Man Who Shot Grizzly Being Sued By Feds

[BlaqueKatt]

um except for the followup article which states:

Hill went back into the house and went to find his family.
Hill asked his wife to get the phone book so he could call the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, but before he could dial, he looked out and saw that the bear was trying to crawl to the woods.
The animal stopped behind a tree, wounded but not dead, and Hill took up the rifle again, carefully walked over to the bear, unsure if it was dead or alive, but knowing that a wounded grizzly bear posed a significant threat. Using the last bullet, he fired a final shot, putting the bear out of his misery and ending the threat.

It was dying, crawling away into the woods, and HE LEFT THE SAFETY OF HIS HOUSE, WALKED UP TO THE THING TO KILL IT-that is no longer self-defense, if you are in fear of your safety you do not chase down what you are claiming you were afraid of when it's down, walking up to it is an act that shows you are no longer in fear for your life.

[Nyoibo]

um except for the followup article which states:



It was dying, crawling away into the woods, and HE LEFT THE SAFETY OF HIS HOUSE, WALKED UP TO THE THING TO KILL IT-that is no longer self-defense, if you are in fear of your safety you do not chase down what you are claiming you were afraid of when it's down, walking up to it is an act that shows you are no longer in fear for your life.

Bullshit, I say he showed that he believed he had a sense responsibility about leaving a dying animal to suffer and that you DO NOT leave a wounded animal.

[insertNameHere]

Well, typically the humane thing to do is when you severely wound an animal is to finish the job instead of making it suffer by bleeding out a slow painful death. Or leaving it pissed off to come back later

[Kheldarson]

Sounds like something the Dept of Natural Retards around here would do.

People have been charged and fined for killing wolves that attack their cattle and are a threat to their family.

Ya know, if I was at stake to lose a child or a pet because some wild animal who shouldn't be here anyway is, I don't even care if it's "protected", I'm going to kill it. It's the DNR's fault we have so many wolves anyway.

Saw a National Geographic article on the wolves...seemed ranchers were mostly complaining about the fact that their cattle was skittish and leaner than usual in the presence of a wolf, and hunters were upset over the lack of elk with big antlers. But nobody really talked about wolves coming near humans, except one research group that had camped near a herd of deer, only to have the wolves go around them to get to the deer.


But grizzlies are mean from my understanding.

[BlaqueKatt]

Ya know, if I was at stake to lose a child or a pet because some wild animal who shouldn't be here anyway is, I don't even care if it's "protected", I'm going to kill it. It's the DNR's fault we have so many wolves anyway.

the population of wolves in Wisconsin is a whopping 580 individual animals
compared to their main prey animal the whitetailed deer, at close to a million. wolves can't really take down anything much larger(deer run about 200 pounds max), they are afraid of humans, and you really think an 80 pound wolf can take down a half ton cow?

Deer are starving to death and spreading disease due to overpopulation because their only natural predator was nearly wiped out. The number of car vs. deer crashes is huge because the deer are wandering farther to find food.

Well, typically the humane thing to do is when you severely wound an animal is to finish the job instead of making it suffer by bleeding out a slow painful death. Or leaving it pissed off to come back later

or fish and wildlife could've tranqued it and taken it to have it's injuries assessed and possibly dealt with.

[Canarr]

Bullshit, I say he showed that he believed he had a sense responsibility about leaving a dying animal to suffer and that you DO NOT leave a wounded animal.

Maybe; but that probably wasn't his decision to make. Once the immediate threat is over, it's no longer self-defense, so that justification is out. Whether or not he can be charged, depends on the laws in his state.

In Germany, you are required to inform the police of any wounded animal (say, from a car accident), who will then call the local ranger, who will come and take care of the animal. If there's a similar law where he lives, I'd say he's screwed.

[BlaqueKatt]

Maybe; but that probably wasn't his decision to make. Once the immediate threat is over, it's no longer self-defense, so that justification is out. Whether or not he can be charged, depends on the laws in his state.

He's being charged under the Endangered Species Act-which does not allow the harming or killing of any animal on the list unless it is an immediate threat* to human life(pigs are not human, and had the bear killed the pigs he would've been reimbursed for the pigs). And it's recommended to shoot the ground in front of a grizzly to scare it off, you injure it and it becomes likely it will charge.


so yeah he's screwed.

*first two shots would be considered "ok", though there was no immediate threat-yes there were kids outside, a significant distance away, and the bears were not "going after" the kids. In all actuality he put his kids in more danger by shooting the bear, if as he claims, he "didn't know where the kids were", how did he know he wasn't going to cause the injured animal to run straight towards them?

[blas87]

One wolf would be afraid of a human. A pack would not. They have a mentality in a pack.

[Hyena Dandy]

For shooting it, well... I don't know. I kinda see a couple things here. On the one hand, I don't think he was exactly hunting for bears. And a bear can be very dangerous. Its fair to call it self-defense. Though, it seems shooting it was his first choice. Perhaps hide and wait until you see if its going to go away? Anyway, whether he was right or wrong is a grey area. But its clear to me that they shouldn't prosecute. This lawsuit creates a narrative that fits EXACTLY into what people want to hear. It makes this guy look like a hero. The people who the government needs most on their side are people like this farmer, who actually ARE in a position to do something about whether or not these animals get shot. As it is, this doesn't send the message 'don't kill bears' it sends the message 'don't get CAUGHT'.

But if you do shoot it, you better damn well kill it. If it was 'crawling' back to the treeline, it wasn't going to survive anyway. I'm not glad he shot it, but I'm definitely glad he killed it.

[Canarr]

One wolf would be afraid of a human. A pack would not. They have a mentality in a pack.

That still goes against everything I've ever read, heard or seen of wolves; have there really been occurrences in your state of wolves attacking or even just threatening humans? Because to my knowledge, they *still* avoid humans, even in a pack.

[Greenday]

I don't exactly see what's wrong here. He shot and killed a dangerous animal that was a long-term threat to his family and livestock. All this whining about endangered animals is all well and good, but if it's a dangerous animal and it poses a threat, I have no problem with killing it. If it's out in the middle of nowhere and not bothering anyone, that's different. But if it's on your property or crawling away to heal its wounds so it can come back, doing what he did is the most logical choice.

[DrFaroohk]

And this guy is not a vet. How could he have known if it was just gonna limp off and come back later or die ten minutes later? People argue it was no longer self defense once the thing tries to get away, but jesus it's a BEAR and it's prowling around his home. Anyone who doesn't deal with it is a shitty parent.


People get in trouble when it's a person threatening their family and they put a bullet in him. I disagree but I can kind of see that...but a friggin bear? It's a bear! It's an animal. Human rights > animal rights in this case.

[Greenday]

And this guy is not a vet. How could he have known if it was just gonna limp off and come back later or die ten minutes later? People argue it was no longer self defense once the thing tries to get away, but jesus it's a BEAR and it's prowling around his home. Anyone who doesn't deal with it is a shitty parent.


People get in trouble when it's a person threatening their family and they put a bullet in him. I disagree but I can kind of see that...but a friggin bear? It's a bear! It's an animal. Human rights > animal rights in this case.

Exactly! It's pro-active self-defense. Kill it now so it doesn't come back to kill you later.

[Canarr]

Exactly! It's pro-active self-defense. Kill it now so it doesn't come back to kill you later.

Yeah, I kinda doubt that there's a law for that...

[Nyoibo]

Yeah, I kinda doubt that there's a law for that...

Seems to have been working fine for the US government.