PDA

View Full Version : Ursak



Connie
02-23-2015, 12:34
I got an email, today.


petition "Charles Cuvelier Chief Ranger at Yosemite NP and administrators of Sequoia and Kings Canyon NP: Approve Ursack 2014 S29 for use in your parks."

Here's the link:


http://www.change.org/p/charles-cuvelier-chief-ranger-at-yosemite-np-and-administrators-of-sequoia-and-kings-canyon-np-approve-ursack-2014-s29-for-use-in-your-parks

The Ursak is approved in Alaska.

It would be helpful, if approved at Yosemite.

If approved at Yosemite, widespread approval could be the result.

QiWiz
02-23-2015, 14:48
Please add your support to Connie's (and mine) so that we can protect food (and bears) with a lightweight solution. I've used Ursacks for years and they work very well. Much lighter than any canister, and less expensive or similarly expensive depending on canister brand.

Dochartaigh
02-23-2015, 15:05
Signed.....

T-Rx
02-23-2015, 15:21
I have used an Ursak for several years and love it. It won't make my thru trip however due to weight. I am exchanging it for a Z Packs blast.

MuddyWaters
02-23-2015, 15:32
Ursack has no business being used anywhere there is no tree between about 8"-18" to tie to. The cord is too short for most large trees as may be found in yosemite, and the idea of tieing to a rock is a farce.

Please put the bears over your own desire not to carry any weight.

Connie
02-23-2015, 15:56
Ursak works fine with Alaska Kodiak bears.

The cord length isn't the defining feature.

I reside next to Glacier National Park. I have an adolescent grizzley bear living on my lower 10-acres.

I very much care that bears have to be shot because the bear has become habituated to our food.

Ursak works.

MuddyWaters
02-23-2015, 20:49
Cord length is a defining feature, it is 6 ft long. Calculate the latgest tree you can tie it around, hint pi=3.1415 , and you cant tie it around a rock at all. Useless above treeline. Yosemite has enough problems with people using cannisters improperly due to sheer numbers of people, they dont need anything more finicky and harder to use.

Consider the bears, not ourselves.

Malto
02-23-2015, 21:24
Cord length is a defining feature, it is 6 ft long. Calculate the latgest tree you can tie it around, hint pi=3.1415 , and you cant tie it around a rock at all. Useless above treeline. Yosemite has enough problems with people using cannisters improperly due to sheer numbers of people, they dont need anything more finicky and harder to use.

Consider the bears, not ourselves.

i have been on dozens of Sierra trips including the High Route and I can't think of a time when there wasn't a suitable tree that could be used where I camped. Most people aren't camping above tree line. Agree with point on the rock.

MuddyWaters
02-23-2015, 21:45
i have been on dozens of Sierra trips including the High Route and I can't think of a time when there wasn't a suitable tree that could be used where I camped. Most people aren't camping above tree line. Agree with point on the rock.

No doubt you can find something somewhere. But most hikers, especially jmt newbies, wouldnt go out or their way.

Further, if it even gives them a taste, they may keep coming back. Parks and areas subject to high intensive usage are totally different from more remote areas where people are not camping in the same places every night, imo.

Connie
02-23-2015, 21:48
What are these objections?

Ursak
http://www.ursack.com/how-to-use/

Where does it say tie to a rock?

If you don't like the cord length, the cord is easily enough changed out for a longer cord.

My residence is 1-mile from Glacier National Park, Montana.

I do trail grooming in The Bob Marshall Wilderness.

Before I moved out to Montana, my mountainclimbing and backpacking was in Olympic National Park and the North Cascades before is was designated a park.

Ropeleader at 15 years old. 50 years experience.


Do you work for one of the bear canister mfg?

MuddyWaters
02-23-2015, 23:54
What are these objections?

Ursak
http://www.ursack.com/how-to-use/

Where does it say tie to a rock?

If you don't like the cord length, the cord is easily enough changed out for a longer cord.

My residence is 1-mile from Glacier National Park, Montana.

I do trail grooming in The Bob Marshall Wilderness.

Before I moved out to Montana, my mountainclimbing and backpacking was in Olympic National Park and the North Cascades before is was designated a park.

Ropeleader at 15 years old. 50 years experience.


Do you work for one of the bear canister mfg?

Ha Ha, no , I dont work for a bear can mfg.
I just know how clueless many people going into yosemite are, many many have never hiked before.
The rope, is an integral part of the device. People would substitute something different.
Never mind that they didnt test it tied to a tree, probably for a reason.

The device is filled with pitfalls, particularly for stupid people, of which there are a mighty lot in the world.

I am a UL hiker, I carried a bear can last yr on JMT, didnt bother me one bit. It is a system that has been proven to have substantially reduced bear-human interactions in a high use environment like Yosemite. Changes should not be taken lightly. Most people only care about themselves. Do you hear anyone proposing limited testing to insure it works well and people can manage it? Nope. Just "Approve it now dammit!" People that are only concerned with themselves.

I would not be sad if they required cannisters in many places on the AT either. It would solve some problems.

How many of the people that would use this, have really considered what they would do with their food ruined, chewed on and slobbered on by a bear, or carried off completely, in the backcountry several days from a road? Even if bear doesnt get your food, you can still lose.

Connie
02-24-2015, 07:34
It is tested tied to a tree.

There are videos, starting at that link I provided.

The website is there.

All people are clueless, until someone provides information they need.

I was a resident of California 1971-1999.

I know very well you cannot hike in Yosemite without a permit: part of getting a permit is signing off on the "orientation" provided by the park personnel.

It is approved in Alaska.

Are you clueless what bears are in Alaska?

Chewed on? Slobbered? They had to make it a "play toy" for bears in confinement to test it.

The teeth do not penetrate the Ursak.

For many people, the Opsak alone is sufficient because odor does not escape the Opsak.

The fact is, bears do not have particularly good eyesight; bears respond to food odors.

Opsak was developed for special units in the military: odors do not escape.

In practice, there is no reason for a bear to "take notice" of an Ursak, and, will just pass it by.

Connie
02-24-2015, 07:40
1. Cord? Look closely at the Ursak video, at the link. The cord is laced thru the top.

If you think you need more cord, ask for more cord when you place an order.

That, or, get the same material cord and lace it thru yourself.

No "bear bag" sold has as much cord: ZPacks, MLD for example. Is a bear chewing and slobbering on that?

2. Testing? The Ursak has been around many years, with success.

Ursak has got it "dialed in".

Connie
02-24-2015, 07:48
Someone got up a petition. I support it.

Here is where to sign the petition:

http://www.change.org/p/charles-cuvelier-chief-ranger-at-yosemite-np-and-administrators-of-sequoia-and-kings-canyon-np-approve-ursack-2014-s29-for-use-in-your-parks

pickNgrin
02-24-2015, 10:04
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.

pickNgrin
02-24-2015, 10:22
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.

After reading the FAQ on the website, I am assured that this is not a problem! :)

Connie
02-24-2015, 10:25
Bear bagging is like that, so are bear canisters: bear knocks it around, rolls away. Ravine.

I am not selling Ursaks.

If you have an Ursak, if you like the Ursak, I have the link to support approval by Yosemite National Park.

The history of protective food containers began at Yosemite National Park.

Connie
02-24-2015, 17:57
If you have a Ursak, or, like Ursak please support this change.org petition to Yosemite National Park.

The history of food protective containers began with Yosemite National Park.

http://www.change.org/p/charles-cuvelier-chief-ranger-at-yosemite-np-and-administrators-of-sequoia-and-kings-canyon-np-approve-ursack-2014-s29-for-use-in-your-parks

Sirsnappy09
02-24-2015, 18:15
I am not a fan or advocate of the ursack s
For some of the reasons above and a few others. I will continue us to use my canister even if they do allow the ursack. They could take it if they got it loose but I doubt it. I wouldnt risk it though. But hey, everybody likes something different. If the weight of a canister bothers you that much I would say avoid those trails. They really don't weigh that Much unless you just like to count grams. A couple pounds is nothing to me for that added protection of my food.

DLP
02-24-2015, 18:20
DLP, that was convincing?


Cord length is a defining feature, it is 6 ft long. Calculate the latgest tree you can tie it around, hint pi=3.1415 , and you cant tie it around a rock at all. Useless above treeline. Yosemite has enough problems with people using canisters improperly due to sheer numbers of people, they don't need anything more finicky and harder to use.

Consider the bears, not ourselves. I find this to be a very convincing argument. I thought of all the times I've been above tree line. And the Goldilocks factor of finding the tree that is "just right"... not too stout and not too thin. And the many, many idiots I've seen with food improperly hung or stored.

I've used a bear can at least 100 times. I've woken up in the morning with bear foot prints and poo 10' from my tent. :eek: (I think that they walk on silent kitty cat paws as I've slept right thru it). The bear can is always EXACTLY where I left it. I've never once had it moved or molested. Of course, there is a first time for everything and it could roll into a ravine or lake. But thus far, my personal experience is that the bears come looking for easy pickings and leave after seeing the bear canister.

Granted, I don't have any personal experience with Ursack. Maybe I'd use it and love it.

But I'm kind of loving my bear cans. Weirdly enough, I'm looking forward to going out this summer with the beast of a 3 lbs Garcia can because it is also an excellent seat. :) And I never, ever think in the middle of the night, "Oh krap! Is that a bear trying to get my food?!?!?!". It is "Set it (100' away) and Forget it" and go to sleep.

If this was debate club, I'd go with Muddy Water's argument. Sorry, Connie. :) You make good points, but I'd give this one to MW.

DLP
02-24-2015, 19:16
Posted at: https://www.change.org/p/charles-cuvelier-chief-ranger-at-yosemite-np-and-administrators-of-sequoia-and-kings-canyon-np-approve-ursack-2014-s29-for-use-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
02-24-2015, 20:06
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
02-24-2015, 23:24
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
02-24-2015, 23:26
Petition, here.

http://www.change.org/p/charles-cuvelier-chief-ranger-at-yosemite-np-and-administrators-of-sequoia-and-kings-canyon-np-approve-ursack-2014-s29-for-use-in-your-parks

Gray Bear
02-25-2015, 11:32
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
02-25-2015, 12:19
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
03-05-2015, 16:24
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/datastore/opinions/2011/05/09/09-17152.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
03-06-2015, 09:37
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/datastore/opinions/2011/05/09/09-17152.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
03-06-2015, 10:16
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
03-06-2015, 10:27
If you support approval, please let it be known:

http://www.change.org/p/charles-cuvelier-chief-ranger-at-yosemite-np-and-administrators-of-sequoia-and-kings-canyon-np-approve-ursack-2014-s29-for-use-in-your-parks