to truly develop aneducated palate, andrely on the
caviar tin’slabel and the brand name to ensure
thiscycleofwholesalecommercial poaching and
productmislabeling might still be goingon.
The juryreturned theguilty verdicts on 22 Octo-
ber1993,exactlyeight years to the day after thefirst
knownshipment between thepoachers and the cav-
iar company.’
References citedquality. Had it notbeen an unrelated bankrobbery, Anonymous. 1993. New Jersey firm guilty in roe case. The New
Anonymous. 1994. Caviar cons. Seafood Leader 14.
Boss, K. 1994. Caught fishing. Pacific Magazine. 13 March: 12- 20
(prepared by Seattle Times).
Houtz, J. 1994a. The courts. U.S. District Court, Seattle. The
Seattle Times. 14 February:B2.
Houtz, J. 1994b. Man gets 8 months for selling caviar from pro-
tected sturgeon. The Seattle Times, 15 January.
O’Neill, M. 1993. Caviar distributor and 2 fishermen charged
with evading limits on scarce U.S.roe. The New York Times, 4
April: 40.YorkTimes, 24October.(^1) Convicted were: Hansen Caviar Co. Inc.; Mr. Arnold Hansen-
Sturm, the president of Hansen Caviar Co. Inc.; and Mr. Stephen
Gale Darnell, the lead poacher (the second poacher served as a
witness for the prosecution). This case was documented by the
commercial news media at the time of the indictments, trial and
convictions (e.g. Anonymous 1993,1994, Boss 1994, Houtz 1994a,
b, O’Neill 1993) but this and other poaching cases are little
known to the scientific community. In part, we think that this
may stem from general unfamiliarity with (or unwillingness to
recognize) the catastrophic biological impact that can be made
by small numbers of environmental criminals. If we are to have
any impact in reducing environmental crime, better awareness
and swifter condemnation by biologists seem essential (editors’
note, March 1996).