St. Maries Family Indicted for Killing Four Mountain Lions, Eight Bobcats

A Kootenai County grand jury returned an indictment in August charging Eddy A. Dills, his wife Angela Y. Dills and their adult son Daniel D. Dills with felony conspiracies tied to the unlawful killing and sale of wildlife and concealing evidence. Court records allege the defendants killed four mountain lions and eight bobcats between May 2024 and February 2025 across Kootenai, Shoshone, Benewah and Latah counties.

The indictment lists three felony conspiracy counts: conspiracy to commit unlawful killing of wildlife, conspiracy to sell unlawfully killed wildlife and conspiracy to conceal evidence. Prosecutors allege the family used hunting dogs to tree a mountain lion near Cemetery Ridge, south of Wallace, and to hunt another mountain lion near Leiberg Creek, and that dogs were used to hunt near bobcat traps and near the Coeur d’Alene River. The hunting licenses of Eddy Dills, 65, and Daniel Dills, 22, were revoked during the period covered by the indictment.

The case remains before First District Court. Defense attorneys filed three separate motions to sever the charges and seek separate trials, arguing juror confusion from voluminous, overlapping evidence and that Angela Dills could be prejudiced by association with family members who have prior illegal-hunting convictions. First District Judge John Cafferty denied all three motions, reasoning that the evidence was not so prejudicial or overlapping as to confuse jurors. “The court does not find the evidence is so prejudicial and overlapping that it will confuse the jury,” he said. A four-day jury trial is listed to begin Feb. 17; court filings reviewed for this report did not specify the year for that date.

The allegations, if proven, touch on issues familiar across North Idaho: the management of predator species, the line between legal hunting and poaching, and the role of hunting dogs and traplines in rural wildlife practices. Killing multiple mountain lions and bobcats in multiple counties draws scrutiny from both wildlife managers and rural residents who rely on hunting and trapping for subsistence, sport or income. Revocation of hunting privileges for two defendants underscores administrative enforcement actions that can accompany criminal investigations.

For Kootenai County residents, the case underscores how wildlife enforcement intersects with criminal procedure. The court’s move to keep the defendants jointly tried could concentrate evidence and testimony but also raises questions about how jurors will weigh the actions of three family members together. The next major public milestone is the scheduled trial start; interested parties can follow the First District Court docket and statements from Idaho wildlife authorities for updates on license status, agency enforcement and any public records released in the interim.