USARK & Reptile Nation Save 5 of 9 species from FWS Constrictor Rule!

[Mike Cavanaugh]

Are you saying that the efforts of USARK are useless? That's what I get from your posts. These people work so hard for us, and when they get something done it is never good enough.

Personally, I am thankful for what they do. Even if they were only to save 1 of the 9 I'd still be happy.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never suggested anything like that.

I am sorry, but this in no way should be considered a victory. All removing the 5 did was postpone the inevitable for now.

[Kinra]

Is there any way to find out who voted to pass this?

[BigJ]

I'm glad that they saved my SD Retic project.
I'm sad that I won't be adding a dwarf Burm project.

I'm still game to keep fighting.

Folks, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS RULE. This ban prohibits importation and interstate transport, and that is all. You will still be able to keep, breed, and sell these animals inside your own State (provided it's legal to do so now).
That's part of the reason why adding these animals to the Lacey Act doesn't accomplish any of the things they claimed that it would. It's why this is such a stupid rule. It doesn't even do what they wanted it to do, it's bad no matter which side you were on.

If you were planning to get a pet Burm next year, you still can, provided you're not planning on moving to another State in the future.

I'm sorry but this post is BS. I am so tired of people trying to be optimistic about this. What if one of the species listed was ball pythons?? I bet your post would have a little different ring to it! It will destroy the breeders of these animals, as well limit your options if you ever choose to get one as a pet! The fact of the matter is that this is just a "segue bill" that they will use to eventually ban whatever snakes they see fit...its how the government works these days!

[Ben_Renick]

Anyone else notice it does not specifically say "African Rock Pythons"

"Northern and Southern African pythons" is what it says in the press and media, it does NOT list species name.

If anyone has seen the actual legislation or has a link with the species name, please post it so we can see that this does not actually include Ball Pythons in a slick attempt to get more than what it says. May not look like much now, but if it's not written properly, this could be a big deal later.

[KingObeat]

I'm glad USARK managed to get five species taken off the list, but I'm still pissed that Burms and Yellow Anacondas are still on it. I still won't give up my Dwarf Burm.

[Kinra]

Anyone else notice it does not specifically say "African Rock Pythons"

"Northern and Southern African pythons" is what it says in the press and media, it does NOT list species name.

If anyone has seen the actual legislation or has a link with the species name, please post it so we can see that this does not actually include Ball Pythons in a slick attempt to get more than what it says. May not look like much now, but if it's not written properly, this could be a big deal later.

I had noticed that too and it has me worried how it is actually worded in the legislation.

[ER12]

Is there any way to find out who voted to pass this?

Hi Rebecca-

In a word, no. This was not a bill in the legislature that most of us are more familiar with. This was a federal rule change proposed by USFWS and Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar.

This has been the last straw for me; the Obama administration needs to be dismantled and a new candidate to take office.

Ron Paul 2012

[WarriorPrincess90]

Is there any way to find out who voted to pass this?

I believe Public Records law requires a record of who voted how. Where you would find those records...I'm not sure. You could public records request it, but they may try to scare you off by charging you. Government is a PITA.

[WarriorPrincess90]

Anyone else notice it does not specifically say "African Rock Pythons"

"Northern and Southern African pythons" is what it says in the press and media, it does NOT list species name.

If anyone has seen the actual legislation or has a link with the species name, please post it so we can see that this does not actually include Ball Pythons in a slick attempt to get more than what it says. May not look like much now, but if it's not written properly, this could be a big deal later.

This is a huge loop hole that they may or may not be aware of at the moment. But let me tell you, they will use it to their advantage at the first possible opportunity. Grrr.

[KatStoverReptiles]

This is a huge loop hole that they may or may not be aware of at the moment. But let me tell you, they will use it to their advantage at the first possible opportunity. Grrr.

Here's the "proposed rule" from FWS. It does list species. I cannot find the "revised rule" that was approved today.

http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/ANS/fr_2010-4956.pdf