http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/when-grizzly-bears-attack/?singlepage=true

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 [1] 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 [2]. 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 [3], “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 [4] (R-ID) have publicly weighed in on Hill’s behalf.

The Boundary County prosecutor also came out on Hill’s behalf [5], 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 [6] and noted the animals were five miles away from the nearest recovery zone for grizzly bears.

With determination that would make Inspector Javert [10] proud, federal prosecutors have the case set to go to trial on October 4th. The stakes could not be more significant. At issue is whether the fundamental right to self-defense allows people to protect their families from dangerous animals, or if such a high value is placed on an endangered species that human lives must only be in the greatest peril imaginable to justify a shooting.

Even if the federal government prevails, the prosecution of Jeremy Hill will most likely have results counterproductive to the stated goals of the Endangered Species Act. Families living in Grizzly Country, facing the same risks as Hill, will still act to protect their families. Given what has happened to Hill, one thing they won’t do is call the authorities. Had Hill not done this, he would not be facing the charge.

This would only become one more situation where the phrase “Shoot, shovel, and shut up [11]” would be applied. When many farmers and ranchers find on their property a predator listed as an endangered or threatened species, to preserve their livelihoods and protect their families, they literally shoot the animal, bury the carcass, and say nothing.

The Jeremy Hill case should serve as a clarion call to reform the nearly four-decades-old Endangered Species Act. What Congress and the Interior Department have failed to recognize is that for the act to work effectively they need the buy-in of those who live in the same area as these species. That will not happen if the Endangered Species Act fails to provide reasonable protections for humans’ property and safety.

Whatever the verdict, the tone deaf prosecution has reinforced the feeling of many Americans living in the rural West: the federal government is as big of a menace to their livelihoods and safety as any beast in the forest.

Won't someone please think of the children?

Won't someone please think of the children?

Won't someone please think of the children bears?

When many farmers and ranchers find on their property a predator listed as an endangered or threatened species, to preserve their livelihoods and protect their families, they literally shoot the animal, bury the carcass, and say nothing.

Although the ages aren't referenced I found it weird that he grabbed "his daughter's rifle" to shoot the bear.

When many farmers and ranchers find on their property a predator listed as an endangered or threatened species, to preserve their livelihoods and protect their families, they literally shoot the animal, bury the carcass, and say nothing.

...Whatever the verdict, the tone deaf prosecution has reinforced the feeling of many Americans living in the rural West: the federal government is as big of a menace to their livelihoods and safety as any beast in the forest.

Wow. Only a liberal.

Wow. Only a liberal

I find RD's argument something less than "liberal." First of all, he agrees the charges are stupid. Then he argued that those farms only exist because of stupid federal subsidies that shouldn't be there to start with, so they have no business complaining about stupid federal interference -- without the fed, the farms would be gone.

Wanting to eliminate farm subsidies is far more libertarian-conservative than liberal.

No, he was fine till he got his panties in a twist because a guy had the audacity to complain about the federal goverenment making life hard for him while he was protecting his family FROM A GRIZZLY BEAR on the off chance he might be recieving some sort of government help. Basically, only a liberal would find a way to come to the rescue of the government in a situation like this.

If I recall, the justification was that the encounters were avoidable. In the first situation, no humans were threatened and defending a pet on your property is apparently not justification to shoot a bear.

In the campground, they found that the campers were negligent in not taking precautions with their food stores, and causing the situation by attracting the bear. And then not taking every opportunity to leave the area when the bear arrived and started pillaging the tents and backpacks.

No, he was fine till he got his panties in a twist because a guy had the audacity to complain about the federal goverenment making life hard for him while he was protecting his family FROM A GRIZZLY BEAR on the off chance he might be recieving some sort of government help. Basically, only a liberal would find a way to come to the rescue of the government in a situation like this.

Those justifications are absurd.

Did I miss something? How are we so sure this guy is collecting any government subsidies?