Jul 26, 2010 at 7:41 am #1261579
N/AJul 26, 2010 at 9:16 am #1632304
I just tried to take the survey and the question that had you rate the different attributes as levels of importance was malfunctioning. For the whole list, it only allowed you to check once per column even if they were different rows. ie only one attribute could be considered 'very important'. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. Best of luck!Jul 26, 2010 at 10:15 am #1632330
Tom, question 9 is not working right. There are eight categories I can rate under question 9, but I can only select "very important", "relatively important", etc. once for all of the categories. If they're all important to me, I'm out of luck, and no matter what I select, I have to leave three unanswered. I'm using Firefox 3.6.
HJJul 26, 2010 at 10:55 am #1632341
@hikinggrannyLocale: Gateway to Columbia River Gorge
Same problem with question #9, so I left it blank.Jul 26, 2010 at 1:37 pm #1632387
I have not filled out your survey but I did just purchase a Bare Boxer for two night use. After looking at it I was thinking about the size and weight. I like the keyed lid for security but not for ease of openning. The price would be much higher but a molded carbon/glass or something else epoxy layup may be much lighter and a size of 8" dia and 8" or 10" long may be a better size for fitting in a backpack. Clear is great but a silver or white inside may be good enough. I think there is room for a lighter more expensive canister fitting below the Bearikade models. Keyed lids may last longer for approved canisters.Jul 26, 2010 at 1:58 pm #1632393
Worked fine for me.Jul 26, 2010 at 2:00 pm #1632395
@mocs123Locale: Southeast Tennessee
I think the problem with a new canister is getting it approved. I dont think there is any agency set up to give approval to any new canisters at the current time.Jul 26, 2010 at 3:15 pm #1632408
Yeah, when Tom Cohen sued SBBIG (which used to set the de facto standard) because they arbitrarily refused to approve the UrSack, SBBIG cleverly disbanded, thus thwarting Tom Cohen's lawsuit. Now, every forest or park sets their own standards, and Tom Cohen has to sue them one at a time if he wants to have his UrSack considered. Leaves manufacturers (and hikers) out in the proverbial cold.
HJJul 27, 2010 at 5:07 am #1632559
Do you have any more information regarding bear canister testing delays…
What would be the motive to do so?
Could you point me to another source of information?
TomJul 27, 2010 at 9:38 am #1632611
@socalpackerLocale: Southern California
Completed your survey very smoothly. :)
I read that somewhere and I was very disappointed. I love my Ursack. I'd pick that over a bear canister any day.Jul 27, 2010 at 9:51 am #1632613
@joefishLocale: All Over California
The motive is this: people are stupid. The minority of people who spend time at Yosemite and perhaps to a lesser extent Yellowstone are experienced backpackers. A huge proportion are people on a "once in a lifetime" trips, or "like when we were in the scouts" or whatever. Ask anyone who has worked at REI: people go in to stores every day and buy a pack, boots and a load of crap and go out in the woods without being particularly prepared or in shape. Many (most?) of these people will put this gear in their garage and never use it again (I've bought a lot of gear from these guys).
The agencies want people to use the garcia because it's mechanical and it's bombproof. The safety of the bears is their only concern; weight, performance, etc are at best tertiary. The Ursack is their worst nightmare- it relies on the skill and diligence (and maybe sobriety) of the user.
That said, there is room in the market, I think, for another maker, because this issue is going to move forward one way or another. If I were you, I would start by contacting the Interagency Bear Study Team and see if someone there would be willing to talk about THEIR wants and needs in a canister. Then I guess you have to start suing national parks…Jul 27, 2010 at 10:22 am #1632623
@socalpackerLocale: Southern California
LOL @ "(and maybe sobriety) of the user."
Good point Joe. Very funny. I'd never considered one's level of alcohol consumption to be a factor. But, you're right!
I've never had a problem with hanging bear bags. Sometimes, if I'm tired, I might not go as high as I should (last weekend was a perfect example of that, and bears were very active around my camp site), but I suppose they've always been high enough.Jul 27, 2010 at 10:45 am #1632642
Testing delays? I wouldn't really call it that. Right now there is simply no one to take a product to that has any authority to certify your product in such a way as the product will be widely accepted. When SBBIG existed, if your product got SBBIG approval, pretty much everyone from A to Z would accept your product.
Why did SBBIG disband? Perhaps they realized that they could be a legal target, an admittedly unenviable position, and they simply removed the target.
There was, from what I've read, a definite bias against the UrSack. The suit from UrSack alleges inconsistent testing practices and alleges that the UrSack was subjected to tests that no bear canister would be expected to encounter.
You might want to go over to UrSack's site and see what they've posted there. I'm sure SBBIG would disagree with what I'm saying, and, in all honesty, I'm not a big fan of bear canisters, so it's possible that I could be imputing motives on SBBIG's part that aren't there.
HJJul 27, 2010 at 11:19 am #1632657
I would hope the SBBIG know best. Like a judge, rangers have seen it all as they deal with this every day of the year. I have only a very limited experience but I know there are always at least two sides to a problem. Ursack may have done a misfavor with the law suit. I would prefer safe food, bears and me. I can carry a canister.Jul 27, 2010 at 11:47 am #1632670
> I would hope the SBBIG know best.
Wouldn't that be nice? However, as a previous poster has pointed out, rangers aren't really focused on the practical issues of backpacking, and they're certainly not UL'ers. Their attitude, from what I've encountered, is "protect the bears." Period. Their attitude is not "what's a reasonable balance between bear protection and the practicalities of backpacking?" They want something as solid as a Sherman Tank. Weight, bulk, and practicality aren't big issues in the eyes of the rangers. Their answer is pretty much "bear canister." Period. They really don't approach something like a an UrSack with an open mind.Jul 27, 2010 at 12:00 pm #1632672
@joefishLocale: All Over California
"They really don't approach something like a an UrSack with an open mind."
Yeah, and I'm not entirely sure that's wrong. People- not we, just people in general- are uninformed about the outdoors and don't take the hazards or LNT very seriously.
As I was coming out of the mountains a few weeks ago around 8PM, I was asked by two people whether the trail was flat or steep. I responded that it was a bit of both, but I also mentioned that they should be careful because this was in very active bear (black and griz) territory and that bears are most active around dawn and dusk, and were known to frequent the developed areas around the lake the trail goes to. They laughed at me and walked down the trail with flip flops on, with no water, in shorts and tank tops at dusk. They didn't exactly strike me as UL types…
Unfortunately the agencies need to shoot for the lowest common denominator. There's nothing stopping people from buying an Ursack, tying a mouse in the top and leaving hanging from their tent smeared with bacon grease.
Wow, thread drift. Maybe we should move this over…
Edit: I think the Ursack is awesome, and I want one, but I can see how the angencies are skeptical of its general application.Jul 27, 2010 at 12:21 pm #1632681
I know about government and open and closed minds. I have a pretty good grip on my own, hard as a rock as I have been told. I know there are many points of view but the bottom line is still what works the best for safety for people and bears. I may not like to carry extra weight and I am not always happy with one rule for all unless it is use your common sense. Unless I know all the sides of an issue I find it hard to know who is correct. I can see benefit and possible problems with Ursack and people using it. I think some bears are smarter than some people. I wonder sometimes if destroying the clever bears is the better answer. I really don't know the best answer or why Ursack was not approved. It could just be a bunch of hardheads, I just hope not. People and politics can be a real mess. Sorry to get this off topic.
I would like a lighter bear canister myself and don't see why we can not get a 3-4 day size, 16 ounce solution at less than $200.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.