Prosecution Of Grizzly Case
Example Of Government Amok

By William Perry Pendley

(Editor’s note: William Perry Pendley is president and chief legal officer for Mountain States Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm specializing in issues of private property and individual liberty.)

Late on the night of September 9, 1989, John Shuler of Dupuyer, Montana, heard the sounds of grizzly bears in his yard. He grabbed his rifle and ran outside. When Shuler saw three bears near his sheep pen, he fired into the air, causing the bears to flee. Shuler then turned to go into his house, only to be confronted by another grizzly bear. It rose on its hind feet, spread its paws, and let out a roar. Believing that he was in mortal danger, Shuler shot and fatally wounded the bear.

The story of how a rancher from northwestern Montana survived a grizzly bear attack should have been a one-day story, if that. It might have made the news as far away as Great Falls, Montana, some 90 miles distant, but probably not.

Instead, Shuler's story is nationally known. It has been reported in too many newspapers to list, including The Wall Street Journal, and has been the subject of two "That's Outrageous" reports in Readers Digest. Everyone has heard, if not of John Shuler, then of his incredible tale.

That is because when Shuler notified the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the attack and what he did to defend himself, the FWS charged Shuler with violating the Endangered Species Act and demanded that Shuler pay a fine of $8000.

Following a hearing, an administrative law judge from the U.S. Department of the Interior ruled that Shuler's belief that his life was in danger was a reasonable one. However, the ALJ declared that Shuler could not claim self-defense, as the ESA allows, since he had "introduced himself into the zone of imminent danger": his own yard. The ALJ fined Shuler $4000.

Shuler appealed to an Ad Hoc Appeals Board employed by Interior Secretary Babbitt, which not only upheld the ALJ's ruling, but found another reason for rejecting Shuler's self-defense claim: Shuler's dog, which had alerted Shuler to the bear's presence by going "on point," had "provoked the bear." The board increased Shuler's fine to $5000.

Finally, in October 1996, seven years and a month after surviving the bear attack, Shuler was able to file his lawsuit against Babbitt in federal district court. Shuler charged that the holdings of the ALJ and the board conflicted with well-settled principles of law: that self-defense is well recognized; is a defense under the ESA; and gives an individual the right to use deadly force when that person believes his or her life is in danger. Shuler also argued that the law is well settled that people may carry weapons on their property and may use those weapons when their lives are in danger.

On March 17, 1998, Shuler's long legal purgatory came to an end. The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana ruled for Shuler, vacating both his conviction and fine.

It is bad enough that it took Shuler and his wife Carmen nearly nine years to get out from under a fine that would have destroyed them. What is worse is that Shuler should never have been prosecuted. Any first year law student knows what Shuler did is self-defense. Nonetheless, the federal government continued its war against Shuler. Moreover, it was a war waged not by animal rights fanatics in the bowels of the FWS or newly-minted federal lawyers anxious to make a name for themselves.

Top officials in the Clinton administration pressed the case against Shuler to deny Americans the right to protect their lives from grizzly bears. To these radicals, the possibility that human life would be lost should such a standard become law was less important than that grizzly bears be saved!

John Shuler's story reveals not only that environmental radicalism now pervades the federal government, but that its lawyers seek not justice, but victory. It is a tragic day when our government values animals over humans and winning over obeying the law.