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.