Federal Register: Update to Lacey Act regarding Pythons, Boas, and Eunectes

This is taken directly from the Federal Register. They are accepting comments, and those of you who know the figures for how big the commercial traffic for these species are should comment. This article specifically addresses concerns with Burmese Pythons in Florida, but unless people speak up I worry that this legislation may become more broad.

Please avoid any name calling. They are interested in facts and figures, so please give them some dollar-values if you can!

To see the original link, go HERE.

[Federal Register: January 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 21)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5784-5785]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31ja08-29]

================================================== =====================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 16

[FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015; 94410-1342-0000-N3]
RIN 1018-AV68


Injurious Wildlife Species; Review of Information Concerning
Constrictor Snakes From Python, Boa, and Eunectes genera

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or We), are
reviewing available biological and economic information on constrictor
snakes in the Python, Boa and Eunectes genera for possible addition to
the list of injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act. The importation and
introduction of constrictor snakes into the natural ecosystems of the
United States may

[[Page 5785]]

pose a threat to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry;
to the health and welfare of human beings; and to the welfare and
survival of wildlife and wildlife resources in the United States. An
injurious wildlife listing would prohibit the importation into, or
transportation between, States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the
United States by any means, without a permit. Permits may be issued for
scientific, medical, educational, or zoological purposes. This document
seeks comments from the public to aid in determining if a proposed rule
is warranted.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
April 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: RIN 1018-AV68, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 222,
Arlington, VA 22203.
Instructions: We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all
comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public
Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Williams, Branch of Invasive
Species at (703) 358-2034 or erin_williams@fws.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 21, 2006, we received a
petition from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
requesting that Burmese pythons be considered for inclusion in the
injurious wildlife regulations pursuant to the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C.
42). SFWMD is concerned about the number of Burmese pythons found in
Florida, particularly in the Everglades National Park. We are looking
at obtaining information on constrictor species in the Python, Boa and
Eunectes genera for possible addition to the injurious wildlife list
under the Lacey Act.
The regulations contained in 50 CFR part 16 implement the Lacey
Act, as amended. Under the terms of the injurious wildlife provisions
of the Lacey Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to
prohibit the importation and interstate transportation of species
designated by the Secretary as injurious. Injurious wildlife are those
species, offspring, and eggs that are injurious or potentially
injurious to wildlife and wildlife resources, to human beings, and to
the interests of forestry, horticulture, or agriculture of the United
States. Wild mammals, wild birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans,
amphibians, and reptiles are the only organisms that can be added to
the injurious wildlife list. The lists of injurious wildlife are at 50
CFR 16.11-16.15. If the process initiated by this notice results in the
addition of a species to the list of injurious wildlife contained in 50
CFR part 16, their importation into or transportation between States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any
territory or possession of the United States would be prohibited,
except by permit for zoological, educational, medical, or scientific
purposes (in accordance with permit regulations at 50 CFR 16.22), or by
Federal agencies without a permit solely for their own use.

Public Comments

This notice of inquiry solicits biological, economic, or other data
on adding species in the Python, Boa and Eunectes genera to the list of
injurious wildlife. This information, along with other sources of data,
will be used to determine if these species are a threat, or potential
threat, to those interests of the United States delineated above, and
thus warrant addition to the list of injurious reptiles in 50 CFR
16.15.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this notice
of inquiry by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We
will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not
listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept anonymous comments;
your comment must include your first and last name, city, State,
country, and postal (zip) code. Finally, we will not consider hand-
delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are
not postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information in addition to the required items
specified in the previous paragraph, such as your street address, phone
number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from public review. However, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this notice of inquiry, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.
We are soliciting public comments and supporting data to gain
additional information and specifically seek comment on the following
questions:
(1) What regulations does your State have pertaining to the use,
transport, or production of Python, Boa and Eunectes genera?
(2) How many species in the Python, Boa and Eunectes genera are
currently in production for wholesale or retail sale, and in how many
and which States?
(3) How many businesses sell Python, Boa or Eunectes species?
(4) How many businesses breed Python, Boa or Eunectes species?
(5) What are the annual sales for Python, Boa or Eunectes species?
(6) Please provide the number of Python, Boa or Eunectes species,
if any, permitted within each State.
(7) What would it cost to eradicate Python, Boa or Eunectes
individuals or populations, or similar species, if found?
(8) What are the costs of implementing propagation, recovery, and
restoration programs for native species that are affected by Python,
Boa or Eunectes species, or similar snake species?
(9) What State-listed species would be impacted by the introduction
of Python, Boa or Eunectes species?
(10) What species have been impacted, and how, by Python, Boa or
Eunectes species?

Dated: January 11, 2008.
Lyle Laverty,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. E8-1770 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

It is much bigger than most realize. I have emailed everyone I know, even those who do not keep reptiles. The fiscal impact and unemployment rates will also be affected if a bill like this pass's.

We need to keep in mind that cool level heads will prevail. This will not just stop at boids. The impact on rodent companies, caging, heating and supply companies will be stagering.

And the big question...if this bill pass's what will happen to the thousands of boids across the United Stated?

Personally, I would like to see a balanced budget, improvement in our medical care for seniors and the tightening of our borders.

Super Tuesday is in two days. Get out and vote people!

Where would you even look to find the answers to those ridiculous questions? They're largely unanswerable.

Originally Posted by cahrens

Where would you even look to find the answers to those ridiculous questions? They're largely unanswerable.

Besides I have the impression there are lots of breeders that are far from eager to answer those questions...In MHO we know the problem is real (that of the release of large constrictors in FL). We should do something about it. But what? Do we really think that by sending letters we can change the mind of legislators? We don't have a national census of how many people keep reptiles and what's the impact in the allied industries. Those that produce large constrictors will continue to do so and will sell to those willing to buy. I'm all in favor to brainstorming for ideas but until we find hard core figures on the economic impact of the industry I doubt letters will have any effect.

OK, here's a start:

Industry Statistics & Trends
PET OWNERSHIP


According to the 2007-2008 National Pet Owners Survey, 63% of U.S. households own a pet, which equates to 71.1 millions homes


In 1988, the first year the survey was conducted, 56% of U.S. households owned a pet as compared to 63% in 2006

Breakdown of pet ownership in the U.S. according to the 2007-2008 National Pet Owners Survey
Number of U.S. Households that Own a Pet (millions)
Bird 6.4
Cat 38.4
Dog 44.8
Equine 4.3
Freshwater Fish 14.2
Saltwater Fish .8
Reptile 4.8
Small Animal 6.0

Total Number of Pets Owned in the U.S. (millions)
Bird 16
Cat 88.3
Dog 74.8
Equine 13.8
Freshwater Fish 142.0
Saltwater Fish 9.6
Reptile 13.4
Small Animal 24.3

* Ownership statistics are gathered from APPMA’s 2007/2008 National Pet Owners Survey

Anybody who pays taxes on a reptile business can submit their own financial records of average value per animal, sales information, etc etc. Any information we can provide is valuable.

My biggest concern is that this legislation is far too broad. Potentially banning three genera, two of which contain among the most popular snakes in the pet trade (Boa constrictors and ball pythons, not to mention tree boas, rainbow boas, and sand boas), is way too harsh. Granted, law enforcement are not trained to identify which species are harmful and what is not, which is probably why this legislation is so broad to begin with, but I think it's safe to say that a snake over 15' has the potential to be damaging to people and wildlife. Hatchlings and subadults can be difficult to ID, but I believe that all of snake species that could be classified as dangerous do not have radically different colors and patterning as babies (like tree boas do).

I also think that this is an overbearing national 'solution' to a local problem. Limiting the traffic and ownership of these genera in states where there is no possibility of snakes surviving in the wild is taking it too far. Introduced snakes are a huge problem in Florida and other southern states that have a climate that can support them, but why should someone in Washington or New York be subject to a law that is designed to protect wildlife species in a totally unrelated habitat type and climate?

That's my two cents. Please, if you're a breeder, submit as much financial information as you can in your comments. The government works only with numbers and documentation.

That's my two cents. Please, if you're a breeder, submit as much financial information as you can in your comments. The government works only with numbers and documentation.

I highly doubt this is going to happen. We would have a far better shot by showing how much money the consumers spend on reptiles. Regrettably it's a very small fraction of the dog and cat ownership, which in turn spend a lot more money than we reptile keepers do. But let's not dwell on the negatives and try to at least demonstrate that we care.

Regards.

Originally Posted by snowgyre

I think it's safe to say that a snake over 15' has the potential to be damaging to people and wildlife.

Are you serious? Big snakes aren't dangerous, irresponsible owners are.

Originally Posted by snowgyre

Introduced snakes are a huge problem in Florida and other southern states that have a climate that can support them.

They are? Huge? Where did you read that? There are some burms in the Everglades. Can anyone show me anything legitimate that demonstrates any negative impact they're having there?

Originally Posted by snowgyre

why should someone in Washington or New York be subject to a law

This mentality is exactly what oppressive people count on. Divide and conquer. As long as it isn't affecting you then it's ok? Why should you in NY be affected? You shouldn't; and neither should all the rest of the responsible pet owners in every state. When law makers try to pass laws that I don't agree with, I voice my opinion whether it's in Florida, NY, or any other state. It may not do any good, but I won't be one of the ones who just hopes it doesn't happen. I at least let my opinion be known even if it doesn't affect me directly. Please don't take this as an attack because it isn't. We all just need to look at the bigger picture. -Chris

Originally Posted by cahrens

Are you serious? Big snakes aren't dangerous, irresponsible owners are.

But there is potential, yes its up to responsible caretakers to control and know their animals, but things can happen to even the best of caretakers.

Just like guns, they have the potential to kill in the wrong hands, but even in the best of hands, things can happen that are unexpected. Neither are Absolute

Originally Posted by cahrens

They are? Huge? Where did you read that? There are some burms in the Everglades. Can anyone show me anything legitimate that demonstrates any negative impact they're having there?

wow, alright, so now i have time to respond... and i actually READ the rest of your post, which i probably shouldnt have, but here goes nothin....

So you have proof that they ARENT eating native wildlife in the everglades? Proof that they ARENT having a detrimental effect on the natural inhabitants? Please, by all means Show it to us, and write it in your letter to the Fish and Wildlife legislation thing too. cause sheesh, if thats the case why would all of this be happening anyway!?