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.
ROTFLMAO, you have got to be kidding me, no wait I just looked up your profile, talk about a babe in the woods. Riddle me this batman, why has every bear Ive seen in PA run like the wind once they figured out what I was vs. all the bears I saw in yellowstone which stood there and loooked at me as if I owed them money? Domyself and the rest of the experinced woodsman a favor and peel you eyes off whatever book/site you regurgitating this BS from and get out there and experince life instead of reading about it.