Listen to the
specialists
|
|
August 25, 2011 |
It is wonderful that the community is supporting
the Hill family the way that they are! Armed
with the facts about what occurred that day, the
community has come together to assist someone
that they believed acted not only to protect him
family, but also in accordance with the federal
laws in place to protect both wild animals and
humans.
I do, however, find some individuals comments
and opinions disturbing. It seems that some
people want to make this an argument about
whether the endangered species act should exist,
or what animals should or should not be on the
list. Northern Idaho is a place, that if you are
lucky enough to grow up in, you know is
beautiful and wild. Every day you have the
chance to step out on your back porch as see any
number of wild animals. Animals other Americans
will only ever see in a zoo.
Living in a place like northern Idaho provides
you with these special experiences, but it also
comes with a certain amount of responsibility.
Boundary County has thousands of acres of
wilderness filled with wildlife. Anyone who
chooses to live on the edge of it, or venture
into it, has to be aware of the risks and
rewards that can provide. In this case the laws
in place have allowed for the recovery of the
Grizzly and protection of individual safety. I
realize this is a hot issue, but I am only
speaking about this particular case.
I don't know all the facts of this case, but
here is what I think I know.
The Hills live in a rural area fairly close to
undeveloped or wilderness area. From time to
time wildlife of all sorts may pass through
their property. The vast majority of the time
they probably welcome it and think it's one of
the many reasons they are lucky to live in
northern Idaho.
Then one day large, potentially dangerous
animals wander through. The Hills have small
children who probably play outside on a daily
basis. Being unsure of where all the children
are, Jeremy makes a conscious decision based on
the facts he had at the time to shoot the bear.
Here is where I am truly impressed with how the
situation was handled. Jeremy did the right
thing. He called law enforcement and reported
what happened! Now here is the really important
part of the story that I think the public needs
to jump on … The shooting was investigated by a
FEDERAL Fish and Game officer who made the
recommendation that charges should NOT be filed!
If at that time the federal prosecutor would
have followed the recommendations of the federal
employee whose job it is to protect and monitor
wildlife, I would have said that this is a great
example of our government actually working! It
would have been a great example of how we can
protect and recover endangered species while
still allowing Americans to live their lives in
areas where wildlife can have an impact on them.
There needs to be more investigation into why
charges were filed. The rest of the system
worked the way it was suppose to. Was this an
individual decision made by a prosecutor? How
often are local federal Fish and Game officers
overruled? Is this a political move?
Right now, it seems to me that the argument
should not be about the endangered species act
or if you think Jeremy Hill did or didn't do
what you think he should have. The investigation
and argument needs to be centered around why
charges where filed! The federal prosecutor’s
office and the individual prosecutor who made
the final decision need to be questioned. The
federal government had an officer on the ground
in Boundary County that investigated and
recommended not filing charges. Why was that
recommendation not followed?
I, as an individual, realize that people can not
be tried in the court of public opinion. Those
close to the case can't be objective, and those
far removed can't know all the facts. I don't
know if Jeremy Hill did the right thing, and I
don't know if he acted in accordance with the
law.
I do, however, know that the federal government
employs Fish and Game officers around the
country to manage and protect wildlife. They are
the boots on the ground, charged with tracking
and investigating human/animal interactions.
They are the experts and I believe that they are
put in place for a reason. If we are not going
to follow their recommendations I am unsure why
we have them.
Jeremy Hill had the confidence to believe in the
system. He reported what happened and let law
enforcement investigate, confident in the facts
and believing he was acting within his rights.
The federal Fish and Game officer agreed and
recommended no charges be filed. The day charges
where filled, protecting wildlife got a whole
lot harder! I believe treating this case the way
the federal prosecutor has will only lead to
less reporting of legitimate cases!
We have specialists in place for a reason. Let's
listen to them!
Again, I am basing my opinion on the information
I have read, so I apologize if any of it is
incorrect. If you chose to publish this, I would
like to remain anonymous.
|
Anonymous
Spokane |
|
Questions or comments? Click
here to
email! |
|
|
