et tu, Bill Lamar?--UPDATE IN THREAD

Press clippings from around the world.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

et tu, Bill Lamar?--UPDATE IN THREAD

Post by chris_mcmartin »

User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: et tu, Bill Lamar?

Post by chris_mcmartin »

More information, with a "shout-out" of sorts to Herp Nation:

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairp ... ill_la.php
User avatar
AndyO'Connor
Posts: 1019
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:14 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: et tu, Bill Lamar?

Post by AndyO'Connor »

I really have a strong urge to hope for a good reason from him and some kind of reasonable doubt, like he was saving some endangered or threatened species rarely seen by science that were going to be eaten. I know he admitted guilt of the smuggling crime, but given his prior reputation and things he has done for herpetology, AND it was 7 snakes and not 70 snakes, I don't think this was a typical "smuggle for profit" type deal. I dunno, it just doesn't feel the same to me as one where people have 40 tortoise hatchlings taped to their legs and 40 animals in their suitcase, etc., or people previously known to be in the pet for profit smuggle business...
User avatar
azatrox
Posts: 793
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 6:51 am
Location: Arizona

Re: et tu, Bill Lamar?

Post by azatrox »

To my mind, this is a fairly black and white issue….Smuggling is smuggling….Bill was most likely aware of the necessary steps in order to get those animals into the US legally, yet chose for whatever reason to avoid those steps…If anything, his status in the reptile community means he should be held to a higher standard with regard to issues like this. He doesn’t get a “pass” because he’s accomplished much in his career….

I refuse to believe this was a “mistake” too….This was a conscious choice….There was forethought…This isn’t some noob that was ignorant of the laws…It really doesn’t matter whether these animals were smuggled for scientific use or economic profit either….The fact is, they were smuggled and the smuggler was aware he was smuggling while he was smuggling. Period, point blank.
If we’re really going to be a self-policing community, we can’t arbitrarily decide who to go soft on and who to hammer with regard to the law….If we’re anti-smuggling, it means we’re anti-smuggling, regardless of who does it or why….The law is the law, and credibility within the community is damaged if we pick and choose who gets preferential treatment regarding it and who gets nailed to the wall.

Hopefully Bill does his time or whatever punishment winds up resulting, learns from it and makes better choices in the future.

-Kris
User avatar
AndyO'Connor
Posts: 1019
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:14 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: et tu, Bill Lamar?

Post by AndyO'Connor »

I didn't mean for him to get a pass in my book Kris, but more so I understand his motives I guess? Smuggling IS smuggling, and he already admitted that he knew what he was doing was illegal and plead guilty, I just don't understand WHY someone with as much noteriety and knowledge would risk it? I think the why is a little more important to me because I do think that smuggling for profit vs. smuggling for some other reason would make the punishment more severe. Back in the day, guys were making so much money from animal smuggling that the fines and a little jail time didn't outweigh the money rolling in. I don't think Bill was doing this often and making a ton on the black market, so I would like to know WHY he took such a stupid risk. Not to make the punishment more or less severe, but just out of personal curiousity of what would drive someone to try it.
User avatar
azatrox
Posts: 793
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 6:51 am
Location: Arizona

Re: et tu, Bill Lamar?

Post by azatrox »

Hey Andy...

Wasn't referring specifically to you per se....It was more a commentary on how we (as a community) are more likely to let certain people slide with reference to stuff like this than others....

I don't understand why someone with Bill's contacts and connections in South America would risk his reputation and engage in smuggling, but that's apparently what's happened, so it is what it is.

While I CERTAINLY don't condone smuggling for profit (and I know you don't either), I don't condone smuggling for ANY reason (again, I know we're of the same mind here).

Back in the day, zoos, museums and academic institutions would pay collectors for their smuggled animals....As detestable as that is, if we're being honest then we have to admit that our knowledge of these animals was greatly assisted by this illegal activity....Not condoning it in any way, shape or form....Just trying to view the past through an accurate prism.

Anecdotally, I too doubt that he was smuggling for commercial purposes....7 animals just doesn't seem like a large enough haul for that type of operation, even for rare kingsnakes.

As far as his reasoning for doing it, I imagine he's the only one that can comment on that....but we may have to wait awhile.

-Kris
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: et tu, Bill Lamar?

Post by gbin »

I'm enjoying a rare bit of computerized recreation today in the midst of a horribly long and busy home repair/remodel and crosscountry move (my wife and pets are already half a continent away; I stayed behind to work on the house for a few more weeks before it's put up for sale) - call it the eye of the storm - but I can't say that I enjoyed reading about this at all. :(

My heart goes out to Bill's family, friends and colleagues, and yes to at least some extent also to Bill himself, but I'm glad he got caught. If he's been doing this kind of thing for a long time then I wish he'd been caught a long time ago. In the past he's served as a role model for many in our community, and now he'll serve as another, far less pleasant kind of role model for many more in the future. So be it. The worst part is actually that he made our entire community look bad in the process. Are herpers in fact all poachers and other kinds of scofflaws? From the worst of us to the best of us? Of course not, but so he's made it seem. So today I'm much angrier than sympathetic toward Bill.

Given Bill's knowledge and experience, my guess is that he simply didn't want to put in the work required to do things the right way. I've certainly seen plenty of that before. Once many years ago when I was a graduate student I attended a social gathering with other such, and listened to one after another of my fellow students telling tales, joking and laughing among themselves about the ways in which they'd smuggled various biological samples for their studies into the U.S. in order to avoid all the paperwork that would otherwise have been required. It was apparently the norm among them. I was (and remain to this day) utterly appalled. After listening long enough to get a sense of how pervasive the problem was, I extensively and exhaustively ripped them all a new one, reminding them that science is a profession heavily dependent upon personal ethics and pointing out to them that a big part of their education was meant to enable them to learn how to do things the right way. If there was ever a reason to be a wet blanket at a party then I'd say this definitely qualified, and I did indeed silence the room. A few of them avoided me afterward, true enough, but I'm happy to say that more of them made a point of speaking with me afterward to tell me how ashamed they were for their past actions and for joking about same at that party, and how they'd strive to conduct themselves properly in the future. That's a trade-off I'd make any day.

The simple truth is that no one, and I mean no one, is entitled to try to evade the law. Not for personal profit. Not for expedience or laziness. Not even out of some foolish belief that wildlife conservation might somehow be furthered thereby. It doesn't matter in the slightest what Bill's motivation was for acting the way he did. If someone doesn't like a law then s/he should take the time and make the effort to fight it, but s/he should never try to sneak around it.

And it would be far better for our community if many more of us not only obeyed the law but also vigorously spoke out against not doing so. It behooves us to make it abundantly clear to everyone around us that 1) we obey the law, 2) we expect others to obey the law, and 3) we will aid law enforcement in catching those who choose not to obey the law. We're all role models, too, each in our own way. We need to be sure we act like it.

Gerry
User avatar
BDSkinner
Posts: 231
Joined: February 15th, 2011, 8:03 am
Location: Boone, NC

Re: et tu, Bill Lamar?

Post by BDSkinner »

Wow, this does seem unreasonable. Reminds me of wanting to bring back two-lineds from a state park before my mom stopped me....

Interesting story there too, Gerry. It is a problem that I could see easily happening, and we do have to realize. No matter what you think could rationalize the action. I just don't know why people see its easier to sneak things out rather than file and fill out some paperwork...


-Brad
User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: et tu, Bill Lamar?--UPDATE IN THREAD

Post by chris_mcmartin »

October 28, 2013, Associated Press, TYLER, Texas – A Texas man who admitted taking snakes onto planes won't have to serve time in a prison.

A federal judge Monday sentenced William Wylly Lamar in Tyler to three years of probation. The 63-year-old ecotourism guide pleaded guilty in June to importing wildlife taken in violation of foreign law.
Lamar admitted smuggling snakes on several planes from Peru to the United States. Prosecutors say he bought the seven live snakes in August 2012 in a market in Lima, Peru, and smuggled them in his jacket on flights from Lima to Miami, then to Dallas.
Game wardens seized the snakes from Lamar's home in Tyler. Peruvian law prohibits the exportation of wild live animals coming from the forest or jungle unless the exporter has the proper paperwork.

Seems a little odd to get just probation--no mention of a fine.
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: et tu, Bill Lamar?--UPDATE IN THREAD

Post by gbin »

Maybe the lenient sentence was due to his age, or some health condition that he has? Or maybe the judge simply doesn't take wildlife infractions very seriously...

Gerry
User avatar
Antonsrkn
Posts: 971
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 2:38 pm
Contact:

Re: et tu, Bill Lamar?--UPDATE IN THREAD

Post by Antonsrkn »

Interesting story there too, Gerry. It is a problem that I could see easily happening, and we do have to realize. No matter what you think could rationalize the action. I just don't know why people see its easier to sneak things out rather than file and fill out some paperwork...
If it was as easy as filling out some paperwork then it wouldn't be a problem, but its not always that easy. Imagine a scenario where you applied for permits months ahead of time, checked with the related agencies and were reassured that everything was under control, but your field season is fast approaching, you check and again are reassured that your permits are being processed, your field season starts you gather your samples and its time to take them back home for processing, but your permits still haven't come through.. You talk to the agencies that are responsible for approving your permits and they can't or won't help you, meanwhile your samples might be degrading, its time to go back home and you have commitments there as well. Its costing you money and valuable time to stay out there longer. Or in another case, you have been doing field work for several seasons and then with no explanation your permits are revoked, and the data you already have just isn't enough yet? What do you do? Abandon your research? And in yet another case I have heard: permits for unpopular research being stonewalled. I have heard examples of all of these in international fieldwork and have seen a few examples firsthand, and I can definitely understand how tempting it would be to sneak things out or continue doing research without certain relevant permits. You have to understand that its usually not as simple as just filling out some extra paperwork and sometimes taking certain shortcuts must seem very tempting.

However this is one of those times that I agree with Gerry, when it comes to science absolute honesty is a must as far as I'm concerned. There should be no bending of the rules or shortcuts.
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: et tu, Bill Lamar?--UPDATE IN THREAD

Post by gbin »

Don't get me wrong, acquiring the necessary permits for collecting and transporting biologicals (living or otherwise) can be a real pain. Sometimes the process breaks down in ways that are downright detrimental to scientific and conservation efforts, too.

One all-too personal example I'm sure I've mentioned on this message board before: I found it only modestly difficult to obtain permits for collecting various plants and animals (and parts thereof) in Tikal National Park, Guatemala when I was working there, but obtaining permits to transport everything to the U.S. when the work was finished was much more difficult - even though I'd made it clear from the outset that this was the plan. In the end they refused to give me a permit to bring back any of the live herps I'd collected and painstakingly maintained for lengthy periods, and far worse, they didn't do so until I'd already packed up those animals (and every other biological sample going back to the U.S.) and taken them with me to Guatemala City, far away from and a very different environment than Tikal. At that point I couldn't return to Tikal to release the animals and of course I couldn't just release them around Guatemala City, and I didn't have the heart to pickle them all just because of a quirky permitting office, so I ended up donating them to a zoo there in Guatemala City. Even with friends at the zoo providing the best care they knew how to give, I imagine a good half of those specimens were lost within a year. After all the years since, thinking of this foolish loss still saddens me greatly.

But I never - I repeat, never - entertained the idea of trying to smuggle the animals back into the U.S., and had I tried and failed to do so I would have felt I deserved whatever happened to me as a result. Whether or not I agree with a particular wildlife law, I'm obliged to obey it. It's absolutely fine to fight against laws one thinks are stupid, but not to try to sneak past them.

Gerry
Post Reply