Dear DNS, please note that your comments are outside of the context of the self defense shooting in ID where he was initially indicted and headed to court, but was able to get a plea of a $1000 fine instead of heavy jail time for simply protecting his family.
This isn't any NEW legislation separate by itself, but instead it amends the flawed statues on the books already that are placing men in jeopardy afraid to defend themselves or others for fear of criminal prosecution.
The third shot would have taken place by the Fish and Game officer investigating anyway. It was the right thing to do morally and ethically. The laws should reflect the correct moral and ethical scenario. In addition, it is correct to kill a wounded bear to prevent further man-bear conflicts that could result in the injury or death of another person. If he had not killed the wounded bear and it killed another person, could he be held responsible? Some would consider the answer to such a question a definite yes.
I am happy that this is going forward since I live in Idaho during summer and some winter months and I love to spend time out in the St. Joe mountains especially. They have had two grizzly killed in that area in the last three years. The bears are back in this area after a 60 year hiatus. I would prefer that they were not there at all, but since they are, I am glad that we will have the right to avoid prosecution for simply defending ourselves and our loved ones.