US man jailed for cloning giant sheep for trophy hunting (opens in new tab)

> Arthur “Jack” Schubarth, 81, illegally imported body parts of Marco Polo argali sheep

> The sheep, native to the mountains of the Pamir region of Central Asia, are protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites).

> They are prohibited in Montana to protect native sheep from disease - as well as to prevent the creation of hybrids.

It sounds like he broke two laws - one about importation of animal parts, and one for having a living animal that's prohibited in Montana.

> But then why is it written that he was jailed for cloning the sheep.

Because it's a catchy headline.

You can see a list of what he pled guilty to here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/montana-man-pleads-guilty-fed...

> “In pursuit of this scheme, Schubarth violated international law and the Lacey Act, both of which protect the viability and health of native populations of animals. ...

> The Lacey Act prohibits interstate trade in wildlife that has been taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of federal or state law. The Lacey Act also prohibits the interstate sale of wildlife that has been falsely labeled. The Act is one of the most powerful tools the United States has to combat wildlife trafficking and prevent ecological invasion by injurious wildlife."

Laws aside, I think the largest potential harm is introducing a potentially invasive species that could harm local ecosystem.

It's an interesting question as to if what this man did was helpful or harmful to those conservation efforts.

It's at least possible that someone who would otherwise have hunted one just to have the 'wall art' might have hunted a hybrid instead. Also from a purely genetic standpoint it increased the number of copies of that genetic code.

He very clearly conspired to actively break the most serious wildlife protection law available, in a conspiracy that spanned over 10 years, in a position which he absolutely would have known he was breaking those laws.

He surreptitiously and illegally imported parts of an endangered animal breaking both domestic and international laws (again, knowingly).

All of this was done secretly, down to forging Veterinary Certificates and other documents meant to pass them off as 'legal, domestic' breeds.

He then went on to purposefully create hybrids that he knew were illegal and invasive in his state, he knew was violating the highest wildlife law in the land (who have more authority than pretty much any police department or agency) --- all of this, with the sole purpose of growing large unique hybrids to sell to game preserves which are closed (no chance of escape) for big game trophey hunters.

I couldn't write a better villain backstory if I tried. This guy deserves to have the book thrown at him, along with everyone he conspired with.

Did you even read the article? Or are you just reading the comments? All of this is so abundantly clear I find it impossible anyone could read it and say 'that doesn't FEEL illegal, just morally dubious'.

He for sure KNEW it was illegal given his industry, forgeries, and other attempts to conceal his actions.

Their cousins in the wild are extremely challenging to hunt. Especially since they are pretty rare and range across massive areas. Hybridization is one method of causing a species to become functionally extinct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bighorn_sheep

https://www.montana.edu/screel/teaching/bioe-440r-521/docume...

These are wild sheep not the domesticated sheep check out the picture at the beginning of the article. The difficulty is in finding them most of the time and getting close enough to shoot them ethically. A failed hunt is basically a long back country hiking vacation, a successful one isn't much different it just includes a shoot, some basic butchery, and a hike back out with even more weight.

A domestic sheep isn't a challenge because they are located in places conducive to domestication.

A wild bighorn sheep lives remotely and is highly skittish.

Very few animals are any kind of challenge against modern firearms.

I don't know what you did wrong, but don't worry, I can be very creative

If someone breaks the law, but the judge can't find fitting a sentence, is it justice for them to not be sentenced at all? Change the crime to something like robbery, extortion, murder, etc.

(This is just a rhetorical question.)

That's literally the opposite of what the judge said. How did you translate "I struggled to find the correct solution" to "I just went with whatever"?

My experience with jury duty this week has reinforced the fact that judges are humans, just like the rest of us, for better or for worse.

Ever heard of the Hungry Judge Effect?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_judge_effect