Welcome to the AppalachianTrailCafe.net!
Take a moment and register and then join the conversation

Bear canisters new ATC recommendation

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • AnotherKevin wrote:

      PaulMags wrote:

      Since land management agencies are generally conservative, I suspect that bear *canisters* will be required on the first 450 miles on the AT in the near future.

      So it goes.

      Hell, Canyonlands NP (red rock desert) requires them now. Yeesh....
      I probably have a canister in my future. New York requires one in the eastern zone of High Peaks Wilderness and "strongly recommends" them in all Wilderness, Wild Forest, Canoe and Primitive areas. (And you can't use a BearVault. The genius bears of High Peaks Wilderness know how to open one.)
      me too. the BV450 is only $50 so i'm going to give it a shot. no big deal if i don't like it.
      2,000 miler
    • SarcasmTheElf wrote:

      AnotherKevin wrote:

      The BV450 is exactly the one you can't take to the Adirondacks because the bears know how to release the latches.
      yes, but wasn't that bear made into stew years ago?
      Yeah. But Yellow-Yellow (named for her ear tags, she was relocated twice) taught her cubs the trick. There have been BearVaults broken into since she was shot.

      Which means that I should probably save up for a Bearikade. (They're ridi¢ulou$ly expen$ive, but light, bombproof, and make decent camp stools.)
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.
    • The ATC and Bear Vault have partnered to lend bear vaults for free in Georgia. Bear Vault donated 25 BV500 (700 cubic inch) and 25 BV450 (440 cubic inch) bear vaults. First come first serve. You can pick one up at several locations, including Amicalola Falls State Park and Mountain Crossings.

      ETA: Just learned they also have something similar in VT.
      2,000 miler

      The post was edited 1 time, last by max.patch ().

    • Need to make it required. People will get used to it.

      Wildlife will be better off. Some people will stay away do the trouble and expense, they will go weekend camp elsewhere. AT is too accessible, too easy with shelters. Too much use today in several areas. In those areas people use need to be discouraged and the wildlife needs to be protected more.

      Win- win
    • Yeah there's plenty of data on bears getting food in Georgia..... Virginia has done a good job installing a lot of bear boxes. Or maybe PATC. I was south of Harpers Ferry a while back, and tentsites near a shelter even had small metal box...... However I think a good size bear could have removed the entire structure that the small metal box was attached too
    • ATC recommends bear cannisters on entire AT.

      They've been saying this for awhile, but they issued a press release yesterday (7/14/22) so I guess the're getting serious about it.

      Note: I've been told that the GATC wants this required in Georgia and has discussed it with the Forest Service. Need to note that it's not up to the GATC or the ATC, it's a Forest Service decision. I assume this would be the case elsewhere. Currently we have a 5 mile section where it's required 3 months a year.

      appalachiantrail.org/news/atc-…-food-storage-containers/

      The "food storage policy" link included in the above article discusses the pros and cons of the various different methods currently used.
      2,000 miler
    • max.patch wrote:

      ATC recommends bear cannisters on entire AT.

      They've been saying this for awhile, but they issued a press release yesterday (7/14/22) so I guess the're getting serious about it.

      Note: I've been told that the GATC wants this required in Georgia and has discussed it with the Forest Service. Need to note that it's not up to the GATC or the ATC, it's a Forest Service decision. I assume this would be the case elsewhere. Currently we have a 5 mile section where it's required 3 months a year.

      appalachiantrail.org/news/atc-…-food-storage-containers/

      The "food storage policy" link included in the above article discusses the pros and cons of the various different methods currently used.
      "Recommends" is the key. If they think most hikers are going to following it, they are delusional. The date was 714 and perhaps they had a few too many. :rolleyes:
      The road to glory cannot be followed with much baggage.
      Richard Ewell, CSA General
    • I agree that with an 'advisory' most thru hikers will not use a canister.

      I carry my bear can on the PCT where it's required. It makes a nice stool. I was very glad they were required in Yosemite. Those bears are fearless. Most other situations, I will sleep with my food.

      If I were to lay estimates on who is accidentally feeding the bears, I would guess it is mostly the weekend warriors. At least by the time they get to New England, I do not see the many thru's still attempting to hang bear bags.

      Installing more 'Bear Boxes' in problem areas may be the best solution.
      “Of all sad words of tongue or pen,
      the saddest are these, 'It might have been.”


      John Greenleaf Whittier
    • LIhikers wrote:

      Astro wrote:

      Da Wolf wrote:

      the ATC has zero credibility
      Personally feel much of it has been lost in the past few years.
      I have to agree with thatI have no idea what their focus and priorities are or why they constantly ask for money. As AT boundary monitors the only time we hear from them is when they add more requirements and paperwork.
      Aren't you glad you are a lifetime member.
      The road to glory cannot be followed with much baggage.
      Richard Ewell, CSA General
    • Just a reccomendation . So far.
      Ive said its coming for some years. I still think thats the evolution.

      I seen a few people with them in April in Va. Small #.....but growing. I was camped maybe 100 yards from a shelter and three people brought their canisters out placed them near me.....
    • Muddywaters wrote:

      Just a reccomendation . So far.
      Ive said its coming for some years. I still think thats the evolution.

      I seen a few people with them in April in Va. Small #.....but growing. I was camped maybe 100 yards from a shelter and three people brought their canisters out placed them near me.....
      Trail Magic!!! :D
      "Dazed and Confused"
      Recycle, re-use, re-purpose
      Plant a tree
      Take a kid hiking
      Make a difference
    • ATC said today (7/19):

      The Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC) has received a report of an aggressive bear at Jarrard Gap (NOBO mile 26.3), including that the bear took food from a food hang and showed no fear of humans. All area visitors should use caution and keep in mind that bears can roam over large distances in search of food. Hikers should keep a clean camp, store all food and “smellables” properly, and never leave food unattended. Hikers are required to use a hard-sided bear canister between Jarrad Gap and Neel Gap (NOBO mile 31.3) from March 1 to June 1. The ATC recommends that all Appalachian Trail (A.T.) campers use a bear canister for the duration of their trip, no matter the time of year.

      appalachiantrail.org/trail-upd…zgqDQmbrSuQvhY7k1GCkeI7AQ
      2,000 miler
    • Traffic Jam wrote:

      GSMNP is doing a study on what happens to relocated bears. Preliminary data shows that 2/3 are dead within 4 months by various means…harvested, hit by cars, etc. Such a shame.
      What's more of a shame is that there are annual bear hunts in many eastern states that kill thousands of bears each year. A habituated, nuisance bear is the one that needs to be down., but bear hunts don't discriminate.
      its all good
    • I agree HB.

      I find it ironic that careless practices create nuisance bears. The nuisance bears are relocated in an effort to protect them, but die anyway.

      For me (and the point of my previous post), the shame lies with the hikers/campers/park visitors who habituated the bear because now they’ve killed it.
      Lost in the right direction.
    • hikerboy wrote:

      Traffic Jam wrote:

      GSMNP is doing a study on what happens to relocated bears. Preliminary data shows that 2/3 are dead within 4 months by various means…harvested, hit by cars, etc. Such a shame.
      What's more of a shame is that there are annual bear hunts in many eastern states that kill thousands of bears each year. A habituated, nuisance bear is the one that needs to be down., but bear hunts don't discriminate.
      Strikingly similar to gun control. :/
      The road to glory cannot be followed with much baggage.
      Richard Ewell, CSA General
    • This is why I like to cook and eat at a shelter and then hike on until I find a stealth spot. The only animal that's ever bothered me at night has been a group of deer because I unknowingly camped in the middle of their browsing patch.
      "Dazed and Confused"
      Recycle, re-use, re-purpose
      Plant a tree
      Take a kid hiking
      Make a difference
    • jimmyjam wrote:

      This is why I like to cook and eat at a shelter and then hike on until I find a stealth spot. The only animal that's ever bothered me at night has been a group of deer because I unknowingly camped in the middle of their browsing patch.
      I did this some in Maine. Allowed me to spend the night on a mountain top without carrying water. Then head down to the next shelter for breakfast in the morning. And if the weather cooperates you get some good views. :)

      Also the food gave me a burst of energy for doing those last miles of the day (especially when uphill).
      The road to glory cannot be followed with much baggage.
      Richard Ewell, CSA General
    • I've always done this. My first evening on the AT, I was eating at a shelter in Central VA with some new friends when a bear makes an appearance. One woman spent a half hour trying to do a bear hang, which in the end was still inadequate. Another woman asks her partner where their food bag was. They looked at each other, said "uh oh", and he runs to their tent about 30 yards away to retrieve it. After eating, I pack up and say I'm going to move on. Everyone urged me to stay. I say something like wanting to put in a few extra miles before sunset.

      The next night I did the dry camp thing on the top of Sinking Creek Mtn. Mainly I didn't want to lose all that elevation hiking down the side trail to the shelter and have to hike back up in the morning. The ridgeway so narrow, I could see sunrise and sunset from my tent.
    • I totally understand this practice but have been on the other side, the one left at the campsite or shelter after a hiker stopped to cook their meal and in one case, accidentally spill their food in the fire ring. I thought, thanks, now I get to sleep here and deal with the wildlife, lol!

      Is it better to cook in a more remote location then move on to your camping spot or is the thinking that the smells/trash/attraction for wildlife is contained in one place? If that’s the case, how do you reconcile the absence of wildlife habituation on more remote trails (where cooking still occurs but is more dispersed) with the problem at popular shelters and campsites?

      Just curious…
      Lost in the right direction.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Traffic Jam ().

    • hikerboy wrote:

      Traffic Jam wrote:

      GSMNP is doing a study on what happens to relocated bears. Preliminary data shows that 2/3 are dead within 4 months by various means…harvested, hit by cars, etc. Such a shame.
      What's more of a shame is that there are annual bear hunts in many eastern states that kill thousands of bears each year. A habituated, nuisance bear is the one that needs to be down., but bear hunts don't discriminate.
      I disagree based on my experience hunting bears in Pennsylvania. The state game biologists determine the 'carrying capacity' for bears over a specific number of forest acres and set a target number for the yearly harvest. All harvested bears must be reviewed at Game Commission check-in stations. If the harvest is low, the next year's season may be extended. If the harvest is high, the next year's season may be curtailed.

      The idea is to keep the bear population in check so that bears don't start foraging in suburban areas with greater human interactions. In other words, provide a safe forest habitat for each bear so they don't become a nuisance bear. In contrast, New Jersey went with the idea that bear hunts were bad. The result was more bears causing damage in the suburbs and more nuisance bear reports.

      The shame is with any state that doesn't take steps to preserve unpopulated lands for wildlife and recreation.
      Trudgin' along the AT since 2003. Completed Sections: Springer Mountain to Clingmans Dome and Max Patch NC to Gorham NH

      "The days I keep my gratitude higher than my expectations...those are pretty good days." Ray Wylie Hubbard
    • StalkingTortoise wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      Traffic Jam wrote:

      GSMNP is doing a study on what happens to relocated bears. Preliminary data shows that 2/3 are dead within 4 months by various means…harvested, hit by cars, etc. Such a shame.
      What's more of a shame is that there are annual bear hunts in many eastern states that kill thousands of bears each year. A habituated, nuisance bear is the one that needs to be down., but bear hunts don't discriminate.
      I disagree based on my experience hunting bears in Pennsylvania. The state game biologists determine the 'carrying capacity' for bears over a specific number of forest acres and set a target number for the yearly harvest. All harvested bears must be reviewed at Game Commission check-in stations. If the harvest is low, the next year's season may be extended. If the harvest is high, the next year's season may be curtailed.
      The idea is to keep the bear population in check so that bears don't start foraging in suburban areas with greater human interactions. In other words, provide a safe forest habitat for each bear so they don't become a nuisance bear. In contrast, New Jersey went with the idea that bear hunts were bad. The result was more bears causing damage in the suburbs and more nuisance bear reports.

      The shame is with any state that doesn't take steps to preserve unpopulated lands for wildlife and recreation.
      Texas Parks and Wildlife, and some other entities, do the same thing here in Texas about the deer. Left unchecked, they wind up in bad health and starving from over population. At one of the Scout ranches we do orienteering at, big donors get access to the ranch during the week when no scouts are there. But the agency that does the deer limits at that scout ranch isn't regular P&W. The Scout Ranger was offering up deer tags to us as they have to many deer even for the donors. I'm always surprised as we set up our gear on a Sunday after the scouts have left or during the week when there are no scouts. We see deer everywhere, even right in the main camp. A buddy said "Deer are smart! they KNOW the hunters are never allowed to be shooting in the main scout camping areas, even when no scouts are there".
      Pirating – Corporate Takeover without the paperwork
    • StalkingTortoise wrote:

      hikerboy wrote:

      Traffic Jam wrote:

      GSMNP is doing a study on what happens to relocated bears. Preliminary data shows that 2/3 are dead within 4 months by various means…harvested, hit by cars, etc. Such a shame.
      What's more of a shame is that there are annual bear hunts in many eastern states that kill thousands of bears each year. A habituated, nuisance bear is the one that needs to be down., but bear hunts don't discriminate.
      I disagree based on my experience hunting bears in Pennsylvania. The state game biologists determine the 'carrying capacity' for bears over a specific number of forest acres and set a target number for the yearly harvest. All harvested bears must be reviewed at Game Commission check-in stations. If the harvest is low, the next year's season may be extended. If the harvest is high, the next year's season may be curtailed.
      The idea is to keep the bear population in check so that bears don't start foraging in suburban areas with greater human interactions. In other words, provide a safe forest habitat for each bear so they don't become a nuisance bear. In contrast, New Jersey went with the idea that bear hunts were bad. The result was more bears causing damage in the suburbs and more nuisance bear reports.

      The shame is with any state that doesn't take steps to preserve unpopulated lands for wildlife and recreation.
      Oh I have no problem with the bear hunts. They've become necessary. I'm just tired of hearing the old "fed bear is a dead bear"argument, when thousands are killed every year in the hunts. My point is simply that a habituated bear becomes dangerous, and those are the ones that need to be culled the most.The bear hunts don't necessarily take care of that problem. We can all take care of our food, but weekenders, newbies and other who really just don't care, no matter what we ourselves do, create the problem..
      its all good
    • I see it as two solutions to two different issues.

      Taking a habituated/problem bear, attempting to relocate it to save it, or putting it down, solves the issue of the bear becoming a danger to humans, which the bear has been taught, by the humans, to equate Humans to food. Those actions take place on an as-needed basis. It doesn't matter if it is Bear season. Parks and Wildlife or whatever agency manages it, will take action as-needed.

      The bear hunting season, like deer season, is to keep the population of the bears in check and afford them space and food to live. Just as we have deer season.

      Now the feral hog problem in Texas means it is open season on the hogs, year round. Shoot them, capture them, get rid of them is all fine.
      Pirating – Corporate Takeover without the paperwork
    • Traffic Jam wrote:

      GSMNP is doing a study on what happens to relocated bears. Preliminary data shows that 2/3 are dead within 4 months by various means…harvested, hit by cars, etc. Such a shame.
      This just popped up on my newsfeed. Not much hope for the bears if they are going to behave this way. I recall another story recounting the lament of a park ranger who said it was essentially impossible to bear-proof a campground as there is surprisingly little difference in the intelligence of a smart bear and dumb camper.

      outsideonline.com/outdoor-adve…to-its-favorite-campsite/
    • Not sure the ATC can "require" anything but I may be wrong. I just read the SMNF requirements. It says food must be stored in non pliable bear canisters. Then it goes on to say If you choose to use bags to store food it must be hung 12 feet...6 feet. Wait a minute you just said "must use canisters" so are canisters required or not?