• Posted 12/19/2024.
    =====================

    I am still waiting on my developer to finish up on the Classifieds Control Panel so I can use it to encourage members into becoming paying members. Google Adsense has become a real burden on the viewing of this site, but honestly it is the ONLY source of income now that keeps it afloat. I tried offering disabling the ads being viewed by paying members, but apparently that is not enough incentive. Quite frankly, Google Adsense has dropped down to where it barely brings in enough daily to match even a single paid member per day. But it still gets the bills paid. But at what cost?

    So even without the classifieds control panel being complete, I believe I am going to have to disable those Google ads completely and likely disable some options here that have been free since going to the new platform. Like classified ad bumping, member name changes, and anything else I can use to encourage this site to be supported by the members instead of the Google Adsense ads.

    But there is risk involved. I will not pay out of pocket for very long during this last ditch experimental effort. If I find that the membership does not want to support this site with memberships, then I cannot support your being able to post your classified ads here for free. No, I am not intending to start charging for your posting ads here. I will just shut the site down and that will be it. I will be done with FaunaClassifieds. I certainly don't need this, and can live the rest of my life just fine without it. If I see that no one else really wants it to survive neither, then so be it. It goes away and you all can just go elsewhere to advertise your animals and merchandise.

    Not sure when this will take place, and I don't intend to give any further warning concerning the disabling of the Google Adsense. Just as there probably won't be any warning if I decide to close down this site. You will just come here and there will be some sort of message that the site is gone, and you have a nice day.

    I have been trying to make a go of this site for a very long time. And quite frankly, I am just tired of trying. I had hoped that enough people would be willing to help me help you all have a free outlet to offer your stuff for sale. But every year I see less and less people coming to this site, much less supporting it financially. That is fine. I tried. I retired the SerpenCo business about 14 years ago, so retiring out of this business completely is not that big if a step for me, nor will it be especially painful to do. When I was in Thailand, I did not check in here for three weeks. I didn't miss it even a little bit. So if you all want it to remain, it will be in your hands. I really don't care either way.

    =====================
    Some people have indicated that finding the method to contribute is rather difficult. And I have to admit, that it is not all that obvious. So to help, here is a thread to help as a quide. How to become a contributing member of FaunaClassifieds.

    And for the record, I will be shutting down the Google Adsense ads on January 1, 2025.
  • Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

usark lawsuit

I was asking you to explain your own words...how can a listing both be illegal and at the same time there be no rules or regulations for listing....you said both things....if there's no rules or regulations then there was nothing that violated they rules since as you said there are none
 
rodneynboalich said:
That's only if an original law was broken. Then it becomes lacey act / federal offense if any kind of border is crossed...that law doesn't apply to say exporting a species th as t is listed as injurious or invasive....and if you try and say it applies to everything then you will have to admit that the fws can restrict interstate commerce...because it says that
Click to expand...

It is nothing to circles with you.

1). If you don't cross a border it is not exporting is it.

And

2.) It only applies if, and this is the the BIG IF, if another federal or state laws regulates that object.

Lacey act only enforces the regulation on a federal level. It can not just adding new species at will.

I need you to understand this. I am tired of going around in circles.

The lacey act needs one thing to function.

1.) It needs the object to be regulated by the state, foreign, and federal government that is not the lacey act itself.

If there is not a law or regulation on the book for that specific object, it can not be controlled by the lacey act.

Lets do some examples.

It is illegal to own and possess pythons (larger then 8 feet) in portland oregon. Any attempt to import or export pythons in portland oregon is 100% illegal, and you can get fined under the lacey act. It is only illegal to possess in portland, but importation illegal by the lacey act.

It is legal to own and possess pythons(any size) in hillsboro oregon, 8 miles from portland oregon. You can import and export pythons into hillsboro oregon, lacy act does not apply.

You talked about zebra mussels.

Zebra mussels are controlled by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act.

Since it is regulated by another act, importation or exportation of the mussels is illegal under the lacey act.

You can get charged under the lacey act for importing leopard geckos from the wild, because of an international ban. But it is perfectly fine to import them from europe or another state.

Once again. Lacey act requires another law or regulation. If it is not illegal to import and export from your state, you can not be charged with a lacy act violation. Which is why we have a law suit.
 
You are posting a law that applies to animals that are not listed as invasive or injurious... but are still covered under lacey on the grounds of original violation...such as state laws...or in the case of cities animals. An animal that was collected/transported illegally....


The section of lacey act / legal code a separate part...It's not dealing with invasive or injurious species directly but covers all..an this section of the legal code has to be set a part because..injurious /invasive listing are spacific to us law and are not subject to cities laws and the spacific laws of other countries....but does come into play in terms of cities agreement to uphold the laws of the countries involved in cities..which is around 130 of them...that's why it's illegal for indonesia to ship retics to the US...because of the cities clause agreements...which is separate from the law you are referring to in you post which is dealing with original offense making interstate and other form of transportation illegal, but is still under lacey act...the law you are posting is what makes it illegal import a bear skin from the US to Hawaii when the bear was killed illegally.........

Indonesia sending retics or any other species listed as invasive or injurious to the US is illegal because of they US listing them as such and under the cities agreement countries will uphold the laws and regulations of other countries ..

the US government can list species as invasive or injurious....and your post saying that they can't ban them is just wrong....they can ban them and regulate them...if they couldn't there would be no invasive or injurious listing there would also be no guidelines for what's consider illegal behavior with listed species and there would be no min/max legal pentilties..and last time I checked we have all of those things.
 
Your Portland argument doesn't make any sense..that's not a state law that ls a local law..lacey doesn't apply....there's no lacey act violation on the state level because the state doesn't have a no big snake law....you are talking about local ordinance not state law...
 
Thank you for paragraphs.

You are still missing the point.

It can not regulate IN the lacey act. You can not add the 5 to the lacey act.

In order to regulate them, they needed to be added by congress in a separate bill. The interior just added them to the lacey act. Which is illegal. And, like your original post, should be challenged in the courts. But it is not the easiest fight. The easiest fight is interstate transport.

Because the lacey act is very vague on how it adds new species. But it clearly does not ban interstate transportation.

The local regulation would apply to the lacey act, if it crossed international or state lines.
 
First you tell me that I'm wrong to want usark to fight to get the snakes unlisted because the secretary of the interior can list whatever he wants....now you are telling me that the secretary of the interior can't list whatever he wants and when he listed the snakes it was illegal


Is that really what you are saying now....

So im I still an idiot for wanted usark to fight to get the snakes unlisted since now you claim they were added illegally
 
So we see that the rule making process was legal....and I think the the adding by the interior was legal as well if I'm reading the amended part of q8 usc 42 right...it says te secretary of the interior may prescribe by regulation to be injurious.....it think that's what allows him to list animals...regulations arnt laws but carry the same weight
 
And we have a break through. You see. It would be very hard to sue the interior for adding the 5 to the lacey act. Very hard.

I do agree with you that they where added for political and not science reasons. But the that really does not matter. He can add it to the list. I would argue the whole list is illegal, because it violates other federal and state laws, but I don't get to decide that.

The importation into the United States, any territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States, or any shipment between the continental United States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States,
Click to expand...

You do notice that it says nothing about between states in the continental United States?

That is why USARK is suing. Because the law says importing INTO the united states, NOT between states.

We can go after them for randomly listing species later. But our best interest is to go after the low hanging fruit.
 
Now you need to decide on your argument...either you think the secretary of the interior can add snakes or not...first you said it was legal that's why we can't sue then you say adding was illegal...which is it....

And what breakthrough are you talking about....iv maintained my position the whole time.....

And I never said anything about the listing being more political then scientific...so what are you talking about. ..


I never said the the interior couldn't add the snakes...you said that then contradicted yourself saying that they can't.....


Nor does your post of 18 usc 42 matter...look back I said it comes down to legal interpretation of ( continental united States ). ..which I have maintained for this whole thread and iv been saying for 6 months now...

And no its not easier to sue for interstate commerce when that will just lead to fws seeking and getting more authority...WHICH WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF MY ORIGINAL POST.

So any breakthrough of understanding has been on your part...iv backed up everything iv said and in the process proved you wrong everytime you tried to question what I said...and I even did it every time you changed your argument to a new one...

Go back and look at your post...they are a total joke.....and your lack of understanding is an even bigger joke....and the biggest joke of all is that you actually claim a breakthrough for me when I havnt changed what iv said..all iv done this entire thread is show everyone reading it just how much one of usarks supporters doesn't know about their lawsuit or understand the issues surrounding it....

Not once did you stay on point...not once did you own up to you on condradictions. .not once did you post anything more then post little pieces of things to try and make your argument sound valid...and the sad part is you didn't even understand what the laws were you were posting or what they related to..
 
Ok here is something you just posted....now do you care to explain yourself or just move on to your next nonsense....you say sue on the basis because it violates federal and state laws.
You see where you said that...now please show me what laws are violated and how.....you want to make claims like that..fine...but I'm done being nice about this...so you say sue based of violations of other laws ok...tell us. What laws..


I do agree with you that they where added for political and not science reasons. But the that really does not matter. He can add it to the list. I would argue the whole list is illegal, because it violates other federal and state laws, but I don't get to decide that.
 
You are back to insulting. Not a good sign.

The lacey act is not a clear document. Yes, he can add species. But, and this is a big but, it seems to be an abuse of power to do so. It is possible, yes. But I would say it needs to challenge in court.

You originally claimed that they should challenge the act of adding them. You now say that would be hard to do.

You say that they could go to congress to get it so they can, that would be a huge undertaking. One that you would criticize USARK for if they remotely used it to make funds on.

Mr Boalich, I want to make it clear here, I never posted anything that you did not at one point or another either directly deny or support. I was just your sounding board. I pointed out where the laws are for and against you.

But for real, if you think that you can win a case on your merits, sue the federal government. If you are not willing to do that, then I would say, be quite. Let the people that actually know the law, use it.

My whole argument from the start was to tell you that how the snakes got on the list is not a good issue to bring up in the courts. Because it is murky and will take a long time to fight.

Then we talked about the difference between invasive species listing and lacey act enforcing state laws.

Remember you brought up state laws. Enforcing state laws is different then invasive species listing. You kept trying to advance that they are under the same umbrella, I proved you wrong.

Now you are back to saying they should challenge the listing.

It is really circles with you.

I will try to help you out.

Challenging the adding of species under the invasive part of the act is really legally hard to do. But it is clear that under the invasive part of the lacey act, they do not have the right to interstate control.

Now they can enforce state laws, which is not the same as the invasive part.

I only became a sounding board because I wanted to you fully realize your thoughts on this.
 
...I never said challenge the act of adding anything...I said challenge the scientific data..

How is it an abuse of power if the interior has the power to list them..

What about congress..who did I say can go there for what?

You only posted things that I at one point denied or supported...no that's wrong...you've only misunderstood me the whole time...you are not a sound board for anything other then nonsense...you have never pointed out anything valid about laws...the only thing you have made clear is your lack of understanding of all this..

You had no idea how the snakes were listed I had to explain 10 time to you...

I know what we talked about...when it comes to invasive verse original state offense for lacey violation....remember I had to explain that too...

You did not prove me wrong about state laws and yes almost all these animal issue are under an umbrella called the lacey act...that's how it's used for cities state law violation that also go over state lines..and invasive...and yes zebra muscles are covered under lacey.. they are listed right in 18 usc 42...

And no I never came back to saying challenge the listing...iv been saying that...you just don't understand I'm saying challenge the listing under the arbitrary and capricious Which is the other half of usarks lawsuit...i simply said usark needs to focus on it...

No its not hard to challenge the listing when you use scientific data that's accurate..hence usarks arbitrary and capricious case

And it's not as clear cut on the interstate commerce because of the regulations and rule making process that have been given to the interior and NISC


I fully understand my thoughts on this...you are not a soundboard....you are delusional....and at this point I think you are detached from reality...the fact that you think you did anything in this thread other then go in circles with your own arguments is unbelievable....and good job on never answering a single question..only trying to response in a diactic manner..because clearly you should be educating people on these issues...

Seriously you are delusional...and need help.

OK WebSlave give me another infraction for pointed out this guy has an issue with excepting reality....

Because I'm sure I pointed it out in a slanderous why....
 
I am sorry Mr. Boalich, I don't know what you are really saying now. So It is really hard for me to parrot it back to you. I like being your sounding board. But you are now all over the place. You need to stop insulting. And it is libel not slanderous. Slander is spoken. Libel is written.
 
rodneynboalich said:
I fully understand my thoughts on this...
Click to expand...

I wish the rest of us could. Some of your statements simply don't make much sense, I assume it's lack of proof reading before you post? for instance:

rodneynboalich said:
when it comes to invasive verse original state offense for lacey violation....remember I had to explain that too...

and good job on never answering a single question..only trying to response in a diactic manner..because clearly you should be educating people on these issues...
Click to expand...

I want the bans to be overturned. I sent in multiple letters, made calls and added remarks to listings in an effort to help. It seems like you really are trying to help the same cause but your statements can be hard to follow and trashing the people that are also trying to understand makes you come off as hot-headed and argumentative in my opinion. However I'm fairly certain you don't care about my opinion based on the comments you've made directly to me in prior threads.

rodneynboalich said:
OK WebSlave give me another infraction for pointed out this guy has an issue with excepting reality....
Click to expand...

If you want to discuss your infraction(s) and the real reason for them, please do so either via PM with the moderator/admin that issued them or take it to the feedback forum. This is not the proper venue.
 
Update 12/9/15

Lawsuit Update 12/9/15: Two briefs were filed today and the links are below. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) jointly filed a brief which begins with twaddle about man-eating disease vectors laying over 120 eggs per clutch.

The Center for Invasive Species Prevention (CISP) filed an amicus brief (seeking to intervene in the case). Both briefs have asked the Court to overturn the granted injunction. The briefs mirror prior paperwork being heavy on hysterical discourse, but lacking solid arguments.

While those familiar with these species can see through the propaganda presented by these groups, we must realize that these parties have made their agendas to end the keeping of these species and other herps clear. They will do their best to influence the Court.

The herp community must present ourselves publicly as professional, civil and educated regarding these animals at all times. We cannot allow bad actors to be our voice and continue to add to the bias held by the majority of Americans of these snakes. Please represent the responsible side, and majority, of the herp community well. We must illustrate everything positive about our community while remembering that most people fear and misunderstand these animals, and us.

Link 1, HSUS/CBD brief: http://www.usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Doc-No-1587617-HSUS-CBD-Intervenor-Brief-1.pdf

Link 2: CISP brief: http://www.usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Doc-No-1587688-CISP-Amicus-Motion-and-Brief.pdf
 
First 2016 Update!

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=d7e8c81109173978c4240862c&id=dde2fe05f8

On Monday, January 11, USARK filed our brief in the Appellate Court. We have again presented solid, substantially-backed arguments, as well as pointing out the overreach used for these listings.

Below is an excerpt from our brief:

"For instance, in 1974, a FWS representative testified before the House Committee on a then-ongoing FWS Lacey Act rulemaking:

Mr. DINGELL. Now, what about the problem of exotic species that are already in this country?… I have read these new rèsumès, and I do not find that you address yourself very extensively to populations of these which are already existent inside the United States….

Mr. PARSONS. As far as the regulatory aspects of your question, there is no restriction that we find in section 42 of the Lacey Act to interstate shipments, with the possible exception of restrictions from areas off the continental United States, such as Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Hawaii…. The restrictions, Mr. Chairman, apply to importations.

Mr. DINGELL. How about the offspring of these populations in this country?

Mr. PARSONS. The offspring of those populations that are here would be treated likewise.

Mr. DINGELL. You are going to treat these as essentially a separate strain, as some kind of domesticated species?

Mr. PARSONS. That is right. The restrictions apply to imported animals and their offspring, and not to animals already in the United States."

Thank you to everyone who has supported us and has been following the lawsuit which began in December of 2013.

Read the USARK brief at http://www.usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Doc-1592898-USARK-Appeal-Brief.pdf.

Background information of the Constrictor Rule can be found at http://www.usark.org/2015-blog/7081/.

The current remaining briefing schedule is below.

• Government reply due February 1, 2016
• Deferred appendix due February 8, 2016
• Final briefs due February 22, 2016

Following submission of the final briefs, the Court will schedule oral argument, although there is not a set deadline for this action. USARK will keep you posted as updates become available. We appreciate your continued support as we battle overreaching legislation on the local, state and federal fronts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top