Tony Silva Sentenced
Layne David Dicker
In article <19961119031...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
sue...@aol.com wrote:
> Tony Silva was finally sentenced today for smuggling $1.36 million in rare
> birds and mammals.
>
> The sentence was 82 months in prison and a $100,000 fine.
>
> Silva's mother was sentenced to 27 months in prison.
It ain't enough.
Layne
sue...@aol.com
san...@aol.com
In article <ldicker-1811...@ppp-25.ts-4.la.idt.net>,
>It ain't enough.
>
>Layne
>
>
I Agree 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I AIN'T enough!
Suzanne
Although I am NOT an elderly Ladie ,my friends call me Birdbiddie
Ian Kerfoot
If he was convicted of $1,360,000 worth of birds, he
should be able to cover the $100,000 in pocket change.
On the 8 years, is he eligible for early parole? Is he
going to some quaint little club fed, or is he headed
off to a real prison? Jim Baker of the PTL got out,
and has gotten his memoires published, available now
at a bookstore near you. Besides, Silva presumably
still gets royalties from at least one book he wrote
a while ago. I wouldn't write him off yet.
Ian Kerfoot
jdei...@aol.com
In article <19961119031...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
sue...@aol.com writes:
>Subject: Tony Silva Sentenced
>From: sue...@aol.com
>Date: 19 Nov 1996 03:08:02 GMT
>
>Tony Silva was finally sentenced today for smuggling $1.36 million in
rare
>birds and mammals.
>
>The sentence was 82 months in prison and a $100,000 fine.
>
>Silva's mother was sentenced to 27 months in prison.
>
>
The world of aviculture and international wildlife conservation has
finally been rid of a liar, a thief and a parasite. Good riddance.
Jessica Deis
js...@aol.com
>Tony Silva was finally sentenced today for smuggling $1.36 million in
rare
>birds and mammals.
>
>The sentence was 82 months in prison and a $100,000 fine.
>
>Silva's mother was sentenced to 27 months in prison.
I saw a suggestion some time ago that these two creeps serve their
sentences stuffed into a length of PVC pipe. I like that.
Judy in WV
Layne David Dicker
In article <56tbca$6...@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu>, Ian Kerfoot
<ker...@csl.uiuc.edu> wrote:
I'm certain he'll go to a minimum security facility. Further, I believe
that federal prisoners serve 80% of their sentences before becoming
eligible for parole (I could be way off on this, but I know it is more
than the old CA statute which was basically 2 for 1, or 50%).
I'm sure he'll be back; he's been planning it all along with statements
made even before the indictment came down. His attempt to withdraw his
plea agreement is clearly a set up for a later "They forced me into the
agreement. I wanted to rescind. I wanted a trial to prove my innocence."
Mark my words, it's coming.
As far as his books go, don't buy 'em and pressure stores/distributors not
to sell them. He is a convicted, admitted smuggler and murderer of
parrots. Period. I've never been a big protester type, but if he tries to
pull some of the crap that Bakker and some of the other immoral idiots
have (some convicted, some aquitted, if you get my message) and try to
slither his way back into the public's good graces, well, you'll see one
tall, angry guy disrupting his first lecture.
I've never actually thrown a tomato, but I did play a little quarterback......
Layne
ellen ivy paul
I have an even better idea. Let's just stuff them in a freezer. Oh -
they won't fit? No problem. Just cut off their heads. After all, that's
what he did to the Hyacinths....
Ellen Paul
--
Leigh Hidell
Well, how do we know the guy is, in fact, guilty? My problem w/ the
case is that apparently his MOTHER was set up in some kind of way,
& he had to plead guilty to something he may or may not have done
to get her off of this tax fraud thing. Tony was a millionaire
all his life. He didn't need to do this for money.
A personal friend was suckered like this in the mid '80s. This
guy would never harm a bird. In fact, he had given me birds for
FREE because he already had plenty of money from his second
mortgage business. He did not need to smuggle birds for money
in his wholesale operation. However, there was a gov't set-up
where he was forced to plead guilty to something he didn't do
to prevent an idiot relative (his son) from going to jail. The
son stupidly agreed to accept these cheap birds that turned out
to be smuggled, and to protect him, this guy had to strike a
"deal" to get his son off.
I only met Tony once & don't know the details of his case...but I
can tell you right now that the feds set people up for any & for
NO reason other than to publicize themselves & get promotions....
-- Leigh
san...@aol.com
In article <ldicker-2011...@ppp-19.ts-4.la.idt.net>,
ldi...@mail.idt.net (Layne David Dicker) writes:
> I've never been a big protester type, but if he tries to
>pull some of the crap that Bakker and some of the other immoral idiots
>have (some convicted, some aquitted, if you get my message) and try to
>slither his way back into the public's good graces, well, you'll see one
>tall, angry guy disrupting his first lecture.
>
>I've never actually thrown a tomato, but I did play a little
>quarterback......
>
>Layne
I'll grow those tomatoes for you!!!
ellen ivy paul
In article <ldicker-2011...@ppp-19.ts-4.la.idt.net>,
Layne David Dicker <ldi...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>
>I've never actually thrown a tomato, but I did play a little quarterback......
>
>Layne
Get in line, sweetie pie - I've been warming up in the bullpen for several
days already.....
PS - in which movie did you play a little QB?
No sleep 3 days - getting a bit silly, disoriented, and WEIRD
--
ellen ivy paul
In article <570ah4$8...@lana.zippo.com>, <Leigh Hidell lr...@gnofn.org> wrote:
>Well, how do we know the guy is, in fact, guilty?
Well, let's see. A well-respected veterinarian in Miami provided the
government with a great deal of HARD, not circumstantial evidence. The
government also had a number of informants (I have copies of the
depositions of several of them). But the real problem was that Tony
couldn't keep his big mouth shut. He told people that he was doing this -
to save the species because otherwise they would be shot for food. He
didn't keep all the birds and other animals he smuggled - he sold many of
them. It was only a matter of time until someone said something....in
fact, many in the avicultural community had suspicions for a long time.
And where DID those beheaded hyacinths in the freezer come from? You
know, the ones without closed bands or USDA import bands?
My problem w/ the
>case is that apparently his MOTHER was set up in some kind of way,
>& he had to plead guilty to something he may or may not have done
>to get her off of this tax fraud thing. Tony was a millionaire
>all his life. He didn't need to do this for money.
Why do you think the MOTHER was set up? Isn't it possible she was
actually involved herself?
Not according to the indictment. According to the indictment, they had
MORE than enough to nail Tony without having to pressure him. If they had
proved even half of what was in that indictment, he would have been
convicted. Tony was NOT a millionaire all his life. I've read his early
articles. He described his house - not exactly a mansion.
>
>A personal friend was suckered like this in the mid '80s. This
>guy would never harm a bird. In fact, he had given me birds for
>FREE because he already had plenty of money from his second
>mortgage business. He did not need to smuggle birds for money
>in his wholesale operation. However, there was a gov't set-up
>where he was forced to plead guilty to something he didn't do
>to prevent an idiot relative (his son) from going to jail.
Let me get this straight. This man had NO involvement other than
paternity? He didn't buy the birds from his son, or help the son sell the
birds? What was it he supposedly DIDN'T do - he didn't go to Brazil
personally, yank the birds out of the trees, stuff them into a suitcase,
and fly home with them? He never saw the birds, knew nothing about them,
but pleaded guilty anyway?
Are you suggesting that because someone is rich, he won't do bad things?
Having lots of money doesn't mean you don't want more.
The
>son stupidly agreed to accept these cheap birds that turned out
>to be smuggled, and to protect him, this guy had to strike a
>"deal" to get his son off.
So he shouldn't be in trouble because he was stupid? What a great
defense! I plead stupidity, your Honor! By the mid-80's, it was already
common knowledge that bird smuggling was a big problem. Was it so
difficult for the stupid son to ask, "Why don't these birds have closed
bands or USDA bands?" Was he forced to buy these birds despite the lack
of bands?
>I only met Tony once & don't know the details of his case...but I
>can tell you right now that the feds set people up for any & for
> NO reason other than to publicize themselves & get promotions....
>
Sure. They had tons of publicity on this one - one or two newspaper
articles in the Chicago papers (where it took place) and one or two in the
New York Times - maybe a couple of other papers picked it up. Lots of
publicity. I know many of the FWS people personally and none of those
that I know do this job for any reason other than that they really care
and really want to stop the smuggling. Trust me, it ain't for the
money....
You are right. YOu don't know the details of the case. The indictment
has been posted here more than once. Check Dejanews. YOu can read it for
yourself.
Ellen Paul
> -- Leigh
--
pat foley
In <571njh$p...@lana.zippo.com> rp...@gnofn.org (Roger Williams) writes:
>
>In article <571gcm$1...@rac5.wam.umd.edu>, ep...@wam.umd.edu says...
>>
>>In article <570ah4$8...@lana.zippo.com>, <Leigh Hidell
lr...@gnofn.org> wrote:
>>>Well, how do we know the guy is, in fact, guilty?
>>
>>couldn't keep his big mouth shut. He told people that he was doing
this -
>>to save the species because otherwise they would be shot for food.
>
>And here we have the crux of what I believe Leigh is trying to say.
>Bird people are very vulnerable to sting operations because, as a
>rule, we are idealistic and we deal with a lot of people. Perhaps
>Tony is, in fact, a greedy bird-murderer, but the fact that he was
>"stung" and convicted does not necessarily prove this.
>
>
>
>If Leigh is talking about the case I think she is talking about, then
the
>local wholesaler was tricked into accepting a consignment from a
suspicious
>source because an anxious customer (who, if I am not mistaken, may
have
>been part of the sting) had an urgent need for the birds. His desire
to
>be helpful was used to destroy his business and put him in jail.
>This is a very common problem with bird people, who as I said a
paragraph
>ago tend to be idealistic and sometimes do things they shouldn't do
>because of their desire to be helpful or pursue a greater good.
>
>My problem with this thread is not Tony's probable innocence, but the
fact
>that many people are calling for his head on a pike with no direct
knowledge
>of exactly what he REALLY did or his personal reasons for doing it.
>>So he shouldn't be in trouble because he was stupid? What a great
>>defense! I plead stupidity, your Honor!
>
would
>be nobody walking around outside. The question is whether one
person's
>stupidity is treated more harshly than another's, perhaps because he
is
>wealthy, highly visible, or vulnerable because of a particular
weakness
>which makes him easy to target.
>
>Also, I already snipped "publicity," but let me add that there was
lots
>of publicity over the local wholesaler too -- most of it slanted or
outright
>untrue. The papers usually (excuse the metaphor) parrot whatever the
>police tell them.
>
>>
>>Ellen Paul
>>
>>> -- Leigh
>
>-- Roger
I was a juror on a similar sounding case. The ATF group was trying to
catch some big time gun runners in a rural area. These guys hung out
at the community tavern in this very rural area, and were apparently
cordial with a state trooper, the kind that weighs trucks on the
highway. The ATF set up a sting, where this trooper's cousin, who was
the local sheriff, introduced a 'friend' who was an ATF agent, looking
for a gun. (Nice family, right?)
The idea was that the trooper might ask his tavern buddies for a
suitable gun, and the ATF agents would get the big gun runners.
We listened to a week of tapes where 'cousin sheriff' introduced his
good friends, who tried to get this trooper to get them a gun or two.
He was *very* uninterested, repeatedly telling them "why don't you look
in the paper" and changing the subject to talk about taxidermy, (his
hobby), chopping and burning firewoods and other 'country' interests.
Finally, with much pressure from the cousin, he produced a gun or two,
from somewhere.
The only problem was that the gun runners got wind of the ATF agents
and skipped the area. The ATF didn't have anyone else to show for
their sting, so they brought up this poor trooper on charges. The
whole case was ludicrous, and we acquitted him in about 15 minutes.
But I'm sure it ruined his life and career, not to mention the betrayal
he must have felt at being set up by his cousin. (When the prosecution
asked him why didn't he throw the people out of his home if he didn't
want to get them a gun, he replied they were friends of his cousin, and
he'd never thrown anyone out of his home. But we could tell, listening
to the tapes, that a more unlikely gun runner never lived. Funny,
though, these tapes were the prosecution's evidence)
It's possible, though, that the ATF agents promised the cousin they'd
never touch the trooper, just wanted to get to his tavern buddies.
Just goes to show how hard it can be to trust anyone.
Anyway, this is *not* a defence of Silva. I'll admit I don't know much
about the case, but the trooper procured a couple of guns, not over a
million dollars worth. It sounds like he was in it, for a long time,
and while I believe there are stings that people can be tricked into,
if you stay in the business for that long, to the detriment of that
many birds, you aren't being stung, you're participating.
Pat
jdei...@aol.com
>Subject: Re: Tony Silva Sentenced
>From: Leigh Hidell lr...@gnofn.org
>Date: 20 Nov 1996 17:16:20 -0800
>
>Well, how do we know the guy is, in fact, guilty? My problem w/ the
>case is that apparently his MOTHER was set up in some kind of way,
>& he had to plead guilty to something he may or may not have done
>to get her off of this tax fraud thing. Tony was a millionaire
>all his life. He didn't need to do this for money.
If you read the papers every day, you'll find that a LOT of people with
money "do it for the money," whatever 'it' happens to be. Tony Silva
might not have needed the money he made from parrot smuggling in order to
feed a hungry family, but you can be sure he didn't do it out of the
goodness of his heart, as he'd like us all to believe. He probably also
got a big thrill from thinking he was the James Bond of the aviculture
world, with one foot in the underworld of international intrigue and the
other foot in the glow of the limelight as an "internatioanally recognized
expert."
He claims his mommy was "dragged into the case to pressure" him.
Evidently the Fed had a pile of goods on mommy too, enough to cause her to
not want to go up in front of a jury. Remember, mommy pled guilty too.
Tony Silva is his own worst enemy because he has a big mouth. He is a
highly skilled con man with a serious character disorder. Seems like most
of the people who knew him said he was a real nice guy. Right. As was
pointed out in a previous post, we certainly haven't heard the last word
from this lowlife. He'll be crying from his minimum-security prison cell
to anyone with the stomach to listen to him whine about being a "political
prisoner."
I just hope they give him a big, hairy bodybuilder for a prison roommate
who makes him wear an apron and high heels.
Jessica Deis
leigh_hidell
Thanks for the info. If Tony did it to save the birds from being
eaten -- & this IS the reality in many Latin American countries --
then God bless him.
As far as "missing heads," well, unfortunately Stephen King isn't
the only one out there writing horror stories. My next door
neighbors were tried & convicted of murder because their baby died
of failure to thrive. You would not believe the lies in the media --
stuff like they never took their child to the hospital, shit
smeared on the walls, just total lies. My boyfriend went to Children's
Hospital himself to pick up the papers proving the baby had been
treated there & that the hospital couldn't treat her & expected
her to die. YET the claim was STILL put forth in the media &
in court *&YES THE LYING INDICTMENT* that they deliberately starved
their baby & never took her to the hospital. The fact was, the
HOSPITAL had already TOLD THEM they baby could not digest food
& was going to die. & these innocent people are still in jail. So
please I just don't have it in me to believe any more crap in
gov't press releases, indictments, & all the rest. I have learned
from these experiences that if you weren't there yourself,
you will NEVER know for sure whether or not you are condemning
an innocent person.
I just read today that 10,000 people A YEAR are wrongly convicted of
SERIOUS crimes, by which they meant murder, child molesting,
& rape. Only a tiny fraction of these people, a few dozen a
year, are ever vindicated. No way is every conviction valid.
I'm just saying, let's not hang a guy who has done an awful lot
for birds when we really don't know. -- Leigh
Roger Williams
>>Well, how do we know the guy is, in fact, guilty?
>
>couldn't keep his big mouth shut. He told people that he was doing this -
>to save the species because otherwise they would be shot for food.
(other allegations snipped)
And here we have the crux of what I believe Leigh is trying to say.
Bird people are very vulnerable to sting operations because, as a
rule, we are idealistic and we deal with a lot of people. Perhaps
Tony is, in fact, a greedy bird-murderer, but the fact that he was
"stung" and convicted does not necessarily prove this.
>Let me get this straight. This man had NO involvement other than
>paternity? He didn't buy the birds from his son, or help the son sell the
>birds? What was it he supposedly DIDN'T do - he didn't go to Brazil
>personally, yank the birds out of the trees, stuff them into a suitcase,
>and fly home with them? He never saw the birds, knew nothing about them,
>but pleaded guilty anyway?
>
If Leigh is talking about the case I think she is talking about, then the
lorel
The sentence was ridiculous, it was nothing. But I do hope they
send him to a *really* rancid, hard-core prison AND he does the
full amount for his time. There ought to be a committee of bird
lovers who approach his parole board when the time comes, just to
keep him from getting it.
Lore Lawrence
--
Lore l
73110...@compuserve.com
David Poole
I would be grateful if anyone who can find the time, let me have
details of what Silva actually did. I've only gleaned 'bits and
pieces' from here and other lists and was astonished to hear of his
misdemeanours. I used to go to Tenerife a lot and naturally, Loro
Parc was a regular haunt of mine. During my visits, I have had long
conversations with Rosemary Low and when I met her successor Tony
Silva, I was immediately struck by his apparent commitment and
dedication. I found it difficult to believe that he would
deliberately endanger those creatures that he seemed determined to
protect.
And I thought I could smell a con artist from the other side of the
world!
Dave Poole
--
dave_...@ilsham.demon.co.uk
TORQUAY UK
Tracy Bell
You do not EVER plead guilty to something you didn't do. Guilty or not the
guy only has himself to blame for anything that may happen from this
action. And why was it the only way to stop something? I wouln't trade
places with anyone to go to jail. Don't these people have lawyers? Didn't
these people wonder why these imported birds were cheep? Did they come
with papers and licences? Sounds like someone was just being plain stupid!
Leigh Hidell lr...@gnofn.org wrote in article
<570ah4$8...@lana.zippo.com>...
> Well, how do we know the guy is, in fact, guilty? My problem w/ the
> case is that apparently his MOTHER was set up in some kind of way,
> & he had to plead guilty to something he may or may not have done
> to get her off of this tax fraud thing. Tony was a millionaire
> all his life. He didn't need to do this for money.
>
> A personal friend was suckered like this in the mid '80s. This
> guy would never harm a bird. In fact, he had given me birds for
> FREE because he already had plenty of money from his second
> mortgage business. He did not need to smuggle birds for money
> in his wholesale operation. However, there was a gov't set-up
> where he was forced to plead guilty to something he didn't do
> to prevent an idiot relative (his son) from going to jail. The
> son stupidly agreed to accept these cheap birds that turned out
> to be smuggled, and to protect him, this guy had to strike a
> "deal" to get his son off.
> I only met Tony once & don't know the details of his case...but I
> can tell you right now that the feds set people up for any & for
> NO reason other than to publicize themselves & get promotions....
>
> -- Leigh
>
ellen beth kessler
In <19961119031...@ladder01.news.aol.com> sue...@aol.com
writes:
>Tony Silva was finally sentenced today for smuggling $1.36 million in
rare
>birds and mammals.
>
>The sentence was 82 months in prison and a $100,000 fine.
>
>Silva's mother was sentenced to 27 months in prison.
Not long enough, and certainly not a large enough fine.
Ellen
ellen beth kessler
In <56tbca$6...@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu> Ian Kerfoot <ker...@csl.uiuc.edu>
writes:
>If he was convicted of $1,360,000 worth of birds, he
>should be able to cover the $100,000 in pocket change.
>On the 8 years, is he eligible for early parole? Is he
>going to some quaint little club fed, or is he headed
>off to a real prison? Jim Baker of the PTL got out,
>and has gotten his memoires published, available now
>at a bookstore near you. Besides, Silva presumably
>still gets royalties from at least one book he wrote
>a while ago. I wouldn't write him off yet.
>
>
Let's just call him the O.J. Simpson of the avicultural world, shall
we? Aside from that, we'll be waiting for him when he does get out,
won't we?
Ellen
Robert B.
jdei...@aol.com wrote:
[....]
>Tony Silva is his own worst enemy because he has a big mouth. He is a
>highly skilled con man with a serious character disorder. Seems like most
>of the people who knew him said he was a real nice guy. Right. As was
>pointed out in a previous post, we certainly haven't heard the last word
>from this lowlife. He'll be crying from his minimum-security prison cell
>to anyone with the stomach to listen to him whine about being a "political
>prisoner."
>
>I just hope they give him a big, hairy bodybuilder for a prison roommate
>who makes him wear an apron and high heels.
>
>Jessica Deis
Awww....c'mon Jessica, don't sugar-coat it...How do you *really* feel
about him?? ;)
Just Wondering,
Robert B.
**************************************************
Whoever said that a dog is "man's best friend"
never had a hookbill :)
**************************************************
NOTE: The email address in the header is more or -less-
altered to foil would-be spamming programs ;)
ellen ivy paul
In article <571njh$p...@lana.zippo.com>, Roger Williams <rp...@gnofn.org> wrote:
>In article <571gcm$1...@rac5.wam.umd.edu>, ep...@wam.umd.edu says...
>>
>>In article <570ah4$8...@lana.zippo.com>, <Leigh Hidell lr...@gnofn.org> wrote:
>>
>>couldn't keep his big mouth shut. He told people that he was doing this -
>>to save the species because otherwise they would be shot for food.
>(other allegations snipped)
>
>And here we have the crux of what I believe Leigh is trying to say.
>Bird people are very vulnerable to sting operations because, as a
>rule, we are idealistic and we deal with a lot of people. Perhaps
>Tony is, in fact, a greedy bird-murderer, but the fact that he was
>"stung" and convicted does not necessarily prove this.
Hi, Roger - that's why we have juries. If you believe you were entrapped,
you can raise that as a defense. If the jury buys it, you walk. I think
that lots of bird people are idealistic, and I also think that lots of
bird people are scum. Sort of like any other subset of people. Could
Leigh's impression of that case be colored by her personal friendship with
the man, and his generosity to her, and his apparent talent for taking
care of birds? And he wasn't "stung." There were numerous sources of
information for the indictment, as I said before. These were people who
talked about Tony's activities long before the feds started to
investigate. You really should read the indictment. (Chorus - a little
bit of fact goes a long way - don't get caught with your zipper open and
your limp opinion hanging out...)
> >>Let me get this straight. This man had NO involvement other than
>>paternity? He didn't buy the birds from his son, or help the son sell the
>>birds? What was it he supposedly DIDN'T do - he didn't go to Brazil
>>personally, yank the birds out of the trees, stuff them into a suitcase,
>>and fly home with them? He never saw the birds, knew nothing about them,
>>but pleaded guilty anyway?
>>
>
>If Leigh is talking about the case I think she is talking about, then the
>local wholesaler was tricked into accepting a consignment from a suspicious
If the source was suspicious, then why accept the consignment? Why not
let the anxious customer buy directly from the source? And if this
anxious customer was unknown or relatively unknown to the wholesaler, then
why do this guy such a big favor?
>source because an anxious customer (who, if I am not mistaken, may have
>been part of the sting) had an urgent need for the birds.
Excuse me? An *urgent need for birds*? What on earth is that? I have an
urgent need to get some sleep, an urgent need to go to the
bathroom....I'll admit that the bird thing is addictive - so are you
saying that this guy just needed a fix?
His desire to
>be helpful was used to destroy his business and put him in jail.
>This is a very common problem with bird people, who as I said a paragraph
>ago tend to be idealistic and sometimes do things they shouldn't do
>because of their desire to be helpful or pursue a greater good.
>
Actually, Leigh said the father went to jail because of something the son
did. So who was it that accepted the consignment? The father or the son?
If the father, why not just say NO to the son? I won't take birds from
this suspicious source and you shouldn't either.
>My problem with this thread is not Tony's probable innocence, but the fact
>that many people are calling for his head on a pike with no direct knowledge
>of exactly what he REALLY did or his personal reasons for doing it.
>
Well, he pleaded guilty, so there was no trial, so we didn't get to hear
the evidence. But, as I said, if even a small portion of the indictment
was true, there was plenty to hang him. And his personal reasons don't
matter one iota to me. I don't give a hoot if every one of his family
members was dying of some dread disease and the only way to raise enough
money for medical care was to smuggle birds.
>>So he shouldn't be in trouble because he was stupid? What a great
>>defense! I plead stupidity, your Honor!
>
>Ellen, if everybody who ever did something stupid was in jail there would
>be nobody walking around outside.
Including me, for sure! But seriously folks, if all you have to do is
plead stupidity to get off, I'd be happy to tell the judge that I'm a
complete moron.
The question is whether one person's
>stupidity is treated more harshly than another's, perhaps because he is
>wealthy, highly visible, or vulnerable because of a particular weakness
>which makes him easy to target.
>
I don't think it was that he was high profile. There have been plenty of
no-profile people busted for this stuff. Did you see the Great Wildlife
Heist last year? Other than T.S., had you ever heard of any of those
people? I think it was that he was an arrogant SOB. He thought himself
above the law. And because there aren't nearly enough law enforcement
agents to go after the little guys. It's all they can do to keep the big
guys under control.
>Also, I already snipped "publicity," but let me add that there was lots
>of publicity over the local wholesaler too -- most of it slanted or outright
>untrue. The papers usually (excuse the metaphor) parrot whatever the
>police tell them.
>
>>
Someone from Chicago said that there was almost no press there. And the
article posted here quoted the judge and the two lawyers extensively.
>>Ellen Paul
--
ellen ivy paul
In article <572snu$r...@lana.zippo.com>, <Leigh Hidell> wrote:
>Thanks for the info. If Tony did it to save the birds from being
>eaten -- & this IS the reality in many Latin American countries --
>then God bless him.
Lots of ways to save birds without breaking the law. And how do you save
birds by smuggling them in ways that lead to high mortality?
>
>As far as "missing heads," well, unfortunately Stephen King isn't
>the only one out there writing horror stories.
Not just the media, my love. The veterinarian who talked (I think) was
the one who had them in the freezer. It was in the documentary The Great
Wildlife Heist. I have a copy of the tape. I'll watch it again and
confirm this for you.
My next door
>neighbors were tried & convicted of murder because their baby died
>of failure to thrive. You would not believe the lies in the media --
>stuff like they never took their child to the hospital, shit
>smeared on the walls, just total lies. My boyfriend went to Children's
SNIP - I'm sorry you and your friends and acquaintances have experienced
so many miscarriages of justice - although I'm highly skeptical that the
bird case you told us about was a miscarriage of justice. Of course,
these cases do exist (Simpson, Menendez....) - innocent people go to jail,
guilty people go free - it happens. This system isn't perfect because its
a system run by people - tragically, massively flawed creatures - but its
the best we have. We can't just abandon our efforts - all we can do is
strive to improve the system.
>SERIOUS crimes, by which they meant murder, child molesting,
>& rape. Only a tiny fraction of these people, a few dozen a
>year, are ever vindicated. No way is every conviction valid.
>I'm just saying, let's not hang a guy who has done an awful lot
>for birds when we really don't know. -- Leigh
I agree. There are many verdicts (convictions and not guilty, alike) that
are wrong. Maybe you don't know, because you haven't read about it and
followed the case. I agree that I wasnt' there and didn't personally see
him smuggle the birds, but from what I have read, and even discounting for
biased sources, I am convinced that he is where he should be. Do a little
research. You may still hold the same opinion when you have finished, and
you have every right to that opinion. But please, do some research before
you take up his cause.
Ellen
--
Won Kim
Talking about the tony silva incident reminded me of the movie
Shawshank Redemption. It's a real good movie!!!!!!! I would
suggest it to anyone (though it is a bit violent, not by todays
standards) over 15 years.
I think that Tony Silva should watch it too....maybe it will help him
pass the time.
Anyway, it is about the life of a man in prison and that's all I am
going to say. It's a must seee....hope you can find it in the
video store.
won kim
--
Won Kim
Tulane University, New Orleans, LA
Dept. of Chemistry
k...@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
roger_williams
Geez, Ellen, what is this thing you have about authority figures?
In one breath you say we have juries to determine guilt or innocence,
yet in the next you say Tony pled guilty. If he pled guilty,
darlin', no jury heard anything.
An indictment is a list of accusations. A typical indictment accuses
the alleged criminal of being the Antichrist himself. This does not
mean anybody, even the DA who writes the indictment, really believes
the alleged criminal actually did all (or even any) of the things
described therein. All it means is that the state will ATTEMPT to
show that those things were done. It often does not succeed.
Newspapers tend to report the contents of indictments as if they were
proven facts, which they are not.
The state typically inflates the indictment in order to terrify the
defendant into pleading guilty to some lesser charge, with the threat
that a trial might result in much harsher penalties. The result of
this is that innocent people are often badgered into confessing to
things they did not do.
I do not believe you have any personal knowledge of the Silva case,
any more than I do. I do believe you have read the indictment and
news articles about him, which may or may not be a pack of lies.
You will have to forgive me for not sharing your naive faith that
justice usually prevails and that large organizations such as the
criminal justice system or DuPont will gallantly place the best interests
of individuals over their own desire to save money by avoiding
expensive trials or to sell a lot of pots and pans.
I have said several times that I do NOT know whether Tony is a scumbag
or a nice guy whose better nature was used against him. Since I do
not know -- and I don't believe you know either -- it is not appropriate
to vilify him. He has already lost his business, his freedom, and
his good name. To call, as one person here did, for him to be raped
in prison too is simply mean. I shudder to think that the person who
made that comment about a total stranger owns pets.
Many of the comments made here about Tony have been misinformed and
needlessly, senselessly cruel.
-- Roger
P.S. The local wholesaler's customer had an "urgent need" for the
birds because he was a retailer who had made a commitment to his
customers, which he could not meet because another (presumably legitimate)
shipment did not arrive. The wholesaler was trying to help this man
meet his commitment. He acted in haste and made a mistake which was
quite natural, since at the time it occurred banding was by no means
universal. (Parrots live a long time, in case you haven't noticed.
Many legitimate ones still aren't banded.)
ellen ivy paul
In article <574l1f$3...@lana.zippo.com>, <Roger Williams> wrote:
>Geez, Ellen, what is this thing you have about authority figures?
I'm one of those first-borns....
>In one breath you say we have juries to determine guilt or innocence,
>yet in the next you say Tony pled guilty. If he pled guilty,
>darlin', no jury heard anything.
Right you are. That's exactly what I said. No jury heard it, we didn't
hear it.
>An indictment is a list of accusations. A typical indictment accuses
>the alleged criminal of being the Antichrist himself. This does not
>mean anybody, even the DA who writes the indictment, really believes
>the alleged criminal actually did all (or even any) of the things
>described therein. All it means is that the state will ATTEMPT to
>show that those things were done. It often does not succeed.
Right you are. That's why I said that if even a small part of the
indictment proved to be true, he was guilty. Are you sure you actually
read my post?
>
>Newspapers tend to report the contents of indictments as if they were
>proven facts, which they are not.
Alleged. Appears in every sentence. So they won't get sued. Now, if you
are cynical, you would say, "Sure, alleged. We know what they really
think." And sometimes they do and sometimes they don't.
>
>The state typically inflates the indictment in order to terrify the
>defendant into pleading guilty to some lesser charge, with the threat
>that a trial might result in much harsher penalties. The result of
>this is that innocent people are often badgered into confessing to
>things they did not do.
>I do not believe you have any personal knowledge of the Silva case,
>any more than I do. I do believe you have read the indictment and
>news articles about him, which may or may not be a pack of lies.
Hello, Roger - anyone home? I said that I had several depositions of
people who provided information about him before he was under
investigation. In other words, I do have more knowledge than you. These
are people who came forward on their own (some of them; others were in
trouble themselves - obviously one must be concerned about the reliability
of those in this latter category). Personal knowledge? No, I didn't
see Tony smuggle the birds. Doubt that many people did. Is that what you
would need to convict someone? That the members of the jury or the judge
(in a bench trial) just happened to see the crime when it occurred? I
think that would make them witnesses....
>You will have to forgive me for not sharing your naive faith that
>justice usually prevails
You either didn't read my posts or you have me confused with someone else.
I am as cynical as they come and I have virtually no faith in the justice
system, and certainly no faith in juries. And in this case, I do speak
from personal experience.
and that large organizations such as the
>criminal justice system or DuPont will gallantly place the best interests
>of individuals over their own desire to save money by avoiding
>expensive trials or to sell a lot of pots and pans.
Never said that DuPont would place your interests over their profit
motive. I did say that I don't think that DuPont makes the pots and pans,
however. But I see your point - and no, I don't think that they are
gallant at all. They do as many selfish and stupid things as do
individuals - not surprising, given that corporations consist of
aggregations of human beings.
>
>I have said several times that I do NOT know whether Tony is a scumbag
>or a nice guy whose better nature was used against him. Since I do
>not know -- and I don't believe you know either -- it is not appropriate
>to vilify him. He has already lost his business, his freedom, and
>his good name. To call, as one person here did, for him to be raped
>in prison too is simply mean. I shudder to think that the person who
>made that comment about a total stranger owns pets.
>
His good name? Only a handful of people here seem to know who he is, and
a smaller number know what he was accused of/pleaded guilty to, and a
small subset of those believe he was guilty and got what he deserved. I
have yet to see the major avicultural organizations express much more than
a tssk, tssk, tssk - see what Tony is doing to OUR reputation.
>Many of the comments made here about Tony have been misinformed and
>needlessly, senselessly cruel.
>
Roger - do you want to see the pictures of the beheaded hyacinths? If you
live in my area, I'd be happy to show you photos and run the videotape for
you (the tape doesn't show this, it shows the veterinarian who talked...)
but since you didn't read my posts, you can't possibly know that I have
already told you about these things
>-- Roger
>
>P.S. The local wholesaler's customer had an "urgent need" for the
>birds because he was a retailer who had made a commitment to his
>customers
So tell them they have to wait a bit longer...I waited nearly two years
for my bird
, which he could not meet because another (presumably legitimate)
>shipment did not arrive. The wholesaler was trying to help this man
>meet his commitment. He acted in haste and made a mistake which was
>quite natural,
Leigh told us that the the defendant thought the source was suspicious -
did you happen to read that? This customer must have been a great,
long-standing customer if this good-hearted wholesaler would take such a
risk for hi
since at the time it occurred banding was by no means
>universal. (Parrots live a long time, in case you haven't noticed.
>Many legitimate ones still aren't banded.)
Mid-80's? Any imported birds should have had USDA bands. If in doubt,
don't buy. I wouldn't.
Ellen
--
Ian Kerfoot
> I just hope they give him a big, hairy bodybuilder for a
> prison roommate who makes him wear an apron and high heels.
Walk the straight and narrow,
so you can walk straight,
and have a butt that is narrow.
Ian Kerfoot
mcze...@aol.com
What was Silva's reasoning for beheading the hyacinths and storing them in
the freezer rather than destroying the evidence?
Michele
leigh_hidell
In article <19961123134...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mcze...@aol.com says...
>
>What was Silva's reasoning for beheading the hyacinths and storing them in
>the freezer rather than destroying the evidence?
>
>Michele
etc. claimed my neighbor's walls were smeared w/ shit...
In other words, it never happened.
Just like McMartin, etc., in a few yrs it will come out about all the lies
that were made up, but meanwhile, the gov't can whip up this hysteria
to smear ALL dedicated aviculturists. After all, no exotic birds,
no Newscastles or other boogeymen to threaten their precious chickens!
ellen ivy paul
In article <19961123134...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<mcze...@aol.com> wrote:
>What was Silva's reasoning for beheading the hyacinths and storing them in
>the freezer rather than destroying the evidence?
>
>Michele
If I remember correctly, they were beheaded because they wouldn't
otherwise fit in the freezer. I don't remember hearing a reason why he
didn't destroy the evidence. If I have time, I plan to re-watch the video
The Great Wildlife Heist - if they explain it there, I'll post the info
here.
Ellen
--
ellen ivy paul
In article <5784kf$g...@lana.zippo.com>, <Leigh Hidell> wrote:
>In article <19961123134...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, mcze...@aol.com says...
>>
>>What was Silva's reasoning for beheading the hyacinths and storing them in
>>the freezer rather than destroying the evidence?
>>
>>Michele
>etc. claimed my neighbor's walls were smeared w/ shit...
>
>In other words, it never happened.
>
>Just like McMartin, etc., in a few yrs it will come out about all the lies
>that were made up, but meanwhile, the gov't can whip up this hysteria
>to smear ALL dedicated aviculturists. After all, no exotic birds,
>no Newscastles or other boogeymen to threaten their precious chickens!
Leigh - what will it take to convince you? If I showed you the photo, you
would say that it was a fake or that it had nothing to do with Silva. If
you talked to the witnesses, you would say that all of them are lying. I
suspect that the only thing that would convince you is if Silva himself
told you it was true. Has he ever said that he didn't smuggle birds? As
I understand his position (no hard information here, I'll admit - I'm just
basing it on what I have read and what he said on the videotape) - is
something akin to what the Operation Rescue folks say: it is illegal, but
it is right, because we are saving babies (birds) - so I have a moral
imperative to disobey the law.
Except that if he really felt that way, there are plenty of programs to
save habitat and wild bird populations. Did he ever contribute one thin
dime to The Nature Conservancy? Did he speak at the World Parrot Trust
conferences for free, and donate money to that organization, or any others
working to save wild bird populations? And if his only motive was
altruistic, why sell the birds? Why not give them away?
I am sorry that you have known two people who, in your opinion, have been
unjustly destroyed by the government (although I do have my doubts that
the bird case was unjust). But even assuming that both cases really were
unjust, that doesn't mean that every case is. You have to take them one
at a time. I don't think (not KNOW, THINK) that Silva has been claiming
entrapment. Do you have some information to the contrary?
Ellen Paul
--
jdei...@aol.com
To obtain a description of the original indictments, do the following:
Go the the US Fish and Wildlife Service web page, "Search of National News
Releases":
http://www.fws.got/cgi-bin/nph-waisgate.pl
select National News releases,
enter the following keywords: Tony Silva parrot smuggling
click on Submit.
This will produce a link to a document entitled "Exotic Parrot Expert and
Three Others Indicted for Smuggling Exotic Birds" dated December 13, 1994.
To obtain a description of the judge's sentencing procedures, do the
following:
Go to US Fish and Wildlife Service News Releases:
http://www.fws.gov/~r9extaff/renews.html
click on link to November 19, 1996 release entitled "Kingpin of Parrot
Smuggling Ring Sentenced to Nearly 7 Years without Parole."
Sincerely,
Jessica Deis
roger_williams
Everybody has been tiptoeing around this, but it has to be said:
Most countries, including our own, have laws regarding birds which
can only be described as insane.
In the USA a farmer can shoot a crow but you can't own one as a pet.
In Australia you can dynamite cockatoos but not export them. Since
India (sensibly) requires their birds to be inoculated against
Newcastle Disease instead of (stupidly) quarantining all imports,
we can't import birds from India -- because their mandatory inoculation
will cause them to test positive for Newcastle antibodies. DUH!
A number of banana republics have demonstrated knee-jerk "civilization"
by emulating Australia's law, even though many birds end up eaten by
natives as a result.
While certain people sanctimoniously sit at their keyboards and say
that there are legal programs to blah blah blah, the birds are dying
and going extinct. They are being eaten, they are being killed as
pests, and they are starving when their habitat is paved over.
Right now. While you read this.
Ten years ago I heard Jerry Jennings tell a heart-wrenching tale of
his trip to Peru to collect toucans. The only toucan he found was
a skeleton in a dinner refuse pile. The native explained that he ate
the toucan instead of his chicken because the toucan was worth only
$1, while the chicken was worth $2. When Jennings tried to tell him
what the toucan was really worth, the native didn't believe him.
When the law is contemptible, people will have contempt for the law.
When we agree with them we call them heroes for having the courage to
break it. Leigh has already mentioned the people who hid Jews from
the Nazis -- criminal scum! Many executed for their troubles!
But you don't have to invoke the Nazis to find this kind of protest.
Anybody remember the kind of taglines which were going around the
Usenet before the courts put that injunction on the CDA?
What I can't figure out is why nobody here has figured this out.
Ellen compares this attitude to Operation Rescue. Fine; when OR
stages an action the people who agree with them cheer and others jeer.
But why is everybody HERE jeering? It's as if I had stumbled into
the most hellfire-and-brimstone anti-abortion Baptist church in the
country, and find myself listening to a sermon on why OR should
tone it down. Those people don't think that way, and people who love
birds should not be politely acting within the law when the animals
we love are being killed for reasons that make far less sense than
abortion. At least I can understand why someone would have an
abortion; I can't understand why the law says I can't take a crow as
a pet to save it from a farmer's shotgun. And maybe Tony couldn't either.
-- Roger
ave...@aol.com
Ellen Ivy Paul,
I have been a "lurker" on this list for quite some time. I find it very
informative, enlightening, and some times very entertaining. There are a
few posters who I enjoy, and you are one of them. On some issues, I agree
with you, on others I do not. I believe everyone has the right to their
own opinion and enjoy hearing both sides to every issue. That said the
topics over the past few weeks have prodded me to come "out".
You have posted your feelings and opinions on specific issues, as well as
your background. I find it all very informative to know who you are and
where you come from in your posts. During one post, you stated to be, and
I paraphrase, "Superfact" and believe strongly in factual information. I
can admire this quality. Your post on your background in law and
subsequent "disdain" of the practice is also informative. I have
wondered what particular law you practiced. I have friends who are in
public defense, and have commented on the short life span or public
defenders. I have heard and seen the cases and people they must defend,
and can understand the short life span and quick burn out. But I also
understand the principle by which some continue to do so. The principle
that everyone has the right to a fair trial. I also see in you, their (my
lawyer friends) quality of viewing everything as black and white. It
seems to me most lawyers view every issue as black and white, right or
wrong. I guess this is what is taught in law school, since in arguing a
case grey areas are not a help, unless you are going for a mistrial.
Another poster also has stated to have a "legal" background and his posts
also carry this black/ white quality. I must say, I do enjoy your
comments more, since they usually sight resources and facts.
All that said, here is my question(s). The infamous Silva case has caused
a lot of emotional views being posted here and on other lists.
Personally, I am not here to discuss Silva s guilt or innocence. In
actuality, very few will know with 100% accuracy if he is or is not. I
for one have never liked Silva personally or professionally. Knowing your
legal background and strong belief in fact, I wondered about your opinions
on the making of the Silva case. I have kept up with as much information,
as much factual as possible, with this case as I possibly could.
Realizing I never liked Mr Silva personally or professionally as an
aviculturists, I was still greatly bothered by some of the actions that
took place in his case. Although people have scorned Silva for doing this
for the money, no one has scorned the "informant" who was paid a salary
and expenses to operate his aviary and to carry out his interest of
aviculture. All this to the tune of some $1,600 month salary plus
expenses, which included aviary expenses and travel to avicultural events,
all at the expense of Operation Renegade (in actuality tax payers money).
I have always had a problem with informants who are both paid ( either
financially or with amnesty or reduced sentencing)and have direct contact
with the case. Professional experts exempted, and even they have my
suspicions. I wondered about your feelings on this point.
I also questioned some of the governments tactics. The informants for
one always bring question to any case in my opinion. Even in law
enforcement, management always questions when money is spent and
convictions are not achieved. I know as a business person, money spent
must equate to money earned, in one form or another. There are some
government agents who have been in question with regard to tape tampering
in other cases, and similarly in Silva s. Certain questions were not
permissible in fear that the prosecutions witnesses would plead the fifth
amendment. Perjury by government officials with regard to the disposition
of Silva s birds that were confiscated (one person stated all birds were
destroyed due to disease, another testified that not all birds were
destroyed). This information still has not been uncovered, even though
FOIA s have been issued well over 10 days ago. {FYI for other psoters ,
FOIA s - freedom of information act must be responded to within 10 days of
receipt - in my understanding}.
I know this is long, although not long enough to give all the information.
I pose the question to you of your opinions, feelings, and or views on
the structure of the case, not that of Silva s guilt or innocence. I look
forward to your post and or personal reply. I am of the school of thought
that everyone has the right to their own opinion and beliefs and that no
one is wrong or right. I have enjoyed hearing your views on issues in
the past, and continue to do so for this and others.
Most respectfully,
Jerry
ave...@aol.com
This post came in from CITES-L while I was constructing the previous one
to RPB. I thought the information would be helpful. It relates to my
previous posting.
Judy Franklin posted this to CITES-L
<<I have been asked by several people on this list to clarify somewhat the
issue of the fate of Tony Silva's personal collection of birds. I attended
several days of the evidentiary hearings, as well as the sentencing
itself,
and have read many of the investigator's reports used in preparing the
case
against him. None of these birds were alleged by the prosecution to have
been smuggled.
Silva's lawyer was informed on or about May 17, 1996, by the prosecutor
(Sergio Acosta) that all Silva's birds had been euthanized due to disease
and/or ill health. Subsequent sworn testimony was given by James Mackman,
the Confidential Paid Informant (CPI) who had received Silva's personal
collection of birds on breeding loan when Silva was at Loro Parque, that
veterinary care was provided for the birds and that, in fact, not all the
birds had been euthanized. He could or would not comment on the
disposition
of the birds, stating that "you'd have to ask the agents about that."
Sworn
testimony of Service personnel indicates, also, that certain of the birds
were in fact 'distributed' to one or several unnamed individuals or
institutions.
On June 12, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for copies of
any and all veterinary records pertinent to the Silva case; names and
titles
of any and all veterinary personnel, USDA, FWS, governmental or civilian
personnel participating in any medical or depopulation procedures
involving
said birds; any and all records regarding rhe placement of surviving
birds,
individually and severally, to include the name of institutions and/or
persons receiving such birds, and any agreements made thereunder, oral or
written. On August 19, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act Appeal on
the grounds of denial due to non-response. I also filed FOIAs for a
listing
of all seized birds given over to the custody of James Mackman, Robert
Prather, Don Bruning, and and Ron LeClaire.To date I have received no
response to these requests, other than a generic card, dated October 31,
acknowledging receipt of my FOIA request. No case number, date, or other
information was given to indicate to which request it was referring. They
have stopped returning my phone calls.
Several months ago, I spoke via telephone with both the prosecutor and
with
Agent Dick Marks as to the disposition of the birds. Acosta said he didn't
know. Marks said he couldn't (or wouldn't) tell me until the case was
over.
After the sentencing, I asked Acosta about the birds. He told me he would
find out, and asked me to call him next week. I shall do so.
In 1984, over 100 birds were confiscated by the USFWS in Operation Falcon,
yet another 'sting' operation. A number of those birds, reportedly, were
taken illegally by the Service. Some were returned following court
actions,
some people were informed their birds had 'died'; the fate of some was
never
detrmined. A number of Congressional hearings were held following this
sting
(which coincidentally was led by the same agent, Rick Leach, who headed
Operation Renegade) which determined that FWS did not have legitimate
federal permits for the activities they engaged in. In addition, a case
for
entrapment was made and proved against the Service. Leaks to the Audubon
Society by the Service in order to provide publicity and public opinion
for
their case were also proved. The hearings resulted in significant
regulatory
relief for the falconers.In this case, not one peregrine or gyrfalcon was
taken illegally from the wild by anyone other than the FWS personnelor
their
agents.
I think we need to do those hearings again. Evidently, these guys didn't
learn the first time; their actions are just too, too similar. In
addition,
I have read of Operation 4-Corners Feather Sales, and must wonder whether
this is yet another instance of a crime being created by those looking for
the glory of solving yet another crime against this nation's wildlife.
Just
who is guilty of this great wildlife heist?
Best regards, Judy Franklin>>
jdei...@aol.com
For additional information on this case, you can access the following
items on the Internet.
If anyone else can provide additional published information sources on
this interesting and controversial case, you would be doing a service by
posting them here.
http://www.paws.org/activists/news/news111.htm
The above is synopsis of articles published on or around Jan. 4 1996 in
the Chicago Tribune and USA Today, reporting on Silva's and Silva's
mother's guilty pleas pertaining to bird smuggling charges. The above web
page was published by IPPL, the International Primate Protection League,
who evidently also had a keen interest in this case because it was alleged
that Silva was also involved in the illegal importation of endangered
primates.
http://www.csc.scsu.edu/harrison/RDCBS/Newsletter/Silva.html
The above is an almost identical synopsis, but also contains a description
of a statement made by the Lafeber Company. The article indicates that
Larry Lafeber, a former owner of a bird importation business, told
authorities that he helped Silva prevent illegal bird shipments from being
detected by Department of Agriculture personnel. His father, Dr. T.J.
Lafeber is the owner and founder of Lafeber Company. Larry Lafeber is
Dr. Lafeber's son. "Dr. Lafeber and the employees of Lafeber Company are
shocked by the revelations in the article and we apologize for any
confusion that may result from the 'Lafeber' name appearing in these
proceedings."
The following is extremely interesting, and worth the effort to find:
To access extracts from the affadavit in support of a search warrant of
Silva and his mother's property prepared by Special Agent Richard Marks of
the US Fish and Wildlife Service, perform a search of Deja News at the
following: http://www.dejanews.com/toplevel.html. Click on the icon
that says Power Search. This will give you the search page. For your
search, select Old Data Base. For your key words, type in the following:
Silva or parrot smuggling You will be presented with a listing of
newsgroup entries. Click on one in the thread entitled "Tony Silva Dirt"
from
jgr...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu dated 1995/06/07. There you will find a
lengthy entry (click on the link that gives you all 4 segments) which you
may want to print (5 pages). It outlines information provided by an array
of CI's (confidential informants). It refers to tape recorded telephone
conversations between Silva and one of the informants about an illegal
shipment of hyacinth macaws, and a tape recorded conversation by the
informant with Silva's mother asking the informant to quarantine some
birds in her possession at his facility because, as she put it, the birds
"no are legal."
At the "Australian Smuggling and Wildlife Crime Website" is a 3-page
letter from Tony Silva in Cook County Jail dated 5 October 1996 claiming
his innocence and his ability to explain everything but not being provided
with the opportunity, and indicating the lack of credibility of the
informants. I had printed this letter previously for my own information,
but am now unable to access that site (Keep getting "error 404 --unable to
access with this server" message. Perhaps someone out there has a
workable URL for this site.
Any other published information on this case, on the Net or in printed
form, would be helpful to enable those interested in the issues and
individuals involved in this case to develop an informed opinion.
Sincerely,
Jessica Deis
william taylor
In article <579nom$6...@lana.zippo.com>, RogerWilliams says...
Roger,
Thank you for saying someting I did not shrinked from, but thought.
William
jdei...@aol.com
In article <579nom$6...@lana.zippo.com>, Roger Williams writes:
>Subject: BIRD LAW INSANITY
>From: Roger Williams
>Date: 24 Nov 1996 06:57:26 -0800
>
>Everybody has been tiptoeing around this, but it has to be said:
>Most countries, including our own, have laws regarding birds which
>can only be described as insane.
>
>In the USA a farmer can shoot a crow but you can't own one as a pet.
>In Australia you can dynamite cockatoos but not export them.
(snip)
>While certain people sanctimoniously sit at their keyboards and say
>that there are legal programs to blah blah blah, the birds are dying
>and going extinct. They are being eaten, they are being killed as
>pests, and they are starving when their habitat is paved over.
>Right now. While you read this.
>(snip)
>When the law is contemptible, people will have contempt for the law.
>When we agree with them we call them heroes for having the courage to
>break it.
(another portion snipped)
>
> people who love
>birds should not be politely acting within the law when the animals
>we love are being killed for reasons that make far less sense than
>abortion. At least I can understand why someone would have an
>abortion; I can't understand why the law says I can't take a crow as
>a pet to save it from a farmer's shotgun. And maybe Tony couldn't
either.
>
>-- Roger
>
Roger, with all due respect to your opinions, I have to disagree with you.
Everything I read and learn about the reasons for decimation of wild
populations of non-migratory tropical birds, and in this case
macaws---because that's really what we're talking about here, isn't it,
hyacinth macaws----is due to two major factors. The biggest NUMBER ONE is
habitat destruction. The not as big, but still very big NUMBER TWO is
caused by capture for the(formally legal but now illegal) captive bird
trade. I can't think of any instance where any research has shown that
the populations have been reduced to "endangered" levels by 'predation by
indigenous populations for food'. If there is evidence of this, I'd be
interested in seeing it. (The only case of this I can think of would be
with the New Zealand Moa which was extinguished by the Maoris by the end
of the 19th century--this was a very large, flightless, slow-moving, "big
meal" bird, in an isolated island environment).
The US was the end consumer for fully 80% of the international wild-caught
bird market throughout the 1980's. I take issue with your third-world
ignorant banana republic characterization of Latin American countries who
have now determined that they no longer care to export their wildlife
overseas in spite of the much-needed revenue it may supply to a few
individuals. Do we, as Americans, somehow have a "right" to another
country's wildlife? I agree that habitat destruction is THE BIG problem
in these countries and poses a serious threat to macaw populations. I
agree that, in fact, indigenous people (who do not yet know that a live
macaw is worth much more to them in tourism revenue than a dead macaw is
in their soup pot) can kill macaws for food when they can get them. But
there is no evidence of wholesale slaughter of macaws in the wild by
indigenous people in South America(i.e. as with farmers/galahs in
Australia). I disagree that "native people eating macaws" is what has
substantially reduced the wild hyacinth populations to between
2,000--5,000 individuals.
Regardless of what an individual's motives may be, and let's give the
benefit of the doubt here and say they are 100% altruistic, I find it
highly questionable to assume someone is blameless who chooses to capture
these animals from their natural environment and ship them back to the US
through the hands of a circus of seedy characters and a maze of illegal
channels which subject the birds to extreme hardship that, in fact, causes
a substantial proportion of them to die. I find it hard, no matter how I
try, to see this as a case of someone's noble civil disobedience for a
higher cause. In my opinion, it is not only stealing from that "banana
republic" but also, bird by bird, stealing from every single one of us who
will be denied the dream of knowing these fabulous creatures still exist
in the wild.
And since we all know who we're talking about here---Tony Silva---do we
REALLY think that smuggling those hyacinth macaws into the US (and I take
it he has now in fact admitted to smuggling them, albeit for the
altruistic purpose of captive breeding and later releasing them in the
wild) would have improved the overall chances for the survival of the
species when there are ALREADY more hyacinths in captivity than there are
in their natural habitat?..........Come on now.
Sincerely,
Jessica Deis
william taylor
In article <57an59$t...@shore4.intercom.net>, will...@shore.intercom.net
says...
>>Most countries, including our own, have laws regarding birds which
>>can only be described as insane.
>>
>>In the USA a farmer can shoot a crow but you can't own one as a pet.
>>India (sensibly) requires their birds to be inoculated against
>>Newcastle Disease instead of (stupidly) quarantining all imports,
>>we can't import birds from India -- because their mandatory
inoculation
>>will cause them to test positive for Newcastle antibodies. DUH!
>>A number of banana republics have demonstrated knee-jerk
"civilization"
>>by emulating Australia's law, even though many birds end up eaten by
>>natives as a result.
>>
>>that there are legal programs to blah blah blah, the birds are dying
>>and going extinct. They are being eaten, they are being killed as
>>pests, and they are starving when their habitat is paved over.
>>Right now. While you read this.
>>
>>his trip to Peru to collect toucans. The only toucan he found was
>>a skeleton in a dinner refuse pile. The native explained that he ate
>>the toucan instead of his chicken because the toucan was worth only
>>$1, while the chicken was worth $2. When Jennings tried to tell him
>>what the toucan was really worth, the native didn't believe him.
>>
>>When we agree with them we call them heroes for having the courage to
>>the Nazis -- criminal scum! Many executed for their troubles!
>>But you don't have to invoke the Nazis to find this kind of protest.
>>Anybody remember the kind of taglines which were going around the
>>Usenet before the courts put that injunction on the CDA?
>>
>>What I can't figure out is why nobody here has figured this out.
>>Ellen compares this attitude to Operation Rescue. Fine; when OR
>>stages an action the people who agree with them cheer and others jeer.
>>But why is everybody HERE jeering? It's as if I had stumbled into
>>the most hellfire-and-brimstone anti-abortion Baptist church in the
>>country, and find myself listening to a sermon on why OR should
>>birds should not be politely acting within the law when the animals
>>we love are being killed for reasons that make far less sense than
>>abortion. At least I can understand why someone would have an
>>abortion; I can't understand why the law says I can't take a crow as
>>a pet to save it from a farmer's shotgun. And maybe Tony couldn't
>either.
>>
>>-- Roger
>
>Roger,
>William
>
Roger,
Thank you for saying something I fell, but shrinked from saying
myself.
Williamt
ps-that toucan story is heart breaking!
roger_williams
Thank you for digging up this information.
It gives me no pleasure to be proven right in my assumption that the
birds were killed. ("Euthanized" is far too nice a word to use in a
situation like this.) My heart is sick over this senseless waste.
-- Roger
roger_williams
What is this thing with the Hyacinths? Does anybody really believe
that headless Hyachinths are the only birds the world's foremost
authority (not according to me, but the AFA) on parrots would own?
The issue of how many Hyacinths are extant in the wild was a hot issue
the last time I looked, which was not recently because I did not
anticipate that I would end up in this discussion. But I remember
reading that Hyacinths might be rare in the rainforest because it is
the arid steppes, not the rainforest, which is their natural habitat.
As far as "us" raiding "their" birds, I will re-invoke the Nazis.
Was it not a violation of their national will for expatriates and
aliens (e.g. non-germans) to work to save German Jews? Was it
"inflicting our will on another country" when resistance movements
acted to save them?
As far as the issue of natives eating birds, I suggest you contact
Jerry Jennings through the AFA. As far as I know, he has not yet
been indicted, vilified, and thrown in jail for the horrible crime
of putting a bird's interest above his own.
--Roger
Ann
jdei...@aol.com wrote
:
: <...>
: At the "Australian Smuggling and Wildlife Crime Website" is a 3-page
: letter from Tony Silva in Cook County Jail dated 5 October 1996 claiming
: his innocence and his ability to explain everything but not being
provided
: with the opportunity, and indicating the lack of credibility of the
: informants. I had printed this letter previously for my own information,
: but am now unable to access that site (Keep getting "error 404 --unable
to
: access with this server" message. Perhaps someone out there has a
: workable URL for this site.
: Sincerely,
: Jessica Deis
Below is an exerpt of what I found ref the site:
"We were advised yesterday, November 21, 1996 that Raymond Hoser's internet
privileges have been suspended in Australia including his e-mail account
and website on Australian Wildlife Corruption and Crime. This allegedly
came as a result of pressure from a member of Australian Parliament
adversely depicted in Smuggled-2 and the legality of this move is currently
being litigated."
http://www.xmission.com/~gastown/herpmed/ihpl.htm
Ann
matt cham
I am from the Philippines, a
third world country where lots of
parrots are poached and sold all over the
world. Many low-income people who live in
or near the forrests will gladly catch birds
for a living, for a dollar or so per bird.
These people will catch birds daily,
week after week, month after month, year after
year, disrupting breeding birds by catching
their young from the nests. All for the
almightly dollar from the smuggler's pocket.
There is no doubt that the parrot-catching
livelihood is funded by people like Tony
Silva, and is reponsible for massive loss
of natural populations, and the steady
decline of wild psittacine reproductive rates.
I think I would be more forgiving of Silva
Silva if I knew where his birds ended up
being bred, if they even breed at all.
It would be harsh to judge Silva if his
smuggled birds actually reproduced better
than their wild counterparts. It is also
true that smuggling a bird out of a country
may be better than letting it get shot by
a farmer.
However, farmers shooting macaws are
uncommon, and natives eating macaws are
even less common -- compared to birds
that die during the smuggling process.
I am also extremely skeptical because I know
that very few, if any, wild-caught parrots will
ever breed in captivity.
So assuming Silva's smuggled birds ended up
in the best of avian care under an
experienced aviculturist's breeding facility,
I doubt those birds would ever breed.
In fact, I am surprised that an aviculturist
of Tony's caliber isn't quite aware of this.
Why does he think the last wild Spix Macaw
was not captured and put in a cage/aviary
to breed with another captive Spix?
Instead, scientists released a captive Spix
of the opposite sex into the wild.
Because wild bird don't breed well in
captivity! And the odds of the two birds
finding each other & breeding in the vast
forrest is much higher!!!
Tony Silva, what were you thinking? Duh?!?
If any of Silva's birds were sold as pets or to
collectors, who have no intention of breeding them,
then I hope the key to Silva's cell is thrown away.
I bought Silva's book on Psittacine Aviculture back in
1992. I had so much respect for him, putting him in
the ranks of Jane Goodall. But now, I feel that he
is no more than an ivory collector.
Well, I guess I have to give him some credit for
pleading guilty, and for authoring a well-written
book. He'll have a lot of time to write new books
for us now that he's behind bars!
Matthew Cham
matt...@juno.com
txrn...@aol.com
Matt Cham,
I agree with some of your post, but as for your inference that wild
parrots do not breed well in captivity, I must disagree. The fact that
there are almost 9,000 species of birds, and about 300 some parrots, and
almost all that have been brought into captivity have bred. A report
submitted at CITES this past month or so provided information on captive
breeding on parrots as well as generation breeding of these birds. There
are quite a few species which are established in aviculture. I am
referring to more than just budgies, tiels, and lovebirds. Most of the
Australian cockatoos and finches are established in aviculture. More and
more species are reaching multi generational breedings as we speak. Some
have been easier than others, but more information and research has proved
valuable. Fig parrots were difficult to even keep alive a few years ago,
now we have a minimum of 2nd and 3rd generation breedings. So as for
captive breeding of birds, hookbills in particular, I believe you
information is dated.
Respectfully,
Jerry
jdei...@aol.com
In article <19961125041...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
txrn...@aol.com writes:
>Subject: Re: EI Paul/Silva/ more info
>From: txrn...@aol.com
>Date: 25 Nov 1996 04:12:26 GMT
Dear Jerry:
I think you have brought out a good point about established successes in
captive breeding. In the case of Hyacinth Macaws, there is good data to
show that there are in fact more Hyacinths in captivity than remain in the
wild. The current captive population or thousands of individuals (and the
gene pool that it represents) should, with a concerted management effort
by bird owners and breeders, and the current breadth of knowledge in
aviculture, be AMPLE to sustain and increase existing captive populations.
This should be reason enough for a foreigner, and an alleged expert in
captive breeding besides, to be halted from exercising a self-professed
divine right to steal a country's wildlife, however noble his stated
motives may be. The US does not have a manifest destiny to help itself to
less developed countries' resources of any type, including their birds.
A heartbreaking thing about this case is that the wild Hyacinth Macaws
smuggled into the US under Tony Silva's supervision have had about as much
chance of breeding in captivity as Silva will for the next 7 years without
parole.
Sincerely,
Jessica Deis
ellen ivy paul
Roger - I'm at the end of the semester and in a big job at work, so I
haven't time to file a FOIA request, but I'll get you the address if you
want to file one. By the way, I have been trying to send you private
email on a subject off-topic, and your address isn't showing up in the
headers. Please send your email address, as I don't want to post
something irrelevant (don't worry, it isn't nasty) here.
Ellen
--
ellen ivy paul
In article <19961124185...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<ave...@aol.com> wrote:
>This post came in from CITES-L while I was constructing the previous one
>to RPB. I thought the information would be helpful. It relates to my
>previous posting.
>
It is helpful. I stopped my CITES'L subscription some time ago, because I
wasn't finding it useful or interesting anymore. Maybe I should
re-subscribe. It confirms what I learned on Friday by calling USFWS -
that they wouldn't release info while the case was pending.
Please note that while I may seem biased towards the government (I'm
really not - I just can't stand to see people assume that everyone in the
government is rotten, crooked and stupid), Judy's bias often appears to be
just the opposite. Her writings suggest that she believes that the
government is at best, wrong, and, at worst, malevolent, almost all the
time.
> >Judy Franklin posted this to CITES-L
>
><<I have been asked by several people on this list to clarify somewhat the
>issue of the fate of Tony Silva's personal collection of birds. I attended
>several days of the evidentiary hearings, as well as the sentencing
>itself,
>and have read many of the investigator's reports used in preparing the
>case
>against him. None of these birds were alleged by the prosecution to have
>been smuggled.
>
>Silva's lawyer was informed on or about May 17, 1996, by the prosecutor
>(Sergio Acosta) that all Silva's birds had been euthanized due to disease
>and/or ill health. Subsequent sworn testimony was given by James Mackman,
>the Confidential Paid Informant (CPI) who had received Silva's personal
>collection of birds on breeding loan when Silva was at Loro Parque,
Note that he received the birds on breeding loan while Silva was at Loro
Parque - they weren't given to him by the government.
that
>veterinary care was provided for the birds and that, in fact, not all the
>birds had been euthanized. He could or would not comment on the
>disposition
>of the birds, stating that "you'd have to ask the agents about that."
>Sworn
>testimony of Service personnel indicates, also, that certain of the birds
>were in fact 'distributed' to one or several unnamed individuals or
>institutions.
>
Possibly to individuals or institutions engaged in the cooperative
breeding of the species? Let's know judge until we know the facts.
>On June 12, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for copies of
>any and all veterinary records pertinent to the Silva case; names and
>titles
>of any and all veterinary personnel, USDA, FWS, governmental or civilian
>personnel participating in any medical or depopulation procedures
>involving
>said birds; any and all records regarding rhe placement of surviving
>birds,
>individually and severally, to include the name of institutions and/or
>persons receiving such birds, and any agreements made thereunder, oral or
>written. On August 19, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act Appeal on
>the grounds of denial due to non-response. I also filed FOIAs for a
>listing
>of all seized birds given over to the custody of James Mackman, Robert
>Prather, Don Bruning, and and Ron LeClaire.To date I have received no
>response to these requests, other than a generic card, dated October 31,
>acknowledging receipt of my FOIA request. No case number, date, or other
>information was given to indicate to which request it was referring. They
>have stopped returning my phone calls.
>
Judy should know by now that it takes a long time to get a response to
FOIA requests - there just aren't enough people to handle all of the
requests as quickly as you might like - and they have to go through every
document to be sure there isn't something that has to be deleted - such as
something about someone uninvolved in the matter, or info about a pending
case, etc. So it is a time-consuming process.
>Several months ago, I spoke via telephone with both the prosecutor and
>with
>Agent Dick Marks as to the disposition of the birds. Acosta said he didn't
>know. Marks said he couldn't (or wouldn't) tell me until the case was
>over.
Which is exactly what I was told.
>After the sentencing, I asked Acosta about the birds. He told me he would
>find out, and asked me to call him next week. I shall do so.
Even assuming that something is amiss about the way these birds were
handled, that doesn't excuse what Silva did. I think we all learned in
the first grade that two wrongs don't make a right.
Ellen Paul
--
ellen ivy paul
Dear Jerry,
You chose a great time to come out of lurking! Thanks for this very
thoughtful post. You are saying exactly what I feel - that I can disagree
with someone, but as long as they have information to share, I want to
hear their opinion. I often learn from it, and if they do have
credibility and are known for taking the time to provide accurate info, I
may often re-assess my own position. I.e., "Well, if so-and-so, for whom
I have great respect, thinks X, then maybe I ought to give it some more
thought."
Just a few comments:
In article <19961124184...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<ave...@aol.com> wrote:
>Ellen Ivy Paul,
>can admire this quality. Your post on your background in law and
>subsequent "disdain" of the practice is also informative. I have
>wondered what particular law you practiced.
Almost entirely "civil" litigation. Commercial law, torts, "domestic"
relations. Although I made it a point to try strenuously to actually keep
it civil and succeeded in most cases.
I have friends who are in
>public defense, and have commented on the short life span or public
>defenders. I have heard and seen the cases and people they must defend,
>and can understand the short life span and quick burn out. But I also
>understand the principle by which some continue to do so. The principle
>that everyone has the right to a fair trial. I also see in you, their (my
>lawyer friends) quality of viewing everything as black and white.
This is not an accurate assessment. I see everything in as many shades of
grey as there are. I see 2,372 sides to every story. I wasn't trained in
law school to see black and white. I was trained to know how to determine
what the issues were. Not the answers. Even the bar exam is set up that
way - you are supposed to figure out what the issue is and explain how it
could be resolved given different sets of facts
It
>seems to me most lawyers view every issue as black and white, right or
>wrong. I guess this is what is taught in law school, since in arguing a
>case grey areas are not a help, unless you are going for a mistrial.
>Another poster also has stated to have a "legal" background and his posts
>also carry this black/ white quality. I must say, I do enjoy your
>comments more, since they usually sight resources and facts.
>
>All that said, here is my question(s). The infamous Silva case has caused
>a lot of emotional views being posted here and on other lists.
>Personally, I am not here to discuss Silva s guilt or innocence. In
>actuality, very few will know with 100% accuracy if he is or is not. I
>for one have never liked Silva personally or professionally. Knowing your
>legal background and strong belief in fact, I wondered about your opinions
>on the making of the Silva case. I have kept up with as much information,
>as much factual as possible, with this case as I possibly could.
>Realizing I never liked Mr Silva personally or professionally as an
>aviculturists, I was still greatly bothered by some of the actions that
>took place in his case. Although people have scorned Silva for doing this
>for the money, no one has scorned the "informant" who was paid a salary
>and expenses to operate his aviary and to carry out his interest of
>aviculture. All this to the tune of some $1,600 month salary plus
>expenses, which included aviary expenses and travel to avicultural events,
As I say, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Also, why shouldn't he have been
paid for his work? Was he supposed to live on air and feed the birds
nothing? No veterinary care? Or pay everything from his own pocket?
What you are saying, if I am reading it correctly, is that Tony's employee
should have been more loyal. Maybe. If I had worked for Tony and learned
that he was smuggling birds, I would have turned him in too.
>all at the expense of Operation Renegade (in actuality tax payers money).
>I have always had a problem with informants who are both paid ( either
>financially or with amnesty or reduced sentencing)and have direct contact
>with the case. Professional experts exempted, and even they have my
>suspicions. I wondered about your feelings on this point.
>
Of course, one has to be concerned about these issues. But the reality is
that people don't always come forward out of the goodness of their hearts,
or out of fear that someone will seek retribution - in the ideal world, we
would all come forward if we knew of illegal activities. But we don't.
And if we did, others would criticize us for ratting out friends and
relatives and not being loyal. It's a no-win situation. So it is reality
that prosecutors have to make do with whatever witnesses they have. In
the Silva case, however, there were some who weren't paid or otherwise in
trouble themselves.
> I also questioned some of the governments tactics. The informants for
>one always bring question to any case in my opinion. Even in law
>enforcement, management always questions when money is spent and
>convictions are not achieved. I know as a business person, money spent
>must equate to money earned, in one form or another. There are some
>government agents who have been in question with regard to tape tampering
>in other cases, and similarly in Silva s. Certain questions were not
>permissible in fear that the prosecutions witnesses would plead the fifth
>amendment. Perjury by government officials with regard to the disposition
>of Silva s birds that were confiscated (one person stated all birds were
>destroyed due to disease, another testified that not all birds were
>destroyed). This information still has not been uncovered, even though
>FOIA s have been issued well over 10 days ago. {FYI for other psoters ,
>FOIA s - freedom of information act must be responded to within 10 days of
>receipt - in my understanding}.
>
It actually takes quite a bit of time to get a FOIA response. Someone has
to go through every document (after FINDING every document - most FOIA
requests do not come in with file numbers - they come in with descriptions
of information, which can be located in many, many files) and delete
things like references to other people, current cases, etc. There also
aren't enough people in these offices to handle them very fast.
>I know this is long, although not long enough to give all the information.
> I pose the question to you of your opinions, feelings, and or views on
>the structure of the case, not that of Silva s guilt or innocence. I look
>forward to your post and or personal reply. I am of the school of thought
>that everyone has the right to their own opinion and beliefs and that no
>one is wrong or right. I have enjoyed hearing your views on issues in
>the past, and continue to do so for this and others.
>
In the ideal world, everyone who knew what Tony was doing would have come
forward on their own and would have had tapes, photos, etc.
Unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way.
Ellen
>Most respectfully,
>
>Jerry
>
--
ellen ivy paul
In article <19961125041...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<txrn...@aol.com> wrote:
>Matt Cham,
>
>I agree with some of your post, but as for your inference that wild
>parrots do not breed well in captivity, I must disagree. The fact that
>there are almost 9,000 species of birds, and about 300 some parrots, and
>almost all that have been brought into captivity have bred. A report
There is some reason to think that birds (and other animals) don't breed
well in captivity IF they were pulled from their parents while young.
Many breeders who used to pull all eggs and/or hatchlings have stopped
doing this, and are leaving some young with the parents so that the
offspring, when adults, will not have trouble with appropriate mating and
breeding behaviors and parental care.
But generally, yes - birds breed well in captivity once you get the right
day-night cycles, nest box size and shape, nesting materials, etc. For
which we have to thank the aviculturists and the AFA and other avicultural
organizations, who work ceaselessly to develop these methods.
Ellen Paul
--
ellen ivy paul
In article <57asfj$e...@lana.zippo.com>, <Roger Williams> wrote:
>What is this thing with the Hyacinths? Does anybody really believe
>that headless Hyachinths are the only birds the world's foremost
>authority (not according to me, but the AFA) on parrots would own?
No, of course not. It's just that those are the only ones whose
where-abouts I knew anything about.
>
>The issue of how many Hyacinths are extant in the wild was a hot issue
>the last time I looked, which was not recently because I did not
>anticipate that I would end up in this discussion. But I remember
>reading that Hyacinths might be rare in the rainforest because it is
>the arid steppes, not the rainforest, which is their natural habitat.
>
Correct, they are not rainforest animals. But not arid steps. The
wetland of the Pantanal.
>As far as "us" raiding "their" birds, I will re-invoke the Nazis.
>Was it not a violation of their national will for expatriates and
>aliens (e.g. non-germans) to work to save German Jews? Was it
>"inflicting our will on another country" when resistance movements
>acted to save them?
>
As the daughter of a survivor of Bergen-Belsen and Auschwitz, I resent
your trivializing the holocaust in this manner, although I understand your
point.
>As far as the issue of natives eating birds, I suggest you contact
>Jerry Jennings through the AFA. As far as I know, he has not yet
>been indicted, vilified, and thrown in jail for the horrible crime
>of putting a bird's interest above his own.
>
Of course people living in rural areas eat birds, and other bush meat.
But compared to the harm caused by habitat destruction and smuggling, it
is a trivial effect.
Ellen
--
Blake Rees
To Ellen, I guess Roger doesn't want a private conversation. I tried to
e-mail him too.
To Roger, I was going to ask you about melting metals... do you know
something about 60/40 lead/tin soldering material? Is it the flux that
outgases? Trish M.
Shawn B. Wikle
I have absolutely no ax to grind either way in this case, I simply
don't know enough about it to have an opinion. However, is anyone out
there familiar with the publication "On Wings"? I ran across a web
site for it a while back and subscribed. It has a rather libertarian
point of view so I have kind of become fond of it. However, it has
published several articles implying that Silva was entrapped. I am by
nature distrustful of the government, after all Austin is only about
90 miles from Waco, so if I hadn't been following the Silva case
through other means, I might have become convinced of his innocence.
I notice that the magazine seems to be published in Chicago, and if I
remember right, Silva is from that area. Is there a link between
Silva and the magazine that causes them to slant their coverage? If
anyone is interested I could post some excerpts from the latest
article. Just wondering if anyone else has seen the publication.
Shawn
sue...@aol.com wrote:
>Tony Silva was finally sentenced today for smuggling $1.36 million in rare
>birds and mammals.
>
>The sentence was 82 months in prison and a $100,000 fine.
>
>Silva's mother was sentenced to 27 months in prison.
Shirley/Rick
In article <57caom$k...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Blake Rees
<b.mac...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
To Ellen and Trish, I too was trying to e-mail Roger! about something he
said about Jerry Jennings! Roger ... give us an e-mail address!
--Shirley
"Toto ... do you suppose there is such a place?" --Dorothy
jdei...@aol.com
In article <57asfj$e...@lana.zippo.com>, Roger Williams writes:
>What is this thing with the Hyacinths? Does anybody really believe
>that headless Hyachinths are the only birds the world's foremost
>authority (not according to me, but the AFA) on parrots would own?
>
No, of course not. But the crux about the discussion about the Silva
case, and the primary reason he will be going to prison, is for smuggling
Hyacinth Macaws.
>The issue of how many Hyacinths are extant in the wild was a hot issue
>the last time I looked, which was not recently because I did not
>anticipate that I would end up in this discussion. But I remember
>reading that Hyacinths might be rare in the rainforest because it is
>the arid steppes, not the rainforest, which is their natural habitat.
>
>As far as "us" raiding "their" birds, I will re-invoke the Nazis.
>Was it not a violation of their national will for expatriates and
>aliens (e.g. non-germans) to work to save German Jews? Was it
>"inflicting our will on another country" when resistance movements
>acted to save them?
Roger, I have to object to this analogy. You have a right to your
opinion, and mine certainly differs from yours, but please let's not
compare the heroics of individuals during WWII saving German Jews from the
concentration camps. Let's try to find a more appropriate analogy. Why
don't we try this..........
Last week in the news was a story about individuals who were allegedly
capturing and killing American Bald Eagles in the western US to sell
their feathers. Probably most of us who saw this story were shocked that
people could do this to these magnificent birds. Americans killing
eagles? What a horrible thought. There is more than anecdotal evidence
to support that this was in fact taking place, but the individuals in
question have not yet been tried. Let's say, just for example, that a
Saudi Arabian expert in birds of prey is in the US, reads about Americans
killing Eagles for their feathers, and decides to take matters into his
own hands. He is righteously horrified that this takes place in this
country, and determines that he is going to help save the species by
capturing all the bald eagles that he can, and shipping them back to Saudi
Arabia. Let's say a proportion of the birds die in transit, some of them
are sold for a large sum of money, and some of them are simply unaccounted
for. Would we be horrified and furious that this took place? A foreigner
taking a shipment of wild-caught North American Eagles out of the country
illegally to be set up in cages in Saudi Arabia? Are we shocked and
furious? Did this individual have the right to do this because he saw
that Eagles were being killed here in the US? Should this individual go
to jail? Should the Saudi authorities say, oh, the Americans were killing
them off and you plan to breed them! Wonderful!!! You're a national
hero!!! You violated the laws of a half-dozen countries and a whole list
of international wildlife treaties dealing with trafficking in endangered
species but hey, we love ya 'cause your heart was in the right place!!!!
.....really now, let's think about this one.
>As far as the issue of natives eating birds, I suggest you contact
>Jerry Jennings through the AFA. As far as I know, he has not yet
>been indicted, vilified, and thrown in jail for the horrible crime
>of putting a bird's interest above his own.
>
>--Roger
>
Perhaps Jerry Jennings hasn't been smuggling birds, could that be the
reason????
with all due respect,
Jessica Deis
ellen ivy paul
In article <3299bb99...@library.airnews.net>,
Shawn B. Wikle <w...@zilker.net> wrote:
>I have absolutely no ax to grind either way in this case, I simply
>don't know enough about it to have an opinion. However, is anyone out
>there familiar with the publication "On Wings"?
Yes, I am. It is published by Judy Franklin, whose CITES-L post was
re-posted here. As I said (although I think the posts are crossing), she
is rabidly anti-government. With her, everyone in the government is
guilty and CAN'T be proven innocent. Ever. The mag has some informative
stuff, but the tone is often vicious.
I ran across a web
>site for it a while back and subscribed. It has a rather libertarian
>point of view so I have kind of become fond of it. However, it has
>published several articles implying that Silva was entrapped.
Then why didn't Tony plead not guilty and go to trial on that defense and
any others he might have had? Instead, he changed his plea to guilty
(tried to change it again, but had no compelling reasons). The assertion
has been made that he pleaded guilty to save his mother's skin, but that
doesn't wash, because apparently, momma didn't get off.
I am by
>nature distrustful of the government, after all Austin is only about
>90 miles from Waco, so if I hadn't been following the Silva case
>through other means, I might have become convinced of his innocence.
I am by nature neither. I believe in hearing the information. Had there
been a jury trial, we would have heard it. As it is, I can only base my
conclusions on the information I have been able to obtain. And, at this
point, he looks really guilty to me. Not even a close call. Has he ever
claimed he was entrapped? I didn't ever practice criminal law, and law
school was a long time ago, but I think that to prove entrappment, you
have to show that you wouldn't have done the crime had it not been for the
entrapment. So if the government could prove even one incident of
smuggling that took place without government involvement, that defense
wouldn't fly. Maybe that's why he didn't raise it. Look, my hunch is
that the government had PLENTY and he knew it, and his lawyers knew it -
I can't imagine his lawyers making this kind of deal if they didn't think
he would have gotten worse had the case been tried.
>I notice that the magazine seems to be published in Chicago, and if I
>remember right, Silva is from that area. Is there a link between
>Silva and the magazine that causes them to slant their coverage? If
>anyone is interested I could post some excerpts from the latest
>article. Just wondering if anyone else has seen the publication.
>
I think it is just coincidence that Judy Franklin and Tony Silva are both
from that area. But nothing short of having Tony admit to Judy personally
that he smuggled birds would ever convince her of his guilt. I'm not even
sure that would do it.
Ellen
--
ellen ivy paul
In article <19961125204...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<ave...@aol.com> wrote:
>Dear Ellen ,
>
>Thank you for replying. I enjoyed your comments. I must make some
>corrections to the way you may have interpreted some of my comments.
>
>1. As for paid informants, I still stand by my posts. I am always leery
>of anyone who is paid for information.
So am I. I agreed with you on this point.
In this case particularly, I
>question the fact that Mr Mackman had previously owned birds, maintained
>collections, and was active in avicultural events. All the activities he
>had done previously with his own money, was now being paid for by the
>government.
You obviously have more info than I do, but I think I am missing
something. Even if Mackman had his own birds before, wasn't he being
asked to take on someone else's birds on this point?
If he was asked to do something he would not have done
>previously, ie buy a particular species for a sting, fly somewhere, etc I
>would understand it be compensated. Also, I do not believe that he
>actively worked 40 hours a week for several months in direct operation
>with this project and earned the money he received.
I guess it depends on how big the collection was and how much work it
required.
I guess in this
>particular case, I am more upset on the waste of taxpayers money. Take
>this action away from this case and ad any other case wildlife or not, I
>would still feel the government had once again wasted money. I am a
>business man and hate to see money wasted, but good business practices and
>the government is an oxymoron, isn t it??? Look at our deficit spending
>and how much the military pays for a single screw. Oh well that s another
>subject.
>
On the other hand, you obviously need someone with expertise to take care
of birds. I don't know if Mr. Mackman qualified or not, but you did say
he was working with Silva and Silva asked him to take care of the
collection, so I guess he had enough expertise and experience. Had they
been turned over to someone unqualified, you would have seen me screaming
as loudly or louder than even Judy Franklin!
>2. As for loyalty, you are reading it wrong. Whether a friend, employee,
>or associate, if someone is doing something wrong they should council them
>as to the wrong of the action and urge change, if change does not occur,
>turn em in and "nail" em. I would do so without charge to be an
>informant, unless I was asked to do something that would in turn cost me
>money, then of course I would expected to be compensated. Relationships
>are a two way street, and if Silva asked Mackman to do something illegal,
>he was no friend and of course the loyalty was first broken by Silva. I
>say again, I DO NOT CONDONE THE COVERING UP OF ANY ILLEGAL ACTIVITY,
>severity of crime being considered, I have and will continue to speed and
>such misdemeanor type crimes.
I think you are a singular person. I admire this greatly. But I don't
think most people would do as you suggest in most cases - they might
counsel the friend, but I don't think most would turn them in.
>
>3. As for your comments on reality, I do see your point. It is a shame
>when reality sneaks up on ideals.
>
>4. As for FOIA s, I guess I would much rather change the guidelines of
>FIOA s or PAY THESE people to do their job more efficiently with proper
>tools or additional manpower. Your input is appreciated.
>
Lots of people think the government is way too big. That's why there have
been freezes and cuts over the past few years. I'd rather hire more
people, too, but that's hardly a popular opinion these days. I have
always felt that if you get your money's worth, taxes aren't onerous. I
live in a county with excellent services and good schools. It makes it
easier to live with the taxes. You can't change the FOIA "guidelines"
because they aren't guidelines. The procedures come from other laws,
including the Privacy Act, that require that some things be deleted from
documents before they are released. If the document mentioned your name,
you'd probably want to have it deleted.
Ellen
--
ellen ivy paul
>
>Last week in the news was a story about individuals who were allegedly
>capturing and killing American Bald Eagles in the western US to sell
>their feathers. Probably most of us who saw this story were shocked that
>people could do this to these magnificent birds. Americans killing
>eagles? What a horrible thought. There is more than anecdotal evidence
>to support that this was in fact taking place, but the individuals in
And I don't notice Joan, Leigh, Judy, and others lining up to complain
that the feds only went after these people because they were high profile
(the claim was made that they only went after Silva because he was high
profile - though I doubt anyone but bird people knew who he was and many
bird people didn't know either). And I don't notice them jumping up and
down and claiming that the USFWS sold the birds, gave them to informants,
or had them killed. Because, of course, the birds were already dead. So
the USFWS must have acted without a profit motive.
So could it be that sometimes the government actually does enforce the law
because it is the law and sometimes does so honestly and above-board?
Ellen Paul
--
ave...@aol.com
Dear Ellen ,
Thank you for replying. I enjoyed your comments. I must make some
corrections to the way you may have interpreted some of my comments.
1. As for paid informants, I still stand by my posts. I am always leery
of anyone who is paid for information. In this case particularly, I
question the fact that Mr Mackman had previously owned birds, maintained
collections, and was active in avicultural events. All the activities he
had done previously with his own money, was now being paid for by the
government. If he was asked to do something he would not have done
previously, ie buy a particular species for a sting, fly somewhere, etc I
would understand it be compensated. Also, I do not believe that he
actively worked 40 hours a week for several months in direct operation
with this project and earned the money he received. I guess in this
particular case, I am more upset on the waste of taxpayers money. Take
this action away from this case and ad any other case wildlife or not, I
would still feel the government had once again wasted money. I am a
business man and hate to see money wasted, but good business practices and
the government is an oxymoron, isn t it??? Look at our deficit spending
and how much the military pays for a single screw. Oh well that s another
subject.
2. As for loyalty, you are reading it wrong. Whether a friend, employee,
or associate, if someone is doing something wrong they should council them
as to the wrong of the action and urge change, if change does not occur,
turn em in and "nail" em. I would do so without charge to be an
informant, unless I was asked to do something that would in turn cost me
money, then of course I would expected to be compensated. Relationships
are a two way street, and if Silva asked Mackman to do something illegal,
he was no friend and of course the loyalty was first broken by Silva. I
say again, I DO NOT CONDONE THE COVERING UP OF ANY ILLEGAL ACTIVITY,
severity of crime being considered, I have and will continue to speed and
such misdemeanor type crimes.
3. As for your comments on reality, I do see your point. It is a shame
when reality sneaks up on ideals.
4. As for FOIA s, I guess I would much rather change the guidelines of
FIOA s or PAY THESE people to do their job more efficiently with proper
tools or additional manpower. Your input is appreciated.
Once again thank you for your response. I mainly wanted to correct the
"loyalty" issue. I did not want anyone to misinterpret that point the
wrong way. Take care and good posting.
Jerry
Jane Hallander
my
>conclusions on the information I have been able to obtain. And, at
this
>point, he looks really guilty to me. Not even a close call. Has he
ever
>claimed he was entrapped?
I, too thought it was an open and shut case against Silve, until
reading an open letter from him that was posted on an Australian
anti-smuggling web site. In this letter he presents the reason he
believes he was a victim of entrapment, why he was not allowed to
cahnge his plea to not guilty and ask for a jury trial (goes back to
the original 'terms' of his guilty plea) and why certain government
witnesses should not be believed. It included where he thinks his birds
are now.
I'm only sorry I didn't print that letter when I read it, because the
Australian government has apparently forced the server to wipe that
website out. Those of you on CITES-L know that story.
I'm not a rabid anti-government person and I hate smugglers, but this
letter from Silva in prison makes me want to take a long look at all of
the details in this case. If anyone knows where his letter might be
found online or otherwise please let me know.
Jane
jdei...@aol.com
Jane Hallander writes:
>Subject: Re: Tony Silva Sentenced
>From: ji...@ix.netcom.com(Jane Hallander)
>Date: 26 Nov 1996 15:50:28 GMT
>
>I, too thought it was an open and shut case against Silve, until
>reading an open letter from him that was posted on an Australian
>anti-smuggling web site. In this letter he presents the reason he
>believes he was a victim of entrapment, why he was not allowed to
>cahnge his plea to not guilty and ask for a jury trial (goes back to
>the original 'terms' of his guilty plea) and why certain government
>witnesses should not be believed. It included where he thinks his birds
>are now.
>
>I'm only sorry I didn't print that letter when I read it, because the
>Australian government has apparently forced the server to wipe that
>website out. Those of you on CITES-L know that story.
>
>I'm not a rabid anti-government person and I hate smugglers, but this
>letter from Silva in prison makes me want to take a long look at all of
>the details in this case. If anyone knows where his letter might be
>found online or otherwise please let me know.
>
>Jane
>
There are a lot of people who would like to take a long look at the
details of the case, but remember Silva pleaded guilty and waived his
right to a trial and to the opportunity to present evidence to the world
that could prove his innocence. He could have responded to the indictment
point by point, and it would have been a matter of public record. If he
has all this evidence as he claims, one wonders why he pleaded guilty.
The Australian Smuggling and Wildlife Crime Website was a real piece of
work. Ray Hoser, whose site it was, writes like he needs a rabies shot.
From what I can glean from the venom he spewed, his Australian aviary was
raided by Australian officials two years ago upon allegations of illegal
activities re: Black Cockatoos. Apparently he was convicted. He has
written a book called "Smuggled-2" which (I quote from my printout from
the site) "shows how wildlife beaureacrats are allowing Australia's
reptiles, birds and other fauna to be raped and pillaged and how more and
more species are being driven to the brink of extinction as a result of
illegal activities, bureaucratic mismanagement, inertia and indifference.
The book exposes scandals that media units of these government departments
have spent millions of taxpayer's(sic) dollars trying to cover up." (end
quote.)
Silva, doubtlessly expecting a sympathetic ear, wrote the letter to Hoser
referred to above, which appeared on the website. Again, since Silva
pleaded guilty and waived his right to a trial, to this date we have much
more information from the indictment than we do from Silva himself. In
the letter, he raises issues (which may well be very legitimate) about the
bad character of the informants against him. James Mackman, one of the
principal informants is, Silva says, an individual (quote Silva's
letter)"who I thought was a friend and who held my birds on loan when I
took over the position of curator at Loro Parque." (end quote). I glean
from the indictments that Mackman finally went to the authorities about
Silva's smuggling ventures. I also glean from the indictment that he got
both Silva and Silva's mother on tape in telephone discussions regarding
smuggling birds. Perhaps their own words may have been some of the most
damning evidence against them, and Silva knew it. Silva doesn't mention
the tapes in this letter. He does not specifically claim that he was
entrapped. He claims that the charges are based totally on conjecture and
hearsay and every single one of the individuals who has made statements
against him is a liar. However, he comes close to acquiescing to a
$160,000 transaction made with one Mario Trabaue of Miami. If I am
getting the details right, this was the transaction for the hyacinth
macaws stolen from the wild that ended up decapitated in the freezer.
Sincerely,
Jessica Deis
ellen ivy paul
In article <57f3k4$l...@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com>,
Jane Hallander <ji...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>my
>>conclusions on the information I have been able to obtain. And, at
>this
>>point, he looks really guilty to me. Not even a close call. Has he
>ever
>>claimed he was entrapped?
>
>reading an open letter from him that was posted on an Australian
>anti-smuggling web site. In this letter he presents the reason he
>believes he was a victim of entrapment, why he was not allowed to
>cahnge his plea to not guilty and ask for a jury trial (goes back to
>the original 'terms' of his guilty plea) and why certain government
>witnesses should not be believed. It included where he thinks his birds
>are now.
I would like to read this letter, too. However, let's think about the
situation. He has lawyers. His lawyers know about the defense of
entrapment. He doesn't want to plead guilty (we know that from his
initial not guilty plea, his several public protestations of - well, not
exactly innocence - I never heard him say that, but that it wasn't right
that he was being prosecuted - and the fact that he tried to change his
plea back to not guilty). Having been a lawyer for 10 years, I can
practically "hear" the conversations that went on between Silva and his
lawyers. If he had a good entrapment defense, especially with the
anti-government sentiment out there, I would have advised him to go to
trial and give it a shot. In other words, it seems most likely to me,
based on experience and common sense, that he didn't have diddly-squat for
a defense, and the government had a good case, and his lawyers knew it and
did the best thing they could by advising him not to go to trial.
And I also think that, deep down in his heart, Silva knew he didn't have
diddly-squat for a defense and that the government had a good case, or he
would have fired his lawyers when they advised him to plead guilty, and
found new lawyers (no shortage of lawyers, and clients change lawyers all
the time).
Next question: if the government had a lousy case and/or Silva had a good
defense, why didn't he get a better deal?
>
>I'm only sorry I didn't print that letter when I read it, because the
>Australian government has apparently forced the server to wipe that
>website out. Those of you on CITES-L know that story.
>
>I'm not a rabid anti-government person and I hate smugglers, but this
>letter from Silva in prison makes me want to take a long look at all of
>the details in this case. If anyone knows where his letter might be
>found online or otherwise please let me know.
>
As I say, I'd like to read it, too. But I still wouldn't take the word of
this self-serving letter as proof of anything. I would want independent
corroboration of the allegations. That's the law, that's common sense -
Ellen
--
ellen ivy paul
>
>Silva, doubtlessly expecting a sympathetic ear, wrote the letter to Hoser
>referred to above, which appeared on the website. Again, since Silva
>pleaded guilty and waived his right to a trial, to this date we have much
>more information from the indictment than we do from Silva himself. In
>the letter, he raises issues (which may well be very legitimate) about the
>bad character of the informants against him. James Mackman, one of the
>principal informants is, Silva says, an individual (quote Silva's
>letter)"who I thought was a friend and who held my birds on loan when I
>took over the position of curator at Loro Parque." (end quote). I glean
>from the indictments that Mackman finally went to the authorities about
>Silva's smuggling ventures.
Well, of course, this wouldn't be entrapment. It sounds as though Tony is
just pissed at Mackman for having done the right thing (finally). Ask
yourself this: if those birds were all legit, Tony could have taken them
to Loro Parque with him. Is there some reason he didn't want to apply for
permits? Maybe because he couldn't show any evidence that they were
either captive bred or imported legally?
I also glean from the indictment that he got
>both Silva and Silva's mother on tape in telephone discussions regarding
>smuggling birds. Perhaps their own words may have been some of the most
>damning evidence against them, and Silva knew it.
Well, a sting is not, by definition (legal definition) entrapment.
Entrapment requires that the government enticed someone to do something
that they otherwise would not have done. The sting just puts the
government into the transaction. If it would have occurred anyway, it
isn't entrapment. A government agent poses as a buyer, or a seller.
Let's say that someone has been selling drugs. Person A, who is neither
in trouble with the law or being paid by the government, doesn't like drug
dealers. She doesn't want him in her neighborhood or near her children.
She goes to the police. The police have undercover agents who post as
buyers. The dealer has been stung, but it wasn't entrapment.
Let's say Mackman and/or others went to the authorities. The authorities
get a wire-tap warrant. They tape these phone conversations. That isn't
entrapment. It's just evidence. Pure and simple. If there was a
deficiency in the warrant, then you move to have the evidence obtained by
the activities covered by that warrant excluded from trail. These motions
occur BEFORE trial. Did Silva's lawyers file any motions to exclude
evidence? Judy - we know you are out there, or your friends are. You are
in Chicago. The file is public record. Why not trot over to the
courthouse and see if they filed any motions to exclude evidence?
[Aside - I really don't think Judy CARES if Silva is guilty or not. Her
only motivation, or obsesssion, in this matter, and in life, seems to be
proving that the government is always bad, evil, stupid, wrong, corrupt,
etc.]
Silva doesn't mention
>the tapes in this letter. He does not specifically claim that he was
>entrapped. He claims that the charges are based totally on conjecture and
>hearsay and every single one of the individuals who has made statements
>against him is a liar. However, he comes close to acquiescing to a
>$160,000 transaction made with one Mario Trabaue of Miami. If I am
>getting the details right, this was the transaction for the hyacinth
>macaws stolen from the wild that ended up decapitated in the freezer.
>
Actually, I have to apologize to all at this point. As I said, I wasn't
sure about who made the statements about the birds in the freezer.
Yesterday, I did re-watch The Great Wildlife Heist. Tom Goldsmith, the
veterinarian, was the vet for Trabaue's birds. Trabaue is a real creep.
He's serving 100 years in an Atlanta federal pen for smuggling animals
(how does THIS support the contention that they only go after high profile
types - has anyone ever heard of Trabaue?). He got alot of his animals
from Tony. Neither made the statement about the birds in the freezer in
this video. The vet says that Trabaue got a whole lot of hyacinths all at
once, and they were sick and dying all over the place. Which, of course,
raised suspicion. Trabuae says that their tails had been cut off (to make
them easier to transport), their feathers had stress bars, and they were
very thin. Yup. That would make me suspicious, even though the info came
from a major creep. Anyway, if I have time, I'll track down the correct
information about the birds having been beheaded (after death) to be put
in a freezer. It may have been pending necropsy.
Silva, as many have noted, shot off his big mouth. He claimed that he was
friends with the daughter of the president of Paraguay. Whenever he
wanted something, she would just bring it up to him on her private Lear
jet. Including a monkey species that had just been discovered. He told
people that he could get anything he wanted, no problem.
If NOVA rebroadcasts this program, I urge you all to watch it.
Ellen Paul
--
Blake Rees
Jessica,
You say: "in the letter, he (Silva) raises issues... he doesn't mention
tapes... he does not specifically claim... he comes close to
acquiescing..." etc.
You also quote Silva's letter!
Do you have a copy of it? If so, could you post it?
Thanks, Trish M.
jdei...@aol.com
I haven't seen the program "The Great Wildlife Heist". Sounds
interesting.
The Silva camp (which seems, in the final end, to be comprised of a small
cult-like group of followers and a few vehement anti-government
organization people) continually makes the point of ALL THE PUBLICITY
about this case. Silva's letter on the (now defunct) Australian website,
said (quote)"The press has spewed out volumes, nearly all based solely on
what the government has claimed; no one, apart from Judy [Mackin?], has
taken the time to attend court and to verify what has been claimed." and
further, "Interestingly, every time I go to court, NOVA airs locally."(end
quote.)
Hunh??? I live in Chicago, where, evidently, all these
*highly-publicized* hearings took place. If I had known they were taken
place, I would have taken off work and gone to get a first-hand report.
I'd like to obtain and read the transcripts of the proceedings. I get the
Chicago Tribune every morning. I watch the 10:00 news every night. I'm a
news addict. I read the listings for and watch the local PBS affiliate
(WTTW-Chicago) regularly. I was hungry for news about this case. From
the time the case broke until Silva was sentenced to prison (April
'95-November '96: 19 months), there were only 5 *little* articles on this
case in the Tribune, all buried in the local, *not* the
national/international(front) section. That's it, period. One, when the
indictment was made. Two, when he pleaded guilty. Three, when he tried
to change his plea. Four, one paragraph to announce the sentencing
date(later postponed). Five, a brief article covering the sentence, buried
on page 5 of the local section. They gave more coverage to the high
school principal who had his own private bathroom built, or to the city
workers who have unpaid parking tickets, than they did to this case. The
sentencing wasn't even *mentioned* on the 6:00 or 10:00 evening news that
night.
As for the statement in the letter to Ray Hoser on the Australian web site
regarding the "Nova" program (which, from what I gather, does not leave
the viewer with a particularly favorable portrait of Silva), his statement
that "Interestingly, every time I go to court, it airs locally" just
simply doesn't hold water. The local PBS station does its programming
months in advance, and sends out a program listing at the beginning of
each month to its subscribers. Did the program manager somehow magically
know in advance exactly when Silva's court dates would be so "Nova" could
be scheduled for that date, even before the prosecution lawyers and
Silva's lawyers and the judge did?? Maybe Silva was getting a little
paranoid sitting in his jail cell, maybe he imagined a wide-ranging
conspiracy that included his local public television station, and maybe he
made this statement for effect, but it's a figment of imagination, and
it's unlikely Hoser in Australia would have the ability or the inclination
to verify any of his statements.
This letter, and what Judy Mackin publishes in her very limited
circulation pulp newsletter, 'On Wings' are all anyone who is not a friend
or a relative or a lawyer has heard from Silva, to the best of my
knowledge. In an Internet search, outside of newsgroup discussions, you
can just about count the references to this case on one hand. If he had
pleaded innocent, he would have had the opportunity of a trial to state
his side of the story, in public, on the record, and then we'd all know
it. He chose to plead guilty---and he had months to think about it
before making that plea ---therefore no trial. There may be a few people
out there who still wonder whether Silva is guilty or not. I don't wonder
anymore.
In the coming year, hopefully someone with the credentials and the ability
and talent will take it upon him/herself and work up an objective,
thoroughly researched, legitimate piece of investigative reporting on this
story, such as appear in lengthy form in "The New Yorker" from time to
time, for example. It would be interesting if a journalist without any ax
to grind in favor of either side would be able to devote a few months of
life to getting to the details of the story, interview the individuals
involved on both sides, both inside and outside the US, interview Silva in
prison, explore the background of the story that led to the indictments,
outline the progress of the case as it led to the pleas, and so forth.
It's an interesting story, and one with a lot of implications for anyone
who is interested and/or involved in parrots, in aviculture, in endangered
species, in conservation. For the birds and other animals who passed
through the hands of Silva and his associates, it has a sad ending.
In the meantime, it will also be interesting to see how the avicultural
press responds to the sentencing as new magazine and newsletter issues
come out in the months to come. It seemed as though there has been a
'brown out' of coverage on this case in the avicultural press. One would
expect that major magazines catering to birdkeepers and aviculturists
would be the best source of information on the Silva case, but in fact,
the reverse has been true. I wonder if the publications that previously
printed his articles are a little contrite that they ever believed him in
the first place. I suspect his days of hobnobbing in the world of truly
legitimate aviculturists have ended for good. As for the international
conservation community, well, maybe they never thought much of him in the
first place.
Sincerely,
Jessica Deis
Matt Cham
>
>Matt Cham,
>
>I agree with some of your post, but as for your inference that wild
>parrots do not breed well in captivity, I must disagree. The fact that
>there are almost 9,000 species of birds, and about 300 some parrots, and
>almost all that have been brought into captivity have bred. A report
That is true.
>submitted at CITES this past month or so provided information on captive
>breeding on parrots as well as generation breeding of these birds. There
>are quite a few species which are established in aviculture. I am
>referring to more than just budgies, tiels, and lovebirds. Most of the
That is true also.
>Australian cockatoos and finches are established in aviculture. More and
>more species are reaching multi generational breedings as we speak. Some
>have been easier than others, but more information and research has proved
But how many wild birds had to die before a single pair
of wild birds successfully raised a clutch? That is
the data they never publish. Silva was smuggling wild macaws.
He has no excuse for that. How many wild macaws will
die in their aviaries/cages (or in the airport, or the
bird catcher's net) before a single wild pair successfully
breeds? How many of these dead macaws would have bred
successfully had they been left in the wild?
>valuable. Fig parrots were difficult to even keep alive a few years ago,
>now we have a minimum of 2nd and 3rd generation breedings. So as for
>captive breeding of birds, hookbills in particular, I believe you
>information is dated.
The information is as current as wild parrots being exploited.
I have seen wild parrots in cages. I have seen how they
are treated by bird catchers. For every 100 birds caught,
I would estimate that less than 1 pair will raise any young
before they die.
Matt
matt...@juno.com
Matt Cham
In article <57c1ir$1...@rac2.wam.umd.edu>, ep...@wam.umd.edu says...
>
>In article <19961125041...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> <txrn...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Matt Cham,
>>
>>I agree with some of your post, but as for your inference that wild
>>parrots do not breed well in captivity, I must disagree. The fact that
>>there are almost 9,000 species of birds, and about 300 some parrots, and
>>almost all that have been brought into captivity have bred. A report
>
>day-night cycles, nest box size and shape, nesting materials, etc. For
>which we have to thank the aviculturists and the AFA and other avicultural
>organizations, who work ceaselessly to develop these methods.
The research has helped improve the breeding successes of captive birds.
Wild birds, especially smuggled ones, endure more stress than you
can imagine. I have seen wild parrots in cages, I have seen how
they are treated by bird catchers. For every wild pair of
parrots you successfully breed, I can assure you that many,
many more pairs have died.
If you could buy a pair of Hyacinth Macaws to add to your
zoo's unproductive breeding stock would you buy:
a.) Famous Tony's wild-caught parrots
(assuming they were legally obtained)
b.) An unrelated pair that was captive-born, but are not tame.
The answer is obvious. There is no point in catching wild
macaws to breed because captive-born ones breed better.
It's not like the Hyacinth gene pool is in bad shape.
A true aviculturist would never catch wild macaws (legal or illegal)
to attempt to breed them in captivity, because doing so will
_deprive_ them of their breeding opportunity. And that is
why the last wild Spix Macaw is flying free today.
Sure, you can breed a wild macaw, but at a higher success rate
than would be attainable in nature? Unlikely.
Matt
matt...@juno.com
Layne David Dicker
In article <19961128051...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jdei...@aol.com wrote:
Big snip. Very good points about the very limited press coverage of the
Silva case and his usual, self-aggrandizing claptrap on the subject. Fact
is, to everyone but aviculturists, he's just another convict. Nothing
terribly interesting about the case as far as Ma and Pa America are
concerned and for Tony to think otherwise is pure conceit, but what else
is new.
If you do see the Nove special, it is interesting tosee that he doesn't
deny smuggling. As I recall, he tacitly admits it.
> In the meantime, it will also be interesting to see how the avicultural
> press responds to the sentencing as new magazine and newsletter issues
> come out in the months to come. It seemed as though there has been a
> 'brown out' of coverage on this case in the avicultural press. One would
> expect that major magazines catering to birdkeepers and aviculturists
> would be the best source of information on the Silva case, but in fact,
> the reverse has been true. I wonder if the publications that previously
> printed his articles are a little contrite that they ever believed him in
> the first place. I suspect his days of hobnobbing in the world of truly
> legitimate aviculturists have ended for good. As for the international
> conservation community, well, maybe they never thought much of him in the
> first place.
I'm currently researching an article on "aviculture's" handling of the
matter. I expect lots of resistance as, in this small circle, it is a
delicate matter. Lots of people have lots of time and credibility invested
in him and risk looking pretty stupid for being drawn in. I'm sure I'll
come across a few other reasons but mostly, I think most people just want
to forget about him; just put the whole thing behind us and fine tune our
sociopath detectors for the future.
As for Tony's supporters, you know, we can debate this thing till we're
blue in the face, and the future militia members can scream about
conspiracies and innocent friends being jailed (Yeah, right. Lots of
totally innocent people go to jail.) and so on and so forth. But the
beauty of this is that TONY SILVA IS NOW IN JAIL! And he'll be there for a
long time! And now he's a convict, a felon! Ain't life grand! And when he
gets out, about the only publication open to him will be "On Wings" and
maybe the "Montana Freemen Monthly". Hey, maybe he and Ted Kozynski will
get to share a cell so they can swap stories about the big, bad
government. Speaking for myself, I will do everything within my power and
within the law to prevent his ever again making a living in aviculture. In
my opinion, he forfeited that right. But, frankly, I don't think much
effort will be necessary.
At this point, pretty much everything we've said about this matter is
speculative (some of which is supported by facts and witnesses, other of
which is conjuncture and wishful thinking, but none of us were there, so
it's all speculation). But there is one shining fact and that is that Tony
is gonna celebrate the turn of the century, and then a few, in the greybar
hilton, and he's gonna owe the govt a hundred grand, and for the rest of
his life he's a convicted felon. Period. Now, even though it wasn't
written objectively, if you read it in such a fashion, it is a verifiably
accurate statement of this matter. Obviously, I'm pretty happy about this
becsue I think he did it, and more. But my opinion, and every other
opinion is just so much mental masturbation. (But it feels a lot better
for some of us than for others!)
Layne
Roger Williams
In article <ldicker-2811...@ppp-11.ts-4.la.idt.net>, ldi...@mail.idt.net says...
>
(Complete snip of giddy anti-Silva rant)
You say one thing in this post which is absolutely correct: Nobody
here knows for certain what, if anything, Tony Silva did.
1. Snide comment about friends in jail: Their names are Cheryl and
T.J. Anseman. If you look in an archive of any paper from southern
Louisiana, it will not be hard to find articles about them, mostly
written in the same tone as your post. They were completely innocent of
the charges against them, as I know from personally knowing them,
but they were also very stupid and vulnerable to the psychological
tactics w hich were used to trick them into testifying against one
another.
2. Snide comment about "future militia members" -- I can't speak for
Leigh but I think the militias are nuts. You do not have to be a
militia member to recognize that there are things seriously wrong
with the justice system. The biggest problem IMO is that prosecutors
are not "graded" on whether they achieve justice, they are graded on
whether they achieve _convictions_. Think about this.
3. Snide comment about innocent people in jail: Lots of innocent
people are in jail. Even more guilty people are, but still lots of
innocent people, and if you aren't bothered by this you are a fool.
4. My problem with the Silva case is this: He has never been proven
guilty, because he never got a trial. There is strong reason to believe
that he was tricked out of his right to trial by accepting a promise
of leniency for his mother if he pled guilty. If this is true -- and
I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying that I would like to see some
more information -- then a major miscarriage of justice has occurred,
whether or not Tony actually did it.
Prosecutors regularly lie, withhold evidence, and use coercion to
encourage guilty pleas for a simple reason: It saves the taxpayers
money, and they get graded on that, too.
Nobody knows what the outcome would have been had Tony got his trial.
I was recently subpeona'd to testify against one of my company's
customers who was accused of fraud. After speaking with the prosecutor
and several other witnesses, I formed the opinion that he was guilty.
But he was exonerated. It was admitted that his company engaged in
wrongful business practices, for which it was fined, but the jury did
not think it added up to the pattern of criminal intent alleged by
the Feds and they were not given jail sentences.
It is a mistake I plan not to make again.
-- Roger
Roger Williams
Matt --
There are certainly abuses in the wild-bird trade. However, you draw
conclusions from this which are not warranted.
I am not some kind of anarchist who believes there should be no laws
protecting birds. Some birds have needed and benefitted from
intelligently applied laws -- birds whose habitat is intact and which
are not regularly bred or bred true when captured, or which are
in danger from man not from the pet trade but because of the trade
in their feathers, etc. I am thinking of Bald Eagles, Red Siskins,
and Egrets, for example.
Some birds, however, will not have any habitat in 20 more years.
If we are to have any birds of these species -- any birds at ALL --
we need to start breeding them NOW. And many tropical parrots are
in this situation.
A good example of a bird which nearly went extinct because of over-
protection is the California Condor. It is still in trouble, too,
because of its limited genetic diversity -- the reason we need to
keep importing some birds as long as it remains possible. Not the
whole wild population, of course, but a continuing trickle of new
stock makes the breeder's job one hell of a lot easier.
Your assertion that wild-caught birds rarely breed simply isn't true.
It is true that they are stressed in capture, but most parrots in
particular are strong, resilient animals which recover from this
stress as long as they are not physically injured. When their
requirements are understood, they breed readily. And in most cases,
captive birds produce far more young than wild ones because they are
not bound to seasonal cycles and vulnerable to predators.
The problem with point-of-capture abuse is real, and the way to
address it is to deal with it at the point-of-capture -- not to
put our heads in the sand and pretend nothing can be done. That's
what we did with the CA Condors for almost 50 years, and that's why
we nearly lost them.
--Roger
jdei...@aol.com
In article <57j8vs$9...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, matt...@juno.com (Matt
Cham) writes:
>But how many wild birds had to die before a single pair
>of wild birds successfully raised a clutch? That is
>the data they never publish. Silva was smuggling wild macaws.
>He has no excuse for that. How many wild macaws will
>die in their aviaries/cages (or in the airport, or the
>bird catcher's net) before a single wild pair successfully
>breeds? How many of these dead macaws would have bred
>successfully had they been left in the wild?
>
>I have seen wild parrots in cages. I have seen how they
>are treated by bird catchers. For every 100 birds caught,
>I would estimate that less than 1 pair will raise any young
>before they die.
>
>Matt
Dear Matt: Your posts to this NG are really appreciated because you have
a different perspective from most of the posters here. Your points about
the sad realities of the wild-caught bird business, even when it was
legal, are legitimate, much as we don't like to think about them. Twenty
years ago, when I first considered getting my first bird, it didn't take
much reading to make me decide that I didn't care to contribute to the
(then legal) trade in wild birds by buying a wild-caught parrot to be kept
as a pet. This was purely a personal decision, and at that time, since
importation was legal, *theoretically* there shouldn't have been barriers
to giving the animals optimum care in their journey. Smuggling then, and
now, is a different story, as we are learning from the details of the
Silva case now as they become available.
Sincerely,
Jessica Deis
David Lowell
Does anybody but me wonder why this person will rant, and give all sorts
of opinions, but not let us know who he is or let us ask him about his
"facts" in private? Maybe he is just trolling - possible.
David Lowell
leigh_hidell
There seems to be a general perception in this NG that birds are
inedible & that it's unbelievable that Tony would be concerned about
natives eating them. In fact, out of approx. 9,000 species of birds,
scientists have discovered exactly one species that is poisonous.
The rest may be tough or stringy, but they're food to people in
survival situations. I was under the impression that our own
thick bills were extirpated by miners/loggers who ate them.
If you ever had the experience I had of walking into a house
where supposedly a baby was murdered & shit spread all over the
walls -- only to see no such shit on the walls, etc. -- you would
understand that I put absolutely no belief in ridiculous stories
that seem to be concocted to create hysteria. I don't wish any such
misfortune on anybody here, but if you doubt that prosecutors
make up tall tales, why don't you rent a copy of the documentary,
THE THIN BLUE LINE?
--Leigh
Matt Cham
On Thu, 28 Nov 1996 16:05:20 -0500 (EST) jwils...@aol.com writes:
>The dramatic drop in the prices of many previously expensive parrots
>suggests you are very wrong.
>
>You might ask those involved in the Calif Condor project their views
>on this.
A major killer of the Calif Condor is road/electrical accidents.
Wild-caught condors have a better breeding success rate than
their wild counterparts who are more likely to be hit by cars.
Unfortunately, this does not apply to Silva's Hyacinth macaws.
>Properly handled many wild caught birds can produce numbers of
>young in captivity far beyond anything possible in the wild. The
>issue
>with Spix and other parrots is that food sorces and survival behavior
>are
>learned ( sort of a culture in human terms ). Captive specimens lack
>this
>" culture " and as a result are difficult or impossible to reintroduce
>into the wild. Losses in the commercial pet trade do not necessarily
>represent the "way it must be" anymore than commercial fishing that
>disposes two thirds of the catch as trash fish is acceptable.
Yes, no one wants the losses. The poachers don't want the birds to
die. The more birds they can collect, the more money they make.
Same is true for Silva. But the fact remains: When birds are
poached and transported illegally, much much more will die than
those that eventually (if ever) breed. Loss is an intrinsic
part of the illegal trade. Silva knew this but chose to ignore
it for the almighty dollar.
Loss is not necessarily the case when REAL (ie, not like Silva)
conservationists & scientists capture birds to breed in captivity.
Those are people whose goal is to increase reproductive success
of the birds. That was clearly not Silva's goal.
>Establishing new species into aviculture represents in My opinion a
>positive.
I agree 100%. Unfortunately, that was not Silva's agenda.
Even _if_ it were legal.
>It should not be at the expense of the vitality of the wild
>populations and needent be so.
Yes, but in Silva's case, it surely was. Silva just chose
to ignore it for personal profit and ambition.
>I enjoy my birds a great deal and have
>in
>almost every species kept increased the numbers ( even in a species
>where
>a major zoo simply let their collection dwindle to a single
>individual).
>Refusing to allow aviculturists to attempt breeding wild birds because
>significant percentages fail to reproduce is to assure they will never
>be represented in aviculture.
I agree 100%. But the difference in the conservationist's vs. Silva's
technique is the way birds are handled. Conservationists do not catch
birds the same way poachers do. I highly doubt that Silva hired
conservationists or scientists to catch and package his birds.
Even if Silva hired trained individuals, he SHOULD have known that
the breeding success of these stressed birds will be lower than
if left free. I was once a die-hard Tony Silva fan, putting him in the
ranks of Jane Goodall. He was such a disappointment. It's like
finding out that Superman is a child molester.
Matt
Matt Cham
In article <57l62k$4...@lana.zippo.com>, RogerWill...@gnofn.org says...
>There are certainly abuses in the wild-bird trade. However, you draw
>conclusions from this which are not warranted.
I am very open to discussion in this matter.
>I am not some kind of anarchist who believes there should be no laws
>protecting birds. Some birds have needed and benefitted from
>intelligently applied laws -- birds whose habitat is intact and which
>are not regularly bred or bred true when captured, or which are
>in danger from man not from the pet trade but because of the trade
>in their feathers, etc. I am thinking of Bald Eagles, Red Siskins,
>and Egrets, for example.
Ok, I agree 100%.
>Some birds, however, will not have any habitat in 20 more years.
>If we are to have any birds of these species -- any birds at ALL --
>we need to start breeding them NOW. And many tropical parrots are
>in this situation.
Ok, I agree 100%.
However, WHO should be catching these wild birds?
a.) untrained professional bird catchers who earn
a dollar or two for every bird caught (Tony Silva Inc.)?
b.) scientists, real conservationists, veterinarian teams?
How should wild-caught birds be treated?
a.) tied and crammed into suitcases and shoeboxes?
b.) held in enclosures designed for birds?
What determines whether a wild bird should be caught?
a.) if it sells for a higher price?
b.) if its reproductive success is higher AFTER capture.
I believe I have made my point.
We are on the same side, your point does not argue against
mine.
>A good example of a bird which nearly went extinct because of over-
>protection is the California Condor. It is still in trouble, too,
>because of its limited genetic diversity -- the reason we need to
>keep importing some birds as long as it remains possible. Not the
>whole wild population, of course, but a continuing trickle of new
>stock makes the breeder's job one hell of a lot easier.
Do you really think the Hyacinth macaw genetic diversity is
in such bad shape that Tony decided to smuggle them
to "save" their gene pool?
There are better ways to save the gene pool. Tony's preferred
money-making method is not one of them.
>Your assertion that wild-caught birds rarely breed simply isn't true.
>It is true that they are stressed in capture, but most parrots in
>particular are strong, resilient animals which recover from this
>stress as long as they are not physically injured.
Strong & resilient?
I guess you've never seen birds that are wild-caught from a
third world country. I have visited the largest parrot
_legal_ breeding facility in Asia (which is located in Manila,
Philippines). I have worked at the National Zoological
Park's Department of Zoological Research in Washington DC.
On the flipside, I have seen illegally wild-caught parrots
sold on the streets by bird catchers. I have seen how
birdcatchers handle birds, and how they feed them.
I am no authority in this matter, nor do I claim to be
an authority. But from my experience, wild-caught
birds will NOT breed more successfully compared to
captive-bred birds. Even Tony Silva will tell you
that (if he has any ounce of honesty left).
The only time you should resort to capturing wild birds
is when capture INCREASES their reproductive success.
That is not true for the wild Hyacinth Macaw.
Tony Silva chose to ignore this on behalf of the
almightly dollar.
>When their requirements are understood, they breed readily.
No parrot smuggler can claim to know the condition of
smuggled parrots. Was Silva there when Mr. Birdcatcher
netted his 18th bird of the month? Was Silva there
when Mr. Birdcatcher clubbed a breeding pair of birds
to get at their nestlings? Was Mr. Silva there when
Mr. Birdcatcher captured a nesting female leaving
her eggs to rot in the cold?
Mr. Birdcatcher will catch as many birds as he can
in one day so he can feed his family with the $2
per bird that Silva pays him. Mr. Birdcatcher
does not care if the parrots go extinct, as long as he
earns enough dollars to open up his own business in
the city, or buy his own farm tractor. Why would
Mr. Birdcatcher care about birds going extinct, when
his own family will go extinct without Silva's
paycheck.
Your statement regarding parrot care does not apply
to Tony Silva's case, as knowledgeable as Silva may be.
>And in most cases,
>captive birds produce far more young than wild ones because they are
>not bound to seasonal cycles and vulnerable to predators.
Not the Hyacinth Macaw. And certainly not most other parrots.
Perhaps the flightless Kakapo of new zealand, and the
Patagonian conure is an exception. I don't argue that at all.
>The problem with point-of-capture abuse is real, and the way to
>address it is to deal with it at the point-of-capture -- not to
That is why Silva is behind bars. Something was done.
Silva WAS the point-of-capture.
>put our heads in the sand and pretend nothing can be done. That's
>what we did with the CA Condors for almost 50 years, and that's why
>we nearly lost them.
Again, capturing should be done ONLY if it increases breeding
success of the bird. While this is certainly true for the
Calif Condor, it is not true for the Hyacinth Macaw, especially
smuggled ones.
As I said, I am open to discussion. But so far, no one
has disputed the fact that smuggled wild-caught macaws have
decreased breeding success. Show me an aviculturist
who claims that wild-caught macaws breed better than
the captive-bred macaws, and I will show you
a lutino macaw.
If we need to capture animals to save them,
capture the Mountain Gorrillas that are being
killed by stray bullets. But don't smuggle
Macaws that end up dead in a suitcase, in
an airport conveyor belt.
Matt
matt...@juno.com
Matt Cham
In article <19961128160...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jdei...@aol.com
says...
>Dear Matt: Your posts to this NG are really appreciated because you have
>a different perspective from most of the posters here. Your points about
>the sad realities of the wild-caught bird business, even when it was
>legal, are legitimate, much as we don't like to think about them. Twenty
>years ago, when I first considered getting my first bird, it didn't take
>much reading to make me decide that I didn't care to contribute to the
>(then legal) trade in wild birds by buying a wild-caught parrot to be kept
>as a pet. This was purely a personal decision, and at that time, since
>importation was legal, *theoretically* there shouldn't have been barriers
>to giving the animals optimum care in their journey. Smuggling then, and
>now, is a different story, as we are learning from the details of the
>Silva case now as they become available.
>
>Sincerely,
>Jessica Deis
I am glad that you empathize with my views. Very
few people have seen what I have seen. It is more
depressing than people tend to imagine.
It is easy to say that all the beautiful birds
we have now are the result of wild-caught breeding.
Afterall, that is 100% true.
But few people stop to think what REALLY happens
during the catching process conducted by
farmers or natives who just want money
in exchange for the birds.
Those birdcatchers don't care about legal or illegal.
That is not the issue here. No 3rd World policeman
will arrest a birdcatcher in the jungle. The only
concern a birdcatcher has is to catch as many birds
at any cost. Be it chopping down a nesting tree, or
clubbing parent birds to get at the nestlings. Or
capturing birds that are guarding their nest.
All this will happen even if native bird
exporting was LEGAL, as long as
wild-caught birds can be exported, and
Mr. Birdcatcher is the catcher you employ.
That is why it is good in many cases to ban
export of wild-caught birds. The government cannot
control who catches the birds. You cannot have
police checking for licenses in the jungle.
3rd world countries can't afford that financially.
Mr. Birdcatcher of the 3rd world country will
do a lot of damage, and no one will ever know
how much damage he is doing. Mr Birdcatcher
will always be employed because his labor is
the cheapest that Silva & Company can buy.
He will catch as many birds as he can, whether
legal or illegal.
BUT if it's legal and _left unchecked_,
there will be more Mr. Birdcatchers
employed (due to increased demand for cheap wild birds),
more mating pairs disrupted, & more birds dead
during the capturing process.
And it's not Mr. Birdcatcher's fault: He needs to
feed his family, and the more he can catch, the better
off he will be. It's the fault of people like Silva
who know all about this, but cater to the wallet first.
Matt
matt...@juno.com
Heather Sparrow-Rebane
In article <57l530$2...@lana.zippo.com>, Roger Williams rp...@gnofn.org says:
>
>In article <ldicker-2811...@ppp-11.ts-4.la.idt.net>, ldi...@mail.idt.net says...
>>
>(Complete snip of giddy anti-Silva rant)
>
>You say one thing in this post which is absolutely correct: Nobody
>here knows for certain what, if anything, Tony Silva did.
>
(be it American, Canadian, or otherwise) will tell you, there are at
least three "truths" in every trial; the prosecutor's, the defense's,
and the judge/jury's. None of it is ever absolute except to the
individuals espousing it!
>3. Snide comment about innocent people in jail: Lots of innocent
>people are in jail.
NO: if they are in jail (meaning in prison; as in convicted), they
are there because they have been found GUILTY of a criminal offense and
sentenced to be there. They may have been wrongly convicted, but the
fact is, they've been convicted; therefore, they can't be considered
to be innocent in the legal sense of the word. And frankly, I have to
admit that the number of "guilty" people walking around free worries me far
more than the number of "innocent" people locked up. After all, they
freed OJ, didn't they?
Heather
Ian Kerfoot
> Fig parrots were difficult to even keep alive a few years ago,
> now we have a minimum of 2nd and 3rd generation breedings.
I have spoken to several people who breed fig parrots. They
all say that getting them to breed successfully is difficult.
Two of them say it is also still fairly common for adult birds
to die inexplicably. There are only about 100 of them left in
captivity, and a few minor accidents could wipe them out (e.g.,
someone's house burns down, or a breeder dies and his birds
starve before anyone finds them). About 80% of the imported
birds died because the owners refused to believe that their
dietary requirements really did differ from those of other
small parrots. If those birds had survived, perhaps they would
be well established by now.
A while ago, a couple people had ads for fig parrots in Bird
Talk, and I considered getting a pair. But, it just seemed like
getting myself into trouble, and the ads aren't there any more.
I am figuring in about 15 years, they will either be pretty
well established in aviculture, or eliminated completely. At
that time, I will either get a pair, or won't.
Ian Kerfoot
Ian Kerfoot
> No 3rd World policeman will arrest a birdcatcher in the jungle.
In regards to the Patagonian conure in Chile, Forshaw's
"Parrots of the World" says: "in 1940 a nesting colony
reduced to only six breeding pairs was given protection
by the landholder on whose property it was situated, and
in 1952 a flock of at least five hundred parrots was seen
on this same property." If anything, this sounds like the
trappers may have been dealt with summarily.
Ian Kerfoot
jdei...@aol.com
(snip)
>4. My problem with the Silva case is this: He has never been proven
>guilty, because he never got a trial.
Admission of guilt is the same as being proven guilty, last time I looked.
There is strong reason to believe
>that he was tricked out of his right to trial by accepting a promise
>of leniency for his mother if he pled guilty. If this is true -- and
>I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying that I would like to see some
>more information -- then a major miscarriage of justice has occurred,
>whether or not Tony actually did it.
(snip)
Hey, Roger, read the indictments! Get familiar with the case! Her list
of indictments was as long as his was! She also pleaded guilty! Whether
or not Silva's plea had anything to do with it, Silva's Mama DID get
leniency!!
She only got 27 months, barely even a slap on the wrists when you look at
the indictments. She was looking at up to 50 years and a maximum fine of
$2.75 million for her part in the family wildlife smuggling business.
According to the list of indictments, she wasn't a dear sweet little old
lady who just stayed home with her parakeet and baked cookies and knitted
nice warm mittens for her little boy Tony. She was an active participant
and a key player in this business, sort of Tony's Vice President of North
American Operations. And how do we know??? She discusses it in detail in
conversations that were----oopsie daisy!-----on tape!
If she were in fact the sweet innocent little old lady that we are all
supposed to think she is, who was "thrown into this affair to pressure"
Silva, well, then a jury of people like yourself should have been able to
discern that fact amidst all the mean old government allegations of the
nasty things she did. But no. SHE elected ---and this on the advice of
her lawyers, after many months of consideration, knowing exactly what
evidence the government's case had, right before the trial was scheduled
to start --- to plead guilty too, to a plea bargain that included a mere
fraction of the counts she was charged with. Prior to going to trial, a
defendant knows all the allegations, and also knows exactly what the
prosecution is going to submit for evidence. She bailed out--- she CHOSE
not to answer those counts in a trial. Furthermore, if she and her boy
Tony didn't think the truth could set them free, doesn't that make the
validity of the central allegations against both of them start looking
even more plausible?
I don't know whether a deal was or was not made for Silva that involved
leniency for his mother. If she pleaded innocent and got the trial that
she was entitled to and a jury found her not guilty, she wouldn't be
headed for the penitentiary. And, of course, the same goes for Silva.
But maybe she and her boy Tony knew they were so neck-deep in their family
business of smuggling parrots for profit, knew what evidence the
prosecutors had, and that maybe, just maybe, the jury might see this and
send her away for a REALLY LONG TIME.
Looks to me like she got one hell of a good deal, considering.
It would be right in character for Silva to say to his ever-dwindling
little band of groupies, "Look, those big bad corrupt government people
forced me into saying I was guilty to save my mommy from going to prison
for all those mean lies they said about her! And look what they did! They
tricked me! I'm innocent! They put Mommy in jail anyway!! The liars!
Now I'm a political prisoner!"
Apparently there is a handful of people out there who will find this story
believable.
But I don't.
Sincerely,
Jessica Deis
jdei...@aol.com
Roger Williams rp...@gnofn.org writes:
>(snip)
>The problem with point-of-capture abuse is real, and the way to
>address it is to deal with it at the point-of-capture -- not to
>put our heads in the sand and pretend nothing can be done. That's
>what we did with the CA Condors for almost 50 years, and that's why
>we nearly lost them.
>
>--Roger
Well Roger, darn good thing that there wasn't a lucrative intermational
market in California Condors for the pet trade, or we might've lost them
for good a lot earlier. Why do you think the Red Siskin has dropped to
such perilously low numbers?? I am, however, relieved that you don't
state that we should round up every last one of the Red Siskins from the
wild.
As for "point of capture abuse" ---and I'm glad that even YOU recognize
that this is a real problem---- your Poster Boy for checkbook aviculture
and the right to smuggle endangered species himself, Tony Silva, exercised
just those abuses. SILVA was the problem at the point of capture. SILVA
directed how the birds should be captured, "packaged," and shipped. In
case you need a reminder---remember all those Hyacinth Macaws that died?
The ones that Silva and his band of associates so selflessly smuggled?
This time we didn't stick our heads in the sand. We did do something about
it. And now Silva will be serving seven years in prison, right where he
belongs.
Sincerely,
Jessica Deis
jdei...@aol.com
, Leigh Hidell writes:
>There seems to be a general perception in this NG that birds are
>inedible & that it's unbelievable that Tony would be concerned about
>natives eating them
Yes Leigh, it's unbelievable that Silva was motivated to smuggle Hyacinth
Macaws because he saw local people eating them.
Every year I save my money to go to a destination in Latin America because
I love to have the opportunity to watch birds of all species, and I
especially love parrots. I love to look for them, I love to think about
them, I find them beautiful, I love to observe their behavior, I love the
sound of a treeful of Amazons squealing and squawking with delight when it
rains, I am thrilled when a local person with eyes ten times sharper than
mine points out a nesting hole to me so I can train my binoculars and
watch the parents come and go with full crops for their babies inside, and
I know that person is delighted by my delight. I am enchanted to see
almost-ready-to-fly babies poking their heads out of a nest. It's a
wonderful sight to see pairs and trios of Amazons squawking across the sky
at dusk, headed for their roosting trees, or huge waves of conures
flooding the sky in the morning off to their feeding grounds, or
Grey-cheeked parakeets sitting on a termite nest, happily snapping up
every termite that leaves the nest, or Great Green Macaws so high in a
forest tree that the only way I know they are there is from their squawks
and the rain of half-ripe fruit that they've taken one bite from, and
thrown down for me to pick up and admire for the deep gash that powerful
beak makes, or Pionus stripping the petals off flowers, just to have fun.
Now, when I see these birds, am I thinking how much I'd like to catch them
so I can keep them in cages in my basement? No. Do I think about how
much money I could make if I could catch these birds and sell them in the
US? No. Do I dream of catching them and smuggling them into the US and
setting them up for captive breeding to save the species? No, Leigh. I
just like to see them, that's all. And when I come back to the US, and
back to my world of work, I like to think about the wonderful birds I saw,
and the good feelings I had when I was watching them.
Have I seen local people eating birds? Yes, Leigh, I have. The first
Collared Aricari (a species of Toucan) I saw in Nicaragua was just a beak
and some feathers--- the bird had been caught and cut up to bait the
fishhooks of a couple of Nicaraguan Army patrols at a miserable
out-of-the-way border post. A Mealy Amazon I saw later in that particular
trip had evidently ended up for dinner, or maybe even fed to the dog---all
that was left was the head, which is how I could identify it---and the
tailfeathers, which the woman had kept because she thought they were
pretty.
Was I saddened to see these things? Yes I was. Was I appalled at the
cruelty of the native people?? No I was not. Here is the difference that
for some reason you and Silva's disciples have such a problem with
understanding (read: don't want to think about). Rural people in poor
Latin American countries subsist on less than you or I can ever imagine.
For many, it is a daily struggle to put enough food on the table for their
children to eat. Local people may well eat a wild bird when they can get
one, which will supplement their principal diet of (most probably) beans
and rice. However, they don't chop down a tree, or climb 40 feet to a
nest, or place a sticky substance on branches where the parrots roost on
high branches. If they are prosperous enough to own a rifle (which is the
exception rather than the rule) they may be able to shoot a bird to eat if
they are a good enough shot. If it is in an area where blow guns (tubes
through which is blown a sharpened dart) are used, a skillful hunter may
be able to successfully bring down a parrot. By setting a snare at a
baited platform, a single bird may be caught at a time. But it's not so
easy to catch birds by any one of these methods, and a lot of birds simply
don't get caught, they get smart. Do natives engage in practices that
wholesale wipe out large numbers of parrots at one time for food? No they
do not. Is there any study (and I mean legitimate, scientific field work
and detailed observation, not just an anecdote from Tony Silva or someone
else) that shows that populations of parrots ANYWHERE have been reduced to
"endangered" level by *local people consuming parrots for food*?? I'm not
aware of any. If you are, please post it here so we can all be
better-informed.
The point is, Leigh, in spite of what he may want you to think, Tony Silva
didn't see Hyacinth Macaws wiped out by locals. What really happened was
this: the locals saw Hyacinth Macaws wiped out by Tony Silva.
Sincerely,
Jessica Deis
jdei...@aol.com
In article <57lrn2$o...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, matt...@juno.com (Matt
Cham) writes:
> I was once a die-hard Tony Silva fan, putting him in the
>ranks of Jane Goodall. He was such a disappointment. It's like
>finding out that Superman is a child molester.
>
Hey Matt, don't feel so bad about him. I think of him more like a Pee-Wee
Herman. And Pee-Wee's career ended by getting caught with just ONE bird
in the hand.
Sincerely,
Jessica Deis
Heather Sparrow-Rebane
Dear Jessica,
You rock!
Dear Matt,
You rock too!
Sincerely,
Heather
Matt Cham
In article <19961130041...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jdei...@aol.com
says...
>The point is, Leigh, in spite of what he may want you to think, Tony Silva
>didn't see Hyacinth Macaws wiped out by locals. What really happened was
>this: the locals saw Hyacinth Macaws wiped out by Tony Silva.
Sounds pretty good.
But I'm certain Silva hired the locals (read: cheap labor)
to catch the birds for him. Furthermore, why would locals
eat the birds, when they can sell it to people like Silva
who will pay them a few dollars (money to buy weeks
worth of food at the market),
Matt
matt...@juno.com
Matt Cham
In article <19961130044...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, you say...
>
>In article <57lrn2$o...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>, matt...@juno.com (Matt
>Cham) writes:
>> I was once a die-hard Tony Silva fan, putting him in the
>>ranks of Jane Goodall. He was such a disappointment. It's like
>>finding out that Superman is a child molester.
>>
>
>Hey Matt, don't feel so bad about him. I think of him more like a Pee-Wee
>Herman. And Pee-Wee's career ended by getting caught with just ONE bird
>in the hand.
>
>Sincerely,
>Jessica Deis
OTFL. Pretty funny analogy.
But seriously, Pee-Wee didn't hurt anybody or anything, whereas
Silva has caused (directly or indirectly) the mass destruction
of beautiful birds worldwide, presumably for several decades.
Silva's work may have adversely affected the world in a way
we will never know. He was a Kingpin, perhaps even THE Kingpin.
I only hope that his well written books and articles have
compensated for a fraction of his crime.
Matt
matt...@juno.com
Matt Cham
In article <57nquq$q...@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu>, ker...@csl.uiuc.edu says...
From 12 birds to 500+ birds...wow. I'm surprised that
the limited gene pool did not wipe them out.
Even the cheetah was never in such bad shape.
Those birds were lucky to be in someone's land.
Much of 3rd world jungle is unfortunately
open-season year round.
Matt
matt...@juno.com
jdei...@aol.com
In article <57or0e$m...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>, matt...@juno.com (Matt
Cham) writes:
>But seriously, Pee-Wee didn't hurt anybody or anything, whereas
>Silva has caused (directly or indirectly) the mass destruction
>of beautiful birds worldwide, presumably for several decades.
>Silva's work may have adversely affected the world in a way
>we will never know. He was a Kingpin, perhaps even THE Kingpin.
>
Silva's family smuggling business could very well have been responsible
for the deaths of hundreds, and perhaps thousands of birds and other
wildlife beyond what the Feds had hard evidence for that we will never
ever know about. What we DO know about is appalling.
The sentencing judge said, "The real victims of these crimes were the
birds themselves and our children and future generations who may never
have the opportunity to see any of these rare birds."
>I only hope that his well written books and articles have
>compensated for a fraction of his crime.
In my opinion, this whole case brings into question the validity of any
"facts" Silva presents in his books, particularly pertaining to any
"studies" or observations originating with Silva. Knowing what we know
now about Silva's character and clandestine activities, I would read
anything he states in any of his publications with a healthy dose of
skepticism.
Furthermore, I now take a few moments to write a polite letter to any
vendor whom I see still selling his books, informing them that he is now a
convicted wildlife smuggler, and it reflects badly on their business to
promote anything with his name on the cover.
Sincerely,
Jessica Deis
Roger Williams
Jessica --
Ignore for the moment (1) Tony's possibly coerced confession and
(2) the almost certainly exxaggerated even if mostly true indictment,
and tell me is there any OTHER evidence that has been made publicly
available which demonstrates his conduct as you have described?
Because I keep hearing indictment/confession/indictment/confession/
blah blah blah, and I discount both of them. I give E.I. Paul's
personal handling of some of the affidavits some credence, but I
know from personal experience that that can also give a distorted
picture of the case.
In particular, has anybody done any investigative journalism to
determine the details of Tony's operation /independently/ of the
government's acusation (and, sorry, almost forget (3) paid informant,
which I also wouldn't trust). If he was really doing all this stuff
I'm sure there will be other evidence lying around -- people who
witnessed things who were not paid for their testimony would be
quite convincing. (E.I. Paul never said whether her veterinarian
knew anything about the smuggling; she left the distinct impression
-- possibly incorrect -- that he only testified to the presence of
the dead hyacinths, not their source, method of capture, etc.)
-- Roger
Roger Williams
In article <57lvb9$k...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>, matt...@juno.com says...
(entire snip, mainly cause I'm back on Lynx and can't delete lines)
OK, definitely we agree at least 90%. My few quibbles:
1. The reason wild birds are more prolific in captivity, including
the CA condor, is not just that the lethality of their range is
reduced (power lines & bait traps were what drove the condor's death
rate above their wild survive-to-adulthood rate). It is also that
nearly all species double-clutch when the eggs are removed. One
reason the wildlife managers waited until only 9 condors remained was
that the guy who did the original field work (forget his name) was
one of these fanatics who think a dead bird is better than a bird in
a cage, and he lied about this precisely so that none of the then
50 or so birds would be captured. When only 9 remained a wild nest
was observed to be destroyed, and the parents laid another clutch.
This is why they were finally brought in.
It is sound avicultural practice in species which can be induced to
double-clutch -- and I admit I don't know if Hyacinths in particular
do, but many parrots and macaws do -- to ALWAYS remove and incubate
the first clutch. These handraised babies go to the pet trade and
pay for the riskier parent-raised clutches, which are more likely to
learn to raise their own babies. Combine this with carefully
accelerated seasons and it is not hard to get double to triple the
offspring of a wild pair. This is even true of extremely difficult
species like toucans, once you know their requirements.
2. If the various accusations you make about Silva are correct, then
he certainly did, to put it nicely, screw up. However, as I've posted
elsewhere, nothing has been proven. I discount the indictment in
particular because, particularly when the case never goes to trial,
you have no way of knowing whether an indictment is full of lies.
Is any of this corroborated elsewhere re: Silva in particular?
If Silva had had a trial, and this stuff had come out in court and
been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (as opposed to within an
unreasonable rumor-mill, as is going on here), then I would never
have said a word in his defense. He may yet be guilty of everything
mentioned. But until I at least see some corroborating evidence, I
will keep an open mind.
3. In order to determine whether it is better for the birds as a
species to smuggle them at great risk vs. leaving them in the wild,
one must conduct a risk management estimate considering the number
of birds likely to be lost in importing (by whatever method), effects
on breeding (which as I've said I think are minimal in the uninjured
survivors), vs. the risks to the wild population if they remain in
the wild. I don't think the Hyacinths are there yet, personally, but
some birds are very close to the point where a reasonable estimate
would indicate "do whatever is necessary to get them out of the wild."
I will also mention that many people find such mathematization of
risk to be offensive, but my government uses it to determine where
it will aim the many nuclear missiles it has built with my tax money.
-- Roger
Roger Williams
In article <57m3dm$i...@aphex.direct.ca>, hre...@direct.ca says...
(megasnip)
Well, if somebody really didn't do it (whatever "really" means, and
a talented existential philosopher can show you that you can't even
be /sure/ the universe exists), then I call them innocent no matter
what an arbitrary system of words and rules has determined. If
they really did it, I call them guilty even if that arbitrary system
has exonerated them.
And in the US, our system was originally designed, theoretically, to
make its mistakes in the direction of setting the guilty free rather
than punishing the innocent. Much of that protection has been lost,
largely due to politicians pandering to people who share your view,
and in my opinion our situation is much poorer as a result.
The system worked exactly right in OJ's case. He probably did it,
but the state could not prove its case largely because its star
witnesses were suspect and one perjured himself, so he walked. This
is what was supposed to happen. But wait: In OJII, the civil trial,
absolute proof is not required, only a preponderance of evidence. And
I will be very surprised if they don't soak him for everything he
owns. And that's what is supposed to happen, too.
It would be nice if we could get all the really-guilty people in
jail and free all the really-innocent ones, but unless we develop
magic mind-reading judges this will never be possible. Consider
the huge number of convicted rapists who are being exonerated now
that DNA testing is available. I'm sorry, I'd rather keep the
presumption of innocence. -- Roger
Layne David Dicker
A funny thing happened on the way to the Silva case.
I guess it was 3 years ago or so, I was invited to a small rally at an
apartment in Westwood (near UCLA). The rally was to support a woman who
was allegedly facing a year in Federal prison for "just letting one sick
bird through quarantine early, so it could see a vet and not die." Well,
I'll go to that. The meeting was at the apartment of a higherup at PETA. I
was invited as an attorney and bird lover.
Well, after about 5 minutes I was ready to strangle the woman we were
there to support. I have never met a more bitter, unpleasant, martyristic,
whiny person in my entire life. What a persecution complex this woman had.
I wanted desperately to leave but didn't drive myself. Well, finally the
excuse presented itself when I learned the name of the Federal Judge that
was sentencing her. Turns out he was a friend of mine so I made up some BS
excuse about impropriety and left. Told her that my association with the
Judge made it impossible for me to be involved in any way.
The next day, this woman calls me and asks me to talk the Judge into going
easy on her. I was shocked and told her so. Then she offered to pay me;
cash or birds.
What a charming woman. I think she got 2 years.
But the story doesn't end there. Seems she did a bit more than let a bird
slip through. While the govt was investigating a quarantine facility she
called to form a partnership to smuggle Yellow-tailed Black cockatoos into
the country. They weren't enen interested in her and she just fell into
their laps. There she was, still playing the martyr, right there on "The
Great Wildlife Heist".
Poor victimized woman. Big bad government.
Hell, I should'a taken her up on her offer. Get a nice pair of Lears,
maybe Cuban amazons or Echo parakeets.
Layne
Hey, only 81 1/2 months 'till Tony gets out!
jdei...@aol.com
In article <57plb3$n...@lana.zippo.com>, Roger Williams rp...@gnofn.org
writes:
>Jessica --
>
>Ignore for the moment (1) Tony's possibly coerced confession and
>(2) the almost certainly exxaggerated even if mostly true indictment,
>and tell me is there any OTHER evidence that has been made publicly
>available which demonstrates his conduct as you have described?
>Because I keep hearing indictment/confession/indictment/confession/
>blah blah blah, and I discount both of them.
Roger---
I refer to the indictment and confession because this is the information
which is currently available about this case. YOU are perfectly free to
discount them both. Have you even read them?
Additionally, a transcript of the pretrial hearings surely exists, which
will contain testimony and references to testimony from MANY other
individuals besides the 4 Confidential Informants. Many, many people were
interviewed and provided information prior to the indictments. I expect
we will all learn more about Silva's business ventures now that he is in
prison, and we have a chance to read these transcripts. But of course,
Roger, YOU will discount anything else anyone has to say about this
subject as just more unsubstantiated blah, blah, blah.
(snip)
If he was really doing all this stuff
>I'm sure there will be other evidence lying around -- people who
>witnessed things who were not paid for their testimony would be
>quite convincing.
And I'm sure we'll be hearing from just these very people once we get a
chance to read the transcripts of the hearings of the lengthy pre-trial
and sentencing hearings. These are the people that we would've heard from
in the trial if he had pleaded innocent. And maybe, just maybe, it was on
the strength of the string of testimonies that l'il ol' Tony decided he
and his mommy better go for the guilty plea and the lesser sentences that
those pleas provided. Remember, HE was looking at 45 years and a 2.5
million dollar fine, and MOMMY(Vice President of Finance and North
American Operations, Silva International Wildlife Smugglers Inc) was
looking at 50 Years and a 2.75 million dollar fine. But based your
expressed beliefs from your previous posts, there is absolutely nothing
that you could read or see or be told that would make you believe anything
other than that Silva should be a free man, free to continue to "save
endangered species" in his own special, self-serving way. Even if he was
caught with a Hyacinth Macaw under his trenchcoat at the airport, you'd
believe he was innocent because "the natives were eating them and he was
going to establish a breeding program to save them." Your beliefs are
representative of a fringe element which has little support, but you have
a right to your beliefs.
Sincerely,
Jessica Deis
>
Ian Kerfoot
There has been an ongoing series of posts, claiming
that natives bear no accountability for their actions
in hunting and trapping endangered birds, because
they are poor. I suppose as much could be said of all
the Columbians growing dope as well. However, there
are any number of poor people who do not take up a
life of crime to make ends meet. Those natives who
choose to do so should be held accountable for their
actions, just like anyone else is.
Ian Kerfoot
Ian Kerfoot
> The system worked exactly right in OJ's case. He probably did it,
> but the state could not prove its case largely because its star
> witnesses were suspect and one perjured himself, so he walked.
The most "suspect" person in the whole trial would have
to be John Cochrane, who made a racial joke about Ito,
and then denounced Fuhrmann as a horrid criminal for
having told racial jokes in an interview a few years
previously. Quite a ludicrous hypocrite.
Ian Kerfoot
Layne David Dicker
In article <57q7d2$g...@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu>, Ian Kerfoot
<ker...@csl.uiuc.edu> wrote:
Although I am clearly one of the most conservation minded people around, I
gotta tell you, many of these natives are among the most primative people
around. And those that aren't live in unbelievably remote areas. It's not
like our end of the drug trade where there is a decision to work hard at a
legal job or sell drugs; clearly a moral judgment can be made there. With
indigenous rain forest peoples it can be a matter of hunt parrots or,
well, die. There's no 7-eleven down the street at which he can get a job.
It's REMOTE.
The blame lies with the Silvas, I mean, trappers who hire them; the
Silvas, I mean smugglers who smuggle them; the Silvas, I mean the dealers
who sell them and the people in the states who buy them.
Now, as for the cure, this lies with us. Dopn't buy anything except
verifiably domestic birds, support ecotourism, boycott rain forset
exploiting companies, reduce meat consumption, etc.
But I've seen the native peoples and many have no idea that what they're
doing is wrong. They have no concept of the scope of the problem of the
nature of the world around them.
Layne
Layne David Dicker
Roger Williams
In article <19961130195...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, jdei...@aol.com says...
(megasnip)
Jessica --
Pretrial hearing? There are transcripts of this pretrial hearing?
Which you or someone here has read? If so I would be very interested
in knowing what they contain. This is exactly what I meant when I
wrote "there must be other evidence lying around."
You do not understand the purpose of my posts at all. When I first
read this newsgroup, there was no real information about Silva. There
still isn't, really, though some is now coming out.
I am not a "fan" of Silva. A few hints dropped in the last posts
cause me to lean toward believing he did it. My objection has been
that /given the information which had been made public/ there were
grave doubts as to his true guilt. If those doubts can be cleared
up, then the many bad comments made about Silva -- up to a certain
point -- are justified. But I don't think those comments were made
by people who possessed information which justified them to make
them. I think they were made on the basis of a bunch of hearsay and
propaganda, which is bad even if it turns out to be warranted in the
end.
--Roger
john...@aol.com
How about the situation where there is no danger to the wild population?
(eg Galahs in Australia). It has been my impression that Australians are
very decided against any animal trade, and this has caused a situation
where they are shot as pests there but can't be imported here. An Aussie
has pointed out that the US prohibits export of its own species, which is
a valid point. I have also heard them say that NO ONE should own a pet
that is not native to the area in which they live. This is obviosly an
exteme position, but it does highlight the australian view of things.
Jack Stephens
John...@ao.com
Edmonds WA
steph
Layne David Dicker (ldi...@mail.idt.net) wrote:
: But I've seen the native peoples and many have no idea that what they're
: doing is wrong. They have no concept of the scope of the problem of the
: nature of the world around them.
Maybe the western construct of aesthetics and nature are western
constructs and about as far from a cultural universal as one can get?
Think about it ...
Steph, making the whirled safe from democracy