Man Charged with Killing Grizzley (In defense of his family)

JustThisGuy · August 25, 2011, 12:42 AM

A 33 year-old man has been charged with killing a grizzly bear (a protected species) in his back yard where his children were playing.

http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_n...e29ff6b8a.html

Quote:

"COEUR d'ALENE - A man charged with unlawfully shooting and killing a grizzly bear had so many supporters at his arraignment Tuesday in federal court that the judge had to move the hearing to a larger courtroom."

Perhaps there is more to this story than meets the eye.

youngunz4life · August 25, 2011, 12:55 AM

I thought Coeur d'Alene was in northern washington near Idaho? Anyways, I know where porthill and sandpoint are. If this guy could lawfully own guns, then what's the problem? You can't take the chance(or at least you shouldn't be punished for not taking a chance).

FrankenMauser · August 25, 2011, 01:01 AM

Quote:

I thought Coeur d'Alene was in northern washington near Idaho?

Coeur d'Alene is in Idaho, just across the border from Spokane (Eastern Washington).

youngunz4life · August 25, 2011, 03:09 AM

ok thanx for the map

Nordeste · August 25, 2011, 06:21 AM

I wonder if human beings are protected species too...

Probably a look into the details is necessary. Although I am an environmentally concerned person and love animals, I wouldn't ever put an animal's right to life before people's safety. Things like how close were the bears to those children or if there was any other alternative than shooting dead the mother (and leaving her offspring helpless in the wild) should be considered prior to charging this guy.

Johannes_Paulsen · August 25, 2011, 07:05 AM

People > animals.

Doyle · August 25, 2011, 08:37 AM

Got to be more to the story than just that snippet. Was the bear actually threatening while his kids were out or was he just hanging around the back yard where the kids "frequently play". I'm thinking the law is going to look at the bear shooting in the same light as they would a human intruder. If the intruder was jusk skulking around without placing somebody in immenent danger, not so much legal justification for the shooting.

KyJim · August 25, 2011, 08:40 AM

My guess is the issue is going to be the immediacy of the danger. If the bears were simply on the property and the guy wanted to make sure they wouldn't be a nuisance/danger in the future, he's got problems. The fact the bear had been at his pigs might be relevant. If the bear appeared to be actively menacing the family, he'll probably be okay. I assume he'll testify to the latter.

Added: Doyle, I was typing as you were posting. I think we're on the same page here.

NJgunowner · August 25, 2011, 08:41 AM

I'm not saying that we should let someones kids get eaten, but we also need to respect that other animals on the planet have a right to exist. I'm not sure why the guy didn't have his kids get in the house and wait and see if the bear left on its own or called animal services. We have bears tranquilized and relocated in NJ several times a year.

After reading the article, sounds like the guy was more interested in protecting his pigs than his family. I know a lot of guys on here would say protecting property is a valid reason, but seriously, pigs breed like rabbits.

Just food for thought and I'm sure you guys will think it's crazy, but as a species we make locus and rats looks benign.

JerryM · August 25, 2011, 08:46 AM

[I wouldn't ever put people's safety before an animal's right to life.]

Not even if it involved the safety of your children?
That is pure nonsense.
Jerry

stephen426 · August 25, 2011, 08:58 AM

If the man's kids were near the grizzly, then it was a justified shoot. If the kids were inside or nowhere near the grizzly, then killing of the bear was illegal. I would not hesitate to kill the VERY LAST ONE of a species if it posed an imminent threat to myself or my child. I'm not sure if the bear was shot to protect property though since the article mentioned that the man raised pigs. If I was trying to protect livestock and I lived where bears frequented, I would probably get a high powered paintball gun and buy a bunch of pepper balls. I'm not sure whether or not even that is legal though since harassing endNgered species is also illegal.

There are American Crocodiles in my neighborhood and they are also protected by the endangered species act. Some girls were about to jump off of a dock into the canal when a neighbor yelled at them to stop. They looked down and there was a 6-8 foot crocodile right there.

While it is true that we have moved into these animals habitats, there has to be some common sense in terms of how to coexist with them.

C0untZer0 · August 25, 2011, 09:02 AM

I get the impression that he shot the bear at some distance.

The article doesn't say what agency charged him. Would it be Fish & Wildlife ?

I'm not sure but I am guessing that whoever charged him was thinking that what he should have done was round up his family and call the police. Since the bear wasn't actually charging him at the time that he shot it - the authorities are angry over him killing the bear.

It will be interesting to see what the prosecutor does with this in court.

Does anyone know what the law is on this? Do you have to prove that you were in imminent danger or something like that?

Given that bears are so fast and so ill tempered, unpredictable and deadly, I don't think the defendant is going to have a rough time proving to a jury (probably an already sympathetic jury), that he was justified in shooting.

Nordeste · August 25, 2011, 09:20 AM

Quote:

[I wouldn't ever put people's safety before an animal's right to life.]

Not even if it involved the safety of your children?
That is pure nonsense.
Jerry

And you are absolutely right. I just have read what I wrote and what I meant is exactly the opposite, so I'm going to edit my post. You know, I'm not using my own language and sometimes I can mix up things...

As others posters said, in the case of this guy, I'd have tried to get my kids indoors, but then, perhaps defending his property (his pigs) was a valid reason to shoot the animal. If food on the table for my family depended on those pigs, I would have shot too.

Uncle Buck · August 25, 2011, 10:00 AM

Sorry guys. I have lost more livestock to the dang wild critters around here. I had to give up part of the farming operation because the losses to wildlife are ridiculous. (Raptors, racoons and bobcats may be pretty, but they are destructive.)

I guess those pigs, which could have been sold to raise money for the family, are just not worth a plumb nickle. (At least they are not now, because they are dead.) Let the family go on the public dole.

Also, if I remember correctly, bears are lazy hunters. Once they find an easy food source, they keep coming back. When they have eaten all the pigs, maybe they will break into the house next.

A person should always have more rights than an animal. If the investigation finds he shot the bear "Just because" then he should be punished.

Baba Louie · August 25, 2011, 10:01 AM

Quote:

The article doesn't say what agency charged him. Would it be Fish & Wildlife ?

I read elsewhere that the US Attorney is prosecuting under the Endangered Species Act.

Dead · August 25, 2011, 10:19 AM

Without knowing more to the story i am going to side with this guy protecting his kids. I know if i had any i would not take any chances with mine

Alaska444 · August 25, 2011, 10:29 AM

Some of the old timers here in the Coeur d'Alene area say that they simply SHOOT, SHOVEL and SHUT UP. I am not advocating that, but the article does point out that many in this area will simply stop reporting dead grizzlies to the authorities.

My personal opinion is that bears are dangerous especially grizzlies and a man has a right to protect his property. The government is way out in the deep end of this issue and people will be hurt. We don't need those bears back here. When they got rid of them over 60 years ago, that was a good thing for Idaho. I don't welcome these huge beasts back.

C0untZer0 · August 25, 2011, 10:49 AM

I am wondering if there is more to this story in regards to exactly who this U.S. Attorney is, an appointee right? And who appointed him to his current position?

Maybe if things were different in Washington I wouldn't even be having this line of thought. But I think we have an administration that is anti-gun, and pro-animal rights and this looks like a case where the local state and minuicple authorites - and a good number of citizens support the actions of the defendant but the Federal government has a different world view of this issue and is going to hammer them.

NJgunowner · August 25, 2011, 11:26 AM

Quote:

My personal opinion is that bears are dangerous especially grizzlies and a man has a right to protect his property. The government is way out in the deep end of this issue and people will be hurt. We don't need those bears back here. When they got rid of them over 60 years ago, that was a good thing for Idaho. I don't welcome these huge beasts back.

I'm not trying to insult anyone, but this goes back to the people are locust. I'd like my grandchildren to actually be able to see these thing in the wild and not in a history book. We destroy anything we fear until they are gone or until someone with a brain makes us stop, and it's a damn shame. If we want anything to be around for future generations we need to adjust our thinking and find ways to coexist instead of shooting first. Invent a bear proof enclosure and sell it for a million bucks, I don't know.

I get that bears are big and scary. But people need to get it through their thick skulls the bears were here first, WE are the trespassers. Conservation begins with everyone, not "the other guy".

Then again I'm a radical, if I was El Comander Supremo of the world I'd make it a crime to have more than 2 children. We're reproducing ourselves into a resource crisis. In 100 years there won't be enough of anything, and we'll need to start looking at planet colonization if we don't knock it off.

FrankenMauser · August 25, 2011, 11:51 AM

Quote:

My personal opinion is that bears are dangerous especially grizzlies and a man has a right to protect his property. The government is way out in the deep end of this issue and people will be hurt. We don't need those bears back here. When they got rid of them over 60 years ago, that was a good thing for Idaho. I don't welcome these huge beasts back.

Maybe the over-population of humans shouldn't have pushed them out of that natural territory to begin with. It's not the animals' fault that humans push them out of their natural range, ruin their grazing grounds, and expect them to live in small pockets of "wild areas" in extreme locations.

Evan Thomas · August 25, 2011, 12:00 PM

We really don't have enough information to be making judgments about this case.

This article says that some of Mr. Hill's children "had been" outside, saw the bears, and called to their father, who came out with a rifle and shot one -- not the sow, but a two-year old male cub, according to another report.

What's not clear is where his children were, and what the bears were actually doing, when he took the shot. If there was time for Mr. Hill to get a rifle and go outside, it's a bit hard to imagine that the children didn't have time to get inside -- they obviously were well within earshot of the house. On the other hand, running would have been a bad idea.

But if the children were not in immediate danger, shooting the bear may well have been illegal -- under the ESA, it's legal to shoot wolves in defense of livestock, but it's not legal to shoot grizzlies except to defend oneself or of another person from an immediate threat.

There are other ways to protect livestock from bears: electric fences, for example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C0untZer0

...this looks like a case where the local state and minuicple authorites - and a good number of citizens support the actions of the defendant but the Federal government has a different world view of this issue and is going to hammer them.

Well, yes -- the Federal officers who have charged Mr. Hill (with a misdemeanor, by the way) take the view that it's their job to enforce the law. The fact that both the Feds and the law are unpopular in Idaho makes this a political windfall for the Governor, who is weighing in, and for other local politicians, but it's still the job of Federal authorities to enforce it, unpopular or not.

But without knowing how close the bears were to the children, and whether they were an immediate threat, it's not possible to reach any conclusions.

That said, even if Mr. Hill were found guilty, if it were up to me I'd probably cut him some slack for having done the right thing by reporting the shooting...

And there are no easy answers to the rights-of-humans-vs-bears question, except to say, maybe, that as the (presumptively) smarter species, people have the responsibility to learn to co-exist with bears, not the other way around...

NJgunowner · August 25, 2011, 12:08 PM

Vanya's sounds better than mine. I'll go with what he said.

Brian Pfleuger · August 25, 2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NJgunowner

Vanya's sounds better than mine. I'll go with what he said.

Me too... but he's a she.

Evan Thomas · August 25, 2011, 01:20 PM

Thanks for clearing that up, PK... I forget, sometimes.

Edward429451 · August 25, 2011, 01:27 PM

Why is it that authority seems to continue to put citizens at the bottom of the list? Animals have more right, criminals have more rights. It sounds to me like the man was trying to do the right thing. He shot the bear to protect his Family and then he reported the kill. That's the behavior of a man who has Lawful intent in his heart.

What does our citizen get for trying to do the right thing? Prosecuted. No matter that he'll probably get off because of the support that has been shown for him...Authorities have once again shown their intent to harass our citizenry.

Cooperate with authorities? Do the right thing and it'll be ok in court?

SSS.

August 25, 2011, 12:55 AM	#2
youngunz4life Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2010 Location: United States of America Posts: 1,877	I thought Coeur d'Alene was in northern washington near Idaho? Anyways, I know where porthill and sandpoint are. If this guy could lawfully own guns, then what's the problem? You can't take the chance(or at least you shouldn't be punished for not taking a chance). __________________ "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864

August 25, 2011, 03:09 AM	#4
youngunz4life Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2010 Location: United States of America Posts: 1,877	ok thanx for the map __________________ "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864

August 25, 2011, 06:21 AM	#5
Nordeste Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2011 Location: Asturias, Spain Posts: 328	I wonder if human beings are protected species too... Probably a look into the details is necessary. Although I am an environmentally concerned person and love animals, I wouldn't ever put an animal's right to life before people's safety. Things like how close were the bears to those children or if there was any other alternative than shooting dead the mother (and leaving her offspring helpless in the wild) should be considered prior to charging this guy. Last edited by Nordeste; August 25, 2011 at 09:27 AM. Reason: I wrote exactly the opposite of what I meant

August 25, 2011, 08:41 AM	#9
NJgunowner Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2009 Location: NJ Posts: 1,254	I'm not saying that we should let someones kids get eaten, but we also need to respect that other animals on the planet have a right to exist. I'm not sure why the guy didn't have his kids get in the house and wait and see if the bear left on its own or called animal services. We have bears tranquilized and relocated in NJ several times a year. After reading the article, sounds like the guy was more interested in protecting his pigs than his family. I know a lot of guys on here would say protecting property is a valid reason, but seriously, pigs breed like rabbits. Just food for thought and I'm sure you guys will think it's crazy, but as a species we make locus and rats looks benign. Last edited by NJgunowner; August 25, 2011 at 08:46 AM.

August 25, 2011, 08:46 AM	#10
JerryM Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 1999 Location: New Mexico Posts: 1,889	[I wouldn't ever put people's safety before an animal's right to life.] Not even if it involved the safety of your children? That is pure nonsense. Jerry __________________ Ecclesiastes 12:13 ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

August 25, 2011, 07:05 AM	#6
Johannes_Paulsen Senior Member Join Date: April 26, 2007 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 297	People > animals.

August 25, 2011, 08:37 AM	#7
Doyle Senior Member Join Date: June 20, 2007 Location: Rainbow City, Alabama Posts: 7,167	Got to be more to the story than just that snippet. Was the bear actually threatening while his kids were out or was he just hanging around the back yard where the kids "frequently play". I'm thinking the law is going to look at the bear shooting in the same light as they would a human intruder. If the intruder was jusk skulking around without placing somebody in immenent danger, not so much legal justification for the shooting.

August 25, 2011, 08:40 AM	#8
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	My guess is the issue is going to be the immediacy of the danger. If the bears were simply on the property and the guy wanted to make sure they wouldn't be a nuisance/danger in the future, he's got problems. The fact the bear had been at his pigs might be relevant. If the bear appeared to be actively menacing the family, he'll probably be okay. I assume he'll testify to the latter. Added: Doyle, I was typing as you were posting. I think we're on the same page here.

August 25, 2011, 08:58 AM	#11
stephen426 Senior Member Join Date: March 11, 2005 Posts: 3,840	If the man's kids were near the grizzly, then it was a justified shoot. If the kids were inside or nowhere near the grizzly, then killing of the bear was illegal. I would not hesitate to kill the VERY LAST ONE of a species if it posed an imminent threat to myself or my child. I'm not sure if the bear was shot to protect property though since the article mentioned that the man raised pigs. If I was trying to protect livestock and I lived where bears frequented, I would probably get a high powered paintball gun and buy a bunch of pepper balls. I'm not sure whether or not even that is legal though since harassing endNgered species is also illegal. There are American Crocodiles in my neighborhood and they are also protected by the endangered species act. Some girls were about to jump off of a dock into the canal when a neighbor yelled at them to stop. They looked down and there was a 6-8 foot crocodile right there. While it is true that we have moved into these animals habitats, there has to be some common sense in terms of how to coexist with them. __________________ The ATF should be a convenience store instead of a government agency!

August 25, 2011, 09:02 AM	#12
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	I get the impression that he shot the bear at some distance. The article doesn't say what agency charged him. Would it be Fish & Wildlife ? I'm not sure but I am guessing that whoever charged him was thinking that what he should have done was round up his family and call the police. Since the bear wasn't actually charging him at the time that he shot it - the authorities are angry over him killing the bear. It will be interesting to see what the prosecutor does with this in court. Does anyone know what the law is on this? Do you have to prove that you were in imminent danger or something like that? Given that bears are so fast and so ill tempered, unpredictable and deadly, I don't think the defendant is going to have a rough time proving to a jury (probably an already sympathetic jury), that he was justified in shooting.

August 25, 2011, 10:00 AM	#14
Uncle Buck Senior Member Join Date: June 21, 2009 Location: West Central Missouri Posts: 2,592	Sorry guys. I have lost more livestock to the dang wild critters around here. I had to give up part of the farming operation because the losses to wildlife are ridiculous. (Raptors, racoons and bobcats may be pretty, but they are destructive.) I guess those pigs, which could have been sold to raise money for the family, are just not worth a plumb nickle. (At least they are not now, because they are dead.) Let the family go on the public dole. Also, if I remember correctly, bears are lazy hunters. Once they find an easy food source, they keep coming back. When they have eaten all the pigs, maybe they will break into the house next. A person should always have more rights than an animal. If the investigation finds he shot the bear "Just because" then he should be punished. __________________ Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen.

August 25, 2011, 10:19 AM	#16
Dead Senior Member Join Date: June 5, 2000 Location: AoW Land, USA Posts: 1,968	Without knowing more to the story i am going to side with this guy protecting his kids. I know if i had any i would not take any chances with mine __________________ Dead [Black Ops] www.therallypoint.org

August 25, 2011, 10:29 AM	#17
Alaska444 Junior member Join Date: April 3, 2010 Posts: 1,231	Some of the old timers here in the Coeur d'Alene area say that they simply SHOOT, SHOVEL and SHUT UP. I am not advocating that, but the article does point out that many in this area will simply stop reporting dead grizzlies to the authorities. My personal opinion is that bears are dangerous especially grizzlies and a man has a right to protect his property. The government is way out in the deep end of this issue and people will be hurt. We don't need those bears back here. When they got rid of them over 60 years ago, that was a good thing for Idaho. I don't welcome these huge beasts back.

August 25, 2011, 10:49 AM	#18
C0untZer0 Junior member Join Date: April 21, 2011 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,555	I am wondering if there is more to this story in regards to exactly who this U.S. Attorney is, an appointee right? And who appointed him to his current position? Maybe if things were different in Washington I wouldn't even be having this line of thought. But I think we have an administration that is anti-gun, and pro-animal rights and this looks like a case where the local state and minuicple authorites - and a good number of citizens support the actions of the defendant but the Federal government has a different world view of this issue and is going to hammer them.

August 25, 2011, 12:08 PM	#22
NJgunowner Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2009 Location: NJ Posts: 1,254	Vanya's sounds better than mine. I'll go with what he said.

August 25, 2011, 01:20 PM	#24
Evan Thomas Senior Member Join Date: July 7, 2008 Location: Upper midwest Posts: 5,631	Thanks for clearing that up, PK... I forget, sometimes. __________________ Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry.

August 25, 2011, 01:27 PM	#25
Edward429451 Junior member Join Date: November 12, 2000 Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado Posts: 9,494	Why is it that authority seems to continue to put citizens at the bottom of the list? Animals have more right, criminals have more rights. It sounds to me like the man was trying to do the right thing. He shot the bear to protect his Family and then he reported the kill. That's the behavior of a man who has Lawful intent in his heart. What does our citizen get for trying to do the right thing? Prosecuted. No matter that he'll probably get off because of the support that has been shown for him...Authorities have once again shown their intent to harass our citizenry. Cooperate with authorities? Do the right thing and it'll be ok in court? SSS.