*Written by Rebecca Jensen, with permission to crosspost.*


What's the fuss? Well, if you don't keep reptiles, you may not have heard. Currently at stake is a regulatory effort by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to list 9 species of constrictor snakes as "injurious species" under the Lacey Act (also referred to as "Rule Change". This has far-reaching implications for far more than the reptile-keeping public. Among other things, this would be a very strong "foot in the door" for many powerful and extreme animal rights groups.

By now, most reptile keepers are very aware of the proposed Rule Change. In the interest of spreading awareness of this issue to more than reptile enthusiasts, I felt this discussion was needed.

News stories, opinion articles, and blogs have been published and posted in a flurry of excitement over the past week. I wanted to post all of these together (and I plan to add new links as they become available).

8 January 2011: Snake Owners See Furry Bias in Invasive Species Proposal by Leslie Kaufman (New York Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/sc...akes.html?_r=1

9 January 2011: A Snake Invasion? Debating the Risks by Leslie Kaufman (New York Times, Green blog)
green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/a-snake-invasion-debating-the-risks/

9 January 2011: A Reptile Enthusiast's Perspective on Attempts to Regulate "Large Constricting Snakes" by Jonathan Brady (hobbyist breeder of Boa constrictors)
http://www.deviantconstrictors.com/b...rspective.html
{contains a concise list of the 9 species that would be affected by the proposed regulation}

10 January 2011: In Snake Wars, the Cudgel Is a Century-Old Law by Leslie Kaufman (New York Times, Green blog)
green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/in-snake-wars-the-cudgel-is-a-century-old-law/

13 January 2011: The Snake Threateners by John Carroll (SF Gate)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...DDIK1H7GI3.DTL

14 January 2011: Andrew Wyatt answers “What is USARK?” by John F Taylor (The Reptile Living Room)
reptilelivingroom.com/2011/01/andrew-wyatt-answers-what-is-usark/

{Andrew Wyatt is the co-founder and President of the United States Association of Reptile Keepers. This is effectively an audio summary of everything I'm talking about here & a good discussion of both where we stand & where we have been}

What is unique about this situation is that the species that would be listed under the proposed regulation are commonly kept as pets. Boa constrictor alone may account for 1/3 of the captive bred reptile industry, and they make very popular pets - even among people who would not otherwise be considered reptile enthusiasts. There has never been such an effort to regulate (list as "injurious" animals that are so widely held by the American public. This proposed legislation sets a dangerous precedent; if these animals (which realistically do not pose a threat as an invasive or injurious species) can be listed, there really is no limit to the species that could be listed, including animals that are of key importance in agriculture.

Over the past few years, there have been multiple efforts to effect this same regulation through legislation, by introducing various bills to the House of Representatives and the Senate. All of those legislative efforts have thus far been defeated. What we face now however is a Rule Change decision by the USFWS, by persons who are not concerned with what issues we vote on.

Designating a species as "injurious" under the Lacey Act would make it illegal to import, export, or transport across state lines any part of the species in question. That is to say that this regulates not only the living animals, but also their bodies and their parts. It turns out that this would also impact the world of high fashion, as snake skin seems to be making a very high dollar comeback. Violation of the Lacey Act is a felony, and each animal (or part of an animal), and each state line crossed is an additional violation; the penalty for each violation being a very hefty fine and several years in prison. This would effectively force 1/3 of the captive bred reptile industry out of business, and could make tens of thousands of Americans into felons virtually overnight. I can hardly imagine the impact it would have on the fashion industry, or what it would do to those who would buy a high end snake skin purse, belt or pair of shoes.

The problem cited by all of these attempts at legislation and regulation is the presence of Burmese pythons in Florida's Everglades National Park. Just how they got there is a subject of debate (though it does not receive much attention these days). Reptile keepers have borne much of the blame, despite the fact that there is documented evidence of another source. Proponents of the proposed regulation also insist that the presence of Burmese pythons is injurious to the environment, to water quality, a threat to endangered wildlife, and to humans... though the evidence used to back up these claims is typically a statement of the animal's size, and a general playing upon the public's fears of snakes - not any relevant or scientific facts. Further, no one has been able to answer how a Lacey Act listing will actually correct the situation. The feral population of Burmese pythons that is* present in the Everglades won't be impacted at all by the proposed federal regulation. A Lacey Act listing of these species will only serve to shut down the legal captive bred trade in these animals, which does further the agenda of several large and powerful animal rights organizations.

The USFWS has previously requested public comment, and has received an overwhelming amount of input from scientists, individuals, and businesses that would be affected by the proposed regulatory Rule Change. There is a growing body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that directly refutes the assertions upon which the proposed regulation is based. USARK has also submitted public comment, an addendum, and a formal Challenge and Appeal under the Information Quality Act (IQA). The process has been long and involved. At this juncture, according to Thomas Strickland, assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks, as cited in the 8 January New York Times article (linked above), USFWS intends to move forward with the Rule Change, with complete disregard for the scientific evidence they have been provided.

*Of course the problematic feral population of Burmese pythons in the Everglades was very hard hit by the cold snap in January 2010. It is estimated that up to 90% of the population is likely to have died, though in the January 9th NYT Green blog article I have linked here, a claim attributed to Dr. Rodda & Dr. Reed (the latter was cited as "Dr. Reddy" is that "hatchling counts in the summer of 2010 were equivalent to those of the previous year."

I would like to see this data. I can't imagine they've caught many hatchlings; I have personally seen what can happen to developing python eggs briefly exposed to the "extreme" low temperatures of 60F, and the cold snap in January 2010 was below freezing.

If you would like to learn more about this issue, I would be happy to help. I also encourage you to visit usark.org/archive.php to find more documents about this subject. Please also consider joining and supporting USARK, whether you are a reptile keeper or not!