Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Grizzly shooter garners support

  1. #1
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Grizzly shooter garners support

    He said his son was concerned for the safety of his children playing outside when a mother grizzly and two cubs wandered onto his property on May 8


    http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_n...e29ff6b8a.html
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  2. #2
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    So, what, he was supposed to wait until the mamma bear attacked one of his livestock or kids before shooting it?

    I'll be the state ag laws allow for destroying threatening wildlife in defense of livestock.
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by okboomer View Post
    So, what, he was supposed to wait until the mamma bear attacked one of his livestock or kids before shooting it?

    I'll be the state ag laws allow for destroying threatening wildlife in defense of livestock.
    If the wildlife is protected by federal endangered species, crops and cattle become forfeit.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  4. #4
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    If the wildlife is protected by federal endangered species, crops and cattle become forfeit.
    Not true where I am.

    Same thing about the wolves in Yellowstone. If they cross out of the park and predate on cattle, they are open for killing.

    Been an ongoing battle for decades. If the Feds want to declare something protected by ESA, then they are also responsible for paying for livestock/crops taken by that protected species. Feds won't pay, farmers win all the time.
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by okboomer View Post
    Not true where I am.

    Same thing about the wolves in Yellowstone. If they cross out of the park and predate on cattle, they are open for killing.

    Been an ongoing battle for decades. If the Feds want to declare something protected by ESA, then they are also responsible for paying for livestock/crops taken by that protected species. Feds won't pay, farmers win all the time.
    Its good to hear about when people fight the law and the law looses. Where I'm from we didn't mess around with making things endangered; we went straight for extinct. So there is not much use or application of such laws.

    And as to the wolves, I seem to remember recently reading that they are no longer listed as endangered in many areas, thus making it legal to kill them; much to the ire of the ecocommies.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Someone help me better understand how this whole being charged process works.

    1. Was this man required to contact the authorities after shooting a bear on his property? I'm assuming this is out in the woods to be having grizzly bears on your property. maybe I am wrong.

    2. When the cops got there, were they the ones to arrest him and charge him? Or did that report get to a higher up who decided this man needed to be charged?


    What I am getting at is this: who was THE INDIVIDUAL in the law to make the decision to press charges on this man?
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    Someone help me better understand how this whole being charged process works.
    Ok, Schlitz, let's see if I can summarize it for us all:

    1. If you can avoid it, do so.

    2. If you can't, see if you can diffuse the situation and get the hell out of dodge.

    3. If your adversaries won't let you, protect yourself and try to disengage, then beat feet.

    4. If your avenue of escape is blocked, create one, with whit if necessary.

    5. If the whit doesn't work, try your guns.

    6. Skipping all this to step 5 is not an offense provided there's a reasonable indication your life may be in danger.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by okboomer View Post
    So, what, he was supposed to wait until the mamma bear attacked one of his livestock or kids before shooting it?

    I'll be the state ag laws allow for destroying threatening wildlife in defense of livestock.
    It did attack livestock. It attacked some pigs they were raising.

    This is Federal, not state.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  9. #9
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    And yet another incident where the Federal Government has stuck it's nose where it has no business being.... per the US Constitution they are doing something that is in the area of the various States or Citizen's rights category.

    Feds should not only cut him loose, but refund his bail money, and ask his forgiveness!

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    387
    This is why people apply the 3S Rule when dealing with 'protected species' endangering life and property.
    Shoot
    Shovel
    Shut-up

  11. #11
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    This whole thing is an Obama appointed US Attorney trying to make points for herself with her boss. The guy is totally in the clear with the state of Idaho, no problem there.

    Hopefully the outcome will be an ammendment to the ESA to make proviaion for these things and prevent charges ever being brought in the first place,

  12. #12
    Regular Member Wolfgang1952's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mt Hermon / Franklinton,La ,
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Toad View Post
    This is why people apply the 3S Rule when dealing with 'protected species' endangering life and property.
    Shoot
    Shovel
    Shut-up

    I believe in the 3 S’s also. But one of those S’s should be a B for Backhoe or Bulldozer.
    Pres. Florida Parishes Chapter of LOCAL www.laopencarry.org

    .308 Isn't an area code, but it can still make long distance calls.
    How may I help you? Press '1' for English. Press '2' to disconnect until you learn to speak English.


    Wolf

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    This whole thing is an Obama appointed US Attorney trying to make points for herself with her boss. The guy is totally in the clear with the state of Idaho, no problem there.

    Hopefully the outcome will be an ammendment to the ESA to make proviaion for these things and prevent charges ever being brought in the first place,
    Interesting, either you can post while sleeping or you are on drugs and should stop all medication immediately; you seem to be dreaming or hallucinating. No such outcome will happen, the best one can hope for is the guy be found not guilty.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  14. #14
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolfgang1952 View Post
    I believe in the 3 S’s also. But one of those S’s should be a B for Backhoe or Bulldozer.
    A prime young bear? He would have had a date with my freezer

    3S = Shoot
    Skin
    Steak
    Last edited by okboomer; 08-28-2011 at 06:21 PM.
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Autopsy Confirms It's a Grizzly

    Article.

    I carried all over Rocky Mountain National Park two weeks ago. No one batted an eye. Why people would rather be bear bait than defend themselves against dangerous animals is beyond all rational comprehension.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I hope it is the same bear in both attacks and the family sues the bear scat out of the NPS. Any time a predator kills a human that animal needs to be "removed from the population". The NPS should have shutdown all hiking trails until the bear was relocated to a very remote location within the park.
    I agree the NPS goofed when they placed keeping the park open and trying to protect the reputation of the park above the safety of humans.

    The second hikers death is solely on the NPS.
    Not I. It's legal to carry in Yellowstone. Any time a human ventures into the territory of dangerous wild animals without the means to protect himself, he's taking an unnecessary risk. On another note, the same could be said when venturing into the territory of dangerous two-legged animals.

    Naw, the hiker is partly to blame, even if it's just out of ignorance. Think of him as the lady who sued McD's for the hot coffee spill. Except for the fact he's deceased and it might be his family doing the suing.
    Last edited by since9; 08-31-2011 at 01:52 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •