by William Perry Pendley September 01, 2018
Twenty-nine years ago this month, a Montana man had a near-fatal encounter with a grizzly bear. Although he survived by killing the bear in self-defense, his almost decadelong prosecution by the federal government reverberated through the years, making Westerners fearful of responding as he did.
Using sound science, a federal agency proposed restoring sanity to this deadly situation — but radical environmental groups sued to stop the plan. As a result, in the face of a gargantuan bear population, the lives of Westerners remain at risk.
On Sept. 9, 1989, John Shuler of Dupuyer, Mont., killed a grizzly bear he encountered while tending his sheep. The federal government brushed aside his self-defense claim, charged him with violating the Endangered Species Act, and ordered him to pay an $8,000 fine.
For 8 1/2 years, federal lawyers argued he had not acted in self-defense, was at fault for exiting his home with his firearm, thus entering “the zone of imminent danger,” that, when his dog went on point on seeing the grizzly, it provoked the bear and escalated the conflict, and finally that bears are entitled to a higher standard of self-defense because they are not capable of sapient thought.........To Read More.....
My - This was not what Congress had in mind when they passed the Endangered Species Act, and it needs to be repealed.
Twenty-nine years ago this month, a Montana man had a near-fatal encounter with a grizzly bear. Although he survived by killing the bear in self-defense, his almost decadelong prosecution by the federal government reverberated through the years, making Westerners fearful of responding as he did.
Using sound science, a federal agency proposed restoring sanity to this deadly situation — but radical environmental groups sued to stop the plan. As a result, in the face of a gargantuan bear population, the lives of Westerners remain at risk.
On Sept. 9, 1989, John Shuler of Dupuyer, Mont., killed a grizzly bear he encountered while tending his sheep. The federal government brushed aside his self-defense claim, charged him with violating the Endangered Species Act, and ordered him to pay an $8,000 fine.
For 8 1/2 years, federal lawyers argued he had not acted in self-defense, was at fault for exiting his home with his firearm, thus entering “the zone of imminent danger,” that, when his dog went on point on seeing the grizzly, it provoked the bear and escalated the conflict, and finally that bears are entitled to a higher standard of self-defense because they are not capable of sapient thought.........To Read More.....
My - This was not what Congress had in mind when they passed the Endangered Species Act, and it needs to be repealed.
No comments:
Post a Comment