Comments on: “Alberta blamed for bear attack on donkeys”

By: Bill Poser

Bill Poser — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 03:41:46 +0000

Bears are just a fact of life here in northern Canada. I live within the city limits and have looked up from my computer to see a grizzly bear walking across the lawn.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:54:56 +0000

Nettles, perhaps the bear would have eaten the lawyers, and then not bothered with the donkeys.

By: Benjamin Cooper

Benjamin Cooper — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 19:35:40 +0000

I’m not a Canadian lawyer, but I did do some research back in 2006 for an American municipality as to whether they’d be liable for property damage from wildlife that lived on municipal property. Virginia, New York, and Vermont are against the principle, even if (as in New York and Vermont’s cases) the wildlife at issue is classified as endangered and therefore private citizens are restricted from setting out traps or similarly hunting the animals.

By: L Nettles

L Nettles — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:07:19 +0000

Stationing a couple of slow lawyers near the donkeys would have just as effective as armed wildlife officers in protecting the donkeys and prevented harm to the bear.

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 02:21:27 +0000

Perhaps if she had bothered to arm the donkeys…

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:25:00 +0000

“Blame the province: “A woman just west of Grande Prairie, Alta., says the province’s wildlife officers could have prevented her two miniature donkeys from being killed by a grizzly bear in May” by stationing the armed wildlife officers next to the miniature donkeys. See, they could have done something. Idiot, oh, sorry. My wife says I need to be more positively affirming.

By: Bob Lipton

Bob Lipton — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:11:36 +0000

I think they should sue the bear.

Bob

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:34:01 +0000

I can’t believe an attorney actually took this case. It’s really, really difficult from preventing a grizzly bear from doing ANYTHING it really wants to do.