Fanciful threats to some are real threats for others.

[.455_Hunter]

On Nextdoor, we were discussing how the local media ignores certain news stories, like felony menacing by vagrants, while providing complete converge to somebody twisting an ankle on a local hiking trail and needing rescue services. A neighbor chimed in that he was disappointed that a serious event occurred on a road he walks daily and similarly received zip coverage. What was this event, you ask?

A group of thugs looking for a easy score? Nope.

A local resident being serious injured in a moose attack? Yup.

Just because "recognized defensive trainers" don't cover it in their courses doesn't mean a specific threat is invalid or unreasonable in appropriate scenarios.

ONLY you can populate and assess YOUR personal threat matrix, and yes, that matrix (and subsequent defensive equipment choices) may vary from hour-to-hour, day-to-day and location-to-location.

 

[Kleanbore]

"Recognized defensive trainers" work in the area of use of force for self defense--the justification of deadly force, threat recognition, reaction including deescalation, shooting from cover and concealment, dealing with police after the fact, etc. Very little of that is applicable to defense against dangerous animals. However, there are trainers--different ones--who do work in those areas. If a person expects to be exposed to risks of those kinds, it behooves them to obtain appropriate training and to choose appropriate gear.

The subject is beyond the scope of ST&T. The subject would be relevant to the tools and Technologies sub forums, and the discussion could fit in Hunting, even for the discussion of venturing into animal country by those who do not intend to take game. There is much more overlap.