gunsmith
member
The State doesn't have to protect us yet often (Yosemite/Yellowstone etc)
criminalizes (SIC) carry in wilderness areas.
Could a bill be passed to allow our 2nd amendment right to self defense?
I was thinking "wilderness areas self defense act" a bill to force the Nat Parks to allow firearms in areas that don't have cell phone or visible LE?....I know that in this case the dead guy was not in a nat park, but now that a precedent is set, could it help our cause?
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/05/31/news/state/55-grizzly.txt
State cleared in grizzly attack
By The Associated Press
HELENA - The state is not at fault for the 2001 death of a hunter mauled by a grizzly bear while he was gutting an elk, the Montana Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in dismissing a lawsuit filed by the man's widow.
Mary Ann Hilston contended that negligent management practices led to the death of her husband, Timothy "Omar" Hilston, 50, nearly six years ago.
She sued the state in District Court in September 2005, claiming that the Montana Depart-ment of Fish, Wildlife and Parks knew an aggressive grizzly and two cubs were prowling the Clearwater Wildlife Manage-ment Area northeast of Missoula.
She argued that the agency knew an aggressive bear had taken over a hunter's elk carcass in the management area just days before her husband was attacked.
The suit also claimed that FWP's practice of planting livestock carcasses in the area to draw bears away from surrounding ranch lands created an increased risk of conflict between bears and humans. The FWP failed to warn hunters of the risk, the suit said.
The state contended that because Hilston was hunting in an undeveloped area used for recreational purposes and was attacked by a wild animal, it could not be at fault for his death under provisions of Montana's Recreational Use Immunity Act.
Attorneys for the state said the act broadly protects landowners - including the state - from liability in accidents on land used for recreational purposes.
A five-justice panel of the Supreme Court agreed, ruling unanimously that the state "owed no duty to protect Mr. Hilston from the grizzly bear attack that led to his unfortunate death."
"Grizzly bears are wild animals existing upon the property, and, as such, are a 'condition of the property' for purposes of Montana's Recreational Use Immunity Act," Justice Jim Rice wrote for the court.
Robert Vermillion of Great Falls, one of Mary Ann Hilston's attorneys, said he was "disappointed" by the ruling but declined further comment.
Bob Lane, FWP's chief legal counsel, sympathized with Hilston's family but called the decision "appropriate" and said grizzly bears are part of the wildlands experience in several parts of the state.
The grizzly and her cubs apparently surprised Hilston in the November 2001 attack, biting him repeatedly before he bled to death, a federal investigation determined.
A search party found Hilston's body the day after the attack, along with adult and juvenile grizzly bear tracks.
criminalizes (SIC) carry in wilderness areas.
Could a bill be passed to allow our 2nd amendment right to self defense?
I was thinking "wilderness areas self defense act" a bill to force the Nat Parks to allow firearms in areas that don't have cell phone or visible LE?....I know that in this case the dead guy was not in a nat park, but now that a precedent is set, could it help our cause?
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/05/31/news/state/55-grizzly.txt
State cleared in grizzly attack
By The Associated Press
HELENA - The state is not at fault for the 2001 death of a hunter mauled by a grizzly bear while he was gutting an elk, the Montana Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in dismissing a lawsuit filed by the man's widow.
Mary Ann Hilston contended that negligent management practices led to the death of her husband, Timothy "Omar" Hilston, 50, nearly six years ago.
She sued the state in District Court in September 2005, claiming that the Montana Depart-ment of Fish, Wildlife and Parks knew an aggressive grizzly and two cubs were prowling the Clearwater Wildlife Manage-ment Area northeast of Missoula.
She argued that the agency knew an aggressive bear had taken over a hunter's elk carcass in the management area just days before her husband was attacked.
The suit also claimed that FWP's practice of planting livestock carcasses in the area to draw bears away from surrounding ranch lands created an increased risk of conflict between bears and humans. The FWP failed to warn hunters of the risk, the suit said.
The state contended that because Hilston was hunting in an undeveloped area used for recreational purposes and was attacked by a wild animal, it could not be at fault for his death under provisions of Montana's Recreational Use Immunity Act.
Attorneys for the state said the act broadly protects landowners - including the state - from liability in accidents on land used for recreational purposes.
A five-justice panel of the Supreme Court agreed, ruling unanimously that the state "owed no duty to protect Mr. Hilston from the grizzly bear attack that led to his unfortunate death."
"Grizzly bears are wild animals existing upon the property, and, as such, are a 'condition of the property' for purposes of Montana's Recreational Use Immunity Act," Justice Jim Rice wrote for the court.
Robert Vermillion of Great Falls, one of Mary Ann Hilston's attorneys, said he was "disappointed" by the ruling but declined further comment.
Bob Lane, FWP's chief legal counsel, sympathized with Hilston's family but called the decision "appropriate" and said grizzly bears are part of the wildlands experience in several parts of the state.
The grizzly and her cubs apparently surprised Hilston in the November 2001 attack, biting him repeatedly before he bled to death, a federal investigation determined.
A search party found Hilston's body the day after the attack, along with adult and juvenile grizzly bear tracks.
