[pct-l] Bear Canister or Ursack

[dsaufley at sprynet.com]

I should have added that I used the vapor barrier bags available at the Ursack website in conjunction with not just my food inside the bear cannister, but I also put my cookpot, utensils, trash, and toiletries -- anything that has any kind of scent -- into these reputedly odor proof bags.  Even if I used my Garcia or Bearikade rather than the Ursack, I would still use the vapor barrier bags, for the reasons you mention below.  Knowing that bears break into cars to get toothpaste because of the scent, I conscientiously try to eliminate smells or at least minimize them.

The vapor barrier bags are great, but they weren't constructed for the ongoing rigors of thru-hiking, and they tore a fair amount.  I kept extras in my pack and in my resupply box.  Using them was part of the overall system for avoiding bear-encounters:  

-     carry a bear cannister in bear country (regardless of regulatory requirements)
-     avoid heavily used campsites when possible
-     don't cook where you sleep before you sleep there
-     keep the odors to a minimum by using vapor barrier bags

I don't do this because of fear for my own safety, I do this because I consdier that the life that is saved through these efforts will be the bear's.  

L-Rod

-----Original Message-----
>From: Bill Batchelor <billbatch at cox.net>
>Sent: Feb 2, 2007 5:43 AM
>To: dsaufley at sprynet.com, 'Carol Freed' <robert at engravingpros.com>, pct-l at backcountry.net
>Subject: RE: [pct-l] Bear Canister or Ursack
>
>I am intrigued with this Ursack approach.  However, the "running off with it
>in their mouths" comment is a drag.
>
>Seems to me that the bear container should be 
>1 bear access proof (or highly resistant)
>2 preferably be a barrier to smells (avoiding interaction to begin with)
>3 not be able to be carried away
>
>I am guessing that the bear canister does all three.  However, I am not sure
>if the smell barrier is valid or not.  I am thinking by the time you open
>that up over and over again, handle food, handle the canister, cook and have
>smell in the pot, etc. that there is just too much smell going on.  However,
>I could also see an argument that an uncanistered food source still smells
>WAY more than a canistered food source even with all the above smells in the
>mix.
>
>If the bear canister has value as a smell barrier, that leaves the Ursack
>really only helping on item #1.  And resisting access does no good if they
>can easily be carried away.  I could see a bear taking that bag for miles on
>end trying to get into it before giving up.  This leaves the hiker with
>esentially the same problem - no more food.  I have a hard time imagining an
>encounter where the bear would NOT pick up the bag and go some distance with
>it.
>
>Again though, I really like the idea of a light and flexible solution.
>However, if an encounter looks like you are likely to lose your food on a
>run-away, what good does it do the hiker.  I can see it helps the bear
>situation because failure to open the bag would train the animals against
>the attempt.  So, it helps the bear habits - a big win, but does it do
>anything for the hiker?
>
>BillB
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
>On Behalf Of dsaufley at sprynet.com
>Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 9:05 AM
>To: Carol Freed; pct-l at backcountry.net
>Subject: Re: [pct-l] bear canisters
>
>Below is what their site says.  I, too, used the Ursack with the aluminum
>liner, and liked it very much.  I did hear of people having problems with
>rodents chewing holes in them, but the biggest issue was bears grabbing the
>knotted end and/or the string in their mouths and running off with the
>entire Ursack, never to be seen again.
>
>http://www.ursack.com/ursack-update.htm
>