I find these annual Ursack discussions tiresome. The design is flawed at the core and as long as a bear can get even a small amount of crushed food through holes or the opening, the bag concept has to be considered a failure. I don't want bears hanging around my camp trying for hours to lick some milk powder and Gatorade from my Ursack just because they keep getting a small tease taste of it through some tiny openings as they crush up the contents.
I have seen bears completely ignore my Bearikades and walk right up to our backpacks to sniff through the pockets to see if we forgot to take out some goodies, and then move on, 30 seconds later. That is what the whole food reward thing is all about and if they learn these canisters are a waste of energy, they leave you and your camp alone.
I recall sleepless nights in the 80s when we had food hanging on questionable trees, and bears came almost every night to test our hanging skills. These nights were no fun, and even though they made for good campfire stories, I prefer to go to sleep knowing my food is 100% safe and no critter will get it's little or big claws into my pop tarts. A bag tied to a tree stump does not provide that security for me, no matter how strong the fabric (what about above tree line? that alone is a non-starter for me, as I camp high a lot and I have seen bears cross high passes in summer).
I own 5 canisters of three different types and never had one even closely examined by a bear. In fact, the number of bears coming into my camp has dropped from almost every other night in the 80s to once every 2-3 weeks in recent years. When they do come into camp nowadays, they mostly sniff around backpacks and cooking gear, but walk right past the cans.
Canisters are working, and the whole debate about the Ursack is mostly driven by selfish ultralight inspired hikers who feel they are better than the average Joe on the trail and can deal with the risks because it saves them a few more ounces from their lightweight loads. A large percentage of PCT hikers willfully ignore canister rules where required in the Sierra, and the rest of the tend to follow the rule only to "please the rangers." This is in part driven by prolific long distance hikers like Andrew Skurka who encourage this behavior with statements like
But, I ask, are canisters really necessary in order to protect your food, protect the bear, and protect the next backcountry user? I would argue, “No.”
...
I do not carry a canister to protect my food, the bears, or my fellow backcountry user—I can do those things without a one. Instead, I carry one in order to protect myself from backcountry rangers, who could fine me if I’m caught without one.
- see his
Bear Canister Basics page. Everyone should just master the "bear hang" - sure, show me where to hang my food on Evolution Lake.
Hikers with this "I know better" attitude are selfish and simply don't care about the overall long term impact on how bears behave if there are just a handful of extra food reward events. When somebody others look up to states that it is "unfortunate" that the Ursack is not approved, citing only its 12 ounce weight advantage over canisters in their comments about it, it is no surprise others who look up to these hikers will not carry canisters either.
When did lightweight hiking become more important than doing the right thing in the wilderness to keep it wild? I can't wrap my head around what goes through the minds of hikers who need to push their "base weight" down to some ridiculously low numbers - what for? This culture of pushing extremes just doesn't make sense to me. What are we to gain from doing an extra mile a day compared to losing sleep or worse, all our food to a bear?
