Forming groups per state para pokies

Chris LXXIX

ArachnoGod
Joined
Dec 25, 2014
Messages
5,668
You can't sell across state lines to Joe Schmoe if Joe wants a pet.
That's what the law says, but how they can really spot Mister X - living in Indiana - that sells to Mister Y - living in Ohio - one of those 'pokies', via a private courier, as a result of deal made in a private chat?

Parcels aren't opened and inspected (in general) as far as I know.
 

MetalMan2004

Arachnodemon
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
674
From what I understand, that doesn't seem to be the case. It would still be an interstate sale, regardless of demonstration of the propagation of the species. It's within the hobby, and the USFWS is not recognizing the hobby as a viable resource at this time. CBWs don't cover commercial stuff. But, if you and the buyer both have CBWs as part of a conservation effort, then it would be ok.

Breeding loans however are completely a ok. At least, per the FAQ the USFWS posted.
An important clarification needs to be made on the definition of breeding loan. I have a feeling that the FAQ was written by someone that is not knowledgable about how the term is used in the hobby. While most of us automatically see a breeding loan as “I send you my male and get half the sac,” I’m thinking that the government sees a loan as simply loaning a specimen out with no compensation (ie slings) for the male’s owner. I have no idea if this is the case or not.

They did specify that the rules were not intended to prohibit breeding or limit the numbers of these species within the hobby.
While your point is plenty valid, government entities say they intend or don’t intend to do things all the time while simultaneously doing the opposite. It is wrong and amazingly stupid, but the letter of the law still stands as written.

Funny you mention that. I did not know but have since confirmed that the 6 other listed species are still in the queue, just a decision has not been made yet. The original reason I was going to call was to see if there was any information as to when they might be coming around to a decision on the Indian species.
I’m guessing that they are past the comment phase on the Indian species, correct? Per the 19 page paper, they refuted all peer submitted information and all public comments with the Sri Lankan poecs, but if there is still a chance to add a comment then we all should.
 

purplephilia

Arachnopeon
Joined
Jul 18, 2017
Messages
6
But my point is that they specified that they didnt want to hamper captive breeding of these species or the captive population. To me this would mean we would have at least some freedom/leeway that would provide for this. With absolutely no interstate movement, it could ONLY serve to severely disrupt both captive breeding, and eventual populations of these species within the hobby.
They're not hampering breeding--you can breed all you want, you just can't sell to other states. That's how they see it. And they say many times in their ruling that hobbyist breeding is not considered to be helping conservation, which makes it seem to me that it's unlikely they will be issuing permits to hobby breeders. They also seem to suspect that the number of wild caught specimens in the trade is actually higher than reported, so that's another ding against hobby-as-conservation.
 
Last edited:

cold blood

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
11,303
They're not hampering breeding--you can breed all you want, you just can't sell to other states. That's how they see it. And they say many times in their ruling that hobbyist breeding is not considered to be helping conservation, so hobbyist breeders are very unlikely to be able to get permits needed to sell across state lines. They also seem to suspect that the number of wild caught specimens in the trade is actually higher than reported, so that's another ding against hobby-as-conservation.
but it absolutely will hamper breeding and eventually reduce captive populations....not many are going to go through all the time and effort for zero compensation when they could make more breeding freaking LPs.

To me its like saying, cars are legal to own, but cant be sold across state lines from where they were built, and not expect that to have a profoundly negative effect on car sales and ownership.

How many people will start building their own cars? Probably more than would breed the ts they cant sell.
 

purplephilia

Arachnopeon
Joined
Jul 18, 2017
Messages
6
but it absolutely will hamper breeding and eventually reduce captive populations....not many are going to go through all the time and effort for zero compensation when they could make more breeding freaking LPs.

To me its like saying, cars are legal to own, but cant be sold across state lines from where they were built, and not expect that to have a profoundly negative effect on car sales and ownership.

How many people will start building their own cars? Probably more than would breed the ts they cant sell.
I agree with you 100%. We're all aware of it, but the government just isn't looking at it from the hobbyist's stand point. It's kind of like saying, they didn't make the ruling in order to specifically hamper breeding--it's just an unfortunate side effect that breeding will indeed be hampered.
 

cold blood

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
11,303
I agree with you 100%. We're all aware of it, but the government just isn't looking at it from the hobbyist's stand point. It's kind of like saying, they didn't make the ruling in order to specifically hamper breeding--it's just an unfortunate side effect that breeding will indeed be hampered.
Then why would they go out of their way to emphasize that they dont want this to have a detrimental effect on these ts in the hobby...I get that gov't legislation doesnt always make sense, but they went out of their way to specify that this side effect isnt what they want or intend....why not just keep quiet about it and not draw the attention to the side effect.

Because they went out of their way to specify this is why i think theres something we are over looking or not fully grasping. Maybe not....just the way i look at it.

I would love to see them further clarify on this part.
 

purplephilia

Arachnopeon
Joined
Jul 18, 2017
Messages
6
Then why would they go out of their way to emphasize that they dont want this to have a detrimental effect on these ts in the hobby...I get that gov't legislation doesnt always make sense, but they went out of their way to specify that this side effect isnt what they want or intend....why not just keep quiet about it and not draw the attention to the side effect.

Because they went out of their way to specify this is why i think theres something we are over looking or not fully grasping. Maybe not....just the way i look at it.

I would love to see them further clarify on this part.
They were just replying to public comments that said the ruling was a disincentive to captive breeding. The reply goes on to say that permits could potentially be issued "to enhance the propagation or survival of the species", which sounds hopeful because we see breeding as a way to keep species from dying off...except that they say multiple times that breeding in the hobby is not considered to help conservation, so to me it seems like it's highly unlikely they would give permits to hobbyists but of course I could be wrong.
 

MetalMan2004

Arachnodemon
Joined
Oct 14, 2016
Messages
674
Then why would they go out of their way to emphasize that they dont want this to have a detrimental effect on these ts in the hobby...I get that gov't legislation doesnt always make sense, but they went out of their way to specify that this side effect isnt what they want or intend....why not just keep quiet about it and not draw the attention to the side effect.

Because they went out of their way to specify this is why i think theres something we are over looking or not fully grasping. Maybe not....just the way i look at it.

I would love to see them further clarify on this part.
Because apparently almost all if not all of the 100+ comments they got durig the comment period had more to do with keeping and breeding in the hobby than they did saving the species in the wild.
 

cold blood

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
11,303
They were just replying to public comments that said the ruling was a disincentive to captive breeding. The reply goes on to say that permits could potentially be issued "to enhance the propagation or survival of the species", which sounds hopeful because we see breeding as a way to keep species from dying off...except that they say multiple times that breeding in the hobby is not considered to help conservation, so to me it seems like it's highly unlikely they would give permits to hobbyists but of course I could be wrong.
But it will help conservation....With healthy populations of captive bred ts, theres little reason to take them from the wild....effectively reducing or nearly eliminating smuggling.
 

purplephilia

Arachnopeon
Joined
Jul 18, 2017
Messages
6
But it will help conservation....With healthy populations of captive bred ts, theres little reason to take them from the wild....effectively reducing or nearly eliminating smuggling.
This is their response to that:

"(10) Comment: Several commenters believe that trade in these species has little or no effect on wild populations and provided various reasons, including: They had never seen, or heard of others seeing, a wild-caught specimen; the captive stock is selfsustaining; wild-caught specimens are frowned upon in the hobby; and there is no financial incentive for the trade of wild-caught specimens. Others contend that listing and/or regulating trade in the United States is not necessary or useful because U.S. trade does not affect wild populations and because the primary threats to these species occur outside U.S. jurisdiction, in Sri Lanka.

Our Response: Evidence shows that wild-caught specimens of some of these species occur in trade (see Trade). Although the amount of trade in wildcaught specimens in the United States appears to be small, this does not mean trade, or U.S. trade, has no, or even little, effect on wild populations. As indicated in our proposed rule, collection of small numbers of individuals of these species could potentially have significant negative effects on wild populations of these species. With respect to U.S. jurisdiction and the regulation of trade, the Act requires the Service to determine if species qualify as endangered or threatened species regardless of whether a species is native to the United States. The protections of the Act include prohibitions on certain activities including import, export, take, and certain commercial activity in interstate or foreign commerce (see Available Conservation Measures). By regulating these activities, the Act helps to ensure that people under the jurisdiction of the United States do not contribute to the further decline of listed species."
(Editing to add source: https://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2018/2018-16359.pdf)
 

viper69

ArachnoGod
Old Timer
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
9,466
Then why would they go out of their way to emphasize that they dont want this to have a detrimental effect on these ts in the hobby..
Can you put up that text for me. I didn't see it, but I believe you.

If you're selling to another hobbyist across state lines, that's almost certainly not going to fly, even if the hobbyist intends to breed the specimen. (They don't really care about enabling hobby breeding programs, as our pets are considered unsuitable for conservation due to possible hybridization, inbreeding, and lack of records on their bloodlines.)

We just have to accept the reality that for most purposes (excepting intrastate transactions in states that don't prohibit it), these five species are effectively being phased out of the pet trade in the United States.




It's a jurisdictional issue. This is a federal agency acting pursuant to a federal statute. Congress cannot exercise powers except those enumerated in Article I of the Constitution. As it often does, Congress relied on a very generous interpretation of the Commerce Clause when it drafted the Endangered Species Act.

The Commerce Clause primarily concerns interstate commerce. For now, the Supreme Court still respects some limits on the ability to exploit the Commerce Clause to regulate purely intrastate commerce.

Even if federal law doesn't prohibit possession or intrastate trade, many states have laws protecting these species. If you own or would like to own any protected species, you should check your state's laws to make sure it's permitted.
Oh that's right, I forgot about the Commerce Clause. That DOES regulate interstate trade.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ungoliant

Malleus Aranearum
Staff member
Joined
Mar 7, 2012
Messages
3,643
But my point is that they specified that they didnt want to hamper captive breeding of these species or the captive population. To me this would mean we would have at least some freedom/leeway that would provide for this. With absolutely no interstate movement, it could ONLY serve to severely disrupt both captive breeding, and eventual populations of these species within the hobby.
When they say they don't want to hamper captive breeding, what they mean are captive breeding programs for conservation, not hobbyists breeding (what they see as) Pokies of dubious lineage as part of the pet trade.

They don't see the pet trade (whether it's a formal business or hobbyists doing it on the side) as a valid form of conservation, because:
  1. We don't keep records of tarantula lineages to provide a sufficient safeguard against hybridization or inbreeding.
  2. We are not breeding and keeping these spiders for conservation but for our own pleasure.

In fact, they see what we do as a threat to conservation, because:
  1. They likely underestimate the extent to which the domestic trade is met by captive breeding.
  2. They assume (probably correctly) that even if all of our current pets are captive-bred, they are the descendants of Pokies smuggled out of their native habitat.


but it absolutely will hamper breeding and eventually reduce captive populations....not many are going to go through all the time and effort for zero compensation when they could make more breeding freaking LPs.
But it will help conservation....With healthy populations of captive bred ts, theres little reason to take them from the wild....effectively reducing or nearly eliminating smuggling.
I agree that banning (most of) the domestic trade in captive-bred spiders is a misguided and counterproductive effort. However, as I said in the pinned thread, it is not uncommon for well-meaning but ignorant officials to create laws that end up undermining their stated purpose.


While most of us automatically see a breeding loan as "I send you my male and get half the sac," I'm thinking that the government sees a loan as simply loaning a specimen out with no compensation (ie slings) for the male's owner. I have no idea if this is the case or not.
Breeding loans (where the lender gets some of the resulting offspring in exchange) are allowed as long as there is no money or consideration changing hands.

Endangered Species Act FAQ said:
Loans and Gifts
Lawfully taken and held endangered and threatened species may be shipped interstate as a bona fide gift or loan if there is no barter, credit, other form of compensation, or intent to profit or gain. A standard breeding loan, where no money or other consideration changes hands but some offspring are returned to the lender of a breeding animal, is not considered a commercial activity and, thus, is not prohibited by the ESA and does not require a permit. Documentation of such an activity should accompany shipment.
Check your state's laws to make sure it's not prohibited where you live.
 

Hardus nameous

Arachnobody
Arachnosupporter
Joined
Feb 24, 2018
Messages
44
If biologists consider the hobby spider DNA to be too impure for conservation, would it be feasible to classify a hobby subspecies? Although the ESA Section 3 definition (16) says it includes all subspecies, pet dogs didn't seem to be affected when the gray wolf was listed.
 

lostbrane

Arachnobaron
Arachnosupporter
Joined
Jul 8, 2018
Messages
518
Well, that would require genetic testing. Of which there is either very little or none, at least from what USFWS was saying.
 

Hardus nameous

Arachnobody
Arachnosupporter
Joined
Feb 24, 2018
Messages
44
Genetic testing may be possible. I found a paper where DNA was apparently successfully extracted from faeces of Lycosidae. So far I've only had time to go through the summary but it may be promising.
 
Last edited:

Ungoliant

Malleus Aranearum
Staff member
Joined
Mar 7, 2012
Messages
3,643
If biologists consider the hobby spider DNA to be too impure for conservation, would it be feasible to classify a hobby subspecies? Although the ESA Section 3 definition (16) says it includes all subspecies, pet dogs didn't seem to be affected when the gray wolf was listed.
There is one loophole, although it's not one that hobbyists are likely to find satisfying: the hybrid offspring of animals bred in captivity are not protected by the ESA. (It is recommended that breeding records be maintained to show parentage and hybrid status.)

Note: This does not necessarily mean there are no other laws that prohibit trade in hybrid tarantulas.
 

Hardus nameous

Arachnobody
Arachnosupporter
Joined
Feb 24, 2018
Messages
44
So could the "Hobby" spiders be considered hybrid? I don't see the term defined in the ESA. If they are, then wouldn't it be sufficient to document the posession of the spider prior to the law's enaction and document further lineages? I wonder how muddled the genes have to be?
 
Top