Legal Standard for Self-Defense Against Grizzly Bear Attacks

AmmoLand ^ | August 12, 2025 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

In 1975, when grizzly bears in the lower 48 states were regulated as “threatened” by the federal Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior, the standard required to use deadly force against them, in defense of self and others, was unclear. In 2017 and 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit created a binding precedent that clarified the standard to be used when a person claimed defense of self and/or others against grizzly bears in the lower 48 states.

The standard is different and lower than the standard to be used for self-defense against humans.

From the opinion by the Ninth Circuit issued in 2017, bold added:

“We hold the ‘good faith belief’ defense for a prosecution under 16 U.S.C. § 1540 is governed by a subjective, rather than an objective, standard, and is satisfied when a defendant actually, even if unreasonably, believes his actions are necessary to protect himself or others from perceived danger from a grizzly bear. Because the district court applied an objective standard, we vacate Wallen’s conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The Wallen case occurred on May 27, 2014. Dan Calvert Wallen shot three grizzly bears on his family property in Ferndale, Montana, with a banged-up .22 rimfire rifle.

The bears had killed most of his chickens. He had chased the three adolescent bears from his property with a truck, but the bears returned. Wallen pleaded not guilty and asked for a jury trial. Because the charges were misdemeanors, with a maximum penalty of six months in jail and/or restitution for the bears, a jury trial was not allowed. In the bench trial, Wallen was found guilty by Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch, sentenced to three years of probation, and $15,000 in restitution.

---

TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: banglist; bear; bellatwin; defense; law

[redfreedom]

“Put that in front of a jury and there’s no way the government gets a conviction.”

In a red state, yes. In an area heavily populated by communists and with a Soros judge officiating, no.

[Deaf Smith]

“misspoke” is from the posted Ammoland link.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

What he says is all well and good, but the legal standard for most people is to kiss your a__ goodbye because you aren’t going to have a powerful gun, and you aren’t going to be able to win a fight or run fast enough.

[dangus]

Huge difference between “prove” and “show.” I’m not 100% sure of legal definitions as they apply to this case, but I would suppose that “show” means to present any non-contradicted evidence, probably including mere self-testimony.

By “non-contradicted,” I mean:

DA: You had no motivation to shoot the bears other than fear, right?

Defendant: Yes.

DA: Your honor, I submit as evidence this classified ad where the defendant offers to sell bearskin rugs.

[AndyJackson]

Yes I know that. The judge used “misspoke in a judgment.” It is not a real word recognized in Black’s Dictionary of Law. I am just doing a riff on this showing an alternative meaning for “misspoke.” It’s one of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals “Ridicule is a potent weapon.”

[dangus]

I looked into this. The plain abandonment of the literal text of the Constitution is pretty amazement. In 1970, the US Supreme Court upheld the notion that any sentence under 6 months is deemed “petty,” and not protected by the 6th amendment!

I would be leery of, but unastonished by, a ruling that said that the courts should consider what $20 would be in modern times, given inflation. But even merely the loss of six months’ wages alone would clearly be many times greater than $20!

The sole dissenter was Warren Burger, about whom I also found some interesting information:

Based on the majorities he joined, I’d always considered Burger an absolutely unhinged, Leftist radical. No matter how contrary to the law a ruling was, Burger tended to join the Left. But many people claim he had a conservative motive for doing so: by joining the majority, he could be responsible for content of the ruling, and thus limit the scope of the ruling to the narrowest possible scope consident with the final outcome of the case being heard.

This explains the content of Roe vs Wade: why would the Supreme Court issue a fairly narrow “right” to abortion, and then immediately expand that right with subsequent cases, such as Doe vs Bolton? The answer would be that Burger successfully kept the scope narrow initially, but subsequent cases were used to defeat this strategy. It also explains why Burger seemed to waffle so much.

[Big Red Badger]

You might Google;
“Bella Twin World Record Grizzly”.

[Colt1851Navy]

Any Griz that gets within 50 yards of a human should get shot dead. If bears are not afraid of people, they will be when you start hunting them.

[saleman]

It’s probably just me....

How did the Fish and Game find out about this “case”?

If I feel threatened by wildlife, wildlife is dead. To bring anyone else into it is stupid at best. Your right to silence is ingrained in the Constitution.

[marktwain]

How did the Fish and Game find out about this “case”?

---

A neighbor found one of the three bears, dying on his property, the next day. Another dead bear was found shortly after. It took about a week to find the third dead bear.

Quite a few bears have been killed with a .22. Not a great “stopper”, but deadly.