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

January 1, 2008.
The Sierra Interagency Black Bear Group (SIBBG) has withdrawn its conditional approval of the Ursack S29 Hybrid (Ursack with aluminum liner) for 2008. Ursack is challenging this decision. There appears to be scant evidence to suggest that the S29 Hybrid had a significant number of product failures in 2007. The nature of Ursack’s challenge has not been finalized because we are waiting for SIBBG to provide us with the specific evidence on which it based its decision. From what we know so far, user error was the sole cause of three incidents in which bears got food. In those cases, users did not cinch the opening completely—they failed to remove all slack in the cinch cord and did not tie a secure knot. We understand that SIBBG’s decision is exasperating for our loyal customers. It is even more trying for us. We cannot run a business in which our only product is reviewed year after year by a government agency making arbitrary and capricious decisions about what equipment a camper may or may not use in the wilderness. We respect the Sierra Rangers and much of the work they do, and have no desire to file an unnecessary lawsuit. But it seems that may be the only way to bring this see saw existence to a halt. Because the situation is fluid, we are changing our return policy. Customers may return any new, unused, Ursack for a full refund within one year of purchase. We hope that approval will be reinstated by SIBBG, and that customers will hold onto their purchases until the situation is resolved.

http://www.ursack.com/ursack-update.htm

I hope that you can resolve your issues with the SIBBG. I have used some competing cannisters but I am dismayed by their weight. Most weigh more than my sleeping bag. I spent almost two decades using the counterbalance method without a single failure. During that time I witnessed numerous campers camped within 200 yards of me who had their food taken (I would always split some of my food with them). I am not arguing against cannisters, or other secure methods that are much better than counterbalancing. I am just pointing out that human competence and diligence is a major factor in keeping food items away from bears.

Now for my political statement which is just an opinion. I believe that the Rangers, Park, and Forest Service in the early 1980's created the southern sierra bear problem by relocating Problem Bears from Yosemite to the southern sierra. They learned their craft in Yosemite and were then aided in dispursing their craft.

I (of course)..have come up with the best solution. The Bear Safe. Simply place the problem bear in the Bear Safe, have your picnic, and then release the bear when you are finished. We are still working on the obvious size/weight issues (and possible mauling during use)..but I'm confident we will resolve these issues...



Chris

... and another approach.

I can't resolve a thing but I wish SIBBG would be consistent. My guess is that all the canisters being used in the wilderness have and problems with user error. Based on what SIBBG and user told Ursack of the failures, only a chipmunk got a food reward and the other failures were due to user error. Based on this criteria, all the Bear Vaults of the that failed at Rae Lakes should have their approval rescinded. These canisters were design and manufacturing failures and a bear got a food reward.

I wish you guys all the best as I respect what you are trying to do, but suing the government is a very tough go. They have nothing but time and (our) money. I hope you can find a better way to resolve this.

If this were a rational process, we would not need bear containers at all as hanging food has been shown to be very effective in many national parks. Ditto for removing bears who get into food.

I wish you the best of luck as well. I have the Ursack that was made just prior to the S29 and used it many times when it had conditional approval. I continue to use it in required areas still, unless I am certain I will be running into rangers frequently. I know this practice may draw some heat from people, but I have confidence in the product and more so in myself to be intelligent when backpacking. Whenever I have encountered an agency official in the backcountry and I have my Ursack, I promptly present my permit and inform them I have a bear cannister as well and ask if they need to see it. They have never once asked.

User error is nearly always the cause of problems in bear rewards. I have seen enough testing results and videos that suggest Ursack's durability which is good enough for me. I appreciate everything that SIBBG does to protect the bears, but I wish they would be open to accepting non-hard sided containers that are proven to work. Good Luck and keep fighting the battle and let us know if there is anyone we should contact that can help.

I'm just own a couple of Ursacks, I am not a principal in the company.

My problem is with the consistency coming out of SIBBG. There a whole bunch of BV product out there that the famous Rae Lakes smart bear popped open ~ 8 canisters for a food reward. SIBBG's answer to that was you can't use this particular type in the Rae Lakes area. Ursacks were attacked with no food reward and their conditional approval is revoked.

Sorry, but I just can't find any logic in their decisions.

I wonder if the SIBBG really cares whether the failures were due to "user error" or to flaws in the device? Maybe they feel that the Ursacks are too prone to users not using them correctly?

I have no idea if this is the case, but I'm disappointed to hear this because there is so little choice in the marketplace for approved bear-resistant food "gear". Those huge bear cannisters just aren't practical and it seems odd that there just aren't more approved choices out there.

I'm sure that politics plays a role in a decision like this too...well I hope that Ursack does either get approval or sues the SIBBG and opens up the field a bit.

Ursack S29 (8 oz) with aluminum liner (14 oz)   total weight: 22 oz    size: 8"  x13" 
Garcia                                          total weight: 43 oz    size: 8.8"x12" 

Comparing the Garcia to the Ursack hybrid (i.e. S29 with Al liner):

- the Garcia is 21 oz heavier than the Ursack hybrid

- the Garcia and Ursack hybrid have similar dimensions: 8.8"x12" (Garcia) vs. 8"x13" (Ursack)

- the Garcia doesn't need to be hung from a tree or something else by a rope. According to the Ursack website, the Ursack hybrid needs to be hung so that a bear doesn't crush the metal liner. If this is the case, aren't we back to the similar problem with hanging food from trees where bears would break tree limbs or whatever to get the food sack down? Perhaps a difference is that the bears can't break the strong rope of the Ursack, but they still could break the tree limb if it's too small. However, I haven't read of this problem being reported so maybe, for some unclear reason, it isn't a problem. Maybe it's not a problem because it's hung low enough for the bears to get at so they don't think about getting it to the ground. This could be a new project for the smart bears of the Bear Advanced Research Projects Agency (BARPA) at Rae Lakes. Anyhow, the Ursack company seems to think that not tying it to a strong tree limb can cause problems.

If you had an Ursack hybrid, it would take up about as much space in your pack as a Garcia. Seems like the only significant advantage of an Ursack hybrid is 21 oz less weight. So, if a pack weighed 25 lb with an Ursack hybrid, it would weigh 26.3 lb if it had a Garcia instead. Is that small weight savings worth the trouble?

BobK,

That isn't the entire story.

I switched from a BV Solo, so my savings was about 10 oz.

The Garcia doesn't squeeze down in the pack like a Hybrid, therefore, the Ursack takes up less space than Garcia when it is not filled to capacity.

My problem here is the inconsistency with SIBBG's decision making. BV products allowed a food reward and they are still approved, Ursack did not and its approval has been pulled.

Hi wbtravis5152,

1) Re: "My problem here is the inconsistency with SIBBG's decision making. BV products allowed a food reward and they are still approved, Ursack did not and its approval has been pulled."

Wouldn't surprise me if that's the case but I'm a bit wary about coming to any conclusions just yet because I haven't seen anything from SIBBG. So far it looks like the only info we have is from Ursack. Now I'm sure a small business that may be struggling for survival wouldn't shade the truth a bit, but you never know.

Regarding BV, if one of their models has been compromised by a bear, that model should not be approved anywhere IMO. I think we agree on this. I wouldn't go along with some kind of excuse that says it's some unique genius of a bear that lives at Rae Lakes or some bear that is an experiment by extra-terrestrials that abducted it and modified its brain in their UFO or whatever. That model BV should be a goner everywhere. Maybe the SIBBG will eventually do that but is trying to make it gradual so that it is less of a shock for users and the company.

If there is an inconsistency regarding how Ursack and BV are treated by SIBBG, it doesn't necessarily mean they should even things out by being easier on Ursack instead of evening things out by being harder on BV.

Regarding what we've heard so far about the compromised Ursacks, from the quote you had it looks like the bears did get a food reward. In other words, Ursack wrote, "From what we know so far, user error was the sole cause of three incidents in which bears got food." So I don't understand the part of your message where you wrote, "BV products allowed a food reward and they are still approved, Ursack did not and its approval has been pulled." The part that I don't understand is where you seemed to say that the bears didn't get a food reward from the Ursacks whereas Ursack said that the bears did get a food reward.

2) This thing with the need for an aluminum liner. The video at the Ursack website and the testimonials of users suggest that the Ursack works fine without a liner. So I wonder if the Ursack without the liner was ever compromised. Or it could just be that the SIBBG is foreseeing a possible problem, which may or may not occur?

Here's something from the SIBBG website, "Conditional approval is given to any container that has passed visual inspection, an impact test and a zoo test. Full approval is given to any container that has done the above and has been successful during three months of field-trials in the summer. Either type of approval may be revoked due to unexpected problems in the field that either lead to failures, injuries, or resource damage."

Perhaps the Ursack without liner didn't pass the SIBBG "visual inspection" test because they just didn't think a sack by itself would work. Is there any more info on this?

Also, maybe a bear might come up with the idea of grinding down the fabric material on a rock? Ursacks may be hard to penetrate and tear but I suspect they can be ground down, especially if they have help from the edge of an aluminum liner. Now one may say, "Bears aren't that smart." Well I don't know about that. Afterall, that UFO may still be out there, ready to implant grinding knowledge into their furry brains.

This reminds me of when I hung my food up many years ago around Cloud's Rest (I think). During the night I heard a lot of stomping. I thought the bears were expressing their frustration at not getting the food that I had so cleverly hung. Poor, poor bears being deprived by the mighty brain of a human. The next morning when I went to take down my food sack I found out the truth. It turned out that they got the food sack down from the tree and had stomped the food containers open. I was impressed at how well they could clean the food from a stomped can of chili.

3) Ursack wrote, "The nature of Ursack’s challenge has not been finalized because we are waiting for SIBBG to provide us with the specific evidence on which it based its decision."

I would wait for that info before concluding whether SIBBG acted correctly, or not, regarding Ursack. Actually, has anyone seen anything that comes directly from the SIBBG regarding the Ursack issue? So far we seem to only have Ursack's version.

4) And finally, there's another sequel to Planet of the Apes that is coming out called Planet of the Bears. In the movie some backpacking bears have the darnedest time trying to keep those pesky humans from getting their food.



BTW I got this cartoon from a website that sells a conditionally approved bear cannister that looks like a smaller, lighter, cheaper version of the Garcia with a little less than half the capacity. http://www.bareboxer.com/products.htm

My mistake, there was a food reward.

I owned the BV canister in question. I believe it should have had its approval pulled because lid/canister threads were poorly designed. I popped it a few times when it locked up. If I could do it, a bear could, too.

What exactly is user error? I know from time to time did not lock up my Garcia, completely screw down my BV or tie my Ursack per instructions.I don't think these manufacturers should be penalized for my foolishness. I would not have boiled stuff in a $225 Bearikade, though.

To me, if a canister fails because of design or manufacturing error the manufacturer should pay the price.

You stated we have not heard from SIBBG. Why not? Not only does Ursack deserve an explanation of their decision, so do the users of the Ursack Hybrid. We are footing the SIBBG bill, we deserve some transparency from this organization.

I have to say that there is something of a fine line here. The goal is to keep bears from getting human food. That is a bad outcome for both the bears and the humans. If a product is repeatedly allowing the bears to get food, even if it is due to repeated user error, then I don't see how it can be allowed to remain in use. Human factors is part of product design, as airplane flight decks have taught us well.

Didn't BV re-design the cover and threads after the Rae Lakes incident?

I thought the SIBBG lowered their approval to conditional and then re-approved the BV with a new cover. Or did I get some incorrect information?

I believe that was about a year and a half or two years ago. The new covers had a prominent large red sticker on it with instructions. I own one of those. I recently heard that they are improving that one as well. If any one else knows more about this I'd like to know also.

Rafael...

BV redesigned their canisters but the canisters in use at the time of Rae Lakes are still approved anywhere but Rae Lakes.

It is my understanding that BV is have a problem with the BV 350/400 series in the 'Dacks. The Rae Lakes bear must have moved east.

I agree with you. These things have to be idiot-proofed as much as possible. If you don't lock down a Garcia or completely screw down a BV or improperly tie an Ursack, what is a manufactured to do? BTW, we know about the Ursack user errors in '07 but we do not know of the amount errors by the users of the other canisters.

This ends up being a huge problem. Of course, being a gov't agency, SIBBG wants to put out as little information to the public and manufacturers as possible, as they are then able to make whatever decisions they want, without justification. Although, I think that the involved people really want to do the right thing, it is complicated.

I had a conversation on the phone a few months back with a manufacturer, who has apparently gotten a contract to manufacture replacement closures for the Garcia, as there have been failures (oops!), and the parks and others have invested quite a bit of money in Garcias, and generate some cash from their rental, and can't really decertify them politically.

I have personally seen Ursacks that have failed from abrasion over a period of hours.

I got into a "discussion" with a ranger who advocated looking at requiring bear cans throughout the Sierra, even where there was no problem, "to make it easier for the public to figure out" where they needed them. This ranger was the chair, I believe, of the SIBBG at the time. (this ranger is in the Whitney area)

I've used Ursacks (several versions) for some years, only where it is legal...but I've never had a problem. I think the BearVault is a good compromise, and the minor glitches in Rae Lakes is overblown.

Hi I am not sure why we are talking about this unless it is a choice of colors or maybe flowers or a nice design on the outside of the products any additional comments should be considered between the SIBBG and The manufacturers.Thanks Doug