The newspaper and blog accounts of the grizzly bear shooting in Boundary County are obviously biased in favor of the shooter, Jeremy Hill.

Boundary County Prosecutor Jack Douglas' retelling of events goes to great lengths to portray Mr. Hill as someone who has empathy toward animals and who was merely protecting his family. Mr. Douglas is also careful to lead us to believe that the officers and biologist at the scene of the shooting were thorough, with utmost regard for the Endangered Species Act (ESA.)

However, the prosecutor's letter detailing the shooting and the events leading up to it clearly shows that Mr. Hill acted inappropriately in killing a legally protected grizzly bear. Mr. Hill lives between two grizzly bear recovery zones and was negligent in not being better prepared to protect his property and family. Lethal force was his first resort.

By his own admission he acknowledges that "...the other two bears, alarmed by the crack of the rifle, ran away..." and "... He didn't fire at the retreating bears because they no longer posed a threat." Why didn't Mr. Hill simply fire a shot in the air to scare off the bears? To call this a case of self-defense is misleading: The bear was not attacking Mr. Hill or his children; it was interested in the pigpen. It was a curious cub, which most likely would have responded to the fright of a loud noise, rather than a bullet.

There are other questions regarding Mr. Hill's actions as well. Why didn't he have bear spray? Why were his children, all under 14 years of age, playing outside in grizzly country at 7 in the evening without parental supervision? When you are raising pigs in grizzly country, 150 feet from your house, there is good probability that, sooner or later, bears will turn up in your yard.

Once again this case exposes the selfish irresponsibility of humans at the expense of innocent animals. I've noticed that folks who defend the killing of protected species often use the excuse that we in the east don't know the facts, because we don't live in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming. However, I beg to differ.

In urban areas there are human animals to contend with, but when we come up against them we don't shoot back: we carry mace, we cross the street, we lock our doors, we don't walk alone at night. In suburbia there are trains, cars and coyotes, so if you want to protect your house pets you don't let them roam, you keep them confined inside. You modify your behavior. That's the price we have to pay to live where we do. People living in wilderness areas should do the same.

Although most of us do not have the privilege of residing in beautiful places such as Boundary County, federally protected lands and animals belong to everyone. Recently, the federal government undermined the ESA by passing a budget bill with a rider (attached by Montana Sen. Jon Tester), which permanently removed wolves from the endangered species list. Allowing anyone to kill a grizzly bear without consequences is a green light for others to do the same, and further erodes the ESA, putting all endangered animals and habitats in more jeopardy.

DIANE MAASS

Sleepy Hollow, N.Y.