Ursack Update

2008-04-06T16:08:00.000-07:00

Ursack has reluctantly, but resolutely, filed suit against the Sierra Interagency Black Bear Group (SIBBG) asking the court to reverse what we believe is SIBBG’s arbitrary and capricious decision to withdraw approval of the Ursack S29 Hybrid. We are joined in this suit by some representative backpackers including: a former Tuolomne Meadows ranger, a college chemistry professor, and the holder of the record for the fastest self-contained female solo of the John Muir Trail. There is no way to predict, at this point, when or how the case will be resolved, but it is at least possible that Ursacks will once again be allowed in the restricted areas of the Sierra this summer.

The lawsuit does not seek money. Instead, it asks that Ursack be evaluated objectively, and that backpackers’ needs be factored into any decision that prohibits the use of Ursack or any other product. SIBBG’s decision to ban Ursack was based on the allegation of 6 failures. There is no such thing as a bear proof container—all canisters have failed at one time or another. SIBBG refuses to produce evidence of these alleged Ursack failures, but we know from SIBBG’s written description that in two cases bears got no food, and in two cases the problem was user error—the Ursacks were not torn and could be effectively used again today. Because we don’t have the evidence, we don’t know what happened in the other two incidents.

There is an analogy is to auto crash testing. The National Highway Safety Traffic Administration (NHSTA), a federal agency, tests cars for rollover resistance. It does so because nearly 10,000 people are killed each year as a result of rollovers. The test they devised was based on input from a variety of scientific sources, and the results of that test are a rating system from one to five stars for each vehicle. There is no requirement that manufacturers meet a certain standard. Rather, the government relies on consumers to protect their own interests once the rollover information is provided.

By contrast, SIBBG is a federal advisory group that tests containers for bear resistance. It does so in order to minimize bear-human conflict. The test they devised is largely subjective. In recent memory, no Sierra camper has been killed by a black bear. By far the biggest reason bears get human food is not failed canisters, it is campers’ inability to store all their food in a single canister. But SIBBG does not test canisters for practicality, it tests them for impregnability. This is a little like a stage coach company in the old West touting the strength of its safe while ignoring the fact the that the safe can’t hold all the gold.

There is not enough space here to detail all of the arbitrary and capricious decisions SIBBG has made over the years with regard to Ursack. We hope to resolve this quickly and amicably so that backpackers can use the equipment they want, while giving adequate protection to bears.

2008-01-03T11:21:00.000-08:00

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.

2007-05-11T10:49:00.000-07:00

SIBBG has conditionally approved the S29 Hybrid for use in the restricted areas of the Sierra for 2007. "Conditionally approved" means that approval can be withdrawn if there are failures. All models of Ursacks can be used in the non-restricted areas. SIBBG has created an excellent map of the areas, complete with the locations of food lockers at http://sierrawildbear.org/foodstorage/map032107.pdf

2007-05-02T13:38:00.001-07:00

The Sierra Interagency Black Bear Group (SIBBG) has tentatively agreed to conditionally approve the Ursack S29 hybrid (with aluminum liner) for use in the restricted areas of the Sierra for 2007. SIBBG has also decided not to test the V27, and therefore the V27 will not be approved.

The details of the conditional approval of the S29 hybrid have not been firmed up yet. Until that is done, we cannot say for certain what will happen. As soon as we know, we will post the information here.

tom

2007-05-02T13:38:00.000-07:00

2007-03-09T15:40:00.000-08:00

We met with a number of Sierra Interagency Black Bear Group (SIBBG) members and others on March 8, 2007. We made a presentation to them which stressed the fact that our new Spectra (S29) Ursack is identical to the one they tested extensively and successfully in 2004. There are many hundreds of S29s in circulation, but we were unable to manufacture them for the last two years because the military took all the Spectra fabric. The Ursack S29 has a perfect record in preventing bears from getting food rewards in the Sierra. Despite the fact that the S29 tested well and has a perfect record, SIBBG wants to test it again in Yosemite in 2007, and will not approve it for use anywhere until it passes that test. The V21 (Vectran bags sold prior to August 18, 2006) are no longer approved. The V27, which is 27.5% stronger than the V21, has never been tested, nor has it had any reported failures. Until we hear further details as to the probable timing and duration of the Yosemite test(s), we are not sure how we will proceed--other than to continue to sell both the S29 and V27 with a warning that they are not approved for SIBBG restricted areas.

In preparing for our meeting with SIBBG, we read a very interesting and thorough study by Kate McCurdy--a former Yosemite (bear) ranger. This was Kate's master's thesis. Her thesis compiled and analyzed survey results from 568 Yosemite backpackers. The backpackers were, by a large majority, supportive of Park canister requirements. But, nearly 40% were unable to fully comply with those requirements and had to leave some food/toiletries unprotected on one or more nights. Among the significant factors preventing full compliance were the weight and bulk of hard sided canisters. "In roughly half" of the (108) bear encounters reported by survey respondents in 2005, bears got "substantial food rewards." In other words, there were roughly 50 incidents in Yosemite alone in which bears got food rewards even though the vast majority of campers were using approved canisters. It was not that those canisters failed, it was that the campers were unable or unwilling to fully comply with regulations. This number from Yosemite absolutely dwarfs the amount of food rewards bears got from failed canisters anywhere in the entire Sierra, whether those canisters were made by Ursack or other manufacturers.

If SIBBG's goal is to prevent bears from getting food rewards, it would seem their time would be better spent addressing the non-compliance issue and less time re-testing the Ursack S29, a product which due to its light weight and compressibility, makes it easier for backpackers to do the right thing.

2007-01-10T13:00:00.000-08:00

The status of the Ursack Hybrid in the restricted areas of the Sierra is uncertain for 2007. I will know more after meeting with SIBBG (Sierra Interagency Black Bear Group) on March 8, 2007. Here is what I know now. By the end of January 2007 we will be manufacturing Ursack from Spectra (green) fabric. This is the same material we used a couple of years ago, but then were unable to acquire because the military took it all. We now can get it again. SIBBG extensively tested Ursacks made with this fabric in the summer of 2004 (see Ursack update November 2004) and found (after at least 20 wild bear encounters) that it performed well. Real world experience has borne this out. Many of our customers purchased our aluminum liner to retrofit their Spectra Ursacks, and there has not been a reported failure of such bags anywhere in the world. Even without the aluminum liner, we are not aware of the failure of these bags anywhere in the last few years. A few years ago a Spectra bag owned by a boy scout troop had a small hole chewed in it by a bear. It is unlikely that this would have happened had the Ursack been lined with our aluminum insert. Other than that single incident, the Spectra Ursack has performed exceptionally well.

The Vectran (yellow) Ursacks sold before August 18, 2006 have not done as well. We are aware of five bags that were chewed through in four separate incidents. All occurred within a relatively small area of Yosemite. There were no other Vectran Hybrid failures anywhere else in the world, and there were reports of successful bear encounters in the Sierra and elsewhere. After August 18, 2006 we started shipping a heavier duty Vectran (27 X 27). There have been no reported failures of that Ursack. Although we do not have more than anecdotal proof, it seems that the Vectran bag may be more rodent resistant than the Spectra bag even though it is not as effective against bears.

For 2007 we will offering both the Vectran (27 X 27) and Spectra bags. The price of Spectra fabric has increased greatly, and our prices on the Spectra bag have also increased. We will post information here and elsewhere on our website as soon as we learn of SIBBG's response.

2006-09-21T11:41:00.000-07:00

Apparently my previous post has caused some confusion. The Ursack Hybrid is still conditionally approved for use in Yosemite and all other SIBBG areas. There has been no change in approval status--although there have been lots of false rumors. The percentage of torn Ursacks, as compared to the number sold, is miniscule--less than 1/4 of 1%. The only fabric damage that I am aware of occured in approximately the same area of Yosemite during the approximately the same time period. It could have been a single bear. There has been no reported damage to either the retrofitted Ursacks (i.e. the green Spectra bags retrofitted with aluminum) or the newer Vectran bags sold since around August 18, 2006 (beginning with about order #9193).

2006-08-18T16:09:00.000-07:00

It pains me to have to write this, because we thought we had come up with a nearly perfect bear proof product. Although the Ursack Hybrid has done extremely well, we have learned from an incident in Yosemite that the bottom of the bag may be vulnerable. We think it may be because the Vectran fabric has fewer filaments per inch than the Spectra we previously used (and is not currently available because of military demand). Coincidentally, the new Ursacks now shipping are made with a beefier Vectran that was not available before. We hope that solves the problem. Unfortunately, there is no really scientific way to test it. The Vectran we have been using was successfully tested by us at the zoo and by the SEKI rangers in the wild. Only real world camper experience tells the tale. Regardless, we stand 100% behind our warranty.

We are always searching for ways to make Ursack better, and are working on new ideas now to address the possible vulnerability of the Vectran bag. Until we get to the end of this summer season, there is no accurate way to determine if this vulnerability is a serious problem or not. Lots of our previous customers have bought the aluminum liner to add to their Spectra bags, and there have been no reports of any problems with that version of the hybrid.

What is really critical is the willingness of the Sierra rangers (and SIBBG in particular) to keep working with us. We all know that no bear canister is perfect. Just this week, I got an email from a park service employee in Tuolomne Meadows who reported the failure of a well known hard sided canister (NOT a Bear Vault) being used by a back country wilderness crew. I won't give the brand name because I don't have first hand knowledge, and would ask that all of you use the same restraint in reporting failures of any product. If SIBBG revokes the use of any product without the possibility of approving improved versions, it is the kiss of death because the Sierra is such a huge part of the market. We want to be sure that any decisions are made on verifiable facts, not rumors.

I welcome your input on ways to improve Ursack. You can email me directly at info@ursack.com.

2006-06-28T10:58:00.000-07:00

The news so far this summer is good. Lots of new customers and not a single reported problem with Ursack. There is some boring stuff to talk about--so here it is:

Delivery. We ship from San Diego. Generally, orders go out within 24 hours of receipt by USPS Priority Mail. We do not ship on weekends and alternate Fridays. You can check with the post office to see how long they expect delivery to take to your area--but the average is 2 to 3 days. Sometimes there is a delay in shipping because we are out of inventory, but that delay is usually minimal because Ursack is manufactured in San Diego by the same people who ship it. They have plenty of fabric and other components of Ursack on hand.

We have eliminated the overnight delivery option for now. We just could not guarantee that we would have Ursack ready to ship within a short time of receiving the order, and we don't like having disappointed customers. Because Priority Mail is so fast, overnight delivery only gains you a day or two at most.

Dealers. We have a hard time keeping an up to date dealer list on our website. And, because we had only a limited business last year due to our inability to source bullet proof fabric, we are still playing catch up on our dealer network. If you have a favorite store that you think ought to carry Ursack, please tell the store to contact us. Meanwhile, order on line. There is a 30 day return policy for unused Ursacks.

tom

2006-02-16T12:33:00.000-08:00

Many customers have asked whether older Ursacks may be retrofitted with the aluminum insert. Here is the answer from Harold Werner of SIBBG: "It does not matter whether they are using the Spectra (green) or the Vectran bag, just as long as it contains the heavy-duty insert. I consider the two materials interchangeable. It is the insert that makes the difference."

The older Kevlar Ursacks, which are yellow, have not been evaluated by SIBBG. It is extremely unlikely that such bags would be considered "conditionally approved" for the Sierra. Also, we have changed the construction of the bag itself since our early days with Kevlar, and the aluminum does not fit precisely. You will probably have to trim the aluminum with metal shears to make it fit right.

2005-10-27T12:22:00.000-07:00

AMAZING BUT TRUE: URSACK HYBRID CONDITIONALLY APPROVED FOR SIERRA.
The long winter of our discontent is over. The Sierra Interagency Black Bear Group (SIBBG) has unanimously approved the use of the Ursack Hybrid in the previously restricted ares of the National Parks and Forests in the Sierra: Yosemite, SEKI, Inyo, Devil's Postpile, Stanislaus. We have not heard from other areas that may not allow Ursack, but we anticipate that they will fall in line with SIBBG.

Specifically, this means that the Hybrid, which is the Ursack with our heavy duty aluminum liner, has been conditionally approved for use in those areas. Conditionally approved means that it has passed all zoo and wilderness testing by rangers, but still must successfully get through the summer of 2006 with actual use by campers. If we pass that test, then the Ursack Hybrid will have full approval. The difference to our customers is inconsequential since even containers that have received full approval can be later banned if bears figure out how to get into them.

The Ursack Hybrid weighs about 20 ounces and holds about 650 cubic inches. The aluminum liner is removable for use in areas where it is allowed.

2005-04-21T12:34:00.000-07:00

Ursack is honored to be included in the Extreme Textiles exhibit at the Cooper-Hewitt (Smithsonian) Design Museum in New York City running until October 2005. The New York Times review of the show (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/arts/design/15text.html) said:

"Lagniappe for campers: don't miss the Ursack bear-resistant food bag, claw- and tooth-proofed by virtue of its impenetrable fabric of woven polyethylene filament."

Unfortunately, we don't foresee being able to get more fabric before the Fall, if then. Meanwhile, we are working on some improvements for next year with the hope of SIBBG approval.

2004-11-09T16:38:00.000-08:00

November 8, 2004.

The Sierra Interagency Black Bear Group (SIBBG) conducted an exhaustive wilderness study of 15 Ursack TKOs in the summer of 2004. Despite numerous bear encounters, no bears or marmots were able to access food from an Ursack. SIBBG, through wildlife ecologist Harold Werner, produced a 20 page single spaced footnoted report accompanied by hundreds of photographs and field notes. The abstract from that report is reproduced below. In spite of Ursack's success in keeping bears from getting food, SIBBG refused to grant conditional approval for its use--primarily on the basis that there could be damage to trees and soil. Ursack has not yet determined how to respond.

Although Ursack is grateful for SIBBG's considerable effort in testing the TKO, the report must be read with the knowledge that SIBBG did not deploy the TKO in the same manner that campers are advised to: (1) SIBBG did not use the odor bag to mask odors--in fact the outside of the TKOs were smeared with bait in order to entice bears; and (2) SIBBG did not suspend the TKOs from tree branches, but instead tied the bags around tree trunks. This enabled bears to pull the TKOs to the ground where they could be easily stomped on and chewed. Ursack does not fault SIBBG for these testing techniques because they were trying to determine whether bears could chew through the TKOs. Had they masked odors or tied the TKOs to branches, the bears might never have attempted to gain access. IF ODOR BAGS HAD BEEN USED AS DIRECTED AND THE TKOs HAD BEEN TIED TO TREE BRANCHES (NOT TRUNKS), IT IS LIKELY THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERABLY LESS DAMAGE TO THE FOOD CONTENTS. PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND AS YOU READ THE ABSTRACT.

ASSESSMENT OF MODIFIED URSACK TKO on behalf of SIBBG dated September 28, 2004

ABSTRACT

The Ursack TKO was evaluated for adequacy to provide bear-resistant food storage and to assess potential resource effects associated with securing the Ursacks to trees. The Ursacks were tested using three different configurations (Ursack only, Ursack with Ursack vapor barrier, Ursack with aluminum insert) and three different backpacking cuisines to represent a range from very basic (dry food only) to two increasing levels of diversity that added snacks, liquid and finally some fresh produce. The baited bags were hung overnight or longer in areas with known bear problems, and the results were recorded and photo-documented. Three Ursacks were randomly selected from these test units (excluding those used with aluminum inserts) to test for cumulative damage by exposing them to a minimum of three more bear encounters. Three new units were used by the Inyo National Forest staff to test options for using the Ursack above treeline. One new bag was dedicated to testing the ability of the Ursack to resist marmot damage, and another was fitted with a transmitter to see how far bears might carry the bag if it was not secured properly. Bear staff were contacted in eight parks to learn of their requirements and experiences regarding the Ursack.

All of the Ursack TKO tested remained intact during the testing. The primary damage was small
micropunctures from the canines causing thread separation. Additional damage included some seams losing one layer of thread, pulled and lose threads, partial failure of grommets, abrasion, and formation of fuzz from tiny broken fibers. The bags continued to remain intact even after the cumulative damage testing though the density of micropunctures did increase and the bags did lose 0.7 to 1.9 % of their weight. The vapor barriers were punctured and some were severely damaged. Aluminum inserts became tightly wrapped around the food and some inserts were punctured. One was ripped into smaller pieces. Marmots were not able to penetrate the Ursack, but some small animal (believed to be a mouse) did chew a hole through the Ursack twice.

Food loss from the bags was evaluated by weighing the Ursacks and their contents before and after each test. Weight changed from a gain of 2.9% due to acquired dirt and absorbed moisture to a loss of 7.3% primarily from punctured containers of liquids. There were no significant differences in the weight change among the different configurations (bag vs bag and vapor barrier vs bag and aluminum insert), but significant differences in weight change did exist among the different cuisines (basic vs intermediate vs diverse). This was attributed to those Ursacks that contained fluids. Overall, loss of solid food appeared to be insignificant.
Most of the food in the bags was mutilated, and it acquired a foul smell. The aluminum inserts did improve the amount of food that survived intact, but the insert also created a safety hazard where it was punctured or ripped apart creating sharp edges or small pieces of sharp metal mixed in the mutilated food.

Most (89%) of the Ursacks could be untied from the trees at the end of the tests without using tools. Untying the bags that did not require tools took 23 to 161 sec., and up to 6 min. were needed to untie bags that eventually required a tool to loosen the knots.

Bears carried inadequately-secured Ursacks short distances suggesting that users should be able to locate most bags that might get carried off by bears. Distances carried during the four tests were 0.3m, 1.6 m, 5.8 m, and somewhere between 41 and 67 m.

The testing in rocky areas indicated that it was feasible to secure the Ursack in areas above timberline. However, the user will need to carry extra gear for that to be successful.
The bears efforts to break into the Ursacks generally caused some damage to the tree bark and to the soil. More damage was sustained by trees with a soft bark than those with a hard bark. However, some level of bark damage was found on every species (6 species) of tree involved in the testing. Eighty-five percent of the trees showed some bark damage on their first use as a mount for the Ursack. Some of the trees that were reused did appear to experience cumulative bark damage. Ninety-two percent of the test sites showed damage to the substrate at the test trees. This included removal of the litter and small vegetation leaving bare soil with a tilled appearance. The damage usually did not go all of the way around the tree but it extended outward 69 to 181 cm from the tree trunk.

Because of the stiffness in the fabric and force required to open and close the Ursack, an anticipated misuse of the Ursack might be people leaving it open around camp to facilitate getting snacks. Other errors might include leaving the Ursack unsecured when trees are not present, failing to tie an overhand knot by the cord lock if the bag is not snug to the tree, or failing to tie a figure eight knot to secure the Ursack to a tree.

Of the eight parks contacted, three permit (but not encourage) use of the Ursack for food storage. One park allows the Ursack to be used above 7,000 ft only, and four parks require use of foodstorage facilities provided. Some of those parks permit canisters.

As a bear-resistant bag, the Ursack TKO performed well. The testing relieved concerns about ability of the Ursack to remain intact and retain solid foods, even with multiple bear encounters, concerns about users being unable to untie the bag, concerns about the bag being carried off to become longterm wilderness trash, and concerns about being able to secure the bag where trees are absent. However, some resource and safety issues remain. The testing reenforced concerns about bark and soil damage, and the analysis generated concerns about safety and about the possibility of users dumping mutilated food in the wilderness rather than eat it or carry it out to a proper disposal facility. The safety issues include: 1) the bears efforts creating small sharp metal or plastic objects inside the Ursack that could get mixed into the food, 2) the chance of a user being injured when attempting to chase a bear from their Ursack to prevent their food from being mutilated, and 3) the remote possibility of rabies being transferred via saliva in a bag. It might be possible to mitigate these concerns with appropriate warnings and use restrictions.

2004-09-06T11:03:00.000-07:00

9/7/2004

Welcome to Ursack Update. All (or most) of the latest news from Ursack will appear here.

BAD NEWS--THE WAR PUTS URSACK TEMPORARILY OUT OF BUSINESS. We have sold out of Ursacks for the season, and are unbabe to produce more until we get more Spectra fabric. Our mill is not only unable to get more yarn, they can't even get a prediction on when it will be available. As far as we know, all the Spectra is being used for body armor by the military. We will try to have some seconds for sale, and we will also try to create some bags out of our existing remnants. It's always a good idea to hope for peace, but it turns out that peace is also good for business. PLEASE VOTE.

GOOD NEWS--BEAR TESTING. The new Ursack TKO has been doing well in bear tests conducted by wilderness officials. It was tested at the Grizzly Discovery Center in West Yellowstone in early August 2004, and survived 4 grizzlies over a 2 1/2 hour period. The grizzlies never got into the Ursack and the IGBC (Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee) is considering it for approval. As I previously wrote, the Sierra Interagency Black Bear Group (SIBBG) has created protocols for and agreed to an extensive wilderness testing program for the new TKO. Testing began in early July 2004 in Sequoia, Yosemite and Inyo, and the interim report was that none of the Ursacks had been breached. SIBBG's test is multifaceted, and is concerned with all kinds of possible impact from litter to bark damage. We are hopeful that this will ultimately lead to SIBBG approval. In the meantime, please read the regulations posted on our web site. There are many areas within Yosemite, SEKI and Inyo that the Ursack TKO can be used.

GOOD NEWS--REAL LIFE TESTS. The new Ursack TKO has (as far as we know) a perfect record in the wild. As of September 7, 2004, there have been no reported incidents of bears gaining access to or tearing the new Ursack. Beginning in June 2004, we changed the fabric we used in the TKO. It is still Spectra and it is still coated with the same green coating, but the denier (thickness) of the yarn is thicker. This increases the tear strength over previous models by about 40%. We have eliminated the fiberglass ripstop, which was there for protection from sharp toothed critters, not bears. The increased thickness will also be more effective against critters.

SUCCESS RATE OF THE OLDER SEAMLESS TKO. I am happy to report that the "seamless" TKO (with ripstop) sold from November 2002 to June 2004 has an almost flawless record in the wild. We had a single report of a wild bear damaged seamless TKO in 2003. That report came from one camper who had both of his TKOs torn by a single bear one night in the Adirondacks. Notably, he was not properly using his odor barrier bag. We recently saw a single TKO damaged in the Sierra in July 2004. The "seamless" TKO can be distinguished from the older model TKOs by the white (Spectra) thread and no bottom seam. The older models, which have been very successful but not perfect, have yellow (Kevlar) thread and a bottom seam. As noted above, our newest model has no ripstop. Regardless, nothing is bear "proof" and none of the reputable hard sided canister manufacturers claim perfection. We have a confirmed report from a Sierra ranger that a couple of hard sided canisters were broken by bears in 2004.

Please send us your stories of Ursack in the wild. Happy trails.

tom

Thomas A. Cohen
President
Ursack, Inc.
PO Box 5002
Mill Valley, CA 94942

tomcohen@bigfoot.com

2002-11-15T16:17:00.000-08:00

6/2/2003

Welcome to Ursack Update. All (or most) of the latest news from Ursack will appear here. Ignore the November date up above-- I can't get rid of it.

1. ODOR RESISTANT LINERS. Our new, exclusive to Ursack, odor resistant bag liners are now shipping with all new purchases of TKOs. Although these look like ordinary zip lock plastic bags custom sized for Ursack, they are not. These patented bags have thousands of times more odor resistance than a standard plastic bag. They provide 17,000 times more of an odor barrier than high density polyethlyene. Testing with dogs has produced phenomonal results so far. We will be selling replacement liners at 3 for $9.95. If ordered separately, shipping by mail will be $3.95. Shipping is free if ordered with an Ursack.

2. NEW BAG CONSTRUCTION. As a result of an unhappy bear/Ursack incident in the Adirondacks, we have changed the construction of our TKO. A bear there got into an Ursack TKO by essentially pulling the fabric out of a seam by its roots. The fabric did not tear, but the camper (who was, unfortunately for us, the editor of National Geographic Adventure Magazine) lost his food. We have done two things to try to prevent this in the future. New TKOs now have a much bigger seam allowance (longer roots), and all seams will be sewn with Spectra thread as opposed to Kevlar. It seems that while the Kevlar thread did not break, it did not hold the dissimilar Spectra fabric in place. Now our Spectra fabric TKOs will be sewn with Spectra thread, which should keep the roots in the ground--as it were.

3. PARK SERVICE DISPUTE. Our dispute with the rangers of Sequoia/Kings Canyon continues. In July 2002, we protested their arbitrary decision to ban Ursack TKO in some parts of the Park. The Regional Office of the National Park Service finally responded on December 10, 2002. In essence, the regional NPS response was to stand behind their rangers based on the theory that food can leak out of an 1/8" hole enough to provide a significant food reward for a bear. Our theory is that, even if this were true, the only bears willing to expend the energy necessary to get these crumbs are already food habituated, and that Ursack is not changing any behavior patterns. What's interesting is that the bear in our zoo test (the one they think we flunked) spent less than five minutes with Ursack before giving up--even though the bag had a quart of honey poured directly in to it, which by NPS theory could have been sucked out of the 1/8 Inch holes. Our newest video, on our web site, shows the entire active sequence of the zoo test. Only the boring parts are cut. We would like to think that bears need protection, but that back packers also have the right to make informed decisions as to what kind of food protection to use. We have retained an attorney to help us resolve the dispute, and hope that he can help the recalcitrant rangers see that backpackers have rights, too. In the meantime, please read the regulations posted on our web site. There are many areas within Yosemite, SEKI and Inyo that the Ursack TKO can be used. The fine in NPS areas for improper food storage is $150, but these may only be levied by the limited number of law enforcement rangers.

Please send us your stories of Ursack in the wild. Happy trails.

tom

Thomas A. Cohen
President
Ursack, Inc.
PO Box 5002
Mill Valley, CA 94942

tomcohen@bigfoot.com