Laws for Thee, Not for Me

Watching Bug Out, I was reminded of a paradox that's always troubled me in the animal field.  It seems that so often it is the people who ostensibly know the most about animals and who claim to care the most about them that are the most inclined to break laws that are in place to protect those same animals.  I mean, yes, there are plenty of random yahoos who engage in wildlife crimes out of pure ignorance, but I've read so many cases of people who would describe themselves as scientists or conservationists or educators who end up in trouble for ignoring wildlife laws - trafficking, smuggling, possession.  

These are the people who should, theoretically,  know better - both as in, knowing what the laws are (not being able to plead ignorance) and in knowing why those laws are there.

An impression that I've picked up from some people in the field - including some who have crossed the line and gotten themselves in trouble - is that the laws are there for other people.  That as wildlife experts, real or imagined, they are exempt from some of the petty concerns and red tape that tie up "lesser folks" and are entitled to do what they want, because they themselves know more and have better intentions than any fool bureaucrat in an office who's never done half of the things that they've done.

It also might be driven by some sense of the Tragedy of the Commons.  If you are knowledgeable about wildlife, then you will yourself be aware of how dire the situation is for many species in the wild, and how little seems to be done to protect those species.   Habitats are being destroyed, invasive species and diseases are spreading, there's lot of poaching and unsustainable practices... why follow the rules if no one else is?   If you were in an art museum and the building was one fire, with priceless works of art being burned up left and right, would it harm anything if you snatched a painting off the walls for yourself on the way out the door?  In fact, it would be easy to convince yourself that you were doing a noble thing in saving it.  And once outside - well, you'd be in a better position to appreciate it than anyone else, so why not keep it?  Replace that painting with a Spix's macaw, or an Ethiopian mountain viper, or a gooty sapphire tarantula, and you start to understand the thought process. 

The truth is, there are fewer things in the world easier to do than to justify doing something that you want.

I will admit, there are plenty of wildlife regulations which, from where I stand, often strike me as kind of stupid.  Sometimes I'll slog through a permit process, or wait for someone else to get a permit approved, so we can do something with an animal, and I'll think, this is pointless.  There is no risk, no controversial aspect or moral objection to what I'm trying to do.  No species or populations in the wild are impacted.  And no one will really know if I did it or not, if I was inclined to move under the radar.  So why do I have to spend hours that could be spent on animal care or conservation filling out my body weight in paperwork (in the past - now a lot of it is online, of course)?

The problem is, once you decide that some laws are worth following and others are not is when you begin to get yourself in trouble.  CITES, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Lacey Act - these are all in place to help protect endangered plants and animals in the wild.  And the laws are only as good as the people that follow them... regardless of your experience or intentions.