Reader comments: Blame game gone wild
5 comments | Read story
Anonymous | 6:08 a.m. May 19, 2008
Kudos to Gov. Huntsman for being opposed to bears attacking children.
Btw, possessing a firearm in a National Forest is not illegal. Carrying a firearm in a National PARK is illegal.
Btw, possessing a firearm in a National Forest is not illegal. Carrying a firearm in a National PARK is illegal.
Ernest T. Bass | 9:33 a.m. May 19, 2008
tragic: The attack did not occur in a campground controlled by anyone. They simply pulled of the side of the road and camped in an area that was not an approved campground.
There were warning signs placed at the booth when they paid the entrance fee at AF Canyon. As they didn't camp in an actual campground there was no place to post bear warnings.
The maintained, fee campgrounds had bear warnings posted.
There were warning signs placed at the booth when they paid the entrance fee at AF Canyon. As they didn't camp in an actual campground there was no place to post bear warnings.
The maintained, fee campgrounds had bear warnings posted.
Comments continue below
Thomas | 10:45 a.m. May 19, 2008
Heartless though it may sound, if you enter the natural world, you enter the food chain. The only ways to eliminate completely the tiny risk of a predator attack (bears in Utah, mountain lions in California, sharks in the ocean) would be (1) kill off all the predators (bad idea), or (2) close down the wilderness and make sure all of the people stay safe and bored in their suburbs.
Sue, Sue Sue! | 3:35 p.m. May 19, 2008
Next up- overboard bleeding fisherman sues Florida for shark attack.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining



Here is my question, if it wasn't the state or federal governments concern that a bear attacked a camper hours before it tragically killed the boy, why did it become a concern sufficient for the state/feds to close multiple campgrounds due to bear sightings in the aftermath?
Could it be that it the state/feds realized this type of action might be prudent after all? If there was no state or federal liability in the case of the Sam Ives tradgedy, why did authorities take a drastic change in approach to dealing with bear sightings post the death of the young boy?
Perhaps it's because there is liability where dedicated campsites are managed by the state or feds!
Moreover, possessing a firearm in a national forest (the place the boy was killed was a NF) is illegal! If campers aren't allowed to defend themselves, it means additional liability for the state/feds.