USARK Legal Action Against FWS Constrictor Rule

[FishFreak95]

http://usark.org/action-alert/usark-legal-action-against-fws-constrictor-rule/
Approximately three months have passed since U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) took the unprecedented action of adding four constricting snakes to the Injurious Wildlife list of the Lacey Act. Never before have animals widely held by the American public been listed. Originally FWS suggested the addition of all of Boa, Python and Eunectes. The list was whittled down to nine constricting snakes after the highly controversial “Risk Assessment” was published by Gordon Rodda and Robert Reed of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The final rule was announced in January 2012. USARK was able to block five of the nine proposed snakes by taking dynamic action against the rule. Never before had a Injurious Wildlife listing been challenged or blocked. Nevertheless, the final rule was enacted March 23rd 2012 with four constricting snakes.

From the very beginning of this process USARK has been very careful to lay the groundwork and establish the public record that would afford us the ability to take legal action if necessary. Scientists from all over the world have criticized the sloppy and speculative work used by FWS to justify Lacey Act listing. In 2010 USARK filed a formal challenge of the USGS “Risk Assessment” under the Information Quality Act. In 2011 Georgetown Economic Services (GES) published “The Modern Reptile Industry”, an independent and comprehensive economic survey that included the impact that a Lacey Act listing was likely to have on legitimate business interests. The GES report demonstrated how the listing could impact as much as $104 million in trade annually. USARK built a clear and convincing case that FWS was potentially arbitrary and capricious in their zeal for a listing.

USARK and its counsel are carefully reviewing their legal options for addressing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s unwarranted listing of four constricting snakes, including Burmese pythons, on the Lacey Act’s Injurious Wildlife list. We believe the listing decision was precipitous, unsupported by the best available science, and poor policy. USARK is also concerned about the five other species of snakes, including Boa constrictor, that FWS has deferred addressing.

We believe FWS has exceeded its Lacey Act authority in terms of the breadth of the restrictions placed on the four listed species. The organization will continue to develop its legal theories and develop a plan for addressing the industry’s legitimate concerns with the proposed and final rules.

These legal maneuvers are not inexpensive, and will be even more costly if it is necessary to file a federal lawsuit. Our goal is to raise $250,000 between now and the end of the year. This is only a start. If we file a lawsuit it could easily require twice that amount. FWS doesn’t think that the Reptile Nation is capable of fielding a serious legal challenge to their arbitrary Lacey Act listing. They don’t think we can raise the money. We have waited until our legal team gave us the word that they felt we have a strong and clear course of action to follow. Now is the time for the Reptile Nation to stand up and take back what is ours!

 

[Wiggles92]

Please don't waste your money by donating to USARK.

USARK doesn't operate like a proper lobbyist group, and we've already witnessed their numerous shortcomings, e.g. the passing of the Python Ban (too little, too late), the Ohio situation, the unnecessary effort (albeit miniscule effort at that) put into PA after they failed to read the laws properly (granted I originally did the same at first only to learn otherwise later on), and so on. Let's not forget that the longer this battle lasts, then the longer USARK's staff receives a very nice salary; talk to some breeders about the "fundraiser" at the Myrtle Beach reptile show a while ago and see what they tell you.

The funny & sad thing is that they need to think like their arch-enemies, HSUS & PETA, when they fight these laws: Send lawyers & lobbyists in order to persuade the politicians rather than your just your leader(s) who aren't well-versed in law. USARK may not have as much money as those groups, but they still have enough to get a decent lawyer (or two) to actually go fight for the cause.

In the case of the Python Ban, USARK purposely allowed it to pass in order to "spare" the rest of the hobby; those species were offered up as a sacrifice in the end, and USARK called the final ruling a "victory" despite so many keepers & breeders suddenly finding themselves unable to take their beloved snakes from state to state.

 

[Lepisosteus platyrhincus]

Ryan,i agree with ya but what else do we have to choose from? They appear to be mounting a lawsuit and no other group appears to. They are the only real option to reverse that desicion.

 

[snakeguy101]

I strongly disagree. Andrew and USARK have done more to protect our hobby than any one else and they are doing a good job of it. Without them, all of the species on the python bans proposal would have gone through. The staff of USARK does not make a massive salary at all- just a very reasonable one. The reason some people at the carolina show do not like USARK is because they push for reasonable legislation as opposed to outrageous legislation but everyone wants NO legislation- which is not a feasible option when you have the heavy hitters like HSUS and PETA pushing for complete bans.

I am very involved in the Carolina shows and the people that organize those shows put together a meeting to try to come up with an alternative to USARK- I went and it was a complete joke. The guy they had picked was a small claims lawyer that had a few snakes but was otherwise clueless. He had no lobbying skills and had never done anything like this before. Something like this is only dividing our community more and making it easier for laws to be passed.

 

[Wiggles92]

I've talked to those who have lost the most, e.g. the breeders of Burmese pythons, African rock pythons, & anacondas; the way they see it, USARK left them high & dry, and they have a right to be mad about how this whole thing went down.

Don't get me wrong, I'm up for reasonable legislation rather than no legislation, but I find it difficult to support a group that is fine with sacrificing a few species in order to save a few others only to go back later to try to save the species that they previously decided to sacrifice. The fact of the matter still remains that the other five species did not get banned by the USFWS due to the economic implications being too great; that's why those species will be banned under different legislation. Furthermore, if the USFWS had gotten all of those species banned, then this issue would have been addressed months ago as far more people would been up in arms over the ruling; there certainly would be more politicians going at the USFWS for that ban as it would result in a far greater injury to the economy than the current ban. As it currently stands, too many people are still willing to give up a few species that don't immediately impact them in order to potentially preserve their right to keep the species that they work with; they forget that they will not have quite as much support for the species that they keep when it's their turn to be banned.

Now does USARK plan on filing this lawsuit partly on the basis of the Data Quality Act?

Sec. 515 (a) In General -- The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall, by not later than September 30, 2001, and with public and Federal agency involvement, issue guidelines under sections 3504(d)(1) and 3516 of title 44, United States Code, that provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies in fulfillment of the purposes and provisions of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, commonly referred to as the Paperwork Reduction Act.

(b) Content of Guidelines. –

The guidelines under subsection (a) shall –

(1) apply to the sharing by Federal agencies of, and access to, information disseminated by Federal agencies; and

(2) require that each Federal agency to which the guidelines apply –

(A) issue guidelines ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by the agency, by not later than 1 year after the date of issuance of the guidelines under subsection (a);

(B) establish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the guidelines issued under subsection (a); and

(C) report periodically to the Director –

(i) the number and nature of complaints received by the agency regarding the accuracy of information disseminated by the agency; and

(ii) how such complaints were handled by the agency.

Said act requires Federal agencies to use the best & most accurate data to back up their legislation. It was apparent from the start that the USFWS did not use the most accurate data in order to get this ban put in place, so there's certainly a case to be made for that as well as the wide-ranging detriment to the economy that has resulted from the ban.

I also agree that the proposed USARK alternative that was discussed at that one show is a joke. However, a lawyer/lobbyist doesn't need to be familiar with the reptile community in order to properly fight the legislation; they just need to know the laws & politicians in order to persuade them to side with us. The reptile-informed people of the organization would obviously have to give the lawyer/lobbyist a quick primer on the various reptiles that might be involved, but in the end we need someone who actually knows how to play ball with politicians as all the reptile knowledge in the world isn't going to sway them; it takes someone who knows how the system works in order to make the progress that we need.

In the end, my hope is that all of this negativity towards USARK will result in them reforming their policies & procedures in order to become a proper lobbying organization as that's really the only way to get any where with the government in this day & age.

 

[ruckaisawesome]

I dont think anything we do is gonna help much...how much money do you suppose we can generate? honestly? Besides, Politicians are idiots... manipulated by Peta, and HSUS. They don't give a damn what who's rights they are taking away, as long as it satisfies them. I'm sure you all know, these organizations are slowly dismantling the exotic pet industry..one step at a time. There's way too small percentage of us who keep these pets, and even less willing to fight back. Usark is way too weak and wont be able to do much but delay what seems to me to be inevitable. I dont give a f*** what happens... if they think a little ban is gonna keep me from keeping what I want, they are dead wrong.

 

[ozz465]

I disagree, while he larger pythons were lost in the new laws us ark did all they could, have they not even more species would be on that list. What do we prefer a all out Ann or a compromise when let's face it ours is a small part of pet keepers that keep reptiles, and great job posting that regardless of laws one would blatantly break them either way on a public forum where any pets or other anti pet group can read it and use it as ammo against us.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using MonsterAquariaNetwork App