To Urs or not to Urs, that is the question?

[poolskaterx]

Just purchased an Ursack to use instead of my BV450:

I hike in area in the sierras that DO NOT require a bear canister; I have been lugging my 2lb bear vault around for years now as I have had my food snagged before.
I just purchased an Ursack "all white" model and will be going up the mountain this week; I can't say that I am not a little nervous about the change however the saving of 20oz is pretty spectacular!
Love to hear thoughts, experiences, tips, etc

[Sandy of PA]

The bear can is to protect the bears. If you have already trained one bear to eat people food, do you think it is a good idea to go to the woods carrying a bear chew toy? The fact that bears can get a taste thru the sack is why Ursacks have not been approved in many areas. As for me, I will carry the can and save the bears.

[Venchka]

I have the Ursack Major in my cart at REI. A Christmas present to me.
Sandy: 3 words about the Ursack.
Pencil
Politics
California
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Time Zone]

The fact that bears can get a taste thru the sack is why Ursacks have not been approved in many areas.

Are you sure that's the reason? I thought it had more to do with success at tearing them.

In any case, would hanging an Ursack with the PCT method be a useful additional step to take? I suppose in that case you have to balance out how well you could hang it versus the risk of having it carried off (even if not breached). I think Ursacks are designed to be tied to trees at a reachable level with knots that bears cannot undo.

I am hopeful the Ursack proves to be an effective technique. Not only are they lighter but any unused capacity can be squished down in a backpack, freeing up space for other things.

[MuddyWaters]

Ursack is less than useless where there is nothing to tie it to.

Which is everywhere above treeline.

Much of sierra, especially the best of it.

[Venchka]

I'll take my chances with the Ursack along or 100 miles either side of the Continental Divide.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sarcasm the elf]

Ursack is less than useless where there is nothing to tie it to.

Which is everywhere above treeline.

Much of sierra, especially the best of it.

Bingo.

The ursak's manufacturer is clear about how to properly use them. Their soft design means Bears can get their jaws around them and carry them off if not secured. They need to be properly tied to a solid tree to be useful, otherwise an animal can just walk off with it.

If you need to leave food on the ground to store it then a hard sided bear can is the way to go.

[HooKooDooKu]

Are you sure that's the reason? I thought it had more to do with success at tearing them...

Snady has it right...
Ursack had filed a lawsuit against the agencies that wouldn't approve the Ursack in bear country. The reason given by the government for not approving the Ursack was that bears could still obtain a "reward" by chewing on the bag, getting it soaked with their saliva that would them mix with the food and leach out thru the bag.

Otherwise, I believe the Ursack has been tested against grizzlies and they still couldn't tear the sack.

[Venchka]

Ursack is on the approved list for use in Grizzly Bear country.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[poolskaterx]

Love to hear some experiences with Ursack and how some are using. You understand the dilemma... 2lb bear canister that I know works or save 20oz AND have more room for additional food with much more packability. This IS the UL section and I figured I would hear from both sides: pros/cons and for and against reasons. No need to argue let's let the facts speak for themselves.

[Venchka]

The reality is that the Ursacks, original and major, are approved for use where bear canisters aren't required with the possible exception of Grand Teton and Rocky Mountain National Parks. I waited to long to call GTNP to get clarification on using the Ursack in the park. The Backcountry desk is closed for the season. GTNP provides hard canisters free of charge.
The National Forests don't require bear proof food storage except in a very few places in Colorado. This is a new policy. The exact locations have been mentioned online.
Theoretically, a person can sleep with their food in the Divide states except in the National Parks and the limited National Forest locations in Colorado.
The Canadian Rockies Parks, Glacier and Yellowstone all provide food storage (boxes or poles for hanging) at designated Backcountry camp sites.
Thank goodness, backpacking outside of the National Parks is largely unregulated along the Divide. Your safety and well being is your responsibility.
WhiteBlaze is not the best place for information about the Divide states. Backcountrypost.com might have some information and the ranger districts should be contacted.
Does anyone else have any facts?
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MuddyWaters]

Bear cannisters not only have a proven track record, they are soley responsible for reducing bear-human interactions by 95+% in the sierra since they were implemented.

In spite of this very very effective device, in 2014 I recall about 28 cases of bears getting food from JMT hikers in yosemite alone, that were using cannisters. One is too many.

High use areas have special needs. Areas like JMT see 30,000 hikers per year. Think about that, many dumb and clueless. A device needs to be able to be quickly closed and deployed if a bear shows up looking for food suddenly. Ursack is a fail for this, as well as completely poor choice above treeline.

Wear and tear from bear play will also be cumulative on one.
If it survives 1 hour is all it takes to pass IGBC test
It could get that in one night
What about the next hour
And the next
How much chew time will it see over its life?
The IGBC test really wasnt designed to evaluate this

In fact, IGBC didnt even test the ursack tied to trees the way its supposed to be deployed, where a bear can get leverage on it. Why?

The idea, is that a bear that unrewarded wont bother again and the bears will leave food containers alone eventually.
This proved out in the sierra. So most cannisters never see a bear today.

Giving them any reward at all is a huge step backwards.
Huge.

Theres lots of good arguements why NOT to allow ursack
Not a single good arguement of why it should be allowed.

Which is why...it isnt in certain places.

Simple rules against tieing anything to trees, (it damages trees, particularly if bear tries to get., will put a quick end to ursack attempt at getting into yosemite and seki. This is legit, in heavily used campsites people would tie to same trees repeatedly. So, it aint gonna happen, imo.

At philmont scout ranch in nm, when you tie bear lines to trees, you have to use sticks under the rope to prevent tree damage to tree trunk. They also process 30,000 people per year thru the various campsites there. The repeated rope tieoffs damage trees. A trees life depends on the phloem, just under the bark. All the nutrients for the tree travel thru this. Damaging it around the circumference of the trunk will kill the tree. Especially on a thin barked young tree, its entirely conceivable that a bear attempting to get a tied on ursack could do great damage to a tree chaffing the trunk with only a single attempt. The rope ursack provides isnt long enough to tie to a large tree either, only 6 ft.

[FreeGoldRush]

Bear cannisters not only have a proven track record, they are soley responsible for reducing bear-human interactions by 95+% in the sierra since they were implemented.

In spite of this very very effective device, in 2014 I recall about 28 cases of bears getting food from JMT hikers in yosemite alone, that were using cannisters. One is too many.

High use areas have special needs. Areas like JMT see 30,000 hikers per year. Think about that, many dumb and clueless. A device needs to be able to be quickly closed and deployed if a bear shows up looking for food suddenly. Ursack is a fail for this, as well as completely poor choice above treeline.

Wear and tear from bear play will also be cumulative on one.
If it survives 1 hour is all it takes to pass IGBC test
It could get that in one night
.

My limited camping experience has only been in black bear country. Is it really reasonable that a bear will be playing with your bear canister or Ursack for an hour while you sleep? Im fairly certain I'd wake up, realize it was a bear, and yell at it to go away. For that matter, how often does a bear come through camp? They say you pack your fears. Ear plugs are in my pack. Need to start using them, because night time bear visits are one of my fears.

[MuddyWaters]

My limited camping experience has only been in black bear country. Is it really reasonable that a bear will be playing with your bear canister or Ursack for an hour while you sleep? Im fairly certain I'd wake up, realize it was a bear, and yell at it to go away. For that matter, how often does a bear come through camp? They say you pack your fears. Ear plugs are in my pack. Need to start using them, because night time bear visits are one of my fears.

Thats the idea, you drive a bear away.
Which is why food should not be 300 ft away where bear has unfettered access to try.

It will take more than yelling for habituated bear, it will take rock throwing, banging metal, hollering, etc.
And the bear may still ignore you.

I use earplugs most every night on trail myself.

[Venchka]

I won't live long enough to see everything I want to see in Middle Earth.
Have a great day.
Wayne



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[egilbe]

I spent the night in Wild River wilderness area last night at a camp site with a notice posted about a problem bear and to properly hang all food. Tied my Ursack to a tree and didnt have any problems. Of course, as cold as it was, maybe the bear was hibernating or it got shot by hunters?

[poolskaterx]

I am planning on hanging the Ursack pct style; I am in an area that does not require bear canisters or hanging however, I do know critters come looking for food be it bears or dog sized raccoons. I will also be using the opsack to keep smells to a minimum and keep food dry if it rains or snows.

[Venchka]

Ursack Major on the way. Mrs. Wayne made me do it.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Venchka]

Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness.
"Backpackers in the Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness are required to have bear resistant canisters."
Rocky Mountain NP also.
Wayne


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dogwood]

I too like to save wt. Nothing accomplishes this more than having a personal team of sherpas or what I carry between my ears. Since I don't have a personal team of sherpas I rely on knowledge and wisdom. I don't rely on gear to address every potential issue.

This is my primary line of defense in protecting food from bears and other wildlife regardless if a hard sided bear can is legally required or UrSack is approved for use.

http://andrewskurka.com/2011/food-pr...-bear-country/ Read the Q&A/comments too.

Depending exactly where in the Sierra I typically hike(it's a bigger area than some assume), taking specific note where I will intend to camp pre hike, and where human/bear/other wildlife problems are known to exist, in the areas bear cans aren't required, I may elect to carry no bear/wildlife food protection gear at all, an Ursack, or OpSack. I haven't carried an Ursack in the Sierra in years, outside of legally required bear can areas.

Effectively applying these techniques, having some other food protection considerations, and using an Opsack, after extensive hiking in the Sierra, in significant bear population areas, and in brown bear ranges, no bear has ever gotten my food. This is protecting the bears and my food more than anything else. If you're not willing to learn and apply these techniques and have these considerations take an Ursack and use it as directed.