[pct-l] Bear danger on the PCT - put in perspective

[Kevin Cook]

Also, bees are really only a risk to those with an allergy, right? I'm
pretty sure ALL Hikers would be "allergic" to a bear mauling. ;)

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Brandon McGinnity <bmcginnity at gmail.com>wrote:

> That's true; there's a hell of a lot more bees out there than bears, both
> in
> town and in the back country. Hell, there's more HIVES than bears. Per
> capita, bears might end up coming out to be the more dangerous of the two.
>
> Either way, I ain't scared.
>
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Ryan Hull <rynos1234 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Fundamentally I agree with what the author of grizzlybay is trying to
> show.
> >  However, I feel obligated to point out several things.
> >
> > 1:  The authors of this website cite no sources for their stats, nor do
> > they
> > explain how they were derived if they happen to be the result of the
> > authors' own research.  After all, 76% of all stats are made up on the
> spot
> > -- just like this one :)
> >
> > 2:  Assuming that these stats are accurate, consider exactly what they
> are
> > saying and the populations they assume.  Take the dying from a bee sting
> > statistic.  Sure, you may be 120 more times likely to die from a bee
> sting
> > than from a black bear attack in general.  But how many of those people
> > dieing from stings or bears are in urban settings?  If you were to
> compare
> > the # of deaths by black bear per # of people with the potential to be
> > mauled to the # of deaths by bee stings per # of people with the
> potential
> > to be stung, and I suspect that the numbers would be much closer.  In
> other
> > words, for the general population the ratio may be 120:1 but for regular
> > outdoorspeople, maybe it's closer to 40:1?  I'm just guessing.  It's hard
> > to
> > say, especially since people who play outside are more likely to be stung
> > by
> > bees to begin with.
> >
> > 3:  I, for one, consider it to be substantially misleading to publish
> black
> > bear attack statistics when trying to prove that grizzly bears are not
> > going
> > to eat you ;)
> >
> > Again, I agree, based on my own anecdotal experience and the general
> wisdom
> > of other avid outdoorsmen and women, with the author's premise that bears
> > are unlikely to injure you.  I just don't think a skeptic educated in
> > statistics would be convinced by a presentation like this without more
> > detail.
> >  _______________________________________________
> > Pct-L mailing list
> > Pct-L at backcountry.net
> > To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> > http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> >
> > List Archives:
> > http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ~ Moccasin
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-L mailing list
> Pct-L at backcountry.net
> To unsubcribe, or change options visit:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
>
> List Archives:
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/pipermail/pct-l/
>