Wednesday, March 26, 2008 23:04
Oakland A’s pitcher Lenny DiNardo allegedly purchased a guitar made partially from sea turtle shell during the baseball team’s recent visit to Japan, reports Susan Slusser of the San Francisco Chronicle.
Update: In another article, DiNardo is quoted as saying “I don’t know if I can get it back in the (United States), but we’ll see if we can.”
All trade in sea turtle products is strictly prohibited by the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Appendix I*. Japan and the United States are both bound parties to the Convention.
Editorial: I urge you to contact the Oakland Athletics and the regional US Fish and Wildlife Service. Ask them to look into Mr. DiNardo’s alleged transaction, and, if true, to have the situation rectified. Additionally, encourage Mr. DiNardo to relinquish the item, report it to the authorities, and make a public statement about the incident. This is an opportunity to promote this important law.
| Oakland Athletics McAfee Coliseum 7000 Coliseum Way Oakland, CA 94621 510-638-4900 |
US Fish and Wildlife Service California and Nevada Region CNO - Operations Office 916-414-6464 |
* CITES Appendix I includes those species that are threatened with extinction and that are or may be affected by international trade. These species may not be traded internationally for primarily commercial purposes. All sea turtle species are part of CITES Appendix I.
The 2007 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species includes all seven types of sea turtles. Domestically, all sea turtle species are protected by the US Endangered Species Act.
Did you even read the article? :\ I’m as pro-sea turtles as the next guy but:
“DiNardo said he’s having buyer’s remorse about the guitar, because sea turtles are endangered. A serious guitarist and guitar collector, he liked the unusual sound the instrument produces, and because the guitar had been manufactured 20 years ago, he figured, well, the turtle’s demise had come some time ago.
The next day, though, he was still feeling bad about it. He awoke wondering if he should have purchased it.
“I don’t condone it,” he said. “Turtles are like my favorite animal, too.”"
Comment by SoxAddict — March 27, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
Yep, read the whole thing. My point is not that DiNardo “feels bad,” but rather that this alleged transaction is illegal.
What I would like to see is a follow-up story where DiNardo acted on his “buyer’s remorse” by contacting the proper authorities and then stating publicly that he did his best to correct the situation.
Would that not be the (next best) right thing to do?
Comment by TheUmpire — March 27, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
Sure, but you requested he make a public statement about it which he already did in that article. The guy feels bad about it and calling for his head on a platter won’t make much of a difference.
Also, I’m not so sure it was illegal to make in Japan 20 years ago. In fact I think the Endangered Species Act is only about 30 years old. I may be wrong though.
Comment by SoxAddict — March 27, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
Never called for the guy’s head. Just asking that he go beyond saying that he feels bad by relinquishing the allegedly illegal product, reporting it to the authorities, and publicly acknowledging that what he allegedly did was illegal. Not asking that he be fined or suspended or killed. Just that he use his position as a public figure to explain what happened.
The making of the item may or may not have been illegal at the time. The trading of it today _is_ illegal as per the CITES convention. It is CITES, not the US ESA that makes international trading of sea turtle products illegal.
I do not follow the logic about the US ESA being older than the sea turtle product.
In another article, DiNardo is reported as saying “I don’t know if I can get it back in the (United States), but we’ll see if we can.” This appears to show intent of international trade.
Rather than these quotes, I would prefer to see “I did not realize it was illegal. As soon as it was brought to my attention, I did X, Y, and Z.” Something like that. DiNardo gets shown trying to rectify the situation, and the law is given some publicity so the next guy might not try it.
Not sure why this seems excessive…?
Comment by TheUmpire — March 27, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Nevermind, I was mistaken as to the specifics regarding CITES. My fault, I should have read more into that before opening my mouth.
I think you should link the article where he says “I don’t know if I can get it back in the (United States), but we’ll see if we can.” That kind of changed my opinion on the whole issue. He went from being remorseful and ignorant of the laws to showing intent to sneak the item into the US.
For shame DiNardo. For shame.
Comment by SoxAddict — March 27, 2008 @ 3:31 pm