Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2014 | Page 30

FORENSICS JOURNAL

tence (Espinoza et al. 104). Special Agent Al Crane, of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, witnessed a scene in rural Alaska
where hundreds of deadless walrus had washed ashore (Neme 7). Special Agent Crane knew what species the victim was, a walrus; however,
he needed to further investigate the circumstance of the killing in
order to determine whether it was an illegal act.

ent at different locations on each tusk or tooth (“Nuke Test”). Next,
they used an accelerated mass spectrometer to compare the levels of
carbon-14 to carbon-12. The scientists could determine when the
animal died by the carbon-14 levels present at the most recent tissue
formed on the tusk (“Nuke Test”). They concluded that their method
could determine if an animal died prior to 1955 because of the low
levels of carbon-14 due to pre-nuclear testing, and could determine
death within one year after 1955 (“Nuke Test”).

For the walrus killings to be legal subsistence hunting, the investigators needed to prove the Native Alaskans killed the walrus, and that
no part of the walrus was wasted (Espinoza et al. 104). If during the
investigation the evidence proved wastefulness with only removal of
the tusks, then the walrus killings would be an illegal act. To be considered non-wasteful, the hunters would recover the blubber, flippers,
liver, heart, and ivory (Espinoza et al. 104). It would be impossible to
bring hundreds of walrus into the laboratory for examination. Thus,
the wildlife forensic scientists and investigators examined the walrus
carcasses and performed necropsies, or animal autopsies in the field.

As evidenced by the aforementioned cases, wildlife crimes may have
exceptional situations or difficulties compared to human crime scenes.
Prior to the determination that an illegal act has occurred, multiple
tests, analyses, and investigations have been performed. With the
knowledge provided by wildlife forensic scientists, investigators make
the determination whether to proceed with an investigation of a
wildlife crime. The uniqueness of wildlife forensics lies in the fact
that most of the activities are conducted prior to the identification of
the illegal act. Once the determination has been made that a wildlife
crime occurred, traditional forensic science methods of linking the
suspect to the crime scene may be employed.

The wildlife forensic scientists conducted various studies to effectively
determine the legality of the headless walrus killings. They looked
at the sea currents, previous studies of walrus decomposition, and
weathering of exposed bone in the climate in which the carcasses were
discovered (Espinoza et al. 104-111). Following their extensive studies, the scientists created five categories. The first category included
headless walrus with clean vertebrae, which indicated the head was
removed prior to the carcass washing ashore. The killing of the walrus
in this category would be illegal if no other meat or part was taken
from the walrus (Espinoza et al. 110). Throughout the course of the
investigation, they determined that 169 out of 249 walrus illegal
killings (Espinoza et al. 111). Categories II, III, and IV had various
stages of decomposition and conditions of the carcasses; all three were
indicative of legal hunting (Espinoza et al. 111). Category V included
carcasses that were too decomposed to properly and accurately analyze
and no determination on the legality of the killing could be inferred
(Espinoza et al. 111). The studies conducted by the scientists are
reproducible; therefore it was an acceptable method of determining
the legality of subsistence hunting.

The species identification methods the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Forensic
Laboratory have developed are fundamentally important to the field
of wildlife forensics. Without these methods, officers would be unable
to conduct proper investigations. Wildlife investigators depend
on the wildlife forensic scientists who conduct and adapt scientific
methods specific to wildlife crimes. Wildlife forensic science is dependent on the widely accepted analytical techniques used in traditional
forensic science. This is especially true when adapting the already
accepted DNA methods to species identification. Moreover, wildlife
forensic investigators employ traditional forensic science methods
of linking the suspect to crime scene and/or evidence on a routine
investigatory basis. Wildlife forensic scientists have used and adapted
many techniques from the field of human forensics. Being able to
adapt and create new and emerging investigatory techniques is critical to the field of wildlife forensics. With a continued focus on the
investigation and prosecution of wildlife crime and the advancement
of wildlife forensic techniques, wildlife forensics may even influence
new traditional forensics techniques in the future.

Many of the federal laws protecting species are effective only after
the date they were enacted. For example, the African Elephant
Conservation Act of 1989 made it unlawful to import or export any
African elephant ivory or product after 1989. Therefore the legality
of the import is contingent upon the 1989 date. If elephant ivory
was imported prior to 1989 it is legal. This may create a problem for
investigators and/or prosecutors because if a suspect knows the law, he
may claim he imported the ivory prior to 1989. Researchers developed a method using radioactive carbon 14 present in ivory tusks,
to determine the year the animal died (“Nuke Test”). Nuclear tests
conducted in the 1950s and 60s converted nitrogen into carbon-14,
significantly increasing the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere
(“Nuke Test”). Scientists measured the amount of carbon-14 pres-

REFERENCES
“About the Lab.” U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Forensic Laboratory.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2013.
“Appendices.” Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Fauna and Flora. n.d. Web. 23 Sept. 2013.
“Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940.” Digest of Federal Resource Laws
of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service. n.d Web. 20 Sept. 2013.

29