The Lacey Act

With respect Clay, that's not how I interpret it.

If, for example, a shipment of snakes were done via the USPS (which it is illegal to do), then that act would also fall under the blanket of the Lacey Act, and would be subject to not only the fines and punishment under the terms of the original infraction (the USPS shipment), but also the fines and punishment available under the Lacey Act. Even if the shipment were to meet all the other requirements of the Lacey Act (marking of the container, etc etc), the very act of shipping the snake via USPS makes it punishable under the Lacey act because it was illegal in the first place.

Edit: Never mind.

Originally Posted by TheFragginDragon

With respect Clay, that's not how I interpret it.

If, for example, a shipment of snakes were done via the USPS (which it is illegal to do), then that act would also fall under the blanket of the Lacey Act, and would be subject to not only the fines and punishment under the terms of the original infraction (the USPS shipment), but also the fines and punishment available under the Lacey Act. Even if the shipment were to meet all the other requirements of the Lacey Act (marking of the container, etc etc), the very act of shipping the snake via UPS makes it punishable under the Lacey act because it was illegal in the first place.

That would still fall under my interpretation of the act although I didn't mention it specifically. In that instance a law is still being violated which allows the Lacey Act to be brought into play.
I'm just saying that the way I read it, if there is nothing otherwise illegal about the situation, then shipping a ball python or whatever in an unmarked box via FedEx is not punishable under the Lacey Act.

In this case, industry standard does not mean "what most people do".
As one of the well intentioned, I will point out these sections (exerpted from the Lacey Act

3372(d) False labeling offenses
It is unlawful for any person to make or submit any false record, account, or label for, or any false identification of, any fish, wildlife, or plant which has been, or is intended to be—
(1) imported, exported, transported, sold, purchased, or received from any foreign country; or
(2) transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

3376(a)(2) The Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce shall jointly promulgate specific regulations to implement the provisions of section 3372(b) of this title for the marking and labeling of containers or packages containing fish or wildlife. These regulations shall be in accordance with existing commercial practices.

The nature of the required labeling has been discussed a few times here...and, I believe, the industry standard is the IATA regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 14

RIN 1018-AD98

Humane and Healthful Transport of Wild Mammals, Birds, Reptiles
and Amphibians to the United States

AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.



Quote:
The Service also acknowledges that the IATA system of listing and
naming species is inconsistent with that of CITES, for which only the
species' scientific name is official, for listing purposes.
Nevertheless, the Service chose to use IATA's system of naming animal
species, a combination of common English and scientific names, for two
reasons. First, shippers transport both CITES-listed and non-CITES
listed species. Second, the Service wanted the proposed rule to be as
consistent as possible with the IATA regulations, the international
industry standards, for the convenience of shippers and carriers.

"The Service" refers to the US Fish and Wildlife Services, and IATA refers to International Air Transport Association Live Animals Regulations.

Full text of the 1997 amendment can be viewed here:

http://www.fws.gov/international/fed.../herpregs.html

(thanks again, Cathy, for digging that up when it was frustrating the hell out of me )

Thanks Harald. I was looking over Title 50 for that excerpt at three in the morning and couldn't find it.

http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73057 Here is a discussion from CS.com.

Trafficking in illegal wildlife is illegal--obviously. Shipping wildlife in an illegal package or using an illegal service is also illegal regardless of whether or not you neatly label the package. Those things are illegal under the Lacey Act, period.

What is also illegal under the Lacey Act is shipping any animal considered to be wildlife (including your captive bred ball pythons) in a container that is not marked, on the outside, with the species name--both scientific and common--and the number of animals in the box. Once you put all of the referenced pieces together, the Act is not unclear on this matter.

It does not matter how many people out there are shipping reptiles in unmarked boxes--it is illegal to do so. If you get caught doing so, you will be subject to a whopping, painful fine. I personally follow the Lacey Act in my shipments, and I request the people shipping TO me do so as well. I have never had a problem with any shipment that was marked correctly.

I have received shipments with problems that were NOT marked correctly. It was actually illegal for me to accept those packages, but they were left on my porch in unmarked packages, and I couldn't even be sure of what was in them until I opened them. Every single problem I have ever had with a reptile shipments (all incoming) involved incorrectly marked packaging as well as incorrectly packaged animals.

I've learned not to trust people to do it properly, so I now tell them how I want packaging done.

Originally Posted by WingedWolf

Trafficking in illegal wildlife is illegal--obviously. Shipping wildlife in an illegal package or using an illegal service is also illegal regardless of whether or not you neatly label the package. Those things are illegal under the Lacey Act, period.

What exactly is an Illegal Service used for shipping?

I've learned not to trust people to do it properly, so I now tell them how I want packaging done.

I'd really like to know how thats been working out for you. I'm comfortable with the way I pack for shipping and if customer decided they were to dictate how I packed the box, they would find the box showing up packed my way anyway. Or a refund after I told them to stick it.

I'm curious as to whether its YOU that think its not done properly or if a method that works was used that you didn't like.

Not picking a fight, I'd really like to know.

Rather than addressing the idea of a definite legal answer- which I am not really qualified to give- I'm going to pose a sort of question.

If the specifics of the law when it comes to labeling and interstate shipping are at all unclear, wouldn't the prudent choice to make be one which fulfills the strictest possible interpretation of the law?

Nobody will be found in violation of the Lacey act for overspecific labeling or a more thorough and accurate disclosure of the contents of a package. But they might be in violation for mislabeling, failure to label or an inaccurate/misleading/absent disclosure of the contents of a package.

Since all a more thorough labeling really takes is a few minutes of a shipper's time, doesn't it seem worth that minimal effort in order to ensure compliance?

Bryon: An illegal service for shipping would be one that isn't permitted by law to ship live animals. Such as air freight, which may be packed in a cargo plane without heat or adequate air.

As for asking people to pack things properly...I haven't had an issue with it yet. Most of the folks I deal with already pack properly. If someone refuses to pack properly, I don't want anything from them. I'm the customer in these cases, and if I'm willing to pay to have it done right, I expect I'll be accomodated. It's not as though I am asking for something greatly inconvenient--I'm asking for nothing more than an insulated box with a hot or cool pack if necessary, the animal to be in a bag or deli cup, and the box to be legally labeled and shipped through a company that allows it. If someone can't meet those requirements, they don't have anything I need--besides, why would I give money to someone for an animal that's more likely to arrive dead? That's not a risk I'm willing to take--I would never give money to someone who's putting animals' lives at unnecessary risk just for the sake of convenience.

I've had VERY few problems with shipments--no problems with outgoing shipments, and only a few problems with incoming shipments. But each and every single time I had a problem with an incoming shipment, it involved an improperly marked package. The worst problem for the animals seems to arise when boxes aren't marked that they contain LIVE animals. If you don't mark that the box contains live animals, there's a good chance that by the time it gets there, it won't.

But this thread is about the Lacey Act. Since the document that contains extremely explicit instructions on labeling was found and posted, how is it that people still don't understand the requirements? I realize it's very inconvenient for some people who are used to doing things under the radar, but the entire point of the labeling requirement part of the Lacey Act is to make sure that people who are handling animals know that they are handling animals, and know what animals they are handling. The very thing a lot of folks here seem to want so badly to avoid.