White Cloud Outfitters

[wintersoldia]

Breaking the law is breaking the law there are no gray areas.

 

[mike.adams.467]

USA v. Farr et al (4:24-cr-00061), Idaho District Court

USA v. Farr et al (4:24-cr-00061), Idaho District Court, Filed: 02/27/2024

www.pacermonitor.com

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

Looks like it will cost me fifty bucks to read the docs.

 

[sneaky]

Looks like it will cost me fifty bucks to read the docs.

Negative. You can register for a free PACER account on the us.gov site. Costs ten cents a page to read the case documents, billed quarterly. If you don't exceed $30 a quarter the fees are waived

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[westernarcher]

Anybody have any interactions, or hunted around these 2 guys?

 

[SDHNTR]

I don’t know the back story but sounds like bureaucratic BS to me. I’m usually the first one to say throw the book at poachers, especially guides who poach, but this is a jurisdictional matter, not poaching. No animals were killed out of season, or killed only for trophy purposes, or baited where baiting is banned, or used aerial surveillance, etc. This is all just federal over complication of rules that don’t need to be this complicated. This sounds like a potential paper pushing offense, not an egregious wildlife violation. I don’t understand how the Lacey act is relevant in this case. Isn’t that an interstate commerce provision prohibiting sale of illegally taken animals? I don’t see any of that here.

 

[westernarcher]

They guided these 2 different hunts outside of their designated areas. Even after asking permission, and been denied, they still did the hunt. Took money for the hunts. Falsified the reports to the state. How blatant and above the law they have become.
Lotta lines being crossed here intentionally. For what? Money? Notoriety?
I’ve hunted around these guys for over 25 years. Never had issues until the last 10 years. Things started changing. I won’t get specific. Then this pops up. Makes a person wonder how many more crooked dealings in the backcountry went on.

 

[SDHNTR]

Guess I don’t understand this designated area stuff. If a guide is licensed in the state of Idaho and has National Forest/BLM permits, can’t they then operate anywhere in the state?

 

[downthepipe]

It sounds to me like it was a special designation area within or adjacent to the area that Mike was allowed to outfit/guide in and did so when he owned the business. When he sold the business to Farr, the question seems to be did that special area get sold with the business or not. And if it did not, did neither of them, one of them, or both of them know it didn’t but guide there anyway. I agree with the poster above that it could be beurocratic stuff. But it could also be that one or both knew there was an issue but did it anyway. Contrary to what a prior poster said there could be gray area. They are both represented by the same attorney and in America we are not guilty until it’s proven.

 

[downthepipe]

Guess I don’t understand this designated area stuff. If a guide is licensed in the state of Idaho and has National Forest/BLM permits, can’t they then operate anywhere in the state?

A guide could, but a guide is hired by a licensed outfitter who is designated to a specific area (we’re talking public land operators).

In this case there is a question about the operating permits from the forest service. This is not Fish and Game going after them.

 

[westernarcher]

In Idaho an outfitter is permitted to guide hunters in their designated areas. Very specific boundaries. No grey areas.

 

[Idaboy]

In Idaho an outfitter is permitted to guide hunters in their designated areas. Very specific boundaries. No grey areas.

^^^this is correct...it's a big deal about the area they submit/request/get permitted for...they basically get exclusive rights to an area, and there are very few, if any, overlap between outfitters. So to run an operation outside of your assigned area is blatant disregard for the rules. They deserve their day in court, but based on the indictment and other reports on this sounds like a big problem/illegal activity.

 

[SDHNTR]

A guide could, but a guide is hired by a licensed outfitter who is designated to a specific area (we’re talking public land operators).

In this case there is a question about the operating permits from the forest service. This is not Fish and Game going after them.

I see. Jurisdictional BS.

 

[SDHNTR]

In Idaho an outfitter is permitted to guide hunters in their designated areas. Very specific boundaries. No grey areas.

Interesting. Surprised this hasn’t been challenged in court. It’s all federal land, a permit should be a permit, and wildlife are the wards of the state, and this is all in Idaho, so why’s it matter?

I get rules are rules and outfitters need to follow them, but these rules just don’t seem logical.

 

[sneaky]

I don’t know the back story but sounds like bureaucratic BS to me. I’m usually the first one to say throw the book at poachers, especially guides who poach, but this is a jurisdictional matter, not poaching. No animals were killed out of season, or killed only for trophy purposes, or baited where baiting is banned, or used aerial surveillance, etc. This is all just federal over complication of rules that don’t need to be this complicated. This sounds like a potential paper pushing offense, not an egregious wildlife violation. I don’t understand how the Lacey act is relevant in this case. Isn’t that an interstate commerce provision prohibiting sale of illegally taken animals? I don’t see any of that here.

It's apparent you have read NOTHING on this case. They took sheep hunters into an area that is CLOSED to outfitting... on four occasions, then failed to disclose those hunts on their annual reports. This area is in a unit that they aren't even licensed to guide anything, completely out of their concession. Keep talking.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[SDHNTR]

^^^this is correct...it's a big deal about the area they submit/request/get permitted for...they basically get exclusive rights to an area, and there are very few, if any, overlap between outfitters. So to run an operation outside of your assigned area is blatant disregard for the rules. They deserve their day in court, but based on the indictment and other reports on this sounds like a big problem/illegal activity.

So how then do they determine who gets what areas? Some units are obviously better than others. This policy just seems to foster unfairness. One outfitter who’s drinking buddies with the regional NF supervisor gonna get the best access?

I don’t like the idea of a bunch of outfitters crowded into one area, but otoh, it’s public land right? It’s supposed to be equal access for all. And aren’t we talking about BHS here? With just a handful of tags anyway? Why the fuss?

 

[sneaky]

Guess I don’t understand this designated area stuff. If a guide is licensed in the state of Idaho and has National Forest/BLM permits, can’t they then operate anywhere in the state?

Nope. They have assigned areas, and they have to pay for them.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[SDHNTR]

It's apparent you have read NOTHING on this case. They took sheep hunters into an area that is CLOSED to outfitting... on four occasions, then failed to disclose those hunts on their annual reports. This area is in a unit that they aren't even licensed to guide anything, completely out of their concession. Keep talking.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

Haha. Tough guy.

I got no dog in this fight. It just doesn’t make sense to me. I’m not supporting the guy. Sounds like he broke some rules. It just seems the rules are lame to begin with.

 

[sneaky]

It sounds to me like it was a special designation area within or adjacent to the area that Mike was allowed to outfit/guide in and did so when he owned the business. When he sold the business to Farr, the question seems to be did that special area get sold with the business or not. And if it did not, did neither of them, one of them, or both of them know it didn’t but guide there anyway. I agree with the poster above that it could be beurocratic stuff. But it could also be that one or both knew there was an issue but did it anyway. Contrary to what a prior poster said there could be gray area. They are both represented by the same attorney and in America we are not guilty until it’s proven.

Actually they have different attorneys and are being tried in separate cases. It wasn't a special area they didn't reapply for. It's an area completely closed to guiding in. DIY hunters can hunt it, but not guided hunts. They knew this, because they tried to get permission on multiple occasions, and were denied. They knew exactly what they were doing, lied about it, and were nailed with InReach messages to each other with locations attached that were in the middle of the closed area for outfitting. Not even in the same Zone they are licensed in, not the unit, but the wrong ZONE. Farr isn't even going to fight it from what I've heard, they have all the evidence they need to prove guilt.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Haha. Tough guy.

I got no dog in this fight. It just doesn’t make sense to me. I’m not supporting the guy. Sounds like he broke some rules. It just seems the rules are lame to begin with.

2 Challis men indicted for big game hunt violations

Two Challis men were indicted Feb. 27 by a federal grand jury for multiple alleged offenses related to guided commercial big game hunts.

www.postregister.com

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

So how then do they determine who gets what areas? Some units are obviously better than others. This policy just seems to foster unfairness. One outfitter who’s drinking buddies with the regional NF supervisor gonna get the best access?

I don’t like the idea of a bunch of outfitters crowded into one area, but otoh, it’s public land right? It’s supposed to be equal access for all. And aren’t we talking about BHS here? With just a handful of tags anyway? Why the fuss?

Areas only go up for sale if an outfitter retires,or decides to sell his concession. It isn't a good ol boy network, most of these outfitters have been guiding the same area for decades. They know where their boundaries are.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk