Reader comments
Bear mauling wasn't Utah's fault, state official says

Page:
1
2
Next >

Kelly | 7:20 a.m. May 9, 2008

While the tragedy for this family is immense, and I cannot imagine the loss of a child, trying to assign blame and sue agencies is misplaced grief.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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: ï¿½Remove 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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."

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.

Page:
1
2
Next >

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.