Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Washington DC, 23 March 2010- Today the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands and the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife will hold a joint oversight hearing on "How To Manage Large Constrictor Snakes And Other Invasive Species." The Subcommittees will receive testimony on efforts to monitor and control Burmese Pythons and other invasive species in Everglades National Park.

At the center of this debate is the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed rule change adding 9 snakes (including Boa constrictor) to the injurious wildlife list of the Lacey Act. The big question is whether federal regulation via the Lacey Act is the way to address a problem that is localized in the southern tip of Florida. Justification for the rule change is a highly controversial US Geological Survey report criticized as, “not suitable as the basis for legislative or regulatory policies” by a panel of independent scientists in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee.

Legal experts have questioned whether the complicated Lacey Act designed to stop poaching at the turn of the century is now being abused by USFWS. Never before has a Lacey Act listing been proposed for animals that are so widely held by the public. The United States Association of Reptile Keepers estimates that there are now approximately 2 million animals in captivity in the US that would be subject to the USFWS proposed rule change. If enacted tens of thousands of Americans would be in possession of injurious wildlife and could be subject to felony prosecution under the Lacey Act.

The effect on thousands of small businesses would be swift and devastating. There would be many bankruptcies and tens of thousands of people would be negatively impacted. Thousands of jobs would be lost.

-----
USARK

This has been carried by dozens of business journals around the country as well as Forbes, The Economist and Yahoo News.
Washington Business Journal

-----
USARK

"If enacted tens of thousands of Americans would be in possession of injurious wildlife and could be subject to felony prosecution under the Lacey Act."

Could be.

If they cannot prove that they acquired their animal before the law went into effect. Easy enough to get around.

I cant imagine my home without all my boas!!! This is just too much !!!
-----
Albert
Getting back from boa hobby!!!
0.1 fiance , not super tame, but getting there!! lol
0.1 Sharp line albino , poss het sharpsnow
1.1 TH Sharp snowglow
1.0 CA stripe proven super hypo
1.1 Hypo nics
1.0 Emerald line sunset
1.1 pure Cancun boa
0.2 Betty line hog island
4.4 CA hypo/hogs het full body stripes
0.2 CA poss. super hypo
1.1 DH CA type2 ghost
1.0 CA Tpos nic
1.1 hypo jungle
1.1 Dogs
Lots of feeder mice and rats !!!

The post implies that the mere *possession* of said animals would lead to prosecution. I disagree with that inference.

I doubt that anyone would try to charge me for owning something I had obtained legally, anymore than they would try to go after dealers *retroactively* for having shipped animals prior to the enactment of the law.

Of course, I would have to provide proof that I'd obtained said animal legally (timing is everything), and there would be hurdles to surmount if I were to need to transport said animal. But the straightforward ownership issue would be easy enough to handle.

That is correct they cannot decide that your property is no longer legal and just confiscate it with out just compensation. They can only ban interstate transport. It is the same with the endangered species act. ROC laws aside if I was breeding indian pythons I could sell them to whomever I want here in the state of florida even though they are listed under the endangered species act. If the fws has a problem with it they can go pound sand there is nothing they can do about it as long as I only sell them within the state of Florida. If I wanted to buy indian pythons from out of state or sell them to someone out of state that would be a different story. I would need a permit and if I chose to buy or sell without one they could prosecute me. Until that point however they could just go pound sand. As far as prosecuting dealers for selling animals before their ban that is also a violation of civil rights under the ex post facto clause of the U.S. constitution. If they were to do that the individual agents who arrested you in violation of your civil rights can be held civilly liable under federal law. This is also true under the laws of most states btw. If you were to look these legislative issues up on some of the wolf dog sited you can get a lot of this info. Those people have done their homework on this type of legislation.

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.