PDA

View Full Version : True or False? DFG wardens punish Asians more severly for violation



sfbluestar
04-02-2010, 12:50
I heard from a dive shop owner, that CA DFG wardens protecting the abalone stock punish Asian violators more severely than others. He said all others just get a citation for violation, but Asians will get their gear confiscated on top of a citation. I find the unequal application of the law hard to believe but the dive shop owner is very knowledgeable of the sport...

Have you heard anything like that?

oddbod
04-02-2010, 23:16
I heard from a dive shop owner, that CA DFG wardens protecting the abalone stock punish Asian violators more severely than others. He said all others just get a citation for violation, but Asians will get their gear confiscated on top of a citation. I find the unequal application of the law hard to believe but the dive shop owner is very knowledgeable of the sport...

Have you heard anything like that?

If it is anything like over here the Asians are the worst offenders, take everything, no matter what size/season. :smiley5: Even the old "professional" poachers knew what to take to keep the fishery viable and everyone else really just took the odd one to eat.

WngStvn
04-03-2010, 08:15
I heard from a dive shop owner, that CA DFG wardens protecting the abalone stock punish Asian violators more severely than others. He said all others just get a citation for violation, but Asians will get their gear confiscated on top of a citation. I find the unequal application of the law hard to believe but the dive shop owner is very knowledgeable of the sport...

Have you heard anything like that?

If it is anything like over here the Asians are the worst offenders, take everything, no matter what size/season. :smiley5: Even the old "professional" poachers knew what to take to keep the fishery viable and everyone else really just took the odd one to eat.

Sadly, it is true. Its called racial profiling. I seem it a few times and been "carefully" examined a few times from dives in CA, FL, and NY; literally been singled out from my friends who are Caucasian. Shouldn't generalizing a whole race even if a few are worst offenders.

sfbluestar
04-03-2010, 08:55
There is a major difference between checking more often/carefully and giving unequal punishment.

The former, while still not supposed to happen, has no direct evidence besides statistics and is hard to argue. The latter is just so obvious... which is why I was surprised to hear that.

WngStvn
04-03-2010, 09:33
There is a major difference between checking more often/carefully and giving unequal punishment.

The former, while still not supposed to happen, has no direct evidence besides statistics and is hard to argue. The latter is just so obvious... which is why I was surprised to hear that.

Well, I never poached and I don't anyone who did, so I cannot comment regarding the unequal punishment.

But is there really a major difference?

1) You are considered a more likely offender, out of a group of people who are together and doing the same activity, and thus singled out.
2) You are considered a more likely repeat offender and thus receives a harsher punishment.

Both are racial profiling or in another word, prejudice. Singling a person out can be seen as "unequal" punishment in its own respect.

The "carefully" examined part is just my nice way of putting things. My 2 cents on this is... the word "statistics" is just a "scientific" sounding way to justify this racism in this situation.

Wrong color skin driving in a certain color neighborhood will get you pulled over and arrested. Wrong color skin in a court will more likely get you jail time. There are statistics to prove this too; especially in CA.

So, to me, I see no difference; because it was the same prejudice that cause people to judge you more likely to be an offender and the same prejudice that made the judgement for the unequal punishment.

If there was more divers to raise the exposure, I am sure ACLU would have something to say about this.

But I digress, I wouldn't know if its true that they give unequal punishment since I don't know anyone who poached. But seeing their reaction to Asians in certain remarks, IMHO, I would lean towards it being true.

Nemrod
04-04-2010, 13:15
If they are poaching then they need to be punished whoever the "they" is.

WngStvn
04-04-2010, 19:40
If they are poaching then they need to be punished whoever the "they" is.

I agree with this, but this is not is not the topic of discussion. The topic is whether it is true or false that there exist an inequality of punishment given for the same crime based on the color of your skin.

cmburch
04-12-2010, 11:26
I have not seen or heard of CA DFG or CA Game wardens in Mendocino or Sonoma singling out any specific group. Where I go there are more whites, so they are checked more frequently just because a greater percentage of the population. I have never been singled out or checked more frequently than anyone around me. The court proceedings for Mendocino and Sonoma are public information and available on the Internet. There are some discussions on SpearBoard for Spearos that have had their Abalone and gear confiscated. There is a difference though between poachers who intend on doing something illegal and Spearos who have no intent of doing something incorrect or against the law.

Do a search may come up with better information on this subject.
Sonoma County Abalone Network - SCAN - Court Actions (http://www.abalonenetwork.org/scan_court.html)

sfbluestar
04-12-2010, 12:07
I have not seen or heard of CA DFG or CA Game wardens in Mendocino or Sonoma singling out any specific group. Where I go there are more whites, so they are checked more frequently just because a greater percentage of the population. I have never been singled out or checked more frequently than anyone around me. The court proceedings for Mendocino and Sonoma are public information and available on the Internet. There are some discussions on SpearBoard for Spearos that have had their Abalone and gear confiscated. There is a difference though between poachers who intend on doing something illegal and Spearos who have no intent of doing something incorrect or against the law.

Do a search may come up with better information on this subject.
Sonoma County Abalone Network - SCAN - Court Actions (http://www.abalonenetwork.org/scan_court.html)


Hey great link!! Thanks. It seems like everyone is getting their gears confiscated. Good to know... I didn't think they system can be so blatant...

But I notice something interesting... Majority of those who have over limits, have either 3 or 6. What's with that??

WngStvn
04-12-2010, 13:43
I have not seen or heard of CA DFG or CA Game wardens in Mendocino or Sonoma singling out any specific group. Where I go there are more whites, so they are checked more frequently just because a greater percentage of the population. I have never been singled out or checked more frequently than anyone around me. The court proceedings for Mendocino and Sonoma are public information and available on the Internet. There are some discussions on SpearBoard for Spearos that have had their Abalone and gear confiscated. There is a difference though between poachers who intend on doing something illegal and Spearos who have no intent of doing something incorrect or against the law.

Do a search may come up with better information on this subject.
Sonoma County Abalone Network - SCAN - Court Actions (http://www.abalonenetwork.org/scan_court.html)

Hey great link!! Thanks. It seems like everyone is getting their gears confiscated. Good to know... I didn't think they system can be so blatant...

But I notice something interesting... Majority of those who have over limits, have either 3 or 6. What's with that??

Thank you for the link. But I think my point is being missed... you give example of those we were guilty of POACHING. So, yes, everyone's gears are getting confiscated and fined. Notice the last names of those poachers? I am sure you will find something interesting too.

What I was pointing out is that there are racial profiling going on. If you have 10% of X population poaching and 5% of Y population poaching, if you check Y with double the frequency of X, you will find equal numbers of poachers. Now... if you check it with triple the frequency, you will find more poachers in Y than X; but in reality, more of X is poaching.

But then... with the "feeling" that there is more Y poaching... you will then give Y a harsher punishment in hopes of curbing then Ys from poaching. This is part of racial profiling.

I am not saying Y is Asians. But then again, I am not inclined to state that all shark finners are Asians nor are bear gallbladders.

I am just pointing out some inequalities in society and hoping there is more fairness. There are many examples but there is no reason to make this topic a "hot topic." If what I am point out is abstract or it does not relate to you, maybe google "how to get out of a speeding ticket" and see if those tactics shed some light on inequalities; then know that I equate equality to that of tickets given by speeding cameras.

Also, more of a certain race does not mean that the frequency of checks for that race is higher. For example, let’s say there are 1000 X and 100 Y. All the X gets checked once for a total of 1000 checks on X. The entire Y is checked twice for a total of 200 checks on Y. Yes... the X has more checks... but the Y has more frequency of being checked.

BUT LET ME MAKE THIS POINT CLEAR; IF YOU POACH, YOU DESERVE TO BE PUNISHED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW. But not everyone gets punished to the full extent and there might be many variables that causes that, including race... and that is the topic.

I am glad you have never been singled out and I am extremely glad. Sadly, I myself did not have that experience.

BTW, yes, a lot of information are public domain and we are definitely heading in the right direction with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), but if you take it as 100% freedom of information and that all would be, could be, and should be public domain information are made public... well, what can I say... my understanding of “public” might be different from yours.

Our experiences in life are not the whole truth, just part of the truth.

cmburch
04-12-2010, 14:33
I have not seen or heard of CA DFG or CA Game wardens in Mendocino or Sonoma singling out any specific group. Where I go there are more whites, so they are checked more frequently just because a greater percentage of the population. I have never been singled out or checked more frequently than anyone around me. The court proceedings for Mendocino and Sonoma are public information and available on the Internet. There are some discussions on SpearBoard for Spearos that have had their Abalone and gear confiscated. There is a difference though between poachers who intend on doing something illegal and Spearos who have no intent of doing something incorrect or against the law.

Do a search may come up with better information on this subject.
Sonoma County Abalone Network - SCAN - Court Actions (http://www.abalonenetwork.org/scan_court.html)

Hey great link!! Thanks. It seems like everyone is getting their gears confiscated. Good to know... I didn't think they system can be so blatant...

But I notice something interesting... Majority of those who have over limits, have either 3 or 6. What's with that??

Thank you for the link. But I think my point is being missed... you give example of those we were guilty of POACHING. So, yes, everyone's gears are getting confiscated and fined. Notice the last names of those poachers? I am sure you will find something interesting too.

What I was pointing out is that there are racial profiling going on. If you have 10% of X population poaching and 5% of Y population poaching, if you check Y with double the frequency of X, you will find equal numbers of poachers. Now... if you check it with triple the frequency, you will find more poachers in Y than X; but in reality, more of X is poaching.

But then... with the "feeling" that there is more Y poaching... you will then give Y a harsher punishment in hopes of curbing then Ys from poaching. This is part of racial profiling.

I am not saying Y is Asians. But then again, I am not inclined to state that all shark finners are Asians nor are bear gallbladders.

I am just pointing out some inequalities in society and hoping there is more fairness. There are many examples but there is no reason to make this topic a "hot topic." If what I am point out is abstract or it does not relate to you, maybe google "how to get out of a speeding ticket" and see if those tactics shed some light on inequalities; then know that I equate equality to that of tickets given by speeding cameras.

Also, more of a certain race does not mean that the frequency of checks for that race is higher. For example, let’s say there are 1000 X and 100 Y. All the X gets checked once for a total of 1000 checks on X. The entire Y is checked twice for a total of 200 checks on Y. Yes... the X has more checks... but the Y has more frequency of being checked.

BUT LET ME MAKE THIS POINT CLEAR; IF YOU POACH, YOU DESERVE TO BE PUNISHED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW. But not everyone gets punished to the full extent and there might be many variables that causes that, including race... and that is the topic.

I am glad you have never been singled out and I am extremely glad. Sadly, I myself did not have that experience.

BTW, yes, a lot of information are public domain and we are definitely heading in the right direction with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), but if you take it as 100% freedom of information and that all would be, could be, and should be public domain information are made public... well, what can I say... my understanding of “public” might be different from yours.

Our experiences in life are not the whole truth, just part of the truth.

I was not replying to your post.

My response to the OP is my experience as an Asian American fishing in California. I also have many family members throughout California. Over 20 or so that fish our waters.

cmburch
04-12-2010, 14:37
I think all abalone relate offenses are minimum misdemeanor offenses since 2008. If your pen is out of ink while in possession of abalone and you walk to your car to get another to fill out the form and tags it is a misdemeanor. If you fail to fill out the tags or forms correctly it is a misdemeanor. If you lose your 7" caliper in the surf or only have an 8" and come to shore with abalone it is a misdemeanor. There are examples of Abalone divers not following the Regs on SpearBoard.

cmburch
06-11-2010, 10:27
Abalone Violation
Example of a violation that costs money and becomes a permanent part of a person's criminal record if 18 years or older.

Diver convicted of moving undersize abalone - Ukiah Daily Journal (http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ukiahnews/ci_15258020)

sfbluestar
07-10-2010, 18:11
Abalone Violation
Example of a violation that costs money and becomes a permanent part of a person's criminal record if 18 years or older.

Diver convicted of moving undersize abalone - Ukiah Daily Journal (http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/ukiahnews/ci_15258020)


I'm attaching the story here because this story has mysteriously become "no longer available" at many sites, including Ukiah Daily Journal, Topix.com, Nixle.com, etc. I had to search hard to find this story.

---------------

On Friday, a Mendocino County jury in Fort Bragg, comprised of six men and six women, returned a verdict of "guilty" against Rye Davis Gilley, 31, for failure to reattach an undersize abalone. Gilley is a resident of Lake County and works as a millwright in Redwood Valley, according to the Mendocino County District Attorney (http://m.willitsnews.com/willits/db_32964/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=24C3A732D1F8851B7D626 74A6FA0A99F?contentguid=QXwqPwcn&detailindex=1&pn=0&ps=10&full=true#)'s Office.
The DA's Office reported that Warden Patrick Freeling testified that on May 23, 2009 at 7 a.m. he was patrolling for abalone violators in the cove adjacent to Greenwood Beach in Elk. He was wearing camouflage, hid in a bush on the bluff, and made observations through his binoculars. He first observed Gilley, 100 yards away, return to the surface holding up two legal-size abalone.
Gilley then emerged holding what the warden determined was an undersize abalone, i.e., less than 7 inches in diameter. Gilley placed the abalone on top of his dive tube for four minutes. After drifting 30 to 40 feet, he then "palmed" the abalone into the water. Four seconds later, he dove into the water, where he stayed for seven seconds.
The abalone regulations require that an undersize abalone be reattached "immediately" to the "same surface" of the rock from which it was detached. Based on his training (http://m.willitsnews.com/willits/db_32964/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=24C3A732D1F8851B7D626 74A6FA0A99F?contentguid=QXwqPwcn&detailindex=1&pn=0&ps=10&full=true#) and experience, the warden believed that it would have been impossible for Gilley to comply with that regulation. He issued Gilley a citation.
Gilley testified he did not know the abalone was undersize until he measured it upon emerging from the water,
and that he then waited to catch his breath before diving down to reattach it. He denied palming it or dropping it into the water. He claimed that he properly reattached the abalone during his dive, which took 10 seconds, by attaching it to the same surface of the same ledge as the one from which he took it.
Prosecutor Tim Stoen argued that Gilley broke the law in two respects. He did not return it "immediately" in light of his good physical condition, and that returning it to the same "ledge," given his drifting 30 to 40 feet, did not constitute the "same surface" of "the rock" from which it was detached. He argued that even though the case involved only a single undersize abalone, it was a serious one, for failure to enforce this regulation would be one more "nail in the coffin" of the abalone population on the Mendocino Coast.
Defense attorney Mark Kalina argued it was reasonable for Gilley to take four minutes to catch his breath before diving to reattach the abalone, given the extremely rough ocean conditions, including "4 to 6 foot" swells. He argued that the continuous ledge constituted, as a matter of reasonable interpretation of the regulations taking into account ocean conditions, the same "rock" from which the abalone had been detached.
The jury deliberated 1 hour 15 minutes before returning its verdict of guilty. Judge Jonathan Lehan, who presided at the trial, sentenced Gilley to the same sentence he would have received if he had pleaded guilty or no contest: 12 months probation, a fine totaling $1,315, and a prohibition against fishing during the term of probation.