August 24, 2011 in Outdoors, Idaho

Not guilty plea entered in federal case of shot grizzly

Officials, many in community question prosecution of father

Becky Kramer The Spokesman-Review

Tags:Boundary Countygrizzly bearsJeremy M. HillShawn KeoughU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

What’s next

A jury trial has been scheduled for Oct. 4. If convicted of illegally killing a federally protected species, Jeremy M. Hill faces penalties of up to a year in prison and fines of up to $50,000.

ADVERTISEMENTAdvertise Here

A Boundary County man pleaded not guilty Tuesday to unlawfully killing a female grizzly bear in his yard.

So many friends and family members showed up to support Jeremy M. Hill at his arraignment that the hearing was forced to move into a larger room at the U.S. Courthouse in Coeur d’Alene. Hill, 33, faces one charge of killing a grizzly – a federally protected species.

Supporters said that Hill, a father of six, acted responsibly in shooting the female grizzly on May 8, which appeared with two cubs in the yard of his home near Porthill, Idaho, while his children were playing outside.

“It seems unjust to me that someone would be charged when they were protecting their family,” state Sen. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, said after the hearing. “I’m at a loss to understand why the U.S. government is pursuing this in the manner they are.”

After shooting the grizzly with a bolt-action rifle, Hill contacted the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

“Jeremy did the right thing, he called Fish and Game,” Keough said. “I think that prosecuting this case really sets back the grizzly bear recovery effort. … People are saying, ‘Boy, if that happened to me, there’s no way that I’d report it.’ That’s a human reaction.”

Hill’s wife and six children – the oldest is 14 and the youngest is an infant – attended the arraignment. The family declined to comment.

A jury trial has been scheduled for Oct. 4. If convicted of illegally killing a federally protected species, Hill faces penalties of up to a year in prison and fines of up to $50,000.

The Hills’ Porthill home lies between two federal grizzly bear recovery zones – the Selkirk zone to the west and Cabinet-Yaak zone to the east. Roughly 100 grizzlies are believed to inhabit the zones, which include parts of Idaho, British Columbia and Montana.

Grizzlies are a controversial topic in Boundary County, where protecting their habitat has led to Forest Service road closures and some timber harvest restrictions. In recent years, a collaborative effort called the Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative has worked to reduce conflicts between people and bears.

Ronald Smith, chairman of the Boundary County Commission, said he’s dismayed that Hill faces prosecution. County commissioners support grizzly bear recovery efforts, saying a recovered population will ease land-use restrictions, but charging Hill doesn’t make sense, Smith said.

“Jeremy Hill … has been falsely accused of a crime that did not happen,” Smith said in a statement. “… We feel that at all costs, this man has the obligation and responsibility to protect his children. This is not some flagrant or malicious act.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Nancy Cook declined to comment on the case.

Community members raised $19,558 for the Hill family last week at a 4-H animal sale in Bonners Ferry. Hill’s 14-year-old daughter, Jasmine, was selling a pig she raised named Regina. Bidders bought and sold Regina 15 times, with the final bidder giving the pig back to Jasmine Hill, saving it from a trip to the butcher.

“It was a statement – we’re with you, Jeremy,” said Rob Pluid, of Bonners Ferry, who helped organize the continuous bidding.

Accounts for the family have been set up at Mountain West Bank, Wells Fargo and Panhandle State Bank, said Donna Capurso, chairwoman of the Boundary County Republican Central Committee.

Meanwhile, Boundary County commissioners sent letters to Idaho’s congressional delegation and state legislators, asking for support for Hill. They also issued a news release, saying that Idaho Fish and Game officials had recommended against filing charges in the case, and that local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials had concurred.

Chip Corsi, Idaho Fish and Game’s regional manager, declined to comment on his agency’s stance on charges, but said: “He had three grizzly bears in close proximity to his kids, family and livestock. He had reason to believe there was a threat.”

Joan Jewett, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Portland, said she couldn’t comment on the case specifically. In general, however, “we do an investigation and turn over our information and evidence to the U.S. Attorney’s office and the U.S. Attorney makes the decision on whether to prosecute or not.”

36 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

pollyg on August 24 at 8:00 a.m.
Are you kidding me? We are hearing of grizzlies pulling people (namely) children out of their tents to chomp on them, and this is an issue? Mr Hill was not in the woods tracking this grizzly down, he was in his yard with his children. The grizzly is more than likely in a residential area because she and her cubs were HUNGRY. Don’t get me wrong, I love grizzlies as much as the next person and I am sad that they feel they have to come down away from their protection of the forest to feed, but this is an issue of the life of a grizzly vs. the lives of children.
usmctpdog on August 24 at 8:19 a.m.
He was wrong shooting the bear. It was not attacking him or his family. He could have simply gone into his house and called 911.
detroitdude on August 24 at 8:25 a.m.
It’s Obama’s fault…
RedCedar on August 24 at 8:33 a.m.
I don’t know if there’s “more to this story” as others have hinted at or not. There’s the saying “better to be tried by twelve than carried by six”, and I’m sure any father would rather face a jury and pay a lot of money than have the image of a bear eating his children seared into his mind forever.
One thing I hope people will realize from this incident is that grizzly bears DO NOT require vast amounts of wilderness from which humans are excluded in order to survive. We’ve seen a lot of roads and campgrounds being closed in recent years, allegedly so humans don’t scare the bears. And yet last year that grizzly made its way for at least 50 miles through a fairly populated area (assuming it came from the Cabinet mountains) to kill and elk at the Rose Lake elk ranch, and now we have one prowling suburban back yards. Any Alaskan will tell you that bears can survive just fine around people.
I’m glad grizzlies are returning to our forests and mountains, but I’m very much against closing roads and campgrounds just to keep people away from them. They aren’t nearly as afraid of people as the USF&WS people claim they are (sort of the same as with wolves). If we’re going to live grizzlies and wolves nearby, that’s fine. I think we can accommodate each other. On the other hand, a man should not be hauled into court and quite possibly bankrupted for shooting a bear (brown, black, endangered, or common) that’s prowling around his yard and possibly threatening his children.
Kadah on August 24 at 8:57 a.m.
Mr Hill was completely justified. Anyone, with a lick of sense, knows that a grizzly sow with two cubs is even more dangerous than a grizzly alone. And anytime a grizzly is within striking distance of a human, as these grizzlies were, it is a threat. Mr Hill had every right to protect his family, his home, his property. And the bear was undoubtedly there for the same reason than camp grounds have been closed this summer - their usual feeding grounds, this time of year, are devoid of food. That’s not Mr Hill’s fault; that’s a fact of nature. That doesn’t mean Mr Hill should offer up his children or his livestock for lunch because some loony-tune environmentalist whackjob thinks he should. And the feds are way out of line. I hope they have to pay Mr Hill’s legal bill for this stupidity!
slamdunk on August 24 at 9:38 a.m.
I wonder if FWS employees would not have shot the bear had it been close to their children.
Thoreau on August 24 at 10:06 a.m.
Yep - based on this case, if I need to shoot an aggressive “protected” animal, I will not report it. Thanks government.
soccermomsusie on August 24 at 10:08 a.m.
I don’t want to talk out of school, about North Idahoans… However, I heard that the grizzly bear had brought her two cubs to this gentleman’s house to demand child support.
HEAR OUR VOICE!!!
Liberty_Bell on August 24 at 11:05 a.m.
And how many bears and wolves did those Alaska State Troopers shoot in the past few years?
Prosecutorial Misconduct, and the hiring practices of confused lawyers working from the Obama School of Law at Harvard are just another clasic example of the real predators of America.
A little short example of a schoolteacher who was ate by a few wolves in Chignik Akaska, shows you that the clueless are the supreme American’s in charge.
The endangered species act is just another example shown in every law school, where quite a few braincells have been MIA for decades!
Wizard_Of_Oz on August 24 at 11:46 a.m.
Rumor is that Hill was setting food/salt licks out to attract game animals for hunting later in the season.
The mother bear “wandered” onto his property and Hill ran in and got his gun and killed the mother bear and the two harmless cubs.
He had more than suffcient time to get his over productive family into the house. I hope they are called as witnesses all SIX of them.
metaline on August 24 at 11:50 a.m.
Based on community support and the recommendations of Idaho Fish and Game and local fish and game, hopefully this case will dissapear. Too bad he has to pay for an attorney. Hopefully the fund set up for him is enough.
The law is the law i understand. There has to be some room for common sense though.
RockChalk on August 24 at 11:58 a.m.
Hang em high!! There was no reason to shoot and kill that bear when no aggression was shown. Does this mean that anything or anyone who walks into my yard can be shot without regard? I can only hope he gets the maximum sentence possible. Way to be a great example in front of your children.
RedCedar on August 24 at 12:58 p.m.
I wonder if FWS employees would not have shot the bear had it been close to their children.
I suspect that would never happen because the vast majority of the people who work (if that’s not too generous a term) for the USF&WS would not risk actually living anywhere close to fish, wildlife, or any other aspect of nature.
Does this mean that anything or anyone who walks into my yard can be shot without regard?
In a word, “No.” Right now, what “it” means is that if you shoot a grizzly bear, you’ll be in a heap of federal trouble. Beyond that, if this man is lucky enough to be acquitted and can afford his substantial legal bills, all that “it” will mean is that you “might” be able to get away with shooting a large and dangerous wild beast if you feel it is threatening you or someone else, which is almost as strict as the rules covering shooting another person.
Perhaps you don’t realize this, but farmers are already allowed to shoot most any animal (endangered ones are problematic, but most predators are not endangered) that is preying on their livestock, and “self-defense” is already a perfectly-legal justification for shooting any non-endangered animal such as a cougar or black bear. As for animals classed as “varmints” which range from mice to coyotes, you’re welcome to shoot, trap, or poison them pretty much anywhere, anytime, for any reason. So, let’s skip the silly “slippery slope” argument.
Squid on August 24 at 12:59 p.m.
Pretty sure if a grizzly shows aggression, it’s a little too late to do anything that will help anyone. Grizzlies are very committed when they make decisions. No bluffing, just attack. I’ve never heard of anyone coming out of a grizzly attack without at the least being extremely disfigured and unrecognizable. First they crush your skull, then they eat you while you’re still alive, starting at your colon. (Google that if you don’t believe me. Prove me wrong.) I’m not willing to let that happen to anyone if I can stop it.
DonJulio on August 24 at 1:25 p.m.
Squid…
http://abcnews.go.com/US/grizzly-bear-attack-survivor-describes-alaskan-ordeal/story?id=14152757
Face and head scratches….no mention of fractured or “crushed” skulls. No mention of eating your anus or colon.
http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Grizzly+attack+felt+like+truck+says+Vancouver+Island+survivor/5092817/story.html
No crushed skull and no mention of colon.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/05/16/bc-bear-mauls-man.html
This one is all about how the grizzly ‘ate his brains’, not his anus.
You must watch Glenn Beck and Fox ‘News’. Just throw out something and hope no one does their own google search…
RedCedar on August 24 at 1:45 p.m.
I never heard of the crushed skull either, although I’ve heard of numerous cases of a grizzly removing a person’s face with one swipe of their paw. Of course they’re only bluffing and they only want you to leave their territory. The trouble is that they don’t generally ask politely. They just mess you up a bit and hope you’ll get the message. A couple swipes of a bear’s paw is all it takes to mess a person up really bad.
Conventional wisdom has it that grizzlies only attack to defend their territory, so backing off or acting submissive will satisfy them and they won’t kill you. Personally, I’m kind of fond of my face, scalp, extremities, skin, blood, and so on, and I would prefer not to lose them even if I do get to keep my life. With black bears, on the other hand, conventional wisdom has it that they rarely attack humans, but if they do, it’s because they want to eat them, so acting submissive will only make it easier for them to eat you.
Personally, I wouldn’t be so sure that all bears will always act strictly according to conventional wisdom, though. I’m sure there’s been a grizzly that ate a person and a black bear that “just” ripped him up some to show him who’s boss, and left. So far this summer I’ve come real close to two large black bears, one with cubs, and they both ran away. The one with cubs ran further and faster. The one without just ran 20 yards or so and commenced tearing apart a stump. I still don’t ordinarily carry a gun, but if any wild animals comes after me or anyone around me, whether or not it’s endangered, it’s going to get a face full of whatever I have on hand — axe, chain saw, big rocks, burning stick, etc.
Byrdie714 on August 24 at 1:50 p.m.
This guy lives in between two federal grizzly bear recovery zones…….why?
If you choose to live there, then one should expect grizzlies to appear from time to time and to teach one’s off spring what to do an event they come across a bear.
If one is that protective of their children, then he should be charged with child endangerment for just living between two federal grizzly bear recovery zones.
Squid on August 24 at 2:36 p.m.
OK…. I stand corrected. They don’t always follow the same pattern, but the way I described it is the usual method.
Still, I wouldn’t want any kid to get their face reorganized.
The reason he might live in the recovery zone could be that it wasn’t a recovery zone when he bought or built the house. Maybe he can’t sell it. since the market to buy houses there can’t be all that great, except for a vacation home. Hard to walk away from a big investment.
spokesfolk on August 24 at 3:24 p.m.
Will be interesting to hear the rest of the story.
One thing about the recovery zones, he moved to
the area before there were recovery zones.
greenlibertarian on August 24 at 4:13 p.m.
I’ve never heard of anyone coming out of a grizzly attack without at the least being extremely disfigured and unrecognizable. First they crush your skull, then they eat you while you’re still alive, starting at your colon.
Histeria and bluff, some people are easily duped.
DonJulio proved you wrong.
A Google search of bear attack crushed skull colon returns NOTHNG on the first page of results that match what you say about griz attacks.
The second page of results has a badly translated story from a Russian newspaper describing an attack similar to what you described but the focus is speculation of what did it, most of them conclude it was aliens. What do you expect, it’s from the conspiracy crackpots at abovetopsecret.
The second result is a sick picture describing an attack as you suggest and the picture is labeled “Bear attack” with absolutely no supporting documentation.
Quit making things up. Plenty of people have survived griz. attacks without getting their skulls crushed or eaten by a bear. There are no credible reports of griz attacking humans in the way you said they ALWAYS do.
–––––––––––––––––––––––—
Considering the family are the only witnesses (that we know of) my guess is the case is going to be dropped by the Feds.
greenlibertarian on August 24 at 4:28 p.m.
spokesfolk on August 24 at 3:24 p.m.
Will be interesting to hear the rest of the story.
One thing about the recovery zones, he moved to
the area before there were recovery zones.
Grizzly bears in that area have been studied by the Feds formally since 1983.
The Recovery Zones were formally established in 1993, when Mr. Hill was 15 years old.
Squid on August 24 at 7:08 p.m.
I had a friend that moved to Montana, near Browning, and the first friend he made was killed by a grizzly. That bear ate his friend in the way I described. This was about 15 years ago. Before that, and after that, I have found deer and elk carcasses while hunting, and they were eaten the same way.
I also had a cattle ranching buddy in Montana and he had steers and calves attacked and killed the same way. One calf had one of it’s rear legs eaten while it was being born and after it survived, he named it Tripod. Can’t say all of his losses were from grizzlies, but a few were.
I have also watched documentaries on grizzly attacks, and read about them too.
Nope….. Didn’t make anything up.
Byrdie714 on August 24 at 7:39 p.m.
Odd–I lived in area habitat by grizzlies.
Mostly attacked animals smaller than them—not bigger than them.
Squid on August 24 at 8:57 p.m.
Steers are much smaller than a grizzly, till you fatten them up, if that’s your point. Most bull calves are castrated around three months old, which they become steers at that point. (depending on how you do it) Calves are the size of a large dog. I can’t say for sure, but I believe grizzlies are around 700 pounds or better.
DonJulio on August 25 at 4:59 p.m.
Come on Squid, for a guy that reads and watches documentaries on Grizzly Bears, the least you could do is provide something close to the truth.
http://www.defenders.org/wildlife_and_habitat/wildlife/grizzly_bear.php
Adult males 300 - 850 lbs; females 200 - 450 lbs.
I would say that 700lbs is on the high end of a grizzly bear weight…not the low end as you suggest…but then again, you are our resident expert.
Squid on August 25 at 8:50 p.m.
Isn’t 700 pounds within your “Adult males 300 - 850 lbs” range? I ain’t no math major, but they taught me some basics.
I never suggested it was on the low end. Here is what I said…. I can’t say for sure, but I believe grizzlies are around 700 pounds or better.
It made sense to me…..
Any way, it had the “I can’t say for sure,” disclaimer at the beginning of the sentence, which hardly eludes to me claiming to be an expert, or making an expert opinion.
As for your huge weight range…. I’d think an average would be a single number, not a RANGE OF 550 POUNDS! If you split that range, (median between 300 and 875 is 575 pounds) it would be 575 pounds average, but I’d guess higher, since most would be larger than the median. 700 - 575 = 125 Maybe I was off by 100 pounds, so I look to be pretty darn close with my 700 pound guess, right?
Also, I am assuming your figures are correct. Bet I could find different figures that make me look even better than I already do.
Was I really that far from the truth?
DonJulio on August 26 at 11:37 a.m.
Sure Squid…if you decide to negate the fact that there are also female grizzlies. Your initial generalization was not sex-specific. Using your math logic, average male would be 575 (see, giving you credit there), and female would be 325. Assuming a 50/50 sex distribution, that would mean an average grizzly bear would be 450lbs. So, you are 250lbs over-estimating (not 100 as you claim).
Sorry you were only taught the basics.
Squid on August 26 at 1:17 p.m.
I am a hunter, and not a tree hugger. Generally it’s against the law to shoot any female game, so when I think of any animal, it’s always the male species, which has the most meat, or antlers. Kind of like when you tree huggers think of song birds…. You think of the colorful male tweety birds, rather than the females with the plain brown wrapper. I know that a big buck deer can weigh 240 pounds, but I’ll be danged if I know what a doe weighs. I know that a bull elk can weigh over 900 pounds, but a cow elk???? I know a boar black bear can get over 500 pounds, but a sow black bear? I know a boar grizzly weighs around 700 pounds, but a sow????? Couldn’t care less about the female variety of animals. Not that interesting to me. Get it?
Don’t get me wrong…. I love all animals and have the highest respect for them. I love everything about them and have studied all I can about them, but for different reasons than you. I see grizzlies, mountain lions, coyotes, and wolves as reasons why elk and deer populations decline in my hunting areas, but I don’t hate them. I’d like to see grizzly populations grow, but not in neighborhoods.
DonJulio on August 26 at 1:32 p.m.
Squid, sorry that female grizzlies arent that interesting to you. I somehow think that you’d be interested if a 350lb female grizzly were to attack you. See Squid, that’s what this entire thread has been about, the dangers of a grizzly attack…and grizzlies come in both sexes. Your off topic rant about deer, elk, song birds, tree huggers and hunting has absolutely nothing to do with the danger associated with a grizzly attacks. Get it?
Squid on August 26 at 2:07 p.m.
If I was attacked by a female grizzly, I wouldn’t ask her how much she weighed. That will only get you a slap in the face, from my experience.
I wasn’t off topic. I was defending a statement of mine referring to grizzlies killing and eating steers and livestock, and their weight. It was my statement that grizzlies kill livestock in the same way they kill people, and this was the response that turned the comments off topic.
” Byrdie714 on August 24 at 7:39 p.m.
Odd–I lived in area habitat by grizzlies.
Mostly attacked animals smaller than them—not bigger than them.”
To which I basically replied that they grizzlies that attack livestock are bigger than steers. Then you had to question my detail of the weight of a grizzly. You were off topic by attacking my statistic of a related issue. Get it?
DonJulio on August 26 at 3:03 p.m.
This case is about a female grizzly and two cubs. Nothing to do with full grown male grizzlies. Yet, you just want to talk about full grown male grizzlies and how they attack humans, livestock, crush skulls, eat colons, reduce deer and elk populations, etc…
Squid on August 26 at 3:41 p.m.
Your hypocrisy has no bounds.
Let’s talk about the topic then… Tell me. Have you ever seen a grizzly in the wild? Describe that experience, if you have. Have you seen one kill, or seen something it has killed? Have you seen a human victim of a grizzly? If you have, describe that too.
Tell me your experience on the issue.
Squid on August 26 at 7:38 p.m.
Nothin? Here is some reference material About Tim Fedwell for ya. http://www.yellowstone-bearman.com/Tim_Treadwell.html
Squid on August 27 at 2:53 p.m.
More reference material for ya. Breaking news, fresh off the press. http://www.krem.com/news/local/Dead-hiker-found-in-Yellowstone-128533648.html
Squid on August 28 at 11:33 p.m.
I have some more reference material for ya. I was having fun. Where did ya go? http://www.freedomwriter.com/issue35/ak34.htm
bill_g on September 02 at 9:40 a.m.
Squid , thanks for the info but you are forgetting one important thing in this case. a male grizzly will attack when surprised and a MOTHER grizzly WITH cubs is one of the most dangerous creature will defend her cubs AT ALL COST even if you are a mile away. her job is to remove the threat to her cubs. She very powerful when angry and is known to attack her “700” pound male counter part if her cubs are threaten. So if I was in Hill’s place, i shoot first then ask question. Better safe then sorry
As for Skull Crushing and colon eating, i think you are thinking more of Cougers which also lives in the Grizzly country