Two days ago, I wrote "Truth Takes a Back Seat at Lacey Act Hearing," where I pointed out Senator Rand Paul mislead the public regarding the arrest of two men for violating the Lacey Act by illegally harvesting lobsters. Senator Paul responded and implied that it was I, in fact, who was misleading the public.
It is always interesting and sometimes productive to debate with people of differing political views. In this case, Senator Paul provided all the information needed to make an informed decision on this issue by including the 11th Circuit Court decision on the case at hand. I strongly urge anyone to read the case as it lays out the facts, the law, and the circumstances better than I ever could.
Anyone who listened to Senator Paul's testimony at the hearings would have difficulty reconciling them with the facts of the case. The evidence clearly shows that not only did the fishermen run a large and complex operation, but they were well aware that they were harvesting millions and millions of dollars' worth of lobsters they were not supposed to catch.
The court makes it clear that restrictions on which lobsters can be caught are not trivial. Those restrictions are in place so that immature lobsters, or others that are about to reproduce, are protected. This is a textbook example of where the Lacey Act was rightly applied to protect the future of an industry by preventing exploitation today.
A jury in Alabama and two federal courts found the defendants guilty in this case. They had all of the protections of the American court system, and their convictions have been upheld. As can be the case where other nations' laws come into play, especially when millions of dollars, prison time, and lots of lawyers are involved, this can be complex. Complexity, however, does not mean that there was injustice.
The United States also has fishing laws, as well as laws to protect our other limited and precious natural resources. I suspect that if foreign fishermen smuggled 400,000 pounds of Maine lobsters or illegally harvested wood from Oregon, worth millions of dollars, from our country, that Senator Paul and I would want them brought to justice, even if, especially if, they fled our jurisdiction. Laws such as the Lacey Act exist to protect the future of our industry and our environment.
Follow Rep. Earl Blumenauer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/repblumenauer
House panel considers Lacey Act changes
Lacey Act Battle Heats Up on the Hill
NRF Calls on Congress to Reform Law Regulating Imported Products Containing ...
Illegal fishing in Main is a state crime not a federal crime. Lacy act is federal so crossing state lines after harvesting must be involved in the issue. The Lacy act says nothing about lobster larva, harvesting lobsters in Main, etc. The Lacy act is just a good, and very large club that can be abused by the government, when desired. Was that the case this time?
Perhaps the link to the opinion did just state that the defendants were guilty of shipping in cardboard instead of plastic or not having the correct paperwork from the state inspector. We don't know, and you being a politician, we must assume that you are shading the truth -- that is what politicians do.
Since when is live lobster worth > 11$/lb (400,000 pounds of lobster worth $4.6 million.-- from your previous blog), when I can buy it retail at my local Asian supermarkets for $6.95/lb. Just being a politician?
Ecologically, all life is inextricably interconnected to all life. All ecosystems are integrated and interconnected, and they all have loops and feedbacks to the atmosphere and the climate. Stealing immature lobsters without consideration of their populations and the jobs they hold down for their ecosystems, impacts the entire ecosystem as the marine ecosystem is its native plants and all native animals, who are the community members of their ecosystem.
Biodiversity, just like the lobster, is a rivet in spaceship Earth. Tragically, the money-changers cannot grasp how this impacts the eco-nomy of the Earth and all life. If they steal too many lobsters, the entire ecosystem becomes less stable and less able to support all life, including the Pauls.
If all life was seeded in a wild natural environment, wild Earth, how is it man cannot see, that destroying and killing the natural earth and the plants and animals that create the whole organism of a wild, natural ecosystem/natural earth, that also produces our natural resources, that is unnatural changes to the Earth and everything that is not wild and natural -- is destroying the life giving and supporting of the Earth?
They see a society where the strongest and the richest succeed and all others fail.
Me, I'm an extreme libertarian. I favor no government. No taxes, no welfare, no warfare, no police. See the difference?
The person with limited skills is the author of this article, who has been slopping at the public trough since 1972, when I was fighting VC and the back seat of an F-4.
Where was Blumenauer then?
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html