Vote for BP.Net for the 2013 Forum of the Year! Click here for more info.

» Site Navigation

» Home
 > FAQ

» Online Users: 2,986

1 members and 2,985 guests
Most users ever online was 6,337, 01-24-2020 at 04:30 AM.

» Today's Birthdays

None

» Stats

Members: 75,031
Threads: 248,490
Posts: 2,568,448
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, isismomma
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48
  1. #11
    BPnet Veteran Crowfingers's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-27-2015
    Location
    Hayfield Virginia
    Posts
    909
    Thanks
    416
    Thanked 691 Times in 400 Posts
    Images: 11
    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.
    No cage is too large - nature is the best template - a snoot can't be booped too much


  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Crowfingers For This Useful Post:

    Albert Clark (02-10-2022),Bogertophis (02-10-2022),Homebody (02-11-2022)

  3. #12
    Bogertophis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-28-2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,183
    Thanks
    28,085
    Thanked 19,740 Times in 11,797 Posts
    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
    Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
    Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bogertophis For This Useful Post:

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

  5. #13
    BPnet Veteran Homebody's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-19-2019
    Location
    Jersey City, NJ
    Posts
    1,555
    Thanks
    5,298
    Thanked 2,152 Times in 1,164 Posts
    Images: 22

    Re: New Lacey Act Amendments

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my understanding of the Lacey Act amendments. If enacted:
    1. Transporting injurious species across state lines will be prohibited;
    2. 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;
    3. 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.
    Last edited by Homebody; 02-10-2022 at 09:07 PM.

  6. #14
    BPnet Veteran Erie_herps's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-08-2021
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    278
    Thanks
    989
    Thanked 379 Times in 201 Posts

    Re: New Lacey Act Amendments

    Quote Originally Posted by Homebody View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my understanding of the Lacey Act amendments. If enacted:
    1. Transporting injurious species across state lines will be prohibited;
    2. 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;
    3. 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.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Erie_herps For This Useful Post:

    Bogertophis (02-11-2022)

  8. #15
    Bogertophis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-28-2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,183
    Thanks
    28,085
    Thanked 19,740 Times in 11,797 Posts

    Re: New Lacey Act Amendments

    Quote Originally Posted by Erie_herps View Post
    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.
    Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
    Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bogertophis For This Useful Post:

    Albert Clark (02-13-2022),Erie_herps (02-11-2022)

  10. #16
    BPnet Veteran Homebody's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-19-2019
    Location
    Jersey City, NJ
    Posts
    1,555
    Thanks
    5,298
    Thanked 2,152 Times in 1,164 Posts
    Images: 22

    Re: New Lacey Act Amendments

    Quote Originally Posted by Homebody View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my understanding of the Lacey Act amendments. If enacted:
    1. Transporting injurious species across state lines will be prohibited;
    2. 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;
    3. 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.
    Last edited by Homebody; 02-11-2022 at 03:04 PM.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Homebody For This Useful Post:

    Erie_herps (02-11-2022)

  12. #17
    BPnet Veteran Snagrio's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-11-2020
    Posts
    1,011
    Thanks
    187
    Thanked 1,313 Times in 572 Posts
    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.

  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Snagrio For This Useful Post:

    Crowfingers (02-11-2022),Erie_herps (02-12-2022),Homebody (02-11-2022)

  14. #18
    BPnet Veteran Snagrio's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-11-2020
    Posts
    1,011
    Thanks
    187
    Thanked 1,313 Times in 572 Posts
    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.

  15. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Snagrio For This Useful Post:

    Albert Clark (02-13-2022),Bogertophis (02-11-2022),Erie_herps (02-12-2022),Homebody (02-11-2022)

  16. #19
    BPnet Veteran Homebody's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-19-2019
    Location
    Jersey City, NJ
    Posts
    1,555
    Thanks
    5,298
    Thanked 2,152 Times in 1,164 Posts
    Images: 22

    Re: New Lacey Act Amendments

    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.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Homebody For This Useful Post:

    Albert Clark (02-13-2022),Erie_herps (02-12-2022)

  18. #20
    Bogertophis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-28-2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,183
    Thanks
    28,085
    Thanked 19,740 Times in 11,797 Posts

    Re: New Lacey Act Amendments

    Quote Originally Posted by Homebody View Post
    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."
    Last edited by Bogertophis; 02-11-2022 at 09:06 PM.
    Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
    Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)

  19. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bogertophis For This Useful Post:

    Albert Clark (02-13-2022),Erie_herps (02-12-2022),Homebody (02-11-2022),tropiclikeitshot (02-12-2022)

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1