Photo: (c) Jamie K. Reaser
On this page, PIJAC helps you make effective comments on the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) proposed rule change. Before drafting your comments, please review our previous blog entries for background information and additional guidance.
PLEASE NOTE: It is very important that you submit “substantive” comments to the USFWS. During the 2008 “Notice of Inquiry” on large constrictors approximately 1500 comments were submitted, but the USFWS only considered 115 to be “substantive” enough to inform this proposed rule change.
Merely stating that you are against the proposed rule change is not enough. You need to clearly state specific concerns and, to the best of your ability, respond to the USFWS questions listed in the proposed rule change (duplicated below).
CREDIBILITY AND RESPECT are the basis of effective communication. Please draft your comments in a manner that will encourage the USFWS staff to want to hear what you have to say. If the letter is sloppily written or the staff feel insulted by it, your comments – no matter how good they may be – will not be particularly effective.
Here are some pointers:
1. Keep your general comments brief and to the point. Remember that USFWS staff are going to have to read all of the public comments – likely numbering in the 1000s. You need to be able to communicate your message to someone who is going to – quite understandably - have a very short attention span.
2. Establish credibility. State why you have a personal interest in this proposed rule change and what your experience is with these large constrictors (whether it be as a scientist, business person, hobbyist, constrictor owner/enthusiast, etc.).
3. Maintain credibility. Use spell-check and carefully proofread your comments for clarity and grammatical errors. Have a friend/colleague review it for you as well.
4. Be respectful. Offer your comments in a polite, professional tone. Refrain from making disparaging remarks about the government, government regulation, or government staff.
5. Be unique, creative, and personal. “Copycat” comments do not hold as much weight with the government reviewers as do unique submissions. You want the staff to remember what you had to say – personal stories (including personal examples of the potential economic impact of the proposed rule change) can be highly effective. Do remember to keep it brief and to the point, however.
6. Respond to as many of the questions provided by the USFWS as possible (included below), with as much credible information as possible. You do not need to respond to all of the questions (some of them are virtually impossible to respond to in a well-informed manner).
7. If you have the technical expertise to do so, provide a thorough account of the errors and biases in the proposed rule change document (esp. regarding the species profiles and risk assessment), draft economic analysis, and/or draft environmental impact analysis. We recommend that you are as specific as possible – clearly stating the pages, lines, and nature of the errors. Where possible, provide more accurate information and support it with references.
8. We encourage you to bring up the following points in your letter (again, please try to use your own words so that it is as unique a submission as possible) –
a. Since the USFWS is largely using the USGS risk assessment as the basis for the proposed rule change, the USGS risk assessment should be made available for public comment as part of the proposed rule change.
b. The recent die-off of Burmese pythons in south
c. Only two species of large constrictors – Burmese pythons and Boa constrictors - have ever been documented as established in the
d. No species of large constrictor has the cold tolerance to persist over large portions of the
e. The Lacey Act is not intended to address “problems on the ground.” It will do nothing to control the population of Burmese pythons in the vicinity of
f. You agree that large constrictors should not be introduced to the nature environment. However, there are more effective prevention strategies than the Lacey Act. These include, but are not limited to: public education campaigns such as Habitattitude (see www.pijac.org), caging and handling standards, permit and microchipping programs, and amnesty (no-fault surrender) initiatives.
g. An injurious wildlife listing of these large constrictor species will undoubtedly result in the mass euthanasia and/or release of these and other reptiles - creating animal welfare and environmental problems that do not currently exist.
h. Listing these species as injurious wildlife will have a devastating impact on businesses across the country that are involved in constrictor trade, care, and education --- constrictor importers/exporters/breeders/distributors/retailers/transporters, reptile veterinarians, public educators (including zoos), and product manufactures/distributors/retailers. That's millions (billions?) of dollars and countless jobs lost to an already challenged economy. [Note: PIJAC and other organizations are currently undertaking economic analyses of the potential impact of the proposed rule change]
QUESTIONS THE USFWS WANTS YOU TO ANSWER:
Note - Questions 2-5: It is unlikely that you will be able to answer these question at the national- or state-level. However, if you are a business person or hobbyist working with any of these nine species, please answer these questions from your personal perspective. Be sure to provide information on the potential financial impact to you (and your employees if relevant) in terms of the loss of animal sales, as well as the ancillary sales associated with the animals (e.g., supplies). Please be as accurate (credible) as possible and keep in mind that your information will become part of the public record.
Note - Questions 7-10: Unless you live in
(1) What regulations does your State have pertaining to the use, transport, or production of any of the nine constrictor snakes? What are relevant Federal, State, or local rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule?
(2) How many of the nine constrictor snakes species are currently in production for wholesale or retail sale, and in how many and which States?
(3) How many businesses sell one or more of the nine constrictor snake species?
(4) How many businesses breed one or more of the nine constrictor snake species?
(5) What are the annual sales for each of the nine constrictor snake species?
(6) How many, if any, of the nine constrictor snake species are permitted within each State?
(7) What would it cost to eradicate individuals or populations of the nine constrictor snakes, or similar species, if found? What methods are effective?
(8) What are the costs of implementing propagation, recovery, and restoration programs for native species that are affected by the nine constrictor snake species, or similar species?
(9) What State threatened or endangered species would be impacted by the introduction of any of the nine constrictor snake species?
(10) What species have been impacted, and how, by any of the nine constrictor snake species?
(11) What provisions in the proposed rule should the Service consider with regard to:
(a) The impact of the provision(s) (including any benefits and costs), if any, and
(b) What alternatives, if any, the Service should consider, as well as the costs and benefits of those alternatives, paying specific attention to the effect of the rule on small entities?
(12) How could the proposed rule be modified to reduce any costs or burdens for small entities consistent with the Service’s requirements?
(13) Why we should or should not include hybrids of the nine constrictor species analyzed in this rule, and if the hybrids possess the same biological characteristics as the parent species.