[RumiDude]

Majority of whom? Minority of whom? These are federal lands in this situation. We are talking about management of federal lands. Rumi

[treeswarper]

[cdestroyer]

do the statistics take into account attacks which do not result in death of the person? do the automobile statistcs show the number of people injured in accidents or just the deaths? are the stats posted weighted to show only deaths?

[gb]

Relevant statistics: # of deaths

[Bernardo]

Let's focus on trying to clarify the facts and accept that some may have different preferences which lead to different choices. For now, I'm not giving the moral high ground to either side. But I do think there are some ethics questions here. Some folks are always complaining about society and mankind and how we messed up the whole world by extirpating grizzlies, etc., and always want to claim the moral high ground when they think up a fix. On the other side, I can see a lot of reasons why requiring everyone to carry bear spray has negative moral costs. Kind of makes me laugh to think this through. The pro-bear side is, "Don't worry, you'll have bear spray." The implication being, because I want bears in this environment, it's ok for me to require you to carry bear spray and put you at risk of attack. Bear spray is kind of like a moral fig leaf. I can understand why some people would say, "No thank you, I like the status quo." I'm not going to denigrate someone who makes that call. But in the mean time, I'm curious as to what the facts really are. I lean against reintroduction, but I'm open to discussing. The 232,000 back country person days per attack statistic comes from the NPS and applies to Yellow Stone. I highlighted it because this is the kind of data that could inform this conversation. I have no idea if this is a valid number but it's the right type of information. For example, it may include data from times when there were much fewer bears. Also, we don't know how many back country person days Yellow Stone has per year. What would the statistic be for off trail solo remote hiking days? We don't know, but it's better than saying don't worry you'll have bear spray. We do know that there aren't that many bears in the continental U.S. (maybe 1,500) and that there are several attacks each year and maybe about one death a year, maybe it's .5. There are 90 million dogs and someone said above 20 deaths. So yes dogs are a bigger threat collectively, but one grizzly in the wild is as lethal as 3,000 dogs who live among us. Grizzly leash laws anyone? Going back to the NPS's 232,000 back country days statistic, I wonder how many days result in an encounter? We really need to know not just the joint probability of an encounter and an attack, but the probability of each of the parts. The key to avoiding attacks is probably avoiding encounters and that has a lot of implications for access. I hope we can continue this interesting conversation. There are obviously a lot of people who aren't going to buy in without more facts. That's smart.

[DIYSteve]

[Bernardo]

I just learned this week that the NPS thinks there is one attack per 232,000 back country days. That's something new for maybe everyone here. That fact works in the bear's favor by my assessment. I keep raising the facts issue, however, because the reintroduction plan doesn't contain the most interesting fact. If you encounter a grizzly, how likely is an attack? Also, a lot of the supporting argumention glosses over the fact that there will be attacks and injuries and is mostly emotional appeal. The pro-bear camp seems to want to shut down the discussion. Settled matter. Nothing to see here, move along and all that. DIYSteve, you are a quick learner so I'll grant you some of this may be repetitive, but I mostly am replying to specific posts by other people where a fact or conclusion is disputed. With regard to the bear spray requirement, it was suggested it would be irresponsible to not carry it. Since we are all responsible people here I took that as a diktat.

[DIYSteve]

[Bernardo]

Well that's a very good point. I still think we could estimate the number. I feel pretty comfortable that with black bears, the number is pretty low. Grizzlies seem to attack often if they have the chance. If the chance of encountering a grizzly is 1 in 10,000 during a back country day in Yellowstone, then an attack occurs one out of 23 encounters. That's a big number. It would be nice to replace the guesses, however, with data. To your knowledge, did a grizzly ever see you? What happened?

[DIYSteve]

[Bernardo]

OK, that's interesting. Glad to hear it. Good night!

[DIYSteve]

[Randito]

[gb]

Bernardo, rather then fly off the cuff, why not look up Bear/Human statistics from Stephen Herrero. Everything you wonder about is covered in many of Herrero's studies. Most human encounters have to do with improperly stored food either in the backcountry or at cabins and they don't involve attacks or injuries. I've read several of his studies myself because I want to be aware of reality not stuck in hyperbole. You are making a large amount of smoke. Also what is the moral issue of carrying bearspray? It's a no brainer.

[RumiDude]