7837 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

changes in the operating methods of industries that are based on promotion, production, or sup- port services for such products and uses. It was additionally suggested that introductions may continue even in the face of prohibitions and that unless enforcement efforts were significantly increased, some form of regulatory involvement would be better than the consequences of unchecked illegal introductions. Clean lists basically represent a decision that cer- tain species need little or no further review and will be allowed to be introduced subject to other existing regulatory requirements. Clean lists were suggested by several respondents to represent a more likely means of promoting biologically con- servative decision-making than dirty lists. This was because clean lists generally include native species, already established species, or other rela- tively well studied species. Introductions of species not included on a clean list are generally prohibited until their potential impacts are better understood and the proposed introduction has cleared some form of review process. The most frequently cited difficulty with this approach has been that it may restrict trade and increase the costs of dealing with nonindigenous species if each species is subject to review. Dirty lists exclude particular species from being introduced, usually because they represent an unacceptable risk to some existing natural or agricultural resource. Species not included on a dirty list may be unrestricted from introduction or subject to other limitations on their transport or release. Suggested advantages of a dirty list approach included potentially less effect on trade and generally strong agreement on a species' nuisance status once listed. The most frequently cited problem with dirty lists was that species are often not listed until after they have already become a nuisance, at which point little can be done to alleviate the associated problems. This was often linked to the concern that the ecologi- cal and evolutionary flexibility of many species and the uniqueness of each new receiving ecosys- tem make it difficult to predict the behavior and thus the effects of the species being introduced, i.e., what appears to be "clean" may ultimately become "dirty." Several issues were suggested to represent poten- tial problems with either clean or dirty lists. For example, regional environments may vary suffi- ciently that a species that is "clean-listed" in one area should be "dirty-listed" in another. Both types of lists also require correct and recogniz- able taxonomic classification. This may therefore require the collection of voucher specimens and a significant increase in the training of enforce- ment personnel. One suggestion for reducing this problem was "lumping" taxa in the review process (e.g., whole genera or families) instead of listing species-by-species. However, others saw little value in lumping because the range of behavioral traits that characterize even individual species makes it difficult to assess its potential to adversely affect native species and their ecosys- tems. Another concern with both forms of lists, but most commonly suggested for dirty lists, was that to truly reflect the range of potential nui- sance species the lists may need to include many hundreds or even thousands of species. Under current Federal regulation, this could therefore be very cumbersome and time-consuming. Many of the State fish and wildlife conservation agencies cited general prohibitions on the pos- session, transport, and release of live aquatic organisms except by permit. The inclusions or exclusions of these general prohibitions vary widely, but often include only game fish species or exclude commercial aquarium and baitfish species. Other than disagreement on taxonomic coverage, the most frequent comment on general prohibitions was their difficulty of enforcement and the inadequacy of associated penalties. The prevention of unauthorized intentional intro- ductions was a broad concern of many of the respondents. Suggested means of improving enforcement included increased vigilance, tougher and well-advertized penalties for viola- tions, and increased public education about the legal and ecological/evolutionary consequences of such introductions. The types of penalties sug- gested included fines, suspensions of licenses or permits, incarceration, destruction of the illegal import or transplant, and various forms of liabil- ity. In Hawaii, for example, State quarantine statutes provide that in cases where a violation results in escape or establishment, the offender may be subject to fines "based upon the cost of the development and implementation" of a pro- gram of capture, control or eradication. Liability will be discussed in more detail under "Permit Systems" but, for illegal introductions, others suggested that the introducer should be liable for direct reimbursement of such costs as damage to other fish and wildlife resources and damage assessment costs as well as the cost of removal or control. 31