PDA

View Full Version : Man Charged After Defending Children From Grizzly


choprzrul
08-24-2011, 12:23 PM
What is amazing about this story is how the entire community, local officials, state officials, and some of his congressional delegation are rallying behind him. They recognize his right to self defense and the defense of his children in the face of immediate danger. Certainly worth the full read, but here is part:

State Sen. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, attended the hearing in full support of Jeremy Hill.

"The charges are simply unjust," she said following the hearing. "Hopefully common sense will prevail. It's clearly an issue of protecting the family."

Full Article Here. (http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_65972651-9003-5b14-b4e6-730e29ff6b8a.html)

.

Crom
08-24-2011, 12:30 PM
It happened on his property no less. My guess is the charges will eventually be dismissed, but oh for the headache of dealing with the legal troubles of self defense... Unbelievable.

duggan
08-24-2011, 12:35 PM
I guess this is one instance where "it's for the safety of the children" doesn't work.

SJgunguy24
08-24-2011, 12:47 PM
Anyone notice it's the feds going after him? It seems like everyone in the state is coming to his defense, maybe we can see real justice for once. Case dismissed.

As a side note, man do I love Idaho.

thrillhouse700
08-24-2011, 12:47 PM
I guess to those that charged him, "Eaten alive while on phone with family members" would have been better.

Manolito
08-24-2011, 1:15 PM
My one question is why call the authorities. We sit around wanting personal responsibility and liberty and the first thing we do when we exercise that liberty we run to Daddy Government and tell them what we did.
I have a moral, Legal , and religious responsibility to protect my family. So protect them and shut up.

Ripon83
08-24-2011, 1:22 PM
This deserves national attention. I hope at least Fox will pick up on it and blast the Dept of Justice for wasting our money on this prosecution. Shame on them, shame on our Govt. et all.

choprzrul
08-24-2011, 1:22 PM
My one question is why call the authorities. We sit around wanting personal responsibility and liberty and the first thing we do when we exercise that liberty we run to Daddy Government and tell them what we did.
I have a moral, Legal , and religious responsibility to protect my family. So protect them and shut up.

Probably because history teaches us that the cover up is much worse than the original deed.

How long would it be before a 5 year old says something in school about daddy killing a grizzly bear? You could tell him not to say something, but daddy is his hero and he just wanted to brag a bit.

Now, I wonder if Heller or McDonald could be leveraged for the father's defense? Could the entire Endangered Species Act be ruled unconstitutional if it doesn't provide for the exercise of one's civil right to self defense? Sure would be nice to kick the feds square in the nootz for bringing charges against him.

.

sholling
08-24-2011, 1:24 PM
It sounds like he's in the right but I suspect that he will be convicted and fined at least 10,000. The government needs the money and will want to send a message that your land is not your land and your children are of lesser value than a bear.

cadurand
08-24-2011, 1:26 PM
If the whole local community is behind him, who turned him in to the Feds?

I know he called the police on himself (first mistake) but someone had to tell the Feds what happened.

OleCuss
08-24-2011, 1:26 PM
I'm not going to be surprised if the guy is convicted.

Judge suppresses any evidence that the bears were killing things on his property or that there were children in the area or that there might be fear for one's life - unnecessarily prejudicial.

So the jury hears only that the guy did, indeed, shoot an unarmed bear which wandered onto his property only a few miles away from a bear sanctuary.

And now there are two orphaned bears. It really is a tragedy.

If the guy wanted to be a true hero he'd have shot his kids and himself so that the bears would be unmolested by those pestilent humans - and would have had an additional food source.

This kind of garbage kinda makes me a bit irritated.

vincewarde
08-24-2011, 1:45 PM
I could not tell if the bear was actively threatening anyone at the time she was shot. If this was not the case, the feds will really go after him. If they don't they "risk" giving everyone "license" to shoot grizzlys that wander onto their land.

Hopefully this bear was a clear and immediate threat to the safety of this man's family........

gobler
08-24-2011, 1:50 PM
Goes to show.... No good deed goes unpunished.

Bear, it's what's for dinner.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

spalterego
08-24-2011, 1:57 PM
It sounds a little unfair to me but I am not as outraged by this as the posters above. Grizzly Bears are on the endangered species list and it is largely illegal to kill them unless in self defense. I am not 100% sure on the legality of killing them in defense of property such as livestock but it is my belief that it is generally NOT legal to kill them in defense of livestock.

The newspaper article does not provide enough detail to be sure of the circumstances but if all the children were inside the house and there was no threat or aggressive behavior from the bears towards humans then this guy could have called the nuisance bear hotline and had somebody out to the house and let the authorities deal with it.

If you choose to live in bear country you have to learn to live with them. You can't shoot every grizzly bear that wanders across your 20 acre property on the theory that you need to and have a right to "protect your children".

I understand that in this case the bears did more than just wander across the property which makes this a bit of a toss-up. This was NOT a clear cut case of immediate and necessary self-defense (at least not from information in the article). However nor was it the case of somebody shooting a bear just because he had an opportunity to do so.

The bears attacked livestock (pigs) presumably in a pen or yard and thus showed an inclination to not be afraid of human property and smell so there is some legitimate risk that the bears might return and not be afraid of humans. However they do have programs to try and either relocate problem bears, or use avoidance training etc. I am not sure what might have been available in this area.

All in all, I think I would be inclined to have somebody issue a lecture on not shooting bears unless there is an imminent risk and to in future try and allow the authorities to deal with such bears but to not prosecute.

HowardW56
08-24-2011, 2:15 PM
It sounds a little unfair to me but I am not as outraged by this as the posters above. Grizzly Bears are on the endangered species list and it is largely illegal to kill them unless in self defense. I am not 100% sure on the legality of killing them in defense of property such as livestock but it is my belief that it is generally NOT legal to kill them in defense of livestock.

The newspaper article does not provide enough detail to be sure of the circumstances but if all the children were inside the house and there was no threat or aggressive behavior from the bears towards humans then this guy could have called the nuisance bear hotline and had somebody out to the house and let the authorities deal with it.

If you choose to live in bear country you have to learn to live with them. You can't shoot every grizzly bear that wanders across your 20 acre property on the theory that you need to and have a right to "protect your children".

I understand that in this case the bears did more than just wander across the property which makes this a bit of a toss-up. This was NOT a clear cut case of immediate and necessary self-defense (at least not from information in the article). However nor was it the case of somebody shooting a bear just because he had an opportunity to do so.

The bears attacked livestock (pigs) presumably in a pen or yard and thus showed an inclination to not be afraid of human property and smell so there is some legitimate risk that the bears might return and not be afraid of humans. However they do have programs to try and either relocate problem bears, or use avoidance training etc. I am not sure what might have been available in this area.

All in all, I think I would be inclined to have somebody issue a lecture on not shooting bears unless there is an imminent risk and to in future try and allow the authorities to deal with such bears but to not prosecute.

I tend to agree that there isn't enough information in the article to pass judgement either way.

a1c
08-24-2011, 2:15 PM
Thread title is misleading. The shooter shot the bear because it was after the family's pigs, not the kids.

Just because bears show up in your yard doesn't mean you can shoot them. If they're attacking your kids, fine. But if they're just hanging out, well, that's rural country for ya. You learn to live with them, you tell your kids to get in the house, period.

Don't know what the statutes are regarding protecting livestock in Idaho, but if they're anything like California's, the guy could be fine (you can protect your livestock by killing predators attacking them - only exception being mountain lions, which would require a depredation permit). But then I suspect Idaho might have similar statutes for grizzly bears, requiring a permit to kill those that go after your livestock.

But looks like they're going they self-defense route. Not sure that's wise, as they'll have to prove bear was attacking the kids, and they already said it was to protect the pigs. Difficult to change your story halfway. You can't kill big game just in the name of prevention without a permit, especially a threatened species.

Obviously that charge might be dismissed if political pressure gets too rough, which in that part of the country is probably very much in favor of the guy.

jwkincal
08-24-2011, 2:16 PM
Aren't there many accounts of Grizzlies requiring SEVERAL hits with cartridges like a 375 Holland to go down? I read one from a man who was field-dressing a moose when the Grizz charged him and his wife hit it 13 times with a .30-06 before the charge was stopped...

If that animal is as close to my house as the livestock pen would be, that sounds like imminent risk to me. Especially if the children are outside of the house at the time, as described in the story.

Maybe the pigs were 'way off on the south 40, but the article doesn't contain that info. I'm not a farmer but my stepmother was, and when I visited the farms with pigs (in Minnesota), the barn/pigpens were only about 100 yards from the house. Bottom line, if you're talking Grizzly, you don't have time to wait until you see the whites of its eyes. (i.e. if it was attacking the kids, there would be no more kids...)

a1c
08-24-2011, 2:19 PM
Aren't there many accounts of Grizzlies requiring SEVERAL hits with cartridges like a 375 Holland to go down? I read one from a man who was field-dressing a moose when the Grizz charged him and his wife hit it 13 times with a .30-06 before the charge was stopped...

If that animal is as close to my house as the livestock pen would be, that sounds like imminent risk to me. Especially if the children are outside of the house at the time, as described in the story.

Maybe the pigs were 'way off on the south 40, but the article doesn't contain that info. I'm not a farmer but my stepmother was, and when I visited the farms with pigs (in Minnesota), the barn/pigpens were only about 100 yards from the house. Bottom line, if you're talking Grizzly, you don't have time to wait until you see the whites of its eyes.

You don't kill big game just because they MIGHT attack you.

If that's the way you think, then you shouldn't live where those animals do.

Curley Red
08-24-2011, 2:19 PM
Based on what was written in the story it seems as the kid was protecting the pigs and not any humans. There is no mention of anyone in the family being attacked or possibly even in the line of danger, it says the bear went after pigs in a pen. Sounds like someone got a little jumpy with a gun and killed a bear because it was going after their pigs. This doesn't seem like a self defense shooting. Hopefully they will expand on the story but from what I have read they were in the wrong.

rp55
08-24-2011, 2:19 PM
"He said his son could have just buried the animal and not said anything to law enforcement."

Shoot, shovel, shut up.

jwkincal
08-24-2011, 2:24 PM
You don't kill big game just because they MIGHT attack you.

If that's the way you think, then you shouldn't live where those animals do.

I am the apex predator. Period.

Pelicandriver
08-24-2011, 2:28 PM
Since it appears that all the locals are supporting him, my bet is that a jury will find him not guilty.

choprzrul
08-24-2011, 2:28 PM
What is more dangerous in North America than a momma grizzly with 2 cubs? Nothing.

Reading the article for content, there are 3 generations involved and the children were outside playing. Grandpa was narrating since the father had been muzzled by the lawyer. Here is the part of the story to pay attention to:

Hill has declined comment. His lawyer, Marc Lyons of Coeur d'Alene, said he plans to defend Hill on the basis of self-defense and protection of family.

Following the hearing, his father, Mike Hill, of Athol, said, "This whole thing is a waste of taxpayer money."

He said his son was concerned for the safety of his children playing outside when a mother grizzly and two cubs wandered onto his property on May 8.

Children playing outside + momma grizzly w/cubs == one of the most dangerous situations I could imagine as a parent.

Dead bear + live unharmed children == positive outcome.

.

a1c
08-24-2011, 2:29 PM
I am the apex predator. Period.

Yeah, well follow that philosophy at your own risk.

Wherryj
08-24-2011, 2:30 PM
I could not tell if the bear was actively threatening anyone at the time she was shot. If this was not the case, the feds will really go after him. If they don't they "risk" giving everyone "license" to shoot grizzlys that wander onto their land.

Hopefully this bear was a clear and immediate threat to the safety of this man's family........

I was under the impression that the accused was innocent until proven guilty. Don't the Feds have to prove not only that the bear was NOT a clear and immediate threat, but that the property owner was aware that the bear was not a clear and immediate threat?

Wouldn't that be pretty difficult to do, especially after the guy personally called to report having shot the bear? In my personal opinion, the guy would have to be the world's foremost bonehead to intentionally and without provocation shoot a protected species-THEN go call someone to report himself.

If he really wanted to shoot a bear for just wandering onto his property, why not just quietly cover up the evidence? As for those stating that the five year old might blab at school-my six year old has told some of his friends that his dad owns a Veyron. I somehow doubt that testimony from a child is taken 100% at face value in a courtroom...

spalterego
08-24-2011, 2:30 PM
If that animal is as close to my house as the livestock pen would be, that sounds like imminent risk to me. Especially if the children are outside of the house at the time, as described in the story.


The article is a little unclear on if the kids were outside at the time or not.

"He said his son was concerned for the safety of his children playing outside when a mother grizzly and two cubs wandered onto his property on May 8.
Jeremy Hill has six kids"

I can't telll if the kids were outside at the time or if he is worried about grizzly bears being around because sometimes his kids are outside.

Moreover, if your kids were outside I think you yell for them to get inside.

Yes Grizzlies are dangerous, but under your theory anytime you see a grizzly bear in the wild you would be justified in shooting it on the basis that you better start shooting early b/c you might not be able to kill it IF it decides to charge you. There has to be more of an actual threat rather than just the appearance of a grizzly to justify shooting it.

As I said, there isn't enough info for me to firmly make up my mind but it seems like a case that is on the line straddling legitimate self defense and overzealous activity.

jwkincal
08-24-2011, 2:37 PM
Yes Grizzlies are dangerous, but under your theory anytime you see a grizzly bear in the wild you would be justified in shooting it on the basis that you better start shooting early b/c you might not be able to kill it IF it decides to charge you.

Not me. I'm expendable. The kids. It's about the kids. My genetic material only persists through them, and I have failed as an organism if I allow it to be truncated through inaction.

spalterego
08-24-2011, 2:38 PM
I was under the impression that the accused was innocent until proven guilty. Don't the Feds have to prove not only that the bear was NOT a clear and immediate threat, but that the property owner was aware that the bear was not a clear and immediate threat?

Wouldn't that be pretty difficult to do, especially after the guy personally called to report having shot the bear? In my personal opinion, the guy would have to be the world's foremost bonehead to intentionally and without provocation shoot a protected species-THEN go call someone to report himself.



Self defense usually has a shiftinhg burden of defense. Meaning that the government has to prove you killed the bear. Then you have to at least raise an issue of self defense. The government doesn't have to rebut self defense unless the defendant raises it and present some evidence to establish it. If that happens then the burden is back on the prosecution to prove lack of any self defense justification.

Usually the burden is ONLY to establish that there was no immediate threat they don't have to prove the defendant knew there was no immediate threat.

I agree that by calling and informing, the guy established his good faith. Even if he was a little quick on the trigger (which I don't really know) he seems to have been acting in good faith here. I think it might hurt bear protection if the local people population comes to think that the feds are unreasonable in their interpretation. This could lead to the locals increasingly taking the law into their own hands.

choprzrul
08-24-2011, 2:39 PM
The article is a little unclear on if the kids were outside at the time or not.

"He said his son was concerned for the safety of his children playing outside when a mother grizzly and two cubs wandered onto his property on May 8.
Jeremy Hill has six kids"

I can't telll if the kids were outside at the time or if he is worried about grizzly bears being around because sometimes his kids are outside.

Moreover, if your kids were outside I think you yell for them to get inside.

Yes Grizzlies are dangerous, but under your theory anytime you see a grizzly bear in the wild you would be justified in shooting it on the basis that you better start shooting early b/c you might not be able to kill it IF it decides to charge you. There has to be more of an actual threat rather than just the appearance of a grizzly to justify shooting it.

As I said, there isn't enough info for me to firmly make up my mind but it seems like a case that is on the line straddling legitimate self defense and overzealous activity.

The bear is obviously hunting a meal and you would advocate yelling at your kids to get inside? Kids see bear, kids start running, grizzly bear sees running children as prey, slowest kid gets ate.

Serious lack of good judgment.

Not sure how many other meanings "...children playing outside..." could have other than children playing outside, but whatever. Again:

Dead bear + live unharmed children == positive outcome.

.

a1c
08-24-2011, 2:40 PM
I was under the impression that the accused was innocent until proven guilty. Don't the Feds have to prove not only that the bear was NOT a clear and immediate threat, but that the property owner was aware that the bear was not a clear and immediate threat?

Yes. And we don't know what the guy actually told the LEOs when they interviewed him, but if he at the time told them the bears were going after the pigs, and that the kids were not within threatening distance, then he's in trouble.

Wouldn't that be pretty difficult to do, especially after the guy personally called to report having shot the bear?

Not if his statement helps in establishing just that.

In my personal opinion, the guy would have to be the world's foremost bonehead to intentionally and without provocation shoot a protected species-THEN go call someone to report himself.

To paraphrase a well-known expression, the world is full of boneheads. The news have more.

If he really wanted to shoot a bear for just wandering onto his property, why not just quietly cover up the evidence?

Who knows. Maybe he didn't know the law. Maybe he thought - apparently like some here - that it's legal and acceptable to preventively kill predators on your land.

Anybody with a hunting license knows better.

IAs for those stating that the five year old might blab at school-my six year old has told some of his friends that his dad owns a Veyron. I somehow doubt that testimony from a child is taken 100% at face value in a courtroom...

They wouldn't put those kids on the stand anyway. They are interviewed and taped outside when they are (at least in CA, not sure about ID). I doubt a DA worth his title would do this in such a case anyway, that would not make him look good.

spalterego
08-24-2011, 2:44 PM
Not me. I'm expendable. The kids. It's about the kids. My genetic material only persists through them, and I have failed as an organism if I allow it to be truncated through inaction.

Your argument would be a prime reason the National Park Service doesn't want us to have guns in parks. Not you necessarily but Joe Bloehard takes his family to Yellowstone with his rifle. Family sees a Grizzly with cubs 200 yards out in a meadow eating spring grass. Stops car, family gets out and starts taking pictures. Bear gets up on hind legs and spots family. Dad gets nervous and starts shooting. Hey Grizzlies can cover 200 yards in less than 20 seconds. Pretty soon there are no more grizzlies in Yellowstone. He was just trying to protect his kids.

choprzrul
08-24-2011, 2:44 PM
Who knows. Maybe he didn't know the law. Maybe he thought - apparently like some here - that it's legal and acceptable to preventively kill predators on your land.

Mutually exclusive.

Legal? Nope

Acceptable in this case? Yep, kids playing outside.


.

spalterego
08-24-2011, 2:48 PM
Dead bear + live unharmed children == positive outcome.

.

That is a recipe for NO MORE BEARS. If that is what you want and believe in then just say so and we can disagree.

I hope most people are willing to accept some amount of risk to enjoy things that inherently involve a certain amount of risk.

Also, the guy had six kids, if the slowest one got ate, I don't think he would miss him that much. I mean come on, how many kids does one guy need.

jwkincal
08-24-2011, 2:50 PM
Your argument would be a prime reason the National Park Service doesn't want us to have guns in parks. Not you necessarily but Joe Bloehard takes his family to Yellowstone with his rifle. Family sees a Grizzly with cubs 200 yards out in a meadow eating spring grass. Stops car, family gets out and starts taking pictures. Bear gets up on hind legs and spots family. Dad gets nervous and starts shooting. Hey Grizzlies can cover 200 yards in less than 20 seconds. Pretty soon there are no more grizzlies in Yellowstone. He was just trying to protect his kids.

The legislation/regulation/intervention of the government does not alter the natural laws. A member of homo sapiens sapiens is acting within his purview anytime he employs his acumen as terrestrial apex predator in defense of his genetic material. What the rest of his idiot species has to say about it is absolutely secondary.

a1c
08-24-2011, 2:53 PM
Mutually exclusive.

Legal? Nope

Acceptable in this case? Yep, kids playing outside.


Only acceptable if that's the only choice, and if the bears are close enough to the kids that they'll get attacked before they have a chance to get in the house.

Here we don't have all the info, but from what the story tells so far, it sounds like by the shooter's own admission, the bears were after the pigs, and he only shot them preventively, because his kids were outside. If he had time to get inside the house to get his rifle, surely he had time to tell his kids to get in. That's the first thing you do, actually.

When you live in a bad neighborhood and gangbangers hang out while your kids are playing outside, you tell them to get inside the house. You don't get your gun to shoot the shady characters.

He probably got scared and a little overzealous. Just like a gun owner teaches his kids gun safety, a rural dweller teaches his kids about predators, snakes, poison oak and all the stuff they might run into. That's part of living in the country.

Curtis
08-24-2011, 2:55 PM
I hope this raises a big stink nationally. I recently herd about a case many years ago that involved a race car driver that was charged and convicted for taking his snow mobile into a wilderness area. It happened during a blizzard and he got lost. He was sited when he asked for help retrieving his snow mobile.

dantodd
08-24-2011, 2:57 PM
I don't know the actual law in this case but there are many folks in Rural Idaho for whom the loss of their livestock is essentially the loss of their ability to feed their family. It's unlikely that he has a well paying job and just raises livestock as a hobby.

If the bear is threatening the welfare of my kids by destroying my ability to feed them then the bear dies. Would you rather the guy and his kids end up on assistance for the next 5 years while he tries to dig out of the hole of a couple meals for a bear?

choprzrul
08-24-2011, 3:01 PM
That is a recipe for NO MORE BEARS. If that is what you want and believe in then just say so and we can disagree.

I hope most people are willing to accept some amount of risk to enjoy things that inherently involve a certain amount of risk.

Also, the guy had six kids, if the slowest one got ate, I don't think he would miss him that much. I mean come on, how many kids does one guy need.

This family certainly knew about grizzly bears and accepted the risk. Normally that risk level is extremely low and almost non-existent. The risk level shot through the roof once that momma grizzly demonstrated that it was on the hunt for something to eat and came within close proximity of children playing outside.

The level of risk dictates the type and use of controls to mitigate said risk. When the risk level is low, it is certainly illegal to implement any controls on the bears. Once the risk level reaches an immediate level of death or grave bodily injury, then implementing controls is mandatory and could certainly be considered libelous if you fail to implement said controls.

I believe that we agree on 98% of this, but you are failing to recognize the level of risk to the children when a momma grizzly with her 2 cubs was in close proximity. The father implemented the most effective control mechanism at his disposal to promptly mitigate the extreme risk to his children.

Children are precious.

Grizzly bears are precious.

Children are more precious than grizzly bears in my world.

.

spalterego
08-24-2011, 3:08 PM
The legislation/regulation/intervention of the government does not alter the natural laws. A member of homo sapiens sapiens is acting within his purview anytime he employs his acumen as terrestrial apex predator in defense of his genetic material. What the rest of his idiot species has to say about it is absolutely secondary.

Really?? I am going to go home and hug my homo sapiens sapiens genetic material tonight. Their double helix structure is so cute at this age.

Would it be within my purview to employ my acumen as as "terrestrial apex predator" apply on Mars, or when the aliens try to abduct me?

jwkincal
08-24-2011, 3:12 PM
Would it be within my purview to employ my acumen as as "terrestrial apex predator" apply on Mars, or when the aliens try to abduct me?

You bet. ("terrestrial" in this case meaning "on the ground" as in you wouldn't want to try to assert your position in the shark tank...)

choprzrul
08-24-2011, 3:13 PM
When you live in a bad neighborhood and gangbangers hang out while your kids are playing outside, you tell them to get inside the house. You don't get your gun to shoot the shady characters.

At last check, gangbangers don't have the prey instinct to attack a running child and maul it to death. Nor do they routinely kill anything for simply coming between them and their offspring.

Poor comparison.

I have watched videos of grizzly bears catching and killing fully grown elk running full speed down a mountain to escape. How much head start would a grade schooler need to reach the house before the grizzly reached them?

Grizzly bear running 35 mph can cover 100yds in 5 seconds. 20 acre patch std is roughly 1/4 mile x 1/8 mile. 440 yards in 25 seconds.

Can you get your kids in out of the yard in 25 seconds when they are playing? Momma bear with cubs anywhere on that 20 acre property constitutes an immediate danger to those children. End of story.

.

spalterego
08-24-2011, 3:14 PM
Once the risk level reaches an immediate level of death or grave bodily injury, then implementing controls is mandatory and could certainly be considered libelous if you fail to implement said controls.

I believe that we agree on 98% of this, but you are failing to recognize the level of risk to the children when a momma grizzly with her 2 cubs was in close proximity. .

I don't think I am failing to recognize the level of risk. I am saying the article doesn't provide enough information to make a real determination at this point and that on the bare face of the minimal facts presented, I think this is a wobbler. It depends on a lot of facts. Given the lack of detail and what I see as a close case, I am not necessarily willing to get all outraged and blame the federal prosecutor for being an overreaching monster.

[editted to add, I see you posted above that you think "Momma bear with cubs anywhere on that 20 acre property constitutes an immediate danger to those children. End of story." I think all we can do is disagree on that. I just don't agree that any sight of a grizzly bear on such aproperty justifies shooting the bear. I am pretty sure that the prosecutor won't agree with you and I even in Idaho, if you were to make a defense as plain as that, you would likely lose. In this case I think there is a little more but I bet you his defense won't be quite so bold.]

How could failure to implement said controls be considered libelous? Libel is a tort of defamation, specifically a written defamation. Not sure where you are going with this.

biker777
08-24-2011, 3:28 PM
bear= dead
kids = alive and well.

there is no debate..

anyone who thinks the bear is more important than any human being is obviously:nuts:

Flopper
08-24-2011, 3:30 PM
Really?? I am going to go home and hug my homo sapiens sapiens genetic material tonight. Their double helix structure is so cute at this age.

Would it be within my purview to employ my acumen as as "terrestrial apex predator" apply on Mars, or when the aliens try to abduct me?

Every living thing has the natural right to self defense.

Untamed1972
08-24-2011, 3:32 PM
Using the anti's favorite line "only in the home" Or AT the home in this case.......it seems like this would be a pretty much slam dunk case on Constitutional grounds.

Simply put the ESA can't override the constitution. The man exercised his inalienable right to defense of himself and his family from imminent danger. He cannot be punished for that.

It sucks the judge didn't have the balls to save everyone alot of time and money and dismiss the case right on the spot.

DTOM CA!
08-24-2011, 3:36 PM
He probably should have drug the dead bear in the house and put a knife in it's paw to make sure it would be seen as self defense.

NotEnufGarage
08-24-2011, 3:41 PM
That is a recipe for NO MORE BEARS. If that is what you want and believe in then just say so and we can disagree.

I hope most people are willing to accept some amount of risk to enjoy things that inherently involve a certain amount of risk.

Also, the guy had six kids, if the slowest one got ate, I don't think he would miss him that much. I mean come on, how many kids does one guy need.

How are things at the Brady Campaign? Greenpeace? Sierra Club?


Children outside playing + Momma bear and cub = Shoot, shovel, shut-up.

nicki
08-24-2011, 3:42 PM
Didn't Kennedy or Roberts make a comment during Heller Oral hearings about the need of the colonists to carry arms to protect themselves from "Wild Animals" such as BEARS.

This case is in Idaho. The jury pool will be from Idaho.

Nicki

spalterego
08-24-2011, 3:44 PM
How are things at the Brady Campaign? Greenpeace? Sierra Club?


Children outside playing + Momma bear and cub = Shoot, shovel, shut-up.

Whatever. :sleeping:

SickofSoCal
08-24-2011, 3:48 PM
Good people break bad laws.

SickofSoCal
08-24-2011, 3:53 PM
Also, the guy had six kids, if the slowest one got ate, I don't think he would miss him that much. I mean come on, how many kids does one guy need.

You are disgusting.

I come from a family of 7 children. This is America, not Communist China, so kiss off.


http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n637/allthecampingtrips/fam.jpg

spalterego
08-24-2011, 3:58 PM
You are disgusting.

I come from a family of 7 children. This is America, not Communist China, so kiss off.




I think you may have lost your sense of humor when you went to chase those kids off of your lawn.:facepalm:

NytWolf
08-24-2011, 3:59 PM
Speaking of bad laws ... it seems like no laws allow for pre-empted injury. The law covers only when damage has been done only.

For example, if there are gangbangers stalking you, the law cannot do anything. If you suspect someone is going to murder or rob you and report it, the police "don't have enough to go by". And in this case, this guy is in jail because he killed a grizzly that "might have attacked" his children.

The law has to "sit and wait" for something to happen before they can take action. Once the gangbangers have killed a family, then the police can come declare the gangbangers as suspects. Once the grizzly has killed a person, then Fish and Game can go hunt and kill the animal.

stormy_clothing
08-24-2011, 3:59 PM
The main factor here is that a large dangerous animal and it's two cubs came onto his property - he didn't go onto there nature preserve - they came onto his land.

One would have to assume as an adult he used the common sense he had and did what he in that situation thought needed to be done.

He then did the right thing and reported it to ensure this get's reviewed and endangered species are more effectively managed.

That some name wanting government storm trooper wants to make an issue out of this so they can use the case in future situations as precedence probably wasn't on his mind. He again did what any reasonable person should do.

Curley Red
08-24-2011, 4:25 PM
The main factor here is that a large dangerous animal and it's two cubs came onto his property - he didn't go onto there nature preserve - they came onto his land.

Or did he move to where bears already live? Prior to his living there were there no bears before, are these the first bears to travel that land? I doubt it, unless he lives in the city and the bears traveled through town looking for little piggies.

Just because an animal is on your land does not give you the right to shoot it. The article said the bears was going after the piggies in a pen, not the children. Big difference.

InGrAM
08-24-2011, 4:28 PM
It sounds like he's in the right but I suspect that he will be convicted and fined at least 10,000. The government needs the money and will want to send a message that your land is not your land and your children are of lesser value than a bear.

This hit the nail on the head.

Peter W Bush
08-24-2011, 4:29 PM
Aren't there many accounts of Grizzlies requiring SEVERAL hits with cartridges like a 375 Holland to go down?...

:rolleyes:
.375 H&H will drop a cape buffalo or elephant with ONE well placed shot. And really? 13 hits on a moose with a 30-06 for it to go down? That's some crappy shooting, if even true.

Guess we all need 50BMGs in bear country.

dantodd
08-24-2011, 4:30 PM
Just because an animal is on your land does not give you the right to shoot it. The article said the bears was going after the piggies in a pen, not the children. Big difference.

For many people living in rural America their livestock is aclifeline that their family cannot live without. If an animal is threatening his life or livelihood he sure should be able to kill it. If he thought that what he did was wrong there is no way he would have called the authorities. It is very unlikely that anyone would have even known he shot it in rural Idaho and if they did they would not have cared as shown by the support he received in his court date.

jwkincal
08-24-2011, 4:33 PM
.375 H&H will drop a cape buffalo or elephant with ONE well placed shot. And really? 13 hits on a moose with a 30-06 for it to go down? That's some crappy shooting, if even true.


13 hits on the charging grizzly... and I expect a lot of PHs would be happy to comment on the folly of relying on a single 375 H&H against a Cape Buff or Elephant... that's why they have double rifles or controlled-feed repeaters.

stix213
08-24-2011, 4:38 PM
Based on what was written in the story it seems as the kid was protecting the pigs and not any humans. There is no mention of anyone in the family being attacked or possibly even in the line of danger, it says the bear went after pigs in a pen. Sounds like someone got a little jumpy with a gun and killed a bear because it was going after their pigs. This doesn't seem like a self defense shooting. Hopefully they will expand on the story but from what I have read they were in the wrong.

This is what I got from it too, though the article is lacking enough info to make a firm judgement.

If the kids weren't in real danger, and the mother bear was shot to protect the pigs, the shooter should rightfully get in some trouble for killing a protected species. Did he even try to scare the bear away first? The article doesn't mention.

NotEnufGarage
08-24-2011, 4:39 PM
I think you may have lost your sense of humor when you went to chase those kids off of your lawn.:facepalm:

Please don't feed the trolls. Didn't you all get the news that there are anti-gun trolls here on CalGuns looking for whatever little tidbits they can find to support their twisted view of what gun owners are all about? I think this spalterego is one of them. He's been here 4 months and made 14 posts, about 10 of them in this thread which makes me think he's an anti-gun, anti-hunter, environmentalist type.

Don't feed the trolls.

Nodda Duma
08-24-2011, 4:46 PM
Also, the guy had six kids, if the slowest one got ate, I don't think he would miss him that much. I mean come on, how many kids does one guy need.

You heartless son of a *****.

spalterego
08-24-2011, 4:48 PM
According to this news report the children were inside the house at the time. http://www.krem.com/video?id=128274773&sec=550072

Doesn't make it necessarily true and doesn't negate the fact the bears were killing his pigs but it will make a self defense claim harder to assert.

As a legal matter self defense requires imminent threat which doesn't appear to be satisfied if the bears weren't actively menacing threatening any humans (who were all inside the house?). Whether the jury sees fit to acquit regardless remains to be seen.

I'd be interested to know if the prosecutors offered him some minor misdemeanor plea before going ahead with this prosecution.

My guess is there is a little more to this than we know right now. Federal prosecutors don't like to loose and they know what the Idaho jury pool looks like so I would be surprised if they don't have a little more evidence than is being disclosed right now. Time will tell.

jwkincal
08-24-2011, 4:54 PM
According to this news report the children were inside the house at the time. http://www.krem.com/video?id=128274773&sec=550072

If true that is a game-changer for sure. If that does turn out to be the case then I expect the predictions of a hefty fine to come to fruition, probably without trial.

Peter W Bush
08-24-2011, 4:58 PM
13 hits on the charging grizzly... and I expect a lot of PHs would be happy to comment on the folly of relying on a single 375 H&H against a Cape Buff or Elephant... that's why they have double rifles or controlled-feed repeaters.

I said "can"

And they can.

jwkincal
08-24-2011, 5:11 PM
I said "can"

And they can.

Sure. There are poachers who hunted elephant with .256 Mannlicher.:eek: But would you consider yourself well-defended against said pachyderm with that rifle? Or would you have a buddy (or two) behind you with a .460 Weatherby?

Tactically speaking, with multiple objectives to defend, when the OPFOR is Ursus arctos horribilis; a practical plan calls for the reliable ability to deliver multiple shots on target in order to insure success. This would dictate an appropriate distance for initiation of the engagement.

Take away the multiple objectives as mentioned above, and it is a totally different situation.

Caladain
08-24-2011, 5:18 PM
Would you personally kill every living fluffy dog on the face of the planet to spare your kid from death?

The life of any animal is second to the life of a human, in all circumstances.

If killing *all* the bears in the world of all species would save the life of a single crack w*#($ in NYC, the equation is simple. Goodbye bears.

choprzrul
08-24-2011, 5:19 PM
According to this news report the children were inside the house at the time. http://www.krem.com/video?id=128274773&sec=550072

Doesn't make it necessarily true and doesn't negate the fact the bears were killing his pigs but it will make a self defense claim harder to assert.

As a legal matter self defense requires imminent threat which doesn't appear to be satisfied if the bears weren't actively menacing threatening any humans (who were all inside the house?). Whether the jury sees fit to acquit regardless remains to be seen.

I'd be interested to know if the prosecutors offered him some minor misdemeanor plea before going ahead with this prosecution.

My guess is there is a little more to this than we know right now. Federal prosecutors don't like to loose and they know what the Idaho jury pool looks like so I would be surprised if they don't have a little more evidence than is being disclosed right now. Time will tell.

Top comment from the article link that you posted:

News flash people, KREM 2 has their facts wrong, and they should fix that! His children WERE OUTSIDE playing basketball and after calling to them several times, alerting them of the bears without a response from the children, he shot the bear. And what would you be saying if the bear killed one of the children??? Probably prayers of condolence and sympathy, and thank God we do not have to do that, all because Jeremy took action. As a member of the community of Bonners Ferry, I am proud of the support that our community has shown for him and his family. Any person who can side with an animal over a child is, to put it bluntly, CRAZY! What if it were your children? Many people on here a talking down on us "cowboys' and Northern Idahoans in a very negative mannor, so if you don't like us or our ways, leave us alone.....simple as that! I will stand behind the upstanding members of MY community! All Fish and Game here, both state and federal, recommended no charges be filed.

Try as you might, you have not changed my mind that the bear is better off dead and the children are better off alive.

Good shoot.

.

YubaRiver
08-24-2011, 5:22 PM
As usual, not everything is in this story.

You can kill a grizzly if it is attacking, however you must report it to do so legally. Hence the man reporting it.

The man lived at his location BEFORE the grizzly were reintroduced there.

(You can imagine how many people will report their griz defense deeds after
this happens.)

spalterego
08-24-2011, 5:28 PM
Good catch on that comments section. I didn't look at the comments section. I'm not trying to change your mind. You have a much more expansive definition of "imminent danger" than I do. We can simply disagree about that.

As a matter of black letter law, your definition is wrong. As a practical matter with the jury pool in Idaho you may very well be correct.

socal2310
08-24-2011, 6:36 PM
That is a recipe for NO MORE BEARS. If that is what you want and believe in then just say so and we can disagree.

I hope most people are willing to accept some amount of risk to enjoy things that inherently involve a certain amount of risk.

Also, the guy had six kids, if the slowest one got ate, I don't think he would miss him that much. I mean come on, how many kids does one guy need.

As the father of six children, I am personally insulted by your apparent belief that I would not grieve the loss of one of my children. Even as a joke it belittles me and my concern for my family.

Ryan

LoneWolf1
08-24-2011, 6:49 PM
Good catch on that comments section. I didn't look at the comments section. I'm not trying to change your mind. You have a much more expansive definition of "imminent danger" than I do. We can simply disagree about that.

As a matter of black letter law, your definition is wrong. As a practical matter with the jury pool in Idaho you may very well be correct.


In your infinite wisdom, care to enlighten us with the the pertinent Idaho Statute that deals with "imminent danger"?!?!

jwkincal
08-24-2011, 6:59 PM
The defendant is being prosecuted under Federal Law (Endangered Species Act) which has the following language:

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, it shall be
a defense to prosecution under this subsection if the defendant
committed the offense based on a good faith belief that he was act-
ing to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or
any other individual, from bodily harm from any endangered or
threatened species.

But it will be up to an Idaho jury to decide what those words mean.

Tarn_Helm
08-24-2011, 7:21 PM
What is amazing about this story is how the entire community, local officials, state officials, and some of his congressional delegation are rallying behind him. They recognize his right to self defense and the defense of his children in the face of immediate danger. Certainly worth the full read, but here is part:



Full Article Here. (http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_65972651-9003-5b14-b4e6-730e29ff6b8a.html)

.

Completely insane.

What have we come to?

200 years ago, the community would have held a feast in his honor.

Now they hold a fundraiser for his criminal defense fund.

My dislike for Democrats is unbounded--this whole "endangered species" ecology cult is their fault.:chris:

I can't say anymore. I'll get banned.

a1c
08-24-2011, 7:39 PM
The main factor here is that a large dangerous animal and it's two cubs came onto his property - he didn't go onto there nature preserve - they came onto his land.

One would have to assume as an adult he used the common sense he had and did what he in that situation thought needed to be done.

He then did the right thing and reported it to ensure this get's reviewed and endangered species are more effectively managed.

That some name wanting government storm trooper wants to make an issue out of this so they can use the case in future situations as precedence probably wasn't on his mind. He again did what any reasonable person should do.

We don't know the exact circumstances. If the kids were way out of the way, he didn't "need" to do that. If they were close to his kids, then maybe - but then again, from his own admission, the bears were after his pigs, not his kids. I don't think he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (maybe a stern warning), but I also think he might have overreacted.

Oh, and by the way - bears don't give a crap about property rights. Nor should they. The guy lives between two grizzly preserves, it's not like he belongs there more than they do.

OleCuss
08-24-2011, 8:08 PM
A thing or two to remember. A grizzly can move fast so the fact that the bear is not currently attacking a critter/child which may actually be smaller than the pigs/hogs they are currently attacking should not be terribly reassuring. As noted, it may take a fair number of shots to stop a grizzly - meaning that firing only after they are engaged in an actual attack doesn't offer sufficient protection to your kids/prey.

Also, grizzlies can be fairly aggressive. They're not simply larger black bears like we have here in California.

Our black bears are not to be trusted but they're much more benign.

The weekend of the Independence Day we were up at Glacier Point rather late at night (very dark). We were packing up some gear in the amphitheater area in order to leave and my daughter asked if I'd seen the bear - my response was "what bear?".

Well, she had been going up the stairs with a box of gear and looked to her left and saw a nice big black bear no more than 5 feet away from her. She kept going and the bear left her alone. Danged bear hung around for a while, though, with more than a dozen people shining lights in its eyes and yelling.

Point is that this kind of stuff works with a black bear but from what I understand a grizzly might have perceived my daughter as a threat and attacked her. Put a couple of cubs (large or small) in the mix and you're talking a very dangerous situation.

Give me a bunch of kids outside and a bear in the process of killing animals - and if it showed any interest in the kids I'd be extremely concerned even if it weren't currently charging.

I'd prefer, of course, to go inside and barricade access points and be ready with a good 12 gauge shotgun in case a bear decided the door wasn't much of an obstacle.

Fate
08-24-2011, 8:10 PM
I think it might hurt bear protection if the local people population comes to think that the feds are unreasonable in their interpretation. This could lead to the locals increasingly taking the law into their own hands.

Nailed it. I have extended family in Idaho too and that's exactly what would happen if the Feds push this one to the limit.

Meplat
08-24-2011, 8:13 PM
Thread title is misleading. The shooter shot the bear because it was after the family's pigs, not the kids.


Where you there? There is not enough information in that article to know that.:rolleyes:

Norsemen308
08-24-2011, 8:18 PM
I would have killed it, quartered it, and cooked it... and made the GF a grizzly fur Teddy.... it was killing livestock and potentially hazardous to the family? DONE.... I hope his lawyer is smart and files suit for emotional damages.

Kid Stanislaus
08-24-2011, 8:27 PM
"He said his son could have just buried the animal and not said anything to law enforcement."

Shoot, shovel, shut up.

One of the children would've spilled the beans sooner or later. He did the smart thing by calling it in.

Kid Stanislaus
08-24-2011, 8:43 PM
He probably should have drug the dead bear in the house and put a knife in it's paw to make sure it would be seen as self defense.

I just HATE IT when bears break in and grab a sharp knife!:D

Kid Stanislaus
08-24-2011, 8:46 PM
How are things at the Brady Campaign? Greenpeace? Sierra Club?


How are things over at "Cheap Shots Are Us".:rolleyes:

Kid Stanislaus
08-24-2011, 8:48 PM
You are disgusting. I come from a family of 7 children. This is America, not Communist China, so kiss off.

Are all of your siblings as charming and civil as you?:rolleyes:

a1c
08-24-2011, 10:04 PM
Where you there? There is not enough information in that article to know that.:rolleyes:

Huh... Did you even read the article?

g17owner
08-24-2011, 10:59 PM
He killed a bear BFD. I would have dressed it, butchered it and then disposed of the rest. Pigs will eat ANYTHING. Including trolls.

LMT4ME
08-24-2011, 11:42 PM
I'd like to chime in given a couple of bear encounters.

1st was when I was 7 playing across a small creek in Yosemite when a bear came up and bit me in the a** scratched my 5 year brothers back (requiring stitches) and grabbing my 6 year sister. My father came running with an ax yelling - bear took off - always wondered what would happen if bear stood his ground.

2nd - Backpacking outside Yosemite and just finished dinner, washed/cleaned cook kit and secured food up a tree. 2 bears wandered into our camp and sniffed around. Mean while across the small lake a couple was cooking and a couple of bears walked up and they started clanging their pots together to get rid of the bears. Well the bears in our site upon hearing the racket made a beeline to the camp (clanking pans = dinner bells). We ran over and after yelling and throwing rocks at the bears drove them off.

Bears are like large rats. Very intelligent and resourceful but very dangerous. If hunting bears was legal they would most assuredly avoid humans.

spalterego
08-24-2011, 11:45 PM
He killed a bear BFD. I would have dressed it, butchered it and then disposed of the rest. Pigs will eat ANYTHING. Including trolls.

Now, I think that is kind of funny. I don't like being called a troll but that is kind of funny. Pigs WILL eat anything and everything and convert it into bacony goodness.

If I was the kind of person who had no sense of humor I might get all butt hurt and call you a communist, accuse you of being in Greenpeace or say that you have offended me and I would have definitely accused you of making a death threat. Given that this is the Internets and since I tend not to get sand in my lady parts very easily :) I recognize a joke when I see one.

I don't see why we can't have a reasoned discussion, even with strong disagreements, w/o people fallling to pieces and accusing each other of all sorts of stuff. At least Godwin hasn't made his presence felt yet.

DannyInSoCal
08-24-2011, 11:48 PM
Your argument would be a prime reason the National Park Service doesn't want us to have guns in parks. Not you necessarily but Joe Bloehard takes his family to Yellowstone with his rifle. Family sees a Grizzly with cubs 200 yards out in a meadow eating spring grass. Stops car, family gets out and starts taking pictures. Bear gets up on hind legs and spots family. Dad gets nervous and starts shooting. Hey Grizzlies can cover 200 yards in less than 20 seconds. Pretty soon there are no more grizzlies in Yellowstone. He was just trying to protect his kids.

Spoken like a true libitard troll with less than 20 posts....

Trailboss60
08-24-2011, 11:50 PM
The charge of killing a threatened species is punishable by up to a year in prison, a maximum fine of $50,000, and up to one year of supervised release.

Wow..this story reminds me of another endangered species case...

A guy is caught by a ranger eating a bald eagle and is consequently put in jail for the crime. On the day of his trail, the conversation went something like this:

Judge: "Do you know that eating a bald eagle is a federal offense?"

Man: "Yes I did. But if you let me argue my case, I'll explain what happened."

Judge: "Proceed."

Man: "I got lost in the woods. I hadn't had anything to eat for two weeks. I was so hungry. Next thing I see is a Bald Eagle swooping down at the lake for some fish. I knew that if I followed the Eagle I could maybe steal the fish. Unfortunately, in the process of taking the fish I killed the Eagle. I figured that since I killed the Eagle I might as well eat it since it would be more disgraceful to let it rot on the ground."

Judge: "The court will take a recess while we analyze your testimony."

15 minutes goes by and the judge returns.

Judge: "Due to the extreme circumstance you were under and because you didn't intend to kill the Eagle, the court will dismiss the charges. But if you don't mind the court asking, what does a Bald Eagle taste like?"

Man: "Well your honor, it is hard to explain. The best I can describe it is maybe a combination between a California Condor and a Spotted Owl."

Wernher von Browning
08-25-2011, 12:00 AM
I hope this raises a big stink nationally. I recently herd about a case many years ago that involved a race car driver that was charged and convicted for taking his snow mobile into a wilderness area. It happened during a blizzard and he got lost. He was sited when he asked for help retrieving his snow mobile.

That would be Bobby Unser.

http://www.wildwilderness.org/wi/unser.htm

Poor guy got stuck next to me on a flight to Detroit back in the 70s.

dantodd
08-25-2011, 12:03 AM
I don't see why we can't have a reasoned discussion, even with strong disagreements, w/o people fallling to pieces and accusing each other of all sorts of stuff. At least Godwin hasn't made his presence felt yet.

Damned Nazi Grizzly Bears.

Joe
08-25-2011, 12:10 AM
Whoever decided to bring up charges should be sent to prison

five.five-six
08-25-2011, 12:27 AM
I really would like to know the name of the person who made the decision to bring charged

Trailboss60
08-25-2011, 12:45 AM
I really would like to know the name of the person who made the decision to bring charged

The buck stops at the desk of Obama, Ken Salazar works for him, and so does Cass Sunstein, regulatory Czar that is sympathetic to giving animals rights while stripping us of ours.

Peachdog
08-25-2011, 5:51 AM
a1c, humans should be the apex predator in this world. If we want it to survive then we'll put reserves up or raise them ourselves. This is humanity's world and we will dominate it. To hell with this living in harmony with nature or "respecting" it. We conserve so we can have the resources for later, because it BENEFITS US. That's why we put so much research and effort into environmental monitoring and nature reserves.

Any other predator that thinks humans are not a threat will begin to encroach more and more. Once you get generations of these animals that continue a tradition of raiding human land or eating people, then that's when their species truly becomes at risk. A single bear died in this incident and it will have no chance to ever teach its offspring (if it had any) that human lands are forage able. Better one now than many more in the future when people decide that they are out of control.

g17owner
08-25-2011, 5:53 AM
Now, I think that is kind of funny. I don't like being called a troll but that is kind of funny. Pigs WILL eat anything and everything and convert it into bacony goodness.

If I was the kind of person who had no sense of humor I might get all butt hurt and call you a communist, accuse you of being in Greenpeace or say that you have offended me and I would have definitely accused you of making a death threat. Given that this is the Internets and since I tend not to get sand in my lady parts very easily :) I recognize a joke when I see one.

I don't see why we can't have a reasoned discussion, even with strong disagreements, w/o people fallling to pieces and accusing each other of all sorts of stuff. At least Godwin hasn't made his presence felt yet.

I don't argue, and I didn't make a death threat, nor did i name you personally. So if you want to use 'reason' then you must obviously think you must be the troll and assume I was eluding to terminate your existence. Either you know exactly what you are what you are doing and how people perceive you (lady cleo maybe?) or are an internet troll who has a less than 20 posts, recently joined and has not contributed to a discussion other than to get people all worked up. In which i believe you have succeeded reading some of the members posts. ;)

FastFinger
08-25-2011, 6:20 AM
What is more dangerous in North America than a momma grizzly with 2 cubs?

An overzealous federal prosecutor?

Knife Edge
08-25-2011, 6:50 AM
Sadly, our government has become too large and dysfunctional. We waste money chasing down such acts as self defense for what reason?

Small limited government, small so it's no longer encroaching on things like freedom.

haole_50
08-25-2011, 7:14 AM
Appears the libtards are more concerned about the bears vote, than the safety of kids.

Andy Taylor
08-25-2011, 8:06 AM
Also, the guy had six kids, if the slowest one got ate, I don't think he would miss him that much. I mean come on, how many kids does one guy need.

You can't be serious.

emgee00
08-25-2011, 8:18 AM
When he wins the case, will they let him make a rug from the bear? :)

What a waste of $$ & time!

HighLander51
08-25-2011, 10:40 AM
Unlike California, Idaho, like many western states, allows deadly force in defense of both life and property. Pigs are property. This will be a test case for that premise, the Feds vs the State of Idaho, using the poor guy as the meat in the sandwich.

Untamed1972
08-25-2011, 10:44 AM
So does the guy get to "keep the bear arms"? :rofl2:

YubaRiver
08-25-2011, 11:22 AM
nmn

biker777
08-25-2011, 11:26 AM
Appears the libtards are more concerned about the bears vote, than the safety of kids.


^^^^ this...

Meplat
08-25-2011, 11:33 AM
Huh... Did you even read the article?

Every word. The reporter interviewed no one who was actually there at the time. Pigs were mentioned by the guy's father who was not there. Unless you have information not in that article you do not know if the kids were outside, were between the bear and the pigs, between the bear and her cubs, trying to protect their animals, or what.

Grizzlies are not actually endangered anyway.

451040
08-25-2011, 11:34 AM
Shoot, shovel, shut up.


Dead bear + live unharmed children == positive outcome.


:iagree:

Meplat
08-25-2011, 11:39 AM
At least Godwin hasn't made his presence felt yet.

Who's Godwin?

Wherryj
08-25-2011, 11:56 AM
Yes. And we don't know what the guy actually told the LEOs when they interviewed him, but if he at the time told them the bears were going after the pigs, and that the kids were not within threatening distance, then he's in trouble.



Not if his statement helps in establishing just that.



To paraphrase a well-known expression, the world is full of boneheads. The news have more.



Who knows. Maybe he didn't know the law. Maybe he thought - apparently like some here - that it's legal and acceptable to preventively kill predators on your land.

Anybody with a hunting license knows better.



They wouldn't put those kids on the stand anyway. They are interviewed and taped outside when they are (at least in CA, not sure about ID). I doubt a DA worth his title would do this in such a case anyway, that would not make him look good.

Good points. I sometimes forget that there are people who don't realize that there is an amendment that allows them to decline the state's invitation to be the star witness at their own trial.

Meplat
08-25-2011, 12:00 PM
I really would like to know the name of the person who made the decision to bring charged

It was probably a sandal wearing, bunny hugging, grant writing, federal parasite. And she probably does not smell very good either?:puke:

Wherryj
08-25-2011, 12:08 PM
Unlike California, Idaho, like many western states, allows deadly force in defense of both life and property. Pigs are property. This will be a test case for that premise, the Feds vs the State of Idaho, using the poor guy as the meat in the sandwich.

Unfortunately, it appears that the poor guy also gets to pay for the lunch.

Meplat
08-25-2011, 12:17 PM
That is a recipe for NO MORE BEARS. If that is what you want and believe in then just say so and we can disagree.

Grizzlies are not endangered.

I hope most people are willing to accept some amount of risk to enjoy things that inherently involve a certain amount of risk.

Enjoy what things? Raising kids? If so this man met the risk and mitigated it admirably.

Also, the guy had six kids, if the slowest one got ate, I don't think he would miss him that much. I mean come on, how many kids does one guy need.

Hopefully enough to overwhelm the voting power of the public school eco-freaks!

Meplat
08-25-2011, 12:23 PM
I don't know the actual law in this case but there are many folks in Rural Idaho for whom the loss of their livestock is essentially the loss of their ability to feed their family. It's unlikely that he has a well paying job and just raises livestock as a hobby.

If the bear is threatening the welfare of my kids by destroying my ability to feed them then the bear dies. Would you rather the guy and his kids end up on assistance for the next 5 years while he tries to dig out of the hole of a couple meals for a bear?

The nanny state, emoters would.;)

Meplat
08-25-2011, 12:32 PM
Really?? I am going to go home and hug my homo sapiens sapiens genetic material tonight. Their double helix structure is so cute at this age.

Would it be within my purview to employ my acumen as as "terrestrial apex predator" apply on Mars, or when the aliens try to abduct me?

Yes! The bear has a right to protect it's genetic material also. This is just a simple case of conflict of interest. Looser pays.

Perhaps an analogy would be helpful in sorting out your loyalties. You are in the middle of a dark ally. At one end is a mob of grizzlies. At the other end is a mob of humans. Which way do you run?

Meplat
08-25-2011, 12:40 PM
You are disgusting.

I come from a family of 7 children. This is America, not Communist China, so kiss off.


http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n637/allthecampingtrips/fam.jpg

With six brothers like that to back her up no wonder the kid has a "make my day" look on her face.:D

macadamizer
08-25-2011, 1:03 PM
Grizzlies are not endangered.

Correct, but they are listed as threatened under the endangered species act, so this is somewhat of a distinction without a difference. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A001

Also, there are specific laws that forbid the taking of grizzlies, and the exemptions for self-defense mirror those in the larger endangered species act, so again, the fact that grizzlies are not technically "endangered" is irrelevant. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr1179.pdf. See Section 17.40(b)(1)(B).

hammerhead_77
08-25-2011, 1:10 PM
Gunners, I'm from there. Born in Cd'A, P.O. box in Athol, graduated from Sandpoint High, drove up Ruby Ridge Road (yep, that Ruby Ridge) to go fishing several times a week during the summers.

Poaching is common ...often times for subsistence reasons. So the natural thing to to would be shoot it, dress it, STFU. Instead, we have here a case of a guy trying to do the right thing and tell the authorities what happened - not great judgement, but good intentions given the strong pro-gun, pro-rights, pro-individual responsibility culture in that area.

I've hit deer up there with my truck, called Fish & Game to ask what to do with it and been given recipe suggestions. This guy probably assumed it would be similar.

If you want to slight this guy for shooting the bear, please do yourself a favor and just don't go up to Idaho with that opinion any time soon. On the other hand, if you want to see the real crime, look at the HUNDREDS of raptors killed by wind turbines in our SoCal wind farms....and recognize that although the power companies admit to the kills the Feds have not levied a single fine!!

Golden Eagles are protected and may be wiped out due to collisions with windmills, but our dedicated federal enforcers will never try to mess with the leftist alternative energy industry Obummer has created. (BTW, I'm not against the wind farms, solar or any thing else...I think dead birds are the cost of wind power. pay it or burn coal.)

The real crime here is that an individual, seemingly vulnerable to the power of the Feds, is being used as a pawn to establish case law that places animals above the rights of people. Essentially allowing government to decide that not only is it more convenient for the government if you allow a human attacker to kill you than defend yourself, but that view now extends to anything else they deem more valuable than your life...

Kid Stanislaus
08-25-2011, 9:16 PM
Spoken like a true libitard troll with less than 20 posts....

Do you make intelligent statements or do you just make accusations? :rolleyes:

Kid Stanislaus
08-25-2011, 9:20 PM
You can't be serious.

She wasen't.:rolleyes:

Kid Stanislaus
08-25-2011, 9:23 PM
It was probably a sandal wearing, bunny hugging, grant writing, federal parasite. And she probably does not smell very good either?:puke:

Maybe like a fish?!:eek:

RRangel
08-25-2011, 9:26 PM
Whoever decided to bring up charges should be sent to prison

That would be Obama appointee Wendy J. Olson Idaho Attorney General extraordinaire.

gunsmith
08-25-2011, 9:41 PM
This will be an Idaho Jury right? Nothing to worry about, I live in a very rural area, us rural folks are all alike-we know we would shoot too.

Meplat
08-25-2011, 11:00 PM
The ESA is a pile of crap and one of the reasons this country is going under. There is actually a hunting season on Grizzlies in the adjoining state of Montana.

Correct, but they are listed as threatened under the endangered species act, so this is somewhat of a distinction without a difference. http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=A001

Also, there are specific laws that forbid the taking of grizzlies, and the exemptions for self-defense mirror those in the larger endangered species act, so again, the fact that grizzlies are not technically "endangered" is irrelevant. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr1179.pdf. See Section 17.40(b)(1)(B).

Meplat
08-25-2011, 11:04 PM
Maybe like a fish?!:eek:

If girls are made of sugar and spice, how come they taste like tuna?

macadamizer
08-25-2011, 11:05 PM
The ESA is a pile of crap and one of the reasons this country is going under. There is actually a hunting season on Grizzlies in the adjoining state of Montana.

No there isn't. It is illegal to take a grizzly in the lower 48. There is certainly a bear season in Montana, but for black bears, not grizzlies.

Meplat
08-25-2011, 11:10 PM
No there isn't. It is illegal to take a grizzly in the lower 48. There is certainly a bear season in Montana, but for black bears, not grizzlies.

There was a few years ago. If there is not one now it is because the bunny hugger Kalifornians have taken over!:p

macadamizer
08-25-2011, 11:20 PM
There was a few years ago. If there is not one now it is because the bunny hugger Kalifornians have taken over!:p

More like 20 years ago there was a limited hunt. A federal judge in Montana put a stop to it in 1991. Must have been a Californian that got nominated to the Montana bench, I guess probably Reagan put him there?

Tarn_Helm
08-26-2011, 6:34 AM
Wow..this story reminds me of another endangered species case...

A guy is caught by a ranger eating a bald eagle and is consequently put in jail for the crime. On the day of his trail, the conversation went something like this:

Judge: "Do you know that eating a bald eagle is a federal offense?"

Man: "Yes I did. But if you let me argue my case, I'll explain what happened."

Judge: "Proceed."

Man: "I got lost in the woods. I hadn't had anything to eat for two weeks. I was so hungry. Next thing I see is a Bald Eagle swooping down at the lake for some fish. I knew that if I followed the Eagle I could maybe steal the fish. Unfortunately, in the process of taking the fish I killed the Eagle. I figured that since I killed the Eagle I might as well eat it since it would be more disgraceful to let it rot on the ground."

Judge: "The court will take a recess while we analyze your testimony."

15 minutes goes by and the judge returns.

Judge: "Due to the extreme circumstance you were under and because you didn't intend to kill the Eagle, the court will dismiss the charges. But if you don't mind the court asking, what does a Bald Eagle taste like?"

Man: "Well your honor, it is hard to explain. The best I can describe it is maybe a combination between a California Condor and a Spotted Owl."

Laughed out loud.
:D

Skullster
08-26-2011, 6:42 AM
And some argue that there is not enough regulation in this country.

-hanko
08-26-2011, 7:59 AM
That would be Obama appointee Wendy J. Olson Idaho Attorney General US attorney for the state of Idaho extraordinaire.
Fixed it...;)

It's a federal charge, not a state charge. To my knowledge, no perdition permit is required in ID. A jury of ID peers will not convict :D, nor would an ID politician be behind the trial.

-hanko

RRangel
08-26-2011, 6:28 PM
Fixed it...;)

It's a federal charge, not a state charge. To my knowledge, no perdition permit is required in ID. A jury of ID peers will not convict :D, nor would an ID politician be behind the trial.

-hanko

Well, that's what I meant. :)

shocknm
08-26-2011, 7:01 PM
It's comin' right for us !!

:p:p:p

LMT4ME
08-26-2011, 9:43 PM
It sounds a little unfair to me but I am not as outraged by this as the posters above. Grizzly Bears are on the endangered species list and it is largely illegal to kill them unless in self defense. I am not 100% sure on the legality of killing them in defense of property such as livestock but it is my belief that it is generally NOT legal to kill them in defense of livestock.

The newspaper article does not provide enough detail to be sure of the circumstances but if all the children were inside the house and there was no threat or aggressive behavior from the bears towards humans then this guy could have called the nuisance bear hotline and had somebody out to the house and let the authorities deal with it.

If you choose to live in bear country you have to learn to live with them. You can't shoot every grizzly bear that wanders across your 20 acre property on the theory that you need to and have a right to "protect your children".

I understand that in this case the bears did more than just wander across the property which makes this a bit of a toss-up. This was NOT a clear cut case of immediate and necessary self-defense (at least not from information in the article). However nor was it the case of somebody shooting a bear just because he had an opportunity to do so.

The bears attacked livestock (pigs) presumably in a pen or yard and thus showed an inclination to not be afraid of human property and smell so there is some legitimate risk that the bears might return and not be afraid of humans. However they do have programs to try and either relocate problem bears, or use avoidance training etc. I am not sure what might have been available in this area.

All in all, I think I would be inclined to have somebody issue a lecture on not shooting bears unless there is an imminent risk and to in future try and allow the authorities to deal with such bears but to not prosecute.

So if a bad guy broke down you front door and shot your dog you would do nothing. The guy had every right defending his property from a large rat.

RRangel
08-26-2011, 10:17 PM
According to this news report the children were inside the house at the time. http://www.krem.com/video?id=128274773&sec=550072

Doesn't make it necessarily true and doesn't negate the fact the bears were killing his pigs but it will make a self defense claim harder to assert.

As a legal matter self defense requires imminent threat which doesn't appear to be satisfied if the bears weren't actively menacing threatening any humans (who were all inside the house?). Whether the jury sees fit to acquit regardless remains to be seen.

I'd be interested to know if the prosecutors offered him some minor misdemeanor plea before going ahead with this prosecution.

My guess is there is a little more to this than we know right now. Federal prosecutors don't like to loose and they know what the Idaho jury pool looks like so I would be surprised if they don't have a little more evidence than is being disclosed right now. Time will tell.

The federal prosecutors do their master's bidding. Worst case is that a mere door is no barrier to a grizzly bear. A male can easily weigh 1000lbs and they have super strength.

It's one thing to play Mr. know-it-all on the internet, and another altogether to face actual death from a creature that you may not be able to prevent from killing you or family, firearm or not. This is a grizzly bear we're talking about not a coyote. The fact that the shooter told authorities says it all. Your guess is just that.

Evo
08-26-2011, 11:09 PM
Haven't these people heard of bear spray? I'm sorry the endangered speices have more right to this land than this guy, the word re-introduction means that the Grizzlies that originally populated this area were wiped out at some point (genocide by human standards). If his child was cornederd or under obvious threat then fine, self defence. But live stock or simple fear is not acceptable. If we keep encroaching, killing and destroying all the natural places on this planet all our so called beloved kids will be left with is a desert.

Bruce
08-26-2011, 11:32 PM
Haven't these people heard of bear spray? I'm sorry the endangered speices have more right to this land than this guy, the word re-introduction means that the Grizzlies that originally populated this area were wiped out at some point (genocide by human standards). If his child was cornederd or under obvious threat then fine, self defence. But live stock or simple fear is not acceptable. If we keep encroaching, killing and destroying all the natural places on this planet all our so called beloved kids will be left with is a desert.

Somewhere there's a tree that needs hugging. :rolleyes:

dantodd
08-26-2011, 11:38 PM
Haven't these people heard of bear spray? I'm sorry the endangered speices have more right to this land than this guy, the word re-introduction means that the Grizzlies that originally populated this area were wiped out at some point (genocide by human standards). If his child was cornederd or under obvious threat then fine, self defence. But live stock or simple fear is not acceptable. If we keep encroaching, killing and destroying all the natural places on this planet all our so called beloved kids will be left with is a desert.

:facepalm::rofl::stuart::90::ban:

Texas Boy
08-26-2011, 11:52 PM
As for those stating that the five year old might blab at school-my six year old has told some of his friends that his dad owns a Veyron. I somehow doubt that testimony from a child is taken 100% at face value in a courtroom...

Wow Wherryj! Didn't know your gig was doing that well. When do we get a ride?

But back on point, I agree, innocent until proven guilty. Don't forget a Grizzly can sprint 40mph! If it is close and acting aggressive at all, it could be on top of you before you even got a shot off. To get a sense of how fast a bear attack happens, check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opSTg97Dko4

Shows a Grizzly charging a small boat (yes, in the water).

Southwest Chuck
08-27-2011, 9:21 AM
Here is a link asking for donations for his defense and has the complete story with pictures to show how close the Grizzly was to the children.
Idaho grizzly incident.pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/Jeremy%20Hill%20grizzly%20incident.pdf)

Attached is one of the photos

112138

Fastattack
08-27-2011, 9:51 AM
Another fine example of when plain old common sense is superseded by the rule of law.

dantodd
08-27-2011, 9:53 AM
If that story is what he told the prosecutor and there is no contrary evidence this sounds like prosecutorial abuse.

Meplat
08-27-2011, 10:14 AM
Haven't these people heard of bear spray? I'm sorry the endangered speices have more right to this land than this guy, the word re-introduction means that the Grizzlies that originally populated this area were wiped out at some point (genocide by human standards). If his child was cornederd or under obvious threat then fine, self defence. But live stock or simple fear is not acceptable. If we keep encroaching, killing and destroying all the natural places on this planet all our so called beloved kids will be left with is a desert.

Jane Goodall did a documentary on the wild dogs of Africa. In the pack they were following there was a runt pup. She “rescued” the runt that could not successfully compete with the others for survival and returned it to the pack. They were living in tents and a small camp trailer. Her husband kept a .458 Winchester for protection. She talked him into giving up the gun, because she was afraid that he or she, in the heat of the moment, would actually use it against a lion or leopard or hyena that was attacking their two year old son, when they were quite clearly infringing on the animal’s territory!!! Not only was the dumb woman willing to sacrifice her own child to the animals, she, who was supposed to be a learned biologist, did not realize that she did much more damage to the genetics, and thus the overall fitness to survive, of the wild dog pack by rescuing the runt and perpetuating its influence on the gene pool than she ever could by shooting one individual animal that was threatening her own offspring.

Human beings are the apex predator on this planet, like it or not. Any individual animal that decides to try to feed on human beings, or their domestic animals, or infringe upon their space is not long for this world. Thinning those traits out of the population of any animal is actually an enhancement to the overall fitness of the species for survival.

Bunny huggers are like cotton tails. A cotton tail rabbit will freeze out in the open and if you don’t move toward him he thinks you can’t see him. They are dumb as a box of rocks, and I can bag one with a rock, a slingshot, or my bare hands. I don’t really care for the taste of cotton tail, so I leave them alone. I consider them survival food. I also consider bunny huggers survival food. They are also dumb as a box of rocks. They withhold water that would grow crops to feed millions of human beings for the sake of a bait fish. A bait fish that is not native, is not endangered, and is found in every estuary on the west coast. Bunny huggers are survival food. When they destroy our economy beyond recovery I intend to survive on bunny hugger protean until the economy recovers. Regardless it is my ambition to eat at least one before I die.

OleCuss
08-27-2011, 10:34 AM
Jane Goodall did a documentary on the wild dogs of Africa. In the pack they were following there was a runt pup. She “rescued” the runt that could not successfully compete with the others for survival and returned it to the pack. They were living in tents and a small camp trailer. Her husband kept a .458 Winchester for protection. She talked him into giving up the gun, because she was afraid that he or she, in the heat of the moment, would actually use it against a lion or leopard or hyena that was attacking their two year old son, when they were quite clearly infringing on the animal’s territory!!! Not only was the dumb woman willing to sacrifice her own child to the animals, she, who was supposed to be a learned biologist, did not realize that she did much more damage to the genetics, and thus the overall fitness to survive, of the wild dog pack by rescuing the runt and perpetuating its influence on the gene pool than she ever could by shooting one individual animal that was threatening her own offspring.
.
.
.

You may be mis-interpreting her position. She may have recognized that there was something inherently wrong with her (given her inability to maintain a human-centric perspective) and that perpetuation of her genetics would be damaging to human genetics.

So she did what she could (short of suicide and infanticide) to remove herself from the gene pool.

Sucks to have something like that for a mother. I sincerely hope the kid was of higher quality.

Meplat
08-27-2011, 10:36 AM
Here is a link asking for donations for his defense and has the complete story with pictures to show how close the Grizzly was to the children.
Idaho grizzly incident.pdf (http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website%20articles/Jeremy%20Hill%20grizzly%20incident.pdf)

Attached is one of the photos

112138

The .270 ain't enough gun for grizzly. But you go to war with what you got.;)

Meplat
08-27-2011, 10:40 AM
Your point is well taken.;)
You may be mis-interpreting her position. She may have recognized that there was something inherently wrong with her (given her inability to maintain a human-centric perspective) and that perpetuation of her genetics would be damaging to human genetics.

So she did what she could (short of suicide and infanticide) to remove herself from the gene pool.

Sucks to have something like that for a mother. I sincerely hope the kid was of higher quality.

ScottB
08-27-2011, 10:45 AM
my knowledge, no perdition permit is required in ID. -hanko

You need a permit for perdition now?!

Wow, regulation really has run amuck. Personally, I don't think I'll be applying for one :)

choprzrul
08-27-2011, 10:54 AM
You need a permit for perdition now?!

Wow, regulation really has run amuck. Personally, I don't think I'll be applying for one :)

No permit needed if you know where the road is at:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5191N4198ZL._SS500_.jpg

Seriously, never thought this thread would get any kind of legs when I first posted it. Given the approximate 20:1 ratio of 'bear got what it deserved' to 'poor bear' comments, I really don't see how the current bunny hugger policies and methodologies persist.

.

Meplat
08-27-2011, 11:14 AM
Seriously, never thought this thread would get any kind of legs when I first posted it. Given the approximate 20:1 ratio of 'bear got what it deserved' to 'poor bear' comments, I really don't see how the current bunny hugger policies and methodologies persist.

.

Bear V child? Where's my rifle?

Foulball
08-27-2011, 1:32 PM
Haven't these people heard of bear spray? I'm sorry the endangered speices have more right to this land than this guy, the word re-introduction means that the Grizzlies that originally populated this area were wiped out at some point (genocide by human standards). If his child was cornederd or under obvious threat then fine, self defence. But live stock or simple fear is not acceptable. If we keep encroaching, killing and destroying all the natural places on this planet all our so called beloved kids will be left with is a desert.

Wait, wut ??? You'd actually try to use bear spray on a Grizzly? With two cubs following her around? Ahhhahahhahahaha!

Seriously?
:TFH:
:confused:

YubaRiver
08-27-2011, 2:19 PM
Prosecutor releases details of North Idaho grizzly killing case

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2011/aug/26/prosecutor-releases-details-north-idaho-grizzly-killing-case/#more

“Grizzly bears are unpredictable, dangerous predators,” Douglas said. “In my mind, there’s no question that the Hill family was likely in danger or that Jeremy, by his actions, did what he did in defense of his family and his property. I believe that our local IDFG officers did a thorough investigation and came to the proper conclusion that Jeremy Hill acted reasonably in light of the circumstances.”

P08
08-27-2011, 2:27 PM
Shoot, shovel, and scoot.

gabe123
08-27-2011, 3:03 PM
it can be a lot of things , but it's not "self" defense, or the defense of his family, unless he counted the pigs. It's just like shooting my neighbor's cat for attacking my fish...

InGrAM
08-27-2011, 3:07 PM
All or most of the posts by people against the man shooting the grizzly are from people with very low post numbers. Kind of interesting...

mag360
08-27-2011, 3:31 PM
this is pretty sad. The guy does the right thing after protecting his family and notifies Fish and Game only to have BS charges brought against him from some crappy Obammy appointee judge. He could have made a rug and burried it in his back yard but no good deed goes unpunishes!

MontClaire
08-27-2011, 3:41 PM
This deserves national attention. I hope at least Fox will pick up on it and blast the Dept of Justice for wasting our money on this prosecution. Shame on them, shame on our Govt. et all.

Newsflash: faux news have sold you out and the rest for S550 leases.;)

Meplat
08-27-2011, 9:43 PM
You do realize how big a hole you are talking about? I need a nap!:D


Shoot, shovel, and scoot.

jeep7081
08-27-2011, 9:50 PM
it can be a lot of things , but it's not "self" defense, or the defense of his family, unless he counted the pigs. It's just like shooting my neighbor's cat for attacking my fish...

Fish and kids are different :rolleyes: You really didn't just say that did you :confused:

You do realize how big a hole you are talking about? I need a nap!:D

Remove the bullet, and drag it off some where with a nice knife wound and blood sent. Let the wild life take care of the rest ;)

this is pretty sad. The guy does the right thing after protecting his family and notifies Fish and Game only to have BS charges brought against him from some crappy Obammy appointee judge. He could have made a rug and burried it in his back yard but no good deed goes unpunishes!

Right thing is to protect your family, and stay out of jail (don't call F&G). The rest is red tape to keep someone on salary.

Tarn_Helm
08-27-2011, 9:53 PM
Wait, wut ??? You'd actually try to use bear spray on a Grizzly? With two cubs following her around? Ahhhahahhahahaha!

Seriously?
:TFH:
:confused:

:iagree:

The Bear Spray Guild can never answer the serious questions:

1) What if the wind is blowing in your face as you spray?

2) What if a 600+ lb. grizzly takes an instant dislike to you and, full of adrenaline and hate, charges you with all its might?

3) What if #2 and #3 apply?

Bear spray could never work in those circumstances and should never be trusted!

jeep7081
08-27-2011, 9:57 PM
:iagree:

The Bear Spray Guild can never answer the serious questions:

1) What if the wind is blowing in your face as you spray?

2) What if a 600+ lb. grizzly takes an instant dislike to you and, full of adrenaline and hate, charges you with all its might?

3) What if #2 and #3 apply?

Bear spray could never work in those circumstances and should never be trusted!

Agree. If the tree huggers have a issue. I'll give them the GPS location and they can put pine cones around the shallow grave. :rolleyes:

I pray this guy gets a good lawyer and wins this.

Meplat
08-27-2011, 10:28 PM
Fish and kids are different :rolleyes: You really didn't just say that did you :confused:

Most huggers with a Walt Disney / Wild Kingdom outlook do not understand the realities of a rural subsistence lifestyle. I bet his kids won’t go hungry if the cat gets his goldfish.

Remove the bullet, and drag it off some where with a nice knife wound and blood sent. Let the wild life take care of the rest ;)

To ‘drag it off’ would be just as hard as digging the hole! It’s going to take a tractor, a 4X4, or a trained bull moose!

Right thing is to protect your family, and stay out of jail (don't call F&G). The rest is red tape to keep someone on salary.

Abolishment of the EPA would be a huge first step in cutting wasteful Fed spending and unleashing our economy.

dantodd
08-27-2011, 11:08 PM
I bet his kids won’t go hungry if the cat gets his goldfish.

This is a really important point and the first one that crossed my mind. But if you read the county prosecutor's memo she states that the pigs were 4H projects, not subsistence farming. Doesn't mean he should just let the bear eat them but it is slightly less devastating than I first feared.



To ‘drag it off’ would be just as hard as digging the hole! It’s going to take a tractor, a 4X4, or a trained bull moose!

The bear he killed was "only" 2 years old. Probably would have still been good eating. One freezer probably would have done.


Abolishment of the EPA would be a huge first step in cutting wasteful Fed spending and unleashing our economy.

Dramatically cutting might be more appropriate, they do some worthwhile stuff.

biker777
08-27-2011, 11:14 PM
All or most of the posts by people against the man shooting the grizzly are from people with very low post numbers. Kind of interesting...


yes I noticed that as well, they are trolls, tree hugging whiny trolls..lol:troll:

ivanimal
08-27-2011, 11:21 PM
I have often wondered why we have a Grizzly on our flag. They being Grizzlies arent afraid of us so we killed them all of in CA years before the flag was adopted. I am sure the ancestors of those people are the ones that put South Airport Blvd. North of the SF airport....................

I would have had to be there to judge, but a large omnivore in my garden would definitely get some action......

dantodd
08-27-2011, 11:24 PM
I would have had to be there to judge, but a large omnivore in my garden would definitely get some action......

That's what she said.

ivanimal
08-27-2011, 11:26 PM
That's what she said.

Dan we need to find you a date.............:p

Meplat
08-28-2011, 12:13 AM
This is a really important point and the first one that crossed my mind. But if you read the county prosecutor's memo she states that the pigs were 4H projects, not subsistence farming. Doesn't mean he should just let the bear eat them but it is slightly less devastating than I first feared.

Which could be even more economically damaging to the family. 4H animals are often sold at auction at drastically inflated prices paid by members of the local Ag and business communities. It helps the kids and builds local good will toward the businesses.

The bear he killed was "only" 2 years old. Probably would have still been good eating. One freezer probably would have done.

Yum! The leaf lard from a bear makes the best pastry. My mother and grandmother swore by it for pie crusts. The meat is rich like pork but stringy like horse.

Dramatically cutting might be more appropriate, they do some worthwhile stuff.

True, maybe 10% or less is worthwhile. They spend most of their money giving grants to radical environmentalist biologists and other assorted “scientists” for their pet projects. Manny millions a year.

Meplat
08-28-2011, 12:19 AM
The bear flag was created during the revolt when my ancestors took the republic away from Mexico. The last reported grizzly in California was killed in the 1920's.

http://www.library.ca.gov/history/symbols.html#Heading4

I have often wondered why we have a Grizzly on our flag. They being Grizzlies arent afraid of us so we killed them all of in CA years before the flag was adopted. I am sure the ancestors of those people are the ones that put South Airport Blvd. North of the SF airport....................

I would have had to be there to judge, but a large omnivore in my garden would definitely get some action......

dantodd
08-28-2011, 12:24 AM
Yum! The leaf lard from a bear makes the best pastry. My mother and grandmother swore by it for pie crusts. The meat is rich like pork but stringy like horse.


Now I want a Bear Pasty Pie. Damn you. Where can I get one to go at 1:00am?

Meplat
08-28-2011, 12:32 AM
Now I want a Bear Pasty Pie. Damn you. Where can I get one to go at 1:00am?

Central Camp, above Bass Lake.

Bring your Q-beam!:43:

jeep7081
08-28-2011, 12:38 AM
Most huggers with a Walt Disney / Wild Kingdom outlook do not understand the realities of a rural subsistence lifestyle. I bet his kids won’t go hungry if the cat gets his goldfish.



To ‘drag it off’ would be just as hard as digging the hole! It’s going to take a tractor, a 4X4, or a trained bull moose!



Abolishment of the EPA would be a huge first step in cutting wasteful Fed spending and unleashing our economy.

Ya, i'm too old to drag anything off. So, 4x4 was in mind. :D

That's what she said.

:rofl2:

Trailboss60
08-28-2011, 7:37 AM
I have often wondered why we have a Grizzly on our flag. They being Grizzlies arent afraid of us so we killed them all of in CA years before the flag was adopted. I am sure the ancestors of those people are the ones that put South Airport Blvd. North of the SF airport....................

I would have had to be there to judge, but a large omnivore in my garden would definitely get some action......

A bit off topic....


If you haven't ever taken a hike through Coyote hills over near Newark, it is pretty interesting and educational. At one time, bears feasted on the Salmon, and wildlife of every sort was plentiful...must have been a hunters paradise.

Dave A
08-28-2011, 10:34 AM
Perhaps the Federal prosecutor in Idaho should be shown this article from Fox News this morning.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/28/investigators-suspect-grizzly-bear-attack-in-yellowstone-hikers-death/?test=latestnews

Grizzly bears suspected in deaths of two hikers in Yellowstone Park. One hiker was definitely killed by a female with cubs and park authorities plan to do nothing as she was defending her cubs. Seems to me there is some parallel with the man in Idaho defending his cubs (children). I suppose the tree huggers would argue he could have gone inside the house, but very simply he does not have to. Who is at the top of the food chain on this planet, the grizzly, or humans?

YubaRiver
08-28-2011, 1:29 PM
Perhaps the Federal prosecutor in Idaho should be shown this article from Fox News this morning.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/08/28/investigators-suspect-grizzly-bear-attack-in-yellowstone-hikers-death/?test=latestnews

Grizzly bears suspected in deaths of two hikers in Yellowstone Park. One hiker was definitely killed by a female with cubs and park authorities plan to do nothing as she was defending her cubs. Seems to me there is some parallel with the man in Idaho defending his cubs (children). I suppose the tree huggers would argue he could have gone inside the house, but very simply he does not have to. Who is at the top of the food chain on this planet, the grizzly, or humans?

One of those bears would have no problem entering a house.

I wonder, in the minds of the bear huggers, what the ideal reaction should
have been for that man? In the long term view, if the bears had feasted
on pork, wouldn't all three then be accustomed to human food and eventually have been destroyed anyway? Perhaps two of three were saved
this way.

socal2310
08-28-2011, 4:25 PM
Those of you defending the federal prosecutors, read the link provided by YubaRiver:

According to Douglas’s findings, on May 8, Mothers Day, Jeremy Hill, his wife, Rachel, and four of their six children were home together as the event unfolded at about 7 p.m. The children, he said, were outside shooting baskets in front of the house, Rachel, not feeling well, had gone to lay down and Jeremy was in the shower.

Rachel, not able to sleep, looked out her bedroom window and spotted the bears about 40 yards from where the kids were playing, and ran outside, shouting for the kids to get in the house.

Jeremy, finishing a shower, heard the screams and looked outside, where he saw the bears. He grabbed up the only weapon at hand, his daughter’s .270 rifle, which was wrapped and unloaded, found three bullets, loaded the weapon and raced outside, not knowing where his children or his wife were, but knowing by his wife’s panicked screams that the children were in danger.

He stepped out onto the back deck from their bedroom and saw one of the bears climbing halfway up the side of the pig pen. He ran out and fired a shot at that bear, which was closest to him, and the other two bears, alarmed by the crack of the rifle, ran away from the pig pen toward the forest behind his house.

What would you do, hearing your wife screaming in panic and not knowing exactly where your children were? I'm sorry, I don't care if it was the last surviving female grizzly bear, the lives of my children are far more important.

Ryan

rspar
08-28-2011, 5:02 PM
it can be a lot of things , but it's not "self" defense, or the defense of his family, unless he counted the pigs. It's just like shooting my neighbor's cat for attacking my fish...


Except in this case your neighbors cat weighs 600lbs.

Like some of you I've been too close to bears on a couple of occasions and you feel threatened regardless of the bears demeanor. How is his family ever going to be safe with a Grizzly roaming around their home because has no fear of human scents.

swilson
08-29-2011, 8:54 AM
Who is at the top of the food chain on this planet, the grizzly, or humans?

Depends whether you are the human holding a bong stuffed with weed or the human holding a rifle loaded with softpoints.

Caladain
08-29-2011, 9:42 AM
Depends whether you are the human holding a bong stuffed with weed or the human holding a rifle loaded with softpoints.

While i'm not among their number, i am aware of a cross group's existance. What about the human holding the bong stuffed with weed and a rifle loaded with greentip?

choprzrul
08-29-2011, 3:49 PM
Amazed that this thread still has legs.

.

Rumline
08-29-2011, 5:47 PM
What would you do, hearing your wife screaming in panic and not knowing exactly where your children were? I'm sorry, I don't care if it was the last surviving female grizzly bear, the lives of my children are far more important.
I don't know about you, but if I charged outside and started popping off rounds every time my wife got freaked out about something I'd be well past my "three strikes".

I understand the need to defend oneself and one's family, but I do not understand why people move into bear country (Aspen, CO comes to mind) let alone BETWEEN TWO BEAR PRESERVES and then act surprised and alarmed to see bears on their property. Hello???? Then use the claim "well the bears wandered onto MY property!!" So did you post signs in Bearish notifying the bears that across this imaginary line is private property and to please not enter? We have a spoken and written language, maps, and the Internet, and we still have problems finding BLM land on which to shoot. How is a bear going to figure out where is OK for him to wander?

Do I think the shoot was justified? Probably, but I have no idea, I wasn't there. But I'm not getting the impression that the property owner did everything he could to avoid this outcome, either.

jwkincal
08-29-2011, 5:55 PM
I'm thinking that the difference between "Westside LA" and "Rural Idaho" figures into the formation of some of the opinions here... just a guess.

Foulball
08-29-2011, 6:12 PM
I don't know about you, but if I charged outside and started popping off rounds every time my wife got freaked out about something I'd be well past my "three strikes".

I understand the need to defend oneself and one's family, but I do not understand why people move into bear country (Aspen, CO comes to mind) let alone BETWEEN TWO BEAR PRESERVES and then act surprised and alarmed to see bears on their property. Hello???? Then use the claim "well the bears wandered onto MY property!!" So did you post signs in Bearish notifying the bears that across this imaginary line is private property and to please not enter? We have a spoken and written language, maps, and the Internet, and we still have problems finding BLM land on which to shoot. How is a bear going to figure out where is OK for him to wander?

Do I think the shoot was justified? Probably, but I have no idea, I wasn't there. But I'm not getting the impression that the property owner did everything he could to avoid this outcome, either.

You obviously did not read that the farm has been there LONGER than the BEAR PRESERVES, did you? Did you also know that as soon as a bear gets used to seeing humans their attacks greatly increase? Yosemite puts out warnings every year (as do most higher elevation camps across the state) that the bears are so used to people that they no longer avoid them. Grizzly bears are over twice the size of a California black bear (at least twice the size), and much faster. You never, ever, take the time to wonder if a Grizzly is going to come after you or your children. You MUST assume that it wants to and likely will eat you. Anyone who thinks differently will not like the results.

socal2310
08-29-2011, 7:25 PM
I don't know about you, but if I charged outside and started popping off rounds every time my wife got freaked out about something I'd be well past my "three strikes".

I'm willing to bet a considerable sum that you never saw a bear on your property when you went to investigate what your wife was carrying on about...

Ryan

dantodd
08-29-2011, 8:08 PM
I don't know about you, but if I charged outside and started popping off rounds every time my wife got freaked out about something I'd be well past my "three strikes".


Um.. he didn't just go out and "start popping off rounds" he reviewed the situation, saw bears trying to eat his pigs, called out to his kids because the bears were looking for something to eat. He noticed the kids didn't respond and terminated the potential threat.

That is a far cry from popping off a few rounds because his wife freaked out.

Also, it is pretty sexist and inappropriate to assume that all women are as irrational as your wife. Some women actually do not freak out except when it is appropriate. Having 3 grizzlies in the same yard as your 6 kids qualifies.

taperxz
08-29-2011, 8:37 PM
This is a really important point and the first one that crossed my mind. But if you read the county prosecutor's memo she states that the pigs were 4H projects, not subsistence farming. Doesn't mean he should just let the bear eat them but it is slightly less devastating than I first feared.





The bear he killed was "only" 2 years old. Probably would have still been good eating. One freezer probably would have done.



Dramatically cutting might be more appropriate, they do some worthwhile stuff.


Why is it slightly less devastating? Family owned pigs vs. big corporation owned pigs? When i have a problem either with a bear or lion the government has federal trappers that will come out and dispose of them free of charge. This is why i don't understand where this guy is getting charged.

Heck if no one calls the trapper he just sits at home collecting a federal pay check. Just last year a local guy had 3 pigs killed by a bear and trapper set him up in one night and disposed of it.

Meplat
08-29-2011, 8:45 PM
While i'm not among their number, i am aware of a cross group's existance. What about the human holding the bong stuffed with weed and a rifle loaded with greentip?

He will probably end up as a bear turd with a bong in it.:p

Rumline
08-29-2011, 9:49 PM
Also, it is pretty sexist and inappropriate to assume that all women are as irrational as your wife. Some women actually do not freak out except when it is appropriate.
Where did I say that my wife is irrational? Or that she freaks out when not appropriate? You are overly sensitive and cannot appreciate a joke. Piss off.

I'm thinking that the difference between "Westside LA" and "Rural Idaho" figures into the formation of some of the opinions here... just a guess.
At least one person got my point! ;)

You obviously did not read that the farm has been there LONGER than the BEAR PRESERVES, did you?
No, because the article does not mention that fact. Regardless, since "bear preserves" are a fairly recent invention, I'm pretty certain that the farm has not been there longer than that area has been a known home to bears.

I just have a problem with people who move somewhere that has a native animal population, (foxes, field mice, squirrels, bears, etc) and then complain when said native animals don't just magically disappear. I was trying to make a generalized statement based on this incident but apparently that was in error.

Meplat
08-29-2011, 10:26 PM
I understand the need to defend oneself and one's family, but I do not understand why people move into bear country (Aspen, CO comes to mind) let alone BETWEEN TWO BEAR PRESERVES and then act surprised and alarmed to see bears on their property. Hello????

The article says he is a lifelong Boundary County resident. That means that he probably learned about bears, how to act around bears, and what to do to protect you and yours from bears at his grandfathers’ knee, just like I did. It also means he was there before the preserves and before the two year old imported grizzly.

Then use the claim "well the bears wandered onto MY property!!" So did you post signs in Bearish notifying the bears that across this imaginary line is private property and to please not enter? We have a spoken and written language, maps, and the Internet, and we still have problems finding BLM land on which to shoot. How is a bear going to figure out where is OK for him to wander?

Easy, he uses his nose. He sniffs the air, smells people and remembers that when he was two years old his brother was killed by a people, with a really loud stick! If bears are not allowed to learn this evolutionary lesson it will result in the deaths of a lot more bears and a lot more humans. This man did both species a service!

Have you ever delivered a breach calf at 03:00 and gone to work at 05:00? Have you ever nursed a sick lamb or castrated a shoat? Have you ever killed, and gutted, and skinned, and cooked, and eaten anything? If not, get out and smell the sweat and the blood, the froth, the urine, the bile, and the dung, and the mud, then get back to me.

Do I think the shoot was justified? Probably, but I have no idea, I wasn't there. But I'm not getting the impression that the property owner did everything he could to avoid this outcome, either.

taperxz
08-29-2011, 10:36 PM
Rumline, Its painfully obvious you know nothing about wild animals!! In this case, anything short of shooting the grizzly would only have prompted a return to the home. If a pig was killed and eaten the bear would come back for more. Wildlife love easy food. That's why its illegal to feed wild animals in THIS state.

This doesn't even take into account that the family would be in danger? Google Bears/Tahoe and educate yourself on how bears learn to go into your house via a slider and invite themselves into the refer. Then get back to us ;)

dantodd
08-29-2011, 11:11 PM
Why is it slightly less devastating? Family owned pigs vs. big corporation owned pigs?

If they have the money and time etc. to treat the animals the way 4H animals are treated they don't need to rely on them for subsistence, that was my only point. They are still an investment and will likely be auctioned etc. I didn't meant to suggest he wasn't suffering a real loss only that, since he had the wherewithal to raise them as 4H animals their loss was probably not economically life-altering.

taperxz
08-29-2011, 11:24 PM
If they have the money and time etc. to treat the animals the way 4H animals are treated they don't need to rely on them for subsistence, that was my only point. They are still an investment and will likely be auctioned etc. I didn't meant to suggest he wasn't suffering a real loss only that, since he had the wherewithal to raise them as 4H animals their loss was probably not economically life-altering.

Understood. My life revolves around those animals that will not make or break me however it is all encompassing in life when you take on those animals. I am always worried about a bear or lion taking a lamb or calf. Trust me it gets very personal for those who raise them for food or 4H. Its really not about economics when it comes to this stuff. But, i know what you mean.

dantodd
08-29-2011, 11:29 PM
Trust me it gets very personal for those who raise them for food or 4H. Its really not about economics when it comes to this stuff. But, i know what you mean.

Exactly. It is a huge emotional issue and some kids have a terrible time at auction etc. it is only magnified if the animal dies to predation. My first thought of the guy was that these animals might represent a significant portion of his annual income.

taperxz
08-29-2011, 11:40 PM
Exactly. It is a huge emotional issue and some kids have a terrible time at auction etc. it is only magnified if the animal dies to predation. My first thought of the guy was that these animals might represent a significant portion of his annual income.

You know, in a lot of places in the country, that income could be a deal breaker for many things in life. I know several people with small farms that rely on that income. Its just not something that is thought of in most of the bay area.

I just hope this person gets all the support he needs to get out of legal trouble!!

Rumline
08-30-2011, 12:03 AM
The article says he is a lifelong Boundary County resident.
No, it doesn't. If you're going to lecture me, get your facts straight first.

In this case, anything short of shooting the grizzly would only have prompted a return to the home. If a pig was killed and eaten the bear would come back for more. Wildlife love easy food. That's why its illegal to feed wild animals in THIS state.
I never said anything to the contrary.

As I said in my previous post, my rant about people moving into wildlife areas and complaining about it is a pet peeve of mine. I erroneously applied that line of thinking to this scenario due to key facts not being presented in either the article or the video linked from this thread. The latter part of that paragraph was an exaggeration and attempt at humor. Clearly that and my other attempt at injecting humor in this thread failed miserably. Maybe I need to use more smileys. :) :D No I have never field dressed an animal or had an encounter with wildlife in which I needed to defend myself. :eek: If that makes me less of a person, so be it. :rolleyes:

Meplat
08-30-2011, 2:21 AM
No, it doesn't. If you're going to lecture me, get your facts straight first.
:rolleyes:

The second article by the Co. District Attorney, referenced longe before your post, does.:p

Meplat
08-30-2011, 2:33 AM
Again: Have you ever delivered a breach calf at 03:00 and gone to work at 05:00? Have you ever nursed a sick lamb or castrated a shoat? Have you ever killed, and gutted, and skinned, and cooked, and eaten anything? If not, get out and smell the sweat and the blood, the froth, the urine, the bile, and the dung, and the mud, then get back to me.



No, it doesn't. If you're going to lecture me, get your facts straight first.


I never said anything to the contrary.

As I said in my previous post, my rant about people moving into wildlife areas and complaining about it is a pet peeve of mine. I erroneously applied that line of thinking to this scenario due to key facts not being presented in either the article or the video linked from this thread. The latter part of that paragraph was an exaggeration and attempt at humor. Clearly that and my other attempt at injecting humor in this thread failed miserably. Maybe I need to use more smileys. :) :D No I have never field dressed an animal or had an encounter with wildlife in which I needed to defend myself. :eek: If that makes me less of a person, so be it. :rolleyes:

dantodd
08-30-2011, 7:57 AM
No I have never field dressed an animal or had an encounter with wildlife in which I needed to defend myself. :eek: If that makes me less of a person, so be it. :rolleyes:

not less of a person but pretty much unqualified to decide if the man was actually acting reasonably in the actions he took as it relates to safeguarding his and his family's lives.

lhecker51
08-30-2011, 9:35 AM
My one question is why call the authorities. We sit around wanting personal responsibility and liberty and the first thing we do when we exercise that liberty we run to Daddy Government and tell them what we did.
I have a moral, Legal , and religious responsibility to protect my family. So protect them and shut up.

I can neither confirm nor deny that a mountain lion was shot in the act of stalking livestock on a ranch in Ventura county and was subsequently cremated and ashes scattered to the winds. The "3 S's" rule may have been in effect: Shoot, Shovel (cremation is better), and Shut-up. The Shut-Up part of the rule is not violated in this post as this event is neither confirmed nor denied and not an admission that the event ever took place.

lhecker51
08-30-2011, 9:56 AM
No, it doesn't. If you're going to lecture me, get your facts straight first.


I never said anything to the contrary.

As I said in my previous post, my rant about people moving into wildlife areas and complaining about it is a pet peeve of mine. I erroneously applied that line of thinking to this scenario due to key facts not being presented in either the article or the video linked from this thread. The latter part of that paragraph was an exaggeration and attempt at humor. Clearly that and my other attempt at injecting humor in this thread failed miserably. Maybe I need to use more smileys. :) :D No I have never field dressed an animal or had an encounter with wildlife in which I needed to defend myself. :eek: If that makes me less of a person, so be it. :rolleyes:


I hope your pet peeve does not cause you anguish. Let's look at this logically: Man and beast co-exist here on this planet. How can you prove that it is not the beast that is encroaching on man's boundaries? As a species propagates and competes with other species do to the need for forage, those boundaries are pushed whether they be man or beast. Your "pet peeve" is just a manifestation of feelings that may be blinding you from logical fact. My opinion is both man and beast contend for the same spaces and those boundary lines move in both directions. Any species that live on the border of these boundaries most likely will encounter conflict. It is man that actually manages the beast knowing the need for the beast in the grand balance of nature. Mosquitoes that carry malaria and West Nile virus are targets for extermination due to the threat they pose to man. Grizzly bears that encroach and threaten fall under the same category and logic. Those predators that stick to their own territory and do not pose a direct threat are left alone, bears included.

KylaGWolf
08-30-2011, 9:59 AM
You guys are forgetting one thing all he has to articulate is he had REASONABLE fear of harm. IE he was afraid that the bears would go after the family once they ate the pigs. If I read the article right their were some kids outside when the bears showed up one of which was a toddler.

Someone asked why the guy called the police about it. Maybe he believes in the law and figured if he didn't report it right away and then found out later it would be much harder for him to prove self defense.

Rumline
08-30-2011, 10:14 AM
not less of a person but pretty much unqualified to decide if the man was actually acting reasonably in the actions he took as it relates to safeguarding his and his family's lives.
At what point did I pass judgement on whether that guy acted reasonably? Holy crap, you guys are great at putting words in my mouth! And by good I mean terrible. Here's what I said:Do I think the shoot was justified? Probably, but I have no idea, I wasn't there.

lhecker51
08-30-2011, 10:14 AM
You obviously did not read that the farm has been there LONGER than the BEAR PRESERVES, did you? Did you also know that as soon as a bear gets used to seeing humans their attacks greatly increase? Yosemite puts out warnings every year (as do most higher elevation camps across the state) that the bears are so used to people that they no longer avoid them. Grizzly bears are over twice the size of a California black bear (at least twice the size), and much faster. You never, ever, take the time to wonder if a Grizzly is going to come after you or your children. You MUST assume that it wants to and likely will eat you. Anyone who thinks differently will not like the results.

I agree with your comments. My opinion is that if I decide to buy land next to a bear preserve and I have a threatening confrontation with a bear I will not be thinking "The preserve was here first therefore I will lie down and accept my fate as a bear snack". I will eliminate the threat as a last resort. I will not subscribe to the silly logic of "they were here first so therefore I have no right of self defense".

The argument of what species was there first is not a defensible argument at all when considered in the full context of how any species propagates and the land required to support that propagation. Case in point: The fed decides to allocate and entire state as a bear preserve. Eventually the bear population increases to the boundaries of this new state-sized preserve and conflicts with humans eventually begin to increase. Animals populate to the size of their habitat and humans are the ones that manage just how large that habitat will be.

Rumline
08-30-2011, 10:19 AM
Again: Have you ever [...]
Does this kind of approach actually work for you? Just repeat belittling statements until the other person goes away? How mature of you.

lhecker51
08-30-2011, 10:20 AM
You guys are forgetting one thing all he has to articulate is he had REASONABLE fear of harm. IE he was afraid that the bears would go after the family once they ate the pigs. If I read the article right their were some kids outside when the bears showed up one of which was a toddler.

Someone asked why the guy called the police about it. Maybe he believes in the law and figured if he didn't report it right away and then found out later it would be much harder for him to prove self defense.

I have no problem with shooting any predator that destroys livestock. Unless the fed is going to reimburse me 100% for my loss, I will continue to react accordingly.

Rumline
08-30-2011, 10:23 AM
I hope your pet peeve does not cause you anguish. Let's look at this logically: Man and beast co-exist here on this planet. How can you prove that it is not the beast that is encroaching on man's boundaries? As a species propagates and competes with other species do to the need for forage, those boundaries are pushed whether they be man or beast. Your "pet peeve" is just a manifestation of feelings that may be blinding you from logical fact. My opinion is both man and beast contend for the same spaces and those boundary lines move in both directions. Any species that live on the border of these boundaries most likely will encounter conflict. It is man that actually manages the beast knowing the need for the beast in the grand balance of nature. Mosquitoes that carry malaria and West Nile virus are targets for extermination due to the threat they pose to man. Grizzly bears that encroach and threaten fall under the same category and logic. Those predators that stick to their own territory and do not pose a direct threat are left alone, bears included.Finally a reasonable person! I agree with your assessment of both the situation and my pet peeve. :)

taperxz
08-30-2011, 10:43 AM
Rimline, generally speaking, wildlife will avoid human contact at all costs. Wildlife have keen senses to allow them to avoid humans. When a bear/wildlife wander into human territory they have generally been pushed out of their domain due to overpopulation of that area or lack of food to support what is there. Weather, survival of other food prey like fish and what have you. All animals have the instinct to take the path of the least resistance. If the path of the least resistance is to raid human territory (house, or close to) there is generally something wrong with the system. Allowing a bear to run at will around humans will only enforce the path of the least resistance to the bear.

Bear speak, does in fact exist. Its simply in the form of smell and sound of humans. A grizzly is a predator and sometimes a grizzly gets hungry. As humans our only defense mechanism is the brain. Heck we can't even fight a deer in hand to hand combat!! The true argument here is the argument for survival of the human race. If we vacate the bear territory, bears will thrive in the areas we leave. they will soon expand their range to where we are.

For example, the San Francisco bay area was once loaded with grizzlys and Roosevelt Elk. Yes, we pushed the grizzly bear out however it had to do with human survival.

Do you consider the bay area grizzly country? It was! Shouldn't we bring them back here so that the grizzly can reclaim their territory? Where would humans move? Should the grizzly be allowed to feast on elementary school children? Think about it. ;)

lhecker51
08-30-2011, 10:45 AM
Rimline, generally speaking, wildlife will avoid human contact at all costs. Wildlife have keen senses to allow them to avoid humans. When a bear/wildlife wander into human territory they have generally been pushed out of their domain due to overpopulation of that area or lack of food to support what is there. Weather, survival of other food prey like fish and what have you. All animals have the instinct to take the path of the least resistance. If the path of the least resistance is to raid human territory (house, or close to) there is generally something wrong with the system. Allowing a bear to run at will around humans will only enforce the path of the least resistance to the bear.

Bear speak, does in fact exist. Its simply in the form of smell and sound of humans. A grizzly is a predator and sometimes a grizzly gets hungry. As humans our only defense mechanism is the brain. Heck we can't even fight a deer in hand to hand combat!! The true argument here is the argument for survival of the human race. If we vacate the bear territory, bears will thrive in the areas we leave. they will soon expand their range to where we are.

For example, the San Francisco bay area was once loaded with grizzlys and Roosevelt Elk. Yes, we pushed the grizzly bear out however it had to do with human survival.

Do you consider the bay area grizzly country? It was! Shouldn't we bring them back here so that the grizzly can reclaim their territory? Where would humans move? Should the grizzly be allowed to feast on elementary school children? Think about it. ;)
Bingo! Well stated!

dantodd
08-30-2011, 11:50 AM
At what point did I pass judgement on whether that guy acted reasonably? Holy crap, you guys are great at putting words in my mouth! And by good I mean terrible. Here's what I said:

Where did I say you thought he acted inappropriately?

Rumline
08-30-2011, 5:25 PM
Do you consider the bay area grizzly country? It was! Shouldn't we bring them back here so that the grizzly can reclaim their territory? Where would humans move?
Not sure if this question was directed at me, but I'm assuming it was. Seems like you guys are trying to get me to engage in debate as an ignorant urban hippie that wants to go hug every bear in the forest. Sorry to disappoint, but that's not me. I've already explained my pet peeve at length. I am not advocating relocating wild animals, I do not contest the right to defend one's self or one's family, and I am not of the opinion that all animals should be protected no matter what.

I do like the rest of your post. Well said.

Should the grizzly be allowed to feast on elementary school children? Think about it. ;)
If the kids were misbehaving, sure! Maybe we could integrate bear maulings into the "just say no" program. That'll scare em straight!
(note to those with no sense of humor: lighten up, this is a joke)

Meplat
08-30-2011, 6:25 PM
Does this kind of approach actually work for you? Just repeat belittling statements until the other person goes away? How mature of you.

It was just a question. If you felt belittled........... Well, I cant be responsible for the way you emote.

Meplat
08-30-2011, 6:31 PM
Well put!;)



Rimline, generally speaking, wildlife will avoid human contact at all costs. Wildlife have keen senses to allow them to avoid humans. When a bear/wildlife wander into human territory they have generally been pushed out of their domain due to overpopulation of that area or lack of food to support what is there. Weather, survival of other food prey like fish and what have you. All animals have the instinct to take the path of the least resistance. If the path of the least resistance is to raid human territory (house, or close to) there is generally something wrong with the system. Allowing a bear to run at will around humans will only enforce the path of the least resistance to the bear.

Bear speak, does in fact exist. Its simply in the form of smell and sound of humans. A grizzly is a predator and sometimes a grizzly gets hungry. As humans our only defense mechanism is the brain. Heck we can't even fight a deer in hand to hand combat!! The true argument here is the argument for survival of the human race. If we vacate the bear territory, bears will thrive in the areas we leave. they will soon expand their range to where we are.

For example, the San Francisco bay area was once loaded with grizzlys and Roosevelt Elk. Yes, we pushed the grizzly bear out however it had to do with human survival.

Do you consider the bay area grizzly country? It was! Shouldn't we bring them back here so that the grizzly can reclaim their territory? Where would humans move? Should the grizzly be allowed to feast on elementary school children? Think about it. ;)

Cr6IC
08-30-2011, 10:58 PM
I find it beyond presumptuous that a federal prosecutor in some air conditioned office somewhere feels that they gave the right to second guess a citizen who has spent his entire life in bear country. It was on his property; he felt his family was endangered; he called the authorities. Enough said. The idiot prosecutor looking to "make an example" will only make this example: "don't call the Feds".

Meplat
08-31-2011, 3:28 AM
I find it beyond presumptuous that a federal prosecutor in some air conditioned office somewhere feels that they gave the right to second guess a citizen who has spent his entire life in bear country. It was on his property; he felt his family was endangered; he called the authorities. Enough said. The idiot prosecutor looking to "make an example" will only make this example: "don't call the Feds".

Or worse. There are lots of ways to thin out the bear population. One does not have to wait until said bear is in ones back yard. And one does not have to make a great big attention drawing BANG. In fact one does not even need to be present at the time of demise.

If these people continue to make it difficult and dangerous for the residents of boundary county to enjoy there own property. If they continue to be arrogant and badge heavy. They will probably find they don't have enough bears left to justify there grant money. Then they would have to get a real job, maybe raising pigs.:43:

ivanimal
08-31-2011, 3:39 AM
The bear flag was created during the revolt when my ancestors took the republic away from Mexico. The last reported grizzly in California was killed in the 1920's.

http://www.library.ca.gov/history/symbols.html#Heading4

I stand corrected.

ALSystems
08-31-2011, 7:24 AM
For example, the San Francisco bay area was once loaded with grizzlys and Roosevelt Elk. Yes, we pushed the grizzly bear out however it had to do with human survival.

Do you consider the bay area grizzly country? It was! Shouldn't we bring them back here so that the grizzly can reclaim their territory? Where would humans move? Should the grizzly be allowed to feast on elementary school children? Think about it. ;)
If grizzlys were reintroduced to the San Francisco bay area they might snack on some of the nuts that infest the area. It might be a good idea, but I wouldn't want the bears to get indigestion. :D

mille806
08-31-2011, 11:57 AM
I'm not going to be surprised if the guy is convicted.

Judge suppresses any evidence that the bears were killing things on his property or that there were children in the area or that there might be fear for one's life - unnecessarily prejudicial.

So the jury hears only that the guy did, indeed, shoot an unarmed bear which wandered onto his property only a few miles away from a bear sanctuary.

And now there are two orphaned bears. It really is a tragedy.

If the guy wanted to be a true hero he'd have shot his kids and himself so that the bears would be unmolested by those pestilent humans - and would have had an additional food source.

This kind of garbage kinda makes me a bit irritated.
lol made my day haha