction then additional protective measures are necessary. But without this information we are left to piece together the story that led to this immediate order. |
||
Jaywalker |
billconner: "Are Quetico or any of the Canadian parks changing their regulations?." I have not noticed any changes and doubt they will make any. Their bears will also be hungry due to drought, but a major contributor to the BWCA bear-human problem is the high concentration of humans in some places, namely larger lakes with lots of campsites fairly close together and fairly close to entries.. We always hear of trouble bears on Agnes and Ensign and Alpine, but rarely on Cap or Fat or Muskeg. With Quetico having something like 1/10th the visitors in the same space, and WCPP and Wabakimi having less than 1%, there is far less opportunity for the same problem. |
||
John Moore |
|
||
mschi772 |
billconner: "Are Quetico or any of the Canadian parks changing their regulations?" Algonquin Park is the only park that is really comparable to the visitation of the BWCAW, and it is no stranger to bear problems. |
||
mschi772 |
LINK Quoted below are all of my relevant posts from that thread. mschi772: "I emailed the USFS specifically about Ursacks as that was a common question I was hearing. Pictured here is their reply. mschi772: "I have finally received a response, and it still isn't super clear or helpful: mschi772: "And the response I received today. We've come full circle. Sigh. mschi772: "I was away for a week in the BWCA, but I did get another response from someone new. It is a lot of words and zero science. I'm done. It is clear that the USFS is completely uninterested in providing any actual evidence/science that they use. They likely don't actually have any as this last reply makes it painfully obvious that these restrictions are written without any clear idea of enforcement in mind. They refuse to name products because they don't want to endorse anything or miss anything, so that says to me that evaluation of any given food container ends-up having to happen case-by-case in the field, and I highly doubt that the personnel in the field have any more specific specs or tools to use to evaluate a container. Just reading back through all of that gets me all sorts of mad again. |
||
A1t2o |
I just don't see this order doing any good. The people following the rules already aren't the problem. The ones that aren't are going to to think that certain rule are too restrictive and be even more unlikely to follow them. I see it even in my own family where they think "we don't need to do that" or "that's ridiculous, they don't actually expect people to get the food pack 12 feet high". There aren't enough options for bear resistant containers on the market so people are going to take shortcuts and hang more often, likely not high enough or far enough from the tree. BTW: I still say blue barrels are better than hanging bear piñatas. At least it's sealed. |
||
GraniteCliffs |
I don't mind the idea of mandating bear proof containers but to institute a major change overnight is certainly not the best way to go about it. |
||
GraniteCliffs |
|
||
John Moore |
jillpine: "Blatz: "You already have a Fire Grate, Vault toilet, why not add a metal food box chained to a tree while you're at it. " The order clearly states "solid non-pliable". |
||
John Mooe |
I am concerned about food protection and it's impact. I choose to be proactive. I researched and now use approved bear resistant containers. I can't help but feel that the majority of people, including members on this site are more concerned with their personal convenience than with resolving the food protection issue. Instead of discussing how to comply with the mandate or suggest positive remedies I see mostly complaining and some members stating that they intend not to comply but continue as they please. John |
||
John Moore |
|
||
ockycamper |
Agreed. Bearvaults are approved containers. The reason some don't want to use them is they are more money then a cheap blue barrel, and not as easy to single portage as a Ursack. Putting aside the fine issue (although that is a big issue), why risk a bear ruining your trip by hauling off a food pack, ripping open a blue barrel or hauling off a Ursack? |
||
ockycamper |
John Moore: "jillpine: "Blatz: "You already have a Fire Grate, Vault toilet, why not add a metal food box chained to a tree while you're at it. " That would seem to clearly state that Ursacks and blue barrels are out. |
||
GraniteCliffs |
If you want compliance you warn people far in advance when the change will be made. Most everyone will agree that this change can be implemented successfully over time. I also think the idea of allowing hanging food but not Ursacks is flawed. We all know the bears can reach many of the hanging packs.. And they do. I can not tell you how many packs I have seen hanging when I paddle past campsites that are in no way shape or form going to deter a bear. I just don't see that changing. I believe the most effective way to do this is to say, starting next year, you have to use a BV or other similar approved container or a Ursack and get rid of hanging altogether. I know many on here hang correctly but by allowing it you are just inviting the problems that exist today to contine. |
||
jillpine |
I would like to just hand them a list, as they are asking things I can't answer. When I called the Ranger Station, she told me, "there is no list of approved products. Buy something labeled "bear proof". She specifically said "bear proof", and the group member is losing sleep because everything is labelled bear-resistant. One of the group members bought a Grubcan instead of a Bear Vault. And they're losing sleep about that detail. I have a couple of long portages planned, so hopefully that will help restore everyone's sleep. :) I have found the USFS order for Superior Natl Forest And the link about bear resistant food canister You know, we're just going to do our best - dehydrated food in a set of bear resistant canisters, leaving blue barrels, Ursacks, and gamma seals at home. |
||
straighthairedcurly |
jillpine: "Where is it written "non-pliable"? Can you post a link? I have an upcoming trip, and members of the group are wanting the information. Here is the more complete order: Storage definitions |
||
jillpine |
You know, those solo trips over the past three years have kind of grown on me. ;) |
||
Fishman53 |
GraniteCliffs: "I disagree about most folks posting here not agreeing to follow the new regulation. What I think is flawed is how the FS executed this. Immediate implementation is clearly not how this should have been done. It is an issue but not does rise to a 911 call. Agreed and well said! |
||
ockycamper |
|
||
northerntrader |
|
||
boonie |
northerntrader: "I haven't seen any comments about storing "refuse" on this thread. I can accept having to carry a Bearvault for my food, but now I need to toss my garbage in the vault with my food too? Or carry a separate vault for my potato peels and coffee grounds and foil or plastic containers for freeze dried food? Forget single portaging!" Pack it in, pack it out. No problem. The garbage takes up less space than the food it replaces. I plan not to have much and about a week's worth fits in a 1-quart Ziploc. |
||
andym |
Wet garbage is a pain. I suggest drying it in a pan over the fire to get rid of the moisture. I feel fortunate that we don't drink coffee and so don't have wet grounds to deal with. |
||
John Moore |
northerntrader: "I haven't seen any comments about storing "refuse" on this thread. I can accept having to carry a Bearvault for my food, but now I need to toss my garbage in the vault with my food too? Or carry a separate vault for my potato peels and coffee grounds and foil or plastic containers for freeze dried food? Forget single portaging!" I just finished a 7 day BWCA trip with a friend. We both transported all our food, scented items, and trash in approved bear resistant canisters and single portaged. |
||
jillpine |
Blatz: "You already have a Fire Grate, Vault toilet, why not add a metal food box chained to a tree while you're at it. " +1 guessing cost? Where is it stated that Ursacks generate a violation in the Superior Natl Forest? I'm not challenging that; I'm just trying to find the verbiage. What I'd really like is simply a list of approved products so I can be in compliance. The order states the requirement of a "bear-resistant container" or hang the food. |
||
andym |
If a BV500 holds a weeks worth of food for a person then my wife and I need 3 for a 10 day trip. Better food, taking up more space could mean we need a 4th. That means 7.7 to 10.25 lbs of canisters. Dropping a few lbs by using the largest bearikades would be quite expensive. The other option for us is hanging our existing Ursacks. But I’m not sure that makes our food more secure than it was tied to a tree. And I hate hanging and can’t claim I’m that good at it. It’s been 20 years since I did it. Combining the urge for good food and worries about garbage being left in metal bins at campsites, I’m starting to favor metal poles to hang food. |
||
Fishman53 |
|
||
John Moore |
|
||
mschi772 |
I'm not saying I'm against the rule by the way. I'm all for it. I'm saying that I wish we'd all stop pretending like anything significant can be achieved without actually investing in the USFS so that they can have the resources to actually affect change instead of putting on this sad "Great and Powerful Oz" routine and hoping no one notices that they're just some wimp behind a curtain that can't do anything. |
||
Wharfrat63 |
Shepaddles: "Agreed. Ursacks seem to increasingly be seen as unacceptable (e.g. in the Sierras in California) but I haven't seen any evidence that they don't work which is frustrating. " I was in the ursack camp...Until... Agnes bear breached two of them. Shredded one and got at 100% of the food. Just holes in the second. Problem is they are bear resistant and not bear proof. The idea is to keep the bear from getting the food until you can scare it away. I would say our bear worked on that bag for hours and we did not hear it. As a matter of fact we were up for an hour, before we went to get the bags. Didn't hear a thing. Stumbled upon the bear when we got about 4 feet from the ripped open ursack which was still tied to the tree. Probably a two or three year-old. Took off as soon as it saw us. I have subscribed to the Cliff Jacobson method for years, but any breakdown in protocol (in any method, really) throws all your hard work out the door. Here is what I mean: 1. On Agnes, the site was wide open. There was really no place to hide the bags, so went about 100 yards out of camp and hung the bags. I was lazy. I should have gone as far back until I found brush and under growth all around. That said if they find it and it is far away from camp, you won't hear them and they will eventually get them open if they are hungry. This leads me to my second point. 2, I had messy campers with me. They doubted my incessant naggings on keeping a clean camp. For example, I found food not buried after they did dishes; food wrappers around their tent; and after the bear incident when packing up camp, I find two boxes of raisins mixed in the cook kit bag! No one took responsibility! Normalcy bias strikes again. I cannot tell you how many times, I heard " I have been camping and hiking all my life, never worried about food, and never had a bear". That is great, but we just killed a bear. Fed bear is a dead bear. I believe that even though we had all food sealed and bagged in odor proof bags, there were smells on those bags, due to my camp mates not taking "don't touch the food bags after touching food rule. Guess I was bringing them down, until the whole group had to cut their vacation early. At the outfitter, one trip mate said to me: " I thought you were a little over the top with the food, but now I see why"! Doah! The good thing about this incident, is that the food was away from campers and therefore protected my campmates from a surprise visit to their tent! I will have to rethink all of this for the next trip. Maybe canisters, but that drastically changes the menu or the amount of packs if my menu stays the same. Hopefully, this will be a learning experience for those that read it. Please take note, don't be a messy camper in the BWCA or anywhere. And just in case, move that food way out of camp! |
||
Northwoodsman |
""" Part of the problem is that many people may not receive this info. As busy as the outfitters are, if you pick up your permit there and you are a repeat customer they may assume that you know the new rule. If the USFS posts a notice at each EP, what happens if you show up at your EP and don't have the proper gear to abide by the new rules? Do you hope you don't get caught or do you turn back and go get more rope? I hope the outfitters have ample stock of bear-proof barrels to rent and sell. What about entry points like Lizz/Swamp where you don't enter the BWCA until you are on your second lake in? They could post a sign where you can get a day permit but at the point you have already paddled across Poplar and are halfway across your first portage. There are many places to launch on Poplar so it's very possible to miss a posting. You have to consider that many people with bear proof barrels may just leave them in a pack that the bears can drag off. Even if they don't get a reward, they will still keep trying. I personally like to see the USFS making people more responsible. |
||
Fishman53 |
|
||
JD |
“Other Attractant” means an odoriferous item capable of attracting bears and other wildlife (e.g. toothpaste, deodorant, lotion, sunscreen, fishing bait, insect repellent, perfumes, and cooking spray) Though I don't disagree with the definition, I find it a bit much to ask let alone expect people to hang their deodorant, toothpaste, bug repellent, and scented fishing lures in their food bag or in a separate bag. It's not _that_ hard to do, but I would be surprised if many people obey it. |
||
andym |
|
||
EddyTurn |
ockycamper: "Simply sharing what our experience was. I don't see the "danger" in that. It comes from 20 years of tripping, 15 of them with Bearvaults, and all of them with hungry men." I didn't mean to condemn sharing in any way, sorry if it sounded as if I did. I kinda concern that people looking for advice sometimes tend to over-rely on opinion of more experienced trippers. Or anecdotal evidence. Or statistics. Often enough I find opinions of highly respected by me members of these forums to be totally irrelevant for me personally for no other reason but differences in experience and style. And I might be reluctant sometimes to share some of my knowledge, however humble it is, especially when my technique is not in the mainstream. As for food storage capacity, it's obviously totally safe to share opinions. But on the matter of safety of different ways to store food in the woods, I'd say that proper technique is much more important than bomb-proofing the containers. As I understand it, if a bear found your food - may be the food is not lost, but the game is :). |
||
ockycamper |
When the moose come in, we just get way out of the way until they are gone. |
||
ockycamper |
|
||
Fishman53 |
In our case it was bulky and excessive food items which made the “do not bring next time” list. We liked using MSR stowaway pots as they function as cook pot and bowl (with handle), easy clean up, but again are bulky to store. Yes you can put items within them, but they are space eaters. While our stove fit inside, fuel canister would not - with lid in place. Another rookie mistake was purchasing 2 pots of the same size - in our case 750mL. I think 2 of different sizes would be somewhat stackable without lid. We entered under fire ban so additional canisters also made the trip. All was stored in barrel. We be getting some bearvaults this winter with or without continuation of Order. From this thread and others it seems they not only provide the best to date protection, but would also force me to give more serious thought and prep for meals - which is not a bad thing! |
||
Fishman53 |
I don’t think I was charged, but good question - need to review bill. Obviously had to tell them what occurred and passed along encounters told to us by others. Outfitter said the bears he saw in that area were very skinny. Not unexpected given weather conditions. |
||
EddyTurn |
ockycamper: "I can only tell you that one BV500 carries supplies for 12 lunches and dinners for us. (6 men, 2 meals, one day). I'd be very careful with this kind of math as it's highly subjective. I know that I'll need two Ursacks filled to capacity (approximately the size of 2 BV500) to pack for 12 days. And I'm sure some people will need at least three for the same number of days. Camping is an occupation where following statistics of averages and probabilities is extremely dangerous, meaning everyone has to make an individual (preferably, educated) estimate of her/his own habits and risks. I used my life jacket only once on a flatwater trip. Statistically it's under 1/300 or 400 probability, but I might not be aware of this math if I didn't wear the PFD on that day. |
||
ockycamper |
|
||
Wharfrat63 |
mschi772: "John Moore: "mschi772 did you read Wharfrat63 post in this thread? Reported 2 ursacks breached by bear on Agnus." I think this post sums it up. All are Bear resistant. Some are better than others, but none of the current solutions are bear proof. Hmmmmmm....I remember a guide, from my teenage years, that would put the food packs under the canoes and pots and pans on the canoe as a warning...Makes me think if I had a cow bell on the ursasks we may have heard that bugger. Although we had a big wind storm that night. Either way, it is a problem that is not easily solved. Just remember the priorities: Keep Campers safe first, Bear second. |
||
martian |
My bad- That was 2009, those bear are long dead by now. Hopefully they didnt train any younger bears. They were ripping the lids off I believe. So no additional mortgage maybe. |
||
ockycamper |
By contrast, several Ursacks have been breached in BWCA. We have been bringing bearvaults to BWCA for years. We have also taken them to the Adirondacks on the Northern Forest Canoe Trail at the recommendation of the forest service and outfitters there. |
||
Wispaddler |
|
||
John Moore |
Back to practical solutions. I believe that blue barrels placed on the ground has become the most commonly used food protection method. Visitors could conveniently rent or purchase them, carry harnesses and packs are available, and visitors felt that they provided adequate protection. People learned how to use blue barrels and were comfortable and confident in using them. I believe that a bear resistant canister the size of the blue barrels that have been commonly used is the most logical and practical solution for the BWCA. I also feel that the number of people that would accept and use them would justify the cost to develop and produce. I am skeptical with terms describing absolutes, always, never, bear proof. However, I believe that a properly constructed steel vault could be constructed theoretically bear proof. I am not endorsing the construction or use but if placed at campsites near EP and included as approved on the mandate base campers and less adventurous visitors could travel within these areas. My concern with this is that unattended food would not be protected while traveling and the potential of improper use or abuse of the vaults. |
||
ockycamper |
If you were needing 7 days, 2 meals per day, 2 men that would be 28 meals. I think you could get by with two BV 500 containers if you packed carefully. |
||
rdgbwca |
Fishman53: " The barrel was intact, but the backpack harness was torn and had 4-5 distinct claws marks from a bear. . Did you take any pictures of the pack/harness? Did the outfitter charge you for the damage? This reminds me of a video/story I read awhile ago on this forum. The bear seems to have learned to look for food in the pack but not in the barrel. I am glad you were able to complete your trip. |
||
ockycamper |
|
||
egknuti |
|
||
John Moore |
egknuti: "This is really an unenforceable rule and I don’t think it will make a lick of difference. Sorry to be so cynical ??." I disagree, I believe that it is enforceable. However, I feel the hanging option severely weakens the intent and will make issuing citations more difficult. An approved bear resistant canister only mandate would be easier to enforce and would better accomplish the intent of preventing bears from accessing food. This is a touchy issue and a game changer for many. Whether or not it is enforced the food protection issue is mandated and people will choose to be in compliance or not. |
||
tumblehome |
Fishman53: "and Cliff Jacobson were debating bears and hanging food. Jacobson viewed the food hanging recommendation/regulation as simply a way for the government to cover their ass in the event of a human - bear interaction. And Cliff is drunk, visibly drunk, again. I never understood why people listen to him. |
||
airmorse |
mschi772: "Ultimately this is just one more rule that USFS doesn't have even close the resources or the resolve to enforce appropriately to be added to the pile of other rules they can't enforce. All they've done is make it so that improper food storage *can* be another thing they can punish people for when they do happen to come across violators. They're also, of course, hoping that this change will encourage people to be more responsible, but they know they don't have the teeth to actually follow-through in making sure everyone obeys or even knows about the new rule. I hate this limp, bureaucratic nonsense of making rules in the hopes that they automatically enforce themselves somehow without any idea of how to actually enforce them. +1 |
||
Savage Voyageur |
|
||
tumblehome |
To a bear its it's just a giant cookie jar. Tom |
||
907Tundra |
One thing that is clear is that the BWCA does have plenty of problem bears created entirely by problem people (the slobs). It’s a shame that when people have suggested relatively idiot proof options like dedicated steel poles with cables on pulleys or steel lock boxes etc at campsites the biggest complaints are that people will just leave trash in the boxes or that they are too expensive to install. The common theme here is that a relatively small number of people are creating onerous and expensive problems for the rest of us and especially for the bears. If all this merely results in rangers issuing fines to slobs then I say great. |
||
campnfish |
I'm assuming a bear canister is something like a Garcia or BV, but what is a bear-resistant container, is that a blue barrel, the resistance maybe meaning to mask the smell somewhat? Should this read, bear resistant canister, the "or" is confusing me. WWCD |
||
boonie |
campnfish: ""Using a bear canister or bear-resistant container and placing it 50 feet away from your tent on the ground (preferred method) or; "It is defined in the actual order if you read that. I would say it means bear resistant canisters. I would guess it eliminates blue barrels and Ursacks as bear resistant containers. They could of course be hung according to the requirements. |
||
Blatz |
|
||
straighthairedcurly |
|
||
tumblehome |
straighthairedcurly: "So why is this new food storage order NOT referenced on recreation.gov BWCA notifications section or anywhere on my permit details? How is the average person supposed to find out about this? " Because it’s the gubment. Left hand and right hand don’t know each other. Sort of pathetic if you ask me. |
||
andym |
It will be interesting to see what they decide about blue barrels. That would change things for even more people. |
||
mschi772 |
|
||
tumblehome |
It’s long overdue since many campers lose their food to bears then complain about it when their pack is simply dragged off. And then the USFS has to kill the bear so that humans can continue to enjoy their recreational activities. I doubt it will change things too much in the short-term. Tom |
||
Ausable |
1. Harmonize the text on their web page that announces the order (the web page states that food packs have to be hung 12 feet above the ground whereas the order specifies 10 feet). 2. Provide a list of bear resistant canisters that have passed their 200 ft-lb impact test. 3. Explain why the IGBC-approved Ursacks are good enough for protecting food against Grizzly bears but not against Black bears. Because the FS previously did not provide satisfactory answers to mschi772, I am not expecting great answers, but I figure more people pressing the FS for reasons might move them at some point to provide better information regarding approved canisters and/or include Ursacks as approved storage devices. |
||
timatkn |
Is it a rule if no one enforces it? A similar rule was in effect for my area last year…not a single campsite I passed was in compliance, most had their food hung. T |
||
Fishman53 |
Food Storage Order |
||
moosedoggie |
|