Dear DNS, read the reports. The bear followed initially after the other two bears but then turned back to the house after the owners dog started barking at it. That is when the second shot occurred against a charging grizzly.
The game wardens themselves would have dispatched the wounded bear as they always do in this type of situation. Why then is illegal to do so once you have initiated this course of action. To let the critter wander off and die a slow and agonizing death is cruel.
And yes, since I am one of the few folks responding to this thread actually living in grizzly country that could be affected by these new regulation changes, yes, I am quite pleased that I can defend myself, and my family should the situation arise without the worry of impending legal action. You betcha I am happy about this. Interesting how many folks that don't live with these critters have such an angry attitude towards Jeremy Hill for simply defending his children. Was he in a panic? Wouldn't you be in a panic not knowing where your kids are with three large grizzlies on your property already in attack mode.
Why don't some of you folks come up here and live where we do and see what kind of attitude you have for the new regulations. I suspect you won't be a Monday morning quarterback second guessing everything that this man did right or wrong in an instant of sheer terror. Even seasoned veterans in panic situations don't act in textbook fashions. At least the folks here in Northern Idaho are willing to give this man and his family the benefit of the doubt in what has been a moment of sheer terror followed by months of anguished second guessing by the Feds who have forced a very unpopular program on the Idaho population that vehemently resisted the grizzly reintroduction programs knowing the grizzly bear encounters that would ultimately follow.
So, all of you naysayers, come on up and spend some time out here in grizzly country and see what kind of attitude you go home with.