Man who shot bear refuses plea bargain


PDA






gunsmith
August 19, 2004, 04:43 PM
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/22/loc_kybear22.html
Man who shot bear refuses plea bargain


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Roger Alford
The Associated Press


An eastern Kentucky man charged with illegally killing a bear in his back yard has refused to plead guilty in order to avoid the possibility of jail time, opting instead to have his case heard in front of a jury.

Terry Brock, 36, of Mayking, said the bear was a renegade and that he killed it to protect his family.

The Letcher County man faces from 30 days to a year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000 if convicted. He said the county prosecutor offered a plea bargain that would have required no jail time but he would have had to pay a $250 penalty, give up his hunting privileges and the heirloom 30-30 caliber rifle he used to shoot the bear.

"I didn't want to do that," Brock said. "I don't feel like I did anything wrong."

District Judge Jim Wood set Brock's trial for Sept. 20.

Brock, who has three children, said he walked out his door on June 2 to see what had his dogs and horse so disturbed and came face to face with the bear. He said he jumped back inside, asked his wife to call the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife for help, and began banging on the wall of his mobile home, hoping the noise would frighten the wild animal away.

When that didn't work, Brock said he grabbed an heirloom rifle and fired.

"It seems like he had a right to protect his family, his dogs, his horse, from this bear," said defense attorney Jamie Hatton. "It's not like he was poaching."

Letcher County Attorney Harold Bolling couldn't be reached to comment Wednesday. The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife, which filed the charge against Brock, doesn't want the case dropped.

In a region where complaints about the protected animals are on the increase, a trial could test how jurors in eastern Kentucky perceive the shooting of black bears that wander into residential areas.

For the first time in more than a century, Kentucky has a self-sustaining black bear population.

Brock, who has pleaded not guilty to illegally killing the bear, said he couldn't believe he was accused of a crime. He said the bear swatted at his dogs and had his horse so spooked that he feared it might break a leg trying to get out of its stall.

If you enjoyed reading about "Man who shot bear refuses plea bargain" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
August 19, 2004, 04:49 PM
Didn't do anything wrong?:confused:

I don't remember a poll on which gun for bear. Hey, who voted .30-30?.:uhoh: :D

Damon
August 19, 2004, 05:00 PM
Maybe he shot the bear six times in the back.:rolleyes:

Standing Wolf
August 19, 2004, 05:00 PM
In a region where complaints about the protected animals are on the increase, a trial could test how jurors in eastern Kentucky perceive the shooting of black bears that wander into residential areas.

I sincerely hope Kentuckians exhibit more common sense than residents of a certain western state I'll leave unnamed.

CZ-100
August 19, 2004, 05:04 PM
Maybe he should read THIS (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=97713)

RooK
August 19, 2004, 07:32 PM
It's eastern Kentucky, where I live. There is no chance, if a Jury judges him, that he will be going to jail. Shame on the KDF&W for filing charges, since it clearly was not poaching, whether he shot the bear or not. This also is no the first time a black bear around here has wandered on populated property endangering people. They have done it at my local Wal-Mart and another town some 30 miles away.

Stand_Watie
August 19, 2004, 10:01 PM
Glad to hear your opinion on the potential jury pool, Rook.

That was my opinion too, based on just driving through and observing the rural nature of the area and the conservative attitudes of the residents. Hopefully we're right. If he were facing the charge in SoCal, the DC burbs or Seattle area I'd be less optimistic. In southwest Michigan, where I lived for many years (and which is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of the areas I mentioned) encounters with black bears are rising fast too.

I'm not at all bothered by a rising black bear population, in fact I hope we get a good one going here in Texas, but only with reasonable hunting seasons and the understood right to defend life and property from them.

States like Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, Massachussetts etc, that have a problem with an exploding black bear population that is involved in negative encounters with humans need to institute a carefully expanded hunting season that targets problem counties. This would have the double benefit of removing bears with unhealthy habits from the gene pool, and scattering the bears to areas that don't have them, that are more rural and where bears are able to exist without negative side effects to humans. The danger of being attacked here in the woods of east Texas are much greater from feral swine or cattle (and even that is small).

When I was a kid in Maine I got to see a black bear once, scuttling away across a blueberry field a thousand yards away, just as fast as he could go. He was a lot more scared than I. That's the proper relationship between humans and black bears.

Ky Thunder
August 19, 2004, 10:56 PM
I'd love to be on that jury.No way would i convict him if it happened the way he said it did.Seems to me the KDFW is gettin a little heavy handed as of late.His mistake was calling KDFW to begin with.He shoulda just killed it and buried it and not said anything to anyone about it,IMO

Blackcloud6
August 19, 2004, 11:25 PM
I'd love to be the jury foreman, and boy would the prosecutor get a lecture from me at the end of the trial...

Steve in PA
August 19, 2004, 11:54 PM
So, just what exactly did this "renegade" bear do besides walk onto this guy's property?

The info that is posted here's doesn't say what the bear was doing, was it going towards the horses......the dogs??? Of course the dogs are going to be barking and going crazy when they see the bear....ditto on the horses. Had there been reports of a bear killing or doing damage toother animals in the area?

Did the bear even make a move towards him?? He tried to scare the bear away and when that didn't work, he shot it. He should be charged for killing the animal.

We have a ton of bear here in PA, funny how no one here is shooting them for walking on their property. Heck, I've stood 50' from one while it was walking around a lady's house.....and she was alot closer standing their in her pj's with a camcorder.

We have a local tv station that does an outdoor show and there are pictures and video all the time of bears in people's yards, driveways, pool's....the only people that get into a hissy fit over any type of animal are all the big city freaks (NY & NJ especially) who want to move to the "country" then freak when an animal shows up.

R32
August 20, 2004, 05:47 AM
Come on shouldn't the benefit of the doubt be given to the home owner and NOT the freaking bear?? If the man felt scared for himself or his animals then he should have the right to shoot a wild animal on his property.. IMO at least :) .

Blackcloud6
August 20, 2004, 08:31 AM
If the man felt scared for himself or his animals then he should have the right to shoot a wild animal on his property..

R32, Thank you!

MAUSER88
August 20, 2004, 10:10 AM
I thought things like this only happened in NJ???? Lets hope the good people of KY. exhibit some good ole common sense and let the guy walk!

Crownvicman
August 20, 2004, 10:35 AM
This looks like a wonderful opportunity for jury nullification. The man shot a large, dangerous animal that was on his property and that he felt was threatening himself and his property.

thumbtack
August 20, 2004, 10:50 AM
I saw him on the news last night and he said the bear swatted at his horse then his dog. I see no need for wasting the tax payers money on this one.

flatrock
August 20, 2004, 10:58 AM
While I don't live in eastern KY, I've visited it a few times. I find it very unlikely that a jury there would have to think about this long before acquitting him.

The prosecutor has a good chance of being lectured by the jury as someone already mentioned, not only for charging this guy with defending himself and his animals, but for trying to take away his rifle which is a family heirloom.

Edward429451
August 20, 2004, 11:12 AM
Steve, a bear on the property is like a bad guy with weapon visible. Claws & teeth. Swatted at the dogs & horses is like a gangbanger brandishing his 'gat and spewing threats.

What do you think he should've done, call 9 1 1 and hide until they decide to show up?

Banging on the walls to scare the bear off shows the guy had some presence of mind and that should be taken into account.

Walking near a bear with a camcorder in your pj's shows no presence of mind at all. Sure maybe you can get away with it 1000 times but it's still stupid and doesn't mean it's safe cause wild animals are very unpredictable. Charging this guy for his actions sounds asinine. I applaud him for not plea bargaining his life away.

g_gunter
August 20, 2004, 11:28 AM
Steve In PA,

We have a ton of bear here in PA, funny how no one here is shooting them for walking on their property. Heck, I've stood 50' from one while it was walking around a lady's house.....and she was alot closer standing their in her pj's with a camcorder.

I've seen how fast Bears can charge and know how strong they are and if you or anyone else were within 50' of a bear and taking a video of it that's fine, I guess? I don't think its very wise, though, and to expect others to put themselves in danger and stay at the mercy of the bear while the proper authorities don't respond does not seem reasonable to me. That's almost as bad as anti-gunners telling me whether or not I need a gun to defend myself because they don't perceive a potential threat from bad guys. That's fine if you don't feel a threat but don't stop me from being able to protect myself.

Bottom line is that the law is intended to stop the decimation of a species that was endangered in that area. The law is intended to prosecute poachers who go out of their way to hunt these animals NOT citizens minding their own business on their own property who attempt to contact the proper authorities in the first place but get no help.

This is a no-brainer. The prosecuting attourney should be ashamed for even trying to blackmail this guy with a plea bargin. Leave the guy and his family heirloom alone. That's justice.

Greg

YodaVader
August 20, 2004, 12:11 PM
Charging this guy for his actions sounds asinine.

Agreed! The bear was on this man's property , if he did nothing and the bear did happen do go away this time - whose to say it would not have returned when he was not around and his kids were out playing. If I had kids a bear hanging around my house would not be an option regardless of what the Dept of Fish and Wildlife may try to do to me later.

If a cop had dispatched the bear would the same dept be filing charges against the officer?

Chipperman
August 20, 2004, 12:29 PM
Maybe the prosecuting attorney is a lever-gun collector and wanted to score another one. :scrutiny:

Steve in PA
August 20, 2004, 12:55 PM
Thank god I live in a state where people have more common sense in the way they deal with animals.

I see, because the bear might have left the area, and might have returned in the future, we're just going to shoot it and be done with it, huh???

Yeah, I know how fast bears can move. We've had to deal with several bear calls a year in our town. Big deal. None got shot because they walked through someone's back yard.

YodaVader
August 20, 2004, 01:18 PM
I see, because the bear might have left the area, and might have returned in the future, we're just going to shoot it and be done with it, huh???

Well in the case of Mr. Brock the bear did not leave - had it left it probably would not have been shot. Common sense tells me that a human's life is worth far more than an animal's. He was not poaching - the animal was on his property - he felt he was protecting his family which is his right.

sturmruger
August 20, 2004, 01:41 PM
This prosecutor must not be too bright, or there is something missing from this story. Maybe he had a big pile of bait in his yard, I kinf of doubt there was any bait but if there was that could explain a lot.

Ky Thunder
August 20, 2004, 02:32 PM
I've followed this story since it started,there was no bait in Mr.Brock's yard,he had some horses in his stable and the bear was scaring them.Horses when scared will jump,kick and attempt to run thru whatever is in their way in an attempt to escape the threat.A horse with a broken leg is pretty much ruined.if you have several horses going apecrap because a bear is near,then you have an emergency,IMO.I don't blame him for shooting it.He tried to scare it away and that didnt work,so what was he supposed to do,let it stay?.Until his horses had maimed themselves beyond repair.Fish and Wildlife response times are about an hour,if your lucky here in these hills,state police isn't much better.I can tell if the Ky state police had been called and made it there before the horses crippled themselves,they would have shot it too.Im not too far from where this happened,theres alot of bears here,in peoples yards and fields.Should we get rid of our horses,and keep our kids indoors so the bears can have free reign.I think he did what he had to do under the circumstances.

sendec
August 20, 2004, 02:34 PM
If its open season because it may be dangerous in the future, well, people apply that logic to controlling guns, too. I'd want to hear more before I rendered a verdict. The Commonwealth attorney probably needs to try this case, because if the bear population is increasing and the behavior of the humans cannot be controlled, it does'nt look good.

Deal with the problem animals, not every animal is gonna be a problem.

BTW, a big percentage of the "menacing" animals I've seen that were killed in "self defense" had entry wounds in the butt:uhoh:

TallPine
August 20, 2004, 03:11 PM
A black bear that is not afraid of humans is a dangerous bear.

moa
August 20, 2004, 03:21 PM
I have a problem with ignoring or downplaying large, very powerful, heavily armed and unpredictable meat eaters who are not shy of human beings and dogs, and are hanging out in my vicinity.

Maybe some people are unimpressed enough to blow it off, but am not.

bratch
August 20, 2004, 03:39 PM
A simple application of the 3 "S" would have been less of a hassel. Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up.

DCR
August 20, 2004, 03:48 PM
Years ago we successfully prosecuted a guy for the unlawful killing of a bear. He tried to argue he was preventing the future destruction of his fruit trees and property (bears had eaten and torn up some things in the past). Different facts, though: our guy got a call from neighbors reporting a bear on his property, and drove 200 miles to come shoot it out of a pine tree.

Treat them just like you would a human attacker: be smart, and if you can, remove yourself from the situation if you can. If retreat is unsafe or impractical, do your thing. Don't drive 200 miles to create a "confrontation."

Just my $.02

NoHarmNoFAL
August 20, 2004, 05:25 PM
I'm not from there either but I have a lot of family down there and I can tell you that KDF&W is getting a little out of had from what I can see for my self (harassing/baiting hunters and such and bringing in dangerous predators). The man FELT threatened that’s enough for me. Now if there had been bear meat in the frying pan and a fresh rug on the wall then there may be a small problem but for pity sakes he (his wife) called the law. That show me that there was no maliciousness to it.

Cosmoline
August 20, 2004, 06:00 PM
Why doesn't some big boar black bear wander into *MY* yard!? Up here it's prefectly fine to shoot them and claim them as a legit kill with your standard resident hunting license.

Of course maybe that's why they won't come to my yard. They prefer to bother folks in Anchorage neighborhoods in no-shooting zones. Odd how bear and moose seem to know so much about the GMU boundaries. :D

magsnubby
August 20, 2004, 06:10 PM
Sounds like some people need to figure out why they're called "wild animals."

Stand_Watie
August 20, 2004, 06:43 PM
We have a ton of bear here in PA, funny how no one here is shooting them for walking on their property. Heck, I've stood 50' from one while it was walking around a lady's house.....and she was alot closer standing their in her pj's with a camcorder.

This is creating the problem. That bear is learning not to fear humans, and since it undoubtedly was foraging, actually learning to associate humans with food with no negative consequence. Worse than just the circumstance for that particular bear, creating a sub-population of black bears within the specie that aren't afraid of humans, they will pass this behavior to their offspring, they'll overpopulate and the bears will come to the very worst spot for them (residential neighborhoods).



Fed Bear=Dead Bear - it's not just a national park slogan.

Brasso
August 20, 2004, 07:29 PM
Bear on his property. Bear dead. Reasons don't matter. The Game and Fish can pound sand. I'll kill any animal I want that wanders into my back yard and anyone who wants to say something about it can go to hell. Just my opinion.

sendec
August 20, 2004, 07:38 PM
I and a couple gazillion other organisms are large, powerful heavily armed meat eaters, but treat us with respect and we'll leave you alone.

Seriously, not every bear is a problem and there are other reponses than just killing them. You'll never have a workable season with all the income to your area that that entails if they are killed on a whim. In the long run that bear was worth a lot of money to sportsmen, biologists and tourists. If the state is serious about repopulating bears it wont work with this kind of response.

Bear management is a science, with a lot of art thrown in. Y'all that have them around should consider yourself lucky. Improperly handled they can be a problem, but treat'em right and everybody'll do great without anybody getting hurt or killed, unecessarily. Sorta like guns.

5knives
August 20, 2004, 08:14 PM
"Bear on his property. Bear dead. Reasons don't matter. The Game and Fish can pound sand. I'll kill any animal I want that wanders into my back yard and anyone who wants to say something about it can go to hell. Just my opinion." ... Brasso

At last, a sensible response! :D

Walt disney would be horrified, what are that poor bears wife and kids going to think when he doesn't come home?

Wayne D
August 20, 2004, 08:15 PM
Something was wrong if the bear wasn't afraid of the dogs. Any bear that is not afraid of dogs or people is dangerous, what if little kids where playing in the yard? And after watching films of black bears tearing the doors off of cars at Yellowstone, I wouldn't have felt very safe in the trailer either.

Something is terribly wrong when we are expected to sacrifice our property (dogs and horses) and risk our lives so that one wild animal can live. Most people are so far removed from wildlife and nature that they have lost touch with reality. It used to be considered humane to "put down" a wounded or sick animal. Now if you shoot an animal to end it's suffering and a neighbor sees you, you'll probably get arrested. Now when a motorist hits a deer, the deer has to lay in the ditch suffering until an animal control officer or cop shows up to shoot it because everyone else is afraid they'll get in trouble. Common sense is gone.

LAK
August 20, 2004, 08:32 PM
And what would this guy have been charged with if he took a wild bear and released it in someone's yard or other private property?

Stand_Watie
August 20, 2004, 10:28 PM
Seriously, not every bear is a problem and there are other reponses than just killing them

Something was wrong if the bear wasn't afraid of the dogs. Any bear that is not afraid of dogs or people is dangerous, what if little kids where playing in the yard?

I don't think these two responses are as far a part as may seem at first blush.

No, not every bear is a threat, and not all bears should be killed on sight, and yes, a bear that isn't afraid of dogs or people (as this one, if the news accounts are accurate, wasn't) and is in your yard is an imminent hazard, certainly to anything you have outdoors, and after a couple trips back to your house, even to you inside your house (see link)


http://www.dailyfreeman.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1769&dept_id=74969&newsid=12727600&PAG=461&rfi=9


If people who encountered bears were putting a light load of birdshot into their backsides (and this is probably legally inadvisable) from a protected shooting location at 25 or 30 yards at the bears first encounter with humans the bear would quickly learn to avoid humans - a plus for both humans and bears. Unfortunately that is probably as likely to see you prosecuted as killing a bear, if the sort of people who are deciding whether or not to prosecute you are the same type of people who think bears are harmless enough to stand around outside in close proximity to them.

At Elmendorf Air Base in Alaska, they used to have a bear discouragement program that included terrorizing the bears after trapping them, before relocation/release. Apparently it had some success.

Being able to trap and relocate an animal is a nice luxury to have, but it's not something I'd insist upon for a man on his own property that has a reasonable fear for significant property damage, including the loss of a pet or livestock.

Steve in PA
August 20, 2004, 10:49 PM
Kill everything that is not afraid of us!!!!!!

Yeah, thats a sure sign of how superior man is :rolleyes:

As far as being 50' from a bear and not having a problem......its called co-existing. This bear in particular was just walking through an area near the top of the mountain. He wasn't tearing up garbage cans.......raiding rabbit cages.......he just liked to cross through this are. I only saw him once, the woman said she's seen him several times over the summer.

Guess she should have shot him, instead of admiring such a rare sight.

As for the bear and dogs, like I said the article doesn't say if the dogs were chained, and I'm betting they weren't. So the bear is walking through a yard and suddenly gets surrounded by several dogs. Mst bears will immediately go to tree, but if there isn't one around, I'm sure they'll decide to stand their ground. Doesn't mean the bear needs to be shot.

If there were kids in the yard, then that is a totally different story. But all the article says is he has kids, not that they were in the yard.

Stand_Watie
August 20, 2004, 11:08 PM
As far as being 50' from a bear and not having a problem......its called co-existing....As for the bear and dogs, like I said the article doesn't say if the dogs were chained, and I'm betting they weren't. So the bear is walking through a yard and suddenly gets surrounded by several dogs. Mst bears will immediately go to tree, but if there isn't one around, I'm sure they'll decide to stand their ground. Doesn't mean the bear needs to be shot.

If there were kids in the yard, then that is a totally different story. But all the article says is he has kids, not that they were in the yard.

I would call it it foolhardy. It's your life. Risk it as you choose, but don't ask others to take the same risks you are willing to take.

Why should the dogs be chained on the property that they belong? The article indicates that there was a horse in the yard that was spooked by the bear, do you have any familiarity with horses? Any idea how quickly a spooked horse can seriously injure itself? Is your claim that the pets and livestock of a homeowner should take secondary importance to that of a wild animal?

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your original post, but I thought you said that there was a woman in her pajamas closer than 50 feet to the bear. That didn't sound like a mountaintop encounter to me, it sounded like an encounter in a residential area.

Vermonter
August 20, 2004, 11:21 PM
Any potentially DANGEROUS animal that doesn't fear people enough to stay away from their dwellings SHOULD be shot.

SodiumBenzoate
August 20, 2004, 11:26 PM
IMO, if a dangerous animal is on your property, you should be able to.. ah... "destroy" it, even if the said animal is protected.

roo_ster
August 21, 2004, 12:13 AM
I love animals, all sorts. I love to watch them, eat them, hunt them, own them & pet them. They're just plain neat.

But we gota remember that no animal is worth a person's life...or thier livlihood.

From the sounds of it, Mr. Brock was not a wealthy man (mobile home, E Ky, hierloom .30-30 & not the latest magnum-boomer-rifle). I'm willing to bet a lot of his wealth was tied up in his horses and dogs...which were in danger of being mauled (dogs) or injuring themselves due to panic (horses).

So is this man to stand by and watch his animals be destroyed by another animal? I'll tell you what, any wild animal tries to mess with MY dogs is gonna end up dog food.

My dogs aren't world champions, but they go for around $400 each here in DFW. Then there is the emotional attachment my family has for our dogs. If I didn't have the stones to plug "Gentle Ben," my wife surely would. She has NO mercy on those that threaten her loved ones (of which the dogs count themselves) and turns from little Miss Sweetness into Mrs Wrath.

It boils down to: Mr. Brock felt his pets & livestock threatened & he did what he felt he had to do to remove the threat. He even took the time to use non-lethal means to ward the bear off. It doesn't matter if hte predator had two legs or four.

roo_ster
August 21, 2004, 12:17 AM
Oh, one last thing:

Getting to within 50' of a wild animal that can rip you limb from limb and eats meat is a BAD IDEA. Kind of like hanging around folks you know to have committed violent crimes in the past.

Stand_Watie
August 21, 2004, 12:34 AM
My dogs aren't world champions, but they go for around $400 each here in DFW. Then there is the emotional attachment my family has for our dogs. If I didn't have the stones to plug "Gentle Ben," my wife surely would. She has NO mercy on those that threaten her loved ones (of which the dogs count themselves) and turns from little Miss Sweetness into Mrs Wrath.

My dogs are worthless in terms of dollar value. They are both mixed breed pound puppies. That said they are members of our family and both are worth more to us than any wild animal.

That said if my dogs escaped my property and endangered someone else's dogs or livestock, and they killed my dog or dogs, regardless of how sad I'd be, I'd understand that that was their right, and wouldn't hold it against them. With that in mind I've cultivated a good relationship with my neighbors, and I think they know that if my dogs caused one of their cows or horses to break a leg, that I'd be good for the value of their animal. I think my dogs are safer for that. I think if the Kentucky department of fish and wildlife cultivated such an understanding with the citizens of Kentucky, that their black bears would be a lot safer.

That's a decision that the citizens of Kentucky will have to make in regard to the value of their black bears vs. private property.

MICHAEL T
August 21, 2004, 12:44 AM
Bear comes near my home ,bear stays right in front of fireplace. I have 1 lab and 5 german shepards , 2 horses,4 cats, 3 daugthers and 1 stupied bird none on a chain. Horses are fenced in and bird in cage sometimes I would not consider a bear friendly,just hungry. I have no duty to retreat.I have 55A he stays in woods and not near home or animals he's welcome comes near home kids or animals he's rug.:D

S_O_Laban
August 21, 2004, 01:14 AM
Based on the info given, good shoot. It's nice to see somebody stand up for themselves and not take the plea bargan. I know personally several people who accepted plea bargans thinking it was the cheap way out of something they couldn't control. Those plea bargans can be very costly :fire:

I hope he has a decent lawyer.

Steve in PA
August 21, 2004, 01:16 AM
There is a hard paved road that goes over the mountain.......there are houses along the top ridge of the mountain. The bear was coming up one side of the mountain, crossed the road in front of me, which caused me to stop. I get out and watch him walk through the woods into the yard of the woman. I walk around the other side of the house to see the woman standing there at the other corner, taping the bear. We stand and watch for several minutes.

No one freaked.....no one yelled get a gun.......the bear walked through her yard into the next yard.....and we lost sight of it. I talked with the lady for a few minutes and she said they (the neighbors) have been seeing the bear (or bears) in the area. Again, no big deal. Guess you'd have to live in a rural area to understand. I don't make a habit of getting that close to bears, but the bear showed no signs of even caring we were there.

I've seen alot of bears (20+), here in NEPA, but never during bear season!!

Another time I had an up close (about 40 yards) encounter with a bear was during a past deer season. Mid morning my brother walked down to where I was and we were chatting (he was facing me) when I told him there was a bear behind him. Of course his eyes popped wide open and he said, "what?" I said there is a bear behind you, he turned and sure enough there was about a 200lb bear walking down the hill. We just sat there and watched him walk on through.

People here in PA get bears in their backyards all the time, thankfully they have enough sense to enjoy this rare sight, instead of shooting them.

gunsmith
August 21, 2004, 05:34 AM
With all due respect sir,I think we would all agree with protecting our children,dogs & horses from any threat.
What constitutes a threat seems to be the issue, all though I personally think it's a good shoot I can certainly understand how you feel as I had been a vegetarian for 15 years and have a hard time with killing any animal.
Put yourself in his boots for a minute,you have some dogs in your yard freaking out,your horse is about to break it's leg and your children are in the mobile home that is zero protection from a hungry/frightened bear.
You have seconds to decide before the horse breaks his leg,the dogs get mauled and even if your kids do not get attacked you've got dead dogs and horses to deal with (& your kids have to deal with it too).
What do you do?....

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90407&highlight=Treadwell

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73637&highlight=Treadwell

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57394&highlight=Treadwell

http://www.lewrockwell.com/fontova/fontova43.html

gunsmith
August 21, 2004, 05:41 AM
http://www.tbsource.com/Localnews/index.asp?cid=68959
Local News
Bear Attack Provoked By Tourist
Tb News Source
Web Posted: 7/28/2004 8:29:41 AM
Testing on a bear that attacked an American tourist in Ear Falls last month has determined the animal did not have rabies. However, the man was still administered a $1,000 series of vaccinations for the disease, courtesy of Ontario taxpayers.

The 39-year-old Minnesota man was treated for numerous puncture wounds and scratches. Initial police reports said the victim and his friends stopped along Highway 105 to videotape a black bear when it charged and attacked the man, who was reportedly five to eight metres from the animal.

A review of the videotape determined he was much closer to the bear and feeding it candy before it attacked.

The_Antibubba
August 21, 2004, 06:07 AM
At least he doesn't have to deal with aging Hippie Gaia goddesses reeking of pachouli who are chanting a Native eulogy to Brother Bear, and setting up a college fund for the cubs. :rolleyes:







(I love California I love California I love California I love...)

Stand_Watie
August 21, 2004, 09:05 AM
Guess you'd have to live in a rural area to understand.

I do.

Johnson
August 21, 2004, 11:12 AM
First post, and I guess this will show where I stand, but I'd say the prosecuter should be prosecuted for bringing charges against his man. The bear put the man in fear of his life. No jury in it's right mind would take more than 30 seconds to acquit this man.

Brasso
August 21, 2004, 11:26 AM
Steve,

NO one is suggesting that people go out and indiscriminately kill anything they see in their yard. What we are saying is that it is "his" yard to do with as he pleases. In this case it was shooting a bear. No one has a right to question his motives while on his own property.

Johnson
August 21, 2004, 12:01 PM
If it had been a cop that shot the bear, he would have been a hero.

Wayne D
August 21, 2004, 05:16 PM
Kill everything that is not afraid of us!!!!!!

Yeah, thats a sure sign of how superior man is

Condescending and sarcastic, good start. You know what we mean. Something has conditioned this bear to lose it's fear of humans, whether it was some jerk feeding it Clark bars or sickness or some other reason; this makes the bear dangerous because now it will get itself into situations like this one.

As far as being 50' from a bear and not having a problem......its called co-existing. This bear in particular was just walking through an area near the top of the mountain. He wasn't tearing up garbage cans.......raiding rabbit cages.......he just liked to cross through this are. I only saw him once, the woman said she's seen him several times over the summer.

Guess she should have shot him, instead of admiring such a rare sight.

No, this is normal bear behavior, this bear is not staying around people any longer than it takes to cross the road and be on it's way.

As for the bear and dogs, like I said the article doesn't say if the dogs were chained, and I'm betting they weren't. So the bear is walking through a yard and suddenly gets surrounded by several dogs. Mst bears will immediately go to tree, but if there isn't one around, I'm sure they'll decide to stand their ground. Doesn't mean the bear needs to be shot.

Once again, the dogs are my property on my property, why should I sacrifice them to the bear?

If there were kids in the yard, then that is a totally different story. But all the article says is he has kids, not that they were in the yard.

What if the guy had let the bear go. Who's to say it wouldn't have come back when kids were in the yard? Or went to some other person's house?

I can understand where you're coming from, to a point. I've been hiking and walked up on rattlesnakes. I don't kill them, I take a few pictures then walk around them. But let me find one in the back yard where my kids play and the dogs run........

Edward429451
August 21, 2004, 07:18 PM
A review of the videotape determined he was much closer to the bear and feeding it candy before it attacked.

(Steve from hospital bed...)

"I don't know what happened, I've been around/fed that bear dozens of times. He wasn't supposed to attack me. he's nice I thought. I didn't do anything wrong..."



:D

Down bt Royal Gorge there's a herd of tamish deer that have likely grown up being fed by tourists. They even sell food pellets for them in the little store down there. We bought some and were feeding them getting some awesome pictures. I was feeding two does and eventually ran out of pellets. One of them got aggressive and head butted me! Lucky no antlers. I slapped it in the snout hoping to quell any escalation of aggression by a demonstration of alpha to it and it worked. Kind of funny in a way and not so in a way.

Maybe if your neighbrohood bear ever gets aggressive with you you can swat it in the snoot and show it who's boss! Then you can tell us from your hospital bed how much more common sense you have than us!

:D Jus kiddin' around Steve, don't get your feathers in an uproar...

There's sense to what you're being told though. *Common* is debateable but sense nonetheless.

kentucky bucky
August 21, 2004, 08:19 PM
This just confirms what I already thought. If I am forced to do the same, the Fish & Game folks will never find out . They can blame themselves for folks having this attitude, and in the long run the bears (who they are supposed to be monitoring ) will suffer. This is not the first time that a well meaning citizen has been punished by a gung-ho officer. It happened to a friend of mine who accidentally shot two deer with one bullet, and being a good citizen, reported it to the Game Warden. The "Bean Counters" in Frankfort have not chosen a very good battle to fight this time. There are many good Game Wardens in the field and it takes just one act of stupidty to give them all a bad name. I'll admit that I've only heard one side of this story, but it seemed plausible to me.

Johnson
August 22, 2004, 06:29 PM
Yep. Never call the police on yourself. They'll just screw you.

2nd Amendment
August 22, 2004, 11:25 PM
Yep, amazing this is even a topic of discussion, let alone legal action. It's on your property? That's all the data needed. Do as you see fit. End of discussion.

Dave R
August 22, 2004, 11:33 PM
This seems pretty straightforward to me. Self defense is NOT poaching.

Poaching is hunting out of season, or deliberately taking a protected species, etc. He obviouslt wasn't "hunting".

We don't have all the facts here, but if the facts are that the bear posed a threat to the man or his animals, it was self defense.

cracked butt
August 23, 2004, 02:46 AM
People seem to forget, including the KF&W that the man shot a fricken wild animal not a person. I can understand charging him if he was poaching the bear, but evidently was not, as he called the agency before he acted. Like someone already mentioned, having horses injure themselves because they become frantic wouldn't be much different than the bear destroying the man's car or tearing at the door of the house. The man put the stop to property damage.

stealthmode
August 23, 2004, 03:22 AM
thats just wrong he had every right to protect himself and property from the bear

sendec
August 23, 2004, 06:14 AM
Whether it was self defense or not is for the jury to determine after they have weighed the evidence. Unless we witnessed the events (in which case we should'nt be running our keyboards here) none of us are in a position to say that this was a good shoot or not.

While the property may have been his, the bear was not. It belongs to the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the people thereof, so he really does'nt have rights of possession over it. If my horse escapes and wanders into your yard, upsetting your hounds, you do not automatically have the leeway to destroy it. If it does so on a regular basis and I fail to take normal precautions to avoid it the story may be different.

This is'nt about a warm and cuddly teddy bear, it is about a valuable and rare resource that no one can afford to waste. If it needed to be detroyed the jury will determine that and the community will have drawn a line for the prosecutor. If it did'nt, the jury will have drawn a line for the community.

cracked butt
August 23, 2004, 08:06 AM
This is'nt about a warm and cuddly teddy bear, it is about a valuable and rare resource that no one can afford to waste.

How valuable is it really? More valuable than a man's horses? Maybe more valuable than one of his kids?

I wouldn't care if the animal was a Black Rhino in my backyard- if it was threatening my animals or my family, it will get shot.

It belongs to the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the people thereof, so he really does'nt have rights of possession over it.

So if this bear mauled a family member, the man's horses, dogs, or damaged his property, is the Commonwealth of kentucky going to pay for the damage? Can he sue the Commonwealth for pain and suffering, maybe even punitive damages for allowing the bear to roam at large? Was not the man involved a member of the Commonwealth?

sendec
August 23, 2004, 08:35 AM
Actually, DNRs have developed plans and programs to assist mainly farmers who suffer predation and crop damage, depending on the situation. The state I live in permits farmers to cull deer that graze on crops with relatively little oversight. Whether they pay monetary damages or not is a different issue. But then again, there are no sure things. If a person wants to raise chickens in fox country, some are gonna get eaten.

As to the value of the bear, there is a tangible value and an intangible value. The tangible value consists of the net worth of the animal at market, the value it could draw through hunting and all the related income it would bring.

TallPine
August 23, 2004, 09:58 AM
If my horse escapes and wanders into your yard, upsetting your hounds, you do not automatically have the leeway to destroy it.
Well, just FYI ...

In Montana, if your dog wanders onto my property and harrasses or damages my livestock, I have every legal right to shoot it.

Oh and BTW. horses are not predators, as are dogs, bears, etc ....

2nd Amendment
August 23, 2004, 11:36 AM
If your animal wanders onto my property in Indiana I have every right to shoot it. You may take civil action against me but criminally you're SOL. As far as the jury deciding because the bear is "commonwealth property", this is just one more reason for shoot, shovel and shaddup. It's frankly none of the state's business...and when the guy is cleared it will be obvious the "commonwealth" doesn't give a damn.

DevilDog
August 23, 2004, 02:07 PM
This getting to a jury is laughable and wasteful from the information concerning this incident in this thread. The fact that charges were filed against him seems laughable.

He did not kill his neighbor's $1500 quarter horse. He did not kill his neighbor's pure breed bloodhound.

He does not have a history of killing wildlife on his property, and this incident was close to the structure his family lives in.

The mere fact that he instructed his wife to call DOW prior to engaging the animal shows that he was attempting to act in a responsible, lawful manner. That's enough when the deceased is a bear!

If he had a reputation for baiting wildlife to his property and taking them - by all means, prosecute. If his neighbors have seen him poaching on his own property in the past, then prosecute him.

Again, the information available does not indicate he purposely acted in an illegal or irresponsible manner. What purpose could prosecution serve here?

It is absolutely silly that a homeowner is going to have to pause and think "if I kill this wild, dangerous animal in my front yard, will I go to jail?"

What is this world coming to?!

griz
August 23, 2004, 02:07 PM
I'm surprized nobody mentioned the grizzly bear videographer in Alaska. He was happily co-existing with the bears for years as long as salmon were available. He would tell people about his ability to "read" bears. He made one mistake.

SOT_II
August 23, 2004, 02:39 PM
the people of MA have more sense than other states.

http://www.masslive.com/hampfrank/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1092734879304750.xml


PALMER - When a bear visited the Jurkowskis' front porch and made off with a bag of birdseed, they called the police.

When the bear came back again and headed for the front screen door, Allan T. Jurkowski took the matter into his own hands.

"The bear was coming right at me," Jurkowski said.

He grabbed his 12-gauge Ithaca shotgun and pumped four shots into the 300-pound male bear.

aut2no
August 23, 2004, 05:40 PM
http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/

scroll down to Wed Aug 18

2 Palmer Mass stories - very funny

Check out photo of guy who shot bear - just set back for years all our efforts at revamping Mass gun laws ;^)

Bill B.
August 23, 2004, 09:34 PM
I too would like to be on that jury! Being charged by the Fish & Wildlife Officers is a joke in this case. They import animals into areas they haven't been in for years and then expect for homeowners to let them do what they will without protecting their property. Frankly I would like to see this man file a civil suit against the Fish & Wildlife comission for turning the bears loose in the area in the first place. Something needs to be done to put an end to crap such as this!

TallPine
August 24, 2004, 10:11 AM
A rancher neighbor of mine told me that some time back the state FWP was flying "problem" bears in by helicopter and relocating them on remote areas of private property. :fire: Not long after that, livestock in the area started turning up dead or missing.

Since then, the bears have "disappeared" and have not caused any further problems. No one seems to have any clue what might have happened to them. ;)

Mal H
December 27, 2004, 04:19 PM
gunsmith opened up a thread on a different bear case (bear eats cat (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=117720)). He reminded me of this case so I went looking for the outcome. Seems the jury mostly agreed with Brock, but the trial ended in a mistrial. He still has to pay a relatively small fee, but he keeps his hunting license and his thutty-thutty. Good for him. I hope his legal costs weren't too high.

http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2004/09/21ky/B04-bear09210-3541.html

Erich
December 27, 2004, 04:54 PM
Thanks for the follow-up, Mal!

Carlos
December 27, 2004, 06:05 PM
Thanks for the info, Mal.

If you enjoyed reading about "Man who shot bear refuses plea bargain" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!