My letter in response to Lacey Act listing

I am sending this letter to my Senators, my Congressman and to the President.

I don’t see this as a partisan issue as I am an independent with strong left/democratic leanings which appears to be opposite a lot of other reptile keepers I see posting comments about ‘vote them out’ on the various forums. All I know is we all need to stand TOGETHER to try to fight this. Renewed my USARK membership again and plan to make another donation this next month. Everyone – keep up the good fight. If anyone wants to use parts of my letter to send your own letters out, please do so. The more they hear from us the stronger we will look.

*********

To: (various as noted above)

I would like to first thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I know that you are extremely busy serving in your elected position.

As a registered voter, I know that my opinion should be of great importance to you. I gave you my vote in the last election but am unsure if I can do so again.

I would like to express my grave disappointment in the announcement made which added 4 species of large constrictors to the Injurious Species list of the Lacey Act. As I'm sure you are aware, USARK (United States Association of Reptile Keepers) has fought hard to oppose this ruling, bringing forth an overwhelming opposition to Congress. Therefore, the Department of the Interior negated the need for a vote from Congress, which would have likely failed. Instead, the pythons were added to the Lacey Act through a rule-making process with little to no regard for public opinion.

It is the job of the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) to weigh the purported benefits of the rule against the economic impacts. It is also their duty to assure the rule has been given due process under the Administrative Procedures Act, Information Quality Act and all pertinent Executive Orders. US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) grossly underestimated the economic impact. USGS has justified their "science" by saying they were not required to adhere to information quality standards for science used to support the rule because the rule did not meet the standard for a major rule making ($100 million). An economic assessment of the Modern Reptile Industry commissioned by USARK, and done by Georgetown Economic Services, has since debunked USGS claims by asserting that the rule could have impact in excess of $103 million.

The USGS report being used as justification for listing 4 (possibly 9) snakes on the Injurious Wildlife list of the Lacey Act has been discredited by a panel of 11 independent scientists. In a letter to the Senate EPW Committee this report has been characterized as "unscientific". Further the scientists state "this document is not suitable as the basis for legislative or regulatory policies".

 Trade in reptiles and ancillary businesses is estimated to be 3 billion dollars a year
 More than 11 million reptiles are kept as pets in the US (1 in 25 homes)
 The US accounts for 82% of the worldwide trade in reptiles

Thousands are employed directly or indirectly by the reptile industry. The trade in the 4 (possibly 9) snakes addressed in this rule is approximately 1/3 of the total annual trade. In a recent letter to the Senate EPW Committee the US Chamber of Commerce states "if enacted in its current form, this legislation would adversely impact tens of thousands of businesses". Our state alone stands to lose scores of jobs.

Due to the limited environmental conditions these species can tolerate as well as thrive in, they are not pervasive in the majority of the United States, restricted to a small portion of Southern Florida. These species are overwhelmingly tropical animals found mainly in neotropical regions, tropical deciduous forests and jungles from sea level to moderate elevations. They require a permanent water source as excessive dehydration invariably spells death.

I urge you to reverse your decision on the matter. Please look into the biased "science" used to promote Senator Nelson's personal agenda to make a Florida STATE problem a FEDERAL problem.

Thanks you for your time.

Sincerely,

April Yohn
(address here)

Sources:
Debunking the USGS map showing how invasive the species would be: NatGeo report: http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/...09/12/547.html
Critique of the Analysis Used to Predict the Climate Space of the Burmese Python in the United States by Rodda et al. (2008, 2009) and Reed and Rodda (2009):
http://www.usark.org/uploads/Barkers...itique-002.pdf
Testimony of Mr. Shawn Heflick, Herpetologist before the House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife and the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands:
http://www.usark.org/uploads/Heflick%20Testimony.pdf
According to a survey done in 2007-2008 “Industry Statistics & Trends" by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, Inc., the number of U.S. households that own a reptile numbers at 4.8 (millions). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet#Pet_popularity)
Report “Invasive Non-Native Species: Background and Issues for Congress”
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/a...rs/RL30123.pdf
Response from Michael Cota, herpetologist working in SE Asia
“The Giant Snakes” by Clifford Pope, pages 12, 25, 26, 108

Very well crafted letter....

here are the address to contact your senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

Congressmen:
http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
click on your state, then the congressman

address for the President:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/write-or-call

EXCELLENT WORK , INTELLIGENT, FACTUAL AND ACTUAL , WELL DONE.

Yesterday I received a response from the white house, a generic form letter about criminal justice (generic response was expected...).

Today I got this email response from my Senator, at least it means they actually read my letter, even though their response is with info that I was trying to tell them was faulty... anyways, here's the response:

the part that concerns me is bolded as I do not believe it is true?

Dear Ms. Yohn :

I received your letter and appreciate knowing your concerns regarding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's finalized rule to prohibit the importation of various injurious species of constrictor snakes. Your correspondence is important to me, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

I understand you are concerned that this finalized rule may place an undue burden on the reptile industry. The rule prohibits the importation or interstate transportation of species not included in a list of approved species. It also prohibits the possession, purchase, sale, barter, release, or breeding of these prohibited snake species.

The rule was finalized on January 23, 2012, and it went into effect on March 23, 2012. I recognize that this effectiveness date gives industries a limited time to phase in the new rule.

In response to the concerns you address in your letter, my staff contacted the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). According to the FWS, based on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studies, the four reptiles added to the prohibited species list posed a significant threat to ecosystems nationwide, not just the state of Florida. The FWS believes the preventative measure is necessary because these reptiles reproduce rapidly and may overwhelm native animal populations and their habitats. While this rule prohibits interstate trade, you may be interested to know that industries can continue to export these snakes abroad.

To date, no legislation regarding this issue has been introduced in the Senate. However, please be assured that I will keep your comments in mind should relevant legislation come before the full Senate for a vote.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope you will continue to write on matters of importance to you. If you have any additional questions or comments, please contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

April, your letter is wonderful!
But her response not so much.

I too received that same exact response from Dianne Feinstein yesterday even though the email I sent out a few months ago wasn't really like yours at all...

Originally Posted by AbsoluteApril

I received your letter and appreciate knowing your concerns regarding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's finalized rule to prohibit the importation of various injurious species of constrictor snakes. Your correspondence is important to me, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

I know they're real busy, but must they rub it in so? I honestly wonder how much of our letters they actually read.
Still I think responses couldn't hurt (She does say she hopes we will continue ) since I agree that the bolded part in her copy-paste letter is obviously wrong...

Originally Posted by ~Just Curious~

I too received that same exact response from Dianne Feinstein yesterday

Ahhhh so it was just a formulaic response... interesting. I suppose the fact that they crafted the response so specific to the issue they must have gotten quite a few emails/letters about it, so perhaps that in itself is a good thing even if it appears they are not taking any of them into consideration to reevaluate her/their stance on the subject.

Originally Posted by ReptileGeek181

What brought about the Lacey Act listing? Was there some horror story on the news involving large constrictors?

Basically, the Lacey Act listing was the way FWS was able to ban some large constrictors without having to go through voting process in the senate/house since it didn't appear to be able to pass that way. They have been working on getting this in effect for over 6 years and it's been a long struggle. You can read more here:
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=308597

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...d.php?t=297574

there are some other threads in this and the USARK forum as well if you need more info.

Originally Posted by AbsoluteApril

I suppose the fact that they crafted the response so specific to the issue they must have gotten quite a few emails/letters about it, so perhaps that in itself is a good thing even if it appears they are not taking any of them into consideration to reevaluate her/their stance on the subject.

Well that is one way to look at it! I'm glad too, they definitely can't just ignore all of us. The more we make ourselves heard, the more people have to listen. *keeps on trudging*

BTW I just realized it wasn't clear - when I said the bolded part in her copy paste letter was wrong, I meant the part you had bolded, not me. Whoops~

Her response was contradictory, in that she allows that the 4 species can still be exported...if they can't be possessed, exportation isn't really an option.

exactly and how can they still be exported if they aren't supposed to cross out of state lines? And I don't remember seeing anything in the act forbidding breeding and selling within the state.

Debating if I should respond