Something smells fishy about Montana Elk Hunt..

[WV Hunter]

Sytes,

Who said they poached the wolves???

I just pointed out that something "smells fishy" with the fact these in-breds in Montana didn't take care of the elk they shot, went back the next day, sat around, made lunch, etc.... Then, suddenly got scared, rode their horses out to the road, then shot wolves from the road.

Then, they show up at a News Conference with several vocal wolf critics? Just seems a bit "fishy".....

How often do you have a "News Conference" ???

Jose,

You think somebody is trying to set a precedent for dealing with wolves or just sloppy hunters who should've had their sh*t out of there in the first place? Are they fall guys for the anti-wolf agenda?

WV

 

[Sytes]

JC,
I have not said you related it was or was not poaching... I simply made a comment on the crux of the story as we know it...
IMO, it is going to fall as either poached or self defense or... possibly undetermined(?).


With that, I consider - as the "story" stands, self defense.

What I find amusing is your opinion or as you state - "fact these in-breds in Montana didn't take care of the elk they shot." Your comment that they are "in-breds" leads me to believe you believe one should pack back and forth regardless time, safety, etc... and all Elk pack outs should consist within a 6 hour window...? I suppose your judgement of hunters who opt to get help if one is successful in getting an elk is ass backwards - well, to each his / her own.

Sytes,

Who said they poached the wolves???

I just pointed out that something "smells fishy" with the fact these in-breds in Montana didn't take care of the elk they shot, went back the next day, sat around, made lunch, etc.... Then, suddenly got scared, rode their horses out to the road, then shot wolves from the road.

Then, they show up at a News Conference with several vocal wolf critics? Just seems a bit "fishy".....

How often do you have a "News Conference" ???

 

[JoseCuervo]

JC,
I have not said you related it was or was not poaching... I simply made a comment on the crux of the story as we know it...
IMO, it is going to fall as either poached or self defense or... possibly undetermined(?).

That is why it is being investigated. And the fact you post pictures of big fish, but can't smell something "fishy" is amusing.

With that, I consider - as the "story" stands, self defense.

"Self-defense"??? What about "fishy" or "wanton waste of meat"? By Appleby's own admission, he "saw a coyote track and a wolf track nearby" his dead elk, but left the elk laying on the ground instead of suspending it in one of the trees. What did he think the coyote was going to do with a dead elk laying there??? Be afraid of his "sweat-stained hat"? You don't think the in-bred wolf-hater has some responsiblity to care for the meat?

Appleby packed with snow the previous day but did not suspend.

I am confused on this "fishy" idea of the weather being cold enough to have snow on the ground, nightfall coming, and, instead of hanging the meat in a tree, he packed snow in the elk. Wouldn't anybody that knew how to care for game meat know it is better to: a.) have the meat suspended above where the coyotes and the wolves are, b.) know the last thing you ever want inside an animal is snow/water that will cause bacterias to be washed all over the meat?

What I find amusing is your opinion or as you state - "fact these in-breds in Montana didn't take care of the elk they shot." Your comment that they are "in-breds" leads me to believe you believe one should pack back and forth regardless time, safety, etc... and all Elk pack outs should consist within a 6 hour window...? I suppose your judgement of hunters who opt to get help if one is successful in getting an elk is ass backwards - well, to each his / her own.

What " time, safety, etc" are you worried about? If he didn't have the "time" to take care of the meat, should he have been hunting more than 75 yards from his pick-up? If he needed more "time", how hard to suspend the meat in a tree over the snow?? What would that have got him, maybe 5 more days to deal with what he was obviously unprepared to deal with?

And what "safety" was he afraid of? If he was afraid of the dark, maybe he should get more extension cords to run his nightlights off a generator at the trailhead.

It just seems "fishy" that a guy who can't deal with an elk on the ground, can't find "time" to get his elk packed out can somehow find "time" to host a News Conference.

 

[belly-deep]

I will say that based on the footage I've seen of wolves taking down animals in Yellowstone, I would consider a pack circling around me 30-40 yards away a threat to my life and I would shoot.

Unlike a grizzly or a lion, you have multiple attackers. They circle around their prey, one bold wolf distracts it, and then they all jump on it.

IMO, if you wait for a pack of wolves to actually attack you, like a responsible person would with a lion or a bear, you're going to wind up dead. It is only a matter of seconds from the time the first one rushes in to when they all jump in, and there is no way a human is going to fend off several wolves, or even two, for that matter. Those things are bigger and more adept at killing a police attack dog, and if you've ever watched COPS you know one dog is enough.

 

[dan.kirkpatrick]

shoulda dropped em all,then load up you elk ,a worthy hunk of meat that the wolves dont deserve.

 

[Sytes]

Well, forums are all about hind sight 20/20... Arm chair QB's... My arm chair action leads me to believe many wolves would be down if their intent was to "rage against the wolves"... Only one wolf down...

In fact - They would have been justified to blast as many as necessary to reduce the threat of serious bodily injury or death... Though only one down? I think that further supports the story as presented versus those stories arm chaired by cuddly cute wolf loving nut jobs.

As for new conference... No problem with that, IMO. IF... If this is as the story presents - more power to reality hitting the public. Hell, a lot better news than some actress entering re-hab... for the 15th time. Haha!

 

[belly-deep]

WellThey would have been justified to blast as many as necessary to reduce the threat of serious bodily injury or death...

Ha! A phrase straight from the MCA...you sound like a lawyer

 

[Wolf Murder]

Spot on Sytes -

" I think that further supports the story as presented versus those stories arm chaired by cuddly cute wolf loving nut jobs."

Queervo seems to fit this category nicely. And I doubt he's ever even shot an elk by the way he's talking. They are a lot of work to take care of and sometimes that means coming back the next day to haul out your meat.

Also, much better a news conference than Queervo going to rehab

 

[Gerald Martin]

Jose, A couple responses to some points you made.

I just pointed out that something "smells fishy" with the fact these in-breds in Montana didn't take care of the elk they shot, went back the next day, sat around, made lunch, etc.... Then, suddenly got scared, rode their horses out to the road, then shot wolves from the road.

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.

Sounds like a poacher to me. Hope you don't have kids, as I would guess poaching is one of the more common "hunting" traits passed along

.

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.....

Up to $100,000 fine wolf murder, hope ya have the coin

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.

 

[JoseCuervo]

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.

 

[mhungerford]

i love it Welfare Ranchers in wyoming thats great

 

[WV Hunter]

i love it Welfare Ranchers in wyoming thats great

Jose is actually a Laissez Faire Capitilist..........or maybe he is a socialist........ugh, I can't remember

I do agree with some of his conclusions as it pertains to this story though. I don't have much of a dog in this fight since I don't live in the west but I do have a great interest in hunting the west of which I got to taste this past year with antelope season in Wyoming.

I really hope you guys can come together with a plan to manage the wolves, they are obviously here to stay.

 

[tjones]

Gerald, you are taking ONE wardens word on how a wolf shooting may be handled by the state or Feds? I have heard a different tale from a Montana warden, best be careful about giving advice on how wolf poaching cases will be handled. Some hunter may be in court saying "Gerald Martin said I wouldn't get prosecuted".

Just to be clear the $100,000 is the maximum fine spelled out in the ESA. Some may want to risk the $125 plus $1000.

 

[belly-deep]

Jose, I'm curious as to how the "embellishments" you point out actually affect the situation. Lets go back to the parts of the story that are uncontested and actually matter. A pack of wolves surrounds two men with horses as they try and get an elk out of the mountains. In this case the wolves had to have known humans were present and did not show any fear of them. Regardless of the kind of eyes the horse had, or whether or not God or a .44 mag did the trick, these guys were confronted by aggresive, predatory animals.

 

[Wolf Murder]

Queervo,

I find it interesting that you mentioned nothing in regard to Gerald's post about the hunters handling of the game. Changing your tune on that one? They did nothing wrong - I'd love to see you haul out an elk in the dark with your cool fluffy white coat, shades and bling. No going back the next day - this is wrong huh? You couldn't, and probably have never hauled out an elk yourself, have you? Seriously, why the hell are you sticking up for the wolves, bunny lover.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Jose, I'm curious as to how the "embellishments" you point out actually affect the situation. Lets go back to the parts of the story that are uncontested and actually matter. A pack of wolves surrounds two men with horses as they try and get an elk out of the mountains. In this case the wolves had to have known humans were present and did not show any fear of them. Regardless of the kind of eyes the horse had, or whether or not God or a .44 mag did the trick, these guys were confronted by aggresive, predatory animals.

Belly-Deep, neither of us "knows" how the "embellishments" actually affect the situation. But, it sounds like at least one of the guys seems a bit pre-disposed to hyperbole, exaggeration, paranoia, and imagination. I don't think it is beyond too big of a stretch of imagination that if you put two looney-tune anti-wolf nuts together, mix in a 30-pack of Pabts Blue Ribbon, you could easily fuel their imaginations to be afraid of the big bad wolf to such a degree that the "embellishments" fueled their actions to such a level that any wolf seen would then be "silent" and "violent" (despite never doing anything violent, never touching their elk, never touching them) and a "killer" that required intervention from God to save their lives.


You ever go to the looney-tune anti-wolf websites with all their fake, trumped up fear? The ones describing "flesh eating carnivores" and similar??? The guy's statement sounds like he was borrowing quite a bit of the ridiculous, over the top nonsense from those guys. And to then hold a news conference seems to confirm that "something smells fishy"....

Belly-deep, do you think it was God that saved them or was that a lie/embellishment that the guy put on his statement to the investigator?

 

[belly-deep]

Belly-deep, do you think it was God that saved them or was that a lie/embellishment that the guy put on his statement to the investigator?

neither

I think the game warden decided that the wolves were aggressive enough to pose a threat and gave the guys the benefit of the doubt because they turned themselves in and didn't obliterate the entire pack. Its that simple.

 

[JoseCuervo]

neither

I think the game warden decided that the wolves were aggressive enough to pose a threat and gave the guys the benefit of the doubt because they turned themselves in and didn't obliterate the entire pack. Its that simple.

Huh????

Did I miss something? Where did the game warden decide anything? I thought it was still being investigated?

But, interesting that you don't believe the guy's statement that God saved their lives. Good to see you were able to spot that bullshit, now we just have to decide how much of the rest of the guy's statement that you think is bullshit.

 

[belly-deep]

I don't think it is beyond too big of a stretch of imagination that if you put two looney-tune anti-wolf nuts together, mix in a 30-pack of Pabts Blue Ribbon, you could easily fuel their imaginations to be afraid of the big bad wolf

...and you want to talk about stretching the imagination? I think your imagination is stretching as much as you claim their imagination is.

 

[Drake4]

I don't think it is beyond too big of a stretch of imagination that if you put two looney-tune anti-wolf nuts together, mix in a 30-pack of Pabts Blue Ribbon, you could easily fuel their imaginations to be afraid of the big bad wolf

Tell you what...whether I have had the PBR or not, if they are circling me and my kill, I would definitely be afraid of the big, bad wolf. Shots would be fired without thinking twice.