LACEY ACT Updates

[neilg]

POLICE STATE!

http://www.fws.gov/le/pdffiles/Lacey.pdf

quoted excerpts follow:

shipment between the continental United States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States, of ... species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, reptiles, brown tree snakes, or the offspring or eggs of any of the foregoing which the Secretary ... is hereby prohibited.

All such prohibited mammals, birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, and reptiles, and the eggs or offspring therefrom, shall be promptly exported or destroyed at the expense of the importer or consignee.

(4) Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the importation of dead natural-history specimens for museums or for scientific collections, or the importation of domesticated canaries, parrots (including all other species of psittacine birds), or such other cage birds as the Secretary of the Interior may designate.

(b) Whoever violates this section, or any regulation issued pursuant thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

http://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/pdf_files/InjuriousWildlifeFactSheet2010.pdf

quoted excerpts follow:

Under the Lacey Act, importation and interstate
transport of animal species determined to be injurious
may be regulated by the Secretary of the Interior.

Species listed as injurious (including their gametes and
viable eggs) may not be imported into the United States
or transported between the continental United States,
the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico or any territory or possession of the United
States by any means without a permit issued by the
Service.

The penalty for an injurious wildlife Lacey Act violation is
up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine for an individual
or a $10,000 fine for an organization.

the list:

http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/ANS/pdf_files/Current_Listed_IW.pdf

list additions:

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...a-species-and-one-python-species-as-injurious

Reticulated Python (Python reticulatus)
DeSchauensee's Anaconda (Eunectes deschauenseei)
Green Anaconda (Eunectes murinus)
Beni Anaconda (Eunectes beniensis)

.. and withdrawals(s):

We are also withdrawing our proposal to add the boa constrictor (Boa constrictor) to the list of injurious wildlife.

Court Proceedings:

http://usark.org/2015-blog/7109/

May 12, 2015

Press Release at: http://www.usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PI-Press-Release1.pdf.

'USARK is pleased to announce the Court ruled in our favor, granting our motion for preliminary injunction. This injunction will suspend the ban on interstate transportation of reticulated pythons and green anacondas under the Lacey Act.'

please share any LACEY corrections, changes, additions, withdrawals, suspensions, rulings?

 

[snowgyre]

It is important to understanding the utility of this law versus a portion of recent arguments over snake keeping. The Lacey Act has been around since 1900 and effectively ended market hunting. The law, by itself, is a good law, and has protected a lot of our wildlife species in the past and currently. For example, the Lacey Act prohibits the transport of white-tailed deer across state lines (unless the meat is properly packaged). This slows down the spread of chronic wasting disease, which is negatively affecting northern and western populations of deer.

The Lacey Act has nothing to do with a police state. It is, by and large, a very good and effective law for a variety of things. You may disagree with species that are listed and proposed to be listed, but that does not mean the law itself is unnecessary or ineffective. Please separate current politics from the true function and utility of this law.

 

[neilg]

to me, the more a government criminalizes civil matters the more police state it is becoming.

ie, suddenly taking one's pet reticulated for its checkup with your vet who just relocated 3 MILES from St Louis to E. St Louis isn't just a civil issue but now illicits both a $5,000 fine from FWS AND being thrown in prison for 6 months (and permanently labeled a federal convict/exconvict?)..

or does USARK's prelim injuction suspend (for now) that act being a federally criminal offense?

 

[AbsoluteApril]

Neil, in a thread below all the ones you had just started, in case you missed it, is a discussion about the Lacey act listing and the recent USARK injunction with clarification about what it means. It will probably answer some of your questions including the one you just asked.
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=464156

 

[neilg]

oh thx AA i see it now and just replied to it; cuz basically the USARK injunction stuff only applies to the case's plaintiffs & those who were USARK members by 4/15(?) and prior in that move to get reticulated pythons & green anacondas removed from interstate transport ban; would only apply to the public if they actually with the lawsuit.

albeit even 'bigger picture' apparenty the LACEY ACT - as well intentioned and effective against illegal logging & wildlife trafficking as it is - actually violates the US Constitution's very lawmaking process itself:


http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheo...cey-act-the-incorporation-of-foreign-law.html

"Congress has also created a second category of extraterritorial criminal offenses. They make it an offense, punishable in the federal courts in the United States, to violate a law of a foreign country. The Lacey Act is one such law. The Lacey Act now makes it a crime to import fauna or flora, natural or processed, if it has been taken in violation of a foreign nation’s laws. Those expansions of the reach of the act have created federal constitutional problems that Congress did not anticipate. The Article I Bicameralism and Presentment Clauses define the federal lawmaking process, and it demands that the Congress and the President cooperate in order to create a federal law. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause requires the federal government to act pursuant to “the law of the land,” which imposes the rule of law government officers. The Article II Appointments Clause requires that any person entrusted with authority to make or enforce federal law be appointed by the President or someone else specifically identified in the clause. Foreign officials, however, hold office under the authority of their own laws, not those of the United States. Accordingly, by granting foreign officials the authority to define elements of a federal offense, the Lacey Act violates the constitution’s federal lawmaking process."

 

[Herps Alive!]

It is important to understanding the utility of this law versus a portion of recent arguments over snake keeping. The Lacey Act has been around since 1900 and effectively ended market hunting. The law, by itself, is a good law, and has protected a lot of our wildlife species in the past and currently. For example, the Lacey Act prohibits the transport of white-tailed deer across state lines (unless the meat is properly packaged). This slows down the spread of chronic wasting disease, which is negatively affecting northern and western populations of deer.

The Lacey Act has nothing to do with a police state. It is, by and large, a very good and effective law for a variety of things. You may disagree with species that are listed and proposed to be listed, but that does not mean the law itself is unnecessary or ineffective. Please separate current politics from the true function and utility of this law.

When the USFWS interprets the Lacey Act as you have, we can agree that it is "by and large a very good and effective law.". The fact is that USFWS regularly overreaches it's authority under the act and repeatedly misinterprets the intent of the act. True function and utility are not based on intent, but rather on practice. Witness Gibson Guitar. Rather than fight unconstitutional Lacey Act claims, they paid a $300K bribe, err, settlement.

 

[Herps Alive!]

The Act was originally passed to stop the destructive sale of our own domestic resources (particularly bird feathers) but has become a law protecting the natural areas of other nations from the same threat.
Sound familiar?