Treble Hooks and Knock-Off Caviar: How an Ancient Fish Still Appears in American Courtrooms 

Tom Burnett*

The American paddlefish, also known as a spoonbill, is a biological oddity: a prehistoric, plankton-feeding giant whose lineage dates back to the time of the dinosaurs.¹ For over one-hundred million years, paddlefish have swum the ancient currents destined to become America’s rivers.² In recent decades, however, paddlefish have become the subject of a thoroughly modern phenomenon—lawsuits.³ From federal courtrooms in Mississippi to appellate panels in the Sixth Circuit, paddlefish have become unlikely protagonists in a growing body of case law defining the reach of the Lacey Act, the scope of federal conservation authority, and the consequences of turning a vulnerable species into a commercial commodity.⁴

I. Paddlefish Are Vulnerable to Human Impact and Need Protection 

American paddlefish are highly vulnerable to overexploitation. Paddlefish take eight to ten years to reach sexual maturity, and mature females may not spawn every year.⁵ The species’ slow maturation, coupled with its low reproductive rate, makes paddlefish populations especially sensitive to overfishing.⁶ Because paddlefish are filter feeders, anglers traditionally snag them by skipping treble hooks just above the riverbed.⁷ Commercial fishermen also harvest paddlefish by locating them with GPS systems and throwing or placing gill nets.⁸ The high market value for paddlefish roe—often sold as a substitute for sturgeon caviar⁹—makes mature, egg-bearing females the primary harvesting targets and puts further pressure on paddlefish populations.¹⁰ Demand has increased for paddlefish roe as traditional caviar resources have declined.¹¹ As a result, American paddlefish populations plummeted during the twentieth century.¹² The damming of America’s rivers further compounded the paddlefish’s decline by blocking the fish’s seasonal migration to upstream spawning grounds.¹³ The species’ particular sensitivity to human impact has already led to one tragedy: The Chinese paddlefish, the only other paddlefish species to have survived into modern times, was declared extinct in 2020.¹⁴

II. Criminal Enforcement and the Lacey Act 

Although state agencies primarily manage American paddlefish populations,¹⁵ federal law plays a central role whenever paddlefish or their roe cross state or international borders. The federal hook is most often the Lacey Act, which prohibits the interstate or foreign trade of wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of state, federal, or tribal laws.¹⁶ Under the Lacey Act, trafficking or the intent to traffic illicit paddlefish or paddlefish roe with a market value in excess of $350 is a Class D felony.¹⁷ 

In United States v. Freeman, James Freeman pled guilty to conspiracy to violate the Lacey Act through illegal paddlefish harvesting and the interstate sale of roe.¹⁸ To harvest the roe, Freeman “would cut the egg sack out of the live fish and release her to swim away, slowly dying.”¹⁹ Freeman also lashed fish by their tails to the bank, leaving them to struggle for days until he was prepared to return to Kentucky and harvest the roe.²⁰ Although the reported decision focuses on post-conviction sentencing issues, Freeman’s underlying facts mirror many paddlefish prosecutions: unlawful harvest, movement across state lines, and monetization of roe in black-market channels.²¹ 

Another recurring theme in paddlefish litigation is misrepresentation of the roe’s origin. Defendants evade stricter state regulations by falsely reporting that paddlefish harvests occurred in waterways with looser regulations.²² For example, federal prosecutors charged Steve and Cornelia Kinder, the owner-operators of a pair of Kentucky-based caviar companies, for harvesting paddlefish in Ohio and falsely reporting their catch as originating in Kentucky.²³ Although the Kinders faced up to five years in prison and fines in excess of half-a-million dollars, the Kinders accepted a guilty plea that resulted in a five-thousand-dollar fine, one hundred hours of community service, and a three-year prohibition from fishing border waters and applying for or receiving a roe export permit.²⁴ 

III. Administrative and Civil Litigation 

Not all paddlefish cases arise from criminal enforcement. Because paddlefish are subject to international conservation controls, notably the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species,²⁵ exporters must also receive federal roe exportation permits.²⁶ To secure an exportation permit, an exporter must show the lawful harvest of roe and that “the proposed export would not be detrimental to the survival of the species.”²⁷ In Leisure Caviar, LLC v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Sixth Circuit considered an administrative dispute over delays and denials of export permits for paddlefish roe.²⁸ The court ultimately deferred to the agency’s expertise and emphasized the government’s broad discretion in administering wildlife export regimes.²⁹ While less dramatic than criminal prosecutions, cases like Leisure Caviar illustrate the government’s broad discretion to regulate wildlife. 

IV. What These Cases Reveal About Wildlife Law 

Taken together, paddlefish cases offer several insights into environmental and administrative law. First, these cases demonstrate the federal reach of conservation enforcement. Although states set fishing seasons and bag limits,³⁰ federal courts become the ultimate arbiters once interstate commerce is involved. Second, these cases show how courts treat wildlife trafficking as a serious economic crime, not merely a regulatory violation. Convictions may result in prison time, forfeiture, and substantial fines. Third, these cases reveal the judiciary’s willingness to defer to agencies on technical conservation judgments, particularly in the export and permitting context. Finally, paddlefish litigation highlights the difficulty of regulating valuable natural resources that straddle jurisdictional boundaries. Paddlefish move freely through river systems. The laws that protect them, however, are linked only by interstate compacts or federal oversight.³¹

Recent conservation efforts and a modern understanding of the impacts of dams have led to rebounding paddlefish populations in some watersheds.³² While the paddlefish’s continued survival “may hinge on continuing stocking efforts, development of fish-passage structures, conservation lockages, and improvement and protection of suitable spawning habitats,” the legal system has a role to play too.³³ Current federal regulations require that a roe exportation permit be denied if its issuance would “be detrimental to the survival of the species.”³⁴ This mandate must be taken seriously. By strictly prosecuting violations of the Lacey Act, requiring robust compliance for roe exportation permits, and continuing to grant federal agencies the latitude needed to protect an itinerant species, American paddlefish may continue their long journeys through America’s rivers for another epoch—mouths agape in the current. 

*Tom Burnett, J.D. Candidate, University of St. Thomas School of Law Class of 2026 (Managing Editor)

1. Paddlefish, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., https://www.fws.gov/species/paddlefish-polyodon-spathula [https://perma.cc/FB8R-VD5U] (last visited Feb. 1, 2026). ↩︎
2. Id. ↩︎
3. See, e.g., Arkansas Men Plead Guilty in Illegal Paddlefish Snagging Investigation; More than $14,000 in Fines, Restitution Levied, U.S. Att’y’s Off., E. Dist. Ark. (June 20, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/usao-edar/pr/arkansas-men-plead-guilty-illegal-paddlefish-snagging-investigation-more-14000-fines [https://perma.cc/QVP2-2UZQ]. ↩︎
4. See, e.g., United States v. Freeman, 729 F. Supp. 3d 613 (N.D. Miss. 2024); Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv., 616 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2010). ↩︎
5. Jeremey T. Risley, Ronald L. Johnson, Jeffrey W. Quinn, Evaluation of the Commercially Exploited Paddlefish Fishery in the Lower Mississippi River of Arkansas, 4 J. Se. Ass’n Fish & Wildlife Agencies 52, 52 (2017). ↩︎
6. Samuel Hill, Alabama River Paddlefish Season Suspended by State, Nat’l Fisherman (Aug. 21, 2018), https://www.nationalfisherman.com/gulf-south-atlantic/alabama-river-paddlefish-season-suspended-by-state [https://perma.cc/AZ2H-DA8Y]. ↩︎
7. Paddlefish: Tips for Fishing, Mo. Dept. Conservation, https://mdc.mo.gov/fishing/species/paddlefish/paddlefish-tips-fishing [https://perma.cc/5E9H-7WRT] (last visited Feb. 1, 2026).  ↩︎
8. Steven J. Rider & Travis R. Powell, Characteristics of Commercial Paddlefish Harvest from a Provisional Fishery in the Alabama River, Alabama, 10 J. Se. Ass’n Fish & Wildlife Agencies 17, 18–19 (2023) (describing the use of gill nets for commercial paddlefish harvest); see also Complaint of Forfeiture In Rem at 4, United States v. 1855.6 Pounds of American Paddlefish Meat, No. 4:18-CV-207 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 13, 2018) (noting that defendants utilized gill nets to harvest fish as they appeared on a GPS scanner). ↩︎
9. Paddlefish Caviar: An American Treasure from the Rivers, Caviar Lover, https://caviarlover.com/blogs/general/paddlefish-caviar-an-american-treasure-from-the-rivers [https://perma.cc/TUK6-RQFD] (last visited Feb. 1, 2026); see also Freeman, 729 F. Supp. 3d at 615 (“In the United States, any salted-cured fish roe can be labeled as caviar while the rest of the world defines ‘caviar’ as roe that is solely from sturgeons.”). ↩︎
10. Risley et al., supra note 5, at 52. ↩︎
11. Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Eight Individuals Indicted for Lacey Act Violations and Other Crimes Relating to the Trafficking of Paddlefish “Caviar” (Mar. 14, 2013), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/eight-individuals-indicted-lacey-act-violations-and-other-crimes-relating-trafficking [https://perma.cc/B3RE-4L9N] (“[T]he global decline in other caviar sources, such as sturgeon, has led to an increased demand for paddlefish caviar.”); United States v. Babenko, No. 13–04016–CR–C–BP–01, 2014 WL 3747643, at *1 (W.D. Mo. July 30, 2014). ↩︎
12. The Paddlefish Project, Caddo Lake Inst., https://caddolakeinstitute.org/paddlefish/ [https://perma.cc/CN4S-MM4C] (last visited Feb. 1, 2026). ↩︎
13. Id.  ↩︎
14. Id.; see also Chinese Paddlefish Extinction, United Nations Univ. – Inst. for Env’t & Hum. Sec., https://interconnectedrisks.org/2021/disasters/paddlefish-extinction [https://perma.cc/Y9T3-5U8W] (last visited Feb. 1, 2026) (“[Chinese paddlefish] did not survive the overconsumption and intervention of humankind[] and were declared extinct in 2020.”). ↩︎
15. See generally Gerald Mestl, Ryan N. Hupfeld, Dennis L. Scarnecchia, Jason Sorensen & Adam R. Geik, Paddlefish Recreational Fisheries: State Management of a Migratory Fish with a Complex Identity, in State Management of Paddlefish Recreational Fisheries 239, 240–56 (2019) (providing an overview of state regulations). ↩︎
16. 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a)(1)–(2). ↩︎
17. 16 U.S.C. § 3373(d)(1)(B); United States v. Babenko, No. 13–04016–CR–C–BP–01, 2014 WL 3747643, at *2 (W.D. Mo. July 30, 2014) (“A violation of this section of the [Lacey] Act is a Class D felony if it involves the sale or purchase, offer to sell or purchase, or intent to sell or purchase fish with a market value in excess of $350.”). ↩︎
18. United States v. Freeman, 729 F. Supp. 3d 613, 614 (N.D. Miss. 2024). ↩︎
19. Id. at 615. ↩︎
20. Id. ↩︎
21. See id. at 615–16. ↩︎
22. See, e.g., Bill Singer, The Great Kentucky Caviar Criminal Case Comes to an End in Ohio, Forbes (Jan. 18, 2012), https://www.forbes.com/sites/billsinger/2012/01/18/the-great-kentucky-caviar-criminal-caper-comes-to-an-end-in-ohio/ [https://perma.cc/3N5H-WMRG]. ↩︎
23. Kentucky Couple Charged with Lacey Act Crimes Based on the Illegal Harvest of Paddlefish from the Ohio River, U.S. Dept. Just. (Mar. 14, 2011), https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/kentucky-couple-charged-lacey-act-crimes-based-illegal-harvest-paddlefish-ohio-river [https://perma.cc/L868-Z9CZ]. ↩︎
24. Singer, supra note 22.  ↩︎
25. See Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, CITES, https://cites.org/eng/disc/text.php [https://perma.cc/4HA3-CZWV] (last visited Feb. 1, 2026). ↩︎
26. Princess D’Isenbourg Et Cie Ltd. v Kinder Caviar, Inc., No. 3:09–29–DCR, 2011 WL 720194, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 22, 2011) (“The exportation of paddlefish caviar is subject to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (‘CITES’).”).  ↩︎
27. 50 C.F.R. § 23.36(c) (2026); see also 50 C.F.R. § 23.71 (2026) (detailing additional requirements for the exportation of processed sturgeon and paddlefish roe, which do not apply when roe is used in cosmetics). ↩︎
28. 616 F.3d 612 (6th Cir. 2010). ↩︎
29. See id. at 617 (“These regulations put the plaintiffs on notice about the discretionary nature of the government employees’ responsibilities.”). ↩︎
30. E.g., S.D. Game, Fish & Parks, 2025 Paddlefish Snagging Season Regulations (2025), https://gfp.sd.gov/userdocs/docs/2025paddlefishsnaggingregulations.pdf [https://perma.cc/MYS5-QX9C]; Paddlefish: Special Area Regulations, Mo. Dep’t Conservation, https://mdc.mo.gov/fishing/species/paddlefish/paddlefish-special-area-regulations [https://perma.cc/4P8E-X9WB] (last visited Feb. 1, 2026).  ↩︎
31. E.g., Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact, Nat’l Ass’n Conservation L. Enf’t Chiefs, https://naclec.org/wvc [https://perma.cc/2YGX-H2FP] (last visited Feb. 1, 2026) (“The Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact establishes a process whereby wildlife law violations conducted by a non-resident while in a member state may be handled as if the person were a resident in the state where the violation took place . . . .”); see also Joe Knight, Operation Roadhouse: How Inter-Agency Collaboration Stopped Illegal Paddlefish Depredation, Nat’l Ass’n Conservation L. Enf’t Chiefs (Sep. 17, 2017), https://naclec.org/press-pages/2017/9/17/operation-roadhouse-how-inter-agency-collaboration-stopped-illegal-paddlefish-depredation [https://perma.cc/BG5M-FWXF] (describing an interagency operation targeting illegal paddlefish trafficking).  ↩︎
32. See, e.g., Hannah Yang, The Odd-Looking, Prehistoric Paddlefish Is Making a Comeback in Minnesota Rivers, MPR (May 17, 2025), https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/05/17/paddlefish-is-making-a-comeback-in-minnesota-rivers [https://perma.cc/LKS9-UW2T]. ↩︎
33. David G. Argent, William G. Kimmel, Rick Lorson & Mike Clancy, An Evaluation of Interstate Efforts to Re-Introduce Paddlefish to the Upper Ohio River Basin, 23(4) Ne. Naturalist 454, 454 (2016). ↩︎
34. 50 C.F.R. § 23.36(c) (2026). ↩︎