Risk assessments to block invasive wildlife pay off, study shows

Risk assessments to block invasive wildlife pay off, study shows

August 26, 2011
Photo: caramel Burmese python

The Burmese python is an example of an invasive species introduced in the U.S. that now must be controlled at great expense.

A University of California, Davis, environmental and resource economist collaborated on a study that was the first to estimate the net benefits of screening potentially invasive wild animals, to prevent them from being introduced to the United States.

The researchers noted that federal, state and local governments are spending tens of millions of dollars annually on efforts aimed at controlling recent invasions by such animals as the Burmese python, the Asian carp and the red lionfish.

The study, based on the introduction of non-native reptiles and amphibians through typical importation routes, estimated that a nationwide risk-screening system would yield net benefits ranging from approximately $54,000 to $141,000 per species, assuming mid-range impacts of establishing species.

The study findings have been posted online and are scheduled for publication in the Sept. 15 edition of the journal Ecological Economics.

"Managing the introduction of non-indigenous species is becoming a major goal of policy makers," said the study's lead author, Michael Springborn, an assistant professor in UC Davis' Department of Environmental Science and Policy. "This study integrated biology and economics to tackle the question of how we as a nation balance the benefits of trade against the risk of invasive species becoming established."

One result of globalization in recent decades has been a dramatic increase in trade and travel, which has resulted in both intentional and accidental transport of species beyond their native areas. The researchers noted that the United States receives hundreds of millions of non-native animals each year, representing thousands of different wildlife species.

Once established, introduced species can multiply to levels that can be harmful to economies, agriculture, the environment, and animal and human health. Because of that, policymakers are increasingly concerned about better managing the introduction and establishment of non-native species.

For several years, Congress has considered mandating stricter risk-assessment procedures, but legislation has stalled. Proposed legislation in the Senate would broaden the scope of the 111-year-old Lacey Act, the wildlife trade law that at this time restricts the importation of 25 "injurious species."

More information about the study and the authors is available online at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...00262X#FCANote

Study co-authors: Christina Romagosa, a research fellow at Auburn University's School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences; and Reuben Keller, the Henry Chandler Cowles Lecturer in Environment Studies at the University of Chicago.

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/n....lasso?id=9984

Originally Posted by EricWI

estimate the net benefits of screening potentially invasive wild animals, to prevent them from being introduced to the United States.

I understand the concept of invasive. But it seems like major quantities of drugs, copies of designer stuff, and anything else that can be sold for profit gets into the US.

Some of the US gummint is so corrupt IMHO, and so inefficient, that no amount of expensive studies will bar a seller who can make a buck from smuggling profitable critters here.

I know, it sounds like I'm all about doom and gloom. But it just sounds like more expensive programs I'm going to have to pay for through my taxes that aren't going to work

Originally Posted by EricWI

Risk assessments to block invasive wildlife pay off, study shows

August 26, 2011
Photo: caramel Burmese python

The Burmese python is an example of an invasive species introduced in the U.S. that now must be controlled at great expense.

A University of California, Davis, environmental and resource economist collaborated on a study that was the first to estimate the net benefits of screening potentially invasive wild animals, to prevent them from being introduced to the United States.

The researchers noted that federal, state and local governments are spending tens of millions of dollars annually on efforts aimed at controlling recent invasions by such animals as the Burmese python, the Asian carp and the red lionfish.

The study, based on the introduction of non-native reptiles and amphibians through typical importation routes, estimated that a nationwide risk-screening system would yield net benefits ranging from approximately $54,000 to $141,000 per species, assuming mid-range impacts of establishing species.

The study findings have been posted online and are scheduled for publication in the Sept. 15 edition of the journal Ecological Economics.

"Managing the introduction of non-indigenous species is becoming a major goal of policy makers," said the study's lead author, Michael Springborn, an assistant professor in UC Davis' Department of Environmental Science and Policy. "This study integrated biology and economics to tackle the question of how we as a nation balance the benefits of trade against the risk of invasive species becoming established."

One result of globalization in recent decades has been a dramatic increase in trade and travel, which has resulted in both intentional and accidental transport of species beyond their native areas. The researchers noted that the United States receives hundreds of millions of non-native animals each year, representing thousands of different wildlife species.

Once established, introduced species can multiply to levels that can be harmful to economies, agriculture, the environment, and animal and human health. Because of that, policymakers are increasingly concerned about better managing the introduction and establishment of non-native species.

For several years, Congress has considered mandating stricter risk-assessment procedures, but legislation has stalled. Proposed legislation in the Senate would broaden the scope of the 111-year-old Lacey Act, the wildlife trade law that at this time restricts the importation of 25 "injurious species."

More information about the study and the authors is available online at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...00262X#FCANote

Study co-authors: Christina Romagosa, a research fellow at Auburn University's School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences; and Reuben Keller, the Henry Chandler Cowles Lecturer in Environment Studies at the University of Chicago.

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/n....lasso?id=9984

I guess I just find it comical that the most invasive species on the planet has concerns about much lesser invasive species...

These studies on invasive species is very helpfull for the indigenous species also. In this process, the scientists get to collect and analyze data about the ecosystem that might not normally be funded.
I live very close to the lake erie shore. The great lakes have a mojor problem with invasive due to water from shipping ballasts. The big head asian carp is a major problem now. Others that have established themselves include round goby (which actually helped the comeback of the lake erie water snake), mussels, sea lamprey and plant life. Since the 1800's 136 species of animal/plant life have established. The impact of commerce had out weighed the decisions to do anything serious about it for along time.
So it's not only irresponsable owners that introduce. Alot of animals get released due to natural disasters, hurricane knocking down pet stores or owners homes.

Rich, China attempted population control that actually worked, but there were severe ethical consequences. Human population control can't be a government program, it needs to be a personal responsibility. The only thing a government can do is offer sex education, beyond that it's an infringement of personal liberties. It's easier to manage other animals than humans, despite the fact that we humans do need to curtail our own breeding.

Matt, well said. I think the article was well written, because the authors pointed out several sources of invasive species. They didn't single out the pet trade, which is what Congress and the Humane Society is trying to do. The fact is that there are many, may factors that make intercepting and preventing invasive species from becoming established a very expensive and difficult thing to do. I argue that horticulture is more to blame for widespread habitat alterations due to invasive plant species than invasive animal introductions, yet you never see this in the news. Despite Chinese privet, lespedeza, russian olive, and a variety of other highly invasive plants are changing the characteristics of southern forests at an unprecedented rate, I still see these plants being offered for sale at local stores. In fact, the University of Georgia goes as far as worship privet, since they have it planted as the famous hedges in our stadium. They even sell clippings of the crap at top dollar so people can have a piece of UGA football in their yard!

I'd have considered this article fair and unbiased if they hadn't have singled out the burmese python. Adding emphasis to burmese pythons when there are much, much bigger fish to fry makes me very cautious of what this study hopes to accomplish.