Reptile & Amphibian Forums

USARK has received letters from Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Democratic majority Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee Staff indicating that they will not honor commitments to work with us in regards to S373 aka ‘The Python Ban’. USARK has offered up a number of amendments to mitigate the effects of S373 on the captive bred reptile industry, including a moratorium on import until more definitive science can determine weather a Lacey Act listing is actually necessary. This would have amounted to what is known as a “sunset clause”. Apparently Democrats on the Committee feel they have the political momentum to ignore science in favor of political expediency. Justification for these draconian measures is predicated on the discredited USGS report on 9 large constricting snakes.

Democrat Staff are working on an amendment for tomorrows ‘Mark Up’ hearing that would “amend S373 to include the 9 snakes addressed in the USGS report”. It will be offered tomorrow. What is unclear is whether that means the bill will be ‘limited’ to the 9, or ‘include’ the 9. If it is ‘limited’ to the 9 it would target the large snakes including Boa Constrictor. If it ‘includes’ the 9, that could mean all of the large snakes, but also ALL the other pythons. As of yet there has been no language shared to clarify what they will actually attempt.

This utter disregard for good science in favor of political expediency continues to be pushed by the Humane Society of the United States. They see this as an opportunity to destroy the Reptile Nation. They have had unfettered access to Senator Nelson’s (D-FL) and Senator Cardin’s (D-MD) offices through sympathetic staff members.

EPW Committee Ranking Member Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is working hard with USARK to build a coalition Opposing S373 for a fight on the Senate Floor. He is concerned with the obvious “railroading” that is being attempted with a viable sector of the economy to satisfy powerful special interests invested in destroying the captive bred reptile industry. He is also concerned with the lack of evidence to support such drastic and damaging measures. The USGS report has many problems which have been pointed out by scientists with far more acclaim than the authors, but one of the most glaring flaws is the aggressive climate model that the entire report is based on. In addition there have been no provisions made to account for more than 4 million snakes already in captivity that will become valueless overnight if S373 becomes law. S373 is an economic and ecologic disaster in the making.

USARK is doing everything possible to protect the Reptile Nation. Andrew Wyatt has been in Las Vegas raising money and awareness across the country. Todd Willens will be representing USARK in Florida at the Florida Fish & Wildlife Commissioners meeting. Frank Vitello continues his vigilance on ‘The Hill’ and will attend the Senate Mark Up Hearing tomorrow in Washington, DC. We have the back of the Reptile Nation and will continue to do everything in our power to protect our members.

ACTION STEPS:

1. Contact The Media; Pythons Politics & Destruction of the American Dream Campaign. Click on this link to send a hard hitting email to all the big media outlets:

usark.org/campaign.php?id=9

2. Contact President Obama. Click on this link to let the President know you oppose S373 and the destruction of American jobs:

www.whitehouse.gov/contact

3. Call & Fax the Senate EPW Committee Today!

Obama Sample Letter: cut and paste in whitehouse contact portal above

President Obama,
S373 aka the Python Ban is being considered in the Senate right now. It will destroy thousands of jobs and bankrupt thousands of American families. The bill has been sensationalized and politicized and has no basis in real science. In fact a report generated by USGS to justify this bill has been called unscientific by an independent panel of scientists. It is being pushed by powerful special interest groups and it will hurt me financially. It is a confiscation of my personal property rights and will not solve the problems proponents claim it addresses. This is clearly a situation that has become politically driven and ignores science that does not support S373. Please do not allow politics to trump good science and sound policy. This is wrong and you promised in your election campaign not to allow situations like this to occur. Please stop S373.

***Join the Reptile Nation!

Forward this Alert to everyone you know... your friends, email lists, forums, social networking sites... everyone! This will only work if EVERYONE participates!! We must generate 10's of thousands of responses. Do it now! Go, GO, GO!!!!!

CALL IN DAY:

Sample:

My name is _____. I oppose S373. Although I support and appreciate efforts to preserve the Everglades, there is NO evidence to show this bill will have any conservation effect on the Everglades. This bill will hurt American families in our state. It would Ban the captive bred trade in 40 species of pythons and destroy thousands of jobs in our state and across the country. Scientists have questioned the USGS report being used to justify this extreme proposal. Science should trump political expediency. Please oppose S373.

Contact: Full Senate EPW Committee

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), (Sponsor S373)
Phone: 202-224-5274
Fax: 202-228-2183

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), (Chair EPW)
Phone: 202-224-3553
Fax: 202-224-0454

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), (Ranking Member EPW)
Phone: 202-224-4721
Fax: 202-228-0380

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), (Chair Water & Wildlife)
Phone: 202-224-4524
Fax: 202-224-1651

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), (Ranking Member Water & Wildlife)
Phone: 202-224-6142
Fax: 202-228-1375

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Phone: 202-224-4944
Fax: 202-228-3398

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)
Phone: 202-224-6441
Fax: 202-224-1724

Sen. Max Baucus [D-MT]
Phone: 202-224-2651
Fax: 202-224-9412

Sen. Christopher (Kit) Bond [R-MO]
Phone: 202-224-5721

Sen. Thomas Carper [D-DE]
Phone: 202-224-2441
Fax: 202-228-2190

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
Phone: 202-224-4451
Fax: 202-228-0282

Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Phone: 202-224-3244
Fax: 202-228-2186

Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
Phone: 202-224-3224
Fax: 202-228-4054

Sen. Jeff Merkley [D-OR]
Phone: 202-224-3753
Fax: 202-228-3997

Sen. Bernard (Bernie) Sanders [I-VT]
Phone: 202-224-5141
Fax: 202-228-0776

Sen. Arlen Specter [D-PA]
Phone: 202-224-4254
Fax: 202-228-1229

Sen. Tom Udall [D-NM]
Phone: 202-224-6621

Sen. David Vitter [R-LA]
Phone: 202-224-4623
Fax: 202-228-5061

Sen. George Voinovich [R-OH]
Phone: 202-224-3353

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]
Phone: 202-224-2921
Fax: 202-228-6362

-----
Andrew Wyatt
President USARK

they will honor it if everyone who calls and writes a letter threatens to vote REPUBLICAN. I told you guys, the only thing these people understand is LOSING THEIR SEAT which translates into LOSING THEIR POWER. Since this is Democrat sponsored and largely supported bill, pure and simply, vote republican. Believe me, if everyone who lives in each of the supporting commitee members district, tells them that if they support this bill they will vote them out of office(which mostly means voting Republican), there would be an completely different attitude. Its all about majority and minority with politicians. They said it quite plainly, WE DONT CARE WHAT YOU SAY USARK BECAUSE WE HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO GET IT THROUGH. I know this post will promptly be deleted but until it does, tell the truth. Mike Panichi
-----
honesty is my only policy

I could use the help of some one to send out a e-mail that includes all this information. Perferably some one with the understanding of all this situation. Including brief explination, All names to contacct and web addresses. There are many people I meet daily in my pet store that I know whom donot use web sights like kingsnake and have no clue about what is happening. I will send the contents on it to every one I know and ask them to do the same. I will also send it to all my face book fried asking thier help and for them to do the same. I will then post it here so every one can copy it to there e-mail contacts. I think it is time for everyone to know what is so important to us. Thanks For anyones help in making this happen. Mike Masters.
scales92@msn.com

You will find alot of information and help at the below link

You will find very helpful reliable good information
at the main website page

Thanks

. . . Lar M
Senator Nelson Lied about S373

-----
Boas By Klevitz
Boas By Klevitz

....tell it like it is!

If you were speaking about my post, Thank you very much. If you look down below, all the charlie brown language about what scientist said what and whos right and whos wrong...... its all for nothing. None of the science matters to these people. Its not about science. Its ONLY about POWER and majority and minority.
-----
honesty is my only policy

You're right about that Mike,
it's all about political expediency

The science so far is just a moot point

We need media attention then maybe science will play a role.

The Voting strictly Republican while possibly a good idea

This S373 & HR 2811 will be long since decided before the next election

It's definitely a great point to make with any Politicians though

. . . Lar M
-----
Boas By Klevitz
Boas By Klevitz

just remember in the future that other individual freedoms are under assault by progressive socialists, many of them we may not understand, agree with or practice, but the ability for every American to "choose" what is right in their personal life is what is at stake. The anti-python bill is just one battle in the war, be it fast food, other pets, tobacco, guns, hunting, retirement investments etc, the progressive socialist feel that you are to stupid to make decisions as an individual, they would rather pass laws to change your behavior vs educate and provide incentives towards social change. The pattern is always the same, create a manufactured crisis (liberal amounts of junk science and collaborative reporting from the media), than provide their solution which always results in less individual freedom and more government control.

Sorry for the rant, by the way I think we need to send family snake pictures, i.e. the kids with a snake picture, to everyone in congress this year to show that pythons are in fact valued "pets", and that their is a human side of this story that really needs to be told. Take my kids python and ruin their Christmas.

Bravo Sgt. Well said and entirely true. This is the truth I am always speaking of. This is what USARK should be preaching.
-----
honesty is my only policy

I agree with you too. It's a bit like the current climate change agenda.

its not about the fate being decided before the next election, its about making sure they know if it goes through, they will lose support on a large scale, even if its for their next election. I only hope these massive companies are making noise. The Liberal American media may even pay attention if they start kicking up some dust.
-----
honesty is my only policy

-----
Chris & Alliey
www.bloodyleopard.com
E-mail Us

Are the scientists that wrote to the committee and others regarding the usgs report, working on a report of their own to disprove the usgs report? I hope someone is! I am sure they would get it peer reviewed within days and can use that as ammo

Putting a report together to accurately portray what is likely to be th range of each species upon an increase in global temperatures is something that will take both time and money. There has already been a paper published questioning the authors methods and conclusions, indicating that the scientific methods used were grossly inaccurate and simplistic.
To put such a manuscript together, assuming all of the analysis was there, will take time. Peer review itself also takes time. On average 1 to 3 months.

Warren
-----
Dr Warren Booth / Director USARK
North Carolina State University
Department of Entomology

>>Putting a report together to accurately portray what is likely to be th range of each species upon an increase in global temperatures is something that will take both time and money. There has already been a paper published questioning the authors methods and conclusions, indicating that the scientific methods used were grossly inaccurate and simplistic.
>>To put such a manuscript together, assuming all of the analysis was there, will take time. Peer review itself also takes time. On average 1 to 3 months.
>>
>>Warren

The USGS report came out 19 months ago.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1875

With all due respect, Dr. Booth, the academic/scientific community is not blameless here. Scientists , above all others, should have quickly, aggressively and publicly attacked/rebutted such blatant garbage as the USGS range map study. It's a credibility issue, if nothing else. If we can't tell the difference between politicians and scientists anymore, God help us.

Thanks,
Ed

I had mentioned this to Andrew a few weeks ago, not sure where it stands from a USARK point of view, but there is a formal complaint process we could use to rebut the USGS report.

http://www.doioig.gov/index.php?menuid=382&viewid=511&viewpbid=512&viewtype=PAGE&pb=Y&btnid=127

Look under "Standards of Conduct Violations" and "Alleged or suspected situations potentially affecting public confidence in the integrity of the Department"

The allegation in the press release and the letter from the scientists that USARK sent out was that the USGS report is not an authoritative scientific publication, but rather a report drafted to support a predetermined policy.

Basically, we’re saying that the USGS is guilty of “junk science for hire”, it’s hard to get any less confident in a "supposedly" scientific organization’s integrity than that…

Maybe if we had a few thousand complaints, the USGS would feel compeled to look into it. Getting these documents recognized as "junk science" should go along way in disarming the opposition.

Mark

-----
uncommonboa.com

I believe you are either not aware of or do not understand that there is a new study entitled: Giant constrictors: Biological and management profiles of an establishment risk assessment for nine large species of pythons, Anacondas, and Boa constrictors. (2009) Authors: Reed R. & Rodda G. Here is a link to it: http://www.usark.org/uploads/USGS Risk Assessment 2009.pdf

This 323 page report was published within the last two months. As a reuslt, the establishment of funding resources, data, and time sufficient to result in a scientifically credible, externally peer-reviewed, published report is not possible.

The paper you are thinking of from last year is: What parts of the US mainland are climatically suitable for invasive alien pythons spreading from Everglades National Park? Authors: G Rodda, C Jarnevich, and R Reed.
This paper, externally peer-reviewed and published in Biological invasions was widely publicized in the media. However, in August of 2008 this paper was proven over simplistic in a paper entitled: Claims of Potential Expansion throughout the U.S. by
Invasive Python Species Are Contradicted by Ecological
Niche Models, by Pyron et al., in the externally peer reviewed online access journal PloS ONE

There are a number of issues here. 1) As much as I and I am sure many others would like to drop everything to re-analyze the data sets, if made available by Rodda and Reed, we also have dedicated research projects that we are tied to, and funded by.
2) Science cannot always move at a pace that everyone would like it to. The fact that I may have a manuscript ready does not mean it will be out any time soon. For example, I recently published a paper in the Journal of Zoology regarding population genetic structure of a small mammal species capable of high disperal. I completed this paper in 2008. It was submitted to the journal December 5th 2008. We recieved reviews and revisions on June
1st 2009. Our revisions were accepted June 2nd 2009 and it was published November 2009. So, with that said, I had the research complete and the scientific manuscript written in December 2008 (afer a number of years of data collection, DNA fingerprinting, analysis, etc), and it still took 1 year to have published in a peer reviewed internationally recognized journal.
You expect scientists to instantly digest a 323 page report, replicate or reanalyze data, write,submit and publish within 2 months. Surely even you can see this is highly unrealistic.

Also, one last comment. I take offense at your comment that the academic/scientific community is not blameless. Not every scientist conducts such poor scientific practices as Rodda and Reed. Please have your facts straight before making such a ridiculous statement.

Warren
-----
Dr Warren Booth / Director USARK
North Carolina State University
Department of Entomology

The Claims of Potential Expansion throughout the U.S. by
Invasive Python Species Are Contradicted by Ecological
Niche Models
R. Alexander Pyron1,, Frank T. Burbrink, Timothy J. Guiher1,

Only addresses the first USGS Junk science Report

. . . Lar M
-----
Boas By Klevitz
Boas By Klevitz

Mr. booth was referring to the USGS‘s risk assessment of giant snake, which was released on Oct. 13, 2009. Not 19 months ago.

Dr. Booth,

I have not personally read the most recent USGS study, but is it not mostly based on the initial study put out last year? I could be wrong on that. Obviously if it were, discrediting the initial report would go a long way in casting doubt on the most recent one.

In any event, I wish you the best over these next critical days and weeks.

Thanks for all you do...

-Chris

This report addresses the issue firmly

Link below

. . . Lar M
CUNY Report -Pyron, Burbrink , Guiher -Potential Expansion U.S. Python Species

-----
Boas By Klevitz
Boas By Klevitz

(hey lar

Dr. Booth was saying that the CUNY report is a peer-review to the INITIAL USGS report about the Burms, which was published over a year ago.

The recent one was published within the last month or two and has not yet been around long enough to have been peer-reviewed. It takes time and money in order to review a publication like that.

-Chris

Chris Acknowledged in above Post

,I realized my error in responding, I became excited and posted
the "CNYU Pyron Report" Link before I finished
reading all responses

Linked below to Post Acknowledging my error

. . . Lar M
Absolutely right Dr. Booth

-----
Boas By Klevitz
Boas By Klevitz

Its not a case of ordering a peer review. When a scientific manuscript is submitted to a scientific journal (e.g. Nature), if the topic is found to be an interesting one, it is sent out for peer-review to in general three people, sometimes more, rarely less. These three people are considered experts in their field, however this is not always the case, as an individual may be an expert on climate mapping, but have no idea of the difference between a rock python and a Burmese. This is were the review failed in the case of the original 2008 paper. This is no-ones fault. It is virually impossible to find a recognized person to review a paper that is an expert in all areas the paper covers. If I were reviewing that paper, even if I was not a herpetologist, I would research the life history and range of the animal in question.

Pyron et al, (2008) is not a review of the original Rodda paper, but actually a separate piece identifying the failure of the Rodda paper to take into consideration a number of factors.

The USGS paper will have been reviewed, however it will have been reviewed internally within the USGS, just as papers written by USDA researchers must before it can be submitted for publication. The difference here is that this report would never be published in a scientific journal. Not because of the science, but because of the length (323). Those that reviewed it internally obviously have little to no understanding of the Pyron paper and of the nature of these reptiles life histories and requirements. The fact that this paper is not published in a peer reviewed internationally recognized journal means that it is unlikely to attract the interest for a study to be undertaken opposing it.

Warren

Warren
-----
Dr Warren Booth / Director USARK
North Carolina State University
Department of Entomology

So how likely is it that the more recent paper will even be (peer)reviewed? If I understood your post correctly, it's not very likely?

Personally I think it is very unlikely that anyone will commission such a study simply because the report is not published in anything other than a USGS report.

Warren
-----
Dr Warren Booth / Director USARK
North Carolina State University
Department of Entomology

Done datta...
-----
Richard Ceniceros

A politition going back on his/her word!!!
-----
All about the U!!!!