Re: Bears, Bears, Bears

Calamity,

You said that "Note that USGS won't offer many opinions, because they do science.

Both science and opinion are useful, but different. Some say there are no facts, only opinions. They tend to get lost."

I would politely disagree, the article you cited was replete with opinions but singularly devoid of facts. The first step in scientific, and legal, discourse, is a definition of terms. The writers never defined the terms "encounter" or "attack" yet they used them synonymously. When is an "attack" an attack. Since 50% of the attacks caused no injury, were these attacks bluff charges, bears prowling a campground at a safe distance (but campers panicked), or campers protecting their breakfast of oatmeal? We don't know because the scientists don't tell us -- of course, the reporting of some of these bear "attacks" may have been grossly exaggerated.

Also Tom Smith's page, also on the site you pointed to, on the subject of pepper spray was very biased and blatantly subjective. If I ever presented a paper like that to a commercial entity, I'd lose all credibility. I appreciate that he was writing for the public, but he twisted statistics painfully.

So, you stick with your science, others can present experience, and some may present logic. Between the three approaches we all may benefit.

Warm regards,

Reed

P.S. - I would wager that there has been more loss of life over the years in the Interior of Alaska among the native groups and homesteaders than has gone reported. This would be due to the long winter allowing for grieving and the spring for renewal. Visitors coming through every few years would not be told of the sad events of the past year. Some remote old-timers would die, cause unknown, body not found ... could be bears?