Like it's Jeremy Hill's fault these animals are endangered in the first place. "Honey, there's a grizzly bear in the yard threatening the kids! Quick! Google it and find out if it's on the endangered species list!...It is? Sorry, kids...hey, bon appetit, bear."

I found the following comment under the article to be pretty amazing:

"Only been in Boundary County a short time, but one thing I have learned. Folks up here kinda make up their own rules as they go along. They don't like the Feds telling what to do. They think federal laws don't apply to them.They will go to bat for each other over poaching, illegal killing of protected species, or anything else that they get caught doing which is questionable. They cowboy up on you at a drop of a hat, and most are pete hotheads. They don't like outsiders."

Damned city boy, done moved out to the romantic countryside, and ain't gotta clue what folks are really like. Damn right, they don't like outsiders, leastways, not folks that can't understand what life in the country is all about.

I've lived both ways, city and country, and I understand both. In particular, I understand (and share) the resentment country folk feel for clueless city slickers - people who have no understanding of the country way of life, and who are so absolutely clueless that they don't even understand why they are so disliked.

People in the countryside like outsiders just fine. But they absolutely detest idiots like this.

This fellow violated the first rule of dealing with
protected species, the 3S rule. When you have to shoot one, shoot, shovel under, and shut up. You can never win with all the resources of the Feds
aimed at you.
The Feds have introduced wolves into my own east coast farming area. They kill pets, livestock, and any thing else small enough to chase down and kill.
At least we live in a free area where you are allowed to own firearms.

This episode is too new to be the inspiration for the phrase "The law is an ass." It'll have to serve as proof.

The answer is jury nullification. Yeah, he broke the law. Not guilty, your honor.

You don't understand, Amy. We have lots of people, but only a very few grizzly bears. Grizzlies are an endangered species, humans aren't. Therefore, it is right and proper that the government should prosecute Mr. Hill.

(Please be sure that your sarcasm detector is in good working order before flaming me!)

What is fascinating is that we place a higher value on wildlife than on human life. If you reasonably believe that you or another person is in imminent danger of serious injury you may lawfully use deadly physical force in defense of yourself or others. However, this apparently does not apply to endangered species.

There is also the "choice of evils" defense as well. The premise is that you can knowingly violate the law to avoid a greater evil. A classic example is violating the speed limit to rush an individual with a life threatening injury to the hospital.

Fortunately, while it will be expensive he still may benefit from being tried by a jury of his peers. Which is why I have become a convert to "jury nullification." The idea being that one of the purposes of trial by jury of peers is so that reasonable people can protect citizens from irrational and idiotic laws and regulations.

Fatfred is right. Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up. The same goes for home invaders and burglars too, except don't bury them on your own property. Dump them on the Interstate. No one is ever arrested for the bodies they find there. That way their mommies can't sue you.

Where I'm from, the livestock alone would have justified a killing. But we all knew to shoot and shut up. We'd have never of buried them, as that would have been quality meat that the local Wal-mart certainly doesn't keep in stock.

That bear would have been butchered on the front step and been put in the freezer, and we'd have never known we were below the poverty level cause we'd have better meat than anyone we knew (and we had floors, as both my mother and my father did not when they were kids).

Maybe that's why the conservation department of Missouri stuck to their story that their were no black bears in the area for a good thirty years.

There should be no charges for protecting his kids. I do wonder though what people feel about building in areas that are heavily wooded and obviously inhabited by bears and such creatures.

Friends of mine built a log cabin in upstate NY on the top of a heavily wooded mountain. Its not their primary place to live but a vacation spot. They leave food out on a stump to attract bears and deer and then allow their children to play in the yard. I only visited once. I saw a bear up too close and decided my safety was more important than being bear bait. Of course they have guns handy in case a bear gets too close. It just seems to me a little unfair to the natural wildlife living there. Don't feed and attract them and then have a gun handy to kill them.

I'm not a tree hugger, but all of our building has brought wildlife closer and made it more of a danger. Isn't that sort of like building a beach house and then getting pissed when the ocean washes away your home in a hurricane?

I'd have to say I'd deal with bears in the yard the same way I'd deal with sudden bad weather in the yard.

Go in the house, and shut the door.

Would you leave your kids outside? :)

I'll admit, I'm dying to know how this'll all play out if/when it gets to court. Hopefully Hill will draw a common-sense Judge who will throw out all the charges.

If that doesn't work, then get busy nullifyin', Mr. and Ms. Jury Members!

The guy could have gone hand to hand.

http://juneauempire.com/local/2011-08-30/woman-punches-bear-save-her-dog#.Tl534jss3as

"Would you leave your kids outside? :)"

Nah, I'd bring them in with me if I had any.

Once safely inside, however, there are a few neighbors at whom I'd throw bacon while pretending to call animal control.

I'm with Gog_Magog, (one of those rare occasions) I would get my kids inside, assuming they weren't already, and then call animal control from the house.
You know what is decidedly more dangerous than retreating from a bear that is watching your livestock and licking his chops?
Shooting him and not quite getting the job done. An angry wounded bear is going to have a reason to chew your ass off, and I don't blame him.
The only time you should be shooting a bear is when you don't have a safe retreat and he is charging you. Then you had better put up your gun, it better be a big one, and you had better not miss.
Yes, I have lived in bear country, and many of my relatives still do.
Mountain Lions on the other hand, should be shot on sight, assuming you ever see one. Because they will stalk you, your dogs and your children, and if you weight under about 125 or so, and you are alone, they will not hesitate to jump on you, break your neck and then drag you up a tree.

What gog said, there was most likely no reason to kill the bear,bravado at best. MMs some loud noises. Most people living in bear country know you carry a whistle, shooting is a last resort

"This episode is too new to be the inspiration for the phrase "The law is an ass." It'll have to serve as proof."

There's nothing wrong with the law; it's there for cases where idiots shoot animals on the endangered species list for sport or trophies.

The Ass[t]. US Attorney, like all prosecutors, has the discretion to file charges or not. This one chose to do so, despite knowing that the circumstances were not the kind for which the law was enacted. This is prosecutorial overreaching at its most absurd and expensive.

It's pretty easy to figure out what the right thing to do is when you're reading about something on the internet. While it's actually happening to you- not so much.

There's a saying about hindsight and 20-20 vision that often applies in these sorts of situations.

Something else to consider- the population of Porthill is about 100. The entire county's population is about 10,000. Take a look at a map to see where Porthill is- if you called animal control, how long do you think it would take for somebody to show up to help you?

This reminds me of a thing I saw on one of these morning news shows where they had some pretty dramatic footage of a pregnant tiger coming into a village in India. The villagers banded together and very bravely fought off the tiger with sticks and rocks, etc.

The strange thing was the reaction of the news "chatters" from the safety of their little sofa in NYC. They were all about feeling bad for the tiger. Awww, poor thing was hit by a stick.

Yeah, well. The tiger was in that village to eat someone's son or daughter, stupid.

What Isabel said.

Now, a show of hands: who wants to kill all the bears once you move into their habitat?

The wildlife always has to go, right?

Up here in Alaska (Anchorage area), most people don't go hiking without a gun.

(I carry a .44 revolver chambered for magnum loads.)

Just a month ago I almost took a shot at one coming over the backyard fence in my direction.

Fortunately, Rusty the Alaskan Wilderness Adventure Dog (a Golden Retriever) showed up just at that moment in full pack-protection mode. It is amazing to see an otherwise completely mellow dog morph instantly into sheer snarling fury.

I live in suburbia. When the bears (and wolves) lose their fear of humans, they have to go.

Kill the bears, the deer who eat out yards, the coyotes who eat our cats, the boar who charge us.....yep, moving into places everyone knows these animals live, and then complaining about the animals, is stupidity of the highest order. I feel for him not one whit.

Its easy enough to feel that way momof4 when you live in a desert without a large number of large animals to begin with and in an area that was 'tamed' within the last 4 to 7 decades.

But something tells me that if a nest of 50 or so bark scorpians were to pop up in your yard, youd have no qualms about calling out an exterminater; no matter the fact that scoripans have been living in your area of texas millions of years longer than any human