Well, it looks like this finally made it to its day in court. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.
Printable View
Well, it looks like this finally made it to its day in court. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.
what? the bear plead not guilty?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus2000
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51...state.html.cspQuote:
Originally Posted by uintahiker
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLTrib
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...
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deathcricket
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.
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?
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.
Well, and "tore open a tent". It's a little more than Yogi and Boo Boo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombeech
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by uintahiker
maybe they started warning the actual campgrounds first, then planning on progressing to the primitive spots? Is it known what their plan was?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redpb
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Karma
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?
Just curious, what exactly were the Rangers doing at the time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
I'm guessing this question will be a large part of the case...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombeech
Not much that can be done here and now but speculate.
'Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombeech
Whatever it was I am sure it had something to do with socialism :crazy:
"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.
This topic has definitely struck a nerve with Summit :roflol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
I was talking about AF canyon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Karma
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombeech
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.
The only socialism here is the government paying the family because their kid died.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
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:
A bear tearing into a tent and raiding food the night before is hardly.... never mind, everyone else made my point for me. :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
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.
oh Tom, not every 40 feet.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
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?
Montana - bear attacks campsite, campground is closed and tourists are alerted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deathcricket
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?
Couple of pretty big distinctions, though. In Montana, in established campgrounds, there have been issues with grizzlies. And, a long track record of fatalities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
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.
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.
Actually, there are a couple of signs in AF Canyon warning of rattlesnake danger specifically. Swinging Bridge picnic area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Karma
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.
Sorry, it was poorly worded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Karma
I am of the opinion there was some negligence, but I don't think $2mill is the answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallsteve
First post in the thread... you mean like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Associated Press, at time of incident
Tom :moses:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeHugger
T :moses:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by sltrib, recent
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
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:
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
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.
X 2 :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Well Said Tom
Thank you, Bad Karma. But I have to warn you, publicly supporting me on Bogley can lead to Bad-Bogley-Karma...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Karma
:moses:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
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.
I'ma disagree with this. Doing a little digging, I came across this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
http://www.blackbearheaven.com/bear-...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.