mykidsgramma wrote:
I wonder how the three of you would feel if it had been your son dragged out of his tent and mauled and eaten alive. The bear had been recently sighted, was known to have been a nuisance, they should have posted a warning. It would seem to me that it was more than just a random possibility that one would expect when camping in the wilderness.


Grandma, perhaps you should rephrase your question to be more in line with the reality of life in these here united States:

"I wonder how the three of you would feel if it had been your son dragged out of his tent and mauled and eaten alive, considering every court in this nation has held that the government owes NO legal duty to protect any individual person unless they're in government custody?"

One would think that by the time you reach grandma status, you would understand that it is not the function of government to hold every individual's hand and protect them from every conceivable danger.

In fact, can you say 2nd Amendment?

mykidsgramma wrote:
I wonder how the three of you would feel if it had been your son dragged out of his tent and mauled and eaten alive. The bear had been recently sighted, was known to have been a nuisance, they should have posted a warning. It would seem to me that it was more than just a random possibility that one would expect when camping in the wilderness.

BTW, lawyers are making an honest living. They would not be there if it weren't for the many people needing representation for a myriad of reasons. But, I know it is seen as cool to bash lawyers. Some people bash others because of race, sex, color, or religion. Gives them something to do, I guess.

As I said before, granny...it is infinitely sad that this little boy lost his life. But this IS a campground we're talking about. And there are bears in them thar' hills.

Anyone with a lick of common sense understands this.

The campground did follow the procedures that were currently in place at the time. And it looks as if these procedures are about to be changed.

But the government is not ultimately responsible for protecting everyone who decides to rough it and camp out.

Ultimately the responsibility for protecting one's family and keeping them as safe as possible lies with the adults in question.

mykidsgramma wrote:
I wonder how the three of you would feel if it had been your son dragged out of his tent and mauled and eaten alive. The bear had been recently sighted, was known to have been a nuisance, they should have posted a warning. It would seem to me that it was more than just a random possibility that one would expect when camping in the wilderness.

BTW, lawyers are making an honest living. They would not be there if it weren't for the many people needing representation for a myriad of reasons. But, I know it is seen as cool to bash lawyers. Some people bash others because of race, sex, color, or religion. Gives them something to do, I guess.

This isn't an issue about feelings, this is an issue about right or wrong (legaly). The way that I understand things there are certain risks involved with choosing to camp in the "wild". It is home to all manner of creature, bears included, and if you don't understand that risk you can't blame your ignorance on DWS as it is not their responsibilty to educate you. It is not the responsibilty of the DWS to police all the animals in nature to make sure that when you go into their territory they won't attack you. Yes, they should have posted a warning, but the real issue is should they have been responsible to even do that? If they need to post a warning that bears have been spotted around the campground then guess what, you will always have a posting. So either the campgrounds will be empty (not likely) or people will stay in the campground anyway and the warning will be just another unnecessary sign to be overlooked.

It should be noted that there is a season when sharks come right in to the shoreline on the east coast. It is well-known by the locals and the smart ones choose to stay out of the water instead of risking a confrontation. A specific city (or territory, or county or whatever) put up signs along the beach warning of this phenomenon. Then suddenly they took the signs back down. The reason, having the signs up made them responsible for the injuries caused by the sharks in some bizarre interpetation of the law. Not having the signs up nullified their responsibility and put it back on the heads of the individuals using the beach. There is a probability that the same could be true here.

As far as lawyers, yes they provide a service, but they are well paid (perhaps over paid at times) for that service. I think that it is possible that many lawyers are not doing the service because they are just nice guys. It is very likely that they are approaching it just like anyone else would approach their job - for the money. Hey, I could be wrong, but I don't work because I love what I do, I work because I need the money to survive on.

it is always hard to loose a loved one. i have a 6 year old son and take him camping all the time. so i know how important it is to watch your kids at all times. but the fact is alot of parents don't! i think it is common sence to know in the mountains there is several risks that are not in the normal city life. (ie. bears,cougers,moose,badgers,trees falling,flash floods and risk of falling from rocks or cliffs) and i perfer not to have any signs posted when going into the mountains (we get to much in the city as it is)i like to look at the mountains and see bare minimal signage what so ever. im not saying that they failed a parents watching there son i just simply don't know what happend in this instance. but bad things happen and that is life! a sign would not have made a differance! i promice they would not have driven all the way into the mountains just to turn back because of a bear sign. the saying (hide sight is allways 20/20 comes to mind) the fact is we are all going to pass at some time and there family was doing the right thing by going into the beautiful mountains to spend time together doing what they all love best. i think it is would be worse for a young boy or girl to pass from a car crash or overdose of drugs that seems to happen far to often in our lives and i think this happens because of familys not spending time together doing what they love best. and in this case it might have been spending time in the mountains seeing all of gods gratest creations. a law suit will not bring back there loved son. i hope when i or my son passes i hope we will pass doing what we loved best and not is some random misshap. i thing instead of creating a lawsuit they should spend time donating there efforts in youth camp programs (boy scouts,girl scouts and other youth oudoor activitys)

mykidsgramma wrote:
I wonder how the three of you would feel if it had been your son dragged out of his tent and mauled and eaten alive. The bear had been recently sighted, was known to have been a nuisance, they should have posted a warning. It would seem to me that it was more than just a random possibility that one would expect when camping in the wilderness.

BTW, lawyers are making an honest living. They would not be there if it weren't for the many people needing representation for a myriad of reasons. But, I know it is seen as cool to bash lawyers. Some people bash others because of race, sex, color, or religion. Gives them something to do, I guess.
Bash lawyers? My recommendation would bring a lawyer anytime you camp out in the wild...one sniff of an attorney and the bears will head the other direction.

Here is the 2007 article in the Deseret News.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,665194896,00.html