Utah Supreme Court declares

[Ben Lamb]

Utah Supreme Court declares that bears are "not a natural condition of the land."

I remain awed and inspired by Utah. May that model never make it beyond their borders.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20131031/supreme-court-decides-bears-are-unnatural-utah

 

[Nemont]

That is almost unbelievable. Sorry for the loss of the kid and understand the parents anger but the court sure found an almost idiotic way to blame the state IMO.

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

I would imagine then that, using their reasoning, no wildlife should be considered a natural condition of the land.

Look for privatizers to grab this and try to turn the U.S. into Europe.

 

[What Map]

Trying to follow the lack of logic from judges on some decisions makes my hair hurt.

 

[choc dogs]

So much suspension of common sense. I'm sorry that the parents lost a child, but for the justices to come up with that in response seems to show that some how, someone must be held responsible.

 

[BBwheelgunner]

all I can say is wow...

 

[JohnCushman]

Colorado doesn't seem so bad all of a sudden...lol

 

[OriginalOscar]

Change threat to read "retired busy body know it all"

Rick Sinnott is a former Alaska Department of Fish and Game wildlife biologist. The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch

If you read the article this guy gives his "opinion" on what the ruling means.

The court considered the actions of the Utah Division of Wildlife and felt they should have did more since the bear had been a problem with others and they were aware of the problems.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If you read the article this guy gives his "opinion" on what the ruling means.

The court considered the actions of the Utah Division of Wildlife and felt they should have did more since the bear had been a problem with others and they were aware of the problems.

It's one thing to find an agency at fault for not removing a bear, and another completely to say that bears have no right to exist and are unnatural conditions of the land.

How soon until they apply that to elk?

 

[Nemont]

If you read the article this guy gives his "opinion" on what the ruling means.

The court considered the actions of the Utah Division of Wildlife and felt they should have did more since the bear had been a problem with others and they were aware of the problems.

That isn't what they ruled in holding bears are not a natural condition. Had they found the Utah Division of Wildlife negligent, I could see that. The Court basically blamed the bear for being a bear and said that going into a natural setting should be a risk free endeavor and to prove it, they said bears are not a natural condition of the land.

When are mule deer, elk, bighorn sheep, pronghorns etc etc also not a natural condition of the land?

Nemont

 

[BiggWimm]

I have no words worth writing. Leaving Alaska to live in Utah had been one of the toughest decisions ever. I can't wait to go back home to Alaska.

 

[OriginalOscar]

If a bear become habituated to food and loses natural fear why should it be considered part of the natural environment? Wild bears don't tear sleeping children from tents.

 

[Ben Lamb]

If a bear become habituated to food and loses natural fear why should it be considered part of the natural environment? Wild bears don't tear sleeping children from tents.

On rare occassion, yes, they do. Especially when that person has food in the tent with them.

However, yes, a habituated bear should be removed from the population. Nobody is giving Utah a pass on that, just on the supreme court saying bears have no right to exist.