usark lawsuit - Page 8 - FaunaClassifieds
 Sponsors »  Breeders | Dealers |  Importers/Exporters | Caging | Feed | Supplies | Services | Events 
  Inside FaunaClassifieds » Product Reviews |  Classifieds!   | Photo Gallery   | Banner Advertising 
  Do you want to be able to bump and highlight your classified ads? Click here!

Go Back   FaunaClassifieds > Laws, Legislative Issues & Alerts > General Legislative Discussions


General Legislative Discussions Any general discussion concerning legislative issues or events. Not necessarily specific to a particular region, or even a type of animal group.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-15-2015, 10:54 PM   #71
So we see that the rule making process was legal....and I think the the adding by the interior was legal as well if I'm reading the amended part of q8 usc 42 says te secretary of the interior may prescribe by regulation to be think that's what allows him to list animals...regulations arnt laws but carry the same weight
Old 10-16-2015, 10:51 AM   #72
And we have a break through. You see. It would be very hard to sue the interior for adding the 5 to the lacey act. Very hard.

I do agree with you that they where added for political and not science reasons. But the that really does not matter. He can add it to the list. I would argue the whole list is illegal, because it violates other federal and state laws, but I don't get to decide that.

The importation into the United States, any territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States, or any shipment between the continental United States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States,
You do notice that it says nothing about between states in the continental United States?

That is why USARK is suing. Because the law says importing INTO the united states, NOT between states.

We can go after them for randomly listing species later. But our best interest is to go after the low hanging fruit.
Old 10-16-2015, 03:09 PM   #73
Now you need to decide on your argument...either you think the secretary of the interior can add snakes or not...first you said it was legal that's why we can't sue then you say adding was illegal...which is it....

And what breakthrough are you talking about....iv maintained my position the whole time.....

And I never said anything about the listing being more political then what are you talking about. ..

I never said the the interior couldn't add the said that then contradicted yourself saying that they can't.....

Nor does your post of 18 usc 42 matter...look back I said it comes down to legal interpretation of ( continental united States ). ..which I have maintained for this whole thread and iv been saying for 6 months now...

And no its not easier to sue for interstate commerce when that will just lead to fws seeking and getting more authority...WHICH WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF MY ORIGINAL POST.

So any breakthrough of understanding has been on your part...iv backed up everything iv said and in the process proved you wrong everytime you tried to question what I said...and I even did it every time you changed your argument to a new one...

Go back and look at your post...they are a total joke.....and your lack of understanding is an even bigger joke....and the biggest joke of all is that you actually claim a breakthrough for me when I havnt changed what iv said..all iv done this entire thread is show everyone reading it just how much one of usarks supporters doesn't know about their lawsuit or understand the issues surrounding it....

Not once did you stay on point...not once did you own up to you on condradictions. .not once did you post anything more then post little pieces of things to try and make your argument sound valid...and the sad part is you didn't even understand what the laws were you were posting or what they related to..
Old 10-16-2015, 03:26 PM   #74
Ok here is something you just do you care to explain yourself or just move on to your next say sue on the basis because it violates federal and state laws.
You see where you said please show me what laws are violated and want to make claims like that..fine...but I'm done being nice about you say sue based of violations of other laws ok...tell us. What laws..

I do agree with you that they where added for political and not science reasons. But the that really does not matter. He can add it to the list. I would argue the whole list is illegal, because it violates other federal and state laws, but I don't get to decide that.
Old 10-16-2015, 03:34 PM   #75
You are back to insulting. Not a good sign.

The lacey act is not a clear document. Yes, he can add species. But, and this is a big but, it seems to be an abuse of power to do so. It is possible, yes. But I would say it needs to challenge in court.

You originally claimed that they should challenge the act of adding them. You now say that would be hard to do.

You say that they could go to congress to get it so they can, that would be a huge undertaking. One that you would criticize USARK for if they remotely used it to make funds on.

Mr Boalich, I want to make it clear here, I never posted anything that you did not at one point or another either directly deny or support. I was just your sounding board. I pointed out where the laws are for and against you.

But for real, if you think that you can win a case on your merits, sue the federal government. If you are not willing to do that, then I would say, be quite. Let the people that actually know the law, use it.

My whole argument from the start was to tell you that how the snakes got on the list is not a good issue to bring up in the courts. Because it is murky and will take a long time to fight.

Then we talked about the difference between invasive species listing and lacey act enforcing state laws.

Remember you brought up state laws. Enforcing state laws is different then invasive species listing. You kept trying to advance that they are under the same umbrella, I proved you wrong.

Now you are back to saying they should challenge the listing.

It is really circles with you.

I will try to help you out.

Challenging the adding of species under the invasive part of the act is really legally hard to do. But it is clear that under the invasive part of the lacey act, they do not have the right to interstate control.

Now they can enforce state laws, which is not the same as the invasive part.

I only became a sounding board because I wanted to you fully realize your thoughts on this.
Old 10-17-2015, 08:16 PM   #76
...I never said challenge the act of adding anything...I said challenge the scientific data..

How is it an abuse of power if the interior has the power to list them..

What about congress..who did I say can go there for what?

You only posted things that I at one point denied or that's've only misunderstood me the whole are not a sound board for anything other then have never pointed out anything valid about laws...the only thing you have made clear is your lack of understanding of all this..

You had no idea how the snakes were listed I had to explain 10 time to you...

I know what we talked about...when it comes to invasive verse original state offense for lacey violation....remember I had to explain that too...

You did not prove me wrong about state laws and yes almost all these animal issue are under an umbrella called the lacey act...that's how it's used for cities state law violation that also go over state lines..and invasive...and yes zebra muscles are covered under lacey.. they are listed right in 18 usc 42...

And no I never came back to saying challenge the listing...iv been saying just don't understand I'm saying challenge the listing under the arbitrary and capricious Which is the other half of usarks lawsuit...i simply said usark needs to focus on it...

No its not hard to challenge the listing when you use scientific data that's accurate..hence usarks arbitrary and capricious case

And it's not as clear cut on the interstate commerce because of the regulations and rule making process that have been given to the interior and NISC

I fully understand my thoughts on are not a are delusional....and at this point I think you are detached from reality...the fact that you think you did anything in this thread other then go in circles with your own arguments is unbelievable....and good job on never answering a single question..only trying to response in a diactic manner..because clearly you should be educating people on these issues...

Seriously you are delusional...and need help.

OK WebSlave give me another infraction for pointed out this guy has an issue with excepting reality....

Because I'm sure I pointed it out in a slanderous why....
Old 10-22-2015, 07:09 PM   #77
I am sorry Mr. Boalich, I don't know what you are really saying now. So It is really hard for me to parrot it back to you. I like being your sounding board. But you are now all over the place. You need to stop insulting. And it is libel not slanderous. Slander is spoken. Libel is written.
Old 10-22-2015, 07:34 PM   #78
Originally Posted by rodneynboalich View Post
I fully understand my thoughts on this...
I wish the rest of us could. Some of your statements simply don't make much sense, I assume it's lack of proof reading before you post? for instance:

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich View Post
when it comes to invasive verse original state offense for lacey violation....remember I had to explain that too...

and good job on never answering a single question..only trying to response in a diactic manner..because clearly you should be educating people on these issues...
I want the bans to be overturned. I sent in multiple letters, made calls and added remarks to listings in an effort to help. It seems like you really are trying to help the same cause but your statements can be hard to follow and trashing the people that are also trying to understand makes you come off as hot-headed and argumentative in my opinion. However I'm fairly certain you don't care about my opinion based on the comments you've made directly to me in prior threads.

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich View Post
OK WebSlave give me another infraction for pointed out this guy has an issue with excepting reality....
If you want to discuss your infraction(s) and the real reason for them, please do so either via PM with the moderator/admin that issued them or take it to the feedback forum. This is not the proper venue.
Old 12-10-2015, 07:37 PM   #79
Update 12/9/15

Lawsuit Update 12/9/15: Two briefs were filed today and the links are below. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) jointly filed a brief which begins with twaddle about man-eating disease vectors laying over 120 eggs per clutch.

The Center for Invasive Species Prevention (CISP) filed an amicus brief (seeking to intervene in the case). Both briefs have asked the Court to overturn the granted injunction. The briefs mirror prior paperwork being heavy on hysterical discourse, but lacking solid arguments.

While those familiar with these species can see through the propaganda presented by these groups, we must realize that these parties have made their agendas to end the keeping of these species and other herps clear. They will do their best to influence the Court.

The herp community must present ourselves publicly as professional, civil and educated regarding these animals at all times. We cannot allow bad actors to be our voice and continue to add to the bias held by the majority of Americans of these snakes. Please represent the responsible side, and majority, of the herp community well. We must illustrate everything positive about our community while remembering that most people fear and misunderstand these animals, and us.

Link 1, HSUS/CBD brief:

Link 2: CISP brief:
Old 01-12-2016, 08:42 PM   #80
First 2016 Update!

On Monday, January 11, USARK filed our brief in the Appellate Court. We have again presented solid, substantially-backed arguments, as well as pointing out the overreach used for these listings.

Below is an excerpt from our brief:

"For instance, in 1974, a FWS representative testified before the House Committee on a then-ongoing FWS Lacey Act rulemaking:

Mr. DINGELL. Now, what about the problem of exotic species that are already in this country?… I have read these new rèsumès, and I do not find that you address yourself very extensively to populations of these which are already existent inside the United States….

Mr. PARSONS. As far as the regulatory aspects of your question, there is no restriction that we find in section 42 of the Lacey Act to interstate shipments, with the possible exception of restrictions from areas off the continental United States, such as Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Hawaii…. The restrictions, Mr. Chairman, apply to importations.

Mr. DINGELL. How about the offspring of these populations in this country?

Mr. PARSONS. The offspring of those populations that are here would be treated likewise.

Mr. DINGELL. You are going to treat these as essentially a separate strain, as some kind of domesticated species?

Mr. PARSONS. That is right. The restrictions apply to imported animals and their offspring, and not to animals already in the United States."

Thank you to everyone who has supported us and has been following the lawsuit which began in December of 2013.

Read the USARK brief at

Background information of the Constrictor Rule can be found at

The current remaining briefing schedule is below.

• Government reply due February 1, 2016
• Deferred appendix due February 8, 2016
• Final briefs due February 22, 2016

Following submission of the final briefs, the Court will schedule oral argument, although there is not a set deadline for this action. USARK will keep you posted as updates become available. We appreciate your continued support as we battle overreaching legislation on the local, state and federal fronts.

Join now to reply to this thread or open new ones for your questions & comments! is the largest online community about Reptile & Amphibians, Snakes, Lizards and number one classifieds service with thousands of ads to look for. Registration is open to everyone and FREE. Click Here to Register!


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USARK constrictor lawsuit update EricWI General Legislative Discussions 16 06-02-2015 03:34 PM
lawsuit over sb 310 ROBERT SIDERS General Legislative Discussions 10 12-02-2012 10:57 AM
Stupid Lawsuit SPJ General BS forum 7 09-30-2009 06:44 AM
Lawsuit Dragondad Just For Laughs 1 01-26-2007 01:27 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:02 PM.

Fauna Top Sites

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.07785702 seconds with 10 queries
Content copyrighted ©2002-2018, FaunaClassifieds, LLC