Article on Joel Polsom

[rickb]

The larger truth is that you have provided no data to back up your assertions, therefore all the specifics must be questioned. If you have a data source supporting your assertions, then please let us know what it is.

When evaluating any information, we are all subject to something g called “confirmation bias”.

Undertanding that can open up a whole new level of understanding.

All the best!

[gpburdelljr]

When evaluating any information, we are all subject to something g called “confirmation bias”.

Undertanding that can open up a whole new level of understanding.

All the best!

In post #20 you stated that you were confident your numbers were correct. Now,you seem to say you are subject to “confirmation bias”, which is the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. In other words, the “larger truth” is that you are no longer confident that your numbers are correct.

[TexasBob]

I think it important to note that none of the murders of thru hikers that occurred on the AT occurred during the contemporary northbound bubble.

In every case the victims encountered a lone male at an otherwise empty shelter with no nearby campers and that is uncommon indeed for today’s northbounders. Never has there been a murder attempt on a group of three or more — though there was one brutal but non-leathal assault on a larger group of schools girls by a gang of men some years ago — also outside of the contemporary NOBO bubble.

i would welcome corrections, but I am rather confident these numbers are substantially correct :

Number of AT thru hikers killed by bears: 0
Number of AT thru hikers killed by lightening: 0
Number of AT thru hikers killed by drowning: 3
Number of AT thru hikers killed by cars: 0
Number of AT thru hikers killed by exposure/starvation: 1
Number of AT thru hikers killed by snakes: 0
Number of AT thru hikers killed by deadfalls: 0
Number of AT thru hikers under age 55 killed by heart attacks: 0
Number of AT thru hiker killed by falls: 0
Number of AT thru hikers killed by hantavirus: 0
Number of AT thru thru hikers killed by a train: 1
Number of AT thru hikers killed by rabies: 0
Number of AT thru hikers killed by complete stranger at or near a shelter: 6

I think that to not include those who have injured but not killed by falls, bears, dead falls, snakes etc. tends to underestimate the danger. Murder is rare but serious injuries may not be so rare.

[MuddyWaters]

I think that to not include those who have injured but not killed by falls, bears, dead falls, snakes etc. tends to underestimate the danger. Murder is rare but serious injuries may not be so rare.

Focus was on deaths.

There has been numerous cases of other people hazards, uch as robbery, theft, assault, kidnap, rape. And even more attempted cases. People have been held up at gunpoint.

The trail averages 200-300 reported petty crimes per year, about 1 assault per year, and 1 rape every 3 years. According to ATC from a washington Post article in 2008.

50% of thru hikers surveyed reported at least one situation which made them feel unsafe.

[somers515]

When evaluating any information, we are all subject to something g called “confirmation bias”.

Undertanding that can open up a whole new level of understanding.

All the best!

Rickb speaking of confirmation bias . . . seems like you have a strong belief that people die less frequently from falls or lightning or anything other then murder on the trail and now you appear to be just completely making up stats to fit your own bias and potentially misleading others. Now I know this is the internet and I can't stop you from posting made up data. But just like I felt I had to correct your implication in another thread this is now the second time I'm linking this article in response to you. I just don't want people who go out hiking to get the wrong idea of what the dangers are.

https://www.backpacker.com/survival/a-dozen-ways-to-die.

Hopefully anyone who goes backpacking makes themselves aware of all the risks and does their best to mitigate the various risks they will face. And remember sitting at home on the couch every day carries risks too.

I do thank you for linking the original article. I found it an interesting read.

[rickb]

I just don't want people who go out hiking to get the wrong idea of what the dangers are.

I think you make a good point.


But please take note that I am in no way suggesting any of the threats on my list do not exist, but rather Thru Hikers seem to have found ways to mitigate them — at least to the point that very, very few have died from hem.

I also think it is perfectly OK for anyone to reject me as an all-knowing “expert witness” on this topic- I am not. i am nothing more than one person who has been paying close attention longer than most.

And I make no claim to have 100% of the data. That’s why I wrote I am RATHER confident that I am SUBSTANCIALLY correct- and that I welcomed others who might correct me on anything I may have missed.

But consider this. About 70% of the 20,000 people who have reported completing a thru hike and the 100,000 people who have attempted one have done so since the year 2000.

How likely do you think it would be for the Whiteblaze community alone to have missed reports of Thru Hiker deaths during that time span?

if you think the probrablity is high that more than a few would have gone unnoticed and let pass without comment here alone, I would suggest that we understand the thu hiking community differently.

Again, very Ok to reject my list as wholly with out merit if you so choose. It out there and I stand to be corrected on any of it.

I remain rather confident that it is substancially correct.

[wolfywolfy]

[QUOTE=rickb;2231586]

In every case the victims encountered a lone male



Same with bears, watch out for the Lone males.

[MuddyWaters]

But consider this. About 70% of the 20,000 people who have reported completing a thru hike and the 100,000 people who have attempted one have done so since the year 2000.

How likely do you think it would be for the Whiteblaze community alone to have missed reports of Thru Hiker deaths during that time span?

if you think the probrablity is high that more than a few would have gone unnoticed and let pass without comment here alone, I would suggest that we understand the thu hiking community differently.

Again, very Ok to reject my list as wholly with out merit if you so choose. It out there and I stand to be corrected on any of it.

I remain rather confident that it is substancially correct.

Precisely

There was almost no usage, relatively speaking, of trail before 1970, few even heard of it. Even people that lived near it often hadnt heard of it.

The idea there was a great pool of thru hiker deaths no one knows about that would seriously skew the statistics we do know about is ....not logical.

The numbers of total accidental deaths we do know about clearly corellate with trail usage, ie .they are increasing with trail use #s and time. Most are in the modern time. This is as would be expected. If trail use mirrors thru hike statistics, something like 95+% has occurred since early 1970s. 90% since 1980s, etc.

[Seatbelt]

I did not.


Google told me that a 42 year old man and his 15 year old son drowned their in 2012. Could those be the guys you are talking about? This article said they had been hiking for less than 2 weeks.

https://www.johnsoncitypress.com/Loc...m-Laurel-Falls

Are you sure they were thru hikers?

These are the ones. I was going by memory and did not look it up first. I remember staying at Mtn Harbour the week after they had passed thru and read their entries in the hostel logbook. They were apparently planning to continue to Katahdin or as far as they felt they could. I assumed they were thru-hikers, and the other hikers I talked to referred to them as such. I do not know where they started, so they might not have technically been thru-hikers.

[MuddyWaters]

Are you sure they were thru hikers?

These are the ones. I was going by memory and did not look it up first. I remember staying at Mtn Harbour the week after they had passed thru and read their entries in the hostel logbook. They were apparently planning to continue to Katahdin or as far as they felt they could. I assumed they were thru-hikers, and the other hikers I talked to referred to them as such. I do not know where they started, so they might not have technically been thru-hikers.

They were not thru hikers.
The son was a 15 yr old boy scout , from Lafayette , La
Who had to be back in high school the first week of august

They were on a multi week section hike.
This was well discussed in some scouting communities
One of which was my sons at the time.

Always tragic when death is due to ignorance of hazards, and self-inflicted.

[Seatbelt]

They were not thru hikers.
The son was a 15 yr old boy scout , from Lafayette , La
Who had to be back in high school the first week of august

They were on a multi week section hike.
This was well discussed in some scouting communities
One of which was my sons at the time.

Thanks for the info.

On a side note, not sure why we are only discussing "thru-hiker" deaths and not including all deaths on the trail. Was there a reason that I missed somewhere? And why the specific thru-hiker designation which by definition excludes all others, section hikers, day hikers, etc.

[MuddyWaters]

Thanks for the info.

On a side note, not sure why we are only discussing "thru-hiker" deaths and not including all deaths on the trail. Was there a reason that I missed somewhere? And why the specific thru-hiker designation which by definition excludes all others, section hikers, day hikers, etc.

No reason, its just what evolved.
Tracking all deaths and injuries is much harder due to sheer numbers.
And there is a definite disconnect between serious hikers...and the general public

As the woman lost and died at clingmans dome a few mo ago indicates.

For instance, Maine rescues or receives reports of 28 hikers lost/ need help on AT each year.
How many are thru hikers? Maybe 0-2?

A large portion of deaths from falls......are people attempting to get photos. ( Problem in all national parks, etc)

[Huntmog]

While i agree with the point about data gathering, the idea that thru hikers are somehow better suited is laughable at best. Google will show you the vast majority of thrus start with very limited experience. Here's one of many links you can find.

https://thetrek.co/appalachian-trail...-hiker-survey/

A smarter approach to all of this would really be to look at likelihood of an event happening. That would be based on outcome/time on trail. Thrus spend more time on trail (assuming they finish) but section folks add more data points. Merge those two words by taking all of it into looking at time on trail.

Happy holidays, everyone go outside and enjoy it 🤙🤙🤙

[MuddyWaters]

While i agree with the point about data gathering, the idea that thru hikers are somehow better suited is laughable at best. Google will show you the vast majority of thrus start with very limited experience. Here's one of many links you can find.

Thru hikers do have a couple of advantages over general population however:

1. Typically carrying necessary gear to survive , and a guidebook at least
2. Typically have a support group to backstop them and aid decision making
3. Typically have several mo experience by time get to more difficult /remote terrain
4. Typically, travel in pairs to groups nowadays

5. Typically in better shape, and aware of personal limitations in more remote terrain.

Rest is likely sheer numbers. Thru hikers are a small population of total trail users and should be involved in small percentage of total accidents.

That they are a large percentage of murders is .....interesting

[gpburdelljr]

I think data shows , that a thru hiker being murdered.....is actually a greater risk than death from most of those other things, and possibly on par at least with rest.

Comprehensive data would be interesting if ATC has it.

You THINK, but don’t KNOW. Give me some real data, other than “I would have heard about it”, and me and others might start to believe you.

[MuddyWaters]

You THINK, but don’t KNOW. Give me some real data, other than “I would have heard about it”, and me and others might start to believe you.

I really dont care what you believe.

Why dont you gather some data that its not?

The ATC may not keep official records, but they have a darn good idea. Contact Laurie P. She was information specialist for ATC for many yrs. If anyone knows...she does.

[trailmercury]

You THINK, but don’t KNOW. Give me some real data, other than “I would have heard about it”, and me and others might start to believe you.

This isn't a peer reviewed journal!
This is not an academic setting!
It's an online forum about a leisure activity, where folks share information.
Use the information if you want, or don't.

[gpburdelljr]

[QUOTE=MuddyWaters;2231749]I really dont care what you believe.

Why dont you gather some data that its not?

The ATC may not keep official records, but they have a darn good idea. Contact Laurie P. She was information specialist for ATC for many yrs. If anyone knows...she does.[/QUOTEI

I only asked if the assertions made in post #20 were based on analysis of real data, which it appears that it is not, because a number of people quickly found examples proving it wrong. If I start making assertions about statistics, I will provide links to data, or studies that support the assertion. If I offer an opinion, like you have, I will readily state it is only an opinion. Like the post #45 said, “I just don't want people who go out hiking to get the wrong idea of what the dangers are.”

I don’t know one way or another what the real statistics are, and have never claimed I did. Since you claim to KNOW, why don’t YOU gather some data, or contact ATC to see if they know. If not, why not just say that it is your opinion, and is not supported by any data analysis.(Edit: There is no need for you state that you have no data analysis to support your claims, since that has become obvious).

[gpburdelljr]

This isn't a peer reviewed journal!
This is not an academic setting!
It's an online forum about a leisure activity, where folks share information.
Use the information if you want, or don't.

A lot of people that have never hiked, but are considering it, come to this forum to learn. Sometimes it may be difficult for these people to figure out if a post is just an opinion, possibly erroneous, or is based in fact. These people need to have real information on the risks involved. I have no problem with anyone offering an opinion, as long as they admit it an opinion, and not claim it is fact. It doesn’t help a new hiker to think the biggest risk they face is getting murdered (Edit: unless of course that is actually the case).

[pickle]

I think I saw a YouTube on a murder that happened on the A.T