Man who shot bear refuses plea bargain

[gunsmith]

Bear attacks videographer

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]

It could be much worse

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.







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

 

[Stand_Watie]

Guess you'd have to live in a rural area to understand.

I do.

 

[Johnson]

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]

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]

If it had been a cop that shot the bear, he would have been a hero.

 

[Wayne D]

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]

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..."





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!

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]

No crime here!

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]

Yep. Never call the police on yourself. They'll just screw you.

 

[2nd Amendment]

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]

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]

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]

thats just wrong he had every right to protect himself and property from the bear

 

[sendec]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Ha! It's a sad day when

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]

Mass Bear Story - Don't bring a flashlight to a bear fight

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.]

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]

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. 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.