usark lawsuit - Page 6 - FaunaClassifieds
FaunaClassifieds  
  Tired of those Google and InfoLink ads? Upgrade Your Membership!
  Inside FaunaClassifieds » Photo Gallery  
 

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

Notices

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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-14-2015, 02:09 PM   #51
HerpVenue
I could not understand that long run on diatribe that looks like it was written by a third grader.

But since it is rodney, let me take a guess. The last time he was here, he was saying usark is wrong for NOT suing.

And now that usark is suing, he is going to say usark is wrong for suing.

And let me not forget the usual. " Oh you do not know what you are talking about. I do. I did research. I read the stuff. I read all of it. I know how it works. Prove it? Hang on let me ask them for it so I can read it."
 
Old 10-14-2015, 02:12 PM   #52
HerpVenue
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodneynboalich View Post
And no I can't start an organization....there's no money...there's no organizing people....and there's just too many people willing to believe you can give usark 10 dollars and all their problems will be solved...the industry is lazy and uniform and it seems to want to stay that way....kinda like this whole country
Weird. I could have sworn you and terry already had one. Then there was the other group in the retic community. That is two groups I could have sworn you were involved in.
 
Old 10-14-2015, 07:14 PM   #53
rodneynboalich
As usual you are looking to post something just to tey and start a fight...at least this time you admitted not taking the time to read and think about the post first. Read the thread you will see what the issue is with the lawsuit...a 3 year old understand it....Terry's organization is no longer up and running as far as I know...the retic group not sure what happened there....once usark finally said ok we will sue people started backing them again....but unfortunately usarks lawsuit if handled wrong will open the door for Fws to gain a lot of authority...


It's important that is at least some kind of record of issues people have with the lawsuit...and a record that it was public......just in case usark tries to back peddle in the future....
 
Old 10-15-2015, 04:17 PM   #54
CwnAnnwn
You post a lot of stuff, but you don't back it up. The lacey act can be used if the state is shipping outside of the usa or if it is illegal in that state.

But the lacey act can not create new species to ban. There has to be a ban before the lacey act can enforce it. The lacey act can not effect interstate shipping or sales if the species are not banned in the states they are exporting from or to.

The FWS could not get a ban through congress, thanks to USARK (which is still complain about), so they used the lacey act, illegally, to do what the law was going to do.

Mr. boalich, I know you have to be right on this. But please, no insulting. It shows that you really don't have a good argument.
 
Old 10-15-2015, 06:28 PM   #55
rodneynboalich
What on earth are you talking about now...any time a ban or new law is passed it go under whatever legal code would apply to it....and now fws used the lacey act illegally to add the snakes when just a few post ago you said that the secretary of the interior added the snakes to the lacey act because he can add anything he wants without any scientific research or data...those were your words....and no fws didn't use the lacey to ban the snakes...and injurious listing is added to lacey because that's the legalcode/jurisdiction that would cover the ban.....Fws can't add anything to the lacey act without a bill being passed or the secretary of the interior adding them....seriously stop making thins up and saying random stuff just to try and be right.....
 
Old 10-15-2015, 06:52 PM   #56
CwnAnnwn
You are correct, I missed typed. I meant to say Secretary of interior.

I miss typed.

I am sorry.

But you still have not proven that he needs to use anything close to science to add anything to anything.
 
Old 10-15-2015, 06:55 PM   #57
rodneynboalich
Then how was it illegal to add the snakes to the lacey if there's is no standards or protocols for listing
 
Old 10-15-2015, 07:00 PM   #58
rodneynboalich
And no its not a lacey act violation to ship out of a state to another country like you posted...and that another issue usark should be focusing on
 
Old 10-15-2015, 08:18 PM   #59
CwnAnnwn
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodneynboalich View Post
Then how was it illegal to add the snakes to the lacey if there's is no standards or protocols for listing
You are the one that is arguing for a lawsuit for adding the animals. I told you it was a lost cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodneynboalich View Post
And no its not a lacey act violation to ship out of a state to another country like you posted...and that another issue usark should be focusing on
Actually it is.

Quote:
§ 3372. Prohibited acts
(a)
Offenses other than marking offenses
It is unlawful for any person -
(1)
to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire,
or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken,
possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any la
w, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in
violation of any Indian tribal law;
(2)
to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce -
(A)
any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or
regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law;
Mr. Boalich, I think you might want to read what we are talking about.

You are the expert, and yet the person you claim is never read it, is proving you wrong by quoting it.

That part is also important in another manner.

You see here it states it either has to be regulated by a state or US government. The lacey act, its self can not ban species. It only enforces on the federal level other regulations.

Which is why adding the 5 to the lacey act is illegal, when they are not regulated by anything else.
 
Old 10-15-2015, 08:28 PM   #60
rodneynboalich
That's only if an original law was broken. Then it becomes lacey act / federal offense if any kind of border is crossed...that law doesn't apply to say exporting a species th as t is listed as injurious or invasive....and if you try and say it applies to everything then you will have to admit that the fws can restrict interstate commerce...because it says that
 

Join now to reply to this thread or open new ones for your questions & comments! FaunaClassifieds.com 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!

 
Reply

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
Possible Lawsuit businesslaw Board of Inquiry® 134 09-14-2010 10:14 PM
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 10:31 AM.







Fauna Top Sites


Powered by vBulletin® Version
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.06669688 seconds with 10 queries
Content copyrighted ©2002-2022, FaunaClassifieds, LLC