Man in Idaho being charged by U.S.G.a F. for defending his family from Grizzley Bear.

[roaddog]

Interesting read and plea. Show's you that if you try to do the right thing it can come back and screw you when it comes to the fed's. In my opinion, the endangered list has gotten out of control.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/aug/23/man-pleads-not-guilty-grizzly-bear-shooting/

http://gov.idaho.gov/pdf/Salazar_Jeremy%20Hill_23Aug11.pdf

[Sidartha]

The truly sad thing about this is that the A.G. is simply trying to pad her numbers for the next election cycle.

I bet a donut all the thought that went into this was "Can I get a conviction? Maybe. Then lets go to trial."

This would seem to be a textbook case for a prosecutorial misconduct lawsuit when both local Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife recommend against charges and the silly bitch goes ahead with them anyway.

[JTHunter]

The truly sad thing about this is that the A.G. is simply trying to pad her numbers for the next election cycle.
I bet a donut all the thought that went into this was "Can I get a conviction? Maybe. Then lets go to trial."
This would seem to be a textbook case for a prosecutorial misconduct lawsuit when both local Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife recommend against charges and the silly bitch goes ahead with them anyway.

How VERY true!
Unfortunately, there are too many like this to count.

[Krupski]

Interesting read and plea. Show's you that if you try to do the right thing it can come back and screw you when it comes to the fed's. In my opinion, the endangered list has gotten out of control.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/aug/23/man-pleads-not-guilty-grizzly-bear-shooting/

http://gov.idaho.gov/pdf/Salazar_Jeremy%20Hill_23Aug11.pdf


This piece:


“Jeremy did the right thing, he called Fish and Game,” Keough said. “I think that prosecuting this case really sets back the grizzly bear recovery effort. …People are saying, ‘Boy, if that happened to me, there’s no way that I’d report it.’ That’s a human reaction.”

...should explain why, when that guy broke into my house, I DID NOT report it to the police afterwards....


...been screwed too many times for "doing the right thing".

[Ruskiegunlover]

krupski, sometimes its hard to argue with you. Our laws are CERTIANLY written to protect criminals from us. Burglers sueing homeowners for cutting themselves on broken widow glass, or for being shot while entering a home illegally.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Federal Gov't is way out of control. Nothing new here.

[mriddick]

Is it the AG or a federal prosecutor bringing the charges, the way I read it it's a federal prosecutor and if so the charge of padding the numbers for re election don't hold up.

I think the case is centered on him shooting due believing his kids were outside and in harms way. In one story his kids are outside and in harms way, in another he thought his kids were outside. If he took the shot without his kids in harms way I can see the charges.

[O.S.O.K.]

Is it the AG or a federal prosecutor bringing the charges, the way I read it it's a federal prosecutor and if so the charge of padding the numbers for re election don't hold up.

I think the case is centered on him shooting due believing his kids were outside and in harms way. In one story his kids are outside and in harms way, in another he thought his kids were outside. If he took the shot without his kids in harms way I can see the charges.

Yeah, because those kids aren't that important are they? I mean, if you think they're outside and in harms way, that's just not good enough to shoot to protect. You have to SEE and KNOW that they are there in harms way.... right?

FAIL!

[stinker]

Totally wrong..that prosecutor needs to be reassigned to mail clerk.

There is almost nothing that i'm truely piss my pants afraid of, but top of that list are bears. You simply stand no chance against that amount of raw power if you're not adequately armed and ready right then and there. They're unconditionally shoot and kill on sight as far as i'm concerned. If they'll wander that close to your house they will come in and help themself at some point and they DO know how to open doors.

[mriddick]

Yeah, because those kids aren't that important are they? I mean, if you think they're outside and in harms way, that's just not good enough to shoot to protect. You have to SEE and KNOW that they are there in harms way.... right?

FAIL!
It's for the safety of the children....now where have I heard that before, who do we know that uses that line of logic to do as they please.... oh yeah liberals :)

I'm not saying it was right or wrong based on the conflicting statements, just that's probably why the courts are involved. I wouldn't fault the guy for killing the bear to protect his kids. I think most people would want the action to be taken if only the kids are directly in harms way and not just because it's in the area of children. I can see what issues it would cause if bears were allowed to be shot just because they were in the area, would being with in 1/4 mile be enough for a kill? Maybe a mile? I see things like this as setting limits more then anything.

[ATAK, Inc.]

Bonners Ferry is in extreme north Idaho, deep wilderness, between two bear habitat zones, and was there before the feds deemed the bears as endangered.

That aside, I would've done the same thing, but with the knowledge of this story, might not have reported it. Every time my family and I ventured into the woods at our Idaho place we were packing, my wife had her Ruger P-89 and I had either my SAR-1 or my M-forgery!

At least Gov. Otter is standing behind the guy, along with the community. The feds are truly out of control!

[Sidartha]

It's for the safety of the children....now where have I heard that before, who do we know that uses that line of logic to do as they please.... oh yeah liberals :)

I'm not saying it was right or wrong based on the conflicting statements, just that's probably why the courts are involved. I wouldn't fault the guy for killing the bear to protect his kids. I think most people would want the action to be taken if only the kids are directly in harms way and not just because it's in the area of children. I can see what issues it would cause if bears were allowed to be shot just because they were in the area, would being with in 1/4 mile be enough for a kill? Maybe a mile? I see things like this as setting limits more then anything.

Lets pretend that it was a rattlesnake in the yard instead of a bear.
Exactly how close to your children is it required to be before it's a "direct threat"?
Bears can cover a distance about as fast as a dog and since the father had to lose sight of the bear to get a rifle big enough I think the belief that ones children are in danger allows the killing of a dangerous animal that has left it's natural habitat and intentionally come into contact with humans.

One other thing to consider.
This was a mother bear with cubs. The very definition of calm and restraint right?

[mriddick]

Lets pretend that it was a rattlesnake in the yard instead of a bear.
Exactly how close to your children is it required to be before it's a "direct threat"?
Bears can cover a distance about as fast as a dog and since the father had to lose sight of the bear to get a rifle big enough I think the belief that ones children are in danger allows the killing of a dangerous animal that has left it's natural habitat and intentionally come into contact with humans.

One other thing to consider.
This was a mother bear with cubs. The very definition of calm and restraint right?

I have little problem with killing the bear, maybe you missed that part? However unlike some I have a pretty strict philosophical bent, I don't say how silly it is for HCI to say we should "do it for the children" then turn around and say "lets do it for the children". I've raised my sons in bear, rattlesnake and bobcat country (granted black bear) so that's sort of moot, I understood and accepted the risks and I bet so did this guy.

I think making law or defining regs based on "do it for the children" is wrong. So if I'm not going to kneejerk some reaction of doing it for the children then who gets to decide how close a bear can be before I shoot it? While I'd much rather they just listen to me and go with what I feel is right I can also see those responsable for the bear asking the courts...it just works that way. BTW I notice you never answered my question of whether a 1/4 mile or maybe a mile is too close?

[stinker]

Every time my family and I ventured into the woods at our Idaho place we were packing, my wife had her Ruger P-89 and I had either my SAR-1 or my M-forgery!
You might want to consider something a little bit bigger next time. The p-89 and the m4 will just piss it off and i'm not too confident about the sar.
I'd go nothing smaller than a 44mag or a 45-70 but 50 bmg would make me feel real cozy. :)
450 bushmaster was designed with killing bears fast in mind so time for a new upper methinks.

[Kadmos]

Yeah, because those kids aren't that important are they? I mean, if you think they're outside and in harms way, that's just not good enough to shoot to protect. You have to SEE and KNOW that they are there in harms way.... right?

FAIL!

It might be a good idea to know where the kids are before shooting things in general.

For me there is too much missing from the story to snap to a judgment, how close was the bear, did he go towards the bear or did the bear go to him, was the bear moving away at the time, did the bear do or say anything that was threatening toward the man, was the bear armed, did the position of the body indicate tampering with the crime scene, were drugs or weapons planted near the corpse, does the man have strong opinions about the species..could this have been racially motivated?

Seriously though, was it at all necessary, did he over-react, or was he perhaps eager to kill a bear?

[Sidartha]

I have little problem with killing the bear, maybe you missed that part? However unlike some I have a pretty strict philosophical bent, I don't say how silly it is for HCI to say we should "do it for the children" then turn around and say "lets do it for the children". I've raised my sons in bear, rattlesnake and bobcat country (granted black bear) so that's sort of moot, I understood and accepted the risks and I bet so did this guy.

I think making law or defining regs based on "do it for the children" is wrong. So if I'm not going to kneejerk some reaction of doing it for the children then who gets to decide how close a bear can be before I shoot it? While I'd much rather they just listen to me and go with what I feel is right I can also see those responsible for the bear asking the courts...it just works that way. BTW I notice you never answered my question of whether a 1/4 mile or maybe a mile is too close?

I think you and I agree and now we're arguing for the fun of it.:)

I didn't say new laws were needed and I don't think anyone else did either.
The laws already have provisions for self defense but the prosecutor is trying to second-guess and force the issue to trial.
That's the bullshit part.

To answer your question, and not living in bear country myself, I don't think I would be too concerned if I saw a bear a mile away.
I might be concerned if I saw a bear a 1/4 mile away but I would not feel in imminent danger.
If I saw a bear 100 yards away in the woods I would be concerned but I might be able to get away without incident.
I don't know how big this mans yard is but if I see a bear, in my habitat not his, 50 yards from where my children are playing. Then I consider that to be an imminent threat to my safety and the safety of my family.
The fact that it is a mother bear with cubs who are known to act violently to defend their cubs just amplifies that decision.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Is it the AG or a federal prosecutor bringing the charges, the way I read it it's a federal prosecutor and if so the charge of padding the numbers for re election don't hold up.

I think the case is centered on him shooting due believing his kids were outside and in harms way. In one story his kids are outside and in harms way, in another he thought his kids were outside. If he took the shot without his kids in harms way I can see the charges.

You make a real habit out of defending tyrants, guess we know where you'll stand when it comes down to it.

[mriddick]

I think you and I agree and now we're arguing for the fun of it.:)


Discussing, we are discussing for fun, I never argue ;)
I guess I'm just coming into this after hearing a story on it on NPR, they gave alittle more background then what either of those links seem to have.


You make a real habit out of defending tyrants, guess we know where you'll stand when it comes down to it.
Like you've ever had a correct thought about me in your life.

[ATAK, Inc.]

You might want to consider something a little bit bigger next time. The p-89 and the m4 will just piss it off and i'm not too confident about the sar.
I'd go nothing smaller than a 44mag or a 45-70 but 50 bmg would make me feel real cozy. :)
450 bushmaster was designed with killing bears fast in mind so time for a new upper methinks.


I guess I should've clarified a bit. Where we are at, it's primarily brown bears, wolves and coyotes, and rarely a cougar. I think that 30 rounds of 5.56 or x39 will stop a brown bear, and will kill everything else. The grizzlies are much further north from our little ranchito!

[insider]

Once again animal life is placed above human life, PETA strikes again!

[mriddick]

The fact that it is a mother bear with cubs who are known to act violently to defend their cubs just amplifies that decision.I think that sort of works both ways, a breeding female with cubs is probably valued more as well.

[O.S.O.K.]

You want to fine the guy some reasonable amount due to the inconclusiveness of the shooting? Fine! But put him in jail over this?

No damned way!

And mriddick, yes, my kids and family members come way before any fucking bear's rights. OK? I don't appologize for that at all.

And it's not the same thing as using some generic "for the churlin" BS to take away PEOPLE's rights.

You're analogy is way off.

[mriddick]

It wasn't an analogy it's a philosophy, IMO doing it for the children is so open ended once you start down that road you never know what you'll end up with.

[Goodman]

This is a stupid 'discussion'. Our forebearers killed off the wolves and grizzly for a reason. They were smart people that knew what the hell they were doing and now a bunch of us are second-guessing their actions because they either won't learn from history, they put animal rights ahead of human survival or both.
ESA is out of control. As with the wolves it is clear that when a grizzly, one of the largest and most agressive predators in North America, shows up the correct response is SSS. Shoot, Shovel, Shut up.

[stinker]

This is a stupid 'discussion'. Our forebearers killed off the wolves and grizzly for a reason. They were smart people that knew what the hell they were doing and now a bunch of us are second-guessing their actions because they either won't learn from history, they put animal rights ahead of human survival or both.
ESA is out of control. As with the wolves it is clear that when a grizzly, one of the largest and most agressive predators in North America, shows up the correct response is SSS. Shoot, Shovel, Shut up.

That aint no joke. They were deliberately exterminated for good reasons.
Incinerate actually would be better too i'd think...do the funeral pyre thing and turn everything including the bones into ash. You never know when one of those things could be lowjacked.


It wasn't an analogy it's a philosophy, IMO doing it for the children is so open ended once you start down that road you never know what you'll end up with.
Broke adults?

[mriddick]

This is a stupid 'discussion'. Our forebearers killed off the wolves and grizzly for a reason. They were smart people that knew what the hell they were doing and now a bunch of us are second-guessing their actions because they either won't learn from history, they put animal rights ahead of human survival or both.
ESA is out of control. As with the wolves it is clear that when a grizzly, one of the largest and most agressive predators in North America, shows up the correct response is SSS. Shoot, Shovel, Shut up.

I actually have less problem with this line then "doing it for the children" (not that I think you'd win a public debate to kill off a species). I would just be careful in linking the right to kill off a species with our second amendment rights as the second isn't about hunting.

[JTHunter]

Our forebearers killed off the wolves and grizzly for a reason.

Don't limit it to them. We tried to eliminate ANYTHING (bears, cougars, wolves, Indians) that we considered a "competitor" for whatever we wanted.

[Goodman]

Don't limit it to them. We tried to eliminate ANYTHING (bears, cougars, wolves, Indians) that we considered a "competitor" for whatever we wanted.

Given how overrun with critters the continent was at one time I'm sure it seemed like a reasonable thing to do.

[JTHunter]

Given how overrun with critters the continent was at one time I'm sure it seemed like a reasonable thing to do.

True, and for most of that time, we thought thos "resources" were inexhaustable. Now we know differently. Conservation, when properly managed and controlled, can be a very good and useful thing.
Look at how whitetails have gone from almost non-existant 90 years ago, to being a nuisance in many areas, mostly suburban where hunting isn't allowed.

[Schuetzenman]

My attitude is, People first. Bear comes in my yard, Bear dies. Bears want to live, they best stay the fuck up in the forest.