The US Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) proposed rule is largely based on a "risk assessment" of the nine species of large constrictor snakes that was conducted by the US Geological Survey:
http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Publications/pub_abstract.asp?PubId=22691
This 300+ page document has not been made available for public comment as part of the rule making process. However, aspects of it are summarized in the proposed rule (see the link on the blog's right side bar to the proposed rule documents).
Although the risk assessment has been endorsed by some invasive species biologists, it has also been strongly criticized by expert organizations and individuals who work with large constrictors on a regular basis (in the wild and/or in captivity).
PIJAC's scientific and government affairs teams found numerous errors, inconsistencies, and biases in the study. For a copy of the PIJAC review, please see:
http://ws816213.websoon.com/_documents/pijac_usgs_review.pdf
Other reviews consistent with PIJAC's analysis can be found below. These address not only the USGS risk assessment, but also a Burmese python "climate matching" paper that was previously published by the same USGS biologists.
http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2010/03/climate-matching-predictions-giant-snakes-exagerrated.html
See "Recent VPI Publications" in the bottom right corner: http://www.vpi.com/
http://www.usark.org/uploads/Congressional%20letter%20on%20HR%202811-S%20373.pdf
NOTE: If you have the technical expertise to do so, we greatly encourage you to discuss the problems with the USGS risk assessment (and the statements derived from it that are included in the proposed rule) in detail when providing your comments to the USFWS on the proposed rule. The more "substantive" your comments, the more likely they are to be taken into consideration by the USFWS. For further guidance, please see our postings on "how to respond."
Posts
