SummitPost.org

A nasty one for those involved.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-na ... ing.Death/

An unfortunate incident.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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

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

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.