Spaceman Spiff
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2014
- Messages
- 2,650
- Reaction score
- 655
Richard said:When we think of risk in terms of 'the odds', one of the implicit assumptions is that all members of the collective are the same . . .
A bear that's attacked/killed a human before and not been put-down is many, MANY times more likely to do so again . . .
The odds are interesting starting points to evaluate relative risk. But there are additional relevant & significant variables to take into account when considering bear-attack risk.
When one is talking about a collective group (boondocking van dwellers) 'the odds' as you call it is the only metric that makes sense. As an individual you can move those odds in either direction based on your actions but as a group the statistics hold. An individual's chances of attack are binary: either you are attacked or you are not. That is not helpful.
The things one can do to minimize the risk have been discussed in other posts. There are places where the chances of a bear encounter are higher, which is why I have encouraged anyone going into the wild to check with wildlife managers to learn of bear (and other) issues in their area.
As to the contention that a bear that has killed will do so again: they have a very short time in which to do it as it has been the policy in the US for at least 30 years (don't know about Canada) to find and destroy any bear that has attacked a human. In some problem areas a bear that has broken into a food supply is destroyed ('a fed bear is a dead bear'); the Sierra is one such area, as is the enforcement of proper food storage.
My reason for posting was to show that as far as risk goes bear attacks are way down on the list of things that can happen to you. Don't let it stop you from going to and enjoying bear habitat.
-- Spiff