Maybe the map i found when i searched is wrong, lord knows everything ont the internet isn't true. But the fact still remains, that hunting bears doesn't make it anymore likely that a bear (which has been shot at) is not going to attack a hiker if it feels her and her cubs are cornered, or it doesn't mean the same bear is anyless likely to eat that hiker if it were starving, regardless of whether or not it has been shot at. What you are describing is the exact definiton of an ecological fallacy. For this to be correct we should have to assume bears, wolves etc. REGULARLY hunt and kill humans, or attack them for no reason.

The ecological fallacy is a widely recognised error in the interpretation of statistical data, whereby inferences about the nature of individuals are based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which those individuals belong. This fallacy assumes that all members of a group exhibit characteristics of the group at large. Stereotypes are one form of ecological fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy