Justice is a dish best served at a chinese Buffet?

[MTpubliclander]

Hopefully this works but i have never posted a link before but if it doesnt work check out the Helena Montana Independent Record website for this article on a bear poaching conviction here in MT! Wonder how they heard about this? Hunters who know the law.

http://helenair.com/news/local/buck...cle_36986eca-5667-11e3-aafd-0019bb2963f4.html

Its nice to see justice served even if they are not punished as throughly as they could be.

 

[belly-deep]

Who cares if they want to eat nasty bear parts?

I'm just going to throw the gall bladders and the paws away. How is selling them to some Asians different than selling the cape off an elk or deer to a taxidermist?

 

[jryoung]

The margin on gall's is absurd, which is why it is an issue, it's nowhere close to selling a hide to a taxidermist....which is illegal in CA. We have a lot of issues with galls here in CA given our high populations of Asians who seek them out and pay top dollar.

 

[mtlion]

Who cares if they want to eat nasty bear parts?

I'm just going to throw the gall bladders and the paws away. How is selling them to some Asians different than selling the cape off an elk or deer to a taxidermist?

The problem is the $$$ they are willing to pay. It is high enough to make poaching bears for gall bladders worth the risk of getting caught. I imagine if deer and elk capes could be sold for thousands we'd have the same problem.

 

[smalls]

Would the market for gall bladders be so high if selling them out of bears was a normal practice? Would the normal harvest of bears satisfy the demand for paws and gall bladders?

Is it different than people who shoot giant bucks or bulls and sell the headgear for enormous sums of money?

 

[shoots-straight]

Who cares if they want to eat nasty bear parts?

I'm just going to throw the gall bladders and the paws away. How is selling them to some Asians different than selling the cape off an elk or deer to a taxidermist?

There is a big difference here. The caps and horns off deer and elk usually have to go to a taxidermist or tannery. Both those places keep pretty strict records of who, and what. The Wardens routinely check those records for signs of bad things.

I really don't have a major problem with legally harvested game being sold if those parts are recorded somewhere and have the proper papers to do so. There has to be a paper trail for these parts, or we are promoting poaching.

It's a very slippery slope. I'm not entirely comfortable with.

There could be a whole new business picking up road kill for salvage which would help out tax payers that have to deal all those animals. Some could be salvaged and sold with proper permits.

 

[noharleyyet]

"So here's how we play it men, agent Smart, you wear your best mossy oak and order lo mein with a side of gall bladder......."

 

[belly-deep]

The margin on gall's is absurd, which is why it is an issue, it's nowhere close to selling a hide to a taxidermist....which is illegal in CA. We have a lot of issues with galls here in CA given our high populations of Asians who seek them out and pay top dollar.

Ok, how about heads then? I can shoot (in theory, of course) a bighorn ram, 240" mule deer, or a 400" bull and sell the head. Those go for thousands. Why isn't their sale banned?

 

[wyoming556]

Would the market for gall bladders be so high if selling them out of bears was a normal practice? Would the normal harvest of bears satisfy the demand for paws and gall bladders?

Is it different than people who shoot giant bucks or bulls and sell the headgear for enormous sums of money?

+1. Now we are deciding which parts can be sold. What about elk ivories? Should those be banned because they bring a high price. Bobcat pelts, they bring a huge price? Grizzly claws? Antler chandeliers? Deer hoof gun racks?

I don't' see how you can distinguish which parts can be sold and which can't. Almost seems like these guys are being targeted because they buy different parts.

 

[Walkitoff]

The restriction on selling gall bladders and other bear parts likely has some connection to the available market, which drives the demand. There are millions of willing buyers domestically and internationally for gall bladders and other bear parts. By comparison, the market for trophy mounts is small, limited to knuckle heads like us who value such things. If the size of the market were large enough to incentivize poaching and selling mounts, the restrictions would be stiffer.

Additionally, the target for a violator seeking to poach and sell a trophy animal is less attainable. There are fewer trophy big game animals then there are black bears. Not every elk, mule deer, or sheep is a trophy. Every bear carries a gall bladder and walks with paws. Further, the poacher has to work much harder (both physically and intellectually) to successfully hunt trophy animals. The difficulty of success in trophy game poaching increases the cost to the scoff law, decreasing his or her return, lessening the incentive to poach that animal.

In short, the policy behind greater protection for bears is probably that there's a larger market for black bear parts, creating a price premium, and they are more available and easier to poach than trophy animals. Return on investment and relative ease of access to the asset makes the bear more appealing than other animals, and so they require greater protections.

 

[MTpubliclander]

Ok, how about heads then? I can shoot (in theory, of course) a bighorn ram, 240" mule deer, or a 400" bull and sell the head. Those go for thousands. Why isn't their sale banned?

So, the sale of certain bear parts is banned in the U.S. to protect our black bear populations and allow thier harvest to be stictly for ethical hunting purposes. These laws have helped to protect our bear populations over the past hundred years. If you read the article you will see the individual has been cited 4 seperate times, do you think he would do this if he was not making a profit? In responce to your comment, the sale of any illeagally taken animal trophy or not, is prohibited. If the animal is taken legally it is legal to sell, (in some states).
The sale of certain parts are prohibited just as the sale of meat of game animals is prohibited, to make sure that our wildlife that we as hunters have worked so hard to maintain and protect are not killed for personal profit of an indiviual. I really do hate to see uncaring individuals of our hunting community because just as with any other crime, if you do not report it, you are just as guilty as those who commit the crime.
It is our ethical responcibility as hunters to know the laws associated with the species we are pursuing. I belive that in this case justice was served and this is only a tiny fraction of the black market for the illegal sale of bear parts, if we wish to maintain the viability of our wildlife resources then we must punish those who do not follow the laws because it is people like these who give hunters a bad name to the general public.

 

[belly-deep]

Sorry, I guess I don't see much of a difference other than the fact that bureaucrats decided to criminalize one and not the other for a seemingly arbitrary reason.

 

[mtlion]

Sorry, I guess I don't see much of a difference other than the fact that bureaucrats decided to criminalize one and not the other for a seemingly arbitrary reason.

It was not an arbitrary reason. With bears worldwide diminishing in numbers, focus has turned to our large populations of wild NA bears for bear parts. Do a little research on it, gall bladders can sell for thousands. May not be a huge problem in the west but bears in heavily populated eastern and west cost states have a very large price on their heads.

I have an idea...How about backwards superstitious Chinese voodoo believing idiots join us in the real world where bear gall bladder doesn't make your Wang hard (now that's a pun ) and has a value of $0.

 

[belly-deep]

May not be a huge problem in the west but bears in heavily populated eastern and west cost states have a very large price on their heads.

So you admit MT doesn't need the law then?

 

[Topgun 30-06]

So you admit MT doesn't need the law then?

We're talking federal laws here and interstate transport of illegal parts that will even leave the country because of the huge prices the parts bring. You need to study this issue and I would hope that you'll change your tune!

 

[belly-deep]

We're talking federal laws here and interstate transport of illegal parts that will even leave the country because of the huge prices the parts bring. You need to study this issue and I would hope that you'll change your tune!

They were charged under state law, not federal.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

They were charged under state law, not federal.

***I'm not talking about this particular case, which if you didn't notice, also involved US Postal Service and USFWS Federal Investigators. I'm talking about the overall illegal buying and selling of illegal animal parts all over the country and globe.

 

[belly-deep]

***I'm not talking about this particular case, which if you didn't notice, also involved US Postal Service and USFWS Federal Investigators. I'm talking about the overall illegal buying and selling of illegal animal parts all over the country and globe.

I did notice but the discussion is about state law. If you have a valid point to make I'm all ears. But don't throw the illegal ivory trade into this to make yourself look like you're winning the debate.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I did notice but the discussion is about state law. If you have a valid point to make I'm all ears. But don't throw the illegal ivory trade into this to make yourself look like you're winning the debate.

***Who said this thread is strictly about state law? You must not be reading the posts carefully because we're talking about illegal bear parts being sold and transported across various state lines, which is not only a violation of most state laws, but even more so a Federal violation. Thus the reason for involving Federal authorities from the Postal Service and the USFWS in that Montana investigation that started this thread! The investigation probably involved them because there was a suspicion that the parts were not just from bears killed in Montana.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The violations were state related due to the trafficing in certain parts considered edible. As we all know, it is illegal to sell wild game based on our past history of market hunting. The paws are considered a delicacy by some. When the couple asked to purchase the organs, they were soliciting the purchase of wild game., that's a state offence. If those parts were to have traveled to other locations, then it would be a Lacey Act violation, IIRC. Since tjere was no interstate travel, it remained a state case.

Taxidermied heads are different as noted. Once you reduce the animal to your posession, you own it. The law is clear that you can sell the antlers, horns, etc but may not sell the meat or organs of game you harvested. When people poach critters just for the head, then FWP or any other agency will pop them and male their life moserable, like they did with the kids on the Blackfeet reservation who were poaching outsode of Depuyer a few years ago.

I don't see this case as being inconsistent with the allowance for selling antlers, mounts, etc. the Mount has alteady been recorded by the taxidermist, and if the animal was illegally taken then 8 times out of 10, it gets reported.

Antlers & mounts are treated differently under law than organs & meat.