This Disappears When Logged In

Americans Should NOT Be Forced under Lacey Act to Follow Foreign Laws in A

Discussion in 'Reptile Law - Legal News' started by Rich, Jul 19, 2013.

  1. NoahG

    NoahG Well-Known Member

    Re: Americans Should NOT Be Forced under Lacey Act to Follow Foreign Laws

    Okay, your original wording was (emphasis added to show what I mean):

    That was what threw me off a little and made me unsure, though I wondered if your explanation was what you had meant originally (didn't want to assume though).

    What you covered in your last paragraph, however, seems to be what the PDF and those quoted in it are calling for: more specific wording so that the Lacey Act cannot be interpreted so broadly as to hold people to every single law in every other country when importing/exporting flora and fauna. Although I understood it that when importing or exporting one was already subject to the laws and regulations of both countries involved so it seems kind of redundant...unless I'm missing something.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2013
  2. PeanutsMarmiteSydney

    PeanutsMarmiteSydney Elite Member

    Re: Americans Should NOT Be Forced under Lacey Act to Follow Foreign Laws

    Like what Merlin was suggesting (I think), if you're only doing a deal with one country, the Lacey act means that the person is currently working under all current environmental laws of any country covered by the act meaning that any country could intervene if they had a law that prohibited what you were doing even the country getting the law enforced was neither country involved in the deal. Tighter wording would mean that any third party would not be able to intervene unless directly involved.
     
  3. PeanutsMarmiteSydney

    PeanutsMarmiteSydney Elite Member

    Re: Americans Should NOT Be Forced under Lacey Act to Follow Foreign Laws

    This would be regarding a species that is not internationally protected but the trade of is banned/controlled/has laws about. FE retics in Florida or any reptile in Norway.
     
  4. NoahG

    NoahG Well-Known Member

    Re: Americans Should NOT Be Forced under Lacey Act to Follow Foreign Laws

    The Lacey Act only pertains to US citizens in the United States. Using myself as an example, if I were to try and import some sort of flora or fauna from, say...Germany, then under the Lacey Act and its current wording I could potentially be held to not just the laws pertaining to such a transaction in the US and Germany, but also every other nation in the UN. I could be wrong, but I don't believe it's other countries that would be likely to intervene because it's not their law, rather if I'm found to violate a law or regulation during this transaction then I could be tried for that in the US by my own government, not the other country's government, and not necessarily facing the penalties that I would in the other country (I'll leave out my opinion on that particular part for the sake of clarity, hopefully).

    So it's domestic third parties, not international third parties, that could intervene (though I imagine certain extremist international organizations might citing the Lacey Act, or if other countries' governments deem it important enough or are feeling petty enough depending on circumstances).

    I don't believe this is limited to species or even bans/controls/laws/regulations regarding species, rather I get the impression this pertains to anything involving the import and export of any flora or fauna. That goes beyond limits upon species or certain types and extends to the technical aspects of importing and exporting anything that is a plant or animal.

    Knowing how the law can work here, even if it was my German counterpart in the above hypothetical situation that did not follow a law or regulation I could still be held liable under the Lacey Act because I was a party in the transaction.

    So basically this could potentially have severe ramifications on international trade beyond the pet trade. This could have severe ramifications upon zoos and any other international dealing regarding plants and animals in the United States as well.
     
  5. PeanutsMarmiteSydney

    PeanutsMarmiteSydney Elite Member

    Re: Americans Should NOT Be Forced under Lacey Act to Follow Foreign Laws

    That was what I was meaning to say, but the US would put you in court for breaking that third party country rule. Also I was not ruling out any kind of specific law just giving examples. The effect of this on zoos and other businesses would be minimal in my eyes considering that zoos will HAVE to make sure that anyone they are dealing with is acting under the law. So long as people act under the law then there should be no problem but there needs to be a stricter designation of which laws of third party countries should be followed and when - otherwise trade would be basically impossible.
     
  6. NoahG

    NoahG Well-Known Member

    Re: Americans Should NOT Be Forced under Lacey Act to Follow Foreign Laws

    The problem is that "the law" could potentially be considered all of the laws regarding the import and export of flora or fauna in almost 200 countries. That is simply unreasonable. Zoos and businesses doing any international dealings absolutely could be affected if someone were to decide to interfere. Zoos transport animals internationally, and even if that is from one zoo to another they would be subject to the Lacey Act. Yes, of course they would be sure that everything were done legally if they wanted to avoid consequences, but it's still unreasonable to expect them to follow "the law" of nearly 200 countries.

    That is no small feat, to say the absolute least.

    That was what I had already previously said about trade being impossible if someone were to wish to make it so. As far as I'm aware there are already laws on the books regarding imports and exports in general and whose laws apply when and it's much the same internationally as it is interstate: the import-export laws and regulations of the source and destination country (or state) are to be followed, and the laws and regulations of any country (or state) whose borders are crossed are to be followed while within those borders. If a plant or animal is being illegally transported or was illegally acquired then that would come into play regardless of whether the Lacey Act were in place or not. Again, as far as I understand things this bit of the Lacey Act is redundant because all of this is addressed elsewhere and there are already protocols, so to speak, as to whose laws and regulations apply when.
     

Share This Page