If the Burmese python is added to Section 3371(g) of the Lacey Act they are effectively banned in the United States because the Lacey Act prevents buying, selling and interstate transport. There is no captive-bred provision for listed animals. Section 3372(2) of the Lacey Act makes it a crime for someone to "to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce" any animal on the list. Notice how it doesn't provide for banning ONLY importation. The Act does not provide for exceptions for any animal currently on the list.
HR2811 does not seek to amend the wording of the Lacey Act in any other way than to add "pythons" to Section 3371(g). USARK is suggesting the wording be amended to say 'python molurus bivittatus', rather than just 'python'. No other species (or subspecies) is so specifically listed in the Lacey Act and even if the wording is changed it does not prevent Burmese pythons from being captured in the umbrella statement of section 3372(2).
So no, I wouldn't say I'm confused about things.










Reply With Quote