Interesting editorial choice to stick a photo of a sick sunrise in the middle of an article about a bear mauling.
Fucking hell. My wife and I wanted to plan our next hiking trip and go to Banff, then started reading about the grizzly threat. It seemed real, and there are so many beautiful places to go, so we dropped it.
Then, about a week ago, a guy in the gym at work is telling me about his trip to Banff where they took their kids along too. I started thinking maybe we should go for it. Now I read this awful news. Suddenly it once more seems like a bad idea.
Article says responders killed the bear, so technically it should be safer now…
Bear attacks are incredibly rare. Bears are usually docile creatures and don’t want anything to do with humans.
Is that true of grizzlies? Seems to me they’re only docile if they’re full.
Yes.
This is making headline news because of how rare it is. Something to think about.
“only 14% of grizzly bear attacks are fatal” seems like this just downplays the danger. If a product on the shelves had “only 14%” chance of causing cancer people would be livid.
Considering bears are 8ft long 900lbs killing machines an 86% survival rate is actually pretty fucking good.
Also if you’re dumb enough to downplay the danger involving grizzly bears for any reason you’re not going to live long anyway
Pretty sure that is another way of saying 86% of people can successfully play dead.
Remember folks: If it’s black, fight back. If it’s brown, lie down. If it’s white, goodnight.
Except some black bears are brown, so fight back if it’s a brown black bear and lie lie down if it’s a brown not-black bear (grizzly)
Ok, but how likely is a grizzly attack?
According to the US Natl Park Service it is 1 in 2.1 million. Dying from a bee sting is more likely.
Well dying from a bee sting if you’re allergic is pretty common if you don’t have an epi pen. So yes, common.
There is a massive difference and approach to bears it on a special park Vs wild.
Over in your city folk safari zoo, in which you think you’re ‘in the wild’, you are not.
In the wild, Grizzlies will rip you. https://youtu.be/K-Tfq6dARGk?si=EQLh0ahqdzOVkRWJ
They are very fuckin dangerous. And very fuckin fast. They eat other grizzly bears without mercy too. Especially if there’s not enough salmon around.
In Canada kills by bears in the green belt is a known risk and they have procedures to try to lessen interference with the wild life for this reason. That’s the only reason why the deaths are down. It’s not like rural people are flaunting themselves at wildlife and have them as pets. The deaths start going up when city folk start wandering into the wild thinking every bear is a big ol puppy dog.
If you have any statistics to provide I would love to see them.
Meanwhile, yes Grizzlies can be extremely dangerous on the rare occasion they attack. How dangerous they are doesn’t change the odds of being attacked. It just means you’re more likely fucked if one does attack you. It’s ok to be scared shitless of them. I am. But don’t let the fear taint your reasoning.
Here are some more statistics. Hopefully folks can set aside their fear for a moment and analyze the risk with a level head. Keep in mind the number of visitors to wild areas is quite large.
- There were 183 bear attacks in North America between 2000–2015.
- There are 40 bear attacks around the world every year.
- The odds of being attacked by a bear are one in 2.1 million.
- On average, 24 deaths were caused by grizzly bears between 2000–2015.
- There were six fatal bear attacks in Alaska from 2008–2018.
- There were 22 human-bear incidents in the US Yosemite National Park in 2019.
https://petpedia.co/bear-attack-statistics/
Oh and by the way if you think national parks are just zoos, please by all means go tell that up close to the free roaming wild moose and bears in Yellowstone or Elk in Rocky Mountain National Park, especially during the rut, and see how that works out for ya.
Being in the backcountry where you don’t have as much wildlife management might be riskier. Although I would love to see statistics because many factors could play in. Bears being habituated to human presence and especially food is a major issue that increases bear encounters. So it’s possible that backcountry encounters are rarer than in heavily visited parks.
Statistics? You’re not my job. I don’t work for you. I don’t do homework. And I owe you nothing. And I especially don’t owe you free work you entitled asshat.
And I won’t shut up from at least warning people so deal with it. And you’re so bent on hugging a grizzly, go for it mate, I can’t stop you. You’re not my job. you are absolutely full of shit.
Wow ok… Backs slowly away
“Sharks don’t actually try to kill humans, they just get curious and take exploratory bites”
Obviously that’s not a direct quote, but I people say things like it in defense of sharks frequently.
I would need to see the specifics of that statistic but understand that most people who are in a situation to be attacked by a bear have done the research on what to do.
For a grizzly? Play dead while protecting your vitals to the best of your ability. So you either play dead or get knocked unconscious and effectively ARE dead. And then you live.
It is mostly untrained people who have no business being in the back country who die. Or people who are unfortunate enough to get between mama and her cubs.
So its one of those things where there are a LOT of other factors and not many actual attacks to begin with.
There’s actually an interesting statistic where bear attacks from black bears are more likely to happen from the males, whereas attacks from grizzlies are more likely to happen from the females.
Black bear cubs have a strategy to run up the nearest tree when threatened and the mama bear guards the base of the tree rather than going on the offensive, so you are able to back away and avoid an attack a lot easier than a female grizzly, since grizzly cubs don’t instinctually climb trees when threatened but inside rely on the mother to defend them by going on the offensive.
deleted by creator
Well also if your spine is cracked but your alive, its not fatal.
If my spine is cracked I’m probably not making it out of the back country to get the medical care I need in order to not die.
I’d think in general, “just a broken back” would not be an immediate death sentence (even if it’s results in you being paralyzed and unable to effectively save yourself). However I also don’t see it being likely that’s all you’d suffer from a grizzly attack. If they’ve broken your back, you probably have one or two other injuries.
See, stuff like this is why I stay inside. The bears can have the outdoors.
Staying inside is no defence against bears.
a shotgun is probably the only thing that would’ve saved them. or, just choosing not to hike in bear country at this time of year. This is when the more desperate bears will eat anything that moves. They aren’t picky, and playing dead will not save you if a bear is extremely hungry, as they are in drought conditions. just a tragic reminder that bears can and will kill, and eat you under certain circumstances.
Should have brought a gun.
Agree but you need to be very mindful for the type of gun.
Any more typical pistol like 9mm, 380, 45ACP won’t do much against a bear. 10mm high penetration rounds (ie not holopoints, hard cast is preferable) is probably the minimum I’d want if I can’t carry a rifle in bear country.
If they have the right to bear arms, so shall I.
Good ol idiot gun nuts piping in to let us know that every problem can be solved with more guns.
What are you on. Life and death situations are textbook uses for guns no matter how antigun rights you are.
Or, how about avoiding those life and death situations? I’ll “stand my ground” that most bear attacks are caused by people. Don’t do that. Don’t be stupid and rely on blasting away to save your life. Bear bells, secure food storage away from people, not getting too close with your photo attempt, are much more effective
Yes I agree do all of this, don’t just shoot everything you see. But on the chance this fails or you make a mistake, you should have a gun as a last resort.
If every back country hiker was strapped up we would have more deaths, not less.
Okay bud. If you don’t want to carry by all means no one is forcing you. But I’m going to protect my family when we camp or need to visit bear country for any reason.
Okay bud but this is Canada.
Many guns are still legal in Canada.
Carrying them openly at camp sites and in national or provincial parks is not.
More people carrying guns will result in more suicide, more domestic violence murders, and more accidental homicides than it will prevent human deaths from fucking bears.
Grow up.
Or just don’t voluntarily go somewhere that could result in a “life or death” situation?
If that’s how you want to do it. Nature is dangerous sometimes. Shouldn’t let that prevent you from seeing its beauty.
From someone firmly against the proliferation of firearms, I think taking a gun on a camping trip where there might be bears is a pretty solid idea.
Gun owners have to pipe in whenever there’s a legitimate reason for a firearm otherwise the narrative is that we only have them because we love mass shootings and dead children.
We know you love them cause they make you feel like a big man, their widespread ownership just also always leads to mass shooting and the mass death of children.
We understand where you’re coming from, we just think your prioritization is objectively and statistically stupid.
A lot of common calibers really don’t do much against a damn grizzly, those bastards have every possible cheat code active.
