Jose,
Just what is wrong with the way they took care of the meat? All this talk about suspending a dead elk out of reach of predators is a joke. Not everyone bones out their meat, especially if they are going to come back with horses the next day to pack it out. While not the way I would have taken care of this elk, I certainly don't see anything out of the ordinary in the way they took care of it. The fact that he filled it full of snow and put his sweaty hat on top gives indication that he intended to salvage the meat. I'm sure that wolves taking over his kill was not even on his mind when he left.
Calling someone who shoots a wolf a poacher is like calling a homeowner who kills an intruder a murderer. There is a huge difference between someone who kills a wolf out of frustration and anger and someone who poaches a trophy animal for personal gain. The law might not see it differently but any jury in Montana, Idaho, and WY sure would.
Many people outside the affected areas where there is serious wolf predation do not understand the shift that has occurred in a vast amount of peoples minds. Many hunters who wouldn't dream of taking a deer or elk in an illegal manner are now starting to view killing a wolf as the opportunity arises their responsible and moral obligation. There is a point where otherwise law abiding hunters are so frustrated with the situation that they are going to take the law into their own hands. Whether it's right or wrong is a point that can be debated but that has become reality in much of the west.
As far as the hunters calling a press conference.... I see that as a great move for them to get public support for something that has been such an emotionally charged issue. It is done all the time in politics and other arenas to help use public opinion to sway policy.
From TJones post concerning the potential punishment for killing a wolf.....
BULL! This is not directed at TJones, but nobody is going to get a $100,000 fine and jail time from any judge or jury in MT, ID or WY for shooting a wolf.
I spoke with our local conservation officer about this very subject. His reply was that in MT someone who kills a wolf can expect a $125 fine plus $1000 dollars restitution for killing a wolf, the same as illegally killing a black bear or mountain lion. Montana will not prosecute under the Endangered Species Act. He also stated that since the wolf has been placed back on the List he no longer investigates any wolf killings. That is up to the TWO federal wardens in the whole state of MT. If the Feds ask for his help in investigation he will collect evidence and take pictures and turn it over to the Feds but will not do any actual investigating.
The UNSPOKEN message and attittude I got from our conversation was basically, he doesn't want to know about any wolf killings. If something is done in such a way that he can't ignore it, he will do his job, but he won't go out of his way to find someone who kills a wolf.
He did say that he feels he works for the people in Montana who buy the hunting licenses that fund his job. That is deer, elk, lion, bear, etc..., hunters. There are no wolf tags, hence they are not a high priority for him. If the Feds want them protected, the Feds can protect and prosecute wolf killers.
Gerald,
You can justify poaching however you want. You can make excuses for poachers who shoot wolves, or "shoot an extra doe, but eat all the meat", or fill the tag they bought for their wife "because they paid for it", or stick an arrow in a 370 bull 3 days after the season closes and then post it on the internet.
If you want to "win" the wolf issue, you have to "win" in the court of public perception, and defending a bunch of poachers ain't going to move the ball forward. WE actually could HUNT wolves last year, and we would HUNT wolves this year if the
Welfare Ranchers in Wyoming's legislature would have allowed the State of Wyoming to MANAGE wolves instead of exterminate wolves.
If you want to be "frustrated" at someone, take out your frustration on a bunch of
Welfare Ranchers in Wyoming, they are the reason we can't HUNT wolves this year.
And it does smell "fishy" that the one guy thought he was Clint Eastwood ........
From there, we walked the horses the rest of the way, keeping an eye out for bears, wolves, mountain lions, etc. There were some old tracks around … singles, nothing fresh. Nonetheless, we started making noise [so] as to scare anything off.
About 200 yards from the elk, I pulled my revolver in case something noticed us first. We got to the elk, checked out the entire scene to see if anything had been on the quarters, and there was nothing out of place. Mark’s hat was still exactly on top of the meat as he had left it. No tracks around to worry about. One coyote track. We checked the carcass from about 50 yards away … nothing.
We thought everything was safe, so we made lunch on the jet boil. Took a little break for about 30 or 40 minutes, then got back to work cutting the lower legs of the elk. We then laid all the meat out to balance the load on the horses. We then thought to move the horses (after putting on the panyards) closer to the meat, so we tied them up closer.
As we lifted the first piece of meat, the horses started shying violently, with large fiery eyes. I thought to myself, “I thought these horses were used to meat.” Mark, though, tried to calm Shotgun (his horse), but instead he was freaking out worse.
Mark turned and started to yell, “Wolves, Raymond!” I turned to see six or seven wolves at 20 yards or less coming in on us … silently! No noise was heard. I pulled my .44 and fired a round up the hill as a warning. They didn’t pause at all. So, I started pulling the trigger at the violent, incredibly fast pack of wolves. They were so close and [there were] so many of them. They were all around us from our 3 o’clock to our 9 o’clock [position], coming in for either the horses or the meat or us. We were definitely in a life or death situation.
As I shot the first two or so times, Mark made it to his rifle and started shooting as well … all within seconds.
After the initial shots were fired, the horses ended up tied up on the tree, wrapped up. We fixed the horses and had them in hand. Mark and I were not able to load any meat as the wolves did not leave! They started howling, first one at about 50 yards, then getting closer, all of them. Again we had to leave … we had to leave the meat on the ground.
I held my horse in one hand and my .44 in the other. I tried to get packed up from lunch and keep [hold] of the horse while still watching for those wolves to come through the timber again. They wouldn’t quit, so we started out of there. They were coming after us again, so I fired up hill again to scare them off, twice. And yet again as we were walking out (being dragged almost) [by the horses], they kept coming. So after about 75 yards again, I had to fire another round into the sky. Then my .44 was out of bullets, so we got the heck out of there, looking over our shoulders the whole way.
God saved us this time, but those wolves are still out there. I won’t go in these woods without a sidearm ever again. These wolves were not afraid of us at all. They are killers. If those horses [hadn't warned] us, they would have been on us in three seconds. [That's] the closest I have ever been to being food for a predator.
.
You don't think somebody is out trying to make a "statement" with his statement???
The guy is walking in to the meat with his gun drawn, ready for action, finds none, then sits down and proceeds to cook lunch and fugg around with his stove? If you are so paranoid about wolves, wouldn't you just get in and get out???
Then the guy sees his horse "
with large fiery eyes". I'm sorry, but what the hell are "large fiery eyes" on a horse when you are writing a statement to a fish cop? I can agree the horse was "spooked", but c'mon, did it really have
large fiery eyes? Sounds like a bit of a drama queen....
Not convinced he is a drama queen??? He then sees "the wolves at 20 yards or less coming in on us …
silently! " So, he is now describing the wolves as "silent", but then quickly refers to the wolves as "
the violent, incredibly fast pack of wolves". How did his "silent" wolves quickly become "violent" wolves??? The wolves did nothing of "violence", but the Clint Eastwood character is now referring to them as "violent??? Again, something smells "fishy" when you write a statement to a fish cop that refers to them as "violent" when the wolves did nothing "violent".
Then, finally, in his last paragraph he says "God saved us", but was it really God that saved him or his .44 Magnum? Or, was it the fact the wolves really weren't "killers", as they never "killed" him or his buddy, never touched the elk as far as anyone has ever stated, and, seem to have only been "silent" as their only crime.
Who knows what really happened on that cold, fatal day in October. That will be left to the investigating officers, prosecutors, and the Judge to decide.
