Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is no different than those that squash a black widow spider, kill a copperhead, or any other threatening species. We protect ourselves first and foremost. It is our natural self preservation.
You have the right to kill a predator on your property that is threatening your life and your property. To say that you don't is taking away our civil liberties.
It depends on the species, in this instance in Northern Idaho the Grizzly is a threatened species, and thus is protected under the Endangered Species Act.
The ESA defines in Section 11 (I'll paraphrase) that harming a threatened status species in good faith self defense or defense of another is an exception to the penalties of harming a threatened species. Note there's NO exception for defense of property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ESA Section 11 subsection b
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, it shall be a defense to prosecution under this subsection if the defendant committed the offense based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other individual, from bodily harm from any endangered or threatened species.
We don't know it was a good faith shooting just seeing a bear is no reason to shoot it, people do dumb things all the time, and anything he did subsequent to the shooting that was discovered could cast doubt that the shooting was in good faith, even taking a photograph of him with the carcass could be enough if it got to F&G or USFWS. If he made a statement he shot in defense of his pigs, then that's most likely a slam dunk conviction. You can't harm an endangered species in defense of property. But you should be smart enough to keep your mouth shut and take the 5th until you get a lawyer, or make sure your insurance will cover wild animal damage if you happen to live in an area that this is a possibility.
That said we don't know that it wasn't. Which is why it's going to trial in the first instance, it's up to the court to decide whether any law was broken, and if so to assign a sentence.
Personally IMHO if you feel so scared of bears that you feel the urge to kill them at first sight without considering whether they're an immediate threat or not, then don't live or even enter bear country. That would be like someone terrified of heights living on a mountain top, or someone terrified of water living on a houseboat.
As we all know, ignorance of the law is no defense, it only took be about 1 minute to find out the information that was needed (the Idaho F&G site is very intuitive to navigate) and I don't even live in that state. I know that there's little chance a threatened species would appear on my doorstep (they're mostly marine) and I can shoot bears (except polar) in defense of property in my state, because they're not protected under the ESA in AK. It would also make sense for land owners in these areas to know what the law is on these situations, and if you have time to think "what does the ESA say on this" you probably shouldn't pull the trigger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacredgrooves
This is no different than those that squash a black widow spider, kill a copperhead, or any other threatening species. We protect ourselves first and foremost. It is our natural self preservation.
It is no different if that species is under the protection of the ESA in your location, and you kill that species without knowing your legal position.
It depends on the species, in this instance in Northern Idaho the Grizzly is a threatened species, and thus is protected under the Endangered Species Act.
The ESA defines in Section 11 (I'll paraphrase) that harming a threatened status species in good faith self defense or defense of another is an exception to the penalties of harming a threatened species. Note there's NO exception for defense of property.
Then the ESA is being used to take away our civil liberties.
Then the ESA is being used to take away our civil liberties.
Interesting perspective... How so, which civil liberty?
You can use alternate pro-active non-lethal means to protect your property if you are so concerned. All private property is restricted to a defined area that can have pro-active measures applied to it, that includes livestock. Whether this is feasible financially or even practically isn't relevant, a civil liberty is the guarantee that you can do something, not the guarantee that it will be done. You have the right to free speech, whether you choose to exercise it or not is your personal choice. You have the right of free movement, but you pay for the transport costs, not being able to pay will restrict your travel. You have the right to an education, you do not have the right to be given a PhD or even a GED, not having the application or ability will limit those qualifications.
Shooting should be considered the last line of defense of either property or life, not the first line of defense. Would you consider that because you cannot be there to defend your property every minute of every day removal of your civil liberties? If not then why not?
It depends on the species, in this instance in Northern Idaho the Grizzly is a threatened species, and thus is protected under the Endangered Species Act.
...
Well written and thoughful post. I do want to point out one thing. The Grizzly Bear is NOT "endangered", in that the survival of the species is not at risk. Bears in Idaho and Montana are the same species that are not only not "endangered" in Alaska and much of Canada, they are legal to hunt. The only reason the ones in my area are listed is that some bureaucrat has decided we need a population here, in populated areas, as well. The population has been increasing steadly over the last couple of decades.
Ironically, the federal government has choosen to plant wolves into the same area identified as a grizzly bear recovery zone. Kind of ironic that they want to protect bears, yet place another apex predator, one that preys on the same animals that the bears do, in this area. Interestingly, wolf packs are known to drive griz from kills. Wolves have had a tremendous impact on elk populations in the area, to the extent that there is both an open season, and F&G are authorized to kill them in areas where the elk population is in jeopardy.
So...someone protecting his family from a potentially fatal encounter with an endangered bear (and yes, we need better information to know the extent of the threat) is a criminal...but someone planting an invasive species, is a hero to the environmental community. Makes no fuggin sense... I guess wild dogs are prettier than kids.
Well written and thoughful post. I do want to point out one thing. The Grizzly Bear is NOT "endangered", in that the survival of the species is not at risk. Bears in Idaho and Montana are the same species that are not only not "endangered" in Alaska and much of Canada, they are legal to hunt. The only reason the ones in my area are listed is that some bureaucrat has decided we need a population here, in populated areas, as well. The population has been increasing steadly over the last couple of decades.
Ironically, the federal government has choosen to plant wolves into the same area identified as a grizzly bear recovery zone. Kind of ironic that they want to protect bears, yet place another apex predator, one that preys on the same animals that the bears do, in this area. Interestingly, wolf packs are known to drive griz from kills. Wolves have had a tremendous impact on elk populations in the area, to the extent that there is both an open season, and F&G are authorized to kill them in areas where the elk population is in jeopardy.
.
Grizzlies were never eradicated in this area. They've always been here. The population has been protected and growing very slowly. There have been bears relocated in an effort to increase the gene pool.
I agree with Gungnir. People who do not wish to live in an area with the predators, should not move here.
I hope that this man is telling the truth and is vindicated. The consequences are ugly for him otherwise. Unfortunately, there are so many like many of the posters here, who just start with "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up" that more suspicion is cast on anyone who kills a grizzly.
I live here in northern Idaho.
I have kids.
I've had grizzlies and wolves on my land.
I have livestock.
I protect them by putting them in a solid barn or they are under the protection of my livestock guardian dogs (Great Pyrenees).
I don't believe that merely seeing bears on my land is an excuse to shoot them.
But...I wasn't there. A frightened parent should be maybe forgiven for being a little trigger happy. IF that's what happened.
Last edited by mistyriver; 08-28-2011 at 01:04 PM..
Then the ESA is being used to take away our civil liberties.
Interesting perspective... How so, which civil liberty?
The right to protect your property from harm. The right to kill something that is trying to kill something that belongs to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
You can use alternate pro-active non-lethal means to protect your property if you are so concerned.
When the bear is trying to eat your pigs?A bit late for pro-active non lethal. The bear does not have the right to live at my expense. Financial or my life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
All private property is restricted to a defined area that can have pro-active measures applied to it, that includes livestock. Whether this is feasible financially or even practically isn't relevant, a civil liberty is the guarantee that you can do something, not the guarantee that it will be done.
You have the right to stop an animal from eating your property. If the animal can easily kill you then you have the right to kill it first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
You have the right to free speech, whether you choose to exercise it or not is your personal choice. You have the right of free movement, but you pay for the transport costs, not being able to pay will restrict your travel. You have the right to an education, you do not have the right to be given a PhD or even a GED, not having the application or ability will limit those qualifications.
Shooting should be considered the last line of defense of either property or life, not the first line of defense.
Having a predator show up that hasn't been a problem in a long time posses a bit of a problem. Your existing defenses against predation are up to the existing predators. The new one posses an immediate problem. Do you just let it eat your stuff because you didn't know it was coming? Or do you shoot it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Would you consider that because you cannot be there to defend your property every minute of every day removal of your civil liberties? If not then why not?
If I were forcibly removed from my property then yes that is a restriction of my civil liberties. If I chose to be somewhere else then that is on me.
The right to protect your property from harm. The right to kill something that is trying to kill something that belongs to you.
When the bear is trying to eat your pigs?A bit late for pro-active non lethal. The bear does not have the right to live at my expense. Financial or my life.
You have the right to stop an animal from eating your property. If the animal can easily kill you then you have the right to kill it first.Having a predator show up that hasn't been a problem in a long time posses a bit of a problem. Your existing defenses against predation are up to the existing predators. The new one posses an immediate problem. Do you just let it eat your stuff because you didn't know it was coming? Or do you shoot it?
If I were forcibly removed from my property then yes that is a restriction of my civil liberties. If I chose to be somewhere else then that is on me.
In Alaska, where the only protected bear is the polar bear, you are only allowed to defend your property if your survival depends upon it. For example, if you live on the road system and a moose or bear is munching on your garden, then it would be illegal to kill either one. However, if you live in the bush, and your very survival during the winter depends on your harvest from that garden, then you may legally kill any critter threatening your means of survival.
In essence, if the property can be replaced and no one is harmed as a result of loosing that property, then you cannot kill any critter that causes damage to that property. If the property cannot be replaced, and your life depends upon that property, then you can defend it against any critter.
In Alaska, where the only protected bear is the polar bear, you are only allowed to defend your property if your survival depends upon it. For example, if you live on the road system and a moose or bear is munching on your garden, then it would be illegal to kill either one. However, if you live in the bush, and your very survival during the winter depends on your harvest from that garden, then you may legally kill any critter threatening your means of survival.
In essence, if the property can be replaced and no one is harmed as a result of loosing that property, then you cannot kill any critter that causes damage to that property. If the property cannot be replaced, and your life depends upon that property, then you can defend it against any critter.
That sounds about right. In Alaska grizzlies are well understood. In Idaho not so. Personally I don't have a problem with the shooting. That the kids were inside does slow down a grizzly a bit but is not going to stop a determined bear from getting at them.
That sounds about right. In Alaska grizzlies are well understood. In Idaho not so. Personally I don't have a problem with the shooting. That the kids were inside does slow down a grizzly a bit but is not going to stop a determined bear from getting at them.
So, where are you from, cowboy?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
