Lacey act injunction update

[millertime89]

As many of you probably know, the judge in the case USARK v USFWS was supposed to issue a decision on the injunction regarding the recent listing of reticulated pythons and three species of anacondas being added yesterday. Unfortunately nothing has been said as of yet. I will post here as soon as I hear anything.

[SnoopySnake]

Man I was hoping this thread had some news..lol. Fingers crossed...

[millertime89]

Sorry, not yet. I've got my ears and eyes open on a few different sources so hopefully I'll hear as soon as there's anything to report.

[Albert Clark]

Hoping for a vote for us keepers. Fingers crossed too.

[pet_snake_78]

These laws are insane. With all the problems facing the world we have time to worry about some dude keeping an fing snake in his house? really?

[Minkness]

Thank you for taking the time to keep us updates. Fingers crossed for some good news soon.

[millertime89]

Still nothing. We probably won't hear anything over the weekend and I'm out of town all next week so I won't be as quick with updates.

[Albert Clark]

I am a member of USARK. If I hear anything I will update information as I get it. All my info would be coming from the website.

[millertime89]

There's a rumor floating around that it was approved. I'll try and update as soon as I hear something firm.

[SnoopySnake]

There's a rumor floating around that it was approved. I'll try and update as soon as I hear something firm.

I read that on Bob Clark's Facebook. I hope it's true!

[MDT]

From Retic Nation and Bob Clark's FB page

http://i1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh572/mtucker66/11260946_1109883289038883_5578814047912150914_n_zp smlro8meq.jpg[/URL]

[SoPhilly]

Fingers still crossed, but YAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!

[bigsnakegirl785]

This is good news, and a step in the right direction! We just need to keep fighting and keep supporting USARK.

[SnoopySnake]

This was posted on the USARK Facebook...http://i911.photobucket.com/albums/ac317/SnoopySnake/Screenshot_2015-05-12-17-20-26_zpspp6hgxkz.png

[millertime89]

We got the stay! It's been confirmed!

[IW17]

Wow it's about time we had some good news

[pet_snake_78]

Indeed, I did not think this would happen, very cool. Big thanks to USARK and all the keepers and businesses that helped support them.

[Ballchris]

Im am so freaking ecstatic right now.

[Albert Clark]

Fantastic news and a fair determination for reptile keepers!!

[SnoopySnake]

Just wanna put out there, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do NOT ship yet! We only have 4 more days until we get the final word and should be good shortly after. But we definitely can't afford to mess this up by shipping early...

[MDT]

Just wanna put out there, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do NOT ship yet! We only have 4 more days until we get the final word and should be good shortly after. But we definitely can't afford to mess this up by shipping early...


This x 1,000,000

[addseo1119]

Thank for sharing.

[Albert Clark]

Paaaaaaaaarty! Celebrate.

[millertime89]

I'll be adding more info from USARK and other sources today to this post. Here's a plea from Phil Goss, president of USARK:

PLEASE READ! (Reptile community)

While we wait for an announcement on the effective date of the preliminary injunction, PLEASE take the time to read this. None of this is limited to retic keepers, as it applies to all reptile species, keepers, breeders, and sellers, but big snakes are the target right now so I’m posting here.

I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to be remain professional at all times. While it may not be as fun, it’s CRITICAL. Anyone thinking we are not being watched by animal rights groups is sadly mistaken. It’s guaranteed they have moles right here in the Retic Nation, and all over Facebook and online forums. Animal rights groups (such as HSUS) are behind all of this.

While we complain about the government, it’s not the government who comes up with most of this regulation and legislation. If you don’t understand animal rights, it’s posted all over the USARK Facebook page (see links at bottom of post). Here is the most recent post: http://goo.gl/j7FpVO.

The Constrictor Rule is a great example. This began with a petition from the South Florida Water Management District in 2006 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to list the Burmese python as a federal injurious species (which was overreach, but we should all know that). While a government agency may have initiated this, it was animal rights groups that added eight additional species to the proposed list and tried for far more. HSUS pressured FWS to list ALL boas, pythons and anacondas as injurious. By all, I truly mean ALL. Ball pythons, sand boas, green tree pythons, carpet pythons, Children’s pythons… everything! (And yes, I have documents showing this. It’s all on public record.)

It must be reiterated that all business dealings, regarding retics and green anacondas especially, remain legal and responsible. This includes (as should always apply) no sales to minors without parent/guardian present, no shipping until injunction is effective, no shipping in inappropriate containers, etc. Husbandry practices must be on point, too.

Just one bad public bite incident, tragedy, raid finding illegal activity, escape, etc. could easily reverse all we’ve accomplished.

Also, every retic breeder/owner needs to be aware of local and surrounding keepers. Animal rights (AR) groups have staged escapes of exotic animals before and will not hesitate to do it again. If a retic or green anaconda pops up in the news as escaped, every keeper in that area needs to find out who sold what to who, whose snake it might be, if the escape is legitimate or staged, etc. This must be done immediately! AR groups will buy an animal and then release it usually almost immediately. They don't want to keep it. They want to frame us and push their agenda. Don't let them!

Being prepared is much better than reacting after it happens. Nail down who is selling animals around you, especially anyone selling on Craigslist. Craigslist is obviously one of the easiest portals for AR to use. Rather than posting on Facebook about this being staged, network and find out the source of the snake, who sold it, who bought it, when it was sold, etc.

Be sure to ask questions before selling. If something sounds fishy, is it worth a few bucks to risk the entire Retic Nation?

And to be clear, USARK - United States Association of Reptile Keepers only represents responsible keepers, breeders and businesses. While animal rights groups claim the entire herp and exotic pet community is a horrible group of people, it is a limited few who are irresponsible and effect us all.

[millertime89]

Kevin McCurley has been keeping the Retic Nation updated, he echoed Phil's statements about responsibility. I've included a recent update from a few days ago as well.

** 5/19/14 **
As we wait to see when we can once again have some freedoms regarding our snakes we MUST be thoughtful and SENSIBLE.
Remember, the actions of a few or even a single person can cause all of us irreparable harm too! At the moment we are dealing with a tidal wave of literal non-sense, "facts" are being fabricated to make what we do look TERRIBLE! The general public often believes the animals that we so love are monsters and unsuitable as pets. Let's all consider this as we conduct our day to day lives. Clearly I do not want to see ANY feeding of Prey..... or anything beyond that. We are animal lovers and we all need to remember that and respect animal welfare and everything that includes... get it? If people want to lash out and show their frustration this is not the place to do so. Everything that a keeper does can hurt all of us and the amount of time effort that USARK and the team has put in will SUFFER in many ways. Hang in there, we are getting through this!

** 5/15/2015 **
Ok, WORKING HARD on getting our last bit of REAL AMMO for the Judge!!!!!! Rick and I are plugging away and getting out FACTS and EXPERTISE to challenge insanity!!! We are working on TEXAS TOO!!!!!!! Florida has a permitting system for Retics that should handle it but Texas is such a JOKE about them living there!@!!!! So much work but this is getting done right! Our Main Attorney for USARK has until 5PM Friday to get this NAILED for the Judge. Bizzzy Bees...... This part of the injunction is very important. We need to challenge how far fetched this entire thing is and how little sense it makes. So, we have to go over many of the aspects for Judge Moss to question. Judge Moss is a real Judge that is interested in the facts and this is great! The scary part here is that if USFWS can make our pets look like some Environmental Nightmare and then appeal our injunction the judge may leave the Constrictor Rule intact until the appeal has been ruled on. Once again we are fighting ideas like the Green Anaconda and Reticulated python could be an immense apex predator, like a Grizzly Bear!!!! Our latest brief/declarations must challenge the ideas already put forth, the endless list of fiction that scares the uneducated reader!
** This is WORK!!!!! **

[millertime89]

From our lawyer team:
Fantastic news. The court grant our motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the rule listing reticulated pythons and green anacondas. Judge Moss has asked for briefing on the question of whether to tailor the injunction to exclude Texas and Florida – the two states with potentially suitable habitat for these animals – and is going to hold a hearing on May 18. The rule will likely be lifted shortly thereafter, but for now the prohibition on interstate shipments is still in effect. A copy of the opinion is attached.

This decision is great news for the prospects for USARK’s challenge to the listing of all eight snakes. The chief criterion for granting a preliminary injunction is a demonstration that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits. Judge Moss found that USARK and the other plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their challenge to FWS’ interpretation of the Lacey Act as prohibiting interstate commerce in listed species. If the final decision on the merits upholds our reading of the law, as is likely, only importation of the listed snakes will be prohibited.

I should note that the government is likely to appeal this decision. If so, they will also ask the court of appeals to stay the order – that is, to keep the rule in place – while the appeals court considers the case. They have a fairly high bar to meet.

We will keep you apprised of these developments and let you know when the injunction is entered and you can begin shipping these animals.

Thank you all for your help in making this happen. Your heartfelt declarations convinced the court that the industry would suffer irreparable harm if the rule were to remain in place during the case. We got very good draw with Judge Moss.

There is still a long way to go before a final decision is in place. Please continue supporting USARK’s efforts. And thank you again very much for your help.

[millertime89]

From http://usark.org/2015-blog/7129/

Brief History of Recent Happenings

When reticulated pythons and green anacondas were added to the injurious species list in March 2015, USARK had the option to amend the existing case to also challenge the new listings. In addition, we had the legal recourse to request a preliminary injunction (PI) for the recently added snakes. USARK chose to do both. If we did not file for a PI, the Court would eventually get around to ruling on the case, but we have now seen how long it can take for a case to move forward (USARK filed our initial complaint in December 2013). The Government has every incentive to drag out the case as long as possible by filing motion after motion. By USARK filing for a PI, we essentially got an immediate hearing. At that hearing in April, Judge Moss granted our motion to amend the complaint. We got some action!

At the hearing, we learned that the Court was very interested in learning about our case. For example, Judge Moss seemed genuinely concerned about the impact of the interstate ban on owners who need to bring their listed snakes to a veterinarian in another state, as doing so is now illegal. There was also focus on the legal issues, and questions were asked that revealed an understanding of the well-founded points made by USARK.

Lawyers will tell you it is highly difficult to get a PI. That's true. The legal requirements are tough, but we have now proven to have a very strong case. USARK felt it was essential to file for a PI. Yes, it costs additional money, but we could not wait indefinitely for the case to be decided. What would happen to thousands of listed animals meanwhile? What would happen to the reptile community? What about emergency situations requiring immediate veterinary care with a qualified veterinarian being only 20 minutes, but in another state, while there are often not even qualified vets in-state?

Only fear of losing on the motion could have stopped us from moving forward with the PI. USARK showed no fear. USARK President Phil Goss stood at the press conference when the listing was officially announced by FWS and resolutely delivered the message that the Reptile Nation would fight.

Everyone who has contributed in whatever way possible should be proud. This fight is not over, but this is a big win. Celebrate and then refocus as this battle is far from over. The animal rights movement, which lies at the source of all state and federal anti-reptile legislation and regulation, will not stop until all pets are removed from our society. Reptiles, especially large snakes, are their chosen first target.

Thank you, Reptile Nation. Thank you for making this fight possible. Thank you for presenting a respectable and professional face for our community. Thank you for reinforcing the mission for which USARK was formed, to protect the freedom of responsible pet owners.

Please take the time to also read the two sections below (Frequently Asked Questions and lawsuit timeline) and bookmark this newsletter for future reference.

Past, Recent and Future Happenings

April 5, 2013: USARK submitted a lengthy document to FWS Director Dan Ashe calling the listing of the original constrictor snake species and proposal to list additional species “arbitrary and capricious” (decision that disregards reason and logic), and noting significant infractions made during the injurious listing process. USARK President Phil Goss stated, “FWS’ reliance on the flawed Reed/Rodda model led it to make absurd and plainly unlawful decisions. Finding the yellow anaconda, a snake found nowhere temperatures are below 50° F or above 86° F, such a grave threat to America is only one of the more obvious examples.” Newsletter at www.usark.org/press-releases/1980/.

April 12, 2013: USARK met with the Department of Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Washington, D.C. USARK President Phil Goss and USARK’s counsel reiterated that the science did not support the current listing proposals. In reference to the meeting, Goss announced, “Our position remains unchanged. We oppose the listing of any of the remaining species and are committed to fighting any such restrictions with all of the resources at our disposal. Our legal case is strong and we fully intend to fight for the rights of our members to protect their freedom to engage in their passion.” Newsletter at USARK Meets with Department of the Interior and USFWS | USARK (http://www.usark.org/press-releases/usark-meets-with-department-of-the-interior-and-usfws/).

December 18, 2013: USARK filed our initial complaint (lawsuit). The initial complaint included the constrictor snake species originally listed as injurious under the Lacey Act in January 2012. Those species were: Burmese, Indian, Northern and Southern African pythons, and Yellow anacondas. Newsletter at www.usark.org/2013-blog/usark_takes_action/.

December 2013 - March 2015: USARK and FWS filed several briefs and rebuttals. Of note, USARK filed an amended complaint on May 9, 2014. The lawsuit changed judge assignments twice until finally assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss. Newsletters with information can be found at any links (dates provided) marked “Lawsuit Update” at United States Association of Reptile Keepers (http://www.USARK.org).

March 6, 2015: FWS announced the finalized Constrictor Rule. Four species were added: Reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, Green anaconda and Beni anaconda. The rule was finalized and boa constrictors were not listed. Boa constrictors are not currently considered for injurious listing. Read about it at Constrictor Rule Finalized | USARK (http://usark.org/2015-blog/constrictor-rule-finalized/).

March 10, 2015: The final Constrictor Rule was posted in the Federal register.

March 23, 2015: USARK filed our amended complaint. Newsletter at Lawsuit Update (http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d7e8c81109173978c4240862c&id=c049691251).

April 1, 2015: USARK submitted our request for injunctive relief (Preliminary Injunction). Newsletter at Lawsuit Update and Newsletter: 4/1/15 | USARK (http://www.usark.org/2015-blog/lawsuit-update-and-newsletter-4115/).

April 7, 2015: This was the first hearing concerning USARK’s lawsuit. Of key importance, Judge Moss issued an order granting the filing of USARK's second amended complaint and accepted our motion to seek injunctive relief. Newsletter at Lawsuit Update: 4.9.15 | USARK (http://www.usark.org/2015-blog/lawsuit-update-4-9-15/).

April 9, 2015: The final Constrictor Rule went into effect.

April 20, 2015: USARK and FWS submitted supplemental briefs: Newsletter at Blog Post 4/21/15 | USARK (http://www.usark.org/2015-blog/blog-post-42115/).

April 27, 2015: USARK and FWS submitted final briefs before Court decided upon USARK’s request for injunctive relief. Newsletter at Newsletter: 4/29/15 | USARK (http://www.usark.org/2015-blog/newsletter-42915/).

May 5, 2015: USARK sent an important newsletter that reptile keepers and pet owners should read. View it at www.usark.org/2015-blog/7081/.

May 12, 2015: The Court issued a ruling that USARK is entitled to injunctive relief. Newsletter at www.usark.org/2015-blog/7109/.

May 15, 2015: USARK and FWS will submit supplemental briefs addressing concerns raised by the Court.

May 18, 2015: USARK and USFWS will appear for a status conference and the D.C. Federal District Court will enter an appropriate injunction after reviewing the parties' briefs and hearing oral arguments. The Reptile Nation will have an answer on the effective date of the injunction on May 18 or shortly thereafter.

Indefinite: The lawsuit will continue until the Court makes a ruling.

Frequently Asked Questions:

Q. What are the chances we will win this lawsuit?
A. USARK has a strong case. This has been proven multiple times.
FWS has entered motions to dismiss our complaint on several occasions without success;
The Court allowed USARK to amend our lawsuit to include the species listed as injurious in March 2015;
The Court granted our motion to seek injunctive relief (preliminary injunction);
By granting the preliminary injunction, the Court has shown that the statute of limitations has not passed to bring this case, which FWS claimed had happened;
The first hearing was held and a second hearing assigned;
The Court ruled in our favor and granted our preliminary injunction, which in itself was a momentous event;
Finally, if the final ruling is based upon fact and legitimate science, USARK and the Reptile Nation will prevail.
Q. Is it a big deal that USARK got a preliminary injunction?
A. YES. It is a huge deal! One of the four requirements for being granted a preliminary injunction (PI) is to prove that you are likely to prevail on the merits of the case. The Judge has found that we are likely to prevail on our count asserting that FWS does not have the authority to ban interstate transportation of injurious species. However, FWS will have the opportunity to make additional arguments that it holds this authority, though the arguments and authorities FWS have submitted so far have been insufficient. In other words, FWS would have to provide new authorities and convincing arguments to change the Judge's mind.

Q. What happens if we win on the interstate transportation issue?
A. If we prevail on our count with respect to the ban over interstate transportation, which has been ruled upon favorably thus far, then all of the eight listed constrictor snake species will be allowed to be transported within the 49 continental United States (subject to any state law restrictions).

Q. What about the statute of limitations?
A. FWS has attempted several times to have USARK’s case dismissed, claiming that the statute of limitations has expired. The favorable ruling on the preliminary injunction has essentially shot down the FWS argument that our case is barred by the statute of limitations. Therefore, we are more likely to have our case continue past the outstanding motion for dismissal and proceed.

Q. Does the preliminary injunction include Burmese pythons and yellow anacondas?
A. No. The time frame for seeking injunctive relief for the species listed in 2012 has passed. The injunction regards reticulated pythons and green anacondas only. However, ALL listed constrictor snake species are included in USARK’s lawsuit.

Q. Can I ship retics or green anacondas into another state or buy from an out-of-state breeder?
A. No. Interstate commerce is still illegal. Interstate shipping cannot be done until the injunction is effective. We will know that date on or shortly after May 18.

Q. Can I take my retic or green anaconda to a vet in another state?
A. No, not legally. While this is certainly a hardship and may result in the loss of a life, especially in an emergency situation, an injurious listing bans interstate transportation for any reason. Once the injunction is effective, you may visit your closest herp veterinarian, which is often only minutes away across a state border.

Q. Why are Texas and Florida not being included in the injunction?
A. This is not true! The final scope of the injunction has not yet been decided. The USGS model used to list these species claims that very small portions of Texas and Florida have potentially suitable habitat for reticulated pythons and green anacondas. For this reason, the Court has asked USARK and FWS to address this issue in our briefs that are due on May 15. Shipping into Texas and Florida may or not continue to be banned. Shipping out of these states should not be an issue. The decision will be made with the final injunction ruling.

Q. What does it mean if we win the lawsuit?
A. While our lawsuit has many counts (components or claims raised), there is one major point we’ll address here. If USARK prevails and receives a favorable ruling on certain counts, interstate transportation and commerce will no longer be federally banned for any constrictor snake species listed as injurious. This includes species listed in both 2012 and 2015, which totals eight species. However, this is just one potential outcome.

Q. When will the Court decide on USARK’s case?
A. This lawsuit was filed on December 18, 2013. We are already 18 months into this process. A final decision may be many additional months away. Thus, it’s easy to comprehend why it was critical for USARK to seek injunctive relief.

Q. Since Texas and Florida are the only two states listed in the USGS study as having potentially suitable habitat, why is interstate transportation banned for all states?
A. Great question! This is clearly not a federal issue, even using FWS’ own science, and none of these species should have been listed as injurious under the Lacey Act. Unfortunately, due largely to political pressure from animal rights groups, FWS decided to take federal action rather than allowing individual states to handle any concerns. Florida and Texas already have regulations. Other areas of concern were Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Both have importation bans for these species.

Q. Why wasn’t the arbitrary and capricious claim involved in the preliminary injunction?
A. With respect to the allegations in our complaint that the FWS listing is "arbitrary and capricious" (disregards reason and logic) because it relies on faulty science: For numerous legal and practical reasons, our motion for preliminary injunction did not present arguments that we would prevail on this count. USARK intentionally focused on the interstate transportation issue. This is the reason the judge has accepted at face value the assertions of FWS regarding these issues, such as the invasive ability of reticulated pythons and green anacondas in Florida and Texas. We have a lot of work ahead of us before we reach the science issues in our case. We are limited to seven pages in the brief due May 15, but we will heavily address the Florida and Texas issues, therein.

Q. Why are there more briefs?
A. The Court has asked for additional information from both parties. There are two main questions raised by the Court to be discussed in the May 15 briefs and May 18 hearing:
Should the injunction be tailored to exclude shipment into Florida and Texas?
This has not yet been decided, so shipping into Texas and Florida may or not continue to be banned. Shipping out of these states should not be an issue. Obviously, USARK will fight to allow shipment into these states as both states already have regulations regarding these species. (These are the only two continental states listed in the USGS model as having potentially suitable habitat for these species.)
Is it necessary or appropriate for FWS to seek interim relief from the Court of Appeals?

Q. Can I get a permit for interstate transportation?
A. There is a permit given in rare instances, though some with legitimate requests have been refused by FWS. The permit includes reasons such as species study or display by accredited institutions, and educational permits (i.e. reptile-related educational school outreach). The permit cannot be obtained for new animal ownership, veterinary care, commerce, relocation of animals, etc. The permit can be found at www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-42.pdf.

Q. What is all this?
A. This is known as the 'Constrictor Rule.' This rule has listed species of constrictor snakes as injurious under the Lacey Act. That makes interstate transportation/commerce and importation illegal.

Q. Is this same as the Burmese python listing?
A. There were 9 species originally proposed. Four species were listed as injurious on January 23, 2012, and the rule remained open. Those species were: Burmese, Indian, Northern and Southern African pythons, and Yellow anacondas. The remaining five species (Boa constrictor, Reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, Green anaconda and Beni anaconda) stayed in limbo of being listed until four were added on March 10, 2015. Boa constrictors were not added and are no longer in consideration for injurious listing.

Q. Is this a ban and are my pets illegal?
A. This is not a ban to own any of the listed species, so your animals are legal to keep. FWS interprets this as a ban on any interstate transportation and commerce. It also makes importation into the U.S. illegal. This is known as the "Constrictor Rule." You can keep your pets and can get more pets of these species. You can even breed these species. However, as FWS chooses to interpret the Lacey Act, all those actions must be done within your state. You cannot get new pets from out of state, sell any offspring out of state, take your pets with you if move to another state, or visit a veterinarian in another state. Of course, all these statements are made under the assumption that these species are currently legal to have within your state of residency.

Essentially, and the primary goal of the animal rights groups who pushed this agenda, these species may no longer be in the reptile community due to the hardships faced from ownership.

Q. Is this because large snakes may be considered a public safety risk or does it have anything to do with animal welfare?
A. The Lacey Act deals with injurious, similar to invasive, species. It is not intended to deal with the sensationalized and inaccurate claims of public safety risks, or animal welfare. While the animal right (AR) groups pushed for a listing due to these reasons, because even they know there is no legitimate science to warrant a listing on injurious grounds, that is not the role of the Lacey Act.

[millertime89]

From http://usark.org/2015-blog/7129/

Brief History of Recent Happenings

When reticulated pythons and green anacondas were added to the injurious species list in March 2015, USARK had the option to amend the existing case to also challenge the new listings. In addition, we had the legal recourse to request a preliminary injunction (PI) for the recently added snakes. USARK chose to do both. If we did not file for a PI, the Court would eventually get around to ruling on the case, but we have now seen how long it can take for a case to move forward (USARK filed our initial complaint in December 2013). The Government has every incentive to drag out the case as long as possible by filing motion after motion. By USARK filing for a PI, we essentially got an immediate hearing. At that hearing in April, Judge Moss granted our motion to amend the complaint. We got some action!

At the hearing, we learned that the Court was very interested in learning about our case. For example, Judge Moss seemed genuinely concerned about the impact of the interstate ban on owners who need to bring their listed snakes to a veterinarian in another state, as doing so is now illegal. There was also focus on the legal issues, and questions were asked that revealed an understanding of the well-founded points made by USARK.

Lawyers will tell you it is highly difficult to get a PI. That's true. The legal requirements are tough, but we have now proven to have a very strong case. USARK felt it was essential to file for a PI. Yes, it costs additional money, but we could not wait indefinitely for the case to be decided. What would happen to thousands of listed animals meanwhile? What would happen to the reptile community? What about emergency situations requiring immediate veterinary care with a qualified veterinarian being only 20 minutes, but in another state, while there are often not even qualified vets in-state?

Only fear of losing on the motion could have stopped us from moving forward with the PI. USARK showed no fear. USARK President Phil Goss stood at the press conference when the listing was officially announced by FWS and resolutely delivered the message that the Reptile Nation would fight.

Everyone who has contributed in whatever way possible should be proud. This fight is not over, but this is a big win. Celebrate and then refocus as this battle is far from over. The animal rights movement, which lies at the source of all state and federal anti-reptile legislation and regulation, will not stop until all pets are removed from our society. Reptiles, especially large snakes, are their chosen first target.

Thank you, Reptile Nation. Thank you for making this fight possible. Thank you for presenting a respectable and professional face for our community. Thank you for reinforcing the mission for which USARK was formed, to protect the freedom of responsible pet owners.

Please take the time to also read the two sections below (Frequently Asked Questions and lawsuit timeline) and bookmark this newsletter for future reference.

Past, Recent and Future Happenings

April 5, 2013: USARK submitted a lengthy document to FWS Director Dan Ashe calling the listing of the original constrictor snake species and proposal to list additional species “arbitrary and capricious” (decision that disregards reason and logic), and noting significant infractions made during the injurious listing process. USARK President Phil Goss stated, “FWS’ reliance on the flawed Reed/Rodda model led it to make absurd and plainly unlawful decisions. Finding the yellow anaconda, a snake found nowhere temperatures are below 50° F or above 86° F, such a grave threat to America is only one of the more obvious examples.” Newsletter at www.usark.org/press-releases/1980/.

April 12, 2013: USARK met with the Department of Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Washington, D.C. USARK President Phil Goss and USARK’s counsel reiterated that the science did not support the current listing proposals. In reference to the meeting, Goss announced, “Our position remains unchanged. We oppose the listing of any of the remaining species and are committed to fighting any such restrictions with all of the resources at our disposal. Our legal case is strong and we fully intend to fight for the rights of our members to protect their freedom to engage in their passion.” Newsletter at USARK Meets with Department of the Interior and USFWS | USARK (http://www.usark.org/press-releases/usark-meets-with-department-of-the-interior-and-usfws/).

December 18, 2013: USARK filed our initial complaint (lawsuit). The initial complaint included the constrictor snake species originally listed as injurious under the Lacey Act in January 2012. Those species were: Burmese, Indian, Northern and Southern African pythons, and Yellow anacondas. Newsletter at www.usark.org/2013-blog/usark_takes_action/.

December 2013 - March 2015: USARK and FWS filed several briefs and rebuttals. Of note, USARK filed an amended complaint on May 9, 2014. The lawsuit changed judge assignments twice until finally assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss. Newsletters with information can be found at any links (dates provided) marked “Lawsuit Update” at United States Association of Reptile Keepers (http://www.USARK.org).

March 6, 2015: FWS announced the finalized Constrictor Rule. Four species were added: Reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, Green anaconda and Beni anaconda. The rule was finalized and boa constrictors were not listed. Boa constrictors are not currently considered for injurious listing. Read about it at Constrictor Rule Finalized | USARK (http://usark.org/2015-blog/constrictor-rule-finalized/).

March 10, 2015: The final Constrictor Rule was posted in the Federal register.

March 23, 2015: USARK filed our amended complaint. Newsletter at Lawsuit Update (http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=d7e8c81109173978c4240862c&id=c049691251).

April 1, 2015: USARK submitted our request for injunctive relief (Preliminary Injunction). Newsletter at Lawsuit Update and Newsletter: 4/1/15 | USARK (http://www.usark.org/2015-blog/lawsuit-update-and-newsletter-4115/).

April 7, 2015: This was the first hearing concerning USARK’s lawsuit. Of key importance, Judge Moss issued an order granting the filing of USARK's second amended complaint and accepted our motion to seek injunctive relief. Newsletter at Lawsuit Update: 4.9.15 | USARK (http://www.usark.org/2015-blog/lawsuit-update-4-9-15/).

April 9, 2015: The final Constrictor Rule went into effect.

April 20, 2015: USARK and FWS submitted supplemental briefs: Newsletter at Blog Post 4/21/15 | USARK (http://www.usark.org/2015-blog/blog-post-42115/).

April 27, 2015: USARK and FWS submitted final briefs before Court decided upon USARK’s request for injunctive relief. Newsletter at Newsletter: 4/29/15 | USARK (http://www.usark.org/2015-blog/newsletter-42915/).

May 5, 2015: USARK sent an important newsletter that reptile keepers and pet owners should read. View it at www.usark.org/2015-blog/7081/.

May 12, 2015: The Court issued a ruling that USARK is entitled to injunctive relief. Newsletter at www.usark.org/2015-blog/7109/.

May 15, 2015: USARK and FWS will submit supplemental briefs addressing concerns raised by the Court.

May 18, 2015: USARK and USFWS will appear for a status conference and the D.C. Federal District Court will enter an appropriate injunction after reviewing the parties' briefs and hearing oral arguments. The Reptile Nation will have an answer on the effective date of the injunction on May 18 or shortly thereafter.

Indefinite: The lawsuit will continue until the Court makes a ruling.

Frequently Asked Questions:

Q. What are the chances we will win this lawsuit?
A. USARK has a strong case. This has been proven multiple times.
FWS has entered motions to dismiss our complaint on several occasions without success;
The Court allowed USARK to amend our lawsuit to include the species listed as injurious in March 2015;
The Court granted our motion to seek injunctive relief (preliminary injunction);
By granting the preliminary injunction, the Court has shown that the statute of limitations has not passed to bring this case, which FWS claimed had happened;
The first hearing was held and a second hearing assigned;
The Court ruled in our favor and granted our preliminary injunction, which in itself was a momentous event;
Finally, if the final ruling is based upon fact and legitimate science, USARK and the Reptile Nation will prevail.
Q. Is it a big deal that USARK got a preliminary injunction?
A. YES. It is a huge deal! One of the four requirements for being granted a preliminary injunction (PI) is to prove that you are likely to prevail on the merits of the case. The Judge has found that we are likely to prevail on our count asserting that FWS does not have the authority to ban interstate transportation of injurious species. However, FWS will have the opportunity to make additional arguments that it holds this authority, though the arguments and authorities FWS have submitted so far have been insufficient. In other words, FWS would have to provide new authorities and convincing arguments to change the Judge's mind.

Q. What happens if we win on the interstate transportation issue?
A. If we prevail on our count with respect to the ban over interstate transportation, which has been ruled upon favorably thus far, then all of the eight listed constrictor snake species will be allowed to be transported within the 49 continental United States (subject to any state law restrictions).

Q. What about the statute of limitations?
A. FWS has attempted several times to have USARK’s case dismissed, claiming that the statute of limitations has expired. The favorable ruling on the preliminary injunction has essentially shot down the FWS argument that our case is barred by the statute of limitations. Therefore, we are more likely to have our case continue past the outstanding motion for dismissal and proceed.

Q. Does the preliminary injunction include Burmese pythons and yellow anacondas?
A. No. The time frame for seeking injunctive relief for the species listed in 2012 has passed. The injunction regards reticulated pythons and green anacondas only. However, ALL listed constrictor snake species are included in USARK’s lawsuit.

Q. Can I ship retics or green anacondas into another state or buy from an out-of-state breeder?
A. No. Interstate commerce is still illegal. Interstate shipping cannot be done until the injunction is effective. We will know that date on or shortly after May 18.

Q. Can I take my retic or green anaconda to a vet in another state?
A. No, not legally. While this is certainly a hardship and may result in the loss of a life, especially in an emergency situation, an injurious listing bans interstate transportation for any reason. Once the injunction is effective, you may visit your closest herp veterinarian, which is often only minutes away across a state border.

Q. Why are Texas and Florida not being included in the injunction?
A. This is not true! The final scope of the injunction has not yet been decided. The USGS model used to list these species claims that very small portions of Texas and Florida have potentially suitable habitat for reticulated pythons and green anacondas. For this reason, the Court has asked USARK and FWS to address this issue in our briefs that are due on May 15. Shipping into Texas and Florida may or not continue to be banned. Shipping out of these states should not be an issue. The decision will be made with the final injunction ruling.

Q. What does it mean if we win the lawsuit?
A. While our lawsuit has many counts (components or claims raised), there is one major point we’ll address here. If USARK prevails and receives a favorable ruling on certain counts, interstate transportation and commerce will no longer be federally banned for any constrictor snake species listed as injurious. This includes species listed in both 2012 and 2015, which totals eight species. However, this is just one potential outcome.

Q. When will the Court decide on USARK’s case?
A. This lawsuit was filed on December 18, 2013. We are already 18 months into this process. A final decision may be many additional months away. Thus, it’s easy to comprehend why it was critical for USARK to seek injunctive relief.

Q. Since Texas and Florida are the only two states listed in the USGS study as having potentially suitable habitat, why is interstate transportation banned for all states?
A. Great question! This is clearly not a federal issue, even using FWS’ own science, and none of these species should have been listed as injurious under the Lacey Act. Unfortunately, due largely to political pressure from animal rights groups, FWS decided to take federal action rather than allowing individual states to handle any concerns. Florida and Texas already have regulations. Other areas of concern were Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Both have importation bans for these species.

Q. Why wasn’t the arbitrary and capricious claim involved in the preliminary injunction?
A. With respect to the allegations in our complaint that the FWS listing is "arbitrary and capricious" (disregards reason and logic) because it relies on faulty science: For numerous legal and practical reasons, our motion for preliminary injunction did not present arguments that we would prevail on this count. USARK intentionally focused on the interstate transportation issue. This is the reason the judge has accepted at face value the assertions of FWS regarding these issues, such as the invasive ability of reticulated pythons and green anacondas in Florida and Texas. We have a lot of work ahead of us before we reach the science issues in our case. We are limited to seven pages in the brief due May 15, but we will heavily address the Florida and Texas issues, therein.

Q. Why are there more briefs?
A. The Court has asked for additional information from both parties. There are two main questions raised by the Court to be discussed in the May 15 briefs and May 18 hearing:
Should the injunction be tailored to exclude shipment into Florida and Texas?
This has not yet been decided, so shipping into Texas and Florida may or not continue to be banned. Shipping out of these states should not be an issue. Obviously, USARK will fight to allow shipment into these states as both states already have regulations regarding these species. (These are the only two continental states listed in the USGS model as having potentially suitable habitat for these species.)
Is it necessary or appropriate for FWS to seek interim relief from the Court of Appeals?

Q. Can I get a permit for interstate transportation?
A. There is a permit given in rare instances, though some with legitimate requests have been refused by FWS. The permit includes reasons such as species study or display by accredited institutions, and educational permits (i.e. reptile-related educational school outreach). The permit cannot be obtained for new animal ownership, veterinary care, commerce, relocation of animals, etc. The permit can be found at www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-42.pdf.

Q. What is all this?
A. This is known as the 'Constrictor Rule.' This rule has listed species of constrictor snakes as injurious under the Lacey Act. That makes interstate transportation/commerce and importation illegal.

Q. Is this same as the Burmese python listing?
A. There were 9 species originally proposed. Four species were listed as injurious on January 23, 2012, and the rule remained open. Those species were: Burmese, Indian, Northern and Southern African pythons, and Yellow anacondas. The remaining five species (Boa constrictor, Reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, Green anaconda and Beni anaconda) stayed in limbo of being listed until four were added on March 10, 2015. Boa constrictors were not added and are no longer in consideration for injurious listing.

Q. Is this a ban and are my pets illegal?
A. This is not a ban to own any of the listed species, so your animals are legal to keep. FWS interprets this as a ban on any interstate transportation and commerce. It also makes importation into the U.S. illegal. This is known as the "Constrictor Rule." You can keep your pets and can get more pets of these species. You can even breed these species. However, as FWS chooses to interpret the Lacey Act, all those actions must be done within your state. You cannot get new pets from out of state, sell any offspring out of state, take your pets with you if move to another state, or visit a veterinarian in another state. Of course, all these statements are made under the assumption that these species are currently legal to have within your state of residency.

Essentially, and the primary goal of the animal rights groups who pushed this agenda, these species may no longer be in the reptile community due to the hardships faced from ownership.

Q. Is this because large snakes may be considered a public safety risk or does it have anything to do with animal welfare?
A. The Lacey Act deals with injurious, similar to invasive, species. It is not intended to deal with the sensationalized and inaccurate claims of public safety risks, or animal welfare. While the animal right (AR) groups pushed for a listing due to these reasons, because even they know there is no legitimate science to warrant a listing on injurious grounds, that is not the role of the Lacey Act.

[millertime89]

Last one.

Lawsuit Update

Before we get into this update, USARK would like to again clearly emphasize one glaring point. A point which has thus far throughout this case become obvious to even the Defendants, the anti-pet groups that pushed these listings, and even many who believed the sensationalized and painfully inaccurate media coverage of this lawsuit and these snakes.

The point: If the final ruling of this lawsuit is based upon fact and legitimate science, USARK and the Reptile Nation will prevail.

To say this lawsuit is about more than snakes is an understatement. To say this lawsuit is about more than reptiles is an understatement. This lawsuit even travels beyond the greater pet community. This is a lawsuit proving that David can slay Goliath, and that justice is still alive in America.

Now onto the lawsuit update.

On Friday (May 15, 2015), USARK and FWS filed supplemental briefs supporting their stances on the preliminary injunction. Both parties were limited to submissions of only seven pages. USARK again presented well-formed and steadfast arguments.

Among many other points, USARK included the regulations that are already enforced in Florida and Texas for these species. The extreme size of Texas was also noted as according to the range maps used for these listings, only a minuscule portion of Texas has even potentially suitable habitat. Even should the Court choose to exclude areas of the continental U.S. from the injunction, only that small area of Texas should be excluded and not the entire state.

USARK discussed the faulty science used for these listings. Our brief also provided factual biological information regarding these snakes.

FWS has suggested the Court stay (or halt) the injunction for 75 days. They argue this is the amount of time needed to decide whether or not to appeal. In response to the exclusion of Florida and Texas from the injunction, FWS says they should be excluded, claiming these snakes will wreak havoc on the U.S. FWS chose not to mention the regulations already enforced in Florida and Texas.

FWS went so far as to make a determination for the Court regarding what it has the power to do. FWS stated that, "any injunction must be limited to:"
Individually-named plaintiffs who submitted declarations demonstrating irreparable harm;
USARK members who were current before we filed our second amended complaint in March 2015, and who owned reticulated pythons or green anacondas at that time.
Shortly after our briefs were filed, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) jointly moved to intervene in our case. HSUS previously filed an amicus brief which was allowed by the Court. The brief offered absolutely nothing of value to the Court.

This HSUS brief claimed that constrictor snakes require ultraviolet light exposure and live prey. Reptile veterinarians, accredited snake physiologists and biologists, professional herpetologists and tens of thousands of responsible snake keepers in the U.S. would beg to differ and have proven otherwise.

USARK President Phil Goss offered this rebuttal: "If this is true, I'm quite unsure how several constrictor snakes in my care have now lived over twelve years in perfect health while never at any time being exposed to ultraviolet lighting or receiving live prey items. It must be something in the Indiana water."

This extreme inaccuracy alone should provide sufficient evidence that HSUS has nothing to offer the Court in regard to this case. Illustrating the absence of even a rudimentary understanding of the biology and husbandry requirements of these snakes, HSUS and like-minded groups will merely present shameful propaganda and odious sensationalism in an effort to divert the Court from the truth. The HSUS brief was filled with copious amounts of misinformation.

The status conference is scheduled for May 18. The Court will make a final injunction ruling after reviewing the briefs and hearing oral arguments.

USARK has presented a strong, clear and factual case. The Court has granted our motion for preliminary injunction, which in itself is momentous. USARK is proving these injurious listings were unjust, overreaching and based upon bogus science. USARK faced adversity and never wavered. Thank you, Reptile Nation, for making it possible for the truth to be heard!

View the USARK brief at www.usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Dkt-No-53-USARK-Supp-Brief-on-PI.pdf.

View the FWS brief at www.usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Dkt-No-54-Def-Supp-Brief-on-PI.pdf.

[Albert Clark]

Wow, thank you for all the updates and all your commitment.

[millertime89]

Happy to do it.

[millertime89]

New update on the preliminary injunction from USARK and Judge Moss! Very important caveats!

Preliminary Injunction Final Ruling
Today (5/19/15), Judge Moss made a final ruling on USARK’s preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction will go into effect 14 days from today.

The scope of the injunction is limited. Domestic imports and transportation into Texas and Florida are excluded from the injunction. The injunction will also be limited to listed plaintiffs and USARK members. View the exclusions with explanations, other details and the official ruling on our website at www.usark.org/2015-blog/7182/.

Since the scope is limited, it does protect the preliminary injunction should FWS appeal. While it’s hard to call this a “bright side,” it must be noted that FWS showed interest in appealing. Should they choose to do so, the limited scope of the injunction will provide an additional and substantial obstacle to overcome. The limited scope may also persuade FWS not to appeal.

Even though limited, this preliminary injunction is still a preeminent achievement. A federal injurious listing was overreach for these species. The lawsuit will continue and USARK will continue to fight and illustrate this point.

USARK has demonstrated that we are likely to prevail on the merits of our case. The preliminary injunction was not received in full, but the ruling in our favor was huge! This must be stressed. The legal requirements that had to be met to receive the injunction were demanding to overcome, but we did it. It is extremely difficult to get a preliminary injunction, and having now earned it will serve us favorably as the lawsuit continues.

The Reptile Nation is strong and we will march forward.

[SnoopySnake]

So, can you still get a retic shipped to you if you aren't a plaintiff or USARK member?

[millertime89]

So, can you still get a retic shipped to you if you aren't a plaintiff or USARK member?

Correct as of June 2nd (if I'm not mistaken, we've got 14 days from today), as long as you are not in FL or TX. USARK fights for the rights of ALL reptile keepers regardless of whether they've donated money or not.

[SnoopySnake]

That's good. Say if you have a vet in another state. If you're not a USARK member will you be able to take your retic to that vet or no?

[millertime89]

That said Retics can still be bought and sold in TX and FL if you've got the permit and the animal came from in-state. People in TX and FL can also ship out of state and since there are a ton of retic breeders in TX already (not too sure about FL, but my understanding is they've got pretty strict limits already) so TX isn't too bad off. Bob Clark has a facility there, Jason Reed and Jason Gaspar are there (although Gaspar has been pretty quiet lately), Ryan Parker and Ryan Sullivan are there, as well as a lot of others.

[millertime89]

That's good. Say if you have a vet in another state. If you're not a USARK member will you be able to take your retic to that vet or no?

Yes once the injunction goes into effect. This basically undoes everything the Lacey Act listing did except in TX and FL. It's not limited to just USARK members.

[MDT]

ok...so....what the HECK does this mean..???? Kyle, your understanding of "USARK members" is what? I've looked on their webpage and no explanation...I looked on there FaceBook page and it is extremely ambiguous. Some are saying this only applies to actual USARK members prior to the injunction, among other speculation(s). Any clarification that can be offered would be appreciated.

[SnoopySnake]

Yeah I'm a bit confused also...

[millertime89]

I guess they're not done for today.
Lawsuit Update
Monday (5/19/15) USARK was again in Washington, D.C. for a hearing regarding our lawsuit, and specifically the preliminary injunction. To close the hearing, Judge Moss ordered both parties to have supplemental briefs filed by 10:00 AM today (5/20/15). These briefs were to answer two questions:
Is it permissible for the Court to grant a stay (temporary stopping) of any preliminary injunction to allow Defendants time to decide their intention to file for appeal and application for an emergency stay of the injunction?
How should the Court manage the litigation if FWS decides to appeal?
USARK requested the injunction be effective immediately. Our brief noted that while the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure allows a stay of the preliminary injunction, the Court has recognized irreparable harm for the Plaintiffs (USARK) in its 50-page Memorandum Opinion and in the hearing held Monday. Simply, a stay of the injunction will cause additional irreparable harm. For this reason, presented with strong supporting arguments, USARK asked the Court to execute the injunction promptly.
At the hearing, Defendants requested a 75-day stay while they make their decision as to appeal. This lengthy time frame was recognized as unfair by USARK, and seemingly by the Court, as well. Additionally, USARK demonstrated that under federal rule, any appeal request by FWS should remain in the current D.C. Circuit and not move to the Appellate Courts.
Should the Defendants seek a stay, they must qualify on four well-established points (essentially, the same points USARK had to prove in order for the Court to rule in our favor to issue the preliminary injunction):
Likelihood of success on merits;
show irreparable harm if stay is not granted;
if granting the stay will harm other parties;
if granting the stay will serve the public interest.
We expect an expeditious ruling from the Court (possibly today or tomorrow). As always, USARK will release updates quickly.

USARK extends our continued thanks for the support of the Reptile Nation. You made it possible for USARK to challenge and prove this action was indeed unjust regulation.

[millertime89]

ok...so....what the HECK does this mean..???? Kyle, your understanding of "USARK members" is what? I've looked on their webpage and no explanation...I looked on there FaceBook page and it is extremely ambiguous. Some are saying this only applies to actual USARK members prior to the injunction, among other speculation(s). Any clarification that can be offered would be appreciated.

This is apparently coming up in a few different places. My interpretation is that USARK is referring to all members of the reptile community as their "members". I'll email Phil and see if he can clarify.

[MDT]

This is apparently coming up in a few different places. My interpretation is that USARK is referring to all members of the reptile community as their "members". I'll email Phil and see if he can clarify.

Thanks Kyle....I appreciate the leg work.

[millertime89]

They're getting clarification on the membership thing.

[millertime89]

The latest from Kevin McCurley:

** 5/20/2015 ** With clarification.... even MORE!!!
If you have donated ANY money or Volunteered to USARK as of April 8th, 2015 you ARE a Member!!!! You are part of the effort! It has never been the idea of USARK to accept money and NOT consider you a member, this is splitting hairs. USARK is for us, about us and that is clear, we are uniting our energies into an appropriate response. hopefully this is clear?????
Secondly, this is NOT USARK's decision, we did not decide any of this! This is USFWS's request, the Judge seems to have signed onto their request. We have absolutely NO effect on such things. We never asked for this, agreed on it, all we asked for was a "stay" of the Constrictor Ruling! USARk never knew that membership needed to be part of this! Actually, even without donating or even helping USARK, USARK was willing to fight for EVERYONE! This is kind of like the Health Care bill, people that pay into it pay for the people that won't. I have put an incredible amount of time and energy into this as has Phil, Rick and a few others. We are doing all of this because we are fighting for everyone! This is not about someone like Phil getting paid for his extra time, that does not happen at all. Rick Stanley is AMAZING, out in-house attorney that pours his time into this effort with little reward or payment. I don't get anything at all, this is about what is right and what is wrong and wanting my fellow Herpers to be able to enjoy these lovely creatures as much as I do! I do not know how to be any clearer on this, the amount of reward to effort involved just plain STINKS! We are working on the Lawsuit which could and should effectively bring back constrictors that have essentially been lost to us! We need to realize this win was huge, and thee is a bigger one ahead! If you are still not on board for the real fight then I have some less than politically correct words for you!!! Let us do all the work and you won't support our Army? SHAME ON YOU!
So, we get partial relief with our USARK Injunction in 14 days. No importation of Green Anacondas or Retics into the USA! Florida and Texas will NOT be allowed to ship into, across a state border as stated by the Constrictor Ruling. Losing these two states is clearly a sore point indeed! (People living in Texas and Florida will be allowed to ship OUT OF both of these states.). Realize this, with USFWS and USGS stating that possibly these snakes "could" find an appropriate environment in Florida and Texas the Judge elected to remove these two considerations to make the USARK Injunction iron-clad. If the Judge included these two states there would be many factors to argue. For clarity the Judge removed them and created a black and white argument, suck as it may it is a victory considering what we are up against.
We will once again be allowed to ship our animals into other states.
Membership has it's benefits, being a member of USARK and backing the Injunction will now give you the ability to ship your animals to most places but NOT to Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Texas and Florida. If you were a member of USARK when the injunction was filed (4/82015), in theory you backed the Lawsuit and Injunction you will be covered. You can even get a letter stating membership.
So, you donated to USARK but did not specifically ask to be a member, did it automatically happen? YES, you are an automatic member. Did you volunteer for USARK, if so, you are a member for your time! Remember, we are getting railed with huge task and responsibilities and there is no imaginable way to make everything perfect @ USARK. USARK is grateful for all donations and if people donated but forgot to apply for membership you will be covered! If you gave to the Reptile Defense fund you will automatically be covered! Right now there are many things to deal with and address, it's overwhelming for sure. Do not forget we have a bunch of non-sense blowing up from HSUS and Center for Bio Diversity.
Let's not forget, we need your support more than ever, if your membership expired you may want to "renew" !!!!!!!!!!!! Please remember this point, check "Renew" your membership!!!!!!!!!!! If you were a member long ago you should "renew". If you were a member when Andrew was heading USARK, "Renew"!
We are looking for clarity regarding the questions you want to ask will be answered in the near future.
Realize this, although we did not win everything (just yet) we would have LOST entirely if we did not have USARK!!
We have much work to do, we need to be optimistic and the LAWSUIT is the final showdown!

[millertime89]

From USARK:

We are as of yet unaware as to exactly how FWS plans to enforce the membership requirement for interstate transportation/shipment. We are currently compiling a list of only those USARK members who are breeders, sellers, dealers, hobbyists and owners who have a current expectation to engage in interstate transportation of reticulated pythons and/or green anacondas during the injunction, which is scheduled to be in effect until a final ruling is made on the lawsuit. Obviously, anyone not concerned with these species should not contact us to be included on this list. The list will only be supplied to FWS if required and not in violation of any confidentiality concerns.

However, per the ruling of the Court and as proposed by FWS, only USARK members as of April 8, 2015 qualify for relief under the injunction. Our basic membership level is $20 annually. If you met that criteria between April 8, 2014 and April 8, 2015, contact us at the email below. Also, if you began a recurring payment before April 8, you are a member, even if you have not yet reached $20. USARK will verify any membership claims.

Answers to expected questions: Purchases at auctions do not qualify. You are receiving something in return for your purchase and not donating to USARK. Also, the purchase of any raffle tickets, shirts, hats etc. do not qualify.

To notify us that you are a member of USARK (before April 8, 2015) who wants to be included on this list, send an email with your full name to contact@USARK.org. Facebook postings and messages cannot qualify you. You must contact USARK at this email address. Please email us with questions.

If you missed it, Dockets 60 and 61 were uploaded on the same page at Lawsuit: PI Final Ruling 5.19.15 | USARK (http://www.usark.org/library/lawsuit-pi-final-ruling-5-19-15/). Docket 60 announces the injunction ruling, and Docket 61 lays out the terms of the injunction, which is posted at the first link on the page.

[Minkness]

Soooo....because someone didn't pay, they are left out?

Am I reading that right?

[SnoopySnake]

You can still get them shipped to you even if you didn't donate/become a member between 4-8-14 and 4-8-15, but you can't ship or cross state lines with them. But it has to be shipped by someone who was a member at that time.

I don't have a problem with this because its the people who became a member/donated that helped make any of this happen in the first place. Without all of that money USARK wouldn't have had the funds to make this possible for us.

[MDT]

this is only temporary hopefully...as i read further (and with kyle's info), this is a part of the the STAY of original lacy act ruling by fws as set forth by the judge. there will undoubtably be appeals...one day (hopefully soon) this will be settled case law...at that time, the whole thing will be lifted and we can go back to doing what we did before this mess came about.

and as a point of order...no-one got "left out"...you coulda donated, volunteered, joined USARK as anytime before the injunction. i didn't, i wish i did...but it just kept getting pushed to the back burner. i did join the day AFTER the ruling...i knew that would likely not be covered by the decision, but as SnoopySnake said, if it weren't for USARK, nobody would taken up this fight. i am grateful for their efforts.

[millertime89]

That's correct. If you're not a member, you can't ship. That said if you're not a member you CAN receive a shipment. Unfortunately USFWS requested this as part of the injunction and the judge agreed with it.

[Minkness]

I suppose....

It's definitely a win, but still kind of sucky. I didn't have much to spare but made posts on Craigslist, talked to friends onlin and strangers and signed the petition to do everything I personally could. Not that I regret doing that by any means, and I am in no way blaming USARK since it wasn't their call, just...I dunno, a bit sore on the fact if I got a retic (which I want in the future) and needed to cross a state line, I'd be SOL unless I made a local friend with someone who donated and had them do that favor for me. Which...well...I'm kind of a hermit irl and all my friends are online ;-;

Sorry to moan but imo, there are other ways to help than just money. I'm all for membership, registration, or licensing...just seems unfair to have a time limit on it....not that 'firness' was exactly first thing on the court's mind. =/

[SnoopySnake]

Sure, its not the most ideal outcome. But it could've been worse, no? We could have gotten nothing. At least now you actually still have the opportunity to get something specific outside of your state. I just wish everyone would stop focusing on that negative aspect and appreciate that this was still a huge win. Things could have been much worse...

[Minkness]

True. Like MTD said though, hopefully more will happen in the future. =)

[pet_snake_78]

Just have a member receive the snake for you. I am sure someone in your state would do that for you. Fortunately, I donated :) I can only give around 20$ at a time but give something even if it's only a few bucks here and there it will add up. Ask relatives to donate for you instead of sending you that ugly sweater you'll never wear.

[millertime89]

Just have a member receive the snake for you. I am sure someone in your state would do that for you. Fortunately, I donated :) I can only give around 20$ at a time but give something even if it's only a few bucks here and there it will add up. Ask relatives to donate for you instead of sending you that ugly sweater you'll never wear.

Only a member can ship, anybody can receive.

[bigsnakegirl785]

How will they be able to enforce this?

[millertime89]

How will they be able to enforce this?

It's admittedly difficult. What it seems like they've been trying to do is contacting people with animals for sale and asking if they'll ship or deliver across state lines. I doubt this is USFWS that is doing this, but HSUS members or other people hoping to catch someone screwing up. Otherwise they just hope people are honest on the shipping info. USARK is going to be giving sending out membership letters to people that need them in case an issue arises. Controlling the shipping is up to FedEx so something might slip through, or it might not. It's... complicated. Lol.

[bigsnakegirl785]

It's admittedly difficult. What it seems like they've been trying to do is contacting people with animals for sale and asking if they'll ship or deliver across state lines. I doubt this is USFWS that is doing this, but HSUS members or other people hoping to catch someone screwing up. Otherwise they just hope people are honest on the shipping info. USARK is going to be giving sending out membership letters to people that need them in case an issue arises. Controlling the shipping is up to FedEx so something might slip through, or it might not. It's... complicated. Lol.

Yeah, I can imagine it would be hard to actually control that.

It sucks to know that as of right now I'm not going to be able to move back to MN with River, which is the only reason I'd need to use the injunction, but that's not for another few years so maybe they'll have them completely removed and shipping/moving back to normal by then. This is a huge step, even if it was probably overly-hopeful to expect a full lift on transportation right at this moment. We're moving really fast it seems, compared to how the last listings went.

[millertime89]

Yeah, I can imagine it would be hard to actually control that.

It sucks to know that as of right now I'm not going to be able to move back to MN with River, which is the only reason I'd need to use the injunction, but that's not for another few years so maybe they'll have them completely removed and shipping/moving back to normal by then. This is a huge step, even if it was probably overly-hopeful to expect a full lift on transportation right at this moment. We're moving really fast it seems, compared to how the last listings went.

Because under the last USARK president they didn't do anything about it... Had they filled a lawsuit right away we probably would have seen the remaining four listed rather quickly and an injunction filled before that, not after.

[millertime89]

Here's a little more info from Rick Stanley at Kingsnake.com

USARK and its lawyers worked at a frantic pace to get a nationwide preliminary injunction (PI) for every single responsible reptile keeper in the continental United States since the recent USFWS Lacey Act listing of reticulated pythons and three species of anacondas.

We submitted multiple legal briefs/memoranda to, and had several hearings before, the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Hundreds of hours from numerous individuals have been invested. I am not sure when Phil Goss sleeps!

A PI is an extraordinary legal remedy that is only granted upon satisfying extremely stringent legal requirements. For example, USARK had to establish that its members would suffer irreparable harm without a PI and it is likely to prevail on the merits (when the court eventually hears the main case).

The law also requires the judge to grant a PI as narrow as possible. Because there is no full blown adversary process at the PI stage, the judge essentially assumes that the facts provided by USFWS are accurate for purposes of ruling on the PI. All of these strict legal principles and requirements are why you rarely see a PI granted, especially one on a nationwide basis enjoining enforcement of an environmental law.

Preliminary Injunction Granted

Against all odds, the judge ordered a nationwide PI "with respect to transportation by any Plaintiff or USARK member of the reticulated python and/or green anaconda" (1) out of any of the 49 continental United States, and (2) into all of those states except for Florida and Texas.

Questions and Limitations on Preliminary Injunction

When will the PI be effective?

June 2, 2015, unless USFWS appeals to the Federal Circuit Court and a stay of the PI is granted by the Federal Circuit Court before June 2, 2015. USFWS stated it would take them about 75 days to make a decision on such an appeal.

Does the PI allow every reptile keeper in the continental United States to ship/transport green anacondas and reticulated pythons across state lines?

At the last minute, USFWS made numerous arguments to try to restrict the scope of shipments. In response to USFWS arguments and to protect the PI ruling if appealed, the judge ruled that the PI allows transportation/shipment by anyone who was a member of USARK as of April 8, 2015.

A nationwide injunction for every reptile keeper, including shipments into Florida and Texas, will be issued if/when the judge rules favorably on the interstate transportation issue as part of the main case. Since the judge has already ruled during the PI stage of the case that USARK is likely to prevail on the interstate transportation issue on the merits, it is likely that such an injunction will be granted.

How do I determine my status/qualification for USARK membership?

ALL questions regarding USARK membership must be directed to contact@USARK.org. Please do not flood USARK with emails unless you have a current expectation of shipping/transporting green anacondas or reticulated pythons across state lines. The limited USARK resources are needed to focus on future issues in the case, etc.

Does the PI allow transportation/shipment to or from Hawaii, Puerto Rico, territories and possessions of the US or Washington, DC?

No. These activities are prohibited by a provision of the Lacey Act that was not challenged in the PI. This issue may be resolved in our favor when the court hears the merits of our case.

Does the PI allow importation from other countries into the United States?

No, but exportation to other countries is permitted. In addition, the ban on importation will be addressed when USARK presents the merits stage of the case.

Does the PI allow transportation/shipment into a state in violation of that state’s law?

No.

Does the PI allow transportation of Beni anacondas or DeShauensee’s anacondas across state lines?

No, such an injunction could not be granted because these anacondas have not previously been available in trade.

Does the PI allow me to ship out of the 47 continental US states through Miami or Dallas?

No. Shipments out of the 47 continental US states must go through one of the other 16 USFWS designated export ports. Shipments beginning in Florida can go through Miami and shipments beginning in Texas can go through Dallas.

Below is a full list of the other designated ports (Miami and Dallas are excluded):

Anchorage, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Honolulu, Houston, Los Angeles, Louisville, Memphis, Miami, New Orleans, New York, Newark, Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle.

Is anyone restricted from making a shipment via plane solely because it flies over Florida, Texas, Washington, DC, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the US?

No.