Backcountry Forum
Backpacking & Hiking Gear

Backcountry Forum
Our long-time Sponsor - the leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear
 
 
 

Amazon.com
Backpacking Forums
---- Our Gear Store ----
The Lightweight Gear Store
 
 WINTER CAMPING 

Shelters
Bivy Bags
Sleeping Bags
Sleeping Pads
Snow Sports
Winter Kitchen

 SNOWSPORTS 

Snowshoes
Avalanche Gear
Skins
Hats, Gloves, & Gaiters
Accessories

 ULTRA-LIGHT 

Ultralight Backpacks
Ultralight Bivy Sacks
Ultralight Shelters
Ultralight Tarps
Ultralight Tents
Ultralight Raingear
Ultralight Stoves & Cookware
Ultralight Down Sleeping Bags
Ultralight Synthetic Sleep Bags
Ultralight Apparel


the Titanium Page
WM Extremelite Sleeping Bags

 CAMPING & HIKING 

Backpacks
Tents
Sleeping Bags
Hydration
Kitchen
Accessories

 CLIMBING 

Ropes & Cordage
Protection & Hardware
Carabiners & Quickdraws
Climbing Packs & Bags
Big Wall
Rescue & Industrial

 MEN'S APPAREL 

Jackets
Shirts
Baselayer
Headwear
Gloves
Accessories

 WOMEN'S APPAREL 

Jackets
Shirts
Baselayer
Headwear
Gloves
Accessories

 FOOTWEAR 

Men's Footwear
Women's Footwear

 CLEARANCE 

Backpacks
Mens Apparel
Womens Apparel
Climbing
Footwear
Accessories

 BRANDS 

Black Diamond
Granite Gear
La Sportiva
Osprey
Smartwool

 WAYS TO SHOP 

Sale
Clearance
Top Brands
All Brands

 Backpacking Equipment 

Shelters
BackPacks
Sleeping Bags
Water Treatment
Kitchen
Hydration
Climbing


 Backcountry Gear Clearance

Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#194302 - 03/17/16 01:26 AM Ursack or Lighter1?
BrRabbit Offline
member

Registered: 03/15/16
Posts: 58
Loc: Milwaukee, WI
For starters - I live in the Midwest and we aren't required to carry any bear containers. So I don'tcare about Ursack being approved or not approved.


a) Ursack - lighter & flexible in the pack & cheaper.
b) Lighter1 - protects food better, lid can be used as a cook pot and as deep frying pan, and one can use it as a camp chair.

I'm leaning to Lighter1, but I wanted Ursack for quite sometime in the past (and I don't need a new pot, nor a camp chair - plenty of trees here in Wisconsin)...

Decisions/decisions.

Top
#194308 - 03/17/16 11:44 AM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BrRabbit]
BZH Offline
member

Registered: 01/26/11
Posts: 1189
Loc: Madison, AL
First: I grew up in the UP and never use a bear can there. Even in the Porcupine Mountains where bears get about as thick as anywhere in the Midwest.

Second: Now that I live CA, many of the places I go require bear containers.

I currently own a Lighter1. I really wanted an Ursack for quite some time, but the more I've looked into it, the less of a good idea I think they are. Even if Ursack works as advertise (I've seen quite a few reports of failure) in the end your food is going to be ruined. Additionally, with a bear gnawing and gumming the bag and your food it is not clear the bear will not receive a food award for his trouble. In the end, that is what you are trying to do: prevent bears from associating people with food.

Top
#194309 - 03/17/16 12:03 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BZH]
BZH Offline
member

Registered: 01/26/11
Posts: 1189
Loc: Madison, AL
For the Lighter1:


I did ask Lighter1 about using their pan as a fry pan, but they never replied. It is possible you will warp the pan using it this way, but it doesn't seem like a huge risk to me since the pan is made out of fairly metal. Other issues are the steep side might make it difficult to use a spatula and sticking/cleaning since it is nonstick. I did plan to try mine as a frying pan, but the recent trips I have been on haven't lent themselves to that.

The Lil Sammi is a real nice size for a weekend trip and a much better form factor than the BearVault. I think the way they report weights on there website is a bit deceptive. Even at its actual weights it is a pretty good bear cannister.

Here the stats for my Lil Sammi:

canister = 20.85 oz
cap/pot = 6.40 oz
handle = 0.90 oz

total bear canister = 28.20 oz

pot lid = 2.20 oz

Top
#194314 - 03/17/16 04:07 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BZH]
OregonMouse Offline
member

Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6799
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
The older Ursacks did have their problems. The newer S29 version that was approved last year certainly stood up to extra grizzly bear testing (it was even left in the pen with the "testers" for an extra hour). Of course, despite being approved by the Grizzly Bear people, it has not been approved by the national parks in the Sierra and probably never will be. It's thus moot for those who backpack in the Sierra. IMHO, Sierra bears are definitely smarter than your average bear! But I'd certainly take it instead of my Bearikade (which is NOT IGBC approved, although it is approved for the Sierra) to grizzly bear country.

I bought an S29 last fall (with a 20% off coupon from REI), and it's definitely stouter than the old ones.
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey

Top
#194319 - 03/17/16 08:05 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BZH]
BrRabbit Offline
member

Registered: 03/15/16
Posts: 58
Loc: Milwaukee, WI
I normally just leave my food in a plastic bag just by the fire for a night, and never had a problem so far.
Generally I do not think it's the brightest idea though, besides I am appreciating the ease of leaving the plastic can and being sure no critters (mice too) will steal the food from me.

On one hand, I don't want to add 2 pounds to my weight. On another - if I could eliminate my pot (replace it with the lid), and could use the canister itself as a chair...

The Ursack, on the other hand, is not adding any weight to my pack, but it's not really giving me that nice hard shell of convenience.

So, I'm really on the fence between these 2 guys.

Top
#194338 - 03/18/16 01:38 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BrRabbit]
BrianLe Offline
member

Registered: 02/26/07
Posts: 1149
Loc: Washington State, King County
What in specific are you trying to protect your food from? I.e., are bears a significant issue, or is it more about rodents, racoons, crows, that sort of thing?

If not bears, then consider either the Ratsack or the Ursack Minor.

I have an older type Ursack Minor --- the newer one is listed at a higher weight than mine, so perhaps is tougher --- but FWIW I've had no issues with anything getting into the older one either. In addition to being lighter weight than a standard Ursack it's also more flexible material, a little easier to work with and just collapse to pretty low volume when not used (a standard Ursack only collapses so much).

For most people owning both a bear-proof AND a lighter rodent-proof container would be overkill. In my case, add on some hard sided canisters too and it gets a little silly --- but nice sometimes to be able to pick the best tool for the job as well.
_________________________
Brian Lewis
http://postholer.com/brianle

Top
#194341 - 03/18/16 02:41 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BrianLe]
BrRabbit Offline
member

Registered: 03/15/16
Posts: 58
Loc: Milwaukee, WI
Well, I don't like to share my food with no one, unless he shares his booze with me first. Bears and mice, they don't have no booze, so I don't like to share my food with them in particular.

So yes, there's bear presence in Northern Wisconsin woods, black bears, not grizzlies.

Top
#194371 - 03/20/16 11:54 AM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BrRabbit]
wandering_daisy Offline
member

Registered: 01/11/06
Posts: 2865
Loc: California
Are you implying that there are no trees where you backpack? Proper hanging works well if you have trees. My hanging system is a 50-foot length of parachute cord, one mini-biner, and I have sewn a small rip-stop bag with tabs to put a rock inside. I have never been very successful at tying a rock on the end of my cord that stays put for the numerous times it takes me to throw the line over a limb. I counter-balance and have a little hook on my trekking pole that helps me get it down. I consider my bear hanging cord as extra cord too. I cut some off if I need it for extra tent string, etc. I have also used the hanging cord to lower or raise my pack if I have to climb over short cliffs. Having extra cord is actually very handy.

The Ursack does weigh something - about 8 oz. The hanging gear weighs about 4-5 oz. My Bearikade weighs 1 lb 15 oz - effectively one and a half pounds when you consider I do not have to bring a food bag, hanging gear etc. A more difficult consideration with the bear can is carrying it. You just cannot get the weight distributed very well and it is stiff and hard. And it just does not fit well in a smaller pack. It is also expensive enough that I cannot afford to have multiple sizes so have only the Weekender. For all its faults, I tend to go with the bear can more often, even when not required, because it is just easier to use.

Top
#194380 - 03/20/16 01:30 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: wandering_daisy]
bobito9 Offline
member

Registered: 01/25/08
Posts: 408
I like that idea of a bag with a tab to put the rock in for a hang! Also the hook on the trekking pole: I guess that would get me a total of about 10 ft reach off the ground, enough to grab a hanging loop off a bag. My problem for a few years now is that I have had a rotator cuff problem and have had trouble throwing rocks, so the cannister became easier for me, despite the weight. However, I just had shoulder surgery, so maybe I'll be hanging more. Counterbalancing does seem the proper way to go, but it's tricky...and I always worry I'll get my food stuck up there and not be able to get it down. I had a few close calls there. It's definitely one of those skills that is good to practice in advance, rather than try it out at the end of a long, exhausting day of backpacking smile I have thought about tying a little "tail" of floss or thread to hang down from one of the counter-balanced bags, with the theory being that a bear wouldn't be so able to grasp it, but I don't know how well it would work.

Top
#194382 - 03/20/16 02:10 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: bobito9]
bluefish Offline
member

Registered: 06/05/13
Posts: 680
I have thought about tying a little "tail" of floss or thread to hang down from one of the counter-balanced bags, with the theory being that a bear wouldn't be so able to grasp it, but I don't know how well it would work. [/quote]

Teaching bears how to floss, your dentist must have trained you well. grin
_________________________
Charlie

Top
#194384 - 03/20/16 03:02 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: bluefish]
bobito9 Offline
member

Registered: 01/25/08
Posts: 408
well, it's either that or start packing in pudding so that toothless bears have something to eat!

Top
#194420 - 03/21/16 09:13 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: wandering_daisy]
BrRabbit Offline
member

Registered: 03/15/16
Posts: 58
Loc: Milwaukee, WI
Originally Posted By wandering_daisy
Are you implying that there are no trees where you backpack?

...

For all its faults, I tend to go with the bear can more often, even when not required, because it is just easier to use.


Same here. I own a BV500 and know what to expect from a canister. And I am too lazy to do proper bear hang sufficient to prevent my bag from a real bear encounter.

I really split in this decision process. One day - I want Lighter1 (for its pot/frying pan mostly!), another - I tell myself I already have a nice pot and don't need new one and weight savings are quite tangible.

I am trying to get input from Lighter1 users - are they happy with their purchase or not... Because all Ursack users are very happy with theirs.

Top
#194423 - 03/21/16 11:58 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BrRabbit]
OregonMouse Offline
member

Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6799
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
Of course, the Ursack doesn't have a frying pan!
lol

I don't know anything about the Lighter 1 frying pan, but if I'm going to fry food while out in the wilds, I want a high quality fry pan specificlly made for cooking!

The bear canister's advantage is that it makes a great seat!


Edited by OregonMouse (03/22/16 12:00 AM)
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey

Top
#194425 - 03/22/16 12:21 AM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: OregonMouse]
BrRabbit Offline
member

Registered: 03/15/16
Posts: 58
Loc: Milwaukee, WI
I googled a few videos from a guy who loves cooking in Lighter1 pan, both using it as a pot and as a frying pan. He seemed to be very excited about it - whole 10 (+/-, i did not count) videos with different recipes.

Top
#194427 - 03/22/16 12:26 AM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BrRabbit]
BrRabbit Offline
member

Registered: 03/15/16
Posts: 58
Loc: Milwaukee, WI
when in doubt, either buy both or none. patience is a virtue, a good deal is sweeter after waiting for long...

Top
#194491 - 03/24/16 12:41 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BrRabbit]
BrRabbit Offline
member

Registered: 03/15/16
Posts: 58
Loc: Milwaukee, WI
I nearly convinced myself to buy the Ursack. It's obvious - cheaper, lighter, bigger... Then I thought to myself, but I could use Lighter1 also as a table, or as a stand for my alcohol stove under my tarp if it rains and ground is soaked...

Another round of comparing them, analysis paralysis.


Edited by BrRabbit (03/24/16 12:43 PM)

Top
#194564 - 03/27/16 04:42 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BrRabbit]
DH024 Offline
newbie

Registered: 10/26/15
Posts: 5
Loc: Alberta, Canada
I have been a happy Ursack owner for a few years, and I doubt I will ever use a hard-sided cannister again. The lower weight and convenience of packing a bag vs cannister have me won over.

As far as reliability goes, the latest generation of Ursack bags are proven bear-resistant and certified by the IGBC, and there is actually growing evidence that these bags are actually more "bear-proof" than hard-sided canisters (see reports coming out of places like Yosemite where bears have broken dozens of canisters).

Some people still express their doubts about using the Ursack bag, but I would encourage people to ask advice from people who have actually used/owned both - in my circle of friends, I don't know a single person that favours carrying a cannister anymore.

Top
#194566 - 03/27/16 04:47 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: DH024]
OregonMouse Offline
member

Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6799
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
Depends on where you backpack. In the Sierra national parks, Olympic National Park, and some other jurisdictions, the Ursack is not allowed--hardsided canisters are required.

And remember that it's only the very recent Ursack S29 white model that is approved by the IGBC--the older versions (like my two from 2006) are definitely not approved anywhere and have a history of bears getting into them.


Edited by OregonMouse (03/27/16 08:16 PM)
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey

Top
#194567 - 03/27/16 07:22 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: OregonMouse]
DH024 Offline
newbie

Registered: 10/26/15
Posts: 5
Loc: Alberta, Canada
The OP was very clear that they are comparing the new Ursack based on its merits alone, not prescriptive requirements of certain jurisdictions. And I was very clear that I am speaking about the latest generation of Ursack bags.


Edited by DH024 (03/27/16 07:24 PM)

Top
#194568 - 03/27/16 08:15 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: DH024]
OregonMouse Offline
member

Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6799
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
My point is that there are still many places where the Ursack--even the model on the IGBC list--is illegal. It seems that each jurisdiction--National Park or National Forest--gets to decide what is legal and what isn't. None are required to follow the IGBC list. In the national parks of the Sierra Nevada, for instance, using an Ursack will not only get you a hefty fine but an escort out of the park. Using one in Olympic National Park, except in an site where there are still bear wires and you hang it like a regular bag, will also get you a fine. Unless the website for the specific park or forest states that your bear container must be on the IGBC approved list, it's best to call when planning a trip!

It's only two years that Ursack has been producing the IGBC approved model (April 2014 per the Ursack website). I keep running into people who think the older models are OK. That's why your mention of a "few years" triggered my comment.


Edited by OregonMouse (03/27/16 08:29 PM)
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey

Top
#194574 - 03/27/16 11:02 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: OregonMouse]
ndsol Offline
member

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 678
Loc: Houston, Texas
It's rather incongruous that the Ursack S29.3 is approved in North Cascades NP while just across the Salish Sea it is banned for use in Olympic NP.

Here is what Ursack posted on March 22nd:

Quote:
We have been promised, since November 2015, that a letter was coming from the Solicitor’s (Department of Interior lawyer) office concerning Ursack’s approval in Yosemite and three parts of Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Parks. Four months later, we are still waiting. We actually began seeking approval in October 2014 after we received IGBC certification. Apparently, some people in government think that confirming the approval of a bear bag in an election year is inappropriate. One official stated: “It is about a principle, not a specific product like Ursack.”


Government bureaucracy at its finest in almost a 1-1/2 year process to date.

Top
#194575 - 03/27/16 11:25 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: ndsol]
OregonMouse Offline
member

Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6799
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
It is a weird situation! The Sierra national parks seem to be dead set against the Ursack and have been for years. Of course their bears are smarter than the average… I haven't been anywhere else where bears rip cars apart when food is stored in them.

Olympic NP is a somewhat different situation. I talked to the head wilderness ranger five years ago. He claimed that Ursack (of course that's the older models) won't hold up either to pawing mountain goats or to the guerrilla raccoons on the coast. Also, ONP has no grizzly bears or (so far) any possibility of any, so they don't pay attention to the IGBC.

Another interesting thing I found out is that Grand Teton National Park requires IGBC-approved containers (remember that the Bearikade is not IGBC-approved). On the other hand, Yellowstone doesn't allow any canisters. You have to camp at an established site where bear-hanging cables are provided. Since the two parks are adjacent, this seems to be the height of weirdness. Or is it Yellowstone's hot water that makes the difference?

One issue some officials have with the Ursack is that it is more subject to user error than canisters because the user needs to tie knots just so. Officials where there are lots of green folks out backpacking for the first time are obviously not happy about user error issues.


Edited by OregonMouse (03/28/16 11:41 AM)
Edit Reason: Finish incomplete sentence in next to last paragraph
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey

Top
#194578 - 03/27/16 11:44 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: OregonMouse]
ndsol Offline
member

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 678
Loc: Houston, Texas
And of course there are no Mountain Goats in Glacier NP. grin


Top
#194580 - 03/27/16 11:53 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: ndsol]
OregonMouse Offline
member

Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6799
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
Doesn't Glacier also require camping in sites with hanging cables?
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey

Top
#194583 - 03/28/16 12:28 AM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: OregonMouse]
ndsol Offline
member

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 678
Loc: Houston, Texas
Yes, in many areas but, for example, the Nyack / Coal Creek camping zone doesn't.

Top
#194584 - 03/28/16 12:39 AM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BrRabbit]
Rick_D Offline
member

Registered: 01/06/02
Posts: 2939
Loc: NorCal
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).

Happy shopping,
_________________________
--Rick

Top
#194585 - 03/28/16 12:48 AM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: Rick_D]
BrianLe Offline
member

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.
_________________________
Brian Lewis
http://postholer.com/brianle

Top
#194586 - 03/28/16 01:26 AM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BrianLe]
Rick_D Offline
member

Registered: 01/06/02
Posts: 2939
Loc: NorCal
True that, I see low- or no-fee Garcia cans at most NPS and many NFS stations. Only downside: Garcia canister. eek

Cheers,
_________________________
--Rick

Top
#194590 - 03/28/16 08:24 AM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: Rick_D]
bluefish Offline
member

Registered: 06/05/13
Posts: 680
eek 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.


Edited by bluefish (03/28/16 10:38 AM)
_________________________
Charlie

Top
#194592 - 03/28/16 11:04 AM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: bluefish]
wandering_daisy Offline
member

Registered: 01/11/06
Posts: 2865
Loc: California
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.

Top
#194595 - 03/28/16 11:32 AM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BrianLe]
OregonMouse Offline
member

Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6799
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

Top
#194604 - 03/28/16 08:29 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BrRabbit]
wandering_daisy Offline
member

Registered: 01/11/06
Posts: 2865
Loc: California
I just looked at the specs for the Lighter1. OMG- it weighs a ton! Just for a cook pot? My cook pot and lid weigh 6 oz.

Top
#194607 - 03/29/16 12:31 AM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: wandering_daisy]
balzaccom Offline
member

Registered: 04/06/09
Posts: 2232
Loc: Napa, CA
Daisy

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.
_________________________
Check our our website: http://www.backpackthesierra.com/

Or just read a good mystery novel set in the Sierra; https://www.amazon.com/Danger-Falling-Rocks-Paul-Wagner/dp/0984884963

Top
#194611 - 03/29/16 12:33 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: wandering_daisy]
BrRabbit Offline
member

Registered: 03/15/16
Posts: 58
Loc: Milwaukee, WI
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.

Top
#194612 - 03/29/16 12:35 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: wandering_daisy]
BrRabbit Offline
member

Registered: 03/15/16
Posts: 58
Loc: Milwaukee, WI
Originally Posted By wandering_daisy

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.

Top
#194613 - 03/29/16 12:43 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BrRabbit]
wandering_daisy Offline
member

Registered: 01/11/06
Posts: 2865
Loc: California
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!!

Top
#194614 - 03/29/16 01:59 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: wandering_daisy]
BrRabbit Offline
member

Registered: 03/15/16
Posts: 58
Loc: Milwaukee, WI
Originally Posted By wandering_daisy
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).

Top
#194623 - 03/29/16 06:59 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: wandering_daisy]
BZH Offline
member

Registered: 01/26/11
Posts: 1189
Loc: Madison, AL
Originally Posted By wandering_daisy
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 smile

Top
#194647 - 03/30/16 11:04 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BZH]
OregonMouse Offline
member

Registered: 02/03/06
Posts: 6799
Loc: Gateway to Columbia Gorge
A better frying pan and an Ursack probably weigh less! (Unless you're going where Ursack is a no-no.)


Edited by OregonMouse (03/30/16 11:06 PM)
_________________________
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view--E. Abbey

Top
#194650 - 03/30/16 11:35 PM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: OregonMouse]
BrRabbit Offline
member

Registered: 03/15/16
Posts: 58
Loc: Milwaukee, WI
Don't forget also a camp chair...

Top
#194664 - 03/31/16 10:17 AM Re: Ursack or Lighter1? [Re: BrRabbit]
BrRabbit Offline
member

Registered: 03/15/16
Posts: 58
Loc: Milwaukee, WI
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.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Shout Box

Highest Quality Lightweight Down Sleeping Bags
 
Western Mountaineering Sleeping Bags
 
Lite Gear Talk - Featured Topics
Backcountry Discussion - Featured Topics
Make Your Own Gear - Featured Topics
Featured Photos
Spiderco Chaparral Pocketknife
David & Goliath
Also Testing
Trip Report with Photos
Seven Devils, Idaho
Oat Hill Mine Trail 2012
Dark Canyon - Utah
Who's Online
0 registered (), 257 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Noodles, McCrary, DanyBacky, Rashy Willia, WanderBison
13240 Registered Users
Forum Links
Disclaimer
Policies
Site Links
Backpacking.net
Lightweight Gear Store
Backpacking Book Store
Lightweight Zone
Hiking Essentials

Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:

Backcountry Forum
 

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.!
 
 

Since 1996 - the Original Backcountry Forum
Copyright © The Lightweight Backpacker & BackcountryForum