View Full Version : All this talk about murder...
corso k-9
10-26-2007, 10:00
In response to the ferry question there are a few comments about murder on the trail.... do any of you know how many people have been murdered on the AT.... what percent of the crimes were solved, and did they know their killer?
taildragger
10-26-2007, 10:03
do a search on here
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=84&highlight=murder+violence
In "A Walk in the Woods" I think Bill Bryson said it was something like 9 or so, but 7 of those have been in the last 32 years.
If you draw a 2,000 mile line across the coutry, it is bound to go through 8 murder victims, like C mart said, it is between 7 and 10. It is upsetting murder happens, but the trail is quite safe, you have a better chance being murdered walking down a street in the middle of the day than you do on the Appalachian Trail.
Kirby
Doughnut
10-26-2007, 18:06
I am reading 8 bullets, and although the murder happened "on the Appalachian trail" the victims were not hiking the AT, They were camping and apparently on a side trail, yet the trail gets the statistic of 1 murder and one attempted murder.
The crime was solved quickly, and the victims had met their attacker, but did not "know" him.
Luckily trail clubs are starting to move shelters farther away from roads, and hikers are encouraged not to stay within 1-2 miles of a road for safety concerns.
Kirby
nitewalker
10-26-2007, 18:19
9 people have been murdered on the trail. i googled it earlier[murder on the AT] and it had some decent info on the subject...
cowboy nichols
10-26-2007, 18:26
The A T is certainly safer than school ---sad to say
nitewalker
10-26-2007, 18:30
The A T is certainly safer than school ---sad to say
its too bad but you are 100% correct. thats a cryin shame if you want my opinion...they should teach gun safety at school....
take-a-knee
10-26-2007, 18:39
How many of those nine people were murdered in or around shelters?
shelterbuilder
10-26-2007, 18:39
...and the reason that crime on the AT gets SOOO much media attention is because crime on the trail is so rare that when it happens, it is big news.
I've heard it said that you should trust your instincts - that if something seems wrong, move on quickly and quietly. Don't tell folks that you're alone - tell them that your hiking partners (plural) are a few minutes behind you. Don't tell folks exactly where you're stopping today.
Much of the crime out on the trail is random - and there's not much that you can do to prevent random acts of violence, whether it's on the trail or in your own hometown. Don't let the possibility of becoming a victim stop you from going out on the trail and enjoying yourself. Worry like that is victimizing, too. We deserve better.:)
If you draw a 2,000 mile line across the coutry, it is bound to go through 8 murder victims
Yea, but...
The line you draw on a US map will be miles wide (even if you have a sharp pencil).
Appalachian Tater
10-26-2007, 19:43
A line has only one dimension.
Then the odds of it passing through a crime sceen are slim indeed!
Whenever I tell a non-hiker that I am going for a hike in the woods for several days, they invaribly think I am risking life and limb, quoting murders they heard about, bear attacks, or various other unpleasantries. I simply tell them the odds of surviving my hike are much better than the odds of them surviving their daily commute while I am gone.
Lone Wolf
10-26-2007, 23:03
How many of those nine people were murdered in or around shelters?
all of them
Another reason for torching the shelters.
modiyooch
10-26-2007, 23:47
If I remember correctly, the one lady that was killed was followed from her home town to the trail. He was a psycho.
warraghiyagey
10-27-2007, 00:02
A line has only one dimension.
That's sound theory in math or physics but comes up short when you draw one iwth a pen.:)
Tennessee Viking
10-27-2007, 01:37
There was a incident at Vandaventer Shelter a while back.
Most of the crime on the trail is centered around littering, trail abuse, vandalism, and theft.
And most of the serious crime has been from PA south.
I feel safer on the trail then ANYWHERE in a town. WHo the hell is gonna hike 15 miles to come out and kill YOU! THat's just my view. Now, that said....I DO take the precaution of camping around other people..... I did just move from the city with the highest murder rate in the country....some habits can't be broken
what percent of the crimes were solved, and did they know their killer?Not sure about all of the murder victims, but of the 5 thru hikers that have been murdered on their thru hikes, all the cases were solved.
None of the victims knew the person who killed them.
One murder died in jail, one was sent to jail and later released on parole, and one had his sentence changed to take him off death row.
None of the victims knew the person who killed them.
I heard a story from Jim Murray (he of the "secret shelter" in NJ) of a shooting incident at Harriman state park. The victim (not seriously hurt) was a through hiker, and Jim's suspicion was that the shooter was a hiker as well.
I am reading 8 bullets, and although the murder happened "on the Appalachian trail" the victims were not hiking the AT, They were camping and apparently on a side trail, yet the trail gets the statistic of 1 murder and one attempted murder.
The crime was solved quickly, and the victims had met their attacker, but did not "know" him.
Probably because it (the murderous situatuion) began on the AT. If memory serves correct, I dont think they intended to go on the RKT until after they were spooked by the guy
The Old Fhart
12-04-2007, 15:13
Take-a-knee-"How many of those nine people were murdered in or around shelters?"
Lone Wolf-"all of them"
What about the 2 women that were killed at a backcountry campsite somewhere near Skyland in SNP? not actually on the A.T., but somewhat close.
Whenever I tell a non-hiker that I am going for a hike in the woods for several days, they invaribly think I am risking life and limb, quoting murders they heard about, bear attacks, or various other unpleasantries. I simply tell them the odds of surviving my hike are much better than the odds of them surviving their daily commute while I am gone.
I often get the same line from non-hikers. I tell them that they have a better chance of getting murdered stopping on the way home to fill up with gas, then I do on the trail. I always feel safe in the woods, but I do use common sense and keep my wits about me.
I never give this much thought. As Wonder said.. hiking along most of the AT is far safer than almost any town you could think of. Simply use common sense and camp in the woods, not at the road side. As some one else said...who's gonna hike 10-15+ miles into the woods to kill some one? almost no one.
If it makes the queezy feel better.. let me offer the example of Pinkham Notch in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Litterally thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people go through there or near there every year. The whites are with in a days drive of I think half or more of the US population. Yet I can recall news of exactly ONE murder near there and that was several years back. So one is something like 99.9999 % safe.
You are more likely to die from a lightening strike on a southern Bald or on a northern exposed peak than to run into a criminal along the AT.
David
Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-04-2007, 15:49
The AT is much safer than most towns. Trails that used less frequently than the AT are even safer. Violence on a trail happens, but not nearly as often as violence in towns.
dessertrat
12-04-2007, 16:30
Luckily trail clubs are starting to move shelters farther away from roads, and hikers are encouraged not to stay within 1-2 miles of a road for safety concerns.
Kirby
Criminals are usually very lazy, so not staying near the road is probably the best advice you can give someone as to avoiding crime. Can you imagine someone climbing up a 5000 foot peak to rob someone when they could do it near a trailhead? Habitual criminals who have been interviewed in prisons as to how they pick their "marks" and on the best ways to avoid being a victim have said that walking fast works. The surprise is in why it works: criminals are in many cases too lazy to run or walk fast enough to catch up with you, let alone climbing a mountain to get you.
The whites are with in a days drive of I think half or more of the US population. Yet I can recall news of exactly ONE murder near there and that was several years back. So one is something like 99.9999 % safe.
David
I quite agree about roads and towns being far more dangerous than the woods. However, Shari Roth was a friend of mine in high school. Her murder, in the Whites, is one of the reasons my mother uses to try to keep me from hiking.
http://www.shariroth.com/
I think she was a social worker in the prison when she was killed. I've always assumed the murderer must be someone she had met because of her work.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-04-2007, 16:45
::: Dino wraps a comforting tail around Marta :::
The Old Fhart
12-04-2007, 16:50
DavidNH-"The whites are with in a days drive of I think half or more of the US population. Yet I can recall news of exactly ONE murder near there and that was several years back. So one is something like 99.9999 % safe."
True the trails are safe but you're going to have to knock your percentage down a wee bit. Add this to Marta's friends murder.
(November, 2001)PINKHAM NOTCH, N.H. --- A 52-year-old marriage counselor was found stabbed to death near the Glen Boulder Trailhead just south of the Appalachian Mountain Club's Pinkham Notch headquarters.
Louise Chaput, an experienced hiker from Sherbrooke, Quebec, was on a solo day trip during a long weekend in the Mount Washington area.
Her murder is the first in the area since the 1977 strangulation of a 22-year-old college student who was hiking alone on the other side of Washington, near Bartlett.
Grumpy Ol' Pops
12-04-2007, 18:10
its too bad but you are 100% correct. thats a cryin shame if you want my opinion...they should teach gun safety at school....
I absolutely MUST disagree about teaching gun safety in school! It has to start at home and be carried over throughout life. Too many extremely violent movies, video games, street gangs committing crimes and being accepted in the younger community as heroes -- it's all around our children today. Society has created a generation without discipline or respect. Parents and teachers cannot punish a child without serious social consequences -- and the children learn at an early age just how to work that system! Let's solve the problem at the source.
4eyedbuzzard
12-04-2007, 19:38
Currently ATC claims a total of 9583 reported "2000 milers". As about 20% are section hikers, that results in 7667 thru-hikers since 1936. As only perhaps 20% of thru-hiker attempts are successful, that means that approx 38335 thru-hikers have attepted the trail. 38335 thru-hikers / 5 murders = a thru-hiker has a 1 in 7667 chance of being murdered on the trail IF past events are indicative of the future. 1 / 7667 = a thru-hike death rate of 13 per 100,000. As a thru-hiker is only on the trail for approximately 1/2 a year(actually less if they are murdered ) the annualized rate would be approximately double that or 26 per 100,000. That is 4.5 times greater than the current overall U.S. average of 5.7 murders per 100,000, and placing the AT thru-hiker's murder rate below that of residents of Detroit and Baltimore but above that of Philly and Chicago - just for comparison's sake. The historic chance of a thru-hiker being murdered on any given day of a thru-hike is 1 in 276,012 (7667 hikers x 180 days / 5 murders. Of being murdered anywhere else in the US on a given day, 1 in 6,500,000
Given that the trail itself is estimated to be used by 3 million people or so each year obviously the annualized rate of murder of hikers in general is much lower, but conversely thru-hikers are on the trail much longer, more often alone, more easily stalked, etc than the statistically average hiker who probably only spends 1 to 2 days a year on the trail, and often in a larger group and more visited area. As I don't know of any data available for "hiker-days" or "hiker-miles" on the AT it is difficult to guesstimate what the overall hiker murder rate is, but with only 13 murders on the AT total over the years, and millions and millions of hikers, obviously it is fairly low.
Conclusion: Hiking is generally very safe. Thru-hiking, however, is roughly the same from a murder danger standpoint as living in an average city.
The Old Fhart
12-04-2007, 19:42
Dessertrat-"Criminals are usually very lazy, so not staying near the road is probably the best advice you can give someone as to avoiding crime. Can you imagine someone climbing up a 5000 foot peak to rob someone when they could do it near a trailhead? Habitual criminals who have been interviewed in prisons as to how they pick their "marks" and on the best ways to avoid being a victim have said that walking fast works. The surprise is in why it works: criminals are in many cases too lazy to run or walk fast enough to catch up with you, let alone climbing a mountain to get you."I agree with what you're saying but on August 4th, 1982, there was some clown who tried armed robbery at Carter Notch Hut, over 3.5 miles from the highway, with a .22 rifle. One of the hut crew suffered an gunshot wound to the leg. The hut crew radioed the police and someone who worked on Wildcat Mountain with the guy helped set a trap so State police were waiting for him when he finally reached the road. See story, page 3-7. (http://www.ohcroo.com/pdf/spring2005.pdf)
4eyedbuzzard
12-04-2007, 19:50
...The historic chance of a thru-hiker being murdered on any given day of a thru-hike is 1 in 276,012 (7667 hikers x 180 days / 5 murders. Of being murdered anywhere else in the US on a given day, 1 in 6,500,000
Correction: I used 7667 thru-hikers whereas I should have used 38335 (forgetting that hike success rate isn't a determining variable), resulting in a chance of a thru-hiker being murdered on any given day 1 in 1,380,060 (38335 hikers x 180 days / 5 murders) - 4.5 times the average U.S. murder rate. (couldn't figure out why the rates were off, so I redid the math)
minnesotasmith
12-04-2007, 19:54
Does what Bryson did to the truth about his time on the AT count as that? IMO it does. :-? :rolleyes:
A 700-miler (if that) who "hiked the Appalachian Trail" (Bryson's own words at the end of the book), when he skipped over 2/3 of the Trail.
Do you get degrees awarded to you if you complete only 30% of the required coursework? Not at any college I've ever been to...
==============================================
Back specifically on subject: I'd like to know how many people have just gone missing along the AT, and no one knows that that happened specifically there. Get lost in wilderness areas off-trail (so unintentionally bushwacking) while alone with no comms, get far enough off-trail that no one would hear you yelling for help, fall and break a leg, and never get seen alive again...
Darwin again
12-04-2007, 20:09
I'd like to know how many people have just gone missing along the AT, and no one knows that that happened specifically there. Get lost in wilderness areas off-trail (so unintentionally bushwacking) while alone with no comms, get far enough off-trail that no one would hear you yelling for help, fall and break a leg, and never get seen alive again...
I know that's happened in the Adirondacks. How about the AT?
Does anyone have a source (or the list) for the locations and circumstances of all the murders that have ever happened along the AT?
Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-04-2007, 20:18
Correction: I used 7667 thru-hikers whereas I should have used 38335 (forgetting that hike success rate isn't a determining variable), resulting in a chance of a thru-hiker being murdered on any given day 1 in 1,380,060 (38335 hikers x 180 days / 5 murders) - 4.5 times the average U.S. murder rate. (couldn't figure out why the rates were off, so I redid the math)It appears this assumes only thru-hikers are on the trail. In another recent thread it was estimated that thru hikers make up only 1% to 5% of the total users of the AT.....
Alligator
12-04-2007, 20:23
It appears this assumes only thru-hikers are on the trail. In another recent thread it was estimated that thru hikers make up only 1% to 5% of the total users of the AT..... Good point. 4eyedbuzzard is conditioning the probability based on thruhikers. That says that they were killed because they were thruhikers and ignores that the rest of the hiking population may have been at risk.
(38335 hikers x 180 days / 5 murders) - 4.5 times the
Probably higher since many of those 38335 stay on the trail far less than 180 days. The number includes those that quit.
Another thing is that in most people killed in the cities that you use for comparison are done in by someone they know. Everyone killed on the AT has been the victim of a stranger.
Plus, most of the people who thru hike the AT lead the kind of lifestyle which would put them in a population with much lower rates than the published city averages.
Bottom line, one may be safer on the AT overall, but not from everything.
4eyedbuzzard
12-04-2007, 20:28
I know that's happened in the Adirondacks. How about the AT?
Does anyone have a source (or the list) for the locations and circumstances of all the murders that have ever happened along the AT?
Short synopsis at http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp960605/06050359.htm
SGT Rock
12-04-2007, 20:29
Do you get degrees awarded to you if you complete only 30% of the required coursework? Not at any college I've ever been to...
.
I seem to remember someone saying that you didn't have to be adicted to cigaretts to know about them or something to that effect. Seems that fella's point was you didn't have to do something to know about it or write about it.:rolleyes:
Who was that fella?:-?
4eyedbuzzard
12-04-2007, 20:29
Good point. 4eyedbuzzard is conditioning the probability based on thruhikers. That says that they were killed because they were thruhikers and ignores that the rest of the hiking population may have been at risk.
If you read my initial post you'll find I stated that in my conclusion.
Dakota Dan
12-04-2007, 20:31
Another reason for torching the shelters.
or at least a good excuse to "Stealth Camp":)
4eyedbuzzard
12-04-2007, 20:34
or at least a good excuse to "Stealth Camp":)
LW needs to add psychopathic killers to the usually less deadly vermin and sheeple being the main reasons to avoid shelters.
Alligator
12-04-2007, 20:38
If you read my initial post you'll find I stated that in my conclusion.Then you really didn't need to include it in the first place, since the methodology is unsound.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-04-2007, 20:41
If you read my initial post you'll find I stated that in my conclusion.4eyedbuzzard, wouldn't the presence of the other hikers alter the ratio so that it is considerable lower than 4.5 times the murder rate in cities? If on any given day the thru hikers were even 10% of the total number on the AT, then the numbers look something like this: 38335 thrus + 345,015 regular hikers = 383,350 total hiker * 180 / 5 murders = 1 in 13,800,600 and that doesn't even include hikers from the rest of the year.
Alligator
12-04-2007, 20:41
For instance, the woman killed at Vendeventner was killed for her backpack yes? Well, if thruhikers don't carry that type of backpack, that's one less murder to include in these stats:-? . A bit bogus.
minnesotasmith
12-04-2007, 20:42
I seem to remember someone saying that you didn't have to be adicted to cigaretts to know about them or something to that effect. Seems that fella's point was you didn't have to do something to know about it or write about it.:rolleyes:
Who was that fella?:-?
I'm not following your point here. Would you please be more direct with what you are trying to tell me?
Another reason for torching the shelters.
All of the murder were not at shelters. Would kill all the bears if one attacked you.
4eyedbuzzard
12-04-2007, 20:47
4eyedbuzzard, wouldn't the presence of the other hikers alter the ratio so that it is considerable lower than 4.5 times the murder rate in cities? If on any given day the thru hikers were even 10% of the total number on the AT, then the numbers look something like this: 38335 thrus + 345,015 regular hikers = 383,350 total hiker * 180 / 5 murders = 1 in 13,800,600 and that doesn't even include hikers from the rest of the year.
I alluded to that in my post.
It doesn't change the historic fact that 5 of the 9 AT hiker murders(a few more happened REAL close but aren't included in that stat) happened to thru-hikers, who make up a very small percentage of overall AT hikers. As a group all hikers appear to have a very low murder rate - but thru-hikers as a distinct subset have a very high one, whether people want to admit it or not.
Then you really didn't need to include it in the first place, since the methodology is unsound.
It might need a bit of fine tuning, but its perfectly sound.
minnesotasmith
12-04-2007, 20:52
I alluded to that in my post.
It doesn't change the historic fact that 5 of the 9 AT hiker murders(a few more happened REAL close but aren't included in that stat) happened to thru-hikers, who make up a very small percentage of overall AT hikers. As a group all hikers appear to have a very low murder rate - but thru-hikers as a distinct subset have a very high one, whether people want to admit it or not.
What cause do you (or anyone) hypothesize for this (definitely defensible) hypothesis, 4EB? It seems almost counter-intuitive, as thrus are presumably far more experienced at dealing with Trail hazards (human as well as natural).
Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-04-2007, 20:55
It doesn't change the historic fact that 5 of the 9 AT hiker murders(a few more happened REAL close but aren't included in that stat) happened to thru-hikers, You have a point - if over half of the murders happened to a group that is 1 to 5% of the total.
To really get a sense of the comparative danger, we would have to consider the number of hours spent on the AT by each group. Many of the regular hikers are day hikers on the trail for 6 hours or less - which means the thrus spent four times as much time on the trail in the same day.
Alligator
12-04-2007, 20:56
I alluded to that in my post.
It doesn't change the historic fact that 5 of the 9 AT hiker murders(a few more happened REAL close but aren't included in that stat) happened to thru-hikers, who make up a very small percentage of overall AT hikers. As a group all hikers appear to have a very low murder rate - but thru-hikers as a distinct subset have a very high one, whether people want to admit it or not.Until you show that the people were killed not because they were on the AT, but rather because they were thruhikers, you cannot make the conclusions that you have. It is probably very possible to draw other similarities amongst the victims then claim shaky stats while conditioning on those similarities.
The probability of a random visitor to the Whites getting killed in an avalanche is very small.
That said, it the number goes up substantially for those who spend every weekend skiing around Tuckerman Ravine.
This applies, somehow.
(If anyone wants an unrelated probability challenge, google up "Monty Hall Paradox" then try to explain the concept to the smartest member of your family after a good holiday meal.)
Skidsteer
12-04-2007, 21:03
What cause do you (or anyone) hypothesize for this (definitely defensible) hypothesis, 4EB? It seems almost counter-intuitive, as thrus are presumably far more experienced at dealing with Trail hazards (human as well as natural).
Huh????
Where in hell did you get that idea?
4eyedbuzzard
12-04-2007, 21:12
What cause do you (or anyone) hypothesize for this (definitely defensible) hypothesis, 4EB? It seems almost counter-intuitive, as thrus are presumably far more experienced at dealing with Trail hazards (human as well as natural).
The thing that stands out most is that with one exception(a single man) 6 were young women and 2 were men in the company of those young woman(who were also murdered at the same time). None were in a group of more than two. All were in their 20's, none were 30 years old. Young women tend to be the prey of choice for psychopaths, both on and off the trail.
I don't think trail experience is going to help save anyone from a maniac, as they're not a trail hazard anyone usually considers. And even with all the warnings about not camping near roads and certain shelters, thru-hikers have to go past ALL of them, and ultimate do come into contact with whoever may be waiting along the way. It all could be just bad timing - a statistical anomaly. But I think realistically some probably just looked like easy victims or were stalked after looking like easy prey or offended some wacko's moral delusions. Criminals aren't always as dumb as we think they are either. Given all the "the trail is very safe - you don't need a gun on the AT" rhetoric, most criminals probably know that (almost all) hikers are unarmed.
Bryson may have said he hiked the trail.. he can say what he wants as can anyone else. Many thru hikers I came across..i doubt they really hiked the whole thing. But while Bryson hiked only a small portion of the trail in actuality his popularity is not for having hiked the trail (in fact he titled his book a walk in the woods..which is what it was... and not an AT hike or something like that) but rather for being an effectively humerous writer. And he is a good writer. They guy is probably set for life with that book alone yet he has written several others.
Instead of dissing the buy..I think it would be better to write a better book...if you can. Bryson sold a lot of books..must be a good reason for that.
David
Does what Bryson did to the truth about his time on the AT count as that? IMO it does. :-? :rolleyes:
A 700-miler (if that) who "hiked the Appalachian Trail" (Bryson's own words at the end of the book), when he skipped over 2/3 of the Trail.
Do you get degrees awarded to you if you complete only 30% of the required coursework? Not at any college I've ever been to...
==============================================
Back specifically on subject: I'd like to know how many people have just gone missing along the AT, and no one knows that that happened specifically there. Get lost in wilderness areas off-trail (so unintentionally bushwacking) while alone with no comms, get far enough off-trail that no one would hear you yelling for help, fall and break a leg, and never get seen alive again...
Alligator
12-04-2007, 21:15
The probability of a random visitor to the Whites getting killed in an avalanche is very small.
That said, it the number goes up substantially for those who spend every weekend skiing around Tuckerman Ravine.
This applies, somehow.
(If anyone wants an unrelated probability challenge, google up "Monty Hall Paradox" then try to explain the concept to the smartest member of your family after a good holiday meal.)It might apply for Tuckerman Ravine, but you'd have to prove that too. Might be an easy one, but it doesn't mean the same thing applies here. Given the few murders, it has not been established that the victims were murdered because they were thruhikers. That they were could simply be random chance and therefore conditioning would be unwarranted.
You play this silly game year after year Rick. It's like a little trolling game for you. It's just shaky information that you are promulgating and you know it.
SGT Rock
12-04-2007, 21:16
Maybe the over confidence in nonexistent special powers of thru-hikers is the problem.
Alligator
12-04-2007, 21:18
The thing that stands out most is that with one exception(a single man) 6 were young women and 2 were men in the company of those young woman(who were also murdered at the same time). None were in a group of more than two. All were in their 20's, none were 30 years old. Young women tend to be the prey of choice for psychopaths, both on and off the trail.
I don't think trail experience is going to help save anyone from a maniac, as they're not a trail hazard anyone usually considers. And even with all the warnings about not camping near roads and certain shelters, thru-hikers have to go past ALL of them, and ultimate do come into contact with whoever may be waiting along the way. It all could be just bad timing - a statistical anomaly. But I think realistically some probably just looked like easy victims or were stalked after looking like easy prey or offended some wacko's moral delusions. Criminals aren't always as dumb as we think they are either. Given all the "the trail is very safe - you don't need a gun on the AT" rhetoric, most criminals probably know that (almost all) hikers are unarmed.Given your first paragraph then, all thruhikers over 30 shouldn't worry at all. They are totally safe:-? .
4eyedbuzzard
12-04-2007, 21:19
Until you show that the people were killed not because they were on the AT, but rather because they were thruhikers, you cannot make the conclusions that you have. It is probably very possible to draw other similarities amongst the victims then claim shaky stats while conditioning on those similarities.
I didn't really draw conclusions. I calculated a murder rate for thru-hikers based upon the historic record(facts are stupid things). Why the rate is so much higher I and others can only speculate upon.
SGT Rock
12-04-2007, 21:19
Male thru-hikers between the ages of 40 and 50 are immune to death.
Thats because if we died our wives would kill us.
SGT Rock
12-04-2007, 21:22
In the event of death, discontinue use immediately.
4eyedbuzzard
12-04-2007, 21:23
Given your first paragraph then, all thruhikers over 30 shouldn't worry at all. They are totally safe:-? .
I can't control the data. Every victim was under 30. The next 9 could be over 50. I don't know. You seem to want to challenge the actual facts by assigning illogical conclusions to me that I didn't espouse.
Lone Wolf
12-04-2007, 21:23
LW needs to add psychopathic killers to the usually less deadly vermin and sheeple being the main reasons to avoid shelters.
only if you're a couple. single men aren't targeted. it's the gals they're after
SGT Rock
12-04-2007, 21:25
So if LWolf has thru-hiked 7 times, does he get counted once or 7 times?
And what we really want to know...
Are his superpowers better than someone that has only thru-hiked once. And what are his superpowers?
Stir Fry
12-04-2007, 21:25
Your math is off us rate is per year. Your math is for 70 years.
4eyedbuzzard
12-04-2007, 21:27
Male thru-hikers between the ages of 40 and 50 are immune to death.
That's nothin'
Chuck Norris died ten years ago, but the Grim Reaper can't get up the courage to tell him.
Death once had a near-Chuck Norris experience.
You play this silly game year after year Rick. It's like a little trolling game for you. It's just shaky information that you are promulgating and you know it.My guess is that 4EB came up with this all on his own.
Alligator
12-04-2007, 21:29
...
Conclusion: Hiking is generally very safe. Thru-hiking, however, is roughly the same from a murder danger standpoint as living in an average city.The above wasn't a conclusion:rolleyes:?
Lone Wolf
12-04-2007, 21:31
So if LWolf has thru-hiked 7 times, does he get counted once or 7 times?
only 5. and that's suspect
4eyedbuzzard
12-04-2007, 21:31
My guess is that 4EB came up with this all on his own.
Does this mean you're not sending me that check for .05/word?:rolleyes:
SGT Rock
12-04-2007, 21:32
Chuck Norris sees dead people. All the time. He just hasn't killed some of them yet.
Alligator
12-04-2007, 21:32
My guess is that 4EB came up with this all on his own.Maybe, but you have definitely used this methodology before, and were supporting it here.
SGT Rock
12-04-2007, 21:33
only 5. and that's suspect
So what are your superpowers? Can you wrassle bears and can you smell a psychopath? Can you light fires with your gaze?
Alligator
12-04-2007, 21:38
So what are your superpowers? Can you wrassle bears and can you smell a psychopath? Can you light fires with your gaze?He can burn down shelters with just his mind.
He can kick a hippy a hundred yards.
trlhiker
12-04-2007, 21:41
I've noticed in that Virginia Pilot report that no one has been killed on the AT since 1996. Is that correct?
Programbo
12-04-2007, 21:43
9 people have been murdered on the trail. i googled it earlier[murder on the AT] and it had some decent info on the subject...
Well you can`t say that...9 people are KNOWN to have been murdered on the trail..What about various wandering hippies, vagabonds, run-a-ways and other drifters who may have met an untimely death along the trail and were buried there and therefore there is no record of them being killed on the AT or anywhere? :eek:
Skidsteer
12-04-2007, 21:52
Well you can`t say that...9 people are KNOWN to have been murdered on the trail..What about various wandering hippies, vagabonds, run-a-ways and other drifters who may have met an untimely death along the trail and were buried there and therefore there is no record of them being killed on the AT or anywhere? :eek:
Happens everywhere else as well. Probably more frequently.
4eyedbuzzard
12-04-2007, 21:55
The above wasn't a conclusion:rolleyes:?
My conclusion is that based upon the historic evidence, for some reason(again, who knows) thru-hiking is much more dangeous than shorter hikes. Out of the millions of people who hike ONLY some part of the AT every year only 4 have been the victims of a murderer, yet out of a very small sample group 5 who were considered thru-hikers have been victims. And if you were to break it down into "hiker days", thru-hiking murder rates are incredibly high.
The ATC says 3 million+ people use the AT every year. If the average is only 1 "hiker day" per person that's some 66 million "hiker days" over the period 1974 to 1996 in which 9 murders occured overall. But for the thru-hiker subset of some 30,000 hikers(being very generous here) equating to some 5.5 million hiker days there were 5 murders. You do the math.
Again, I offer no reason other than my suspicions that young women were targeted by psychos who may have reasoned them to be unable to protect themselves, not exactly an uncommon occurance in "civilization" either - not that most of the AT is far enough removed from all that to be truly considered wilderness anyway. Additionally, if the murderer knew they were thru-hikers(I don't know if they did or not) they might well reason that they would not be reported missing as quickly or be as likely to be able to summon defensive aid, aiding the murderer in getting away with the crime.
Dakota Dan
12-04-2007, 21:58
When you consider total deaths, which include accidents, natural(heart attacks, etc) or homicides the AT would be safer than any city with the same population.
More people will die from heart attacks, etc than accidental deaths.
Homicide percentage is so low its almost a non-figure. The rate may get higher the closer you get to trail-heads. Safer deep in the woods, stealth camping, away from shelters.
You always stand the greatest chance for being killed/injured while in route to/from the trail. Or at the Friday-after-Thanksgiving sale at REI.:eek:
I have never read so much BS. Most of the comments made make no sense at all. Those of you that argue with those that make those stupid comments have to be smarter than that. Or maybe not. Yes, I had a response to one of those stupid comments. I guess I'm no smarter than they are. But I am smart enough get away from this crap. Bye
Lone Wolf
12-04-2007, 22:02
you're more likey to be murdered/raped/assaulted on the AT than being attacked by a bear or bitten by a snake. most plan for the latter
All of the murder were not at shelters. Would kill all the bears if one attacked you.
That's not what I was saying. I was just looking for another reason to get rid of the mice-infested, dirty shelters. However, I have reconsidered my position and would prefer that the shelters be maintained so I know where to avoid all the sheeple. ;)
Lone Wolf
12-04-2007, 22:06
I have never read so much BS. Most of the comments made make no sense at all. Those of you that argue with those that make those stupid comments have to be smarter than that. Or maybe not. Yes, I had a response to one of those stupid comments. I guess I'm no smarter than they are. But I am smart enough get away from this crap. Bye
no sense of humor.
Alligator
12-04-2007, 22:09
I can do the math and calculate rates for any subset of the population I want, state those results, and compare rates. The comparison is meaningless if it is not appropriate to subset on the population. 4EB, I thought you might understand what I was saying when I subsetted on the thruhikers over 30 but you but you just don't get it. So I guess in your mind that thruhikers over 30 have nothing to worry about?
Homicide percentage is so low its almost a non-figure. The rate may get higher the closer you get to trail-heads. Safer deep in the woods, stealth camping, away from shelters.
For every 2000 thru hikers who realized their dream by walking 2000 miles from Maine to Georgia, one thru hiker didn't make it because he or she was murdered by a complete stranger along the way.
Dakota Dan
12-04-2007, 22:19
you're more likey to be murdered/raped/assaulted on the AT than being attacked by a bear or bitten by a snake. most plan for the latter
"assaulted" probably counts for 99% of the three. Never heard of any unprovoked wildlife attacks on the AT(only know of one BEAR attack killing the hiker off the AT in GSMNP). Dog attacks rank at the top of attacks on humans.
Until someone establishes their credentials as a statistician, not a student of statistics, then all these probability calculations are meaningless.
For every 2000 thru hikers who realized their dream by walking 2000 miles from Maine to Georgia, one thru hiker didn't make it because he or she was murdered by a complete stranger along the way.
There are two kinds of lies: deliberate falsehoods and statistics. The above is the latter.
Weary
Dakota Dan
12-04-2007, 22:28
Until someone establishes their credentials as a statistician, not a student of statistics, then all these probability calculations are meaningless.
I wouldn't take this stuff too seriously. After all theres a 90% chance it's 100% BS anyway.:D
Skidsteer
12-04-2007, 22:29
Until someone establishes their credentials as a statistician, not a student of statistics, then all these probability calculations are meaningless.
Pretty certain Alligator has the creds.
SGT Rock
12-04-2007, 22:30
Aren't something like 67% of statistics made up anyway?
Do not put your faith in what statistics say until you have carefully considered what they do not say. ~William W. Watt
Pretty certain Alligator has the creds.
Certainly sounds like it. Thanks Skids.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-04-2007, 23:15
Until someone establishes their credentials as a statistician, not a student of statistics, then all these probability calculations are meaningless.::: Dino exits thread. Made one of her only 'C's in college in statistics :::
Alligator
12-04-2007, 23:20
Until someone establishes their credentials as a statistician, not a student of statistics, then all these probability calculations are meaningless.That's not necessary. Everyone is welcome to discuss it, it's just a BB.
I just don't like to see people get scared of the woods unnecessarily.
You always stand the greatest chance for being killed/injured while in route to/from the trail.Very true.
Traffic accidents are also the reason why being an outside sales rep is a more dangerous profession (if defined by the probability that one will be killed on the job) than that of a police officer.
Statistics sometimes force one to accept things that don't always fit our preconceived notions.
Like the relative safety of the Trail on a single metric like murder rates.
Alligator
12-04-2007, 23:25
Very true.
Traffic accidients are also the reason why being an outside sales rep is a more dagerous profession (if defined by the probablitiy that one will be killed on the job) than that of a police officer.This is one of Rick's other games, pointing out how police officers don't die as frequently on the job as people think.
This is one of Rick's other games, pointing out how police officers don't die as frequently on the job as people think.
I am pointing out how our preconceived notions color the way we look at the world. When a police officer dies on the job, the enormous loss is magnified even further by our respect and admiration for his sacrifice and heroics. We feel it more deeply than the report of Annonymous Joe's accident on I95.
Statistics say that an outside sales rep is more likely not to come home from work, however.
Because of traffic accidents.
Our love for the Trail colors the way we feel about it, too. Statistics are what they are. No value judgments included.
That's not necessary. Everyone is welcome to discuss it, it's just a BB.
I just don't like to see people get scared of the woods unnecessarily.
Gator,
I wasn't buying it anyway. I don't care for people using statistics incorrectly, but as if they were experts to others who may not understand the methodology behind properly calculated statistics. I know enough statistics to know that a lot that was presented is BS, and I appreciate that you have been pointing out the problems with what has been presented.
4eyedbuzzard
12-04-2007, 23:50
I can do the math and calculate rates for any subset of the population I want, state those results, and compare rates. The comparison is meaningless if it is not appropriate to subset on the population. 4EB, I thought you might understand what I was saying when I subsetted on the thruhikers over 30 but you but you just don't get it. So I guess in your mind that thruhikers over 30 have nothing to worry about?
Oh. I get it. You're trying to nullify the statistical risk drawn from historical real-world data by manipulating what I've said. I didn't introduce a subset of under 30 year old(or female) hikers, YOU DID. That all the murders happened to under 30 year olds is simply another historical fact, but there is not enough data to isolate such a group. I don't know the numbers or percentage of under 30 yo hikers, how many were women, nor does ATC offer it.
What I do know is that history is generally the best predictor of the future. Thru-hikers get murdered at a much higher rate than all other hikers. Them's just the facts. Sometimes reality doesn't fit into how we feel things should be. Feel free to spin the numbers anyway you like to feel better about the trail.
Jack Tarlin
12-04-2007, 23:50
Just checked on this at half a dozen sources....a salesman or sales' rep job is almost always combined with statistics and fatalities involving truck drivers as well. A position in sales BY ITSELF (i.e. not when combined with trucking statistics) is not more dangerous than a cop's job.
We most certainly agree that the Trail is very safe. Especially for northbounders travelling in a herd.
What it is not is a place where one can let there guard down completely "Because it is safer than any place in America" .
4eyedbuzzard
12-04-2007, 23:55
That's not necessary. Everyone is welcome to discuss it, it's just a BB.
I just don't like to see people get scared of the woods unnecessarily.
I just don't like to see people feel inherently safer in the woods unnecessarily when the historical facts say otherwise.
I just don't like to see people feel inherently safer in the woods unnecessarily when the historical facts say otherwise.
Please feel free to share your credentials so we know how much weight to give your analysis. Personally, I don't think there is enough data to make your claims or predict anything for that matter.
Alligator
12-05-2007, 00:03
I am pointing out how our preconceived notions color the way we look at the world. When a police officer dies on the job, the enormous loss is magnified even further by our respect and admiration for his sacrifice and heroics. We feel it more deeply than the report of Annonymous Joe's accident on I95.
...I might believe you Rick but you troll too much:) . You had the opportunity to say this the last time you brought this up and didn't.
Alligator
12-05-2007, 00:11
Oh. I get it. You're trying to nullify the statistical risk drawn from historical real-world data by manipulating what I've said. I didn't introduce a subset of under 30 year old(or female) hikers, YOU DID. That all the murders happened to under 30 year olds is simply another historical fact, but there is not enough data to isolate such a group. I don't know the numbers or percentage of under 30 yo hikers, how many were women, nor does ATC offer it.
What I do know is that history is generally the best predictor of the future. Thru-hikers get murdered at a much higher rate than all other hikers. Them's just the facts. Sometimes reality doesn't fit into how we feel things should be. Feel free to spin the numbers anyway you like to feel better about the trail.Since you feel it is appropriate to subset the AT user population down to thruhikers, I'm following your logic a step further. There's plenty of data to isolate the over thirty crowd. Apparently none died, by your own admission. I'm just using your methods. By your logic, we should state that there were no murders of 30+ somethings therefore they are the safest group.
Those are facts, with a conclusion. Do you support the conclusion?
The Old Fhart
12-05-2007, 00:17
I just figured it out! if only one thru hiker hikes the trail and 3 people get killed, then this single thru hiker has a 300% chance of getting killed. :rolleyes:
Logically, the more thru hikers, the less their chance of getting killed. Only hike in years when there are lots of thru hikers starting!
Jack Tarlin
12-05-2007, 00:18
I usually get suspicious when people start throwing around all sorts of statistics without checking them out, or without citing their sources.
And all too often, these statistics have obviously pulled out of the same place, a place that seldom sees sunshine, if you catch my drift.
And frequently, this is where these stats should remain.
minnesotasmith
12-05-2007, 00:41
Huh????
Where in hell did you get that idea?
Experience in the woods. How many years of hiking in bits and pieces would the average Joe take to get in as much time hiking as a thruhiker does in one year? A LOOOONGGG time...
Given your first paragraph then, all thruhikers over 30 shouldn't worry at all. They are totally safe:-? .
Hmmmmm.....
I wonder how many 30+ yo hikers have gotten arrested mooning the cog? :-?
40+ ?
I guess youth ain't all it's cracked up to be, huh? :-?
Party time!!! :banana
4eyedbuzzard
12-05-2007, 01:16
Please feel free to share your credentials so we know how much weight to give your analysis. Personally, I don't think there is enough data to make your claims or predict anything for that matter.
Ad hominem. Argue the facts please. It's an internet DB post. I'm not posting a CV or defending a dissertation.
But just for giggles, if someone on an anonymous internet discussion board states, "I have a PhD in applied mathematics", do the data and analysis become more credible? Fascinating.
My analysis is admittedly very rough, but even given the limited data there is simply no doubt that for some reason(s) thru-hikers fall victim to murder at a rate that simply doesn't agree with the notion that an AT thru-hiker is significantly safer than they would be anywhere else.
For those that don't agree, including those with GED's as well as PhD's, I welcome seeing a better analysis based upon the available data. Maybe I'm missing or miscalculating something. Wouldn't be the first(or last) time. I'm sure someone with more knowledge and education than I, and armed with more in depth data, can come up with a more accurate analysis.
In the meantime, I've stated my analysis in detail in several posts, and many who disagree say, "you're wrong". But what I don't see from any of them is any mathematical proof or analysis - just ad hominem retorts.
In the event of death, discontinue use immediately.
In addition, you will not be paid between the time of death to the point that you were discovered at your workstation.
Budget constraints are force us to be more "proactive" regarding these matters.
Thank you for your concerns and understanding.
The management.
So if LWolf has thru-hiked 7 times, does he get counted once or 7 times?
And what we really want to know...
Are his superpowers better than someone that has only thru-hiked once. And what are his superpowers?
Stealth durty werdz.
4eyedbuzzard
12-05-2007, 01:48
Since you feel it is appropriate to subset the AT user population down to thruhikers, I'm following your logic a step further. There's plenty of data to isolate the over thirty crowd. Apparently none died, by your own admission. I'm just using your methods. By your logic, we should state that there were no murders of 30+ somethings therefore they are the safest group.
Those are facts, with a conclusion. Do you support the conclusion?
If by safer you mean historically less likely to be murdered when compared to the group of all hikers as a whole, then yes. And I'll go one step further. I think that particularly young females under 30 traveling alone or with just one other companion are statistically much more likely to be attacked and/or murdered. Please present evidence and your logical argument to the contrary.
warraghiyagey
12-05-2007, 01:53
Are you guys really still mincing statistics about all this. The ratio of the probablility that the statistics are firm in any study on trail murder are eleventy-seven percdent over 5x that who the **** still cares. Enjoy the goddam trail.:eek:
4eyedbuzzard
12-05-2007, 02:17
To clarify above: As we do not have data that differentiates the number of hikers or "hiker days" groups by age - if all hikers were under 30 a comparitive analysis could not be made. But we do know through observation and surveys that there are certainly enough over 30 hikers that in any random sampling they would likely be represented. The odds of all 9 murder victims being under 30, had these murders been simply random events, is very small. The murders weren't random. Criminals target the young, and especially young women. Does this make older hikers safer. Yes, in a roundabout way, due to the preferences of killers.
warraghiyagey
12-05-2007, 02:25
Are you guys really still mincing statistics about all this. The ratio of the probablility that the statistics are firm in any study on trail murder are eleventy-seven percdent over 5x that who the **** still cares. Enjoy the goddam trail.:eek:
To clarify above: As we do not have data that differentiates the number of hikers or "hiker days" groups by age - if all hikers were under 30 a comparitive analysis could not be made. But we do know through observation and surveys that there are certainly enough over 30 hikers that in any random sampling they would likely be represented. The odds of all 9 murder victims being under 30, had these murders been simply random events, is very small. The murders weren't random. Criminals target the young, and especially young women. Does this make older hikers safer. Yes, in a roundabout way, due to the preferences of killers.
UUUUUuuuuuuugggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!:datz :datz :datz :datz
4eyedbuzzard
12-05-2007, 02:31
UUUUUuuuuuuugggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!:datz :datz :datz :datz
Someone got a gun to your head? It's kind of like a TV or radio tuner. If the thread annoys you, or you find it stupid, don't click on it. That's why I don't click on the links to the peppermint soap and it's effects on genitalia thread.;)
warraghiyagey
12-05-2007, 02:36
Someone got a gun to your head? It's kind of like a TV or radio tuner. If the thread annoys you, or you find it stupid, don't click on it. That's why I don't click on the links to the peppermint soap and it's effects on genitalia thread.;)
Touche. If I had a thru hike for every time I've used that same logic on someone else I'd be a graceful man.:) :) :)
4eyedbuzzard
12-05-2007, 02:49
Touche. If I had a thru hike for every time I've used that same logic on someone else I'd be a graceful man.:) :) :)
Don't worry, I'm about worn out anyway.:)
warraghiyagey
12-05-2007, 02:56
Don't worry, I'm about worn out anyway.:)
Sweet!!!!:)
Flush2wice
12-05-2007, 11:03
My analysis is admittedly very rough, but even given the limited data there is simply no doubt that for some reason(s) thru-hikers fall victim to murder at a rate that simply doesn't agree with the notion that an AT thru-hiker is significantly safer than they would be anywhere else.
For those that don't agree, including those with GED's as well as PhD's, I welcome seeing a better analysis based upon the available data. Maybe I'm missing or miscalculating something. Wouldn't be the first(or last) time. I'm sure someone with more knowledge and education than I, and armed with more in depth data, can come up with a more accurate analysis.
I'm no statistician, nor do I play one on TV but I'll add my 2 cents anyway. If the data going in is faulty, then it's faulty coming out. To the best of my limited knowledge, all the AT murders happened while victims were camping not hiking (please correct me if I'm wrong). A safe assumption is that the majority of the "total hikers on the AT" are day hikers. Many are very short day hikers at that. They leave the woods before dark. Is there a way to recalculate the stats based on campers instead of hikers? I don't know what that figure is but it would help to explain why an inordinate number of thru-hikers have been victims as 100% of thru-hikers camp in the woods.
The odds of all 9 murder victims being under 30, had these murders been simply random events, is very small. The murders weren't random. Criminals target the young, and especially young women. Does this make older hikers safer. Yes, in a roundabout way, due to the preferences of killers.
Can't argue with that. Just another reason to stay away from women. Nothin but trouble. :D
At the risk of sounding insensitive and non-PC...
...This is a genuinely entertaining thread,
but arguing on the internet at length is like the special olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.
I'm no statistician, nor do I play one on TV but I'll add my 2 cents anyway. If the data going in is faulty, then it's faulty coming out. To the best of my limited knowledge, all the AT murders happened while victims were camping not hiking (please correct me if I'm wrong). A safe assumption is that the majority of the "total hikers on the AT" are day hikers. Many are very short day hikers at that. They leave the woods before dark. Is there a way to recalculate the stats based on campers instead of hikers? I don't know what that figure is but it would help to explain why an inordinate number of thru-hikers have been victims as 100% of thru-hikers camp in the woods.
There are a number of problems with his analysis as others have pointed out, but don't try to argue with him or he will start talking to you in Latin. :rolleyes:
Desert Lobster
12-05-2007, 11:51
9 victims?
2 from Maine killed in Virginia. Which shelter. I read a book about it.
1 That hatchet murder for the pack at Vandeventer
2 The two folk shot at a shelter(which one) in PA. Didn't the guy get caught on a bridge?
1 The lady who crawled out of the woods and survived after getting shot a bunch of times. Heard her speak once. Her lover was killed. Was she at a shelter.
2 The Winans and ... murder in Shenandoah Park. That was actually off the AT.
I get 8, who was the 9th?
2
Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-05-2007, 12:22
It was a Lobster :D
Alligator
12-05-2007, 15:21
One of the biggest complicating factors to a statistical analysis that attempts to compare safety on the trail vs. off the trail is going to be deciding on what to base the rate on. To compare to off the trail, a figure such as murders per 100,000 is fairly standard. Thruhikers at best live on the trail for only 4-6 months. Weekenders/Sectioners generally spend less time on the trail. Day hikers some other value. Do we have good data to calculate these values (user time on the trail)? It's already been pointed out that we probably don't. Can these numbers be tranformed into annual murders per thousand? There are holes in that too: a disproportionate seasonal usage pattern, unequal population distribution, unequal gender distribution, etc. Even picking a reference town/city is problematic. Non-vacation towns and cities generally have low influxes of tourists.
Lets talk about estimates. It's not good enough to just pick a ballpark figure. (Ballpark=the number is in the stadium.) If we need to resort to their use, we need to bound the number. Because when we estimate we need to introduce uncertainty. For instance, suppose we say there were 30,000 thruhikers over the years. We must incorporate uncertainty, perhaps saying there were as few as 25000 or as many as 35000. There ought to be a reasonable source for these numbers also. Keep in mind though that putting together a bunch of ballpark (read very uncertain) statistics tends to rapidly inflate the associated bounds on the final estimate. This may not be a problem when dealing with large numbers but I'm going to guess that with the small number of murders, the uncertainty levels will make comparisons difficult.
Here's another concern. When we look back at previously collected data, we can form new hypothesis, but new data is needed to make sure that what we are seeing is not random chance. One may as confident as they like about this new hypothesis but new data is needed to make a statistical conclusion, i.e. honest comparisons and inferences. What's been suggested is called "data snooping". (I would prefer that this new data not be collected:mad: .) This has particular bearing in the subsetting issue. It was noticed that the 30 below crowd has all the murders. Of course it's very likely that if one were to use a statistical test on this data it would show a difference. But this was done after the fact. [Caveat. There are techniques that allow for certain types of comparisons to be done w/o a specific prior hypothesis.]
The argument that someone else needs to produce a "better" estimate does not validate the quality of the first estimate. Flush2wice makes a good point. The statement "garbage in equals garbage out" is more frequently used;) .
Darwin again
12-05-2007, 15:34
wow. This IS the special olympics of threads.
Newsflash: Women in their 20s are in more danger of being murdered than any other age/gender group while doing an activity that is really very safe.
The evidence clearly shows that to be true.
If it weren't true, the facts would show something different, like ONLY men between 40 and 50 getting murdered (which the good sergeant has proven impossible), and disprove the above.
Methodology is irrelevant when you apply the common sense of a kindergartener. Oh my gosh: Entire lives and educations and fortunes have been wasted preparing people for this specific thread.
dessertrat
12-05-2007, 15:40
This is one of Rick's other games, pointing out how police officers don't die as frequently on the job as people think.
It seems more like the truth than a game. It doesn't seem to deride police officers-- it's just a fact that being a cop, while a hard job, is not as dangerous in terms of fatalities as certain other jobs. I believe it is more dangerous to be an ironworker on a high rise building, a commercial fisherman, or a lumberjack, in the statistical sense.
Turn the key in the ignition of your car and you're about to enter FAR greater danger of peril / loss of life than on any wilderness hiking trail (unless it's Mt. Hood and seismologists have just announced she's about to "blow.") :D
On the other hand I've heard it said that the probability of death is 100%! :p
minnesotasmith
12-05-2007, 15:46
UUUUUuuuuuuugggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!:datz :datz :datz :datz
Another substantive, content-packed response by warraghiyagey.
:rolleyes:
Alligator
12-05-2007, 15:49
It seems more like the truth than a game. It doesn't seem to deride police officers-- it's just a fact that being a cop, while a hard job, is not as dangerous in terms of fatalities as certain other jobs. I believe it is more dangerous to be an ironworker on a high rise building, a commercial fisherman, or a lumberjack, in the statistical sense.I wasn't disputing the facts. I was calling attention to when he introduced the information and why.
Alligator
12-05-2007, 15:50
wow. This IS the special olympics of threads.
Newsflash: Women in their 20s are in more danger of being murdered than any other age/gender group while doing an activity that is really very safe.
...You mean like tennis or kickball?
minnesotasmith
12-05-2007, 15:54
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
This links to numerous Department of Justice reports.
Just put "murder rate breakdown" into the search box, and be prepared to go to at least Page 2 of the results.
One article there: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/sheets/apvsvc15.txt
Murder, by sex of victim
1 in 10 murder victims were males, 18 to 21
Rates per 1,000 persons
Victims' age Male Female
12 to 14 0.04 0.02
15 to 17 0.22 0.04
18 to 21 0.45 0.07
22 to 24 0.37 0.07
25 to 29 0.29 0.07
30 to 34 0.22 0.07
35 to 39 0.17 0.05
40 to 49 0.12 0.04
50 to 64 0.08 0.02
65 or older 0.05 0.03
=========================================
Note that males were more likely to be murder victims than were women in every age category.
warraghiyagey
12-05-2007, 15:55
You mean like tennis or kickball?
My best friend was hit in the head by a racket when she was playing kickball next to a tennis court. God rest her soul.
Timber cutters have the highest fatility rate.
dessertrat
12-05-2007, 15:57
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
This links to numerous Department of Justice reports.
Just put "murder rate breakdown" into the search box, and be prepared to go to at least Page 2 of the results.
One article there: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/sheets/apvsvc15.txt
Murder, by sex of victim
1 in 10 murder victims were males, 18 to 21
Rates per 1,000 persons
Victims' age Male Female
=========================================
Note that males were more likely to be murder victims than were women in every age category.
This is a good example of why people should be careful in the way in which they view statistics. Of course many more murder victims, and murderers, are males, and young males. But a great number of murders in recent years happen in relation to "thug life" in the inner city. Of course those don't make the news in the same fashion as a pretty female hiker. And one should not say "because I am male, therefore I am more likely to be murdered" without evaluating other factors involved in risk assessment.
warraghiyagey
12-05-2007, 15:58
Another substantive, content-packed response by warraghiyagey.
:rolleyes:
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night. The 2AM show is waaayyyyy different from the 9PM show.
warraghiyagey
12-05-2007, 16:00
Timber cutters have the highest fatility rate.
The people that yell 'timber' have the lowest.
dangerous jobs:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P63405.asp
Timber cutters have the highest fatility rate.What's a "fatility rate?" Is that a cross between fatality and fertility (interesting :D )?
Critterman
12-05-2007, 16:57
The lady who crawled out of the woods and survived after getting shot a bunch of times. Heard her speak once. Her lover was killed. Was she at a shelter.
No, they spent the night in a tent near a shelter then where followed from the shelter down the trail the next day and later shot at a campsite off trail.
SGT Rock
12-05-2007, 17:15
Timber cutters have the highest fatility rate.
Who has the highest fertility rates?
The Old Fhart
12-05-2007, 17:24
SGT Rock-"Who has the highest fertility rates?"That may have been #1 on the list of qualifications on MS's "shop for a bride" list!;)
Alligator
12-05-2007, 17:27
Who has the highest fertility rates?Pregnant women, haha.
minnesotasmith
12-05-2007, 17:33
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rat e
Highest: Mali (country in Africa) at 7.19 expected lifetime children per woman as of 2007.
Have seen the Arab country of Yemen at the top in another such compliation.
Note that Western countries generally range between 1.3-1.7, with 2.15 needed for replacement in best-case scenarios (no wars/famines/plagues/ mass gov't killings such as in the USSR under Stalin. Some such as Spain and Italy are down to about 0.9 in some lists. That means that two sets of grandparents can expect to have ONE grandchild between them on average.
SGT Rock
12-05-2007, 17:33
Pregnant women, haha.
Never thought of that. Statistically speaking - pregnant women are more likely to be pregnant than any other group.
wow. This IS the special olympics of threads.If you're hinting that we're mentally and physically challenged . . . I resemble that remark! :eek:
Never thought of that. Statistically speaking - pregnant women are more likely to be pregnant than any other group.And there's no such thing as "slightly" or "a little bit pregnant" either! :D
dessertrat
12-05-2007, 17:37
Never thought of that. Statistically speaking - pregnant women are more likely to be pregnant than any other group.
Yes, but if fertility is defined as the ability to get pregnant at the present time, pregnant women are at the bottom of the list.
SGT Rock
12-05-2007, 17:37
And there's no such thing as "slightly" or "a little bit pregnant" either! :D
And not only are male thru-hikers 40 to 50 invulnerable to death - they are also invulnerable to getting pregnant.
Statistically speaking.
That pretty much sums it up. So, help control the pet population, and don't hike.
And not only are male thru-hikers 40 to 50 invulnerable to death - they are also invulnerable to getting pregnant.
Statistically speaking.Yeah, but I wasn't smart enough to know that so I got fixed anyway! :D
Darwin again
12-05-2007, 18:19
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rat e
Highest: Mali (country in Africa) at 7.19 expected lifetime children per woman as of 2007.
But HOW LONG do they live?
canerunner
12-05-2007, 18:20
Note that Western countries generally range between 1.3-1.7, with 2.15 needed for replacement in best-case scenarios (no wars/famines/plagues/ mass gov't killings such as in the USSR under Stalin. Some such as Spain and Italy are down to about 0.9 in some lists. That means that two sets of grandparents can expect to have ONE grandchild between them on average.
I guess I'm a little dense here. :-?
I was kinda thinking that the idea in the last 10 years or so (maybe longer) was to limit population growth in order to reduce the burden on the earth and it's resources.
The Chinese have their population limiting laws, and that seems to be helping bring their population under some semblance of control. What I don't see is any population control by illegal immigrants in the US. Maybe what we need is more voluntary population control rather than worrying about replacing ourselves.
If we want to protect the environment (which, by the way, includes all of the trails we love to hike), we need to put the protection of our Mother Earth ahead of replacing ourselves.
Everyone seems to be worried about keeping the trails protected from habitat destruction, and encroachment of business and home construction. So doesn't it logically follow thatone of the reasons we have these encroachments is at least in part due to the fact that there are more people?
Hmmmm... Just a thought.
Darwin again
12-05-2007, 18:22
I'll bet Chuck Norris never sits around thinking about replacing himself.
SGT Rock
12-05-2007, 18:22
Forget it canerunner, Smitty puts keeping America White ahead of the enviroment. You are wasting your keystrokes with that sort of logic on him.
take-a-knee
12-05-2007, 18:39
Forget it canerunner, Smitty puts keeping America White ahead of the enviroment. You are wasting your keystrokes with that sort of logic on him.
Yeah, that makes sense. That means with fewer western-minded white people we'll have veritable Edens everywhere like all the darker-skinned people have in their countries. Compare and contrast Lapland and Africa.
minnesotasmith
12-05-2007, 18:45
[quote=SGT Rock;464452]Forget it canerunner, Smitty puts keeping America White ahead of the enviroment. quote]
Check out the quality of the environment of the Mex town across the Rio Grande River from El Paso, TX. For that matter, the radioactivity in Lake Baikal (sp) in the former Soviet Union, the air quality in Peking, or the water quality of the Ganges River in India are good indicators of how concern for the environment goes in the Second and Third World.
Like worrying about endangered species, concern for the environment is mainly a Western thought process. If you want anyone to give a rat's about it, you'll want to keep the West alive.
Jack Tarlin
12-05-2007, 19:00
You ever been to Gary, Indiana lately?
Or Los Angeles?
How about Denver?
The Third World hardly has a monopoly on environmental abuse.
And up until very recently, Smitty, some of the most polluted rivers in the world were in Germany. :D
So much for your theories about race, superiority, and pollution.
Sometimes even the master race f**** up.
warraghiyagey
12-05-2007, 19:24
Onondaga Lake in Syracuse is the most polluted lake in the world. Thanks GM, Solvay Process and myriad others who dumped directly into the lake for decades.
Onondaga Lake in Syracuse is the most polluted lake in the world. Thanks GM, Solvay Process and myriad others who dumped directly into the lake for decades.
But the Kennebec estuary that gets the effluents from a third or more of Maine including several polluting paper mills has changed from a stinking open sewer to a pleasant feeding and shelter area for thousands of water birds -- and as a result new $700,000 to $1.5 million homes.
Thanks to better enforcement in Maine against the major polluters than elsewhere. Let's face it. Democracy works better in Maine than elsewhere.
Unfortunately, we now need your dollars to protect the narrow AT corridor in Maine from new million dollar homes, attracted in part by growing recognition of these environmental successes.
Weary www.matlt.org
Darwin again
12-05-2007, 19:47
The Hudson River is a superfund site.
Link. (http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/hudson.html)
http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/hudson.html
minnesotasmith
12-05-2007, 19:55
From the National Geographic article on this:
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/photogalleries/pollution-pictures/
In order, they're in Peru, Russia, China, India, Ukraine (heard of Chernobyl?), Zambia (in Africa), Russia, India, Azerbaijan (USSR spinoff).
From http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070709-china-pollution.html, China has the worst air pollution in the world.
Sorry, that was Lake Karachay in Russia I was thinking about (used for massive uncontained nuclear waste dumping), although Lake Baikal is still pretty bad by Western standards.
Oh, and China and India are building MILLIONS of CFC-(freon, etc.) using refrigerators and freezers every year, that they put into use immediately. China is about to pass the U.S. in fossil fuel usage (and they make major use of SOFT, high-sulfur coal, with little in the way of scrubbers...)
In the West, we have mostly STOPPED making major permanent waste sites, while the rest of the world goes right on making them.
Then, there's how the U.S. has more forested acres now than it did in 1900, unlike Indonesia, Burma, most of Africa and most of South America, which are heading the way of Easter Island from what I remember reading.
Japan? Relatively Western, but you can walk into restaurants there and order whale meat platters. Imagine doing that in San Francisco...
Starting to see a pattern?
take-a-knee
12-05-2007, 20:11
You ever been to Gary, Indiana lately?
Or Los Angeles?
How about Denver?
The Third World hardly has a monopoly on environmental abuse.
And up until very recently, Smitty, some of the most polluted rivers in the world were in Germany. :D
So much for your theories about race, superiority, and pollution.
Sometimes even the master race f**** up.
Damn Jack, you've got to be smarter than that, you just validated everything Smitty's been saying with that absent-minded response. I hope you don't argue for a living.
Jack Tarlin
12-05-2007, 20:13
Why?
Some of the most polluted rivers in the world absolutlely ARE in the West.
Something about the truth that bothers you? :-?
take-a-knee
12-05-2007, 20:20
Why?
Some of the most polluted rivers in the world absolutlely ARE in the West.
Something about the truth that bothers you? :-?
Look up the racial breakdown in the cities you mentioned and get back with us. And as for rivers, yeah the Fortune 500 has trashed a few rivers but they are a lot cleaner now than they were when I was a boy, that is an IMPROVING situation, not a perfect situation. Largely due to a lot of environmental activism and, I must admit, the Democratic Party.
Jack Tarlin
12-05-2007, 20:28
Um, Take-a-Knee, up until very recently, one of the most polluted rivrs in Europe was the Rhine.
What's the "racial breakdown" there, eh? You gonna blame the pollution there on ignorant dark-skined people?
And the Spokane River is pretty nasty, too. So, until fairly recently, was a lot of the Penobscot in Maine.
What's the racial breakdown there? Last time I checked, most folks in Maine were kinda pale.
Honestly, you guys need to get a grip on your racial theories. Sometimes white folk mess up, too.
warraghiyagey
12-05-2007, 20:37
. . .
Honestly, you guys need to get a grip on your racial theories. Sometimes white folk mess up, too.
What?? Nooo. Perish the thought.
SGT Rock
12-05-2007, 20:39
I remember white folks started a couple of really big wars. One of them was sort of in an effort to impose eugenics in an effort to secure the supremacy of same race.
Wasn't a very good idea either as I recall.
Looking over this thread, it is clear that statistics can be confusing to many people.
Perhaps its better to look at murders along the AT in a different way.
First, think of any 162 acre area or combination of in your own community. That's about 1/4 mile square-- not a huge footprint. Be sure you select the kind of place where you would spend time, eating and lauging and being with friends.
Now, ask yourself how many peple have ever been murdered in the place you are thinking of. By a stranger. Not for the past 20 years, but since time began.
When you have done that, ask yourself how much land is taken up by shelter areas along the AT.
You guessed it, just 162 acres.
And then how many people were killed around them.
Lets face it, most of us will go our whole lives without ever sleeping near the site of multiple murders. That is, unless we hike the AT. The safest place in America.
whitefoot_hp
12-05-2007, 20:46
Check out the quality of the environment of the Mex town across the Rio Grande River from El Paso, TX. For that matter, the radioactivity in Lake Baikal (sp) in the former Soviet Union, the air quality in Peking, or the water quality of the Ganges River in India are good indicators of how concern for the environment goes in the Second and Third World.
Like worrying about endangered species, concern for the environment is mainly a Western thought process. If you want anyone to give a rat's about it, you'll want to keep the West alive.
To be fair, the west is advanced enough economically to afford to care about the environment. 100-200 years ago, the west was the only society advanced enough to f*** it up.
and most of the exploitation that goes on in the third world is done by MNC's, probably owned by white capitalists.
Jack Tarlin
12-05-2007, 20:48
When I lived in Boston, there were multiple murders within blocks of where I lived. There were multiple murders near SEVERAL of the places I lived. And I didn't live in the worst part of town by a long shot.
Millions of Americans can say exactly the same thing.
That last comment, about most of us never getting near the site of multiple murders unless or until we elect to hike the A.T. needs to remembered as one of the stupidest things RickB has ever said here.
And that's sayin' something.
Skidsteer
12-05-2007, 20:56
....and most of the exploitation that goes on in the third world is done by MNC's, probably owned by white capitalists.
Really?
It may or may not be true but do you care to back it up? I'd like to see that information.
I wonder what the effects we're on the enviroment ,after we had when we droped the atom bomb on JAPAN.We have done as much destruction as most third world nations.
On the AT you will be sleeping in virtually the same place and circumstance as at least 5 murder victims.
Can anyone on this list recount sleeping in virtully the same place and circumstances as even one murder victim anywhere else?
If so, I would highly recommend upgrading to the Red Roof Inn.
I slept at vanderveer shelter, and there was a whipperwhill whipping along.
warraghiyagey
12-05-2007, 21:04
On the AT you will be sleeping in virtually the same place and circumstance as at least 5 murder victims.
Can anyone on this list recount sleeping in virtully the same place and circumstances as even one murder victim anywhere else?
If so, I would highly recommend upgrading to the Red Roof Inn.
It could take years to untwist the flaws in that 'logic.'
whitefoot_hp
12-05-2007, 21:06
Really?
It may or may not be true but do you care to back it up? I'd like to see that information.
just look at the items at your house and see where they are made. then think about where the manufacturer claims to be from.
common sense.
the west invented industrialization and capitalism. its the west that cries when it cant have access to investment markets in india and china. the world is so globalized no one can point the finger at anyone. we buy the stuff that they make while exploiting the environment. the west doesnt think twice to invest in their markets. look at free trade. thats all about loosening labor laws so corporations can go wherever they want and get cheaper labor. the west used to use its own labor. then its economy developed, and their people didnt want to do crap jobs. so they went to the poor undeveloped places, and taught them game. i think they called this imperialism. this was the game invented by the west. just because we have graduated and passed the burdens along doesnt really justify pointing the finger, especially when we benefit from the dark mans sweat (little has changed)
minnesotasmith
12-05-2007, 21:07
Um, Take-a-Knee, up until very recently, one of the most polluted rivrs in Europe was the Rhine.
What's the "racial breakdown" there, eh? You gonna blame the pollution there on ignorant dark-skined people?
Going Muslim fast is what the breakdown is there. The most common name for a baby in Amsterdam is Mohammed, and the majority of the elementary school children in Rotterdam are Muslim. Check out what's going on in Malmo in Sweden (3rd largest town, majority Muzzie). Over the next 15-30 years, most of Western Europe will become majority Muslim, at the rate they're going.
When I lived in Boston, there were multiple murders within blocks of where I lived. There were multiple murders near SEVERAL of the places I lived. And I didn't live in the worst part of town by a long shot.
Millions of Americans can say exactly the same thing.
That last comment, about most of us never getting near the site of multiple murders unless or until we elect to hike the A.T. needs to remembered as one of the stupidest things RickB has ever said here.
And that's sayin' something.
Jack, I am glad you moved up to Hanover. For any number of reasons. In any event, lest people get the wrong idea about Boston, it is by and large a safe city if you spend your time in different neighborhoods than Jack lived in.
If you are coming to visit, here is a map showing wher you should stay away from. Let there be no doubt, some places are more dangerous than the AT at 3AM.
http://www.boston-online.com/crime/
SGT Rock
12-05-2007, 21:09
Going Muslim fast is what the breakdown is there. The most common name for a baby in Amsterdam is Mohammed, and the majority of the elementary school children in Rotterdam are Muslim. Check out what's going on in Malmo in Sweden (3rd largest town, majority Muzzie). Over the next 15-30 years, most of Western Europe will become majority Muslim, at the rate they're going.
The polution was before the massive migrations of thse folks to Europe. Right? In fact, since you brought it up, the clean up started around the 80s. About the same time there was large migration of muslims into Germany. Right?
The difference is I don't think these things have anything to do with it. But you infer they do, except you got the timeline and the issue backwards.
I was there. I remember it.
But what does any of this have to do with murder on the Appalachian Trail is what I keep asking myself.
Skidsteer
12-05-2007, 21:09
just look at the items at your house and see where they are made. then think about where the manufacturer claims to be from.
common sense.
the west invented industrialization and capitalism. its the west that cries when it cant have access to investment markets in india and china. the world is so globalized no one can point the finger at anyone. we buy the stuff that they make while exploiting the environment. the west doesnt think twice to invest in their markets. look at free trade. thats all about loosening labor laws so corporations can go wherever they want and get cheaper labor. the west used to use its own labor. then its economy developed, and their people didnt want to do crap jobs. so they went to the poor undeveloped places, and taught them game. i think they called this imperialism. this was the game invented by the west. just because we have graduated and passed the burdens along doesnt really justify pointing the finger, especially when we benefit from the dark mans sweat (little has changed)
Gee thanks.
That really clears things up.
Over the next twenty years will the murders on the AT increase or decrease?Is there a direct correrlation to the population?
SGT Rock
12-05-2007, 21:16
If there are less thru-hikers and thru-hikers are the main targets, then it should go down. If the number of thru-hikers really doesn't matter and it has more to do with just the number of hikers - I expect it will go up.
trlhiker
12-05-2007, 21:19
Since it has been 11 years since anyone has been murdered on th AT then reasoning would say it has been a steep downward trend.
Skidsteer
12-05-2007, 21:22
Since it has been 11 years since anyone has been murdered on th AT then reasoning would say it has been a steep downward trend.
And that the next murder is imminent.
See how statistics work?
When I lived in Boston, there were multiple murders within blocks of where I lived. There were multiple murders near SEVERAL of the places I lived. And I didn't live in the worst part of town by a long shot.
Millions of Americans can say exactly the same thing.
That last comment, about most of us never getting near the site of multiple murders unless or until we elect to hike the A.T. needs to remembered as one of the stupidest things RickB has ever said here.
And that's sayin' something.
After I moved into what was then a town of 1800 population in 1962, we've had one or two murders, maybe none. They simply didn't cause much of an impression on either me or the families involved on both sides.
However, I took more notice when a relative of people who lived across the street from me shot off the leg of a very wise police officer who I had known for years because I had once worked in the town where he worked.
Weary
Alligator
12-05-2007, 21:38
Looking over this thread, it is clear that statistics can be confusing to many people.
...It is rapidly becoming clear that you are one of these people.
Perhaps its better to look at murders along the AT in a different way.
First, think of any 162 acre area or combination of in your own community. That's about 1/4 mile square-- not a huge footprint. Be sure you select the kind of place where you would spend time, eating and lauging and being with friends.
Now, ask yourself how many peple have ever been murdered in the place you are thinking of. By a stranger. Not for the past 20 years, but since time began.....You can't even measure that. You'd need the historical records for the 162 acres at least:rolleyes: . One might think that's a nice safe park, but not every murder has a monument nor is every speck of land used the same as it always has been.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-05-2007, 21:59
::: Dino contemplates murdering this thread :D :::
warraghiyagey
12-05-2007, 22:13
::: Dino contemplates murdering this thread :D :::
And in one swift motion I became a fan of capital punishment.:)
Capital punishment,dont kill the wrong thread.
4eyedbuzzard
12-05-2007, 22:17
::: Dino contemplates murdering this thread :D :::
Go ahead, statistically this thread is due for a killing.:D
take-a-knee
12-05-2007, 22:23
I wonder what the effects we're on the enviroment ,after we had when we droped the atom bomb on JAPAN.We have done as much destruction as most third world nations.
Whatever mess we made there must've gotten cleaned up 'cause I trimmed out my house with a miter saw made in Hiroshima. Just how much third world "destruction" have you observed first hand?
There is a radio station that is not funded by our government its called NPR.[Nationial public radio].One last thing buy american.My point was that,these so called third world nations,are not the only ones destroying the enviroment. The people of the earth are only as strong as our weakest link.
Skidsteer
12-05-2007, 22:40
There is a radio station that is not funded by our government its called NPR.[Nationial public radio].One last thing buy american.My point was that,these so called third world nations,are not the only ones destroying the enviroment. The people of the earth are only as strong as our weakest link.
NPR isn't funded by our government?
Less than 7 per cent.gov funding.
Skidsteer
12-05-2007, 22:48
Less than 7 per cent.gov funding.
Does that include State Government funding?
dessertrat
12-05-2007, 22:53
On the AT you will be sleeping in virtually the same place and circumstance as at least 5 murder victims.
Can anyone on this list recount sleeping in virtully the same place and circumstances as even one murder victim anywhere else?
If so, I would highly recommend upgrading to the Red Roof Inn.
Yes, actually, I have slept in the same place and circumstances as at least five murder victims. If by "same place and circumstances" you mean "in a bed, in an apartment". I am sure there are many people who have been murdered in their beds in their apartments. Therefore I am at high risk tonight.:)
No all that money is monoplized by the state workers.You know take a reg day off and work the weeked or a holiday for time and a half.lol
Did anyone meet icabob on any there thru hikes.I believed in 97 he was questioned by authorites.
minnesotasmith
12-06-2007, 00:06
100-200 years ago, the west was the only society advanced enough to f*** it up.
From allowing domestic herbivores to overgraze, letting irrigation salts build up, doing slash-and-burn farming, not protecting topsoil, making species go extinct via intentional action (as the American aborigines did to all the New World horses), cutting down all the trees ala Easter Island, etc., there is plenty that has long been doable to damage the environment by pre-industrial people.
and most of the exploitation that goes on in the third world is done by MNC's, probably owned by white capitalists.
Actually, it's by their own governments (look up RJ Rummel's online article on mass murder by govts to see), and other local criminals. A foreign corporation couldn't easily exploit locals unless it was given special privileges by the local PTB, or unless the country was already a s**thole due to local gov't/culture.
Check out Kim du Toit's online article "Let Africa Sink" to see how unhelpable some parts of the Third World are.
Frolicking Dinosaurs
12-06-2007, 06:48
Gentle reminder: Political discussions belong in the Political forum.
SGT Rock
12-06-2007, 08:32
Dead thread, turning into the political rant of eugenicists.