US government dismisses reptile keepers' claims

[ER12]

MIAMI -- The U.S. government has asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to overturn a nationwide ban on four giant snake species.

Attorneys for Interior Secretary Sally Jewell and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say the United States Association of Reptile Keepers has not sufficiently explained why importing the snakes into the U.S. or transporting them across state lines was vital to research and conservation activities among its members.

In a motion Friday in federal court in Washington, D.C., the government dismissed the association's claims that snake sales funded those activities.

"Not only are these interests entirely economic, they are also totally unrelated to the environment: they involve the breeding and selling of captive snakes as part of the pet industry," the motion states.

The North Carolina-based association says the ban has cost reptile breeders, handlers, hobbyists and vendors tens of millions of dollars. In December, the group challenged the science behind the ban in a lawsuit.

The government's attorneys also said the lawsuit failed to support claims about economic losses felt by the association or its members.

"We still feel very confident about our position," Joan Galvin, an attorney representing the reptile keepers association, said Tuesday.

The ban on Burmese pythons, yellow anacondas and northern and southern African rock pythons was announced in 2012. Wildlife officials say it protects native wildlife and will help prevent non-native snakes from spreading, as Burmese pythons have in Florida's Everglades.

Florida's population of Burmese pythons, which are native to India and other parts of Asia, likely developed from pets let loose either intentionally or in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in 1992.

A bipartisan group of 18 lawmakers recently asked the Obama administration to extend the current ban to five other types of giant snakes: boa constrictors, reticulated pythons and three species of anacondas. They said the snakes pose an "unacceptable and preventable risk" to human safety and native ecosystems.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/02/2...#storylink=cpy

[Bluebonnet Herp]

Well, this really rustles my jimmies. What are the odds USARK will still prevail? What happens next?

[Mephibosheth1]

they'd need someone not affiliated with a reptile special interest group to give a TON of data before they'd budge...

[MasonC2K]

Wow! They were really trying for that angle? No wonder it got dismissed. They needed to fight against the bogus science used to ban the animals not some made up junk about research.

Disappointed in USARK.

[OctagonGecko729]

Man you folks seem to cave at the first sign of resistance. Of course they would do a motion to dismiss, this is a very common thing. This isnt over by a long shot, its only just begun. Here is USARK's update on the matter. http://usark.org/2014-blog/lawsuit-u...lert-and-more/

[MrLang]

I have to agree with Mason. Why on earth would that be the angle they take? It IS economic based it is NOT conservation and research based. The lawyer that recommended that route should be fired. This article doesn't go into it, but I'm curious to hear the elevator pitch on why the ban is disruptive to research and conservation efforts.

Meanwhile "we need more pet owners to speak up!" has been the message we are getting from USARK. Which is it, do you want pet owners to speak up or do you want 5 random university grad students who happen to do their thesis on constrictor snakes to speak up? Am I reading or interpreting this wrong?

[sorraia]

Meanwhile domestic dogs and cats continue to destroy hundreds of thousands of native animals...

That's my first thought reading the concerns about the "threats" these snakes pose to native wildlife. I am a conservation biologist too.

[CryHavoc17]

Wow! They were really trying for that angle? No wonder it got dismissed. They needed to fight against the bogus science used to ban the animals not some made up junk about research.

Disappointed in USARK.

They are claiming bad science as part of the lawsuit. It just didnt come up as part of the grounds for dismissal by the governments lawyers. This is all legal routine, its the first thing any lawyer does when trying to fight a lawsuit.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk 2

[Bluebonnet Herp]

Wow! They were really trying for that angle? No wonder it got dismissed. They needed to fight against the bogus science used to ban the animals not some made up junk about research.

Disappointed in USARK.

I have to agree with Mason. Why on earth would that be the angle they take? It IS economic based it is NOT conservation and research based. The lawyer that recommended that route should be fired. This article doesn't go into it, but I'm curious to hear the elevator pitch on why the ban is disruptive to research and conservation efforts.

Meanwhile "we need more pet owners to speak up!" has been the message we are getting from USARK. Which is it, do you want pet owners to speak up or do you want 5 random university grad students who happen to do their thesis on constrictor snakes to speak up? Am I reading or interpreting this wrong?

This is fairly routine and entirely expected, particularly here, as this is first ever challenge to a Lacey Act “injurious” listing.

[Skiploder]

Silly armchair quarterbacks. Anyone familiar with the Drake's Bay Oyster farm fight? Read up on that and then join Andrew Wyatt in calling for the debunking of science approach. Ask Kevin Lunny about the DOI, admitted false environmental reports and who gave a crap about them.

History shows that the DOI often makes their own science, the goverment gets all loose in the pants when people go after the economic angle.