UrSack

Current regs:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5418860.pdf

The requirement seems to be: "containers designed to prevent access by bears"

Since bear hanging is described and not allowed, they could claim the standard Ursack technique is a form of hanging and outlawed. I think it comes down to them not wanting you to use it, but not wanting to get sued by Ursack either. I don't think they have the resources to vet all bear containers and fight legal challenges, but they probably are not as scared to give yo a ticket.

how do they define, "containers designed to prevent access by bears"

most other agencies refer to the bear canister testing/approval organization as to what is approved and what is not…

but I don't see that with Inyon Nat Forest

bill

oh, I agree its not clear, and I think its not clear for specific reasons. They are in a tough legal spot since there is no longer a testing agency that tests with black bears and like I said, they don't have the resources to vet bear canisters or weather legal challenges.

They are in essence letting private companies define whether their container is properly designed to prevent access by bears (the Adirondacks use similar criterion, but they specifically mention hard sided container). That would suggest the doors are wide open for Ursack, but it appears if you tie it onto a tree they are considering it a form of bear bag hang which is expressly forbidden.

Can you use Ursack? I think you are on solid legal ground to use Ursack, but how much hassle do you want if you come across a ranger? If you do use it, I wouldn't tie it on to a tree. Sorry the answer isn't black and white, but that is the current state of funding in our national forests.

Ben, you said –

"… they could claim the standard Ursack technique is a form of hanging and outlawed"

Speculation on your part?

" If you do use it, I wouldn't tie it on to a tree."

Is this also based on your speculation, or is there a statement to the effect that
"…tying to a tree damages resources and is prohibited?"

I've seen a similar statement elsewhere, but not in Inyo Order 05-04-54-13-05.

Just wondering…

yes, speculation on my part. It reconciles the reported statements in the OP with the stated regulations.

Visiting national forests around California leads me to believe they are severely underfunded. Combine that with the knowledge that Ursack sued Yosemite and SEKI once SIBBG closed down and stopped testing, leads me to believe that Inyo did not want to get wrapped up with the lawsuit and so adopted vague language.

Reading Ursack's letter to Yosemite and SEKI shows that they certainly believe the Ursack can be used throughout INF: http://www.ursack.com/ursack-update.htm

Combine that with the experiences of the OP leads me to believe that INF doesn't want you to use the Ursack but will in essence back down if challenged. So… do you want to deal with a grumpy ranger writing you a ticket and taking care of it (either paying it off or challenging it)? Of course what are the chances of meeting a ranger outside of the permit office in Bishop?

Maybe this is oddball, but I think that I have seen the ranger in the Rae Lakes area of Kings Canyon on every trip that I've made in there, year after year. He seems to be making the rounds at the fishing and cooking hour of the evening.

It doesn't really make any difference how good Ursack thinks their product is, it is more how legal the ranger thinks it is, and how good it really is to Mister Bear.

–B.G.–

Rae Lakes is NOT in Inyo National Forest…

Rae Lakes is in King's Canyon National Park… and is an extremely popular area for people and for bears…

Bill D

Seems there was something a few years back that the Ursack wasn't allowed to be tied to trees anymore due to resource damage, put out by the USFS. I had a Backcountry Ranger tell me at Purple Lake out of Mammoth Lakes, CA I had not tied up my upgraded Ursack to a tree when I went day hiking one day. I told her it was not allowed anymore due to resource damage. She asked for my email addy, never heard from her. That's the last I know, has the USFS/NPS changed their tune?
Duane

The Ursack hang is somewhat optional isn't it?

I mean it's actually a step UP from the bear canisters as these don't require you to fasten them to anything.

No. They are meant to be tied off. Ursacks that is.

When in doubt read the instructions.

USE AND CARE OF URSACK

DO

Tie the cord with a double overhand knot–tight–so that there is no opening at the top of the bag.
If food is visible, you have packed too much in.
If you can see it, a bear can get it.

Tie URSACK up to a strong branch so that it can't be crushed or stolen. Bears have been known to chew through 5 inch branches to get to food.

Always check trailhead regulations.
After securing the opening with a double overhand knot, tie URSACK to a tree branch using a figure 8 or another knot that resists clinching, so that it can be untied easily.
Keep any food item that could leak in a plastic bag inside URSACK. Even though a bear may not be able to penetrate URSACK, he may be able to crush the contents. If URSACK does get crushed, there won't be a "food reward" that can be licked from the outside.
Machine wash, no bleach line dry
DO NOT
Do not keep URSACK in camp.

URSACK must be secured to a fixed object that is a safe distance from your camp site.

Do not keep URSACK in or near your sleeping bag or tent.

USFS says one thing, the manufacturer says another. The manufacturer won't issue me a ticket. I just go without unless in an area where a bear resistant food container is required, then I just bring my Bearicade now. Next trip out, I'll have to see what is required.
Duane