I'm not certain how far reaching/bad this is, but it certaintly doesn't sound good.
Federal Legislation Threatens Pets, Zoos, Aquariums, and Bio
Federal Legislation Threatens Pets, Zoos, Aquariums, and Bio
Federal Legislation potentially extending Lacey Act (injurius wildlife)
- Thread starter Great Argus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- invasive species
Bengal Tiger
Well-Known Member
Hopefully doesn’t get put into place, the effects could be bad.
They try this from time to time because it's the only way they can pass this kind of thing. I've contacted my senators and congressman. I've spent too much time and money on my animals to have them taken from me.
I feel like it would be poorly enforced due to the sheer number of species involved, but it's still highly concerning.
Text of the bill. Lot of people very concerned about this amendment, particularly in the private sector.
https://usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2022-HR4521-excerpt.pdf
https://usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2022-HR4521-excerpt.pdf
It looks like it could be far reaching if enacted
Very far reaching - basically anything could be at risk of being listed as injurious at any time and is then immediately banned for 3 years. Apparently too any species listed as injurious then cannot be moved across state lines, regardless of origin, whether captive-born or wild-born.
I'm severely annoyed as there are a few good animal related things in the bill as well - investigations into illegal wildlife trafficking, addition protections for sharks, marine mammals, and coral reefs for example.
An interesting one that I do not believe made the final cut was an amendment to claim any US born Giant panda as belonging to the US.
It seems to be that there would be a white list of *approved* animals, so anything not on that list, is automatically injurious. A lot of safe animals would likely get left out when done that way. I get what they think they're doing, but it's yet another case of people who don't know anything/listen to ARA trying to step in. Transporting over state lines includes things like going to the vet, not just sales. Not a big deal if you're in one of the 3 main exotic states, but if you're somewhere like delaware? It basically bans any ownership because there's no dealers and only a few exotic vets here.
LMAO about the pandas. Not surprised that got tossed, any lawyer would tell you that you don't want to go back on an agreement made with China's government.
Yeah, it's extremely problematic for things like that. The "white list" idea is horrible, just in fish alone there's a couple thousand species at least routinely imported, who's vetting all those? I've seen several comments from aquarium people regarding the stupidity of the overarching legislation, marine species will not ever become invasive in states like AZ, MT, or WV for example. There is great concern it would be used to essentially shut down multiple sections of the animal hobby, though on the other hand it would create a massive black market. Such action wouldn't just hurt our industry, we import from multiple countries where the breeding/collection of such species is significant to their income.
White Lists for exotic pet related laws have already shown to be stupid. My home state of MA has a White List for what pets are allowed to be owned, which led to the ability to own bison and Ostrich without a permit but something like mousebirds or turacos as completely banned.
Really what concerns me the most about this is the state lines rule. That'd really screw over zoos, as what species are there that the AZA has a sustainable population of in state? Maybe some of the larger states have some species that'd be fine, but there'd be a lot of common zoo species this change would be a death sentence to.
Plus, if having to prove a species can't be injurious to go on the white list, it's basically impossible. Any animal that lives in an area whose climate replicates that of part of the US could be argued as potentially injurious, which pretty quickly eliminates 90% of species.
Really what concerns me the most about this is the state lines rule. That'd really screw over zoos, as what species are there that the AZA has a sustainable population of in state? Maybe some of the larger states have some species that'd be fine, but there'd be a lot of common zoo species this change would be a death sentence to.
Plus, if having to prove a species can't be injurious to go on the white list, it's basically impossible. Any animal that lives in an area whose climate replicates that of part of the US could be argued as potentially injurious, which pretty quickly eliminates 90% of species.
I hope this bill does a swift death. I understand the basis of wanting to curb invasive species and diseases but banning species has not stopped the problem and adding new bans is only going to hurt multiple industries. As well as it is completely unenforceable in terms of determining what species are injurious because one can argue that feral dogs and cats are potentially worse than any other invasive species but we are not going to be banning those any time.
Thank you for sharing this. I am going to contact my senators and tell them to vote against this bill as well.
Zoos with the proper USDA licenses are usually exempt from these sorts of things, as long as they have all of the proper paperwork. That's why they can own and transport endangered species, for example.
Yes, I am aware. I was just saying this as another example of lists of what animals are allowed, not what animals are banned, being problematic. That's the Massachusetts Law for private exotic pet ownership, which is full of gaps for species that are completely reasonable (super Dwarf retics, turacos, mousebirds) being banned, while unreasonable pets (bison, Ostrich) are allowed without permits.
I was replying to your second paragraph, about it being a death sentence to a lot of zoo species. It wouldn't, because zoos would still be keeping those species.
Bison and ostrich are both species that are established farm animals.
Pantheraman
Well-Known Member
Alright, would this be a threat to AZA zoos or not? Regardless, I hope it doesn't pass.
Hypothetically not too much. Aquarium fish could be problematic though depending on what happens, as most smaller species (and a lot of big ones) are imported rather than bred yet.
Seeing that Fruit Bats and Meerkats are currently considered injurious wildlife and the programs are still thriving, AZA Zoos should not be the biggest concern here. It just means more paperwork and permits for transporting animals/different protocols for escapes, etc. However, if it becomes something that permits cannot be received to transport over state lines/it becomes difficult to transport over state lines, then it would be a much bigger deal, akin to how AZA Deer programs are struggling due to the CWD bans. Regardless, I don't want to risk it and see this amendment pass through the senate!
