Thursday, August 25, 2011

Part Of Why the Endangered Species Act Needs Revision

The August 24, 2011 Coeur d'Alene Press reports on an incident in Boundary County, where three grizzly bears came into a man's yard, and he had reason to believe (based on their going after one of their pigs) that his children were at risk.  So he shot the mother grizzly bear, which caused the yearling cubs to leave.  Rather than just bury the bear and keep his mouth shut, he reported what he had done...and now he is being prosecuted:

Jeremy M. Hill, 33, pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court to killing the animal with a rifle on his 20-acre property near Porthill, Idaho, at the Canadian border. He lives five miles from the closest grizzly bear recovery zone.
The grizzly bear is classified as a threatened species in the lower 48 states, according to the Endangered Species Act, and protected by federal law. Hill's charge is a misdemeanor.
This means that he is having to raise money to defend himself in court for defending his children and property from what is properly understood as a serious threat. Fortunately, the community is helping.

An amusing comment:
Since the victim is the grizzly bear, I suggest the trial be moved to it's jurisdiction.
Yes, judge, jury, bailiff, the entire court room of people, should be locate in the outdoors,
smack dab in the middle of mother grizzly bear country.
And the trial should be made to last days and days.
Why?
Because sooner or later, the noise and smells will attract a grizzly bear.
And I am curious to see if the judge would allow the bailiff to shoot the bear to protect the people,
or if not harming the endangered bear is the more important thing.
This is actually an important part of a trial, it is called "the re-enactment of the crime."
In fact, this could actually be a televised program, you know, like that "Jersey Shore" show.
The environmentalists, of course, are out in force in the comments section:
If anything it supports me, do you know which species kills the most 'precious' humans.....HUMANS, with your argument we should 'kill all humans', but no your deity told you not to, hmm conundrum, If population were to be reduced (through humane abortions, and other birth control) guess what....less CRIME, but no your religion, which is very out dated, forbids that. Well as I say, there is a gene pool of 6 BILLION (6,000,000,000,000) humans and only a thousand or so grizzly bears in the lower 48 states (10,000) any non math nerd should be able to understand this. There are TOO MANY HUMANS. I will continue to value what is RARE=endangered species' , over the common=HUMANS.

3 comments:

Scott said...

This is part of the reason why I don't trust the government on anything. Of course hiding a grizzly Bear is kinda hard. Field dress it and eat it maybe? How does grizzly taste?

And damn are atheists annoying. I don't particularly believe in God or religion but their desire to make everyone believe in their Gaia religion is even worse. Christianity=Treat people well. Gaia=people are ruining the planet and it's ok to kill them as long as they're not LGTB or a minority

Mauser said...

Anyone who complains about there being too many humans always seems perfectly willing to eliminate OTHER humans, but oddly, never themselves, which seriously, is where they should start working on the problem.

Windy Wilson said...

Plus, that last commenter cited appears to approve of reducing the evil human-killing humans through "humane abortions", whatever those are, but I'm willing to bet real money that that commenter "feels" that capital punishment for humans who have demonstrated a real, actualized propensity for killing other humans ought not be killed themselves.
Call me Kreskin, but I have this feeling that's what he thinks.