The America COMPETES Act of 2022 threatens our rights to own birds (and all other exotics too) Write your senator today please!

[KonureKing]

The America COMPETES Act of 2022 has the potential of making it illegal to transport our birds, and all other animals over state lines, with only the exception of cats, dogs, and traditional farm animals this is an issue that affects all of us and we need to come together, contact your senators today and tell the federal government NO!

America COMPETES Act of 2022

As what can only be described as dirty politics, the America COMPETES Act of 2022 (HR4521) emerged in the House on January 28. The America COMPETES Act mutated into a 3,000-page mockery of the U.S. political process that sailed through the House in a week (passing on 2/4/22 with a 222-210 vote). This monstrosity replaced the original bill that was titled the Bioeconomy Research and Development Act of 2021.

USARK exposed the news on the same day the bill was reported in the House that deceptively hidden within a bill advertised as an economic and national defense initiative were Lacey Act amendments that will have shattering impacts on the pet community and trade, as well as other industries. Our alert has been circulating and awareness is spreading.

This issue is not just about reptiles, or birds, or fish, or amphibians, or mammals. It is about all of them! If you own an animal other than a dog, cat, or traditional farm animal, your species could be treated as injurious. If you have an animal interest business, this will likely affect you. Even business in domesticated agriculture species could be afflicted as shipments with any animal description may see increased inspection. This escalated scrutiny may also decrease the number of ports allowed for shipments.

Potentially thousands of species could fall victim to this overreach. Is it not worth a minute of your time to contact your lawmakers to protect your freedoms?

This is a massive federal power grab that is alarming. It conflicts with the original intent and Congressional direction of the Lacey Act. We will suffer from new federal authority without any additional protection.

It is both fine and preferable to complete alerts from more than one group! Not only do the various alerts have different messaging, but they also utilize different forms of contact. Some alerts are quick and easy but taking an extra minute to contact your legislators directly through their websites is generally more effective. Do not only send emails! Be sure to call offices, send faxes (yes, those still exist), and even mail letters. Also, alerts will be changing to focus on Senators as the titanic bill passes in the House.

Be sure to check our original alert with legislator contact details at https://usark.org/2022lacey/. Watch it and our social media for updates.

Facebook: USARK - United States Association of Reptile Keepers, Instagram: @USARK_official, and Twitter @USARK.

Why does this matter?

The list of ramifications is long but we will summarize. If a species could possibly (not definitely) survive at any location in the U.S. it could be listed as injurious for the entire country. This means an issue for only southern Florida (even if already addressed by the State) will be amplified to impact California, Texas, Illinois, and all other states. A species could be potentially injurious/invasive in 1% of the U.S. and still be listed. This removes authority from state agencies to decide what species should be regulated.

The Lacey Act amendments concealed in the America COMPETES Act would:

1. Ban the interstate transport of species listed as injurious. This means you could not take a pet with you if you moved to another state or seek specialized veterinary medical care across state lines. All interstate commerce and even educational programs across state lines would be banned.
2. Create a “white list” (this means only those species listed are allowed) of species that can be imported. This means that any animal (reptile, amphibian, fish, bird, mammal, invertebrate) that is not on the white list is by default treated as an injurious species and is banned from importation. A “white list” creates a much larger de facto banned list (AKA black list). It is assured that the banned list will be much larger than the white list. Essentially, all species will be guilty until proven innocent (and FWS agrees to that innocence).
3. Establish a new authority allowing FWS to use an “emergency designation” that becomes effective immediately after being published in the Federal Register. That means no due process, public input, hearings, advanced notice, etc. for injurious listings. This means that interstate transport could be shut down overnight, without warning, for any species. Since we have previously beheld unreasonable and prejudiced injurious listings, this new emergency designation is beyond disturbing.
4. 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.
5. Create immense potential for trickle-down legislation in which individual states ban even the possession of listed species, as we have already witnessed even if an injurious species cannot possibly survive in that state.
6. Taint injurious listings with “look-alike” carryover, as we have seen with Endangered Species Act listings. Species may be listed as injurious simply because they look like other species. Even if they cannot survive in the U.S. climate, they would be labeled as injurious solely due to appearance. Can we really expect an FWS agent to differentiate the hundreds of gecko and cichlid species?

More on this bill

COMPETES is an acronym for Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in Technology and Economic Strength. The purpose being peddled in D.C. for the Act is to strengthen America’s economic and national security. However, hundreds of provisions were added to what began as collaborative policymaking. The completed American COMPETES Act is now a travesty of the legislative process (or lack thereof, in this case).

The COMPETES Act passed the House on February 4. Once it reaches the Senate, it will be reconciled with the Senate’s U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, or USICA which does not include Lacey Act language. Our voices will need to transition to the Senate at the appropriate time. Sign up for our email newsletter list (at www.USARK.org) and follow us on social media to stay informed.

Quotes from Rule Committee and House floor hearings on this bill

“I want to just say for the record, this is the most egregious violation of process I have ever seen…”

“This legislation makes several amendments to the Lacey Act. Amendments that were snuck in without so much as a hearing in the Natural Resources Committee… The provisions give blanket authority to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services to determine what is an injurious species without any requirement for public input, advanced notice, or comment, dramatically expands Fish and Wildlife Services authority to regulate movement of injurious wildlife within the United States, and makes wildlife importers guilty until proven innocent by requiring imported species to appear on a Fish and Wildlife Service white list or have it treated as injurious by default. These provisions will be detrimental to American industries such as aquaculture which are already highly regulated businesses.”

“This bill gives supreme unilateral authority to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine what species can be imported into the U.S. This so-called white list mandated in the bill, it’s virtually impossible to implement and will effectively shut down aquaculture and similar industries who need trade to conduct business. The weaponization of the Lacey Act will only empower bureaucrats and ignores the current state-based approach on species imports. It’s legislative laziness since there have no hearings or even an introduced bill on this topic.”

“What a sneak attack on people that create jobs and create goods for America. These people are good stewards. Good stewards of the land and they are also terrific at animal husbandry. And this is a sneak attack on them trying to drive them out of business.”

Talking Points (more messaging and information at ALERT: America COMPETES Act of 2022 Lacey Act Amendments | USARK - United States Association of Reptile Keepers)

1. These amendments will be devastating to thousands of businesses of all sizes (which is absolutely contrary to the purpose of the COMPETES Act).
2. Millions of pet owners will be harmed by this misuse of the Lacey Act.
3. 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.
4. If one state has a threat, that state can address it. All other states should not suffer the unjust implications and restrictions.
5. The lack of forethought involved makes these amendments rife with unintended consequences and government overreach.
6. Peer-reviewed science has been previously ignored in favor of garbage pseudo-science to artificially validate biased injurious species listings.
7. If these amendments pass, the Lacey Act will leave pet owners everywhere unable to move across state lines with their family pets.
8. This restriction would include prohibitions on interstate travel for veterinary care, for educational programs, and for relocation of family.
9. The impact will be disproportionately felt by military service members, who are often relocated multiple times during a pet’s lifetime.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Incorporating interstate movements into the Lacey Act will turn law-abiding pet owners into potential criminals.
13. State agencies should decide which species should be regulated on matters including invasive or injurious risks.
14. State borders are already secure from injurious and invasive species as those states have the authority to regulate them.
15. The states should decide which species need to be addressed, not the federal government which must consider the entirety of the U.S. as only one climate zone.
16. The opportunity for injustice and oppressiveness from this power grab is disturbing.
17. Rather than this knee-jerk reaction, any interstate movement ban or ‘white list/black list’ scenario should include reforms to the injurious listing process, including proof of widespread impact based on sound, peer-reviewed science.
18. 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.
19. Individual states are best positioned to assess local threats and balance the relative costs and benefits of prohibiting species.
20. These Lacey Act amendments are far-reaching and, frankly, un-American.
21. Please realize that the Lacey Act amendments found within the America COMPETES Act are illogical and unjust.
22. The aquaculture industry alone anticipates losses of nearly half a billion dollars.

 

[Sparkles99]

I’m sure there’d be exceptions for domestic animals (rabbits, guinea pigs & possibly other rodents, canaries) & budgies, maybe cockatiels.

 

[Tazlima]

Quakers would be blacklisted for sure. They're already banned in some states.

 

[Sparkles99]

I wonder how many fish would be banned too. Many are captive bred & have been for decades, but they’re neither traditional nor domestic.

 

[Tazlima]

Also curious as to how granular the whitelist would get.
For example, whitelisting "finches" is very different from whitelisting "zebra finches and Gouldian finches" leaving the rest automatically banned.
It would also leave hybrids in a potentially problematic legal grey area.

How would one go about getting an overlooked harmless species added to the whitelist?

The more scenarios I imagine, the worse this sounds.

 

[rocky'smom]

Contact your federal senators and congress people. This was slipped under the radar of another bill. Dirty pool people dirty pool

 

[Pepebirdie]

Oh no. This is bad. I think I might be moving too from Hawaii to the mainland so what will I do? Do they already have a blacklist? Will Sunconures/jendays be affected by this?

 

[Pepebirdie]

Pepe is a hybrid as well as he is a Sunday conure

 

[Clueless]

My local parrot club has contacted me.

Most of you remember that I took MC to a neighboring state for the surgery required to remove a tumor.

I haven't read the bill yet but I've been told this type of law would restrict travel across state lines. For specialized avian medical care, that could be a make or break of the life of a feathered friend.

 

[Pepebirdie]

what will zoos do as well or any exotic animal sanctuary? what can we do to change this?

 

[rocky'smom]

Here is a way to find your state senators

U.S. Senate: States in the Senate

www.senate.gov

 

[sunnysmom]

Our rescue is very upset about this too. Yes, please take the time to contact your senators.

 

[rocky'smom]

I would send any links to this to your local parrot rescues the more people that knows the more to people to fight for what is right.

 

[GreenThing]

Ugh, I'm going to have to read the language of the amendments myself. I've seen this cross-posted all over the place and can't tell if it is alarmist or a legitimate threat to pet owners. What, the FWA is going to personally stop every budgie owner from crossing state lines with their pets? That's nonsense (and not the change being proposed, but an over-stated interpretation of the proposed change). Here's the thrilling 2000+ page document for anyone else who wants to play where's Waldo.

The Lacey Act passed in 1900 and has been amended many times. It's important to understand what the Lacey Act already does.

Here's a better summary of the policy change:

Currently, the Lacey Act allows US Fish & Wildlife Service to promulgate rules that list species that could be injurious “to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States.” Every state in the US also has legal and regulatory mechanisms for banning species that could cause harm to native species and habitats. The current federal Lacey Act list, and most state lists, are often referred to as “Black Lists.” Any species on the list is prohibited, while any species not on the list is allowed to be imported into the respective jurisdiction, sometimes with stipulations such as permit or health certificate requirements. This method of regulation is often regarded as best regulatory practice because it allows jurisdictions to prevent unwanted environmental and health threats that are relevant to their region without being overly burdensome to organizations, businesses, and individuals.

The language in the COMPETES Act would change the Lacey Act list to what is often referred to as a “White List.” If the bill passes, only species that go through an administrative rulemaking process and are found not to be a risk or an injurious species would be allowed to be imported into the United States. Any species not listed would be presumed to be injurious and would be banned from import. All species would be in essence regarded as guilty until proven innocent.

The process of "whitelisting" seems like it could be comically burdensome to the FWA, so I'm wondering whose interest this possibly serves. Still researching this.

 

[rocky'smom]

Interesting read ^^^^

 

[Lady Jane]

ALERT: America COMPETES Act of 2022 Lacey Act Amendments | USARK - United States Association of Reptile Keepers

usark.org

 

[GreenThing]

Also curious as to how granular the whitelist would get.
For example, whitelisting "finches" is very different from whitelisting "zebra finches and Gouldian finches" leaving the rest automatically banned.
It would also leave hybrids in a potentially problematic legal grey area.

How would one go about getting an overlooked harmless species added to the whitelist?

The more scenarios I imagine, the worse this sounds.

As someone working just on the municipal government level, I cannot begin to imagine that this list would be created from scratch, like someone writing a dictionary beginning with "A". I am still reading, but a good faith (naïve, even) interpretation of the proposed amendment seems to be that the FWA is frequently caught off guard by invasive that were not blacklisted because they are a new commodity in the exotic pet trade. Blacklisting species puts regulators at a disadvantage because they can only blacklist after proven harm (or maybe speculative harm based on research/other occurrences, I'm honestly not sure what the nitty gritty of the current process is). In the case of my home state, that is often far too late (and the cost to taxpayer and the environment is steep). So I guess, theoretically, this change would force the pet trade to go through an approval process (which, to be fair, I can't imagine would be expedient or reasonable) for unlisted species, putting the financial and paperwork burden on the people trying to profit from exotics. I would certainly not boohoo for some of those profiteers (and that's why I'm kinda squinting at some of the places raising the alarm over the proposed amendments).

One point I'm trying to better understand is if that placing of the burden will also apply with no loopholes to zoos and scientific research, because that would be absurd. There have been state-level workarounds for this or that federal regulation for as long as the Lacey Act has existed. I see zero reason that cockatiel or budgies or the most common conures or anything that big box pet stores can slap a "for sale" sign on wouldn't be fast-tracked onto a "white list". I don't think betta breeders will suddenly stop being able to import stock with cool variations from Thailand. The hybrid question... I don't know, I don't know enough about how hybrids have been regulated so far!

Businesses aren't wrong to worry, though. I lean pretty far left, but my dad is a small local healthcare provider (providing physical and occupational therapy services), and every time there is a regime change, no matter what party, shifts in regulations and the terms of insurance reimbursement put immense strain on his and other small business that have to meet the new standards. At the very least, you'd hope that careful and meticulous thought went into amendments like these.

This 2016 hearing on Federal Interactions with State Management of Fish and Wildlife is a great read if that topic is of interest. A much more civil discourse than the hearings that make news, and an insight into why the struggle between federal and local regulators is frustrating but serves a purpose.

 

[GreenThing]

For those interested in reading the actual proposed amendments, I went ahead and screen capped:







Here is the Lacey Act as it stands now.

 

[Tazlima]

One point I'm trying to better understand is if that placing of the burden will also apply with no loopholes to zoos and scientific research, because that would be absurd. There have been state-level workarounds for this or that federal regulation for as long as the Lacey Act has existed. I see zero reason that cockatiel or budgies or the most common conures or anything that big box pet stores can slap a "for sale" sign on wouldn't be fast-tracked onto a "white list". I don't think betta breeders will suddenly stop being able to import stock with cool variations from Thailand. The hybrid question... I don't know, I don't know enough about how hybrids have been regulated so far!

Budgies and cockatiels and whatnot probably WOULD be fine, but there are a lot of less common exotic species that are bred and sold on a smaller scale and which haven't been imported for years. Pionus, caiques - the list is very extensive. I, of course, am particularly concerned about Quakers, as I have one myself. They're illegal in several states (even though concerns about their wild populations spreading and causing severe damage to crops have not panned out as originally theorized), and would automatically be off the whitelist.

As far as hybrids are concerned, they tend to be of low interest and minimally regulated because hybrids are prone to fertility problems - sometimes due to physical infertility (mules are a common example), and sometimes due to conflicting instinctive breeding behaviors, leading to a reduced chance that any potential wild offspring are successfully raised to adulthood. (There are exceptions - wolf/dog hybrids are illegal to own as pets in my state due to behavioral concerns, and, of course, killer bees are a hybrid of Brazilian and South African honeybees and they managed to spread just fine).

Unfortunately, none of that answers the question of how a bird with one legal and one illegal parent would be handled.

 

[GreenThing]

I am not great with legalese, but I have read this twice and have NO idea how this turned into "oh no pet owners can't travel between states with pets they own". The stipulation regarding transportation between states is a *criteria for legal importation INTO THE US*.

What I am seeing is businesses with a financial interest in importing new exotics being stymied indefinitely by regulation-- basically a total slowdown of new exotics being imported. And I'm ... not sure how that's... a bad thing....

EDIT: Okay, it might be the language change to subsection (a)(1), which now I have to find in the original amendment LOL