DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE INTERSTATE BAN NOW: easy version

[CaudataCam]

I'm wondering if anyone knows what the current standing on the ban is? Since it's past the 28th already I'm wondering what is the decision and all that?

 

[Chinadog]

Its an interim ruling that means the current ban on the species listed stays in place while they hear people's comments and finalise or alter the final version that will stay in place thereafter.

 

[Jennewt]

Its an interim ruling that means the current ban on the species listed stays in place while they hear people's comments and finalise or alter the final version that will stay in place thereafter.

Right. As of now, the Interim rule is in place and shipping is illegal. We have until March 14 to make public comments, and then it is likely to take several months, at least, until the final rule is issued.

 

[Nioa]

Oh my gosh, I wish I heard about this earlier. I just wrote a very long comment about how I'm against the interstate ban. I hope this helps! I'm gonna' see if I can get a few of my friends to do the same. I hope it's not too late already.

 

[Nioa]

I posted something on tumblr to spread the word and got a fairly popular reptile blog to reblog it! It seems to be getting a whole bunch of attention now, I also pasted your comment about it Otter, so people that see the post can use it.

 

[Devo]

I am posting information some may find useful in addressing the salamander lisitng by USFWS,

The proposal by USFWS to list 201 species of salamanders and newts as injurious under the Lacey Act is absurd

At the onset, both scientists and USFWS addressing this serious issue should be praised for their efforts.
However, the listing of the range of species as injurious is not only not based on fact but also conveys false information, in fact untruths when the FAQ (http://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/pdf_files/Bsal-External-QA-F.pdf ) by USFWS states that the 201 species listed are potential carriers of the fungus. This is false and puts into question the qualifications of those who developed this proposal.
Let’s look at the facts. The basis for the listings was the groundbreaking paper on Bsal by by Martel et al (2014). In the paper a range of species were TESTED IN THE LABORATORY for their susceptibility to Bsal and mortality of the tested species.
A. See Martel,* M. Blooi, C. Adriaensen, P. Van Rooij, W. Beukema, M. C. Fisher, R. A. Farrer, B. R. Schmidt, U. Tobler, K. Goka, K. R. Lips, C. Muletz, K. Zamudio, J. Bosch, S. Lötters, E. Wombwell, T. W. J. Garner, A. A. Cunningham, A. Spitzen-van der Sluijs, S. Salvidio, R. Ducatelle, K. Nishikawa, T. T. Nguyen, J. E. Kolby, I. Van Bocxlaer, F. Bossuyt, F. Pasmans. 2014 Recent introduction of a chytrid fungus endangers Western Palearctic salamanders. Science 346, 630 (2014)
B. To see charts, results of tests ,lists of species tested, susceptibility and mortality go here
www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6209/630/suppl/DC1
The USFWS listing was based on the species tested IN THE LABORATORY and shown to become infected and died when exposed to Bsal UNDER LABORATORY CONDITIONS. US species were shown not be natural carriers of Bsal and there is no evidence that Bsal is in the US. The results also show that the species presumed to be source of infection in European Salamandra were Asian species, specifically some species of Cynops, Paramesotriton, Tylototriton,Hynobius, Onychodactylus, Salamandrella. No US wc species was found to carry Bsal, only that,if exposed to Bsal in the laboratory, most showed signs of infection and died. There is no evidence of Bsal being present in US salamanders.
Worth noting is that members of Ambystoma and Gyrinophilus were tested and proved resistant to the fungus therefore were not listed By USFWS. The only reason other US genera (e.g.,Cryptobranchus, Necturus, Pseudobranchus) were not listed was because they were NOT TESTED IN THE LABORATORY for their susceptibility to Bsal.
In Europe where Bsal is believed to have been introduced by Asian imports, it was found in populations of Salamandra and Alpine newts in the Netherlands and in Belgium. It has also been found in captive Salamandra in the UK and Germany (not sure if detected in wild German populations).
The research by Martel et. al shows that most susceptible species exposed to Bsal in the lab showed signs of infection within 8 days and were dead within 3-4 weeks. This means that non-resistant infected species in captive collections would have died during the two month interim ban.
For USFWS to list US salamanders as injurious under the Lacey act is absurd. They are susceptible, not carriers. Even ones currently in captive collections if exposed to Bsal would be dead within a month.
To put the listing of US species in perspective, consider that a sample of humans from 50 countries are exposed in the laboratory to ebola. All get infected and the overwhelming majority die. On this basis a law bans interstate and international travel of humans from travel because Homo sapiens is susceptible to ebola. This is the kind of absurd logic used here and it boggles the mind that a government agency should have used this as a basis for listing as injurious species. Let’s make this clear no US salamander or newt to date is a known carrier of Bsal. No US salamander species should be listed as injurious under the Lacey Act. Neither should most genera other than Asian ones but I will address this in another post.
Anyone wanting to present comments to USFWS on this topic needs to read the above mentioned references. Without it, you will be missing the point.

 

[Jennewt]

Thank you for the thorough response, FrogEyes. If I understand what you're saying correctly, since this regulation is under Title 18 of the Lacey Act, it should theoretically be legal to personally transport or hand-carry one of the 201 listed species across state lines. E.g., an individual could go to a reptile expo in a neighboring state, buy some newts, and bring them back to their home state as long as the species in question is not illegal in that state or in the state where they were purchased. Does that sound correct?

Regarding Frogeye's interpretation of "shipping" vs. "transport"... with a good lawyer, he might prevail in court, but his interpretation is NOT the one USFWS is taking. Anyone hand-carrying prohibited animals/parts across state lines will be breaking the law, as they interpret it. They make this clear in their FAQ, which explains that even taking an animal across state lines to visit a veterinarian would be considered a violation. See the Q&A document linked from this page:
Injurious Wildlife: Listing Salamanders as Injurious Due to Risk of Salamander Chytrid Fungus

 

[manderkeeper]

As much as we love being able to trade salamanders, it's not worth having to hire an attorney and go to court over. I would certainly hope no one ventures over the state lines anytime soon. Let us wait and see what happens with USARK's case regarding the transport across state lines before taking any chances.

 

[taherman]

Actually Plethodon and Siren were also shown to be resistant to the fungus, with Plethodon completely immune. Most U.S. species tested were actually found to be resistant, 5 of 7. Only the two newts (Taricha and Notophthalmus) died of the infection in the laboratory.

I am posting information some may find useful in addressing the salamander lisitng by USFWS,

The proposal by USFWS to list 201 species of salamanders and newts as injurious under the Lacey Act is absurd

At the onset, both scientists and USFWS addressing this serious issue should be praised for their efforts.
However, the listing of the range of species as injurious is not only not based on fact but also conveys false information, in fact untruths when the FAQ (http://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/pdf_files/Bsal-External-QA-F.pdf ) by USFWS states that the 201 species listed are potential carriers of the fungus. This is false and puts into question the qualifications of those who developed this proposal.
Let’s look at the facts. The basis for the listings was the groundbreaking paper on Bsal by by Martel et al (2014). In the paper a range of species were TESTED IN THE LABORATORY for their susceptibility to Bsal and mortality of the tested species.
A. See Martel,* M. Blooi, C. Adriaensen, P. Van Rooij, W. Beukema, M. C. Fisher, R. A. Farrer, B. R. Schmidt, U. Tobler, K. Goka, K. R. Lips, C. Muletz, K. Zamudio, J. Bosch, S. Lötters, E. Wombwell, T. W. J. Garner, A. A. Cunningham, A. Spitzen-van der Sluijs, S. Salvidio, R. Ducatelle, K. Nishikawa, T. T. Nguyen, J. E. Kolby, I. Van Bocxlaer, F. Bossuyt, F. Pasmans. 2014 Recent introduction of a chytrid fungus endangers Western Palearctic salamanders. Science 346, 630 (2014)
B. To see charts, results of tests ,lists of species tested, susceptibility and mortality go here
www.sciencemag.org/content/346/6209/630/suppl/DC1
The USFWS listing was based on the species tested IN THE LABORATORY and shown to become infected and died when exposed to Bsal UNDER LABORATORY CONDITIONS. US species were shown not be natural carriers of Bsal and there is no evidence that Bsal is in the US. The results also show that the species presumed to be source of infection in European Salamandra were Asian species, specifically some species of Cynops, Paramesotriton, Tylototriton,Hynobius, Onychodactylus, Salamandrella. No US wc species was found to carry Bsal, only that,if exposed to Bsal in the laboratory, most showed signs of infection and died. There is no evidence of Bsal being present in US salamanders.
Worth noting is that members of Ambystoma and Gyrinophilus were tested and proved resistant to the fungus therefore were not listed By USFWS. The only reason other US genera (e.g.,Cryptobranchus, Necturus, Pseudobranchus) were not listed was because they were NOT TESTED IN THE LABORATORY for their susceptibility to Bsal.
In Europe where Bsal is believed to have been introduced by Asian imports, it was found in populations of Salamandra and Alpine newts in the Netherlands and in Belgium. It has also been found in captive Salamandra in the UK and Germany (not sure if detected in wild German populations).
The research by Martel et. al shows that most susceptible species exposed to Bsal in the lab showed signs of infection within 8 days and were dead within 3-4 weeks. This means that non-resistant infected species in captive collections would have died during the two month interim ban.
For USFWS to list US salamanders as injurious under the Lacey act is absurd. They are susceptible, not carriers. Even ones currently in captive collections if exposed to Bsal would be dead within a month.
To put the listing of US species in perspective, consider that a sample of humans from 50 countries are exposed in the laboratory to ebola. All get infected and the overwhelming majority die. On this basis a law bans interstate and international travel of humans from travel because Homo sapiens is susceptible to ebola. This is the kind of absurd logic used here and it boggles the mind that a government agency should have used this as a basis for listing as injurious species. Let’s make this clear no US salamander or newt to date is a known carrier of Bsal. No US salamander species should be listed as injurious under the Lacey Act. Neither should most genera other than Asian ones but I will address this in another post.
Anyone wanting to present comments to USFWS on this topic needs to read the above mentioned references. Without it, you will be missing the point.

 

[Devo]

I actually posted a question on Facebook to see if anyone had information in why all Plethodon were listed when they proved as resistant as Gyrinophilus, which was not listed, and have gotten no reply. A question is what US Plethodontids are susceptible to infection if any?The European plethodontid tested Hydromantes became infected and died following exposure. Salamandrids generally appear extremely susceptible to infection. Whatever the case, the proposed listing of most species is based on bad science or rather bad interpretation of science. This should be a component of all comments made on this topic. The references have been posted in a prior posting.

 

[BwKilcoyne]

I have submitted a comment on the federal register website, sent letters to my senators and representative, signed the petition, and even got in contact with USARK for help and encouraged my friends and family to do the same and some of them will. Is there anything else that may be beneficial?

 

[wyzazz]

Just got a call back from one of my State Reps, keep on calling/emailing!

 

[manderkeeper]

It's pretty obvious why. The order has come from the top down to ban herps. This is wave 1, just watch and see, more to come soon.

 

[Nioa]

I really want to make this more public before the ban becomes permanent for everyone to slowly find out later. I'm gonna see if I can get popular reptile/herp Youtubers to get involved and make videos about it.

 

[Nioa]

The tumblr post I've made has backfired quite a bit. :x

Someone took over the post and deleted all of my information and replaced it with basically "We don't want Bsal in the U.S., don't sign the petition." I guess they didn't read the petition really.

That post has about 800 notes while mine only has about 150. I tried to talk to them and explain the situation, but they wouldn't budge.

I'm so frustrated with this entire thing right now.

 

[jewett]

Just to bump this as a reminder that the opportunity to act against this ban will end a week from today. If you have been postponing action for any reason, now is the time to write your comments and do what you can to save your hobby.

HJ

 

[eyrops]

This was my comment:

I support the importation ban, but believe the interstate shipment ban is counterproductive. The community of amateur salamander keepers and breeders is significant. Requiring licensing and testing for disease for those engaged in interstate shipment is preferable. Amateurs and professional breeders have made and continue to make significant contributions to our knowledge of salamanders. The Caudata Culture Home Page culture section is an example of that. That which clarifies the requirements of captive salamanders often can provide insight into their requirements in the wild. Given the limited resources of academic researchers and the amount that we do not yet know about our salamanders it makes sense to support rather than suppress amateur and commercial keepers and breeder's contributions to this knowledge. Accounts of first captive reproduction of salamanders have been posted in Caudata.org. Much has also been contributed that can serve as seed for academic research. I believe that licensing and testing would be accepted by the community.

 

[Tw1st3dR0s3]

The tumblr post I've made has backfired quite a bit. :x

Someone took over the post and deleted all of my information and replaced it with basically "We don't want Bsal in the U.S., don't sign the petition." I guess they didn't read the petition really.

That post has about 800 notes while mine only has about 150. I tried to talk to them and explain the situation, but they wouldn't budge.

I'm so frustrated with this entire thing right now.

I saw that post on my Tumblr newsfeed a few days ago. It was unsettling especially since it was making its way through the pre-vets/vet students/vets on Tumblr. -_-

 

[TatoTesla]

I saw that post on my Tumblr newsfeed a few days ago. It was unsettling especially since it was making its way through the pre-vets/vet students/vets on Tumblr. -_-

I've been working as hard as I can to help tumblr actually understand the point of the petitions so they they can at least understand the reasoning (i.e. its not just about wanting to keep exotic animals as pets) but they're stubborn as hell of course.

 

[Tw1st3dR0s3]

I've been working as hard as I can to help tumblr actually understand the point of the petitions so they they can at least understand the reasoning (i.e. its not just about wanting to keep exotic animals as pets) but they're stubborn as hell of course.

I tried as well, but it's really difficult to accomplish much on that site.