Topic

Ursack closer to being allowed in Yosemite?


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 closer to being allowed in Yosemite?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 25 posts - 176 through 200 (of 200 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2176891
    Bob Gross
    BPL Member

    @b-g-2-2

    Locale: Silicon Valley

    Besides, a hard bear canister makes a much better camp stool.

    –B.G.–

    #2176902
    Charlie W
    Spectator

    @charliew

    The petition finally convinced me that this is a bad idea, at least for now.

    With the dramatic new surge in JMT enthusiasts (due to Wild or whatever) it is not a good time to try out something new that very obviously has a greater opportunity for user error. Bear cans almost always work, even when users are inexperienced. It's a wilderness and that is always going to entail some level of challenge/hardship for human visitors that wish to do no damage.

    I still think it's unfair that a few companies have exclusive (and permanent) rights to make bearproof containers for that area. There should be some kind of protocol or standard to evaluate new ones. But I won't sign a petition arguing that hordes of new visitors are entitled to an easier solution to the bear problem.

    #2176905
    Bob Gross
    BPL Member

    @b-g-2-2

    Locale: Silicon Valley

    "I still think it's unfair that a few companies have exclusive (and permanent) rights to make bearproof containers for that area."

    That may be true, but there are at least seven different companies that make the hard bear canisters that are approved. Exactly what is the problem?

    –B.G.–

    #2177055
    Robert Kelly
    BPL Member

    @qiwiz

    Locale: UL gear @ QiWiz.net

    So I signed the petition on change.org – It's past time for them to be approved in Yosemite and similar venues IMO. You may disagree, and that's OK.

    In case you want to join the chorus, here is another link to the petition: 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

    #2177075
    Katherine .
    BPL Member

    @katherine

    Locale: pdx

    OK, i realize there was various BS getting to the current degree of approval, but might it be a good idea to see how Ursacks work out w/Sierra bears for a few summers before extending the approval to the more problem areas.

    On the other hand, given the history, I can see the logic to starting the pressure now.

    #2177151
    Anonymous
    Inactive

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

    Actually, the official Ursack website recommendation is to tie it to a tree branch. I
    verified that yesterday with Tom Cohen, owner of Ursack. Here is what he had to say:

    "From Tom Cohen [email protected]
    To tbkirchner [email protected]

    We want Ursack off the ground tied to a branch not a trunk…keeps the beat from stomping on it

    Sent from my iPad"

    #2177152
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    "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."

    Probably, but your food is going to be an awful mess when the bear gets through chomping on the Ursack and pawing it around. I'd go for the aluminum insert, myself.

    #2177153
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    "but there are at least seven different companies that make the hard bear canisters that are approved. Exactly what is the problem?"

    Weight.

    #2177157
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    "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."

    Probably true, but the Park Service could easily require a demonstration of competence when a user picks up his permit, and affix a special stamp on their permit allowing Ursack use. Backcountry rangers could check for the stamp when deciding whether or not to let the user continue their trip.

    #2177161
    Greg Mihalik
    Spectator

    @greg23

    Locale: Colorado

    "Exactly what is the problem?"

    Uncomfortable pack.
    Difficult packing.
    Useless volume.
    Weight.
    Cost.

    #2177163
    Larry De La Briandais
    BPL Member

    @hitech

    Locale: SF Bay Area

    "Probably true, but the Park Service could easily require a demonstration of competence when a user picks up his permit, and affix a special stamp on their permit allowing Ursack use. Backcountry rangers could check for the stamp when deciding whether or not to let the user continue their trip."

    +1

    We really need a FB style "Like" button.

    #2177168
    Bob Gross
    BPL Member

    @b-g-2-2

    Locale: Silicon Valley

    "Uncomfortable pack."

    You could shop around for a comfortable pack. I don't have any problem with mine since I put the bear canister in the pack with the big flat side against the back panel against my back.

    "Difficult packing."

    I don't have any problem with mine, but I've been practicing for over 15 years.

    "Useless volume."

    Get a smaller bear canister to suit the length of your trip.

    "Weight."

    Yes, mine weighs about the same as one day's worth of food.

    "Cost."

    Ursacks aren't free, either. One bear canister of mine cost me $50.

    –B.G.–

    #2177172
    Greg Mihalik
    Spectator

    @greg23

    Locale: Colorado

    ^^^

    Well, good for you.
    I'm glad you'er happy.

    #2177204
    Steve B
    BPL Member

    @geokite

    Locale: Southern California

    What Bob said ^

    Steve

    #2177208
    Ken Thompson
    BPL Member

    @here

    Locale: Right there

    "I'd go for the aluminum insert, myself."

    Great canister stove windscreen. So dual use. Use it without the liner on low risk trips. I use mine all the time.

    #2177229
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    "Use it without the liner on low risk trips."

    I just double bag my food with Nylobarrier OP bags on low risk trips and sleep with it. Any trip where I feel the need to carry the Ursack, I carry the insert as well. I like my granola in the morning, and my soup in the evening. They don't taste very good all mooshed up into one powdery mess for both breakfast and dinner.

    #2177236
    kevperro .
    BPL Member

    @kevperro

    Locale: Washington State

    I've already added one to my Gear Grams list…. notated as "Bear Chew-toy".

    #2177253
    Billy Ray
    Spectator

    @rosyfinch

    Locale: the mountains

    "but the Park Service could easily require a demonstration of competence when a user picks up his permit, and affix a special stamp on their permit allowing Ursack use. Backcountry rangers could check for the stamp when deciding whether or not to let the user continue their trip."

    Never happen… too much work… remember, these are gov employees… this is just tooooo much to ask…

    billy

    #2177254
    Billy Ray
    Spectator

    @rosyfinch

    Locale: the mountains

    ""I'd go for the aluminum insert, myself."
    Great canister stove windscreen. So dual use."

    Yea… but a PIT to pull out of the sack and put back in just to use as a wind screen…
    Leeseee… gotta take out for dinner… then put back in for the night… then take out for breakfast… then put back in…

    billy

    #2177289
    Bob Gross
    BPL Member

    @b-g-2-2

    Locale: Silicon Valley

    "but the Park Service could easily require a demonstration of competence when a user picks up his permit"

    Many years ago, long before bear canisters, we would go to a Yosemite permit station and stand in line early on a Saturday morning. Before the ranger would start issuing permits, he first did the bear bagging demonstration right outside the permit station. Then he went inside and opened up his permit books. If you were present for the bear bagging demo, and then when he asked you about it, he would write your permit and you were on your way. If you admitted that you were not present for the demo, he would put your permit aside until he had processed the entire waiting line, and then he would go back to demonstrate again for your benefit before you got your permit.

    Permit rangers just don't have the time for that now in today's digital age. They just want your telephone number so that they can access your digital records. Then they just want to go click, click. He asks you if you have a bear canister, and if you say you do, he asks which type. If you don't know, then he shows a page with photos of the five or six most common brands. You point at one. Then he goes click, click and the thing is done. If you say that you don't have a bear canister, then you are in a heap of trouble unless you rent one from him.

    –B.G.–

    #2177319
    Ken Thompson
    BPL Member

    @here

    Locale: Right there

    Not an issue at all for me to pull the liner out. Food is in a bag in the Ursack anyway. Easier than dealing with trolls online that's for sure.

    #2177413
    Larry De La Briandais
    BPL Member

    @hitech

    Locale: SF Bay Area

    When I got my permit in summer they went over my entire itinerary and explained each rule on the permit. They didn't just read them, they explained them. 1 or 2 minutes for the permittee to demonstrate the use of a Ursack would take less time.

    However, since they rent bearikades I'm all set. :^)

    #2177433
    Valerie E
    Spectator

    @wildtowner

    Locale: Grand Canyon State

    Larry is correct — at least for Yosemite. Picking up our permits last August involved showing them our bear canisters, listening to a several-minute review of each rule, and, if I remember correctly, some initialing on a form to prove that we accepted those rules.

    #2177442
    Ken Larson
    BPL Member

    @kenlarson

    Locale: Western Michigan

    I believe this is becoming common procedure at ALL national parks whether in bear country requiring special requirement or not. Last time I vitiated Isle Royale National Park 2013 & Sleeping Bear National Parks North Manitou Island in 2014 when I picked up my permit I was a required to "spell out" the tentative route to be taken and to listening to a several-minute review of each rule on the back of permit. My signature was required above the officer who issued the permit on the front of the form to prove that I accepted those rules if or when if ever I was asked to show the permit.

    #2179447
    Jeffrey Wong
    BPL Member

    @kayak4water

    Locale: Pacific NW

    I always say in the face of a great expense such as the Bearakade: Well, there goes my cigarette money. or There goes my beer money. (easy, since I spend $0 on beer and cigs) YMMV.

    The weight of the Ursack appeals to my ultralight backpacking Walter Mitty, but I'll likely go for a Bearikade almost everywhere I hike (Olympic NP requires them in many areas).

    I've enjoyed the challenge of hanging my food PCT style in the Goat Rocks Wilderness, but one must camp early to have enough light to find a suitable tree and do the hang. A bear can takes away that little chore. Nonetheless, I do enjoy watching the Ursack's evolution.

Viewing 25 posts - 176 through 200 (of 200 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...