The longest running Amphibian Community on the Internet.

Tags Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Caudata.org Store


PLEASE READ: Risks of Intrastate Shipping of Banned Species

This is a discussion on PLEASE READ: Risks of Intrastate Shipping of Banned Species within the Laws/Legality and Ethics forums, part of the Herpetological Science & Politics category; Hi Folks: I noticed some people are still offering here or in other places sales of the banned species to ...

Laws/Legality and Ethics Discussion of the laws affecting herpetology around the world. Species legalities in different jurisdictions, import/export of animals, the legalities of species collection and the ethical considerations of all of the above.

Like Tree7Likes
  • 5 Post By DartFrog180
  • 2 Post By FrogEyes

Reply

 

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 9th March 2016   #1 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
DartFrog180's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Nationality:
Location: [ Members Only ]
Posts: 10
Gallery Images: 0
Comments: 0
Rep: DartFrog180 has shown reliable knowledgeDartFrog180 has shown reliable knowledge
Exclamation PLEASE READ: Risks of Intrastate Shipping of Banned Species

Hi Folks:
I noticed some people are still offering here or in other places sales of the banned species to "in-state" buyers and offering to ship.

I am not an attorney, but I think that practice may present some risk, potentially considerable, of violating the Lacey Act under the interim rule banning 201 species from interstate transport. Here's why...

When you ship to a buyer within your state you should NOT assume that the package will stay in state. My understanding of the shipping/logistics industry (a good friend is an exec in one such company and confirmed this) relies on complicated software to profitably get packages from point A to point B. This does NOT mean the packages follow a straight line, and in fact, depending on your location and that of the buyer it is possible the package could stop in one or even MORE states on its way to the final destination.

As an example I first learned of this after buying a (non-live) item on EBAY a couple years ago. The seller sent an automated tracking number and I found out they were located only five miles from me. However, as I tracked the package, I was amazed to see it was picked up from the seller, taken to the nearest large airport (one of the world's busiest passenger and cargo hubs) and put on a plane ( I assume because it was scanned here about three hours before it was scanned there, which would have been impossible by ground transport) to Dayton, OH. There it was scanned, again, and put back on a plane, flown back to my state and delivered (48 hours after initial pickup from the seller) to my doorstep. I found this quite inefficient (okay, asinine), so I asked my logistics friend, and he confirmed this is common if not standard practice for most such companies. In the scheme of things a small package put on a plane or a big truck to go to a sorting hub elsewhere can still be profitable, and the routes are all calculated to keep the packages flowing for profitability and efficiency within a companies systems.

So, why I think this applies to the interstate ban should be obvious, but in case not...

IF you sell even to a buyer in-state, and the salamander/newt crossed state lines in the process of shipping, as the package I described above, I bet it could technically be enforced. The courier just provides the service of transport and delivery, and would not bear responsibility because you shipped the merchandise. Again, I am not an attorney, nor am I trying to scare anyone. But the Lacey Act has very tough penalties available, so unless someone can confirm this interpretation is wrong, and why, I would urge great caution in shipping even "in-state" until there is more clarification after the comment period and final rule issued by USFWS.



DartFrog180 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2016   #2 (permalink)
Site Contributor
 
jewett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Nationality:
Location: [ Members Only ]
Age: 36
Posts: 811
Gallery Images: 25
Comments: 0
Rep: jewett is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgjewett is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgjewett is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgjewett is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgjewett is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgjewett is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgjewett is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgjewett is considered an Authority at Caudata.orgjewett is considered an Authority at Caudata.org
Default Re: PLEASE READ: Risks of Intrastate Shipping of Banned Species

Quote:
Originally Posted by DartFrog180 View Post
Hi Folks:
My understanding of the shipping/logistics industry (a good friend is an exec in one such company and confirmed this) relies on complicated software to profitably get packages from point A to point B.
So does the USPS fall under the "shipping/logistics industry" and if so do they also use this method to ship? If memory serves, I don't think I have ever received a newt related package from a private individual that was not shipped via USPS (instead of UPS, FedEx, etc)... Anyway, interesting point.

HJ



__________________
"A newt, she decided, was a useful thing to have around." Roald Dahl

"Anyone who is disturbed by the idea of newts in a nightclub is potentially dangerous." Frank Zappa
jewett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2016   #3 (permalink)
Prolific Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Nationality:
Location: [ Members Only ]
Posts: 893
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: PLEASE READ: Risks of Intrastate Shipping of Banned Species

Although you're right about the process, I doubt it would lead to enforcement, much less prosecution. There's no demonstrable intent to cross a state line, even though it may occur incidentally/accidentally. As far as the buyer and seller know, it's a completely legal intrastate movement. Under other circumstances of accidental transport, USFWS has been unable to do anything [water moved intentionally between states, and injurious species being moved accidentally with it].



FrogEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th March 2016   #4 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
DartFrog180's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Nationality:
Location: [ Members Only ]
Posts: 10
Gallery Images: 0
Comments: 0
Rep: DartFrog180 has shown reliable knowledgeDartFrog180 has shown reliable knowledge
Default Re: PLEASE READ: Risks of Intrastate Shipping of Banned Species

As I said in my initial post, I am not positive of this interpretation, but as I also said, the potential penalties if there was a decision to enforce on this are severe enough that most people would probably not want to take the risk...your choice.

From the communities perspective, I also submit that we should discourage finding, claiming to find, and especially exploiting perceived loopholes. That just makes it look like we're already disregarding the rule rather than trying to work in ernest to try to improve it by addressing the parts that may not have been well conceived.



DartFrog180 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

LinkBack
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads

Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Risks with using maggots? FredLikesNewts Flies/Fly Maggots 5 28th July 2008 00:14
Im Banned . . pleasehelp General Discussion & News from Members 5 25th November 2007 16:23


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:45.