View Single Post
Old 13th April 2017   #18 (permalink)
FrogEyes
Prolific Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Nationality:
Location: [ Members Only ]
Posts: 892
Gallery Images: 0
Comments: 8
Rep: FrogEyes is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgFrogEyes is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgFrogEyes is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgFrogEyes is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgFrogEyes is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgFrogEyes is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgFrogEyes is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgFrogEyes is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgFrogEyes is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgFrogEyes is considered an Authority at Caudata.org
Default Re: USARK Lawsuit-THE BAN IS OVER

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteGriffWales View Post
you can't say the ban is over yet as the lawsuit was challenging snakes not amphibians

the whole process of amphibians ban was to control a disease that is killing native ones

the information is for in reference to snakes in question whether the ban will still be enforced in reference to disease control in concern with native amphibians is to be asked and watched on a lifting of all concerned i believe is to do with reptiles and not considered amphibians as of yet

its a totally different reason phibs were banned and we all know why and hated it but it was important to protect them
Basically, not true. The court ruled on the use of the Lacey Act to prohibit interstate movements of "injurious species". It did not rule on snakes, salamanders, tortoises, trout, or spiders. It ruled that the Lacey Act does NOT bar interstate movements and cannot be applied that way by the USFWS. The automatic consequence of this is that there IS no ban on interstate movements of giant snakes or salamanders, since there is no law which does this. Shipment of salamanders between the 49 states comprising CONUS [that is anywhere within OR between the 49 continental states, which together are 'CONUS'] is perfectly legal and unimpeded. Do not ship into CONUS as a whole, nor into Hawai'i, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, or USVi, as these entities are specifically covered under the Lacey Act.

The motivations behind the salamander ban are not relevant here, since the means chosen to do so was the same and that's what the court ruled on. The ban cannot be enforced with respect to interstate movements because the law doesn't give them that choice. On the other hand, import to the country or to the listed entities, is still prohibited for any listed injurious species.

A key point here is that title 18 of the Lacey Act lists shipment into several individual regions as prohibited. One of those regions is CONUS as a whole. Shipment into Hawai'i, Puerto Rico, DC, or the continental USA is banned. Shipment within Hawai'i is fine. Shipment within Puerto Rico is fine. Shipment within DC is fine. Shipment within CONUS [that is anywhere within OR between the 49 continental states, which together are 'CONUS'] is fine. In fact, this is the main thing the court explained, using several comparisons as well as American English language standards to prove the USFWS position to be wrong. The law and history show that Congress never intended to bar interstate movements.

Last edited by John; 4 Weeks Ago at 14:33. Reason: Moved the CONUS definition to the top
FrogEyes is offline   Reply With Quote