Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Ursack loses conditional approval........again?

This is not really Whitney specific information, but I just checked the SIBBG approved container list (updated today). The Ursack S29 hybrid was notably absent. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, the Ursack is a soft sided lightweight alternative to hard sided bear canisters. SIBBC is the Sierra Interagency Black Bear Group which grants approval, either full or conditional, to food storage containers in specified areas of National Forests and Parks.

It looks like Ursack's conditional approval has been revoked.

Darn.

Rob Mason, Wilderness Manager on the Sierra NF, who attends SIBBG
meetings, wrote me in response to my inquiry:



> On October 24, the SIBBG unanimously voted to REVOKE conditional
> approval of the Ursack S29 (which was conditionally approved in '07).
> The S29 with aluminum liner was the only Ursack model that was approved.
> Therefore, there are currently no models of the Ursack approved for use
> in bear canister restriction areas. The revocation was based up
> multiple field failures in 2007. That is the only change in approval
> status for any bear canister model, as of today. The website will
> hopefully be updated in the near future to reflect this change. Please
> feel free to pass this information on.

I was hoping for the approval of the Wilderness Solutions design.
This is the bear bag that would give a 5000 volt discharge to the bear if he messed with it. It seemed to me like a great idea....but it's not on the current approved list.

If anybody is interested you can go to their web page: Wilderness-Solutions

I checked out the link. Somehow I doubt that a device which shocks an unsuspecting or careless user, whether it be a human, a marmot or a bear, will ever receive approval.

But, I never thought the US would ever resort to torture techniques like waterboarding, either. Maybe there's a market for exploding Nalgene bottles...

Shocking a bear with a milliamp charge I prefer to call behavior modification. It's kind of a stretch equating this to molotov Nalgene bottles or waterboard torturing of human beings.

then there is the torture of the $200+ price tag.

doesn't matter if it works or is approved

it's the price

And how many $200-$300 sleeping bags and tents do you see walking down the trail?

I guess the reason I like the Wilderness-Solutions product is that it is like the Ursack: it is very light and during the duration of a hike it keeps getting smaller. The Bear Vault and Garcia containers remain large, heavy and difficult to pack throughout the trip. The weight and volume comparisons are also worth mentioning: Bear Vault 400 $80(2lbs 9oz) for 700 cubic in./Garcia $70(2lbs, 12oz) for 615 cubic in./The Palisade EST $65(6.4oz) for 900 cubic in., the Controller(battery pack)$200(9.4oz.)is expensive but it can be connected through an Array Link$15(0.5oz) to two more storage sacks of various sizes. More storage sacks can be added to the same battery controller but more array links are needed.

So the overall costs go down when more storage sacks are added to the $200 Controller.

The torture of spending money on backpacking equipment is excruciating for me too.

The costs of backpacking are not what they used to be when I was young and strong. We drank from the streams without filters, our hiking boots were Jack Purcell tennis shoes, our jackets were made out of wool or cotton, our packs were frameless Boy Scout packs and we were so envious when we saw those rich people with new svelte Kelty packs. My father, a few years later, went to the Kelty factory in Glendale and bought packs for all of us kids! I still have that pack (without hip pads on the belt) hanging up on the wall. After so many evolutions of new pack designs I've been through, that pack is still very dear to my heart. Cook stoves were unknown to most of us and our tent was the horrible "tube tent."

Anyway, I would still like to know more about why the SIBBG would choose to reject the approval of this product. It could be that they do need to dumb-down products so they won't shock careless users.

"Educating" bears, with a shock to stay away from our food, seems to me a kinder and gentler way to deal with them, than allowing them to find the weak link in our food storage and then having to "put them to sleep" later.

just talking pros and cons here....

you and I can afford it, but intermittent or less well-heeled users may prefer to pay the $7 /day rental for a can.

since I own four bear vaults for long trips and/or multiple people, then the cost differential multiplies if I were to "upgrade"

no electric device is 100% effective ( of course a bear vault isn't either if you don't screw the top on completely)

then there is the added benefit that the bear vault can be used as a camp stool, the electric one cannot.

a bear's Pavlovian conditioning to getting shocked will only work if everyone uses an electric sack. If only some people use them, the bears will just learn to bother other people without them, sorta like the burgler skipping your locked door and going to your neighbors unlocked door.

Re-read my post - I didn't equate it to torture.

My point is that what is acceptable behavior in a civil society has changed, at least for some.

I can think of several scenarios where the use of such a device would be a hazard (possibly extreme) to others, as well as wildlife.

This is precisely why I would like to get one of these "electric ursacks." Plus, they are lighter than my Bear Vault and pack smaller as I consume food during my journey.

If my neighbor doesn't want to lock his door, that is his prerogative.

Civil society has used electric fences to control animals from wandering for some time now, i.e., keeping cattle within pastures. I've spent time on a farm in Nebraska where they are used and they aren't considered torture for the animals. One touch and they have it figured out. Maybe Bill Callahan would disagree, but Nebraska is a civil society.

I do wonder somewhat that a bear might get pissed off after getting zapped and could decide to take it out on any physically inferior Homo sapiens in the vicinity! (A Far Side , Gary Larson cartoon?)

I hear the moderator's footsteps......I'll let this subject go...sorry.

My favorite for a light(er) weight bear can is the Wild Ideas Bearikade. The weekender version is 650 cubic inches and weighs 1 lb 15 oz. They are a little pricey ($225), but you can rent them if you don't use it enough to warrant buying one. I've had mine attacked by bears and nothing but a few scratches to show for it.

I also have to wonder out loud again why hanging food is not allowed on Whitney. We use that almost exclusively in the Yellowstone backcountry and it works just fine. I can see how the traffic on the main trail at Whitney might make it impractical unless they built the mother of all bear poles, but it should be no problem on the mountaineers route. Then we wouldn't need any bear cans.

Electric Ursacks. Maybe electric fences around campsites. Are we heading for this campsite of the future where the critter countermeasures and critters have evolved to this?

In the past when food hanging was allowed, the combination of:
bear motivation and learning,
limited availability of food hanging sites,
limited hiker skills, and
limited hiker compliance
did not successfully prevent bear habituation to human food.

Bear resistant containers can be tested against bears, can be taken anywhere, and require somewhat less skill to use than natural food hanging sites.

Poles can work but require a permanent structure every place they can be used. Yellowstone is a national park, not a wilderness area, and has different rules on allowed structures. And a different fee structure.

It is interesting to see the other rules that go with poles:
from:http://yellowstone.areaparks.com/parkinfo.html?pid=26209
"Odors attract bears, so avoid carrying or cooking odorous foods. Keep a clean camp; do not cook or store food in your tent. All food, garbage, or other odorous items used for preparing or cooking food must be secured from bears. Most backcountry campsites have food poles from which all food, cooking gear, and scented articles must be suspended when not being used. Treat all odorous products such as soap, deodorant, or other toiletries in the same manner as food. Do not leave packs containing food unattended, even for a few minutes. Allowing a bear to obtain human food even once often results in the bear becoming aggressive about obtaining such food in the future. Aggressive bears present a threat to human safety and eventually must be destroyed or removed from the park. Please obey the law and do not allow bears or other wildlife to obtain human food.

Sleep a minimum of 100 yards (91 meters) from where you hang, cook, and eat your food. Keep your sleeping gear clean and free of food odor. Don't sleep in the same clothes worn while cooking and eating; hang clothing worn while cooking and eating in plastic bags."

I think the discussions over wag bags are a little thing compared to those that enforcement of these rules would produce.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com
http://stores.lulu.com/dbd

Where in Yosemite can you go on a overnight trip where they do not require a canister? I have been asked if I have one and using it the last 5 years in a row.

Actually there are still a few nooks and crannies within YNP where canisters are not required due to their elevation and their distance from roads. See this map:

http://www.nps.gov/archive/yose/wilderness/bfoodstoragem.htm

They're not the most popular areas and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the rangers didn't know they existed.

There are also bear lockers in Little Yosemite Vally and at the High Sierra Camps. In those areas canisters are recommended but not required as long as your food is stored in a locker.

I said Yellowstone, not Yosemite. No bear canisters are required anywhere in Yellowstone, you just hang your food. At backcountry camp sites, there are bear poles to hang your food, otherwise you can just use a tree.

The big difference between Yellowstone and Yosemite that has led to very different bear behavior is that Yosemite allowed their bears to get human food multiple times and they learned how to break into cars etc. to the point where they teach their cubs. Yellowstone doesn't allow their bears to do that and, as a result, their bears are much less aggressive towards human food.

yeah, Sam did say Yellowstone :-)

Now for Glacier/Waterton.

I've just used trees and cables there. And they have Grizzlies whereas California does not. So no bear cans needed up north, but admittedly, I have not been north since 1998. Wonder about Alaska?
How about the Smokies? I could Google all this up. Anyone know? Are the Sierras the only place bear cans are needed? Harvey

Ken posted on another list that Yosemite is (or is going to) require bear canisters everywhere in its wilderness. The info came from Rob Mason of the Sierra NF.

Bear canisters are required in parts of the Adirondacks in NY State. They are not required in the Smokies - they have a good food hanging system at campsites.

A quick Google gives bear resistant container requirements around the country:

Wrangell-St. Elias NP
http://www.nps.gov/wrst/planyourvisit/food-storage-requirements.htm

New York State
http://www.dec.ny.gov/environmentdec/19125.html

Olympic NP
http://tc2tc.mojolingo.xuite.net/m2m-0000/www.nps.gov/olym/planyourvisit/wilderness-food-storage.htm

Denali NP
http://www.nps.gov/dena/planyourvisit/faqs.htm

Glacier Bay
http://www.nps.gov/archive/glba/InDepth/visit/activities/wilderness/kayak.htm

North Cascades NP
http://www.nps.gov/archive/noca/bcamps.htm
canisters required when other means are not provided

So, east coast and Alaska are included in the range. Also, many areas require 'proper food storage' which may allow hanging where there are trees but requires bear resistant containers where no adequate trees are available. In those areas, there are standards for bear resistant containers.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com
http://stores.lulu.com/dbd