High Sierra Topix

rlown wrote:OK. I think FB is completely unsafe and if there is a debate going on there, it's not coming to this site. Guess that depends on your definition of "site."

Too often, a debate on such topics as water treatment or food storage amounts to wishful thinking vs. too much fail, not enough success.

I am making my decisions in all matters of risk based on what information, anecdotal or otherwise, I can find, not other people's wishful thinking, conspiracy theories, or rage (I cannot believe the emotion invested in such things!) - and I am still waiting for someone to show me any incident where an Ursack was used in the Sierra and survived the bear encounter. "My ____ has never been bothered" doesn't count - if the bear did nothing, it means nothing. I am concerned only when the bear does something. Testing elsewhere than the Sierra where the bear played with it for anything less than two hours doesn't count. The reports I have heard of Ursack-bear conflict involve many hours of bear-on-bag action, teeth and claws fully engaged repeatedly and ongoing, with hikers throwing things and shouting at the bear, and the bear getting the food and never leaving until it does - not a few swipes and some chewing and giving up.

So far, between all the rangers and the people I hike with and the people I talk to on the trail, I haven't heard of any such occurrence of a Sierra bear not getting food from an Ursack - you'd think if anyone had, they'd be yelling about it every time the subject arises. So between the failed testing and loss of approval in Yosemite, the lack of anything resembling data, and the many accounts and pictures of torn up (not improperly used - the knots were tied so well the bear never got into the opening - he didn't need to!) Ursacks - I will stick with what I use and has successfully thwarted the efforts of bears HERE in California, not other states, and in Yosemite, not somewhere the bears are still wild. And I do so while knowing that canisters have also failed - but in far lower numbers and with many, many successful bear-on-can incidents reported. I've had the bears bother my canister a number of times and I drove them away without a quibble, because they don't taste the food through the canister. The bear incidents in which the bear obtains food in Yosemite have diminished successfully thanks to their campaign to get people using canisters and lockers. That's more meaningful than impassioned pleas to let everyone use something that weighs 10 oz less.

My first encounter with an Ursack was a store owner refusing to sell it to me when I told him where I was going. He was sick of giving refunds.

After reading your post about 3 times, I think I agree with you, AT.

I agree with you as well, AT. Something else I found odd was that the guy promoting that petition claims the biggest benefit is weight savings. Well, a quick snoop of his very public FB profile with lots of photos revealed to me that he maybe could be saving some weight elsewhere - like, I dunno, ditching the bulky tent or camp chair he brought along on at least one of his trips.

The can comes regardless. I want a camp chair as well. When we found them at Lillian, I was happy and comfortable. It'd be worth the weight.

Take the can. save a bear. just don't put it near a lake. (and a note: MYLF are out of our control: that's secret mgmt we have zero control over; bbye most brookies..)

Emotions are running high on this topic. Reminder to everyone to keep things civil.

Steve, we've been digging into this topic on the following thread as well: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=12309&start=12#p92892

rlown wrote:The can comes regardless. I want a camp chair as well.

I'm with you on that. Not too much weight or wasted space IMO if you know how to pack them and make good use of them.

I won't use FB so have no clue what linked thread is about.

Despite impassioned inputs herein and I respect those making them, I'll continue to confidently use my Ursack when my Garcia's are not required. Have posted reasons many times over the years and won't add anything more to this discussion. Those against the bag, particularly SIBBG, lost credibility with many of us early in the debate because they tried to damn the bag with false evidence and heresay and showed unreasonable hatred as though they had rationalized it was ok to do so given what they assumed was at stake.

ERIC wrote:I agree with you as well, AT. Something else I found odd was that the guy promoting that petition claims the biggest benefit is weight savings. Well, a quick snoop of his very public FB profile with lots of photos revealed to me that he maybe could be saving some weight elsewhere - like, I dunno, ditching the bulky tent or camp chair he brought along on at least one of his trips.

Obviously the guy's opinions about the new Ursacks are worthless because he camps in Rainier with a heavy tent and camp chair.


You guys ever think that just maybe the latest Ursack might just hold up better than the old versions? That maybe it ought to be given a test?

Steve_C wrote: Obviously the guy's opinions about the new Ursacks are worthless because he camps in Rainier with a heavy tent and camp chair.

LOL!! I'm sorry, I'm missing the part where I said his opinions are worthless. All I said is that I thought his primary argument was odd. Perhaps it is you who thinks my opinion doesn't matter lol. I'll add that his approach to making his case (basically misleading promotional spamming) on the HST FB page wasn't helpful. Lots of emotion on both sides and I doubt he swayed any opinions.

The primary question I have seems to remain unanswered: Why are black bears given such a high priority? Why must present (evolved) black bear behavior negatively impact our back country conduct?

The point is, there is a larger issue at play: with the eradication of the true king of the California jungle - the Grizzly bear - the black bear moved in to fill its niche. As we know, black bears are primarily foragers, but while the brown bear still ruled, both black bear numbers and behavior were kept in check.

Removing the real apex predator and installing an imposter hasn't been good for humans or (black) bears. They behave with impunity because there no longer exists any sanction; not from us, but from brown bears. And their numbers and range have grown to encompass areas that may not have previously existed.

Since man removed the California brown bear, isn't it our responsibility to at least rectify that action by attempting to achieve some semblance of balance? Why are black bears exalted, given preferential treatment and afforded special protections?

Are they really critical to Sierra species diversity, habitat restoration and eco-systems redundancy? Or are we attracted to them because we associate anthropomorphic qualities (ie cute & cuddly), while the yellow-legged frog is a slimy reptile and its rehabilitation could impact our "recreational" activities? (And I say this as an avid fishermen.)