Ursack closer to being allowed in Yosemite?

Here's a link to keep updated from Ursack.
http://www.ursack.com/ursack-update.htm

This is certainly good news. Now we'll see how long it takes (and if) the NPS to allow them.

July 24, 2014

The 2014 Ursack S29 AllWhite has been given IGBC certification number 3738. It may take a bit of time before that information shows up on the IGBC website. 2013 and earlier models of the AllWhite are not certified. We are working on a way to offer a low cost retrofit and once we figure that out, we will post the information on our website and attempt to contact affected customers by email.

This has to be the most ridiculous thread ever. Everything at a standstill while some supposed "experts" mess around for years evaluating something new. Ultimately of zero value since they really just need to cull the bears. I'd blame this on Obama but I think this process started back with Reagan. Sad.

There's a thread in the Sierra Bear Blog about how the solution is to cull out the humans : )

Jan 4: "Yosemite and Sequoia Kings Canyon are currently reviewing the current version of the Ursack S29 AllWhite for use in those Parks."

http://www.ursack.com/updates/

Ursack posts these 'decision pending' type things every year… and have been doing so for many years… it is good for sales.

Billy

I've noticed that, however the current S29 got IGBC certification last year. If Yosemite/SEKI actually approves of them, I will be pleased.

I don't really know… but my guess is there is no way SEKI or Yosemite will approve the Ursack… regardless of what any testing agency comes up with.

The reason:
There is more to consider than just whether a bear can get into an Ursack or not.
Use of an Ursack means tying it off to a tree branch or trunk.
When bears try to get into it they claw the bark off the tree in spots.
The parks consider this environmental resource damage.
The concern is that trees will be stripped bare in the popular camp sites = dead trees.

Also… the park service will likely consider that there is more likely to be more user error with an Ursack than a canister, thus leading to bears getting into more food and becoming a problem..

billy

As of August 2014, the Yosemite Backcountry Permit Office was still showing off an old, first generation, Ursack that had been SHREDDED by a bear. They seemed to have no idea that there had been any further development of the product.

I held off buying a Bearikade for myself (got one for my husband who had an old 1990s 5-lb Garcia!) — I used my old BearVault in the hopes that Ursack would eventually be approved more widely. I think I'll get an Ursack (no liner) and try it out in CO.

Hmmm. I'm a newcomer here, but:

– Above posts don't seem like a fair characterization of the updates I read at http://www.ursack.com/updates/. Short of stripping out words like "hope" and "optimistic", I'm not sure how else they could have documented their efforts. (Perhaps there has been blatant market hyping elsewhere?)
– The IGBC test described was NOT tied to a tree (or anything). What other factors would set sack apart from can?
– I wouldn't be surprised if the Yosemite Backcountry Permit Office still has a portrait of Ronald Reagan.

Timeline from my reading:
2011 – Ursack asked SEKI for approval OR evaluation protocol
2012 – SEKI says depends on IGBC (at least)
2014 – IGBC finalizes protocol for sack testing
2014 – Ursack passes IGBC test
2015 – More letters being sent…

I'd agree that 2015 is still unlikely. Documents need to "mature" in the inbox for a while. Committees need to be formed.

[Edit: Ahhh!, I see. You tie it off so bear doesn't run off with it. Obviously I've never used one before.]

"- The IGBC test described was NOT tied to a tree (or anything)."

As I recall there were tests for both tied to a tree and not tied to a tree.
And, as I recall, you are right, the not tied to a tree passed… with Grizzly Bears I believe it was… Since there are no Grizzly Bears in Yosemite or SEKI, I'm not even sure they will accept this test at all.

Also… the Ursack instructions clearly specify to use it by tying it to a tree.

And… if you don't tie it to a tree, then the park service has the concern that the bag is soft and can be carried away in the mouth of a bear… then worked on and opened given enough time… and, yes, there is a hard sided insert, but that still leaves the folds at the top and the rope for the bear to get in it's mouth and carry away.

Like I said above, there are many more things of concern for the park service that just whether a bear can get inside the Ursack during the limited time of the test.

billy

CharlieW, I think it is slightly more complicated than that. Ursack has been bitching to the feds for a long time now.

The press releases by Ursack are "forward looking." That helps them generate public awareness of the issue and maybe get some grassroots pressure on NPS.

–B.G.–

Yeah, I thought of the bear running away with my food (like a football) after posting. Obviously I haven't used one of these.

I still thought the posts above were unfair characterization of Ursack's updates, which don't say decision pending (nor seem to be market hyping to me). I read the last update very differently than that.

However you want to view it, I wouldn't hold my breath for the Park Service to approve the Ursack any time soon. I hope I am wrong, but I've been disappointed for several years in a row by these hopeful postings at the Ursack web page…. and I suspect that many people have bought them based on these postings and been disappointed.

That said, the Ursack is legal in Inyo National Forest. Luckily I spend a lot of time on the east side of the Sierra…

billy

My post was just to announce that theres another update on the website. It seems like eventually we'll hear a decision one way or another, hopefully before this summer.

I bought one last year, and used it in several places where bear canisters are not even required. I didn't see any sign of bears where I went, but it still provided some peace of mind and it was super convenient to tie it off to a tree or rock above treeline. How would it hold up to a black bear "attack"?…I have no idea, but I lean towards believing in its ability to preserve my food. Only about 5-6oz heavier than a food bag hanging setup is pretty hard to beat.

I have to say I kind of feel bad for Ursack. Whether you like the product or not, the fact is at least they are trying something different, and it's kind of bad for them to be stymied year after year trying to get approval. It's hard to innovate a container that a massive mammal can't bite through, sit on, claw through or carry away and when the rules are so opaque….

Anyway, I just wish they'd get it over with already and either put Ursack out of their misery or allow the damned white kevlar bag!

Now…how about Bearikade not even submitting to IGBC for testing??

Here.

JAN
04
2015
0
Yosemite and Sequoia Kings Canyon
By Ursack | Uncategorized | No Comments
Yosemite and Sequoia Kings Canyon are currently reviewing the current version of the Ursack S29 AllWhite for use in those Parks. I do not know when they will make their decision or what that decision will be. In a recent letter to them, I pointed out that the recent release of the movie Wild and the upcoming release of the movie A Walk in the Woods are very likely to lead to an increase in long distance backpacking, and that thru-hikers are already making equipment choices for this year. Hopefully, these Parks (and others) will acknowledge that IGBC certification and the 2014 Ursack’s perfect record against wilderness bears warrants approval.
Happy New Year!

Not going to hold my breath, and frankly bringing up Wild sounds desperate at best.

Love my Ursack though.

What would concern me most, is not if a new ursack can withstand 1hr of bear play.

But can it withstand the amount it may receive over the course of its life.

My guess, is no.

Wear will be cumulative, and people wont replace it when it shows a little wear from a bear.

Hard cannisters might have a similar issue, but i expect that short of being rolled off cliffs, bears do no damage to a cannister.

I dont have the same feeling about an ursack.

[Edited for brevity] No, that update does not say decision pending. Perhaps someone here knows NPS review process better than me, but I wouldn't imagine less than months if not more (and I bet you the answer then will not be a simple "yes" or "no"). I thought Ursack's update and past updates were clear and perfectly nuanced. I disagreed with the interpretation here that a decision was pending and thought resulting backlash against Ursack (for that interpretation) was unfair.

OK, I'm done defending Ursack updates…

Regarding this question: "But can it withstand the amount it may receive over the course of its life?" How many encounters between bear and food containment do hikers experience in a typical JMT thru hike? I thought the most typical answer would be 0. My point being that I'd be happy to buy a new one after every bear encounter. Granted, it may be hard to capture that in any new rules. And there are places (and hikers I guess) that see more frequent attention from bears.

Here is a link to a petition that hopes to persuade Yosemite to approve

https://www.change.org/p/charles-cuvelier-chief-ranger-at-yosemite-np-and-administrators-of-sequoia-and-kings-canyon-np-approve-ursack-2014-s29-for-use-in-your-parks?recruiter=226980591&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=des-lg-no_src-reason_msg

Good stuff, thanks for sharing Ken.

Signed the Petition.

And Unsubscribed, twice.

Done.

The argument part of the petition is weak.
Unless there are 100,000 or more signatures, doubt it will impress the Park Service.

Billy

Yeah, the petition almost makes the point why they should not be approved. The weakest aspect of the Ursack is potential user error in not cinching it properly and not tying it off in the right location correctly, which is bound to happen with a bunch of inexperienced people carrying them in Yosemite.

I have been waiting for good news regarding Ursack approval in SEKI/Yosemite. I finally got tired of waiting. A hard-sided canister makes more sense above the tree line in the high sierra anyway. Got a 12" Bearikade on the way. By the way, when I ordered last week I was told that prices are going up on them in the near future.

Why would there be "a bunch of inexperienced people carrying them in Yosemite"? I don't think yosemite is going to start renting these things out to new backpackers. Also, I think someone who has taken the time to research the product will also research how to use it properly. Hopefully REI doesn't end up selling it…