It is very important in risk assessment to understand the probability of the event happening and the consequence of the event happening. If you are worried about randomly being killed by a bear, consider first other random risks of being killed. You are much more likely to die from a tree or limb falling on you even controlling for loggers and tree climbers. Will you wear a hardhat in the woods the entire time?
"Sleepy alligator in the noonday sun
Sleepin by the river just like he usually done
Call for his whisky
He can call for his tea
Call all he wanta but he can't call me..."
Robert Hunter & Ron McKernan
Whiteblaze.net User Agreement.
It's rare of course for there to be a bear attack of an AT hiker but you are incorrect to believe it's zero.
https://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/sho...okies-WBIR-com
As I've said in other posts, my opinion is that hikers should be aware the risks, do what they think is appropriate to try to mitigate the risks, but of course don't let it stop you from living your life!
AT Flip Flop (HF to ME, HF to GA) Thru Hike 2023; LT End-to-Ender 2017; NH 48/48 2015-2021; 21 of 159usForests.com
My guess was falls! Do I get a prize? : )
https://www.backpacker.com/survival/a-dozen-ways-to-die
You and Alligator are much more experienced than me, I'm sure, but I'm not really sure I see how it's "very important" to know the probability of each risk. Think about all the reasonably anticipated potential risks and what you should do to mitigate the risks. So while Alligator appears to be poking fun with the suggestion regarding use of a hard hat, actually thinking about the risk of say falls and doing things like being a little more careful with your footing over mossy or wet rocks and/or hiking with a partner are good ways to improve your chances. The drive to the trailhead is a pretty risky part of your hike as Tipi mentions, well put down your cell phone and be attentive while driving and improve your chances of being able to reach your destination.
Tying this all back to this thread topic of bears: A bear attack is a risk, so depending on where you are hiking bear spray might be appropriate and certainly knowing common bear behaviors and experts' advice on how to improve your chances of a good outcome when you encounter a bear doesn't seem like a waste of time to me. But hey, I defer to people with more experience then me. This is just my 2 cents.
AT Flip Flop (HF to ME, HF to GA) Thru Hike 2023; LT End-to-Ender 2017; NH 48/48 2015-2021; 21 of 159usForests.com
Now you are parsing the population into healthy thruhikers? Murderers don't have xray vision to check for blockages, nor do you really know the overall health of those killed. On top of that, you inappropriately condition on thruhikers and leave out the rest of the hiking population. Like every murderer has preselected a thruhiker over a non-thruhiker "Nope, nope, not gonna kill that guy he's just a blue-blazer...nope not that one either she looks like a weekender...I think." You are one of the worst offenders on the board for understanding risk.
"Sleepy alligator in the noonday sun
Sleepin by the river just like he usually done
Call for his whisky
He can call for his tea
Call all he wanta but he can't call me..."
Robert Hunter & Ron McKernan
Whiteblaze.net User Agreement.
I'm not poking fun. I wouldn't laugh at anyone wearing a hardhat in the woods, folks who do often are carrying sharp tools like chainsaws and axes. What I am saying is that if you wish to avoid randomly dying, try to rank the ways of dying in order of most likely to happen to least. Then try to understand how much you can mitigate that risk. In this instance, fatalities from black bears is a very rare event, both on the AT and nationally. Maybe bear spray cuts that risk in half (or whatever studies show). So maybe half of a very rare event. If you focus on mitigating the rarest of possible fatal events you will not maximize your survival, you will minimize it. Mitigation takes different forms though right, knowledge itself is power. You don't always have to add weight to reduce risk. However when you do, you are likely trading off one risk for another unless the item provides multiple benefits.
Now I am going to poke a little fun...if you are concerned about being murdered as a healthy thruhiker, just secretly skip a mile or two (preferably early in your journey). The murderer will know you're not a thruhiker and won't kill you.
"Sleepy alligator in the noonday sun
Sleepin by the river just like he usually done
Call for his whisky
He can call for his tea
Call all he wanta but he can't call me..."
Robert Hunter & Ron McKernan
Whiteblaze.net User Agreement.
If six thru hikers had been killed by bear on the AT (thankfully, not a single on has been, ever) the discussion would not center around whether or a threat from bear exists, but rather around the commonalities each tragedy and how to lessen the possiblity of future ones.
If six thru hikers had been killed by bear on the AT, the discussion would be very different, right?
Last edited by rickb; 06-26-2017 at 06:03.
Good points. I bolded the last part because I think people have been missing part of the debate. People have been been wearing hard hats in a sense when it comes to bears. Most people practice some bear precautions when they hike like hanging their food, not sleeping with their food etc. So part of the reason bear attacks/fatalities are rare is hikers are actively behaving in a way to prevent them. If you really aren't worried about being attacked by a bear and bear attacks are so rare why worry about hanging your food and not sleeping with it in the tent? Seems like a contradiction in logic.
Last edited by TexasBob; 06-26-2017 at 09:47. Reason: grammer
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.
If you have any fears, carry a can of bear spray in your hand while hiking. I read that somewhere this year.
Only a few people have been killed by bears at all but in my opinion the bases have been covered a number of times on the subject just as the bases have been covered for murders on the AT. Which is fine and that the subjects repeat isn't an issue. I'm not saying don't mitigate if possible, but before mitigating it helps to know what the level of risk is to determine the level of effort involved. You could wear a bullet proof vest, riot gear, and carry a firearm for instance to avoid being murdered. You could wear a suit of armor to avoid getting mauled by a bear. However, when the risk is improperly arrived at (which you just did again by the way, the bears aren't deciding who's a thruhiker) it can lead to a cost that impacts other mitigation efforts.
People have tried to explain this to you before, but you keep going back to it. I am doubtful I can convince you but consider this example. There's a snag (standing dead tree) in the woods. It's going to fall some day, (gravity and all that). The risk of it hitting somebody as they walk by is not influenced at all by whether or not they are a thruhiker. (The probability here is called a Bernouli trial--the outcome is success or failure.) For that probability, no change due to being a thruhiker. Now a thruhiker may be exposed to that trial more often--walking past more snags than a regular hiker over the course of a thruhike. Repeating the trial makes it a binomial experiment specifically a negative binomial experiment because one is interested in how many successes can happen before 1 (or more failures) occur. One might think this affects a thruhiker more than a non-thruhiker but that's not a strong case really. Eighty percent of thruhikers quit roughly and so don't spend as much time on the trail as one might think. One is not a 2000-miler until its done. The non-thruhiker may still spend as much or more time on the trail than any "thruhiker". The non-thruhiker could be on the trail every year dozens of times. The bears and the murderers and the trees don't know that. The important factor is how often one might be exposed to the risk (the trial) not the category one falls into (thruhiker vs. non-thruhiker). Those names don't necessarily do a good job of quantifying the exposure. There are other ways to calculate probabilities as well but the key point is how assigning a hiker a label can distort the actual risk. You are conditioning inappropriately.
"Sleepy alligator in the noonday sun
Sleepin by the river just like he usually done
Call for his whisky
He can call for his tea
Call all he wanta but he can't call me..."
Robert Hunter & Ron McKernan
Whiteblaze.net User Agreement.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]Right, looking up (and around) is important when setting up camp and taking breaks especially on windy days. Just walking though there is also a risk not just for dying and also from branches. As far as how protective a hardhat is, I don't have any numbers handy to add. Versus the bole of the tree probably not much help, but for dropping branches they do help. I don't wear one hiking on the AT though.
I agree with you about that part that bear attacks may be rare because of precautions taken. A PCT style food hang where the end is not tied off to a tree is extremely hard for a bear to get. Even tied to a tree, black bears in the east don't figure out to slice the cord too often as far as I know. Bears are hungry animals they know your food is nearby. They make a decision not to attack you for your food every time the become aware your food is there. They know you are in possession. It's very rare for them to attack you to get it. As in my above post, each time they decide whether to bum rush you or not is a trial. The more people that do hold their food, the greater the probability of them eventually deciding to test your limits, because the trial is repeated. Too many people refusing to hang their food and the rare becomes more likely to happen. Teach a bear one time how to get food and they generally remember how to get it. After that, it's downhill for that bear. I hang food so that doesn't happen to the bear. Plus, I need my food. I"m not particularly worried about getting attacked and dying. I want my breakfast and for nothing to happen to the bear. Think about this too. You have your food in your tent and in comes the bear. Anybody without a means to defend that situation will either escape or get mauled and the bear gets the food. Even if the person can defend, they may still not do so, choosing to let the bear have the food rather than shooting it or bear spraying inside their tent. The resolute hiker will defend and either spray the bear or shoot the bear. Why should the bear suffer for a person's inability or refusal to throw a rope over a branch? It doesn't seem ecologically mindful in my view.
"Sleepy alligator in the noonday sun
Sleepin by the river just like he usually done
Call for his whisky
He can call for his tea
Call all he wanta but he can't call me..."
Robert Hunter & Ron McKernan
Whiteblaze.net User Agreement.
Most of the discussion has been about "killed by bears" now discuss how many have been mauled by them (caution graphic injuries):
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdo...izzly-bear/#/0
Would those contemplating a thru hike find it interesting (or perhaps even of some value) to know how many thru hikers have contracted Lyme disease over the course of thier 2000 mile hikes?
I would think so.
Not because ticks target thru hikers to the exclusion of others. But for context.
If one were to learn that significant number of thru hikers get Lyme disease every year, one might consider that REALITY and try to understand the commonalities among those so impacted.
- Were they mostly Southbounders or hiking off season -- or were they hiking within the "bubble".
- Did they habitually wear long pants and/or use permethrin
- Did they get attacked by ticks while tarping or tenting off Trail -- or at mouse infested shelter
- Did they have a partner with them to do tick checks, or were they on their own
These are just a few possible questions, of course. I am sure there are better ones.
Bottom line, knowing the number of Thru Hikers who get Lyme Disease (many) or the number of Thru Hikers who have been eaten by a bear (none) or he number of AT thru hikers who have been murdered on the AT (six) is only useful to the extent that it helps one ask the right questions.
But this thread is about bears. Thankfully, nobody can point to a half dozen (or any) lethal bear attacks on the AT as they make up thier own list of questions regarding whether or not bear spray makes sense on the AT.
Most hikers take some precautions regarding bears - hanging food etc.-which by it's nature implies a recognition that bears pose a non trivial risk while hiking and seems to me carrying bear spray is just another bear precaution that one might take. Whether other things might be a greater risk than bear attack does not change the risk bears pose the same way the risk of being hit by a car while crossing a road doesn't change the risk of being hit by lightning. If someone wants to carry bear spray in my mind that is no different than staying off an exposed ridge during a thunderstorm or looking both ways before crossing a road. I personally don't carry bear spray on the AT but it is not an unreasonable thing to do.
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.