I disagree with dwalters here.
In answer to your question, Michael: the bear has no natural rights. The bear does not act, it behaves. I has no conception of ends or means or logic. It is not a rational being and certainly not a reasonable one. It behaves merely in accordance with its primitive instincts.
Humans on the other hand, do act -- well most of us do, at least -- we have a clear conception of goal and of means and of method in every one of our ends-driven behaviors. Our capacity for logic is orders of magnitude greater than that of the bear. Humans are rational beings. (At this point, I am still in line with Mises. But here's the step he doesn't make:) And because humans are rational, they ought to be reasonable, too.
If humans ought to be reasonable, they also ought to be reasonable with respect to each other. Actions are either in accordance with the reason and logic of mutual respect, or they are not. This is the essence of any moral justification as well as the essence of natural law and natural rights.
Only actions are justifiable. Since the bear does not act, rights do not apply to him. Nor can he be expected to respect the rights of others. Whoever owned the bear at the time of the killing is responsible for the victim's death.
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opi