Well, Ann & Jim, just an example of how the NPS is being politically undermined in this process, in case you did not know it:

During the Clinton Administration (YES, the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION) the Congress went Republican. That meant Republicans got control of the NPS budget through the Appropriations Committee. The situation got so coercive that the Republican congressional staff member who controlled the NPS budget in the House of Representative tuned the Clinton's own Assistant Secretary for Budget and Administration into a total wimp, to do her bidding, because she could control ALL the money going into all the Department of the Interior agencies, including paying for this guy's office, and his boss' office.

NPS still had some discretion over its budget in those days. When the brucellosis thing hit, NPS used funds taken from its construction budget to do the scientific analysis for the "EIS," without which NPS would have had no basis to fight the Cattlemen or the States. Here is how that Republican congressional staffer shut the NPS freedom of action down:

Using the guise of using the "outhouse" cost overrun scandal [ a new-age experimental design of an outhouse that took no maintenance, and was to be a "green" building, and like a lot of experiments went several times over budget to end up costing almost $1 M, a PR disaster but actually a much smaller issue than what it was deliberately made into ], this congressional staffer forced a reorganization of the access to the funding for all projects in all parks. Any discretionary spending was eliminated, and all projects when through this tyrant's hands. Congress set up a commission to recommend how the reorganization should happen, and designated up to half the membership by NPS people. Well, the wimp Asst. Secretary was so intimidated by the congressional staff tyrant that he prevented the NPS from having ANY seats on the commission about how the money would be spent.

Needless to say, this staffer from Scranton with very little knowledge or park experience micro managed the NPS. No more discretionary funding from project money was availabe to the NPS. That means, when NPS needs to turn on a dime to deal with attacks and challenges, it first had to go through the committee and wait over a year to spend the funding. Even funds raised through fees came through her control, and fee projects took months to approve. The next thing she did was to even get control of FINANCIAL GIFTS TO THE NPS, by insisting that projects funded by donations over a certain amount first needed her permission to go forward. In other words, the Appropriations Committee -- which means this one staffer -- even had control over funds that did not come from tax-payers dollars, and were not appropriated. She had the flimsiest justification that anything NPS takes on may become financially overwhelming and ultimately require bailing out by the appropriations, so she should approve all in advance. And since bureaucrats in Washington who opposed her got investigated and ones who supported her got promoted [example: mary bomar & sue masica] the result is NPS has no real discretionary control any more.

So, that is what happened to the discretionary source of funding used imaginatively by NPS leaders to take on the brucellosis challenge.

Have you noticed what happens to Yellowstone superintendents who fight back? Do you not think Senator Thomas and others made Mike Finley learn he was unwelcome? Finley is still young enough to be superintendent, but he is long out of the NPS. How many superintendents have there been at Yellowstone since the '90's?

Even during the Clinton administration, they couldn't handle the pressure. When the outcry against Babbitt as secretary, who was taking on intrenched interests in the West, got so much that Clinton couldn't handle it (after all, Clinton was on the defensive through most of his Presidency) he even tried to get rid of Babbitt by MOVING HIM TO THE SUPREME COURT ! But they say Babbitt had antagonized so many in the Senate that Clinton learned he could not push Babbitt out that way. But the bottom line is, with the Republicans in conrol of the money, there was little Babbitt could do, and the NPS had virtually no discretion in use of its funding. This kind of micro-management is a new phenom, and it really changes things.

Or does all this just escape you, that NPS is losing the political power it once had?

I think NPS would love to fight the Cattlemen head on, and without the environmental supporters, the park would have no leverage at all.

Some of us have gotten way of topic here ! Another discussion whould be more appropriate for the "let the wildlife roam" topic, which by the way I do support !

This discussion is about the stupidity and recklessness of some tourists. Why can't the superintendent of Yellowstone set fines for such behaviour ? These people should be fined AND pay for all the emergency services they required. Some people do not pay attention until the issue hits them in the checkbook. Can these kind of rules be made by the local NPS ?

I hear that the diesease is actually coming from the ELK and that info is from a park employee. He said it has to do with the almighty green in that the Elk bring in too much money during hunting season so they wont slaughter the elk. Said its very policital. So because of the almighty green is the Bison that suffer. Supposidly park service knows of this and is going along with it. Slaughering innocent bison.
Also, whats to say that animals DON'T have emotions??? I think people try to tell themselves they dont because it makes it easier on them in situations like this to try to care less.
I saw a bird with a broken wing flopping along side of the road and said out loud "oh thats sad..." A tour guide spoke up and said "thats nature folks" in a snotty way...I replied " if we treated ourselves the same way I"d feel better about it" We get a sniffle and we are at the doctors, we break an arm and someone fixes it, but when it happens to an animal, its nature. We have removed ourselves so far from nature we forget that we are in fact part of it.
Let the Bison live. At least test to see if they are positive.

Back on the original topic:

1. Thankfully it doesn't sound like the child was seriously hurt, since the parents were primarily the ones at fault.
2. Earlier comments about the irresponsible parents are right on target.
3. Legal action against the parents would certainly be justified, but my guess is it's unlikely to occur, since it would appear in some circles to be uncaring in light of the child's injuries.
4. We can only hope any media coverage of this situation will help reinforce the need to follow sensible guidelines when viewing wildlife.