U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

77–021 PDF 2013

H.R. 511, TO AMEND TITLE 18, 

UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROHIBIT THE IMPORTATION OF 

VARIOUS INJURIOUS SPECIES OF 

CONSTRICTOR SNAKES 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, 

OCEANS AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Thursday, November 29, 2012 

Serial No. 112–131 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Paul Tonko, NY 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, OCEANS 

AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 

JOHN FLEMING, LA, Chairman 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Dan Boren, OK 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 
(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, November 29, 2012 ................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Fleming, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Louisiana ....................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Pierluisi, Hon. Pedro R., the Resident Commissioner in Congress from 

Puerto Rico, Statement submitted for the record ....................................... 50 

Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, a Delegate in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands ..................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Barr, Brady, Ph.D., Dangerous Encounters, National Geographic Channel ................................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Heflick, Shawn K., ‘‘The Python Hunters’’, National Geographic Channel . 15 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17 

Jenkins, Peter T., Executive Director, Center for Invasive Species 

Prevention ..................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 25 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 27 

Kostyack, John, Vice President, Wildlife Conservation, National Wildlife 

Federation ...................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 14 

Rooney, Hon. Thomas J., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, Statement submitted for the record .......................................... 50 

Sutherland, Colette, The Snake Keeper, Inc., Spanish Fork, Utah ............. 18 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 20 

Wyatt, Andrew, CEO and President, United States Association of Reptile 

Keepers (USARK) ......................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 30 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 32 

Additional materials supplied: 

Kroeger, Timm, Ph.D., Senior Environmental Economist, The Nature 

Conservancy, Letter submitted for the record ............................................ 51 

List of documents retained in the Committee’s official files ......................... 56 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Statement submitted for the record ..................................................................... 54 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 511, TO 

AMEND TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, TO 

PROHIBIT THE IMPORTATION OF VARIOUS 

INJURIOUS SPECIES OF CONSTRICTOR 

SNAKES. 

Thursday, November 29, 2012 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in 

Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Fleming 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Fleming, Southerland; Sablan, and 

Bordallo. 

Dr. FLEMING. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Chairman notes the presence of a quorum and our guests can have a 

seat. 

All right, good morning. Today we will hear testimony on 

H.R. 511, a bill introduced by the distinguished gentleman from 

Florida, Congressman Tom Rooney, to list nine species of constrictor snakes under the Lacey Act. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN FLEMING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Dr. FLEMING. Let me say at the outset that I compliment my colleagues from the Florida delegation for their tireless commitment 

to restoring the Florida Everglades. But I have concerns that 

H.R. 511 will end up destroying hundreds of small businesses 

without providing any real benefit to the Everglades. 

By way of background, there are several key dates in this discussion. The first was June 23, 2006, when the South Florida Water 

Management District petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

list Burmese Pythons on the Lacey Act. The next important date 

was January 20, 2010, when the Secretary of the Interior proposed 

to administratively list nine species of constrictor snakes. Before 

announcing a decision, however, the State of Florida implemented 

a law as of July 1, 2010 prohibiting the importation and personal 

possession of seven species of snakes, including Burmese Pythons. 

Finally, after an exhaustive analysis by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the U.S. Small Business Administration of more than 

56,000 comments, the Secretary of the Interior announced on January 17th of this year that 4 of the 9 species, including the 2 species 

that have established populations in the Everglades would be treated as injurious wildlife. It is now a violation of Federal law to import and to move these four species in interstate commerce. 
2 

Upon making the decision, Secretary Salazar noted that it was 

intended to strike a balance between economic and environmental 

concerns. We are now being asked in H.R. 511 to go far beyond the 

recommendations of the South Florida Water Management District, 

the State of Florida, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, by listing 

all nine species of constrictor snakes. 

It is important to remember that millions of Americans own and 

have legally acquired constrictor snakes. They weren’t smuggled 

into this country. While some of these Americans are simply content to have a boa constrictor as a pet, many others have created 

small businesses which breed them, feed them, provide equipment 

for them, sell them at pet stores, promote them at trade shows, 

provide veterinary care for them, and other activities which contribute millions to our economy. 

According to an economic analysis undertaken by the Georgetown Economic Services, the boa constrictor, which was not listed 

by the Fish and Wildlife Service, accounts for 70 percent of all imports, and 70 to 80 percent of all revenues generated by these 9 

species. The Service estimated that the annual decrease in economic output of these snakes ranged from $42 million to $86.2 million. 

In addition, the House Committee on Oversight held a hearing 

on the proposed listing of nine species and concluded in their report 

that, over the first 10 years, combined loss could be between $505 

million and $1.2 billion. A witness at the hearing, Mr. David Barker of Texas, an internationally recognized authority on constrictor 

snakes, stated that ‘‘The misguided regulations will destroy an entire industry comprised almost exclusively of small and micro-businesses. In short, if this rule goes into effect, it will destroy my life’s 

work and investments for no rational reason.’’ 

During the course of this hearing I hope to learn why the current 

Florida State law and recent Interior Department rulings seem, in 

some people’s minds, insufficient in addressing the Everglades 

problem. More specifically, does H.R. 511 protect current breeders, 

pet store owners, and small businesses who trade these species in 

Louisiana, Michigan, New York, and Washington State? 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fleming follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable John Fleming, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

Good morning, today, we will hear testimony on H.R. 511, a bill introduced by 

the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Congressman Tom Rooney to list nine 

species of constrictor snakes under the Lacey Act. 

Let me say at the outset that I compliment my colleagues from the Florida delegation for their tireless commitment to restoring the Florida Everglades. But I have 

concerns that H.R. 511 will end up destroying hundreds of small businesses without 

providing any real benefit to the Everglades. 

By way of background, there are several key dates in this discussion. The first 

was on June 23, 2006, when the South Florida Water Management District petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service to list Burmese pythons on the Lacey Act. The 

next important date was on January 20, 2010, when the Secretary of the Interior 

proposed to administratively list nine species of constrictor snakes. 

Before announcing a decision, however, the State of Florida implemented a law 

as of July 1, 2010, prohibiting the importation and personal possession of seven species of snakes including Burmese pythons. 

Finally, after an exhaustive analysis by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. 

Small Business Administration of more than 56,000 comments, the Secretary of the 

Interior announced on January 17th of this year that four of the nine species—in-
3 

cluding the two species that have established populations in the Everglades—would 

be treated as ‘‘injurious wildlife.’’ It is now a violation of federal law to import and 

to move these four species in interstate commerce. Upon making the decision, Secretary Salazar noted that it was intended to ‘‘strike a balance’’ between economic 

and environmental concerns. 

We are now being asked in H.R. 511 to go far beyond the recommendations of 

the South Florida Water Management District, the State of Florida and the Fish 

and Wildlife Service by listing all nine species of constrictor snakes. 

It is important to remember that millions of Americans own and have legally acquired constrictor snakes. They weren’t smuggled into this country. While some of 

these Americans are simply content to have a Boa constrictor as a pet, many others 

have created small businesses which breed them, feed them, provide equipment for 

them, sell them at pet stores, promote them at trade shows, provide veterinary care 

for them and other activities which contribute millions to our economy. 

According to an economic analysis undertaken by the Georgetown Economic Services, the Boa constrictor, which was not listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service, ‘‘Accounts for 70 percent of all imports and 70 to 80 percent of all revenues generated 

by these nine species.’’ The Service estimated that the annual decrease in economic 

output of these snakes ranged from $42 million to $86.2 million. In addition, the 

House Committee on Oversight held a hearing on the proposed listing of the nine 

species and concluded in their report that ‘‘Over the first ten years, combined loss 

could be between $505 million and $1.2 billion’’. 

A witness at that hearing, Mr. David Barker of Texas, an internationally recognized authority on constrictor snakes stated that ‘‘This misguided regulations will 

destroy an entire industry, comprised almost exclusively of small and micro businesses. In short, if this rule goes into effect, it will destroy my life’s work and investments for no rational reason’’. 

During the course of this hearing, I hope to learn why the current Florida state 

law and recent Interior Department ruling seem, in some people’s minds, insufficient in addressing the Everglades problem. More specifically, does H.R. 511 protect 

current breeders, pet store owners and small businesses who trade these species in 

Louisiana, Michigan, New York and Washington State. 

I am pleased to recognize the distinguished ranking minority member for any 

statement he would like to make. 

Dr. FLEMING. Before recognizing the distinguished Ranking Minority Member for any statement he would like to make, I would 

ask unanimous consent to submit for the record: a segment of a report issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the Fish and Wildlife Services injurious species proposed 

rule; a letter written by the Small Business Administration’s Office 

of Advocacy; an article entitled, ‘‘Environmental Temperatures, 

Physiology, and Behavior Limit: the Range Expansion of Invasive 

Burmese Pythons in Southeastern U.S.A.;’’ an article from the Chicago Tribune; and a petition signed by more than 150 residents of 

the State of Washington in opposition to H.R. 511. 

[NOTE: The information submitted for the record by Dr. Fleming 

has been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Dr. FLEMING. I am now pleased to recognize Congressman 

Sablan, the gentleman from the Northern Marianas, and you are 

now recognized, sir, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GREGORIO SABLAN, A DELEGATE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for having this hearing today. And welcome to all our guests. 

Good morning. 

In my home, in the Northern Mariana Islands, the Brown Tree 

Snake is considered the number one threat to native wildlife—natives excluding human beings at this time—but our Division of 

Fish and Wildlife had to create an entire program dedicated to pre-
4 

venting the introduction of this snake to our islands. While this initiative requires constant monitoring and control, it is necessary to 

protect our natural heritage and fragile ecosystems against the 

spread of the Brown Tree Snake. 

This invasive snake has also caused major economic and ecological damage on the Island of Guam, where it has hunted more than 

75 percent of native bird and lizard species into extinction, and 

causes frequent power outages. Similarly, preliminary studies have 

linked the Burmese Python, a snake recently labeled and injurious 

species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to declines in mammal populations in the Florida Everglades. 

The five large constrictor snakes considered by H.R. 511 are 

similar to the Burmese Python. And, unlike the Brown Tree Snake, 

also pose a public safety threat, because of their ability to grow to 

lengths greater than 15 feet. Also, unlike the Brown Tree Snake, 

some constrictor snakes are popular pets. The trading in exotic constrictor snakes is widespread and helps support businesses that import, breed, and sell these and other reptiles. 

In considering legislation like H.R. 511, we need to pay careful 

attention to the balance between the marginal benefit of these few 

snake species to private businesses, and the huge potential cost to 

society of established constrictor snake populations in the wild. I 

understand that the snakes that are the subject of H.R. 511 could 

survive and create breeding populations in the wild if introduced 

to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as well as 

other U.S. insular areas and part of the Southern United States. 

Since the major limiting factor in the survival and reproduction 

of these large snakes seems to be climate, it is likely that the 

amount of suitable habitat for them in the continental United 

States will expand with continued global warming. Tropical diseases like malaria and dengue fever already are gaining a foothold 

further and further north of the Equator. And there is no reason 

to assume tropical reptiles, especially adaptable predators like constrictor snakes, could not do the same. 

Finally, I am most concerned about the two amendments that 

the Judiciary Committee added to H.R. 511. The first would require that to be guilty of a Lacey Act violation related to any injurious species, not just these snakes—an individual would have to 

knowingly violate the Act. This requirement would severely hamper enforcement in general, but especially with respect to injurious 

species like zebra mussels that may be brought into the country, 

in ship ballast water, or by other similar means. We have had this 

debate on the Lacey Act in previous hearings. 

Changing the prohibition in the statute from a strict liability offense to a knowing offense would remove the incentive for shippers 

to take steps such as appropriately cleaning ballast water and the 

outside of ships to ensure they don’t bring these injurious animals 

into the United States. 

The second amendment would exempt animal exhibitors, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, from the Lacey Act 

with respect to these snakes, even though USDA does not regulate 

reptiles. As we have seen before this year, when the Majority was 

forced to pull its proposed rewrite of the Lacey Act from the House 

Floor, American citizens and businesses do not support attempts to 
5 

weaken the Lacey Act. And I hope that after learning that lesson 

last summer, this Committee will not support such attempts, either. 

With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and 

learning more about this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sablan follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Ranking 

Member, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome to all our guests. 

In my home, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the brown tree 

snake is considered the number one threat to native wildlife. Our Division of Fish 

and Wildlife has had to create an entire program dedicated to preventing the introduction of this snake to our islands. While this initiative requires constant monitoring and control, it is necessary to protect our natural heritage and fragile ecosystems against the spread of the brown tree snake. 

This invasive snake also has caused major economic and ecological damage on the 

island of Guam, where it has hunted more than 75 percent of native bird and lizard 

species into extinction, and causes frequent power outages. Similarly, preliminary 

studies have linked the Burmese python—a snake recently labeled an injurious species by the U.S. fish and wildlife service—to declines in mammal populations in the 

Florida everglades. The five large constrictor snakes considered by H.R. 511 are 

similar to the Burmese python, and unlike the brown tree snake, also pose a public 

safety threat because of their ability to grow to lengths greater than 15 feet. 

Also unlike the brown tree snake, some constrictor snakes are popular pets. The 

trade in exotic constrictor snakes is widespread, and helps support businesses that 

import, breed, and sell these and other reptiles. In considering legislation like 

H.R. 511, we need to pay careful attention to the balance between the marginal 

benefit of these few snake species to private business, and the huge potential cost 

to society of established constrictor snake populations in the wild. 

I understand that the snakes that are the subject of H.R. 511 could survive and 

create breeding populations in the wild if introduced to the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, as well as other U.S. insular areas, and parts of the 

Southern United States. This concerns me both as a representative of my constituents, and as the Ranking Member of this subcommittee. I am sure Chairman Fleming would also like to ensure that large constrictor snakes do not invade Louisiana. 

Since the major limiting factor in survival and reproduction of these large snakes 

seems to be climate, it is likely that the amount of suitable habitat for them in the 

continental United States will expand with continued global warming. Tropical diseases like malaria and Dengue (Den-GEE) fever already are gaining a foothold farther and farther north of the Equator, and there is no reason to assume tropical 

reptiles—especially adaptable, generalist predators like constrictor snakes—could 

not do the same. 

Finally, I am concerned about two amendments that the Judiciary Committee 

added to H.R. 511. The first would require that to be guilty of a Lacey Act violation 

related to ANY injurious species—not just these snakes—an individual would have 

to ‘knowingly’ violate the Act. This requirement would severely hamper enforcement 

in general, but especially with respect to injurious species like zebra mussels that 

may be brought into the country in ship ballast water or by other similar means. 

Changing the prohibition in the statute from a strict liability offense to a knowing 

offense would remove the incentive for shippers to take steps, such as appropriately 

cleaning ballast water and the outside of ships, to ensure they don’t bring these injurious animals into the United States. 

The second amendment would exempt animal ‘exhibitors’ as defined by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), from the Lacey Act with respect to these 

snakes, even though USDA does not regulate reptiles. As we have seen before this 

year when the Majority was forced to pull its proposed rewrite of the Lacey Act from 

the House floor, American citizens and businesses do not support attempts to weaken the Lacey Act, and I hope that after learning that lesson last summer, this committee will not support such attempts either. 

With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and learning more about 

this issue. 
6 

Mr. SABLAN. But at this time, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 

consent to enter into the record the following materials: testimony 

of the Humane Society of the United States, which includes documentation of over 240 dangerous incidents involving large constrictor snakes in 45 States; and testimony from the American Bird 

Conservancy supporting H.R. 511 as introduced by Mr. Rooney 

without the proposed amendments. And without objection, Mr. 

Chairman? 

Dr. FLEMING. Without objection. 

[NOTE: The information submitted for the record by Mr. Sablan 

has been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much. And I yield back my time. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentleman. I thank my friend, the 

Ranking Member for the Minority. 

We will now hear from our witnesses. Like all witnesses, your 

written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record. So I ask 

that you keep your oral statements to 5 minutes, as outlined in 

our invitation letter to you, and under Committee Rule 4(a). 

Our microphones are not automatic. So you will need to press the 

button. Also a common mistake that is made, we all make, is not 

being close enough to the microphone. So make sure you are close 

enough. Pull it to you, and you may have to shift microphones over 

to be heard well. 

We are now ready for our panel of public witnesses, which includes Dr. Brady Barr, the star of the National Geographic television show, ‘‘Dangerous Encounters’’; Mr. John Kostyack—am I 

saying that correctly? OK, Vice President, National Wildlife Federation; Mr. Shawn Heflick, one of the stars of the television show, 

‘‘The Python Hunters’’; Ms. Colette Sutherland, who is known as 

‘‘The Snake Keeper’’ from Spanish Fork, Utah; Mr. Peter Jenkins, 

Executive Director, Center for Invasive Species Prevention; and 

Mr. Andrew Wyatt, the President, United States Association of 

Reptile Keepers. 

Your written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record, 

so I ask that you keep your oral statements to 5 minutes. 

Now, we work on a light and time system. So when you begin 

your testimony, you will be under a green light. When the light 

turns yellow, you have a minute left. When it turns red, if you 

haven’t completed your statement, please go ahead and wrap up. 

Otherwise, I will have to interrupt your statement. Your entire 

statement will be made part of the record, so you can rest assured 

of that. 

Let’s see. I guess first up is Dr. Barr. You are now recognized, 

sir, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BRADY BARR, PH.D., ‘‘DANGEROUS 

ENCOUNTERS,’’ NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CHANNEL 

Dr. BARR. Thank you. I would like to thank the Chair and the 

Committee for listening to me today. 

You know, for the past few years, myself, like many of us, saw 

many of the reports in the popular media, reports that I thought 

were pretty sensationalized, and finally decided I needed to contact 

USARC and offer up my expertise, because I really don’t have any 

vested interest in this decision. 
7 

I am National Geographic’s Resident Herpetologist, a position I 

have held for the last 15 years. And I think there are two items 

that need to be considered in this situation, two controls, one that 

has been addressed, another that I haven’t seen addressed. 

The first is climatic controls. These are tropical snakes that we 

are talking about. They are a long way from home. These snakes 

lack the biology and the physiology to survive low temperatures. 

And we are talking about temperatures that would be below 16 degrees Celsius. That is approximately 60 degrees Fahrenheit. And 

when these types of temperatures are experienced by these snakes, 

they have trouble digesting prey, they have troubling acquiring 

prey, they have trouble moving, avoiding predation. And the bottom line is they have trouble surviving at low temperatures. These 

animals are ectotherms, meaning that they cannot internally control their body temperature. They have to rely on the environment 

for their body temperature. 

So, I think, in summary, due to the climatic controls, when it 

gets cold, these snakes die. And that will prevent any movement 

northward along the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S. 

The second important control that I think that should be considered is a biological control, and I haven’t seen this issue addressed. 

In the Everglades, or in the State of Florida, there is estimated to 

be over 2 million American alligators. Alligators are a keystone 

species in the Everglades. They are an apex predator. They are one 

of the largest non-marine predators on the planet. 

And in saying that, alligators found in the Everglades are undersized. They grow very slowly. They reach sexual maturity later 

than populations elsewhere. To a large degree, it has been surmised that owes to a poorer quality diet found in the Everglades. 

The Everglades is a tough place to live, if you are a large predator. 

It is an ecosystem characterized by a dramatic dry season and wet 

season. There aren’t a lot of prey items in the Everglades for top 

predators to utilize. 

In the 1990s, 1992 to 1997, I undertook the most comprehensive 

diet study of American alligators to date, and in Everglades National Park I captured and flushed the stomachs of over 2,000 alligators and found the top prey item to be snakes. Essentially, alligators are surviving on snakes in the Everglades. Fifty-five percent 

of recovered food mass is snake. These animals are making an existence, almost solely, on snakes. And this is in an environment 

which, as I said, is not wealthy, in terms of suitable prey for large 

predators, such as alligators. So, I think that any inclusion of exotic snakes, the top prey item of alligators, will be utilized by that 

apex predator. 

So, in conclusion, I feel that climatic controls and biological controls in predators on these exotic snakes—and alligators is just one 

example of many found in the Everglades—will prevent movement 

of these snakes northward, and thereby—doesn’t merit inclusion in 

the Lacey Act of these species. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Barr follows:] 
8 

Statement of Brady Barr, Ph.D., Resident Herpetologist, 

National Geographic Society 

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. My 

name is Brady Barr and I am the Resident Herpetologist at the National Geographic Society. 

I was compelled to speak out on this issue on a very personal basis. Over the past 

few years as I saw more and more erroneous and sensationalized stories in popular 

media concerning pythons in the southern Everglades, I became frustrated knowing 

the public was being grossly misinformed. I subsequently reached out to the U.S. 

Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK) to offer what expertise I might lend to the 

decision making process and to this hearing today. 

I feel that there are two important points that need to be considered in reference 

to large exotic snakes in the Southern Everglades: 1. climatic controls, 2. biological 

controls. The snake species referenced in this hearing are native to tropical regions 

of the planet, whereas the Southern Everglades is a sub-tropical climate characterized by seasonal temperature fluctuations and more extremes. These tropical snakes 

do not possess the behavior and physiology to tolerate cold temperatures. Low temperatures (below 15 degrees C.) result in these snakes having problems digesting 

prey, acquiring prey, avoiding predation, moving, essentially surviving. Furthermore, these snakes lack the innate behavior to seek refugia at the onset of cold 

weather conditions, resulting in quick death or a compromised immune system in 

which the snake ultimately succumbs. Climate data reveal that temperatures found 

in Southern Florida simply are not conducive to the long term survival of large tropical snakes. When it gets cold these snakes die. 

Concerning the second point, biological controls; I offer the example of Alligators— 

a top predator and keystone species in the Everglades, and one of the largest nonmarine predators on the planet. However, populations in the Everglades grow more 

slowly, are undersized, and take longer to reach sexual maturity, than populations 

elsewhere. These conditions are likely due in part to a lower food base and poorer 

quality diet found in the Everglades. The Everglades is tough place to live, especially for large predators. The Everglades in many ways is analogous to a desert, 

largely because it is a bio mass poor ecosystem. In this respect, alligators have a 

difficult time finding large prey to consume. I conducted the most comprehensive alligator diet study to date, in Everglades National Park from 1992–1997. Flushing 

the stomachs of over 2,000 alligators, and in excess of 600 adults, revealed that 

snakes are by far the most important prey by mass. Fifty-five percent of consumed 

prey mass by adult alligators is snakes, that is over half of everything alligators eat 

in the Everglades is snake. In a prey deficient ecosystem alligators are essentially 

surviving on snakes in the Everglades. It can logically be inferred that inclusion of 

a top prey item (snakes) into an already prey deficient system, will result in predation on the introduced exotic species by the alligators of the Everglades, making 

them not only a keystone species, but also a natural biological control to introduced 

exotic snakes. 

In summary, the climatic controls (low temperatures experienced in Southern 

Florida) and biological controls, chiefly alligators, among numerous snake predators 

in the Everglades, will control any population of large exotic snakes in southern 

Florida, and thereby does not warrant the inclusion of the nine snake species to the 

Injurious Wildlife list of the Lacey Act. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Thank you, Dr. Barr. And thank you for your 

testimony. 

And, Mr. Kostyack, you are next up, sir. You are recognized for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN KOSTYACK, VICE PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

Mr. KOSTYACK. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Fleming. Thanks for the opportunity to testify today. The National Wildlife Federation is the Nation’s largest conservation, education, and 

advocacy organization. We have over 4 million members and supporters. We have 48 State and territorial affiliates. And we are passionate about conserving wildlife and habitat, and addressing the 
9 

chief threats to wildlife and habitat. And the science has shown 

that invasive species are, indeed, one of the chief threats. 

We would like to thank Congressman Rooney for introducing 

H.R. 511. We think banning importation and interstate trade of 

those nine large constrictor snakes is the right thing to do. All nine 

were found to be injurious by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service decision to take five of them off the list 

was actually a decision made by OMB, based upon non-scientific 

grounds. And USGS also has supported that finding. 

We see the large constrictor snake problem as a major threat to 

wildlife. I would like to talk to you further about the benefits of the 

bill as introduced, but I would like to flag the two harmful amendments that were brought on to the bill in the House Judiciary Committee. They both essentially negate the value of the bill, as introduced, unfortunately. 

The first one, which allows unregulated exhibitors of snakes to 

evade the Lacey Act prohibitions essentially guts the original law. 

And the second amendment is even more damaging, because it goes 

well beyond injurious snakes to all injurious species listed as injurious, and essentially creates a burden of proof that makes the law 

virtually impossible to enforce, and therefore eliminates its deterrent effect. And so that would be a major setback to our most important law for controlling and preventing the introduction of 

invasive species. 

So, turning to H.R. 511, I would like to just list 3 chief benefits 

of the law, as introduced. 

First of all, the wildlife benefits. This law really is a crucial step 

to protecting this Nation’s rich natural heritage, and not just Florida’s. We have seen the Burmese Python invading Florida. And this 

was brought in by the pet industry and released into the wild and 

now numbers somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 snakes. And 

they are now so well established that many scientists are questioning whether eradication will ever happen. 

More than 25 different bird species, including several endangered 

species, have been found in the digestive tracts of the snakes. And 

now this recent study has shown that the Python is eliminating 

vast portions of the native mammals of that region. That level of 

ecosystem disruption is a major threat to Everglades restoration, a 

project in which State and Federal taxpayers have invested billions 

of dollars. 

The scientific community has sounded the alarm about these 

nine large constrictor snakes. They have shown that they could expand their range well beyond South Florida into the southern portion of the Continental U.S., as well as the Island Territories. Scientists have already observed that the python populations have rebounded from cold snaps well below 16 degree Centigrade, defying 

all the predictions we have heard about die-offs due to cold snaps. 

Louisiana, the home of Chairman Fleming, appears to have, according to these reports, a climate that is well suited for the establishment of large constrictor snakes. 

Now, of course, all the projections we have seen—and, by the 

way, you hear lots of disputes about climate change science in the 

media, but the scientific community is only disagreeing to the extent of degree, and not whether there is a fact of warming. A 
10 

warming trend happening in this country is not disputed in the scientific community. A warming trend is well underway, and that 

will expand the range of large constrictor snakes. 

I would like to talk briefly about the economic benefits. My organization is comprised of hunters and anglers, wildlife watchers. 

And we are deeply concerned about the tourism and recreation industry, and the impacts of the arrival of large constrictor snakes. 

No one knows, to this day, how badly Florida has already been hit, 

how many families are not willing to go into the Everglades and 

spend money, due to the arrival of these snakes, how many hunters 

have lost a prey base. The list goes on. It is something that ought 

to be considered by the Members of this Committee. 

And, finally, human safety. We know 17 lives have already been 

lost due to large constrictor snakes in this country. This Lacey Act 

protection is essential. There is no reason for one single additional 

loss of life to continue when Congress has the power to reign in 

invasive species. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kostyack follows:] 

Statement of John Kostyack, Vice President, 

Wildlife Conservation, National Wildlife Federation 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to be here today. National Wildlife Federation is a 

non-partisan, non-profit organization. Our mission is to inspire Americans to protect 

wildlife for our children’s future. National Wildlife Federation is comprised of 48 

state and territorial affiliates and more than 4 million members and supporters. 

Our members include hunters, anglers, backyard gardeners, birdwatchers and many 

other outdoor enthusiasts from throughout the nation. 

Conserving wildlife for our children’s future has been the mission of the National 

Wildlife Federation since our inception in 1936. Time and again, threats to wildlife 

have unified diverse people from across our nation to take action in the interest of 

conserving the nation’s rich wildlife heritage. Through voluntary collaboration and 

effective conservation laws, the people of this nation have saved many species from 

extinction, restored many game and fish wildlife species, and preserved our outdoor 

heritage. We appreciate the opportunity to testify today on a bill that deals with 

the critical issue of preventing the spread of large constrictor snakes, which are already wreaking havoc on wildlife and ecosystems. 

On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation, I want to thank Congressman Rooney for introducing H.R. 511, the bill to prohibit the importation and inter-state 

transport of all nine of the large constrictor snakes initially proposed for the injurious species list by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Banning the importation of these non-native species is absolutely critical to reducing the costs to the taxpayer of controlling these constrictors, which have already risen into the millions 

of dollars per year. Earlier this year the FWS placed four of the nine species on the 

injurious wildlife species list, but dropped the five other harmful species that it and 

the United States Geological Survey had previously recommended for inclusion in 

the importation ban. We were disappointed that all nine species were not placed on 

the injurious list, which is why we applaud Congressman Rooney and the other cosponsors of H.R. 511 for their leadership. 

H.R. 511 in its original form had strong bipartisan support in Congress as well 

as backing from a wide variety of conservation and humane groups. Unfortunately, 

NWF was dismayed to see two amendments made to H.R. 511 in a markup by the 

House Judiciary Committee. NWF will oppose the bill until both amendments are 

removed. 

The first of those harmful amendments would allow thousands of unregulated exhibitors of snakes, including many roadside zoos and circuses, to import and trade 

the nine constrictor snakes without a Lacey Act permit. This would virtually eliminate the effectiveness of listing the snakes. The second of those amendments says 

that to commit a criminal violation for the importation of an injurious animal, the 

import must violate the law ‘‘knowingly.’’ This change in the law would apply to all 

Lacey Act injurious species listings, not just the snake species in this bill. Imposing 
11 

such a high burden of proof would greatly hinder prosecution of people who illegally 

import or make interstate shipments of injurious species, and it would greatly reduce the deterrent effect of the law. Ignorance is not a valid excuse for violating 

a law and should not be the basis for avoiding Lacey Act prosecution. 

Full application of the Lacey Act to these nine large constrictor snakes is warranted given the well-documented economic costs and impacts of constrictor invasions to wildlife and human communities in this country. In south Florida, three 

species have already invaded—the boa constrictor, the northern African rock python 

and Burmese python. Burmese pythons, imported from Southeast Asia as pets and 

then illegally released in the wild, are reproducing and thriving in the Everglades 

and other south Florida wetlands. Estimated at between 30,000 and 100,000 in 

number, this snake is considered a threat both to the restoration of the Everglades 

and to human safety (FWS 2012). This invasion, which is costing the taxpayers 

enormous sums to manage, may be irreversible. It is a textbook example of why the 

most cost-effective strategy for addressing invasive species is to prevent their importation. 

WILDLIFE IMPACTS 

Giant constrictors are top predators in the south Florida ecosystem. According to 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), they are voracious and indiscriminate consumers of native wildlife and can grow rapidly to more than 20 feet in length and 

250 lbs in weight. They are particularly threatening to bird and mammal populations. For example, more than 25 different bird species, including endangered species, have been found in the digestive tracts of pythons in the Everglades (FWS 

2012). They can live in many kinds of habitats, are tolerant of urbanization, achieve 

high population densities and produce many offspring. They serve as potential hosts 

for parasites and diseases that threaten wildlife and human health. 

Since the FWS listing, new science has confirmed the devastating impacts the 

python invasion has had on native wildlife. The findings in the 2012 study by Dorcas et al. titled ‘Severe mammal declines coincide with proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park’ were highly distressing for NWF and 

anyone concerned about native wildlife in South Florida. This groundbreaking study 

shows that these non-native snakes are top predators that appear to be eliminating 

vast portions of wild mammals in that region. This ecosystem disruption could easily expand beyond southern Florida, especially given the warming of the climate 

that is underway. 

For additional evidence of the damage to native wildlife populations caused by 

invasive snake species, one need not look further than the U.S. territories. The 

brown tree snake invasion in Guam is particularly notorious: most native Guam forest bird species were virtually extinct by the time the FWS listed these species as 

threatened or endangered in 1984, less than 50 years after the tree snake was first 

introduced (USGS). We know that boa constrictors already are invading Puerto Rico 

and threatening that island’s native wildlife (Reed and Rodda 2009). 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

As noted above, the cost to taxpayers for controlling and eradicating large constrictor snakes is well into the millions of dollars. The FWS alone has spent more 

than $6 million since 2005 developing and applying solutions to the invasions of 

Burmese pythons and other constrictor snakes in Florida. Pythons also jeopardize 

billions in federal, state and local investments in environmental restoration. By 

causing such a massive disruption of the Everglades ecosystem, the pythons are 

undoing years of federal and state investments there. Investments in endangered 

species recovery are likewise threatened. For example, from 1999 to 2009, Federal 

and State agencies spent $1.4 million on Key Largo woodrat recovery and $101.2 

million on wood stork recovery—two endangered species that have been found in the 

bellies of Burmese pythons. Taxpayers are being forced to pay for the growing expense of controlling and eradicating large constrictor snakes in south Florida. Congress should at least shut the spigot that sends yet even more snakes into their 

communities. 

The economic costs of constrictor snake invasions to our tourism and outdoor 

recreation economy could far exceed the cost of control measures by wildlife agencies. According to the FWS 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation, 91.1 million U.S. residents fished, hunted, or watched wildlife in 2011 alone. They spent over $145 billion in the process, contributing to millions of jobs in industries and businesses that support wildlife-related recreation. 

Funds generated by licenses and taxes on hunting and fishing equipment pay for 

many conservation efforts in this country, and wildlife-related recreation is a proud 

American tradition. As the Burmese python devastates south Florida wildlife, the 
12 

tourism and recreation economy in that region suffers. Slowing the spread of the 

constrictor snake invasion by banning further importation and inter-state trade will 

be essential for protecting the tourism and recreation-based economies of other regions. 

Florida alone hosts almost 6 million participants in wildlife-associated recreation 

each year. As game mammal populations decline, hunting opportunities inevitably 

fall. How many hunters will reduce their activity as a result of this decline? As bird 

species are swallowed up by increasing numbers of large constrictor snakes, how 

many birders will reduce travel to Florida and reduce spending on hotels, equipment, and food? Will tourists avoid taking trips to the Everglades or other areas 

invaded by snakes because of safety concerns? These are questions that leaders from 

south Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Hawaii and beyond will 

need to answer as they work to protect their robust recreation and tourism economies. All it would take is a few pet constrictors to grow larger than their owners 

can manage, be let out into the wild, and manage to breed. The reckless trade in 

large constrictors is not just a Florida problem—it is a national problem. 

Projections of high economic losses to the pet trade as a result of a prohibition 

on importation and interstate trade of nine large constrictors have been discredited 

in economic analyses by the FWS, the Congressional Budget Office and Timm 

Kroeger, Ph.D., an economist with The Nature Conservancy. 

H.R. 511 will not put the reptilian pet trade out of business. These nine species 

are just one part of the pet trade and presumably most of those who want to buy 

snakes will simply shift toward species that are not covered by the Lacey Act and 

do not disrupt our environment. 

THREATS TO HUMAN SAFETY 

The costs of allowing importation and inter-state trade in the nine non-native 

large constrictor species include loss of human life and serious injury. According to 

the Humane Society, seventeen people have died from large constrictor snake related incidents in the United States since 1978. Scores of adults and children have 

been injured during attacks by large constrictors. These snakes are clearly injurious 

by any reasonable measure. 

POTENTIAL FOR RANGE EXPANSION 

As noted earlier, the potential of large constrictor snakes to expand their existing 

habitat range in the lower 48 states as well as island territories is well-supported 

by the science. Already we are observing Burmese python populations in the Everglades rebounding from cold winters and defying predictions of their die-off. Research from the USGS and others have indicated that well-documented shifts in climate will help these cold-blooded creatures thrive farther and farther north, affecting more states and increasing their ecological damage and costs to taxpayers (Reed 

et al, 2009, 2012). 

For example, the state of Louisiana appears to be prime habitat for future invasions by imported large constrictor snakes. USGS research indicates that even 

Chairman Fleming’s northwest Louisiana District is a suitable climate match for 

giant constrictors. Prohibiting the importation and inter-state trade of all nine constrictor snakes would greatly reduce the odds of an invasion on par with the crisis 

in south Florida. 

A recent study published in Integrative Zoology attempts to contradict USGS research on python climate projections, claiming that it is unlikely pythons can survive north of the Everglades. Unfortunately, the conclusions in this new study ‘Environmental, physiology and behavior limit the range expansion of invasive Burmese 

pythons in southeastern USA’ (Jacobson et al. 2012) are based on several flawed 

premises and no new information on python behavior or cold tolerance. In fact, the 

authors ignore a fundamental principle of reptilian ecology—the ability of reptiles 

to behaviorally regulate their body temperatures well above air temperature. Attached to this testimony are comments on the study by several of the leading researchers on this topic, elaborating on this and other basic flaws in the Jacobsen 

et al. methodologies. 

PREVENTING NON-NATIVE SPECIES INVASIONS 

The nine large constrictor snakes proposed to be listed as injurious by H.R. 511 

are just some of the examples of a massive invasive species problem in the United 

States and across the world. The total U.S. cost attributed to invasive animals and 

associated animal diseases is estimated to be as much as $35 billion per year, with 

one study estimating the effects and control of nonnative invasive species at about 

$120 billion (Pimentel 2005). The snakes listing rule by the FWS took 6 years to 

finalize—far too long to effectively prevent the establishment of Burmese pythons 

and other species in south Florida. It illustrates that the Lacey Act injurious species 
13 

listing section—which is 112 years old—is inadequate. This current process, in 

which FWS acts largely in reactive fashion, is in need of an upgrade. The House 

and Senate have both introduced legislation that would vastly improve the current 

process. In the House, NWF has strongly endorsed H.R. 5864, the Invasive Fish 

and Wildlife Prevention Act of 2012, which has 30 bipartisan cosponsors. This bill 

would reform the injurious species listing process, making it faster and more effective, and bring it into the modern age. Prevention of harmful exotic species through 

screening and risk assessment is of great importance to limiting damages posed by 

invasives, particularly when protecting areas from invasive reptiles. We urge the 

Committee to take up H.R. 5864 or its counterpart in the next Congress and to 

move it forward for passage. 

CONCLUSION 

National Wildlife Federation was pleased that FWS prohibited the importation 

and inter-state transport of the Burmese python, yellow anaconda, northern African 

rock python and southern African rock python. However, the job of addressing large 

constrictor snakes is not finished, and it is crucial that the five remaining large constrictor species targeted by FWS and USGS be listed as injurious wildlife as well. 

H.R. 511, as originally introduced, finishes the job by making sure all nine species are listed: until then, the reticulated python, DeSchauenee’s anaconda, green 

anaconda, Beni anaconda, and boa constrictor will continue to audition for reoccurring roles in the invasive species assault on America’s ecosystems. Our nation’s 

wildlife, human safety and tourism and recreation economy depend on taking action 

to prevent invasions of exotic animal species. NWF calls on the committee to remove 

the two harmful weakening amendments adopted by the Judiciary committee and 

pass the original H.R. 511 language. 

ATTACHMENT 1 

Comments on Jacobson et al. ‘‘Environmental temperatures, physiology, 

and behavior limit the range expansion of invasive Burmese pythons in 

Southeastern USA’’ 

November 27, 2012 

In this paper, the authors ask ‘‘Do Burmese pythons currently inhabiting the Everglades possess the ecological, physiological, and behavioral traits to survive in 

more temperate environments?’’ The only new data presented in this paper are summaries of ambient air temperatures in Florida and South Carolina. The authors interpret these temperature data as evidence that pythons cannot expand beyond 

South Florida. Unfortunately, their conclusions are based on several flawed premises and no new information on python behavior or cold tolerance. The study does 

not contradict the approaches or conclusions of previous studies (e.g., Rodda et al. 

2009) and yields little new insight into factors that may limit range expansion in 

this invasive species. 

In this paper, Jacobson et al. develop a rationale based on environmental (maximum and minimum air) temperatures from the Southeast and the limits those temperatures might pose to python survival and feeding. They conclude that pythons 

lack the physiological and behavioral abilities to survive in climates more temperate 

than southern Florida, where they are now thriving. Fundamental to their argument is that air temperature is an accurate indicator of body temperatures experienced by free-ranging snakes. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The ability of reptiles to behaviorally regulate their body temperatures well above air temperature 

is recognized as a fundamental element of reptilian ecology and a well-documented 

phenomenon that has been studied for over 60 years. Nearly all snakes, including 

pythons, are able to substantially warm their body temperatures above ambient 

temperature by basking in the sun or seeking refuge underground. In fact, our recent study in South Carolina (see Dorcas et al. 2011) demonstrated that pythons 

were able to achieve body temperatures >20C, even when maximum air temperatures were <15C and nightly lows dropped below freezing. 

Moreover, although this study does not present any new data on python behavior 

or physiology, the thresholds they use for digestion and survival are not substantially different from those of most native North American snakes. For example, like 

pythons, most snakes require body temperatures above 16C to digest their prey and 

cannot withstand freezing. Thus, based on the rationale described in this study, we 

would conclude that most of the continental United States is unsuitable for snakes 

in general. Of course, this is not the case. Dozens of snake species thrive in temperate climates by using behavior (basking, hibernation, etc.) to maintain appropriate body temperatures, and this study provides no new evidence addressing 
14 

python’s abilities to thermoregulate. Jacobson et al. interpret the results of recent 

python deaths during exceptionally cold weather in the Everglades, Gainesville, 

Florida, and Aiken, South Carolina as evidence that pythons ‘‘seemingly lack the behaviors to seek refuge from, and the physiology to tolerate, cold temperatures’’ but 

fail to recognize that some pythons behaved appropriately, took refuge underground 

or in shelters, and survived short-term freezes in all three of these cases. 

This paper was written primarily as a rebuttal to a paper by Rodda et al. (2009) 

that showed a suitable climate match for Burmese pythons throughout much of the 

southern United States. There is nothing in the Jacobson et al. paper that undermines the original approaches or conclusions of Rodda et al. (2009) and the editors 

of the journal were remiss by not inviting Rodda or his colleagues to review this 

manuscript before it was published. There are many factors, including temperature, 

that may limit the distribution of pythons in the United States, but the Jacobson 

et al. (2012) paper adds little new insight into what those limitations might be. 

Michael E. Dorcas, Department of Biology, Davidson College 

John D. Willson, Department of Biology, University of Arkansas 

Christina Romagosa, Center for Forest Sustainability, School of Forestry and 

Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University 

Response to questions submitted for the record by John F. Kostyack, 

National Wildlife Federation 

1. How would the USDA regulate exhibitors under this provision? 

2. How does the pet trade, and specifically interstate commerce related 

to the pet trade, contribute to the establishment of invasive constrictor snakes? 

a. Can you site a specific study illustrating this? 

3. How much have U.S. taxpayers spent on eradicating these invasive 

snakes. 

4. We’ve seen some studies alleging that invasive constrictor snakes 

cannot survive outside of the Everglades. Can you provide evidence 

of other places that these snakes could establish breeding populations, the probability of that happening, and how this could occur 

(through hibernation, escape from homes, ect.)? 

5. Arguments have been made that native species such as the white-tail 

deer are more of a threat to human safety than these invasive 

snakes. However, in the context of invasive species only, can you cite 

evidence that any other species poses as much of a threat to human 

safety as these snakes? 

6. Imperiled species are under significant threat in the Everglades already—how are invasive constrictors contributing? How can we expect this to play out in other areas? 

7. Would you say science is settled on the issues of whether snakes can 

establish breeding populations outside the Everglades? 

Answer #1. USDA exhibitors regulation: 

The USDA does not regulate reptiles and would not issue a license to someone 

who only exhibits reptiles. Someone could easily obtain a USDA license by acquiring 

a regulated species for exhibition, such as a dog, cat, or rabbit. However, the USDA 

has no standards and regulations for reptiles and would not inspect the reptiles 

kept by a licensed exhibitor. 

#2. Pet Trade role: Numerous sources identify the pet trade as the leading 

cause of non-native animal invasions. 

a. Study on pet trade 

Florida has the world’s worst invasive amphibian and reptile problem, and a new 

20-year study led by a University of Florida researcher verifies the pet trade as the 

No. 1 cause of the species’ introductions. The study finds the pet industry was most 

likely responsible for the introduction of 84 percent of 137 nonnative reptile and amphibian species introduced from 1863 through 2010, with about 25 percent of those 

traced to one animal importer. Of the nonnative reptile and amphibian species introduced, 56 have become established in Florida. No established, non-native amphibian or reptile species has been eradicated and no one has ever been prosecuted 

for the establishment of a non-indigenous species. See http://news.ufl.edu/2011/09/ 

15/invasive-species/. 
15 

i Henry T. Smith, Dr. Arthur Sementelli, Dr. Walter E. Meshaka Jr., Ph.D., Richard M. 

Engeman, ‘‘Reptilian Pathogens of the Florida Everglades: The Associated Costs of Burmese 

Pythons,’’ Endangered Species UPDATE, Vol. 24 No. 3 2007. 

#3. U.S. taxpayer eradication costs. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in partnership with many organizations, has 

spent more than $6 million since 2005 attempting to address the growing problem 

of Burmese pythons and other large invasive constrictor snakes in Florida. 

#4. Survival of snakes outside Everglades. 

Burmese pythons—an invasive species in south Florida—could find comfortable 

climatic conditions in roughly a third of the United States according to new ‘‘climate 

maps’’ developed by the U.S. Geological Survey. Although other factors such as type 

of food available and suitable shelter also play a role, Burmese pythons and other 

giant constrictor snakes have shown themselves to be highly adaptable to new environments. The reported clutch size maximum for Burmese pythons is 107 eggs. If 

one pregnant snake escaped or was released into a hospitable environment, it could 

lead to invasive species problems in new areas. Other exotic constrictor snakes could 

potentially survive in portions of other U.S. states or territories. A potentially irreversible invasion of Boa constrictors was just documented in western Puerto Rico 

in a published article in Biological Invasions by Reynold et al. 2012. See: http:// 

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-012-0354-2. 

#5. Threat to human safety. 

The National Wildlife Federation does not believe that there is any need for Congress to choose between protecting children from constrictor snakes and reducing 

motor vehicle collisions with white-tailed deer. Although there may be more human 

fatalities from deer-vehicle collisions than from invasive large constrictor snakes, we 

view the loss of even a single human life from a preventable introduction of a constrictor snake to be unacceptable. 

#6. Threats to wildlife and ecosystems. 

Burmese pythons are preying on endangered species, such as the Key Largo 

woodrat and wood stork, which have cost taxpayers more than $102 million in recovery programs from 1999 to 2009. Many other endangered species are found in 

Florida and other States and territories that would be threatened by large constrictor snakes. Pythons have been reported to consume leopards in their native 

range, and thus even top predators, such as the endangered Florida panther, may 

be at risk. The potential cost of predation by a single python can be quite substantial. Academic experts and government officials estimate that a single large python 

whose diet consists mainly of federally endangered wood storks can cause $6 million 

in damages in lost fauna per year.i

#7. Science on other invasions. 

Large constrictor snakes have already established breeding populations outside of 

the Everglades. At the Deering Estate at Cutler (Miami-Dade County, Florida), 

invasive B. constrictor were found in multiple habitats, including tropical hardwood 

hammocks, dirt roads/trails, landscaped areas, and pine rocklands. Large pythons 

have also been found at Lake Okeechobee, almost a hundred miles north of the 

heavy concentrations in the Everglades. And, as cited above, B. constrictor have recently invaded in western Puerto Rico. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Kostyack. 

Mr. Heflick, you are up, sir, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SHAWN K. HEFLICK, ‘‘THE PYTHON HUNTERS,’’ 

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CHANNEL 

Mr. HEFLICK. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear and speak before you. 

My name is Shawn Heflick. And my interest in this hearing and 

subject matter is multi-faceted. I am a biologist who has completed 

his master’s degree on invasive species in Florida. I have traveled 

the world, capturing and studying pythons, anacondas, and boas on 

five continents. I am the president of a conservation NGO out of 
16 

the Amazon Basin, a licensed python agent for both the Everglades 

National Park and Florida Wildlife Commission, and the host of 

National Geographic Wild series, ‘‘The Python Hunters,’’ which explores exactly this topic. 

The question today is whether several species of snakes should 

be added to the Lacey Act list of injurious species, and whether 

that listing would further the restoration of the Everglades. My answer is simple: no. Why? Multiple reasons. 

First, no anaconda or reticulated python populations exist in the 

United States, even though these animals have been here for halfa-century. In addition, there is a glaring lack of data for any negative impact of the existing wildlife—or wild Burmese Python populations. The alleged severe mammal decline in South Florida due 

to the Burmese Python population is, in my professional opinion, 

a travesty of science, especially when the data tell an entirely different story: natural hydrological cycles; effects of high mercury 

levels; fire regimes; general water pollution; increased alligator 

population; increased scavenger populations; increased 

mesopredator populations; increased vehicle traffic; two record-low 

winters with hard freezes; changes in manmade water regimes; a 

huge, massive increase in feral cat populations estimated at 10 to 

15 million in the State of Florida, among many other potential 

causes totally unaccounted for in this study. Totally unaccounted 

for in this study. 

In fact, two of the authors of this study, who I know, openly stated that they believe the real reason for the decline in mammals is 

the depressed hydrological cycle within the Everglades National 

Park. From firsthand boots on the ground experience, I can take 

you to the Everglades today and show you more signs of small 

mammals in one day and evening than this entire study of 8 years 

exhibited. Something is grossly wrong with that disparity. 

Snakes are temperature-sensitive. With permitting from the 

Florida Wildlife Commission and collaboration from the USDA 

APHIS, I conducted a study in 2010 during the hard freeze, which 

included both boa constrictors and Burmese Pythons. Within just 

4 days—4 days—100 percent of all of those constrictor snakes in 

that outdoor enclosure had died, due from exposure. Simply put, 

the outside ambient temperature had dropped below the python 

and boa’s critical thermal minimum, which caused death. Environmental temperatures, physiology and behavior limit the range expansion of these Burmese Pythons in the Southeastern United 

States. 

This also offers insight as to why the Burmese population has 

not expanded outside of South Florida in almost two decades, and 

is seemingly, by the numbers, on the decline since the 2009 and 

2010 cold snap. Furthermore, from January 1, 2012 to the present, 

71 Fish and Wildlife Commission python agents have captured a 

total of only 46 pythons for this entire calendar year. The population is, indeed, lower. And the numbers prove it. 

The same formal data is applicable to the rest of these proposed 

tropical species, and would severely limit their ability to survive. 

The competition for resources and prey is immense. And the idea 

that a reptile predator in the system is not novel. The Everglades 

is not a paradise for invading tropical pythons or boas. On the con-
17 

trary, it is a harsh, subtropical environment that is riddled with 

predators, roadways, vehicles, pollutants, and an ever-increasing 

pressure from human development. 

Last year I participated on a panel for invasive species at an academic conference with partners in reptile conservation where I 

asked university biologists, state biologists, fish and game enforcement, zoo curators, reptile industry experts, Department of the Interior biologists if any one of them thought boa constrictors were 

invasive species and could possibly pose a problem in the United 

States. Not one of these field experts raised their hand. Not one of 

these experts, who work day in and day out with these issues on 

the ground, believe them to be a problem. 

The same sentiment can be found among biologists and ecologists 

for reticulated pythons and green anacondas, as well. These are not 

the invasive monsters that they are portrayed to be. And crippling 

thousands of small businesses and family breeders will accomplish 

nothing to save the Everglades. Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heflick follows:] 

Statement of Shawn Heflick, Herpetologist 

Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman, members of the Subcommittees, I want to 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and to present testimony at this 

oversight hearing on ‘‘Constrictor Snakes and Other Invasive Species’’. As a herpetologist and a resident of the State of Florida, I welcome the opportunity to testify 

and to answer questions on this important issue. 

My name is Shawn Heflick, and my interest in this hearing and subject matter 

is multifaceted. I am a biologist who completed his Masters Degree on invasive species in Florida. I have also traveled the world capturing and studying pythons, anaconda and boas on 5 continents, I am the president of a conservation NGO out of 

the Amazon Basin, a licensed Python Agent for both the Everglades National Park 

and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the Host of National 

Geographic WILD’s series, the Python Hunters, which explores the conservation 

issues of reptiles around the globe and educates people about their plight. In addition to my field experience and academic background as a biologist, I am a former 

breeder of large constrictors and considered an expert in the natural history, husbandry, breeding and behavior of these reptiles. 

The question today is whether the Beni Anaconda, DeSchauensee’s Anaconda, 

Green Anaconda, Reticulated Python and Boa Constrictor should be added to the 

Lacey Act list of Injurious Species and whether that listing would further the restoration of the Everglades. 

My answer is simple: IT WILL NOT Why? For several reasons. First, NO anaconda or reticulated python populations exist in the US. In addition, there is a glaring lack of data for any negative impact of the existing wild Burmese Python population. The alleged severe mammal decline in south Florida (Dorcas et al. 2011) due 

to the Burmese Python population is, in my professional opinion, a travesty of 

science especially when their own data tell an entirely different story. Natural 

hydrological cycle (semi-drought conditions for the last decade), effects of high mercury levels, fire regimes, general water pollution, increased alligator population, increased scavenger populations, increased meso-predator populations, increased vehicle numbers, two record low winters with hard freezes, change in water regimes 

(man-made), natural cycles in populations . . . rabbits (7–10yrs), deer, etc., and a 

HUGE increase in feral cat populations (estimated at 10–15 MILLION in Florida), 

and on, and on, and on . . . are all unaccounted for in this study. Two of the authors openly stated that they believe the real reason for the decline in mammals 

is the depressed hydrological cycle within the Everglades National Park. From firsthand, boots on the ground, experience I can take you to the Everglades and show 

you more signs (tracks, scat, live specimen, etc.) of small mammals in one evening 

than they found in their entire 8 year study, which involved them ONLY surveying 

from their vehicles on roads. Something is grossly wrong with that disparity. 

With permitting from Florida Wildlife and Conservation Commission, and collaboration from the USDA/APHIS/WS, I conducted a cold study in 2010 during the hard 

freeze, which included both Boa constrictor and Burmese Pythons. Within just four 

days, 100% of the specimens in the enclosure had died due to exposure to the cold. 
18 

Simply put, the outside ambient temperature had dropped below the python and 

boa’s critical thermal minimum, which caused death. Jacobson et al. 2012., Environmental temperatures, physiology and behavior limit the range expansion of invasive 

Burmese pythons in southeastern USA also offers insight as to why the wild Burmese Python population has not expanded outside of south Florida, and is seemingly 

on the decline as exhibited by the massive die-offs of 2009/2010. Furthermore, from 

January 1, 2012 to the present, seventy one (71) Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission python agents have captured a total of only 46 pythons in the last calendar 

year. Population numbers are lower than ever before. 

This same thermal data is applicable to the rest of these proposed tropical species, 

and would severely limit their ability to survive. As a matter of record, no established populations of reticulated python or anaconda species have been found in the 

wilds of south Florida. The competition for resources and prey items is immense, 

and the idea of a reptile predator in the system is not novel. South Florida has large 

Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnakes, Indigo snakes, and the apex predators of the 

system, the American alligator and American crocodile, who regularly feed upon 

large snakes. The Everglades is not a paradise for invading tropical pythons or boas. 

On the contrary, it is a harsh, sub-tropical environment that is riddled with predators, roadways, vehicles, pollutants and ever increasing pressure from human development. 

This is a Florida problem, not a national one. Florida currently has a set of progressive and stringent regulations effectively dealing with these issues. These regulations have already reduced the trade in these large constrictors by 95%, leaving 

the majority of remaining specimens in the hands of qualified, permitted professionals and a 24/7 Amnesty Program which gives those still holding animals an avenue to surrender them. 

Any discussion about these species should be coupled with a legitimate scientific 

study and assessment of their ability to establish and become invasive. If these species were assessed individually in a probability study, it would reveal that many of 

them are extraordinarily uncommon or non-existent in the pet trade such that their 

rarity in the U.S. virtually negates their ability to become a problem. Species like 

the Bolivian Anaconda (Eunectes beniensis) and De Schauensee’s Anaconda 

(Eunectes deschauenseei) are not represented in the United States. Last year I participated on a panel for invasive species at an academic conference for partners in 

reptile conservation, where I asked university biologists, state biologists, state fish 

and game enforcement, AZA zoo curators, reptile industry experts and Department 

of Interior biologists if anyone thought Boa constrictor were an invasive species and 

could possibly pose a problem for the U.S. Not one of these FIELD EXPERTS raised 

their hand . . . not one of these individuals who work day in and day out with these 

issues believe boas to be a problem. The same sentiment can be found among biologists and ecologists for Reticulated Pythons and Green Anacondas as well. These are 

not the invasive monsters that they are portrayed to be. The vast majority of my 

biology colleagues agree that feral cats and feral pigs are the worst vertebrate 

invasive problems facing ecosystems today. Tens of millions of these animals devastate BILLIONS of small mammals and birds each year, as well as, TENS OF 

THOUSANDS of acres of critical habitat every year. If we TRULY want to save our 

natural areas and wildlife, we MUST START working on THESE REAL ISSUES. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this joint hearing of the 

Subcommittees. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Dr. FLEMING. Yes. Thank you. And next, Ms. Sutherland, you are 

recognized now for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF COLETTE SUTHERLAND, 

THE SNAKE KEEPER, INC., SPANISH FORK, UTAH 

Ms. SUTHERLAND. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Colette Sutherland and, along with my husband, 

Dan, own TSK, Incorporated, also known as ‘‘The Snake Keeper,’’ 

a small family business with five full-time and three part-time employees. Here we maintain approximately 1,000 snakes, a rodent 

colony, and a reptile-related supply business. 

I am also a member of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council’s 

Reptile and Amphibian Committee. Thank you for inviting me to 
19 

present testimony on the H.R. 511 bill that would add 5 additional 

species of constrictor snakes to the Lacey Act. 

I have been keeping and breeding various types of reptiles for 

the past 40 years. I have a zoology degree from Brigham Young 

University, and my written testimony references several of my publications, including providing 10 years of production data as the 

basis for Dr. Morrell’s doctoral thesis on quantitative genetic analysis of reproductive traits in bald pythons. 

With respect to H.R. 511, I have serious concerns about the approach being taken. Listing a species in the Lacey Act by legislative fiat is not, in my opinion, the best course for dealing with Federal regulation of an invasive species, especially when the invasive 

issue is localized, at best, in Southern Florida. 

The listing process currently employed by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, while possibly in need of revision, at least is founded upon 

science-based findings. The process is open to public comment, peer 

review, and potential modification via the regulatory process. The 

Fish and Wildlife Service has already listed four species, and deferred making a final decision with respect to five non-native constrictor species, because it did not believe that their listing was 

warranted. I believe that the Service is in the best position to make 

such findings. I am opposed to a nationwide ban of any species 

whose potential negative impact, at best, is limited to extremely localized areas such as South Florida. 

Adding the boa constrictor would be most devastating to the reptile industry. Boas are produced by the thousands by commercial 

and non-commercial breeders, such as our company, throughout the 

United States. There is a tremendous variety of size and color, 

even among the normally colored specimens. Boas are one of the 

most commonly kept large constrictor species in the world. 

In the year 2000 we added boas to our collection. Conservatively, we have invested a minimum of $300,000 in acquiring our breeding 

colony. We have invested thousands in caging supplies and maintenance of our breeding operations. We sell our offspring throughout 

the United States, as sport animals to other countries. With just 

the talk of having boas added to the Lacey Act, the value of our 

boa collection was devastated. Snakes that I had paid $25,000 a 

pair for I could barely sell for $1,500 as a breeding adult. Their 

progeny, which had been selling for approximately $7,500 each 

prior to the proposed listing plummeted to $1,500 or even less, if 

I could find a buyer at all. 

We had to make a very hard business decision, as well as a 

heart-breaking decision, after trying to market our adult boas to 

other breeders in States that would have been allowed to export 

them—because there is no port in my State, so I never would have 

been allowed to export them. It became apparent that there were 

no buyers. We even tried to give some of the adults away, and nobody wanted or was willing to accept them, due to the potential 

talk of the ban. We ended up euthanizing over 60 adult boas. We 

still maintain some boas, but not nearly what we once had. And we 

were considered a medium-sized breeder. 

In assessing the financial loss we incurred, Dan and I figured out 

the potential production of viable progeny, had we been able to 

keep those breeding animals intact without augmenting the breed-
20 

ing stock, we conservatively estimated those 60 breeders, over their 

natural breeding lifespan and normal birthrates, could have generated approximately $2 million, had the market not collapsed in 

light of the potential ban. 

I know there has been a lot of talk about it only affects a small 

percentage of small businesses, but I am one of those small businesses. And we have been involved in this since I have—for at least 

30 years, breeding and selling these snakes. And I am not the only 

one. There are hundreds of us across the U.S. that do this, and we 

all work very hard and responsibly to make sure we are providing 

a good product, and that we tell the purchasers—we give them 

guidelines and expect them to take care of their animals and be responsible keepers. 

And I don’t see the need to have a nationwide ban when this is 

totally a localized situation in South Florida. 

Thank you for allowing me the time to speak to you today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sutherland follows:] 

Statement of Colette Sutherland, TSK, Inc. 

Mr. Chair and members of the Subcommittee, I am Colette Sutherland and I 

along with my husband Dan own TSK, Inc. that was started back in 1989. Thank 

you for inviting me to present testimony on the H.R. 511, a bill that would add nine 

species of constrictor snakes to the Lacey Act. 

I have been keeping and breeding various types of reptiles for the past 40 years. 

I have a Bachelors of Science in Zoology with a teaching option in Biology from 

Brigham Young University in 1985. While at the University I worked in the Herpetology department taking care of the live reptiles that were there at the time. The 

reptiles there included a Burmese python, common boa, Gila monster and various 

venomous snakes. 

In 2000 we were approached by Dr. Mark Seward to make a video on breeding 

ball pythons. We agreed and the video and accompanying information came out in 

2001. In late 2004 I was approached by TFH, a large animal care publishing company, and authored a basic book on ball python care for their ‘‘Quick and Easy’’ series. In late 2008 I was again approached by TFH to write another more comprehensive ball python book for their ‘‘Complete Herp Care’’ series which was published 

in 2009. In 2011 Benson Morrill, a Utah State University graduate, used data that 

had been collected at our facility for close to 10 years to publish his doctoral thesis— 

Quantitative Genetic Analysis of Reproduction Traits in Ball Pythons. In 2012 this 

paper was also submitted by Dr. Benson Morrill to the Journal of Animal Breeding 

and Genetics. 

With respect to H.R. 511, I have serious concerns about the approach being taken. 

Listing a species under the Lacey Act by legislative fiat is not in my opinion the 

best course for dealing with Federal regulation of an invasive species. The listing 

process currently employed by the Fish and Wildlife Service while possibly in need 

of revision to be more expeditious at least is founded upon science-based findings. 

The process is open to public comment, peer review, and potential modification via 

the regulatory process. As you are aware the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service earlier 

this year listed four species of large constrictor snakes as injurious under the Lacey 

Act. The Service deferred making a final decision with respect to five non-native 

constrictor species that the Service at that time did not believe that listing was warranted. I believe that the Service is in the best position to make such findings. I 

submitted comments at various stages of the Fish and Wildlife Services’ evaluation 

of large constrictor snakes. Additionally, as a member of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council’s (PIJAC) Reptile and Amphibian Committee, I worked closely with 

them in addressing various aspects of the regulatory listing process. Then as now 

I am opposed to a nationwide ban on any species whose potential negative impact 

at best is limited to extremely localized areas in south Florida. 

According to Fish and Wildlife Service a species is evaluated on a variety of factors before it can be listed as injurious: ‘‘Such as the species’ survival capabilities 

and ability to spread geographically; its impacts on habitats and ecosystems, threatened and endangered species, and human beings and resource-based industries; and 

resource managers’ ability to control and eradicate the species. Analysis of these factors guides the Service’s listing determination. Scientific data is reviewed for factors 
21 

that contribute to injuriousness and factors that reduce or remove injuriousness. In 

addition, other laws require that various economic analyses are conducted to determine the economic impacts of potential rulemakings’’. Four of the original 9 large 

constrictors have already been added to the Lacey Act’s injurious species list. The 

remaining five, Beni anaconda, DeSchauensee’s anaconda, Green anaconda, Reticulated python and Boa constrictor are what will be discussed here. 

Using the above criteria, we will look at the potential impact that the three anaconda species may have upon the Continental United States. Hawaii is left out since 

it is illegal to ship any snake to Hawaii and we can certainly exclude Alaska, as 

it is far too cold for any boa or python to survive there unless kept under captive 

conditions. The Beni and DeSchauensee’s anacondas at this time are not available 

in the pet trade nor are they currently kept in our country anywhere. Even if these 

2 species did exist in the pet trade, there are no suitable climates here in the United 

States for them to successfully thrive according to the USGS risk assessment, let 

alone survive. Since there are no existing climates in the United States where they 

could survive that seems to preclude them from being injurious. What would be the 

purpose of adding them to the Lacey Act,—they don’t even exist in our country neither could they survive here in the wild. 

In response to a recent inquiry regarding the status of these two species, David 

Barker, a noted herpetologist and author emailed me the following information on 

November 20: 

To my knowledge, there has never been a live specimen of beniensis in the 

country (and I’ve looked). There very few records or reports of the northern 

yellow anaconda, E. deschauenseei in captivity in this country or Europe, 

and I am not aware of any in captivity in the past 30 years. Both species 

are given no chance of surviving in this country, according to the climate 

match of Reed and Rodda (2009). 

The green anaconda on the other hand is in the pet trade, although in very small 

numbers. It has never had a huge following. The very large size along with its requirement of a more specialized care has limited the number of people that can successfully raise such a species. The green anaconda could potentially live in one area 

of the United States and that would be south Florida, however Florida has already 

taken steps to prevent an introduction of this species into the Everglades. As of July 

1, 2010 a Florida law was passed to deal with reptiles of concern. The green anaconda is on this list and is no longer available for personal use in the State of Florida. Private citizens that owned this snake prior to this date were grandfathered 

in and allowed to keep their animal until it expired as long as they followed the 

rules set out by the law. The snake must be micro chipped and the owners are required to follow all reporting and security procedures. Commercial dealers, exhibitors and research institutions can have them, but they must adhere to strict biosecurity requirements for housing and transporting the animal. In essence the State 

of Florida has already effectively mitigated any potential problem posed by the 

green anaconda. Again looking at one of the criteria used by Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to its ability to spread geographically, green anaconda can only survive in a very small portion of southern Florida where the temperature and amount 

of water is consistent for their survival. Since Florida has already enacted very 

stringent regulations regarding the keeping of this species, again what would be the 

purpose of adding them to the Lacey Act? Quite simply a nationwide ban is not warranted by any scientific measure. 

Next is the reticulated python. Unlike the green anaconda, the reticulated 

pythons are broken down into three subspecies Python reticulatus reticulatus, 

Python reticulatus jampeanus, and Python reticulatus saputrai. The smallest of 

these subspecies is Python reticulates jampeanus with adult females attaining 

lengths between 6—8 feet. All of these subspecies have been bred together in captivity in an effort to produce a smaller reticulated python. Another substantial difference between the reticulated python and the green anaconda is the tremendous 

color variation seen in captive bred individuals, because of the number of beautiful 

color morphs (name given to colors and patterns that differ from the normal wild 

pattern and color). Like the green anaconda, the reticulated python could potentially 

live in south Florida as the USGS risk assessment indicates and because of this, 

it too is listed as a reptile of concern by the State of Florida and the same bio-security rules apply to it as do the anaconda. Once again the State of Florida has taken 

care of a potential problem. Since the State of Florida has effectively addressed this 

issue why is it necessary for the Federal Government to step in when the species 

in question cannot inhabit any other area of the continental United States? Once 

again a nationwide ban is not warranted. 

Finally we come to the Boa constrictor. As with the reticulated python there are 

subspecies of Boa constrictor that need to be taken into consideration. Depending 
22 

upon which taxonomic source is used there can be 9 subspecies. There is a tremendous size and color variation among this group of snakes. One subspecies, Boa constrictor occidentalis, the Argentine boa is listed as a CITES Appendix 1 animal and 

cannot be imported into the United States for commercial purposes and any international trade would be limited to the zoological community. This subspecies is only 

kept in very limited numbers by a small group of individuals. Out of the remaining 

8 subspecies, only 3 are readily available in the pet trade and one of those Boa constrictor imperator is widely kept and bred. According to USGS the only areas of potential habitat for Boa constrictor imperator in the continental United States is once 

again Florida and possibly southern Texas. In the instance of the Deering Estate 

population of Boa constrictor, in Miami Dade County, they have existed in this park 

for the past 40 years and have not expanded out of the park. This is the only established population of any Boa constrictor species in the continental United States and 

it is a surviving population, not a thriving population. This group has shown that 

it is not able to successfully spread beyond the borders of the park. Quite simply 

they do not pose a risk to the rest of the country and could be potentially eradicated 

from such a small geographical area. Its ability to spread has been limited, so why 

does this group need to be added to the Lacey Act? Again a nationwide ban is not 

justified. 

Restoration of the Everglades is a noble objective which encompasses myriad complex issues. The word restoration is defined as bringing back to a former position 

or condition. The historical water drainage that formed the Everglades has been altered considerably. Due to this altering it is doubtful that the Everglades will ever 

truly be restored to what it once was. While one might argue that the Fish and 

Wildlife Services earlier listing of Burmese pythons has addressed one aspect of Everglades restoration, none of the five non-listed species being considered for addition 

to the Lacey Act in H.R. 511 are found in the Everglades—adding them would not 

add to the restoration of the Everglades. I do think that it is also important to note 

that many of these snakes have been in the private sector for at least 60 years or 

longer and I am sure that there have been escapees, and a few that have been released here and there by irresponsible owners. However nowhere else in the continental United States have these animals ever established a population, except in 

Florida and even at that, it was limited to only 2 species in southern Florida. 

Adding the anacondas (DeSchauensee’s and Beni) to the Lacey Act would not impact any breeders or dealers at all, adding the green anacondas would affect a small 

number of breeders and it would impact zoos and others institutions. 

Adding reticulated pythons would be devastating to those that bred them across 

the United States. These breeders, some have spent decades, working with this species to produce smaller and beautifully colored reticulated pythons. Some of these 

individuals sell for $ 25,000.00 each. While it is true this does not represent a large 

number of people, these breeders employ others, pay taxes and work hard to 

produce very desirable specimens for serious hobbyists. This activity has grown in 

recent years because of the reduced size of reticulated pythons and the great of 

amazing patterns and colors that have been produced as our understanding of genetics has improved. Today, there are very few normally colored animals produced. 

Thousands of people across the United States own and responsibly enjoy their reticulated pythons. With the passage of H.R. 511 these people would no longer be 

able to take their pet with them if they moved from one state to another. Nor could 

they participate in breeding programs if interstate movement was involved. I simply 

do not see the benefit of adding these to the Lacey Act since the species have not, 

nor have shown a propensity to be an invasive species in Florida, let alone other 

parts of the United States. 

Adding the Boa constrictor would be even more devastating to the reptile industry. Boas are produced by the thousands by commercial and non-commercial breeders throughout the United States. There is a tremendous variety of size and color, 

even among the normally colored specimens. Boas are one of the most commonly 

kept large constrictor species in the world. We added boas to our collection back in 

2000. Conservatively, we have invested a minimum of $300,000 in acquiring our 

breeding colony. We have invested thousands in caging, supplies and maintenance 

of our breeding operations. We employ people to work with us, and sell our progeny 

throughout the United States as well as export animals to other countries 

With just the talk of having boas added to the Lacey Act the value of our collection plummeted. Snakes that I had paid $25,000.00 a pair for as babies I could barely sell for $1,500.00 each as a proven breeding animal. Their progeny which had 

been selling for approximately $7,500.00 each prior to the proposed listing, plummeted to $1,500.00 each if I could find a buyer at all. Sales stagnated. We had to 

make a very hard business as well as heartbreaking decision. After trying to market 

our adult boas to other breeders in states that would have been allowed to export 
23 

the offspring overseas it became apparent that there were no buyers. We even tried 

to give them away, no luck. We ended up euthanizing over 60 adult boas. We still 

maintain some boas, but not nearly what we once had and we were considered a 

medium sized operation. 

In assessing the financial loss we incurred, Dan and I figured out the potential 

production of viable progeny had we been able to keep those breeding animals intact. Without augmenting the breeding stock, we conservatively estimated those 60 

breeders over their natural breeding lifespan and normal birth rates could have generated approximately $2,000,000 had the market not collapsed in light of the potential nationwide ban. 

I do not support H.R. 511. The Fish and Wildlife Service utilizes well established 

and accepted guidelines that they developed over the years to help them determine 

if a species is injurious. Adding species to the Lacey Act through legislative fiat completely negates the roll of the Fish and Wildlife Service in determining if a species 

is injurious. Circumventing the regulatory process by allowing species to be designated ‘‘injurious’’ without going through a science based risk analyses allows very 

powerful special interests to be able to convince legislators that certain species are 

harmful when in reality they are not. This is a dangerous precedent. 

In conclusion, I remain mystified as to why the Congress believes its scientific 

analysis should supersede that of the Federal agency they designated to conduct the 

requisite risk analysis of species that might warrant listing under the Lacy Act. The 

State of Florida has addressed the issue; it has implemented a comprehensive regulatory process to protect Florida’s interests. A nationwide ban is not warranted and 

I urge that H.R. 511 not be supported. 

Thank you for providing me an opportunity to submit my comments. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Ms. Sutherland. Thank you for your 

testimony. 

Now, Mr. Jenkins, you are recognized, sir, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PETER T. JENKINS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION ON INVASIVE 

SPECIES 

Mr. JENKINS. OK, thanks very much. Thanks for the opportunity 

to testify today. I am testifying as a consultant working through 

my firm, ‘‘The Center for Invasive Species Prevention,’’ consulting 

for the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species, or 

NECIS. NECIS includes the National Wildlife Federation, John’s 

organization, the Nature Conservancy, the Wildlife Society, Great 

Lakes United, National Audubon, and many other groups. 

Given the short notice for this hearing, my full testimony, which 

I have submitted, hasn’t been approved as NECIS testimony. But 

the positions I am going to advocate are the NECIS positions. 

When the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the four snake species 

at the beginning of this year, it basically violated the Lacey Act in 

that decision by excluding the five other species for reasons that 

had nothing to do with the Lacey Act and the statute. That is the 

problem that H.R. 511 can fix, if the 2 bad amendments are removed that John Kostyack referred to. 

The statutory standard that the Service’s listing should have followed was not to weigh the benefits versus the revenue losses of 

Ms. Sutherland and others from a possible Lacey Act listing. It was 

to decide simply whether the snakes fit the definition of an injurious species under the Act. That definition is—and I quote—‘‘Are 

they injurious to human beings, to the interest of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the 

United States?’’ 

It is abundantly clear that all nine of these large constrictor 

snakes meet that standard. Let me address the five snakes that 
24 

weren’t listed. We know for a fact that the Fish and Wildlife Service—as was mentioned by Mr. Sablan—the Fish and Wildlife Service wanted to list all nine of the species. They felt it was scientifically the right decision. But they were compelled by OMB to cut 

the list back to the four species. Why? Because OMB apparently 

got persuaded by USARC’s claims—that Mr. Wyatt is going to talk 

about, I’m sure—which are about lost revenues, which is fine, but 

it is against the statutory standard that I just mentioned. 

Boa constrictors, which we have heard a lot about, which were 

excluded from listing due to OMB, have already invaded at least 

twice in South Florida—or at least twice in this country—and are 

high risk, according to the USGS. We just received confirmation 

last night from leading scientific experts with USGS and university 

scientists that there is a rapidly expanding invasion of boa constrictors now in Puerto Rico. 

People have known about this invasion, but we weren’t clear on 

how serious it was. And there should be new evidence published 

within the next week or two in peer-review journals that we are 

not just talking about a South Florida problem. It is not a localized 

problem. It is a problem for South Texas, Puerto Rico, any semitropical area in this country. The Island Territories, you name it, 

boa constrictors can easily and readily invade there, and they have 

in Puerto Rico. So let’s get off that this is a localized South Florida 

problem. 

Reticulated pythons were also excluded because of OMB pressure 

from that listing. The thing about reticulated pythons, we don’t 

have evidence of invasions yet, but we know that they are known 

as particularly vicious animals. They are prone to unprovoked attacks. And in their native ranges, it is reported they are occasional 

man-eaters. Reticulated pythons in this country have killed more 

infants than any other snake, including an 11-month-old boy, a 20- 

month-old boy, and a 7-month-old girl in her crib. 

The other three species OMB excluded were the anacondas. Now, 

is there anyone in this hearing room who really believes that we 

need anacondas as pets in this country? 

OMB’s interference was extremely unfortunate also because 

USARC’s lost revenue claims are grossly inflated and unrealistic. 

Georgetown Economic Services, which you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, which did the USARC reptile study, is a subsidiary of the law 

firm that represents Mr. Wyatt’s organization. Of course it is a biased study. Its findings were severely critiqued by outside economists, including Tim Kroger, an economist with The Nature Conservancy. According to Dr. Kroger’s statement, which I would like 

to hand in for the record, Mr. Wyatt’s study has serious flaws. Dr. 

Kroger identifies so many biased assumptions and errors of facts 

and misstatements in that study that it is too long to list here. But 

they are included in my written testimony. 

Some other key points, if I may. At least 750 different reptile 

species are in the animal import trade in the U.S. If H.R. 511 

passes, the reptile importers and breeders face losing up to only 5 

species. That is less than 1 percent of the total of the reptile trade. 

There are numerous safer, non-invasive species that can substitute 

for those lost five, and they will. They are doing it. The pet industry is highly adaptable. The snake breeders generally do import 
25 

and breed lots of other species besides the large constrictors. So 

they can and will adjust their operations. 

I would just like to finish on the important point that was mentioned. Of the 17 deaths that have occurred across the Nation due 

to these snakes that these breeders are selling in this country, 

these have an economic value, not to mention the incredible hardship and tragedy that these families and children who are involved 

in these deaths suffer. 

So, USARC’s approach seems to be to just ignore this and say, 

‘‘Buyer Beware.’’ Oh, everyone has got to take care of the problem 

on their own. But what about the children and the infants who are 

strangled in their cribs? How are they supposed to beware of this 

problem? This is real. This is a real part of the injuriousness standard. It is not just about South Florida. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jenkins follows:] 

Statement of Peter T. Jenkins, Executive Director, 

Center for Invasive Species Prevention 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 511 and the issue of listing the nine 

species of large constrictor snake—boas, pythons and anacondas. 

I am testifying as a consultant, working through my firm the Center for Invasive 

Species Prevention, consulting for the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive 

Species (NECIS). NECIS is a coalition of groups concerned about invasive species 

and Federal policy. It includes the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), The Nature 

Conservancy, The Wildlife Society, Great Lakes United and many other groups. 

Given the short notice for me being a witness, my full testimony has not been approved as NECIS testimony, but the policy positions I will advocate on H.R. 511 

and on the listing of the nine snakes are the NECIS positions. 

A bit on my background: I have 22 years of experience, both national and international, in invasive species as a policy analyst, attorney, advocate, lobbyist, consultant, manager, author and speaker. I have been invited to speak at conferences 

around the world on invasive species policy and management and testified twice before to this Sub or Full Committee on the topic—once back in 1993 and again in 

2008. I have approximately 15 publications addressing multiple aspects of invasive 

species, including having written the chapter on the ‘‘Pet Trade’’ in the comprehensive Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions, published in 2011 by the University of 

California Press. My most recent paper is in Biological Invasions, entitled ‘‘Invasive 

animals and wildlife pathogens in the United States: the economic case for more 

risk assessments and regulation.’’ That latter topic is really what I will focus on 

here: the economics and the case for more regulation of these snakes, not less. 

When the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the 4 snake species at the beginning 

of this year, it basically violated the Lacey Act by excluding the 5 other species for 

non-statutory reasons. That is the problem that H.R. 511 could fix, if the two bad 

amendments to it are removed, as referred to by John Kostyack of NWF in his testimony. The statutory criterion the Service’s listing should have followed was not to 

weight the benefits versus the costs of a possible Lacey Act listing, it was to make 

a science-based decision on whether these snakes fit the definition of an ‘‘injurious 

species’’ under that Act, i.e., whether the species are: 

injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, 

forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States. 

It is abundantly clear these large constrictor snakes meet that definition. The 

USGS snake expert report thoroughly assessed the question of ‘‘injuriousness’’. The 

current and potential risk these massive constricting non-native snakes pose is beyond reasonable doubt, given the high likelihood that if further unregulated imports 

and interstate commerce occur, these snakes will continue to be released by irresponsible pet owners and will continue to be able to establish harmful breeding populations throughout significant areas in the southern portion of the nation and in 

our vulnerable island territories too. 

The buyers of these snakes often are not aware of how big they will grow and 

how expensive it is to keep them properly. When the buyers realize what they have 

gotten themselves into with a 15 foot long, 200 lb., dangerous animal after full 

grown, it is not surprising that they release them in the nearest forest or swamp. 
26 

Indeed, we know for a fact that releases and escapes happen all the time—all over 

the country. 

Boa constrictors, which were excluded from the listing rule, have already been released or escaped and invaded at least twice in this country and are ‘‘high’’ risk per 

the USGS report. Reticulated pythons, which also were excluded, were ‘‘moderate’’ 

risk invaders per the USGS; however, according to the excellent new report by the 

Humane Society on Constrictor Snake Incidents, they also are known as particularly 

‘‘vicious,’’ prone to unprovoked attacks and in their native ranges are reported as 

‘‘man eaters’’ more so than any other species of snake. Reticulated pythons have 

killed more infants in this country than any other species, including an 11 month 

old boy, a 21 month old boy and a 7 month old girl. 

The other three excluded species were the anacondas. Does anyone really believe 

we need anacondas in this country as pets? The question answers itself. If we can’t 

restrict anaconda imports, what can we restrict? 

We know the Fish and Wildlife Service staff and indeed all the way up the Secretary of the Interior wanted to list all 9 species, but they were compelled to cut 

the list back to 4 species by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Why? 

Because OMB apparently got persuaded to believe the USARK arguments about 

economic impacts. This was extremely unfortunate because economic impacts are 

not in the Lacey Act decision-making criteria the Administration was supposed to 

follow and because USARK’s economic analysis was shoddy and unreliable. 

Georgetown Economic Services, which did the USARK ‘‘reptile regulation study,’’ 

was a subsidiary of the Washington law and lobbying firm that represented USARK 

in its opposition to the snakes listing rule, Kelly Drye & Warren. Economists have 

criticized their analysis as grossly inflated and full of biased assumptions. Its findings of high losses are contrary to analysis by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

Congressional Budget Office and Timm Kroeger, PhD., an economist with The Nature Conservancy. According to Dr. Kroeger’s statement, which I will give you a 

copy of, it has ‘‘serious flaws’’, i.e., it: 

(1) Ignores likely substitution effects on the part of both the reptile industry 

and reptile owners, which leads to a likely large upward bias in the resulting estimates of negative economic impacts from the proposed rule. 

(2) Focuses only on the negative impacts on one small segment of the reptile 

industry (that is, breeders and importers of these nine large constrictor 

snakes) and snake owners that may result from the implementation of the 

proposed rule, while completely ignoring the positive impacts the rule would 

have in terms of benefits for native wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, avoided control and eradication expenditures by government agencies, and human safety. Such a one-sided analysis cannot inform 

sensible public policy, which should consider both the costs and benefits of 

a regulation. 

(3) Uses an inappropriate discount rate that by itself leads to a substantial 

(close to 20 percent) overstating of the projected future costs of the rule. 

This, together with the unreasonable expectation that no substitution effects 

will occur on the industry or consumer side, introduces a further upward 

bias in the study’s cost estimates that makes the latter even more doubtful. 

(4) Incorrectly applies the term ‘‘economic losses’’ when referring to what in fact 

are reductions in revenues for this small segment of the reptile industry. 

This is not merely a problem of semantics that is likely to mislead many 

readers of the report. Rather, economic losses—or net reductions in business 

assets—from reduced sales are always smaller than revenue reductions. By 

basing its analysis on revenues rather than losses expected to result from 

the proposed rule but referring to those revenue reductions as losses, the 

report overstates the actual losses industry may suffer as a result of the 

rule. This, combined with the likely dramatic overestimation of those expected revenue reductions for the reasons listed in comments (1) and (3) 

above, further exaggerates any negative impact the rule might have on the 

reptile industry. 

Some other points related to USARK’s report: 

• It relies extensively on unreferenced data, i.e., ‘‘fact’’ assertions for which no 

source whatsoever is identified. It relies heavily on data for which the only 

source is an anonymous ‘‘personal communication’’ with unnamed people in 

the reptile industry. In short, the data sources cannot be checked. It frequently relies on unexplained calculations and includes several admissions 

that the information used for the study was inadequate. The author was not 

a PhD. and it was not peer-reviewed. 

• At least 750 different reptile species are in the import trade. If H.R. 511 

passes, then the reptile importers and breeders face losing only up to 5 spe-
27 

cies from being imported—less than 1%. There are numerous safer, noninvasive, non-dangerous species they can substitute for those lost 5 species, 

only 2 or 3 of which are actually imported now. The pet industry is highly 

adaptable. The USARK study ignores that. • The importers and breeders of those 2 or 3 snakes at risk of prohibition in 

reality, despite all of USARK’s exaggerated claims, appear at most to number 

one or two dozen small businesses. And those businesses generally import 

and breed other species too, so they aren’t going to go out of business, they 

will just adjust their operations, as no doubt they already have. 

• USARK gave no consideration of environmental benefits in the native range 

countries from reduced harvesting pressure, even though it is documented 

that some of these species are not sustainably harvested in some countries. 

• Future human deaths caused by the 9 snake species are very predictable 

based on historical patterns and these snakes’ inherent behavior. These are 

obviously high-impact, tragedies and costs, as the Humane Society has documented. Human deaths certainly must be considered as being far more important than speculative, biased claims of lost snake sales by USARK. 

• We know at least 17 deaths have occurred across the nation according to 

media reports. Likely many more occurred that were not reported in the 

media. We also know that OMB recognizes a concept known as the Value of 

Statistical Life, or VSL. Currently, a ‘‘reasonable average’’ for the VSL is $5.5 

to $7.5 million per life. By this admittedly cold measure, reducing the risks 

these snakes pose to humans, will provide a substantial economic benefit, 

while preventing real tragedies to our citizens and families that cannot be 

economically measured. USARK’s approach seems to be ‘‘buyer beware’’—but 

how could the several young children and infants strangled by these snakes 

beware? 

Unfortunately, the analysis of the economics of listing the snakes by USARK, and 

by OMB and by the Fish and Wildlife Service for that matter, fail to consider the 

benefits in terms of lives saved and environmental damage and public lands management and control costs avoided. When all those savings are taken into account 

the national-level benefits of the snake listings are strong. The selfish interests of 

a few breeders and importers, who have successfully ‘‘externalized’’ the costs to date 

and don’t pay a dime of the public land control bills for their escaped or released 

snakes, which are footed by the taxpayers, should not block the nation from those 

benefits. Passing H.R. 511 without the two bad amendments will achieve that. 

The argument that this is a ‘‘Florida only’’ problem and that Florida law has already ‘‘taken care of it’’ is false. Published climate/snake range projections predict 

the potential range of these species as including portions of the ‘‘southern tier’’ 

States, Hawaii and the territories. Florida’s new law may prohibit most of the constrictors as private pets there, but it does not prohibit breeders from operating in 

Florida, where many of them do operate, and selling those species into other States. 

Florida’s interests do not match up with the national interest in this case. 

Further thoughts: 

The snakes listing rule, weak as it was, took 6 years to finalize, which is far too 

long. It illustrates that the Lacey Act injurious species listing section (18 U.S.C. 

42)—which is 112 years old—is too reactive, too slow and is not cost-effective for 

our nation. All of the serious stakeholders involved seem to agree on that, as does 

the Fish and Wildlife Service itself. 

NECIS has strongly endorsed a fix to this problem, H.R. 5864, the Invasive Fish 

and Wildlife Prevention Act of 2012, which was introduced by Mrs. Slaughter of 

New York and has 30 bipartisan co-sponsors. This bill would reform the listing process, making it faster and more effective, and bring it from the year 1900 when the 

process was first created, into the modern age. On behalf of NECIS and dozens of 

other endorsing groups—from sportsmen’s groups to humane organizations—I urge 

you to take up the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act in the next Congress 

and to move it to passage. This Subcommittee is the gateway to needed reforms and 

it has not done enough in the past to advance them. 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Peter T. Jenkins, 

Executive Director, Center for Invasive Species Prevention 

Questions from Mr. Sablan: 

1. The benefits of constrictor snake ownership are limited to a very small 

portion of the population, yet the cost imposed by these animals if they 

become invasive will be very great. For example, the Department of the 
28 

Interior Spent $2.23 billion to combat invasive species in 2011 alone. Do 

you think that’s fair? Should the American tax payer be held responsible 

for bearing these costs? And do you believe state and local laws are sufficient to prevent the introduction and spread of large constrictor 

snakes? 

2. Will state laws fully protect America’s natural resources from the injurious snakes listed in H.R. 511? If not, why not? 

3. A study published in the journal Biological Invasions on November 30th 

provides evidence for a growing invasion of Boa constrictor in Puerto 

Rica. Does this provide evidence that H.R. 511 is necessary to protect 

Puerto Ricans and other Americans from the risks posed by the species 

listed in H.R. 511? 

4. How would H.R. 5864, the Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act of 

2012, which was introduces by Representative Louise Slaughter, prevent 

harmful species invasions like the ones we have seen in Florida and 

Puerto Rica? 

Answers to Questions from Mr. Sablan: 

Answer #1: Benefits etc.: No, it is not fair to externalize the costs of these pets 

to the public. The taxpayer should not pay for these costs, the pet industry should 

via a user fee and after the high-risk species have been restricted. State and local 

laws are inadequate as it is a nationwide issue involving international imports into 

more than a dozen ports and interstate commerce that no one State can regulate. 

2. State laws. No, because States do not and cannot regulate commerce across 

their borders, except Hawaii and perhaps Alaska. The others cannot prevent animals from being imported into their State from other States. 

3. Puerto Rico invasion. Yes, this invasion makes clear that if 20 years ago, the 

Fish and Wildlife and/or Congress had had the foresight, they could have prevented 

these Florida and Puerto Rico invasions, which now may be irreversible. Passing 

H.R. 511 without the weakening amendments can still help to prevent future similar invasions elsewhere. 

4. H.R. 5864. This bill would reform the Lacey Act injurious animal listing process, making it faster and more effective, giving the agency needed tools and authorities, and bring the listing process from the year 1900 when the process was first 

created, into the modern age. Congress should take it up next session and pass it. 

Dr. FLEMING. Yes, I am sorry, sir, you are out of time. 

Mr. JENKINS. OK. Thank you very much. 

Dr. FLEMING. But thank you for your testimony. I now recognize 

Mr. Wyatt for 5 minutes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW WYATT, PRESIDENT, 

UNITED STATES ASSOCIATION OF REPTILE KEEPERS 

Mr. WYATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman. Good 

morning. My name is Andrew Wyatt, and I am the CEO and President of the United States Association of Reptile Keepers. We are 

an organization representing breeders, manufacturers, collectors, 

and scientists who work in the reptile industry. Many of our members are small business owners or sole proprietors. 

The modern reptile industry has grown and been established as 

a legitimate cottage industry that pumps approximately $1.4 billion 

per year into the U.S. economy. Herpetoculture refers to the ownership and breeding of captive reptiles and amphibians. It evolved 

from the import and trade of inexpensive pet store animals into a 

sophisticated, non-traditional agricultural pursuit, a pursuit that 

has continued to thrive, to provide jobs and to stimulate the U.S. 

economy, even in the face of recent economic downturns. Our members provide high-quality, captive-bred reptiles to zoos, aquariums, 

research facilities, educators, TV and film, and the pet industry. 

Some specimens sell for tens of thousands of dollars. 
29 

Pythons and boas have been here for decades in well-established 

captive breeding programs. Our main issue is with interstate transport and the negative impact on thousands of well-established 

small businesses engaged in herpetoculture. Banning the trade of 

these incredibly valuable animals across State lines would destroy 

jobs and livelihoods. This is the real job-killer that Oversight Committee Chairman Issa referred to during his hearing on the Federal 

Rule as an example of an overzealous, bureaucratic response that 

is the result of politically motivated or biased science. 

H.R. 511, or prior versions of it, have been debated for about 5 

years now. The Obama Administration enacted a partial rule last 

January that was initiated in early 2008 by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. The U.S. Geological Survey science, the unsound 

foundation upon which this bill is based, is widely seen as weak 

and controversial within the scientific community. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did no cost benefit analysis. 

The Congressional Budget Office report on H.R. 511 never made 

mention of the economic impact to small business owners working 

in herpetoculture, despite the fact that Georgetown Economic Services, the only folks who have bothered to do any kind of economic 

research into this, did a comprehensive report on the reptile industry in 2011. According to GES, listing these nine constricting 

snakes on the injurious wildlife list of the Lacey Act would cost 

small businesses as much as $104 million in the first year, and as 

much as $1.2 billion over the next 10 years. 

This action has been opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 

the Small Business Administration, the Association of Zoos and 

Aquariums, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, and the 

United States Association of Reptile Keepers. 

The argument by the Administration that invasive Burmese 

Pythons are experiencing a continued population increase and are 

poised to expand their range across the southern third of the 

United States is not supported by evidence. A single USGS report 

erroneously suggests Python populations could expand from the 

southern tip of Florida to the San Francisco Bay. The populations 

of pythons actually peaked in the summer of 2009, and then 

crashed in the winters of 2009 and 2010. The decline in python 

numbers since the 2009 peak has been significant. The Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Commission believes 30 to 50 percent of the remaining wild Burmese Python population died in January and February of 2010. 

A newly published study in integrated zoology by Dr. Elliott 

Jacobson, et al., is a collaboration of the University of Florida, 

USDA, and real python experts. It calls into question the fundamental premise of the USGS climate work that pythons can migrate out of South Florida and across the southern third of the U.S. 

This peer-reviewed paper published in September 2012 confirms 

what at least 4 other studies have also demonstrated—and I 

quote—‘‘It appears unlikely that the Burmese Pythons inhabiting 

the Everglades will be capable of expanding or becoming established far beyond Southern Florida.’’ 

The majority opinion indicates that, in the wake of the python 

population collapse, the remnant population of feral Burmese 

Pythons in South Florida cannot survive north of Lake Okeechobee. 
30 

Sub-tropical low temperatures, even in South Florida, are lethal to 

tropical pythons. They are not physiologically able to survive the 

cold, and cannot survive in more temperate areas of the country. 

Simply put, when temperatures drop, pythons die. 

If there are lessons to be learned here, they are as follows: number one, science is a tool to provide insight for solving complex 

problems, not a justification for arbitrary and capricious government action to satisfy ideological goals; number two, government’s 

role in private business is to protect free market competition, not 

to pick winners or losers based on popular preference; number 

three, the Lacey Act is in dire need of fundamental reform to be 

of any real conservation value. 

In closing, H.R. 511 is a job-killing bill that preempts the rights 

of States to manage their own citizens and affairs by seeking to 

ban the importation and interstate transport of nine species of constricting snakes. It is a nanny-state legislation at its worst, and 

will bankrupt thousands of small businesses and cost our economy 

more than $100 million per year. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wyatt follows:] 

Statement of Andrew Wyatt, CEO and President, 

United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK) 

Good Morning. My name is Andrew Wyatt and I am the CEO and president of 

the United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK), a membership organization representing breeders, hobbyists, collectors, and scientists who work with or in 

the reptile industry. Many of our members are small businesses or sole proprietors. 

The modern reptile industry has grown, evolved, and has been established as a 

legitimate cottage industry that pumps well over one billion dollars per year into 

the U.S. economy. ‘‘Herpetoculture’’ refers to the ownership and breeding of captive 

reptiles and amphibians and it has grown into a $1.4 billion industry in this country. It evolved from the import and trade of inexpensive pet store animals into a 

sophisticated, non-traditional agricultural pursuit, a pursuit that has continued to 

thrive, to provide jobs and to stimulate the U.S. economy even in the face of the 

recent economic downturn. Our members provide high quality, captive bred reptiles 

to zoos, aquariums, research facilities, educators, TV & film, and the pet industry. 

Some specimens sell for tens of thousands of dollars. 

It has been repeatedly stated that H.R. 511 is about stopping the importation of 

these animals. It is not. These animals have been here for decades and they are 

thriving in well-established, genetically diverse, private captive breeding programs. 

A small percentage of these animals are imported to the U.S. Our issue is not with 

importation. It is with interstate transport, and the negative impact on thousands 

of well-established small businesses engaged in herpetoculture. Importation of these 

animals could stop tomorrow without any significant adverse consequence to the 

herpetoculture industry. On the other hand, the ability to conduct the trade of these 

incredibly valuable animals across state lines would be prohibited costing jobs and 

destroying livelihoods. This is the real ‘‘job killer’’ that Oversight and Investigations 

committee Chairman Issa referred to during his hearing on the federal rule as an 

example of an overzealous bureaucratic response to a problem that is at most local 

in nature and at worst, the result of politically motivated or biased science. 

H.R. 511, or prior versions of it, have been debated for about five years now. The 

Obama Administration enacted a partial rule last January that was initiated in 

early 2008 by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). The U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) ‘‘science’’, the unsound foundation upon which this bill is based, is widely 

seen as weak and controversial within the scientific community. FWS did no cost 

benefit analysis. The Congressional Budget Office report on H.R. 511 never made 

mention of the economic impact to small business owners working in herpetoculture, 

despite the fact that Georgetown Economic Services (GES) did a comprehensive report on ‘‘The Modern U.S. Reptile Industry’’ in 2011. According to GES, listing these 

nine constricting snakes on the ‘Injurious Wildlife’ list of the Lacey act would cost 

small businesses as much as $104 million in the first year and as much as $1.2 billion over 10 years. This action has been opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 

The Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of the Advocate, Association of 
31 

Zoos & Aquariums (AZA), Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) and the 

United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK). 

The argument by the Administration and FWS that invasive Burmese pythons are 

experiencing a continued population increase and are poised to expand their range 

across the southern third of the U.S., is not supported by evidence. A single (USGS) 

report based on fatally flawed presumptions, and that has been castigated within 

the scientific community, suggests python populations could expand from the southern tip of Florida, north to the Chesapeake Bay, and west to the Ohio Valley, and 

San Francisco Bay. 

FWS alleges that feral pythons are eating endangered species and small mammal 

populations, while endangering our pets and children as they crawl northward. The 

actual scientific data indicate the opposite. There has been a dramatic reduction in 

the numbers of Everglades pythons, and no demonstrable connection with any decline in mammal populations. Everglades National Park spokeswoman Linda Friar 

said park biologists have ‘‘no hard science’’ demonstrating there has been a dramatic 

reduction in mammal populations. 

The population of pythons peaked in summer 2009. This was followed quickly by 

a population crash in the winters of 2009 and 2010. The decline in python numbers 

since the summer 2009 peak have been significant. The Florida Fish & Wildlife 

Commission believes 30–50 percent of the remaining wild Burmese python population died in January and February 2010. 

A growing body of scientific evidence contradicts USGS climate range predictions 

for feral Burmese pythons in the U.S. Scientists from around the world have criticized the USGS work. Barker & Barker gave the most pointed criticism stating, 

‘‘. . . the scholarship behind it is poor, and constitutes either careless disregard or 

purposeful exaggerations . . .’’ 

Newly published in Integrative Zoology, ‘‘Environmental temperatures, physiology 

and behavior limit the range expansion of invasive Burmese pythons in southeastern USA,’’ by Jacobson et al., is a collaboration by University of Florida, USDA 

and real python experts. It calls into question the fundamental premise of the USGS 

climate work that pythons can migrate out of south Florida and across the southern 

third of the U.S. This peer reviewed paper published in September 2012 confirms 

what other studies have also demonstrated: ‘‘. . . [I]t appears unlikely that the Burmese pythons inhabiting the Everglades will be capable of expanding or becoming 

established far beyond southern Florida’’. 

There are at least four other cold weather studies from the University of Florida, 

USDA Wildlife Services, Savannah River Ecological Lab and Vida Preciosa International that continue to stand in stark contrast to the USGS projections. A report 

by U.S. Department of Agriculture researchers indicates that Everglades Burmese 

pythons displayed no instinct to protect themselves from fatally cold weather and 

most could not survive even the moderately mild conditions of mid-Florida winter. 

The majority opinion indicates that, in the wake of the python population collapse, the remnant population of feral Burmese pythons in south Florida cannot survive north of Lake Okeechobee. Sub-tropical low temperatures even in south Florida 

are lethal to tropical pythons. They are not physiologically able to survive the cold, 

and cannot survive in more temperate areas of the country. Simply put, when temperatures drop, pythons die. 

What remains is a small cabal of scientists drawn to the python question by the 

promise of federal funding [Giant Constrictor Risk Assessment Partnership 

(GCRAP)]. A number of NGO’s with close ties to the Administration also see an opportunity to further their ideological agenda in providing matching funds. It has become popular and acceptable to make wild exaggerations about the nature of the 

issue in order to attract attention from the media and politicians. Instead of addressing their problems and making corrections, GCRAP has doubled down and 

made even more unsupportable statements. The specter of Burmese pythons in the 

Everglades has played fast and sexy in the media. This, combined with a prevailing 

cultural fear and bias regarding snakes, has aided in the politicization of the issue. 

The facts won’t support a listing, so making this a political issue is the easiest way 

forward. 

Even if it were conceded that pythons represented a real threat as an invasive 

species in the U.S., which they do not, the idea that the Lacey Act could control 

the spread of animals that have been in the U.S. for about 50 years is ludicrous. 

The ‘Injurious Wildlife’ list is supposed to stop these animals at our borders; denying entry and preventing proliferation across state lines. Pythons already exist in 

captivity in 49 of 50 states. Never before has the government considered adding animals to the ‘Injurious’ list that are so widely held by the American public. In fact, 

even the Department of Interior has conceded in private meetings with our industry 

that the Lacey Act is an ‘‘inadequate tool’’ to address invasive species issues. The 
32 

1See: Dr. Timm Kroeger, letter to the Office of Management and Budget, commenting on behalf of The Nature Conservancy about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Large Constrictor 

Snake Proposed Rule, RIN 1018–AV68, December 2011. 2See: Testimony of Peter Jenkins on behalf of the Center for Invasive Species Prevention, before the U.S. House of Representatives, Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, 

Oceans and Insular Affairs with respect to H.R. 511, November 2012. 3 A copy of the Report is attached. 

Lacey Act has ballooned into a ‘‘one size fits all’’ solution to any issue that falls 

within the realm of FWS authority over wildlife. The Lacey Act is overly complicated, too far reaching and ineffective. It was originally designed to stop poaching. It has grown into a ‘‘one size fits all’’ solution to wildlife management. It is not 

the answer to the south Florida python question. 

If there are lessons to be learned, they are as follows: 1) Science is a tool to solve 

complex problems, not a justification for arbitrary and capricious government action 

to satisfy political or ideological goals; 2) Government’s role in private business is 

to protect free market competition, not to pick winners or losers based on arbitrary 

staff or popular preference; and 3) The Lacey Act is in dire need of fundamental 

reform, having become too large, complex and ineffective to be of any real conservation value. 

In closing, H.R. 511 is a job killing bill that preempts the rights of states to manage their own citizens and affairs by seeking to ban the importation and interstate 

transport of nine species of constricting snakes. It is nanny state legislation at its 

worst that will bankrupt thousands of small businesses and cost our economy upwards of $100 million per year. When the Obama Administration finalized in part 

the exact same measure as a new regulation last January, Chairman Darryl Issa 

highlighted it in an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing and 

called it a ‘‘job-killer’’. The American government’s role is not to pick the winners 

and losers of industry; to the contrary it is the role of government to protect the 

free market dynamic. 

Thank you for this opportunity today. 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Mr. Wyatt 

Georgetown Economic Services, LLC 

3050 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Telephone: (202) 945–6660 

February 21, 2013 

The Honorable John Fleming, M.D., 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs 

House Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Fleming: 

We submit this letter in response to questions posed by Representative Gregorio 

Kilili Camacho Sablan (D–MP) about our May 12, 2011 report, ‘‘The Modern U.S. 

Reptile Industry.’’ You forwarded Rep. Sablan’s questions to the United States Association of Reptile Keepers (‘‘USARK’’), and they forward them to us. USARK also 

requested that we address criticisms of the report made by Dr. Timm Kroeger 1 and 

Mr. Peter Jenkins.2 We respectfully request that this letter and its attachments be 

made part of the hearing record. 

GES’s Report on the U.S. Reptile Industry 

Georgetown Economic Services, LLC (‘‘GES’’) was asked by USARK to prepare a 

report that outlined the size, scope, and flow of trade of the U.S. reptile industry. 

The report also, estimated the impact to the U.S. reptile industry of listing nine specific constrictor snakes as injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act. We undertook that 

assignment in June 2010 and our completed May 12, 2011 report outlined our conclusions.3 We found that: 

• The U.S. reptile industry encompasses a vast number of participants including pet owners, hobbyists, breeders, importers, exporters, wholesalers, pet 

store proprietors, pet show promoters, entertainers, veterinarians, and manufacturers of pet food and ancillary pet products. 
33 

• In 2009, businesses that sell, provide services for, and manufacture products 

for reptiles earned revenues of $1.0 billion to $1.4 billion. • In 2009, 4.7 million U.S. households owned 13.6 million pet reptiles. Reptile 

owners are spread throughout the United States without a concentration in 

any one area of the country. • Reptile businesses can be found throughout the United States, although reptile importers are more densely concentrated in Florida and California than 

in other states. • The vast majority of reptile businesses are small, individual or family-run 

businesses. • With regard to the listing of the nine constrictor species under the Lacey Act, 

the report found: 

• The industry, and snake breeders and sellers in particular, will experience significant economic losses in the short-term. We estimate that the 

reduction of industry revenues will run between $76 million to $104 million in the first year. • Economic loss to the industry over the first ten years following an enactment would run between $505 million to $1.2 billion in lost revenues, assuming historical industry sales growth rates. • Even assuming no growth, the economic loss over the first ten years following an enactment would run between $372 million to $900 million in 

lost revenues. 

Criticisms of GES’s Report 

We summarize and respond to questions and criticisms of the report made by 

Representative Rep. Sablan, Dr. Kroeger, and Mr. Jenkins below. 

The report ignores likely substitution effects on the part of the reptile industry, 

which leads to a likely large upward bias in the resulting estimates of negative economic impacts from the proposed rule. (Dr. Kroeger) 

Response: 

It was beyond the scope of the project to estimate secondary effects of the proposed listing. However, from our discussions and interviews with members of the 

reptile industry we found that many of the nine proposed snake species are a sideline and a passion for snake hobbyists and reptile business owners. Many of the people that breed these snakes do so because they are deeply interested reptile husbandry and they are fascinated by these creatures. Breeders typically have spent 

many years selectively breeding particular snake coloration patterns and body 

types, known in the reptile community as morphs. Even if the breeder of a now 

banned species wanted to develop morphs in another snake species, that development will take a number of years. In addition, the proposed ban itself has a chilling 

effect on breeders willingness to invest in a new morphs. Therefore, the substitution 

effect will be de minimus. 

Losses in interstate trade in the nine species, which will be banned under a Lacey 

Act listing, likely would be counteracted through an increase in the intra-state production and trade of those species. (Dr. Kroeger) 

Response: 

As stated in our report, the majority of reptile sales are made to out-of-state con- sumers. Furthermore, reptile buyers and sellers are increasingly turning to the Internet 

and reptile trade shows to buy and sell snakes. Therefore, not only will a listing 

cut sellers off from many of their customers, it will shut down an avenue of growth 

for these businesses. 

The Internet allows businesses to reach potential customers from all over the 

United States, (or Canada, or the rest of the world for that matter). To draw large 

crowds, trade shows (even regionally oriented shows) typically depend on reptile 

breeders and sellers from many different states at a minimum. In the most popular 

shows, breeders come from across the United States. Thus, a prohibition on interstate and international sales will mean that breeders will not have access to the 

critical number of customers needed to justify breeding the affected constrictors. 

The listing will also balkanize the snake sector of reptile industry for the listed 

species. Instead of marketing to customers in North America or around the globe, 

the listing would create separate markets in each state. It is not clear that the 

breeding industries of many states could survive without inter-state sales. 

The notion that intra-state sales of the listed species will be greater after the listing requires that intra-state consumers of the listed species increase the purchases 

of the listed snakes. We do not quarrel with the proposition that the listing will decrease supply of listed snakes in, say, Illinois, since all out-of-state suppliers are, 
34 

4See: Office of Management and Budget, 2003, Circular A–4—Regulatory Analysis, Sep. 17, 

2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/a-4.pdf. 

by law, excluded from the new the new Illinois intra-state ‘‘market.’’ Ceteris paribus, 

the reduction in supply would result in higher prices and less unit sales (i.e., trade). 

However, because the Lacey Act does not discriminate between breeders and pet 

owners, it is also illegal for pet owner to transport a listed species across states 

lines. That fact will decrease demand for the listed species, especially given that a 

significant number of Americans move across state lines each year. Ceteris paribus, 

the reduction in demand will also result in reduced unit sales. 

In short, it is unlikely that there will be increased intra-state sales to offset the 

loss of inter-state sales. 

The report incorrectly applies the term ‘‘economic losses’’ when referring to what 

in fact are reductions in revenues for this small segment of the reptile industry. 

This is not merely a problem of semantics that is likely to mislead many readers 

of the report. (Dr. Kroeger) Response: 

The report was upfront in both its methods and its conclusions. Each time the 

report referred to economic impact or economic loss, the report explicitly stated that 

the losses and impacts that it was referring to concerned revenues. To characterize 

the report as misleading is itself misleading. Below we give a few examples: 

‘‘The industry, and snake breeders and sellers in particular, will experience 

significant economic losses in the short-term. We estimate that the reduction of industry revenues will run between $76 million to $104 million in 

the first year.’’ (Emphasis added) The Modern U.S. Reptile Industry, p. ii. 

‘‘Total reptile revenues, including reptile sales as well as ancillary product 

sales, range from $1.0 billion to $1.4 billion per year. Of these revenues, 

the listed constrictors account for approximately $75.6 million to $103.5 

million per year. The first-year economic impact of the proposed rule assuming the Low-Impact Scenario is $42.8 million to $58.7 million in terms 

of lost revenues.’’ (Emphasis added) Id., p. 71. 

‘‘Since the High-Impact Scenario posits that all revenues that the constrictors generate will be lost, the first-year economic impact of the proposed 

rule is $75.6 million to $103.6 million in terms of lost business revenues.’’ 

(Emphasis added) Id., p. 72. 

‘‘The present value of the lost revenues is an estimate of the lost economic 

value associated with the listing of nine constrictors as injurious wildlife 

under the Lacey Act.’’ (Emphasis added) Id., p. 74. 

The report uses an inappropriate discount rate that by itself leads to a substantial 

(close to 20 percent) overstating of the projected future costs of the rule. (Dr. 

Kroeger) 

Response: 

Dr. Krueger in his comments notes that we used a 3.25% discount rate. He argues 

that a more appropriate rate would be 7%. Dr. Krueger states: 

The correct rate to use is the average rate of return that the foregone profits could have and would have achieved. The historic (sic) average rate of 

return in the United States—approximately 7 percent—commonly is the 

rate used in such analyses, and is the default discount rate that the Office 

of Management and Budget requires federal agencies to use in benefit-cost 

analyses. 

Dr. Kruger cites an Office of Management and Budget document, dated September 

2003 for his authority. 4

We do not dispute Dr. Kruger’s suggestion that the ‘‘correct rate to use is the average rate of return that the foregone profits could have and would have achieved.’’ 

We do not agree however that a 7% discount rate reflects the ‘‘average rate of return 

on foregone profits’’ in 2010, 2011, 2012, or today. We contend that the discount rate 

of 3.5% used in the report is appropriate. By suggesting that 7% is an appropriate 

discount rate, Dr. Kroeger effectively argues that over the next ten years it is reasonable to expect a 7% rate of return on a relatively safe investment. A 7% rate 

may have been justified in when higher interest rates were offered—such as those 

offered in 2003—but is not appropriate today. 

Since we provide all the information to estimate the cost of the proposed listing, 

anyone is free to recalculate those costs using whatever discount rate they choose. 

The report’s high-end loss estimate assumes that all sales of these snakes would 

stop, even though your own data shows that INTRA-state commerce, which would 

still be legal if H.R. 511 passed, account for almost 40% of sales. Doesn’t that make 

the estimate misleading? (Rep. Sablan) 
35 

Response: 

The estimate of the impact of listing all nine snake species under the Lacey Act 

required a prediction as to what business decisions participants of the reptile industry would take in reaction to the listing. No one can predict the future with any 

accuracy. However, when asked about the actions they would take in the face of a 

Lacey Act listing, many of the business owners that we talked to stated that they 

would have to shut down. Others were certain that, without inter-state sales, they 

could no longer justify the costs of breeding these snakes. 

Instead of endorsing one prediction of the state of the future after a Lacey Act 

listing, we sought to give a range of possible impacts of the listing. We defined a 

low-impact scenario where ‘‘. . . it is posited that some (but not all) breeders will 

continue to breed the listed constrictors and to make intra-state sales and (for those 

who can) foreign sales if the proposal were to be finalized.’’ Report, p. 70. We defined a high-impact scenario based on the possibility ‘‘. . . that the combination of 

higher per-unit costs of breeding and maintaining the listed constrictors as well as 

the reduced market for the banned snakes (and the concomitant lower prices) make 

it unprofitable to breed, keep, and sell these snakes.’’ Id. Including a range of possible impacts is standard procedure in economic model and is not misleading. The 

actual impact is likely between the low-impact scenario and high-impact scenario. 

The report relies extensively on unreferenced data, i.e., ‘‘fact’’ assertions for which 

no source whatsoever is identified. It relies heavily on data for which the only 

source is an anonymous ‘‘personal communication’’ with unnamed people in the reptile industry. In short, the data sources cannot be checked. (Mr. Jenkins) 

Response: 

All assertions made in the report have citations. The report includes 193 footnotes 

and a five page appendix explaining the process by which financial data about the 

industry was collected. While some (but not all) names of business owners that we 

interviewed are omitted, letting interview subjects remain anonymous allowed us to 

gather the most comprehensive database of financial information on reptile businesses currently available. 

The financial information about the industry cited in the report comes from first 

hand interviews and surveys with a wide range of industry participants. Many of 

the people that we interviewed and surveyed asked to remain anonymous. Without 

anonymity we would not have had such extensive industry participation. This industry perspective was crucial in allowing us to understand the size and scope of the 

U.S. reptile industry. 

Many studies that we reviewed on the industry, including the USFWS’s economic 

impact analysis, complain about the lack of public information about the economics 

and dynamics of the U.S. reptile industry. Our report provides a reference source 

on the industry for the public and for legislators. 

In addition to interviews, we conducted an extensive review of the literature about 

reptile businesses, reptile hobbyists, and the economics of the reptile industry. Secondary sources cited in the report include: 

• United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Law Enforcement Management Information System (‘‘LEMIS’’) data. 

• 2009/2010 American Pet Products Association National Pet Owners Survey 

• Reptiles Magazine 

• Pet Product News 

• SEC filings 

• Louisiana Department of Agriculture & Forestry, Turtle Farm Records Database 

• The 2007 American Veterinary Medical Association’s U.S. Pet Ownership & 

Demographics Sourcebook 

• And numerous newspaper and trade paper articles. 

The author is not a Ph.D. and the report was not peer-reviewed (Mr. Jenkins) 

Response: 

This criticism stems from a misreading of the title page of our report. The report 

had two authors, Dr. Robert N. Fenili and Mr. Ariel H. Collis. Dr. Fenili has a Ph.D. 

in economics. However, the authors disagree strongly that a Ph.D. (or a M.A. or 

B.A.) is required to comment or to express an expert opinion in a legislative proceeding. 

As to peer review, the report was written for USARK not for academic journal. 

However, the legislative process has allowed our work to be scrutinized by third 

party reviewers, as evidenced by the comments of Dr. Kroeger and Mr. Jenkins. 

This process is akin to peer review. 

Thank you for considering our comments. 
36 

SINCERELY, 

Ariel Collis 

Economist 

Georgetown Economic Services 

Robert Fenili, Ph.D. 

Assistant Director for Economic Analysis 

Georgetown Economic Services 

Dr. FLEMING. Yes, thank you, Mr. Wyatt. Thank you, panel, for 

your statements. 

At this point we will begin Member questioning of the witnesses. 

To allow all Members to participate, and to ensure we can hear 

from all of our witnesses today, Members are limited to 5 minutes 

for their questions. However, if Members have additional questions, 

we can have more than one round of questioning, and usually do. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Dr. Barr, I understand you are a biologist. 

Dr. BARR. That is correct. 

Dr. FLEMING. Yes, go ahead and move that to you, because I 

have several questions for you. 

You have a Ph.D. in biology. 

Dr. BARR. That is correct. 

Dr. FLEMING. You know, I wish I had a dollar for every—I used 

to say a dime, but with inflation I say a dollar now—I wish I had 

a dollar for every bill that we have testimony in which somebody 

claims that global warming is the reason why we should move forward on the legislation. The truth is there is a consensus out there 

right now that, regardless of what may have happened before, over 

the past 16 years we have had temperature stability for our globe. 

So, I think the worry, the threat that in the next few years we are 

going to have reptiles on our doorsteps here in Washington, D.C. 

is really a little bit overblown. I think our national debt of $16.3 

trillion is certainly much more immediate. 

But my question to you is this. I heard you mention ectothermal. 

Snakes are ectothermal. Reptiles are. We used to say ‘‘cold blooded’’, ‘‘warm blooded.’’ Is that pretty much the same thing? 

Ectothermal would be cold blooded, what we used to call cold blooded? And warm blooded would be, what, endothermal? 

Dr. BARR. That is correct. 

Dr. FLEMING. So that means that snakes, reptiles in general, 

have great difficulty regulating their body temperature, and they 

are very subject to fluctuations in temperatures in the environment. 

Dr. BARR. That is correct. 

Dr. FLEMING. So, as I understand it today, what we are saying 

is that if temperatures approach 60 degrees and lower, that not 

only does a snake have difficulty eating and moving—because as 

those temperatures drop, he has more difficulty surviving, digesting, and it is unlikely to survive. 

Dr. BARR. That—— 

Dr. FLEMING. Is that correct, sir? 

Dr. BARR. That is correct. 

Dr. FLEMING. So, that being the case, it really seems that whatever threat may be in Florida, that there is very little worry that 

that threat is going to occur anywhere else. As I understand it, we 

are talking about the Everglades, which is 80 miles south of 
37 

Miami. So we are talking about the very southern tip of the United 

States. 

Well, let me ask you this. Those that are supposed to be invasive 

species in the Everglades, how did they get there? 

Dr. BARR. That is a good question. I do not know. 

Dr. FLEMING. The media would have us believe that pet owners 

are turning their snakes loose. Perhaps someone even in Utah may 

load their snakes up in a van, I guess, and drive down to the Everglades to dump them. Do we have evidence of that? 

Dr. BARR. No. That seems unlikely. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. So, would it be more likely that such snakes, 

such reptiles, would get there perhaps through more conventional 

ways, perhaps onboard a water vessel, or something like that, that 

is just simply accidental? 

Dr. BARR. That is a possibility. 

Dr. FLEMING. So, I certainly think that before we go after pet 

shops and pet owners, that we should consider those things. 

Dr. Barr, what has been the impact of the Lacey Act listing of 

the Burmese Pythons and the three other constrictor snake species 

by the Obama Administration earlier this year? 

Dr. BARR. Are you asking in terms of the scientific community 

or the television community? 

Dr. FLEMING. Yes, Mr. Wyatt. 

Mr. WYATT. Yes, I would be happy to elaborate on that. What 

has happened, not only with the four snakes that were actually 

listed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but de facto, the five that 

have been left dangling out there with a partial rule having been 

made, but the final disposition of the remaining five has put the 

industry under incredible pressure. And the animals that have actually been listed have all but lost all value, and people have been 

going bankrupt and forced to make hard decisions about what to 

do with their animals. And even with the animals that were not 

listed, like Ms. Sutherland said, the values of these animals 

dropped. 

If you are a rancher in Louisiana, and you are told one day that 

you can no longer sell your cattle out of Louisiana, that you can 

only sell them within the State, then it is going to put you in a 

very difficult position, and you are going to have to make some 

hard business decisions on how to feed those animals and take care 

of those animals when you have now lost all value. 

Dr. FLEMING. So certainly it has been a significant negative impact on small businesses during a time that we can least afford it, 

with our economy being the way it is. 

Well, I thank you. And the Chair now yields to Mr. Sablan, the 

Ranking Member, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And if 

there is no objection, Ms. Bordallo has something to go to, and I 

will yield my 5 minutes to her, and then I will take her time. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Thank you, sir. Ms. Bordallo. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank Ranking Member Sablan for yielding his 

time, and also to you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to underscore the importance of addressing invasive 

species issues early, given the experience that we have had in the 

Territory of Guam with the brown tree snake, although they are 
38 

not a public safety hazard. The invasion by these snakes has led 

to changes in our environment, destroying native bird, bat, and lizard populations, and leading to changes throughout the ecosystem. 

The economic impact is also high. Every year, the Federal Government must spend millions and millions of dollars preventing the 

spread of snakes to other islands, as well as on programs to restore 

habitats and to recover species. 

Now, while the presence of the brown tree snake on Guam has 

been devastating, there is no reason to believe that the presence 

of giant constrictor snakes may be far more destructive. We on 

Guam wish attention and oversight had been paid to invasive species before the introduction of the brown tree snake. Invasive species are a problem that should be addressed early, or else spend 

decades and millions of dollars on eradication programs. 

Now, I have a couple of questions for Mr. Kostyack. Mr. Wyatt 

and Dr. Barr both assert—and this is what the Chairman was talking about—both assert that when temperatures drop, pythons die. 

Well, couldn’t they do other things, like move or adapt or take shelter? 

And also, Mr. Heflick also mentions that last year only 46 

invasive Burmese Pythons were caught in Florida. Now, don’t you 

think that there are more in number, given that they are naturally 

camouflaged and good at hiding, and that a female can lay over 

100 eggs? 

Mr. KOSTYACK. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. We 

have been in daily conversation with the leading researchers on 

this subject, the folks who have collected all the field data. And 

what they tell us is that, yes, there is a die-off when you have a 

cold snap. But let’s say the die-off results in 30 percent mortality. 

What happens to that remaining 70 percent? And that is the answer to your question, which is those snakes have found a way to 

survive, and it is generally through hibernation or basking or some 

other behavioral action that enables them to avoid that die-off. 

And so, that is a well-known biological phenomenon. It applies 

to tropical snakes, it applies to other snakes. And this is how 

snakes survive all across the Continental U.S. They have these 

abilities to get underground and get safe. 

And so, there is absolutely no reason to believe that these 

pythons are limited to Southern Florida. The USGS, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the agencies that are charged with leading 

our Federal Government’s presence on science and wildlife science, 

are unanimous in saying that these species are injurious, and that 

their range extends beyond South Florida, their potential range. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you very much. The other one 

is to you, Mr. Jenkins. I have just one quick question. What percent of the reptile market do these snakes represent? Is there evidence that people could find good substitutes, and that businesses 

would not be severely harmed? 

Mr. JENKINS. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. That is a great question 

and I appreciate it. And as I said in my statement, there are at 

least 750 different reptile species that are imported in the entire 

reptile trade. Now, we are talking about limiting maybe five total. 

But only two or three of those are actually important, commercially. There are many safer alternatives. And that is what this leg-
39 

islation is all about. That is what the Lacey Act is all about. It 

doesn’t even prohibit in-state ownership. It doesn’t prohibit people 

from owning these snakes. It just says we are going to slowly wean 

these species out of the system by prohibiting international imports 

and interstate commerce. 

So, there are many alternatives. It’s a very slow-acting law. It 

gives Ms. Sutherland and her business time to react, time to look 

at the alternatives. And we know, from her website, that they already breed several other snake species that are perfectly approved 

and not a problem. So we are talking about limiting a small portion 

of their business. These are adaptable businesses. They can breed 

other species. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. And I want to thank the 

Ranking Member, Mr. Sablan, for yielding his time. Mr. Chairman, 

I yield back. 

Dr. FLEMING. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Southerland is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kostyack, I 

am curious. You made reference to the amendments. And the second amendment that you made reference to, you had an issue with, 

the difficulty or the burden that the government would have to 

prove someone guilty, that is a fundamental disagreement that I 

have with your problem. In this country you are innocent until you 

are proven guilty. 

And so, explain that. Why should it be easy for the government, 

which has proven not to be able to regulate itself very well, have 

an easier time of violating the civil rights or any rights, legal 

rights, of any citizen in this country? And why should that bar be 

lessened or lowered? 

Mr. KOSTYACK. Thank you for the opportunity to elaborate, Congressman. I am an attorney. And for a good number of years I was 

working in the judiciary as well as in private practice. And environmental laws have different standards of proof. There is virtually 

no environmental law that says the only way to hold somebody accountable is to prove that they knew they were in violation of the 

law. That was the knowing standard that was imposed by the Judiciary Committee. If you talk to anybody who prosecutes any law, 

they say that essentially takes us off of the ballfield. 

And now, if there was an opportunity for civil enforcement, that 

would have a lower burden of proof, and then put the knowing 

standard at the criminal side. That would be one thing. But if the 

only tool you have in your toolbox is enforcement of the law by 

proving that somebody knew they were in violation of the law, that 

essentially makes it virtually impossible to enforce. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Now, I disagree with you on that. And I am 

not an attorney, but God knows I have paid enough of them in my 

lifetime in our businesses to try to protect us from overzealous regulators. All of our congressional offices are pounded each week 

about how the EPA, for example, does not have the burden of proof. 

And they are absolutely, in my opinion, the greatest threat to free 

enterprise in America today. 

But that is not why we are here, but I appreciate it. I mean I 

disagree with you in that regard. 
40 

One of the things I am interested in going over, I guess, Mr. Jenkins you represent a lot of different organizations. And in your testimony you were concerned about the 17 deaths and the families 

that have experienced these deaths. And you seem very sympathetic to them. 

I am curious if the organizations that you represent—what kind 

of efforts have your groups been involved in to expand hunting season for whitetail deer? Because I know, obviously, we have hunting 

seasons that take place and the time varies from State to State to 

State. But I don’t know too many hunters that wouldn’t like a couple extra days. 

In your organizations is there an effort to expand—and I am 

going somewhere with this, but I know I have 1 minute—but do 

you know of efforts to expand hunting season? 

Mr. JENKINS. Thank you for the question. My organization only 

focuses on invasive species prevention. I do consulting with these 

other groups. So I can’t speak for them on the whitetail deer and 

hunting season and all that sort of thing. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Right. 

Mr. JENKINS. It is a great topic. But I am going to, if I can—— 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Well—— 

Mr. JENKINS [continuing]. Turn it over to Mr. Kostyack, because 

he knows more about it. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. OK. Go ahead. 

Mr. KOSTYACK. So if your question is do we recognize that there 

is, in some places, an overpopulation of whitetail deer, and additional hunting may be necessary? Is that your—— 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Well, I want you to be consistent. And I find 

that from so many—and I have 30 seconds, so I will just surmise 

where I am going here. 

In the year 2000, there were 247,000 automobile accidents with 

whitetail deer, resulting in over 200 human deaths. I have not 

heard any environmental organization coming in here with the 

premise that you just laid before this panel today, expanding deer 

season. And I have never heard an environmentalist come in here 

and have any concern at all for the 200 families that had to bury 

their loved ones because of overpopulated deer herds. It is inconsistent. 

Mr. KOSTYACK. Well, my organization does share that concern. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I am sorry? 

Mr. KOSTYACK. We do share your concern about that. In fact, we 

have a large number of hunters within our organization who work 

at the State level, where the seasons are set, not at the Federal 

level, to make sure that the right length of season is established. 

And so that—— 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Well, but one could surmise that if we have 

200 people dying in 1 year from accidents, that the hunting seasons 

aren’t long enough. Are those organizations advocating for longer 

hunting seasons? 

Mr. KOSTYACK. Often times they do, yes. I mean I would refer 

you to Florida Wildlife Federation, our State affiliate, who works 

on those issues on a daily basis, there is a lot of science that goes 

behind setting the seasons. And that is an important question. But 

it is not typically something that Congress wrestles with. 
41 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. No, I—— 

Dr. FLEMING. OK, the gentleman’s time is up. The Chair now 

recognizes Mr. Sablan for 5 minutes, sir. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I like Tom 

Rooney, and now I know exactly why. I must say this much, that 

he would not have gone to the trouble of developing this bill and 

introducing it if he had no serious concerns about these snakes in 

Florida. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I have a very high regard also for my Chairman here. But again, if anybody has any question about climate 

change, if anybody questions the scientific facts, I have a place in 

Micronesia, where I am from. Come over. I will show you about climate change, about rising sea levels, and the change it is making 

to the islands. And if you doubt the science, then I have the physical evidence. But I am going to stick to the issue here. 

Mr. Kostyack—did I say that correct? 

Mr. KOSTYACK. Yes. 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes, and you are the lawyer, so I have to be careful 

here with my questions now. 

Why is it so important that we prevent non-native species from 

being introduced in the first place? The Lacey Act, it is an important tool to prevent biological invasions. And can you speak to why 

the additional amendment to this bill by the Judiciary Committee 

harms wildlife and the economy? 

Mr. KOSTYACK. Thank you for the opportunity to elaborate on 

this, because, really, this hearing is going to the basic question of 

are we going to have a Lacey Act that has any ability to protect 

this country. 

If we were sitting in the House Armed Services Committee, and 

we were debating whether or not to have a no-fly zone for terrorists, there would be no dispute whatsoever. They represent a 

threat, a harm to this country, and we have a right, as a country, 

to defend our borders and a duty to defend our borders. It is the 

same issue with the Lacey Act. We have scientists who go through 

very rigorous processes to reach the conclusion that species are injurious to this country, and put forward that decision. And, therefore, we have a duty to follow through and to protect our people, 

protect our wildlife, and protect our rich, national heritage. 

And so, that is the best strategy we have in this country for protecting our wildlife and habitat. It is not waiting for the species to 

arrive, and then spending millions of dollars trying to eradicate 

them. We know that is extremely costly and very unlikely to succeed. Look what is going on with feral pigs, with nutria, the list 

goes on and on. The brown tree snake. 

We have so many invasive species in this country that are causing billions of dollars of damage to our economy. The zebra mussel 

in the Great Lakes. 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes. 

Mr. KOSTYACK. The list goes on and on. And there is no strategy 

for eradicating them. So if we now have an opportunity to take a 

look and say, ‘‘What does the next wave look like? Are we going 

to do something about it when it is not expensive to us, and much 

more likely to be effective?’’ And the answer is, ‘‘Absolutely, yes.’’ 
42 

The Lacey Act is the best tool we have for controlling invasive 

species. 

Mr. SABLAN. Right. And, if I may also say, Mr. Wyatt stated earlier that because of the cold winters of 2009 and 2010, 30 to 50 percent of the invasive Burmese Python population in South Florida 

died. But by your own arithmetic or math, 50 to 70 percent of these 

snakes, which are not supposed to be there in the first place, survive. Right? 

So, Mr. Kostyack, what would happen if we had a string of 

warmer-than-average winters? Isn’t it possible that 30 percent 

won’t die, and 100 percent will survive, and each one would have, 

like Ms. Bordallo said, 50 baby snakes, I mean calculate. 

Mr. WYATT. That is actually right. 

Mr. SABLAN. No, I am asking him a question. Not you, Mr. 

Wyatt. 

Mr. KOSTYACK. So, briefly, my organization considers climate 

change to be one of the largest threats to wildlife and people in this 

country. And so we are well versed in the science. And the trend 

line we have seen in the past 20 years is going to continue, which 

is increasingly winters are going to become warmer. And globally, 

temperatures are going to continue to increase. 

And so, we can be smart, and start preparing for that change, 

or we could put our head in the sand. 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes, yes. 

Mr. KOSTYACK. If we want to prepare for that change, we have 

to understand that the range of species that have historically been 

tropical will continue to shift northward. And I would be very 

happy to provide—— 

Mr. SABLAN. And I am going to make a fool out of myself here. 

Here we have actually invited invasive species. And at the same 

time we are trying to close the border and tell everybody who is 

here, undocumented aliens, to leave. I am just confused here. 

Maybe it is because I am from the Islands and I am naive about 

national politics. But welcome to the pets, I mean the invasive animals, and kick out the human beings. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. I made a fool out of myself already. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields back. If the panel is up for 

it, we will go through another round of questions. And we appreciate your patience with us. 

Let me say parenthetically, with regard to a statement that Mr. 

Southerland made about the laws and the burdens of the law, it 

is interesting. We had hearings last year, I believe it was, on what 

happened to Gibson Guitar, who had $50 million worth of wood 

confiscated as contraband. No charges were filed. The country of origin of the wood said no laws were broken, no one ever actually 

claimed a law was broken. And by law there was no access to the 

court by Gibson. And again, in a down economy, the last thing in 

the world we want to be doing is harming our companies and corporations. 

With respect to Florida, Mr. Heflick, what has the State of Florida done to address this? And before you answer, I want to circumscribe the fact here that, regardless of all the discussion about 

snakes hibernating or they can find shelter and all of this, the 

truth is, that even though there may be 10 or 20 percent of off-
43 

spring that may be a little heartier, all they have to do is to travel 

to a slightly cooler climate, and they are going to die, too. So there 

may be a buffer zone there, but it is very clear these snakes, at the 

present time, are very much restricted to the very lowest latitude 

of the United States. And no one, despite all the rhetoric today, no 

one has produced any proof that these snakes can migrate northward and survive. 

So, it is important to know what Florida is doing and has done. 

Yes, sir. 

Mr. HEFLICK. The Florida Wildlife Commission, which is charged 

with that, has done a lot. And I actually worked hand in hand with 

them in putting out these new regulations which consist of increased security for cages. There is a special permit now required 

for these animals, in that you must be an approved facility, an approved breeder, to be able to work with these animals. There are 

transport regulations now that we have stepped up, including double-bagging and putting into an additional container that is secured, in case there is a car accident, or the like. 

They have really gone, really, over and above to get a handle on 

this. And it has really bottlenecked the market of these snakes 

down to about 95 percent. You don’t see the commerce in them, you 

don’t see the trade. The value is down. So it has really hurt the 

market. But Florida, which is obviously ground zero and the epicenter of this, has taken great strides in increasing the regulations 

and controls on these species. 

And you are right about the buffer zone. You are talking to somebody who has had his boots on the ground. And I apologize to the 

other witnesses here who are using other people’s testimonies within theirs, but in 2009, 2010, that winter, we saw countless carcasses. Carcass after carcass after carcass after carcass of these 

Burmese Python dead in the Everglades. And the figures that they 

are putting out there, 30 to 50 percent, I have firsthand knowledge 

of those. And those were put out to be conservative. 

And really, when you look at the studies, my study, 100 percent 

of the animals dead in 4 days. When you look at Frank Mazzotti, 

who is one of the individuals that does the tracking of these Burmese Pythons and some of the vast majority of the studies on 

them, 90 percent of his animals that were tracked during that winter, dead. And the one that did survive was because they found it 

before it could die, they brought it in, and then later on, subsequently, it died from secondary causes of the cold. 

So, these numbers that you are throwing out about 40 percent, 

30 percent, are conservative, at best. 

Dr. FLEMING. Right. Well, I would love to hear more, but for sake 

of time let me ask you another question. 

Let’s say that I own a constrictor in Florida, and it is too big, 

I can’t handle it. What can I do, as a pet owner or a pet store 

owner? 

Mr. HEFLICK. We have a 24/7 amnesty program, where designated locations—I, myself, am one that has been certified by 

FWC—anybody at any time, no questions asked, can donate that 

animal to get it into a safe facility. And it is working. I get 

those—— 

Dr. FLEMING. All right. 
44 

Mr. HEFLICK [continuing]. And other facilities do, also. 

Dr. FLEMING. And let me follow up with that. How many people, 

if any, do you see driving from other parts of the country, dumping 

their snakes in the Everglades? 

Mr. HEFLICK. There has never been one record, even anecdotal, 

of someone being arrested, pulled over, being caught, filmed, 

videoed, you name it, of dumping a snake in the Everglades. 

Dr. FLEMING. Well now, sir, are you sure there haven’t been 

snakes to crawl from Utah all the way down to the Everglades? 

Perhaps that could happen. 

Mr. HEFLICK. That is a long trip. 

Dr. FLEMING. I understand. Well, thank you. And my time is out. 

And Mr. Southerland—I recognize you for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, you 

made a point about Gibson and the hearing we had. I know over 

in Agriculture we had—a few years ago we had—someone died 

from eating a pepper. And so the FDA shut down pepper farmers 

down in my district, peppers that had already been harvested or 

they were harvesting them at the time. And they made them destroy their entire harvest. 

And so, they were not allowed to file any insurance claims, and 

so they were just out an entire harvest, an entire year. Many of 

these farmers went out of business only to find out that the pepper 

came from Mexico. Those farmers had no recovery. Ms. Sutherland, 

you have a small business. I have a small business. And much of 

the Federal Government could care less about your business. It 

could care less about our business. 

I appreciate Minority witnesses here today and your trust in giving the Federal Government greater latitude and greater ability to 

be able to put downward pressure on freedom. But if I have 

learned anything over the short 23 months that I have been here, 

it is that a government big enough to meet all of your needs is a 

government big enough to take everything you own. Welcome to 

the nightmare that one of our founding fathers quoted 240 years 

ago. 

This appears to me, Mr. Chairman, to be a solution looking for 

a problem. This is ridiculous. With all the problems we have in this 

country, I am dumfounded. I mean, we have $90 trillion of unfunded mandates in our entitlement programs. I don’t want to diminish what you do, but we got bigger fish to fry here, OK, than 

to target businesses, small businesses like Ms. Sutherland’s and 

other small businesses around this country. It is open season on 

business. It is open season on enterprise. It is open season on freedom. And I think we can make quick work of this. This is a solution looking for a problem. 

I yield back, which is very rare, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. FLEMING. Yes. Indeed it is, Mr. Southerland, to yield back 

early like this. But you owe it back to us, anyway, so we will take 

it. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Add it to my account. 

Dr. FLEMING. But we ask that, in the future, you be a little more 

passionate about the things you believe in. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Well, that is—— 
45 

Dr. FLEMING. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman, Mr. 

Sablan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment, Mr. 

Kostyack, you are the lawyer, so I have to go to you. I am not 

blaming you for being a lawyer, I am just holding you accountable 

for being—— 

Mr. KOSTYACK. I am a recovering lawyer, I should say. 

Mr. SABLAN. So, if someone is driving a car and causes an accident and kills someone, they can be charged with manslaughter, 

despite not knowingly setting out to kill that person. And so that 

is why we have laws, traffic laws, right? And regulations. Isn’t the 

Lacey Act the equivalent of traffic laws, in a sense? 

Mr. KOSTYACK. Yes, it right now is what is known as a strict liability statute, which is it does not require knowledge of a violation 

of the law. It doesn’t require knowledge of the chain reaction effect 

that, if you sell this pet, and the pet owner might accidently release the animal or intentionally release the animal, that it could 

end up causing millions of dollars of damage all across our economy 

and destroying our environment. That is the effect, but we don’t expect people to know all those facts before we enforce the law. And 

we don’t expect a prosecutor to have the ability to prove what is 

in somebody’s mind, those complex facts. That is the way our laws 

operate. 

And, let’s face it, if we didn’t have it that way, if we didn’t have 

strict liability statutes, we would not have been able to enforce a 

large part of the laws that regulate BP and its release—massive 

destruction of the Gulf of Mexico with the oil spill 2 years ago. 

Mr. SABLAN. Right. 

Mr. KOSTYACK. Those are strict liability statutes that has enabled the Federal Government to hold BP accountable. And so, 

turning it around here and creating this impossible burden of proof 

is essentially saying, ‘‘We don’t care about the Lacey Act; we don’t 

expect it to be enforced.’’ 

Mr. SABLAN. Ms. Sutherland, good morning. Please, I don’t want 

to interfere in how you run your business. We all need to earn a 

living. And I commend you for your business, unlike some of us 

who are in Congress. I will leave it there. 

But let me just give one example. I was at home and I found out 

that Twinkies are going to stop being sold, Twinkies. I mean the 

last time I had Twinkies was when I was in basic training and 

they actually told me to stop eating the stuff, because I was overweight. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SABLAN. But that doesn’t mean that store owners now are 

going to go broke because Twinkies are being stopped, right? I 

mean we are talking here about nine species. I mean actually, now, 

it is only five. You can adapt to change, I mean other businesses 

can adapt to change. That is what businesses do, right? Otherwise, 

there is no reason for anyone to be in business. You are not telling 

me that the only things you sell are these five species, actually. Are 

you? 

Ms. SUTHERLAND. No, I am not saying that. We do have an ancillary business. We breed rodents. 

Mr. SABLAN. Yes. 
46 

Ms. SUTHERLAND. I supply one of the largest breeders of boas in 

my State with rodents for his boas. That amounts to approximately 

$52,000 a year. And that helps pay for my employees that work in 

the rodent room. 

And so, yes, it is true that businesses do learn to adapt. However, there are other circumstances other than, ‘‘Well, you can just 

change a snake.’’ No. I have to change out all the caging, and then 

I have to find a buyer for that caging. And there are limits. 

One of the things that goes along with this that hasn’t been 

raised is boa constrictors and reticulated pythons are owned by— 

I mean boas more than the pythons—are owned by thousands of 

private citizens across the United States. If they are added to the 

Lacey Act, they will unknowingly break the Lacey Act by moving 

from one State to another, because the general public does not follow all the minute rules and regulations that are enacted every 

year. 

Mr. SABLAN. I have to reclaim; my time is out. Thank you. I really appreciate your response. 

Mr. Jenkins, you see, where I come from we advertise on TV and 

in the paper, ‘‘If you see a snake, kill it. Then report it.’’ So kill 

it first and ask questions later. 

But, Mr. Jenkins, many of the witnesses have talked about this 

being only a problem in South Florida. However, insular areas like 

where I am from, the Territories, my home area, we are both warm 

enough to support these snakes and are particularly vulnerable to 

invasive species. Some of these snakes have already been found in 

the wild in Puerto Rico. Can you address the potential threat of 

these snakes to U.S. Territories? 

Mr. JENKINS. Absolutely. And it just seems as if a lot of the discussion from Mr. Heflick, Dr. Barr, some of the discussion has been 

this idea that the snakes are going to crawl northward in Florida 

and invade the rest of the country. 

Well, that is not how it is going to happen. We know—and there 

is an excellent report from the Humane Society that is in the 

record—that there are hundreds and hundreds of reports of releases around the country where these owners have the snakes, 

they let them go or they escape—we don’t know exactly how the 

snakes get out—but it is in the media. We know there are hundreds of cases in 45 States and the Island Territories around the 

country. So snakes aren’t going to crawl to South Texas or to the 

Territories. 

Mr. SABLAN. And I agree—— 

Mr. JENKINS. They are going to get released there. 

Mr. SABLAN. And just because Mr. Heflick has never heard of a 

case, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Just because he hasn’t seen 

anyone—— 

Mr. JENKINS. It is documented. 

Mr. SABLAN [continuing]. Run a red light doesn’t mean that 

somebody hasn’t done it today is all I am saying. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. 

Dr. FLEMING. The gentleman yields his time back. Well, let’s see. 

We would like to maybe ask a few more questions. So thank you, 

again, for your patience. I now yield myself 5 minutes. 
47 

Mr. Heflick, now, there has been a lot of discussion about a lot 

of people killed, injured. We heard children constricted in their 

cribs and all of this as a result of constrictors that may have been 

brought into this country. With regard to constrictors in the wild, 

which is really what we are talking about here in the Everglades, 

how many humans have been killed, as a result of that? 

Mr. HEFLICK. In the approximate two decades that the Burmese 

Pythons have been in the wilds of South Florida, the cumulative 

numbers of humans killed, attacked, is zero. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Would it surprise you to know that there are 

over 200,000 Americans who were taken to the emergency room 

each year as a result of injuries, and even death, from dogs? 

Mr. HEFLICK. It wouldn’t surprise me. And there are also additionally 30,000 that require plastic surgery. Most of those are in 

the age range between 4 years and 9 years of age. 

Dr. FLEMING. So if you were to compare constrictors versus dogs, 

which would you consider to be more injurious? 

Mr. HEFLICK. I have worked with both. And I have sustained 

major injuries from Man’s Best Friend and minor scrapes and 

scratches from the wild pythons that I have encountered around 

the world. 

Dr. FLEMING. Right. So let me see if I can summarize a little information here. We understand that these imported constrictors, 

they are ectothermal, which means that they cannot survive in cold 

weather. As far as we know, they are completely encapsulated into 

the Everglades. Regardless of where they may have been released, 

they only survive in the Everglades. 

Florida has, apparently, a very robust system, not only of preventing them getting into the wild, but certainly an amnesty program that I think is very fair, that you can give them up without 

any concern about repercussions. And so, Florida is handling a 

Florida problem that only exists in Florida. Do you see any problem 

with that, sir? 

Mr. HEFLICK. No, I think that this is very much so a State issue. 

And Florida, which happens to be the epicenter for this, is handling 

it. They have gone above and beyond. And, ultimately, this talk 

about constrictors and invasives invading the rest of the country, 

whether released, escaped accidentally, or taking their time to 

slither north, is, in my biological opinion, absurd. 

Dr. FLEMING. So you see no reason to pass a Federal law that 

would apply to 50 States and Territories for a problem that is not 

only limited just to Florida, but to a very small area of Florida? 

Mr. HEFLICK. That is correct. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. Thank you for that. Shifting topics a little bit, 

we heard—I think it was—Mr. Jenkins testify that boa constrictors 

are an invasive species to Puerto Rico. But our information is that 

they are native to Puerto Rico, certain species are, and they are 

listed on the endangered species list. Mr. Wyatt, do you have any 

information on this? 

Mr. WYATT. There are insular boas that are native to Puerto 

Rico. They are different from a boa constrictor, which we are talking about here. And so, because it is so far south, I do believe that 

they would probably be able to survive in Puerto Rico, if they were 

introduced there and established themselves. But I would guess 
48 

that Puerto Rico and other insular Territories of the United States, 

as well as any State, can pass laws to restrict those animals in that 

State where they may be a threat. 

Dr. FLEMING. So Puerto Rico could do the same thing Florida has 

done. 

Mr. WYATT. Absolutely. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK. And just in the small amount of time I have 

left, just a general comment, and that is the framers of the Constitution created our government in which the powers and the 

rights of the Federal Government would be circumscribed, would be 

limited, and that all other powers would go to the States. 

And again, I see this as a very, very limited geographical problem within a State that is very capable of handling the problem. 

And I think it simply goes against the traditions, much less the 

laws and the Constitution of the United States, to create such an 

overreach in law that really affects only a small part of this Nation. 

And with that, I yield back and I recognize the gentleman from 

Florida for any questions he has. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, one of 

the things that seems—in trying to solve, I guess, perceived problems, so often times the Federal Government just creates bigger 

problems. It is really amazing to me, coming from a business background. And yet, we continue to appropriate more money for the 

incompetence of creating more problems. 

I am just curious. One of the unintended consequences—and it 

is just common sense, I am a common sense kind of guy, it has 

served me well—is that if this bill becomes law, you are going to 

have individuals in a transit society that we live in now—my goodness, people are transferred, you have military bases, I mean we 

move a lot. 

And so, it seems to me that you would be further exasperating 

the problem of people saying, ‘‘OK, I have now been relocated and 

transferred, and I have this snake.’’ So because it has very little 

value, you can’t sell it—Ms. Sutherland can’t afford to buy it because she is fighting for her very life, I mean it is worthless, as far 

as a marketable value, so that we are just going to dump it. It 

seems to me that is an unintended consequence of this bill. And 

now we have further exasperated the problem by increasing our 

numbers of snakes that—and I am just curious, Mr. Heflick. 

Am I right? I mean you seem like a common sense kind of guy. 

I would love to spend a Saturday with you. Is that a fair—— 

Mr. HEFLICK. Yes. I dual-majored in common sense, too, so that 

is why. But you are exactly right. And the addition of the Burmese 

Python, which has already happened, has done exactly that. It has 

trapped all of the existing Burmese Pythons in the one State where 

they present a problem, in South Florida. 

So, you are exactly right. By making this a Lacey Act listing, you 

trap all of these animals in those States. You decrease their marketable value. You actually make them have a negative value, because you still have to feed them, you have to maintain them, you 

have to take care of them—man hours. You know, as a business 

owner, how that works. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Yes. 
49 

Mr. HEFLICK. So, that is exactly what it has done. And through 

personal comments with biologists in the State of Florida that work 

for the State of Florida on this project, they feel the same way. And 

it has overreached, and it is causing problems in the States that 

they are better suited to handle themselves, if left alone. So you 

are exactly correct. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Dr. Barr? 

Dr. BARR. Yes, I would agree with that. It is perpetuating the 

problem, not solving it. I think Hawaii, which is a subtropical area, 

has some of the most stringent, exotic animal laws in existence. 

And that is how they have chosen to deal with their problem. And 

I think that it is working. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Mr. Wyatt? And you are—— 

Mr. WYATT. Yes, sir. Back to your point of unintended consequences, there are other unintended consequences, aside from 

that. And you brought up the military and transient society. 

This is the first time ever that the government has sought to list 

animals so widely held by the American public. And like Ms. Sutherland said, not everybody out there is aware of what is going on 

with all this stuff. We pay close attention because we have business interests here. But your average owner—take for instance— 

say someone who is deployed to Afghanistan. He comes back from 

his deployment, he is stationed in California. And they get transferred to North Carolina, OK? He and his wife pack up and they 

have a pet boa constrictor and they cross all these State lines to 

get over to North Carolina. He has just unknowingly become a 

Lacey Act felon numerous times over, subject to thousands of dollars in fines and prison time. And this is a situation that could be 

repeated over and over and over again. 

And it is just—it is unconscionable that such an action would be 

taken, and put all these private citizens at risk because they had 

a boa constrictor as a pet. 

Mr. SOUTHERLAND. You know, I find it must be difficult for a situation like you just described, for a soldier to—it seems like it 

would be kind of anti-soldier—that you have a soldier now that has 

a flag on his arm and he is going to serve, and now he is in violation of the law because of the knowingly part of this bill. 

So, look. You have hit it on the head. So I yield back my time, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. FLEMING. OK, very good. I thank the gentleman and panel. 

We may have some additional questions, but we will submit those 

in writing and certainly will ask the Subcommittee members to do 

that. The hearing record will be open for 10 days to receive these 

responses that you may provide to those questions. 

In addition, I also want to submit for the record a statement 

from the American Bird Conservancy, an economic study from the 

Georgetown Economic Services, a number of emails I have received 

in opposition to H.R. 511, and 3 scientific studies which have conclusively demonstrated that these constrictor snakes cannot—let 

me repeat, cannot—survive outside of South Florida. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[NOTE: The information submitted for the record by Dr. Fleming 

has been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 
50 

Dr. FLEMING. I want to thank Members and staff for their contributions to this hearing. Before adjourning I would like to wish 

a happy birthday to one of our committee staff, Ms. Bonnie Bruce. 

And you are welcome to volunteer your age—— 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. FLEMING [continuing]. Oh, without objection—who has served 

with us with distinction for the past 18 years. And we thank you 

for your service, Bonnie. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pierluisi follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Pedro R. Pierluisi, the Resident Commissioner 

in Congress from Puerto Rico 

Good morning. Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Sablan for convening this hearing. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I am familiar with 

this legislation as the Committee voted in February to favorably report it to the full 

House. As a cosponsor, I hope that this Committee will now follow suit, so that the 

biodiversity and natural ecosystems in South Florida; my district, Puerto Rico; and 

the other areas of the United States that are vulnerable to invasion by constrictor 

snakes are adequately protected. 

This bill would add nine species of giant constrictor snakes to the list of animals 

currently prohibited from importation and interstate shipment in the United States, 

including Puerto Rico. Of these nine species, five have already appeared in the wild 

in Puerto Rico. 

The Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources reports 

that Burmese pythons, reticulated pythons, African rock pythons, yellow anacondas, 

and boa constrictors have been collected in municipalities throughout Puerto Rico, 

and that boa constrictors have even begun to breed on the Island. While the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service has already prohibited the importation and interstate 

movement of three of these fives species through the rule making process, the remaining two species are not prohibited by either rule or statute. 

Why is this important? There are eight endangered bird species and eight endangered reptile species native to Puerto Rico, including the Puerto Rican parrot and 

coquı ́ frog, that are directly threatened by the presence in Puerto Rico of large constrictor snakes. The federal government and the government of Puerto Rico are 

partners in recovering endangered Puerto Rican parrots in El Yunque National Forest and the Rı ́o Abajo Forest, and have spent close to $20 million over the past decade on this partnership. These snakes pose a direct threat to this investment. 

As a tropical island, Puerto Rico is particularly susceptible to biological invasions, 

especially by highly adaptive generalist predators like constrictor snakes, which 

pose a threat to the environment, economy, and public safety. We have already witnessed the consequences of inaction at the federal level in Florida, and we must 

take affirmative steps to mitigate the risks there and in other vulnerable areas. 

Therefore, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about how this bill 

would protect Puerto Rico in particular, and apart from the bill about what other 

actions government can take at the federal, state and local levels to prevent large 

constrictor snakes from becoming established in the wild in Puerto Rico and other 

vulnerable jurisdictions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rooney follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Thomas J. Rooney, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Florida 

Chairman Fleming, Ranking Member Sablan, and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for your consideration of H.R. 511, my bill to prohibit further importation 

and inter-state transport of nine constrictor snakes widely considered to be invasive 

species. This legislation would amend the list of injurious species under the Lacey 

Act to include the Indian python, reticulated python, Northern African python, 
51 

Southern African python, boa constrictor, green anaconda, yellow anaconda, 

DeSchauensee’s anaconda, and the Beni Anaconda. 

The negative consequences of non-native, invasive species are far reaching to say 

the least. As a Florida native, I have seen firsthand the damages invasive plants 

and animals cause. Exotic, invasive species have taken an aggressive hold in South 

Florida, and continue to spread at an alarming rate. The most recent and arguably 

dangerous example of a non-native predator establishing a thriving, breeding population is the Burmese Python found in the Florida Everglades. 

A combination of climate and geographical factors distinguish the Everglades as 

the only subtropical wilderness that exists in the United States. This area is home 

to a truly unique variety of wildlife, many of which are considered threatened or 

endangered. Unfortunately, this ecosystem is also uniquely hospitable to foreign invaders like the Burmese Python. These snakes thrive on the subtropical climate and 

abundant food resources so readily available in this region. In 2001, there were 

roughly 200 Burmese Pythons observed in the Everglades. It is now estimated that 

there are over 100,000 pythons who call the Everglades home. 

Burmese pythons are native to Southeast Asia. I am not a scientist, but if I could 

make an educated guess I would say that they did not migrate here of their own 

free will. According to a fact sheet published by the National Park Service, Burmese 

pythons were likely released into the Everglades by pet owners. These snakes can 

grow more than 5 feet in their first year of life, a size requiring substantial quantities of live mice and even rabbits to maintain. When full grown, they can reach 

20 feet in length and weigh over 200 pounds. It’s no wonder well-intentioned pet 

owners can’t take care of them. 

Many individuals fail to recognize these snakes for what they really are: wild animals. Experienced reptile handlers and average individuals alike have been attacked by constrictor snakes. Even worse, the number of people who have been seriously injured in these attacks is startling. Florida made national news three years 

ago when a 2-year-old girl was tragically killed by a Burmese python. The snake 

escaped from an enclosure in the home and strangled the innocent child in her 

sleep. Constrictor snakes are dangerous predators, not domesticated pets. 

The threat invasive, exotic snakes pose to human safety is obviously paramount. 

However, it is also worth noting the ecologic and economic damages associated with 

this species. The State of Florida, in conjunction with the federal government, has 

spent billions of tax dollars on the restoration the Everglades. A March 2010 research paper reported that 25 different bird species, including the endangered wood 

stork, had been found in the digestive tracts of pythons in Everglades National 

Park. It seems entirely counterintuitive to allocate federal dollars for the protection 

of imperiled species while still allowing injurious species to prey on these endangered animals. 

The economic damages associated with nonnative invasive species amount to an 

estimated $120 billion per year in the United States. That cost is shared by tax payers nationwide. The South Florida Water Management District, State of Florida, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Everglades National Park have already dedicated valuable time and resources towards eradicating the Burmese python. If additional invasive snakes are allowed to establish themselves, our environment and our 

citizens will be harmed, and tax payers will foot the bill. 

The threat of further introduction and establishment of nonnative species only increases the longer we wait to address this problem. By listing these nine species 

of pythons and boas we can begin to tackle the problem from its source. While 

H.R. 511 is not the silver bullet to ending the problem in South Florida, it is a vital 

step towards reaching that goal. We must stop the further introduction of these 

snakes, while we continue working to eradicate them from the Everglades. 

[A letter submitted for the record by Timm Kroeger, Ph.D., Senior Environmental 

Economist, The Nature Conservancy, follows:] 

The Nature Conservancy 

December 12, 2011 

Mr. Cass Sunstein, Administrator 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President 

Eisenhower Executive Office Building 

1650 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Room 262 

Washington, DC 20503 
52 

1Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Injurious Wildlife Species: Listing the Boa Constrictor, Four 

Python Species, and Four Anaconda Species as Injurious Reptiles. Federal Register: July 1, 2010 

(Volume 75, Number 126, pp. 38069–38070). 2 Collis, A.H., and R.N. Fenili. 2011. The Modern U.S. Reptile Industry. Report for USARK 

by Georgetown Economic Services. 74 pp. Online at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 

1018_meeting_04182011 (last accessed December, 2 2011). 

Re: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Large Constrictor Snake Proposed Rule, RIN 

1018–AV68 

Dear Mr. Sunstein: 

I am writing on behalf of The Nature Conservancy to provide comments on the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Large Constrictor Snake Proposed Rule, RIN 1018– 

AV68 and, specifically, on the economic analysis of that rule provided by the U.S. 

Association of Reptile Keepers. 

In this letter we point out several serious flaws in the economic analysis of the 

proposed listing of nine constrictor species as injurious wildlife,1 commissioned by 

the U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK).2 Specifically, the USARK-commissioned study: 

(1) Ignores likely substitution effects on the part of both the reptile industry 

and reptile owners, which leads to a likely large upward bias in the resulting estimates of negative economic impacts from the proposed rule. 

(2) Focuses only on the negative impacts on one small segment of the reptile 

industry (that is, breeders and importers of these nine large constrictor 

snakes) and snake owners that may result from the implementation of the 

proposed rule, while completely ignoring the positive impacts the rule would 

have in terms of benefits for native wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, avoided control and eradication expenditures by government agencies, and human safety. Such a one-sided analysis cannot inform 

sensible public policy, which should consider both the costs and benefits of 

a regulation. 

(3) Uses an inappropriate discount rate that by itself leads to a substantial 

(close to 20 percent) overstating of the projected future costs of the rule. 

This, together with the unreasonable expectation that no substitution effects 

will occur on the industry or consumer side, introduces a further upward 

bias in the study’s cost estimates that makes the latter even more doubtful. 

(4) Incorrectly applies the term ‘‘economic losses’’ when referring to what in fact 

are reductions in revenues for this small segment of the reptile industry. 

This is not merely a problem of semantics that is likely to mislead many 

readers of the report. Rather, economic losses—or net reductions in business 

assets—from reduced sales are always smaller than revenue reductions. By 

basing its analysis on revenues rather than losses expected to result from 

the proposed rule but referring to those revenue reductions as losses, the 

report overstates the actual losses industry may suffer as a result of the 

rule. This, combined with the likely dramatic overestimation of those expected revenue reductions for the reasons listed in comments (1) and (3) 

above, further exaggerates any negative impact the rule might have on the 

reptile industry. 

In what follows, we discuss some of these issues in more detail. 

Estimates of lost sales are based on the assumption that there would be no substitution effects. 

In fact, however, two types of substitution effects are likely to occur. First, on the 

demand side, a portion of potential purchasers of the large constrictors affected by 

the proposed rule can be expected to switch to other reptiles not affected by the ban. 

Any such substitution will reduce the size of the economic impact (i.e., lost sales or 

revenues for breeders and the pet supplies industry) associated with the listing of 

selected large constrictors as injurious wildlife. This substitution effect is likely to 

become more important over time as consumers adjust their habits. This means that 

any initial losses in economic benefits from the restrictions based on the targeted 

species, to the extent that such losses occur at all, will be decreasing over time. The 

report completely ignores this substitution effect. 

Second, in states except those that are banning the breeding of the affected nine 

snake species (of which only six are actually traded in the United States, as the 

USARK report points out), losses in interstate trade in the species likely would be 

counteracted through an increase in the intra-state production and trade of those 

species. This substitution effect on the supply side likely would fill the supply shortage that would result from reduced interstate trade in those species. This substi-
53 

3Office of Management and Budget, 2003, Circular A–4—Regulatory Analysis, Sep. 17, 2003. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/regulatory_matters_pdf/a-4.pdf. 4For the U.S. alone, more than two dozen studies estimate the economic value of avoided 

losses in T&E species populations. For an overview, see Richardson, L. and J. Loomis, 2009, 

‘‘The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis’’, Ecological Economics 68:1535–1548. 

tution would counteract any losses in consumer or producer surplus that might result from the rule’s effect on interstate commerce in those species. 

The combined effect of these two substitution effects could offset a large portion 

of the reductions in interstate trade in the affected species that might result from 

the proposed rule. The USARK-commissioned study, being a steady-state analysis, 

completely ignores these substitution effects and thus is likely to dramatically overestimate the reduction in sales that might result from the proposed rule. Substitution effects are likely to be of increasing importance over time as consumers adjust to the new regulations. This will reduce the impact on annual sales of the affected species that the proposed regulation may have. Thus, the USARK-commissioned study is likely to overestimate future revenue losses even more than it does 

losses in the first year after the rule goes into effect. 

Use of an inappropriate discount rate inflates expected future costs 

The report uses the prime bank loan rate as the discount rate applied to projected 

foregone future revenues from the nine large constrictor species that would be affected by the proposed legislation. However, the prime loan rate is a reference interest rate used by banks. It is not the appropriate rate to use for discounting future 

earnings. The correct rate to use is the average rate of return that the foregone profits could have and would have achieved. The historic average rate of return in the 

United States—approximately 7 percent—commonly is the rate used in such analyses, and is the default discount rate that the Office of Management and Budget 

requires federal agencies to use in benefit-cost analyses.3 Using that rate instead 

of the 3.25% rate used in the report alone reduces projected lost revenues as a result 

of the proposed rule by 17%. 

The report is one-sided because it ignores the economic benefits of the proposed rule 

The USARK-funded study provides an (highly upward-biased) estimate of the 

market activity-related cost (i.e., lost revenues) that it expects to result from the 

proposed rule. Such an estimate is meaningless from an economic perspective without an estimate of the benefits the rule would bring about. These benefits consist 

of avoided control and eradication costs and avoided damages that would result from 

the proposed rule. 

Furthermore, from an economic, cost-benefit perspective, the preferable, more 

comprehensive measure of the economic effect of the rule would focus on the net 

welfare effect from the rule, as measured in the form of changes in consumer and 

producer surplus. Such an analysis also would require the consideration of how 

much the proposed rule could be expected to reduce population losses and extinction 

risks for threatened and endangered species, as avoided population losses and extinction events carry real economic value.4 Evidence in the Florida Everglades indicates that accidentally or intentionally released large constrictors and other invasive 

reptiles negatively affect several T&E species. Such negative impacts carry an economic cost. 

Incorrect and misleading use of terminology 

The authors frequently use the term ‘‘economic losses’’ when in fact they are referring to reductions in sales. The use of the term ‘‘economic loss’’ in this sense is incorrect, as the actual economic loss associated with any reduced sales is only the foregone producer surplus (gross revenues minus production costs), not the foregone revenue (i.e., gross sales value). Like any production, the production of large constrictors requires inputs and carries associated costs. If production ceases, so do the associated expenditures on inputs. Thus, the terminology used in the study is misleading as it exaggerates the actual size of the losses in the industry that may result from the proposed rule. 

Thank you for considering our comments. 

Respectfully, 

Timm Kroeger, Ph.D. 

Senior Environmental Economist 

Sustainability Science 

Central Science 
54 

Statement submitted for the record by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) appreciates this opportunity to submit a statement for the record on H.R. 511, a bill to prohibit the importation of several species of constrictor snakes. In general, the bill amends the injurious wildlife 

provisions of the Lacey Act at 18 U.S.C. 42(a) to add nine species of non-native, constrictor snakes to the list of ‘‘injurious wildlife’’ regulated under this title. With this 

designation, the importation and interstate transport of these snake species would 

be prohibited without a permit from the Department of the Interior. H.R. 511 was 

introduced on January 26, 2012, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, 

which reported it with an amendment on February 28, 2012. The Service supports 

the bill as introduced, but cannot support the bill as amended by the House Judiciary Committee. 

Background 

The Lacey Act is among the nation’s oldest and most effective conservation laws. 

It has proven to be a powerful tool for the conservation of sustainable, native wildlife populations from overharvest and from threats posed by invasive species. Along 

with a core of other key statutes, like the Plant Protection Act, the injurious wildlife 

prohibitions in title 18 of the United States Code protect domestic interests against 

the spread of invasive species, including foreign invasive species known to occupy 

habitats in the United States that are similar to those in which they live in their 

home ranges and that could outcompete or prey upon native fish and wildlife, cause 

damages to our economic interests, or cause or carry disease. 

In 2008, the Service published a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register, soliciting available biological, economic, and other information and data on the Python, 

Boa and Eunectes genera of constrictor snakes for possible addition to the list of ‘‘injurious wildlife.’’ This notice of inquiry was prompted by a petition from the South 

Florida Water Management District to the Service requesting the addition of Burmese pythons to this list. 

Subsequently, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published a peer-reviewed report, Giant constrictors: Biological and management profiles and an establishment 

risk assessment for nine large species of Pythons, Anacondas, and the Boa Constrictor, which identified the nine constrictor snake species included in H.R. 511 as 

posing a risk of becoming established in the United States. In 2010, the Service published a proposed rule to list all nine species. In 2011, USGS published a clarification on the modeling used for the 2009 report. Finally, in January 2012 the Service 

published a final rule to list four of the nine species, including Python molurus 

(which includes Burmese python Python molurus bivittatus and Indian python 

Python molurus molurus), Northern African python Python sebae, Southern African 

python Python natalensis, and yellow anaconda Eunectes notaeus on the list of injurious reptiles. 

The immediate listing of these four species was found to be warranted because 

all determined to have a ‘‘high risk’’ for establishment in the wild and for causing 

damaging impacts to wildlife resources. The final rule became effective on March 

23, 2012. The Service continues review of the remaining five species of constrictor 

snakes that were included in the 2010 proposed rule but that have not been listed 

to date. 

H.R. 511 Judiciary Committee Amendment 

In its amendment to H.R. 511, the House Judiciary Committee retained language 

in the original bill text adding all nine species to the list of ‘‘injurious wildlife’’ in 

18 U.S.C. 42(a), but changed the text of the underlying statute in a way that would 

considerably alter the liability standard for violations of certain prohibited acts in 

this statute that are Class B misdemeanor offenses. The amendment also exempts 

from the prohibitions in 18 U.S.C. 42(a) the importation and interstate transport of 

all nine species of large constrictor snakes by state fish and wildlife agencies or ‘‘exhibitors,’’ as defined in section 80.1 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations. 

Under the current statute, prosecution of violations occurs through a ‘‘strict liability’’ standard, meaning it may be based on evidence of the violation without establishing proof of the violator’s intent or prior knowledge about the law or the presence of the injurious species in a given imported or transported shipment. The 

amendment changes this standard to an intent-based standard with respect to the 

importation of all injurious animals and plants, meaning prosecution must be based, 

in part, on proof of what the violator knew when he committed the prohibited act. 

Given the nature of shipments or other human-directed movement of fish and wildlife into the U.S. and across state borders, H.R. 511, if adopted by Congress in its 

current form, would require a heightened standard of proof before prosecution could 
55 

1Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. ‘‘Environmental and Economic 

Costs of Nonindigenous Species in the United States.’’ Bioscience, 50(1): 53–56. 2 National Invasive Species Council. November 1, 2012. Invasive Species Interagency Crosscut 

Budget. 

occur, significantly weakening our ability to use this statute to prevent or inhibit 

the spread of such species and the harm they cause. 

For example, the statute applies to a wide variety of animals such as mollusks, 

mussels, and crustacea that may be brought into the United States in ballast water 

or on the outside of ships. As explained further below, the introduction of these injurious animals has caused enormous economic and environmental harm in this country. While ship owners and operators are warned through posted signs and notices 

of their responsibility to appropriately dispose of ballast water and clean their ships 

to prevent the spread of injurious species, under the statute as amended U.S. prosecutors would be required to prove that they knowingly imported these injurious 

animals into U.S. waters in order to prosecute them for violations of this statute, 

an almost insurmountable burden of proof under the circumstances. Thus, changing 

the prohibition in the statute from a strict liability offense to a knowing offense 

would remove the incentive for shippers to take appropriate steps to ensure that 

they do not introduce injurious animals into the United States. 

Furthermore, wildlife shipments can contain more than one species, and they may 

include individuals representing species listed as ‘‘injurious wildlife’’ among other, 

more benign species. Injurious species may also be transported into the United 

States or across state lines as ‘‘hitchhikers.’’ Also, this statute’s prohibitions against 

importation and transport of ‘‘injurious wildlife’’ involve, in many cases, specific species, but shipments may be labeled at a higher level of taxonomy. Species in these 

groups may look much alike. Importers may work with foreign partners who have 

no accountability to domestic law. Importers may or may not fully understand the 

content of their shipments in such cases. Such a shipment may include injurious 

species with or without the knowledge of the importer, who may or may not know 

such prohibitions exist. Under current law, Service enforcement agents may stop 

and detain suspected shipments, and when appropriate, pursue prosecution for the 

party who is accountable to U.S. law, with the goal of preventing the damage that 

these species cause. The mere prospect of prosecution on the basis of the presence 

or absence of the prohibited species in transport encourages knowledge of and compliance with the law. The risk of spread of injurious species into the United States 

is, therefore, reduced by the diligence of the importer or transporter that is subject 

to the law. 

The economic and environmental damage injurious wildlife and other foreign, 

invasive species can cause to United States interests when those species spread into 

supportive habitats is well-known. Species listed as ‘‘injurious wildlife’’ in many 

cases have already proven to be harmful, incurring considerable costs to reverse or 

control the damages they cause and to control their numbers in the wild. These 

costs are ultimately borne by our nation’s businesses, consumers, and taxpayers 

when these species impact commercially valuable fisheries, water and power utility 

infrastructure, environmental quality and environmental restoration efforts, agricultural interests, and human health, among other things. 

While precise estimates of annual costs are difficult to establish, the most widely 

referenced paper on this issue (Pimental et al. 2000) reports the cost of invasive species, which would include injurious wildlife, at $120 billion per year.1 In 2011 alone, 

the National Invasive Species Council estimates that Federal agencies spent over 

$2 billion on activities focused on preventing, minimizing, or reversing the damages 

caused by invasive species, with more than half of that amount dedicated to prevention, rapid response, and control of such species and their impacts.2 The risk of increasing these costs to our Nation’s interests with new introductions or human-facilitated spread is high, even when just a few individuals from species on this list 

are released or accidentally escape captivity. The risk of escape or release of these 

species is particularly high during transport, and many of the species in the ‘‘injurious wildlife’’ list can reproduce and spread rapidly under suitable conditions. 

The transport of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) on recreational or commercial boats across state lines or our international borders often occurs without 

knowledge of the transporter about the law prohibiting this or the presence of the 

mussels. In fact, the introduction of zebra mussels into the United States was 

through ballast water discharge of ships sailing from Europe into the Great Lakes. 

This unknowing and unintentional introduction has cost the United States billions 

of dollars in damages and in control efforts. The threat continues to move west. 

Invasive, fresh water mussels, including zebra mussels, transported across state 

lines threaten the hydroelectric infrastructure in western states. These mussels are 
56 

3 IEAB. 2010. Economic Risk Associated with the Potential Establishment of Zebra and 

Quagga Mussels in the Columbia River Basin. NW Council, Independent Economic Analysis 

Board, Task Number 159, Document IEAB 2010–1, July 14, 2010. Available: http:// 

www.nwcouncil.org/library/ieab/ieab2010-1.pdf (Accessed Nov. 23, 2012). 

poised to invade the Columbia River, and the cost to hydroelectric infrastructure 

alone could be between $250 to $300 million annually.3

Under the ‘‘strict liability’’ standard of current law, the Service’s Office of Law Enforcement and the Department of Justice take into consideration mitigating and aggravating circumstances when deciding whether to file formal charges, issue a violation notice, or simply seize a shipment. There is a significant amount of discretion 

applied on a case-by-case basis, maximizing the protective purposes of the statute 

without unduly hindering commerce or otherwise lawful activities of U.S. citizens. 

The cost of this prevention tool is a small fraction of the cost to control or reverse 

the damage of these species when they are able to establish wild populations in the 

United States. 

The exemption provided in the amendment for the importation and interstate 

transport of the relevant species of large, constrictor snakes, from a practical point 

of view, would challenge the enforcement of the prohibition in such a way as to significantly reduce or eliminate its effectiveness in preventing the introduction or 

spread of these species in wild habitats in the United States. 

The Service cannot support H.R. 511 as amended by the House Judiciary Committee. The Service believes that the current ‘‘strict liability’’ standard for prosecution is necessary to achieve the protective purposes of this statute to manage the 

risk posed to U.S. interests by ‘‘injurious wildlife’’ species. We welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee to address any concerns about the current text 

or enforcement of this statute. 

[The information listed below has been retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

• Barker, David G., Article ‘‘Will They Come in out of the 

Cold? Observations of Large Constrictors in Cool and Cold 

Conditions’’ 

• Collis, Ariel H. and Robert N. Fenili, Commentary Article, 

‘‘Constrictors, Injurious Wildlife Listings, and the Reptile Industry’’ 

• Committee on Oversight and Government Reform staff 

report, ‘‘Broken Government: How the Administrative State 

has Broken President Obama’s Promise of Regulatory Reform’’ 

• Dorcas, Michael et al., Article in Integrative Zoology 2012, 

‘‘Can invasive Burmese pythons inhabit temperate regions of 

the southeastern United States?’’ 

• Jacobson, Elliott R., et al., Article ‘‘Environmental temperatures, physiology and behavior limit the range expansion of 

invasive Burmese pythons in southeastern USA’’ 

• Liston, Barbara, Article in Chicago Tribune, ‘‘Are Pythons 

overrunning the Everglades? Some experts now say no’’ 

• Mazzotti, Frank J., et al., Article ‘‘Cold-induced mortality of 

invasive Burmese pythons in south Florida’’ 

• Schroder, Darin, Vice President of Conservation and Advocacy, American Bird Conservancy, Statement for the record 

• United States Association of Reptile Keepers, Petition from 

150 residents from State of Washington 

• Walthall, Susan M., Acting Chief Counsel, Office of 

Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administratoin, Statement 

for the record 

Æ