Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Ursack

Legal in Mount Whitney Zone in 2011?

I believe there is a federal case proceeding through appeals on this, and that the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in February 2011 but has not rendered a decision as yet.

The rule is, and I paraphrase, you must use a device designed to prevent bears from getting your food. The Ursack meets this requirement.

However, if a bear tears apart your Ursack you would deemed out of compliance and subject to fine, at least that was what was brought out in the aforementioned oral arguments.

Bears are not the issue at Trail Camp, it's marmots and chippies. All you really need is a nylon stuff sack, which you can hang from rocks. Since neither climb, your food would be safe. I've done whenever above the tree line without a problem...but here that would be illegal.

The order with the exact wording is on the Inyo's website.

Hi Bears do go to Trailcamp and beyond, hanging will not work!!!! Last season we had 10 bears in the canyon most likely because of food not being secured. Thanks Doug

The Inyo NF order says "designed to prevent access by bears". So the Ursack designers have decided that chewing is not "access", but swallowing is.

By the Ursack interpretation, you haven't been attacked by a mountain lion if it hasn't swallowed.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com

Hmmm.. I wonder.... Sorry Mike I just didn't know the level of engagement this would start.

It's not clear from the various government sites whether the Ursack meets the requirement of being bear proof. Last year, it definitely didn't because bears would tear at it forever and, eventually, get a small opening and a "food reward." A quick read of Inyo & Sequoia Kings doesn't make it clear whether the Ursack is allowed or not. The main thing, though, is what Doug says -- Hanging doesn't work and, for the Whitney zone, is also illegal.

The other main point with the Ursack is whether it meets the definition or not, if a bear comes across it, it'll try to get into it and will do so for hours. So you spend your time awake either trying to chase them away or listening to them thrash around with it. They rarely do this with canisters nowadays.

Finally, oral arguments before the 9th circuit or not, whatever they're arguing is not law. It's worth noting Ursack has lost in the lower courts twice (though the court did find that the system to test canisters was not acceptable).

So anyway, take a canister. They work. You'll sleep better.

Also check this site:
http://sierrawild.gov/bears/


George

Um, if you say so. I think Ursack is arguing that the relevant agencies abused their discretion in not approving their product for use in various parts of the Sierras.

I use a BearVault 450, which conveniently doubles as a camp stool and/or washtub, and which can easily hold enough food and such for two people for the type of extended (2-night) Whitney trip that I seem to enjoy.

Yeah I was kind of wondering what "is not law" means, too. If it means that the arguments are not law until the court decides, that's so.

Why, yes, I do say so. That's kinda why it's before the court -- to decide if it is law or not. It ain't so until the justices say it is... .

I haven't been paying close attention to the lawsuit, but I do know that the Ursack has pretty consistently not kept a food reward from bears. This through several generations of designs and materials. If I understand it correctly, a lower court did rule that the testing process was not acceptable but that individual agencies did have to right to determine what was and was not allowed. They did have a set of testing protocols done by an interagency group, but their methods may not have been scientifically defensible ,which is not really abuse... . I think they're looking at getting some independent lab to come up with a testing method, but not really sure.

The idea behind the importance of preventing a "food reward" is to stop bears from associating food with humans. Once a bear gets food, they repeat that behavior. The good news is canisters have been spectacularly successful. Notice the number of people on the "Bear" thread who say they've never seen a bear. That's a direct result of canisters and food storage lockers working.

In the 70s and 80s, I estimate that about 60% of the bear scat I'd see would have foil or plastic in it. That's now down to maybe 2%, if that.

George

I use a Bear Vault or Garcia canister all the time. If the weight is that much of a problem, maybe people need to work out more.
To me keeping my food from all critters is worth the weight. I have seen bears walk past the bear canisters without even a sniff. Even the bears know that they can not get a meal out of one, because they work. Its not only bears that get human food. Check out the chipmunks working the crowd at Yosemite. Too many animals are being fed by people who should know better.

Just had to dig this up. Safeway Sack Test

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA5QyS6-CFE&feature=player_embedded

I will stick with my Bare Boxer Contender. It's smaller in diameter than my Bear Vault 450 and a touch lighter. I like the peace of mind as well as having something to sit on,

I was able to pack for a 5-day trip in SEKI with the Bare Boxer (wasn't a solo trip, but I was completely self-sufficient).

I have a Bare Boxer also, I can't figure out why it doesn't get mentioned more often. Cheaper, Lighter! and is very good quality.

Weight isn't the problem that I typically encounter. It's volume. For a trip approaching a week in length I cannot fit all of my food inside a canister. So I am faced with a decision: carry two canisters, take a shorter trip, go hungry, or break the rules and initially carry some of my food in an ursack.

I'm sorry that the ursacks have failed to meet the high standard set for bear resistant containers. In many circumstances where bear encounter is possible but unlikely I think a canister is overkill. But I understand why the rules are the way they are.

We pack enough food to last 7 days for two people in one canister. Part of the process is deciding what to bring and how we can cram it in... It also takes CPR compression to pack it down! Get the air out of packages and you can get a lot more in; repackage food in ziplock bags if you have to. One trip, I fit 17 pounds of food into one canister. It can be done!

marketing. I remember when it first came out, I contacted the manufacturer, and suggested that he give a couple to some thought-leaders, like BobR, Richard, etc. Seemed to have little interest.

Joe, I'm aware of the techniques that people use to maximize the amount of food in a canister. But you are forgetting a couple of things.

I hope that the future will be brighter for the ursack or something akin to it.

The real reason for requiring a bear canister has, I've observed, been missed by the ultralight crowd whose single minded obsession is to shave ounces off their pack - that is to protect the bears from your food and not your food from the bears. Regardless of your personal approach to enjoying the wilderness, there must be a certain level of respect and care given before even stepping foot on the trail. To put it another way, no one wants a bear to come wandering through our camp or tearing into our vehicles but we must accept the fact that it is the fault of careless humans not the bears. Therefore, we must take every reasonable step necessary to "untrain" the bears and prevent others from looking to humans for food - and bear canisters are important tool to accomplishing that goal. The Ursack is a lightweight alternative to a canister that might seem a worthy barrier to bears and other critters - from our perspective. From the bear's perspective, who possess incredible olfactory senses and tremendous strength the Ursack, becomes an annoying barrier to the smelly food inside. I for one don't believe it is a realistic alternative (or responsible)to canisters and I know some day that alternative will available but for now I'm using my canister.

Ok, I'm off my soapbox now!

John I totally back you. Its not only bears, its all the animals that want a easy meal. In the Catskills the porcupines were very expert at getting food. Everywhere I have been I see human trained animals begging for food. Maybe the canisters should be required everywhere all the time if you are carrying food. People should not feed the wildlife for the "cute" picture of a marmot eating a Snickers Bar.

The Ursack's real use may be in protecting food from smaller animals. But I am sure that a mouse would chew its way through if given enought time.

Best solution carry a cast iron fry pan rifle and fishing rod and bring no food. Catch it along the way, or the canister.