Page 1 of 2
Bearikade or Ursack
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 9:37 am
by rrivera
Buying a new "food container" is on my gear purchase list this year and I'm wondering what folks think about the Ursack vs. the Bearikade. I own a couple of Garcia cannisters and I'm looking for something preferably lighter and more pack friendly. Since I have some garcias I can still use those where the Ursack isn't approved and cannisters are required. The Ursack is probably the winner in the lighter and pack friendlier categories but the Bearikade Scout is a contender since I do many weekend trips. Any input would be appreciated.
Re: Bearikade or Ursack
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:13 am
by fishmonger
simple answer - if the Ursack was legal in all areas, I'd use it. Bearikade is legal, but heavier. Peace of mind at night is what these things do for you, but they are heavy. I need two more canisters for my kids this summer and if the Ursack turns legal before end of May, we're getting those. However, that lawsuit keeps on going and going ang going....
I never lost food to a bear even in those dark ages when there was no such thing as bear proof canisters or Ursacks. I did lose some sleep in those years, though.
Re: Bearikade or Ursack
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 6:35 pm
by hikerduane
fishmonger covered it pretty good. I use my original model TKO in Lassen, Desolation, I haven't used the aluminum insert since the first year it came out and was required to help the TKO make the grade. Peace of mind some places, other spots I have no need for a canister, no bear problem. Too bad the Garcia's may never wear out, I have one too and got a Bearicade Weekender for Christmas. I'll test that this summer, in August.
Re: Bearikade or Ursack
Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:26 pm
by kibrickj
I own the ursack without the aluminum insert and have experience with the bearikade....It's pretty simple, the ursack doesn't quite cut it. It is a darn good bear deterent, but really not bear proof. I talked with a number of backcountry rangers in the Mammoth area, and they said there were several bears that had learned to strip apart the ursack, though it took patience on the bear's part. I really doubt its going to get approval ever. That being said, its a good deterent. I'll use it on trips where the illegality is not an issue, or sometimes I'll use the bearikade for the main stash of food, and the ursack just to handle the first two nights of food (I usually go in large groups for long distances).
If you already have the ursack, keep it for those purposes....If you have to buy something new, buy the bearikade. Heck, at least you can sit on them.
Re: Bearikade or Ursack
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:13 am
by fishmonger
just came across this thread again and was wondering of that Ursack lawsuit finally had been settled (I now own 4 bear canisters, so this is more of academic interest for me)
August 10, 2009
Ursack lost its lawsuit against SIBBG and Yosemite, SEKI and Inyo. In a 42 page decision, the U.S. District Court determined that the defendants' 2007 decision to withdraw approval of the Ursack S29 Hybrid was not arbitrary, capricious or unconstitutional. Ursack argued that the decision was unfair because it was based on six alleged failures and such failure standard is not applied to other canisters. Only one of these alleged failures involved torn fabric, and that was in a ranger-baited bag in Yosemite Valley where no canisters of any kind are allowed. Yosemite refused to provide that evidence or even send a picture. All the other "failures" involved user's failure to cinch and knot the opening completely tight. The new S29 AllWhite is designed to make it easier to cinch the opening, but the efficacy of our new model was not before the Court. Government agencies, such as SIBBG, are given broad discretion to make decisions, and a decision is only overturned when there is no rational basis for it. Although Ursack disagrees with some of the Court's logic and its conclusion, the opinion was extremely well researched and written. We have not decided whether or not to appeal.
Side note - over on wild-ideas.net, I've noticed they now have three models on the page where you add products to your shopping cart, even though nowhere on the site does it mention the third model. I assume the "Scout" is even smaller than the Weekender?
Scout $195
Weekender $225
Expedition $275
Re: Bearikade or Ursack
Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:19 pm
by rrivera
Just wanted to let folks know that afer I posted this I bought an Ursak and a Bearikade
I bought the Ursack first since I owned a couple of Garcias and figured I could use it in places without a cannister requirement...and I really like it..it's of course very lightweight. I then did a trip in Kings Canyon and Inyo NF where cannisters were required and I decided to rent a Bearikade Weekender to see if I liked it and they also said I could apply the rental fee to a purchase. I really like the Weekender and it was lighter than the Garcia, held more and fit better in my pack so I ended up purchasing one. I thought about buying the Scout for a solo 2-3 day canister but most of my backpacking is with others so I went with the Weekender.
Re: Bearikade or Ursack
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:42 am
by fishmonger
I love my Bearikades. Going back to the Sierras in a week for a fast solo without a resupply between Whitney Portal and VVR. I was unable to fit everything I need into the Weekender, even if I left out first day food. So I am taking the Expedition again - no sweat storing 8 1/2 days of food plus my other smelly stuff in it without making each access an exercise in repacking efficiency.
the only problem I've ever had with the Bearikades was the screw coming loose holding the lid to the steel cable, but it was easily re-tightened.
If you have to pick just one can and you do long trips, go for the big one. The weight difference to the weekender is negligible.
Re: Bearikade or Ursack
Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 7:07 pm
by rlown
I called the USFS ranger station in prep for my Trinity trip at the end of September. Asked about Bear canister requirements. They claimed their bears are wild and they (USFS) don't like canisters as the bears tend to play with them. I inquired, "so, you want us to hang in counterbalance fashion?" She said, no. just hang your food at about 10' - 12' and tie off at a good distance away.
One would think our state would at least have a standard policy that can be easily explained and rationalized for all. Then, i'm thinking this is the USFS and the national parks are also Federal. Even they should just state a common policy.
Still, I'm taking my Bearikade. Something at least to sit on around the camp.
Re: Bearikade or Ursack
Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 10:20 pm
by oldranger
Russ, I'd never carry my bearicade if I didn't have too. A sylnylon bag of larger volume weighs about 2 oz. If I'm going to carry extra weight it will be my exped downmat!
Mike
Re: Bearikade or Ursack
Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 9:04 am
by rlown
oldranger wrote:Russ, I'd never carry my bearicade if I didn't have too. A sylnylon bag of larger volume weighs about 2 oz. If I'm going to carry extra weight it will be my exped downmat!
Mike
Yeah, this is gonna be a heavier than usual trip, so the canister is on the cull list..