A case for shoot, shovel, shut-up (bear killed not man)

[mamabearCali]

Kruetz have you ever been around pigs--they generally don't live in barns. Especially "family food" pigs. It is not even good for them to live in a barn--it can lead to all sorts of problems. Even if they have a barn, a grizzly can get into a barn easily. No there has to be a point where "protected" wild-life ceases to be by their actions protected. This guy did not leave his "trash" out. He had his pigs where pigs are supposed to be and the bear went and thought it could get a free lunch. If it is willing to hunt creatures so close to a human house it is likely it would hunt little humans without any second thought. So yes that is what I would call a nuisance bear, and that state of Idaho agrees, just not the feds.

[Kreutz]

I've heard of pig pens lots of times - pig barns? Not so much. Try again.

That last one is a pig farm in Jutland, Denmark. Four walls, large double front door, and a roof; a "barn".

Yeah, try again right?

Again, I hope this dude learned his lesson. He is at fault which is WHY HE IS BEING PROSECUTED-HE BROKE THE LAW. Nothing you people have to say will change that, maybe he'll get acquitted, maybe not, but it is right and proper he was brought to trial as again, he broke the law.

[seeknulfind]

So, Kreutz, if you crunched those protected turtles, you'd turn yourself in... right?

It's a bad law. It needs to be changed. Meanwhile, a jury should refuse to convict.

It's one more thing I've advocated over the years - if every legislative body in the land would spend just one year going through the books and wiping out all the bad laws passed over the years, we'd all be in better shape.

You hail from NY - did you know it is still illegal to look at a woman walking down the street "in that way"? Feeling guilty? Let me know if you need the number of the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Andy

[mamabearCali]

Yep, those pigs are going to be real healthy--just the type you want your family to eat. Like I said--I don't think you know anything about raising pigs on a small family farm, Kruetz. Those barns cost big bucks and are used in INDUSTRIAL pig farming--not family farms--which is what this was. They cut the beaks off of chickens too in those sort of places (big barn chicken factories) is that how you think chickens should live?

IF he broke the law---it is a bad law and should not ever be enforced. We have tons of those sorts of laws on the books. Laws about women driving and how many horses you can have pulling a coach down main street. Bottom line: People need to be able to protect their family from predators of all shapes and sizes, no matter what without fear of prosecution by a over zealous federal gov't attorney who puts a wild animals life above a childs.

[Kreutz]

So, Kreutz, if you crunched those protected turtles, you'd turn yourself in... right?

Turtles?

It's a bad law. It needs to be changed. Meanwhile, a jury should refuse to convict.

Ah, but thats not the way things work. For good or for ill we are a "nation of laws", and even if the law were amended one can shoot grizzlies to their hearts content today he would still stand trial because it was still a crime when he did it; thats how seriously laws are taken here.

It's one more thing I've advocated over the years - if every legislative body in the land would spend just one year going through the books and wiping out all the bad laws passed over the years, we'd all be in better shape.

But,,,who gets to decide which law is good or bad, wholly subjective terms?

You hail from NY - did you know it is still illegal to look at a woman walking down the street "in that way"? Feeling guilty?

Dude, everything is illegal there.

Let me know if you need the number of the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Eh, been robbed by the NY cops once, it was enough.

Yep, those pigs are going to be real healthy--just the type you want your family to eat. Like I said--I don't think you know anything about raising pigs on a small family farm, Kruetz.

Yet I know leaving piggies in a pen in the middle of grizzlie country is asking for trouble...perhaps I know more about them than the accused?

Those barns cost big bucks and are used in INDUSTRIAL pig farming--not family farms--which is what this was.

Am I being lectured on economies of scale by a self-proclaimed free market capitalist? Surely a "family farm" (which neither of us knows was even what this guy had) would simply have a smaller safer housing set up if he truly cared enough to protect his piggies? Let me illustrate:

I wish to keep chickens for my own personal "family use". And yes, there alot of predators of chickens around here, so, right off the bat, I know (without any formal experience) keeping them in the open is a stupid idea. I am already one step ahead of the guy in Idaho, look at that. Obviously this set-up is overkill no?



Now, economies of scale dictates I shrink the operation down to a realistic size...



Thats roughly the size of the shed I have set aside for chickens, now, I could probably keep two pigs in there, maybe three if I'm willing to risk the higher disease risk, but my lot? Only .43 acres, a fellow with 20 acres would be able to field a much larger structure for really not that much money; four walls, a roof, and a door need not be a significant investment.

IF he broke the law---it is a bad law and should not ever be enforced. We have tons of those sorts of laws on the books. Laws about women driving

Uh, enter "woman driver" into Google image search and prepare to be amazed.

People need to be able to protect their family from predators of all shapes and sizes, no matter what without fear of prosecution by a over zealous federal gov't attorney who puts a wild animals life above a childs.

Hmmm? What child? Either you didn't even read the article or you're being disingenuous. The pigs were menaced, not a human. The ESA even says he could have shot the bear scot free had it been menacing a human, but, it wasn't, which is my entire point. The law is fine, he's an idiot for essentially leaving food out where it can be expected bears roam, and he needs to learn his lesson.

[mamabearCali]

Yet I know leaving piggies in a pen in the middle of grizzlie country is asking for trouble...perhaps I know more about them than the accused?

His had every right to have pigs on his farm--his children are also nice food sources for grizzlies--perhaps we should ban those in the country too!

Now, economies of scale dictates I shrink the operation down to a realistic size...



Thats roughly the size of the shed I have set aside for chickens, now, I could probably keep two pigs in there, maybe three if I'm willing to risk the higher disease risk, but my lot? Only .43 acres, a fellow with 20 acres would be able to field a much larger structure for really not that much money; four walls, a roof, and a door need not be a significant investment.

Ah yes--your little shed--if you think that the shed you put up would keep out a determined grizzly or that pigs should be locked in such a shed you know very little about grizzlies or pigs.

Hmmm? What child? Either you didn't even read the article or you're being disingenuous. The pigs were menaced, not a human. The ESA even says he could have shot the bear scot free had it been menacing a human, but, it wasn't, which is my entire point. The law is fine, he's an idiot for essentially leaving food out where it can be expected bears roam, and he needs to learn his lesson.

I did read the article. It is obvious you know little about wild animals and when they are a threat. They don't have to be chewing on your head to be considered a threat. Proximity and comfort with proximity to humans is enough to be a threat. Perhaps your lack of knowledge is understandable, perhaps you have never lived in a situation where wild animals abound. Let me spell it out for you--if a grizzly is in the clearing for your home and that clearing is say less than 10 acres (we don't know the size of clearing he had only that his entire property was 20 acres) and a grizzly is comfortable enough to be close to your home where your kids play it IS a threat! To treat it any other way is to be foolhardy. Look-- we had coyotes and mountain lions where I used to live. If they were out there in the 200 acres of the ranch--no problem. If they were in the 15 acres we could see they were to be shot on sight because they were either hunting us or they were sick. Same for bears--especially grizzlies.

You say he is an idiot for leaving food out for grizzlies. So is he to be indicted for living where grizzlies live--because to a grizzly he is a tasty treat as well.

[Kreutz]

I did read the article. It is obvious you know little about wild animals and when they are a threat. They don't have to be chewing on your head to be considered a threat. Proximity and comfort with proximity to humans is enough to be a threat. Perhaps your lack of knowledge is understandable, perhaps you have never lived in a situation where wild animals abound.

Try working in Harlem for two years and get back to me on wild animals.

[gunderwood]

It's a bad law. It needs to be changed. Meanwhile, a jury should refuse to convict.

Ah, but thats not the way things work. For good or for ill we are a "nation of laws", and even if the law were amended one can shoot grizzlies to their hearts content today he would still stand trial because it was still a crime when he did it; thats how seriously laws are taken here.

That's actually a relatively recent development. Under the old British Common Law system, which we inherited, the jury decided two things:

1. The persons guilt.
2. The legitimacy of the law.

It was entirely possible that you could be found to have broken the law, but not guilty because the law was deemed to be no law at all. It even happened in this country after the Revolutionary War. In fact, that was part of the rights of a trial by jury for centuries until modern governments decided they didn't like the people throwing out their laws. It was essential to the rule of law too. It kept the government from passing and enforcing abusive laws like this one.

Liberty 1, Statism 0

Try again.

[grumpyMSG]

In every case there are multiple criteria that must be met in order to obtain a conviction. Given the area that this person lives, and the other folks that live in the same area are exposed to the same wildlife, if it goes to a jury trial getting a conviction might be very difficult. They may be more open to the idea that a bear family presents a more imminent danger than Kreutz does. Imagine yourself sitting on the jury right now, just from reading the responses on this forum I think that there is only one person who would vote to convict given the information we have right now. The rest it would appear would probably vote to acquit. It just sucks for this family to have to go through this financial and mental ordeal.

I'd be more interested to see what Kreutz's neighbors or family do to him, when he puts chickens or pigs in a shed on his less than half acre lot.

As for those speculating about how big the 20 acre property is, an acre is 43,560 square feet, if it were a square it would be just short of 209 feet on each side. if a 20 acre property were roughly square 4X5=20 the property would be about 835 feet by 1040 feet, not huge to anybody who grew up in the country, just a piece of a hay or cornfield but bigger than 3 city blocks in NY. If your house were somewhere close to the center of the property, every square inch of the property would be less than 700 feet from the house.

[Kreutz]

I'd be more interested to see what Kreutz's neighbors or family do to him, when he puts chickens or pigs in a shed on his less than half acre lot.

Pigs not allowed here (zoning), nor did I ever say i would put them on my lot, just I could house two in a structure here. Chickens are not allowed (zoning) either, which is odd because nearby Roanoke city, with its much smaller lots, allows up to five hens per house.

The county board is having a hearing on changing our zoning laws this December so we can have chickens, myself and a few others that want to keep them will have to make our case.

We had kept them in the metro NY area too, go figure. We were the only white people to keep chickens.

And yes I'd find the dude guilty for being complicit, would the rest of the jury? I doubt it, but, after he's been through the wringer bet he'll think twice before doing it again, or being even dumber by telling someone about it.

[srwg9mm]

Now, economies of scale dictates I shrink the operation down to a realistic size...



Thats roughly the size of the shed I have set aside for chickens, now, I could probably keep two pigs in there, maybe three if I'm willing to risk the higher disease risk, but my lot? Only .43 acres, a fellow with 20 acres would be able to field a much larger structure for really not that much money; four walls, a roof, and a door need not be a significant investment.

If you had any clue how difficult it can be to keep raccoons and little bitty foxes out of a chicken pen you would know that four walls, a roof, and a door slapped up is not going to keep a hungry grizzly bear out much less 3 of them. To build something that would be sufficient to keep out grizzlies would be prohibitively expensive for a small family farm. Seems like he should just be able to defend his danged property.

[mamabearCali]

And yes I'd find the dude guilty for being complicit, would the rest of the jury? I doubt it, but, after he's been through the wringer bet he'll think twice before doing it again, or being even dumber by telling someone about it.

HMMMM think twice before doing it again--if he does that it could easily cost him his life or the life of a person in his family. So no I don't think he will think twice before ending a direct threat to his family. Think twice before telling anyone--yes I bet he won't do that again. He should not have to hide in fear for protecting his and his own, but because of philosophies like yours (don't care how ridiculous the law is--the law is the law) he will have to.

[seeknulfind]

So, Kreutz, if you crunched those protected turtles, you'd turn yourself in... right?

Turtles?

Yes. Turtles. Do you mean to tell me you don't know ALL the animals on the endangered species list?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_en ... a#Reptiles

It's a bad law. It needs to be changed. Meanwhile, a jury should refuse to convict.

Ah, but thats not the way things work. For good or for ill we are a "nation of laws", and even if the law were amended one can shoot grizzlies to their hearts content today he would still stand trial because it was still a crime when he did it; thats how seriously laws are taken here.

So, in essence, you are saying that once a law is passed, it is written in stone and thus cannot be altered, modified or repealed? Sorry but that is absolutely NOT the way our legal system works at all.

As far as this fellow is concerned, yes, even a BAD law applies to him if it is effect at the time of the "infraction". Part of the system of checks and balances in such a case is the ability of a jury to refuse to convict in such a case, i.e. jury nullification.

It's one more thing I've advocated over the years - if every legislative body in the land would spend just one year going through the books and wiping out all the bad laws passed over the years, we'd all be in better shape.

But,,,who gets to decide which law is good or bad, wholly subjective terms?

"WE the PEOPLE" have various ways to deal with this, include, (at this point in time) the right to address our government with grievances"

Something included in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This Constitution is still considered by many citizens (myself included) to still be the supreme law of the land. Curiously enough, even THIS document allows for it to be changed should "WE the PEOPLE" so choose.

You hail from NY - did you know it is still illegal to look at a woman walking down the street "in that way"? Feeling guilty?

Dude, everything is illegal there.

But, according to what you seem to be saying, that is how is should be because it is THE LAW and therefore it must be right.

Let me know if you need the number of the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Eh, been robbed by the NY cops once, it was enough.

Robbed? Not possible. They must have just enforced THE LAW. Robbery would be against THE LAW and therefore not something LAW ENFORCEMENT could not do because they enforce THE LAW.

Here's an interesting case: http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environme ... l_suit.htm

Could you actually tell me with a straight face that such actions benefit our people and our country? If so, how, exactly?

And once again, you never did say... what are you gonna do when the choice is between your life and those poor turtles?

Andy

[thekinetic]

What a travesty of justice, to get in so much trouble for defending your family. I swear these people care more for the rights of animals then those of people. I guess I have broken the law when a carndinal got loose in my house and I did my best to catch it so I could release it but in the struggle of the net it's neck broke and it died. So excuuusssee ME.

As for peta...well.....I'd liek to see them put on the endangered species list or better yet go extinct!

[SHMIV]

On the subject of keeping pigs and chickens in a shed or barn:

Animals need to spend time outside. Well, maybe not cats or small dogs, but livestock should spend time outside. Keeping them locked up and bunched together is a fairly cruel thing. It also promotes sickness.

It doesn't do any good to lock your livestock away from the predators if they're just going to get sick and die.

[CCFan]

The charge of killing a threatened species is punishable by up to a year in prison, a maximum fine of $50,000, and up to one year of supervised release.

Seems like it would have been easier and cheaper to put them in the barn...and what self-respecting self-styled man of the land doesnt have one of those?

Again, hope he learned something from this.

I've heard of pig pens lots of times - pig barns? Not so much. Try again.

+1

You can tell when someone hasn't spent much (if any) time on a farm...

[CCFan]

The majority of the pictures that are posted in this thread that show pigs and chickens housed in "structures" (not what most farmers I know would call barns) are from mass-production farming operations... they aren't meant to be good farm structures, but are meant to crank out mass volumes of sub-par slop that get stuffed into the frozen food section of your local MadeInChinaMart...

[Kreutz]

+1

You can tell when someone hasn't spent much (if any) time on a farm...

Never said I did, now did I? I'm from the New York city area.

See, two people told me pigs cant be kept indoors, and I wanted to see if they're right, and it appears they can be.

I never claimed (see for yourself) it was hygienic or even wise, but it is done.

The jackass facing charges is still negligent in the realm of personal responsibility(leaving out food then being dumb enough to tell people he shot an endangered animal).

Actions have consequences.

[SHMIV]

Kreutz, I really have no argument against your statement that the man in question was dumb to tell folks about his shooting a grizzly. Considering that there were two other bears roaming the area, I still hold that he was trying to be a responsible neighbor and citizen by issuing a danger warning, but whatever.

However, I do take issue with your argument that he should have kept his pigs locked inside. By your logic, if a 17 year old girl is abducted and raped at the school bus stop, it seems that you would blame her parents and cite negligence on their part because they didn't keep her locked in a closet. Further, if the father of the girl were to see what was going on, shoot and kill one abductor, letting 2 others escape in the creeper van, it seems that you would take no issue with the father getting arrested and tried for murder. Perhaps you might refer to the father as "dumb" for making a report.

[Kreutz]

Kreutz, I really have no argument against your statement that the man in question was dumb to tell folks about his shooting a grizzly. Considering that there were two other bears roaming the area, I still hold that he was trying to be a responsible neighbor and citizen by issuing a danger warning, but whatever.

However, I do take issue with your argument that he should have kept his pigs locked inside. By your logic, if a 17 year old girl is abducted and raped at the school bus stop, it seems that you would blame her parents and cite negligence on their part because they didn't keep her locked in a closet. Further, if the father of the girl were to see what was going on, shoot and kill one abductor, letting 2 others escape in the creeper van, it seems that you would take no issue with the father getting arrested and tried for murder. Perhaps you might refer to the father as "dumb" for making a report.

How is this remotely the same? I don't think the ESA applies here.

In any event, all females of reproductive age should be confined or at least accompanied by an armed male blood relative anyway; thats just common sense!

If women must venture alone by themselves, they should be dressed like this:



I imagine that would cut down on any mischief quite nicely wouldn't you?