Some Like It Hot: Venomous Reptiles in Florida

July 25, 2016 by Andrew Wyatt

Florida’s FWC to update Venomous Reptile regulations

Venomous Reptiles and Rule Change
The State of Florida has a long and storied history with captive venomous reptiles going back almost a century with famed herpetologists Ross Allen and Bill Haast. But in the wake of two high profile venomous snake escapes, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has come under increased political pressure to tighten up venomous reptile regulations in the name of “public safety.” A new proposed rule is in the works, and there will likely be significant changes in regulation for zoos, venom labs and private keepers alike. FWC is currently accepting input from stakeholders through an online survey at www.surveymonkey.com/r/VR-Rule. Deadline for the surveys is July 27, 2016. There is also an opportunity to make public comment directly to FWC.

VRTAG
FWC has created a venomous reptiles working group known as the Venomous Reptiles Technical Assistance Group (VRTAG) to solicit stake holder input as a part of the process of formulating a draft proposed rule. FWC has a history of using TAG groups when seeking subject matter expertise on a given issue. I was selected as a resource to the VRTAG by FWC to represent clients in the zoo sector on behalf of Vitello Consulting. VRTAG meetings were held in early June and again in early July. Although the working group meetings were well run and allowed for an open exchange of ideas, there were clear lines of disagreement between FWC staff and the majority of VRTAG members.

The biggest point of contention between VRTAG members and FWC staff centered on a proposed three tier system of classification for venomous reptiles, with Tier I reptiles being unavailable for possession by private keepers that don’t meet the definition of “commercial” — such as dealers, zoos or venom labs. There could also be an increase in documented hours and/or educational requirements for venomous reptile license applications. Focus would be on incrementally moving up the tier system over time like building blocks — i.e., with Tier III being a prerequisite for Tier II, and Tier II a prerequisite for Tier I. Additionally, a proposed rule would likely require secondary containment for all three tiers, with tertiary “lockout doors,” specially constructed “out buildings,” and “pit tag” identification for Tier I reptiles.

Public Comment
Aside from the online survey that is being conducted by FWC, it is imperative that anyone who has an interest in venomous reptiles in Florida to make a substantive public comment. This is not just an up or down vote. If you want your public comment to carry weight, you must submit “substantive” public comment. That is a comment that specifically addresses concerns about the current draft of the proposed rule, or suggests alternatives to provisions of the draft. Being generally for or against the draft rule will not carry much weight.

Make Public Comment to FWC regarding Venomous Reptiles and the VRTAG!

Please make public comments here: MyFWC.com/wildlifehabitats/captive-wildlife/recommendations/

Below are all of the current documents forming the basis for a draft proposed rule. Provisions of the draft rule will likely change at least somewhat. I should have an updated draft sometime in September. I will post an update as soon as possible.

Andrew Wyatt is a government affairs and policy consultant that works exclusively in the wildlife sector.

“Venomous Reptiles and other wildlife issues are highly charged and contentious. I specialize in working with clients to employ campaign style tactics to change hearts and minds on vital wildlife issues. Please follow The Last Word on Wildlife for insight and analysis particular to the 21st century wildlife sector. If you would like to discuss the potential advantages of running a targeted issue campaign, and/or a comprehensive government affairs strategy, please call or email me.” ~ Andrew Wyatt

© Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word on Wildlife, 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word on Wildlife with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Burmese Python: Dragon of the Everglades

February 11, 2016 by Andrew Wyatt

burmese-pythons-everglades-invasive-species_31112

South Florida Burmese Python

The 2016 Python Challenge™ is moving at a record pace in south Florida. Sponsored by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), the controversial python hunt, ostensibly to remove invasive snakes from the Everglades, produced a disappointing tally of only 68 snakes after 30 days of hunting in 2013. With cooler temperatures in south Florida, 100 pythons have already been taken in 2016. Hunters have capitalized on greater snake visibility as pythons bask openly in the sun to retain warmth. But is the hunt, slated to finish on Valentines Day, really for conservation or just a publicity stunt?

Raising the specter of giant pythons in the Everglades has become a media pastime in Florida. Clearly the appetite for this farfetched story is not easily sated. Lauded as some kind of invasive dragon devouring endangered wildlife and family pets alike, the Burmese python has become the stuff of folklore and myth: a modern day Jaws. A myth promulgated by environmental groups, invasion biologists and the press. Pythons being slain by champions eager to battle dark denizens for the ecological life of the Everglades has become a symbolic narrative that politicians have adopted and regurgitated for their own political purposes.

There is no denying that there are tens of thousands of Burmese pythons in the Everglades, but that’s far fewer than the 100’s of thousands touted by the likes of U.S. Senator Bill Nelson or Dan Ashe of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While pythons are certainly eating rabbits, rats, feral cats and an occasional small gator, what many people don’t realize, is that pythons don’t eat every day like a warm blooded predator. They may only eat a handful of times per year; hardly the “resource hogs” depicted by some biologists.

“Cold temperatures killed thousands of pythons in the Winter of 2009-2010. Numbers appear to be rebounding, but pythons are not being found as readily as they were. The population peaked in Summer of 2009 with highs estimated to be 30,000- 40,000 pythons.” — Shawn Heflick, Biologist and star of NatGeo WILD’s: The Python Hunters

Another part and parcel of the myth is the notion that pythons have no natural predators in the glades. Nothing to temper an unabated population growth, a notion that is patently false. Any biologist worth his salt can tell you, there are dozens of potential predators for pythons in south Florida. Baby pythons are extremely vulnerable to hawks and eagles, wading birds, predatory fish, raccoons, feral hogs, feral cats, not to mention the apex predator of the Everglades, the American alligator, which preys even on adult pythons.

The exaggeration of every detail surrounding the presence of pythons in the glades further clouds the facts. For a variety of reasons the press and the pundits seem invested in demonizing the python. The press loves the idea of a giant snake in the glades “eating everything in its path.” Clearly the public has a morbid fascination with snakes that kindles a primal fear. Environmentalists and agency personnel see opportunity to increase funding for invasive, and or endangered species research not stimulated by less sensational problems. Ambitious biologists seem to bank on decades of pythons study and research in their future. Politicians vilify the snake as a threat that can only be overcome with the appropriation of billions in Everglades restoration dollars. It is a rich issue with a handout for nearly everyone.

“… many are content to chase the ‘Burmese Dragon’ around south Florida like Don Quixote chasing windmills.” — Andrew Wyatt

But the reality is this: Burmese pythons are a relatively low rung on the ladder of serious problems facing the Everglades. They have become a red herring, a distraction, and a scapegoat from more fundamental problems that are either too contentious or too difficult to deal with. Instead of addressing issues surrounding big sugar, pollution, water flow or other more pervasive invasive species threats, many are content to chase the ‘Burmese Dragon’ around south Florida like Don Quixote chasing windmills.

Hunting invasive pythons, although not without merit, is not being pursued in earnest. The National Park Service (NPS) will not allow pythons to be hunted at the epicenter of the population in the Everglades National Park (ENP). Ironically, the NPS appears to be protecting those pythons in order to preserve a study group for ongoing research. For the hunts to be effective, they should be conducted in the ENP in an open and ongoing basis. For now, hunts are restricted to state lands around the periphery of the park, and are limited to 30 days every few years.

Vendors selling snakeskin wallets and belts at the 2016 Python Challenge™

The actual 2016 Python Challenge™ takes on an air more commensurate with a rattlesnake round-up or a reality TV show, than an environmental clean-up. It attracts colorful characters from all over the country to ‘hunt’ the dreaded pythons. Vendors have booths and sell t-shirts, snakeskin wallets and belt buckles. There’s funnel cake and BBQ. FWC is omni-present “educating” the public about the dangers of large pythons, how to identify them, wrangle them, and how to report them. But one has to wonder if the purpose is conservation or carnival.

While some concerns regarding invasive pythons are legitimate, the dramatic characterization placing pythons at the center of all of the Everglades ecological troubles is way overblown. Efforts to reduce the population via the Python Challenge are ineffective and disingenuous. Python population will never be significantly reduced unless the hunt is conducted at the epicenter of the invasion in the heart of the ENP. Allowing an open season within the park is the only way to actually reduce numbers through hunting. This ‘Dragon’ hunt can hardly be seen as anything but a side show, while the decline of the Everglades goes on with or without the Burmese python circus.

Andrew Wyatt is a government affairs and policy consultant working exclusively in the wildlife sector. He formerly served as the CEO of the United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK) where he twice testified before congress as an expert on python issues. Andrew has been interviewed on National Public Radio, by Bloomberg and by The New York Times.

From rhinos to rosewood – illegal trade is on the up

September 16, 2014 by Andrew Wyatt

From elephants and ivory to rhino horn and rosewood, it is clear that Thailand, not the USA, is a major epicenter of illegal trade. Characterizing the USA as central to these issues is a self serving ploy by NGO’s invested in using high profile emotionally charged rhetoric as a fundraising platform at home. Clearly the USA has little to do with the poaching of rhinos and elephants– and the trade in new ivory and rhino horn.” ~Andrew Wyatt

Project: African Rhino

Thai armed guard protecting a precious Siam rosewood

For around two and a half years now, we’ve tried to keep a focus on what’s happening with the poaching of African rhinos via this awareness raising campaign.

As a result we’ve become fairly well versed in the wide-ranging and complex issues of the international wildlife trade – the third largest illegal business in the world after drugs and arms.

What we hadn’t completely got our heads round before was just how widespread and far-ranging the problem was. That it it’s not just iconic, headline-grabbing species like rhinos and elephants that are at risk of being poached to extinction.

Khao Yai National Park, Thailand

Last month we found ourselves in Thailand’s beautiful Dong Phoyayen-Khao Yai eastern forest complex visiting Thap Lan, Pang Sida and Kao Yai national parks. We were on assignment for leading French nature and photography magazine Terre Sauvage supported…

View original post 713 more words

The Wrong Way to Protect Elephants

March 27, 2014 by Andrew Wyatt

Reblogged from The New York Times.

Making legal trade illegal and turning good citizens into criminals will make it easier for FWS to make cases against Americans here at home, but it fails to address the hard work of catching poachers and real criminals that are determined to kill every living elephant. ~Andrew Wyatt

The New York Times | The Opinion Pages |OP-ED CONTRIBUTORS
By GODFREY HARRIS and DANIEL STILESMARCH | 26, 2014

THE year was 1862. Abraham Lincoln was in the White House. “Taps” was first sounded as a lights-out bugle call. And Steinway & Sons was building its first upright pianos in New York.

The space-saving design would help change the cultural face of America. After the Civil War, many middle-class families installed them in their parlors. The ability to play the piano was thought to be nearly as important to the marriage potential of single ladies as their skill in cooking and sewing, signaling a young woman’s gentility and culture.

The keys on those pianos were all fashioned from the ivory of African elephants. And that is why one of these uprights, the oldest one known to survive, in fact, is stuck in Japan.

The director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service recently issued an order prohibiting the commercial importation of all African elephant ivory into the United States. (Commercial imports had been allowed in some instances, including for certain antiques.)

The Obama administration is also planning to implement additional rules that will prohibit, with narrow exceptions, both the export of African elephant ivory and its unfettered trade within the United States.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has said that these new rules will help stop the slaughter of elephants. But we believe that unless demand for ivory in Asia is reduced — through aggressive education programs there, tougher enforcement against the illegal ivory trade and the creation of a legal raw ivory market — these new American regulations will merely cause the price to balloon and the black market to flourish, pushing up the profit potential of continued poaching.

In short, these new rules proposed by the Fish and Wildlife Service may well end up doing more harm than good to the African elephant.

THE FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND ELEPHANT ECOTOURISM

March 26, 2014 by Andrew Wyatt

Reblogged from Conservation Magazine.

According to a NEW study, an over-increase in elephant density does not equate to increased eco-tourism, and could actually lead to a decrease in biodiversity. ~Andrew Wyatt

Image © Alexandra Lande | Shutterstock

March 20, 2014 | Conservation This Week

If you have more elephants, they will come. That’s been the philosophy behind attracting tourists to wildlife reserves in South Africa. But this assumption is flawed, according to a new study in Ecological Applications. Increasing elephant density doesn’t translate to more ecotourism, and doing so could end up hurting the biodiversity that these parks are meant to protect.

Reserve managers depend on tourists for much-needed revenue. To keep visitors happy, managers often bring in more impressive animals such as elephants. But these charismatic creatures can damage ecosystems. For example, large numbers of elephants can knock down trees and reduce the number of plant species, which in turn can lower the diversity of animals.

The researchers studied five private reserves and an ecotourism operator in South Africa, where visitors can go on guided tours to spot animals. For each site, the team members found out how frequently tourists saw elephants in 2010. They also analyzed data on elephant populations and tourism in Addo Elephant National Park, South Africa from 1954 to 2011.

ICCF Commends $23.7M Initiative to Combat Poaching & Conflict in Africa

March 19, 2014 by Andrew Wyatt

ICCF Commends The Howard G. Buffett Foundation, Nature Conservation Trust and SANParks for Announcing R255 million (USD $23.7 million) Initiative to Combat Poaching & Conflict in Africa

March 18, 2014

The Howard G. Buffett Foundation, Nature Conservation Trust and
SANParks Announce Historic R255 Million Commitment to Combat Poaching, Conflict in Africa

Three-year effort will intensify protection of Kruger National Park’s rhino population, and identify successful strategies to address poaching which finances conflict in Africa

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA – The Howard G. Buffett Foundation (HGBF), a private foundation in the United States; the Nature Conservation Trust (NCT), a South African public benefit organization (PBO); and South African National Parks (SANParks) today announced an historic RAND 255 million (USD $23.7 million), three-year initiative to combat rhino poaching in Kruger National Park and test anti-poaching tactics that can be applied in other regions of Africa, where poaching can be a source of funding for armed groups. The announcement was made at the Rosebank office of Standard Bank, which also announced its own support for the initiative by providing favorable banking fees and interest on the funds which they will hold.

The effort in Kruger will create an Intensive Protection Zone (IPZ) using sophisticated detection and tracking equipment and infrastructure on the ground and in the air; elite canine units and highly-trained ranger teams; and improved intelligence gathering and observation and surveillance systems. Kruger is currently home to over 40% of the world’s remaining 22,000 rhinos, the largest single population of rhinos in the world. Since January 2010, 1,383 rhinos have been poached from Kruger National Park, part of a larger assault that resulted in 2,368 rhinos poached in South Africa over the past few years. In some areas of Africa, entire populations of rhino have been eliminated.

Kruger’s poaching problem is fueled mainly by illicit criminal networks in Mozambique, South Africa, and East Asia, but evidence suggests that armed groups elsewhere in Africa derive significant funding from poaching activities. Kruger’s IPZ will also serve as a testing ground to inform targeted efforts to combat poaching in these other African regions.

“SANParks, thanks to the leadership of David Mabunda, and Kruger National Park, under the direction of General Johan Jooste, provide a unique opportunity to test new technology and new ideas within the best operating national parks system on the continent,” said NCT Chairman and HGBF CEO Howard G. Buffett. “This effort joins our foundation’s historic support for conservation with our current focus on conflict mitigation in Africa, particularly in the Great Lakes region.”

“The scale, complexity, and strategic value of this initiative is truly unprecedented for SANParks, and we believe will be transformative in our ongoing efforts to address poaching and the decimation of the rhino population in Kruger National Park,” said SANParks CEO David Mabunda. “More importantly, the lessons we hope to learn and share across SANParks and the continent will, we believe, develop new and more effective ways to combat illicit wildlife trade, particularly where it is financing armed groups.”

The Leadership for Conservation in Africa (LCA), led by its South African-based CEO Chris Marais, will provide advisory and advocacy support for the collaboration.

NCT and HGBF have a long history of support for conservation in Africa. NCT, with 100% of its funding provided by HGBF, created the Jubatus Cheetah Reserve in 2001 and the Ukulima Research Farm in 2007, both located in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Through its direct investments and support for NCT, HGBF has, prior to this announcement, committed over RAND 485 million (USD $45 million) in South Africa for a range of conservation and agriculture development activities including strengthening environmental governance; carnivore research in the Shashe/Limpopo Trans-Frontier Conservation region; preservation of natural resources; cheetah research and regional planning for cheetah conservation; development of agricultural strategies and production of improved seed for smallholder farmers. HGBF has committed an additional RAND 1.9 billion (USD $175 million) in support of its Africa Great Lakes Peace Initiative, which also includes funding for anti-poaching efforts designed to interrupt the capital flow to armed groups.

The Howard G. Buffett Foundation works to improve the quality of life for the world’s most impoverished and marginalized populations. It focuses on three core areas: food security, water security, and conflict mitigation. Based in Decatur, Illinois, the Foundation is led by CEO Howard G. Buffett. Mr. Buffett has been a permanent resident of South Africa since 2007. To learn more about the Foundation visitwww.thehowardgbuffettfoundation.org.

The Nature Conservation Trust was established in 2000 by the Howard G. Buffett Foundation as a non-profit organization and later was converted to a public benefit organization. The Trust has two primary charitable purposes: to conserve nature, restore degraded land, and to help ensure the long term survival of cheetahs and other carnivores in situ; and to support research and improved practices in agriculture for smallholder farmers to reduce food insecurity on the African continent.

South African National Parks manages a system of parks which represents the indigenous fauna, flora, landscapes and associated cultural heritage of the country. The national parks are: Groenkloof, Kruger, Table Mountain, Marakele, Golden Gate, Camdeboo, Mountain Zebra, Addo Elephant, Garden Route National Park (Tsitsikamma, Knysna, & Wilderness), Bontebok, Agulhas, West Coast, Karoo, Namaqua, |Ai-|Ais/Richtersveld, Augrabies, Kgalagadi, Mapungubwe, Tankwa Karoo and Mokala. To learn more visit www.sanparks.org.

Read the Press Release

Find out more about the International Conservation Caucus Foundation.

Endangered Species Act lost sight of its mission

March 7, 2014 by Andrew Wyatt

Reblogged from Desert News.

“A NEW report from the Endangered Species Act Congressional Working Group has characterized the Endangered Species Act recovery rate as ‘unacceptable.’ The ESA should be a dynamic tool of conservation, not a tool to advance the policies of special interests that FWS is beholden to.” ~Andrew Wyatt

Deseret News editorial
Published: Friday, March 7 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

A male greater sage grouse struts at a lek near Henefer, Sunday, April 16, 2006. Christopher Watkins, Deseret News archives

Summary

A report from the Endangered Species Act Congressional Working Group found the ESA has produced an “unacceptable” recovery rate of 2 percent, and less than 5 percent of the species on the list are actually improving. That’s just not good

When Congress passed the Endangered Species Act, it did so with the intent of preserving animal populations that were facing the possibility of extinction. That’s a noble goal, but the reality of its implementation has been very different from its intent.

A recently released report from the Endangered Species Act Congressional Working Group, which evaluated the effects of the ESA and recommended improvements to the 40-year-old law, found that the ESA has produced an “unacceptable” recovery rate of only 2 percent, and that less than 5 percent of the species still on the list are actually improving. That’s just not good enough.

Legal Trade Can Save Endangered Wildlife

March 3, 2014 by Andrew Wyatt

“The truth is, if they [species] have no economic value, these animals are far more difficult to conserve. This fact is reinforced every day on the ground in Africa when a villager sees more value in protecting his livestock by poisoning a lion than he does in letting the lion live.” – Can Private Conservation Contribute to Species Survival? ~ Andrew Wyatt

Reblogged from the Wall Street Journal.

By ARANCHA GONZÁLEZ

March 2, 2014 6:01 p.m. ET

By 1979 vicuñas were almost extinct in the Andes. Now there are more than 400,000.

The United Nations will mark the first official World Wildlife Day on March 3. This is welcome news, because unless a solution to the global poaching problem is found, iconic species such as the tiger, rhinoceros and elephant face extinction within 20 years.At the recent London Conference on Illegal Wildlife Trade, 46 countries and 11 international organizations signed a declaration that sets out a three-pronged approach to protect wildlife. The declaration calls for increasing enforcement of laws against poaching, reducing demand for wildlife products, and the “sustainable utilization” of wildlife.

Vicunas Associated Press

While enforcement and demand reduction are necessary and clear, less is known about what sustainable use actually means—and how it can solve the overharvesting and poaching of wild animals and plants.

Combating illegal trade has been the focus of much recent attention. But the real question is how to set up a well-managed legal trade that is sustainably managed and benefits the poor rural communities where many threatened species are found.

Punch and Counter Punch: Does Lacey Act Have Authority Over Interstate Transport?

February 27, 2014 by Andrew Wyatt

Reblogged from the US Herpetoculre Alliance.

“The reptile keepers trade association has filed suit against DOI Secretary Sally Jewell and US Fish and Wildlife Service, challenging among other things, the authority of the Lacey Act to limit interstate transport of Injurious Wildlife. The government has now entered a motion to dismiss. It will be intersting to see if the reptile keepers will be able to amend their pleading and survive this preliminary action.” ~ Andrew Wyatt

USARK v. Sally Jewell et al. Part One: Procedural Posture

Posted on February 25, 2014 by Erika Walsh

The US Herpetoculture Alliance is receiving a lot of inquiries regarding the complaint filed by the United States Association of Reptile Keepers on December 18, 2013 against Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, and US Fish and Wildlife Service challenging the Constrictor Rule to the Lacey Act. We are not involved in the litigation and are not consultants on the litigation. However, we are glad that USARK has taken affirmative action on behalf of herpetoculture to challenge what we agree is a completely aribitrary and capricious rulemaking.

This will be a series of blogs intended to help clarify the proceedings for non-lawyers. These blogs are not intended as legal advice; we are simply reporting on the case progression and offering opinions as we see the issues.

Procedural Posture: Where do we stand?

What is the Constrictor Rule? On March 12, 2010, the US Fish & Wildlife Service (“FWS”) proposed a rule to add nine large constrictors to the list of injurious species under the Lacey Act. On January 23, 2012, Defendants enacted a partial rule, adding four of the nine species (Burmese python, North African python, South African python, and yellow anaconda) to the injurious list. The Constrictor Rule prohibits not only importation, but all interstate transport of the four species of large constrictors. Defendants have yet to act on the remaining five constrictors, but it appears that a finalization of the Constrictor Rule to add additional species is imminent.

USARK files its lawsuit.

What is USARK asking for?

USARK filed a complaint for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment. This means that they are asking the Court to enter an order stating:

That in issuing the Constrictor Rule, Defendants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”);
That the Defandants lack legal authority to ban interstate transportation and commerce in the listed species because the ban on interstate transportation and commerce of injurious species is through administrative rule making and exceeds the expressed language of the Lacey Act;
That the Defendants enactment of the Constrictor Rule is ultra vires (meaning beyond their powers) and contrary to law;
Enjoining (barring) Defendants from applying the Constrictor Rule;
That FWS be required to prepare a lawful environmental impact statement and rational basis for any new rule proposed; and
Awarding USARK its costs and attorneys’ fees.

USARK is not seeking monetary damages in its action for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment. This means that if USARK were to win, the provisions set forth above are what it has requested in its prayer for relief. That is what USARK is asking for from the Court.

USARK’s arguments.

USARK argues that FWS was arbitrary and capricious in its enactment of the Constrictor Rule under NEPA and APA.

NEPA argument. USARK alleged that Defendants failed to follow NEPA’s statutory requirements in that FWS did not prepare an environmental impact statement (“EIS”) and that its environmental analysis (“EA”) was inadequate.

APA argument. The APA provides a right of review to persons adversely affected by an agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.

USARK is claiming that in prohibiting interstate transport of the four species of constrictor snakes, FWS has exceeded its authority under the statutory provisions of the Lacey Act.
It also argues that Defendants failed to provide reasoned bases for the enactment of the Constrictor Rule.

The Motion to Dismiss

Once a complaint is filed, the defendants have a proscribed amount of time in which to respond or otherwise plead. In this case, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. A motion to dismiss is a predictable response. It is the first volley from a defendant to see if they can get rid of a case due to pleading defects or other bars to a cause of action.

Defendants brought their Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

FRCP 12(b)(1) states that a case should be dismissed when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter.

FRCP 12(b)(6) allows a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (pleading deficiencies).

Defendants first attack USARK’s standing to bring the complaint. In very general terms, standing is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. There are some nuances that fall under the umbrella of standing. Here, Defendants claim that USARK lacks prudential standing as well as constitutional standing.

Without getting into a lengthy legal discussion on standing, Defendants make a good argument about USARK’s lack of standing and Herp Alliance believes that the USARK complaint will be dismissed without prejudice on the basis of standing.

This is not a fatal flaw. It means that there are marks of haste in the USARK complaint and it was not drafted as carefully as it could have been. If the Court dismisses the Complaint without prejudice, USARK will be given leave to amend its Complaint in order to cure its pleading defects. The net result is that some time and money are wasted but USARK will likely be given a “do-over” for at least its actions under the APA, but only under NEPA if it can allege facts that establish that it has an environmental interest .

Defendants next argue that the statute of limitations has run on USARK’s challenge to the interstate transport issue because the regulation was established in 1965 and USARK is now time barred. Herp Alliance believes that this argument is nonsensical and Defendants will not prevail on this argument.

Finally, Defendants argue that Count IV is duplicative of Counts I, II and III, which it likely is.

Conclusion

Herp Alliance believes that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part. As a result, we believe that USARK’s Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice and USARK will be granted leave to amend its complaint to cure the deficiencies that exist in the original pleading.

The net result is some lost time and money on attorneys’ fees without yet getting to the merits of any claim that can be asserted by USARK once its complaint is properly pled. At this point, it is premature to conjecture as to Defendants’ responses to USARK’s substantive allegations because their Motion to Dismiss is technical and not a response to the factual allegations in USARK’s Complaint.

National Strategy on Wildlife Trafficking

February 12, 2014 by Andrew Wyatt

Reblogged from the International Conservation Caucus Foundation (ICCF).

“ICC Co-Chair Ed Royce has been providing leadership on illegal wildlife trafficking and poaching issues for some time. Here is the ICCF Conservation Update with some very informative links.” ~ Andrew Wyatt

ICC Co-Chair Ed Royce Provides Leadership on Poaching Crisis

February 12, 2014

National Strategy on Wildlife Trafficking Fact Sheet Released by the White House

Today the United States announced a National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking. The Strategy will strengthen U.S. leadership on addressing the serious and urgent conservation and global security threat posed by illegal trade in wildlife.

In addition to the strategy, we are also announcing a ban on commercial trade of elephant ivory, which will enhance our efforts to protect iconic species like elephants and rhinos by prohibiting the import, export, or resale within the United States of elephant ivory except in a very limited number of circumstances.

Taken together, these actions will help ensure that the United States is not contributing to poaching of elephants and illegal trade in elephant ivory.

THE STRATEGY

The National Strategy for Combating Wildlife Trafficking establishes guiding principles for U.S. efforts to stem illegal trade in wildlife. It sets three strategic priorities: strengthening domestic and global enforcement; reducing demand for illegally traded wildlife at home and abroad; and strengthening partnerships with international partners, local communities, NGOs, private industry, and others to combat illegal wildlife poaching and trade.

THE IVORY BAN

Today we are also we are also announcing a ban on the commercial trade of elephant ivory, which will enhance our ability to protect elephants by prohibiting commercial imports, exports and domestic sale of ivory, with a very limited number of exceptions. This ban is the best way to help ensure that U.S. markets do not contribute to the further decline of African elephants in the wild.

To begin implementing these new controls, federal Departments and Agencies will immediately undertake administrative actions to:

Prohibit Commercial Import of African Elephant Ivory: All commercial imports of African elephant ivory, including antiques, will be prohibited.
Prohibit Commercial Export of Elephant Ivory: All commercial exports will be prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, certain noncommercial items, and in exceptional circumstances permitted under the Endangered Species Act.
Significantly Restrict Domestic Resale of Elephant Ivory: We will finalize a proposed rule that will reaffirm and clarify that sales across state lines are prohibited, except for bona fide antiques, and will prohibit sales within a state unless the seller can demonstrate an item was lawfully imported prior to 1990 for African elephants and 1975 for Asian elephants, or under an exemption document.
Clarify the Definition of “Antique”: To qualify as an antique, an item must be more than 100 years old and meet other requirements under the Endangered Species Act. The onus will now fall on the importer, exporter, or seller to demonstrate that an item meets these criteria.
Restore Endangered Species Act Protection for African Elephants: We will revoke a previous Fish and Wildlife Service special rule that had relaxed Endangered Species Act restrictions on African elephant ivory trade.
Support Limited Sport-hunting of African Elephants: We will limit the number of African elephant sport-hunted trophies that an individual can import to two per hunter per year.

The United States will continue to lead global efforts to protect the world’s iconic animals and preserve our planet’s natural beauty for future generations. Combating wildlife trafficking will require the shared understanding, commitment, and efforts of the world’s governments, intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, corporations, civil society, and individuals.

At this week’s London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, we hope other countries will join us in taking ambitious action to combat wildlife trafficking. In the coming months, we will take further steps to implement the National Strategy, and will work with the Congress to strengthen existing laws and adopt new ones to enhance our ability to address this global challenge.

Read the National Strategy on Wildlife Trafficking

ICC Co-Chair Ed Royce demonstrated leadership on the issue of poaching and wildlife trafficking by urging the Presidential Task Force on Wildlife Trafficking for a bold strategy in December 2013.

The Last Word on Wildlife

21st Century Government Affairs Solutions for the Wildlife Sector

Category Archives: News