I would think this a perfect…

I would think this a perfect application of the legal definition of the word "Negligence"

I am assuming there is a basic understanding of how fast a black bear can move, how a black bear responds to humans 30 m away from them or between them and bait pile. How they would respond to vehicle sounds/vibrations, "Most negative black bear encounters are caused by surprising the bears or giving them a reason to think you are a threat,"

I see this as a great opportunity for the public to sue you for negligence upon the first bear attack or vehicular accident.

What is negligence? Definition
People are generally considered to have a duty to ensure that their actions do not expose other people to unreasonable risk of harm. This is called a “duty of care.” If someone fails in that duty, they could be liable for negligence.

The Supreme Court of Canada defined negligence as conduct that creates “an objectively unreasonable risk of harm.” This can include intentional and unintentional actions, or even lack of action, such as not shoveling your sidewalk in the winter.

To avoid liability for negligence, you must exercise what the court calls “the standard of care that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable and prudent person in the same circumstances.”

So what does “reasonable” mean? The courts consider three questions:

Could the accused have anticipated their conduct would create harm?
How serious was the harm done?
What cost or burden would the defendant have incurred to prevent the harm?
Generally, courts use what’s called the “but for” test to determine negligence. That means a plaintiff must prove that “but for” the supposedly negligent conduct, the accident wouldn’t have happened.

When weighing whether a defendant was negligent, the courts consider the following:

Whether a duty of care existed.
Whether the accused failed in that duty.
Whether their failure caused any harm.