JMT and Ursack? what are people doing?

Efficient travel is more than just lightweight travel.  Spending 30 minutes looking for a tree to do a hang from is not efficient; spending another 30 minutes getting a good hand is not efficient. Walking out of the backcountry because a bear (while not eating) smashed the crap out of your food because it was in a bulletproof bag on the ground is not efficient. Carrying an extra two pounds of bear can is not particularly efficient but just dropping it any old place, above/below treeline sure is.  Value your time as much as your pack-weight.

Cameron said:

It does not matter if you hike through a canister required area but don’t sleep there, or if there happen to be food lockers in that area. If you even SET FOOT in one of the areas, you must have a canister. That is the law, and that is how they are policing it.

Not to muddy the waters nor derail the thread, but I’ll add one (perhaps obvious) exception: dayhikes.

Canisters are only required for overnight travel.

“Duh,” says everyone who has backpacked in the Sierra, ever.

I know, I know. But I think there’s the potential for some gray areas when intrepid dayhikers do intrepid dayhikes through areas like Rae Lakes.

In September and October as the Rangers were leaving for the season if they passed anybody with a backpack you had to show the bear can even in the non required areas if you did not have it you left with them if your permit showed any entrance or exit point that passed through or started in a bear canister area

Just to clarify I thought you don’t have to hang an ursack? It just needs to be tied to something (rocky outcrop) so it doesn’t walk away.

Sam, “on the ground” I have seen two or three people rely on one person carrying a canister for a bulk of the food, and the rest kept in Ursacks. After a few meals it all fits in the can. Also allows the group to point to that person when a Ranger comes around.

In a small group, some combination of a can, hanging, and Ursacks may make sense.

As mentioned bear cans are here to stay, and their required areas are going to grow.

This will hopefully prompt some innovation among UL pack makers whose current line up almost completely ignore this issue for the sub 10 lb base weight crowd.

This will hopefully prompt some innovation among UL pack makers

And along the same lines, it would be great to see more innovation by bear cannister makers too to make them lighter. Looking forward to the Hunny bear canisters certification – a 24 ounce canister for a week’s food would be really nice.

“This will hopefully prompt…” more open-mindedness among park officials (and BPLers) who would finally accept the Ursack.  I’ll follow the rules as they stand, and use a canister when I have to.  The bad guys that are ones that aren’t using what’s required, or are not using it correctly.

Looking forward to the Hunny bear canisters certification – a 24 ounce canister for a week’s food would be really nice.

Hunny says the volume will be 3.9 – 4.9 quarts (225-280 cubic inches). That’s about a third to 40% the volume of a BV500. Can you fit a week’s worth of food in that? I certainly cannot.

Hunny says the volume will be 3.9 – 4.9 quarts

Good catch Jim – Hunny Outfitters has two websites quoting differents specs. One of their websites says 24 ounces for a small 3.9 – 4.9 quart canister (http://www.hunnycanisters.com/). But their other website says 25 ounces for their largest 11 liter canister, which is nearly identical in size to the BV500 (https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/hunny-ultralight-bear-resistant-canisters-camping#/). Their recent Twitter updates indicate they are still working out the design – it will be interesting to see the final specs for each canister size and if/when they get certified.

I’m skeptical that it will be lighter than a Bearikade–but it’s certainly cheaper! I’ll be happy to be wrong.

Should read this thread if thinking about the Hunny

https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/new-bear-canister/page/2/#comments

I had high hopes for the Hunny Canisters, but their ever-shifting specs and unrealistic statements have made me a skeptic.  Their website states:

“Our first model is designed with the John Muir Trail in mind, which has 2-3 days of travel between resupply areas”  (quoted from their website).

I certainly don’t know ANYONE who is resupplying every 2-3 days on the JMT.  Making a sales statement like that shows me their lack of realism.  I think they bit off more than they could chew.

Hey y’all, just looking for a spring 2019 update on this issue. I found this today on Ursacks website, and I’m hoping there’s truth to it, as I’ll be dayhiking the Happy Isles to T Meadows section of the JMT and then loading up from there. (Nobody on this site wants to carry 3lbs vs 8 oz for a food storage container I’m guessing…)

https://www.ursack.com/ursack-will-be-allowed-almost-everywhere-in-the-sierra-this-year-except-yosemite-national-park/

If anyone has any insider knowledge on this that’d be awesome! Thanks!

SierraWild.gov states the current status of allowed cannisters by land management agency.

Do not be misled by the marketing claims of the new owners of Ursack.

Remember, these are not just food storage containers. They are devices to protect bears from being habituated to human food, such habituation causes more bear-human encounters and leads to the death and destruction of bears.

If you want the lightest allowed option, rent a carbon fiber canister from Wild Ideas which also serves as a chair.

Wilson,

I found that post last year, and dug a little deeper. Unfortunately, that post on Ursack.com is misleading.

What I found is:

1. Ursacks are acceptable food storage containers in Sierra and Inyo National Forests, as they constitute a “bear resistant container” [citation needed]
2. Ursacks are not approved containers in Yosemite. An approved container is required, no matter where you are in Yosemite.
3. Ursacks are not approved containers in SEKI. In specified bear canister areas of SEKI, an approved container is required (ergo, you require a canister there). In the remainder of SEKI, hanging is allowed; in those areas, the Ursack can be used, so long as it is hung (using the counter-balance method). In this case, the Ursack is really just a heavier version of a food sack :).

You can always call SEKI to see if you get a different answer than I did–my answer came from a permit-issuing ranger at Road’s End last summer.

It’s unfortunate that this is not spelled out anywhere in SEKI literature; last time I checked, SEKI seemed to be unwilling to even address the existence of the Ursack in writing (they may have their reasons; I think there was some legal drama between the two several years ago). Meanwhile, Ursack posts things that are either deliberately misleading or just creative marketing, depending on your perspective.

I’ve resigned myself to a canister, save for the odd trip that keeps me within NF borders. But, on fast-and-light solo trips, I’m usually able to make do with a Bareboxer 101; it’s a small form-factor 250 cubic inch canister that I can fit 10k – 11k calories in. It weighs 25.6 oz, so although it’s still the heaviest thing I carry (by far), it’s no BV500.