Petition to Allow Ursack in Yosemite and SEKI

[Steve_C]

A person from Alaska started a Change.org petition asking Yosemite and SeKi rangers to consider approval of the Ursack S29:

Approve Ursack 2014 S29 for use in your parks

I used an Ursack S29 with aluminum liner last year (2014) in Sequoia N.P, and based on the IGBC testing, feel that it will protect my food in every situation. I added a bell to the tie off so any marauding critter would awaken me, and made sure I learned the proper method to tie the knots correctly.

Here's a picture from the grizzly bear test of the Ursack S29. Pretty sure this one is using the aluminum liner.

[rlown]

That picture looks like an all night chew toy until it breaks the rope.

Bears don't even look at my can anymore (Bearikade).

When the NPS netted Upper Mattie in 2008ish two weeks before I got there, they left two Garcia cans and a gallon of white gas. None were touched even though there were obvious, fresh bear tracks on the beach.

Good luck with your endeavor.

[markskor]

... based on the IGBC testing, feel that it will protect my food in every situation.

Steve, with all due respect sir, you are wrong, come off as somewhat entitled, and for some selfish reason, are putting your "comfort" ahead of the bear's livelihood. Why? Your argument shows that either you are not bear savvy or do not care about other hiker's safety. After a bear learns that it can easily carry a sack away, or gnaw through the tied sack and get a reward, it will return again...inviting future human confrontations.

As much as you wish that your ursack was 100% effective, it doesn't work on a determined bear...little bell notwithstanding.

[rlown]

Pretty heavy debate over Ursack approval on the HST Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/7021041900/

Umm. ok.. I've a question. Is this the forum or is FB the forum? I think this IS the forum.

Russ

[Hobbes]

If weight is that big an issue - stay home.

Some of the ladies might construe that sentiment as sexist. The women making that point are comparing their relative size/strength vs men to demonstrate their disadvantage with regard to the extra weight canisters entail. Having a 190-200lb male tell a 130-140lb woman to simply 'stay home' if she can't hack it could be considered insensitive. Should biology consign our favorite friends to staying home and cooking dinner?

I detest that some feel their personal enjoyment is more important than the bear's well being.

Do you equate other native species to the Sierra, like the yellow-legged frog, as comparable candidates for protection? Or do only bears come in for special anthropomorphic personification? Who is more natural to the (high) Sierra, man or fish? I would posit that humans have been trekking across, to & fro the Sierra for sufficient millenia to consider our presence just as natural as bears.

While I certainly don't fall into the 'nature is the dominion of man' camp, I do believe that we have just as much right to be out in the wild as any other animal. I don't advocate hunting endangered game, but I also don't get the special elevated status some enjoy as well.

Bring on the flames!

[markskor]

If weight is that big an issue - stay home.

Some of the ladies might construe that sentiment as sexist.

Gee, I'm too weak (could also insert entitled, young, old, "special", hiking a long trail, stubborn, ugly, full of myself...) so obviously rules do not apply to me. How is this sexist...applies to all? Olympic Marathon runners (men) commonly weigh in at 140 pounds, win, yet still follow all rules...no "advantage" given as compared to 200-pound runners. Should the Permit Ranger have a scale, and adjust the rules accordingly?

I detest that some feel their personal enjoyment is more important than the bear's well being.

Do you equate other native species to the Sierra, like the yellow-legged frog, as comparable candidates for protection? I do believe that we have just as much right to be out in the wild as any other animal.

We have no control over past sins. Species like the yellow-legged frog do suffer...maybe man's mistake/ maybe climate/ maybe a fungus...not really sure. Whatever the cause, all interactions today Sierra are intended to further increase the survivability for all - man, frog, and bear. Not taking care of back-country food (putting the task directly on the hiker), invites bear/human interaction. When the bear gets too familiar, accidents happen and invariably the bear is put down. Thus, man has the responsibility of not initiating this interaction. Thus food storage (for the good of all) depends on a system where, when used correctly, mandates that bears not get our food. The task is then put on man, the visitor...the bear is home already.
The ursack, no matter what you argue, does not work...invites conflict and strife.
Lastly, I do not think that the bear or man is more important, but I do believe we should not make our enjoyment (carrying less weight) a priority over the life (or death) of a "fed" bear.

[ERIC]

Pretty heavy debate over Ursack approval on the HST Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/7021041900/

Umm. ok.. I've a question. Is this the forum or is FB the forum? I think this IS the forum.

Russ

You apparently have some learning to do when it comes to marketing and driving traffic to a website.

[rlown]

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."

[ERIC]

Check your PM.

[rlown]

Checked. Thanks.

It's a rule regardless of size/weight/etc. Carry a legal food protection device. If you don't you're breaking the rule.