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

» Site Navigation

» Home
 > FAQ

» Online Users: 2,728

1 members and 2,727 guests
Most users ever online was 6,337, 01-24-2020 at 04:30 AM.

» Today's Birthdays

None

» Stats

Members: 75,034
Threads: 248,490
Posts: 2,568,459
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, jeremymichels
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48
  1. #31
    Bogertophis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-28-2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,184
    Thanks
    28,089
    Thanked 19,740 Times in 11,797 Posts
    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! Don't Tread on Us!
    Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength.
    Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)

  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Bogertophis For This Useful Post:

    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)

  3. #32
    BPnet Veteran Homebody's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-19-2019
    Location
    Jersey City, NJ
    Posts
    1,555
    Thanks
    5,300
    Thanked 2,152 Times in 1,164 Posts
    Images: 22

    Re: New Lacey Act Amendments

    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:
    1. the species was imported in more than minimal quantities;
    2. the species was transported between the states in more than minimal quantities;
    3. 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.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Homebody For This Useful Post:

    Albert Clark (02-15-2022),bcr229 (02-15-2022),Bogertophis (02-15-2022),Erie_herps (02-15-2022),Kristin2278 (02-17-2022)

  5. #33
    BPnet Veteran Homebody's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-19-2019
    Location
    Jersey City, NJ
    Posts
    1,555
    Thanks
    5,300
    Thanked 2,152 Times in 1,164 Posts
    Images: 22

    Re: New Lacey Act Amendments

    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.
    Last edited by Homebody; 02-15-2022 at 01:10 PM.

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Homebody For This Useful Post:

    Albert Clark (02-16-2022),bcr229 (02-15-2022),Bogertophis (02-15-2022),Erie_herps (02-15-2022),Kristin2278 (02-17-2022)

  7. #34
    BPnet Veteran Homebody's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-19-2019
    Location
    Jersey City, NJ
    Posts
    1,555
    Thanks
    5,300
    Thanked 2,152 Times in 1,164 Posts
    Images: 22

    Re: New Lacey Act Amendments

    This Reptiles Magazine article sums up the amendments well.

  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Homebody For This Useful Post:

    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)

  9. #35
    BPnet Lifer dakski's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-08-2014
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    4,802
    Thanks
    8,109
    Thanked 9,691 Times in 3,863 Posts
    Images: 134

    Re: New Lacey Act Amendments

    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.

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to dakski For This Useful Post:

    Albert Clark (02-16-2022),Bogertophis (02-15-2022),Erie_herps (02-16-2022),Homebody (02-15-2022),Kristin2278 (02-17-2022)

  11. #36
    BPnet Veteran Snagrio's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-11-2020
    Posts
    1,011
    Thanks
    187
    Thanked 1,313 Times in 572 Posts

    Re: New Lacey Act Amendments

    Quote Originally Posted by Homebody View Post
    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:
    1. the species was imported in more than minimal quantities;
    2. the species was transported between the states in more than minimal quantities;
    3. 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.
    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.

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

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

  13. #37
    BPnet Veteran Trinityblood's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-08-2020
    Posts
    297
    Thanks
    297
    Thanked 364 Times in 184 Posts
    Images: 6

    Re: New Lacey Act Amendments

    Quote Originally Posted by Snagrio View Post
    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.

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Trinityblood For This Useful Post:

    bcr229 (02-16-2022),Erie_herps (02-16-2022),Homebody (02-16-2022),Kristin2278 (02-17-2022)

  15. #38
    BPnet Veteran Homebody's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-19-2019
    Location
    Jersey City, NJ
    Posts
    1,555
    Thanks
    5,300
    Thanked 2,152 Times in 1,164 Posts
    Images: 22

    Re: New Lacey Act Amendments

    March 3, 2022
    Dear 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.
    Last edited by Homebody; 03-04-2022 at 10:44 AM.

  16. #39
    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

    Re: New Lacey Act Amendments

    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.
    No cage is too large - nature is the best template - a snoot can't be booped too much


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

    Albert Clark (03-04-2022),Bogertophis (03-04-2022)

  18. #40
    BPnet Veteran Snagrio's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-11-2020
    Posts
    1,011
    Thanks
    187
    Thanked 1,313 Times in 572 Posts

    Re: New Lacey Act Amendments

    Quote Originally Posted by Crowfingers View Post
    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!"

Page 4 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