I'll make a quick observation that would cover my opinion on the matter for most every situation...

The USFS should never be held liable when a "general threat" becomes specific, i.e., "you're in the woods, bears live in the woods, and bears sometimes maul people"...and it happens.

The USFS should be held liable when a "specific threat" becomes an acute threat and something bad happens, i.e., the situation described in this thread.

The bear was around, and they knew it...the bear had already threatened other campers, and they knew it...the bear had already been in someone else's tent, and they knew it...and those who knew it had opportunities to share this very important information, and didn't.

In the law, these are some general questions you always need to ask...

1. Would a reasonable person recognize the risk? (the defendant)
2. Would a reasonable person communicate that risk? (the defendant)
3. Would a reasonable plaintiff not know about the risk?
4. Would a reasonable plantiff do something different and avoided the risk, if they had known about it?

In this case, I'd go with a pretty definite "yes" all around.

The USFS recognized this particular bear as a problem, and any reasonable person who recognized this threat would communicate it to people around who are in danger from the threat. There's no way the campers would have known about this specific threat if the USFS didn't tell them, and a reasonable person probably would have taken their child to a different area to avoid the risk if they were told about it.

Fish on...

Todd