# State liable for Bear attack?



## Tigru (Oct 15, 2007)

How do you feel about this?

http://heraldextra.com/news/local/artic ... 822d9.html

When I first saw the article and went to read it I thought "Are you freaking kidding me"? You're in the bear's habitat a horrible tragedy happened, but you need to know the risk when you went camping. If I woke up one morning to find a bear sleeping on my couch (my personal habitat) I would probably react defensively too.

However after hearing that this was considered a "problem bear" and that it had recently attacked other people in the area. I feel the DWR probably should have taken the responsibility of at least warning campers, hikers, etc of a problem bear in the area via warning signs.

What do you thing?


----------



## Tigru (Oct 15, 2007)

I'm trying to think from within the parents shoes? How would I react/respond if that were my child?


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

I personally would have gone after the screaming kid, instead of running two miles to the ranger station. But that's just me.


----------



## pkred (Jul 9, 2009)

If it were me I would be making a mess of that bears head with whatever I could find. my son = no rational thought when it comes to protecting him.


----------



## jubal (Feb 2, 2009)

I think since the bear had attacked the same campground area either earlier that day, or the day before, there should've been more warning given to campers there. In that regard, I think it was irresponsible to not warn people about it. You can't just have the general "black bear area" warning signs that you see in nearly every campground when there's a problem bear in the area.

That being said, yes I agree wholeheartedly that I would've attacked the bear with whatever I could swing, and if I couldn't find anything, I would jump on the bear and attack with my bare hands--anything to save my kid. Someone on another thread said that the people were too drunk to wake up. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, that's very, very sad.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Like the old saying says, "Does a bear **** in the woods?" If you are in the woods, and that is where the bears ****, it should go without saying that there may be bears there. I'm not thinking that I need a sign to tell me that.

While it is tragic that some one's kid is dead, there are certain risks that are inherent with going in to the forest. We assume those risks when we go there. Unless we need to have Big Brother Government protect us from everything.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

when bears were hunted regularly, they were afraid to get around people.


----------



## jubal (Feb 2, 2009)

Loke said:


> Like the old saying says, "Does a bear **** in the woods?" If you are in the woods, and that is where the bears ****, it should go without saying that there may be bears there. I'm not thinking that I need a sign to tell me that.
> 
> While it is tragic that some one's kid is dead, there are certain risks that are inherent with going in to the forest. We assume those risks when we go there. Unless we need to have Big Brother Government protect us from everything.


True. But if you were camping in a campground and a bear rampaged through your camp, would you not talk to the people who were camping next to you and make them aware of it, assuming they hadn't heard the ruckus? Or would you say to yourself, "The heck with them. They know there's bears here--why should I bother them?" It's not really the same thing as just being aware that you're in bear country when there was an attack of the same area just hours before. That being said, the ultimate responsibility lies with the people who use the facilities. Besides, if the DWR is going to do anything, I'd rather have them warning me of a problem bear in the area, then standing over my shoulder when I'm fishing.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Law enforcement, and this includes the DWR, has no obligation to protect anyone. They are only there to summon you to court if you break the law. We need to accept OUR responsibility to protect ourselves and our families, and not blame the state when we don't do our job.


----------



## jubal (Feb 2, 2009)

Granted. But some of the laws they are instructed to enforce limit our ability to defend ourselves. For example, if there was a bear rampaging back in the old west, a group of hunters would go out with dogs to track it down and kill it. That kind of response has been stripped away with increasing regulation and intrusive laws. If they're going to take away some of our ability to respond to threats, than they should equally willing to take responsibility for replacing that response with one of their own. Personally, I'd much rather be able to still go out and blow the freaking bear away, and not have to go to court to fight that response if I did so.

We see that kind of contradiction playing out in the controversy over wolves in Montana and other areas. Back in the day, the ranchers would've been able to kill a bunch of wolves that were threatening their livelihood, but no longer is that the case. Because their ability to protect their own property has been diminished, it becomes law enforcements duty to do it for them. Not that that's a good thing. Once again, if I could choose, I'd go back to the days when defending your own, including livestock and property, was totally acceptable. How we ever got this far off base, I'll never know.

On the other hand, law enforcement has a responsibility to offer certain kinds of protection. For example, if the FBI got a credible tip that someone was trying to commit a terrorist act, such as blowing up a dam, they would have a duty to let people know about that threat, so that the people could make an informed choice. That's the way I look at this bear thing. There were those who knew that the bear had already attacked another camp. If the people would've been notified, it would have been on them as to whether they heeded the warning or not.

By the way, I think those people were very irresponsible for their actions in bear country.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

You are assuming too much. Our all knowing legislators love to pass laws and regulations that limit our abilities to defend our selves and our property, and do not require any one to assume those responsibilities. Welcome to our "civilized" society. Law enforcement agencies, and that includes the FBI, have no obligation to protect anyone from any threat. Nor do they have the obligation to warn any one of an impending disaster. In fact, they will do their best do disarm you and then leave you defenseless after one. Just look at New Orleans after Katrina.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

jubal said:


> Granted. But some of the laws they are instructed to enforce limit our ability to defend ourselves. For example, if there was a bear rampaging back in the old west, a group of hunters would go out with dogs to track it down and kill it. That kind of response has been stripped away with increasing regulation and intrusive laws.


What you are calling "the old west" was what I remember in the 60s and 70s in Utah. Bears were as protected as coyotes then. And you could use methods of controlling coyotes then that are illegal now.
Utah was more civilized then. A better place to raise your kids.


----------



## jubal (Feb 2, 2009)

redleg said:


> What you are calling "the old west" was what I remember in the 60s and 70s in Utah. Bears were as protected as coyotes then. And you could use methods of controlling coyotes then that are illegal now.
> Utah was more civilized then. A better place to raise your kids.


Yeah, I lived here then, but was a bit too young to remember how good we had it--I was one of the kids. But my point is that we used to be able to do those things for ourselves, without so much government intrusion. I sure wish we could go back to those days, but it ain't likely that we're going to get government back in the bag once it's been let out. There are good reasons for _some_ of the more restrictive laws--like the laws against dumping pollutants in rivers. On the other hand, never has freedom been more at risk in this country.

On the other topic, if I were the friendly neighborhood cop, and I'm not, but if I were and I saw a vicious dog running down the street with kids around--well even if I wasn't supposed to protect anyone, I'd do what I could to keep the dog from hurting the kids. It would be the decent thing to do, even though it might not technically be my responsibility. That's all I'm really trying to say about the bear incident. And that's another reason why Utah used to be a better place to raise your kids--people in all walks of life helped each other because it was the right thing to do--not because it was in their job description.


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Let's assume the courts find the state liable for bear attacks, what is going to happen next?? The DWR will close if not outright ban all camping where even the possibility of a bear or any other harmful animal encounter might exist......and that is pretty well everywhere. Afterall, they are the ones that will have to fork out the money to compensate us for any bad experiences we may have. Who among us wants to be kept out of the mountains just because someone may have spotted a wild creature in the area?? Not I.

I don't mean to sound callous, but bear are a natural occurance in the wild. You assume responsibility for your own safety when entering their territory. If you have to have a risk free, government sanitized environment in which to live, stay home.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

The point that I'm trying to make is that too many people want the state to take care of them. When in a better world, people would just take care of each other. If you got hurt playing at your friends' house, you got your butt beat for doing something stupid. Your parents didn't file a civil lawsuit (there's an oxymoron) against the parents hoping for a large payout. In that better time and place, there were no viscious dogs running at large because they had already been shot by the farmer next door. If you were to eliminate a problem animal today, not only would the owner of the dog have you in front of his lawyers, but the state would have you charged with FELONY cruelty to animal charges. And it is still just a misdemeanor to beat your kids. That makes sense to me.


----------



## jubal (Feb 2, 2009)

Well, I agree that the state shouldn't have to pay this family anything. On the other hand, don't you agree that out of common decency, someone who knew there was a problem bear who had just visited the same campsite, would let other people know about it? I think you agree with that because you have mentioned looking out for one another. In my mind, it doesn't matter if it's the DWR, the FBI, the mailman, or the guy camping next to you. It's just kind of inconsiderate to know about a specific problem (and in this case, that particular bear was a _specific_ problem) and to not let anyone else who may be in danger know about it. Maybe people everywhere should just learn a lesson from incidents like this, that if you notice a potential problem and someone else who might be affected by the problem is unaware of it--well, you should tell them about it.

No, I don't want the state taking responsibility for each and every bear. Only their "love thy neighbor" responsibility of watching out for others. Behind every DWR or other law enforcement uniform is a man or a woman just like you and me, and just like you and me, they can, and I believe in most cases, do, care enough to warn of possible danger. It's unfortunate that this time someone let it slip through the cracks.


----------



## AF CYN (Mar 19, 2009)

Jubal,

These folks weren't camping in a campground, they were disperse camping along the road on the face of Timp. They were about a mile away from Timponeeke CG. It is a tragedy regardless what the courts decide.


----------



## jubal (Feb 2, 2009)

AF CYN said:


> Jubal,
> 
> It is a tragedy regardless what the courts decide.


That's true. And one that didn't need to happen. Most of the responsibility goes to those who are careless about camping in bear country. If they'd have followed the usual precautions, chances are, we wouldn't be discussing this right now.


----------

