# Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF canyon



## DeadI (Sep 12, 2007)

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=15400295 
I really do not agree with this.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

I have mixed feelings on that whole suit, but that much money seems way over the top.


----------



## Guest (May 4, 2011)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

THEY WENT CAMPING IN THE MOUNTAINS! DID THEY THINK BEARS WERE SOME MYTHICAL CREATURE?? YOU ARE IN THEIR HOME. YOU ARE A VISITOR WHEN YOU ARE THERE. **** HAPPENS. EVERYTIME ANYONE GOES OUT IN THE WILDERNESS, YOU ARE TAKIN THAT RISK THAT SOMETHING MIGHT HAPPEN TO YOU. WILD ANIMALS ARE WILD ANIMALS. AND THEY THINK THE FOREST SERVICE IS AT FAULT. THATS LIKE SOMEONE GETTIN KILLED IN A CAR WRECK ON A COUNTY ROAD BECAUSE THEY FELL ASLEEP BEHIND THE WHEEL, AND EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE COMPLETELY AT FAULT, THEY SEW THE ROAD CREW AND THE STATE BECAUSE THEY MADE A ROAD THERE. COME ON PEOPLE! GROW UP AND LEARN TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOU OWN ACTIONS!!!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

Very unfortunate. The money won't bring their son back and this continues to set a precedence in the realm of accountability that our society slowly lacks from, more and more each day.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

Killer, I agree to a point with you, however the agency certainly displayed a great deal of ineptitude in having the same bear break into a tent just the night before, yet no warning was posted to even make guests aware of the problem. I think it is reasonable to close a campground after such an attack; drive another 5 miles to one of the hundreds of others camping areas.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

I don't agree with what the outcome was. I do feel bad for the family it is a terrible tragedy. I never been to the camp ground but if its like any of the other Forest Service Campgrounds they have a warning as you drive in to let you know to keep a clean campsite and that bears frequent the area. 
That I believe is enough of a warning regardless if a bear had attacked the day before.


----------



## Al Hansen (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*



mikevanwilder said:


> I don't agree with what the outcome was. I do feel bad for the family it is a terrible tragedy. I never been to the camp ground but if its like any of the other Forest Service Campgrounds they have a warning as you drive in to let you know to keep a clean campsite and that bears frequent the area.
> That I believe is enough of a warning regardless if a bear had attacked the day before.


+1. Sorry for the familys loss. The news last night said something about the family being partially responsible because of food rappers in the tent. What about all the unknown dangers in the wild. I guess when we hit a deer on I-15 on the motorcycle I should have sued the government for not posting a deer crossing sign on that section of the freeway. :roll: A slippery slope no doubt.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

I don't know how you can put a price on a kids life. If it were my son 2 million would be a measly sum. Next time you can bet the forest service and DWR will take action when a bear attack is reported. They should have been up there in force the same day the first attack was reported. Shot the bear and end of story. Rather than just take a report and doing nothing about it. When they know dam well that other people would be camping in the area. Plain and simple the F.S officer who took the report was complacent. And it ended with tragic consequences.


----------



## highcountryfever (Aug 24, 2009)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

I too have mixed feeling about this. My wife gets mad at me every time they say something about it on the news. Yes, it is a sad situation. but...

KSL reported: "The ruling 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 - specifically a granola wrapper and a Coke Zero can."

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

I would like to know how the FS is 65% responsible when there are signs about bears country everywhere. The family has no excuse in my opinion to not know they were in bear country, the place they picked to camp was at the trail head to Bear Canyon. If you ask me, is should be more like the family is 65% responsible and the FS 10%.

Mike, they were not in a campground. The area they were camped in is a popular place to camp, but it is just a pullout off the Timpanooke Road. It is also the trail head to Bear Canyon, which takes you down to Mutual Dell.

The area they were camped in is referred to as "Primitive Camping" wouldn't that imply that you are camping at your own risk? Maybe that is just me.

o-||


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*



Iron Bear said:


> I don't know how you can put a price on a kids life. If it were my son 2 million would be a measly sum. Next time you can bet the forest service and DWR will take action when a bear attack is reported. They should have been up there in force the same day the first attack was reported. Shot the bear and end of story. Rather than just take a report and doing nothing about it. When they know dam well that other people would be camping in the area. Plain and simple the F.S officer who took the report was complacent. And it ended with tragic consequences.


DWR did have a trapper there about 6 hours later and they lost the trail after about 2 miles or so. Odd thing is that the thing still returned all the way back next night.


----------



## Doc (Sep 11, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

The FS was negligent. You have to pass/pay a FS station at the mouth of the canyon to get up there. They should have been giving information about the previous attack out to everyone that entered the canyon while they were taking in the money. While the camp this occurred was not in an improved campground, there are several very close to the area and they didn't even notify the camphost. No excuse for that.

Charging for access implies a certain responsibility. The bear threat was know by the FS to be higher because of the previous attack. Had there not been a previous attack, the signs could be argued to be sufficient. The FS took the same view of most campers, bears will not bother me (regardless of the multiple signs already posted) but a precedent of an aggressive bear in the area raised the bar and the FS sat on their hands (except the one held out to take in fees).

A few years ago we were eating dinner while camped for hunting. A FS ranger came by and told us a bear had been observed in another camp down the road, 'mauling' a cooler. You can bet we were extra careful the remainder of our stay. Had an event taken place after that fact, the FS could honestly say they had taken necessary precautions. He was taking an active role going out to isolated camps to get that information out. He understood that responsibility.

They failed in the AF canyon incident.

Sad thing is, now they will close off areas with bear sightings to be on the safe side, rather than provide useful information and let people make their own decisions based on "risk assessment".


----------



## highcountryfever (Aug 24, 2009)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*



Doc said:


> The FS was negligent. You have to pass/pay a FS station at the mouth of the canyon to get up there. They should have been giving information about the previous attack out to everyone that entered the canyon while they were taking in the money.


Do we know for sure that the pay station was open when they entered the canyon? I have been through there many times on a sunday afternoon with no one in the pay station?

Would you be more careful if a bear sighting had been reported? Sure. But just because there was not additional warnings is not an excuse to not expect to see a bear or any other animal in their natural habitat.

We don't receive warnings that deer or elk sightings have been reported, or that squirrels and chipmunks have been taking peoples lunches in the picnic areas. :roll:

They broke the biggest rule, don't have food in the tent. The mother said she educated her children about bear safety, but it still happened. In one of the news reports the first responders said they could smell alcohol on the mother's breath, could that have impaired her judgement to double check that her children didn't have any snacks in the tent with them? Possibly. Point is they are and should be held responsible for their behavior. It is a tragedy that it resulted in the death of their boy, but blaming it on someone else is not going to bring him back.


----------



## rapalahunter (Oct 13, 2007)

*Family of Boy killed by bear awarded $1.9 million*

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

You sleep with food in your tent and then sue cause nobody told you there were BEARS IN THE MOUNTAINS!!!!

It's sad, but this is ridiculus.


----------



## Riley Dabling (Jan 2, 2011)

*Family of Boy killed by bear awarded $1.9 million*

It is sad that that young man lost his life. But maybe his parents should have been better prepared for the campout. I have always taught my kids that food stays out of the tent and away from the sleeping area. I don't want to point fingers because I wasn't there. What a sad deal altogether.


----------



## duneman101 (Nov 6, 2009)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

I also had mixed feelings on this one and have been at war with my wife about it too!

Should the FS warn campers when a bear is brazen enough to take a pillow from a tent with a man in it the night before? YES

Should the FS HAVE to warn campers when a bear is brazen enough to take a pillow from a tent with a man in it the night before? NO FRIGGIN WAY!!!

I could totally understand if the family got enough money to cover funeral expenses, lost wages and greif counseling, but 1.95 million dollars in a ridiculous amount of money. SHAME on the judge for allowing such a frivolous law suit to be successful.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

The thing that keeps coming back to my mind is-what would you do if this had been your kid killed? I would dare say that 99% would also sue. Another tricky factor is the fact that at least one of the parents, if not both, had been drinking heavily. You would think that that would have been another score for the defense...


----------



## nickpan (May 6, 2008)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

I honestly doubt i would sue, what good is the money? Live in wealth because you lost a son? THat would make me feel like crap every day of my life, knowing i am "living the good life" over the expense of my son. Why not do something proactive such as raising more awareness or something. Ridiculous if you ask me. Very very tragic deal. BUT.... you are going camping in the bears home. They are there, always have been and always will be. You are in their territory. Everytime i go out hunting or fishing or camping i know whole heartedly that i may never make it back. YOu are going into a place that you have very little control over. Developed camp ground or not its not the suburbs. YOU are reasponsible for keeping yourself safe. if you are uneducated about the wilderness, get educated or stay out.


----------



## duneman101 (Nov 6, 2009)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*



nickpan said:


> I honestly doubt i would sue, what good is the money? Live in wealth because you lost a son? THat would make me feel like crap every day of my life, knowing i am "living the good life" over the expense of my son. Why not do something proactive such as raising more awareness or something.


well said Nick!


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51750448-78/bear-ives-family-sam.html.csp
Here's a link to the story today from the Trib.



> Allen K. Young, one of the family's attorneys, urged the federal government to ensure that such a tragedy doesn't happen again.
> 
> "We ask the federal government to create a policy called a 'Sam Alert' that, when there is an incident with a bear, they will notify visitors that there was an incident," Young said.
> 
> ...


If your local police had a stake out in your neighborhood, and the SWAT team had been called out, would you expect them to cordon off the street and keep people out? The government agencies knew the bear was aggressive. They were making plans to capture or kill the bear. They should've closed the area with lots of yellow tape. Or at the very least, let anyone that was setting up a camp know that a bear had attacked the night before.

If the FS could settle this for a couple of thousand dollars, do you think it would send a message to them? Would they make any changes to their policies? Or would they just blow it off? How much of the settlement is going to pay for legal fees? Can't be cheap to fight Big Brother for 4 years. How many miles to and from the courthouse? How many days in court, and not at work? I doubt the settlement is about living in luxury.

Fishrmn


----------



## Oldtimehtr (Sep 27, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

And what % was the bear's fault?


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

It goes to show you just how detached from nature most members of society have become. There are bears in Utah. Period. Anytime you go out into the woods, there is a chance you will encounter a bear. It is up to the individual to understand this, and take proper precautions. Its bull crap that this family won this suit. I don't care if there was a pay station or not...bears have no respect for pay stations! They go where they please.

The thing I fear about all this is that now the FS will have to close off all areas within a 5 mile radius around the incident to camping and recreating because the bear MIGHT be in the area. You watch-the FS will have no choice but to do this in every "problem" bear instance, or risk another $2M lawsuit. I can only imagine how many folks' trips will be ruined because of this. Its too bad the judge didn't have the common sense to tell the family that THEY assumed the risk by going camping, and that he would not award them any money, and then give the FS a stern warning to be more attentive to such matters in the future by posting more adequate warnings.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

They already have been closing areas ever since with such experiences. I can appreciated the danger of a bear and the danger of a bucket, which ever year is responsible for more child deaths than guns, so I am particularly careful when going down the home depot bucket aisle with my kids. However, if there was a report of any attacking buckets in the store I would expect forewarning from the store. I think the bear was 0% at fault, that is what they do, but being the superior being we should warn others about the eminent danger. Complete incompetence is the only way to explain the actions of the FS. It just occurred to me, was this the same flunkie FS employee who literally caused the whole wildlfire at Flaming Gorge about 10 years ago? I know that he got transferred out of there after making the driver continue dragging his trailer with a missing wheel starting fires all along the way.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

I think the forest should just be locked up to all use. The wildlife (including bear) own the forests and wild places. They were there before us. We have no right to recreate on or in their property. Most of the campers who use the bear's property are leaving trash and damaging the habitat. I hope they close it off and respect the rights of the animals who live in these areas. Do you really feel like you have a right to recreate in the woods? These animals live there. What gives you the right to use their home for recreational purposes? STAY OUT!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

Hmm, Forest service > department of agriculture > Federal Gov't > National debt > $%^& it, what's another 2 mil on top of trillions?

Our govt. sure seems to be getting sued a lot, we should fire them and replace them with.... well.... ummmm...... someone else who will do the same thing? Time to burn it all down and start all over again.


----------



## Hound Inc. (Mar 31, 2008)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

I welcome THE BEARS to my camp! With gas headed towards $4, come on in!


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*



HighNDry said:


> I think the forest should just be locked up to all use. The wildlife (including bear) own the forests and wild places. They were there before us. We have no right to recreate on or in their property. Most of the campers who use the bear's property are leaving trash and damaging the habitat. I hope they close it off and respect the rights of the animals who live in these areas. Do you really feel like you have a right to recreate in the woods? These animals live there. What gives you the right to use their home for recreational purposes? STAY OUT!


Good idea! Let's start with the waterways, lock those up tight! :mrgreen:


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

I think if the family really wanted to send a message that this was not just about getting money, they should donate all of it to a charity or use it to start a bear awareness program.*IF* that is what this law suit was really about.


----------



## HighNDry (Dec 26, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*



Huge29 said:


> HighNDry said:
> 
> 
> > I think the forest should just be locked up to all use. The wildlife (including bear) own the forests and wild places. They were there before us. We have no right to recreate on or in their property. Most of the campers who use the bear's property are leaving trash and damaging the habitat. I hope they close it off and respect the rights of the animals who live in these areas. Do you really feel like you have a right to recreate in the woods? These animals live there. What gives you the right to use their home for recreational purposes? STAY OUT!
> ...


They've already got a good start on the waters. Too many idiots out there that can't see what's slowly happening. I applaud those who actual can see farther than their own self interest. I tried to warn the campers and hunters that it won't be long before they start buying up and locking up their hunting and camping grounds. Too many near-sighted individuals out there. I wonder when all the hiking trails will be locked up and closed because someone slipped and fell in a place that most surely should have had a sign telling the person to stay away from the edge.

This was actually one of the issues the landowners worried about: who is responsible if an angler drowns or gets injured while using the public's water running through private property? It's a legit question. I mena it could even happen on the water in Forest Service country. "I didn't see any signs saying the rocks in this river were slippery. I fell and cracked my head open and ruptured some vertabrae in my back. My quality of life is ruined and all it would have taken is for signs to be placed all along the river telling me the rocks were slippery."


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*



HighNDry said:


> Huge29 said:
> 
> 
> > HighNDry said:
> ...


Hate to admit this, but I agree with you HighNDry! :shock:


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*



Huge29 said:


> The thing that keeps coming back to my mind is-what would you do if this had been your kid killed? I would dare say that 99% would also sue....


Maybe...I can't say what I would do in that situation. I certainly wouldn't be thinking clearly and objectively. Fortunately I am in a situation where I can be in this case.

While it's true that the right thing to do would be to warn campers I think the bigger issue is should ANY agency have the legal responsiblity to track sightings of and ecounters with wildlife? If so how big of an area should they be warning folks in? Could they still sue if they were attacked a mile away? 1000 yards away? 100 yards away? Should they be warning people once a day? Once an hour? What if the previous attack happened 2 nights ago? One week ago? One month ago? Where is the boundary? What exactly is the forest services responsiblity is these scenarios? Could they be sued if one of those signs about being in bear country blows away with the wind and someone gets attacked?

I think this situation basically says they forest service had a responsibility to warn people in the same campground but it doesn't define the extent of the liability. It doesn't define what type or how much warning should be done or how much distance is in that expectation. It doesn't say for how long the forest service should be warning people. Once we go down this path it's a very slippery slope IMHO. This may seem clear cut to some but I see a lot of grey in between the black and white.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

Some interesting and thought provoking ideas from all 8) , and I have some too. Neverthelesss, this time I should keep most of them to myself.

I will, however, suggest that anyone venturing into country where large wild animals live carry a sidearm capable of killing *any* wild critter intent on feasting upon the human anatomy. In Utah, I figure a .44 mag. will do the trick in most cases, yet I prefer a .454 casull myself. This is just a little extra measure for a chance encounter with a Bigfoot gone berserk from eating wild mushrooms supplanted by The Norse. Man should never be arrogant enough to believe that he has the power to control Mother Nature. Life does come at you fast, and even those who are the most prepared for a venture into the wilderness often have uncontrollable events change their lives forever. In this case, I do feel badly for the boy and his family, but.........now comes the part where I leave this issue alone.


----------



## holman927 (Sep 28, 2007)

*Re: Court verdict on 2007 Utah Bear attack of boy in AF cany*

A .44 for Utah? I was hoping my .40 with a full magazine would be suffcient.


----------

