Feds Drop Charges Against Idaho man for Killing Grizzly!!

A

Alaska444

Moderator
Great news for those that love the freedom to defend yourself and your family from wild and aggressive animals. The charges against a man accused of illegally killing a protected grizzly bear in northern Idaho have been dropped. He accepted a citation for killing the bear and paid a $1000 fine, but no further prosecution will occur. Here is his statement of what occurred:

"After having family over for dinner on Mother's Day, I was outside at the basketball hoop with four of my children. I went into the house to take a shower. When I finished showering and was getting dressed, my wife, Rachel, looked out the bedroom window and saw three grizzly bears at the edge of our yard, but very close by, standing near a small pen that held the children's 4-H pigs. The last time I saw my children they were outside.

I grabbed a rifle and ran out on the deck. I yelled for the children, but did not hear a response. The bears did not move away from the pen as I was yelling. Fearing for the safety of my children, I shot the bear that was closest to the house. The other two bears ran across part of the lawn and into the brush.
The wounded bear followed into the yard, but stopped and turned toward the house. I shot the bear again. About this time, Rachel told me that the children were safe inside the house.

The bear I shot was badly wounded, and I believed at that time that it would be very dangerous to leave the bear wounded, possibly posing a threat to others. I also thought the humane thing to do was to put the wounded bear out of its misery."
Click to expand...

http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_6cbe8908-1deb-5a6e-b6db-7e6170112a6c.html

I am sorry he was stuck with a fine, but glad that they dropped the charges.
 
Today, 06:30 PM #2
Vermonter
Senior Member

Join Date: October 17, 2010
Posts: 186
too bad it was a rifle
If it were buckshot it could have settled some argument on this sight lol.
Click to expand...

Oh my, let's not go there again. LOL
 
so while were at it alaska

In the midst of your heated exchange of articles i never got an opinion on the winchester pdx round for bear. buckshot rounds followed by a slug in the same shell. I see it as tbe best of both worlds but based on the earlier discussion i would love input. It is currently my two legged and four legged predator defense solution. I have shot it a good deal and find the slug round to be good to about 50 yards and the whole round good to 25.
Thanks, Vermonter
 
one shot from a 45/70 and that bear would been dead! since he paid 1k it just show the world is all SCRED UP over a bear I guess it would of been better to be eating by the bear!.
 
Dear Jack308, sadly it is not the first nor last time where defending your property and family from a bear was prosecuted. Here is another I came across from a few years ago.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/09/21/loc_loc2stbear.html

I guess you just need to talk to a lawyer anytime you defend yourself or property from aggressive bears. By the way, a grizzly that is on a property after pigs is already exhibiting aggressive behavior since it has lost its fear of man. I am glad that there are no criminal charges, but there never should have been any in the first place.
 
So in the end this guy's kids were in no danger. He shot the bear in a panic.

If the kids really had been in danger there wouldn't have been a fine. As it was "panic" was a mitigating factor.
 
Dear Buzzcook,

I am not a lawyer, but does it not come down to intent when considering whether it was a criminal act? Not knowing where the kids are with three large grizzly bears in the yard should elicit a strong parental response. Panic, you bet if it was my kids that could have been in danger. On the other hand, I believe that not knowing where the kids were gives him the benefit of doubt in this situation. It looks like the Feds finally saw it that way, well after a whole lot of political pressure was applied that is.
 
So in the end this guy's kids were in no danger. He shot the bear in a panic.

If the kids really had been in danger there wouldn't have been a fine. As it was "panic" was a mitigating factor.
Click to expand...

Hindsight is 20/20. Let's not be armchair quarterbacks. The last time he saw his children, they were outside playing. Next thing you know there was a bear outside by where the children had been. Any father would have panicked and done anything to defend his children if he thought they were in danger. I would have done the same.
 
When that wounded Grizzly turned toward the house, everyone inside was in danger. Once the bear was wounded, it had to killed to protect not only his family, wherever he perceived them to be, and the public at large.

The fine was levied in order for the Feds to drop the case. They knew they would not win a court case, jury trial, but accepted the fine instead. Probably both parties were glad to end it with a money payment.
 
Hindsight is 20/20. Let's not be armchair quarterbacks. The last time he saw his children, they were outside playing. Next thing you know there was a bear outside by where the children had been. Any father would have panicked and done anything to defend his children if he thought they were in danger. I would have done the same
Click to expand...
.
American Eagle is right on what father would argue with that?
 
Grizzly Bears and Alligators should be treated as pests and hunted year round like wild boar. Just my opinion.
 
So the process worked. The Feds investigated a crime or potential crime, went through the paces, and a settlement reached.

A few folks here and many of the guy's supporters noted that since the State found nothing wrong, that the Federal government should not either. It doesn't work that way. State and Federal laws are not all 100% in agreement and you can violate one without necessarily violating the other.

I am not a lawyer, but does it not come down to intent when considering whether it was a criminal act?
Click to expand...

He intended to kill the bear though it posed no immediate threat to him or his family. I can see that going either way.

With that said, intent is not always what makes a criminal act criminal. Depending on the law, no intent may be necessary for the act to be criminal such as many of the "negligent/reckless ______" laws (where ____ is the particular act) that do not involve intent, but result in harm. In such cases, intent is often what distinguishes one type of criminal act from another.
 
Last edited:
True, DNS, but in those cases the negligence or recklessness must rise to a culpable level.

Not locking your car doors? Probably not criminally negligent.

Leaving the keys in the ignition, with your unsecured five year old sitting in the car? Potentially criminally negligent.
 
I don't know why he was stuck with a fine - if he didn't do anything wrong then there shoul dbe no fine, if what he did was wrong then by all means test it in court.

I wonder what ammo he was using - "Less than Lethal for Bear Cubs" ????

Jeez three shots...

If that would would have been a big bear and closer someone would have been mauled or killed.
 
It was obviously a political solution to this situation. The gov, both senators and a whole lot more folks made a big stink. This was the solution so the Feds could "save face." No more, no less.
 
I wonder what ammo he was using - "Less than Lethal for Bear Cubs" ????
Click to expand...

.243 should have been more than sufficient for the bear cubs, that were 2 year olds, as I recall, so about half grown, anywhere between maybe 100 and 200 lbs. Keep in mind that this was a spring shooting and so the bears were going to be much smaller than they would be in the fall.

I don't know why he was stuck with a fine - if he didn't do anything wrong then there shoul dbe no fine, if what he did was wrong then by all means test it in court.
Click to expand...

He wasn't stuck with a fine. He paid it voluntarily to avoid further prosecution where he may or may not have gotten off. It was basically a plea bargain. The Feds didn't exactly drop the charges and contrary to the article, he wasn't cleared per se. He took a lesser charge for which the penalty was just a fine.
 
Grizzly Bears and Alligators should be treated as pests and hunted year round like wild boar. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't live in grizzly country, but 'gators are a dime a dozen around here, and they really aren't a problem. Heck, I've treated them at my veterinary clinic. They aren't aggressive at all, and they aren't that difficult to handle once you learn a couple of simple tricks. They aren't exotic, they belong here - and they aren't pests as long as people use some common sense, so I can't get on board with exterminating them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top