Formalized food storage order for Superior NF.

I read it as no longer a recommendation to hang or use IGBC containers, but now a requirement, at least for the next 2 open water seasons.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/superior/notices/?cid=FSEPRD1174552

Detail:

Duluth, MN – April 30, 2024 – The Superior National Forest (SNF) has issued an update to a forest order for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness requiring that all food, food containers and scented items be safely stored to help prevent bear-human interactions.

Similar orders in previous years have been issued in response to bear-human interactions, the intent of Forest Order 09-09-24-02 is to prevent those interactions from occurring by mandating Bear Aware behaviors in regions known to have significant risk of interactions. For more information and details, please visit Forest Order 09-09-24-02.

Superior National Forest Wildlife Biologist, Cheron Ferland, points out that “once a bear is ‘rewarded’ with human food or garbage, it is likely to become habituated and continue the behavior, which could ultimately lead to the bear being dispatched.”

The restrictions apply to Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness as designated on the attached map between March 1 and November 30, effective April 19, 2024 through April 19, 2026. To reduce the chances of attracting wildlife, attractants should be suspended at least 12 feet above the surface of the ground and 6 feet horizontally from the trunk of a tree or stored in an Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee certified bear resistant container.

Attractants are any items which have a strong odor and may attract bears and other wildlife, such as food, food containers, scented items (such as soap, lip balm, toothpaste) and refuse.

These restrictions apply to all visitors to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, unless they have a written authorization specifically exempting them from this order or they are carrying out their official duties as a member of a rescue or firefighting team. Attractants do not need to be safely stored if they’re in use, such as cooking or preparing food, or kept under close watch.

Click for Forest Order details: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/superior/notices/?cid=FSEPRD1174552

Below are supplemental answers to questions the FS received in advance of this release and the FS responses:

Q. Why was March included in the policy to hang food or use one of the certified food containers?

A. There is significant variation from year to year in seasonal weather transitions. Since bears have been known to come out of hibernation as early as March, the Superior Wilderness and Wildlife Staff set March 1 as the effective date for the order.


Q. How did the Forest Service let the public know about the changes (mandatory to hang or have a certified container)?

A. A number of organizations work with us to administer permits and provide education to permittees annually. We shared this update with them first and followed it with a press release and publication on our website.


Q. What led to include the entire BWCA vs. specific lakes or areas, as has been done in the past?

A. We want visitors to be diligent about properly storing food at all the times and throughout the BWCAW. Putting orders in place and taking them off for short durations of time or for site specific areas can be confusing and may suggest that there’s no need to be careful with food storage in other parts of the wilderness or when there is no food storage order in place.

Wilderness-wide food storage orders have been implemented in the past. However, this is the first time we have committed to having a wilderness-wide order in place for this length of time (up to two years with the potential to extend) as a preventative measure. The primary goal of the food storage order is to prevent bears and other wildlife from becoming habituated. Properly storing food will help prevent bears from associating humans and campsites as a source of food.


Q. Would the Forest Service consider adding hanging poles or other infrastructure at campsites for hanging food, as is done in National Parks, etc. (similar to fire grates at campsites, one at every site)?

A. We cannot install permanent structures within a federally designated wilderness without justification. If it became necessary to prevent damage to the area, that may provide justification, but our first tool is educating our visitors and changing our behaviors to mitigate that risk.


Q. Will there be a learning curve or adjustment period for this policy as the paddling season begins, or should people be prepared for strict enforcement starting now?

A. Our goal initially is to highlight the importance of all of us doing our due diligence to keep wildlife from becoming habituated. Except for gross violations or repeated violation, we intend to issue warnings for the first year of the order. Fortunately, many BWCAW visitors are already practicing good food storage techniques. The concept isn’t new, we’re just approaching it as a season-long prevention effort, rather than reacting to incidents as they occur.

Thank you for the info. We have always hung our food pack.

Dehydrated foods first, then frozen foods, fresh foods third, eggs fourth, snacks last.

Interesting.

I use an Ursack, so all good but man, I'd hate to go to jail for an improper food hang:-)

So if I am understanding this correctly, if you use a blue barrel, you better hoist that thing up into the sky 12' and 6' away from any tree trunk, huh? Well, I can safely say that will piss off some people.

I found another similar article. Looks like this has gone official, no matter how people feel about the effectiveness of their own current method. Time for many to adjust I guess.

Paddle and Portage article

I sleep with one eye open so my food will always be "under on-site visual observance"

That’s a lot of money, a quick way to make your trip a spendy one.
Tony

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee certified bear resistant container don't have to be hung. Ursack is certified so I'm good as well

So not to stir the pot, just a question.

What do solo paddlers do when portaging. I double portage and will leave the pack with food at one end while taking the canoe and my other pack to the other end of the portage.

I can hear Cliff Jacobson already weighing in.....

Red Herring Garcia Barrel. I'll keep my coffee & adult beverages in it with a Cliff Bar.

airmorse: "So not to stir the pot, just a question.


What do solo paddlers do when portaging. I double portage and will leave the pack with food at one end while taking the canoe and my other pack to the other end of the portage. "

Well the letter of the law would mean you would have to carry your food with you at all times or hang at the end of the portage, but I don't see any scenario where a ranger would come by and actually fine you for leaving a pack unattended at the end of a portage trail. They would literally be writing tickets all day long.

I'm not necessarily against this kind regulation, but $5000 and/or 6 months in jail is an absolutely ridiculous overreach.

Some of the clowns involved buy stock in ursack?

Last time this came around I bought some big ursacks to use inside my barrel on long trips. They aren't color coded like my usual organizers, but they work.

Waiting for my USFS check!

Minnesotian: "
So if I am understanding this correctly, if you use a blue barrel, you better hoist that thing up into the sky 12' and 6' away from any tree trunk, huh? Well, I can safely say that will piss off some people. "

I think the Forest Service will need to plant a bunch of really fast growing trees that are full of limbs because I have camped in many campsites that have no trees with limbs the correct height and strong enough to hold my food pack at 6' away from the tree.

Wonder if it will help Quetico use.

I am glad the bears agreed to stay in the BWCAW and not wander into the non BWCAW areas of the SNF.

I sent an email to the forest supervisor’s office regarding the solo canoeing/double portaging question, which is a legitimate concern. I’ll report back here if I receive an answer.

bobbernumber3: "Dehydrated foods first, then frozen foods, fresh foods third, eggs fourth, snacks last."

I do tortillas first. They lay flat on the bottom But I agree with the rest.

And to make a lot of people disagree with me. I’ve been on way more than probably 75 trips. I’ve never had a bear issue with my food. Then again, I don’t camp on the bear food highway lakes and I don’t hang my pack. I do, however, tie it to my tent pole with a bell on it just in case.
Tom

So, you don't hang your food, and you can get a $5,000 fine AND/or 6 months in a Federal prison, likely as a convicted felon, so you may not ever be able to enter Canada again so that a bear doesn't eat your camper food.

One the other hand, you can paddle a canoe, not wear a PFD, fall overboard, have Search and Rescue risk their lives to save you, and not pay a dime or face imprisonment from the Feds?

Not trying to stir the pot, but some priorities seem misplaced. Personally, I use the "Chuck & Duck" method of getting a bear rope that is tied to a rock up over a 12' high branch. My experience has shown it is more likely that I will smack my head with the chucking rock than I will have a bear in my campsite.

Seems to me that the Feds are trying to solve a non-existent problem of a few bears having a bad attitude. It's not like there are a bunch of grizzly bears around there.

Tom

hangum high

I have two trips booked for this year but then ends my BWCA trip career.

Just not worth risk of a $5K fine and 6 months in jail if it's deemed I hung my food too close to the ground or too close to the tree. It's been awesome but this just sucked most of the fun right out of it.

Well that’s one way to get fewer people to go into the BW. Can you imagine rangers coming into camp, checking your permit, then pulling out their trusty tape measure?

Sorry, your pack is hung only 11’ high and 5’6” from the trunk. Here’s a $5,000 ticket.

Yes, my questions are just as ludicrous as the regulations.

quark2222: "So, you don't hang your food, and you can get a $5,000 fine AND/or 6 months in a Federal prison, likely as a convicted felon, so you may not ever be able to enter Canada again so that a bear doesn't eat your camper food.


One the other hand, you can paddle a canoe, not wear a PFD, fall overboard, have Search and Rescue risk their lives to save you, and not pay a dime or face imprisonment from the Feds?


Not trying to stir the pot, but some priorities seem misplaced. Personally, I use the "Chuck & Duck" method of getting a bear rope that is tied to a rock up over a 12' high branch. My experience has shown it is more likely that I will smack my head with the chucking rock than I will have a bear in my campsite.


Seems to me that the Feds are trying to solve a non-existent problem of a few bears having a bad attitude. It's not like there are a bunch of grizzly bears around there.


Tom"

It just won't do to hang your pack from a 12' high branch, the bottom of the pack needs to be 12 feet off the ground. That means you probably need a 15' high or higher branch to hang it from.
Good luck finding a campsite with that limb.

This order affects the entire boundary of the BWCA.

Still time to ask for a moderation of terms, you have to ask some who go to the BWCA and are naive in food storage brought this upon the rest of us. Lots of campers out there so called tin horns.

Pinetree: "Still time to ask for a moderation of terms, you have to ask some whom go to the BWCA and are naive in food storage brought this Apon the rest of us. Lot of campers out there so called tin horns."

Yup what Pinetree said.

I expect additional rules and hefty fines because of the survival man shelters being built too.

I don’t believe the strict enforcement of this rule will happen, hopefully they educate wrong-doers first. I’d be curious to see the data regarding the number of citations annually issued by the FS, because my bias is that they rarely enforce the rules with citations. Though, enforcement might not be their primary focus. Anecdotally, I feel like I used to see more Rangers in the early 2000s. I made five trips last year and didn’t see any. The last FS Ranger I can remember seeing was in 2007.

Two felons talking one day, what are you in for? Robbery, drugs, murder? No I was caught with my Mountain House, beef jerky and Nature Valley granola bars only 6 feet off the ground.

Then there is the $5000.00 fine. Good grief if you were caught killing and poaching bear the fine would be way less.

I’m not saying nothing needs to done, but talk about going overboard! This law needs a serious rewrite.

There's no way this stands as currently stated, is there? Completely unenforceable. I say that...but I've seen lots of crazy lately!

CoachWalleye74: "There's no way this stands as currently stated, is there? Completely unenforceable. I say that...but I've seen lots of crazy lately!"

I do have hope in the words "until rescinded", and a rescension or revision happening when the short-sightedness of this edict becomes evident regarding enforcability, practicality and effectiveness toward solving the real problem, which is the wildlife being harmed because of campers being careless with their food and keeping a messy campsite.

In dozens of trips to the BWCA I have never had an issue with bears. Lucky me? I'm sure that is part of it but I think it mostly stems from being mindful of how we use and store our food. Our campsite is kept clean. We minimize odors by having everything (including the garbage) in a sealed container. We plan for little-to-no leftovers. Food is never brought into the tent. Etc., etc.--these things have all been previously discussed extensively on this forum. Sometimes we hang, sometimes we've stashed, but have always excercized our best situational judgement to create the most reasonable level of resistance against bears and other wildlife (NO method is bear or animal "proof" including following the latest Forest Service order to its exact letter).

My interaction with the rangers has been that they are mostly reasonable and pleasant people whose biggest goals are that you and others have a safe and enjoyable trip and that the resource is preserved as best possible. As Minnesotian also suggested, one would think that they'd be the same way in regards to this order and not focused on issuing citations or enforcing the strictest letter of the law ("let me search that pack to make sure there's no improperly stored lip balm!") However, I'm not going to count on that as I have also run across the exceptions who were individuals that were really feeling their authority and almost seemed dissapointed that they were not catching us doing anything "wrong".

For my trips I've already planned for this year, I will do a bear hang best I can--which at most campsites won't likely meet the new order's specifics--or I may bite the bullet on a "grizzly certified" container (anyone rent them?) to attempt to meet this order. But as earlier posted, unless this changes, I'm then done with the BWCA. Not willing to at best continue going and have this poorly thought-out heavy handedness reduce a lot of the fun or at worst further risk this level of a fine or imprisonment for not having met the order to a particular ranger's satisfaction.

As Jackfish suggested, this is one way to reduce visitors to the BWCA. If this stands, I'll be among those that no longer go.

YaMarVa: "I don’t believe the strict enforcement of this rule will happen, hopefully they educate wrong-doers first."

Agreed. The 5 years and $5000 fine is the sentancing guidline top limit. If someone were to reach this level of punishment, they would have to be doing some real egregious crap like smearing peanut butter on other people's tents, gutting fish in camp and leaving everything there, and overall being a real jerk when/if caught by the rangers.

I think this is going to be a similar rule to the "no alcohol" rules in MN State Parks. It is there to make sure people are motivated to secure their food, keeping a tidy site, and not creating problem bears. If rangers catch someones food not hung correctly, I see them warning/advising them to do better, rather than extreme punishment. But, that assumption is based on the ranger authority being reasonable and not on a power trip.

This Order will be effective on April 19th, 2024, and shall remain in effect until April 19th, 2026, or until rescinded, whichever occurs first.

I think it will be modified, but maybe at the same time it acts as Shock Treatment telling campers to clean up their act.

been lucky 58 years BWCA camping-zero bear problems or any in camp.
Yes, I had Pine Marten come into camp and steal a fish.

The problem area lakes are usually the same lakes. Like Ensign and Vera. Repeat bears that were trained by campers using that area. Be interesting to breakdown by experience and years of campers and amount of bear problems.
The less a area is used by campers, usually less bear that have been trained.

Just curious as to how many bears have had to be euthanized because they had become habitual camp robbers.

Sawbill's website has some good questions and answers about the new regulation. Interesting read about not leaving a food pack at the end of a portage when you are double portaging. Here is the link:

Sawbill News

Tom

I’m thinking you would have to cover the entirety of several campsites with enormous amounts of unwrapped food on the ground to even approach max penalty.Not unusual for regulations to feature gigundo penalties for max offenders. That being said,
I’m a blue barrel user stashing in the bush. Not crazy about this! Seems like just another example of USFS having to add rules to deal with the increased bwca visitors volume plus the poor camping practices by many which are bad for campers and bad for the bears. I am guessing USFS would much prefer to simply depend on people to do a decent job with food by offering them basic voluntary guidelines as they have done for decades, but at some point they have to act on the level of issues they’ve been seeing.

Minnesotian:
I think this is going to be a similar rule to the "no alcohol" rules in MN State Parks. It is there to make sure people are motivated to secure their food, keeping a tidy site, and not creating problem bears. If rangers catch someones food not hung correctly, I see them warning/advising them to do better, rather than extreme punishment. But, that assumption is based on the ranger authority being reasonable and not on a power trip. "

Agreed on this. Its probably not targeted exactly to the folks here on the forums as much. Like the state park rule its there in place if they need to use it to those ignorant individuals who want to turn the campground into a party. There's lots of serious trippers out there who do not hang, but they also keep a clean and tidy camp

quark2222: "Sawbill's website has some good questions and answers about the new regulation. Interesting read about not leaving a food pack at the end of a portage when you are double portaging. Here is the link:


Sawbill News


Tom"

Kudos to Sawbill for this FAQ. Well done and has some good recommendations for people who are used to blue barrels. I also like how they say that wilderness travel has never been about convenience or human preference. A good reminder.

One note to people planning to switch to Ursacks. It is important to use "odor proof" bags inside. While they really aren't odor proof, the goal is to decrease the odor radius. The Opsacks they sell with the Ursacks are terrible in my opinion because the ziplock tends to fail. Smelly Proof brand bags and I have also used the mylar vacuum pack bags when I need a larger size. I love the convenience of the Ursacks...on our group trips, I use one for each type of meal: breakfast, lunch, dinner and color code by carabiner color. I also don't pack liquids in an Ursack. If I need to bring liquids, they go in a bear canister. That way, if a bear did mess with an Ursack they can't puncture a liquid and get a reward.

Even the Rose Lake bear who visited our campsite while we were cooking did NOT return to mess with the Ursacks.

airmorse: "Just curious as to how many bears have had to be euthanized because they had become habitual camp robbers."

I’m curious how many bears existed only because they were fed by campers.

naturboy12: "I sent an email to the forest supervisor’s office regarding the solo canoeing/double portaging question, which is a legitimate concern. I’ll report back here if I receive an answer. "

From the Sawbill link that quark2222 posted after your post. This was a question Sawbill asked the forest service. I’m sure glad I already switched from blue barrels to bearvaults a few years ago. That would be a PITA and talk about a sure fire way to clog up portages.

Does this apply to portaging? What if I have to double portage?” -Yes, it applies. You cannot leave your food unattended on a portage unless it is in an approved bear resistant container or hung in a tree.

airmorse: "Just curious as to how many bears have had to be euthanized because they had become habitual camp robbers."

I don't know that answer, but about 10 years ago I was camped on Caribou L (the one south of Clearwater) and had my blue food barrel dragged off by a bear. Totally my bad. Apparently that bear had been coming into campsites for a couple of weeks and creating quite a problem. I was told much later that about two weeks after my incident that bear was actually inside the food closet at Clearwater Outfitters and the outfitter called the USFS and got permission to shoot the bear right there. I still feel bad about that. Taking my food was my fault in that I didn't secure the barrel to a tree or hang it. I don't think taking my food should be a capital punishment for the bear that lives there and I'm just a visitor.

ducks: "

naturboy12: "I sent an email to the forest supervisor’s office regarding the solo canoeing/double portaging question, which is a legitimate concern. I’ll report back here if I receive an answer. "

From the Sawbill link that quark2222 posted after your post. This was a question Sawbill asked the forest service. I’m sure glad I already switched from blue barrels to bearvaults a few years ago. That would be a PITA and talk about a sure fire way to clog up portages.


Does this apply to portaging? What if I have to double portage?” -Yes, it applies. You cannot leave your food unattended on a portage unless it is in an approved bear-resistant container or hung in a tree."

Has there been one time on a portage in the last 100 years a single bear problem? Yogi Bear and Boo-boo were not that sneaky even.
End of camping in burnt areas.

What if you sink your food in a waterproof container in the lake? That would be better than any tree.

This is just dumb.

Disposing of fish remains at least 200 feet from any campsite, portage, trail and shoreline is a requirement in the BWCA and can help reduce bear interactions as well.

I still say fish caught out of a certain lake, put the remains back into the lake away from shore, and break the air bladder.
Present fish disposal rules are a bear problem waiting to happen. The MN DNR FISHERIES for 60 years when doing a lake survey will dispose of dead fish right back into the lake. Zero new nutrients added.

Pinetree: "

ducks: "

naturboy12: "I sent an email to the forest supervisor’s office regarding the solo canoeing/double portaging question, which is a legitimate concern. I’ll report back here if I receive an answer. "

From the Sawbill link that quark2222 posted after your post. This was a question Sawbill asked the forest service. I’m sure glad I already switched from blue barrels to bearvaults a few years ago. That would be a PITA and talk about a sure fire way to clog up portages.



Does this apply to portaging? What if I have to double portage?” -Yes, it applies. You cannot leave your food unattended on a portage unless it is in an approved bear-resistant container or hung in a tree."

Has there been one time on a portage in the last 100 years a single bear problem? Yogi Bear and Boo-boo were not that sneaky even.

"

Yes, actually, the Rose Lake Bear is extremely clever about unattended packs on the Stairway portage and there are numerous cases of them being dragged into the woods while the campers were headed back for a 2nd load. In addition, I came across a disasterous scene of food that had been ripped into and a pack shredded just off the trail on one of the portages between Mountain and Moose.

I think I'll be practicing this technique for quite a while before my September trip

straighthairedcurly: "

Pinetree: "

ducks: "

naturboy12: "I sent an email to the forest supervisor’s office regarding the solo canoeing/double portaging question, which is a legitimate concern. I’ll report back here if I receive an answer. "

From the Sawbill link that quark2222 posted after your post. This was a question Sawbill asked the forest service. I’m sure glad I already switched from blue barrels to bearvaults a few years ago. That would be a PITA and talk about a sure fire way to clog up portages.



Does this apply to portaging? What if I have to double portage?” -Yes, it applies. You cannot leave your food unattended on a portage unless it is in an approved bear-resistant container or hung in a tree."

Has there been one time on a portage in the last 100 years a single bear problem? Yogi Bear and Boo-boo were not that sneaky even.


"

Yes, actually, the Rose Lake Bear is extremely clever about unattended packs on the Stairway portage and there are numerous cases of them being dragged into the woods while the campers were headed back for a 2nd load. In addition, I came across a disasterous scene of food that had been ripped into and a pack shredded just off the trail on one of the portages between Mountain and Moose. "

And this notorious example:

Bear Steals Camper's Pack Containing Firearm In BWCA

straighthairedcurly: "

Pinetree: "

ducks: "

naturboy12: "I sent an email to the forest supervisor’s office regarding the solo canoeing/double portaging question, which is a legitimate concern. I’ll report back here if I receive an answer. "

From the Sawbill link that quark2222 posted after your post. This was a question Sawbill asked the forest service. I’m sure glad I already switched from blue barrels to bearvaults a few years ago. That would be a PITA and talk about a sure fire way to clog up portages.



Does this apply to portaging? What if I have to double portage?” -Yes, it applies. You cannot leave your food unattended on a portage unless it is in an approved bear-resistant container or hung in a tree."

Has there been one time on a portage in the last 100 years a single bear problem? Yogi Bear and Boo-boo were not that sneaky even.


"

Yes, actually, the Rose Lake Bear is extremely clever about unattended packs on the Stairway portage and there are numerous cases of them being dragged into the woods while the campers were headed back for a 2nd load. In addition, I came across a disasterous scene of food that had been ripped into and a pack shredded just off the trail on one of the portages between Mountain and Moose. "

I have also heard that the Rose Lake bear will steal food packs on portages and from campsites around the area. It's a shame that bear has become so confident and attached to campers for food.

"Has there been one time on a portage in the last 100 years a single bear problem? Yogi Bear and Boo-boo were not that sneaky even.
End of camping in burnt areas."

Yes, many times. Next time to you run into Old Scout, ask him to tell you about his run in on the portage to Polly with a bear that dragged his food pack into the woods.

Also, the Clearwater bear of 2013 actually got the USFS rangers' lunch that was left on the landing at the Clearwater to Caribou portage while the rangers were on the trail looking for the bear. They came back to find it in their boat dining on their sandwiches.

Definitely happens on portages.

Do these qualify as a bear-resistant containers that can be left on the ground? If they do maybe it won't be that bad, pretty light containers bear vaults


Certified

Pinetree: "Do these qualify as a bear-resistant containers that can be left on the ground? If they do maybe it won't be that bad, pretty light containers bear vaults



Certified "

Yes, those are approved.

gravelroad: "

straighthairedcurly: "

Pinetree: "

ducks: "

naturboy12: "I sent an email to the forest supervisor’s office regarding the solo canoeing/double portaging question, which is a legitimate concern. I’ll report back here if I receive an answer. "

From the Sawbill link that quark2222 posted after your post. This was a question Sawbill asked the forest service. I’m sure glad I already switched from blue barrels to bearvaults a few years ago. That would be a PITA and talk about a sure fire way to clog up portages.




Does this apply to portaging? What if I have to double portage?” -Yes, it applies. You cannot leave your food unattended on a portage unless it is in an approved bear-resistant container or hung in a tree."

Has there been one time on a portage in the last 100 years a single bear problem? Yogi Bear and Boo-boo were not that sneaky even.



"

Yes, actually, the Rose Lake Bear is extremely clever about unattended packs on the Stairway portage and there are numerous cases of them being dragged into the woods while the campers were headed back for a 2nd load. In addition, I came across a disasterous scene of food that had been ripped into and a pack shredded just off the trail on one of the portages between Mountain and Moose. "

And this notorious example:


Bear Steals Camper's Pack Containing Firearm In BWCA "

An oldie but a goodie when the bear got kanoes everclear on the gaskin to Henson portage

I also remember the Sawbill area having a bear that would hang out at portages around 15 years ago. That one was also known for cutting ropes to get packs down and getting into vehicles in the campground. It was not afraid of people at all. That’s when Bill Hanson told me “there are bears and then there are naughty bears”

Setting the discussion of the merits of this new law/rule aside, when exactly were we to be made aware of this change during the permitting process? If the USFS is serious about this then IMHO this rule change should have been made abundantly clear when permitting for this season began in January.

I just went back and reviewed all of the required videos and associated guideline documents to see if anything new was shown. Bear approved containers and hanging are spelled out including not leaving food packs unattended on portages. However it does not state that this is a hard rule that carries a substantial penalty now.

I'm a solo paddler with a permit for Saganaga for May 16th. Plan on spending one night on Sag before entering Quetico for 14 nights. Plan was to then come back and spend time on Red Rock, Alpine, and Seagull until my food is depleted.

So does the USFS plan on telling me when I arrive to pick up my permit in Grand Marias the day before entry? Maybe I can drive around Grand Marias looking for every Ursack in town to try and repack my food the day before entry.

According to this I can't leave my food pack unattended between those 3 lakes. My food pack is pretty substantial for 3 weeks. I believe it would take 4 or maybe 5 Ursack Almighty's to hold all my food. Those cost 170 dollars each.

Again forgetting the merits of the requirement, it's hard for me to not think of the USFS as either inept or not serious about enforcement. Everyone getting a permit should have been made aware of the change before deciding to even get a permit considering the change. Finding out about this on a bulletin board, outfitter news letter, or newspaper article doesn't qualify as it is not part of the official permitting process. Not everyone reads these sources.

If I have missed some documentation from the USFS that tells about the change during permitting please correct me. Thanks

End of rant.

Morchella: "

straighthairedcurly: "Yes, actually, the Rose Lake Bear is extremely clever about unattended packs on the Stairway portage and there are numerous cases of them being dragged into the woods while the campers were headed back for a 2nd load. In addition, I came across a disasterous scene of food that had been ripped into and a pack shredded just off the trail on one of the portages between Mountain and Moose. "

I have also heard that the Rose Lake bear will steal food packs on portages and from campsites around the area. It's a shame that bear has become so confident and attached to campers for food."

Last year going in on the W Bearskin/Duncan portage we met a group who had just come upon their food pack being pillaged by that bear at the Duncan/Rose portage. I don't think he got any food but he did shred the shoulder straps on the pack which made things difficult for them. Headed back there in July and have been thinking about how to pack things so I can easily take the Bear Vaults out of the pack at portages so that if we do run into him he keeps busy with the vaults instead of destroying my pack.

This particular bear has been doing this for a several years from what I can tell, so it doesn't seem like they go after them very often.

Dolpho: "

If I have missed some documentation from the USFS that tells about the change during permitting please correct me. Thanks


End of rant.

"

No you got it about right. The USFS made a substantial rule change with stiff penalties and are not telling anyone about it except word of mouth. Cuff ‘em and stuff ‘em.
Tom

For those who self outfit and are not on any board sites like this one, I see this as a potential trip ender at a ranger station when you pick up your permit. And what about those who bring fresh food only that needs to be kept cool/cold. The Ursack is geared for those who bring dehydrated food.

It would be nice for the USFS to send out an email to all those that hold current reservations, "oh by the way here is a new rule...".

We have always used a pulley system to hang our food, toiletries and trash. Never had any issues with that system. Haven't seen a bear in maybe ten years. Last time was on Alpine.

Dolpho: "Setting the discussion of the merits of this new law/rule aside, when exactly were we to be made aware of this change during the permitting process? If the USFS is serious about this then IMHO this rule change should have been made abundantly clear when permitting for this season began in January.


I just went back and reviewed all of the required videos and associated guideline documents to see if anything new was shown. Bear approved containers and hanging are spelled out including not leaving food packs unattended on portages. However it does not state that this is a hard rule that carries a substantial penalty now.


I'm a solo paddler with a permit for Saganaga for May 16th. Plan on spending one night on Sag before entering Quetico for 14 nights. Plan was to then come back and spend time on Red Rock, Alpine, and Seagull until my food is depleted.


So does the USFS plan on telling me when I arrive to pick up my permit in Grand Marias the day before entry? Maybe I can drive around Grand Marias looking for every Ursack in town to try and repack my food the day before entry.


According to this I can't leave my food pack unattended between those 3 lakes. My food pack is pretty substantial for 3 weeks. I believe it would take 4 or maybe 5 Ursack Almighty's to hold all my food. Those cost 170 dollars each.


Again forgetting the merits of the requirement, it's hard for me to not think of the USFS as either inept or not serious about enforcement. Everyone getting a permit should have been made aware of the change before deciding to even get a permit considering the change. Finding out about this on a bulletin board, outfitter news letter, or newspaper article doesn't qualify as it is not part of the official permitting process. Not everyone reads these sources.


If I have missed some documentation from the USFS that tells about the change during permitting please correct me. Thanks


End of rant.



"

+1

I don't think it's so much of a rant-- you are raising an excellent point and asking some legitimate questions.

I have seen more bears in my alley in Duluth than I have in Boundary Waters. Come to think of it, I have never actually had a bear encounter in the BWCA but have had several on trails around home. Should I hoist my trash bins up on the telephone wires when I put them out the night before?

Though the BWCA is not nearly the most travelled wilderness area, I am curious if this order will spark the introduction of more Ursack-like products, should the order remain in effect. Most of those approved on the IGBC website seem super impractical for any sort of tripping. Haven't a clue what it takes to get a product certified to be bear resistant, but maybe we'll see some larger insulated bear resistant carrying options come to market? Perhaps Ursack will start offering larger options that are insulated? Who knows. I think the only solution for those wanting insulated containers without hanging them is to take the largest Ursack option and self-insulate it, while carrying another one for your other non-perishable items.

What's maybe the most frustrating part about this is that they drop this out there right at the moment the season kicks off and not a few months ago so those who don't want to, or can't hang a bag, could plan ahead? BVs and Ursacks aren't cheap, lots of folks probably didn't budget $100 (for 1) of these, let alone 5 or 6 that they may need on a group trip. Renting is fine, but will outfitters now have shortages of these forcing people to purchase them anyway?

Bad form by the USFS. But then again it's a US government agency so I'm not sure what I was expecting.

Just a question about dealing with this....since you would need a pack to carry an Ursack as the ones I saw online do not have any kind of carrying straps, what if you put an Ursack in a blue barrel for carrying and water repellency? Would that need to be hung?

bpaddle: "Just a question about dealing with this....since you would need a pack to carry an Ursack as the ones I saw online do not have any kind of carrying straps, what if you put an Ursack in a blue barrel for carrying and water repellency? Would that need to be hung?"

Technically no, since at least one layer of your food storage system (with all food inside) is still certified. But a passing ranger isn't going to know that you have a Ursack inside your blue barrel, should you not be at camp to show them. You could sharpie marker a note one the outside I guess? Not sure they would buy it though. I put my Ursack inside my portage pack for travel, but I pack pretty light and it's not a burden on space.

For water repellency in Ursacks I use turkey bags, usually two for extra durability. You can also trim down pack liners to fit inside and those are thicker, or you can go the boutique route and get the Opsaks.

I’ve always been a stasher away from camp.

Guess some ursacks are in my future.

Photo from Ursack Website:

It’s interesting what areas allow Ursacks and what areas don’t. The yellow areas are questionable. It must be up to area Managers.

How about an ursack that fits around a blue barrel?

deepdish71: "How about an ursack that fits around a blue barrel?"

Better contact their design team. Or find a lot smaller blue barrel...

I wrote the BearVault folks a couple years ago practically begging them to design a 50L BearVault, after the USFS pulled this the first time. I know they can't just scale up the design and have to reinforce it differently, but it's annoying to see that there still aren't any good IGBC-certified options anywhere near the size of the blue barrels.

As a result of this order, I just forked over $170 for an Ursack Major 2XL and some plastic bags, after tax, to augment my existing Ursack investments (totaling over $400 now). I'm no good at hanging and I'd bet most of the people applauding this order aren't either. It's quite unfortunate that you have to fork over a big chunk of cash to avoid having to hang a bag now, but thankfully it's an expenditure I can begrudgingly justify.

CoachWalleye74: "Some of the clowns involved buy stock in ursack? "

Yup, Follow the money.

I just ran across the USFS news release on this issue and they indicate they’re only planning to issue warnings during the first year, “except for gross violations or repeat violations.” Food storage order news release

Still wonder about bear fences. IGBC certified. in the 10 pound range. Could set up around food area and not worry about picking up.

And lots of coolers are IGBC certified. Looks like about a 5 pound penalty to go from 30 liter blue barrel to 32 qt cooler. Would take a little work to match it with a pack.

Both lots less expensive than ursaks and bear vaults for same volume.

billconner: "Still wonder about bear fences. IGBC certified. in the 10 pound range. Could set up around food area and not worry about picking up.


And lots of coolers are IGBC certified. Looks like about a 5 pound penalty to go from 30 liter blue barrel to 32 qt cooler. Would take a little work to match it with a pack.


Both lots less expensive than ursaks and bear vaults for same volume."

Never mind . . .

Tom

billconner: "And lots of coolers are IGBC certified. Looks like about a 5 pound penalty to go from 30 liter blue barrel to 32 qt cooler. Would take a little work to match it with a pack."

I never that of taking a cooler but this might be another option for someone who already has a bear certified cooler on certain trips like base camping on an entry lake or one short portage. I just checked my two Yeti tundra coolers, size 35 and 65. They both are certified for Grizzly bears. I leave my coolers outside our camper locked with two locks and a cable lock to the picnic table legs. I would only consider the Tundra 35 on a trip. The 65 is a beast of a cooler. Possibly the Tundra 65 for a large group with a 2 person carry. I have seen people on portages humping in coolers and said I never wanted to be that guy. But as I read the new law a Yeti cooler would be an option because it’s rated IGBC. For those wondering to make these coolers bear proof you need 2 Yeti bear proof locks on the lid, a Yeti bracket, and a cable lock for putting around a tree so the bear doesn’t drag it off. So an extra $65.00 for the locking system. Just a suggestion for someone who maybe wants to bring some fresh food/meat.

I know this has been a thing for a few years but I haven’t done a trip to BW in a few. Going in May 20. What do you with the ursack, buy a few, they look small, depending on how many are in the group and then pack these in a regular pack for portaging etc. How does that work when you are in camp, these are the type of container you don’t have to hang, keep those in the pack like usual. How many do you typically need for one person on a 5 day trip. I always stashed my food pack and never had a problem, but no van do no more. Thx

scat: "I know this has been a thing for a few years but I haven’t done a trip to BW in a few. Going in May 20. What do you with the ursack, buy a few, they look small, depending on how many are in the group and then pack these in a regular pack for portaging etc. How does that work when you are in camp, these are the type of container you don’t have to hang, keep those in the pack like usual. How many do you typically need for one person on a 5 day trip. I always stashed my food pack and never had a problem, but no van do no more. Thx"

The Ursack Major 2XL is 30 liters. I usually bring a 10gal barrel for 2 people for 8-9 days, which works out to about 40 liters. Since the bag stretches and cinches, you may not fit the full 30L in it, and it's highly recommended to use smell-resistant bags like OPsak or Smelly Proof, which ultimately wastes more space as you'll need several for a 30L bag. I have used 2 in my Major XL before, so doubling the space for a 2XL, 3-4 OPsaks doesn't sound too far off. Those ain't cheap either unfortunately. In the end I think I will use my Major 2XL and Major XL for myself for 9 days, maybe with some room to spare. Stuff like peanut oil takes up a lot of room. Maybe some things can go outside the OPsak to avoid having to buy so many. The zippers on them suck too and usually I need to buy new ones every couple years.

To secure them around camp, just tie them to a tree at head height, above several branches or one big branch. I cinch the bag as tight as I can, with a triple overhand knot (square knot with an extra pass), and then put the bag up in front of me, run both ties around the tree in opposite directions and back towards me, then I tie a triple overhand knot (or quadruple), using all available rope, then tug on it all to cinch it up. The main goal with tying it up is so a bear can't stomp on it, so you want it to stay up there if a bear is pawing at it. But you don't need to actually hoist it up (unless you really want to).

And yeah for transport, depending on your group size, you might just have a pack full of Ursacks. For a 5 day solo trip I just threw them in with my gear but it was a hefty pack. For my upcoming 9 day solo I'm going to bring a small dedicated pack for them.

Keep the BearVault BV500 in mind as well if you're just going to throw them in a pack, as it would prevent stuff from getting crushed in the pack, if you love your crunchy snacks as much as I do. BV500s are quite a bit cheaper than an Ursack Major 2XL, but also over twice as heavy, and don't get smaller as you clear food out of them.

Wow, thank you very much JD, that was very informative. Now I’ll have write that down or figure out how to print it. Does seem like it could get expensive quick for a 5 person crew which is what we have. Huh, gonna have to think this over. Thx again

Has anybody had issues with rodents with the regular Ursacks? Seems odd to me that mice would be able to get into those. The AllMighty versions are a lot more expensive and heavier.

JD: "

scat: "I know this has been a thing for a few years but I haven’t done a trip to BW in a few. Going in May 20. What do you with the ursack, buy a few, they look small, depending on how many are in the group and then pack these in a regular pack for portaging etc. How does that work when you are in camp, these are the type of container you don’t have to hang, keep those in the pack like usual. How many do you typically need for one person on a 5 day trip. I always stashed my food pack and never had a problem, but no van do no more. Thx"

The Ursack Major 2XL is 30 liters. I usually bring a 10gal barrel for 2 people for 8-9 days, which works out to about 40 liters. Since the bag stretches and cinches, you may not fit the full 30L in it, and it's highly recommended to use smell-resistant bags like OPsak or Smelly Proof, which ultimately wastes more space as you'll need several for a 30L bag. I have used 2 in my Major XL before, so doubling the space for a 2XL, 3-4 OPsaks doesn't sound too far off. Those ain't cheap either unfortunately. In the end I think I will use my Major 2XL and Major XL for myself for 9 days, maybe with some room to spare. Stuff like peanut oil takes up a lot of room. Maybe some things can go outside the OPsak to avoid having to buy so many. The zippers on them suck too and usually I need to buy new ones every couple years.


To secure them around camp, just tie them to a tree at head height, above several branches or one big branch. I cinch the bag as tight as I can, with a triple overhand knot (square knot with an extra pass), and then put the bag up in front of me, run both ties around the tree in opposite directions and back towards me, then I tie a triple overhand knot (or quadruple), using all available rope, then tug on it all to cinch it up. The main goal with tying it up is so a bear can't stomp on it, so you want it to stay up there if a bear is pawing at it. But you don't need to actually hoist it up (unless you really want to).


And yeah for transport, depending on your group size, you might just have a pack full of Ursacks. For a 5 day solo trip I just threw them in with my gear but it was a hefty pack. For my upcoming 9 day solo I'm going to bring a small dedicated pack for them.


Keep the BearVault BV500 in mind as well if you're just going to throw them in a pack, as it would prevent stuff from getting crushed in the pack, if you love your crunchy snacks as much as I do. BV500s are quite a bit cheaper than an Ursack Major 2XL, but also over twice as heavy, and don't get smaller as you clear food out of them."

Thanks JD.

I ended up buying a Ursack Major2XL and just 1 Opsack. With your info, looks like I should buy another Ursack and several more Opsaks.

This is ridiculous. All because a few bad apples refuse to play by the rules.

Change the penalty: offenders must clean out the food waste that people dump in the thunder boxes.

ZaSquatch: "I just saw this on reddit but hadn't seen it here.

It appears to be a more formalized food storage order for Superior NF.

I read it as no longer a recommendation to hang or use IGBC containers, but now a requirement, at least for the next 2 open water seasons.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/superior/notices/?cid=FSEPRD1174552"

plmn: "Has anybody had issues with rodents with the regular Ursacks? Seems odd to me that mice would be able to get into those. The AllMighty versions are a lot more expensive and heavier."

As long as you dont overpack them, they will cinch up tight enough to keep rodents out. I like to actually wrap a loop/knot around the top after cinching it shut, but sometimes I dont have enough space to do that until the second or third day when some food is gone. Small insects can still get through the tiny gaps on top, but that's what liners are for. I have never found anything more than a couple ants crawling between the sack and the liner, never anything in the liner.

OneMatch: "I think I'll be practicing this technique for quite a while before my September trip


"

So will you be practicing throwing rocks and firewood as suggested? If the bear chases you up a tree I hear there are other techniques one can use to deter it or piss it off further.....aim for the eyes. :)

So what happens to these "problem" bears that have been accustomed to raiding food packs? I know bears are omnivores and will eat what they can get. So is the thought that the bears will just get frustrated after seeing our packs hung high or our ursacks and go back to eating strictly berries and leaves? Can a "problem" bear be "rehabilitated" to act like a wild bear and avoid humans? Or do "problem" bears just see a hung pack as a puzzle they need to solve to get their reward? I understand we as humans are the real "problem" that have, through our carelessness, trained some bears to eat our food, but once a bear has a taste of our peanuts and chocolate, will it ever go back to the way it was before?

I wonder if outfitters and any BWCA groups had any input on this change. The rule change good or bad is following what is in place in grizzly country.
Also it is a reaction from the USFS and National parks to the naive crowd of visitors there getting with zero common sense.
Like last week a tourist goes and kicked a bison in Yellowstone on purpose and gets charged by the bison. I suppose he did it to get a picture.
My point is we all suffer the consequences caused by others. Maybe stronger peer pressure, better outfitter preparation on new clientes?

So are they going to have Rangers out at night going around in the dark checking on campsites? Really large flashlights? That is the only time we leave our packs unattended. We put them under a canoe with paddles and pots on top to wake us with an issue. We have never had a bear mess with our canoe/packs in 19 trips or my buddys (on trips Ive not been on) for 38 trips between the 4 guys. The wind has knocked down the paddle and woken us up MANY more times than the zero times bears have. 57 total trips with zero bear issues.

We take the food with us on day trips. If the food is at camp, we are at camp.

The other issue is many campsites have NO TREES that have the limbs to support our food packs ESPECIALLY on the 1st few days of the trip. They are very heavy and these BW trees are not like what we have in Indiana with Oaks and big maples all over.
I see a lot of damage coming.

MarshallPrime: "So are they going to have Rangers out at night going around in the dark checking on campsites? Really large flashlights? That is the only time we leave our packs unattended. We put them under a canoe with paddles and pots on top to wake us with an issue. We have never had a bear mess with our canoe/packs in 19 trips or my buddys (on trips Ive not been on) for 38 trips between the 4 guys. The wind has knocked down the paddle and woken us up MANY more times than the zero times bears have. 57 total trips with zero bear issues.

We take the food with us on day trips. If the food is at camp, we are at camp.

The other issue is many campsites have NO TREES that have the limbs to support our food packs ESPECIALLY on the 1st few days of the trip. They are very heavy and these BW trees are not like what we have in Indiana with Oaks and big maples all over.
I see a lot of damage coming.

"

To add to your last question, what about burn areas where the campsites are open but there are no trees to hang.

MarshallPrime: "The other issue is many campsites have NO TREES that have the limbs to support our food packs ESPECIALLY on the 1st few days of the trip. They are very heavy and these BW trees are not like what we have in Indiana with Oaks and big maples all over.

I see a lot of damage coming."

The big trees around our well-used camp last year didn't have any branches until 15' up or so. I don't think people would be sawing them off that high. My bet is that hanging food either broke them or damaged the bark over the decades to the point that they died.

MarshallPrime: "...We put them (food packs) under a canoe with paddles and pots on top to wake us with an issue. We have never had a bear mess with our canoe/packs..."

I employed this same approach for my first 15+ trips in the early 2000s. Never had a problem either. I now have a BV and still stash it under the canoe at night.

Seems like I'm alone here in my opinion, but I am totally fine with this. Many other wilderness areas, National Parks, National Forests, etc. require the same or more stringent food storage. I'll change my practice and move on, no big deal. The standard I have to meet for compliance is really not that high. And if it means fewer problematic human-bear interactions and fewer euthanized bears, then great.

Also, I find the idea that the USFS or FS employees are doing this to somehow profit is comical. If they wanted to generate more revenue, they would increase the permit fees. And if they wanted to line their pockets, there are much more lucrative ways to do that then buying Ursack and BearVault stock.

As a society, when are we going to learn not to give power to a bunch of people who will make it their life's work to find new ways to exert authority over us? Also, who gave them the ability to change a rule and create laws that are felonies overnight?

Some of you people need to really think hard about how you helped enable situations like this through your voting creating this monster.

On a side note, remember that the Bear hunting license lottery submission date for the whole area was May 3rd. If you did not get it submitted your only chance to kill these "at risk" bears within the BWCA legally is by sniping a unclaimed license on August 6th at the MN DNR.

geotramper: "Seems like I'm alone here in my opinion, but I am totally fine with this. Many other wilderness areas, National Parks, National Forests, etc. require the same or more stringent food storage. I'll change my practice and move on, no big deal. The standard I have to meet for compliance is really not that high. And if it means fewer problematic human-bear interactions and fewer euthanized bears, then great.


Also, I find the idea that the USFS or FS employees are doing this to somehow profit is comical. If they wanted to generate more revenue, they would increase the permit fees. And if they wanted to line their pockets, there are much more lucrative ways to do that then buying Ursack and BearVault stock. "

some of it is just the change, tradition, much of it will be the same, we always have hung are food bag. I did order just now the 500 Bear Vault.

Solo means ultralight single carry and shorter stays, or tying my ursack to a tree at the end of each portage. At least here in Yellowstone they have hang poles at backcountry sites as tree hangs usually do not work effectively. Nothing like puting the cart before the horse and waiting until a week before fishing opener to release the order.

We take 2 BWJ cooler packs and a dry food pack, family of 5 for 10+ days. I've never hung a pack. I use the Cliff Jacobson "stash in the woods well away from camp" method - over 20 years, never had a bear issue. I can't imagine trying to hang one of the cooler packs - those suckers get HEAVY. Plus...that means I'll need to fine THREE good trees to hang my 3 food packs, yikes! Anyone else have ideas / plans for what to do with their cooler packs??

naturboy12: "I sent an email to the forest supervisor’s office regarding the solo canoeing/double portaging question, which is a legitimate concern. I’ll report back here if I receive an answer. "

Read their faq. They aren't going to be jerks about it.

That's just great. You hear that, Ed? Bears!

I used a Bear Vault last year and found it handy. I might just purchase one now this regulation is in place.

eyepaddle: "We take 2 BWJ cooler packs and a dry food pack, family of 5 for 10+ days. I've never hung a pack. I use the Cliff Jacobson "stash in the woods well away from camp" method - over 20 years, never had a bear issue. I can't imagine trying to hang one of the cooler packs - those suckers get HEAVY. Plus...that means I'll need to fine THREE good trees to hang my 3 food packs, yikes! Anyone else have ideas / plans for what to do with their cooler packs?? "

Buy a Yetti or other IGBC certified cooler and get the proper locks for it.

geotramper: "Seems like I'm alone here in my opinion, but I am totally fine with this. Many other wilderness areas, National Parks, National Forests, etc. require the same or more stringent food storage. I'll change my practice and move on, no big deal. The standard I have to meet for compliance is really not that high. And if it means fewer problematic human-bear interactions and fewer euthanized bears, then great. "

You are not alone.

I believe in the rule of law and I make an effort to understand and comply with regulations. Compliance can be inconvenient and may require compromise but the information and resources are available for success.

toastedmarshmallow12: "

naturboy12: "I sent an email to the forest supervisor’s office regarding the solo canoeing/double portaging question, which is a legitimate concern. I’ll report back here if I receive an answer. "

Well your going to look stupid. Its stated that its not required while food is being transported. Maybe take rhe time to read before reacting "

You are in the wrong, feel free to read here, as posted and discussed in this thread already after my post. If you’ve found a source verifying what you say is true, please post a link. Sawbill News

Taken right from the Forest Service Website:
In effect March 1-November 30 each year, except while being prepared, consumed, or under on-site visual observance, all food, food containers, scented items (such as soap, lip balm, toothpaste) and refuse shall be suspended at least 12 feet above the surface of the ground and not less than 6 feet horizontally from the trunk of a tree, or stored in an Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee certified bear resistant container. 36 C.F.R. § 261.58 (cc).

OneMatch: "I think I'll be practicing this technique for quite a while before my September trip


"

This works very well, I utilize a pully in the middle for the pack so you can tether the line and raise and lower the pack at will.

eyepaddle: "We take 2 BWJ cooler packs and a dry food pack, family of 5 for 10+ days. I've never hung a pack. I use the Cliff Jacobson "stash in the woods well away from camp" method - over 20 years, never had a bear issue. I can't imagine trying to hang one of the cooler packs - those suckers get HEAVY. Plus...that means I'll need to fine THREE good trees to hang my 3 food packs, yikes! Anyone else have ideas / plans for what to do with their cooler packs?? "

I use Cliff's method, too. I don't plan on changing much in the future...we occasionally do a somewhat half-hearted hanging of the pack, maybe we'll try harder.

Mike

toastedmarshmallow12: "

naturboy12: "I sent an email to the forest supervisor’s office regarding the solo canoeing/double portaging question, which is a legitimate concern. I’ll report back here if I receive an answer. "

Well your going to look stupid. Its stated that its not required while food is being transported. Maybe take rhe time to read before reacting "

The question was specifically put to the Forest Service with this response:

“Does this apply to portaging? What if I have to double portage?” -Yes, it applies. You cannot leave your food unattended on a portage unless it is in an approved bear resistant container or hung in a tree."

Maybe "your" a little quick to judge?

MarshallPrime: We put them under a canoe with paddles and pots on top to wake us with an issue. We have never had a bear mess with our canoe/packs in 19 trips or my buddys (on trips Ive not been on) for 38 trips between the 4 guys.
"

I've heard of trippers doing this, but I've been very leery of this approach. I fear a bear putting a hole in my canoe...then I have no food and no way of getting out.

We use the pots-and-pans-and-rocks early-warning detection system...elementary to be sure. But at least we won't lose the canoe.

Mike

Tomcat: "

geotramper: "Seems like I'm alone here in my opinion, but I am totally fine with this. Many other wilderness areas, National Parks, National Forests, etc. require the same or more stringent food storage. I'll change my practice and move on, no big deal. The standard I have to meet for compliance is really not that high. And if it means fewer problematic human-bear interactions and fewer euthanized bears, then great. "

You are not alone.


I believe in the rule of law and I make an effort to understand and comply with regulations. Compliance can be inconvenient and may require compromise but the information and resources are available for success. "

The problem is not the regulation itself. I was already complying, for the most part. It's implementing a regulation with felony-level consequences at the last minute and without making hardly any effort to notify those who will be visiting. It's the kind of overbearing overreach that democratic societies should not tolerate. In what world does 6 months in prison make sense for improperly storing your own food?

I'm amazed at the attitude of some people I've seen on social media. "Well they SAY they won't strictly enforce these ridiculous penalties that they enshrined into law so it's OK". No, it's not OK. If they don't mean to ever enforce them there would be no reason to have them.

I believe in the rule of law as well. But only when that law is enacted in a fair and just manner.

geotramper: "I'll change my practice and move on, no big deal. The standard I have to meet for compliance is really not that high."

I would challenge you here; as someone who has far from mastered the bag hang, but done it many times, and seen many others do it, I think the standards are actually fairly difficult to meet without serious practice. I would have loved to see USFS suggest recommended ways to get your bag 6ft from the trunk and 12ft from the ground (to bottom of the bag). Just hung from a branch, assuming a ~3ft tall pack, you need at least a ~15ft high branch that's strong enough to support not only the weight of the bag, but also the tugging of the rope, 6ft from the trunk. Branches this thick are tough to find, without being choked in by other trees nearby (making it very hard to get a rope over them). I also think the proper rope is very important; it must be slick enough to slide.

My calculations may have been incorrect/unnecessarily complicated so I'm revisiting. Ah, geo/trigotramper you got me!

plmn: "

Tomcat: "

geotramper: "Seems like I'm alone here in my opinion, but I am totally fine with this. Many other wilderness areas, National Parks, National Forests, etc. require the same or more stringent food storage. I'll change my practice and move on, no big deal. The standard I have to meet for compliance is really not that high. And if it means fewer problematic human-bear interactions and fewer euthanized bears, then great. "

You are not alone.



I believe in the rule of law and I make an effort to understand and comply with regulations. Compliance can be inconvenient and may require compromise but the information and resources are available for success. "

The problem is not the regulation itself. I was already complying, for the most part. It's implementing a regulation with felony-level consequences at the last minute and without making hardly any effort to notify those who will be visiting. It's the kind of overbearing overreach that democratic societies should not tolerate. In what world does 6 months in prison make sense for improperly storing your own food?

I'm amazed at the attitude of some people I've seen on social media. "Well they SAY they won't strictly enforce these ridiculous penalties that they enshrined into law so it's OK". No, it's not OK. If they don't mean to ever enforce them there would be no reason to have them.


I believe in the rule of law as well. But only when that law is enacted in a fair and just manner."

First of all it is not felony level consequences. The forest service can't send you to jail. US Attorney would have to prosecute you and convict you. The judge would decide your sentence and fine. You have idiots out there who probably thumb their nose to any law including not getting a permit. You have to have some consequences for the total idiots to change their behavior. I am sure the penalties could be applied to them. Look at all your local laws. I bet a bunch of them can have jail consequences but they are only applied by the judge to people who deserve the jail time. You would have to thumb your nose multiple times before you would get prosecuted and judge imposes any jail time. All the idiots going to BWCA would love your ideas. They could break any law multiple times with no consequences.

airmorse: "Just curious as to how many bears have had to be euthanized because they had become habitual camp robbers."

How many trips ruined by bears taking all the food?
You can tell people that only a couple of humans have been attacked by a black bear.
But when one comes into your camp at night and wont leave. It can be a scary deal

Maybe i missed it.
But did anyone stop complaing long enough to list the approved bear proof containers ? ? ?

I read the original article and went around in circles for 10 minutes on their web sites. But could never find the list.

In 40 years we have had no bear issues.
We attemted to hanf the pack twice. Maybe got it 7 ft up.
Keep camp clean. Rarely fry meat.
Keep food in a drybag.

He fast majority of our trips have been in quetico.

As in all parts of life.
It only takes a few to ruin it for the rest of us.

kjw: "

plmn: "

Tomcat: "

geotramper: "Seems like I'm alone here in my opinion, but I am totally fine with this. Many other wilderness areas, National Parks, National Forests, etc. require the same or more stringent food storage. I'll change my practice and move on, no big deal. The standard I have to meet for compliance is really not that high. And if it means fewer problematic human-bear interactions and fewer euthanized bears, then great. "

You are not alone.



I believe in the rule of law and I make an effort to understand and comply with regulations. Compliance can be inconvenient and may require compromise but the information and resources are available for success. "

The problem is not the regulation itself. I was already complying, for the most part. It's implementing a regulation with felony-level consequences at the last minute and without making hardly any effort to notify those who will be visiting. It's the kind of overbearing overreach that democratic societies should not tolerate. In what world does 6 months in prison make sense for improperly storing your own food?


I'm amazed at the attitude of some people I've seen on social media. "Well they SAY they won't strictly enforce these ridiculous penalties that they enshrined into law so it's OK". No, it's not OK. If they don't mean to ever enforce them there would be no reason to have them.



I believe in the rule of law as well. But only when that law is enacted in a fair and just manner."

First of all it is not felony level consequences. The forest service can't send you to jail. US Attorney would have to prosecute you and convict you. The judge would decide your sentence and fine. You have idiots out there who probably thumb their nose to any law including not getting a permit. You have to have some consequences for the total idiots to change their behavior. I am sure the penalties could be applied to them. Look at all your local laws. I bet a bunch of them can have jail consequences but they are only applied by the judge to people who deserve the jail time. You would have to thumb your nose multiple times before you would get prosecuted and judge imposes any jail time. All the idiots going to BWCA would love your ideas. They could break any law multiple times with no consequences."

I never said their shouldn't be any consequences. And who gives out the punishment is irrelevant. The point is the potential punishment doesn't fit the crime. Not even close.

Go ahead and put your faith in the benevolence of government entities. That always works out well.

Tomcat: "

geotramper: "Seems like I'm alone here in my opinion, but I am totally fine with this. Many other wilderness areas, National Parks, National Forests, etc. require the same or more stringent food storage. I'll change my practice and move on, no big deal. The standard I have to meet for compliance is really not that high. And if it means fewer problematic human-bear interactions and fewer euthanized bears, then great. "

You are not alone.


I believe in the rule of law and I make an effort to understand and comply with regulations. Compliance can be inconvenient and may require compromise but the information and resources are available for success. "

Plus one, I don't think its a huge deal and has been a longtime in coming. Pretty common in many of the other wilderness areas I have been fortunate to have traveled through.

billconner: "Still wonder about bear fences. IGBC certified. in the 10 pound range. Could set up around food area and not worry about picking up.


And lots of coolers are IGBC certified. Looks like about a 5 pound penalty to go from 30 liter blue barrel to 32 qt cooler. Would take a little work to match it with a pack.


Both lots less expensive than ursaks and bear vaults for same volume."

Good point. Although my only experience with the fence was on the Smith River, and I don't recall the fence being very small and packable, but I could be wrong.

timf1981: "Maybe i missed it.
But did anyone stop complaing long enough to list the approved bear proof containers ? ? ?


I read the original article and went around in circles for 10 minutes on their web sites. But could never find the list.


In 40 years we have had no bear issues.
We attemted to hanf the pack twice. Maybe got it 7 ft up.
Keep camp clean. Rarely fry meat.
Keep food in a drybag.


He fast majority of our trips have been in quetico.


As in all parts of life.
It only takes a few to ruin it for the rest of us."

It was in Sawbill Article above somebody provided link to.

Approved Containers

timf1981: "Maybe i missed it.
But did anyone stop complaing long enough to list the approved bear proof containers ? ? ?"

IGBC Approved Products

First of all it is not felony level consequences. The forest service can't send you to jail. US Attorney would have to prosecute you and convict you. The judge would decide your sentence and fine. You have idiots out there who probably thumb their nose to any law including not getting a permit. You have to have some consequences for the total idiots to change their behavior. I am sure the penalties could be applied to them. Look at all your local laws. I bet a bunch of them can have jail consequences but they are only applied by the judge to people who deserve the jail time. You would have to thumb your nose multiple times before you would get prosecuted and judge imposes any jail time. All the idiots going to BWCA would love your ideas. They could break any law multiple times with no consequences."

Wrong. They can do anything they want. The judges will be more sympathetic but only because you are tying up their court room and they need to get rid of this type of stuff quickly. US attorneys have unlimited resources and less than 1% of people are acquitted once they take up a case - its what they do and it does not matter if you are innocent or not - you will pay. The Bureau of Land Management/Federal Court is probably the last organization on earth that you should rely on in good faith. Ask the American Indian.

If people here think this is nonsense - try this - Look up your federal representative or state senator - fill out an Privacy Release Form and ask them to check in on it. Just tell them it is nonsense and is like putting a 5k fine for going 60 in a 55. ...take you 5 minutes.

We have had one bear encounter in 40 some years of bwca camping. That encounter was on a lake on the edge that had an outfitter property so we weren’t surprised. We actually started hanging our food to keep mice from infiltrating our food pack. I can’t quite understand the 15’ requirement. I can’t imagine any black bear in the bwca being large enough to reach even a 8’ high bag. This sounds just as silly as the fish remains rule.

As a point of clarification, while the proposed order threatens stiff penalties, it is not, as some have suggested, "felony-level".

This is from Line item 3 of the 3rd section of the order:
"Any violation of this prohibition is punishable as a Class B misdemeanor"

Hanging my food on a winter trip the first week or so of March?
Yea.........no.
Cripes.

Call your Congressman and Senators and let them know how you feel. I am.

This order would have made more sense if it had been released on April 1st instead of on April 19th.

Well, I see there are 3 more threads relating to this now. How much BVs cost, hanging methods, etc. I think one of the biggest losers in this mess will be the trees. You can always pick out the favorite hanging tree in a campsite....stripped of limbs, broken branches, bark missing. We already have fire grates and latrines at campsites. Why doesn't the FS just bite the bullet and put in steel boxes at campsites and save the trees and the bears. They could be similar to the ones at Voyageurs but smaller. Seems to me to solve a bunch of problems involving this whole "order" business. The FS could paddle around and check them a lot quicker than searching for faulty hangers and writing tickets. I would certainly hope that people wouldn't complain about said vaults detracting from their wilderness experience, especially after reading all these threads. Just a thought.....

OneMatch: "I think I'll be practicing this technique for quite a while before my September trip


"

Keep in mind, that limb you toss your rock/rope over must be at least 22' off the ground if your pack hangs 4' or so below your pulley.

I agree with cowdoc. I know I said I'd hate for eyesores in a wilderness area (hanging wires) but if it meant the trees could be be spared, I'd get over it. You still have the issue of a non-IGBC pack being unsecured while double carrying a portage, though, so... I'm not sure if that part of the order needs to be modified/removed, with the addition of permanent food storage devices at campsites, or what. There's no great solution here unfortunately. We need larger IGBC-compliant barrels (compatible with existing harnesses), but if you don't want to spend a bunch of money which none of us do, then hanging needs to be more viable, or we need storage lockers. But again, storage lockers can't be at every portage landing... so...... yeah. I suppose everyone should just get good at hanging! :P

trstuck: "Keep in mind, that limb you toss your rock/rope over must be at least 22' off the ground if your pack hangs 4' or so below your pulley."

I spent an hour re-learning trig to try and work this out. Indeed, you'd need to get a rope very high - I didn't work the 4 foot drop into my equations. But, assuming that sloping line sags 3ft when you hang a 60lb pack on it, the top of the line would need to be something like 26ft above the ground. A 24ft x 24ft x 34ft right triangle allows you to hang a bag 6ft from the trunk, 18ft above the ground, before any sag. Assuming a 3ft tall pack, you get 15ft of usable height, and then the rope can only sag 3ft before you're breaching the 12ft requirement. That is all assuming the bag is essentially touching the sloping line, too... if you have to hang it 4ft down, your triangle needs to scale up quite a bit. 24ft is already going to be a challenge to get a rope over!

I don't hang food anymore for a few reasons. First, I use a the 30L blue barrel, which is stronger than the 60L and I use a bear vault container as well. I have never had any issues with bears but plenty of issues with rodents. I bring the food at least 100 yards from the campsite and cable the blue barrel to a tree. (the bear vault is difficult to cable)

It seems the only people I meet that have issues with bears are those hanging food bags. The bag in the tree is a signal to bears that there's good things here. Bears climb trees very well. The bears have played this game before and understand how to get up the same trees everyone is using to hang food. Creatures of habit they are. Hanging food anywhere near your campsite is just not a good idea. Keep a clean site, clean your dishes, pick up ALL dropped food from the ground.

Time to spray-paint the barrel. So I guess if the rangers will need to find my barrel. I'm not helping them look. Food? I don't have any food. Strict pescatarian I am.

JD: "

trstuck: "Keep in mind, that limb you toss your rock/rope over must be at least 22' off the ground if your pack hangs 4' or so below your pulley."

I spent an hour re-learning trig to try and work this out.
...
24ft is already going to be a challenge to get a rope over!

"

Yup! Or even a challenge to find.

I realize I don’t have the long-term experience in the BWCA. But I’ve been using Using Bear Vault cans in bear country (BWCA, KY & MI) for the last couple Years. They will go with us to Yellowstone and Hudson Bay this year. My daughter and I each carry one in our packs and can get a weeks worth of food in each. They also make pretty nice seats

Here is one in the “wild” so to speak.





Yes they could change your typical menu, but also, a Ozark Trail cooler with a padlock is in the list, so you could portage that with a tumpline just like an old school wannigan.


Perhaps the bear vault folks will come out with a large one that can be carried with a blue barrel harness?

Cowdoc may have good idea. They could get by with limited supply of food lockers. Just put them on lakes/portages they are having bear problems with. No need to put them at every site in BWCA.

plmn: "

kjw: "

plmn: "

Tomcat: "

geotramper: "Seems like I'm alone here in my opinion, but I am totally fine with this. Many other wilderness areas, National Parks, National Forests, etc. require the same or more stringent food storage. I'll change my practice and move on, no big deal. The standard I have to meet for compliance is really not that high. And if it means fewer problematic human-bear interactions and fewer euthanized bears, then great. "

Its does fit the crime. Having to kill a bear or a bear kills a human. Pretty serious.



You are not alone.




I believe in the rule of law and I make an effort to understand and comply with regulations. Compliance can be inconvenient and may require compromise but the information and resources are available for success. "

The problem is not the regulation itself. I was already complying, for the most part. It's implementing a regulation with felony-level consequences at the last minute and without making hardly any effort to notify those who will be visiting. It's the kind of overbearing overreach that democratic societies should not tolerate. In what world does 6 months in prison make sense for improperly storing your own food?



I'm amazed at the attitude of some people I've seen on social media. "Well they SAY they won't strictly enforce these ridiculous penalties that they enshrined into law so it's OK". No, it's not OK. If they don't mean to ever enforce them there would be no reason to have them.



I believe in the rule of law as well. But only when that law is enacted in a fair and just manner."

First of all it is not felony level consequences. The forest service can't send you to jail. US Attorney would have to prosecute you and convict you. The judge would decide your sentence and fine. You have idiots out there who probably thumb their nose to any law including not getting a permit. You have to have some consequences for the total idiots to change their behavior. I am sure the penalties could be applied to them. Look at all your local laws. I bet a bunch of them can have jail consequences but they are only applied by the judge to people who deserve the jail time. You would have to thumb your nose multiple times before you would get prosecuted and judge imposes any jail time. All the idiots going to BWCA would love your ideas. They could break any law multiple times with no consequences."

I never said their shouldn't be any consequences. And who gives out the punishment is irrelevant. The point is the potential punishment doesn't fit the crime. Not even close.


Go ahead and put your faith in the benevolence of government entities. That always works out well.


"

bottomtothetap: "As a point of clarification, while the proposed order threatens stiff penalties, it is not, as some have suggested, "felony-level".


This is from Line item 3 of the 3rd section of the order:
"Any violation of this prohibition is punishable as a Class B misdemeanor""

Somebody else had said that and I repeated it without verifying. Sorry about that, thanks for clarifying. Still, it's a very harsh punishment.

Always good to practice good bear area food and scented items safety and precautions.



Two parts I have a problems with:



The excessive fines. Sure I don't mind a ticket and a fine but the amounts seem extreme-- what about a tiered system as well. 1st time small, second more, 3rd the largest, 4th banned for 5 years.



Also if it's good for the visitor is should also be mandated for Officers and organized rescuers performing official duties to follow the same rules-----I mean where is the lead by example??? Rather than rules for thee and not for me. I can understand the fire fighting units and the nature of their work and different needs for such crews.

I see much of what going to happen is like we campers are on probation for being lazy on bear prevention. Maybe by 2016 rules relaxed or altered?

duluth update

Good interview with USFS and implementing he plan. Warnings only First year, unless violation extreme.
Various groups like Friends of the Boundary Waters oppose much of the new ruling.


Peter Marshall, communications director for the group Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness, said the Forest Service has the right intention to prevent human/bear encounters but that “it’s the draconian nature of the order that is wrongheaded.”

Marshall called the rule “impractical” and notes that many seasoned veterans of BWCAW travel argue that hanging food is not the most effective way to deter bears. Marshall said keeping food sealed in plastic bags and 200 feet from tents often is enough to deter bears in the wilderness.

“Six months in jail, a $5,000 fine, or both, and a misdemeanor on your record?" Marshall said. "For what? Not for drunk driving, which carries a similar penalty, but for not using a certified bear container, or for hanging it 11 rather than 12 feet off the ground. This is extreme. Friends of the Boundary Waters, and many other groups, have worked hard to make the wilderness more inviting to diverse groups of people, to open it to people who never went to the Boundary Waters.

"Having this impractical order, that carries the very real threat of jail time or hefty fines, is a major setback," Marshall said.

The Forest Service on Monday vowed to issue only warnings for violations of the new rule during the first season.

“Our goal initially is to highlight the importance of all of us doing our due diligence to keep wildlife from becoming habituated," the agency noted in unveiling the rule. "Except for gross violations or repeated violations, we intend to issue warnings for the first year of the order. Fortunately, many BWCAW visitors are already practicing good food storage techniques. The concept isn’t new, we’re just approaching it as a season-long prevention effort, rather than reacting to incidents as they occur.”

I am guilty, my bird feeder was only about 5 feet high, raised it after that.

This bear was radio collared a few miles from my house. Has an interesting history, It had 4 cubs and two got hit on the highway a half mile from my house a month apart. DNR sent me all its traveling locations for the year. Only weighed about 250 pounds and lost weight after having cubs.

deepdish71: "How about an ursack that fits around a blue barrel?"

As we switched from hanging a pack to stashing a blue barrel a few years ago ( we own both 30 & 60) I really like this idea! I wonder if they sell rolls of the material and I’ll sew my own! We bring a dog, so I can’t imagine how many BVs I would need.

Regarding the portage issue- while I understand the new rule on certain lakes, in reality this could cause other non- bear issues. If someone stays to supervise the pack at one end on a double portage, the time spent portaging will increase, and could cause more congestion and backup at each end. And can you imagine the time and chaos of a couple people trying to find hanging trees at each end of a portage.?

We have a May 20 entry, so with the short notice I guess we’ll be hanging big blue, not purchasing new bearproof containers.

4keys: "

deepdish71: "How about an ursack that fits around a blue barrel?"

As we switched from hanging a pack to stashing a blue barrel a few years ago ( we own both 30 & 60) I really like this idea! I wonder if they sell rolls of the material and I’ll sew my own! We bring a dog, so I can’t imagine how many BVs I would need.


Regarding the portage issue- while I understand the new rule on certain lakes, in reality this could cause other non- bear issues. If someone stays to supervise the pack at one end on a double portage, the time spent portaging will increase, and could cause more congestion and backup at each end. And can you imagine the time and chaos of a couple people trying to find hanging trees at each end of a portage.?


We have a May 20 entry, so with the short notice I guess we’ll be hanging big blue, not purchasing new bearproof containers.
"

Thats a good one, I could see about 5-10 bags on one tree from different parties.
Reserve a tree program at a portage. Always was taught to keep a moving at portages.

Lot of people crying and whining about something that is the norm in most backcountry areas.
I like putting the steel lockers in problem/busy sites,that's a great suggestion. But that could become pricey and you would be able to supply pulley systems to many more "problem campsites". It could be one of the hallmarks of our campsite much like latrine and fire grates.
We have problem bears because of problem people. The risk of a 5000$ fine for being a messy camper should keep a lot if those problem people out of the BWs and I say good.

“The excessive fines. Sure I don't mind a ticket and a fine but the amounts seem extreme-- what about a tiered system as well. 1st time small, second more, 3rd the largest, 4th banned for 5 years."

The potential penalties for violating this order are the same as the penalties for violating other BWCA regulations. Get caught bringing in a can of pop that you intend to pack out and you’ll face the same consequences of $5,000 fine/6 months in jail.

EmmaMorgan: "

“The excessive fines. Sure I don't mind a ticket and a fine but the amounts seem extreme-- what about a tiered system as well. 1st time small, second more, 3rd the largest, 4th banned for 5 years."

The potential penalties for violating this order are the same as the penalties for violating other BWCA regulations. Get caught bringing in a can of pop that you intend to pack out and you’ll face the same consequences of $5,000 fine/6 months in jail."

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Deeznuts: "Lot of people crying and whining about something that is the norm in most backcountry areas.
I like putting the steel lockers in problem/busy sites,that's a great suggestion. But that could become pricey and you would be able to supply pulley systems to many more "problem campsites". It could be one of the hallmarks of our campsite much like latrine and fire grates.
We have problem bears because of problem people. The risk of a 5000$ fine for being a messy camper should keep a lot if those problem people out of the BWs and I say good. "

To put steel lockers in the BWCA would be a move to make the BWCA more like a city or state park. Let's quit taking the Wild out of the Wild. Has the bear problem really been that bad?
So little prevention would end a problem which is isolated to a few spots and a few bear.

Deeznuts: "Lot of people crying and whining about something that is the norm in most backcountry areas.
"

"most back country areas" are not the BWCA.

Part of the Boundary Waters appeal is that it is different from what you'd experience in other wild places. With limited over-land carrying required of your gear and food, you have more options of what to bring compared to hiking or backpacking.

It is understood that in those other backpacking areas, just like the BWCA, a proper hang to protect against bears can be difficult to achieve and thus, the requirement to use certified bear "proof" containers for food storage. The industry is currently set up to address this--the need for food protection on backpacking or hiking trips where ultra-lite and minimalist is often the focus. For those purposes the certified containers that are now available work well enough.

In the BWCA, it is true that many campers have adopted this minimalist method for food as well knowing that hanging to the prescribed specs will be hard to do. However, those that enjoy the BWCA in part for the additional eating options have also developed effective alternatives to protect their food from bears and other wildlife. Now, finding that they are being mandatd by the Forest Service to do it the way it's done in backpacking country, they are feeling frustrated as they know that hanging is often not a good option and the current offerings for certified containers do not work as well--especially capacity and cost-wise for a group of 8 or 9.

Perhaps industry needs to come up with something that can be certified and that better fits how BWCA trips are often done, especially from a size/volume standpoint.

Because it is done a certain way and works in many other areas does not mean it's a great solution for the BWCA.

trstuck: "

OneMatch: "I think I'll be practicing this technique for quite a while before my September trip

"

Keep in mind, that limb you toss your rock/rope over must be at least 22' off the ground if your pack hangs 4' or so below your pulley."

I think that you can ignore the 4' note on the diagram. The forest service's order requires 12' above the ground and 6' from the tree, but there is no requirement regarding distance below a pulley or even a branch.

I'm really surprised how over the top most of these reactions are to a simple and effective regulation change. I personally think this is a great example of proactive action to prevent a problem before it occurs rather than waiting for widespread bear issues and then reacting after there is already an issue. I've been taking multiple annual trips to the BWCA for over 35 years and well I haven't had bear problems I have noticed more new visitors and increased impacts in the last 4-5 years so it makes sense to get ahead of it. Seems many folks are concerned about the challenge of properly hanging the food pack but if that is your concern why not just use an approved bear barrel? I made the switch to a barrel years ago and it is an easy way to prevent all kinds of animals from getting at you gear and doesn't require hanging the pack. Additional bonus it keeps everything dry and prevents food being crushed etc. I get that change is hard but for me this change is good and not difficult to adapt to. I look forward to many more decades in the wilderness without problem bears at the campsites!

As others have pointed out it is similar penalties to those for many other regulations we may or may not agree with like aluminum containers - very rarely if ever enforced with actual penalties unless the offense is blatant and more an effort to deter and educate.

bear

Hope they will be flexible and fine tooth THE rules. There is ZERO reasons to these rules to be in effect on March 1 each year. How many bears did you see BY MARCH 1?
Its like banning campfires two years ahead of that summer because it may be dry. We ban campfires when current conditions are present than.

In the BWCA on a regular basis, hunting shack within a mile of border and regularly deer hunt within BWCA, Building a remote cabin on an entry lake (just got back Monday night), sons and friends regularly in BWCA, friends in area, relationships with resorts and none of of us have any 1st or 2nd hand experience of problem Bears stealing food at campsites. You hear about it once or twice per year that there is a problem bear somewhere. I assume people already get ticketed now and then.

This is just a Karen in the forest service thinking - Still have problem bears, I wish people would just listen to me and do exactly what I say, I know what Ill do, lets fine the little people 5k and throw them in jail for not listening, lets give em 1 year to shape up because I am so nice.

Call your congressmen people. Don't just complain, ask to setup an inquiry - will take you 5 minutes and it will be good experience for the future.

As a follow up to my suggestion to call your senator or representative above - keep in mind that in each politician's home offices they have a huge staff that is paid for by the federal government whose sole job is to respond to people like you for exactly these types of issues. Each time someone is elected they inherit this budget and they do take it seriously. The person that you speak to will ask you to fill out a privacy release form and send it in so that they can proceed. They will then reach out to their liaison in DC or wherever over the US forest service to begin an inquiry. This brings alot of attention from a high level to what is happening. The people making the decisions then need to defend their reasoning or back down. Either way they would rather not have attention drawn to them and their career if they are making mistakes (and this is a very draconian penalty which deserves to be reversed). It is how we the people keep the government in check.

Seriously - call or go online, it will take you 5 minutes. It does not matter if you voted for them or not - they will be happy to help either way

millerbjm: "I'm really surprised how over the top most of these reactions are to a simple and effective regulation change. I personally think this is a great example of proactive action to prevent a problem before it occurs rather than waiting for widespread bear issues and then reacting after there is already an issue. I've been taking multiple annual trips to the BWCA for over 35 years and well I haven't had bear problems I have noticed more new visitors and increased impacts in the last 4-5 years so it makes sense to get ahead of it. Seems many folks are concerned about the challenge of properly hanging the food pack but if that is your concern why not just use an approved bear barrel? I made the switch to a barrel years ago and it is an easy way to prevent all kinds of animals from getting at you gear and doesn't require hanging the pack. Additional bonus it keeps everything dry and prevents food being crushed etc. I get that change is hard but for me this change is good and not difficult to adapt to. I look forward to many more decades in the wilderness without problem bears at the campsites!


As others have pointed out it is similar penalties to those for many other regulations we may or may not agree with like aluminum containers - very rarely if ever enforced with actual penalties unless the offense is blatant and more an effort to deter and educate."

I'm really surprised with your ability to measure effectiveness over the approximate 10 days since this laws been in place. Assumptions work both ways.

millerbjm: "I'm really surprised how over the top most of these reactions are to a simple and effective regulation change."

They have not provided any data to prove how effective this regulation change will be or why it merits such draconian penalties. Especially when many experts have been recommending against hanging for decades. They haven't even shown that it's a major issue to begin with, and their inaction dealing with some problem bears leads me to believe that they don't really consider it to be. I would also argue it is not simple. A lot of people bring in stuff that isn't practical to hang, some sites don't have places to hang, and it's expensive to buy approved containers.

I'm surprised some people can't see why this upsets people. Even if you support the regulation you should be able to understand the problems with how they enacted it.

It is a wakeup call and makes people think twice on procedure on food storage.