Lacey
The Lacey Act of 1900, or more commonly The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 3371–3378) is a conservation law introduced by Iowa Rep. John F. Lacey. Protecting both plants and wildlife by creating civil and criminal penalties for a wide array of violations, the Act most notably prohibits trade in wildlife, fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, transported or sold. The law was signed into law by President William McKinley on May 25, 1900, and is still in effect, although it has been amended several times.[1]
Contents |
In 1900, illegal commercial hunting threatened many game species in the United States. The original Act was therefore directed at the preservation of game and wild birds, making it a federal crime to poach game in one state with the purpose of selling the bounty in another. The law prohibited the transportation of illegally captured or prohibited animals across state lines, and addressed potential problems of the introduction of non-native species of birds and animals into native ecosystems.[2]
It was the first federal law protecting wildlife, although today it is primarily used to prevent the importation or spread of potentially dangerous non-native species. The Lacey Act also makes it unlawful to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any plant in violation of the laws of the United States, a State, an Indian tribe, or any foreign law that protects plants.[3]
The Lacey Act was most recently amended as of May 22, 2008, when the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 expanded its protection to a broader range of plants and plant products (Section 8204. Prevention of Illegal Logging Practices).[4]
The Lacey Act’s incorporation of foreign law violations can be viewed as part of a broader “emerging trend” toward global enforcement, which represents a dramatic departure from conventional priorities [5]. In conjunction with the wide berth afforded by the Lacey Act, there have been pejorative reactions to the expanding scope of application of the Act -- most recently in 2008 with the inclusion of illegal harvesting of timber. Concern about the feasibility of enforcement originally led the European Union to conclude, “a Lacey Act-like ban on the possession and sale of illegal wood products would pose significant difficulties in . . . implementation.”[6]
Industry custom is the cornerstone of Lacey Act policy, underscoring the importance of understanding guidelines set forth in trade papers and magazines as to the legal requirements of the field is expected. With this information, the responsibility rests solely upon businesses to procure goods following all regulations of countries from which the material is imported. Following raw materials from extraction all the way through importation is often difficult if not impossible. There is a personal onus to not accept materials if a business has reason to believe the materials came from areas known for environmental exploitation. In essence companies must take Due Care to insure their raw materials have been appropriated legally.
The Lacey Act affects musicians with respect to the interplay between the Act and foreign laws, as many species of timber used as tone woods in musical instruments are often legally controlled in the foreign country in which the wood is harvested. In the case of Madagascar Rosewood, harvesting the wood from national forests in Madagascar violates that country's law. Musicians traveling internationally with an instrument made of Rosewood must comply with the Lacey Act Import Declaration. Even if a guitar being brought into the country is legal (meaning that the rosewood used in making the guitar was legally obtained), the musician may be unable to confirm that fact. The instrument can be seized and held by the authorities.