# 2022 Lacey Act Amendments?



## MorseToad (Mar 27, 2021)

I just found out about this through USARK.
You can read more about the amendment here. From what I can understand, it sounds like any non-native species will become illegal to transport across state lines if the amendment passes.
Is this an effective end to the dart frog hobby? Can anyone with more experience on the regulatory side of things chime in?


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

I had read USARK's notice and interpretation, and wrote my Rep, but this is the first time I looked at the actual text (the wording of the white list part is interesting and confusing). Here's what I see.

(a)(1)(A) is merely to negate the USARK lawsuit that got interstate shipping of 'injurious species' reinstated. That lawsuit hinged on a terminological point; this amendment rewords to avoid the terminological quibble in order to reinstate things to how they were before that lawsuit. This ban only affects listed injurious species (a handful of the big pythons and boids, all the salamanders, a handful of random mammals).

(d)(1) There is to be a 'white list' of species allowed for importation (different from the 'injurious' list, as far as I can tell). (d)(1)(A) At the time the amendment goes into force, all nonnative species in common circulation in the last year will be effectively whitelisted. A meaningless criterion, since we don't have data on interstate transport of species. (d)(1)(B) there will be a white list of allowed nonnative species drawn up, and only those species may be imported. It isn't clear to me whether (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B) are conjunct or disjuncts, that is whether a species needs to fall under one or the other of these or both.

As for the impact on darts, it is hard to say. There's nothing directly suggested by the text that is overly concerning, so long as one supposes that Dendrobatids make the white list (not sure why they wouldn't), and this would only affect importation (which would be bad in a lot of ways, but wouldn't cause an immediate end to trade). 

One (the?) motivation of this amendment is Florida's big snake situation -- they pushed this federal interstate transport ban so that they could more effectively control those species coming into their state (horse, barn door -- but whatever). So if Florida (or any other state, I suppose) wanted to raise a fuss about darts for some reason, that could have national impacts. They're arguably injurious in Hawaii, so they could be placed on that list, but I'd wager darts are down the list of priorities a ways.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

This comes up every so many years. A few years ago, I think it was actually in place for newts and salamanders of all things, for some reason and then just as quick it was reversed a year or two later. 

The Pet industry is HUGE - Petco, Petsmart ect and will fight against this. I think for that reason alone, very unlikely.


----------



## Chris S (Apr 12, 2016)

Philsuma said:


> The Pet industry is HUGE - Petco, Petsmart ect and will fight against this. I think for that reason alone, very unlikely.


Central Garden and Pet...


----------



## Stickies! (Oct 23, 2021)

Philsuma said:


> This comes up every so many years. A few years ago, I think it was actually in place for newts and salamanders of all things, for some reason and then just as quick it was reversed a year or two later.


Amended yes, but not reversed. It's still in place for all imports into the United States, but was changed after a lawsuit in 2017 to allow state-to-state travel. This bill would potentially undo that, and probably finish off the newt/salamander hobby.


----------



## Dendrobation (Jan 2, 2022)

I'm already seeing the rumor mill running at full speed elsewhere. What a mess. But even in a worst case scenario, how would enforcement even exist in regards to current hobbyists? That doesn't seem feasible to me.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

These laws already aren't enforced at the hobbyist level except in very rare cases. And probably in states where the issues are clearest (Florida, Hawaii). 

Since we all have an obligation to keep the public's view of our hobbies as positive as possible, flagrantly violating laws isn't prudent regardless of enforcement. Unreasonable laws put us in a kind of a pickle.


----------



## rachel1 (Apr 12, 2012)

Just wanted to mention that over 200 species of salamanders got added to the list as "injurious" because they *might* be able to transmit B.sal. I note USF&W had already mentioned years back changing the status of all amphibians and their eggs to "injurious" as they could transmit chytrid. If that goes the same way as the salamander hobby, this could very well be the beginning of the end of this hobby, too. I would highly recommend you consider taking action.


----------



## MorseToad (Mar 27, 2021)

Is there anything we can actually do as individuals? I don't feel like letters will do much to sway legislators when lobbyist groups and their money are involved.

I'm so torn on this. It is extremely important that we protect our native amphibians, but my dart frogs are my beloved pets and have absolutely no chance of becoming invasive in the upper midwest. My frogs have been tested for chytrid and are confirmed chytrid-free. I do believe that certain species should be regulated in certain states, but we need science-based, nuanced legislation that balances both conservation goals and keeper's rights.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

rachel1 said:


> Just wanted to mention that over 200 species of salamanders got added to the list as "injurious" because they *might* be able to transmit B.sal. I note USF&W had already mentioned years back changing the status of all amphibians and their eggs to "injurious" as they could transmit chytrid. If that goes the same way as the salamander hobby, this could very well be the beginning of the end of this hobby, too. I would highly recommend you consider taking action.


I can't speak to the reasoning of FWS, but the cases of Bsal and Bd are vastly different. Bd is already in the US; Bsal is not. Also, not to diss our frogs but the US is the proverbial hotspot of salamander diversity. An import ban on salamanders was a sledgehammer approach, but that nail needed to be pounded hard.


----------



## Aphanius (Sep 24, 2021)

Socratic Monologue said:


> (d)(1) There is to be a 'white list' of species allowed for importation (different from the 'injurious' list, as far as I can tell). (d)(1)(A) At the time the amendment goes into force, all nonnative species in common circulation in the last year will be effectively whitelisted. A meaningless criterion, since we don't have data on interstate transport of species. (d)(1)(B) there will be a white list of allowed nonnative species drawn up, and only those species may be imported. It isn't clear to me whether (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B) are conjunct or disjuncts, that is whether a species needs to fall under one or the other of these or both.


I'm not a lawyer, but from reading the proposed amendment that whitelist would only apply to animals being imported into the US, not transported between states, since that portion of the bill states (_emphasis added_): "_Importation into the United States_ of any species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles, or the offspring or eggs of any such species, that is not native to the United States and, as of the date of enactment of the America COMPETES Act of 2022, is not prohibited under subsection (a)(1), is prohibited, unless..."

I don't believe this legislation would have any effect on animals already in the US or their offspring, since it doesn't explicitly specify interstate transportation is prohibited.


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

Aphanius said:


> I'm not a lawyer, but from reading the proposed amendment that whitelist would only apply to animals being imported into the US, not transported between states, since that portion of the bill states (_emphasis added_): "_Importation into the United States_ of any species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles, or the offspring or eggs of any such species, that is not native to the United States and, as of the date of enactment of the America COMPETES Act of 2022, is not prohibited under subsection (a)(1), is prohibited, unless..."
> 
> I don't believe this legislation would have any effect on animals already in the US or their offspring, since it doesn't explicitly specify interstate transportation is prohibited.


Yes, that's how I read it, too. The species on the injurious list, though, will be prohibited from interstate transport. The whitelist relevant only to species importation.

It might be assumed that species on the injurious list will excluded from the whitelist, but the criteria for the whitelisting does not seem to cover this possibility. A species is to be placed on that whitelist when "(d)(1)(B): the Secretary of the Interior determines, after an opportunity for public comment, that the species does not pose a significant risk of invasiveness to the United States and publishes a notice in the Federal Register of the determination." But not all the species on the injurious list are there because of their invasive potential. This seems a possible angle for another lawsuit (not a great way to get to beneficial wildlife legislation....). 

Reading the presumptive prohibition section about six more times, it seems as if all species imported or in interstate trade during the preceding year will be granfathered in to the whitelist. The criteria of (d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B) are disjuncts; either are sufficient. Of course, since some species of non-native salamanders were traded across state lines in the last year, that means they would make the whitelist. What a mess.


----------



## Stickies! (Oct 23, 2021)

I generally assume the worst with these kinds of bills. It's a ready, fire, aim approach that seems ripe for misuse and miscommunication. This is how I see it: If the worst case scenario is not acceptable to you, then I would strongly consider making a stand. And hope it sends a message that smaller, more balanced bills should be proposed in the future.


----------



## rachel1 (Apr 12, 2012)

An import ban is not the same as changing legislation so that salamander breeders are no longer able to move their captive bred animals or offspring across state lines. I'm fairly certain there would be widespread support in the salamander hobby for testing and even shipping restrictions within the US that allowed exemptions for tested animals. This same wording was contested by USARK in 2017 and found to be an overreach of the intent of the LACEY act, and now they are burying it inside an economic stimulus bill, which seems sketchy. I agree that it is imperative to protect our native species, but there are already effective tools in place to do so. I really hope I am wrong about this but I'm hesitant to trust that the federal government will do their homework and make decisions based on science instead of letting lobbyists push for causes that sound good on paper. 
As for the whitelist, it seems logical to me that any species that is not listed would be treated as injurious by default until proven otherwise. Which means no transport across state lines by the new wording. And there was no definition of what number of species being imported defines "significance", so I sincerely hope all the optimism is justified.


----------



## Imatreewaterme (May 19, 2021)

Has there been any recent updates on this?

Man, I would hate to see this hobby suffer as a result. I am just getting started.

Ricky


----------



## Socratic Monologue (Apr 7, 2018)

It looks like it passed the House about a week ago (Friday the 4th).

As for the hobby, we'll have to wait and see how the whitelist thing shakes out.


----------



## Apoplast (Mar 17, 2020)

Yup. You can see how your representative voted here:








Roll Call 31 Roll Call 31, Bill Number: H. R. 4521, 117th Congress, 2nd Session


VOTE QUESTION: On Passage, DESCRIPTION: Bioeconomy Research and Development Act, VOTE TYPE: Yea-And-Nay, STATUS: Passed



clerk.house.gov







Socratic Monologue said:


> As for the hobby, we'll have to wait and see how the whitelist thing shakes out.


 If it remains included when it passes. I know there are efforts from the fish hobby to lobby enough senators to get this piece removed from the overall bill. 

I know a few folks at FWS who would end up involved in dealing with the new whitelist. One told me "Say good by to your rare stuff, at least for the next 5-10 years while we get thousands of species sorted out. A whitelist will require each one to go through an individual government evaluation." I'll say, those were not the soothing and encouraging words I'd hoped for from my friend.


----------



## Philsuma (Jul 18, 2006)

When frogs are outlawed, only outlaws will have frogs.


----------



## Waking in nature (Nov 28, 2021)

As you may know something has been going around with keeping our animals im not sure what exactly happend so I wont go ahead and tell you but if these people pas the senate with this we could lose our write of keeping animals in the USA, now im not from us but this could spread to other places if we dont talk to support companies that will protect our rights not naming any companies but we could lose the hobby.If we do lose do any of you have plans on what to do. 


Sincerely, Jules C


----------



## Scott (Feb 17, 2004)

Moved your post to here Jules.



Waking in nature said:


> As you may know something has been going around with keeping our animals im not sure what exactly happend so I wont go ahead and tell you but if these people pas the senate with this we could lose our write of keeping animals in the USA, now im not from us but this could spread to other places if we dont talk to support companies that will protect our rights not naming any companies but we could lose the hobby.If we do lose do any of you have plans on what to do.
> 
> Sincerely, Jules C


----------



## Waking in nature (Nov 28, 2021)

clints reptils snake discovery the reptarium petshops usark plus hundreds of thousands of people we can stop this


----------



## tinctaurus (12 mo ago)

MorseToad said:


> Is there anything we can actually do as individuals? I don't feel like letters will do much to sway legislators when lobbyist groups and their money are involved.


Here's a start...

1.) Become a member of USARK and financially support the lawyers and lobbyists who fight for the hobby.

2.) For US citizens: call your US senators. Talk -politely- to their staff or leave a message with your full name and address to establish you are a constituent and tell them to pass the America Competes Act WITHOUT the Lacey Act amendments. Emails are okay, but not as effective. Letters are okay but harder to get enough of them to make an impact. Calls are easier. I've seen a small amount of calls sway lawmakers. That said, state is easier to influence than federal and representatives are easier than senators. From experience I can tell you constituents can overwhelm money if voters are organized enough. Getting the Lacey amendments out of the America Competes Act is very doable. We outnumber the extremists, but they are better organized. Time to change that or risk harm to the hobby.

3.) Support responsible, local breeders with your business and herp rescues with donations.


----------



## TravisH (Jan 18, 2017)

CORAL magazine sent me this the other day.









PIJAC’s Lacey Act Update


H.R. 4521 remains front and center on the PIJAC website as the situation continues to unfold. via PIJACFebruary 12, 2022 Robert Likins III, Vic




www.reef2rainforest.com


----------

