Government=Incompetence

[Rockhound]

Just another example of what happens when we let government take away rights. Or maybe it's an example that government basically can't do anything well.

http://starbulletin.com/2002/12/29/news/perez.html


Summary: The Hawaiian Department of Land and Natural Resources has confiscated 52 stuffed birds from a collector/dealer and issued him eight citations charging him with killing and stuffing birds considered endangered or extinct even though the birds were killed and stuffed in the late 1800s when the Hawaiian monarchy ruled the islands and U.S. law did not apply and a time where there would be no state regulations for more than a half century later. Yet he now faces an eight-year jail term and a $16,000 fine.

[Harry]

Or maybe...

It should be seen for what it is: a well-intentioned but misguided attempt to protect Hawaii's endangered species.

[Paddyboy1]

So what is the argument in favor of letting this guy sell endangered species? Isnt this exactly how we treat kiddie porn, drugs, elephant ivory, etc.? The problem is that we can't easily determine the date of manufacture and the selling of illegal animals or kiddie porn adds liquidity and strength to the market. Further, the domestic law in the country of manufacture are irrelevant to commerce laws in the U.S.

The law protecting endangered species requires us to give up our rights for the common good, as do lots of laws. We can argue the merits of protecting endangered species by banning game hunting, habitat redevelopment, and commerce wrt them. But it doesnt sound like you're doing that. It sounds like you're saying the law is fine, but we should make an exception for this guy because he's not *directly* harming any animals. But lets say he was selling lots of elephant ivory, and elephants were being slaughtered in africa, although his elephants were long dead. Clearly his operations would encourage the sale of illegal ivory.

I personally am not a member of the dead animal collectors community so I dont know how clear it was to this guy that what he was doing was illegal. I pity (and I think the law should too) those who act illegally without personal knowledge of a victim or the actual law on the books. This guy may be one of those, and as such, he is a pitiful case.

[Griffin 2]

Being well-intentioned means it's okay?

[Paddyboy1]

I'm not saying its OK. I'm saying its consistent with the laws in other areas, which presumably rockhound agrees with. Also, an alternative hasn't been proposed other than "leave this dude alone".

[Griffin 2]

I wasn't asking you.

[Triweasel]

Here's a tip:

When you ask a question with the expectation of an answer from a specific person it's helpful if that person's name appears with your question.

[Griffin 2]

Since Johnny C's message contains no names, it is not at all clear who he has directed it to.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

I think this law is stupid because it is not addressing the issue. KILLING the endangered species is what you want to prevent. That is what should be, and is, illegal. To make things illegal because they merely encourage something you want to prevent it stupid.

That would be like making it illegal to make fast cars because it only encourages people to go faster than the legal limit.

It is typical government stupidity. This is why these people should have as little control over our lives and our money as possible.

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

And to address paddy's point about ivory.

CLEARLY, there is always going to be a legitimate source of ivory. Elephants aren't immortal.

It would be (further) government stupidity to ban the trade in legally obtained ivory just because that creates a market for illegally traded ivory.