SAMPLE LETTER: (Cut & Paste Into Government Portal)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Policy and Directives Management
Attn: Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222
Arlington, VA 22203

RE: Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015

Dear USFW service,

As a supporter of the United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK) and someone who is concerned about the environment, I am writing today to OPPOSE the proposed rule to list nine species of large constrictor snakes as injurious (75 Fed. Reg. 11808-11829 (March 12, 2010)).

As you know, in 2009 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released a highly controversial report on nine snake species. This internal report was NOT peer reviewed science. It is riddled with mistakes, inaccuracies, misrepresentations and unsupportable assumptions. The USARK has filed a 36 page Request for Correction with the USGS under the Information Quality Act. In a letter to the Senate Environmental & Public Works Committee a panel of 11 acclaimed scientists called the report “not scientific” and “not suitable as the basis for legislative or regulatory policy”. This poorly done report is the only “science” that supports the proposed rule.

Since the close of the last public comment period more science has come to light which casts serious doubts on the Constrictor Report and even the integrity of the two authors. The USDA Wildlife Services paper and a University of Florida led scientific paper both published in Biological Invasions have concluded that Burmese pythons can’t survive for any length of time outside south Florida. A re-evaluation of the climate data used by Rodda and Reed as the baseline of their risk assessment has been exposed as grossly mischaracterized and inaccurate by a paper published in the Chicago Herpetological Bulletin. The longer the Constrictor Report is examined in the light of day the more fundamentally flawed it is shown to be.

If enacted, this rule making would have the unprecedented effect of putting as many as a million American citizens in possession of Injurious Wildlife and subject to potential felony prosecution under the Lacey Act. It could effectively create a new class of criminal out of law abiding American citizens. Never has the USFWS attempted to list such a large group of animals that are widely held by the American public.

USFWS does not possess the information needed to do a credible Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) on proposed rules regarding constrictor snakes. In its report, dated February 10, 2010, USFWS relied on baseless assumptions and extrapolations and it ignored information submitted by industry participants and trade associations in response to its 2008 Notice of Inquiry. In addition, the Service misused the information it was provided by respondents to the notice. Therefore, the Service’s regulatory flexibility analysis is not a complete, reliable, or convincing analysis of the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses involved in the buying and selling of the nine snake species included in the proposed rule. The IFRA grossly underestimates the scope of the impact of the proposed regulations.

USFWS has failed to explore suitable alternatives to Lacey Act listing. There is a plethora of ideas on how to address the issue of invasive species that are for more pragmatic and less damaging than the Lacey Act. It was the consensus opinion at the recent US House Committee on Natural Resources Hearing on Invasive Species that Lacey Act was an ineffectual tool for addressing this issue. State/Local Risk Assessment combined with industry Best Management Practices (BMP) was suggested by Dr. Frank Mazzotti of the University of Florida. (His is a unique perspective because he is the one responsible for the radio tracking of pythons in the Everglades National Park- 90% of which died in the cold last winter.) USARK has developed an Accreditation utilizing BMP’s that have passed into state law in North Carolina and are currently pending in SC. They have also been considered by GA, LA, CA and VA. USFWS has an obligation to explore viable alternatives. To date they have not.

It is clear that the USFWS has not thoroughly considered the full implications this proposed rule making would have. Further it is clear that USFWS has not given the due diligence required to enact such a controversial, unprecedented and draconian measure. It is clear that if enacted the proposed rule would negatively impact as many as a million Americans. The limited effectiveness of the Lacey Act as a means to control invasive species means that if enacted the stated intent of the rulemaking would never be realized. Nothing would change on the ground in south Florida. The only effect would be to destroy the captive propagation and trade of animal's already in captivity all across the country.

Please stop the proposed rule to restrict the trade in nine species of constrictors.

Thank you for your consideration.