If someone runs a business (which is what a farm is) don’t they have the responsibility to learn and abide by all the regulations that apply to that business?

That’s the issue though, isn’t it? Did the farmer think he was entitled to use poison to take care of coyotes, or were the laws against even this that he should reasonably have been aware of. If not, and the farmer was acting within his rights, how foreseeable was it that eagles would snack on the laced meat instead of coyotes. The story indicates he was convicted for unauthorized use of a registered pesticide – so he had a legal pesticide that he used in an illegal way, but did he know the pesticide was not supposed to be used as a poison? Was such use common among farmers and tacitly accepted by rural authorities? Was the law simply applied because the case involved three dead eagles? Of course we don’t know the particulars of the case, but, for me, these questions tend to pop out from the small set of facts we do have. Your other point, that you couldn’t solve your problem with poison and expect not to be sued when a neighbor’s dog died from eating it, what if instead you had bought German Shepard to deal with your coyote problem and it killed your neighbor’s dog when the dog trespassed onto your property? Would you expect to be sued for this? While it may be true that dogs bring a element of intelligence into the picture and are often the better choice, it doesn’t mean they are always the best choice, the farmer could have lived too far away from whatever he was trying to protect from coyotes for instance.

The law isn’t against poisoning coyotes, it’s against killing Bald Eagles. I currently live in a fairly urban area, but one that has coyotes. If I was having a coyote problem, I couldn’t just leave hamburger laced with poison and be shocked when my neighbors dog eats it and I get sued. I know dogs eat raw meat, and I know that they’re around. This is the same situation, but with a protected wild animal instead of a pet.

And all I’m saying is a law that punishes a farmer who puts out poison to kill coyotes with threat of imprisonment and a heavy fine does not sound like a well thought out law, in fact it sounds like a law thought up by a bunch of urbanites that probably have never seen a coyote outside of a zoo (not that they are ugly or anything, quite beautiful animals, its just they have a tendency to eat smaller livestock, and are a threat to beloved pets such as cats and small dogs), and for some reason think that farmers are a greater threat to biological diversity than strip-malls. Without poison, the farmer is left with fewer tools to do his job, like fences (notoriously ineffective), a rifle, big dogs, or so on, which may not be the best solution for the farmer in his particular situation. In this instance, the law as applied seemed to be far too harsh, and thus a pardon seems quite appropriate.

there are other means by which a farmer can protect his crops and NOT kill bald eagles. it’s nothing against farmers….just dumb ones.

“Farmer who accidently killed bald eagles pardoned”.

Of course it would. This was a farmer, a man raising animals for food for America, who was losing many to coyotes & wolves. Give it up Turley you left wing wacko.

Rafflaw, that won’t happen…