thank you, that is why I posted the statement as a question since I wasn't sure myself.
Some more info, a blog posted by USARK VP gives some more details about what went down:
http://erikanwalsh.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/differences-usark-and-pijac/
Some snipets:
"Senator Balderson made multiple promises to USARK during these meetings. Balderson assured USARK that only crocodilians and venomous snakes would would fall under his permit system (no constrictors), and that the system would be favorable to industry and it would be “business as usual.” He reversed on those promises.
On March 8, 2012, Balderson introduced SB 310, seeking to enact a sweeping law to establish requirements governing the possession of multiple species of animals, which would be designated as “dangerous wild animals” as well as multiple species of snakes which would be designated under the law as “restricted snakes.” He reversed on his promise to omit constrictors. He reversed on his promise to maintain “business as usual” for the reptile industry. SB 310′s provisions with respect to snakes were so onerous and expensive that they would have served to be a de facto ban on the ownership of multiple species of constrictor snakes as well as venomous snakes."
"PIJAC took a different approach. PIJAC hired a local lobbyist named Bill Byers and, through Byers, continued to engage in discussions with Balderson as well as other members of the senate.
Something must be said about Byers. March 27, 2012 was the first day of opponents’ testimony before the Senate Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources Committee. Byers was there early to meet with Chairman Hite and commented publicly in the State House hallway that he had seen Wyatt with his “tattooed and pierced followers.” He went on to denigrate Wyatt personally as well as the reptile constituents that were gathered at the State House to testify. This is the lobbyist that took a fee to ostensibly represent the interests of reptile owners opposing SB 310."
"Agreeing to minor modifications to Balderson’s de facto ban constituted a loss to USARK’s members and constituents, particularly because Balderson insisted on keeping an administrative rule making provision in SB 310 granted the director of agriculture unfettered discretion to add animals to the dangerous wild animals list and/or to the restricted snake list without legislative process."
