TexasCHLforum.com

This might be a case for shoot-shovel-shutup.

An Idaho man shot and killed a grizzly that was threatening his family. He called the police afterwards and his reward--charges for killing an animal that was threatening his property and his family. Really? Next time don't bother calling the law. If the Idaho state police want to foster a sense of mistrust in their state this is a sure way to do it.

http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news ... f6b8a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

About fifteen years ago there was a outdoor magazine that had an article titled "Shoot a grizzly, save you, go to jail." They made it sound like there was no excuse for shooting a grizzly bear. I guess you suppose to get mauled and not complain.If it's me I'll take the ride and the rap.

After reading the article, I do not think it will be easy to find a jury that will convict him. If I were on the jury, I would not.

I dunno', there are a lot more humans than there are grizzlys and they were here first.

mamabearCali wrote:If the Idaho state police want to foster a sense of mistrust in their state this is a sure way to do it.

He wasn't charged under Idaho law, he was charged under the Federal ESA and was appearing in U.S. District Court, so I wouldn't blame the Idaho police, I blame the federales.

Actually, what he did appears to be legal under Idaho law. Since it had already killed livestock,I'd say this bear falls under a "nuisance critter" heading, and aside from the guy taking immediate action the ultimate removal of the Grizzly would have been the same from viewing the following document.

http://species.idaho.gov/pdf/grizzly_plan.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

APPENDIX IV – Definitions used for Nuisance Bear Guidelines.

Nuisance grizzly bear: a grizzly bear that depredates livestock, causes property damage, or uses unnatural food that has been reasonably secured from the grizzly bear; or, a grizzly bear that displays unnatural aggression toward humans that constitutes a demonstrable immediate or potential threat to human safety and/or a human injury.

And even better...

Human/Grizzly Bear Conflicts

Human safety is a high priority, and the risk to human safety must be minimized. As bear numbers and distribution increase, the potential for human/grizzly conflicts will also increase. The increase in human/grizzly encounters may jeopardize the safety of humans as well as the safety of the bears. Adequate response to human safety concerns will increase local support for the grizzly bear.

There will be no prosecution of any individual who injures or kills a grizzly bear while acting in self-defense if the bear is molesting, assaulting, killing, or threatening to kill a person.

IDFG shall provide timely information to the public and land management agencies about current bear distribution, including relocations, food conditions, activity, potential and current conflicts, and behaviors. Land management agencies are encouraged to contact their permittees with information that will help them avoid conflicts.

So instead, there is some Federal DA with a burr under the saddle deciding to charge this guy.

Ain't prosecutorial discretion grand? Under the same Attorney General we've seen this man being charged for killing a dangerous animal on his property after it's already killed some livestock and is now roaming the yard with cubs in tow as your children are playing ... Yet in in Philadelphia a few years ago you could stand outside a polling place with a deadly weapon intimidating voters and never even make it to court. Just sign a piece of paper agreeing not to intimidate anybody else for a few years and we'll forget the whole thing. I guess I never realized that the ESA covered Black Panthers as well.

Sounds like a good reason to have a bonfire instead of calling the police.

fishman wrote:If it's me I'll take the ride and the rap.

PracticalTactical wrote:Sounds like a good reason to have a bonfire instead of calling the police.

A cook out and a butchering party. A one year old should still be tender. I wonder what smoked bear roast tastes like.


Don't forget the backhoe to bury the remains. At least 20 miles away.

OldCurlyWolf wrote:

PracticalTactical wrote:Sounds like a good reason to have a bonfire instead of calling the police.

A cook out and a butchering party. A one year old should still be tender. I wonder what smoked bear roast tastes like.


Don't forget the backhoe to bury the remains. At least 20 miles away.

Don't forget that bear liver contains lethally high levels of vitamin A, either. (That might only be true of polar bears... I can't remember...)

OldCurlyWolf wrote: Don't forget the backhoe to bury the remains. At least 20 miles away.

I seem to remember an old movie stating "The secret is in the sauce" I say cook out! Then make bear broth, then bear soup, then when you can't find anything else useful to do with the carcass burn it to nothing.

mamabearCali wrote:

OldCurlyWolf wrote: Don't forget the backhoe to bury the remains. At least 20 miles away.

I seem to remember an old movie stating "The secret is in the sauce" I say cook out! Then make bear broth, then bear soup, then when you can't find anything else useful to do with the carcass burn it to nothing.

That might have been Fried Green Tomatoes.

Things are going nuts, a fellow has a right to protect himself.