Lacey Act 2022

[JonnyTorch]

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.

 

[l4nsky]

This is terrible, but republicans are really hating this bill

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]

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.

 

[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

 

[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 :/

 

[YungRasputin]

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

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.

 

[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.

 

[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

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

 

[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.

 

[Arachnophobphile]

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.

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]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Pmurinushmacla]

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]

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]

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?)