Comments about ‘Lawsuit over bear attack continues’

Too bad we don't have more judges who realize that it's not a bureaucrat's job to predict the future. Let's say the Salt Police get a call that a drunk driver is on the highway? Should they use the radio waves and the Amber Alert signs to warn people to get off the roads? Drunk drivers kill a lot more Utahns (hundreds of people per decade) than bears do (one in 100 years).

government has to be held accountable!When they make the rules!In this case they have to warn the public when there is a threat like this and take steps to eliminate the threat.When they don't they can't pass the buck.

Huh? David, the government is not responsible for governing animals. They protect the humans from themselves. As a Utahn, all should know that our mountains are not tame, they are wild as they should be. We know the involved riskes from camping and hiking and we accept them when we do so. My heart went out to the family at the time, but sueing the government will not bring the boy back. It only waste our tax money which could be better spent in other places.

The Fish & Game knew they had a bear problem a long time before both these attacks!!!!

When the government makes laws that prevent you from taking precautions to protect yourself ( campground rules in this case); then they should definately be required to be responsible for the results of their actions. Any business or property owner in the same circumstance would be, so why not the government. Unless they're above the law. Otherwise there is no accountability for their actions.

If people had been FOLLOWING the rules, such as not feeding bears and leaving food in open places, we wouldn't have aggressive bears and there would be no problems.

You can't sue someone for something that an animal does. If you aren't aware of the presence and danger of wild animals IN the wild then you probably shouldn't be there.

I, as a young boy, had some close encounters in the Unitas - which were some of the worst nights of my life - but the Unitas can be a dangerous place. It was my fault for being there, not the bears'.

This is yet another example of the "blame every one else" mentality that has crept into our society, and of the ever increasing activism of lawyers on the make. We should all understand the pain of the family, but keep in mind that it is the parasitic lawyers who will benefit from the child's death and bear no real pain. There is nothing more disgusting than the mewling, fake expressions and sounds made by these parasites on society. I suggest the lawyers try to sue the bear and stay out of the taxpayers' pockets.

The government should divulge enough information that people can make an informed choice. To charge us entry fees and set rules to camp imply the government is controlling this environment, but if they do not disclose this danger until two days after the initial bear attack - who else should be responsible? You can not hide behind immunity (maybe it was a concern for the effect on entry fees and thus they were more concerned for the revenue than safety of campers) with no regard for the timeliness of this dangerous information!

So what if someone hits a deer driving on the highway and gets hurt, they can sue the government because the government didn't protect or warn them? Sorry, for the good of all, I hope this gets shot down quickly, otherwise there will be lawsuits left and right for anything bad that happens in the wilderness, and you and I will be paying for it.

Put yourself in the family's shoes. You go to a camping area (the exact spot) where a guy had been attacked the night before. You pass the Forest Service agent who had been attempting to kill the rogue bear on the way to your spot. Your son gets killed that night. Look Sam Ives' mother in the eye and tell her she didn't deserve any warning.

Aren't there signs there that say there are wild animals that may be dangerous? I sure thought there was. I do not think the government is to blame. The family knew the risks involved with camping in the mountains. They knew there were wild dangerous animals there but yet they chose to go anyways. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the original story of this attack stated that the family was not in a designated camping site(they had left the trails and privided sites) and that the parents had been drinking alcohol and were so drunk they didn't hear the attack or the screaming. Food was not properly secured either. Yes it is true that the family should have been told when going through the gate about the previous bear attack(it doesn't sound liek there was a verbal warning)but from what I remember they were more neglegent than the government because of poor choices they made while camping. I do feel sorry for their loss but do not believe the government should be held responsible.