Attempting to improve & innovate bear resistant containers and sacks- need input

[Ken Thompson]

To what end Jim? That stuff gets stayed on hot. It’s just a thin layer of chemical resistant material. Somewhat flexible. A heavy, durable, thin coating that protects but does not increase strength.

[Jon Fong / Flat Cat Gear]

Current “Bear Canisters” are probably close to pushing the limits on weight per dollar.  It may be best to think outside the box.  For example, using an electronic box with a motion heat sensor: the alarm could be a targeted ultra sonic pitch that effected bears and not humans.  Just a thought.

[Jim C]

Why do you say it doesn’t add strength? I apply the appropriate amount of skepticism to a marketing video, but it certainly does appear to add substantial strength. Does it add enough strength, at a low enough weight, and at high enough durability (or could a persistent bear scratch the coating off?)? That I don’t know.

That stuff gets stayed on hot.

Typo? I’m not sure what you mean.

[Ken Thompson]

Sorry, sprayed on hot. Quarter inch maximum thickness. It can be scraped and worn off with effort. Still the best liner on the market. Used by the military, not concerned with weight. I don’t see how it would be applicable to adding onto a container.

[Ben H.]

1. What bear resistant container is your favorite/go-to option for right now (BearVault, Garcia, Ursack, Berikade, etc) and why? – Lighter1 – small volume and reasonable price.  It fits a weekends worth of food for a pretty lightweight… and it is not as expensive as a berikade
2. What do you dislike most about your container (hard to carry, the weight, material, Ursack fabric reliability, etc.)? – weight
3. What do you like most about your container (wide opening, easy to fit in bag, can be used as stool, etc.)? – see thru and weight/price ratio compared to competing products
4. What functionality do you wish your container/sack would have that would make you feel more satisfied with the product/rooms for improvement (redesign them with a flat side so that the traditional cylindrical shape of canisters won’t exert awkward pressure right against your spine, adjustable volume, water proofing for sacks like Ursack, redesigned container that’s superbly light weight, etc.)? – flexible like an ursack would be nice, but not allow bear teeth access to the food.
5. Since this website is dedicated towards light-weight backpacking, how would you compare Ursack to traditional heavy canisters that are inconvenient to travel with? If the Ursack’s fabric was better in terms of mechanical and tensile strength- and approved in more parks, would you favor it over bear canisters/vaults/containers?  – Ursack is nice, but IMO they don’t work very well.  I’ve seen many reports of failures and it took them several redesign and many lawsuits to skirt through IGBC approval.  The end product also does not protect your food from a bear.  A bear chewing on the bag will render the food worthless.

[Colin M]

1. Ursack for usability and that you can tie it to a tree and not have to worry a bear rolled it off into the woods
2. Most disliked is that the hole in the top is very difficult if not impossible to completely close. Varmints can squeeze in plus can chew through given enough time.
3. Most liked is the weight, ease of fitting it in my pack and that I can tie it to a tree so it’s a quick process.
4. I wish it would seal all the way so it could be approved in national parks (though I doubt that would be enough, it’s what they said was the issue in the latest info)
5. I already like the ursack far more than any canister. I believe the issue the parks have with it is the hole in the opening plus the fact that if someone puts smelly and squishy stuff in it the bears will be conditioned to smash the crap out of it until it becomes like a kong toy for dogs where they play with it for hours getting little tastes of what is inside. Hard sided containers are much more limiting in that regard as they make up for the stupid things that people do by not rewarding the bear with little tastes (but punishing the hiker when they roll it off down a hill never to be seen again.

[David K.]

Doesn’t the aluminium insert solve the problem of the bears smashing the Ursack till food leaks out?

[Bean]

1. Berikade. Lightest for volume, and approved where bear cans are required.
2. Heavy & expensive. Have to use a coin to open it.
3. Holds a lot of food and lid closes when stuffed to brim.
4. Lighter, and opens without a “tool”.
5. Ursack would be great, if they were approved. Not holding my breath on that ever happening.

Crazy notion I had, that I thought was plausible, is to be able to breakdown a cylindrical bear can for hiking, then assemble it to put food in at night. Could potentially use the lateral surface and other components as part of a frame system for a pack.

 

[David K.]

what about a foldable canister along the lines of this:  https://youtu.be/XXwWltI2uLw

[Bean]

what about a foldable canister along the lines of this:  https://youtu.be/XXwWltI2uLw

… and if not on it’s own, wonder if something like that structure inside an Ursack (to prevent leakage), would improve its chances at getting approved for places like SEKI.

Probably moot, as drones will just deliver us food in the wilderness in a few years.

[David K.]

Could this be of use?  Claims to be 5 times more cut resistant than Kevlar.  No idea how it compares to the material Ursack is using.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/flak-sack-the-theft-resistant-drawstring-backpack#/

[Colin M]

David: The aluminum insert is supposed to help but as a person with a LOT of hands on experience with bears (I was a night janitor at a summer camp in Kings Canyon years ago) I can attest to their tenacity. In a perfect situation, yes, it might help a bit. But realistically, a flexible aluminum insert is going to do little to protect food when a 500lb bear is using all it’s strength to smash it. Dry foods will be fine but peanut butter and oils will be a mess.

But what I was really referring to was the NPS major consideration: the variable of the average Sierra hiker (not super experienced) and how that would affect the Ursack’s efficacy. Let’s assume said user fills the bag with peanut butter, oils and other semi-liquids. After a bear smashes it repeatedly peanut butter or other gooey food eventually works it’s way out (both through the hole AND through the fabric) it will give small rewards to the bear, conditioning it to go after more ursacks. Now I come along with my liner, all dry foods and Opsack. Bear sees the white bag and goes nuts trying to figure out how to get another Kong-toy increasing bear-human interaction exactly the situation the NPS wants to avoid.

How many people won’t tie them correctly? How many will pack foods that will leak when smashed? The weak link is the user, not the bag.  While I have not had any issues myself nor have I heard of this happening, I do see the NPS concern over it’s possibility if you gave the average Sierra hiker the bag and set them loose in high pressure bear country. I should mention that my good friend has twice had bears in the Tahoe area go after his Ursack with no loss and I completely trust it for my own use (though not so much for chipmunks and rodents).

[David K.]

Colin – what where the issues with rodents and the Ursack?

[Jim H]

@ Brandon:  I’ve also wondered about a break-down canister, but more along the lines of Bearikade Expedition that broke down into 3-4 shorter clyinders that had to be screwed together to form the canister. I think a design like this could be great for group trips where food and canister weight could be shared during the day, and nobody would have to fit a full size canister in their pack. Not sure there would be much weigh savings over multiple canisters given the extra threads/reinforcement, but packing improvement could be substantial.

[Ken Thompson]

So no comment from the OP? Did we put him off this idea?

[The Backpack Guy]

Hello everyone!

First and foremost, I’m so overwhelmed by the amount of responses you guys gave me. Thank you all so much for your input, this is extremely valuable to me and I know it will be of great use.

Secondly, I do apologize for the rather late response. I was involved in a pretty bad car wreck and have been recovering from it. I’m a lot better now and am ready to get back into action!

So now, here’s my feedback on everyone’s input:

It seems that the general consensus here is that most individuals like the Ursack in terms of packability and weight, however, it’s not idiot proof because of the users failure to tie a proper knot and hanging the bag- thus, causing the bag some serious approval issues. An experienced backpacker/camper wouldn’t have any issues with this bag in terms of following park rules and regulations. Another huge turn off is the potential of bears getting drool on your food and crushing the contents inside the bag.

It appears that light weight and size is key when considering which bear container to pick from. The obvious consensus here is beating the Bearikade in terms of weight and reliability means that you “win”. If this container was cheaper in the market, then it would probably be dominating. However, it seems that the carbon and aluminium fiber used in Berikade is quite pricey resulting in such an expensive container. I would need to consult with some sort of materials expert to see if there are stronger materials out there that are similar in weight and strength.

@curtpeterson The idea of creating an electric zapping mechanism to a bag would be nice, but dealing with manufacturer defects and testing that would be a costly nightmare- not to forget, carrying a battery would be inconvenient.

@kkkeating bears do not have predators in the environment so there technically isn’t an offensive odor that can deter bears. In some cases, even spraying your items with pepper spray can attract a bear to it.

@dkny2la foldable canisters would be cool, but the risk of users losing parts to it would be its greatest down fall.

@cmcvey23 this is some extremely valuable feedback. I truly appreciate you input on this topic. Do you think there are advantages of using a colored container versus transparent container?

@Painin DeRear @here I apologize for the late response :)

I’m digging the feedback, and  I’m coming to the conclusion that the simplest and most realistic option that we all have here is to develop a lighter canister at a more affordable price that has all the mechanical advantages of protecting the food from the bear and rodents.

I do have a few questions though….:

1. What would you consider the “optimum size” or most popular size for a bear canister? If I’m going to create a prototype, I want to be able to create the most applicable size to the people for testing purposes.
2. Do you think there is a mechanical advantage in having the container transparent or colored so that the bear cannot see the contents inside (therefore, reducing the chances of the bear being attracted to the contents inside)?
3. The diameter of the canister needs to be at least 8.5″ so that the bear cannot bite it. Do you prefer a wider or smaller diameter for the containers?
4. I know that some people like/dislike the locking features of the container (such as using a coin to unscrew caps). How would you feel about pad locking your container as a way to secure it instead? Would you think that it’s an inconvenience to have to carry your own padlock and key? What if I created a pad lock feature embedded into the container kind of like a money vault?
5. Additionally, people are always concerned about a bear kicking away their bear canister down a hill causing them to lose sight of where it is. How would you feel if there was a very small hook or caving within the canister that would allow you to hang it on a tree or secure it to a tree trunk/object with rope?

Once again, I truly appreciate the feedback. I also deeply apologize for the late response and can ensure you I will respond way faster now since I’m recovered :)

Thanks guys!

PS: @jraiderguy @dkny2la @stupendous @cmcvey23 @bzhayes @jimothy @jonfong @dwambaugh @mr_squishy @beckcommar @matthewkphx @iago @surfcam310 @mocs123 @jamesdmarco @frozenintime @hitech @book @curtpeterson Just wanted to let ya’ll know I’ve finally responded and added my input! Check it out if you have time :) Thanks!

[Dean F.]

The conventional wisdom- and I have no idea if it is valid- is that tying a rigid bear canister to a tree is a Bad Idea.  Supposedly it gives the bear a fixed point to work against, and eventually they can crack the canister- thus the recommendations to leave it out in the open, perhaps in a small depression.  The Ursack is a different design philosophy- as has been mentioned- and relies upon being fixed in place.

[Jim H]

1. I’d personally like a light 350ci canister, which would be large enough for me to do 5 days alone, or a weekend with my wife. But that’s with diy meals, not prepackaged. But in a cylinder that’d be a little undersized in terms of the 8.5″ bite rule.
2. I’d vote for a clear or at least translucent canister so it is easier to see into.
3. Smallest possible to fit into the bottom of smaller packs
4. I like the coin operated ones more than the bearvault when it’s cold.
5. Not an issue IMO.

[Don Burton]

1. I’d like to see one that is 8″ in diameter because it’s easier to fit into smaller vol packs. The Bearikade at 9″ is too wide in my opinion.
2. Clear or transparent is best to see into but not a deal breaker to me. I don’t think it makes a difference to a bear.
3. I think Bearikade has it right in this regard. 3 standard sizes with any length available for custom orders.
4. I usually use a bear vault but recently borrowed a Bearikade and know I’m converted to the coin op style. Easier to open when your hand are cold and easy to get things out of the can during the day without having to take the whole canister out of your pack. Padlock is inconvenient and heavy I expect.
5. I don’t see a big advantage to this but can see it as a way to provide the bear with a lot of leverage to pull it off a tree and break it at the attachment point. Then the bear could wedge its claw in that small hole and completely break it open.

[James Marco]

1.What would you consider the “optimum size” or most popular size for a bear canister? If I’m going to create a prototype, I want to be able to create the most applicable size to the people for testing purposes.

Right around 7 liters. The most used size, I guess. A long weekend or 4 days. (Though it is a week for my outings, hence a larger 11 liter would be better for me.)

2. Do you think there is a mechanical advantage in having the container transparent or colored so that the bear cannot see the contents inside (therefore, reducing the chances of the bear being attracted to the contents inside)?

Nope. The bears go mostly by sense of smell, though they can see things quite well. Being transparent is only a convenience. In a few places, bears can and do break into cars when stuff is left open to view. I think this is a learned behavior, though.

3. The diameter of the canister needs to be at least 8.5″ so that the bear cannot bite it. Do you prefer a wider or smaller diameter for the containers?

I don’t think smaller is possible and still avoid a bears jaws. Smaller would be good, though.

4. I know that some people like/dislike the locking features of the container (such as using a coin to unscrew caps). How would you feel about pad locking your container as a way to secure it instead? Would you think that it’s an inconvenience to have to carry your own padlock and key? What if I created a pad lock feature embedded into the container kind of like a money vault?

Too much weight. Drop the padlocks. I believe many of the “coin” locks can be opened with a camping spoon, provided it is ti.

5. Additionally, people are always concerned about a bear kicking away their bear canister down a hill causing them to lose sight of where it is. How would you feel if there was a very small hook or caving within the canister that would allow you to hang it on a tree or secure it to a tree trunk/object with rope?

Except for the ursack, a canister doesn’t really WANT to be mounted to a fixed object (stone, tree, etc.) Any bear tugging on one would have a much higher success rate. Not sure of a 400lb bear’s tugging strength, but, I am sure he can exert at least twice that on a sharp, angry pull. I can envision him doing just that, then working on the damaged container. Or, biting the stub and carrying it off. Soo, it is additional weight for no gain with probable failure points. An odd shape (maybe a flattened oval?) would do on minor grades. But you still have to maintain the 8.25/8.5″ diameter. Soo, it just gets bigger.

 

[Jennifer Mitol]

I’d like to second (or fifth…whatever it’s up to now) the idea to think outside the box. Lots of canisters, and no one likes them because of the bulk. But the bulk is what makes them work. trying to reinvent the canister seems, sorry, just redundant.

bear fences work – there has to be a good way to translate that into an effective food-deterrent, right?

We say batteries and such are heavy and cumbersome – but that’s the whole point of not liking a canister, right? at least the battery would be much smaller than the can…..

anyway – maybe there’s something to this, maybe not. but if you want to shake up the market I’d try to think of something that’s NOT a bulky canister that would still work as bear-resistant

 

 

[jimmy b]

I like the idea of inducing a shock but battery power gets heavier the longer the trip.

How about a lighter weight aluminum container with riveted male threaded posts strategically placed around it. Then when you get to camp you screw on a set of needle sharp female threaded posts. The more the bear tries to toss it, bite it, paw at it the more he induces painful jabs. Sure the spikes would take a few minutes to install but probably  less time than it takes some to hanging a bag :)       Call it the Meal Mace

[Anonymous]

Re: thinking outside the box, at least for Ursack type containers–has anyone experimented with using copper mesh on the outside?

Apparently copper and copper mesh is used pretty widely and effectively as a pest deterrent from slugs to various rodents.  People will line more open parts of their house with copper mesh, because rodents cannot stand biting it.  Slugs, snails, etc usually won’t go over copper in a garden etc, and if they do, they die.

Perhaps bears also would greatly dislike the taste/feel or whatever it is?  However, they probably are smart enough to eventually learn to take it off with their paws first?  Maybe if it was woven into an outer fabric layer it would work better?

I haven’t ever heard of anyone experimenting with this, but if any have, please let us know.

Otherwise, i like Jimmy’s idea of tough love, sharp spiky deterrent.

Another idea is a bear canister made out of a composite of plastic, 7075 or similar alloy Al, or Ti alloy outer, foam next layer and carbon fiber interior.

CF provides the structure and stiffness, foam provides impact resistance/absorption and protection for the CF, and outer whatever provides some puncture, abrasion, etc resistance for the foam and ultimately also the CF innermost layer.

Composites are where it’s at for strength and durability at lighter weights.

 

[Ken Thompson]

Glad to hear you’re OK Backpack Guy

[The Backpack Guy]

Ya’ll these were some extremely good responses and insight, I couldn’t be more thankful.

@arcturusbearv3-0 you’re absolutely right about the CF composite sandwiches and that’s the track I was leaning towards in terms of strength and weight ratio. I may reach out to you later on for more questions regarding different materials.

I’m going to take some serious notes regarding these ideas and it will definitely help me out further with my research and perhaps find a better way to enhance the bear canisters. Such a great discussion to have you guys.

Thanks :)

[Author]

Posts