Dumb Aussies sue Federal Government for Bear attack

[troutman]

Originally Posted by RubberDuck

All for a CULL on grizzly bears so you don't have to worry about them??? Wow.

I believe the population in Alberta is teetering on the brink of extinction so this is so far the dumbest comment I've heard all day.

Stay the hell home if you don't want to worry about running into bears.

It's that simple.

How long will there be Grizzlies in Southern Alberta? The State Flag of California has a Grizzly on it, but there has not been one there for decades. Bear sightings in the Alps are very rare.

I don't know if we can co-exist for long.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by troutman

How long will there be Grizzlies in Southern Alberta? The State Flag of California has a Grizzly on it, but there has not been one there for decades. Bear sightings in the Alps are very rare.

I don't know if we can co-exist for long.

Then close the national parks to tourists. The idea behind the parks is to preserve untouched lands for future generations. Whats the point if you cant keep the ecosystem intact.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

While I'll admit I've been out of the camping loop - aside from Kilimanjaro a few years ago - the last while, I don't think I've ever seen any campground that had a fence around it (although it sounds like they've done if for this one recently) specifically to keep wildlife out.

OT : Do you have any pictures from Kilimanjaro?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

While I'll admit I've been out of the camping loop - aside from Kilimanjaro a few years ago - the last while, I don't think I've ever seen any campground that had a fence around it (although it sounds like they've done if for this one recently) specifically to keep wildlife out.

The existence of bear-proof garbage bins implies an expectation bears and other wildlife will visit the site.

Further, are certain campgrounds different than others?

You might surround a big one like Lake Louise with a fence but can you do that with every back-country campground? And what of areas where camping is permitted but no permanent, estabilished sites exist?

Where does the liability start or end?

This seems frivolous but it could be meaningful if an actual decision is rendered. Will all campgrounds everywhere have to close due to liability issues? For that reason, I have a tough time believing these guys would win anything. It's not very sensible.


Cowperson

All very legitimate questions, none of which really have clear answers. This is a very fact specific area of the law, every case is different and can swing based on very minute details. There's really not a lot of certainty when it comes to most issues involving liability, at least in the tort context, and especially when you get into such rare cases like this one.

I agree with your last point, public policy issues come into play in tort cases and this situation is pretty much crying out for a decision that doesn't result in all campgrounds facing potential liability for animal attacks.

Like I said before, to me a sign saying 'bears' would be sufficient for Parks Canada to meet their duty, but evidently there are people in the bear management field who think more is needed.

It's an interesting case, and I imagine that if it progresses to the point of a court writing an opinion it will show up in the reading assingments of future first year law students alongside the mischevous child pulling the old 'pull out the chair at the last second' trick and the other child who 'experimented' a little too much with the business end of a vacuum cleaner.

[Flashpoint]

Dollars to donuts they had food in the tent.

A common mistake, but one they are totally responsible for.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by RubberDuck

All for a CULL on grizzly bears so you don't have to worry about them??? Wow.

I believe the population in Alberta is teetering on the brink of extinction so this is so far the dumbest comment I've heard all day.

Stay the hell home if you don't want to worry about running into bears.

It's that simple.

I'm with you. If you can't handle the possibility of wild animals in a National Park, stay home.

Originally Posted by troutman

How long will there be Grizzlies in Southern Alberta? The State Flag of California has a Grizzly on it, but there has not been one there for decades. Bear sightings in the Alps are very rare.

I don't know if we can co-exist for long.

We can co-exist fine if human stupidity satys out of the way. We don't have anywhere near the population of California. And I don't want the sanitized European wilderness experience here.

[Zevo]

If anything, how about a cull on campers in our national parks. We go into thier backyard and somebody wants to cull the grizzlies? You have to be f'n kidding me.

[Reaper]

Maybe the bear was trying to cut down on the spread of STDs in Banff by filthy Australians.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Then close the national parks to tourists. The idea behind the parks is to preserve untouched lands for future generations. Whats the point if you cant keep the ecosystem intact.

No it isn't. The idea behind the national parks is for them to be preserved as natural areas for "the benefit, education and enjoyment" of the Canadian people and the "enjoyment of future generations".

They're there so we can make use of them, not simply to sit there and 'be wild'.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by driveway

No it isn't. The idea behind the national parks is for them to be preserved as natural areas for "the benefit, education and enjoyment" of the Canadian people and the "enjoyment of future generations".

They're there so we can make use of them, not simply to sit there and 'be wild'.

"National Parks are a country-wide system of representative natural areas of Canadian significance. By law, they are protected for public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment, while being maintained in an unimpaired state for future generations. National Parks have existed in Canada for well over a century"

[valo403]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

"National Parks are a country-wide system of representative natural areas of Canadian significance. By law, they are protected for public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment, while being maintained in an unimpaired state for future generations. National Parks have existed in Canada for well over a century"

You're both right. Move on.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think that civil lawsuits should be judged by the two doors of justice.

Behind one door a stack of cash provided by the defendant

Behind the other door the fierce Piranasauras bear. A grizzly bear the size of a T-Rex who shoots Pirahana's out of its mouth.

Genetic engineering meets justice.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

As long as there are idiots who bring these cases to lawyers, lawyers will represent their rights and let the justice system and a group of impartial jurors decide whether the action is worthy of compensation or not.

If a plaintiff wants to pay me hourly and they have a colorable claim, why shouldn't their rights be represented?

It's easy to have that stance when you gain from it no matter the outcome. I don't blame you for excusing this type of action, as I'm sure you can make a viable argument for the smallest of cases, but let's not pretend that it's because of some higher cause. More litigation is just good business regardless of the outcome. There is only one guaranteed winner in any lawsuit: the lawyer's bank account.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that civil lawsuits should be judged by the two doors of justice.

Behind one door a stack of cash provided by the defendant

Behind the other door the fierce Piranasauras bear. A grizzly bear the size of a T-Rex who shoots Pirahana's out of its mouth.

Genetic engineering meets justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat

Trial by combat (also wager of battle, trial by battle or judicial duel) was a method of Germanic law to settle accusations in the absence of witnesses or a confession, in which two parties in dispute fought in single combat; the winner of the fight was proclaimed to be right.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat

Trial by combat (also wager of battle, trial by battle or judicial duel) was a method of Germanic law to settle accusations in the absence of witnesses or a confession, in which two parties in dispute fought in single combat; the winner of the fight was proclaimed to be right.

Don't worry Trout, in my legal system there would still be lawyers, they would advise what door their client should open, and run the betting pool.

[Bertuzzied]

Can't blame the bear. He prob heard the aussie accent and thought he was going to get crocodile molested.

[burn_this_city]

Bump.

Great news, they lost.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Ca...616/story.html