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.