11 Year Old Boy Killed by Bear

[gonzo]

I heard on the news this morning that an 11 year-old boy was killed by a bear last night while camping in American Fork Canyon. I didn't even know we had bear in the Wasatch until the bear eating a deer (http://uutah.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7290) post in this forum a few weeks ago.

[quote=Associated Press]
Boy attacked in tent and killed by black bear near campground
Associated Press

AMERICAN FORK

[tanya]

Very Scarey and sad! :eek2: :ne_nau:

[asdf]

Sad story, I have been following it all morning.

There are lots of black bears up there.

[brookiekiller]

Was that bear that attacked that dear in Utah County area as well? Bears usually arn't predators so it makes me wonder if it was the same bear.

[gonzo]

Was that bear that attacked that dear in Utah County area as well? Bears usually arn't predators so it makes me wonder if it was the same bear.

I was wonder that, too. But, the bear in bear that ate the deer in some guy's backyard was down in Woodland Hills (south of Spanish Fork Canyon), and this was in American Fork Canyon. I don't know what a black bear's range is, but that seems like too long of a distance.

[ericchile]

I was just up at Little Deer Creek Campground a week ago..... just around the corner.

What should we do to protect ourselves? Besides the obvious of not sleeping with food, and keeping a clean camp. Would a gun helped at all?

[rockgremlin]

I was just up at Little Deer Creek Campground a week ago..... just around the corner.

What should we do to protect ourselves? Besides the obvious of not sleeping with food, and keeping a clean camp. Would a gun helped at all?

Nothing you can do really. It is extremely rare to be attacked by a black bear. Kind of like getting struck by lightning....it happens, but not so often that you should worry about it. I'm more worried about getting into the more likely auto accident.

[gonzo]

I used to sell bear-sized canister of pepper spray. I never actually tried to use it on a bear, so I can't attest to it's efficacy, but the manufacturer claimed to turn back bears as far as 50 meters away, even with a headwind of 20-30 MPH. Although, in this case I doubt it would have helped since the kid probably never saw the bear coming.

When I was younger I had a neighbor who was attacked by a bear while she was sleeping in her tent trailer. The thing ripped through the canvas wall, and grabbed her by the head. Her grandfather who was on the other end of the trailer heard what was happening, ran outside, and hit the damn thing over the snout with a big 5 D-cell Maglite. After a few hits the bear took off.

[asdf]

When I was younger I had a neighbor who was attacked by a bear while she was sleeping in her tent trailer. The thing ripped through the canvas wall, and grabbed her by the head. Her grandfather who was on the other end of the trailer heard what was happening, ran outside, and hit the damn thing over the snout with a big 5 D-cell Maglite. After a few hits the bear took off.

I heard this story last friday, where were they camping?

[MY T PIMP]

I was wonder that, too. But, the bear in bear that ate the deer in some guy's backyard was down in Woodland Hills (south of Spanish Fork Canyon), and this was in American Fork Canyon. I don't know what a black bear's range is, but that seems like too long of a distance.[/quote]
It's not uncommon for bears to travel that far it could very well be the same bear. And maybe not.

[TreeHugger]

WEll, they think they got the bear: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6168961

However, if there are so many bears up there, how do they know that this is the one?

[shanehadman]

Why are people camping up there if Black Bears are all over? :nono: :nono:

[JP]

However, if there are so many bears up there, how do they know that this is the one?
Good thing bears can't sue :roflol: :roflol:

They'll know when they eventually open it up.

[shlingdawg]

Why are people camping up there if Black Bears are all over? :nono: :nono:

Hmmm, good point. Why do people continue to drive when there are cars all over the place? :roll:

Shit happens and you try to learn from it. We can all speculate about an open bag of Doritos or a Subway pastrami on wheat bread laying next to the kid.

It's an unfortunate occurance. Won't keep me away.

[asdf]

We can all speculate about an open bag of Doritos or a Subway pastrami on wheat bread laying next to the kid.

its fairly common knowledge that bears do like wheat bread.

[rockgremlin]

We can all speculate about an open bag of Doritos or a Subway pastrami on wheat bread laying next to the kid.

its fairly common knowledge that bears do like wheat bread.

Apparently, they like 11-yr-old boys better...

[Glockguy]

LMAO :roflol: The media is retarded as usual. Chanel 2 had a news headline saying Bear Attack! with a pic of a grizzly.

Anyways condolences to the family. That is a crappy way to end Father's day week-end.

[Gutpiler_Utahn]

Why are people camping up there if Black Bears are all over? :nono: :nono:

It's not like they're camping inside a bear's den. Sheesh... That's like never getting in any body of water for fear of snapping turtles, sharks, & the like. I feel bad for the kid's family, I really do, but I think the state is doing the proper thing in destroying the trouble animal and letting life go on. Just one more reason to up the number of black bear tags. :2thumbs:

[tanya]

I used to sell bear-sized canister of pepper spray. I never actually tried to use it on a bear, so I can't attest to it's efficacy, but the manufacturer claimed to turn back bears as far as 50 meters away, even with a headwind of 20-30 MPH. Although, in this case I doubt it would have helped since the kid probably never saw the bear coming.

When I was younger I had a neighbor who was attacked by a bear while she was sleeping in her tent trailer. The thing ripped through the canvas wall, and grabbed her by the head. Her grandfather who was on the other end of the trailer heard what was happening, ran outside, and hit the damn thing over the snout with a big 5 D-cell Maglite. After a few hits the bear took off.

Bo brings bear spray along when we are hiking after we ran face to face with a mountain lion. I have yet to see a bear though!

[asdf]

Why are people camping up there if Black Bears are all over? :nono: :nono:

It's not like they're camping inside a bear's den.

Dont forget there were Grizzlies here in utah until 1920's.

[W]

I used to sell bear-sized canister of pepper spray. I never actually tried to use it on a bear, so I can't attest to it's efficacy, but the manufacturer claimed to turn back bears as far as 50 meters away, even with a headwind of 20-30 MPH. Although, in this case I doubt it would have helped since the kid probably never saw the bear coming.

When I was younger I had a neighbor who was attacked by a bear while she was sleeping in her tent trailer. The thing ripped through the canvas wall, and grabbed her by the head. Her grandfather who was on the other end of the trailer heard what was happening, ran outside, and hit the damn thing over the snout with a big 5 D-cell Maglite. After a few hits the bear took off.

Bo brings bear spray along when we are hiking after we ran face to face with a mountain lion. I have yet to see a bear though!

Y'know... I've thought about carrying bear spray for that very purpose (especially since I usually hike solo), but part of me was afraid that I would just look paranoid. I do usually hike with a bear bell (although if there are other hikers around, I'll put it in the pouch so as not to annoy fellow hikers, usually who are making enough noise to scare off wildlife anyway).

After all the bear stories of the past few weeks, I'm starting to rethink that bear spray/paranoid dork theory though. My thought is that a live paranoid dork beats a dead hero any day of the week! Even minus the bear stories, there are still cats up in them thar hills.

[MY T PIMP]

My brother and his friend were confronted with a bear at their tent in the middle of the night in the Uintahs. They had to eat a whole weekends worth of food in ten minutes. To get rid of it. The bear kept pressing his nose against the tent and running his paw down it. My brother luckily brought a .22 pistol along and shot some warning shots that eventually scared the bear off. :eek2:

[gonzo]

I used to sell bear-sized canister of pepper spray. I never actually tried to use it on a bear, so I can't attest to it's efficacy, but the manufacturer claimed to turn back bears as far as 50 meters away, even with a headwind of 20-30 MPH. Although, in this case I doubt it would have helped since the kid probably never saw the bear coming.

When I was younger I had a neighbor who was attacked by a bear while she was sleeping in her tent trailer. The thing ripped through the canvas wall, and grabbed her by the head. Her grandfather who was on the other end of the trailer heard what was happening, ran outside, and hit the damn thing over the snout with a big 5 D-cell Maglite. After a few hits the bear took off.

Bo brings bear spray along when we are hiking after we ran face to face with a mountain lion. I have yet to see a bear though!

Y'know... I've thought about carrying bear spray for that very purpose (especially since I usually hike solo), but part of me was afraid that I would just look paranoid. I do usually hike with a bear bell (although if there are other hikers around, I'll put it in the pouch so as not to annoy fellow hikers, usually who are making enough noise to scare off wildlife anyway).

After all the bear stories of the past few weeks, I'm starting to rethink that bear spray/paranoid dork theory though. My thought is that a live paranoid dork beats a dead hero any day of the week! Even minus the bear stories, there are still cats up in them thar hills.

If you do decide to pick up bear spray be sure to get a pepper spray (capsicum-based) and not mace. Capsicum-based sprays cause an actual physical reaction which causes the eyes to swell shut and sting, the sinuses to open, and airways to constrict.

On the other hand, mace only produces a pain reaction. So, individuals (or bears, or moose, or mountain lions) who have a high tolerance for pain will not be affected. This is why police started carrying pepper spray instead of mace. Drug users, particularly people high on PCP, have a very high tolerance for pain, and will not be deterred by mace.

One other thing to keep in mind when buying pepper spray is the aerosol propellant has a shelf life of about 2 years. So, be sure to replace your pepper spray at least that often, and give it a test spray (down wind!) every couple of months to ensure that it's working.

[tanya]

I used to sell bear-sized canister of pepper spray. I never actually tried to use it on a bear, so I can't attest to it's efficacy, but the manufacturer claimed to turn back bears as far as 50 meters away, even with a headwind of 20-30 MPH. Although, in this case I doubt it would have helped since the kid probably never saw the bear coming.

When I was younger I had a neighbor who was attacked by a bear while she was sleeping in her tent trailer. The thing ripped through the canvas wall, and grabbed her by the head. Her grandfather who was on the other end of the trailer heard what was happening, ran outside, and hit the damn thing over the snout with a big 5 D-cell Maglite. After a few hits the bear took off.

Bo brings bear spray along when we are hiking after we ran face to face with a mountain lion. I have yet to see a bear though!

Y'know... I've thought about carrying bear spray for that very purpose (especially since I usually hike solo), but part of me was afraid that I would just look paranoid. I do usually hike with a bear bell (although if there are other hikers around, I'll put it in the pouch so as not to annoy fellow hikers, usually who are making enough noise to scare off wildlife anyway).

After all the bear stories of the past few weeks, I'm starting to rethink that bear spray/paranoid dork theory though. My thought is that a live paranoid dork beats a dead hero any day of the week! Even minus the bear stories, there are still cats up in them thar hills.

Well you just stick that little can in the side of your pack and you feel safe and no one every knows.....

That is .. .unless your hiking partner broadcasts it all over the internet. :mrgreen:

[Sombeech]

What should we do to protect ourselves?

Outrun the slowest person in your group.

[Mtnman1830]

In case anyone is considering doing some camping this spring or summer,
please note the following public service announcement:

In Alaska,
tourists are warned to wear tiny bells on their clothing when hiking in
bear country. The bells warn away MOST bears. Tourists are also
cautioned to watch the ground on the trail, paying particular attention
to bear droppings to be alert for the presence of Grizzly Bears. One
can tell a Grizzly dropping because it has tiny bells in it.

[asdf]

I have heard bells are pretty much pointless and you are better off clapping and singing as you hike.


But do the bells really work, or work the way we think they do, a federal bear researcher asks. Though he emphasizes that it's too soon to draw any broad or definitive conclusions, Tom Smith of the U.S. Geological Survey's Alaska Science Center has tested a group of brown bears that seemed to pay bells no mind at all.

LINK (http://www.alaska.com/activities/bears/story/4434968p-4676028c.html)

[Heather]

Such a sad, tragic story! :(

[JP]

Apparently, they like 11-yr-old boys better...
I thought that was Michael Jackson :ne_nau:


Dont forget there were Grizzlies here in utah until 1920's.
And they didn't like the climate there anymore?

[sparker1]

It's tragic that a family doing things together have something like this happen. Probably the step-father's idea, he will have trouble living with this outcome.

[Tucker]

..

[price1869]

In case anyone is considering doing some camping this spring or summer,
please note the following public service announcement:

In Alaska,
tourists are warned to wear tiny bells on their clothing when hiking in
bear country. The bells warn away MOST bears. Tourists are also
cautioned to watch the ground on the trail, paying particular attention
to bear droppings to be alert for the presence of Grizzly Bears. One
can tell a Grizzly dropping because it has tiny bells in it.

It also smells like pepper.

[Scott P]

...

[derstuka]

I think the outdoors are too dangerous....we should all remain indoors and play gin rummy. I mean look at all the dangers we face! :ne_nau:

IMO, I think a bell is a good idea if traveling alone. I use one when I ride or hike alone in secluded areas, to give a cougar (or whatnot) a little advance warning that I am coming, rather than happen up on him, startling him to pounce on me. Kinda hard for me to clap and carry and tune singing while making a grinder climb up a mtn. :haha: If I was hiking in grizzly country, I would be packing, as I would have a better chance with a gun than my two fists. Either that, or I would just bring a DVD copy of "The Grizzly Man, with Timothy Treadwall" and all of his great advice and antics would for sure keep me alive! That man is a genius!

Maybe watching "The Grizzly Man" should be mandatory for all backcountry activities?

[Randi]

What a tragic thing to happen. I can't imagine how the parents and siblings felt! It reminds me of a story I heard about two women ~ camping in Alaska I think (separate tents). One woman awoke to the other screaming and being tor apart after she was drug off into the woods. Kinda like a "Blair Witch Bear" incident. How horrible!!!

Anyway, some form of protection against wildlife might make sense, but the chances of having to use it are almost nil. I've got to agree with whoever said "you're more likely to be struck by lightning than attacked by a bear". Even if you spend year after year in bear country.
It's just not a common occurrence.

I don't know why a bear would attack a person unless it was caught off guard and fearful or aggravated, it's maladjusted ~ due to the introduction of people & people food into it's world (like the bears in Yosemite), it's sick, or it just plain smelled food. A bears sense of smell is keener than a dogs. Kind of like our sense of touch...so if that boy did have a food scent on him....well....that would explain it.


Funny bear story now: My b/f and I were camping in the woods with our three young kids in a "known" bear area. The kids were asleep in the family tent, and him and I were just chillin, reading our books next to the fire.

All of a sudden I hear this sound so I kinda jump and look around...he's like "what?", I'm like "I thought I heard something!". Hmmmm...we settle back down and start to reading again.

All of a sudden, he bolts outta his chair ~ it goes flying, and he runs away screaming "%$*#! A BEAR!!! GET THE KIDS!" I turn around and see this HUGE bear about 15 feet away just staring at me. I'm thinking "how in the heck can I get the kids? And what would I do with em?

I just stood there looking at the bear. Kinda surprised but not really afraid. The bear wasn't being aggressive. We both just stood there looking at each other and then he walked away.

My guy was sitting in the truck!

How's that for protection!!! :roll:

~Randi

[Shan]

I feel horrible for the family. The dad heard his kid scream and thought it was an abductor.

We bring a gun with us when we're backpacking or in bear country. My FIL mailed it out do us, so I guess we have it if we need it. Otherwise we hang all food and toiletries for the night. I don't go as far as wearing separate clothes for cooking and sleeping (though it is suggested), but I do change clothes if any food spilled on me. We wear bells and talk as we round any blind corners while hiking. Try to stay together and not get one person too far behind/ahead.

Even with that, I am always paranoid in bear country. I never sleep, every noise keeps me up. I still backpack and enjoy it thought!

Once we were in the Wind Rivers with a bunch of friends and they were going to leave all their half eaten dutch ovens just lying on the ground! Like 30 feet from my tent! I had to complain 10 fold to ask them to hang that stuff. The top of Green River Lakes is grizz habitat.

[donny h]

Hi all, I'm back.

It's a shame about the kid, it's hard to tell with the available info if there was some way it could have been prevented, sometimes, stuff happens.

That being said, I am a big fan of bear spray and I carry it often.

I have seen plenty of bears, and have never felt threatened, but there are other critters that have menaced me that I would have sprayed if I had spray at the time:

raccoons
a cow (don't laugh, that cow was a serious bitch)
geese (deadly serious here, geese are a-holes, I've been bit a few times)
crows (trying to eat my wiper blades, over and over)
wild dogs (more than once)
humans (some people just suck)

Bear spray. It's not just for bears.

I don't even know what affect it would have on a goose.

P.S. People shouldn't carry guns unless that are a decent shots, and have the mindset to use them. The best thing about using spray on people is that if a bad guy takes it from you, the worst he can do is spray you with it. The same can't be said of firearms.

[sparker1]

Driving to Alaska meant going through Canaduh, so no firearms. I brought along a flare gun, which wouldn't hurt a grizz but might scare him off. At least it might alert someone where to look for my remains.

[tallsteve]

Sad, sad, deal. I parked in that campground's parking lot Sat. morning to start my mtn. bike ride. I'm in that area 3-4 times a week riding the back trails and have never seen a bear or even seen signs of bear. I have seen mtn. lion and bobcat tracks and scat but never any bear.

[brettyb]

Very, very sad. The stats in the Trib kept things in perspective. At least 17 human deaths at the hand of black bears in the past 20 years in ALL of North America. And somewhere around 100 in the past century. So, after the fact criticism of the DWR/Forest Service etc. for closing the whole area is really unwarranted, as the risk was really not that great.

None of this is much comfort for the family, I realize. They were simply extremely unlucky it sounds like. And despite the extremely low odds of such attacks, I doubt I'll be sleeping too well during my next nights in a tent in bear country...

[uintahiker]

Well, it looks like this finally made it to its day in court. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

[denaliguide]

what? the bear plead not guilty?

[tallsteve]

I'm glad the news is finally getting their facts right. After it happened they kept reporting it was in a campground, which it wasn't. It was out on the Timpooneke Rd., in a primitive camping area, about a mile and a half past the developed campground. The witness today said the USFS should have closed the gate going out on the Timp. Rd, but I'm pretty sure the gate hadn't been installed in 2007. I feel horrible, horrible, horrible for the family, but not sure all the blame should be put on the USFS.

[Cirrus2000]

Wait, what? Court? How could this be something for courts to deal with??

[Sombeech]

Wait, what? Court? How could this be something for courts to deal with??

I think Homeland Security was so busy shutting down Torrent websites that they're finally able to get back to this one.

[ratagonia]

Well, it looks like this finally made it to its day in court. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51192043-76/bear-family-court-state.html.csp



2007 fatal bear attack trial to start Monday
BY MELINDA ROGERS
The Salt Lake Tribune

First published Feb 04 2011 03:42PM
Updated 4 hours ago
The family of an 11-year-old Pleasant Grove boy fatally mauled in a 2007 bear attack is asking for $2 million from the U.S. Forest Service in a six-day trial scheduled to start Monday in U.S. District Court.

Sam Ives was camping with his mother, stepfather and half-brother in a campground above the Timpanooke Recreation Area on June 17, 2007, when a bear sliced through his tent, pulled him out and killed him. Earlier that day, the bear had attacked another group of campers, and authorities were unsuccessful in finding the bear.

The family’s attorneys are expected to argue that the Forest Service and the state’s Division of Wildlife Resources had a duty to warn the family there was a dangerous bear in the area and that it had attacked the site at which they camped. They also believe the campground should have been closed until the bear was killed.

In the earlier attack, the black bear raided coolers and tore open a tent, but the campers escaped unharmed. The bear was hunted and killed after Sam’s attack.

Attorneys in the federal case are expected to argue the Forest Service is immune from litigation connected to the bear attack. Their arguments follow arguments from attorneys in state court, who have contended the government has a duty to protect the public from being attacked by dangerous wildlife, but that duty does not mean the state can be held responsible for individuals who are attacked by bears or other vicious wildlife.

U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball will announce a ruling after the trial concludes. The case is a civil case and a jury will not be used.

In federal court last year, government lawyers tried to get the suit thrown out on grounds that there was no legal requirement to post notices of bear activity at the campground or to close it.

But Kimball ruled that Forest Service officials knew there was a dangerous bear in the area, negating their claims for immunity, and moving the case forward to trial.

The family also has a wrongful death lawsuit filed in the state’s 4th District Court, which the Utah Supreme Court revived in November when ruling the family can sue the state for not warning them that the bear had ravaged the campsite before it attacked Sam.

The family is seeking $550,000 from the state. A status conference in the family’s state case is scheduled on March 25 before 4th District Judge David Mortensen.

mrogers@sltrib.com

[Deathcricket]

Wow, making the forest service responsible for a bear attack? Don't get me wrong, it's a horrid thing that happened... but damn... it's almost like making the coast guard responsible for a shark attack...

[uintahiker]

It's tempting to turn this into a poll.
It's sad it happened, but quite frankly things like this do happen. I believe that asking who is responsible for it is not the question they should be asking and is an issue that is impossible to resolve.

[asdf]

Wow, making the forest service responsible for a bear attack? Don't get me wrong, it's a horrid thing that happened... but damn... it's almost like making the coast guard responsible for a shark attack...

Albeit a more dangerous situation with sharks and the whole blood in the water thing but I think you just proved the point the family is trying to make.

If there was an shark attack the coast guard would close the beach and not let people swim in the same water hours after. The Forest service should of closed off the area or at least warned the campers of the attack that happened before their arrival.

[Sombeech]

I don't know all of the details, but here's my opinion on what little I know;

When they say "Forest Service officials knew there was a dangerous bear in the area" and then it was dangerous because it had rummaged through coolers, was this all they had to go on to determine the danger level of the bear?

Curious bears can be quite common, although I don't think every one of them is hunted down. I do believe it's the Forest Service's duty to warn people of the bear. Did they even see the family as they set up camp in that spot? Or did they see them and choose not to warn them? Maybe they were away looking for the bear while the family came in and set up camp?

[Redpb]

Having watched Rebecca's family go through this and what it has done to them, I think some monetary reward is in order. 2mill? no, I don't agree with that. But money for the funeral, counselling for her, her son, and the father... yeah, I'd go for that.

[Cirrus2000]

When they say "Forest Service officials knew there was a dangerous bear in the area" and then it was dangerous because it had rummaged through coolers, was this all they had to go on to determine the danger level of the bear?

Well, and "tore open a tent". It's a little more than Yogi and Boo Boo.

Perhaps the Forest Service had a moral obligation to let people know about this. Not to lock people out, but to give people information.

It's a tough call, but as Redpb says, $2 million? Nuh-uh. Morally, though, there should be something done to help. However, that's a sign of weakness - blood in the water - and every lawyer (the sharks, not the Cards) would be out there whenever someone got a hangnail or bruised a shin.

It's a conundrum.

[uintahiker]

Albeit a more dangerous situation with sharks and the whole blood in the water thing but I think you just proved the point the family is trying to make.

If there was an shark attack the coast guard would close the beach and not let people swim in the same water hours after. The Forest service should of closed off the area or at least warned the campers of the attack that happened before their arrival.

One HUGE point in this whole thing is that the family WAS NOT camping in a campground. Meaning, they were at a primitive site. It's hard to "close the beach" when you're not "swimming at the beach". Yes, American Fork Canyon does have a toll booth, but the toll is collected whether you're driving the whole thing, going to Timp Cave, camping, or anything else.

I do believe that some warning is in order for those people staying in the campground where the bear was originally breaking into coolers.
Beyond that, it's difficult to determine where to draw the line.

[asdf]

One HUGE point in this whole thing is that the family WAS NOT camping in a campground.

Do you know this area very well? They were camping just outside the campground and to exclude them from any warnings just because they were just beyond the boundary is a pretty lame excuse.

[Sombeech]

maybe they started warning the actual campgrounds first, then planning on progressing to the primitive spots? Is it known what their plan was?

[Bad Karma]

Having watched Rebecca's family go through this and what it has done to them, I think some monetary reward is in order. 2mill? no, I don't agree with that. But money for the funeral, counselling for her, her son, and the father... yeah, I'd go for that.

I'm curious about this line of thinking. Just because someone has someone die in their family does not make them entitled to $. Again I don't know all the details but Life Insurance policies covers funeral expenses and medical insurance should cover the psyche damage, not the USFS. They should go after their life and medical insurance agencies. If they don't have either then we get into a political post about living or not living with the consequences of not having insurance. Neither of which involve the USFS.

I don't think people should be forced to payout money because we feel sorry for them. How do we know the kid isn't negligent or doing something to attract the bear (such as storing food in his tent)? Or the parents for not teaching their kid bear saftey (just because it wasn't signed doesn't mean it isn't possible in the woods)? Or how about go after the people who helped teach the bear to associate humans with food in the first place? Shouldn't they have to pay the FS for creating this mess (they aren't allowed to fine people that kind of money for feeding bears)? Seems to me like they are going after the government because they have deep pockets and people will give them the sympathy vote = $ because something bad happened to them.

When my family kicks the bucket I think it would be nice if everyone chipped in so I get payout to help makes things easier for me but it isn't going to happen. This is why we've been paying insurance for years. Seems like I shouldn't have to pay that every month if I can sue anybody to help make my life easier.

Sorry Redpb I disagree with your line of thinking. I agree it's sad, but it also seems sad that they are going to this means.

[asdf]

Seems to me like they are going after the government because they have deep pockets and people will give them the sympathy vote = $ because something bad happened to them.


I think they are "going after the government" because the Rangers knew there was an aggressive bear in the area and failed to warn them. Why all of you seem to be ignoring this point is mind boggling.


I go up AF canyon and the Alpine loop all the time and these days there are signs EVERYWHERE warning people about bears in the area. Do you also suggest these signs be removed?

If it was me and my family camping at that spot and a ranger told us about the aggressive bear activity a few hours before I would have moved camp. Would any of you done the same?

[Sombeech]

I think they are "going after the government" because the Rangers knew there was an aggressive bear in the area and failed to warn them. Why all of you seem to be ignoring this point is mind boggling.

Just curious, what exactly were the Rangers doing at the time?

[Cirrus2000]

Just curious, what exactly were the Rangers doing at the time?

I'm guessing this question will be a large part of the case...

Not much that can be done here and now but speculate.

[asdf]

Just curious, what exactly were the Rangers doing at the time?'

Whatever it was I am sure it had something to do with socialism :crazy:

[Bad Karma]

"I go up AF canyon and the Alpine loop all the time and these days there are signs EVERYWHERE warning people about bears in the area. Do you also suggest these signs be removed?"

YES!!! I don't need signs telling me there are animals in nature, that if I fall off a cliff I'm going to die, fall in a hot springs I'm going to get burned, or walk through bad neighborhood at night I'm could get mugged. I assume some risk when I go outside. They don't have signs stating that there are mtn lions or rattlesnakes in the area, but I'm sure there are.

[Sombeech]

'

Whatever it was I am sure it had something to do with socialism :crazy:

This topic has definitely struck a nerve with Summit :roflol:

[asdf]

I don't need signs telling me there are animals in nature

I was talking about AF canyon.


This topic has definitely struck a nerve with Summit :roflol:

A few years ago while in glacier a campground was closed due to recent a grizzly encounter. I was thankful for the warning and moved on with my life.

[Brian in SLC]

Will be interesting to watch. If they win, what can we, the public, expect? No more camping without a permit on public land? Sounds kinda familiar...

I feel bad for the family, but, I hope the judge kicks it. I don't expect a land manager to mollycoddle me. I take full responsibility for my recreation on public land.

[ratagonia]

'

Whatever it was I am sure it had something to do with socialism :crazy:

The only socialism here is the government paying the family because their kid died.

HEY, BEARS LIVE IN THE WOODS.

Is that so hard for people to understand? Is the FS supposed to put a sign up every 40 feet telling people there might be bears around? How far - the entire National Forest? How about the Uintas... and how about along the trails - do we need signs every 40 feet?

It is a big leap between a black bear nosing some coolers and looking for food in a tent, and grabbing a kid for a meal. Yup. Bears are unpredictable.

Well, I guess there is some grounds for a lawsuit. There might even be grounds for thinking the FS messed up - but at the moment, I think the preponderance of the rumors supports no liability. At least, from the chair I am sitting in.

Tom :moses:

[Deathcricket]

Albeit a more dangerous situation with sharks and the whole blood in the water thing but I think you just proved the point the family is trying to make.

If there was an shark attack the coast guard would close the beach and not let people swim in the same water hours after. The Forest service should of closed off the area or at least warned the campers of the attack that happened before their arrival.

A bear tearing into a tent and raiding food the night before is hardly.... never mind, everyone else made my point for me. :haha:

What if in your shark situation they open the beach after a couple hours and the shark attacks another person? Would you sue the coast guard on the basis that the beach should have been closed for days or months? Animals are unpredictable and attacks are very rare. What if a person is struck by lightning on a gold course? Do you sue the golf course owner for just being open? By your logic "He saw clouds and should have closed his golf course". Just doesn't make sense.

I'm really trying to understand your point man. But let's face it, the parents are grieving (rightly so) and lashing out at the only thing they can. I probably would do the same thing in their position, but that doesn't make it the right response. It's a sad thing and I wish them the best in moving on with their life but nature is a bitch and sends us reminders every once in a while.

[asdf]

Is that so hard for people to understand? Is the FS supposed to put a sign up every 40 feet telling people there might be bears around?

oh Tom, not every 40 feet.
Does the FS warning people that a bear ripped into a tent in same same campsite really seem that out of line to you. If a bear ripped into a tent at Watchman CG and got away do you think the NP would mention that there is a bear on loose?


By your logic "He saw clouds and should have closed his golf course". Just doesn't make sense.

Montana - bear attacks campsite, campground is closed and tourists are alerted.
Yellowstone - bear attacks campsite, campground is closed and tourists are alerted.

American Fork Canyon (pre bear attack) - Bear attacks campsite, the FS tires to find the bear and gives up. Later that night, same bear attacks the same spot and small child is eaten alive... one more time in case you missed it A SMALL CHILD IS EATEN ALIVE IN FRONT OF HIS FAMILY!

The policy in AF canyon has change drastically after this incident... why is that?

[Brian in SLC]

Montana - bear attacks campsite, campground is closed and tourists are alerted.
Yellowstone - bear attacks campsite, campground is closed and tourists are alerted.

American Fork Canyon (pre bear attack) - Bear attacks campsite, the FS tires to find the bear and gives up. Later that night, same bear attacks the same spot and small child is eaten alive...

Couple of pretty big distinctions, though. In Montana, in established campgrounds, there have been issues with grizzlies. And, a long track record of fatalities.

AF, they weren't in a campground, and, there was no record of a black bear killing someone.

Predation by black bears is pretty rare. Grizzlies? Rare, but, known to happen.

Bears in Yosemite and Tuolumne Meadows are super common. Black bears. They tear up cars, tents, grab food off tables, out of the trunks of cars whilst being unloaded. They never close the campgrounds. And, they just don't eat folks. The park emphasizes proper food storage and behavior in bear country, but, they constantly have to patrol to remind folks. But, they don't close the campgrounds. We see the bears there all the time.

This AF deal was a problem bear and very outside the norm.

[Sombeech]

Did the rangers BEGIN to tell anybody about the bear problem? Were they mobilizing and starting to hit the campgrounds 1 by 1 and just didn't make it to the primitive area in time?

If no plan was made and nothing was carried out, then I do believe there was some negligence on the Rangers' part. But was this the case? Did they have a plan of action but it just wasn't carried out in time? How many campers would they have to notify at that time? How much total time would it take to get the whole area on notice?

We can also talk about signs, but if it's more than just a quick MS Word document taped to a tree, we're talking about a decent timeline I would assume.

I think one side of the argument is assuming that the Rangers just gave up and went back to the shack and played some cards, but I doubt that's the case.

[tallsteve]

"I go up AF canyon and the Alpine loop all the time and these days there are signs EVERYWHERE warning people about bears in the area. Do you also suggest these signs be removed?"

YES!!! I don't need signs telling me there are animals in nature, that if I fall off a cliff I'm going to die, fall in a hot springs I'm going to get burned, or walk through bad neighborhood at night I'm could get mugged. I assume some risk when I go outside. They don't have signs stating that there are mtn lions or rattlesnakes in the area, but I'm sure there are.

Actually, there are a couple of signs in AF Canyon warning of rattlesnake danger specifically. Swinging Bridge picnic area.
I am really torn on this subject. Heck, I just x-country ski'd past the primitive campsite a couple of weekends ago and it gave me shivers. Should more have been done to warn campers going in to the primitive area? After the man's tent was mauled that morning (with him in it), I think so, but I'm not sure we've heard the whole story yet. It's all been one-sided so far.

[Redpb]

I'm curious about this line of thinking. Just because someone has someone die in their family does not make them entitled to $. Again I don't know all the details but Life Insurance policies covers funeral expenses and medical insurance should cover the psyche damage, not the USFS. They should go after their life and medical insurance agencies. If they don't have either then we get into a political post about living or not living with the consequences of not having insurance. Neither of which involve the USFS.

I don't think people should be forced to payout money because we feel sorry for them. How do we know the kid isn't negligent or doing something to attract the bear (such as storing food in his tent)? Or the parents for not teaching their kid bear saftey (just because it wasn't signed doesn't mean it isn't possible in the woods)? Or how about go after the people who helped teach the bear to associate humans with food in the first place? Shouldn't they have to pay the FS for creating this mess (they aren't allowed to fine people that kind of money for feeding bears)? Seems to me like they are going after the government because they have deep pockets and people will give them the sympathy vote = $ because something bad happened to them.

When my family kicks the bucket I think it would be nice if everyone chipped in so I get payout to help makes things easier for me but it isn't going to happen. This is why we've been paying insurance for years. Seems like I shouldn't have to pay that every month if I can sue anybody to help make my life easier.

Sorry Redpb I disagree with your line of thinking. I agree it's sad, but it also seems sad that they are going to this means.

Sorry, it was poorly worded.
I am of the opinion there was some negligence, but I don't think $2mill is the answer.

[ratagonia]

I'm glad the news is finally getting their facts right. After it happened they kept reporting it was in a campground, which it wasn't. It was out on the Timpooneke Rd., in a primitive camping area, about a mile and a half past the developed campground. The witness today said the USFS should have closed the gate going out on the Timp. Rd, but I'm pretty sure the gate hadn't been installed in 2007. I feel horrible, horrible, horrible for the family, but not sure all the blame should be put on the USFS.



The canyon is a popular camping destination and also home to Timpanogos Cave National Monument. The attack occurred near the Timpanooke campground, which is about 12 miles up the canyon. Harris said the family was camping about two miles up a dirt road from that campground.

First post in the thread... you mean like this?

Tom :moses:

[ratagonia]

WEll, they think they got the bear: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_6168961

However, if there are so many bears up there, how do they know that this is the one?

It doesn't matter if they got the right bear. They just needed to get a bear, and tell everyone it was the right one.

T :moses:

[Bad Karma]

I was on the AT last summer and there were plenty of bears and more than a few were ‘problem bears’. In NJ other hikers were getting bluff charged by problem bears on a daily basis. How did we know they were problem bears? Because when they stopped their Bluff charge we could read the number tagged on their ear. When you see someone in the USFS, BLM, NPS or other agency and mention the incident and they say something like “Bear 436? Yeah he was relocated from the Smokies and does that a lot”. There were NO signs warning of bears anywhere. The way it should be. If you can’t assume the risks of being out in the woods, where there are wild, unpredictable animals, then don’t go out there. If you aren’t willing to assume the risk that your “SMALL CHILD IS EATEN ALIVE IN FRONT” of you then don’t take them camping.

You assume risk when you get into your car everyday and do not require signs letting you know there were accidents involving cars in your area. If the government puts up signs warning you of an accident along your route earlier today would you be unwillingly to take the same route home? If you take the same route home and get into an accident can you sue UDOT if there was accident there earlier today but nobody warned you of it? If you want the government to be your baby sitter then you’re on a very slippery slope.

The only place we say a sign warning of a problem bear on the AT was in Shenandoah NP. The bear was waiting for the hiker to lower their hanging food bag in the morning. The hiker saw this left to go find a ranger meanwhile the bear dragged her tent off. When they came back they found the tent but not the bear so they put a sign a few miles in each direction warning of a problem bear. We encountered the bear outside this signed area. We were taking a break and he came over to us, we quickly moved back made noise, banged trekking poles. He was not fazed at all. He came towards us and we backed off. Eventually he got off the trail, circled around us on the trail and walked us out of the area. We moved out of there trying not to crap ourselves. I had a little trouble sleeping that night so can I sue the NPS for emotional distress? We talked to others later (after we had seen the sign) and found out he had been bothering a lot of other hikers in the same manner and was believed to be the problem bear that had taken the tent. We were outside and assumed the risk associated with it.

Sorry guys but I don’t think you should go outside if you need and are depending on the government to warn and protect you from everything that could potentially go wrong. There is a chance terrorists could attack New York. It’s happened before so maybe we need to post signs everywhere announcing that as a possibility. Or maybe it’s just a risk New Yorkers live with and if it happens and kills a lot more than one small child in a tent then New Yorkers sue somebody because that’s what we do in America when something bad happens.

[ratagonia]

oh Tom, not every 40 feet.
Does the FS warning people that a bear ripped into a tent in same same campsite really seem that out of line to you. If a bear ripped into a tent at Watchman CG and got away do you think the NP would mention that there is a bear on loose?




Sam Ives was camping with his mother, stepfather and half-brother in a campground above the Timpanooke Recreation Area on June 17, 2007, when a bear sliced through his tent, pulled him out and killed him. Earlier that day, the bear had attacked another group of campers, and authorities were unsuccessful in finding the bear.

The family’s attorneys are expected to argue that the Forest Service and the state’s Division of Wildlife Resources had a duty to warn the family there was a dangerous bear in the area and that it had attacked the site at which they camped. They also believe the campground should have been closed until the bear was killed.

In the earlier attack, the black bear raided coolers and tore open a tent, but the campers escaped unharmed. The bear was hunted and killed after Sam’s attack.

The recent article seems to be drawn from the complaint, and may take some liberties with the facts. Had this previous "attack" been mentioned earlier? A bear moseyed into the campground, nuzzled some coolers and put his paw on a tent. This becomes "Attacked another group of campers"? I would call that "taking liberties with the facts". You may recall that these activities took place in the woods, a place where bears live.

If they had camped in the campground, then maybe there was a duty. Maybe the rangers were engaged in bear-monitoring activity at the campground, but did not extend it to where the family was camped, 2 miles away. Did that "previous attack" take place at the SAME place the family was camped? If the FS closed the campground, would the family have just camped up the road anyway?

Seems like there is a whole lot of gesticulation, and not a whole lot of facts. A lot of interpretations, not a lot of stating what actually happened. That is one thing that attorneys do, especially when their case is weak. "How can we pitch this for maximum sympathy?"


Montana - bear attacks campsite, campground is closed and tourists are alerted.
Yellowstone - bear attacks campsite, campground is closed and tourists are alerted.

American Fork Canyon (pre bear attack) - Bear attacks campsite, the FS tries to find the bear and gives up. Later that night, same bear attacks the same spot and small child is eaten alive... one more time in case you missed it A SMALL CHILD IS EATEN ALIVE IN FRONT OF HIS FAMILY!

The policy in AF canyon has change drastically after this incident... why is that?

Yellowstone and Montana have a long history and continuing problem with bears in campgrounds, and have a plan in place for dealing with them. AF/Timp has no history of significant problems with bears, and therefore did not have a plan in place. One bear sighting, or one incident of a bear nosing through campsite food, does not a bear problem make.

They changed the policy because they now have a history of bear problems, and it would be irresponsible to not come up with a plan deal with it.

Did you mean this as sarcasm, Summit? "A SMALL CHILD IS EATEN ALIVE IN FRONT OF HIS FAMILY!" is a wonderful propoganda phrase, but not consistent with the facts as reported. Perhaps you have a future in politics, or yellow journalism, Summit. Or perhaps as a lawyer? :cool2:

Tom :moses:

[Brian in SLC]

"A SMALL CHILD IS EATEN ALIVE IN FRONT OF HIS FAMILY!" is a wonderful propoganda phrase, but not consistent with the facts as reported.

Original news report thus: "At about 11 p.m. the boy's stepfather heard a scream and the boy and his sleeping bag were gone from the tent."

Scary and sad.

I remember back in the early 80's, a grizzly grabbed a guy from a tent down by Yellowstone. Drug him off into the brush screaming. His buddy got up and ran, locked himself in the car, and, could hear the guy screaming. A bit of time passed, and, the bear came back and finished the guy off, and, ate something like 60 or 80 pounds of him. Grim. Hindsite, but, the guy in the car could have driven over, honked the horn, gunned the engine, anything.

I don't recall hearing that the AF black bear ate any part of the kid. Is there a source for this?

Things that go bump in the night...yikes.

Be interesting to hear some additional details.

[Bad Karma]

The recent article seems to be drawn from the complaint, and may take some liberties with the facts. Had this previous "attack" been mentioned earlier? A bear moseyed into the campground, nuzzled some coolers and put his paw on a tent. This becomes "Attacked another group of campers"? I would call that "taking liberties with the facts". You may recall that these activities took place in the woods, a place where bears live.

If they had camped in the campground, then maybe there was a duty. Maybe the rangers were engaged in bear-monitoring activity at the campground, but did not extend it to where the family was camped, 2 miles away. Did that "previous attack" take place at the SAME place the family was camped? If the FS closed the campground, would the family have just camped up the road anyway?

Seems like there is a whole lot of gesticulation, and not a whole lot of facts. A lot of interpretations, not a lot of stating what actually happened. That is one thing that attorneys do, especially when their case is weak. "How can we pitch this for maximum sympathy?"



Yellowstone and Montana have a long history and continuing problem with bears in campgrounds, and have a plan in place for dealing with them. AF/Timp has no history of significant problems with bears, and therefore did not have a plan in place. One bear sighting, or one incident of a bear nosing through campsite food, does not a bear problem make.

They changed the policy because they now have a history of bear problems, and it would be irresponsible to not come up with a plan deal with it.

Did you mean this as sarcasm, Summit? "A SMALL CHILD IS EATEN ALIVE IN FRONT OF HIS FAMILY!" is a wonderful propoganda phrase, but not consistent with the facts as reported. Perhaps you have a future in politics, or yellow journalism, Summit. Or perhaps as a lawyer? :cool2:

Tom :moses:

X 2 :nod:

Well Said Tom

[ratagonia]

X 2 :nod:

Well Said Tom

Thank you, Bad Karma. But I have to warn you, publicly supporting me on Bogley can lead to Bad-Bogley-Karma...

:moses:

[UTJetdog]

Original news report thus: "At about 11 p.m. the boy's stepfather heard a scream and the boy and his sleeping bag were gone from the tent."

Scary and sad.

I don't recall hearing that the AF black bear ate any part of the kid. Is there a source for this?

Be interesting to hear some additional details.

That is one of the points in question. The boy was not "eaten in front of his family". The bear grabbed the sleeping bag - with the boy in it - and took off with the bag in his mouth dragging in through the trees and rocks and the boy was killed. The body and sleeping bag were found over 50 yards from the tent. In question is whether the boy had food in his bag, and or tent. The bear may have just made a grab for the sleeping bag with food, and the boy merely became collateral damage in this sad and unforunate episode. Maybe it was a Yogi bear episode gone wrong. I dunno.

I do know that this was an unimproved site with no fees, controlled access, rangers, or developed facilities where people sometimes go to camp. As was emphasize before, it is not a campground. There is an improved campground about 1 mile away. Like TS, I have been to the site since the tragic incident, I have seen the new gate that restricts access to the area, and I have felt a little creepy being in the vicinity of where it all took place. I have seen all of the new bear warning signs up and down the canyon, and have thought to myself that the only thing they do is help the government to protect itself from future litigation. I have also pondered the fact that nothing like this has ever been documented in that area before or since.

It will be interesting to see what evidence is presented and what the courts decide.

[ilanimaka]

Couple of pretty big distinctions, though. In Montana, in established campgrounds, there have been issues with grizzlies. And, a long track record of fatalities.

AF, they weren't in a campground, and, there was no record of a black bear killing someone.

Predation by black bears is pretty rare. Grizzlies? Rare, but, known to happen.

Bears in Yosemite and Tuolumne Meadows are super common. Black bears. They tear up cars, tents, grab food off tables, out of the trunks of cars whilst being unloaded. They never close the campgrounds. And, they just don't eat folks.


I'ma disagree with this. Doing a little digging, I came across this:

http://www.blackbearheaven.com/bear-attack-statistics.htm

Looking it over, I see quite a few black bear attacks in comparison to their larger counterparts. A bear is a bear, be it brown or black.

[tallsteve]

First post in the thread... you mean like this?

Tom :moses:

OK, some got it right, but most did not, particularly the local media. I remember calling in to KSL radio's Nightside talk show right after it happened. They were talking about it and kept referring to it happening in the Timpooneke Campground, so I called in to set them straight.

[asdf]

The recent article seems to be drawn from the complaint, and may take some liberties with the facts. Had this previous "attack" been mentioned earlier? A bear moseyed into the campground, nuzzled some coolers and put his paw on a tent. This becomes "Attacked another group of campers"? I would call that "taking liberties with the facts".

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=14291058
Notice the words attacked.
Oh and we believe everything we read on KSL :roll:


Did that "previous attack" take place at the SAME place the family was camped?

yes it did
Campers were warned in the timponokee campground but not at the actual site of the encounter/attack (hence the problem).


eems like there is a whole lot of gesticulation, and not a whole lot of facts. A lot of interpretations, not a lot of stating what actually happened.

I highly suggest you read the story before you get out the infamous soap box and join the conversation.



They changed the policy because they now have a history of bear problems, and it would be irresponsible to not come up with a plan deal with it.

Oh, are you saying the previous (non-existent) plan was not sufficient?
I agree.



Did you mean this as sarcasm, Summit? "A SMALL CHILD IS EATEN ALIVE IN FRONT OF HIS FAMILY!"

Yes

[tallsteve]

Original news report thus: "At about 11 p.m. the boy's stepfather heard a scream and the boy and his sleeping bag were gone from the tent."

Scary and sad.

I remember back in the early 80's, a grizzly grabbed a guy from a tent down by Yellowstone. Drug him off into the brush screaming. His buddy got up and ran, locked himself in the car, and, could hear the guy screaming. A bit of time passed, and, the bear came back and finished the guy off, and, ate something like 60 or 80 pounds of him. Grim. Hindsite, but, the guy in the car could have driven over, honked the horn, gunned the engine, anything.

I don't recall hearing that the AF black bear ate any part of the kid. Is there a source for this?

Things that go bump in the night...yikes.

Be interesting to hear some additional details.

GRAPHIC CONTENT- I know one of the local law enforcement officers that was called to the scene. He said the first reports they got indicated the boy had been kidnapped, so they went up the canyon thinking of dealing with that and didn't know it was a bear until they arrived. He saw the remains. The boy had been dragged off a ways and disemboweled.

[ratagonia]

OK, some got it right, but most did not, particularly the local media. I remember calling in to KSL radio's Nightside talk show right after it happened. They were talking about it and kept referring to it happening in the Timpooneke Campground, so I called in to set them straight.


"There's one campground all by itself within a mile of anything else. There's nothing around. It just could have been stopped (with a) piece of tape across the campground, or a sign right there that was posted there. There's a main gate up the road that couldn't been closed down," Francom said.

I think there is a misunderstanding, as even this witness called it a "campground". I'm not sure the general public, and the reporters writing the story, understand about primitive camping.

Tom

[Brian in SLC]

Looking it over, I see quite a few black bear attacks in comparison to their larger counterparts. A bear is a bear, be it brown or black.

Wow, that's quite a website!

Not really true that a bear is a bear. Their behavior is fairly different. I'd say consistantly different.

The individual case histories are pretty interesting. Also, look at the data from the 80's: no black bear induced fatalities. Then you get 2 in the 90's (6 "brown" bears and 3 unknowns. Could probably argue the unknown in Colorado was a black bear, and, the other two, in AK and Canada most likely grizzly?). Then, in the next decade, you get 18 black bear v 9 brown/grizzly? Wow. That's a huge turnaround.

Be interesting to get a breakdown of night versus day and grizzly v black bears. Also, provoked/unprovoked although that criteria might be tough to establish.

From "Watchable Wildlife: The Black Bear": some interesting stat's from the forest service. Bears 2 years or older: 95% shot. Rare that a black bear lives to old age.

Some other stuff below.

-Brian in SLC


The campground killings that have been so widely publicized have been almost exclusively by grizzly bears. Recorded killings by black bears this century total only 28 across North America. Most of these killings were unprovoked acts of predation. How likely is a black bear to be a killer? The 500,000 black bears of North America kill fewer than one person
per 3 years, on the average, despite hundreds of thousands of encounters. To put this in perspective, for each death from a black bear across North America, there are approximately 17 deaths from spiders, 25 deaths from snakes, 67 deaths from dogs, 150 deaths from tornadoes, 180 deaths from bees and wasps, 374 deaths from lightning, and 90,000 homicides in the United States alone (data from the National Center for Health Statistics, 1980-1983). In the rare event of
one of these attacks, the best defense is to fight with fists, feet, rocks, or anything at hand. Playing dead is usually not the best action with black bears.

[tallsteve]

I think there is a misunderstanding, as even this witness called it a "campground". I'm not sure the general public, and the reporters writing the story, understand about primitive camping.

Tom

You got that right. The only 'campgrounds' they've been to are called Marriott Hotels.

[Brian in SLC]

GRAPHIC CONTENT- I know one of the local law enforcement officers that was called to the scene. He said the first reports they got indicated the boy had been kidnapped, so they went up the canyon thinking of dealing with that and didn't know it was a bear until they arrived. He saw the remains. The boy had been dragged off a ways and disemboweled.

I remember that they thought initially that he'd been kidnapped. Didn't hear the rest.

That's just awful.

[ratagonia]

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=14291058
Notice the words attacked.
Oh and we believe everything we read on KSL :roll:

yes it did
Campers were warned in the timponokee campground but not at the actual site of the encounter/attack (hence the problem).

I highly suggest you read the story before you get out the infamous soap box and join the conversation.

Oh, are you saying the previous (non-existent) plan was not sufficient?
I agree.

Yes

Thank you, Summit. I had not read THAT article, which offers quite a bit more information - some actual facts.

Yes, it was at the same spot.

Yes, the previous guy was "attacked" there - the big bad bear took his PILLOW! Yes, the bear had previously attacked a camp, but he had not attacked a human, as in acted as a predator. He attacked a PILLOW! Oh my gosh, close the whole mountain!!!

No, I am saying that they did not need a plan in place for a threat that did not exist. Before the incident. Now it exists, though it seems unlikely to happen again. So they should have a plan in place, now.

I think they are off the hook due to this part of the law:

"The FTCA waives the federal government's sovereign immunity for "the negligent or wrongful act or omission" of a federal employee "acting within the scope of his office or employment." 28 U.S.C.

[asdf]

Thank you, Summit. I had not read THAT article, which offers quite a bit more information - some actual facts.

The KSL.com motto is something along lines of "facts shmacts".

[ratagonia]

More better article at the D News: http://tinyurl.com/bearstuff

Tom

[Sombeech]

X 2 :nod:

Well Said Tom



Thank you, Bad Karma.

What the hell is this, some kind of alliance?!?!?!


Yes, the previous guy was "attacked" there - the big bad bear took his PILLOW!


According to these facts, I can claim my wife attacks me every night.

[Brian in SLC]

According to these facts, I can claim my wife attacks me every night.

"That's not a pillow!"

[Sombeech]

http://micksgrill.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/john-candy.jpg

[Deathcricket]

Thank you, Bad Karma. But I have to warn you, publicly supporting me on Bogley can lead to Bad-Bogley-Karma...

:moses:

I think it's scarier that you and I agree, haha.. :2thumbs:

[ratagonia]

I think it's scarier that you and I agree, haha.. :2thumbs:

Once in a while, odds are it's gonna happen on some subject. :moses:

[canyonphile]

No, I am saying that they did not need a plan in place for a threat that did not exist. Before the incident. Now it exists, though it seems unlikely to happen again. So they should have a plan in place, now.

Exactly. How is the FS supposed to warn of an event that they had absolutely no reason to foresee happening? IMO, general warnings of bear activity in the area (which it sounds like WERE in place before this tragic accident happened, if I'm reading correctly) should have been adequate. Honestly, if you are camping in an area where bears are known to frequent, it is incumbent on YOU to help reduce the risk of injury to your SELF and your family - it is totally unreasonable to expect that an agency like the FS, NPS, BLM, etc. is 100% responsible for your personal safety and prevention from injuries (or death) incurred as a result of recreating on their administered lands. It would be one thing if a mauling, or maulings, had had happened, and the FS took no action whatsoever (either more signs, sending F&G to shoot the bear, or simply closing the area until further notice), but all of those things WERE done. I mean, if the FS is somehow found negligent here, WHERE DOES IT END? Does the FS go and shoot all those god-damned bears, just so no one will EVER be at risk again? Or, just shut down the entire area, permanently, and wreck it for the rest of us?

With liberties and freedoms comes personal responsibility. I think plaintiff/personal injury lawyers either forget or ignore this detail. Instead, they trot out the usual b/s statement: "Everyone is entitled to their day in court." :roll:, and continue to enable the mentality that SOMEONE - but only with deep pockets, of course - is to blame when something bad happens. I got into a discussion with some ignorant woman on another forum about a similar issue. Having been a defendant in a lawsuit [that went to trial, even!], I have very strong opinions about the concept of "personal responsibility".


Which comes from the kids slipping and going over the falls at Emerald Pools. here is the judgement:

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/312/312.F3d.1172.01-4120.html

I think the Plaintiffs here have to meet the same requirements. Could be an interesting trial and judgement.

Very interesting case summary! Thanks for posting that, Tom. When I read it, the claims of negligence and that the NPS should have "done more" to somehow save people from their own ignorance and bad judgement just blows my mind. The summary says that the kids ran ahead of their parents. Admittedly, I would expect a teenager to be able to obey warning signs to stay out of the water, but still - the ultimate responsibility for their well-being as minors falls on the parents...who apparently weren't in visible range to stop the kid from crossing the stream, algae-covered rocks or not. So, the parents were actually the negligent party here, failing to mitigate the circumstances resulting in their son's death. A shame...but not the fault or the problem of the Zion NPS employees.

In this bear case, I do wonder about a few things: what prompted the bear to break into the kid's side of the tent in the first place? I'm guessing food. Bears are nothing but dopey-looking eating machines, with a really keen sense of smell, sharp teeth and claws. I'll be honest - they scare me, and I've never even seen one [seeing a photo of someone with half their face torn off from a bear was seared into my memory many years ago]! I would rather avoid tent camping or backpacking in areas where bears are regularly found, because I read over and over stories of how utterly destructive they are on their never-ending quest for filling their gullets. And, the bottom line is that they are wild animals and therefore unpredictable. As much as I don't like them, they totally and absolutely have every right to remain there - it is their habitat, and they cannot expect to alter their behavior because they are involuntarily forced to share it with us. I choose to reduce my risk, by both educating myself on what to do in case of a bear encounter, and avoiding areas where they could be a problem. It's simple.

So, I wonder, did the parents see the signs about bears that were posted? If so, they took on an element of risk by tent camping in the area. And, did they discuss the dangers of bears with their kids, including the cardinal rule that you NEVER, EVER have food in your tent, or anywhere near your tent, if you are in bear country? Because I wouldn't say it's reasonable to expect a child to know this. It is the responsibility of the parent to educate and supervise their kids about bears.

Heck, I remember back in the mid '70's when my mom took my sister on a month-long car camping trip through the Rocky Mtns. that included stays in Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons. We had a tent, and I remember seeing signs in some campgrounds within Yellowstone that tents were not allowed due to bears. 'Nuff said. Early memories that bears were dangerous. Of course, that was back when idiots used to feed bears by the side of the road, and have pictures taken with them...

The bottom line is that no one, including the almighty US government, can guarantee your personal safety when you venture into the outdoors. Hell, you are at risk for injury or death the minute you get into your car, get on a plane, or take public transportation. Other humans are far more dangerous than some stupid bear. If people are so worried about anything happening to them if they go to a national park or local recreational area, and looking for someone to blame if it does, I have a suggestion and a personal favor: STAY HOME. Watch TV, play on your Wii, and keep posting drivel to your Facebook page. Let the rest of us who happily accept the risks - and benefits - that come with being in the wilderness keep enjoying it without worrying about it being taken away because YOU couldn't handle personal responsibility and want the government to be your damn nanny!:nono:

You were warned:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_0S-jsbRcfBY/S-cMLus2O2I/AAAAAAAAIuY/-eMBQu7_O2w/s640/crest_trail-001.JPG

[bowjunkie]

Exactly. How is the FS supposed to warn of an event that they had absolutely no reason to foresee happening? IMO, general warnings of bear activity in the area (which it sounds like WERE in place before this tragic accident happened, if I'm reading correctly) should have been adequate. Honestly, if you are camping in an area where bears are known to frequent, it is incumbent on YOU to help reduce the risk of injury to your SELF and your family - it is totally unreasonable to expect that an agency like the FS, NPS, BLM, etc. is 100% responsible for your personal safety and prevention from injuries (or death) incurred as a result of recreating on their administered lands. It would be one thing if a mauling, or maulings, had had happened, and the FS took no action whatsoever (either more signs, sending F&G to shoot the bear, or simply closing the area until further notice), but all of those things WERE done. I mean, if the FS is somehow found negligent here, WHERE DOES IT END? Does the FS go and shoot all those god-damned bears, just so no one will EVER be at risk again? Or, just shut down the entire area, permanently, and wreck it for the rest of us?

With liberties and freedoms comes personal responsibility. I think plaintiff/personal injury lawyers either forget or ignore this detail. Instead, they trot out the usual b/s statement: "Everyone is entitled to their day in court." :roll:, and continue to enable the mentality that SOMEONE - but only with deep pockets, of course - is to blame when something bad happens. I got into a discussion with some ignorant woman on another forum about a similar issue. Having been a defendant in a lawsuit [that went to trial, even!], I have very strong opinions about the concept of "personal responsibility".



Very interesting case summary! Thanks for posting that, Tom. When I read it, the claims of negligence and that the NPS should have "done more" to somehow save people from their own ignorance and bad judgement just blows my mind. The summary says that the kids ran ahead of their parents. Admittedly, I would expect a teenager to be able to obey warning signs to stay out of the water, but still - the ultimate responsibility for their well-being as minors falls on the parents...who apparently weren't in visible range to stop the kid from crossing the stream, algae-covered rocks or not. So, the parents were actually the negligent party here, failing to mitigate the circumstances resulting in their son's death. A shame...but not the fault or the problem of the Zion NPS employees.

In this bear case, I do wonder about a few things: what prompted the bear to break into the kid's side of the tent in the first place? I'm guessing food. Bears are nothing but dopey-looking eating machines, with a really keen sense of smell, sharp teeth and claws. I'll be honest - they scare me, and I've never even seen one [seeing a photo of someone with half their face torn off from a bear was seared into my memory many years ago]! I would rather avoid tent camping or backpacking in areas where bears are regularly found, because I read over and over stories of how utterly destructive they are on their never-ending quest for filling their gullets. And, the bottom line is that they are wild animals and therefore unpredictable. As much as I don't like them, they totally and absolutely have every right to remain there - it is their habitat, and they cannot expect to alter their behavior because they are involuntarily forced to share it with us. I choose to reduce my risk, by both educating myself on what to do in case of a bear encounter, and avoiding areas where they could be a problem. It's simple.

So, I wonder, did the parents see the signs about bears that were posted? If so, they took on an element of risk by tent camping in the area. And, did they discuss the dangers of bears with their kids, including the cardinal rule that you NEVER, EVER have food in your tent, or anywhere near your tent, if you are in bear country? Because I wouldn't say it's reasonable to expect a child to know this. It is the responsibility of the parent to educate and supervise their kids about bears.

Heck, I remember back in the mid '70's when my mom took my sister on a month-long car camping trip through the Rocky Mtns. that included stays in Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons. We had a tent, and I remember seeing signs in some campgrounds within Yellowstone that tents were not allowed due to bears. 'Nuff said. Early memories that bears were dangerous. Of course, that was back when idiots used to feed bears by the side of the road, and have pictures taken with them...

The bottom line is that no one, including the almighty US government, can guarantee your personal safety when you venture into the outdoors. Hell, you are at risk for injury or death the minute you get into your car, get on a plane, or take public transportation. Other humans are far more dangerous than some stupid bear. If people are so worried about anything happening to them if they go to a national park or local recreational area, and looking for someone to blame if it does, I have a suggestion and a personal favor: STAY HOME. Watch TV, play on your Wii, and keep posting drivel to your Facebook page. Let the rest of us who happily accept the risks - and benefits - that come with being in the wilderness keep enjoying it without worrying about it being taken away because YOU couldn't handle personal responsibility and want the government to be your damn nanny!:nono:

You were warned:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_0S-jsbRcfBY/S-cMLus2O2I/AAAAAAAAIuY/-eMBQu7_O2w/s640/crest_trail-001.JPG

:2thumbs:well put Sonya

P.S. a battery powered electric fence around your camp will stop most close encounters from things that growl !!!!! :cool2:

[Bad Karma]

From ksl
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14320747

"A Coke Zero and granola bar were later found in the tent where Sam was sleeping. She testified that she had no idea either item was in the tent at the time."

Food in the tent. This a no-no in bear country. Who knows if there was more food in there that bear got away with. Course I guess it's the USFS fault for not inspecting tents before bed time. If the USFS is found at fault maybe they'll start searching all tents in their area and fine anybody $2 million for food in the tent.

Also seems like the mom is counting on the emotional factor. If the bear had killed a drug addict holding a golf club they probably would be giving the bear and USFS medals.

[asdf]

From ksl
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14320747

"A Coke Zero and granola bar were later found in the tent where Sam was sleeping. She testified that she had no idea either item was in the tent at the time."

Food in the tent. This a no-no in bear country. Who knows if there was more food in there that bear got away with. Course I guess it's the USFS fault for not inspecting tents before bed time. If the USFS is found at fault maybe they'll start searching all tents in their area and fine anybody $2 million for food in the tent.

Also seems like the mom is counting on the emotional factor. If the bear had killed a drug addict holding a golf club they probably would be giving the bear and USFS medals.


:roll:
this is most idiotic post yet

[denaliguide]

4152641527

[asdf]

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=15400295



SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge has ruled the U.S. Forest Service was negligent and has awarded $1.9 million to the family of a boy killed by a black bear in American Fork Canyon nearly four years ago.
The trial was held in February, by a judge and not a jury. The judge took several weeks before issuing a verdict.
That decision was handed down Tuesday afternoon, and Judge Dale Kimball found the U.S. Government, the Forest Service in particular, is liable for the death of Sam Ives.
Sam was camping with his mother, brother and stepfather (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1368796) in American Fork Canyon on the night of June 17, 2007. In the middle of the night, a black bear ripped through the boy's tent and dragged him away. His body was found a couple of hours later.
A fatal attack by a black bear was unheard of in Utah before this tragic incident. But as it turned out, a problem bear had been in the same area where the family was camping earlier in the day.
The family's attorney argued the Forest Service could have and should have done more to warn campers of a problem bear in the area.
The ruling handed down Tuesday says the Forest Service "breached its duties" by not warning the public and found the agency to be 65 percent at fault. The judge assigned 25% percent of the blame to the Division of Wildlife Resources for failing to communicate with the Forest Service, and 10 percent of the fault to the boy's family for leaving food out in bear country.
The U.S. Attorney's Office, which defended the Forest Service in the lawsuit, says attorneys will review the ruling before deciding whether to appeal.
Again, a federal judge has ruled in favor of the family of Sam Ives, awarding them 1.9 million dollars in damages.
More information will be posted as it becomes available.

[accadacca]

Wow! :popcorn:

How much does the Bears family get? :lol8:

[JP]

Unbelievable. You can sue nature and win.

[ratagonia]

Wow! :popcorn:

How much does the Bears family get? :lol8:

Scalia denied the Bear's family standing. They were not incorporated.

:moses:

[asdf]

Unbelievable. You can sue nature and win.

that never was the argument.

[JP]

:hail2thechief: :hail2thechief: :hail2thechief: :hail2thechief: Neither was harming your family :lol8:

Boy, our National Parks now liable for injuries do to wildlife within, wonder if there will be an overreaction by the parks? Maybe do away with camping?

[asdf]

**** you JP

[Deadeye008]

That's pretty rediculous. I'm thinking this just opened a flood gate...

[JP]

**** you JP
Awe, thanks Summit :mrgreen: Do I hit a nerve :cry1: :cry1: :cry1: :cry1: :cry1: Too bad:bootyshake: How are you and your family doing? Dog? :haha:


That's pretty rediculous. I'm thinking this just opened a flood gate...
Yep, that's how I look at it as well. When does the responsibility fall upon the camper? This is the era of the Net, wouldn't it be a smart idea to check up on the place you want to head to and see what's been going on in that area? Who is responsible when a canyoneer is swept away and drowns? Can that family sue because it wasn't made known that, that specific day had a change in inherent risks? The reason for this, throw a child into the mix. I'm sure if it was adults, we wouldn't be reading this. But I agree, I see the floodgates opening.

[uintahiker]

"The court would be abdicating its responsibility if it failed to allocate any fault whatsoever to Sam and his parents because of the food that was found in the family tent." -Court judgment

I read this that if the candy bar wasn't in the tent the Forest Service would be liable for $3.8 million. Ridiculous.

[uintahiker]

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=15400295


The ruling handed down Tuesday says the Forest Service "breached its duties" by not warning the public and found the agency to be 65 percent at fault. The judge assigned 25% percent of the blame to the Division of Wildlife Resources for failing to communicate with the Forest Service, and 10 percent of the fault to the boy's family for leaving food out in bear country.


The family's only 10% to blame then? Seems a bit small to me.

[JP]

I read this that if the candy bar wasn't in the tent the Forest Service would be liable for $3.8 million. Ridiculous.
:nod:

I think the entire thing is ridiculous. :crazycobasa:

But, in this day and age, there is always somebody looking for a payout. And if it's not stopped, it will only continue. Maybe nearby campers can also sue, claiming it could have been us and they too didn't inform us. We are feeling pain and suffering over this. Why not? You may score something.

[Deadeye008]

The family's only 10% to blame then? Seems a bit small to me.

I agree. The first rule of camping in bear country is no food in the tent.

[canyonphile]

:nod:

I think the entire thing is ridiculous. :crazycobasa:

But, in this day and age, there is always somebody looking for a payout. And if it's not stopped, it will only continue. Maybe nearby campers can also sue, claiming it could have been us and they too didn't inform us. We are feeling pain and suffering over this. Why not? You may score something.

Agreed. This is not a "win" for anyone (well, except for the plaintiff attorney - I'm sure he made out like a bandit here), and the FS, outdoor enthusiasts and taxpayers are the big losers. Family doesn't get their kid back, and now bears will be even more feared and reviled. Any bear sighting anywhere near a campground in that jurisdiction, and the FS will shut it down, and no one will be allowed anywhere near the area until: 1) the bear has been killed or relocated; 2) it's been a few months without nary a sign of the bear. Nice precedent to set.

The outcome of this lawsuit shows that personal responsibility and the inherent risk of being outdoors has been successfully trumped by the new idea that your personal safety and well-being are clearly now SOMEONE ELSE's RESPONSIBILITY. A few signs and common sense in bear country aren't enough. :facepalm1:

Where does it end, I wonder?:roll:

[JP]

The outcome of this lawsuit shows that personal responsibility and the inherent risk of being outdoors has been successfully trumped by the new idea that your personal safety and well-being are clearly now SOMEONE ELSE's RESPONSIBILITY. A few signs and common sense in bear country aren't enough. :facepalm1:

Where does it end, I wonder?:roll:
Agreed two fold :nod:

It will never end since the system loves to entertain just about any lawsuit. There will be a hungry lawyer that will always seem dollar signs, some quick talk and whalla, plaintiff's reeled right in to visions of dollars dancing in their heads.


**** you JP
Thanks for that PM there tough guy :lol8: Don't feel like answering the question :roflol: :roflol: :roflol: :roflol:

[ratagonia]

Agreed. This is not a "win" for anyone (well, except for the plaintiff attorney - I'm sure he made out like a bandit here), and the FS, outdoor enthusiasts and taxpayers are the big losers. Family doesn't get their kid back, and now bears will be even more feared and reviled. Any bear sighting anywhere near a campground in that jurisdiction, and the FS will shut it down, and no one will be allowed anywhere near the area until: 1) the bear has been killed or relocated; 2) it's been a few months without nary a sign of the bear. Nice precedent to set.

The outcome of this lawsuit shows that personal responsibility and the inherent risk of being outdoors has been successfully trumped by the new idea that your personal safety and well-being are clearly now SOMEONE ELSE's RESPONSIBILITY. A few signs and common sense in bear country aren't enough. :facepalm1:

Where does it end, I wonder?:roll:

Let us hope it gets overturned on appeal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_A._Kimball

Tom

[JP]

Let us hope it gets overturned on appeal.
Do you actually think it will? Unfortunately, the only thing I can see is a reduction in the amount. Any loss of a child is tragic to say the least.

[ratagonia]

Do you actually think it will? Unfortunately, the only thing I can see is a reduction in the amount. Any loss of a child is tragic to say the least.

Which surprises me they did not go for a jury trial... usually with a kid killed you can get a better result before a jury.

Don't know. I have HOPE for a CHANGE. Seems like the facts of the case put little liability on the FS and WS. But, Judge Kimball disagreed.

I find an interesting dichotomy here in Utah: anti-Federal, conservative, LDS and family-centric. On the one hand, a disdain for the feds. On the second hand, a belief that when a child dies, fault must be found with an authority. On the third hand, lip service at least to personal responsibility. So while Kimball is conservative (which would tend toward personal responsibility) he is also LDS and family-centric (so it must have been the fault of an authority). Kids getting swept over the Emerald Pools fall in Zion - musta been the Park Service's fault??? The court found otherwise, and I think it should here, too.

It ain't over till it's over.

Tom :moses:

[JP]

Unless the lawyer felt the jury would see things like we do. With the jurors arguing amongst themselves, the value of the claim would drop until all came on an agreement, no? Or the jury wouldn't be 100% in finding the FS at fault. Jury may have viewed it as it was, a tragic accident. Maybe in this case the lawyer felt it was best to stick with the Judge. :ne_nau:

[oldno7]

Bill, was this family related to you?

Fair question I think considering your defense.

[asdf]

No, but this area is not far from my home and I frequent it very often with my kids in tow. Its a very popular area that sees thousands of people every weekend and the rangers (in my experience) are more then happy to boot you out of a campsite or write you a ticket for any reason they seem fit. I do agree with most everyone when they say that the government was not responsible for the bear attack.

When I consider what a high traffic area this is, the previous nights attack, the DWR and FS determining the bear was at high risk to humans, searching for the bear then calling of the search for the night with plans to resume in the morning, and failing to warn campers I see them is liable. Add in the fact that DWR blamed the FS and the FS blamed DWR for not issuing warnings, people lost their jobs, and that their are now bear warning sign ALL OVER AF canyon these days it makes me feel that they know they screwed up and are trying to make up for it.

I dont think that the canyon should of been shut down for camping but I do think one of the rangers who was out roaming the canyon looking for speeders and unregistered ATVs of the manning one of the two toll booths should of explained the situation.

More than a few of you have made some comparisons so let me add one more to help describe my point of view.

During then night a flash flood washes out a road on a blind corner. The next day the DOT looks at the road and determines its a major hazard and should be repaired but it will need to wait until morning. Rather then put up orange barrels or a warning to unsuspecting motorists they just take the chance that no one will drive down the road and fall into the pit on the blind corner. Late that night someone does drive down the road and plummets in the ravine.

In this scenario would you blame the DOT or should the motorist accept this as risk of driving public roads?

I have camped in bear country before and know the risks involved. If there was an attack in the area when I was camping I would like to know. Thats all.. just that little tidbit of info.

[ghawk]

Somebody brought this up at lunch today and compared the bear killing in the park to a malfunctioning car in an amusement park... wow. If people expect to be babied- go to the amusement park. It's a very sad thing that happened, but this is not the appropriate response. Better education and preparedness is the answer and then understand that this is nature, it is wild, there is always an uncontrollable and wild aspect to it, and that is part of what makes it an adventure. Rangers can help but there will always be the unpredictable.

[JP]

Rangers can help but there will always be the unpredictable.
:nod:
And as Sonya mentioned earlier, lawsuits like these can lead to that "can of worms".

[asdf]

If people expect to be babied- go to the amusement park. It's a very sad thing that happened, but this is not the appropriate response. Better education and preparedness is the answer and then understand that this is nature, it is wild, there is always an uncontrollable and wild aspect to it, and that is part of what makes it an adventure.

Babied? really? A simple verbal warning from a ranger when you pay you fee as you enter the canyon is considered is being babied? I don't think anyone has asked that a Ranger wipes your ass for you. Currently they have Bear warnings posted on the sides of the tool boths and ever man made structure in the canyon to the point where its actually ridiculous.
As I mentioned a few pages back in this thread on a trip to Glacier a camp ground was closed to recent bear activity. Did I fell babied? No. Did I have the option to camp near by? yes. Was it nice t know that there was an aggressive bear in the area? absolutely. Was no trip ruined? not at all.

[ghawk]

Babied? really? A simple verbal warning from a ranger when you pay you fee as you enter the canyon is considered is being babied? I don't think anyone has asked that a Ranger wipes your ass for you. Currently they have Bear warnings posted on the sides of the tool boths and ever man made structure in the canyon to the point where its actually ridiculous.
As I mentioned a few pages back in this thread on a trip to Glacier a camp ground was closed to recent bear activity. Did I fell babied? No. Did I have the option to camp near by? yes. Was it nice t know that there was an aggressive bear in the area? absolutely. Was no trip ruined? not at all.

Please read the whole quote. I was referring to the idea that someone expressed at lunch that the bear attack was the same as a car malfunctioning at an amusement park. It should not be treated as the same thing. It is not a controlled environment in the natural world. The attitude among people that the park should just take care of everything like it is expected at an amusement park is what bothered me in the discussion at lunch. I'm not opposed to rangers giving warnings and I'm glad they do. But i do not think that suing is an appropriate response when unexpected things happen. Sorry if I did not word that clearly but i meant that I didn't want to be babied like people expect to be in amusement parks. Warnings are good and appropriate and should be made if possible.

[asdf]

Please read the whole quote. I was referring to the idea that someone expressed at lunch that the bear attack was the same as a car malfunctioning at an amusement park. It should not be treated as the same thing. It is not a controlled environment in the natural world. The attitude among people that the park should just take care of everything like it is expected at an amusement park is what bothered me in the discussion at lunch. I'm not opposed to rangers giving warnings and I'm glad they do. But i do not think that suing is an appropriate response when unexpected things happen. Sorry if I did not word that clearly but i meant that I didn't want to be babied like people expect to be in amusement parks. Warnings are good and appropriate and should be made if possible.

I misunderstood, my bad.

[BruteForce]

As much as I am really sorry for the family (and I genuinely am), I'm proactively planning on suing the BLM on Saturday. I'm certain I'll see and encounter dangerous snakes, but since I wasn't warned and told the EXACT location of these snakes, I'll now have legal grounds to sue.

There was no signage, nobody approached me to tell me there were snakes in the area and when I stop and see and/or get bitten by the snake, I'll have legal precedent on my side. There were insects and lizards in the area, so I was 10% at fault for encouraging the snake. :roll:

How was I to know that there were wild (and dangerous) creatures in the mountains and desert? :nono:

[asdf]

How was I to know that there were wild (and dangerous) creatures in the mountains and desert? :nono:

:roll:

[jman]

More than a few of you have made some comparisons so let me add one more to help describe my point of view.

During then night a flash flood washes out a road on a blind corner. The next day the DOT looks at the road and determines its a major hazard and should be repaired but it will need to wait until morning. Rather then put up orange barrels or a warning to unsuspecting motorists they just take the chance that no one will drive down the road and fall into the pit on the blind corner. Late that night someone does drive down the road and plummets in the ravine.

In this scenario would you blame the DOT or should the motorist accept this as risk of driving public roads?

I have camped in bear country before and know the risks involved. If there was an attack in the area when I was camping I would like to know. Thats all.. just that little tidbit of info.

That's strange....
Reading the comments in the SL Tribune, I came across a guy named Puscifer who pretty much said the same thing you did. I wonder where you guys stole this analogy from?

To quote:


It's springtime and rivers flood and bridges get washed out. A motorist arrives and finds a bridge washed out. He informs the police and they send an officer to check it out. The officer confirms the bridge is out and moves on. He does nothing. Now you come along and drive into the river and your son dies. Who is at fault, you or the police? Based on your way of thinking YOU would be to blame, for everyone is aware of springtime flooding and the dangers of bridges being washed out. DUH!

Then I love the followup replies to the above:


Actually I don't mind the analogy (since that post was directed at me). If a bridge is out and I don't notice it and accidentally drive off of it, then I wasn't paying close enough attention--simple as that. It doesn't mean I'm going to run out and sue the pants off of whomever possibly had knowledge the bridge was gone. Accidents happen all the time that are no one's fault.

But your point is valid, nonetheless--there were plenty of things that the family could have done to avoid the tragedy and they simply didn't, warning or not.

and

At any one time during any part of the year 24 hours a day, there are thousands of bears wandering Utah. How many washed out bridges are there? Incredibly poor analogy Puscifer. DUH!!!

haha...

[jman]

Should the FS or Wilderness Areas be required to post signs every 1/4 mile of every square mile in the US, saying that there are wild animals and you need to be prepared?
Would you like to be reminded that on the Bonneville Shoreline trail, that rattlesnakes are in the area every 100feet so you don't forget?
Should there be signs every 10feet in the outdoors saying that there are mosquitoes in the air.
Should there be fences surround every square inch of rivers, streams, brooks, ponds, lakes, and landscaping water features that there is water beyond the sign, and if you proceed through it, that you might drown?
Should there be a sign every 50 feet on the I-15 that you might die if you get distracted while driving?
Should there be a sign on every bathtub that says if you enter/exit wrong or too fast, that you might slip and maim yourself?
Would you like to sign a disclosure at every meal at any restaurant, saying that if you eat/drink of this food/beverage, that you might choke and die?

Please...where's the line?

[BruteForce]

:roll:

..just playing devil's advocate. I sincerely hope I never put my family in that type of situation where they are helpless to a bear or F'd up human!

Hell, I went turkey hunting last month with my youngest and still carried a .45 in my waistband in case other hunters determined we were in " their hunting area", or that a pissed-off Elk (that we could see very clearly while entering the brush) decided we were in their hiding spot.

[ghawk]

I misunderstood, my bad.

no worries. I didn't word it as well as i thought i had

[ratagonia]

..just playing devil's advocate. I sincerely hope I never put my family in that type of situation where they are helpless to a bear or F'd up human!

Hell, I went turkey hunting last month with my youngest and still carried a .45 in my waistband in case other hunters determined we were in " their hunting area", or that a pissed-off Elk (that we could see very clearly while entering the brush) decided we were in their hiding spot.

Uh (playing devil's advocate) - there was a pissed off Elk where you entered the bush WITH YOUR KID, and you would have blown him away if he had charged you? Sounds like another case of bad judgment, and the Elk gets to pay the price (assuming you hit the mark)? Sounds similar to hiding candy bars in your kids sleeping bag...

OK, that was over the top, but... you make it sound like you took a substantial risk there.

Tom

[asdf]

Should the FS or Wilderness Areas be required to post signs every 1/4 mile of every square mile in the US, saying that there are wild animals and you need to be prepared?
Would you like to be reminded that on the Bonneville Shoreline trail, that rattlesnakes are in the area every 100feet so you don't forget?
Should there be signs every 10feet in the outdoors saying that there are mosquitoes in the air.
Should there be fences surround every square inch of rivers, streams, brooks, ponds, lakes, and landscaping water features that there is water beyond the sign, and if you proceed through it, that you might drown?
Should there be a sign every 50 feet on the I-15 that you might die if you get distracted while driving?
Should there be a sign on every bathtub that says if you enter/exit wrong or too fast, that you might slip and maim yourself?
Would you like to sign a disclosure at every meal at any restaurant, saying that if you eat/drink of this food/beverage, that you might choke and die?

Please...where's the line?

Jman, I think you missed the entire story in fact most of you missed it.


No I dont.
But if there was a mtn lion attack or bear attack THE DAY BEFORE ON THE SAME STRETCH OF TRAIL and the FS and DWR were still activily looking for the animal... then I would say yes to a single sign.
Do you speak with a ranger at a toll both before you get the shoreline trail? You sure as hell do when you drive up AF Canyon, in fact the ranger residence is just down the road from where this attack occurred.

You guys keep making comparisons to this sad situation and faile to include the majors factors that are the base elements of this lawsuit.... are you even reading the story?


If their was NO BEAR attack, in the SAME SPOT, and they had NOT POSTPONED the search until morning then no, the FS/DWR would not of been liable.
Im not sure I can make it any more clear then that.

[BruteForce]

If their was NO BEAR attack, in the SAME SPOT, and they had NOT POSTPONED the search until morning then no, the FS/DWR would not of been liable.
Im not sure I can make it any more clear then that.

I read that part and agree, but the family takes more than 10% responsibility.

[BruteForce]

but... you make it sound like you took a substantial risk there.

Tom

No, that wasn't my point at all. My point was that I knew the risk, took precautions and we came out unscathed. I find it interesting how many folks go out into the wild completely unprepared or come with a total lack of knowledge regarding the environment and wildlife.

[mattandersao]

I read that part and agree, but the family takes more than 10% responsibility.

How much should the family have been responsible for?

[JP]

How was I to know that there were wild (and dangerous) creatures in the mountains and desert? :nono:
:nono: Don't be challenging the status quo :lol8:

That's the precedent that has just been set.

[ratagonia]

How much should the family have been responsible for?

Maybe its just me, but I would say the family is 100% responsible.

That a bear was sighted in the area and "attacked" some guy's pillow is really beside the point. Camping in AF Canyon, there is ALWAYS the possibility of a bear showing up and looking for a tasty snack.

Sorry dude. Wanna be safe? Don't be born.

Tom

[jman]

Maybe its just me, but I would say the family is 100% responsible.

Tom

I agree.

The FS isn't our babysitters. It's wild land. What's not to get besides that?

Btw Summit, I can see what you are trying to say, but you are missing my point.

[JP]

Maybe its just me, but I would say the family is 100% responsible.
Rat, I don't what it is lately, but I agree with you once again :lol8:



that a pissed-off Elk
That would be horny elk :haha:

[ratagonia]

Rat, I don't what it is lately, but I agree with you once again :lol8:



Careful now, cupcake. Don't take that too far, the universe might implode!

:moses:

[JP]

You got it Twinkie Smuggler :lol8: