|
Post by mygala on Nov 29, 2011 13:35:11 GMT -8
Agreed. I appreciate the common sense. I see you are listed as from the midwest. What state? I was born a Dorothean (Kansan). PS - Don't forget May 25th, Universal towel carrying day. I'm from Illinois originally, but I'm married to a Kentuckian and I get to live with Hoosiers now. Midwest all the way!
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Nov 28, 2011 23:20:43 GMT -8
It should not be up to the inspector but there are dozens of horror stories where an inspector uses his or her own discretion. I uderstand that they are over burdened but there are "John Wayne" types in most systems. For example - you get asked if you have any animals or their parts as you enter te country. You answer no but the leather belt you bought outside of the USA is an animal part. Is that inspector going to hassle you? Most likely not. But they did use their discretion. The law and the application of the law when combined require discretion. I agree that "discretion" can be a two-edged sword. When wielded correctly, everyone is a winner. Sometimes it's otherwise. I'd like to think that more good is done than not, but I'm sure some of it is "in the eye of the beholder". And just as an FYI, in the case you stated above, unless the belt leather was a CITES I, or listed under the ESA, you probably wouldn't need to declare it. There is no need to declare domestic leathers (cow, pig, goat, water buffalo, etc) and for CITES II items, there is a personal baggage exemption under many circumstances. ( 50 CFR 23.15) This is an example of where its better to know the laws, youself. While that's not always possible, or even feasible; whenever you know the law, you don't have to leave as much up to discretion.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Nov 28, 2011 20:24:35 GMT -8
Clark, yes, it's a cockatoo (C. moluccensis).
Good eye Claude!
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Nov 21, 2011 1:25:05 GMT -8
It appears that the definition will be in the eyes of the inspector. I suspect that it would ultimately not be allowed as it is easier to say no than yes. If official permission is granted, what about military bases or consulates? They are technically US land and fall under US law. This is not something left up to the discretion of the Wildlife Inspector. It's explicitly stated in the CFR's, there is no "wiggle room" on this. However, under some circumstances CBP will consider shipments coming from US protectorates to be imports. This can add an element of confusion to some situations. But from USFWS' point of view, ... if you are bringing legal wildlife in from Puerto Rico, Guam, USVI, etc, ...no Form 3-177 Declaration is required.
|
|
|
Post by mygala on Nov 18, 2011 0:16:27 GMT -8
Hmmm... if anyone can find anywhere this is written I would really appreciate having a copy for my records so I can plan a trip to guam and have it printed on my field t-shirts. 50 CFR 10.12 Definitions" State means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and Guam." " United States means the several States of the United States of America, District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Navassa Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Atoll, and any other territory or possession under the jurisdiction of the United States."
|
|