Auburn Man Facing Charges After Killing Bear In His Backyard

[RedPatriot]

Quote:

AUBURN (CBS) – A 76-year-old Auburn man is facing charges after killing a bear in his backyard.

Richard Ahlstrand told WBZ-TV he was stocking his bird feeder Friday night when a bear about seven feet tall and 300-to-400 pounds started chasing him.

That’s when he turned his shotgun on the bear.

“I didn’t have time to aim through the sights, but I aimed in the direction of the head on this thing and I pulled the trigger before it got to me. It just dropped,” he said.



Ahlstrand said he was carrying the shotgun Friday night because he thought he saw the bear in his yard Thursday.

“If that ever jumped on me, I wouldn’t even be here right know, I don’t think. I know it was going to seriously maul me,” he said.

Ahlstrand is now charged with illegally killing a bear, illegally baiting a bear, illegal possession of a firearm and failing to secure a weapon.

Authorities believed the female bear had cubs. Ahlstrand says he feels bad about that, but he believes he being unfairly labeled.

“They got me set up now like I’m some kind of murderer. And then the environmental guy told me ‘You should have called me instead of shooting it.’ What was I going to do, say ‘Mister Bear would excuse me please while I go make a phone call?’”

Police don’t believe the bear was a threat to people.

Source;
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/07/auburn-man-facing-charges-after-killing-bear-in-his-backyard/

[SparkyKid3000]

RedPatriot

Quote:

Ahlstrand is now charged with illegally killing a bear, illegally baiting a bear, illegal possession of a firearm and failing to secure a weapon.

Out of all of these charges, the only one he should be charge with is illegal possession of a firearm. (Unless of course he actually had a license to own the gun.) cheese_whine

[Whispyre]

X

If the bear started chasing him then he was in the right to protect himself. I agree that he should be charged with the illegal possession of firearms, but nothing more.

And baiting? He was in his backyard, it's not as if he went out into the woods to go look for it. It just seems really silly that they don't seem to care at all that this was done to protect himself. Bears are not cuddly, they are very dangerous and not something you take lightly.

[Ratttking]

Jin Love

X

If the bear started chasing him then he was in the right to protect himself. I agree that he should be charged with the illegal possession of firearms, but nothing more.

And baiting? He was in his backyard, it's not as if he went out into the woods to go look for it. It just seems really silly that they don't seem to care at all that this was done to protect himself. Bears are not cuddly, they are very dangerous and not something you take lightly.

"Baiting" in this case means leaving out food, a substance that even children know bears like to steal. While it is possibly legal for him to have the bird feeder, it might not be (the county made one of my neighbors remove his) and once he'd ascertained that there might be a bear in his vicinity, he should have at the very least removed the feeder to make his yard less attractive to the bear.

[JamesWN]

What a load of BS.

And nothing says why he's being charged for illegal possession?

[Cerulean Miko]

Who in their right mind refills a bird feeder at night after seeing a bear in their yard the day before??? emotion_facepalm

[Kai-Shan Valandria]

SparkyKid3000

RedPatriot

Quote:

Ahlstrand is now charged with illegally killing a bear, illegally baiting a bear, illegal possession of a firearm and failing to secure a weapon.

Out of all of these charges, the only one he should be charge with is illegal possession of a firearm. (Unless of course he actually had a license to own the gun.) cheese_whine

Nope - in almost all jurisdictions, you do not need a license or permit of any kind for shotguns or other long guns.

Sounds like this is a whole bunch of crap - a man has a right to defend himself, and he sounds like a reasonable person from the article.

[Cerulean Miko]

Ratttking

Jin Love

X

If the bear started chasing him then he was in the right to protect himself. I agree that he should be charged with the illegal possession of firearms, but nothing more.

And baiting? He was in his backyard, it's not as if he went out into the woods to go look for it. It just seems really silly that they don't seem to care at all that this was done to protect himself. Bears are not cuddly, they are very dangerous and not something you take lightly.

"Baiting" in this case means leaving out food, a substance that even children know bears like to steal. While it is possibly legal for him to have the bird feeder, it might not be (the county made one of my neighbors remove his) and once he'd ascertained that there might be a bear in his vicinity, he should have at the very least removed the feeder to make his yard less attractive to the bear.

I totally agree with what you said about "baiting". When food is scarce and/or just handy, then an animal will be attracted to any food that's placed outside a person's house even if the food is nothing more than refuse.

[SparkyKid3000]

AloysiusWeasley

SparkyKid3000

RedPatriot

Quote:

Ahlstrand is now charged with illegally killing a bear, illegally baiting a bear, illegal possession of a firearm and failing to secure a weapon.

Out of all of these charges, the only one he should be charge with is illegal possession of a firearm. (Unless of course he actually had a license to own the gun.) cheese_whine

Nope - in almost all jurisdictions, you do not need a license or permit of any kind for shotguns or other long guns.

Sounds like this is a whole bunch of crap - a man has a right to defend himself, and he sounds like a reasonable person from the article.

Hmm that's odd. (to me at least) Why aren't you required to have a license? I feel like that's a safety issue.

[Kai-Shan Valandria]

SparkyKid3000

AloysiusWeasley

SparkyKid3000

RedPatriot

Quote:

Ahlstrand is now charged with illegally killing a bear, illegally baiting a bear, illegal possession of a firearm and failing to secure a weapon.

Out of all of these charges, the only one he should be charge with is illegal possession of a firearm. (Unless of course he actually had a license to own the gun.) cheese_whine

Nope - in almost all jurisdictions, you do not need a license or permit of any kind for shotguns or other long guns.

Sounds like this is a whole bunch of crap - a man has a right to defend himself, and he sounds like a reasonable person from the article.

Hmm that's odd. (to me at least) Why aren't you required to have a license? I feel like that's a safety issue.

This is a Canadian article, but it sums it up pretty well.

Most people I know have at least something around the house, mostly because their grandfather had one. It wasn't too long ago that people went and hunted for their food. It's not a safety issue, any more than having a knife set on the counter is.

[SparkyKid3000]

AloysiusWeasley

SparkyKid3000

Hmm that's odd. (to me at least) Why aren't you required to have a license? I feel like that's a safety issue.

This is a Canadian article, but it sums it up pretty well.

Most people I know have at least something around the house, mostly because their grandfather had one. It wasn't too long ago that people went and hunted for their food. It's not a safety issue, any more than having a knife set on the counter is.

I understand the cost issue. The reason I brought of safety is because I want people to know what they're doing before buying and shooting a gun. I thought getting a license involved learning how to use a gun (safety courses). Regardless of what type of gun you have, you need to know how to shoot it. But my understanding of a gun license may not be accurate so feel free to correct me if you know something I don't. Thanks for the article by the way.

[Kai-Shan Valandria]

SparkyKid3000

AloysiusWeasley

SparkyKid3000

Hmm that's odd. (to me at least) Why aren't you required to have a license? I feel like that's a safety issue.

This is a Canadian article, but it sums it up pretty well.

Most people I know have at least something around the house, mostly because their grandfather had one. It wasn't too long ago that people went and hunted for their food. It's not a safety issue, any more than having a knife set on the counter is.

I understand the cost issue. The reason I brought of safety is because I want people to know what they're doing before buying and shooting a gun. I thought getting a license involved learning how to use a gun (safety courses). Regardless of what type of gun you have, you need to know how to shoot it. But my understanding of a gun license may not be accurate so feel free to correct me if you know something I don't. Thanks for the article by the way.

You're so welcome, and yes, the cost is huge. If the U.S. started doing a full-scale "inventory," I'm betting we'd end up with a cost to rival the War of failon Drugs, with the 3857038 gov. employees and trillions of dollars of domestic spending. I definitely agree on safety courses, though with private long guns, it's more of a family thing. I was brought to the range with the male relatives, and fun was had by all. When it comes to gun licensing here, the issue is really handguns and "assault rifles", which is pretty much code for anything the military uses, high-capacity rifles, etc., and the laws between the states vary even more widely than abortion laws.

[Kazuma]

Should have planted a knife on the bear.

[PantheaMarlon]

The man could of called authorities the day before or called on other occausions they did the 911 hangup. Now try to get him on something.

[AnaI Crackers]

Kazuma

Should have planted a knife on the bear.

lololololololol I laughed way too hard.