• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Grizzly shooter garners support

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
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.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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.
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
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.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,561
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?
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
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.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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!
 

Toad

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
387
Location
, Virginia, USA
This is why people apply the 3S Rule when dealing with 'protected species' endangering life and property.
Shoot
Shovel
Shut-up
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
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,
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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:
Top