[pct-l] Subject: Re: Pee as bear deterrent?

[Dan Welch]

I read the study as well and I was actually fairly impressed with it.  I was
NOT impressed with the conclusions many people have drawn from the results.
(Just as a side note - I have spent a career doing controlled testing of
equipment and processes in manufacturing.)

As has been pointed out- the study was not perfect.  No study ever is.  But
in the real world we often have to draw conclusions from less than perfect
data.  As with many things, this problem (Do Op-sacks work to prevent bears
getting your food?) can never be systematically tested in the "real world."
Yes - the study used dogs not bears.  Yes - the study used drugs not food.
As a result, trying to conclude that an Op-Sack would (or would not) protect
your food from a bear is a BIG stretch

In my view, the ONLY appropriate conclusion is that Op-Sacks work NO BETTER
than zip-lock bags in hiding or disguising the smells from volatile organic
compounds or essential oils (the compounds that give the smell sensation.)
IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER TEST DATA that is more scientific, I think
that's a reasonable presumption to make.  To use court lingo - I wouldn't
state this conclusion is beyond a reasonable doubt, but I think it is
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  In other words, I think it's
more likely true than not.  

So my ONLY take-away from this experiment: If you're comfortable with
Op-Sacks you should be comfortable with ziplocks - and vice versa.  I
realize this is not a ringing endorsement for Op-Sacks, in fact quite the
contrary.  As a result, I can't justify the purchase of Op-Sacks over
ziplocks. Both MAY BE better than no protection at all - say keeping your
food in a stuff sack.  I expect they ARE better - but I don't have any data
to prove it.  I wish they would have put the drugs out LOOSE in some of
those lockers to see how fast the dogs found them sans Op-Sack or ziplock.
Oh well...

Timberline       


<<  This so called 'experiment' is flawed in so many ways that it's hard to
know where to begin. First of all they used dogs instead of bears. Not sure
where the numbers on the sense of smell being 2 to 50 time better but it
sure sounds like it was made up. I'm guessing there is no study that shows
what the number is. Second, the dogs were trained to smell drugs in lockers
at schools and inside other buildings. Bears live in the forest, not in
buildings. Third, they used drugs in the bags (which the dogs had spent
quite some time training on) instead of food.  >>

So I can see no factors at all in this experiment that matched the real
world except the Opsack bags. Dogs vs. bears; trained animals vs.
untrained; drugs vs. food; controlled indoor environment vs. forest; cops
vs. scientists. This experiment proved nothing about the use of Opsack bags
in real life, except as a warning perhaps to teenagers trying to make a
little extra money at school.