Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Here's the actual final rule posting in the Federal Register last Monday if anyone is interested. All the information involving this decision is discussed. Pretty lame analysis.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-23/pdf/2012-1155.pdf

Kelly

VERY important that we all read this and understand exactly HOW they're justifying this. it's a LONG read, but if you skim you can get the gist of it. the responses to our submitted comments are especially "enlightening".

I find reading this Final Lacey Ruling to be very irritating and aggravating !

What they list as justifiable reasons, which are actually great points of debate and concern among real scientists. Using these immensely shaky debatable parameter points rather than solid fact based reason & parameters for listing these 4 species, flies in the face of real fact based science.

I also become furiously enraged at how they "Explain Away many comments" in the comments section.

The basis and back bone science of the entire Lacey Listing rests squarely on the Rodda / Reed reports.

Those reports that really are not sound verifiable science.

Then they go as far as to claim Pyron et.Al., findings to be overly restrictive due to high number of parameters.

"• Pyron et al. (2008) incorrectly rejected many sites that are suitable for Burmese python invasion because their use of an excessive number of parameters actually ended up acting as filters. Using too many filters means that too many sites that are truly at risk of python introduction get filtered out.
"
Reading this is far too frustrating !

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

I Support USark.org

I agree Larry. It is unbelievable the almost total lack of un-verifiable statements that were used to prove their points and their lack of any really hard data.

Kelly