Bears, barristers and booze

We are not going to mention her name here because we "sorta" feel sorry for her. On the other hand, her lawyer's name should be used because that is the person we hunters are all disgusted with; however the AP stories last week didn't carry the attorney's name. I'm talking about the case of the widow of a man who was killed by a grizzly bear a couple years ago on the Clearwater Game Preserve south of Seeley Lake.

The unfortunate hunter shot an elk and while dressing it out he was attacked and fatally mauled by a female grizzly with cubs. It is a well-known fact among hunters that bears and other predators, as well as scavengers, have learned the sound of a rifle can often mean something to eat. In hunting season that sound is a dinner bell, and any hunter in Montana should know that…especially in an area like Clearwater, so close to the Bob Marshall and adjacent Wilderness areas used by the big bears.

The widow and her lawyer sued in District Court charging negligence on the part of Fish and Wildlife management and the court ruled against her. They claimed the wardens knew there were grizzlies around there and should have done "something" to protect the hunters.

Now the case is being appealed to the State Supreme Court. One cannot help wondering if the lawyer has made his client sell her home to pay him or if he/she believes in the case enough to handle it on a contingency basis (win it or get nothing). Whatever! If successful it could cost the taxpayer-sportsmen of Montana a lot of money. More importantly it could mark the start of a very ridiculous precedent. I like to think the State Supreme Court will throw the case out. It would be nice if they did that and threw in a suggestion to the lonely lady's lawyer to "get a job." Unfortunately, that is not the way courts do business.

If the widow's lawyer is sincere in the belief there was negligence in letting the grizzly bear wander around eating hunters on the Clearwater Game Refuge, maybe that lawyer should sue the United States Congress that passed the Endangered Species Act.

On another subject, three co-operating government entities have just finished a brand new 75-unit apartment house in Seattle. The residents are all hand picked and they get to live there absolutely free. (I'm not making this up.) Social workers, psychologists, doctors, and law officers have decided that putting the city's "most incorrigible drunks" in that one place will save tens of thousands of dollars. Authorities can keep an eye on them better so they can't stagger around causing mischief (vandalism) and jamming up and overusing hospital emergency rooms.

In considering this radical departure from normal drunk management practices, I can not help but wonder if the new apartment building won't just give the less experienced drunks and beginning boozers great incentive to move up the faster in the snockered ratings.

If tested in a court, this whole idea of "free apartments for top sots, guzzlers, and hooch hounds" might well get ruled illegal. If any of you would like to try for the rent-free route, maybe you should get started right away.

If you readers think I have good legal ideas, perhaps you would be interested in starting a nice loan fund to send me to the U.M. law school. I would only be 81 at graduation and, if my legal career did happen to end unexpectedly…Iris could pay you back out of my life insurance settlement.