Hunters will be allowed more leniency in Grizzly Attacks if new legislation passes

[Alaska444]

Idaho senators are sponsoring legislation to amend the endangered species act that got an Idaho resident in hot water after defending his family from three large grizzlies in his yard. This is good news if passed to return common sense to the discussion of hunter safety and property owners while in grizzly country. Firearms are one of the best defenses against a grizzly attack as well as pepper spray. Many choose the firearm over the pepper spray especially with multiple bears.

“We are introducing focused, common-sense ESA reforms limited to dangerous grizzly bear encounters to ensure that this unfortunate situation depriving an individual of his or her rights never happens again,” Crapo said. “Like Mr. Hill, all Americans need to know that they can protect themselves and their families when confronted with a seemingly imminent grizzly attack. Passage of this legislation will send that message, loud and clear.”

“Everyone who followed Mr. Hill’s case understood that he was not hunting a grizzly bear. He was protecting his family, which he truly believed was in harm’s way,” said Risch. “This legislation will allow an individual to act in self-defense without having to mount a costly defense for their actions, if done appropriately. This is a common-sense change that needs to be passed.”

"Our success with increasing the grizzly population has now collided with the common-sense right of self-defense when encountering these and other predators in the course of normal life,” Labrador said. “This legislation will amend the ESA to ensure that future, unavoidable confrontations between man and beast do not end with the federal government placing the protection of the animal before the safety of people."

The grizzly bear legislation will be referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, of which Crapo is a member; and the House Natural Resources Committee, of which Labrador is a member.

http://crapo.senate.gov/media/newsre....cfm?id=334054

[Double Naught Spy]

Oh good, more duplicate legislation. It is already legal to kill grizzlies in self defense and in defense of others. More laws won't make it any more legal.

This reminds me of anti-gun people wanting more laws to stop things like murder, that are already illegal.

It will be interesting to see if the new proposed legislation will allow for the killing of wounded grizzlies that pose no imminent threat such that Hill would still be inviolation of the law.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...es/?prefetch=1

In dropping the criminal charge against Hill, the Idaho U.S. Attorney’s office noted that Hill promptly notified Idaho Fish and Game officials of the incident. It also noted that he fired three shots at the two-year-old grizzly, and by the time he fired the third, he knew his family was safe inside.

Given that the third shot was not actually in any form of self defense, I don't see how this new law would make things better for Hill.

Given most bills concerning animals and the legalities of shooting them, it is unlikely that the bill will include anything about shooting a wounded bear because it is the ethical thing to do.

[ZeroJunk]

That may be true DNS, but a friend of mine had a hunter he was guiding in Montana disturb a bear on a elk carcass and the bear proceeded to maul him. David ran over and shot the bear four times in the side point blank with a 44 magnum. The bear got off the man before the man was mortally wounded.

The wildlife offficers accused them of trying to poach the bear, interrogated them in separate rooms, refused to renew the outfitters license for several months, etc.

And they didn't even have a dead bear. Never found him if it killed him at all. Trailed it for several miles in the snow and gave up.

The attitude at that time was that if you killed a grizzly you had better have tooth marks to back you up.

Little much I always thought.

[Alaska444]

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.

[Art Eatman]

The judgement of a "reasonable and prudent person" is applicable to the use of deadly force in self-defense against an attacking person.

It's a high level of hypocrisy to say it does not apply to an attacking animal, as well. Cow, dog, cougar or bear...

[kraigwy]

killing of wounded grizzlies that pose no imminent threat

Given that the third shot was not actually in any form of self defense

A wounded Grizzly is an imediate danger to everyone. No one in their right mind would let a wounded Grizzly get away.

[MLeake]

This is why we keep arguing over the legality of the third shot.

DNS maintains the first two shots were legally excusable, but the third was not. Technically, DNS may be correct. Morally and ethically, though, that law would justify Dickens' line in Oliver Twist:

"If the law supposes that.... the law is a ass, a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience - by experience."

[markj]

killing of wounded grizzlies that pose no imminent threat

I wouldnt want to cuddle with this bear.... anyone thinks a wounded bear poses no threat just isnt in touch with reality.

[Alaska444]

The real issue is that this man grabbed a .243 to kill a large grizzly. Must have had a couple of good shots on it to stop the charge with the second shot. That made the third shot necessary for an ethical killing of a wounded animal. .243 is much more a varmint rifle than a grizzly rifle especially with the .55 gr bullets that tops out at about 100 gr bullets. That is not much to use against a large grizzly.

If I lived in that neck of the woods, I would have more than a .243 ready to go. Well, it is only a couple hours north of me right now, but having a better option might have kept the entire third shot from being an issue. Grab enough rifle to get the job done with one shot.

[sc928porsche]

For self defense, a 243 is better than a no 43. If that is what you have available, then it is better than bare hands. Besides, the current trend is to use the smaller cartridges for most hunting.

As for myself, I still prefer my cannons for hunting. 300WM for deer, elk, and moose. For Mr. Bruin my 378 does the talking.

Its a shame that any of this ever went to court. The man defended his family and dispached the wounded animal.

[markj]

The real issue is that this man grabbed a .243 to kill a large grizzly

I would grab a 12 ga slug gun first and foremost it is my HD set up. That bear wounded would sure put a hurtin on the next person he came into contact with, and that person wouldnt even know what hit him.

[Double Naught Spy]

The real issue is that this man grabbed a .243 to kill a large grizzly. Must have had a couple of good shots on it to stop the charge with the second shot.

What charge? The only charges against Hill were by the government. Where was it stated that there was a charging bear?

That made the third shot necessary for an ethical killing of a wounded animal.

Not legally. Where in the new law does it allow for moral and ethical killing of wounded animals? You seem very happy about the changes in the law but what part of the law allows for this?

I wouldnt want to cuddle with this bear.... anyone thinks a wounded bear poses no threat just isnt in touch with reality.

Let me help you with your reading, markj, that may help you with your understanding of reality. It isn't that the bear didn't pose a threat. The issue is that the bear didn't pose any imminent threat. That was by Hill's own admission. He clearly stated knowing his family was safe and that the bear was moving away to the woods, away from his home, when he decided to go ahead and kill it.

[Alaska444]

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.

God bless,

Alaska444

[Alaska444]

All right folks, here is a real life example of what folks in Idaho are confronted with. Apparently a man was killed today a couple hours north of my home in the same basic area as the Jeremy Hill incident. Details are lacking at this point.

Hunter reported killed in grizzly bear attack Friday in North Idaho

The Boundary County Sheriff's Office is investigating a report that a hunter was killed by a grizzly bear in the Buckhorn Mountain area, near the Idaho/Montana border.
The attack was reported by cellphone at 10 a.m. Pacific Time, according to a news release from the sheriff's office.
The name of the man has not been released, pending notification of his family. No information was immediately available on where he is from, though sheriff's officials said he is not a resident of Boundary County.
Investigators had not yet reached the scene at 2 p.m. PT Friday, a Boundary County dispatcher said.
Sheriff's officials say the hunter's partner shot and killed the attacking grizzly bear.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2011/0...n-grizzly.html

I am sorry, but all of you folks negative comments about this case truly anger me when hearing of the death of an Idaho hunter by a grizzly. These bears are big, dangerous and the Feds truly could care less that people are endangered by their reintroduction program. This is the reality of life in Idaho where our personal danger is enhanced by laws and regulations that place the bear at a higher importance than the men that live here.

One bit of information that folks may not be aware. Many of the bears relocated here to Idaho come from Yellowstone National Park and are their problem bears that they have removed due to adverse man-bear encounters. In such, the bears sent here may be some of the more aggressive grizzlies to start with.

Sorry to hear about this terrible outcome which was inevitable from the day the Feds forced these creatures on our population here. It is time to delist this bear and place common sense safeguards for the Idaho residents in place.

[Alaska444]

Take a look at another news account of this fatal Idaho grizzly bear attack and the speculation on whether the hunter that killed the grizzly that killed his friend will face charges.

Grizzly kills hunter along Idaho-Montana border, then is killed by hunter’s partner

By Associated Press,

BONNERS FERRY, Idaho — A grizzly bear killed a hunter in a remote area along the Idaho-Montana border, and then was fatally shot by the hunter’s partner, authorities said Friday.

The attack occurred about 10 a.m. Friday in the mountainous, heavily forested region near the Canadian border.

The identity of the hunter who was killed is being withheld until his family is notified.

It is illegal to kill a grizzly bear, which is listed as threatened in the Lower 48 states. It was not immediately known if the hunter who shot the bear will be charged with a crime.

The fatal attack comes as Idaho’s congressional delegation has proposed amending the Endangered Species Act to clarify that it is legal to shoot a grizzly bear in self-defense or in defense of another person.

The legislation was in response to the case of a northern Idaho man who shot and killed a grizzly cub in May after it and two others wandered onto his property.

Jeremy Hill, 33, was charged with a federal crime of killing a federally protected species, but the case was dropped last week and he paid a $1,000 fine for a noncriminal infraction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...PYK_story.html

This is the reason that we need this rule change and I suspect that with the death of this hunter, it will pass. If not, Idaho will probably succeed from this union. What a sad day for this family. My prayers go out to them. It is time to make this change immediately so people don't have to wonder whether they will be charged with a crime for simply exercising self defense in a deadly grizzly encounter.

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

I have read a couple dozen news accounts and Hill's descriptions and I have yet to see a single account of the grizzly charging anyone.

Turning toward the house is not the same thing as a charge. Maybe you have seen a report by Hill that I haven't seen and if so please post it, but otherwise, you seem to be sensationalizing what was reported.

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.

Where in the new law does this process get made legal. I have not seen you post this yet.

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.

It is not Monday morning quarterbacking. If Hill was in such terror as you describe, then why was he so darned concerned about the bear's suffering. It isn't an issue of attitude, but the law and Hill admitted to killing the bear under circumstances where it was not legal.

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.

Since you know the law so well, how about showing me where in the new law that it is legal to "morally and ethicaly" put down a wounded grizzly. That isn't self defense and it isn't something done by somebody in terror. And hey, you don't even have to come down to Texas.

[Alaska444]

Dear DNS,

Please take a look at the title of this thread and then look at my last two posts. Did you completely skip over the fact that a hunter was killed in Idaho today by a grizzly and the news accounts are speculating whether his partner who shot and killed the bear will be prosecuted? That is what the change in regulations is all about.

Thanks for the compassion DNS. Enough said.

[highvel]

It's sad that the Bear is more important than a Man in some circles, government stupidity is the norm, and has been for far to many years.

[reloader28]

I dont care if its moral, ethical, legal or illegal, you dont stop shooting a wounded griz bear until it is dead or your out of ammo.

A wounded griz is a MAJOR threat to everyone in the area, even worse if you have to track it down.

I'm glad to hear about the law change as we have WAY too many bears around here, and they have no fear of humans. Theres been alot of attacks around here in the last 5 years.

Like Alaska444 said, they may be getting some of our problem bears shipped in there, but we get ours shipped in from other areas so it all evens out. It makes alotta sense.

[Alaska444]

Dear reloader28, just one more failed Federal program with no common sense at all. Sorry to hear you get the problem bears as well. I have a better idea, let's send all of the problem bears to Washington D.C. and see how much they enjoy them there.

[langenc]

Turn three (or one) loose in some Washington or ID office of the ja55s that dream this stuff up and see how they handle the bears..orput one in DNS's yard and watch-looks like he wrote the regs.

Looks like alaska and I have the same idea.

[Alaska444]

Oops, looks like trouble for this 21 yo hunter that shot the grizzly, then he and his partner tracked it down. At that point it attacked his 39 yo hunting partner and killed him. He then shot and killed the grizzly.

Not sure if they will be kind to a mistaken identity since the states up here go to great lengths having hunters able to identify the two types of bears here. Must of thought he had a cinnamon black bear.

Quite sad case. I suspect some sort of charges will come which will be complicated by the fact that his actions got his hunting partner killed. Could be trouble for this young man from Nevada.

I know that the mistaken identity of the Kelley Creek Idaho grizzly bear in 2007 did not end in charges but no one else was harmed. In addition, the Kelley Creek grizzly was the first sighted in the Bitterroots for over 60 years making the mistaken identity more understandable.

The fact that the 21 hunter shot the bear and then tracked it suggests that they must of thought it was a black bear. Sadly, grizzly tracks are very distinctive. If they recognized it was a grizzly, they should have simply left it and notified Fish and Game to deal with especially in light of the last case we have discussed over and over again and the third kill shot which seems to have been the source of contention.

I believe a mistaken first shot is more forgivable than how the situation ended especially since the bear wasn't killed with the first shot. This case will be harder to defend and the kid won't have the support of the locals since he was an out of state hunter. I suspect he will get some sort of jail time out of this. Not exactly what I had thought was the situation like the bow hunters last week.

Once again, quite a sad case that must have stemmed from lack of knowledge of the bears in question. This case doesn't appear very defensible after this last update. Will have to see how the Gravelly Mountain bow hunters make out, but this case will be problematic in many ways for this young man.

Wounded grizzly kills hunter in remote Montana
Associated Press, 09.17.11, 01:42 AM EDT

BONNERS FERRY, Idaho -- Authorities say a grizzly bear wounded by a hunter along the Idaho-Montana border later attacked and killed the hunter's 39-year-old partner.

The Lincoln County Sheriff's office identified the hunter killed in Friday's attack as Steve Stevenson, who was a member of a hunting party from Winnemucca, Nev.

The attack occurred about 10 a.m. PDT in a mountainous, heavily forested region in Lincoln County, Mont., near the Canadian border.

Undersheriff Brent Faulkner says Stevenson's hunting partner, 21-year-old Ty Bell, shot and wounded a young male grizzly, then the two hunters tracked the animal to an area of heavy cover.

Faulkner says at that point, the wounded bear attacked and fatally injured Stevenson. Bell killed the animal with several shots.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/...y_8685130.html

[Alaska444]

Montana requires passing a bear identification test for a bear hunting tag. The area that they were hunting is a grizzly bear reintroduction area, the Cabinet Yaak area. (http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/CYEbeardna.htm)

Bear ID Test (duplicate certificate)
Montana black bear hunting regulations require that all black bear hunters be tested to ensure they can spot the subtle differences between black bears and grizzly bears. A hunter must present a passing certificate from the black bear identification test to purchase a black bear tag.

http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/...r/default.html

Sadly, the 21 yo hunter will not be able to mount a self defense case since he fired the first shot in a hunting mode and then tracked down the wounded bear to kill it. He will need a good lawyer and probably will take some sort of plea deal. Even though it appears he is in the wrong, I suspect that the Feds don't want the publicity of another trial after all of the negative backlash after the Jeremy Hill prosecution. Quite sad and difficult case.

[ZeroJunk]

That's a sad deal. One can imagine with some of the stories you hear about buck fever how a 21 year old could make such a mistake. I hunt a lot in that general area, but never get a bear tag. And even with no interest in killing one I do have an interest in them not killing me. I had a black bear come straight at me to within twenty yards last year quickly and was nervous for a few seconds identifying the bear. Had my tree picked out. I stepped out, went pfssst, and the bear looked up and tore the woods up getting away. I can see how it could happen to me, much less a kid who had had likely never seen a bear in that situation. It's a shame.

[Art Eatman]

Probably one of the worst things a person can do is to not finish off a wounded and dangerous predator. Wounded, they're far more likely to be hostile toward any disturbance than if not in pain from the bullet's damage. That holds true even if the initial shot was a mistaken action.

But keep the two issues separate: What's important as to the subject of this thread is the self-defense aspect when not hunting bears. Hunting and exercising proper judgement is a different matter entirely.