High Sierra Topix

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to decide on my method of food storage for hiking the Sierra High Route. We are starting at Road's End on June 26 and ending July 19 in Tuolumne (versus going all the way to Twin Lakes). It feels like a shame to lug around a heavy, rigid bear canister for 180 miles largely through wilderness that doesn't get crowds. That said, I understand the arguments and want to be ethical, particularly at the more populated points I must pass through.

I'm considering the Ursack with aluminum liner because I understand it to now be acceptable in all land management units along my route. However, the one question I can't find an answer to is this: how packable is the aluminum liner? If it is very rigid then I don't imagine it is much of an improvement over rigid canisters in terms of packability. Am I wrong? What have been other people's experiences with the aluminum liner?

Brendan

I don't and won't use an ursack in the sierra, and canisters are mandatory in the Whitney zone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep, it is quite firm, at least in the ursack model I got a few years back. You really can't pack it down any - although you might be able to store it outside a pack...

OP wrote:
I'm considering the Ursack with aluminum liner because I understand it to now be
acceptable in all land management units along my route.

AT wrote:
and canisters are mandatory in the Whitney zone.

Maybe you missed it AT, but OP wrote "along my route" which is the SHR, no where near
Whitney.

When it comes to packing, the Ursack with the aluminum liner is essentially a hard shell canister unless you remove the liner and carry it separate from the Ursack, either flattened or wrapped around something like a sleeping bag. Doesn't seem worth the effort to me.

Although it is somewhat lighter in weight the Ursack w/ liner doesn't have some of the positive features of the true hard shells: such as functioning as a stool, a wash tub, and a nearly worry-free protector of food.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the Ursack is certified for Yosemite National Park, which is part of your trip.

Yes, I dyslexicize acronyms - and Yosemite and parts south are very bad bear areas. Some of the rangers I've spoken to describe needing bolt cutters to remove former Ursacks after a bear's been at it for a night. Taking it into Yosemite may result in a rather hefty fine as well as losing your food if a determined bear happens along.

just buy a good can (not ursack yet until 100% approved) and deal with it. Saves the bears and saves your food.

rlown wrote:just buy a good can (not ursack yet until 100% approved) and deal with it. Saves the bears and saves your food.

+1

Or rent a Bearikade. Ursack with the liner gives you 650 cu inches for 18 oz (36 cu in per oz) and the Bearikade Weekender gives you 650 cu inches for 31 oz (21 cu in per oz). For the price of the possible fine, you could even buy yourself a Bearikade.

Here's what's currently approved for Yosemite: http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/containers.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Ursack with the liner was slightly less packable than a Bearikade Weekender and a good bit less packable than a Bearikade Scout for me. I didn't like the combination of the Ursack and liner, but I still use the Ursack without the liner when I'm more worried about rodents than bears. I tend to use my Bearikade when I'm concerned with keeping my food from bears. I have a Bearikade Scout and a Weekender. Most of my trips are short; so the Scout gets used most often as I can fit at least four days of food in it. I like the smaller size of the Scout because it makes it easy to pack.

Well you've all convinced me to ditch the Ursack idea! I'll look at getting either a Bearikade (if I can afford it) or a BearVault. Thanks guys,

Brendan