Hiker Killed in Yellowstone

[Rex Clifton]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hiker-killed-grizzly-bear-yellowstone-national-park/story?id=32965459

Tragic.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[map man]

This was not in a remote part of the park. The grizzly attack took place on a trail popular as a day hike (Elephant Back Loop Trail), especially with people staying at Lake Village on the north shore of Yellowstone Lake.

[fiddlehead]

I wish the article would have stated whether he had bear spray or not.
But a griz with cubs is something to stay (far) away from.

[rocketsocks]

or their kill. Smell a dead animal, move away from the area, immediately. I don't like people poking in my food either.

[Offshore]

I wish the article would have stated whether he had bear spray or not.
But a griz with cubs is something to stay (far) away from.

One of the articles I read stated that he was not carrying bear spray and that he was from Montana and this was his third year working as a seasonal employee for a company that operates urgent care centers in the park. Hard to believe he could have been unaware of the potential danger of grizzlies.

[Marta]

Actually, if you live in the area, it's easy to be lulled into a false sense of security by the lack of bear encounters. At Two Medicine last weekend the campground host gave an impromptu talk (the regular speaker was late in arriving) in which he stated he had been hiking in Glacier for the last 64 years, except for a couple of years while he was in Vietnam. He had even spent six or eight years as the GNP bear management officer. In all that time, he has been bluff-charged twice and used bear spray twice. Does he carry spray with him 100% of the time when he goes out? Yes, he does.

He said a number of interesting things about bears.

First--he said grizzlies are way smarter than black bears.

Second--as part of his job, he would sit at vantage points and scan hiking trails with his binoculars to watch human-bear interactions. He would see bear feeding not far off a trail; observe hikers approaching; see the bear hear them and move away, still feeding; see the hikers pass; then see the bear move back close to the trail. He said bear bells are extremely ineffective in alerting bears to your presence compared to speaking, clapping, and calling out.

His personal practice when approaching a blind corner, rise beyond which you cannot see, or dense brush is to call out in a normal tone of voice and clap his hands. Five seconds later, do it again with your voice at the same volume. Five seconds later, do it again. The first call alerts the bear to your presence. The second and third allow the bear to judge your rate and direction of travel.

Third--A grizzly's body position indicates whether they are bluff-charging or attacking. Standing up tall is bluff charge. Head down and running towards you is intent to attack. His closest encounter with an attacking bear was a female with two cubs who ran straight at him. He sprayed her--the cone hit her full in the face with a bit touching the cubs--she turned aside and fled into the woods.

His main comment as he was retelling his close encounters is that they happen unbelievably fast. Almost too fast to react.

[Offshore]

Actually, if you live in the area, it's easy to be lulled into a false sense of security by the lack of bear encounters. At Two Medicine last weekend the campground host gave an impromptu talk (the regular speaker was late in arriving) in which he stated he had been hiking in Glacier for the last 64 years, except for a couple of years while he was in Vietnam. He had even spent six or eight years as the GNP bear management officer. In all that time, he has been bluff-charged twice and used bear spray twice. Does he carry spray with him 100% of the time when he goes out? Yes, he does.

He said a number of interesting things about bears.

First--he said grizzlies are way smarter than black bears.

Second--as part of his job, he would sit at vantage points and scan hiking trails with his binoculars to watch human-bear interactions. He would see bear feeding not far off a trail; observe hikers approaching; see the bear hear them and move away, still feeding; see the hikers pass; then see the bear move back close to the trail. He said bear bells are extremely ineffective in alerting bears to your presence compared to speaking, clapping, and calling out.

His personal practice when approaching a blind corner, rise beyond which you cannot see, or dense brush is to call out in a normal tone of voice and clap his hands. Five seconds later, do it again with your voice at the same volume. Five seconds later, do it again. The first call alerts the bear to your presence. The second and third allow the bear to judge your rate and direction of travel.

Third--A grizzly's body position indicates whether they are bluff-charging or attacking. Standing up tall is bluff charge. Head down and running towards you is intent to attack. His closest encounter with an attacking bear was a female with two cubs who ran straight at him. He sprayed her--the cone hit her full in the face with a bit touching the cubs--she turned aside and fled into the woods.

His main comment as he was retelling his close encounters is that they happen unbelievably fast. Almost too fast to react.

I'm in the NE, so black bears are my main concern, but these observations are pretty much spot on with what Stephen Herrero talks about in his book (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/158574557X?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=od_aui_detailpages00), including how fast attacks occur. He raises an interesting point that bear spray may be better than a gun, unless you are pretty much as good as a shot as a sniper. Bear spray is more forgiving in aim, etc. Unfortunately here in NJ laws don't differentiate between bear spray (technically an EPA-registered pesticide) from general pepper sprays used for self defense and limit size to 0.75 ounces - making bear spray illegal to possess. Despite that, its in every REI and outfitter in NW NJ (heart of bear country). I hike on my own a lot and may or may not carry it...

I like the the idea of calling out in a normal voice three times when approaching a blind turn. I'll usually clap and say "Hey Joe". The "Joe" was a suggestion in Herrero's book - saying "Hey Bear" may be misinterpreted by other hikers as saying you spotted a bear. (One time a guy name Joe answered me from around a turn.) It also astounds me how many solo hikers I come across (both day and section/thrus) that hike with headphones on, oblivious to everything around them. The Bluetooth speaker alternative make actually help in bear avoidance, but can be really annoying to other trail users in the area.

[nsherry61]

One thing I'm curious about, but we will probably never know, is if possibly the hiker responded to the grizzly bear encounter like they may have been trained to deal with a black bear encounter.

For grizzly's, if they charge us, we are supposed to be completely non-threatening, drop to the ground face down and cover the back of our necks with our hands. This behavior with black bears is considered dangerous because they may decide to eat us if we don't fight back. Most often black bear charges are bluffs and if we stand our ground or act aggressively toward them, they almost always back off. Grizzlies, on the other hand, (with very few exceptions of course) do not eat people, and charge because they feel a threat. Grizzlies will more likely follow through if you act aggressively toward them, especially if they are protecting a cub.

If this hiker acted as they may have been trained to do for black bears, when charged, they did exactly the opposite of what should have been done in the event of a grizzly charge.

So, my question, again, probably never to be answered, is did the hiker act appropriately for a grizzly charge, and if not, would have acting appropriately saved their life?

. . . regardless, a very sad situation indeed!

[MikeN]

My adult daughter and I were backpacking in Yellowstone two weeks ago. It was the first time either of us had been there. We got to the park in mid-afternoon and the campgrounds were all full (of course, in summer). We had our backpacking gear with us and, knowing that we could register for a backcountry camping site, I went to the backcountry permit office in the ranger station and registered for one (which is incredibly easy to do and get).

You are required to watch a 20-minute film telling you the possible dangers of hiking and camping in the backcountry areas of Yellowstone before they'll give you the permit, including the possibility of encountering bears and how to act toward them if you do. The film didn't minimize the danger of bears (both grizzly bears and black bears are found in Yellowstone), but I would say it made it seem like they were an acceptable risk as long as you are careful (bear spray is not required). The rangers do tell you before they give you the permit that when you go out there "you are on your own."

On the way to our trailhead, where you are to leave your car for the night, we even saw a large bear beside the road "posing" for tourists stopped alongside the road, many getting out of their cars as they took his picture (including many selfies). We did not have any trouble that night or while we were there in our quite isolated campsite (we saw only one other party of 3 backpackers as we hiked in about 4 miles, and they were camped about a half mile away from us), aside from a few mosquitoes and a small animal that chewed a hole in one of our tents during the night, near where my daughter had left a granola bar inside her tent!

In light of this bear attack, however, I feel we were extremely naive and lucky (we didn't even have bear spray with us, which I think should be required of all backcountry hikers in Yellowstone). Since returning home I discovered that there were at least two other fatal grizzly bear attacks in Yellowstone in 2011, and now this. Chilling.

[Tipi Walter]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/hiker-killed-grizzly-bear-yellowstone-national-park/story?id=32965459

Tragic.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Part of highway driving is injury and death in vehicle wrecks. Part of wilderness travel is death by bear. Both are accidents and should be considered as such.

[tdoczi]

Part of highway driving is injury and death in vehicle wrecks. Part of wilderness travel is death by bear. Both are accidents and should be considered as such.

careful now, if THEY hear that and it makes sense to them, one of them is liable to try and outlaw motor vehicles or some other such nonsense.

[tdoczi]

Since returning home I discovered that there were at least two other fatal grizzly bear attacks in Yellowstone in 2011, and now this. Chilling.

out of how many millions of visitors? the fatality rate for bicycle riding is probably substantially higher.

[Coffee]

It is a very sad story and still statistically improbable to be killed by a grizzly, and even less so with black bears. I've reconciled my fears with respect to black bears but grizzly bears are a whole different ballgame entirely. I'm not sure that I would ever hike in grizzly country solo. This will be a problem since I eventually want to hike the CDT.

[tdoczi]

It is a very sad story and still statistically improbable to be killed by a grizzly, and even less so with black bears. I've reconciled my fears with respect to black bears but grizzly bears are a whole different ballgame entirely. I'm not sure that I would ever hike in grizzly country solo. This will be a problem since I eventually want to hike the CDT.

i used to feel the same. then i hiked solo in grizzly country, seeing several bears, including a mom and cubs, and didnt die. fear gone.

[Coffee]

i used to feel the same. then i hiked solo in grizzly country, seeing several bears, including a mom and cubs, and didnt die. fear gone.

I've hiked in grizzly country only one time. It was a very short day hike from Lake Louise to the Plain of Six Glaciers Tea House and back. I was irrationally nervous the entire time I was out.

[tdoczi]

I've hiked in grizzly country only one time. It was a very short day hike from Lake Louise to the Plain of Six Glaciers Tea House and back. I was irrationally nervous the entire time I was out.

i literally had nightmares before my trip to glacier. for real. first day there did something i thought id never do and signed up for a ranger lead group hike. it was as bad i had always thought those things would be, so the next day i just went for it (kind of had to anyone, had lots of plans that required it) by the time i got above treeline i was fine. walking through dense forest for the first 3 or 4 miles was definitely nerve wracking.

i'm still more "afraid" (for lack of a better word) of venomous snakes. i'd rather turn a corner and see a bear (even a grizz) in the trail 100 yards away than see an awake rattler i'm 5 feet away from.

[MikeN]

out of how many millions of visitors? the fatality rate for bicycle riding is probably substantially higher.

Millions of visitors? In the main areas of Yellowstone next to the roads yes, but my guess is that only a very small percentage of those millions venture into the backcountry areas of the park where a bear attack is probably more likely and where you are essentially "on your own." I realize even then the risk of being attacked is small, but I guess my point is that you shouldn't be naive, like I feel I was, about wild animals and take the necessary precautions, like having bear spray with you in backcountry grizzly areas.

With all the tourists and crowds at the main sites, Yellowstone has the outward of appearance of being something like the Disneyland of the Rockies. You are warned to stay at least 100 yards away from any bear you see, but I saw many people taking "selfies" of themself with a bear in the background only about 20 yards away. While we were there, at Yellowstone, one woman was gored by a buffalo when taking a selfie with the buffalo in the background. Many tourists don't seem to know that these animals are not Bambi and Yogi.

[tdoczi]

Millions of visitors? In the main areas of Yellowstone next to the roads yes, but my guess is that only a very small percentage of those millions venture into the backcountry areas of the park where a bear attack is probably more likely and where you are essentially "on your own." I realize even then the risk of being attacked is small, but I guess my point is that you shouldn't be naive, like I feel I was, about wild animals and take the necessary precautions, like having bear spray with you in backcountry grizzly areas.

With all the tourists and crowds at the main sites, Yellowstone has the outward of appearance of being something like the Disneyland of the Rockies. You are warned to stay at least 100 yards away from any bear you see, but I saw many people taking "selfies" of themself with a bear in the background only about 20 yards away. While we were there, at Yellowstone, one woman was gored by a buffalo when taking a selfie with the buffalo in the background. Many tourists don't seem to know that these animals are not Bambi and Yogi.

in the same post you state (not incorrectly) that most of the visitors to yellowstone stay along the roads. you then go on to state (also correctly) that those people are the ones who do most of the stupid stuff. the people being gored by bison are largely of the stupid tourists along the roads variety.

look, i'm not advocating acting foolish in grizzly country, but because everyone 1-2 years a hiker gets killed by a grizzly bear is no more reason to be "chilled" than, as tipi suggests, automotive fatality statistics. and for sure, a great many people drive stupidly, that isnt in dispute.

the background in yellowstone or glacier are safer places than any busy highway or large city. that someone just recently proved that nowhere is 100% safe doesnt change that in the least.

[tdoczi]

Millions of visitors? In the main areas of Yellowstone next to the roads yes, but my guess is that only a very small percentage of those millions venture into the backcountry areas of the park where a bear attack is probably more likely and where you are essentially "on your own." I realize even then the risk of being attacked is small, but I guess my point is that you shouldn't be naive, like I feel I was, about wild animals and take the necessary precautions, like having bear spray with you in backcountry grizzly areas.

With all the tourists and crowds at the main sites, Yellowstone has the outward of appearance of being something like the Disneyland of the Rockies. You are warned to stay at least 100 yards away from any bear you see, but I saw many people taking "selfies" of themself with a bear in the background only about 20 yards away. While we were there, at Yellowstone, one woman was gored by a buffalo when taking a selfie with the buffalo in the background. Many tourists don't seem to know that these animals are not Bambi and Yogi.

and in what ways do you think you were naive? not carrying spray? maybe. but also naive is the person who thinks the spray is guaranteed to save them in the unlikely possibility of a confrontation. again, i think it is easily shown statistically that accidents with people hurting themselves or other humans with that stuff are fare more common than cases in which it has saved anyone's lives.

that said, i carried it on my first trip out there. if i go again would i carry it again? i dont know. if the can i have is still with me and not expired, i guess i might as well. if i have to buy a new? i really don't know.

[ChuckP]

An interesting (long) background article has been posted at Slate.com on grizzlies in Yellowstone. Still working my way through it but thought I would share the link:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/death_in_yellowstone/2012/04/grizzly_bear_attacks_how_wildlife_investigators_fo und_a_killer_grizzly_in_yellowstone_.html



My wife and I are heading to Grand Teton next weekend for a week of day hiking. It will be interesting to see what the prevailing mood is.

[Uncle Joe]

I hiked that without a thought of bears. Not because bears don't worry me but because it didn't dawn on me that they would be in that area. It should have because the Canadian Rockies are replete with grizzlies.

My thinking on Yellowstone is similar to my thinking on the Great Smoky Mountains NP. So many tourists go there that the bears are familiar with humans. And that familiarity just seems like a recipe for problems. I don't think the typical bear behavior comes into play. I'm not sure a good understanding of bears will do you a lot of good when he bear isn't behaving typically. I wouldn't hike Yellowstone. And honestly, I'm not keen on hiking the Smokies either.

[Uncle Joe]

I hiked that without a thought of bears. Not because bears don't worry me but because it didn't dawn on me that they would be in that area. It should have because the Canadian Rockies are replete with grizzlies.


I meant to quote the comment from Coffee.

[MikeN]

look, i'm not advocating acting foolish in grizzly country, but because everyone 1-2 years a hiker gets killed by a grizzly bear is no more reason to be "chilled" than, as tipi suggests, automotive fatality statistics. and for sure, a great many people drive stupidly, that isnt in dispute.

Since you seem to need some clarification about what I said: what I personally found chilling about the bear attack was that I was just in that area with my daughter where the fatal attack took place and we had no protection with us, like bear spray. (I guess I still think that was foolish despite your assurances that bear spray isn't really needed and statistically lots of people end up hurting themselves with it--I'll take my chances!) We could have been that "statistic" instead of the unfortunate hiker who was. I don't find the fact that there's a fatal bear attack in Yellowstone every few years to be chilling, as you imply, and as you obviously don't either.

And, btw, statistics don't really "prove" anything you know. If you happen to be in one of the 2.8 airliners that go down every year (I made up that number), then that statistic won't mean ***** to you as the plane spins out of control and you crap your pants for the last time! You are still going to be one of the "unfortunates" for that year no matter how statistically improbable the event. Same thing if you happen to be the one a grizzly bear has for supper every 5 years in one of our national parks (made that one up too). I'd rather improve my odds by being smart about the way I live rather than by relying on some meaningless abstract number to keep me safe.

[Colter]

Is it meaningful to know that about 1.5/330,000,000 people die each year in this country from bear attack? Would find it be meaningful if 329,999,999/330,000,000 died each year? "Because the odds wouldn't matter to that lucky survivor!" ;) The numerator is meaningless without the denominator.

It's essential to understand the odds to make a rational risk assessment, and that includes the odds of a bear attack, the odds of bear spray stopping an attack, and the odds of bear spray causing an accident. Reasonable people can draw different conclusions.

[Uncle Joe]

And ultimately pitting the odds of the attacked against the general population is disingenuous. It should be a ratio of those attacked to those with the potential to be attacked.

[BirdBrain]

I doubt the debate over statistics is meaningful to the victims or their families. Beyond that, the 330,000,000 number is irrelevant. It is not like grizzlies are roaming Manhattan. The risk only exists where the bears live and only to those that go there. It is also callous to debate fears. No matter what the odds, I will never feel comfortable on a ridge or lake during a thunderstorm. Many fear snakes or spiders or dogs. Where is the upside of debating such things? Beyond all this, someone is dead. A little respect is in order. Maybe a prudent discussion of is in order too. Debating stats? Really?

[tdoczi]

And, btw, statistics don't really "prove" anything you know. If you happen to be in one of the 2.8 airliners that go down every year (I made up that number), then that statistic won't mean ***** to you as the plane spins out of control and you crap your pants for the last time!

very true. but i still get on an airplane without pause. when i talk to people about fear of flying and why i dont have it i often say that even if i knew for sure that one plane somewhere in the world was going to crash on the day i was flying i would still go without thinking or worrying about it twice.

i think my point about this and the statistics is that we all do FAR more dangerous things several times a day and never think about it. which is a good thing. itd be impossible to function otherwise.

[fiddlehead]

Black bears don't scare me.
I've been false charged by them. (although at the time it was quite scary)
Grizzly bears scare me.
I carry bear spray when in their territory, and know it works (I've experimented with spraying it and it stung my eyes immedietly even though there was a breeze at my back when i sprayed it in the direction the wind was traveling)
And the griz seeems to be emigrating further and further south.
So, beware of the griz.
When they have young, they are very dangerous.
I've seen 4 in the wild and 2 scared me as I was by myself. (and one was quite close)
Anyway, in this day and age of FB, Whiteblaze, Google, there is no reason to be ill-informed of their expanded territory.

[Colter]

I think easing people's fears is a good thing. Most people have no idea how rare fatal bear attacks are, at least partially because of the incredible level of coverage these incidents get, including on threads like this.

Stephen Herrero said Bear attacks are rare events...Each year there are millions of times in which each species is close to people and no threat or injury results... I hate to see people's lives crippled by fear...

The reason I quoted the 1.5 fatalities vs the whole population is that those are the least fuzzy numbers (http://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm). It's standard practice. Even if an individual's odds of being a victim are 300 times that of an average American the odds of being killed in a given year are still one out of a million.

Earlier in the thread someone was quoted as saying: Standing up tall is bluff charge I have seen grizzlies and black bears do this many, many times, including cubs. In virtually every case they are just trying to get a better look with no aggressive intentions whatsoever.

[Wyoming]

It is a very sad story and still statistically improbable to be killed by a grizzly, and even less so with black bears. I've reconciled my fears with respect to black bears but grizzly bears are a whole different ballgame entirely. I'm not sure that I would ever hike in grizzly country solo. This will be a problem since I eventually want to hike the CDT.

I have been within 50 ft of a grizzly 2 times. Once in Denali NP when I was 16 and once in Glacier NP when I was about 25. I just backed up slowly and they ignored me. Had a black bear bluff charge me once in Yellowstone NP. But I stood still and it stopped about 8 ft away and then walked off - yes it did scare the crap out of me!

[Marta]

Sorry, Colter, I worded my previous statement poorly. What the ranger said was that the more upright a grizzly's posture is when he is coming at you, the more likely it is to be a bluff charge. If the intent is to attack, the bear will be running lower to the ground.

To break that ranger's personal experience down into numbers, he has had one potentially dangerous encounter with bears approximately every 16 years, in spite of living in and around Glacier his entire life, and working his whole career in the backcountry in Glacier NP.

[Odd Man Out]

When my wife got cancer, we had a long talk with the Dr. about the sugery, chemo, and radiation treatments she was going to get. When we were done with the meeting the Dr asked if we had any questions. I observed that while all news reports I read about cancer therapies cite survival statistics, yet it seemed to me that the Dr intentionally avoided using all survival statistics in our discussion. I wondered why that was. He said that for an individual patient, survival rates are irrelevant. For you, your survival rate will either be 100% or 0% and it is not possible to know what that would be. I suppose it is the same for bear attacks. In that sense, statistics are meaningless.

However, the conclusions of the Herrera et al paper on Black bear fatalities was that knowledge of these statistics are useful in informing backcountry users and managers on best practices.

[Odd Man Out]

PS. I forgot to add that my wife's cancer was in 2001 and she is still alive and kicking so her survival rate was apparently 100% even though the odds Dr would have quoted would have been much lower for her relatively advanced tumor.

[Wülfgang]

i'm still more "afraid" (for lack of a better word) of venomous snakes. i'd rather turn a corner and see a bear (even a grizz) in the trail 100 yards away than see an awake rattler i'm 5 feet away from.

I almost stepped on a prairie rattler last fall. It was right smack in the middle of a local trail. Missed it by a foot, maybe. It didn't rattle or even move. I just moved aside and let it be.

Last week i was hiking through a local state park when I came upon a group of about 8 hikers ('nature walkers') and a mom on her cell phone frantically calling the ranger's office. There was a rattler on the trail that had moved off. Everyone was just hovering around the vicinity not sure what to do. I even had two older ladies ask me to "escort" them out of the area.

I am much less afraid of snakes than grizzlies. Grizzlies are massive predators and can charge, chomp, thrash, and basically eat you alive. And there isn't much you can do about it. Rattlesnakes are nasty but not aggressive. Just keep your distance.

[tdoczi]

I almost stepped on a prairie rattler last fall. It was right smack in the middle of a local trail. Missed it by a foot, maybe. It didn't rattle or even move. I just moved aside and let it be.

Last week i was hiking through a local state park when I came upon a group of about 8 hikers ('nature walkers') and a mom on her cell phone frantically calling the ranger's office. There was a rattler on the trail that had moved off. Everyone was just hovering around the vicinity not sure what to do. I even had two older ladies ask me to "escort" them out of the area.

I am much less afraid of snakes than grizzlies. Grizzlies are massive predators and can charge, chomp, thrash, and basically eat you alive. And there isn't much you can do about it. Rattlesnakes are nasty but not aggressive. Just keep your distance.

as i was trying, badly, to imply, i'm not really afraid of snakes. that said, my own personal mindset, style of hiking, whatever, dictates that it is much more likely that i will one day step on a venomous snake by accident than i will ever be harmed by a bear. for one i'm color blind, for two i just dont pay that close attention to minor details a few feet away from me. that and i once did step right smack onto a black racer. i was in an area with a lot of rattlers. it could just as easily been a juvenile rattler, the possible results of such an encounter potential being rather unpleasant. i'll take seeing a grizzly bear in my path over that any day.

[BirdBrain]

When my wife got cancer, we had a long talk with the Dr. about the sugery, chemo, and radiation treatments she was going to get. When we were done with the meeting the Dr asked if we had any questions. I observed that while all news reports I read about cancer therapies cite survival statistics, yet it seemed to me that the Dr intentionally avoided using all survival statistics in our discussion. I wondered why that was. He said that for an individual patient, survival rates are irrelevant. For you, your survival rate will either be 100% or 0% and it is not possible to know what that would be. I suppose it is the same for bear attacks. In that sense, statistics are meaningless.

However, the conclusions of the Herrera et al paper on Black bear fatalities was that knowledge of these statistics are useful in informing backcountry users and managers on best practices.

Your wife has a wise doctor. Thankfully, he is as skilled as he is wise.

[nsherry61]

One of the primary uses of statistics, as pointed out previously, is assessing risk.

We happily hop in our car without thinking, but are scared of bears and snakes.

Even if you limit incidences to just Yellowstone National Park, you are more likely to be killed or injured in a driving accident in the park than to suffer a bear incident, so, why are we so scared of bears and cavalier about driving?

On a similar note, bison and moose both kill and injure far more people than bears. Again, why the disproportionate fear of bears? We don't see moose spray discussions. We don't feel naive because we didn't take our bison spray on our last backpacking trip.

[AtWokman]

Then lets tag team the cdt...

[BirdBrain]

Those debating statistics of this sort are not math majors. The proportions are all wrong. To compare the number of events happening in an activity that almost everyone participate in an ongoing basis with the number of events happening in an activity that very few do even once in a lifetime is about as useful as asking which way the egg would roll off the roof if a rooster laid it. It seems to say something. It says nothing because it is like comparing a golf ball to Jupiter. In order to have an apples to apples comparison, one would have to have proportions set up that compared the amount of seconds in a lifetime that a person encounters a bear with the seconds in a lifetime that a person encounters a car. It is not enough to use the amount of seconds one is in the woods where bears are. If we use that broad of a standard, we would have to do the same with cars. That would mean every second of most people's lives times the amount of cars in a given radius just like we would with the bear statistics. These comparisons are useless because they are designed to give the impression the debater wants with little regard to actual proportions.

Allow me to say it another way. The odds of me being killed in a tsunami approach zero. However, if I am at Popham Beach striper fishing and my wife calls me to warn me about a possible tsunami off the Maine coast, I will no longer be comforted by those odds. I am about to have a tsunami encounter. The odds of the encounter is extremely low. Once the encounter starts, the odds skyrocket. Furthermore, if a grizzly is baring down on my, I am not going to be comforted by any odds I read. Anyone that is, is a bigger man than me. I am not scared when I get in a car, because I understand proportions. The odds are extremely low that my car encounter will go wrong. I cannot say the say if I encounter a grizzly.

[Five Tango]

One of the primary uses of statistics, as pointed out previously, is assessing risk.

We happily hop in our car without thinking, but are scared of bears and snakes.

Even if you limit incidences to just Yellowstone National Park, you are more likely to be killed or injured in a driving accident in the park than to suffer a bear incident, so, why are we so scared of bears and cavalier about driving?

On a similar note, bison and moose both kill and injure far more people than bears. Again, why the disproportionate fear of bears? We don't see moose spray discussions. We don't feel naive because we didn't take our bison spray on our last backpacking trip.

A friend of mine and his fishing guide in Montana were harrassed and stalked by a Mother Moose for over thirty minutes and all that saved them was the bear spray.

[BirdBrain]

When it comes to moose, being with a dog increases your chances of being charged. The moose see a wolf or coyote and associates you as part of the pack. A big tree is useful in a moose charge and are normally readily available where moose are. Keep a tree between you and the moose and the moose will have a hard time getting to you. They are not the most agile of creatures in cornering. They are remarkable swimmers and you are not going to outrun them in the open.

[Colter]

Your wife has a wise doctor. Thankfully, he is as skilled as he is wise...Those debating statistics of this sort are not math majors.

Hey bird brain,

Yes, if your wife tells you a tsunami is coming your odds of being in a tsunami are higher than normal. If your plane's engine stops, flying is going to be more dangerous than normal. (Happened to me twice.) If the bridge collapses while you're on it, driving will be more dangerous. Having a grizzly run at you (happened to me many times) is more dangerous than not having a grizzly run at you.

In grizzly country, grizzlies are way down on the list of things most likely to kill you. Plane crashes, drowning, falls, all are far more dangerous.

So the wise doctor said this: for an individual patient, survival rates are irrelevant. So let's say this doctor has two treatment options. In one, 99.999999% of people survive. With the second option .00000001% live. You ask which treatment to use and he answers "for you as an individual, the survival rates are irrelevant."

I am usually the guy in these threads putting numbers to the actual situation, and whatever numbers I use people will try to break out a subset of the population to make things look more dangerous, all the way down to choosing the one poor soul who was unlucky enough that year to be killed by a bear, or, like you've done bird brain, already putting yourself in the position of being charged.

There are huge numbers of people that spend time in grizzly country. Right now, looking out my window, I could see a grizzly walk by. Almost all Alaskans, including those that live in Anchorage, live in grizzly or polar bear country. There are 30,000 grizzlies living here along with 200,000 black bears and maybe 5,000 polar bears. Most years there isn't a single person killed by bears.

There are certainly AT LEAST one million people a year who spend time in grizzly country. (There are over five million people visiting Glacier, Yellowstone and Denali alone.) That includes at the very least hundreds of thousands of people camping, hiking, boating, hunting etc, right out there with the grizzlies. Even then the annual odds of being a fatality IF you spend time in grizzly country are less than ONE IN A MILLION. It doesn't take a math major to know that's a very low number.

[BirdBrain]

Not debating the low odds of bear attacks. You are in a much better position to speak to that. I am debating comparing such things to cars. I don't think people grasp the fallacy of comparing trillions of seconds to hundreds of seconds. The population at large (of people or bears or cars) is not relevant at all. Comparing actual time durations of actual encounters of perceived hazards is relevant. You are in grizzly country. You have my respect.

[nsherry61]

Those debating statistics of this sort are not math majors.

No, your right. I am not a math major. I have a Ph.D. in biological systems that involves a great deal of mathematical modeling and statistics.
BirdBrain, you may want to be a bit careful about what you state with such certainty. I will admit that I can be a bit lackadaisical about my statistical rigor when typing away on backpacking forums. And, you make a valid point suggesting that the variables we are comparing need to be carefully looked at, and are rarely if ever ideal comparisons. But, your suggestion that "The proportions are all wrong" is not only confusing and inappropriate vocabulary to express what I believe you are trying to say (clearly you do not have a strong background in statistics), but your suggestion that there is a one right set of comparisons to make is also incorrect because the appropriate (and yes, almost always imperfect) comparison that needs to be made depends entirely on how the question/hypothesis is stated.

For most of us, we are concerned with the likelihood of encountering danger in the activities we pursue. It is irrelevant to a person what the likelihood of a bear encounter going bad is, if there is no chance of ever having a bear encounter. What matters is the likelihood of a bad bear encounter given our choice of activities, and that likelihood depends on several variables including the likelihood of having a bear encounter of any kind during your activities of choice, the frequency of your participation in activities that might bring you in contact with bears and then the likelihood of any encounter you have going bad . . . all of us behave differently and participate at different levels, and given a complete lack of adequate data sets to do robust statistics of this type on, we all play with speculation and simplify our models to enable a simpler and more understandable assessment of risk.

In the end. Regarding this particular argument, I would suggest that what matters is that a person traveling by car, through Yellowstone National Park, (to go on, let's say a week long backpacking trip in the back country), is truly more likely to come to harm while driving to the trail-head than they are at the teeth and claws of a bear . . . and the the difference is large. They are MUCH more likely to come to harm, in their car, on that particular trip, than they are from a bear, given they use reasonable precaution in both their driving and their back-country bear behavior.

[Odd Man Out]

Colter wrote:

So the wise doctor said this:*for an individual patient, survival rates are irrelevant.*So let's say this doctor has two treatment options. In one, 99.999999% of people survive. With the second option .00000001% live. You ask which treatment to use and he answers "for you as an individual, the survival rates are irrelevant."*

You will note that in my post, the course of action had already been decided so it was in that context that the statistics became irrelevent. However I did observe that statistics ARE relevant when it comes to determinig that course of action.

[BirdBrain]

I know what a proportion is. I was attempting explain that people were treating the basis of two ratios as equal when in fact there is no basis for those comparisons. The fact that you continue to use a car for an example demonstrates that I have failed in that attempt. In your example you had thousands of seconds of a car encounter and zero seconds of a bear encounter but yet think that something can be learned from the zero seconds of bear encounters. I am not going to debate this further. I should not have joined in. People do not grasp large numbers and assign numbers where they do not exist and think it means something.

[tdoczi]

Allow me to say it another way. The odds of me being killed in a tsunami approach zero. However, if I am at Popham Beach striper fishing and my wife calls me to warn me about a possible tsunami off the Maine coast, I will no longer be comforted by those odds. I am about to have a tsunami encounter. The odds of the encounter is extremely low. Once the encounter starts, the odds skyrocket. Furthermore, if a grizzly is baring down on my, I am not going to be comforted by any odds I read. Anyone that is, is a bigger man than me. I am not scared when I get in a car, because I understand proportions. The odds are extremely low that my car encounter will go wrong. I cannot say the say if I encounter a grizzly.

ok, then take just the number of people who hike in the backcountry in NPs with grizzlies. out of those people, what percentage is ever hurt by one? take it further, out of people who actually encounter grizzlies, what percentage is ever hurt. take it EVEN FURTHER- out of people who not only see grizzlies, but have a reportable incident , what percentage is ever hurt?

your example is like saying that people who never fly dont count towards the statistics of airline fatalities. i see your point about how some people are more at risk than others, but youre being disingenuous with your examples in the other direction and you know it.

ya know what though? ive seen a mother grizzly with cubs while hiking in the backcountry of glacier. passed right by them probably 200 feet away with a clear line of site to them. i guess thats your equivalent of standing on the beach in a tsunami? and guess what? i'm still here. and so are the overwhelming majority of people who have done the same.

[rocketsocks]

I just hope the bear took the same classes you all did...and paid attention in class.

[tdoczi]

In the end. Regarding this particular argument, I would suggest that what matters is that a person traveling by car, through Yellowstone National Park, (to go on, let's say a week long backpacking trip in the back country), is truly more likely to come to harm while driving to the trail-head than they are at the teeth and claws of a bear . . . and the the difference is large. They are MUCH more likely to come to harm, in their car, on that particular trip, than they are from a bear, given they use reasonable precaution in both their driving and their back-country bear behavior.


what he said.

i always thought that the thing with cars (usually encountered when people have the false belief that cars are safer than planes) is the false notion that while in a car you are in control of your fate. for some reason, to many people, the uncontrollable somehow seems inherently more risky.

[BirdBrain]

ok, then take just the number of people who hike in the backcountry in NPs with grizzlies. out of those people, what percentage is ever hurt by one? take it further, out of people who actually encounter grizzlies, what percentage is ever hurt. take it EVEN FURTHER- out of people who not only see grizzlies, but have a reportable incident , what percentage is ever hurt?

your example is like saying that people who never fly dont count towards the statistics of airline fatalities. i see your point about how some people are more at risk than others, but youre being disingenuous with your examples in the other direction and you know it.

ya know what though? ive seen a mother grizzly with cubs while hiking in the backcountry of glacier. passed right by them probably 200 feet away with a clear line of site to them. i guess thats your equivalent of standing on the beach in a tsunami? and guess what? i'm still here. and so are the overwhelming majority of people who have done the same.

These debates are hilarious and frustrating. My point is born of OCD. I do not disagree that the odds of a bear attack is low. Comparing something that might not ever happen to something that happens continuously just tipped me over. Car statistics and bear statistics rely on such disproportionate sample sizes. The occurance frequencies are so dissimilar that they cannot be easily compared. Therefore, people use irrelevant variables like population and days to calculate meaningless statistics. This is done all the time in the news and it drives me batty. To learn what might happen in any event, the event must first be happening. It is not enough to say you were in the area. That is meaningless. I am in the area of thousands of cars as I type. Occurances, not proximity, matter. I knew I was stepping in it and did it anyways. I agree. Odds of being mauled by a bear is low. The comparisons being used to make that point are just wacky.


I'm out.

[nsherry61]

ive seen a mother grizzly with cubs while hiking in the backcountry of glacier. passed right by them probably 200 feet away with a clear line of site to them. . . and guess what? i'm still here. and so are the overwhelming majority of people who have done the same.

One of my fondest life memories was in Denali National Park in about 1989 when a friend and I were walking down a narrow little creek valley in the back-country, being stupid young human males, seeing lots of fresh bear sign and still hiking down the gully instead of heading back out. Knowing we were being stupid, we talked loudly to each other and sang and did whatever to make lots of noise. Then, as we walked around a corner, not 30 feet in front of use (probably between 20 and 30 feet, really darn close) was a sow grizzly and two spring cubs! Yes, we nearly wet ourselves, we stood up tall, raised our hands above our heads, we talked loudly and firmly and we didn't look the grizzly in the eyes. That sow, that had been eating berries, looked up at us and then went right back to eating berries. The two cubs, on the other hand, decided we were really interesting and started walking toward us to, I don't know, get a better look or better smell or whatever. As we kept backing away, the cubs finally stopped walking toward us when they were about 10 feet away and just stood there watching us back back around the corner from which we had come.

Moral of the story? I don't know. It was scary, stupid and one of the most amazing moments of my life. Apparently, Eric and I just weren't very scary and the berries were more important than we were.

[tdoczi]

These debates are hilarious and frustrating. My point is born of OCD. I do not disagree that the odds of a bear attack is low. Comparing something that might not ever happen to something that happens continuously just tipped me over. Car statistics and bear statistics rely on such disproportionate sample sizes. The occurance frequencies are so dissimilar that they cannot be easily compared. Therefore, people use irrelevant variables like population and days to calculate meaningless statistics. This is done all the time in the news and it drives me batty. To learn what might happen in any event, the event must first be happening. It is not enough to say you were in the area. That is meaningless. I am in the area of thousands of cars as I type. Occurances, not proximity, matter. I knew I was stepping in it and did it anyways. I agree. Odds of being mauled by a bear is low. The comparisons being used to make that point are just wacky.


I'm out.

i get that. what you dont get is that the equivalent circumstances in which a bear could theoretically maul somepne happen MANY times more frequently than you are implying MANY MANY literally MILLIONS more than you appear to think. what you seem to be suggesting is that only people who have actually been charged by a grizzly are taking the equivalent risk to everyone who ever gets in an automobile, whether it be to drive drunk 100MPH on a windy road or to go to the corner store and back. and that is preposterous.

[tdoczi]

One of my fondest life memories was in Denali National Park in about 1989 when a friend and I were walking down a narrow little creek valley in the back-country, being stupid young human males, seeing lots of fresh bear sign and still hiking down the gully instead of heading back out. Knowing we were being stupid, we talked loudly to each other and sang and did whatever to make lots of noise. Then, as we walked around a corner, not 30 feet in front of use (probably between 20 and 30 feet, really darn close) was a sow grizzly and two spring cubs! Yes, we nearly wet ourselves, we stood up tall, raised our hands above our heads, we talked loudly and firmly and we didn't look the grizzly in the eyes. That sow, that had been eating berries, looked up at us and then went right back to eating berries. The two cubs, on the other hand, decided we were really interesting and started walking toward us to, I don't know, get a better look or better smell or whatever. As we kept backing away, the cubs finally stopped walking toward us when they were about 10 feet away and just stood there watching us back back around the corner from which we had come.

Moral of the story? I don't know. It was scary, stupid and one of the most amazing moments of my life. Apparently, Eric and I just weren't very scary and the berries were more important than we were.

i bet theres 10,000x more people with stories like that than there are grizzly fatalities.

not to condone his behavior in the least, but have none of you seen grizzly man? look at what he did and got away with months at a time over the course of years. a grizzly bear deciding to hurt you is a freak accident, nothing more. are there precautions one can and should take? sure. but this near certainty that if you dont take said precautions something terrible is nearly guaranteed to happen is foolish in the extreme.

[BirdBrain]

I give up on trying to make the point over meaningless statistics derived by using the wrong and irrelevant variables. The crazy part is I agree that the fear is mostly unjustified and the danger exaggerated. I admit two things. I would still feel fear if I saw a grizzly and it was stupid of me to try to make my point. It was born of OCD and anger that such debates trivialize the tragedy that occurred. Alas, it appears my efforts and the debate that I caused have been the greatest distraction from what is important... someone died.

[Alligator]

The time spent in the backcountry could possibly be irrelevant (or not) beyond the fraction of time needed to be part of the at risk population (people in grizzly country). There is a statistical property called memorylessness (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorylessness) that applies to some statistical distributions. I think if both risks had probability distributions exhibiting memorylessness then the exposure time would be irrelevant and the risks could be calculated and compared apples to oranges. I don't think car accident probabilities exhibit memorylessness though. It's an interesting property sorry I didn't see a more understandable link in the search list.

[tdoczi]

The time spent in the backcountry could possibly be irrelevant (or not) beyond the fraction of time needed to be part of the at risk population (people in grizzly country). There is a statistical property called memorylessness (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorylessness) that applies to some statistical distributions. I think if both risks had probability distributions exhibiting memorylessness then the exposure time would be irrelevant and the risks could be calculated and compared apples to oranges. I don't think car accident probabilities exhibit memorylessness though. It's an interesting property sorry I didn't see a more understandable link in the search list.

perhaps way way off topic but it reminds me of this-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

nope, dont know how that relates to grizzly fatalities, but maybe it does.

[Alligator]

perhaps way way off topic but it reminds me of this-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

nope, dont know how that relates to grizzly fatalities, but maybe it does.I always get that one wrong, no matter how many times I read the answer. I always forget the correct answer.

I always think it is 50/50 for the car given one goat is shown. The table enumerating the three possibilities is very helpful though.

You could make that problem into a bear/hiker problem. A grizzly sow and two cubs are reported in a narrow ravine you are hiking. You reach a junction where the trail forks. You decide to go right. Scrabbling however is heard in both directions ahead as well as behind you, but you can't tell the sounds apart. Suddenly a cub pops into view on the trail behind you. If you pick the trail with the sow, she will maul you to death. Do you enter the left or right fork?

[BirdBrain]

To me any analysis of occurance has to have a definition of what an occurance is. Proximity does not equal occurance. In this case, occurance (in my mind) would require awareness of the bear that the person is there and an alteration if routine based on that awareness. That could even mean the bear runs off without the person being aware of he accurance. Odds could be derived from those occurances. However, if we try to compare those odds to things like driving a car, duration must be added to the calculation. That is where the equations blow up. Furthermore, if people want to include proximity, it would take scientific notation to express the amount of car occurances. It is enough to say the danger is low without trying to compare a golf ball to Jupiter. Why people bring such dissimilar events together to make a point is beyond me.

[Fredt4]

The odds are so small that even with all the stupid stunts done daily by idiots, as testified by posted YouTube videos, there's still only on average one or two persons killed by Grizzled per year. And amazingly it's usually not even the people doing the stupid stuff getting killed. So it really just a rare random probability that it'll happen to you, even if you do everything wrong.

[Alligator]

The memorylessness property is hard to wrap your head around. I had it described to me by a Mainer. He had a twinkle in his eye when he presented it.

Proximity could be considered a "trial" with a probability say p, of being eaten. That's sometimes called a Bernoulli trial. Run that trial multiple times until you get a success, and that would be exactly what is described in the section on discrete memorylessness in the link I provided where they talk about waiting time in a Bernoulli process. I am not saying bear encounters should necessarily be described that way, only that it is potentially a way to do it.

People attempt to combat irrational fears by describing other risky activities people do without a second thought. They may not always present the correct probabilities. They do it because presenting the probability of how rare bear attacks are by themselves isn't enough to assuage the person's fear.

[tdoczi]

The memorylessness property is hard to wrap your head around. I had it described to me by a Mainer. He had a twinkle in his eye when he presented it.

Proximity could be considered a "trial" with a probability say p, of being eaten. That's sometimes called a Bernoulli trial. Run that trial multiple times until you get a success, and that would be exactly what is described in the section on discrete memorylessness in the link I provided where they talk about waiting time in a Bernoulli process. I am not saying bear encounters should necessarily be described that way, only that it is potentially a way to do it.

People attempt to combat irrational fears by describing other risky activities people do without a second thought. They may not always present the correct probabilities. They do it because presenting the probability of how rare bear attacks are by themselves isn't enough to assuage the person's fear.

if i understand memorylessness correctly, and i'm perfectly willing to acknowledge i might not, i do think car accidents are memoryless. the example of the engine with 100,000 miles on it given in the link you supplied to me is the most relevant. it is saying, i think, that the chances of an engine lasting foe 100,000 miles is dependent on how many miles it has on it to begin with. i dont THINK your chances of getting into a car crash chance dependent on how much time you spend driving. i could be wrong on some technical, statistical level, but to me, the idea that the more you drive increases your odds of getting into a crash doesnt seem at all correct.

but fine, assume it is. then the correct way, perhaps, to compare the two is average time spent in close proximity to grizzlies (and we have to define what that is, i think BB is using far too narrow a definition for purposes of comparison to every time anyone rides in a car ever) before an incident occurs compared to average time spent driving in a car before an incident occurs. its not in anyway scientific, but Marta here has presented one person's experiences that show i grizzly incident (non injurious at that, let alone fatal) for every 16 years spent in proximity (of some sort) to grizzlies. i'd say most people get into a car accident more often than that.

but really, if youre going to do this to such a nit picky detailed level (which again, based on just feeling and i could be wrong) then statistics for how frequently someone gets into a car crash would be meaningless unless we did stuff like take into account how much time a person spent sleeping (i cant die in a car wreck asleep in bed, which, btw, is not the same for death by grizzly bear) etc. it seems to me like BB wants to take a blanket statement like (just making up numbers here for illustration) "theres 1 grizzly fatality for every 10,000 visitors to a NP" and ammend it by saying "yeah, but most of those people will never be anywhere near a grizzly thats about to attack them, so they arent relevant" but is ignoring that you can do the exact same thing to a statement that says "one in every 10,000 people who drive on highways will have a car accident." out of those 10K tons of people can be excluded in the same way that BB wants to, seemingly, exclude people who never leave the developed areas of a NP. thats where he looses me.

[BirdBrain]

Next we need to have a discussion of matrices, determinates, logarithms, and lambda.... especially lambda as it pertains to the ability to divide by zero. Or we could talk about a man dying while being part of a provision for our leisurely vacations. Somehow I can't seem to get by thoughts of what the family must be facing. But, hey, that's just me. Me being me makes me say provocative things. Another thread goes on ignore. :(

[tdoczi]

Next we need to have a discussion of matrices, determinates, logarithms, and lambda.... especially lambda as it pertains to the ability to divide by zero. Or we could talk about a man dying while being part of a provision for our leisurely vacations. Somehow I can't seem to get by thoughts of what the family must be facing. But, hey, that's just me. Me being me makes me say provocative things. Another thread goes on ignore. :(

in all honesty, lots of people died on the day this hiker did. many of them tragedies. the families of all of them are grieving. all the more reason why this one death, really, isnt significant to any of us who didnt know the person in question.

[Alligator]

Your posts are quoted in order below. Definitely put the thread on ignore because you're practically leading the stats debate in the thread. I am not even sure the man's name is directly stated here and the posters have have been respectful regarding the deceased.
I doubt the debate over statistics is meaningful to the victims or their families. Beyond that, the 330,000,000 number is irrelevant. It is not like grizzlies are roaming Manhattan. The risk only exists where the bears live and only to those that go there. It is also callous to debate fears. No matter what the odds, I will never feel comfortable on a ridge or lake during a thunderstorm. Many fear snakes or spiders or dogs. Where is the upside of debating such things? Beyond all this, someone is dead. A little respect is in order. Maybe a prudent discussion of is in order too. Debating stats? Really?


Your wife has a wise doctor. Thankfully, he is as skilled as he is wise.


Those debating statistics of this sort are not math majors. The proportions are all wrong. To compare the number of events happening in an activity that almost everyone participate in an ongoing basis with the number of events happening in an activity that very few do even once in a lifetime is about as useful as asking which way the egg would roll off the roof if a rooster laid it. It seems to say something. It says nothing because it is like comparing a golf ball to Jupiter. In order to have an apples to apples comparison, one would have to have proportions set up that compared the amount of seconds in a lifetime that a person encounters a bear with the seconds in a lifetime that a person encounters a car. It is not enough to use the amount of seconds one is in the woods where bears are. If we use that broad of a standard, we would have to do the same with cars. That would mean every second of most people's lives times the amount of cars in a given radius just like we would with the bear statistics. These comparisons are useless because they are designed to give the impression the debater wants with little regard to actual proportions.

Allow me to say it another way. The odds of me being killed in a tsunami approach zero. However, if I am at Popham Beach striper fishing and my wife calls me to warn me about a possible tsunami off the Maine coast, I will no longer be comforted by those odds. I am about to have a tsunami encounter. The odds of the encounter is extremely low. Once the encounter starts, the odds skyrocket. Furthermore, if a grizzly is baring down on my, I am not going to be comforted by any odds I read. Anyone that is, is a bigger man than me. I am not scared when I get in a car, because I understand proportions. The odds are extremely low that my car encounter will go wrong. I cannot say the say if I encounter a grizzly.


When it comes to moose, being with a dog increases your chances of being charged. The moose see a wolf or coyote and associates you as part of the pack. A big tree is useful in a moose charge and are normally readily available where moose are. Keep a tree between you and the moose and the moose will have a hard time getting to you. They are not the most agile of creatures in cornering. They are remarkable swimmers and you are not going to outrun them in the open.


Not debating the low odds of bear attacks. You are in a much better position to speak to that. I am debating comparing such things to cars. I don't think people grasp the fallacy of comparing trillions of seconds to hundreds of seconds. The population at large (of people or bears or cars) is not relevant at all. Comparing actual time durations of actual encounters of perceived hazards is relevant. You are in grizzly country. You have my respect.


I know what a proportion is. I was attempting explain that people were treating the basis of two ratios as equal when in fact there is no basis for those comparisons. The fact that you continue to use a car for an example demonstrates that I have failed in that attempt. In your example you had thousands of seconds of a car encounter and zero seconds of a bear encounter but yet think that something can be learned from the zero seconds of bear encounters. I am not going to debate this further. I should not have joined in. People do not grasp large numbers and assign numbers where they do not exist and think it means something.


These debates are hilarious and frustrating. My point is born of OCD. I do not disagree that the odds of a bear attack is low. Comparing something that might not ever happen to something that happens continuously just tipped me over. Car statistics and bear statistics rely on such disproportionate sample sizes. The occurance frequencies are so dissimilar that they cannot be easily compared. Therefore, people use irrelevant variables like population and days to calculate meaningless statistics. This is done all the time in the news and it drives me batty. To learn what might happen in any event, the event must first be happening. It is not enough to say you were in the area. That is meaningless. I am in the area of thousands of cars as I type. Occurances, not proximity, matter. I knew I was stepping in it and did it anyways. I agree. Odds of being mauled by a bear is low. The comparisons being used to make that point are just wacky.


I'm out.


I give up on trying to make the point over meaningless statistics derived by using the wrong and irrelevant variables. The crazy part is I agree that the fear is mostly unjustified and the danger exaggerated. I admit two things. I would still feel fear if I saw a grizzly and it was stupid of me to try to make my point. It was born of OCD and anger that such debates trivialize the tragedy that occurred. Alas, it appears my efforts and the debate that I caused have been the greatest distraction from what is important... someone died.


To me any analysis of occurance has to have a definition of what an occurance is. Proximity does not equal occurance. In this case, occurance (in my mind) would require awareness of the bear that the person is there and an alteration if routine based on that awareness. That could even mean the bear runs off without the person being aware of he accurance. Odds could be derived from those occurances. However, if we try to compare those odds to things like driving a car, duration must be added to the calculation. That is where the equations blow up. Furthermore, if people want to include proximity, it would take scientific notation to express the amount of car occurances. It is enough to say the danger is low without trying to compare a golf ball to Jupiter. Why people bring such dissimilar events together to make a point is beyond me.


Next we need to have a discussion of matrices, determinates, logarithms, and lambda.... especially lambda as it pertains to the ability to divide by zero. Or we could talk about a man dying while being part of a provision for our leisurely vacations. Somehow I can't seem to get by thoughts of what the family must be facing. But, hey, that's just me. Me being me makes me say provocative things. Another thread goes on ignore. :(

[ChuckP]

Meanwhile, back on topic ...

The offending bear has been neutralized:

http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/news/15056.htm

Seems like a similar outcome to the attack a few years ago, a mama with her cubs

[Colter]

Meanwhile, back on topic ...

The offending bear has been neutralized:

http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/news/15056.htm

Seems like a similar outcome to the attack a few years ago, a mama with her cubs

I'm sure that was a difficult decision. Undoubtedly they remembered that last time they waited until another hiker was killed.

Fatal bear attacks are rare. A sow grizzly running down and killing someone is not "just what grizzlies do," it's the behavior of an unusually aggressive, dangerous bear.

[Traveler]

Makes one wonder what will happen to the sharks off the North Carolina coast that seem to be very active this year in attacking swimmers.

[nsherry61]

Makes one wonder what will happen to the sharks off the North Carolina coast that seem to be very active this year in attacking swimmers.

I just hope they don't start swimming upstream and endangering AT hikers during water crossings on the trail!

[August W.]

Makes one wonder what will happen to the sharks off the North Carolina coast that seem to be very active this year in attacking swimmers.

One word..... Sushi!

[Traveler]

I just hope they don't start swimming upstream and endangering AT hikers during water crossings on the trail!

That would be my first concern of course! Second concern would be the number of Sharknado's that could be in the offing for places like Hilton Head.