- Joined
- Feb 6, 2001
- Messages
- 8,171
- Reaction score
- 428
- Points
- 83
- Age
- 46
- Location
- USA
- Country
- Ireland
- Display Name
- John Clare
Important notes before you start using these points:
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.
- 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.
- 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been published and it's as bad as you could imagine - please amend any talking points below that talk of the text as unpublished.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.
Last edited: