Topic

Ursack Update


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 Update

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 87 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1254249
    Joseph Reeves
    Spectator

    @umnak

    Locale: Southeast Alaska

    I've been in western Alaska for a while and have not been keeping up on these posts, so excuse me if this is redundant. Following message from Ursack.

    It appears that Ursack will be allowed almost everywhere in the Sierra this year except Yosemite National Park and three areas (Rae Lakes, Dusy Basin, Rock Creek) of SEKI. We calculate that Ursack may be used on more than 98% of the Pacific Crest Trail. SIBBG, the Sierra Agency Black Bear Group, no longer exists. There are no standardized bear canister tests–each Superintendent of Forest Service Manager makes the decision for his or her own area. While Ursack will likely submit the S29 AllWhite Hybrid for consideration by Yosemite and SEKI, there can be no assurance of approval given those parks lack of testing criteria and/or their historical antipathy toward Ursack.

    Was the demise of SIBBG a result of the California Bankruptcy?

    #1564082
    EndoftheTrail
    BPL Member

    @ben2world-2

    What? No more lugging heavy BV's up Mt. Whitney trail? Woohoo!!

    #1564083
    drowning in spam
    Member

    @leaftye

    Locale: SoCal

    Hopefully we can find out soon. I was planning on carrying an Ursack anyway, but only because no bear canister is big enough to hold the amount of food I should be getting, so I'd be using both at some points.

    #1564084
    Jim W.
    BPL Member

    @jimqpublic

    Locale: So-Cal

    "Was the demise of SIBBG a result of the California Bankruptcy?"

    Eh? SIBBG was all or mostly Federal agencies. They weren't funded to establish a national standard but that's what people expected of them. They haven't tested a device for a few years.

    #1564129
    Josh Leavitt
    BPL Member

    @joshleavitt

    Locale: Ruta Locura

    "Was the demise of SIBBG a result of the California Bankruptcy?"

    No, SIBBG's disbanding can be directly attributed to the lawsuit filed by Tom Cohen of Ursack against them. He essentially made the claim that the "guide lines" set up by SIBBG for bear resistant container approval were "arbitrary and capricious" in the way they were applied. Not to mention the fact that SIBBG conducted business after their charter expired, and over stepped the bounds of that charter regularly.

    The rumor is that there will be a means of national standardized testing for the approval of bear resistant containers. Might be better, might be worse, my guess is worse.

    Until something like that occurrs though, new products will have no chance of being approved and accepted on a wide scale basis. This is bad for consumers, and for bears. Even with a national testing and approval process, nothing says that particular products wont be denied on a local level.

    Lets hope Tom made some gains in his legal pursuits, I for one wish him the best.

    #1564193
    Ed Engel
    Member

    @doorknob

    Locale: West of what you think is west

    This is interesting. Ursack is less than 8oz. and is 8" x 13". The BV 500 is 8.7" x 8.3" and 2lb 9oz. Love saving weight.

    #1564194
    Ian White
    Member

    @deuceregular

    Locale: Southern Jefferson

    I really hope this turns out good for Ursack users. I got mine in a year that they were still approved for Yosemite. Since then I have seen many a ranger frown when I tell them I plan on using it regardless of their recommendations (Kings Canyon, NP).

    I also use it as a bear canister backup. There is no way that anyone should ever have to bring two of those things.

    #1564200
    Greg Mihalik
    Spectator

    @greg23

    Locale: Colorado

    Does anyone know – first or second hand, of someone being fined for using a Ursack in a "canister only" area?

    ("I think I heard my buddies friend say he heard…" doesn't count.)

    #1564217
    drowning in spam
    Member

    @leaftye

    Locale: SoCal

    I have to wonder if I'd get fined for using a bear canister AND an Ursack. Both would probably be hung using the PCT method. I'd hope a ranger would have pity on me when he sees that I'm already using the bear canister to the max. Of course this would only be a concern for the first few days after a resupply.

    #1564219
    Art …
    BPL Member

    @asandh

    the whole purpose of requiring bear cannisters is to have pity on the BEARS, not the backpackers.

    Do the right thing.

    #1564221
    drowning in spam
    Member

    @leaftye

    Locale: SoCal

    I'll do the right thing if you'll carry my second bear canister.

    #1564239
    cary bertoncini
    Spectator

    @cbert

    Locale: N. California

    the few "failures" have all been attributable to user error. if they are used correctly, they work as well as a canister.

    but it is well over 8oz if the alluminum liner is used (and which is required in some areas for it to be an approved container).

    #1564245
    Ian White
    Member

    @deuceregular

    Locale: Southern Jefferson

    I have only ever been asked by a Ranger about canisters at the time I get my permit. I tell them yes.

    I know that I Ranger can ask to see your canister, but I don't believe they have a legal right to search your bag unless you authorize them. I have not noticed a line in the permit application stating that I must submit my bag for search upon the request of a Ranger.

    However, I do bring one canister when required, and I just figure I would show them that and hopefully no further questions.

    As for backcountry ethics: I believe that sometimes policies are made to blanket all backountry users. I have never had a bear take me food. I do some great PCT hangs. They are fun, look good, and bring me a great amount of satisfaction. I know that the purpose of canisters is to stop bears from equating people with food, and to make the bears "think" that people smell like food, but are not food. I feel that I can have a say as to my own methods in regards to this program of behavioral extinction. Maybe I am wrong.

    #1564248
    t.darrah
    BPL Member

    @thomdarrah

    Locale: Southern Oregon

    Has anyone thought to have a titanium sheet made to replace the aluminum liner? This could provide equal, or greater, protection at a lighter weight, after all this is all about BPL.

    #1564256
    Greg Mihalik
    Spectator

    @greg23

    Locale: Colorado

    Art,
    I definitely want to protect the bears, and not just "beat the system". And hike light. If I could do that with an Ursack I would. Sleeping high and tying off well is effective.

    I was stopped and asked for my permit, but no questions were asked about a canister. I met a father/son team on the JMT carrying a Ursacks that they declared at the time of permitting, and were given the OK. I have heard of similar situations where the ranger was intent on the "spirit" not just the "letter" of the law.

    I assume I'll be checked each time I'm out. I'm only a sample of one. So I ask to help determine my risk if I decide to go that route.

    #1564259
    Robert Blean
    BPL Member

    @blean

    Locale: San Jose -- too far from Sierras

    > the few "failures" have all been attributable to user error

    If there is significantly more user-error with an Ursack than with a bear can, that sounds like a problem.

    I do not know how much user error there is, but for bear protection all that matters is results. In this case, if failures are occurring, "user error" is not a defense.

    — Bob

    #1564269
    Mark Verber
    BPL Member

    @verber

    Locale: San Francisco Bay Area

    > know hikers who have been fined?

    Met someone a year ago on the JMT that got finded. I am pretty sure he was nabbed in Yosemite.

    > Ursack is only user failure?

    I have talked with three people who have their ursack broken into. Two very well might have been user error. They didn't think there was a user error, but based on what they said (don't remember their words), I thought it sounded like they did some boneheaded things. The third person struck me as a careful soul who said all the right words about what he did. I assumed that was a real breech. I can't remember what version of the bag he was using. It was a couple of years ago, so not the current bag.

    –Mark

    #1564274
    Jim Sweeney
    BPL Member

    @swimjay

    Locale: Northern California

    And of course there have been documented failures of canisters, in particular the Bear Vault, which had to go through two re-designs to thwart some particularly intelligent, or persistent, bears in, I think, the Rae Lakes area. Interestingly, their approval was never pulled, as far as I know, though someone may correct me here.

    #1564307
    Josh Leavitt
    BPL Member

    @joshleavitt

    Locale: Ruta Locura

    A Ti replacement for the Ursack aluminum sleeve wont save any weight.

    ALL canisters and bags can fail, some more than others, nothing is "bear proof", only bear resistant. The big difference is that "the system" is rigged in favor of hard sided canisters and their retailers/manufactures.

    #1564311
    Gary Dunckel
    BPL Member

    @zia-grill-guy

    Locale: Boulder

    Thom, I think maybe titanium would be fairly equal to aluminum here, except more expensive. Titanium is twice as strong as aluminum, so you could use a thinner gauge to get the same strength. However, Ti is 60% heavier than Al. It seems like a rather expensive way to save 2.16 oz., but it could be done.

    Josh, please correct me here if I'm missing something…

    #1564314
    Bob Gross
    BPL Member

    @b-g-2-2

    Locale: Silicon Valley

    James, I believe that my Bear Vault is one generation back from the latest. On many occasions, I find it very difficult to open, even when I am a human that can read the instructions, and I have opposable thumbs. How in the heck a black bear could open that up is beyond me.
    The old Garcia isn't too hard to open, and the Bear Boxer isn't bad, either.
    –B.G.–

    #1564316
    Nia Schmald
    BPL Member

    @nschmald

    "And of course there have been documented failures of canisters, in particular the Bear Vault, which had to go through two re-designs to thwart some particularly intelligent, or persistent, bears in, I think, the Rae Lakes area. Interestingly, their approval was never pulled, as far as I know, though someone may correct me here."

    I think bear vault's approval was temporarily pulled if you where going to Rae Lakes. I was given a loaner bearikade when I showed up with a bear vault at road's end.

    Bear vault was quickly reapproved when they changed the lid. Bear vault also provided free replacement lids which where available at the major trail heads in the area.

    Contrast Bear vault's approach to Ursack. Each time Ursack's approval was revoked the user was blamed and the following year we get a new model. Owner's of the old model were SOL.

    Bear vault stood behind their product and provided a free and easy fix. Ursack blamd the user and offered to sell them an "upgraded" model at full price.

    #1564319
    Mark Verber
    BPL Member

    @verber

    Locale: San Francisco Bay Area

    The earliest bearvault's approval was pulled in rae lake. The nice people from bear vault made a retrofit lid which addresses most of the problems. I believe they distributed the updated lids at the rae lakes trailhead for awhile. My memory is that the bear in question was able to deform the canister enough that she could "pop" the lid off.

    I agree that all the canisters are just bear resistant, and user error can provide easy access. My take with the ursack is that it's a bit easier to make mistakes.

    I also believe that the ursack ss less resistant than at typical hardside canisters. I have seen bears tire of playing with hardside canisters pretty quicky, but I have heard a number of reports of bears not giving up on ursack. Maybe because they remind bears of food bags they used to get out of trees? Of the people I know with ursacks that have encountered bears. The people who threw rocks made noise, and tied the bag to a tree kept their food because the bear left after a while. Some food was crushed by no reward for the bear. The person who left his bag loose (which the instructions suggested) watched the bear carry it away and later fond the breached bag and the food gone. The two people who knew a bear was attaching their ursack and though it was "bearproof" so they could ignore the bear found the bag breached the following morning. No idea how long the bear worked on the ursack, but he/she had an 9 hour window to succeed.

    –Mark

    #1564331
    John Whynot
    Member

    @jdw01776

    Locale: Southeast Texas

    Yellow-Yellow, in the Adirondacks, was defeating properly closed Bear Vault 500s this summer. I believe there will be another redesign for next summer…

    #1564344
    Chris Morgan
    BPL Member

    @chrismorgan

    Locale: Southern Oregon

    It will be interesting to see what the Yosemite rangers will do with those starting in Yosemite on the JMT, going south. I wonder how much grief you'll get at the permit counter if you say you are using an ursack, either utilizing the bear boxes or camping beyond Yosemite the first night.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 87 total)
  • 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!

Get the Newsletter

Get our free Handbook and Receive our weekly newsletter to see what's new at Backpacking Light!

Gear Research & Discovery Tools


Loading...