• 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

One week until the oral argument in the preliminary injunction appeal!

Next Friday, 4/1/16, a three-judge panel will hear oral arguments on the USFWS motion to appeal the preliminary injunction against interstate transport of the five snake species that were added to the Lacey Act. There is a small update from USARK on the case.

Last Tuesday 3/22/16 those judges issued an order to HSUS and CBD requiring them to explain (show cause) why their briefs should not be treated as amici curiae briefs. USFWS filed a notice of appeal of USARK's preliminary injunction, but HSUS/CBD did not, nor did they motion to intervene in the appeal. Thus, the appellate judges are suggesting that the failure of HSUS/CBD to follow the procedure to file a notice of appeal or motion to intervene at the appellate level leaves them in the same position as anyone else who would desire to file a brief with the court.

One obvious difference is that an amici curiae would not be allowed to appeal (file a write for cert to the Supreme Court) a decision favorable to USARK by the appellate court. Thus, HSUS/CBD could be denied the right to appeal along with other rights of actual parties to an appeal.

The HSUS/CBD filing is due on Monday 3/28/16. This would not change the status of HSUS/CBD as intervenors when this case goes back to the Federal District Court in DC.

The court's order is at http://usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/HSUS-CBD-Appellate-Order.pdf.
 
USARK Update 4/3/16

Lawsuit Update: Hearing on Appeal of USARK’s Preliminary Injunction

Being the party that appealed USARK’s preliminary injunction, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) carries the burden of proof at the United States Court of Appeals. Accordingly, FWS was required to present its case first during the oral argument on April 1, 2016 before a three judge panel. FWS is required to prove that the US District Court Judge made an error in his written decision granting USARK a preliminary injunction.

Within approximately 30 seconds, Judge Tatel interrupted the oral presentation of counsel for FWS. The judge reminded counsel that the primary rule of statutory interpretation is to read the actual words in the statute. If the meaning of those words is not ambiguous, then no further legal analysis is necessary.

The focus of the judge’s questions was clearly on the words of the Lacey Act injurious species provision. At least two of the judges seemed unconvinced that you can read the statute to prohibit interstate transportation. If that’s their conclusion, then the following arguments of FWS become irrelevant: legislative history, ratification by implication and deference to a government agency interpretation pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Chevron case. It is important to note that the US District Court judge considered all three of these arguments and rejected them.

Here’s the actual language of the statute: ”any shipment between the continental United States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States, of [an injurious species] is hereby prohibited.”

In the 1970s, FWS interpreted “continental United States” as the geographic area containing the 49 states on the mainland of the North American continent. USARK agrees with this interpretation. Thus, for example, FWS can prohibit transportation from Hawaii to Colorado, or from Texas to Puerto Rico. Washington, DC was explicitly mentioned as being prohibited for transportation by Congress because at that time, DC could not make its own laws. Hawaii was specifically mentioned because Congress was specifically trying to stop the transportation of the mongooses then in Hawaii to the other 49 states. Hopefully, this background information will help you follow the oral arguments regarding the language of the statute. [Note that the judges suggested that if Congress wanted to prohibit transportation between the 49 continental states, they might have at least included the following capitalized words in the statute: any shipment between ANY OF the continental United States.]

The arguments regarding the legislative history, etc. can become even more difficult to follow for several reasons. First, the Lacey Act was enacted in 1900, so it has a long legislative history. Second, the language of the Lacey Act was substantially revised in 1960 to essentially what you see in the quote above. Suffice it to say that we do not believe that the additional arguments, even if considered by the Court of Appeals, will help FWS any more than those arguments helped FWS when they made them before the District Court judge. The fact that the judges focused so much time on the plain language of the statute suggests that their written decision may rest on such language.

An audio recording of the hearing can be found at http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings.nsf (the actual audio file will eventually scroll off of the page but you can find it in the future by searching on case 15-5199).

What’s next: There is no timeline for the Court of Appeals to make a ruling. It may be months before we receive an answer so now it’s a waiting game again. We could get an answer any time from next week to several months from now. Then, we pick up with the continuation of the lawsuit. However, while the Court of Appeals is deciding, the current status for shipping reticulated pythons and green anacondas remains in effect. Get those details at http://www.usark.org/2015-blog/7182/.

Currently, the Court is only going to decide if we get to keep our awarded injunctive relief and can continue shipping reticulated pythons and green anacondas until the court makes a final ruling on the lawsuit. This is kind of like a halftime show while the football game is stopped. After we get a decision on the appeal (halftime), the third quarter starts (lawsuit).

A final ruling on the lawsuit, not the injunction, decides the fate on shipment of the other constrictor snake species listed as injurious. Due to the crafting of the injunction, there is no valid reason to overturn it. If a ruling is made upon facts and sound reasoning, the injunctive relief rightfully awarded to the Reptile Nation will continue. Thank you for your continued support while fighting this government overreach.

Learn the history: For more information and FAQs regarding the “Constrictor Rule,” click this link: http://www.usark.org/2015-blog/7081/.
 
Thanks for that post...

Now if it's starting to look like the courts will rule that fws can't ban interstate commerce then fws will have to start working up an amendment to be added to 18 usc 42,,to ensure in the future that they can regulate interstate commerce....

And if usark doesn't have a strong enough argument to get the snakes removed from the lacey act then the snake will be illegal to ship once fws gets the amendment to 18 us 42 to restrict interstate commerce.....

I'd like to point out that usark pushing fws on the interstate commerce issue was the whole reason I started this thread....

If you look back you will see my concern that usark case that fws can't ban interstate commerce will one way or another lead to fws getting it in writing that they can regulate interstate commerce....

Once again the reason why.. is because if usark wins on the interstate issue..that means the courts ruled that fws can't regulate interstate commerce on the invasive / injurious level....which will mean that any and all plants and animals that are listed as invasive or injurious can legally go across Statelines....

There will also be a lot of political pressure on the courts to rule in favor or fws because if fws loses their ability to regulate interstate commerce then any person that's ever been arrested, fine, convicted,or jailed for a violation of interstate commerce,,will immediately have grounds for an appeal and overturning of their conviction and will be in a place to rightly sue the federal government....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top