Writing/Talking Points for Senate Letters

[John]

Important notes before you start using these points:

• This list was composed by me, with advice from other knowledgeable individuals.
• It is not the be-all and end-all - you may have other ideas that I haven't thought of and I have left this thread open for suggestions and corrections.
• Many of these points can be copied and pasted into your letter (yes, letters can be long) but please personalize where you can.
• Watch out - read what you are copy/pasting in case there are notes in there or mistakes that I have missed.

Writing/Talking Points:

• UPDATE MARCH 18th: the text of the amendment before the committee has now been published and it's as bad as you could imagine - please amend any talking points below that talk of the text as unpublished. Read at USARK along with their notes: ALERT: Lacey Act Amendment 2021 | USARK - United States Association of Reptile Keepers

• Mention what you do for a living or in your community if it is relevant to amphibians. If amphibians made a difference in your childhood, education, your children, community, etc., you could also mention this/these.

• How a potential ban under the amended Lacey Act would affect you personally. For example, you wouldn’t be able to buy, sell or even send any captive bred offspring across state lines. Maybe you have kept newts and salamanders for 30 years and this would end your lifelong passion or prevent you from sharing it with your children, grandchildren, etc.

• In 2016, in an effort to prevent the introduction and spread of a new amphibian disease known as Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans (Bsal), USFWS used the Lacey Act to make a rule banning the importation and interstate transport of 201 species of newts and salamanders (a large proportion of all of the species in the world). In 2017, US Federal court ruled that USFWS could not apply the Lacey Act to interstate transport of these animals for this purpose. In the 5 years since the rule was implemented, there have been 0 (zero) confirmed cases of the disease found in the United States, and, in fact, the disease can only be found in this country in research laboratories who imported the disease for study. I submit that, should the USFWS seek to implement a new ban on interstate transport of these animals using the amended Lacey Act, it would be redundant and wasteful. Regulating such an interstate ban would require increased government spending, new USFWS personnel and potentially law enforcement personnel to look for a likely non-existent disease in the United States. If the USFWS wishes to regulate interstate transport of these animals as a precaution against the disease, a copy of a current negative Bsal test included with any interstate shipment by the shipper should be sufficient. This would save taxpayer money and remove the need for the many additional personnel that would be required to regulate a strict interstate ban. Indeed, many captive breeders currently supply zoos and aquariums with salamanders and these all have to come with a negative Bsal and Bd (a related disease) certificate of testing.

• The USFWS 2016 rule listed many native species as injurious. The rule does not discriminate, but, rationally, these native animals could be considered injurious only if they were carrying this disease. In the 5 years since this rule, there have been 0 (zero) confirmed cases of this disease in US salamanders outside of research laboratories.

• In the text of the 2016 rule banning interstate transport (and importation), which was 2 years in the making, USFWS showed that they did not carry out due diligence. They listed 201 species of salamander and newt, among which were a species (Cynops wolterstorffi) known to science to be extinct since 1998 and likely long before. They listed a species twice, under 2 different names, one of which was incorrect and changed many decades before the rule (“Triturus hongkongensis”). They also used several scientific species names that had been reclassified years before the rule was written. In their annual retail sales loss and economic loss section of the rule, they estimated that “Impacts per small business may be as high as $453,000 for importers and $23,000 for domestic breeders”. The domestic breeders number was grossly inaccurate: a single US breeder recently reported sales of captive bred salamanders in excess of $15,000 alone. A survey to gather real data for comments on the federal rule in 2016 carried out by Caudata.org – an internet group and information resource for hobbyists and scientists that has been in existence for over 20 years and has funded US and international scientific research in salamanders – found that hobbyist small business revenue for 2015 was $207,528 for just 58 of the respondents who were willing to share their numbers. This lack of due diligence demonstrates the need for oversight and constraints on the USFWS’s ability to apply an amended Lacey Act as a blanket ban. A summary of the aforementioned survey can be found here: Legal - Summary of Caudata.org US Survey for 2016 USFWS Salamander Ban

• As of March 16th, 2021, there are 23,027 registered US members of Caudata.org – an internet group and information resource for hobbyists and scientists that has been in existence for over 20 years and has funded US and international scientific research in salamanders. Caudata.org members were instrumental in listing the critically endangered Luristan Newt in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in 2010. All of our members would be impacted personally, and many financially, by a potential ban under the amended Lacey Act. Caudata.org’s membership likely doesn’t include all US hobbyists.

• US amphibian-related companies and salamander hobbyists have been testing their collections for Bsal since 2014 through professional DNA testing companies like vetdna.com based in Dallas, TX. The 2016 Caudata.org study found that 134 of 475 question respondents had already tested their collection for Bsal. In the 5 years since, testing availability has increased, and costs have decreased. A summary of that survey can be found here: Legal - Summary of Caudata.org US Survey for 2016 USFWS Salamander Ban

• The 2016 USFWS ban on salamander imports to the US has cut to effectively zero the avenues for wild animals carrying the disease to be imported into the US by corporations or hobbyists. Importantly, Canada, too, has implemented an import ban but not an interstate transport ban.

• I submit to the committee that an interstate transport ban will cause great harm to businesses, American hobbyists, and to education and public nature interests. It is attempting to regulate a problem that is currently negated by an international import ban and will lead to increased costs to government budgets and the taxpayer, for no measurable benefit.

• (If you did not include the part about Bsal testing and wasteful spending, etc., consider including this)
  Instead of a ban on interstate transport, at most a requirement for a Bsal-free testing certificate from a US laboratory should be required with any interstate salamander shipment. Currently, USFWS requires listing of species and numbers of specimens on any shipping boxes. Therefore, including a printed copy of a Bsal-free testing certificate would put costs on the shipper and minimize the need for government spending and regulation on this matter.

• House cats allowed to roam outside are possibly one of the most injurious of all animals kept by humans, and every year kill tens of millions of migratory song birds (the most high-profile group of USFWS trust species) in the U.S. - Yet, there is no move afoot to ban house cats, nor restrict their sale or interstate transport.

• Related to that last point on cats, and also to non-hobby spreaders, you might want to read this post further down this thread: Writing/Talking Points for Senate Letters

If you wish to lobby on behalf of constrictor snakes, have at it - that is not my area of expertise and, as a result, I have not included it here.

 

[minorhero]

This great and very useful. Question for folks more knowledgeable than me. One (I imagine) reason requesting a ban would be due to pets being released into the wild and becoming an invasive species. Are there instances of salamander populations being established in areas outside of their native range? I haven't heard of any but that doesn't mean much with my knowledge base.

 

[John]

This great and very useful. Question for folks more knowledgeable than me. One (I imagine) reason requesting a ban would be due to pets being released into the wild and becoming an invasive species. Are there instances of salamander populations being established in areas outside of their native range? I haven't heard of any but that doesn't mean much with my knowledge base.

No non-native species of newt or salamander has ever been shown as invasive here. In any case, they haven't tried to use "invasive" as the reasoning in the past - they use "injurious" because the animals can theoretically carry the disease. So in summary, for newts and salamanders at least, this is not about invasiveness.

 

[Linus]

Thank you to all who contributed to this and to @John for putting it together. I've just contacted both of my senators, I plan to call and send physical letters as well.

 

[John]

UPDATE MARCH 18th: the text of the amendment before the committee has now been published and it's as bad as you could imagine. Read at USARK along with their notes: ALERT: Lacey Act Amendment 2021 | USARK - United States Association of Reptile Keepers

 

[BensBeasts]

Doesn’t this affect everything not just salamanders but like reptiles, invertebrates, fish?

 

[John]

Doesn’t this affect everything not just salamanders but like reptiles, invertebrates, fish?

Anything. This would let USFWS ban whatever they like.

 

[BensBeasts]

Man that sucks

 

[Herpin Man]

Man that sucks

Damn right it sucks, BensBeasts.
Every amphibian/reptile keeper in the country should be concerned enough to write a letter to this committee. They should also be supporting USARK with membership and/or donations. Most probably won't bother, unfortunately. This could virtually end interstate transportation of herps in the U.S. if it passes.

 

[aaustin7587]

As a herpetologist, am I missing something here? This seems like a good piece of legislation, even if it does force the commercial trade to be more localized. Pathogens like Bsal, Bd, ranavirus, etc. is the second leading cause of declines for amphibians, and they've been spread around the world by the pet trade. The pet trade itself is the third leading cause of decline (habitat loss is the first). Many (really most) herpetofauna is wild-caught, and placing restrictions on interstate sales seems to be a reasonable way to mitigate the decline of wild populations. I've watched local populations be completely wiped out by pathogens like Bd. Many species of snakes and lizards have become problematic invasive species in the southern U.S., and green frogs and bullfrogs have been introduced across the country where they are not originally native. From reading through these talking points, I have to say that I see no reason not to support this legislation. I keep and breed salamanders, but they are native to my state, and I make plenty just selling locally. This legislation seems like a natural reaction to the vast amount of harm our trade has encouraged over the past decades.

As far as education and outreach, there is already a permitting process in place for those with a legitimate role in those professions. Let's be honest, this is only about protecting the pet trade.

 

[John]

As a herpetologist, am I missing something here? This seems like a good piece of legislation, even if it does force the commercial trade to be more localized. Pathogens like Bsal, Bd, ranavirus, etc. is the second leading cause of declines for amphibians, and they've been spread around the world by the pet trade. The pet trade itself is the third leading cause of decline (habitat loss is the first). Many (really most) herpetofauna is wild-caught, and placing restrictions on interstate sales seems to be a reasonable way to mitigate the decline of wild populations. I've watched local populations be completely wiped out by pathogens like Bd. Many species of snakes and lizards have become problematic invasive species in the southern U.S., and green frogs and bullfrogs have been introduced across the country where they are not originally native. From reading through these talking points, I have to say that I see no reason not to support this legislation. I keep and breed salamanders, but they are native to my state, and I make plenty just selling locally. This legislation seems like a natural reaction to the vast amount of harm our trade has encouraged over the past decades.

As far as education and outreach, there is already a permitting process in place for those with a legitimate role in those professions. Let's be honest, this is only about protecting the pet trade.

Wow, those are some broad sweeping statements with zero evidence to back them up. Are you a scientist or a self-proclaimed herpetologist? If you're going to make claims like those at the beginning, please back them up.

Bd was not originally spread by the pet trade - Xenopus laevis was the original carrier species and was widely used in human medicine (medical practices for pregnancy tests) and scientific research. Another non-pet trade example: Scientists brought it to rare california frog populations and wiped them out. Another example: Frog leg farms breeding bullfrogs, a Bd resistant species, were/are rampant with Bd and the animals are often sent live across the country to food markets. We are talking millions of animals. They frequently escape.

I don't see the pet trade there. Give me an actual example of the pet trade threatening wild US animals with Bd. I've never seen a single published US example with evidence.

Ranavirus exists worldwide. There are different strains but it is ubiquitous. I would like an example of pet trade amphibians being shown to spread this to wild populations too. US examples would be great please.

Read the bill text I posted about last night (it's readable on the USARK page, along with their notes: ALERT: Lacey Act Amendment 2021 | USARK - United States Association of Reptile Keepers ). I've read it and this amendment to Lacey basically gives USFWS free rein to ban anything in the future. Read what I said in the opening post of this thread about USFWS not doing their due diligence. They had over 2 years to compose their rule and they banned a species that had been extinct for 20+ years and used species names that were dropped in the mid 20th century. They also did zero research on the economic impact on small businesses - their $23000 estimate of all US small business breeders income was slightly more than the $15k I alone made last year and I don't even do it for money. They are in dire need of oversight and constraints. The last thing they need is something that let's them do whatever they like with zero accountability.

I'd like to see them try to save the tens of millions of native birds and small mammals that are killed by non-native domestic cats every year - let's have an injurious listing for something you can see in any neighborhood in the US. That won't happen though because there are ~50 million US cat owners but only 23,000 US newt keepers.

And did we mention the 2016 import ban worked? There's no Bsal here except, ironically, in labs who imported it for study - several of whom are the same scientists who were advocating for the interstate ban.

 

[aaustin7587]

Easy there, friend. I'm not trying to argue with strangers online in an online forum. I'm just genuinely baffled by this opposition. Yes, I am a practicing scientist. I study wetland mitigation practices, as well as latitudinal gradients of phenotypic plasticity and countergradient variation in salamanders. I'm also an instructor of Environmental Biology.

I agree with you about cats. They cause a great deal of harm to local fauna, and should really be restricted to being indoor animals or somehow restricted to the owner's property just as dogs are. However, I'm not sure how the cat issue relates to this bill.

I made the point that Bd and other pathogens have been spread globally by the pet trade. I didn't restrict this point to the U.S., but there is nothing about our country that is significantly different from Eurasia. We do know that pets imported from the U.S. to other countries have tested positive, and we know that the trade of amphibians in the U.S. has spread chytrid fungus. I'm happy to provide sources (see below), but I don't have time to do a full literature review for an online forum.

There are a lot of responsible herp and fish owners and breeders who regularly test their stock, sell responsibly, and ensure individuals are never released into non-native environments. But for every responsible owner, there's an idiot who ruins it not only for us in the hobby, but also for these animals' wild populations.

It seems the link you posted indicated there is a white list of non-injurious species, so this bill has even less of an effect than I imagined. Cross-state commerce would still be permitted except for a few species that are likely vectors (injurious).

As an aside, any scientist operating using live animals in the U.S. must follow their institution's IACUC protocol, which always includes euthanizing and disposing of lab animals. I think it far more likely that X. laevis was released by a well-meaning pet owner, especially as there have always been far more pets of this species than lab specimens. But examining the epidemiology of these pathogens is obviously very difficult, so broad generalizations are sometimes necessary.

Sources:

Bd is detected in the UK amphibian trade, including amphibians imported from the U.S.

Wombwell, Emma Louise, Garner, Trenton W. J, Cunningham, Andrew A, Quest, Robert, Pritchard, Susie, Rowcliffe, J Marcus, and Griffiths, Richard A. 2016. Detection of Batrachochytrium Dendrobatidis in Amphibians Imported into the UK for the Pet Trade. EcoHealth 13.3: 456-66.

Bd is consistently detected for bait salamanders traded across state lines.

Angela M. Picco, and James P. Collins. 2008. Amphibian Commerce as a Likely Source of Pathogen Pollution. Conservation Biology 22.6: 1582-589.

Introduced American Bullfrogs serve as vectors of Bd from the Eastern to the Western U.S.

Yap, Tiffany A, Koo, Michelle S, Ambrose, Richard F, and Vredenburg, Vance T. 2018. Introduced Bullfrog Facilitates Pathogen Invasion in the Western United States. PloS One 13.4: E0188384.

 

[John]

No one contests that Bd is in the pet trade in the US. I never said it wasn't. What I said was that there have been numerous examples of Bd being spread in the wild in the US by non-pet trade sources but zero confirmed cases like this to do with the pet trade specifically.

Regarding "Eurasia", which is 2 continents, not a large country like the US - talk about broad/sweeping comparison - let's narrow it down to Europe for a moment. There is a massive difference between Europe and the US in terms of climate - Europe is farther north in latitude when compare to the US as a whole. Most of Europe has cooler summers and milder winters (or equally harsh) than the US. Bsal has been shown to be much less resilient to warm temperatures (in Fahrenheit, 77°F will generally kill Bsal) than Bd (in Fahrenheit we need to get well into the 90s to assure killing it). There has been widespread speculation (both in science and the hobby) that this difference in temperature resilience is actually what kept Bsal from coming here and establishing itself in collections historically before the 2016 ban.

As I stated previously, and as our 2016 survey showed, even in 2016 when Bsal testing was new, about 25% of our members who responded to our survey were already testing their collections for Bsal. Incidentally, that survey data was sent to USFWS at their direct request to me after the comment period in 2016. At that point and to this day there have been zero confirmed US cases in private collections or in the wild and instances of salamander smuggling are tiny compared to other animals (I was specifically told this recently by a USFWS source). I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that the import ban worked and that they should leave it at that until there is a confirmed case here.

Read the proposed amendment again that Rubio submitted to the committee - there is no oversight on what USFWS decides to do with this amended Lacey Act as the amendment stands now. That needs to change.

As for the whitelist, the 2016 rule showed that they don't care about such things - they named about half of all of the world's salamander species as injurious, with little-to-no research to back it up at that time. The USFWS is not like its Canadian equivalent - they are subject to HSUS and other anti-pet political lobbies and, unlike the Canada agency, they are not known to delist or care to research species to whitelist - banning a long extinct species showed their research/due diligence is a joke and giving them more power without oversight is a mistake. And this isn't just my opinion - preliminary research on US species has shown that some are quite resistant to Bsal (I've been told there have been instances of self-clearing too) - quite the opposite of Bd.

In the end, it likely won't matter what you or I say on the matter, nor what the evidence so far says - they will first ban a few snakes and transport of half or all of world salamander species, and then within a couple of years begin expanding it to frogs and on up the exotic animal hobbies in order of increasing size. Professional lobbying is illegal in virtually all 1st world countries except the USA. The more money those groups have, the more say they have in US policy. Sadly, I think this opinion will be bourne out in time, again, no matter what you or I think. I do think that hobbyists should have their say though, and I wouldn't object if USFWS regulated interstate transport by requiring testing certs. instead of blanket banning because of a disease that hasn't appeared here before or since the import ban.

 

[aaustin7587]

I think we just fundamentally disagree on this issue. Bsal is one of many different pathogens that threaten wild populations - there are many diseases currently spreading throughout the U.S. and its inevitable that new ones will emerge. If this past year of COVID has taught us anything about epidemiology, it's that rapidly moving individuals around the world and even across state lines carries an inherent risk. The global trade in general, which includes the pet trade, has been devastating for these taxa. I really think that maybe restricting some of these species from moving across state lines could help limit the spread of similar pathogens and invasive introductions, while also encouraging buyers to seek out and support local breeders.

I think it better to take an approach that emphasizes the precautionary principle. I also think the burden of proof that a practice is harmless should be on the industry. Therefore, breeders should have to prove that every one of the individuals they sell across state lines is free of harmful pathogens.

 

[John]

I think we just fundamentally disagree on this issue. Bsal is one of many different pathogens that threaten wild populations - there are many diseases currently spreading throughout the U.S. and its inevitable that new ones will emerge. If this past year of COVID has taught us anything about epidemiology, it's that rapidly moving individuals around the world and even across state lines carries an inherent risk. The global trade in general, which includes the pet trade, has been devastating for these taxa. I really think that maybe restricting some of these species from moving across state lines could help limit the spread of similar pathogens and invasive introductions, while also encouraging buyers to seek out and support local breeders.

That's fine but their ban in 2016 was specifically a Bsal ban.

I think it better to take an approach that emphasizes the precautionary principle. I also think the burden of proof that a practice is harmless should be on the industry. Therefore, breeders should have to prove that every one of the individuals they sell across state lines is free of harmful pathogens.

That's basically what I said at the end of my last message....

 

[aaustin7587]

Would you be more amenable to this bill if it included an exception to sell individuals that have gone through some sort of certification? I could get behind that.

 

[John]

Would you be more amenable to this bill if it included an exception to sell individuals that have gone through some sort of certification? I could get behind that.

Yes, I've said that multiple times.

 

[TheNewtGuy]

If I may chime in here as the average hobbyist, I have to disagree with you. I think there are a few things not being taken into consideration.

From reading through these talking points, I have to say that I see no reason not to support this legislation. I keep and breed salamanders, but they are native to my state, and I make plenty just selling locally.

If I'm understanding this correctly, you keep and breed salamanders native to your state? That's nice, but what about other species that aren't native? There are threatened and endangered species that have benefited greatly from captive breeding such as N. kaiseri and N. crocatus. This legislation would clearly not benefit these animals at all. At a time where more people have learned a lot about them to be able to breed them more consistently than in the past, I'm not sure it makes sense to support something that would undercut the breeding of threatened newts or salamanders. Axolotls are another example of a species that has benefited from the contributions of hobbyists. Whether your make a lot selling locally misses the point and it would be safe to assume this wouldn't be the case for other hobbyists selling locally. I think animal conservation by hobbyists is the bigger picture and will be greatly affected by this.

As far as education and outreach, there is already a permitting process in place for those with a legitimate role in those professions. Let's be honest, this is only about protecting the pet trade.

And so if I'm to understand this correctly as well, education and outreach should be left to professionals? And why not protect the hobby? Honestly, this frustrates me. Maybe this is going to be a selfish argument, but I've had a passion for these animals ever since I saw my first red eft Eastern newt in the wild many years ago. That wonder and curiosity stayed with me and since then I've always wanted to learn more about them and even share that experience with others and raise awareness about these animals - and I've been able to do exactly that through various avenues myself. It is often the hobbyists that are quite knowledgeable and are able to have a huge impact and outreach towards others and share the experience of these animals. I myself have been able to direct many people that are curious about the hobby to this site because I know there are responsible and reputable breeders/hobbyists here. I actively tell people to stay clear of these other sites that obviously collect animals for profit as it damages wild populations. As long as hobbyists are able to make these strides and have a positive impact on these animals I think it is a great disservice to discount the knowledge and outreach of those who aren't necessarily "professionals". Professionals make mistakes as well and are not the end all, be all. A nature booklet I saw in a state park claimed Eastern newts will grow gills and go back into the water. This is a small but important detail as we know they lose their gills when transitioning from larva to eft and don't regrow their gills in adulthood. Hobbyists contribute a great amount of knowledge as well, not just the professionals.

 

[aaustin7587]

There are threatened and endangered species that have benefited greatly from captive breeding such as N. kaiseri and N. crocatus.

Captive breeding programs that are licensed, inspected, and conducted by professionals (usually zoos and nature centers) that release these animals back into the wild to supplement those populations are excellent, and I support them. Those programs are not the same as a hobbyist who breeds these animals in a glass box only to sell them to someone else to go into another glass box. That does nothing for wild threatened and endangered populations. It is also usually illegal or at least ill-advised for hobbyists to release captive animals into the wild, even with good intentions.

Axolotls are another example of a species that has benefited from the contributions of hobbyists.

I appreciate this argument. Axolotls do thankfully still exist thanks to the efforts of hobbyists. But once more, animals in a glass box don't contribute to the biodiversity of an ecosystem, and wild populations of axolotls are still almost nonexistent despite being widespread in captivity. Continued inbreeding depression to produce unique morphs and other desirable characteristics to some in the hobby also reduces the viability of these animals for reintroduction. Overall, you are right - axolotls still exist thanks to hobbyists. But they were never one of the species that would be affected by this ban, and still aren't.

And so if I'm to understand this correctly as well, education and outreach should be left to professionals? And why not protect the hobby?

Yes. Education and outreach regarding the animals that are covered by this bill should be left to those who practice wildlife education and wildlife care as a profession. There should at least be that much of a safeguard. I don't think there's anything wrong with protecting the hobby - I'm also an enthusiast. But I do think it is selfish to work against legislation that would protect wild populations and ecosystems simply because it would be an inconvenience to some hobbyists, or because some species couldn't be sold across state lines.

Please remember that I am not against hobbyists or responsible owners / breeders. It's just that for every responsible enthusiast like yourself, there are many more idiots who are collecting from wild populations, or releasing captive-bred animals into places where they become invasive or spread a new disease, or do not test their stock for these pathogens, or don't even understand how to care for these animals. They are the norm, while responsible, competent owners are the exception. Yes, this is a broad sweeping statement, but I believe it to be true, and I think you do as well. Just like with fishkeeping - for every competent hobbyist, there are at least two dozen people keeping/killing a goldfish or betta in a 1 gallon bowl, or adding an oscar to a 20-gallon community tank.

For decades, hobbyist organizations have pleaded for authorities not to ban their passion and livelihoods, promising to fixes to these environmental issues. But that didn't stop Florida from continuing to fill with invasive herpetofauna, or stop red-eared sliders from spreading throughout the Midwest, or halt the spread of pathogens. And that's because, while you can control how you keep and care for these animals, you can't control or predict what others will do.

 

[Otterwoman]

When is the deadline to mail these letters?