usark lawsuit - Page 2 - FaunaClassifieds
 Sponsors   Breeders | Dealers |  Importers/Exporters | Caging | Feed | Supplies | Services | Events 
  Inside FaunaClassifieds  Product Reviews |  Classifieds!   | Photo Gallery   | Banner Advertising 
  Want to help support this site? 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 10-11-2015, 03:18 PM   #11
And that executive order is why I don't think usark has a real case on the interstate commerce issue
Old 10-11-2015, 03:46 PM   #12
The whole interstate commerce issue will come down to the legal interpretation of (continental united States )....not sure I'd want to base a case on 3 words....

Also not sure why it was posted that what I want usark to do isn't possible or don't make sense...especially when usark have their arbitrary and capricious part of their case which is based around getting the snakes removed from the lacey act.....

I think my point was missed.....which was again....either usark loses the interstate commerce case and the snakes stay on the lacey act and the courts rule fws can regulate interstate commerce

Or usark wins the interstate commerce case and the snakes stay on the lacey but the court rules that fws under 18 usc 42 can't regulate interstate fws will be forced to get the lacey act amended to be able to regulate interstate commerce...which will mean with the snakes still on the lacey act they and will go right back to not being able to go across state lines again....

This issue could be a avoided by winning the arbitrary and capricious part of usarks case. ..but 9f usark isn't focused on that part of their case they are putting the industry at a risk
Old 10-11-2015, 06:17 PM   #13
Originally Posted by rodneynboalich View Post
Any animal added to the lacey must be added do to proof that fws has to so they are invasive or potential invasive....
To who? The FWS only has to prove TO ITSELF they where dangerous. What you are going to argue in court?

Here is how your arguement will go.

Your honor, Secretary of the Interior has clearly never read one ounce of information about anything. Here is 1,000,000 sources the prove everything that he has ever said to be 100% a lie.

Secretary of interior, do you stand behind your claim that these are dangerous creatures?

Secretary of the Interior-
Yes. I was told by a 8 ball to ban these animals. The only authority I need by law is what ever I feel like doing. There is zero language in the lacey act, besides I believe they are dangerous to uphold my ruling on it. You see. I don't care what the 1 million sources have to say. I can say that they are dangerous on a coin flip. And since I say they are dangerous, they are.

Well since there is nothing that actually says you have to back up your feelings they are dangerous in the laws. I have to find you did your job. The 5 stay on the lacey act.

judge to you-

I understand you are upset about this. But the Secretary of the Interior does not have to prove anything. All he has to is think they might be dangerous. If the law said, he has to prove they are, then you would have won. But it just says he has think they are dangerous. So you lose.

Now, no where in the lacey act does it say it was meant for interstate commerce. But in the same breath it only says that the Secretary of the Interior finds they are dangerous. Not proves, but finds.
Old 10-11-2015, 07:08 PM   #14
You clearly have done no research on the lacey act
Old 10-11-2015, 07:23 PM   #15
The fws has to do a long process to prove in a sense that animals should be listed as injurious...which is a preemptive listing to avoid the animals becoming invasive...that's what the usgs study was for all the other studies...that's why the government hired herpotlogist reed and rodda..

When it's an injurious listing there all kinds of data required....

As for the secretary of the interior....they are able to do a listing via executive order when the listing via the judicial process is being held up....

The secretary of the interior can't just list animals as injurious....

Only burms can be considered invasive...the rest of the snakes were all listed because reed rodda study being considered sufficient by the fws NISC and the secretary of the interior for there listing as injurious....
Old 10-11-2015, 07:29 PM   #16
This is a perfect example of why usark doesn't doesn't work because it's supporters are even more clueless then the usark board that does nothing....usark will only ever be as good as it members and as long as it's members consist of people that don't want to educate themselves yet think it's a good idea to go on here and argue with me; usark will never be able to protect the industry
Old 10-11-2015, 07:30 PM   #17
Why don't you ask usark to come on here and answer some questions about the lawsuit
Old 10-11-2015, 07:46 PM   #18
Originally Posted by rodneynboalich View Post
This is a perfect example of why usark doesn't doesn't work because it's supporters are even more clueless
Looks like many of the other threads you have initiated.
You are not a builder, you are a destroyer. Nothing has stopped you from forming your own group except yourself Rodney. If you insult people, you will NEVER win them over to your point of view.
If you don't like USARK, build another group. But, clearly that is not your agenda.

Originally Posted by rodneynboalich View Post
Why don't you ask usark to come on here and answer some questions about the lawsuit
If I was USARK, I'd stay far away from this thread. After all, they have had an opportunity to look at some of your past threads.
Old 10-11-2015, 07:53 PM   #19
Just call me shiva
Old 10-11-2015, 08:01 PM   #20
So aside from this thread being viewed as anti usark and you 2 don't like either of you want to add to the discussion that the thread was started for...

Dude tried but he doesn't know anything about the lawsuit or issues surrounding it...that's not my fault and it doesn't make me a destroyer for pointing it out....

You gave a hard time when I tried to warn people about wyatt being a lying scumbag that was stealing from the industry...and I wasn't a builder for that one too......I was a trouble maker... remember......but turns out I was telling the truth wasn't i....

If you want to discuss the potential issues of the usark lawsuit that's great....other wise get off the thread and get a life.....

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

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 12:11 PM.

Ebates Coupons and Cash Back

Fauna Top Sites

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.06705499 seconds with 10 queries
Content copyrighted 2002-2018, FaunaClassifieds, LLC