" You can apply that reasoning to anything humans are doing here, driving, building houses, working, mining, fishing, running, hiking, skiing, skijoring, climbing, and on and on."

Yes you can.  In fact you did.  And WHEN you did, I pointed out it constituted false equivalency.  And it still does.

And what you repeatedly ignore are two types of activities that apply to your fad-sport which DON'T apply to the other activities you mention.  If you travel rapidly through areas in which there are visual barriers preventing you from seeing at distance you are INCREASING the probability of an adverse bear encounter beyond that of those other activities.

You churn out a lot of words.  But in doing so you don't respond to the arguments which refute you.  Quantity doesn't equal quality.  Don't tell me, let me guess--attorney?