# Site General > Pet Related Laws & Legislation >  New Lacey Act Amendments

## WrongPython

For those who may not have heard, a new amendment to the Lacey Act was attached to the bill for America COMPETES Act that recently passed the US House of Representatives. The folks at USARK and the National Animal Interest Alliance have already summarized things pretty well, so head down those links if you'd like to get fully caught up on everything.

In a nutshell: the proposed amendment, as it stands, would bar the interstate transport of any species not on the new Lacey "whitelist." This means that you could not transport a non-whitelisted species across state lines for any reason, ie. personal moves, visiting a veterinarian out of state, or selling animals. Almost any species beyond cats, dogs, and common farm animals could be caught up in said transport embargo. So, needless to say, the final passage of this amendment wouldn't be good for the reptile hobby within the US.

It appears as though the ball is currently in the US Senate's court with this. Those so inclined should follow the suggestions within the USARK and NAIA pages to contact their senators with their concerns. Remember to be polite, and spread the word amongst your other pet-keeping friends!

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-07-2022),_Alicia_ (02-11-2022),*Bogertophis* (02-07-2022),Erie_herps (02-10-2022),Kristin2278 (02-17-2022),_nikkubus_ (02-12-2022),tropiclikeitshot (02-10-2022)

----------


## Bogertophis

I posted this previously, multiple times (including links below) under "Pet Related Laws & Legislation" (if you forget where you saw it here) but a bump never hurts- this could really impact so many things WE CARE ABOUT.   :Surprised:  

https://ball-pythons.net/forums/show...hirts-for-sale

https://ball-pythons.net/forums/show...nd-NC-Reminder

----------


## Homebody

I contacted my representatives and voiced my opposition to this law.

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-07-2022),*Bogertophis* (02-07-2022),_WrongPython_ (02-08-2022)

----------


## Albert Clark

Likewise, I did the same.

----------

*Bogertophis* (02-07-2022),_Homebody_ (02-07-2022),_WrongPython_ (02-08-2022)

----------


## Bogertophis

Me too.   :Smile:   Don't let them think this is just fine & they can sweep us all under the rug!

----------

_Homebody_ (02-08-2022),_Spicey_ (02-08-2022),_WrongPython_ (02-08-2022)

----------


## WrongPython

Just an FYI for interested peeps: it looks like there will be a livestream later tonight hosted by Dav Kaufman discussing the recent Lacey business. Below are some links for those who would like to tune in.

Announcement on Instagram (via VivTech): https://www.instagram.com/p/CZu1AMHP9S8/

Link to Dav's channel where stream will be held: https://bit.ly/reptileadventures

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-09-2022),*Bogertophis* (02-09-2022),Erie_herps (02-09-2022),_Homebody_ (02-09-2022),_Trinityblood_ (02-09-2022)

----------


## Bogertophis

Head's up everyone!  (bump)

----------

_WrongPython_ (02-09-2022)

----------


## WrongPython

Forgot to mention it earlier, but the stream is due to start at 7:00 pm US Central time. So yup, heads up y'all!

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-10-2022),*Bogertophis* (02-09-2022)

----------


## Bogertophis

Re-bump

----------


## Bogertophis

Good "pep talk"- now let's all be respectfully contacting our Senators- Remember, if they only hear from the "animal rights" people, they're NOT hearing what's important to all of us!

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-10-2022),_Homebody_ (02-10-2022)

----------


## Crowfingers

I have also reached out to various officials - one thing that no one I've talked to seems to have had explained to them is that this 'new wording' would literally prevent any petstore of any size or reputation in the US from selling most pets. Big box stores get there stock from wholesalers all over the place. If they can't sell the animals, then they likely won't sell the food / cages / equipment either - which would def reduce profits. I would imagine places like petco and petsmart could have more pull with the government than just us hobbyists, so I reached out to them as well.

On a side note - people, especially in the government, don't understand what an injurious species is. Everyone likes to label large "dangerous" wild animals like big cats, wolves, the big pythons, etc as scary and harmful. But, normal regular house cats kill billions of native and threatened bird species every year, almost as much as wind turbines and window strikes put together. They regulate nothing such as sale and breeding of hybrids - savanna cats, domestic fox, etc either. 

The other thing, this would harm private breeders more than most, targeting them as they conduct sales online. But for the average person with just a single pet ball python or tegu, the FWS is not staffed / funded / or able to search every car crossing state lines that *may* have an animal in it. And on top of that, say you were rushing your snake to the vet for an emergency, got pulled over for going over the speed limit - how many average cops have you all met that would either a) know that the Lacey act is a thing or b) could correctly identify any species of reptile? I've worked for years with animal control and federal wildlife services, and they are on average woefully ignorant of the animals they seek to protect. 

just my two cents.

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-10-2022),*Bogertophis* (02-10-2022),_Homebody_ (02-11-2022)

----------


## Bogertophis

*PLEASE NOTE & SIGN:*​  2 posts made here with petitions to sign to fight the Lacey Act Amendments have been moved to their own thread for better visibility:   

https://ball-pythons.net/forums/show...ts-PLEASE-SIGN

----------

_Alicia_ (02-11-2022),Erie_herps (02-10-2022)

----------


## Homebody

Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my understanding of the Lacey Act amendments.  If enacted:
Transporting *injurious species* across state lines will be prohibited;The Secretary of the Interior will be empowered to prohibit the importation of any species of "wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles" _he/she deems injurious_ to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States for up to 3 years;The importation of any species of "wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles" that is not native to the United States is prohibited unless: a) the species was imported into the United States or transported between the states in more than minimal quantities last year (_# of minimal quantities to be decided later_); or b) the Secretary of the Interior determines the species does not pose a significant risk of invasiveness.

----------


## Erie_herps

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my understanding of the Lacey Act amendments.  If enacted:
> Transporting *injurious species* across state lines will be prohibited;The Secretary of the Interior will be empowered to prohibit the importation of any species of "wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles" _he/she deems injurious_ to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States for up to 3 years;The importation of any species of "wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles" that is not native to the United States is prohibited unless: a) the species was imported into the United States or transported between the states in more than minimal quantities last year (_# of minimal quantities to be decided later_); or b) the Secretary of the Interior determines the species does not pose a significant risk of invasiveness.


For reference here is the current Lacey Act: https://www.fws.gov/le/pdffiles/lacey.pdf. And here is the proposed amendments on page 1661 https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek...-RCP117-31.pdf.
I'm confused with this too but here's how I interpreted it.
There's an emergency designation that bans the transportation of all animals (excluding all mammals and birds, only wild mammals and birds) between state lines and into the country. The emergency designation would automatically go into effect once published in the Federal Register or at a later date no later than 60 days.

----------

*Bogertophis* (02-11-2022)

----------


## Bogertophis

> For reference here is the current Lacey Act: https://www.fws.gov/le/pdffiles/lacey.pdf. And here is the proposed amendments on page 1661 https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek...-RCP117-31.pdf.
> I'm confused with this too but here's how I interpreted it.
> There's an emergency designation that bans the transportation of all animals (excluding all mammals and birds, only wild mammals and birds) between state lines and into the country. The emergency designation would automatically go into effect once published in the Federal Register or at a later date no later than 60 days.


I agree it's confusing, but historically speaking, it's risky when things get buried in such a large bill, & also when the language is vague enough to allow adverse interpretations later on.  

There's a reason they buried it in the first place- they don't want transparency, much less any opposition.  That's why we cannot afford to ignore this.

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-13-2022),Erie_herps (02-11-2022)

----------


## Homebody

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my understanding of the Lacey Act amendments.  If enacted:
> Transporting *injurious species* across state lines will be prohibited;The Secretary of the Interior will be empowered to prohibit the importation of any species of "wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles" _he/she deems injurious_ to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States for up to 3 years;The importation of any species of "wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles" that is not native to the United States is prohibited unless: a) the species was imported into the United States or transported between the states in more than minimal quantities last year (_# of minimal quantities to be decided later_); or b) the Secretary of the Interior determines the species does not pose a significant risk of invasiveness.


The significance of these changes, as I understand them, are as follows:
1. The current injurious species list includes retics and burms, so no one will be able to transport retics and burms across state lines.  I can't imagine how the market for retics and burms could survive.  It would also stop keepers of these species from moving with their pets or seeking veterinary help across state lines.  I believe this would include the dwarf varieties as well.  I mention burms and retics because they are the most popular of the injurious species but the list includes others.  That list is likely to grow, which brings me to my next point.
2.  The Secretary of the Interior will be able to add species to the injurious species list much more easily.  In fact, you won't find out a species you breed or keep is being added until it has already happened, so there will be no way to stop it.  We don't know to what extent the Secretary will use this power.  She could add a bunch of commonly kept species to the list on day one, or she may not add a single species for the rest of her tenure.  We don't know.  We do know that every species added to the list will suffer the same fate as the retics and burms.
3.  The other big question mark is what constitutes "minimum quantities."  I take this to mean that they don't want to stop species that are currently being imported.  They want to stop any new species from being imported. I think they will come up with a list of commonly imported species, decide species by species if it poses a significant risk of invasiveness, and if not, add the species to the "white" list of permitted imports.  While this will limit the impact on the most commonly kept pets, it will stop us from getting any new ones.

----------

Erie_herps (02-11-2022)

----------


## Snagrio

Gotta wonder what big box pet stores (PetSmart, Petco, ect.) think of this. Because it has the potential to take a MASSIVE bite out of their profits if commonly kept animals keep getting put on the list willy nilly (not only could they not sell animals, but eventually it would render the products they sell FOR those animals moot as well). The one time where corporate lobbying would work in our favor if things come to blows...

And like Crowfingers pointed out, this whole thing is one of the endless examples of how clueless and backwards the intentions of the government are. If they truly actually cared about limiting invasive species and protecting biodiversity, domestic cats would be the first thing on that list due to the untold damage they cause to ecosystems (one cat outright wiped out an entire population of birds on an island once for crying out loud). The fact that this bill was tucked under another one also tells me what this is really about. More control. More wagging their fingers at what we aren't allowed to do. And they think they can get away with it by going for more "acceptable targets" first in exotic animal keepers, which if they do, who knows if that will embolden them to try and remove the right to keep ANY animals, because that's how the lust for power grows. Give an inch, take a mile. Every time.

----------

_Crowfingers_ (02-11-2022),Erie_herps (02-12-2022),_Homebody_ (02-11-2022)

----------


## Snagrio

Messaged both my senator representatives just now. I don't normally message political figureheads or sign petitions and what have you, but this is one time I'm getting off my butt and doing something.

Don't. Tread. On. My. Animals.  :Snake:

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-13-2022),*Bogertophis* (02-11-2022),Erie_herps (02-12-2022),_Homebody_ (02-11-2022)

----------


## Homebody

There's a saying: Hope for the best.  Plan for the worst.  If you have your heart set on a burm, retic or tegu, get it now.

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-13-2022),Erie_herps (02-12-2022)

----------


## Bogertophis

> There's a saying: Hope for the best.  Plan for the worst.  If you have your heart set on a burm, retic or tegu, get it now.


But only if you're actually READY to take it on- financially & physically & in terms of your living situation- all animals deserve good homes, & they deserve to NOT be an "impulse-buy".     "Just because you can...doesn't mean you should."   :Wink:

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-13-2022),Erie_herps (02-12-2022),_Homebody_ (02-11-2022),tropiclikeitshot (02-12-2022)

----------


## bcr229

> 2.  The Secretary of the Interior will be able to add species to the injurious species list much more easily.  In fact, you won't find out a species you breed or keep is being added until it has already happened, so there will be no way to stop it.  We don't know to what extent the Secretary will use this power.  She could add a bunch of commonly kept species to the list on day one, or she may not add a single species for the rest of her tenure.  We don't know.  We do know that every species added to the list will suffer the same fate as the retics and burms.


This is incorrect.  The amendment does away with the Lacey Act injurious species list and it will be replaced with a "white list" of approved animals.  Anything not on the white list will be deemed injurious and thus not importable or transportable across state lines.

This bill presents a fundamental change in how our laws have historically worked.  In the past anything not explicitly declared illegal is by default legal, and it's how our government operates for all policies, not just animal species.  By specifying a "white list" of what is legal - meaning some unelected government employee or official has to take steps to add species to a list - anything not on the list is automatically illegal whether or not that species is invasive/injurious.


It wasn't all that long ago that the Tarahumara boa "locality" of boa imperator was actually declared its own species Boa Sigma.  If this law were in place then anyone who owned a Tarahumara suddenly wouldn't be able to transport or ship them interstate until some government agency studied them and determined whether or not they should be added to the whitelist.  This can happen with almost any exotic critter.


I am in the eastern panhandle of WV and this really affects me as we don't have any exotic vet specialists local.  There is one in Hagerstown, MD, and others in Winchester, Berryville, and Fairfax, VA.  If this law passes I'd have to drive the critter on state or county roads to Charleston, WV which would take about 8 hours each way.

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-13-2022),*Bogertophis* (02-13-2022),_dakski_ (02-12-2022),Erie_herps (02-12-2022)

----------


## Erie_herps

> Gotta wonder what big box pet stores (PetSmart, Petco, ect.) think of this. Because it has the potential to take a MASSIVE bite out of their profits if commonly kept animals keep getting put on the list willy nilly (not only could they not sell animals, but eventually it would render the products they sell FOR those animals moot as well). The one time where corporate lobbying would work in our favor if things come to blows...
> 
> And like Crowfingers pointed out, this whole thing is one of the endless examples of how clueless and backwards the intentions of the government are. If they truly actually cared about limiting invasive species and protecting biodiversity, domestic cats would be the first thing on that list due to the untold damage they cause to ecosystems (one cat outright wiped out an entire population of birds on an island once for crying out loud). The fact that this bill was tucked under another one also tells me what this is really about. More control. More wagging their fingers at what we aren't allowed to do. And they think they can get away with it by going for more "acceptable targets" first in exotic animal keepers, which if they do, who knows if that will embolden them to try and remove the right to keep ANY animals, because that's how the lust for power grows. Give an inch, take a mile. Every time.


I've emailed a couple large pet stores telling them about this. It would probably be good for lots of us to do the same. Because there's no way that they are going to let this pass.
I agree with the rest of your post, the extremist animal rights group are the ones behind this, like dozens of other bills. The goal isn't to help the wild populations or preserve human health (there have only been about 10 deaths from nonvenomous captive snakes ever recorded, compared to about 30-50 deaths from dog attacks per year), it's all about control and removing all animals from our lives.

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-13-2022),*Bogertophis* (02-13-2022)

----------


## Snagrio

So when is the deadline for this whole thing anyway? Genuinely have been losing sleep over it...  :Sad:

----------


## Homebody

> So when is the deadline for this whole thing anyway? Genuinely have been losing sleep over it...


During the Dav Kaufman segment, Phil Goss of USARK said the time to act isn't for weeks.  Now, is the time to get educated.  Congress is in recess.  When they get back their first priority will be passing the budget.  After that, they will turn to the COMPETES ACT.  Stay tuned for USARK alerts.  They will tell us when they need us to act.

----------

_Alicia_ (02-13-2022),*Bogertophis* (02-13-2022),Daniel_Effler (02-13-2022),Erie_herps (02-13-2022)

----------


## Homebody

> This is incorrect.  The amendment does away with the Lacey Act injurious species list and it will be replaced with a "white list" of approved animals.  Anything not on the white list will be deemed injurious and thus not importable or transportable across state lines.


I've heard that from credible sources, but I don't agree.  The amendment to section (a)(1) gives the Secretary the emergency power to add a species to the injurious species list.  That doesn't make sense if there is no injurious species list.  Furthermore, section (d)(1), added by another amendment, refers to the (a)(1) injurious species list.  Again, this wouldn't make sense if there isn't an injurious species list.  I do agree that these amendments are potentially disastrous to the exotic pet community.

----------

_Albert Clark_ (03-05-2022),Erie_herps (02-13-2022)

----------


## Trinityblood

> But only if you're actually READY to take it on- financially & physically & in terms of your living situation- all animals deserve good homes, & they deserve to NOT be an "impulse-buy".     "Just because you can...doesn't mean you should."


I'm avoiding this temptation. I want a boa and will be really sad if I suddenly can't get one...but I'm not ready for one yet. I wrote my senators and donated to USARK. Not sure there's much else I can do.

----------

*Bogertophis* (02-13-2022),_Homebody_ (02-14-2022)

----------


## Bogertophis

> I'm avoiding this temptation. I want a boa and will be really sad if I suddenly can't get one...but I'm not ready for one yet. I wrote my senators and donated to USARK. Not sure there's much else I can do.


I hope & sincerely believe they'll be surprised at the amount of push-back they get.  So many of us keeping reptiles ("exotic" pets) are low-key about it, & when law-makers don't hear about something, it doesn't exist for them until it's in their face.

----------

_55fingers_ (02-13-2022),Erie_herps (02-13-2022)

----------


## Bogertophis

> During the Dav Kaufman segment, Phil Goss of USARK said the time to act isn't for weeks.  Now, is the time to get educated.  Congress is in recess.  When they get back their first priority will be passing the budget.  After that, they will turn to the COMPETES ACT.  Stay tuned for USARK alerts.  They will tell us when they need us to act.


I don't think it would hurt one bit to start politely contacting them NOW with your opposition to these horrible changes, but please don't think it's a "One & Done" effort. 

If you contact them now, great, but don't forget that it's not over...don't forget to "rinse & repeat" as necessary, & especially when USARK alerts us all.   :Wink:  

We NEED EVERYONE in this effort.    :Group Hug:   "United we stand..."  (divided, we're toast)

----------

_55fingers_ (02-13-2022),Erie_herps (02-13-2022),_Homebody_ (02-13-2022),_WrongPython_ (02-13-2022)

----------


## Trinityblood

> I hope & sincerely believe they'll be surprised at the amount of push-back they get.  So many of us keeping reptiles ("exotic" pets) are low-key about it, & when law-makers don't hear about something, it doesn't exist for them until it's in their face.


Same here. This effects so many different types of pet keepers and I'm glad I'm seeing different hobbyist groups bringing it up.

----------

_55fingers_ (02-13-2022),*Bogertophis* (02-13-2022)

----------


## WrongPython

> I've heard that from credible sources, but I don't agree.  The amendment to section (a)(1) gives the Secretary the emergency power to add a species to the injurious species list.  That doesn't make sense if there is no injurious species list.  Furthermore, section (d)(1), added by another amendment, refers to the (a)(1) injurious species list.  Again, this wouldn't make sense if there isn't an injurious species list.  I do agree that these amendments are potentially disastrous to the exotic pet community.


To sum up the dense legal-ese used to write legislative stuff is complicated, the proposed Lacey amendment does two things on these fronts. 

One: the Secretary of the Interior (functionally, Department of the Interior agencies such as USFWS) have more unilateral authority to quickly add species to the injurious list in an emergency situation. The injurious list is still very much a thing with this amendment; it's not going away. If anything, it could become longer and/or stronger since species could be immediately added to the list via the new emergency listing provision this amendment proposes -- normally it can take quite some time to get species listed as injurious due to mandatory public comment periods and related requirements of regulatory procedures. Section (a) of the proposed amendment includes the injurious list changes.

Two: importation moves from "blacklist" territory (ie. you can import any given species unless it's on a ban list) to "whitelist" territory (ie. you can't import any given species unless it's on a list of approved species). Section (d) "Presumptive Prohibition on Importation" appears to be establishing the whitelist mechanism.

So yeah, the injurious list is still very much a thing, and a transition to a whitelist-based importation schedule is there.

Even though the final reconciliation and vote on this bill isn't likely to occur for a few weeks, the time to act is _now_. Look at this way: the sooner we speak up and bring our concerns to senators' attention, the sooner this stuff may be taken out. This isn't something you want to wait until the deadline for. Keep spreading the word, contact your senators, and stay aware. 

And please do contact your senators! Like Phil said in the stream, legislative officials don't really pay attention to petitions and rely upon their constituents reaching out to them _directly_ to know when something's up. So use those USARK email templates, contact your senators, and let your voice be heard! Early reports from other reptile peeps show that legislators are listening. One person I know was actually able to speak to a live person when they called the office, and a fairly well-known boa breeder on Instagram got a nice letter back from their rep. This isn't a hopeless battle unless we let it be.

----------

*Bogertophis* (02-13-2022),Erie_herps (02-14-2022),_Homebody_ (02-13-2022)

----------


## Bogertophis

By all means sign the petitions & make calls, but ALSO, it's very IMPORTANT to go to each senator's web page, select "contact" and send them an email- in your own words, not just a copied message- it's much more effective when it's personal.  And don't stop with just one- let's FLOOD them with our views!  That's exactly what "animal rights groups" do, because it works, it gets noticed.   Do it daily if you can, or at least a couple times a week- it only takes a few minutes to keep from losing our rights to keep the animals we love.  

We CAN do this!   :Snake:    Don't Tread on Us!   :Snake:

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-16-2022),Erie_herps (02-14-2022),_Homebody_ (02-13-2022),Kristin2278 (02-17-2022),tropiclikeitshot (02-15-2022),_WrongPython_ (02-13-2022)

----------


## Homebody

Just to continue the discussion because there is still a lot of confusion among us.

Under the newly amended Lacey Act, there will be both what we're calling a "black" and a "white" list.  The black list (described in section (a)(1)) will prohibit both the importation and interstate transport of species deemed "injurious" by the Secretary of the Interior.  The black list currently bans only the importation of "injurious" species.  The Secretary tried to interpret it to prohibit also the interstate transport of these species but a federal appeals court in 2017 disagreed.  The proposed amendments will reverse that victory and again prohibit the interstate transport of "injurious" species.  The amendments also give the Secretary the emergency power to add species to the "injurious" list, without notice, for up to 3 years.

The white list is new.  It's being added by amendment as section (d)(1).  This amendment will prohibit the importation of all non-native species that are not already prohibited under section (a)(1), the black list, unless during the year prior:
the species was imported in more than minimal quantities;the species was transported between the states in more than minimal quantities;the Secretary determines the species does not pose a significant risk of invasiveness.
The Secretary has a year to decide what constitutes "minimal quantities."  Whatever the Secretary decides, this will effectively ban the importation of millions of species with the only recourse being to convince the Secretary that the species doesn't pose a significant risk of invasiveness.

I think it's important to know that, even if these amendments are enacted, any action the Secretary takes under these amendments will be challenged.  If the Secretary uses her new emergency powers to add a species to the "injurious" species list, she will have convince the courts that there is, in fact, an emergency.  Otherwise, she doesn't have the power to act.  She can't just add species because she doesn't like them.  In addition, the white list will automatically include species imported in more than minimal quantities or transported between the states in more than minimal quantities.  The danger, of course, is that she gets to decide what constitutes "minimal quantities."  Theoretically, she could ban the importation of all exotic species just by defining "minimal quantities" as a very high number, but that will also have to hold up to a legal challenge. I'm also concerned about how the Secretary will determine how many of each species was imported or transported between the states.  There are probably fairly reliable records on imports, but I don't know how the Secretary will count the number transported between states.  I'm sure that whatever method she uses will be challenged.

But let's not let it come to that.  Continue to educate yourself, mobilize and stay tuned to USARK's alerts.

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-15-2022),*bcr229* (02-15-2022),*Bogertophis* (02-15-2022),Erie_herps (02-15-2022),Kristin2278 (02-17-2022)

----------


## Homebody

Oh!  And this is important.  The black list trumps the white list.  So, if your species is on the white list because it was imported or transported in more than minimal quantities.  That doesn't mean your safe.  The Secretary can still add it to the blacklist, and that will prohibit both its importation and transport between states.

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-16-2022),*bcr229* (02-15-2022),*Bogertophis* (02-15-2022),Erie_herps (02-15-2022),Kristin2278 (02-17-2022)

----------


## Homebody

This Reptiles Magazine article sums up the amendments well.

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-16-2022),*bcr229* (02-15-2022),*Bogertophis* (02-15-2022),Erie_herps (02-15-2022),Kristin2278 (02-17-2022),tropiclikeitshot (02-15-2022)

----------


## dakski

I emailed both my senators tonight. Brief and personal message, but to the point. I also encouraged them to reach out to me personally if they have questions. Probably won't happen, but it shows I am serious.

----------

_Albert Clark_ (02-16-2022),*Bogertophis* (02-15-2022),Erie_herps (02-16-2022),_Homebody_ (02-15-2022),Kristin2278 (02-17-2022)

----------


## Snagrio

> Just to continue the discussion because there is still a lot of confusion among us.
> 
> Under the newly amended Lacey Act, there will be both what we're calling a "black" and a "white" list.  The black list (described in section (a)(1)) will prohibit both the importation and interstate transport of species deemed "injurious" by the Secretary of the Interior.  The black list currently bans only the importation of "injurious" species.  The Secretary tried to interpret it to prohibit also the interstate transport of these species but a federal appeals court in 2017 disagreed.  The proposed amendments will reverse that victory and again prohibit the interstate transport of "injurious" species.  The amendments also give the Secretary the emergency power to add species to the "injurious" list, without notice, for up to 3 years.
> 
> The white list is new.  It's being added by amendment as section (d)(1).  This amendment will prohibit the importation of all non-native species that are not already prohibited under section (a)(1), the black list, unless during the year prior:
> the species was imported in more than minimal quantities;the species was transported between the states in more than minimal quantities;the Secretary determines the species does not pose a significant risk of invasiveness. 
> The Secretary has a year to decide what constitutes "minimal quantities."  Whatever the Secretary decides, this will effectively ban the importation of millions of species with the only recourse being to convince the Secretary that the species doesn't pose a significant risk of invasiveness.
> 
> I think it's important to know that, even if these amendments are enacted, any action the Secretary takes under these amendments will be challenged.  If the Secretary uses her new emergency powers to add a species to the "injurious" species list, she will have convince the courts that there is, in fact, an emergency.  Otherwise, she doesn't have the power to act.  She can't just add species because she doesn't like them.  In addition, the white list will automatically include species imported in more than minimal quantities or transported between the states in more than minimal quantities.  The danger, of course, is that she gets to decide what constitutes "minimal quantities."  Theoretically, she could ban the importation of all exotic species just by defining "minimal quantities" as a very high number, but that will also have to hold up to a legal challenge. I'm also concerned about how the Secretary will determine how many of each species was imported or transported between the states.  There are probably fairly reliable records on imports, but I don't know how the Secretary will count the number transported between states.  I'm sure that whatever method she uses will be challenged.
> ...


I've come to learn that "emergency powers" is an instant giant red flag when it comes to anything from the government. Heck _Star Wars_ of all things proved as such over a decade ago.

----------

Erie_herps (02-16-2022),_Homebody_ (02-16-2022),Kristin2278 (02-17-2022)

----------


## Trinityblood

> I've come to learn that "emergency powers" is an instant giant red flag when it comes to anything from the government. Heck _Star Wars_ of all things proved as such over a decade ago.


Lately emergency powers become permanent powers with forever moving goal posts.

----------

*bcr229* (02-16-2022),Erie_herps (02-16-2022),_Homebody_ (02-16-2022),Kristin2278 (02-17-2022)

----------


## Homebody

March 3, 2022Dear John:
Thank you for taking the time to write to me about your opposition to the Lacey Act amendments in the America COMPETES Act. I rely on the input of engaged New Jerseyans like you when making decisions, and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
I have received and processed your letter and deeply value the input that you have offered. I consider civic engagement to be the backbone of our democracy, and you can rest assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind when considering the COMPETES Act and similar legislation in the future. Again, thank you for contacting my office.
I am honored to represent you in the United States Senate, and I hope you will continue to contact me and my staff about the issues that are important to you. There are many challenges before us, but I know that if we work together, we will not only succeed, but make our state and nation stronger. For more information on my work in New Jersey and Washington, DC, please visit my website at booker.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Cory A. Booker
United States Senator


Tell me if I'm wrong, but as I read this, I think Mr. Booker is going to require some more convincing.

----------


## Crowfingers

Not to stir the pot too much, but I think that the language of the bill is taking the word "imports" far too loosely. To me, there is a difference in say _importing_ Thailand / Japan bred fancy goldfish like Ranchu and Lion-heads and _importing_ parrot hatchlings taken from the wild in the amazon. If they can't even manage to define minimal quantities how can they decide what the larger impacts of importing some species will be at all? I don't think limiting what is already here and what can be sold online is the important part. They are focusing on species that may cause problems if released and able to establish wild populations, but ignoring the impact that removing these same species will to to their habitat of origin. 

 I would be a full supporter of banning imports of wild-caught animals for the pet trade, but not necessarily banning captive bred animals from other countries. But this does not seem to take the source of the import in question into account. 

I know that there are some laws regulating this, especially where certain island species are concerned, but so many animals that end up in the pet trade do so at the expense of the wild population which isn't right. This goes beyond just our reptiles. 

Poaching for the pet trade is becoming the second biggest threat to many species and their environments outside of habitat loss.

----------

_Albert Clark_ (03-04-2022),*Bogertophis* (03-04-2022)

----------


## Snagrio

> Not to stir the pot too much, but I think that the language of the bill is taking the word "imports" far too loosely. To me, there is a difference in say _importing_ Thailand / Japan bred fancy goldfish like Ranchu and Lion-heads and _importing_ parrot hatchlings taken from the wild in the amazon. If they can't even manage to define minimal quantities how can they decide what the larger impacts of importing some species will be at all? I don't think limiting what is already here and what can be sold online is the important part. They are focusing on species that may cause problems if released and able to establish wild populations, but ignoring the impact that removing these same species will to to their habitat of origin. 
> 
>  I would be a full supporter of banning imports of wild-caught animals for the pet trade, but not necessarily banning captive bred animals from other countries. But this does not seem to take the source of the import in question into account. 
> 
> I know that there are some laws regulating this, especially where certain island species are concerned, but so many animals that end up in the pet trade do so at the expense of the wild population which isn't right. This goes beyond just our reptiles. 
> 
> Poaching for the pet trade is becoming the second biggest threat to many species and their environments outside of habitat loss.


In a logical world that would make some bit of sense. But the world is being run by illogical scorched earth philosophies these days, be it out of sheer ignorance or as a guise to gain ever more power over the unwashed masses those in the upper echelons see us as. "There are some invasive species in select areas of the country? RESTRICT AND BAN EVERYTHING!"

----------


## Spicey

> March 3, 2022Dear John:
> Thank you for taking the time to write to me about your opposition to the Lacey Act amendments in the America COMPETES Act. I rely on the input of engaged New Jerseyans like you when making decisions, and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
> I have received and processed your letter and deeply value the input that you have offered. I consider civic engagement to be the backbone of our democracy, and you can rest assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind when considering the COMPETES Act and similar legislation in the future. Again, thank you for contacting my office.
> I am honored to represent you in the United States Senate, and I hope you will continue to contact me and my staff about the issues that are important to you. There are many challenges before us, but I know that if we work together, we will not only succeed, but make our state and nation stronger. For more information on my work in New Jersey and Washington, DC, please visit my website at booker.senate.gov.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Cory A. Booker
> United States Senator
> ...



I personally think that Mr. Booker missed the whole point and is just trying to talk you into voting for him.

----------

_Homebody_ (03-05-2022)

----------


## Trinityblood

> March 3, 2022Dear John:
> Thank you for taking the time to write to me about your opposition to the Lacey Act amendments in the America COMPETES Act. I rely on the input of engaged New Jerseyans like you when making decisions, and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
> I have received and processed your letter and deeply value the input that you have offered. I consider civic engagement to be the backbone of our democracy, and you can rest assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind when considering the COMPETES Act and similar legislation in the future. Again, thank you for contacting my office.
> I am honored to represent you in the United States Senate, and I hope you will continue to contact me and my staff about the issues that are important to you. There are many challenges before us, but I know that if we work together, we will not only succeed, but make our state and nation stronger. For more information on my work in New Jersey and Washington, DC, please visit my website at booker.senate.gov.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Cory A. Booker
> United States Senator
> ...


This is basically what one of my senators replied back. I'm not too worried about them voting for the bill purely on the fact he's republican and so will automatically vote against it because it's a democrat bill. Doesn't matter what's in it.

----------

*Bogertophis* (03-05-2022),_Homebody_ (03-05-2022)

----------


## bcr229

> This is basically what one of my senators replied back. I'm not too worried about them voting for the bill purely on the fact he's republican and so will automatically vote against it because it's a democrat bill. Doesn't matter what's in it.


Don't count on that.  My Republican senator sent me the form letter back stating that she supports the bill.

----------

*Bogertophis* (03-06-2022),_Homebody_ (03-05-2022)

----------


## Homebody

I received this response from my other U.S. Senator today:

_Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the Lacey Act.  Your opinion is very important to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this critical issue.

The Lacey Act is legislation designed to combat trafficking in illegal plants, fish, or wildlife.  The statute was amended as part of the 2008 Farm Bill to include protections against illegally harvested lumber. 

I understand your concerns about the regulatory burdens associated with complying with the Lacey Act.  At the same time, there are legitimate concerns about troubling logging practices used in certain parts of the world.  You can be sure I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to monitor the implementation of this legislation. 

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of more assistance.  I invite you to visit by website to learn more about how I am standing up for New Jersey families in the United States Senate.

_I think this may have been written by a bot.

----------

_nikkubus_ (06-14-2022)

----------


## Bogertophis

> I received this response from my other U.S. Senator today:
> 
> _Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the Lacey Act.  Your opinion is very important to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this critical issue.
> 
> The Lacey Act is legislation designed to combat trafficking in illegal plants, fish, or wildlife.  The statute was amended as part of the 2008 Farm Bill to include protections against illegally harvested lumber. 
> 
> I understand your concerns about the regulatory burdens associated with complying with the Lacey Act.  At the same time, there are legitimate concerns about troubling logging practices used in certain parts of the world.  You can be sure I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to monitor the implementation of this legislation. 
> 
> Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of more assistance.  I invite you to visit by website to learn more about how I am standing up for New Jersey families in the United States Senate.
> ...


 :Sad:   Good grief... :Taz:

----------

_Homebody_ (06-14-2022)

----------


## nikkubus

> I received this response from my other U.S. Senator today:
> 
> _Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the Lacey Act.  Your opinion is very important to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this critical issue.
> 
> The Lacey Act is legislation designed to combat trafficking in illegal plants, fish, or wildlife.  The statute was amended as part of the 2008 Farm Bill to include protections against illegally harvested lumber. 
> 
> I understand your concerns about the regulatory burdens associated with complying with the Lacey Act.  At the same time, there are legitimate concerns about troubling logging practices used in certain parts of the world.  You can be sure I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to monitor the implementation of this legislation. 
> 
> Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of more assistance.  I invite you to visit by website to learn more about how I am standing up for New Jersey families in the United States Senate.
> ...


Wowie. I think you are right. Those darn lumber snake poachers...  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------

*Bogertophis* (06-14-2022),_Homebody_ (06-14-2022)

----------


## bcr229

> I received this response from my other U.S. Senator today:
> 
> _The Lacey Act is legislation designed to combat trafficking in illegal plants, fish, or wildlife.  The statute was amended as part of the 2008 Farm Bill to include protections against illegally harvested lumber. 
> 
> I understand your concerns about the regulatory burdens associated with complying with the Lacey Act.  At the same time, there are legitimate concerns about troubling logging practices used in certain parts of the world.  You can be sure I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to monitor the implementation of this legislation._


Probably a really bad copy/paste based on someone who wrote regarding https://www.barnesrichardson.com/gib...300000-penalty

----------

*Bogertophis* (06-14-2022),_Homebody_ (06-14-2022),_nikkubus_ (06-14-2022)

----------


## Crowfingers

> I received this response from my other U.S. Senator today:
> 
> _Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the Lacey Act.  Your opinion is very important to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this critical issue.
> 
> The Lacey Act is legislation designed to combat trafficking in illegal plants, fish, or wildlife.  The statute was amended as part of the 2008 Farm Bill to include protections against illegally harvested lumber. 
> 
> I understand your concerns about the regulatory burdens associated with complying with the Lacey Act.  At the same time, there are legitimate concerns about troubling logging practices used in certain parts of the world.  You can be sure I will keep your thoughts in mind as I continue to monitor the implementation of this legislation. 
> 
> Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of more assistance.  I invite you to visit by website to learn more about how I am standing up for New Jersey families in the United States Senate.
> ...


Or a really underpaid secretary or law school-intern  :Wink:

----------

_Homebody_ (06-17-2022)

----------

