Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United States - Aquatic ...

14 I Harmful Non-Indigenous Species in the United StatesTable 1-7—Basic Legal Approaches Used by States for Fish and Wildlife Importation and ReleaseImportation a bBasic approach Number States Number StatesAll species are prohibited unless onallowed (“clean”) list(s).All species may be allowed exceptthose on prohibited (“dirty”) list(s).Prohibited list(s) have 5 or moreidentified species or groups.Prohibited list(s) have fewer than 5identified species or groups.All species may be allowed; there is noprohibited list.2 + 1 pt c Hl, IDpt, VT d20 + 3pt AL, AR, CO, CT, FL, IL, KS,KY, Ml, MN, MTpt, NC, NE,NY, OH, PA, SCpt, SD, TN,TXpt, UT WA, WY11 + 3pt AK, DE, IN, LApt, MD, ME,MS, NH, NV, NJ, ORpt, RI,VA, WVpt11 + 7pt AZ, CA, GA, IDpt, 1A, LApt,MA, MO, MTpt, ND, NH,NM, OK, ORpt, SCpt, TXpt,Wl, WvptRelease1 + 5pt AKpt, FLpt, GApt, Hl, IDpt,KYpt14+ 6pt AL, AR, CO, CT, FLpt, GApt,IL, KS, KYpt, MN, NE, NY,OHpt, PA, SCpt, TN, TXpt,UT WA, WY11 + 6pt AKpt, IN, LApt, NC, NDpt,NJ, MD, MN, MS, NH, NV,OR, Rlpt, SD, VA, VTpt,Wvpt12+ 9pt AZ, CA, DE, IDpt, 1A, LApt,MA, ME, Ml, MO, MT, NDptNM, OHpt, OK, Rlpt, SCpt,TXpt, VTpt, Wl, WVptaState regulation of “possession” of a group or groups is considered here as regulation of both “importation” and “release,” since neither act canbe done without having possession. For the few States that specifically regulate “importation with intention to release (or introduce),” it is not treatedhere as comprehensive regulation of “release” because it covers only acts of importation done with a specific intent.b Many states that regulate importation of particular groups exempt mere transportation through the State. These are not distinguished here.CSome States treat different groups of vertebrates differently, This is designated, where applicable, by using the abbreviation “pt” after the Stateinitial to indicate the entry covers only “part” of the vertebrates regulated. They are totaled separately.d The summary classifications are general; in many states there are limited exemptions, such as for scientific research, and other minor provisionswhich are not covered here. The extensive State regulation of falconry is excluded.SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1993 and Center for Wildlife Law, University of New Mexico Law School, “Selected Research andAnalysis of State Lawson Vertebrate Animal Importation and Introduction,” contractor report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment,Washington, DC, April 1992.New species played a significant role in pastextinctions of indigenous species and continue todo so. In Florida, several non-indigenous aquaticweeds and invasive trees seriously threaten theEverglades wetlands system.Hawaii’s isolation makes it most in need of acomprehensive policy to address NIS. DifferingFederal and State priorities have made thisdifficult to achieve, however. Cooperative effortshave sprung up in both States among State andFederal agencies, nongovernmental organizations,agricultural interests, and universities. Increasingly,these groups see harmful NIS as a unifyingthreat and public education as an important tool toaddress it. The situation in Hawaii and Florida,while unusual in some ways, nevertheless heraldswhat other States face as additional harmful NISenter and spread throughout the United States andpeople become more aware of their damage.For this chapter, OTA commissioned a backgroundpaper on each State and 12 expertsreviewed this work. Two contractors conductedextensive interviews and site visits in Hawaii andOTA staff did the same in Florida. Also, OTAcommissioned a survey and assessment of U.S.environmental education programs.Based on this work, OTA concludes that thesituation in Hawaii and Florida, while unusualin some ways, nevertheless heralds what otherStates face as additional harmful NIS enterand spread throughout the United States andpeople become more aware of their damage.These results lead to the policy options discussedlater in this chapter on: