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

[Evan Thomas]

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.

...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.

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.

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...

 

[NJgunowner]

Vanya's sounds better than mine. I'll go with what he said.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Vanya's sounds better than mine. I'll go with what he said.

Me too... but he's a she.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Thanks for clearing that up, PK... I forget, sometimes.

 

[Edward429451]

Why is it that authority seems to continue to put citizens at the bottom of the list? Animals have more right, criminals have more rights. It sounds to me like the man was trying to do the right thing. He shot the bear to protect his Family and then he reported the kill. That's the behavior of a man who has Lawful intent in his heart.

What does our citizen get for trying to do the right thing? Prosecuted. No matter that he'll probably get off because of the support that has been shown for him...Authorities have once again shown their intent to harass our citizenry.

Cooperate with authorities? Do the right thing and it'll be ok in court?

SSS.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Why is it that authority seems to continue to put citizens at the bottom of the list? Animals have more right, criminals have more rights. It sounds to me like the man was trying to do the right thing. He shot the bear to protect his Family and then he reported the kill. That's the behavior of a man who has Lawful intent in his heart.

It's an open question whether it was necessary to shoot the bear to protect his family. That's his defense, according to his attorney (quoted in one of the linked articles above), but it's not a given. The fact that he did the right thing by reporting the shooting is admirable, but it doesn't change the fact that he may have broken the law.

Not to belabor the point, but these are two quite separate issues.

If someone gets drunk and accidentally runs over a child, then calls 911 and reports the accident, would you be willing to give him a "get-out-of-jail-free card," just because he did the right thing by reporting it? I think not... even if he were from some alternate universe in which drunk driving isn't a crime, and also had "lawful intent in his heart" -- it was still his responsibility to know the law in this universe.

And the distinction between "citizens" and "criminals" isn't a valid one, by the way. Lots of criminals are citizens, and citizens become criminals when they break the law...

 

[C0untZer0]

He shot Koda !

I thought he shot a Grizzley Bear not a a bear cub...

How can you shoot Koda?

.

 

[markj]

Its his 20 acres, that bear was tresspassing and after his pigs. Someone shoulda let the bear know texas is where she needs to be hunting hogs..

Kill them if they do this scare em off they will come back for the easy meal. Too bad if the kids get eaten right?

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".

BS, no animal will ever triump over my kids. Anything gets on my place could do my kids harm gets shot right there man or beast and a momma grizz with youngins is as dangerous as it gets. Fly on out and get between one, then tell me how that worked out for ya. big and scary isnt enough of an explaination, they are deadly and with cubs they are 1000% more deadly.

Why would anyone take achance wit htheuir children like some here would? Kids get in the house, cept you cause the bear has you in her teeth sorry....

 

[Dennis1209]

Don't get me wrong here, I have legally hunted and fished for the pleasure of it and food. It's not sport or enjoyment killing an animal for the sake of killing it. But, you have prosecutors, judges and many organizations pushing legislation to give animals the same rights as you and I. Don't know the whole story so can't give an opinion. Personally, if I lived in bear country, I would definitely modify my and my family's behavior for safety and not do anything to attract a bear to my property. I believe I would do everything within reason to shoo the bear, providing it appeared not to be aggressive, then call the game warden. If the family were in the yard I would heard them indoors, call game warden and report a nuisance bear. If we were in the yard, aggressive bear, and couldn't make it to safety, it's Yogi bear heaven... Just MHO.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't see anywhere in the story any mention of the bears threatening the children, charging them, or anything else. As noted above, this appears to be an issue of immediacy of danger as it sounds like the bear was shot at some distance.

I concur that people should come before animals when it comes down to one or the other in such a situation, but there is simply no indication that such a situation had arise.

 

[Alaska444]

I agree DSN, it appears he will have a very hard time defending his actions when in reality, from what I have heard, a lot of the game wardens are sympathetic to home owners in this area. I live in the Coeur d'Alene area so this is an issue we can deal with directly. We just went camping at the Bull River area which is part of the Cabinet Yak grizzly range. Never seen any here yet, but they are out there we go stomping through the woods. I would rather not have to deal with them myself, but the folks in Washington D.C. determined it was in our best interest to have them back.

 

[Isk]

I wouldn't put a bear above my child...but I believe it is better to live in harmony with nature when you can. If you live in Northern Idaho you've got to know that wildlife is present. Pulling the trigger can't be the first response (unless it truly was a dire situation).

Had a mama and baby moose in the front yard yesterday. Dangerous? Hell yeah, but I live in Alaska to see that kind of thing.

I just don't think the argument that the government should stay out of it holds any water. If the government didn't stop people from killing wildlife, there would be no wildlife at this point.

 

[Alaska444]

You can certainly control wild life populations by limiting access to hunting. However, when the bears come onto private property, then the govn't is encroaching private property rights. Taking out a couple of bears messing where they are not welcome will not in any manner decimate wildlife. Poaching and uncontrolled hunting practices are where you wipe out populations. People defending their homes will not adversely impact them and it will also teach bears to stay away.

In addition, the bear population is increasing greatly especially black bears in the last 30 years mainly through limited hunting. Bear encounters are becoming more common in large part to the govn'ts control of hunting. They are becoming less fearful of man and becoming more of a pest. We never saw bear in our yard in Anchorage, but that is now apparently a common occurrence. In the 1960s, bears simply stayed away. Not anymore.

 

[KyJim]

You can certainly control wild life populations by limiting access to hunting. However, when the bears come onto private property, then the govn't is encroaching private property rights.

So, you think the government shouldn't regulate numbers of deer taken if they are on private property?

 

[Alaska444]

Ask the farmers.

However, we are talking about grizzly bears. Since the number of serious encounters is low, the number of bears that would be killed from people simply protecting themselves should not in any sense be a criminal act.

Unfortunately, this case appears to not have crossed the line into an imminent danger issue. He had other options than shooting the bear. Flash bang grenades are a great option, not sure if you can get those as a civilian or not.

I suspect he will be convicted of some charge against him.

I carry my guns in the woods here in Idaho and if confronted with a situation, I will indeed defend myself and my family. I hope that never occurs, but living and playing in grizzly country, it is a risk that is present. We had a grizzly killed in Rose Lake ID that is a little over 10 miles on the other side the CDA lake in 2009. No charges were given against the elk rancher since he thought it was a black bear. It goes back to intent as many things in the law.

If I lived up in Priest Lake or one of the known grizzly places in Idaho, I would consider an electrified fence around my house. Many people with horse already have fences with electric wire on top to keep the horses from going over. When I was a kid, the people across the street had horses and we would play the game of holding hands and then one person would grab the line. It works well.

There are a lot of other options you can do to make your property one that bears don't like. So those that choose to live up here know that there are bears here and take precautions. But in the end, yes, people should have the right to protect their property from these critters when the situation arises and there are no other non-lethal options.

 

[carguychris]

I don't see anywhere in the story any mention of the bears threatening the children, charging them, or anything else. As noted above, this appears to be an issue of immediacy of danger as it sounds like the bear was shot at some distance.

+1; furthermore, the news story is actually somewhat vague about whether the bear was shot because it was threatening the kids or the pigs.

I suspect the property owner tossed up both excuses in hopes that at least one would stick.

However, when the bears come onto private property, then the govn't is encroaching private property rights. Taking out a couple of bears messing where they are not welcome will not in any manner decimate wildlife.

The "property rights" argument is the reason why whitetail deer and egrets were once hunted nearly to extinction, and the reason why Carolina parakeets and passenger pigeons are extinct. Give people carte blanche to kill whatever stumbles onto their property and eventually there's nothing left to kill.

 

[NJgunowner]

The simple reality is that history teaches us that humans will decimate an area without regard unless there are laws to prevent it.

Buffalo, nearly wiped by hunters.
Alligators, nearly wiped out by hunters.
Mountain lions, nearly wiped out by hunters.
Wolves... See a pattern here?
Deer.... was getting endangered but now there a huge problem here because we killed off all their natural predators. (at least around here)

Humans have caused a lot of extinctions or near extinctions through arrogance and ignorance. Conservation laws are about the only thing that's going to keep this a world worth living in. I personally don't want the only things left to be humans, cows, chickens, and pigs. Thanks.

That grizzly was doing a public service anyway. Damn feral pigs are destroying more property than any grizzly and their freaking aggressive. THEY escape because they're freaking smart and breed like rabbits. THEY don't belong on this continent. THEY are all escaped bacon. mmmmm bacon....

 

[Alaska444]

Once again, we are talking about grizzly bears, not deer and egret that don't kill children or other people except in rarest situations. Idaho did just fine without any grizzly for over 60 years. The folks that are transplanting them back here in northern Idaho for the most part don't live here. It is one thing to deal with the less aggressive black bear, but the grizzly are a bear you can never take for granted.

I wonder how many folks actually live with in grizzly country and have to take them seriously when doing any activity that are speaking out on this thread. If you have to live with them, you take a different attitude towards them than the folks sitting in LA or Washington D.C. saying save the grizzly and transplant them back to where they belong.

Well, the CA grizzly was once one of the largest known bears. Stories of how dangerous and how smart there were are well documented. If the folks want bears back in their natural habitat, put them back in the Sierra mountains so that the folks in LA and San Francisco can enjoy them as well.

I would like to transplant a few of the grizzly into Washington D.C. so that they can enjoy them as well.

 

[KyJim]

Once again, we are talking about grizzly bears, not deer and egret that don't kill children or other people except in rarest situations.

Ah! But you're the one that brought in property rights. Property rights have nothing to do with protecting your family. I would do that no matter whose land I (and the bear) might be on. If the bear was menacing the family, it should have been shot. If it was simply poaching some food, the law says it is protected. Notice, I didn't say it was a good law. A lot of folks in my area of the country lose crops to deer, but can't shoot them until deer season and then only with a license and tag.

 

[youngunz4life]

alaska makes a really good point+it was sort of funny too. I mean we are talking grizzlies here, and I think that is one of the main reasons why so many people chose to support this guy and/or show up at his trial.