Lacey Act 2022

[spooky7]

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.

 

[Introvertebrate]

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.

 

[goliathusdavid]

"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...

 

[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.

 

[TheQuietPoet28]

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]

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...

 

[goliathusdavid]

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

 

[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?

 

[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.

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!

 

[Introvertebrate]

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................"

 

[Ungoliant]

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.

 

[emartinm28]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.