Grizzly attack just outside Yellowstone

by **MoapaPk** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:11 am

by **gwave47** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:31 am

SoCalHiker wrote:
gwave47 wrote:I believe the people at the Soda Butte campground took the proper precautions and were even in a large group. Look how it turned out for them. You can't completely avoid bears.

As sad and tragic the events at the campground are, it seems that is was a highly unusual bear behavior. We all know that there is one way to avoid bears and that is not to go into their territory. It's everybody's decision.

"You can't completely avoid bears"... that's wrong, the bears can't avoid us. We willingly and conciously invade their habitat.

No, you really can't completely avoid bears. We've had two black bears in the past year in the middle of downtown Greenville (a city of 60K people). So if I was going to Dick's Sporting Goods at the intersections of two interstates in a good size city and a black bear attacks me in the parking lot, am I at fault for going outside and being in their territory? Bears come out of the woods, just like we go in the woods.

Next time any of you get robbed, or worse, I'll be the one to say "that's what you get for leaving your house and going into the criminals territory, if you don't want to be the prey of criminals don't ever leave your house ever."

Tree huggers.

by **desainme** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 3:05 am

A black bear slapped a camper in the Red River Gorge this year. that was a first. imagine if in a few years they would do a little poaching on a horse farm?

by **lcarreau** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:07 am

I don't think ANYBODY should go outside!

It's a damn JUNGLE out there, full of creepy crawlies givin' me the HEEBIE JEEBIES !!!

:shock:

by **SoCalHiker** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 5:22 am

gwave47 wrote:Bears come out of the woods, just like we go in the woods.

I think that qualifies for the most ridiculous (or even delusional) statement I have heard in a very long time.

by **Day Hiker** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:39 am

According to Stephen Herrero (Univ of Calgary), in the 70s the figures for Yellowstone were . . . 1 injury per 59,300 backcountry use days.

There has been a bit of talk about statistics and comparing bears to traffic. For me it's not about the relative likelihood of injury or death from bear versus injury or death from car. I am just A LOT more fearful of dying by being MAULED and EATEN than I am by simply being slammed really hard into the dashboard of my car, even if the likelihood of the latter is 10 times the likelihood of the former.

So, per day, if it's 1 in 59,300 that I will be injured or killed by a bear and 1 in 5,930 that I will be injured or killed on the road, I am still more concerned about the bear. It's more horrifying, a lot more, so that's why.

If I was trying to evaluate risk for the purpose of selling life insurance, I would care only about the numbers. But that's not the case.

Disclaimer: I do NOT carry a gun when hiking in grizzly country, nor do I have the psychological or physiological need to even OWN such a penis extension.

by **Jerry L** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 10:29 am

Knoback.........some people just don't get it. I agree with you completely.

by **climbinmandan** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 6:42 pm

lcarreau wrote:I don't think ANYBODY should go outside!

It's a damn JUNGLE out there, full of creepy crawlies givin' me the HEEBIE JEEBIES !!!

Well said. I myself will stick to my comfy leather chauffeuse and read about those that are brave enough to venture out into the animals' homes. :wink:

by **JasonH** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:26 pm

gwave47 wrote:Bob you're so tough,

You talking to Bob, Punk.

by **Day Hiker** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:36 pm

by **lcarreau** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:50 pm

What did ya say, punk ???

You said you wanted to make a bear's day? Did ya, punk ???

by **MoapaPk** » Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:55 pm

SoCalHiker wrote:
gwave47 wrote:Bears come out of the woods, just like we go in the woods.

I think that qualifies for the most ridiculous (or even delusional) statement I have heard in a very long time.

Hmmm. In Albuquerque, most bear-human interactions occurred when bears came down from the Sandia Mountains into town, perhaps lured by the fruit trees or the poultry and small livestock kept in Tijeras canyon. Several times during my 16 years there, bears wandered way down into the suburbs.

by **lcarreau** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:03 am

I'm guessing there's been TWICE as many goat/human
interactions as there's been bear/human interactions.

by **lcarreau** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:11 am

Kristoria? Could you please repeat that in English ???

by **Day Hiker** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:40 am

KristoriaBlack wrote:
Day Hiker wrote: For me it's not about the relative likelihood of injury or death from bear versus injury or death from car. I am just A LOT more fearful of dying by being MAULED and EATEN than I am by simply being slammed really hard into the dashboard of my car.

I wouldn't be too worried about that. It sounds horrible to be eaten alive, but a car can mangle your flesh up pretty badly as well. If its not teeth and bear claws its crumpled metal and shards of glass that tears through your flesh. When I rolled my car I had a branch protrude through the windshield missing my head, car kept rolling, and I kept bracing myself for the hood to collapse, to crunch down and break my neck, or for the metal parts of the car to pierce through my body, to feel that debiltating pain one feels before death. Luckily the car got hung on tree at the bottom of the ravine and I walked away with only a scratch.

Point is: irrespective of weather the precipitating agent is a bear or a car one's flesh would still get mangled up by a foreign entity.

Though I partially agree with you. I think that in a bear attack the screaming would be the worse part. I think the screaming would highten the fear and build up the anticipation of pain. And the screaming during a bear attack would be prolonged---for the duration of the attack. I don't think I would be able to cope with the screaming.

Apart from the screaming, I don't think a bear attack is any worse than any other traumatic injury.

. . .

I urge you to reconsider your stance. The unknown often plays a big role in fear. Though if you sit and think it through, a bear attack is not that much worse than a really bad car accident. Remove the screaming, the terror and the emotions from the equation and think about it level headedly: what can happen? How would you cope? What sort of first aid can you give? Once the horror and the unknown component are removed from the equation a bear attack is only just another traumatic incident. Not worse than a car accident. Everyday Joes, survive being mauled by animals all the time. We're just unaccustomed to knowing what to expect or how to cope. But there are ways to cope. ITs been done before.

Doesn't matter. Given exactly equal pain and exactly equal damage and exactly equal duration, the thought of being mauled and/or eaten is much more horrifying than the thought of a car crash. In 1977, I had the misfortune of seeing the movie "Grizzly" when I was not yet 10 years old, and I experienced the horrible misadventure of seeing "Jaws" in the theater in 1975, when I was around 8 years old. I will never have a "level-headed" perspective on being mauled and eaten by an animal.

But like I wrote earlier, I still don't hike with a gun. If the environment is risky enough, I just wouldn't go in it.

I don't think my fears are too extreme, because I still do hike in places where there are grizzlies, including a recent Yellowstone hike where we KNEW there was a mother and cubs visible from the first part of the trail before we set out on our hike.

I would likely avoid a more-remote trail knowing there are mother and cubs nearby, though. The one we were on was the Mount Washburn trail, and it's heavily used. I was absolutely sure that somebody on that trail was a slower runner than myself. :lol:

Grizzly attack just outside Yellowstone

Who is online