FirstAlerts

Idaho Hunting Guides Sentenced in Illegal Cougar Hunt Scheme

Two Idaho hunting guides were sentenced to probation and fines after pleading guilty to Lacey Act violations for leading unauthorized mountain lion hunts.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 22, 2026, 8:15 a.m. ET
Developing · checked 1h ago

This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.

We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 22, 2026, 8:39 a.m. ET — checked 1h ago.

Two Idaho hunting guides were on August 19, 2026, in the for their roles in an illegal mountain lion hunting scheme, according to the Spokesman-Review. Chad Kulow and Andrea Major were each to five years of probation. Kulow was ordered to pay a $50,000 fine and $20,000 in restitution, while Major was fined $30,000 and ordered to pay $15,000 in restitution, the Spokesman-Review reported. The government alleged that the guides led hunts for mountain lions without the outfitter's knowledge or permission and used the outfitter's name in mortality reports. The charges included Lacey Act violations and conspiracy to commit a Lacey Act violation, according to the Spokesman-Review. A third individual, Lavoy Eborn, was also named in the case, though the Spokesman-Review did not specify his sentence.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 122 Aug 2026, 12:15current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.