This one is actually probably a good idea. There does need to be a clearly stated process for receiving certification that animals are free of chytrid.

No one wants a frog with chytrid--not you, not me, not ANYONE. This is not a proposal to simply add amphibians to the lacey act, this specifies ONLY amphibians that have not been checked for and certified free of chytrid. This will raise the cost of importing frogs, to be certain, and will raise the cost of shipping them across state lines, but it will not end the trade in frogs.

It is not even remotely comparable to the python ban. Amphibians across the entire US are at threat from chytrid, and it's an extremely serious threat. I think this proposal would probably be beneficial to the hobby in the long run, and will accomplish its intended purpose.

I sent the following e-mail to the author:
"What will be the procedure for certifying amphibians as being free of chytrid? Will individual animals need to be checked, or will groups of animals be checked? How long will these certifications last? I think all of these questions need to be answered before the rule change goes into effect, not afterward.
The trade in captive amphibians as pets, and the trade in frogs for food and research is more extensive than you might realize. No one wants chytrid-bearing frogs to be shipped all over, but the method used to prevent this should not halt or significantly slow the trade in amphibians, either.

I await your answers to these questions."