• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

usark lawsuit

rodneynboalich said:
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....
Click to expand...


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.
 
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
 
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
 
rodneynboalich said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
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. .
 
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
 
rodneynboalich said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Stop going in circles....Fws use their scientific data for listing....It's the proof they have to have to do an injurious listing because an injurious listing is a preemptive listing to avoid a species becoming invasive...if the industry impacted by the listing doesn't do more than 100 miliion a year the fws science isn't held to a very high level reliability.....but if Fws can't show their own scientific data to be valid or their data is shown to be purposely misleading they listing can be overturned...usark knows this...that's the whole basis of their arbitrary and capricious lawsuit......but fws must show scientific data to warrant an injurious listing.....like I said I emailed fws as soon as they get back to me I'll post their info
 
rodneynboalich said:
Stop going in circles....Fws use their scientific data for listing....It's the proof they have to have to do an injurious listing because an injurious listing is a preemptive listing to avoid a species becoming invasive...if the industry impacted by the listing doesn't do more than 100 miliion a year the fws science isn't held to a very high level reliability.....but if Fws can't show their own scientific data to be valid or their data is shown to be purposely misleading they listing can be overturned...usark knows this...that's the whole basis of their arbitrary and capricious lawsuit......but fws must show scientific data to warrant an injurious listing.....like I said I emailed fws as soon as they get back to me I'll post their info
Click to expand...

You have no proof of this. But you keep saying it. There has never been a lawsuit overturned by your standards.

USARK is suing because they are taking a shot in the dark.

Prove to me that FWS has to produce scientific data.
 
First you were mad that I don't like usark...then you say I'm wrong about the lawsuit and you say the lacey act affect interstate commerce...which is a total joke considering banning interstate commerce was the original reason it was made....then you say the secretary of the interior can list whatever they want and they don't have to follow any procedures....then you post 4 of the procedures they have to follow....now you're talking about green anacondas...which yeah that's what an injurious listing is...


I can't help it you don't understand any of the lawsuit issues....nor can I help it that you don't even know that you don't understand the issues
 
A law will be overturned if it's found to be unconstitutional...in violation of another law...or if passe under false pretenses or false information was given....those are the main reason people sue the government.....do I really need to site cases for this....just about every supreme Court case is based on those issues....
 
Are you going to start posting links from the HSUS?

The EIA-Gobal is a politcal group that will say anything.

And your link does not actually say interstate commerce. It says foreign imports, but nothing about interstate.

he importation into the United States, any territory
of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States, or any shipment between the
continental United States, the District of Columbia
, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any
possession of the United States,
Click to expand...

That is the actual language.

It says nothing about transporting BETWEEN states.

And what makes your science better then their science in the court of law?

Nothing.

You don't have an argument besides complaining to complain.
 
Originally passed in 1900, the U.S. Lacey Act makes it a federal crime to poach game in one state with the purpose of selling the bounty in another.
 
That's the first line from the link...read it...lacey act was made to make it illegal to go across state lines with the intent to sell poached animals from another state....interstate commerce is crossing state lines for sales.....you really don't understand much do you
 
Back
Top