Surrounded by dark wooden walls and bare benches, attorneys argued the finer points of "should" and "shall" in the case of a boy who was dragged into the woods and killed by a bear.

U.S. attorneys said in court Wednesday that the federal government is not responsible for the death of Samuel Ives, the 11-year-old Pleasant Grove boy who was dragged from his tent late at night on Father's Day 2007 and then killed by a black bear. Ives's family is asking for at least $2.1 million for his death.

The family has filed suit in both federal and state courts against both governments, claiming that they should have been warned of an attack that morning by the same bear on another camper. The black bear was classified as a Level III animal after the initial attack -- which means that it should be euthanized. Wildlife officials did attempt to find the bear after its first appearance but were unsuccessful.

On Wednesday, arguments in the federal case centered around legal specifics as to how the Forest Service reacts to hazards.

Federal policy is that they "should" assist state wildlife officials in the event of a dangerous bear. That word -- should -- allows for discretionary action on the part of the federal agency and frees them from blame in specific instances such as the bear attack, said assistant U.S. attorney Amy Oliver.

Oliver also made the argument that there was no single action that could have been taken to ensure the safety of campers in the area. If they had closed off the camping area where the bear was spotted a mile north of Timpooneke Campground in American Fork Canyon, the bear would have likely gone to another camping area. Where, argued Oliver, does one then draw the line?

That impacts public policy and again triggers a protection against lawsuits for the federal government.

The attorney for Ives's family, Allen Young, told U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball that argument fails because of the specific nature of the threat.

"Here, your honor, we're taking about a specific threat, a specific bear that was easily located," Young said. "This case screams out that there isn't any public policy implication to taking specific action."

At stake is the federal government's motion to dismiss based on jurisdictional issues. If the Forest Service wasn't specifically obligated to aid in warning about the bear, then the lawsuit is moot. Kimball took the arguments under advisement and will issue a ruling at an unspecified date.

After the hearing, the family said they just want to ensure this doesn't happen to anyone else. Sam's step-father, Tim Mulvey, said that something as simple as some police tape or even a flier warning of the bear would have kept them out of the area and Sam would still be alive.

"There's no doubt about it," he said. "There absolutely no doubt."

Of note:

• While the specifics of the bear were not part of the discussion on Wednesday, assistant U.S. attorney Amy Oliver said there is still no certain proof that the black bear that killed Sam Ives is the same bear that attacked campers earlier in the day at the same camping area. Afterward, Allen Young countered: "That argument is ridiculous. Of course it was the same bear."

• U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball asked Young if he considered the area the family was staying in a campground. That matters because some of the policy being debated only includes camping areas. Young said he believes the place of the attack constitutes a camping area because of its regular use and fire pits. There is case law in which a plaintiff won a claim despite being across the road from an actual camping area.

• There will be a Jan. 13, 2009, hearing for the state case in Provo's 4th District Court.

• Joe Pyrah can be reached at 344-2559 or jpyrah@heraldextra.com.