UPDATE: Luna’s HR4922 has 5 cosponsors: Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12], Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19], Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22], Rep. Carl, Jerry L. [R-AL-1], Rep. Dunn, Neal P. [R-FL-2]
UPDATE July 24, 2023: Representative Anna Paulina Luna (FL) has introduced HR4922 which is a companion bill to Rubio’s S1614, also titled “Lacey Act Amendments of 2023.” Without informing on the full story, unintended consequences, or blatant overreach, Luna’s office claims the bill will fix “loopholes in the Lacey Act.” We will provide more updates when available.
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) introduced his ‘‘Lacey Act Amendments of 2023’’ earlier this session. This is the same bill we saw from Rubio as S626 in 2021 and the same language that was covertly slipped into the nearly 3,000-page House COMPETES Act in 2022.
May 17: U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) has again introduced a short-sighted bill to amend the Lacey Act; S1614 with the title ‘‘Lacey Act Amendments of 2023.” The bill would reverse the USARK federal lawsuit victory by reinstating the ban on interstate transportation of species listed as injurious under the Lacey Act. The bill would also create an import “white list” (see #2 below) that could affect millions of pet owners, as well as pet businesses. This bill will affect owners of and businesses in reptiles, fish, amphibians, birds, and mammals. This covers all types of animals.
Could your pet or species of interest (not just reptiles) potentially survive in southern Florida or any other location in the U.S.? Then it could be listed as injurious for just that reason! If this passes and your species of interest, even your pet, is listed as injurious, then it cannot be transported across state lines. That means you could not even take a pet with you if you moved to another state or needed veterinary care across a state border. This does not just ban sales but prohibits all interstate transportation and importation into the U.S. This will trickle down to hundreds or thousands of common pet species.
S1614 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Briefly, the amendments will:
- Provide that the Lacey Act bans the interstate transport of species listed as injurious. Specifically, it replaces Lacey’s current language ‘‘shipment between the continental United States’’ with ‘‘transport between the States.”
- Create a “white list” of species that can be imported. This means that any animal (reptile, amphibian, fish, bird, mammal) that is not on the white list is by default treated as potentially injurious and is banned from importation.
- Create a new authority allowing FWS to use an “emergency designation” that becomes effective immediately after being published in the Federal Register unless an extension of no more than 60 days is allowed. That means no due process, public input, hearings, advanced notice, etc. for injurious listings.
- Permit FWS to not allow importation if a species has not been imported in “minimal quantities” (to be defined) in the year prior to the enactment of this Act.
- The effective date would be one year after the enactment of this Act.
Read the S1614 bill text at https://usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/23-Lacey-Rubio.pdf and HR4922 at www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr4922/BILLS-118hr4922ih.pdf.
We have an extensive FAQ posted at https://usark.org/23laceyfaq/.
We will provide more details on actions to take. No bill number has been assigned yet.
In our landmark court decision, four federal judges agreed that USARK was correct and that the Lacey Act (Title 18 Section 42 of the U.S. Code) did not ban interstate transportation of injurious species based on the original language of the Lacey Act and the intent of Congress. As a result of this fight for our members and the herpetocultural community, this meant animals domestically bred under human care could be moved and sold across state lines (within the continental United States). For herpetoculturists’ concerns, this included some species of constrictor snakes and 201 species of salamanders.
Sample Messaging (also lots of Talking Points below)
When mailing and faxing letters, be sure to add the legislator’s name as an introduction (i.e. Dear Senator ???). Sign with Sincerely and your name. You should include your city and state, too.
Email Senator Rubio at https://www.rubio.senate.gov/contact-rubio/. (Florida residents only.)
Email Representative Luna at https://luna.house.gov/contact. (Florida District 13: Clearwater, Gulfport, Palm Harbor area)
Email Rep. Bilirakis at https://bilirakis.house.gov/zip_authentication?form=/contact/email (Florida District 12: Homosassa Springs, Brooksville, New Port Richey area)
Email Rep. Donalds at https://donalds.house.gov/contact/. (Florida District 19: Cape Coral, Bonita Springs, Marco Island area)
Email Rep. Dunn at https://dunn.house.gov/email (Florida District 2: Tallahassee, Defuniak Springs, Madison area)
Email Rep. Carl at https://carl.house.gov/address_authentication?form=/contact (Alabama District 1: Mobile, Monroeville area)
Email Rep. Nehls at https://nehls.house.gov/address_authentication?form=/contact (Texas District 22: Bay City, Rosenberg area)
Find and contact your two (2) U.S. Senators:
- Go to this link: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm
- Choose your State.
- Click “Contact” under a Senator’s name.
- Fill out the contact form. (You may need to click a second link such as SHARE, CONTACT, or EMAIL.)
- Repeat for your second Senator.
- You can find phone, fax, and mailing address details for Senators on their websites (after clicking “Contact”).
Find your U.S. Representative: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
- Simply go to the link above and enter your zip code. Your Representative will appear. Just click on his/her name to send them emails through their websites.
Email/letter/fax subject line:
NO to HR4922 and S1614
Sample Letter
At this time, only contact the seven federal legislators listed above and only if you live in their districts.
As your constituent, a dedicated advocate for ecological conservation, and a responsible pet owner, I am voicing my utmost opposition to the Lacey Act amendments in HR4922 and S1614. These amendments are rife with unintended consequences and brazen overreach. These issues should be addressed on a state-by-state basis and since Florida’s environment is unlike anywhere else in the continental U.S., federal action is unjust.
The Lacey Act has already been used to list species of animals as injurious which are widely kept as pets by members of the public. Placing a ban on interstate transportation of injurious listed species would be devastating to thousands of businesses of all sizes (and do further damage to our already fragile economy), and would harm millions of pet owners. In fact, almost 100,000,000 American pet owners have pets that are fish, reptiles, birds, or small mammals that could be affected by these Lacey Act amendments.
This would prohibit interstate travel for veterinary care, for educational programs, and for household relocation. The impact will be disproportionately felt by military service members, who are often relocated multiple times during a pet’s lifetime.
The federal and appellate courts previously decided that a ban on interstate transportation of injurious species was not the original intent of Congress. The Lacey Act amendments in these bills would grant regulatory powers in extreme excess of the original intent behind the Lacey Act.
The section titled Presumptive Prohibition on Importation goes even further. This portion would create a “white list,” by default listing many more species that are kept as pets by the public. It would create authority for the federal agency to bypass the established regulatory process for new injurious listings. This means no due process, no requirement for public input, or advanced notice for listings.
The Lacey Act amendments in these bills are far-reaching and grossly unjust. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Have a good day.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Talking Points
You can use some of these instead of the sample letter or when meeting with legislators or staff:
- These amendments will be devastating to thousands of businesses of all sizes, which is absolutely contrary to strengthening our economy.
- Millions of pet owners will be harmed by this misuse of the Lacey Act.
- As seen previously when listing species as injurious under the Lacey Act, a heavy-handed brush is used to paint species as injurious that may only be an issue for one or two states, and hardly any large percentage of the U.S.
- If one state has a threat, that state can address it. All other states should not suffer the unjust implications and restrictions.
- The lack of forethought involved makes these amendments rife with unintended consequences and government overreach.
- Peer-reviewed science has been previously ignored in favor of predetermined pseudo-science to artificially validate biased injurious species listings.
- If these amendments pass, the Lacey Act will leave pet owners everywhere unable to move across state lines with their family pets.
- This restriction would include prohibitions on interstate travel for veterinary care, educational programs, and even relocation of family.
- The impact will be disproportionately felt by military service members, who are often relocated multiple times during a pet’s lifetime.
- The federal and appellate courts have already decided that a ban on interstate transportation with injurious species is not based on the original intent of Congress, but a gradual overreach by the federal agency.
- The Court ruling upheld that banning interstate transportation is overreaching and that only the localities, or states, with legitimate range matches should consider regulations regarding these species, not the federal government.
- Incorporating interstate movements into the Lacey Act will turn law-abiding pet owners into potential criminals.
- Regulation of wildlife has traditionally been a matter reserved to the states.
- State borders are already secure from injurious and invasive species as those states have the authority to regulate them.
- The states should decide which species need to be addressed, not the federal government which must consider all climate zones across the entirety of the U.S.
- The opportunity for injustice and oppressiveness from this power grab is disturbing.
- Rather than this new knee-jerk and supreme authority provided to the federal agency, any expansion of the Lacey Act to create interstate movement bans and a ‘white list/black list’ scenario should include reforms to the injurious listing process, including proof of widespread impact based on sound, peer-reviewed science, and definitely not the biased, pseudo-science witnessed previously.
- The role of the state wildlife agencies should be preserved in matters related to the regulation of wildlife within their borders or through regional agreements.
- Individual states are best positioned to assess local threats and balance the relative costs and benefits of prohibiting species.
- These Lacey Act amendments are far-reaching and, frankly, un-American.
- Please realize that the Lacey Act amendments found within S1614 and HR4922 are illogical and unjust.
- The aquaculture industry alone anticipates losses of nearly half a billion dollars.
- Not for copy/paste! Please read: National surveys by the American Pet Products Association have shown that 29% of American households own birds, reptiles, fish, and/or small mammals (essentially, animals outside of dogs, cats, and horses). To find how many people may be affected by these Lacey Act amendments in your state, simply do an internet search for your state’s population and multiply that number by .29. For example, the population of Pennsylvania is 13,000,000. So, 13,000,000 X .29 = 3,770,000.
