Why would they include a detail like there were two spray cans found on site, but not disclose if they had been discharged?
Let's just conveniently leave out the only important piece of information that I'm sure people would like to know.
A parks rep also said that they "won't speculate on what led to the attack"
Maybe we should though? Maybe we should collect any information we can and put out detective hats on and and try? Seems like a valuable worst case scenario that can provide useful information.
Stupid.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to TrentCrimmIndependent For This Useful Post:
A parks rep also said that they "won't speculate on what led to the attack"
Maybe we should though? Maybe we should collect any information we can and put out detective hats on and and try? Seems like a valuable worst case scenario that can provide useful information.
Stupid.
Which is definitely odd because I read an article saying the bear was old, underweight and had bad teeth. If that's the case then mystery solved? I'm no bearologist but sounds like a hungry desperate bear took a chance that she wouldn't normally take
In similar study on firearms (Smith et. al. 2012), they were effective 84% with handguns and 76% with rifles to stop bears from undesirable behavior. The study analyzed 269 bear-human conflicts in Alaska from 1883-2009.
This was a 2012 study. The data used in the study was from 1883-2009.
I see your confusion. I’m aware of when the study was done, I was using 1883 Alaska as short hand to refer to the study because it uses data from 1883 and Alaska, which are both unique things so you’d know exactly what study I was talking about (or so I thought).
So, now that we have confirmed we are referring to the same study, you should actually read that study because you’ve misunderstood the rate of injury data. It’s not unarmed vs armed, it’s armed and used their gun vs. armed and didn’t use their gun. That, plus the study lays out a whole bunch of caveats as to why the success rate of firearms is probably higher than what they have calculated, and why the injury rate is likely correspondingly lower.
Why would they include a detail like there were two spray cans found on site, but not disclose if they had been discharged?
Let's just conveniently leave out the only important piece of information that I'm sure people would like to know.
A parks rep also said that they "won't speculate on what led to the attack"
Maybe we should though? Maybe we should collect any information we can and put out detective hats on and and try? Seems like a valuable worst case scenario that can provide useful information.
Stupid.
Ya. I agree.
But I wonder if there will be an investigation undertaken by a different jurisdiction than the one’s giving out this information. Hopefully there is more evidence to be gathered and we are able to learn what happened. It could save lives in the future.
Yeah, I am not sure how they got the bear attack message out (unless it was a preset?) but failed to use the bear spray. I guess if you’re getting settled in for the evening, you are pretty vulnerable and will reach for whatever you think will help.
Yeah, I am not sure how they got the bear attack message out (unless it was a preset?) but failed to use the bear spray. I guess if you’re getting settled in for the evening, you are pretty vulnerable and will reach for whatever you think will help.
I think the message was probably sent after being attacked, still alive but wounded….
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Whynotnow For This Useful Post:
I see your confusion. I’m aware of when the study was done, I was using 1883 Alaska as short hand to refer to the study because it uses data from 1883 and Alaska, which are both unique things so you’d know exactly what study I was talking about (or so I thought).
So, now that we have confirmed we are referring to the same study, you should actually read that study because you’ve misunderstood the rate of injury data. It’s not unarmed vs armed, it’s armed and used their gun vs. armed and didn’t use their gun. That, plus the study lays out a whole bunch of caveats as to why the success rate of firearms is probably higher than what they have calculated, and why the injury rate is likely correspondingly lower.
It’s odd to refer to a 2012 study as an 1883 study.
The study lays out why their conclusion is likely correct. As you say, they include caveats. Like all studies.
It’s odd to refer to a 2012 study as an 1883 study.
The study lays out why their conclusion is likely correct. As you say, they include caveats. Like all studies.
You’re odd.
It doesn’t even sound like you read it. You didn’t know what the injury rate was referring to, you don’t seem to know what conclusion they’re making, and the thing you’re basing your argument on is the thing in the study is the same thing they say their study likely has wrong due to incomplete data lol.
It doesn’t even sound like you read it. You didn’t know what the injury rate was referring to, you don’t seem to know what conclusion they’re making, and the thing you’re basing your argument on is the thing in the study is the same thing they say their study likely has wrong due to incomplete data lol.
I did read it. It says what I am saying: that bear attacks where guns were employed for defence had the same rate of injuuries as where they weren't.
And disparaging it because they included 1883 data (and why wouldn't they) is just off. It's like calling a 2023 study on climate change an 1850 study if it includes the first temperature data.
We encourage all persons with or without a firearm, to consider carrying a non-lethal
deterrent such as bear spray because its success rate under a
variety of situations has been greater (i.e., 90% successful for
all 3 North American species of bear; Smith et al. 2008) than
those we observed for firearms.
Seems like they have pretty decent confidence. And they never say "our study is likley wrong". They caveat it.
I did read it. It says what I am saying: that bear attacks where guns were employed for defence had the same rate of injuuries as where they weren't.
And disparaging it because they included 1883 data (and why wouldn't they) is just off. It's like calling a 2023 study on climate change an 1850 study if it includes the first temperature data.
Where they weren’t… when the person still had a gun. They even list some of the reasons why people didn’t use the firearm, which included not wanting to dress the animal and haul it out. Do you think if someone has a gun and chooses not to use it because they don’t feel like dealing with the legal ramifications of killing a bear that they’re in a situation where it is required? Use an ounce of thought here lol.
I’m not disparaging it because it includes data from 1883, I’m noting the fact that it’s unique. It has nothing to do with climate change, which is an absurd comparison, because unlike “climate” variables like “firearms” have changed a fair bit in 150 years.
You clearly didn’t read it and are now going back trying to make it fit your point. You said “The rate of injuries for armed versus unarmed people who are attacked is the same” despite everyone in the study being armed, which is the entire basis of the study lol. Every “incident” they looked at included at least one person and at least one firearm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
We encourage all persons with or without a firearm, to consider carrying a non-lethal
deterrent such as bear spray because its success rate under a
variety of situations has been greater (i.e., 90% successful for
all 3 North American species of bear; Smith et al. 2008) than
those we observed for firearms.
Seems like they have pretty decent confidence. And they never say "our study is likley wrong". They caveat it.
Caveat by saying the data they don’t have would likely decrease the injury rate and increase the success rate of firearm/bear interactions, but they don’t know how much by.
You’re smart enough to know how to ready and interpret a study, so I’m not sure why you’re being weird about this one. Your entire argument isn’t wrong just because this study is a bit weak, but pretending it’s iron clad because you desperately need to be right is odd. It’s a study that includes unofficial accounts like newspaper clippings from 1883 leaves out a bunch of data that they admit would change the numbers. It’s OK to recognize that.
Where they weren’t… when the person still had a gun. They even list some of the reasons why people didn’t use the firearm, which included not wanting to dress the animal and haul it out. Do you think if someone has a gun and chooses not to use it because they don’t feel like dealing with the legal ramifications of killing a bear that they’re in a situation where it is required? Use an ounce of thought here lol.
I’m not disparaging it because it includes data from 1883, I’m noting the fact that it’s unique. It has nothing to do with climate change, which is an absurd comparison, because unlike “climate” variables like “firearms” have changed a fair bit in 150 years.
You clearly didn’t read it and are now going back trying to make it fit your point. You said “The rate of injuries for armed versus unarmed people who are attacked is the same” despite everyone in the study being armed, which is the entire basis of the study lol. Every “incident” they looked at included at least one person and at least one firearm.
Caveat by saying the data they don’t have would likely decrease the injury rate and increase the success rate of firearm/bear interactions, but they don’t know how much by.
You’re smart enough to know how to ready and interpret a study, so I’m not sure why you’re being weird about this one. Your entire argument isn’t wrong just because this study is a bit weak, but pretending it’s iron clad because you desperately need to be right is odd. It’s a study that includes unofficial accounts like newspaper clippings from 1883 leaves out a bunch of data that they admit would change the numbers. It’s OK to recognize that.
A. I never said it was ironb clad.
B. There's no meaningful difference between "armed v unarmed" and "used gun and didn't use gun despite it being available". Except I suppose the latter means guns are even less effective since an actual unarmed person would use other means.
C. Whether you like this report or not, it's what's available. Perhaps you can point to one which shows that firearms are more effectice than otehr means, but I don't think one exists.
Where they weren’t… when the person still had a gun. They even list some of the reasons why people didn’t use the firearm, which included not wanting to dress the animal and haul it out. Do you think if someone has a gun and chooses not to use it because they don’t feel like dealing with the legal ramifications of killing a bear that they’re in a situation where it is required? Use an ounce of thought here lol.
I’m not disparaging it because it includes data from 1883, I’m noting the fact that it’s unique. It has nothing to do with climate change, which is an absurd comparison, because unlike “climate” variables like “firearms” have changed a fair bit in 150 years.
You clearly didn’t read it and are now going back trying to make it fit your point. You said “The rate of injuries for armed versus unarmed people who are attacked is the same” despite everyone in the study being armed, which is the entire basis of the study lol. Every “incident” they looked at included at least one person and at least one firearm.
Caveat by saying the data they don’t have would likely decrease the injury rate and increase the success rate of firearm/bear interactions, but they don’t know how much by.
You’re smart enough to know how to ready and interpret a study, so I’m not sure why you’re being weird about this one. Your entire argument isn’t wrong just because this study is a bit weak, but pretending it’s iron clad because you desperately need to be right is odd. It’s a study that includes unofficial accounts like newspaper clippings from 1883 leaves out a bunch of data that they admit would change the numbers. It’s OK to recognize that.
5 academics, including Herrero (arguably the world's foremost expert in this field, though that might apply to some of the other authors, too) devoted hours to this and felt confident to publish.
Every study in the history of studies has caveats. But we'll take your word for it that these caveats invalidate this particular study because you want it to.
These events are rare. Having reliable eye witness accounts is even more rare, especially when the outcome is human death. Any media report is flawed...we're lacking details in 2023, just as the 1883 article likely did. But if you analyze the data honestly and consistently you can still draw relevant conclusions.
And you can make the same argument about the bear spray related incidents (that study cited was from one of these same authors) - there would be just as many non-reported non-injury incidents.
IMO the most important line in study is this:
Quote:
Our findings suggest that only those proficient in firearms use should rely on them for protection in bear country.
We can certainly debate the definition of 'proficiency', but there is plenty of literature to suggest proficiency rates may not be terribly high among gun owners. And this line does nothing to suggest it is the 'best' tool, but it is only a possibly effective tool for a small segment of the population.
It's interesting that some here who would describe themselves as gun-proficient also describe bear spray as an overly complex and difficult tool to implement...and I'd strongly disagree. Anybody can look at a bottle for 10 seconds and understand the general process. Watch a youtube video for specific tips. Try an expired/practice can once and you're certainly achieved proficiency, if not borderline mastery.
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
B. There's no meaningful difference between "armed v unarmed" and "used gun and didn't use gun despite it being available". Except I suppose the latter means guns are even less effective since an actual unarmed person would use other means.
C. Whether you like this report or not, it's what's available. Perhaps you can point to one which shows that firearms are more effectice than otehr means, but I don't think one exists.
A. You’re defending it like it is.
B. Uh, well, the difference between the two is that people are armed in every incident in the study, so you if you think anyone was unarmed, you didn’t read it. And the most interesting part of the study is the details, including why people didn’t use the guns they were armed with. It’s a cool study and worth a read so… you should do that. All it shows is that whether the gun was used or not, people who are armed all had about the same injury rates (that’s not the same as being unarmed, as unarmed people can not choose whether or not to use a firearm like some people in the study, as they don’t have one). If you want to say unarmed people have the same injury rates as armed people, you have to actually find something that supports that (or just make it up, which is fun too).
C. Why would I do that? I’m not trying to prove anything. In fact, what are you trying to prove? Who are you trying to prove it to? Whether I like the report or not doesn’t matter, I do like it, it just doesn’t say as much as you’re pretending it says, which is OK. It doesn’t have to say anything, but being “what’s available” doesn’t make it the authority on anything, it’s just a study with very specific parameters and limitations, like most studies, but the parameters and limitations are the other thing that makes it interesting. I’m sorry you don’t think so.
Like, if you think this study proves whatever you’re trying to prove, it also proves you’re wrong about handguns, since they were nearly as successful (84%) as bear spray (90%) when you said they weren’t a good option. Seems like, if this study is gospel, then handguns are a good option. And a handgun + bear spray is a great option.
Why would they include a detail like there were two spray cans found on site, but not disclose if they had been discharged?
Let's just conveniently leave out the only important piece of information that I'm sure people would like to know.
A parks rep also said that they "won't speculate on what led to the attack"
Maybe we should though? Maybe we should collect any information we can and put out detective hats on and and try? Seems like a valuable worst case scenario that can provide useful information.
Stupid.
I haven't read what you quoted, but is it possible he was just saying that they won't speculate, as in won't guess, but are investigating?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
So 900 some in 2009 not counting parks and parts of the north, since that period every biologist agreeing numbers have increased but not to where they had to be. 2021 rolls around were still under that 1000 magical number which keeps them on the list. I dunno seems more like politics to me.
TL;DR - I think some of you are trying to force a specific number when in reality, all of the studies have been openly stating the numbers are estimates. What is surprising is the level of "error" that is left in some estimates based on the articles I read.
I think hitting a 1K population ish number for Alberta would be arbitrary. This compared to the populations of some US states. It's also possible Alberta has over 1K bears, they're just not on some "provincial lands" counting concept and thus are omitted.
Annoyingly long analysis below:
Spoiler!
I will compare what I consider is reliable Canadian website info on grizzlies and reliable USA information.
This to break down the Grizzly info for Canada/USA/Ecosystem and address the differences in population seemingly from different websites and address perhaps the difference in contexts of how the two countries might look at the info which may give insight into the differences between provinces, territories and states.
Some of the debate is reading comprehension and weird differences context from one article to another. To be fair, the wording from one study to another is kinda weird and confusing and I don't understand why some of the context is so varied from one article to another. I don't think all of it is reading too fast. Some articles flip flop contexts of how they do or cite things and if you add up the numbers used within the articles, they do not add up. It's weirdly confusing as to why they do this.
I used the parks website for Canadian numbers because I assume it is quite accurate for our purposes.
In Alberta, the grizzly bear is designated as threatened, while in British Columbia, it is blue-listed.
The current estimate of the grizzly bear population on provincial lands in Alberta is 691, and up to 16,000 in British Columbia. Within the four contiguous Rocky Mountain national parks, population estimates are:
Banff National Park: 65
Jasper National Park: 109
Yoho National Park: 11-15
Kootenay National Park: 9-16
Total 194-205; leaving 486-497 bears... in what Alberta region? I assume the rest are in Wilmore/Kakwa/Kananaskis/White Goat/Peter Lougheed/Wateron/Chinchaga or something? Odd part of the article.
This is from Parks Canada and the article is from March 2023. Apparently there are approximately 691 on provincial lands. Keyword is provincial lands there. I assume this means that in Alberta they only track the ones in those key provincial land areas and don't do much tracking in other regions. This could be part of the "estimate" aspect and could mean there are more.
I do assume both Canada and USA use some form of trackers on wildlife, but this is more for aiding research on behaviours. I do not believe they would use trackers on the entire populations of wildlife like a census. That'd be millions of animals. Not cost effective to bother with and not worth maintaining for very little benefit.
However, if we compare statistically vs the USA I think some of this population spread is intentional and thus must be taken into context as accurate. (below)
Furthermore, it says this in the article:
Quote:
It's estimated that up to 20,000 grizzly bears remain in western Alberta, the Yukon and Northwest Territories and British Columbia. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) lists grizzly bears as a "Special Concern" species due to characteristics that make it particularly sensitive to human activities or natural events.
First part, estimate. Second part, we know that of the 20K bears, 16K reside in BC, 1K ish in Alberta (generous) which means by deduction, this article is implying that the remaining 3K are in NWT and Yukon. Split between the two territories, 1.5K each isn't much higher than Alberta's numbers, but I want to assume there are more Grizzlies in Yukon than NWT because they seem to be more West living than East (ie: Alaska).
There are an estimated 55,000 grizzly bears in North America.
Alaska has a population of 30,000 grizzly bears.
I'm not sure how they got this number and some other sites list as high as 60K grizzly bears in North America, but let's go with this number.
Of the 55K grizzlies, in North America. Canada has 20K per Parks. This article later states they estimate Canada has 21K.
That leaves 35K grizzlies for USA in a limited region of 5 states (below).
Alaska has 30K of USA's 35K grizzlies or around 85% of the population.
That leaves 5K grizzlies split between the remaining 4 regions in the USA, or around 1.25K per state average/3-4% ish per remaining state. BUT, per the article those populations are not equally distributed. I'm just saying that the ratios region wise seem close. Real numbers further below.
Canada wise, BC has 16K/20K Grizzlies or 80%. Alberta has approx 5%, and the remaining 15% is split between NWT and Yukon.
Those ratios Canada province/USA states are exceptionally close.
Quote:
Grizzly bears only live in 5 states.
The 5 states that have Grizzly bears are: Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Washington and Idaho. Looking at a map, this is deduced to be due to the Rockies range that extend into those states. Longitude wise, it's almost at the Alberta/Saskatchewan border. But at Alberta/Sask border area longitude wise, there are no mountains. But Montana, Idaho and Wyoming do have mountains.
California has it on their apparel and flag, but apparently Grizzlies have been driven out to the point of extinction in that region since the 1920s and/or have been intentionally restricted to specific ecosystems to allow for "better" coexistence between humans and grizzlies. I assume similar for Nevada and Utah based on longitude.
Per article populations by state of the total 34-35K ish grizzlies are as follows:
- Alaska: 30K (85% ish)
- Montana: 1.8-2K (5% ish)
- Wyoming: 600 (1-2% ish)
- Washington: 500 (1% ish)
- Idaho: 80-100 (<1%)
Total: 32,980-33,200 (claiming 55K ish in NA, 21K ish in Canada). That means there's 1K grizzlies missing somewhere, which is bizarre, but let's chalk that up to two primary concepts:
1. Migration of bears within these interconnected ecosystems (mentioned in the parks Canada website info).
2. The inexact science of tracking wildlife.
3. Difficulty of truly tracking them from a cost and real perspective (births, migration, deaths etc.)
Because of these facets, I think we have to take these assumptions into account to explain why there are major (5%+) differences in the estimated numbers. Alberta likely has around 700-900 grizzlies. Some states are less than that population and some are only a tenth of that. I think this is intentional based on an ecosystem perspective and a human population perspective. The key evidence of this is how 80%+ of each country's grizzly population is in a single territorial region (Canada 1 of 4 regions; USA 1 of 5). I do not fully believe this is a political thing or a failure of a territory thing. I think it's a practical consideration when you take into the big picture of all 9 regions in North America where the grizzlies live.
If spray cans were discharged it doesn't add a whole lot to the knowledge, since there's no way to know when in the incident (too early, too late or as directed), if they were used properly or if they functioned properly.
One weird fact: this couple has the exact same first names as me and my wife.
