[pct-l] Pct-L Digest, Vol 80, Issue 14 Bear Canisters: Good for Bear, not for Hungry Hiker?

bhuss hussbl at gmail.com
Thu Aug 14 22:27:04 CDT 2014

  Bear Canisters: Good for Bear, not for Hungry Hiker?

Maybe we should be checking to see when, or if, this much lighter weight 
option: Ursack S29 All White (7.3 oz.) will be approved for use on the 
JMT, and the section of the PCT, where bear canisters are currently 
required? Some hungry hungry hiker could carry two sacks full of 
calories with the aprox. 2 lbs of saved weight from leaving behind a 
bear can.

July 31, 2014-The 2014 Ursack S29 AllWhite is now listed on the IGBC 
list of certified bear resistant products.
July 24, 2014-The 2014 Ursack S29 AllWhite has been given IGBC 
certification number 3738.

Bear Canisters: Good for Bear, not for Hungry Hiker?

February 20, 2012
Yosemite and Sequoia-Kings Canyon (SEKI) responded to our December 
letter (see their web site for referenced letter). Those Parks have, 
until further notice, turned over the testing of Ursack to the 
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). If the IGBC certifies Ursack 
as "bear resistant," it will be allowed in Yosemite and SEKI. However, 
IGBC has no authority to formally approve containers such as Ursack. 
Such approval will be periodically reviewed.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC)
USDA Forest Service
Federal Building - 200 East Broadway
Missoula, MT 59802
Phone: (406) 329-3434 | Fax: (406) 329-3171
Email: igbc at igbconline.org

Q: If a product is approved, does it mean that the product can be used 
on any public lands in the United States?
A: No. While many public land managers use the list of IGBC-approved 
products as a means for approving products for use on the lands within 
their jurisdiction, IGBC approval does not imply that products have 
automatically been approved for use on all public lands. Manufacturers 
and consumers should consult with specific land management agencies to 
confirm whether or not a product complies with local requirements.

[pct-l] Bear Canisters: Good for Bear, not for Hungry Hiker?
<ned at mountaineducation.org>
8/12/2014 2:12 PM

<johnmuirtrail at yahoogroups.com>
pct-l at backcountry.net

A little reflection on the use of Bear Canisters (BCs) by JMT vs. PCT thru hikers and weight loss...

I was wondering, with the requirement of BCs thru some of the roughest sections of the Pacific Crest Trail (basically all of the JMT), could it be so simple a statement as to say their food-space limitations are the reason why PCT thru hikers lose so much weight?

The JMT thru hiker starts out with a BC, but they aren't that hungry at first, so the BC works for them (at least for a while).

The PCT thru hiker starts using a BC after their first 30 or so days on-trail, certainly at the point already where they are really hungry, then are limited with the volume of food they can carry and must start a long-term food depreciation phase over the toughest trail and snow of their trip!

Is there any sense to this? BCs are good for the bear, but not so good for the food-starving, long-distance hiker!

So, I guess for the areas where BCs are required, it is best to major carbo-load before going in or do these sections after several weeks of packing in town food reserves, otherwise you're going to lose weight!

For some, this could be a good thing (to lose weight), but for the skinny people like me, I "bonk" pretty early without eating a ton of food (after being on the trail for at least a week).

So, a Bear Canister can be a real food volume limiter and we can't do anything about it except bring two canisters (which my son did when he flip-flopped the JMT a few years ago)...

Food for thought. (Hey, just sayin'!)

More information about the Pct-L mailing list