The following account is a perfect example of legislation that places a higher value on animal life than that of human life! Apparently, the US Attorney for the District of Idaho, Wendy J. Olsen, believes that the life of the Grizzly bear was of more value than the children of this family.

Ms. Olsen is the mother of two children, making the charge of protecting your children hard to understand. What would she have done in this

situation-protect her children or stand and watch as the “protected species” harmed, or worse, her children?

It has been a very nice Mother’s Day for the Hill Family of Bonners Ferry, Idaho. Family members came over to share dinner and time together. They have left for the evening, and Mrs. Hill is not feeling well and goes to lie down. The five children are outside playing basketball. Jeremy Hill is taking care of the youngest of the six Hill children, ages 10 months to 14 years. As Rachel Hill is entering her bedroom, she sees three Grizzly bears out in the yard, attacking the pen where the Hill children’s 4H pigs are contained, just 40 yards from where her children are playing. She knows the children are outside and is fearful of their safety. Her and Jeremy cannot see the children and begin to call for them. When Jeremy and Rachel did not receive an immediate response from the children, they experience a fear that no parent should have to feel. Jeremy goes for the 270 rifle, finding only three bullets to load with.

He went outside with the rifle and again called for the children. No response. The closest bear was 40 yards away. Jeremy shoots the Grizzly, causing the other two bears to run through the garden and into the nearby timber. Approximately the same time as the shot, Rachel comes out to tell Jeremy that the children made it into the house safely. The wounded bear attempts to get up and follow the other two bears, being pursued by the family dog. The wounded bear makes it to the front yard and stops. He immediately began to approach the house. Jeremy shoots the bear a second time. The bear rolls down towards the pond, and attempts to get up again.

Under the basket ball hoop where the 4 kids were playing showing the distance to where the grizzlies were located.

Jeremy is deeply concerned to have a seriously wounded bear in the area, possibly threatening his own family and other neighbors, and ask Rachel to get him the phone book. He wants to call Idaho Fish and Game. Seeing the bear attempting to crawl off into the timbers, and fearful of what this wounded bear may do, he shoots the bear again, using his last bullet. This third shot proved to be fatal to the bear. The bear was laying just 15 yards from the children’s swing set.

Idaho Fish and Game came out, and against the Hill’s wishes, placed two bear traps near the children’s pig pen. The attempt to bait the other two bear cubs back to the Hill property failed, and their whereabouts are unknown. The US Attorney for the District of Idaho, Wendy J. Olsen, has filed criminal charges against Jeremy Hill for killing the female Grizzly bear who was an immediate and serious threat to the safety of his children and family. Olsen was a member of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Criminal Section and was appointed by President Obama. Grizzly bears are a federally protected species, and the charges are part of the Endangered Species Act. Jeremy Hill faces up to one year in prison, a maximum of $50,000 fine and one year of supervised release. He has pleaded not guilty to unlawfully killing a female grizzly bear and is expected to face trial on October 4, 2011. It will be a Jury trial.

Local Fish and Game officials took no action against Mr. Hill after completing their investigation and had reportedly told him that there should not be any issue as he was acting to protect his family. Almost a month later, the US Fish and Wildlife Service showed up for an investigation. You know, that governmental “help” President Reagan warned us about-“I’m from the government…”! The investigators offered Mr. Hill a plea bargain if he would plead guilty to a misdemeanor and pay a $6000 fine. He did not feel he had done anything wrong, and stuck to his principles.

State Senator Shawn Keough stated after the arraignment hearing “It seems unjust to me that someone would be charged when they are protecting their family. I’m at a loss to understand why the US government is pursuing this in the manner they are.” Governor Butch Otter has written a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, requesting him to intervene on behalf of Mr. Hill, stating that these charges will do harm to the Grizzly bear recovery efforts, and that there must be flexibility for citizens to protect their loved ones and property. Governor Otter points out in this letter that one of the flaws of the Endangered Species Act is that it places a premium on protecting these species at the expense of everything else. He states in the letter “Although an individual can protect human safety under the law-as Jeremy felt he was doing-it’s a shame that the Endangered Species Act does not enable citizens to protect their private property and pets in the same manner.”

Jeremy Hill has the support not only of the Governor, but from Idaho US Senator Mike Crapo, who serves on the committee that oversees the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency filing the charges. Crapo stated “I have deep concerns about this incident and the decision of the government to prosecute Mr. Hill, who did what any parent would do in this situation. Clearly Mr. Hill thought his family was in danger and was protecting them from harm.” The Boundary County Commissioners unanimously also wrote to Secretary Salazar. In their August 22, 2011 letter, they state "We feel that at all costs, this man has the obligation and responsibility to protect his children. This is not some flagrant or malicious act. We urge you to do all that is in your power to have this matter settled."

Mr. Hill has the support of Idaho US Senator Jim Risch, stating “What Mr. Hill did was not a crime in the court of common sense. My hope is that common sense will prevail in this case.” Idaho US Representative Paul Labrador weighed in, stating “Only Jeremy knows the threat this bear posed to his family and property. No one from D.C. or Boise was present to know the circumstances surrounding his actions, but the Endangered Species Act shouldn’t force us to second-guess these types of life or death decisions.” Both Risch and Labrador raised the issue of changing the Endangered Species Act, a favored action by many in Idaho.

We all know that any mother grizzly bear would kill to protect her young, and would perceive the presence of the children as a threat to her cubs. Humans are no different, and Mr. Hill clearly thought his family was in grave danger. The bears were five miles outside of a Grizzly bear recovery zone. Mr. Hill did what any one of us would have done in the same situation. He could have not called authorities and just practiced the “shoot, shovel and shut up” mode.

What would have happened had Mr. Hill ran out to help his children? Given the fact that some of the children are very young, he would have had to pick them up, so which child do you choose? It was not a choice-he did what was necessary to help all of his children. This does not take into consideration that had he not shot the bear, what despair would the children have witnessed had the bear got to one or more of them? What despair would they have felt had they witnessed the bears destroying the pigs they had worked so hard to raise for 4H? Mr. Hill made the only common sense decision he could make.

Idaho State Statute 55-102 states: “Personal property defined. Every kind of property that is not real is personal.” The 4H pigs would certainly fall under personal property. Mr. Hill was not only protecting his family, but his personal property as well. Had Mr. Hill obeyed the Endangered Species Act and not shot the bear, what charges would he be facing by allowing the bear to harm or kill his children? We all know that he would be facing neglect or endangerment charges. Mr. Hill did not only what was morally right for a parent to do; he did what he was bound by federal and state law to do-protect his children!

Had this been a dog that was a threat to the children, would Ms. Olsen have declared the dog vicious? Probably so, and in a lot of locations, the dog would have been put down. Would Ms. Olsen have filed charges had it been a dog? Would charges have been filed had the bear gotten hold of one of the children? How far do you let an animal go before you kill it? Did the child have to be in the mouth of the bear before the US Attorney would consider it a justifiable kill?

The charge against Mr. Hill is causing an outrage in Idaho, and as it becomes known, across the country. If this is an outrage to you, you can help by writing your own US Senators and Representative’s, asking them to put pressure on the Secretary of the Interior to intervene on this matter. One of the children’s pigs was auctioned off, raising $19,588 towards necessary funds. By the way, the pig was given back to the child that raised it. Bank accounts have been set up at the three banks in Bonners Ferry to assist the Hill family in the legal costs of fighting this charge.

By Debi R***