4 ms·

> By allowing salvagers to apply for a permit after collecting the animal, the law could give the poachers a ready-made excuse when caught with a contraband car

> By allowing salvagers to apply for a permit after collecting the animal, the law could give the poachers a ready-made excuse when caught with a contraband carcass: “I swear, officer, I just found it on the side of the road!” The above is cited as a potential unintended consequence of legalizing roadkill salvage. Does anyone have a take on how likely that consequence would be to happen?

eridius 7y ago
Is it not obvious from inspecting a carcass whether it died due to impact with a vehicle versus some other means?
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  Since the bill allows wounded animals to be killed after being found injured on the road, not just collecting actual road kill, the fact that an animal was killed by some other means than vehicle impact wouldn't suffice to establish that there was a violation of the law.
burk96 7y ago
Growing up I had a family friend who was a park ranger in a popular hunting area (not California fwiw). The laws protecting wildlife from poachers are really strong and rangers take them very seriously. As a result, catching a poacher can often be a messy scenario. If it doesn't turn violent, you can bet the poachers will try everything to get out of catching the case. I don't think it's unreasonable that poachers would try to protect themselves with this defense. That said, I don't think that potential wiggle room poachers may try to exploit should be reason to keep salvaging illegal. The only time I have ever heard of a poacher making that excuse was in an askreddit thread (yeah I know take it with a grain of salt) about LEOs getting guns pulled on them. In that story the ranger could clearly tell the animal had been shot, not hit with a vehicle, and I would imagine in many other cases a ranger would be able to tell the difference too.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  I mean if they shot a deer, then ran it over with their car, it would look like a deer that was shot then ran over. You'd have to mangle the animal severely to make a rifle/bow wound difficult to find.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > I mean if they shot a deer, then ran it over with their car, it would look like a deer that was shot then ran over. While no doubt an actual autopsy will often distinguish "run over and then shot" from "shot and then run over" (note that the bill allows "dispatching" animals that are wounded but not killed on the road, so there being a clear bullet/arrow/etc. wound, even if it can be established that it came from the person who collected it and not previously and non-fatally, is not determinative of a violation), its considerably costlier to distinguish violations from permitted conduct, which makes enforcement harder and promotes violations.
    - masonic 7y ago
      autopsy necropsy
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pvaldes 7y ago
> Does anyone have a take on how likely that consequence would be to happen? Very probable, has happened yet. To fake a car kill is a well known alibi for crimes against endangered species like critically endangered Iberian lynx. If people are allowed to retire the corpse and eat the animal, how the administration could look for evidence of illegal shooting or traps before the evidence is buried or eaten?. Anybody could just shoot, and then other people could use a SUV and have a free pass to violate any hunting law. On the other hand, in most countries meat for human comsumption must be examinated by a licensed veterinary to avoid spreading diseases to cattle and people. Ill and confused animals are more prone to end as roadkills. Rabies, roundworms or Trichinose could increase amongst human population.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

eridius 7y ago

Is it not obvious from inspecting a carcass whether it died due to impact with a vehicle versus some other means?

dragonwriter 7y ago
Since the bill allows wounded animals to be killed after being found injured on the road, not just collecting actual road kill, the fact that an animal was killed by some other means than vehicle impact wouldn't suffice to establish that there was a violation of the law.

burk96 7y ago

Growing up I had a family friend who was a park ranger in a popular hunting area (not California fwiw). The laws protecting wildlife from poachers are really strong and rangers take them very seriously. As a result, catching a poacher can often be a messy scenario. If it doesn't turn violent, you can bet the poachers will try everything to get out of catching the case. I don't think it's unreasonable that poachers would try to protect themselves with this defense. That said, I don't think that potential wiggle room poachers may try to exploit should be reason to keep salvaging illegal. The only time I have ever heard of a poacher making that excuse was in an askreddit thread (yeah I know take it with a grain of salt) about LEOs getting guns pulled on them. In that story the ranger could clearly tell the animal had been shot, not hit with a vehicle, and I would imagine in many other cases a ranger would be able to tell the difference too.

merpnderp 7y ago
I mean if they shot a deer, then ran it over with their car, it would look like a deer that was shot then ran over. You'd have to mangle the animal severely to make a rifle/bow wound difficult to find.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I mean if they shot a deer, then ran it over with their car, it would look like a deer that was shot then ran over. While no doubt an actual autopsy will often distinguish "run over and then shot" from "shot and then run over" (note that the bill allows "dispatching" animals that are wounded but not killed on the road, so there being a clear bullet/arrow/etc. wound, even if it can be established that it came from the person who collected it and not previously and non-fatally, is not determinative of a violation), its considerably costlier to distinguish violations from permitted conduct, which makes enforcement harder and promotes violations.
  - masonic 7y ago
    autopsy necropsy

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

pvaldes 7y ago

> Does anyone have a take on how likely that consequence would be to happen? Very probable, has happened yet. To fake a car kill is a well known alibi for crimes against endangered species like critically endangered Iberian lynx. If people are allowed to retire the corpse and eat the animal, how the administration could look for evidence of illegal shooting or traps before the evidence is buried or eaten?. Anybody could just shoot, and then other people could use a SUV and have a free pass to violate any hunting law. On the other hand, in most countries meat for human comsumption must be examinated by a licensed veterinary to avoid spreading diseases to cattle and people. Ill and confused animals are more prone to end as roadkills. Rabies, roundworms or Trichinose could increase amongst human population.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]