Info Mike Udall, graystandman, Bad Buyer

[TripleMoonsExotic]

Maybe she can edit it and place Lacy Act out beside Reptile Shipment Labeling.

My fault. I thought I had linked it in that original post. I'll see if I can still change it. The problem is while the Lacey Act says they have to be labeled, it doesn't provide the specifics...For that you need to reference 50 CFR 14. And before anyone asks why F&W is the one specifying when it's the Federal Lacey Act...It's because USF&W is the Federal government.

Again, while that has come up as part of the thread here, it really isn't relevant to what actually happened so if we could stay on topic here and discuss shipping in Steph's thread

I felt it was on topic as people were yelling at the guy for miss-labeling and telling him the incorrect information anyway. His comment about labeling packages as "Fragile" or "Live Perishable Goods" is very much a labeling violation.

 

[Bobby Douglass]

I would never commit to a purchase if I knew that I was unable to come into work late or take off entirely. But I guess I just have a love for the animals. To leave your snake sitting on a counter all day in a box with no proper heat or water (I believe I read there was a heat pack but I dont consider this a proper heating method just a safety measure for shipping).

Just because someone can't take off work or go in late doesn't mean they don't care about the animals. Lets not get over dramatic here.

 

[greystandman]

I put the scientific and common name inside my boxes so it is the first thing they see after opening up the box. I have not studied the lacey act as much as I probably should have and was not aware it had to be on the "outside" of the box. I still do not see anything concrete that states it must be on the outside of the box. I will admit that I was dishonest in some of my wording in my initial emails as I was trying to make a point and not being really careful as I did not think my emails would be copied and pasted to the reptile community. For that I am guilty and do feel bad about doing. I will continue to ship my reptiles as I have been doing as I honestly feel it satisfies the lacey act without bringing too much attention to the employees. I also do not agree that labeling the box as "live perishable good" and fragile is a violation? Both of those descriptions are accurate.

Mike

 

[greystandman]

Regarding Joe Pierce, I have purchased several snakes from him and have had good experiences. I do not know him well and I have not researched him although I may do that as I had planned on using him again.

Mike

 

[greystandman]

Where in the actual Lacey Act does it say the scientific and common name must be on the outside of the package? Mike

 

[FireStorm]

Where in the actual Lacey Act does it say the scientific and common name must be on the outside of the package? Mike

Here is the info that TripleMoonsExotic posted with regards to labeling requirements (I copied and pasted it on page 2 but I'll paste it again in case you missed it). These are the Fish and Wildlife regs she was provided with when she asked for clarification on the Lacey Act (she explains this in a thread in the shipping forum). The specifics aren't in the Lacey Act itself.

I bolded the parts that are relevant to your question. I believe based on these regulations that F&W wants something on the outside of the box stating that there are animals inside. IMO, "Live Perishable Goods" wouldn't fulfill the requirement, since that could include plants (see the first bolded section).

As for the invoice, I know some people consider putting the invoice in the top of the box to be "readily accessible for inspection" (see bolded part 2). I don't, partially because I know of one instance where the box was labeled "Live Harmless Reptiles" only and Fedex wanted to know what specifically was in the box. They opened the box to find the packing list, then wouldn't reseal it, so it sat in their warehouse all night until they notified the shipper to come pick it up. They said it was incorrectly packaged since the contents weren't listed on the outside.... IMO, if they have to open the box to inspect the packing list, that's not readily accessible, and I don't really like the idea of them opening the box just to look at the packing list.

Reptile Shipment Labeling
Reference: 50 CFR 14 10.2008.pdf - specifically 14.82

Option One

(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
​

Option Two

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.
​

Option Three

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.
​

Option Four

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.
​

Option one will suit most shippers.

Hope this helps.

 

[Clay Davenport]

The authorities do refer to title 50 for the marking requirements. However, any side discussion of the Lacey act needs to be taken to an appropriate thread elsewhere on the site, it's not a subject to be explored on the BOI.

Here's one thread, and I'm fairly sure there are others.

http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/forums/showthread.php?p=680025#post680025

 

[greystandman]

Good info. Thank you.

Mike