Crypto-Customs

From past off-topic posts, you may know that I am a fan of the blog Cryptomundo on which Loren Coleman and others report on the science and pseudo-science (generally in the comments more than the posts) of searching for hidden animals. You know, hunting for Bigfoot, Nessie, and their ilk. One such creature is the Steller Sea Cow. Unlike other cryptids, the SSC was a species known to science. It was, however, hunted to extinction by the end of the 18th century. Despite that, there appears to be hope in some quarters that the SSC, like the alleged Congolese sauropod Mokele-Mbembe and lingering Tasmanian thylacines, may still survive in isolated populations.

Why am I bringing this up here? Because everyday (more or less), I check the Federal Register for any tidbits that might be useful or interesting for my work or for you. Today, I was shocked to see a notice from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration issuing a letter of authorization for the taking of Steller Sea Cows incidental to rocket launches from Alaska. Obviously, this was some mistake. The SSC is extinct . . . or at least it is supposed to be. And, what might it have to do with rocket launches? Where, exactly are they taking these sea cows? It strikes me that Agents Fox and Mulder might surmise that the Steller Sea Cow is, in fact, not extinct and that the U.S. government is somehow using them in a plot involving aliens and space rockets. Hence, my excitement.

Unfortunately, it turns out that I misread the notice. Georg Wilhelm Steller apparently identified a number of species including the Steller Sea Lion, which is the actual subject of the Federal Register. It seems that rocket launches from the Kodiak Launch Complex pose a risk to the endangered, but very much known, sea lion. This notice simply grants an authorization for that to happen, as sad as that may be.

Now, if the Federal Register ever contains a notice regarding the Steller's Sea Ape, please let me know. Or Trunko.

In the event any readers of this blog now have concerns about my professional or legal judgment, just keep in mind that I did not say I think there is solid evidence pointing to the existence of any of these creature. I just think the pursuit is interesting in that it often bumps up against what I consider to be very well established scientific fact. I am all about the science. But as far as I can tell, there is nothing inherently inconsistent with the laws of nature for there to be, for example, a giant unidentified creature in Lake Champlain. It's just very unlikely.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I have been reading you blog for a couple of years....maybe you need to visit Loren Coleman's Intl Crypto Museum in Portland, ME.
Apr 30, 2010, 10:38:00 AM
Larry said…
Trust me, it is in the bucket list. Along with cycling from Minneapolis to New Orleans along the Mississippi.
May 3, 2010, 3:30:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl...
Read more

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more