Perhaps an introduction of a larger species of bear would reduce the number of those pesky black bears. Put a few big browns or Grizzly's in with the blacks and the blacks population will thin, or at least chase them down into the suburbs and towns away from the trail. Still, this isn't as scary as the rattlesnakes biting through the tent floor.
Did not read a response concerning dogs - what is the main objection to dogs - other than smelly wet dogs in crowded shelters?
Tapatalk
WRAL.com Bear bites Appalachian Trail hiker in the Smokies
WRAL.com
GATLINBURG, Tenn. — A hiker says he was bitten by a bear as he slept along the Appalachian Trail in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Park spokeswoman Dana Soehn tells local media that the 49-year-old hiker told authorities in Graham County, ...
Appalachian Trail hiker attacked by bear in the SmokiesKnoxville News Sentinel
Bear bites Appalachian Trail thru-hiker in the SmokiesWBIR.com
Hiker attacked by bear on Appalachian TrailWJHL The Inquisitr -WSOC Charlotte all 30 news articles »
More...
> allowing dogs would serve as some deterrent while alerting hikers that a bear is near
Unfortunately, bears and dogs are NOT a good combination.
One person almost died because he did not understand that
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/show...t=#post1973134
In the US, that's not true for men: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...s-go-together/
For US women, the relationship only held up for white women, not other races. Damn those poor white women in the US! They should be starving to death like poor people do in third-world countries! (that was sarcasm for those of you inclined to take things literally).In 2010, CDC researchers (using data from 2005-08) found that among black and Mexican-American men, obesity increased with income: 44.5% and 40.8% of those men are obese, respectively, at the highest income level, compared with 28.5% and 29.9% at the lowest level. Beyond that, though, the researchers found little correlation between obesity prevalence among men and either income or education.
Anyway, this article makes a pretty compelling case for why we should expect poor people to have weight issues: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/ma...n-fatigue.html Short version: it's hard to eat well when your life sucks.
http://outdoors.stackexchange.com/qu...risk-of-a-bear
Check out what the fellow living among problem black bears in the Ozark Mountains has to say. Experience not theory.
Tapatalk
Nice looking canines - I would feel pretty confident with them at heel.
Tapatalk
Oh, he went there! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya2xifdO_l0
If I remember right, somebody was bitten on or near the BMT last year, down near the Lakeshore Trail, and the (alleged) bear was killed as a result. Based on the tourists I see, I'm sure thru-hikers are going to be some of the more knowledgeable and careful people who use the park. If they rerouted they'd lose a lot of nice scenery: the fields, Charlie's Bunion, Mt. Cammerer. And also lose just being on the main ridgeline, which is pretty cool.
I admit I don't like hearing things like this. I haven't had too many problems just day-hiking. Maybe they don't like raisins and pretzels.
Makes you wonder how long that bear was sniffing around outside that dudes tent before it bit him, the bear got the bite just right in the leg the first time, like the bear carefully planned this very stealthy. I like to carry bear spray but it would have done little here except get all over the inside of the tent and on me. But it would feel nice having the bear spray after I got out and to the shelter when the bear returned huh?
They're a lot of fun, I've played with many of them, but they're supposedly prima-donnas as well. I've heard from multiple owners is that they can be stubborn as all getup and just stop in the middle of a hike if they don't feel like continuing. My sister's roommate once had to carry her ridgeback a half mile back to her car when the dog decided it was done hiking in the middle of the trail. The dog was perfectly fine, just decided it didn't feel like hiking any more that day.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
I gave away my bear spray and don't even have hiking sticks anymore to make noise with. I've treed cubs, and had a bear do the head shake and paw swipe thing, causing me to give up a trail. I've aggressively banged my hiking sticks together to get a couple of bears off a trail in front of me. And one time, given up on the hiking sticks because I didn't want the SmartCar-sized bear to think it was some kind of challenge when all he did is look at me and keep on going toward G'burg where the free garbage was. (The trail was on the edge of the park and he was headed straight toward human voices.) Mostly they're afraid and run away.
I'm nervous about overnights at campsites where there aren't too many people camped around. In Stephen Herrero's book, he shows some statistics that if you have 2 or more people you're completely safe (at least in the East). The bears are opportunists. They aren't going to try fighting you to the death over your food. That bear probably thought it was an easy grab, but it turned out to be some guy's leg. It's completely possible that they're extra hungry because of a bad acorn harvest. Many of the bears in the park are habituated to some extent, though. In the evening they seem to head into town for garbage. I believe the police or rangers shoot them with bean bags.
There's no easy way to avoid your leg being that guy's leg, if all the bears are habituated enough to approach tents and give it a try. I do wonder what the guy was keeping in his tent. If people sleep with their food, they're teaching bears to associate tents with food smells even if most bears aren't brave enough to actually go for it. Add some food shortage and they get braver.
he shows some statistics that if you have 2 or more people you're completely safe (at least in the East).
i woudnt say that this statement is true at all...
after all, there were more than two people at this campsite..............
and at the campsite last year as well.........
The Rutgers student that got et last year had 4 in there group, they scattered and then there were none.
It's been a while since I read the book. I'm not sure how he defined 2+ (no attacks except out West, IIRC) or 3+ people (no black bear attacks at all) but if they were separated in their tents maybe that's what did it. Besides, even if that was true when he wrote the book, maybe things have changed since then?
I guess I should be even more worried? Thanks!
Last edited by CamelMan; 05-12-2016 at 22:49.