Quote Originally Posted by MasonC2K View Post
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.
Quote Originally Posted by MrLang View Post
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?
Quote Originally Posted by USARK
This is fairly routine and entirely expected, particularly here, as this is first ever challenge to a Lacey Act “injurious” listing.