View Full Version : Yosemite Ursack Petition
Hey everyone. You're probably already familiar with the Ursack (7oz) which is approved for Denali and other National Parks but Yosemite and SEKI still have not determined one way or the other.
Seems to me it would help the PCT if they did approve the Ursack. Apparently they just haven't gotten around to deciding.
Please consider signing the petition at change.org...
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?recruiter=226980591&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=des-lg-no_src-reason_msg
Sarcasm the elf
08-19-2015, 11:53
Wasn't the problem that they tested the ursak and found that it wasn't adequate?
If I recall, the Sierra interagency group's study found that while the bears couldn't tear the ursacks open, they could crush the food, destroy the food containers, cover the bag and contents in bear saliva and eventually get at least a tiny bit of food/saliva much to seep through the bag fabric, resulting in what the agency referred to as a "reward" for the bear.
MuddyWaters
08-19-2015, 12:02
There was already a petition
Think about what's best for the bears.
If you would be killed, instead of the bear eventually, if a bear gets just one of thousands of visitors foode..... what would you require?
It is interesting that the Ursack has been approved for Denali. That is all grizzly bears. They are certainly far more capable of tearing something open than a black bear. In fact I would expect one to be able to crush a regular bear canister. One wonders if the actually tested them there or at any of the other locations they are approved for.
Feral Bill
08-19-2015, 14:56
It is interesting that the Ursack has been approved for Denali. That is all grizzly bears. They are certainly far more capable of tearing something open than a black bear. In fact I would expect one to be able to crush a regular bear canister. One wonders if the actually tested them there or at any of the other locations they are approved for.
Denali bears are much less habituated to humans and their food. As grizzlies go, they are not large either. Yosemite has a long standing problem with human-bear conflict, thus the difference.
Sarcasm the elf
08-19-2015, 15:46
It is interesting that the Ursack has been approved for Denali. That is all grizzly bears. They are certainly far more capable of tearing something open than a black bear. In fact I would expect one to be able to crush a regular bear canister. One wonders if the actually tested them there or at any of the other locations they are approved for.
It was tested using both a formal process as well as field tests.
You can read about it at length in the Appeals Court decision that was the result of Ursak unsucessfully suing the park service to force them to approve their product.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/05/09/09-17152.pdf
MuddyWaters
08-19-2015, 18:01
To pass tests, it only has to survive bear play for a while.
1. What about cumulative effects and wear?
2. People already modify with different cord
3. Harder for people to use properly
4. Nothing to tie to above treeline!!
5. Even if bear doesn't get food, you lost yours. It's destroyed.
Too many drawbacks. Yosemite doesn't need to deal with .
Well, I see a lot of positives to it. I know of more than a few who use the sack where as before they used nothing. The bear canister was just too hard/heavy/bulky to carry. Yup, I know that is being lazy. The sack may not be as good as a canister but I would think it is a lot better than using nothing and the reality is, during the limited amount of time I have spent on the trail, I very rarely see a bear canister being carried.
MuddyWaters
08-19-2015, 22:47
Well, I see a lot of positives to it. I know of more than a few who use the sack where as before they used nothing. The bear canister was just too hard/heavy/bulky to carry. Yup, I know that is being lazy. The sack may not be as good as a canister but I would think it is a lot better than using nothing and the reality is, during the limited amount of time I have spent on the trail, I very rarely see a bear canister being carried.
Hike in yosemite, you will see a lot.:)
A place with high concentration of bears, in close proximity to LOTS of people, has different needs than more remote areas with less traffic.
Bear cannisters greatly changed the bear problems the sierra had many yrs ago. It is a tiny fraction of what it once was, thanks to cannisters. Simple, proven, works without tieing to a tree.
Pct hikers can pick one up, and mail it home or back to wild ideas when out of area. Really not big deal.
Oh. I was just going by the ursack website. Didn't see that Yosemite ruled against the use. Definitely don't want to pressure for a particular verdict... just a fair one.
Ursack states that the application is still pending...
It was tested using both a formal process as well as field tests.
You can read about it at length in the Appeals Court decision that was the result of Ursak unsucessfully suing the park service to force them to approve their product.
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/05/09/09-17152.pdf
I admit I did not have the patience to read the entire link in detail, but it sure appears as if they got their day in court. The point about testing I was making was not in relation to Yosemite but Denali. If the NPS testing for Yosemite was negative why did that not apply to all NP's? If Denail has approved them then they either ignored the testing already done or each park has to test individually? or are they not testing at all perhaps? Just curious.
BTW re the comment about the grizzlies in Denali. They are substantial (I have seen them first hand) and they are far more capable than any black bear in Yosemite. And I spent 2 summers in Yosemite climbing and am very familiar with their bears. If we are just talking about the bears strength and ability to destroy something, as seems most relevant, the grizzlies win. So I am puzzled a bit about the contradictory decisions. But I also don't really care as the canisters seem just fine.
HooKooDooKu
08-24-2015, 15:38
I admit I did not have the patience to read the entire link in detail, but it sure appears as if they got their day in court. The point about testing I was making was not in relation to Yosemite but Denali. If the NPS testing for Yosemite was negative why did that not apply to all NP's? If Denail has approved them then they either ignored the testing already done or each park has to test individually? or are they not testing at all perhaps? Just curious.
BTW re the comment about the grizzlies in Denali. They are substantial (I have seen them first hand) and they are far more capable than any black bear in Yosemite. And I spent 2 summers in Yosemite climbing and am very familiar with their bears. If we are just talking about the bears strength and ability to destroy something, as seems most relevant, the grizzlies win. So I am puzzled a bit about the contradictory decisions. But I also don't really care as the canisters seem just fine.
Each park in the NPS is different with different needs. So contradictory decisions are to be be expected.
In the case of Ursacks, sure a grizzly bear is stronger than a black bear. But neither one is able to break into the Ursack. So strength isn't a factor in the decision. It's more a question of behavior (both the bear and humans).
Just to give a different example, compare Yosemite and Great Smoky Mountains.
GSMNP is the most visited park, with over 10 million visitors in 2014.
Yosemite is the third most visited park, with <4 million visitors in 2014.
In GSMNP, storing food (24/7) in a car is considered appropriate food storage.
In YNP, storing food in a car is only allowed during the day. Over night, food is required to be stored in a food storage locker (or similar).
(Just check out the camping regulations for each)
Now why are the rules different in GSMNP v. YNP? It's not as if the bears in YNP are stronger than bears in GSMNP... both parks have experienced bears breaking into cars. And if you only look at attendance records, it would seem like GSMNP would be more likely to have bear/human interactions, so you would think GSMNP is more likely to need more stringent rules... not less.
But differences (perhaps because of different bear/people concentrations) had led to more frequent bear/human interactions in YNP and repeated problems of bears breaking into cars in YNP (to the point that I seem to recall many years ago, it was reported that mama bears were teaching cubs how to break into cars to get food). So the park with fewer visitors winds up with more stringent rules.
Black Bear video uploaded by Yosemite: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijIePq9gGfo
It isn't about backpacking food, but it is interesting and can give a little insight into Yosemite bear and food history.
Used to be that the Garcia was the ONLY backpacking bear can allowed. In the past few years Yosemite and SEKI have allowed Bear Vaults and other brands. So they are not opposed to approving bear cans that are tested and work.
It seems to me that the Ursack would turn a food bag into a great big wad of JMT bear chewing gum. I can't see how a system that allows the bear to chew, taste and destroy the food can be a good system.
Also peeves me that Ursack is wasting taxpayer $$$ suing the National Park Service. :(