- Sep 21, 2017 at 12:15 pm #3492338
MJ HBPL Member
Still lighter than a gun.
Of course, a gun is easier to use to pound in stakes.Sep 21, 2017 at 12:26 pm #3492339
Bob .BPL Member
@bcbobLocale: Vancouver Island
David Poston, not everyone lives in the Eastern time zone where trees are easy to hang from. I’m not required to carry a bear can where I hike but I always take it on backcountry hikes. It’s mostly alpine areas with nothing but narrow alpine evergreens with downward sloping branches to shed the snow.
And as others have stated, if your food isn’t properly protected you are creating risk for other hikers, not just yourself (not to mention the bears).
Sep 21, 2017 at 1:28 pm #3492355
- This reply was modified 9 months, 3 weeks ago by Bob ..
Reminds me of people that regularly make a rolling not quite stop if no one is around and when they hear someone say that rolling stops should be ok they start screaming at them. You are not convincing OP here, you are just letting everyone else that already agrees know that you are one of the good ones. Brownie points, that is all. OTOH unless you really are looking for advice David, what is the point of posting as you did here of all places…I do agree with you that at least seeking alternatives is better than just accepting what is at the moment but the tone is a go ahead for everyone to get their pitchforks out ;)Sep 21, 2017 at 1:45 pm #3492363
Paul MagnantiBPL Member
@paulmagsLocale: Front Range Zoo
Meh. No pitchforks from me. More of a shaking my head when David answered his own question in one ssimple sentence he wrote:
other than that govt regs are designed to make things foolproof for idiots.
Egg-zactly! (Though, again, I’d say “Make things more foolproof for less experienced backpackers”)
Schlepping a bear canister where required no more makes me a good one than does paying the sales tax on my craft beer.
Other than that, I have no idea why David wrote his screed.
Sep 21, 2017 at 2:03 pm #3492367
- This reply was modified 9 months, 3 weeks ago by Paul Magnanti.
Tony WongBPL Member
@valsharLocale: San Francisco Bay Area
Something to consider: The Bear Canisters Are About the Bear and Not About Us
I don’t think that the bear canister requirement every considered UL backpackers and I would say that it should not.
As ULers, we know that skills/experience are great tools to help us save weight.
Proper bear bagging (which is a very light weight option) would keep food safe and keep bears from getting used to eating human food, which can lead to them being killed/put down.
The Bear Canister is for the lowest common denominator….anyone can use one with little skill.
Bear bagging requires skill and practice, which many novices simply don’t have.
Having a lighter solution, like the Ursak or the Bearikade Canister, are great, but in the end, they just need to work to “protect” the bears.
Being lighter is just a side benefit to us humans.Sep 21, 2017 at 2:17 pm #3492371
Christopher *BPL Member
@cfrey-0Locale: US East Coast
I agree with everything in your post … except the picture. Haha!
I don’t always get my bear can a full 100 yards away from my tent as recommended, but yours is practically inside your vestibule!!!Sep 21, 2017 at 2:23 pm #3492372
I was surprised when the Yosemite rangers wanted us to park our bear cans 25–50′ from our campsite. They wanted us to hear the bears and then yell at them.Sep 21, 2017 at 3:07 pm #3492378
Bear canister is not my favorite. As many others have well articulated it’s a necessary part of my gear and like so many others I’ve gotten used to carrying a canister on backpacking trips, whether required or not simply because it’s so much less hassle (to me) than the alternatives.
The reasons why a canister is required in many areas are well articulated and well understood at this point in time. Are there be better possible solutions? Of course.
However as another poster articulated above it’s such a small market with such potentially paltry returns on investment, it’s unlikely to attract sustained effort or investment. I’d be pleased to carry something less cumbersome if something better does come along.
Given the several threads on BPL alone about canisters and much other information available elsewhere it’s interesting that the OP chose to post what he did. I can only see it as intellectually lazy and willfully ignorant. Maybe it was meant to troll or to attract attention by creating a false controversy – quite the fashion in many spheres now. It even has the benefit of making the OP look like a “martyr” being set upon by the masses for expressing his “opinions”.
Nothing to see here folks……move on along.Sep 21, 2017 at 3:48 pm #3492385
Bob .BPL Member
@bcbobLocale: Vancouver Island
I agree with everything in your post … except the picture. Haha!
I don’t always get my bear can a full 100 yards away from my tent as recommended, but yours is practically inside your vestibule!!!
I’m not sure why you would think that’s where I put my bear can overnight.Sep 21, 2017 at 3:57 pm #3492390
Bearikade IS the ul option.
David, this has all been gone over a hundred times. It’s not about obeying Da Man; it’s about saving bears. You’re so happy to accept the risk of losing your food and completely indifferent to what happens to the bear when your strategy fails. enforcing canister rules has improved the situation for bears in a half dozen ways. Who cares about canisters ‘contravening ul principles’. Seriously.
Everyone who ever inadvertently started a huge backcountry fire during a fire ban thought that they were exceptional and the rules didn’t apply to them. They knew better. Bullcrappy.
Sep 21, 2017 at 4:29 pm #3492397
- This reply was modified 9 months, 3 weeks ago by jeffrey armbruster.
Paul SBPL Member
Jeffry nails it here (above) “You’re so happy to accept the risk of losing your food and completely indifferent to what happens to the bear when your strategy fails.”
YesSep 21, 2017 at 4:59 pm #3492399
Oh David….how dare you think? Your last post made good points but this forum is not the place..
As usualy I appreciate people that challenge the way things are; if it were not for them we would not go forward. At some point there likely will be something better than a canister and it will be thanks to people like David. I get what others are saying and don’t disagree with why and how the current rules protect bears but why not look for something even better?
Everyone using a Bearikade, put the thing back and get yourself a good old fashioned Bearvault since wanting a lighter solution is a no no ;)
He is just looking to find something better!!!Sep 21, 2017 at 5:33 pm #3492410
Geoff CaplanBPL Member
@geoffcaplanLocale: Dartmoor, Devon
OK – no-one likes the idea of carrying a can, but let’s get it into perspective. A couple of lbs is the rough equivalent of 1 litre of water or a day of food. Please explain why that’s such a big deal that you would actually avoid a wonderful area such as the Sierras rather than subject yourself to the additional load?
If 2 lbs really causes you significant distress you might want to consider how you carry your load. With a well designed pack a fit person should hardly notice the difference. But there are still UL folks who prefer something minimal that looks good on their spreadsheet rather than something a touch heavier that actually carries load well. As McHale says, as soon as the load becomes non-trivial a good carry will trump any wispy unframed thing after a hard day on the trail.
UL shouldn’t be a pissing contest – it’s just about being as safe and comfortable as you can be in the circumstances. Does desert walking offend your UL principles because you have to carry extra water? If you were heading into snow and ice would your UL principles preclude carrying an ice-axe and crampons? While the can is a clumsy solution it’s currently the best way we have to protect both you and the bear, so it’s just something that comes with the territory if you want to walk in bear country, in the same way as you have to carry extra weight if you walk in the desert or in snow and ice..Sep 21, 2017 at 6:05 pm #3492414
“He is just looking to find something better!!!”
Aren’t we all! And that would be….?
Nothing about David’s posts makes me think that he’s the guy who’s going to revolutionize how we keep food from bears. I mean, he doesn’t even seem aware of the options that are available now.
My guess is that he won’t be carrying a canister anytime soon, regulations be damned. “Silly!” he says.Sep 21, 2017 at 6:12 pm #3492415
“Aren’t we all! And that would be….?”
well if we knew we would not be looking now would we? if no one wanted better and asked those questions then we would be stuck with the same things, which could be fine too, but once something better is out we sure jump for it.
I cannot understand how and why we would shut down a conversation about doing something better. Then again this is BPL and we are excited about what is already here and approved and not about what could be.Sep 21, 2017 at 6:31 pm #3492422
Brad PBPL Member
If you were the only living creature in these areas, you’d have a point. It’s not all about you and what you want.
It’s also hard to hang a bear bag above the tree line.
Troll.Sep 21, 2017 at 6:33 pm #3492423
Ken T.BPL Member
With a Chaffy start this thread had problems from the title onwards. With the physical parameters involved I don’t think the Bearikade could be done much lighter. Still just a fraction of the total weight when full. We need lighter food.Sep 21, 2017 at 6:53 pm #3492427
Lester MooreBPL Member
@satoriLocale: Olympic Peninsula, WA
We need lighter food.
That’s actually a good UL strategy for short trips – pack less food to fit inside a smaller, lighter canister, like the BearBoxer 101 instead of a BV450 for example. Given the issues that agencies seem to have with canister compliance, we may someday see many more food storage boxes in the backcountry, plus more widespread requirements to only camp in designated sites.Sep 21, 2017 at 6:55 pm #3492428
Good point Ken. Food doesn’t conform to the UL ethos. Silly, really.
“we may someday see many more food storage boxes in the backcountry, plus more widespread requirements to only camp in designated sites.”
Years ago, I remember rangers telling me that one advantage of canisters is that they allow backpackers to camp wherever they want and not congregate in established areas. They wanted to reduce impact on the landscape. Actually, they said that they didn’t want to introduce more storage boxes in the back country for exactly that reason.Sep 21, 2017 at 6:59 pm #3492430
Love my BareBoxer!Sep 21, 2017 at 7:04 pm #3492433
Love my Bearikade Scout!Sep 21, 2017 at 8:00 pm #3492444
Justin MckinneyBPL Member
TrollSep 21, 2017 at 10:38 pm #3492469
Rene RavenelBPL Member
5L, 1lb 5oz, $95, approved by IGBC and many (but not all) parks.
Only 7″ diameter, so perhaps easier to pack. Includes an 850ml, 2″ deep pan (w/ lid and handle) as the lid. Pan lid can be left behind to save 2oz.
Apparently this has been around since at least 2014, but this is the first I’ve seen it.Sep 21, 2017 at 10:51 pm #3492471
Franco DarioliBPL Member
That reminds me…
Someone here was going to make one of those canister (to sell).
Apparently they are rather easy to make .
I don’t recall seeing the finished product.Sep 21, 2017 at 10:53 pm #3492475
Justin WBPL Member
For canisters, it would be hard given current tech and materials to get significantly lower in weight than Bearikade models.
The only things I can think of off the top of my head, is some kind of composite of a thin outside layer of “new”(ish) Kobe Aluminum alloy overlaying a dense foam infused with carbon nanotubes or the like. I’m not sure if the latter even exists? Or maybe the same skin combined with polymer based aerogel inner structure.
Cylindrical structures might be annoying to backpackers and most backpacks, but they are amazingly efficient in volume use and especially structural strength. That’s why relatively thin glass cylinders can be used in vacuum systems.
Once battery technology improves, and it is very much on the cusp of same, then mini electrified food shields could be made.
I also think testing copper and bear reactions towards same is a worthwhile to at least try out. Thick copper wire woven loosely in and through Dyneema or Spectra woven fabric might have “repelling” properties to bears like copper mesh and wire does to rats, mice, squirrels, etc.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.