83-Year Old Man Shoots Bear In His Yard. Faces Jail Time

Remember the good old days when your local constable and neighbors came over to help you skin your bear and cut it up into hams and a few steaks and after we all got cleaned up we cooked up some taters onions some fresh bear meat a loaf of fresh bread, and maybe some Lima beans or Brocoli and such, and every one was pleasant and happy our 80 year old grand father could still getter done and was ok, even if it is in the yard. That used to be in a place called America……

It may not be relevant to recount this here, but it reminds me of an incident which occurred in Pennsylvania about twenty years ago, so it gives some insight as to how this type of situation was handled in a rural area of another state.

A man lived on a small lot in the country and had Bee Hives on the other side of his backyard fence. A bear damaged the bee hives. He called The Game Commission and they told him his options.

When the bear came back the man stood on a step ladder so he could see over the fence and shot the bear with a 30/06. He was not in personal danger from the bear, but it was damaging his property.

There was never a question of charging the man as killing the bear in defense of his property was legal. He would have not been charged with discharging a firearm even if he was directly beside someone else’s house as the Game and Wildlife Code prohibited the discharge of a firearm within 150 yards of the residence of another “while hunting”. He was not hunting, but defending his property.

This of course would be different in a town or city where there was a local ordinance against discharging a firearm, but then a State Game Officer would not enforce that regulation.

The problem was that he had been notified in advance that he had two choices. He could accept payment for the damage to the bee hives, or he could kill the bear in which case he would not be re-reimbursed and could not retain any part of the bear.

He wanted the hide and was actually willing to purchase it from the Commission The District Officer was willing to go along with this, but a supervisor refused to allow it!

I accompanied the District Officer (I was his deputy) when he went to settle the matter about the bear hide.

At this point the situation degenerated into a lot of hard feelings and shouting on the part of the private citizen.

I am no longer an officer so I may not be completely up to date on current regulations, but before I resigned they had passed regulations in this state making it illegal to intentionally place feed for bears.

If incidental bird feeding attracts bears the person is issued a warning to cease and desist from feeding until the bears are no longer in the area, failure to cease may result in charges being filed.

It don’t matter what some gang told you, its his bear hide shot on his property. It got stolen from him by power crazed goons enforcing the Uniform Commercial Code disguised as State Code thus the subject not having any rights was ignored by indoctrinated goons enforcing non-constitutional bunkum “code.” The Uniform Commercial Code is nothing less than the Ancient Babylonian Law, If you want to know from where your “rights” came as a state citizen, read the preamble of your states Constitution. If you want to know where those rights went, put the Constitution back on the shelf, go to your nearest law library, pitch a tent and start reading the statutes. Oh and if you want to prove that this Commercial Code is the Babylonian Code then look it up in the Georgetown law Journal while your there.

Willard, The topic is an 83 year old American man getting done over by thugs. We can’t walk out on our lawns with out breaking the law in this country. So you think its off topic to point out the wrong in it, I say to you tough. Those men had the opportunity to think for themselves over the bear hide, they made the wrong decision. These goons are gonna punish an 83 year old man for forgetting at some point in his 83 years he lost all rights to his own land, his right of decision making of what occurs on his land. It is his business, and his alone. Bully for him. Maybe some folks like having a daddy all their lives, and maybe some wiser folks DO NOT.

You confessed to being involved in a crime. ha ha. The Georgetown Law Journal V.71 page 1179-1200 is the section showing the connection of Babylonian Code and our Commercial Code. Just trying to help America out of a bind Willard, what the heck are you doing, cringing in the corner. Being silent will not help our country Willard, if you have studied these laws then you should be speaking out against them because you surely are aware they are being abused big time.

You musta read this before to eh, Willard??
http://blog.sunvalleyonline.com/index.php/2007/11/09/modern-commercial-law-is-based-on-ancient-babylonian-codes/

Sure, we need laws to protect wildlife I agree 100%. On public lands! Now these thugs are coming onto private lands to enforce those public laws. It will never be right concerning individual property rights, they are saying we haven’t any of those rights by coming in to our castles. Its just the Eurpoean bunkum Babyl crap the founders attempted to escape. And of course the real Laws of the Magna Carta versus Ancient babylonian codes are preferable to me. Private property is just that, Private. If the government can go on it when ever they want its not Private its theirs. If our Constitution was inspired by God then why is the Devils Codes acceptable to live under, aren’t Gods laws good enough to keep mankind in line as we become more and more crowded in? What if the old guy was being burglered by crooks and shot em, would he get busted for fireing his gun with in 150 feet of some building, or chrged with manslaughter? Ive seen cubs kill dogs before, and cubs are so tender, they just melt in your mouth. heh heh.

To take Pennsylvania as an example: By the latter part of the 1800s, elk were eliminated, deer were almost gone. There were few black bears.

This happened because of a lack of regulation. Society was faced with two choices, either allow the situation to continue as it was or form an agency to enforce regulations so that species had a chance to recover.

While Pennsylvania has quite a bit of public land, there is not enough to ensure the survival of a species when anyone is allowed to decide his own regulations and bag limits on private property.

Perhaps there is enough undeveloped land in Idaho that wildlife can survive without regulations being in effect on private land, but that is not the case here.

What’s more most landowners want regulations. It is sometimes the case however that they want those regulations applied to their neighbors and not to them.

When Pennsylvania drastically reduced its’ deer herd a few years ago, many of the same people who were angry at the state for raising all those deer, now were upset that the state responded by giving them what they originally demanded. Now many of the same people wanted large numbers of deer back.

At least in the more developed states, it often boils down to do we want wildlife or do we want a lack of regulation on their taking on private lands. We can’t have both. It was tried once.
If that is what we want then we should never have taken the steps to allow wildlife populations to rebuild. In a nutshell, the problem was solved once. The question is, do we want to return to that situation?

BA, I CC (completely concur).