# Bear Proof on the Smith starting 2016



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

For anyone who doesn't already know. Starting this year the Smith is requiring that food be stored in a bear rated cooler / container or have an electric fence around them. It would suck to get there and find out at the launch.


----------



## seantana (Mar 5, 2015)

Link to the new regs: http://stateparks.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=71100

Link to IGBC Bear-resistant certified products: http://www.igbconline.org/images/pdf/150911_Certified_Products_List.pdf


----------



## PhilipJFry (Apr 1, 2013)

are no dry boxes considered bear resistant? or do you have to bring a second bear resistant cooler for dry foods too?


----------



## Fumble (May 23, 2013)

Anyone ever do the "courtesy inspection" for homemade containers?


----------



## seantana (Mar 5, 2015)

PhilipJFry said:


> are no dry boxes considered bear resistant? or do you have to bring a second bear resistant cooler for dry foods too?


RecreTec aluminum dry boxes are on the IGBC list.


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

I think it is only containers that have food in them. Keep in mind that if you don't have 500 quid to lay down on a new cooler or drybox you can use a portable electric fence. 

I heard a rumor that there is a board that makes up these new regs and many of the board membes are made up cooler reps. If it isn't a rumor I'm sure it is just a coincidence.


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)

Well, we did have a juvenile bear in camp when floated the Smith 3 years ago.


----------



## benpetri (Jul 2, 2004)

Is there a reason that Engel's 65 quart cooler is rated, but their other sizes are not?


----------



## Drooler (Mar 3, 2012)

Not saying it was you, El Flaco, but if people would pick up after themsevles and not leave shit out others wouldn't be penalized. It's BS that people neglect the rules in place and ruin it for everyone else. 
We have floated the river every year for the past 7 years, sometimes twice a year, and never had a bear in camp.
Maybe they should monitor the river more, as we have only seen rangers come down once.
Pretty soon regulations will be more stringent.


----------



## LSB (Mar 23, 2004)

That bear smelled Flaco's feet and thought they were a couple of carp carcasses that someone tossed on the bank.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

Drooler said:


> Not saying it was you, El Flaco, but if people would pick up after themsevles and not leave shit out others wouldn't be penalized. It's BS that people neglect the rules in place and ruin it for everyone else.
> We have floated the river every year for the past 7 years, sometimes twice a year, and never had a bear in camp.
> Maybe they should monitor the river more, as we have only seen rangers come down once.
> Pretty soon regulations will be more stringent.


You hit the nail on the head Drooler, they're already way more stringent than they used to be... MFWP's answer to problems is to restrict more use. Actually applying brain power, or god forbid money, to the problem is not on their radar. It's that way all over the state. Look at all the shitty ramps that wash out every few years or the way they fence off every square inch of riparian area surrounding the ramps leaving no room for actual access, staging or even loading of passengers.

They unintentionally promote these problems. For instance, there have been bear issues at the Scotty Allen camps since at least Y2K, they rarely caused any real problems because either the rangers warned people and they skipped the sites or people that used them had dogs. Last year it seems the rangers just closed sites when bears were sited. And now with no dogs, means bears are becoming less wary. I also believe the whole belief in "bear proofing" everything and "always carry your pepper spray" has made people complacent. Bears used to scare people, now folks kind of hope they'll run into one so they can test their pepper spray or worse yet the 44. I know it's not all MFWP's fault, but they sure promote the "babysitting" mantality - and we as Montanan's just look at the ground, kick a rock and so "ok, I guess you know best, I guess I'll quite playing in the sand box".

Bunch of wansies we are!!!


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

benpetri said:


> Is there a reason that Engel's 65 quart cooler is rated, but their other sizes are not?


I didn't research this to any great detail so I could be wrong, but my guess would be that that's the only one that they submitted for certification...maybe because the others aren't lockable or are missing some other key attribute.?...? "shoulder shrug"


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

Fumble said:


> Anyone ever do the "courtesy inspection" for homemade containers?


I have not been through the process.......but I did talk with the rangers a bit last year. Essentially what the process needs to show is that the box is crush proof, has multiple latching points, is lockable (to a bear, i.e. bolts work) and needs to be made of a durable material (no wood, thin plastics, etc). They showed the example of a horse panier, made of aluminum that had a cross bar added (with rivets if I recall correctly) spanning the narrow dimension near the lid and two additional butterfly latches on each side. This in essence made it impossible (sufficiently difficult?) to smash one side and and break the latches or get claws inside to rip off the lid. They made a point of saying it was no where near the degree of testing required to certify a product with IGBC. 

At the time they had a list of the sites doing the testing - I forget the details but it seemed to be most of the FWP regional offices and/or maybe regional USFS ranger stations. You should be able to call them, I'm sure either of them would give you details on the criteria being examined.


----------



## Brotorboat (Apr 14, 2009)

benpetri said:


> Is there a reason that Engel's 65 quart cooler is rated, but their other sizes are not?


Not sure where you were looking but, all sizes of the Deep Blue series are IGBC certified. I have a few different sizes and "IGBC Certified Bear Resistant Container" is actually stamped/molded into each cooler.


----------



## AirEms (Jan 16, 2011)

The bear issue on the Smith is not a new thing. The black bears have always been there and it is their home. Bears do what bears do, they look for the easiest food source. Unfortunately, people have corrupted the natural feeding behavior of bears by their shitty camp practices. If your group has a camp full of easy pickings for a bear what do you think will happen? This isn't rocket science folks. Now people are pissing and moaning over the fact that the state stepped in an set up some new regulations that are designed to help the problem. The problem being protecting the bears from sloppy, inconsiderate assholes. This is not the bears fault. A couple of years ago the state parks people had to go in and kill several bears that were "raiding" camps. The bears behavior was brought about by sloppy river camps and land owners (rumored, one outfitter in particular) who were feeding the bears. On a more important note, if you actually read the new regulations they want bear proof coolers and dry boxes(most of which are) or bear fences for those who plan on a sloppy camp or you can still use the old tried and true hang food from a tree in an appropriate manner. It may not have been you but it was your friends actions that brought this about. So, in a way, every time you allowed slop to happen you contributed to the action. 
Later, Mark


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

Are you yelling at everyone or just me? You don't know me or my friends and calling any of us "sloppy" or "assholes" is way out of line.
I didn't see anyone "pissing and moaning" about the state or new regs and I'm pretty sure everyone here knows that a bear poops in the woods.  I posted this so that others wouldn't find out about the new regs at the launch and I thought I said that in the original post. I meant to. Yes the reg includes coolers AND dryboxes because they assume people will store food in both, but if you don't have any food in your drybox during the inspection, you will be okay if it is not bear rated. That is directly from the mouth of one of the rangers at Camp Baker last year.

I've seen a lot of rafters in the last three years and river folk seem especially mindful of camp and camping etiquette. I can honestly say that I have never seen a rafting group that was "sloppy" although I'm sure that it happens. But one thing to keep in mind is that bears will come into camp and search for food even when campers are being very careful. (Keep in mind that WE are food) No that doesn't make it their fault, it's just the nature of the beast, again, bears poop in the woods. And of course "sloppy" campers have made it worse I'm sure. 

These regs are being adopted because that is the direction EVERYTHING is going. All Outdoor agencies are under increasing pressure to adopt regs that protect the rivers and people. At some time in the future ALL overnight trips will be bear proof, grooved, fire-panned etc, with the strictest of guidelines. Safety and Leave No Trace is the idea and it is a good thing but my point is that everything is heading that way and that is what were seeing here. 

I don't know if you meant your reply as personal as it looks. The tone of a person is very hard to read in an anonymous forum and your last one reads very much a certain way.


----------



## AirEms (Jan 16, 2011)

No ob1 that was not an attack toward you and I sincerely apologize if it came off that way. Some of the feeling expressed in that post was over flow from other conversation on other sites. Once again I'm sorry that post had such a negative tone and it was not ment at you in any way. Thank you for posting about the new regs for the general info to the group. 
Have a great day!
Mark


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

AirEms after reading your reply again this morning I figured you were venting some frustration in general. I'm not usually over sensitive and I probably should have waited until today to reply. 
You are obviously passionate about this stuff which is good. If everyone were like that there would be less problems so thank you. 

On a separate note, this last spring you mentioned that you had a 155 Yeti stolen from you. Since we boaters are a small group here in GF I'll keep an eye out. Did you have any identifying marks or labels or ???.


----------



## Hold my Beer (Dec 29, 2015)

Let me tell you this about that. Bears were not a problem on the Smith until one specific land (lodge) owner on the Smith started actively feeding the bears for the enjoyment of his idiot clients. This included having the bears walk up on his deck and INTO the lodge to be hand fed. The problems at river camps started only AFTER this shit show. Montana Fish W&P is/was well aware of this activity but acting on this information would require work and some basic level of competence. Both of which are non-existent and the government level. They, FW&P, Forest Service et al actively look for and intentionally create conflict at every opportunity. They then use said conflict to write up some regs. because that is what lets them justify their so called jobs.


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

Hold my Beer said:


> They, FW&P, Forest Service et al actively look for and intentionally create conflict at every opportunity. They then use said conflict to write up some regs. because that is what lets them justify their so called jobs.


"Never let a good crisis go to waste" Rahm Emanuel. 

And if you don't have one, create one.

That must have been the Lodge (idiot) that AirEMS was talking about.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

Hold my Beer said:


> Let me tell you this about that. Bears were not a problem on the Smith until one specific land (lodge) owner on the Smith started actively feeding the bears for the enjoyment of his idiot clients. This included having the bears walk up on his deck and INTO the lodge to be hand fed. The problems at river camps started only AFTER this shit show. Montana Fish W&P is/was well aware of this activity but acting on this information would require work and some basic level of competence. Both of which are non-existent and the government level. They, FW&P, Forest Service et al actively look for and intentionally create conflict at every opportunity. They then use said conflict to write up some regs. because that is what lets them justify their so called jobs.


I wholly agree with the bottom 2/3rds of your post. But I don't see how the behavior of one idiot at his lodge can be responsible for bear problems throughout the canyon. I'm not sure which lodge you're referring to, but I can guess - used to have a bunch of 6666's in the name perhaps? Anyways it's bear country and always has been. You put a lot of people in close proximity to bears and there is bound to be issues at some point, concentrate those people at specific camping sites every night and bears (and other critters) will become habituated - even if people are generally clean. The odors persist, curiosity is there and fear is waning = eventual conflict. 

Moving on to the general discussion - My personal belief is that the biggest change in recent years (since 2010) is no dogs around the camps coupled with the Smith being an easy float that any idiot can muster and it accelerates my theory presented above. As far as folks not caring, many Smith floaters truly don't or if they do care, they simply don't know. Aside from maybe the John Day, I've never seen more ill prepared people on a river than then on the Smith. Many of the folks are classic campground campers that get talked into giving it a shot. They don't even realize that the camp host isn't going to clean the site when they leave. So even if they don't truly litter, they'll dump bacon grease into the fire, drain their pasta water in the bushes and fling that burnt end of hot dog into the grass with out ever thinking. That is what the bears, raccoons and mice are after - not your cooler or dry box nor especially you. They just end up moving onto those things once the easy pickin's are cleaned up. 

FWP's answer to all education is the "Ranger talk" prior to launch. In my experience most folks are kicking rocks, watching an eagle soar or dreaming of the first fish they're going to catch. They might hear the term micro-trash and wonder. But eventually they'll chock it off to a bunch of hippy bs and start watching the gophers clean up their breakfast, completely clueless to the fact that they've just witnessed the problem in action. Most trips that leave the Camp Baker are lead by someone that got invited on a trip last year and fell in love with the river. If their previous TL was experienced they may have learned some things and might lead a good trip, but they will assuredly make mistakes and miss little details - probably food related. If the previous TL was just like our new guy then all kinds of shit is likely to happen and new participants will be learning the WRONG way to do things. It really becomes the blind leading the blind. Truly experienced multi-day boaters obviously know more, care more and therefore set a better example but we're seriously outnumbered on rivers like the Smith, John Day, Grand Rhonde. Things with more serious water deters many of the give-a-shitters and things seem to be better on those rivers (Idaho 4 rivers, Colorado permitted stretches, etc.). I guess my point here is that MFWP looks at those rivers for examples of how to manage issues, but what they don't realize is that there is a significant element of internal education and ethics sharing that underlies the regulatory "talks". The other thing they either don't realize or are trying to skimp on is obviously enforcement. I've heard Smith River rangers explicitly state they don't want to be the police... well that's fine and dandy but unfortunately they need to be. People are just not following the rules, it started with dogs, now it's bears. Soon it will be latrines - fire pans... 

Hell maybe that's it. Through a bunch more requirements like groovers, fire pans, haul all your own firewood and it'll thin out the yahoos..... Well not for me, I like the fire rings and I love the shitters so I hope that FWP devotes some effort and funds to enforcing all the rules they love enacting.


----------



## GreenWall (Oct 20, 2015)

Ok now I know why I have been getting calls for two days about Bear certified dryboxes.


----------



## patrick l (Mar 8, 2012)

Spot on elk, I've had that felling at camp baker, nice, easy going rangers but don't wanna be cops. It's one thing to have the approved gear at launch, but how will they enforce the drunk hipster-Simmsgearedout-trustee that didn't put up his bear fence 30 miles down river? I suppose we'll have ranger visits every night then. The can of worms is open, will they get their hands dirty?


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

*My experiences on Smith River*

I am one who remembers the good old days when we could just show up and float most rivers. How ever more use and a few people who trash out things and dis respect both the environment and other boaters have made the good old days fond memories and not reality.

My two cents is the Smith River Rangers do a really good job for what they have to work with.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

okieboater said:


> I am one who remembers the good old days when we could just show up and float most rivers. How ever more use and a few people who trash out things and dis respect both the environment and other boaters have made the good old days fond memories and not reality.
> 
> My two cents is the Smith River Rangers do a really good job for what they have to work with.


Okieboater, That maybe true, but...they shouldn't have to make silk purses out of Pig's ears. I'd love to hear your opinions on what's been done especially well, but in my experience the rangers actually do very little. They just try to operate off the radar. 

What works well, IMO, is the original plan for Smith River State Park (this is what I expect you see). The original management plan worked well for a decade and a half but it is slowly being dismantled. The rangers presence has always been hands off and in all honesty they shouldn't be termed rangers. In essence, they're maintenance staff that do nothing more than note user digressions and maintain boat camps. In essence, the ranger crew is there pretty much to relocate latrines and clean out fire pits. Occasionally to organize noxious weed eradications (using a volunteer force, nod nod, wink wink - (other ways to get on the river). They don't even address egregious issues on the water, they just report issues to their supervisors who write warning letters to trip leaders. This is simply not effective, much like a puppy peeing on the carpet, the only meaningful way of making a point is to address an issue as it's happening.


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

I am not a Montana local but wish life had allowed me to be as I love the country after a few years of trips. Now retired, paid off my house, kids live near by and no way to convince my wife to move North.

Canoed the Lewis and Clark area of the Missouri River out of Ft Benton not long ago and for last three years been blessed to float the Smith first week of June. 

I do not know what the management plan is for the Smith and could not find it on the Smith Web Site, so I can only go on my experience on the Smith and other rivers.

No sense in listing all the rivers over the years I have been on multiple times but it includes most of the western multi day rivers IE Grand Canyon, Middle Fork, Main Salmon, Selway, Dino and others. I fell in love with the Smith on my very first trip. Of all the rivers I have been blessed to run, the Smith has been the most user friendly and one of the cleanest. Our last float had 6 kids along all under 12 years old so it is kid friendly. I have seen my share of all kinds of boaters and camp sites over the years. I say this to reference the Smith is not my only river to float.

I do not know about the law enforcement side of the Smith cause we never had to use it or seen someone doing something to report.

My group believes and leave no trash and pickup what ever trash we find. I do not remember finding any trash on the Smith camp sites we used. 

I think the Smith pit toilets are a great thing. The only other river with pit toilets I know is the Rogue and many of them have been taken out. 

I like the assigned camp sites. This means floaters can enjoy the day and not have to rush to claim a site.

The Ranger talks at the Smith have been very good. 

We use the shuttle service located at the take out and can not ask for more competent people and top level customer service.

We get gas and food in White Sulphur Springs and friendly people there with that pie place being world class. Always fill up at the take out gas station there at the interstate. Good gas, cold drinks, ice cream - the pizza there is not recommended but plenty good spots to eat down the road.

Bottom line, either my group has been lucky three years running or some one in Montana is doing the right things. 

You locals who are on the Smith a lot know more than I do about the need for law enforcement Rangers on the river. I am a visitor and can only pay money for services and permit, no vote on the State Game and Fish. If you guys think the Smith needs daily gun toter Rangers for enforcement, I will gladly pay my share of the increased cost to provide that.

But, so far the Rangers, locals, fellow boaters, wildlife (no bears but lots of others) have been good folks to hang with. Zero complaints from my group.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 1, 2010)

I second what okieboater said and it was 7 kids 6-13 I think. The kids are still talking about the great trip they had with Dave and Joe.


----------



## Fumble (May 23, 2013)

elkhaven said:


> Hell maybe that's it. Through a bunch more requirements like groovers, fire pans, haul all your own firewood and it'll thin out the yahoos..... Well not for me, I like the fire rings and I love the shitters so I hope that FWP devotes some effort and funds to enforcing all the rules they love enacting.


Requiring groovers definitely raises the bar on at least TLs but also makes even newbies think hey we are going through all this effort to pack out our shit maybe I shouldn't just through that half eaten hog dog into the bushes.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

Thanks Okie and Bighorn. I agree the Smith is a wonderful place and while I may sound very down on it, I'm really just down on one primary loss - Dogs. I started to write a response yesterday but it turned into a book so I ditched it - I'll be short and sweet if possible.

My problem with the Smith, really FWP in general is they try to manage through regulations. If a reg doesn't work, they inact another - they DO NOT try to change enforcement. In most situations they simply hope for self regulation - which in general I love. I'm a hands off kind of guy, but unfortunately many folks are not. This becomes a problem when there are issues; on the Smith the largest issue used to be dogs. The managers decided the easiest way to manage a dog problem was to ban them. The DID NOT TRY to enforce the regulations they had: Dogs on leashes, clean up after them, etc. They would simply warn users and leave it at that. No citations, no bans from future trips, no real consequences. I have a real problem with this type of management, largely because I now have to leave half of my family at home because FWP took the easy way out. They didn't need armed officers on the river to enforce a leash law, they needed common sense from the managers and probably a bit more money. 

Now with bear proofing I see the exact same scenario playing out. Bears have become a problem over the past 3-4 years, increasingly so each year. They asked folks to keep a cleaner site, avoid sites with bears and generally behave "bear aware" that apparently hasn't worked (likely for several reasons). When you talk with the rangers about why this regulation is coming, they say "because your fellow floaters aren't preventing it" - they thrust the responsibility solely on the users. They have not tried an onsite inspection/recommendation system, where rangers can stop in and look at sites, discuss what's done well and what could use improvement... they have just gone on as they always have, hands off. 

The bear regulation does not bother me, it actually makes sense to be cautious in this case. What worries me is what if results aren't as expected... will they enforce the rule, or add further restrictions? 

Now looking forward, if the bearboxes and fences don't work, then what? There haven't been attacks, the issue has been animals in/near camp. The bears are responding to scents from when food was out, it's in your clothes, tents, tarps, on the tables, they're going to smell it and unless they are afraid, they will approach camp. The problem has primarily been proximity to camps to my knowledge. I haven't heard of any attacks and only a few "break ins". So my ultimate fear is what will FWP do if issues still persist, or get worse? I don't see them enforcing anything and what I see as the likely result will be further loss to user (less sites available, time restrictions, or ???). 

FWIW, I think the system works fine as is. I don't really see problems, I just hear about them from rangers or as rationale for more regs. I'd be fine if there were no rangers and far fewer regulations. But that isn't going to happen so I'd like them to work with what they have before enacting more regulations. Ultimately I put no fault to the rangers themselves; it's the leadership, the budget, the plan.

I guess I wasn't very short, nor very sweet. Sorry but a lot here to discuss.

Thanks for listening to me,

Brian


----------



## Sembob (Feb 27, 2014)

The new Smith River bear regs are proactive not reactive. 


Jim


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

Yes Jim, I agree it might be proactive. but I'm not convinced that it's purely preventative... I have an impression, maybe from my discussions with the rangers last year, that this policy was derived from incidents over the past few years.

BUT, regardless my fear still stands. What might happen if this program doesn't live up to expectations? What might be the next step? I've seen what FWP policy can do - and I'm worried.


----------



## oarboatman (Jul 20, 2006)

I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news but I've never had a bear problem with dogs in camp (pun intended). I've boated with black, brown the white bears and dogs always secure the scene and sound the alarm when intruders approach. Not all dogs or owners are created equal but addressing the people causing problems would be a reasonable approach.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

oarboatman said:


> I don't mean to be the bearer of bad news but I've never had a bear problem with dogs in camp (pun intended). I've boated with black, brown the white bears and dogs always secure the scene and sound the alarm when intruders approach. Not all dogs or owners are created equal but addressing the people causing problems would be a reasonable approach.


Well that's my belief as well... I didn't want to confuse matters, nor lengthen my diatribe but I think the dog ban has a huge bearing on the current issue. As to causation (for the dog ban), that again is a problem I have with FWP's decision. They didn't addresss the problem - whether it was owners or pets, they simply eliminated the root. Can't have dog issues without dogs, right? I wonder if they're wondering about that now? Doubtfull I guess.


----------



## oarboatman (Jul 20, 2006)

Elkhaven,

We finally agree 👍
Hope your water season is as good as ours. Keep in coming 149" at mt A... Yes that's GOOD


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

oarboatman said:


> Elkhaven,
> 
> We finally agree ��
> Hope your water season is as good as ours. Keep in coming 149" at mt A... Yes that's GOOD


ah, this isn't the first time is it? I've always appreciated your opinion, even if it was bullshit 


edit: Mt A, being Mt Ashland? We're doing ok here in sw mt, but anything can happen from here on out.


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

As usual, I have enjoyed this thread.

As usual, I doubt if we accomplished much except being able to vent.

Both Bighorn and myself are retired, grandfathers and long time river runners. Both of us teach our kids and set examples we hope inspire others to respect our rivers and have a good time without upsetting others. I think our approach is typical of almost all river runners. I hope our approach wins over time.

It is a sign of the times that more and more people are not responsible for their actions and the federales that are there to enforce the rules spend more money each year and do less enforcement on the bad guys but more rules for the law abiding.

Maybe with our fellow Buzzards we can continue to at least get the word out both good and bad and incentivize better behavior.


----------



## Sembob (Feb 27, 2014)

I think most people practice pretty clean camping on the Smith. I have only floated it maybe 8 times but never have I came upon a trashed camp. I'm sure it happens but I bet not often. 


Jim


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

Sembob said:


> I think most people practice pretty clean camping on the Smith. I have only floated it maybe 8 times but never have I came upon a trashed camp. I'm sure it happens but I bet not often.
> 
> 
> Jim


I don't see problems on the river either, but every time I talk to a ranger it's nearly crisis mode. According the them we're all a bunch of slobs.... It's ALWAYS the most emphasized part of their schpeel.... the camps are too messy and that's promoting wildlife problems....usually racoons, but currently bears. I may sound like a pain in the ass. I'm really very laid back but every year it's some new cirisis for the Smith managers. I'm fucking tired of it. Sorry for the rant but it's always something at camp baker. I'm glad some folks get low key floats, but too me it's usually way more stress than it should be. Maybe I should just ignore more.


----------



## Wavewrangler (Jun 12, 2013)

Sembob said:


> The new Smith River bear regs are proactive not reactive.
> 
> 
> Jim


Jim that is the least accurate post on this thread.
We were on a couple years ago and the shut the entire canyon down to go in and kill 5 bears that were terrorizing camps and were not afraid of humans. We were camped on the right side of the river but all the rattlesnake camps were ravaged the last night. Even saw the carnage of a bear eaten guide seat.

It's also been my experience that the Rangers have been so negative about the trash in the canyon that it feels like they're talking you out of going.

What the Smith needs is a big ole rapid on it, keep it respecatable.


----------



## treemanji (Jan 23, 2011)

I haven't read the entire thread this may have been talked about, they need to define bear proof. It would not be good to show up ready to launch only to be told your dry box or cooler is not bear proof, this is something that should be clearly defined and not at a ranger's discretion.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 1, 2010)

treemanji said:


> I haven't read the entire thread this may have been talked about, they need to define bear proof. It would not be good to show up ready to launch only to be told your dry box or cooler is not bear proof, this is something that should be clearly defined and not at a ranger's discretion.


 I think they did a good job of defining what is acceptable


Montana State Parks :: Be Bear Aware


----------



## Sembob (Feb 27, 2014)

Seems like the rapids have little to no impact on bear activity in camps as I have been on other permitted rivers with bear issues. Middle Fork Salmon and the Green. I haven't done the Rogue but have heard of problems there. The Smith is the only one I know of adapting such preventative measures. I think they should be pretty easy to follow. The electric fence system will likely be the easiest or least expensive for most. I think that FWP should lend these out to floaters who request them. I have a good friend who works for Fish and Game on Kodiak Island and he says that is what they employ up there. 



Jim


----------



## Lebowski (Aug 19, 2015)

I've only been on the Smith a couple of times, once in 2009 and then again last spring. I honestly don't remember the ranger being real adamant about anything, especially trash. Seemed to me to be just the regular ol' clean up after yourself talk you get on any river that has a talk before you launch. Of course, we got on about a week after the season started, so maybe it was too early for them to fully warm up and get the rant going.


----------



## bucketboater (Jul 9, 2012)

Wavewrangler said:


> Jim that is the least accurate post on this thread.
> We were on a couple years ago and the shut the entire canyon down to go in and kill 5 bears that were terrorizing camps and were not afraid of humans. We were camped on the right side of the river but all the rattlesnake camps were ravaged the last night. Even saw the carnage of a bear eaten guide seat.
> 
> It's also been my experience that the Rangers have been so negative about the trash in the canyon that it feels like they're talking you out of going.
> ...


Killing 5 bears and shutting down a river for bears being bears is pathetic. lol at "terrorizing camps" last year 60 people were killed by bees 30 by domestic dogs and 24 by lighting. In that same time one person was killed by a black bear. They have been around long before you and I. The least you could do is help preserve them and buy a fucking descent cooler and pick up your trash.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

bucketboater said:


> Killing 5 bears and shutting down a river for bears being bears is pathetic. lol at "terrorizing camps" last year 60 people were killed by bees 30 by domestic dogs and 24 by lighting. In that same time one person was killed by a black bear. They have been around long before you and I. The least you could do is help preserve them and buy a fucking descent cooler and pick up your trash.


Why attack wavewrangler? He didn't propose that there wasn't a problem, he just stated that it wasn't premptive; and he sited examples as to why. 

But thanks for presenting the stats BB, one of the problems is that people aren't afraid of black bears and as such many folks around here, where we have griz as well, don't particularly worry about black bears. Maybe that's one of the problems on the Smith? Curriously, have you been on the Smith? What do you know... are there griz? Do you have a clue? Maybe we have a reason to worry about aggresive predators, black or brown?

I've wasted more time on this post than most, and I haven't argued against the regs, I'm just worried where this will lead. That worry stems from a history of extreme solutions to otherwise manageable problems by MFWP. 

I don't think I've stated it, but I'm just fine with the new regs on bear gear but I hope that I've been abundantly clear that I'm not so sure about the management of the river as a whole.

To OB, Sorry I've hihjacked this thread and detracted from the point, otherwise tremanji would have known that you were simply warning us all of the new regs - not starting an arguement about them.


----------



## Wavewrangler (Jun 12, 2013)

Thanks Elk!
That's my point Bucket, keep a clean camp and practice bear food precautions. I'm not afraid of being eaten by a black bear, I'm afraid of it climbing on and popping my boat. Any A-hole with a boat can go down the Smith because there is lower skill involved in rowing it. People with less respect for the river which is evident in camp care. 
I've been down plenty of whitewater stretches in griz and black bear habitat, been lucky enough to see them too, just not looking for food in my camp. Also, like I said, never had them in my camp on the smith either. 

My issue is the typical FWP good ol boy network in which you can only use Joe or Bob's box even though you already own a comparable one. They should be more active on the river instead of sitting at Baker trying to scare people away from going. 


Sent from my iPad using Mountain Buzz


----------



## Sembob (Feb 27, 2014)

Maybe they should set up campground hosts at each set of camps. Then they could come in to camp each night and educate us all on keeping a nice tidy camp. Whatever it takes to stop the bullying going on at Camp Baker. 


Jim


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

Sembob said:


> Maybe they should set up campground hosts at each set of camps. Then they could come in to camp each night and educate us all on keeping a nice tidy camp. Whatever it takes to stop the bullying going on at Camp Baker.
> 
> 
> Jim


I volunteer for Sunset!


----------



## Sembob (Feb 27, 2014)

Brian, I sure wish we had a like button. 


Jim


----------



## Pblastic (Dec 8, 2015)

I want canyon depth. Go sit on the tenderfoot all day long!!!! Like! Like!


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## spider (Jun 20, 2011)

Everyone knows the only way to keep bears out of camp is to bring excessive amounts of liquor and beer. Bears don't come into camp if you stay up all night.


----------



## mtgreenheads (Jul 15, 2011)

What do folks think about existing dry boxes not identified as being "bear proof". Hate to buy a new box.


----------



## Mattchu (May 29, 2015)

Nanny state heading to montana. Yayyy


----------



## Sembob (Feb 27, 2014)

Mattchu said:


> Nanny state heading to montana. Yayyy



Bull shit. This is a good law and these kind of laws have been standard practice in grizzly country for decades. We always practiced bear proof food storage in the Bob. How awesome is it that bears will visit camps regularly just because some unknowing campers previously allowed them a meal? It is about time for these regulations. 


Jim


----------



## patrick l (Mar 8, 2012)

You have to get a new box..
Or somehow hang your 50 pounds of gear/food, or rent/buy a bear fence. 
Total nanny state.

Sent from my QMV7B using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## patrick l (Mar 8, 2012)

First of all its a black bear problem.
And yes, just because you and I practice good food storage doesn't mean dick. But this is the most non practical way to address it. Typical government laziness kicking the can down the road. 

Sent from my QMV7B using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## Sembob (Feb 27, 2014)

Every permitted River in the country comes with tons of regulations. The one in Montana likely has the fewest. Since you don't need a groover, fire pan or ash can I bet you could find some way to bear proof your food. Ought to be pretty easy for those of us that camp around here already. 
I have a good friend who works for fish and game on Kodiak Island. They all use the electric fence. 


Jim


----------



## patrick l (Mar 8, 2012)

Don't get me wrong, it'll help weed out some of the weekend warriors, but just because a group has a fence at camp baker doesn't mean they'll be putting it up every night at 7:30 after drinking 20 beers and fishing all day. How will this be enforced? Not a thought out plan as far as I'm concerned. 

Sent from my QMV7B using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## Sembob (Feb 27, 2014)

Enforcement will be tough. I'm sure groovers were a tough sell to many but have now become part of the culture of most river multi day personally do not see it as a "Nanny Law". I think that would be more along the lines of the State saying "you can't go down there because you might get killed by bears". I feel this is more a regulation to help protect a resource/wildlife. 


Jim


----------



## FatGuynaLitlBoat (Nov 24, 2013)

Does anyone know anything about welding lockable tabs to existing dryboxes?


----------



## patrick l (Mar 8, 2012)

Can't do it, wont count, unless you want to pay the 900 bucks or whatever it is to have them test it down in west. Then basically if your box passes the bear test you get the stamp of approval. 

Sent from my QMV7B using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## Mattchu (May 29, 2015)

Sell your igloo cooler for $15 and buy a $700 "bearproof" yeti. Thanks .gov.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

patrick l said:


> Can't do it, wont count, unless you want to pay the 900 bucks or whatever it is to have them test it down in west. Then basically if your box passes the bear test you get the stamp of approval.
> 
> Sent from my QMV7B using Mountain Buzz mobile app


This is not true, there is certification program and it doesn't cost $900. It was relatively simple sounding when the Rangers talked about it last year at camp baker. Welding tabs and a cross brace so it can't be crushed was what their demo box (it was a horse panier) had done to it. 

I believe it s the forest service that administered this program, but I can't recall. 

What Patrick is talking about is to have a product line certified by the IGBF or what ever the acronym is

Sent from my XT1585 using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## Sembob (Feb 27, 2014)

Mattchu said:


> Sell your igloo cooler for $15 and buy a $700 "bearproof" yeti. Thanks .gov.



Oh look a camp at the put in. Oh look there's camp with a metal fire ring and a pit toilet. Oh look a well developed take out with a camp host even to keep vandalism at a minimum. Thanks gov. 


Jim


----------



## Lebowski (Aug 19, 2015)

I think the bearproof requirement is just fine. When I get on the Smith again, i'll buy a fence. Only a few hundred bucks and you can make it a community fence by splitting the cost with your buddies. Remember all the troubles with griz in Yellowstone decades back? A fed bear is a dead bear? When bears associate humans with food, it's never a good thing.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

FWIW,

The quote below is from the IGBC website (obviously my guess earlier was wrong). The Rangers I talked to last year at Camp Baker made the courtesy inspection seem fairly easy, but obviously the box needs to be stout to begin with. They said the primary concern was lockable latches and that it was crush proof (a bear cant crush the body or the lid to create an accessable gap).

I'm not expert on any of this, I'm just repeating what I was told at the put in last year and I did a few minutes of research. To me the simplest and most inclusive fix would be the fence. Lots of good reasons have already mentioned up thread. Good luck to all.


*Q: The IGBC website provides a list of approved bear-resistant products that are manufactured commercially. Can products not commercially available (i.e., homemade) also be approved as bear-resistant by the IGBC?*
_*A:* Yes. The IGBC offers courtesy inspections for homemade products made for personal use. This is a visual inspection and is made on a limited and case-by-case basis. Please contact the IGBC (__[email protected]__) or the US Forest Service (406-329-3664) for information about courtesy inspections._​


----------



## mtgreenheads (Jul 15, 2011)

I'm thinking it's cheaper and easier to pick up a fence rather than rebuild boxes. Do folks on this thread have any experience with fences on the market?

Thanks

Bob


----------



## seantana (Mar 5, 2015)

mtgreenheads said:


> I'm thinking it's cheaper and easier to pick up a fence rather than rebuild boxes. Do folks on this thread have any experience with fences on the market?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bob


I think I might pick one of these up if/when I finally get a Smith permit: 
Amazon.com : Havahart SS-2LGX Battery-Operated Nuisance Animal Intermittent 1 Mile Electric Fence Charger : Patio, Lawn & Garden

Per:
http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/f44/bear-proofing-portable-electric-fence-56444.html#post389101


----------



## Pblastic (Dec 8, 2015)

I lost my horses for about 17 hours in the bob Marshall wilderness because a very nosy mustang thought it would be a good idea to nose the fence. We used a battery pack that lasted about a weeks worth of charge. Only used at night! Came with a solar unit if needed. It's a good idea!! But my experience is to keep animals in not out!! Should work both ways!! Freeked me out every time I touched it.


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

mtgreenheads said:


> I'm thinking it's cheaper and easier to pick up a fence rather than rebuild boxes. Do folks on this thread have any experience with fences on the market?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bob



https://www.google.com/search?q=por....10495j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

I'm thinking of doing the same thing. It seems like it may be the most versatile option. Yet another $200 dollar piece of equipment to buy and find room for on my boat. But on the up side, I can put the tents inside of the fence for a little added security, especially for the little ones.


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

ob1coby said:


> https://www.google.com/search?q=por....10495j0j8&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8


I'm thinking of doing the same thing. It seems like it may be the most versatile option. Yet another $200 dollar piece of equipment to buy and find room for on my boat. but on the up side, I can put the tents inside of the fence for a little added security, especially for the little ones.


----------



## Lebowski (Aug 19, 2015)

Just be careful when you get up in the middle of the night to take a whiz!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 1, 2010)

Bear Fence Kit for Campers, Electric Bear Fence


This one is .35 joules, cabelas sells .12 joule set ups, not powerful enough IMHO


----------



## StarDog89 (Feb 20, 2016)

mtgreenheads said:


> I'm thinking it's cheaper and easier to pick up a fence rather than rebuild boxes. Do folks on this thread have any experience with fences on the market?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bob


On our trip last year a member of our party knew the ranger at camp baker. He had told us of the upcoming bear proofing reg and offered us to demo this:
Counter Assault Pentagon™ Electric Bear Fence : Cabela's

Someone mentioned .12 joules isn't enough; I can't comment on that since nothing explored our camps but the fence itself was not a hassle at all. It's up in about 5 min and easily fit 4 boats worth of coolers and boxes inside it. 

It packs up small and is pretty light. The only downside was hopping over it since I think you are supposed to keep the battery on the inside of the perimeter so it isn't knocked over, etc. and power is lost. We had a couple of close call crotch zaps...

New here by the way. Been stalking for awhile, finally felt like I had something constructive to add to a thread.


----------

