USARK update!

http://www..com/rr_01_25_2012.mp3

Here's a synopsis of what Andrew said. I just listened and typed so please forgive any typos...

Started off with a review/groundwork/history
-gets the impression that many people are fairly unaware of what was happening until after the rule was made.
-has been at the top of the priority list for the last 4 years and is the reason USARK started
-began in '07 with the South Florida Water Management (pushed by the Nature Conservacy) to petition the USFWS to add the Burmese Python to the Injurious Wildlife List of Lacey Act
-2008 USFWS issued a "notice of inquiry" that they intended to explore adding all boa, python, and eunectes to the Injurious List and requested public comment and then sent it to the processing phase
-2009 Florida Senator Bill Nelson wanted to bypass this process because he thought it would take too long so he introduced S373 to the Senate which would add all 47 species of python to the Injurious List
-Rep Tom Rooney of Florida introduced HR2811 that wast he companion bill to S373
-USARK spearheaded the fight against those bills and despite initial impressions to the contrary, the combined effort was HIGHLY effective and stopped the bills from a full vote (Summer 2009) thanks to USARK's letter writing campaign and phone calls and Andrew's meeting with Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (2009).
-Andrew convinced Tom Coburn to place a hold on the bill for 2010 as well.
-During this time, the rule making at USFWS continued to progress
-2010, the proposed rule was set by USFWS which was based entirely upon "The Constrictor Report" (boa constrictor, 4 species of anaconda, Burmese python, Southern African python, and Northern African python)
-USARK challenged the "science" that the rule making was based on "The Constrictor Report" under the Information Quality Act because the rule would have over $100 million economic impact per year in the US making it a "major" ruling.
-USFWS rejected the challenge, USARK repealed it and USFWS rejected it again. This put all of the information "on the table" and part of the public record.
-USARK commissioned Georgetown Economic Services (economics firm from DC) to do a broad survey of the industry. Showed that listing all 9 would indeed push past the $100 million threshold making it a "major" rule.
-Spring 2011, the rule was sent to the White House oversight office called the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Their job is to decide on the merit of a rule making based on purported benefits of a rule making against the economic impact and whether due process was followed or not (needed for a rule which is "major" and exceeds $100 million in economic impact because there's a high standard for information quality and due process).
-Sat at OMB and it looked like it was just going to die due to all of the issues exposed by USARK.
-December 2011, HSUS, Defenders of Wildlife, and Nature Conservancy teamed up to write a letter to President Obama urging Obama to push the rule through (with Senator Nelson, et al)
-Appears as though they chose 4 species which would NOT reach the $100 million impact so they wouldn't be subject to the high level of information quality. 4 species were Burmese python, yellow anaconda, Southern and Northern African python
-Rule goes into effect March 23rd

What does this mean to "average joe" who owns a Burmese python?
-Doesn't affect "possession" - you ARE allowed to own these animals as long as it's legal in your state.
-Can't import into the country
-Can't transport across state lines
-Potentially a felony charge
-Every animal and every state line is a NEW charge (2 animals x 2 state lines = 4 charges)

Buzz on the internet is that people are declaring this a victory while others feel it's a loss and this rule making must be fought
-We have been fighting this for 4 years against overwhelming odds. The HSUS, Defenders of Wildlife and Nature Conservancy have HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars in their budget while USARK has a $300,000 budget. Add to that, the support of several politicians.
-We've had ongoing victories for years. If not for USARK, ALL pythons would have made the list back in 2009.
-After 4 years, the fact that only 4 have been listed is amazing.
-Under the USFWS ruling, they can NOT add back in the other 5 species without running into problems with the Information Quality Act.
-USFWS could initiate a new rule to go after the other 5, but Andrew believes they probably don't want to because it's a laborious process (4 years for the current rule) and the scientists who wrote the papers (Gordon Rodda and Robert Reed) fudged the data and have been HIGHLY criticized for it and have lost a great amount of integrity and respect from their community.
-This was always about money for the USFWS
-The special interest groups wish to end the possession of ALL non-native animals in the US and have strong ties with United States Geological Survey (USGS) and USFWS. These groups were promising lots of money to study these animals not to mention all of the funding from the US Government.
-As an example, Rodda received over $100 million to study the Brown Tree Snake in Guam (a US territory) and ONLY studied them - he did nothing to eradicate them.

The interviewer mentioned "money trail"
-USARK doesn't have the money to throw around like these other groups
-What we DO have is an ENORMOUS and dedicated grass roots constituency which we call "The Reptile Nation" which will fight against these issues.
-For example, HR669 back in 2008 would have added ALL non-native animals to the Injurious List of the Lacey Act and USARK generated a letter writing campaign of over 50,000 letters which defeated that bill swiftly.
-We have a passionate grass roots army and we have the facts. Although facts mean little in Washington, the combination got us further than our opponents could have imagined.

What about boa constrictors?
-Technically, USFWS could go back and list boa constrictors but then they're subject to the $100 million threshold which would subject them to a higher standard for Information Quality and due process which would allow us to be very effective against them in a lawsuit.
-Without them, we still have the facts, but because it's less than $100 million in impact, they're not held to ANY standards of Information Quality and that's why they can get away with it.
-Current recourse is a lawsuit and that's the ONLY possibility. If it's pursued, it will be VERY expensive and USARK doesn't know yet if they will pursue it. They will need to raise a HUGE amount of money to pursue it ($150,000 minimum - OVER AND ABOVE what they already raise each year).
-A lawsuit would also detract from other battles at the state level which are popping up left and right.

Any closing comments?
-Happy to be apart of the show.
-Usually detractors are those who have done little or nothing and know very little about what's actually going on and are lashing out.
-Those who have been fighting, writing letters, phone calls, donations, etc., are the backbone of USARK and are those you can thank for keeping all of the other animals off the list.
-Petitions and celebrity endorsements will do nothing at this point. It's too late. Those are things you do BEFORE a law or rule is put into effect. The only way to overturn this is with a federal lawsuit.
-This should be a wake-up call. It should unite us and make us stronger, not weaker. We all need to come together and work as a team to be as effective as possible.
-Educate yourself and get involved!

Is there a legitimate chance with a federal lawsuit?
-Yes. 50/50.
-Chances would have been better if they broke the $100 million threshold because they'd be held to Information Quality standards but as it is, they're not.
-USARK's been building this case for 4 years via public record with Information Quality Challenge, Economic Survey, public comment from scientists around the world
-In a federal lawsuit, the deck is stacked in favor of the government but Andrew feels that this is a lawsuit that needs to be pursued and WILL be pursued if the money can be raised.
-This isn't over. We've done well up to this point. Andrew's always said this will look worse before it looks better. This is "worse" and we're not ready to give up - we're going to pursue "better".