Stephanie Showalter Otts, National Sea Grant Law Center
- Two legal approaches to address invasive species–species and pathway management. The focus until very recently has been species management.
- Species listings can be black lists, which restrict species identified as harmful, or white lists, which restrict all species not identified as permissible.
- While white lists are often considered a better approach, they can be more time and resource intensive to develop.
- Species listings are often effective at raising awareness and managing intentional trade and introductions.
- Pathway regulations may reduce overall risk and manage unintentional introductions.
Peter Jenkins, Center for Invasive Species Prevention
- 2,241 identified nonnative species were imported between 2000-2004. 302 of those species met a threshold for regulation through documented potential invasiveness or disease risk. Only 34 of those species had a regulatory restriction in place.
- The Lacey Act is a 100+ year-old law that has only had 24 listing actions taken, and two new listings since 2007. On average, it takes four years to finish one listing rule.
- An ideal law would be proactive, rapid, flexible, science-based, cost effective and have stakeholder support. Few of these qualities are present in the Lacey Act currently.
- There is a need to proactively assess species for invasiveness or disease risk using modern risk assessment tools.
- New authority is needed to prevent high- and medium-risk species from entering the U.S. through trade.
- A process facilitated by the Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species and led by the National Sea Grant Law Center and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies developed a model law to promote reciprocity among state watercraft inspection and decontamination programs among western states.
- A series of workshops between stakeholders outlined current watercraft inspection and decontamination efforts and built consensus around what language and content standard protocols should contain.
- This consensus was translated into model legislative language and helped align legal authorities.
- In the future, the process will hopefully lead to the formal adoption of standard protocols, the acceptance of other state’s paperwork, increased boater compliance and improved enforcement.
- This “building consensus” and model law process may be applicable to OIT regulation issues.
Alison Mikulyuk, UW Center for Limnology
- Climate change is likely to favor many invasive species. In order to have proactive policies, current climate suitability for species must be mapped so that future suitability can be estimated.
- When climate suitability for a species is compared to future climate projections, species that cannot survive in the current climate but are likely to find suitable habitat in the future can be identified.
- Current Wisconsin climate for two tested species was marginally suitable. Future climate projections suggest that suitable habitat will shift northward into Wisconsin. This may signal us to consider regulation soon.
- Explicitly considering climate change in invasive species policy will better protect us from future invasions.