My brother spends a significant amount of time outdoors (not hunting) and was attacked and seriously injured by a wild animal, with two more attacks by the same species in the same area in the same year, one of which resulted in another hiker's death. A year later my brother was charged by a moose in a different area.

Animal attacks are real, and even when you leave them alone they won't always leave you alone. That said, bear spray is much more effective than a firearm, and has saved my brother's life in the past.

That's one data point.

Let's look at the data in aggregate instead, in order to make a decision, using the link I already gave. It's an extraordinarily low risk. I'm not even sure how quickly a hiker could bring a rifle into battery when they're just hiking along. And a pistol isn't going to stop a large animal. Whole thing seems unrealistic to me.

Bear spray, easily reachable on one's person, will be much more effective than a pistol. But data-wise, you have to consider that most near-misses probably aren't reported, that successfully defended attacks may not even be reported, and that people in certain environments will have a much greater risk than the average.

Thanks for the insight!