High Sierra Topix

AlmostThere wrote:An ursack, legally used.

Yosemite in 2013 it wasn't legal.

Regardless, it appears they lost their food due to an Ursack failure. But in a larger context it can also be seen as a failure of canisters. A canister's limited volume coupled with its bulk and weight discourages almost everyone, just like the people in that story, from carrying a second one. I'm not as pessimistic as you and hope to see the technology improve.

I have seen LOTS of bears. Not as much the last couple of years. Lot has to do with where you go. I ran into 8 bears in one day in Northern Yosemite. Most bears I see run off. I suspect that a lot of people are too busy looking at their feet or talking to someone to really notice the bears. I have never had a bear in my camp in the Sierra - did in the Wind Rivers in Wyoming. All my bear encounters are hiking.

I totally agree that a bear canister is more difficult to pack- the hard side big size is a real problem for me because I am small so my pack is really limited in volume. Not only do you have the extra weight of the canister, but I have to go up to a heavier pack just to use the bear can. That adds about 4 pounds total. I have a Ursack that I use whenever bear cans are not specifically REQUIRED. I also totally agree that most Sierra backpackers are not very informed about proper camping in bear country. I know when I am in bear habitat and when I am not. Statistically, look at the bears per square mile and then if you are camped days off-trail at 12,000 feet miles above the nearest timber, the probability of a bear coming into camp at night is pretty small. Particularly if you cook dinner and camp miles apart (this is pretty standard technique when in grizzly country).

I am glad they are giving the Ursack a chance. Interesting to see if there is a big up-spike in bear incidences. This probably a good test case.

That said, I do agree that almost universal use of bear cans has resulted keeping bears from targeting backpackers as much as they did in the past.

Snowtrout
that canister warrants a closer look because it is cheaper than a Baricade. However it is not really collapsible and it is just as easy to put things like cooking gear, fuel canisters, trash etc in a Baricade as in this version. So I don't see it as reducing the volume of my pack any more than what I currently do with my Baricade.

oldranger wrote:Snowtrout
that canister warrants a closer look because it is cheaper than a Baricade. However it is not really collapsible and it is just as easy to put things like cooking gear, fuel canisters, trash etc in a Baricade as in this version. So I don't see it as reducing the volume of my pack any more than what I currently do with my Baricade.

I don't like you can't use it as a seat.

Snowtrout wrote:AlmostThere, I am not disagreeing with you. As I posted, the Ursack seems more of a deterrent than protection and user error can lead to failure. Your pics and other reports/pics show both of these points to be true.

I think collapsible or pieces that break down for carrying is possible if designed right. For example, this product that has yet to be released might have potential: http://www.camp4outdoors.com/products.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting design but a pre-release review of it over at Trailspace
http://www.trailspace.com/blog/2011/01/ ... r-700.html
dated Jan 21, 2011 suggested that it would be approved and released for sale by May 2011. I wonder what the hold up is?

longri wrote:

AlmostThere wrote:An ursack, legally used.

Yosemite in 2013 it wasn't legal.

Regardless, it appears they lost their food due to an Ursack failure. But in a larger context it can also be seen as a failure of canisters. A canister's limited volume coupled with its bulk and weight discourages almost everyone, just like the people in that story, from carrying a second one. I'm not as pessimistic as you and hope to see the technology improve.

Bears can get into cars, because they can get their claws in. Bears can get into bags, because they can get teeth in. That ain't pessimism. It's pretty much the way it is.

I would love for there to be something light and soft sided that would work. If Kevlar/spectra doesn't work, what do you think will?

I missed the part where they weren't over the pass yet - but, the bears along the JMT are just as bad as the ones inside the park boundary, so it would have been chewed up just the same. No doubt they parked their tent in the same overused places everyone else does. The bears have a route.

Snowtrout wrote:
I think collapsible or pieces that break down for carrying is possible if designed right. For example, this product that has yet to be released might have potential: http://www.camp4outdoors.com/products.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think those are the folks that sent me a questionnaire about features of bear canisters.

I don't like that there are fiddly little latches. Every piece of gear I've ever used with fiddly bits gets clogged, jammed or broken eventually. Not too sure the round shape is a good idea.

I have also wondered why it was at an outdoor trade show a few years ago but as of yet, not released. Getting certification might be the sticking point. But I think they are trying to address issues most, including myself, have with current canisters: the weight and size of them. Being able to split the canister in half allows two people to share the weight of the canister and splitting it makes a flat surface, making it easier to put in ones pack. Good for partners or groups but no real advantage for soloist that have a present canister.

I just like the idea that companies are thinking outside of the box and coming up with new ideas.

A question though for those that have an Ursack. I have often thought that having a single attach point allows bears to mouth, pull, and move the bag (creating a tether ball effect) could possibly allow them to get better leverage on the sack, leading to a failure. Would adding a second attach/anchor point at the bottom of the sack (preventing the tether ball effect) be a improvement over the present design?

Hum, same problem as with the URSACK. Makes a poor stool.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

We have 3 Bearikade expeditions and a weekender and haven't worried about a bear in years. We used to hang food in the 1990s and lose sleep keeping the bears away. We get a lot of use out of the containers when doing the laundry or doing a body wipe bath away from any stream. The cost is reasonable when you buy them and use them year after year. They also make nice camp stools. I have one Ursack that I used for a few trips as an overflow food storage solution. We have gotten much better at doing our own home dried food and no longer have the bulk of freeze dried food so space isn't a problem.