I was trying to have a conversation that was slightly more broad than this particular case. Yes, I agree that the employees that had a chance to say something should have. I don't necessarily agree that they (ultimately the govt) should be held liable for someones death for not having said or done anything.

Now that there have been two bear attacks at that site, it seems possible that it could happen again right? Should they close it? What happens if they leave it open and someone comes in after hours and the employees don't have a chance to talk to them. What if they miss the signs because they aren't lit at night? What if the campers don't speak or understand english?

One of the points I am trying to make is that once you legally obligate a person or an organization to provide for the safety of others, you open a huge can of worms. My definition of what I want and need to be "safe" is very different than yours. Who gets to draw the line? I guess ultimately the courts do, even if it is after the fact in many cases.

I am obviously playing the devils advocate here and in doing so, I am hoping to underscore the fact that opinions on public safety (especially in the wild) and ideas on which services and provisions are necessary and appropriate vary widely. Probably to the point that they are not and will never be reconcilable.

Personally I try to not have to count on others, especially those that I don't trust with my life, to provide for my personal safety and well being.

I live 75 miles from the multi-million acre Denali National Park. You can probably count the entire park's collection of "beware of bear" signs on one hand. How many would you recommend they post to make the park safe for visitors. One on every tree, or just all of the major trailheads, campgrounds, access roads, landing strips, gravel bars, and pullouts?