Petition to Allow Ursack in Yosemite and SEKI

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
markskor
Founding Member - RIP
Posts: 2442
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:41 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Crowley Lake and Tuolumne Meadows

Re: The necessity of a bear canister

Post by markskor »

Here at HST, we pride ourselves in having well-educated members, some of the most experienced backpackers, Sierra. We have Rangers, ex-Rangers, OldRangers, SAR personnel...Many here have 40+ years backcountry experience...myself included. We are well-versed in the ways Sierra, and make logical decisions based on experiences encountered over the years.
So obviously, you have lots of money invested in your Ursack - obviousy pro-Ursack...but maybe your monetary investment blinds you to the dangers your product imposes on the hiking community. Let me answer some of your questions...
HiSierra wrote: So what would the effect be of allowing the new model Ursack, certified by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, in Yosemite and SEKI? Would the total number of human-bear incidents go up or down?
This one is easy - incidents would rise as bears soon enough discover food is now more easily available from backpackers - those carrying soft bags vs. hard sided canisters.
HiSierra wrote:Would humans be less vigilant than they are now with a canister requirement?

Humans would be forced to be more vigilant, especially at night, (less sleep) as bears can/will obtain a taste of food from the ursack - might take a while but bears gnawin all night, food hung or not, a soft-sided sack enables food to be crushed inside.
HiSierra wrote:Would more people use an Ursack rather than a stuff sack?

Here your product does have value - against critters who cannot pick up and walk off with the back-counry food cache... Marmots, squirrels, and mice. Against bears though, maybe initially some would try the ursack for the 1 pound weight savings but, as in the past, would soon discover a soft sack doesn't work effectively (actually invites bears into camp)...even if used as directed. BTW, are you wiling to take responsibility for your product being the direct cause of any injuries or deaths - man or bear - that result from use of your product?
HiSierra wrote: ...asking for fair trial with a scientific assessment of the data relative the current baseline condition.

BTW, nice that you came off your high horse and are now only pleading for a "Fair test"...IMHO, your product has already been well-tested, weighed, and found lacking, at least in regard to our bears, Sierra.
HiSierra wrote:So fear not one petition. The odds of this bear resistant solution getting a fair test are quite slim, in my humble opinion.
I fear not the petition, but all the the misinformation that it implies.
Mountainman who swims with trout
User avatar
HiSierra
Topix Novice
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:58 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: The necessity of a bear canister

Post by HiSierra »

Markskor, the Ursack is not "my" product and I actually have invested more money in Bear Vaults and Garcias over my long hiking experience than I have invested Ursacks. Please do no personalize this debate or question my motives. I feel strongly about protecting both bears and humans.

This issue is at turning point with the recent IGBC certification of a new model with an option for an aluminum liner. If you have facts backing up the speculative conclusions about this bear resistant container, please provide scientific evidence. Anecdotal stories abound on both sides of the debate, so lets stick to the facts. This is about managing a problem, one that the current policy has not fully solved either with dozens of incidents in Yosemite last year. Nobody is asking someone or some company to take personal responsibility for those incidents.

So far, more than 1,500 people have signed that petition and many have stated reasons why they would like this tool available in Yosemite and SEKI, a tool which has worked well in other areas and is now officially approved by the organization testing these products.
User avatar
markskor
Founding Member - RIP
Posts: 2442
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:41 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Crowley Lake and Tuolumne Meadows

Re: The necessity of a bear canister

Post by markskor »

HiSierra wrote:Please do no personalize this debate or question my motives. I feel strongly about protecting both bears and humans.

Then stop using the word "I"...you already have "personalized" this many times prior.
HiSierra wrote:Anecdotal stories abound on both sides of the debate, so lets stick to the facts.

The facts are (have seen this myself...numerous occasions Sierra) is that the ursack does not work effectively against bears...other critters yes, Sierra bears, not so much.
HiSierra wrote: Nobody is asking someone or some company to take personal responsibility for those incidents.
You are advocating using/selling your device that ultimately results in bears being put down...your petition, your product...but no responsibility taken? ARGH! Much like the Corvair...unsafe at any speed.
HiSierra wrote:So far, more than 1,500 people have signed that petition and many have stated reasons why they would like this tool available in Yosemite and SEKI, a tool which has worked well in other areas and is now officially approved by the organization testing these products.
Wow, your petition is on at least 7 other backpacking sites and all of 1500 signers..Impressive! Just think of how many signers you would have if your ursack really worked? You can fool some of the people, all of the time...does not make it a better/viable product.
Bottom line, no matter how you spin it, a soft-sided sack DOES NOT WORK against bears - Sierra!
Mountainman who swims with trout
User avatar
ciclista
Topix Novice
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:05 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: Petition to Allow Ursack in Yosemite and SEKI

Post by ciclista »

Since there's been a desire from both sides about sticking to "facts"...

It's been mentioned that there were numerous bear vs human food incidents last year in Yosemite. Does this mean the bear got the food out of a properly used, approved cannister? How often/what percentage of user nights?

Where is the proof that Sierra bears got the food out of a properly-hung Ursack?

We've been backpacking outside of bear country lately (in Henry Coe Park), and as an experiment, we've put food into LokSacks (clear, "scentproof" ziploc bags) and left some laying out on the ground at night for three nights, and nothing has even attempted to get the food. How well would these bags work inside of a properly-hung Ursak?
User avatar
Hobbes
Topix Fanatic
Posts: 1120
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:09 am
Experience: N/A
Location: The OC

Re: Petition to Allow Ursack in Yosemite and SEKI

Post by Hobbes »

I use the 12.5x20 OPsack (SKU OP3-12X20) inside the Ursack S29 AllWhite (IGBC cert. no. 3738):

http://www.loksak.com/products/opsak

As most know, the absolute critical element about using the Ursack is knowing how to properly tie knots. Rangers aren't going deal with clogged lines of people demonstrating knot tying ability when issuing permits. However, it seems reasonable to suggest that perhaps an annual permit - heck, charge $20 - could be issued to those who demonstrate how to properly use the device.

I would gladly pay $20 to have a 'Ursack license' - sort of like a DFG annual fishing license - that would allow me to travel through bear canister areas without getting hassled. Nowadays, like all the rest of the sheep, I dutifully bring along a can, even if I'm only in a can required area for a day, just to avoid dealing with backcountry rangers.
User avatar
sparky
Topix Fanatic
Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:01 am
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

Re: Petition to Allow Ursack in Yosemite and SEKI

Post by sparky »

About the testing....circus grizzlies vs starving yosemite bears.....hmmm.....I bet the valley locals would just gnaw on an ursack for days. A fat well fed circus bear....not so much.

per their testing protocol
If the product is not breached within the required 60 minutes of bear contact time, it will be considered to have "passed" the live-bear test.
User avatar
rlown
Topix Docent
Posts: 8225
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Wilton, CA

Re: Petition to Allow Ursack in Yosemite and SEKI

Post by rlown »

Just do a Google search on ursack failures. you should get something like this:
https://www.google.com/search?q=ursack+ ... 2&ie=UTF-8

Then read: https://giantdumpster.wordpress.com/tag/ursack-failure/

or any of the other myriad of failure reports in the search results.

60 minutes of play doesn't equate to a nighttime of torment.

(yeah, I said I was done with this thread, but your choice of an Ursack will impact me if the bears learn again that camps are a good food source.)

The liner isn't the answer. Still a night time chew toy.

EDIT: to be fair you can put in any bear can name and failure in the search engine to get comparisons/reasons for failure.
User avatar
Fly Guy Dave
Topix Expert
Posts: 580
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:27 am
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Contact:

Re: The necessity of a bear canister

Post by Fly Guy Dave »

rlown wrote:
Fly Guy Dave wrote:When I was on a sea kayak trip along Seymour Canal, paralleling Admiralty Island in Alaska, there were plenty of grizzly bears around (we saw almost two dozen in a week and a half), the rangers at Pack Creek told us that all we had to do was hang our food high in the trees, as the grizzlies were too big and fat to climb up, so no bear cans were necessary. Grizzlies back in the Sierra? A can of bear spray weighs a lot less than a bear can! ;)
I'm not going to sit there all night with a can of spray. The can lets you sleep and the bear says, "um, ok. next camp."

I'm done with this thread. Make you own call. Good luck.
In all honesty, my post was made as a joke. Yes, grizzlies are too big to climb trees so a bear can isn't necessary up in Alaska, but the idea of reintroducing them into the Sierra is really far-fetched and I really doubt that it would ever happen. As far as the use of an ursack versus a can...well...as much a I hate the weight and bulk of a can, I always use one. I have seen ursacks that have been extensively chewed on by a black bear and they did indeed hold up. However, the food was so crushed, slobbered on and absolutely inedible afterwards, it totally defeated the purpose. Also, I imagine the bear did get a taste of some of the food inside, which would lead to future unfortunate human/bear encounters. All in all a bad idea.
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man." --The Dude (Jeff Lebowski)

Some pics of native salmonids: http://flyguydave.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Jimr
Forums Moderator
Forums Moderator
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:14 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Torrance

Re: Petition to Allow Ursack in Yosemite and SEKI

Post by Jimr »

If you climb a tree to escape a bear, you will immediately know whether it's a black or a brown bear. The black bear will go up the tree after you. The brown bear will push the tree down. :bear:
If you don't know where you're going, then any path will get you there.
User avatar
HiSierra
Topix Novice
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:58 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: Petition to Allow Ursack in Yosemite and SEKI

Post by HiSierra »

Markskor, this is not "my product" or "my petition." Hopefully for the last time, I have zero connection with the petition or with Ursack. If after a truly fair test period the Ursack didn't work out in Yosemite or SEKI, I would argue for not allowing them. My main point is to drop the emotion bias and treat this like any other bear resistant product that may have a place in wilderness management.

With the certification of the improved model it seems prudent for wilderness managers to give it a fair trial. Its logical to assume that a lighter and more flexible product should encourage greater compliance. Offsetting that possible benefit, its also logical to assume there could be more human errors due to the nature of the product. At the end of the season, did overall incidents increase or decrease? Did the severity of incidents increase or decrease? Look at the big picture logically from a management perspective without the emotion.

For places like Yosemite and SEKI with a long history of smart bears getting food from people, the aluminum liner and a OP sak seem like wise requirements in addition to Ursack. Its been shown there is no "seal" that will fool a bear's nose or even a dog's nose, but this combination will make it more difficult for the bear to obtain even a taste of the food. If that proves to be true, then the bears would probably eventually give up like they do with a hard shell canister. All this needs to be field tested in a fair and transparent trial period. Simply assuming bear behavior or human behavior is not science.

Recall it took legal action just to get the IGBC to set up a test protocol and then long delays before they conducted the tests. This shows a documented bias against this product, so the idea of a fair trial might be an illusion if the same bias exists within YNP and SEKI. In contrast, when the lids on Bear Vaults were found to be compromised by some bears, they worked with the company to solve the problem.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests