UPDATED: ODNR takes final action against former Castalia hatchery superintendent

David A. Insley, the former superintendent of the Ohio Division of Wildlife’s Castalia cold-water fish hatchery near Sandusky, was dismissed from the agency June 6 by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.
 

Natural Resources Department deputy chief of communications Matt Eiselstein said the agency found “just cause for discipline” and which led to Isley’s dismissal. 
 

“He has been separated from his duties at Castalia fish hatchery due to (alleged) dishonesty regarding use on a state credit card,” Eiselstein said.
 

Eiselstein said also that Insley had 10 days to deliver an appeal to the State Personnel Board of Review but that the Natural Resources Department “has not be notified of an appeal at this time.” 
 

In January, Insley was arrested following an investigation into alleged illegal activity involving the misuse of a state-issued credit card.
 

However, it's been reported that any criminal charges against Insley were dismissed by a grand jury.

A January 20 News-Herald outdoors blog story on the matter noted that “the action was taken based on an arrest by the Ohio Department of Public Safety’s Ohio Highway Patrol...”
 

“The Ohio State Highway Patrol in conjunction with the Inspector General’s Office and Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) executed an arrest warrant on David A. Insley, Superintendent of the Castalia State Fish Hatchery in Castalia, Ohio in Erie County. He was charged with theft in office and incarcerated at the Erie County Jail. The investigation began when Patrol was notified this past August by ODNR that they believed the suspect was misusing his state issued credit card,” the outdoors blog story quoted an Ohio Highway Patrol press release at the time.
 

Castalia is the state’s premier cold-water fish hatchery. It was purchased in 1997 for $1.3 million and recently saw the completion of $7 million in improvements.
 

Before the purchase then-governor George V. Voinovich intervened personally and became instrumental in seeing that the Wildlife Division buy the 90-acre site which had been used by a private operator as a trout hatchery.
 

At Castalia, the Wildlife Division raises more than 400,000 Little Manistee-strain of steelhead trout for stocking into five Northeast Ohio streams: the Vermilion, Rocky, Chagrin and Grand rivers as well as Conneaut Creek.
 

Insley had been the manager of the fish hatchery from April 1988 to January when he was arrested on the charge.

- Jeffrey L. Frischkorn

JFrischkorn@News-Herald.com

Twitter: @Fieldkorn

UPDATED/QUOTES: Fishing license sales climb along with hot weather

 This year’s hot weather has brought the state’s fishing license sales to a full boil.

And that brewing has led to the sweet flavor of increased income to the Ohio Division of Wildlife.

Meanwhile, sales of Ohio’s various hunting licenses and tags are simply showing that right now most of the state’s outdoors types are more interested in catching fish than worrying about any faraway deer hunting season.

With very nearly all categories more people bought fishing licenses to-date this year than for the same period in 2011.

Typically, the bulk of Ohio’s fishing licenses are sold by the July 4th holiday time frame.

In the all-important resident fishing license category, sales of these documents are up 14.46 percent, from the 491,114 sold to-date in 2011 to the 562,142 to-date this year.

And the 562,142 figure is closing in on 2011’s total resident fishing license sales of 595,187 documents.
Similarly up are the to-date sales of non-resident annual fishing licenses (a 10.83 percent gain), to-date one-day resident fishing licenses (a 14.83 percent gain), to-date one-day non-resident fishing licenses (a 9.26 percent gain), and several others.

In all, the Wildlife Division issues 13 types of fishing licenses, some of which are given free to members of such groups as disabled veterans and certain qualifying senior citizens.

The money makers are, of course, the ones that people have to buy. And to-date this year, buy they have.

All of which has helped fill the Wildlife Division’s coffers.

Wildlife Division statistics report the taking in of an additional 13.88 percent to-date fishing license sales revenue. To-date receipts show that the Wildlife Division has collected $12,862,264 from the sale of all types of fishing licenses.

For the same to-date period in 2011 the Wildlife Division collected $11,294,196. Meanwhile, for all of 2011 the agency garnered $14,002,264 from all fishing license sales.

“We’re obviously happy to see the rebound but the weather last year was terrible and that’s what hurt us,” said Scott Zody, the Wildlife Division’s chief. “What this year’s fishing license sales are showing is how everyone wants to be out fishing.”

In terms of hunting license sales and their respective revenues, the final dollar number shows some gain but no where near that for fishing licenses.

To-date sales of general adult hunting licenses so far is 56,675 documents and compared to the same 2011 period when 60,153 such documents were issued.

This has resulted in a to-date 5.78 percent decline in revenue from the 2011 figure of $1,142,907 to the same period this year of $1,076,825.

Off also are the to-date sales of other hunting license or tag categories. Among them are non-resident annual hunting licenses (off 5.54 percent), deer either-sex permits for resident adults (down 13.35 percent), antlerless-only permits for resident adults (down 20.09 percent), and Ohio wetlands (state duck) stamp for adult residents (off 10.38 percent).

Nothing fell further or faster, though, than the Wildlife Division’s efforts to go from a free “Wild Ohio” magazine subscription to a paid one. This switch pretty much crashed and burned.

The 2011 to-date issuance of the agency’s promotional/informational magazine was 65,299. However, the 2012 to-date $10 subscription sales of “Wild Ohio” magazine is only 1,886. Add another 4,244 $5 subscriptions and the total number is still a fraction of what was previously given away.

Even so, Zody is far from ready to pull the plug on one of the agency’s print media venues often read by people other than just hunters and anglers.

“We knew there would be a significant decline when we went from a free subscription to a paid subscription,” Zody said. “But, gosh, it’s too early to stop publication. We need to give this new program a chance. Overall we are pleased with our ‘Wild Ohio’ magazine.”

Up, on the other hand, are the to-date sales of permits for use on the Wildlife Division’s enormously popular shooting ranges. Here, the 2012 to-date sales have shot holes in their respective to-date 2011 numbers.

For the to-date sales of the all-year range permit the Wildlife Division has issued 8,289 permits for a gain of 42.32 percent. In fact, more all-year range permits have been sold so far this year than in all of 2011 (7,893)

Much the same can be said for the agency’s to-date one-day range permit sales. So far in 2012 the Wildlife Division has sold 12,675 one-day range permits verses the 7,969 identical permits issued during the same time frame in 2011 for a huge gain of 59.05 percent.

“These sales reflect the increase in interest of shooting and the increase sales in firearms and ammunition,” Zody says. “This is a great first step for many of these shooters and the next one by us will be to try and get these people from being shooters to also being hunters.”

The to-date fiscal bottom line for the Wildlife Division and all of its hunting-related licenses and tags is still written in black ink: $16,400,970 and compared to the $14,892,384 for the same period in 2011; a 10.13 percent increase.

With all this being said Zody noted that the Wildlife Division is combing through its previous license sales data. In this way the agency will have a much better handle on trends in license sales.

“We should have that in about one month,” Zody said.

- Jeffrey L. Frischkorn
JFrischkorn@News-Herald.com
Twitter: @Fieldkorn

Lake Metroparks makes changes to controlled archery hunt

With its eyes on improving the deer kill at its 492-acre River Road unit in Madison Township, Lake Metroparks is incorporating a trio of important changes with its by-lottery-only controlled archery deer hunt.

Lake County resident or business owners only can apply either online or in person for the hunt program starting Monday, July 9. The deadline for entries is Aug. 6 with the drawing scheduled for Aug, 10.

Last year selected hunters killed only 15 deer: Nine antlerless animals but six bucks. Both the total number of animals killed by the selected hunters as well as the buck-to-do ratio were not particularly impressive.

Even so, the program was hugely successful in terms of attracting potentially interested participants. The agency received 400 applications but issued only 90 permits.

In order to improve on seeing more animals shot as well as more of them being does the parks system will now require that a hunter must first kill an antlerless doe before arrowing an antlered buck. This is the first of three important tweaks to the hunt, which again will be partitioned into two-week hunt sessions.

These sessions will begin Oct. 10.

The second change, says Lake Metroparks officials, is to allow those hunters selected to bring their own ground blind, tree ladder or climbing stand so long as this equipment is commercially manufactured. No "home-made" equipment is permitted, parks officials say.

Also, these blinds and stands can be placed anywhere within a 50-yard radius of the pre-established, still-supplied and grain-maintained electronic game feeder and two-person "buddy" ladder stand.

A third new wrinkle is that Lake Metroparks will permit a lottery-selected hunter to name a partner who will have the opportunity to participate whenever the former is either unable and chooses not to hunt.

Several caveats exist, however. The partner must also pass the required archery proficiency test, attend one of the mandatory orientation session, and observe all of the rules and regulations required by any other selected participant.

To prevent abuse of this new rule the parks system's rangers will  monitor closely to see that the original hunter was not just severing as a "front man" or as a "ghost hunter" whereby the partner had others apply in order to increase the odds of being picked, agency officials say.

Left unchanged is that a non-hunting companion can continue to it with the selected archer

."We are making these important improvements to this program to create more opportunity and increase the deer harvest at River Road," said Paul Palagyi, Lake Metroparks' interim executive director.

Asked why Lake Metroparks is holding steady with its archery-only policy instead of expanding it to include the use of shotguns and muzzle-loading implements during the week-long firearms deer-hunting and two-day bonus deer gun season, the agency says bows ans crossbows remain the safest tools.

"Lake Metroparks also wants to stay with these improvements for this up-coming archery deer-hunting season before possibly expanding it any of other other holdings,"also said Tom Adair, Lake Metroparks' natural resources' manager and the program's administrator.

For further information - including the hunt program's extensive and detailed list of requirements, the proficiency test and where it can only be taken, and all other guidelines - visit Lake Metroparks' web site beginning Monday, July 9, at www.lakemetroparks.com.

Information only - no applications being accepted - can be obtained by calling Lake Metroparks' registration office at 440-358-7275.

- Jeffrey L. Frischkorn
JFrischkorn@News-Herald.com
Twitter: @Fieldkorn

Brave new world with drone aircraft in hunters' and anglers' future

With the all-but-certain use of pilotless drone aircraft for domestic applications in the nation’s future, hunters, anglers and other outdoor types will also likely fall under these remotely controlled eyes in the sky.

Natural resources applications for such aircraft are virtually limitless. They run from watching for intrusion by Ontario commercial fishermen into Ohio’s share of Lake Erie to catching jack-lighting deer poachers to locating lost hikers.

Yet at the same time a whole host of nagging questions remain. The chief of these being potentially misdirected intrusion into the private lives of the nation’s citizens.

Not surprisingly then all of this scares the be jabbers out of those folks who decry blanket government surveillance on its own citizens.

Even so, nothing less than the U.S. Constitution has stepped into the fray. The nations’ courts have repeatedly deemed the use of domestic spy drone aircraft does not violate a person’s right against unreasonable search.

What’s more, a recent CNN-News survey found that fully 67 percent of Americans believe that it is okay to employ such aircraft - officially called “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles” or “UAVs” - in order to track down domestic criminals and not just terrorists.

And the pilotless drone aircraft industry goes so far as to say that as its technology improves the cost for these forms of spy gear will become more reasonable.

Their size will shrink as well. Some experts are even suggesting that at some point in the not-too-distant future an agency could send up “swarms” of miniaturized robotic drone aircraft that could keep tabs on what is happening several hundred feet below.

All ready some drone models are so small that they can be remotely piloted by such personal electronic devices as an iPhone.

Today, the U.S. government has some 7,000 drones serving without pay, without health care benefits and without union contracts, operating overseas against terrorists.

Also, that 7,000 figure is way, way up from the 50 drones in use only 10 years ago, demonstrating that such aircraft are here to stay.

How all this will play out is expected to become a watershed issue in the not-so-distant future, notes U.S. Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, R-Bainbridge Township.

“It appears that most drones will not be permitted until rules are written and the FAA deems them safe in U.S. airspace, and that likely won’t happen until the end of September, 2015,” LaTourette said.

For now, the FAA can and does grant special exemptions with such limitations as keeping the aircraft hovering only a few hundred feet above the earth and within eyeshot of the operator. This way the drones are less likely of being smashed like a bug against a jetliner, bringing both aircraft to the ground.

Importantly though, says the drone aircraft industry, the future holds exciting promise. Not to mention, excellent profits since the current estimated value of the drone aircraft market is pegged at nearly $6 billion.

It is believed that this figure will double within the next decade, too.

“Our (drone aircraft) missions are currently sponsored and run by government agencies, and these customers are not pursuing fish/wildlife missions,” said Kimberly A. Kasitz, Public Relations & Communications Manager of Poway, Calif.-based General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, one of the nation’s leading engineers of drone aircraft.

That being said, also notes Kasitz, once the FAA opens up the National Airspace Systems “this may change.”

“In the meantime, I suspect that local law enforcement will have purview over such missions, and the smaller UAS seem to be suited better for this environment,” Kasitz said. “Our multi-mission Predator B UAS, which is used by the Border Patrol, is the size of a Lear Jet and has much more capability than is needed for these types of missions. That said, some of our prospective customers have expressed interest in fisheries enforcement/poaching surveillance.”

And the drone industry’s trade organization, the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, is itself promoting some of the future benefits of drone aircraft.

Among the non-law enforcement fish and wildlife possibilities: arctic research where distances are extreme and navigation difficult, flood monitoring, wildfire observation and control, erosion monitoring, and forestry work.

“While many headlines have been devoted to ‘killer drones’ and battlefield robots, these same platforms have many other uses. They can extend the reach of first responders, scientists and aid agencies while keeping people out of harm’s way,” the drone-industry association says.

The Association says also that some of this work has all ready begun. One specialized drone model even exists and whose task it is to monitor tuna activity on the high seas.

Drones are likewise being used by uber-environmentalists to follow Japanese whaling vessels.

Meanwhile, Texas has employed drone aircraft to examine its drought-stricken streams for any pools that are filled with enough water whereby they may contain the state’s endangered Guadalupe bass.

In Idaho a far-thinking fish biologist with that state’s Idaho Power Company utility has engaged a small drone aircraft to count the number of salmon and steelhead beds - called “redds” - on streams typically difficult to access on foot.

This use also came into play following a 2010 crash of a helicopter, killing the pilot and two Idaho Fish and Game fisheries biologists.

Reports said the utility spent $16,000 for its small, German-made drone aircraft. The price was worth it, says the utility’s biologist, Phil Groves, as it eliminates the fear of another helicopter tragedy.

But the response from state and federal fish and game agencies is almost universally under whelming either for or against the use of drone aircraft. With one or two exceptions.

Idaho’s Fish and Game agency does not intend anytime soon to play off Groves’ idea.

“Our fisheries bureau has explored some alternatives and found application for us currently limited by current FAA rules and cost,” said agency spokesman Niels S. Nokkentved.

Certainly the use of pilotless drone aircraft for fish and wildlife applications is cutting-edge technology. So much so that even discussing the subject remains something of an anomaly with wildlife officials.

“My Association has not intersected with this issue in any formal way. I know anecdotally that some state agencies and Canadian provinces have an interest in drone technology for wildlife population surveys, but we have not surveyed our state members or provided any informational session on the topic,” said Ron Regan, executive director for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Scott Zody, chief of the ODNR’s Division of Wildlife, says his agency hasn’t even looked into the merits or demerits of employing this form of high-tech surveillance gear.

“We have not given this idea any consideration at this point – there are many questions that would need to be answered such as legalities, policy implications for the State of Ohio that would need to involve not just the ODNR but other state law enforcement agencies and high level discussion, as well as the practical issues of cost, operation, maintenance, effectiveness and efficiency,” Zody said.

Not everyone is satisfied that the use of drones for even such things as fish and wildlife law enforcement activities is acceptable.

Count the San Francisco-based Digital Rights Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation as one such personal-protection rights group.

“Just as drones shouldn’t be able to warrantlessly spy every time an ordinary American walks out of his or her suburban home 24 hours a day, seven days a week, law enforcement should not be able to use drones in fishing and wildlife situations for surveillance when there’s no evidence of wrongdoing,” said organization spokesman, Trevor Timm.

Though the Frontier Foundation is not opposed to using drones for such outdoors-related activities as in search and rescue operations or mapping natural disaster areas, clearly their employment as wildlife-fisheries law enforcement tools is going too far, Timm says.

“Not only does drone use put the privacy of law-abiding hunters and fishermen at stake, but drones can also record other people who were not even targets of an investigation; that type of footage should not be allowed to be used in any court, either,” Timm said.


- Jeffrey L. Frischkorn
JFrischkorn@News-Herald.com
Twitter: @Fieldkorn

Rep. LaTourette "no" and "yes" votes on Holder contempt charges confuses gun owners

U.S. Rep. Steven C. LaTourette, R-Bainbridge Township, on Thursday voted "no" before voting "yes" to bring contempt charges against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Thing is, says LaTourette, on Thursday the U.S. House of Representatives conducted two votes - not one - related to Holder, the controversial Obama Administration’s top cop.

And that distinction makes a big difference when it comes his accountability regarding Holder’s refusal to cooperate with Congress regarding the botched Fast and Furious project, the nine-term congressman says.

Still, at possible risk is the generally reliable gun-owner backing for LaTourette who - at least up until now - possessed a lifetime “A” rating from the National Rifle Association.

Holder has long been a lightening rod, his Congressional detractors charging that the Attorney General has failed to deliver all of the electronic and other document goodies the House says it needs to determine who knew what and when as it involves the so-called “Fast and Furious” debacle.

This project was the Obama Administration’s effort to allow perhaps thousands of firearms to “walk” into Mexico.

The government had also instructed U.S. firearms dealers to illegally sell these weapons to known criminals whereupon the firearms would ultimately fall into the hands of Mexico’s dreaded drug cartels.

All of which came to a head after U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was killed in December 2010 in a shoot-out with Mexican drug cartel members. Two guns linked to Fast and Furious were found at the scene.

In turn, the entire Fast and Furious episode set off an international fire storm.

Likewise, the operation ignited charges from pro-Second Amendment advocates that the Obama Administration was attempting to use the issue to further its gun-control agenda, offering as evidence documents where government officials said as much.

But on June 20, Obama invoked Executive Privilege and thus refused to release any more documents. That action helped set the stage for the Holder-Congressional showdown on Thursday.

And LaTourette was in the thick of things. He was one of only two Republican House members to vote “no” on the assembly’s criminal contempt petition. The only other GOP House member to join LaTourette was Rep. Scott Rigell of Virginia.

By contrast, 17 Democrats voted with Republicans in the 255-to-67 vote against Holder. Meanwhile, 100 Democratic representatives staged a walk-out during the vote.

“There is understandably some concern over the series of votes on whether Attorney General Eric Holder should be held in contempt for his failure to provide ALL documents relating to Fast and Furious,” LaTourette told The News-Herald in an expansion of his House votes on Thursday.

“I say series of votes because some folks posted comments after the first vote, perhaps unaware that there were two votes.”

The first vote was to hold the Attorney General in criminal contempt.

However, the second vote was whether to find Holder in contempt of Congress, and also to authorize the House to seek a judicial order of contempt unless the Attorney General handed over the requested documents, LaTourette says.

“I voted ‘no’ on the first and ‘yes’ on the second. To be clear, I absolutely believe that Attorney General Holder has no justification for withholding properly subpoenaed documents,” LaTourette said. “How to get him to comply is another matter.”

By voting to ask a court to order the documents released, “Congress can achieve its goal of getting to the bottom of Fast and Furious without turning Holder into a martyr for the Left,” LaTourette said.

“There will be plenty of time to prosecute, remove from office or force the (Attorney General) to resign if the facts indicate it is appropriate. My vote of ‘yes’ on the second resolution will ensure that occurs,” he said.

LaTourette also says that by striking a trail along the criminal contempt route it “will simply, in my opinion, allow the Left to repeat their mantra that ‘there go those wacky Republicans again.’”

“Washington has enough political theater and I would rather have a judge compel the Attorney General to hand over the documents and take whatever action those documents indicate is appropriate,” LaTourette said.

Even so, not all firearms owners are comfortable, let alone, happy, with LaTourette’s seeimgly yin and yang Holder-associated votes.

Buckeye Firearms Association chairman Jim Irvine says he “respectively disagrees with the Congressman.”

“Holder is this country’s supreme law enforcement officer, and a criminal,” Irvine said. “We can’t wait; not with this Attorney General.”

Irvine says that Holder is in this particular legal pickle because of his relationship to “the cover-up” that has both riveted and also has been a distraction inside Washington’s Beltway and outside.

“This is an incredibly serious issue and it must be looked at that way,” Irvine said.

As to any possible fall-out from his pro-Second Amendment constituents, LaTourette may very well have to cross that bridge if not sooner than certainly later when he comes up for reelection on Nov. 6, Irvine says.

“Yes, I think the Congressman’s vote will have an impact but it’s too early to tell by how much,” Irvine said.

Bud Conley, a Leroy Township pro-Second Amendment advocate, says that LaTourette fell out of the Republican mainstream with his vote.

Still, says Conley, perhaps LaTourette was “talking like the former county prosecutor he was.”
“
Maybe he’s looking at all of the facts, but the bottom line is that Holder is stone-walling and playing games with Congress,” Conley said.

“But I’d still like to see a better, more complete explanation from him; does the evidence suggest criminal contempt or is LaTourette more concerned about making Holder a martyr?”

- Jeffrey L. Frischkorn
JFrischkorn@News-Herald.com
Twitter: @Fieldkorn

Allan Wright to face determined Justice Department at July 17 sentencing

When former Ohio Division of Wildlife officer Allan Wright is sentenced July 17 in federal court he will face a tough, no-nonsense foe in the form of the U.S. Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.

Wright, 45, and of Russellville, pleaded guilty June 18 in federal court in Cincinnati to violating the Lacey Act “by trafficking in and making false records for illegally harvested white-tailed deer,” the U.S. Justice Department says.

The Justice Department says that Wright pleaded guilty to a total of four Lacey Act crimes based on his conduct between 2006 and 2010.

Upon sentencing, Wright faces up to one year in federal prison, a fine of up to $1,000 per count, or both.

And the Justice Department will be asking that Federal Court Judge Michael R. Barrett not to spare the rod.

Federal prosecutors are requesting that Judge Barrett sentence Wright to three months in jail, a year of supervised release, and a $1,000 fine. Along with various other related conditions.

Meanwhile, Wright's attorney, Louis Sirkin, is requesting sentencing tolerance for Wright. The defense's request is for probation and a small fine, wire reports say.

And while U.S. Justice Department trial lawyer James B. Nelson of the agency’s Environmental Crimes Section did the actual yeoman’s work on Wright’s case it his boss that has set the get-tough, pro-environmental law tone for the Environment and Natural Resource Division.

That unit is headed by Columbia-born, New York-raised , Ignacia S. Moreno.

Moreno was appointed to her position by President Barrack Obama on June 8, 2009. She was confirmed by a bipartisan, unanimous 93-0 U.S. Senate vote on Nov. 5, 2009.

When installing Moreno, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on March 5, 2010 that his new environmental law enforcement spear point  “... has the experience and broad perspective necessary to lead this work. She shares this Administration ’s strong commitment to environmental justice.

“And she was instrumental in developing and implementing the Department’s strategy to fulfill President Clinton’s Executive Order on Environmental Justice. In doing so, I assure you she did more than sit behind a desk drafting policy statements.”

Nor has she in the case of Allan Wright, either.

In an electronic filing before the federal court in Cincinnati, Moreno entered a sentencing statement that has strong and harsh words regarding Wright’s behavior as a state wildlife officer.

Moreno’s official opening Argument/Offense comment reads:

“This case involves a pattern of criminal conduct undertaken by Defendant Allan Wright while he was employed as a uniformed peace officer. The evidence shows that, while he was on duty and acting as a Wildlife Officer for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife (“ODNR, DOW”), Defendant repeatedly violated the same wildlife laws that he was charged with enforcing.

“In so doing, Defendant not only violated the law but also the public trust that was bestowed upon him by the people of the State of Ohio.

“Though the Sentencing Guidelines Offense Level in this case is comparatively low, the Government respectfully submits that a weighty sentence is appropriate in this case.”

Also in her lengthy sentencing petition to Judge Barrett, Moreno requests that:

“Based on the facts adduced in the Government’s Trial Brief and the PSR, and the arguments set forth herein, the Government respectfully recommends that the Court impose the following sentence:

“1. Three months’ imprisonment.

“2. One year of supervised release, with the following mandatory conditions, in addition to the Court’s standard conditions.

“a. Defendant shall not be employed by any law enforcement agency, in any capacity.

“b. Defendant shall not possess a firearm.

“c. Defendant shall not hunt, or accompany anyone hunting, anywhere in the world.

“d. Defendant shall pay a $1,000 fine. The Government requests that Defendant’s fine be directed to Ohio’s Turn In a Poacher (‘TIP’) program which provides rewards to persons who report wildlife crimes to law enforcement.”

Moreno says in her petition as well that while Wright admitted responsibility “...such acceptance was a long time coming” and that Wright “...and persons acting on Defendant’s behalf, spent a significant amount of time and effort trying to thwart the original investigation in 2007. Indeed, after learning of the instant investigation in 2011, Defendant made an additional effort to derail the investigation into his crimes.”

In concluding her petition before Judge Barrett, Moreno says: “Defendant swore an oath to enforce the wildlife laws of the State of Ohio, and was charged with investigating allegations of wildlife crime and referring violators for prosecution.

“Defendant patrolled Brown County, Ohio, for years allegedly doing just that. And yet, while doing so, he was himself committing wildlife crime. Such a blatant disregard of the public trust cannot be explained away as a ‘lapse in judgment,’ and it cannot be excused simply because the uncovering of Defendant’s crimes caused him stress and anxiety.

"If law enforcement officers cannot be entrusted to obey the law, then ordinary citizens cannot possibly be expected to obey the law. Moreover, if we are unwilling to hold law enforcement officers strictly liable for their crimes, then we forfeit the moral authority to punish ordinary citizens. Such a result could not possibly qualify as Justice.”

None of which should comes as a surprise, given Moreno’s tenacity for environmental justice.

Since hitting the ground as head of the Justice Department’s environmental and natural resources law unit, Moreno has taken her job seriously. That task includes overseeing a wide range of federal statutes regarding the arena of specialized law.

She likewise has reached into the pro-environmental community, “academia, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the private sector” to pluck persons for her “...seasoned and highly-regarded management team.”

In presenting her marching orders Jan. 13, 2011 to the Justice Department’s environment and natural resources troops, Moreno struck a hard-line stances against polluters, the Deepwater Horizon affair, hazardous waste cleanup, as well as “criminal enforcement.”

“Lacey Act enforcement is another priority area,” Moreno said in other 2011 prepared remarks regarding her division’s criminal law enforcement duties.

“The Lacey Act makes it unlawful to send or receive in interstate or foreign commerce fish, wildlife, or plants taken in violation of federal, state, or foreign law. The Division handles an active docket of Lacey Act cases in which we prosecute individuals and corporations who trade in illegally taken fish, wildlife, and plants.”

That it has, too, as Moreno stated in Earth Day 2011 remarks that her unit successfully prosecuted 50 criminal cases against 79 defendants, resulting in $104 million in fines.

“A core mission of the division is the strong enforcement of civil and criminal environmental laws to protect our nation’s air, water and natural resources,” Moreno said.

Come July 17 Judge Barrett will rule whether to grant Wright’s plea for leniency or Moreno’s call for environmental law justice.


- Jeffrey L. Frischkorn
JFrischkorn@News-Herald.com
Twitter: @Fieldkorn

First Mentor Library/Gander Mountain seminar a big hit

Mentor Public Library and Gander Mountain's Mentor have joined forces  to bring a new summer seminar series for hunting and fishing enthusiasts.

The first of these free seminars was held  June 21 and considered a "hit" by library officials.

This session drew a crowd of 17 people who soaked up instruction regarding Lake Erie-Walleye fishing program.   

Gander Mountain Mentor Store Operations Manager Matt Buck and Mitch Leppelmeier - the store’s fishing zone supervisor - put their years of experience in tournament and pleasure walleye fishing to work. 

They  presented several approaches to walleye fishing, trolling techniques and lure selection to the participants. An assortment of equipment for hands-on demonstrations and a question-and-answer session was provided as well, said Barbara Vendeville, Mentor Public Library Community Outreach Coordinator.

The next "Gander Mountain at the Library" seminar will feature Fly/Bow Fishing. It is scheduled for 6:30 p.m.,  July 19 at 6:30 p.m.,  in the Main Library James R. Garfield Room. The library is located at 8215 Mentor Ave., Mentor.

Gander Mountain staff will present a seminar on fly fishing and bow fishing.  Participants will learn how to fly fish, tie a lure, archery how-tos and equipment suggestions.

Another up-coming seminar is Urban Der Hunting, set for Aug. 16. It will feature a presentation on archery setups and tips on urban deer hunting.

The last seminar in the series if Waterfowl Hunting, set for Sept. 20. 

Registration for all of the remaining free seminars is required.  Registration begins July 5. for the Fly/Bow Fishing session, Aug. 2 for the Urban Deer session, and Sept. 6 for the Waterfowl Hunting session.

For more information on the Gander Mountain seminar series call the Mentor Public Library at 440-255-8811, ext. 215 or visit the Mentor Public Library website at www.mentorpl.org.

- Jeffrey L. Frischkorn

JFrischkorn@News-Herald.com

Twitter: @Fieldkorn