Ursack closer to being allowed in Yosemite?

You said "If you can't make a product that works from the get go, I don't wanna hear it."

That's 99% of the things we use. It's inane argument.

I made an edit just for you, since you took my thoughts about bear cans to the extreme. To be fair, I should have defined "from the get go" as when the product becomes available to the consumer. Of course theres gonna be trial and error for almost everything, but when it comes time to package it all up and go to market, it darn well better work, no ifs ands or buts. Can we agree upon that?

As far as I know EVERY bear canister has had at least one failure.

These products are listed as bear resistant for a reason. Given enough time and motivation a determined bear can break into ALL of the current backpackable bear protection containers.

And, lack of food shouldn't be fatal. Most of us should be able to survive for something close to 30 days (2 weeks at least).

"As far as I know EVERY bear canister has had at least one failure.

These products are listed as bear resistant for a reason. Given enough time and motivation a determined bear can break into ALL of the current backpackable bear protection containers.

And, lack of food shouldn't be fatal. Most of us should be able to survive for something close to 30 days (2 weeks at least)."

I have not read any reports of any field failures of any Garcia or Backpackers Cache models. I could care less what happens in a lab or a zoo, its real life that counts. "Survive" for two weeks, yes. Hike out under your own power after not eating for days, you might not be able to do that depending on the terrain. Fatigue can set in quite rapidly in such circumstances.

Look, the point is this: do you think its justified to put your food, yourself, and most importantly, a bears life at risk so you can save a pound? UL is great, I love it, but it can be taken too far. Ive heard people say its a quasi-conspiracy and that the other bear can manufacturers are in on it.. please. The Ursack is denied eligibility in Yosemite because someone somewhere rightly thought that maybe a soft woven fabric is not the best deterrent against half-ton masses of muscle (cuz yea, aren't bear cans supposed to be approved for Grizzlys too? Wanna bet a Ursack keeps a hungry Grizz out for more than ten seconds? Do ya?)

Yeah, I do wanna bet.

"Spectra fiber is one of the world's strongest and lightest fibers. A bright white polyethylene, it is, pound-for-pound, ten times stronger than steel, more durable than polyester and has a specific strength that is 40 percent greater than aramid fiber.

Edit: for a list of Spectra body armor. http://www.bodyarmornews.com/bullet-proof-vest.htm

Thatd be great, if bears were shooting at you. My flossers are also made out "the same material as bulletproof vests" as it says on the package, but they still break pretty easily. You said it, spectra is stronger than steel "pound for pound." How strong is six ounces of paper thin steel? Hahaha, yea, a grizzly bear cant punch those six ing long claws through that!! When even a black bear, let alone a grizz, can rip a car door off, I'm betting a few ounces of spectra are no problem. Even if the bears cant get a hole started, rodents definitely can (to use your vest example, rodents teeth are like .22s, which can pierce kevlar easier than the 'larger caliber" claw of a bear). And then its bye bye to your fancy bag and all the food inside of it, and perhaps one day, bye bye to the bear as well, thanks in part to you just NEEDING to save sixteen ounces ya know?

Also, I believe spectra is stronger than steel in tensile strength, but which one will be more puncture resistant, at the thickness of the spectra used in the Ursack? A bulletproof vest is very thick compared to an ursack.

I'm not a materials engineer (far from it), but my best friend is, and he uses an Ursack. I'll see if I can get him to chime in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf67hadozA8&feature=player_embedded#!

This guy doesn't seem to be doing a great job. In fact, he seems to be having a pretty rough go of it.

Like I said, I dont put much stock in zoo tests. A wild, hungry bear in its natural setting is the true test. And the ursack has had more reported failures in the field than either the Garcia or the Bearikade (I also spoke lowly of the Bear Vault so im not playing favorites to hard sided cans). That to me, more than the crushed food even, is the reason I would urge anyone to stay away from the Ursacks and just carry the godforsaken extra pound and be thankful you don't need to carry a 15-pound rifle to keep the short faced cave bears away from your food! In all seriousness, it really is just one pound more (the bearikade weekender is), one pound for the convenience, peace of mind, and most important of all, the protection of the bears. I proudly carry that one pound. You'll spend $300 or more on a tarp or a backpack or boots but not a canister that protects the second most important item you need for life?

You said a bear should be able to rip the flimsy material (not sure if it's the rope or the spectra, you seem to change which material whenever it's shown to be fine). It shouldn't matter if it's hungry or not, it's equally strong. And it's not ripping that flimsy material. It's putting it's body weight on the rope, it's not ripping. He's tearing and biting, it's not ripping.
I'm just going to go ahead and guess he's not half-assing it.

But I'm also done with this conversation. I'll buy one if/when they're park-approved

Gregory,
First are you really going to lay there as a bear goes after your food bag or would you scare him off? I haven't had a bear visit in the middle of the night but I certainly wouldn't give him even ten minutes to destroy my food.
Second, the issue with the canisters is much more than the weight. It is the size and the shape. To carry a BV500 for example I would be changing packs into a heavier less comfortable Jam. 1lb is the least of my worries with respect to canisters.
Finally, it sounds like you should stay with your canister and I will continue hanging wherever legal. Now we are all happy.

I don't think I'd ever trust an Ursack to keep a bear (especially a grizzly) away from food (sorry, Ursack!), but the manufacturer does have a point. Right now there's apparently no procedure in place to get any new bear resistant containers approved. That gives the makers of the currently approved canisters a monopoly, and could prevent development of superior technology down the road. Suppose someone invents a new miracle canister next year which is just as tough as the Garcia can but is only one-fourth the weight. Who wouldn't want to use that? But right now, the manufacturer of my hypothetical miracle bear can would have no way to get his new product approved for use. There does need to be some sort of standardized testing and approval process in place (along with monitoring of an already-approved product's actual performance in the field, since we know that a product which works in one area may not in another – thanks, Yellow Yellow!)

Its just not tne weight of the cannister, the cannister also requires me to carry a bigger/heavier backpack. Also the cannister has worn holes in my backpack from rubbing against rocks/trees/ground while in the backpack. I think any serious/experienced backpacker can protect/store his food without having a cannister. I know i can

flume

note to self re: gregs: go backpacking with gressel, not with petliski.

"I think any serious/experienced backpacker can protect/store his food without having a cannister."

There are some black, furry things in Yosemite National Park that would like to extend their invitation to you and your party. Don't worry about the regulations. They will take care of you.

–B.G.–

"I think any serious/experienced backpacker can protect/store his food without having a cannister."

Yosemite is an overused area with humanized animals. Canisters make sense there. For some other parts of the Sierras the statement would be correct.

The debate can rage back and forth about containers to prevent a Bear/Critter from accessing it's contents. My personal view is that a Loksak to seal out the smell is of FAR greater importance. I am sure many folks using hardsided containers like the BearVault don't bother with storing items inside a smell proof bag like a Loksak. So what happens is the Bear smells the contents (Easily) and comes to the area. Depending on the Bear, if they start hanging around then you are in trouble because there is no telling what else they will get into, tear up (your camp, tent, sleeping bag etc…). So in my book the number one rule is to eliminate food smell

1] Use a Loksak to store ALL contents that smell, Food, toiletries etc…
2] Store the Loksak inside a container that makes it difficult/impossible compromise the contents.
3] Eat away from camp and wash hands before returning to camp

I happen to use an Ursack but the Loksak inside it is equally vital to it's success. I would just about guarantee that most cases of compromised containers (whatever they are) was due to folks not smell proofing their contents.

The problem is that the bears are smarter than most inexperienced sierra backpackers. There are manys mays to bear proof your food, you can start with selecting a out of the way seldom/never used campsite above timberline. Try storing you food in a rock crevice, hanging it over a rock cliff/face, store it underwater to name a few. If you plan to camp where everyone else camps in yosemite you can expect a lot of bears, so maybe you better take your cannister!!

flume

I thought that was standard operating procedure in high impact areas.

It should be standard operating procedure in ANY area but I think sometimes people are focused soley on the storage container thinking they have done their job as long they put their stuff inside the Ursack, BearVault etc…

Aloksak not Lopsak

(a)LokSak OpSak?

A bear can smell your food even when it is in a smell proof container. There are plenty of lingering smells for a bear.

Conditioning the bears to not consider your food container as a source of food is the most important thing. Even though they can smell food in/on it, they will leave it alone if they don't consider it a source of food.

When in Yosemite I used a garcia (rental) without an order proof bag. I camped two nights in LYV (high concentration of habitatuated bears) and had no bears even tip over our canisters. And a bear definitly went through very close to our canisters while we slept. I kept them close to where we cooked and ate. Plenty of smells. However, the bears in Yosemite have learned that garcias are not good food sources.

Sorry for the confusion. Loksak is the company http://www.loksak.com. The Opsak is their product that is fully odor proof http://www.loksak.com/purchase/opsak-3.html

"Of course theres gonna be trial and error for almost everything, but when it comes time to package it all up and go to market, it darn well better work, no ifs ands or buts. Can we agree upon that?"

Nope. There's a reason ALL of the canisters are called "bear resistant" and not "bear proof".

"There's a reason ALL of the canisters are called "bear resistant" and not "bear proof"."

There is a fool who can overcome any foolproof scheme.

–B.G.–