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

[Brandon McGinnity]

well, if you get stung enough, bees can kill anyone. swarm conditions

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Kevin Cook <hikelite at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/
>>
>
>


-- 
~ Moccasin