There is more than one way to win a case and planting the idea of guilt prior to a trial is best if you do not have a good case. If justice is to be served all charges shoudl be dropped since NPS has already contaminated a potential jury pool. If nothing else they can make the guy wish he had let the bear kill him rather than face the enviro courts.

Hold on there! The NPS “statement” said it was an illegal act – it did not say the guy was guilty! In Wyoming, or Montana, or Idaho when you kill any game animal, including a grizzly, without a license issued by Game and Fish you have committed an illegal act. NPS did NOT say he was guilty.

This fellow has admitted: 1, He did kill the grizzly, 2. He did not have a license to do so. Thus his act was illegal. Now he has his day in court where he might claim he was in fear for his life. If he can convince the judge (not a jury) that he acted in self-defense it probably will result in no fine, no imprisonment. BUT HIS WAS STILL AN ILLEGAL ACT!

However, the charge is based upon strong evidence and the hunters own statement that he shot the bear at a range just short of half a football field, while it was apparently standing still, after taking two steps towards him, and the bear died only a few feet from the moose gut pile it was occupying when the hunter first saw it. It was NOT charging!

No matter how or why one does it, the killing of a grizzly bear is an illegal act.

Grand Teton National Park claims that Mr. Westmoreland’s decision to shoot the grizzly “makes a compelling case for hunters to carry bear spray.”

It does? Let’s evaluate Westmoreland’s situation. Let’s consider his options.

Was Westmoreland dangerously close to the grizzly? A Grand Teton National Park brochure titled "Wildlife Viewing" tells visitors they should “Always maintain a safe distance of at least 300 feet from large animals such as bears, bison, moose and elk.”

Westmoreland was 120 feet from a grizzly on a carcass. That’s not safe, it’s dangerously close. Now that Westmoreland is dangerously close to a grizzly, what should he do? Here are two more “facts” from Grand Teton National Park that may have influenced Westmoreland’s decision to shoot the dangerously close grizzly. "Hiking In Bear Country" states that “Individual bears have their own personal space requirements, which vary depending on their mood. Each bear will react differently and a bear's behavior can’t be predicted.”

So, Westmoreland was dangerously close to an unpredictable grizzly bear. Is the bear an immediate threat yet? "What To Do If You See A Bear" says, “Bears may appear tolerant of people and then attack without warning.”

OK, Westmoreland is dangerously close to an unpredictable grizzly that might attack without warning. If that bear’s not an immediate threat, what is? If human safety is the #1 issue, why not shoot? For a hunter armed with a scoped .270, a stationary grizzly 40 yards away is a sitting duck. Shooting the bear in this situation virtually assures the safety of Westmoreland or any competent shot 100% of the time. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

If Westmoreland doesn’t shoot, what’s Plan B? He could wait until the bear charges before shooting. But a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service “fact sheet” titled Bear Spray vs. Bullets says that “experienced hunters are surprised to find that despite the use of firearms against a charging bear, they were attacked and badly hurt.”

A Sierra Club brochure titled Bear Pepper Spray: It Works!, warns hunters that if they attempt to shoot a charging grizzly, “the result of a person using a gun is likely to create a wounded and angrier bear. The latter scenario most likely leads to more severe attacks.”

It’s easy to understand why Westmoreland didn’t fiddle around and wait for the bear to break into a full charge.

With deserved respect offered here to Dave Smith, who is author of an excellent book titled "Backcountry Bear Basics: The Definitive Guide to Avoiding Unpleasant Encounters", the very same logic which gives Westmoreland the benefit of doubt and proclaims him innocent until proven guilty, can also be applied to Bear 615. In numerous instances this summer, the same bear was observed in close proximity to people who were invading her space and she did NOT charge.

Indeed, there have been plenty of hunters in the general vicinity of the moose carcass and who took other animals, gutting and harvesting the meat, who had no negative encounter with 615, let alone seeing her.

If the implication is: That any person carrying a gun who encounters a grizzly that stands up, flares its ears and drops to all fours HALF A FOOTBALL FIELD AWAY, interprets the behavior as aggressive and therefore feels justified in pulling the trigger, there are going to be a lot of dead and wounded grizzly bears. Fortunately, many hunters already have NOT invoked similar similar reasoning.

The very theme of Dave Smith's excellent book is that people take personal responsibility and be aware of all factors when they are navigating grizzly country, including making noise, ostensibly avoiding feeding areas (Westmoreland said he knew the moose carcass was there), and walking in groups greater than one. Okay, hunters don't hunt in packs, but Westmoreland wasn't hunting. No one is saying that pepper spray is a panacea but anecdotal evidence provided by plenty of people, including researchers, who come in close contact with grizzlies, suggests it works. Pointing out that it can fail is the same logic as suggesting that because seat belts might fail in a crash, people shouldn't buckle up.

I have been writing about grizzlies in the Greater Yellowstone for more than 20 years, including a lengthy story on Bear 399 and her clan, including interviewing the hiker mauled by Bear 399. It's true: No one other than Westmoreland (and bear 615) were there, but the circumstantial evidence as reported in the paper casts as much doubt on Westmoreland as on 615.

Todd--I appreciate the thoughtful comments. I have wondered if this might have been a "thrill kill." Lots of grizzlies in the area, plus carcasses, so you load up your rifle and a .44 Mag. pistol, use binoculars to spot a bear, get the wind in your favor, then move in for the kill. Child's play. But when that .270 goes off, it's LOUD. Did anyone hear? Did anyone see? So your report the incident and put a spin on it. An accidental encounter. I had to shoot the bear in self defense.

But that's pure speculation. With bears get killed in defense of life, you've generally got to take people at their word. As you note, there were no witnesses. I don't envy game wardens and biologists who investigate these incidents.

I'm big on avoiding confrontations with bears. I lived in Yellowstone Park back in the 70s, and spent a lot of time afield with two little girls, the daughters of friends who worked in the park. Guns were not an option and bear spray hadn't been invented, so the key to survival was avoiding trouble.

The hunter near Grand Teton, knowing there was a moose carcass in the area in the fall when bears are in hyperphagia, the obvious question is, why walk right up on it? Why not go a whopping 200 yards out of your way to avoid it? Would you behave so foolishly if you didn't have a firearm (or BS)?

Knowing there was a carcass and the potential for a bear feeding on the carcass, making noise seems like a gimmee--unless Westmoreland had a another tag to fill, or didn't want to make a disturbance out of courtesy to other deer hunters. With nothing to go on but a sketchy newspaper article, who knows what the situation was.

For what it's worth, I'm a fan of your writing. DS

Dave - Congrats on your last post! I see you have given a great deal of thought to this incident and applied your considerable experience to it.

This guy admits he knew the gut pile was there as he passed by it earlier that morning. Yet, he walked right up on it an hour later - packin' his .270 and a big hog 44 mag on his hip. He didn't sneak up on the gut pile - he walked up on it it. I think he knew there was a bear around and fully intended to kill that bear - be it black or grizzly.

Yes, several people heard Westmorland shoot. Two shots, less than 30 seconds apart.

If the following is inaccurate:
“A hunter from Teton Village has been charged with illegally killing a grizzly bear after the man told authorities he shot one Sept. 19 near Ditch Creek north of Kelly. Stephen Westmoreland, 40, was charged Wednesday with taking a grizzly bear WITHOUT A LICENSE (emphasis supplied).” and the guy does not want his name to be mud, then surely, if he in fact did and/or does have the license, I'm certain he could have produced it prior to the Ocotber 2 press conference. And, if he did in fact have a license and could have produced it when first questioned by the authorities, the charge against him would likely not have been filed. Shame on him for shooting that bear and shame on him for not being prepared with a less harsh means to protect himself (if he actually needed protection from the bear)! Deeper mud!