"but I also know that the odds of anything bad happening, even if there is an encounter, are very slim, to the point where it isn't really worth worrying about"

In this case it appears the odds were fairly high that a encounter could happen.


So, what I am hearing, is that common sense would not be to warn someone of a potentially dangerous situation? If you are the type of people that, after having your tent ripped apart the night before, would walk by a father and his small child and figure that "its the woods so they should just know" you are beyond sick.

Everyone keeps generalizing, but the truth is, this was an isolated situation where just a simply act of warning the people could very likely have saved a life. Sorry, but this is different than just camping. The state had put up an area that through activity of its patrons (other campers) had created a situation that was hazardous. They continued to collect fees but neglected to inform the people even though they thought it serious enough to take action against the hazard. This is not the same as the backwoods, nor is it the same as a park where no problem existed, nor is it the same as a unpoliced campground. The state had created a site that they knew would be catered by people, that many of these people would be novices, and that was policed by them. I am certain that in dry periods they put up signs telling people not to have fires. They probably have rules about where you can sleep and your behavior. All this makes it a commercial enterprise and makes them liable rather than just morally responsible.