Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I want to thank everyone who responded to my original questions in December. I was in AZ with someone else's computer and got sick when I got home, so I forgot about the post until now. I appreciate the valuable info and all those that responded.

Comments: I agree with Russ that CA and AZ residents are getting the shaft to a certain extent. While they are paying for the right to own certain snakes, and cannot breed them or sell them, other folks (like me) can breed or sell as many as we want w/o any hastles or extra costs. I do agree with these states that certain sps. need to be protected, but CA seems to go too far in protecting some that don't need it. In fairness to the residents of states like CA and AZ, authorities should be very careful which species they protect. It is not fair to put restrictions on residents, w/o the same restrictions on non-residents, unless it were really needed to protect a species from becoming threatened in the wild. My 2 cents. Hope I didn't overdo it.

TC
Original Strand

If you had more than one in your state you would to have some type of reciept of where you bought the second one..... The Lacy Act protects state laws accross the country............ Now your wife could have one and so could you thus making breeding pair. The law is kinda in the dark reguarding weather or not you could sale the babies....... (I wouldn't risk it) It would be a violation of Calif. Law and therefore might be enforceable by the Lacy Act (not sure though).... Kinda puts the pucker facter in those breeding Z's accross the counrty... But Terry if you want to bring a bulldozer and build a mall on top of 50 Z's you can do so without harrassment.. (makes sense to me)

Fundad

Thanks, Brian. That's kinda what I was referring to.

Think I'll give up on coming to CA to hunt for one, but instead I guess I'll just start up a little company and do some mountaintop mining there. Shouldn't have too much trouble getting a permit for that, eh?? LOL. If the snakes aren't good for anything might as well shear off the top of the mountain and get some use out of it

PS: We tolerate a lot of crap in northern MI, campers all over in summer, hunters in the fall, snowmobilers in winter, and guess why we do all that? The state feels that recreational activities are important to people and we shouldn't take away those freedoms, and it's very good for the economy, and the sheer numbers of recreationists make for good lobbying.

PBS: Sorry for the rant. Guess I'll start studying the Lacy Act.

Later....TC.

-----
Ratsnake Haven: Elaphe dione, bimaculata, mandarina, conspicillata, porphyracea coxi, t. taeniura, situla, emoryi; Lampropeltis zonata, and mexicana.

If you had more than one in your state you would to have some type of reciept of where you bought the second one

Not true. My home state (TX) has no laws regarding possession of zonata. Therefore, as long as they were legally taken in the state they originated from, I can have as many Zs as I want. It would only have been a violation of the Lacey Act if I had collected them illegally in CA. But if I collect 1 per year, with a fishing license, for 20 years and don't ever possess more than the CA bag limit in CA, I can have a huge zonata colony with no fear of prosecution. If I moved to CA, I would have to get rid of them (Of course, I wouldn't move to SoCal unless about 10 million people moved out first!).

The law is kinda in the dark reguarding weather or not you could sale the babies....... (I wouldn't risk it) It would be a violation of Calif. Law and therefore might be enforceable by the Lacy Act

Again, CA law has no bearing on what Terry does in MI, as long as he collects the snakes legally. I doubt Michigan has any laws regarding the sale of Zonata . So as long as the adults were collected legally (and he could document that by keeping old hunting licenses) he could start the Land'O Lakes Zonata factory. Of course, you guys in CA couldn't buy from him, but the rest of us could.
-----
Chris Harrison

Hahahah. Thanks for the comments, Chris. You will be patronizing Land 'O Lakes, I assume

TC

I was told by CA f&g that a CA resident can purchase from an out of state source as long as they have the receipt and they do not exceed the bag limit. I have it in writing somewhere. I used to sell cb chuckwallas to CA residents. I also had to inform them of the bag limit in CA on the receipt. Tom

Unless the law has changed in the last 2 years????

Chris,

The possession limit is one as is the bag limit. Therefore if someone takes 1 Zonata one year than comes back the next year and catches one than the second Zonata taken is illegal.. Once that person crosses the boarder they have violated the LACY ACT..

It's not my law, and no I don't agree that one is a fair limit.
But the law is the law and I am just pointing it out.. There have been some bust for some VERY simialar offences the last month...

Fundad

Bro, that is not correct. Calif possession limit does not apply to out of state residents in their state. It only applies to in state residents. The regs clearly state as "daily bag and possession", not yearly or any other time period. With a non resident license of course, one could bag and possess any "1" zonata, excluding pulchra, each and every time they were in Calif, and return to their resident state legaly. The bag and possession limit would be for only the time period they were in Calif for each trip. State laws and regs do not cross over and apply into other states. The recent busts involved fully protected animals, which were not allowed for any collection in that state, resident or non resident, and that's why the [Federal not State] LACEY Act applied when they went out of that state. Zonata subspecies, except pulchra, are allowed for collection. A pulchra could be construed as a LACEY violation if it went out of state because it's non collectable, but not the other zonata. And even pulchra could be argued, because it's listed as "special closure" not "protected." Here's a Non Interstate Law Example: A person is 19 years old and a resident of Calif. They can not legaly drink in Calif. They are in state "X" where drinking is legal at age 18. They can drink in that state. Just because Calif says they have to be 21 doesn't matter. The reverse is also true. A 19 year old legal drinker in state "X" can not drink in Calif just because he can drink at 18 in his state. Like you said, the law is the law, but it's also only that, for each state, in that state.

Eimon

while having zonata and gilas in MO. and KS.and seeing them for sale in both states, no problem. EVER ! They seem to be on state list of oringinality ( I guess ) but not in these 2 states and while it may be questioned of how obtained, it has never gone any farther than that. I mean when questioned there were no reciepts that had to be shown, no documents had to be shown. ( i'm guessing that this is what the oringinal poster was perveying ? If not , sorry . )

Chambo

I am sorry but that is not correct, The Lacy Act protects all the laws of California....(and they now appear to be enforcing it) If the bag limit is one, any number of above that is protected by state law. If one took a second Z accross the boarder than he is over his bag limit in California and thus can be charged with Lacy Act Violations..... Would that person win in court?? Maybe.. Federal Court is a [bleep] to win in if your the defence..... But it would be $10,000 later in lawer fees, lost wages, etc...... Hey it's just how I read the law.... And there is "NO" doubt charges could be made for more than one Z outside of California... Convictions??? maybe/maybe not...

Fundad

for sale in other states ? I'm confused ! Is there no grey area for any of the animals that we are talking about as far as captives > ? captive produced offsprings > ? keeping in mind I'm talking other states. If i'm reading this right ( here i go again with the same words ), how far does the lacey act go on a animal that has changed hands several times. How does one prove ( or we can also add the agency here ) that a animal was pre-law or not, or came from legal means at one time ( unless of course that animal was NEVER legal ). Am I right on the same comparassion of gilas as to zonatas on state protection ?

Chambo

Hi Chambo, :O)

Captive breed offspring would not apply to Lacy Act Violations.
But the burden of proof would be on the one who has the animals.
(keeping records of any and all animals that have are had above any state bag limit or protection is the only way for someone to fully protect themselves. .. LOL) Better safe than sorry in my opinion.... I am not sure what you mean by your last question. But I'll take a stab at it... Gila's are protected in every state (as far as I know of) and Zonata are protected with a bag limit (possession limit forever not yearly)of one. So therefore the Lacy Act would (could)apply. There have been busts recently along these lines.... So I would be concerned if I had any animals that from other states that are protected...... More so if they were for sale.....

Now the above doesn't mean I support these laws. I am just trying to give a heads up to a possible problem if someone thinks Lacy Act doesn't apply.... Thats all..

Fundad

for sale in other states ? I'm confused ! Is there no grey area for any of the animals that we are talking about as far as captives > ? captive produced offsprings > ? keeping in mind I'm talking other states. If i'm reading this right ( here i go again with the same words ), how far does the lacey act go on a animal that has changed hands several times. How does one prove ( or we can also add the agency here ) that a animal was pre-law or not, or came from legal means at one time ( unless of course that animal was NEVER legal ). Am I right on the same comparassion of gilas as to zonatas on state protection ?

Chambo

be involved with some very laxed states then. But maybe several more clarifications is in order. # 1...If the 2 animals that we are talking about is in question in other states, it wouldn't be the local agency ( state ) that would be involved but the federal ? or both ? Maybe my scenario was just non-informed local state agents/agency. #2...pertaining to the same 2 animals, how far back would the agency go when these animals have changed hands several times ? I know the Bob Clark deal on the oringinal albino burmese python from country of origin but that was involved with a theft and he was able to keep that animal because he was the third party. And maybe this has nothing to do with what we are talking about but......I guess what you are saying...paper trails no matter what !

Chambo

The offences I am reffering to are Lacy Act Violations and are Federal Law not state law..More often than not enforced by the USFW (US fish and wildlife).... And Federal courts are tough..

The Lacy Act protects state laws..... And you're right I am just saying if someone is breeding Captives that are not legal in other states it's a good idea to keep a paper trail......... "just in case" and if someone has something not legal they should reconsidier having them, even if the law is stupid and you and I both know there are many states with ludicrious and unreasonable laws ......

I have heard many good things about you.... I hope to meet you someday.....

Fundad

be involved with some very laxed states then. But maybe several more clarifications is in order. # 1...If the 2 animals that we are talking about is in question in other states, it wouldn't be the local agency ( state ) that would be involved but the federal ? or both ? Maybe my scenario was just non-informed local state agents/agency. #2...pertaining to the same 2 animals, how far back would the agency go when these animals have changed hands several times ? I know the Bob Clark deal on the oringinal albino burmese python from country of origin but that was involved with a theft and he was able to keep that animal because he was the third party. And maybe this has nothing to do with what we are talking about but......I guess what you are saying...paper trails no matter what !

Chambo

Fundad,

I also am going to have to disagree with your assessment of the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act goes into effect whenever someone crosses a legal state or country boundary. Lacey could be enforced for illegal collection of wildlife from other countries as well. The Act is very old, almost 100 years old if I remember right. The law was definitely not intended for what it is currently being used for. Just crossing a state or country line with an animal does not in itself create a Lacey Act violation. There has to be an underlying law that was broken in the acquiring of the wildlife before Lacey can be invoked. For example, if one were to collect Gilas from Arizona (where they are legally protected), that in itself is NOT a violation of Lacey. That it is a crime is not in dispute. Once the animal (that has been taken illegally) crosses the border into another State, then it becomes a Lacey violation. In addition, if someone were to collect (illegally) any wildlife from another country (Lets say someone illegally collects Tree Boas from a protected wildlife preserve in Brazil), and imports them into the United States, that would be a violation of Lacey because the animals were taken in an illegal manner AND they crossed political boundaries into the United States. The Lacey Act therefore does take into consideration the laws of other jurisdictions. The Lacey Act, however, does not make rules that apply in one jurisdiction apply in another. So in the case of zonata, if one is legally collected by a non resident of California, and legally transported to another state, there is no underlying violation of law and crossing borders does not invoke the provisions of Lacey. The collector can then breed as many zonata in his/her State (not California or other states that limit the possession of zonata) without being in violation of Lacey. Lacey in itself is only a tool to add more punishment to violators of wildlife laws who have crossed political boundaries. Lacey has even been used in conjunction with wildlife crimes commited on Indian Reservations. One example is a case where a man shot a deer out of season while on a reservation and transported the carcass off of the reservation (but within the same state) to his home. That caused the man to not only be guilty of taking the deer out of season, but also to be guilty of Lacey when it was transported off of the reservation. If the Lacey Act is being used to enforce bag limits from one state to the residents of another state, then there is going to be one huge mess. Just think what would happen if Florida put a possession limit of cornsnakes down to one or two. That would put almost every cornsnake breeder in the country out of business. Or how about if the various Countries in Africa decide to make the possession limit for Ball Pythons two no more than one or two animals. That would not make Ball Python breeders in the US have to sell their animals or be in violation of Lacey.

With that being said, I am not a lawyer and have never seen the Lacey Act in use, so I admit that my assessment of the Lacey Act is not complete and that I could be wrong about some or all of my above interpretations. Someone please correct me if I am. Check out http://www.animallaw.info/cases/topiccases/catola.htm for some sample cases that I was able to find on the Lacey Act.

That is the basis of how I've understood the Lacy Act too. I'll keep in mind that we tend to interpret laws to better suit ourselves, but I thought it goes along the lines you describe. I had responded to the earlier thread with regard to donating a legally collected zonata in California to someone out of state. I think that if there are no limits or regulations concerning the possession of and breeding of zonatas in the other state than you can possess and breed them as long as you don't violate any of your state's laws or regulations. I thought that the Lacey Act comes into it when the reptile was collected illegally or is prohibited from being possessed and it is shipped out of state or as you mentioned to a different political entity. Of course, it seems the Lacey Act is possibly being applied in a different way than it was intended. It seems that each Lacey Act case is providing its own individual precedence.

Terry Parks