High Sierra Topix

This is what is allowed in SEKI and a good map of the areas that require canisters:
http://www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/bear_bc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

oldranger wrote:Don't believe Ursack approved for anyplace in SEKI except where counterbalancing is acceptable. Then it must be counterbalanced to be legal. Mike

Mike, the link Freestone posted @ http://www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/bear_bc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; is the reason I decided to get the Ursack. The language for areas outside of Dusy, Rae & Rock is very telling:

Containers are HIGHLY RECOMMENDED in all other areas throughout Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks.

This is similar to what Inyo now says after the Ursack lawsuit once they backed off from language like this:

Containers are REQUIRED in the Dusy Basin, Rae Lakes Loop, and Rock Creek

I of course will take my BV along as well in the car, so in case something happens in the meantime, I can easily shift from one method to another. Since every experienced hiker already has a hard container, I would imagine all kinds of people are thinking the same thing, as the Ursack is the supplemental device, not the primary means of storage.

I stand by my previous statement, according to the Superintendent's Compendium of discretionary regulations and restrictions, etc. The only legal food storage methods (outside of the 3 restricted areas) is 1. approved canisters (not Ursack), 2. Permanent storage boxes, 3. Counterbalancing. Consequently the Ursack has no more legal status than a nylon stuff sack. Also the Rae Lakes loop restricted area extends all the way from Pinchot Pass to Forester Pass so the Ursack provides no benefit.

Mike

Just recieved my S29 Allwhite. Now awaiting news of its approval for SEKI. Even if not, im looking forward to using it in non-restricted areas instead of heavier/time consuming methods.

it's a pretty cool discussion. It's just going to take one bear to be reported to tear into or take an Ursack and "they" lock it down more specifically.

Now awaiting news of its approval for SEKI.

Not sure that is going to come. The 2014 list of approved barriers for the required zones in SEKI has been published and Ursack is not on the list.

The mood I get from the NPS site is the Ursack is on the list with Counter Balance as highly discouraged.

rlown wrote:it's a pretty cool discussion. It's just going to take one bear to be reported to tear into or take an Ursack and "they" lock it down more specifically.

It would be surprising it if were approved and more surprising if it were approved and stayed that way. I wish that at the very least it could be approved as a second container. I frequently encounter backpackers who leave the food they couldn't fit in their canister completely unprotected because carrying a second rigid canister is unthinkable for most people (myself included).

longri wrote: I wish that at the very least it could be approved as a second container. I frequently encounter backpackers who leave the food they couldn't fit in their canister completely unprotected because carrying a second rigid canister is unthinkable for most people (myself included).

I like this "a second canister/stuff sack can be hung" sipulation but only:
1) You carry a legal bear canister already, (some minimum size requirement - not the smallest can available), and
2) You would then be legally allowed to hang a second food bag (not specifically a ursack but any stuff sack.)

Many know I enjoy the Yosemite area. Regulations there seem to be somewhat confusing and conflicting. Rules there say you are mandated to carry a legal canister (Rangers check at the Permit Office) except if you are PCT bound, where then, one is seemingly not required. If you think I am wrong, just spend a few summer hours outside the Tuolumne Store as the PCT denizens come through and watch as they grab their re-supply boxes. Half of the thru hikers never carry a can - Rangers know this yet do nothing (and generally turn a blind eye.)...Double standard?

Additionally, hanging any food in YNP is taboo - (for good reason as Yosemite bears know how to defeat this practice when given enough time). However, as someone who goes out for 12+ consecutive days, not all food fits in my Bearikade to start. I shun to carry a second can...not enough pack room. I would prefer to hang the rest and keep a close watch the first few days out, but as any hang is easily spotted from afar - tickets given...I usually am generally forced to sleep with the rest and hope. Hanging would seem to be a better/safer alternative.

I see no advantage to hanging a Ursack over a regular stuff sack, as Mike noted above, after grabbing the hang - Ursack or stuff sack, bears can easily carry both some distance away. Securing a Ursack to a tree (the recommended way) only gives the bear purchase to gnaw away - ruining any food inside.
I do not see Ursacks lasting long on the OK list in the Sierra.

markskor wrote:Additionally, hanging any food in YNP is taboo - (for good reason as Yosemite bears know how to defeat this practice when given enough time). However, as someone who goes out for 12+ consecutive days, not all food fits in my Bearikade to start. I shun to carry a second can...not enough pack room. I would prefer to hang the rest and keep a close watch the first few days out, but as any hang is easily spotted from afar - tickets given...I usually am generally forced to sleep with the rest and hope. Hanging would seem to be a better/safer alternative.

I see people "hanging" their food six feet off the ground in Yosemite every year. Last summer I saw this within 20 feet of the JMT in Lyell Canyon. Even when the right kind of tree is nearby it takes skill to hang properly, a skill that most backpackers have not developed. It seems to me a better defense is a highly resistant bag. But I doubt the idea of an Ursack as a second container would go over well because it is potentially confusing. It's simpler to demand canisters in all cases and accept that there will never be 100% compliance.

I would. I have the green one that came out in 2009 and was approved for that season. I use it almost every summer and am happy with it. I am also very careful to use it properly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk