Grizzly attack just outside Yellowstone

Mountaineering, rock climbing, and hiking news.
User Avatar
Bill Reed

 
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:46 pm
Thanked: 62 times in 52 posts

Grizzly attack just outside Yellowstone

by Bill Reed » Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:38 pm


User Avatar
simonov

 
Posts: 1395
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Thanked: 770 times in 442 posts

by simonov » Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:59 pm

This is why I will never hike or camp in grizzly country. They are simply too unpredictable.

And at 400lbs or so, this was a small bear.

The last California grizzly was killed almost 100 years ago. I confess it's hard to feel really sorry about that.

User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4493
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Thanked: 1322 times in 898 posts

by mrchad9 » Thu Jul 29, 2010 8:07 pm

An unfortunate incident.
Last edited by mrchad9 on Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User Avatar
SoCalHiker

 
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:12 pm
Thanked: 147 times in 88 posts

by SoCalHiker » Thu Jul 29, 2010 8:52 pm

I have to say, that article sent shivers down my spine...

User Avatar
Jakester

 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:05 pm
Thanked: 1 time in 1 post

by Jakester » Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:13 pm

redneck wrote:This is why I will never hike or camp in grizzly country. They are simply too unpredictable.


I camp and hike in grizzly country quite a bit. I also don't own a gun. I never forget it's their territory and that I'm merely a visitor. Fact is you're more likely to be struck by lighting or hit by a car than be attacked by a bear.

User Avatar
Augie Medina

 
Posts: 796
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:56 pm
Thanked: 10 times in 7 posts

by Augie Medina » Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:14 pm

One of the survivors at least confirmed the old "play dead" with grizzles advice.

User Avatar
cab

 
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:26 pm
Thanked: 21 times in 14 posts

by cab » Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:16 pm

My wife and I are heading up to Yellowstone in a couple of months. I hope she doesn't see this tragic story.

User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4493
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Thanked: 1322 times in 898 posts

by mrchad9 » Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:19 pm

Jakester wrote:
redneck wrote:This is why I will never hike or camp in grizzly country. They are simply too unpredictable.


I camp and hike in grizzly country quite a bit. I also don't own a gun. I never forget it's their territory and that I'm merely a visitor. Fact is you're more likely to be struck by lighting or hit by a car than be attacked by a bear.

True- and a gun might not help too much if you are attacked in your sleep.

Cab- as Jakester points out, your drive to Yellowstone is going to be more dangerous than the bears, even if this one was still on the loose.

User Avatar
mattnoland

 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:39 am
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

by mattnoland » Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:27 pm

Jakester wrote:
redneck wrote:This is why I will never hike or camp in grizzly country. They are simply too unpredictable.


I camp and hike in grizzly country quite a bit. I also don't own a gun. I never forget it's their territory and that I'm merely a visitor. Fact is you're more likely to be struck by lighting or hit by a car than be attacked by a bear.


This is true, if you take into account that this "likelyhood" metric counts everyone in the world, whether they are, at a given moment, in grizzly habitats or no. Whatever statistics say about your chances of being attacked by a predatory animal, common sense says that these same chances increase exponentially when you enter their environment.

Surfers make the same glib argument about being attacked by sharks. "You are more likely to be hit by a car than attacked by a shark." Of course you are, but "likelyhood" statistics are not taking into account that people surfing off the California coast incur infinitely more risk of a shark attack than - say a motorist in Kansas at the same moment in time.

User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4493
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Thanked: 1322 times in 898 posts

by mrchad9 » Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:30 pm

mattnoland wrote:
Jakester wrote:
redneck wrote:This is why I will never hike or camp in grizzly country. They are simply too unpredictable.


I camp and hike in grizzly country quite a bit. I also don't own a gun. I never forget it's their territory and that I'm merely a visitor. Fact is you're more likely to be struck by lighting or hit by a car than be attacked by a bear.


This is true, if you take into account that this "likelyhood" metric counts everyone in the world, whether they are, at a given moment, in grizzly habitats or no. Whatever statistics say about your chances of being attacked by a predatory animal, common sense says that these same chances increase exponentially when you enter their environment.

Surfers make the same glib argument about being attacked by sharks. "You are more likely to be hit by a car than attacked by a shark." Of course you are, but "likelyhood" statistics are not taking into account that people surfing off the California coast incur infinitely more risk of a shark attack than - say a motorist in Kansas at the same moment in time.

A surfer on the way to the beach is more likely to be hit by a car than attacked by a shark.

How's that?

User Avatar
b.

 
Posts: 2243
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:34 pm
Thanked: 18 times in 18 posts

by b. » Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:36 pm

You're still more likely to get in a traffic accident than attacked by a grizzly in Yellowstone, along a road where this occurred. Chances of getting hit by a car in the backcountry approach zero.

no avatar
JJBrunner

 
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 12:37 am
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts

by JJBrunner » Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:38 pm

mrchad9 wrote:
mattnoland wrote:
Jakester wrote:
redneck wrote:This is why I will never hike or camp in grizzly country. They are simply too unpredictable.


I camp and hike in grizzly country quite a bit. I also don't own a gun. I never forget it's their territory and that I'm merely a visitor. Fact is you're more likely to be struck by lighting or hit by a car than be attacked by a bear.


This is true, if you take into account that this "likelyhood" metric counts everyone in the world, whether they are, at a given moment, in grizzly habitats or no. Whatever statistics say about your chances of being attacked by a predatory animal, common sense says that these same chances increase exponentially when you enter their environment.

Surfers make the same glib argument about being attacked by sharks. "You are more likely to be hit by a car than attacked by a shark." Of course you are, but "likelyhood" statistics are not taking into account that people surfing off the California coast incur infinitely more risk of a shark attack than - say a motorist in Kansas at the same moment in time.

A surfer on the way to the beach is more likely to be hit by a car than attacked by a shark.

How's that?

Senior citizen drivers man...

User Avatar
SoCalHiker

 
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:12 pm
Thanked: 147 times in 88 posts

by SoCalHiker » Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:38 pm

mattnoland wrote:This is true, if you take into account that this "likelyhood" metric counts everyone in the world, whether they are, at a given moment, in grizzly habitats or no. Whatever statistics say about your chances of being attacked by a predatory animal, common sense says that these same chances increase exponentially when you enter their environment.

Surfers make the same glib argument about being attacked by sharks. "You are more likely to be hit by a car than attacked by a shark." Of course you are, but "likelyhood" statistics are not taking into account that people surfing off the California coast incur infinitely more risk of a shark attack than - say a motorist in Kansas at the same moment in time.


I don't think that's the case. The "likelyhood" should (is) based on the number of people exposed to that situation in that moment, i.e. number of people attacked by a shark / number of people in the ocean or number of people hit by a car / number of people in traffic

User Avatar
Tonka

 
Posts: 1388
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:24 pm
Thanked: 115 times in 88 posts

by Tonka » Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:44 pm

This is true, if you take into account that this "likelyhood" metric counts everyone in the world, whether they are, at a given moment, in grizzly habitats or no. Whatever statistics say about your chances of being attacked by a predatory animal, common sense says that these same chances increase exponentially when you enter their environment.

Surfers make the same glib argument about being attacked by sharks. "You are more likely to be hit by a car than attacked by a shark." Of course you are, but "likelyhood" statistics are not taking into account that people surfing off the California coast incur infinitely more risk of a shark attack than - say a motorist in Kansas at the same moment in time.


But because you are more likely to get hit by a car your chances of that happening go down when you enter grizzlie country because of the lack of cars but your chances of getting attacked by a bear go up greatly but in the scheme of things if you're in a city that has bears you're still more likely to get hit by a car so I think you are decreasing your chances of being hurt at all by going into bear territory :? :? I hate statistics
Last edited by Tonka on Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User Avatar
Jakester

 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:05 pm
Thanked: 1 time in 1 post

by Jakester » Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:44 pm

mattnoland wrote:
Jakester wrote:
redneck wrote:This is why I will never hike or camp in grizzly country. They are simply too unpredictable.


I camp and hike in grizzly country quite a bit. I also don't own a gun. I never forget it's their territory and that I'm merely a visitor. Fact is you're more likely to be struck by lighting or hit by a car than be attacked by a bear.


This is true, if you take into account that this "likelyhood" metric counts everyone in the world, whether they are, at a given moment, in grizzly habitats or no. Whatever statistics say about your chances of being attacked by a predatory animal, common sense says that these same chances increase exponentially when you enter their environment.

Surfers make the same glib argument about being attacked by sharks. "You are more likely to be hit by a car than attacked by a shark." Of course you are, but "likelyhood" statistics are not taking into account that people surfing off the California coast incur infinitely more risk of a shark attack than - say a motorist in Kansas at the same moment in time.


Shit, good point. Let's just kill all the remaining bears in the world so that the slack jawed pansies can enjoy the TRUE wilderness too.

Next

Return to News

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests