> 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