When Grizzly Bears Attack …
A North Idaho man killed a grizzly bear that was threatening his family. Now he could face jail time if the Obama administration has its way.
Rachel Hill looked out her bedroom window on the evening of Mother’s Day and saw three grizzly bears attacking the children’s 4H club pigs’ pen. The Hill children had been outside practicing basketball a half hour earlier, so seeing the bears concerned her and her husband, Jeremy Hill. After calling for his kids and hearing no response, Jeremy grabbed his daughter’s rifle. After once more calling for the kids, fearing they were in danger, he shot at the closest grizzly bear, which was about 120 feet away.
The other two grizzlies fled while the wounded bear began to run off in the same direction, but then turned and came towards the house. Hill shot the bear a final time due to the danger a severely wounded grizzly bear posed to his family and others. Hill called two officials with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. They came out, investigated, and unsuccessfully tried to capture the other two grizzly bears by placing bear traps on the property.
Regardless of the danger to Hill’s family, grizzly bears are listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, thus the federal government is prosecuting him. If convicted, Hill could face up to one year in prison and a $50,000 fine.
The charge is sparking outrage throughout the state of Idaho. Rocky Barker of the Idaho Statesman notes, “Usually, congressmen try to stay out of a case while it’s in court.” On this issue, however, the state’s entire congressional delegation as well as Governor Butch Otter (R-ID) have publicly weighed in on Hill’s behalf.
The Boundary County prosecutor also came out on Hill’s behalf, noting the Idaho Department of Fish and Game hadn’t contacted his office to indicate the law had been violated and had reportedly told Hill there shouldn’t be any issue as he was acting in defense of his family. The Boundary County Commission unanimously sided with Hill and noted the animals were five miles away from the nearest recovery zone for grizzly bears.
An adult grizzly bear can cover 40 yards in about 4 seconds or less, and that distance is well within the distance that a “Mama Grizzly” would consider an imminent threat to her yearling cubs, which the other two bears undoubtedly were, since bears do not hunt in packs. The loss of this animal is unfortunate, and a sad consequence of the conflict of her instincts with the absolute right of a man to defend his family.
Mr. Hill was certainly justified in protecting both his children and his livestock, and his only error was in responsibly notifying the authorities. It should be well-known by now that common sense is decidedly not the policy of the Federal government.
One might properly wonder whether the most dangerous enemy of American humanity is a Grizzly Bear or a US government worker.
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’.”
–Ronald Reagan
The US is not the only asylum taken over by the bunny-hugging-humanity-hating-lunatics: http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Cleric-39traumatised39-after-attack-by.6823353.jp
This lil’ birdie has a cool wing span of 8 feet and feeds routinely on lambs and other small animals, and soon, perhaps toddlers and babes. It’s already worked out that people’s gardens are well-stocked larders…
The same mess exists in Europe on the mainland, where bears and wolves are released which then (who’d have thunk it?) move onto being ‘problem bears/wolves’ who massacre entire herds of whatever they find, and those ‘animal lovers’ have no problem at all with those ‘natural events’ no matter how gruesome and brutal.
Sort of like a legalised cock/dog fighting racket, just more comprehensive, bloody and without the moral and legal penalties. (in fact, I’d venture that the criminals who set up animals fights have more compassion than those charity business professionals who get paid handsome wages out of donations, and who use the reintroduced apex predators as an advertisement gimmick to milk the brainwashed crowd of donations ‘to save the animals’.)
I wish people would get it through their heads that all environmentalist and “species protection” law is not premised on a value of human life. If Hill’s kids had been killed by the bears, or Hill himself mauled, Earth Firsters and PETA thugs would be dancing in the streets and passing out candy in celebration, just as Muslims did on 9/11. Obama and his federal law enforcers? I think most people by now understand that he’s out to destroy this country. And there was no way Hill could “responsibly” call for help to protect his family when governments are notoriously slow in doing so. If Hill was being charged by a wounded bear, he had every right to shoot it again. I doubt if his reaction would differ much if he’d been charged by a crazed “sudden jihad syndrome” Muslim, either (Muslims now being members, not of a “protected” species, but of a privileged one).
Yep!
One has to ask, what would Obama have done if it had been his children about to be attacked. Would he have had the secret service agent who killed the bear arrested?
No, Chris, Obama and his minions are above the law. There would be no reason to have the agent arrested.
Hard to say. Obozo would be so busy running away as fast as his cowardly feet could carry him, that he probably wouldn’t even be aware that the Secret Service agent had saved his kids. Not to mention the fact that I doubt that he cares very much about his family, or indeed, anyone other than his own miserable self.
I suspect Obama would have tried to set up his teleprompter and give a speech to the grizzlies explaining why they needed to be more civil. He would also point out that he had won and was quite willing to stand between the grizzlies and the pitchforks.
He would sacrifice his children to his principles, if necessary.
Obama has not just sacrificed his children future, he has thrown them under the bus as well as everyone else’s.
How can a man with no principles have principles?
Some people might argue that the bear wouldn’t have charged if Hill hadn’t already wounded it. (I would expect this from PETA.)
As someone born and raised in bear country (black bears), let me assure those unfamiliar with bruin psychology that they are territorial predators. When they move into an area, as far as they are concerned, anything definable as “food” in that area is fair game. And the bear definition of “food” is “anything edible that is smaller than I am”, with meat being only slightly below honey on the “favorites” list.
Which means that ANY sort of reaction (including the PETA-approved “stand straight, wave arms, and yell” technique) can result in (a) a threat display (bear standing on hind legs and roaring) and/or (b) a full-on rush and attack (self-explanatory).
Please note that the usual response (running like hell) only encourages a bear. He sees you running, concludes that you are a non-predator and afraid of him, and lays in a pursuit course. And he can run a lot faster than you can.
Hill’s response wasn’t a good option- it was just the only practical one.
clear ether
eon
Yes,
It was a practical response to a physical situation, and our government now needs to show its competency via a practical response to the administrative issues that arise from it.
Simply put, I agree that it was “illegal” to kill the bear, in the same sense that is is “illegal” to kill my neighbor.
But just as some physical situations could result in the lawful employment of Deadly Force by me against my HUMAN neighbor, I expect a reasonable and effective government, to have a reasonable interpretation of the law protecting bears, to account for these kinds of (to be expected) scenarios.
They should review the incident, just to make sure he’s not a poacher with a fanciful story, and be done with it.
No responsible official can conclude that laws protecting bears from hunting, means sacrificing you families safety.
That they can live up to this simple reality, remains to be seen.
But it is NOT illegal to kill your neighbor under all circumstances. It is PERFECTLY legal to do so in self-defense, or in defense of the life of another. At least, in most states. True, the facts must be examined, but if a finding of self-defense is made, no crime has been committed.
The problem here is that, as I understand it, it IS illegal to kill a protected animal, but if self-defense can be shown, the authorities may deign to refrain from prosecuting you for your illegal action.
Bother. I forgot to sign my post, above.
You also forgot to finish reading the balance of mine,
as I addressed the point you brought up, rather clearly I’d say.
Exactly, sometimes there are no good options, just less bad ones.
It’s not clear from the story wihch agency made the decision to prosecute. Is it the fish and wildlife service or a federal prosecutor? I looked at a couple of the links and but I couldn’t figure it out.
Stories like these suggest ways to cut government spending but we need to know where to cut.
Why take chances? Cut both. Double the budget savings, no risk of leaving the wrong agency around to cause more mischief.
The only problem with shooting a bear is that the meat is not especially tasty. Years ago when living in Colorado I bought a bear tag when out on an elk hunt, sure enough I bagged a bear. That meat was so gamey, tough, and greasy as to be uneatable. I did have the hide cured and had it around for years until a new Black Lab puppy used it for a chew toy.
Your problem here is that you probably shot a big old mean tough mountain man of a bear. You should have taken a younger more tender aged bear. Yummy! And they are like pork, you need to cook them low and slow to get the proper texture and taste.
Curious you should compare bear meat to pork, because bears, like pigs, are susceptible to trichinosis. So be careful when cooking and eating bear.
Your bear was probably a very old one, or maybe you didn’t dress it out right or soon enough. I have killed a number of bears (one with a handgun), and they are a very tasty dish. Better than beef.
My Dad raised a bear cub, way back when. He’d had to shoot mama, and just adopted the cub. It used to go into town every Saturday night, and learned to drink beer with the rest of the crew. It would sit up and beg for a mug.
But it grew up, and because it’s a wild animal, became a problem in the camp. /sigh/
Dad said it was the best bear meat he ever ate.
Mark – your dad’s bear tasted so good because of the beer diet.
Castle doctrine needs to be re-interpreted to cover all threats. The point of self-defense isn’t just to defend yourself from other people but also animals or even invading Krugman aliens. Err I mean space aliens.
It doesn’t matter if its the very last one of its species. If it is threatening a human life it needs to die.
Environmental activists are far more dangerous to this country than any predator. They believe that the bears were more important than this man and his family. I don’t listen to their rhetoric anymore when they come to our door to scam money out of us.
Human beings have the right to protect their families and their property. Government agents are taking away these rights and it is time to put a stop to it.
The government is becoming the enemy these days and it is scarey. People just want to be left alone and take care of their families. The sooner we replace this administration in DC, the better.
ARE WE INSANE? We are not, it is government hacks and that includes the DNR missing enough DNA to lack deductive reasoning. I was up in Alaska recently and I watched greenies, as I call them, don their backpacks and not carry anything in to the back country to protect themselves from bears or moose. The explanation from one backpacker was they would rather scare the animal away than hurt the animal. WHAT? And I have to assume that these people can probably or have most likely passed a public service exam. There were far more rational people that were armed with something, anything, just walking to the mail box. The problem is the greenies can’t get a real job because they can’t function without the illusion or delusion. The DNR and prosecutors in Idaho are behaving irrational. Hope the jury selection finds intelligent, wise men and women to serve.
“I was up in Alaska recently and I watched greenies, as I call them, don their backpacks and not carry anything in to the back country to protect themselves from bears or moose. The explanation from one backpacker was they would rather scare the animal away than hurt the animal.”
As Buckminster Fuller said, actions have consequences;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Treadwell
Yes, I know it’s Wiki, but the account is fairly accurate.
The problem with “deep-ecos” and “animal friends” was summed up by Col. Jeff Cooper, when describing a tourist’s attempt to have his photo taken with a rhino in Kenya. Said tourist tried to get the rhino to turn just right- by yanking on its horn. Yes, he survived, but only because the Nairobi hospital has long experience in treating people who’ve been horned and/or trampled.
As Col. Cooper put it, “The animal friends tend to forget that wild animals are just that. Wild.”
cheers
eon
That’s like the lady around here, a while back, that tried to get a “cute” picture of her child with a bear, in a national park. Fortunately a ranger stopped her in time.
Why do you assume she’s a lady? Just being female doesn’t make one a lady.
That word is used too carelessly.
I remember a cartoon from a bunch of years ago. A guy has been treed by a Grizzly, who is trying to swat him out of the tree.
The guy is yelling down at the bear, “I’m a member of Friends of the Animals. Surely you’ve heard of us.”
In Idaho it is Fish and Game Department who cleared Mr Hill this is the Federal Government USFWS and the Federal DA that is trying to say bears are more important then people. You can hear an interview of one of Mr Hill friend here.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/buckshot59/2011/09/01/buckshots-radio-free-america
I vote for the shoot, shovel and shut-up method.
They have a species out here in California that are listed as “endangered” although why I can’t figure out. There are Bazillions of Ravens out here and they predate on pets and rabbits and others. They have stolen our dog’s food by terrorizing him away from it. The survivors have learned not to do that.
Are you sure you’re talking about ravens? You DO have about a bazillion crows (actually, 1.23 bazillion by the latest census
) but ravens are not nearly as common.
It’s been found they are more populous near human activities, but relatively scarce in wilderness areas.
guys, believe me or not! me and my sister just got two i-pads for only 42 dollars each and a $ 50 amazon card for $ 9. the stores want to keep this a secret and they dont tell you. go here CoolCent. c o m
To Jane….Get a fricki’n life and stop posting your crap!
Actually the DOJ prosecution might be motivated less by the fact that the bear was the “victim” in this case then by the fact that a man took private action to PROTECT HIS FAMILY! What a novel concept! A father sees his kids in danger and takes prompt and effective action to end that danger. He doesn’t call “the authorities” (who are miles away) but instead acts like, well, a man.
That’s really what sticks in the craw of government bureaucracies – The loss of control. There are cases in England where homeowners have been prosecuted for using “too much force” against burglars and others who break into their dwellings. Britsh homeowners are advised to abandon the premises if there is a break-in and, if that is impracticable, use only “proper force” to repel the home invader. Only “the authorities” are entitled to use force even when the subject is nose-to-nose with danger.
Mr. Hill was expected to (a) cower and (b) sacrifice his kids if necessary so that some federal bureaucrat wouldn’t have to fill out too much paperwork.
Chambers,
“That’s really what sticks in the craw of government bureaucracies – The loss of control”
You are absolutely right.
In every self defense shooting the biggest issue for the prosecutor is a sense of “how dare they take the law into THEIR OWN HANDS”… as if THEY are the law, and WE are mere beggers of their permission..to live, own property, and be safe.
The Machine cannot accept non-subservience to the Machine.
Even in when facing a deadly threat…if your loyalty, fear, or priority is not centered on THEM, on what THEY would think, on what THEY would allow, on what THEY would want you to do, they will attempt to punish you.
They must be the center of your universe at all times.
Acting as a free man is a threat they cannot tolerate.
Remember several years ago there was one wild Jaguar in the US. Federal employees captured this cat and as a result it died. No one went to jail. The Feds killed 100% of the wild Jaguar population in the United States and no one was prosecuted.
I met a Brazilian who told me that if you have to shoot a jaguar you must first shoot the warden.
The Flsh and Game boys introduced wolves into eastern Oregon to recapture the romance of the old west. Well if we are to go back to the good old days, let’s reintroduce malaria carrying mosquitos into a slough near urban Portland and a wetlands near Salem. For good measure, let’s release some old chicken pox virus and maybe even those lovely german measles bugs. Now that’s romantic, right?
Actually, they reintroduced the wolves to keep the elk and deer populations under control, and to help the trees and foliage which were being overgrazed. These things work both ways, folks – if you want the cute and majestic grazers and the beautiful scenery, you need the predators also.
They wouldn’t have needed the wolves if they had simply opened up deer/elk/critter season and passed out more tags.
I agree, Paul of A. When I was twelve years old, the ranchers in our country put a bounty on coyotes because they were raiding herds and killing calves and sheep. The next summer, the entire county was overrun with rats and mice.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
While what you saw may have been connected, it might well not be.
I’ve seen rodent populations boom (and bust) when the local coyote population has not been touched. Weather and subsequent food sources can push or pull their populations.
Don’t forget that coyote aren’t the only predators on rodents, with everything from sparrowhawks to owls to hawks and eagles, foxes, wild cats, feral cats, snakes, skunks and weasels select them for their favorites on the menu.
Actually wolves are the worst ecological disaster ever in the West here is but one of many examples.
Moose 10 year chart State of Wyoming source Wyoming State Game and Fish
Department 2010 report
YEAR 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
HARVEST 1215 1160 999 770 682 636 669 611 504 485
That is human harvest and as it is clear to see reading the chart the wolves are wiping out the moose exposing the fairy tale that wolves balance nature. In fact in some areas of Wyoming the first time ever moose hunting has been closed down. Wolves are putting people out of business and driving ranchers off the land. The goal is to close down hunting and ranching and both are happening today in a piecemeal fashion across the western Tri States of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho.
Bruce,one of the most risible things, about the idea of predators being the “balance” to keep prey populations stable, is that they don’t. In fact, time and time again since the late 1970s, species studies from insects to Moose have shown that is quite “natural” to have many species vary by orders of magnitude over short timeframes relative to their lifespans. When was the last time you heard this in public?
In fact, “the balance of nature” has *always* been a fraud on the public. It is an excuse to keep humans from acting in their own self-interest as a normal part of chaotic natural changes in species populations.
Can we introduce the Malaria Mosquitoes into DC instead?
A peasant killed the King’s game in the King’s forest. That will not be tolerated.
Wonderful referenceto Becket, if that’s what you meant.
That’s one of the first things that popped into my head when I heard this story.
It’s great the people feel compassion, even “friendship” for animals. Collectively, we’re more dangerous to animals now than they are to us. But we have to remember that Mother Nature is a bitch and she plays by her rules, not ours. We can love her all we want, but she doesn’t love us back.
“Jeremy grabbed his daughter’s rifle.”
That speaks volumes.
Well, it sounds better than “Jeremy grabbed his daughter’s Barbie.”
BUGS, LMAO thank you great come back..
My middle school son has a 20 Gauge pump action shotgun. What’s the big deal?
Better not grab that to shoot a grizzly.
In the Obama administered and controlled Department of Justice this man’s major problem may be that he’s a white man. To the real racists in America Obama’s election did not refute our so called racist tendencies, it represents an historic opportunity for revenge. Look at the hiring practices of this agency, as chronicled here in Pajamas Media, the practices deplored and derided by the Left when the “pretender to the throne” was George W. Bush but now under “President” Obama, accepted without comment.
Those who voted for him as an expression of atonement to ease a guilty conscience are now experiencing the consequences of their politically correct naivete. Here’s a novel concept. You don’t vote for someone based on the color of their skin but on the content of their character and their deeply held political beliefs based on all the available evidence. Affirmative action has no place in the selection of a man or woman as the President of the United States. When that concept takes precedent in this context the result is an abomination like Obama.
And then there’s the EPA who worship at the alter created by such lofty edifices as the Endangered Species Act. What American dare incur even the remotest perception that he’s in violation of that “commandment,” even acting in the protection of the lives of his children? He should have let the bear have one of his little girls as a sacrifice to the EPA G-d. Obama would have given him a medal……..maybe as representing the new model that all parents are encouraged to emulate, especially if they don’t own a gun.
This sort of thing is more wide-spread than most think.
Here in more or less rational Canada…south-western Ontario…a farmer notified the MNR of sighting of a cougar near his livestock…to which report they assurred him that such was impossible…no cougar in that region for 150-200 years.
Rationally next day, he popped the criter as it stalked his livestock…buried it and didn’t report it.
Next day MNR showed up, dug up the carcass and charged him with killing a protected species.
Seems the criter had an embeded chip…meaning it had been introduced by MNR and was being tracked by satellite.
Those inconvenient details were successfully leveraged to have the charges stayed.
So, lesson is don’t bury the carcass, burn it instead? Destroy the chip so they can’t track it any longer…
Why did he call fish and game?
The ethical thing to do is to call your state’s hunting authority to let them know what happened. It is no different than if you shoot a burglar in your own home. They will need to investigate.
However, as this case goes forward, the “shoot, shovel, and shut-up” mantra seems to make more and more sense. This is a tragedy. We have fish and game agencies so that we can better manage our wildlife resources, set sustainable hunting and fishing limits and learn more about our environment.
If this case is not dealt with in an appropriate and expeditious manner, we will all lose. This man was not deliberately hunting the animal. He has a right to defend his livestock and family. Give him credit for trying to do the honest thing. If they do not, the next person in his shoes won’t be as nice about it.
Unfortunately what passes for knowledgeable fish and game personnel these days are a bunch of culls who don’t know their backsides from a dormant volcano. They just chant whatever mantra they’re told….coyotes won’t cross with dogs…no wolves in these parts….black bears haven’t lived here in 50 years…there’s no way you saw a cougar, must have been a big house cat….there are no wild pigs…..
A pimple off any farmer’s butt has more common sense than all those brown shirt wearing wildlife officers combined.
A pox on all of them.
Since when are Grizzly bears a Democrat Caucus?
First they came for the Gibson guitars….then they came for the bears, the birds, the fish and fowl….no…there’s only me to persecute.
Wait ’til they come for your skin flute!
So many really clever comments about the ever growing discontent and fear of the damage being perpetrated by our colored president and his communist cronies . And every week the offences increase and the clever retorts grow – but my question is – ‘when do people start to do something serious about our predicament’?
Soros has people that work for him right – why can’t things start to happen that would make some of his key players late for work or just ‘gone’ from the office.
Our colored president’s- colored attorney general would go lived when his hand picked liberal leaning lawyers start arriving late or not at all – ‘just gone’ from the office!
Putting some of the ‘socialist workers’ into the confines of Guantanamo would be ideal – but a warehouse with palm trees painted on the interior walls would suffice until these rat bags could be tried!
And trials for those all the way to the top – would be filmed and made available for public witnessing – you know – ‘open – transparent government’ like ‘what’s his name’ used to talk about.
Hey – has any body seen ‘what’s his name’ – he didn’t show for golf today!
Rhodesway, you are babbling like an idiot. You sound like a silly liberal trying to “plant” an offensive rant on a conservative blog.
However, if you are trying to be funny, it’s not funny. We are looking for serious solutions here, not your bullish*t. If you actually believe the stuff you wrote, you have severe mental problems and no one here has any sympathy for your views.
But, of the possible options, I’d say “silly liberal trying to plant an offensive rant” is most likely.
F— off.
What a environmentalist may fail to consider is that species on earth are all experimental and without continous adaptations can, will, and have gone extinct. Species, in politico-speak, have the right to go extinct.
Not every one, as the experiment which we all are, can be mandated to survive by every means necessary. The dodo lost. Dumb ones die. Strategies fail. Boundaries that are breeched yield the unpleasantness of crime, pain, and death.
This grizzly case and many other endangered species cases pit the super dogooders against common sense. Life is fragile and it is about choices. Choose wrong and die.
Dangerous animals is not the only problem with the ESA. the ESA burdens many lesser jurisdictions, cities, counties, townships and states when performing such tasks as dredging rivers. Today Anyone can take anyone to court and alledge that any species is being threatened and projects that may save lives will be either terminated or the funding of such projects will be put into jeopardy due to the documentation or time requirements placed on the projects due to the legal industry (courts and lawyers who get awards from the courts).
I think a big point contained in the story is being overlooked – After Mr. Hill contacted the Dept. of Fish and Game, they came out “investigated, and UNSUCCESSFULLY tried to capture the other two grizzly bears by placing bear traps on the property.” If you depend on the government to protect your self interest or your family, then shame on you.
To quote Mark Stein’s fabulous new book After America – “Wild animals are not merely the creatures of their appetites; they’re also astute calculators of risk. Not so long ago, your average bear knew that if he happened upon a two-legged type, the chap would pull a rifle on him and he’d be spending eternity as a fireside rug. But these days it’s just as likely that any human being he comes across is some pantywaist Bambi Boomer enviro-sentimentalist trying to get in touch with his inner self. And, if the guy wans to get in touch with his inner self so badly, why not just rip it out of his chest for him?”
I like your spirit. But, OUR government is supposed to maintain the ENVIRONMENT for “WE THE PEOPLE” to flourish.
Not the inverse.
Our government is completely out of bounds, and beyond it’s authority, with this type of action.
A truly random sample of his peers would just about guarantee that Jeremy Hill would be found not guilty. It’s good to hear that he has a defense fund with about $19K in contributions. My concern is that the gov’t will try to stack the jury with environmentalists……….
I dont care what the court says. point blank i dont care if its the last one, if it attacks i have the right to defend myself and my family! how the hell can this even be a question. only the filthiest of commie green morons would make this an issue. At what point do we man up, take charge and tell the pos obama and the epa and the greenies to go to hell. . to geen morons…YOU ARE WRONG AND YOUR OPINION DOES NOT MATTER!
im a proud american, proud human. god or nature put HUMANS at the top of the food chain, deal with it green freaks
I got past such any “animals first” attitude when I was 18, working in the Post Office between college years. As a mailman, I was offered pepper spray for use against troublesome dogs. Being pretty good with dogs, I decided “No, I won’t need that.” Then one day I had a registered letter that had to be signed. The recipient had a rather aggressive German Shepherd that would not be subdued. The next day I started carrying that pepper spray. I don’t know how effective it would have been against that big dog, but it proved useful against others.
Anyone hiking in grizzly terrain should carry a 12 gauge shot gun loaded for bear–preferably a solid slug.
That is what Canadians, Alaskans, Russians and Norwegians do –
Tut tut, I thought that by now everyone still alive knew that you cannot kill a bear or person unless it kills you first…given the law of “proportionality of response”, and all. Furthermore, someone such as burglar in your livingroom is not authorized to kill anyone to begin with. Simply refer him to his “papers”.
[Once I interacted with a guy who admitted he was a burglar. I told him I'd kill him if I found him in my house. He said, ~"I'm glad you told me that. I didn't know people thought like that about burglars.]
But the even more enlightened
deathworshippersprogressives know that someone whose death could have been prevented must die in order to utimately validify one’s “ethics”, be they pacifist or ESA based…preferably someone else.Silly city boys. I think Holder and Obama are confusing grizzlies with The Chicago Bears. Hope an Emily latella moment soon.
Idaho isn’t all that far from Yellowstone – two people have been killed by bears there this summer. I’m all in favor of shoot, shovel, shut-up – but I also believe we need to be otherwise vocal and change this law!
This is the real way to deal with a bear!
http://www.masoncountydailynews.com/news/national-news/13654-alaska-woman-punches-black-bear-in-nose-to-save-dog
This young woman is my hero.
Lesson is, never call “the authorities” for anything, I guess. Just deal with the problem yourself, and never tell anyone else.
So it’s finally really come to that?
Probably pretty good advice these days.
Let’s get to the heart of the matter here. What this case reflects is a fundamental premise of the Left. And that premise is: you have no right to your own life. Your existence is a state-sanctioned privilege, one that ultimately can be revoked at any time and for any reason. Or for no reason at all. By their lights, you are no more than a thing, an animal, or a machine. If that seems extreme to some of you, then you haven’t been paying attention.
Thus, to defend your life against the prospect of real physical harm is a crime against the state. How dare you?
Those who presume to tell you that you cannot defend yourself or your faimily are not just pissing on the United States Constitution and the Second Amendment; they presume to tell you how much your life is worth. They are committing a far worse crime. They are saying that they see no reason for you to defend that life, or the lives of your family. They are declaring their supremacy over you by presuming to judge your life and its value. If there is a more tyrannical or evil worldview, I don’t know what that might be. The answer to those with that mindset is ultima ratio regnum: the last argument of kings.
If you think about, rather than killing one bear, Mr Hill actually saved two. By shooting and killing one, he taught the other to that humans and/or pigs are not a free meal, but a dangerous place to be. Had he just let them eat his pigs and or children and waited for them to leave, they would have learned that a pig pen, a farm/ranch or even a child means good eats.
Three bears go in, two much wiser bears come out.
I would have probably shot the bear under those circumstances as well, but it is about proportionality. Can I shoot the bear just if he is on my land, or does he have to be attacking my livestock? Obviously I can shoot him if he is attacking me or my children, but if it is just me and I can retreat…there is a question which a jury would have to decide.
Off my property, especially in grizzly country in national parks is quite something else. It seems that the price of exploring in such country is accepting the risk that the bears might kill you. You will not, I believe, be allowed to carry guns with you. When I was in Alaska, I bought some firecrackers, figuring that they would give a bear something to think about. Fortunately, I never had to use them.
Dwight,
When I’ve traveled to Alaska for work, outside of “downtown areas”, locals universally have recommended carrying a large calibre weapon any time I was outside. The problem with ignoring a bear in your farmyard, even if you have the option of “retreating”, is that you never know when you’ll walk around the corner of the barn, and find yourself face to face with a very dangerous critter, at close range. A bear in your farmyard has already decided that the scent of man doesn’t scare him. And as someone else noted, for a bear, anything he meets that is smaller than he is is potential prey. You don’t have to kill a bear that enters your yard. But making sure it knows it’ll get hurt for doing so is a smart choice.
Firecrackers? Glad you never needed them. You might not be writing the story.
My boss was hunting in Alaska walking on the high ground with his guide, when the saw a Sow with 2 Cubs. Approaching the Mother she gave a grunt and the two Cubs went up a tree like, now.
The male bear got close and the Mother bear went into tornado mode and the male ran away with a lot of fur and meat missing. I would say, the are very dangerous and should be given a wide path, armed or no.