Hiker Killed in Yellowstone

[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. 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.