This will end the hobby: AMENDMENTS TO LACEY ACT IN HOUSE COMPETES ACT HR4521

mdb_talon

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
4,938
Reaction score
7,809
Location
Illinois
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Unless I’m missing it, it looks like it worked. Using a word search, I can’t find the Lacey act mentioned in the senate version sent back to the house to resolve differences.



I agree, but it can also easily be put back in as the Senate/House negotiate any differences in the versions they passed.
 

Timfish

Crusty Old Salt
View Badges
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,069
Reaction score
5,391
Location
Austin, TX
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Just got this from a friend of mine following what's going on with the Lacey Act:

All,

As we continue to navigate our way through the issue of the introduced legislation which would severely cripple our ability to possess and sell live animals, taking away the rights of each of the states to regulate what animals can enter and giving that to the USFWS, who would have both the ultimate authority of what can both enter the country and what can be transported from state to state, with no additional oversight from Congress or any other governing authority, we are working hard with our own lobbyists and trade organization to protect your right to have your pets. The following publication was released by the National Aquaculture Association after they lobbied on the Hill last week to protect the industry.



Get on the stick, call or make an appointment with your Senate Offices!!! They want to talk to real-live people that know this issue. No ranting. Ask for the staff person handling environmental portfolio.



Talking points that appeared to resonate:



  • Section 71102 appeared in COMPETES with no prior House discussion/debate.
  • Approved list vs white list and huge number of species the FWS would have to assess.
  • Current Lacey Act is more than sufficient protection for the United States; Section 71102 is infeasible.
 
Back
Top