Utah and the federal government should settle a lawsuit over a bear attack that killed an 11-year-old Pleasant Grove boy. We think that any rational jury will find that government should have tried harder to prevent a tragedy.

On June 17, along with family members, Sam Ives was sleeping in a tent about a mile above the Timpooneke Campground in American Fork Canyon. A black bear ripped into the tent about 10:30 p.m. and dragged him off. His body was recovered about 400 yards away. The animal was tracked and killed.

Sam's family has sued state federal and wildlife agencies, seeking damages of $2.5 million. The key part of the lawsuit is that the same bear had attacked a tent at the same location in the early morning hours that same day. The boy's family says that if they had known of that incident, they never would have camped where they did. They blame wildlife officials for not closing the campground and not adequately notifying campers of the dangers.

The earlier attack was serious. About 5:30 a.m. a bear, apparently attracted by a cooler, went through a tent occupied by two young people. They got out, and with friends they threw rocks and fired pistols into the air to drive the bear away.

Wildlife officials designated the animal as a dangerous Level III bear and hunted for it, but without success. A wildlife official reportedly stayed at the site, but left before Sam and his family arrived.

The family says that because wildlife officers knew of the earlier incident, they should have warned campers. By one account, government hunters in a truck exiting the campsite actually passed the family. But the hunters only waved; they said nothing about the bear.

Wildlife officials have expressed regret about the incident, but say they did all they reasonably could.

But did they?

To get some perspective, consider the practices at Yellowstone National Park, famous for its bear encounters. Experts there stress the need to prevent bears from becoming accustomed to people and human food. Yellowstone visitors are reminded by signs, written materials and rangers that they must, at all costs, keep food away from the bears. Rangers patrol sites nightly to remind visitors of the rules. If danger arises, Yellowstone will close campsites.

Should Utah wildlife officials have closed the campsite where Sam was attacked? We think so. It is not enough to hide behind a policy. Common sense says that there's a responsibility to warn people when a specific danger is known.

Obviously, campers should understand that nature is intrinsically dangerous. Wild predators of several varieties roam the mountains and can cause trouble for people. If this had been a random attack with no advance warning, the whole argument would be different.

But the possession of information changes responsibility. It's hard to view the failure to warn campers about this bear as anything but an example of negligence.

How far did wildlife officers think the bear was likely to have roamed in Timpanogos terrain? One mile? Five miles? And how far is far enough for safety?

Bears forage at night. Moreover, according to Canadian researchers D.R. Klinka and T.E. Reimchen of the University of Victoria, bears follow regular trails and are less likely to be deterred by humans in darkness. At night, bears maintain "high fidelity to [the] trails," the researchers wrote in 2002, and certain trails appear to act as "nocturnal sensory corridors."

This could mean that the bad bear on Mount Timpanogos had long been a regular visitor to the same camping spot.

Whether local wildlife experts were aware of such nuances or not, the basic fact remains that the whole backside of Mount Timpanogos is regulated by government -- both developed and undeveloped areas. Therefore, a certain moral obligation falls upon public employees who are charged with wildlife management to share what they know.

It seems so simple.

Let's look at the question from another perspective. What would a school principal do if an armed man burst into a classroom, then ran off? You can bet school would be cancelled for a day or two until students' safety could be reasonably assured. By the same token, all the campgrounds on Mount Timpanogos should have been closed that day.

"Policy" is only the minimum starting point; it should never be viewed as a bastion of immunity.

Legally, perhaps, the situation is not clear-cut. State policy is said to be discretionary, and as such provides some protection from damage claims. The argument is that the state cannot be held liable if the basis of action hinges on personal discretion of employees.

We doubt that would sway a jury, however. And we don't want to see this matter drag on to an expensive -- both financially and emotionally -- conclusion.

Sam's family is hoping their lawsuit will push officials to establish "Sam alerts" to notify campers and shut campgrounds when a bear presents a danger. We agree with this sentiment. State policies should clearly direct such action, in our view. In addition, mandatory procedures, not merely discretionary ones, should be instituted.

We know Sam's family is still in agony over their son's death. His stepfather, Tim Mulvey, is a Daily Herald employee. But that doesn't change the logic. When government knows of a danger, it should be required to share the information. That's true whether the danger is tainted food, a likely flood, an armed criminal, a terrorist plot, a faulty product or a rogue bear.

Do you agree?