Them damCan Regs.

Share your advice and personal experiences, post a gear review or ask any questions you may have pertaining to outdoor gear and equipment.
Post Reply
User avatar
SSSdave
Topix Addict
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:18 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Silicon Valley
Contact:

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Post by SSSdave »

yosehiker wrote:... Not sure what the NPS/USFS agenda would be against the ursack as they don't gain anything by it being banned, nor would they if it was allowed. I would think they would gladly allow something that was effective against bears and that hikers liked.
From the beginning of the Ursack introduction it seemed those making policy went out of their way to rationalize weak arguments. Like if someone brought liquid containers, a bear would burst them and it would leak out. Well really who puts liquids in their pack? So we said then dictate no liquids if using Ursack. Let them use Garcias, but that fell on dead ears. Oh they forced Ursack to make that frame to put inside. What an unnecessary solution except that it made the Ursack a less attractive choice...the actual agenda.

Then they whined about how trees would become mutilated if people tied off to trees at popular camp spots. We suggested a policy that would only allow tying off to rocks which I tend to do where two boulders touch and allow tying off to trees at camp spots more than a quarter mile from lakes and trails. Again no responses like they just wanted us to go away with our suggestions and crawl in a hole. It is obvious there are some strong Ursack haters making policy that have NO interest in any compromises.

All this became strong reasons to have doubts on some of the supposed Ursack failures. Any Ursack hater can drag a bag full of sharp rocks behind their vehicle and cause it to look like one well known web posting and then claim a bear did it. Other supposed staged failures occurred after a bear was allowed to attack a bag over a couple days for hours. What does that say about the attitude of those performing the test?
User avatar
SSSdave
Topix Addict
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:18 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Silicon Valley
Contact:

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Post by SSSdave »

yosehiker wrote:...Also, if you have more flexibility in the rules, they become more complicated...
Just another weak argument. Its true such complicates policy. But adjacent Inyo National Forest indeed has a complex set of such maps we all have been using. Seems to be working there. Most backpackers tend to be talented topographic map users. Most of us have no issues understanding where maps show no camping or no campfires, and would likewise be able to understand where an Ursack was an option or not.
User avatar
Carne_DelMuerto
Topix Expert
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:43 am
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Auburn, CA

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Post by Carne_DelMuerto »

Edit: never mind, reread the post to see the point was addressed.
Wonder is rock and water and the life that lives in-between.
User avatar
bheiser1
Topix Regular
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:39 pm
Experience: Level 3 Backpacker
Location: Twain Harte, CA
Contact:

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Post by bheiser1 »

lambertiana wrote:I can only speak from my experience, but every single back country bear encounter that I have had resulted in the bear turning tail and running away after just a yell or two. Even in trailhead areas a well placed rock worked every time I tried it.
What do you consider to be a "well placed" rock? "Official" recommendations seem to call for throwing rocks near the bear but not hitting it (indicating that hitting it would anger it and provoke an attack). Is this your approach or are you suggesting hitting the bear? I'm not trying to provoke an argument, I'm just interested in hearing what works so I'll know what to do when the situation arises. I'm a relative newbie to Sierra backpacking, having "grown up" hiking/camping/backpacking in the White Mountains of NH, years ago, where none of this bear stuff was ever an issue.

Re: the topic, I deal with the weight & carry a canister for all backpacking in the Sierra, whether required or not. For me it's worth the peace of mind, not regarding bears, but other critters that might enjoy my food. Plus I won't need to live with my conscience knowing that I helped habituate a bear by letting it get my food for the sake of cutting a couple pounds from my pack.
User avatar
Carne_DelMuerto
Topix Expert
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:43 am
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Auburn, CA

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Post by Carne_DelMuerto »


Re: the topic, I deal with the weight & carry a canister for all backpacking in the Sierra, whether required or not. For me it's worth the peace of mind, not regarding bears, but other critters that might enjoy my food. Plus I won't need to live with my conscience knowing that I helped habituate a bear by letting it get my food for the sake of cutting a couple pounds from my pack.
That sums up my thoughts as well. =D>

I would only add that the convenience of the canister is a benefit too. The time I used to spend looking for a suitable tree and then hanging the food I now spend soaking in the view and sipping scotch.
Wonder is rock and water and the life that lives in-between.
User avatar
yosehiker
Topix Acquainted
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:36 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Post by yosehiker »

SSSdave wrote:It is obvious there are some strong Ursack haters making policy that have NO interest in any compromises.
I don't see that as obvious or even at all. Remember, SIBBG was sued and taken to court by the ursack manufacturer and won the case. I don't know the particulars of the case, but to have won they would have had to have a compelling argument, which apparently they did. Considering the government's track record with policy litigation, that they won is significant. What more could you want against a policy you don't like, a court case brought by a private interest with a strong incentive to win? I think the case is closed and over.
SSSdave wrote:Any Ursack hater can drag a bag full of sharp rocks behind their vehicle and cause it to look like one well known web posting and then claim a bear did it.
Are you really suggesting that park/forest service officials did this? Again if the ursack was effective, what would their motivation be to do something time consuming and probably illegal to undermine would most likely be widely popular food storage method? I find it hard to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy against the ursack. Occam's razor comes to mind.
User avatar
yosehiker
Topix Acquainted
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:36 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Post by yosehiker »

Carne_DelMuerto wrote:

Re: the topic, I deal with the weight & carry a canister for all backpacking in the Sierra, whether required or not. For me it's worth the peace of mind, not regarding bears, but other critters that might enjoy my food. Plus I won't need to live with my conscience knowing that I helped habituate a bear by letting it get my food for the sake of cutting a couple pounds from my pack.
That sums up my thoughts as well. =D>

I would only add that the convenience of the canister is a benefit too. The time I used to spend looking for a suitable tree and then hanging the food I now spend soaking in the view and sipping scotch.
I second that. Well said, both of you.
User avatar
bheiser1
Topix Regular
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:39 pm
Experience: Level 3 Backpacker
Location: Twain Harte, CA
Contact:

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Post by bheiser1 »

yosehiker wrote:
Carne_DelMuerto wrote:

Re: the topic, I deal with the weight & carry a canister for all backpacking in the Sierra, whether required or not. For me it's worth the peace of mind, not regarding bears, but other critters that might enjoy my food. Plus I won't need to live with my conscience knowing that I helped habituate a bear by letting it get my food for the sake of cutting a couple pounds from my pack.
That sums up my thoughts as well. =D>

I would only add that the convenience of the canister is a benefit too. The time I used to spend looking for a suitable tree and then hanging the food I now spend soaking in the view and sipping scotch.
Yeah - actually I meant to say "not just regarding bears", :) but the same point applies.

I've never even tried hanging my food. But I'm glad to not have to :).

I second that. Well said, both of you.
User avatar
Wandering Daisy
Topix Docent
Posts: 6640
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:19 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Fair Oaks CA (Sacramento area)
Contact:

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Post by Wandering Daisy »

Bear cans are becoming the standard. Now I would like to see pack manufacturers realize this and size pack bags so a bear can will fit. Men's large- no problem, but women's x-small and there is not a pack out there that allows a bear can to fit horizontally. When put in vertically, the hard side interfers with the natural flexibility that makes a pack comfortable on your back. Although I should wear an x-small, I have had to go with a woman's medium just to get a cannister in vertically, let alone horizontally. I am tired of manufacturers assumption that women will have a man along to carry the bulky stuff or will only do short trips. Because of this pack fit problem, I use an Ursack if cans are not required. Also a bear can in a UL frameless pack is very uncomfortable.
User avatar
rlown
Topix Docent
Posts: 8225
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Wilton, CA

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Post by rlown »

Wandering Daisy wrote:Bear cans are becoming the standard. Now I would like to see pack manufacturers realize this and size pack bags so a bear can will fit. Men's large- no problem, but women's x-small and there is not a pack out there that allows a bear can to fit horizontally. When put in vertically, the hard side interfers with the natural flexibility that makes a pack comfortable on your back. Although I should wear an x-small, I have had to go with a woman's medium just to get a cannister in vertically, let alone horizontally. I am tired of manufacturers assumption that women will have a man along to carry the bulky stuff or will only do short trips. Because of this pack fit problem, I use an Ursack if cans are not required. Also a bear can in a UL frameless pack is very uncomfortable.
Not sure what you want? My 12" bearikade fits fine in my Tioga 5500, even horizontally in the lower compartment. There is the weekender, but that doesn't fit your needs anyway, as you've a small frame, and you do long trips. What are you asking for? Magic?
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests