Topic
Ursack Thumbs Down
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Home › Forums › Gear Forums › Gear (General) › Ursack Thumbs Down
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 14, 2011 at 6:46 pm #1736666
hikinggranny said, "I suspect that within a few years, we'll see bears getting into some of the canisters."
Yellow-yellow, the genius Adirondack bear can open bear vaults pretty efficiently.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/nyregion/25bear.htmlIn the ADK Eastern High Peaks region, hard commercial bear canisters are required so no Ursacks (or bear vaults) there.
May 14, 2011 at 7:44 pm #1736678I don't think that a bear canister alone is going to keep my food safe. However, I've never had a bear incident with my food and I suspect there's a good chance I've spent as much or more time camping in Yosemite Valley than anyone on this site. So, I reckon that I must be doing something right.
Let's pose this hypothetical question: If weight and size were not an issue (say you were car camping), and you weren't camped near any cliffs, and you had a canister and an Ursack at your disposal, which one would you put your food in for the night? I bet most people would pick the canister.
That doesn't mean it's a bad product… like everything, it has its plusses and minuses. You just have to weigh all the factors: Am I capable of tying the knots correctly? Am I in an area where the bears are active and proficient lock-pickers or am I in an area where I rarely encounter bears? What are the consequences of losing my food? What are the consequences of a bear getting my food? How much weight am I willing to carry – a canister, an Ursack, or nothing at all?
I still fail to see why the NPS would disallow something like the Ursack without reason. I highly doubt they're getting "campaign contributions" from all the bear canister makers out there. Their desire is to keep bears from getting food and it seems the burden of proof falls on the shoulders of Ursack or any other manufacturer of a new product to demonstrate that their product, in the hands of the average user, is sound. Maybe the Ursack IS just as good as a bear canister if the knots are tied properly or the bag is anchored properly… I don't know. Maybe the mode of failure is indeed user error – and that's frustrating for everyone out there who thinks they can use them correctly – but I listened to the recording of that court session a few months ago and even though I was rooting for Ursack, I didn't get the sense that the NPS was being unreasonable. It was clear that the lawyer and judge had no knowledge of bears or the technical nature of kevlar – they were just looking at the numbers and the bottom line – keeping food from bears. I guess I have enough faith to believe that they ruled this way for a reason. I certainly hope that Ursack can gather more evidence or redesign their product so we can get an alternative to canisters.
And remember, don't leave your canister near the edges of cliffs or the banks of raging rivers. The more you know, the better:
May 14, 2011 at 8:34 pm #1736697Let's pose this hypothetical question: If weight and size were not an issue (say you were car camping), and you weren't camped near any cliffs, and you had a canister and an Ursack at your disposal, which one would you put your food in for the night? I bet most people would pick the canister.
I can easily answer that question because I've done so during my last two car camping trail projects. I have a Bearikade Expedition and 2 Ursacks (1 all-white, 1 green). In neither case did I bring the Bearikade. Now there's another trip in about two months where I may bring the Bearikade, but only because I'll probably need more food capacity than both Ursacks can provide.
May 14, 2011 at 10:04 pm #1736716too bad bears can't read. They would get a good laugh from this thread.
May 15, 2011 at 7:22 am #1736760Rather than debate the merits of the court decision, what 'bear'ing does this ruling have on the ability to utilize UL techniques in the high Sierra?
(My informal definition of the high Sierra is the 120 mile long eastern crest ranging from Cirque Peak in the south, before the Sierra taper off into the Kern plateau, up to Matterhorn peak just south of Twin Lakes on the NE border of Yosemite. This region has all the Sierra 14k peaks, the 12k passes, and 10-11k meadows/lakes.)
I use a BV450 (solo), and because I don't want to bother spending my mornings attempting to arrange my pack just right so that I'm not hunched over like Quasimodo, I've opted for an internal frame pack (Osprey) that keeps a few inches between me and the bag. So, right out of the box, I've added 2 lbs for the canister + at least 1 extra pound for the frame.
What are other people's experience with this conundrum? Is it best to just accept an additional 3lbs as a sort of negative handicap when calculating weight? That is, if a good UL target is 15lbs in a non-Sierra environment, then would 18lbs (with the addition of the handicap) achieve a comparable goal?
May 15, 2011 at 8:08 am #1736770older show but still good:
[audio src="http://www.wildebeat.net/audio/WildeBeat-E144-ext.mp3" /]
May 15, 2011 at 8:42 am #1736780Thanks for that link, Anna. It seemed to be a good summary of the issues and history involving food protective devices. I loved Josh Leavitt's concept of an electrified food bag.
May 15, 2011 at 8:44 am #1736782Looks like Sergeant got burned out with the Wildebeat interviews?
May 15, 2011 at 9:48 am #1736803NY State DEC: Bear Resistant Canisters FAQs
http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/30876.html
"Why not allow the use of soft-sided bear-resistant bags and home-made canisters (empty paint cans)?"Soft-sided bear-resistant bags are commercially made and constructed of a material that purportedly cannot be torn open by bears. DEC tested these bags in the EHPZ and also documented the experience of campers who have used them in the EHPZ. In two cases bears were able to tear through the material and obtain food from the bags. In addition to failing to keep food from bears, in those instances when a bear attempts to open a soft bag, the food inside becomes pulverized and mixed with bear saliva and dirt, rendering it unsuited for human consumption. DEC determined that these bags are not a reliable or practical method of storing food in the EHPZ, and should not be specifically allowed under the regulation. Food stored in a bear-resistant canister is not compromised when a bear attempts to open the canister."
"DEC considered the use of alternative methods for keeping food away from bears such as large metal food lockers or pole hanging systems installed near concentrated camping areas and at the interior outposts to keep food away from bears. However, these systems are "non-conforming structures in wilderness areas" according to the State Land Master Plan, and can not be installed in the High Peaks Wildereness Area."
The Adirondacks and Catskills are very thoroughly protected by the NY constitution:
"… shall be forever kept as wild forest lands."May 15, 2011 at 9:53 am #1736805"Looks like Sergeant got burned out with the Wildebeat interviews?"
Bet it was lack of funding.May 15, 2011 at 10:02 am #1736809I support the ability of the Parks to make a final choice and I don't appreciate the legal action that just represents waste.
I for one don't want some "standard". I want the people who deal with the problem on a day-to-day basis to make up rules based upon what they view as most effective. The entire problem with standards is that they only rarely capture the entire story. If you fall into some legalistic standard that isn't effective, you need to change the standard but the easiest and most effective solution is to let the Rangers who run the Park do their job without the need to jump through hoops when a standard proves to be insufficient.
For those of you who don't like it. Hike somewhere else.
May 15, 2011 at 10:26 am #1736817Sam,
Who says bears can't read?
Your truly,
Yellow Momma
May 15, 2011 at 11:04 am #17368291) I have never carried a bear vault even when required
2) I have never had bear problems
3) I keep the food with me at all times
4) I have had bears come mighty close checking me out but never for food, IE run into them, literally in 1 case.
5) I if anything hang my food a few feet off the ground
6) I routinely travel through Grizzly country where my "trail" is a bear trail with bear droppings every 100 feet or more along with bear paw claw marks at nearly every step.
7) If you are really worried: Lets see even an old style(heavy) Colt 1911 is the same weight as bear vault.8) Tell the morons in California and elsewhere to do some judicious bear hunting and make everyones life safer as its quite apparent that there are too many bears in too little territory if they are running around campgrounds as their #1/#2 food source. Note the said thread in Chaff where bear killed the kid getting to a candy bar in a camp ground. This is directly in conjunction with their moronical decision to make bears completely unafraid of people by never hunting them. A small kid will start to look like a tasty treat easily caught for said bears as they become less and less afraid of people.
In Smith & Wesson I trust when it comes down to it(hunting/keeping bears afraid of humans). I have carried a gun exactly twice. Never discharged, but saw many bears on both trips.
Mice and rodents on the other hand can NEVER be made afraid of humans. In Ursack I trust!
Enough said.
May 15, 2011 at 12:46 pm #1736853Hi Brian, I am one of the morons from California. Hunting animals in a National Park like Yosemite and SEKI are against the law. If I remember correctly, bear hunting IS legal in the state of California. At least it was about 10 years ago when I was backpacking Stanislaus Natl. Forest (which is near Yosemite). You can sleep with your food and hang it all you want. Have fun in Griz territory.
Darwinism at its finest………………………….jeesh
May 15, 2011 at 1:01 pm #1736858+1 Ken on everything.
Brian, You're calling people from CA morons, when you're the one advocating that a .45ACP round (e.g. Colt 1911) is sufficient for stopping bears? WOW. You talk a mighty fine talk my friend…thanks for painting off all us with a broad brush.
In case you didn't see this graph on the forums
Us California Morons seem to be doing just fine with bear safety. The PNW on the other hand…your type seems to be losing the war on Bear-rrorism. Hmm could probably use the help of even more low-caliber pistol brandishing fools who insist on sleeping with their food at night. Gotta kill em all before they get that snickers bar in your tent! And yes, all this is coming from another fellow gun-owner, who sees no harm or foul in hunting. Do yourself a favor, and keep these nature imperialistic tendencies to yourself…you're giving us all a bad name.
and my last thought on your post…why bother hanging your food if you're only hanging "a few feet off the ground." Your logic blows my mind…I can only hope to ascend to your level of enlightenment….maybe I don't understand because i'm a California Moron.
May 15, 2011 at 1:03 pm #1736860Aside the different mentalities (ignorance, apathy, ego, &c) what's the difference between those choosing not to use required bear canisters and those in campgrounds that don't use them or use them incorrectly because of ignorance? In the end, not much. Either way, isn't the problem that bears have learned that where there are people there is often easy food?
It seems, to me, that the improper use of a canister or hang system is no different than not using a canister because of good luck, good experience, apathy or ego (especially in required areas that are probably required areas for very good reasons). A bear is rewarded for a food-find and will return yet again. It's a cycle, no? If we know this–which separates us from the stereotypical moronic car-camping tourist (or does it?)–why would we consciously choose to not use a canister or proper hang system, especially in "required areas" that have frequent enough bear encounters to designate them 'required areas?'
It also seems to me that there's a significant difference in teaching bears to fear humans through hunting, versus teaching them to not fear people because we teach them to associate humans with food via canister/locker misuse, or no use at all. That is, these bears don't 'not' fear man because they're not being hunted, they don't fear man because of all the jacks that don't use canisters/systems properly. Even more simply: we essentially teach bears that we will give them handouts and that they can come back for more. So they don't fear us; this can happen in campgrounds with no/improper use of lockers and in the back country when folks don't use canisters or hang bags correctly.It's those one-timers we have to watch out for. And every one of those is just a matter of time, which leads me to then wonder what the difference is with sleeping with your food and the boy that was killed for a candy bar and Coke? Luck?
I'd rather pack the weight than have to report a bear encounter which resulted in lost food, and then a hunted bear, because I made a bad choice and reinforced the bear's behavior to 'not' fear me because I let it have my food. If we stop giving them food, they'll eventually stop coming for it, be it in the campgrounds with ignorant campers or in the back country with apathetic hikers. I guess we could kill them, too, seeing as how they're in our forests and all.
I'm a registered gun owner, love my firearms, and am one helluva shot, but I'm smart enough–and ethical enough–to know that a .45 isn't going to protect me from a bear charging at 30-40mph at close range. 'Shot placement' goes out the window for most under those circumstances.
May 15, 2011 at 1:21 pm #1736863" I'm smart enough–and ethical enough–to know that a .45 isn't going to protect me from a bear charging at 30-40mph at close range. ;shot placement' goes out the window for most in those circumstances."
…so does clean underwear for that matter. :)
It really is a bummer that the ursack wasn't approved. Like many others suggest, I too suspect that its disapproval results from fears that people won't tie the knots correctly (user error) and not flaws/failures in the material or design. You have to be a real dummy to not know how to operate a Garcia can…but messing up a knot, or not tying it at the right location etc etc seems to be a very plausible concern. In yosemite, you're dealing with the some of the most intelligent and conditioned black bears…they'll exploit any user error they find. I'm personally convinced that if these ursacks became ubiquitous and sold at REI etc, you're going to see more failures resulting from them than compared to any traditional bear canister…again not design or material error…but just nature of the fact that it's closing procedure is more complicated than the Garcias. I've seen some pretty unintelligent individuals and actions in the backcountry, so while I'm unhappy with the decision, I can't say that I don't understand the reasoning behind it. In the end, I believe the decision will keep everyone (incl bears) safer…which is worth the extra lb of weight for that particular area. Moreover, while I find it arbitrary that the Agency refuses to even test new devices (i think that's what they said…I was skimming), I wouldn't place my money on Ursack winning any lawsuits. Even if their product gets tested, the agency has a plethora of reasons focused on protecting health, safety, and welfare of the public to still deny the product even if its shown that the design is inherently safe. Concerns for human error should be sufficient to show that a denial was not arbitrary or capricious.
May 15, 2011 at 1:48 pm #1736870I don't have any problem with hunting. Let's face it… we are at the point where we have to manage wildlife. There really is no such thing as an ecosystem that is entirely isolated from man.
But… hunting does not solve the bear problem in these areas. And hikers carrying guns are more dangerous than the bears.
The best solution is to let the Rangers manage and enforce rules. If that means we need to carry a canister, just do it.
May 15, 2011 at 6:22 pm #1736978Let's not let this thread digress into a bear hunt or should you carry a cannister or not thing. Simply put, Ursack is a wonderful product. It works for me in areas that I do not have to carry a cannister and that is it.
May 15, 2011 at 6:46 pm #1736986Can I make a suggestion?
Maybe the pro-Ursack people should sign a petition or write a letter to your congressman, or maybe a park superintendent.
Nothing that is said here will have any bearing on the decision that has already been made and sustained by the courts.
–B.G.–
May 16, 2011 at 5:16 pm #1737396I know they can't read, becasue I've been trying very hard to teach the bears here to read, and am getting nowhere – frustrating! If you want the bears to stay away from your bird feeders, just try and teach them to read. They will give you a wide berth. Maybe the bears down there in Dixie can read, though. It's warmer there, and they have plenty of time to work at it while ours have to be hibernating all winter.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Our Community Posts are Moderated
Backpacking Light community posts are moderated and here to foster helpful and positive discussions about lightweight backpacking. Please be mindful of our values and boundaries and review our Community Guidelines prior to posting.
Get the Newsletter
Gear Research & Discovery Tools
- Browse our curated Gear Shop
- See the latest Gear Deals and Sales
- Our Recommendations
- Search for Gear on Sale with the Gear Finder
- Used Gear Swap
- Member Gear Reviews and BPL Gear Review Articles
- Browse by Gear Type or Brand.