Ursak

[DLP]

Posted at: https://www.change.org/p/charles-cuv...-in-your-parks

Why Ursack should be approved in Yosemite/Kings/Sequoia:
"There are record requests for backpacking permits in your parks for next summer. Because of the movie "Wild" many of these hikers are neophytes who, frankly, will have enough trouble carrying their pack without an added 2 pounds."

Seriously? Somebody actually included this as a relevant reason to allow Ursacks? I agree with MW. Propose a trial study. See how it goes.

But to say, "These poor Wild newbies are too frail to carry a 3 lb bear can and that is why we need the Ursack approved". O.M.G. Holy Moley. I can't believe it.

[Frye]

People being stupid is no reason not to approve Ursack. Stupidity involving open flames is one thing, but a bear bag? In that case they shouldn't allow packs of any sort in the backcountry because some people are to stupid to remove the extra granola bar they had stashed in their hipbelt prior to bedding down.

Encourage the proper use of gear instead of forbidding it.

[Connie]

The permits are not handed out: they are signed off after "orientation" by park personnel.

National Park visitors are not athletes. For many, the national park is their big vacation.

The petitioner wrote: "Unfortunately, most bear canisters are bulky and weigh in at 2-3.5 pounds.To a lightweight person this is a significant portion of the total load, ie a 120 pounder in normal level of fitness should carry less than 24 pounds. This means the bear canister will take up 10% of their total load."

The fact is, a bear canister requires a bigger backpack. Tourists have day packs.

This is realistic for the general population, who have their vacation at a national park, who want "to go for a walk" on a groomed trail, Glacier National Park refers to a "backcountry trails" with no overgrown brush to snag or get your clothing wet.

[Connie]

Petition, here.

http://www.change.org/p/charles-cuve...-in-your-parks

[Gray Bear]

People being stupid is no reason not to approve Ursack. Stupidity involving open flames is one thing, but a bear bag? In that case they shouldn't allow packs of any sort in the backcountry because some people are to stupid to remove the extra granola bar they had stashed in their hipbelt prior to bedding down.

Encourage the proper use of gear instead of forbidding it.

What he said. If you're truly concerned for the bears (I believe most of us are) why not encourage something that is more convenient to the point that is may begin to be used in areas where its not required by law.

I signed it.

[Sirsnappy09]

I have seen a video where there was a can inside of a pack hung properly and A sow with two cubs managed to wrangle the pack down and tear into it. Once they ripped open the pack and discovered the can inside they immediately left(leaving the can). They seem to associate the actual ripping open of a bag/pack with food, thinking that once inside the food will be available (Like a bear pinata of sorts). I would like to see some field tests of the ursack to be convinced to carry it. Canisters have been proven in the field for years now. All that a bear can do with one is swat it around. They can pick it up but that requires the use of both paws which prevents them from carrying it away. It seems like that is the discouraging factor for bears about cans. There was a bear in the sierras that really enjoyed toying with folks' canisters and rolling them downhill , but that is a particular bear that did it all of the time in a particular camp spot thatn is heavily used. I am anxious to see how this turns out. I, personally, highly doubt Yosemite will ever allow the use of the Ursack.

[GavinMcG]

This is from a few years ago, but it explains a lot about the Ursack and the factors in play in deciding whether to allow its use. It's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision from Ursack's lawsuit against Yosemite, Sequoia-Kings Canyon, and Inyo: [PDF] http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...9/09-17152.pdf

In a nutshell, several field tests found it inadequate (in its various iterations) because:

• Bears were able to rip open the sack and receive food
• Bears were causing significant damage to trees that the sacks were tied to
• Bears were able to bite into the sack and contaminate food with their saliva
• Bears were able to crush or tear the aluminum insert, leaving metal bits in the food

The last two factors are especially troubling, since they suggest that hikers would either go to extra lengths to scare off bears who might damage/destroy their food, thus putting themselves in danger, and that if the food were damaged or destroyed, it would be more likely for a hiker to dump it. So the considerations aren't entirely about whether the Ursack simply manages not to be penetrated.

Maybe things are different this time around, but this is an issue with a fairly long history, and Ursack had consistently failed to meet expectations – even standards that they agreed to be tested by. The people who have decided not to allow it so far aren't doing so arbitrarily – even though they might come to a different conclusion than other land managers have – and they're generally people who are on our side: they want these areas to be wild, accessible, and safe.

[Frye]

This is from a few years ago, but it explains a lot about the Ursack and the factors in play in deciding whether to allow its use. It's the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision from Ursack's lawsuit against Yosemite, Sequoia-Kings Canyon, and Inyo: [PDF] http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...9/09-17152.pdf

In a nutshell, several field tests found it inadequate (in its various iterations) because:

• Bears were able to rip open the sack and receive food
• Bears were causing significant damage to trees that the sacks were tied to
• Bears were able to bite into the sack and contaminate food with their saliva
• Bears were able to crush or tear the aluminum insert, leaving metal bits in the food

The last two factors are especially troubling, since they suggest that hikers would either go to extra lengths to scare off bears who might damage/destroy their food, thus putting themselves in danger, and that if the food were damaged or destroyed, it would be more likely for a hiker to dump it. So the considerations aren't entirely about whether the Ursack simply manages not to be penetrated.

Maybe things are different this time around, but this is an issue with a fairly long history, and Ursack had consistently failed to meet expectations – even standards that they agreed to be tested by. The people who have decided not to allow it so far aren't doing so arbitrarily – even though they might come to a different conclusion than other land managers have – and they're generally people who are on our side: they want these areas to be wild, accessible, and safe.

Those test are old, Ursack was updated and received IGBC (USDA Forest service) approval last year.

[Hot Flash]

After watching the video on the Ursack website, one concern I would have is…. if he gets it down you probably won't ever see that bag again. This is because he can easily grab onto it and carry it off. So in that sense it is kind of moot as to whether or not he can actually gets into the bag. Either way you lost your food.

I've seen a bear tuck a bear canister under a front leg and walk off on the other three. I've seen more BAD non-Ursak bear hangs than good ones.

What's your point?

[Connie]

If you support approval, please let it be known:

http://www.change.org/p/charles-cuve...-in-your-parks