usark lawsuit - Page 3 - 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 10-12-2015, 11:56 AM   #21
CwnAnnwn
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodneynboalich View Post
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....

Actually that is not listed anywhere in the lacey act. You said I did not read it, but you clearly have not either.

Post where the lacey act says they have to do anything you said?

1.) where the secretary of interior just can't list animals.
2.) where a there needs to be any study.
3.) where that study directly effects the outcome of the ruling.

I know you. You are going to say "look it up yourself". Or something like that. I am saying it does not exist. You will need to show me.

Sorry, I am just getting tired of arguing in circles with you.
 
Old 10-12-2015, 02:57 PM   #22
rodneynboalich
The lacey act is legal code...It's not going to have the list of criteria and procedures that mush be taken to do an injurious listing.....I'll have to contact fws to get the regulations and criteria that must be met to do a listing either judicially or from the secretary of the interior.....It's a big process that usually takes a while to get to the point of being considered justified for a listing.......I'll hit up fws tomorrow to get their rules...I'm working today so I don't have time...............

But I do find it hard to believe that you think the secretary of the interior can just list things whenever they want........

Feel free to ask usark about this....tthey will tell you the same thing I said
 
Old 10-12-2015, 03:07 PM   #23
rodneynboalich
Just sent the email to fws...As soon as they get back to me I'll post the info......
 
Old 10-12-2015, 03:09 PM   #24
rodneynboalich
Usark does such a great job at educating it's supports....so glad I'm the one that has to post stuff a out the procedure of injurious listing
 
Old 10-12-2015, 05:09 PM   #25
CwnAnnwn
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodneynboalich View Post
The lacey act is legal code...It's not going to have the list of criteria and procedures that mush be taken to do an injurious listing.....I'll have to contact fws to get the regulations and criteria that must be met to do a listing either judicially or from the secretary of the interior.....It's a big process that usually takes a while to get to the point of being considered justified for a listing.......I'll hit up fws tomorrow to get their rules...I'm working today so I don't have time...............

But I do find it hard to believe that you think the secretary of the interior can just list things whenever they want........

Feel free to ask usark about this....tthey will tell you the same thing I said

Did you really give legal advice to someone with out knowing how the process works?

Wow. So let me help you out.

There are 4 things that the interior considers for a new rule.

(1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

That is the 4 rules they use to consider adding new species to the list. Notice nothing about science on that list. Not even anything about being invasive.

They have to announce the new rule. They take comments on the new rule. But they don't have to use actual science.

http://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2015/2015-05125.pdf

Take a read. What you will find is simple. We believe our people over yours.
 
Old 10-12-2015, 06:56 PM   #26
rodneynboalich
The 100 miliion has to do with the financial impact on an industry...if it over 100 miliion the scientific info used to justify the listing will be held to a higher standard of scrutiny. .
 
Old 10-12-2015, 06:57 PM   #27
rodneynboalich
I believe the office of money budget
 
Old 10-12-2015, 06:57 PM   #28
rodneynboalich
Does the evaluation
 
Old 10-12-2015, 07:00 PM   #29
rodneynboalich
Look at the first thing the secretary of the interior considers...the environmental impact...how could you look at that issue without a scientific investigation
 
Old 10-12-2015, 08:00 PM   #30
CwnAnnwn
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodneynboalich View Post
Look at the first thing the secretary of the interior considers...the environmental impact...how could you look at that issue without a scientific investigation
This is politics not real world.They simply don't care about it. They don't really have to have any backing for anything they do. As long as they can find someone to support them, they will. Read the link. You will see where they say, the experts that proves us wrong, are wrong. We believe the HSUS.

They literally say, in the link, yes we know you are right, but we don't really care.

At no point does science come into the equation.

They banned Eunectes beniensis. It has not been imported into the united states, it has not be caught in the wild, and it can not reproduce in the while. It does not exist in the united states. They banned it because it "could" be a risk, not is.

You see the logic problem?

They don't need to prove there is an impact, only think there might be.

I said it before and I say it again.

If you sue on your grounds, the judge will just say, sorry, you are not allowed to sue because there proof needed. All they have to do is determine.

You know what the ban is about?

Money. Political groups pay campaign funds to get their way.

This has nothing to do with reality, but politics.
 

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 04:25 AM.







Fauna Top Sites


Powered by vBulletin® Version
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.06117010 seconds with 10 queries
Content copyrighted ©2002-2022, FaunaClassifieds, LLC