New York Assembly Bill A4611

[goliathusdavid]

If you look over the state assembly website you will see the justification for the bill in addition to the bill’s wording. Essentially, the bill was introduced because a shipment of live chicks sent through the United States postal service died in transit due to postal delays over the past summer. Furthermore, based on the wording, it looks like the bill would only affect the US postal service and not private carriers despite their being causally mentioned. Also I believe it’s always been illegal to ship tarantulas through the USPS anyway which may be why they are not included in the bill. For all intents and purposes this bill does seem to be the product of an animal rights agenda (look at the wording in the justification). However the wording is murky when it comes to companies like FEDEX and UPS since they are not clearly mentioned as being prohibited from shipping live animals. Most vendors don’t ship USPS anyway so I don’t see much of a big change here. To sum it all up, the USPS could not handle delivering a live cargo in time and allowed the animals to perish due to its ineptitude. As a result responsible hobbyist are being punished for something we had nothing to do with.

I disagree with your analysis of the bill's wording. As I previously wrote, it states clearly, "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership or corporation to mail or offer for mailing a live animal by postal mail into or within the state of New York or from the state of New York to points outside the state of New York." FedEx and UPS are postal carriers. They are included, even if we don't want them to be. My analysis is also the same as the US Association of Reptile Keepers.
And yes, while the primary justification is animal rights, I would not be at all surprised if illegal trafficking was also a factor (even if not listed), considering the widespread issues New York sees with wildlife trafficking (with the majority of enforcement left to the thinly spread 261 federal wildlife enforcement officers). Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is the right way to go about dealing with trafficking, or animal rights issues in the postal system, but even though I disagree with the reasoning, I understand it.
Lastly, I will be honestly shocked if this passes given the implications for agriculture in addition to the reptile\amphibian hobby. Not saying it couldn't pass but I would be VERY surprised.

 

[Dandrobates]

I disagree with your analysis of the bill's wording. As I previously wrote, it states clearly, "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership or corporation to mail or offer for mailing a live animal by postal mail into or within the state of New York or from the state of New York to points outside the state of New York." FedEx and UPS are postal carriers. They are included, even if we don't want them to be. My analysis is also the same as the US Association of Reptile Keepers.
And yes, while the primary justification is noanimal rights, I would not be at all surprised if illegal trafficking was also a factor (even if not listed), considering the widespread issues New York sees with wildlife trafficking (with the majority of enforcement left to the thinly spread 261 federal wildlife enforcement officers). Now don't get me wrong, I don't think this is the right way to go about dealing with trafficking, or animal rights issues in the postal system, but even though I disagree with the reasoning, I understand it.
Lastly, I will be honestly shocked if this passes given the implications for agriculture in addition to the reptile\amphibian hobby. Not saying it couldn't pass but I would be VERY surprised.

Yes I read USARKs interpretation of the bill and my reaction to that interpretation is the same as the way I have stated it here. I do not disagree with this interpretation per se. I would however like to see greater clarification of the term “postal mail”. As the bill states “It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership or corporation to mail or offer for mailing a live animal by postal mail etc” my interpretation is that the term “postal mail” applies to mail send via USPS as it does not implicitly state that the bill applies specifically to private carriers. If there was a clear definition of the term “postal mail” in the bill. I would agree 100 percent if the wording implicitly defined private carriers as postal mail.

 

[goliathusdavid]

Yes I read USARKs interpretation of the bill and my reaction to that interpretation is the same as the way I have stated it here. I do not disagree with this interpretation per se. I would however like to see greater clarification of the term “postal mail”. As the bill states “It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership or corporation to mail or offer for mailing a live animal by postal mail etc” my interpretation is that the term “postal mail” applies to mail send via USPS as it does not implicitly state that the bill applies specifically to private carriers. If there was a clear definition of the term “postal mail” in the bill. I would agree 100 percent if the wording implicitly defined private carriers as postal mail.

I agree that clarification would be nice, but I think you need to assume that they mean all private carriers. FedEx, UPS, etc, are all classified as mail carriers, and I think can be safely assumed to fall under the category of postal mail. Otherwise, frankly, this bill would be utterly meaningless.

 

[Dandrobates]

I agree that clarification would be nice, but I think you need to assume that they mean all private carriers. FedEx, UPS, etc, are all classified as mail carriers, and I think can be safely assumed to fall under the category of postal mail. Otherwise, frankly, this bill would be utterly meaningless.

Ambiguity can be a friend or an enemy throughout the legislative process. This is why we have lawyers lol. In the legal world there is a term called “void for vagueness” Essentially, a law can be deemed unconstitutional because of its vagueness, as that law would interfere with due process as the average person may not be able to clearly interpret it. The law must also provide specific standards to law enforcement to enforce such a law, The nonspecific nature of the bill may very well ultimately be its undoing . Obviously it’s only a bill at this stage but should it become law a lack of concise definitions could allow it to be declared unconstitutional. Assumption is not necessarily enough in cases where clearly defined language is present.

In addition, there is no language in the bill that addresses exceptions that may include zoos, laboratories, museums, universities etc. So therefore are we to also assume that all these entities are restricted from shipping as well?

 

[goliathusdavid]

Ambiguity can be a friend or an enemy throughout the legislative process. This is why we have lawyers lol. In the legal world there is a term called “void for vagueness” Essentially, a law can be deemed unconstitutional because of its vagueness, as that law would interfere with due process as the average person may not be able to clearly interpret it. The law must also provide specific standards to law enforcement to enforce such a law, The nonspecific nature of the bill may very well ultimately be its undoing . Obviously it’s only a bill at this stage but should it become law a lack of concise definitions could allow it to be declared unconstitutional. Assumption is not necessarily enough in cases where clearly defined language is present.

In addition, there is no language in the bill that addresses exceptions that may include zoos, laboratories, museums, universities etc. So therefore are we to also assume that all these entities are restricted from shipping as well?

I would agree that the ambiguity may definitely result in a rewrite or a voiding of the bill. The lack of exceptions may also be a problem, though it is important to note that for zoos at least, very little stuff is coming through the mail. Universities and labs is a mix, but I don't think this bill would affect institutions nearly as much as individuals. That said, exemptions would still be great.
As I've said before, I think it highly unlikely that this will pass.

 

[Dandrobates]

Also, as far as the illegal wildlife trade goes, there are much stiffer laws and penalties at the federal level. Violating the endangered species act, the Lacey act and injurious wildlife legislation will result in a much stiffer penalty than a maximum 1000 dollar fine at a state level. So I don’t see this bill as being a deterrent when it comes to the wildlife trade.

 

[sk063]

I truly hope the bill gets voted down, it seems to be a slippery slope no matter if it was well intended. Not enough specifics to protect hobbyists. If it passes in NY it could pass in your state, then possibly country wide, Shut it down! JMO

 

[mack1855]

So...….what about Petcos/PetSmart and Mom and POP pet stores?.Do they close up?.Tropical fish stores?.Out of business?.

 

[goliathusdavid]

So...….what about Petcos/PetSmart and Mom and POP pet stores?.Do they close up?.Tropical fish stores?.Out of business?.

No. This is only addressing mail shipping. MOST pet stores would still operate as per usual, as they normally have supply chains that don't rely on postal services anyway. Mom and pop shops, not so sure. Also, only if this passes, which it probably wont.

 

[Hardus nameous]

No. This is only addressing mail shipping. MOST pet stores would still operate as per usual, as they normally have supply chains that don't rely on postal services anyway. Mom and pop shops, not so sure. Also, only if this passes, which it probably wont.

I have to disagree with you on this one. The terms I had to look up were things like mail and post. From what I could gather this bill would stop everyone from pet stores large and small to zoos, research facilities etc.
All it has to do is be delivered to an address to be considered sent through a postal system.

 

[ConstantSorrow]

Unbelievable. Like we don't have bigger issues to focus on right on.
Can't get a Covid vaccine for love nor money but hey.....let's screw with the reptile people.

 

[goliathusdavid]

I have to disagree with you on this one. The terms I had to look up were things like mail and post. From what I could gather this bill would stop everyone from pet stores large and small to zoos, research facilities etc.
All it has to do is be delivered to an address to be considered sent through a postal system.

It would stop them from shipping and receiving live vertebrates through mail, but major pet stores (with supply chains) and certainly zoos do very little of that already. None of the zoological institutions I have worked with rely on postal systems, except for invertebrates. That said, there should still be exemptions for scientific institutions and for pet businesses, there is no question those exemptions are needed. That's one of the many reasons I think this will not pass, even with significant editing.