That’s sounds fantastic. They are magnificent.
1 Like
There was supposed to be a ranger there with a firearm. There was not. When our bush pilot picked us back up later that day and we told him the ranger wasn’t there, oh boy, was he unhappy. We were alive and loved every minute of it.
1 Like
I was attacked by a stranger with a tire iron when I was a junior in high school. I required 50+ stitches in my face. I’m lucky to be alive.
9 Likes
Many many many many many more women will be killed or raped by men than will be struck by lightning (or killed by a bear). The rapes or murders might happen while hiking or they might not, but they will happen and they are mostly perpetuated by men. If I encounter a sketchy looking woman alone in the woods I also get my hackles up. But yeah, I’d take a black bear any day of the week over random guy.
Honestly I’d LOVE to see a black bear in the woods. There are lots of them not far from me, but I’ve never seen one.
Now grizzlies, I do not want to have a close encounter with those. They kill people too. Black bears almost never do.
11 Likes
So you agree that you are making the assumption that any male you encounter may indeed be dangerous. Fine with me, regardless of what backstory there is.
Deadly assaults against women are overwhelmingly from those well known to the victim, usually a current or former domestic partner, not a random hiker on a trail. Recognizing the actual level of risk is in all of our interests.
1 Like
The men in my life are great people. But women are raped (by men) and murdered (usually by men). That’s not man bashing. That is factual.
18 Likes
Nope, incorrect. 
1 Like
Murder Victimization - A Statistical Analysis | Office of Justice Programs.
90% of women victims knew their attacker.
2 Likes
What generation is that? In my own college days we women were told to walk across campus in pairs/groups after dark (or call security for an escort) because attacks on women had occurred. That was in the late 1970’s.
16 Likes
I mean the question is would you rather encounter a species that has killed 6 people in North America since 2020 or a species that has killed thousands over the same time period?
Who wouldn’t say bear?!
19 Likes
See the other thread about the class of 24 from the WSJ which someone generously gifted. There are numerous studies of anxiety, particularly among women, in Gen Z.
If one were analyzing the stats, a domestic partner is by far the most dangerous to a woman. So don’t worry about hiking, but avoid a relationship.
I don’t think anyone saying bear on this thread is Gen Z.
9 Likes
And even the 10% of women who were killed (not to mention raped) by men is still way way way more than the number of women killed by a bear to recognize the actual level of risk.
7 Likes
In 16 years only 48 people were murdered on property managed by the National Park Service.
“Your chances of being fatally attacked by a person in a national park are vanishingly low: Just 48 people died by homicide in a national park between 2007 and July 2023, during which time the park service recorded nearly 5 billion visits. Many of those deaths occurred in urban and urban-adjacent sites managed by the park service, such as Washington D.C.’s Anacostia Park and Suitland Parkway.”
1 Like
You are a woman on the trail alone. Why? Exercising, enjoying nature? You meet a man on the trail. Why? The most likely explanation is that he is exercising or enjoying nature nothing nefarious. Your chances of meeting a man on the trail is much higher than meeting a bear. I think the perceived fear is that bear attacks are few and unexpected. We haven’t been taught to actually fear them. If you actually came across a bear and it paid attention to you you would be frightened. They may not attack but we don’t have much experience with bears. Men you will come across much more often and seldom will they threaten you. We do know that attacks on women occur with a much higher frequency because you interact with them so much more often and have been taught to fear strange men. I think on the whole if you were to see a random man or a bear on the trail you’d have more to fear from the bear.
3 Likes
The odds of any particular chance encounter with a random male resulting in a woman’s death is incredibly small. So any one encounter? Likely same odds as lightening. But as I said, the bears do not care either way.
As the report says, drownings, falls, car crashes, medical issues are the worries when hiking. Not strange men and definitely not bears.
1 Like
A question: Suppose you are a woman who’s alone in the woods and you meet a group of men. Are you more worried, or less?
You don’t have much experience with bears. In some places they are very common. My D22 transferred from her first college, but they used to see bears all the time on campus. They are in the urban areas around there too. They’re like big squirrels or big raccoons, hunting for trash, and snacks people leave. Heck yeah I’d rather see a bear! Because I have educated myself about bears I know they are very very very unlikely to attack people. Same can’t be said for men.
Very likely not! If you are going to make an assertion like that back it up with some reputable stats. I just do not believe that for one minute.
That’s not the question. No one asked what should you be worried about when hiking. The question was would you rather come across a bear or a man in the woods.
1 Like
The original topic/question was about whether women would prefer to encounter a man or a bear in the woods. It was not about how much people worry about encountering others in the woods or being attacked by them. So if an individual would prefer to encounter a bear or a male does not mean that they’re constantly anxious about doing so.
That said, being aware of your surroundings, walking in pairs or groups when after dark, following the trail of blue lights with call boxes if you absolutely must walk alone, carrying safety devices (pepper spray, blaring whistles, keys like a weapon), etc, has been around for decades, particularly for women.
To insinuate that women who choose to run around a subdivision rather than on a wooded trail with little foot traffic are living their lives with too much anxiety due to the risk of attack is disheartening. Because on the one hand there will be people making the argument that people are living their lives in fear for little reason, but should someone happen to be attacked while on that same wooded trail, there would be many others saying that the woman may not have “deserved” to be attacked but that she should have taken some common safety precautions that would have minimized the risk. Frankly, it’s a no-win situation.
20 Likes
I pointed out in my first post the silly nature of the question-hikers should not worry about either choice, but about things that may actually happen, like heart attacks and fatal falls. I have repeatedly stated that sensible precautions are a good idea.
1 Like