Will Malson species1NR Page 1 of 7

cps. dropping case

1829
Will Malson species1NR Page 2 of 7

CP – Clean List

III. NB
His point A was clarification, so this is under point B:

1. clarity/efficiency:
a) having a clean-list only means that everything not on the clean-list is assumed dirty – the gray-
list is the nebulous category as it is the middle of a sliding scale from “no” to “yes”, “maybe?”

b) Look to the aff’s plan advocate: New Zealand uses a clean-list ONLY – this is more
effective, as it places the burden of proof onto the person(s) wanting to import the species.
Bean 99
Michael J. (attorney and Chair of the Wildlife Program for the Environmental Defense Fund, DC. Chair of the Environmental Defense Fund's
Wildlife Program and is well-known for his expertise on endangered species conservation), "Invasive Species and Biodiversity Management",
"Legal authorities for controlling alien species: A survey of tools and their effectiveness", Page 274

Reversing the burden of proof, effectively presuming every foreign species to be injurious until
demonstrated otherwise, could substantially improve the effectiveness of the Lacey Act and
similar laws that seek to protect against the threat of imported species. In the United States, and effort was
made to reverse the burden of proof under the Lacey Act two decades ago. The idea was to create a "clean list" of species that could be imported,
a "dirty list" of those that could not, and a "gray list" of everything else. Until a species on the gray list was shown to be safe, no importation of it
would be allowed. The effort was blocked politically by exotic pet importers and allied interests who feared a significant impediment to their
business. The alternative to reversing the burden of proof is to mount an aggressive effort to expand the list of injurious wildlife to include not
Unlike the United
only those that have already been imported and have caused problems, but others that have the potential to do so.
States, New Zealand has established a "clean list" approach (Anonymous, 1996). The authority for
restricting importation of potentially injurious alien species is contained in 1993 legislation
known as the Biosecurity Act. Incoming visitors, merchandise, etc. are subject to rigorous
inspection. Plants or animals permitted entry are given a "biosecurity clearance." Such clearances
may not be given to any plant or animal not already established in New Zealand unless it is on an
approved list (i.e., a "clean" list). A separate "dirty" list identifies organisms that may not be
cleared for entry, regardless of whether the species may already be present in the country. The costs
of scientific analysis, inspection, enforcement, and related activities are intended to be covered through a "user pays" approach. Like New
Zealand, the state of Hawaii also restricts the entry of all major animal groups to species that occur on a clean list.

2. corruption/lobbying:
a) AT: "No quantification"
i] that ignores my point: there are plenty of examples of government corruption in
numerous different agencies (from corporations). "no quantification" isn't a response
ii] EPA, FWS, they're both government agencies. Whatever. It’s a government
entity, prone to corruption and special interests…specific FWS example. Silver & Fibel 10
Dr. Robin (Center for Biological Diversity) & Herb (Maricopa Audubon Society), "Fish and Wildlife Service Documents Show Arizona's Desert
Nesting Bald Eagle Victim of Agency Corruption Again", Center for Biological Diversity, March 23

PHOENIX, Ariz.— Newly obtained documents reveal that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service bald eagle
experts have again been overruled by their political superiors in order to remove Endangered
Species Act protection for Arizona's desert nesting bald eagles. An August 24, 2009, memo from
Regional Fish and Wildlife Director Benjamin Tuggle to Assistant Fish and Wildlife Director Gary
Frazer states that the Arizona population "is discrete and significant" to the bald eagle population
Will Malson species1NR Page 3 of 7

as a whole "based on its persistence in an unusual or unique [desert] ecological setting." Tuggle's
memo summarizes more than 30 years of biological studies and the consensus of every
recognized bald eagle expert. In a response dated December 4, 2009, Frazer dismisses the
experts' opinion, advising that his "…staff will work with you on development of the revised version of the finding. Obviously, the
finding should not simply cite my conclusion…" This scenario is a repeat of the agency's attempts in 2006 and
2007 to remove protection from Arizona's reproductively, geographically, biologically, and behaviorally isolated population of approximately
160 individuals and 60 breeding pairs. In these past attempts, the agency tried to suppress the consensus
science presented in an October 6, 2004 petition from the Center for Biological Diversity and
Maricopa Audubon requesting increased protection for the desert bald eagle distinct population
segment (DPS). On March 5, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge Mary Murguia rejected the last agency ruse
on the grounds that agency scientists "…received ‘marching orders’ and were directed to find an
analysis that fit with a negative 90-day finding on the DPS status of the desert bald eagle."
"Indeed, the record indicates that each time FWS biologists from the FWS’s Arizona Field Office assessed
whether listing the desert bald eagle population as a DPS may be warranted, they found that 'no
information in [the FWS’s] files refutes' Plaintiffs’ petition…" Judge Murguia added. "President
Obama promised that his administration's decisions would be based on science. Department of
Interior and Fish and Wildlife Service administrators have obviously not gotten the message,"
said Herb Fibel, Maricopa Audubon president.

b) AT: Turn
i] No, a clean-list only shifts the burden of proof to the person(s) attempting to
import the species. That's Bean 99. Without a conclusive study that says (basically) "this
thingamajig ain't gonna harm nothin'", it's not coming in. That's less wiggle room.
ii] the likeability of a government system by lobbyists is measured by an inverse
function of the simplicity of any given program. Basically, the simpler something is, the
harder it is to manipulate it - corrupt politicians and corporations love complexity -
simplicity is the best possible thing when it comes to government. Tax example. Quinn 10
James (senior director of strategic planning for a major university. James has held financial positions with a retailer, homebuilder and university
in his 22-year career. Those positions included treasurer, controller, and head of strategic planning. He earned a BS in accounting from Drexel
University and an MBA from Villanova University. He is a certified public accountant and a certified cash manager), "U.S. Government's Road
to Perdition", Seeking Alpha (stock market opinion and financial discussion site), Jan 4
Decade after decade, Americans have voted for intellectually and morally bankrupt dullards that promise them more goodies under the tree.
Every day is Christmas in Washington DC. Long-term means the next election cycle to these traitors of the Republic. I have written ad nauseum
about the impending financial cataclysm that awaits our nation. I have spent countless hours documenting the unsustainable path of our
Our political
politicians' financial decisions and lack of courage in addressing the forthcoming tragedy that grows closer by the day.
system is so corrupt and dysfunctional that there is absolutely no chance that our path will be
altered at the voting booth. Government programs are fashioned, but never finished. The IRS tax
code consists of 3.4 million words covering 7,500 pages of payoffs to business lobbyists.
Simplicity is a virtue. The politicians who are bought and sold by corporate interests prefer
complexity and obscuring the truth. Everyone knows that the government cannot fulfill the fiscal promises they have already
made. Instead of dealing with this reality using intelligence, courage and conviction, the weak kneed politicians that slither the halls of Congress
have chosen to add a brand new bloated entitlement program guaranteed to detonate in our faces. This is the existing reality. There is nothing I
can do that will change this reality. Instead, I will propose a new model.
[17 paragraphs omitted]
The 7,500 page Internal Revenue Code has been written to benefit politicians and special
interests that pay politicians. This is how politicians repay their financial backers with tax breaks
or deductions. The tax code is purposely indecipherable so that the general public is unable to
recognize the payoffs for what they are. If the current tax code was scrapped and made so simple
a Treasury Secretary could do their tax return properly, influence would be stripped from
Will Malson species1NR Page 4 of 7

Congress. They will never willingly consent to this. The truth is that the top 1% of income earners pays 40% of the
taxes. The top 10% of income earners pay 71% of all taxes. The bottom 50% of income earners pays virtually no taxes. Still, the rich and
My
powerful are able to hire highly paid tax attorneys to avoid billions in taxes through loopholes provided by their Congressional concubines.
proposal to reconstitute our corrupt tax system is a flat tax of 10% on all earned income. There would
be absolutely no deductions or credits. Interest, dividends, and capital gains would not be taxed. Savings and investment should not be
discouraged. Corporate income taxes would be eliminated. Taxes on corporations are just passed through to customers in higher prices. The
biggest change to our tax system would be the implementation of a 15% Value Added Tax on all consumption, excluding food and clothing.
The simplicity of my system would make
Overconsumption is what got us into this predicament. It can help get us out of it.
politicians, tax accountants, and special interest groups foam at the mouth like rabid dogs. Based on
figures supplied by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, government receipts would be:
Flat Tax Receipts ($6.3 trillion x 10%) $ 630 billion
Value Added Tax Receipts ($9 trillion x 15%) $1.350 trillion
Social Insurance & Excise Taxes $ 320 billion
TOTAL RECEIPTS $2.300 trillion
Politicians wield immense amounts of power through the use of tax goodies. There is absolutely
no reason for this complex system other than to pay back constituents and lobbyists for their
votes and contributions. Simplicity would destroy their power base and shift control back to the
people.

c) AT: "tu quoque" whatever that means.

less risk - maybe I can't solve for every opportunity industry has to corrupt government,
but I don't have as much risk as you.

This is under his point C No advocacy:

i] advocacy doesn't matter foo debate me not my authors
ii] actually, your evidence gives examples of new zealand, which is advocating just the clean-
list…BAM! (I always wanted to do that. …"Bam".)
iii] you haven't read a single card that says we should have a gray list. all of your 1ac evidence
indicates that we should have a clean-list and that's what comes in, leaving all the rest out. sooo…yeah.
Will Malson species1NR Page 5 of 7

CP – States Clean-list, Fed Gray-list

III. NB
I'm splitting his A. point under my NB into A1 and A2. You'll see why in a second:
A1. AT: this links to your "Invasive Species" K
i] hahaha - that's funny
ii] balderdash - my card is about non-homogenization (and state's rights and
effectiveness). federalism and all that. that doesn't link to the k at all.

AT. AT: this links to your Representations K

i] no horror story - with aff, at the very least it's questionable whether or not you have
the eco-horror story. you don't see any of that with my federalism card.
ii] that's backwards - my 1nc link card is about a story spurring political action. my 1nc
NB card isn't about trying to accomplish anything in regards to the aff case, that's the
solvency card.

IV. Solvency
A. AT: card doesn't apply
i] not a reason to reject - just because it's generic means it's false.
ii] generally, the card is correct - 1) more accurate knowledge, 2) more responsive, 3)
tailorable, 4) states innovate, feds don't. you can apply this anywhere.
iii] here's some support then: 3 cards.
a) The government can have an overarching gray-list, but each state should have their own
clean-lists – gives them sovereignty and flexibility, allowing immediate action. Brown 06
ROBERT BROWN [J.D. Candidate, 2006, Indiana University School of Law–Bloomington; B.S., 2002, Purdue University], "Exotic Pets Invade
United States Ecosystems: Legislative Failure and a Proposed Solution" INDIANA LAW JOURNAL, [Vol. 81:713], Page 728

The federal government’s uniform state regulation should follow the proposed clean list
approach for the Lacey Act, restricting the possession of all “dirty” pets. The uniform state
regulation should adopt a conservative clean list which only allows possession of species that
experts believe would not harm U.S. ecosystems if escaped or released. This clean list could
include such animals as badgers, rabbits, canaries, ostriches, and buffalos,143 but exclude all
other animals such as pythons, monkeys, tigers, and lizards. For all other “dirty” animals, a
stringent uniform permit system should be utilized. In implementing this system, a state could
enact regulations more stringent than the uniform regulation, thus giving each state the
sovereignty and flexibility to react to changes in their environments that require immediate
action.

b) States successfully manage ecosystems, creating their own lists in tangent with the fed –
the fed should “coordinate the efforts of the states…[and] share the burden of…regulation,
and enforcement with the states.” Dr. Hill 09
[NOTE: the neg team does not advocate the nationalistic rhetoric found in this card]
Jeffrey [Assistant Professor in Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences at the University of Florida], TESTIMONY OF JEFFREY HILL, UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA, BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND
WILDLIFE AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, REGARDING THREATS TO NATIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES, 8 July, Pages 8-9
Will Malson species1NR Page 6 of 7

Partnership with the States States

have broad authority to manage fish and wildlife resources. Some
states have comprehensive programs and have clearly specified authority given to agencies.
Considerable experience and expertise resides within state agencies, especially related to the
regional nature of pathways and ecosystems. These can serve as models or test cases for various
approaches to reducing the risks associated with invasive species. For example, the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission uses a combination list approach with a two-tiered dirty
list (prohibited and conditional), a clean list, and a “list” of all other non-native species.
Prohibited species are deemed of unacceptable risk; conditional species may be possessed or
cultured under rigorous risk-reducing conditions; species on the clean list, currently two bait
species, are deemed of low risk; and all other non-native species cannot be legally released from
captivity. The prohibited and conditional lists have been developed over time in a combination of
reactive and proactive processes; for many taxa the lists are remarkably proactive and developed
with substantial input from stakeholders. Important roles for the federal government would be to
coordinate the efforts of states, especially states with common pathways and ecosystems,
facilitate state-based programs, bridge important gaps where states lack sufficient authority, and
help resolve differences between states. Working with the states could provide a mechanism for
reducing risk on a regional basis. The federal government could considerably leverage resources
by an effective partnership with states. In essence, share the burden of risk analysis, regulation,
and enforcement with the states.

c) Look to aff's examples - nutria is a problem in 15 states…11 of which have programs

that are working (effectively) to solve the problem. States work just fine. Bergman et al 2k
[Note: or this one.]
DAVID L. BERGMAN, MONTE D. CHANDLER AND ADRIENNE LOCKLEAR, "THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF INVASIVE SPECIES TO
WILDLIFE SERVICES’ COOPERATORS", Page 176
Despite the smaller number of states and territo- ries requesting assistance for control of invasive nutria (n = 11), this species was responsible for
60% or US$8.6 million of the > US$14 million in damages to resources with US$6,209,293 or 43% in FY 1995 alone. Damages caused by
invasive nutria ranged from US$19,855 to US$6.2 million with an average of US$1,076,112 and a median of US$194,286 per year.
Bergman and Mas- trangelo (In Press) reported nutria as a pest species in 15 states, of which 11
states had WS operational programs resolving nutria complaints. Damage to all resource types associated with
the aforementioned nutria complaints ranged from US$1.9 million in 1990 to > US$8.8 million in 1997, with a peak of US$6.2 million in 1995.
The large increase in FY 1995 can be attributed to a US$6 million loss to sugarcane fields. The Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge (BNWR)
loses 500-1000 acres of wetland habitat per year from inva- sive nutria damage and several times that amount over the entire BNWR/Fishing Bay
estuary (G. Carowan, U.S. Fish Wildlife Service 2000, personal communication). Environmental damage such as this is irreparable. This is only 1
example of costs and consequences associated with nutria damage. As more data become available WS predicts the economic and ecological
impact of this spe- cies will be substantially higher and greater.

B. AT: won't work

i] circumvention not a reason to reject - just because some people will try to get around
it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
ii] SQ disproves - see Dr. Hill 09 (response #3 pt. B above)

C. AT: Logistical nightmare

i] state sovereignty o/w - "X company needs Y, so let's do Y and not Z". state
sovereignty outweighs the economy.
ii] zero quantification (possible) - "PetsMart wouldn't be around for too much longer".
cool story, bro
Will Malson species1NR Page 7 of 7

iii] not a nightmare - 15 states already have some restrictions on importation of species.
(evidence can be supplied if you didn't already know that, though I would think you
knew.)