CRIMES AGAINST THE WILD: POACHING IN CALIFORNIA

by

KEVIN HANSEN

and the

MOUNTAIN LION FOUNDATION

JULY 1994

Mountain Lion Foundation, P.O. Box 1896, Sacramento, CA 95812 (916) 442-2666 Foreword by Mark J. Palmer iii Acknowledgments iv Methods v

SECTION I- The Crime of Poaching 1 Poaching Defined 3 Who Poaches? 3 Profile of a Noncommercial Poacher 4 Ethnic Factors in Poaching 5 Why Poach? 6 Noncommercial Poaching 6 Commercial Poaching 7 How Poachers Poach 11 Noncommercial Poaching 11 Commercial Poaching 12 Impacts of Poaching 13 Public Perception of Poaching 17

SECTION II - Wildlife Law Enforcement 21 \Vildlife Laws and Regulations 21 State Laws 21 Federal Laws 23 Law Enforcement Agencies 26 To Catch a Poacher 28 Undercover Operations 32 To Convict a Poacher 34 Ominous Trends in Poaching Enforcement 38 A Final Note 42

SECTION III - Recommendations 44 Legislation 44 Law Enforcement 48 Education 49 Public Education 49 Education of Judges and Prosecutors 50 Research 51

Bibliography 53 n 1986, the Mountain Lion Founda­ Foundation since 1990 has been to imple­ tion was formed by a group of dedi­ ment Proposition 117, which in the first three cated conservationists. Since the years has already led to acquisition of over 1960s, a group of individuals and or­ 128,000 acres of wildlife habitat and enhance­ ganizations in California called the ment of over 870 miles of streams and riv­ Mountain Lion Coalition had been protect­ ers. Proposition 117 also addressed the ing mountain lions from exploitation. While poaching threat in part, raising maximum the Mountain Lion Coalition was successful fines for illegal killing of mountain lions from in banning bounties on mountain lions (1963) $1,000 to $10,000. and securing a moratorium on trophy hunt­ With the passage of Proposition 117, the ing (1971), the opposition of Governor Mountain Lion Foundation itself began to George Deukmejian to mountain lion pro­ change. We realized that one cannot talk tection, orchestrated by the National Rifle As­ about saving mountain lions and their habi­ sociation and the Gun Owners of California, tat without talking about saving other wild­ led to a veto of protective legislation in 1985, life as well. A mountain lion poacher will just setting the stage for a potential hunt of moun­ as often take a bear or deer as a lion. A shop­ tain lions for the first time in 15 years. ping mall development in wildlife habitat is The newly formed Mountain Lion Foun­ just as devastating to other plants and ani­ dation, in those first years, focused on stop­ mals as to mountain lions. ping the trophy hunt through grassroots or­ The Mountain Lion Foundation has be­ ganizing and lawsuits. But other threats to come a diverse wildlife organization. We mountain lions and wildlife were not ig­ work on habitat protection, poaching issues, nored. In 1990, voters passed PropOSition endangered species, funding of wildlife pro­ 117, the California Wildlife Protection Act grams, and general wildlife policy issues. We (more popularly known as the 010untain have not abandoned the mountain lion. We Lion Initiative) Proposition 117, which was have rather broadened our focus to address developed by the Mountain Lion Founda­ the underlying problems all wildlife, includ­ tion, Planning and Conservation League, and ing mountain lions, face in the fight for sur­ many other conservation and animal organi­ vival. zations, banned trophy hunting ofmountain This report on poaching in California is lions permanently in California. But it went the first phase of a three-year Anti-Poach­ further. ing Campaign to develop research, educa­ The most serious threat to mountain li­ tion, law enforcement, and legislative pro­ ons in California, and indeed to all wildlife, grams to fight against the illegal killing of is habitat loss. PropOSition 117 also required wildlife in our state. We expect our Anti­ the state legislature to expend at least $30 Poaching Campaign to be a model for other million annually in special environmental states, as well as a blueprint for action on funds to protect wildlife habitat, including any important wildlife conservation topic. deer and mountain lion habitat, oak forests, wetlands, streamside (riparian) habitat, and Mark J. Palmer habitat for endangered and threatened spe­ Executive Director cies. A major goal of the Mountain Lion Mountain Lion Foundation

III his report was a collaborative state and federal agencies throughout Cali­ effort. A special thank you to fornia were consistently gracious in return­ Gabrielle Meindl, Policy Ana­ ing telephone calls, answering endless ques­ lyst for the Mountain Lion tions, and filling many requests for facts and Foundation, for her skill at re­ figures. Protecting California's wildlife heri­ search, her talent for interviewing, and her tage is a difficult task. My gratitude to them tenacity in tracking down facts. Her sugges­ all. tions and advice improved the report immea­ Financial support for Crimes Against the surably. My gratitude to Mark J. Palmer, Ex­ Wild: Poaching in California and the Anti-Poach­ ecutive Director of the Mountain Lion Foun­ ing Campaign of the Mountain Lion Foun­ dation, for being patient but insistent about dation was provided by The Roberts Foun­ deadlines. I would never have survived such dation, The Summerlee Foundation, The a projectwithout the support of my co-work­ Threshold Foundation, The True North ers at the Mountain Lion Foundation: Foundation, several anonymous foundations, Carsynn Costa, Jennifer Williams, and Shan­ and major donors and friends of the Moun­ non Eddy. Thanks for tolerating my closed tain Lion Foundation. We gratefully thank door. these foundations and individuals for their Wardens, special agents, biologists, pros­ support of our work to protect wildlife and ecutors, judges, and wildlife officials from fight poaching.

IV n wntmg Crimes Against the Wild: life officials from state and federal agencies, Poaching in California we drew upon as well as university professors and research­ several sources of information, the first ers. While most individuals we interviewed being books, journals, newspa­ were forthright in providing information and pers, reports, documents, magazines, opinions on poaching, many requested that theses, and monographs, representing law they not be quoted for attribution. For this enforcement, criminological, sociological, reason we chose to keep all informants and wildlife management literature. The sec­ anonymous. ond source was interviews with wildlife and We have endeavored to be as thorough as legal professionals from throughout Califor­ time and resources allowed. There has been nia, as well as other western states. Besides little critical study of poaching in California innumerable telephone conversations, we or elsewhere. Therefore our report is based visited them in their offices, laboratories, upon opinions of knowledgeable individu­ homes, and outdoors in the field. They were als working in the wildlife law enforcement very generous with their time and ideas. They arena. We think these informed opinions are included wardens, special agents, park rang­ very important and stand by our recommen­ ers, biologists, prosecutors, judges, and wild- dations.

v SECTION I

THE CRI.ME OF BOACHING

alifornia's wildlife is being of an equal weighrofgold or cocaine.) The slaughtered on an alarming paws will fetch $30 to $100 each as a gour­ scale by a new breed of crimi­ met delicacy. A bear paw meal could cost nal who kills wild animals il­ $400 in some Asian countries. legally for money- the com­ mercial poacher. The image of a poacher as a e In 1989, wardens arrested two men as they poor, uneducated man just trying to put meat pulled their boatinto Sausalito harbor with on the table is outdated. No longer Simply a huge haul of 600 abalone. The confis­ an occasional deer killed outside the legal cated mollusks had a wholesale value of hunting season or catching a couple of fish atleast$10,500, double that atretail. Con­ over the legal limit, the age of large-scale com­ sumers may pay as much as $32 to $37 a mercial poaching has arrived. pound, making it the costliest seafood on While more traditional forms of poaching the market. Some abalone poachers boast persist, killing wildlife for monetary gain has openly of pulling down $20,000 in a good taken the carnage to a new level and poses a month (Castle 1989). The mollusk must significant threat to our state's wildlife heri­ also contend with natural predation, dis­ tage. Skilled, organized, and well-equipped ease, legitimate commercial and sport har­ teams of poachers are decimating California's vest, and pollution. Meanwhile, abalone wildlife and reaping obscene profits in the populations are in precipitous decline in process. The California Department of Fish central and southern California (Karpov and Game (DFG) conservatively estimates 1990). that commercial poaching in the state is a $100,000,000 a year business and is now the • In 1980, the Department of Fish and Game second greatest threat to our wildlife after habi­ reported that 32,377 deer were killed le­ tat destruction. gally in the state and an estimated 75,000 were poached (Sheehan 1981a, 1981 b). The variety and scope of the killing are Many of the illegal kills are for the sale of staggering: the meat, hides, and horns. DFG also esti­ mates that in excess of 1,000 deer valued • Black bears in northern California's moun­ at $32,500 are taker. and illegally sold an­ tains are tracked relentlessly by packs of nually in southern California. The estimate trained hounds, run up trees, and shot at is based upon known commercial opera­ pOint-blank range. Their gall bladders are tions and arrests. Similar statistics are then cut out and paws severed. The gall found throughout the rest of the state. bladders will bring $5,600 an OUl1ce in the Studies show that wardens made arrests apothecary markets of Korea or China as in only one percent of the illegal deer vio­ a medicinal curative. (More than the cost lations and that only two percent of the

1 illegal activities were even reported to DFG such as the California Department of Fish and (CDFG 1986). Game. However, modern commercial poaching

It In the San Francisco Bay and Sacramentol differs from market hunting in a number of San Joaquin Delta areas, poachers take significant ways: 1) the scope of the killing is enormous numbers of striped bass using far greater, involving many more species; 2) illegal gill nets and set lines. One year the foreign markets provide a new and larger illegal catch was estimated at 50,000 fish demand for California wildlife; 3) new tech­ - a number which matched the sport nology allows the commercial poacher to catch. Arrests were made of individuals find, kill, process, and hide wildlife more ef­ who had taken up to 1,200 pounds of ille­ ficiently than ever; 4) commercial poachers gal striped bass in one night's fishing are criminals frequently involved in other (CDFG 1986). With the fish going for as types of crime; and 5) commercial poaching much as $3.75 per pound at a store or res­ is extremely lucrative, second only to the taurant, a poacher toting several hundred drug trade in profits. pounds of fish can make a healthy profit Well organized and illegal, commercial after a night's work. Some game wardens hunting operations are open for business estimate that more than 400,000 fish of throughout California (CDFG 1986). Ifa wild many different species are poached each animal or any of its parts can be eaten, worn, year from the Delta (Locklin 1991). stuffed and displayed, caged as a "pet," made I i into jewelry, or sold as a purported medicine, e In 1988,16 people were arrested by wild- it probably is falling prey to poachers. Ani­ life officers in synchronized raids in Cali­ mals that are poached include bear, elk, deer, fornia and Arizona, culminating a 2-1/2 mountain lion, bighorn sheep, wild pig, bob­ year undercover sting operation. Califor­ cat, coyote, rabbit, eagle, and other birds of nia wardens seized 149 venomous snakes, prey, duck and other waterfowl, most fish six endangered desert tortoises, a dozen and seafood, bullfrog, reptile, and even but­ piranhas, a 6-foot crocodile, and other rare terflies (Breedlove and Rothblatt 1987). and protected animals. Among the snakes Poaching has a long tradition in rural was a rare Catalina Island rattlesnake, val­ America: blinding deer at night with a spot­ ued at $400 by collectors (Johnston 1988). light, and shooting it with a coffee can over Wardens fear that reptile poachers in the rifle barrel to muffle the shot; using a California's deserts are stripping entire barrel of molasses chained to a tree as bait mountain ranges of resident snakes and for black bears; shooting a duck or two in lizards. Chuckwallas, a large lizard inhab­ the farm pond for dinner. But over the past iting the Mojave Desert, bring $75 to $100 decade, as wildlife numbers dropped, the in the illicit pet trade. stakes have soared. Word is out in the illegal hunting community that fresh black bear gall Some wildlife officials suggest that com­ bladders are worth up to $200 each, a bob­ mercial poaching is not new, but rather the cat pelt $100, or a bighorn sheep head $3,000 latest incarnation of the market hunting that (the value of each multiplying many times occurred in California and throughout North before it reaches the consumer). Poaching has America in the late 1800s and early 1900s. become big business (Poten 1991). During this era, wild animal species were Commercial poaching in California is part decimated to supply the restaurant and fash­ of the much larger international wildlife trade ion trades. The carnage was so extensive that that, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife it lead to some of the first wildlife protection Service, grosses at least $5 billion a year. As laws and the establishment of state agencies much as 25 percent ($1.25 billion) may be

2 illegally smuggled birds, reptiles, and mam­ nated for hunting; killing an animal for some­ mals. With Los Angeles and San Francisco one else who has a license; hunting without being major ports of entry, California receives a required license; hunting out of season; a major portion ofwildlife imports from other hunting in areas where such activity is pro­ countries. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hibited; shooting from vehicles or a roadway. has only nine wildlife inspectors at the two Obviously, there are degrees of poaching. ports trying to fight off an ever-growing tide The sport fisherman who catches one fish of illegal imports. Of the 80,000 wildlife ship­ over his limit and takes ithome to eat, causes ments coming into the United States through much less impact than the commercial ten ports of entry each year, 95 percent of poacher who takes thousands of pounds of the shipments are never inspected, but fish with a gill net and then sells them to a cleared on paperwork alone (Speart 1993). local store or restaurant. The killing of a Estimates put the black market in America's threatened or endangered species is the most wildlife at $200 million and rising (Hanback egregious form of poaching. Unfortunately, 1992a). Wildlife runs second only to the ille­ in many cases, the more endangered a spe­ gal drug trade in profits (Speart 1993). cies is, the greater its value on the black mar­ ket.

POACHING DEFINED WHO POACHES?

Poaching generally refers to the illegal "tak­ In his classic study of commercial poach­ ing" of wildlife. Taking is defined in the Fish ing in the United States, Carl Farnsworth and Game Code ofCalifornia as hunting, pur­ (1980) explains that poachers come from a suing, catching, capturing, or killing, or at­ variety of backgrounds, education levels, and tempting to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or employment histories. The traditional view kill. A person is poaching if he or she: of poachers as individuals who are poor, uneducated men who must take wildlife by • Kills or captures an animal without a li­ illegal means in order to provide food for their cense to do so. families is erroneous. On the other hand, not • Takes more animals than is allowed un­ all poachers fit the mold of the commercial der a specific license. poacher nor do they present a threat of the e Takes a protected animal, such as an en­ same magnitude to wildlife populations. dangered or threatened species. The Mountain Lion Foundation's report • Violates, in taking an animal, the laws or considers five categories of poachers: regulations applicable to hunting, fishing, netting, or trapping that animal. 1. Unwitting Poacher - one who is igno­ rant of the laws relating to the take of wild­ More broadly defined, poaching can also in­ life, and who is not really aware of the clude buying or selling animals that were ei­ consequences of his actions. (As any war­ ther taken under a sporting license or taken den will confirm, this is a popular defense via poaching (Breedlove and Rothblatt 1987). of many of the other categories of poach­ Researchers Michael Scialfa and Gary ers caught in the act.) Machlis (1993) interviewed admitted poach­ ers in the Pacific Northwest and identified 2. Defiant Poacher - a person who is aware these typical violations: killing more animals of the laws relating to the take of wildlife, than is allowed under a specific license; us­ but chooses to ignore the law because he ing illegal techniques or prohibited equip­ feels that it is his right to kill as many ani­ ment; shooting outside times legally desig- mals, or any animal, he chooses. He may

3 know it is against the law but does not purpose of this report, unwitting, defiant, view his act as morally wrong. If he owns opportunistic, and subsistence poachers will land, he may think the wildlife presentalso be collectively referred to as noncommer­ belongs to him, and is his to do with as he cial poachers, while commercial poachers pleases. (Wildlife, in fact, is considered le­ will be discussed separately. gally owned by the public, with manage­ Commercial poachers are reported to have ment responsibility falling to the state or been involved in other offenses such as bur­ federal governments.) glary, drug smuggling and sale, moonshine production, arson, bombing buildings, de­ 3. Opportunistic Poacher - a hunter or struction of private property, trespassing, rus­ fisherman presented with an unplanned tling livestock, assault, attempted bribery, opportunity to take wildlife illegally. An attempted murder, and conspiracy and so­ example is a deer hunter who encounters licitation to commit murder (Farnsworth and kills a mountain lion while tracking 1980). One commercial poacher in Wiscon­ deer, or the casual fisherman who catches sin attempted to hire a "hit man" to kill the double his legal limit on a day when the executive secretary and two field wardens of trout are biting. the state Department of Natural Resources. This drastic action was prompted by a crack­ 4. Subsistence Poacher - Someone who down on a commercial poaching operation takes animals illegally to put food on the that was shipping up to 50,000 pounds of table. When poaching is mentioned, the illegal lake trout per week to markets out­ subsistence poacher is the image that side of Wisconsin. Chicago, Detroit, and springs to mind for most people. There New York Citywere the primary markets for has been a recent upsurge in this type of this operation. The fish were banned from poacher due to the hard economic times legal sale due to contamination by the chemi­ and to the immigration of thousands of cal PCB which is extremely toxic to humans refugees whose customs include wildlife (To Kill a Warden 1978). in their diet (Falasco 1985.) The commercial poacher poses the most serious threat to wildlife populations and will 5. Commercial Poacher - someone who be the primary focus of this report. He takes is involved in poaching or the buying and wildlife far in excess of his own immediate selling of poached wildlife for profit. Com­ needs in order to realize financial gain. Even mercial poachers are fully aware of wild­ among noncommercial poachers, commer­ life laws and are frequently willing to ac­ cial poachers are regarded with contempt cept the consequences of being caught as (Scialfa and Machlis 1993). a cost of doing business. They may even be aware of the effect their activity is hav­ ing on wildlife populations, but they PROFILE OF A NONCOMMERCIAL choose to ignore these things in favor of POACHER profits and a ready market. Another char­ acteristic of commercial poachers is that During their interviews of admitted non­ they are also often involved in other types commercial poachers in the Pacific North­ of crime (Farnsworth 1980). west, Scialfa and Machlis (1993) used an eth­ nographic approach in their study. This en­ These categories can overlap and are pre­ tails examining poaching behavior from the sented here only as a general reference. For point of view of the poacher, rather than from example, subsistence and defiant poachers the point of view of society. Such an ap­ will also frequently be opportunistic. For the proach produced interesting findings. The

4 researchers found they could not describe a ETHNIC FACTORS IN POACHING "typical poacher," nor could they distinguish poachers from other types of hunters or the One of the most controversial aspects of general public. Almost all the poachers in­ the upsurge in poaching in California is that terviewed reported substantial amounts of a substantial portion of it appears to be the both legal and illegal hunting experience, but work of ethnic minorities. While definitive few had any history of arrests or convictions information is lacking, almost every warden for non-wildlife related offenses. interviewed for this report felt ethnicity was Few of the poachers interviewed charac­ a factor in increased poaching of certain spe­ terized themselves as poachers, or even ille­ cies in some areas of the state. Most war­ gal hunters, and they didn't think their ac­ dens also understood the political volatility tions were wrong. Most saw themselves as of the issue and asked not to be quoted. The hunters and sportsmen. They described three ethnic groups most often mentioned poachers as individuals who, singly or in were Asian, Hispanic, and Native American; various combinations, hunt out of season, all cultures with long histories of subsistence hunt for monetarygain, are wasteful, or shoot hunting. Unfortunately, the nature of their more animals than they are entitled to. In poaching activity in California seems to be a addition, poachers may be hunters who use mixture of both subsistence and sometimes prohibited hunting techniques or prohibited commercial poaching. hunting apparatus, plan on hunting illegally, It is an acknowledged fact among wildlife illegally hunt game, kill animals for pleasure law enforcement officials that the Asian or other unacceptable reasons, hunt illegally American apothecary industry in Los Ange­ on a regular basis, or in such a manner that les and San Francisco is the primary market species numbers are reduced. Commercial for poached black bear gall bladders and poachers and Native American hunters were paws, both here and for illegal exportabroad. viewed by these noncommercial poachers as Los Angeles has over 300 licensed herbal-acu­ the greatest threats to wildlife (Scialfa and puncture shops, some of which mayor may Machlis 1993). not be handling animal part products (Klein Attributes of a highly skilled, noncommer­ 1982). An examination of Departmentof Fish cial poacher included a thorough knowledge and Game citations/arrests for illegal gill net­ of wildlife habits, being physically fit, hav­ ting along the Richmond and Oakland wa­ ing superior marksmanship and orienteering terfront shows a majority of violators to be skills, knowing the area hunted, patience, Vietnamese. The fish may be sold directly being safety conscious, and having respect for money or used as barter within the com­ for the process of hunting. Most considered munity itself. Poached venison and wild pig themselves "fairly" or "highly" skilled hunt­ may find a ready market in Hispanic labor ers and were reluctant to discuss illegal hunt­ camps. In 1988, Hispanic laborers brought a ing behavior. It was not unusual for them to pair of mountain lion cubs into the be accompanied by close friends and rela­ Downieville office ofTahoe National Forest. tives, generally the same people they hunted Desperate for food, the workers had eaten with legally (Scialfa and Machlis 1993). the cub's mother after the foreman bought Generally those interviewed believed that/ re­ them a .22 rifle and told them to hunt for gardless ofhunting laws/ it is legitimate to kill wild­ their food (Bowman and Composeco 1993). life under a variety ofcircumstances/ prOVIded the Controversy has long surrounded the salmon animals are used for food and none is wasted or and steelhead fishing practices of the Hoopa, sold (Scialfa and Machlis 1993). Yurok, and Klamath Indian Tribes in north­ ern California. Seven Native Americans were arrested in 1985 as a result of an undercover

5 sting operation mounted by DFG (Hodgson through poaching. Most of them are acting 1985). within roles that are justified by local stan­ As California grows and becomes more dards. Indeed, within the lifetimes of many ethnically diverse, it will become imperative of these men, their actions were once legal that the Department of Fish and Game and (Forsyth and Marckese 1993). conservation organizations develop ways to Probably the most sobering discovery of work with ethnic groups to preserve wildlife the studywas that basic beliefs about poach­ and the environment. Within each culture, ing form early. Most were introduced to means must be found to address wildlife poaching by a family member, usually a fa­ conservation issues in a meaningful manner. ther or grandfather. All continued to receive We must also avoid blaming only ethnic mi­ support from family and significant others norities and immigrants for losses of wild­ and most continued to poach with them. life. There are troubling signs that an atmo­ Thus, cultural supports and belief systems sphere of intolerance in California is grow­ have continually reinforced and thus perpetu­ ing with state and county budget cuts and ated poaching (Forsyth and Marckese 1993). consequent declines in delivery of human Scialfa and Machlis (1993) found the non­ services, as well as political and media atten­ commercial poachers they interviewed also tion to illegal immigration problems. Cultural learned to poach at an early age, generally diversity should be embraced as one of between nine and twelve. Furthermore, al­ California's strengths. A healthy wildlife heri­ mosthalf of the informants reported that their tage for all peoples is also a strength that our first hunt was illegal. Most also stated that society cannot afford to lose. family members or close friends played criti­ cal roles in the development of their poach­ ing behavior, either by actually teaching them WHY POACH? how to poach, knowing they hunted illegally and more or less condoning it, or by hunting NONCOMMERCMLPOACHINC the same way themselves. Interviewees emphasized that they hunted In 1991 and 1992, researchers Craig primarily for food, trophies, sport, and rec­ Forsyth and Thomas Marckese (1993) inter­ reation. Other reasons included unplanned viewed 36 French Acadian (Cajun) poachers opportunity, challenge and excitement be­ in southwest Louisiana. Poaching has long yond that offered by legal hunting, legitimate been a part of Cajun culture and is a deeply hunting opportunities not sufficient to sat­ ingrained practice, so much so that skilled isfy their desire to hunt, to be with friends, poachers are highly respected in local com­ to gain respect from others, and a conscious munities. The primary motivation for this decision to participate in a particular lifestyle. group of poachers seems to be the pleasure Many saw hunting as an efficient manner to derived from both the excitement of poach­ harvest food, and preferred game over do­ ing and the outsmarting of game wardens mestic meats. Wildlife laws notwithstanding, through the demonstration of superior all thought it legitimate to kill wildlife under knowledge of the terrain and hunting skills. a variety of circumstances, provided the ani­ Cajun poachers seem to have a need to mals (including those killed for trophies and express independence from the authority of sport) were used for food and none was outsiders and to outsmart them. They fulfill wasted or sold (Scialfa and Machlis 1993). these needs through poaching. By most stan­ Hunting only for trophies, for commercial dards, these individuals could be considered purposes, just to kill something and leave it failures; they were all poor and uneducated. to waste, for added excitement, to reduce or They attempt to demonstrate their adequacy eliminate crop depredation, and for sport,

6 were listed as some of the unacceptable rea­ selected species, especially those which of­ sons to hunt illegally. Similarly, certain types fered antlered or horned trophies. Economic of animals were generally deemed unaccept­ hard times were also cited as a reason for able to poach: females, rare or endangered increased hunting for food. The trend among species, and animals not suitable for food. the majority of those interviewed went from Although informants did report occasionally hunting for shooting sport, to hunting for poaching such animals, these acts were held food, to hunting for trophies. Some reported to be infrequent and under extenuating cir­ the increasing importance of hunting just to cumstances (Scialfa and Machlis 1993). (It be outdoors orwith friends, and that the kill­ must be stressed that these feelings were ing of game became relatively inconsequen­ those of noncommercial poachers only.) tial. Several reported having given up hunt­ In Washington and Idaho, another factor ing altogether (Scialfa and Machlis 1993). influencing noncommercial poachers' moti­ vations is their attitudes toward the local wildlife management agency. Informants COMMERCIAL POACHING poaching principally in Washington had uni­ versally negative attitudes towards the Wash­ Motivations of the commercial poacher ington Department of Wildlife. Informants are far simpler: the practice is lucrative, the poaching principally in Idaho had mixed at­ risk of getting caught is low, and until re­ titudes towards Idaho Department of Fish cently, the penalties have been minimal. It is and Game. All informants expressed nega­ a sad fact that much of our wildlife is now tive attitudes towards certain wildlife man­ worth more dead than alive. (See Table 1.) agement policies, especially hunting regula­ The list of destructive uses of wildlife from tions (Scialfa and Machlis 1993). Informants which illicit profits can be obtained is end­ believed that certain regulations: less:

• were unnecessary or did not benefit wild­ Black Bears - gall bladders are sold as a me­ life in the manner intended dicinal curative; feet as a gourmet delicacy; CD were actually harmful to wildlife jaws, teeth, and claws for jewelry. The big­ .. unfairly diminished or impeded hunting gest market for gall bladders and feet is in opportunities the Asian apothecary trade, while claws are .. discriminated against certain types of hunt­ popular in jewelry with Native American ing themes or motifs. The value of a gall bladder It created "fine-line!! situations that invited freshly cut out of a bear in the field is $75 to violations $200 each; dried, powdered, and sold in San It favored special interest groups, especially Francisco's Chinatown, the value jumps to the wealthy and out-of-staters $560 an ounce. In Asia, the dried and pow­ CD were more concerned with generating rev­ dered gland can bring up to $5,600 an ounce. enue than increasing or protecting wildlife (Far exceeding an equal amount of gold or or hunting opportunities (Scialfa and cocaine.) Machlis 1993). Elk and Deer - are killed for their hide, meat, Finally, the reasons for poaching seem to and antlers. Elk are one of the most valuable change as a poacher grows older. Most be­ animals today for the antlers alone. For in­ gan hunting simply to see if they could hit a stance, legal dealers in Wyoming sell antlers moving target, but by their late teens, began to South Korean apothecaries, who slice to hunt for food. Subsequently, a number of them paper thin, boil ginseng and herbs with informants began to hunt increasingly for them, then squeeze the blood out of the horn.

7 They believe the tonic wards off flu and "picked up" set of sheep horns sells for $700 colds. Elk produce new antlers every year, to $1,500, depending upon its size. It is ille­ worth $140 a pound in the blood-£illed vel­ gal to pick up bighorn sheep horns found in vet stage (Poten 1991). In 1992, at a legal the wild, even if the ram died of natural auction in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, the high­ causes. est bid for elk antler was $24 a pound. An average-sized set of elk antlers (43 inches) will Wild Pigs -are killed for their meatand tusks. go for $1,000 intact. Farm labor camps ap­ Wild pork can be more popular than deer pear to be big consumers of venison (deer meatin areas of the state with good pig popu­ meat), which sells for $50 to $100 a carcass lations. Again, farm labor camps may be the (CDFG 1986). Additionally, theft and the il­ big consumers. Pig carcasses sell for $50 to legal sale of wildlife for the purpose of game $75 each. If you know the right words, pigs farming is running rampant in some western and deer can be bought at bars in certain ar­ states. Such facilities raise wildlife species in eas with ease (CDFG 1986). enclosures similar to domestic livestock op­ erations. A mule deer obtained illicitly for Birds of Prey - are stolen from the wild for such a game farm will sell for $1,500; elk will use in falconry. Live fledglings from the nest bring $10,000 to $15,000. This does not cur­ bring hundreds of dollars, while live adults, rently appear to be a big problem in Califor­ such as the endangered peregrine falcon, nia. fetch $3,000 to $4,000 per bird. (The im­ proved success of captive-breeding programs Mountain Lions - are killed for their heads, seems to have lessened the illicit trade some­ pelts, and claws. While classi£ied as a spe­ what.) A dead bald eagle carcass can be worth cially protected mammal in California under up to $2,500, depending upon its condition, the California Wildlife Protection Act (Propo­ and a golden eagle feather alone is worth $50. sition 117), illegal lion hunts continue. (One The feathers are popular for decoration, jew­ warden reported to us being able to book an elry, or in some Native American religious illegal lion hunt within a week of request.) A ceremomes. good lion pelt will go for $1,000 to $1,500. Wardens report an increasing number of Fish - gill netters take striped bass, salmon, California lion hunters buying tags in border catfish, black bass, corvina, tilapia, and other states (i.e., Oregon, Nevada, orArizona), kill­ sport £ish. Black market sales of cat£ish in San ing a lion in California, then taking it to the Diego County total an estimated $15,000 other state, tagging it, and then bringing it annually. Wardens seized 30,000 pounds of back. All of these acts are illegal, but difficult corvina and 80,000 pounds of tilapia, all ille­ to enforce. gally caught from the Salton Sea area. The estimated wholesale value of the £ish was Bobcats - pelts can bring $100 on the black $360,000. Salmon and sturgeon are captured market. Wardens estimate 30 to 50 percent for their meat and eggs. Sacramento River of the bobcats killed in California go unre­ sturgeon roe is worth $400 a pound JS caviar ported. Beaver, river otter, bobcat, fox, and (CDFG 1986). coyote pelts are smuggled out of state and sold to tanners (CDFG 1986). Reptiles - collectors can make $2,000 a night driving the desert highways, picking up rep­ Bighorn Sheep - are killed for their heads tiles lying on the pavement, then selling the and hides, and the illegal guide makes from animals to the illicit pet trade. Common gar­ $15,000 to $60,000 for leading a hunt (CDFG ter snakes bring $5 each, while rare and en­ 1986). A bighorn sheep pelt to go on a dangered species such as the California

8 TABLE 1. ESTIMATED BLACK MARKET PRICE LIST

Animal Part Black Market Price Bear fresh/sold in the field $75-200/ each dried/powdered/sold in San Francisco Chinatown $560/ounce dried/powdered/sold in Asia $5,600/ounce paws/sold in field $10-15/each paws/sold in San Francisco Chinatown $30-$1OO/each claws $2-5/each claw jewelry $200-$400 Bobcat pelts $100/each Deer (whole carcass for meat) $50-$100/each Birds of Prey live fledglings for falconry $100's/each live adults for falconry $3,OOO-$4,OOO/each peregrine falcons $2,OOO/each (1986) goshawks $1,000/each (1986) prairie falcons $800/each (1986) Harris hawks $600/each (1986) dead carcass for feathers (depends on condition) American bald eagle $2,500/each golden eagle feather $50/each red-tailed hawk $20/each Reptiles (live, for collectors and pet trade) common (e.g., garter snake) $5-$20/each rare and endangered San Francisco garter snake $1,100/each California mountain king snake $250/each Frogs (food) sold in field $1.25-$1.50/pound sold in San Francisco Chinatown $5.25-$5.75/pound legs $15/pound Sturgeon with roe $150-$200/each Caviar (sturgeon eggs) $400/pound Red Abalone in shell $12-$36/each popped from shell/meat $15-$20/pound steak $32-$34/pound Striped Bass $0.70-$1.50/pound Butterflies (collectors) some tropical South American species $8000/each some rare American species $300/each

Source: California Department of Fish and Game (1994)

9 mountain king snake is worth $250 and the ($40}000); caiman ashtrays ($3,000) - a San Francisco garter snake $1,110. One San cousin of the alligator} caimans live in Central Diego dealer reportedly makes $60,000 an­ and South America; matching cobra skin boots nually dealing in illegally taken reptiles. The and purse ($700 and $1}000); a guitar made total profit made in reptiles in southern Cali­ out of sea turtle shell ($200); viper snake ~>Cleak­ fornia alone is estimated at $500,000 annu­ ers ($400). Fashion frequently has deadly con­ ally (CDFG 1986). sequences for wildlife (Speart 1993). The U.S. demand for Indian python boots like John Frogs - frog legs go for about $15 a pound, Travolta's in the movie Urban Cowboy and re­ and are a delicacy in many California restau­ ticulated python jackets like Paul Hogan's in rants. While legal to take, hunters must have the movie Crocodile Dundee II have endangered permits and can take no more than 12 of the both species (Poten 1991). Live venomous rep­ amphibians per day during the season, which tiles are particularly popular with collectors. runs from April 1 to November 30. One hun­ Commercial poaching would not be so lu­ dred to 300 frogs a night are taken illegally crative if there were no willing buyers of ille­ in the delta and sold in San Francisco's gal wildlife products. Such is not the case. Chinatown (CDFG 1986). The amphibians Buyers generally come in three categories: sell for about $5.25 a pound} and one sus­ pected broker is believed to have made 1. Unwitting Buyer - purchase poached ani­ $65,000 by allegedly collecting frogs from mals or the parts and products of these ani­ poachers and selling them to San Francisco mals in ignorance of the law. (Again, a Bay Area fish markets. popular excuse when detained by law en­ forcement officials.) Butterflies - prices for some tropical South 2. Traditional Buyer - person who may be American butterflies have reached $8,000, aware of the law, but his traditions and cul­ while rare U.S. butterflies can sell for about tural beliefs outweigh his fear of legal sanc­ $300 each. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser­ tion. vice is currently investigating a number of 3. Commercial Buyer/Retailer - one who collectors in California and other states who deals in the sale of poached animals for could be charged with illegally trading in profit. This type of buyer may be equated threatened and endangered butterflies (Cox to a large scale drug supplier and indeed, 1993). evidence indicates that persons involved in the commercial supply of animals and ani­ In addition to wildlife poached within mal parts may also be involved in illegal California, there is the flood of illegal wild­ drug trafficking, as well as other crimes life products being imported into California (Farnsworth 1980). Wardens believe that in from other states and foreign countries. The some Asian-American communities United States is one of the world's largest poached fish and wildlife are traded rather consumers of wildlife parts and products. In than sold. its January 1992 newsletter, Traffic USA the wildlife trade monitoring program of the Profit isn't the only motive behind the ille­ World Wildlife Fund, reported that the total gal traffic in big-game animals. Another is the declared value of U.S. wildlife imports and obsession by some to possess} at any cost, exports is approximately $1 billion annually these symbols of power and freedom (Poten (Hanback 1992a). California likely contrib­ 1991). Enter the big game trophy hunter. These utes a substantial portion of the market. Ille­ individuals are willing to spend big money for gal products include intricately carved sperm hunting trophy-class big game, and the stan­ whale teeth ($2,000); leopard skin coats dards by which trophy animals are measured

10 is usually set by the Boone and Crockett Not only is commercial poaching lucra­ Club. Founded by Theodore Roosevelt to tive, the risk of getting caught is slim. Stud­ recognize exceptional hunting with fair-chase ies in California, Alberta, Maine, and Idaho, criteria, the prestigious Boone and Crockett indicate that only one to two percent of ac­ Club publishes a record book of trophy ani­ tual illegal deer hunting is reported (CDFG mals (Poten 1991). For example, the rack from 1976, Boxall and Smith 1987), which makes a trophy Boone and Crockett white-tailed deer poaching one of the most underreported deer now reportedly sells on the black mar­ crimes in this country (Farnsworth 1980). The ket for $20,000 to $25,000. studies also show that wardens made arrests Bighorn sheep are one of the most prized in about one percent of the illegal deer viola­ animals by trophy hunters and a cornerstone tions (CDFG 1976). Further incentive to of hunting's coveted Grand Slam the set poach is added by the lack of harsh penalties of heads of the four wild mountain sheep meted out to those few who are caught. The species native to North America. Together, reasons behind the low reporting rates, low the heads of the Dall, the desert bighorn apprehension rates, and minimal penalties (which is found in California in very limited will be discussed in-depth in the following numbers), the Rocky Mountain bighorn, and sections on wildlife law enforcement. the stone sheep can bring a black market price of $50,000 (Milstein 1989). Some states al­ low only a few sheep each year to be killed HOW POACHERS POACH and auction off these permits or tags to the highest bidder. In 1993, a legal Montana NONCOMMERCMLPOACHING sheep tag was auctioned for $209,000. A le­ gal Arizona sheep tag went for $303,000. Scialfa and Machlis (1993) found that the Such enormous amounts surprise even sea­ noncommercial poachers they interviewed in soned wildlife officials. Idaho and Washington generally hunt in for­ Unfortunately, in their quest for big game ested areas, within 50 miles of home, and trophies, some hunters willingly step outside either along or within one mile of a paved or the law. On November 16, 1990, state and dirt road. Hunting effort is focused where the federal authorities converged on a ranch near desired quarry can be found and where de­ Lockwood, California. What they found were tection or apprehension can be avoided. Ad­ the skulls, heads, and hides of mountain li­ ditional considerations include where desired ons, Bengal tigers, spotted leopards, black quarry can be taken legally, uncrowded ar­ leopards, and jaguars-remnants of illegal eas, weather, time and distance from home, "hunts" conducted by the ranch owners, and aesthetic preferences. Over 40 species Floyd and Dawn Patterson (Akeman 1991a). were reported taken illegally, with deer be­ "Big game hunters" paid the Pattersons up to ing the principal quarry, followed by ducks, $3,500 for the privilege of shooting the big grouse, and elk (Scialfa and Machlis 1993). cats and taking their stuffed carcasses home The types of equipment and hunting tech­ as trophies. Most of the animals were niques used depend upon the types of ani­ thought to have been surplus zoo animals mals poached and reasons for poaching. Big and many were simply shot in the stock game animals generally are hunted with rifles trailer they were delivered in. One cat was and by stalking, still hunting (hunting from a dragged out with a lasso around its neck and fixed location), or in the case of deer, road shot just outside the door (Schrader 1991). hunting. Meat-hunters poaching deer are The Pattersons were tried and convicted on more likely to spotlight along roads or hunt 42 counts of violating state wildlife laws on a "push." A push is when hunters work (Moreno 1991). as a team to herd their quarry toward another

11 hunter. Illegal trophy hunters typically hunt taken a half-hour before or after sunset. Small big game by stalking or still hunting and us­ game, upland birds such as grouse and ing techniques such as "rattling" and "bu­ chukar, and fish are poached during daylight. gling" to lure quarry towards them. Rattling Poachers hunting big game for meat are most involves rattling pieces of antler together to likely to hunt at night or out of season. In imitate the sound of deer or elk fighting or California, many marine species, such as lob­ scraping their antlers against branches to re­ ster, are poached at night, but poachers will move velvet. Bugling is imitating the shrill also hunt during the legal season as cover. bellow a bull elk makes during the fall rut Cold, snowy, and moderately stormy (Scialfa and Machlis 1993). weather was favored by a number of poach­ Waterfowl are principally poached by still ers. At night (with a light), out of season, and hunting and with shotguns. Blinds, decoys, early spring were considered unacceptable and artificial calls are used by some. Shoot­ times to hunt by many of the noncommer­ ing at birds on the ground is a common tech­ cial poachers interviewed (Scialfa and nique of both the commercial and noncom­ Machlis 1993). mercial poacher. One shot will usually kill Poachers use a variety of methods to avoid more than one bird. One warden described detection or apprehension while poaching. a case where one shot killed five snow geese. Poachers hunting at night or out of season Required shotgun plugs are occasionally not are the most cautious. Some illegal hunters used. A plug ensures no more than three use small caliber weapons, such as a .22, shells can be loaded in a shotgun at a time, because they are quieter. Most frequently re­ which is the law in California and many other ported precautions are to hunt only in areas states. Small game and upland birds are prin­ with which the poachers are familiar, to fire cipally poached by stalking and road hunt­ only one shot, to hunt only with trusted ing. Road hunting is used most frequently people, to use no alcohol or drugs, and not by poachers hunting animals for food or out to discuss illegal hunting with others (Scialfa of season. Both rifles and pistols are reported and Machlis 1993). used on small game and upland birds. Fish are taken by a variety of methods and equip­ ment, including hook and line, nets, perma­ COMMERCIAL POACHERS nently set hooks, explosives, and bare hands (Scialfa and Machlis 1993). Commercial poachers follow many of the Techniques or equipment that are consid­ same techniques and patterns employed by ered unacceptable to noncommercial poach­ noncommercial poachers, but are less con­ ers include those that do not give animals an strained in their method of killing and their equitable opportunity to avoid being killed, ethics. For instance, they do not hesitate to are unsafe, cause crippling loss, or are so ef­ use such sophisticated equipment as aircraft, fective they are likely to reduce wildlife num­ assault weapons, illegal fishing lines, radio­ bers. Spotlighting is the hunting technique telemetry equipment, laser night scopes, po­ objected to by the greatest number of infor­ lice radio scanners, one-million-candlepower mants (Scialfa and Machlis 1993). spotlights to transfix deer, two-way radios, When poaching occurs depends upon the firearm silencers, poison, and all-terrain ve­ animal sought, reasons for hunting, and hicles (Poten 1991, Hastings 1993). weather. Most poaching occurs during legal Nor are these illegal hunters hesitant to kill seasons and on weekends. Availability of wildlife in restricted areas such as national suitable prey and time off from work are also and state parks. Elk have been poached at principal factors. Big game is hunted in early Prairie Creek State Park near Eureka and rang­ morning and late afternoon. Waterfowl is ers at Lassen National Park suspect deer and

12 bear poaching takes place more frequently This p11ctice is used to train dogs by making than they can detect with their limited staff. it easier ijr them to track the bear and ensur­ Wild pigs may betargets of illegal hunters in ing the am:nal will tree again easily. One Ari­ Pinnacles National Monumentnear Hollister. zona Game and Fish official estimates that According to the California Department of around 30 per -:ent of the guided hunts in Ari­ Parks and Recreation, poaching is a known zona are will-CellI hunts. Will-call hunts are threat to wildlife in 110 state parks, or 36.7 illegal in California, because keeping game percent of the state park system (CDPR species in trees for extended periods violates 1984). In a National Park Service appraisal in laws against harassment of wildlife. 1988, wildlife poaching ranked as the third most prevalent threat facing the nation's parks, based upon the almost 50 parks that IMPACTS OF POACHING reported it as a menace (Milstein 1989). Another characteristic of the commercial Rural crime in general and commercial poacher is wastefullness. After killing a bear poaching in particular have received little and removing the gall bladder, paws, and study by criminal justice researchers. Most sometimes the hide, the rest of the carcass is criminological research has been limited to often left to rot. It's frequently the same pat­ tllOse crimes which are reported in the Uni­ tern with mountain lions, after the big cat is form Crime Reports (UCR) and has been cen­ beheaded and skinned. Some will kill an elk tered primarily on urban populations. Fur­ or bighorn just for the antlers or horns. Some ther compounding the problem is the lack of sturgeon poachers will slit open a female efficient and consistent reporting of crime while still alive, and remove her eggs for statistics on the part of small, rural law en­ caviar. Sometimes they will use the meat as forcement agencies (Farnsworth 1980). Rich­ well; other times they will leave the fish to ard 1. Hummel also speculates that sociolo­ die a slow death. gists have generally avoided the study of While most hunting guides run legitimate hunting and fishing because these activities operations, the expense of long pursuits and (especially hunting) are personally abhorred, the impatience of clients to bag a trophy black scorned, or avoided by the sociological es­ bear or mountain lion entice some guides to tablishment, which is dominated by an ur­ provide a higher level of convenience in the ban, liberal world-view. This world-view is form of "will-call" (as in, "When we have your characterized by, among other factors, strong bear or cougar treed, we will call you") or anti-hunting sentiment (Hummel 1983). "shootout" (as in, "All you have to do is shoot Wildlife researcher James R. Vilkitis went it out of the tree") hunts. The guide puts a into the Idaho backcountry in 1967 looking list of clients in his pocket, then heads out for material for a master's thesis. When he into the woods to find and track a bear or returned to civilization a year later after work­ cougar. Once he has one treed, he radios the ing underground with big game poachers to client or leaves the bear or cat under the learn their methods, his findings shocked the watchful eye of a helper and drives to the fish and wildlife conservation and manage­ nearest telephone. The client then flies and ment community. Vilkitis was able to docu­ drives to the location of the treed cougar or ment that: bear to collect his or her trophy. As a result, bears or cougars can remain up in the tree • Most poachers are bold, working in day­ for days at a time, under a death watch. If it light hours, and they are excellent marks­ jumps from the tree it is simply treed again, men, bringing down quarry with a single until the client arrives. Sometimes bears are shot. shot in the paws with a light caliber firearm. • Commercial poachers are almost never

13 caught; the odds against their winding up of legal sport hunting as a wildlife manage­ in jail or getting so much as a citation are ment practice (Hanback 1992a). 200 to 1. As Farnsworth's research showed, the ex­ • The chances of a poaching incident even act dollar value of illegal activity is difficult being detected by enforcement officers are to obtain because it is nearly impossible to only 2.5 percent, or one in every 40 kills. separate commercial poaching from less-se­ • Compared to the legal harvest, the volume rious forms of poaching. For instance, war­ of the illegal kill of big game is significant; dens arrested four individuals in the spring Vilkitis put it at 50 percent. (A later Cali­ of 1986 for possession of 16 striped bass. One! fornia Departmentof Fish and Game study of the people had a prior arrest for selling (1976) estimated the illegal kill to be striped bass. The wardens suspected the fish equivalent to the legal kill.) were headed for the commercial market, but

III By and large, the general public is apathetic with the evidence at hand the individuals about fish and wildlife poaching (Vilkitis could only be cited for sport overlimit (CDFG 1968, Sheehan 1981b). 1986). Another difficulty in placing an exact dol­ Carl Farnsworth (1980) made one of the lar value on the activity is that mostinstances first attempts at a comprehensive study of of poaching go unreported. To pinpoint how commercial poaching in the United States. much poaching goes unchecked, Canadian He concluded that up to 25 percent of the wildlife officials in Alberta hired a man in total illegal traffic in wildlife may be com­ 1985 to commit a variety of hunting offenses, mercial in nature. The difficulty in separat­ including the illegal hunting or killing of deer, ing commercial poachers from less-serious on Canadian lands. Of649 crimes, just seven game law violators was the primary reason (one percent) were ever reported (Boxall and that only 22 of the 50 states Farnsworth sur­ Smith 1987). California conducted an earlier veyed were able to provide usable data on study in 1975-76 and found that of 134 simu­ the numbers and dollar value of this activity; lated crimes, not even one was reported but the minimum value of commercial (CDFG 1976). poaching in those 22 states alone is estimated There are other economic factors to be to be $175,101,773 (Farnsworth 1980). considered when assessing the economic No one really knows the bottom line. U.S. impact of theft from the resource. Fish and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) officials esti­ wildlife thieves undercut legitimate busi­ mate that the illegal profits from U.S. ani­ nesses when they sell their products. Sale of mals are $200 million a year and growing illegal salmon reduces the price of commer­ (Poten 1991). Department of Fish and Game cially caught legal salmon, harming the en­ law enforcement officials place the Califor­ tire fishing industry. The legitimate anglers nia black market at $100 million a year and who have paid for their license, boat regis­ consider it the second greatest threat to wildlife tration and other permits simply can not after habitat destruction. compete. Fish moving through normal com­ These illegal take figures are controversial. mercial channels create jobs in the whole­ Some sportsmen and conservation groups sale sector and other related industries; ille­ believe the Fish and VVildlife Service inflates gal fish generally go direct to the consumer the numbers, blowing the issue out of pro­ or retailer (CDFG 1986). portion to garner publicity and funds for its California Department of Fish and Game wildlife law enforcement division. Con­ estimates that the illegal sale of ocean re­ versely, other critics claim the service sources alone exceeds $60 million per year underreports wildlife trafficking, covering up (CDFG 1986). In 1990, wardens found two the extent of the problem to avoid criticism gill net boats fishing illegally inside Santa

14 Monica Bay three days apart; 7,000 feet of As a result, Berwick charges, local popula­ gill net and 2,900 pounds of fish were seized. tions of animals are being completely de­ Two other commercial fishing vessels were stroyed. Berwick studied the problem exten­ inspected within a month of each other, and sively while preparing an environmental im­ 110,000 pounds of bonito were seized. pact statement for the Defense Department Eighty-four percent of the bonito aboard one on a proposed military construction project of the vessels, which totaled 57,000 pounds, (Quinn 1983). In California, the Helms Creek was found to be undersized. A DFG marine Project serves as an example. Located east of biologist estimates the tourism dollars gen­ Fresno in a remote area of Sierra National erated from abalone alone can run between Forest, 1800 construction workers were em­ $20 million and $30 million a year (Castle ployed in digging a tunnel between 1989), benefiting local businesses. Yet aba­ Courtright Reservoir and Wishon Reservoir lone populations are in precipitous decline as part of a hydroelectric project. DFG war­ in central and southern California (Karpov dens and biologists still talk of the pro­ 1990). nounced escalation in local poaching that In terms of economic importance to all citi­ occurred during the project. zens of California, whether employees in re­ Determining the ecological impact of lated support industries, deer hunters or deer poaching on wildlife populations is even viewers, deer contribute $455 million annu­ more complicated and controversial than try­ ally to California's economy and citizens, and ing to quantify poaching alone. Measuring support nearly 10,500 jobs (Loomis et al. ecological impacts starts with censusing wild­ 1989). Based upon information provided by life populations - an arduous, expensive, the California Department of Fish and Game and imprecise task that falls to the wildlife and a survey of seven other selected states, biologists of DFG's Wildlife Management roughly one-half or more of some wildlife Division. Federal and state agencies use cen­ species killed each year are taken illegally by sus data to study effects of predation, poachers (Breedlove and Rothblatt 1987). weather, and habitat loss. Hunting, trapping, Considering the illegal take estimates of deer and fishing regulations are all based upon and marine species alone, DFG's statewide some kind of count. The information can be poaching estimate of $100 million per year invaluable for decisions about protecting spe­ in value seems conservative indeed. cies or building developments like mines or There is a direct relation between access dams. and poaching impact. For instance, fire, log­ Technology has made censusing wildlife ging, and mining roads that cut into remote somewhat easier, but depending upon the regions of the Sierra Nevada or coastal ranges species, counting wildlife numbers is still a provide ready access for illegal hunters to the statistical exercise thatvaries widely in its pre­ wildlife they intend to poach. Poaching ad­ cision. One federal wildlife agent told us that jacent to Yosemite National Park is more of even waterfowl forecasts conducted in the a problem on the west side where fire roads fall have a 20 percent plus or minus factor provide good access. The more remote and built in because of the difficulties in count­ rugged east side seems to have less of a prob­ ing waterfowl populations. Twenty percent lem. plus or minus is a large margin of error con­ According to Stephen H. Berwick, chief sidering the 50-year history of intensive study scientistwith a California-based environmen­ including banding and aerial surveys which tal consulting firm, poaching levels have in­ goes into the forecast. creased 50 times normal in some areas of the Another controversial aspect of wildlife American West where large energy develop­ censusing is rooted in a long-entrenched ri­ ers have moved into unpopulated wilderness. valry between biologists and wardens. Some

15 biologists feel that wardens frequently blow with direct contact and experience with the poaching issue out of proportion. War­ natural settings and wildlife (such as tb-ose dens counter that census techniques are no­ experienced while camping, backpacking, toriously inaccurate and that biologists are hunting, fishing, bird watching, etc.). consistently opimistic in their population 2. Ecological values - the systemic impor­ estimates because they fear appearing inept tance of particular environmental habitats and fear representing sportsmen in a bad to the well-being and continuity of inter­ light. As an example, the DFG's 1975-76 related flora and fauna. Possible criteria study on deer poaching indicated that out­ include diversity, population uniqueness, of-season deer kills occur at a rate nearly biomass, productivity, and trophic posi­ twice that of the legal in-season take (CDFG tion. 1976). In the most recent Environmental Im­ 3. Existence ormoralistic values - the sig­ pact Report on deer hunting in California, nificance ofparticular habitats or species biologists state that the earlier study was not as treasured spiritual objects to preserve statistically reliable and that deer poaching and protect, regardless of their immediate is nota significant problem (CDFG 1992b). utility or tangible benefit. Most wardens adamantly disagree. 4. Scientific values - the biological and Beyond the debate over wildlife censusing physiological importance of environmen­ lies the even more complex issue of ecologi­ tal objects for advancing human knowl­ cal values. The importance of habitat to the edge and understanding of the natural well-being and continuity of interrelated world; the potential educational value of plants and animals is widely accepted, but natural areas as outdoor classrooms. precise, measureable relationships and val­ 5. Aesthetic values - the physical attrac­ ues remain unknown. This includes diversity, tiveness and artistic virtues of environmen­ population numbers, uniqueness, productiv­ tal wildlife objects. ity, and position in the food chain. What does 6. Utilitarian values - the present and fu­ the loss of an individual, population, or spe­ ture potential of environmental objects as cies do to an ecosystem? Some wildlife pro­ sources of material benefits to people and fessionals understand the need to begin society. thinking on a larger scale - from species to 7. Cultural, symbolic and historic val­ ecosystems - but baseline information is ues - the importance of natural areas or sorely lacking and resistance to change is species as reflections of unique societal great. Amidst the debate, concrete answers experiences and specialized affections, remain elusive. such as strong affection for individual en­ In assessing the impacts of poaching on vironmental wildlife objects. California's wildlife, it is important to under­ stand thatwildlife has "value" that transcends Two major obstacles exist in assessing the monetary worth alone. When a poacher kills importance ofintangible environmental ben­ a deer or catches a fish, the impact is greater efits: a bias exists in the minds of most ana­ than a lost recreational opportunity, a loss in lysts, the general public and legislative deci­ revenue to the state, or depletion of a re­ sion-makers toward the consideration of source. Yale researcher Stephen R. Kellert quantitative factors, especially if measurable (1984) explains that at least seven environ­ in dollars and related human needs (e.g. food, mental values or benefits should be consid­ energy, jobs); and the assignment of qualita­ ered in any cost-benefit analyses of wildlife: tive assessments to intangible environmen­ tal values typically results in grossly impre­ 1. Naturalistidoutdoor recreational val­ cise evaluations and a poor identification of ues - the appreciative benefits associated the values at risk (Kellert 1984).

16 Kellert believes that before an equitable remote hunting camp to check on a report and comprehensive basis is established for that he had been poaching deer and bobcat, properly assessing wildlife values, we must neither of which was in season in Idaho at be clearer about what intangible values are the time. Dallas readily admitted killing deer at risk and use these categories consistently for camp meat and argued it was a reason­ to assure comparability. Additionally, given able thing to do considering his location. the inherent bias toward the quantifiable, we When the wardens, both of whom were need to develop standardized procedures for armed, announced their intention to arrest numerically measuring all values (Kellert him, Dallas shot them both in a quick draw 1984). While these values are difficult to reminiscent of a western movie shoot-out. quantify, each has substantial bearing on how He then went to his tent, retrieved a rifle, and we view wildlife, how we manage wildlife, shot both men in the head (Long 1985, Scialfa and how we evaluate the impact of poach­ and Machlis 1993). mg. Dallas subsequently became the object of a highly publicized, sixteen-month manhunt. PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF He was ultimately captured only a few hours POACHING from his original hunting camp where the shootings took place. His ability to elude A general public disinterest towards ille­ capture was attributed to his exceptional gal killing of wildlife is frequently cited as a wilderness skills and to the probability that major stumbling block to effective anti­ he was receiving assistance from local resi­ poaching campaigns (East 1979, Turbak dents (Long 1985, Scialfa and Machlis 1993). 1982), although polls in California show a Athis trial, Dallas testified that he believed strong general concern. In many parts of the the wardens were going to kill him and that country, this apathy is much closer to sym­ he shot them in self-defense. The furor over pathy, if not support (Mann 1979). In parts the incident increased when the Idaho jury of eastern Montana, rural children play agreed and found him guilty only of volun­ "poacher and warden" much like "cowboys tary manslaughter. Several jurors remarked and Indians," and the warden is the bad guy after the trial that had Dallas not shot the two (Scialfa and Machlis 1993). Schueller (1980) wardens a second time, they would have documents a case in Texas in which poach­ ruled for justifiable homicide. Dallas was sen­ ers on trial in Federal court received legal and tenced to thirty years in prison and declared financial support from members of the local eligible for parole in seven years (Long 1985, community. Scialfa and Machlis 1993). In what is probably the most famous case However, in March of 1986, Dallas es­ of all, folk-hero status was accorded Claude caped from prison. He was recaptured ten Dallas, a poacher who shot and killed two months later in southern California. Dallas Idaho Department of Fish and Game offic­ claimed he had escaped because he feared ers in early 1981. Dallas worked as a ranch being killed by vengeful prison guards. Once hand and trapper in southeastern Oregon and again the jury agreed, and in a subsequent northern Nevada. He was a loner who culti­ trial he was acquitted of escape charges. vated the image of a 19th century cowpoke; Shortly afterwards, he was transferred to a dressing in distinctive buckskins, chaps, and correctional facility in another state (Long spurs and always armed with a revolver and 1985, Scialfa and Machlis 1993). rifle. In the winter of 1980, he was trapping Much of the debate surrounding the bobcats along the Owyhee River near where Claude Dallas trial revolved around his char­ the borders of Oregon, Nevada, and Idaho acterization as an admirably old-fashioned meet. Two wardens approached Dallas in his and fiercely independent individual who

17 merely sought to be left alone and who was longed to the person who owned the land entitled to live off the land. The controversy upon which it was found. The hunting and illustrates the considerable animosity that killing of wildlife was possible only with the exists toward wildlife laws among certain permission of the landowner. As a result, groups and that unrestricted access to wild­ hunting and fishing were restricted to the life is still closely associated with deeply held wealthy and aristocratic class (kings, dukes, beliefs about personal freedoms (Scialfa and and knights) which owned the land in large Machlis 1993). blocks. Those less fortunate, who frequently As stated in the previous section, the Cali­ lived adjacent to the restricted lands, were fornia Department of Fish and Game simu­ banned from hunting or possessing game lated 134 deer poaching incidents in 1975­ (Farnsworth 1980). Such a ban perpetuated 76, but not even one was reported by the a pervasive system of class discrimination, public (CDFG 1976). In a more recent study and poaching grew out of both a need for in Alberta, only seven of 649 simulated the meat and as a form of social protest poaching incidents were reported. Officials against such class discrimination. in both studies were directly observed by When American colonists began writing landowners or other members of the public wildlife laws, they sought to avoid the class during actual kills or immediately after when discrimination of old Europe by allowing their purpose musthave been known. Alberta hunting privileges for all citizens, regardless researchers speculate possible reasons for the of land ownership. Just as every individual is lack of reports of illegal activity are: 1) lack equal in freedom and rights, wildlife is of awareness by the public of what consti­ viewed as being held in a "public trust!! ­ tutes a violation; 2) the probability of viola­ and is owned equally by all citizens. In addi­ tors being friends or relatives; 3) sectors of tion, colonial America was largely wilderness, the public having negative attitudes toward which helped to break down the old Euro­ wildlife; and 4) illegal take activities not be­ pean traditions that reserved the game for the ing considered significant enough to report large landowners (Farnsworth 1980). This (Boxall and Smith 1987). Another consider­ mindset is reflected in the belief that as long ation, suggested by a DFG warden, is that, as the individual is not infringing upon the in California, potential witnesses may as­ rights and property of others, he has the right sume there is only a remote likelihood that to kill wildlife as he pleases (Falasco 1985), DFG will respond to the report or apprehend and whatever he kills, he owns. the violator. The same warden said that the Today, public attitudes toward wildlife are growing use of cellular phones is helping to changing. "A sense of profound change per­ encourage people to report violations, but vades the wildlife management field today,!! DFG does not supply wardens with such writes Stephen R. Kellert (1985a). "Various equipment. indicators suggest that basic shifts have oc­ Apathy toward poaching is also a func­ curred in American attitudes and recreational tion of demographics. With a human popu­ uses of wildlife. These changes have been lation in excess of 30 million, California is reflected, for example, in a series [studies one of the most urbanized states in America. of American attitudes, knowledge, and be­ Poaching is an activity most people relate to haviors toward wildlife (Kellert 1979, 1980; hunting and fishing, both forms of recreation Kellert and Berry 1981) as well as in the find­ practiced primarily in rural settings. ings of the 1980 National Hunting; Fishing; and The public's current attitude toward Wildlife-Related Recreation Survey (USDI 1982), poaching in the United States is rooted in a which estimated that a remarkable $40 bil­ cultural tradition that dates back to feudal lion [are] spent on all forms of wildlife recre­ Europe. In historical Europe, wildlife be- ation, including $14.8 billion on noncon-

18 sumptive wildlife use." Nonconsumptive 611 Only 80 of the 786 respondents (10.2 per­ wildlife use includes such activities as cent) who stated that they had observed a birdwatching, wildlife viewing, visits to zoos violation actually reported it to a law en­ or museums, scientific study, or photogra­ forcement agency. Approximately one­ phy (Kellert 1980). third reported to a park ranger and one­ Research indicates that the public is con­ fourth reported to the California Depart­ cerned about violations of fish and wildlife ment of Fish and Game. The most fre­ laws (Hooper and Fletcher 1989). Eighty­ quently cited reason for not reporting was seven percent of the respondents in a national that the respondent "did not know where survey thought that violators should receive to report." stiff fines and possible jail sentences (Kellert 611 However, only 14.5 percent felt that 1979). Getting citizens actually to report vio­ present enforcement activities by the Cali­ lators has proven more difficult. fornia Department of Fish and Game are In 1988, the California Department of Fish very effective in protecting fish and wild­ and Game asked researchers at California life. State University, Chico, to conduct a survey e Three-fourths of the hunters and anglers to assess public attitudes concerning fish and in California stated that they would be wildlife protection and law enforcement in willing to pay an additional $5 license fee California. This survey of 2,525 Californians to fund additional fish and wildlife pro­ provided the following results: tection services. e In addition, almost two-thirds of .. Almost two-thirds of all Californians be­ nonhunters and nonanglers said that they lieved that fish and wildlife and their habi­ would be willing to pay a $5 voluntary tat need more protection, and three-quar­ fee for additional protection of fish and ters of the nonconsumptive wildlife wildlife. recreationists believed thatgreater protec­ tion is needed. Therefore, while most Californians are 611 The most serious perceived threats to concerned about fish and wildlife resources wildlife were: 1) pollution and hazardous and are willing to pay more for its protec­ wastes; 2) loss of endangered species; and tion, most are at a loss as to how to help. 3) poaching. Since the success of any anti-poaching cam­ III More than half of all Californians indicated paign depends upon the support of the pub­ that they feel a lot of concern about these lic, such a program must aggressively edu­ issues which affect fish and wildlife. The cate both the hunting and nonhunting pub­ highest levels of concern were expressed lic as to the new character of the crime of by nonconsumptive wildlife recreationists. poaching. Such an education program must 611 Almost half of all Californians perceived convey four critical messages: fish and game law violations to be very serious, yet more than half believed that 1. Poaching is a serious and widespread crime violators of these laws are hardly ever ap­ in California that is a significant threat to prehended. our state's wildlife heritage and causes • Overall, almost one-third reported having hundreds of millions of dollars in damage. observed a violation in the past, and more than half of the respondents who partici­ 2. The modern poacher is rarely an impover­ pate in both consumptive and noncon­ ished subsistence hunter just trying to feed sumptive fish and wildlife activities indi­ his family. cated that they had observed one or more violations. 3. The poacher is a thief, who steals wildlife

19 that belongs to all Californians, and the commercial poacher is the most destruc­ tive wildlife thief of all.

4. State and federal wildlife officials cannot adequately protect California's wildlife without the support of the public. The public needs the ability to contact DFG wardens in a timely manner to be effec­ tive in reporting violations and to aid in apprehending violators.

20 SECTION II

WILDLIFE LAWS AND lution was the complete authority of the king REGULATIONS and Parliament to determine what rights oth­ ers might have with respect to the taking of uring the reign of the Roman wildlife (Bean 1983). Empire, wild animals were It was a series of Supreme Court rulings considered to be like the air in the nineteenth century that moved America and the oceans in that they away from the earlier legal precedents of Ro­ were the property of no one. man law, civil law of the European continent, Yet unlike the air and the oceans, wild ani­ and the common law of England, to estab­ mals could become the property of anyone lish a doctrine of public ownership of wild­ who captured or killed them. Apparently the life. This doctrine affirms the principle that only legal restriction in Rome on the right to wildlife is not the private property of any in­ kill or possess wildlife was that the private dividual or group of individuals, but rather landowner had the exclusive right to kill and the collective property of all the people. It possess the wildlife on his property. Govern­ establishes the role of the government as ment regulation of the right to take wildlife public trustee in the task of wildlife conser­ became more evident in feudal Europe. vation. That role is filled primarily by the Through the prohibition of hunting and fish­ states, and to a lesser degree by the federal ing, feudal kings and barons sought to retain government (Bean 1983). the fruits of their conquests by keeping weap­ ons out of the hands of those they had con­ quered. STATE LAWS Further restrictions on hunting were im­ posed in England follOWing the Saxon inva­ The California Legislature bears the re­ sion of 450 A.D. and the Norman Conquest sponsibility for making the laws which pro­ in 1066 A.D. The king soon claimed the sole tect the state's wildlife. These laws are codi­ right to pursue game or to take fish anywhere fied in the Fish and Game Code ofCalifornia. In in the kingdom, though he frequently be­ addition to setting forth the general laws cov­ stowed hunting privileges upon the favored ering wildlife, the Fish and Game Code also nobility. Over time, Royal power over wild­ describes the organization and general func­ life gradually gave way to Parliament. How­ tions of the Fish and Game Commission and ever, this transition continued to favor those the Department of Fish and Game (State of of wealth, while discriminating against those California 1992b). less privileged by restricting hunting and ac­ The Fish and Game Commission is a body cess to firearms. The essential core of English of five members appointed by the Governor wildlife law on the eve of the American Revo- and approved by the Senate for six-year

21 TABLE 2. SAMPLING OF CALIFORNIA POACHING LAWS

Crime Class of Crime Maximum Penalty

Sale or purchase of bear parts Felony $5,000/1 year state prison or County jail

Take, injure, possess, transport or sale Misdemeanor $10,000/1 year County jail of any mountain lion or parts thereof

Take of game mammal or bird without Misdemeanor $2,000/1 year County jail a license tag or stamp

Fishing without a license Infraction $1,000

Use of gill nets to take salmon, steel­ Misdemeanor $5,000/6 months in County head, or striped bass, except in speci­ jail! revocation of license fied districts -- first conviction

Second conviction (of above) Felony $10,000/1 year state prison

Purchase, sell, or offer to purchase or Misdemeanor $5,000/1 year County jail sell sturgeon or any parts thereof, in­ cluding sturgeon eggs

Take of endangered species or threat­ Misdemeanor $5,000/1 year County jail ened or fully protected birds-of-prey

Knowing purchase of sport-caught aba­ Misdemeanor $40,000 lone for commercial purposes

Sale or purchase of fish under a sport Misdemeanor $7,500 fishing license

Any violation of the Fish and Game Forteiture of device/appara­ Code tus used in committing of­ fense (at the discretion of judge)

Source: Fish and Game Code ofCalifornia 1992

22 terms. The Commission essentially imple­ provides technical expertise and advice on ments the general laws passed by the Legis­ wildlife issues being considered by the Fish lature by setting specific regulations cover­ and Game Commission. It is the game war­ ing seasons, limits, and methods of take for dens in the Department of Fish and Game's game species. These regulations are codified Wildlife Protection Division who enforce the in the California Code of Regulations, Title laws and regulations passed by the Legisla­ 14. Natural Resources. The Fish and Game ture and the Fish and Game Commission. Commission also has authority to suspend The Fish and Game Code and Title 14 con­ or revoke licenses, access civil penalties tain a variety of laws and regulations cover­ against violators, hear appeals from individu­ ing poaching. (See Table 2.) The fines and pen­ als whose licenses have been revoked, and alties vary in severity, depending upon approve the listing or delisting of threatened whether the violation has been classified as a and endangered species in California (State felony, misdemeanor, or infraction. For in­ of California 1992b). The Commission fur­ stance, fishing without a license is a minor ther has the ability to establish "policies," al­ infraction punishable with a maximum fine though the legal status of such general poli­ of $1,000. At the other extreme is the sale or cies is vague at best. purchase of bear parts - a felony, punish­ The Fish and Game Commission has a able by a maximum fine of $5,000 and im­ major role in hearing appeals from sports­ prisonment for up to one year in state prison men and some commercial fishermen over or county jail. Killing a deer without a license loss of their hunting and fishing privileges. is a misdemeanor, and carries a maximum fine The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) can of $2,000 and up to one year in county jail. suspend hunting, fishing, and commercial The majority of violations listed in the Fish fishing licenses under some conditions when and Game Code are misdemeanors. The pen­ a Fish and Game Code violation occurs. The alty for some violations increases in severity affected person has the right to appeal this if the violation is repeated. For instance, the decision to the Fish and Game Commission, use of gill nets to take salmon, steelhead, or which will, at a regularly scheduled meeting, striped bass is a misdemeanor for the first hear testimony from the appellant and the conviction, but a felony for the second con­ DFG's Wildlife Protection Division. The viction. The Fish and Game Code also allows Commission has one of three options: 1) the judge before whom any person is tried deny the appeal and let the DFG decision on for a violation to require the forfeiture of any suspension of the hunting, fishing, or com­ device or apparatus used in committing the mercial fishing license stand; 2) modify the offense (State of California 1992b). This can DFG decision, such as changing the length include firearms, traps, gill nets, motor ve­ of the license suspension; or 3) reverse the hicles, and even fishing vessels. DFG decision and allow continuation of hunting or fishing privileges for the individual appellant. In past years, the Commission's FEDERAL LAWS appeals process was inconsistent in applica­ tion to individuals, butrecent regulations and In 1900, the federal governmententered the process improvements have substantially wildlife protection arena with the passage of improved the Commission's ability to deal the Lacey Act, which prohibits the interstate consistently with license suspension appeals. transportation of any wild animals killed in The Department of Fish and Game is violation of state law. Violation of the Lacey charged by law with the protection, manage­ Act is a felony punishable with a fine of up to ment, and enhancement of fish and wildlife $2,000, up to two years in federal prison, and resources in California. The Departmentalso forfeiture of any guns, traps, nets, vehicles or 23 other equipment used in the offense. Other federal wildlife protection laws soon fol­ to the special agents of the U.S. Fish and lowed: Wildlife Service, with the exception of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine • Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) - pro­ Mammal Protection Act. Under these acts, hibits the sale or offer for sale of migratory law enforcement is shared by the National birds. Violation of this federal law is a Marine Fisheries Service (which is responsible felony and can bring a maximum criminal for the protection of whales, porpoises, and penalty of $2,000, two years in federal seals) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prison, and forfeiture of equipment used (which is responsible for the protection of in the offense. manatees, dugongs, polar bears, sea otters, • Bald Eagle Protection Act (1940) - pro­ and walruses) (Bean 1983). Both federal agen­ hibits the taking, possession, sale, purchase, cies also handle cases involving endangered transportation, importation, or exportation marine species such as salmon and sea turtles. of bald and golden eagles. Carries a misde­ DFG wardens are deputized as federal offic­ meanor criminal penalty of up to $20,000, ers and have authority to enforce federal laws five years in federal prison, and cancella­ as well. tion of federal hunting or fishing permit. Some of the typical state and federal wild­ The Secretary of the Interior can also levy life violations that enforcement officers en­ a civil penalty of $10,000 for each viola­ counter include: tion. e Endangered Species Act (1973) - pro­ • Taking or attempting to take game or hibits the taking, possession, sale, purchase, fish out of season - taking game or fish transportation, importation, or exportation during a closed season or outside of pre­ of endangered species. This is a federal mis­ scribed hunting hours. demeanor which carries a criminal penalty (II Taking or attempting to take wildlife of up to $50,000, one year in federal prison, in an illegal place - taking game or fish in and a civil penalty of $25,000 for each vio­ closed areas, refuges, or on private prop­ lation. erty posted against hunting and fishing. e Airborne Hunting Act (1976) - makes it (II Improper license - hunting or fishing unlawful to shoot or harass wildlife from withouta license (most common violation), an aircraft. This crime is a misdemeanor and using a license issued to someone else, or can result in a criminal fine of $5,000, up failing to display a license properly. to one year in federal prison, and possible 4& Illegal method - California has established forfeiture of firearms, aircraft, or other proper and improper methods and equip­ equipment. ment for taking fish and wildlife. For ex­

@II Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972) ample, it is unlawful to hunt deer with a - places a moratorium on taking and im­ spotlight or with a .22-caliber rifle, to use a porting marine mammals and marine mam­ shotgun that holds more than three shells mal products. A federal misdemeanor, this when hunting ducks or geese, and to use violation carries a criminal fine of up to fishing gear with too many hooks. $20,000, one year in federal prison, and an • Illegal possession - California has laws additional civil penalty of $10,000. that prohibit the possession of fish or wild­ life or their parts at certain times of the year, These federal laws, along with their fines that limit the number of animals that may and penalties (both criminal and civil) are be taken per day, season, or year, and that codified in the Cede of Federal Regulations may be possessed at anyone time. (CFR). (See Table 3.) Primary responsibility fII Illegal procedure - one of the most com­ for enforcement of federal wildlife laws falls mon procedural violations is failure to tag

24 TABLE 3. SAMPLING OF FEDERAL POACHING LAWS

Law Description Class of Maximum Penalty Crime Migratory Bird Treaty prohibits the knowing sale Felony Criminal: $2,000/2 years Act or offer for sale of migra- Federal prison! forfeiture of tory birds guns, traps, nets, vehicles or other equipment used in offense

Lacey Act prohibits the interstate Felony Criminal: $20,000/5 years transport of fish, wildlife, Federal prison (each viola- or plants taken or pos- tion)/ cancellation of fed- sessed in violation of any eral hunting or fishing li- state, federal, or interna- cense/permit tionallaw Civil: per Secretary of In- terior /$ 10,000 (each vio- lation)

Eagle Protection Act prohibits the taking, pos- Misdemeanor Criminal: $5,000/1 year session, sale, purchase, Federal prison transportation, importa- Civil: $5,000 (each viola- tion, or exportation of bald tion) and golden eagles

Endangered Species Act prohibits the taking, pos- Misdemeanor Criminal: $50,000/1 year session, sale, purchase, Federal prison transportation, importa- Civil: $25,000 (each viola- tion' or exportation of en- tion) dangered species

Airborne Hunting Act unlawful to shoot or harass Misdemeanor Criminal: $5,000/1 year wildlife from an aircraft Federal prison! forfeiture of guns, aircraft, or other equipment used in offense

Marine Mammal moratorium on taking and Misdemeanor Criminal: $20,000/1 year Protection Act importing marine mam- Federal prison (each viola- mals and marine mammal tion) products, except as speci- fied Civil $10,000 (each viola- tion)

Source: The Evolution ofWildlife Law (Bean 1983)

25 big-game animals properly. Tags are used the public with hunting and fishing informa­ to identify the hunter who killed the ani­ tion, as well as promote and coordinate mals and must remain attached to the ani- hunter safety programs. They assist other mal during transit and storage. departmental personnel in collecting and re­ lD Illegal transportation or exportation porting information on the condition of fish of protected species - California regu­ and wildlife and their habitat. Wardens are lates the transportation of fish and wild­ also responsible for inspecting stream alter­ life, in whole or in part, across state lines. ations, timber harvests, and development In some instances, the importation or ex­ projects. commercial fishing boats, canner­ portation of certain species may be totally ies, markets, stores, and other commercial es­ prohibited. tablishments handling fish or game. While • Illegal taking or possession of pro­ DFG has the primary responsibility for wild­ tected species - federal law prohibits the life law enforcement in the state, there are taking of animals listed as endangered or other state and federal agencies with more threatened under the federal Endangered limited authority for wildlife protection in Species Act. California also prohibits the California (See Table 4.) taking of federally listed species or state The Department of Parks and Recre­ listed species that are threatened, endan­ ation (DPR) is responsible for 1.3 million gered, or otherwise protected. acres of parkland in California, consisting of lD Offering for sale wildlife species in 70 state parks, 16 state reserves, 71 state violation of federal and state law ­ beaches, 47 historical units, 35 state recre­ California prohibits the offering for sale ation areas, and 7 state vehicular recreation of animals killed out of season or other·· areas. DPR's 632 rangers are peace officers wise illegally taken (State of California charged with authority to enforce all state 1992b, Chandler 1986). laws, including the Fish and Game Code. DPR policy is for rangers to only enforce laws inside state parks. According to the DPR re­ LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES port, Stewardship 1983; poaching was identi­ fied as the third greatest threat to wildlife in The Department of Fish and Game California state parks, behind direct human (DFG) is the lead state agency in wildlife pro­ disturbances (e.g., harassment, noise, pres­ tection in California. The 239 field wardens ence) and predation by nonnative species in DFG's Wildlife Protection Division are (e.g., feral cats) (CDPR 1984). charged with guarding more than 1,100 miles The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of coastline, 3,600 lakes, 1,200 reservoirs, 80 (USFWS) is an agency within the Department major rivers, and 159,000 square miles of land of Interior and is the lead federal agency in (Hastings 1993). wildlife protection in California. In addition Wardens have statewide authority as to federal law enforcement, the USFWS man­ peace officers with the primary duty of en­ ages a system of national wildlife refuges in forcing the Fish and Game Code and the the state. Hunting is permitted on many of regulations of the Fish and Game Commis­ these refuges and is strictly regulated. Only sion. A warden is normally assigned to a spe­ 17 USFWS special agents are stationed in cific area within the state or to a specific California, nine ofwhom work as inspectors marine location which might include ocean at the ports of entry in Los Angeles and San boat patrols. A warden usually works on Francisco, leaving eight special agents to weekends, holidays, and often during the cover the entire state. night, performing both land and ocean pa­ The National Marine Fisheries Service trols to prevent violations. Wardens provide (NMFS) is an agency within the Department

26 of Commerce and shares responsibility for spawning beds of the endangered winter run enforcement of the Marine Mammal Protec­ chinook salmon (NMFS 1993). NMFS per­ tion Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Spe­ forms these many duties with only fourteen cies Act (ESA) with USFWS. NMFS special special agents and one fisheries enforcement agents recently charged a Monterey squid officer stationed in California, although they fisherman with shooting sea lions (Springer get occasional assistance from the Coast 1993). They also regulate both the foreign Guard. and domestic groundfish fishery off Califor­ The National Park Service (NPS) is an nia, Oregon, and Washington, as part of the agency within the Department of the Inte­ Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Manage­ rior and administers some 18 national parks, ment Plan. Agents boarded one commercial monuments, historic sites, and recreation trawl vessel in Bodega Bay and discovered areas throughout California. Hunting is gen­ over 15,000 pounds of unlawfully taken rock­ erally not permitted in units of the National fish concealed in a boarded off section of the Park System. Various types of jurisdiction, i.e. fish hold. The operator and owner of the concurrent, exclusive, and proprietary, may vessel were fined $20,000. During the sum­ affect federal legal activities and degrees of mer months, agents also patrol the upper cooperation with state officials. Some 250 Sacramento River near Redding to protect the law enforcement rangers enforce pertinent

TABLE 4 STATE AND FEDERAL WILDLIFE ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN CALIFORNIA

Agency Number of Law Enforcement Personnel State Department of Fish and Game (DFG) 239 Department of Parks and Recreation 632

Federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 17 National Marine Fisheries Service 1.'5 Bureau of Land Management 75 * U.S. Forest Service 210 National Park Service 250

Total 1469

*Turns all poaching cases over to DFG Source: California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Parks and Recreation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service. (1993)

27 sections of the Code of Federal Regulations warden's time is spent behind the wheel of a (CFR), including those covering poaching. truck or at the helm of a boat. Only 239 DFG The u.s. Forest Service (USFS) admin­ field wardens must cover 159,000 square isters some 18 national forests covering 20 miles (665 square miles per warden), and this million acres (20 percent of the state) in Cali­ figure does not include the hundreds of fornia. The Forest Service operates under a square miles of ocean adjacent to the 1,100 multiple-use mandate. Activities such as tim­ miles of coastline. One warden in northeast­ ber production, grazing, mining, recreation, ern California points out that it takes him two and wilderness preservation occur in the na­ hours at highway speed to drive from one tional forests. Hunting is allowed in most of end of his patrol area to the other. The prob­ these areas during established seasons and lem is that he spends most of his time driv­ is coordinated within each state. It is the ing the back roads. He's lucky if he can cover policy of the Forest Services's 210 law en­ one-fourth of his area in a day. A lot of the forcement rangers (50 special agents and 160 experienced poachers know that, and they law enforcement officers) to turn over all have little fear of getting caught (Voet 1992c). poaching cases to the Departmentof Fish and Marine patrols along the coast will often Game. reveal violations of commercial fishing regu­ The Bureau of Land Management lations. Wardens monitoring the sardine fish­ (BLM) manages 17.1 million acres of public ery boarded two purse seine vessels and lands in California (17 percent of the state). found loads of 99 percent sardines, well in It is also responsible for about 47 million excess of the 35 percent incidental tolerance acres of subsurface mineral resources repre­ allowance. Ten fishermen were cited, and 100 sentiD"g 47 percent of the state. BLM has a tons of sardines were seized. Within months multiple-use mandate similar to the Forest the same fishermen were caught with a load Service, but is administered by the Depart­ of 68 percent sardines, and this time wardens ment of the Interior. Similar activities occur seized 60 tons of fish. This case highlights on BLM lands as in national forests, includ­ the critical need to have DFG personnel avail­ ing hunting during established seasons. The able to document every landing in these regu­ BLM has 75 law enforcement rangers in Cali­ lated fisheries (CDFG 1990). fornia' 55 of whom are in the California In San Diego County, one of the more un­ Desert Conservation Area in the southern usual duties of a warden is to patrol for rep­ part of the state. BLM rangers have author­ tile poachers in the desert. The Anza-Borrego ity to enforce several federal laws, including Desert is home to several reptiles found no­ the Endangered Species Act and the Wild where else in the world, and there is a big Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. In May business in capturing and selling the rare rep­ 1993, a BLM ranger arrested one Cambodian tiles to scientific collecting houses that spe­ national and cited five others for illegally cap­ cialize in reselling the specimens to colleges turing nine endangered desert tortoises. The and universities. The collecting of some spe­ tortoises were allegedly intended as the main cies of reptiles is legal - usually the limit is course at a Cambodian wedding feast (Keen­ two, the reptiles cannot be sold, and the col­ Eyed Cop 1993). lector must have a fishing license. Other rep­ tiles, like the desert tortoise, the San Diego horned lizard, and the southern rubber boa, TO CATCH A POACHER are strictly protected. DFG wardens often patrol the desert at night, particularly on The most basic tool of the warden in pre­ calm, warm, moonless nights when reptiles venting poaching and catching poachers is - and collectors are out in great num­ patrol, either by land or by sea. Much of a bers. The wardens turn oEE their lights and

28 park on a knoll overlooking a stretch of high­ in winter) to high activity areas (such as in way. Reptile collectors often have their low­ the Central Valley during duck hunting sea­ beam headlights adjusted lower than normal, son or to the coast during abalone season). and their pattern of collecting is easy to spot: When a problem, such as continuous reports they drive slowly until they see a reptile of the illegal take of striped bass, was identi­ crossing the road, then they stop, get out, fied, a plan to combat the problem was de­ capture the reptile, then drive again. It is a veloped, and additional wardens were as­ more common practice than many people re­ signed to work with the district warden in alize. One night, just south of the Anza­ the problem area to assure the plan is a suc­ Borrego Desert State Park boundary, every cess (CDFG 1989, 1990). Directed enforce­ single car the wardens stopped was collect­ ment details have been held throughout the ing reptiles (Sorensen 1989). state: Wardens also spend time at swap meets and gun shows looking for people selling il­ • Patrol efforts on private duck clubs in west­ legal animal parts. The claws, jawbones, and ern Kern County produced a number of ci­ teeth from black bears and mountain lions tations. Two clubs were found in violation are popular jewelry items, and an illegal bear­ of baiting regulations. Twenty arrests were skin rug will sometimes bring as much as made for such violations as shooting ducks $1,000 (Sorensen 1989). Additional time is over the limit, possession of too many spent inspecting Asian American apothecary ducks, using unplugged shotguns, and no shops, restaurants, fish markets, and pet license or duck stamp. stores - all potential markets for illegal wild­ • A directed enforcement detail of 22 war­ life. dens was mounted in the Sacramento/San Wildlife check stations on public highways Joaquin River Delta area. The target was are another important enforcement tool. Usu­ violators taking undersized striped bass. In ally set up during hunting seasons, the pur­ one 12-hour period over 700 undersized pose of the checkpoints is to prevent viola­ striped bass were recovered with many of tions of the Fish and Game Code and appre­ them returned to the water. The operation hend violators. They are also used on the resulted in 218 arrests and 76 verbal warn­ coast to check abalone divers. Violations ings. most frequently detected involve illegal take, .. Protection of spawning salmon was the possession, and transportation of animals in goal of another detail held on the Ameri­ California. Checkpoints are also used to can River. Personnel from the U.S. Fish and gather biological and statistical data related Wildlife Service, state and county park per­ to abundance, health, range of species plus sonnel, and 12 wardens spent 855 hours user-group demographics. They also provide contacting 2,689 people. 355 arrests were a method to help educate the public about made along with 255 verbal warnings laws, regulations, and resource conditions. (CDFG 1989). Successful checkpoints have been conducted in the counties of Butte, EI Dorado, Sutter, Directed enforcement details also allowed Tehama, Shasta, Siskiyou, Imperial, and on for the use of specialized enforcement meth­ Grizzly Island in Solano County (CDFG ods and techniques that may not have been 1990). available to the solo warden. One notewor­ The use of specialized or directed enforce­ thy case involved the use of a specialized en­ ment teams was once more common in forcement tool to combat the illegal taking DFG's law enforcement operations. It was oflobsters in the San Diego area. Several lob­ standard practice to move wardens from low sters were removed from unlawfully set traps, activity areas (such as from the Sierra Nevada injected with a tiny, coded, metallic tag and

29 returned to the traps. A stakeoutwas set and tremendous. Offenders are often chided mer­ when the traps were serviced by a SCUBA cilessly about killing wooden deer or diver, a team ofwardens was in place to greet "deercoys," with names like Rolex, Sucker, him at the Shelter Island boat ramp. Thirty­ Memorex, Timex, and, of course, Bucky six (36) lobsters were found hidden in a com­ (Woodard 1988). partment under the floorboards of the boat. Using all these strategies, DFG wardens Six of his lobsters reflected the presence of made 283,171 contacts with the public in the tags when "read" by the scanning device 1992. They issued 3,518 citations for hunt­ passed over them. Similarly, six lobsters were ing violations, 15,415 citations for sportfish­ electronically tagged in one trap of a series ing violations, and 365 citations for commer­ of traps illegally placed in a closed area of cial fishing violations. The most common San Diego Bay. After three days of surveil­ violation was fishing without a license lance, a commercial fisherman was seen (9,632). working and resetting the traps. When he was While such statistics are impressive, they contacted at the docks, the tags were found reveal little about the extent of commercial in the lobsters in his vessel, and eight under­ poaching. For instance, 214 citations were sized lobsters were found in a concealed area written for spotlighting deer at night. How (CDFG 1990). Unfortunately, budget cuts many of those killed were intended for per­ have sharply curtailed directed enforcement sonal consumption and how many were in­ efforts. tended for the black market? Was the fishing In an interesting reversal of the age-old violator who was cited for two fish over-the­ hunting technique of decoying, DFG war­ limit going to take them home for dinner, or dens are using deer decoys to catch deer to the local fish market to sell? It is next to poachers. "Bucky," a simple, full-body stuffed impossible for the warden to know. mount of a forked-horn buck, is usually set Catching a poacher in the act is obviously up in areas near roads that are frequented by the easiest way to stop the crime, but it is deer, while the wardens remain hidden also a rare occurrence. Wardens are more nearby. Poachers who mistake the decoy for likely to find evidence after the fact - a gut a live deer are apprehended by the hidden pile in the brush or blood stains in the back wardens. DFG hopes such details will help of a pickup which are frequently insuffi­ reduce incidents of poaching from roads and cient for a conviction. Physical evidence of spotlighting deer at night (Tognazzini 1992). poaching and other wildlife crimes histori­ The results have been so encouraging that cally has been difficult to obtain, but the sci­ DFG is now using wild pig, turkey, and ence of criminal forensics is helping to change pheasant decoys as well. that. Several states across the country employ An eastern Shasta County man was re­ similar programs, although some remain re­ cently fined $2,500 and had his hunting privi­ luctant due to legal concerns over entrap­ leges revoked for three years for killing a large ment. Most states have avoided entrapment mule deer buck, ending California's first pros­ problems by conferring with legal officials ecution of a wildlife poaching case using new before setting up decoys. In Delaware, Geor­ DNA gene matching techniques. The buck gia, Alabama, Washington, Virginia, and was shot in the fall of 1992 on a ranch adja­ other states, using decoys has resulted in an cent to the Rising River Ranch, owned by almost 100 percent conviction rate. Although actor Clint Eastwood, near the Cassel area, no one would argue the deterrent effect of a but it was tagged as if it had been killed on stiff fine and jail time for crimes like road Burney Mountain south of town. Tissue poaching, peer pressure is also at work here; samples of the deer - found hanging in a the embarrassment of shooting a fake deer is Burney garage - and tissue samples of the

30 intestinal remains found on the Rising River to become the eyes and ears of DFG. Cali­ Ranch were sent to the U.S. Fish and Wild­ fornians Turn In Poachers (CalTIP) is a life Service Forensics Laboratory in Ashland, secret witness program initiated in 1981 to Oregon for DNA analysis. The tests - a se­ help in the effort to protect the state's fish ries ofnewly developed examinations of deer and wildlife resources. Many fish and game deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) codes found in departments across the nation have similar chromosomes - matched the gut pile tissue programs. The CalTIP program provides a samples with the deer in the garage (Voet confidential, privately funded witness reward 1993c). program to encourage the public to provide California Department of Fish and Game information leading to the arrest of poach­ has its own Wildlife Forensic Laboratory in ers. Individuals wishing to report a poaching Rancho Cordova, near Sacramento. Staffed incident dial a toll-free number (1-800-952­ by wildlife pathologists, the Wildlife Foren­ 5400). A 24-hour hotline is staffed by DFG sics Laboratory conducts various biological personnel who then refer the call to a war­ examinations and analyses on a variety of den closest to the area. No names are given, wildlife species found in California. The most and the witness is not asked to testify. If the frequent analyses involve matching information leads to an arrest, a five mem­ bloodstains, organ tissue, hair, feathers, and ber Citizen Review Board determines the bone with the species of origin; dissection of amount of the reward up to $1,000. The carcasses to determine cause of death, time Board then publicizes the award, and the of death, and recovery of bullets; and chemi­ caller may contact the DFG to claim their cal analysis of bear gall bladders to determine reward. Since 1981, CalTIP has paid out more authenticity (90 percent of dried, confiscated than $112,000 in rewards for 462 cases. Re­ gall examined is either pig or cow). The Wild­ wards come from private contributions made life Forensics Laboratory has received fund­ by county fish and game commissions and ing to develop DNA probes for identifying sportsmens groups and are administered by (matching) individual deer from blood and the Citizen Review Board. tissue samples, similar to those used in the Only a small percentage of callers is inter­ federal laboratory in Oregon. ested in a reward. During 1991, CalTIP re­ Wildlife Forensic Laboratory staff work on ceived 4,277 calls and only 63 callers were about 150 cases per year and testify as ex­ interested in a reward. In 1992 the calls sur­ pert witnesses in Justice, Municipal, and Su­ passed 6,200. However, it is unclear how perior courts. Only 20 to 30 percent of the many of these calls were made to report cases investigated by the lab ever make it to poaching incidents, since CalTIP serves both court, but 95 percent of those result in con­ the DFG's Office of Oil Spill Prevention and viction. Approximately 15 percent of the cur­ Response as well as the secret witness pro­ rent cases involve commercial poaching. That gram, allowing callers to report both illegal is down from 30 to 35 percent in the past, polluters and poachers. Additionally, it is when more DFG wardens were working unknown how efficient the system is, since undercover investigations. There appears to many calls may not provide good informa­ be a strong correlation between the number tion, and many wardens are too busy to re­ of undercover investigations and the num­ spond to reports of minor violations. ber of commercial poaching operations dis­ DFG is also in the process of helping covered in California. county Fish and Game Commissions select Given the size of California and the only CalTIP coordinators to help develop aware­ 239 wardens in the field, public support and ness of the CalTIP program in all 58 coun­ involvement in anti-poaching efforts is criti­ ties. To date, 21 Coordinators have been ap­ cal. One program allows concerned citizens pointed to promote the CalTIP program to

31 local sportsmen, environmental, and other with undercover wardens. community organizations. Suspecting that bear poaching was taking Travelers outside of California who wit­ place in parts of northern California, DFG ini­ ness a violation, can simply call 1-800-8­ tiated one of its first undercover investiga­ WARDEN. Sponsored by the National Anti­ tions in 1981 to determine the extent of ille­ Poaching Foundation, Inc. (NAPF), based in gal bear parts sales in the state and identify Colorado Springs, Colorado, this toll-free some of the persons involved. The eighteen­ hotline will connect the caller with an NAPF month operation revealed, for the first time, operator. NAPF is a nonprofit, nonadvocacy clear evidence of statewide marketing of bear organization funded solely through contri­ parts, a high percentage of the consumer sales butions and annual memberships. NAPF taking place in Asian American communities operators will not take any information but of Los Angeles and in southeast Asia. It was will transfer the caller to the appropriate state the first time wardens had been able to pen­ agency. For the first time, the entire nation is etrate the ranks of some of the "houndsmen" linked through this communications system and other hunters who engage in illegal ac­ to help stop poachers (Voet 1993b). tivities in the pursuit and hunting of bears. The DFG's Wildlife Protection Division at­ The limited undercover effort revealed the tempts to educate the public through other presence of a loose marketing network the forums as well, although lack of staff and length of California that wardens believe time makes this difficult. These include war­ brought increasing pressure on black bear den participation in career days, sportsmen's populations of the state to meet demand for fairs, and other public law enforcement animal parts. In northern California, wardens events which reach thousands of individu­ accompanied houndsmen who illegally used als. "Townhall meetings" are held to main­ dead cows and other meat to attract bears tain open dialogue with both the commer­ and who killed bears during the closed sea­ cial fishing industry and the sport "party boat" son. In southern California, wardens discov­ fleet. These meetings were established to al­ ered that bear gall bladders, bringing prices Iowa forum for the hearing of differences ranging from $30 to $300 each in whole form, and has resulted in the establishment of pro­ were being sold primarily in Asian American cedures or standards to resolve those differ­ communities. During the investigation, war­ ences. Wardens also make an effort to meet dens observed or were aware of bear parts with prosecutors and judges to help make that represented no less than 250 black bears them aware of changes in fish and game regu­ (Klein 1982). lations (CDFG 1990). Additionally, wardens From 1981 to 1984, the U.S. Fish and regularly attend County Fish and Game Wildlife Service conducted Operation Fal­ Commission meetings. con, a three year covert investigation of ille­ gal activity involving raptors (birds of prey). The operation resulted in the conviction of UNDERCOVER OPERATIONS 52 individuals from California and other western and midwestern states for the ille­ While patrols, checkpoints, directed en­ gal capture of raptors from the wild, and the forcement, decoys, forensics, CalTIP, and illegal possession, transportation, sale, and education are all proven methods in combat­ purchase of birds of prey for falconry ­ ing the noncommercial poacher, they have hunting game with trained birds of prey. little impact on the commercial poacher. The Other charges included the manipulation of only method that has proven consistently federal bird bands and the falsification of effective against the illegal commercialization records to conceal or thwart detection of ofwildlife is to infiltrate poaching operations birds unlawfully taken from the wild.

32 In early 1985, DFG culminated one of its parts in California. The operation spanned most massive undercover sting operations the state from Trinity to San Diego County with the arrest of 24 people accused of catch­ and resulted in the prosecution of 75 defen­ ing and illegally selling sport fish. The sting dants for the illegal take, sale, and offer to was aimed at fishermen who take striped sell bear parts. The investigation involved bass, sturgeon, salmon, and steehead, and sell infiltrating an organized ring of bear poach­ them on the black market. DFG set up its ers who guided hunters, as well as following own fish market called "New China Specialty the illegal sale of bear gall bladders byapoth­ Foods" in Oakland, and was able to buy ecary shops and acupuncturists in many Cali­ 12,534 pounds of illegal fish caught in San fornia Asian American communities. Other Francisco Bay and the Klamath River. Partici­ species whose parts were illegally sold in this pating in the investigation were members of operation included deer, elk, abalone, rhinoc­ the u.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National eros, and tiger. Those convicted received fines Marine Fisheries Service, and the San Fran­ up to $5,000 and had their hunting licenses cisco Police Department. suspended for up to three years. The success of the New China operation led to the introduction oflegislation by Sena­ Operation Rufus (1988-1989) tor Ed Davis (Senate Bill 499, 1986 session) Operation Rufus was a 15-month under­ to set up a Special Operations Unit (SOU) cover investigation involving the illegal take within the Department of Fish and Game. and sale of furs in Modoc, Shasta, and With an initial budget of $700,000 and con­ Humboldt counties. Wardens obtained an sisting of three teams of undercover officers array of pelts, including 171 raccoons, 160 working throughout California, the primary bobcats, 94 foxes, 5 river otters (a protected aim of sou was to identify and prosecute species), 5 coyotes, and one ringtail (also pro­ illegal trafficking in wildlife and wildlife prod­ tected). Twenty-seven percent of the pelts ucts. were illegally sold. The operation netted 21 Working closely with other federal, state, defendants who were charged with a variety and county agencies, SOU has broken cases of offenses including the purchase and sale involving illegal take, possession, and/or sale of bear parts, sale of furs without a license, of wildlife species ranging from snakes to sale of untagged bobcats, and sale of sport­ sturgeons to bears to birds. Over one-third taken game. of all cases initiated have carried felony charges, with the typical violation being the Operation Snare (1988-89) sale of bear or sturgeon. The team's under­ Operation Snare involved the investigation cover investigators have produced $60-70 of aquaculture companies located in north­ million worth of stolen marine life and over ern California, engaged in domestic rearing $25 million in other poached wildlife spe­ of sturgeon under DFG permit. Several were cies (i.e. bear, deer, bighorn sheep). charged with illegal purchase of sturgeon sou was designed to investigate every from sport anglers, taking fish for eggs phase of illegal wildlife activity including (caviar), illicit sale of sturgeon, violation of hunting and fishing, importing and export­ mitigation agreements, illegal transfer of per­ ing, sales and purchasing of illegally poached mits, and records violations. This investiga­ fish and wildlife. A sample of past investiga­ tion showed how sophisticated wildlife crime tions is impressive: can be, in some cases resembling white-col­ lar crime. A number of the companies lost Operation Ursus (1989) their aquaculture permits and had to pay Operation Ursus was a two-and-a-half fines. year investigation into illegal trade of bear

33 Operation Haliotus (1990) by the public as more effective than an un­ Operation Haliotus was a two-year under­ dercover warden who is never seen at all.) cover investigation into illegal abalone sales. Commercial poaching tends to be a low vis­ Wardens created a fictitious fish business ibility crime, and the general lack of knowl­ which led to the prosecution of 24 individu­ edge as to the nature and extent of this activ­ als. Charges included illegally taking abalone ity by the general public results in very little for commercial purposes from the north demand being placed on the wildlife law coast, knOWingly purchasing abalone illegally enforcement agencies to monitor and con­ taken, conspiracy, grand theft, and receiving trol this crime (Farnsworth 1980). stolen property. The operation exposed only Without adequate covert operations to a small amount of the red abalone poaching gather evidence, commercial poachers often taking place on the north coast. Itis estimated are charged with other offenses such as ille­ that 12,000 abalone are poached from this gal possession, exceeding bag limits, or some area per week of diveable weather. Restitu­ other such offense rather than the true of­ tion from defendants totaled $100,000. In fense of exploiting wildlife for profit. With­ addition, two fishing vessels, worth approxi­ out sufficient evidence, it is impossible to mately $80,000, were seized under a forfei­ sustain a conviction for the more serious of­ ture order. fense of commercial poaching (Farnsworth 1980). Itis interesting to note that, while most In the late 1980s and early 1990s, declin­ other states are in the process of expanding ing revenues from fewer hunting and fishing their covert units, California has chosen to license sales, budget cuts, economic reces­ reduce its - a situation that should please sion, and partisan politics spelled doom for commercial poachers to no end. undercover operations. Draconian budget cuts at DFG reduced the undercover staff from 12 wardens to 4 in 1991. The follow­ TO CONVICT A POACHER ing year, three more positions were elimi­ nated. Recognizing the importance of covert After catching a wildlife violator in the act, investigations, an interim arrangement has a warden usually issues a citation. For infrac­ been worked out between the five regions tions and some misdemeanors, the violator of DFG to "loan" officers to SOU on a tem­ has the option of paying the fine by mail. Ifa porary basis. While undercover operations mandatory court appearance is required, the continue, their effectiveness has been drasti­ violator is notified of the court date. Judges cally reduced. usually decide which violations necessitate Some wildlife officials resist the use of a mandatory appearance. The violator also covert operations, claiming they are more has the option of requesting a court date if expensive, time-consuming, and less effec­ he wishes to contest the citation. When the tive than uniformed patrol. Advocates individual appears before the judge on the strongly disagree, pointing out that under­ date specified, he is arraigned and enters a cover investigations are the most effective plea. A guilty plea usually results in an im­ way of stopping commercial poaching and mediate fine and sentencing, although the that both covert and uniformed patrol are violator may request to explain the reasons necessary. Many wildlife management agen­ for his actions. A plea of not guilty results in cies lack sufficient manpower and funds; a trial date being set by the judge. In some therefore, they tend to expend both on those cases, this is actually a pretrial hearing in projects and activities which are seen as be­ which the prosecutor and defense attorney ing in the greatest demand from their public. meet to see if they can agree to a plea bar­ (A warden seen writing a citation is viewed gain and avoid a trial altogether. If no plea

34 bargain can be arrived at, the case goes to Another concern of wardens is the rela­ trial. tively mild and inconsistent sentences many For more serious violations, such as the convicted violators receive. Every officer has commercial sale of bear parts, the warden will a judicial horror story. One warden tells of take the violator into custody. The arresting watching a poacher kill a fawn just off High­ warden files a report with the District way 79 in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park near Attorney's Office specifying the charges. The San Diego. After confiscating his gun, the District Attorney has the following options: warden cited him for possessing a loaded gun 1) accept the charges as recommended; 2) in a state park, discharging a loaded gun in a modify the charges; or 3) drop the case en­ state park, shooting across a highway, hunt­ tirely. At the arraignment, the judge hears the ing deer without a license or tag, killing an defendant's plea, sets bail, and schedules a illegal deer (a fawn), and shooting a deer with court date. It is here that the violator decides a light .22 caliber rifle. The judge gave the whether or not to contest the charge. De­ poacher his gun back and fined him $65 pending on the complexity of the case, there (Sorensen 1989). may be many pretrial motions, which are of­ A judge in Tule Lake Justice Court took a ten used to delay the trial. Following the trial, much different approach. He fined one first­ the judge has a variety of sentencing options time offender $1,500 and suspended his depending upon whether the crime is a mis­ hunting privileges for three years for taking a demeanor or felony, the nature of the crime deer out of season. Such inconsistent sen­ itself, and whether the violator has a previ­ tencing has been a source of exasperation for ous record. Sentences can range from dis­ DFG wardens throughout California. Some missal to substantial fines and jail time. wardens report satisfaction with prosecutors Violators frequently continue to poach and judges in their districts, while others feel while awaiting trial and do not stop until they the local judiciary simply do not take Fish are convicted. One wardens tells of a herring and Game Code violations seriously. poacher he arrested who continued to poach The majority of wildlife officers inter­ through another entire season before his case viewed by Carl Farnsworth (1980) reported came to trial 14 months later. some dissatisfaction with at least portions of Wardens point out that there is tremen­ the criminal justice system. The primary ob­ dous turnover in the District Attorney's of­ jection was that judges and prosecutors do fice and that the least experienced prosecu­ not view wildlife law violations as serious tors are frequently given wildlife violation matters. Farnsworth speculates that judges cases. This necessitates constantly reeducat­ and prosecutors do not realize the extent of ing the prosecutors as to the nature of the the problem, particularly the activities of the crimes and the significance of their impacts. commercial poacher. He pointed out that lack Officials within DFG's Wildlife Protection of knowledge about the seriousness of the Division say that generally their conviction problem and the tendency to view all game rate is 90 percent and that most violators law violations as minor appears to have two plead guilty or just pay the fine. What con­ basic foundations: cerns wardens is the quality of the convic­ tions. Convicting five individuals of fishing 1. History and tradition from frontier days without a license is much easier than con­ hold that wildlife is the property of all citi­ victing one person of selling five bear gall zens equally, and those who violate the bladders. The latter violation has a far more wildlife laws are doing no serious harm to severe impact on wildlife, but five convic­ society in general, particularly when tions look much better than just one in the viewed as a threat to the life and property crime statistics. of other individuals. Some view laws re-

35 stricting the killing of wildlife as being an 411 Crowded jails and prisons. infringement upon the basic right of all American citizens to do as they please as These problems probably transcend the long as they are not infringing upon the poaching problem specifically and apply to rights and property of others. crimes generally in our courts today (Breedlove and Rothblatt 1987). 2. Lack of knowledge of the extent of com­ As evidence that the Legislature considers mercial poaching insofar as the number of wildlife violations relatively minor offenses, species, individual animals, and the dollar one warden points out that the entire Fish volume involved is concerned. Farns­ and Game Code contains only three felonies: worth's study indicates that commercial killing or wounding a human being while poaching is a problem of serious magni­ taking a bird or mammal; buying or selling tude even though it has been one of the bear parts; and the second conviction for least known crimes in the country. There using a gill net to take salmon, steelhead or is a need to emphasize strongly that each striped bass. Conspiracy to commit certain animal illegally taken is a theft from other wildlife violations is also a felony, but most citizens. offenses are classified as misdemeanors. While misdemeanors can result in both fines In 1987, a Senate Office of Research Re­ and jail time for offenders, judges rarely im­ port on the crime of poaching stated that the pose the latter. A judge may also order the effectiveness of anti-poaching programs forfeiture of any device or apparatus used to probably depends upon four factors: 1) the take wildlife illegally, such as firearms, nets, probability of poachers being apprehended; or motor vehicles, but this is also rarely done, 2) the level of fines and/or punishments as­ except in the case of illegal gill netters who sociated with the crime; 3) the probability of will almost always lose their nets. One war­ convictions of accused criminals; and 4) the den told us that loss of hunting or fishing fines and punishments ultimately imposed privileges is the penalty most feared by com­ by the courts. Seven other states surveyed as mercial poachers because it removes their part of the report and the California Depart­ excuse for being out in woods or on the wa­ ment of Fish and Game emphasized the role ter. of the courts in anti-poaching campaigns. All Besides the criminal justice system, DFG agreed that the courts were inconsistent in has another law enforcement tool in place to administering justice to poachers and often impose civil penalties on wildlife violators. unwilling to impose maximum fines and Passed by the California Legislature in 1988, penalties (Breedlove and Rothblatt 1987). Assembly Bill 512 allows DFG to impose a Reasons cited by the states for the low fine civil penalty equal to the loss to the state, and jail-term assessments include: the loss of the animal, and the cost of the investigation and prosecution. Additionally, • District attorneys and judges who are in­ A.B. 512 gives DFG the option of imposing adequately informed of the social costs of a punitive civil penalty if the violator has not poaching; been convicted under the criminal justice .. Crowded court calendars and associated system. Penalties of up to $10,000 for each incentives to reach out-of-court compro­ bird, mammal, or fish lost can be assessed. mise settlements; These civil penalties could prove most effec­ • A high volume of crimes on court calen­ tive in cases of extensive and illegal wildlife dars considered by prosecutors and judges habitat destruction or large over-limits. Un­ to be more serious (such as robbery, bur­ fortunately, the new law has not yet been glary, and assault); and fully implemented by the DFG.

36 In addition to the laws in the Fish and give wildlife violations only cursory atten­ Game Code, prosecutors can charge those tion. This poses a particular problem with caught selling illegal wildlife with "unfair commercial poaching cases. While most kill­ business practices" under the Business and ing of wildlife takes place in rural areas (be­ Profession Code ofCalifornia. During Operation cause that is where the animals are), the black Ursus, individuals were charged with selling markets are primarily in the cities. pig gall bladders as bear gall bladders. One Sentencing guidelines do exist and are warden explained that such swindles are a published by the Judicial Council of Califor­ common practice among Asian Americans in nia in the Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedules. the illicit market because of the demand for For instance, according to the January 1993 bear gall bladders and because of the diffi­ schedule, unlawful hunting (a misdemeanor) culty in determining their authenticity. Con­ carries a recommended bail (fine) of $200, fiscated gall bladders must be tested at the plus an added penalty of $340, for a total fine Wildlife Forensics Laboratory to determine of $540 Gudicial Council of California 1993). whether they are actually bear gall bladders Wardens report that few judges follow the or pig or cow. If the tests are positive for bear, guidelines. Judges, in turn, defend their need the warden can charge the person who was for latitude in sentencing offenders. They in possession with a violation of the Fish and point out that the perspective of wardens is Game Code. If the tests are positive for pig unique in that poaching is a warden's special or cow, then the warden can also charge the interest. Judges emphasize that they must person with unfair business practices (mis­ weigh crimes against one another, consis­ representing the product being sold) under tently asking questions such as: Who is more the Business and Profession Code. In another of a threat to society, a rapist or a poacher? case in 1991, a Tulare County man was Setting minimum fines for some violations charged with illegally selling freshwater shell­ can also have unexpected results. For in­ fish from uncertified waters (misbranded stance, fishing without a license, the most food). Using the Business and Profession common violation of the Fish and Game Code was popular with prosecutors because Code, is an infraction carrying a recom­ it allowed for higher fines and counties re­ mended total fine of $675. Rare is the judge ceived all the revenue as opposed to pros­ who will levy the full penalty. In one case ecuting under the Fish and Game Code, where the offender appearing before the where counties got only a portion of the pen­ judge was too poor to buy a license, letalone alty money. Unfortunately, a recent change pay the fine, the judge simply dismissed the in the law requires all fine money to go to case. DFG, which has caused some problems for The Judicial Council of California con­ local prosecutors. ducted a Municipal Court caseload study in Howa poaching violation is handled also 1986 to estimate the number of judges that a depends upon whether the offender appears courtwill need to process its incoming cases. in a Justice Court or Municipal Court. Jus­ Cases were weighted based on the number tice Courts are found in the more rural areas of minutes required to process one case in a of the state where hunting and fishing are specific case category (misdemeanors and popular forms of recreation and substantial infractions); The study showed that judges sources of income to local communities. spent an average of 55 minutes on each Municipal Courts are in more urban areas felony and only 7 minutes on misdemean­ where felonious crimes such as drug deal­ ors such as those in the Fish and Game Code ing, murder, and robbery are more common. Gudicial Council of California 1988). In Mu­ Wardens claim Justice Courts are generally nicipal Courts, crowded jails and court dock­ tougher on poachers, while Municipal Courts ets have forced prosecutors and judges into

37 practicing "judicial triage" - in which only OMINOUS TRENDS IN the most serious cases are heard, which in POACHING ENFORCEMENT the eyes of the current criminal justice sys­ tem are crimes against people, not wildlife. California's growing human population Many judges come from an urban back­ and the subsequent loss of wildlife habitat ground, with little experience in the outdoors, are two current trends that will have the and they have no way to attach a value on a greatest impact on the future of our wildlife deer's life (Sorensen 1989). Farnsworth (1980) heritage. From 1948 to 1990, the state's hu­ emphasized the need to establish standard­ man population rose from 9.6 million to 30 ized monetary values for each species which million, and is projected to reach 39 million can be utilized in computing the dollar value by 2005. Over 90 percent of Californians live of the wildlife taken by the commercial in urban settings, with the majority of immi­ poacher. A standard value for each species grants coming from Asia, Mexico, Central, would provide the basis for making compari­ and South America - all cultures with long sons over set time periods and between histories of subsistence hunting. As the stress states. This would be helpful in establishing of urban living begins to take its toll, more a measure of the extent to which commer­ and more people seek to escape, finding a cial poaching is harming the citizens of this temporary refuge in the public lands. Many country through the loss of wildlife which is of California's growing cities provide easy held in joint ownership by all citizens. access to nearby state parks, national parks, Judicial attitudes toward poaching can national forests, wildlife refuges, and other change - sometimes in unusual ways. public lands. This in turn places an enormous Howard Blewett, once known as the burden on state and federal wildlife officers "Dillinger of duck hunting," shot trunk-loads both to educate and enforce. Such rampant of ducks during the 1930s, then sold the meat growth also means many potential markets to restaurants in San Francisco. Federal wild­ open for the ambitious commercial poacher. life officers nabbed Blewettand ten other Los Over 15 million acres of habitatwere con­ Banos men in 1935 for selling wild ducks. verted to agriculture in California before Blewett evaded officers for so long in part 1900, while another 5 million acres of habi­ because many local citizens turned a blind tat were lost to development between 1945 eye to poaching. He served 13 months on a and 1980. Such trends point to the critical federal road camp crew for his crime and re­ need for wildlife habitat protection. formed well enough to be elected Justice Against this backdrop of human growth Court judge in San Andreas, a job he held and habitat loss, institutions responsible for for 19 years until retirement in 1976. Blewett managing California's wildlife are being sentenced others for wildlife crimes not un­ swept up in the winds of change. Recent ac­ like his own. Two men who poached deer at tions of the Fish and Game Commission have night in his mountain community were each lead to increasing controversy. Since its in­ given six months in jail and $350 fines. "One ception in 1909, the primary function of the of them said that based on the penalty, they Commission has been to ensure sportsmen may as well have been robbers," Blewett re­ enough animals to hunt and fish to catch. called. "They were treated like everyone else, However, increasing environmental aware­ according to the law" (Certini 1993). ness, concern over loss of habitat, broaden­ ing attitudes toward animals, and a growing constituency of nonconsumptive wildlife users has many advocating a shift from only game management to broader concerns such as habitat mapping, wildlife in land-use plan-

38 ning, ecosystem health, and biological diver­ pertaining to the importation of exotic pro­ sity. In theory, the Fish and Game Commis­ hibited species; responding to and investigat­ sion is supposed to represent the public's ing hazardous materials and other pollution interest in regulating wildlife take. Some in spills; enforcement of streambed alteration the environmental community think it fre­ and habitat damage laws; the protection and quently abrogates this responsibility in favor preservation of threatened, endangered, and of special interests, such as sportsmen, agri­ fully protected species; as well as the more culture, and business. For instance, the Com­ traditional enforcement oflaws pertaining to mission recently removed the Mojave hunting and fishing such as seasons, bag and Ground Squirrel from the California Endan­ possession limits, and method of take laws. gered Species List, despite opposition from Wardens are also spread dangerously thin independent biologists, environmental orga­ across California. In 1976, there were 207 nizations, and the Department of Fish and wardens and over 20 million people in Cali­ Game's own biologists. Long a bastion of fornia. By 1991, there were only 258 war­ sportsmen, Virtually every member of the dens with a population of 30 million people. Fish and Game Commission has listed his or By 1993, the number of wardens had her respective memberships in hunting or­ dropped dramatically to 239 statewide. The ganizations as primary qualifications for a Vvildlife Protection Division's 239 field war­ seat on the Commission. The sitting mem­ dens must now cover 159,000 square miles bers of the current Commission have little and over 31 million people. That is one war­ professional experience in wildlife manage­ den for every 665 square miles or 126,000 ment. people. DFG conducted a Personnel Alloca­ The Department of Fish and Game (DFG) tion Study and Technical Application of Cri­ has also been forced to contend with its teria (PASATAC) study in 1988, which ex­ changing role and expanding responsibilities. amined current workloads and staffing needs A recent study of DFG by the Legislative for the Wildlife Protection Division in Region Analyst's Office highlights this transition: 5. Region 5 is the largest of DFG's regions, "The DFG historically has provided services extending from Mono County in the north and programs primarily for those that use or to Imperial County in the south, and encom­ consume the state's wildlife and natural habi­ passes both Los Angeles and San Diego. The tat resource, such as individuals who hunt PASATAC study concluded that Region 5 and fish. As California's population has needs between 100 and 150 additional war­ grown, leading to increasing urbanization, dens (Cribbs et al. 1988). Another survey of this traditional constituency group of the members of the California Fish and Game DFG has diminished steadily. Meanwhile, the Wardens Protective Association in 1984 con­ responsibilities of the DFG relating to gen­ cluded that527 additional wardens are needed eral habitat protection and endangered spe­ statewide to do an adequate job of fish and wild­ cies protection have increased, requiring the life enforcement (Horn 1985). DFG to expand services and programs that protect the overall resource base" (Hill 1991). Unfortunately, these new demands on Researcher Stephen R. Kellert (1985a) adds a wildlife officers come at a time of tight bud­ further warning: "If the wildlife profession is gets and declining revenues from hunting and to avoid increasing isolation from the mil­ fishing licenses and other environmental lions of Americans primarily interested in sources, revenues that provide a large por­ non-game wildlife, dramatic changes in tra­ tion of the operating funds for DFG. The ditional programs will be required." roots of this problem go back to the begin­ Today, the duties of wardens have ex­ ning of DFG at the turn of the century, when panded to include the enforcement of laws the first wardens were put on staff, paid for

39 from license revenues of sportsmen. Up un­ funding problems. By and large, sportsmen til the 1970s, most of DFG's budget came funding is in sharp decline, as fewer and from hunting and fishing licenses and tags fewer people are buying hunting and fishing and commercial fishing landing taxes. How­ licenses. Since the beginning of the 1990 re­ ever, since the 1970s, the role of the DFG cession, California's overall economy has has been greatly expanded from a hunting hurt revenues from environmental funds, and fishing organization to a broader envi­ such as voluntary donations from the Endan­ ronmental organization, concerned with en­ gered Species Tax Check-off and voluntary dangered species, "nongame" wildlife, water personalized licenses. Even tobacco taxes are quality and supply, impacts of development declining as fewer people smoke. Further­ projects and timber operations on wildlife, more, most DFG funds are earmarked for and native plants. With these increased en­ special sport or environmental programs, not vironmental responsibilities came, somewhat law enforcement. Wardens fall through the sporadically, increased revenues from other budgetary cracks. The worsening recession sources, often promoted more by environ­ has seen virtually all General Fund money, mental organizations and sportmen than by which formerly helped to fund many war­ the state legislature or DFG leaders. Today, den activities, pulled away from the DFG the DFG receives almost half of its revenue budget. from general public sources, through such From 1980 to 1989, the sale of hunting special funds as the Environmental License licenses decreased by 26 percent, while the Plate Fund, the Tobacco Tax Account (Propo­ sale of yearly resident inland fishing licenses sition 99), the Endangered Species Tax decreased by 29 percent (Hill 1991). License Check-off, and developer fees supplied revenues fell $6 million short of the amount through Assembly Bill 3158. anticipated during the 1989-90 fiscal year­ But there continue to be serious DFG a sizeable chunk of the DFG's $136 million

TABLE 5 WILDLIFE PROTECTION DIVISION BUDGET 1987-1994

Year Actual WPD Total DFG Percent of total DFG Budget Budget* Budget allocated to WPD 1987-1988 $23,214,000 $106,504,000 22% 1988-1989 $25,248,000 $118,946,000 21% 1989-1990 $27,952,000 $136,248,000 21% 1990-1991 $23,818,000 $140,412,000 17% 1991-1992 $25,162,000 $145,465,000 17% 1992-1993 $22,976,454** $167,588,000 14% 1993-1994 $22,568,756** $159,305,000 14%

* as proposed by the Governor ** as approved by the Legislature Source: California Department of Fish and Game (1994)

40 annual budget. This decline in revenues is renew the post office boxes they used for further compounded by inflation with the business mail and to record all calls made subsequent increased cost of doing business. outside of their patrol district (Bowman An examination of DFG's total budget 1990). When California was reduced in the shows a steady increase from $106,504,000 fall of 1992 to issuing IOUs for its debts due in 1987-88, to $159,305,000 proposed in to the failure by the governor and the Legis­ 1993-1994. What these numbers do not re­ lature to approve a state budget on time, flect is the greatly expanded functions of the many local vendors stopped providing ser­ agency. For instance, the new Office of Oil vices to wardens. The next time a patrol ve­ Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) has hicle or vessel needs repairing, wildlife offic­ greatly expanded DFG's capability, but its ers will be in dire straits. Some report ven­ budget (obtained from oil industry revenue) dors have not been paid since September masks the overall budgetary decline in other 1992 (Hastings 1993). areas. By comparison there has been a reduc­ While travel restrictions are no longer ex­ tion in the Wildlife Protection Division's bud­ plicitly in effect, operation expenses (vehicle get from $23,214,000 in 1987-88 to maintenance, gas, telephone, etc.) for each $22,568,756 in 1993-94. This represents a de­ warden have been reduced to the point that cline from 22 percent of DFG's total budget they have much the same effect. In the early to 14 percent. (See Table 5.) The situation is 1980s, operation expenses were approxi­ even worse at the federal level. The U.S. Fish mately $8,000 per warden. Current opera­ and Wildlife Service budget devoted to law tion expenses are between $4,000 and enforcement has continued to decline since $4,400. Vehicle maintenance is particularly 1987 from 6.5 percentto 5.1 percent. In 1992, expensive because patrol is hard on vehicles. while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service re­ While wardens are not now told how many ceived a budget of almost $1 billion, the Di­ miles they can drive, this tight budget has vision of Law Enforcement was allotted a forced them to cut down their patrol time paltry $31 million with which to fight an in­ and spend more time in the office. creasingly sophisticated war (Speart 1993). Unlike urban police officers who work an Current spending cuts affect every division 8-hour shift and are then relieved, wardens of DFG, from endangered species programs are responsible for all fish and game-related to refuge acquisitions, but those affecting the violations in their district, 24 hours a day. wardens get most of the public's attention Frequently working out of their own homes (Bowman 1990). The budget situation got so in remote areas, wardens must be judicious bad in early 1990 that wardens were placed in how they spend their time. Regular patrol under strict orders to cut back vehicle mile­ may be alternated with night patrol for age. V\/ardens responsible for the Sacra­ spotlighters, surveillance for illegal anglers, mento-San Joaquin Delta were limited to 26 or lots of overtime during hunting season. miles a day, while those in the Sacramento Wardens have a reputation for working long Valley could drive no more than 37. Officers hours. The standard 9 to 5 workday is rare who cover tens of thousands of square miles indeed. Unfortunately, the Fair Labor Stan­ on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada dards Act (FLSA) requires DFG to pay time­ were bound to 50 miles or less a day. One and-a-half for all overtime worked, but tight warden who used up his 26-mile daily quota budgets result in wardens frequently being in a single trip in his pickup truck to take care discouraged from working extra hours. FLSA of some paperwork, borrowed his wife's allows for wardens to take time off instead mountain bike to complete his daily patrol. of pay for overtime, but current DFG man­ In addition to the driving limits, the wardens agement has set a limit on the amount of time in the central region were instructed not to off as well. The combined effect of increased

41 duties, tight budgets, and FLSA has drasti­ at night, in isolated locations where assis­ cally reduced the average warden's time in tance is hours away, and constandy encoun­ the field. Wardens interviewed for this report ter well-armed and experienced woodsmen confirm that only 20 to 25 percent of their who are proficient marksmen. In October work hours are now spent patrolling; about 1992, a Lassen County deer poacher twice 10 hours a week. One warden even points tried to run down a DFG warden with a out thatwhile programs like CalTIP result in pickup truck after poaching deer near the De­ more reports of violations, he frequendy has partment of Fish and Game's Honey Lake no time or resources to follow up. As further Wildlife Area. The poacher was tried and evidence ofreduced warden time in the field, convicted in Superior Court and sentenced there has been a decline in the number of to three years in state prison. annual enforcement contacts wardens make. In 1989, there were 7,541 sworn wildlife In 1989, wardens contacted 474,160 indi­ law enforcement officers at the state level viduals. In 1992, contacts had dropped to throughout the United States. (The Los An­ 283,171. geles Police Department has more person­ The paradox of this situation is that if war­ nel.) In addition, there was a total of 220 dens cannot get out in the field, then they wildlife officers in the five reporting Territo­ cannot document the magnitude of the ries and Possessions. Federal government poaching problem. If they cannot document agencies reported 341 sworn conservation the magnitude of the poaching problem, then officers (special agents and rangers). This ac­ they cannot justify requests for more money counted for a total of 8,102 fully sworn wild­ to enforce the law (QUinn 1983). life law enforcement officers on duty in the Particularly disturbing among the recent United States in 1989. The total number of budget cuts at the Department of Fish and assaults on wildlife officers in 1989 was 128, Game are those affecting undercover inves­ a 24% increase over the previous year. No tigations. This action seriously compromises deaths were reported from these assaults, DFG's ability to fight commercial poaching although 23 of them resulted in personal in­ effectively. No serious law enforcement ef­ jury to the officers (USDI 1990). fort can be successful against commercial Twelve California Department of Fish and poaching without a commitment to under­ Game wardens have been killed in the line cover investigations. The current situation is of duty since 1913. no different from trying to stop drug impor­ tation and sales using only uniformed police. Suppliers and importers of illicit drugs or il­ A FINAL NOTE licit wildlife cannot be stopped without in­ filtrating their organizations. The growing so­ Poaching is a widespread and significant phistication of the professional wildlife out­ threat to California's wildlife heritage. Com­ law must be met with an equally sophisti­ mercial poaching is reported to occur in all cated approach to law enforcement. Uni­ parts of the state and involves hundreds of formed wardens working one-quarter time thousands of individual animals frorn many in the field with poorly maintained equip­ species of wildlife. The total dollar volume ment cannotbe expected to meet such a chal­ involved and the total cost to the citizens of lenge. California is unknown, but conservative es­ Perhaps the most ominous trend of all is timates place it in the hundreds of millions the increasing violence demonstrated by of dollars. The California Department ofFish wildlife offenders. Wardens practice one of and Game considers poaching the second the most dangerous professions in law en­ greatest threat to our wildlife after habitat forcement. They frequendy work alone and destruction.

42 DFG wardens are overworked, underpaid, outmanned, outgunned, and engaged in a protracted war to protect the last vestiges of our wildlife heritage. Besides fighting the big money and increasing sophistication of the professional wildlife outlaw, wardens are forced to run a formidable gauntlet of apa­ thy, ignorance, politics, and bureaucracy, thrown up by the public and the institutions they serve. One veteran warden claims that morale among his fellow officers is the low­ estit has ever been. Wildlife law enforcement officers in California are in critical need of our help. The recommendations that follow offer no magic bullets or simple solutions to the enor­ mous problem of poaching in California. What is required is a fundamental reassess­ ment of our relationship with wild animals.

43 SECTION III

Btt,COMMENIl)~TIONS

esearcher Kirk Beattie (1976) in a time before explosive human growth, points out that the ideal anti­ rampant loss of critical habitat, and the ad­ poaching campaign "represents vent of large-scale commercial poaching. a short- or long-term attempt California prides itself on being a leader in to reinforce, activate, or change environmental protection, but at the same opinions, attitudes, and actions toward wild­ time it constantly asks agencies like the Cali­ life violations or violators." In a 1984 survey fornia Department of Fish and Game to do of 47 state wildlife agencies, it was revealed more for environmental protection with that44 (93.6 percent) had anti-poaching cam­ fewer financial resources. IfCalifornia's abun­ paigns composed of one or more programs dant and diverse wildlife heritage is to sur­ involving education, peer-group pressure vive, fundamental changes in wildlife protec­ (similar to the CalTIP secret witness pro­ tion laws must be made to meet these new gram), rewards, or increased manpower. Pro­ threats. grams that increase staff or provide an edu­ cational message on the benefits of obeying 1. Establish Stable and Earmarked wildlife laws were judged more effective and Funding Sources: received considerably more funding than The California Department of Fish and peer-group pressure and reward programs Game (DFG) needs new and stable funding (Nelson and Verbyla 1984). While consider­ sources. Traditional funding is declining, as ation of the efficacy of different programs sales of sportsmens' licenses and tags and leads to endless debate, the two paramount commercial fishing fees attest. At the same needs of DFG's Wildlife Protection Division time, while the Legislature and the environ­ are increased funding and staff. mental community have developed new The Mountain Lion Foundation offers the sources of environmental funds (e.g., the following recommendations as part of a Environmental License Plate Fund, the En­ broader anti-poaching campaign based upon dangered Species Tax Check-off Fund, the legislation, law enforcement, education, and Tobacco Tax, and developer fees for environ­ research: mental review), these funds have also suf­ fered from recent trends such as the current recession and have not kept pace with the LEGISLATION need. Additional support for the DFG is needed. No institution has a greater influence on The Wildlife Protection Division of the wildlife protection in California than the State DFG falls between the traditional funding Legislature. Unfortunately, many of the cur­ from sportsmen, which is earmarked for ad­ rent laws which protectwildlife were passed ditional sport hunting and fishing programs,

44 and newer environmental funds, which are wildlife areas for the public with Cali­ earmarked for habitat enhancement, endan­ fornia-registered vehicles. This proposal gered species, environmental review, and has constitutional problems, as fees and pollution concerns. The Legislature should taxes associated with automobiles are re­ adopt new funding sources for the DFG, and quired to be spent on transportation. earmark funding specifically for additional wardens and for undercover operations. Any 1C. The Legislature may consider increas­ increased revenue must be used to supple­ ing hunting and fishing fees to generate ment existing funds, not replace them. more revenue. According to a 1988 DFG The issue of funding environmental/re­ survey, three-fourths of the hunters and source programs has been reviewed (Planning anglers in California are willing to pay and Conservation League Foundation 1991). $5 for their licenses to fund additional The following are potential sources of fund­ fish and wildlife protection services ing: (Fletcher eta1. 1988). However, the hunt­ ing and fishing community already pay lA. With the recent successful passage of substantial amounts, and the numbers Proposition 172, which constitutes a of hunters and fishermen in California half-cent sales tax in California for local are steadily declining, so this source law enforcement and fire protection pro­ would have limited value. grams, the Legislature and the environ­ mental community should investigate ID. The Legislature may consider other the possibility of establishing an ear­ voluntary fees for the general public, marked sales tax for wildlife in Califor­ since 99 percent of the public in Califor­ nia. (Missouri funds their fish and wild­ nia do not hunt and 95 percent do not life program with a one-quarter cent fish. In the same DFG survey, almost sales tax.) Polls taken in recent years have two-thirds of nonhunters and shown much public opposition in gen­ nonanglers said that they would be will­ eral to increased sales taxes, but if the ing to pay a $5 voluntary fee for addi­ increase is earmarked for wildlife pro­ tional protection for fish and wildlife grams (with specific earmarked percent­ (Fletcher et a1. 1988). An attempt to take ages for wardens and undercover opera­ advantage of this possibility fizzled in tions' as well as other habitat and wild­ 1988 with the establishment of volun­ life management projects), the public tary "wildlife passes" for nonsportsmen. might agree to support such a charge. A Little revenue has been raised, due to half-cent sales tax generates approxi­ DFG overestimating the size of the user mately $1.4 billion in revenue annually group. At the same time, the DFG En­ in California, depending of course on the dangered Species Tax Check-off, with amount of sales that occur. limited promotion, has been successful in attracting voluntary donations of lB. For several years, the Legislature and $750,000 to $1 million annually. Other the environmental community have successful ways of generating voluntary tried to increase vehicle registration fees contributions are needed, since the will in California earmarked for parks and of the public is generally supportive of wildlife area programs. Such a proposal such contributions. For example, one would generate substantial amounts of half of the nonsportsmen who bought money, and polls show the public is sup­ wildlife passes never used them. portive, especially if the increase includes free day-use access to state parks and 2. Determine DFG's Primary Mission: 45 The Legislature should determine the pri­ commercial poacher who is taking fewer mary mission of the Department of Fish and wildlife for his own use for a variety of rea­ Game. Currently, there are conflicts between sons. programs focused on resource use and pro­ Currently, illegal sale of bear parts is the grams focused on resource protection ­ only felony which addresses this issue. Ille­ these conflicts interfere with DFG efficiency gal possession of parts or products of other and hold back efforts to fund DFG programs species should also be made felonies: illegal fully in general (Hill 1991). The Legislature possession of mountain lion parts, trophy should establish protection of wildlife, in­ species, furbearer pelts, live reptiles and am-· cluding habitat protection, enforcement of phibians, and large quantities of illegal fish poaching laws, and maintenance of healthy and shellfish. Sale or possession with intent populations of all species of wildlife (includ­ to sell of wildlife parts or products should ing native plants and invertebrates, as well also constitute a felony, although such vio­ as mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and am­ lations are difficult to prove unless based on phibians) through protection of ecosystems, undercover operations that meticulously as the first priority of the DFG, followed by document such sales. public education and resource uses. 5. Make Poaching of Threatened and 3. Adopt the Wildlife Violator Compact: Endangered Species a Felony: The Legislature should adopt the national The illegal take or possession of species Wildlife Violator Compact (WVC) as a stat­ listed as endangered or threatened should be ute and authorize the Department of Fish and a felony. Game to enter into the wvc. The Wildlife Violator Compact (WVC) assures that when 6. Reduce Some Fish and Game Misde­ nonresident violators receive citations, they meanors to Infractions: will also face suspension of their license in Evaluate reducing some fish and game their home state until the terms of the cita­ misdemeanors to infractions or "wobblers.1! tion are met. As of 1 June 1993, the member Judges can give the same fine for an infrac­ states of the WVC were Colorado, Arizona, tion as a misdemeanor, but the defendant is Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon. Some eastern not allowed a jury trial for an infraction, and states also came on line in late 1993 as has there is no jail time involved. Since judges the state of Washington. rarely send violators of fish and game mis­ demeanors to jail, such changes could reduce 4. Make the Sale of Illegal Wildlife a the cost of time spent in court and allow the Felony: judiciary to focus on important cases. Classify the illegal sale of wildlife with a Most violations of the Fish and Game value of over $100 as a felony. The $100 value Code involve hunting or fishing without a is consistent with the Penal Code petty license or appropriate tags. Under most cir­ theft versus grand theft. For property, such cumstances, these violations are not harm­ as a VCR or television, the value is $300, but ful to resources. Instead, they involve prob­ for agricultural products the value is $100. lems with revenue collection for the DFG. Currently, there are only three felonies in the Considerations should be given to empha­ Fish and Game Code: illegal sale of bear parts; sizing protection of resources, especially from injuring another person while poaching; and commercial poachers, rather than on revenue a second offense for illegal use of a gill net. A enforcement. . distinction must be made between commer­ cial poaching, which targets large numbers 7. Increase Poaching Penalties: of wildlife for financial gain, and the non- 7A. Currently, poachers face either fines 46 through infractions or misdemeanors, S.B. 779 (1993) by SenatorTim Leslie sub­ and potential jail time. A program for stantially hinders DFG employees from en­ providing civil penalties against poach­ tering private land for research, monitoring, ers has also been approved (Assembly and assessment ofwildlife health. The Moun­ MemberDoris Allen's A.B. 512), buthas tain Lion Foundation is concerned that S.B. not yet been fully implemented by the 779 may be interpreted to interfere with law DFG. This program should be imple­ enforcement as well. We recommend that mentedas soon as possible. S.B. 779 be repealed and that it be replaced with a clear protocol specifying when and 7B. Judges currently have the discretion under what circumstances DFG employees to require forfeiture of any device or ap~ may enter private land without permission paratus used in committing violations of or a court order. the Fish and Game Code. This can in­ clude guns, traps, nets, vehicles, and 9. Require Licensing of Taxidermists: boats. The Mountain Lion Foundation The Mountain Lion Foundation recom­ recommends that, for convicted com­ mends that taxidermists be licensed by the mercial poachers, these penalties be ex­ DFG, as other businesses and groups in Cali­ panded to include forfeiture of buildings fornia. Such a license will provide DFG with and businesses that were used in the information on activities of taxidermists, commercial poaching operation and any possible leads on markets for illegal trophies, other gain realized from unlawfully ob­ and additional revenue. tained profits. 10. Hold Special Joint Hearing on 7C. To accommodate undercover investi­ Poaching in California: gations better, the statute of limitations The Senate Natural Resources and Wild­ for commercial poaching violations life Committee and Assembly Water, Parks, should be extended from one year to and Wildlife Committee should hold a spe­ three years. cial joint hearing on poaching in California, with special emphasis on commercial poach­ 7D. According to the staff of the Assem­ ing. It is only through such forums that bly Committee on Judiciary, Senior crimes againstwildlife will become more vis­ Deputy District Attorney Allen from ible and receive the attention they deserve. Shasta County recently obtained felony convictions against poachers who con­ 11. DFG Should Require Anglers to spired to violate the law. A felony con­ Wear licenses: viction also includes a lifetime ban on On March 1,1994, a new regulation took the future possession of firearms, argu­ effect requiring fishing licenses to be visibly ably a severe deterrent to poachers. Ex­ displayed. DFG estimates that from 13 to isting law, Penal Code Section 12021(c), 47 percent of the state's anglers are fishing lists a series of misdemeanors that make without licenses, because the odds of being the offending person ineligible to pos­ caught are so slim. In 1992, DFG wardens sess firearms for 10 years. Legislation issued 9,632 citations for fishing without a should be considered to add various license, the most frequent of all fish and game commercial poaching misdemeanors to violations. Some think the new regulation this list. will increase revenue. However, many war­ dens believe the new rule will increase work 8. Repeal Restrictions on Fish and Game for them and lead to more conflict with fish­ Employees Entering Private land: ermen. Licenses must still be checked for

47 proper stamps, expiration, etc., which may an additional complement of 20 wardens to irritate sportsmen who think wearing a li­ be added yearly until 2005. Current staffing cense precludes a visit from the warden. offield wardens is 26 positions short of mini­ Other wardens worry that seeing a displayed mum need. [Estimated cost: $1.7 million for license may dissuade them from checking for first year; $1.3 million for each following other violations, such as possessing too many year.] fish or possessing undersized fish, thereby reducing enforcement effectiveness. 2. Reestablish DFG's Special Operations Unit: 12. Give Wardens Authority to Tape­ Bring SOU staff up to a complement of Record Conversations: 15 personnel (10 wardens, 2 lieutenants, 1 Give wardens the same authority as other captain, an intelligence officer, and a records peace officers to tape record private conver­ officer). Undercover operations are the most sations they participate in. This is especially effective law enforcement tool DFG has important in undercover operations. against commercial poaching. Any increased funding sources must have a portion specifi­ 13. Establish a Fund to Pay Informants: cally earmarked for SOU. [Estimated cost: Establish a fund to pay informants - not $1.5 million per year] like CalTIP but as an informant cultiva­ tion program. DFG has a procedure that al­ 3. Relieve Wardens ofNonessential Du­ lows it, but not enough money to implement ties: it. Relieve wardens of all possible non-law enforcement duties, such as road-kill remov­ als, nuisance animal complaints, general in­ LAW ENFORCEMENT formation requests, and unnecessary paper­ work. Wildlife management agencies are repeat­ edly faced with deciding whether to spend 4. Increase Budget for Warden Over­ money on programs to increase voluntary time: compliance with wildlife laws or on pro­ Increase budget for warden overtime and grams to apprehend and prosecute violators. remove management restrictions on time off Although most managers agree meeting ob­ for overtime worked. jectives of hunting and fishing regulations depends upon voluntary compliance, the ma­ 5. Allow More Flexibility in Law En­ jority of agency effort remains directed at forcement Techniques: coercive enforcement (Scialfa and Machlis Allow wardens more flexibility in law en­ 1993). Over the years wardens have been forcement patrol techniques, such as work­ assigned additional duties and responsibili­ ing in plain clothes and in unmarked vehicles, ties without commensurate increase in staff­ being able to rent horses for backcountry ing. Wardens in the field are now spread dcm­ patrols, or for directed enforcement efforts gerously thin. Every effort should be made during times of high activity, such as hunt­ to reduce non-law enforcement duties and ing seasons. increase staffing. 6. Expand Wildlife Forensics Lab~ra­ 1. Increase Number of Wardens in the tory: Field: Augment currentWildlife Forensics Labo­ Increase DFe's Wildlife Protection Divi­ ratory in Rancho Cordova with forensic labs sion field warden staff to 300 by 1995, with in Redding, Fresno and Los Angeles, each

48 staffed by two wildlife pathologists. Increase EDUCATION Rancho Cordova laboratory staffing from two to four. Distance from the laboratory is Significant and permanent reductions in the primary reason wardens do not take ad­ the rate of poaching will only result when vantage of the investigation capabilities of the there are corresponding changes in attitudes forensic staff. [Estimated cost: $3 million per towards wildlife laws. If wildlife managers year] desire to change attitudes towards violating hunting and fishing regulations, agencies 7. Make 24-Hour Dispatch Operational should expose targeted individuals to edu­ Statewide cational programs before t.~ey are likely to Develop a statewide system to provide 24­ have already violated wildlife laws (generally hour dispatch for field wardens, or tie in DFG children between nine and eleven years old). field wardens with the Highway Patrol. ,Ex­ Such programs should be designed to go amine how the use of cellular telephone tech­ beyond traditional hunter safety issues by nology could augment system. This is c'riti­ also addressing the ethics and etiquette of cal to provide adequate safety backup and sportsmanship, basic wildlife biology prin­ support. ciples, and history and purpose of wildlife laws (Scialfa and Machlis 1993). 8. Designate Court Liaison Positions: Agencies would also be well-advised to These should be experienced DFG war­ increase their efforts to promote support for dens assigned initially to urban areas (i.e., San wildlife conservation practices and policies Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, and San by more frequent use of interpretive and en­ Diego) who can shepherd fish and game vironmental education strategies (Scialfa and cases through the courts, educate District Machlis 1993). Such programs provide DFG Attorneys and judges, and serve as the pri­ an excellent opportunity to address its mary contact when the court has questions. nonhunting constituency about the crime of This individual would provide all the courts poaching. one telephone number to call for advice, one address to mail subpoenas to, and one per­ PUBLIC EDUCATION son to monitor what the courts are doing. 1. Continue CalTIP Program: 9. Create a Central Intelligence Data­ Continue the CalTIP outreach program base: currently being conducted. Complete selec­ Create a Central Intelligence File that is ac­ tion of the county volunteer CalTIP coordi­ cessible to all wardens, but regulated on a nators as soon as possible. Include discus­ need-to-know basis. Information sources are sion of commercial as well as noncommer­ currently fragmented, which hinders a cial poaching in their presentations. warden's ability to check a violator's back­ ground for previous violations. 2. Increase the Amount of Time Spent on Poaching in the Hunter Education 10. Give Priority to Warden Staffing in Curriculum: Urban Areas: The California Hunter Education Manual cur­ Give priority to warden staffing in urban rently contains only two short paragraphs of areas where the commercial demand for ani­ text discussing poaching, as well as a small mals is highest. Financial and promotional graphic and an advertisement for CalTIP on incentives should be considered to increase the back cover. There is no mention of com­ staffing and reduce turnover in areas such as mercial poaching. Both the curriculum and Region 5 (southern California). the manual should be expanded or supple- 49 mented to include more extensive explana­ gram should be a coordinated effort of Inter­ tions of commercial poaching and CalTIE pretive Services, Conservation Education, and the Wildlife Protection Division. 3. Include Poaching in DFG's Interpre­ tive Services Plan: 7. Clarify Rationale for Regulations: Poaching education should be included in Wildlife managers must make clear the ra­ the Department of Fish and Game's Interpre­ tionale for various regulations. A consider­ tive Services Plan. Poaching education should able amount of poaching is not the result of be made an Interpretive Staff Program prior­ disregard for hunting and fishing regulations ity in both site-based and outreach activities. in general, but of objections to particular A particular effort should be made to target regulations or policies which prohibit or dis­ elementary school children under nine years courage what are considered acceptable or old. desired ways to hunt or fish. Existing publi­ cations which outline fishing and hunting 4. Target Ethnic Groups With Outreach regulations might facilitate distributing such Program: information (Scialfa and Machlis 1993). Target specific ethnic groups with a com­ prehensive public outreach program focus­ ing on law enforcement through education. EDUCATION OFJUDGES AND Such a program should be a coordinated ef­ PROSECUTORS fort of Interpretive Services, Conservation Education, and the Wildlife Protection Divi­ 1. Meetings Among DFG Wardens, sion. Make use of brochures in native lan­ Judges, and Prosecutors: guages and presentations by DFG personnel DFG wardens should continue their efforts from the same ethnic group, if possible. to meetwith prosecutors and judges to make them aware of changes in wildlife regulations 5. Target Business Groups With Out­ and the impact of poaching on the resource. reach Programs: A recent effort was made in this area due to Target specific business groups with a the legislative changes to the Fish and Game comprehensive public outreach program fo­ Code that deal with fishing license require­ cusing on commercial poaching. Such groups ments and the establishment of specific fines. could include restaurant associations, com­ These ongoing efforts appear to be paying mercial fishing groups, reptile collectors, in­ off in some areas in higher fines and sen­ sect collectors, sport fishing groups, taxider­ tences (CDFG 1990). mists, and hunting guides. Such a program could build on the Wildlife Protection 2. Presentations to Judicial Organiza­ Division's current regional "townhall meet­ tions: ings" to maintain an open dialogue with vari­ The DFG Wildlife Protection Division and ous user groups and should be a coordinated the Judicial Council of California should or­ effort of Interpretive Services, Conservation ganize and present a program on the Fish and Education, arid the Wildlife Protection Divi­ Game Code, Title 14 Regulations, and the sion. impact of poaching at the Judges Institute for Continuing Education and to judges at the 6. Establish a Community Relations Municipal and Justice CourtInstitutes. Other Program: forums might include the Rural Judges As­ DFG should establish a community rela­ sociation, the California Judges Association, tions program where field wardens spend and the California District Attorneys Asso­ more time educating the public. Such a pro- ciation. 50 3. Jury Instructions in Fish and Game enforcement research programs at once; in­ Cases: clude human attitudes and behavior as well The Judicial Council of California should as development of new enforcement tech­ develop jUry instruction guidelines for Fish niques (Morse 1973). Programs should ad­ and Game Code and Title 14 Regulations dress such issues as adequate enforcement cases. funding; quantification of violations; deter­ rent value of enforcement; optimum deploy­ ment of enforcement manpower; effective­ RESEARCH ness of undercover enforcement; uniform measurement of enforcement productivity Wildlife law enforcement is the oldest but and efficiency; and effectiveness of negative least researched ofwildlife managementprac­ sanctions assessed against violators (Beattie tices (Beattie et al. 1977). Because of the dif­ and Giles 1979). ficulties and reluctance associated with study­ ing illegal behavior, studies on poaching are 3. Develop Uniform Record-Keeping relatively few, and management responses to and Reporting Systems: illegal hunting are frequently made without Develop uniform law enforcement record­ benefit of objective information (Scialfa and keeping and reporting systems for state use Machlis 1993). Wildlife law enforcement re­ to aid in program comparison, evaluation and search needs identified by one survey were planning. The University of California and classified as forensic or nonforensic. Foren­ California State University systems may be sic research involves the development of able to provide research support. The World methods for identifying particular animals or Wildlife Fund's TRAFFIC USA, the Wildlife species from parts of the animal (e.g., hair, Society, and the Wildlife Management Insti­ blood) and methods for determining time of tute might all provide helpful forums for pro­ death of killed animals. Nonforensic research viding these national standards for enforce­ is more broad scale, concentrating on activi­ ment records (Morse 1973). ties such as optimum deployment ofwildlife law enforcement manpower and the effec­ 4. Fund New Forensics Techniques: tiveness of patrolling in deterring violations Funding should be provided for the Wild­ (Beattie and Giles 1979). Little research has life Forensics Laboratory to develop addi­ been conducted on the development of strat­ tional tools for use in poaching cases, such egies and techniques to improve enforcement as developing DNA probes for identifying operations. Most literature dealing with wild­ and matching individual deer parts from life law enforcement techniques does not pro­ blood and tissue samples and determining vide a scientific evaluation of such techniques genetic variability within the three races of (Beattie et al. 1977). elk found in California. [Estimated cost: $150,OOO.J 1. Budget for Law Enforcement Re­ search: 5. Conduct Research on Poaching Edu­ The Mountain Lion Foundation recom­ cation: mends that a portion of the Wildlife Protec­ Additional studies are needed in Califor­ tion Division's budget be allocated to enforce­ nia to identify the best methods to educate ment research. the public on poaching issues and how to discourage potential poachers from commit­ 2. Begin Law Enforcement Research ting crimes. Programs at Once: Begin comprehensive, interdisciplinary law

51 6. Conduct Cost/Benefit Analysis of Wildlife Cases: Conduct a research project in which sig­ nificantwildlife violation cases are monitored from beginning to end. Determine the finan­ cial cost to DFG, the loss to wildlife, and what happened to the violator.

52 TECHNICAL ARTICLES AND SPECIAL REPORTS California Department of Fish and Game. 1986. The Theft of Fish and Wildlife for Beattie, K.H. 1975. Evaluative Criteria Used Profit. Wildlife Protection Division, Sac­ in Anti-Poaching Campaigns. Wildltfe ramento, California. 10pp. Society Bulletin. 7:185-188. --. 1989. Report to the Fish and Game Com­ --, R.H. Giles, Jr., and CJ Cowles. 1977. mission/July 1/1988 toJune 301989. State Lack of Research in Wildlife Law En­ of California, The Resources Agency. forcement. Wildltfe Society Bulletin. 5: 170­ 102pp. 174. --. 1990. Report to the Fish and Game Com­ -- and R.H. Giles, Jr. 1979. A Survey of mission/July 1/1989 toJune 301990. State Wildlife Law Enforcement Needs and of California, The Resources Agency. Current Research. Wildlife Society Bulle­ 84pp. tin. 7(3):185-188. --. 1992a. Bighorn Sheep Hunting: Final En­ Boxall, EC and L.C Smith. 1987. Estimates vironmental Document. State of California, ofthe Illegal Harvest ofDeer in Alberta: A The Resources Agency. 23 April 1992. Violation Simulation Study. Alberta For­ 360pp. estry, Lands and Wildlife. Fish and Wild­ life Division. Resource Economics and --. 1992b. Deer Hunting: Final Environmen­ Assessment, Occasional Paper Number tal Document. State of California, The 2. Resources Agency. 23 April 1992. 724pp. Breedlove, B. and S. Rothblatt. 1987. The Crime of Poaching. Senate Office of Re­ --. 1992c. Fvrbearing and Nongame Mam­ search Issue Brief. Senate Office of Re­ mal Hunting and Trapping: Drafi Environ­ search, Sacramento, California. 20pp. mental Document. State of California, The Resources Agency. 14 February 1992. Brokaw, H.E, ed. 1978. \Vildlife and America: 606pp. Contributions to an Understanding ofAmeri­ can Wildlife and its Conservation. Council --. 1992d. Pronghorn Antelope Hunting: Final on Environmental Ouality, U.S. Gov­ Environmental Document. State of Califor­ ernment Printing Office, Washington, nia, The Resources Agency. 23 April D.C 532pp. 1992. 252pp.

California Department of Fish and Game. --. 1993. Bear Hunting: Draft Environmemal 1976. California Deer - Who's Count­ Document. State of California, The Re­ ing. Wildlife Protection Division, Sac­ sources Agency. 12 February 1993. ramento, California. 8pp. 486pp.

53 California Department of Parks and Recre­ Hill, E. G. 1991. A Review ofthe Department of ation. 1984. Stewardship - 1983: Manag­ Fish and Came: Issues and Options for Im­ ing the Natural and Scenic Resources ofthe proving its Performance. Legislative California State Park System. State of Cali­ Analyst's Office. Sacramento, Califor­ fornia, The Resources Agency. January nia. September 3, 1991. 1984.50pp. Hooper, J.K. and J.E. Fletcher. 1989. Public Per­ Chandler, Wl 1986. State Wildlife Law En­ ceptions ofand Participation in Fish and Wild­ forcement. Pages 593-628 in A.S. Eno, life Law Enforcement. Transactions of the R.L. Di Silvestro, and W.J. Chandler, 54th North American Wildlife and eds. Audubon Wildlife Report 1986. The Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife National Audubon Society, New York, Management Institute, Washington, New York. 1094pp. D.C. 359-363.

Cribbs, G.L., Cl Patin, J. Berkson, J. Young, Hummel, R.L. 1983. Hunting and Fishing ­ H. Ethridge, and S. Grinrod. 1988. But Not in Sociology. Rural Sociologist. PASATAC - Personnel Allocation Study and 31(4):55-258. Technical Application ofCriteria; Final Re­ port. California Departmentof Fish and Jones and Stokes Associates. 1992. Reassem­ Game, Wildlife Protection Division, bling the Pieces: A Strategy for Maintaining Sacramento, California. 84pp. Biological DiverSity in California. A report prepared for the California Department Falasco, M.R. 1985. Wildlife Poaching: A of Forestry and Fire Protection and the Little Known, Very Serious Crime. Sen­ California Department of Fish and ate Office of Research Issue Brief. Sen­ Game by Jones and Stokes Associates, ate Office of Research, Sacramento, Inc. Sacramento, California. 124pp. California. 17pp. Judicial Council of California. 1988. 1986 Fletcher, J.E, M. King, and J. Hooper. 1988. Municipal Courts' Judicial Weighted Attitudes Concerning Fish and Wildlife Pro­ Caseload Study. Administrative Office tection and Law Enforcement in the State of of the Courts, Sacramento, California. Caltfornia. California Department of Fish September 1988. 157pp. and Game, Sacramento, California. 222pp. --. 1993. Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedules. Administrative Office of the Courts, Forsyth, c.J. and T.A. Marckese. 1993. Thrills Sacramento, California. January 1993. and Skills: A Sociological Analysis of 50pp. Poaching. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisci­ plinaryjournal; 14:157-172. Kellert, S.R. 1978. Attitudes and Character­ istics of Hunters and Anti-Hunters and Hemley, G. 1988. International Wildlife Related Policy Suggestions. Paper pre­ Trade. Pages 337-374 in Wl Chandler, sented at a Hunter Safety Education ed. Audubon Wildlife Report 1988/1989. conference in Charleston, South Caro­ Academic Press, San Diego, California. lina, 24 January 1978. 817pp.

54 Kellert, S.R. 1979. Public Attitudes Toward Criti­ Matsueda, R.L. 1988. The Current State of cal Wildlife and Natural Habitat Issues. U.S. Differential Association Theory. Crime Government Printing Office # 024-010­ & Delinquency 34(3) July:277-306. 00-623-4, Washington DC Morse, W.B.1973.LawEnforcement-One -- 1980. Activities ofthe American Public Re­ Third of the Triangle. Wildlife Society lating to Animals. U.S. Government Print­ Bulletin 1(1):39-44. ing Office # 024-010-00-624-2, Wash­ ington, D.C National Marine Fisheries Service. 1993. Southwest Enforcement Division Annual Re­ --., and J.K. Berry. 1981. Knowledge! Affec­ port! Fiscal Year 1992. U.S. Department tion and Basic Attitudes Toward Animals in of Commerce, National Oceanic and American Society. U.S. Government Print­ Atmospheric Administration, National ing Office # 024-010-00-625-1, Wash­ Marine Fisheries Service, Office of En­ ington, DC forcement, Long Beach, California. 41pp. --. 1984. Assessing Wildlife and Environ­ mental Values in Cost-benefitAnalysis. Nelson, C and D. Verbyla. 1984. Character­ journal of Environmental Management. istics and Effectiveness of State Anti­ 18:355-363. Poaching Campaigns. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:117-122. --. 1985a. Birdwatching in America Soci­ ety. Leisure Sciences! 7(3):343-360. Planning and Conservation League Founda­ tion. 1991. The Twenty First Century --. 1985b. Social and Perceptual Factors Study: Preserving California!s Natural and in Endangered Species Management. Human Environment. Sacramento, Cali­ journal ofWildltfe Management! 49(2):528­ fornia. 128pp. 536. Smeltzer, J.F. 1985. Wildlife Law Enforcement: Klein, W.E. 1982. An Enlightening and So­ An Annotated Bibliography. Division Re­ bering Experience in California. Califor­ portNo. 13, Colorado Division ofWild­ nia Department ofFish and Game, Sac­ life, Denver, Colorado. 139pp. ramento. 5pp Vilkitis, J.R. 1971. The Violation Simulation Little Hoover Commission. 1990. Report on Formula Proves as Reliable as Field Re­ Caltfornia!s Fish and Game Commission and search in Estimating Closed Season Il­ Department ofFish and Game. Commis­ legal Big Game Kill In Maine. Trans. NE. sion on State Government Organization Sect Wildlife Society. 28:141-144. and Economy, Sacramento, California. 40pp. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1982. 1980 National Hunting! Fishing and Wildlife Re­ Loomis, J., M. Creel, and J. Cooper. 1989. lated Recreation Survey, Washington D.C Economic Benefits of Deer in California: Hunting and Viewing Values. College of --. 1990. Conservation Officers Killed and Agricultural and Environmental Sci­ Assaulted 1989. Fish and Wildlife Service, ences, University of California, Davis, Division of Law Enforcement, Wash­ Institute of Ecology Report#32. 270pp. ington, D.C 42pp.

55 THESES AND DISSERTATIONS Giles, R.H. 1978. WildlIfe Management. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, California. Farnsworth, c.L. 1980. A Descriptive Analy­ 416pp. sis of the Extent of Commercial Poach­ ing in the United States. Ph.D. disser­ Hodges, T. 1988. Sabertooth: The Rip-Roaring tation, Sam Houston State University, Adventures ofa Legendary Game Warden. Huntsville, Texas. 224pp. T&C Books, Oroville, California. 274pp. James, AE 1979. The Feasibility and Effec­ tiveness of the use of Aircraft to Detect Leopold, A 1949. A Sand County Almanac. and Apprehend Illegal Night Deer Oxford University Press, London. Hunters. Master's thesis, California 269pp. State University, Sacramento. 114pp. Long, J. 1985. Outlaw: The True Story ofClaude Scialfa, M.A and G.E. Machlis. 1993. An Eth­ Dallas. William Morrow and Company, nographic Analysis of Poachers and New York. Poaching in Northern Idaho and East­ ern Washington. Master's thesis, Uni­ Reisner, M. 1991. Game Wars: The Undercover versity of Idaho, Moscow. 369pp. Pursuit of Wildlife Poachers. Viking Pen­ guin. 294pp. Vilkitis, J.R. 1968. Characteristics of Big­ Game Violators and Extent of Their Schueler, D.G. 1980. InCIdent at Eagle Ranch: Activity in Idaho. Master's thesis, Uni­ Man and Predator in the American West. versity of Idaho, Moscow. 202pp. Sierra Club Books. San Francisco, Cali­ fornia. 297pp.

State of California. 1992a. California Code of BOOKS Regulations for 1992/ Title 14. Natural Re­ sources. Fish and Game Commission, Anderson, S.H. 1991 Managing Our Wildlife Sacramento, California. 346pp. Resources/ Second Edition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 492pp. --. 1992b. Fish and Game Code of Califor­ nia/ 1992. Gould Publications, Inc., Bean, MJ 1983. The Evolution ofNational Wild­ Altamonte Springs, Florida. 630pp. life Law. Praeger Publishers, New York, New York. 448pp. Swendsen, D.H. 1985. Badge in the Wilderness: My 30 Dangerous Years Combating Wild­ California Department of Fish and Game. life Violators. Stackpole Books, Harris­ 1992. CalIfornia Hunter Education Manual/ burg, Pennsylvania. 191 pp. Revised Edition. Outdoor Empire Pub­ lishing, Inc.., Seattle, \VA 88pp.

Dasmann, R.E 1981. Wildlife Biology; 2nd edi­ tion. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 212pp.

56 MAGAZINE ARTICLES Hanback, M. 1992a. Poaching: Crime in our Wilderness, Part I. Outdoor Life/ Octo­ Begley, S. and M. Hage. 1981. The ber: 57-97. "Snakescam" Sting. Newsweek/ 27 July:64. --. 1992b. Poaching: Crime in our Wilder­ ness, PartII. Outdoor Life/ November: 79­ BeneathThe Skins. 1990. TheAnimafsAgenda/ 118. May:35. Henry, R. 1991. Wildlife Forensics: Closing The Buck Starts Here. Time/ 10 December in on Violators. Oregon Wildlife/ Novem­ 1990:47. ber-December:12-13.

CITES Appendix II Needed for American High Country News. 1990. Big Game Poach­ Black Bear. 1992. Animal Welfare Institute ing An Organized Crime. Environment/ Quarterly; Winter:6-7. January-February 1990:23.

Clifton, M. 1988. Big-time Poaching: Game Hjelte, C. 1981. The First Six Months of Op­ No Longer. TheAnimalsAgendaJuly/Au­ eration Game Thief. Colorado Outdoors/ gust 1988:22-23. 30(3):49.

Congress Looks atWildlife Law Enforcement. Horn, G.1. 1985. Need for more rangers wins 1992. Animal V?elfare Institute Quarterly; overwhelming support. The Green Line: Winter:11. Omcial Publication ofthe California Fish and Game Wardens ProteetiveAssociation/ Janu­ Dagget, D. 1988. Dishonorable Discharges. ary:2. New Times. August:18-23. Karpov, K.A. 1990. Red abalone of northern Durbin, K. 1982. Game Laws Have Long His­ California: resource with a future? Out­ tory. Oregon V(lildlife/37(5):14. door Callfornia/ January-February:1-4.

East, B. 1979. Biggest Poaching Bust Ever. Keen-Eyed Cop Saves State Reptiles From the Outdoor Llfe/ May:152-159 Stew. 1993. Newsbeat/ July:3.

For poachers, 3 little letters spell trouble. Kellert, S.R. 1981. Perceptions ofHunting and 1993. Tracks: A Newsletter About Califor­ Wildlife in America. Hunting/ Winter nia Deer and Other Big Game/ Spring 1981. 1993:7. Mann, E.B. 1979. News, Good and Bad. Field Fowl Play. Scientific American/ October and Stream/ July:16. 1990:28. Glick, D. 1990. Mariposa Bear Case Suspects Draw Fines, The New Killing Fields. Newsweek/ July 23, Lose Licenses. 1993. Fish and Game To­ 1990: 54-55. day; April-June:4.

The great bear aphrodisiac caper. U.S. News Mason, J. 1993. Going Going Gone! Audubon & World Report/ 6 February 1989:14. July-August 1993:78-83.

57 Milstein, M. 1989. The Ouiet Kill. National Sheehan, J. 1981b. Wanted: Poachers. Out­ Parks/ May!June 1989:19-24. door California/ September-October:1-3.

Morell, V 1989. Crimes Against Nature. Out­ Smithsonian News Service. 1991. The "Scot­ side. July 1989:21. land Yard!! Of Wildlife Crime. The Fu­ turist/ March-April 1991:48. Murphy, M. and L. Murphy. 1990. Crime Story...With A Difference. Sierra/ Janu­ Sorensen, S. 1989. We're the New Wardens: ary!February 1990:19. Hunting and Fishing and Poaching and Killing. Reader (San Diego!s Weekly). 20 Norman, G. 1984. Fashionable Killing. Es­ April 1989:1-24. quire/ August 1984. Speart, J. 1991. Poach Busters: Who you Poachbusters. The Economist/ 16June 1990:31. gonna call? A Scotland Yard detective agency for animals. Omnt~ November Poaching: Oriental Demand for Ungdam and 1991:32. Paws Decimates California Bears. Audubon/ July 1983: 127-128. --. 1992. A Poacher!s Worst Nightmare. National Wildlife/ April/May 1992:26-28. Poaching Persists Despite Stings. National Parks. May!June 1990:14-15. --. 1993. War Within. Buzzworm: The Envi­ ronmental]ournal/ July!August 1993:36­ Poten, c.J. 1991. A Shameful Harvest: 85. America's Illegal Wildlife Trade. National Geographic. September 1991. Special Agents vs. Poachers. 1992. Animal Welfare Institute Quarterly Spring:8-9. Ouinn, V 1983. Poaching Skyrockets When Miners Move Into Wilderness. National Springer, D. 1993. Sea Lions Under Fire. E: Wildlife/ December-January 1983:35. The Environmental Magazine/ September! October 1993. Raeburn, P. 1991. Adventures in the Skin Trade. Buzzworm: The Environmentafjour­ Steinberg, D. 1983. It Pays to Bag Poachers. nal/ March!April 1991 :22-23. National Wildlife/ October-Novem­ ber:22-23. Reisner, M. 1987. Bad News, Bears. Califor­ nia Magazine March:71-128. Stuller, J. 1982. The war on wildlife. Kiwanis Magazine. November-December Robbins, J. 1985. Anatomy of a Sting. Natu­ 1982:20-23. ral History July 1985:4-1 O. Tennesen, M. 1991. Poaching, Ancient Tra­ Shay, R. 1986. Poaching: A troublesome ditions, and the Law. Audubon/ July! recipe for wildlife. Oregon Wildlife/ May­ August 1991 :90-97. June 1986:8-10. Tognazzini, T. 1992. Bucky strikes. Outdoor Sheehan, J. 1981a. CalTIP: A New Battle­ California/ July-August:9-11. ground in War on Poachers. Outdoor California/ July-August:23-24

58 To Kill a Warden. 1978. Wisconsin Sportsman; Bentzley, G. 1985. Arrests fuel gill-netting November/December: 33-40 furor. Times-Standard; 26 February 1985.

Turbak, G.1982. The New Poachers. Field and Bentzley, G. 1985. Indictments tell ofalleged Stream; November: 132-134. illegal sales. Times-Standard; 26 Febru­ ary 1985. Wertz, P. 1980. A Lot of Deer OutThere Still Need Killing. Outdoor California; July­ --. 1985. Indians unfairly blamed for August:29-30. Klamath's decline, Yurok says. Times­ Standard; 2 March 1985. White, J. 1976. The Lonesome Policeman. Outdoor CalIfornia; July-August:29-30. Berthelsen, J. 1982. Sturgeon War Rages In North State. The Sacramento Bee; 15 Au­ Wilkinson, T 1988. Yellowstone's Poaching gust 1982. War. Defenders. May/June:30-36 Bishop, B. 1990. Man sentenced for killing, Williams, T 1989. Game Laws Weren't Writ tagging a cougar illegally. The Register­ For Fat Cats. Audubon; July 1989:104­ Guard; 22 May 1990. 113. Bowman, C. 1990. Tight budget putting Woodard, T 1988. A Different Kind of De­ game wardens on foot. The Sacramento coy. Field and Stream; February 1988:64­ Bee; 20 January 1990. 65. --. and M.E. Camposeco. 1993. U.S. hires undocumented workers. The Sacramento NEWSPAPER ARTICLES Bee; 8 June 1993.

A!

--. 1991 b. Rancher gets jail, fine in big-cat Capps, S.A. 1987. Wardens bag dozens in big case. The Monterey Herald; 17 August poaching (sting.' San Francisco Examiner" 1991. 11 February 1987.

Appleby, J. 1990. Warrants issued for 15 Carroll, J. 1983. The Passion For Sturgeon. poachers. Hayward Daily Review; 6 July San Francisco Sunday Examiner & 1990. Chronicle; 20 March 1983.

Bear parts sale brings guilty plea. 1988. Record Castle, K. 1989. Abalone Arrests Expose Per­ Searchlight; 27 January 1988. vasive Poaching Trade. San Francisco Chronicle; 20 November 1989. Bentzley, G. 1985.24 busted in gill-net sting. Times-Standard; 25 February 1985. The Caviar Caper. 1990. The Sacramento Bee; 4 February 1990.

59 Certini, R. 1993. EX-judge recalls days as Greenville doctor fined in poaching. 1993. poacher. The Sacramento Bee/ 22 Octo­ The Sacramento Bee/ 25 May 1993. ber 1993. Hall, R.D. 1981. "Sting" Breaks Up Illegal Ani­ Champion, D. 1983. Crackdown on Dunge· mal Trafficking. The Sacramento Bee/ 17 ness Crab Poaching. San Francisco July 1981. Chronicle/ 26 May 1983. Hanville, S. 1993. Trial set in mountain lion Coleman, D.E. 1988. Dove-hunter crack­ trapping. The Prescott Sun/ 24 March down. Fresno Bee/ 7 September 1988. 1993.

Corwin, M. 1991. Caged cat hunts are de­ Hastings, D. 1993. Wardens Struggle to Pro­ fended by Monterey holder. The Sacra­ tect Living Resources Against Poaching. mento Bee/ 26 April 1991. Los Angeles Times/ 11 July 1993.

COX, J.D. 1993. Netoutfor butterfly outlaws. Hodgson, J. 1985. Agents buy gill-net fish. Sacramento Bee/ 21 August 1993. The Union/ 28 February 1985.

Crackdown on poaching. 1988. The Sacra­ Illegal Animal Deals Mail Is Full of Snakes. mento Union/ 3 August 1988. 1981. San Francisco Chronicle/ 17 July 1981. David Ruiz pleads guilty to felony F&G charge. 1988. Trinity Journal/ 4 February Johnston, L. 1988. Raids in 2 States Hit Ille­ 1988. gal Wildlife Trafficking. The Los Angeles Times; 13 January 1988. DFG searching for mountain lion killer. 1990. Inyo Register; 28 December 1990. Jokelson, A. 1990. Duck hunters run afoul of federal, state restrictions. The Tribune/ 2 Dicke, W. 1982. Poaching Becoming an In­ February 1990. creasing Problem for Many States. The New York Times/ 31 October 1982. Kalfus, M. 1988. Officers seize reptiles in large-scale roundup. The Orange County Dorgan, M. 1990. 12 Facing charges of bass Register; 13 January 1988. poaching. SanJose Mercury News/ 6 July 1990. Kalfus, M. 1988. Reptile roundup means the end of the line to animal breeder. The Doyle, J. 1991. 5 Bay Area Men Held On Orange County Register; 14 January 1988. Wildlife Violations. San Francisco Chronicle/ 28 September 1991. Kight, P. Police arrest 17 in probe of poach­ ing. The Oregonian/ 24 August 1989. Freezer yields head of lion reported shot on MountDiablo. 1993. Contra Costa Times/ Lane, D. 1988.52 arrested in traffic of exotic 1 May 1993. animals, parts. The Oakland Tribune/ 1 March 1988. Goldstein, G. 1993. What price can we put on miracle of nature? The Sacramento Bee Final/ 12 February 1993.

60 Link, T. 1985. Fish poaching sting nabs 24. New York 11mes. 1993. Chinese ban trade The Oakland Tribune; 26 February 1985. of rhino, tiger parts. The Sacramento Bee; 6 June 1993. Little, J.B. 1992. New weapon against poach­ ers: Genetic analysis. The Sacramento Bee; Onstad, E. 1985. Napa Valley fish "sting" 21 December 1992. headquarters. The Napa Register; 26 Feb­ ruary, 1985. Locklin, L. 1991. Wardens say poaching is taking heavy toll on beleaguered Delta Opatrny, D.J. 1988. Exotic animal parts fish. Contra Costa Times; 18 February seized in Chinatown medicine shop. 1991. San Francisco Examiner; 10 February 1988. Lum, G. 1988. Fish and Game Raids Chinatown Herb Store. East West News; Perlman, J.A. 1993. Annual Wild-Game Bar­ 11 February 1988. becue Gets Burned by Wildlife Agents. Los Angeles Times; 19 September 1993. MacDonald, 1. 1988. Hard-Boiled For Poach­ ers. ECONEWS; October 1988. Peters, M. 1988. Paying the price in Califor­ nia. The Sacramento Bee; 7 September Man Sentenced and Fined for Shooting Sea 1988. Otters. 1989. Los Angeles Times; 30 April 1989. Poachers sold sea lions, tigers and bears. 1988. Denver Post; 2 March 1988. Martin, G.1989.ABullMarketinBears. San Francisco Chronicle; 8 June 1989. Popp, R. and B. Jarvis. 1985.24 Arrested for Illegal Sales of Fish. San Francisco Masters, K. 1992. Former Smithsonian Sci­ Chronicle; 26 February 1985. entist Indicted on Smuggling, Tax Fraud Charges. The Washington Post; 4 June Probe targets frog dealers. 1993. The Sacra­ 1992. mento Bee; 24 September 1993.

McAuliffe, M. 1981. Bears killed for sex po­ Reward for mountain lion killer. 1990. Vietor tion. Record Searchlight; 11 November Valley Daily Press; 25 October 1990. 1981. Rheem, D.L. 1987. Poaching in US worsens McCarthy, P. 1984. State requested to begin as demand grows. The Christian Science crackdown on Bay Bandits. The Tribune; Monitor; 24 April 1987. 14 June 1984. Robbins, J. 1993. Poaching hits home. USA Michelson, H. 1985. State nets 27 it sting for Weekend; 24-26 September 1993. fish poachers. The Sacramento Bee; 26 February 1985. Sanders, J. 1993. Deer fall prey to poachers in Gilroy. The Sacramento Bee; 7 June Moreno, E.M. 1991. 'Big-cat' case jury con­ 1993 victs couple. The Monterey Herald; 26 June 1991.

61 Schrader, E. 1991. Big-game hunting organiz­ Voet, G. 1992a. Foundation wants poaching ers convicted. SanjoseMercury News; 26 to end. The Sacramento Bee; 5 January June 1991. 1992.

Stienstra, T. 1984. Stiff penalties warning for --. 1992b. Record reward. The Sacramento striped bass poachers. San Francisco Ex­ Bee; 12 July 1992. amitler; 7 July 1984. --. 1992c. Outnumbered game wardens --. 1985. Giant illegal-fishing listing." San need public's help. The Sacramento Bee Francisco Examiner; 25 February 1985. Final; 1 December 1992.

--. 1988. Poaching problem is growing. --. 1993a. DNA evidence is the key to San Francisco Examiner; 23 October 1988. Norcal deer-killing case. The Sacramento Bee; 31 January 1993. --. 1989. Illegal harvest of tidal sea life alarms DFG. San Francisco Examiner; 16 --. 1993b. This line can snag poachers. The April 1989. Sacramento Bee; 4 April 1993.

--. 1990. DFG will pursue fish poachers. --. 1993c. DNA helps bring wildlife con­ San Francisco Examiner; 11 July 1990. viction. The Sacramento Bee; 9 May 1993.

--. 1991. A model program with one flaw. Welkos, R. 1981. Salmon poaching arrest de­ San Francisco Examiner; 10 October 1991. manded. Oakland Tribune; 9 December 1981. Swissler, Lori. 1990. State seeking clues in lion's beheading. Daily Times Advocate; Wildlife populations decline in state's first 1 October 1990. century. 1989 The Register-Guard. 12 November 1989. Thin green line losing battle with poachers. 1993. Telegram- Tribune; 20 April 1993. Willis, K. 1988. Plea shows DFG serious about illegal sale of bear parts. Record Thurman, S. 1989. War in the Wild Against Searchlight; 28 January 1988. Poachers. Christian Science Monitor; 14 March 1989. Wong, J. 1989. Wardens in need of help against deer poachers. The Sacramento Trinity man arraigned on bear parts sales Bee; 24 December 1989. charges. 1987. Trinity journal; 5 March 1987. Wurst, R. 1990. State nets Bay bass poach­ ers. Contra Costa Times! 6 July 1990. Utah poaching arrests. 1991. The Sacramento Bee; 16 March 1991. Yoachum, S. 1985. Fishermen accused of poaching fish. San jose Mercury News; Viets, J. Fish-poaching Ring Broken Up In East 26 February 1985. Bay. San Francisco Chronicle; 6 July 1990. Yun, Y. 1981. Herbalists Warned by Sate Of­ ficials. The Korea Times English; 16 No­ vember 1981.

62