[astroid]

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.

[mbfg]

Most of this tho, really, is what we do all the time with other types of animals (minus the hitech cloning aspect). We import genetic material to breed horses for instance, all the time. The article didn't say they killed the animal. If they had, then sure that would break endangered species laws.

So the invasiveness of the species and it's likelyhood to cause harm to the population seems like the key points.

[astroid]

"Most of this tho, really, is what we do all the time with other types of animals (minus the hitech cloning aspect)."

No, it's really not. The cloning aspect is the least concerning bit. You just handwaved away everything he did as 'what we do all the time with other types of animals.'

In what world do we 'all the time' illegally and secretly import animal parts, forge documentation to hide their origin and species, and then combine them with other species to make large animals to hunt in captivity while deliberately and knowingly putting the local animal population at risk??

It seems like in your last sentence you agree with me, but the first paragraph is spent pretending like this is just like selective breeding. It's a completely false equivalency unless you are zoomed so far in you are no longer capable or willing to see the bigger picture.

If I came out and said:

"Hey guys I'm going to smuggle in panda parts from Chine, pass them off as Dalmatians and forge their veterinary history to do this under the radar since it's illegal in all of the countries required to complete this scheme, and then I am going to combine them with the local grizzly and brown bears to make new hybrids -- I'm going to have 0 regard for what these impacts have on the local native bear population, and I'm specifically going to aim for unnaturally large hybrid creatures to be hunted in open air prisons." - would your response be 'sounds above board, that's mostly what we do all the time anyway'?

That is what happened here, effectively. This is not 'what we do all the time' unless your aim is to ensure making a pedantic point takes precedence over any other factors unique to this particular case.

If you are making some misguided point like 'hey this is just your every day selective breeding bro, why so mad?' you have lost the plot entirely. Your average day to day selective breeding operation breaks 0 of these laws, requires no conspiracy, and will not be a threat to the local populations. It requires no secrecy, no subterfuge, no forgeries, and presents no outwardly large danger to the native populations.

The moment you have crossed the line into breaking these laws, it is by definition no longer in 'all the time' land -- you have entered Disney Villain Origin Story Land.

EDIT: I don't know why I even bothered responding to this nonsense, this quote right here tells me you in fact only read the comments and have no idea what you are saying:

"The article didn't say they killed the animal. If they had, then sure that would break endangered species laws."

He did break the law. Regarding endangered species. In both countries. It is clearly laid out, whether he killed the animal or not. I regret wasting a moment trying to convey the point when you can't be bothered to read beyond the comments.

Sure, we do this alllll the time. Anybody else trying to make pedantic points, go read what really happened first:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/montana-man-pleads-guilty-fed...

If you don't see him as a villain, you are the villain.