In an unusual story from Florida, diver Tanner Mansell, alongside his colleague John Moore Jr., found themselves at the center of a legal controversy after they inadvertently intervened in what they believed was an illegal fishing operation. On May 28, 2020, they were convicted for theft related to the release of 19 sharks from a longline connected to a buoy during a dive trip with a group that included law enforcement officials. Mansell recalled that their initial intention was to report the suspected crime to the authorities, highlighting their genuine belief they were acting in the sharks’ best interest.
The incident escalated quickly when it was revealed that the longline was part of a legal shark research project sanctioned by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Mansell expressed regret over their actions, stating that they had called the Florida Wildlife Commission and NOAA’s hotline before deciding to cut the line. This misunderstanding led to their eventual conviction, which included restitution payments and significant consequences, such as restrictions on voting and gun ownership. The judge, while acknowledging their environmental intentions, imposed penalties that highlighted the legal complexities surrounding wildlife conservation.
In the wake of their conviction, Mansell and Moore struggled with the fallout, feeling disillusioned by the criminal justice system. However, their case took an unexpected turn when it reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Judge Barbara Lagoa’s opinion suggested that the case should not have proceeded, noting the unique circumstances of their proactive act of reporting to law enforcement. This opinion caught the attention of the libertarian Cato Institute, which raised awareness of their situation, eventually leading to increased interest from the White House.
Mansell received the news of his presidential pardon while boarding a flight, leaving him speechless. The pardon from President Donald Trump not only restored some of the freedoms lost due to their felony convictions but also signified a recognition of their intentions. Mansell expressed immense gratitude for the pardon, hoping it might influence discussions around the legality of shark killings in Florida and raise broader awareness of conservation issues.
The practical implications of the pardon have been significant for Mansell, enabling him to regain his rights to vote and possibly own firearms. He noted that the pardon would also facilitate his work in conservation, which remains a priority for him. As he reflects on his journey, Mansell acknowledged a shift in his perception of government and justice. Initially frustrated and disillusioned, he now sees the value of due process and the checks and balances inherent in the system.
Mansell and his attorney maintain that their actions were based on a genuine belief they were doing the right thing, and they continue to advocate for shark conservation. They hope that their case can serve as a reminder of the complexities involved in wildlife management and the importance of understanding legal frameworks surrounding environmental protection. As Mansell expressed, the case never should have been filed, underscoring their genuine intention to rescue the sharks they believed to be in danger.
