Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=14291058Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Notice the words attacked.
Oh and we believe everything we read on KSL :roll:
yes it didQuote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Oh, are you saying the previous (non-existent) plan was not sufficient?Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
I agree.
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ksl article
Tom
Wow, that's quite a website!Quote:
Originally Posted by ilanimaka
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.
You got that right. The only 'campgrounds' they've been to are called Marriott Hotels.Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
I remember that they thought initially that he'd been kidnapped. Didn't hear the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by tallsteve
That's just awful.
Thank you, Summit. I had not read THAT article, which offers quite a bit more information - some actual facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
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.
The KSL.com motto is something along lines of "facts shmacts".Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
More better article at the D News: http://tinyurl.com/bearstuff
Tom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Karma
What the hell is this, some kind of alliance?!?!?!Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
According to these facts, I can claim my wife attacks me every night.
"That's not a pillow!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombeech
I think it's scarier that you and I agree, haha.. :2thumbs:Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
Once in a while, odds are it's gonna happen on some subject. :moses:Quote:
Originally Posted by Deathcricket
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
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.Quote:
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...2.01-4120.html
I think the Plaintiffs here have to meet the same requirements. Could be an interesting trial and judgement.
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/_0..._trail-001.JPG
:2thumbs:well put SonyaQuote:
Originally Posted by canyonphile
P.S. a battery powered electric fence around your camp will stop most close encounters from things that growl !!!!! :cool2:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bad Karma
:roll:
this is most idiotic post yet