USARK Legal Action Against FWS Constrictor Rule

Originally Posted by Lucille

Warren,

Requests for contributions for legal fees have been staggering in total amount, but vague when requests come in asking exactly how much money is going to be used for what expense.
Let's see a list and a breakdown of where these contributions are going to go.

I can look into that. However I think most of the general public can also, in terms of the required amount needed to bring forward such as case. Its around $150,000. Let me bring this up with the board and see if we can get a firm outline put together for the website.

I can assure you that there is no mishandling of funds by the USARK board. We volunteer our service. The only paid member of USARK will be the President.

Let me look into seeing about getting an outline put together.

Warren

Warren, I appreciate your efforts. You seem like a reasonable man and a gentleman. Thank you.

Originally Posted by EricWI

Approximately three months have passed since U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) took the unprecedented action of adding four constricting snakes to the Injurious Wildlife list of the Lacey Act. Never before have animals widely held by the American public been listed. Originally FWS suggested the addition of all of Boa, Python and Eunectes. The list was whittled down to nine constricting snakes after the highly controversial “Risk Assessment” was published by Gordon Rodda and Robert Reed of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The final rule was announced in January 2012. USARK was able to block five of the nine proposed snakes by taking dynamic action against the rule. Never before had a Injurious Wildlife listing been challenged or blocked. Nevertheless, the final rule was enacted March 23rd 2012 with four constricting snakes.

From the very beginning of this process USARK has been very careful to lay the groundwork and establish the public record that would afford us the ability to take legal action if necessary. Scientists from all over the world have criticized the sloppy and speculative work used by FWS to justify Lacey Act listing. In 2010 USARK filed a formal challenge of the USGS “Risk Assessment” under the Information Quality Act. In 2011 Georgetown Economic Services (GES) published “The Modern Reptile Industry”, an independent and comprehensive economic survey that included the impact that a Lacey Act listing was likely to have on legitimate business interests. The GES report demonstrated how the listing could impact as much as $104 million in trade annually. USARK built a clear and convincing case that FWS was potentially arbitrary and capricious in their zeal for a listing.

USARK and its counsel are carefully reviewing their legal options for addressing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s unwarranted listing of four constricting snakes, including Burmese pythons, on the Lacey Act’s Injurious Wildlife list. We believe the listing decision was precipitous, unsupported by the best available science, and poor policy. USARK is also concerned about the five other species of snakes, including Boa constrictor, that FWS has deferred addressing.

We believe FWS has exceeded its Lacey Act authority in terms of the breadth of the restrictions placed on the four listed species. The organization will continue to develop its legal theories and develop a plan for addressing the industry’s legitimate concerns with the proposed and final rules.

These legal maneuvers are not inexpensive, and will be even more costly if it is necessary to file a federal lawsuit. Our goal is to raise $250,000 between now and the end of the year. This is only a start. If we file a lawsuit it could easily require twice that amount. FWS doesn’t think that the Reptile Nation is capable of fielding a serious legal challenge to their arbitrary Lacey Act listing. They don’t think we can raise the money. We have waited until our legal team gave us the word that they felt we have a strong and clear course of action to follow. Now is the time for the Reptile Nation to stand up and take back what is ours!

Please use PayPal to donation@usark.org. Please put “LAW” in the comment or note area; or you can mail a check to: USARK, PO Box 279, Grandy, NC 27939. Please put “LAW” in the memo line.

You collected $300k!

I guess you'll be filing any day now - right?

I think you need to look at the USARK budget and compare it with previous years in order to determine whether or not 300k was collected. You will see this is not the case. Remember, 300k is for a specific item (I.e. to file a federal law suit). Think about general running budget. You really need to look at and compare USARKs publicly available budget before jumping to very premature conclusions.


Warren

Originally Posted by Warren_Booth

I think you need to look at the USARK budget and compare it with previous years in order to determine whether or not 300k was collected. You will see this is not the case. Remember, 300k is for a specific item (I.e. to file a federal law suit). Think about general running budget. You really need to look at and compare USARKs publicly available budget before jumping to very premature conclusions.


Warren

Dr. Booth:

I can only go off of what information has been made easily available.

From the still hot of the presses USARK press release:

USARK BUDGET: Last year USARK brought in $300,000 of which 35% went to our lobbyist in Washington DC, 30% went to the former president’s salary, and 30% funded operating expenses (travel, hotel, t-shirt printing, etc.). In order to operate effectively, we need to raise $500,000 annually which will allow USARK to hire a full-time office administrator, fund important scientific studies, and pay expensive legal fees in the fight against anti-herp legislation.

Your general budget indicates that somewhere between 30% and 60% of the the money "brought in" (USARK's term - not mine) went to the President and his operating expenses.

These are USARK's numbers straight from USARKs quote.

If going forward, every person who donates to USARK asks, via a note that their contribution go towards the oft promised lawsuit, what happens then?

USARK's big rallying cry was the lawsuit, not paying Mr. Wyatt's mortgage, not paying for often ineffective representation. The lawsuit. A lawsuit was hyped and a lawsuit was promised. We were all told that the junk science had been disproven and all we needed was $$$$ for a LAWSUIT.

I guess it would have been hard to tell people that before one red cent went towards a lawsuit, that $180K in salaries and $100K in consultant fees would need to be covered. It would have put a serious damper on the old collection drive, wouldn't it?

How much of the $300K collected went towards the lawsuit?

Originally Posted by Lucille

Warren,

Requests for contributions for legal fees have been staggering in total amount, but vague when requests come in asking exactly how much money is going to be used for what expense.
Let's see a list and a breakdown of where these contributions are going to go.

I asked for this breakdown on the second of December. You said you would ask the board for an outline of where the money donated for the legal fund went.

There are those in the current situation who say that everyone should just chill and wait for information. But I did just that, asked in December, and I'm with Craig, I'd like to know exactly how much of the donated money was used for the lawsuit, and I'd like to see a breakdown of the disbursed legal fees.

didn't the treasurer already say somewhere (I was looking for it last night but couldn't find it) that it was about 20-25K that had been raised specifically for the lawsuit?

Hi Lucille,
In light of the current change in leadership with USARK, things have gotten a little sidetracked. Early in December I then left the US for meetings in Europe and only returned two days ago. Since January 1st, I have been puiblically speaking in relation to the change in leadership in USARK, so please forgive me for not responding to you sooner.

Looking over the USARK finances, I believe approximately $20,000 to $25,000 was collected for the legal fees towards filing a petition. Currently I personally do not see us in a position to file a petition right now. We need stronger scientific data to support our case. I have mentioned to other that I am now working on a project specifically addressing this question. I am investing approximately $50,000 of my own research money, as is a collaborator, and we are currently seeking government funding for an additional $500,000. This project will conclusively address many questions that are circulating regarding Burmese pythons, their spread, the Everglades population native origin, and thus the ability to make accurate region specific climate models. This will take time and a lot of money. Once we have such conclusive data, that is when I would feel more confident going into a legal battle with USFWS. Realize that if we go in and lose, we shut the door on communication with USFWS. If we do that, we essentially have lost any chance to get these animals back. I would hate for USARK to prematurely go into battle with the uSFWS and lose. I am, in this case, speaking of my own opinions and what I am doing to help the Burmese python issue. This is not USARKs direction as that is an area we need to discuss at the next Board meeting. We are, however, having our legal team look into this very question with updated costs, possibilities, and directions.

The work we have done so far certainly puts us in a better position. Securing the other 5 constricting snakes, so far, is good. Of course, that bill died when the house wrapped up its 2012 session. That does not mean it cannot be resurrected by a new sponsor and given a new number. Time will tell on that, but my fingers are crossed that the answer is no.

Regards,
Warren

Thank you for taking the time to post that information, Warren. I hope you will use this forum, I'd very much like to see an overview of the next board meeting. When is that, by the way?