The Lacey Act

I guess I'm a tad bit surprised that being that you opened a reptile shipping business you didn't consult a lawyer about it?

I was in contact with F&W a few months ago about it. I'll post their response along with the documentation they provided if I have time when I get home (yeah, yeah...said that the other day... ).

Not looking to get in a peeing match on this, I just disagree that it is "extremely explicit" in any way.

We HAVE consulted lawyers, legal folks, with degrees and everything, and so far they feel it is just as vague as I do.

When has it been enforced or clarified in the world of reptiles? I can't use anecdotal evidence, I need actual evidence, that would be terrific.

The Lacey Act itself makes no specific labeling instruction. There is a Part 300 of the International Fisheries regulations that specifies species labeling (for trout, salmon and what have you), to meet the needs of the Lacey Act, but that is referring BACK to the Lacey Act, the Lacey Act is not referring to that.

I have received an email that says the Lacey Act is very specific about requirements, requiring scientific and common names be labeled, and yet in the actual legal verbiage copied three inches down, there is no mention of scientific names at all. The discrepencies are all over the place, and many online experts in the Lacey Act offer very different takes. What is NOT legally prudent is to take legal advice from on an online forum alone. I started a Lacey Act thread to see if others were as twisted around as I was, to see if there was some consensus, which I still do not see.

I can understand folks want to comply with the Lacey Act, whatever it requires, and they are welcome to do so. ShipYourReptiles is a site and service that facilitates safe packing and shipping of reptiles, we are not a legislative site, we don't provide legal aid, or legal opinions on such things.

The only thing I can add to the FAQ would be something like:

If you are to comply with the Lacey Act (and/or Part 300 of the International Fisheries regulations) label your box with quantity and common name by species.

We are still deciding what exact verbiage to ad, but that sounds pretty close, unless we are legally advised otherwise, and I will update the site when that happens. Does the Lacey Act specifically apply to reptiles and the reptile hobby? Not sure. Does the fact that someone on an online forum insists that their legal interpretation is accurate make it so? No, not really.

Regardless, what I do with labeling of my reptile shipments, what HE does with his shipments, and what THEY do with theirs does not affect YOUR ability to label your packages however you choose to. No one is restricting you from labeling your packages as you see fit. I don't suggest you mis-label them, I don't suggest you deceive anyone. I'll suggest this: Consult your own attorney : )

Labeling in accordance to the Lacey Act is an individual responsibility, it is not MY repsonsiblity, and it would reckless of me to legally advise others on a subject that I do not definitive knowledge of.

TME, feel free to post your communication from Fish and Wildlife, that would also be great to see. I am not afraid of the answer/clarification, whatever it may be, but taking an argumentative opinion from an online forum is just not definitive enough, yet : )

In the meantime, the shipping process at SYR has been very smooth sailing, and we are getting terrific feedback, aside from 1% Lacey Act confusion, which I have spent 30% of my day addressing : )

Found some of it (and the baby's still sleeping)!

Me said:

Email submitted from Contact Us form received: 9/17/2008 07:50:00 MT
Message ID: 70931928-19B9-E4C8-9479662C662E6BD3

From: [email protected]
First Name: Stephanie
Last Name:
State: PA
Country: US

Good morning,

I had a question regarding the Federal Lacey Act (http://www.fws.gov/le/pdffiles/Lacey.pdf). I ship Live Harmless Reptiles and wanted clarification on labeling packages. Currently I label my packages with the quantity, scientific name, common name and "LIVE HARMLESS REPTILES." An argument has been made that the Lacey Act just states "in accordance with existing commercial practices" as opposed to specifying what exactly is required...So one would not have to be specific but just label "Live Harmless Reptiles," "Snakes," or just the scientific name. Is this an accurate interpretation of the Lacey Act, or are we reptile shippers better off labeling with as much information as possible (as I already do) to cover ourselves?

Thank you for your time, I look forward to hearing from you.

Click to expand...

F&W said:

Dear Stephanie,

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the regulations involving marking requirements for the shipments of fish and wildlife. Our mission is, working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.

We apologize for the tardiness of this response.

50 CFR 14.81 of the Code of Federal Regulations sets out marking requirements as noted below:

“Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, no person may import, export, or transport in interstate commerce any container or package containing any fish or wildlife (including shellfish and fishery products) unless he/she marks each container or package conspicuously on the outside with both the name and address of the shipper and consignee. An accurate and legible list of its contents by species scientific name and the number of each species and whether or not the listed species are venomous must accompany the entire shipment.”

The Federal statute and regulations dealing with marking requirements (including some exceptions listed in 50 CFR 14.82) can be found at http://www.gpoaccess.gov.

To more fully answer your questions about a specific international shipment, contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Port of Entry where you plan to import/export your shipment. This will also give you an opportunity to ask any additional questions about wildlife shipments and understand the applicable regulations.

We provide a link to our Ports of Entry: http://www.fws.gov/le/ImpExp/Contact_Info_Ports.htm

Additionally, the State(s) where you plan ship items within the United States may have some prohibitions which differ from Federal law. You should contact your State wildlife agency to enquire about any State prohibitions. Contact information for State wildlife agencies can be found on our website at: http://offices.fws.gov/statelinks.html.

Thank you for your cooperation in complying with our regulations that help protect fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. Please feel free to respond to this message with any further inquiries that you may have regarding this matter.

Click to expand...

Me said:

Thank you for the response, but my question wasn't answered.

I attempted to run a search on gpoaccess.gov for additional details on
labeling, but the search function appears to be behind with the times
and does not work properly (instead of searching for all of the keywords
entered, it searches for them individually).

The parts of 50 CFR 14.81 that you included need clarified:

This is not in reference to international shipments, but about shipments
made in the United States.

Thank you, I look forward to your response.

Click to expand...

F&W said:

Dear Stephanie,

Thank you for your follow-up inquiry.

Please find attached the most recent version of 50 CFR Part 14 (10/2008) for your reference.

If you look at 50 CFR 14.82, we believe this will answer your questions. Here is 14.82 noted below.
(a) The requirements of §14.81 may be met by complying with one of the following alternatives to the marking requirement:

(1)(i) Conspicuously marking the outside of each container or package containing fish or wildlife with the word “fish” or “wildlife” as appropriate for its contents, or with the common name of its contents by species, and

(ii) Including an invoice, packing list, bill of lading, or similar document to accompany the shipment which accurately states the name and address of the shipper and consignee, states the total number of packages or containers in the shipment, and for each species in the shipment specifies:

(A) The common name that identifies the species (examples include: Chinook (or king) salmon; bluefin tuna; and whitetail deer) and whether or not the listed species is venomous; and

(B) The number of that species (or other appropriate measure of quantity such as gross or net weight).

The invoice, packing list, bill of lading, or equivalent document must be securely attached to the outside of one container or package in the shipment or otherwise physically accompany the shipment in a manner which makes it readily accessible for inspection; or

(2) Affixing the shipper's wildlife import/export license number preceded by the three letters “FWS” on the outside of each container or package containing fish or wildlife, if the shipper has valid wildlife import/export license issued under authority of 50 CFR part 14. For each shipment marked in accordance with this paragraph, the records maintained under §14.93(c) must include a copy of the invoice, packing list, bill of lading, or other similar document that accurately states the information required by paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.

(3) In the case of subcontainers or packages within a larger packing container, only the outermost container must be marked in accordance with this section. Except, that for live fish or wildlife that are packed in subcontainers within a larger packing container, if the subcontainers are numbered or labeled, the packing list, invoice, bill or lading, or other similar document, must reflect that number or label. However, each subcontainer containing a venomous species must be clearly marked as venomous.

(4) A conveyance (truck, plane, boat, etc.) is not considered a container for purposes of requiring specific marking of the conveyance itself, provided that:

(i) The fish or wildlife within the conveyance is carried loosely or is readily identifiable, and is accompanied by the document required by paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, or

(ii) The fish or wildlife is otherwise packaged and marked in accordance with this subpart.

(b) The requirements of §14.81 do not apply to containers or packages containing—

(1) Fox, nutria, rabbit, mink, chinchilla, marten, fisher, muskrat, and karakul that have been bred and born in captivity, or their products, if a signed statement certifying that the animals were bred and born in captivity accompanies the shipping documents;

(2) Fish or shellfish contained in retail consumer packages labeled pursuant to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq. ; or

(3) Fish or shellfish that are landed by, and offloaded from, a fishing vessel (whether or not the catch has been carried by the fishing vessel interstate), as long as the fish or shellfish remain at the place where first offloaded.

Thank you for your cooperation in complying with our regulations that help protect fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats. Please feel free to respond to this message with any further inquiries that you may have regarding this matter.

Click to expand...

Personally what annoys me about the whole thing is that they have the important documentation spread out all over the place instead of neatly all together in one document.

A post on ReptileRadio.net that was brought to my attention via e-mail has me a bit concerned...

Robyn@ProExotics said:

Try not to be flamboyant. Remember the reptile phobia. Don't go into your drop off spot and talk about the 200 corn snakes you hatched this year. Be smooth, be stealth. What's in the box? Invertebrates.

Click to expand...

This to me reads that you are advising users of ShipYourReptiles.com to lie to UPS employees about the contents of a package. I hope I am taking this out of context because this is a red flag to me personally.

I really, really would love to see this program succeed (especially after the Reptster debacle)...I hope these concerns can be addressed and worked out.

Well, I shipped a snake through them--using a properly marked box. It's arrived safely, and no one at UPS even blinked--no issues at all.
So, that confirms that one can use Pro's shipping services and abide by the labeling requirements, and encounter no problems. I'm sure problems might arise in some places, with some people...but that happens even with Fed Ex certs. So, I'm satisfied with this much at least.

I sincerely believe that 50 CFR Part 14 addresses the Lacey Act's requirements for labeling. I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise. 50 CFR Part 14 must be followed when you label packages--whether you want to link it back to the Lacey Act or to something else, it's a law, and it's right there. If you want to completely forget about the Lacey Act, you STILL have to abide by 50 CFR Part 14.

Maybe folks should just stop referring to the Lacey Act altogether, as it appears to be confusing, and send people directly to 50 CFR Part 14 when they have questions about labeling requirements. That might alleviate a lot of the confusion we're seeing. People keep looking at the Lacey Act, and finding there's nothing there about how they should label packages. Maybe there's no point in mentioning the Lacey Act in the first place.

"Try not to be flamboyant. Remember the reptile phobia. Don't go into your drop off spot and talk about the 200 corn snakes you hatched this year. Be smooth, be stealth. What's in the box? Invertebrates."

That was me, yes, but that was a typo, trying to be everywhere at once. I meant to say VERTEBRATES. Which is indeed accurate. Sorry for any confusion, that was my fault, but a typo, not encouraging you to lie : )

I will correct that at the Bush League forums.

Hey TME, if I read your F&W reply accurately, it states that:

(a) The requirements of §14.81 may be met by complying with one of the following alternatives to the marking requirement:

And then it lists any number of alternatives, one of which includes using a proper invoice with the package that is easily accessible, which for many shippers, it certainly is. We include our invoice under the top box flap, but above the insulation, so it is the first thing you see when opening the package.

With our ShipYourReptiles.com Shipping Kits, which are premade kits including everything you need to ship a single species, we also include a (red text) HARMLESS LIVE REPTILE label (caps are on the paper) that is to go above ALL of your paperwork, so that red notice of live harmless reptiles is the first thing that someone sees when opening the box. This is of benefit to the UPS employee who needs to find better delivery info after having a damaged or missing label, or maybe a reptile phobic member of the receiving household that is for some reason opening Jenny's shipment of reptiles.

You did misread it (it is confusing).
You have to pay attention to the numbers. I'll go through and color code each section for ease of reading.

Ok, so an invoice inside, and the word "wildlife" on the outside. Easy enough.

robyn@Pro Exotics said:

Hey TME, if I read your F&W reply accurately, it states that:

(a) The requirements of §14.81 may be met by complying with one of the following alternatives to the marking requirement:

And then it lists any number of alternatives, one of which includes using a proper invoice with the package that is easily accessible, which for many shippers, it certainly is. We include our invoice under the top box flap, but above the insulation, so it is the first thing you see when opening the package.

With our ShipYourReptiles.com Shipping Kits, which are premade kits including everything you need to ship a single species, we also include a (red text) HARMLESS LIVE REPTILE label (caps are on the paper) that is to go above ALL of your paperwork, so that red notice of live harmless reptiles is the first thing that someone sees when opening the box. This is of benefit to the UPS employee who needs to find better delivery info after having a damaged or missing label, or maybe a reptile phobic member of the receiving household that is for some reason opening Jenny's shipment of reptiles.

Click to expand...

I've certainly seen and received large shipments that had only a general labeling on the external box and a more specific invoice inside...

Tropical fish, in addition to reptiles and amphibians, for example, are shipped in this manner by the massive suppliers. "Live ______" on the outside of the box, with a specific box marked as containing the invoice for the shipment (often multiple boxes), which lists the common names, nomenclature and number.

Since some of those companies ship millions of animals a year, I doubt that they're violating any federal laws on a regular basis in doing so.

Hey Seamus, hows it going? : )

While one could argue that 'readily accessable for inspection' contains some wiggle room, I seriously doubt any judge would agree that INSIDE the box constitutes 'readily available for inspection'. You must cut the tape and open the box to get to it, and then must re-seal the package before the package can continue on its way!

Considering the fact that their suggestion is to simply attach the invoice to the outside of the package, I don't believe they want folks to put them inside the package. Perhaps in a resealable envelope attached to the package, but not IN it. They shouldn't have to open the package to find information on what's in it.

WingedWolf said:

While one could argue that 'readily accessable for inspection' contains some wiggle room, I seriously doubt any judge would agree that INSIDE the box constitutes 'readily available for inspection'.

Click to expand...

So... are you speaking as a judge, a thousand of packages a year shipper of live animals, a recipient of thousands of packaged animals?

Oh... none of those?

Well, I must say that I am shocked to see you still using this website, although your tendency to talk out of a hole other than your mouth certainly hasn't changed.

Seagrest Farms, MidAmerica, CalZoo, Animals Etc, Marine Breeding Research and enormous other companies ship hundreds of thousands of animals every week with the general labeling on the outside of the boxes and the invoice inside. This is not the kind of thing that can slip under the radar of officials who are responsible for the interpretation or enforcement of the law.

So when the time comes for someone, take you for instance WingedWolf, to ship one of the six animals they produced to a remote buyer, labeling the package in a manner that's consistent with the practices of companies who have been doing it legally and successfully for decades is probably a good start.

Holy fired up Jones!

I don't think anyone wants to see the thread fall into a "butt talking" slap fest (or was it the ear hole you were talking about? : )

I think we have found some middle ground here, and we have at least a workable solution to a horribly convulated and murky piece of legislation that is decades old : )

Individuals are welcome to interpret the thing in any way they chose, no one in the reptile community is doing individual enforcement, and do what best works for them, and their peace of mind.

At the very least, we know there are no strict, explicit requirements, and you can meet the labeling requirement in any number of ways.

To me this is all legal-loopholey mumbo jumbo anyway, it doesn't contribute to the SAFE and secure packing, the actual packing, of non-venomous live reptiles, and that is my main concern.

I don't want to see reptiles shipped in plain cardboard boxes, re-used boxes with holes or tears, certainly not screened cricket boxes, and I don't want to see them irresponsibly shipped in extreme weather, either too hot or too cold.

We have a huge investment in the SUCCESS of harmless live reptile shipping, that is the goal for All Pro Shipping and ShipYourReptiles.

Additional package labeling is not going to jeopardize our entire reptile hobby. Irresponsible packing IS.

No more of this!

robyn@Pro Exotics said:

Ok, so an invoice inside, and the word "wildlife" on the outside. Easy enough.

Click to expand...

That's how I read it. Alternatively you could put "Live Harmless Reptiles" as some already do. I would imagine as far as "assessable" they mean on top of the packing material as opposed to buried at the bottom.

Also...Glad to hear that what you posted on that other forum was a typo. I had hoped as much!

Just common sense, Seamus. If they had intended folks to put the invoice inside the package, why would they suggest putting it on the outside of the package? In the end, everyone is going to do what they feel is right.
However, the last possible reason to state that it's ok to do something is 'hundreds of people are doing it and they never had a problem!"
Seriously--if in doubt, consult a lawyer. All I'm pointing out is common sense. Obviously, some folks don't agree--they'll continue to do things the way they think is right. I'll continue to do things the way I think is right--the same way many other people do. I'm not some lone voice here. <lol>
It's possible I'm wrong, too, but the way I do things will never get me in trouble, nor my customers. If the folks advocating less labeling are wrong, the same can't be said.

As for why I'm still here--I'm a supporter of this site, I think it's a reliable place to shop, and to offer my own animals for sale, and I approve, for the most part, of the BOI. I find it to be a useful tool, and I contibute when I can. What folks like you have to say is not one of the reasons I'm here, and it's absolutely, positively not any reason why I would leave. <lol>

I am genuinely concerned about the issue being discussed in this thread. I think it has been concluded to some satisfaction--at the very least, all of the information has been presented on each side. No agreement was reached, but that's ok, too. There won't BE any accord until a lawyer speaks up on the subject--possibly not even then, as people can be tremendously stubborn.

Robyn is also correct in that proper packaging is more important than labeling--for the most part, with one amendment. I have to say, I feel that labeling the package as containing a live animal is also crucially important, whatever else you might write on it, and should be considered part of proper packaging.

I've been on the receiving end of one of those improper shipments, and it taught me a lesson I'll never forget. 10 adult snakes in one box--a properly insulated box, to be sure, but just one box, with no dividers, and no cool pack at all, in the summer. Simply stacked on one another, 2 to a pillowcase, and all 4 on the bottom were baked and very dead--and judging by the odor, had been since shortly after they left the shipper's hands. Perhaps they were left on hot tarmac. The box was not labeled properly. And the explanation of the shipper (who I will not name at all because he made good) was that he thought they would be ok, because he had received snakes packed the same way in the past, and they were ok.

The more we do to ensure packages are handled gently and kept out of temperature extremes, the better. 'Extra' labeling is certainly an easy step.

I was thinking last night...

When I worked for PETsMART while in college, all of our reptile/fish shipments were received with an invoice stuck to the side in one of these pouches. The invoice wasn't easily viewable, but it was easily accessible if someone needed the information. Maybe this is what they mean?

That would, without a doubt, fulfill the requirements for easily accessible documents. I believe that's actually the purpose of such pouches--to make invoices accessible from outside of the package. Some folks also include the invoice in the UPS or Fed Ex label pouch, which should also be acceptable, as they can be opened and re-sealed easily.

Here's my contribution to this topic:

I recently received a single ball python on Tuesday of this week. It was shipped thru FedEx via Priority Overnight. Normally, these are delivered before 10:30AM. However, this package was delayed and did not arrive until about 4 hours later. During those 4 hours, I called FedEx twice to see what the hold-up was. No one knew why and since the snake finally showed up alive, I didnt bother pursuing the reason further.

Yesterday, I recieved a letter in the mail from the CA State Department of Food & Agriculture. I was shocked to finally know the reason for my snakes delay because I have not heard of this happening before to another fellow snake keeper. However, I was grateful that the snake was not held any longer or returned to the shipper. Apparently the Quarantine Officer decided to release the package for delivery, even though it was in violation of CA Fish & Game Code, Section 2272.

They ultimately, issued the vioation because: "this shipment consisted of one (1) box containing 1 -unidentified snake. There was no statement of origin and no description of the contents on the outside of the box.".

Please see a copy of this letter. Hopefully this will help us wildlife shippers stay out of trouble. For me, I will now be writing the scientific name, common name, and animal quantity on the outside of each box. I probably won't make this very large though, in an attempt to not draw any attention from a snake-fearing carrier employee. This, along with the shipping label, should satisify the authorities.

To add to my post above, this is from the state of CA. Policies and procedures likely vary from state to state.