International film star, Leonardo DiCaprio gave unprecedented attention to the work of Dr. Rudi Putra’s Forum Konservasi Leuser (FKL) at Soraya Station in Sumatra.
Washington, D.C.— On July 13th, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and U.S. Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-NY), announced through a press release, the bicameral reintroduction of the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act as H.R. 6362; formerly H.R. 669— the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. The bill seeks to strictly regulate the import, possession and transport of potentially harmful non-native wildlife by giving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) greater authority to employ risk assessment protocols, screen for potentially invasive species, and designate “injurious wildlife.”
“injurious wildlife, cannot be imported into the United States or its territories, or be transported through interstate commerce”— Rep. Elise Stefanik
“Injurious Wildlife” is the issue I cut my political teeth on. Former CEO of the Defenders of Wildlife, Peter Jenkins, outlined early iterations of the bill in his 2007 Broken Screens report. Subsequently, H.R. 669 was introduced in 2009 by Del. Madeline Bordallo (D-Guam), and was soundly defeated in the House Natural Resources Committee when I coordinated a massive grass roots letter writing campaign on behalf of the United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK).
We delivered almost 50,000 hand written (NO on H.R. 669) letters to the House Natural Resources Committee— literally wheeling in stacks upon stacks of letters on carts to the committee hearing room. It wasn’t the only factor in the defeat of H.R. 669, but the dramatic impact of one of the largest letter writing campaigns in 30 years, put the nail in the coffin of a partisan special interest bill.
H.R. 669 was resurrected in 2013 as H.R. 996 by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY). The name was changed to the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act, but the primary function— to create a “guilty until proven innocent” white list that expedited the arbitrary process to add species to the injurious wildlife list of the Lacey Act remained intact. However, the Republicans on the Natural Resources Committee had no appetite for partisan favors to special interest groups. As a result, Rep. Slaughter was never able to garner bi-partisan support from the Committee— where it languished until it’s death at the close of 113th Congressional session.
What would H.R. 6362 do if passed?
The main function of H.R. 6362 would give the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI) authority to define and regulate “injurious wildlife taxon or taxa.” Further, it would establish a process of risk assessment and risk management for all non-native species “not in trade.” in the United States. H.R. 6362 would prohibit the import, possession and interstate transport of any species designated as injurious wildlife or not in trade. H.R. 6362 lets the Secretary of DOI arbitrarily make the calls to designate and regulate injurious wildlife unilaterally.
Negative Impact on Herpetoculture
The favorable ruling regarding the question of what constitutes interstate transport under the Lacey Act that USARK received from the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, would be completely negated (USARK v. Ryan Zinke 2017) by H.R. 6362. Possession and trade of all 9 constrictor species listed as injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act would be prohibited; including Burmese pythons and reticulated pythons. Additionally, all of the 201 salamander species listed as injurious wildlife would be prohibited. Nothing currently on the injurious wildlife list could be possessed or traded if H.R. 6362 were to pass as written.
(e) PREVIOUSLY LISTED INJURIOUS SPECIES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—On the date of enactment of this Act, any wildlife designated as injurious by sec- tion 42(a) of title 18, United States Code, including any designation made under that section (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act), shall be designated as an injurious wildlife taxon or taxa under this Act.
Impact on Zoos
There is no exemption for zoos in H.R. 6362. Any specimens that zoos keep in their collections that is considered injurious wildlife, or not in trade, would require a rigorous permit for import, possession or transport of these species. H.R. 6362 would cost zoos time, money and man power in applying for permits. Even without the injurious wildlife designation, I could see many of the species in zoo collections falling into the “not in trade” category— therefore requiring the same permitting as injurious wildlife. Zoos that operate on thin financial margins could be in jeopardy of insolvency should this measure pass.
SEC. 8. PERMITS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Director may issue to a qualified institution a permit that authorizes the import into the United States or transport between States of wildlife designated as an injurious wildlife taxon or taxa for scientific, zoological, medical research, or educational purposes if the Director finds that qualified institution properly demonstrates—
Solution for Constrictor Snakes listed as injurious?
When I outlined the strategy in 2012 for the USARK Board of Directors to file a simple administrative lawsuit against DOI to clarify the transportation clause, I never meant the favorable outcome to be a permanent solution to the issue of trade in large constrictors. The real question was whether large constrictors deserved the “injurious wildlife” designation.
Even if the government was overreaching their authority to enforce a prohibition on interstate transport of injurious wildlife, nobody really thinks it’s a good idea to transport injurious wildlife across state lines. An administrative lawsuit was always just a stopgap ploy to buy more time should constricting snakes get listed. That’s why I also laid all of the groundwork for a lawsuit on the “merits” to challenge the science used by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to justify the decision to list the large constrictors as injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act in the first place.
The real question for herpetoculture is not whether injurious wildlife should be traded across state lines. But rather— Do 9 constrictor snakes belong on the injurious wildlife list?—Andrew Wyatt
A lawsuit on the merits would be much more involved and expensive to litigate than USARK v. Ryan Zinke. However, I already did most of the public record work and filed formal challenges of the science under the Information Quality Act as CEO of USARK. I established that the rule making fell into the “major” rule context, requiring the government do an exhaustive economic impact study and use only information held to a high quality standard. Further, I collected dissenting opinions from top science experts from around the world. If USARK wants to save constrictors “in trade” from H.R. 6362, or something like it, they better figure out a way to get them off the injurious wildlife list. I left a template for this “lawsuit on the merits” strategy with USARK in 2013 when I resigned over philosophical differences with the Board of Directors. Regardless, they have it sitting on their desk. Hopefully they will have the same kind of success they did with my idea for USARK v. Ryan Zinke.
Why is H.R. 6362 more dangerous than H.R. 669?
In short… Republican lawmakers. Although all of the usual suspects who have supported the bill in the past are still likely to support it in the future, invasive species and associated parasites and pathogens are a grave concern, not only to native wildlife, but to agribusiness. We aren’t just talking about a bunch of left wing crazies championing the bill anymore, but also the likelihood that Republican lawmakers will will support H.R. 6362, or its follow up, in order to protect ranchers and farmers from the threat of business losses due to invasive species related threats.
Let’s face it, the majority of lawmakers, Republican and Democrat alike, don’t think it’s a good idea to have injurious non-native wildlife in this country— and they certainly don’t think transporting injurious species, parasites and pathogens across state lines without rigorous regulation is a good idea. H.R. 6362 is bad for a lot of reasons. But that doesn’t mean it won’t pass— or something like it. My biggest problem is a fundamental one— the arbitrary authority given to the Secretary of DOI to do what he thinks best, without real recourse from legitimate stake holders. NO on H.R. 6362.
***The lobbyist for USARK doesn’t think that the language from the H.R. 6362 will outright ban possession of injurious wildlife. She may be right, but it could very well be a point that must be clarified in court, should this measure pass. You be the judge…
SEC. 7. PROHIBITIONS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b) and section 8, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States—
(1) to import into the United States or transport between States any wildlife designated as an injurious wildlife taxon or taxa;
(2) to possess any wildlife designated as an injurious wildlife taxon or taxa, or a descendant of that wildlife, that was imported or transported in violation of this Act;
Andrew Wyatt is a government affairs and policy consultant dedicated exclusively to the wildlife sector. Vitello Consulting for the Win!
“In an arena known to be dominated by powerful special interest groups, Vitello Consulting has created a niche providing tailored advocacy strategies that are leveling the playing field for wildlife clients on Capitol Hill— And in 2014 we began offering state level advocacy that has negated most of the legislative and regulatory initiatives impacting our clients in state capitols across the country. 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 advantages of creating a comprehensive business/government affairs strategy, or a more targeted issue campaign, please call or email me.” — Andrew Wyatt
©Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word on Wildlife, 2018. 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. Material posted from guest writers is the sole intellectual property of the author. Please seek permission directly from the author prior to reproducing in whole or in part.
Sun Tzu, the famous Chinese General who wrote the classic text ‘The Art of War,’ said ‘Build your enemies a golden bridge’. He meant corner your enemy, and then rather than fighting, create a path of escape in the direction that you want them to go. The Golden Bridge works by closing off all options except the one you have strategically chosen.
A Change in Tactics
Why has Wayne Pacelle and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) taken such a proactive interest in the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA)? After decades of opposing zoos and all forms of captive conservation, Wayne Pacelle appears to have changed tactics in his bid to close the book on zoos. What if he could harness the active cooperation of AZA? He may then be able to influence a change of direction from within. To that end Pacelle spent the summer of 2017 speaking about how collaboration between HSUS and AZA is the way of the future. With long time friend and political ally, Dan Ashe, now at the helm of AZA, Pacelle may be empowered to usher zoos into a self enforced obsolescence.
The new twist in the HSUS—AZA partnership was unveiled when Dan Ashe announced that Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, would be the keynote speaker at the AZA Annual Conference 2017. Ashe added, “[Wayne] Pacelle has an important perspective to share with conference attendees.” Facebook blazed with opposition posts, and an online petition to disinvite Pacelle from the conference garnered more than 700 signatures. Nevertheless, Wayne Pacelle was welcomed as the keynote address.
Will Wayne Pacelle be “invited” to join the AZA Board of Directors?
The HSUS stance on zoos had been straight forward until recent years. HSUS had always opposed zoos and all captive breeding. In the 1990’s HSUS said that, “if the right policies were pursued, we would need no zoos at all.” In 2004, Nicole Paquette, Vice President of Wildlife Protection for HSUS, told the Los Angeles Times that she opposed “keeping animals in zoos.” However in his 2017 address, Wayne Pacelle declared, “The AZA and The HSUS have many shared ideals.”
As has become his signature, Pacelle couldn’t resist reaching into his bag of dirty tricks. He has targeted the zoo community, lawmakers and government agencies with a smear campaign designed to brand any non-AZA facility with the pejorative of “Roadside Zoo.” Near the close of his keynote speech at the AZA Annual Conference, there was a moment reminiscent of Star Wars— when Darth Vader appeals to Luke Skywalker to, “feel the power of the dark side.” While calling dissenters “divisive,” Pacelle openly urged AZA members to turn on their zoo colleagues, and join him in condemning the Zoological Association of America (ZAA), the second largest zoo accreditation organization in the U.S.— Keep in mind, these are well respected, fully accredited zoos, duly licensed and inspected by the USDA.
There is no doubt that for the last decade, HSUS has been pressuring and using the AZA as a surrogate to advance animal rights based legislation and zoo policy. Ron Kagan, the Director of the Detroit Zoo, has spearheaded the HSUS crusade to win hearts and minds at the AZA, and he has been actively forging stronger ties with more radical members of the animal rights movement. While many AZA members have been more than dubious of Pacelle and Kagan’s efforts to co-opt the organization, the cooperation of AZA leadership has lent much needed zoological legitimacy to the animal rights behemoth— and in exchange HSUS has exempted AZA from ongoing anti-zoo legislative initiatives at the local, state and federal level.
“I believe the animals on exhibit [at zoos] should be rescues.” —Wayne Pacelle, 4th International Animal Welfare Congress 2017
The Golden Bridge
According to their own statements, Kagan and Pacelle believe zoos should “transition to the sanctuary model,” and forgo the keeping of any large charismatic species in captivity— in this vision of the future, zoos would cease to exhibit cetaceans, elephants, great apes, and large carnivores. Under this “sanctuary model” zoos would become “last stop” sanctuaries, and conservation based captive breeding programs would be terminated. The AZA Species Survival Plans (SSP’s) have been vital to conservation, and a return to the wild, of endangered and even previously extinct species like the scimitar horned oryx, but captive breeding is a sin in the world of animal rights.
The reality is, animals are rarely taken from the wild for exhibit, especially endangered animals. So if there is no breeding, there are no zoo animals. If the transition to the sanctuary model combined with the dissolution of captive conservation projects (SSP’s) becomes policy, in 20-40 years AZA zoos would not have any animals to exhibit, nor would they have the archive of genetic stock for hundreds of endangered species. The long held HSUS paradigm of “one generation and out” would come to pass. This is the “Golden Bridge” that Wayne Pacelle, Dan Ashe and Ron Kagan envision for the AZA to retreat across—a strange new land where zoos are sanctuaries, and SSP’s are a memory— and anyone who is not on board is “cruel,” a “bad actor,” or a “roadside zoo.”
Andrew Wyatt, of Vitello Consulting, is a government affairs and policy consultant dedicated exclusively to the wildlife sector. Vitello Consulting for the Win!
“In an arena known to be dominated by powerful special interest groups such as the Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Vitello Consulting has created a niche providing powerful advocacy strategies that are leveling the playing field for it’s wildlife clients on Capitol Hill. In 2014 we began to offer state level advocacy that has negated most of the legislative and regulatory initiatives pushed by HSUS and PeTA against our clients in state capitols across the country. 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 creating a comprehensive business/government affairs strategy, or a more targeted issue campaign, please call or email me.” — Andrew Wyatt
©Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word on Wildlife, 2018. 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. Material posted from guest writers is the sole intellectual property of the author. Please seek permission directly from the author prior to reproducing in whole or in part
“It’s not too late to reverse restrictions imposed by the Obama Administration that were not based on facts and science.” — Andrew Wyatt
Elephants legally hunted in Zimbabwe and Zambia between 2016-2018 now can be imported into the United States, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced today in Africa.
At the African Wildlife Consultative Forum (AWCF) co-hosted by Tanzania and Safari Club International Foundation, the FWS announced that it had made positive enhancement findings for elephants legally hunted in Zimbabwe and
View original post 326 more words
Legislative Update on the Status of H.R. 1818: Big Cat Public Safety Act
UPDATED June 29, 2017
On March 30, 2017 the Big Cat Public Safety Act (H.R. 1818) was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives. Proponents of H.R. 1818 laud it as a bi-partisan effort to “prohibit private ownership of captive lions, tigers, and other big cats in the US.” — in other words, pets. However, this characterization appears not only disingenuous, but it is duplicative, as most states already prohibit the ownership of big cats as pets. If passed as written, the primary impact of H.R. 1818 would not be on pet owners, but on zoos and sanctuaries that are not ideologically aligned with animal rights advocates espousing historical anti-captive wildlife sentiments.
Usurping the Animal Welfare Act
In a joint press release animal rights groups claimed H.R. 1818 would strengthen the Captive Wildlife Safety Act (CWSA). The CWSA is the 2003 Lacey Act amendment mandating interstate transport of big cats be limited…
View original post 948 more words
Welcome to the all-new ASLA Times, the official quarterly publication of the American Sloughi Association. This fully searchable online magazine will only be available in the future in a members-only restricted area of the ASLA web site as one of the many benefits of membership in ASLA. This is the… Continue reading
Read more via ASLA Times April 2017 — American Sloughi Association
“… hunting was never really the main problem.” ~ Richard Conniff for The New York Times
(Photo: Craig Taylor/Panthera)
by Richard Conniff/The New York Times
THE killing of Zimbabwe’s celebrated Cecil the Lion by a Minnesota dentist, on July 1 of last year unleashed a storm of moral fulmination against trophy hunting. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals issued an official statement calling for the hunter, Walter J. Palmer, to be hanged, and an odd bedfellow, Newt Gingrich, tweeted that Dr. Palmer and the entire team involved in the killing of Cecil should go to jail. The television personality Sharon Osbourne thought merely losing “his home, his practice and his money” would do, adding, “He has already lost his soul.”
More than one million people signed a petition demanding “justice for Cecil,” and three major American airlines announced that they would no longer transport hunting trophies. A few months later, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service listed lions from West and Central…
View original post 138 more words