Evan Thomas
Inactive
We really don't have enough information to be making judgments about this case.
This article says that some of Mr. Hill's children "had been" outside, saw the bears, and called to their father, who came out with a rifle and shot one -- not the sow, but a two-year old male cub, according to another report.
What's not clear is where his children were, and what the bears were actually doing, when he took the shot. If there was time for Mr. Hill to get a rifle and go outside, it's a bit hard to imagine that the children didn't have time to get inside -- they obviously were well within earshot of the house. On the other hand, running would have been a bad idea.
But if the children were not in immediate danger, shooting the bear may well have been illegal -- under the ESA, it's legal to shoot wolves in defense of livestock, but it's not legal to shoot grizzlies except to defend oneself or of another person from an immediate threat.
There are other ways to protect livestock from bears: electric fences, for example.
But without knowing how close the bears were to the children, and whether they were an immediate threat, it's not possible to reach any conclusions.
That said, even if Mr. Hill were found guilty, if it were up to me I'd probably cut him some slack for having done the right thing by reporting the shooting...
And there are no easy answers to the rights-of-humans-vs-bears question, except to say, maybe, that as the (presumptively) smarter species, people have the responsibility to learn to co-exist with bears, not the other way around...
This article says that some of Mr. Hill's children "had been" outside, saw the bears, and called to their father, who came out with a rifle and shot one -- not the sow, but a two-year old male cub, according to another report.
What's not clear is where his children were, and what the bears were actually doing, when he took the shot. If there was time for Mr. Hill to get a rifle and go outside, it's a bit hard to imagine that the children didn't have time to get inside -- they obviously were well within earshot of the house. On the other hand, running would have been a bad idea.

But if the children were not in immediate danger, shooting the bear may well have been illegal -- under the ESA, it's legal to shoot wolves in defense of livestock, but it's not legal to shoot grizzlies except to defend oneself or of another person from an immediate threat.
There are other ways to protect livestock from bears: electric fences, for example.
Well, yes -- the Federal officers who have charged Mr. Hill (with a misdemeanor, by the way) take the view that it's their job to enforce the law. The fact that both the Feds and the law are unpopular in Idaho makes this a political windfall for the Governor, who is weighing in, and for other local politicians, but it's still the job of Federal authorities to enforce it, unpopular or not.C0untZer0 said:...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.
But without knowing how close the bears were to the children, and whether they were an immediate threat, it's not possible to reach any conclusions.
That said, even if Mr. Hill were found guilty, if it were up to me I'd probably cut him some slack for having done the right thing by reporting the shooting...
And there are no easy answers to the rights-of-humans-vs-bears question, except to say, maybe, that as the (presumptively) smarter species, people have the responsibility to learn to co-exist with bears, not the other way around...
Last edited: