Spokane7
27°
ENDANGERED SPECIES — Boundary County Prosecutor Jack Douglas has sent a letter to media outlets with his account of the May 8 grizzly bear shooting that has resulted in federal charges against Jeremy Hill, 33, of Porthill, Idaho.
Douglas said neither he nor the Idaho Fish ad Game Department was involved in filing charges against Hill and makes the case that Hill never should have been charged.
Click continue reading below to see Douglas's letter, released this afternoon, and details on the case he said he's learned from interviews with IFG officers and the Hill family.
For background:
S-R reporter Becky Kramer covered Monday's hearing in which Jeremy Hill, 33, pleaded not guilty to the charges, backed by a lot of community support.
The S-R's Boise reporter, Betsy Russell, has filed this report on Otter's request that the U.S. Secretary of Interior step in and have the charges dropped.
See my Thursday Outdoors column for less politically popular thoughts on the case from the grizzly bear's side of the story — at least until more details are revealed from the investigation.
From Boundary County Public Information, Bonners Ferry, ID 83805, (208) 267-7212; email publicinfo@boundarycountyid.org
On May 8, 2011, Jeremy Hill, a lifetime member of the Boundary County community was involved in an incident that not only disrupted the lifestyle of his family but has also raised serious concerns within the community I serve as Boundary County Prosecutor.
Jeremy was forced to take lethal action against one of three animals recognized as a potentially dangerous predator, the grizzly bear, which he saw stalking his children’s 4-H pigs near where those children had been playing on his 20-acre ranch near Porthill.
In a normal case, the first person, besides the investigating officer, who would know that criminal charges were being considered would be the person responsible for filing those charges on behalf of the State of Idaho, the county prosecutor.
In the case of Jeremy Hill, 33, Porthill, no state charges were ever brought forward. Yet he is facing up to a year in jail and/or a fine of up to $50,000 for killing a two year old male grizzly bear May 8 as a federal charge was leveled August 8.
“In the weeks since the federal charge was filed, I’ve seen this community and our state and local elected officials, including Governor Butch Otter, stand up on behalf of Jeremy and his family,” Douglas said. “As an elected official and as prosecuting attorney for this county, I’ve heard the concerns of local citizens and feel it’s my duty to take a closer look at the issues, even though I’m not involved with this case. I owe it to the people of Boundary County to be a beacon pursuing justice.”
The federal charge came as a complete surprise, Douglas said, as Idaho Fish and Game would have notified his office first had a crime been committed.
“That they didn’t,” Douglas said, “indicates to me that those officers are convinced that no state crime was committed.”
While he hasn’t been involved in prosecuting the case, Douglas has, he said, been gathering what facts he can on the case, and the more he learns, he said, the more convinced he is that the officers who conducted the initial investigation on the day of the shooting were correct.
“These were seasoned officers,” he said. “Even before he fired the final shot that killed the grizzly, Jeremy Hill had the phone book out to call Greg Johnson.”
Instead of rushing right to the scene, officer Johnson, knowing the importance of the Endangered Species Act, took the time to contact fellow Idaho Fish and Game conservation officer Brian Johnson (no relation), as well as the region’s foremost expert on grizzly bears, IDFG Senior Wildlife Research Biologist Wayne Wakkinen, who has studied and tracked bear in Boundary County since 1990. According to Douglas, all three were at the Hill property, which fronts Highway 1, within two hours of the call.
“By the care Greg took in making sure he had the people on hand he did, it’s obvious he understood the importance of the case and took this incident very seriously,” Douglas said. “I’ve worked with Greg for years, and he is usually very thorough in his investigative work. There is no doubt in my mind that had he found any evidence that a crime had been committed, charges would have been filed or at least the case would have been brought to my attention.”
In fact, Douglas said, Johnson reportedly told Hill before he left the property that there should not be any issue, as he was protecting his family and property.
Because the killing of a threatened or endangered species falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government, Johnson, pursuant to protocol, provided his report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. According to Douglas, it allegedly took about a month for the USFWS to show up to begin their investigation.
Despite not being involved, Douglas is confident that the facts he’s derived are accurate.
According to Douglas’s findings, on May 8, Mothers Day, Jeremy Hill, his wife, Rachel, and four of their six children were home together as the event unfolded at about 7 p.m. The children, he said, were outside shooting baskets in front of the house, Rachel, not feeling well, had gone to lay down and Jeremy was in the shower.
Rachel, not able to sleep, looked out her bedroom window and spotted the bears about 40 yards from where the kids were playing, and ran outside, shouting for the kids to get in the house.
Jeremy, finishing a shower, heard the screams and looked outside, where he saw the bears. He grabbed up the only weapon at hand, his daughter’s .270 rifle, which was wrapped and unloaded, found three bullets, loaded the weapon and raced outside, not knowing where his children or his wife were, but knowing by his wife’s panicked screams that the children were in danger.
He stepped out onto the back deck from their bedroom and saw one of the bears climbing halfway up the side of the pig pen. He ran out and fired a shot at that bear, which was closest to him, and the other two bears, alarmed by the crack of the rifle, ran away from the pig pen toward the forest behind his house.
“He didn’t fire at the retreating bears because they no longer posed a threat,” Douglas said.
The shot hit the grizzly on the fence, and he tumbled off, got up and ran off, limping slightly. The family dog went after the injured bear, which was heading in the same direction the other two had fled, and the bear, only a few yards from the house, turned and charged straight toward where Jeremy was standing by a large basement window under the deck. Fearing there was nothing but he and a large pane of glass to keep the wounded bear out of his house, Jeremy took aim and fired again. The bullet hit the grizzly and the bear rolled to the ground, tried to get up, then fell back down.
Shaken badly but thinking the ordeal was over, Jeremy went back into the house and went to find his family. He picked the 10 month old baby off the bed, and found Rachel with the other children, trying to soothe them and stop their crying.
Jeremy asked Rachel to get the phone book so he could call Fish and Game, but before he could dial, he looked out and saw that the bear was trying to crawl to the woods. He stopped behind a tree, wounded but not dead, and Jeremy took up the rifle again, carefully walked over to the bear, unsure if it was dead or alive, but knowing that a wounded grizzly bear posed a significant threat. Using his last bullet, he fired a final shot, putting the bear out of his misery and ending the threat.
He then went in and placed the call to Johnson. When the three officers arrived, Greg Johnson asked Jeremy to “get a different rifle,” an indication, Douglas said, of the threat Johnson placed on a wounded predator, and knowing that both the .270 and the sidearms they carried were not sufficient to reliably bring down a bear.
“Grizzly bears are unpredictable, dangerous predators,” Douglas said. “In my mind, there’s no question that the Hill family was likely in danger or that Jeremy, by his actions, did what he did in defense of his family and his property. I believe that our local IDFG officers did a thorough investigation and came to the proper conclusion that Jeremy Hill acted reasonably in light of the circumstances.”
News, field reports and insights on the Great Outdoors.
Rich Landers – hunter, animal lover, hiker, paddler, angler, naturalist and conservationist – has been covering the outdoors beat for more than three decades. His versatility and field research as a trails and waterways guidebook author help him connect issues to a wide range of interests.
Rich Landers writes, photographs, and gathers information for a wide range of Outdoors coverage, with a special feature package in the Sunday Sports section. Landers' outdoors column runs Thursdays in the Sports section.
Recent work by Rich
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
Follow Rich on Twitter
Send Rich an email
AngryNIdaho on August 26 at 7:01 p.m.
Wow. An AMAZINGLY similar account to the one put out by the Boundary County Republican Central Committee:
http://www.newsbf.com/letters/110824donna_capurso.html
It’s good that they have THEIR story straight, at least.
Wizard_Of_Oz on August 26 at 7:40 p.m.
Hip waders on.
“The children, he said, were outside shooting baskets in front of the house,”
So NOBODY was supervising the children while they were using firearms. That should be a charge in itself.
get_real on August 26 at 8:04 p.m.
Really Wizard? Did you read the article? It says that the kids were shooting baskets, yes, but also states that Jeremy grabbed the unloaded gun and loaded it. Jeremy shot the bear, not the kids. The kids were in the house with their mom.
N_IdahoGirl on August 26 at 8:33 p.m.
Ok Wizard. I take it you have never heard the term ‘shooting baskets’ in reference to basketball. Let me clear it up for you. They were ‘shooting hoops’… trying to put the basketball in the basket.
He did what any father would do to protect his children. They were not using firearms unattended. Really?
Wizard_Of_Oz on August 26 at 10:21 p.m.
Gotcha. Two of them. Hook (shot),(on the) line and “sinker”.
MrBloggy on August 26 at 10:52 p.m.
looks like a little of the letter did not get included above:
“and while federal prosecutors may choose to continue this illegal and immoral case against a lifetime Caucasian Christian of this predator-hating community, we are certain that President Obama and the liberal greentards are somehow to blame …”
greenlibertarian on August 27 at 1:24 a.m.
“According to Douglas’s findings, on May 8, Mothers Day, Jeremy Hill, his wife, Rachel, and four of their six children were home together as the event unfolded at about 7 p.m. The children, he said, were outside shooting baskets in front of the house, Rachel, not feeling well, had gone to lay down and Jeremy was in the shower.”
Ignored established guidelines to CLOSELY MONITOR children in griz country eh?
What a surprise.
negligence on the part of the parents.
alliegail on August 27 at 11:29 a.m.
OMG, WHERE DO YOU PEOPLE COME FROM???? All I can say is THANK GOD you don’t live in Boundary County because while we are a pretty diverse community (NOT all Caucasian Christians, NOT all predator-hating!!!), we certainly do not need people who judge without even having a clue of what they are babbling about. Maybe where you live, you have to hold your children’s hands 24/7 but out here in the real world, we do allow our kids to go outside and play and we do pay attention to what they are doing out in OUR YARDS which is exactly what Rachel was doing. If any of you KNEW her, you would know that negligence is not even in her vocabulary…or Jeremy’s. Why don’t you focus on critiquing your self instead of spouting off about people you don’t even know?!!? Try to make the world a better place instead of polluting it with stupidity!!
carau on August 27 at 12:17 p.m.
@ greenlibertarian-
Really? How is it negligent to allow children (the oldest is 14) to be outside on a summer evening playing basketball? And in their own yard? Come on.
SabrinaL on August 27 at 3:56 p.m.
Bear spray. I know, I know, it’s just too much trouble. Oh wait …
alliegail on August 27 at 6:02 p.m.
SabrinaL…let’s put you out in your yard with 3 grizzlies, a pen full of pig appetizers and a can of bear spray…we’ll see how well that works out for YOU!!!!!!
SabrinaL on August 28 at 6:29 a.m.
Actually been in that situation at the ranch. Didn’t get my bear spray just yelled, “hey bear” and they both hauled ass. I guess it depends on a persons experience around bears. I am simply saying that had he had bear spray he would not be in this mess.
MrBloggy on August 28 at 9:35 p.m.
Sabrina’s correct - bear spray is much more effective at bear repellance than firearms. If the bear killer had been attacked in the woods he might not have had time to get off that third kill shot. Bear spray = WIN (70 to 80% of the time) much better than firearms which have a higher death outcome for the shooter than the sprayer.
N_IdahoGirl on August 29 at 2:31 p.m.
As alliegail said above… put yourself in the same situation as Jeremy was in with YOUR kids 40 yards away from a bear that has his heart set on a piggy appetizer. Are you going to bank on the fact that the bear spray won’t anger the bear and send it after the next closest target? Do you want to get that close to a bear that is already in attack mode? Or are you going to just act on instinct because your most precious possessions are in imminent danger? I wouldn’t be willing to put my children up against a hungry grizzly. I don’t understand how everyone can be so judgemental when they weren’t even there to witness or experience what happened. Should he have let the bear attack a member of his family before he shot??
basaltbone on August 29 at 5:33 p.m.
So what were you planning on doing with that shotgun up at Upper Priest recently? Remember your post about the can of bear whoop-ass and sleeping with your shotgun? I do.
Sounds to me like Mr. Hill could have handled the situation better, but now he’s just “bear killer,” huh? I suspect one could reduce you to an unfair and incomplete label, too, Mr. Bloggy, like “progressive moralizer.” But that wouldn’t be fair. I’ll assume there’s more to you than just your armchair quarterbacking and smug moral superiority.
I’ll be out with a biologist checking remote cameras and hair snags in the backcountry for a couple days this week, and I’ll feel a heck of a lot better about having bear spray at the ready than a gun. Easy-to-find research shows its effectiveness, as Bloggy points out.
Thank you, however, Bloggy, for outing the Boundary Co. Republicans “Caucasian, Christian” text earlier in this string. It’s pretty difficult to analyze that choice of language and to fail to see the racial and religious issues right under the surface.
basaltbone on August 29 at 5:45 p.m.
…apparently no such “Caucasian, Christian” verbiage exists except for that produced by Mr. Bloggy. Fun stuff.
Why amp it up worse but from a position of false moral superiority?
greenlibertarian on August 29 at 7:38 p.m.
Was the 14 year old trained what to do in the event of a griz sighting?
Did Jeremy know what to do?
Did Rachel?
Guidelines call for CLOSE SUPERVISION of children in griz country.
Guidelines call for ELECTRIC FENCING around pig pens in griz country.
The Hill’s admittedly ignored both those guidelines.
How many others did they ignore, putting themselves and their children at risk with a confrontation with one of God’s most magnificent and fearsome creatures, which can kill any human in a matter of seconds?
The courts have been very clear, you live in griz country, follow some reasonable precautions, or somebody, or some animal is gonna get hurt, or killed. You can kill a griz ONLY when it’s directly menacing a human or group thereof, otherwise, you will pay a heavy fine.
If you kill a griz threatening or actually killing your livestock, and you haven’t provided the recommended protection for your livestock, and you kill the griz, you’re going to get a heavy fine.
If a RESPONSIBLE person who KNOWS what to do in the event of a griz encounter, is not supervising children, in griz country, than the parents are negligent.
You have RIGHTS and you have RESPONSIBILITIES. You either take them BOTH seriously, or suffer (the well known in advance) CONSEQUENCES.
You CHOOSE to live in griz country, you better take extra special caution, and if you don’t do so, take your punishment like a man, and thank the Good Lord your negligence didn’t result in one of your children being maimed or killed by a griz.
Kadah on August 30 at 8:43 a.m.
greenlibertarian, maybe, since you seem to think electric fence will stop a grizzly (it won’t but you seem to be dumb enough to think it will) and all the rest of the garbage you wrote, you should fork over the money for it.
You err in assuming this family CHOSE to live in girz country. That choice was foisted on them by whacked-out greenies aided and abetted by the federal government. Jeremy Hill had every right, and the responsibility, to defend his home, his family, and his property from three marauding grizzlies.
For those here who want to get between a grizzly and his lunch with bear spray, do - but, if you want to live, even though stupid, just make sure someone is standing by with a high caliber rifle to pile that bear up when he decides you would make a great lunch.
It’s great when you live in the city, haven’t a clue about grizzlies, wolves or any other predator, even ungulates for that matter, and believe everything the greenies tell you because you really have no connection to the land and no common sense either because of it!
SabrinaL on August 30 at 9:07 a.m.
To be fair, I think the guy just panicked. Reading the little info the media has put out on what he CLAIMS happened, it seems his lack of experience and education on living in bear country got the best of him.
One example was that the wife knew the kids were outside and started screaming. The kids were in the front of the house, the bears in the back quite a ways away.
The bears were focused on the pig house. Not on the kids.
The shot frightened the other two bears. That is typical. Instead of shooting the bear, and MISSING a mortal shot, having the dog chasing this bear, causing the bear to charge, which COULD have made the outcome worse, he should have gathered the children FIRST without causing attention, gone out the back and fired a shot in the air. The bears would have taken off. His children would have been safe from both the gun and the bears and the bear would still be alive. He would not have been in this mess.
Apparently there are pieces of the story missing so … until that is made public, which it may not be to the general public, then the way I see it at this point, it’s pretty cut and dry.
He panicked. He was careless with the wildlife in an area that is
right between two national forests.
It is important that people who live in these areas understand NOT to take bear education for granted. “Wait until something happens”, attitude.
There were things he could have done before hand to avoid this all together but people seem complacent and don’t think things will happen to them.
As much as I absolutely advocate bear spray, it really wasn’t needed in this case but EVERYONE who lives near bears needs to have it handy. The shot in the air would have done the job nicely and also a hell of a lot less expensive.
The bears will lose in this case either way. Whether he is convicted or free to walk without ramifications.
IdahoRoper on August 30 at 10:03 a.m.
Wow….some very interesting comments from some obvious bear experts…….not.
So lets evaluate shall we. We have sabrina traveling all over copy and pasting her same narcissistic view about how we should all be using bear spray.
We have some clown who has the gall to name himself a libertarian who obviously has no concern for either liberty or a persons inalienable rights.
And a good smattering of the typical ignorant progressive goon squad of watermelon marxists.
Mr. Hill did nothing wrong. He simply acted upon his rights to defend his life, other humans lives and protect his private property. The only people who seem to have an issue with that are the government trying to shove a tyrannical law at a guy for doing what was his right to do.
Perhaps when he is in front of his peers, they will have the intelligence to see that. They may also realize that grizzly’s are not a scientifically endangered animal, but just another tool being exploited to control people. I wonder how many of you even know how many grizzly bears roam this planet? I will save you the trouble of looking…..somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000. A far cry from endangered.
If the government wants to keep their federal bears safe, they need to keep them off a mans private property. This, like many other like situations only exposes the need to either eliminate the endangered species act all together or at least amend it so that it no longer prosecutes a person for utilizing their constitutional rights.
You people who believe he did anything wrong are simply tools, or what has been historically been referred to as “useful idiots”.
SabrinaL on September 04 at 8:11 a.m.
An ounce of ….
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_0541978c-d6aa-11e0-9729-001cc4c002e0.html