A 30-inch adult steelhead trout in Mission Creek photographed in 2008.

Mark Capelli

A 30-inch adult steelhead trout in Mission Creek photographed in 2008.

Fisherman Fined for Catching Steelhead

Fish and Wildlife Warden Follows Trail of Evidence

Monday, September 9, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

Don’t think that fishing for endangered species will fly in Santa Barbara. Such was the lesson learned by two men earlier this year when their attempts to hook southern steelhead trout at Atascadero Creek were uncovered by a hidden camera and some Fish and Wildlife detective work.

In April, environmental scientists in charge of monitoring the fish spotted a number of them in the creek. The scientists, worried that others could also find the endangered fish and might want to catch them, set up a motion-activated camera by the waterway to keep an eye on any activity. Soon after, the camera caught two men — later identified as Kyle Chase Dillard, 20, and Jason Wayne Kautz, 21 — fishing in the creek. The photos showed Dillard catching what scientists identified to be one of the trout.

Luckily for Fish and Wildlife warden Brandon Alisio, the men left behind the price tag and packaging of one of their fishing poles. Using his sleuthing skills, Alisio took the price tag and packaging to Sports Authority, where he looked over the retailer’s surveillance footage and saw the two men buying the fishing pole. With help from the store, Alisio was able to tie the purchase to a customer loyalty card with a Santa Barbara address.

Kyle Dillard, caught on camera April 14, 2013, pleaded guilty to illegally fishing an endangered species and was subsequently fined.
Click to enlarge photo

Dept. of Fish Wildlife

Kyle Dillard, caught on camera April 14, 2013, pleaded guilty to illegally fishing an endangered species and was subsequently fined.

At that address — one of the men’s parents’ house — Alisio and warden Scott Cohen found Dillard and Kautz, who both admitted to fishing in the creek. Dillard said that he had caught the fish seen in the photos but added that it swam away when his fishing line broke.

In July, Dillard pleaded guilty to misdemeanor unlawful handling of an endangered species and was ordered to pay a $375 fine, said the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office. The charges against Kautz were dropped.

According to Fish and Wildlife, the act of killing or capturing, or attempting to kill or capture, an endangered species is illegal, as is fishing in anadromous bodies of water, meaning those that that flow to the ocean as Atascadero Creek does. The organization’s website states that southern steelhead trout are born in freshwater streams, migrate to the ocean for a bit, and return to the streams to spawn. Alisio said that it was normal for the fish to be in Atascadero Creek but added that they are not found there every year.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Wow, hooking steelhead AND leaving trash behind. Did he even have a fishing license? All that info is on there. Great detective work.

Nitz (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ahh, poor kids, they probably had no idea they were doing anything wrong.

Meanwhile Samuel Clemens is turning in his grave.

"They say if you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. But if you teach a man to fish...then he has to get a fishing license. But he doesn't have any money, so he has to get a job and enter the social security system. And he has to file taxes, and you're gonna audit the poor son of a bitch because he's not really good at math. You pull the IRS van up to his house and take everything. You take his velvet Elvis and his toothbrush and it all goes up for auction with the burden of proof on him because he forgot to carry the 1. All because he wanted to eat a fish, and he couldn't even cook the fish because you need a permit for an open flame. And then the health department is gonna wanna ask him a bunch of questions about where he's going to dispose of the scales and the guts - this is not a sanitary environment. And ladies and gentleman, if you get sick and tired of all this at the end of the day, it's not even legal to kill yourself in this country. You were born free and you got f'd out of half of it, and you wave a flag celebrating that fact. If you wanna fix the pledge of allegiance, put a disclaimer at the end: With liberty and justice for all...must be 18, void where prohibited, some restrictions may apply, not available in all states."

-Doug Stanhope

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Were there 'No Fishing' signs posted? In English and Spanish? Who are the environmental scientists? How many cameras do they have spying on the public?

ramoncramon (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hurrah! Good work, CA Fish and Wildlife!

at_large (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great detective work. I am so happy these fish are being protected from cretins who think it's okay to hunt and kill anything they please. Hooray.

chilldrinfthenight (anonymous profile)
September 9, 2013 at 11:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, now kids who want to go down to the creek to fish are "cretins" ?? Really? Is this an episode of the twilight zone or are we really that far removed from our roots?

What is wrong with hunting and fishing? What, we have to eat animals that come from farms that are fed grains grown using petroleum based pesticides, herbicides, giving animals anti-biotics, or farm fish from the grocery store again fed grains grown using petroleum based substances? All of these grain fed animals increasing our body's inflammatory response causing numerous diseases like cancer, diabetes and heart disease?

Or do we become vegetarian and have to depend on acres and acres of grains grown on land that has to be tore up every year, destroying habitat of larger animals not to mention continually killing countless smaller animals and often times depleting the soil of nutrients over time? Also causing the same issues with inflammation as above with the grain fed animals, and this is how we "save the environment" ??

Ok, admittedly not everybody in SB can go down to fish in our creeks and expect them to remain fruitful, but do we really need to demonize those who probably didn't even know and probably just wanted to go out and connect with nature a little? Maybe the fine should be brought down a bit for individuals, and maybe post some signs instead of cameras.

Fresh fish and wild animals like boar, deer, elk and bison are as healthy of food as you can get.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok.... First off wtf!? i did not catch a steelhead nor did I leave trash behind. My friend kyle accidentally hooked the one steelhead and immediately released it unharmed. We did not know fishing was restricted here seeing as how their were no signs posted whatsoever. We were only fishing for sculpin, clipped our barbs and were releasing everything we caught. I think its pretty ridiculous that their was a camera hidden in the bushes but know one bothered to put up signs that said it was restricted. How were we supposed to know? We intended no harm to the wildlife and grew up here in Santa Barbara and love nature. Also, I dont see how this is news worthy considering all of the important stuff going on in the world right now

jwkautz2 (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 12:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

^Completely agree... sounds like they are trying to 'make an example' of somebody for community educational purposes or something.. if they are going to do that they really shouldn't use your real names or photos.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Agreed. Im not cool with them saying "their attempts to hook southern steelhead trout at Atascadero Creek" Neither of us were trying to hook a steel head and didnt know we couldnt be fishing there

jwkautz2 (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey jwkautz2, Did you have a fishing license? If not you were breaking the law.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I did and do. We got in trouble for reckless endangerment of a protected species of which we were not trying to catch

jwkautz2 (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you for commenting here. You sound like an honest guy who got caught up in a funky situation. How about a neighborhood car wash to help pay the fine?

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I for one think it is completely insane that an individual is required to purchase a fishing license when their catch is for their own consumption, or their family or friends. Do you have any idea how many fish you have to catch just to make your annual fishing license worthwhile?

I can understand the desire to want to increase fish populations and while their may be better alternatives, fishing laws should only apply to commercial fishermen and not individuals.

Fortunately they don't require fishing licenses when fishing from most piers.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As the mother of one of the young men in this article, I am disappointed on many levels. I am baffled by our bureaucracym that followed the instructions of a supposed expert in the field of protecting steelhead, and mounting hidden cameras at the location where this fish lived. After the fact, a hidden camera can show who caught a steelhead, but it sure won't prevent innocent people from fishing or catching the fish. Signs posted would have been much more proactive, preventive and protective.

I am disappointed, that as a journalist, Lyz Hoffman did not research both sides of the story in order to write her article in a nonbiased manner. Her description of the intent of these two kids is grossly inaccurate. They did not know, nor did that have any way of knowing, that fishing was prohibited in this area. They went to that water hole just to throw in a line. They knew that catching a steelhead was not legal and would never have intentionally caught or killed one.

I am disappointed at the remarks from some of our community, using slanderous language such as "cretins." The familes of both of the boys involved are well respected and made huge sacrifices to enable these two boys to attend the best schools our community has to offer. These kids are not losers. Sadly, those remarks are based on the bias in the article, resulting in undeserved defamation of character of the two young men.

Lastly, I have been an SB Independent reader since its inception. I was a roomate with one of the current editors for a time in the early 80s. I have always read this publication with a sense of acceptance of its contents as truthful and unbiased. Now, sadly, I know that I can no longer read the SB Independent without suspicion of dishonesty and damaging bias. So sad this learning experience has been for me and my son.

AndraD (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AndraD, your son knew enough about fishing to have a license and th catch a fish that is not easy to hook. Since he spent $45 on a license, one would think that he would learn some of the rules of fishing. The basic ones are about where you can fish and what you can fish for. He violated both and got caught. Why? Because after all those years at the finest schools he failed to learn to pick up discarded fishing tackle wrapping. Fish and Game made an example of one of the men,your son? That is how they work. They are much like the traffic cops. They cannot be everywhere so when they catch someone they want to make it hurt financially. It is $375 a fairly inexpensive lesson.

I thought that the article was fair. Some of the comment were as usual, not so fair.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh and you cannot put up warning signs because it would advertise the fact that there are tasty fish in the creek. The scoffed would just disable the cameras and have a field day. Next time read the rules of fishing.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 10, 2013 at 9:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The kids got caught (I do believe they are good kids), the fine imposed (which is reasonable) and everyone learns a lesson. I didn't think the article was unfair and nowhere did it imply or suggest that these kids were ruthless renegades. Signs cannot be posted everywhere, it's up to those with a fishing license to know the rules and regulations about fishing.

sue (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 9:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes always follow the "rules of fishing" and be a good Mundane...

Tyranny creates new libertarians every day.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you have a valid fishing license you better know the rules!

The same goes for driving legally in CA.

No excuses!

Ignorance is never an excuse.

Barron (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes there are new selfish libertarians born every day. Then once they put the bong and their precious Atlas Shrugged copy down, they realize that rules are what makes a modern society successful. it is called growing up.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Modern society is not successful, Herschel, it is based on state sanctioned violence and it is highly dysfunctional.

Libertarians are not "selfish", libertarians realize that everybody would be better off if we were given free choice to support the markets and ideas that we believe in rather than leaving it up to an elected body to tell us what we want or believe when that elected body is just going to be made up mostly of people working for the large banks and corporations. Individuals within society are responsible for ensuring that elected bodies that govern them are only working to protect the rights and property of individuals and are not there to confiscate income and plan for others as this inevitably leads to corruption.

Libertarians are all for "rules" if those rules are there to protect a person from being injured by another, to protect private property or to enforce voluntarily agreed upon contracts.

If we had property rights in this country, then anybody who owns property along our watersheds could sue others who destroy the watershed, take too much water, trap too many fish, etc. because when the person bought their property they bought a functional watershed with allocated resources. If they destroy it, then they have to pay to repair it for the others who have property on the watershed. If that was the case, then we would still have functioning watersheds with plenty of trout. But instead we get city planners coming in and destroying and subverting the natural ecosystems that other people may depend on for their food or water. That is the system YOU support. It is dysfunctional.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I, too, am growing increasingly disappointed at the unprofessional journalism coming from the Independent. While I agree that what Kyle did was not smart, and that there's no excuse for littering, the article paints him as a criminal who was out looking for steelhead. He's the gentlest guy you could hope to meet, the kind of guy who would rescue wildlife, but who made mistakes that 20-year-olds make. He is a good person, and does not deserve the Independent's depiction.
After years of trusting the Independent, I no longer do. (Not on the basis of just this article, but a series of similarly one-sided stories with sensationalistic headlines. This is just the last straw.) Is there no one supervising the inexperienced staff? The "reporter" owes Kyle an apology.

Judlof (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"I have always read this publication with a sense of acceptance of its contents as truthful and unbiased."
-- AndraD

You've got to be kidding me. EVERY media report has a viewpoint, a bias, a slant (spin) and errors of omission and commission. That it took, what, 40+ years for you to figure this out says a lot. It also validates that old saw, "The acorn never falls far from the tree." If you kids grew up here and didn't know that the steelhead are a protected species, I suggest you go back to your "best" school and demand a refund. Or maybe it would be easier to go have a look in a mirror and have a heart-to-heart conversation with the person you see there.

SezMe (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This article makes no mention of the motivation or criminal intent of the guilty party. It is all facts no opinion. The only depiction that the Independent made were based on the facts of the case. Just accept the facts that this nice gentle wildlife loving young man got caught breaking the law.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Check out the first paragraph, which specifies their "attempts to hook southern steelhead". This clearly implies criminal intent.

Judlof (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You hooked a steelhead. Pay the man his money. No need for best schools, great families, etc...nobody thinks your boys are desperadoes.

You are sad and disappointed. Got it. Move on.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Uh he not only attempted to hook a steelhead, he in fact hooked a steelhead. How is that biased? Would you like some cheese with your whine?

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Herschel, if you knew he was trying to hook a stealhead, then why not send the SWAT team to his house the morning before he went fishing and charge him with the future crime of hooking a stealhead?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 4:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

He put a fishhook in the water. Did it have a sign on it saying, "No, no, steely, stay away!" If not, guilty as charged. Bang. Case closed.

SezMe (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SezMe, if Steelhead trout are such an endangered species, then why would someone assume if they put a hook in a body of what that one would bite it?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hello SB Independent Readers & Journalists, I am Kyle Dillard, The one charged with Unlawful Handling of an Endangered Species.. I am NOT a "fisherman", although I was fishing that day. I have a love for fish, but i've only fished on vacations and a few times when I was a child, with my father..but I enjoy salt water fishtanks, many of my friends have them... As for the Event itself, I made a mistake, as well as hooking a fish which i had NO intention of catching, or keeping, I also left my reciept for the pole i had just bought that day, a small bass-pole, intended for little fish, near the hole, on the ground. it was my first time fishing in years. and when I left, the reciept wasnt with the rest of my stuff, i thought I had picked up all of my things when I left, but it was MY MISTAKE to litter. It was an accident.. When I hooked that fish, I was shocked, we were fishing for small fish with tiny, barbless hooks, which we assumed would be invasive Sculpin and maybe little Sunfish/BlueGill, I had NO idea that there were endangered steal-head in that little hole until I was face to face with the fish. Luckily, It fell back into the water, unharmed, as well as untouched, I had NO intent of keeping ANY fish i caught that day. We had no coolers or any way of keeping our catch.. In the end, I payed the price and faced the consequences, the fine was actually 530 dollars, NOT 375, the reporter was not accurate in describing our intent, we were NOT "fishing FOR Steelhead", I dont want the public to think im a bad guy because that fish ended up on my hook. I learned many things throughout the experience. It left a sour taste in my mouth and I dont plan on fishing again.. I payed the price. "Case Closed".

AndraD (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We have it made. The trout swim into the ocean, we eat them, and humans don't throw us fishhooks because they know we will eat the humans, fishhooks, and all.

dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dude, it's understood it was accidental...but it happened. You took responsibility, paid the man.....good job.

See mom, no need to pack a sad.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll throw in my 2 cents worth on the ongoing Greenspan/Loonpt feud.

While no two people will ever fully agree on anything, nor will they totally disagree, I will address Mr. Greenspan's comment about "selfish libertarians".

The reason I vote libertarian--and I certainly don't fully agree with their platform nor do I deny that some of them are selfish--(just as selfish folks are found among Republicans, Democrats, Greens, and so forth) is because like Loonpt, I see an encroaching Nanny State where you can't comb your hair without someone being down your back imposing some sort of tariff, fee, fine, tax, and in general, getting in your face.

Example given: In order to apply for a job as a contracted security guard, you know have to take a 40-hour course and pay several hundred dollars to obtain a guard card. It used to be a background check and a $35 annual fee. Ostensibly, this is to have guards properly trained to deal with terrorism. Apart from the "Chicken Little" fearmongering and totally unrealistic nature of this law, how does someone who is applying for an $8 dollar per hour job able to afford this? By the way, this is a STATE law, courtasy of the progressive state of California which claims to represent the working class.

Try to start a small business: Forget it. Fees, permits, waiting periods. Any wonder businesses are leaving California?

Mandatory spay/neuter laws which don't take into account the science behind the issue. Desexing an animal before it's mature means the bones don't get to develop properly, and the animal can have terrible health problems through its shortened life, but PETA, HSUS, Pam Anderson, and Bob Barker are considered experts and more knowledgable than educated veteranarians who aren't financially benefitting from these laws. Any reason why responsible dog breeders and dog shows are leaving California in droves, and taking the tax dollars the dog shows generate with them?

Campaign finance laws: If we reduce the role of government from being an enabler of crony capitalism to the role of being a funcionary entity in our lives, then we won't have so many people/corporations buying off politicians because these politicians will be restrained from being able to give kickbacks to their contributors.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

(part two of two)We are on the brink of yet another war. We are being fed the line "woman and children" (always talk about "the children" to gain sympathy for your cause) How many "women and children" (since apparently men are immune to feeling the pain of bombs dropping on their villages from U.S. war planes) have died in U.S. air strikes?

Then of course there is the oft-maligned "War on Drugs" which feeds the prison-industrial complex by throwing an endless supply of people into the prison system, ruining their lives. The Patriot Act which gives the government increased powers to spy on us, and the National Defense Authorization Act which allows the government to throw people in jail and keep them there--without trial. All of this is supported by the "progressive" Democratic Party (although of course their are some mavericks within the party) all of this is opposed by Libertarian

So Mr Greenspan, while I won't presume to know who you vote for, understand the reason THIS blue-collar worker votes Libertarian, and isn't sold into the lie "progressive" politicians and Hollywood celebrities are selling.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nice rant Bill. Is starting a business really that difficult? My experience has been that it is easy. I am glad that there is basic training for security guards. Wow forty hours, only one five day work week of training for a potentially dangerous job. They should have more training. The problem is that security guards are paid too little.
Oh no spay and neuter laws. Bill I do not have a dog in that fight, but is there a shortage of laws? Campaign finance laws should be far stronger than they are today.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Heh, you want to talk about a "shortage of laws", Herschel??

The average person commits 3 FELONIES A DAY thanks to your ideology of endless government control over every aspect of our lives.

"The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior."

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Campaign finance laws. That book's title and thesis are patiently absurd. If every one was as well adjusted as you Loonpt, there would be no need for any laws. You could let your freedom flag fly. However the rest of us need rules to have an effective society. It sounds like the laws here in the USA are far too restictive for you. May I suggest Somalia, where I hear that the libertarian thing is really taking off. Herscbel has left the buliding.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Herschel left a little bit too soon.

"Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It

Somalia is in the news again. Rival gangs are shooting each other, and why? The reason is always the same: the prospect that the weak-to-invisible transitional government in Mogadishu will become a real government with actual power.

The media invariably describe this prospect as a "hope." But it's a strange hope that is accompanied by violence and dread throughout the country.

Somalia has done very well for itself in the 15 years since its government was eliminated. The future of peace and prosperity there depends in part on keeping one from forming.

As even the CIA factbook admits:

"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security.""

But the violence, you say! You really want to live in a place with that much violence?

Well why don't we ask ourselves why there is so much violence there.

"So the US continued to talk about a “power vacuum” and secretly funneled money to its favorite warlords — a fact which the US officially denies but which has nonetheless been widely reported. Officials who have criticized the policy have been shut up and reassigned."

You mean to tell me that the establishment is so scared of a stateless society that they have to fund wars just to create a government, and then they have the gall to blame the violence on the lack of existence of a state? *Shakes Head*

Of course the propaganda arm of an all powerful government is not going to advertise this stuff, nor will they advertise the reason why they violently hold ships hostage is because their country is used as a toxic waste dumping ground that has severely affected the health of the locals and since the rest of the world won't aknowledge that or provide any restitution they resort to violence out of pure desperation. Maybe they should be treated with more respect by the rest of the world instead of being constantly insulted.......or more commonly as an insult used by statists to tell libertarians they should uproot and move to if they don't like the oppressive tyranny of the state.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 11, 2013 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Herschel left the building because it got too hot in the kitchen.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 12, 2013 at 5:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Somalia has done very well for itself in the 15 years since its government was eliminated."
-- loonpt

I hereby nominate that sentence as the most absurd one ever to appear in these comments. That the assertions are supported by cites to mises and rockwell only demonstrate the utterly opaque blinders loonpt is wearing.

Let's see what (for just one of countless similar cites) has to say:

Somalia is one of the poorest countries in the world, ranking 161st out of 163 countries on the United Nations’ Human Development Index in 2001. Somalia did not appear on the 2006 index for lack of data. About 40 percent of Somalis live in extreme poverty (on less than $1 a day). Livestock agriculture, once a mainstay, has been devastated by war and by the refusal of Saudi Arabia, formerly a primary trading partner, to import Somali livestock over health concerns.

“Over the past year,” Sam Zarifi of Human Rights Watch told the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on Oct. 3, 2007, “we have seen an already volatile region become even more violent and unstable, with hundreds of thousands of civilians suffering massive crimes. There has been little or no response from important voices in the international community, including the United States.” Somalia is in a state of virtual anarchy. There is no free press. Reporters are routinely detained and occasionally murdered.


Let me repeat one sentence: "Somalia is in a state of virtual anarchy."

loonpt, find me some verifiable evidence from NON-libertarian mouthpieces that Somalia is doing well and I'll eat my pixels.

SezMe (anonymous profile)
September 13, 2013 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I particularly like this line - "There is a lovely Somali saying - if you have a hundred goats and your cousin has none, then you are a poor man."

I think I like the Somali Pirates. From their perspective, they are providing justice to the very same organizations who have been polluting and ransacking their oceans and land. It's sort of like a court system in a land without justice, certainly not optimal, but what else are you going to do.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 13, 2013 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

loonpt (anonymous profile)
September 13, 2013 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

this is total and complete crap on the states part.

i have been harassed several times for doing the same thing these kids were doing and i have just recently pinpointed the exact sections in the regulations that allow for fishing in these streams. however the regulations state that it is only allowed from the last Saturday in April to Nov. 17 so they were technically poaching but they were still following every other regulation for that body of water.

and this newspaper needs to start reporting the whole story instead of just the parts that make for an entertaining story

atascaderofisher (anonymous profile)
March 13, 2014 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: