Ursack vs Critters (not bears)?

[Anonymous]

"Tom: what's the definition of treeline? No trees at all, or krumholtz and stunted trees that are no good at all for hanging food? For example, Donahue Pass proper versus 500 feet lower, or thousand island lake. I've certainly run into people who've lost food to bears camping at more or less 9200 feet. I'm not disagreeing, just curious. (Of course, these people were at established campsites in popular areas.)"

My personal definition of tree line in the Sierra corresponds with your parameters, Krumholz and Whitebark pine. But there is another, even more important, variable, IMO: Human traffic. Based on those two variables, I decide how I am going to deal with potential bear problems. Absent significant human traffic, which covers the majority of areas where I hike, if I am at or above tree line, I will forego a canister of any kind and rely on camp sanitation, where/when I have dinner, and double bagging of my food in Nylofume bags to avert any potential bear problems. If I happen to be spending significant time in an area of high human traffic, which is not very often by design, I will use an Ursack where there is no formal "approved canister" requirement. Below tree line, it is a trivial matter to find a solid anchor for the Ursack. At tree line, either Krumholz or Whitebark pine will suffice. Above tree line, Wanda Lake for example, there are ample opportunities to anchor an Ursack to rocks, using various techniques. In areas where "approved canisters" are required, I will use an "approved canister". To that end, I have recently and reluctantly purchased a Bearikade Scout, which should suffice for any trip up to 9 days, the maximum I do these days. I hope this helps, and welcome additional comments by any and all. It is a subject that could use a lot of discussion.

[Jerry Adams]

do you have to anchor the canister?

[Anonymous]

"do you have to anchor the canister?"

I'm not sure you can anchor an "approved canister". How would you go about that?

[jscott]

Actually I love my little Scout. But I max mine out at six days.

I prided myself in my tree/cliff food hanging expertise for years. Then I finally lost all my food on one trip and for the sake of the bears went with a Bearikade.

My easiest points of entry into the high country in the Sierra are out of Tuolumne or Bridgeport; that is, I can drive from home and be out into the woods some ways in a single day. But this leaves me in high trafficked areas for at least one night. These areas have bears with actual PhD's. So I've learned to appreciate the bearproof simplicity and relative low weight and easy carry of the Scout.

To be honest, I've never understood the Ursak vis a vis bears. Like a chew toy to them. And bear saliva us really, really nasty.

[Terran Terran]

I'm sure most will see this on the news. For those who don't
………..http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/watch-tourists-run-bears-yellowstone-national-park-n356516

[Anonymous]

"To be honest, I've never understood the Ursak vis a vis bears. Like a chew toy to them. And bear saliva us really, really nasty."

Why not use the aluminum insert? Protecting your food from destruction is exactly what it is intended for. You would still save 10 oz. over the weight of a Scout.

You can also avoid the hassle and discomfort of carrying the Ursack with its insert in place inside your pack as follows, if it is a problem for you:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=91927

Some folks apparently don't mind, but for those who do, myself included, the technique in the link, above, will eliminate the problem.

[Author]

Posts