# U.S. BANS millipede and mantid importation



## Shelob (Mar 7, 2005)

Hello all.  Sorry I do not have a link to refer you to, but I work at a fish and reptile store and was rather suprised by the news I recieved from my reptile supplier (CalZoo).  

The message stated that the US Department of Agriculture has of right now banned imported millipedes and fancy mantids.  It didn't give a reason why.  I can only assume that it is because the imported species could wipe out native species.  It said that they are currently confiscating fancy mantids at reptile shops, but have not done so yet with the millipedes.  

Sorry for this bad news, I understand if you want to take it with a grain of salt, but I am just informing you of what I heard from my supplier.

Also apologies if this has already been posted.


----------



## Scythemantis (Mar 7, 2005)

!?! Tell me this does not mean that such common standards as african black millipedes and flower mantids will be banned/confiscated...


----------



## Shelob (Mar 7, 2005)

Not sure on that one.  I am going to call them tommorow (Monday) and find out exactly what is going on.  I will let the board know as soon as I do.


----------



## bugsnstuff (Mar 7, 2005)

hopefully the ban is on the same level as the one concerning American Bullfrogs in the UK.

the ban merely states that they cannot be imported, it is not a keeping ban.

this will hopefully spur more people into the breeding of the species concerned to keep them in culture instead of relying on WC specimens.

in a way it can be looked upon as a good thing, alot of these creatures previously caught from the wild will be left there as the market will be alot smaller worldwide.
the bad thing is, in the long run, the cultures of these creatures over here may (not definitely) suffer from the lack of genetic diversity and either eventually die out or evolve to survive (hence becoming a sub species of the original)


----------



## Bob (Mar 7, 2005)

The USFW came to visit a freind of mine here in Portland (Rose City Reptile) last week and said they were looking for Manids. They were not concerned with his Giant African Black millipedes. He was not sure why they were looking for Mandids. He did not have any so they left.


Bob


----------



## Wade (Mar 8, 2005)

Are you sure it was the USWS and not the USDA? The mantid/millipede regulation comes under the same blanket ban the USDA placed on nearly all inverts. Millipedes are banned because they eat plants (it doesn't matter to the USDA that they eat dead rotten plants), and the mantids because they might eat pollinators, like bees and butterflies.

The only thing new here is the fact that they're actually enforcing these regs on OBVIOUSLY harmless animals. This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with conservation and everything to do with government bueruecracy run amok.

Wade


----------



## Raqua (Mar 8, 2005)

Wade said:
			
		

> This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with conservation and everything to do with government bueruecracy run amok.
> Wade


As it does most of the time ....    :?  :wall:  :?  :wall:


----------



## Bob (Mar 8, 2005)

Wade said:
			
		

> Are you sure it was the USWS and not the USDA?
> 
> Not sure Wade. My freind is a importer and gets this guy visiting him a few times a year. He showed me the guys card but I did not pay that much attention. I thought it was fish and wildlife....I could be wrong.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wade (Mar 8, 2005)

The USFWS might be working in conjuction with the USDA, and the USFWS guy may be simply unaware the same ban covers phasmids. The ban could be used to confiscate almost any invert as written, but they seem to enforce selectively. Right now, for some reason, it's mantids.

Wade


----------



## Trygon (Mar 8, 2005)

*Sadness*

Pet Rock Anybody?    

-trygon


----------



## Lycanthrope (Mar 8, 2005)

> It's funny because this inspector sees he is selling the Australian Et walking stick


   How much is he selling them for and would you ship them to me for a small fee?


----------



## Dark Raptor (Mar 8, 2005)

I see you've got a big problem with your government. Almost the same thing we have now in Poland, but with other invertebrate groups.

We are fighting with our Ministry of Environment. They want to put a BAN on spiders, among them:

Theraphosa, Thorell, 1870.
Aphonopelma, Pocock, 1901.
Ceratogyrus, Pocock, 1897.
Pamphobeteus, Pocock, 1901.
Poecilotheria, Simon, 1885.
Pterinochilus, Pocock, 1897.

Also all scolopendras and many scorp species will be prohibited.

So we won't be able to import them, sell and breed them... and the most important... keep them! This is sick


----------



## Scorpendra (Mar 8, 2005)

there go my dreams of having a P. Paradoxa or. in fact, there go my dreams of having any land-based inverts except the commonest Ts and scorps on the market (and a madagascar hissing roach that looks sick), let alone anything healthy. (you'd go crazy looking for anything far beyond a bald abdomened B. Smithi or an obese P. Imperator (and a few weeks ago, i think i saw an A. Avicularia that just sat around on the substrate) (and you know it is that common when i don't even have to look up the latin names) where i live, but that is besides the point)


			
				Dark Raptor said:
			
		

> This is sick


undertstatement of the millenium.


----------



## Raqua (Mar 9, 2005)

Dark Raptor said:
			
		

> I see you've got a big problem with your government. Almost the same thing we have now in Poland, but with other invertebrate groups.
> 
> We are fighting with our Ministry of Environment. They want to put a BAN on spiders, among them:
> 
> ...



Over here only Brachypelma spp. banned due to CITES, but it's nonsense anyway. This is how it looks when lawmakers are completely incompetent in this stuff ..    :wall:  :?


----------



## Trygon (Mar 9, 2005)

The ban of mantids makes no sense to me.  If they were banned because of concerns about the status of wild populations i would understand completely... after all, we don't want to see any species going extinct.  But to say it is for agricultural reasons is rediculous!  Mantids have been imported for ages as a method of pest control for use in back yards, green houses, and agriculture.  I believe that is why in my home state of MA you can find both european and chinese mantids.  So, up until now, having mantids around has been viewed as highly beneficial and not detrimental.  Also, mantids (as in most predatory species) are not and will not become over abundant... Infact, they will tend to limit their own populations with heightened competition between individuals (i.e. cannibalism).  That imported mantid populations could ever grow to a size that would substantially effect pollinator insect numbers is just a joke.
   There just must be more to this mantid ban story then indicated within this thread.  If not, the US government has gone off the deep end (or even farther off).  

-Trygon


----------



## Wade (Mar 9, 2005)

Trygon said:
			
		

> There just must be more to this mantid ban story then indicated within this thread.  If not, the US government has gone off the deep end (or even farther off).
> 
> -Trygon


It's the latter. You have to understand, they have it in for the pet trade, and this is just a pretense. They know full well there's no real risk.

Wade


----------



## Magician (Mar 10, 2005)

Wade said:
			
		

> It's the latter. You have to understand, they have it in for the pet trade, and this is just a pretense. They know full well there's no real risk.
> 
> Wade



WHy would they have it in for the pet trade? Dont they want to make more jobs and grow the ecomony?  

(P.s Wade, i just noticed, we live very close to each other, i'am right outside richmond.)


----------



## Wade (Mar 10, 2005)

Well, I didn't bring my soapbox with me today  , but there is a lot snobbery in some circles concerning private people keeping exotic animals of any kind. Also, power and money is involved. Government agencies are always looking to expand their influence. By creating the illusion that there's a big problem with captive inverts, they can justify asking congress for more money, buildings, agents, etc.

Of course, that's just my insignificant opinion. Maybe they have perfectly good reasons for fearing a non-venomous, bennificial predatory insect that lives in very low population density and couldn't survive in a temperate climate  anyway  

Wade


----------



## james (Mar 10, 2005)

*Usda*

I sometimes wonder who they have reviewing these things as well. I'm trying to get some rhino roaches that only eat dead dried out eucalyptus leaves. Most of the roaches can't even survive typical North American climates. How do they pose any threat to anything. I have been researching a lot on roaches recently and it amazes me how you can legally keep pest species like Blatella germanica, but not other species that are even close to pest. Also they use that term PEST for everything. To me a pest is something that can either infest or cause major agriculture harm. People with money and a bias make this world the mess it is. Instead of being happy with their lives they have to ruin others. Anyway, enough babble just more disappointment in our government.
James


----------



## NrthCstInverts (Mar 17, 2005)

*Saw this two weeks ago*

I saw someone post about this on another forum two weeks ago. I was deeply concerned as i absolutely love Millis, and am finding a fasination with the mantids.  I kinda dismissed it about three days later when i saw the same individual that posted it try to SELL mantids on the same forum. 
  But now that i have seen this on TWO other forums i think there may be something to this. Its a very unfortunate thing that with all the terrorism and hunger in the world that the government in this wonderful country of ours doesnt have anything better to spend its money on than stopping a bunch of hobbiests from doing something that they love. How pathetic....
  At any rate ive talked to a number of pet shops and wholesalers in my area, and NONE of them have heard about this yet. Im in Northern Ohio, so maybe it hasnt reached us yet?!?!   ( and hopefully it doesnt..lol)


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Mar 18, 2005)

wildnmildpets said:
			
		

> and hunger in the world that the government in this wonderful country of ours doesnt have anything better to spend its money on than stopping a bunch of hobbiests from doing something that they love. How pathetic....


 We are our government and it's only one, or possibly a very few, elitists at the Ag department causing the problem. If 1/20th of the engery on Arachnoboards went into a plan for fighting this stuff, we would prevail. It's not a law, but a misintereptation of power. I don't understand why those who survive of my fellow countrymen dying in Irag have to return to a police state.


----------



## Jonathan Wilhelm (Mar 2, 2007)

I went into a local exotic pet shop here in the Detroit MI area looking for some african giant millipedes and the owner said he can no longer get them because of a new import ban on millipedes.

But today I went into Petco and saw one so I snatched it up. Tomarrow I am gonna go around to all the petcos and get as many as I can.


----------



## Stylopidae (Mar 2, 2007)

Wilhelm said:


> I went into a local exotic pet shop here in the Detroit MI area looking for some african giant millipedes and the owner said he can no longer get them because of a new import ban on millipedes.
> 
> But today I went into Petco and saw one so I snatched it up. Tomarrow I am gonna go around to all the petcos and get as many as I can.


Good thinking. I have my six, all from petco. The mom & pop place where I get my millis is still able to get them (for $25).

Good climate for captive bred speciemens.

I'm going to try to talk to someone personally in the USDA. I'll post results if I ever get any.

Orin...it's not that anyone's trying, I sure as hell am. It's just that nobody at the top is listening to anything we say. We can bitch at them all we want, but it's rather pointless if it falls on deaf ears.


----------



## Garrick (Mar 2, 2007)

Someone mentioned "having it in for the pet trade."  
I'm afraid that may not be the case.  There's a very good reason to ban the importation of certain animals.
Where I live (under 27 latitude), a lot of tropical animals tend to reproduce quite readily in the wild.  
I've seen more than a handful of native species get cut out due to exotic animals in my short lifetime alone- and I won't even get into plants.

The problem is partly irresponsible pet owners (and largely unchecked shipping trade with "hitchhikers").  They tire of their pythons, their parrots, their fish, etc., and off they go.  

I understand from your perspective there's little possibility of your pets surviving a year outdoors (much less reproducing without natural opposition) so these laws appear absurd.  However, until some idiots in the giant phallus-shaped state I live in gain some sense, such laws are needed.


Garrick
eight


----------



## Stylopidae (Mar 2, 2007)

Garrick said:


> Someone mentioned "having it in for the pet trade."
> I'm afraid that may not be the case.  There's a very good reason to ban the importation of certain animals.
> Where I live (under 27 latitude), a lot of tropical animals tend to reproduce quite readily in the wild.
> I've seen more than a handful of native species get cut out due to exotic animals in my short lifetime alone- and I won't even get into plants.
> ...


Ummm...have you actually read this thread?

This thread isn't about the threat that animals pose to the environment, it's about banning animals on unfounded assumptions and not communicating with the public about the exact animals banned, as well as the conditions of the ban.

Most...if not all of the animals banned couldn't survive in the wild, and in the case of the mantids couldn't cause any more harm than the european and chinese mantids have done.


----------



## LadyNai (Mar 3, 2007)

Here's the problem.

It's not just a matter of surviving...   They're trying to stop exotics in the wild -- of course, up here it's not a problem -- I'm super careful with my hissers because they'd die outside right now (it's snowing)...  

They imported LadyBugs for pest control and the Asian ones are easier to find up here then the American these days.   Plus they get in your house and they bite and all that...    American Ladybugs hibernate -- the stupid Asian ones have to go inside to get warm and they are nasty suckers.

Not sure what the mantids would do outside -- really truly.   I'm not that expert in those matters.    I'm saying I guess I can see the point sort of on some species.   I guess we'll have to breed our exotics in coutnry.

Nai


----------



## Stylopidae (Mar 3, 2007)

LadyNai said:


> Here's the problem.
> 
> It's not just a matter of surviving...   They're trying to stop exotics in the wild -- of course, up here it's not a problem -- I'm super careful with my hissers because they'd die outside right now (it's snowing)...
> 
> ...


No...the recent ban has _NOTHING_ to do with what will and won't survive in the wild. Read the damn thread, people. 

Don't just reply without reading a single post, you just end up looking like an idiot.

There's plenty of other threads on the subject full of information about the bans.

The few people who have actually gotten through to the USDA on the matter say that mantids, millipedes and assassin bugs were banned because of concerns centered around the varrosa mite. When I tried to contact the USDA, the person I spoke to told me they couldn't comment on the conditions of the ban...in other words, they wouldn't tell me if captive bred inverts were OK. Other people here on the boards have confirmed the varrosa mite information through the USDA

So...yeah. Read up. It's a disturbing subject for all bug owners.


----------



## Nich (Mar 3, 2007)

The fact that they are declining information is bothersome. I wonder what those mite are carrying that they dont want the media to get ahold of.


----------



## EAD063 (Mar 3, 2007)

What would be the penalties for keeping such an animal?  As Americans we obviously have to weigh the amount of repremand we will recieve vs how much we "really want that bug".  


Sry ..to clear that up I refer to both a hobbyiest and a dealer volating the law. - "Ban"


----------



## SouthernStyle (Mar 3, 2007)

I'd bet (being in the buisness, but not affiliated with either one of those agencies) That IF you were to be caught with them, breeding or selling, You'd probably end up in Court and have to pay a fine...Without any legal standings, The USFWS and or the USDA would probably use Local Law Enforcement to enforce this, and to be honest....We've got WAY BETTER things to do, than go after someone who's keeping Milli's and Mantids


----------



## EAD063 (Mar 3, 2007)

SouthernStyle said:


> I'd bet (being in the buisness, but not affiliated with either one of those agencies) That IF you were to be caught with them, breeding or selling, You'd probably end up in Court and have to pay a fine...Without any legal standings, The USFWS and or the USDA would probably use Local Law Enforcement to enforce this, and to be honest....We've got WAY BETTER things to do, than go after someone who's keeping Milli's and Mantids


Well then time will show who slept through ethics and who didn't.


----------



## xelda (Mar 4, 2007)

Cheshire said:


> No...the recent ban has _NOTHING_ to do with what will and won't survive in the wild. Read the damn thread, people.
> 
> Don't just reply without reading a single post, you just end up looking like an idiot.


Actually, the bans have everything to do with what will and won't survive in the wild.  Any non-native species that's introduced in the wild runs the risk of becoming a pest.  I don't mean the house pest kind, but a pest that competes with native fauna and has no predators or diseases in their new environment to keep their population in check.  Likewise, the native fauna have no defenses against any introduced predators because they haven't had a chance to evolve a predator-prey relationship.  So what you get is a pest that can reproduce freely, have all the food it wants, and nothing to stop it from taking over the new environment.  It's happened a lot throughout history, with insects, mites, mollusks, wild boars, and so on.  This bears huge consequences not only to local wildlife but to agriculture. People starve to death because of introduced pests that interfere with food supplies.

You might think that non-native invertebrates would die over the winter, but all they would have to do is burrow far enough into the ground or inside the crevices of tree bark in order to escape the cold.  Snow itself can act as insulation.  (Haven't any of you ever gone looking for bugs outside in the middle of winter? You'd be surprised at what you can find is active even in freezing temperatures.)

And while we would all like to think of ourselves as responsible hobbyists, the truth of the matter is that there will always be morons out there who dump their bugs outside when they don't want them anymore.  I know of at least one prominent figure on this board who's done that, and I come across a lot of other folks who've done it as well. They simply don't think twice about tossing lobster roaches into the dumpster or flushing snails down the toilet, etc.

I think the reason why the ban covers everything is that species are constantly mislabeled and misidentified.  You guys know what I'm talking about.  People in general don't know how to identify squat.

Believe it or not, there are people in the USDA who are trying to make things more clear and simple, but there's so much red tape even within their system that it'll take a long time before we see any changes.  For now, they're going with the safest route, but can you really blame them?


----------



## ftorres (Mar 4, 2007)

*MAntids and Millis*

Hello All,
Like Orin said, we should all send Dr Wehling at APHIS an e-mail or many emails asking for an explanation or at least the real interpretation of the regulation as well as an update on them.

Many of the permits and information forms are not updated.

So If they really want the public to comply, then  they should facilitate enough accurate information, with easy access for all of us and any other person in or out side of the Hobby.

Furthermore, they all need to know which inverts fall into the regulation and be less strict on the ones that really don't have anything to do with it.

So education within all the officers is imperative. It seems to me that not all of them know what is and what is not regulated.

regards
Ft


----------



## Stylopidae (Mar 4, 2007)

.................


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Mar 4, 2007)

'secondary plant pest' includes all predators of pollinators as well as predators of predators of plant pests which includes all arachnids.


----------



## Garrick (Mar 4, 2007)

Cheshire,

I did read the thread (especially the parts where people from temperate climates rattled on about things not surviving in the wild), and no, I'm not going to look like an idiot.  It has everything to do with what you're denying.


Yes, Florida is a "freak state". . .but that's got nothing to do with animals.

However, it is a huge port of entry (the largest) for animals, and also just a drive or mailbox away for any resident. 

It is also the 2nd most diverse habitat in the US for species that live nowhere else on Earth. 

Currently, the pet trade is playing a small role in making a lot of things some people have never seen extinct (as I said before, it's a small part, but there should be no parts). I'd much rather that Billy in Ohio or whatever had to jump through a hoop or two before he got his pet coati or mantid than have wholesale introduction of species around around MIA.

There are things here in Florida (and in southeastern Texas) that have no natural control, so they outproduce, devour, or simply "out niche" native species. 

Get on Google, and check out all the native species below 27 degrees that are rare now. . .demolished in the last 30 years due to the exotic pet trade alone. Then sit back and think about how that works outward in a very delicate web.
(oir ask, come vist, etc. and I'll show you/mail data to you).

If you feel so strongly about having the mantid or millipede or whatever you like, you need to work with not only fellow hobbyists by teaching responsiblity (hey, I even keep a "few" tarantulas at home  ) but also with local, state, and federal agencies and compromise.  Be willing to acquire a permit, prove responsiblity, record exotics you have and be willing to furnish breeding records, sales receipts, etc. etc. 

In the meantime, if you want a two-headed spitting cobra for your amusement, we've got 'em.  Or perhaps a box jellyfish would be "tough" in your tank.  No?  Maybe a monkey whose ancestors were previously used on a movie set would be delightful.  Wild parrot? 2 foot iguana out of my avocado tree?  How about a python the length of a Toyota?  A 3lb tilapia caught in a drainage ditch?  Australian roaches?  Pepper tree seeds?  
Let me know.  Be glad to add to your "exotic pet collection".


Garrick O'Dell


----------



## Stylopidae (Mar 4, 2007)

.............................


----------



## Nich (Mar 4, 2007)

Well sorry to burst all of the nut jobs bubbles (the conspiracy ones) but a couple of my friends own local pet stores, they confirm the  varrosa mite theory through thier supliers, hasnt affected the importation of them yet, and acorrding to a friend at central pet it wont be. The mites supposedly either carry something that can bother people or dirupte honey bee colonies? This is what ive heard from some suppliers.


----------



## Nich (Mar 4, 2007)

Cheshire said:


> Bottom line...reliable people here on the boards have talked to the USDA and the USDA has said the concern wasn't environmental. It was more about protecting honeybees (another introduced species, BTW).


 Pretty much what I gatherd from my sources as well. Seems silly as with what i could gather the mites dont kill the bees, rather they use thier hives as refuge untill they devlope.


----------



## Stylopidae (Mar 4, 2007)

Sorry if I've been pissing anyone off. I've been unable to think clearly for the past few days.

Here are my main points:

1.) This ban is not about introduced species. The USDA itself has confirmed that the ban was being enforced because of concerns centered around the varrosa mite according to other reliable members here on the boards. I've asked a local pet store owner, and he's confirmed this through his wholesalers (as has Nich, apparrently.). I've been unable to reach anybody who knows anything at the USDA and haven't found a single mantis mention on their website. Find me proof otherwise and I'll listen.

2.) The poster boy for potential invasive mantis species has not proven to cause any environmental harm in incredibly dense populations. This is just based on my own intensive observations of 12 sites all in the same state. Not exactly the best research, but if anyone's interested, I'll post them.

3.) This is not being handled as it would be if there were any concerns over invasive species, further re-enforcing point #1.

I've yet to see any proof that many of the mantids kept in the hobby can establish themselves in the US, and logic tells me that African Giant Millipedes aren't going to become crop pests.

4.) USDA guidelines are vague about what types of bugs are banned. The clause that mantids are banned under is the 'secondary agricultural pest' clause, that Orin mentioned. This states that any animal that could potentially eat a pollinator is illegal, as well as anything that eats plant material of any type.

To make my point, I've highlighted every non native animal that I own that could potentially fit this profile:

Arachnids:

Tarantulas:
0.0.2 A. anax
0.0.2 A. chalcodes
0.1.0 A. seemani
0.1.0 B. albopilosum 
0.0.1 B. smithi
0.0.1 C. crawshayi
0.1.0 E. pachypus
0.1.0 G. aureostriata
0.1.0 G. rosea
0.1.0 H. lividium
0.0.1 H. maculata
0.0.1 P. murinis
0.1.2 P. regalis

Uropygids:
0.0.2 M. giganteus

Mites/opilliones:
Predatory mites

Myriapods:

Centipedes:
0.0.3 S. polymorpha "Giant Tan"
0.0.1 S. polymorpha "?" (Looks like cross between giant tan and blue)
0.0.1 S. polymorpha "Blue"
0.0.1 S. heros castaniceps
0.0.1 S. heros arizonensias

Millipedes:
1.4.1 S. gigas

Insects:

0.0.1 Native mantids
0.0.1 Jerusalem Cricket
Native assassins

Feeders:

Psocids

Roaches:

Nauphoeta cireana
Blaberus discoidales
Blaptica dubia
Eublaberus procsticus
Blaberus craniifer
CraniiferXDiscoid 
Firefly mimics
G. portentosa
<The top secret next big over hyped feeder roach>

The problem is one of civil liberties. The wording of the law is so vague, that damn near everything is illegal. Whipscorpions, roaches, scorpions other than centuroides, imported widows, Non Native centipedes, NN vinegaroones,  and other NN true spiders.

Basically anything that's commonly kept. Or uncommonly kept. If you look closely, basically everything that I own that isn't native is highlighted.

5.) The USDA has made no attempt to reach out to the hobbiest and make the conditions of any bans known and has made no announcements regarding what it has banned, which means that one day they could show up at your front door and confiscate your roaches/centipedes/tarantulas without warning. Under these undefined terms, almost everyone on the boards is an unknowing criminal.

Sound unlikely?

It happened with mantids.

6.) The curiosity of hobbiests is pretty much the sole reason anybody does research on non-medically or economically signifficant invertebrates. When the hobby is gone, any incentive to research these bugs or describe new species dies with it. (If you're wondering about my area of interest, the only mantis I'm interested in is P. paradoxa which isn't popular in culture in the US as of now. My main area of interest is arachnids, which could be included under the vague terms. My main area of interest concerning insects is phasmids, which I partially agree with the USDA on banning).


7.) If the government were actually willing to provide permits and provide classes, they would. Instead, the USDA is allowed to make animals illegal under clauses that describe almost every single invertebrate on the planet.

They're making laws with wording vague enough to ban just about damn near anything and enforcing the laws without warning and making the conditions of the laws damn near impossible to figure out, all without answering any sort of questions from the public. This makes it impossible for the average hobbiest to ascertain what in their collection is legal and what in his collection is not despite the fact that all of the animals were legally imported and legally bought.

So, Garrick...if you want your neighbors to watch armed federal agents break into your house and cart every animal you own away, go for it.

If you enjoy being treated like a drug dealer or other common criminal, go for it because that's what you're inviting by defending this overly vague legislation.

I've worked with zoos. I currently do invertebrate outreach programs. I help the petcos in my area find homes for bugs. The fact of the matter is that these permits are simply not avalible even for those who would qualify. However, this is only a small part of the bigger issue at hand.

Nobody knows whether or not they're enforcing the ban on mantids and millipedes reared inside the country...away from the parasites they're worried about.

So if their concern is about protecting honeybees, they should at least tell hobbiests the extent of the ban and ask help in policing their policies. Instead, they're turning people who's only crime it is to like live bugs into criminals.

Wade has proposed that they legalize some low risk bugs from each group and he hypothesizes that the hobby will help police itself after it's not being pushed underground. It's not a bad idea and deserves some consideration.

But one thing is for clear...this is *NOT* about conservation.



Garrick said:


> In the meantime, if you want a two-headed spitting cobra for your amusement, we've got 'em.  Or perhaps a box jellyfish would be "tough" in your tank.  No?  Maybe a monkey whose ancestors were previously used on a movie set would be delightful.  Wild parrot? 2 foot iguana out of my avocado tree?  How about a python the length of a Toyota?  A 3lb tilapia caught in a drainage ditch?  Australian roaches?  Pepper tree seeds?
> Let me know.  Be glad to add to your "exotic pet collection".
> 
> 
> Garrick O'Dell


So...yeah. Feel free to attack my motives and paint me as someone who will gladly collect any organism that stumbles his way, but the only thing you've proven thus far is that you're a blathering idiot who doesn't even have the faintest idea about why I feel so strongly about this or even what I'm talking about in general.

Garrick, any person who puts blind faith in their government as you have without even taking a single look at the laws that affect them needs to go back to grade school.



xelda said:


> I think the reason why the ban covers everything is that species are constantly mislabeled and misidentified.  You guys know what I'm talking about.  People in general don't know how to identify squat.
> 
> Believe it or not, there are people in the USDA who are trying to make things more clear and simple, but there's so much red tape even within their system that it'll take a long time before we see any changes.  For now, they're going with the safest route, but can you really blame them?


In Des Moines, Iowa scorpions are banned under a blanket ban. Under a list of banned animals, they specifically list pit bulls, rotweilers and scorpions.

Under the USDA regulations, anything that eats plant matter at all, even dead and decaying (such as roaches...I know you're into those) and anything that could either potentially eat a polinator or eat the predator of a predator of a plant pest is considered a banned animal (such as...well, just about damn near everything else).

See the difference? 

As for pushing for change, I disagree with you here. The sweeping vagueness of the law allows them to point a finger at just about anything to make the higher ups believe there's an actual threat and clear them for a higher budget, more personell, etc. They're not going to push for change for their own benefit. It's just simply beneficial to them to keep the laws the way they are.

Well, that and the fact that I've emailed them half a dozen times with my questions and haven't gotten a reply.


----------



## Stylopidae (Mar 5, 2007)

Nich said:


> Pretty much what I gatherd from my sources as well. Seems silly as with what i could gather the mites dont kill the bees, rather they use thier hives as refuge untill they devlope.


Well, they deform the bees. Bees that emerge from hives infested with the varrosa mite often come out missing legs and wings and are shunned by the rest of the colony.

We've been spelling the parasite's name wrong all this time 

Oops

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varroa_destructor

The problem is, they don't even reproduce on other insects so I don't see how the USDA has justified this ban. I'm also having trouble figuring out how it can jump from millipede to bee, although from mantis to bee is technically possible but highly unlikely.


----------



## Garrick (Mar 5, 2007)

Cheshire said:


> Garrick,
> . . . you're a blathering idiot who doesn't even have the faintest idea about why I feel so strongly about this or even what I'm talking about in general.
> 
> Garrick, any person who puts blind faith in their government as you have without even taking a single look at the laws that affect them needs to go back to grade school.


I really can't imagine why you'd have such a difficult time with getting taken seriously by USDA. 
Good luck with your outreach program, and I hope you find many homes for invertebrates at the pet shop.
:clap:


----------



## Stylopidae (Mar 5, 2007)

Garrick said:


> I really can't imagine why you'd have such a difficult time with getting taken seriously by USDA.
> Good luck with your outreach program, and I hope you find many homes for invertebrates at the pet shop.
> :clap:





> To whom it may concern
> 
> As of late, there have been multiple cases of animals being confiscated by your organization. I've been told by multiple sources that this is because of concerns of a parasitic mite that affects honeybees, namely _varrora destructor_.
> 
> ...


A copy of the last letter I sent, minus the signature that included my first and last name. I'm still waiting for a reply.

The question isn't whether or not the USDA takes me in particular seriously. What I am concerned about is whether or not they're taking the proper steps to inform the public of their policies and any decent government agency should do this.

So feel free to send a copy of the letter I posted above to someone at APHIS and see if you get a response. If you actually get through, then post any results you get.

In the meantime, do more research on the subject on the boards. There's many threads about the same topic.


----------



## Louise E. Rothstein (Mar 12, 2007)

*US BANS millipede and mantid importation...*

Varroa mites infest BEES. Varroa mites are CARRIED BY BEES.
The officials who claim that either the USDA or the USFWS
can "control" BEE PARASITES by banning mantids are withholding 
information because such ignorance is embarrassing.

The millipede ban may be less idiotic.
Mites often lurk in the same damp detritus as millipedes do.
A careless collector might "pick up" some mites...by mistake....
But the "forbidden" mites are already in this country.
If that "banning" business ever made any sense whatsoever it
certainly makes none now...save to bureaucrats who LIKE to be paid
to CONTROL PEOPLE...not democratic types.
Quite the contrary.
People who want to live in a land of liberty will have to fight this.
You have already observed that official offenders ignore individuals.
We'll have to LINK with GROUPS and stand together to be heard.

Yours very truly,

ONE WHISTLE BLOWER.


----------



## Stylopidae (Mar 12, 2007)

Louise E. Rothstein said:


> Varroa mites infest BEES. Varroa mites are CARRIED BY BEES.
> The officials who claim that either the USDA or the USFWS
> can "control" BEE PARASITES by banning mantids are withholding
> information because such ignorance is embarrassing.
> ...


I'm working on this and may have something to announce somewhat soon.

I'll keep everyone posted.


----------



## xelda (Mar 14, 2007)

Cheshire said:


> As for pushing for change, I disagree with you here. The sweeping vagueness of the law allows them to point a finger at just about anything to make the higher ups believe there's an actual threat and clear them for a higher budget, more personell, etc. They're not going to push for change for their own benefit. It's just simply beneficial to them to keep the laws the way they are.
> 
> Well, that and the fact that I've emailed them half a dozen times with my questions and haven't gotten a reply.


I personally know they are trying to make changes because I've had numerous e-mail exchanges in the past with their senior entomologist.


----------



## Stylopidae (Mar 14, 2007)

xelda said:


> I personally know they are trying to make changes because I've had numerous e-mail exchanges in the past with their senior entomologist.


Would it be possible for you to forward those Emails to me?


----------



## ctsoth (Mar 16, 2007)

Vorroa mites have nothing to do with other inverts.  They only affect "honey bees."  They reproduce inside of the hive, and any reproduction outside of the hive is strictly impossible as they rely on the bee brood cycle....  

Banning millipedes and ANY invert over the Vorroa mite is absolutely retarded...  Except in hawaiip and other vorroa free areas.  But even then, the only inverts that vorroa affects are honey bees.


----------



## Nich (Mar 16, 2007)

If you've been following the thread im sure you noticed that (through a bit of search) the mites have been in the US scince the 80's. SOmething else is going on, not akin with just the threat of mites, may be a factor but seems a bit of a weak card to play to completley ban inverts that "may carry something thats already been here" for sometime. I mean think about it. Im sure that all of us meet people that think T's are deadly or arent sure of the "danger".....more often then not. The same principal applies to the majority of politically active not involved in any sort of biology based (or at least conciensus) drive. Ive probed all of the suppliers I know, same story. No specifics as far as a list of X'd imports, or mention of any to come.


----------



## ctsoth (Mar 16, 2007)

I am a beekeeper and I know quite a bit about the vorroa mite being that it is something that I have to deal with.  I have seen them with my own eyes  


If you would like any info on vorroa go to www.beemaster.com and go into the forums and do some searches.  Any beekeeper knows this is a bee related problem, not the problem of other inverts....


----------



## Stylopidae (Mar 16, 2007)

The varrora thing seemed odd to me, too...however all the information I've ever gotten has pointed to that as the reason, both inside and outside these forums.

I would be thrilled if there were more to the story than I knew, however like I said earlier...all my attempts to contact anyone at the USDA revealed nothing.

Xelda...if it would be possible to forward the emails (or the general contents) to me, please do so at your convience.


----------



## Spider-Man v2.0 (Mar 18, 2007)

my one qestion is are thay confinscateing giant african millies?


----------



## Louise E. Rothstein (Mar 19, 2007)

Dear Spider Man:

We do need to prepare for war.
Since the kind who generate problems for invertebrate fanciers do that to VERTEBRATE fanciers upon any excuse we need to link to vertebrate fanciers in order to assemble the numbers (and political muscle) to make an impression upon such arrant political bullies as these.

Reptile fanciers are natural allies.
Their animals are far more likely to need insects than abuse.

"Alternative livestock" and "unusual pet people" are also allies.
THEY encounter a LOT of "guff" for keeping animals that are "different."

Please consider connection.

We need them...And they need us.


----------



## Spider-Man v2.0 (Mar 19, 2007)

will thay confinscate them tho?


----------



## Wade (Mar 20, 2007)

Supposedly, they have confiscated them from importers, but as of yet they have not confiscated them from private owners. 

Wade


----------



## Stylopidae (Mar 20, 2007)

Wade said:


> Supposedly, they have confiscated them from importers, but as of yet they have not confiscated them from private owners.
> 
> Wade


And unfortunately, there's no promise they won't confiscate from keepers who legally bought stock bred inside the country.

And because of vague laws, there's no promise they won't start confiscating other hobby staples in a similar manner.


----------



## Goanna (Mar 23, 2007)

Has anyone else noticed that it seems like certain millipedes are still coming in too? 

I talked with an importer the other day and he said he just got a bunch of millies in which were legally imported and claered by USDA and Customs, so what's up with that now?

Not only this one importer, but I see lists from pet shop distributors all the time and BIG african black millipedes are always available. I dont think they are using the same stock they had 2-3 years ago before the USDA ban so they definitly have still been coming in. 

I need to talk to someone at the USDA about permits anyway for another situation, maybe I can get some info out of them about this whole situation and wether or not anything has changed (I wont mention the actual distributors of course).


----------

