Reptile group sues to overturn python ban

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

http://www.ahdimages.com/wp-content/...at-Good-7.jpeg

- - - Updated - - -

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

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

15 is a tiny number for almost anything.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pythonminion

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patientz3ro

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pythonminion

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pythonminion

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patientz3ro

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.

Found another article about this on yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/reptile-keeper...192838549.html

Lots of reptile haters in the comments. :mad:

You know your dealing with propaganda when you hear the same memes repeated over and over again without any logical analysis. How many times was it repeated in the comments where someone said "they get a small animal, it grows big, and they release it in the wild".

Friggin animal planet and the news are responsible for the majority of these memes too.

Grrr. I just don't get why people can't see reason. If we give these stupid organizations any wiggle room to ban our pets, they WILL continue. It's herps now but what's it going to be next? Dogs, cats, birds? I don't get why any animal lover wouldn't stand together with other animal lovers. It all our fights, not just the reptile community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OctagonGecko729

You know your dealing with propaganda when you hear the same memes repeated over and over again without any logical analysis. How many times was it repeated in the comments where someone said "they get a small animal, it grows big, and they release it in the wild".

Friggin animal planet and the news are responsible for the majority of these memes too.

---

That's one of the issues raised in challenging the legality of the ban. Part of the justification for the ban was that the Burm problem in Florida began with people releasing pets into the wild. Since the population has gotten so large, that would appear to indicate that these snakes are perfectly suited to take over this ecosystem. If it actually WAS a matter of pet snakes being released, that would make sense. For a very small number of animals to explode into the population that exists now... Just wow.

Not once did the study presented to the legislators mentioned that there is almost 0% genetic diversity in the current population. Nearly every Burm that has been caught has had an almost identical genetic make up. That's not possible if the initial population was made up of random animals released in random spots. Incidentally, the genetics of the captured snakes exactly match the genetics of snakes known to have come from a breeding facility destroyed by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Somewhere around 900 Burms were lost, and never recovered. Of course, with an initial introduction of almost 1000 animals, there's very little question that they're going to become established and thrive. But that's not nearly as frightening as an enormous population arising from just a few randomly dropped snakes.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marrissa

Grrr. I just don't get why people can't see reason. If we give these stupid organizations any wiggle room to ban our pets, they WILL continue. It's herps now but what's it going to be next? Dogs, cats, birds? I don't get why any animal lover wouldn't stand together with other animal lovers. It all our fights, not just the reptile community.

---

That's almost exactly what I posted on FB last night with a link to a "HSUS is not the Humane Society" article. We have to get the word out beyond the Reptile Nation, because it's NOT just our fight. We're just the first battle, and if we lose, they're going to keep building momentum and keep going after animals.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patientz3ro

That's one of the issues raised in challenging the legality of the ban. Part of the justification for the ban was that the Burm problem in Florida began with people releasing pets into the wild. Since the population has gotten so large, that would appear to indicate that these snakes are perfectly suited to take over this ecosystem. If it actually WAS a matter of pet snakes being released, that would make sense. For a very small number of animals to explode into the population that exists now... Just wow.

Not once did the study presented to the legislators mentioned that there is almost 0% genetic diversity in the current population. Nearly every Burm that has been caught has had an almost identical genetic make up. That's not possible if the initial population was made up of random animals released in random spots. Incidentally, the genetics of the captured snakes exactly match the genetics of snakes known to have come from a breeding facility destroyed by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Somewhere around 900 Burms were lost, and never recovered. Of course, with an initial introduction of almost 1000 animals, there's very little question that they're going to become established and thrive. But that's not nearly as frightening as an enormous population arising from just a few randomly dropped snakes.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk

---

Yeah and we also know that those 1000 are dieing off. They reproduced just because of the massive amount that was thrown out there but are slowly being weeded out due to the climate and predators.

I also would argue that these snakes are actually helping the ecosystem more then hurting it, i have no scientific evidence to validate this but i do have logic. These snakes eat once every 3 months when the meal is large enough, they are breeding and releasing 50-80 eggs which are all about 12 inches when born and have no idea how to survive in a swamp ecosystem. Those hatchlings are being eaten by everything, yes they are eating as well but as we all know their metabolism is incredibly slow. One or two out of that 80 are surviving to be a 10ft snake, which can still be killed by a alligator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OctagonGecko729

Yeah and we also know that those 1000 are dieing off. They reproduced just because of the massive amount that was thrown out there but are slowly being weeded out due to the climate and predators.

I also would argue that these snakes are actually helping the ecosystem more then hurting it, i have no scientific evidence to validate this but i do have logic. These snakes eat once every 3 months when the meal is large enough, they are breeding and releasing 50-80 eggs which are all about 12 inches when born and have no idea how to survive in a swamp ecosystem. Those hatchlings are being eaten by everything, yes they are eating as well but as we all know their metabolism is incredibly slow. One or two out of that 80 are surviving to be a 10ft snake, which can still be killed by a alligator.

---

That's what makes it so important that this lawsuit succeed. Many people, possibly MOST are pretty intimidated by even the idea of giant constrictors. Hell, most people are freaked out by garter snakes! The organizations backing these bans know this, and they're capitalizing on that fear. The average person isn't going to spend the time or effort to get the correct information on their own. As long as Animal Planet says they're apex predators, then they are.

The truth of the matter is that apex predators are at the top of their food chains only after evolving within that food chain over an extended period of time. Giant constrictors haven't been in this ecosystem long enough to get to the top, and it's unlikely that they ever will. There are too many animals that see growing snakes as snacks. Birds are a HUGE threat to these snakes, not to mention the alligators, big cats, etc. And damn near everything will eat eggs. The concept of them being apex predators in this environment is ridiculous.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk

This is probably one of the best articles so far. http://www.petproductnews.com/headli...snake-ban.aspx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pythonminion

This is probably one of the best articles so far. http://www.petproductnews.com/headli...snake-ban.aspx

---

Finally! It's about time there was a new article published, and one that actually hits on some of the real points of the lawsuit. Thank for posting.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pythonminion

This is probably one of the best articles so far. http://www.petproductnews.com/headli...snake-ban.aspx

---

Nice one. The sad thing is the government will prolong anything it does, but hopefully in the end we prevail. I had a Yellow Anaconda for years, and she's always been a sweet heart. Now while some of the animals on that list can have attitudes, with handling and working with them they generally calm down. Most of it is owner error which is what leads everything to putting a dark cloud over our hobby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neal

Nice one. The sad thing is the government will prolong anything it does, but hopefully in the end we prevail. I had a Yellow Anaconda for years, and she's always been a sweet heart. Now while some of the animals on that list can have attitudes, with handling and working with them they generally calm down. Most of it is owner error which is what leads everything to putting a dark cloud over our hobby.

---

I honestly don't agree with rating the snake's attitude by species. Back in the day, long before I was around, all retics were nasty and ball pythons were just as unsociable, only they chose to flee or coil up and starve themselves. Blood pythons are the same way today. You can only rate snakes accurately by individuals, not species, similarly with people. There are many rock pythons that have been recorded as very gentle individuals, just like ball and Burmese pythons. Most of this can be tracked down to their origin, as captive breeding always seems to break the aggressive image.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pythonminion

I honestly don't agree with rating the snake's attitude by species. Back in the day, long before I was around, all retics were nasty and ball pythons were just as unsociable, only they chose to flee or coil up. Blood pythons are the same way today. You can only rate snakes accurately by individuals, not species, similarly people. There are many rock pythons that have been recorded as very gentle individuals, just like ball and Burmese pythons. Most of this can be tracked down to their origin, as captive breeding always seems to break the aggressive image.

---

I don't mean the species as a whole having attitudes. I meant as a snake to snake basis. Like some Balls being nippy versus some being chilled. That's what I meant, not the whole retic species, but yea some retics can be temperamental but that doesn't mean ban the whole species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neal

I don't mean the species as a whole having attitudes. I meant as a snake to snake basis. Like some Balls being nippy versus some being chilled. That's what I meant, not the whole retic species, but yea some retics can be temperamental but that doesn't mean ban the whole species.

---

Yeah, essentially what I said. lol
A little off-topic, but I of two ball pythons, one is über chill, while the other "runs" away, bites, and used to empty her bowels every time I held her. I love them both the same though.

As retarded, if not more-so, than other articles. http://www.tallahassee.com/article/2...ion-Uphold-ban