Feds Drop Charges Against Idaho man for Killing Grizzly!!

This is why everyone living in bear country needs to have bear spray, even if you aren't a hiker, camper, whatever.

He could have grabbed both rifle and bear spray, sprayed the bear, and if still they did not run then resort to lethal force. Even if the outcome were still the same, dead bear, I think his defense is solid as it showed an attempt at a non-lethal outcome first.

And oh yeah, a can of bear spray is a lot cheaper than $1000.
 
I think he should have sprayed the bear too. With plated 000 buckshot from a 3" magnum. That griz would'nt have been walking anywhere...
;)
 
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 particular instance, had the father followed the law from the start the outcome would have been better for him and the bears.
The case for breaking the law being the ethical legal thing to do was only after the guy had broken the law in the first place.

It is a possible mitigating factor, it is not exculpatory.
 
Actually, Buzzcook, with his kids' whereabouts undetermined, and them having last been in the yard, the father's initial actions were also legal under that same doctrine.

Remember, it's not based on what we know after the fact; it's based on what a reasonable person, in the same situation and knowing what the father knew at the time, would have done.

At the time, he wasn't sure where his kids were, but they had been out in the vicinity of those bears the last he knew. Based on that knowledge, in that situation, what would most reasonable people do?

My money is on shooting; maybe I'm not that reasonable, but that's what I would have done in his place. Based on responses in here, that actually seems to be more the norm than is the stance taken by you and DNS.
 
Today, 09:15 AM #41
ripnbst
Senior Member

Join Date: November 24, 2010
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 342
This is why everyone living in bear country needs to have bear spray, even if you aren't a hiker, camper, whatever.

He could have grabbed both rifle and bear spray, sprayed the bear, and if still they did not run then resort to lethal force. Even if the outcome were still the same, dead bear, I think his defense is solid as it showed an attempt at a non-lethal outcome first.

And oh yeah, a can of bear spray is a lot cheaper than $1000.

Are you really serious that you would deliberately approach THREE large grizzly bears in the midst of trying to kill your pigs, and attempt to spray them with pepper spray?

Sorry, but I would not volunteer for that experiment. Please remember two things, pepper spray is NOT 100% effective. Secondly, pepper spray data cannot distinguish a successful spray encounter stopping a real charge from a bluff charge which skews the data towards a more successful outcome. On the other hand, using a firearm does not take into account bluff charges since a bluff charge will often end the encounter without a shot fired. This is not just my opinion, some "experts" in bear attacks have publicly stated this same fact.

Thus, I really would not recommend stepping into the middle of three large grizzly bears with pepper spray and saying beat it fellas. Go home. Not an experiment I would ever want to try.

Lastly, he the reasonable person on a jury should place themselves in the same situation theoretically and ask what they would have done. As noted above, I believe most reasonable folks unable to immediately locate ALL three kids would start shooting and ask questions later.

Once again, the $1000 fine was really a political solution so the Feds could save face in the midst of an incredible outcry up here in northern Idaho. I can tell you that the sentiments of those folks living here in Coeur d'Alene where the trial would have secured jurors is that the Feds were way out of line. The jury of his peers here would never have convicted this man. From that, I would have to further state that I live amongst a bunch of reasonable folks. The man did what any good an courageous father would do.

Think about it, how many of you would want to step outside with three large grizzlies with a little .243? Think about it. What he did took courage and quick thinking. The man done good. The Feds should just stay in D.C. and let the reasonable folks here in northern Idaho govern ourselves according to the 10th amendment.
 
Last edited:
Here is the often quoted study on the effectiveness of pepper spray. Something to keep in mind is the fact that 24% of their study encounters involved bears returning to an attack after being sprayed which required multiple pepper sprays to abort the encounter.

http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/RegionalNews/dh-bear spray.pdf

In addition, it is standard to discuss limitations of a specific study which in this case, there was not a discussion on the limitations of the study. First of all, it is a retrospective study based on limited records including state, fed, newspaper accounts and anecdotal. This limits what you can conclude about the pepper spray. In addition, as mentioned above, it does not take into account distinguishing a true attack from a bluff charge. One critic of pepper did mention this factor from an earlier study:

For years, bears have made bluff charges, thundering to within a few feet of hikers before slamming on the brakes or veering off on a new tangent. For years, no one had pepper spray hanging from their pack straps. For years, the bears and the hikers scared the heck out of one another but seldom did they actually hump noses.

"You hear these stories about bears charging to within a few feet and then cutting off the charge after hitting a fog of pepper spray, and you begin to make assumptions," said Kyle Johnson, the parks wilderness manager. "It would he easy to think it's the pepper spray doing it, but I’m not so sure.

Twice in the past week, park employees have hosed charging bear with the spray. and the bears have bolted. The same story has been repeated for most of the past decade, ever since spicy pepper spray hit the market.

But surely not all those charges would have ended in mauling, Johnson said. In the years prior to the spray, maulings were infrequent while bluff charges were the norm. To attribute all the recent happy endings to the spray, he said, just doesn't make sense. And it could lead to a dangerous false sense of security.

"I think it's normal bear behavior," he said. "They bluff charge, then run off into the woods. The fear I have is that these stories are giving us this false sense of security. People tend to replace common sense and careful back country practices with a can of aerosol. The idea is, ‘I've got my bear spray, so I can check my brain at the trailhead."

Johnson knows more about bears and bear spray than most. He has sprayed bears with the pepper concoction. He has himself been sprayed. He has seen bears sit unconcerned while he emptied an entire can in their direction.

"It didn't instill a lot of confidence," he said.

http://www.bitterroot.com/grizzly/Jarnison3.htm

Lastly, we do not have single randomized and controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of guns vs spray in a head to head determination, and we likely never will. When you analyze the level of evidence, retrospective studies can elicit a question for further study, but they CANNOT answer that question. Yes, it is compelling evidence to present on all of these cases collected over the years in Alaska, but you cannot definitively answer this question until you actually design a study and perform an experiment.

Since it involves deadly encounters potentially for man and bear, it would be unethical to conduct this experiment.

So, while I agree that pepper spray can abort an attack which is good news, NO ONE has proven it is 98% effective since the experiment needed to prove such an issue will never be completed. Is pepper spray something to bring into grizzly country, sure. But don't forget to bring a gun and several people with you as well. Mind responsible camping and hiking in bear country and be bear aware.
 
Actually, Buzzcook, with his kids' whereabouts undetermined, and them having last been in the yard, the father's initial actions were also legal under that same doctrine.

Actually ML, the kids' whereabouts were definitely determined and known to the shooter before he fired the killing shot that was not in self defense and not while any person was in any immediate danger.

I will quote this again because I don't think you were aware of it, but the father knew quite well and stated as much that his kids were safe before he ever fired the third shot.

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."

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?

Man, you just won't get off it, will you ML? Why are you asking me? Have I once suggested that the shooting was unethical? Nope. If you have a problem with the law, take it up with your Congressperson, not me. I am not debating ethics with you because I have already stated emphatically that downing the bear was ethical, but that don't make it legal. The shooting may have been ethical, on that we agree, but not legal and that is why he is paying a fine.
 
The third shot would have been defensible as continuation of the event that began with the first two shots.

It was reasonable for him to take the first two.

After that, it became the reasonable thing to do to finish the wounded bear that was doubling back on his property.

So it may very well not have been found illegal in a jury trial, especially in an area familiar with hunting ethics and bears.
 
It was reasonable for him to take the first two.

I disagree. I would say it was forgivable or understandable.
The 3rd Law - Always Be Sure Of Your Target And What Is Behind It

Where were the kids? If he didn't know would a cold blooded reasonable man fire if there was a possibility of shooting one of the children?

...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...

Ok if we are using reason, are the kids in danger or are the pigs in danger?

Would a reasonable man be willing to sacrifice some pigs in order to keep his children safe from a wild shot or bears?

While it is reasonable to shoot bears rather than have your kids killed or injured, in this case it is not clear whether that point had been reached.

That is why it is important that the man acted out of fear. If it wasn't for that fear, the prosecution would have a stronger case. It's possible the fine would have been much higher.

Lets look at the fine or compensation for killing the bear. Lets say for the sack of argument that the bullet had missed the bear and gone far enough to kill the neighbors cow.
The same motives are in effect. The man honestly believes that he has to kill the bear in order to save his kids.
So does he owe his neighbor for the dead cow? Certainly he is not criminally responsible, but that doesn't replace his neighbors cow.

The same is true of the bear. We can agree that he is not criminally libel. It is the civil damages we disagree on.
 
Frankly, I think the Federal law needs to recognize that predators that make a pattern of hitting farms need to be relocated, or else they need to be fair game. Predators that make it clear they don't fear people pose a very real threat.

So, we'll continue to disagree on the civil fine.

As far as backstops go, I agree... but.

Let's say we had an armed home invader break into the house. You aren't sure where the kids are, but think they are somewhere in the house. Do you:

1) take the shot, despite the possible harms that could possibly come from a miss or overpenetration; or

2) let the invader into the home unchallenged, and give him potential access to the kids?

Something to think about, in general.

I will say that $1000 is a steal, compared to what the court costs and attorney's fees for a successful defense at trial, and especially compared to the costs of a potentially unsuccessful trial.
 
While on the "livestock reimbursement" issue... the Feds are not noted for paying promptly, or paying good market value.

We don't live in a protected predator zone, so that's not of direct concern to me. But, if we did, our livestock is on the pricey side. Holsteiner horses; the trained ones sell for $50k plus, and the untrained but full-grown three year olds sell for $20-30k in a decent market.

Exactly how much money or property are we expected to let the Federal government effectively seize from us, by denying us the right to protect our property?
 
hmmm....................?

Let's see, ..........I believe that my children may be endangered by THREE grizzly bears in MY yard.

I can grab my rifle, ...............or bear spray..........or take time to find/load/locate what,..........both?

I don't live in griz country, but I would be stepping out on the porch w/ a rifle if this somehow happened here in AL.
 
Gehrhard, race horses are often in the six, and sometimes seven figures.

Dressage horses can go from $10,000 well into the six figure range. Highest offer my wife had for one of hers was $200k; that's her breed and competition mare, so she declined. Last two horses sold went for $45k and $50k.
 
Eghad
Senior Member

Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,717
So I am going to grab my bear spray and walk up closer to this grizzly....not
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member

Don't forget your Harmonica as well.
 
He said after the first shot that the other two ran into the brush, presumably from the sound of the rifle; why not fire a shot into the ground in front of the closest grizz? hit him wth dirt and pebbles. Not one of those bears was attacking anyone. Common sense! I find his story to be sketchy, I don't blame the feds for the fine.
 
Perhaps because if the warning shot doesn't work, you've wasted both time and a round?

The bear wasn't attacking anyone when he saw it! Now if the kids were in emminent danger I would understand.

Wasted Time? where was the urgency?
 
What was the urgency?

Let me see, three large grizzly bears in the yard with three of your children that have not been able to locate. Sorry, what was the question again?
 
Back
Top