Quote:
Originally posted by Moses
[B]They sued the state of California for a lion attack?
|
Sounds absolutely absurd. At first, anyway. Consider the following, however. The state of California has suffered a demonstrable increase in cougar attacks in recent years. While I believe urban encroachment is the single biggest contributing factor, there are others, for which the state must assume at least some responsibility.
First, California has severely restricted the methods which can be employed in the hunting of cougar. There are, for all practical purposes, no effective methods outside of hounds or baiting. Both have been illegal in California for years. There has been an increase in their population that some studies directly attribute to these hunting restrictions. This increase in population was also a stated goal of the law that banned these methods.
Second, California remains one of the more difficult states in which to arm yourself for your own protection. I'm talking carry permits, and open carry for self defense when in the wilderness. While restricting its citizens rights in this area, the state has offered no viable substitute to fill the void.
Third, states treat wildlife as state property for the purpose of managing that wildlife. You must obtain permission from the state to hunt, trap, transport, etc. any wildlife within the state. They have assumed defacto ownership through a tangled web of wildlife management laws and responsibilities they have assigned to themselves.
So, with an increasing population (orchestrated by the state) of a dangerous animal that is managed by the state , attacking a citizen whose ability to defend himself has been removed by that state, why would that state not be responsible?