Fish & Wildlife Propose to Ban Boas , Pythons and Eunectes

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 16
[FWS–R9–FHC–2008–0015; 94410–1342–
0000–N3]
RIN 1018–AV68
Injurious Wildlife Species; Review of
Information Concerning Constrictor
Snakes From Python, Boa, and
Eunectes genera
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service or We), are
reviewing available biological and
economic information on constrictor
snakes in the Python, Boa and Eunectes
genera for possible addition to the list
of injurious wildlife under the Lacey
Act. The importation and introduction
of constrictor snakes into the natural
ecosystems of the United States may
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:23 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\31JAP1.SGM 31JAP1 sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2008 / Proposed Rules 5785
pose a threat to the interests of
agriculture, horticulture, forestry; to the
health and welfare of human beings;
and to the welfare and survival of
wildlife and wildlife resources in the
United States. An injurious wildlife
listing would prohibit the importation
into, or transportation between, States,
the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any
territory or possession of the United
States by any means, without a permit.
Permits may be issued for scientific,
medical, educational, or zoological
purposes. This document seeks
comments from the public to aid in
determining if a proposed rule is
warranted.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
April 30, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018–
AV68, Division of Policy and Directives
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite
222, Arlington, VA 22203.
Instructions: We will not accept
e-mail or faxes. We will post all
comments on http://
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Public Comments section below for
more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin
Williams, Branch of Invasive Species at
(703) 358–2034 or
erin_williams@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
September 21, 2006, we received a
petition from the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD)
requesting that Burmese pythons be
considered for inclusion in the injurious
wildlife regulations pursuant to the
Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42). SFWMD is
concerned about the number of Burmese
pythons found in Florida, particularly
in the Everglades National Park. We are
looking at obtaining information on
constrictor species in the Python, Boa
and Eunectes genera for possible
addition to the injurious wildlife list
under the Lacey Act.
The regulations contained in 50 CFR
part 16 implement the Lacey Act, as
amended. Under the terms of the
injurious wildlife provisions of the
Lacey Act, the Secretary of the Interior
is authorized to prohibit the importation
and interstate transportation of species
designated by the Secretary as injurious.
Injurious wildlife are those species,
offspring, and eggs that are injurious or
potentially injurious to wildlife and
wildlife resources, to human beings, and
to the interests of forestry, horticulture,
or agriculture of the United States. Wild
mammals, wild birds, fish, mollusks,
crustaceans, amphibians, and reptiles
are the only organisms that can be
added to the injurious wildlife list. The
lists of injurious wildlife are at 50 CFR
16.11–16.15. If the process initiated by
this notice results in the addition of a
species to the list of injurious wildlife
contained in 50 CFR part 16, their
importation into or transportation
between States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or
any territory or possession of the United
States would be prohibited, except by
permit for zoological, educational,
medical, or scientific purposes (in
accordance with permit regulations at
50 CFR 16.22), or by Federal agencies
without a permit solely for their own
use.
Public Comments
This notice of inquiry solicits
biological, economic, or other data on
adding species in the Python, Boa and
Eunectes genera to the list of injurious
wildlife. This information, along with
other sources of data, will be used to
determine if these species are a threat,
or potential threat, to those interests of
the United States delineated above, and
thus warrant addition to the list of
injurious reptiles in 50 CFR 16.15.
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning this notice of
inquiry by one of the methods listed in
the ADDRESSES section. We will not
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax
or to an address not listed in the
ADDRESSES section. We will not accept
anonymous comments; your comment
must include your first and last name,
city, State, country, and postal (zip)
code. Finally, we will not consider
hand-delivered comments that we do
not receive, or mailed comments that
are not postmarked, by the date
specified in the DATES section.
We will post your entire comment—
including your personal identifying
information—on http://
http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information in
addition to the required items specified
in the previous paragraph, such as your
street address, phone number, or e-mail
address, you may request at the top of
your document that we withhold this
information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this notice of inquiry,
will be available for public inspection
on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive,
Arlington, VA 22203.
We are soliciting public comments
and supporting data to gain additional
information and specifically seek
comment on the following questions:
(1) What regulations does your State
have pertaining to the use, transport, or
production of Python, Boa and Eunectes
genera?
(2) How many species in the Python,
Boa and Eunectes genera are currently
in production for wholesale or retail
sale, and in how many and which
States?
(3) How many businesses sell Python,
Boa or Eunectes species?
(4) How many businesses breed
Python, Boa or Eunectes species?
(5) What are the annual sales for
Python, Boa or Eunectes species?
(6) Please provide the number of
Python, Boa or Eunectes species, if any,
permitted within each State.
(7) What would it cost to eradicate
Python, Boa or Eunectes individuals or
populations, or similar species, if
found?
(8) What are the costs of
implementing propagation, recovery,
and restoration programs for native
species that are affected by Python, Boa
or Eunectes species, or similar snake
species?
(9) What State-listed species would be
impacted by the introduction of Python,
Boa or Eunectes species?
(10) What species have been
impacted, and how, by Python, Boa or
Eunectes species?
Dated: January 11, 2008.
Lyle Laverty,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and
Parks.
[FR Doc. E8–1770 Filed 1–30–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:23 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 21400

Heard about this tonight. This isn't one of those " It doesn't affect me " issues. This is a nationwide ban. Consider it just a start of the worst to come. Next could be ANY exotic species non native to the US.

Truly sad move on the USF&W's part. Just goes to show the ignorance of todays people in power. Seems more like a move to further control citizens, rather than control any real problems that exist.

The MAN's fascist colors showing at their brightest. I bet Rep Hilderbrandt had his finger in this in some way. Sounds just like one of his sneaky underhanded attacks on the general public.

In researching "Notice of Inquiry" on the Dept of Interior page this appears to be just the beginning of what looks like a pretty long process. The best thing to do is to get a "No Action" taken at the first level.

If you're thinking of writing I did want to point out this part of the above.

We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept anonymous comments; your comment must include your first and last name, city, State, country, and postal (zip) code. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section. We will post your entire comment— including your personal identifying information—on http://http://www.regulations.gov.

Copying and pasting a reply I wrote to a thread on another forum about this topic.

1.- This is not exactly a "Proposed Ban on All Boas and Pythons" it's a proposed proposal, very VERY hypothetical, still in the extremely early information gathering stages, not something already being presented to Congress.

2.- It does not directly impact ownership of anything. If it were to carry forward as written, it would impact transportation between states. This would, over time, function as a deterance to easy interstate sales but there won't be stormtroopers kicking your door in and seizing your collection.

3.- Interstate transport would be regulated, not banned. The beta version as written indicates a nonspecific permiting process to move the animals between states. The details of such a permiting process are an extremely important factor in the way the industry should react and the information gathering being requested is directly tied to that.

I am always hesitant to suggest the additional legislation of *anything* based on my soiciopolitical views. That said there seems to be a signifigant disconnect between what has actually been said and the reaction that many people are expressing.

Right now the entire thing is fact-finding, if you are an individual who has legitimate, substantiated numbers that can answer any of all of the questions being asked, I'd encourage you to send the information along with whatever evidence validates it. When those facts are sufficiently examined, a more specific stance and the reasons behind it will further any proposed legislative changes or possibly cause the individuals doing the examining to simply drop the issue. It's also important to note that this is not *new* legislation, it's a proposal to alter some existing definitions within the Lacey Act.

Depending on what exactly makes it through to the point of tangible proposed changes my own opinion of the change might be any number of things.

If the end result is a federal permiting process for interstate transport that can be applied for by an individual or business with a reasonable set of guidelines for Lacey Act compliance, I really won't care too much.

If the end result is something that entails liscences that are extremely difficult or extremely expensive (and that's a personal definition as well) to obtain, I'll likely fight it.

The reason Barringer and Kingsnake.com are so stringently against it is the volume of business that they would lose from individuals with short term or transient classified accounts should the permit cost result in something higher than the cost of a clutch or two of baby boids. Individuals who produce and sell small numbers of animals in a given year often see Kingsnake as an easy method of moving their product, but would likely balk at a fee of even a few hundred dollars if it were required for shipping their animals between states. Less out of state shipping by hobbiest dealers (as opposed to professional vendors) would take a big cut out of Kingsnake's classified section, cutting the revenue generated directly and tending to lower traffic on the site overall, reducing ad generated revenue as well.

Right now, this entire thing is very *very* preliminary and very very innocent. Do not misinterpret what has been proposed or the information gathering process as anything more than it actually is until such a time as it becomes clear that your liberties are genuinely being harmed.

Obviously the kingsnake part is taken a bit out of context, the other site had the link to Jeff Barringer's... action... notice... news post... thing.

Good points, and excellent post Seamus.

My only animus to the whole thing is that there really is no problem to speak of, so therefor nothing needed to regulate. It is a serious misspending of our tax dollars. There is only one state who actually has a problem with non indigenous species, and it has nothing to do with them eating people, or being a threat to citizens. Only a threat to our ecosystem. But it seems a bit late to intervene where Florida is concerned. The damage is already done.

I just think the money could be better allocated to problems that the US actually has, rather than problems some dimwitted politician foresees.

If the end result is a federal permiting process for interstate transport that can be applied for by an individual or business with a reasonable set of guidelines for Lacey Act compliance, I really won't care too much.

I hope they don't handle this like they do CITES permits now..
It takes 3-9 months now for US CB CITES permits...but WC CITES permits can be had in a matter of days...this has devastated many people who sell CB boids overseas...
This was ignored by the hobby in general...and now there looking for better nails to hammer in our coffin...

One thing of interest..one of my customers is a several hundred dollar hour Corporate lawyer on Braodway...
His take on what USFW is doing is blatantly illegal...just the fact they have slowed down the permitting service to the point that it makes selling almost impossible is reason and cause for a major industry wide lawsuit...but here's the problem...who's going to caugh up the several hundred k to get it done...LOL
Sucks that in the land of the free and home of the brave..you need cash to be free and buy bravery..

After some sleep I have a better comprehension of what I posted.

I agree with Seamus that the door was opened for input , hopefully to allow for an informed opinion as to how they will proceed.

Its doubtful that those running with this or even starting it know that the species involved are tropical type animals and couldn't survive in 95% ( or more ) of the US north of Florida once the temps really dropped.

I'm not down playing the impact the burms and iggys have had in Florida but the time would be better spent on solving feral cat issues.

My only animus to the whole thing is that there really is no problem to speak of, so therefor nothing needed to regulate. It is a serious misspending of our tax dollars. There is only one state who actually has a problem with non indigenous species, and it has nothing to do with them eating people, or being a threat to citizens. Only a threat to our ecosystem. But it seems a bit late to intervene where Florida is concerned. The damage is already done.

Read the thing again, Rick...this is about FL, and the impacts on the ecosystem - actual and anticipated. That is what the injurious wildlife cclause is all about. Saying in one breath that there is no problem to speak of, then in the next that damage is already done (so why try to intervene) waves the wrong flag...paints us as ill informed, unaware, selfish and egocentric.
What they are seeking is information - data - to illustrate realistically how great the danger is...not a kneejerk outcry. I am NOT in favor of any broadstroke legislation, but I think our interests would be better served by addressing the 10 questions they asked realistically. If the received information demonstrates that there is not a reasonable, and real, threat, then this will likely go away as quickly as it (seems to have) appeared. Anybody opting to submit comments should remember that they are addressing 3 specific genera...so should we.
Is there a need for the National concern when, throughout the vast majority of our country, the changing seasons will be enough to remove the threat that released (or escaped) specimens might have posed? It is a fact that the subjects of this inquiry (Python, Boa, Eunectes) CANNOT establish sustainable colonies in most of our country. FL IS a State where they can...and FL has ALREADY TAKEN ACTION. A new regulatory process has been approved (has it been initiated yet?). State governments can deal with the problem where it exists, or may exist; Federal oversight & involvement is not required.

Hire an attorney with the intent to file a class action suit by representing ALL damaged parties. An attorney may do it on a contingency basis if there are enough damaged parties involved. A large enough plaintiff base normally means that the defendant has NO defense against the claimed damages. Lawyers ALWAYS make out like bandits in class action suits, although the plantiffs rarely get anything out of it monetarily, but they win what they wanted changed.

OK, I read it again. I still say it's a one state problem, so US tax dollars shouldn't be spent considering a nationwide ban. I think it would cost less to eradicate the problem in the glades, than to try and enforce nation wide banning, or permit system. Our tax dollars could be better spent ridding our country of all the gang members and drug kings IMO.

And by a little late, I mean there HAS been a problem for years in Florida. Why did they wait till now to try and place it on the whole country? Florida has it's laws in an effort to deal with it, however effective they are.

My 2¢