Ursack Approved by IGBC

>>> IMO, This doesn't mean much for a lot of people here unless they got the approval of Yosemite.

Then I think your opinion is flawed. I have never been to Yosemite and never plan to. It's too damned crowded.

I just bought an Ursack to use for above-treeline travel. Below treeline, of course, I just hang food.

I have never lost food to any critter. Well, excepting a very cheeky golden-mantled ground squirrel who took a peanut-butter cup right out of my hand on Middle Burroughs in Rainier NP. And I have had to chase ravens away from my backpack on occasion.

">>> IMO, This doesn't mean much for a lot of people here unless they got the approval of Yosemite.

Then I think your opinion is flawed. I have never been to Yosemite and never plan to. It's too damned crowded."

Ditto.

If the IGBC rates an item as acceptable for use in grizzly country through scientific testing, then I feel fine using it in grizzly country and for black bear country here in Colorado. If Yosemite thinks their bears are just too damned smart or they are just unwilling to accept that non-hard sided canisters can work, then that's their problem.

And if one store refuses to sell a product, that doesn't automatically prove the product is worthless.

Of course this is all moot until we here an official ruling from ranger districts in the Sierras anyway.

I think Brian's point was that many California parks follow Yosemite's lead in terms of food storage policy, so until Yosemite adopts the Ursack, not many other places in California will. I have no idea what the situation is like in Colorado.

P.S. Yosemite is not crowded. Yosemite Valley is crowded.

"If Yosemite thinks their bears are just too damned smart or they are just unwilling to accept that non-hard sided canisters can work, …"

Or if they think users are not capable, or willing, to follow the "standard operating procedure" for the Ursack.

Is it really that difficult for people to know how to close a bag properly?

I suppose my opinion is from a flawed perspective. I've never camped anywhere that required any sort of canister, or needed any sort of permit, for that matter, except once in Rocky Mountain NP. Too many people there, too…

All I do know is that I've never even seen a bear on trail where I hike. I know they are there, but they don't bother me if I don't bother them. So adding a 7.3 oz bag to my kit may even be completely unnecessary just to add a little piece of mind when alpine camping.

I sincerely hope Yosemite approves the Ursack so you all don't have to lug 2 pound giant cans all around the wild places.

I read the reports from when the ursack had it temporary approval a few years ago:
1) The temporary approval dictated that it not be tied to an object due to fear of damage to trees.
2) The post evaluation of the ursack indicated bears were not taking them far. I forget the exact max reported distance of an ursack being moved but I was surprised at how short a distance it was.

I do not know why the bears were not taking them away as they certainly take other stuff away but I followed the interim rules and never had my ursack disappear. However, I only know of one time a bear tried to test the ursack and I shooed him away pretty quickly (so it really does not count as a test of the ursack).

I have been using ursacks since the green ursack days (Possibly 10 year: I own 2 bear and one critter ursack) and I use them everywhere that I am not required to have a canister without having an issue yet (but not really tested yet either).

My point is that the ursacks have shown that they do not need to be tied to an object.

The interim approval a few years ago dictated that they tied to an object. The post interim approval indicated there were no instances of the ursack being moved far.

Definitely not a good example of how things go wrong. Seeing he has used the ursack for so long he was using it through the interim approval phase knowing that it was mandated not to be tied to anything and he may have read the post interim approval report (or at least a synopsis of that report).

It does not excuse him from disregarding the Yosemite policy mandating canisters.

"My point is that the ursacks have shown that they do not need to be tied to an object."

The real secret to any Bear proofing device is eliminating odor. Most people that use Bear canisters probably don't put their food inside of an odor proof bag (like an Opsak). I can easily seeing a Bear being enamored with the smell and carrying/pushing a canister hoping to somehow get access to the wonderful smelling contents inside.

People I know, including myself, that use an Ursack also use an Opsak inside it. In my opinion that's the critical success factor. Not eliminating the odor and simply trying to prevent the Bear from accessing (i.e., Tie or hang from a tree) is inviting Bears and Critters to come into your camp and make mischief (i.e., destroying your shelter, sleeping bag etc…)

"The real secret to any Bear proofing device is eliminating odor."

A huge +1 Absolutely critical. Don't attract attention in the first place. simple as that.

I've been hiking in the Sierra Nevada since 1990. I've used food hangs, older Ursacks, and the hated Garcia bear can. I never lost food to an animal and it wasn't just luck. Then again I will never camp where known problem bears are such as by Glen Aulin trail camp. And I do try to minimize food smells in camp as to not attract a bear's excellent sense of smell. Opsacks and multiple ziplocks do reduce the smell of food even if not completely. But I've also seen a lot of hikers loose food from their own actions. So mandating something like a bear can that is almost stupid proof was a good idea. Though never under-estimate the stupidity of people as hikers have not properly locked their bear can, left it unattended and lost food.

However, a properly used Ursack will protect your food. But you can't treat them like a hard sided bear can which brings in the human element again which Yoesmite doesn't like since they have too much negative experience with that issue. The biggest issue with past failures of Ursack are:

1) Doing what Yosemite said and leaving them on the ground not tied to anything. They wouldn't even let you tie them to an already dead and fallen tree.
2) Treating it like a hard sided bear can and letting the bear play with it all night instead of as a delaying device before scaring it off (ie. much like a food hang only much better).

By tying it to a tree at an awkward height for the bear, he is not likely to spend hours working on it and he won't be able to get good leverage on it. When Yosemite mandated that it be used just like a hard shell bear canister, they doomed it from the start. Since it was on the ground a bear could pick it up and move it to a nearby place where it could get comfortable, and chew on it all night while getting good leverage between its paws and mouth. Once its in the bear's possession, there is no way you are going to get it back until the bear is done with it, so you can't scare it away once you realize the bear is there.

And since the rules were the same as a regular bear can, many ignorant hikers treated it as such rather then as a much improved delaying device compared to a food hang. Rather then chasing the bear off in the night, they left the ursack to the bear all night which increased the chances of it damaging the sack. It also allowed the bear to crush all your food mixing interesting flavors together even when he couldn't get into the bag itself. And then some of these hikers dumped their crush food in the backcountry where the animals could get it since they didn't want to eat it anymore compounding their mistakes and violating regulations. Clearly they weren't hungery enough so they were obviously only out for few nights. Any long distance hiker would be so hungery they'd eat almost anything including gatoraid flavored ramen noodles.

"It also allowed the bear to crush all your food mixing interesting flavors together even when he couldn't get into the bag itself."

That is why the Ursack is meant to be used with the aluminum insert. Why anybody would use just the sack has always been beyond me. You might as well just give the bear your food.

"It also allowed the bear to crush all your food mixing interesting flavors together even when he couldn't get into the bag itself."

'That is why the Ursack is meant to be used with the aluminum insert. Why anybody would use just the sack has always been beyond me. You might as well just give the bear your food.'

When using a hard sided bear canister I have to crush and mash my food to get it all in there anyway… not sure if the bear could mash in any more than that…..

billy

The Ursack passed the test unlined and not tied to anything.

"When using a hard sided bear canister I have to crush and mash my food to get it all in there anyway… not sure if the bear could mash in any more than that….."

Yeah, but I'll bet you don't rupture the baggies and mix it all together in the process, like a bear does with the point pressure of its teeth and claws. Personally I prefer my granola and pea soup as separate courses. ;0)

Not to revive an aging thread but…!
Those who say an Ursack is not to be hanged are mistaken…as evidenced by a picture of the tag that comes on the bag when it is purchased.

I use the Ursack with the aluminum liner and my standard practice is to pack my Evernew (short and wide) 1.8L or 1.3L pot or at least the pot-lid at the top of the bag so that when cinched down the pot/lid acts like a third hard side. This way, the food shouldn't be able to be pushed out the end since a hard sided object is blocking the exit – which also will help keep small vermin out. Can't forget that bears aren't the only things that want your food.

I also back up the main knot with an overhand or figure eight knot as well.

Noticed that North Cascades National Park will be allowing them in canister-required zones-

"Allowed food canister models include those available for loan at Ranger Stations — Bear Vault Models BV450 & BV500, Backpackers Cache Model 812, any Bearikade model — and any product tested and approved by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee listed here."

Link included the Ursack. I'm considering it as an option.