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

Status
Not open for further replies.
If only the dude would have buried the thing and kept his mouth shut....oh well.

Living in alabama we don't have a bear problem but alligators are everywhere. They got taken off the endangered species list back in the mid 80s I believe, anyway when it comes to dealing with a animal that can kill you its best to be safe than sorry. When I go to the river we are always armed to the teeth. But the other 99 percent of the time I have nothing to worry about. Y'all on the other hand have to deal with that crap every day...I would hate to have to deal with gators like that so my opinion is if you are in doubt...shoot. it isn't worth a persons life.
 
zukiphile said:
Vanya said:
If no one is in immediate danger, then, by definition, there are other alternatives: getting the kids inside and calling the FWS would have been an obvious one.
Click to expand...
Can we acknowledge that this is not a solution to having a bear in your yard? As Mike indicates, either you will need to put those children beyond the range of the bear, or as I have suggested, killing the bear means it can't kill your children.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to acknowledge that if you have a bear in your yard, killing it is a solution.

However, under current law, it isn't a legal solution in the absence of an immediate threat.
......

Alaska444, the link you posted, to a document from a website soliciting funds for Mr. Hill's defense, isn't exactly giving an unbiased version of these events; it's either naive or disingenuous to suggest that it is.

The version of events given in that document directly contradicts previous statements made by members of Mr. Hill's own family. The account you linked to says:
From their bedroom window, [Hill's wife] saw three grizzly bears attacking the pen containing the children's 4-H pigs. Not being able to see the other four children playing basketball, Jeremy and Rachel were instantly afraid for their children's lives. Jeremy yelled at the bears and called for his children. After receiving no immediate response from his children, Jeremy gave the baby to Rachel, and retrieved his daughter's 270 rifle from the laundry room. Jeremy then went out onto the front porch yelling for his children. Hearing no response and in fear that his children were in serious danger, Jeremy shot the closest bear about 40 yards away.​
The published news story I linked in my first post gives this version:
Hill's father, Mike Hill, told The Press that three grizzly bears, a mother and two cubs, wandered onto his son's property.

He said the bears were spotted buy some of Jeremy Hill's six kids, who had been outside playing. They called to their father, who was inside the house.

He came out with a rifle and shot and killed one of the bears, then called authorities to report the death.​
So we now have two completely different versions of what happened, from people who support Mr. Hill? Either someone here isn't telling the truth, or they're very confused about what did happen... either way, it makes a poor impression.

But in any case, we're talking past each other. As various people keep pointing out, the legality of the shooting under current law and the question of whether the law should be changed are two completely separate issues.

One of the guiding principles of this forum, I believe, is that as gun owners, we are law-abiding citizens; I think that means that we're supposed to obey the law as it is, and not decide to ignore the parts of it we don't agree with.

Basta.
 
I don't think it should be necessary to wait until the bear is charging you before you can take defensive action. By then, it's most likely way too late.

And people come first.

--Wag--
 
Dear Vanya, the governor of Idaho believes he was lawfully exercising his right to protect his property and his kids. In addition, he fully complied with regulations in reporting the dead bear. He was not poaching in any manner. As of yet, NONE of us have seen anything but biased reports unless you are trying to insinuate that newspaper accounts are accurate and unbiased.

I stated, if true, then this would be a case of self defense. I am not in any manner advocating against any current laws. If you look up the history of grizzly deaths in northern Idaho in the last couple of years, you will see that two bears have been killed prior to this incident. The first in 2007 was killed near Kelly Creek by the Montana/Idaho border by a black bear hunter that thought it was a black bear, not a grizzly. He was not prosecuted since it was not his intention to kill a grizzly, it was an accident. Another bear was killed in 2009 at Rose Lake by an elk rancher who thought it was a black bear killing his elk. Neither were prosecuted.

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2009/06/14/grizzly-shot-elk-farmer-south-of-interstate-90/

The standard of imminent threat of grave bodily harm or death is one that is in the eye of the beholder. I believe the accounts that was the intent of this man. We will of course have to wait to hear the actual evidence, not just websites that are either supportive or not supportive. The website I gave did give factual evidence such as the type of property the man had. It is rugged country living. His kids were outside and that placed them at risk period. Don't forget, a bear can cover huge territory incredibly fast faster than many horses.

Once the testimony comes in and I would remind you that the only witnesses are this man and his family, we will see where it leads. Until then, you don't have any unbiased sources, nor do I. Not sure what your point is to quote from a NEWSPAPER as evidence of bias on the site I posted. Every man is allowed the right to answer charges. If it is true as listed on the supporters website as listed, I vote to acquit and in actuality, the charges should really be dismissed.

That is not in any manner lawlessness. In fact, it is an issue I must answer every time I go into the deep woods of Idaho and Montana. Three weeks ago I was at the bull river campground which is inside the Cabinet-yaak recovery zone. I took my .44 magnum and if needed, I was prepared to use it to defend my wife and my friends. Fortunately, with large numbers of people in the camp, that was not an issue.

A week ago, we went camping on the St. Joe River which is near the area where the two bears in the story above are listed. One of my friends and I went up the mountain to do some practice shooting. If we encountered a bear, I had my .44 magnum ready to defend us both and I would have had no qualms doing so in the right circumstances.

This was a mother bear and two fully grown cubs, two year old capable of living on their own. That means there were THREE large grizzly bears within a matter of feet or yards of the kids with them outside and at risk. If the account is accurate that they did not respond to the calls of the parents, and how many kids listen to parents anyway, then what person who has kids would have acted any different than this man?

I see a whole lot of folks judging this man without having all of the knowledge and data of the case. The very least he deserves is to have the assumption of innocence and the right to face his accusers. In my mind, the fact that he reported this bear to the authorities knowing full well the laws and regulations as we all do here in the lower 48 grizzly country, that in itself speaks of his wish to only protect his family and remain in compliance with the law. I see no evidence to date in the limited sources we have of any criminal intent on his part. If you have that information, please bring it to our attention.

Thank you,

Alaska
 
Dear Vanya,

In addition, it is not a contradiction to have kids yelling for their dad and he didn't hear them and mom and dad yelling for the kids and they didn't hear them either. BOTH versions of the story could STILL be true.

Lastly, you completely overlooked the key point of the story you listed of Governor Otter's letter requesting the case be dropped after the entire city council where this man lives requested the governor's intervention. These are his peers that live with the same fears and dangers that anyone in grizzly country deals with. You state the bears were sighted prior to this encounter, but do you have information that they had been sighted on his property so that he could "keep his kids locked up inside for a few days."

In any case, so many of you are already convicted this man without any of the main facts of this case in accepted legal testimony. Defending your loved ones from a grizzly is allowed and recognized under the law. This is not a case of poaching.

I will wait to hear the entire details of this case before I cast judgement against a man simply defending his kids according to the several accounts we know of to date. Go back and read over the article you posted and see the incredible support he has even from his own governor. This is an irrational prosecution and a grave miscalculation in my mind by the Feds who in many ways are in a very adversarial relationship with the people of Idaho.
 
Here is a very interesting look at the issue from Huffington post of all sources.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/jeremy-hill-grizzly-bear-shooting_n_936369.html

i would take issue with the last statement by some so called expert stating if the bears were just grazing, then it will be difficult to prove any imminent danger. Are you serious? Take a look at some grazing grizzlies and ask how long it took to become a dangerous situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bx-0Jg3tX0

Folks make a lot of ignorant statements about bears. It takes no more provocation than simply smelling a man nearby to turn a mother grizzly into a raging beast coming to do great damage. Once again, just ask the man in Yellowstone a couple of months back what it took to provoke a deadly attack. The man recognized a serious and present danger simply having three adult grizzly bears on his property at one time. In fact, having two juvenile bear is even more dangerous since they are most often involved in man-bear encounters.

I truly do not see a lot of well thought out complaints against this man by several on this thread so far once again without any official reports made public yet. Yet, several of you are ready to hang this man from the rafters. Once again, truly amazing coming from a firearms webpage, that is something I would expect from an environmental group to judge so harshly without all of the facts. Truly amazing.
 
Not only is the Governor of Idaho on his side, he also has the support of both US Senators from Idaho as well.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2011/aug/26/idaho-senators-weigh-grizzly-shooting/

Grizzly Shooting Charges Elicit Outrage in Idaho

http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/grizzly_shooting_charges_elicit_outrage_in_idaho/C41/L41/

Community, politicians back man in grizzly bear shooting

http://www.capitalpress.com/idaho/mw-Bonners-Ferry-hog-sale-090211-courtesy-art

I will keep this in the back of my mind and go to the next hearing whenever it is to see what the prosecution actually has against this man. Why not, I live right here in Coeur d'Alene where the court case will take place.
 
Last edited:
That is just mumbo jumbo legaleze for a species that has actually strengthened in numbers if you look at the ENTIRE population in the North America. Just cuz some folk are smart enough to rid themselves of this predator does not mean in any sense it is a threatened species. It is in fact a thriving population increasing in the Lower 48 by 3% each year. The estimated population before man was 50-100,000 in all of North America from Mexico to Canada and Alaska. It actually was a plains animal in many western states.

Today, the total North American population which is INCREASING is about 55-60,000 in a more confined area. In Canada, they have spread eastward into areas that they did not populate historically.
Click to expand...

A thought experiment, then. Suppose humans populate every habitable area for a certain <insert dangerous animal here>. Are you then perfectly okay with seeing that species go extinct? If not, at some limit, humans who live on the fringes of the wilderness need to restrain their own behavior with regard to endangered animals.

With a grizzly population on the order of 1000-2000 in the lower 48, is it so unreasonable to suggest that they should only be shot if someone's life is in danger?

We can't have it both ways. If so few grizzlies still represent an unacceptable threat that people in those areas are not willing to live with, public policy needs to be changed to allow them to go extinct in the Northwestern U.S., leaving them to western Canada and Alaska.

Whether such a public policy would be wise is another question, but people in those areas need to get laws changed so that grizzlies can be eliminated, or they need to live with grizzlies as long as the bears are not posing an immediate threat to humans.

The pigs were not his livelihood. The article says his kids were raising the pigs. He doesn't get much sympathy from me, living on the edge of the wilderness and keeping animals in a pen. You don't have to be Nostradamus to realize those animals are in danger. Killing endangered animals to protect pets living outdoors is simply not acceptable. I'm sure there are bear-proof animal enclosures, but they're probably expensive and unsightly. Nevertheless, if he couldn't protect his outdoor pets any other way except by killing endangered grizzlies, maybe he should have reevaluated his pet situation before he killed a grizzly and got (predictably) charged for it.

As for the non-imminent threat to his children, that seems like a post-hoc defense, but even if that was the real reason for killing the bear, maybe he should have taken his children inside instead?

He lives in extreme northern Idaho. What does he expect? The article mentions that he is 5 miles away from the nearby designated Grizzly recovery zone... as if that's supposed to mean something. Unless there's some secret genetic engineering project going on up there, wildlife, including the grizzly, doesn't read maps... even if they could, I don't see much of an effort to airdrop a bunch of maps in grizzly territory informing them exactly where they should and shouldn't roam.

Let's be realistic. Even if grizzly bears shouldn't be listed as endangered, if you live near grizzly territory how is it productive to kill bears except in immediate self defense? Killing one or three bears that stray onto your property is not going to accomplish much in the long term if there's a stable (or growing) population nearby.

Would taking grizzlies off the endangered list be a solution? (Which apparently is the subject of a current federal case.*) Wouldn't people -- hunters, or people living on the fringes of the Yellowstone area -- then start killing the bears whenever they are seen, quickly endangering the bears again?

Not to mention, he lives so close to Canada that even if Grizzlies were effectively extinct in the CONUS, they could probably still get lost and accidentally cross the Canadian border and terrorize him again.

* http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unl...-population-is-at-its-highest-in-decades.html
 
DNS: The Grizzly Bear is not an "endangered" species by any stretch of the immagination in BC (or anywhere in Canada). This guy in Idaho lives on the BC/ID border, it is very possible that these bears normal range is really in Canada, not the US at all...bears do not recognize the border you know.

IMHO: The whole thing is the anti-hunting/anti-gun/anti-freedom and responsibility present administration.

BTW: It is legal to shoot a human to protect you property in ID. If it is legal to shoot a human threat, how come it is not legal to shoot a animal preditor that is in the process of killing your farm animals (property)? (kids or no kids)
 
Jerry Reed in AMOS MOSES: ...
Well everyone blamed his old man
For making him mean as a snake
When Amos Moses was a boy
His Daddy would use him for alligator bait
Click to expand...

Hunting over live bait can rarely be considered ethical. Hang him!:D
(And keep a weather eye on those kids!)
 
Does any one really believe the very few self defense killings are going to negatively impact the entire population? if so then the forest service and game wardens are negatively impacting the population since they get rid of nuisance bears once or twice a year in Idaho alone.

In addition, what ever you call it, even though they are no longer in the grasslands any longer and why should they be, we need them for wheat farming and other food crops much more so than the grizzly, the population is within the historical estimate of bears 50-100,000 in North America.

In addition, simply allowing self protection without prosecution will also not impact the population. If they are that fragile, nothing we do can save them. But in fact, the population is INCREASING in every area including Alaska as well. Where is the balance in this policy that gives an animal far from extinction more rights than the people the govn't is elected to represent. Try that for a thought experiment and it should boil your gizzards when you truly understand what the Feds are doing here in Idaho.

Lastly, everyone that lives out here in Idaho knows a whole lot more about bears than the folks that only read about them on the internet. You have to take their presence seriously since they can do so much damage in such a short time. If I had 4-5 kids outside somewhere in the yard and 3 grizzlies going after my pigs a few yards away from their play ground, the first thing I am going to do is grab my bear gun and make sure the kids survive. This man did what he should do to protect his family.

The more I learn about this case, the more I want to support this man and join the governor, the two senators and essentially almost all of northern Idaho. Who is more important? man or bear. I vote for man in these rare self defense encounters that will have absolutely no impact whatsoever on the population of griz in the area. Yes, let's try some thought experiments.
 
vanya//reply after reading post 62(reading the rest after this reply)

Exactly -- that's been my point, as well. Under the current law, there's a requirement for people to be in immediate danger from a grizzly in order to justify shooting it. That's the issue in this case.

If no one is in immediate danger, then, by definition, there are other alternatives: getting the kids inside and calling the FWS would have been an obvious one.

It may well be that the law should be changed, but in the meantime, it is what it is, and responsible citizens follow it... while lobbying to change it, if they so choose.
Click to expand...

well, the next time you are driving 72 in a posted 70 zone I hope you receive a ticket for the most amount of money possible and the cop asks if you min if he searches the car because its nothing personal but they are weeding out drug runners. Even though you might be out-of-stae on vacation you can come back for court or pay the ticket because that is the law at this point. Even if it is ridiculous, it is the law so you need to abide by it because he/she has the right to do this to you & give you an attitude about it because he/she has the right to be that way if he/she pleases too.

sarcasm over - juries do not have to follow the letter of the law and it isn't illegal to use common sense. They can make whatever decision they want and I don't think for a second this man will lose no matter what the law.
 
TO ABOVE POST:

I meant to say "after reading post 54 my reply started // not 62

As far as that goes, we have our issues with alligators. There have been approximately 2/3 the number of people killed by gators as by brown/grizzly bears since the 1970s despite a much more narrow habitat range in which to operate.
Click to expand...

DNS, that si different in my opinion. usually this equates to people being idiots around the gator: pictures, ignorance, etc. there are exceptions but grizzlies are different in my opinion
 
This was a mother bear and two fully grown cubs, two year old capable of living on their own. That means there were THREE large grizzly bears within a matter of feet or yards of the kids with them outside and at risk. If the account is accurate that they did not respond to the calls of the parents, and how many kids listen to parents anyway, then what person who has kids would have acted any different than this man?
Click to expand...

if one of those kids walked around the corner it could've been all over especially since these bears were getting ready to eat. the man HAD A REASONABLE FEAR in my opinion. If this guy was a 'well-to-do' I don't think it would've gone this far. Maybe he has had some issues in the past: drug charges, disorderlies, DUIs, officer and yrad owner not seeing eye to eye? ALL SPECULATION OBVIOUSLY but whatever the case(or story), the people, senators, governor, and so-on have seen thru the bull and realize that the only issue is what happened with the bear & it is clear how they feel. Having the grizzlies in the yard while children are outside as well is a life threatening situation in my opinion. this isn't some endangered specie florida panther trying to get the heck out of dodge while he takes a farm window shot
 
OK, here's the smell test:

Put Barrack and Michelle Obama in the house. Put their kids in the yard playing basketball (sorry no Secret Service). Put Mama Grizzley and two 2-year old cubs in the yard 25 yards away, sniffing and poking at the Obama kids' 4H pigs (indicating mealtime). Hand Barrack a .270 bolt action rifle (sorry still no Secret Service).

Barrack steps outside, calls to his kids, gets no answer, bears turn and look at the house. Barrack still doesn't know where his kids are on the property. Bears losing interest in the pigs and showing interest in the house. What's Barrack going to do?

Or substitute the Federal Prosecutor, or any other official. When you put yourself in this situation, with three (3) hungry Grizzley bears, meaning they can go in three different directions towards three kids, and knowing that a Grizzley can cross 25 yards in 4 to 5 seconds, just how much do YOU want to put your kids at risk?

Put yourself in this situation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3VdxHvQqsk&feature=related

You think you can get off three kill shots in three different directions in 4 to 5 seconds? I think the kill was reasonable based on reported facts.
 
Last edited:
This is one crime and situation that they could charge me with everytime, and everytime I would do the same thing. Charged is not convicted.

This guy did right, hopefully he'll get a judge and jury with some sense about them.
 
"Your first word only works if your planted axiom is that the bear has an equal right to live and occupy land."

If you really want the truth, I see that they have somewhat of a superior claim of right to live and occupy the land.

I hold absolutely no illusion that man, for having a prehensile thumb and a lump of mush called a brain (that most never use) somehow conveys top dog status.

If anything, mankind has proven itself as a species to be far less worthy of inhabiting this planet.
 
Nordeste
Senior Member


Join Date: May 8, 2011
Location: Asturias, Spain
Posts: 116 I wonder if human beings are protected species too...
Click to expand...

It's beginning to look that way - our AM paper reported the family of some guy shot while burglarizing an auto lot sued the store owner for "wrongful death" - and the jury awarded the plaintiffs about $300K. It seems the burglars were smoking meth stealing stuff to sell so they could buy more drugs - and were illegal aliens from Yugoslavia - since 1998. The DA office had reviewed the case and declined to file charges on the shooters.

It seems that business had a number of burglaries in recent weeks - making it hard for me to understand the "plaintiffs" argument "they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time" and the business owners were painted as "vigilantes" who plotted a deadly ambush rather than let authorities deal with a string of recent burglaries - (when seconds count, the police can be there in minutes).

I would have shot the bear - but, at least it was following its natural instincts for bears and not intentionally breaking laws so they could break more laws with their ill gotten gains.

We're headed down the wrong path -IMO
 
Mike Irwin said:
If you really want the truth, I see that they have somewhat of a superior claim of right to live and occupy the land.

I hold absolutely no illusion that man, for having a prehensile thumb and a lump of mush called a brain (that most never use) somehow conveys top dog status.

If anything, mankind has proven itself as a species to be far less worthy of inhabiting this planet.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt the sincerity of the sentiment, but wonder whether it would survive a hostile encounter with a bear.

I also think that the presence of children changes the calculation.

The honest statement of a real pacifist or someone who claims a superiority of an animal in an area or situation is a sort of luxury of an individual. I can plausibly claim that I will categorically refuse to harm another and if that means I am harmed, so be it. To place oneself in danger for the benefit of another is often a laudable act. Place women and children in the path of harm and the laudability of the sacrifice is diminished by the recognition that it is harm to someone who didn't choose to be harmed.

The silly fellow who lived with and was eaten by bears only harmed himself so far as I know. A fellow responsible for others doesn't experience that kind of freedom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top