11 Year Old Boy Killed by Bear

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??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cirrus2000

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 uintahiker

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/51...state.html.csp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLTrib

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uintahiker

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bad Karma

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

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: