I watched the whole House Judiciary Committee Hearing on HR2811, and I believe the Reptile Nation should be proud to have Andrew Wyatt and U.S. Ark on our side. I believe Andrew came across as sincere and tried to stay above the nasty questions that were often put to him. I also feel that Andrew communicated his points very well.

I feel that Dr. Jacobson got off to a good start by discussing his love for reptiles and how his interest grew and shaped his whole career. He also spoke with great authority and conviction when discussing the problems regarding the climate basis for the USGS python spread and survival hypothesis out of the Everglades National Park. Dr. Jacobson also scored points for challenging the reproductive potential of Burmese Pythons in the Everglades National Park.

But, I should offer some suggestions where I think more impact could have been made.

First, I believe the legislators were about as misinformed as is the average person who gets their news from the media, i.e. that there is an "out-of-control python problem" in Florida and that something urgently needs to be done about it. Second, that, according to the USGS, the Florida problem is likely to spread to other states as well - the whole reason for federal vs. state action. And, third, that the proposed bill, HR2811, with the changes proposed by USGS, USFW, and HSUS will adequately address the problem. I do not believe most of the legislators already had their minds made up - they were looking for facts, but didn't get enough of them from our side.

Andrew and Dr. Jacobson both stated in their written testimony there were numerous scientific errors and misrepresentations, but I did not get a sense of how egregious these errors and misrepresentations were.

I think that, from a strategic point of view, Andrew could have attacked the USGS report a lot more, explored the urgency and magnitude of "the problem", questioned the effectiveness of the proposed legislative solution, and blamed the media and special interest groups for spreading misinformation and creating all the hysteria.

Lastly, in order to satisfy any legal challenges to proposed legislation, prudent legislators consider certain points of law and legal precedent. I could see the legislators were doing that from some of the questions they were asking, but I did not get the impression that our side fully recognised the legal ramifications of some of the questions being asked (if you did, Andrew, then I apologise that I missed it). So, let's get more expert legal advice.

The lack of unchallenged evidence from USGS, USFW and the South Florida Water Management District, allowed HSUS to simply agree with the other witnesses.

[ Show Entire Thread ]