sleep let me interrupt you in cutting through the mustard so to speak my feeling after reading here everything is that the real issue in this case is with a different way i mean you're not going to get in trouble necessarily you know that and i think the reason why these cases are suddenly appearing is business that is being challenged by yielding you  you is the head this question and it may not meant may not even be an issue in this case may not be something that that your side  was problematic but in looking at the endangered species act and it uses this term take right when i read that when i read the section that prohibits makes it unlawful to take the in day endangered species within the united states of the territory of the united states know reasonable person toots could could look at that in conclude that it refers to out in the wild red then animals into captivity is that is that an issue in the case or is that is that so well established that defendant's proffered suggestion is good enough despite all the problems that the records show with the facilities the defense and proffer this is really the district court's ruling effectively said what i would literally said would be my first choice as it was the tigers maybe not but that's not the question the court was required answered i just have to find it's for me and the things i think the statute goes further as a broader purpose to ensure that any standing has a sufficient aesthetic or recreational interest that was harmed by the takings that occurred here then the inquiry not go any further and frankly the record all of it just a more developed on the facts finding that you know the there a difference between a nature type of aesthetic interest and a commercialized business like these people around but i think there's an important difference between examples you cited an example we have in the states and that's that you're in the state of this record that these two people hard working people could possibly comply with restrictions that your clients would insist be enforced my answer to myself is i don't think they can do it the husband is a welder the limit it's probably privately held zoo of this nature the road signs you well i think there's an added responsibility for anyone that wishes to have endangered species and that responsibility that those costs are clear and they were intended by congress and recognized by them and i'm sure like the hansard going to be in this business or a sideline on the financial crisis being used to apply from both sides of the documents that the defendants and self have on terms of their maintenance in their care the veterans veterinarians the experts would all testify there is ample evidence of the court of view that frankly i don't think this did i must say that i far more than him and the smile when i was not familiar with our plans to do some of these animals aren't in their surroundings this is the point that one of the articles i did read that i just read the do want to turn briefly to you judge roberts question about this show of the statute and i'm looking at the text is that you asked can apply to animals that are in captivity the answer is yes under the texa statute of flies to any person who commits a violation with respect to any endangered species so there's no restriction there as to whether that person has to meet somebody in the wild or somebody is holding those animals and its reference your own use of the word take also applies to animals that are in captivity well the cases are are actually recently been waiting years to be frank of the  decision and they'll be problems is one of them and the other decision that came out of the western district of texas just earlier this year reached the same conclusion and i'm looking at that same text found no distinction definition excludes from the definition of harassment generally accepted animal as human practices that meet or exceed the minimum standards in the band welfare  for proper consideration on a record of attorneys fees applying the proper standards and not the arista factor to determine whether that work of turning a isn't is kind of a moot issue though because it doesn't appear to me that so well and the record shows that the relationship between your client and the vet were phone calls over a period of several years in which they paid the veteran to make new there's we thank both sides for the argument the case is submitted and we will take it