Amphibian Rule Change

[ER12]

DOI/FWS RIN: 1018-AX05 Publication ID: Spring 2010
Title: ¤Injurious Wildlife Evaluation; Amphibian Trade and Chytrid Fungus
Abstract: We are reviewing a petition to add all traded live amphibians or their eggs to our list of injurious wildlife under the Lacey Act unless certified as free of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (chytrid fungus). The importation and introduction of live amphibians infected with chytrid fungus into U.S. natural ecosystems may pose a threat to the interests of U.S. agriculture, fisheries, and commerce, as well as to the welfare and survival of wildlife and wildlife resources. For live amphibians or their eggs infected with chytrid fungus, an injurious wildlife listing would prohibit the importation into, or transportation between, States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any U.S. territory or possession by any means, without a permit. Permits may be issued for scientific, medical, educational, or zoological purposes.
Agency: Department of the Interior(DOI) Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant
RIN Status: First time published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Prerule Stage
Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 50 CFR 16 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations.)
Legal Authority: 18 USC 42
Legal Deadline: Action Source Description Date
Final Judicial Final decision. 11/02/2010

Timetable: Action Date FR Cite
ANPRM 04/00/2010

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Small Entities Affected: Businesses Federalism: No
Included in the Regulatory Plan: No
RIN Data Printed in the FR: No
Agency Contact:
Susan Jewell
Biologist
Department of the Interior
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive , MS 770,
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone:703 358-2416
Fax:703 358-2487
Email: susan_jewell@fws.gov



http://www.reginfo.gov/public/servle...ield=1018-AX05

[2kdime]

I hope everybody has been fighting the rule change on the 9 snakes even if they dont have them because as you can see, they dont want to stop with just those 9.

GET UP AND MAKE YOUR COMMENTS ON THE RULE CHANGE

We all need to stick together and fight for one another.

Because if we dont, sooner or later, they'll be taking what YOU have.

[WingedWolfPsion]

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."

[MarkS]

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."

You know, I might actually agree with this except for who is making the proposal, with all the fake science that went into the python ban proposal I just don't feel I can trust these people.

You made some very good points on your letter, I hope you get an answer.

[WingedWolfPsion]

I received a reply to my letter. Here it is:

"Thank you for your interest in the chytrid fungus issue. We received a petition from the Defenders of Wildlife that asked us to evaluate their suggestion of listing amphibians in trade as injurious wildlife unless they are certified as being free of chytrid fungus. The petitioners are concerned that trade is a pathway for the fungus, which is devastating amphibian populations. The Defenders petition can be found here: http://www.defenders.org/resources/p...ry_salazar.pdf

We are currently gathering information to address that petition and are not ready to answer questions at this time. We will soon be publishing a notice in the Federal Register that will be asking the public for information on the subject. The Federal Register notice may answer some of your questions. We encourage you to submit information at that time through one of the methods explained in the notice. Your information, along with other public comments, might help us to best address the petition. You can check http://www.regulations.gov periodically for Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2009-0093.You won't find it until it publishes, but you will have 90 days once it publishes to submit your information online at http://www.regulations.gov. Then we will evaluate all the information submitted and may publish a proposed rule with specific details of what we propose, or make a finding that there is no basis for further action. If we proceed to a proposed rule, there would also be a public comment period. After that, either a final rule would follow, or we could withdraw the proposed rule and take no further action. The process is long, but it greatly benefits from input from the knowledgeable public. During this process, no regulations are expected to change related to the petition.

You might find some useful information on the injurious wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act from this fact sheet:
http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/ans/pdf...tSheet2007.pdf

Again, thank you for your interest in this issue.


Susan Jewell, Injurious Wildlife Listing Coordinator
Fisheries and Habitat Conservation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 770
Arlington, VA 22203
phone 703-358-2416 fax 703-358-2487
susan_jewell@fws.gov"

[garweft]

So what happens when the next one comes out that limits the import, export, an interstate transport of all african species due to the risk of heatwater disease?

[mainbutter]

Blanket bans that include a whitelist of 'approved' species are the exact opposite way to go about this than I'd prefer.

The purpose of the Lacey Act is to act as a blacklist of animals that have been scientifically proven to have widespread detrimental effects on US ecology. It is not a 'ban everything until we prove it is safe' list, and we should not use it as such.

[WingedWolfPsion]

This is actually more of a ban on Chytrid, not on the amphibians themselves...since they carry it, they have to be certified to be free of it before shipping. The question is how easy that cert will be to get, and how much it will cost.
This isn't directed soley at the pet trade--frog's legs are fairly popular cuisine.

I have very mixed feelings about this one. I want to see more before I decide how I feel about it.