Lacey Act 2022

Matt Man

Arachnoprince
Active Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2017
Messages
1,432
different set up but i’ve managed to condense a whole room of specimens down to 3 shelves fitting nothing but Exo Terras - never underestimate a good shelf haha
Most of my arboreal species are in ExoTerras. The majority in 12x12 x 18s
 

l4nsky

Aspiring Mad Genius
Arachnosupporter +
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
789
UPDATE 3/17/22: Discussions are escalating regarding the reconciliation of S1260 and HR4521. The goal to strengthen the economy of the U.S. is a priority so the formal conference to reconcile the bills may begin in late March or early April. Please keep contacting your legislators to keep the Lacey Act amendments from being included in the final bill!
TAKE ACTION

The bill passed the House on 2/4. Attention must move to the Senate as the House and Senate versions will merge. Remember to be civil and professional at all times. Please personalize/edit your letters, if possible. We have a sample letter and Talking Points below. You can also copy/paste some of our Talking Points (below letter) instead of the sample letter or when sending follow-up emails.

NOTE: At this time, we need more phone calls, mailed letters, and faxes! These carry more weight than emails.

1. Call your legislators;
2. Mail and fax letters to your legislators;
3. Email your legislators;
4. SHARE this and encourage others to complete the Alert!!!
https://usark.org/2022lacey/

20220324_140357.jpg
We're coming down to the wire here folks. I sent my emails awhile back, but USARK is requesting a more personal and archaic means of communication. So, here are my letters, bad hand writing, cute otter stamps, and all. Where are your letters? Show them off.

I would also like to add for those individuals who are sitting on the sidelines believing this won't effect you or the animals you currently or have plans to keep, don't be naive. If these amendments to the Lacey Act become law, it absolutely will. Prior to getting into inverts, I kept aquariums for two decades. My preferences ran towards keeping predatory fish and at the time I was active on forums like this geared towards those hobbies (even helped moderate on one forum). I remember in July of 2002 when the proposal to add all Channa and Parachanna species (commonly referred to as snakeheads) to the injurious list was first proposed. I remember the lackadaisical response by the community. I remember the belief that it'll never be reinforced. I remember the panic buying before October of 2002 when the ruling went into effect. I remember the individuals who attempted to openly sell and ship CB Channa gachua online to different states after October 2002. I remember the legal troubles that forum was exposed to because they allowed it. I remember never hearing from those sellers again. I've seen it all happen once, I'll be damned if I see it happen a second time.
 
Last edited:

darkness975

Latrodectus
Arachnosupporter +
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
4,803
https://usark.org/2022lacey/

View attachment 413882
We're coming down to the wire here folks. I sent my emails awhile back, but USARK is requesting a more personal and archaic means of communication. So, here are my letters, bad hand writing, cute otter stamps, and all. Where are your letters? Show them off.

I would also like to add for those individuals who are sitting on the sidelines believing this won't effect you or the animals you currently or have plans to keep, don't be naive. If these amendments to the Lacey Act become law, it absolutely will. Prior to getting into inverts, I kept aquariums for two decades. My preferences ran towards keeping predatory fish and at the time I was active on forums like this geared towards those hobbies (even helped moderate on one forum). I remember in July of 2002 when the proposal to add all Channa and Parachanna species (commonly referred to as snakeheads) to the injurious list was first proposed. I remember the lackadaisical response by the community. I remember the belief that it'll never be reinforced. I remember the panic buying before October of 2002 when the ruling went into effect. I remember the individuals who attempted to openly sell and ship CB Channa gachua online to different states after October 2002. I remember the legal troubles that forum was exposed to because they allowed it. I remember never hearing from those sellers again. I've seen it all happen once, I'll be damned if I see it happen a second time.
Sadly we have channels claiming we're all crazy and it won't affect us at all. I really do hope this does not come to pass. It will be an irreversible nail in the coffin.
Tarantula Collective did an update video.
 
Last edited:

YungRasputin

Arachnobaron
Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2021
Messages
398
Sadly we have channels claiming we're all crazy and it won't affect us at all. I really do hope this does not come to pass. It will be an irreversible nail in the coffin.
Tarantula Collective did an update video.
the people being contrary and intentionally downplaying this are a problem - the only way we can truly fight this thing is to be united and active - hopefully the senate will take up their version of the bill that leaves the ban out
 

LucN

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
287
I tried both CA senators and got a very polite go away from both of them
Really ? I would have thought they'd stand up for those that vote for them. The sad reality is that a great majority of people just don't get the exotic pet trade. To them, it's possibly silly to keep a lizard or even a big hairy spider in an aquarium. We'll have to wait and see, I'm afraid. If it does pass, virtually every commercial channel of the exotic pet hobby will be greatly affected, from breeders to pet shops to us casual keepers. The best we can do is to reach out to as many politicians who actually understand our hobby. I'm sure there must some out there that have a thing for exotic animals.
 

Zerpa27

Arachnopeon
Joined
Apr 10, 2022
Messages
2
I think what it comes to is all sides know the America Competes Act is a vote getter and any "pork" added to it will be overlooked.
 

spideyspinneret78

Arachnoangel
Active Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2019
Messages
926
Well, thus far the version the Senate is proposing doesn't include the Lacey Act amendments. We're just going to need to hope that someone doesn't sneak them into the reconciled bill. Which means keep speaking up about it, keep spreading the word, and keep discussing it. Also, the amendments they're proposing are too broad and heavy handed of an approach (and to even be enforceable for that matter), but I do think that some changes need to be made to better address wildlife trafficking. I honestly don't know what changes could be made that would be fair and actually address the issue. It's very complicated. An all encompassing ban isn't the answer, though.
 

cold blood

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
12,755
I do think that some changes need to be made to better address wildlife trafficking.
I think most of us feel that way...but there is no logical way to think that restricting captive breeding and sales could ever help, in fact, make it harder for captive breeding and shipping them and you do the opposite, as this restriction would only serve to make smuggling more profitable.

Glad to hear its currently out of the bill, hope it stays that way..

But I will also say, nothing is irreversible.
 

Arachnophobphile

Arachnobaron
Active Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
443
Well, thus far the version the Senate is proposing doesn't include the Lacey Act amendments. We're just going to need to hope that someone doesn't sneak them into the reconciled bill. Which means keep speaking up about it, keep spreading the word, and keep discussing it. Also, the amendments they're proposing are too broad and heavy handed of an approach (and to even be enforceable for that matter), but I do think that some changes need to be made to better address wildlife trafficking. I honestly don't know what changes could be made that would be fair and actually address the issue. It's very complicated. An all encompassing ban isn't the answer, though.
Good to hear they are not in the bill, for now.

As far as trafficking wildlife it's not the U.S.'s job to police the world and never should be.

Enforce what's coming in yes, but the countries where they are coming from need to better address their own issues not us.

Some countries have already passed stronger laws to deal with smuggling

However it's impossible to stop it completely. The manpower and government funds required are just not there.

I don't have all the answers to these issues. I don't think anyone does.

If the world dropped wanting wildlife then that would make it less interesting for the smugglers.
 

AphonopelmaTX

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
1,667
Really ? I would have thought they'd stand up for those that vote for them. The sad reality is that a great majority of people just don't get the exotic pet trade. To them, it's possibly silly to keep a lizard or even a big hairy spider in an aquarium. We'll have to wait and see, I'm afraid. If it does pass, virtually every commercial channel of the exotic pet hobby will be greatly affected, from breeders to pet shops to us casual keepers. The best we can do is to reach out to as many politicians who actually understand our hobby. I'm sure there must some out there that have a thing for exotic animals.
While there are those who won't understand the exotic pet industry, and those who specifically like possessing creepy crawlies, I'm not confident that the exotic pet industry understands environmental conservation. Out of the hundreds, or maybe thousands, of exotic species imported into the U.S. from around the world, there just isn't enough data on many of them to assess their potential for upsetting the ecological balance in any given region if pet owners turn them loose into the environment, something that has happened a countless number of times. When it comes to exotic wildlife, it is better to take the side of caution and say that all exotic wildlife should not be allowed into U.S. until it has been determined that such wildlife would not cause harm to the environment and industry. A minority group of people who enjoy having exotic wildlife in their possession as a pet is not justification for risking the stability and health of native ecosystems by taking an "everything is fine until it's not" approach to wildlife importation. In other words, "that's not fair because I want it" is not a good way to argue against stricter wildlife import/ export laws.

The Lacey Act amendments on their own don't seem all that bad. My problem with them is that they are terribly vague. I don't understand how anyone can be for or against the amendments as they are written since the impact of the laws can not be assessed as-is. Even the answers to the majority of the questions of an FAQ on the USARK web page on these amendments say "I don't know." If there is any reason to reject the amendments, it would be based on ambiguous language and the lack of understanding of what the outcome of the new laws would be.
 

LucN

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
287
While there are those who won't understand the exotic pet industry, and those who specifically like possessing creepy crawlies, I'm not confident that the exotic pet industry understands environmental conservation. Out of the hundreds, or maybe thousands, of exotic species imported into the U.S. from around the world, there just isn't enough data on many of them to assess their potential for upsetting the ecological balance in any given region if pet owners turn them loose into the environment, something that has happened a countless number of times. When it comes to exotic wildlife, it is better to take the side of caution and say that all exotic wildlife should not be allowed into U.S. until it has been determined that such wildlife would not cause harm to the environment and industry. A minority group of people who enjoy having exotic wildlife in their possession as a pet is not justification for risking the stability and health of native ecosystems by taking an "everything is fine until it's not" approach to wildlife importation. In other words, "that's not fair because I want it" is not a good way to argue against stricter wildlife import/ export laws.

The Lacey Act amendments on their own don't seem all that bad. My problem with them is that they are terribly vague. I don't understand how anyone can be for or against the amendments as they are written since the impact of the laws can not be assessed as-is. Even the answers to the majority of the questions of an FAQ on the USARK web page on these amendments say "I don't know." If there is any reason to reject the amendments, it would be based on ambiguous language and the lack of understanding of what the outcome of the new laws would be.
Yes, there has been careless individuals that released their pets into the wild and it has caused massive ecological problems. Look no further than the Burmese pythons established in the Everglades. People bought babies because they looked cute, but when they gained some serious size, many realized they were way over their heads and released the animal into the wild instead. That probably explains that small population of T. vagans in Florida as well. But I doubt they pose much of a threat to the native wildlife as opposed to the pythons. Because of a many irresponsible keepers, we now have bans on various species. It sucks, but when we see the ecological damage being done, how can we blame the government for taking such drastic action ?

Anyone willing to buy an exotic pet should be aware that many are long-term commitments. Sadly, not everyone's cut out to stick till the end :/
 

Arachnophobphile

Arachnobaron
Active Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Messages
443
I agree 100% with @AphonopelmaTX and @LucN

The sad thing is, ( I know this isn't tarantula related so forgive me) I have seen this over the course of my life way too often with dogs in particular. The things I've seen have sadden me.

The same thing with exotics have happened. Not just pythons in Florida but also with Tegu's. Tegu's have spread fast up from Florida into some of the other southern states.

PS. What is up with the crazy spell check on my phone that I have to continually edit my post, arghhhh.
 

LucN

Arachnoknight
Old Timer
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
287
I agree 100% with @AphonopelmaTX and @LucN

The sad thing is, ( I know this isn't tarantula related so forgive me) I have seen this over the course of my life way too often with dogs in particular. The things I've seen have sadden me.

The same thing with exotics have happened. Not just pythons in Florida but also with Tegu's. Tegu's have spread fast up from Florida into some of the other southern states.

PS. What is up with the crazy spell check on my phone that I have to continually edit my post, arghhhh.
Oh yeah, way too many people buy on impulse, only to realize weeks or months later, that they don't like the animal they've bought. So all forms of animals find their way to a Animal care center, which many don't even get a second chance with caring owners. Cockatoos, to name one animal, seem to be excessively dropped off when people realize the sheer massive commitment they demand. Only truly dedicated people find their comfort with them and all the good/bad that comes with them. A good example is Dan who owns Max (Mr Max TV on Youtube) and has learned everything about the animal and it shows he knows how to deal with him.
 

Comatose

Arachnobaron
Old Timer
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
499
While there are those who won't understand the exotic pet industry, and those who specifically like possessing creepy crawlies, I'm not confident that the exotic pet industry understands environmental conservation. Out of the hundreds, or maybe thousands, of exotic species imported into the U.S. from around the world, there just isn't enough data on many of them to assess their potential for upsetting the ecological balance in any given region if pet owners turn them loose into the environment, something that has happened a countless number of times. When it comes to exotic wildlife, it is better to take the side of caution and say that all exotic wildlife should not be allowed into U.S. until it has been determined that such wildlife would not cause harm to the environment and industry. A minority group of people who enjoy having exotic wildlife in their possession as a pet is not justification for risking the stability and health of native ecosystems by taking an "everything is fine until it's not" approach to wildlife importation. In other words, "that's not fair because I want it" is not a good way to argue against stricter wildlife import/ export laws.

The Lacey Act amendments on their own don't seem all that bad. My problem with them is that they are terribly vague. I don't understand how anyone can be for or against the amendments as they are written since the impact of the laws can not be assessed as-is. Even the answers to the majority of the questions of an FAQ on the USARK web page on these amendments say "I don't know." If there is any reason to reject the amendments, it would be based on ambiguous language and the lack of understanding of what the outcome of the new laws would be.
It’s kind of weird that the amendment explicitly excludes cats, dogs and farm animals then, no? Given that they’re the vast, vast majority of invasive and feral animals, you’d think they’d actually focus there.

I do love the idea that this spectacular delegation of power and authority being handed to USFWS would somehow result in them actually evaluating individual species using an evidence driven approach and making rulings based on the facts. Today they’re enforcing Yemenese and Malaysian law in the United States (I’m not making that up; this is first hand and true) because they feel like it and they feel like they can. Something tells me more power isn’t the thing they need, nor is it a good case for conservationism.

In one way I guess you’re right, though. Brown boxers do fine today, and they’ll do even better after this passes. I guess for the average hobbyist it may not make a huge difference.

I agree 100% with @AphonopelmaTX and @LucN

The sad thing is, ( I know this isn't tarantula related so forgive me) I have seen this over the course of my life way too often with dogs in particular. The things I've seen have sadden me.

The same thing with exotics have happened. Not just pythons in Florida but also with Tegu's. Tegu's have spread fast up from Florida into some of the other southern states.

PS. What is up with the crazy spell check on my phone that I have to continually edit my post, arghhhh.
Again, dogs are explicitly exempt. And given that Florida is almost the entire area of concern for invasive species, shouldn’t it perhaps be a Florida law rather one that impacts everyone?

Yes, there has been careless individuals that released their pets into the wild and it has caused massive ecological problems. Look no further than the Burmese pythons established in the Everglades. People bought babies because they looked cute, but when they gained some serious size, many realized they were way over their heads and released the animal into the wild instead. That probably explains that small population of T. vagans in Florida as well. But I doubt they pose much of a threat to the native wildlife as opposed to the pythons. Because of a many irresponsible keepers, we now have bans on various species. It sucks, but when we see the ecological damage being done, how can we blame the government for taking such drastic action ?

Anyone willing to buy an exotic pet should be aware that many are long-term commitments. Sadly, not everyone's cut out to stick till the end :/
And some people drive drunk. Is it cool if we suspend your drivers license because some other drivers are negligent?

Good to hear they are not in the bill, for now.

As far as trafficking wildlife it's not the U.S.'s job to police the world and never should be.

Enforce what's coming in yes, but the countries where they are coming from need to better address their own issues not us.

Some countries have already passed stronger laws to deal with smuggling

However it's impossible to stop it completely. The manpower and government funds required are just not there.

I don't have all the answers to these issues. I don't think anyone does.

If the world dropped wanting wildlife then that would make it less interesting for the smugglers.
Just to clarify, it’s in the house version of the bill, which the senate could theoretically pass tomorrow. That won’t happen, but it’s still very much in the bill.

When people talk about the reconciliation stage of the process, they’re effectively describing the situation in a much more evenly divided senate when 60 votes are required to pass a law like this. The senate can either pass the house bill as is (very unlikely) or reconcile it with their own more limited bill, and then kick it back to the house. That’s obviously the best opportunity to strip out this comparatively tiny portion.

The challenge is that there are senate republicans who very much want this to pass, because as I mentioned this is a Florida driven bill, and both senators in that state are Republican. That means horse trading to get this through will be easier, and finding 8 more republicans to get on board won’t be that hard.

The answer is absolutely to continue reaching out to your legislators. While it may feel discouraging to get automated responses, it’s to be expected. Each California senator represents something like 17 million people. Even in my podunk state it’s like 900k each. It’s not going to be one letter or one email that does it; it’s going to be the torrent of voices telling battleground senators and representatives that this is not the hill to die on.

Also, join USARK. I don’t know if anyone noticed, but they recently added inverts to their mission statement, and they’re VERY generously assisting in fighting a battle that affects us more than more of us know. I’m hoping more on that will become public soon.
 
Top