New West Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming
Criminal charges levied earlier this week on Jeremy Hill, who shot and killed a grizzly bear cub in his yard last May near Porthill, Idaho, just below the border with Canada, have sparked statements in his defense by Idaho’s local, state, and federal politicians.
Hill pleaded not guilty in federal court on Tuesday to the misdemeanor charge of killing an animal protected by the Endangered Species Act. A sow and two cubs wandered into his yard, and he said he was defending his six children.
Idaho Gov. Butch Otter released a letter on Thursday that he wrote in support of Hill’s action to U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Noting that Hill thought his children were playing in the yard at the time, Otter requested that Salazar look into the matter and help in any way he can.
“One of the flaws of the ESA is the premium it places on protecting species at the expense of everything else,” Otter wrote.
“I’m at a loss to understand why the U.S. government is pursuing this in the manner they are,” Idaho state Sen. Shawn Keough (R-Sandpoint) told Spokane’s Spokesman-Review after Hill’s arraignment.
U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, who serves on the committee that oversees the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which filed the charges, released a statement today. Calling for fair and swift treatment of Hill, he said, “I have deep concerns about this incident and the decision of the government to prosecute Mr. Hill, who did what any parent would do in this situation.”
Sen. Jim Risch of Idaho, who is a former prosecutor, told the Idaho Statesman, “What Mr. Hill did was not a criminal act in the court of common sense.”
Walt Kirby, a commissioner of northern Idaho’s Boundary County, told the Northwest News Network that the case was unnerving to people who live in bear country. “The government should just pick up their marbles and go home,” he said.
The Hills’ home sits between two federal grizzly bear recovery zones, the Selkirk to the west and Cabinet-Yaak to the east. About 100 grizzlies, a species listed as threatened, are believed to inhabit the zones.
After shooting the bear with a bolt-action rifle, Hill contacted the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. His misdemeanor charge carries a potential sentence of a year in prison and a $50,000 fine. A jury trial has been scheduled for Oct. 4.
Friends of Hill, 33, and his family packed the U.S. Courthouse in Coeur d’Alene at his arraignment on Tuesday. A 4-H animal sale was then held in the nearby community of Bonners Ferry, Idaho, at which almost $20,000 was raised for his legal defense.
“Most of the facts are being kept secret at this time by U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials, prosecutors, the public defender and the Hill family,” outdoor writer Rich Landers indicated in a Spokeman-Review column today. “The law says a wolf can be shot if it’s actively threatening pets or livestock, but no such caveat exists for shooting a grizzly.”
The reason for this, he elaborated, was that a female grizzly does not reach sexual maturity until age six or seven, produces just one or two young every three years, and usually does not survive in the wild beyond her early 20s.
Bear spray. I know, I know, it’s just too much trouble. Oh wait …
I’m reluctant to rush to judgement before more facts are known. Hate to see things tried on the internet. On the one hand a Bear wandering onto your family dwelling deserves a self defense reaction. On the other hand local right wing politicians are well known for their self righteous hypocrisy, attempting to sucker locals into believing that they’re fighting on their behalf against the big bad Feds, when local politicians are, in fact, just trying to get money and votes so they can continue to Boss folks around instead of the Feds.
Yep, Sabrina, that would be real smart to go chase down a sow griz eating your animals with 2 cubs nearby and hope to get close enough that the spray was effective. That might get your wildlife lover of the year….posthumously.
I don’t know that local politicians other than the county attorney had much to do with this….and it may all be FWS.
Have you ever used bear spray on a bear? Much safer than a gun. I’m not going to explain the use of bear spray versus a gun. You need to read up on it. Or you can fight it. Your choice. My comment still stands and anyone who knows about it will understand it. BTW what makes you think those two other bears couldn’t have come after him after he shot the first bear? Good luck shooting two spooked bears coming after you. He got lucky. He could have SAFELY frightened away ALL of the bears with bear spray. You don’t have experience with it or know much about it so, again, this is a moot debate.
The range of a rifle is much further than the range of bear spray…much. I really do not think it would be wise to approach a griz in order to get close enough to use spray.
By the way it sounds like another guy in Yellowstone got attacked and killed by a griz, partially eaten. No spray, and that is where it migh have helped.
Sabrina–Since bear spray only has a range or 25 to 35 feet, how could Hill have “safely” frightened away all three grizzly bears with bear spray? Hill was 40 yards away from the bears. Bear spray or no bear spray, starting out 40 yards away from three grizzlies and then moving to within 25 to 35 feet is likely to provoke a charge. That’s suicidal. That’s why so many federal and state agencies tell people, “Don’t approach bears.”
JL I am highly aware of the specifics of bear spray and have done a few presentations on it.
One: If Hill was 40 yards away from the bears, then there was more than enough space for him to shout first, shoot later. Knowing the typical reaction of bears, yelling would have worked exceptionally. I have done this within 30 feet without incident. He took aim at a bear who did not know he was in his eyesight, meaning the bear was “shot in the back” and given no chance. I have not heard that he yelled at the bear, the bear charged, which I doubt, and then he shot.
Two: There is very little information they are giving out on this story and a few discrepancies throughout articles; the kids were in front shooting hoops and were inside the house when he shot the bear, the kids were in the backyard when he saw the bears approach, the kids were shooting hoops, he didn’t see them and they didn’t answer when called (they were already in the house), etc …
IF the kids were indeed between father and bears I STILL would not condone his using any type of firearm with these bears to save his kids. IF the kids were in trouble as he claims and he shot and missed that bear or grazed that bear he would have then had one angry bear to fend off SUPPOSED endangered children. The bear wasn’t being threatening so he had ample time to draw a nice clean shot aim. Wouldn’t have worked quite as nicely had the bear been charging.
Something isn’t right about this scenario.
Problem is that people who live in bear habitat should have precautions in place that do not involve a paranoid trigger finger at every sight of wildlife. Raising pigs in Grizzly habitat? Without an electric fence? With children in the area?
I think he got scared, was too afraid to shoo them away and instantly used his gun. Realizing what he had done, and maybe trying to rescue his lack of “balls” came up with the ‘kid story”, because he was genuinely afraid for his kids and himself. Not saying he wasn’t.
Anyway until they disclose all of the info, we will never know.
Regardless. I stick with bear spray, give a warning, if the bear charges, use the spray, the sound alone usually sends them paw over ears.
Sabrina, first you said Jeremy Hill “could have safely frightened away all of the bears with bear spray.”
Now you’ve gone gone off-topic and claimed Jeremy Hill could have shouted at the bears, then shot them later with his rifle. One, shouting at bears is not the same thing as using bear spray. You haven’t told us how hie could have safely frightend away all of the bears with bear spray.
Two, what if he shouted at the bears, the bruins looked around, saw his kids, and charged? Now Jeremy Hill has to shoot a charging grizzly, which you say “wouldn’t have worked as well” as shooting at a stationary bear 40 yards away.
Three, you speculate that if Hill had a can of bear spray, he could have shouted at the grizzlies, then sprayed if they charged. But you also mention that he didn’t know where his kids were. What if Hill shouted, the grizzly bears charged his kids, and the charging bears weren’t within the limited range of Hill’s bear spray?
Call 911 and shout for a doctor?
I’m not going ’round and ’round on this. You’re entitled to your opinion and I still stand on mine.
Bear Blaster should recieve a bounty. Bear killed in Yellowstone after charging a man. Recently a bear ate a hiker and the park service said the bear probably won’t do it again. How many people have to be killed and eaten before something is done about the explodeing bear population. Enough already!
The base problem is single species advocates, each of whom has a bunch of environmental groups making tons of non taxable money for their species. Griz advocates care nothing about the impact on any other species, wolf advocates care nothing about the impact on other species, Preble mouse advocates…….
Worse researchers are rolling in the money from grants the same way, single species focus. And of course unless they can think of a way that their species needs more research and protection the money will stop.
The species at the very bottom of the totem pole is humans. If they can think of no other excuse for creating potential harm to people “too many people” is their final excuse.
I understand people’s instinctive fear of anything like a grizzly. I understand wanting to protect your family. But, firstly killing a cub?! – really?! If you live in bear country you should have protection against them without killing them – there are livestock protection dogs – there are fences – there are other things you can do. I can understand if the sow was going for one of the children – then you have no alternative but to shoot – but from what I have read this was not the way it happened. We have livestock – lived where there were cougars. We took appropriate preventative measures. We hike in cougar, wolf and grizzly counter, with our packgoats, we take the precautions and we have also taken the responsibility to work around them. I am in hopes that the public really understands what endangered means – just because a predator is in your yard does not mean it is going after you – it has the total right to be there. We have the ability to do preventative care so incidents are not so likely to happen – I agree there are always situations that might occur that no other way out but to shoot an animal but we all must think twice, three, a hundred times, about shooting an endangered one!!
I have no idea what the governor and senator are thinking about when they are backing a person/event like this – do you hunt, hike, any outdoor adventures?
Donna, if you are so very experienced at packing in gizzly country why no mention of spray? And the bear killed was an adult, not a cub. It is very kind of you to allow killing the bear if it was after one of the kids.
Sorry, but grizzlies have no need for protection in and around homes, especially those with kids. Grizzlies are a wilderness animal and if we have to eliminate hiking in wilderness areas to protect them so be it, but not in and around human homes.
When the trial happens, it will be interesting to find out what the situation actually was when Hill shot the bear. Were his children already in the house when Hill shot, or were they still outside? Were the kids on the same of the house as the bears–were they visible to the bears–or were the kids on the opposite side of the house where the bears couldn’t even see them?
You can’t kill a grizzly to protect pigs and other property. You can kill a grizzly in self-defense. Hill wasn’t defending himself. He’s got to convince the jury he was defending his kids even though the bear(s) were not charging or attacking. Maybe Hill didn’t know exactly where the kids were when he shot, he just knew the kids were outside and the bears were too close. Will that stand up in court? We shall see.
Very well said Barry.
Well, well, well, Sabrina are you trying to tell us you were there and know the exact circumstances? Or are you perhaps rewriting a scenario to suit your own ideas?
The family was there and their description of the scene has to stand unless you have proof as to something different. I suspect you have absolutely no idea what you are pontificating about and probably have never even been in the west, much less Idaho, much much less the yard where this happened.
By Jed, 8-28-11
” There should be a cell large enough for the bear-blaster and several of his representatives..?”
What are several of his representatives guilty of??? Believing he was justified in defending his property, and children ???
And if he is convicted, then round up several of his representatives that believe in those rights and jail them as well eh Hortz ???
By golly we believe the man defended his property and relates, but convict him, jail him, and toss the rest of us in jail also.
Jail-Concentration of political prisoners camped and under guard to keep Jed and Hortz happy.
Yeah, good luck Von Horst, maybe we’ll see you in camp.
The issue is not about bear spray, Mr. Hill, right vs. left, or even about the particular details of the event. The real question is whether a man has the right to defend his family against a perceived threat that is a known danger to human life. In other words, does a person have the right to dispose of a potential threat before it becomes life threatening. I believe he does and that it could be considered a greater crime to allow such threats to endanger human life when proactive intervention can correct the danger. If Mr. Hill had chosen to do nothing and one of his children had been mauled, how different would this conversation be?
Our society should not be divided on this issue.
I believe there is more to the story than what is being told. This man made a choice to kill the grizzly. Did he have to? No, he didn’t. I say throw the man and prison and fine him a couple thousands of dollars for killing an endangered species. As the human population continues to grow and grow, you will see more wildlife/human encounters like this one. Wild animals have less and less habitat now that more and more humans have taken it away from them. This is the reality of what is going on.
We can always depend on “the real mike” to mis-state reality because he is so out of touch with it.
“The trial will take place in Idaho. The facts of the case, regardless of “what the situation actually was when Hill shot the bear,” will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on, absolutely nothing to do with, the legal outcome, which is a foregone conclusion merely on the basis of the case being heard in Idaho.”
The only factually correct part of this idiotic screed is that if fact a trial will take place in Idaho. The rest, as usual from this pathetic creature, is 100% incorrect. This trial over this incident will be held in Federal Court and it will be not be held in front of a jury of the accused peers. Such cases are heard before an Administrative Law Judge and no jury shall be seated.
This sort of circumstance should please the Marxists out there such as this “real mike” creature, for what we have posing as a court in such circumstances is a Star Chamber instead of a constitutional court. Constitutionally, a trial in front of his peers allows the accused to essentially argue his case to his fellow citizens rather than attempt to justify his circumstance before an agent of the State.
I find it rather ironic that defamatory vitriol such as “Cases heard in Idaho courts might as well be heard in Australia given the numerous kangaroos, along with their multiple twelve-year-old wives, invariably packed into the courtroom” spews forth from the keyboard of this little mike fellow, given that a figure such as Rex Rammel was convicted of poaching in what “the real mike” infers was a kangaroo proceeding. Yes? Further, I must add that Rammel was convicted by a jury of his peers in Idaho rather than solely in front of an Administrative Law Judge.
Perhaps this pathetic little rodent who calls himself “the real mike” could enlighten us as to where we could find these kangaroos of which he speaks, let alone enlighten us as to exactly where and how many “multiple twelve year old wives” there are in Idaho. Having lived here for a long number of years, I have yet to see an example of either one to validate his spurious claims.
Mike, we’re waiting.
Grizzlies are not considered endangered if you look at the worldwide population, but in certain places in the world, they are considered endangered in those places due to their low numbers.
150,000 grizzlies in the world versus almost 7 billion humans
You tell me who the real endangered species is when you look at those numbers.
First of all, grizzlies are listed as threatened, not endangered. For the second time in 1 year a griz has attacted and eaten a human in and near Yellowstone. Wolves were brought in to replace griz as the apex predator, the food supply in Yellowstone and the surrounding area for carnivores and omnivores has been seriously depleted.Far too many folks view dnagerous animals as entertainment and do not realize how dangerous they can be.
Researchers would be out of a job if either wolves or griz are declared recovered. Both are undoubtedly undercounted. Congress had to step in to get common sense into the wolf situation and they will probably have to with the bears too. There are grizzlies showing up where they have not been seen in over a hundred years (not returned to California, home of environmentalists though). The American taxpayer is going to take it in the pocketbook big time when the lawsuits are settled for all four of the grizzly deaths in the GYE in the last year.
Large predators do not belong in people’s yards.
I hope the judge, jury, prosecutor, and defense lawyer all stick to the issue: was this a legitimate case of killing a grizzly in self-defense?
Our feelings about the state of the earth, the endangered species act, property rights, bear spray and so forth have nothing to do with the issue: was this a legitimate case of killing a grizzly in self-defense.
At this point in time, declaring Jeremy Hill right/wrong or guilty/innocent is absurd because the facts about what happened are not known.
Th same people who claim grizzlies are overpopulated will never ever admit to your own species being overpopulated. Why is the grizzly considered overpopulated in the first place? Does it have something to do with so many humans and taken the bear’s used be habitat away from them? There is no grizzly overpopulation, but to those that think there is one, it’s because of your own species. Grizzlies deserve the right to live and roam, but they can’t, because most of the habitat that used to belong to them is long game. If you want to claim grizzlies are overpopulated or wolves are, please take a good HARD LOOKat your own species. These species grizzlies and wolves are in this situation because of our actions. No one elses.
Mr. Skinner,
I am a Conservative. I am also one of 29 Master Aerial Photographers ever to walk the planet. It would be appropriate to retract your ridiculous statement.
I am also Defendant’s Expert Witness and the forensic photographer in this case.
Defendant did not face a threat from a Grizzly Bear. He faced 3 threats from Grizzly Bears to 5 children of unknown locations (his children were dispersed on his property and he could not see/locate them).
Grizzly Bears have olfactory senses 7 times better than those of Bloodhounds. Their smell is so sensitive that they can smell across miles and across time. They can outrun a race horse at short distances.
Because those bears traversed the property to get to the pigpen it is reasonable to presume they knew of the children-they were just in the mood for bacon.
Advocating for the use of pepper spray in such an instance is simply ridiculous.
Fred, what are you, yourself doing about what you perceive as the problem….too many humans? Le’t face it, nothing can or should be done about the folks living on earth today. This family has a home that they use for shelter and protection, what happened happened in their own home and everyone has the right to protection and to expect protection in their home. .
The Grizzly bear is not an endangered animal & state endangered species programs should be managing this animal! Tell your federal reps to gut the ESA and fix its obvious flaws!
The ESA needs:
*Up front non refundable fee to contest a delisting.
*Up front non-refundable fee to list a new animal/bird/etc.
*Change wording so that an animal as destructive as the gray wolf is not treated the same as the Black footed ferret.
*A process that allows states to take over management of recovered species early in the process so state endangered programs can manage to the will of their people.
MAKE THE LAW ENVIRONMENTAL OBSTRUCTIONIST unfriendly – not there cash cow!
And instead of preserving any species it has been used to persecute one species.
Pepper spray is great, and I carry it most of the times I’m out in the woods, but of course there aren’t grizzlies around here. I notice that when they think they will be encountering bears the Parks, Fish and Game, and everyone else with half a brain carries a long rifle of one sort or another.
Human overpopulation.
Probably so. But the same people who complain about the problem are also the first demanding that food aid be sent to areas where people are experiencing “food security” issues, a circumstance that we used to call “hunger” or “starvation.” It doesn’t matter that “carrying capacity” has been exceeded in those areas, we send food anyway because it makes us feel good. Later, we’ll go in and bomb the hell out of them because they are ungrateful or something. But it keeps our economy humming along because guns and butter are a good thing, or so I am told.
Good old Lenin once asked, “What is to be done?” Should we cull the herd? Would that not argue that we should examine which humans are overpopulating the planet and exactly where this is happening before taking direct action? Science is science after all, correct? And culling, well, that’s a nasty business unless it’s for “National Security reasons” and thus in our interest to do so. But general culling? Hmmm. Indeed. What is to be done?
Let’s see here – back in the late 1990′s the Sierra Club was in turmoil because some of its membership rightly ascertained that mass immigration into the U.S. was environmentally damaging. No one in their right mind can say that such is not the case. How did the Sierra Club end this terribly divisive internal dispute? They purged the anti-immigration elements from the leadership rolls, arguing that by taking an anti-immigration position many of their critical financial supporters in the Democratic Party and other environmental organizations, let alone other well-heeled progressive donors would be offended. In effect, they whored themselves out for the almighty dollar – period. Great outfit. “To hell with the environment, for our friends and their money is more important.”
Si senor.
Let’s study this further. Caucasian reproduction rates are well below replacement levels as it is, whether in Europe or in North America. New Zealand and Australia exhibit the same demographic trend, therefore the dreaded white man is literally breeding himself right towards extinction. Demographically, Caucasians are hardly overpopulating the planet, contributing a mere 15% of the total and that includes “Caucasians” in Russia and many of those populating the Middle East. So where do we look to find the overpopulation problem?
Egads! This is going to sound all racist, which is politically incorrect and everything, but facts are facts. Well, those former illegal immigrants that Teflon Ron gave amnesty to back in ’86 and those who have followed, heading up to “The Republic Del Norte” (That’s the U.S., for those of you mired in ignorance), have and are doing so because the areas from which they came are over-populated. It isn’t that they are searching for freedom or some other arcane excuse peddled to us. The place they left is an over-populated sewer.
How did this happen? Since mere replacement rate is 2.1 children per female, they are exceeding that figure. These are Latinos and “Native Americans” doing this, you know, those poor huddled masses and all that garbage. “We’re all immigrants”, remember? So to say anything against t immigration makes us all hypocrites, just like those former Sierra Club members. Gotta control the dialogue, you know. Again, the same people who purged the Sierra Club of anti-immigrant sentiment are perfectly mirrored by so many who write on this site and complain about overpopulation but correspondingly won’t demand an end to immigration because “It’s racist.” A.) Double-minded B.) Confused C.) Idiotic? D.) All of the above.
Pick one.
Overpopulation. How about those Africans? Well, yes. But again, that’s racist. Those Muslims? Well, yes. But strangely picking on them, well, that’s not really racist because Indonesian Muslims and those pesky Persians aren’t Arabs and lately it’s been pretty easy to say anything bad about Muslims in general because the collective “we” have been steeped in the cup of Islamophobia for so long that it’s politically correct to say any and all that’s bad about them, so yea, there an extra big problem because their Muslims first and foremost, and they reproduce at “unsustainable” high rates. “Bad people” I’m told, and I’ll be told that with greater frequency as September comes along, yet our borders remain wide open. Is sub-continent India a bit of a billion body problem? Yes. They keep answering my calls for IT problems and that’s a damn big problem. Our financial and Wal-Mart overlords, the Chinese? Duh. And we gave them 50 square miles or so south of Boise too.
Goodness gracious! If we hadn’t allowed the flood of South-eastern Europeans and Russian immigrants in during the late 1800′s and never let that horrible 1965 immigration law pass, given the traceable reproduction rates of those who were here in 1880 (not counting those of a particular subgroup, but that would be “racist”), the U.S. population right now would be between 170 million and 180 million, give or take a million here and there.
No problema.
Instead we’ve got that “Diversity is our strength” mantra instilled in our collective psyche along with the Federal Government making long-dead eugenicist Margaret Sanger spin in her grave by paying the least capable to reproduce at the highest rates at the expense of those who work for a living and reproduce the least. There’s some intelligent “herd building” for you. “Let’s go out and buy the worst damn cattle we can and let them reproduce like mad.” And we wonder why our schools can’t graduate students and the nation’s collective I.Q. is in the toilet?
It’s because the deal is set in politically correct stone. We’re screwed, and we’re screwed because the same people who unceasingly whine about overpopulation are also the most politically correct, and in truth, will never stand up and do a damn thing about it. Why? Because overpopulation is not being caused by Caucasians – it is being caused by the reproductive behaviors of other races and discussing the problem by citing demographic data is deemed racist and insensitive and I shouldn’t have penned the truth because I’ll be perceived as a racist even if the facts are just that – facts. That’s why. Whiners “feel” instead of “think” and that’s why we are doomed. What I cited are provable “Inconvenient Truths” instead of made-up political propaganda, and if you don’t like it then that’s too damn bad.
It’s a hard call. If he tried to scare the bear away by firing shots into the air and it still kept approaching, I guess he’s justified. If on the other hand he made no effort but shot the bear from a distance, string him up.