Lately there has been quite a bit of speculation regarding the Lacey Act, esp as it concerns the situation in SA regarding rhino poaching, SCI, etc. I'll TRY to clear up some of the law.....

One can travel from Dallas to SA, illegally kill ANY animal, and ship said animal to Dallas=violation of act, and violation of SA law.

If one kills the same animal, leaves it laying, and returns to Dallas....no violation of the act, only SA law.

No violation until one engages into "commerce" with said illegally killed animal. If you leave said illegally killed animal at a SA taxidermist with orders to ship to Dallas, then a violation has occurred AT THAT TIME. Whether or not the animal is actually shipped, because you have entered into a shipping contract(COMMERCE).

I spoke with a current USFW agent today about this, confirming what 26 years of law enforcement taught me. No commerce=no violation.

You're welcome Larry

clear as mud?????

Also applies to shipping from one US State to another....kill an out of state dove over the limit and take it home? You just violated the Lacy Act. Not to mention Migratory Bird Act.

From the act:

(2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce—
(A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any foreign law...

I figured everyone knew about the state to state part.....

It is not a violation of the Lacey Act to KILL wildlife in violation of foreign law....only to engage in commerce of said animal.

As a Canadian with a geology degree, I'm out of my depth with the Lacey Act. Still, it seems to me that the 2 key definitions are "commerce" and "taken". Can anyone provide the legal definitions appropriate to the LA? My uninformed guess would be that any transaction, either in cash or in kind, might constitute commerce.

Yes it is a slow Friday at work .

Dean

dang, I thought I explained it pretty good....

quote:

Originally posted by DTala:
No violation until one engages into "commerce" with said illegally killed animal.

Dtala:

Lacey is big and bad. You're only describing "after the fact" commerce. You've overlooked "before the fact" commerce.

Example: if you've paid any amount of money in interstate or foreign commerce to engage on a hunt (paid for guide services, bought a license, chartered a plane, etc) where game was killed in violation of the laws of that state/counrty/nation, you've violated Lacey regardless of whether you ever try to import the trophy. There is no safe haven if you leave the tainted trophies behind or never even lay hands on them.

The simple fact is that we trigger interstate commerce all day, every day. You hunt across state and national borders, you trigger it ten times per hour. The fact is that if you break the game laws on an out of state or international hunting trip, then you better believe you've violated the act. After that it just comes down to whether or not the feds find out about it and whether or not they want to stick it to you.

Will, you may well be right, but that is not the way I read it or it was explained to me by a current agent over the phone today....

quote:

Originally posted by DTala:
dang, I thought I explained it pretty good....

Dang if I know, but it would seem that one could be prosecuted under the act if you paid to hunt in a foreign country for an illegal animal... i.e., the act specifically includes "foreign" commerce, not just U.S. commerce.

The act doesn't limit illegal activity to just importing stuff. It includes "taking", i.e., "killing" and attempts to do so are culpable also by Lacey. Attempts to kill, in my simple mind, means "hunting", successful or not. The act isn't limited to interstate commerce, but specifically includes "foreign commerce". So, could every prohibited act occur outside of U.S. jurisdiction? Kind of seems like it.
To make Lacey even more expansive, "purchase" is defined as paying for (A) guiding, outfitting, or other services; or
(B) a hunting or fishing license or permit;

So what are the factors required to may yourself liable to prosecution (Constitutional issues not considered)?

Try this on for size after you read Lacey:
You pay to hunt or for a licence in a foreign country and you illegally kill (or even hunt unsuccessfully) something prohibited, or in a prohibited manner.... and some AUSA is pissed at you enough to make an example of you.

For reference, go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/16/3371.html

quote:

Originally posted by DTala:
Will, you may well be right, but that is not the way I read it or it was explained to me by a current agent over the phone today....

Reminds me of what I tell my clients when they start telling me the law according to the arresting officer . . .

Rest assured. Lacey is the great equalizer. There is so much more to it than the agent told you and so much more to it than I could type before Christmas. It also covers plants, wood, insects, fishes, and many finished products like hardwood flooring.

Just ask TV personality Buck McNeeley. His case was based on shooting caribou on the same day that he flew on a paid hunt. I do not believe the import of the trophies was an issue in those cases. In that same case, outfitter James Fejes was convicted of a felony violation. He didn't even kill any caribou, but was the organizer and profiteer in charge of the illegal hunt.

Or ask agent Bob Kern. He was not even on the hunt and did not try to import the first moose trophy. Instead, the USA contended that his organizing an illegal hunt and taking commissions from the cost of the hunt was a Lacey violation. Kern won, but only after they flew a Russian wildlife guy to trial to testify that Kern's clients shooting their moose from a helicopter was perfectly legal.

I concur with JudgeG's summary, above, you break the rules on a paid hunt, and you run the risk of prosecution and persecution.

last line, last word sums it up pretty well: "persecution."

Rich

God, I LOVE IT WHEN EVEN LAWYERS CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT'S ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As I've said before, the more I try to understand the LA, the more confused I become but from what I can understand of it, the act can be used to prosecute any US citizen who breaks any game law, anywhere in the world.

(IMO) It truly is an incredibly iniquitous piece of legislation........ but nevertheless, it's horrendously dangerous and it's penalties are sometimes helluva harsh.

Here is one example of the Lacey Act enforcement for what its worth. For many years I traveled north to Alberta Canada, hunting whitetails. Each year I drove and the majority of guys in camp would fly in. They generally would not keep their meat so I would have one of the guys sign his deer meat over to me, that way I could keep hunting for a big buck right up to the last day. It was pretty simple, they would fill out a declaration with their name, license number, date taken, and statement that they were giving me their meat. Worked fine. On my last trip there a few years back, I pulled up to the U.S. Customs declared my meat showed them my paperwork. I was told to pull over and come inside where upon I was read the Lacy Act and detained. Unknown to me, Customs had changed the rules and now required a export permit from Canada. It took a few hours and getting the supervising US Fish and Wildlife Officer involved to resolve the problem. They confiscated the meat and told me I was not being formally charged and providing I was not involved in any future violations and the information I gave them was true, they would delete this incident off their computer after 6 months. So it seems to me even legally taken game, if not properly documented, or forms not properly filed or filled out can trigger violation of the Lacy Act. Particularly when commerce is involved. Bottom line is the Lacy Act is a big pain in the ass. I could see whereas legally taken African game such as my trophys, leopard etc from Zim, if not perfectly permited and documented could have ended up in the same scenario.

Scott

If anyone out there has a real understanding of how this pig-f**k of a piece of legislation truly works and how it affects American hunters coming to Africa and would like to write an easy to understand article on it, we'll be VERY happy indeed to add it to our www.shakariconnection.com website so ALL American hunters who visit the site can understand it...... We will of course, give full credit etc.

If there's any takers I'd be grateful if they'd email me at shakari3@mweb.co.za

Simple---the US Congress and the US Supreme Court have decided anyfugging thing you do is commerce so it is covered.....dont go shooting no rock pigeons because a farmer asked you to get the little bastards out of his sunflower!

The Lacey Act is over broad and incredibly far reaching. I know people who are/were deer breeders and were convicted of a Lacey Act violation. They had transported deer across state lines without the proper permits. Texas Parks & Wildlife enacted a new subsection to their regulation regarding deer breeder licenses which allowed them to deny or revoke a license for a Lacey Act conviction, or even a deferred sentence (not a conviction). This new reg was enacted in August 2010, their conviction was in February 2010. TPW wants to apply the new reg retroactively, revoke their licenses, and euthanize a herd of over 100 deer. These are captive bred and raised deer, similar to a herd of cattle. So, a state can also "punish" you (even though it is an administrative agency) for a Lacey Act violation.

Here's a site which explains it to some degree:

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus16publlr27.htm

jdollar,

We'd go broke if there was only one lawyer in town!!

quote:

These are captive bred and raised deer, similar to a herd of cattle. So, a state can also "punish" you (even though it is an administrative agency) for a Lacey Act violation.

This one is a prime example of how F&WL can use Lacey to enforce their "will" as harshly as they can enforce their version of the law.

There is a huge push throughout much of current State and US F&WL to rein in the "commercialization of wildlife" read. "compete with government monopoly on hunting and fishing revenues!"

They see any private enterprise related to hunting and fishing as a diversion of funds that should be flowing into or through their coffers.

Indiana just succeeded in shutting down all high fence hunting and a number of states are seeking ways to restrict hunting leases.

Socialized wildlife resources (equal access and all wildlife resources belong to all the people) sounds great to the average hunter who wants to tromp across the land like the pioneers.

But when landowners realize the wildlife on their land is merely another subsidized welfare system I'm betting their tolerance for wildlife will decrease dramatically. But then they may find that Lacey will take their land away as quickly as it would if they plowed under a black footed ferret or drowned a snail darter!

Mike O