Officials arrested a man from Hackettstown, N.J., Monday for shooting a two-year-old female black bear in his backyard.
Authorities found the 266-pound bear dead on Oct. 10 after hearing reports of an injured bear wandering into another yard. The bear left a blood trail in the street, and Sgt. Darren Tynan told the Daily Record a single arrow killed it.
David Denbleyker, 29, claimed the black bear was going to attack his dog and a friend, and admitted to shooting it with his bow.
"Our officers found his story not to be credible," New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection spokesman Larry Ragonese told the New Jersey Herald.
DEP is charging Denbleyker with killing a black bear out of season, killing it in a manner not sanctioned by state game code, nocking an arrow within 150 feet of an occupied dwelling, and killing the bear without a hunting permit. A final charge by local police for weapon possession by a convicted felon topped off the heap of accusations.
Denbleyker posted the $5,000 bail and was released on the same day of his arrest.
Comments (6)
While I agree 100% with the other charges, IMO the charges of killing it in a manner not sanctioned by state game code & nocking an arrow within 150 feet of an occupied dwelling seem like BS. Killing in a manner not sanctioned by game code seems redundant to killing it out of season. Also he didn't impale the bear on a spear, he shot it with a bow. I'm not a bowhunter but the charge of nocking an arrow within 150 ft of an occupied dwelling seems like progressive nanny state nonsense. That's almost as bad as outlawing unwraped twinkies within 150ft of bariatic centers. If you need extra charges, why not go with wreckless endangerment because he wounded a bear that could have mauled someone in the neighborhood? Wounded bears are crazy dangerous and this sounds like a suburban area.
The article says Denbleyke was a convicted felon and was not allowed to possess the weapon. Sure hope his attorney gets his legal fees up front.
I could shoot bears out the back door nightly but I see no honor in that. If his story is true then the guy has the right to defend another human. All it says is our "officers" found his story not to be credible not the judge but To shoot a bear within town or city limits with a bow for kick's man oh man........
Hi...
Another 'mighty hunter' showing off to his friends.
If he is indeed guilty of all offenses, I too hope the judge throws the book at him.
I also hope alcohol and drug tests were taken.
Yeahhhhh right, he was defending his dog and friend by shooting it...with his bow??? The only thing that was likely to do was CAUSE it to attack someone. I hope they throw the book at this guy.
Hopefully he gets charged for all of it. Can't stand people like this.
Post a Comment (200 characters or less)
Hopefully he gets charged for all of it. Can't stand people like this.
Yeahhhhh right, he was defending his dog and friend by shooting it...with his bow??? The only thing that was likely to do was CAUSE it to attack someone. I hope they throw the book at this guy.
Hi...
Another 'mighty hunter' showing off to his friends.
If he is indeed guilty of all offenses, I too hope the judge throws the book at him.
I also hope alcohol and drug tests were taken.
I could shoot bears out the back door nightly but I see no honor in that. If his story is true then the guy has the right to defend another human. All it says is our "officers" found his story not to be credible not the judge but To shoot a bear within town or city limits with a bow for kick's man oh man........
The article says Denbleyke was a convicted felon and was not allowed to possess the weapon. Sure hope his attorney gets his legal fees up front.
While I agree 100% with the other charges, IMO the charges of killing it in a manner not sanctioned by state game code & nocking an arrow within 150 feet of an occupied dwelling seem like BS. Killing in a manner not sanctioned by game code seems redundant to killing it out of season. Also he didn't impale the bear on a spear, he shot it with a bow. I'm not a bowhunter but the charge of nocking an arrow within 150 ft of an occupied dwelling seems like progressive nanny state nonsense. That's almost as bad as outlawing unwraped twinkies within 150ft of bariatic centers. If you need extra charges, why not go with wreckless endangerment because he wounded a bear that could have mauled someone in the neighborhood? Wounded bears are crazy dangerous and this sounds like a suburban area.
Post a Comment (200 characters or less)