Idaho delegation calls
for grizzly ESA amendment
|
|
September 14, 2011 |
Washington, D.C. – Ambiguities in the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) have prompted Idaho's
Congressional Delegation to introduce
legislation clarifying the rights of individuals
to protect themselves and their loved ones from
grizzly bear attacks. Idaho Senators Mike Crapo
and Jim Risch and Congressman Raúl Labrador say
the legislation would amend the ESA to permit
actions carried out against grizzly bears in
self-defense situations.
The Delegation members note that these proposed
changes to the law would be a drastic
improvement over the current ESA regulations
protecting the grizzly bear, which make it
possible, but extremely difficult to legally
take a grizzly bear in an act of self-defense or
defense of another human. The new legislation
states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of
law . . . the provisions of this Act shall not
apply with respect to the taking of any grizzly
bear by an individual who demonstrates by a
preponderance of the evidence that the
individual carried out the taking as a result of
1) self-defense; 2) defense of another
individual; or 3) a reasonable belief of
imminent danger posed by the grizzly bear to any
individual.”
On August 8, 2011, the U.S. Attorney for Idaho
charged an Idaho man, Jeremy Hill, with a
violation of the ESA for killing a grizzly bear
on his property near Porthill, Idaho, in defense
of himself and his family. The government’s
decision to charge and prosecute Mr. Hill
sparked an outcry from countless Idahoans, local
elected officials in north Idaho and the Idaho
Congressional Delegation. On September 8, the
U.S. Attorney dropped all charges against Mr.
Hill, after he agreed to pay a fine.
In introducing their legislation, Crapo, Risch
and Labrador note that the ESA was rightly
established to protect threatened and endangered
species, but that Congress never intended to do
so at the expense of basic public safety and the
ability to protect oneself or others in the face
of danger.
“We are introducing focused, common-sense ESA
reforms limited to dangerous grizzly bear
encounters to ensure that this unfortunate
situation depriving an individual of his or her
rights never happens again,” Crapo said. “Like
Mr. Hill, all Americans need to know that they
can protect themselves and their families when
confronted with a seemingly imminent grizzly
attack. Passage of this legislation will send
that message, loud and clear.”
“Everyone who followed Mr. Hill’s case
understood that he was not hunting a grizzly
bear. He was protecting his family, which he
truly believed was in harm’s way,” said Risch.
“This legislation will allow an individual to
act in self-defense without having to mount a
costly defense for their actions, if done
appropriately. This is a common-sense change
that needs to be passed.”
"Our success with increasing the grizzly
population has now collided with the
common-sense right of self-defense when
encountering these and other predators in the
course of normal life,” Labrador said. “This
legislation will amend the ESA to ensure that
future, unavoidable confrontations between man
and beast do not end with the federal government
placing the protection of the animal before the
safety of people."
The grizzly bear legislation will be referred to
the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, of which Crapo is a member; and the
House Natural Resources Committee, of which
Labrador is a member.
Shortly after the legislation was announced, the
Center for Biological Diversity said that the
proposal is redundant.
“Even for the dysfunctional atmosphere that
permeates Washington, this bill is coming out of
left field. The Endangered Species Act already
includes a self-defense provision like the one
the Idaho delegation introduced today. Adding
this superfluous language amounts to political
theatre rather than thoughtful legislating,”
said Marty Bergoffen, endangered species
organizer for the Center for Biological
Diversity. “If they want to be sure that the Act
allows for self-defense, we’d be happy to send
them a copy of the Endangered Species Act so
they can see for themselves.”
The Endangered Species Act provides has provided
an exemption for self-defense or defense of
others since 1978. Section 11(b)(3) of the Act
states:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, it shall be a defense to prosecution under
this subsection if the defendant committed the
offense based on a good faith belief that he was
acting to protect himself or herself, a member
of his or her family, or any other individual,
from bodily harm from any endangered or
threatened species.”
That language is nearly identical to the
language proposed today by Idaho’s congressmen:
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including regulations), the provisions of this
Act shall not apply with respect to the taking
of any grizzly bear by an individual who
demonstrates to the Secretary by a preponderance
of the evidence that the individual carried out
the taking as a result of: 1 - self defense; 2 -
defense of another individual; or 3 - a
reasonable belief of imminent danger posed by
the grizzly bear to any individual.”
“There’s no reason to add utterly redundant
language to the Endangered Species Act,”
Bergoffen said. “The Idaho delegation ought to
quit grandstanding — it’s pretty clear that
Congress has more pressing issues to pursue
rather than spinning their wheels on a bill that
will have no legal effect.” |
|
Questions or comments? Click
here to
email! |
|
|
