Man shoots bear, faces animal abuse charge

[pokerace]

ENE, Ore. (AP) — In a showdown between Willamette Valley values and coastal Oregon practicality, a Florence, Ore. man faces animal abuse charges for fatally shooting a bear with a pellet gun.

The young black bear had wandered into the backyard of 29-year-old Florence resident Blake Christensen, who grew up in the coastal town of Tillamook. He says it's natural on the coast to shoot bears if they're on a person's property.

The bear died about 20 minutes after being shot, the Eugene Register-Guard reports. State wildlife law permits killing a wild animal that is causing damage or is a public nuisance.

A state trooper decided not to press charges, but Florence city prosecutor Floyd Prozanski charged Christensen with first-degree animal abuse

Christensen hired an attorney and says he will fight the charge


Do you know who Florence city prosecutor Floyd Prozanski IS. He is chairman of the Oregon senate judiciary committee and a RABID anti gunner.He is the one that messed up some good bill this last session.

Read More

 

[MrNiceGuy]

A pellet gun, eh?

 

[Wood Worker]

That is some precision shooting with a pellet gun.
I hope that it does not cost too much for Christensen to win against the Florence city prosecutor.

 

[G1GRANDEUR]

Why did he shoot the bear again?

 

[soberups]

I'm sorry, but only an idiot would shoot a bear with a pellet gun.

If the bear is a danger and needs to be shot, then it needs to be shot with a weapon that can put it down as quickly and humanely as possible.

If the bear is not a danger and is simply being a nuisance, and all you are trying to do is to shoo it away...then yell at it or throw something at it or make a loud noise. Shooting it with a pellet gun is the worst of both worlds, you are simply wounding it and causing it to suffer needlessly.

If the guy honestly felt that his life or his property was threatened, I would have no problem whatsoever with him killing that bear with a high powered rifle, shotgun, or other suitable firearm. Shooting it with a pellet gun was a crappy, malicious thing to do and I can not think of any justification for it.

 

[The B]

I'm sorry, but only an idiot would shoot a bear with a pellet gun.

If the bear is a danger and needs to be shot, then it needs to be shot with a weapon that can put it down as quickly and humanely as possible.

If the bear is not a danger and is simply being a nuisance, and all you are trying to do is to shoo it away...then yell at it or throw something at it or make a loud noise. Shooting it with a pellet gun is the worst of both worlds, you are simply wounding it and causing it to suffer needlessly.

If the guy honestly felt that his life or his property was threatened, I would have no problem whatsoever with him killing that bear with a high powered rifle, shotgun, or other suitable firearm. Shooting it with a pellet gun was a crappy, malicious thing to do and I can not think of any justification for it.

what if that's the only weapon he had? it certainly did the job, didn't it? took 20 minutes to die... i think we've all seen game animals hit with thirty calibers take longer than that to die.

human beings seem to have this weird predisposition to assume malice where their own understanding fails.

 

[Spitpatch]

soberups makes some assumptions. Assumption number one, is that the homeowner protecting his family and property has something other than a pellet gun. Assumption number two is that a black bear accustomed to civilization can be "shooed away". These assumptions I would submit may have no premise on count one, and most probably have no premise on count two. Assumption number three is that discharging a firearm is legal in Florence, Oregon. Assumption on my part that it is not. Assumption number two on my part is that the guy lives in the city limits. (Perhaps with no premise, other than "a Florence man", and "Florence resident", and "Florence city prosecutor").

I'll continue my assumptions, since that seems to be the modus operendi here: Black bear in the yard (not an assumption). Black bears are statistically and individually more dangerous than even Grizzly Bears, based on human and property (buildings, pets, etc.) damage reports (not an assumption). "Florence man/resident" lives in Florence (assumption). Subject to "Florence city prosecutor" 's view of what is legal. (Again, assumption on my part, but conveyed rather conclusively). Discharging of a true firearm is illegal in the city limits of Florence (assumption on my part, based on its prohibition in most communities, while very many allow BB guns and air rifles). Resident grabs the only thing he has that can seriously and legally discourage (I assume that was his intent) a pest/threat to his family from a remote positon. (Assumption on my part: maybe there were rocks handy, with their inherent trait of not going where you intend to throw them on frequent occasions, and requiring less remote positions of launch platform).

He shot the bear again (Skang, front and center, please) because the bear did not leave when he shot it the first time (assumption on my part with all apologies appropriate).

State Trooper declines to press charges because as a State Trooper (most probably---assumption on my part---he is a GAME WARDEN, primarily dispatched on such calls) he sees no violation of a huge list of laws preventing and prohibiting harassment/illegal taking of wildlife and abuse of animals. He is the "expert" as to legality and he is the "expert" in wildlife and their potential behavior that may cause harm to humans and/or property. "Righteous shooting", he says (assumption on my part).

Finally, and NO assumption here: Proper shot placement is EVERYTHING. Beats caliber choice everytime. HOOORAH!!

LAY DOWN! STAY! GOOD BEAR!

 

[soberups]

soberups makes some assumptions. Assumption number one, is that the homeowner protecting his family and property has something other than a pellet gun. Assumption number two is that a black bear accustomed to civilization can be "shooed away". These assumptions I would submit may have no premise on count one, and most probably have no premise on count two. Assumption number three is that discharging a firearm is legal in Florence, Oregon. Assumption on my part that it is not. Assumption number two on my part is that the guy lives in the city limits. (Perhaps with no premise, other than "a Florence man", and "Florence resident", and "Florence city prosecutor")I'll continue my assumptions, since that seems to be the modus operendi here: Black bear in the yard (not an assumption)........!

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.

 

[PBinWA]

It would be interesting to know what type of pellet gun and what the shot placement is. Sounds like a "fluke" to me.

 

[The B]

It would be interesting to know what type of pellet gun and what the shot placement is. Sounds like a "fluke" to me.

philosophy aside, i think he probably just thought it would sting a little and scare the bear off.

guessing again, i'd say anyone with a "pellet gun" capable of taking down large game probably also owns other weapons of wider margin, and deliberately chose the air rifle so's NOT to kill it.. and accidentally killed it anyway. hence the animal cruelty charge, rather than a poaching or other charge.

but unless the guy can be quoted as having expressed his intent to be sadistically cruel, i think they'll have a hard time winning that one. most jurors, imagining themselves in his shoes, trying to scare a BEAR out of their yard, probably aren't going to assume cruel intentions.

 

[22many]

The story just doesn't sound right. To many facts missing to make a accurate judgement.

On a different note, I would like to see prosecutor prozanskis reaction if a bear stumbled on his property. I can see the headlines now....."prosecutor tries to pet bear, man viciousally malled".

 

[Sling Blade]

Here's a way more detailed article:

<broken link removed>

 

[soberups]

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.

 

[gunnails]

I guess what I have learned from all of this is that a pellet gun is a pretty good deterrent for nuisance black bears.

Also that the city prosecutor for Florence is a real gomer.

 

[PBinWA]

I just want to know what kind of pellet gun - so I can buy that model!

 

[civilian75]

Check this out: "Christensen also is charged with violating the city's law against discharging a weapon in Florence." So, Florence is making no distinction between pellet gun and a firearm! I wonder if he had a shot the bear with a firearm adequate for the job, this would have been the only charge...

 

[bnz43]

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

 

[hermannr]

Years ago I had a neighbor kid shoot my Dobermann of the time with a pellet gun. The dog died. This was a young bear, probably not much larger than my Doberman (80 lbs). I can understand how a pellet gun could kill a small bear. Remember, the pellet gun may have been all this guy had available

I also can understand why the person that shot the bear could choose a pellet gun within the city limits, at night..

1: the intention was to get the bear away from the neighbors dogs (I assume the dogs were tied up or contained some way, or were small, as "dogs" implies more than one, and any 2 or more reasonably sized dogs would attack a young bear, given the chance. If he was protecting the neighbors dogs, good for him, the neighbor should chip in with the cost of the defence.

2: Possibly the intention was to not disturb the neighborhood, protect the neighbors dogs, just get rid of the bear. If you used a shotgun or rifle, you would most definately disturb the neighborhood at midnight.

I would never second guess what happened or why, with the information available.

I had a small bear break into my garage and was trying to into my dog's food (big heavy plastic container). I shot my shotgun into the air and it left. If it had not left I would have changed to slugs and that would have ended it. However: That would not have been an option for this guy being he lives in the city and the time of day it was. (midnight)

 

[jbett98]

Lewis & Clarke sure made good use out of their Italian made Girandoni air rifle.
The native Americans they encountered sure were impressed. Watch the YouTube segment and learn a little bit of our history.

Girandoni air rifle as used by Lewis and Clark. A National Firearms Museum Treasure Gun. - YouTube

 

[PBinWA]

Lewis & Clarke sure made good use out of their Italian made Girandoni air rifle.
The native Americans they encountered sure were impressed. Watch the YouTube segment and learn a little bit of our history.

Girandoni air rifle as used by Lewis and Clark. A National Firearms Museum Treasure Gun. - YouTube

There are some very powerful air rifles but something tells me this was just your average pellet gun.