- IdahoStatesman.com
- Blogs
- Bronco Beat
- Murph's Turf
- Varsity Extra
- Idaho Newsreader
- Inside Idaho Business
- Commentary: Kevin Richert
- Your Local Government
- Letters from the West
- Into the Outdoors
- Words & Deeds
- The Beer Nut: Patrick Orr
- What's Online
- Nonprofits
- TechIdaho
- The Cinemaniac
- Idaho Politics: LiCalzi
- Idaho Legislature: Labrador
- Idaho Legislature: Langhorst
- Forums
- Recent Posts
- Content
Gillett prepares for trial on assault charges
Submitted by Rocky Barker on Thu, 08/14/2008 - 10:22am.
Anti-wolf activist Ron Gillett goes to trial Aug. 22 in Challis on charges he assaulted Stanley wolf advocate Lynne Stone.
Gillett has asked for a jury trial on the charges that resulted from a March 26 incident where Stone said Gillett cut her hand as he tried to grab her camera from her. The incident was only the latest of several confrontations Gillett, a Stanley resort owner, had with Stone but it was the first time it had escalated to violence, Stone said.
Gillett’s antipathy of wolf advocates is well known. Here is a YouTube clip of his comments at an anti-wolf rally.
Delicious
Digg
Yahoo»
- Rocky Barker's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I think that his sentence should be
to be put in the same cell with John Marvel for 2 months. The two deserve each other.
I think that his sentence should be
Political_Junkie,
Marvel has nothing to do with this case or Gillett in general. Stone, a woman, was the person Gillett was alleged to assault.
What is the point of your comment?
John Marvel is as big an a** as Gillette
They would have a lot to "talk" about.
I know you'd like to profit from the receipts for the...
"cage match" ;=p
It would be fun to watch, unless they just clinch the whole time!
They would both be curled up in the corner
begging the other one not to hit them again within 20 minutes. Bullies are like that.
Sorry Rocky, this is just as intellectual as this blog post is going to get.
Does he get a makegood?
"Stone said Gillette cut her hand"
Funny that this cut on her hand was not mentioned by her in the May news story (and subsequent comments by Stone to the story.) She first said her arm was sore. Now its a cut on her hand?
Frankly both Stone and Gillette are both nut cases!
CAGE MATCH!!!!
I'd like to Donate My Elk to a Wolf
Gillette attacked a woman and he will do more no doubt. He's the predator.
You could at lest spit some Red Man in that dude's eye!
It could be a close shave.
The Only Good Wolf is a Dead Wolf
.
"Idaho has seen a 70 percent
"Idaho has seen a 70 percent increase in statewide livestock losses compared to last year, [Nadeau] said. And in July and August alone, the number of livestock losses has nearly tripled compared to the same time last year."
source:
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005122274
The only place in Idaho where losses have gone down is in Mz Stone's neighborhood where DoW has paid folks to guard livestock. I doubt this method is going to work for the surrounding areas unless DoW has deep pockets to continue their experiment elsewhere. In the mean time live stock losses are on the increase, and ranchers and animal owners have their hands tied by the injunction.
Its time to stop screwing around in the court room and implement a sound wolf management plan.
Mule,
That is a very confusing - and ultimately meaningless - quote.
In 2007, wolves killed 500 sheep and lambs in Idaho, DOGS killed 600, Coyotes killed 7,200. Total predation was 11,200. So, assume a 70% increase - 350 sheep.....a 0.03% increase in predation. And since wolves kill coyotes, I will guess that total predation will be reduced in 2008.
This is USDA data: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Idaho/Publications/Producers_News/pdf/sheepfeb08.pdf
Wolves contribution to TOTAL livestock predation is very small. Although, I am sure it can be significant to individual operators.
Quote
The quote was taken out of context to save space, and I provided the source for the quote to put it into context. There are some other excellent points made about lone wolves too.
However the point I was trying to make is that the experiment DoW is paying for is working in a small area, but that there is not enough money to implement it state wide.
While we wait for lawyers in court rooms to figure out this mess, the wolves are increasing their numbers, expanding their territory and impacting more people.
Interesting info at this site:
http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf/population.html
page down to see a map (click to enlarge) of wolf packs in the Northern Rockies.
Mule,
Yes, I agree with you that the efforts in the Wood River Valley are not likely to be replicated elsewhere. But they could, perhaps on a more modest scale.
However, I would challenge the impacts you refer to. Simply because in terms of total livestock predation the contribution from wolves is very, very small......wolf predation is roughly equivilent to domestic dog predation. I am refering to TOTAL wolf predation numbers. To an individual livestock owner, I am sure that the impacts can and sometimes are substantial. But the answer is to assist & compensate the affected operators, but also to require them to take reasonable efforts, especially those using the people's (public) lands. I found it very interesting to look at the USDA's predation statistics. They left me wondering what the fuss was all about. And I wondered if predation was being REDUCED by the wolves killing of coyotes.
The States - especially Wyoming - have only themselves to blame by not coming up with reasonable management plans. The stories of "hunters" chasing down wolves in snowmobiles and the killing of lactating females did not help the State's cause. And guys like Gillette and "save our elk" were no help either.....spouting venom & demonstrable nonsense.
PS Mule,
The Montana website you gave us the link to is also interesting. Thanks.
Not a rancher
I agree with you that the anti wolf folks have not helped portray any common sense in regards to this issue. But then again, we feel rather overwhelmed by the pro wolf group as well.
Ranching is a risky business - the honorable business of feeding our country. Losses not covered by DoW are an impact (and many wolf losses are not documented as such.) There are several sides of this issue, not just the pro and anti. Not all ranchers are large enough to absorb more then "normal" losses. Small ranchers are hurt more by losses due to an unmanaged predator that adds to the total losses overall. Sometimes enough to tip the balance books, and oops! there goes another ranch on its way to becoming a subdivision.
Prime habitat for wolves has become saturated in Idaho. They have been restored successfully. We are caught in the middle between the pro side (and I agree wolves need to occupy their niche in the wilderness) and the anti side that want them all gone. In the mean time while both sides argue this out, wolves continue to move into the wildland urban interface, and habituation and conflicts happen more often. Losses by non-ranchers are not counted as livestock losses. So losses to wolf predation numbers are skewed in my humble opinion.
I may be biased, we live in wolf country and feel I come by this bias honestly as we have been impacted by wolves and we know of others in our area that have lost animals to wolves, none of which made newspaper headlines or were put in the books. How do you put a price on a family pet anyway? How much more of our state will become wolf territory before we start managing them like other large predators?
PS - Back to the original story: I find it interesting that its a hung jury and the prosecutor is thinking of dropping it.
Final Thought, Mule
I am sure you come by your bias honestly and I am sure some ranchers are feeling financial pain from wolves. But, I am trying to look at this dispassionately (in as much as that is possible and I know it isn't) and when I look at DATA rather than anectdote I find minor predation by wolves (minor compared to other predators, and trivial compared to other things that kill stock - weather, disease, etc.) and robust ungulate populations in all three wolf states. What other way is there to make a scientific decision other than to rely on data?
The states are the ones that wrote the management plans and they were lousy - especially in Wyo and Idaho's was not very good. They had the opportunity to write plans that would test & evaluate the effect of wolves on elk populations and to concentrate wolf hunting in areas where wolves presented the bigger problems and to allow for healthy, sustainable populations. The states failed and clowns like Ron Gillette contributed to the anti wolf hysteria and just plain nonsense. I have no idea whether Gillette was guilty of assault. I do know he is guilty of assault to common sense and civil discourse.
I would hate to lose a pet...for any reason. When I lived on the "urban wildland interface", I considered it my responsibility to be a accountable pet owner and citizen: keep my pets in at night, secure my garbage, no outside feeding, etc. I also kept a defensible perimeter for fire. I did not think it was the responsibility of the state to protect me from things that were wild - predators, fire. I moved there: I took responsibility.
Data
I think that is some of the problem. We lack sufficient data to know what is really going on. Its impossible to count how many wolves there are, and many losses do not get documented.
I agree its our responsibility to keep our animals safe (and practice firewise). However, its not practical to keep horses and mules in the house. Doctoring a horse run into a fence is not a pretty thing to go thru. When there is a ruckus in the yard, we have to decide, do we let the dogs out to do their job running off a bear, fox or bob cat? - or keep them in so we don't risk their lives if the "invaders" happen to be wolves? So far we have been lucky. However this advice does no good for the family camped in the woods. Do we tell people they can't camp in tents or bring their animals to enjoy our forests? Folks camped less then 1/2 a mile from our home lost animals to wolves last year. Sure we may have a slight increase in tourism to view wolves, but I think that in the long run, unmanaged numbers of wolves will hurt the economy.
Right now we do not have the legal means to protect our animals - thanks to the injunction - our hands are tied.
Sic em Mule
Wolves definitely push coyotes around, but I wouldn't give them credit for reducing predation.
And there's another thing about the dogs and coyotes that is different for wolves. We catch dogs and coyotes eating on livestock or pets, the sound of freedom rings ever so briefly.