I have already asked a question on this forum on just about the same thing, but the details of my question have acquired bit more density. For Example:

Perhaps the most frequent of quotes is the fact that within the last some 100 years there have only been 80 or so deaths via bear attacks in the U.S. Impressive, comforting statistic, no? Well perhaps the incredibly small fraction of people in the U.S. who hike the the extent i enjoy fall under that same threshold of deaths. That is to say: i enjoy going off trail, using maps and compasses for guidelines, and exploring for miles. Other times i enjoy long backpacking trips and aspire to eventually save up enough money to quite my job and travel the natural beauty of the world, both off-trial and on. Sometimes by myself, sometimes not.

Most people who go on hikes will do a between a 1-hour hike to a week, maybe two week long hike. I feel the people at most jeopardy are those who explore the wild for much longer time periods and are by themselves.

Besides my family, there is nothing more important to me than being in nature and roaming freely in the great unknown. No greater sense of joy comes to me than when in that place. The great irony is that, for whatever reason, when by myself, in that place i find myself too petrified to even go 30 feet beyond my car for the given thought of an attack by some predator.
Whats worse is that for every article of reading i absorb about bear attacks there are several contradictions between them all. Few hardly differentiate the difference in behavior and proper reactions to black bears and grizzly bears. I even read one that said to climb a tree.

Sure the fear seems irrational. But does it seem so irrational if you're the kind of hiker who likes to backpack alone for days, often times off-trail? I feel like this makes the story a bit different.

Maybe im just looking for validation aid in nullifying my fears, or maybe just to hear logical input to further a more confident philosophy on the matter.

Any input is great, thanks.