Topic

URSACK S29

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
Joseph Bernier BPL Member
PostedAug 9, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Anybody out there know exactly what the deal is with using the URSACK S29 "without aluminum insert" in the non-restricted zones of Kings Canyon/Sequoia National Park? I know the S29 "with aluminum insert" in conditionally approved in the restricted areas (Dusy Basin, Rae Lakes, ect).

Just want to follow the rules and keep the local bear population safe. I've thought about using the storage lockers, but hate the idea of having to camp near the lockers and a bunch of other backpackers. I've always used cans in the past so I could camp any old place I wanted to, and stay away from the crowds and bear problem areas. But two pounds of can weight sucks. I would love to use the 8oz S29 . . . as long as it works and is allowed.

Any info would be great.

jdubhikes BPL Member
PostedAug 9, 2007 at 7:02 pm

Joe,

I just got off the JMT and there were two S29 failures reported to the rangers. I personally spoke to both hikers who lost their food. I heard that the conditional status was in jeapordy (nothing official though, just passing hikers).

As for the no liner part, I don't know. I would call a ranger station in the area your considering.

It's beautiful up there right now, have a great trip!

Peter King BPL Member
PostedAug 10, 2007 at 8:43 am

The rules do seem to imply that in the non-restricted areas without lockers an Ursack user must either have a liner or counter-balance. While there probably is an obsessive ranger out there somewhere who would want to enforce it, your chances of having a problem are small. Talking to a ranger may not get the right answer; some I have talked to are informed and some are quite ignorant.

The practical answer is that there are almost always better alternatives than a counter-balance hang. An Ursack without a liner is certainly superior to a hang. I'm currently carrying an S29 w/liner on those trailheads which require it, but using an older (and lighter) model on those which do not. A key reason, aside from bear protection, is to easily keep rodents out of the food when I'm not with it. Marmots can be a bigger hazard to food than bears.

It's distressing to hear of S29 failures; thanks for the report. The question is whether they are due to user error. I hope we don't get a typical bureaucratic overreaction, since the damage to bears from other causes is far greater than this one.

Joseph Bernier BPL Member
PostedAug 10, 2007 at 9:56 am

Yeah, I usually carry a bearikade weekender. I'm thinking I'll take both the weekender and the S29 with me, and decide which to use after talking to the Rangers at Lodgepole.

With two S29's failing already this season, I'm guessing the S29 will soon be removed from the conditionally approved list . . . to bad, but if they don't work I guess it's for the best. And if the aluminum liner is a must, then I'll go with the weekender for sure – not much weight difference.

PostedAug 12, 2007 at 5:22 pm

I'm the president of Ursack. As of this writing, August 12, 2007, we have not heard of a single S29 Hybrid (or S29 without aluminum) that has failed anywhere in the U.S. There was a single incident at Thousand Island Lake earlier this summer that was a clear case of user error (failure to cinch and tie the knot), the bag itself has no holes. Because we stand 100% behind our warranty, we almost always hear about problems from our customers. We have not heard from the JMT hikers referred to here. To Ursack, the first priority is keeping bears from getting food rewards. Unless a bear either tears a hole in the fabric bigger than the diameter of a tooth or manages to open the Urasack from the top because it has not been tied off, a bear will not get a food reward. Campers who use Ursack without the aluminum liner run the risk of some or all of their food getting crushed, and as a result may talk about "losing their food." To us, that is unfortunate, but it is not a failure–it's the trade off you make for carrying an 8 ounce bag instead of a 3 pound barrel.

If SIBBG withdraws Ursack approval it will put us out of business. Please be sure of details before claiming that Ursacks have failed. Feel free to email me directly with any comments or questions at info@ursack.com

Thanks.

Tom Cohen

PostedAug 12, 2007 at 6:12 pm

That's great to hear, Tom! Thanks for letting us know. I'm sure everyone wants the Ursack to be successful for the light weight and more importantly for the bears.

Joseph Bernier BPL Member
PostedAug 13, 2007 at 7:52 am

Thanks for the info Tom. I just received my brand new S29 last friday, and I'm excited to use it in a few weeks in the Lodgepole area of Kings Canyon. I'll be sure to let everyone know how it goes. As far as the two possible "failures" go, my first thought was user error, which it sounds like was the case. I hope the S29 is given full approved status next season.

PostedAug 17, 2007 at 8:32 am

I was on the Whitney board and saw an update to this thread. I thought this was interesting … according to the posts, they are thinking the damage was caused by a marten. There is also a full write up of the incident by the Ursack's owner here:

http://www.whitneyportalstore.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/39695/page/3/fpart/1

I'm glad to see the company is engaged with the community. But I am also second guessing the product. I was planning on buying one for an upcoming trip, but now I'm a little concerned that I will not be able to use it next year if the status gets revoked. Sorry, I don't mean to be negative, but I think this is a legitimate concern.

So, exactly what is considered a 'failure' – a rodent compromising the sack or is it just when a bear receives a food reward (not due to user error)?

My point is that maybe my fears are unfounded. If this incident is not considered a failure then I would suspect the status would not be in jeopardy. I'm just trying to hack through the rumors and make an informed decision!

Peter King BPL Member
PostedAug 17, 2007 at 9:09 am

Thanks for the link, Phil. Since the Ursack chewed through was the older model, the S29 might provide enough extra protection against martens.

Tom, thanks for the comments. Good luck with the continuing fight. Illegitimi non carborundum!

PostedAug 20, 2007 at 6:42 pm

I just finished the JMT and chose to carry 8 days of food from VVR to Whitney Portal rather than hike down into town to resupply. I hiked around 15 – 18 miles a day, and rented a bear canister at Yosemite Valley. What a joke!

I nor anyone not wishing to lose tons of their body weight (I weigh 165 lbs) could possible fit their food in two much less one of those bear canisters. I managed to cram around 8-9 pounds of food in my canister (little over 4 days) the rest I hung counter balanced for most of the trip with alokasaks.

If I had to do over again (which I am looking forward to) I would use the URSACK. Learn how to properly hang food away from your campsite and you should have no problems either. Everyone I hiked with or met on the JMT could not fit all their food into their canisters, so what is the point? A partial treat for the bears?

By the way, in Yosemite Valley at the backpacker's camp using the bear lockers is the only place I had a bear encounter on the trip. Yes the bear did get into the locker that someone failed to properly close. I hadn't rented a bear canister yet, but all my food was in an Odor Proof Alokasak in the front of the bear locker. The bear pushed my bag aside to get to the other food in the locker.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
Loading...