Man Charged for Protecting Son from Bear
A man charged after he shot a grizzly in Kananaskis Country says he killed the bear only because his 13-year-old son was in danger.
Joe Lucas, a Canadian calf roping champion from near Carstairs, has been charged with five counts under the Parks Act and the Wildlife Act.
But Lucas said he had no choice but to shoot the grizzly as it was approaching his son Kyle.
“I had my boy there, and the bear was heading almost directly towards him,” Lucas said.
“He was 16 yards away, actually, when I shot him. It’s not fun being attacked by a grizzly bear, that’s for sure.”
Lucas said he has fully co-operated with the investigation. He even rode by horseback three hours to his truck to charge his cellphone and call authorities about the death.
“They’re wanting me to become accountable for killing that bear,” he said. “I wonder who would be accountable if my son was dead or I was dead?”
Seriously… if this guy wanted to poach a Grizzly Bear, he would have shot it, processed it, and headed home. Nobody would have ever known. Instead, he called authorities to notify them. Sure, he may have misinterpreted the bear’s intentions and shot it without malicious provocation, but I would argue that a bear less than 50 feet away from me and my son is a concern. Now this guy is facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines - Canadian dollars, no less, which are worth more than American dollars.
Sorry, but no bear is worth the life of a human. Period.
Hat tip Firearms & Freedom.
They’re obviously not saying that he didn’t have the right to shoot a bear attacking his son. They’re saying they don’t believe his story. Even if you do believe his story, why would you characterize the situation like you did?
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on May 12, 2008 at 2338 hrsOwen, you failed to present the part of the original article that spoke about the fact that the Province investigated for 6 months before pressing charges, and the part that states Lucas was part of a hunting party in the park, and the part about failing to ensure a firearm in a wildland provincial park was unloaded and fully encased.
I doubt seriously that, if this was a straight-forward case of self-defense, charges would have been filed. Well, strike that, stranger things have happened. But in this case at least, you failed to present all of the facts as they are known. I at least thank you for providing the link to the primary source....
Posted by on May 13, 2008 at 0051 hrsI would not have let that bear get within 16 yds., he should have shot it much sooner than he did.
Posted by on May 13, 2008 at 0732 hrs”....Lucas was part of a hunting party in the park, and the part about failing to ensure a firearm in a wildland provincial park was unloaded and fully encased.”
A wilderness park with grizzly bears is no place to walk defenseless. When the law is crazy, one is crazy to follow that law.
Posted by T. Bone on May 13, 2008 at 1031 hrsI’m amazed that they spent six months investigating someone who shot a bear that got too close. Apparently they have nothing better to do there.
I’d love to see what any of you naysayers out there would do if a GRIZZLY Bear came within 16 yards of your child. A grizzly bear could kill you with one swipe of its paw.
Posted by on May 13, 2008 at 1154 hrsWait! Owen didn’t present all of the facts what an absolute shock.
Posted by on May 13, 2008 at 1158 hrsWait! Owen didn’t present all of the facts what an absolute shock.
He always posts a link the entire article.
The fact that someone finally went and read the article before spewing a response is what is shocking.
The information is always there. If people need everything spoon fed to them, thats their fault, not Owen or anyone elses.
---
In this case I can say that for once I don’t give a shit. Add this story to the number of reasons why I would NEVER WANT TO LIVE IN F’N CANADA.
Posted by on May 13, 2008 at 1217 hrs
I was the first comment and I read the whole article. My comment indicates as much.
Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on May 13, 2008 at 1305 hrsI didn’t say you didn’t read the whole article.
But the anonomyous poster in number 6 makes it sound like Owen has some obligation to present in his response every piece of information in every story on every blog posting. Thats preposterous.
He always posts a link to the entire articles. ALWAYS.
For someone to make a deprecatory comment about not presenting all the facts is unfairly pejorative.
If someone wants to disagree fine… The link is posted for everyone to read and respond at will. Should Owen make his point, and then have to make the contrary point also? wtf is that?
“Hey, lets have a debate, and I’ll provide my side and yours?” Thats rediculous.
Stop being a ostentatious whiner anon. If Owen or anyone elses posts are so devoid of all the facts then isn’t that low hanging fruit for you to post something intelligent and informed for the rest of us to read?
Or do you just sit back and toss out half-cooked insults at the wall and see what sticks?
Posted by on May 13, 2008 at 1329 hrsxxxpilot,
Posted by jesusisjustarlightwithme on May 13, 2008 at 1337 hrs
I know you were directing your comment to the anonymous dude, but my point was that although Owen made it easy for us to go and check whether he was characterizing the issue correctly, I didn’t see the point of mischaracterizing it in the first place. He doesn’t have an obligation to post every detail or to even post anything. I was just curious as to why he would post this story as a story about whether a guy has the right to protect his son from a bear when that’s clearly not what the story is about.A wilderness park with grizzly bears is no place to walk defenseless. When the law is crazy, one is crazy to follow that law.
So, T. Bone. If you visit Yosemite this year you are going to be packing?
I’m amazed that they spent six months investigating someone who shot a bear that got too close. Apparently they have nothing better to do there.
It isn’t that the bear got to close, but that the people got to close to the bear. Again, they (the Lucases) were part of a HUNTING party. Their wilderness parks are akin to our state parks. In this case, it would be like going to Rib Mt. fully armed and looking for raccoons. I would hope that a government agency that is charged with protecting wildlife WOULD spend 6 months investigating the facts if a protected species were shot, possibly illegaly, before making the decision that it was justified, if the circumstances seemed a bit fishy at the beginning.
Posted by on May 13, 2008 at 1421 hrsYou trying to disenfranchise that Ursine Canadian First pre-Nations mammal, Owen?
But I say we give the mounties and JJJJJ the benefit of the doubt and stage a reenactment - we put JJJJ fifty feet from a bear and see what happens.
Be sure to remind JJJ that the story is about laws in parks, not self-defense.
You made me look up the exchange rate, which is more favorable to Canadians than it has been in a long time, but Canadian dollars are still worth a little less than US dollars. A C$ is worth 99.5 cents.
Posted by tee bee on May 13, 2008 at 1734 hrsI am finding it odd that this group of people is being characterized as a “hunting party”. Correct me if I am wrong, but one needs a weapon of some type to hunt.
The fact that hunting is apparently ILLEGAL in that park,--as evidenced by the requirement that guns must be encased and unloaded-- tells me he was NOT there to hunt.
Posted by on May 13, 2008 at 1739 hrsCheaney:
I am not the one characterizing the group as a hunting party. That came straight from the article. Since the weaponry and make-up of the group other than Mr Lucas and his son is unknown, I can only operate on what is reported. You state that the fact that hunting is illegal means he was no there to hunt. The fact that the act is illegal cannot lead you to that conclusion, unless you also feel that I was not in the act of robbery if I go into a bank, wearing a mask, carrying a shotgun and a note which reads,
place all the money in a bag and DO NOT sound the alarm” since robbery is illegal.The facts are indeed a bit skimpy in the article. What weapon was used to shoot the bear, what others were in the group, what other weapons were present, were there other animals which had been harvested present?
You say that characterizing the group as a hunting party is strange to you since he didn’t have a weapon. Well, he must have had a weapon since he shot the bear and was charged with possession of a loaded and uncased firearm, unless of course they were planted........
Posted by on May 13, 2008 at 2201 hrs
Ol' Army
