Arizona needs your help..reptile laws

[Mikoh4792]

--Please Share--
If you don't live in Arizona but plan on selling any of your animals and shipping them to Arizona this will most certainly effect you. All incoming shipments would require a vet check and that would not be anywhere near cheap.
Details in the link on what to send and where. Deadline is TODAY!
Arizona Proposed Wildlife Rule Changes | USARK

Or simply email this(below) to this address: rulemaking@azgfd.gov

Arizona Game and Fish Department
5000 W. Carefree Hwy, DORR
Phoenix, AZ 85086
rulemaking@azgfd.gov

September 29, 2014
Reference: Proposed Rule Change Written Comments
Attention: Celeste Cook

Dear Arizona Game and Fish Department,
Following are my comments relating to the upcoming proposed rule change by the AZGFD. My comments come from the viewpoint of a private individual who will be affected by the proposed regulations. I am a responsible animal keeper and find the proposed rule changes to be over-reaching and unjustifiable based upon the best peer-reviewed scientific research available.
R12-4-404
Possession of Live Wildlife Taken Under an Arizona Hunting or Fishing License
Replace the term “personal use” with the term “noncommercial use” in reference to authorized activities as “personal use” is an ambiguous term.
I am opposed to the proposed rule for the following reasons:
1. The proposed rule is redundant. R12-4-404 already defines the commercial activities that are not allowed. R12-4-404-B states; “An individual shall not dispose of wildlife taken as prescribed by this Section or offspring of the wildlife by selling, bartering, trading, or exporting it for commercial purposes. Exported live wildlife and its offspring shall not be sold, bartered, purchased, rented, leased, offered for sale, or used for any commercial purpose.”
2. The addition of the term “noncommercial use” would limit the already allowed actives defined in R12-4-404. R12-4-404-A states; “An individual may possess, transport, place on educational display, photograph, propagate, or kill.” If there is a commercial purpose for any of these activities it would not be allowed. For example, photographs of any legally-held wildlife in which photographs are intended to be sold or to be used in a field guide would be in violation of the proposed rule.
3. Further, I would recommend that the existing term “for personal use” be removed from the rule as well as the same term not being replaced with “noncommercial use.” Both terms are redundant, ambiguous, and confusing.
R12-4-405
Importing, Purchasing, and Transporting Live Wildlife Without an Arizona License or Permit
Require mammals, birds, or reptiles imported into this state to be accompanied by the health certificate required under 3 A.A.C. Ch 2, Articles 4 and 6, when applicable to minimize disease exposure to wildlife populations.
I am opposed to the proposed rule for the following reasons:
1. The referenced code 3 A.A.C. Ch 2, Articles 4 and 6, (also referred to as R3-2-601) which requires “animals” to be accompanied by a health certificate states; “The following terms apply to this Article: “Animal” means livestock, feral swine, ratite, bison, water buffalo, oxen, llama, and any exotic mammal not regulated as restricted live wildlife by the Arizona game and Fish Department.” Most mammals, birds, or reptiles are not included in the definition of “Animal” and do not require a health certificate per the referenced code.
2. The proposed rule deals with animals intended as captive pets, which are not allowed to be released into the wild (already addressed in an existing rules) and should have little impact on wild populations.
3. Requiring health certificates for all mammals, birds, and reptiles would lead to selective enforcement, rampant unenforceable violations, and a huge economical impact on the pet industry. The proposed rule would require all mice, rates, hamsters, leopard geckos, rat snakes, king snakes, etc. be examined by an accredited veterinarian before they are shipped into the state. The industry would not be able to absorb the cost. The proposed rule would have the unintended result of damaging the industry to a point that it could end the legal trade in pet reptiles.
R12-4-406 Restricted Live Wildlife
Indicate that federally listed threatened/endangered species and all transgenic are restricted live wildlife.
I am opposed to the proposed rule for the following reasons:
1. It is redundant. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) already controls the activity relating to threatened and endangered species. The Lacey Act deals with the trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally-taken, possessed, transported or sold.
2. The proposed rule may also be in violation of ESA 6(f)(2).
3. 16 U.S.C. Chapter 35 section 1538 and the ESA Section 9(a)(1)(E)&(F) do not prohibit the activity the proposed rule would restrict.
4. There are already many federally-listed endangered or threatened species and their captive produced offspring in the state. If the proposed rule is implemented it will immediately result in legally-possessed animals and their owners to be in violation of the rule.
5. The rule does not address the disposition of the once legally-held animals. Are they to be destroyed, turned over to the state, or “grandfathered in?” What of their offspring? Will captive breeding be banned?
6. I understand the issue with transgenic animals graying the identification of protected species but what rule or directive places the moral or ethical decision of hybridization on the AZGFD?
R12-4-406 Restricted Live Wildlife
Includes all wildlife, as defined under 17-101, and listed under AIS Director’s Order #1 as restricted live wildlife.
I am opposed to the proposed rule for the following reasons:
1. It is unclear as to how this rule is to be applied. ARS17-101-24 defines wildlife as: “Wildlife” means all wild mammals, wild birds and the nests or eggs thereof, reptiles, amphibians, mollusks, crustaceans and fish, including their eggs or spawn.
AIS (Aquatic invasive Species) Director’s Order #1 deals with aquatic invasive species.
Will the rule include all wildlife as restrictive wildlife as well as all aquatic invasive species as restricted wildlife or are only AIS species listed as restricted wildlife. If the latter is the case why is the term “Wildlife” defined as part of the rule. The rule is unclear and redundant.

[revent]

not from Arizona but done.

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by revent

not from Arizona but done.

same here. Even if it isn't "my" state, it's still in my country. And if I lived outside the U.S., it would still be "my" world. It's always good to help when you can.

[kiiarah]

I sent it too.

[jpsteele80]

sent it, used to live in AZ and even though im in texas now i still feel im fighting for my rights, they will eventually try and do it everywhere if they can get away with it here.

[Mikoh4792]

Originally Posted by jpsteele80

sent it, used to live in AZ and even though im in texas now i still feel im fighting for my rights, they will eventually try and do it everywhere if they can get away with it here.

Exactly. Thanks guys