# Lacey Act 2022



## YungRasputin

was hoping to start a thread where we could update and monitor this bill as it passes through the American chambers - for those unfamiliar of what is going on there is a summation below - at the time of writing this USARK reports: “this bill passed in the House and will go to the Senate. We will adjust our alert to contact Senators at the appropriate time. It was a slim margin with the final vote at 222-210”

description:

“Buried within the 2,912 pages of the America COMPETES Act of 2022 (HR4521) lie Lacey Act amendments that affect all non-domesticated pet/animal (i.e. all animals except dogs, cats, and traditional farm animals) owners. COMPETES is an acronym for Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in Technology and Economic Strength. The stated purpose of the Act is to strengthen America’s economic and national security but obviously, this was slipped into the massive bill in hopes to go unnoticed.

The amendments would reverse the USARK federal lawsuit victory by reinstating the ban on interstate transportation of species listed as injurious under the Lacey Act. The bill would also create a “white list” (see #2 below) that could affect millions of pet owners, as well as pet businesses. Could your pet or species of interest (not just reptiles) potentially survive in southern Florida or any other location in the U.S.? Then it could be listed as injurious for just that reason! If this passes and your species of interest, even your pet, is listed as injurious, then it cannot be transported across state lines. That means you could not even take a pet with you if you moved to another state or needed veterinary care across a state border. This does not just ban sales but prohibits all interstate transportation and importation into the U.S. This will trickle down to hundreds or thousands of common pet species.”

link:





						ALERT: America COMPETES Act of 2022 Lacey Act Amendments | USARK - United States Association of Reptile Keepers
					






					usark.org

Reactions: Like 2 | Sad 2 | Wow 3 | Angry 5 | Award 3


----------



## l4nsky

<CENSORED>!!! 

I was hoping it wouldn't advance. I've been watching this since USARK sent out the alert and this is NOT good news. The way they're framing this law as it's sole purpose is to "counter China's influence on manufacturing and research development" is something that both sides of the aisle can bite on and neither side wants to be accused of preventing. IMO, this has a serious chance of passing and honestly I'm deeply concerned about the future of all exotic animal hobbies here in the states.

Reactions: Like 2 | Thanks 1 | Agree 2 | Wow 1


----------



## YungRasputin

l4nsky said:


> <CENSORED>!!!
> 
> I was hoping it wouldn't advance. I've been watching this since USARK sent out the alert and this is NOT good news. The way they're framing this law as it's sole purpose is to "counter China's influence on manufacturing and research development" is something that both sides of the aisle can bite on and neither side wants to be accused of preventing. IMO, this has a serious chance of passing and honestly I'm deeply concerned about the future of all exotic animal hobbies here in the states.


big same - this seems to have the potential to kill the entire arachnid keeping, snake keeping, etc hobbies outright - there would be no way to recover and only people in specific cities in the US would be able to obtain exotics if at all

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## AvicRugby09

Pokie keeping gonna be screwed. I don’t get it, captive breeding is literally what is keeping a bunch of species around. If I own a captive bred species bought through a proper vendor I should be able to move it if I move.

Reactions: Like 4 | Agree 6


----------



## CJJon

If passed, it would allow for banning of animals capable of zoonosis - It's a Covid precaution. 

Which means any animal, pretty much.


----------



## jrh3

This would be very bad for the hobby. I hope it doesn’t come to this but, cocaine is illegal yet its still being sold. The hobby will scar but not die.

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 3


----------



## YungRasputin

jrh3 said:


> This would be very bad for the hobby. I hope it doesn’t come to this but, cocaine is illegal yet its still being sold. The hobby will scar but not die.


shine and cannabis are illegal lots of places too - not a good way to live tbh but i get what you mean



AvicRugby09 said:


> Pokie keeping gonna be screwed. I don’t get it, captive breeding is literally what is keeping a bunch of species around. If I own a captive bred species bought through a proper vendor I should be able to move it if I move.


this would effect virtually every animal that’s not native to the US or considered domesticated (which there exists no cat on earth who is domesticated so what this actually is supposed to mean who knows)  - if i am understanding the bill correctly this would even include my beta fish as they’re endemic to Thailand and could be seen as “invasive”

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## Liquifin

Let's see where this goes...

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Smotzer

I see this as passing unless we have some secret tarantula/snake/reptile keeping senators

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## YungRasputin

Smotzer said:


> I see this as passing unless we have some secret tarantula/snake/reptile keeping senators


same - shoved into a 3,000 page bill the Democrats are determined to pass and involves an issue no one outside of the exotic animal world is going to care about because it doesn’t effect them - yet another casualty of America’s pathological individualism

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## emartinm28

This is terrible, but republicans are really hating this bill and dems need 60 votes to bring it out of debate. Plus the fact that two of their own can’t exactly be relied upon. The only way that this bill will pass is with a lot of compromise with the bill the senate passed back in June, which gives us time

Reactions: Like 3 | Optimistic 1


----------



## YungRasputin

emartinm28 said:


> This is terrible, but republicans are really hating this bill and dems need 60 votes to bring it out of debate. Plus the fact that two of their own can’t exactly be relied upon. The only way that this bill will pass is with a lot of compromise with the bill the senate passed back in June, which gives us time


in theory perhaps however this would also assume that the parts of the bill which touch upon or involve exotic pet ownership will be noticed or cared about - it’s not that different from legislation put forward by conservatives like Marco Rubio


----------



## Reezelbeezelbug

Isn't the Lacey Act largely un-enforced as is?  Luckily (?) our gov can't agree on anything anymore.

Reactions: Agree 4


----------



## viper69

A bunch of dumb people elected by another bunch of dumb people. I'm sick of people passing laws they don't even read. This is why I tell people, NEVER TELL A SOUL WHAT YOU OWN, except other keepers. SCREW THEM ALL.

Reactions: Like 4 | Thanks 1 | Agree 4 | Award 4 | Winner 3


----------



## YungRasputin

viper69 said:


> A bunch of dumb people elected by another bunch of dumb people. I'm sick of people passing laws they don't even read. This is why I tell people, NEVER TELL A SOUL WHAT YOU OWN, except other keepers. SCREW THEM ALL.


couldn’t agree more

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## l4nsky

Reezelbeezelbug said:


> Isn't the Lacey Act largely un-enforced as is?  Luckily (?) our gov can't agree on anything anymore.


Interstate prohibitions are rarely enforced (yet), but importation prohibitions for "injurious wildlife", which this bill is aiming to list a lot of exotic animals as, is strictly enforced.

They're looking to use a whitelist, meaning that if it's not on the list, then by default it's injurious wildlife. Further, they're aiming to use historical import data to determine what animals to include on the whitelist to be imported in the future.

I'm not picking on you, but your E. pachypus is a good example. Theoretically they might be able to survive in the extreme southern portion of Texas (and who's going to do the research to say they can't?) so by default they can be considered injurious, so no further importation will be allowed. Even if you do your research and prove without a shadow of a doubt they can't, then it's still not going to be on the whitelist? Why? The historical data. Since it wasn't imported in the year prior to the bill in an amount that will be deemed significant, it won't get added. So, now there's no new blood coming in, but wait, there's more. You can't even transport them across state lines, not even if you move (atleast with the pokies on the ESA, you can gift them or do breeding loans across state lines in addition to moving with them). That's the death of E. pachypus in US collections. It's also the death of any species of exotic animal in US collections that's not considered a hobby staple and a lifetime ban on any new species that enter this hobby or any other exotic animal hobby.

I hope I can look back at this post in a year's time and say it was an overreaction......

Reactions: Agree 4 | Sad 1


----------



## PanzoN88

Whelp, guess I’m getting out of the hobby until further notice. Looks like getting a ball python and more Aphonopelma species is out of the question now.

That’s all I can really say on the subject.


----------



## nicodimus22

The real-world impact of any and all laws really boils down to enforcement. It's technically illegal to jaywalk and numerous other trivial things, but those laws are rarely, if ever, enforced, mostly because law enforcement has bigger fish to fry. I don't think anyone is going door-to-door with warrants and searching people's homes for tarantulas. It's not practical, and it wouldn't gain the government much of anything. It would require an insane amount of manpower, COVID is still out there, and frankly, the government has much bigger fish to fry, and many of them.

It probably would mean most online vendors closing down, though, so let's hope that doesn't happen.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 5


----------



## JonnyTorch

So apparently the latest news for 2022 is the Lacy Act Amendment with the America Competes Act will be in the house and soon the Senate that is trying to ban any and all import, export or state line transfers (even if you move or non-sales) altogether of whatever they deem "injurious" species of any exotic animal that isn't a cat, dog or farm animal.











						ALERT: America COMPETES Act of 2022 Lacey Act Amendments | USARK - United States Association of Reptile Keepers
					






					usark.org
				




If you'd like to contact your senators and bug the crap out of them about this, here's a pre written letter about disagreement with this:






						NO to Lacey Act template letter
					






					docs.google.com
				




And here's how to contact them:





						U.S. Senate: Contacting U.S. Senators
					






					www.senate.gov
				





I'm sure that ideas have floated around for a while about banning species etc, but I've been sober for almost 6 years and collecting tarantulas has been a Godsend for me to focus on more biology and animal life as well as a stress reliever and just a fun hobby. I would hate for this hobby to crack down to become useless or illegal.

Thanks



YungRasputin said:


> was hoping to start a thread where we could update and monitor this bill as it passes through the American chambers - for those unfamiliar of what is going on there is a summation below - at the time of writing this USARK reports: “this bill passed in the House and will go to the Senate. We will adjust our alert to contact Senators at the appropriate time. It was a slim margin with the final vote at 222-210”
> 
> description:
> 
> “Buried within the 2,912 pages of the America COMPETES Act of 2022 (HR4521) lie Lacey Act amendments that affect all non-domesticated pet/animal (i.e. all animals except dogs, cats, and traditional farm animals) owners. COMPETES is an acronym for Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in Technology and Economic Strength. The stated purpose of the Act is to strengthen America’s economic and national security but obviously, this was slipped into the massive bill in hopes to go unnoticed.
> 
> The amendments would reverse the USARK federal lawsuit victory by reinstating the ban on interstate transportation of species listed as injurious under the Lacey Act. The bill would also create a “white list” (see #2 below) that could affect millions of pet owners, as well as pet businesses. Could your pet or species of interest (not just reptiles) potentially survive in southern Florida or any other location in the U.S.? Then it could be listed as injurious for just that reason! If this passes and your species of interest, even your pet, is listed as injurious, then it cannot be transported across state lines. That means you could not even take a pet with you if you moved to another state or needed veterinary care across a state border. This does not just ban sales but prohibits all interstate transportation and importation into the U.S. This will trickle down to hundreds or thousands of common pet species.”
> 
> link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALERT: America COMPETES Act of 2022 Lacey Act Amendments | USARK - United States Association of Reptile Keepers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usark.org


I've created a new post also, and a pre written letter, and how to contact U.S. senators to inform them of our disagreement.



emartinm28 said:


> republicans are really hating this bill


Yes sir. Proud republican here. Give me my guns, my freedom, my liberty, and my Tarantulas.

Reactions: Like 4 | Thanks 1 | Helpful 1 | Award 3 | Winner 1


----------



## maddog1219

Thank you for this I'm already emailing my senator

Reactions: Winner 1


----------



## JonnyTorch

viper69 said:


> NEVER TELL A SOUL WHAT YOU OWN, except other keepers. SCREW THEM ALL.


This unfortunately only works if you already own them. Now obtaining them will be illegal 

Yes. Screw them all.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 3


----------



## l4nsky

emartinm28 said:


> This is terrible, but republicans are really hating this bill





JonnyTorch said:


> Yes sir. Proud republican here. Give me my guns, my freedom, my liberty, and my Tarantulas.


Realistically, the Lacey Act amendments are basically the same amendments that a Republican (Rubio) in the Senate proposed in 2021, but this time they're coming attached to a bill from a Democrat controlled House. That bill is a response to a similarly themed bill the Senate passed. I'm sure some version of this is going to pass as the Senate and House compromise between their two bills, and I don't have much hope that the Lacey Act amendments will be struck out. Obviously I still have some hope though. I'm still going to contact my representatives and I've been telling everyone I know who keeps any exotic animals, even fish, to take the same steps.


----------



## JonnyTorch

l4nsky said:


> to take the same steps.


I agree. Check my recent thread. It can direct your friends and people you know to contact them easily.
--


----------



## zeeman

Special interest groups. They give funding to help push a candidate and when the candidate is in office they return the favor by pushing their agendas. Bribery with money is illegal but favors are not. Do you know who PETA and the other special interest groups that want to end your ability to choose what animals you own fund? Democrats.  If you truly care about your pets you won't vote to push an agenda that takes away freedoms with the guize of "protection."

If this post gets removed it speaks only to the reality that people want to complain about changes but not accept the root cause or origination of those undesirable changes. Its your choice how it goes.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Arthroverts

At this point I almost feel the government has stopped caring about how damaging indiscriminate bans are to conservation. They in effect, due to the fact that we do not have a locked-down border, simply create shadow markets and grey zones where the ethics of shipping, collecting, and breeding animals are dropped down to the lowest common denominator, with obvious catastrophic effects for conservation efforts.

Thanks,

Arthroverts

Reactions: Agree 4 | Award 1


----------



## Jonathan6303

You guess should get your aphonopelma slings now before it’s to late.


----------



## LucN

All I can say is that if that bill passes and a full-on ban on all exotics is enforced, it will cripple the hobby. I really hope for all you US keepers that this won't pass. Makes me shudder if they'd want to do the same up here in Canada. Quite a shock to be reading this bit of news :/

Reactions: Thanks 1 | Agree 2


----------



## YungRasputin

LucN said:


> All I can say is that if that bill passes and a full-on ban on all exotics is enforced, it will cripple the hobby. I really hope for all you US keepers that this won't pass. Makes me shudder if they'd want to do the same up here in Canada. Quite a shock to be reading this bit of news :/


if this should pass idk how the arachnid, snake, fish, etc hobbies will continue to exist outside of keeping species of animals native to your state since it seems like, given the language, this could include things like shipping an Arizona Blonde to a state it’s not native too

this would effectively mean my collection would be comprised of widows, copperheads and that’s about it



JonnyTorch said:


> So apparently the latest news for 2022 is the Lacy Act Amendment with the America Competes Act will be in the house and soon the Senate that is trying to ban any and all import, export or state line transfers (even if you move or non-sales) altogether of whatever they deem "injurious" species of any exotic animal that isn't a cat, dog or farm animal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALERT: America COMPETES Act of 2022 Lacey Act Amendments | USARK - United States Association of Reptile Keepers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usark.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd like to contact your senators and bug the crap out of them about this, here's a pre written letter about disagreement with this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO to Lacey Act template letter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> docs.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's how to contact them:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Senate: Contacting U.S. Senators
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.senate.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that ideas have floated around for a while about banning species etc, but I've been sober for almost 6 years and collecting tarantulas has been a Godsend for me to focus on more biology and animal life as well as a stress reliever and just a fun hobby. I would hate for this hobby to crack down to become useless or illegal.
> 
> Thanks


small world, spoke with Richard this morning about this - am just glad the word is getting out and people are trying to take action


----------



## TheQuietPoet28

Is there really a good chance of it happening? Because I do know for a while they've been trying to do this and it never goes through.


----------



## joossa

Ha, we need PetCo and PetSmart to lobby Congress.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 3 | Award 1


----------



## Arachnophobphile

Soooo what I'm seeing here if passed is new restrictions but honestly won't be enforced. Unless you have a tarantula your transporting and something, anything goes wrong and DNR gets involved.

The bigger picture I'm also seeing is tarantula's prices sky rocketing in the U.S. like they are not already ridiculous. So I need to move to Germany or U.K. where the U.S. law doesn't exist then I can buy T's cheaper and have access to tarantulas we can't get here. 

Hmmmmm that's my plan.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 1


----------



## YungRasputin

this bill is the direct result of pathological individualism and the belief that other living beings are property to be used and discarded as individuals see fit and, further, that the individual has zero responsibility to the environment or collective humanity



Arachnophobphile said:


> Soooo what I'm seeing here if passed is new restrictions but honestly won't be enforced. Unless you have a tarantula your transporting and something, anything goes wrong and DNR gets involved.
> 
> The bigger picture I'm also seeing is tarantula's prices sky rocketing in the U.S. like they are not already ridiculous. So I need to move to Germany or U.K. where the U.S. law doesn't exist then I can buy T's cheaper and have access to tarantulas we can't get here.
> 
> Hmmmmm that's my plan.


not trying to pick on you specifically however doing things underboard isn’t as easy as people think it is and that comes with it’s own set of problems and will only intensify already existing problems related to ecological destruction, species extinction, illegal trafficking, animal abuse and neglect, etc

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## Kibosh

For those of you who keep saying this won't get enforced I want you to get online right now and try to buy a Sri Lankan Poecilotheria from a over the counter vendor not in your state in the US. 

You can't.

New law, very much being enforced.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Arachnophobphile

YungRasputin said:


> not trying to pick on you specifically however doing things underboard isn’t as easy as people think it is and that comes with it’s own set of problems and will only intensify already existing problems related to ecological destruction, species extinction, illegal trafficking, animal abuse and neglect, etc


Never said I would do anything under the radar don't need that trouble. Moving to another country however might be the better decision.

I have a feeling PETA played some part in this. I posted a link that PETA had up last week I think it was where they were actively trying to influence new legislation putting a stop to people keeping tarantulas however they can.



Kibosh said:


> For those of you who keep saying this won't get enforced I want you to get online right now and try to buy a Sri Lankan Poecilotheria from a over the counter vendor not in your state in the US.
> 
> You can't.
> 
> New law, very much being enforced.


Point taken...I don't have any OW's so wasn't even aware of that. What a bummer....


----------



## JonnyTorch

nicodimus22 said:


> It probably would mean most online vendors closing down, though, so let's hope that doesn't happen.


Venders altogether will have to stop their business even if not online because it would make their business illegal and illegitimate, that is, unless they are able to breed species within that state and limit what they have from that point on, which is very limiting to say the least. So if this passes, how do we get more of a species from Africa or India if it's already rare to be in our current state? The options will dwindle down and we could be forced to only buy through the black market for certain species through illegal sources. I don't mind owning a T that I'm not supposed to own if I can keep quiet (and if it wasn't wild caught from it's native habitat) but how would we get to own them then? We'd have to illegally purchase, in pursuit of an illegal animal, and then keep quiet. Just a ring of things no one wants to deal with.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## emartinm28

So , here's the proposed wording of the statute amendment: plus an analysis of what it all means 

SEC. 71102. LACEY ACT AMENDMENTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 42 of title 18, United 15 States Code, is amended—
              (1) in subsection (a)(1)—
                            (A) in the first sentence, by *striking ‘‘shipment between the continental United States’’*  and *inserting ‘‘transport between the States*’’;
                            (B) in the first sentence, strike ‘‘Hawaii,’’; 
                            (C) by inserting after the first sentence the following: ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe by regulation an                                                              emergency designation prohibiting the* importation* of any species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles, or                                           the offspring or eggs of any such species, as *injurious* to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources                                            of the                                            United States, for not more than 3 years, under this subsection, if the Secretary of the Interior determines that such regulation is necessary to address an imminent                                                threat to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States. An emergency designation                                                   prescribed under this subsection shall take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register, unless the Secretary of the Interior prescribes an effective                                           date that is not later than 60 days after the date of publication. During the period during which an emergency designation prescribed under this subsection for a species is in                                       effect, the Secretary of the Interior shall *evaluate whether* the species should be designated as an *injurious wildlife species under the first sentence *of this                                           paragraph.’’; and
                             (D) in subsection (b), inserting ‘‘knowingly’’ before ‘‘violates’’;

Here is the current text of the Lacey Act subsection (a)(1)

(a) (1) The importation into the United States, any territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States, or any shipment between the continental United States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States, of the mongoose of the species Herpestes auropunctatus; of the species of so-called “flying foxes” or fruit bats of the genus Pteropus; of the zebra mussel of the species Dreissena polymorpha; and such other species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, reptiles, brown tree snakes, or the offspring or eggs of any of the foregoing which the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe by regulation to be injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States, is hereby prohibited. All such prohibited mammals, birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, and reptiles, and the eggs or offspring therefrom, shall be promptly exported or destroyed at the expense of the importer or consignee. Nothing in this section shall be construed to repeal or modify any provision of the Public Health Service Act or Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Also, this section shall not authorize any action with respect to the importation of any plant pest as defined in the Federal Plant Pest Act, insofar as such importation is subject to regulation under that Act.

Now here is the new subsection (a)(1) with the proposed amendments

(a) (1) The importation into the United States, any territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States, or any *transport between the states*, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States, of the mongoose of the species Herpestes auropunctatus; of the species of so-called “flying foxes” or fruit bats of the genus Pteropus; of the zebra mussel of the species Dreissena polymorpha; and such other species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, reptiles, brown tree snakes, or the offspring or eggs of any of the foregoing which the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe by regulation to be injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States, is hereby prohibited.*Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe by regulation an emergency designation prohibiting the importation of any species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles, or the offspring or eggs of any such species, as injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States, for not more than 3 years, under this subsection, if the Secretary of the Interior determines that such regulation is necessary to address an imminent threat to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States. An emergency designation prescribed under this subsection shall take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register, unless the Secretary of the Interior prescribes an effective date that is not later than 60 days after the date of publication. During the period during which an emergency designation prescribed under this subsection for a species is in effect, the Secretary of the Interior shall evaluate whether the species should be designated as an injurious wildlife species under the first sentence of this paragraph*. All such prohibited mammals, birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, and reptiles, and the eggs or offspring therefrom, shall be promptly exported or destroyed at the expense of the importer or consignee. Nothing in this section shall be construed to repeal or modify any provision of the Public Health Service Act or Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Also, this section shall not authorize any action with respect to the importation of any plant pest as defined in the Federal Plant Pest Act, insofar as such importation is subject to regulation under that Act.

So what would this do? well, not THAT much (It's still kinda bad though). In _USARK v. Zinke, _DC circuit court held that the phrase "shipment between the continental United States" did NOT apply to interstate commerce. Not because it _couldn't_, just that it _doesn't_. This amendment clarifies that the injurious species included in the Lacey Act _are _not to be transported across state lines. Now this mainly sucks for large snake keepers, because the Burmese Python, African Rock Python, all Anacondas, and the Reticulated Python are all injurious species under the Lacey Act. This also sucks because the reason that the court sided with USARK is because the statute was left ambiguous about whether it applied to interstate commerce. Now, it clearly does, and unfortunately Congress has the ultimate authority to regulate interstate commerce.

These amendments also allow the Secretary of the interior to temporarily ban the importation of any animal that he feels may be injurious. This does not ban that animal from being traded between states. To do that, the Fish and Wildlife Service still needs to officially deem the species to be injurious under the Lacey Act. They can't just do this, the rule must pass through *notice and comment rulemaking *whereby the rule will go through a 9-step process and the public will be able to make comments on regulations.gov about whether they support the rule or not. Once its published in the Federal Registrar, it's a rule. They will need to do this for each individual species they want to ban, though they _may _go for genera as well (such as some salamander genera that they banned because of chytrid)

If the Secretary of the Interior wants to ban importation of a species, it cannot be for more than 3 years unless it goes through notice and comment and is published as an injurious species.

now, for the second part of the proposed amendment

(2) by adding at the end the following:
              ‘‘(d) PRESUMPTIVE PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION.—
                             ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Importation into the United States of any species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles, or the                                 offspring or eggs of any such species, that is not native to the United States and, as of the date of enactment of the America COMPETES Act of 2022, is not prohibited                                    under subsection (a)(1), is prohibited, unless—
                                                     ‘‘(A) during the 1-year period preceding the date of enactment of the America COMPETES Act of 2022, the species was, in more than minimal quantities— 
                                                                        ‘(i) imported into the United States; or
                                                                        ‘(ii) transported between the States, any territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any                                                                                    possession of the United States; or
                                                     ‘‘(B) the Secretary of the Interior determines, after an opportunity for public comment, that the species does not pose a significant risk of invasiveness to                                                             the United States and publishes a notice in the Federal Register of the determination. 
                              ‘ ‘(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior under subsection (a)(1).’’.
What does this mean?
well, it's kinda bad, for importation anyways. Basically, any non-domesticated/farm animal is presumed to be BANNED from importation UNLESS during the 1 year period preceding enactment there was sufficient movement of the species to, from, and within the United States. "minimal quantities" will be determined by the Secretary of the Interior. OR if the Secretary of the Interior deems that the species is fine due to notice and comment rulemaking (MAKE SURE YOU COMMENT ON REGULATIONS.GOV). Finally, they included a provision stating that none of the words in paragraph 1 may be construed to limit the Secretary's power, so sorry Clarence Thomas no dismantling the administrative state today :/

next is a bunch of jargon dealing with legalese (all the notwithstandings, neverthelesses, and hithertos blah blah blah) but finally it goes on to say that the Secretary has a year after the law's passing to come up with a definition for "minimal quantities" and that the amendments go into effect 1 year after they were passed.

So, to recap
- The Lacey Act's ban on "injurious" species DOES apply to interstate transportation
- _USARK v. Zinke _is nullified
- ALL exotic animals that have not been moved into, from, or within the United States and its territories in at least minimal quantities (the definition of which will be determined by the Secretary of the Interior within 1 year after the law is passed) are BANNED from importation unless the Secretary says that they are ok to import
- Any animal MAY be added to the injurious species list, though this list has historically not been expanded lightly, and there must be notice and comment rulemaking for EVERY proposed ban. we WILL have the opportunity to comment on regulations.gov if such a proposition is made. Any animal NOT on that list is NOT banned from being transported across state lines
- While this law has firmly pushed the hobby into the kind of commerce that can be regulated by FWS, this will not be the end of the hobby as we know it anytime soon, though VERY unfortunate for importation. We'll have to wait and see what the Secretary of the Interior decides that 'minimal quantities' means.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## CJJon

Thanks Covid. The main push is to be able to quickly control importation of zoonotic species that may harbor the next virus. This is going to pass. 

The bat hobbyists should be the most worried.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Pmurinushmacla

nicodimus22 said:


> The real-world impact of any and all laws really boils down to enforcement. It's technically illegal to jaywalk and numerous other trivial things, but those laws are rarely, if ever, enforced, mostly because law enforcement has bigger fish to fry. I don't think anyone is going door-to-door with warrants and searching people's homes for tarantulas. It's not practical, and it wouldn't gain the government much of anything. It would require an insane amount of manpower, COVID is still out there, and frankly, the government has much bigger fish to fry, and many of them.
> 
> It probably would mean most online vendors closing down, though, so let's hope that doesn't happen.


I don't think the main concern here is losing all of our current ts altogether. I think its having prices skyrocket and having species become unavailable due to these laws.


----------



## moricollins

LucN said:


> All I can say is that if that bill passes and a full-on ban on all exotics is enforced, it will cripple the hobby. I really hope for all you US keepers that this won't pass. Makes me shudder if they'd want to do the same up here in Canada. Quite a shock to be reading this bit of news :/


You should go read the election campaigns of all the major Canadian political parties from the past election... All of them include similar things to this amendment...


----------



## HeartBum

Arachnophobphile said:


> Soooo what I'm seeing here if passed is new restrictions but honestly won't be enforced. Unless you have a tarantula your transporting and something, anything goes wrong and DNR gets involved.
> 
> The bigger picture I'm also seeing is tarantula's prices sky rocketing in the U.S. like they are not already ridiculous. So I need to move to Germany or U.K. where the U.S. law doesn't exist then I can buy T's cheaper and have access to tarantulas we can't get here.
> 
> Hmmmmm that's my plan.


But I’m wondering if us here in the UK will suffer a knock-on effect (online retailers who have purchased captive bred from a US breeder, for example, would they be able to export these?)


----------



## CJJon

HeartBum said:


> But I’m wondering if us here in the UK will suffer a knock-on effect (online retailers who have purchased captive bred from a US breeder, for example, would they be able to export these?)


Not a chance.


----------



## HeartBum

CJJon said:


> Not a chance.


Not a chance of affecting us or not a chance of exporting?


----------



## LucN

moricollins said:


> You should go read the election campaigns of all the major Canadian political parties from the past election... All of them include similar things to this amendment...


Seriously ?! Wow... Which means our Online vendors could also be prohibited to import new animals. Which means no new imports from Germany or US/Mexico. That's... not good.

Does this mean that most birds, such as Parakeets, Cockatiels and such will also be banned given they're not native to our countries ?

I'll have to find those election campaigns and have a read, then.


----------



## CJJon

HeartBum said:


> Not a chance of affecting us or not a chance of exporting?


Exporting.

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## Pmurinushmacla

Jonathan6303 said:


> You guess should get your aphonopelma slings now before it’s to late. It could be a long ban. <edit>


Honestly with this ban, aphonopelma slings are the least of my concern lol. I've seen many acts like this, but this one seems to be the most concerning to this hobby.



YungRasputin said:


> shine and cannabis are illegal lots of places too - not a good way to live tbh but i get what you mean
> 
> 
> 
> this would effect virtually every animal that’s not native to the US or considered domesticated (which there exists no cat on earth who is domesticated so what this actually is supposed to mean who knows)  - if i am understanding the bill correctly this would even include my beta fish as they’re endemic to Thailand and could be seen as “invasive”


Hopefully for this very reason the act is not passed. Their blanket statement might just come and bite them in the ass. I would hope so.


----------



## Liquifin

This is a lot to take in, but the way I interpret this is that if this does pass it is basically the end of the entire exotic pet trade/hobby. This sounds way too much for any and every exotic pet owner/hobbyists. I'm certain it's not just us Tarantula hobbyists, but probably also every other exotic pet hobbyists discussing this issue as well. I think everyone should bring every and all exotic pet trade owners, hobbyists, breeders, vendors, etc. together to do something about this unexpected situation.

Reactions: Agree 4


----------



## TylerFishman5675

Pmurinushmacla said:


> Hopefully for this very reason the act is not passed. Their blanket statement might just come and bite them in the ass. I would hope so.


Domesticated animals have done irrefutable damage to our ecosystem, through agriculture and invasive species. Not only domestic animals harm the environment (cats killing 2 billion song birds a year) but they have the real absolute ability to be harmful. Yet we are never going to ban cats or dogs (I wouldn’t want them to either!) Their are thousands of dog attacks in the U.S. each year, but how many tarantula attacks? Lol. THIS SHOULD BE UP TO THE STATE TO RECON IF THE ANIMALS ARE HARMFUL OR NOT. If you live  somewhere it experiences hard freezes are you seriously going to expect tropical species to thrive? Are you kidding? I get the consensus that this may help to limit the amount of wild caught individuals being brought into the trade. But if the exotic animal keeping hobby was solely dependent on wild caught animals then we would be out of a hobby, because the majority of our pets here on this forum are captive bred. We do a conservative service by keeping these animals in captivity while their natural ranges are clear cut for palm oil and our domesticated animal friends. This bill is stupid.

Reactions: Agree 5


----------



## emartinm28

The most important thing to remember through all of this is that any species that hits that “minimal quantities” standards for commerce and importation will not be automatically banned from importation. We will also have 1 year after the act is passed, 1 year to get as many new species and bloodlines in as we can. We’ll also need to start building communities within our states so that if, god forbid, any T successfully goes through notice and comment and is prohibited from interstate transport, at least a few states will have a solid network with which to keep the species around in the hobby. Most importantly, know that even when this is passed all exotics not on the injurious list will still be able to be transported across state lines, so we need to make sure that sellers know this and don’t misinterpret the law to think that they need to shut down

edit: we will also need to be on top of commenting under any proposed bans on regulations.gov. Nothing is set in stone yet, this defeat doesn’t destroy the hobby, but it opens us up to attack. They’ll need to come for our species 1 by 1, and we must resist it every step of the way

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TylerFishman5675

emartinm28 said:


> The most important thing to remember through all of this is that any species that hits that “minimal quantities” standards for commerce and importation will not be automatically banned from importation. We will also have 1 year after the act is passed, 1 year to get as many new species and bloodlines in as we can. We’ll also need to start building communities within our states so that if, god forbid, any T successfully goes through notice and comment and is prohibited from interstate transport, at least a few states will have a solid network with which to keep the species around in the hobby. Most importantly, know that even when this is passed all exotics not on the injurious list will still be able to be transported across state lines, so we need to make sure that sellers know this and don’t misinterpret the law to think that they need to shut down
> 
> edit: we will also need to be on top of commenting under any proposed bans on regulations.gov. Nothing is set in stone yet, this defeat doesn’t destroy the hobby, but it opens us up to attack. They’ll need to come for our species 1 by 1, and we must resist it every step of the way


So when will we not be able to transport animals over state lines? How long until this is completely ratified and enforced?


----------



## emartinm28

TylerFishman5675 said:


> So when will we not be able to transport animals over state lines? How long until this is completely ratified and enforced?


When this is ratified, it will go into effect after one year. The only animals that will be prohibited from transport across state lines are those listed as “injurious” under the Lacey Act. This currently includes a lot of salamanders (because of chytrid), bats, zebra mussels, and notably large pythons and anacondas, along with some other misc. species that i don’t know off the top of my head. These will be the ONLY animals banned from interstate transport. In order to add say, a t. albo to the list, the Fish and Wildlife Service will have to publish a proposal on regulations.gov. This will be open to the public for commenting to say whether they support this new rule or not. After a 9 step process bouncing between committees and basically just getting passed through a bunch of bureaucracy, the rule may then be published in the Federal Register. It’s quite a time consuming task, and it’s not very likely that they’ll go through the effort to stamp out every species from the hobby. If a burm or a retic is your dream snake though, your time for obtaining one is fast running out.

can’t be understated though that any species that does not have an established breeding population here in the US will be banned from importation unless they’ve been imported, exported, or have been in interstate commerce in “minimal quantities.” Not sure all the logistics of that because I don’t breed but any species that relies on importation from Germany to enter the US hobby will be banned from importation if they don’t meet that standard (which the Secretary will have FULL discretion to determine). This means no new bloodlines. This also means no new species, so keeping a healthy population of certain species here in the US may fall down to how well breeders here are aware of and communicate with each other.


----------



## TylerFishman5675

emartinm28 said:


> When this is ratified, it will go into effect after one year. The only animals that will be prohibited from transport across state lines are those listed as “injurious” under the Lacey Act. This currently includes a lot of salamanders (because of chytrid), bats, zebra mussels, and notably large pythons and anacondas, along with some other misc. species that i don’t know off the top of my head. These will be the ONLY animals banned from interstate transport. In order to add say, a t. albo to the list, the Fish and Wildlife Service will have to publish a proposal on regulations.gov. This will be open to the public for commenting to say whether they support this new rule or not. After a 9 step process bouncing between committees and basically just getting passed through a bunch of bureaucracy, the rule may then be published in the Federal Register. It’s quite a time consuming task, and it’s not very likely that they’ll go through the effort to stamp out every species from the hobby. If a burm or a retic is your dream snake though, your time for obtaining one is fast running out.


Hm good to know, well to play devils advocate this seemingly will suppress the demand for wild caught animals, which I’m always in favor for.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Pmurinushmacla

emartinm28 said:


> When this is ratified, it will go into effect after one year. The only animals that will be prohibited from transport across state lines are those listed as “injurious” under the Lacey Act. This currently includes a lot of salamanders (because of chytrid), bats, zebra mussels, and notably large pythons and anacondas, along with some other misc. species that i don’t know off the top of my head. These will be the ONLY animals banned from interstate transport. In order to add say, a t. albo to the list, the Fish and Wildlife Service will have to publish a proposal on regulations.gov. This will be open to the public for commenting to say whether they support this new rule or not. After a 9 step process bouncing between committees and basically just getting passed through a bunch of bureaucracy, the rule may then be published in the Federal Register. It’s quite a time consuming task, and it’s not very likely that they’ll go through the effort to stamp out every species from the hobby. If a burm or a retic is your dream snake though, your time for obtaining one is fast running out.
> 
> can’t be understated though that any species that does not have an established breeding population here in the US will be banned from importation unless they’ve been imported, exported, or have been in interstate commerce in “minimal quantities.” Not sure all the logistics of that because I don’t breed but any species that relies on importation from Germany to enter the US hobby will be banned from importation if they don’t meet that standard (which the Secretary will have FULL discretion to determine). This means no new bloodlines. This also means no new species, so keeping a healthy population of certain species here in the US may fall down to how well breeders here are aware of and communicate with each other.


Doesn't sound like the end of the hobby, but it will be more challenging for sure to keep healthy, diverse tarantula populations. One thing i dont get tho; if a species is imported too much its banned? Or if its imported not enough?


----------



## Arthroverts

TylerFishman5675 said:


> Hm good to know, well to play devils advocate this seemingly will suppress the demand for wild caught animals, which I’m always in favor for.


No it won’t.

Exotic roaches, millipedes, beetles, ants, isopods, phasmids, mantids, gastropods, etc. are all illegal under the Plant Protection Act. Did this depress legal imports of those species? Yes.
Did it do anything about the illegal imports? No, it exacerbated them by making such options the only way to get specimens with lots of people happy to turn a blind eye. By making it impossible to bring in species legally, these amendments are just going to cut out, say, law-abiding exporters and breeders in Europe and allow smugglers with no care for the environment or the welfare of the specimens to fill the gap. It is very high minded to think people will actually follow the law, but even right now the majority of our species are at some point collected and transported illegally (_Birupes simoroxigorum, Typhochlaena sp., Brachypelma sp_.), and I can bet you if we wanted _Taksinus bambus_ or something like that we would be more than happy to “don’t ask, don’t tell”.

That’s very cynical, but I’m only that way because it’s already happening, and these amendments will only fuel it further. These amendments do nothing for conservation.

Thanks,

Arthroverts

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 2 | Award 2


----------



## emartinm28

Pmurinushmacla said:


> Doesn't sound like the end of the hobby, but it will be more challenging for sure to keep healthy, diverse tarantula populations. One thing i dont get tho; if a species is imported too much its banned? Or if its imported not enough?


If its imported not enough


----------



## TylerFishman5675

Arthroverts said:


> No it won’t.
> 
> Exotic roaches, millipedes, beetles, ants, isopods, phasmids, mantids, gastropods, etc. are all illegal under the Plant Protection Act. Did this depress legal imports of those species? Yes.
> Did it do anything about the illegal imports? No, it exacerbated them by making such options the only way to get specimens with lots of people happy to turn a blind eye. By making it impossible to bring in species legally, these amendments are just going to cut out, say, law-abiding exporters and breeders in Europe and allow smugglers with no care for the environment or the welfare of the specimens to fill the gap. It is very high minded to think people will actually follow the law, but even right now the majority of our species are at some point collected and transported illegally (_Birupes simoroxigorum, Typhochlaena sp., Brachypelma sp_.), and I can bet you if we wanted _Taksinus bambus_ or something like that we would be more than happy to “don’t ask, don’t tell”.
> 
> That’s very cynical, but I’m only that way because it’s already happening, and these amendments will only fuel it further. These amendments do nothing for conservation.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Arthroverts


Great point, didn’t think of that.


----------



## Pmurinushmacla

emartinm28 said:


> If its imported not enough


Do we have any number for this, or was it just a vauge statement?


----------



## emartinm28

Pmurinushmacla said:


> Do we have any number for this, or was it just a vauge statement?


The Secretary of the Interior gets to unilaterally decide

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pmurinushmacla

emartinm28 said:


> The Secretary of the Interior gets to unilaterally decide


Dunno if youre banging your head at me or the law lol, thanks for the clarification tho.


----------



## emartinm28

Pmurinushmacla said:


> Dunno if youre banging your head at me or the law lol, thanks for the clarification tho.


At the law lol, sorry didn’t mean for it to come across that way


----------



## Pmurinushmacla

emartinm28 said:


> At the law lol, sorry didn’t mean for it to come across that way


It's alright, in the past it's usually been at me. I'm not the most agreeable guy here lol.


----------



## goliathusdavid

Wildlife enforcement is actually a career path I am thinking about, so here's my hot take: this is stupid on every level.

USFWS does not have, nor will it ever be given the resources to actually enforce this, so it will just be diverting their few resources from REAL wildlife trafficking. This is not even useful on a biosecurity perspective (@CJJon) : we're currently importing over 200 million live animals a year (and that's only legally, may I note usually only quarantining bats and nonhuman primates) and these amendments force USFWS to direct significantly greater attention than it has to _interstate transport of exotics. _I cannot emphasize how much that a) is not our biggest threat and b) is ridiculously difficult to control, as COVID has proven state borders are pretty darn tricky. The USFWS office of law enforcement only has 261 special agents and 122 wildlife inspectors right now btw, for the whole country. That's already not NEARLY enough for our ports, one of the reasons why I know way too many people who have smuggled Phasmids into the States successfully from Europe-- yet a major worry of this amendment is interstate transport? Plus, if we really wanted to prioritize biosecurity than this bill would do more to address the epidemiological risk of factory farming, but I don't really see that...

It is, quite simply, unenforceable and useless. And while students such as myself, zoos, and scientists will still have some ability to obtain and transport exotics, it will be twice as hard to do within the confines of USDA and FWS law, which (unlike individuals) we have no option to not abide.

So, in summary, these Lacey Act Amendments
a) criminalize an entire industry and make the lives of both individuals and organizations more difficult.
b) do nothing (as @Arthoverts so eloquently pointed out) for conservation.
c) force the creation of a black/white list that if actually done based on research would take a few decades to create.
c) are unenforceable.
d) aren't even that effective in a epidemiology/biosecurity context.

I am someone who controversially believes that the US wildlife trade needs greater and better regulation. COMPETES as a whole provides some. But the Lacey amendments aren't regulation, they are just idiotic political posturing on behalf of animal rights groups who are hypocritical and ignorant in their own right.

EDIT: It is important to note that a separate section of the COMPETES Act is authorizing an additional $150 million per year to USFWS and 50 new agents. While this is a SUBSTANTIAL increase in resources, it is till not nearly enough to control state borders, and focusing those much needed resources on inter-state transport is...well...dumb.

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 2 | Award 1


----------



## CJJon

The big issue I have is with the language in the legislation in that it effectively gives a federal department the ability to do whatever they please. The language is so broad that one person can basically do what they want with zero repercussions. Language that special interests write and our stooge politicians adopt as their own. This is the interstate commerce clause bastardized to the Nth degree. 

The inmates are running the asylum folks. If you think this can't happen, you may be very surprised one day.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## spideyspinneret78

goliathusdavid said:


> Wildlife enforcement is actually a career path I am thinking about, so here's my hot take: this is stupid on every level.
> 
> USFWS does not have, nor will it ever be given the resources to actually enforce this, so it will just be diverting their few resources from REAL wildlife trafficking. This is not even good on a biosecurity perspective (@CJJon) : we're importing over 200 million live animals a year (and that's only legally, may I note usually only quarantining bats and nonhuman primates) and these amendments force USFWS to direct significantly greater attention than it has to _interstate transport of exotics. _I cannot emphasize how much that a) is not our biggest threat and b) is ridiculously difficult to control, as COVID has proven state borders are pretty darn tricky. The USFWS office of law enforcement only has 261 special agents and 122 wildlife inspectors btw, for the whole country. That's already not NEARLY enough for our ports, one of the reasons why I know way too many people who have smuggled Phasmids into the States successfully from Europe-- yet a major worry of this amendment is interstate transport? Plus, if we really wanted to prioritize biosecurity than this bill would address the epidemiological risk of factory farming, but I don't see that anywhere...
> 
> It is, quite simply, unenforceable and useless. And while students such as myself, zoos, and scientists will still have some ability to obtain and transport exotics, it will be twice as hard to do within the confines of USDA and FWS law, which (unlike individuals) we have no option to not abide.
> 
> So, in summary, these Lacey Act Amendments
> a) criminalize an entire industry and make the lives of both individuals and organizations more difficult.
> b) do nothing (as @Arthoverts so eloquently pointed out) for conservation.
> c) force the creation of a black/white list that if actually done based on research would take a few decades to create.
> c) are unenforceable.
> d) aren't even that effective in a epidemiology/biosecurity context. Let's put our attention on ports, factory farming and deer populations maybe?
> 
> I am someone who controversially believes that the US wildlife trade needs greater and better regulation. But this isn't regulation, it's just idiotic political posturing on behalf of animal rights groups who are hypocritical and ignorant in their own right. And hey, if we actually want to address wildlife trafficking then maybe give USFWS that $100 million for our next F-35 -- they don't seem to be doing too well... Never mind what the $13.2 billion spent on an aircraft carrier that can't effectively launch aircraft could do to address environmental racism and injustice...


Very well said. I agree with everything you mentioned. It also makes captive breeding so much more difficult, encouraging illegal smuggling through the black market. Just ridiculous and counterproductive on so many levels.

Reactions: Thanks 1


----------



## darkness975

This is beyond stupid.  The invertebrate hobby is one of the few things I enjoy. 

Cats and dogs have caused the most damage worldwide but they get a pass?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Introvertebrate

darkness975 said:


> Cats and dogs have caused the most damage worldwide but they get a pass?


Mammals have a greater right to live.  You didn't know that?  It's in the PETA handbook.  PETA also prioritizes by total body mass.  Mice have the fewest rights, and then it goes up from there.  Lions, elephants, and rhinos get all kinds of privileges.  Whales have the greatest right to life.  There are exceptions of course.  If an animal is particularly cute, cuddly, or needy of human attention, it gets a free pass, even if it's relatively small.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 2


----------



## mantisfan101

I’m surprised pet corporations, zoos, museums, and aquariums haven’t said anything about this yet.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## darkness975

Introvertebrate said:


> Mammals have a greater right to live.  You didn't know that?  It's in the PETA handbook.  PETA also prioritizes by total body mass.  Mice have the fewest rights, and then it goes up from there.  Lions, elephants, and rhinos get all kinds of privileges.  Whales have the greatest right to life.  There are exceptions of course.  If an animal is particularly cute, cuddly, or needy of human attention, it gets a free pass, even if it's relatively small.


Sadly true.


----------



## spideyspinneret78

I just donated to USARK and wrote my senators. If this passes it will be devastating to many people in this country, myself included. If I didn't have hobbies like keeping inverts and aquariums, I'd be in a much darker place right now that's for sure.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## JonnyTorch

spideyspinneret78 said:


> I'd be in a much darker place right now that's for sure.


Same. After becoming sober, it has become a great way to focus and put time and energy into something other than drinking or drugs.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## goliathusdavid

For those curious about other (actually good!) wildlife law encased in COMPETES, head on over to this thread. If nothing else, then check it out to improve lobbying strategy. I have also updated my above post with a few corrections.



mantisfan101 said:


> I’m surprised pet corporations, zoos, museums, and aquariums haven’t said anything about this yet.


In terms of zoos, museums, and aquariums I would say it's likely because many institutions view the changes as just yet another layer of permitting and paperwork. Most people in institutions (and those who move through both hobby and professional worlds such as myself) are really angry about it but it isn't an industry criminalization in the way it is for the hobby. And given that most organizations already have to go through a million federal inspections, a press release doesn't seem super worth it for their administrations. In other words, many institutions would rather take the additional work than threaten their relationships with the agencies that inspect them. 

That's at least my experience with the places I am at or have close contacts at. Would be curious to hear from others about theirs, perhaps @MasterOogway?


----------



## spideyspinneret78

goliathusdavid said:


> In terms of zoos, museums, and aquariums I would say it's likely because many institutions view the changes as just yet another layer of permitting and paperwork. Most people in institutions (and those who move through both hobby and professional worlds such as myself) are really angry about it but it isn't an industry criminalization in the way it is for the hobby. And given that most organizations already have to go through a million federal inspections, a press release doesn't seem super worth it for their administrations. In other words, many institutions would rather take the additional work than threaten their relationships with the agencies that inspect them.
> 
> That's at least my experience with the places I am at or have close contacts at. Would be curious to hear from others about theirs, perhaps @MasterOogway?


As a former zookeeper, I can confirm that amount of paperwork, permitting and regulations are intense. Getting the paperwork finished each year to renew permits for native species easily took weeks if not months, exotics even more so in some cases but not always. Plus every other year there are detailed inspections by the FDA. We had to hire someone just to keep records and submit paperwork, and this wasn't a large facility. These additional regulations would surely take up more time and effort, but would likely be seen as just another hurdle to jump through (and there are many).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ChaniLB520

spideyspinneret78 said:


> As a former zookeeper, I can confirm that amount of paperwork, permitting and regulations are intense. Getting the paperwork finished each year to renew permits for native species easily took weeks if not months, exotics even more so in some cases but not always. Plus every other year there are detailed inspections by the FDA. We had to hire someone just to keep records and submit paperwork, and this wasn't a large facility. These additional regulations would surely take up more time and effort, but would likely be seen as just another hurdle to jump through (and there are many).


But this implies that there are ways to fill out paperwork to get around these rules, if they are corporations? The language of the amendments doesn't say anything about permits - are these included in other laws, elsewhere? Does this mean that pet stores will still be able to get in exotic animals from across state lines? In that case, would there be a possibility for pet owners to file for exemptions as well? I truly find legal-ese extremely confusing...


----------



## spideyspinneret78

ChaniLB520 said:


> But this implies that there are ways to fill out paperwork to get around these rules, if they are corporations? The language of the amendments doesn't say anything about permits - are these included in other laws, elsewhere? Does this mean that pet stores will still be able to get in exotic animals from across state lines? In that case, would there be a possibility for pet owners to file for exemptions as well? I truly find legal-ese extremely confusing...


Unlikely. Exemptions/ permits for species that are illegal for the average person to keep are usually only granted to accredited zoos and research institutions, and even in these cases there is a lot of paperwork and hurdles to jump through.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 1


----------



## ChaniLB520

spideyspinneret78 said:


> Unlikely. Exemptions/ permits for species that are illegal for the average person to keep are usually only granted to accredited zoos and research institutions, and even in these cases there is a lot of paperwork and hurdles to jump through.


Thank you. That makes sense. I actually work as a biology instructor at a public community college, so I hope at least I will have the ability to keep my exotics that I use for education and keep in my office. It would be unfortuante if I had to apply for permits, though. And I live right on the border of two states, and am planning to move across it to live with my fiance within the next year. But I would still regularly travel from state to state to work and back... the idea that this would prevent me from bringing extra feeders from home, for example, to my office... this is insane.


----------



## spideyspinneret78

ChaniLB520 said:


> Thank you. That makes sense. I actually work as a biology instructor at a public community college, so I hope at least I will have the ability to keep my exotics that I use for education and keep in my office. It would be unfortuante if I had to apply for permits, though. And I live right on the border of two states, and am planning to move across it to live with my fiance within the next year. But I would still regularly travel from state to state to work and back... the idea that this would prevent me from bringing extra feeders from home, for example, to my office... this is insane.


It's too broad, too absolute, and done without considering what the far reaching consequences are. I wholeheartedly believe that certain animals should not be kept by people as pets....especially large birds (think cockatoos, macaws, African Grey Parrots, etc), primates, some reptiles, etc. because their needs are next to impossible to meet in captivity. And definitely there are some invasive species in some areas that should be banned because they've wreaked havoc on the environment. I've personally seen the consequences of these things. But to automatically ban almost everything.....that's extreme and unfair to everyone. The thing that really bothers me about these amendments is that they will stifle successful captive breeding programs. Poecilotheria metallica is one example. It's sad that they will likely go extinct in the wild over the next few years. But thanks to captive breeding efforts, they will not disappear from the face of the earth entirely. In my opinion we NEED to encourage captive breeding wherever possible to reduce pressure on wild populations. Successful aquaculture is another example. Many species that are endangered in the wild are readily breeding and available in captivity due to breeding programs. We also need to encourage responsible pet ownership and promote education instead of punishing people who do adequate research and go above and beyond for their animals. Be proactive instead of reactive. This will absolutely backfire if it gets passed. I wish that the people who wrote it weren't so short-sighted of the consequences.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 3


----------



## Introvertebrate

It's not like there checkpoints at the stateline.  "Do you have any feeders to declare?"

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 5


----------



## spideyspinneret78

Introvertebrate said:


> It's not like there a checkpoints at the stateline.  "Do you have any feeders to declare?"


Yes sir. I have 24 House crickets, 2.5 nightcrawlers, feeder cricket gel, and a few egg crate pieces. Do you need to do a cavity search on me, Officer?

Reactions: Funny 6


----------



## ChaniLB520

Introvertebrate said:


> It's not like there checkpoints at the stateline.  "Do you have any feeders to declare?"


I mean, true. Others on the thread have also expressed how difficult it would be to enforce some of this. So I could probabaly still move things within reason, but would certainly stress about it, that's just how I roll. A bigger concern is probably the affects it would have on the availability and/or price of these organisms in general. Not sure - just hoping we won't have to find out.


----------



## spooky7

Does anyone have any legitimate means for getting PR or press to run this story of the LACEY ACT in AMERICA COMPETES? 

Reporters have slow news days, which mean they need stories. If we can get this in the hands of even local press that would run with these _DOOMDSDAY _headlines (as mainstream media loves to do) it could get picked up and syndicated and spark outrage. Politicians only care about negative PR, and I feel while very much a longshot and a pipe dream, it could work if done well. 

If you listened to Tom Moran's podcast about this on Sunday, he made some good talking points about writing your Senators and mentioning the types of constituents who benefit from keeping nondomesticated animals: 

Veterans suffering from PTSD
differently abled people who can't care for a larger animal due to limited mobility
 schoolteachers who instruct students
People overcoming addiction (myself included) 
EVERYONE dealing with COVID lockdowns 
I encourage members here to lean on REP Senators as they are more likely to have reasons to reject this bill. If you have DEM Senators in your state--ask them to provide a good show of bipartisanship. Remind them that they will be heralded as a hero by people across the aisle for speaking their conscience and not just voting with their party. 

Thoughts?

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## spideyspinneret78

spooky7 said:


> Does anyone have any legitimate means for getting PR or press to run this story of the LACEY ACT in AMERICA COMPETES?
> 
> Reporters have slow news days, which mean they need stories. If we can get this in the hands of even local press that would run with these _DOOMDSDAY _headlines (as mainstream media loves to do) it could get picked up and syndicated and spark outrage. Politicians only care about negative PR, and I feel while very much a longshot and a pipe dream, it could work if done well.
> 
> If you listened to Tom Moran's podcast about this on Sunday, he made some good talking points about writing your Senators and mentioning the types of constituents who benefit from keeping nondomesticated animals:
> 
> Veterans suffering from PTSD
> differently abled people who can't care for a larger animal due to limited mobility
> schoolteachers who instruct students
> People overcoming addiction (myself included)
> EVERYONE dealing with COVID lockdowns
> I encourage members here to lean on REP Senators as they are more likely to have reasons to reject this bill. If you have DEM Senators in your state--ask them to provide a good show of bipartisanship. Remind them that they will be heralded as a hero by people across the aisle for speaking their conscience and not just voting with their party.
> 
> Thoughts?


I agree. Everyone needs to band together and speak up as much as possible. I listened to Tom's podcast last night and really agreed with a lot of the things he said. And one thing that will resonate with everyone is money. Explain how this will hurt the economy and hit people in their pocketbooks.


----------



## spooky7

CJJon said:


> Thanks Covid. The main push is to be able to quickly control importation of zoonotic species that may harbor the next virus. This is going to pass.
> 
> The bat hobbyists should be the most worried.


Could we start a Tarantula TikTok viral trend of putting "masks" on our Exotics to gain national attention for the Lacey Act--to show just how absurd the fear of spreading COVID through a tarantula is?

We need awareness on our side and that means getting mainstream people interested to help champion the fight as well. I know it sounds silly, but its the type of thing that could go viral and spread awareness.

Many people outside of the hobby think this type of legislation is good, as they don't understand larger ecological impacts such as deforestation and extinction being very real threats to these species.

The fact is we need to beat them at their own game. They will never understand why someone could love a spider, but they may be able to empathize with the fact that they wouldn't want it happening to THEIR pets.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Introvertebrate

CJJon said:


> Thank Covid. The main push is to be able to quickly control importation of zoonotic species that may harbor the next virus. This is going to pass.
> 
> The bat hobbyists should be the most worried.


_"Reports of animals infected with SARS-CoV-2 have been documented around the world. Most of these animals became infected after contact with people with COVID-19, including owners, caretakers, or others who were in close contact. We don’t yet know all of the animals that can get infected. Animals reported infected include:_

_Companion animals, including pet cats, dogs, and ferrets._
_Animals in zoos and sanctuaries, including several types of big cats, otters, non-human primates, a binturong, a coatimundi, a fishing cat, and hyenas._
_Mink on mink farms._
_Wild white-tailed deer in several U.S. states."_
Notice anything about the animals listed?  All mammals.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## goliathusdavid

Introvertebrate said:


> _"Reports of animals infected with SARS-CoV-2 have been documented around the world. Most of these animals became infected after contact with people with COVID-19, including owners, caretakers, or others who were in close contact. We don’t yet know all of the animals that can get infected. Animals reported infected include:_
> 
> _Companion animals, including pet cats, dogs, and ferrets._
> _Animals in zoos and sanctuaries, including several types of big cats, otters, non-human primates, a binturong, a coatimundi, a fishing cat, and hyenas._
> _Mink on mink farms._
> _Wild white-tailed deer in several U.S. states."_
> Notice anything about the animals listed?  All mammals.


Yes, all mammals for COVID-19, but the rapidly growing cases of Lyme and Chagas disease are nothing to be sniffed at. Nor is the fact that some pretty common hobby species such as buffalo beetles can transmit avian flus. Are you gonna get COVID from a tarantula? Of course not. Are there still a massive number of invert species (including many in the hobby) that could become vectors? Yes. 

Btw, re white tailed deer, that is very very bad news. Multiple studies in the past few months are documenting extensive mutation and emergence of variants in white tailed deer populations, which could be devastating if transmitted back to humans. One study found nearly a third of their sample of Iowa deer to be infected with COVID. The uncontrolled populations of white tailed deer is also one of the factors increasing the presence of deer ticks and cases of lyme. Hot take: it's time for massive reintroduction of pumas. 

So, I understand the desire for harsh biosecurity policy. But unenforceable, poorly thought out biosecurity policy that stretches resources away from where they are needed most is just dumb. Trying to effectively control state borders is just dumb.  And I'm a whole lot more worried about factory farming than I am about pet bearded dragons...

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## TheQuietPoet28

What are the chances do you think that it will pass?


----------



## goliathusdavid

There is no doubt in my mind that the COMPETES Act as a whole will pass. The question is whether or not legislators can be persuaded to remove three paragraphs in the “miscellaneous” section. And as to that, it’s anybody’s guess— depends how much we pressure legislators.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## TheQuietPoet28

goliathusdavid said:


> There is no doubt in my mind that the COMPETES Act as a whole will pass. The question is whether or not legislators can be persuaded to remove three paragraphs in the “miscellaneous” section. And as to that, it’s anybody’s guess— depends how much we pressure legislators.


What way would you guess it would go?


----------



## l4nsky

TheQuietPoet28 said:


> What way would you guess it would go?


Pretty much the same language that was passed by the Democrat controlled House was proposed last year by a Republican in the Senate and the whole thing is attached to a bill to make the US more competitive against China (something both parties want and neither party wants to be seen opposing). Take from that what you will...

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## goliathusdavid

TheQuietPoet28 said:


> What way would you guess it would go?


Im a STEM student so fairly resistant to guessing. At the end of the day, it’s going to be the corporate pet industry, plus all the keepers and pet owners, vs. the animal rights groups and a few fringe bio security folks. Obviously, there are a lot more people who want this removed than who want it passed, but the outcome is going to be entirely dependent on how well the industry and hobbies can lobby. (Hehe hobby lobby my favorite one stop shop for stolen antiquities). Getting a few epidemiologists and enforcement folks to publish analysis would increase chances, but at the end of the day it's going to be about the money

@I4nsky the bill is certainly going to pass, but I really don't understand what the political benefit was for the dems to include Rubio's language? They had the votes without it, and someone must have certainly been thinking about economic blowback... Curious if you have any theories on this...


----------



## Comatose

Here is the actual language of the proposed amendment if anyone is interested in reading. Lacey is already the most regularly enforced and prosecuted wildlife law, and this would make a bad law even worse. Keep in mind that USFWS is already enforcing a broad and aggressive interpretation of Lacey that is clearly outside it’s original intent (see captive bred seladonia; they’re now enforcing this logic to captive bred species from a dozen countries).

Please don’t underestimate how bad this law would be for the hobby. I see people down playing it, or suggesting brown boxing would simply replace legal imports and vendors. That is not the case, and it’s not the way most people would operate. The vast majority of the hobby is legal imports and legal sales. If a federal law suddenly stands in the way of that, you can kiss the hobby as you know it goodbye. PLEASE voice your concerns to your US Senators and representative!

Some highlights of what this amendment would do:


ALL interstate travel would be banned, not just commerce
They can add species to the injurious provision overnight. There is no public comment and no recourse.
The substantially strengthen the enforcement language of Lacey
The import white list means that animals are presumed to be illegal to import unless the Secretary of the Interior adds them to a federal registrar
Among the criteria for imports are “minimal quantities” being imported year prior, but USFWS gets to define what that is
There IS a public commenting period when an animal is added to the “white list” - all that means is people from PETA or any other opposition group can chime in to demand they don’t allow imports

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Liquifin

When it comes to politics and government, they're typically dense. I have a bad feeling this one might actually go through, which I hope not.

But let's just say it does pass. So what do we do with all the exotic animals in the US? Do we just keep them secluded away forever and that's it? Or is it some sort of mass euthanization of all exotic pets and animals because of politics and law?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Comatose

No, just to be clear it doesn’t impact you as a keeper as long as you don’t move to another state. There are no animals that are presently legal to keep that will become illegal to keep because of this bill.

The most immediate impact will be imports. The vast majority of the invert trade is served by imported animals, and even captive bred stock is primarily imported. We just aren’t as good at is as Europe. The “white list” provision would take effect a year after passage, and you’d see stock drying up shortly thereafter.

The interstate component would depend entirely on USFWS priorities. It would be very easy to list animals, and I suspect they could even go as far as simply listing Theraphosidae, but when and if they would is a question.

As to its chances of passing would advise activism and optimism. This proposal impacts all animal keepers (except dogs and cats, which is ironic because they are leading injurious species) and the aquarium trade has solid lobbying representation. Every single call and email to legislators matter, but it’s important to know we can win, and we don’t need to beat the entire bill to do that. They just need to eliminate this provision.



goliathusdavid said:


> There is no doubt in my mind that the COMPETES Act as a whole will pass. The question is whether or not legislators can be persuaded to remove three paragraphs in the “miscellaneous” section. And as to that, it’s anybody’s guess— depends how much we pressure legislators.


The next several weeks and months will be senate committee horse trading on various appropriations and provisions in the greater bill. I agree with you and @l4nsky in that this was designed as a broader bill to be uncontroversial and to ensure “investments” are made in enough Congressional districts to get it through. The lack of GOP support in the house, however, leads me to believe substantial changes are coming before it actually passes, since they’ll need 10 of them to get it done. Even with every moderate and both Florida senators I believe they’re still a couple short.

The reality is that very few people in Congress care either way, and no one’s going to die on this hill. My hope is enough of them hear from their constituents to take it out as quietly as it was put in.

Edit: maybe that was a little optimistic - the infrastructure bill mustered 19 republicans votes in the senate despite passing the house on margins similar to this one.

Send those emails and make those phone calls!

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Introvertebrate

Comatose said:


> Here is the actual language of the proposed amendment if anyone is interested in reading. Lacey is already the most regularly enforced and prosecuted wildlife law, and this would make a bad law even worse. Keep in mind that USFWS is already enforcing a broad and aggressive interpretation of Lacey that is clearly outside it’s original intent (see captive bred seladonia; they’re now enforcing this logic to captive bred species from a dozen countries).
> 
> Please don’t underestimate how bad this law would be for the hobby. I see people down playing it, or suggesting brown boxing would simply replace legal imports and vendors. That is not the case, and it’s not the way most people would operate. The vast majority of the hobby is legal imports and legal sales. If a federal law suddenly stands in the way of that, you can kiss the hobby as you know it goodbye. PLEASE voice your concerns to your US Senators and representative!
> 
> Some highlights of what this amendment would do:
> 
> 
> ALL interstate travel would be banned, not just commerce
> ALL interstate travel would be banned, not just commerce
> They can add species to the injurious provision overnight. There is no public comment and no recourse.
> The substantially strengthen the enforcement language of Lacey
> The import white list means that animals are presumed to be illegal to import unless the Secretary of the Interior adds them to a federal registrar
> Among the criteria for imports are “minimal quantities” being imported year prior, but USFWS gets to define what that is
> There IS a public commenting period when an animal is added to the “white list” - all that means is people from PETA or any other opposition group can chime in to demand they don’t allow imports


So what are we?  Crustacea?  Maybe we'll fly under their radar.

_"............and such other species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, reptiles, brown tree snakes, or the offspring or eggs of any of the foregoing................"_

Reactions: Thinking 1


----------



## Ungoliant

Introvertebrate said:


> So what are we?  Crustacea?  Maybe we'll fly under their radar.
> 
> _"............and such other species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, reptiles, brown tree snakes, or the offspring or eggs of any of the foregoing................"_


If that is how it is written, there is a good argument that spiders and insects are not subject to this law.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## emartinm28

Comatose said:


> They can add species to the injurious provision overnight. There is no public comment and no recourse.


The way I'm reading this doesn't suggest that. As it stands, right now, notice and comment is required to add an injurious species to the act. The current text uses the same "Secretary determines" language that the amendment uses, so I don't think that this is an authorization to add species to the injurious list without notice and comment, merely an authorization to cease import of any species without notice.


----------



## Comatose

Introvertebrate said:


> So what are we?  Crustacea?  Maybe we'll fly under their radar.
> 
> _"............and such other species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, reptiles, brown tree snakes, or the offspring or eggs of any of the foregoing................"_





Ungoliant said:


> If that is how it is written, there is a good argument that spiders and insects are not subject to this law.



That’s an interesting point; it’s odd that they didn’t simply say wildlife.

I also wouldn’t hang my hat on it either. Your options in appealing a USFWS ruling boil down to two long, confusing and expensive paths that stack the cards in the regulatory agency’s favor. It’s also entirely possible that a judge simple rules that the spirit or intent of the law includes insects even if the text doesn’t.

Edit - this is the same language in the current provision; I’m under the impression that there are quite a few non-Crustacea Arthropods that are treated as injurious.



emartinm28 said:


> The way I'm reading this doesn't suggest that. As it stands, right now, notice and comment is required to add an injurious species to the act. The current text uses the same "Secretary determines" language that the amendment uses, so I don't think that this is an authorization to add species to the injurious list without notice and comment, merely an authorization to cease import of any species without notice.


The difference is that the new language grants emergency authority to list the species in question immediately. In my interpretation this means that the best case is that after no more than 3 years public comment would be necessary.

That said, I actually don’t see a public comment provision in the current text of18 USC 42 1(a). The fact that they explicitly call it out as a factor in listing a species as eligible for import leads me to believe it won’t be a factor here.


----------



## emartinm28

Comatose said:


> The difference is that the new language grants emergency authority to list the species in question immediately. In my interpretation this means that the best case is that after no more than 3 years public comment would be necessary.
> 
> That said, I actually don’t see a public comment provision in the current text of18 USC 42 1(a). The fact that they explicitly call it out as a factor in listing a species as eligible for import leads me to believe it won’t be a factor here.


It’s not listed under the act itself, but the FWS does use notice and comment to add species to the list. The way I read it, the 3 years applies to importation only and interstate transportation won’t be prohibited until the species was actually published on the list.


----------



## Comatose

emartinm28 said:


> It’s not listed under the act itself, but the FWS does use notice and comment to add species to the list. The way I read it, the 3 years applies to importation only and interstate transportation won’t be prohibited until the species was actually published on the list.


As far as I know that’s only a requirement as specified or for rule-making. Regardless, this language clearly does specify that, at the very least, adding species to a list defining them as injurious does not require any outside involvement. From there I guess I’m not sure if public comment would be required to keep them there.

This also pretty plainly applies to travel between states; the actually amend the language to clarify that as their first change (it’s the last screenshot in my attachment above, but it’s the first page; 1661 I believe).

Only the “white list” applies specifically to imports, and the default setting is that USFWS can refuse entry to any species not on said list. The process of adding them is spelled out, which includes a provision for public comment, and unless I’m misreading it, that only applies to import.


----------



## darkness975

What is the time frame for this?


----------



## Comatose

It’s currently going through the reconciliation process in the senate, where there’s a similar bill that doesn’t contain the Lacey component. Not sure on timeframe; if it does pass it would go into effect 1 year later.


----------



## darkness975

It seems that not everyone is as concerned about this as they should be.  One of my (arguably now) favorite Youtubers is an aquarium hobbyist and releases regular videos on that.  Last night a video was released basically downplaying all of this and saying it will be fine.   Between the video and the comments it's clear they have no clue the ramifications this could have. Some of the commenters even admitted they think the reptile or other hobbies (like ours) were more at risk but they just didn't really care much.

Very disheartening.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1 | Sad 1


----------



## starlight_kitsune

darkness975 said:


> It seems that not everyone is as concerned about this as they should be.  One of my (arguably now) favorite Youtubers is an aquarium hobbyist and releases regular videos on that.  Last night a video was released basically downplaying all of this and saying it will be fine.   Between the video and the comments it's clear they have no clue the ramifications this could have. Some of the commenters even admitted they think the reptile or other hobbies (like ours) were more at risk but they just didn't really care much.
> 
> Very disheartening.


The turtle/tortoise groups I'm on aren't overly concerned either. The forums are mildly so but other turtle/tortoise groups not so much. Surprisingly besides my tarantula pages, the people most concerned about it are my guinea pig groups. It seems to be a really mixed bag of who cares out of the people who could be impacted.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## emartinm28

darkness975 said:


> It seems that not everyone is as concerned about this as they should be.  One of my (arguably now) favorite Youtubers is an aquarium hobbyist and releases regular videos on that.  Last night a video was released basically downplaying all of this and saying it will be fine.   Between the video and the comments it's clear they have no clue the ramifications this could have. Some of the commenters even admitted they think the reptile or other hobbies (like ours) were more at risk but they just didn't really care much.
> 
> Very disheartening.


I think a lot of hobbyists don’t realize the extent to which we rely on importation. Even for captive bred animals

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## spideyspinneret78

emartinm28 said:


> I think a lot of hobbyists don’t realize the extent to which we rely on importation. Even for captive bred animals


That worries me, and also possibly being criminalized for traveling across state lines with my animals. Under this act it could be a felony. Totally unenforceable, ridiculous, and unfair. And we should be encouraging captive breeding, not making it more difficult. There DOES need to be increased regulation for wildlife trafficking, I'm not arguing there. It's that the language in this act is too black and white, too broad, and criminalizes large numbers of people who want to keep their animals when they move and seek out veterinary care for them.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## darkness975

spideyspinneret78 said:


> That worries me, and also possibly being criminalized for traveling across state lines with my animals. Under this act it could be a felony. Totally unenforceable, ridiculous, and unfair. And we should be encouraging captive breeding, not making it more difficult.


That makes too much sense.


----------



## goliathusdavid

darkness975 said:


> It seems that not everyone is as concerned about this as they should be.  One of my (arguably now) favorite Youtubers is an aquarium hobbyist and releases regular videos on that.  Last night a video was released basically downplaying all of this and saying it will be fine.   Between the video and the comments it's clear they have no clue the ramifications this could have. Some of the commenters even admitted they think the reptile or other hobbies (like ours) were more at risk but they just didn't really care much.
> 
> Very disheartening.


Completely agreed. The hobby isn't forever changed until it actually passes, but if we don't treat it like what it is (ludicrous potential regulation with potentially devastating affect) than it is almost sure to pass. It is only stoppable if there is actual mobilization...

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## Liquifin

There are always consequences to things in life and you either deal with those consequences now or later. I'm guessing many people are choosing later based on what I'm seeing.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## spideyspinneret78

Liquifin said:


> There are always consequences to things in life and you either deal with those consequences now or later. I'm guessing many people are choosing later based on what I'm seeing.


Without getting into politics I just want to say that if people get too complacent our freedoms will continue to be taken away. Not just with this example, but across the board. I really, truly hope that this won't pass.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1 | Love 1


----------



## goliathusdavid

Edan bandoot said:


> Why did this get stickied?


Likely because it is potential legislation with huge effect on the US hobby— and even some overflow effect into the Canadian and larger world hobby given  proposed import/export restrictions. Plus its an opportunity to discuss how to best regulate the wildlife trade. As you can see, people have a lot of different opinions and things to say on ethics, bio security, role of government, right to own exotics, etc. It’s an important conversation both for the US and the world at large in the context of COVID and the ever growing illegal wildlife trade.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 3


----------



## darkness975

Clint Laidlaw discussed this in the first 15 minutes or so of this:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## darkness975

Thoughts?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Introvertebrate

darkness975 said:


> Thoughts?


My thought is, why did it take seven minutes to explain something that could have been said in one?


----------



## darkness975

Introvertebrate said:


> My thought is, why did it take seven minutes to explain something that could have been said in one?


Agreed and it's really unfortunate that people like that are so naive.

 It's pretty offensive that they act like we're all crazy for how we feel.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## Introvertebrate

If this thing goes through, I'll meet you guys all on the dark web.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## spideyspinneret78

darkness975 said:


> Agreed and it's really unfortunate that people like that are so naive.
> 
> It's pretty offensive that they act like we're all crazy for how we feel.


I also think that people are have been bombarded with so much tragedy and frightening news throughout the past 2 years that they're sort of growing numb. It's easy to distance yourself and think that something just won't affect you, even if it very well could. I think that for some folks it's a coping mechanism almost.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## darkness975

spideyspinneret78 said:


> I also think that people are have been bombarded with so much tragedy and frightening news throughout the past 2 years that they're sort of growing numb. It's easy to distance yourself and think that something just won't affect you, even if it very well could. I think that for some folks it's a coping mechanism almost.


Yeah.

He's making some valid justifications in his own mind and his followers feel the same but for those of us that look at the bigger picture its devastating


----------



## spideyspinneret78

darkness975 said:


> Yeah.
> 
> He's making some valid justifications in his own mind and his followers feel the same but for those of us that look at the bigger picture its devastating


Unfortunately I agree. We've got to keep spreading the word and keep pushing back. We can't let these people discourage us, even though it's depressing to see.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## darkness975

spideyspinneret78 said:


> Unfortunately I agree. We've got to keep spreading the word and keep pushing back. We can't let these people discourage us, even though it's depressing to see.


Clint Laidlaw's video on this is very informative.   I believe a PHD in biology professor with an exotics collection over some random in his basement any day.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## coldbl00ded

I love spiders, but I have only had one tarantula. If this passes its all over for me.


----------



## Comatose

emartinm28 said:


> I think a lot of hobbyists don’t realize the extent to which we rely on importation. Even for captive bred animals


The vast majority of captive bred spiders in the US are European. People simply assume that breeders here are able to supply the hobby, but it simply isn’t the case. We are decades behind Europe in this area, and there’s no chance we catch up to compensate if this passes. I wish people understood this.




darkness975 said:


> Agreed and it's really unfortunate that people like that are so naive.
> 
> It's pretty offensive that they act like we're all crazy for how we feel.


It’s gaslighting pure and simple. Don’t forget that this isn’t how you feel - it’s how you’re reacting to objective faxt



Introvertebrate said:


> If this thing goes through, I'll meet you guys all on the dark web.


Why? They don’t do anything about brown boxers today, why would they do anything about them after this passes? Today I spend tens of thousands trying to follow the rules so a bureaucrat can tell me they made up new ones after the plane carrying my import took off. If this passes that bureaucrat is going to keep harassing people who try to follow the new rules and that brown boxer’s going to ignore the new rules just as easily as they did the old ones.

if you don’t believe me, remember that every month-native millipede and isopod in the hobby today is listed as injurious TODAY. You don’t need Tor to buy them, you barely even need a search engine. Make no mistake that interstate enforcement will make things worse, and supplies will dwindle, but the folks who are inclined to break the law and don’t care about animal or environmental welfare will be least likely to even notice.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1 | Thinking 1


----------



## Liquifin

Comatose said:


> The vast majority of captive bred spiders in the US are European. People simply assume that breeders here are able to supply the hobby, but it simply isn’t the case. We are decades behind Europe in this area, and there’s no chance we catch up to compensate if this passes. I wish people understood this.


That is the truth, but people in the US are unaware since literally no one discusses the Market side of the tarantula business in the US. It's just sad.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Comatose

darkness975 said:


> Thoughts?


Makes my blood boil. He’s spectacularly ignorant and his interpretation of the section he’s discussing is pure invention on his part. He doesn’t even address the changes to the injurious species provision, and he’s reading the “white list” provision the way a small child would interpret bad behavior on the part of a parent.

Literally not a single thing he said was true.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Jmadson13

The captive bred market is already way tighter than I remember 16 years ago when I got out of the hobby , hell you can't find Grammostola rosea, phormictopus cancerides or other widely available species anymore. I'd imagine we'll start really seeing an effect in the next 6 months or so and I'd be really interested I. Picking a regular importers brain about the long term .


----------



## goliathusdavid

Again, _this has not yet passed the Senate. _There are three things really getting in the way of effective advocacy right now 1) people denying there is any threat to the hobby 2) people accepting the amendments as something that have already happened and 3) people conflating the Lacey Act Amendments with the entire America COMPETES Act (which will pass in large part because it has a lot fo good stuff). 

I'm not saying that there is not a real likelihood this will become law. But what I am saying is that with an organized campaign of advocacy that comes at this with biosecurity and anti-trafficking in mind IN ADDITION to the rights of pet owners, it can potentially be prevented from becoming law. 

If this does pass, it would be a year before it took effect. And the long term implications are pretty clear: either the vast majority of the pet trade will continue to operate, just now illegally and despite substantial economic damage, or it will slowly begin to collapse. And given the tendencies of Americans with exotics I can almost guarantee it will be the former. The demand will not be gone, so some form of illegal supply will continue. Will it be anything like the hobby currently? No. It won't. 

So we can't downplay this but we also can't act like it's already happened. So speak up, pressure legislators, organize a lobbying campaign, propose new biosecurity policy WHATEVER, but if you want your voice heard then you have to do something. And maybe take a step back and reflect on how we should _effectively _regulate the hobby and larger exotic pet trade. That's what I am doing. Because while these amendments should most certainly be removed, you cannot deny that the hobby and larger wildlife trade needs better regulation.

Reactions: Like 4 | Award 1


----------



## darkness975

If this passes we are doomed.


----------



## Smotzer

Just to play devils advocate~What makes us think tarantula’s would be a high priority target for listing anyway? There are far more highly ecologically devastating arthropods such as the flourishing isopod market, that would make far more sense to target. Arachnids have rarely been targets of these laws in the first place. Where are there any references to arachnids and or specifically tarantulas? Maybe I missed something.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## emartinm28

Smotzer said:


> Just to play devils advocate~What makes us think tarantula’s would be a high priority target for listing anyway? There are far more highly ecologically devastating arthropods such as the flourishing isopod market, that would make far more sense to target. Arachnids have rarely been targets of these laws in the first place. Where are there any references to arachnids and or specifically tarantulas? Maybe I missed something.


I think right now it’s less a concern of them being listed as injurious by the FWS, which I still believe is unlikely, but because any animal not imported in minimal quantities the year preceding the act will be presumed to be prohibited from importation of any kind unless the FWS specifically gives it the ok


----------



## joossa

Smotzer said:


> Just to play devils advocate~What makes us think tarantula’s would be a high priority target for listing anyway? There are far more highly ecologically devastating arthropods such as the flourishing isopod market, that would make far more sense to target. Arachnids have rarely been targets of these laws in the first place. Where are there any references to arachnids and or specifically tarantulas? Maybe I missed something.


Correct me, someone, if I am wrong... but isn't it set up in the opposite way? Where it's not a case of animals or species being targeted for restrictions and bans, but rather, the restrictions are blanket and animals will have to be white listed. So it's less a question of why would T's be targeted and more of is there enough there to white list them.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## emartinm28

joossa said:


> Correct me, someone, if I am wrong... but isn't it set up in the opposite way? Where it's not a case of animals or species being targeted for restrictions and bans, but rather, the restrictions are blanket and animals will have to be white listed. So it's less a question of why would T's be targeted and more of is there enough there to white list them.


The white list will be for importation. 
to ban them from being transported across state lines, they’ll need to specifically go after them. To import them, each species will need specific permission if it doesn’t satisfy that minimal quantities requirement.

Reactions: Like 1 | Helpful 1


----------



## Smotzer

joossa said:


> Correct me, someone, if I am wrong... but isn't it set up in the opposite way? Where it's not a case of animals or species being targeted for restrictions and bans, but rather, the restrictions are blanket and animals will have to be white listed. So it's less a question of why would T's be targeted and more of is there enough there to white list them.


I’ve don’t know of much blankets by USDA USFWS, other than maybe Phasmatodea but that’s for a very good reason, it’s usually targeted species specifically injurious to plants or ecosystems.


----------



## Comatose

Smotzer said:


> Just to play devils advocate~What makes us think tarantula’s would be a high priority target for listing anyway? There are far more highly ecologically devastating arthropods such as the flourishing isopod market, that would make far more sense to target. Arachnids have rarely been targets of these laws in the first place. Where are there any references to arachnids and or specifically tarantulas? Maybe I missed something.


I hate “trust me” posts, but trust me: USFWS uniquely hates the tarantula/invert hobby. If you’re aware of the situation that developed with seladonia a few years ago, know that not only has it not gone away, it’s gotten much broader and much worse. It may be a similar situation with some reptiles, but inverts are clearly the focus, and it’s a proactive effort on their part.

I’m just a person on the internet so feel free to disregard if you like; this has little bearing on the effort to keep this from passing anyway. I do hope more of this comes to light in the coming weeks or months, though.




emartinm28 said:


> The white list will be for importation.
> to ban them from being transported across state lines, they’ll need to specifically go after them. To import them, each species will need specific permission if it doesn’t satisfy that minimal quantities requirement.


I wouldn’t view the “minimal quantities” portion as an automatic qualifier for entry. They still need to define that term, make a determination as to what qualifies, and then add them. Right now if you import something  and they don’t feel like releasing it, they can hold it indefinitely.

Reactions: Like 1 | Disagree 1


----------



## spooky7

Smotzer said:


> Just to play devils advocate~What makes us think tarantula’s would be a high priority target for listing anyway? There are far more highly ecologically devastating arthropods such as the flourishing isopod market, that would make far more sense to target. Arachnids have rarely been targets of these laws in the first place. Where are there any references to arachnids and or specifically tarantulas? Maybe I missed something.


I watched a Livestream on Youtube with Phil Goss President of USARK last week speaking about his interpretation of the bill. He was asked point-blank if tarantulas and inverts would fall under the new amendments. He said that "they would probably fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA and there is a chance they would not be impacted by the bill." 

This gave me a lot of hope. I imagine others on here can weigh in on his comments and speculate whether or not they are accurate. Just sharing what I heard.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1 | Optimistic 1


----------



## Comatose

spooky7 said:


> I watched a Livestream on Youtube with Phil Goss President of USARK last week speaking about his interpretation of the bill. He was asked point-blank if tarantulas and inverts would fall under the new amendments. He said that "they would probably fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA and there is a chance they would not be impacted by the bill."
> 
> This gave me a lot of hope. I imagine others on here can weigh in on his comments and speculate whether or not they are accurate. Just sharing what I heard.



Did he really say that? If so I can only think he misspoke, because that makes no sense. USDA-APHIS and USFWS essentially share jurisdiction as it applies to injurious or invasive species and routinely work together. If you attempt to import an animal banned by USDA, chances are they’ll be seized by USFWS (particularly since you’d be violating Lacey) and not APHIS.

There’s also no real issue of jurisdiction here; the amendment as written is pretty clear. The only exception I can think of is that arthropods other than crustaceans seem to be excluded from the language of the current and new Lacey injurious provisions. Regardless that doesn’t seem to apply to the import component.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Smotzer

spooky7 said:


> I watched a Livestream on Youtube with Phil Goss President of USARK last week speaking about his interpretation of the bill. He was asked point-blank if tarantulas and inverts would fall under the new amendments. He said that "they would probably fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA and there is a chance they would not be impacted by the bill."
> 
> This gave me a lot of hope. I imagine others on here can weigh in on his comments and speculate whether or not they are accurate. Just sharing what I heard.


I lean on the side with this knowing how the plant protection acts have gone. Which is the USDA abd I don’t see the us government getting in there, abd I see no clear path for the USDA to get involved with tarantulas who are not “injurious”. This is my interpretation of the bill set forth in a historical scope of the USDA


----------



## Comatose

Smotzer said:


> I lean on the side with this knowing how the plant protection acts have gone. Which is the USDA abd I don’t see the us government getting in there, abd I see no clear path for the USDA to get involved with tarantulas who are not “injurious”. This is my interpretation of the bill set forth in a historical scope of the USDA


Is that the basis by which they’ve prevented the importation of millipedes and isopods?


----------



## Smotzer

Comatose said:


> Is that the basis by which they’ve prevented the importation of millipedes and isopods?


Yes which are soil and plant pests with high ability to destroy ecosystems and spread, as historically they have done numerous times.  . Which Tarantulas are not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Comatose

That’s interesting. I guess my questions would be does the current/proposed language actually exclude non-crustacea arthropods, and is the import provision bound by the same limitation.

If so I guess that is reassuring, but it doesn’t change my view of the proposal. It also wouldn’t stop USFWS from enforcing it how ever they like and letting people who’ve had their animals seized litigate the issue for years.


----------



## darkness975

Smotzer said:


> Yes which are soil and plant pests with high ability to destroy ecosystems and spread, as historically they have done numerous times.  . Which Tarantulas are not.


What about scorpions, centipedes, amblypygi, Araneomorphae, etc?


----------



## Arthroverts

darkness975 said:


> What about scorpions, centipedes, amblypygi, Araneomorphae, etc?


None of those are listed as "injurious". Currently it is pretty much only if it eats plant products (including rotten/decomposed material) or plant pollinators is it considered injurious, though obviously that includes a lot (arguably the majority of) of species that pose little to no threat to agriculture or native ecosystems.

Thanks,

Arthroverts

Reactions: Like 1 | Thanks 1


----------



## joossa

Are any of you prepping for the worst (i.e. purchased or planning on purchasing additional tarantulas you weren't necessarily planning on getting before this came into the spotlight)?


----------



## Comatose

joossa said:


> Are any of you prepping for the worst (i.e. purchased or planning on purchasing additional tarantulas you weren't necessarily planning on getting before this came into the spotlight)?


I don’t think panic buying is the right response. I can certainly see that happening if this passes, and in the year before it takes effect I’m sure plenty of folks would do that, but anyone telling you to buy now before it’s too late or whatever is just trying to take advantage of a bad situation.

My suggestion continues to be to continue politely but firmly voicing your opposition to this amendment to your senators and representative. If one of the former is up for re election this year, make sure you focus on them. Speak to them in their language and convey your point of view in a coherent and rational manner. Then tell everyone else you know to do so too.

TL;DR don’t prep for the worst, fight for the best

Reactions: Agree 5


----------



## darkness975

joossa said:


> Are any of you prepping for the worst (i.e. purchased or planning on purchasing additional tarantulas you weren't necessarily planning on getting before this came into the spotlight)?


Me.

But I agree it's best to take action and write now.  We need to stop this.  I'm literally losing sleep over it.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## MrsHaas

Can SOMEONE teach me how to write to the senator (or whomever) asking them to throw out the Lacey Act 

I know zero about politics?  Plz help me!!


----------



## darkness975

MrsHaas said:


> Can SOMEONE teach me how to write to the senator (or whomever) asking them to throw out the Lacey Act
> 
> I know zero about politics?  Plz help me!!


In the first post at the very bottom the OP included a link with further details.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## coldbl00ded

When does this crap go to the senate?


----------



## Nebs Tarantulas

coldbl00ded said:


> When does this crap go to the senate?


It’s been in the senate I believe


----------



## Comatose

It’s in committee in the senate now. They have to reconcile it with a similar but but smaller bill which does not contain the Lacey component. It will be a little bit before it actually moves to a vote.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## darkness975

I am  hoping that this does not come to pass.


----------



## Matt Man

and folks, since we really don't have an organization (yet) you may want to consider joining USArk. They are out there advocating for all of us





						ALERT: America COMPETES Act of 2022 Lacey Act Amendments | USARK - United States Association of Reptile Keepers
					






					usark.org
				






MrsHaas said:


> Can SOMEONE teach me how to write to the senator (or whomever) asking them to throw out the Lacey Act
> 
> I know zero about politics?  Plz help me!!


this will help folks. Mods, if this is an issue, you can pull it. You can scan the QR.


			https://usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2022-Lacey-SD.pdf

Reactions: Agree 1 | Helpful 1


----------



## Introvertebrate

darkness975 said:


> I am sick and tired of being laughed at. Almost everyone seems to think this is a joke and I am some kind of paranoid crazy person.
> To those of you that understand the gravity of this, I stand with you in hoping that this does not come to pass.


No not paranoid, but I am starting to think your username is appropriate.  Why not wait and see how this all plays out?  I'm not reading much doom and gloom on the other animal message boards I frequent.


----------



## l4nsky

Introvertebrate said:


> No not paranoid, but I am starting to think your username is appropriate.  Why not wait and see how this all plays out?  I'm not reading much doom and gloom on the other animal message boards I frequent.


IMHO, the ones that aren't taking this seriously (or "freaking out") are the ones who:

Don't think this will pass and are being complacent.
Think this will pass, but trust that lawmakers and FWS will get the "whitelist" correct and their favorite animals will be on it.
Think this will pass, but think it will have minimal effect due to the perceived popularity of the chosen exotics they work with.
Don't fully understand the impact this will have on the hobby and choose to remain ignorant.
Keep exotics for the "cool factor" and clout in the first place and think they'll be even "cooler" now that they have "illegal exotics".
Romanticize breaking the law and have never truly had an illegal hobby or habit that hangs over their head causing stress just waiting for the hammer to fall.
Look, here's the truth. If this passes, the tarantula hobby will be all but dead in a decade or less. I'm not being overdramatic, I'm being a realist. There will be NO importation of new species or genetics. There will be NO legal interstate trade. There will be fewer breeders as there will be considerably less legal financial incentive and legally offloading slings will become immensly difficult without interstate customers. The majority of species will die off in US collections because of this and because of the short lifespans of MM, the timing restrictions with a female's potential molt cycle, and some female's propensity to eat MM's.

I *CAN'T* stress this enough. If you want to see these species continue to exist atleast in captivity and be available for future generations to enjoy, observe, and study then contact your Senators!

Reactions: Like 5 | Agree 4


----------



## Matt Man

l4nsky said:


> IMHO, the ones that aren't taking this seriously (or "freaking out") are the ones who:
> 
> Don't think this will pass and are being complacent.
> Think this will pass, but trust that lawmakers and FWS will get the "whitelist" correct and their favorite animals will be on it.
> Think this will pass, but think it will have minimal effect due to the perceived popularity of the chosen exotics they work with.
> Don't fully understand the impact this will have on the hobby and choose to remain ignorant.
> Keep exotics for the "cool factor" and clout in the first place and think they'll be even "cooler" now that they have "illegal exotics".
> Romanticize breaking the law and have never truly had an illegal hobby or habit that hangs over their head causing stress just waiting for the hammer to fall.
> Look, here's the truth. If this passes, the tarantula hobby will be all but dead in a decade or less. I'm not being overdramatic, I'm being a realist. There will be NO importation of new species or genetics. There will be NO legal interstate trade. There will be fewer breeders as there will be considerably less legal financial incentive and legally offloading slings will become immensly difficult without interstate customers. The majority of species will die off in US collections because of this and because of the short lifespans of MM, the timing restrictions with a female's potential molt cycle, and some female's propensity to eat MM's.


Kind of like how Ukraine didn't take our intel that the Russians would attack seriously either...


----------



## goliathusdavid

Wanted to share the response of one of my senator's offices to my writing. Obviously it's automated politician speech, however it may be helpful to those who are confused about the process ahead. It's certainly more succinct than a lot of my analyses have been. The Senate passed in 2021 its own version of COMPETES (USICA), which, though including a lot of wildlife enforcement stuff (almost entirely positive), did NOT include any Lacey amendments. The next step the Senate faces is the merging of these two bills, a process which includes what is likely to be an extensive conference period.
This conference period is when the amendments, if they are to be removed, must be removed. So spam your representatives and senators from now till the end of it. Force everyone around you to do the same. It is not at all clear what will happen, but it is still fully possible to stop these amendments from being included in the final law. So do your part. And maybe occasionally your senator's office will send a nice automated response.


Now it's time to spam some more and get my friends to do the same...

Reactions: Like 3 | Agree 1 | Helpful 2 | Optimistic 1 | Award 1 | Winner 1


----------



## YungRasputin

joossa said:


> Are any of you prepping for the worst (i.e. purchased or planning on purchasing additional tarantulas you weren't necessarily planning on getting before this came into the spotlight)?


absolutely stocking up on bucket list spiders, scorpions and snakes - primary reason why i went ahead and acquired my red tail boa baby

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## starlight_kitsune

joossa said:


> Are any of you prepping for the worst (i.e. purchased or planning on purchasing additional tarantulas you weren't necessarily planning on getting before this came into the spotlight)?


I said I wasn't going to buy anymore until I knew whether the act was going to pass or not, but I came across the chance to get some of my wishlist Ts for a decent price. They were all on my list to get eventually, but I decided to go ahead and just grab the five of them at once just in case. I only know one retailer local to my state and he's moving to Texas. I'm sure there's someone else as well but I haven't found any yet.


----------



## darkness975

starlight_kitsune said:


> I said I wasn't going to buy anymore until I knew whether the act was going to pass or not, but I came across the chance to get some of my wishlist Ts for a decent price. They were all on my list to get eventually, but I decided to go ahead and just grab the five of them at once just in case. I only know one retailer local to my state and he's moving to Texas. I'm sure there's someone else as well but I haven't found any yet.


I don't have the room or I would.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## starlight_kitsune

darkness975 said:


> I don't have the room or I would.


I am definitely at capacity atm. I mean technically I _could_ fit more slings in vials or deli cups, but if I'm keeping in mind enclosure sizing as they grow and need rehoused, then there's just no way I could fit more than one more spider, and even that would be pushing it so I'll likely wait until we either a. move or b. one of my males passes before acquiring anymore.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Matt Man

YungRasputin said:


> absolutely stocking up on bucket list spiders, scorpions and snakes - primary reason why i went ahead and acquired my red tail boa baby


I added a couple captive bread Sri lankan pokies before the lockdown. The majority of my collection is adults and subadults so 26 takes up considerable space

Reactions: Thanks 1


----------



## l4nsky

Matt Man said:


> I added a couple captive bread Sri lankan pokies before the lockdown. The majority of my collection is adults and subadults so 26 takes up considerable space


You need racks on racks on racks lol. I have a 42"x18"x72" that fits fifteen 5g enclosures. Get two of those and you're whole collection could possibly be kept in a 3' x 3.5' area of floor space   .

Reactions: Like 1 | Thanks 1


----------



## Matt Man

l4nsky said:


> You need racks on racks on racks lol. I have a 42"x18"x72" that fits fifteen 5g enclosures. Get two of those and you're whole collection could possibly be kept in a 3' x 3.5' area of floor space   .


I have racks. My house was built in 1923 and I don't think we have room for racks that size. For sure not 2.  And many of my enclosures are bigger than 5G. I keep my bigger species in 10G
But appreciate the help

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## YungRasputin

l4nsky said:


> You need racks on racks on racks lol. I have a 42"x18"x72" that fits fifteen 5g enclosures. Get two of those and you're whole collection could possibly be kept in a 3' x 3.5' area of floor space   .


different set up but i’ve managed to condense a whole room of specimens down to 3 shelves fitting nothing but Exo Terras - never underestimate a good shelf haha

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Matt Man

YungRasputin said:


> different set up but i’ve managed to condense a whole room of specimens down to 3 shelves fitting nothing but Exo Terras - never underestimate a good shelf haha


Most of my arboreal species are in ExoTerras. The majority in 12x12 x 18s

Reactions: Thanks 1


----------



## YungRasputin

Matt Man said:


> Most of my arboreal species are in ExoTerras. The majority in 12x12 x 18s


same, 12x12x12s + 12x12x18s


----------



## RezonantVoid

Suddenly, Australia's laws regarding invertebrates look appealing

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## ResinBomb

I wrote letters to my senators in Michigan

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## l4nsky

> UPDATE 3/17/22: Discussions are escalating regarding the reconciliation of S1260 and HR4521. The goal to strengthen the economy of the U.S. is a priority so the formal conference to reconcile the bills may begin in late March or early April. Please keep contacting your legislators to keep the Lacey Act amendments from being included in the final bill!





> TAKE ACTION
> 
> The bill passed the House on 2/4. Attention must move to the Senate as the House and Senate versions will merge. Remember to be civil and professional at all times. Please personalize/edit your letters, if possible. We have a sample letter and Talking Points below. You can also copy/paste some of our Talking Points (below letter) instead of the sample letter or when sending follow-up emails.
> 
> NOTE: At this time, we need more phone calls, mailed letters, and faxes! These carry more weight than emails.
> 
> 1. Call your legislators;
> 2. Mail and fax letters to your legislators;
> 3. Email your legislators;
> 4. SHARE this and encourage others to complete the Alert!!!


https://usark.org/2022lacey/



We're coming down to the wire here folks. I sent my emails awhile back, but USARK is requesting a more personal and archaic means of communication. So, here are my letters, bad hand writing, cute otter stamps, and all. Where are your letters? Show them off.

I would also like to add for those individuals who are sitting on the sidelines believing this won't effect you or the animals you currently or have plans to keep, don't be naive. If these amendments to the Lacey Act become law, it absolutely will. Prior to getting into inverts, I kept aquariums for two decades. My preferences ran towards keeping predatory fish and at the time I was active on forums like this geared towards those hobbies (even helped moderate on one forum). I remember in July of 2002 when the proposal to add all Channa and Parachanna species (commonly referred to as snakeheads) to the injurious list was first proposed. I remember the lackadaisical response by the community. I remember the belief that it'll never be reinforced. I remember the panic buying before October of 2002 when the ruling went into effect. I remember the individuals who attempted to openly sell and ship CB Channa gachua online to different states after October 2002. I remember the legal troubles that forum was exposed to because they allowed it. I remember never hearing from those sellers again. I've seen it all happen once, I'll be damned if I see it happen a second time.

Reactions: Like 3 | Sad 1 | Award 2


----------



## darkness975

l4nsky said:


> https://usark.org/2022lacey/
> 
> View attachment 413882
> 
> We're coming down to the wire here folks. I sent my emails awhile back, but USARK is requesting a more personal and archaic means of communication. So, here are my letters, bad hand writing, cute otter stamps, and all. Where are your letters? Show them off.
> 
> I would also like to add for those individuals who are sitting on the sidelines believing this won't effect you or the animals you currently or have plans to keep, don't be naive. If these amendments to the Lacey Act become law, it absolutely will. Prior to getting into inverts, I kept aquariums for two decades. My preferences ran towards keeping predatory fish and at the time I was active on forums like this geared towards those hobbies (even helped moderate on one forum). I remember in July of 2002 when the proposal to add all Channa and Parachanna species (commonly referred to as snakeheads) to the injurious list was first proposed. I remember the lackadaisical response by the community. I remember the belief that it'll never be reinforced. I remember the panic buying before October of 2002 when the ruling went into effect. I remember the individuals who attempted to openly sell and ship CB Channa gachua online to different states after October 2002. I remember the legal troubles that forum was exposed to because they allowed it. I remember never hearing from those sellers again. I've seen it all happen once, I'll be damned if I see it happen a second time.


Sadly we have channels claiming we're all crazy and it won't affect us at all.  I really do hope this does not come to pass. It will be an irreversible nail in the coffin.
Tarantula Collective did an update video.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## YungRasputin

darkness975 said:


> Sadly we have channels claiming we're all crazy and it won't affect us at all.  I really do hope this does not come to pass. It will be an irreversible nail in the coffin.
> Tarantula Collective did an update video.


the people being contrary and intentionally downplaying this are a problem - the only way we can truly fight this thing is to be united and active - hopefully the senate will take up their version of the bill that leaves the ban out

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 3


----------



## Zerpa27

I tried both CA senators and got a very polite go away from both of them

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## LucN

Zerpa27 said:


> I tried both CA senators and got a very polite go away from both of them


Really ? I would have thought they'd stand up for those that vote for them. The sad reality is that a great majority of people just don't get the exotic pet trade. To them, it's possibly silly to keep a lizard or even a big hairy spider in an aquarium. We'll have to wait and see, I'm afraid. If it does pass, virtually every commercial channel of the exotic pet hobby will be greatly affected, from breeders to pet shops to us casual keepers. The best we can do is to reach out to as many politicians who actually understand our hobby. I'm sure there must some out there that have a thing for exotic animals.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Zerpa27

I think what it comes to is all sides know the America Competes Act is a vote getter and any "pork" added to it will be overlooked.


----------



## spideyspinneret78

Well, thus far the version the Senate is proposing doesn't include the Lacey Act amendments. We're just going to need to hope that someone doesn't sneak them into the reconciled bill. Which means keep speaking up about it, keep spreading the word, and keep discussing it. Also, the amendments they're proposing are too broad and heavy handed of an approach (and to even be enforceable for that matter), but I do think that some changes need to be made to better address wildlife trafficking. I honestly don't know what changes could be made that would be fair and actually address the issue. It's very complicated. An all encompassing ban isn't the answer, though.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## cold blood

spideyspinneret78 said:


> I do think that some changes need to be made to better address wildlife trafficking.


I think most of us feel that way...but there is no logical way to think that restricting captive breeding and sales could ever help, in fact, make it harder for captive breeding and shipping them and you do the opposite, as this restriction would only serve to make smuggling more profitable.

Glad to hear its currently out of the bill, hope it stays that way..

But I will also say, nothing is irreversible.

Reactions: Agree 4


----------



## Arachnophobphile

spideyspinneret78 said:


> Well, thus far the version the Senate is proposing doesn't include the Lacey Act amendments. We're just going to need to hope that someone doesn't sneak them into the reconciled bill. Which means keep speaking up about it, keep spreading the word, and keep discussing it. Also, the amendments they're proposing are too broad and heavy handed of an approach (and to even be enforceable for that matter), but I do think that some changes need to be made to better address wildlife trafficking. I honestly don't know what changes could be made that would be fair and actually address the issue. It's very complicated. An all encompassing ban isn't the answer, though.


Good to hear they are not in the bill, for now.

As far as trafficking wildlife it's not the U.S.'s job to police the world and never should be.

Enforce what's coming in yes, but the countries where they are coming from need to better address their own issues not us.

Some countries have already passed stronger laws to deal with smuggling 

However it's impossible to stop it completely. The manpower and government funds required are just not there.

I don't have all the answers to these issues. I don't think anyone does.

If the world dropped wanting wildlife then that would make it less interesting for the smugglers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## AphonopelmaTX

LucN said:


> Really ? I would have thought they'd stand up for those that vote for them. The sad reality is that a great majority of people just don't get the exotic pet trade. To them, it's possibly silly to keep a lizard or even a big hairy spider in an aquarium. We'll have to wait and see, I'm afraid. If it does pass, virtually every commercial channel of the exotic pet hobby will be greatly affected, from breeders to pet shops to us casual keepers. The best we can do is to reach out to as many politicians who actually understand our hobby. I'm sure there must some out there that have a thing for exotic animals.


While there are those who won't understand the exotic pet industry, and those who specifically like possessing creepy crawlies, I'm not confident that the exotic pet industry understands environmental conservation.  Out of the hundreds, or maybe thousands, of exotic species imported into the U.S. from around the world, there just isn't enough data on many of them to assess their potential for upsetting the ecological balance in any given region if pet owners turn them loose into the environment, something that has happened a countless number of times.  When it comes to exotic wildlife, it is better to take the side of caution and say that all exotic wildlife should not be allowed into U.S. until it has been determined that such wildlife would not cause harm to the environment and industry.  A minority group of people who enjoy having exotic wildlife in their possession as a pet is not justification for risking the stability and health of native ecosystems by taking an "everything is fine until it's not" approach to wildlife importation.  In other words, "that's not fair because I want it" is not a good way to argue against stricter wildlife import/ export laws.

The Lacey Act amendments on their own don't seem all that bad.  My problem with them is that they are terribly vague.  I don't understand how anyone can be for or against the amendments as they are written since the impact of the laws can not be assessed as-is.  Even the answers to the majority of the questions of an FAQ on the USARK web page on these amendments say "I don't know."  If there is any reason to reject the amendments, it would be based on ambiguous language and the lack of understanding of what the outcome of the new laws would be.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 1 | Award 1


----------



## LucN

AphonopelmaTX said:


> While there are those who won't understand the exotic pet industry, and those who specifically like possessing creepy crawlies, I'm not confident that the exotic pet industry understands environmental conservation.  Out of the hundreds, or maybe thousands, of exotic species imported into the U.S. from around the world, there just isn't enough data on many of them to assess their potential for upsetting the ecological balance in any given region if pet owners turn them loose into the environment, something that has happened a countless number of times.  When it comes to exotic wildlife, it is better to take the side of caution and say that all exotic wildlife should not be allowed into U.S. until it has been determined that such wildlife would not cause harm to the environment and industry.  A minority group of people who enjoy having exotic wildlife in their possession as a pet is not justification for risking the stability and health of native ecosystems by taking an "everything is fine until it's not" approach to wildlife importation.  In other words, "that's not fair because I want it" is not a good way to argue against stricter wildlife import/ export laws.
> 
> The Lacey Act amendments on their own don't seem all that bad.  My problem with them is that they are terribly vague.  I don't understand how anyone can be for or against the amendments as they are written since the impact of the laws can not be assessed as-is.  Even the answers to the majority of the questions of an FAQ on the USARK web page on these amendments say "I don't know."  If there is any reason to reject the amendments, it would be based on ambiguous language and the lack of understanding of what the outcome of the new laws would be.


Yes, there has been careless individuals that released their pets into the wild and it has caused massive ecological problems. Look no further than the Burmese pythons established in the Everglades. People bought babies because they looked cute, but when they gained some serious size, many realized they were way over their heads and released the animal into the wild instead. That probably explains that small population of T. vagans in Florida as well. But I doubt they pose much of a threat to the native wildlife as opposed to the pythons. Because of a many irresponsible keepers, we now have bans on various species. It sucks, but when we see the ecological damage being done, how can we blame the government for taking such drastic action ? 

Anyone willing to buy an exotic pet should be aware that many are long-term commitments. Sadly, not everyone's cut out to stick till the end :/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Arachnophobphile

I agree 100% with @AphonopelmaTX and @LucN 

The sad thing is, ( I know this isn't tarantula related so forgive me) I have seen this over the course of my life way too often with dogs in particular. The things I've seen have sadden me.

The same thing with exotics have happened. Not just pythons in Florida but also with Tegu's. Tegu's have spread fast up from Florida into some of the other southern states.

PS. What is up with the crazy spell check on my phone that I have to continually edit my post, arghhhh.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## LucN

Arachnophobphile said:


> I agree 100% with @AphonopelmaTX and @LucN
> 
> The sad thing is, ( I know this isn't tarantula related so forgive me) I have seen this over the course of my life way too often with dogs in particular. The things I've seen have sadden me.
> 
> The same thing with exotics have happened. Not just pythons in Florida but also with Tegu's. Tegu's have spread fast up from Florida into some of the other southern states.
> 
> PS. What is up with the crazy spell check on my phone that I have to continually edit my post, arghhhh.


Oh yeah, way too many people buy on impulse, only to realize weeks or months later, that they don't like the animal they've bought. So all forms of animals find their way to a Animal care center, which many don't even get a second chance with caring owners. Cockatoos, to name one animal, seem to be excessively dropped off when people realize the sheer massive commitment they demand. Only truly dedicated people find their comfort with them and all the good/bad that comes with them. A good example is Dan who owns Max (Mr Max TV on Youtube) and has learned everything about the animal and it shows he knows how to deal with him.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Comatose

AphonopelmaTX said:


> While there are those who won't understand the exotic pet industry, and those who specifically like possessing creepy crawlies, I'm not confident that the exotic pet industry understands environmental conservation.  Out of the hundreds, or maybe thousands, of exotic species imported into the U.S. from around the world, there just isn't enough data on many of them to assess their potential for upsetting the ecological balance in any given region if pet owners turn them loose into the environment, something that has happened a countless number of times.  When it comes to exotic wildlife, it is better to take the side of caution and say that all exotic wildlife should not be allowed into U.S. until it has been determined that such wildlife would not cause harm to the environment and industry.  A minority group of people who enjoy having exotic wildlife in their possession as a pet is not justification for risking the stability and health of native ecosystems by taking an "everything is fine until it's not" approach to wildlife importation.  In other words, "that's not fair because I want it" is not a good way to argue against stricter wildlife import/ export laws.
> 
> The Lacey Act amendments on their own don't seem all that bad.  My problem with them is that they are terribly vague.  I don't understand how anyone can be for or against the amendments as they are written since the impact of the laws can not be assessed as-is.  Even the answers to the majority of the questions of an FAQ on the USARK web page on these amendments say "I don't know."  If there is any reason to reject the amendments, it would be based on ambiguous language and the lack of understanding of what the outcome of the new laws would be.


It’s kind of weird that the amendment explicitly excludes cats, dogs and farm animals then, no? Given that they’re the vast, vast majority of invasive and feral animals, you’d think they’d actually focus there.

I do love the idea that this spectacular delegation of power and authority being handed to USFWS would somehow result in them actually evaluating individual species using an evidence driven approach and making rulings based on the facts. Today they’re enforcing Yemenese and Malaysian law in the United States (I’m not making that up; this is first hand and true) because they feel like it and they feel like they can. Something tells me more power isn’t the thing they need, nor is it a good case for conservationism. 

In one way I guess you’re right, though. Brown boxers do fine today, and they’ll do even better after this passes. I guess for the average hobbyist it may not make a huge difference.



Arachnophobphile said:


> I agree 100% with @AphonopelmaTX and @LucN
> 
> The sad thing is, ( I know this isn't tarantula related so forgive me) I have seen this over the course of my life way too often with dogs in particular. The things I've seen have sadden me.
> 
> The same thing with exotics have happened. Not just pythons in Florida but also with Tegu's. Tegu's have spread fast up from Florida into some of the other southern states.
> 
> PS. What is up with the crazy spell check on my phone that I have to continually edit my post, arghhhh.


Again, dogs are explicitly exempt. And given that Florida is almost the entire area of concern for invasive species, shouldn’t it perhaps be a Florida law rather one that impacts everyone?



LucN said:


> Yes, there has been careless individuals that released their pets into the wild and it has caused massive ecological problems. Look no further than the Burmese pythons established in the Everglades. People bought babies because they looked cute, but when they gained some serious size, many realized they were way over their heads and released the animal into the wild instead. That probably explains that small population of T. vagans in Florida as well. But I doubt they pose much of a threat to the native wildlife as opposed to the pythons. Because of a many irresponsible keepers, we now have bans on various species. It sucks, but when we see the ecological damage being done, how can we blame the government for taking such drastic action ?
> 
> Anyone willing to buy an exotic pet should be aware that many are long-term commitments. Sadly, not everyone's cut out to stick till the end :/


And some people drive drunk. Is it cool if we suspend your drivers license because some other drivers are negligent?



Arachnophobphile said:


> Good to hear they are not in the bill, for now.
> 
> As far as trafficking wildlife it's not the U.S.'s job to police the world and never should be.
> 
> Enforce what's coming in yes, but the countries where they are coming from need to better address their own issues not us.
> 
> Some countries have already passed stronger laws to deal with smuggling
> 
> However it's impossible to stop it completely. The manpower and government funds required are just not there.
> 
> I don't have all the answers to these issues. I don't think anyone does.
> 
> If the world dropped wanting wildlife then that would make it less interesting for the smugglers.


Just to clarify, it’s in the house version of the bill, which the senate could theoretically pass tomorrow. That won’t happen, but it’s still very much in the bill.

When people talk about the reconciliation stage of the process, they’re effectively describing the situation in a much more evenly divided senate when 60 votes are required to pass a law like this. The senate can either pass the house bill as is (very unlikely) or reconcile it with their own more limited bill, and then kick it back to the house. That’s obviously the best opportunity to strip out this comparatively tiny portion.

The challenge is that there are senate republicans who very much want this to pass, because as I mentioned this is a Florida driven bill, and both senators in that state are Republican. That means horse trading to get this through will be easier, and finding 8 more republicans to get on board won’t be that hard.

The answer is absolutely to continue reaching out to your legislators. While it may feel discouraging to get automated responses, it’s to be expected. Each California senator represents something like 17 million people. Even in my podunk state it’s like 900k each. It’s not going to be one letter or one email that does it; it’s going to be the torrent of voices telling battleground senators and representatives that this is not the hill to die on.

Also, join USARK. I don’t know if anyone noticed, but they recently added inverts to their mission statement, and they’re VERY generously assisting in fighting a battle that affects us more than more of us know. I’m hoping more on that will become public soon.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## T Freak

Please go to usark.org and sign the petitions on this topic. I did. And if possible, support usark as well as they really are and can help us a lot here. I’m hoping for the best possible outcome it literally scares me to death I love my spiders and snakes etc.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## hypnotic pets

This was tried once before. The bill was h.r.669  it didn't get passed back then but things are getting worse out there so let's hope it gets dropped like the last one did.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Comatose

as of this morning a stripped down version of the bill which focuses only on semiconductor subsidies was added to yet another bill, passed in the senate and is now headed back to the house. As far as I can tell it contains nothing related to the Lacey Act.

No clue why more isn’t being made if this by USARK so I may simply be misinterpreting.









						Senate passes major chip funding bill
					

If the House approves the bill, chipmakers will get more than $50 billion in subsidies to ramp up U.S. production.




					www.axios.com


----------



## T Freak

Comatose said:


> as of this morning a stripped down version of the bill which focuses only on semiconductor subsidies was added to yet another bill, passed in the senate and is now headed back to the house. As far as I can tell it contains nothing related to the Lacey Act.
> 
> No clue why more isn’t being made if this by USARK so I may simply be misinterpreting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senate passes major chip funding bill
> 
> 
> If the House approves the bill, chipmakers will get more than $50 billion in subsidies to ramp up U.S. production.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.axios.com


I’m not sure I understand what that has to do with reptiles and arachnids etc it appears to me it’s about automotive computer chips??


----------



## Comatose

The original Lacey amendment was part of a massive omnibus spending bill that ostensibly focused on semiconductor manufacture but contains hundreds of line items of other totally unrelated stuff; it was called the America COMPETES act. It was passed by the house but not the razor thin senate.

This version is much more focused, as far as I can tell doesn’t include Lacey, and will probably pass. If that’s the case this is ultimately a victory for us.

Reactions: Like 2 | Agree 2


----------



## l4nsky

> UPDATE 7/28/22: We have been posting relevant updates on our main alert here (scroll down). To be brief, the “CHIPS-Plus” bill that passed in the Senate passed the House on 7/28 (243-187 vote). This bill includes some of the technology initiatives included in the America COMPETES Act, USICA, and other bills. *The portions of COMPETES that were not germane to the intent of the bill (including the bad Lacey Act amendments) were not added to the CHIPS-Plus package. This should be the end of any threat from these Lacey Act amendments for this Congressional session.*


https://usark.org/2022lacey/

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1


----------



## darkness975

This is the best news I have heard in a long time.

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## LucN

Good to hear that it was finally removed. IMO, it was nonsensical and unpractical. It would have put not only many exotic breeders in a tight spot, but also so many Mom & Pop pet shops that make most of their revenue with exotic animals. Glad that the crisis has been averted.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Ungoliant

T Freak said:


> I’m not sure I understand what that has to do with reptiles and arachnids etc it appears to me it’s about automotive computer chips??


Legislators routinely stuff bills with a bunch of pork and unrelated pet provisions that would not pass on their own.  Obscurity by volume.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 3 | Sad 1


----------



## Gail

Just posting this update from the US ARK page, for posterity, so we all know where this is at right now (and hopefully this is where it is at and I'm not missing something somewhere lol).

*UPDATE 7/28/22: *We have been posting relevant updates on our main alert here (scroll down). To be brief, the “CHIPS-Plus” bill that passed in the Senate passed the House on 7/28 (243-187 vote). This bill includes some of the technology initiatives included in the America COMPETES Act, USICA, and other bills. The portions of COMPETES that were not germane to the intent of the bill (including the bad Lacey Act amendments) were not added to the CHIPS-Plus package. This should be the end of any threat from these Lacey Act amendments for this Congressional session.

Reactions: Like 2 | Thanks 1


----------

