The Moon is Waxing Crescent (7% of Full)

Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Posts
Bridalveil Falls, Yosemite National Park


Advanced

Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

avatar Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 13, 2011 08:42PM
http://www.marinij.com/business/ci_18035982

In 1993, Mill Valley attorney and outdoor enthusiast Tom Cohen backpacked for several days with his wife on the John Muir Trail in the Sierra Nevada. He enjoyed the trip but there was one major annoyance — a heavy-duty plastic food canister, required by federal park rules to keep out hungry bears.

"It was such a pain to stuff that thing into my backpack every day," he said. "When I got to the end of the trip I said, 'I'm never doing that again.'"

Five years later, he designed a Kevlar fabric sack that weighed just 8 ounces, less than a quarter of the weight of many canisters. He called it the Ursack, and over the past decade he has sold more than $1 million worth — 15,000 to 25,000 sacks — to backpackers eager to lighten their loads.

But Cohen is struggling to distribute the sack in some of the nation's most popular hiking locations, including the place where it was inspired. Citing failed tests with bears, federal parks officials have refused to add the Ursack to a list of containers approved for Yosemite National Park and other nearby parks, setting off a protracted legal battle....



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 14, 2011 05:59AM
Quote
Frank Furter
Citing failed tests with bears, federal parks officials have refused to add the Ursack to a list of containers approved for Yosemite National Park and other nearby parks, setting off a protracted legal battle....

Well, that's kind of a key point (taken at face value). I'm certainly not going to take it at face value, though...does anybody here know how effective these things really are? Are the "failed tests" along the lines of "we filled the Ursack with <insert some highly fragrant treat that bears love>, left the lid off and hiked through an area with 27 bears who were known not to have eaten in the last week" or were they something more legitimate?

--David
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 14, 2011 06:37AM
Often bear canister testing for grizzlies is done in West Yellowstone at the Wolf and Bear Discovery Center (I believe privately owned) facility.
see for example: http://missoulian.com/lifestyles/territory/article_f65020b6-309d-11e0-adca-001cc4c03286.html

The news report suggests that there is a combination of "in practice" testing and use reports combined with some artificial testing scenarios. However, I don't know if there is a group of black bear hardened criminals that serve as a testing panel similar to the West Yellowstone facility. Other locations outside Yosemite require hanging food items and in that situation, the Ursack may be useful.

Anything that can be compressed and chewed (a "bag" ) will necessarily have a greater challenge to survive an attack. The bear canisters have the advantage of being smooth and unfavorably shaped. If the same material used in the bear canisters was differently shaped they would probably not survive a determined black bear (they can pull the doors off a vehicle). I suspect that a bear could destroy a thinnner or flat bear container if it could get it between its teeth.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2011 06:48AM by Frank Furter.
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 14, 2011 08:39AM
Quote
DavidK42
Quote
Frank Furter
Citing failed tests with bears, federal parks officials have refused to add the Ursack to a list of containers approved for Yosemite National Park and other nearby parks, setting off a protracted legal battle....

Well, that's kind of a key point (taken at face value). I'm certainly not going to take it at face value, though...does anybody here know how effective these things really are? Are the "failed tests" along the lines of "we filled the Ursack with <insert some highly fragrant treat that bears love>, left the lid off and hiked through an area with 27 bears who were known not to have eaten in the last week" or were they something more legitimate?

--David

Actually they were conditionally approved in 2007 for use in Yosemite.
In other words, you could use them in 2007 but they could pull the plug on them if
they got reports of too many issues.

Well, the problem with it is that it is not idiot proof and the hot spots that people
frequent have problem bears. Clueless people + smart bear = bye bye Ursack.

I've been calling this thing the UrSUCK.

The old dude and I did most of the JMT (TM to Roads End) in 2007. The
very first night were up in Lyell Canyon and I'm watching my TV in my sleepy
bag and I eventually hear something... and it's Mr. Bear gnawing at the ursuck.
Got up and made him go away and then put it like so (luckily I had it tied so
I didn't have to go chasing him around or looking all day the next day looking for it):


For Yosemite you are suppose to have an aluminum liner in it btw. Regardless
it received about 6 bite marks in it, here's two:


Next day of course we almost immediately run into someone who got their pack
stolen because they left food in it.

Later on at Thomas Edison ran into a guy who also had a Ursuck and he
was asking how to use it. He said they should give you a video of how to use it.
What!? Hello... put food in, sinch up, tie figure 8, move knot as close as possible.
So you should be starting to get the idea....

Main problem is that if the bear gets ANY reward from it (say an m&m falls out), then it's useless.
That bear will whack every one it sees.

I honestly don't understand the whole bear can whining. Lets just call it 2 1/2 pounds.
That is a litre of water. Take less water. There's water everywhere. 1 litre=2lbs.
Heck, I don't wanna pack my sleeping bag every day... boo hoo... I'm gonna leave it home!

Sigh
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 14, 2011 08:58AM
UrSUCK -- I LOVE IT!!!!!!



The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 15, 2011 01:27AM
Quote
bill-e-g
I honestly don't understand the whole bear can whining. Lets just call it 2 1/2 pounds.
That is a litre of water. Take less water. There's water everywhere. 1 litre=2lbs.
Heck, I don't wanna pack my sleeping bag every day... boo hoo... I'm gonna leave it home!

Sigh

As an ultralightest, I am always looking to shave weight. I will buy or make new equipment to save a few onces and 21/2 pounds for a bear can is nearly 20% of my base weight. I hate bear cans and use them only where legally required to do so.

If you were using the 2007 model ursack, you were using a now out dated model. The new model has not been tested and apparently will not be, at least without another law suit.

NOTHING is idiot proof and we all pay a price for their stupidity.
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 15, 2011 02:44AM
As an ultralightest, I am always looking to shave weight. I will buy or make new equipment to save a few onces and 21/2 pounds for a bear can is nearly 20% of my base weight. I hate bear cans and use them only where legally required to do so.

If you were using the 2007 model ursack, you were using a now out dated model. The new model has not been tested and apparently will not be, at least without another law suit.

NOTHING is idiot proof and we all pay a price for their stupidity.



Not that i can come anywhere close to calling myself an ultralight-ist, but I do agree with LVRAY. I do everything that i feel is within reason to lower my pack weight. And if it it involves dropping 2 1/2 pounds of a bear canister I would be ecstatic. In the Emigrant Wilderness I don't carry one, and have never had a bear issue. I would be more than happy to carry a Ursack in the park.

Oh well.....just my opinion.
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 15, 2011 07:09AM
Quote
LVRAY
Quote
bill-e-g
I honestly don't understand the whole bear can whining. Lets just call it 2 1/2 pounds.
That is a litre of water. Take less water. There's water everywhere. 1 litre=2lbs.
Heck, I don't wanna pack my sleeping bag every day... boo hoo... I'm gonna leave it home!

Sigh

As an ultralightest, I am always looking to shave weight. I will buy or make new equipment to save a few onces and 21/2 pounds for a bear can is nearly 20% of my base weight. I hate bear cans and use them only where legally required to do so.

If you were using the 2007 model ursack, you were using a now out dated model. The new model has not been tested and apparently will not be, at least without another law suit.

NOTHING is idiot proof and we all pay a price for their stupidity.

I'm in the same boat. Heck, I even went so far as asking Bearikade many years ago if they could make me a 6" size (they said 8" was the shortest).
Was ecstatic when Bare Boxer showed up and was approved. And then went and bought a second one when it turned out
I got the first model (first model can w/o lid = 1lb 7.5oz vs. second model = 1lb 3.65 oz)

As far as my Ursack, I actually really like it. I'm mostly pissed because of other people out there not know how to use it and it getting
taken off the allowed list. I'll use it in SEKI and in Emigrant and elsewhere.... but now the Bare Boxer is the treat. Nice and light
and I can easily get a 4 day trip in it.
As for the model of my Usack, it's the S29 Green. So it's not "now outdated" as he is currently selling AllWhite S29. The Green S29
came out in late summer 2007.

Yeah, bear cans kinda blow... but I just get sick of hearing the same people whining about them carrying 3 litres of water up
Lyell Canyon with a 8 pound tent and all kinds of crap dangling off their 7 pound pack. Also irritates me to hear someone
say they have a can only to run into them later and it's obvious they lied. This in turn has led to rangers checking packs
more frequently for cans.

As for idiotproof, if you compare Garcia to Ursack it's not much of a comparison. Almost gotta be a window licker to let a bear get food out of a Garcia.

Anyway, have fun out there
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 15, 2011 11:33AM
Calipidder has a nice writeup about various bear cannisters (and the Ursack) she has used in the past and present if anyone is interested. She also made a chart with the specs of each canister.

Calipidder.com: Bear Canisters, pros and cons
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 15, 2011 08:13PM
Thanks for the link. I should probably update that post with some newer info, although it pretty much still stands on its own.

I still am a fan of my ursack but most of time I carry my Bearikade for peace of mind. That's one thing that rarely comes up in the bear canister argument. Usually it's three variables: approved status vs weight vs cost. I feel like I sleep a bit better when I have a hard sided canister along. And that peace of mind is worth a few $ and oz.
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 16, 2011 05:45AM
Quote
calipidder

I still am a fan of my ursack but most of time I carry my Bearikade for peace of mind. That's one thing that rarely comes up in the bear canister argument. Usually it's three variables: approved status vs weight vs cost. I feel like I sleep a bit better when I have a hard sided canister along. And that peace of mind is worth a few $ and oz.

I looked at the Bearikade, but it was just a little too expensive for me. I go with the smaller Bear Vault on short trips and the bigger one on weeklong trips. As much as I want to buy the Bearikade, I can't justify shelling out $275 to save 4 ounces from the Bear Vault. Although if I hit the lotto this week its a whole other story....
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 16, 2011 11:28AM
Quote
calipidder
Thanks for the link. I should probably update that post with some newer info, although it pretty much still stands on its own.

I still am a fan of my ursack but most of time I carry my Bearikade for peace of mind. That's one thing that rarely comes up in the bear canister argument. Usually it's three variables: approved status vs weight vs cost. I feel like I sleep a bit better when I have a hard sided canister along. And that peace of mind is worth a few $ and oz.

Whenever you update you might add one comment regarding the Bareboxer. For reaons unknown they used some very heavy locking devices made of pot metal (mostly zinc). This adds a couple unnecessary ounces of weight to an otherwise excellent smaller container. I asked the folks at Bareboxer why they did this. Another time I asked for the correct weight of the Bareboxer since the one they had posted on their website was incorrect. In neither instance did they reply. They are very prompt when you make a purchase but apparently don't like to answer bothersome questions. As for plusses, the Bareboxer is indeed terrific for up to 3-night / 4-day trips or less. At the upper limit you will have to do some creative packing but it's worth it not having to carry the larger canisters.
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 14, 2011 08:16AM
Here's a video:



avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 14, 2011 09:46AM
I don't think my PlatyPreserve's contents would survive being stored this way.
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 14, 2011 09:53AM
The Ursack becomes a squeeze tube of Backpacker Food Pate subtly moistened and flavored with bear spit.



Old Dude
Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 16, 2011 11:32AM
I was really curious when I found an Ursack in a backpacking store on the coast. I stopped wondering about them when they refused to sell it to me. They are tired of people taking them into the Sierra and returning them with the seams ripped out.

I'll stick to the Bareboxer, thanks.
Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 16, 2011 08:54PM
Actually way back in 2006 when the debate over Ursack was hot, there were also various heresay allegations of failures, none of which stood up to scrutiny. So what the Ursack haters did was declare bags could not be tied off onto objects but instead were to be left on the ground. That way with its closed rope area unprotected by an object, they expected bears would eventually given hours of time loosen up the figure 8 knot and open some. Or more likely a bear would carry the sack off just like they do with food bags sometimes. Well there were some failures by bags tied by those newbies whose only capable knot is the half hitch.

Of course their excuse for denying Ursack's tying off was that doing so bears damaged trees. Well what do you think bears did for decades while we counter balanced? Black bears always climb and claw trees. Did anyone ever hear even one complaint in the old days about tree damage? I will concede there are probably a few limited very popular locations of heavy camping where tree damage has credence but for most areas miles from roads in vast forests, a bit of bark damage is a ridiculous issue. And even if that was an issue there are lots of areas, especially near talus where one can easily find places to tie where boulders touch. Funny how the NPS has never bothered to admit an Ursack can easily be tied off around the touching points of boulders even though I've been posting such for several years.

Instead they demand we even carry bulky cannisters into alpine Sierra Crest areas well away from any trails where there are few trees, endless boulders and many of us have never ever seen a bear. Now I've seen bears up high like at Kearsarge Pass along trails and at nearby heavily used camping zones by lakes. Maybe cannisters ought to be used in such places, but there are vast timberline areas at least a half mile from lake edges or trails and out of sight.
Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 17, 2011 07:53AM
I'm sure the Ursack folks appreciate your continued support/denial.

But I've seen too many pictures, talked to too many people, to go for denial as an approach. I'd rather carry the weight and protect the wildlife.

I think that the bears that have breached the Bear Vault are testimony to how ingenuous they can be. Hoping none of them figure out how to turn the locks on the Garcia, Bearikade or Bare Boxer!
Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 15, 2011 08:38PM
The only time a bear ever ate any of my food was a few leftovers at Laural Lake on the last day of my first ever backpack before most of you were even born. And I've had to dealt with alot of bears over the years. I own two Garcias and an Ursack. The Garcia or other cannisters are ok for short trips in prime bear areas. The Ursack I often tie it off around touching points of boulders.

One Garcia only holds 5 or 7 days of the kind of food we usually bring up on trips. For the 9 to 11 day trips we sometimes used to take it would be ridiculous trying to carry 2 of those bulky cannisters. There are places 3 days of effort from trailheads that with just 6 or 7 days doesn't allow enough days for base camp. Some inside the NPS particularly in YNP by their actions obviously have hated the Ursack from the time it was first available and have probably made sure it remains rejected. Some of the excuses they have made as to why they ought not be allowed have simply been lame. Some of the rules like "the Ursack cannot be tied to objects" is nonsense because sometimes bears definitely carry off things. Like many others, I have been highly suspicious of the so called testing. Most cannister failures are humans not locking the lids. And with the Ursack most failure are highly likely to be improperly tied. And of course more than either are people being too lazy or uncareful, not locking all their food into whatever bear container they have brought along.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/15/2011 08:43PM by DavidSenesac.
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 16, 2011 10:16PM
I've seen some pretty nasty photos of trashed Ursacks. Not all were the same material, and I suppose that matters.

Here's one:



The website it comes from seems pretty hard to view (for some reason, I can't scroll down to see the photo, but I extracted the photo elsewhere):

http://jmtbearencounter.com

Here's another one I posted on an older thread here:



http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/xdpy/forum_thread/3801/index.htm

I do remember asking about bear canisters at the Roads End Permit Station at SEKI at few years ago. The guy manning the station seemed like he barely had anyone to talk to there and was eager to chat. I asked about their bear canisters, and he showed me a BearVault BV350 - new in the box, as well as a Bearikade Weekender. I think the rental was the same as the Garcias they had, although I think the deposit would be higher.

I looked it up, and they rent Garcias at $5 for up to 14 days, plus $3 after two weeks. It sounds as if they're trying to keep people from holding onto them too long. The Bearikades are $5/$6 for the first night and $2/$3 for each additional night. I don't get the deposit though. $98 for a Garcia? I thought that Garcia Machine sold them cheap to NPS and affiliated nonprofits. It's only $69 at REI. The deposit for a Bearikade is $234 (Ouch!).

http://www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/upload/SNHA%20bear%20canister%20rental%20info.doc
Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 17, 2011 08:37AM
We've seen both those images and sites in the past. Conveintly in neither case do they both to indicate the version of the Ursack material Spectra or Vectran cloth. The top image of a very brown dirty bag has long been criticized as appearing like someone drove for miles with the bag full of a few heavy rocks being dragging behind a vehicle on a rope.

The second incident may be legitimate. A couple of suspicious comments. Note how miss Patterson shows an attitude against experienced backpackers:

P. Patterson >>"...It would be ready to come back later to prey on some other very experienced backcountry people with State of the Art’ gear. These are very sophisticated Yosemite Yogi’s so don’t underestimate them."

There are certainly numbers of people on web boards that for several years have taken strong positions on the side of cannisters while condemning Ursacks. No doubt some have debated the issue with those like this person and may not have had any convincing evidence for their position. Some genuinely feel removing the Ursack will save more bears from getting hooked on people food. Thus there is reason to be suspicion because things may easily be staged. In this case not only did a bear supposedly get into one bag but two. Like it was that easy. And note if a bear had already gotten into one of the bags, why didn't it empty its contents before making such an effort on the second bag. Note both still have considerable contents. On the other hand the Spectra material Ursack has stood up to controlled testing with actual bears and there is a long lists of field comments from users:

http://www.ursack.com/ursack-fieldtests.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/17/2011 08:39AM by DavidSenesac.
Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 17, 2011 10:16AM
Quote
DavidSenesac the other hand the Spectra material Ursack has stood up to controlled testing with actual bears and there is a long lists of field comments from users:

[url

http://www.ursack.com/ursack-fieldtests.htm[/url]

Anything posted on the mfr's website will be supportive, of course. Just like the majority of reviews on REI's website are going to be good ones.

I take a very pragmatic stance about these things - use what you know works. Don't play guessing games and maybes. I am renting a Bearikade for the Rae Lakes loop this year, because not too long ago the rangers were warning people to stash the Bear Vault in the lockers. One of the bears knows how to pop lids off BVs. I want to venture up into areas where there are no lockers. You can bet if bears are hammering our cans we will be up and yelling, chasing them away, because that's what we do - no lazy assumptions about the bears being unable to bust them open if only by rolling them off something steep into granite. One happy accident for the bear would mean misery for the future backpackers trying to visit the area.

You could blame the users for Ursack failures all you like - if they are not as user friendly as bear canisters then people should use the canisters or the lockers, because they will work if you lock them shut.

I for one would absolutely love to see something in a bag that worked reliably. I've considered getting a rodent Ursack for the coast where bears aren't an issue, but a lame bag hang suffices there, so I go with that tactic quite cheaply and effectively.
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 17, 2011 10:38PM
Quote
AlmostThere
Quote
DavidSenesac the other hand the Spectra material Ursack has stood up to controlled testing with actual bears and there is a long lists of field comments from users:

[url

http://www.ursack.com/ursack-fieldtests.htm[/url]

Anything posted on the mfr's website will be supportive, of course. Just like the majority of reviews on REI's website are going to be good ones.

I take a very pragmatic stance about these things - use what you know works. Don't play guessing games and maybes. I am renting a Bearikade for the Rae Lakes loop this year, because not too long ago the rangers were warning people to stash the Bear Vault in the lockers. One of the bears knows how to pop lids off BVs. I want to venture up into areas where there are no lockers. You can bet if bears are hammering our cans we will be up and yelling, chasing them away, because that's what we do - no lazy assumptions about the bears being unable to bust them open if only by rolling them off something steep into granite. One happy accident for the bear would mean misery for the future backpackers trying to visit the area.

You could blame the users for Ursack failures all you like - if they are not as user friendly as bear canisters then people should use the canisters or the lockers, because they will work if you lock them shut.

I for one would absolutely love to see something in a bag that worked reliably. I've considered getting a rodent Ursack for the coast where bears aren't an issue, but a lame bag hang suffices there, so I go with that tactic quite cheaply and effectively.

I thought the problem with the BearVault at Rae Lakes was the style of the lid. I saw someone with an older one at LYV, and it was thinner than mine, with a round "bump". It was still approved for Yosemite but wouldn't be allowed at Rae Lakes. The BV350 or BV400 have the thicker lid with the triangle-shaped bump. As far as I know, the newer BearVault models are still approved for use at the Rae Lakes area. I mentioned the Roads End Permit Station. I asked, and apparently one or more of the bears were stomping on it such that it got past the bump and eventually off. These bears couldn't figure out the newer ones. I've always thought that the best line of defense with the BearVault was to simply crank the lid on tight. I don't think a bear could get enough leverage to undo the lid if it's simply cranked on tight. Of course that means more effort getting it off with cold hands in the morning. From what I understand, most people don't tightly screw on the BearVault lid because it's harder to take off.

Now Marcy Dam in the Adirondacks is a different story. Still - I'd think a tight lid probably couldn't be removed - even with those bears' talented teeth.

The "Ursack Minor" sounds interesting. I hear at the Grand Canyon, they recommend some sort of stainless steel mesh bags for food storage.

I'm looking at Ursack's own website, and they admit that several types of rodents can penetrate a regular Ursack. Once they quietly work on one at night, what's to prevent a bear from finding a compromised one and using its claws to further tear it apart? If they're going to test it in real world conditions, why not let a pine marten at one first, then see if a bear can finish it off. That's your worst case scenario, and it looks as if some of the pictures I've seen indicate multiple perps getting in on the action.
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 16, 2011 10:45PM
On an unrelated food storage note, when do people think the first complaints will come in about the BearVault because it's not "BPA free"?
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 17, 2011 05:21AM
Quote
y_p_w
On an unrelated food storage note, when do people think the first complaints will come in about the BearVault because it's not "BPA free"?

I guess i just don't care, cuz I love both my bearvaults....
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 17, 2011 06:26AM
It seems like the whole concept of a "bag" being bear-proof seems flawed as even if it could avoid being punctured, the contents will be smashed.

Here is a wild suggestion:
Better way to go would be to make the bear canisters more utilitarian and easier to carry--- perhaps by enlarging and putting removable shoulder straps on them so that more than just food/toiletries can be carried easily. A beer keg with shoulder straps essentially! Or more toward a "pannier" shape. I am sure that other favorable shapes beyond a canister could be conceived.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 17, 2011 08:02AM
Quote
Frank Furter
It seems like the whole concept of a "bag" being bear-proof seems flawed as even if it could avoid being punctured, the contents will be smashed.

Here is a wild suggestion:
Better way to go would be to make the bear canisters more utilitarian and easier to carry--- perhaps by enlarging and putting removable shoulder straps on them so that more than just food/toiletries can be carried easily. A beer keg with shoulder straps essentially! Or more toward a "pannier" shape. I am sure that other favorable shapes beyond a canister could be conceived.

How about a variety of shapes?
http://camp4outdoors.com/products.html
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 17, 2011 09:12AM
Quote
Frank Furter
It seems like the whole concept of a "bag" being bear-proof seems flawed as even if it could avoid being punctured, the contents will be smashed.

Here is a wild suggestion:
Better way to go would be to make the bear canisters more utilitarian and easier to carry--- perhaps by enlarging and putting removable shoulder straps on them so that more than just food/toiletries can be carried easily. A beer keg with shoulder straps essentially! Or more toward a "pannier" shape. I am sure that other favorable shapes beyond a canister could be conceived.

I've thought about this, and one wouldn't really want permanent straps or hooks on a bear canister, because it would only encourage a bear to grap hold onto it and carry it off somewhere. But what would be cool would be to have a custom-sized carrying sack for a specific bear canister, with the sack having clips that could attached to one's backpack. Hence, one puts the bear canister inside the light-weight sack and then clips the sack onto their backpack. Overnight, the bear canister would be removed from its sack.

And for their shape, it would be nice if they weren't always cylindrical. Maybe more in the shape of a elongated half-moon, so they are less likely to roll away if played around with by a bear or tipped over by a person.
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 17, 2011 10:05AM
Quote
plawrence
I've thought about this, and one wouldn't really want permanent straps or hooks on a bear canister, because it would only encourage a bear to grap hold onto it and carry it off somewhere. But what would be cool would be to have a custom-sized carrying sack for a specific bear canister, with the sack having clips that could attached to one's backpack. Hence, one puts the bear canister inside the light-weight sack and then clips the sack onto their backpack. Overnight, the bear canister would be removed from its sack.

Uh... do you realize they have been selling a sack for the Garcia for a LONG time?
http://www.backpackerscache.com/products.asp

As for the link to the lady who got the Ursack whacked... They let the bear gnaw the crap out of it for hours.
So I can thank her for getting it dis-approved. And the one picture on her wonderful site (wtf you go thru
that much trouble to have a site like that is friggin beyond me) shows the thing overstuffed.

It's all our fault though. We like to feed the wild animals since they are so cute. So we get what we get.



Chick-on is looking at you!
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 17, 2011 10:44AM
Quote
chick-on
Quote
plawrence
I've thought about this, and one wouldn't really want permanent straps or hooks on a bear canister, because it would only encourage a bear to grap hold onto it and carry it off somewhere. But what would be cool would be to have a custom-sized carrying sack for a specific bear canister, with the sack having clips that could attached to one's backpack. Hence, one puts the bear canister inside the light-weight sack and then clips the sack onto their backpack. Overnight, the bear canister would be removed from its sack.

Uh... do you realize they have been selling a sack for the Garcia for a LONG time?
http://www.backpackerscache.com/products.asp

I don't use the Garcia, so I didn't think of it. Is there something similar for the BearVault or Bare Boxer?
Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 17, 2011 11:29AM
Quote
chick-on


As for the link to the lady who got the Ursack whacked... They let the bear gnaw the crap out of it for hours.
So I can thank her for getting it dis-approved. And the one picture on her wonderful site (wtf you go thru
that much trouble to have a site like that is friggin beyond me) shows the thing overstuffed.

It's all our fault though. We like to feed the wild animals since they are so cute. So we get what we get.

Another thought here - if you base camp and do leave the major part of your gear and food in camp while doing it, that would mean no one to chase the bears away. So another thing to think about when you are planning in nuisance bear areas. Carry all the food and toiletries and trash with you, or - use something that will stand up to some beating and leave it in a very carefully selected area, like a nice big meadow, without steep bits or waterways nearby.

Yep, all our fault for not thinking about the consequences of treating wild animals like house pets - poor critters. Hard to convince people that shooing the cute squirrel sitting on their shoe away is doing it a favor.
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 17, 2011 12:06PM
Hey Almost,
Sure you nose dis but... if you worrying bout food... then you taking the wrong container.
Never lost any food to no bear... never will. Garcia is bombproof... Bare Boxer is too.
Yogi no like those guys.

Totally unrelated but we gotz u that top o Wapama Picture... you no likey?



Chick-on is looking at you!
Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 17, 2011 02:29PM
Quote
chick-on
Hey Almost,
Sure you nose dis but... if you worrying bout food... then you taking the wrong container.
Never lost any food to no bear... never will. Garcia is bombproof... Bare Boxer is too.
Yogi no like those guys.

Totally unrelated but we gotz u that top o Wapama Picture... you no likey?

I have the smaller Bare Boxer I use for everything less than a week. We're spending more time than that on Rae Lakes. Not buying another can and never buying a Garcia.

I didn't see the pic, will look for the thread. Thanks.
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 17, 2011 10:14AM
Quote
plawrence
Quote
Frank Furter
It seems like the whole concept of a "bag" being bear-proof seems flawed as even if it could avoid being punctured, the contents will be smashed.

Here is a wild suggestion:
Better way to go would be to make the bear canisters more utilitarian and easier to carry--- perhaps by enlarging and putting removable shoulder straps on them so that more than just food/toiletries can be carried easily. A beer keg with shoulder straps essentially! Or more toward a "pannier" shape. I am sure that other favorable shapes beyond a canister could be conceived.

I've thought about this, and one wouldn't really want permanent straps or hooks on a bear canister, because it would only encourage a bear to grap hold onto it and carry it off somewhere. But what would be cool would be to have a custom-sized carrying sack for a specific bear canister, with the sack having clips that could attached to one's backpack. Hence, one puts the bear canister inside the light-weight sack and then clips the sack onto their backpack. Overnight, the bear canister would be removed from its sack.

And for their shape, it would be nice if they weren't always cylindrical. Maybe more in the shape of a elongated half-moon, so they are less likely to roll away if played around with by a bear or tipped over by a person.

Apparently someone has already thought of an egg shaped canister. It was mentioned that the carrying case has already been produced.

The latest models of the BearVault have dimples on the outside that supposedly can guide webbing straps for attachment. I would never try it. The larger version has grooves that might be used with ropes or bungee cords. Again - I would never try it myself. It seems like there would be too much potential for it to slip. I do like the idea of maybe having some sort of hook on the inside that would be covered in camp, but the particular design would seem to be important.
avatar Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 17, 2011 10:52AM
Quote
y_p_w
Quote
plawrence
Quote
Frank Furter
It seems like the whole concept of a "bag" being bear-proof seems flawed as even if it could avoid being punctured, the contents will be smashed.

Here is a wild suggestion:
Better way to go would be to make the bear canisters more utilitarian and easier to carry--- perhaps by enlarging and putting removable shoulder straps on them so that more than just food/toiletries can be carried easily. A beer keg with shoulder straps essentially! Or more toward a "pannier" shape. I am sure that other favorable shapes beyond a canister could be conceived.

I've thought about this, and one wouldn't really want permanent straps or hooks on a bear canister, because it would only encourage a bear to grap hold onto it and carry it off somewhere. But what would be cool would be to have a custom-sized carrying sack for a specific bear canister, with the sack having clips that could attached to one's backpack. Hence, one puts the bear canister inside the light-weight sack and then clips the sack onto their backpack. Overnight, the bear canister would be removed from its sack.

And for their shape, it would be nice if they weren't always cylindrical. Maybe more in the shape of a elongated half-moon, so they are less likely to roll away if played around with by a bear or tipped over by a person.

Apparently someone has already thought of an egg shaped canister.

I don't know if an egg-shape canister would be an improvement over the cylindrical ones. I would like one that would be less likely to roll downhill if it was tipped over. Also it would be nice if they came in brighter colors, at least the interior of them so it would be easier to find things inside of them -- bright colors like optic orange or optic yellow. smiling smiley
Re: Ursack Legal Battle Continues
May 17, 2011 08:01AM
Quote
y_p_w
On an unrelated food storage note, when do people think the first complaints will come in about the BearVault because it's not "BPA free"?

When people start drinking hot beverages out of them?
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login