Lacey Act 2022

Comatose

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
499
Thoughts?
Makes my blood boil. He’s spectacularly ignorant and his interpretation of the section he’s discussing is pure invention on his part. He doesn’t even address the changes to the injurious species provision, and he’s reading the “white list” provision the way a small child would interpret bad behavior on the part of a parent.

Literally not a single thing he said was true.
 

Jmadson13

Arachnoprince
Old Timer
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
1,075
The captive bred market is already way tighter than I remember 16 years ago when I got out of the hobby , hell you can't find Grammostola rosea, phormictopus cancerides or other widely available species anymore. I'd imagine we'll start really seeing an effect in the next 6 months or so and I'd be really interested I. Picking a regular importers brain about the long term .
 

goliathusdavid

Arachnobaron
Arachnosupporter +
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
487
Again, this has not yet passed the Senate. There are three things really getting in the way of effective advocacy right now 1) people denying there is any threat to the hobby 2) people accepting the amendments as something that have already happened and 3) people conflating the Lacey Act Amendments with the entire America COMPETES Act (which will pass in large part because it has a lot fo good stuff).

I'm not saying that there is not a real likelihood this will become law. But what I am saying is that with an organized campaign of advocacy that comes at this with biosecurity and anti-trafficking in mind IN ADDITION to the rights of pet owners, it can potentially be prevented from becoming law.

If this does pass, it would be a year before it took effect. And the long term implications are pretty clear: either the vast majority of the pet trade will continue to operate, just now illegally and despite substantial economic damage, or it will slowly begin to collapse. And given the tendencies of Americans with exotics I can almost guarantee it will be the former. The demand will not be gone, so some form of illegal supply will continue. Will it be anything like the hobby currently? No. It won't.

So we can't downplay this but we also can't act like it's already happened. So speak up, pressure legislators, organize a lobbying campaign, propose new biosecurity policy WHATEVER, but if you want your voice heard then you have to do something. And maybe take a step back and reflect on how we should effectively regulate the hobby and larger exotic pet trade. That's what I am doing. Because while these amendments should most certainly be removed, you cannot deny that the hobby and larger wildlife trade needs better regulation.
 

Smotzer

Arachnoemperor
Active Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
4,063
Just to play devils advocate~What makes us think tarantula’s would be a high priority target for listing anyway? There are far more highly ecologically devastating arthropods such as the flourishing isopod market, that would make far more sense to target. Arachnids have rarely been targets of these laws in the first place. Where are there any references to arachnids and or specifically tarantulas? Maybe I missed something.
 

emartinm28

Arachnoknight
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
269
Just to play devils advocate~What makes us think tarantula’s would be a high priority target for listing anyway? There are far more highly ecologically devastating arthropods such as the flourishing isopod market, that would make far more sense to target. Arachnids have rarely been targets of these laws in the first place. Where are there any references to arachnids and or specifically tarantulas? Maybe I missed something.
I think right now it’s less a concern of them being listed as injurious by the FWS, which I still believe is unlikely, but because any animal not imported in minimal quantities the year preceding the act will be presumed to be prohibited from importation of any kind unless the FWS specifically gives it the ok
 

joossa

Arachnoknight
Joined
Nov 21, 2020
Messages
278
Just to play devils advocate~What makes us think tarantula’s would be a high priority target for listing anyway? There are far more highly ecologically devastating arthropods such as the flourishing isopod market, that would make far more sense to target. Arachnids have rarely been targets of these laws in the first place. Where are there any references to arachnids and or specifically tarantulas? Maybe I missed something.
Correct me, someone, if I am wrong... but isn't it set up in the opposite way? Where it's not a case of animals or species being targeted for restrictions and bans, but rather, the restrictions are blanket and animals will have to be white listed. So it's less a question of why would T's be targeted and more of is there enough there to white list them.
 

emartinm28

Arachnoknight
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
269
Correct me, someone, if I am wrong... but isn't it set up in the opposite way? Where it's not a case of animals or species being targeted for restrictions and bans, but rather, the restrictions are blanket and animals will have to be white listed. So it's less a question of why would T's be targeted and more of is there enough there to white list them.
The white list will be for importation.
to ban them from being transported across state lines, they’ll need to specifically go after them. To import them, each species will need specific permission if it doesn’t satisfy that minimal quantities requirement.
 

Smotzer

Arachnoemperor
Active Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
4,063
Correct me, someone, if I am wrong... but isn't it set up in the opposite way? Where it's not a case of animals or species being targeted for restrictions and bans, but rather, the restrictions are blanket and animals will have to be white listed. So it's less a question of why would T's be targeted and more of is there enough there to white list them.
I’ve don’t know of much blankets by USDA USFWS, other than maybe Phasmatodea but that’s for a very good reason, it’s usually targeted species specifically injurious to plants or ecosystems.
 

Comatose

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
499
Just to play devils advocate~What makes us think tarantula’s would be a high priority target for listing anyway? There are far more highly ecologically devastating arthropods such as the flourishing isopod market, that would make far more sense to target. Arachnids have rarely been targets of these laws in the first place. Where are there any references to arachnids and or specifically tarantulas? Maybe I missed something.
I hate “trust me” posts, but trust me: USFWS uniquely hates the tarantula/invert hobby. If you’re aware of the situation that developed with seladonia a few years ago, know that not only has it not gone away, it’s gotten much broader and much worse. It may be a similar situation with some reptiles, but inverts are clearly the focus, and it’s a proactive effort on their part.

I’m just a person on the internet so feel free to disregard if you like; this has little bearing on the effort to keep this from passing anyway. I do hope more of this comes to light in the coming weeks or months, though.


The white list will be for importation.
to ban them from being transported across state lines, they’ll need to specifically go after them. To import them, each species will need specific permission if it doesn’t satisfy that minimal quantities requirement.
I wouldn’t view the “minimal quantities” portion as an automatic qualifier for entry. They still need to define that term, make a determination as to what qualifies, and then add them. Right now if you import something and they don’t feel like releasing it, they can hold it indefinitely.
 
Last edited:

spooky7

Arachnopeon
Joined
Oct 26, 2021
Messages
5
Just to play devils advocate~What makes us think tarantula’s would be a high priority target for listing anyway? There are far more highly ecologically devastating arthropods such as the flourishing isopod market, that would make far more sense to target. Arachnids have rarely been targets of these laws in the first place. Where are there any references to arachnids and or specifically tarantulas? Maybe I missed something.
I watched a Livestream on Youtube with Phil Goss President of USARK last week speaking about his interpretation of the bill. He was asked point-blank if tarantulas and inverts would fall under the new amendments. He said that "they would probably fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA and there is a chance they would not be impacted by the bill."

This gave me a lot of hope. I imagine others on here can weigh in on his comments and speculate whether or not they are accurate. Just sharing what I heard.
 

Comatose

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
499
I watched a Livestream on Youtube with Phil Goss President of USARK last week speaking about his interpretation of the bill. He was asked point-blank if tarantulas and inverts would fall under the new amendments. He said that "they would probably fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA and there is a chance they would not be impacted by the bill."

This gave me a lot of hope. I imagine others on here can weigh in on his comments and speculate whether or not they are accurate. Just sharing what I heard.

Did he really say that? If so I can only think he misspoke, because that makes no sense. USDA-APHIS and USFWS essentially share jurisdiction as it applies to injurious or invasive species and routinely work together. If you attempt to import an animal banned by USDA, chances are they’ll be seized by USFWS (particularly since you’d be violating Lacey) and not APHIS.

There’s also no real issue of jurisdiction here; the amendment as written is pretty clear. The only exception I can think of is that arthropods other than crustaceans seem to be excluded from the language of the current and new Lacey injurious provisions. Regardless that doesn’t seem to apply to the import component.
 

Smotzer

Arachnoemperor
Active Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
4,063
I watched a Livestream on Youtube with Phil Goss President of USARK last week speaking about his interpretation of the bill. He was asked point-blank if tarantulas and inverts would fall under the new amendments. He said that "they would probably fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA and there is a chance they would not be impacted by the bill."

This gave me a lot of hope. I imagine others on here can weigh in on his comments and speculate whether or not they are accurate. Just sharing what I heard.
I lean on the side with this knowing how the plant protection acts have gone. Which is the USDA abd I don’t see the us government getting in there, abd I see no clear path for the USDA to get involved with tarantulas who are not “injurious”. This is my interpretation of the bill set forth in a historical scope of the USDA
 

Comatose

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
499
I lean on the side with this knowing how the plant protection acts have gone. Which is the USDA abd I don’t see the us government getting in there, abd I see no clear path for the USDA to get involved with tarantulas who are not “injurious”. This is my interpretation of the bill set forth in a historical scope of the USDA
Is that the basis by which they’ve prevented the importation of millipedes and isopods?
 

Smotzer

Arachnoemperor
Active Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
4,063
Is that the basis by which they’ve prevented the importation of millipedes and isopods?
Yes which are soil and plant pests with high ability to destroy ecosystems and spread, as historically they have done numerous times. . Which Tarantulas are not.
 

Comatose

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
499
That’s interesting. I guess my questions would be does the current/proposed language actually exclude non-crustacea arthropods, and is the import provision bound by the same limitation.

If so I guess that is reassuring, but it doesn’t change my view of the proposal. It also wouldn’t stop USFWS from enforcing it how ever they like and letting people who’ve had their animals seized litigate the issue for years.
 

darkness975

Latrodectus
Arachnosupporter +
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
4,803
Yes which are soil and plant pests with high ability to destroy ecosystems and spread, as historically they have done numerous times. . Which Tarantulas are not.
What about scorpions, centipedes, amblypygi, Araneomorphae, etc?
 

Arthroverts

Arachnoking
Active Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Messages
2,419
What about scorpions, centipedes, amblypygi, Araneomorphae, etc?
None of those are listed as "injurious". Currently it is pretty much only if it eats plant products (including rotten/decomposed material) or plant pollinators is it considered injurious, though obviously that includes a lot (arguably the majority of) of species that pose little to no threat to agriculture or native ecosystems.

Thanks,

Arthroverts
 

joossa

Arachnoknight
Joined
Nov 21, 2020
Messages
278
Are any of you prepping for the worst (i.e. purchased or planning on purchasing additional tarantulas you weren't necessarily planning on getting before this came into the spotlight)?
 

Comatose

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
499
Are any of you prepping for the worst (i.e. purchased or planning on purchasing additional tarantulas you weren't necessarily planning on getting before this came into the spotlight)?
I don’t think panic buying is the right response. I can certainly see that happening if this passes, and in the year before it takes effect I’m sure plenty of folks would do that, but anyone telling you to buy now before it’s too late or whatever is just trying to take advantage of a bad situation.

My suggestion continues to be to continue politely but firmly voicing your opposition to this amendment to your senators and representative. If one of the former is up for re election this year, make sure you focus on them. Speak to them in their language and convey your point of view in a coherent and rational manner. Then tell everyone else you know to do so too.

TL;DR don’t prep for the worst, fight for the best ;)
 
Top