Man shoots bear, faces animal abuse charge

[CJ1089]

While I disagree with wasting taxpayer dollars on an animal cruelty charge, I still think that anybody who shoots a bear with a pellet gun is a fool. The fact that the prosecutor in this case happens to be an anti-gun idiot is irrelevant. Hopefully the charges will be dropped, and the attorney fees already paid out by the fool with the pellet gun will serve as a deterrent to such stupidity in the future.

What is the issue here? Man wants bear to go away, he chooses pellet gun, bear goes away. Just looking at what actually occured, the man was no fool he made the call while at the point where the rubber met the road. He may have been lucky but the situation unfolded as he thought it would, right up to the point when a lawyer showed up.
A fool would be the guy talking out his rear a month later, from 100 miles away, making assumption after assumption. That would be stupidity.

OBTW, think about taking a bear by archery, if this pellet case is cruelty then I am guilty for shooting game with a broadhead, it takes 5-25 minutes for the animal to bleed out and die. Shot placement is everthing.

 

[pokerace]

"The bear died about 20 minutes after being shot, and — as strange as it may sound — Florence city authorities say the pellet caused the fatal injuries."

I have a problem with that statement from the register guard I don't think the Florence city authorities have the witherell to make that determination.

 

[97321]

In a showdown between Willamette Valley values and coastal Oregon practicality

What does the Willamette Valley have to do with this? It happened on the coast. He's being prosecuted on the coast. The prosecutor is on the coast. There is no coast/valley/desert divide here. Don't paint with too broad a brush.

 

[Tangent123123]

Why were the authorities involved at all? Dig a hole, insert bear, end of story.

 

[97321]

Here's a hypothetical: Maybe our pellet gunner was trying to be responsible and cautious. Maybe he was concerned about discharging a firearm within City limits. He seems to be a good shot, but nobody wants a stray .300 mag flying through the neighborhood. Maybe using a pellet gun was his way of discouraging the bear in a socially conscientious manner.

 

[Redcap]

Why were the authorities involved at all? Dig a hole, insert bear, end of story.

Shoot, shovel, shut up.

The guy in the original story only figured out 1/3 of the formula.

 

[salmonriverjohn]

poor judgement, he should not be shooting anything! I hope they make him pay for his stupidity.

Note to self,, I should know better than to feed the trolls, but WHAT???

 

[Sling Blade]

What does the Willamette Valley have to do with this? It happened on the coast. He's being prosecuted on the coast. The prosecutor is on the coast. There is no coast/valley/desert divide here. Don't paint with too broad a brush.

That was the way it was worded in the paper. Makes no sense to me either.

 

[The B]

What does the Willamette Valley have to do with this? It happened on the coast. He's being prosecuted on the coast. The prosecutor is on the coast. There is no coast/valley/desert divide here. Don't paint with too broad a brush.

the prosecuting DA is a state senator for a district that covers the central valley.

 

[Spitpatch]

A pellet gun is not a suitable "weapon" to shoot a bear with.

If the mans life and/or property was truly in danger, then any ordinance against discharging a firearm within city limits would be irrelevant and he should have used a rifle or a shotgun to humanely and quickly kill the bear. Had he done this, I would 100% support his actions.

If the mans life and/or property was truly in danger and all he had was a pellet gun, then he should have called 911 and let the authorities deal with the problem. If he had time to go indoors and retrieve a pellet gun, then his life was obviously not endangered.

99% of the time a pellet gun will do nothing but wound a bear-sized animal, making an already bad situation even worse. If you live in an urban area and there is a bear in your yard, the last thing you want is to be responsible for a wounded, pissed-off bear to be running around the area. The fact that the bear took 20 minutes to die from the wound is not a "success" at all as far as I am concerned.

Shoot to kill, or dont shoot at all.

soberups deserves good credit for his fourth paragraph. All stated there is mostly correct, save the last sentence: "Success" is the true and real threat dissolved. By whatever means necessary.

To address his first paragraph, I submit that a pellet gun is the BEST thing to shoot a bear with if that is all you have, and it is a threat. In one's yard, or with defenseless dogs nearby to protect (or any other property) constitutes threat. I defer to the legal and wildlife expert that responded to the scene and found no fault, and I suggest that others do the same.

As to a pellet gun deserving any condescending quotation marks as to its being a weapon, I would only state that I would not like to be one to have it used as such against me. Anyone believing it deserves such condescention may lack a significant amount of knowledge (gained by the Black Bear too late) as to its lethality.

soberups rightly and correctly advises that had a better weapon been available, it might have been used to better effect, and damn the torpedoes for legal concerns. He disregards (my assumption) that the initial intent was to chase the threat away. He also disregards imperitave concerns about peripheral damage that might occur from a heavy firearm to nearby property and/or local inhabitants. (A frequent mistake made by those who might choose things like a .44 Magnum or an AR15 for home defense in a populated area). He also perpetuates his assumption here that something else was available. We don't have that information.

As to his lofty suggestion that one call 911 and allow authorities to deal with a real and immediate threat, I can advise from more absolute, and entirely daily intimate experience, that this strategy may have frequent drawbacks. Others (even without my daily immediate and intimate experience) might elaborate more directly.

As to him "having time" to retrieve a pellet gun, and therefore his LIFE was not in danger, I merely submit that we all have a right to defend our property. We also have a right to eliminate a very real, proven mortal threat from escalating to human harm. We may not always have these rights against other humans, but we have them against animals. Again, I defer to the legal and wildlife expert that responded, examined, and determined all done within these rights.

My best strategy in any healthy debate between people with respect for each other is to attempt to understand (in my own words) the other's point of view. Here is my assessment of soberups point of view, along with what we know to be fact:

Black Bear in the yard. Black Bears are statistically and individually of greater threat to humans and property than Grizzly Bears. Soberups recommends strongly (and with good support regarding his truths about better weapons for Black Bear application) that an unmentioned, perhaps unavailable .30-30, .44 Magnum, or .338 Winchester Magnum at assumed disposal of the homeowner be discharged in the city limits of Florence, Oregon to instantly dispose of the bear, rather than merely discourage it: but ONLY if the homeowner himself is immediately threatened. If the immediate threat to that singular person is not established (no allowances for property, animals or other humans), the homeowner should call 911, and await the arrival of proper authorties, while simultaneously awaiting any activity the Black Bear may choose to engage in.

I await correction of my interpretation of this point of view.

I have never seen a Black Bear on my property. I did recover a roadkilled one less than 500 yards away, killed a Cougar 1/4 mile away. I have often seen coyotes on my property. NEVER considered a personal immediate threat, I shoot at every one I see to protect my horses, my dogs, and my neighbors' property as well. I shoot at them with whatever I can get my hands on NOW. A Benjamin sits at my front door, and a Crossman at my slider rear. It takes a bit more time to grab the handy Savage M24 Over-Under "farm gun", (.22WMR on top, 20 guage on the bottom) to take care of business as soberups rightfully suggests is more proper. I don't ever call 911 expecting that call to deal with the threat.

I shoot to diminish the threat by whatever means at my disposal. By always "shooting to kill or don't shoot at all", one may frequently find "not at all" does not accomplish diminish of the threat.

 

[pokerace]

I do not think it was his intention to kill or hurt the bear .I think he just wanted to sting the bear with as pellet to scare it away. As far as the coast - valley thing I don't think it is involed in thi thing,Floyd Prozanski is a RABID anti gunner and will go to any extreme to prove it.

 

[Both Eyes Open]

The guy needs to suck it up and pay the price. He was shooting it for fun. There was no theat. At least thats my opinion. As for the discharging a weapon charge? Thats a bunch of BS.

 

[Spitpatch]

The guy needs to suck it up and pay the price. He was shooting it for fun. There was no theat. At least thats my opinion. As for the discharging a weapon charge? Thats a bunch of BS.

I reserve formulating of opinions to assemblage of things known, (accompanied by some seemingly valid assumptions based on things known). I normally don't form opinions about other person's thoughts, but when venturing there, I try to give benefit of the doubt. But that's just me. "He was shooting it for fun" (because) "There was no threat" fails on two counts: Negative motivation is assigned to another person as a first choice, and a Black Bear in your yard at a house in town IS a threat. I make an assumption that the Trooper's (Game Warden) experience and training concerning Black Bear behavior is equal to or greater than my own moderate experience with them.



Five of seven bears in my immediate proximity that will never see a backyard in Florence, Oregon.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

If he has to shoot the thing to scare it off he should be using something that won't break the skin. like an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two- hundred shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time

 

[bnz43]

The only thing in danger was the garbage cans, If that guy mist the bear and shot a your child in the head god forbid, you guy's would want him strung up. Don't shoot in town, Thats the law .

 

[CJ1089]

If he has to shoot the thing to scare it off he should be using something that won't break the skin. like an official Red Ryder, carbine action, two- hundred shot range model air rifle with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells

But he could have put an eye out!

 

[CJ1089]

The only thing in danger was the garbage cans, If that guy mist the bear and shot a your child in the head god forbid, you guy's would want him strung up. Don't shoot in town, Thats the law .

Soooo...if he ran over my child's head with his car I would want him strung up. So we should outlaw driving in town and that will be the law also?
I try to keep my reactions appropriate to what actually happened not what might have happened.

I would back his execution if he killed human children, he didn't. He shot a bear with a pellet rifle, not a 50 cal. Barrett. The downrange danger is fairly minimal. The danger posed by a black bear that does not seem to fear humans is vastly greater. I am assuming no fear on the bears part since the shooter discharged his pellet gun from a distance of 15 feet.

The critical ones need to get together on this, is a pellet rifle a stupidly underpowered device to scare a bear or a weapon of mass destruction likely to kill all in its path? The actual account seems to suggest the middle road, it did the job almost too well yet no collateral damage occurred, sounds like a perfect resolution to that particular bear problem.

 

[OcelotZ3]

Hmm. It was a cub or yearling (still with the mother bear) so it wasn't a "huge" bear. It was also not on his property at the time he walked over to it and shot it. So not on his property nor an imminent danger. And in many communities, a pellet gun cannot be discharged in the community in general.

He has an uphill battle.

 

[Spitpatch]

Don't shoot in town, Thats the law .

The "Burglar's Guide to Easy Pickin's" just hit the shelves at Barnes and Noble, Revised Edition, complete with new and updated premier locations such as bnz43's address.

 

[coop44]

"Shoo bear, shoo." throw bacon over the fence into the neighbors yard, problem solved.