Originally Posted By: AKSAR
The fatalities in the article I linked were from US National Parks, and the odds of death were calculated using those National Park fatality numbers against National Park visitor numbers.


Then the stats are meaningless, because they don't take into account which visitors were likely exposed to which dangers, and how often. Tons of people visit the Parks and never leave pavement. Therefore is it accurate to estimate an overnight backpacker's risk of a bear problem by including Mom & Pop Stay-In-A-Hotel in the stats? During my trips to Yellowstone I spend lots of time in the backcountry. My risk from bears is far higher than that of tourists, just by the sheer duration and location of my exposure.

It's like estimating the risk of getting hurt climbing in Yosemite by dividing the number of climbing accidents by the overall number of visitors to Yosemite... the vast majority of which never climb. That is hyperbole, of course, but again plenty of Park visitors show up in motor homes and are never exposed to anything more dangerous than road accidents.