Turtle soup anyone?

Peter Kosenko kosenko at netwood.net
Thu Feb 8 03:38:32 PST 2001


Marco Anglesio wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Tony B. wrote:
> > wild over (called for book to be sent over to identify species) was an old
> > turtle shell which they warned the owner could not be taken back to US
> > despite his protestations that it had been purchased years earlier "in" the
> > US.
>
> Consider that there's no "made in" label on a turtle or any means to
> validate the claim the owner made. The claim that something has been
> previously imported or bought in the US is no doubt the most frequent
> excuse of people seeking to bring things into the country, whether in
> violation of import restrictions or merely to avoid paying duty.
>
> Unless there's a way to document the purchase and possession of the turtle
> in the country (for example, a video or photograph of the ship's contents,
> as are made for insurance purposes), then they'd be complete idiots to
> accept the owner's story.

Precisely. Although this is a "little" issue, I like the clear thinking in your explanation of the rationale for the authorities doing what they did. There is so much sloppy logic when right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh, say, get their hands on something like this and treat it as an "example" of how "left wing wackos" are destroying "common sense" (although I have known some who do).

Another issue might be why someone is carrying around a whole turtle shell at sea in the first place. Normally such items are brought in to be processed into things (combs, say, or various kinds of adornments). Someone bringing in a WHOLE turtle shell ought to raise suspicions, and maybe it WAS "old," but not all coast guard personnel can be expected to be experts in turtle forensics.

It may well be that the man was not lying, but the reason for the law is a little larger than the man's personal property rights, and hence if he (and the authorities) can't prove that it isn't contraband, the action was regretable but necessary.

In the original post there were these two issues: (1) the Florida law regarding autopsy and incineration of endangered species, and (2) eating of the turtle killed accidentally.

We can certainly understand why the autopsy. The cause of death was known in this case (a boating accident), but it is not always known, and biologists want to know WHAT is endangering the species. Incineration is probably mandated to discourage "trophy taking" and other forms of "use," not as some "ritual cremation." So the writer's talk of "last rites" may just be hyperbole, although perhaps some kinds of environmentalists WOULD think of it as "last rites."

Eating the turtle doesn't seem especially to have violated the spirit of the law (that endangered species should not be DELIBERATELY killed for use), since the animal died by accident. But it seems to have violated the "no use" letter of it. If I were a judge, I wouldn't toss them in jail for it.

Peter Kosenko


>
> Marco
>
> ,--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> > Marco Anglesio | Optimism is the content <
> > mpa at the-wire.com | of small men in high places. <
> > http://www.the-wire.com/~mpa | --F. Scott Fitzgerald <
> `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'

-- ============================================================= Peter Kosenko Email: mailto:kosenko at netwood.net URL: http://www.netwood.net/~kosenko Netwood Design Center URL: http://ndc.netwood.net/ ============================================================= "Man is a rational animal. He can think up a reason for anything he wants to believe."--Benjamin Franklin



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list