Large Constrictor Proposed Rule

USFWS Re-opens Comment Period

2010-05-11T06:23:00.000-07:00

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has re-opened the comment period on the proposed rule to list nine species of large constrictors under the Lacey Act.

The new deadline is August 2nd.

Please see PIJAC's newest PetAlert:

http://www.pijac.org/petinformation/breakingnews.asp

Sample Letters

2010-04-25T05:50:00.000-07:00

Photo: (c) Jamie K. Reaser

In 2009, the Senate introduced bill S. 373. If passed, this bill would have had the same impact as the US Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) proposed rule change (see first blog entry Proposed Rule Change: Background Information).

In response to S. 373, two long-time large constrictor enthusiasts and businessmen - Vincent Russo and Bob Ashley - wrote thoughtful, constructive letters that address the potential impacts of the S. 373...and they shared their letters with PIJAC.

We encourage you to read these letters in order to get a sense of the appropriate tone and content for your comments on the USFWS proposed rule change.

The letters can be located at -

http://ws816213.websoon.com/_documents/russo_s373_letter.pdf

http://ws816213.websoon.com/_documents/s_373_ashley_letter.pdf

REMEMBER - PIJAC would like a copy of the comments that you submit to the USFWS on the proposed rule change. Please send them to info@pijac.org with "Large Constrictor Comments" in the subject line. Be sure to let us know if we can share your comments as examples.

Thanks you!

How to Comment Effectively

2010-04-23T13:35:00.000-07:00

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 Florida indicates that the species is not as cold tolerant at the USGS claims. Several studies on the die-offs are in progress and the USFWS needs to fully consider the results of these studies in the proposed rule change process.

c. Only two species of large constrictors – Burmese pythons and Boa constrictors - have ever been documented as established in the US…both as a single population in southernmost Florida. And, both of these populations have been substantially diminished (the Boa possibly eliminated) by the recent cold spell in southern Florida. Some of these species proposed for injurious wildlife listing have been in the US in large numbers for decades. If the USGS claims were accurate, there should be many populations of several species of large constrictors already established throughout large portions of the US. This is not the case.

d. No species of large constrictor has the cold tolerance to persist over large portions of the US. State laws and policies – rather than Federal regulation/legislation – are the most appropriate governance strategy for minimizing the introduction of large constrictors. Florida, where the only two populations of large constrictors in the US have ever been established, has already developed a good model for addressing these and other “Reptiles of Concern.”

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 Everglades National Park. Substantial resources need to be directed to state and Federal agencies for eradication and control programs. To date, the Federal government has not made this a priority.

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 Florida, the answers to questions 7-10 should indicate that none of these species have ever been established in your state and the likelihood that they would become established is clearly very low…if not 0. The cost of control methods or types of species impacted is thus irrelevant. Furthermore, because each invasive species introduction is unique, the “what would happen?” scenarios can only be addressed through gross conjecture. Rather then leave these sections blank, we encourage you to state these points - in your own words - when providing comments.

(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.

Where/When to Submit Comments

2010-04-23T11:01:00.000-07:00

Photo: (c) Jamie K. Reaser

Your comments on the proposed rule change MUST be submitted through the designated US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) process in order to be considered. It is VITAL that you make "substantive" comments. Please carefully read our entries on "how to comment" prior to drafting your submission. Then...

Go to the following website to submit your comments:

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480abc25c

Your comments MUST be received by the USFWS on or before May 11, 2010 to be considered. Note: PIJAC and other organizations are requesting an extension on this date. We will let you know if an extension is granted and, if so, for how long. However, until you get the official word from us (which, given past experience in working with USFWS, may not come until the last minute), please assume May 11 is the deadline.

PIJAC would greatly appreciate a copy of the comments that you submit. Please send them to info@pijac.org with the phrase "Large Constrictor Comments" in the header. Be sure to include your contact information and let us know if we have permission to post your comments on our blog as an example for others to reference.

Thank you!

PIJAC Review of USGS Risk Assessment

2010-04-22T17:37:00.000-07:00

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."

Proposed Rule Change: Background Info

2010-04-22T12:59:00.000-07:00

Photo: (c) Jamie K. Reaser

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has published a "proposed rule change" in the Federal Register (a document which announces government policy action) to list nine species of large constrictor snakes as "injurious wildlife" under the Lacey Act.

The nine species proposed for listing are: the Burmese python, northern African python, southern African python, reticulated python, green anaconda, yellow anaconda, Beni or Bolivian anaconda, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, and boa constrictor.

Under the Lacey Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to regulate the importation and interstate (between state) transport of species determined to be injurious to humans, the interests of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, and the welfare and survival of wildlife resources of the United States. For more information on the Lacey Act see: http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/LACEY.HTML

If the proposed rule change is adopted as currently written, it will become a FELONY for anyone to import the nine species or move them from one state to the next as pets or for sale/trade/barter as pets.

The USFWS proposed rule change is largely based on a controversial risk assessment conducted by the US Geological Survey (which has not been made available for public comment), as well as a draft economic analysis and draft environmental assessment.

A copy of the proposed rule change, press release, and a Frequently Asked Questions document prepared by the USFWS can be found at:

http://www.fws.gov/verobeach/index.cfm?method=activityhighlights&id=11

PIJAC does not believe that the proposed rule change is based on the best available information (either in terms of science or economics) or that it will in any way help to reduce the population of Burmese pythons established in Everglades National Park (south Florida).

To the contrary, PIJAC is concerned that:

1. An injurious wildlife listing of these species will result in the mass euthanasia and/or release of these and other reptiles - creating animal welfare and environmental problems that do not currently exist.

2. 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.

3. Set the precedent for numerous other species to be listed as injurious wildlife with little scientific justification - and with grave animal welfare, environmental, and socio-economic consequences.

While PIJAC recognizes the need to minimize the risk of invasive species introduction (and has been a leader on invasive species issues for decades), it believes that there are more effective approaches to keeping large constrictors out of the natural environment. 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.

PIJAC's expertise, based on 40 years of organizational experience in animal law and policy, also leads it to conclude that this issue is best addressed through state regulation. Only two species of large constrictors have ever been demonstrated as established in the US - the Burmese python and the Boa constrictor - both in southernmost Florida. The Burmese python population is greatly diminished due to this past winter's cold spell. To the best of our knowledge, no one has evidence that the Boa constrictor population still exists - there haven't been any reported from the known location in years. Clearly the notion that these large constrictors are going to spread throughout a large portion of the US is unfounded. The State of Florida already has an appropriate "Reptiles of Concern" policy and program in place - this should serve as the basis for managing the snakes that remain in south Floria and be used as a model by other states in the southernmost parts of the US.

PIJAC is encouraging constrictor experts and enthusiasts to review the USFWS documents and provide constructive, substantive comments to the USFWS by the 11 May 2010 deadline (Note: we hope this deadline will be extended...watch for more information).

Please use this blog - and the links to it - to learn more, and then take action.

----------
Boa constrictor photo in blog header - (c) Vincent Russo, Cutting Edge Herp Inc.