Feds Drop Charges Against Idaho man for Killing Grizzly!!
- Thread starter Alaska444
- Start date
youngunz4life
New member
some people just don't realize that a bear when he/she first sees you(a child in this case possibly walking or running around the house - especially a hungry mama bear with cubs!) can charge and attack. Not all bears are cute and curious about a possible cheeto or last bite of a ham sandwich. ALL that I am saying is that it can happen that Quick. I mean an LEO doesn't even take the chance with a family mutt who has never hurt nothing his entire life before putting one in his skull. Now many do Not do this, but sometimes you just can't take the chance. The bear situation is an automatic example(not in my opinion but rather via fact and/or common sense).
Three bears milling around a pen, not showing aggresive behavior, the guy didn't even know where the kids were. He either paniced or is trigger happyl. He got off light.
MLeake- Alaska; so you two are saying that even though he didn't see the kids, and the bears were not being aggresive that he had no time to frighten the bears off with a warning shot?
Last edited:
Clearly they dropped charges due to political pressure, not facts.
If you raise kids on the edge of the wilderness, they need to know how to handle seeing a bear; by one account the children started yelling, which would have risked attracting the bears' attention.
I'm tired of the refrain that Mr. Hill was fearful for his kids' safety, and that he had no idea where his kids were. That's only half the story, if you'd read all the articles linked in the first thread about this...
He claimed that the rifle he used to shoot the bears was his daughter's, wrapped and unloaded. He first went to the front porch to yell for his kids, then he went digging around for the rifle, found it, loaded it, and after all that time the bears were still poking at the pig pen and his wife was presumably then out front rounding up their children, because she yelled that they were inside right about the time he first shot one of the cubs.
Shooting the bears under those circumstances was not legal with bears being protected species, which they currently are in the CONUS at least. Sorry.
We can argue all day about whether the law should have an exemption for shooting bears to protect pets, or whether the law should be more lenient about situations where there's a threat but not an immediate threat. But the way things are right now, what Mr. Hill did was technically illegal, and furthermore both parents are at fault for raising a bunch of kids on the edge of two wilderness areas (on both sides of the river) known to have bears, while not having a better plan to deal with a bear sighting on their property. And Mr. Hill's first line of defense being his daughter's unloaded wrapped rifle?
Does the totality of the situation not strike everyone as showing a dangerous lack of preparedness? If Mr. Hill's story is true, and the bears had noticed the children and charged them when the wife started yelling, I think the outcome would have been tragic.
Of course, being woefully unprepared for a bear encounter, it's understandable that there might have been panic and therefore an overreaction, but that doesn't justify the overreaction. The other possibility, and what I think really happened, is that the children were already inside, and Mr. Hill was upset that the grizzlies were still poking at the pig pen, so he got a rifle and shot one of them, and the rest of the story was manufactured to justify the situation.
If you raise kids on the edge of the wilderness, they need to know how to handle seeing a bear; by one account the children started yelling, which would have risked attracting the bears' attention.
I'm tired of the refrain that Mr. Hill was fearful for his kids' safety, and that he had no idea where his kids were. That's only half the story, if you'd read all the articles linked in the first thread about this...
He claimed that the rifle he used to shoot the bears was his daughter's, wrapped and unloaded. He first went to the front porch to yell for his kids, then he went digging around for the rifle, found it, loaded it, and after all that time the bears were still poking at the pig pen and his wife was presumably then out front rounding up their children, because she yelled that they were inside right about the time he first shot one of the cubs.
Shooting the bears under those circumstances was not legal with bears being protected species, which they currently are in the CONUS at least. Sorry.
We can argue all day about whether the law should have an exemption for shooting bears to protect pets, or whether the law should be more lenient about situations where there's a threat but not an immediate threat. But the way things are right now, what Mr. Hill did was technically illegal, and furthermore both parents are at fault for raising a bunch of kids on the edge of two wilderness areas (on both sides of the river) known to have bears, while not having a better plan to deal with a bear sighting on their property. And Mr. Hill's first line of defense being his daughter's unloaded wrapped rifle?
Does the totality of the situation not strike everyone as showing a dangerous lack of preparedness? If Mr. Hill's story is true, and the bears had noticed the children and charged them when the wife started yelling, I think the outcome would have been tragic.
Of course, being woefully unprepared for a bear encounter, it's understandable that there might have been panic and therefore an overreaction, but that doesn't justify the overreaction. The other possibility, and what I think really happened, is that the children were already inside, and Mr. Hill was upset that the grizzlies were still poking at the pig pen, so he got a rifle and shot one of them, and the rest of the story was manufactured to justify the situation.
I have never confronted a grizzly bear, don’t know how terrified I would be. I know I would be a lot calmer if I had my M1a. Ain't nothing on earth going to last long against one box magazine of FMJ's. Based on web information Bears are rare and their populations are declining.
I see panic reactions all the times with snakes, people kill snakes out of fear, not just poisonous snakes, all snakes. Some poor non poisonous bug or mouse eating snake gets killed because of irrational fears, and I feel sorry for the snake. Poor snake.
I categorize this shooting as one of these panic reactions. Someone was acting out of fear and killed a bear. So I actually feel sad because another bear is removed from a declining population.
Whenever bears and people mix, bears lose. You can see how their range has decreased in the Wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear
I see panic reactions all the times with snakes, people kill snakes out of fear, not just poisonous snakes, all snakes. Some poor non poisonous bug or mouse eating snake gets killed because of irrational fears, and I feel sorry for the snake. Poor snake.
I categorize this shooting as one of these panic reactions. Someone was acting out of fear and killed a bear. So I actually feel sad because another bear is removed from a declining population.
Whenever bears and people mix, bears lose. You can see how their range has decreased in the Wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear
357, not sure how many rounds your bolt actions hold, but mine holds 5. I'm not about to waste 20% of my readily available ammo, when I might just need all of it.
tyme, I agree that preparedness was poor, and that based on a law that I think has been poorly written and executed, the shooter's actions were illegal.
But... I think the law should force the government to promptly pay market value for lost livestock and property. I think as long as the law doesn't really do that, the law effectively seizes private property, and on that basis think a Constitutional challenge could be interesting.
I also think, property issues aside, that the law should address bears that return to human homes. Bears that do that obviously don't fear humans, and are a threat.
As far as "out in the wilderness" goes... yes and no. We're talking the Couer D'Alene area. That's right off Interstate 90. So, yes, it's in the woods, and you don't have to go far to get into the deep woods... but at the same time, you are fairly close to a medium sized city.
tyme, I agree that preparedness was poor, and that based on a law that I think has been poorly written and executed, the shooter's actions were illegal.
But... I think the law should force the government to promptly pay market value for lost livestock and property. I think as long as the law doesn't really do that, the law effectively seizes private property, and on that basis think a Constitutional challenge could be interesting.
I also think, property issues aside, that the law should address bears that return to human homes. Bears that do that obviously don't fear humans, and are a threat.
As far as "out in the wilderness" goes... yes and no. We're talking the Couer D'Alene area. That's right off Interstate 90. So, yes, it's in the woods, and you don't have to go far to get into the deep woods... but at the same time, you are fairly close to a medium sized city.
I still don't see the justification for using ANY!
The guy didn't see his kids, he knew where the bears were and that they were not an immediate threat.
Seems a little trigger happy, if he is that scared at the threat of grizzlies than he should move.
You and Alaska keep mentioning "the kids", I really suspect the kids were never in any danger.
Actually he went to court in Coeur d'Alene, but he lives near Bonners Ferry right at the border of Canada. In his statement he notes that his property is in farming country and is not noted for any prior bear visits. He also is close to a major highway and has not had a bear problem.
Yes, living where he does in between two grizzly bear sanctuaries, you might have thought of having a better plan. I live in Coeur d'alene in the middle of this city of about 40,000 people. We see deer in our area all the time, so I do keep my bear gun easily available with my ammo next to my bed but not loaded in the rare circumstance that a bear might enter into the city. Never heard of them coming this far, but some cities such as Anchorage have bears throughout the suburbs. Yes, I would have been better prepared living where he does, but folks get complacent when they have never had a problem in the past. I suspect that they will modify their property with fences and have a better protection than a .243.
As far as his statements, I don't have a problem taking them at face value. I doubt many people are going to go outside and shoot a large grizzly with a .243 for some pigs easily replaced. Have you seen the bullet selection for that rifle? 55-100 gr bullets? Sorry, that doesn't make sense accusing him of that WITHOUT any evidence. Pure speculation.
Yes, living where he does in between two grizzly bear sanctuaries, you might have thought of having a better plan. I live in Coeur d'alene in the middle of this city of about 40,000 people. We see deer in our area all the time, so I do keep my bear gun easily available with my ammo next to my bed but not loaded in the rare circumstance that a bear might enter into the city. Never heard of them coming this far, but some cities such as Anchorage have bears throughout the suburbs. Yes, I would have been better prepared living where he does, but folks get complacent when they have never had a problem in the past. I suspect that they will modify their property with fences and have a better protection than a .243.
As far as his statements, I don't have a problem taking them at face value. I doubt many people are going to go outside and shoot a large grizzly with a .243 for some pigs easily replaced. Have you seen the bullet selection for that rifle? 55-100 gr bullets? Sorry, that doesn't make sense accusing him of that WITHOUT any evidence. Pure speculation.
357 Terms, I agree with Alaska444 on this one. I am NOT going to take a .243 against one grizzly, let alone three, unless I really think it's necessary.
I wouldn't take a .375 against three, unless I really thought it were necessary.
Good thing the onus is on the prosecution...
I wouldn't take a .375 against three, unless I really thought it were necessary.
Good thing the onus is on the prosecution...
Here's my take on this. If I am out in the wilderness, and a large
grizzly bear gets within 75 yards of me, it is probably gonna get
SHOT! I am not from another planet, Im from earth too, and I
have every much right to be in those woods as the bear! If that
cranks somebody off, tough garbanzos! That bear can cover that
75 yards in mere seconds! Im not gonna lose my life because of
a bear. There is a reason for them being on the endangered species
list, and the fact that they will kill humans is probably one of
the reasons!
grizzly bear gets within 75 yards of me, it is probably gonna get
SHOT! I am not from another planet, Im from earth too, and I
have every much right to be in those woods as the bear! If that
cranks somebody off, tough garbanzos! That bear can cover that
75 yards in mere seconds! Im not gonna lose my life because of
a bear. There is a reason for them being on the endangered species
list, and the fact that they will kill humans is probably one of
the reasons!
People actually live in these areas without having bears come unto their property every single day. I guess so many city folks just don't understand living in a place like this anymore. Encounters with grizzlies in this area are extremely rare especially during broad daylight.
I grew up in Alaska and we played outside all day long with the woods coming right up to our backyard. We routinely had moose walk through our yard and watching them cross the road when we were waiting for the school bus was common at the top of O'Malley Road in Anchorage. In my 10 years of running around the Alaskan countryside with my friends and brothers as kids, we never saw or encountered a bear at all. I understand that is not the same situation in Anchorage any longer.
That is the current situation in northern Idaho. The two legged predators are a much worse problem than bears even when out in the woods. The property where this occurred is mainly cleared with thinned trees around the property. At our home in Anchorage, the woods were not cleared in any manner. If anything, Jeremy Hill's property is much more defensible than what we played in as kids in Anchorage.
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website articles/Jeremy Hill grizzly incident.pdf
I grew up in Alaska and we played outside all day long with the woods coming right up to our backyard. We routinely had moose walk through our yard and watching them cross the road when we were waiting for the school bus was common at the top of O'Malley Road in Anchorage. In my 10 years of running around the Alaskan countryside with my friends and brothers as kids, we never saw or encountered a bear at all. I understand that is not the same situation in Anchorage any longer.
That is the current situation in northern Idaho. The two legged predators are a much worse problem than bears even when out in the woods. The property where this occurred is mainly cleared with thinned trees around the property. At our home in Anchorage, the woods were not cleared in any manner. If anything, Jeremy Hill's property is much more defensible than what we played in as kids in Anchorage.
http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Website articles/Jeremy Hill grizzly incident.pdf
Jack_Bauer24
New member
The bear has more rights than us humans. This shows you how screwed up this country is getting. "Shoot First and Ask Questions Later" when dealing with your or your families life!!!!!!
Scattergun Bob
New member
Just an up-date, it was reported today by the Spokane Review that a hunter was killed by a Grizzly in the Bonner's Ferry area of Northern Idaho. This is the same general area that this incident occured.
Good Luck & Be Safe
Good Luck & Be Safe
youngunz4life
New member
also, when driving down that hill as you are about to enter "Bonner's Ferry" limits, slow down before you hit the speedtrap! I got a ticket there summer 2010 and he gave me a hard time because my kids were in the car(gave me a hard time might be a little strong).
It was like a 2.9percent incline or something in one mile and the speedlimit went from hwy speedlimits to like residential - WORST SPEED TRAP I HAVE SEEN IN MY LIFE
Edward429451
Moderator
1000 dollar fine? Prosecuted by the feds? For making sure his kids were safe? Ok so if I ever have to shoot a bear to make sure the Fam is safe, I'm reloading in case the feds show up. No Bear has more rights than my Fam and I wouldn't pay 1000 dollars of my Fams money for the privilege of keeping them safe. 
eviltravis
New member
Whenever bears and people mix, bears lose. You can see how their range has decreased in the Wiki article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear
I got the above from Slamfire's post.
Going to have to call BS on the Wiki's bear range map. I live in Great Falls Montana and can tell you that we have grizzly bears being sighted out on the planes for the first time in a hundred years. Farmers and ranchers are seeing them far from the mountains. Hunters are seeing them more frequently in the mountains also. My personal oppinion is that the bear numbers are under reported in order to keep them on the endangered list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear
I got the above from Slamfire's post.
Going to have to call BS on the Wiki's bear range map. I live in Great Falls Montana and can tell you that we have grizzly bears being sighted out on the planes for the first time in a hundred years. Farmers and ranchers are seeing them far from the mountains. Hunters are seeing them more frequently in the mountains also. My personal oppinion is that the bear numbers are under reported in order to keep them on the endangered list.
American Tradition Is Endangered, Not Any Bears!
Well of course they're making up the statistics! The people who want to ban guns and stop hunting are targeting us, the average American, through these tactics.
Congress will be intervening soon, and especially after the 2012 elections if the Senate and Presidency move to the right, to protect us from administrative agency rules that are made up as they go along as well as from nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats who have usurped unlimited power over our lives.
WE are endangered, not grizzlies. Not even Polar Bears -- floating out to sea stranded on icebergs indeed. How dare they!
Well of course they're making up the statistics! The people who want to ban guns and stop hunting are targeting us, the average American, through these tactics.
Congress will be intervening soon, and especially after the 2012 elections if the Senate and Presidency move to the right, to protect us from administrative agency rules that are made up as they go along as well as from nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats who have usurped unlimited power over our lives.
WE are endangered, not grizzlies. Not even Polar Bears -- floating out to sea stranded on icebergs indeed. How dare they!