Chat Rooms (0 Chatting)  |  Search  |   Login/Join
* For the benefit of the community, commercial posting is not allowed.
Boundary Waters Quetico Forum
   Gear Forum
      Ursack Sale     
 Forum Sponsor

Author

Text

11/27/2020 06:53PM  
They have a 30% off sale, ends soon. They had some of the large 2XL model (30L) and I think 1 or 2 people were interested in that size.
 
      Print Top Bottom Previous Next
11/28/2020 10:18AM  
Ursack.com

Sure doesn't look like it laying flat, but the new 2XL holds as much as a small blue barrel.
 
11/28/2020 11:05AM  
At any rate, it should hold a lot, Jaywalker. Might even need a pulley to hoist it ;).

I noticed on the blog that they've come up with a slick new way to tie to a tree.
 
andym
distinguished member(4923)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
11/28/2020 12:58PM  
I consider it a sort of slick way to tie them to a tree because it requires a carabiner. The old figure 8 doesn’t need that and comes apart pretty easily. They are both good choices. I just don’t like needing an extra thing.
 
mschi772
distinguished member (496)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
11/28/2020 04:44PM  
After a back-and-forth with the USFS-Superior National Forest regarding their bear-safe container mandate they issued for a specific area earlier this year, I learned that they have no interest in the science of bear-safe containers (or at least an unwillingness to share science that supports their specific decisions) and will not recognize Ursacks as compliant. I had wanted to upgrade to a 30L Ursack, but if the USFS is going to be obstinate, I'm not going to waste the money. I know bear-safe container rules aren't common for the BWCA, but if I ever have to comply with one, money spent on an Ursack will just be sadly wasted :(
 
11/28/2020 05:47PM  
andym: "I consider it a sort of slick way to tie them to a tree because it requires a carabiner. The old figure 8 doesn’t need that and comes apart pretty easily. They are both good choices. I just don’t like needing an extra thing. "

I haven't tried it yet, but I usually have an extra carabiner along anyway. It looks like it might use less rope for the knot and allow tying to a larger tree and maybe be easier to do.
 
11/28/2020 05:52PM  
mschi772: "I know bear-safe container rules aren't common for the BWCA, but if I ever have to comply with one, money spent on an Ursack will just be sadly wasted :("

Everybody's situation is different but . . .

I wouldn't consider the money I've spent on them previously wasted since I've used them many times in the BW and do go other places where I use them. If it's limited to a specific area like this year, there's a good probability I'd be going somewhere else. If not, I could. On the other hand I already have bear canisters if needed.

Obviously USFS did not do a good job with that.
 
GearGuy
distinguished member (121)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
11/29/2020 07:37AM  
Ursacks suck. Go ahead, buy a product that is slowly getting phased out of national parks in which bears reside...why? Because they suck.

Quoted from the course case notes in which Ursack's lawsuit against the National Parks Service of CA was denied, "did not grant it conditional approval because the bag failed the zoo test. Specifically, captive bears were able to puncture small holes in the bag and access honey that had been poured inside. 2:SER:286-92"

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20110509076.xml

Not just one judge decided it wasn't good enough for California National Parks, THREE did. Oh, and all of you people that get CRAZY TRIGGERED when people carve stuff into trees? Imagine a starving black bear finding a bag of food stuck to a tree...... Here's a quote from the article in which 3 judges denied it's use in national parks. "(Ursack) also objected to an agency rule that prohibits backpackers from tying the Ursack to trees – an integral part of its original design. In its testing, the black-bear group had found that bears were likely to damage trees while reaching for the Ursack."

https://www.courthousenews.com/high-standard-is-ok-for-bear-resistant-pouches/

Here's a reddit post of your beloved Ursack literally getting torn to shreds in the line of duty. Tell me allllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll about how Ursack is as good as my BearVault again?

https://www.reddit.com/r/coloradotrail/comments/ijy9tx/ursack_warning/

Oh and here's the official legal order banning Ursack from 5 lakes in your very own...............BOUNDARY WATERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! in 2020!!!!!!!!!! Do you honestly think with bear problems increasing this list of lakes where Ursack isn't allowed....isn't going to increase?

https://locable-assets-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/resource/file/745008/1506_001.pdf?timestamp=1595546735&fbclid=IwAR0v98OQ_QJSJkLdMQcMV4D88iP0a5b5aSXHEJphruvEPqbryZzxtw7VZ6k

Okay so the trend of Ursack not being good enough has been in motion for over 15 years. Do you honestly think it's going to turn around and you'll get to keep using your Ursack for another 15 years? As bear encounters increase, restrictions to protect the bears will increase. It's not a wilderness meant for human convenience, it's meant to protect wild resources including the animals that live there and you are doing a disservice to the bears of the world by tempting them with a product that serves up food as long as they're voracious enough to shred at it long enough. From the reddit pictures it is obviously not difficult for a bear to do. And I don't care if you say "well no food can get out", if you have a ketchup packet in your ursack, or anything powder....it's going in that bears mouth via a tiny hole and some crushing power, and that bear will forever associate Ursacks as squeeze packets for food.

So year, Ursack sucks. Too aggressive? I'm sick of reading articles about bears that need to get shot because people aren't taking the proper precautions to keep them from developing behaviors that seek out humans. Do your due diligence to protect the bears, not just your food.
 
GearGuy
distinguished member (121)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
11/29/2020 08:04AM  


 
GearGuy
distinguished member (121)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
11/29/2020 08:10AM  
boonie: "Obviously USFS did not do a good job with that. "

Soooooooo Judges across multiple states are just not doing a good job at looking at the evidence and ruling against the use of Ursack? USFS wasn't even involved in the precedent-setting decision in California where Ursack was shot down by THREE judges. It's simply a matter of ignorance. You aren't thinking AT ALL about the biological and ecological repercussions of losing a keystone species like black bears because of human intervention.

You're missing a giant part of the picture, that the folks at USFS that shot your Ursack down this year, are not missing.

Obviously you did not do a good job researching.
 
11/29/2020 10:15AM  
boonie: "mschi772: "I know bear-safe container rules aren't common for the BWCA, but if I ever have to comply with one, money spent on an Ursack will just be sadly wasted :("


Everybody's situation is different but . . .


I wouldn't consider the money I've spent on them previously wasted since I've used them many times in the BW and do go other places where I use them. If it's limited to a specific area like this year, there's a good probability I'd be going somewhere else. If not, I could. On the other hand I already have bear canisters if needed.


Obviously USFS did not do a good job with that. "


Thanks for posting about the sale. Never considered the Ursak a waste. I have 2 and have used them for years, no incident of any critter getting in them. The primary reason for my purchase was to eliminate food and bag destruction by small critters. Mice, voles, chipmunks have destroyed around $120 of the roll-top waterproof bags I used for food, the single Ursak I use it the BWCA/Quetico is still going after 12 years. While the USFS and MN DNR established temporary food storage requirements they still allowed the traditional recommended food hanging throughout the park. There was never a bear proof storage container requirement for the BWCA.
National Park Approval Map

butthead
 
Wharfrat63
senior member (67)senior membersenior member
 
11/29/2020 10:56AM  
GearGuy: "


"


Couple of observations:

1. No bear protection device is 100%.

2. The Reddit where those pix came from stated that the people involved listened to the bear all night. They made no attempt to scare it away.

3. Tons of comments in the Reddit where people say they sleep with their food.

Unfortunately, stupid people will always be out there on the trail, lake, ocean, sky and backyard. Can't fix stupid.



 
11/29/2020 11:45AM  
I would encourage people to read the 24 page decision from US Court of Appeals in California - it's a very interesting read. To be clear, though, at no point are the judges making any judgment about whether or not Ursacks are good or bad at protecting food from bears. What they are doing is making a judgement that the lower court was correct in ruling for the defendants in Ursack's 2007 law suit against the Sierra Interagency Black Bear Group (SIBBG), the National Park Service and the US Forest Service alleging that they were "arbitrary and capricious" in their process of evaluation various Ursack models from 2001-2007 and in their decision to withdraw conditional use of these products in 2007. In a nutshell, the court is ruling on the quality of the lawsuit - not the product.

Here are a few key take aways:

- While the "Park Service" and "Forest Service are both listed as defendants and mentioned throughout, the case really involves Yosemite National Park, King's Canyon/Sequoia (SEKI) National Parks, and Inyu National Forest. It was the superintendents of these there parks/forests that made decisions that Ursack was fighting. These decisions were for these places only; not for the NPS or USFS as whole.

- It's confusing why the Forest Service was even listed as a defendant. When the SIBBG group recommended in 2007 to withdraw conditional use approval, that recommendation was not binding and the Inyo National Forest continued to allow them.

- Ursack argued that the decision of these three parks/forests to not allow use of the Ursacks were a major reason for Ursack not being carried by national retailer REI thus having a negative impact on their sales. Interestingly, REI did indeed begin carrying Ursack and does today, despite Yosemite and SEKI not allowing them.

- One of the arguments Ursack made was that their product lost conditional use approval after failing 6 times in 2007, whereas a competitor - Bear Vault - had failed in field use 12 times in 2005 but not lost its approval. The agencies argued that they had determined that those 12 Bear Vault failures were likely the result of one single bear who had learned to open them up. The judges found the argument made by the agencies on this matter to be reasonable and that the arguments made by Ursack not to be supported by fact or data. The court did here acknowledge their own limited understanding of bears in saying "...the agency [SIBBG] is better equipped than the court to determine how many bears were involved in the relevant incidents..." Even though it was just one bear, I find it interesting that there were in a short time 12 failures of what many consider the gold standard of bear/food protection.

There are two other aspects of the court case which I found not just interesting but that may explain why (I am speculating here) our local USFS decided not to allow the Ursack in that "special bear warning area" this summer. First, there was indeed an Ursack failure in the "zoo test" in 2002, where a bear was able to get a reward buy puncturing or crushing a container with honey it it. Interestingly this is a big reason Ursack created the aluminum liner. Secondly, I found it interesting how the SIBBG and parks considered not just the inherent abilities of the products to defend against bears, but also the impacts of how people are likely to use them or misuse them. When I read these sections, it hit me that the USFS would possibly consider how BWCA users might use them - especially in this past year with so many newbies and in an area easily accessible (think steaks, bratwursts, syrup, etc).

So all that said, I have two Ursacks and continue to have confidence in them given all that I have read - at least for certain food items. I do NOT put anything terribly crushable or liquid type thing like syrup in there though - that goes in my blue barrel which has undergone even less testing! But like has been shown, no method is fool proof.

Despite the BWCA temporary and isolated order this summer, I doubt there will be any further restrictions locally and I've seen no credible evidence of a trend of agencies disallowing them. They are allowed in some National Parks and Forests and not others. It is clear each local jurisdiction will make their own rule based on what they think is right for their own situation.

 
11/29/2020 02:45PM  
A lot of good information provided to think about along with this blog post about food storage failures from Yosemite NP. If you are not familiar with the story of a bear named Yellow Yellow in the ADK's and the BearVault, you should look it up.

I think most are aware that the primary reason we have bear canisters, etc. and the requirement to use one in certain places is due to the failures of the traditional "hang", which was nonetheless a permissible food storage method under the BW temporary order.
 
mschi772
distinguished member (496)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
11/30/2020 08:56AM  
boonie: "I think most are aware that the primary reason we have bear canisters, etc. and the requirement to use one in certain places is due to the failures of the traditional "hang", which was nonetheless a permissible food storage method under the BW temporary order. "

After going back and forth with the USFS and learning what little they were willing to share with me (still so troubling that a public agency was so unwilling to share information with a citizen), I deduced that the specific requirements that the USFS chose to out into place would likely be met by a blue barrel--something we all should know very well is NOT very bear resistant. GearGuy wants to believe the USFS restrictions were well-researched. They clearly were not, and I assume that is why they were so dodgey with me when I asked them repeatedly for the science and rationale they used--they likely didn't have much, if any, good science to cite.

Ursacks may or may not be an inferior container, but if an agency is going to insist it is inferior, I'd like to see the science, especially the behavioral science, supporting that assertion. Likewise, it would behoove Ursack to conduct or fund studies to see if food residue leaking through fabric is a sufficient motivator for bears or not. They may find that bears do not find such leaks to be rewarding enough in the absence of any substantial payoff which would do a lot to defend their product. One way or another, science can put this question to bed if we let it.
 
11/30/2020 09:38AM  
A point lost in the discussion is that a lot of "bear resistant" food containers are bought and used with other priorities than simply being "bear resistant". Until the specific rules put fourth last year there has been no requirement in BWCA/Quetico/WCPP and many other places (the large majority). While the term may justify the purchase, often bears are not the priority. I use a Ursak to keep small vermin damage to a minimum, it weighs less and packs much better than a canister. How many BV users chose them for the transparency of the container and it's camp use as a stool?
Gotta carry food somehow, may as well use something that works well for you.

GG's rant did give me something to consider. If Ursaks cause bears to damage trees is the park system going to stop bears from climbing trees or marking territory. What about antlered animal tree damage or beavers???

butthead
 
inspector13
distinguished member(4154)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
11/30/2020 10:44AM  

Yeah Ken, the vapours emanating from this thread are quite entertaining.

 
Minnesotian
distinguished member(1896)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
11/30/2020 10:58AM  
inspector13: "
Yeah Ken, the vapours emanating from this thread are quite entertaining.


"


Couldn't agree more.
 
jillpine
distinguished member(540)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
11/30/2020 01:45PM  
Such disrespect to Mr. Boonie.
That's a special kind of keyboard anger, like flipping off Mr. Rogers.
Boonie, your advice and experience have been a huge help to my outdoor adventures the past couple of years. And I'm sure I speak for many others. Thank you.
I love my Ursack. Bear tried and tested in Wisconsin. Got one for my son for Christmas.
 
THEGrandRapids
distinguished member (208)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
11/30/2020 02:17PM  
I use a combination of bearvaults and ursacks. I like to bring a loaf of sourdough bread to use in first couple days, which just doesn't fit in the beearvault. As the food dwindles, we store less and less in the ursack, until we don't have anything in it. I also use the ursack for bikepacking.
 
MidwestFirecraft
distinguished member(558)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
11/30/2020 08:34PM  
Thanks for the heads up. Got a 2xl. Shipping was a lot, but can't beat the price.
 
pswith5
distinguished member(3374)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/01/2020 05:34AM  
THEGrandRapids: "I use a combination of bearvaults and ursacks. I like to bring a loaf of sourdough bread to use in first couple days, which just doesn't fit in the beearvault. As the food dwindles, we store less and less in the ursack, until we don't have anything in it. I also use the ursack for bikepacking. " ooh sourdough bread sounds nummy, do you guys think it's the pandemic that makes people rant? This sucks! That sucks! ? It's fine to share an opinion but ....
 
Wharfrat63
senior member (67)senior membersenior member
 
12/01/2020 06:59AM  
pswith5: "THEGrandRapids: "I use a combination of bearvaults and ursacks. I like to bring a loaf of sourdough bread to use in first couple days, which just doesn't fit in the beearvault. As the food dwindles, we store less and less in the ursack, until we don't have anything in it. I also use the ursack for bikepacking. " ooh sourdough bread sounds nummy, do you guys think it's the pandemic that makes people rant? This sucks! That sucks! ? It's fine to share an opinion but ..."

I think it is more than just the pandemic that make people angry these days. It is the internet itself. We sit at our keyboards and spew vitriol when we see something that we value trashed or criticized by others. Once that takes hold, we don't see people as like us: We "Other" them. Very few of us, would talk to someone the way we type our messages. We even talk to people on the phone differently. When you speak to someone face to face , most of us are more reserved and we get more feedback by looking at the person.

Today's situation has accelerated this phenomena. Everyone walking around with their face covered makes it so easy to "other them" as well. And the fear of "the virus", is ever present in many. When we are out and about are others, people like me, or are they a disease vector?

Now add to that the forced isolation. How many young adults are starting their careers in their bedroom, with a computer, phone and zoom? How many small elementary children are getting the social education in school? How many college students are getting the full educational experience they deserve.
How many of you have noticed that your once nice co-worker is a jerk over the phone or email?

We are not meant to be isolated. We need and crave to be with people. But today, we just see screen names, black zoom boxes and face masks. No one is like us....

Then we turn on the machines (any tv news outlet, or website) and our fears and isolation are reinforced. Over and over and over... These news organizations are experts at preying on emotion for dollars. They say things you agree with and then bash those who disagree. There are no logical arguments anymore. Just Ad Hominem logic that is vicious. Just watch the media and notice how they "other". It is reinforcement for the masses.

We all need to look inside and fight the urge to "other". Just like you and me, everyone is dealing with some type of crap going on in their lives.

I step off my soap box with this (bonus points if you can tell me who wrote this):

"So I pointed my fingers, and shout a few quotes I knew
As if something that's written should be taken as true
But every path I have taken and conclusion I drew
Would put truth back under the knife.

And now the only piece of advice that continues to help:
Is anyone that's making anything new only breaks something else.

Oh you can judge all the world on the sparkle that you think it lacks.
Yes you can stare into the abyss, but it's staring right back."









 
12/01/2020 08:52AM  
Well put Wharfrat63, but that does not include folks who make a habit of the " your ignorant" comments from specific people like GG. He does make it a habit!

butthead
 
THEGrandRapids
distinguished member (208)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/01/2020 09:19AM  
butthead: "Well put Wharfrat63, but that does not include folks who make a habit of the " your ignorant" comments from specific people like GG. He does make it a habit!


butthead"


I still laugh at the leather boot rant. I think leather boots are a fine choice for BWCA. When backpacking with NOLS, the first thing we did before we started to hike (in our required leather boots) was to go stand in a stream crossing or lake to soak the socks and boots (I think to cut down on hotspots and blisters). Ever since, I only backpack in wet boots.

There are 100s of ways to do the BWCA as you want. As long as you are not infringing on others enjoyment and follow the regs, do as you please.

I still see people using the cooking pot method of just stacking the food under their metals pots and pans as an alarm and they just wake up and scare the bear off....

Sourdough.... grilled cheese-mushroom-avocado sandi's with tomato soup, Breakt Friscos with egg, ham, and cheddar. Generally we don't make it more than two meals as it is soo good. Garlic bread with pasta if any stray pieces make it to the second night.
 
12/01/2020 10:37AM  
THEGrandRapids: "There are 100s of ways to do the BWCA as you want. As long as you are not infringing on others enjoyment and follow the regs, do as you please. "

That's it in a nutshell, TGR! And not just for the BWCA/Q, but for life in general.

TZ
 
12/01/2020 01:46PM  
Minnesotian: "inspector13: "
Yeah Ken, the vapours emanating from this thread are quite entertaining.



"



Couldn't agree more. "


So true. Every few months the GG shows and seems lit up over a subject and 'educates' us all on his view. I think the last subject was his vast unquestionable boot expertise.

I like my ursack and bear bins and use them both and sometimes don't really think much before selecting them unless spaces isn't flexible, but it usually is.
 
mschi772
distinguished member (496)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/02/2020 09:04AM  
Wharfrat63: "We "Other" them.
"


I find GG's attitude and approach as distasteful as the next guy, but the "othering" goes both ways and has been happening long before there was ever an Internet.

This site can be as "cliquey" as any other part of society and sometimes especially so, too. This is most evident any time someone new, especially if they are identified as younger, attempts to introduce new information that challenges traditions and old methods and habits. There is a culture in this community of claiming open-mindedness, tolerance, and acceptance that often doesn't hold-up well when someone refuses to conform. Sure, this community never turns roudy and toxic, but instead wields passive-aggression masterfully against any who upset the status quo.

It may seem silly that all this would arise from a post about Ursacks on sale, but I'm not surprised. Food handling is one of those subjects that has different approaches and people strongly committed to specific approaches with little willingness to consider changing no matter what evidence or logical fallacies are presented. Ursack use is a particularly controversial method of food handling. This is an area of wilderness interaction that could be handled quite well scientifically, but instead has people arbitrarily commiting to conclusions before picking evidence to support them after. On one extreme we have people committed to irresponsible handling methods who cling to normalcy biases of "I've been tripping for decades and never had anything bad happen." We also have people on the other side of that coin who reject anything and everything if even one example of failure can be found in a tool/method's history can be found. Neither of these attitudes is scientifically literate, realistic, or productive.

Yeah, Ursacks are a thing that we can use and were on sale. As someone with an interest in the product and subject in general myself, I ask that you please forgive those of us who recognize that there are still important questions left unanswered in this area of our past time and would like to involve the community in exploring those questions. Maybe even join us in asking questions and someday we all might have a "better mousetrap" to show for it.
 
campnfish
distinguished member (286)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/02/2020 01:03PM  
GearGuy:


So year, Ursack sucks. Too aggressive? I'm sick of reading articles about bears that need to get shot because people aren't taking the proper precautions to keep them from developing behaviors that seek out humans. Do your due diligence to protect the bears, not just your food. "



According to the DNR in MN this happens less than 6 times a year on average, i'm not sure about other states, but it doesn't seem to be that big of a reason for black bears dying, considering over 2k black bears are harvested by hunters.
 
12/03/2020 06:46AM  
mschi772: "After a back-and-forth with the USFS-Superior National Forest regarding their bear-safe container mandate they issued for a specific area earlier this year, I learned that they have no interest in the science of bear-safe containers (or at least an unwillingness to share science that supports their specific decisions) and will not recognize Ursacks as compliant. I had wanted to upgrade to a 30L Ursack, but if the USFS is going to be obstinate, I'm not going to waste the money. I know bear-safe container rules aren't common for the BWCA, but if I ever have to comply with one, money spent on an Ursack will just be sadly wasted :("

I am frustrated and feel the same way. I use the blue barrel, but this wasn’t compliant in the special regs the BWCAW enacted in the area I went to this year, so bought 2 bear vaults. I would have preferred an ursack as the vaults don’t hold a lot and they were super hard to find this summer but they weren’t complaint and from what I read never will be.

Then as I camped I see people with regular coolers and soft coolers go by or in camp as I go by. A whole other subject but what good are rules if no one enforces them...either way I will follow the guidelines and the ursack right or wrong doesn’t seem to have a future as far as the FS goes.

T
 
12/03/2020 07:10AM  
GG,

You actually have some really good information and make some good points...maybe you don’t care but some unsolicited advice is that the presentation of those points could use some polishing... Not trying to pick on ya but how we say or write things matters...

I appreciate your information , but I also appreciate the OP’s post about a deal that will benefit some people.

T
 
GraniteCliffs
distinguished member(1883)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/04/2020 02:52PM  
Lots of interesting and divergent opinions. Seems to me, at least in my experience, that we are splitting hairs.
I use a bear vault for some but not all of our food on group trips. We used to hang. I use a Ursack on my solos. On other group trips we use, well, aluminum pots and pans piled on top of the Duluth Pack with all of our food in it placed on a slab of granite rock. It really works well as an alarm.
So far in my many, many trips over the years we have lost food only once. A friend hung the pack too close to the tree and a bear managed to reach it. Luckily we heard it after a bit and chased it off.
I think the point is we all make our own efforts to protect our food in our own way and in the process protect the bears as well. Is one method better than another? Perhaps, but not enough to make much of a difference.
 
ockycamper
distinguished member(537)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
01/04/2021 06:21PM  
We went to Seagull last week of September. There were a LOT of bear incidents on Alpine and Seagull in July and August. The bears seemed to get into everything that was not secured in bear vaults.

I realize bearvaults are not everyone's choice. We bring them because: They are clear, you can sit on the (even stand on them); they will float and best of all. . .they keep out the mice and chipmunks. The problem I see with the Ursack is that it IS a sack. Can you see everything in it without opening it? How many times do you have to dump everything out to get to what is on the bottom? Most of all, our groups do not want to be concerned about bears hauling off, or opening up our food cache. The only guaranteed way in my experience for this is a bear vault.
 
01/05/2021 10:41AM  
Not to argue, but just to answer questions, provide info. I have a BearVault which I bought after I bought a Backpacker's Cache (before BearVault) because it was clear and did not require any "tool" to open. Plus I just needed another bear canister. I like it for the reasons you listed and use it sometimes, as well as the Backpacker's Cache.

I also have a couple of Ursacks which I use and like also. To answer the question, I use an OPsack in the Ursacks (and in the BearVault). It's clear and I can see everything in it, but I've never needed to lift it out, much less dump everything out. I've never done that with either of the bear canisters. I just pack accordingly in layers and take the first dinner, breakfast, or lunch I come to. Although I can see everything in the BearVault, I can't get something on the bottom without taking things out. The way I pack all of the options, I might take a couple of things out to get something, but that's the extent.

I have also hung food in dry bags.

All of the options require proper use and are subject to "user error". And most, if not all, have been breached even with proper use. The BearVault is not as impenetrable as I used to believe and certainly not a guarantee, but still one of the better options. A bear called "Yellow Yellow" in the ADK's learned how to open the BearVault and apparently her cubs also learned. If you check the links above, you'll find that there is also a problem with them out west where bears have learned to smashed them on rocks by rolling them off "cliffs".

 
01/05/2021 02:53PM  
Agree with boonie. Have used both Ursak and bear canister. Prefer the Ursak, own 2. Lighter, easier to pack, works best for my purpose. I pack food differently than most, using a kitchen pantry method of individual ingredients, even with a canister it most all comes out for meal prep anyway.
The arguments against the Ursak are based on personal travel decisions that do not apply to all users. Conveniently unstated is that Ursaks are legal as any other style of food container in the BWCA, just a few lakes have extra restrictions that require hanging an Ursak in the approved manner. I'm not stuck traveling to Alpine only and if I did could hang it.

butthead
 
      Print Top Bottom Previous Next