I agree that first and foremost an actual lawyer should be consulted. As a matter of fact I've hoped this would be done for years and if you do get a real legal opinion on it I would like to see it posted here to finally clear up the matter.
I too have read the act, and to me, being untrained in legalese, it can be interpreted two ways. Based on the opening line of the act captive bred animals are included in the definition of wildlife:
Quote:
|
The term “fish or wildlife” means a) The term “fish or wildlife” means any wild animal, whether alive or dead, including without limitation any wild mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, coelenterate, or other invertebrate, whether or not bred, hatched, or born in captivity, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof.
|
Then at the beginning of the section of prohibited acts it reads:
Quote:
It is unlawful for any person--
(1) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law;
|
I read this to mean if it is a legal species, ball pythons for instance, that were legally acquired, then the entire act does not apply to them. As Dennis mentioned,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman
The Lacey Act makes trafficking in virtually any illegally acquired wildlife a federal crime. The violation of a state, tribal, foreign, or other federal wildlife law is a prerequisite for Lacey Act charges based on the interstate or international movement of wildlife.or Lacey Act charges based on the interstate or international movement of wildlife.
|
This is how I have interpreted it. If the animals being transported were not already in violation of some law or regulation, then the particulars of the Lacey Act do not apply, including the labeling of the package with the taxonomic name and all that.
Whether this is the correct interpretation or not I don't know, and that's why I'd like to hear the opinion of a lawyer familiar with the Lacey Act.