Jaykis,



>>So what does that all mean? Might hurt VPI a bit...



It means that “they” are attempting to find a new way to implement their redefinition of the “Commerce Clause” by using the states to do what the feds want them to do since at least June 2008…In short, this is an additional front (neither HR-669 or S-373 will go away-they’ll be back at a later date) by the government to implement certain "implied" and "specified" provisions of HR-669 and S-373 but at the local level. This is probably a “divide-and-conquer” strategy hoping that there will be less opposition at the state level than nationally. This is only my opinion here but this action suggests to me that USARK (and us as well) has been far more effective at the national level than they expected. As a side bar, they already have a legal precedent for doing this with criminal records and driver’s licenses…When you get a speeding ticket, they can find out if you have anything “outstanding” in your state and others from the computer in their car.



A couple of things to understand here…One is that every state has an “approved” wildlife plan (Secretary of the Interior) to qualify for federal wildlife dollars (i.e. Habitat Conservation Plans-HCP)…Two, the states receive lots of federal money (some much more than others) to support their own state wildlife plans which means there are strings attached (i.e. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy-CWCS)…And three, every state participates (again, some more than others) in the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), which is an information “network” for every state…In other words, it’s their “forum” to share information amongst themselves long before we ever find out about it…



Socialism is about the public (government) control of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services and this Texas legislation appears to be designed specifically to address the distribution and exchange parts...Remember, in HR-669, you ARE permitted to own their "permitted" animals (as some socialist countries allow) IF you can prove that it does not even have the "potential" for becoming an "invasive species". Meaning that you - the keeper - have that burden of proof (to their standard). And who will be the final "decision-maker" of this? It will be the government (with advice from their experts)...And from HR-669, remember those restrictions regarding out-of-state transport?



In short, they've found another way to approach the legislative "problem" of regulating the interstate transport of herps...Use the states to do it using the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact (IWVC)…



I’ve got to hand it to them, they certainly had a Plan B waiting on the shelf…Having a “network” of willing accomplices is a wonderful thing!



Later,

Jim


-----
CSRAJim

[ Show Entire Thread ]