Man Charged with Killing Grizzley (In defense of his family)

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JustThisGuy

New member
A 33 year-old man has been charged with killing a grizzly bear (a protected species) in his back yard where his children were playing.

http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_65972651-9003-5b14-b4e6-730e29ff6b8a.html

"COEUR d'ALENE - A man charged with unlawfully shooting and killing a grizzly bear had so many supporters at his arraignment Tuesday in federal court that the judge had to move the hearing to a larger courtroom."
Click to expand...

Perhaps there is more to this story than meets the eye.
 
I thought Coeur d'Alene was in northern washington near Idaho? Anyways, I know where porthill and sandpoint are. If this guy could lawfully own guns, then what's the problem? You can't take the chance(or at least you shouldn't be punished for not taking a chance).
 
I wonder if human beings are protected species too... :confused:

Probably a look into the details is necessary. Although I am an environmentally concerned person and love animals, I wouldn't ever put an animal's right to life before people's safety. Things like how close were the bears to those children or if there was any other alternative than shooting dead the mother (and leaving her offspring helpless in the wild) should be considered prior to charging this guy.
 
Last edited:
Got to be more to the story than just that snippet. Was the bear actually threatening while his kids were out or was he just hanging around the back yard where the kids "frequently play". I'm thinking the law is going to look at the bear shooting in the same light as they would a human intruder. If the intruder was jusk skulking around without placing somebody in immenent danger, not so much legal justification for the shooting.
 
My guess is the issue is going to be the immediacy of the danger. If the bears were simply on the property and the guy wanted to make sure they wouldn't be a nuisance/danger in the future, he's got problems. The fact the bear had been at his pigs might be relevant. If the bear appeared to be actively menacing the family, he'll probably be okay. I assume he'll testify to the latter.

Added: Doyle, I was typing as you were posting. I think we're on the same page here.
 
I'm not saying that we should let someones kids get eaten, but we also need to respect that other animals on the planet have a right to exist. I'm not sure why the guy didn't have his kids get in the house and wait and see if the bear left on its own or called animal services. We have bears tranquilized and relocated in NJ several times a year.

After reading the article, sounds like the guy was more interested in protecting his pigs than his family. I know a lot of guys on here would say protecting property is a valid reason, but seriously, pigs breed like rabbits.

Just food for thought and I'm sure you guys will think it's crazy, but as a species we make locus and rats looks benign.
 
Last edited:
[I wouldn't ever put people's safety before an animal's right to life.]

Not even if it involved the safety of your children?
That is pure nonsense.
Jerry
 
If the man's kids were near the grizzly, then it was a justified shoot. If the kids were inside or nowhere near the grizzly, then killing of the bear was illegal. I would not hesitate to kill the VERY LAST ONE of a species if it posed an imminent threat to myself or my child. I'm not sure if the bear was shot to protect property though since the article mentioned that the man raised pigs. If I was trying to protect livestock and I lived where bears frequented, I would probably get a high powered paintball gun and buy a bunch of pepper balls. I'm not sure whether or not even that is legal though since harassing endNgered species is also illegal.

There are American Crocodiles in my neighborhood and they are also protected by the endangered species act. Some girls were about to jump off of a dock into the canal when a neighbor yelled at them to stop. They looked down and there was a 6-8 foot crocodile right there.

While it is true that we have moved into these animals habitats, there has to be some common sense in terms of how to coexist with them.
 
I get the impression that he shot the bear at some distance.

The article doesn't say what agency charged him. Would it be Fish & Wildlife ?

I'm not sure but I am guessing that whoever charged him was thinking that what he should have done was round up his family and call the police. Since the bear wasn't actually charging him at the time that he shot it - the authorities are angry over him killing the bear.

It will be interesting to see what the prosecutor does with this in court.

Does anyone know what the law is on this? Do you have to prove that you were in imminent danger or something like that?

Given that bears are so fast and so ill tempered, unpredictable and deadly, I don't think the defendant is going to have a rough time proving to a jury (probably an already sympathetic jury), that he was justified in shooting.
 
[I wouldn't ever put people's safety before an animal's right to life.]

Not even if it involved the safety of your children?
That is pure nonsense.
Jerry
Click to expand...

And you are absolutely right. I just have read what I wrote and what I meant is exactly the opposite, so I'm going to edit my post. You know, I'm not using my own language and sometimes I can mix up things... :o

As others posters said, in the case of this guy, I'd have tried to get my kids indoors, but then, perhaps defending his property (his pigs) was a valid reason to shoot the animal. If food on the table for my family depended on those pigs, I would have shot too.
 
Sorry guys. I have lost more livestock to the dang wild critters around here. I had to give up part of the farming operation because the losses to wildlife are ridiculous. (Raptors, racoons and bobcats may be pretty, but they are destructive.)

I guess those pigs, which could have been sold to raise money for the family, are just not worth a plumb nickle. (At least they are not now, because they are dead.) Let the family go on the public dole.

Also, if I remember correctly, bears are lazy hunters. Once they find an easy food source, they keep coming back. When they have eaten all the pigs, maybe they will break into the house next.

A person should always have more rights than an animal. If the investigation finds he shot the bear "Just because" then he should be punished.
 
Without knowing more to the story i am going to side with this guy protecting his kids. I know if i had any i would not take any chances with mine
 
Some of the old timers here in the Coeur d'Alene area say that they simply SHOOT, SHOVEL and SHUT UP. I am not advocating that, but the article does point out that many in this area will simply stop reporting dead grizzlies to the authorities.

My personal opinion is that bears are dangerous especially grizzlies and a man has a right to protect his property. The government is way out in the deep end of this issue and people will be hurt. We don't need those bears back here. When they got rid of them over 60 years ago, that was a good thing for Idaho. I don't welcome these huge beasts back.
 
I am wondering if there is more to this story in regards to exactly who this U.S. Attorney is, an appointee right? And who appointed him to his current position?

Maybe if things were different in Washington I wouldn't even be having this line of thought. But I think we have an administration that is anti-gun, and pro-animal rights and this looks like a case where the local state and minuicple authorites - and a good number of citizens support the actions of the defendant but the Federal government has a different world view of this issue and is going to hammer them.
 
My personal opinion is that bears are dangerous especially grizzlies and a man has a right to protect his property. The government is way out in the deep end of this issue and people will be hurt. We don't need those bears back here. When they got rid of them over 60 years ago, that was a good thing for Idaho. I don't welcome these huge beasts back.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to insult anyone, but this goes back to the people are locust. I'd like my grandchildren to actually be able to see these thing in the wild and not in a history book. We destroy anything we fear until they are gone or until someone with a brain makes us stop, and it's a damn shame. If we want anything to be around for future generations we need to adjust our thinking and find ways to coexist instead of shooting first. Invent a bear proof enclosure and sell it for a million bucks, I don't know.

I get that bears are big and scary. But people need to get it through their thick skulls the bears were here first, WE are the trespassers. Conservation begins with everyone, not "the other guy".

Then again I'm a radical, if I was El Comander Supremo of the world I'd make it a crime to have more than 2 children. We're reproducing ourselves into a resource crisis. In 100 years there won't be enough of anything, and we'll need to start looking at planet colonization if we don't knock it off.
 
My personal opinion is that bears are dangerous especially grizzlies and a man has a right to protect his property. The government is way out in the deep end of this issue and people will be hurt. We don't need those bears back here. When they got rid of them over 60 years ago, that was a good thing for Idaho. I don't welcome these huge beasts back.
Click to expand...

Maybe the over-population of humans shouldn't have pushed them out of that natural territory to begin with. It's not the animals' fault that humans push them out of their natural range, ruin their grazing grounds, and expect them to live in small pockets of "wild areas" in extreme locations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top