is usark over stepping its rights by proposing rules for states without asking us

One last thing. In the eight years of being on the board of USARK, I have never been contacted by you other than in a message left on my faunaclassifieds account page (which all can view). I responded (which all can see) but received no response from you. As such, I cannot confirm that you have contacted the board in regards to anything.

Take care,

Warren
 
Bills that pass over night are set up to do with the sponsor and supporters all working together to make it happen...nobody was supporting hr511 after the knowing clause was added. The sponsor didn't even show up for the second hearing...so no hr511 couldn't have passed in 30 days when no one was trying to pass it....try and keep up with reality

It now has gone from impossible, I am lying to yes it can. You are showing a very interesting pathology.

If that's the legal definition of continental US the it's in direct contradiction of how it's used in 18 usc 42.

Where does it define it in 18 USC 42? I would love to have you draw a clock. I am getting the feeling that your reality is not the same as anyone else's.


Where do you keep getting this right or wrong nonsense. .and the law does care about right and wrong. Laws are in place to determine the set of rules a society is to live by.. and the laws are determined by sets of principals of right and wrong... right and wrong are the underlying basis for laws....xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ....seriously you're trying so hard to argue me that you're saying stuff that doesn't make sense. ....and yes Fws does have to be RIGHT about their listing of invasive animals....they have a whole set of rules to follow to list anything. .and that's one of the things usark is saying they didn't do is follow the rules...Fws can't just list anything. ...if they want to list something they have to prove they would be RIGHT for doing so. ..... these animals were added to the lacey act in the injurious part do to their listing as invasive under US Law. .injurious and invasive have to different definitions..the lacey act doesn't say anything about fws feeling they may be a problem....that's not where the authority to do preemptive listing come from....it comes from executive order 13112 which said the secretary of the interior can do invasive listing with Fws when Fws has shown data that proves said animal they want to list is potentially invasive. ...and of course the judge didn't look at right and wrong that's not what you do in a hearing for a preliminary injunction. ..the judge looked at it to see if usark meets the criteria to be granted the preliminary injunction. ......

You are back to posting a wall of incoherent text. You are back to insulting. Mr. Boalich, you know why you have to insult when you can not prove your point? It shows a lack of reasoning about reality. It tells me that you may need to have some medications you need to take. Insulting is in violation of the rules of this forum. I will have to report you.


Laws have nothing to do with right or wrong. Just legal or illegal.

There is a thousands laws that are 100% unethical, but completely legal.

I can legally pay an employee minimum wage, even though I know they could never live in my area with that much money.

I would recommend you read Plato's Republic.

Slavery was once 100% legal and completely unethical. It is 100% ok to kill another person, if that person is not born yet. I could go on an on.

The FWS does not have to right to produce a law. It just has to produce the law. FWS does not have to prove it is correct, just that it is legal.

You really need to stop acting as usarks mouth piece on here.....people are reading your nonsense and if they support usark and don't like the things I'm saying that's fine...but they don't need you to feed them misinformation. ...and usark certainly doesn't need an uninformed supporter handing out lessons in legal process and the current direction of their case......especially on that thinks laws aren't bases in right and wrong and also thinks thinks the lacey acts says Fws can't list whatever it wants on a whim. ....

I have nothing to do with USARK. You are trying to sandbag the argument. Interesting pathology. As for FWS listing, yes, it can. It can also get sued and proven illegal in court.


You need to tell usark to come on here and clear up all the misinformation you have posted about them....It's one thing when I say stuff in a critical manner of usark...and is a totally different and destructive situation when a usark supporter comes on here with little knowledge of what's going and starts making claims about usarks case the legal and legislative process what is the basis of usarks arguments against fws and and complete lack of foresight when it come to the reaction of government when challenged on this level. .....

The problem with "all the misinformation you have posted about them" is this. You are not in the right frame of reference for anyone to clear up your thinking. Once again, I have nothing to do with USARK. I came into this forum to see if you had a valid argument. It is becoming very clear that you have metal disorder. I am not insulting you, just stating a preconceived fact in which you have proven.

You claim that USARK does not have the foresight, but yet offer no other insight into the problem. You just say they are wrong, with out telling them how to be right. It shows that you have a compulsive disorder. I fear it might actually contain a narcissistic tendency. Every find you are talking to idiots and only you are correct?

And one last point... hr511 that usark decided to fight after no one was supporting would have added retics green anacondas and boas to the lacey act. ...now executive order 13112 gave Fws the right to do listing without the legislative process when bills like hr511 where getting held up by things like what usark was doing...ie setting up hearing to attack it....if usark would have left hr511 alone Fws wouldn't of had an excuse to go the executive order route claiming hr511 was purposely being held up..and with the knowing clause added to hr511 Fws wouldn't support it or want it to pass since they worked so hard to have a knowing clause removed from the lacy act 30 years ago. ...hr511 in its live active state was the best protection we had against further big snake listing. ..and usark destroyed that with their totally unnecessary hearing the set up in the subcommittee of the house natural resources committee. .and lol so wyatt could have one more big payday by creating a false victory...which lead to hr511 not getting reintroduced in the next session just like with the original ban..


Another wall of incoherent text. You are not perceiving the world correctly. I am personally worried about you.

You are back at HR511. I will just state this again. Is it a bad thing to make money off something they know is not going to pass so they can have money for the next fight.
One last thing. In the eight years of being on the board of USARK, I have never been contacted by you other than in a message left on my faunaclassifieds account page (which all can view). I responded (which all can see) but received no response from you. As such, I cannot confirm that you have contacted the board in regards to anything.

Take care,

Warren

I would not deal with this person. He is not swimming with the other ducks.
 
Warning: OK, enough, please. If this conversation cannot be kept civil without a large heaping helping of snarkiness among the participants, infractions are going to start flying and quite likely bans will quickly result. If you all want to have a professional conversation, please do so, but if any of you are looking for a place to play emotionally based school yard pissing matches, THIS is not the place.


:NoNo:

Personally, I would appreciate it if a certain individual would PLEASE proof read their posts before submitting them. Check for spelling and punctuation and general readability, PLEASE. Those sorts of courtesies in writing style go a LONG way in making your thoughts better able to be understood by other readers without going through a painful interpretative process. Of course, I am presuming that English is their primary language, so my apologies if that is not the case.
 
I read platos republic when I was a teenager. .. I think my favorite line is democracy is a very attractive form of government both for equals and unequals alike... I think that's how it gos it been a long time. ..and sorry web slave. I'll work on my typing.
 
Warren are you still mad at me for questioning your parthenogenesis claims for you not being able to rule out gynogenesis or dna fragmentation. I guess your going to avoid the question of usark lying about pa legislation and taking donations under false pretenses. .
 
It was impossible for hr511 to pass because no one was trying to pass it plus it didn't have enough support for a shady over vote...not sure why you can't understand that.
 
I read platos republic when I was a teenager. .. I think my favorite line is democracy is a very attractive form of government both for equals and unequals alike... I think that's how it gos it been a long time. ..and sorry web slave. I'll work on my typing.

What was the conclusion for justice?
 
It was impossible for hr511 to pass because no one was trying to pass it plus it didn't have enough support for a shady over vote...not sure why you can't understand that.

I completely understand that.

Here is my question for you.

Is it a real problem that they used HR511 that they know would not pass to get money to fight other bills down the road?
 
Yes it is bad to make money of of hr511 when usark knew it couldn't pass...they intentionally lied to the industry to get donations. ..not only is it bad but it's also illegal to take donations under false pretenses. ...
 
Does anyone else want to jump in on this claim the laws aren't concerned with right and wrong but only legal and illegal. ...
 
Dear Rodney,
I can only answer questions relating to my research when they are directed to me. Not when hidden in some reticulated python forum or other hangouts I do not frequent. My email is easy to find, as is my office phone number. Please feel free to contact me regarding my scientific research and we can discuss your theories on parthenogenesis in snakes. I am always willing to entertain new ideas.

If we could find evidence of gynogenetic parthenogenesis or DNA fragmentation, I would be very happy to report that. From our dataset of dozens of boa, python, natracine, and crotaline parthenogens, we have no evidence supporting these potential triggers for parthenogenetic, or parthenogenetic appearing offspring. Our current genomic data supports terminal fusion automixis in all cases. This is also comparable to what we see across birds, sharks, and varanid lizards. While parthenogenesis is only a minor aspect of my research, we continue to receive samples on a monthly basis, and all new cases support previous theories.

We can exclude gynogenesis given that this requires the egg to be generated unreduced (i.e. 2n instead of 1n), and as such would result in the production of a truly clonal offspring. Given the fact that offspring are essentially half clones of the mother, with heterozygosity limited to recombination at the terminal tips of the chromosomes, we can instantly exclude gynogenetic parthenogenesis. I am sure you are aware of that however.

I am intrigued by what you are referring to in relation to "DNA fragmentation". As I have said, I am always happy to talk science.

In regards to discussing USARK, please see previous messages. As a board member I am not in the position to discuss USARK business, but Phil Goss will be more than happy to field your questions.

Regards,
Warren
 
One more question for Dr booth or anyone else from usark....if usark is successful in saving interstate commerce and at the same time not focusing on fighting the python ban from the point of lacking merits of necessity; therefore retics remain on the lacey act as invasive (which would mean no more importation).. what will usark plans be if Fws is able to get an amendment to 18 usc 42 and 43 ( or and executive order) clearly states that they are giving the authority to regulate interstate commerce. ...since that would undo literally all of usarks work in this current lawsuit since the basis of the lawsuit is that Fws can't prohibit interstate commerce. Even if under current law fws can't restrict interstate commerce what's to stop them or anyone else from pushing for an amendment to grant them authority to do so....would not all this time and money being spent be nothing more than a total waste if one sentence is added to lacey act stating Fws can restrict interstate transportation..?....so is it wise to only save interstate commerce and let retics and the rest stay on the lacey act. .....?
 
And also if Fws is successful in getting some kind of an amendment to have the authority to prohibit interstate commerce would retics and the rest go back to being illegal to ship across state lines?
 
Rodney, I do not mean to sound rude, but it appears that you have an inability to understand a simple statement. I will repost these again, hopefully this time making it clear to you.

"Unfortunately I am not in a position to discuss board related information to an individual outside of the board of USARK. Similar to any other organization with a board, the person to approach is the president. That individual is Phil Goss. As most will attest to, he is an extremely pleasant individual to talk to, and always willing to listen to peoples concerns."

"As a board member I am not in the position to discuss USARK business, but Phil Goss will be more than happy to field your questions.
"

Hope that clarifies things in relation to me answering questions regarding USARK. We have a president. Again, his name is Phil Goss. I am sure he would be happy to talk with you, assuming you can be civil.

Have a great evening.

Warren

p.s. With so much "knowledge", why have you never formed your own organization to fight for the rights you hold dear. It would seem like a better use of your time than dredging up a Faunaclassifieds thread month after month. Not everyone needs to support USARK. That's why you can choose to form your own, or sit on your rear.
 
I don't think dna fragmentation has ever been documented in reptiles but I think it's the obvious explanation for all the birth defects seen in offspring from females that had retained sperm from previous breeding seasons
 
In what sense is DNA fragmentation the possible answer. We have data relating to genome scans using around 40,000 snp's and have no evidence for DNA fragmentation, but consistent evidence for terminal fusion automixis. The joys of having a genome or two at your disposal to align next-gen sequences from a large array of parthenogens.

Thanks for your input however. We have no evidence to support that conclusion. Birth defects in this case result from almost complete genome wide homozygosity. Almost, but not complete, with heterozygosity present in the genome in very limited frequency in specific locations.

Glad we could discuss that civilly, and not have random attacks hidden on some forum or group.

Regards,
Warren
 
Yes it is bad to make money of of hr511 when usark knew it couldn't pass...they intentionally lied to the industry to get donations. ..not only is it bad but it's also illegal to take donations under false pretenses. ...

Looking at the "lie", I am not seeing much lying there.

https://usark.org/uncategorized/hr-511-python-ban/

In there own post they state that it only has a 41% chance of being passed.

Not exactly the edge of doom. You are saying that they are telling people that the bill in question has a 60% chance at failure is a somehow making them money?

In the whole website they only mentioned HR511 4 times. And then only when something happened in congress to the bill. Did not really spam the bill did they?

But they did collect money from the time of nov 21 2012 to jan 2 2013.

Money that then was turned around to fight the executive order that was born out of HR511.

I need your help here.

Are you saying that if HR511 passed any money collect in those 3 months would be ok?

But if HR511 popped back up as an executive order, the money collect is now tainted?

How does that make sense. They collected money to stop the ban of pythons. They stop one action dead cold, but they also knew that another action was hot on the heels.

Not able to prove HR511 is going to be turned into a executive order, but knowing it would be, they continued to get money to stop it.

Collecting money to fight a python ban, regardless if it comes as an executive order OR an House Resolution does not make a difference over effect.
 
Back
Top