next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Complacency seems to be the way but I&#39;ve see
Hi Randy and All
Most cases like the gannet are as a result of former
encounters with wildlife folks where the wildlife
people knew illegal activities were taking place but
couldn't prove it. A dead gannet is all the proof they
need.
One fellow I know got in serious trouble over a
coromant which he shot. He had a reputation of
shooting anything that flew so had the vacuum cleaner
taken to his wallet. He has since taken up poker as a
sport. Doesn't cost as much.
Often times if found with something illegal the
officer will say - I am going to turn around and when
I turn back I don't want to see any gannet - the guy
learns his lesson and we all save the costs of trials,
lawyers, judges and so on.
Have a nice spring
Paul
--- Randy Lauff <randy.lauff@gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting that someone would be charged for the
> possession of a dead
> Gannet...I wonder what they were going to do with
> it. I'm glad the
> enforcement folks are taking this seriously though.
>
> However, it has always been my experience that
> "letter of the law" and
> "meaning of the law" in this case can be radically
> different. If someone
> finds a window-killed bird, the letter of the law
> says they cannot pick it
> up. I suspect no authority would charge you for
> picking it up with the
> intention of disposing of it. A lot of people keep
> window kill for me (and
> perhaps other curators as well), and if enforcement
> officers happen to find
> "the stash", a simple call to me would confirm the
> intent, which I believe
> is of utmost importance in prosecution. So, this
> means if you are keeping a
> condor/cod/cougar in your freezers for a recognized
> collection, let the
> curator know that you've got it.
>
> And for those that do do this...thank you. Future
> artists, authors,
> historians, law enforcement folk and yes, even
> biologists, will be able to
> be inspired or educated by your contribution.
>
> Randy
> St. Francis Xavier University, Biology
>
>
> On 05/06/07, Tom Kavanaugh
> <terri.crane@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Terri
> Crane<terri.crane@ns.sympatico.ca>
> > *To:* naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:12 PM
> > *Subject:* Fw: please spell check
> >
> >
> > Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 09:04:48 -0300
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Dorthy and all.
> >
> >
> > Please note that the posession of any wildlife
> requires obtaining a
> > special permit. Randy, Andrew, and other
> organizations reps have a Blanket
> > permit wich alows them to colect, obtain, and
> retain speciments for
> > studies/colections. By law your not even alowed to
> posess a "non harvestable
> > wildlife species" for any period of time without
> the proper papers. This
> > also gos for some "harvestable wildlife" (deer,
> moose.....) outside the
> > permiters of time as stated on the harvesting
> permits.
> >
> > Remember the laws for the protection of wildlife
> (species at risk,
> > whales, birds of prey, song birds........) while
> they're alive,
> > still protects them after their death.
> >
> > Complacency seems to be the way but I've seen it
> from the other side also
> > being present while a freind was charged for
> possesion of a non harvisitable
> > species ( a Northern Gannet that washed ashore).
> >
> > Ignorance is not a defence and the consaquences
> can be harsh.
> >
> > Tom K
> > Canso
> >
> >
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects