Grizzly attack just outside Yellowstone
Posted: Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:38 pm
Climbing, hiking, mountaineering forum
https://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/
https://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/grizzly-attack-just-outside-yellowstone-t54295.html
redneck wrote:This is why I will never hike or camp in grizzly country. They are simply too unpredictable.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.