OPERATION CODY- An undercover investigation into WA's commercial poaching

[TVHunts]

His sentence is pathetic. It has always baffled me how an attorney can morally  defend someone that is so clearly guilty. Basically he walked...another disgusting display of a system that is broken and far to lenient. 

[jackmaster]

His sentence is pathetic. It has always baffled me how an attorney can morally  defend someone that is so clearly guilty. Basically he walked...another disgusting display of a system that is broken and far to lenient.

its a clear view of "money can buy your way out of anything" pretty freeking sad to say the least, what bothers me the most is that there is a judge and a prosecutor that actually excepted his " i am sorry, but thats how we do it in my home country" B.S... this is exactly why are justice system is so friggin jacked up..... there isnt any hard nosed judges anymore that make people responsible for their actions.... had i been the judge, i would have deported him back to his country... and then he would have said, "well judge, you cant actually do that because i have never actually been there" then the judge could have hammered him for trying to B.S the system and thrown his sorry ASS so far into the dungeon he would never see an ounce of daylight again

[ucwarden]

The whole "I didn't know it was illegal" was total BS.  He gave us multiple lectures about what happens to anyone who talks (pretty direct threats).  Why would you threaten people about talking, if you believed what you were doing was legal?
I never expected this outcome, but rather expected him to get a year or two in prison.
I agree; the system doesn't work very well.

[popeshawnpaul]

First, my review:

Operation Cody takes you through an undercover operation involving the buying and selling of illegal wildlife in Washington.  The author's first hand knowledge, insight, and willingness to share in this operation benefits readers by educating them in a world not commonly seen.  The chronological layout of the book allows you to follow the process from start to finish, following the players and characters in the book throughout the operation.  The book is entertaining and provokes thought on the many subjects explored in the book.  Throughout the operation, the author brings light to the WDFW enforcement and management.  Ultimately, the author's personal bias and hatred displayed at many points in the book detract from the operation, book, and his message.  At a few points, the book becomes uncomfortable to read as the author takes us through his hatred and bias toward management in WDFW seemingly exacting his revenge in vindictive fashion about those he chooses to criticize.  The book abruptly ends, with little to no conclusion to the stories and people followed throughout the book.  One must conclude that the book might have been better served with a later release including this information.  With so few books covering this topic available, Operation Cody delivers in providing insight into wildlife criminal operations you can't get elsewhere. 

My opinions about the topics in the book:
The author put himself out there, scarily so.  From a legal perspective, undoubtedly the author has put himself at risk for a civil suit.  I appreciated the fact that entrapment was explained.  Throughout the book, we get only one perspective but even that perspective makes me wonder how close to entrapment many of these buy/sells were.  As a defense attorney, the value in racking up more and more charges on top of the already solid charges seems rather pointless and only serves to waste taxpayer money.  Very little, if anything in most of these cases will benefit by having a few more charges.  Ultimately, you and I, as taxpayers, funded the illegal taking of countless game animals and protected birds.  Addicts went out and killed more eagles, hawks, etc. because they had a consistent buyer to sell this crap to.  How many animals died because we funded their killing on a consistent basis?

I think this operation was a good one, however, stretching it out 2 years seemed rather pointless.  1 year seemed perfect in terms of maximizing time, effort, money, and meaningful sentences on the actors.  The broad theme many are learning is that most wildlife crimes are not valued by society.  The diehard hunters on here are mad but they make up a minority and few of you are on regular juries that I see.  Prosecutors are expending the little resources they have on violent crime, DUI, etc.  A guy killing some extra elk doesn't hit high on their radar.  With only a few exceptions, judges don't hand out hard sentences on this stuff.  Why?  Their actions reflect general society that doesn't care as much as they do with a guy facing his 12 DUI, etc.  Most of you say you want better prosecutors and harder judges, but I suspect you don't really want to pay for it.  If we seriously jailed everyone on wildlife crimes, we would have to rework more serious crime sentences as well.  Do you want a guy poaching to get more than a guy who endangered you and I on his 5th DUI, or who raped your sister?  No. 

The amount of time and money spent on this case is astonishing.  I hate poachers as much as most of you on here, but I also see the other side of it.  The cost/benefit we got out of this operation seems not worth it.  This is not to say that UCwarden's job was not well done here.  It seemed he worked a decent operation and did his job relatively well.  It's not his call to make on cost/benefit with regard to undercover operations, etc.  Perhaps superiors saw what I see and it wasn't appreciated by those actually working the operation?  We may never know.  I would love to get the opinions, facts, etc. from the other actors in this book.  When I read a police report, it's at the far end of the spectrum and usually very influential writing used to persuade prosecutors, judges, etc.  This book reads like a police report and it makes me wonder the other side of the story we aren't getting.  Ultimately, the truth is somewhere in the middle.  It's a good book as it gleans insight in this type of an operation.  I would run this type of an operation very different.  It also po'ed me to learn we let natives off the hook on criminal charges because of their status. 

[trophyhunt]

Wow, you have some good points but I get the feeling you think it was a waste of time and money?  I guess we could have not spent a dime and done nothing?  He and his partner did the best they could, his bosses are responsible for the complete wasting of money and the uc's time.  As much money that our state government waste on everything else, I would rather they try and nail these poaching *censored*s even if some of it is a waste.  I would not call this operation a waste at all, even if the rat *censored*s in charge, the prosecutors and judges dropped the ball. I opened a lot of our eyes to how bad it really is. 

[popeshawnpaul]

Nobody dropped the ball.  It's just few care.  I think they should have done the operation, but limit the focus to the same individuals, spread it out to more people, and end it after a year.  Some of the calls to give money on a continual basis to support the killing of more wildlife seems a waste.  If people are convicted to nothing sentences what is the value in racking up more and more repetitive charges?  Come sit in court and you'll get a different perspective, I'm sure.  The frustration of the wardens on the prosecutors, lenient sentences, etc. is what I'm talking about.  They got those opinions from watching the system.  There are a few exceptions, like in Chelan County, but they are few and far between.  By the way, I value these crimes and would be a tough one to sentence on these issues if I were the judge, however, I recognize most are not like me. 

[ucwarden]

I agree with some of popeshawnpaul's points but disagree with others.
First of all, Operation Cody did not go 2 years.  I proposed 2 years but we got shut down early; we were to work no new suspects after only 14 months, and did the take-downs after 21 months.
I still feel 2 years was a very reasonable time-frame, as it takes a while to get the word out (about our "business") and really start bringing the good ones out of the woodwork.  I see no reason to start a large scale case, such as this one, and not take every opportunity to catch as many bad guys as possible.
I also disagree with the whole argument about having suspects keep killing for no reason.  Up until February 29th, that was not the case, as we were still trying to gather as many suspects as possible.  There is simply no way we could turn down all offers from our already established suspects, yet buy from new suspects, without the very real concern that our old suppliers/customers would communicate with our newer suspects.  For example; it would have been impossible to explain why we were turning down eagles from one of our established suppliers but were willing to buy from someone we had just met (if they knew each other and talked).  After February 29th, when we were told to not deal with anyone but our top-eight suspects, I agree....that was a waste of time and wildlife, but that was not our call.

One thing I also disagree with was the comment about the costs of our operation.  While it was certainly not our goal (in any way) to make money on this operation, I would guess that when all the numbers are crunched, we either broke even or came really close.  This operation didn't cost the state much money at all.  It was probably the most cost efficient case WDFW has ever done.

As far as sentencing, punishment etc.; there simply isn't much any of us can do until the legal system starts taking these crimes seriously.  That is just part of working these types of crimes; we do our best on our end, but frequently the prosecutors and/or judges don't give them the attention many of us feel they should.   

[billythekidrock]

First, my review:

Operation Cody takes you through an undercover operation involving the buying and selling of illegal wildlife in Washington.  The author's first hand knowledge, insight, and willingness to share in this operation benefits readers by educating them in a world not commonly seen.  The chronological layout of the book allows you to follow the process from start to finish, following the players and characters in the book throughout the operation.  The book is entertaining and provokes thought on the many subjects explored in the book.  Throughout the operation, the author brings light to the WDFW enforcement and management.  Ultimately, the author's personal bias and hatred displayed at many points in the book detract from the operation, book, and his message.  At a few points, the book becomes uncomfortable to read as the author takes us through his hatred and bias toward management in WDFW seemingly exacting his revenge in vindictive fashion about those he chooses to criticize.  The book abruptly ends, with little to no conclusion to the stories and people followed throughout the book.  One must conclude that the book might have been better served with a later release including this information.  With so few books covering this topic available, Operation Cody delivers in providing insight into wildlife criminal operations you can't get elsewhere. 

My opinions about the topics in the book:
The author put himself out there, scarily so.  From a legal perspective, undoubtedly the author has put himself at risk for a civil suit.  I appreciated the fact that entrapment was explained.  Throughout the book, we get only one perspective but even that perspective makes me wonder how close to entrapment many of these buy/sells were.  As a defense attorney, the value in racking up more and more charges on top of the already solid charges seems rather pointless and only serves to waste taxpayer money.  Very little, if anything in most of these cases will benefit by having a few more charges.  Ultimately, you and I, as taxpayers, funded the illegal taking of countless game animals and protected birds.  Addicts went out and killed more eagles, hawks, etc. because they had a consistent buyer to sell this crap to.  How many animals died because we funded their killing on a consistent basis?

I think this operation was a good one, however, stretching it out 2 years seemed rather pointless.  1 year seemed perfect in terms of maximizing time, effort, money, and meaningful sentences on the actors.  The broad theme many are learning is that most wildlife crimes are not valued by society.  The diehard hunters on here are mad but they make up a minority and few of you are on regular juries that I see.  Prosecutors are expending the little resources they have on violent crime, DUI, etc.  A guy killing some extra elk doesn't hit high on their radar.  With only a few exceptions, judges don't hand out hard sentences on this stuff.  Why?  Their actions reflect general society that doesn't care as much as they do with a guy facing his 12 DUI, etc.  Most of you say you want better prosecutors and harder judges, but I suspect you don't really want to pay for it.  If we seriously jailed everyone on wildlife crimes, we would have to rework more serious crime sentences as well.  Do you want a guy poaching to get more than a guy who endangered you and I on his 5th DUI, or who raped your sister?  No. 

The amount of time and money spent on this case is astonishing.  I hate poachers as much as most of you on here, but I also see the other side of it.  The cost/benefit we got out of this operation seems not worth it.  This is not to say that UCwarden's job was not well done here.  It seemed he worked a decent operation and did his job relatively well.  It's not his call to make on cost/benefit with regard to undercover operations, etc.  Perhaps superiors saw what I see and it wasn't appreciated by those actually working the operation?  We may never know.  I would love to get the opinions, facts, etc. from the other actors in this book.  When I read a police report, it's at the far end of the spectrum and usually very influential writing used to persuade prosecutors, judges, etc.  This book reads like a police report and it makes me wonder the other side of the story we aren't getting.  Ultimately, the truth is somewhere in the middle.  It's a good book as it gleans insight in this type of an operation.  I would run this type of an operation very different.  It also po'ed me to learn we let natives off the hook on criminal charges because of their status. 

Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing.

[Special T]

I understand where Pope is coming form on this. I think it really points out how broken the system is..
 To me If you cannot put away the worst of the wildlife offenders Then why do anything at all? I can tell you what burns me up more than anything is how  it is the people who TRY to do the right thing, or make a simple mistake get hammered. Unfortunately this problem is NOT unique to Game issues. ALL Civil/criminal issues across the board have a hard time enforcing against people with nothing...

Since Pope is a defence attorney I am curiouse what his solution to this issue is? Set aside any entrapment issues you may think there were... What is the best way to punish the worst 2-5% of offenders while realizing the current system WILL NOT put them in jail...

[ucwarden]

I understand where Pope is coming form on this. I think it really points out how broken the system is..
 To me If you cannot put away the worst of the wildlife offenders Then why do anything at all? I can tell you what burns me up more than anything is how  it is the people who TRY to do the right thing, or make a simple mistake get hammered. Unfortunately this problem is NOT unique to Game issues. ALL Civil/criminal issues across the board have a hard time enforcing against people with nothing...

Since Pope is a defence attorney I am curiouse what his solution to this issue is? Set aside any entrapment issues you may think there were... What is the best way to punish the worst 2-5% of offenders while realizing the current system WILL NOT put them in jail...

Excellent question.  It would probably be helpful to have Pope (or someone in his position) help out to see what (if anything) can be done. 

[jackmaster]

Well this isn't going to score me any points and I am not intentionally turning this into a bash the defense attorney but sorry you defense attorneys are part of the problem when you defend pieces of trash like this clown in question, he wouldn't have came up with his defense without the help of his attorney! What do you guys give a rip as long as your getting paid, pretty frigging sad when are animals are paying the ultimate price!!!!! Who the hell stands up for them? Only US sportsman and guys like UC WARDEN....defense attorneys done give a crap about are animals because they cant figure out how to get money out of them......

[PLUVIUSWAPITI]

couldn't agree with you more jackmaster.

[jackmaster]

couldn't agree with you more jackmaster.

thank you, i figure it will piss people off but oh well,  it irritates me that some could think that this was b orderline entrappment, thats friggin nuts, the scud bottom vagrant was told time and time again how illegal it was and he often responded with that he was fully aware of how illegal it was, you can say well we are only getting one side of the story, so what, what does U.C have to gain by embellishing the truth??? not a damn thing, he is the one putting it out there, so many people cry and complain about needing someone to step up, well someone has, he should get nothing but support until he proves otherwise

[ucwarden]

couldn't agree with you more jackmaster.

thank you, i figure it will piss people off but oh well,  it irritates me that some could think that this was b orderline entrappment, thats friggin nuts, the scud bottom vagrant was told time and time again how illegal it was and he often responded with that he was fully aware of how illegal it was, you can say well we are only getting one side of the story, so what, what does U.C have to gain by embellishing the truth??? not a damn thing, he is the one putting it out there, so many people cry and complain about needing someone to step up, well someone has, he should get nothing but support until he proves otherwise

Thanks Jackmaster, but now my 2 cents worth.  It's easy to blame defense attorneys when things don't go the way we want, but believe me when I say; they are just doing the jobs they are paid to do.  Normally when cases go bad for the state/prosecutor, it is because either the case wasn't that solid to begin with, or the prosecutor screwed up.  I will use the Bona case as an example.  I don't in anyway blame Bona's defense attorney, he was just doing the best job he could.  I do, however, blame the prosecutor and the judge.  The prosecutor should have been prepared to go to trial if need-be, instead of working so hard for a plea deal, and the judge had every opportunity on earth to put the man behind bars.  They dropped the ball, not the defense attorney.
Also; please don't make the mistake of thinking defense attorneys always agree with or like their clients.  They are people too, and often times they are shocked and repulsed by what their client has done.  It's just the way the system works.
I have done some international travelling in my years, and despite the problems our legal system has, we still have the best system I have seen in the world.

I have learned over the years, that defense attorneys (even though they work hard to punch holes in our cases) are not the enemy, and they very often are the best one's at telling us how to improve our cases, so they can't find those holes to punch.

[Curly]

Do you want a guy poaching to get more than a guy who endangered you and I on his 5th DUI, or who raped your sister?  No. 

Well, I have a solution.  Get tougher on those other crimes so that a poacher can get an appropriate sentence in relation to the other crimes.  The worst wildlife trafficer in WA state history should not get a slap on the wrist just because other criminals are not getting punished like they deserve.  That makes no sense.

And the other solution is like Bigtex always brings up..............mandatory minimums.  If judges are not doing their jobs, then mandatory minimum sentences are going to have to be implemented..........then judge doesn't have to worry about feeling sorry for the poor criminal who didn't know any better.