Spokane7
65°
September 14, 2011 in Idaho
Idaho lawmakers propose ESA changes on grizzlies
Both of Idaho’s U.S. senators and North Idaho’s congressman introduced legislation Wednesday to amend the Endangered Species Act to clarify that it’s OK to shoot a grizzly bear in self-defense or in defense of another person, in response to the Jeremy Hill incident.
However, the law already says that - in the very next section after the one the new bill would amend. A spokesman for Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo said the bill would “bolster” that provision, but a national species conservation group called it “simply political grandstanding.”
Jeremy Hill of Porthill, Idaho shot a grizzly last May after it and two others wandered onto his property and were seen near his children’s 4-H pig pen; he feared his six children were outside playing at the time. He was charged with a federal crime, but it later was dropped in favor of a non-criminal infraction, and Hill agreed to pay a $1,000 fine.
Idaho Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch and Rep. Raul Labrador, all Republicans, said in a joint statement Wednesday that their new legislation “would be a drastic improvement over the current ESA regulations.”
Risch said, “This is a common-sense change that needs to be passed.”
The Hill case stirred up plenty of concern in Idaho, attracting statements of support for Hill not only from the congressional delegation but from local county commissioners and the local prosecutor; Gov. Butch Otter sent a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar about the case. Local residents in Boundary County backed their neighbor by raising more than $19,000 at a 4-H auction to support him. Hill could have faced up to a year in prison and $50,000 in fines under the original federal charge.
In dropping the criminal charge against Hill, the Idaho U.S. Attorney’s office noted that Hill promptly notified Idaho Fish and Game officials of the incident. It also noted that he fired three shots at the two-year-old grizzly, and by the time he fired the third, he knew his family was safe inside.
Derek Goldman, Northern Rockies representative in Missoula for the Endangered Species Coalition, a national network of hundreds of groups that support species conservation, blasted the Idaho lawmakers’ new bill in a statement Wednesday.
“This is a case of politicians using a single, rare and unfortunate incident to pander to extremists who want to undermine common-sense protections for wildlife,” he said. “This is simply political grandstanding by politicians who want to weaken laws that protect our wildlife and wildlife habitat for future generations of Americans.”
The bill the Idaho lawmakers proposed would add a clause onto the “exceptions” section of the Endangered Species Act, 16 USC 1539, stating, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law … the provisions of this Act shall not apply with respect to the taking of any grizzly bear by an individual who demonstrates to the Secretary by a preponderance of the evidence that the individual carried out the taking as a result of: 1 - self defense; 2 - defense of another individual; or 3 - a reasonable belief of imminent danger posed by the grizzly bear to any individual.”
The next section of the law, the penalties section, 16 USC 1540, already states, both for civil penalties and criminal penalties, “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no … penalty shall be imposed if it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed an act based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other individual from bodily harm, from any endangered or threatened species.”
University of Idaho law professor Dale Gobel, an expert on the Endangered Species Act, said, “It’s in the statute.” Asked about the bill, he said with a chuckle, “It seems redundant, but other than that, why not?”
Lindsay Nothern, spokesman for Crapo in Boise, said, “This just basically adds some more language to further bolster the self-defense language that’s in the ESA. I wouldn’t call it a major change in the law.” But he said the lawmakers believe the Jeremy Hill case showed “that maybe we need to clarify the language in the law, and that’s what we’re doing.”
He added, “The point is that what the law says in a general sense is good but it was not enough to protect Hill from being charged. What our bill does is seek to iron out the differences between how the law reads and how it was implemented in the Hill case. We still have a situation where you have the ESA, regulations on the ESA at the agency level and agents in the field making a determination and recommendation on the situation. The idea is to improve the language to lessen the chances that, in our opinion, it will be misinterpreted.”
Recent stories by Betsy Z. Russell
Mussel infestation threatens NW waters May 30, 2012 1- Invasive mussels on the move toward Northwest May 29, 2012 5
- Unique artifacts confirm indelible link between Idaho, Lincoln May 27, 2012 1
- Eye on Boise: Idaho backs Montana’s campaign spending fight May 27, 2012 1
- Dems control Idaho tax panel May 26, 2012
slamdunk on September 14 at 10:34 a.m.
It is not surprising that these three culls want to change the ESA. They are, after all, stuck in the tea party ages.
BlondeSquawker on September 14 at 10:34 a.m.
First they came for the wolves….
idahocity on September 14 at 10:37 a.m.
reminding our servants we have rights.
BlondeSquawker on September 14 at 10:45 a.m.
The grizzly wasn’t charging or attacking that man or his children. He had hogs on his property in grizzly country….probably had garbage lying around as well. The man paid a $1,000 fine and basically got off Scott-free.
BlondeSquawker on September 14 at 10:46 a.m.
Oh dang, too bad Larry (toe tappin’) Craig ain’t around to chime in on this.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on September 14 at 10:46 a.m.
Because these lawmakers really have nothing more important and more pressing facing this country right now.
metaline on September 14 at 11:17 a.m.
Without knowing the man, why do you assume he had garbage lying around? The amount of money raised by the community in his defense speaks volumes about the quality of a man he is.
If it was you, how many would come to your defense?
gmorton on September 14 at 11:27 a.m.
The ESA needs to be changed in a much more fundamental way – it needs to be amended so that it does not apply on private property. It should have been struck down on 5th Amendment grounds years ago. If the government wishes to use my property as wildlife habitat it will have to pay me for that privilege, just as a neighboring rancher would have to do if he wished to graze his cattle on my land. If it does not, property owners may properly ignore its edicts.
Squid on September 14 at 11:31 a.m.
It’s a dirty shame that we need laws to protect those who protect their own. Common sense, freedom, and the ability to protect your family should be God given rights.
Bop on September 14 at 11:41 a.m.
Jeremy Hill is the 4th generation of his family to live in Boundary County. He did not move into the area. In the late 1970’s and continuing through today the USF&W have been transplanting bears into the Boundary County Region. Mr Hill does not live in grizzly country. He lives on a small farm approximately 1000 feet off of Idaho Hwy 1. He along with 11,000 other Boundary County residents live in a narrow strip of land between the Kootenai RIver and Mountain Ranges on three sides. Betsy Russel writes, ” Hill said he was concerned about his children, who he thought might have been playing outside”. This is an incorrect summary of what Mr. Hill thought and the subtle difference in phrasolgy makes all the difference in the world to this case and future cases. To be correct she should have written that Mr. Hill believed that his 4 children were outside playing basket ball which was 120 ft from a mother grizzly and two sub adult cubs.
soccermomsusie on September 14 at 12:17 p.m.
Just another attack on our ability to bare arms against bear harms.
HEAR OUR VOICE!!!
RockChalk on September 14 at 12:20 p.m.
Metaline:
Without knowing the man, why do you assume he had garbage lying around? The amount of money raised by the community in his defense speaks volumes about the quality of a man he is.
If it was you, how many would come to your defense?__________________________________________________
What does the amount of money have to do with the quality of a man? There is a severe disconnect in your argument. It should not matter whether or not he is of the highest quality or not. What matters is he broke the law by killing an endangered species and should by in prison for it.
BlondeSquawker on September 14 at 12:33 p.m.
Damn straight, RockChalk.
BlondeSquawker on September 14 at 1:04 p.m.
He took the law into his own hands and got caught. Now “lawmakers” want to reward him for that.
IHike4Fun on September 14 at 1:09 p.m.
‘He took the law into his own hands…’
Give me a break.
BlondeSquawker on September 14 at 1:19 p.m.
Really, hiker? The protocol is to contact authorities when you have problems with wildlife. They know how to remove/relocate bears. The guy’s lucky he wasn’t killed after he injured the poor creature. I heard the whole story on NPR on Friday.
BlondeSquawker on September 14 at 1:36 p.m.
I understand the bear did not threaten him until after he injured it. One thing I know about grizzlies is that you have to hit them in the right spot, with the right gun or you can easily end up dead. He did not abide by the federal laws in place to protect these creatures. For him, he’s lucky it was a juvenile and not an adult. Yes, I’ve lived in bear country, have had extensive training on how to protect myself from grizzlies and have encountered one in the wild. He should have called authorities to have the bears removed instead of grabbing his gun. Sounds like a typical north Idaho redneck with a paranoid streak. Bears have been in that country a lot longer than human immigrants.
gmorton on September 14 at 2:41 p.m.
Squid wrote,
“Common sense, freedom, and the ability to protect your family should be God given rights.”
They are, and you’re entitled to defend them whether the gummint likes it or not.
greenlibertarian on September 14 at 11:17 p.m.
Interesting, an atheist who thinks God gave us our rights…
metaline on September 15 at 9:11 a.m.
I live in a small town. If Mr. Hill was not held in high regard and well respected, the townfolk would not have ponied up and collected money for his legal defense.
He felt his family was in danger, he killed it in defense of his family, then he called the authorities. He easily could have shot it, buried it and not said a word. In a situation like that, you don’t have time to run a checklist of options.
I hope you don’t fall of your collective high horses and injure yourselves. You need to look at each case on a case by case basis. The world is not black and white.
gmorton on September 15 at 9:17 a.m.
greenlibertarian wrote,
“Interesting, an atheist who thinks God gave us our rights…”
“God-given” is merely a colorful synonym for “innate.” It has no theological implications.
Squid on September 15 at 10:17 a.m.
The best cure would be to invite the people who are angry about killing the bear, to have their children or grandchildren, spend a week at that house playing basketball outside, for 10 hours a day.
I’m pretty sure they would have a better understanding of just how much restraint Mr. Hill has. I might have shot all three bears, to be sure they never came back. Your biggest job, as a parent, is to make sure your kids are safe.
If you had three backwoods hillbilly pedophiles stalking your kids, and they wouldn’t stop, and then one day, show up with AK47s, while your kids were outside playing basketball….. Pedo Bears have diplomatic immunity…. Nearest cop was an hour away, but that doesn’t matter, because you know nothing will be done to keep your kids safe… You have a gun…. Will you trust that Pedo Bears won’t do something terrible? Will you trust that Pedo Bears won’t come back when you aren’t as observantly watching your kids?
RedCedar on December 21 at 8:18 p.m.
Thank you, Ms Russell, for including both the current language of the ESA and the proposed additional language. That, more than anything else, makes it clear that the current proposal is unnecessary grandstanding and will change nothing. Two questions remain, however. First of all, with such clear language, why was Mr Hill threatened with a $50,000 fine? I’m not sure how rephrasing the clear original language in a different way would do bear-shooter any good when federal prosecutors are apparently content to ignore the law as it is written.
Secondly, if the proposal won’t really change anything, which sure looks like the case to me, why does Derek Goldman claim that it will “undermine …protections for wildlife” an “weaken laws that protect our wildlife and wildlife habitat”? In fact, of course, he doesn’t quite say that. He says that the people who sponsored this legislation want to do those things, not that the proposal itself will do them. If he’s going to oppose harmless bills simply because he thinks the sponsors might like to do something worse, he might as well issue the same basic press release whenever any Idaho legislator, or any Republican, or anyone of any other political group that he doesn’t like, proposes anything at all. His basic argument is, “No this bill won’t do anything, but we’re against it because we don’t like the guys who sponsored it.”