201 



OTA REPORT brief 



Major 



policy issues 



covered in the 



assessment 



Copies of the report 



for congressional 



use are available by 



calling 4-9241. 



Copies of the repon tor 



noncongressional use 



can be ordered from 



the Superintendent 



of Documents, 



U.S. Government 



Printing Office, 



S/N 052-003-01347-9, 



$21 .00 each, 



P.O. Box 371954, 



PitUburgh.PA, 



15250-7954, 



(202)783-3238. 



A more stringent national policy 

 Managing non-indigenous fish, 

 wildlife, and other diseases 

 Growing problems of non- 

 indigenous weeds 

 Damage to natural areas 

 Environmental education as 

 prevention 



Emergencies and other high 

 priority actions 

 Funding and accountability 

 Gaps In legislation and regulation 



Federal law preempts State law, more often 

 regarding agriculture than fish and wildlife. 

 Conflicts between States also occur, often 

 without forums for resolving disputes. 



State laws are relatively complete for ag- 

 ricultural pests but spotty for invertebrate and 

 plant pests of nonagricultural areas. The Slate 

 role is most critical for the import and release 

 of fish and wildlife. These laws use a variety 

 of approaches and vary from lax to exacting. 

 While many fish and wildlife laws are weak 

 and inadequately implemented, others present 

 exemplary approaches. Harmful NIS have hit 

 Hawaii and Florida particularly hard because 

 of their distinctive geography, climate, his- 

 tory, and economy. Cooperative efforts have 

 sprung up in both places. Increasingly, Stale 

 and Federal agencies, nongovernmental or- 

 ganizations, agricultural interests, and uni- 

 versities See hannful NIS as a unifying threat 

 and public education as an important tool to 

 alleviate it. 



CONGRESSIONAL CHOICES 

 Congress can select many ways to better 

 protect U.S. resources. Specific actions might 

 include amendments to the Lacey Act and the 



Federal Noxious Weed Act. Congress might 

 require stricter screening for invasiveness for 

 federally funded efforts using NIS. Congress 

 could direct more funds to weed management 

 on public lands and to resource management 

 in the national parks. Congress could expand 

 environmental education and provide Federal 

 agencies with adequate authority for emer- 

 gencies. 



Imposing new responsibilities without pro- 

 viding money for them does not work. En- 

 trance or user fees could fund more rigorous 

 and scientific decisionmaking and additional 

 control. Fines, levied on those who bring 

 hannful NIS into the country or spread them 

 to new Slates, could more closely match the 

 real costs of publicly funded management. 

 Federal policy cannot succeed without State 

 help. Model State laws or national minimum 

 standards could ensure that all States have 

 authority to regulate harmful NIS adequately. 

 NIS are here to stay and many of them are 

 welcome. Problems due to harmful ones are 

 likely to worsen, however. Human migration 

 and population growth, increasing trade and 

 u-avel. and. possibly, climate change propel 

 species" movements. Countervailing trends — 

 toward stricter screening and more sophisti- 

 cated control — are weaker. We can envision 

 a future in which harmful NIS are so wide- 

 spread thai economic costs snowball and one 

 place looks much like another. Or we can 

 imagine a future in which beneficial NIS 

 contribute much to human well-being, harm- 

 ful ones are effectively limited, and indig- 

 enous species are preserved. Choosing this 

 vision, rather than another, is ultimately a 

 cultural and political choice — a choice about 

 the kind of world we value and in which we 

 want to live. 



FhMtd on rfcycltd nofk 

 with wybroH injL 



o 



