If you don't need a canister, a soft container--whether critter-resistant or properly hung pedestrian stuffsack--is orders of magnitude easier to fill, pack and tote than a rigid canister. Canisters are not easy to match to backpacks and likewise, not easy to pack other gear around.
I use all of the above and never haul a canister where not required, preferring soft containers. The potential shortcoming of this approach is it requires owning more gear than that mythical One Perfect Container (which can only exist in a narrow range of circumstances).
Registered: 02/26/07
Posts: 1149
Loc: Washington State, King County
Quote:
The potential shortcoming of this approach is it requires owning more gear than that mythical One Perfect Container (which can only exist in a narrow range of circumstances).
I think a not-so-mythical one near-perfect container for many people might be an Ursack, with the idea of renting a canister for the limited number of times that a person backpacks where they're required.
My experience in national parks that require them is that they often have canisters for loan or rental at the same backcountry office where you have to go anyway to get your permit and perhaps work out your specific campsites.
The upside is that's the face a bear makes when they see it's a Garcia. Mine withstood some bruin soccer. It took very little time for the bear to abandon it. The good thing is I hadn't put many stickers on it, now, my decorations would be scratched up. Companies might stop sending free stickers if they knew such abuse took place! Consistency is good with park bears- Garcia = failure to acquire food for habituated bears. Clear canisters make it very convenient to see what's in them. Are bears (and other omnivorous critters) blind? There has been cars broken into along the Blue Ridge Parkway . We camped on Mt. Mitchell on the North Carolina section a few days after a car was severely damaged by a bear. We also were visited and underwent a campsite inspection. Huffing and sniffing a few feet from your face is a little unnerving. We passed, but sleep became just a little harder to get. In some situations, hanging is not going to be possible. Mt. Mitchell was one- you hung your food in the rafters of the restrooms that were built of stone with heavy doors. The forest is wind stunted hemlocks a cub could climb or pull over. I have the same situation in many places I go. For me, I don't want to have something a animal can get a grasp on. They'll spend more time and get more imprinted to human food sources; struggling with a problem they can sink their teeth into . One of the main reasons I've been drawn to wild areas all my life is the "wildlife" and I'll do all that I can to not bring further harm to them or their environment. Not to say sacks won't work, proper methods need to be employed, though. Unfortunately for bears, humans tend to be far lazier and seemingly dumb.
BZH already stated my philosophy very clearly, food protection is for the animals benefit, not so much ours. When confronted with the socio/religious argument of stewardship vs. dominion, I'll carry the extra weight. It's becoming increasingly obvious on many levels the majority of NPS biologists feel the same way. Leave No Trace includes how you effect the animals in their environment.
It would be much easier to use a bear can if pack manufacturers would just design their packs with that in mind. I am in the market for a pack and want to carry the can horizontally and MOST packs in my size, will not accommodate this. Carrying the can vertically not only takes up most room, it distributes the weight in a way that adds a lever arm to the weight, and is so stiff that unless you have one of those large heavy packs with super back padding, you can feel the stiffness. Tying a loaded bear can on the top of an internal frame pack is difficult. My loaded Bearikade weighs up to 15 pounds, is very slick and difficult to tie down securely. Another method is to pack the food inside your pack in stuff sacks and tie the empty can on the top of the pack, then put the food back in the can when you get into camp. I can securely tie my bear can to the extension bar of my external frame Kelty.
Bottom line: Bear cans simply are not compatible with UL backpacking!
On the up side, bear cans are by far the easiest to use. Inevitably I hang my food and then discover I left out an item, have to take it down, re-hang. In my experience, opening and closing a bear can is a lot easier than tying the knots on an Ursack.
For larger groups, solar powered electric fences are another option. I recall that these weigh about 5-6 pounds. With a group of 6, group gear can be distributed so each person effectively only carries an extra pound.
Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6800
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
I agree with Brian, because I very seldom backpack in national parks. If I do, it's in Olympic National Park which rents canisters (including some Bear Vaults) very reasonably ($3 last time I looked) and, most important, has outside bins to return them after hours.
I regularly use the Ursack (and I now have the S29) because I can't throw (hurts shoulder joints) and never could hit the side of a barn even when inside it! I've never had anything get into even my old ones, although I found evidence that birds and mice tried!
I did buy a Bearikade back when we were visiting the Olympic NP beach every year (and before I found out it wasn't on the IGBC list). I have used it only twice and will probably end up selling it.
BTW, REI now carries the Ursack S29. I got mine last fall. With their 20% off coupon and free shipping, it's cheaper than getting it directly from Ursack.
So what you buy really depends on where you regularly backpack and your individual quirks and desires. But, as I've stressed here, always check the specific rules for your destination!
Just remember that bears (strongly motivated by food) learn faster than most people, so what works now may change in a year or two!
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey
I load my Bearvault into my Go-Lite 50 pack vertically. In the bottom of the pack is my sleeping bag and sleeping pad. On top of that goes the bear can, with our tent vertically right next to it. Then I stuff everything from clothes, towels, fishing rod, and on top and around those two items, which more or less holds them tightly in place.
The weight seems to be reasonable centered, and it is right up against my back.
But then I always hike with my wife, and she carries the cook kit. If I had to carry that, too, it would complicate things.
I believe Lighter1 pot (which is very wide and efficient with alcohol stoves) + lid + handle weights about the same - 9oz. The canister itself (without mentioned above items) weights just about as much as Ursack with hard insert. So, its weight is very reasonable.
On the up side, bear cans are by far the easiest to use. Inevitably I hang my food and then discover I left out an item, have to take it down, re-hang. In my experience, opening and closing a bear can is a lot easier than tying the knots on an Ursack.
Good observation. I like snacking all the time before the bed time.
The Lighter1 "Big Daddy" sold at REI weighs 2#13oz (total weight). My Bearikade weighs 1#14oz for a similar capacity. The Ursack weighs considerably less.
Balazacom- A BearValut may fit fine in a larger man's pack, but have your wife carry it in her pack, or a woman's small (my size) PLUS cook gear, at it IS a problem. The weight distribution is NOT as efficient as putting the food sack up against your back and then fill the remaining half of the pack with lighter clothing. If you use the rectangular packing cubes for food you can quite efficiently get that weight really close to your center of gravity. It does make a difference. It seems to be the assumption of pack manufacturers that a small woman always goes with a big guy who carries the bear can! Not True!!
The Lighter1 "Big Daddy" sold at REI weighs 2#13oz (total weight). My Bearikade weighs 1#14oz for a similar capacity. The Ursack weighs considerably less.
I was actually thinking about the smaller one. While it has lesser capacity, it's a good size for an overnighter or a weekender, and if you want longer distances - I'd consider supplementing smaller Lighter1 with Ursack, rather than buying a big one (Lil' Sami gives you all the benefits of having a canister, while Ursack could be folded and compacted once food is gone).
The Lighter1 "Big Daddy" sold at REI weighs 2#13oz (total weight). My Bearikade weighs 1#14oz for a similar capacity. The Ursack weighs considerably less. ...
You are not really comparing like markets. The Lighter1's weight (with pot) is equivalent to a Bearvault and costs a similar amount. Bearikade is much lighter, but it is much more expensive and not IGBC approved. Lighter1's lil' Sami weighs comparable to the Bearikade Scout, costs much, much less, and has IMHO a better form factor (slimmer). It is smaller than the scout, but, again IMHO, the perfect size for a weekend solo trip.
The pot is heavy, but it was designed to stand up to a grizzly bear
I did buy the Lighter1, if for no other reason, but to be able to evaluate it in person and be able to say later "I own(ed) one and liked/didn't like".
To properly evaluate a piece of gear, one needs time and a few outings, but once I am ready - I'll write my thoughts about it.
Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:
Affiliate Disclaimer: This forum is an affiliate of BackcountryGear.com, Amazon.com, R.E.I. and others. The product links herein are linked to their sites. If you follow these links to make a purchase, we may get a small commission. This is our only source of support for these forums. Thanks.!