from the activities that it would be engaged in if u s d a had regulated as you urge sure so one of the harms is the same harm isn't peeta it's the lack of information that the that the agency is not collecting the also talk about the diversion of resources point the a v s is focused on developing alternatives to using animals in testing we can't do that as fully as we want to because we're diverting resources to develop standards and guidelines for how to sphere prevailed you would not have standing and i realize you wrote separately but and it's not the law of our court but do you have a theory under which it would not not even run into the objection that she raises sure so i think if you were to hayden's itself haven says that this this conduct it can cause a drain on resources to your theory and see if you have to spend money to counteract someone else's awful conduct haven's unanimously from the supreme court so that would give rise to standing with the they had standing because the racial steering practices the defendant indirectly caused that their party discipline their resources to counter those practices and i think we're in the same position she focused on saying you know if you're seeking information and then you want to turn around and give it to prosecuting authority she said it's like you know asking the police to report to you so that you can then report to the police and what's your response to that sure so that we're not interested in the prosecution on prosecution of another i think the information injury here is the same as in peter the agency doesn't have data collection and we need that data both to reform our members and the public about how many birds are being bred for use a researcher used to research how birds are being treated in reserve that's all the information we need to structure our priorities and to continue our mission and we don't have one of the things that the department says is will surely it will be monitoring state laws whether or not there's also a federal regulation in place and so there wouldn't be actually doing anything more in the absence of the federal regulation and your response to that is sure couple points one i think that's contrary to the good faith allegations or complaint we're briefed played over and over we are spending money we otherwise would spend because of the lack of regulations i think on the border state and local laws we would be spending more time we would be spending as much money monitoring them if we had a central agency like the newest cia through which to report crimes of bird mistreatment i just want to also quickly know most states really only have animal cruelty laws they don't have birds and they believe is that the that peter essentially represented the outer limits of standing doctrine and that the allegations in this case do not even measure up to those in peter they figures but nonetheless that highlights the difference because here the there again in our view it is not sufficient simply to say that because the agency has not done of activities and that it's required substantial resources your honor i would respectfully disagree i think that they have not they haven't specified they haven't specified for example publication of publication or a part of a publication producing shelter guys and webinars and can't handling of and care of birds in captivity when it was clear that u s d a did not intend to enact regulations so they're trying to step in at least in the avian welfare coalition allegations to step in and provide some kind of standards guidance information for concerned individuals who are dealing with bird so so if we were to take that as adequate on the merits it's a little unclear to me what the department's position is on the merits is it isn't the position that it is that the diprivan is discharged it obligation because the act is not refer to all animals but only animals and therefore the general regulation with respect to some animals discharges the department obligation is that your argument well the argument really is is that it's not so much the all animals point it is the point that the that the that the the statute requires of general standards with respect to animals and then specific standards with respect to to dogs exercise dogs and the psychological well being of non human prim and that that is the universe of required action under the statue right and the question that the puzzling thing is if the claim is not that even specific regulation is needed and that just some regulation is needed i'm not sure that i follow what your argument is that actually no regulation is needed with respect to birds i just don't understand actually what the argument is like if if the department had said ok animals we're just going to do squirrels and then we see that in the statute we also specifically have to do dogs and some other things would that satisfy the to find animals is to include birds not breed for research so birds not bred for research are not being protected by the current system is that  that the general regulations under in some part af were not a good fit that they were essentially that it would not be appropriate or adequate to to use them with respect to birds and that is why ultimately that the statute the statute covers birds and they and they they are to be regulated and so what's what's the reason why you agree then that they are to be so your answer to judge pillared is is no our position is that the birds the deep the department does need to protect birds not break research correct legally why don't we why is it obvious that we need to remain in this to the district court to determine whether that agency action has been unreasonably that the department does have a legal obligation to regulate to protect birds that's number one number two it hasn't done it right and so why isn't a logical conclusion from one hundred and twenty three which is we agency to probably get bird specific regulations but we simply would recognize that you could argue you could still the government i suppose could still argue that seventeen years is not a reasonable the way i mean you know maybe they will convince a district court of that and then they'll come back up here again but you have to do i hear you agreeing with me that it does have to go back to that determination well if that is the way the court views the case of course we have taken a different position in our department doesn't have to really have to issue regulations with respect to birds because that's what you're saying you're pretty well it and i had the same reaction she did which is is your argument that it doesn't have the we're all that that's what i thought you  respectfully we go believe that that that's inconsistent our argument is that as a as a technical legal matter the agency has complied with the statutory requirements by issuing the general standard and b not i mean it's it's kind of amazing that we're talking past each other to this degree because we've disclaimed a requirement of bird specific regulation they've asked for regulation that covers birds and they are as far as i read the record they've been consistent in asking for regulation that covers birds whether that be in the form of including birds under the general rule or in the form of a rule specific propose now if that were if i'm right in reading it that way that that's all they're asking for is something that covers birds your response that the department is nonetheless in compliance respect and so it does go back i thought you when i asked you at the beginning of argument whether you're you're resting on the fact that the session doesn't say all animals and you said no it's you're not resting on that you're not saying that it's adequate to have regulated in the general some subset of animals you're not you're not making the well that the that the party somehow has discretion to pick and choose among the covered animals those that want regulation that hasn't been your position what relief we could offer you know it's possible to under track and take the government how do you cross move would have introduced other information about its priorities and you know information that's that's relevant to track but it hasn't done that so you're not