All Bear caused deaths in N america

[ChinMusic]

While looking at stats across the country is interesting, it really does not add anything. 99.999% percent of those deaths did not occur while backpacking/hiking.

That said, I agree, the risk from bears is extremely small, especially on the AT. The lowly tick is a MUCH greater risk to health.

[Trillium]

Thanks for this topic and the responses.

I have to say that I have had some concern about bears; particularly at night. I have a hammock and the teasing comments about being a bear burrito are a little spooking. I'm now more reassured that I shouldn't be worried.

[leaftye]

Order of magnitude? So your odds of being killed are ten times near zero? That's still near zero.

An order of magnitude is a rough measure of how useful a statistic is. If you're going to try to post a statistic to make yourself credible, do math that warrants it or don't bother.

[Colter]

While looking at stats across the country is interesting, it really does not add anything.

Of course those stats add something.

How about this: A quick scan of the Wikipedia list shows maybe 3 backpackers killed by bears in North America in 2000-2009. Depending on the way you read the stats maybe one backpacker killed in the U.S. by a bear during that DECADE. There are an estimated 34 million backpackers in the U.S. I can already see the "yes, buts" coming. Parse it out anyway you like, even in the most dangerous places like Denali, Yellowstone, and Glacier, bears are way down on the list of things likely to kill a backpacker in bear country.

[Colter]

An order of magnitude is a rough measure of how useful a statistic is. If you're going to try to post a statistic to make yourself credible, do math that warrants it or don't bother.

or·der of mag·ni·tude Noun
1. A class in a system of classification determined by size, each class being a number of times (usually ten) greater or smaller than the one before.

Quoting myself: Order of magnitude? So your odds of being killed are ten times near zero? That's still near zero.

I stand by my statement and by my understanding of the definition of "order of magnitude."

[leaftye]

or·der of mag·ni·tude Noun
1. A class in a system of classification determined by size, each class being a number of times (usually ten) greater or smaller than the one before.

Quoting myself: Order of magnitude? So your odds of being killed are ten times near zero? That's still near zero.

I stand by my statement and by my understanding of the definition of "order of magnitude."

And I stand by my point that you're using rubbish math in an attempt to gain credibility. If you know something, prove it. If you don't, leave it alone. You're choosing to do neither, instead taking a dishonest approach to your argument. All you would have to do is stop using the bad statistic and you'd be on the right track again.

[ChinMusic]

Of course those stats add something.

How about this: A quick scan of the Wikipedia list shows maybe 3 backpackers killed by bears in North America in 2000-2009. Depending on the way you read the stats maybe one backpacker killed in the U.S. by a bear during that DECADE. There are an estimated 34 million backpackers in the U.S. I can already see the "yes, buts" coming. Parse it out anyway you like, even in the most dangerous places like Denali, Yellowstone, and Glacier, bears are way down on the list of things likely to kill a backpacker in bear country.

Look you add a stat that includes "auto accidents". If your stat would have included "combat deaths" that number would have been MUCH lower than "auto accidents".

Obviously driving isn't as risky as combat.

Without a per user variable the raw numbers mean nothing.

Again, I AGREE that the risk from bears on the AT is VERY low. Driving to the trail head is probably riskier.

[Colter]

Chinmusic,

Do you expect me to apply the individual user variable? Is someone expected to calculate each person's odds on Whiteblaze? Of course not. Do you argue with "smoking is relatively dangerous" by bringing up the user variable argument? I gave some raw data and let the person look at their own situation. If they think there are reasonable odds they will be that one person in the nation each year to be killed by a bear, they should then worry I suppose. It's clear what you're trying to say, but it doesn't change my point one whit: bear danger is vastly over-rated.

I'm being dishonest, am I Leaftye? What's my bad statistic again? Whatever it is, why don't you give us the "good statistic" so we'll know the truth.

[vamelungeon]

People keep saying bears are attracted to the smell of "food" which would include meat. Unless you're a robot, that's what you're made of. Bears ARE predators and predators weight the risk vs gain. Black bears are normally afraid of humans and arent' going to come into a tent after your food bag. If a bear has lost that much of his natural fear he isn't going to want your oatmeal and ramen since you are a bigger meal. Hanging food up in trees in a way that lets bears steal it just conditions them to associate food with humans.
The risk from black bears is extremely low. Disease carrying ticks and mosquitoes are more dangerous but get a lot less attention here on WB.

I'm talking about black bears, not grizzlies. It seems some people don't know the difference or that there are no grizzlies in the eastern US forests.
My $.02.

[leaftye]

Chinmusic,

Do you expect me to apply the individual user variable? Is someone expected to calculate each person's odds on Whiteblaze? Of course not. Do you argue with "smoking is relatively dangerous" by bringing up the user variable argument? I gave some raw data and let the person look at their own situation. If they think there are reasonable odds they will be that one person in the nation each year to be killed by a bear, they should then worry I suppose. It's clear what you're trying to say, but it doesn't change my point one whit: bear danger is vastly over-rated.

I'm being dishonest, am I Leaftye? What's my bad statistic again? Whatever it is, why don't you give us the "good statistic" so we'll know the truth.

You are losing credibility with every post. It was only a few posts ago that I very clearly pointed out the bad statistic and I even showed how it was bad. Right now I'm not inclined to do your math for you. It's clear that you don't know how to use statistics at all. That's okay, most people don't, but even those that can't use statistics properly can sniff out a bad statistic. Your willingness to push bad statistics undermines your argument and your credibility. Again, you don't have to have good statistics to have a good argument, but you can't have a good argument based on poor statistics, so just stop trying to use statistics.

[wilconow]

While looking at stats across the country is interesting, it really does not add anything. 99.999% percent of those deaths did not occur while backpacking/hiking.

While it's a minority, there are still several instances of hikers and/or backpackers being fatally killed

Erwin Frank Evert, 70, male June 17, 2010 Brown Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming Evert, a field botanist, was mauled by a grizzly bear while hiking in the Kitty Creek Drainage area of the Shoshone National Forest, just east of Yellowstone National Park

George Evanoff, 65, male October 24, 1998 Brown near Prince George, British Columbia Evanoff was hiking on the Bearpaw Ridge, 45 miles northeast of Prince George, British Columbia.


Craig Dahl, 26, male May 17, 1998 Brown Glacier National Park (U.S.), Montana Dahl's partially consumed remains were found three days after he set off to hike alone in the Two Medicine area of Glacier National Park.

Christine Courtney, 32, female July 5, 1996 Brown Kluane National Park, Yukon Courtney was killed while hiking on the Slim's Valley trail in Kluane National Park.

Marcie Trent, 77, female
Larry Waldron, 45 July 1, 1995 Brown near Anchorage, Alaska Trent and her son Waldron were killed by a bear defending a moose carcass while they were hiking on the McHugh Creek Trail in Chugach State Park, near Anchorage, Alaska

Trevor Percy-Lancaster, 40, male September 15, 1992 Brown Jasper National Park Percy-Lancaster and his wife were setting up camp in an isolated area of the Tonquin Valley. (appeared to be backpacking..it was not a campground) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...r-1552049.html

Gary Goeden, 29, male July 28, 1987 Brown Glacier National Park (U.S.) Goeden's partially consumed remains were found at Natahki Lake, Many Glacier Valley, Glacier National Park. He was on a solo hike, and off-trail


Brigitta Fredenhagen, 25, female July 30, 1984 Brown Yellowstone National Park Fredenhagen was dragged from her tent during the night and killed at a backcountry campsite at the southern end of White Lake in Yellowstone National Park (again, appears to be backpacking, not a campground) http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...g=3689,5012369

Alan Precup, 25, male September, 1976 Brown Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Alaska Precup did not return after backpacking in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

Barbara Chapman, 24, female July 24, 1976 Brown Glacier National Park (Canada) While hiking with a friend in British Columbia's Glacier National Park, Chapman rounded a bend to find a grizzly bear charging. The bear first attacked Chapman's friend, who initially resisted, but left him alone after he played dead.

Percy Goodair, 52, male September 12, 1929 Brown Jasper National Park Goodair, a Parks Canada warden, was killed by a bear while patrolling the Tonquin Valley

[Colter]

You are losing credibility with every post. It was only a few posts ago that I very clearly pointed out the bad statistic and I even showed how it was bad. Right now I'm not inclined to do your math for you. It's clear that you don't know how to use statistics at all. That's okay, most people don't, but even those that can't use statistics properly can sniff out a bad statistic. Your willingness to push bad statistics undermines your argument and your credibility. Again, you don't have to have good statistics to have a good argument, but you can't have a good argument based on poor statistics, so just stop trying to use statistics.

Got it. Bad statistic. No understanding of stats. Liar. Plummeting credibility.

There's still only about 1.3 people killed by bears in the whole country in a year on average. People can do their own math.

[SouthMark]

A few facts, not statistics and not any order of magnitude:

In Eagles Nest Township, MN, residents have fed wild black bears for over 40 years. Dozens of bears have lost their fear of people over the years. No one was attacked.

At the Vince Shute Wildlife Sanctuary near Orr, MN, people have hand-fed and petted hundreds of wild black bears for decades. Until the mid-1990’s, the public was free to mingle with the wild bears without rules or supervision. People teased bears with food for pictures. Toddlers steadied themselves against 500-pound bears. People lifted children up to bears’ mouths for reasons beyond understanding. There were occasional nips and scratches, but no attacks.

In Pennsylvania, Dr. Gary Alt spent over a decade studying a 7-square-mile community called Hemlock Farms where 7,000 people coexisted with 21 bears. That many bears in 7 square miles is a higher bear density than exists in any national park or national forest. People regularly hand-fed the bears. No one was attacked.

In Smoky Mountains National Park, Dr. Jane Tate studied wild black bears that people fed along roadsides (Tate 1983). She watched in disbelief as raucous tourists crowded around bears to hand-feed them, pour beer over their heads, lure them into cars for photos, and put honey on kids’ faces for bears to lick. She reported that the bears were “amazingly tolerant and restrained.” When people tried to pet bears that were not used to it, some bears defensively nipped or cuffed people, causing minor injuries, but the bears did not attack. The more accustomed to people the bears became, the less likely they were to cause injury.

[ChinMusic]

Wilconow - There is not doubt that grizzlies can and do kill people. None of your listings appears to be from the AT.

While on a trip in Alaska we didn't take a dump without having an armed "spotter", in areas where there was enough vegetation to hide a bear.

For the AT, I sleep with my food without concern, but even then I would plan on staying away from dumpsters.

[Snowleopard]

Chinmusic, there have been several (3?) people killed and a couple more serious attacks pretty near the AT by black bears, in the links above. I think it was two killed in the Smokies and 1 or 2 in NY and NJ.

Of course, this is a very small number and bears are less of danger than cars, ticks, etc.

[ChinMusic]

Chinmusic, there have been several (3?) people killed and a couple more serious attacks pretty near the AT by black bears, in the links above. I think it was two killed in the Smokies and 1 or 2 in NY and NJ.

Of course, this is a very small number and bears are less of danger than cars, ticks, etc.

Or lightning, or cold, or falls, or psychos, etc.

That said, I ain't setting up my tent near a dumpster even though I feel the risks are very mild.

I def have a solid fear of ticks..... the real danger on the AT.

[leaftye]

Got it. Bad statistic. No understanding of stats. Liar. Plummeting credibility.

There's still only about 1.3 people killed by bears in the whole country in a year on average. People can do their own math.

Is there a language barrier? I apologize if I'm explaining this in a language that you have difficulty with. As you just said, and as I've said at least twice previously, let people do their own math. You have already had two people explain how your math could be improved if you care to try posting a statistic that has a modicum of accuracy.

[wilconow]

Wilconow - There is not doubt that grizzlies can and do kill people. None of your listings appears to be from the AT.

While on a trip in Alaska we didn't take a dump without having an armed "spotter", in areas where there was enough vegetation to hide a bear.

For the AT, I sleep with my food without concern, but even then I would plan on staying away from dumpsters.

Yeah, I'm just presenting the information here, people can take from it whatever they want.. My last post was simply just to correct the post saying that 99.9% of the fatal attacks did not involve hikers or backpackers.

[ChinMusic]

My last post was simply just to correct the post saying that 99.9% of the fatal attacks did not involve hikers or backpackers.

If you are referring to me you are mistaken.

[wilconow]

While looking at stats across the country is interesting, it really does not add anything. 99.999% percent of those deaths did not occur while backpacking/hiking.

Yeah, I'm just presenting the information here, people can take from it whatever they want.. My last post was simply just to correct the post saying that 99.9% of the fatal attacks did not involve hikers or backpackers.

If you are referring to me you are mistaken.

If I'm missing something here, please let me know.