Feds Drop Charges Against Idaho man for Killing Grizzly!!

He plead no contest which is not an admission of guilt legally. In addition, back to intent, I believe you missed the point of what I was stating DNS. You took a negative connotation when in fact, the law does allow for defense of life and property (DLP) when it comes to bears. In this case, he was not defending property but life. It was his impression by the lack of response when he called for his kids that they could be in trouble. In that circumstance, the state correctly ruled that no law was broken.

The Feds walk to a different drummer, but I believe as do most folks that actually live here in Idaho that they were wrong to charge the man with anything. His intent was defense of life and at the moment he shot the bear, who could argue with that. The Feds admit that they cannot determine where the kids were at the moment he first opened fire at a distance of 40 yards. With bears, that is a two second distance.

I believe he was within state and Federal laws to defend his kids by what he interpreted as the possibility of deadly danger. Unfortunately, bears have more rights than people today, that is not right. Defense of life and property will not in any manner impact bear populations. This case highlights the need to delist grizzlies which does not mean that they would be hunted, but people could defend themselves against these huge beasts.

I live in Idaho and if confronted in the woods with a grizzly that is aggressive, he is going down no questions asked.
 
From what I've read, male grizzlies often run around 900lbs, and a 2year old cub should weigh 200-300#, so about the size of a small-medium full-grown black bear.

IE, not small.
 
I have a problem with the fine. He was defending his property from predation, which is totally legal.

It is interesting the fine was $1000 (not the normal $12,000, at least here in WA.) Dropped far enough that the legal cost of contesting the fine would be more expensive than just paying it.

The problem is precident.
 
I dont know how I feel about this one, how can the guy say he was "defending his children" when he didnt even know where they were and if he knew anything about bears he would know that shooting at them isnt the first method of defense.
 
DNS said:
So the process worked. The Feds investigated a crime or potential crime, went through the paces, and a settlement reached.
Click to expand...
No, the process did NOT work. A father paid a significant fine for doing nothing other than trying to protect his children. It ain't like he went out in the woods hunting for a bear to shoot.
 
the fact that he didn't know where his kids were bolsters his defense - it doesn't weaken it.

It isn't necesary to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the bears were going to kill his kids.

If I wasn't sure where my kids were and there was any chance that any of them might be in the back part of the yard, or in the woods beyond - I'd eliminate those bears, end of story.

if I held my fire waiting for the situation to unfold and it turns out that one of my kids is out of sight - behind the shed or something and she gets attacked by the bears - what would I do then? The rifle is useless then because you can't shoot at a bear at distance while it's mauling your child.
 
No, the process did NOT work. A father paid a significant fine for doing nothing other than trying to protect his children. It ain't like he went out in the woods hunting for a bear to shoot.
Click to expand...

The man's 3rd shot was admittedly AFTER he knew his family to be safe and the bear was getting away. There was no eminent danger. That shot was illegal.
 
May of been technically illegal, but at the point it was the ethical thing to do. Perhaps the legal world needs a dose of reality and that is what Otter and the two Idaho senators are calling for with reforms to the endangered species act.
 
DNS, are you saying you'd recommend letting an animal, shot twice with a .243, run off to bleed out somewhere, or die of gangrene? Do you think that would be more ethical?

I'd say the coup de grace on the third shot was the correct thing to do, at that point.
 
I don't post on here much, but it seems to me that several people seem to find some fault with this guy and enjoy second guesssing him. I assure you, if a grizzly bear is within 100 yards of my family, it's going to be shot. It's pretty easy to find fault when they ain't your kids. YMMV.:p
 
DNS, are you saying you'd recommend letting an animal, shot twice with a .243, run off to bleed out somewhere, or die of gangrene? Do you think that would be more ethical?

I'd say the coup de grace on the third shot was the correct thing to do, at that point.
Click to expand...

Where in the world did you read, based on what I wrote, that I recommended any action based on and sort of hypothesized potential results detrimental to the bear? Nowhere. I made no such statements. I simply commented on the legality aspects.

I think the third shot was absolutely ethical. That don't make it legal. He was no longer shooting in defense of anything or anyone as no property and nobody were in any sort of immediate danger. He knew at the time of his third shot that his family was safe and stated as much. He stated the bear was moving off into the woods. I am not second guessing the guy, but the guy committed an act that he knew was legally fraught with potential problems and knew he had to contact officials about killing the bear because of the circumstances, but he did NOT lawyer up before making statements to law enforcement about the circumstances of his shooting which included questionable aspects.

Perhaps the legal world needs a dose of reality and that is what Otter and the two Idaho senators are calling for with reforms to the endangered species act.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they do. Until that time, what is technically illegal is still technically illegal and that was the law that was in place at the time of the shooting. He got off well with a minor fine compared to what could have happened to him.
 
DNS, the thing about the hypothetical damages to the bear is this: there's a Common Law concept about the lesser of two evils, which basically says that at times when following the law will yield a significantly worse result than would not following the law, breaking the law is defensible.

In this case, allowing a critically wounded bear to wander off, with two good .243 hits, would have been worse for the bear due to pain and suffering involved, and could have been worse for any human that might have encountered that bear before it succumbed.

So, a court might have found that third shot not to be illegal, based on that doctrine.

But it could, as you have said, have gone much worse, too.
 
"I assure you, if a grizzly bear is within 100 yards of my family, it's going to be shot."

Are you kidding me? 100 yards away and you'd shoot it? Have fun withdrawing 1000 dollars from your savings account mr. trigger happy. There is a time and a place to shoot an animal. A football field away from your family in an off season is not one of them
 
DNS, the thing about the hypothetical damages to the bear is this: there's a Common Law concept about the lesser of two evils, which basically says that at times when following the law will yield a significantly worse result than would not following the law, breaking the law is defensible.
Click to expand...

No, the hypothetical damages to the bear are what you suggested might happen to the bear, bleeding out and gangrene.

In this case, allowing a critically wounded bear to wander off, with two good .243 hits, would have been worse for the bear due to pain and suffering involved, and could have been worse for any human that might have encountered that bear before it succumbed.
Click to expand...

If they were such good hits or that the bear was critically wounded, why wasn't the bear dead already or immobile? Have you seen the post mortem somewhere that the rest of us haven't? At the time, the shooter didn't know the extent of the damage either. If you want to hypothesize about how the case might have gone, then you can also hypothesize that the guy made up the part about wanting to put the animal out of its misery. He first stated that it was wounded and dangerous. That seems to be the real reason he wanted to shoot it again...with his last of three rounds.

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...

The last statement really sounds like post hoc rationalization.
 
First, DNS, as an attorney let's stipulate that you know letting a wounded grizzly, that has already shown no fear of humans, get away WOULD be extreme negligence.

Now. You all are arguing as though the Feds were seriously acting like a benevolent, responsible, government of, by and for the people.

Think of The Federal Government as a mobster and this will be clearer to everyone. It simply wants to flex its knuckle-dragging muscles and take money. Extorsion is the main game. It wants its cut. It always gets "a taste." It is faceless, simple and lazy, bureaucrats with essentially limitless resources who make money off of the citizens; agencies acting as self-funded local criminal enterprises. And they can wreck your life with the stroke of a pen or flash of a gun in front of a badge. You got your own SWAT Team and prison system? This guy was going to pay-up to make someone look good, or not bad, one way or the other.

It stopped having anything to do with right, wrong, dead-bear(s), children, self-defense, lives, property, etc. the second someone let da crew know dey was goin' on a job.
 
Last edited:
DNS, why are hunters taught they have an obligation to find and finish their wounded game? The assumption is that the animal will not survive, and that it will suffer while it lives.

So, why should we assume the bear would have been all right?
 
I am glad the man got off as lightly as he did. It could have been much worse for him and his family.

I believe part of the fine was to send a message to others they could be in serious trouble if they do the same thing.


Post Mortem on the bear: Now that is an interesting idea. I wonder where the first two bullets hit and if they would have become lethal hits. (Would the bear have eventually bled out?) I have shot black bear and when they get the adrenalin flowing, they keep going.

PS - MLeake and DNS: You guys make me think too early in the AM. If I ever need a lawyer, I am looking you guys up! :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top