Reader comments
Bear mauling wasn't Utah's fault, state official says
61 comments | Read story
er in af | 7:19 a.m. May 9, 2008
I am sorry this happened. Maybe I am insensitive (probably) but acts of God and
nature are just that. I would be morose beyond expression had my son been
killed by a bear, but I live my life and take responsibility for my decisions as
a father/parent. Bears, rattle snakes and mountain lions are but a few things
that can kill you in the canyons of the Wasatch. That is the way it is. I
know, report it and maybe people will make different decisions. On what, the
bear alert network. I am sorry it happened.
dee | 7:42 a.m. May 9, 2008
when you enter the home of a wild animal you can not expect that at times wild
animals will defend their homes, just as we do. My heart goes out to the family
what a terrible accident. But, enough with the law suits, lets spend our energy
capturing the real predators of children the ones that lurk right in your own
neighborhoods who rape and murder innocent children.....
Comments continue below
RE: Kelly | 7:45 a.m. May 9, 2008
I agree. My sympathies go to the family, but they need to take time to heal and
then move on. I do not mean that they should forget about their son, but try and
move on from the tragic way he was taken from them. They are only hurting
themselves more and more by focusing on the way his life ended instead of the
way he lived. Dropping these accusations would help them on the road to a more
peaceful life.
Hmm | 7:52 a.m. May 9, 2008
Correct me if Im wrong, but weren't these guys camping in an area that
wasnt designated for camping? I can see their claim being valid if they were in
an actual campground, but when you go of on your own, its just that....your on
your own. Im sorry for their loss. Its absolutely terrible. But why do we live
in a day an age when we have to blame someone for everything. Can't we just
accept life as it is sometimes, and ask God for answers to all things?
Ambulance chaser | 8:04 a.m. May 9, 2008
I have lost a child and could have sued because it was an in out surgical
procedure.
TO sue here is pure greed, the state did the best they could. Young is a self interested lawyer thats all one call.
TO sue here is pure greed, the state did the best they could. Young is a self interested lawyer thats all one call.
No neglect | 8:12 a.m. May 9, 2008
The state chased the bear with dogs for hours the day before and lost the trail
after it traveled miles from the site of the first incident. Authorities warned
campers in the area of the first incident, but this family came in after those
warnings were issued.
What more could they have done? Not much.
I'm sorry for this families loss, but if we quit doing everything that has risks we'd have to start with driving.
Is the state responsible for not warning me that certain drivers are high risk. Maybe they should paint signs on the sides of cars driven by drunks and old people that shouldn't be driving any more.
What more could they have done? Not much.
I'm sorry for this families loss, but if we quit doing everything that has risks we'd have to start with driving.
Is the state responsible for not warning me that certain drivers are high risk. Maybe they should paint signs on the sides of cars driven by drunks and old people that shouldn't be driving any more.
Ernest T. Bass | 8:24 a.m. May 9, 2008
They weren't camped in a campground, they were just camped off the side of
the road, not in an approved camping area.
There were warning signs posted in the approved campgrounds. The State is not to blame in this one.
There were warning signs posted in the approved campgrounds. The State is not to blame in this one.
Anonymous | 8:31 a.m. May 9, 2008
The govt should have closed campsites in the area - as stated in the article -
when sharks attack the beach is closed - we do not tell people "if you swim
you may be attacked it's your responsibility". I think the family
should be suing because the govt was negligent and frequently uses the "you
can't sue us" excuse to avoid responsibility.
anon. | 8:40 a.m. May 9, 2008
Hey if you can sue McDonalds for coffee being hot and burning you (imagine that)
then why not sue for there being bears in the MOUNTAINS that attack.
Brad | 8:54 a.m. May 9, 2008
I am stunned that the state of Utah would dare point fingers at the Federal
Government or the USDA Forest service. I agree with ER and Kelly (the above
postings), this family entered into the bear's territory and may not have
taken the precautions to ensure their safety with the possiblity of ANY wild
animal in the area. Even if all precautions were taken, there is no guarantee
that this animal attack or the risk of falling off a mountain or drowing in the
creek; wouldnt have happened. Some would say C'est la vie. However, in this
great state most of us share Christian beliefs and I am stunned that no one has
discussed the possiblity of God needing this child to help serve a greater
purpose or does that only happen when it's "someone else's"
child?
Thank you
Thank you
sometimes | 9:03 a.m. May 9, 2008
Sometimes when parents feel guilty for the death of a child they try to blame
others.
In this case:
There was food open and in the tent.
There were many empty beer cans (drunk parents).
They were in a remote location.
They did not ask a ranger about current risks.
The parents choices are the problem in this case. I am sorry for their loss.
In this case:
There was food open and in the tent.
There were many empty beer cans (drunk parents).
They were in a remote location.
They did not ask a ranger about current risks.
The parents choices are the problem in this case. I am sorry for their loss.
Tim | 9:07 a.m. May 9, 2008
Only a sleeze ball lawyer would take on a case like this. Shameful!
Paul | 9:16 a.m. May 9, 2008
I haven't been up American Fork canyon, where this occurred. If there is
some location where you pay to go into the canyon, then I would think the family
has some legs to stand on if there was no verbal or written warning at that
location. Beyond that, since they camped outside of campgrounds, their claims
seem to not be valid.
kevin | 9:19 a.m. May 9, 2008
It seems a lot of people leaving comments were too lazy to actually read the
article. The Ives case is not about their son being killed by the bear and
sueing because of an "act of God". It is about the neglect of
officials who knew there was an immediate danger and did not give proper
notification. The Ives were at a primitive campground which does not mean it
was not designated for camping, it just means it didn't have a bathrooms
and picnic tables.
BH | 9:22 a.m. May 9, 2008
When this lawyer suggests that 90% of campers would not know the importance of
properly securing food items in bear country, he is as foolish as those who camp
in bear country without being aware of the safety precautions. Anyone who has
experience of camping in bear county knows that all items that attract bears
must be sealed and secured. If they do not know this, then they have been
negligent in taking proper safety precautions.
The family proudly declares themselves as extremely experienced campers, yet failed to take the proper precautions in an area known to have frequent bear intrusions. Does this not sound like negligent action?
As pointed out by others, this family will not find closure in the loss of a loved one by trying to pass the blame to others.
The family proudly declares themselves as extremely experienced campers, yet failed to take the proper precautions in an area known to have frequent bear intrusions. Does this not sound like negligent action?
As pointed out by others, this family will not find closure in the loss of a loved one by trying to pass the blame to others.
A Bear | 9:35 a.m. May 9, 2008
As a bear in the forest, you expect me to always be on my best behavior.
Because of development my land is being taken away from me little by little.
Nature is making it very difficult to find food and water with the drought and
all. I am sorry my bear friend did such a bad thing, but start realizing that
human error caused as much of this terrible ACCIDENT as anyone did including us
bears. We only know what to do by instinct. Humans should be using their heads
and brains to do what they should. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. Put all food in your
vehicles, read and take action on the posted signs. Prepare yourselves for
anything to happen when camping in tents. Most of all, dont drink (beer) and
camp! The Bear Community ---- In all seriousness, people if you are going to
live in this world, then take responsibility for your actions, and realize that
life goes on no matter what your decisions may be. But you are still responsible
for those decisons right or wrong! This family needs to get on the band wagon,
and start getting back to life. Samuel has moved on! You need to.
Blame the Beer Company!! | 10:01 a.m. May 9, 2008
Blame the beer company! Blame the farmers for growing food! Blame the tent
makers for not having a bear warning label! Blame the government and anyone with
deep pockets! Why isn't the natural father suing his ex-wife and her
husband? They appear to share most of the negligence.
One fact does exist: No one wanted or intended for this tragedy to happen. Unfortunately, this boys death was about as rare as a lightning strike. It's still safer to camp out than to drive to the camping spot. The court is reasonably addressing this issue.
One fact does exist: No one wanted or intended for this tragedy to happen. Unfortunately, this boys death was about as rare as a lightning strike. It's still safer to camp out than to drive to the camping spot. The court is reasonably addressing this issue.
RE: Kevin | 10:07 a.m. May 9, 2008
Kevin,
We are all aware what the article is about.. Surprise! there is immediate danger all around! Are you really looking for an official to hold your hand thorugh out your daily life? PLEASE!!Maybe you should consider a new lot in life such as creating warning labels on merchandise such as on baby strollers warning stupid parents to: �Remove child before folding" or on car sunshields warning idiot drivers to "Not Drive while sunshield is in place". We have these ridiculous warning labels because people like the Ives don't want to take responsibility for their own stupidity!
We are all aware what the article is about.. Surprise! there is immediate danger all around! Are you really looking for an official to hold your hand thorugh out your daily life? PLEASE!!Maybe you should consider a new lot in life such as creating warning labels on merchandise such as on baby strollers warning stupid parents to: �Remove child before folding" or on car sunshields warning idiot drivers to "Not Drive while sunshield is in place". We have these ridiculous warning labels because people like the Ives don't want to take responsibility for their own stupidity!
Catherine | 10:47 a.m. May 9, 2008
It was extremely unfortunate that this young boy lost his life.
But whether or not you are in "bear country", or in a designated campground or not, you need to expect that you will have encounters with wildlife whether that be a friendly and passive encounter or an agressive encounter. You have left your home in the city and stepped into wild country. You are now in a natural habitat for wild animals- including bears. They have more right to be there than you, and they have every right to act like a bear which means they will forage for food, defend themselves and their young, and defend their territory if need be. You are the invader. You are the one that doesn't belong. It is the risk you are taking every time you go camping or hiking whether or not there are signs posted and whether or not you are in "designated areas." Last time I checked, bears can't read.
But whether or not you are in "bear country", or in a designated campground or not, you need to expect that you will have encounters with wildlife whether that be a friendly and passive encounter or an agressive encounter. You have left your home in the city and stepped into wild country. You are now in a natural habitat for wild animals- including bears. They have more right to be there than you, and they have every right to act like a bear which means they will forage for food, defend themselves and their young, and defend their territory if need be. You are the invader. You are the one that doesn't belong. It is the risk you are taking every time you go camping or hiking whether or not there are signs posted and whether or not you are in "designated areas." Last time I checked, bears can't read.
Problem Bear | 11:11 a.m. May 9, 2008
This was a problem bear removed from (out of state I believe) and transplanted
to the area of the fatal mauling. And it was done absent proper permits, which
is done frequently.
When a known problem bear is brought into an area of high human utilization, it is entirely foreseable that a tradgedy such as this will occur. Thank heaven for a lawyer willing to accept this case on contingency or that the family has enough money to hire him.
Hopefully, if the litigation is successful, we can put a stop to bringing problem bears into family camping areas.
When a known problem bear is brought into an area of high human utilization, it is entirely foreseable that a tradgedy such as this will occur. Thank heaven for a lawyer willing to accept this case on contingency or that the family has enough money to hire him.
Hopefully, if the litigation is successful, we can put a stop to bringing problem bears into family camping areas.
TJ | 11:30 a.m. May 9, 2008
I truely think it is more the lawyer thant he family. He said the response from
the State was "outrageous". I think if he would back off then the
family would back off. I know a lot of really good people that are lawyers so I
don't want to stereotype but many lawyers are realy pushy and are very
persuasive to clients and make them believe something they shouldn't. I
think this lawyer needs to back off. He is one of the bad ones in my opinion
that gives all lawyers bad names.
Lawyers and those who abet them | 11:40 a.m. May 9, 2008
Accidents happen. Don't use it as an excuse to feed societal parasites.
Camper Annie Heaven | 11:57 a.m. May 9, 2008
Problem bear, now that is a new one. When moving a bear that is deemed a
problem; the permits and everything are taken care of. Usually when there is a
problem, they are moved to better greener pastures, (heaven). I know many people
who work for the Forest Service and they have told me this is what happends;
don't know where you got your information! Never read that before.
Last year, we went camping. In the early morning hours, I got up to view the creations. There were bear signs all over the campground, and so we took the necessary precautions. when I looked around, There were several trailers with their food left out all night. this could have been a fatal mistake for a tent camper! I guess I better sue the trailer companies, and truck companies for allowing their trucks to pull these trailers to the camp sites; where the actions of their customers put my family in danger.
Everyone needs to be careful when camping. Just cause you are in a trailer, or other secure location; don't put others at risk.
Last year, we went camping. In the early morning hours, I got up to view the creations. There were bear signs all over the campground, and so we took the necessary precautions. when I looked around, There were several trailers with their food left out all night. this could have been a fatal mistake for a tent camper! I guess I better sue the trailer companies, and truck companies for allowing their trucks to pull these trailers to the camp sites; where the actions of their customers put my family in danger.
Everyone needs to be careful when camping. Just cause you are in a trailer, or other secure location; don't put others at risk.
GEOCACHE | 12:07 p.m. May 9, 2008
I was hiking all around just below where these people camped on the day this
happened and there were several postings of bears in the area. It would have
been impossible to camp where they had without noticing atleast three of these
postings including the one that was posted at the check-in station upon entering
the canyon. How much warning do these people need? Is it everyone else's
fault they camped in an undesignated area because they were too cheap to pay for
a camping spot? Is it also everyone's fault if they were to contract the
west nile virus because they forgot mosquito repellant? These people deserve to
lose for there own negligence
and should also pay any legal fees of those whom they are suing. The only people at fault are the ones who lost a kid and its pitiful they are using their his death for there own selfish gains.
and should also pay any legal fees of those whom they are suing. The only people at fault are the ones who lost a kid and its pitiful they are using their his death for there own selfish gains.
Ludicrous | 12:09 p.m. May 9, 2008
I appreciate the comments from "RE: Kevin" and "A Bear".
Greed is the root problem here. I hope the family loses this battle and the
lawyer loses money trying to fight it. Isn't the loss of a young boy
enough motivation for "Forest Rangers" to increase their communication
efforts to prevent similar things from occurring in the future? A greedy lawyer
and a naive family listening to him are punishing us, the taxpayer, with this
lawsuit. What a joke!
Kathryn | 12:10 p.m. May 9, 2008
I agree that there was a terrible loss of life and that there should have been
an alert to bear activity. I am, however, a regular camper and hiker. One of
the most fundamental principles of wilderness survival dictates that you isolate
your food so as to not attract animals. The parents have the right to feel
badly that their son was killed, but it is not right to blame the state for
their negligence and stupidity.
Re: BH | 12:12 p.m. May 9, 2008
I would have to agree with you that the family is looking for some sort of
closure by blaming someone else. However, my experience shows that the lawyer
is correct by stating 90% of campers don't have a clue when it comes to
wild animals and how to avoid them. Even those who claim to be
"experienced campers." Case in point - my wife's family. They
never cared about scented items in the tent until I came around. Even now, they
are skeptical about it. My wife has told me "we have never had a problem
before." Well, I grew up backpacking in the Sierra Nevada, where black
bears encounters are extremely common. I learned to always take precautions
about food storage. I saw first hand the evidence of people not stowing food or
scented items properly. Torn backpacks, animals searching in tents, etc. And
this is in the backcountry where "experienced" camper/backpackers go.
It is no wonder it is a serious offense to not properly store your stuff when in
National Parks ($5000 fine).
Stupid times we live in... | 12:21 p.m. May 9, 2008
WhenI was a boy, we would have shot an animal attacking our camp...without
question. Now days, the animals, like the Coyotes in California have a free run
at things and one is supposed to run and hide from them. STUPID LOVERS OF
ANIMALS MORE THAN LOVERS OF MEN!!!!!!!!
Nature's way | 12:49 p.m. May 9, 2008
The death is not a tragedy, it is nature's way. Evolution (or Creation??Ha)
did not give us claws or long pointy teeth, so we are meant to be food for those
creatures that are so luck.
Or maybe it is a new category for the Darwin award: via elimination of progeny.
Or maybe it is a new category for the Darwin award: via elimination of progeny.
Robert | 12:54 p.m. May 9, 2008
This is a terrible tragedy that might have been avoided. Campers must take
precautions against expected dangers, but as I understand it, the rangers in the
area knew of the bear and had spent the previous day hunting for it with the
intent to capture it and remove it. They did that because they considered it a
danger to campers. Under those circumstances, why did they not think to post
signs warning of the bear so that others would know what they knew?
CA | 12:58 p.m. May 9, 2008
As tragic as this is...and it is no doubt.
When in the mountains...ALWAYS EXPECT Bears and other wild animals whether or not you are in an official or unofficial camp site.
This is their home, and we are uninvited guests.
It's pretty simple. When you go camping anywhere, expect the expected.
I've never been camping where there weren't bears or racoons or dears or any other forest animals in the area.
WE have to be prepared for that. I mean...most people know that whether or not a warning is up or not or whether or not a forest ranger comes and personally tells you. You just go prepared and expect the worst but hope for the best.
Sorry again for the loss...you never get over those...you just learn to move on and hope.
When in the mountains...ALWAYS EXPECT Bears and other wild animals whether or not you are in an official or unofficial camp site.
This is their home, and we are uninvited guests.
It's pretty simple. When you go camping anywhere, expect the expected.
I've never been camping where there weren't bears or racoons or dears or any other forest animals in the area.
WE have to be prepared for that. I mean...most people know that whether or not a warning is up or not or whether or not a forest ranger comes and personally tells you. You just go prepared and expect the worst but hope for the best.
Sorry again for the loss...you never get over those...you just learn to move on and hope.
John Swenson Harvey | 1:17 p.m. May 9, 2008
If the State officials went to the trouble to warn the *previous* campers, why
did they not simply post a sign? Negligence - pure and simple.
Ekim | 2:10 p.m. May 9, 2008
Apparently there has been a drastic drop in auto crashes so this ambulance
chaser, Young, took on this case.
The loss of the boy is tragic.
But this lawsuit is more so. But greed will always be with us.
The loss of the boy is tragic.
But this lawsuit is more so. But greed will always be with us.
SAY WHAT???? | 2:20 p.m. May 9, 2008
All the "STATE" had to do is tape off that camp ground and post a
"bear attach" sign in a couple of places along the Timpanooke road and
this little boy would still be alive. But instead, the state DOESN'T close
the camp ground NOR does the state post any signs. Go figure. Come on, this is
TOTALLY the fault of the State of Utah and its incompetent employees.
Blame | 2:22 p.m. May 9, 2008
The article mentioned the state was faulting the Federal Government and the
Forest Service. All animals within the state boundaries are property of the
state. How is the Forest Service responsible, the forest service deals with
trees, not animals. You buy a hunting/fishing license from the Utah Department
of Fish and Wildlife not the Forest Service. Bears would fall in the
juridication of the UTAH Department of Fish and Wildlife. If any govenement
agency is at fualt, which I don't believe, it would be them.
blame | 2:23 p.m. May 9, 2008
I blame the bear...when are these bears going to step up and accept
responsibility for their actions...sue the hide off them !
State hands bloody ... | 2:27 p.m. May 9, 2008
All the state had to do was close the camp ground and post a couple of signs and
this kid would still be alive. The blood of this little boy will forever be on
the hands of the incompetent employees of the state of Utah.
facts show otherwise | 2:36 p.m. May 9, 2008
Wait just a minute here. The night before the fatal attack the SAME bear
attacked another group in a tent in the SAME camp site. So common sense says
that all the state had to do was close the camp ground and post some signs. How
hard it that? Instead this poor family entered a camp site where a bear attack
had just occurred and THEY HAD NO IDEA!!! In Yellowstone, any time there is a
serious bear incident the camp ground is ALWAYS closed and warning signs are
posted for obvious reasons. The state screwed up and cost this family their son.
BEAR CANYON .. | 2:43 p.m. May 9, 2008
Bear Canyon CAMPGROUND!! This IS a campground that has been used for years. This
site SHOULD have had yellow tape stretched across it along with BIG warning
signs all along the Timpanooke road. No yellow tape - no warning signs NEAR the
area of the attack the previous night and the result - a dead child. This is a
no brainer- the STATE OF UTAH cost this family their sons life!!
sweet | 2:58 p.m. May 9, 2008
Do you think the bear would have stopped at the tape? ... with these types of
people I'm going to say that they would be sueing the state even if there
was signs or a closed campground and it happened.
Anonymous | 3:01 p.m. May 9, 2008
It is a tradgedy, but a lawsuit? No, it may make sense to close a beach after a
shark attack - but what happens if a boater were to approach the beach from the
ocean side and then swimmers enter the water - the family were not in an
approved camping area. They have to own this and learn that life goes on.
Scotty | 3:01 p.m. May 9, 2008
The young boy who was tragically killed by the bear, contributed nothing
financially to the support of the family, yet the adults are attempting to get
rich by bringing to court these ridiculous lawsuits. Shame of them and the
lawyers also. The greed of the adult family members adds to this tragedy.
Deseret Dawg | 3:15 p.m. May 9, 2008
It is ludicrous to hold government responsible for the actions of wildlife in
the wilderness. Too bad these people who experienced a tragic loss were
manipulated into this legal action by an ambulance-chaser. This is another
reason why we need genuine tort reform.
LETS PRETEND YOUR KID DIED | 3:40 p.m. May 9, 2008
Lets pretend that your kid died from a shark attack.
The baywatchmen and women, just didn't want to tell you about it, but they knew it was imminently dangerous.
Would you allow your other child return to the ocean and swim, now that your first child had bleed to death?
What most of you are saying is that the Ives' deliberately made decisions to allow their child to die.
You are saying they are pure idiots that deserve the death of their sons from their own negligence.
Is this logical for you folks?
You think the Ives are child killers, purposely they endangered their child, by ignoring the warnings they happen to know from the officials who are responsible to inform people, a job that are paid by you and I to do the very thing that they failed to do?
And, yes, we paid them to be smart and educated to environments that we don't have the skill nor the time to be informed.
Would you want to be informed of avalance dangers by those who we pay to inform, or do you think that's the responsibility of everyone to have that knowledge?
The baywatchmen and women, just didn't want to tell you about it, but they knew it was imminently dangerous.
Would you allow your other child return to the ocean and swim, now that your first child had bleed to death?
What most of you are saying is that the Ives' deliberately made decisions to allow their child to die.
You are saying they are pure idiots that deserve the death of their sons from their own negligence.
Is this logical for you folks?
You think the Ives are child killers, purposely they endangered their child, by ignoring the warnings they happen to know from the officials who are responsible to inform people, a job that are paid by you and I to do the very thing that they failed to do?
And, yes, we paid them to be smart and educated to environments that we don't have the skill nor the time to be informed.
Would you want to be informed of avalance dangers by those who we pay to inform, or do you think that's the responsibility of everyone to have that knowledge?
Black ICE | 3:45 p.m. May 9, 2008
The next time that you drive on chilly conditions, and you hit black ice, which
UDOT knows about but didn't inform drivers of road conditions, and then
someone in your family dies, I hope that you won't get mad at UDOT for not
doing their job.
UDOT need not tell you to slow down, or tell you anything for that matter. We hired and pay their salaries only for entertainment sake.
After all, you knew that driving in that condition is dangerous.
This is the claims a lot of you are making on these posts, and it's absolutely ridiculous.
UDOT need not tell you to slow down, or tell you anything for that matter. We hired and pay their salaries only for entertainment sake.
After all, you knew that driving in that condition is dangerous.
This is the claims a lot of you are making on these posts, and it's absolutely ridiculous.
Not Ridiculous | 5:45 p.m. May 9, 2008
Is the lawyer an ambulance chaser? No doubt. But I wholeheartedly agree with
"Let's Pretend": of all the duties of the forest service,
notifying campers of possible imminent danger ranks right up there as one of the
most important. There is always the risk of problems with animals, but they HAD
EVIDENCE of a recent bear attack and didn't make the effort to drive around
and warn campers. Quit blaming the family and making such hurtful comments.
And the UDOT analogy is stupid. You clearly have a brain, now check to see if
you have a heart.
RE: Let's pretend..... | 5:56 p.m. May 9, 2008
No one believes the Ives are child killers nor deserve to have their son die.
It was a horrible tragedy. What most of these messages are about is taking
responsibility for your actions.
Chiefly--when you go out into the wild, animals MAY attack. It doesn't matter if signs were posted, or food was packed properly--it is a risk that ALL campers know about. Even if the campground had been closed, the bear is going to ignore the yellow tape and keep walking until he finds food in a "safe camping area."
Because the Ives are unable to come to terms with their own actions, they are trying to find others to blame. I am not convinced of the greed aspect, merely parents who don't want to admit that going camping resulted in the death of their son. I hope they can move past this, but it won't happen until they stop playing "the blame game."
Chiefly--when you go out into the wild, animals MAY attack. It doesn't matter if signs were posted, or food was packed properly--it is a risk that ALL campers know about. Even if the campground had been closed, the bear is going to ignore the yellow tape and keep walking until he finds food in a "safe camping area."
Because the Ives are unable to come to terms with their own actions, they are trying to find others to blame. I am not convinced of the greed aspect, merely parents who don't want to admit that going camping resulted in the death of their son. I hope they can move past this, but it won't happen until they stop playing "the blame game."
Hector | 5:58 p.m. May 9, 2008
I wonder if Samuel Ives had some food in his tent that fatal night? I have
tent-camped in Yellowstone Park and had a bear walk by the tent withing three
feet of where I was lying in my sleeping bag, and the bear totally ignored me
(thank God!). So it occurs to me that maybe young Samuel had some food in his
tent and that attracted the bear.
Can't figure | 7:35 p.m. May 9, 2008
...how this situation differs from avalanches. There are no warning signs for
avalanches, and even where an accident occurs it is not identified and everyone
is free to go there or anywhere else they desire even when the danger is
extreme. There are no signs telling you the danger rating either.
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
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Samuel Ives
- 3A: Hurricane 24, Park City 19 2:29 a.m.
- GameDay back in the MWC 2:19 a.m.
- Westminster campus briefs 1:49 a.m.
- SUU campus briefs 1:48 a.m.
- Dixie campus briefs 1:47 a.m.
- Real Salt Lake gameday 1:33 a.m.
- 5A: Bingham rolls to title game 12:59 a.m.
- Aggies hope for Spartan cure 12:57 a.m.
- 5A: Miners pull tricks to win 12:56 a.m.
- 5A: Davis runs over Hunter 12:54 a.m.
- Williams leaves, won't play tonight
- Unga family is making its mark
- Selfishness to blame for Jazz woes?
- Study: Divorce likely when wife ill
- ESPN suddenly loves MWC
- Trial begins in toddler death
- Historically, Utes have owned TCU
- Two killed in Iron County crash
- Man killed during 3rd I-15 crash
- 4A: Thunderbirds dynasty lives on
- SLC council OKs gay rights policies
348 - Editorial: Mormons and gay rights199
- Senators want food tax restored162
- Will state consider gay rights law?145
- Letters: Strange breed in Utah129
- Utes remain silent about BCS120
- S.L. vote pending on gay protections113
- Celtics crush Jazz103
- Pratt pleads not guilty to sex charges102
- Hatch empathizes with Muslims88
If you are looking for a bird on the cheap, the following specials from...
How do you handle kids and contests? Our oldest daughter, 7, is of the...
Advertisement
Latest comments
True. It's not terribly funny and if it has any effect on society, it won't...
What else would you expect to find in a book called "The Founders on Religion"?
Ok not to be rude here, but check the stats, Hinds isnt first in yards and...
t-hinds = best player in utah
Anonymous: Was that English? I though conservatives believed if you are in...
Wow! Glad the Lord kept you safe. Separate comment: That was a horrible...
I have never been to a Utah high school game before as I am not from the...
It would behoove the above commenters to recall that religion, including our...
Only 8000 attendance? BYU had 16,000+ tonight. What is wrong with Ute fans?...
ian you are the 3A MVP If you win next week so just do it that would be nice....
Advertisements
The Ives contend that they would not be suing if there had not been previous reports of a bear in the campground. Does that mean their son's death would be less important? They also contend their son would still be alive if they hadn't camped in the area. Does that mean he wouldn't have been hit by a bus the next day?
Anytime humans wander into the wilderness, no matter how prepared or knowledgeable about hazards, we assume the risk that a wild animal will take offense and attack. There is no difference between a burgler breaking into my home and me being allowed to kill the perpetrator, than people walking into a wild animals territory, and them defending that area.