View Single Post
Old September 16, 2011, 05:00 PM   #12
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 11,537
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.
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Page generated in 0.05173 seconds with 7 queries