Personal opinion, of course, but I think it is a fair test because it takes account of user error. If you have a product, maybe it works when used perfectly and maybe it doesn't, but you know that a lot of users are not going to use it correctly, do you test it under perfect conditions? Ursack presumably has done what it can to try to teach folks how to use it properly, and yet a lot of folks don't (or can't) tie the knot properly; perhaps fail to use a liner when they should; and don't anchor it properly. Until or unless Ursack can get its product to the point that it is consistently used properly in the field, seems to me that you have to test in a way that accounts for the numerous errors that people make.
Using a bear canister/sack is, after all, not JUST about protecting food. It is also about saving bears. A fed bear, as they say, is a dead bear. I, personally, like the fact that the wild is still wild, and that I sometimes see (very shy) black bears scurrying way when hiking the Sierra. The stories of Yosemite euthanizing repeat offender bears, who have successfully obtained human food and keep coning back for more, are positively chilling. So I support the need to approve only those bear canister/systems that work consistently in the field rather than just for the few. If/when Ursack engineers its bag to account better for user error, that's when they should get approval, and not before. IMHO.
