Reptile & Amphibian Forums

In yet another attack on the reptile community, today Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will look to list the "Big 9" from the USGS survey published in October on the Lacey Act as injurious species:

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today announced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will propose to list the Burmese python and eight other large constrictor snakes that threaten the Everglades and other sensitive ecosystems as "injurious wildlife" under the Lacey Act.

Salazar made the announcement at the Port of New York, which serves as the largest point of entry in the nation for imports of wildlife and wildlife products. Last year, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Inspectors at John F. Kennedy International Airport handled more than 27, 000 separate wildlife shipments valued at more than $1 billion, or 16 percent of all U.S. wildlife imports.

The proposal, which will be open to public comment before Salazar makes a final decision, would prohibit importation and interstate transportation of the animals.

"The Burmese python and these other alien snakes are destroying some of our nation’s most treasured – and most fragile – ecosystems," Salazar said. "The Interior Department and states such as Florida are taking swift and common sense action to control and eliminate the populations of these snakes, but it is an uphill battle in ecosystems where they have no natural predators. If we are going to succeed, we must shut down the importation of the snakes and end the interstate commerce and transportation of them."

This allows us yet another opportunity to refute the bad science involved with both HR2811 and S373. The FWS will publish the proposed rule change in the federal register in early February.

Once it's published, the public will have sixty days to offer comment, after which the waiting game begins again.

As soon as the comment period opens, we'll let you know what action to take, and where.

Even now, it's not too late -- or too early! -- to make calls, reach out to your senators and representatives. Let them know this proposal is based on bad science, that you're part of the reptile community and that you vote!
USF&W to add "Big 9" to Lacey Act

-----
Cindy Steinle
phfaust@pethobbyist.com
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

>>In yet another attack on the reptile community, today Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will look to list the "Big 9" from the USGS survey published in October on the Lacey Act as injurious species:
>>
>> Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today announced the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will propose to list the Burmese python and eight other large constrictor snakes that threaten the Everglades and other sensitive ecosystems as "injurious wildlife" under the Lacey Act.
>>
>> Salazar made the announcement at the Port of New York, which serves as the largest point of entry in the nation for imports of wildlife and wildlife products. Last year, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Inspectors at John F. Kennedy International Airport handled more than 27, 000 separate wildlife shipments valued at more than $1 billion, or 16 percent of all U.S. wildlife imports.
>>
>> The proposal, which will be open to public comment before Salazar makes a final decision, would prohibit importation and interstate transportation of the animals.
>>
>> "The Burmese python and these other alien snakes are destroying some of our nation’s most treasured – and most fragile – ecosystems," Salazar said. "The Interior Department and states such as Florida are taking swift and common sense action to control and eliminate the populations of these snakes, but it is an uphill battle in ecosystems where they have no natural predators. If we are going to succeed, we must shut down the importation of the snakes and end the interstate commerce and transportation of them."
>>
>>
>>This allows us yet another opportunity to refute the bad science involved with both HR2811 and S373. The FWS will publish the proposed rule change in the federal register in early February.
>>
>>Once it's published, the public will have sixty days to offer comment, after which the waiting game begins again.
>>
>>As soon as the comment period opens, we'll let you know what action to take, and where.
>>
>>Even now, it's not too late -- or too early! -- to make calls, reach out to your senators and representatives. Let them know this proposal is based on bad science, that you're part of the reptile community and that you vote!
>>USF&W to add "Big 9" to Lacey Act
>>
>>-----
>>Cindy Steinle
>>phfaust@pethobbyist.com
>>PHFaust
>>Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
>> Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

As much as I dislike alot of what this current adminstration is all about I can't help but lay the burden of responsibility on those few in the herp community who continue to breed and sell the "big 9". Sorry but those who sell and breed these snakes have made their bed now they are going to have to sleep in it. Personally I've been tired of defending the "big 9" keepers for a long time now.
-----
Vichris
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"- Marcus Aurelius

"I can't help but lay the burden of responsibility on those few in the herp community who continue to breed and sell the "big 9". Sorry but those who sell and breed these snakes have made their bed now they are going to have to sleep in it. Personally I've been tired of defending the "big 9" keepers for a long time now."

Well put.

>>"I can't help but lay the burden of responsibility on those few in the herp community who continue to breed and sell the "big 9". Sorry but those who sell and breed these snakes have made their bed now they are going to have to sleep in it. Personally I've been tired of defending the "big 9" keepers for a long time now."
>>
>>Well put.

Alas turtle keepers in CA are now also under fire. We all need to stick together at this point.
-----
Cindy Steinle
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

Your original post refers to"bad science" behind the proposed legislation...can you direct me to the science, or studies, in question? Thanks.

>>Your original post refers to"bad science" behind the proposed legislation...can you direct me to the science, or studies, in question? Thanks.

Hi Katrina,

Take a bit of time and reference the herp law resource center here. Primarily the information on the two studies by Rodda & Gordon...
Herp law Resource center

-----
Cindy Steinle
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

Gordon Rodda is one person.

>>Gordon Rodda is one person.

SIGH

My Apologies.

REED/Rodda

While you blame the python folks, remember there was a proposal to ban ALL TURTLES in CA this week that thankfully was changed to ban import of them for food. Also Remember HR669 is still out there, while not making any movement, it is still a viable bill, just sitting there stagnant. I personally have no financial interest in the large pythons, I dont even own one, but I see the issue as a stepping stone. This is NOT a python situation, it is an animal rights problem. This will expand above and beyond pythons.

Here is a link to one article that these pythons bans are being based on. For the rest, take the time to go to the Herp Law center. This was the basis for HR2811. S373 was based on a later paper. Neither had proper peer review and have been further debunked. This is so to speak the thing that started this all.

As I said, take time to look through all the papers posted on the Herp Law Forum.
First REED/Rodda python paper

-----
Cindy Steinle
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

Thanks for the link. In the meantime I've been doing a little reading on the subject to understand it better.

Non-native invasive species are a huge problem in not only the animal but also the plant kingdom.

I personally do not see a problem with the science behind Rodda's papers, although it's pretty obvious that his findings conflict with the business interests of some in the pet trade. That doesn't necessarily make it "bad science", it makes it bad for business (for some).

Also, I don't really think that this is about a larger issue of animal rights. Perhaps you meant animal *ownership* rights?

Thanks again.

>>Also, I don't really think that this is about a larger issue of animal rights. Perhaps you meant animal *ownership* rights?
>>
>>Thanks again.

Actually this is an animal rights based situation. The organizations backing this law are animal rights organizations. PETA, HSUS, WWF are all animal rights organizations. Furthermore with the USGS map, there are HUGE questions in range maps. There is no way burmese pythons can survive in say Virginia or Oklahoma. The winter extremes are FAR to extreme. But the study and map claim they can. The second study includes Boa Constrictors. To be honest they are not that far out of US range, yet they still do not thrive or live here. It has been pointed out that their range previously naturally extended here, but alas they are no longer here.

The Everglades is a very unique ecosystem from anywhere else in florida. If the pythons, which have been there for at least a decade were capable of expanding en masse, you would already see it. But the random escaped or released snake is not the same as locating a full colony of established snakes.

Once again, while you may not like the "big snake keepers" you are a reptile person and as such need to be prepared with the onslaught of animal rights organizations striking out against those of us who keep "wild" animals.

This also does not fall merely on the big snake owners. I run a rescue and I can tell you I have FAR more released RES a year than any other species come through my doors. 1 stray boa constrictor, 4 stray corn snakes and 27 stray RES. I would also point to the fact that dogs and cats are tossed out the door as easily as a snake. The issue with loose invasives of any type does lie with the original owners. Unfortunately it is so easy to get a pet and just as easy to dump a pet. Our country has a very disposable mind set. We need to combat that through education.

Here is the rebuttal for Pyron Et All to the original USGS report. Remember as I say all this regarding the large python species, there are other state and local laws relating to reptiles as a whole that will effect more than just the large snakes and that is the most important thing to take away with this. We all need to stand up for each other because opening one door to make things easier to ban or add to the lacey act can create a tidal wave of additions that sneak in.
pyron et all

-----
Cindy Steinle
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

"The winter extremes are FAR to extreme."

I'm in Virginia and I can assure you that the southeastern part of the state does NOT typically have extreme winters. An easy example to illustrate the point would be to look at the snowfall the area received from the very same storms that dumped feet of snow on other parts of the state this winter. Or one can look at distribution maps of various species of both plants and animals and see that southeast VA most definitely has a milder climate.

Has the rebuttal paper been peer-reviewed?

Freshwater swamps develop near the edges of lakes and next to rivers that overflow their banks. Partly decayed plant matter stagnant water soon create swamp conditions. The Everglades in Florida, Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia, and the Great Dismal Swamp in North Carolina and Virginia, are examples of freshwater swamps.

One item of interest that I came across (courtesy National Geographic):

"By Dr. Susan Haseltine
Associate Director for Biology, U.S. Geological Survey

This letter is written in response to your blog post of 07 December 2009 [Justification for Congressional python ban unscientific, researchers say] , regarding a press release issued by a reptile-trade organization and an accompanying letter by a group of veterinarians and other scientists.

The article and letter criticized the following recently released report (Reed and Rodda, 2009) U.S. Geological Survey written by (USGS) scientists: Giant Constrictors: Biological and Management Profiles and an Establishment Risk Assessment for Nine Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, and the Boa Constrictor.
Some of the information in the letter from Dr. Jacobson and fellow scientists appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the USGS peer review process.

The USGS provides unbiased, objective scientific information upon which other entities may base judgments. To ensure objectivity, independent scientific review is required of every USGS publication. Standards require a minimum of two reviews, and adequacy of the author's responses to reviews is assessed by both research managers and independent scientists within the USGS.

For the report referred to in the blog, the authors went well beyond the requirements by soliciting reviews from 20 reviewers (18 of them external to the USGS). Reviewers comprised a large portion of the global expertise on both the biology of giant constrictor snakes and the management of invasive snakes.

In addition, the climate-matching methods presented in the report were previously published in the peer-reviewed journal Biological Invasions in early 2009 (Rodda et al., 2009), so these methods have received both USGS peer review and standard journal peer review.

Scientific papers with divergent or competing views on issues are very common and contribute to advancing scientific processes. The Biological Invasions paper had been criticized in a subsequent publication (Pyron et al., 2008).

In the current USGS report, the authors addressed the limitations of the methods utilized in the Pyron et al. (2008) paper.

The USGS report reviewed virtually all of the peer-reviewed literature on giant constrictor biology, as well as much of the literature on snake management (a total of 671 papers and books) and survival in the wild. The report has received favorable review by other invasion biologists including one written by one of the world's most respected experts in invasive species biology (Dan Simberloff, Ph.D., Univ. Tennessee). The review (Simberloff, 2009) recently appeared in the journal Biological Invasions and can be found here.

With regard to climate-matching in particular, Simberloff praised the "excellent discussion of the differences between and relative merits of climate matching approaches and environmental niche models that would constitute a good introduction to this burgeoning literature for any graduate student and most practicing invasion biologists.

"While allegations have been made that the USGS report is being used as the justification for regulations on the reptile trade, it is important to note that the report offers no recommendations on policy or legislation.

Thank you for the opportunity to offer clarification on these issues."

for bringing just a little sanity to this issue. Good thing this is on the BT forum. The Big 9 owner/breeders bring out the long knives if you try and reason with them on the snake forums. It's ALL about the money with too many of them.
-----
Vichris
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"- Marcus Aurelius

A little sanity? I always appreciate Steph's ability to wade through the garbage and get at the real issue. But, you guys are barking up the wrong tree on this one. There may be a lot of things to "poke" about the opposition to this bill, but none of that addresses the main point.

Large constrictors have about as much chance of colonizing the bottom 1/3 of the US as do impatiens. If you look at the climate mean or median, you may say that they could survive in coastal VA. But, you have to factor in the extremes. It is really that simple. Swamp or no, it just gets too cold for them to thrive. I was in Okeefenokee last March. We went to see and photograph alligators while they were still a bit sluggish. Winter is supposed to be over in Okeefenokee by March. We almost didn't see anything because of nightly frosts.

Outside of Florida, classifying these species as "injurious" is a wild extrapolation. There are many other species that are KNOWN to be injurious. Domestic cats, for example. It is very well known that they do terrible damage to native fauna when they are allowed to roam freely outdoors. You don't have to stretch, extrapolate, hypothesize, etc, etc, the risk that cats, and numerous other species, present to the US.

Even in Florida, the jury is still out as to whether Burmese pythons are in fact injurious. It would be interesting to see some data on their population after this winter. If I'm not mistaken, the area encompassing the everglades received some of the coldest temperatures in a decade.

There are many reasons to consider bans on large constrictors. I don't keep them, and frankly I couldn't care less if people stopped keeping them. But, I am offended by this bastardization of science. They have tried to ban them on other levels and have failed. Now they are trying this. This is ONLY supposed to be about them as injurious(to the wild) species. Whether or not you like them, or are sick of "defending" them, think that it's all about the pet trade and money, or (like myself) think that they pose a risk to children when kept as pets, this is about one thing! Does common sense tell you that tropical species could become injurious to the lower 1/3 of the US?

Steph, you should take this to the legal forum. Nobody who can give you specific answers is going to see it over here.

Keep something in mind, though. This is one of those rare circumstances where the subject is just so absolutely ridiculous that it is hard to argue against.

Is this "bad science"? I guess you could say that. But, it is actually worse. It is NOT science. It is scientific commentary. Science is about testing something, collecting data, and analyzing the data. What did they test? They talked with some people, looked at some climate models(that others did), made some maps, and presented a conclusion.

Peer reviewing is intended to check for errors. The reason for this is because science is supposed to show measurable results and statistical analyses of those results.

An actually scientific way of approaching this would have been to set up groups of large constrictors in areas throughout the US in large outdoor habitats. Then, they would collect DATA on survivability, reproduction, etc. Then, they would statistically analyze that data.

This is a Florida everglades problem at present. This is up to the State of Florida to deal with.

I suspect that, in the wake of this report, funding will be come available to study the problem further, and even conduct the kind of research that you mention.

This is a useful report.

I'd have to disagree. They have chosen to use it to make changes to the law. It is a deceptive report.

If they hadn't used it for that purpose, I wouldn't feel the way I do about it. I wouldn't agree with it, but I wouldn't oppose further research. I still don't oppose further research.

Really this whole arguement (about pythons colonizing the south east US) is a distraction from the real problem.

The real problem is a bunch of snotty nose little spoiled brats who have TOTALLY effed up the entire herp hobby with their insistance on breeding and selling "pet" burms and retics to young teeny boppers and other idiots who don't have enough sense to know how to keep a dog. When the idiots figure out that they are in WAY over their heads they either let the snake loose or they get loose because they are not properly housed. Thats just one of many of the "problems" I personally have seen with numerous big snake keepers. I can list many more problems but most of us here have seen the issues. Yes there are alot of responsible keepers BUT many of them are irresposible breeders/sellers.

Now the entire hobby is being looked at under a microscope. When I come into view I will be pointing my finger directly at those responsible and I'll be damned if I'm gonna lift one finger to help them.

Just my two cents.

-----
Vichris
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane"- Marcus Aurelius

In many ways, I agree with your two cents. Like I mentioned, I have problems with some keepers of large constrictors.

And, invasive "injurious species" are a huge area of concern for me. Red-eared sliders are wreaking havoc upon certain populations of turtles, mostly in the form of hybrids/intergrades. Domestic cats have a large, negative impact upon a variety of small animals. Hydrilla, kudzu, multiflora rose, purple loosestrife... These are all real, MULTI-STATE hazards, but the USGS is squandering its political capital on large constrictors. My personal opinion is that they are banking on the emotional response elicited by showing those potential range maps.

Your first sentence is key. I have little doubt that this is about other things. They are using this "injurious species" issue as a convenient tool to accomplish a goal that has failed in every other way that it has been tried. Call me a purist, but that really offends me. I am really, really tiring of the "ends justifying the means" type of mentality in lawmaking. Listen, I work for the government. I am involved in the enforcement of laws and regulations, and part of my job may involve proposing and implementing changes to those laws and regulations. People, hold us to a higher standard!

Vichris, I have been in the hobby for 25 years. I have kept and produced lizards, amphibians, colubrids, spotted pythons (the size of a corn snake), turtles, and tortoises. I have never had to fight any battles for the "big 9". I haven't concerned myself with their hobby in the slightest, up to and until now. While I think that this case may make it easier for them to link other herps to the Lacey Act as "injurious", due to legal precendent, I don't think you need to worry so much about being under the microscope. I don't necessarily buy the "they are coming for you next" line. Well, some may be. But, they would be regardless of the "big 9". Basically, I understand your frustration, but I don't think you should worry so much.

But, what do I know? Look how worked up I am. I didn't even want to comment on this issue. And, now I'm going to be late.

There are a lot of valid opinions being expressed here: I am enjoying the fact that we are able to have a reasonable discussion here in box turtle land...

Ken, I'm going to quote you for a moment:

"Red-eared sliders are wreaking havoc upon certain populations of turtles, mostly in the form of hybrids/intergrades. Domestic cats have a large, negative impact upon a variety of small animals. Hydrilla, kudzu, multiflora rose, purple loosestrife... These are all real, MULTI-STATE hazards, but the USGS is squandering its political capital on large constrictors."

I totally agree about RES...they have naturalized on every continent except Antarctica apparently. Regrettably they are still sold in large numbers and outside of their natural range.

Domestic cats are slightly different, in my opinion, and the issue gets plenty of attention nationwide. Dedicated volunteers are making visible strides with the success of TNR programs (Trap Neuter Release). I can attest to this personally as I have volunteered to do this myself (in fact 4 of our cats were feral and I trapped them myself). So, while there is no doubt still a huge problem with cats, there *are* people trying to do something about feral colonies. Also, as time goes by, more and more animal shelters, SPCA's etc., offer low- or even no-cost spay neuter services for cat and dog owners, and do not adopt out animals that haven't been neutered.

I don't see the same thing happening in the herp community. Yet.

Shucks, even the sweet little old ladies who belong to the Audubon Society won't hesitate to wring the necks of European Starlings or House Sparrows that they find nesting in Eastern Bluebird boxes! LOL

The sale of invasive plants that you mention is already regulated in many states, and I think that the regulation of plant material is the purview of the USDA rather than the USGS, so they can be forgiven for not focusing on plant species.

What all of these species have in common is that they were introduced by humans. In many cases, the purpose for their initial introduction was commerce, and then their further dispersal (in the case of animals at least), irresponsible animal owners.

Thanks for listening.

You're right, I committed the error of lumping a bunch of regulatory bodies together. I was referring to them collectively, which isn't really fair in this instance.

The cat thing I mentioned is less about feral and more about pet cats. There just seems to be a mindset amongst owners that Fluffy should be purr-fectly free to slaughter little furred, feathered, or scaled creatures to be presented as gifts. In a purr-fect world, immediate threats like this would get more attention.

Sadly, I am well aware of the difficulty in making the case stick. Average Joe or Jane lawmaker would probably not see the merits of stopping the spread of a cute basking turtle. But, saving the South from big snakes...well, I already read about that in USA Today.

I have not been following the bill's progress. But, I have to say, I think it is going to win. The fact that burms are in the everglades will be enough, I suspect, to convince the necessary people.

By the way, Steph, I think you were right to question things. And my suggestion about posting your questions in the legal forum are not meant to imply that they shouldn't have been brought up here. Frankly, I don't know why the topic is in the box turtle forum.

I think the big snakes get a lot of attention is this: at least a couple of the species that are the focus of this kerfuffle are apex predators that are *capable* of injuring, killing and/or consuming other apex predators, including small humans.

That is very scary stuff to a lot of people. Then there's the whole Freudian angle...

The larger point is that that Rodda's paper merely indicates that the Big Nine *COULD* colonize those areas, not that they have or that they will.

Given the fact that there are alligators in VA in the Great Dismal Swamp already, the data behind the report is not that far-fetched. One only has to look at range maps and see that there are species of reptile that are typically found only in tropical and sub-tropical regions: the northern most part of this range includes southeastern VA.

I for would like to see the reptile dealers, owners, and breeders step up to the plate and be more proactive about dealing with the problem that they have created (accidentally or deliberately), instead of merely resisting efforts to regulate the trade.

Really, it should come as no surprise that government intervention may be imposed on a group that is rightly perceived as being unable or unwilling to govern itself.

I suspect that this is what Vichris meant when he alluded to laying in the bed that some have made for themselves.

"The larger point is that that Rodda's paper merely indicates that the Big Nine *COULD* colonize those areas, not that they have or that they will."

I couldn't agree more. Personally, I don't think that they could. But, let's give them that. Is *COULD* reason enough to change the law?

American alligators and large constrictors are very different. And, American alligators are unique, even amongst other crocodilians, in the fact that they are endemic to temperate areas. In fact, they have lived in NA when temperatures were far colder. This is simply not the case with large constrictors. I have spent time in Great Dismal Swamp, Alligator River NWR, Croatan, Green Swamp, Edisto, and many alligator habitats in between. Those habitats are not even sub-tropical.

Like I mentioned, I have problems with some of the keepers of large constrictors. I am only commenting on one specific thing...what this is all supposed to be about...large constrictors as injurious species, based upon the specific definition given in the law.