West Virginia-based hunt booking agent Robert Kern was found not guilty today in a federal court in Houston of charges related to a 2002 hunting trip in Russia. Robert Kern and his company The Hunting Consortium were charged with breaking the Lacey Act, a federal law that bans importation of wildlife knowingly taken in violation of another country's laws. Kern had been accused by the U.S. government of three things: That he aided others in the taking of wildlife in violation of Russian law, that he knew shooting from a helicopter was illegal, and that he caused the resulting trophies�moose antlers, sheep horns, and skins�to enter the United States.

The prosecutor for the U.S. government, Wayne Hettenbach, had to convince jurors that Kern was guilty of all three counts. Early on in the trial this turned out to be a tough case for the government as it could produce no witnesses from Russia while Kern had a credible witness, Victor Kropivyansky, a regional wildlife deputy director. He spoke via a translator and said that the trip in question was conducted legally and provided an economic benefit "because it's free meat� for the local populace.

The case stemmed from a 2002 hunting trip when four prominent international hunters traveled to the Russian Far East region to hunt for sheep and moose. During this trip animals were allegedly shot from a helicopter. When the U.S. government tried to indict one of the four hunters of conducting illegal wildlife acts in Russia, it failed. Kern was not among the group of four, but after the government failed to get a recommendation on indictment for the hunter from a grand jury, prosecutors fell upon Kern, the agent who had arranged the trip, in what was perceived by some as a vindictive action.

Kern had to spend a rumored three quarters of a million dollars to defend himself, and he maintained his innocence from the get-go. The trial went poorly for the government from the start. At first it changed lead prosecutors for unknown reasons and after that Kern was reportedly offered a plea bargain that would have reduced the felony charge to a misdemeanor. Kern refused this offer and held out for a full jury trial. The jury deliberated several hours and found Kern not guilty on all counts.

They wouldn't have made such a stink about it if the "skins" in question hadn't been a couple of shrunken heads offa some old Mongolian dudes.

Don

Glad to hear that he prevailed. Now I know nothing about it but is there any way he can recover the money he spent fighting the false charges? I mean it's just not right to have to spend a fortune seeking the truth. If the Government decides to they can break you and all the while know that you are not guilty.

Piper

I know one of the hunters. That was a put-up job from the get go.

Heck, I'm sure SCI has some grand slam of shrunken heads...(Wild Horsemen of Asia...your have to take a Mongolian, a Siberian, an Irkutskian and a Tajekistani) ....can even take them behind a high fence if you have to.

I bet a cagy old Mongolian on a fast horse is pretty sporty hunting, even out on the open steppes from a helicopter.

Either that or they tried to slide,... tags fer 'em can hit ya a lick!

Steve,

I agree it nwas a bogus prosecution, but do you have any insight into the government's motivation?

It goes without saying USF&W went over to the dark side some years ago. Just like BATF.

If he had to spend 750k, how much do you suppose "we the people" spent on the prosecution??? WTF are these people thinking, you have a Russian wildlife official that says it was all legal and can't get any other witnesses, how the *%#@( does something like this even get to a jury?

"We the people" couldn't find anybody committing criminal acts here in our own country to prosecute? At the center of the people's republic of Washington, King County announced that due to budget cuts they weren't going to be able to prosecute property crimes under 10K and a list of other crimes in the future... I'm sure they'll find the funds to prosecute people with bonfires on the beach though...

Sorry for the rant, but after the last two days of trying to make a living I could retire quite well on the money that was wasted in this ONE stupid case.

Just who prompted the trial? PITA? Bear

I know all 5 of the guys there. Kern and the 4 hunters. They were guilty as Hell on all counts. One of the hunters, who was a son of another hunter, actually took video of them shooting from the Helicopter. The video was shown at SCI at the Convention.

Tom Riley was the head of USF&W Southeast Region. He was forced to retire early because of his involvement and was rewarded by another of the Hunters by being given the head job at SCI. Later he was canned by the BOD after his involvement became known.

Money equals justice and when you are dealing with guys who have millions, to one guy who counts his savings in the Billions, you are always innocent.

mickey

Even if you are correct, why were the Feds prosecuting it and putting together such a weak case, evidence-wise?

Number one rule of a Federal prosecuter is don't file a case you won't win.

BTW in no way do I condone the way the hunt was conducted.

Perhaps someone brighter than I can explain why 'we' care about another countries game laws.

If the Russian's don't care, 'we' sure as hell shouldn't.

My thoughts exactly. Whoever decided to go after this case should be fired. Stinks like "vendetta"

Mickey
"They were guilty as Hell on all counts."

Sorry, gotta disagree... They were not guilty and the court laid the issue to rest. They may not have been lawful, but the news makes the case look very weak and the jury did not spend much time deciding something that took a lot of time to set up.

After finding out USF&WS has arbitrarily decided to make their own rules about selling duck skins for fly-tying... and making that a felony, I have neither stomach nor respect for their resource allocation decisions.
art

Micky,

You would then have been the lone dissenting juror. It took the jury "minutes" to make their decision, not days. The prosecution had "nothing" going for them in this case, and you evidentally know more than they did? So, why weren't you a witness? You knew Kern was guilty...??? Right?? So, with no case, the prosecution proceeded. Why? What was thier motivation to do so? Smacks of irresponsibility to me...

100% agree. WTF was this all about?

Do I read it right that was have a federal game statute that says if you go to another country and violate one of their game laws, that we can prosecute you here? Or am I missing something? How does the U.S. get jurisdiction to prosecute something that happened on foriegn soil and for which no U.S. law was violated (except the one mentioned)?

The way its read, Lacy Act..... if you violate another state or countries laws AND bring the game back, they can prosecute for the transportation across state or country lines.

We cannot prosecute for what you did in the other state or country. Thats up to them.

As a side not doesn't seem anything like hunting off the skids.. but thats not my call.

As long as it was found to be legal there, then its fine here....

You can be prosecuted for doing anything illegal game wise, IE poaching a deer, and then crossing state lines on the way home. I push that issue in all my hunter safety classes as its a much more serious issue when you cross lines...

Jeff

Where did this statement come from? Any animal taken behind a fence must go in the "Estate" listing NOT in the general trophy record section. Even then a host of conditions must be met. Animals have to be a resident herd not just released, over half of the high fenced area must offer cover for escape, animals must be truly wild, adequate food & water "naturally" so animals are not forced to feeders or waterholes where hunters wait. There are a great many more.

The Lacy Act prohibits illegally taken animals from crossing state lines or from entering the country. Jail time & stiff fines will result, if convicted. The F&G official was a female anti-hunter that couldn't charge the SCI executive or F&G hunter for fear of political out fall. She then charged Bob with a violation of the Lacy Act who assisted in the import of the trophies. Entire case was unfounded.

The defendant I know is a former president of both Dallas and Houston Safari Clubs, high profile owner of a huge pipeline company, and according to Forbes the richest guy in Houston. The speculation is that he was the target.....for reasons nobody knows. I mean, its not like they can't find enough wildlife violations in Texas, you know? Do they really need to try to enforce their vision of Russian fish and game law?

bear, was this to me? I don't understand what you're asking, if it is.

Is this the outcome of the same story we bantied about a ways back?

My memory is getting refreshed after Steve's friend from Houston comments above.

Yes.

Tha Lacy Act, like the Mann Act, is easy to abuse and it happens regularly. - unlike the Mann Act.

The lesson is clear. To the Feds, sex is good, hunting is bad.
Or something like that.

Agreed!

Why was this even the feds business?

Steve

Not only is the person you are talking about one of the richest men in Houston but he is one of the richest men in the World. He is in the top 50 of Forbes list of Billionaires.

Two others, a Father and Son, are also from Houston.

Tom Riley was the Head of the SE Region for USF&W when he went on the hunt. (this is where the trial took place.) He was on the Bush very short list for head of the Dept of the Interior when Bush was elected but Politics and Indiana Coal money swung the position to Gail Norton.

The hunt was booked through Kern for Moose in Kamchatka. Rumours of bigger than Alaska Moose have been circulated for years from there.

When they got there they found out there were no roads, no vehicles and no way to access the hunting area. The outfitter called in a Helicopter, a very common hunting tool in all of Russia. Shooting from a Helicopter in Russia is illegal but it is done all the time by shooters wanting a big trophy. It is much more prevalent in Sheep Hunting but Moose Hunting and Bear Hunting also get there fair share of shooters from choppers.

Short story is, they shot a couple of Moose by getting off the chopper and shooting. This is legal. They shot 3 more from the Chopper. This was videoed by the Son.

The video was shown at the SCI Convention in Kern's Booth for a short time. Quite a few people saw it. After a couple of hours one of the Hunters came along, saw the video and went ballistic in front of about 40 other attendees. A lot of screaming and such and the video was removed. The video not only showed them shooting but showed one Moose with a large caliber bullet hole in the palm of one antler.

The tape was subsequently seized by USF&W, as were the trophies that Kern arranged to import. Riley was forced to resign his position but two of the other participants arranged for him to become SCI Executive Director. When the story came out he was forced out by the BOD.

The Billionaire was charged as he was the shooter that put the hole in the horn. He got the case dismissed by pleading ignorance of the law in regards to shooting from the chopper. This despite the fact he has around 50 trips to Russia to hunt. Money talks.

Kern, as the Booking Agent, and probably the biggest Agent in booking hunts in Russia, was charged with importing the Trophies. The trial was held in the SE District where Riley used to be the Boss. The tape and the Horns disappeared from F&W custody before the trial began.

Anyone here doubt that a Russian Official, deeply involved with getting overseas hunters to Russia as part of his job, would not spin the hunt in favour of the largest Booking Agent in Russia? Maybe an 'extra large tip' was involved.

I understand that there are abut 40 other cases involving similar methods waiting in the wings. The USF&W Service
sees this as a huge problem and they also see it as a chance to bring some of these rich shooters down a peg.

Whether or not this is the right thing to spend money on is up for debate.

The Lacey Act doesn't only cover importation of Animal parts but anything that was acquired illegally from a Foreign Country. We have similar requests that other Countries prosecute their citizens for doing similar things in the US.

One Aussie who shot some Elk in Yellowstone, with a Wyoming Outfitter, was prosecuted in Australia under their version of this Law. It is legal to hunt in Aussie National Parks so there was a lot of people there that couldn't understand why it was such a big deal.

I represent the guy's company , and have hunted his Double D ranch. I don't know anything about the facts of the Russian hunt, but I do know the guy has donated a ton of money to conservation causes over the years, and has given a lot of his very valuable time to the cause of hunting.

Well...we sure have a helluva a lot of "sportsmen" here.

There is no defense for waging war on moose and bears from choppers...NONE! The fact that it was done seems evident.

I have had enough of this forum and the kill before sport attitudes.

So long...

Man, who put ants in luv2safari's pants?


I guess he missed the distinction between supporting helicopter hunting and wondering what the US is doing trying to enforce Russian law if the Russians say no law was broken.

I didn't hear anybody cheering for helicopter hunting.

Well, except me and Bristoe talking about hunting Mongolian horsemen from a helicopter. Maybe that was what got him.

Hey now,.. I didn't condone it.

I just speculated that it was the cause for the uproar.

Wow!
"I understand that there are abut 40 other cases involving similar methods waiting in the wings. The USF&W Service
sees this as a huge problem and they also see it as a chance to bring some of these rich shooters down a peg."

USFWS sees enforcement of other countries' hunting laws as a huge problem?!?! Do I hear huge WTF for that?

But more to the point... Where does anyone get off thinking bringing rich guys down a peg is a justified expense of taxpayer dollars? Especially when they have so many felonious duck skin peddlars tempting old men tying flies!
art

Your comment about SCI --Shrunken heads & behind fences was the comment I referred to. Just because(& it was not the issue here) some one takes an animal behind a fence does not mean SCI will accept as a trophy record even in a "Estate" category.

Steve

Since you know him than you are aware of his accomplishments in the Hunting world, which are substantial. You also know that, at his age and physical condition, he would not be very likely to slog around in the Muskeg for days hunting Moose on foot.

Be that as it may it is interesting to wonder why the Government is prosecuting something that happens a lot when there is no interest from the Country in which it happened.

Some speculation rests on Tom Riley. In his position he would have been the person to make the call on prosecution of another hunter for doing the same thing if the trophies were brought in through Atlanta. Perhaps USF&W needed an example?

Another thought is his close ties to the Bush White house may have been too much temptation for colleagues whom he disagreed with to pass up. They caught him red handed doing what he was supposed to be protecting wildlife from. By getting convictions on Kern and or the other Gentleman they could get to him.

Another Hunter did a similar thing in Mozambique. Shot a large Ele out of a Chopper. A $25,000 donation to the local Governor's Hospital Project and a permit was issued retroactively. End of case.

Me, neither. No shrunken heads here. Move on. Nothing to see. Clinton voice: "I did not have sex with that Mongolian horseman. Or that Mongolian horse."

mickey....I had heard there was a political, anti-Bush component to it. And I know there are plenty of bunny-huggers and Greenpeace wannabes in that department. But I'm amazed they got an AUA who was willing to show his ass in public by bringing a dog's breakfast like that to trial.

The whole case just makes no sense,I would think the Lacy Act would never be used to prosecute a case in which the host nation or state has no issues with the way game is harvested.

I do not agree with shooting game animals other than vermin like hogs or wolves from the air but if the Russians do not enforce their laws,we have no buisness meddling in their hunting rules and enforcement.


Britt

Uh, that was a joke, bro. I don't hunt Mongolian horsemen, free ranging OR high fenced.

The standards at SCI for fair chase behind a fence are as follows, BTW:

May 2006

Recreational hunting and the concept of �fair chase� has been linked for as long as recreational hunting has existed. However, the terms and conditions of what constitutes �fair chase� when hunting is conducted within a high fenced area has never been fully or clearly defined.

SCI believes that the following conditions must be met, or exceeded, in order for the concept of �fair chase� to apply for hunting mammals within high fenced areas in North America:

* The animals hunted must have freely resided on the property on which they are being hunted for at least six months, or longer.
* The hunting property shall provide escape cover that allows the animals to elude hunters for extended periods of time and multiple occurrences. Escape cover, in the form of rugged terrain or topography, and/or dense thickets or stands of woods, shall collectively comprise at least 50% of the property.
* The animals hunted must be part of a breeding herd that is a resident on the hunted property.
* The operators of the preserve must provide freely available and ample amounts of cover, food and water at all times.
* Animals that are to be hunted must exhibit their natural flight/survival instincts.
* No zoo animals, exhibited animals or tame animals are to be hunted.
* No hunting or selling of hunting rights to a specified animal.
* Hunting methods employed cannot include driving, herding or chasing animals to awaiting hunters.
* Every effort must be made to utilize all meat commonly consumed from a taken animal.

The minimum amount of land necessary to meet these requirements varies by region, terrain and habitat type. Setting a standard minimum area is unlikely to be realistic. However, SCI recommends that state/provincial wildlife management agencies work with the operators and the hunting community within their area to establish specific regulations to guide the operation of hunting preserves.