that is part of the Park Rangers job, public safety in the forest.
In the context of national parks and national forests, and with regard to "public safety issues," where do you draw the line between what is the agency's responsibility, and what should be personal responsibility?
How far should an agency go to intervene? Is simple signage enough? Verbal conveyance of information pertaining to certain hazards..which ones?
How far can land manager go before they start to negatively effect the visitors experience. Many say they are already far too intrusive. Hiding quietly in the background allowing total freedom to enjoy but being ready and able to spring into action to prevent accident or injury isn't practical or possible.
Don't touch that, it could hurt you. Don't go there you might get injured, etc. etc feels a lot like a restriction of freedom when implemented. If anything the majority of sentiment these days seems to be that land managers should be disengaging and stepping back from management rather than working towards further restriction of the public's right to enjoy their land on their terms.
We can't have it both ways. We can't have total freedom to enjoy and engage, but be spared from the dangers of the environment. So what is appropriate? What level of intervention and regulation do you think society at large could agree on?
I would guess that if you polled society and asked them the question: "If the USFS knew about a prior bear attack in a heavily used camp ground do you think they have an obligation to post a few signs and remind campers they come across in the normal actions of their business day about basic bear safety, should they do this?" The resounding answer would most likely be "yes".
Like Dave said earlier, there are signs all over Yellow Stone pertaining to bears. The judge found that the USFS could of and should have warned folks about a "level 3" bear, one that most likely will attack again, and it did. Seems pretty straight forward.
It's all right here:
"In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball said the forest service had a "duty" to warn the Ives family of the earlier attack either verbally, by posting signs on a gate leading in the area or by roping off the specific campsite.
The Pleasant Grove boy died on June 17, 2007 - Father's Day - after a bear ripped through his tent and dragged him away. Ives' mauled body was found about 400 yards from the campsite.
The bear had caused problems in the same area 12 hours earlier, ripping through another tent and rummaging through coolers. Utah's Division of Wildlife Resources had dubbed it a "level 3" nuisance bear - considered the most dangerous - and crews set out to find it and kill it. The bear was only successfully trapped and killed after Ives' death.
Kimball said it was "foreseeable" that the bear would return to a campsite where it had earlier attacked campers and found food. The judge also said an off-duty forest service employee was negligent in failing to contact others in the agency that could have determined whether the campsite should be closed.
A forest service employee who discussed campground fees with the family did not tell them about the first attack."
One USFS employee did not contact others in the agency about the campsite and another employee discussed fees but did not warn them about the bear.
Based on the article info, that seems pretty negligent to me.
Previous Topic
Index
