This Is a Joke, Right?

[The_Shootist]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541720,00.html?test=latestnews


I'm very sorry, but if an 800 lb grizzly pops out of the woods at close range in the woods, then its a "shoot-first, ask questions later" situation. I'm not about to ask the bear how he's feeling that day.

Yeah, if the evidence indicates the bear was shot well out in the open from a ways away, making misidentifaction or danger unlikely, then throw the book at the guy.

But it seems like the authorities are doing a pretty knee-jerk reaction, particularly when there is NO margin for error with these animals.

 

[Bob R]

The problem is maybe this bear wasn't doing anything other than walking across a field and someone (rancher, farmer, city boy) decided they would rather see it dead than posing a possible threat.

If you are under attack, or feel that you may be harmed then I don't think any state will fault you for killing an animal. If you do it just for the fun of it, there will be a problem. If the animal were killed legitimately then whoever shot it would have probably stuck around and reported it.

It smacks of indiscriminate killing to me, and I hope they find out who did it and prosecute them if that is the case.

A couple of "hunters" in Eastern WA are about to find out what the penalty is for killing a griz. They were supposedly hunting for moose and one of them had a bear (black) tag so they used it.

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/1234/story/675016.html

In Montana you can't get a bear tag without taking a recognition test between black bear and griz, we don't have that in WA.

bob

 

[The_Shootist]

I agree, just shooting it out of the context of hunting should bring a severe penalty, particularly where no one was in harms way. I'm a lttle more hesitant to condemn a rancher who came across it on his property and figured on removing a potential threat to his livestock.

If it wasn't on his property, and no threat to livestock was imminent, it gets a bit tougher to justify a "pre-emptive strike".

 

[natman]

Sorry guys, but from the info supplied in the article there is no way to tell whether the shooting was justified or not. You shoot a bear out of season, it had better be a clear cut case of self defense, i.e. he'd better have powder burns on his chest. Otherwise Fish and Game is going to treat it as if someone shot a bear out of season, which is exactly what happened.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Sorry guys, but from the info supplied in the article there is no way to tell whether the shooting was justified or not. You shoot a bear out of season, it had better be a clear cut case of self defense, i.e. he'd better have powder burns on his chest. Otherwise Fish and Game is going to treat it as if someone shot a bear out of season, which is exactly what happened.

Exactly. If it's unjustified, then surely I do hope they catch him and nail his arse to the wall. We have wildlife game management laws for a reason. They need to be followed, absent true subsistence hunting.

 

[Cosmoline]

I'm very sorry, but if an 800 lb grizzly pops out of the woods at close range in the woods, then its a "shoot-first, ask questions later" situation. I'm not about to ask the bear how he's feeling that day.

There's a world of difference between one popping out of the woods and one charging you. I've had a number of them do the former, never the latter.

 

[The_Shootist]

True enough - I should have specified charging, not simply appearing and looking in my direction 100 yds away.

 

[DeepSouth]

Shoot, shovel, and shut up

He missed a step.:banghead:

 

[The_Shootist]

Ummm - dude - an 800 lb grizzly probably needs a bulldozer!!

 

[Grizfire]

Its hard to say what happened, but usually when a person has to shoot a Griz in self defense, they do the right thing and notify authorities. I don't know why you would shoot a Griz in self defense and not notify authorities. It certaily raises suspicion when you don't.

 

[Supertac45]

Sounds like there was no reason for killing it.