[pct-l] Ursack

[Matthew Edwards]

Sent on behalf of Tom Cohen:

Here is what I sent. Perhaps to the wrong place:

I'm the inventor/CEO of Ursack, and wanted to add a few comments to this
thread.

First, Ursack is a choice, and like all choices has both pros and cons. By
all means if the weight and bulk don't bother you, use a hard-sided
canister. Just know that no canister or Ursack is 100% perfect. All have
failed at one time or another.

Second, please try to use evidence as the basis for your opinions. There is
a lot of speculation about harming bears and food conditioning,. etc., but
the facts don't always support the opinions. For example, if a bear licks
the outside of an Ursack and gets a taste of the food inside, will the bear
become an addict? As far as I know, there is no science to prove this. SEKI
rangers did extensive testing in the mid 2000s and actually weighed Ursacks
before and after being attached by wild bears. Despite numerous attacks,
there was no weight loss to the Ursacks--indicating the bears got no
significant food reward although they might have gotten a taste.

Food crushing is an issue. The optional 10.8 ounce aluminum liner pretty
much eliminates that risk. I encourage you all to read real life stories on
our web site: http://www.ursack.com/ursack-fieldtests.htm. They show that
even without the liner, food often survives a bear encounter.

Some final thoughts. By my calculations, even under current regulations,
only about 40-50 miles of the 2,650 mile PCT is through areas in which an
approved bear canister must be used. Even there (SEKI and Yosemite) there
are bear boxes available in a few areas.

Finally, I strongly encourage you not to sleep with your food. Stay alive
so that you can continue to contribute to pct-l.

Happy trails.

tom

Thomas A. Cohen

mail:
38 Miller Ave. #488
Mill Valley, CA 94941

office:
475 Gate Five Rd., suite 211
Sausalito, CA 94965

p: (415) 777-1997
f:  (415) 777-1990