Rather eerie. Last week, I cited an old Dave Barry column wherein he said with tongue and cheek, "Nature is located mainly in national parks, which are vast tracts of wilderness set aside by the U.S. government so citizens will always have someplace to go where they can be attacked by bears." Then last week it happened, a fatal attack in Yellowstone.

Barry's form of humor may offend some but nevertheless makes a point. We know national parks were not formed for the purpose stated by Barry; however, that possibility does go with the territory. There is not a practical way to prevent such events; however, I consider last week's attack on the hiking man and wife a needless tragedy because they had opportunities beforehand to learn the risk, and Park handouts tell the value of carrying bear spray when hiking.

Comparable risk situations are all about us every day. Half a dozen people died in highway accidents in western Montana last week. According to an AP story quoting Highway Patrol reports, "Not one of the victims of those wrecks was wearing a seat belt." Is this similar to hiking in bear country without the spray? Seems to me.

I still question many National Park reports on bear attacks. They usually use the word "surprised." Let us revisit one of several columns I've done on "surprises." This one from December 1992:

---

As thousands of this week's Hungry Horse papers are going out to the far corners of the world, a panel of "experts" is busy in Glacier determining how the Park was not negligent in the death of John Petranyi last October 3rd.

Before he "surprised" a female bear and her two cubs, Petranyi was an excited visitor from Wisconsin, wandering alone down Glacier's Loop Trail below Granite Park Chalet. Park news releases said Petranyi "surprised" the bears. As I suggested in a column covering an earlier non-fatal mauling on Swiftcurrent Trail, "Under the National Park Service bear management policy, it appears to be natural for griz to attack people ...if those people ‘surprise' the bears." Many of us believe being surprised is not the only trigger for a grizzly attack. It would be more realistic if the experts would leave "the cause" open where the facts aren't conclusive.

A new Glacier policy we could question is why rangers set up bull elk decoys to entice potential poachers? I had thought Park management didn't want to do anything to increase the possibility of bullets flying around inside the Park.

Was even more amazed by this use of decoys upon learning there is a budget pinch. Makes you wonder how many deeks would be set out if they had unlimited funds. One good thing though, the federal magistrate made those two guys who shot a decoy pay an extra hundred dollars to patch up the holes so it will be in good shape for the next poacher. Thoughtful, eh what?

On the subject of goofy stuff, let's visit Missouri. A St. Louis judge has come up with a test to determine which person the dogs like best in a divorce case. The judge awarded custody to the man of one dog, the lady got the other, and they each have visitation rights, plus they each get both dogs four hours on Sunday. Judge Dennis Quillin ordered a test to have veterinarians check the two dogs for emotional upset created by being with or being separated from the two owners. I hope the lady wins. She told the judge, "My dogs are my children."

I remember a similar divorce battle a few years back when the judge ordered a dog to be kept away from both parties for several days. Said he would award custody to whomever the dog ran to greet first. On the day of the test, the man and woman were in the court and the dog was released. It ran wagging its tail to the man. The judge banged down the gavel and said, "He gets the dog." Then the dog bit the man.

Maybe the man "surprised" the dog.

G. George Ostrom is a national award-winning Hungry Horse News columnist. He lives in Kalispell.