Amphibian Rule Change--Lacey Act

[WingedWolfPsion]

I received a reply to my inquiry for information on the amphibian rule change:

"Thank you for your interest in the chytrid fungus issue. We received a petition from the Defenders of Wildlife that asked us to evaluate their suggestion of listing amphibians in trade as injurious wildlife unless they are certified as being free of chytrid fungus. The petitioners are concerned that trade is a pathway for the fungus, which is devastating amphibian populations. The Defenders petition can be found here: http://www.defenders.org/resources/p...ry_salazar.pdf

We are currently gathering information to address that petition and are not ready to answer questions at this time. We will soon be publishing a notice in the Federal Register that will be asking the public for information on the subject. The Federal Register notice may answer some of your questions. We encourage you to submit information at that time through one of the methods explained in the notice. Your information, along with other public comments, might help us to best address the petition. You can check Regulations.gov periodically for Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2009-0093.You won't find it until it publishes, but you will have 90 days once it publishes to submit your information online at Regulations.gov. Then we will evaluate all the information submitted and may publish a proposed rule with specific details of what we propose, or make a finding that there is no basis for further action. If we proceed to a proposed rule, there would also be a public comment period. After that, either a final rule would follow, or we could withdraw the proposed rule and take no further action. The process is long, but it greatly benefits from input from the knowledgeable public. During this process, no regulations are expected to change related to the petition.

You might find some useful information on the injurious wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act from this fact sheet:
http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/ans/pdf...tSheet2007.pdf

Again, thank you for your interest in this issue.


Susan Jewell, Injurious Wildlife Listing Coordinator
Fisheries and Habitat Conservation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 770
Arlington, VA 22203
phone 703-358-2416 fax 703-358-2487
susan_jewell@fws.gov"

[beckdg]

the regular blah, blah, blah...

keep us informed if you find anything out if you don't mind. i'll certainly comment if necessary. i agree with it so far, but you never know how things will be worded for future restrictions...

[Nighsliv]

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

"Thank you for your interest in the chytrid fungus issue. We received a petition from the Defenders of Wildlife that asked us to evaluate their suggestion of listing amphibians in trade as injurious wildlife unless they are certified as being free of chytrid fungus. The petitioners are concerned that trade is a pathway for the fungus, which is devastating amphibian populations. The Defenders petition can be found here: http://www.defenders.org/resources/p...ry_salazar.pdf

And that my fellow board members means that Joe schmo and Black jungle all will have to obtain certifications if you want to move an amphibian across a state line.

[froggsong]

Don't forget that this is not for native species. I DO agree that in order to be sold, animals should be tested, or at least proactively treated, and certified as such. I AM worried that this could turn into another ridiculous ban, but at the same time, as long as it is worded carefully I think it could be beneficial. If a certification is obtained before sale, then the animal would remain certified, unless they include a prevision for periodic recertification.

Now, when an animal is considered injurious wildlife for the whole country so that it cannot be imported in, does that mean that it will be illegal to move the animals that have already been imported into the country, or those that were bred in the states?

[Nighsliv]

Any animals put on the Lacey act in that way pretty much become illegal to move across state lines, usually they don't word it smart enough to avoid CB or preexisting specimens.

[froggsong]

I wonder how much a certification would cost... Obviously, that hasn't been discussed at this point, but it's information that should be discussed, as well as what a certification would entail, before it moves too much further.

[Nighsliv]

But then you would have to assume our law makers were smart enough to think ahead and we can't have that...

[WingedWolfPsion]

This WOULD apply to native species as well. It is not illegal to breed or sell species which are listed as injurious in the Lacey Act. It's important to keep that in mind. It is illegal to TRANSPORT these species across State lines, or to import them.

So, if this proposal winds up being implemented, it will be illegal to ship, drive, or carry an amphibian across a State line without certification. It will be illegal to import an amphibian without certification.

[beckdg]

i think if they go through with this everything should be done as a point of sale thing. in other words any time any animal is to be sold it would have to be re-tested. imo this would be the only way to keep people with large pre-existing populations/collections from spreading chytrid across the entire continent.

i think the permits should be free, cheap or a small tax related to the test itself as this will not only benefit the seller and the buyer but the government also. as anyone who's worked in retail knows sales make the bottom line. if sales drop across the entire country due to outrageous prices for permits the government will be cutting it's head off despite it's face. in a time of borderline recession this can be volatile to our economic state. it would effect already struggling industries such as the usps, small and large animal related businesses, etc., etc., which all effects the bottom line when it comes to tax dollars.

legislation such as this must be written carefully as ignorance from our government could easily force our economic and military super-power status straight into a third world scenario if too many laws are pushed that hurt the general consumers pocket. they have been pushing on many different fronts lately...

[froggsong]

It still says that only animals with the fungus would be regulated...

And surely they cannot list native species as injurious wildlife, that's so ridiculous as to be laughable...