# USFWS Categorical Exclusion: Amphibian Ban!



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

I have not been here in a while for a purpose, but this is to important not to post!

USFW is look for a Categorical Exclusion so they can add species as injurious under the Lacy Act without due process. Herp Alliance is reporting this would end the interstate commerce of all amphibians as they whish to place all amphibians as Injurious Wildlife. This could be devastating to the hobby and was certainly indicted something would be coming with USFW Chytrid free certification comments a few years back. 

Here is some further reading:

 USArk USFWS Categorical Exclusions

 Herp Alliance FWS Amphibian Ban!

*Things to Do!*

As I did on HR669 a few years back we need a call in day. Phone calls get annoying to staff offices as they have to take several pieces of information. It lets Senators and Congressmen/women know you mean business over an email. Get the word out as much as possible and everyone call your representatives on Monday, July 29. 

*The most important part...MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS as described by Herp Alliance and USArk. * The call only lets your elected official know of your displeasure, comments are your chance to have your voice heard.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

Jason, I've seen this info for the last couple of days on the Herp Alliance and USARK sites. Both my fiancé and I have responded by writing letters and I've also posted both links on our FB pages to help get the word out. This really needs to be stopped dead in it's tracks as it's a threat to the entire herp hobby. Thanks for your diligence.


----------



## MeiKVR6 (Sep 16, 2008)

Done and done. *If you keep darts, and would like to continue to do so, you should take action now...* Our entire hobby depends on people speaking up.

Like we did for the HR669 bill awhile back, we'll have a spot promoting the above links up on our site soon...


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

The USFWS is part of the department of Interior. Let them know how you feel as well. 

Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington DC 20240

Phone: (202) 208-3100


----------



## oldlady25715 (Nov 17, 2007)

When are comments due?


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

Fish and Aquatic Conservation
I don't have a problem with what the USFWS proposed. I don't see where they want to ban dart frogs


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

NathanB said:


> Fish and Aquatic Conservation
> I don't have a problem with what the USFWS proposed. I don't see where they want to ban dart frogs


Nathan you don't have a problem with this???
Why is the Service seeking a categorical exclusion?
When appropriately established and applied, categorical exclusions serve a beneficial purpose. They allow Federal agencies to expedite the environmental review process for proposals that typically do not require more resource-intensive EAs or EISs. The Service recognizes that the current process of listing species as injurious under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42, as amended) has aspects that are inefficient and counterproductive to our mission of safeguarding our natural resources. Our listing process can take several years, and in that period, a species that could have been stopped at the border could become irreversibly invasive. Therefore, the Service is seeking to refine the listing process by identifying steps of the process that could be improved. 

One step that the Service examined is the NEPA requirements. We coordinated with the Department of the Interior’s Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (OEPC) and with CEQ, and we determined that an EA or EIS is generally not needed for the action of listing species as injurious. 



What exactly is this categorical exclusion for?
The proposed categorical exclusion would be added to the Department Manual as: “The adding of species to the list of injurious wildlife regulated under 50 CFR subchapter B, part 16, which prohibits the importation into the United States and interstate transportation of wildlife found to be injurious.” In other words, neither an EA nor and EIS would be required for the regulatory listing action that places a species on a prohibited list under 50 CFR 16, which prohibits their importation into the United States and across State borders. Thus, the activities covered under the categorical exclusion are simply to keep species out of the country that are injurious or to prevent their spread across State lines. Therefore, the action should have no effect on the human or natural environment, because the species being listed are not naturally found there.

That's from the US F&W website. This means they could ban the interstate transportation of all amphibians. Which means NO shipping dart frogs across state lines, including importation. Which means THE END of the DART FROG HOBBY!!!


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

oldlady25715 said:


> When are comments due?


Currently the deadline for comments is July 31, 2013. Though a 90 day extension has been asked for, it's yet to be approved.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

They could ban the interstate transportation of all amphibians without the rule change. This just makes it easier and more effective if they need do need to ban an amphibian. Or am I missing something.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

They aren't just looking to ban a species or place a single species on the injurious list. They are looking to place ALL amphibians on the injurious list.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-01/pdf/2013-15707.pdf
Where are you seeing that?


----------



## SirMitchel (Oct 13, 2012)

Thanks for posting this. I went through with the steps on USArk's website, and I'll plan on phoning my representative on the 29th.


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

NathanB said:


> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-01/pdf/2013-15707.pdf
> Where are you seeing that?



USFW have tried to declare amphibians as injurious wildlife (http://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/pdf_files/Chytrid_fungus_NR_045679_FINAL_BAIS_edit.pdf) This would only allow them to do so without due process. While it is not spelled out, it has been informed by the lobbying groups that support our hobby.


----------



## Azurel (Aug 5, 2010)

Signed.....


----------



## papafrogger (Oct 21, 2012)

Signed & sent to friends and family. Thanks for bringing this up and thanks to all who shared on facebook.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

JJuchems said:


> USFW have tried to declare amphibians as injurious wildlife (http://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/pdf_files/Chytrid_fungus_NR_045679_FINAL_BAIS_edit.pdf) This would only allow them to do so without due process. While it is not spelled out, it has been informed by the lobbying groups that support our hobby.


They were reviewing a petition, not trying to declare amphibians as injurious wildlife. If they wanted to they would have been able to. 
I cant think of anything in a Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement would prevent them.


----------



## sports_doc (Nov 15, 2004)

Where does one find the link to the petition to sign?

And what is the link for the public comment area pertaining to this article on the [cumbersome] USFW web page?

Thanks


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

I have to agree with Nathan on some of this because it is a complex issue.
CatX could have an impact on the hobby, but it could also be in place and the hobby remain unaffected.
I do not consider Dart frogs to be a risk of being an invasive species, but there are many frogs in the world that are a risk as an invasive species. I do not see where they make mention of all amphibians either. 
While we do not wish them to categorically list animals, we cannot categorically oppose all regulation either. Invasive species are a big issue to our wildlife. And since the constrictor issue in Florida was created by irresponsible members of the Herp community, the community should work with the FWS for all our interests and show that the irresponsible are but a few.
Has the Herp community ever supported anything the USFWS has done so they don't think the community will complain about everything? Ever a mass thank you for conservation efforts? 
Something to think about.


----------



## mydumname (Dec 24, 2004)

When would this go into effect?


----------



## SavannaZilla (Jan 19, 2011)

> While we do not wish them to categorically list animals, we cannot categorically oppose all regulation either. Invasive species are a big issue to our wildlife. And since the constrictor issue in Florida was created by irresponsible members of the Herp community, the community should work with the FWS for all our interests and show that the irresponsible are but a few.


Are the constrictors a bigger problem than feral dogs and cats? Is FWS oblivious to what dogs and cats do to the environment, and native species? Should rats be banned, because they are a pest species? Do humans not cause environmental damage, and therefore should be regulated by FWS? 



> Ever a mass thank you for conservation efforts?


Oh, do you mean placing Coleonyx switaki on the Endangered Species list, so hobbyists cannot have them? Even though they are not endangered, but specialists which live underground? Do FWS officials not know how to search for geckos?


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

Scott Richardson said:


> And since the constrictor issue in Florida was created by irresponsible members of the Herp community, the community should work with the FWS for all our interests and show that the irresponsible are but a few.


What about the irresponsible transport and release of amphibians and pathogens due to the fishing and medical industry? Arguably the biggest contributors to the spread of Chytrid across the US (though not necessarily recent). Why should dilligent hobbyists pay for those mistakes?
I still can't see how this legislation could be interpreted as a good thing for frogging.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

Dane said:


> What about the irresponsible transport and release of amphibians and pathogens due to the fishing and medical industry? Arguably the biggest contributors to the spread of Chytrid across the US (though not necessarily recent). Why should dilligent hobbyists pay for those mistakes?
> I still can't see how this legislation could be interpreted as a good thing for frogging.


Not to mention the food trade (frog legs) which is perhaps the single biggest contributor to the chytrid spread in the US.


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

We can point fingers at everyone, but things were pretty quite in regards to Lacy Act until the constrictors started growing in Florida. 
And we are not "paying" anything. Read the statement on Amphibian Arks web page from Amphibian Ark.


----------



## Dane (Aug 19, 2004)

It's much cheaper to ban than to regulate. I realize that there is nothing in this particular proposal mentioning Dendrobatids, but it opens the door for unopposed limitations, and blanket restrictions.


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

What is the impact of not having any regulations what so ever?


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

Lets not forget the spread by migratory water fowl.


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

And that was my original point. Who is going to deal with situations where there is an issue? Who is responsible for conservation in America? Who keeps smuggling in check? 
The USFWS could be the best ally the herp hobby had. Does anyone ever call other than to complain? The Herp community would pull more weight as an ally


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

And I try to eat my fair share of waterfowl to help


----------



## Web Wheeler (May 9, 2010)

I believe this is an IMMEDIATE, EXTREMELY URGENT, matter for all amphibian and reptile keepers.

Please see CatX Update: FWS Amphibian Ban!

Please do your best to let others know about this!


----------



## MrBiggs (Oct 3, 2006)

Scott Richardson said:


> What is the impact of not having any regulations what so ever?


Increased freedoms?


----------



## Scott Richardson (Dec 23, 2010)

MrBiggs said:


> Increased freedoms?


Don't forget increased diseases, increased smuggling, increased frog deaths in shipment. increased illegal harvesting to the point of extinction. But hey, we have freedom and can do what we want. 
Regulations in the US actually protect wild populations. If illegally harvested frogs were not banned here, how long would it take collectors to wipe out wild populations?


----------



## MrBiggs (Oct 3, 2006)

Scott Richardson said:


> Don't forget increased diseases, increased smuggling, increased frog deaths in shipment. increased illegal harvesting to the point of extinction. But hey, we have freedom and can do what we want.
> Regulations in the US actually protect wild populations. If illegally harvested frogs were not banned here, how long would it take collectors to wipe out wild populations?


I'm not saying there should be no regulations I'm simply saying that if the choice is between too many regulations and too few I'd choose too few every time. 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## josh_r (Feb 4, 2005)

MrBiggs said:


> I'm not saying there should be no regulations I'm simply saying that if the choice is between too many regulations and too few I'd choose too few every time.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


there needs to be a healthy balance between the 2... which there obviously isn't at this point... One side always points the finger at the other side and that just makes tempers flare and creates problems. Fish and wildlife has done it's fair share of really really stupid stuff... but so have many people in the hobby. Both sides have aided in the spread of chytri and other disasterous messes.. I have to say I agree with Scott, it is time that the hobby and F&W start working together instead of against each other. Both sides would benetif from it. In the end, the government is always going to have their say and their way if they want it bad enough.... push them too far and say good bye to your beloved hobby. Befriend them and see your hobby continue to flourish. This is coming to a head and is about to burst... You choose what comes out.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

josh_r said:


> there needs to be a healthy balance between the 2... which there obviously isn't at this point... One side always points the finger at the other side and that just makes tempers flare and creates problems. Fish and wildlife has done it's fair share of really really stupid stuff... but so have many people in the hobby. Both sides have aided in the spread of chytri and other disasterous messes.. I have to say I agree with Scott, it is time that the hobby and F&W start working together instead of against each other. Both sides would benetif from it. In the end, the government is always going to have their say and their way if they want it bad enough.... push them too far and say good bye to your beloved hobby. Befriend them and see your hobby continue to flourish. This is coming to a head and is about to burst... You choose what comes out.


You're naïve if you think F&W gives a crap about the hobby. Sure they take into consideration economic impact but they could care less about all of us keeping frogs. Given the chance to work together they would enforce their will and agenda saying they have all the scientific backing, studies, experts and we're just a bunch of frog keepers. While certainly we are just as concerned about the environment as they are, there would be no compromise, they would just be like every other oppressive government entity, heartless, seemingly brainless and intent on their own tunnel vision agenda.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

I sent the letter thingy.... The hobby isn't perfect, but I don't wanna see it cease to exist.


----------



## Dave II (Dec 18, 2011)

So instead of fighting it, why not be concerned with how to get certified to sell across state lines?? Try working with them showing we are responsible instead of just blatantly fighting it across the board. Just my 2..


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

Because you can't.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

Dave II said:


> So instead of fighting it, why not be concerned with how to get certified to sell across state lines?? Try working with them showing we are responsible instead of just blatantly fighting it across the board. Just my 2..


As one Dave, speaking to another Dave...that is a nice sentiment Dave (truly)  But I'm afraid the Jason is probably right. At the very least it would likely be very difficult if not entirely impractical because of the nature of how our government works. Also we would be working from a position of basically having already lost our hobby for the most part and trying to cling to, or get back some small part. And sadly some difficulty would arise because by in large, it isn't responsible keepers that got us into this mess...it is irresponsible ones, forces outside/beyond the hobby entirely (logging, energy, farming, pollution, habitat destruction etc..), or clueless idiots outside the hobby with their own agendas that will sabotage us by their vary nature at every turn. 

We can't count on the government, we can't count on all the reptile amphibian keepers...We can only count on ourselves to be good keepers and others that are good keepers. But without those, without an US...there is no Hobby, and that US and the hobby that makes us an US... is much of the driving force behind conservation of reptiles and amphibians. Isn't it? My guess is without a hobby to remind us, drive us, inspire us to reach out to others outside the hobby...we would see herp and amphibian related conservation take a fairly significant hit, if not immediately...then over time.


----------



## Dave II (Dec 18, 2011)

JJuchems said:


> Because you can't.


If that were true how did the reefing hobby get around their blanket ban on corals?


----------



## josh_r (Feb 4, 2005)

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> You're naïve if you think F&W gives a crap about the hobby. Sure they take into consideration economic impact but they could care less about all of us keeping frogs. Given the chance to work together they would enforce their will and agenda saying they have all the scientific backing, studies, experts and we're just a bunch of frog keepers. While certainly we are just as concerned about the environment as they are, there would be no compromise, they would just be like every other oppressive government entity, heartless, seemingly brainless and intent on their own tunnel vision agenda.


Now where did I ever say that fish and wildlife cares about our hobby? You are naive for making an assumption. What I mean is if both sides cooperate instead of fight, both sides can acheive some sort of gain... We get to keep our hobby and fish and wildlife gets to profit in some way or another. The only thing fish and wildlife is going to care about is gain in some sort of way... That is all the government ever cares about... They don't care about your precious america or your precious people, just money unfortunately. But the point is, they are the ones with control. If you want to keep you precious hobby, you may have to bite the bullet, tuck your tail between your legs and cooperate with them. Because in the end, the government will always get what they want and the people are generally too stupid to see it coming.


----------

