August 25, 2011 in Sports, Outdoors

Landers: Trial will show whether grizzly shooting was justified

• Print
• Email
• Share

A North Idaho man deserves our respect for calling wildlife authorities after he shot a grizzly bear in his yard on May. 8.

That was the right thing to do. It was a stand-up lesson to the five children Jeremy M. Hill said he was defending in his Porthill-area home.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean shooting the bear was the right thing to do.

It’s not clear the 2-year-old male silvertip was doing anything more than trying to survive unusually harsh spring conditions along with its mother and sibling, fresh out of their den.

Hill, 33, pleaded not guilty in federal court Monday to charges of killing a grizzly, a threatened species protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Hill’s court appearance drew dozens of supporters who claim he did nothing wrong. This was good political theater for Sen. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, and Gov. Butch Otter to step up and say the government shouldn’t pursue the case against Hill.

Maybe they know something the rest of us don’t, but the case can’t yet be fully debated. 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.

Hill may have been justified in shooting the bear in his yard where his children are raising swine. Maybe not.

Federal wildlife agents probably couldn’t win a popularity contest in hell, but the jury’s still out on whether they should be condemned for doing their job.

Shooting a grizzly bear is serious business. 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.

Self-defense or the defense of another person are the only legal justifications for shooting a grizzly.

Here’s why the law is so stiff.

Coyotes and wolves have pups by the litter. Grizzlies reproduce at a glacial pace.

Most forest critters can bear young at the age of 1 or 2. A female grizzly doesn’t become sexually mature until she’s 6 or 7.

In ideal circumstances, that sow will give birth to a pair of cubs every three years.

The sow might produce cubs into her early 20s, although she faces an 8 percent chance of dying each year.

Strict protections have enabled grizzlies in this region to increase populations in the recent decade, but only by an average of 2 percent a year.

At that rate, any loss is a significant setback.

2007 was a notably bad year for Selkirk grizzlies. One was killed by indiscriminant hunters northeast of Sullivan Lake. One that wandered far south was killed by a black bear hunter near Kelly Creek. Another grizzly was killed that year near Priest River. That bear had become addicted to human food after a photographer essentially baited the animal for better pictures.

Biologists estimate about 70 grizzly bears are roaming the Selkirk Mountains ecosystem, which includes 2,200 square miles of northeastern Washington, North Idaho and southern British Columbia. Roughly 70 percent of them hang out in Canada.

Interagency recovery plans call for bringing the population up to 100 bears.

Porthill is in the thick of the region’s sparse grizzly population, considering it’s between the Selkirk grizzly recovery area and the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem, where another 40 or so grizzlies roam.

Rural North Idahoans should have been in the front row for listening to the information state and federal wildlife managers were dishing out this spring. Late-lingering snow was forcing hungry bears to remain longer into the lowlands in their search for food.

Coexisting with grizzlies depends on containing garbage, pet food and bird seed so they can’t be attractants that lure good bears into troublemaking.

This trio of bears had been reported in the Porthill area, and state officials say video footage shows the family in meadows feeding on voles.

Grizzly bears rarely are a threat to cows or horses, but they are known to be attracted by smaller barnyard animals such as goats, pigs or chickens. Mostly this stems from the grizzly’s weakness for the grain that’s used to feed them.

It’s fairly convenient to protect these small animals from grizzlies in that short spring period when the bears are forced to the lowlands. An electric fence is inexpensive and effective.

Jeremy Hill may have chosen the best course, killing a cub that was in his yard, enabling the mother and the other cub to flee and possibly teaching them a lesson.

Wildlife officials set baited culvert traps at the site after the shooting to catch the other grizzlies should they return. They did not.

Had Hill shot the sow, three bears would have been doomed instead of one.

On the other hand, no evidence has been revealed that the bears actually threatened humans or livestock. Maybe several warning shots would have sent them running. We don’t know.

The defense that Hill was defending his children doesn’t necessarily fly if the bears weren’t in a face-to-face conflict. It’s not uncommon for children to be brought indoors for a few days until danger passes, whether they’re in the city or the country.

Some people have an adversarial relationship with wildlife around them, others might buy a parcel in grizzly country just for the thrill of seeing one pass through. We’re all free to choose, to a point.

Meantime, Hill is innocent until proven guilty and should get the benefit of any doubt, which may be more than the grizzly got in a blast of rural justice.

Contact Rich Landers at (509) 459-5508 or email richl@spokesman.com

Nine comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  Wizard_Of_Oz on August 25 at 6:02 a.m.

  Is this the second or third re-write by RIch? He is close.

  If Hill had time to go run and get his gun AND come back to shoot bear #2, he had the same time to get his kids into the house. So why didnt he shoot mama bear whom would have been the most aggressive?

  I suggest exercising emotional restraint in comment until ALL the FACTS come out.

• 

  TroutCreek on August 25 at 6:32 a.m.

  Being from Montana, bears are a way of life. There must be a clear and present danger before lethal means are taken. In Thompson Falls a bear came through some ones property and killed several pigs. The owner told authorities he did not want the bear destroyed, only relocated. We are constantly moving into the bears territory, learn to live with them of move into the city.

• 

  ManleyPointer on August 25 at 8:16 a.m.

  Does “learning to live with” grizzly bears mean that we just back off and let them do whatever they choose to do with our lives and property? Or do we get to exercise the same “territorial” instinct that the bears have, to protect ourselves and our property from outside forces? We tend to make this bear/human relationship into a conflict between good, innocent bears and evil, predacious humans, when in reality it’s a simply conflict between two animals who claim the same piece of ground. Why is the bear automatically given the benefit of the doubt when this conflict comes to a head?

• 

  Alex208 on August 25 at 8:45 a.m.

  The responsibility of protecting home and family is both a right and an expectation for the head of the household. Protecting family from a threat in the yard, (grizzly or otherwise) is the rational and noble thing for a father to do. Saying or implying that it is “normal” for children to hide in the house because the outside is unsafe hardly fits with the wonderfully independent lifestyle of people lucky enough to live here in the country. Condemning him for trying to make his living area safe for his family is doing a disservice to all parents trying to protect the ones they love.

• 

  Thoreau on August 25 at 10:16 a.m.

  Good point Rich - Warning shots may have worked. They’ve worked to deter coyotes. If time allows, fire into the dirt nearby the predator first. (Firing into the air could still hurt someone / something when the bullet returns to the earth.)

  Still, he did call the authorities, so he deserves leniency.

• 

  nowolves on August 25 at 10:48 a.m.

  The grizzly bear should be off the federal endangered species list & managed by the state endangered species programs! Environmental obstructionists with their constant law suits are the social leeches that suck our wildlife resources into the pockets of environmental lawyers (leeches) …… it’s no longer about endangered animals!

  Trout Creek….. Animals like wolves and grizzlies have done more moving into human domain then the other way around of late….. Your home on trout creek was once prime wolf and griz habitat If you argue that the wolf and griz have more rights to it than you do, by all means level the home & give it back to them & move back to Europe!

• 

  nowolves on August 25 at 10:51 a.m.

  I can’t keep track of my two kids around home let alone five…. If a grizzly were to invade & I was not sure where those children were …..we would have another dead griz on the ground! The griz lovers would not want me on that jury!

• 

  CowPie on August 27 at 9:22 a.m.

  I have been reading quite a few posts from Wizard_Of_Oz and in this case am referring to Wizard_Of_Oz’s post on the article titled “Landers: Grizzly shooting case must hinge on facts”. Appears Wizard_Of_Oz is mocking Jeremy Hill and trying to indicate that he is illiterate. (take a look at this one) Why don’t you go back to OZ because you certainly aren’t a Wizard. Your comments lack any indication of intelligence on your part. If you were to meet Jeremy you would know that he is an extremely hard working man dedicated to his family and his community. Seems you might be one who is stuck in front of your computer all day long with nothing better to do than bash everyone’s character. Might not even know what it feels like to physically exert yourself at a hard day of work. You could prompt yourself to take a look in the mirror and re-evaluate who you really are. Maybe you might be able to get a heart. Oh that is if you are able to get back to OZ…

• 

  Bop on September 07 at 9:47 p.m.

  Well Mr Landers….what do you think of your statement “This was good political theater for Sen. Shawn Keough, R-Sandpoint, and Gov. Butch Otter to step up and say the government shouldn’t pursue the case against Hill.” It appears that the good political theater must indeed been good political theater. And what about “Maybe they know something the rest of us don’t, but the case can’t yet be fully debated. 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.” It seams that your effort to inject your alleged wildlife expertise into this law and order discussion over the value and rights of bears vs the rights of US Citizens to protect their families was absolutely shown as irrelevant. The political theater turned the bright light of the public on the unjust charge and the Government’s case wilted under the heat of public awareness. Your attempt to illicit sympathy for the bear by insinuating that somehow a bear is owed human justice just shows how perverted you have become. You wrote “Meantime, Hill is innocent until proven guilty and should get the benefit of any doubt, which may be more than the grizzly got in a blast of rural justice.” A bear deserves to be presumed innocent! A bear deserves justice? Where is it in the U S Constitution where it says a bear is owed justice. You then insinuate that “rural” justice is somehow a denigration of justice. That rural justice is somehow different that other justice. Talk about being prejudice against people who live in a rural setting. Mr Landis your perverted views are the problem. By attempting to give wild animals human characteristics and rights you harm both the animals you love as well as the people who interact with them