Forming groups per state para pokies

[Ungoliant]

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?

I think it's likely that a good number of our pet spiders are not pure-blooded. (Some of our hobby species are known to be less pure than others.)

However, in order to comply with the statute, you'd need to be able to document the hybrid lineage, which is difficult to do considering:

1. We don't keep records of tarantula lineages. We generally don't even inquire. (In some cases, a buyer may know one parent's owner but probably knows nothing about the other parent or either parent's lineage.)
2. We discourage people from deliberately creating hybrids or breeding questionable-looking tarantulas. We'd be talking out of both sides of our mouths if we said, "Hybrids are bad. Don't create hybrids, but all of these hobby Pokies should be legal, because they're hybrids."

 

[Hardus nameous]

I think it's likely that a good number of our pet spiders are not pure-blooded. (Some of our hobby species are known to be less pure than others.)

However, in order to comply with the statute, you'd need to be able to document the hybrid lineage, which is difficult to do considering:

1. We don't keep records of tarantula lineages. We generally don't even inquire. (In some cases, a buyer may know one parent's owner but probably knows nothing about the other parent or either parent's lineage.)
2. We discourage people from deliberately creating hybrids or breeding questionable-looking tarantulas. We'd be talking out of both sides of our mouths if we said "hybrids are bad, don't create hybrids, but all of these hobby Pokies should be legal, because they're hybrids."

You have good points there, especially the second one; I hadn't thought of it that way.

 

[SonsofArachne]

So someone does a 50/50 breeding loan and ends up with maybe 25-50 slings (I'm not a breeder, but a quick check showed someone getting a 123 slings from a pokie sac, if this uncommon don't flame me), then they have to either sell them all in their state or give them all away? I can't see people, at least in small states, want to take a chance of ending up with house full of pokies that they have give away to get rid of.

 

[Ungoliant]

So someone does a 50/50 breeding loan and ends up with maybe 25-50 slings (I'm not a breeder, but a quick check showed someone getting a 123 slings from a pokie sac, if this uncommon don't flame me), then they have to either sell them all in their state or give them all away?

Pretty much.

 

[MetalMan2004]

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

My point is that receiving slings in return for the loaning of the male could be taken as consideration. I haven’t seen anything cited yet that specifically says otherwise and I’ve heard anecdotal evidence that says it isn’t allowed (I don’t take that as fact either until I see actual cited regulations spelling this out.). You may very well be correct, I just don’t see where the regulations say that.

 

[Ungoliant]

Disclaimer: Nothing in this post is intended to create an attorney-client relationship or to be used as legal advice. The content of this post is offered for informational purposes only. This post should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. You should always consult a competent attorney regarding any legal matter.

My point is that receiving slings in return for the loaning of the male could be taken as consideration. I haven’t seen anything cited yet that specifically says otherwise and I’ve heard anecdotal evidence that says it isn’t allowed (I don’t take that as fact either until I see actual cited regulations spelling this out.). You may very well be correct, I just don’t see where the regulations say that.

The statute and FWS regulations do not explicitly discuss breeding loans. However, the the agency's own FAQ says that breeding loans ("where no money or other consideration changes hands but some offspring are returned to the lender") are not considered commercial activity for the purposes of the Endangered Species Act. I found similar language in other FWS publications.

Courts generally defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations. This doctrine is known as Chevron deference:

When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.

We have long recognized that considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department's construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer, and the principle of deference to administrative interpretations "has been consistently followed by this Court whenever decision as to the meaning or reach of a statute has involved reconciling conflicting policies, and a full understanding of the force of the statutory policy in the given situation has depended upon more than ordinary knowledge respecting the matters subjected to agency regulations.

 

[PidderPeets]

I can't recall whether it was addressed or not, but does the payment of shipping (but no payment for the actual spider) constitute as commercial activity? I admit I haven't bred tarantulas so I might be a little naive, but I've shipped other inverts to fellow hobbyists for only the cost of shipping before, and at least currently I don’t think I'd be opposed to doing the same for the sake of preserving the species in the hobby. If no compensation was received other than the cost of shipping, would it be feasible to legally ship and receive these species (as long as it's legal within the individual states)?

I unfortunately can't obtain any OW species any time in the near future (with my current living situation, my Ts share a room with my rabbits, and I refuse to put the rabbits in a scenario where they would be in life-threatening danger in the event of an escape), so I have no choice but to watch the cutoff date pass by. But I love the look of almost all the Poecilotheria sp. and don't want to lose the opportunity to raise them and see them in the hobby for years to come.

 

[Nightstalker47]

Yes, paying shipping would be considered commercial activity.

That is, unless you pay to have your specimen shipped to someone else...in other words you cant charge them for the shipping.

 

[PidderPeets]

Yes, paying shipping would be considered commercial activity.

That is, unless you pay to have your specimen shipped to someone else...in other words you cant charge them for the shipping.

That's a shame Though I suppose it wouldn't hurt to participate in an occasional act of kindness for the good of the hobby

 

[Chris LXXIX]

That's a shame Though I suppose it wouldn't hurt to participate in an occasional act of kindness for the good of the hobby

The world is unfair, unfair indeed

 

[PidderPeets]

The world is unfair, unfair indeed

Indeed it is. That's why I think a little generosity here and there would benefit the world a bit

 

[FuzzyFreaks420]

AFAIK captive breeding and keeping are okay, but any interstate transport for commercial purposes is prohibited. so any selling of those 5 species has to be done in-state.

Still can send my MM male I sent you for breeding legally just not cash transfer. Just pay the shipping if I am correct. Pretty much gifting the animal in other words

 

[sdsnybny]

Owner with MM pays shipping, Owner with produced slings pays return shipping for them and the returning MM should he survive. That would constitute a "Standard breeding Loan"
https://www.fws.gov/Endangered/permits/faq.html

"What situations are exempt from the prohibitions of the ESA?
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."

 

[Chris LXXIX]

Indeed it is. That's why I think a little generosity here and there would benefit the world a bit

True!

In fact, for solidarity towards the U.S keepers, I'm planning to purchase all of those 'pokies' species that, since September, would been more difficult to obtain in the U.S -- and I'm not even a 'pokie', let alone arboreal enthusiast, man.

But I can 'into generosity'

 

[Torech Ungol]

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.

If that were the case, no smuggler would ever be caught. They can be, and are, frequently caught, prosecuted, fined, and incarcerated.

The simple fact is that it's a bad idea to break the law, unless you are perfectly willing to go to prison for what you're doing.

 

[Chris LXXIX]

If that were the case, no smuggler would ever be caught. They can be, and are, frequently caught, prosecuted, fined, and incarcerated.

Yes, but I wasn't talking about international smugglers - therefore someone that illegally ship/introduce something into another nation, maybe a banned item/good, anyway not respecting the import procedure.

I know that happened that certain dieharder 'brown boxing' fellas were spotted etc

I was talking, on the other hand, about a domestic U.S T's keeper/breeder/seller that, in the same parcel for his/her customer, along with a G.pulchripes, P.murinus, G.pulchra, a frebie etc puts one of those now prohibited 'pokies' spp (btw a result of said seller breeding, not WC/Imported spiders) and, then, FedEx the parcel to the customer, like basically everyone in the U.S do.

So the question is: how the system can spot such a (hypothethical) traffic, since those parcels aren't opened and inspected?