Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
Bear canisters in the backcountry
Display Avatars Sort By:

(Anonymous)
Failures in the Field on 06/29/2005 20:04:31 MDT Print View

I'm sorta surprised at all the conjectures about why the NPS will not approve the Ursack instead of the bear cans. While I don't have the specifics, I do remember reading about the original "contingency" approval of the Ursack in the aforementioned hot spots. In short order the approval for the Ursack was revoked due to several actual in-the-field failures of Ursacks. If I recall the failures in actual usage were the prime reason for the revocation of the Ursack's approval and the incidents were published online at the time (may still be there), where I read them. Hope that clears up any questions about the "why's" of the case. I also agree with the above-mentioned point that it's all about the bears, not how much we do or do not have to carry on our backs to enjoy being out in their native environment.

Mike Storesund
(mikes) - F
RE: More Bear Boxes on 06/30/2005 10:05:05 MDT Print View

Robert,
I agree that not all areas should be treated the same. You said "If bombproof food storage is the answer, why not have a few more bear boxes established? Especially along the backpacker mainlines."
I believe if more established Bear Boxes are placed along paths less frequented, that would define more established campsites, in turn creating a new scavenging area for bears to gather. In essence making more areas the same.
IMHO, I would rather carry the extra 30 ounces.

Edited by mikes on 06/30/2005 10:07:07 MDT.