Clarifying The US Lacey Act In Regards To Myriapods (And Other Wildlife)

goliathusdavid

Arachnobaron
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
487
I am creating this thread to act as a continuation of the discussion in the thread "Government says new centipede was illegally collected." Though it was not relevant to this particular case, a number of questions came up regarding the Lacey Act's use of the phrase "knowingly" in committing wildlife crimes. Having done some in depth analysis of the text, and having looked over it with a couple lawyer friends (one a criminal litigator, the other, a renewable energy lawyer) I would like to clear up any confusion.

The word "knowingly" does NOT mean that you have to know that you are breaking the law to be indicted. It means you have to be consciously engaging in the offending action - regardless of whether or not you know it is illegal. An action is defined as being committed knowingly by the federal third district court if "done voluntarily and intentionally, and not because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason." Notice, you don't have to know the law or consequence - just that you are taking an action.

The Lacey Act specifically also makes room for prosecuting people who did not know the law. It states clearly that people who "in the exercise of due care should have known [that their actions are illegal]" can still face criminal charges. Similar phrases appear two additional times throughout the act. Let's look at a few scenarios of this in action:

1. A few years ago, I opened a case of Guaraná (a delightful Brazilian soda) that I had bought from a local store to find myself surrounded by dozens of exotic roach babies which I now believe to have been Eublaberus serranus. As a USDA regulated species it would have been illegal for me to possess them or transport them intentionally but as I did so completely accidentally and unknowingly, I did not violate the Lacey Act. Had I kept or sold the roaches however, I would have.

2. An individual buys a number of Archispirostreptus gigas from a UK seller and imports them into the United States to sell domestically. Whether or not they know such an action to be illegal, they still violate the Lacey Act, by intentionally importing this species. And had they exercised "due care" they would have known this.

But don't believe me, here is the act itself and here is Michigan State University's EXTENSIVE analysis. @Malum Argenteum, @Frogdaddy, and everyone else who participated or read the previous thread, I hope this clears thing up. And yes, I know I'm a crazy nerd. But I'm passionate about wildlife law, and frankly, I wish more of us were.
 

RoachCoach

Arachnodemon
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
703
I've had multiple people proposition me to send roaches that are illegal to own or ship into FL. Either they are a plant or they have had it done before. As the saying goes "ignorance is not an excuse". Which as you clearly laid out is absolutely bonkers. Like anyone is going to be familiar with case law history, let alone be able to navigate or understand the language used in it. I for one am a dumb dumb. It grosses me out that people ignore these laws knowingly, but the people that get caught up that didn't know is a shame.
 

Nich

Curator of glass boxes
Old Timer
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
836
This is hilarious, one channel dredges up archaic law and people come out of the wood works for weeks on end with keyboard sputum.

If any of this was remotely relevant there would be no hobby, disregard and move along smh
 

goliathusdavid

Arachnobaron
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
487
This is hilarious, one channel dredges up archaic law and people come out of the wood works for weeks on end with keyboard sputum.

If any of this was remotely relevant there would be no hobby, disregard and move along smh
You may not think the law matters, or care to follow it, but it exists for the protection of both indigenous and exotic wildlife (as well as, at the end of the day, humans). So it does matter, regardless of whether you get caught, and regardless of what you think of it.
Your critique, unfortunate as it may be, does lead me to provide one important piece of correction. The primary piece of legislation regarding invertebrates in the US is the Plant Protection Act of 2000, enforced by APHIS. The Lacey Act is used primarily in regards to the vertebrate trade and, though the USDA assists in some cases, is regulated primarily by FWS. Lacey was, however, the act mentioned in the previous thread, leading to my research. Though the Plant Protection Act is its own piece of legislation the phrase "knowingly" and "willfully" appear in similar contexts including in a 2008 amendment allowing for prosecution of non-"willful" violations. Therefore, the analysis provided in the first post is similarly applicable to the plant and invertebrate focused legislation. Both of these pieces of legislation work in tandem to enforce different aspects of the wildlife trade, however unsuccessfully they may do so.
 

Nich

Curator of glass boxes
Old Timer
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
836
I am just going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have not fully researched when this was more recently dredged up and its actual practice and involvement in the hobby over the last few decades. The context of the act itself in relation to the current and even last few decades of the hobby is literally ridiculous in an of itself. The body of evidence lays at your fingertips, feel free to browse through the last 20 years of posts here on the forums and maybe you will understand what I am getting at. I absolutely care about the law, but you are not talking about a law in the context of modern society or even the hobby in the last 30 years. Interpreting law and how it pertains in direct context to real world situations is literally the the backbone of not just my main lively hood but the entire industry I operate within. Your intentions are well read, and genuine...but the context is a century off regardless of the "recent" iterations.
 

goliathusdavid

Arachnobaron
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
487
I am just going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have not fully researched when this was more recently dredged up and its actual practice and involvement in the hobby over the last few decades. The context of the act itself in relation to the current and even last few decades of the hobby is literally ridiculous in an of itself. The body of evidence lays at your fingertips, feel free to browse through the last 20 years of posts here on the forums and maybe you will understand what I am getting at. I absolutely care about the law, but you are not talking about a law in the context of modern society or even the hobby in the last 30 years. Interpreting law and how it pertains in direct context to real world situations is literally the the backbone of not just my main lively hood but the entire industry I operate within. Your intentions are well read, and genuine...but the context is a century off regardless of the "recent" iterations.
Pray tell, what is the more recent significance of "knowingly" in what are STILL the two major regulatory pieces of legislation on the wildlife trade? Has there been a complete reversal in US legal policy i don't know about? I don't see how my analysis, or major point here is outdated, as you claim. I will admit that I should have been FAR more clear in my first post that the primary piece of legislation on our hobby is the Plant Protection Act (which yes, has been updated) but I was responding directly to a previous member's claim that a person could not be prosecuted under Lacey not knowing the law - a claim that is fundamentally false, even today. I also HAVE browsed much of the last 20 years of posts on wildlife legislation on these forums, and I do not see how this clarification in regards to either Lacey or the Plant Protection Act is unreasonable, regardless of how the government chooses to enforce them. As for my own credentials, I've spent the past four years working in institutions that have to deal with wildlife law (and the fallout of individuals disobeying it in the pet trade) on a daily basis.
Are you making the case that this legislation is irrelevant because it doesn't largely apply to Ts and centipedes? Well, the hobby is more than that. So I continue to maintain that this is a fully reasonable and appropriate post. I welcome critiques, but telling me that this is useless without providing specific examples of how it is outdated isn't helpful to either of us. I am fully willing to be educated on where I am wrong, but so far, I don't think you've done that.
 

Nich

Curator of glass boxes
Old Timer
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
836
Pray tell, what is the more recent significance of "knowingly" in what are STILL the two major regulatory pieces of legislation on the wildlife trade? Has there been a complete reversal in US legal policy i don't know about? I don't see how my analysis, or major point here is outdated, as you claim. I will admit that I should have been FAR more clear in my first post that the primary piece of legislation on our hobby is the Plant Protection Act (which yes, has been updated) but I was responding directly to a previous member's claim that a person could not be prosecuted under Lacey not knowing the law - a claim that is fundamentally false, even today. I also HAVE browsed much of the last 20 years of posts on wildlife legislation on these forums, and I do not see how this clarification in regards to either Lacey or the Plant Protection Act is unreasonable, regardless of how the government chooses to enforce them. As for my own credentials, I've spent the past four years working in institutions that have to deal with wildlife law (and the fallout of individuals disobeying it in the pet trade) on a daily basis.
Are you making the case that this legislation is irrelevant because it doesn't largely apply to Ts and centipedes? Well, the hobby is more than that. So I continue to maintain that this is a fully reasonable and appropriate post. I welcome critiques, but telling me that this is useless without providing specific examples of how it is outdated isn't helpful to either of us. I am fully willing to be educated on where I am wrong, but so far, I don't think you've done that.
I really cannot spell it out for you anymore clearly than I already have. Per my previous statement, the "body of evidence" is right before you and it spans decades. If you cannot look at the forums for invertebrates that literally span decades and wrap your mind around my point then I just do not know what else to say.
 

goliathusdavid

Arachnobaron
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
487
I really cannot spell it out for you anymore clearly than I already have. Per my previous statement, the "body of evidence" is right before you and it spans decades. If you cannot look at the forums for invertebrates that literally span decades and wrap your mind around my point then I just do not know what else to say.
Convenient. Thanks I suppose. The one "outdated error" I can find in this post is that the perpetrator of invert trafficking is more likely to be prosecuted under the Plant Protection Act than Lacey. But I have already explained how my analysis works for both pieces of legislation so I suppose it doesn't really matter.
 
Last edited:
Top