Reptile group sues to overturn python ban

[ER12]

A reptile industry trade group has gone to court to overturn a federal ban on the import of four species of large snake, including the Burmese pythons that have infested the Everglades.

The United States Association of Reptile Keepers, which represents dealers, importers, breeders and hobbyists, filed suit in federal court Thursday to overturn a 2012 ban on the import and interstate trade in Burmese pythons, northern and southern African pythons and yellow anacondas.

The group said the federal ban rested on shaky scientific evidence, including a highly exaggerated projection of the snakes' potential geographic range in the United States, and inadequate economic analysis that understated the potential harm to the reptile industry.

"This is a powerful day for the Reptile Nation, as we fight to protect your rights to pursue your passion and defend your businesses against unwarranted and unnecessary government intrusion," stated an email Friday to members of the reptile group.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service banned the import and interstate trade in the snakes on Jan. 17, 2012, with then Interior Secretary Ken Salazar traveling to Everglades National Park to make the announcement.



Biologists at the park have called the python a major threat to native wildlife, with the huge snakes consuming rabbits, birds, raccoons, alligators and full-grown deer. East of the park, African rock pythons are suspected of establishing a breeding population along Tamiami Trail.

Tom MacKenzie, spokesman for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said the ban was necessary to protect native wildlife.


Photos: Top social media fails of 2013


"Banning the import and interstate movement of these large, non-native snakes will help prevent spread of these snakes into wild populations beyond those already established," he said.

The Humane Society of the United States called the lawsuit an attempt to protect profits from the sale of dangerous animals that have killed 15 people in the United States.

"This is the very industry that peddles high-maintenance dangerous predators to unqualified people at flea markets, swap meets, and over the Internet," said Debbie Leahy, captive wildlife specialist for the Humane Society. "Banning just a handful of dangerous species has little impact on businesses, since there are literally hundreds of less risky snake and reptile species available to pet purchasers."

But the reptile keepers group said the government ignored contrary evidence presented during the public comment period.

A ban on five other species of large constrictors is under review. These include the boa constrictor, which has established a breeding population in Miami-Dade County, the reticulated python, DeSchauensee's anaconda, green anaconda and Beni anaconda.

The reptile group, which said a ban on all nine species could cost the industry up to $1.2 billion over 10 years, said this lawsuit would "put the government on notice" that it intends to fight any additional bans.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/pal...,3608054.story

[Bluebonnet Herp]

- - - Updated - - -

I kind of like this article better... http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/12/20/63937.htm

[KingObeat]

"The Humane Society of the United States called the lawsuit an attempt to protect profits from the sale of dangerous animals that have killed 15 people in the United States." 15 is a tiny number compared to the amount of people who are killed by dogs.

[Bluebonnet Herp]

"The Humane Society of the United States called the lawsuit an attempt to protect profits from the sale of dangerous animals that have killed 15 people in the United States." 15 is a tiny number compared to the amount of people who are killed by dogs.

15 is a tiny number for almost anything.

[Bluebonnet Herp]

Hey, out of curiosity, what happens if USARK wins, and how exactly does USARK plan on winning? I'm a bit confused on how this works, legally.

[patientz3ro]

Hey, out of curiosity, what happens if USARK wins, and how exactly does USARK plan on winning? I'm a bit confused on how this works, legally.

If I understand correctly, the simple version is that the snakes placed on the Lacey list will be removed. The 5 species currently up for consideration for placing on the list will also be shelved. The restrictions currently imposed or under consideration would then be lifted.

The complicated version is that one of the claims by USARK is that the environmental and economic impact reports used to justify the ban are faulty at best, and in some areas, completely fraudulent. There is also a claim that banning the interstate commerce and transport of these animals is outside the scope of the Lacey Act. The shady part is that they shell gamed the original provision to lower the potential economic impact of the ban so that they could basically write the law without due process. The law that was then enacted was worded in such a way that additional species could be placed on the list without economic impact being considered, further circumventing judicial process.

I don't know that this lawsuit will result in completely overturning the current ban, but I'm hopeful. If nothing else, we could see an injunction ordered which would effectively legalize sale and transport pending further evaluation.
It's kinda ironic that the HSUS is claiming this is all about protecting profits. Had the economic impact reports been done legally and truthfully, this wouldn't have been signed into law. If you look at the species that were listed in the ban as it was passed, you'll notice that the animals on that list are at the bottom of the market in terms of sales dollars and number of animals sold. The ONLY reason Burms are on the list is to give it an air of legitimacy. Coming out of Florida, they were able to say, "look what these animals are doing in the Everglades, we have to pass this and stop them!" Never mind the fact that there have been restrictions in place with regard to Burms in Florida for some time.

For the record, the Everglades are one of the most broken ecosystems on the planet. Between the non native species that were deliberately introduced in the past, rampant pollution, draining sections to create land for development... Total trainwreck. Little known fact; the Florida Panther everyone seems to be so concerned about the pythons killing... They don't actually exist, and they possibly haven't for nearly 15 years. In 1995 eight female Texas Cougars were introduced in order to boost the breeding population of panthers. You'd be lucky to find a single animal with pure bloodlines.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk

[Bluebonnet Herp]

If I understand correctly, the simple version is that the snakes placed on the Lacey list will be removed. The 5 species currently up for consideration for placing on the list will also be shelved. The restrictions currently imposed or under consideration would then be lifted.

The complicated version is that one of the claims by USARK is that the environmental and economic impact reports used to justify the ban are faulty at best, and in some areas, completely fraudulent. There is also a claim that banning the interstate commerce and transport of these animals is outside the scope of the Lacey Act. The shady part is that they shell gamed the original provision to lower the potential economic impact of the ban so that they could basically write the law without due process. The law that was then enacted was worded in such a way that additional species could be placed on the list without economic impact being considered, further circumventing judicial process.

I don't know that this lawsuit will result in completely overturning the current ban, but I'm hopeful. If nothing else, we could see an injunction ordered which would effectively legalize sale and transport pending further evaluation.
It's kinda ironic that the HSUS is claiming this is all about protecting profits. Had the economic impact reports been done legally and truthfully, this wouldn't have been signed into law. If you look at the species that were listed in the ban as it was passed, you'll notice that the animals on that list are at the bottom of the market in terms of sales dollars and number of animals sold. The ONLY reason Burms are on the list is to give it an air of legitimacy. Coming out of Florida, they were able to say, "look what these animals are doing in the Everglades, we have to pass this and stop them!" Never mind the fact that there have been restrictions in place with regard to Burms in Florida for some time.

For the record, the Everglades are one of the most broken ecosystems on the planet. Between the non native species that were deliberately introduced in the past, rampant pollution, draining sections to create land for development... Total trainwreck. Little known fact; the Florida Panther everyone seems to be so concerned about the pythons killing... They don't actually exist, and they possibly haven't for nearly 15 years. In 1995 eight female Texas Cougars were introduced in order to boost the breeding population of panthers. You'd be lucky to find a single animal with pure bloodlines.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk

This helps, but I'm trying to figure out what laws this violates and /or under what rule would the current laws would be repealed or nullified.

[patientz3ro]

This helps, but I'm trying to figure out what laws this violates and /or under what rule would the current laws would be repealed or nullified.

Hopefully I can simplify all that then.

Basically, the proposal to place the full list of 9 constrictor snakes on the "injurious wildlife" list was based on some pretty shady science. Some of the conclusions reached by the study were inaccurate, some were speculative, and some were just completely made up. Very little would have stood up to a legitimate, independent scientific analysis.

Now, if a proposed change to the Lacey Act is estimated to have a possible economic impact of $100 million or more, it's considered a "major ruling." That requires any information presented in relation to the proposal to be analyzed and verified quite a bit more thoroughly. If you look at the sales numbers of retics, burms, and boas alone you're going to hit that number with plenty of headroom. That would mean the evidence cited in the original proposal would have come under closer scrutiny than it could hold up under.

With those problems in mind, the proposal was redrawn to include an immediate ban ONLY on 4 of the nine species on the list. At the same time, language was added to allow for future additions to the list without regard to economic impact, and the remaining species that were originally proposed were listed as "under consideration," meaning that despite the economic impact being well over the major line, no scientific justification for their inclusion will ever need to be presented.

I don't know if that really answers your question, but I think a large part of it has to do with the fact that including the last 5 species on the list as "under consideration" for all practical purposes amounts to what has been called a "de facto prohibition." That being the case, the major ruling should apply, and since it hasn't been evaluated as such, it's unlawful.

If I'm not mistaken, there are also conflicts with state laws in some cases where states should have final authority, and the Lacey act supersedes. There may be issues with the interstate commerce rulings as well with regard to states rights.

I can't give you specific statutes this would violate, but I hope that clears it up at least a little.



Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk

[Shadera]

Hey, out of curiosity, what happens if USARK wins, and how exactly does USARK plan on winning? I'm a bit confused on how this works, legally.

From the email USARK sent out regarding this filing.

Brief Explanation of Action

Regulatory litigation begins by a plaintiff, here USARK, filing a “complaint.” The government denies the claims in its “answer” and subsequently produces the record on which the rule was based, including the rule, comments, analyses, and like materials. Parties establish a schedule for filing motions for “summary judgment” (briefs arguing the law and that facts favor their position) as well as briefs in response. The court usually hears argument lasting half an hour or more, but there is no trial in the commonly understood sense. Afterward, the case is “submitted” and decision rendered. There is no set timeframe for the judge to issue an opinion. It is also possible, due to the subject matter of this case, that other interested parties may seek to intervene or file “friend of the court” briefs in support of either side, which will also be considered in the decision.

[OctagonGecko729]

For the record, the Everglades are one of the most broken ecosystems on the planet. Between the non native species that were deliberately introduced in the past, rampant pollution, draining sections to create land for development... Total trainwreck. Little known fact; the Florida Panther everyone seems to be so concerned about the pythons killing... They don't actually exist, and they possibly haven't for nearly 15 years. In 1995 eight female Texas Cougars were introduced in order to boost the breeding population of panthers. You'd be lucky to find a single animal with pure bloodlines.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk

Yeah this is something people really don't quite know about. There has been so many government programs that have completely failed this ecosystem in the past that it is indeed a complete trainwreck. You see this with almost every federally owned park, they screw up the ecosystem so bad by either mucking around with purposefully introducing species in mass or by not handling the pollution or tourism correctly.

Its all a lesson in the Problem of the Commons 101, including that the government itself is subject to this problem.