It was stated months ago before you started hangin out in this forumn that mere posession within the state would be regulated individually by each state. We have already seen some states crack down on the issue by drastically changing their regulation regarding keeping constrictors solely on the basis of their said injurious nature. There has so far not been any suggestions regarding retroactivity of any fines since there would be no way for them to go back and say "you had an animal prior to the bill becomming a law therefore you are in violation of that law now". What you implied by that was simply ridiculous.

The fact is that if the bill becomes law, it opens the doors to more laws and regulationst that could be even more strict on a state and local level. Additionally, unless they change the verbage of the Lacy Act itself, it is very clear in that violations occur when animals are illegally transported "ACROSS" state lines and/or imported to or exported from the country. Mere posession of said animals is an entirely other issue. beyond that.

[ Hide Replies ]

• PR: Invasive Species Hearing - USARK, Tue Mar 23 09:02:16 2010
• Lacey Act Could Rip Reptile Industry - USARK, Tue Mar 23 11:29:22 2010
• RE: Lacey Act Could Rip Reptile Industry - StephF, Tue Mar 23 11:43:53 2010
• RE: Lacey Act Could Rip Reptile Industry - fumanchu858, Tue Mar 23 12:05:16 2010
• RE: Lacey Act Could Rip Reptile Industry - StephF, Tue Mar 23 14:35:52 2010
• RE: Lacey Act Could Rip Reptile Industry - Calparsoni, Tue Mar 23 15:26:50 2010
• RE: Lacey Act Could Rip Reptile Industry - Hiss_N_Herps, Tue Mar 23 15:28:56 2010