The Boundary County prosecutor has now released the most detailed account yet of the killing of a young grizzly bear by a North Idaho property owner on May 8.
Prosecutor Jack Douglas said that while he hasn't been involved in prosecuting the case against the property owner, Jeremy M. Hill, 33, he has been gathering all the facts he can about the case.
Douglas concluded that Hill was "forced to take lethal action against one of three animals," when he shot and killed a 2-year-old male grizzly bear that was with its mother and sibling.
According to Douglas' findings, Hill, his wife Rachel, and four of their six children were home together when the incident unfolded about 7 p.m. on the Hills' 20-acre ranch, which fronts Highway 1, near Porthill.
The children were outside playing basketball in front of the house and Rachel, not feeling well, had gone to lay down. Hill was showering.
His wife, not able to sleep, looked out her bedroom window and spotted the bears an estimated 40 yards from where the kids were playing. She ran outside, shouting for the kids to get in the house.
Hill, finishing a shower, heard the screams and looked outside.
Seeing the bears, he grabbed the only weapon at hand, a rifle, which was wrapped and unloaded. He found three bullets, loaded the weapon and raced outside. He didn't know where his children or his wife were exactly, but could hear his wife's panicked screams.
He stepped out onto the back deck from their bedroom and saw one of the bears climbing halfway up the side of a pen for the children's pigs.
He ran out and fired a shot at the bear closest to him. The other two bears, alarmed by the crack of the rifle, darted away from the pig pen toward the forest behind his house.
"He didn't fire at the retreating bears because they no longer posed a threat," Douglas said.
The grizzly on the fence was hit, and he tumbled off, then got up and ran off, limping slightly.
The family dog went after the injured bear, which was heading in the same direction the other two had fled.
The bear, only a few yards from the house, turned and charged straight toward where Hill was standing by a large basement window under the deck.
Fearing there was nothing but him and a large pane of glass to keep the wounded bear out of his house, Jeremy took aim and fired again.
The bullet hit the grizzly and the bear rolled to the ground, tried to get up, then fell back down.
Thinking the ordeal was over, Hill went back into the house and went to find his family.
He picked the 10-month-old baby off the bed, and found Rachel with the other children.
Hill asked his wife to get the phone book so he could call the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, but before he could dial, he looked out and saw that the bear, already shot twice, was trying to crawl to the woods.
The animal stopped behind a tree, wounded but not dead, and Hill took up the rifle again, carefully walked over to the bear, unsure if it was dead or alive, but knowing that a wounded grizzly bear posed a significant threat.
Using the last bullet, he fired a final shot, putting the bear out of his misery and ending the threat, Douglas said.
"Grizzly bears are unpredictable, dangerous predators," Douglas said.
He said he has no doubt Hill was defending his family and property.
"I believe that our local (Fish and Game) officers did a thorough investigation and came to the proper conclusion that Jeremy Hill acted reasonably in light of the circumstances," Douglas said.
A federal criminal charge was filed against Hill on Aug. 8, as the grizzly bear is a threatened species, and he now faces up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $50,000. Hill pleaded not guilty in U.S. District Court in Coeur d'Alene, and his defense attorney has said they'll be arguing the killing was done in defense of Hill's family. Trial is scheduled for Oct. 4.
Despite not being involved, Douglas said he is confident in the facts he described in his statement sent to media outlets.
Welcome to the discussion.
26 comments:
ashash posted at 10:20 am on Thu, Apr 5, 2012.
i see that social problems must be solved and get more concern of the famous people they must share solving bonsai
flem posted at 10:11 am on Wed, Apr 4, 2012.
He did the right thing for his family. While it seems many disagree with me... femmes russes
local res posted at 10:07 pm on Sun, Sep 4, 2011.
North Idaho Native and the rest of you bleeding fools. As a result of the foolishness of the Feds prosecuting the man is now the loss of local support for the animals. Now people will simply shoot the bear and not come forward to report a problem bear. Do you ever wonder why the cops don't just shoot a warning shot? It is too dangerous for them.
Fed up posted at 10:44 am on Thu, Sep 1, 2011.
It's just mind boggling the people who have "teddy bear syndrome".
They say he could have fired off a warning shot and scared the grizzly off. There was no need to kill the bear it wasn't attacking anyone and the bear was in it's territory anyway, and they continue with this BS.
I guess we should wait to take action, maybe we should wait till the grizzly chews on your leg or takes a big bite out of your a$s before we pull our gun out to shoot it.
Dealing with grizzly bears is like playing Russian roulett. I like better odds and if in the same situation as Mr. Hill I would have done the same thing.
Joeidaho and seriously101 are right on. NInative needs to wake up, if you are a native here you should be ashamed of yourself.
Anyone posted at 5:33 pm on Wed, Aug 31, 2011.
fester,
Yes, he DID have to shoot the bear.
Gee, brainiac, what happened in Yellowstone when bears became accustomed to being fed by humans? What happens in the long run when bears are not afraid of being around humans.
Let me put this in a way even your feeble mind can understand: By killing this one bear, Hill probably saved many others. Why? Because the bears will realize it is not safe to come in contact with humans. Hill is not a poacher. He is not out to eradicate the bears.
He did the bears a favor. Bears need to have a healthy fear of being around humans and their homes. It's morons like you who try to feed & pet them that causes problems. Once the bears have no fear of humans, the deadly interactions will escalate.
Sorry that you can't grasp the fact that the death of this one bear was the best thing for bears in the long run.
Now stop sucking your thumb and put your stuffed bear away!
JoeIdaho posted at 5:32 pm on Wed, Aug 31, 2011.
native, I grew up in a place much more remote than Coeurd'alene & vicinity, Michigan's Upper Penninsula. A lot colder than here, a lot less people, more remote.
The thing that makes it right to kill off ANYTHING that will EAT your family is this little thing called "survival". Now; I know that bears don't run around trying to find people to eat, but that's BLACK bears, not grizzlies. I've been around Black Bears my whole life, hunted them, had them hold me out of our house in Michigan a couple of times, but blacks are NOT the same animal as Grizzlies. You have been the recipient of what your forefathers did in eradicating them from the area, thus far, and haven't seen or had any real comprehension of what they do; why they do it, and the ghastly aftereffects of an attack by one of them. I have seen this, been close to it twice.
Your trying to say that I'm "city folk" so I just don't know; somehow, is just about the same as a democrat saying that I don't understand nature because I'm not a biologist. Bottom line is that I'd protect my family the same as anyone else, and your thought that chasing away a bear with a warning shot will keep them away just shows that you don't really understand bears. If you shoot near a bear; it will run. AND it will come back.
If you hit it, it won't bother you any more.
DEATH to grizzlies & wolves.
northidahonative posted at 5:12 pm on Wed, Aug 31, 2011.
JoeIdaho, I grew up in the woods of North Idaho, you from you previous stated history, lived in the wilds of big eastern cities. Yes Bears do attack and kill people, that's why people who are so afraid of them should stay protected in their big cities.
Settlers killed off various game, including elk populations, because they were faced with a survival situation, today we are not, because you move from Detroit to the Big City of Harrison, that doesn't make you a Settler or place you in a position that you would need to eliminate any wildlife.
I'm not against shooting a bear to protect either myself or my family, but bears, even grizzley's do usually run off after a warning shot, then they become the responsibility of the Fish and Game to trap and relocate, or to kill. According to this article no one was in danger, everyone was safely, or could be, in the house. A warning shot would most likely have chased the bear from the pig pen, we don't know though because no warning shot was fired.
My family were settlers here, they helped kill off the wolves, and they also helped destroy and pollute much of the land and water, just like other settlers did. What makes what was done 140 years ago the right thing to do today?
JoeIdaho posted at 3:31 pm on Wed, Aug 31, 2011.
native, that was a truly weak argument, and I guarantee you I spend a lot more time "in the wild" than you ever have.
What makes your point especially weak is that the settlers, when faced with bears OR wolves of any kind, shot them. Why, when they're all just a part of "nature"?
Because, reality is that bears, specifically grizzlies, DO attack & kill humans. The settlers understood this, that they couldn't possibly keep their eyes on their kids constantly, and that children look like food to bears.
I think that if a grizzly is in the area, you have the RIGHT to defend your family, and that means shooting to kill. The idea that bears will all run from gunfire & not return is just hogwash; not true, and eventually trouble will come along with the bears.
Of course; those settlers, you know; the dumb ones that didn't understand "nature", they not only killed off most of the grizzlies but eventually poisoned off the wolves too.
Those were some GREAT people, unlike the bleeding hearts here who like to think of themselves as outdoorsmen when in reality they know little outside of their cabin a mile from town; in the "wilderness".
northidahonative posted at 12:30 pm on Wed, Aug 31, 2011.
"ALL grizzlies & wolves in N Idaho should be dead. "
JoeIdaho, another Eastern Immigrant who moved here for the Wilderness, but who is afraid of the Wild.
If I wanted to hke, or travel in safety, I's stay in safe places like parks and zoos. As I like living away from cities, I accept the risk that goes with living where predators live, deer, elk, and chipmonks might entertain some people who can make believe they are experiencing "wilderness", but what they really want is a bif safe zoo where they are the most dangerous predator.
This article ponits out the fact that the original versions of the Hill vs Grizzley storty were not true, his famile was not in danger, if he had chased the bears off with gunfire, or even attempted to do so it would be a different story, but he didn't. If he had fired a warning shot and the bear had not left, then that would be a different story also. He could have chased the bears away, and contacted the Fish and Game who would have set up traps and removed the bears, if the bear had killed his pig he would have been reimbursed for his loss. That's what the law says.
I'm not totally against what he did, I may have done the same, but with a warning shot to see what happened. What I've pointed out is that the Supreme Court has decided that shooting a protected species to protect livestock is against the law.
I like the wilderness, or what's left of it, I like the wild things that live there and have lived there, I also support the hunting of wolves to control the population and the control, even the killing of problem bears, done by the Fish and Game if it is not an actual deadly encounter.
If you want to be safe from predators and raise livestock at the same time, move somewhere safe where all the predators, other than man, are gone.
This article does nothing for Hill's defense in Court, like I said I hope the Court if it finds him guilty only slaps his hand, but hard enough to make other's think before shooting.
meanie posted at 11:22 am on Wed, Aug 31, 2011.
LOL , still beating a dead horse , I mean dead bear, I see. The bleeding hearts on this subject are exhausting. I think they need to go out and hug a grizzly bear.
@ Seriously... You hit the nail on the head. You are so very right. Bears , will treat any persons property as a personal grocery store , once they can eat there they will always come back for more. You see bears are lazy animals. If they don't have to do much for the food they won't. It is proven over and over and over. Why run for the food when all they have to do is pop a lid?
I really think the ones that are bleeding over this bear , do not understand how country living is. They are nice and cozy in their town homes or surburban lives. So who is really being the drama queens here? Country living people just do what they have to do . And why you city folk stand there and analyze the heck out of something , you would be dinner twice over. LOL I think people like the thinking of the bleeding hearts should live in the country, just think what it would do for the gene pool. LOL
capnbutch posted at 9:42 am on Wed, Aug 31, 2011.
I think that reporter Cole misses the point. After the urgent, high-speed defense, the victim and his family will have immense losses. There is the obvious human trauma but, almost as important, the extraordinary expense that will accrue in the legal aftermath. There will be immense loss of work time, loss of time with family, long-distance travel and consulting, immense paperwork.
The news peg for the story is not the happenings of the physical event but the colossal costs. Mr. Hill and his family will suffer for years. The story is not Mr. Douglas but in finding financial support for the Hill family.
In the end you may hear Mr. Hill say that he probably should just have stood up and sacrificed his own life to let his family get secure.
It is further unfortunate that the prosecutor had to make the formal statement defending Mr. Hill. Granted that this was a nice thing to do, nobody should presume that the prosecutor is the final decider of truth. Mr. Hill's statements and the evidence could easily have stood on their own if this were a fair and just society.
I was in Stevensville not long ago when a grizzly threatened a whole neighborhood. Neighbor supported neighbor as the urgent call went out. Mothers packed their cars and scoured the area for others who could not be called. Seriously101 is absolutely correct. It is a pity that anyone should have to meet a bear in person to understand.
Seriously101 posted at 8:05 am on Wed, Aug 31, 2011.
When you hike in the backcountry there is an assumption of risk. This was a family home with small children and livestock. As I stated earlier, had the bear made a kill of his pig they would have treated his livestock and potentially one of his children playing in the yard like a 24 hour restaurant. He did the right thing for his family.
JoeIdaho posted at 7:08 am on Wed, Aug 31, 2011.
ALL grizzlies & wolves in N Idaho should be dead.
Anyone who thinks that having grizzlies around since they are "part of nature" has no comprehension of these animals, the same as the morons who think that "a few wolves are OK".
Glad this guy shot one; hopefully more people do the same.
uncle fester posted at 3:46 am on Wed, Aug 31, 2011.
@anyone , once again you are being the drama queen. You just cant face the fact the man didn't have to shoot the bear.
elkman189 posted at 11:18 pm on Tue, Aug 30, 2011.
Recently I heard of a mountan goat killing a man in WA state. Should we get rid of them just in case.?
Anyone posted at 11:10 pm on Tue, Aug 30, 2011.
seriously101,
Thanks for affirming what I've stated all along.
I think bears are cool. But if it comes down to a grizzly or me & my family, that grizzly is fodder. The people in Washington charging this man are the only criminals here. They should have to pay all the fines and the trial out of their own pockets.
People like Louis & fester have NEVER been near a grizzly, and think all bears are cute & cuddly. They think you can say "boo" and scare them away. It's pathetic and shows complete ignorance to this animal's dangerous behavior.
elkman189 posted at 11:05 pm on Tue, Aug 30, 2011.
If all were safe in house why did he not call athorities to come get the animal.?
Seriously101 posted at 9:53 pm on Tue, Aug 30, 2011.
As a former federal back country staffer with experience with Grizzly bears, I'll share with those folks who have Teddy bear syndrome that Grizzlies are alpha predators that move with indescribable speed and ferocity. They are designed to hunt, kill, and survive. I've witnessed them cover 300 yards through thick vegetation in a split second to kill game with a simple swat from their paw. Make no mistake, if they'd got one of his pigs they would have treated his property and potentially one of his children like a grocery store later.
northidahonative posted at 5:28 pm on Tue, Aug 30, 2011.
Quite a different story than the one we've been reading. Hill was not protecting his children when he shot the bear, they were safely in the house. When he shot the bear the first time the other two ran away, the question is if he had fired a warning shot would all three have ran off. That will be the question that convicts him.
A case in Montana where a farmer/rancher was convicted of killing a Grizzly which was attacking his sheep went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court upheld the conviction, partly on the grounds that there are govenment and private programs which reimburse the farmer for loss of livestock due to protected species.
Hopefully in this cse if Hill is convicted the Court will only slap his hands with a warning or possibly a fine, which it appears people have donated enough to pay. But it should be a warning to others to take care when deciding to shoot a protected species.
Anyone posted at 5:18 pm on Tue, Aug 30, 2011.
To Louis and fester,
Because it is obvious your three active brain cells have finally died off, the local authorities investigated and did not believe Hill should be prosecuted.
But in your infinite "wisdom," you want the guy to fry. Obviously the local authorities felt the shooting was justified. Otherwise, they would have prosecuted him. I suggest you read what happened to that loser Rex Rammell. Hill did not poach this bear. It wasn't for fun. He protected his family. Whether you like it or not.
But since you are so concerned, both of you need to go out into the woods, alone and unarmed, and adopt the two remaining grizzlies. And please do it quickly!
The Late Louis Nizer posted at 1:06 pm on Tue, Aug 30, 2011.
Lacking both prosecutorial and investigative jurisdiction, Jack Douglas is expressing nothing more than another person's opinion. It is hardly accurate to judge Douglas to be serving the people of his county well when he had no responsibility whatsoever for deciding whether or what to charge under a federal statute.
In short, Douglas was pandering for local voter support with his self-serving analysis or information he obtained second-hand.
uncle fester posted at 12:02 pm on Tue, Aug 30, 2011.
He shot the bear to protect his pigs.
tempter posted at 10:07 am on Tue, Aug 30, 2011.
As soon as I find out - I'm going out to buy one!
Fed up posted at 10:04 am on Tue, Aug 30, 2011.
This is just one account of many that will follow in the future. Many will be disastrous because of how dangerous the grizzly bear is. I am glad that Mr. Hill and his family were not hurt or worse yet, killed, because of this encounter.
The people of Custer County in central Idaho did not want to let the Federal government force their agenda for grizzly bears down their throats so they enacted ordinance #29 on Jan 27,1998 and resolution 98-1 to stop this nonsence. The sheriff said he would enforce this ordinance if need be. Citizens of North Idaho need to band together and petition our commissioners or legislators to take action and do something similar.
tempter posted at 9:46 am on Tue, Aug 30, 2011.
The prosecutor's account failed to identify the make, model and caliber of Mr. Hill's rifle?
Does anyone know?
Will Penny posted at 5:09 am on Tue, Aug 30, 2011.
Kudos to Jack Douglas. Mr. Douglas' well thought out, reasoned synopsis of this incident shows that the people of Boundary County are being well served by an elected official. Unfortunately none of us are being well served by a career gov't lawyer who had to call DC to find out what to do. Also worthy of note is this bear was a 2 year old, not this springs cub, a formidable threat.
Good luck to Mr. Hill.