H.R. 6362: Injurious Wildlife Revisited


Large Burmese python captured in the Florida Everglades

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

Legislative History
“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.


(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.


(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…

      (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!

Andrew_Bolton 2018

Andrew Wyatt and National Security Advisor John Bolton in the “Green Room” at FOX News

“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.

Landmark Victory for USARK in Python Ban Lawsuit


“Scales” of Justice prove true for Herpetoculture

Washington DC— April 7, 2017. The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit in the case of the United States Association of Reptile Keepers v. Ryan Zinke, Secretary of The Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humane Society of the United States and Center for Biological Diversity, ruled in favor of USARK on the question of Lacey Act authority to prohibit interstate transport of species listed as “injurious” under the Lacey Act. The court held that, “the government lacks authority under the shipment clause to prohibit shipments of injurious species between the ‘continental’ States.”

264575_210697215640070_6306357_n5-300x225What does all of this mean?
The way has now been cleared to legally resume trade of the Burmese python, North African python, South African python, reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda,  Beni anaconda, green anaconda and yellow anaconda within the “continental United States.” However, it appears that injurious species cannot be transported into the District of Columbia. The shipment clause specifically references the “continental United States,” “Hawaii,” the “Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,” and “any possession of the United States”, and the “District of Columbia” as distinct designations. In the court’s opinion the “District of Columbia” is an expressly separate designation from the “continental United States,” and specifically identified as prohibited in the shipment clause. In conclusion, it appears that there will be no legal transport into Washington, DC without the appropriate permits.

Congress defined the phrase “continental United States” in a statute enacted by the same Congress in the year before the 1960 addition of the shipment clause. See Pub. L. No. 86-70, § 48, 73 Stat. 141, 154 (1959); see also 1 U.S.C. § 1 note. Under that definition, “[w]henever the phrase ‘continental United States’ is used in any law of the United States enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, it shall mean the 49 States on the North American Continent and the District of Columbia, unless otherwise expressly provided.”

Keep in mind that all nine constrictor snakes continue to be listed as injurious under the Lacey Act. This is the real problem. Interstate transport is now allowed, but likely only temporarily. The original intent of the Lacey Act amendments of 1960 was to allow zoos and research facilities the opportunity to work with listed species to import and transport across state lines with a new permit system. Previously, import and transport of listed species was completely prohibited. However, the shipment clause of the Lacey Act was poorly written, leaving it vulnerable to a clarification in the courts that now allows “injurious wildlife” to be transported across state lines. Most in conservation, academics, ranching and farming disagree that it is a good idea to transport “injurious wildlife” from state to state– remember, the injurious list was comprises the most dangerous alien invaders; snakeheads, mongoose, zebra mussels, fruit bats, etc. Constrictor snakes were only recently added. This legal victory buys time for the reptile industry to find more permanent legal remedy to a listing process that was arbitrary and capricious. The “science” was fudged at every turn in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, Information Quality Act, and the peer review process.

Categorical Exclusion: CatX
Additionally, in 2015, in an unprecedented move, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service empowered itself to shortcut the rule making process under the Lacey Act in order to more easily declare injurious wildlife listings, making way for mass listing of species. Known as CatX, this rule has negatively impacted herpetoculture, and the pet trade by removing scientific justification from the listing process. This led to the listing of 201 salamander species in 2016, prohibiting the import and interstate trade of captive bred specimens. However, the ruling by the court on the authority of the Lacey Act to prohibit interstate transport now opens the way to resume trade of listed captive bred salamander species in the continental U.S., removing CatX’s teeth as a blunt force instrument to prohibit captive breeding programs on American soil. Listed species may be exported. However import without permit is a felony.


George Sugiyama, former Chief Minority Counsel, Senate EPW ~ Troutman Sanders

History of the USARK Lawsuit
In 2011, as then-CEO of the U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK), I led the fight against the listing of nine constrictor snakes as injurious under the Lacey Act. During the course of many visits to Capitol Hill, I met with George Sugiyama, Chief Minority Counsel for the Senate Environmental and Public Works (EPW) Committee. Mr. Sugiyama suggested to me, that in his legal opinion, FWS under the Lacey Act, did not have the authority to restrict interstate transport of species listed as injurious. I loved the simplicity of his argument and directed USARK’s counsel to further research and vet the idea. Subsequently, we hatched a plan, and created a blueprint for a lawsuit challenging the FWS’ authority to regulate interstate transport. The architects of the lawsuit were George Sugiyama, Joan Galvin and myself.

I spent most all of 2012 lobbying the USARK Board of Directors to move forward with the lawsuit. USARK finally filed that lawsuit against then-Interior Secretary Sally Jewell (USARK v. Jewell et al.) in the Federal District Court of Washington, DC in December of 2013— 11 months after I resigned from the organization. In the end it doesn’t matter why they waited. The point is, USARK did file the lawsuit, my strategy proved to be the correct one as illustrated by the court, and herpetoculture gets a huge victory that could resonate for years!

The Injurious Wildlife listing under the Lacey Act, for the moment, can not be used as the weapon it once was against domestic herpetoculture in the United States.

Congratulations USARK and the Reptile Nation for a job well done!
Working on behalf of USARK Joan Galvin, Shawn Gehan, David Frulla, Paul C. Rosenthal, Richard Stanley, and an anonymous legal contributor all played crucial roles in bring this lawsuit to fruition. In addition there have been countless volunteers and fundraisers that contributed and funded this unprecedented success that has been 9 years in the making. It has been my honor and privilege to play my part. My sincerest thank you to USARK and the entire Reptile Nation in this monumental victory for herpetoculture!

Happy Birthday USARK! — Many people don’t know, even the current officers of USARK, but USARK was founded as a trade association dedicated to the interests of herpetoculture on April 5, 2008 in Chicago, specifically to fight the Python Ban. The founding principal was Andrew Wyatt, formerly the founder and president of the North Carolina Association of Reptile Keepers (NCARK). The co-founders of USARK included Mack Robinette, Lou Sangermano, Ralph Davis, Doug Price, Sherry Tregembo, Jeff Ronnie, Warren Booth, Shawn Heflick, Brian Sharp, and Dan and Colette Sutherland. This group would become the USARK Board of Directors electing Wyatt as president and CEO in April 2008. April 5, 2017 was USARK’s Birthday. Happy Birthday to a young and successful trade association.

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

Ula and me“Wildlife issues are highly charged and contentious. I specialize in articulating clear policy ideas and getting them in front of key decision makers. 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

© 2017 Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word on Wildlife. 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.

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

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  Walsh

logo5The 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.


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.