Moroccan Sight Hound “Toby” takes Best of Breed at 141st Westminster 2017

Welcome to the all-new ASLA Times, the official quarterly publication of the American Sloughi Association. This fully searchable online magazine will only be available in the future in a members-only restricted area of the ASLA web site as one of the many benefits of membership in ASLA. This is the… Continue reading

Read more via ASLA Times April 2017 — American Sloughi Association

Big Cat Public Safety Act: USFWS v. USDA

08270149-aa9f-4e80-bf2d-e81486d697e3-2060x1236

On March 30, 2017 the Big Cat Public Safety Act (H.R. 1818) was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives. Proponents of H.R. 1818 laud it as a bi-partisan effort to “prohibit private ownership of captive lions, tigers, and other big cats in the US.” — in other words, pets. However, this characterization appears disingenuous as most states already prohibit the ownership of big cats as pets. If passed as written, the primary impact of H.R. 1818 would be directed at zoos and sanctuaries that are not ideologically aligned with proponents espousing historical anti-captive wildlife sentiments.

Usurping the Animal Welfare Act
In a joint press release animal rights groups proclaimed H.R. 1818 would strengthen the Captive Wildlife Safety Act (CWSA). The CWSA is the 2003 Lacey Act amendment mandating interstate transport of big cats be limited to facilities licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and their registered agents. This amendment is consistent with the primary directive of the Lacey Act which is to combat “trafficking” in “illegal” wildlife. The Lacey Act was never intended to regulate animal welfare. That is the dominion of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). However, H.R. 1818 seeks to expand the authority of the Lacey Act empowering U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to regulate “animal welfare” and “legal” wildlife, points of established law administered by USDA through licensing and inspections of qualified facilities.

Dan Ashe, former Director of FWS and current CEO of the AZA, has long maintained working relationships with radical animal rights proponents of the Big Cat Public Safety Act, particularly Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States.

ashedan_032317gn_lead

Dan Ashe, CEO of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums— © Greg Nash

Previous versions of the Big Cat Public Safety Act offered an exemption to facilities accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), a trade association favored by bill proponents for instituting animal rights policies into AZA accreditation. These same proponents have been engaged in an ongoing smear campaign against any zoo or aquarium accredited by rival trade associations. H.R. 1818 would continue to favor AZA, although no longer exempting them by name. The exemption is accomplished by inserting specific AZA policies regarding handling and breeding directly into the bill language. Using the Lacey Act as a vehicle, the bill seeks to rewrite a broad swath of USDA animal welfare regulations by doing an end run around the AWA. These animal rights groups hope to supersede regulations they were unsuccessful at changing in the AWA. If H.R. 1818 were to pass, FWS, without any experience caring for or regulating captive wildlife, would administrate and enforce the new regulations.

H.R. 1818- Big Cat Public Safety Act:
Section 3 Prohibitions, (e) Captive Wildlife Offense, (2) Limitation on Application,  paragraph (1)(A), subparagraphs i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii and viii presume to rewrite and supersede an area of established law pertaining to the “animal welfare” of “legal” wildlife regulated by USDA under authority of the Animal Welfare Act, while maintaining an exemption for AZA zoos.

Public Safety or Animal Rights?
Most of the accidents with big cats, lethal and otherwise, have occurred at AZA zoos that are exempted from this legislation; most notably, San Francisco Zoo in 2007 when a tiger killed a patron and injured two others— and most recently, Palm Beach Zoo in 2016 when a tiger killed a zookeeper. There are only a small handful of states that don’t strictly regulate big cats, and a death from a pet tiger hasn’t been recorded since 2003.

At the end of the day, animal welfare is not under the purview of the Lacey Act. Further, FWS is not equipped to administer animal welfare regulations. Unquestionably, funding for this unprecedented and duplicative overreach will be difficult to appropriate under the Trump administration. Proponents of the Big Cat Public Safety Act have misled bill sponsors. There is no crisis looming. The Big Cat Public Safety Act is not about public safety. It is about picking favorites and eliminating zoos that will not voluntarily adopt the policies of the radical animal rights movement.

Landmark Victory for USARK in Python Ban Lawsuit

american-flag-gavel-scales-of-justice

“Scales” of Justice prove true for Herpetoculture

Washington DC— April 7, 2017. The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit in the case of the United States Association of Reptile Keepers v. Ryan Zinke, Secretary of The Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Humane Society of the United States and Center for Biological Diversity, ruled in favor of USARK on the question of Lacey Act authority to prohibit interstate transport of species listed as “injurious” under the Lacey Act. The court held that, “the government lacks authority under the shipment clause to prohibit shipments of injurious species between the ‘continental’ States.”

264575_210697215640070_6306357_n5-300x225What does all of this mean?
The way has now been cleared to legally resume trade of the Burmese python, North African python, South African python, reticulated python, DeSchauensee’s anaconda,  Beni anaconda, green anaconda and yellow anaconda within the “continental United States.” However, it appears that injurious species cannot be transported into the District of Columbia. The shipment clause specifically references the “continental United States,” “Hawaii,” the “Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,” and “any possession of the United States”, and the “District of Columbia” as distinct designations. In the court’s opinion the “District of Columbia” is an expressly separate designation from the “continental United States,” and specifically identified as prohibited in the shipment clause. In conclusion, it appears that there will be no legal transport into Washington, DC without the appropriate permits.

Congress defined the phrase “continental United States” in a statute enacted by the same Congress in the year before the 1960 addition of the shipment clause. See Pub. L. No. 86-70, § 48, 73 Stat. 141, 154 (1959); see also 1 U.S.C. § 1 note. Under that definition, “[w]henever the phrase ‘continental United States’ is used in any law of the United States enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, it shall mean the 49 States on the North American Continent and the District of Columbia, unless otherwise expressly provided.”

Keep in mind that all nine constrictor snakes continue to be listed as injurious under the Lacey Act. Export and interstate transport are allowed. However import without a special permit is a felony and strictly prohibited. Violations can carry heavy fines and prison time.

Categorical Exclusion: CatX
Additionally, in 2015, in an unprecedented move, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service empowered itself to shortcut the rule making process under the Lacey Act in order to more easily declare injurious wildlife listings, making way for mass listing of species. Known as CatX, this rule has negatively impacted herpetoculture, and the pet trade by removing scientific justification from the listing process. This led to the listing of 201 salamander species in 2016, prohibiting the import and interstate trade of captive bred specimens. However, the ruling by the court on the authority of the Lacey Act to prohibit interstate transport now opens the way to resume trade of listed captive bred salamander species in the continental U.S., removing CatX’s teeth as a blunt force instrument to prohibit captive breeding programs on American soil. Listed species may be exported. However import without permit is a felony.

The bottom line is that CatX and the Python Ban now prohibit import only, and the Court’s Ruling has effectively clipped the wings of the radical animal rights industry seeking to use the Lacey Act to interfere with captive breeding programs in this country.

http://www.troutmansanders.com/george-y-sugiyama-joins-troutman-sanders-washington-dc-office-03-21-2012/

George Sugiyama, former Chief Minority Counsel, Senate EPW ~ Troutman Sanders

History of the USARK Lawsuit
In 2011, as then-CEO of the U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK), I led the fight against the listing of nine constrictor snakes as injurious under the Lacey Act. During the course of many visits to Capitol Hill, I met with George Sugiyama, Chief Minority Counsel for the Senate Environmental and Public Works (EPW) Committee. Mr. Sugiyama suggested to me, that in his legal opinion, FWS under the Lacey Act, did not have the authority to restrict interstate transport of species listed as injurious. I loved the simplicity of his argument and directed USARK’s counsel to further research and vet the idea. Subsequently, we hatched a plan, and created a blueprint for a lawsuit challenging the FWS’ authority to regulate interstate transport. The architects of the lawsuit were George Sugiyama, Joan Galvin and myself.

I spent most all of 2012 lobbying the USARK Board of Directors to move forward with the lawsuit. USARK finally filed that lawsuit against then-Interior Secretary Sally Jewell (USARK v. Jewell et al.) in the Federal District Court of Washington, DC in December of 2013— 11 months after I resigned from the organization. In the end it doesn’t matter why they waited. The point is, USARK did file the lawsuit, my strategy proved to be the correct one as illustrated by the court, and herpetoculture gets a huge victory that will resonate for years to come!

The Injurious Wildlife listing under the Lacey Act can no longer be used as the weapon it once was against domestic herpetoculture in the United States.

Congratulations USARK and the Reptile Nation for a job well done!
Working on behalf of USARK Joan Galvin, Shawn Gehan, David Frulla, Paul C. Rosenthal, Richard Stanley, and an anonymous legal contributor all played crucial roles in bring this lawsuit to fruition. In addition there have been countless volunteers and fundraisers that contributed and funded this unprecedented success that has been 9 years in the making. It has been my honor and privilege to play my part. My sincerest thank you to USARK and the entire Reptile Nation in this monumental victory for herpetoculture!


Happy Birthday USARK! — Many people don’t know, even the current officers of USARK, but USARK was founded as a trade association dedicated to the interests of herpetoculture on April 5, 2008 in Chicago, specifically to fight the Python Ban. The founding principal was Andrew Wyatt, formerly the founder and president of the North Carolina Association of Reptile Keepers (NCARK). The co-founders of USARK included Mack Robinette, Lou Sangermano, Ralph Davis, Doug Price, Sherry Tregembo, Jeff Ronnie, Warren Booth, Shawn Heflick, Brian Sharp, and Dan and Colette Sutherland. This group would become the USARK Board of Directors electing Wyatt as president and CEO in April 2008. April 5, 2017 was USARK’s Birthday. Happy Birthday to a young and successful trade association.


Andrew Wyatt is a government affairs and policy consultant that works exclusively in the wildlife sector.

Ula and me“Wildlife issues are highly charged and contentious. I specialize in articulating clear policy ideas and getting them in front of key decision makers. Please follow ‘The Last Word on Wildlife’ for insight and analysis particular to the 21st century wildlife sector. If you would like to discuss the potential advantages of creating a comprehensive business/government affairs strategy, or a more targeted issue campaign, please call or email me.” ~ Andrew Wyatt


© 2017 Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word on Wildlife. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word on Wildlife with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Winds of Change: Opportunity for Gain?

Golden Eagle

Eagle take is strictly regulated under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1962

Opportunity Knocks
Donald J. Trump, whether you like him or not, is the new President of the United States. That could mean big changes for wildlife policy. During his address to the joint session of congress last week, Trump made it clear that the priorities of his Administration will be far different from those of his predecessor. While life under the Obama Administration proved difficult for many wildlife stakeholders, opportunities to influence future policy at the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), are within reach of those that seize the initiative.

After almost a decade under siege by powerful special interest groups and unfriendly government agencies, it will be interesting to see if stakeholders that were under the knife with Obama go on the offensive under Trump.

Change is in the Air
It’s no secret that agency culture at USDA and FWS became decidedly anti-business and anti-resource use under the Obama Administration. With Hilary Clinton the heir apparent as next in line for the Presidency, animal rights and environmentalist organizations were giddy with prospects for a further expansion of power and influence in a Clinton Administration. However, the unexpected victory of Donald Trump brought those aspirations to a screeching halt. In this new political climate, like their opposition before them, wildlife stakeholders stand to make significant gains of their own.

Unless there are significant economic implications, most wildlife issues will not be a priority for the new Administration. The President made it clear that his focus will be on replacing Obama-care, tax reform, energy production and infrastructure. Most of the administrative regulatory changes previously under review, will likely never see the light of day. But while that may be a relief to many, it is a double edged sword for those who are faced with trying to garner attention to a much needed roll-back of bad regulations already put in place by the outgoing Administration.

Damages Done
Particularly hard hit by rule changes were herpetoculture and antique ivory interests. The arbitrary nature of these rules from FWS have yielded damages to stakeholders that could measure upwards of $100 million in lost jobs, assets and income. The challenge then becomes, when the new Administration is focused on weighty issues like repealing Obama-care and tax reform, how to bring attention to issues like Lacey Act over-reach or the trade of certain rare antiquities?

Wildlife Rules Enacted Under Obama Administration

  • FWS — Injurious Wildlife Listing of 9 Constricting Snakes — Python Ban
  • FWS — Categorical Exemption from NEPA Requirements on Lacey Act listings — CatX
  • FWS — Injurious Wildlife Listing of 201 Salamander Species– Salamnder Ban
  • USDA/Aphis — Handling and Husbandry of Neonatal Nondomestic Cats
  • FWS — Rule for the African Elephant, Endangered Species Act — Ivory Ban

There are also questions of internal decisions at regional FWS offices regarding limits on the issuance of wildlife take permits for species that have already been approved for specific use. The decision making process appears to be colored by a culture that is decidedly anti-hunting. Mid-level agency administrators are making decisions that are contrary to approved FWS policy. But where there is minimal economic impact, it can be difficult to bring these injustices to the attention of policy makers.

Fear of Loss is a Greater Motivator than Opportunity for Gain
Some believe, contrary to the results they have been able to produce, that grass roots activism has a significant influence on policy direction. There is no doubt that grass roots can have its place, especially in the legislative arena. Ten years ago, when I was the CEO of a trade association, we mounted a massive grass roots campaign defeating HR 669 in the House Natural Resources Committee. Our 50,000 hand written letters had to be carted into committee, and gave members more than enough cover to kill HR 669. However, “fear of loss” motivated that unprecedented response at committee. We are now talking about “opportunity for gain.” If you have been unable to accomplish your agency goals, it is unlikely that writing more letters and making more calls will provide the political leverage needed to effect that change. It can help, but it won’t win the day.

You Need a Plan
Don’t get me wrong, grass roots activism can be very effective, but it works best when it is part and parcel of a comprehensive strategy, not the alpha and omega of your advocacy efforts. You must have a comprehensive plan that sets benchmarks and creates an integrated blueprint for business, communications, fundraising and government affairs. If you can’t clearly see how to reach your goals, the chances of realizing them are slim to none. One thing is for sure, if you continue to do what you have always done, you will continue to get what you have always gotten.

It would be a monumental waste for stakeholders not to take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity for gains in the wildlife sector. Whether it’s making new law, roll-back of bad regulations, or holding agencies accountable, it won’t happen by itself. In order to realize positive change, you must be able to open doors and get your issues in front of those who can make a real difference. You need a plan. It’s not too late, but you have to be in the game to have a chance to win.


Frequently Asked Questions

  • What are the benefits of professional advocacy?
  • Does grass roots advocacy really work?
  • How do I create a strategic business/government affairs plan? 
  • Is a communications strategy important?
  • What is the difference between a bill and a proposed rule?
  • How do we get a rule “rolled back?”
  • Can we get permitting expedited?
  • How can creating a caucus help?
  • What is an issue campaign?
  • How do we get more than “lip service” from my member of congress?
  • How do we get accountable answers from federal agencies?
  • Why don’t agency employees care what we want?
  • How can we raise funds to pay for advocacy/legal assistance?

Andrew Wyatt is a government affairs and policy consultant that works exclusively in the wildlife sector.

WyattP1“Wildlife issues are highly charged and contentious. I specialize in articulating clear policy ideas and getting them in front of key decision makers. Please follow ‘The Last Word on Wildlife’ for insight and analysis particular to the 21st century wildlife sector. If you would like to discuss the potential advantages of creating a comprehensive business/government affairs strategy, or a more targeted issue campaign, please call or email me.” ~ Andrew Wyatt


© Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word on Wildlife, 2017. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word on Wildlife with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Some Like It Hot: Venomous Reptiles in Florida

Florida's FWC to update Venomous Reptile regulations

Florida’s FWC to update Venomous Reptile regulations

Venomous Reptiles and Rule Change
The State of Florida has a long and storied history with captive venomous reptiles going back almost a century with famed herpetologists Ross Allen and Bill Haast. But in the wake of two high profile venomous snake escapes, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has come under increased political pressure to tighten up venomous reptile regulations in the name of “public safety.” A new proposed rule is in the works, and there will likely be significant changes in regulation for zoos, venom labs and private keepers alike. FWC is currently accepting input from stakeholders through an online survey at www.surveymonkey.com/r/VR-Rule. Deadline for the surveys is July 27, 2016. There is also an opportunity to make public comment directly to FWC.

VRTAG
FWC has created a venomous reptiles working group known as the Venomous Reptiles Technical Assistance Group (VRTAG) to solicit stake holder input as a part of the process of formulating a draft proposed rule. FWC has a history of using TAG groups when seeking subject matter expertise on a given issue. I was selected as a resource to the VRTAG by FWC to represent clients in the zoo sector on behalf of Vitello Consulting. VRTAG meetings were held in early June and again in early July. Although the working group meetings were well run and allowed for an open exchange of ideas, there were clear lines of disagreement between FWC staff and the majority of VRTAG members.

The biggest point of contention between VRTAG members and FWC staff centered on a proposed three tier system of classification for venomous reptiles, with Tier I reptiles being unavailable for possession by private keepers that don’t meet the definition of “commercial” — such as dealers, zoos or venom labs. There could also be an increase in documented hours and/or educational requirements for venomous reptile license applications. Focus would be on incrementally moving up the tier system over time like building blocks — i.e., with Tier III being a prerequisite for Tier II, and Tier II a prerequisite for Tier I. Additionally, a proposed rule would likely require secondary containment for all three tiers, with tertiary “lockout doors,” specially constructed “out buildings,” and “pit tag” identification for Tier I reptiles.

Public Comment
Aside from the online survey that is being conducted by FWC, it is imperative that anyone who has an interest in venomous reptiles in Florida to make a substantive public comment. This is not just an up or down vote. If you want your public comment to carry weight, you must submit “substantive” public comment. That is a comment that specifically addresses concerns about the current draft of the proposed rule, or suggests alternatives to provisions of the draft. Being generally for or against the draft rule will not carry much weight.

Make Public Comment to FWC regarding Venomous Reptiles and the VRTAG!

Please make public comments here:  MyFWC.com/wildlifehabitats/captive-wildlife/recommendations/

Below are all of the current documents forming the basis for a draft proposed rule. Provisions of the draft rule will likely change at least somewhat. I should have an updated draft sometime in September. I will post an update as soon as possible.


Andrew Wyatt is a government affairs and policy consultant that works exclusively in the wildlife sector.

WyattP1“Venomous Reptiles and other wildlife issues are highly charged and contentious. I specialize in working with clients to employ campaign style tactics to change hearts and minds on vital wildlife issues. Please follow The Last Word on Wildlife for insight and analysis particular to the 21st century wildlife sector. If you would like to discuss the potential advantages of running a targeted issue campaign, and/or a comprehensive government affairs strategy, please call or email me.” ~ Andrew Wyatt


© Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word on Wildlife, 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Andrew Wyatt and The Last Word on Wildlife with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Angry Tweets Won’t Help African Lions

“… hunting was never really the main problem.” ~ Richard Conniff for The New York Times

strange behaviors

ZWE_BWA_120928_1701_04284_F-Blog (Photo: Craig Taylor/Panthera)

by Richard Conniff/The New York Times

THE killing of Zimbabwe’s celebrated Cecil the Lion by a Minnesota dentist, on July 1 of last year unleashed a storm of moral fulmination against trophy hunting. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals issued an official statement calling for the hunter, Walter J. Palmer, to be hanged, and an odd bedfellow, Newt Gingrich, tweeted that Dr. Palmer and the entire team involved in the killing of Cecil should go to jail. The television personality Sharon Osbourne thought merely losing “his home, his practice and his money” would do, adding, “He has already lost his soul.”

More than one million people signed a petition demanding “justice for Cecil,” and three major American airlines announced that they would no longer transport hunting trophies. A few months later, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service listed lions from West and Central…

View original post 138 more words

Fossil Rim factors into scimitar-horned oryx reintroduction

“Fossil Rim embodies the spirit of captive conservation.”– Andrew Wyatt

Words On Wildlife

On the other side of the world, animals that have been extinct in the wild since 2000 are mere months away from roaming freely in their native land once again.

The first 25 of 500 scimitar-horned oryx set for reintroduction into Chad arrived in the country March 14. The project’s driving force is the Environmental Agency – Abu Dhabi (EAD).

With the green light, participants at 17 locations across America, Europe and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were able to begin shipping oryx to Abu Dhabi, the UAE capital, with the goal of building a “world herd.” From there, the first 25 were sent to Chad.

SHO exit crates A couple of the first 25 scimitar-horned oryx from the “world herd” hit the ground running in Chad after being transported from Abu Dhabi. Currently in a fenced area, they are slated for release into the wild August 21. Thus far, Fossil Rim Wildlife…

View original post 1,427 more words