U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

43-302 PDF 2009

H.R. 6311, THE NONNATIVE WILDLIFE 

INVASION PREVENTION ACT 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE 

AND OCEANS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Thursday, June 26, 2008 

Serial No. 110-80 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Mary Fallin, Oklahoma 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Steve Scalise, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam, Chairwoman 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Don Young, Alaska, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, June 26, 2008 ............................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate in Congress from Guam ............... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Brown, Hon. Henry E., Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina ......................................................................................... 2 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Cravalho, Domingo, Jr., Inspection and Compliance Section Chief, Plant 

Quarantine Branch, Hawaii Department of Agriculture ........................... 27 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 29 

Frazer, Gary, Assistant Director for Fisheries and Habitat Conservation, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior ..................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Gaden, Marc, Ph.D., Legislative Liaison, Great Lakes Fishery 

Commission ................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 33 

Horne, George, Deputy Executive Director, Operations and Maintenance, 

South Florida Water Management District ................................................ 41 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 42 

Marano, Nina, D.V.M., M.P.H., Branch Chief, Geographic Medicine and 

Health Promotion Branch, Division of Global Migration and 

Quarantine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services .............................................. 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17 

Meyers, Marshall, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Pet 

Industry Joint Advisory Council .................................................................. 47 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 48 

Riley, Lawrence M., Wildlife Management Division Coordinator, Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, on behalf of the Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies ........................................................................................... 55 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 56 

Williams, Lori C., Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council, 

U.S. Department of the Interior .................................................................. 11 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Additional materials supplied: 

Hastings, Hon. Alcee L., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, Statement submitted for the record .......................................... 67 

(1) 

H.R. 6311, THE NON-NATIVE WILDLIFE 

INVASION PREVENTION ACT. 

Thursday, June 26, 2008 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m. in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Madeleine Z. 

Bordallo [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bordallo, Brown, Wittman, and Klein. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, 

A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF GUAM 

Ms. BORDALLO. Good morning, everyone. The legislative hearing 

by the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans will come 

to order. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on 

H.R. 6311, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. Pursuant to Committee Rule 4[g], the Chairwoman and the Ranking 

Minority Member will make opening statements. 

The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans meets this 

morning to hear testimony regarding my bill, H.R. 6311, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. Invasive nonnative species 

cause harm to the economy. They cause harm to human health and 

the health of other animal species. The damages from these species are estimated to be $123 billion 

annually. Some of these species are introduced unintentionally, as 

is the case with Guam’s brown tree snake, a significant problem in 

my territory. However, intentional introduction is one of the primary pathways by which invasive species become established. 

Currently, there is no law that requires species to be evaluated 

for risk before import. The Lacey Act allows species to be placed 

on an injurious list, which prohibits import, but this can occur only 

after the species has been initially imported and caused serious 

and widespread harm to the economy, to the environment, and to 

human and animal species’ health. 

On average, however, it takes the Fish and Wildlife Service four 

years to list a species as injurious. In the meantime, the impacts 

caused by a particular species are often irreversible, thereby 

2 

increasing taxpayers’ costs to mitigate what can be irremediable 

environmental damage. 

My bill, H.R. 6311, would require species to be evaluated for 

these risks before importation. Using this approach, H.R. 6311 proposes a ‘‘white list’’ of species approved for import. Other species 

would be prohibited until the importer can demonstrate that it will 

not cause harm. 

I am pleased to have three Subcommittee Members—Mr. Kildee, 

Mr. Abercrombie, and Mr. Kind—as original co-sponsors of this legislation, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today 

about the need for this legislation to prevent the import of invasive, 

nonnative wildlife species. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bordallo follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans 

The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans meets this morning to hear 

testimony regarding my bill, H.R. 6311, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention 

Act. 

Invasive, non-native species cause harm to the economy, human health, and the 

health of other animal species. The damages from these species are estimated to be 

$123 billion annually. Some of these species are introduced unintentionally, as is 

the case with Guam’s brown tree snake, a significant problem in my territory. However, intentional introduction is one of the primary pathways by which invasive 

species become established. 

Currently, there is no law that requires species to be evaluated for risk before import. The Lacey Act allows species to be placed on an ‘‘injurious list’’, but this can 

occur only after they have caused serious and widespread harm to the economy, environment, and to human and animal species’ health. 

On average, however, it takes the Fish and Wildlife Service four years to list a 

species as injurious. In the meantime, the impacts caused by a particular species 

are often irreversible, thereby increasing taxpayers’ costs to mitigate what can be 

irremediable environmental damage. 

My bill, H.R. 6311, would require species to be evaluated for these risks before 

importation. Using this approach, H.R. 6311 proposes a ‘‘white list’’ of species approved for import. This places the burden of proof on the importer to demonstrate 

that the species will not cause harm to the environment or to society. 

I am pleased to have three Subcommittee Members, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Abercrombie, 

and Mr. Kind, as original co-sponsors of this legislation and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about the need for this legislation to prevent the import of invasive, non-native wildlife species. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And now, as Chairwoman, I recognize Mr. 

Brown, the Ranking Republican Member, from South Carolina, for 

any statement he may have. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY E. BROWN, JR., A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome, witnesses. 

Today, we will hear testimony on the recently introduced bill to address the growing problem of nonnative wildlife species that are 

being legally and illegally imported to the United States. 

According to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

invasive species are the number one environmental threat to this 

country. They are permanently changing the landscape of millions 

of acres, and they are partially responsible for nearly half of all 

species listed under the Endangered Species Act. 

3 

As a nation that loves exotic pets, the United States has become 

the destination of choice for over 2,000 nonnative species that are 

sold in the wild animal trade. Of these species, one of the most 

popular has become the Burmese python, an extraordinary snake 

that can grow 20 feet long, weigh 150 pounds, and eat a full-grown 

alligator for lunch. That is a stretch, but that is what I have here. 

According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, since 2000, more than 

one million pythons have been imported into the United States for 

commercial sale. Nearly half of those imports arrive at the Miami 

International Airport, and many were listed on the manifests of 

commercial airlines as snakes on the plane. 

Regrettably, owners of these snakes have released their pets 

when they became too large or too expensive to keep. They are now 

living comfortably in the Florida Everglades, where they are consuming much of the native wildlife and further impairing at least 

five endangered species. 

In response to this crisis, the State of Florida has petitioned to 

have the Burmese python listed as injurious under the Lacey Act. 

This would be a relatively easy decision, as of now, two years later, 

there has been no listing, and the exploding population of pythons 

continues to destroy the Everglades, which taxpayers have spent 

billions to restore. 

It is, therefore, understandable that there is a growing frustration with the Lacey Act. Sadly, to become listed as injurious is a 

long and difficult process. There is no mandated deadline to make 

a determination and no insurance that species, like the Burmese 

python, bighead carp, or swamp eel will ever be listed. 

I understand the purpose of H.R. 6311 is to prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species into the 

United States. This is a noble goal, and I look forward to hearing 

testimony on how this legislation will assist in the ongoing battle 

against what has been described as the ‘‘greatest environmental 

problem facing this country, unwanted foreign wildlife invaders.’’ 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the Ranking Member for a very positive 

statement and invite you to be a co-sponsor of this bill. 

Our witnesses on the panel this morning; I welcome all of you. 

We have Mr. Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for Fisheries and 

Habitat Conservation at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; we 

have Ms. Lori Williams, Executive Director of the National 

Invasive Species Council at the Department of the Interior; and 

Nina Marano, Chief of the Geographic Medicine and Health Promotion Branch, Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

I want to thank you and welcome all of you to our hearing this 

morning. I will note that, for all of the witnesses, that the timing 

lights on the table will indicate when your time has concluded, and 

we would appreciate your cooperation in complying with the limits 

that have been set, as we have many witnesses to hear from today. 

So be assured, though, that your full statement will be entered 

into the official record. 

Now, at this time, I would like to invite the first witness, Mr. 

Frazer, to testify for five minutes. 

4 

STATEMENT OF GARY FRAZER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR 

FISHERIES AND HABITAT CONSERVATION, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. FRAZER. Chairwoman Bordallo and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for Fisheries and 

Habitat Conservation, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I also 

serve as co-chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the effects of 

invasive species and H.R. 6311, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion 

Prevention Act, which would establish a framework for assessing 

the risk of nonnative wildlife species proposed for importation. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service greatly appreciates the Subcommittee’s leadership and support in the fight against invasive 

wildlife. Today, my testimony will focus on the threats posed by 

invasive species and what the Service is doing to address that challenge. 

While we acknowledge that there may be benefits to be gained 

from the approach proposed in H.R. 6311, because the bill was recently introduced, we have not yet had time to fully evaluate its 

impacts. However, as noted below, the Service recognizes the importance, and supports the general intent, of developing a cost-effective and scientifically credible screening mechanism for nonnative invasive species. 

There is no question that the introduction and establishment of 

invasive species has harmed native species and ecosystems. We 

have only to look at a history of introductions, from the sea lamprey to the zebra mussel to tamarisks, to understand the broad 

scope of the problem. 

The United States continues to see a number of nonnative, potentially invasive, species crossing our borders through various 

pathways. With the global nature of our economy and transportation systems, we expect this trend to continue. 

Invasive species are among the primary factors negatively affecting native fish and wildlife populations in the United States, and, 

without question, are one of the most significant natural resource 

management challenges facing the Service. 

For example, as you are aware, the brown tree snake is a major 

threat to the biodiversity of the Pacific region. Since arriving in 

Guam in the 1940s or 1950s, brown tree snakes have spread across 

the entire island and have caused, or been a major factor, in the 

extrication of most of Guam’s native terrestrial vertebrates, including fruit bats, lizards, and nine of the 13 native forest bird species. 

Brown tree snakes also cause millions of dollars in damage to 

Guam’s infrastructure and economy. 

Aquatic invasive species are impacting America’s sport and commercial fisheries, as well as their associated local economies. In the 

Great Lakes region, the sea lamprey has been extremely destructive to economically important sport fish, including lake trout, 

salmon, rainbow trout, and walleye. 

In the West, a nonnative parasite causes whirling disease in wild 

trout and salmon populations. It is estimated that some streams 

have lost 90 percent of their trout due to whirling disease. 

Zebra and quagga mussels impact both the natural environment 

and human infrastructure. Both mussel species are easily spread 

5 

unintentionally by recreational boaters and annually cause an estimated $30 million in damage to water-delivery systems in the 

Great Lakes. 

In early 2007, quagga mussels were discovered in Lake Mead 

National Recreation Area. They have since been found in Arizona, 

California, and Nevada, including our Willow Beach National Fish 

Hatchery and all 242 miles of the Colorado River Aqueduct. 

Many of the Service’s programs support the management and 

prevention of nonnative species. We work with many partners, including all of those at the witness table today, to address nonnative 

species issues. My written statement details a number of these efforts, but, in the interest of time, I will highlight just a few. 

The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control 

Act of 1990 [NANPCA] established the Service’s Aquatic Invasive 

Species program, as well as the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task 

Force, which is co-chaired by the Service and NOAA. 

Our Aquatic Invasive Species program coordinates prevention, 

control, and management actions on invasive species that span geography and jurisdictional boundaries. Our program staff work 

with Service field stations, Federal and state agencies, nongovernmental groups, and private landowners to conduct the surveillance, 

implement projects, and inform the public about invasive species 

issues. 

The Service’s Aquatic Invasive Species program also administers 

our only regulatory tool regarding invasive species, the Injurious 

Wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act. The Service’s Office of Law 

Enforcement has wildlife inspectors stationed at 38 staff locations, 

where they work to detect and deter illegal trade in protected 

species and prevent the introduction of injurious wildlife. 

The Service’s fisheries program works with the Great Lakes 

Fishery Commission to implement the successful Sea Lamprey program on the Great Lakes. 

They also work extensively to prevent the introduction and 

spread of Asian carp into the Great Lakes and other waterways. 

Education and outreach efforts are critical elements to the success of invasive species prevention and control. The Service and the 

Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force developed the ‘‘Stop Aquatic 

Hitchhikers!’’ public awareness campaign, which targets aquatic 

recreational users and promotes voluntary guidelines to ensure 

that aquatic nuisance species are not unintentionally spread 

through recreational activities. 

The Service primarily focuses on preventing the introduction and 

spread of invasive species because we have limited tools for longterm management and control of invasive species once they have 

become established. Preventing new introductions is the primary 

focus of the Service and is the most effective strategy to protect our 

nation’s wildlife and habitats. 

In that regard, Madam Chair, the Service greatly appreciates 

your interest and that of the Subcommittee in establishing a more 

effective means to control the introduction of nonnative invasive 

wildlife into the U.S. The Service recognizes the need for a new approach for managing the risk for importing potentially invasive, 

nonnative wildlife. 

6 

The Service supports the intent of H.R. 6311 to develop a riskassessment process with scientifically credible procedures that will 

be transparent and efficient so that wildlife importers can obtain 

timely decisions and make investment decisions accordingly. The 

Service does, however, have some concerns with the bill, including 

its relationship to existing authority and the cost and feasibility of 

implementation. 

We would like to work with the Subcommittee to address these 

issues. 

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to testify before 

the Subcommittee on this issue and for your support in preventing 

harm to the nation’s fish and wildlife resources from invasive 

species. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Frazer follows:] 

Statement of Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for Fisheries and Habitat 

Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior 

Introduction 

Chairwoman Bordallo and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for Fisheries and Habitat Conservation of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). I also serve as co-chair of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task 

Force (ANS Task Force). Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the effects of 

invasive species and H.R. 6311, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, 

legislation that would provide for the assessment of the risk of nonnative wildlife 

species proposed for importation. 

The Service appreciates the Subcommittee’s leadership and support in the fight 

against invasive plants and animals. Today, my testimony will focus on the threats 

posed by invasive species, what the Service is doing to address that challenge. While 

we acknowledge that there may be benefits to be gained from the approach proposed 

in H.R. 6311, because the bill was recently introduced we have not yet had time 

to fully evaluate its impacts, including the cost and feasibility of monitoring the vast 

volume of international trade, or consult with other affected agencies. However, as 

noted below, the Service recognizes the importance, and supports the general intent, 

of developing a cost-effective screening mechanism for nonnative invasive species. 

Risks and Threats of Invasive Species 

There is no question that the introduction and establishment of invasive species 

have significantly impacted the health of our native species and ecosystems. We 

have only to look at a history of introductions, from the sea lamprey to the zebra 

mussel to tamarisk, to understand the broad scope of the problem. The United 

States continues to see a number of nonnative, potentially invasive species crossing 

our borders through various pathways. With the global nature of our economy and 

transportation systems, we expect this trend to continue. Invasive species are 

among the primary factors that have led to the decline of native fish and wildlife 

populations in the United States and, without question, are one of the most significant natural resource management challenges facing the Service. 

It is difficult to estimate the full extent of the environmental damage from nonnative invasive species. However, we know that over 400 of the 1,352 species that 

the Service protects under the Endangered Species Act are considered to be at risk 

primarily due to competition with, or predation by, invasive species. 

Invasive species can also change the functions of ecosystems. For example, along 

the Rio Grande in New Mexico and Texas, salt cedar and giant cane, two invasive 

plants, are reducing stream flows, increasing water loss through transpiration, and 

degrading habitat value for native wildlife in this unique riparian ecosystem. 

The brown tree snake is a major threat to the biodiversity of the Pacific region. 

A native of Indonesia, New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Australia, the brown 

tree snake arrived on Guam sometime during the 1940s-1950s as stowaways. The 

snakes have since spread across the entire island and have caused or been a major 

factor in the extirpation of most of Guam’s native terrestrial vertebrates, including 

fruit bats, lizards, and nine of thirteen native forest bird species. Insect species that 

are no longer naturally controlled by native birds and lizards reduce fruit and vegetable production and their uncontrolled numbers require greater reliance on pesticides. Brown tree snakes also cause millions of dollars in damage to Guam’s infrastructure and economy by climbing power poles and causing power outages. 

7 

1http://www.glfc.org/pubs/FACTl3.pdf 

Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research 

Board of Canada, Bulletin 184. Ottawa. 966 pp. as referenced at: http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/ 

FactSheet.asp?speciesID=836 2http://findarticles.com/p/articles/milqa3951/isl200207/ailn9146540 

The Service is also concerned about the impact of aquatic invasive species to 

America’s sport and commercial fisheries. In the Great Lakes region, the sea lamprey was accidentally introduced in the early 20th century as a result of the construction of shipping canals. This parasitic fish has been extremely destructive to 

economically important sport fish, including lake trout, salmon, rainbow trout, and 

walleye. During its life cycle, a single sea lamprey can kill 40 or more pounds of 

fish, and under certain conditions, only one in seven fish attacked by a sea lamprey 

will survive. Before sea lampreys invaded the Great Lakes, about 15 million pounds 

of lake trout were harvested in lakes Huron and Superior annually. However, by 

the early 1960s, sea lampreys and other factors reduced the catch to 300,000 

pounds 1. 

Bighead carp, black carp, silver carp, and largescale silver carp, collectively referred to as Asian carps, are nonnative invasive species that pose an additional 

threat to recreational and commercial fisheries. Bighead, silver and largescale silver 

carp are planktivores (or plankton eaters) that consume large quantities of food, 

grow to large size, and compete with native species for food and habitat. Silver carp 

jump several feet out of the water when boats travel past, and have been known 

to cause injuries to people and damage equipment as a result of collisions with these 

extremely large fish. In their native waters, black carp feed on mollusks (snails and 

mussels) that are similar to those found in many American rivers, especially those 

in the southeastern United States. Adult black carp have powerful teeth that can 

crush large mollusks, including those from populations of native species that are declining, threatened, or endangered. 

Our nation’s trout and salmon fishery, which provides recreation for over 7.8 million Americans annually, is also at risk from a nonnative invasive parasite which 

causes whirling disease. Brought to the United States from Europe in the 19500’s, 

this microscopic parasite attacks the head and spinal cartilage of the infected fish 

and causes a disease named for the swimming behavior that results. In the western 

United States, it is estimated that some streams have lost 90 percent of their trout 

due to whirling disease. This threat to recreational fishing has significant implications for the economy, as trout fishing is a cornerstone of tourism in many states 

in the west. For example, trout fishing has been estimated to generate $222 million 

annually in recreational expenditures in Montana alone 2. 

Zebra and quagga mussels are invasive mollusks that impact both the natural environment and human infrastructure. The mussels impact native species through 

competition and biofouling, the undesirable accumulation of microorganisms in very 

high numbers. The mussels impact civic operations and development by clogging 

pipes in municipal and industrial raw-water systems and blocking water intakes for 

hydroelectric development and other industry. Both mussel species are easily spread 

unintentionally by recreational boaters and annually cause an estimated $30 million 

in damage to water delivery systems in the Great Lakes. In early 2007, quagga 

mussels were discovered in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. They have 

since been found in Arizona, California, Nevada, and all 242 miles of the Colorado 

River Aqueduct. In January 2008, the first populations of zebra mussels were found 

in the San Justo Reservoir in California and Lake Pueblo in Colorado. 

Invasive species are also one of the most significant threats to the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), where they can destroy habitat, displace wildlife, and 

significantly alter ecosystems on refuges. Presently, about 2.4 million acres of National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) lands are infested with invasive plants. There are 

at least 4,471 invasive animal populations recorded on Refuge lands. Although the 

NWRS is committed to controlling and eradicating these invaders, the Service has 

only been able to treat an average of 14 percent of the acres infested with invasive 

plants on an annual basis between Fiscal Years 2004 and 2007. 

In Florida, the old world climbing fern, Lygodium, represents a greater threat 

than any other exotic plant to south Florida’s natural areas, including the Everglades. If left unmanaged, it is predicted to overtake the five currently most 

invasive plants (melaleuca, Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, hydrilla, and water 

hyacinth) in combined coverage in south Florida by 2014. At the Arthur R. Marshall 

Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Lygodium currently infests over 70 percent 

of the refuge and occurs in varying densities within all habitat types found on the 

refuge. Especially vulnerable are tree islands, a unique and extremely rare habitat 

8 

of the greater Everglades system which provides important refugia for nesting wading birds and terrestrial wildlife. 

Meeting the Challenge of Invasive Species 

The Service has a broad array of programs that substantially supports the management and prevention of invasive species. 

The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 

(NANPCA), reauthorized by the National Invasive Species Act of 1996, established 

the Service’s Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Program as well as the ANS Task 

Force, an interagency Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) group with 10 federal and 12 Ex-officio members, which is co-chaired by the Service and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The ANS Task Force encourages 

Federal and State agencies to establish partnerships that will augment work with 

partners to enhance our collective efforts to address aquatic nuisance species issues. 

The ANS Task Force relies on the expertise of its six Regional Panels to identify 

regional ANS priorities; coordinate ANS program activities in each region; make recommendations to the ANS Task Force; and provide advice to public and private interests concerning appropriate methods of ANS prevention and control. 

The Service’s AIS Program was established to help coordinate prevention, control, 

and management action on invasive species that span geographic and jurisdictional 

boundaries. This program supports an AIS Coordinator in each of the Service’s eight 

regions who work closely with Service field stations, state invasive species coordinators, nongovernmental groups, private landowners and many others in their day-today activities. This dedicated network also organizes cooperative surveillance efforts 

with other Federal, State, and local agencies, universities, and public interest 

groups to track the distribution of aquatic invasive species, and conducts a variety 

of outreach activities to inform the public about the definition, biology, and impacts 

of aquatic invasive species and what they can do to help prevent their spread. These 

Regional Coordinators are in tune with both the national priorities of the ANS Task 

Force and the various emerging regional priorities. This unique position allows the 

coordinators to play a critical role in bridging the gap between national and regional 

aquatic invasive species issues and translating the national priorities of the ANS 

Task Force into on-the-ground projects. 

The Service’s AIS program also administers the Service’s only regulatory tool regarding invasive species, the injurious wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act. Under 

Title 18 of the Lacey Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prohibit the 

importation and interstate transportation of species designated as injurious. Species 

listed as injurious may not be imported or transported across State boundaries by 

any means without a permit issued by the Service. Permits may be granted for zoological, educational, medical, or scientific purposes. Regulation of intrastate transport or possession is the responsibility of each State, except for those species covered 

under a Service permit issued by our Division of Management Authority. 

The Office of Law Enforcement’s (OLE) wildlife inspection program forms the nation’s frontline defense at ports of entry by interdicting injurious species. Wildlife 

inspectors are stationed at 38 major U.S. airports, ocean ports, and border crossings, 

where they monitor imports and exports to ensure compliance with U.S. laws and 

regulations. Wildlife inspectors focus on detecting and deterring illegal trade in protected species and preventing the introduction of injurious wildlife. 

As part of OLE’s efforts to prevent such introductions of injurious wildlife, Service 

special agents investigate illegal interstate commerce of injurious species (including 

internet sales) and assist State counterparts with the enforcement of both Federal 

injurious species prohibitions and State laws that ban the introduction, possession, 

and sale of State-listed injurious wildlife. 

The Service is also using partnerships to minimize new introductions and prevent 

the spread of invasive species. The long-standing partnerships formed under the 

100th Meridian Initiative seek to prevent or slow the spread of invasive species 

transported through recreational vehicles, particularly zebra and quagga mussels. 

Now that quagga mussels have become established in the lower Colorado River, the 

need for coordinated prevention efforts is even greater in order to keep these 

invasive species out of the Rio Grande, Columbia, and other western river systems. 

Since 1956, the governments of the United States and Canada, working jointly 

through the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, have implemented a successful sea 

lamprey control program on the Great Lakes. The Service’s Fisheries Program has 

two Sea Lamprey Management Offices located in Marquette and Ludington, Michigan. Jointly funded by the Service and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, these 

offices employ approximately 110 staff to implement an integrated sea lamprey control program within United States portion of the Great Lakes. Sea lamprey abundance has been reduced by 90 percent as a result of the integrated control program. 

9 

Congress appropriates more than $10.0 million annually through the State Department for sea lamprey management and research. 

For the past 10 years, the Service’s Fisheries Program has worked extensively to 

prevent the introduction and spread of Asian carp. We have supported a feasibility 

study on barrier options to prevent the introduction of these large fish into the 

Great Lakes; led the Asian Carp Working Group of the ANS Task Force which completed the National Management Plan for Asian carps; assisted in creating a Rapid 

Response Plan for Asian carp in New York canals; funded research on the use of 

pheromones as a deterrent to carp spread and research on native fish alternatives 

to the use of black carp in aquaculture; and conducted monitoring for early detection 

and rapid response. Black, silver and largescale silver carp were listed as injurious 

wildlife under the Lacey Act in 2007. Additionally, the evaluative injurious wildlife 

process for bighead carp is currently underway. 

The Service also assists in coordinating prevention and control efforts for brown 

tree snakes in Guam and Hawaii and contributes to preventing their introduction 

into the continental United States through the North American Brown Tree Snake 

Control Team. Actions that are being implemented include: intercept snakes using 

canine detection; hand capture of snakes; trapping; fumigate cargo containers; use 

of barriers, including chemical repellents, to exclude snakes from critical areas, reduce movements between habitat patches, and contain snakes if they are introduced 

to new areas; inhibit reproduction; monitor snake populations and dispersal events 

to provide guidance to other control efforts; and produce and disseminate public educational materials. 

The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program provides technical and financial assistance to private landowners and Tribes to restore and protect habitat, 

including invasive species management and the reintroduction of native plants. In 

2007, the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program was a cooperator in 438 habitat 

improvement projects that involved control of invasive species on approximately 

80,000 acres. The Rowe Riverine Restoration Project, located along the central 

Platte River in Nebraska, is restoring a section of the river that is critical habitat 

for whooping cranes and one of the few remaining successful piping plover nest locations in the State. The project will enable the removal of invasive phragmites and 

Russian olive, two invasive plant species, from 26 acres of floodplain habitat; restoring 5,300 linear feet of wetland sloughs and backwaters by removing sediment deposits and invasive aquatic plant species; and re-seeding 80 acres of restored floodplain to a high diversity mixture of over 100 species of native grasses and forbs. 

The Service’s Coastal Program assists communities in conserving coastal resources and forms partnerships to conduct on-the-ground restoration, including 

invasive species control activities in coastal areas. In 2007, the Coastal Program cooperated in 78 habitat improvement projects that involved control of invasive 

species on approximately 12,000 acres of coastal habitat. 

The NWRS invasive species program focuses on early detection and rapid response by engaging Friends groups and volunteers in the fight against invasive 

species. Over a period of three years, 2,750 volunteers contributed more than 49,000 

hours to the treatment, inventory, and restoration of over 211,000 acres of refuge 

land through its invasives and volunteers competitive grants program. Additionally, 

five Invasive Species Strike Teams are working to control and manage invasive 

species in key geographic locations, including the Everglades, the Lower Colorado 

River, the Columbia-Yellowstone-Missouri River basins, North Dakota, and the Hawaiian and Pacific Islands. 

The Migratory Bird Program has as its mission the conservation of migratory 

birds and their habitats. Invasive species adversely affect bird populations directly 

via competition or predation and indirectly by degrading habitat. Seabirds, typically 

evolved to nest on isolated islands and headlands, are particularly vulnerable to 

invasive species. Research has shown that removal of invasive species, particularly 

exotic predators, can affect an immediate increase in seabird colony productivity. 

Thus, developing and implementing projects to control or eradicate nonnative 

species from the fragile island ecosystems used by breeding seabirds is a priority. 

The Migratory Bird Program also partnered with other organizations to remove depredating nonnative invasive species, such as rats, from seabird nesting islands. 

The Service is also utilizing an innovative management tool known as Hazard 

Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP). HACCP is a step-by-step approach 

used to identify risks and prevent biological contamination or the unintended spread 

of nonnative species, similar to the way quality control procedures prevent contamination in food production. The Service has been implementing HACCP plans at our 

National Fish Hatcheries and providing technical assistance to the aquaculture industry and others in the development of HACCP plans. 

10 

Education and outreach efforts continue to be critical elements to the success of 

invasive species prevention and control. The Service and the ANS Task Force have 

been working for many years on educational outreach programs aimed at preventing 

additional introductions and controlling the spread of invasive species. The Stop 

Aquatic Hitchhikers! Public Awareness Campaign targets aquatic recreation users 

and promotes voluntary guidelines to ensure that aquatic nuisance species are not 

unintentionally spread through recreational activities. Currently 670 formal campaign partners are promoting the prevention message through Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers!. 

To promote prevention of introductions through other high-risk pathways, the 

Service, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), and NOAA Sea Grant created the HabitattitudeTM Initiative. This campaign encourages aquarium hobbyists 

and water gardeners to be responsible caretakers of their plants and pets as well 

as to be good environmental stewards. The Service, the pet industry, and other partners are using HabitattitudeTM to protect native species and their habitats by ensuring that pets are well cared for or that hobbyists find alternatives to releasing unwanted plants and pets into the environment, thereby preventing the introduction 

of potentially invasive species. The Service is working with PIJAC to expand the 

HabitattitudeTM Initiative to include reptiles and amphibians. 

Need for a New Approach 

As the old proverb goes, ‘‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.’’ The 

proverb resonates particularly well when addressing invasive species. Preventing 

new introductions is the primary focus of the Service and is the most effective strategy to protect our Nation’s wildlife and habitats. 

The Service primarily focuses on preventing the introduction or spread of invasive 

species because we have limited tools for long-term management and control of 

invasive species, particularly aquatic invasive species, once they become established. 

Long-term control is costly, and established populations may spread to new areas, 

thus increasing the costs. Even though there is progress in the development of management and control tools, we need to continue to work with our partners to improve current tools while developing new ones. 

Injurious wildlife evaluations under the Lacey Act require a significant amount 

of time to process. The time period to complete an evaluation depends upon the 

availability of biological and economic data and the complexity of the analyses required to comply with the Lacey Act as well as analyses that are required under 

the National Environmental Policy Act, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act, and other applicable regulatory process requirements. For many of the 

species evaluations, biological information must be gathered, and often translated 

into English, before an evaluation can be initiated. The Service continues to utilize 

the injurious wildlife provisions to prevent the introduction or further spread of 

species that are harmful to wildlife, wildlife resources, or humans, but it has not 

proven to be a nimble, timely, and cost-effective tool for addressing importation and 

transport of potentially invasive species. 

The Service recognizes the potential value of a new approach for managing the 

risk of importing potentially invasive nonnative wildlife. Having the opportunity to 

evaluate nonnative species that are proposed for importation could be an invaluable 

tool to ensure that we are more proactive in preventing the introduction of harmful 

invasive species. 

The Service supports the intent of H.R. 6311 to develop a risk assessment process 

with scientifically credible procedures that will be transparent and efficient so that 

wildlife importers can obtain timely decisions and make investment decisions accordingly. The Service does, however, have some concerns with the bill, including 

concerns related to duplication of existing authority, the cost and feasibility of implementation, possible overlap with other agencies, and the implications for international trade. We would like to work with the Subcommittee to address these 

issues. 

Conclusion 

To summarize, the Service greatly appreciates the interest of Chairwoman 

Bordallo, the cosponsors of H.R. 6311, and the Subcommittee in combating invasive 

species. The Service supports the general intent of H.R. 6311, to develop a scientifically sound and more proactive approach to prevent the continued introduction and 

establishment of harmful nonnative wildlife species into the United States. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on this issue, and for your support in preventing harm to the Nation’s 

fish and wildlife resources from invasive species. The Service, in cooperation with 

other Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, and other partners, remains comVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:12 Jan 30, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\43302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
11 

mitted to addressing this significant threat to our natural resources, and we look 

forward to working with you as we continue our efforts in this regard. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Frazer, for highlighting the Service’s support of this legislation. 

There are a few people standing in the back, and I always like 

to invite them to come up to the lower dais here. There are chairs 

around the table right in front of me, so if you would like to sit 

to witness this hearing, please do so. It is much more comfortable 

than standing up. Thank you. 

Ms. Williams, it is now a pleasure for me to welcome you before 

the Subcommittee, and you are now recognized to testify for five 

minutes. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF LORI WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF THE INTERIOR 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on H.R. 6311, 

the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, and to address the 

intentional introduction of nonnative wildlife into the United 

States. 

The National Invasive Species Council, for which I am Executive 

Director, considers this an important ecological, economic, and 

health issue and thanks the Subcommittee for its work. 

To coin a phrase and introduce our topic today, you could say 

that there is trouble in paradise. Some of the most beautiful resort 

communities in our nation have been invaded. 

On the resort island of Boca Grande, Florida, the large, spiny 

tailed iguana lizards munch on ornamental plants, invade attics in 

homes, and dine on eggs of threatened and endangered turtles. 

Further south, in the Florida Keys, an all-out effort is underway 

to eradicate the Gambian pouched rat known to be a vector of the 

monkeypox virus that infects humans as well as animals. 

We will hear later about the Nile monitor lizard, and we have 

already heard about the Burmese python. I have a good picture to 

share with you later about a python attempting to eat an alligator. 

Closer to home, many know the story of the northern snakehead 

fish that was eradicated from Crawford Pond in Maryland, only to 

turn up later in the Potomac. Experts theorize that it was likely 

someone decided to release the snakehead rather than have it for 

dinner. 

You will hear today that these problems created by invasive nonnative animals are not limited to one, or even several, geographical 

areas. You will hear stories from the Great Lakes to Hawaii and 

beyond. Media stories increasingly document the harm caused by 

what we at NISC like to call ‘‘charismatic megafauna.’’ But what 

is really going on, and what are the sources of these invasions, and 

how can we stop them, more importantly? 

An invasive species, under our executive order, is a species that 

is both nonnative or alien to the Nation or region and whose introduction causes, or is likely to cause, harm to the economy, environment, and, in some cases, animal, plant, or human health. Invasive 

species may be plants, animals, insects, or aquatic organisms. 

12 

In recognition of the scope and complexity of this problem, Executive Order 13112 was issued establishing the Council to provide 

coordination, planning, and leadership for Federal invasive species 

programs. 

NISC is co-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior, Commerce, 

and Agriculture and includes an additional 10 departments and 

agencies, including the witnesses at this table. 

The order also called for the establishment of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee. This diverse, nonFederal group of experts 

and stakeholders has provided recommendations to NISC and is an 

invaluable part of our process. 

Invasive species, as you have said, Madam Chairwoman, have 

been introduced in a variety of ways. Many species are introduced 

unintentionally, including the infamous brown tree snake. They 

move as unknown stowaways and hitchhikers when people and 

their products are transported by air, water, and over land. 

The executive order calls for a broad and comprehensive approach to invasive species. No one tool in our toolbox can solve all 

of these problems. But, first, the order called on NISC to prepare 

a National Invasive Species Management Plan. The first version of 

that plan was completed in 2001. Both the order and the plan 

stress the importance of prevention and early detection and rapid 

response as the most cost-efficient and effective strategies to deal 

with invasive species. 

As many have said, once an invasive species becomes established 

and spreads, eradication may be extremely costly and sometimes 

impossible. 

Risk-based screening is one of the most important tools available 

to curb intentional introductions of invasive species. In this regard, 

Section 5[b] of the order requires the first management plan to include a science-based process to evaluate risks associated with nonnative species introductions. 

The 2001 plan called for the development of this risk-based 

screening process for intentionally introduced species in a series of 

steps or phases, recognizing the complexity. There has been 

progress working on invasive species screening processes. Primarily, this is by the USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS], which has outlined an approach to screen for plants 

for planting or horticultural plants. APHIS has extensive legal authority, under the Plant Protection Act, which enables this process. 

NISC has made less progress in the area of invasive animals and 

their pathogens. One issue is that agencies lack broad authority 

over the importation of nonnative species unless, as you heard from 

Gary, they are specifically listed under the Injurious Wildlife Protection Act. 

The chance of preventing establishment of invasive species would 

be enhanced if nonnative species could be evaluated for 

invasiveness before they are introduced into the United States. 

Such a prevention tool would help to close the barn door before the 

horses are out. 

H.R. 6311 is the first bill NISC is aware of that calls for the 

screening of nonnative wildlife before importation. As Gary said, 

the bill was very recently introduced, and I cannot take a specific 

position, but I would like to very briefly outline some of the key 

13 

elements that NISC has found a risk-based screening process needs 

to include and suggest that H.R. 6311 is a good starting point on 

many of these elements: 

[1] One: Defining a clear purpose to prevent the introduction of 

invasive nonnative wildlife species that clearly targets those that 

are the most harmful; 

[2] that the process is based on scientific findings and risk analysis; 

[3] that it is flexible so that the implementing agency can adjust 

the process to reflect new information and technologies; 

[4] that it provides emergency authority to temporarily restrict a 

species of concern, which H.R. 6311 does, and that it establishes 

a robust consultation process with stakeholders, as we have found 

is critical. 

Finally, and maybe most challengingly, it provides sufficient support for the design and implementation of a fully functioning 

screening process. This is something that I think we will need to 

work on further. 

NISC thanks the Subcommittee for its work on this critical issue 

and stands ready to work with the Subcommittee on this important 

legislative matter. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:] 

Statement of Lori C. Williams, Executive Director, 

National Invasive Species Council 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 6311, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, and 

to address the intentional introduction of nonnative wildlife (both terrestrial and 

aquatic) into the United States (US). The National Invasive Species Council (NISC) 

considers this an important ecological, economic, and health issue. 

To coin a phrase and introduce our topic today, you could say that ‘‘there is trouble in paradise.’’ Some of the most beautiful resort communities in our nation have 

been invaded. On the resort island of Boca Grande, Florida, the black spiny-tailed 

iguanas (weighing up to 10 pounds) munch on ornamental plants, invade attics and 

homes, and dine on the eggs of threatened and endangered turtles. Further south 

in the Florida Keys an all-out effort is underway to eradicate the Gambian pouched 

rat—known to be a vector of the monkeypox virus that infects humans as well as 

animals. Nile monitor lizards roam the canals of Cape Coral, Florida and the 

Sanibel Island National Wildlife Refuge. These aggressive, carnivorous lizards can 

grow to 7 feet long and are known to be wide-ranging. Closer to home many know 

the story of the Northern snakehead fish that was eradicated from Crawford Pond 

in Maryland, only to turn up later in the Potomac. Experts believe it was likely that 

someone decided to release the snakehead rather than have it for dinner. 

The problems created by these animals are not limited to one or even several geographical areas. The Nutria—a furry, plant-eating rodent has become established 

and spread in Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina and many other states. Hawaii 

has been invaded by giant African snails which are serious plant pests that can be 

a vector for human disease. A number of species of introduced fish (including intentionally introduced species) are harming the Great Lakes. Media stories increasingly 

document the harm caused by what we at NISC call ‘‘charismatic nega-fauna’’. But, 

what is really going on and what are the sources of these invasions? 

An invasive species is a species that is both non-native (or alien) to a nation or 

region and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause harm to the economy, the 

environment or (in some cases) animal, plant or human heath. Invasive species may 

be plants, animals, insects, aquatic organisms, or pathogens. In recognition of the 

scope and complexity of the problem, Executive Order 13112 (Order) was issued, establishing the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) to provide coordination, 

planning and leadership for federal invasive species programs. NISC is co-chaired 

by the Secretaries of the Interior, Commerce and Agriculture and includes an additional 10 departments and agencies. NISC is directed to adopt a comprehensive approach to the invasive species problem and to work with the States and other key 

stakeholders. The Order also called for the establishment of the Invasive Species 

14 

Advisory Committee (ISAC). ISAC is a group of nonfederal experts and stakeholders 

representing diverse viewpoints and tasked with making recommendations and providing input to NISC on invasive species issues. 

Invasive species have been introduced in a variety of ways. Many invasive species 

are introduced unintentionally—moving as unknown stowaways and ‘‘hitchhikers’’ 

when people and their products are transported by air, water, or over land. Examples include the imported fire ant, the Asian long-horned beetle, and the infamous 

brown treesnake that drove most of Guam’s native birds to extinction. Others have 

intentionally been introduced for beneficial purposes, that later turn out to be harmful, such as the nutria—introduced in the early 20th century for the fur trade. 

It is very important to distinguish between nonnative species and invasive 

species. Invasive species are those non-native species that are, or are likely, to be 

harmful. Non-native wildlife (including aquatic) is introduced for a variety of purposes including agriculture, aquaculture, the pet trade, live food, display animals, 

and for sport hunting and fishing. Many non-native species that have been introduced into the U.S. have proven to be beneficial and others cause no known harm. 

For example, most U.S. food crops and domesticated animals are non-native as are 

pheasant and brown trout. The vast majority of non-native species do not possess 

the adaptations to establish and reproduce meaning that only a small percentage 

of introduced species have proven to be harmful and thus considered invasive. 

The Order calls for a broad and comprehensive approach to dealing with invasive 

species, as no one single approach will solve the problem. As mandated by the 

Order, NISC completed the first National Invasive Species Management Plan in 

2001 (2001 Plan). Both the Order and the Plan stress the importance of prevention 

and early detection and rapid response as the most cost-efficient and effective strategies to deal with invasive species. Once an invasive species becomes established 

and spreads, eradication may be very costly and in some cases impossible. Prevention is particularly critical in aquatic ecosystems where eradication and control options are more limited. Early detection and rapid response can be an effective 

backup where prevention fails. However, it is a relatively new concept in many 

areas and may not yet be sufficiently robust to stop the spread of newly established 

species. 

Risk-based screening is one of the most important tools available to curb intentional introductions of invasive species. In this regard, Section 5(b) of the Order requires that the first Plan include ‘‘...a science-based process to evaluate risks associated with (non-native species) introductions.’’ The 2001 Plan called for the development of a risk-based screening process for intentionally introduced species in a series of steps or phases, including screening for nonnative land animals and nonnative aquatic organisms. It called for separate consideration and evaluation of 

newly introduced species and those species currently moving in trade in the US. 

The NISC Prevention Committee—which is jointly hosted by the Aquatic Invasive 

Species Task Force (ANSTF)—has made progress regarding the development of a 

phased screening process. The USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS) has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which outlines an approach 

to screening plants for planting under the authority of the Plant Protection Act, 

which provides APHIS with extensive legal authority to address invasive plant 

pests, including to set import regulations that help keep exotic pests and diseases 

out of the United States. When necessary, APHIS officials can also respond swiftly 

to detections of invasive plant pests that threaten U.S. agriculture or, in the case 

of forest pests, the environment. 

NISC has made less progress in the area of invasive animals and their pathogens 

(including aquatic species) that fall outside of the traditional agricultural coverage 

provided by APHIS/Veterinary Services within USDA. One issue is that agencies 

lack broad authority over the importation of nonnative species, unless they are specifically listed under the Injurious Wildlife Provisions of the Lacey Act. The Lacey 

Act (18 U.S.C. 42) is administered by Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

prohibits importation into the United States of certain categories of animal species 

determined to be ‘‘injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States.’’ The 

statute does not apply to all animals. Thus far, 17 species and families have been 

listed under the Lacey Act. Assistant Director Gary Frazer will provide the Subcommittee with more specific information about these issues later in the hearing. 

The chances of preventing establishment of invasive species would be enhanced 

if non-native species could be evaluated for invasiveness before they are introduced 

in the United States. Such a prevention tool would help to ‘‘close the barn door before the horses are out’’ by requiring that the risk of the species be evaluated for 

potential invasiveness before importation is allowed. All of this must be done in a 

timely manner that does not unfairly restrict trade or duplicate roles of other agenVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:12 Jan 30, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\43302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
15 

cies. Such screening systems do exist. For example, the U.S. screens fruits and vegetables prior to importation in order to protect U.S. crops from plant pests. 

Currently, there is limited invasive species coverage under international treaties 

and standards that address trade in nonnative wildlife and their pathogens. Several 

nations, including Australia and New Zealand, have systems in place for screening 

nonnative wildlife. Such a screening system must be tailored to a specific nation and 

its legal system in order to be effective. I note that H.R. 6311 calls for the screening 

of nonnative wildlife before importation. Since this bill was introduced very recently, 

I cannot take a position with respect to this legislation nor can I comment on the 

specific details of the bill on behalf of the 13 NISC members. I would, however, like 

to offer some of the elements that NISC believes should be included in any riskbased screening process. These elements would include, but not be limited to: 

1. Defining a clear purpose to prevent the introduction of invasive nonnative 

wildlife species that clearly targets harmful non-native species. 

2. Establishing a species list in a manner that is cost effective and not overly burdensome. 

3. Establishing a process based on scientific findings and risk analysis. 

4. Providing flexibility so that the implementing agency can adjust the process to 

reflect new information and technologies, as appropriate. 

5. Establishing a mechanism to adjust or change the status of any listed species 

declared either invasive or benign, based on new information, but in a manner 

not overly burdensome to the implementing agency or commerce. 

6. Providing emergency authority to temporarily restrict a species of concern 

while seeking additional supporting data. 

7. Establishing a consultation process with stakeholders and an opportunity for 

stakeholders to submit data to assist the process. 

8. Providing sufficient support for the design and implementation of a fully functional screening process. 

Obviously, any regulatory authority developed should be consistent with both the 

statute that it implements as well as the administration’s basic regulatory principles. 

NISC and ISAC and their members have actively pursued a number of non-regulatory approaches to the prevention of intentional introductions that have the potential to become invasive species. These are also critically important and would complement a national screening process. Both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches may be needed to address the prevention issue. No one approach will be 

a silver bullet and thus a variety of approaches are needed. For example, 

HabitattitudTM is a fairly recent, but very successful, effort to educate pet owners 

not to release their pets into the wild. Later today you will hear from Marshall Meyers of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council and a former member of ISAC, who 

is an expert on this initiative. Efforts to establish best management practices, educate stakeholders and reduce the risk that species will be released into the wild 

where they might become established are all critical efforts that we can build on 

to reduce the spread of invasive animals. NISC is also working to develop early detection and rapid response systems that would work with state and local programs 

to back-up prevention efforts. 

NISC thanks the Subcommittee for its work on this critical issue, and stands 

ready to work with the Subcommittee to explore the potential to add cost-effective 

tools, including prevention tools, to the tool box to address invasive wildlife species 

that harm our environment, economy and health. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Ms. Williams. 

If the staff would please get the illustrations that she spoke of, 

we would look at them while we are up here. 

Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Williams, for your helpful 

comments, and now I would like to recognize Dr. Marano. I am 

looking forward to hearing from you, so please begin. 

16 

STATEMENT OF NINA MARANO, D.V.M., M.P.H., BRANCH CHIEF, 

GEOGRAPHIC MEDICINE AND HEALTH PROMOTION 

BRANCH, DIVISION OF GLOBAL MIGRATION AND QUARANTINE, CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Dr. MARANO. Good morning, Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking 

Member Brown, and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am Dr. Nina Marano, Chief of the Geographic Medicine and Health Promotion Branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss CDC’s activities and 

concerns about public health risks associated with the importation 

and movement of animals. 

Why do we have a global trade in animals? Animals are legally 

imported into the U.S. for multiple reasons. They are used for exhibitions at zoos, for scientific, education, research, and conservation 

programs, as food and products, and, in the case of companion animals, for tourism and immigration. 

Increasingly, however, animals are being imported for a thriving 

commercial pet trade. In many cases, the animals that are imported and traded are nonnative species and/or animals not traditionally kept as pets. These animals can represent a significant 

risk to human health. 

In 2003, monkeypox was introduced to the U.S. when a shipment 

of African giant Gambian rats was sold to dealers, one of whom 

housed the rats with prairie dogs intended for the pet trade in a 

U.S. distribution facility. The prairie dogs subsequently became ill 

and transmitted the infection to 50 people, including prairie dog 

owners and veterinary staff caring for the ill animals. 

In the last several years, the U.S. has also experienced outbreaks 

of West Nile virus, SARs, and highly pathogenic avian influenza, 

all emerging diseases associated with global movement of animals 

and vectors. 

CDC’s agency-wide response to SARS involved 865 staff members 

working over a period of 133 days, and, for monkeypox, it involved 

215 staff members working over a period of 65 days. 

CDC responds to these public health threats through surveillance, regulation, science, and education. We currently utilize our 

regulatory responsibility to control the importation of nonhuman 

primates [monkeys], dogs and cats, small turtles, African rodents, 

civets, and birds from certain countries. 

Nonhuman primates are imported to the U.S. for vital medical 

research. It is imperative that these animals be healthy to prevent 

diseases, such as tuberculosis, Herpes virus, and Ebola virus exposures in people and to ensure that quality of the research. 

Our Nonhuman Primate Importer Registration program has successfully prevented outbreaks of infectious diseases in nonhuman 

primate research colonies, thus greatly reducing the likelihood of 

human exposures. 

The U.S. monkeypox outbreak illustrates the serious public 

health threat resulting from introduction of nonindigenous pathogens from exotic animals and the risks to public health associated 

with keeping wild animals as pets. 

17 

In response to the monkeypox outbreak, CDC and FDA issued a 

joint order prohibiting the importation of African rodents and restricting interstate movement of African rodents and prairie dogs, 

thus preventing further human exposures. 

We also partner with industry to educate the public about 

zoonotic disease risks at the point of purchase in pet stores and 

CDC’s ‘‘Healthy Pets, Healthy People’’ Web site is one of the most 

popular Web sites for pet lovers, physicians, and veterinarians 

seeking to counsel their patients and clients. 

However, we continue to face many challenges. During the 

monkeypox outbreak, CDC investigators could not locate many potentially infected animals because no accurate records were available to trace their movement. Many shipments of animals imported 

for the pet trade also include different species commingled, or kept 

in close proximity, in confined spaces, conditions ideal for disease 

transmission. 

For most species, there is no screening for the presence of diseases infectious to humans prior to shipment and no holding or 

testing is required on their entry into the United States. This creates an opportunity for the widespread exposure of humans to 

pathogens these animals could be carrying. 

High mortality rates among some imported animals, such as rodents, are common, and U.S. statutes and regulations do not require importers to determine whether the animal’s death is from 

a pathogen that could adversely affect humans. 

In July 2007, CDC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to begin the process of revising its animal importation regulations, soliciting public comment and feedback on the issue of 

animal importation to determine the need for further rulemaking. 

More than 800 comments to the ANPRM were received, and CDC 

is currently reviewing these comments to inform new rulemaking. 

Thus, CDC welcomes the opportunity to participate in the development of broader prevention strategies, including risk-based, 

proactive approaches, to prevent the importation of animals and 

vectors that pose a public health risk. 

In conclusion, there are a number of serious, yet preventable, 

risks to public health, and we look forward to working collaboratively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies 

to explore new strategies for their prevention. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I am happy 

to take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Marano follows:] 

Statement of Nina Marano, D.V.M., M.P.H., Branch Chief, Geographic 

Medicine and Health Promotion Branch, Division of Global Migration 

and Quarantine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Introduction 

Good morning Chairwoman Bordallo, Ranking Member Brown, and other Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am Dr. Nina Marano, Chief of the Geographic Medicine and Health Promotion Branch in the Division of Global Migration 

and Quarantine at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). I am pleased to be here today to talk 

to you about HHS/CDC’s public health activities related to the importation and 

movement of animals. 

18 

1 Etiologic agents are micro-organisms that cause disease. Hosts are defined as an animal or 

plant that harbors or nourishes another organism (parasite). A vector is carrier that transfers 

an infective agent from one host to another. 

Under Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264), HHS/CDC 

oversees regulations to prevent the introduction, transmission, and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States. As part of these 

responsibilities, HHS/CDC currently regulates the importation of certain animals 

with known linkages to zoonotic diseases and also regulates the importation of etiologic agents, hosts, and vectors 1 known to cause or contribute to the spread of 

zoonotic diseases. Zoonotic diseases, or zoonoses, are diseases that are transmissible 

from animals to people. In addition to well known zoonotic diseases such as rabies, 

many other known and emerging diseases have been increasingly linked to animal 

sources. Today, I would like to 1) describe why HHS/CDC regulates specific animal importation and movement; 2) provide examples of recent zoonotic threats to public 

health; 3) share HHS/CDC’s concerns with potential transmission of disease to humans from other animal species; and 4) describe HHS/CDC’s recent regulatory activities in this area. These issues illustrate why CDC welcomes the opportunity to 

work with other agencies to explore broader prevention strategies to reduce the risk 

of infectious diseases to humans from animals and vectors. 

CDC works closely with other federal partners, including: USDA/APHIS in the 

intersection of human health, animal health and animal welfare; HHS/FDA in the 

interstate movement of animal species that represent a risk to public health; and 

DHS/CBP along with DofI/FWS which serve as the eyes and ears for CDC at U.S. 

ports of entry in detecting transported animals and animal products that represent 

a human public health threat. 

Why HHS/CDC Regulates Animal Importation and Movement 

HHS/CDC currently regulates the importation of nonhuman primates (monkeys), 

dogs and cats, small turtles, African rodents, civets, and birds from certain countries 

to prevent the entry of zoonotic diseases into the United States. These animal 

species have been linked to transmission of certain diseases to humans. Nonhuman 

primates, particularly those recently captured in the wild, may have infectious 

agents in their blood or other body tissues that can cause severe or fatal disease 

in humans. Persons working in temporary and long-term animal holding facilities 

and individuals involved in transporting animals (e.g., cargo handlers and inspectors) are especially at risk for infection. Examples of these serious pathogens include 

viruses (e.g., Ebola virus, hepatitis virus, and herpes B virus), tuberculosis, and 

parasites. Some monkeys imported into the United States have been found to be infected with a virus that is in the same family of viruses that causes Ebola, a hemorrhagic fever. While Herpes B virus naturally infects and causes only mild or no illness in macaque monkeys, the infection is usually fatal in humans. Fatal cases of 

herpes B virus disease in humans have been caused by animal bites, scratches, or 

mucous membrane contact with infected materials. Nonhuman primates, especially 

macaques, are highly susceptible to tuberculosis, and most are imported from areas 

of the world with a high prevalence of tuberculosis in humans and animals. 

Nonhuman primates may also be a source of yellow fever virus, which may be transmitted to humans by mosquitoes that have previously fed on an infected nonhuman 

primate. Transmission of yellow fever to persons working in nonhuman-primate research has also occurred. 

Because nonhuman primates imported into the United States from foreign countries often have an uncertain health history and may potentially carry diseases infectious to humans, quarantine requirements were established to reduce this infectious disease risk. Since 1975, CDC, through 42 CFR 71.53, has prohibited the importation of nonhuman primates except for scientific, educational, or exhibition purposes. Under this regulation, importers are required to register with CDC and to 

renew their registration every 2 years. Imported nonhuman primates are required 

to be held in quarantine for a minimum of 31 days following U.S. entry. This regulation also requires registered importers to maintain records on imported nonhuman 

primates and to immediately report illness suspected of being infectious to humans. 

Imported nonhuman primates and their offspring may not be maintained as pets. 

Additional requirements for importers of nonhuman primates were developed and 

implemented in response to specific public health threats. In January 1990, CDC 

published interim guidelines for handling nonhuman primates during transit and 

quarantine in response to identification of Ebola virus (Reston strain) in nonhuman 

primates imported from the Philippines. In April 1990, confirmation of asymptomatic Ebola virus infection in four caretakers of nonhuman primates along with 

19 

2 Arthropods are a group of animals that includes insects, spiders, and crustaceans. 

serologic findings suggested that cynomolgus, African green, and rhesus monkeys 

posed a risk for human filovirus infection. As a result, CDC placed additional restrictions and permit requirements for importers wishing to import these species. 

HHS/CDC restricts the importation of dogs primarily to prevent the entry of rabies. Rabies virus causes fatal disease in humans and animals, especially dogs. In 

the United States, widespread mandatory vaccination of dogs has eliminated canine 

strains of rabies, and dramatically reduced the number of human cases in this country. However, canine strains of rabies remain a serious health threat in many other 

countries, and preventing the entry of infected animals into the United States is an 

important public health priority. HHS/CDC requires rabies vaccination for dogs entering the United States. Dogs that do not have current vaccination prior to importation must be vaccinated and confined for 30 days to enable the animal’s immune 

system to respond to the vaccine and build protection against the rabies virus. 

Under 42 C.F.R. 71.54, HHS/CDC also regulates the importation of etiologic 

agents, hosts, and vectors to prevent human disease. Under this regulation, a person may not import into the United States, nor distribute after importation, any 

etiologic agent or any arthropod 2 or other animal host or vector of human disease, 

or any exotic living arthropod or other animal capable of being a host or vector of 

human disease unless accompanied by a CDC-issued permit. As an example, all live 

bats require an import permit from CDC or the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Services. Live bats may not be imported as pets because they are 

known to carry a number of pathogens including rabies that can be transmitted to 

people. Similarly, any living insect or other arthropod that is known or suspected 

to contain an etiologic agent (infectious to humans) requires a CDC import permit; 

snail species capable of transmitting a human pathogen require a permit as well. 

HHS/CDC also implemented regulations regarding importation of small turtles in 

1975 after these animals were found to frequently transmit salmonella to humans, 

particularly young children. 

Recent Zoonotic Threats 

Today’s highly globalized world has given infectious agents ready access to new 

populations and areas. Moreover, the increasing overlap between human and animal 

environments has served to facilitate transmission of zoonotic infections. A notable 

example is the 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), a newly 

recognized human disease that spread worldwide, causing more than 8,000 cases 

and 770 deaths. The causative agent, SARS coronavirus, was found in civets, a carnivorous mammal sold for food in marketplaces in China. HHS/CDC issued an order 

to ban the importation of civets because of concerns that these animals were involved in the transmission of SARS to humans. The emergence of SARS is an example of how a previously unrecognized zoonotic disease can spread rapidly, with devastating consequences. In addition to its tremendous public health impact, the disease had profound economic consequences. Worldwide, the economic impact of SARS 

was estimated at $30-$50 billion. 

Another recent zoonotic threat is highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1. 

Since 2003, HPAI H5N1 has become established as a threat to both human and animal health throughout the world. Although bird populations in several countries 

have been affected, cases among humans have been less frequent, with no evidence 

of sustained human-to-human transmission. Live birds used for consumption, live 

birds used as pets, and bird products (including eggs) imported into the United 

States from countries with HPAI H5N1 could pose a risk for human or avian infection. In 2004, HHS/CDC issued orders to ban the importation of birds and bird products from specific countries with HPAI H5N1; these orders mirror similar regulatory 

actions taken by USDA/APHIS to prevent the importation of birds with avian influenza H5N1. 

I would like to describe in more detail an outbreak of human monkeypox that occurred in the United States in May and June of 2003. These cases represented the 

first outbreak of monkeypox in North America and clearly show why HHS/CDC continues to be concerned about the importation of wild animals into the United States. 

Monkeypox is a sporadic, zoonotic, viral disease that occurs primarily in the rain 

forest countries in central and western Africa. The illness was first noted in a monkey in 1958, but serologic evidence of monkeypox infection has been found in other 

animals in Africa, including some species of primates and rodents. African rodents 

are considered to be the most likely natural host of the monkeypox virus. In humans, monkeypox is marked by skin rashes that are similar to those seen in smallpox; other signs and symptoms include fever, chills and/or sweats, headache, backache, swelling of the lymph nodes, sore throat, cough, and shortness of breath. A 

20 

3The six rodent species are: Tree Squirrels, Rope Squirrels, Dormice, Gambian Giant Pouched 

Rats, Brush-tail Porcupine, and Striped Mice. 4 HHS/CDC has regulatory responsibility for the importation of these animals to the U.S. 

HHS/FDA has regulatory responsibility over the interstate transportation of these animals within the U.S. 

person develops signs and symptoms of the illness about 12 days after becoming infected. In Africa, the death rate from monkeypox for humans ranges from 1%-10%, 

although higher mortality rates have been seen. 

In 2003, an outbreak of monkeypox in Midwestern United States caused nearly 

50 probable or confirmed cases of the disease. Public health investigations revealed 

that the patients had become infected primarily as a result of contact with pet prairie dogs that had contracted monkeypox from imported diseased African rodents. 

These rodents had been included in a shipment of more than 800 small mammals, 

including rodents, imported from Ghana by a Texas animal distributor in April 

2003. Laboratory testing confirmed the presence of monkeypox virus in six rodent 

species 3 from the shipment. Rodents from the original shipment were traced to animal distributors in six states, including one distributor in Illinois who also sold prairie dogs. In early May 2003, this Illinois distributor sold some prairie dogs and one 

rodent from the Ghana shipment to another animal distributor in Wisconsin. It was 

at this time that several of the prairie dogs appeared to be ill, and several of the 

animals died. By late May, the first human cases were reported in Wisconsin (including the Wisconsin animal distributor). Other human cases were later reported 

in Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. 

Most patients in the outbreak had direct or close contact with prairie dogs. For 

example, 28 children at an Indiana day care center were exposed to two prairie dogs 

that later became ill and died. Twelve of these exposed children reported handling 

or petting the prairie dogs, and seven of these children later became ill with symptoms that were consistent with monkeypox infection. In Wisconsin, more than half 

of the human monkeypox cases occurred through occupational exposure to infected 

prairie dogs, with veterinary staff being at greater risk of acquiring monkeypox than 

pet store employees. The human cases in the United States included children as 

young as 3 years old. Nineteen people were hospitalized, although some were hospitalized primarily for isolation purposes. The initial signs or symptoms seen in 

some patients included skin lesions or fever with drenching sweats and severe 

chills. Two children suffered serious clinical illnesses. One child had severe encephalitis that improved during a 14-day hospital stay. Another child had pox lesions on 

many parts of her body, including lesions inside her mouth and throat which created difficulty in breathing and swallowing. At least five patients (three adults and 

two children) developed fevers and severe rashes, and one adult patient had symptoms for about five months. 

In June 2003, HHS/CDC and HHS/FDA issued a joint order 4 prohibiting, until 

further notice, the transportation or offering for transportation in interstate commerce, or the sale, offering for sale, or offering for any other type of commercial or 

public distribution, including release into the environment of prairie dogs and six 

implicated species of African rodents. In addition, HHS/CDC implemented an immediate embargo on the importation of all rodents from Africa. These emergency orders 

were superseded in November 2003 when the two agencies issued an interim final 

rule creating two complementary regulations restricting the domestic trade of prairie dogs and the six implicated rodent species and importation of all rodents of African origin. This rule was intended to prevent the further introduction, establishment, and spread of the monkeypox virus in the United States. 

The U.S. monkeypox outbreak illustrates the serious public health threat resulting from introduction of non-indigenous pathogens from exotic species of animals 

and the risks associated with the exotic species interacting with U.S. animals, including pets. keeping wild animals as pets. During the monkeypox outbreak, HHS/ 

CDC investigators could not locate many potentially infected animals because no accurate records were available to trace their movements. The importation of these 

types of animals poses a health risk because most shipments involve a high volume 

of animals, most of which are wild. Many shipments also include different species 

co-mingled or kept in close proximity in confined spaces, conditions ideal for disease 

transmission. For most species, there is no screening for the presence of diseases 

infectious to humans prior to shipment, with no holding or testing required upon 

their entry into the United States. This creates an opportunity for the widespread 

exposure of humans to the pathogens that these animals could be carrying. High 

mortality rates among some imported animals, such as rodents, are common. Imported animals shipped over long distances in uncontrolled environments are more 

likely to suffer ill affects. In addition, current U.S. statutes and regulations do not 

21 

require importers to determine whether the animal’s death is from a pathogen that 

could adversely affect humans. 

HHS/CDC Concerns about Disease Transmission from Other Animal 

Species 

Although HHS/CDC already regulates importation of some animal species, numerous other species present concerns. HHS/CDC recently analyzed data from the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife’s Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS) to 

assess the impact of the African rodent ban on the importation of rodents to the 

United States. The LEMIS database records the entry of wildlife species to the 

United States. HHS/CDC analysis showed that, since 2003, the ban has effectively 

limited legal importation of African rodents. The illegal trade of such rodents and 

other prohibited animals is difficult to quantify and difficult to prevent. CDC partners with industry to educate the public about zoonotic disease risks at the point 

of purchase in pet stores, and CDC’s ‘‘Healthy Pets Healthy People’’ website is one 

of the most popular websites for pet lovers, physicians and veterinarians seeking to 

counsel their clients. CDC also participates with USDA and FWS to enhance surveillance of animal contraband imported from known high-risk origins. 

However, the commercial pet market has found a new niche in rodents from other 

parts of the world, as the number of rodents from Asia, Europe, and South America 

has increased by 223%. Rodents harbor Hantaviruses, which have caused more than 

100,000 hospitalized cases of hemorrhagic fevers in Europe and Asia. Rodents are 

also associated with rickettsial diseases such as Scrub typhus and murine typhus, 

which cause hundreds of thousands of cases annually. Rodents have several traits 

that make them good hosts for zoonotic diseases. They reproduce rapidly and, unlike 

other species of wild mammals, can be found in our gardens, storage buildings and 

our homes. 

HHS/CDC is also concerned about other animals, such as shrews. There is some 

new evidence that Hantaviruses are associated with shrews, although it is not clear 

whether these shrew-associated hantaviruses are human pathogens. While humans 

rarely have contact with shrews, this could change if shrews begin to be imported 

as pets. 

In May 2006, HHS/CDC hosted a public meeting on the subject of infectious disease threats associated with the growing importation and trade of exotic animals. 

Stakeholders, including the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and the American Veterinary Medical Association, submitted a variety of positions and views for the public meeting. Of the 

22 statements received, 7 indicated a measure of support for increased restrictions 

on the importation and sale of exotic species, while 15 expressed support for alternatives to regulatory or legal restrictions, or opposition to possible restrictions. 

Animal Importation: Current Activities and Future Challenges 

HHS/CDC’s current approach to controlling zoonotic disease threats has involved 

issuing emergency orders or rules prohibiting importation of implicated animals. 

These actions are usually taken after an outbreak occurs, rather than proactively 

preventing outbreaks from animals well documented in the literature to harbor 

pathogens that can directly or indirectly effect humans, regardless of geography. 

This approach cannot fully prevent the introduction of zoonotic diseases, and HHS/ 

CDC would welcome the opportunity to participate in the development of broader 

prevention strategies—in concert with other federal agencies—including risk-based, 

proactive approaches to preventing the importation of animals and vectors that pose 

a public health risk. 

In July 2007, HHS/CDC published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPRM) to begin the process of revising our animal importation regulation, soliciting public comment and feedback on the issue of animal importation to determine 

the need for further rulemaking. More than 800 comments to the ANPRM were received, and HHS/CDC is currently reviewing these comments to assist in new rulemaking. 

In conclusion, there are a number of serious yet preventable risks to public 

health, and we welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively to explore new 

strategies for their prevention. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy to take any questions 

you may have. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Dr. Marano, for your testimony and thoughtful statement, and, at this time, I would like to 

22 

welcome another of my colleagues, from the State of Virginia, Mr. 

Wittman, who has joined us. 

We are now going to recognize Members for any questions that 

they may have, and I will begin with myself. I have a couple of 

questions for Mr. Frazer. 

Would a risk-assessment process similar to the one in this bill 

be more effective and efficient, and what are the key factors in 

making the system work efficiently? 

Mr. FRAZER. We have not thoroughly analyzed the bill, but, on 

our initial reading, it appears to provide us the latitude to construct a risk-assessment process that could be more timely, more 

nimble, and provide us the opportunity to address the need for 

evaluating the potential risks of species, more so than we have 

under the current injurious wildlife listing process under the Lacey 

Act. 

So we see this as providing the basic framework for us to develop 

a process that is, in fact, more responsive and for us to be able to 

handle the volume of work in a more nimble fashion. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Would it be better to structure H.R. 6311 to replace the existing injurious wildlife provisions of the Lacey Act? 

Mr. FRAZER. We would like to work with the Subcommittee on 

that. It does not seem to us to be a wise path, to keep both authorities in place, that this would, in fact, serve the function of evaluating and preventing the introduction of injurious wildlife, and 

that, if we could build a structure here, we would want to have 

that replaced, the existing injurious wildlife provisions so we did 

not have that standing and would still have to carry out those responsibilities. 

We would have to have a transition process, obviously, so we did 

not have any gap in authority, and controls over introductions, but 

that would be something we would like to work with you on. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Frazer, is three years a reasonable amount 

of time to develop an initial approved list and regulations for a 

risk-assessment process? 

Mr. FRAZER. It is clearly going to be a rigorous schedule. We 

would have to have additional staff and resources to be able to 

manage that. It would have to be through a rulemaking process, 

a lot of public participation and involvement with stakeholders, 

and such, but, on initial read, it is something that would be doable 

if we had the resources to do so. It would be an aggressive schedule, certainly. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Good. Ms. Williams, when can NISC tell us their 

position on the bill? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. The bill has just been introduced, and the National Invasive Species Council will work with all of our agencies. 

It is 13 departments and agencies. So we will be looking at this 

bill, working with Gary and all of the agencies, and get you a position as quickly as possible. 

Ms. BORDALLO. As quickly as possible, good. As you mentioned, 

the 2001 National Invasive Species Management Plan emphasizes 

not only prevention but establishment of a risk-based screening 

process. Would H.R. 6311 give the needed statutory authority to 

implement this process? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I believe so. 

23 

Ms. BORDALLO. And then I have one question here for Dr. 

Marano. Does the CDC have the authority to regulate species of 

wildlife that are likely, but not demonstrated, vectors for zoonotic 

diseases? 

Dr. MARANO. We have the authority, under the CDC Director, to 

be able to prevent the introduction of a person, thing, animal, or 

vector that represents a proximate threat to human health. In the 

past, we have done this in responsive mode when it became apparent that rodents were a vector for monkeypox. We have to look forward to looking at other species, perhaps of rodents, that also represent threats that are coming from other parts of the world than 

Africa. So my answer would be yes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. All right. One final question I have for you. 

When the CDC issued its final monkeypox regulation to the Federal Register in 2003, it stated: ‘‘We, the CDC, believe that the introduction of monkeypox into the United States shows that we 

need to develop measures to prevent or minimize the likelihood of 

other zoonotic disease introductions or outbreaks.’’ 

Would, then, H.R. 6311 help achieve this by including consideration of human and animal health in its risk-screening process? 

Dr. MARANO. I believe that it would, and I think my concluding 

statement, my last paragraph, tried to emphasize that this is a 

very important opportunity for us to be at the table with Fish and 

Wildlife, to be the human health consultant, the human health 

partner. Many of the invasive species activities do focus on harmful 

environmental species. So I think this is a remarkable opportunity 

for CDC to be a full member at the table to help give human health 

input to the decisions. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Now, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Brown from South Carolina, for any questions that 

he may have. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Frazer, I guess my first question would be to you, and, of 

course, I would encourage other members of the panel to join in if 

they have some input. 

How many species are currently listed on the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s injurious species list under the Lacey Act of 1981? 

Mr. FRAZER. We have 19 entities that are listed under injurious 

wildlife. Some of the entities comprise many different species. We 

list a whole family or its listed genus, so I cannot give you a specific number of species, but 18 separate entities are listed. 

An example of what I am talking about: fruit bats. We have 60 

different species listed within a particular genus of fruit bat that 

are on that injurious wildlife list. 

Mr. BROWN. Do we have any capture method for eradicating the 

species once they are identified as injurious? 

Mr. FRAZER. Once an injurious species is established in the wild, 

control is difficult, more difficult for aquatic species than terrestrial 

ones. The ability to control species depends upon the individual 

characteristics of the ecosystem. 

For instance, there are some effective control techniques that 

have been developed for brown tree snakes, but the challenges of 

having 100-percent eradication are very great when we are dealing 

24 

with dense vegetation and tree-dwelling species. So the effectiveness is a function of the ecology of any individual species ad where 

they live. 

Mr. BROWN. I am sorry. Go ahead. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I just had one more point on that. One of the 

things, as a backup to prevention, that the council has been very 

interested in working with other agencies on is early detection and 

rapid response. 

If you can find these species early enough, or recognize that they 

are a problem early enough, eradication is often possible through 

a variety of methods. But once, as Gary has said, they have spread, 

it becomes very costly, at a minimum, if not impossible. But early 

detection and rapid response is an important technique, if prevention has failed, but you have the information. 

Mr. BROWN. Once we identified them as injurious, I guess, do we 

restrict, then, the import of those species into the United States? 

Mr. FRAZER. Importation into the U.S., as well as transport 

across state lines, is then prohibited, and that would be one aspect, 

Chairman Bordallo. If there were to be revisions to 6311 to have 

it replace the Lacey Act injurious wildlife provisions, one of the aspects that we would want to have replaced is also to expand the 

reach, then, to control the transport across state lines because that 

is an important element of containment of an invasive species that 

may be in the U.S. already, but we are wanting to contain within 

the area where it is as opposed to spreading elsewhere. 

Mr. BROWN. I am not sure where the brown snake came from, 

but did it have a natural predator before it got to Guam? 

Mr. FRAZER. It was native to Australia, the southeast specific, 

and I do not know whether it had predators, but when it got to 

Guam, it found a very suitable place to live and thrive and an environment in which there is a great variety of prey species upon 

which it could readily grow and feed. 

Mr. BROWN. How about the Burmese python? Wherever it is coming from, does it have a natural predator there that could kind of 

control the population? How does that work? 

Mr. FRAZER. I do not know whether they have any predators that 

control there the spread. I would be happy to get back with you on 

that. 

Mr. BROWN. Apparently, they are thriving pretty well down in 

Florida. 

Mr. FRAZER. They seem to be finding it a suitable habitat, yes. 

Mr. BROWN. And to qualify that statement, I do not think it was 

a full-grown alligator because I think that the writer did not understand that those alligators can grow to 12 to 14 feet long. There 

are some smaller, but I think you said, Ms. Williams, you have a 

copy of a picture. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I will be e-mailing you a picture, but you probably 

are very familiar with alligators. 

Mr. BROWN. I am very familiar with alligators. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. OK. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the Ranking Member. 

I just wanted to make a few comments on the brown tree snakes 

for our audience out there. They are nocturnal, and, to my knowlVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:12 Jan 30, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\43302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
25 

edge, they are not a poisonous snake. I know that Mr. Frazer must 

have the population on hand, but rather than speak about how 

many we have, because that may ruin our tourism, we will just 

keep that between us, and I want to thank Mr. Brown for his questions about the brown tree snake. 

I would like now to recognize my colleague from Virginia, Mr. 

Wittman, for any questions he may have. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Frazer, I want to try to parse out, in my mind, how the injurious definition may be implemented under this act. You know, 

now, in the Chesapeake Bay, we have a number of nonnative introductions, not purposeful, obviously, things like the zebra mussel, 

the rapa whelk, the Chinese mitten crab, the snakehead fish. 

There has also been an effort to look at nonnative species to replenish our decimated oysters in the bay. As we all know, 

Crassostrea ariakensis is one of the oysters under consideration— 

it has undergone a tremendous amount of study—in looking at recovering the oyster populations there. 

Can you tell us how this act would affect a situation where we 

are looking at the introduction of a nonnative species, such as 

ariakensis, through study versus those nonintended introductions? 

Can you tell me how this act would distinguish between those and, 

especially, how ‘‘injurious’’ would be defined? 

Mr. FRAZER. The fundamental issue, I think, that you are raising 

is the distinction between a nonnative species and an injurious 

nonnative species. There are many nonnative species that are in 

the U.S. that are used in agriculture, sport fisheries, or other reasons that do not rise to the level of being injurious or that do not 

have the potential to be invasive. They are able to be managed. 

As we read the bill, again, the focus of this framework that it 

would establish would be on the potential for harm to the environment, the economy, or health. So that injurious nature, as well as 

being a nonnative, would be the primary factor for determining 

whether this would be something that would be prohibited or restricted in trade. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Would you anticipate that this act would, in any 

way, prevent the introduction of Crassostrea ariakensis into the 

Chesapeake Bay? 

Mr. FRAZER. That would be premature. I do not know the nature 

of that particular species. It would be a function of what its risk 

to the overall ecosystem might be. Clearly, there are benefits of 

having oysters in the Chesapeake Bay. I do not know how that particular species would be considered in that context. I have not 

heard of it referred to in the context of an injurious species. 

Mr. WITTMAN. OK. I know there has been a lot of study, and I 

do know that this act does allow for folks to petition that that 

species be considered injurious. I just wanted to understand what 

level the evaluation would have to rise to because I know there has 

been an awful a lot of work put into ariakensis in the bay and an 

awful lot of consideration about that particular introduction and especially how it may affect the return of the oyster portion of our 

seafood industry. 

So I want to be clear that there would be nothing in here that, 

obviously, if the science steers us in that direction for the introducVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:12 Jan 30, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\43302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
26 

tion of that nonnative species, that there would be nothing here 

that would prevent that. I think that is important for our Chesapeake Bay in a variety of different ways, both economically, environmentally, again, with the science bearing it out, making sure 

that it does not have, obviously, as you said, under the current definition of ‘‘injurious,’’ negative impacts on the bay. So I just wanted 

to make sure that that was clear. 

I know a lot of people in Virginia are looking at that as a way 

to reestablish that resource there, and I wanted to make sure that 

this did not do anything to impede that. 

Can you tell me, has U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implemented 

any of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force recommendations, 

things like the Federal permit system for first-time imports and expediting the Lacey Act processes? 

Mr. FRAZER. We certainly are active in implementing a number 

of the management plans and priorities of the Aquatic Nuisance 

Species Task Force. I am not familiar with the two specific issues 

that you raised, and I would be happy to respond to you in writing 

about those. 

Mr. WITTMAN. That would be great, if you could do that. 

Ms. Williams, could you maybe comment on that? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. You might be referring to the 1994 ANSTF report 

that looked at intentional introductions and made a series of recommendations, and those are similar to what we see in the management plan. I think they were fairly general in nature and 

looked at expediting the Lacey Act and coming up with a screening 

process that was phased in step by step, and that is very similar 

to what was in the 2001 management plan, if I am understanding 

correctly. 

Mr. WITTMAN. That is what I am referring to. Have all of those 

been implemented, or are they in the process of being implemented? Can you tell us, timeframe-wise, where they are? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I think it would be good to get back to the record 

on that, but, as I said in my testimony, given the resources that 

have been put into the program and some of the complications and 

the lack of legal authority, it has been more difficult to make 

progress on providing for setting up a screening process because 

the way we have interpreted it, the authority is really not there 

under the current law. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Can you give us an idea? You say that there is 

some lack of resources there. Can you give us an idea about what 

the magnitude of that lack of resources might be, Mr. Frazer? 

Mr. FRAZER. We clearly have the potential for evaluating a large 

number of potentially injurious species under the current Lacey Act 

authority. Right now, we have six groups that are basically in our 

queue for evaluating. It could be more. 

So we have not ever attempted to define the universe and compare our existing resources to the need, nor have we been able, 

with the limited amount of time we have had thus far, been able 

to actually cost out what would be needed to effectively staff and 

manage the risk-assessment process envisioned under 6311. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. Just to put into context those questions, and the reason I asked them, is I am concerned about the 

level of effort. We see, just in the Chesapeake Bay, the frightening 

27 

increase in the number of nonnative species that are coming into 

the bay, and certainly there has been a lot of discussion about what 

we can do, whether it is ballast water, those sorts of things. 

If we are really going to get our arms around this today, in this 

world economy with all kinds of potential for these nonnative introductions, we really want to understand the resources that it will 

take for us to, at least, either slow down or, hopefully, stop those 

right now. 

I think we all watch our water bodies, and as we have those nonnative introductions, they have the capacity to overwhelm the existing ecosystem, and I think we are all concerned about that when 

we are fighting right now to try to get the existing ecosystems to 

proliferate. 

So that is just the basis behind my questions, and if you all could 

get that information to me, I would be very interested in it. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman, and to also thank the panelists for being with 

us this morning, and, at this time, I would like to recognize the 

second panel of witnesses. I would also like to ask those standing 

in the back to please come forward and take the seats in the lower 

dais here. 

[Pause.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. The Chair would like to announce that there will 

be three votes, starting between eleven-thirty and eleven-forty-five, 

so if we stay within the five-minute limit, I think we can hear all 

of our panelists present their testimony. 

I would like to recognize those on the second panel. Domingo 

Cravalho, Jr., the Inspection and Compliance Section Chief, Plant 

Quarantine Branch, Hawaii Department of Agriculture, aloha—— 

Mr. CRAVALHO. Aloha. 

Ms. BORDALLO.—Marc Gaden, Legislative Liaison, Great Lakes 

Fishery Commission; Mr. George Horne, Deputy Executive 

Director, Operations and Maintenance Resources, South Florida 

Water Management District; Marshall Meyers, Executive Vice 

President and General Counsel, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council; and Mr. Lawrence M. Riley, Division Coordinator, Wildlife 

Management Division, Arizona Game and Fish Department. 

Again, I would just remind you about the five-minute time schedule that we have here, and your full testimony will be entered into 

the official record. 

I now recognize Mr. Cravalho to testify for five minutes. I thank 

you for traveling all the way from the State of Hawaii. Please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF DOMINGO CRAVALHO, JR., INSPECTION AND 

COMPLIANCE SECTION CHIEF, PLANT QUARANTINE 

BRANCH, HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. CRAVALHO. Aloha kako, Chairperson Bordallo, Members of 

the Committee. My name is Domingo Cravalho, and I represent the 

Hawaii Department of Agriculture today. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on H.R. 6311, the Nonnative Wildlife 

Invasion Prevention Act. 

The Hawaii Department of Agriculture strongly supports this 

bill. The impact of the high rate of nonnative introductions has alVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:12 Jan 30, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\43302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
28 

ready been felt in the State of Hawaii. Of all of the birds and 

plants known to have gone extinct in the United States, over 72 

percent are from Hawaii, yet there is much more to be lost. The 

native plants and animals of Hawaii are among the most endangered in the world. 

Stopping the influx of new, detrimental, nonnative species and 

containing their spread is essential to Hawaii’s, and the nation’s, 

future well-being. The present problem is severe, and the future is 

uncertain. Only legislation such as this measure will begin to address the continued loss of our nations natural resources. 

Hawaii state laws and regulations governing the entry of plant 

and animal species are intended to protect our agriculture, our environment, including native biota, and public health. As the ‘‘first 

line of defense,’’ approximately five to six million dollars in state 

money is spent on prevention efforts in Hawaii. For over 50 years, 

our department has had in place a risk-based system, such as the 

one envisioned in this bill, to allow safe introductions to continue 

and to prevent detrimental introductions from entering the state. 

As authorized by Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 150A, the 

Board of Agriculture maintains the following three lists of animals. 

First, there is a list of conditionally approved animals that require a permit for import into the state, and these species are normally used for resale efforts for the pet trade, for seafood for consumption, and for animals that can be used for propagation. 

The second list is a list of restricted animals that require a permit for both import into the state and possession. The restricted 

list is further divided into a restricted list, Part A, which allows for 

research by universities and government agencies, for exhibition in 

municipal zoos and government-affiliated aquariums, as well as for 

medical and scientific research, as determined by the Board. Part 

B of the restricted list is allowed for commercial and private use, 

including research, zoological parks, and aquaculture production. 

The last list is a list of prohibited animals that are prohibited 

entry into the state. 

As you and I well know, these three lists would not be able to 

contain every list of animals currently in the world. As such, anything that is not on any of these lists are concerned prohibited 

until such time as it is reviewed and considered for future placement on one of these lists. 

Throughout the listing process that we currently employ, it is an 

open and transparent listing process. There is established an Advisory Committee on Plants and Animals that is comprised of representatives from the following: the Department of Agriculture, the 

Department of Land and Natural Resources, members from the Department of Health, and Office of Environmental Control, as well 

as five other members with expertise in plants, animals, or microorganisms who are versed with modern ecological principles and 

the protection of natural resources. 

The State of Hawaii’s importation process provides a manageable, risk-based system for the import of nondomestic animals into 

the state. It is science based, with the various advisory committees’ 

review and recommendations to the Board of Agriculture, as well 

as the public hearing process that informs the general public of the 

import process that protects Hawaii from invasive species. 

29 

Much has been written about the tragic loss of Hawaiian biota, 

which is unequaled in any other region of the United States. While 

nothing can be done about the 70 percent of endemic species that 

have already gone extinct, measures such as H.R. 6311 can bolster 

hope that we can protect those remaining. 

As such, prevention of new, nonnative wildlife introductions and 

management of existing invasions require immediate attention. 

The establishment of a manageable, risk-based system and the establishment of allowable and prohibited lists of animals and for the 

import of nonnative wildlife and improved integration of Federal 

and state policies and programs would provide long-term protection 

of our natural resources that would benefit both the Nation and 

our individual states. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important measure. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cravalho follows:] 

Statement of Domingo Cravalho, Jr., Inspection and Compliance 

Section Chief, Hawaii Department of Agriculture 

Chairperson Bordallo and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on H.R. 6311. 

The purpose of this bill is to prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or human 

or animal species’ health. The Hawaii Department of Agriculture strongly supports 

this bill. 

The impact of the high rate of non-native introductions has already been felt in 

the State of Hawaii. Of all the birds and plants known to have gone extinct in the 

United States, over 72% are from Hawaii. Yet, there is much more to be lost. The 

native plants and animals of Hawaii are among the most endangered in the world. 

Hawaii has 282 listed threatened and endangered species including 150 species with 

fewer than 50 living. And of these, 11 species have fewer than 5 left on earth. 

Stopping the influx of new detrimental non-native species and containing their 

spread is essential to Hawaii’s and the Nation’s future well-being. The present problem is severe and the future is uncertain. Only legislation, such as this measure, 

will begin to address the continued loss of our Nation’s natural resources. 

State laws and regulations governing the entry of new plant and animal species 

are intended to protect agriculture, environment, including native biota, and public 

health. As the ‘‘first line of defense,’’ approximately $5-6 million in state money is 

spent on prevention efforts. For over fifty years, our Department has had in place 

a risk-based system, such as the one envisioned in this bill, to allow safe introductions to continue and to prevent detrimental introductions from entering the State. 

Chapter 150A, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), short titled as the ‘‘Hawaii Plant 

Quarantine Law’’ provides the authorities for the Hawaii Department of Agriculture 

to regulate the importation of plants, non-domestic animals and microorganisms 

that are allowed entry into the State of Hawaii. For the purposes of the Non-Native 

Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (H.R. 6311), this discussion will cover only the authorities that govern non-domestic animals. The term, ‘‘animal’’ as used under section 150A-2, HRS, is defined as follows: 

‘‘Animal’’ means any invertebrate and vertebrate species of the animal 

kingdom including but not limited to mammal, bird, fish, reptile, mollusk, 

crustacean, insect, mite, and nematode, other than common domestic animal such as dog and cat. 

As provided for under section 150A-6.2, HRS, the Board of Agriculture (Board) 

pursuant to rules maintains one of the following three lists of animals: 

• A list of conditionally approved animals that require a permit for import into 

the State; 

• A list of restricted animals that require a permit for both import into the State 

and possession; and 

• A list of prohibited animals that are prohibited entry into the State. 

Any animal that is not on any of these lists is considered prohibited until the 

Board reviews and determines the future placement of the unlisted animal on any 

of these lists maintained by the Board. However, there are provisions that allow the 

importation and possession of unlisted species for the following: 

30 

• A special permit on a case-by-case basis for unlisted animals may be allowed 

for importation and possession for the purposes of remediating medical emergencies or agricultural or ecological disasters, or conducting medical or scientific 

research in a manner that the animal will not be detrimental to agriculture, 

the environment, or humans; and • A short-term special permit on a case-by-case basis not to exceed 90 days may 

be allowed for the importation and possession of an unlisted animal for the purpose of filming, performance, or exhibition. 

The above-mentioned special permits are contingent upon the importer being able 

to meet certain permit and/or bonding requirements as determined by the Board. 

Section 150A-6.5, HRS, provides for exceptions in regards to prohibited animals 

in that no person shall possess, propagate, sell, transfer, or harbor any animal included on the list of prohibited animals that is maintained by the Board, except for 

as follows: • The animal was initially permitted entry and later prohibited entry into the 

State; or • The animal was continually prohibited but unlawfully introduced and is currently established in the State; and • The animal is not significantly harmful to agriculture, horticulture, or animal 

or public health, and the environment. 

However, the Board may permit possession of an individual animal under the circumstances described with the registration of the animal with the department while 

still prohibiting the species from importation, propagation, transfer, and sale. 

Section 150A-10, HRS, provides for the establishment of an advisory committee 

on plants and animals that is comprised of representatives from the following: • Department of Agriculture • Department of Land and Natural Resources • Office of Environmental Control • Department of Health • Five other members with expertise in plants, animals or microorganisms who 

are versed with modern ecological principles and the protection of natural resources The committee’s purpose is to assist and advise the Board in developing or revising laws and regulations to carry out the purposes of this chapter and to advise in 

problems relating to the introduction, confinement, or release of animals. In addition, this particular section authorizes the Chairperson of the Board to create ad 

hoc or permanent advisory subcommittees, as needed. 

Pursuant to the rulemaking requirements under State law, Chapter 4-71, Hawaii 

Administrative Rules (HAR) aptly named ‘‘Non-Domestic Animals Import Rules’’, 

provides for implementing the requirements of Chapter 150A, HRS, by restricting 

or prohibiting the import of certain non-domestic animals that are detrimental to 

the agricultural, horticultural, and aquacultural industries, natural resources and 

environment of the State of Hawaii. Animal species that are found on the List of 

Prohibited Animals under section 4-71-6, HAR, are not permitted entry into the 

State. As such, no person shall introduce into Hawaii any animal from the prohibited animal list. 

As provided for under section 4-71-6.5, HAR, the importation into Hawaii of allowable species shall be by permit for those animals that are found on the List of Conditionally Approved Animals or the List of Restricted Animals. Animals found on 

the conditionally approved list are allowed for individual possession, businesses, or 

institutions, and may be re-sold, propagated, or transported in the State; however, 

liberation is strictly prohibited. 

Animals on the restricted lists are further divided into a Part A and Part B section. The List of Restricted Animals (Part A) are for species that are allowed for 

both import into the State and possession for research by universities or government 

agencies, exhibition in municipal zoos or government-affiliated aquariums, for other 

institutions for medical or scientific purposes as determined by the Board. Animals 

on the List of Restricted Animals (Part B) are for species that are allowed for both 

import into the State and possession for private and commercial use, including research, zoological parks, or aquaculture production. There are also added provisions 

that animals in the order Primates shall not be allowed for import or possession for 

private or commercial use other than for purposes described in Part A or for primate 

sanctuaries, as determined by the Board. 

Since the various lists found under chapter 4-71, HAR, do not include all species 

that are known to exist, unlisted species are considered prohibited until the Board’s 

review and future placement on one of the allowable lists. To list an animal, a permit application must be submitted to the Board and must include the following: 

• Name and address of shipper and importer 

31 

• Approximate number and kind (common and scientific name) of animal 

• Purpose or object of importation 

• Safeguard facilities location and description 

• Method of disposition 

• Abstract of the animal, including biology and ecology requirements 

The application will go through a three-tiered review process. An advisory subcommittee of technical consultants will review the information that is provided by 

the applicant and provide a recommendation and comments on the request. The information will be compiled by the department and then reviewed by the Advisory 

Committee on Plants and Animals, who will meet at a noticed public meeting where 

public comment and testimony are welcomed. The Advisory Committee will then 

make a recommendation for approval or disapproval on the request and the matter 

would be forwarded to the Board for review and determination. The Board’s action 

to preliminarily review the species for future placement on a list has no legal effect 

and this procedure is solely for administrative ease in preparation for amendments 

to the various lists. At some future date, the proposed amendments will be brought 

to the Board for preliminary approval to go to public hearings. A species is listed 

in the rules only after following chapter 91, HRS, rulemaking procedures, which entail the public hearing process, board adoption, and governor’s approval. Once a 

species is listed, the Board will then establish conditions for entry into the State 

upon application for an import permit. 

The State of Hawaii’s importation process provides a manageable risk-based system for the import of non-domestic animals into the State, which is science-based 

with the various advisory committees’ review and recommendations to the Board as 

well as the public hearing process that informs the general public of the import 

process that protects Hawaii from invasive species. 

Much has been written about the tragic loss of Hawaiian biota, which is unequaled in any other region of the United States. While nothing can be done about 

the 70% of the endemic land birds and land snail species that have already gone 

extinct, measures such as H.R. 6311 can bolster hope that we can protect those remaining. Hawaii is home to one-third of the Nation’s federally listed endangered 

species. As such, prevention of new non-native wildlife introductions and management of existing invasions require immediate attention. 

The establishment of a manageable risk-based system for the import of non-native 

wildlife and improved integration of Federal and State policies and programs would 

provide long-term protection of our natural resources that would benefit both the 

Nation and the States. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important measure. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Mahalo, Mr. Cravalho, for your insights on this 

legislation from your Hawaii perspective. 

Now, I would like to recognize Dr. Gaden. Welcome, and you may 

proceed with your statement. 

STATEMENT OF MARC GADEN, Ph.D., LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, 

GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION 

Mr. GADEN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee. I am 

Marc Gaden. I am the legislative liaison for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and I am also an adjunct assistant professor at 

Michigan State University. 

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission is an organization set up 

by treaty between the United States and Canada. We have the responsibility to take measures to improve and perpetuate the Great 

Lakes fishery resources. 

The fishery commission also knows quite well the havoc invasive 

species wreak on ecosystems. The fishery commission is responsible 

for controlling the noxious sea lamprey, which laid waste to the 

fishery after it invaded the Upper Great Lakes in the 1920s. 

The Great Lakes are tremendously valuable and worth pro- tecting. Annually, the fishery alone is worth more than $7 billion 

32 

and has enormous cultural value to the diverse peoples who live 

and fish in the region. 

Invasive species are one of the biggest threats to the Great Lakes 

as more than 180 nonnative species are present. Many are destructive, costing the region billions of dollars, and, with globalization 

and vibrant trade, more species have more opportunities than ever 

to invade the waters of the United States. 

For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that an 

average of more than 200 million fish and tens of millions of reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals are imported into the U.S. 

annually. 

Unfortunately, we have not learned the lessons that experience 

has taught. Ninety years after the sea lamprey invasion, more than 

$300 million have been spent to control this one species. Canals, 

many unused and useless, continue to be pathways for invaders. 

Ship ballasts, which brought the notorious zebra mussel 25 years 

ago and brought many other invaders, remains the primary 

invasive species vector, yet ballast legislation has been pending for 

years. 

Despite high-profile invaders, like snakeheads, the Asian swamp 

eel, Asian carp, which entered through the live trade, a meaningful 

process still does not exist to assess the risks of organisms prior 

to importation. 

These problems illustrate a lack of a comprehensive policy to 

deal with invasive species. Your bill, H.R. 6311, by addressing the 

live trade, fills a major gap in that policy void. 

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission supports your legislation. 

Species and trade need to be valued because we have no evaluation process in place now, so, without review, we are just taking 

chances. Also, it is appropriate to be circumspect about handling 

live species because species have a history of escaping and invading, and it is always a good idea to be deliberate in our actions. 

Moreover, it is appropriate to be cautious because species often 

surprise us. They take hold in places where we sometimes do not 

expect, and they cause unexpected damage. 

Finally, if we do not take the time to evaluate importations, we 

are putting our native species, species which millions of people rely 

on for income, food, recreation, and a healthy environment, at risk, 

flippantly and permanently. 

This legislation has many strong points, which are outlined in 

my written statement. Let me touch upon four. 

First, the bill calls upon the Secretary of Interior to establish a 

process to evaluate all nonnative wildlife proposed for importation 

into the U.S. before the organisms are imported. This keeps out the 

harmful invaders before they spread, at which point it is often too 

late to do anything about the problem. 

Second, the bill establishes solid criteria for the secretary to consider in evaluating the organisms, including demonstrating that 

the organism not be harmful. The factors for consideration, as presented in Section 3-B, are the factors that should be considered, as 

they relate to scientific realities. It is, indeed, correct to evaluate 

whether the species is likely to cause harm, whether it is well-suited to ecosystems in the United States, whether it is likely to 

33 

spread, and whether pathogens are likely to accompany the importation. 

This is an appropriate list of factors and, when applied, should 

be protective. 

Third, the bill establishes approved and unapproved lists for 

species and says that only organisms on the approved list can be 

imported. This is a much better approach than the current system, 

which essentially says a species is OK unless it is on the unapproved list. 

Currently, the problem is, not every species is assessed, and the 

process to list a species as injurious, which is through the Lacey 

Act, is reactive and cumbersome. 

Fourth, the bill establishes a Federal risk-assessment process to 

evaluate importations, yet still acknowledges the major role states 

can, and should, play in protecting the waters of the United States. 

This bill is solid and addresses the problem appropriately. That 

said, the fishery commission has a few issues with the bill, as written. Those issues are outlined in detail in my written statement, 

and I ask the Subcommittee to consider them. 

Let me conclude with a word about Canada, as meaningful 

invasive species action must occur in both countries. Like the current situation in the United States, Canada does not assess the 

risk of all importations. However, legislation is pending before the 

House of Commons that would grant such authority to the Federal 

government. The pending legislation in Canada, thus, is in the 

same spirit as your bill, and it is the commission’s expectation that 

the legislation in both countries will inspire a coordinated approach. We also hope there will be coordination with Mexico. 

Madam Chair, thank you again for inviting me to testify before 

this Subcommittee, and I wish you success in getting this legislation passed. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaden follows:] 

Statement of Dr. Marc Gaden, Legislative Liaison, 

Great Lakes Fishery Commission 

INTRODUCTION: THE INVASIVE SPECIES THREAT 

Madam Chair, thank you for inviting me to appear before this subcommittee to 

discuss H.R. 6311, the Non-Native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. With the introduction of the Non-native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, we have a real opportunity to take a major step toward preventing the introduction and spread of harmful organisms. 

My name is Marc Gaden. I am the Legislative Liaison for the Great Lakes Fishery 

Commission. I am also an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Michigan State University, 

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. 

The Great Lakes are an extremely valuable and unique resource for both the 

United States and Canada. The Great Lakes’ commercial, sport, and tribal fisheries 

alone are valued at more than $7 billion annually. The lakes provide drinking water 

for millions of people and are a rich tourist draw. A healthy, vibrant Great Lakes 

ecosystem is immeasurable in economic terms alone. 

Despite the importance of the Great Lakes to the region, the lakes face tremendous threats ranging from pollution to habitat destruction to loss of species diversity. One particularly troubling problem is the influx of invasive species. The Great 

Lakes are constantly bombarded by new species from all over the world. Ballast 

water is a major vector and is the subject of legislation (the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act) recently passed by the House. Canals and waterways are another vector 

and much attention has been given in recent years to the construction of an electrical dispersal barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, an artificial connection between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River system. Recreational activiVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:12 Jan 30, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\43302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
34 

ties, aquaculture, and the trade of live organisms (for the live seafood industry, pet 

trade, ornamental gardens, food, etc.) are other vectors. 

Today, the lakes harbor more than 185 non-native species (Lodge 2007; Mills et 

al. 1993; Ricciardi 2001; Sturtevant et al. 2008), many of which entered the lakes 

accidentally. The rate of introduction into the Great Lakes has not slowed in recent 

years, even with the welcomed institution of some invasive species control measures 

(e.g., ballast water exchange requirements starting as early as 1989); some estimate 

that a new invader enters the system every 9-12 months. Many in the scientific 

community also believe that the Great Lakes contain many more invasive species 

than have been discovered, as a coordinated, basinwide program to monitor new 

nonindigenous species does not exist (IAGLR 2008; Sturtevant et al. 2008). While 

much of the focus has been on large or prominent organisms, microorganisms and 

pathogens are also an increasing concern (particularly with the emergence of the 

VHS virus). The Great Lakes, essentially, are a welcoming, open door for invaders. 

According to the International Association for Great Lakes Research, fortunately, 

only a small portion of the exotic species that enter the lakes become established, 

and only a small portion of those (up to 15%) prove to be invasive and harmful 

(IAGLR 2008). However, lest one find’s those odds reassuring, the small percentage 

that is harmful has cost the region dearly. Damage is difficult to quantify, but 

sources put the cumulative economic costs since 1900 in the hundreds of billions of 

dollars. The ecological costs, of course, are immeasurable. According to the Great 

Lakes Commission, just six of the 70 known harmful invasive species have caused 

more than $1.6 billion in damages (Glassner-Shwayder 2007). 

With globalization, more species have more opportunities than ever to invade the 

United States and the Great Lakes. Worldwide, shipping is vibrant and trade across 

continents is growing. The Saint Lawrence Seaway, for instance, is a direct pathway 

for foreign ships into the U.S. heartland. Those ships have been responsible for 

more than 1/3 of the Great Lakes invaders (Mills et al. 1993; Sturtevant et al. 

2008). Also, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that an average of more than 

200 million fish, and tens of millions of reptiles and amphibians, birds, and mammals are imported into the United States annually. Fish for the pet trade are often 

collected in exotic locations throughout the world or reared in aquaculture facilities 

(Livengood and Chapman 2007), facilities which are prone to flooding, enabling 

escapement. 

Invasive species are not a local or even a regional problem—they are a national 

and a global problem. Invasive species have a tendency to spread from region to region, so species introduced in one part of the country have enormous potential to 

move to other parts of the country. Eurasian Dreissenid mussels, for instance, entered the Great Lakes through ballast water from oceanic ships in the 1980s and 

have now spread throughout much of the United States. Asian carp, which are discussed below, escaped from aquaculture in the Deep South and are threatening the 

Great Lakes. Snakeheads were imported for the aquarium trade and for food fish 

and are now present in the northeast, the east, and the Mississippi River system. 

Specimens have also been found in Alabama, California, Florida, Kentucky, Texas, 

Washington, and Lake Michigan. Finally, it is estimated that more than 150 invaders nationwide are attributed to the aquarium trade (Padilla and Williams 2004) 

and their introduction into United States’ waters anywhere raises the possibility of 

spread to other ecosystems. Solutions must be large in scope and based on the assumption that invaders do what they do best: invade. 

LESSONS FROM THE SEA LAMPREY 

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the organization for which I work, was established in 1955 by the Canadian and U.S. Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries, 

partially as a response to one of the most noxious invaders to enter the Great Lakes 

system: the sea lamprey. Sea lampreys are primitive fishes resembling large snakes 

and are native to the Atlantic Ocean. They invaded the Great Lakes through shipping canals in the early 1900s. Sea lampreys are fish parasites and not having predators in the Great Lakes, were able to wreak unimaginable damage on the ecosystem and cause significant economic harm to the fishers of the region. The commission’s control program has been successful, reducing sea lamprey populations by 

90% in most areas of the Great Lakes. Nevertheless, eradication is impossible. 

The sea lamprey has taught resource managers some tough lessons: 

• A single species can cause significant, permanent damage to the economic and 

ecological health of a region. Sea lampreys changed a way of life in the Great 

Lakes and even with effective control, they remain a permanent, destructive 

element of the Great Lakes fishery. Most—if not all—management decisions 

made by federal, state, tribal, and provincial agencies must take sea lampreys 

into account. 

35 

• Control, if it is even possible, is expensive and ongoing. The commission has 

spent more than $300 million since 1956 controlling sea lampreys. This amount, 

while large, does not take into account the billions of dollars of revenue lost to 

commercial, tribal, and recreational fishers of the Great Lakes basin, nor does 

it take into account the billions of dollars spent by the state and federal governments over several decades to rehabilitate and propagate the fishery after the 

sea lamprey invasion. Moreover, this figure does not include the immeasurable 

damage to the ecology of the Great Lakes basin. • Prevention is key; eradication is not possible. The Great Lakes fishery will forever contend with sea lampreys and fishery officials at the federal, state, tribal, 

and provincial levels will always have to factor sea lampreys into their decisions. • Invasive species management programs are costly and borne by the taxpayers. 

If sea lampreys have taught us anything it is that prevention of new invaders is 

absolutely critical. Once a species enters an ecosystem and becomes established, few 

tools, if any, exist to manage invasive species let alone eradicate them. In fact, sea 

lampreys are the only aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes that can be controlled, though control is ongoing and expensive. 

It is not clear whether the lessons of the sea lamprey truly have been absorbed. 

Even with all we know about the damage of invasive species, and even though the 

pathways are generally known, precious little has been done to prevent new introductions. Ballast legislation has been pending for nearly a decade; the construction 

of the electrical barrier on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, while progressing, 

has been slow and is still not fully completed after years of wrangling; myriad canals and artificial connections exist between naturally distinct watersheds, leaving 

the Great Lakes region vulnerable to invasions from other parts of the United 

States and, in turn, being a source of invaders; the sea lamprey control budget is 

constantly under assault; and a meaningful process does not exist to assess the risk 

of proposed importations of live organisms or to manage the harmful species that 

have become established. 

It is the last vector—the importation of live organisms—that is the subject of this 

testimony. The Non-native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act presents us with a rare 

opportunity to take a major step toward prevention. 

THE FAILURE OF THE CURRENT REGIME 

Overall, the regime governing the trade of live organisms falls far short of what 

is necessary to protect the United States and the Great Lakes from invasive species. 

A meaningful process does not exist in the United States to assess the risk of organisms for injuriousness prior to importation, to inspect importations, and to properly 

enforce the law. This lack of a regime has left the United States and the Great 

Lakes region extremely vulnerable to biological invasions. 

Importation, interstate commerce, and trade are among the most dangerous pathways for introduction of invasive species into the United States and the Great Lakes 

region. The transportation and sale of live organisms poses considerable risk to the 

biological integrity of the ecosystems they enter. 

Unfortunately, the trade of live organisms poses a significant and increasing risk. 

While a large number of organisms are imported, serious problems and many loopholes in the trade regime exist. Programs for assessing the risk of importing live 

organisms are inconsistent throughout the United States, to the extent they even 

exist at all. Indeed, while states have considerable discretion in regulating live 

aquatic species, neither an overarching strategy nor a consistent, robust policy exist. 

Most states, in fact, have lists of fish species that are prohibited or regulated, but 

those lists tend to be short (Alexander 2004) and not usually based on a rigorous 

review of potential injuriousness. Importers are generally free to bring in live organisms so long as the organisms are not listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

as ‘‘injurious,’’ are not endangered, do not harm human health or livestock, or are 

not governed by other federal agencies or laws (Alexander 2004). Also, while some 

organisms are prohibited because they pose a human health risk, carry disease, or 

harm agriculture and forests, live organisms generally are not screened for potential 

injuriousness to the economy or to ecosystems. Instead, the number of prohibited 

species is quite small, giving importers nearly free-reign to import a large number 

of species. 

Overall, 

• existing federal, state, and local programs that address the trade of live organisms have evolved without coordination and are often reactionary; 

• currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service charges only one person with the 

task of evaluating potentially injurious wildlife species (implementing the Lacey 

Act) while hundreds of species await review; 

36 

• federal and state law enforcement officers are stretched thin, making it virtually impossible for proactive enforcement to occur; • in 2002, only 97 inspectors at the 32 United States ports designated for fish and 

wildlife importations were available to inspect the 223 million live fish that 

were imported; • in the United States, when a shipment of live species arrives, complete inspection is nearly impossible due to the need for expediency; and • most state requirements for licenses to sell live fish lack substance; typically, 

the payment of a fee and a documentation of sales are all that are required. 

The story of three species of Asian carp—the silver, bighead, and black carp— 

present a clear example of how the trade of species can seriously threaten the ecosystem and why a risk assessment process for importation of species is needed. 

Asian carp were imported into the southern United States to keep aquaculture facilities clean and to serve the food fish industry. Grass carp were imported into the 

United States in 1962 from Taiwan and Malaysia. Black carp, native to China, contaminated these shipments and were later intentionally introduced in the 1980s. 

Bighead carp were imported from China in 1972. A year later, in 1973, silver carp 

were brought into the United States from China and eastern Siberia. These nonnative fish escaped from aquaculture facilities during flooding events throughout the 

late 1980s and early 1990s. The floods provided extensive spawning and rearing 

habitat which facilitated high survival rates for offspring. In the early 1990s, the 

presence of these fish in the Arkansas River was reported. 

Since their escape over a decade ago, bighead and silver carp have besieged the 

Mississippi River basin and Illinois River system. Between 1991 and 1993, the 

Upper Mississippi River Long Term Resource Monitoring Program documented a 

100-fold increase in Asian carp numbers in an area known as Pool 26, which is on 

the Illinois River upstream of St. Louis. Commercial harvest of bighead carp in the 

Mississippi River Basin increased from 5.5 tons to 55 tons between 1994 and 1997. 

In the fall of 1999, an investigation of a fish kill in the off-channel waters of a National Wildlife Refuge near St. Louis documented that Asian carp made up 97% of 

the biomass. During this time period, commercial fisherman began reporting that 

they were abandoning their traditional fishing sites because they were unable to lift 

nets that were ‘‘loaded’’ with Asian carp. Between 1999 and 2000, the Upper Mississippi River Long Term Resource Monitoring Problem documented a 600-fold increase in Asian carp numbers in the LaGrange Pool, which is downstream of Peoria, 

IL. Sampling during the summer of 2000 in the off-channel areas and backwaters 

of the Mississippi River downstream from St. Louis documented the presence of bighead carp at a ratio of 5:1 to native paddlefish. They continue to migrate northward 

at a steady pace. 

Asian carp are particularly troubling in that they grow to very large sizes by eating vast quantities of food. An Asian carp is capable of eating 40% of its body weight 

each day. Bighead and silver carp voraciously consume plankton, stripping the food 

web of the key source of food for small and big fish. Black carp are especially worrisome because they have the potential to wipe out native mussel populations in a 

relatively short period of time. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, a four-yearold black carp consumes an average of 3-4 pounds of mussels per day; older, larger 

black carp likely consume more mussels. At this rate of consumption, a single black 

carp could eat more than 10 tons of native mollusks during its life. To make matters 

worse, portions of the Great Lakes are perfectly suited for Asian carp, and biologists 

are very concerned that if Asian carp find their way into the Great Lakes, they will 

make the lakes home, spread, and deprive our most prized species of food. Observing the path of destruction on areas carp have already invaded, biologists are very 

worried indeed. Clearly, these fish have the ability to establish rapidly, reproduce 

in large numbers, and become the dominant species in an ecosystem. Once established, there is little chance fishery managers will be able to control Asian carp. 

Like the sea lamprey, they could well become a permanent element of the Great 

Lakes if they enter the system. 

Existing federal law is inadequate to address the increasing threat posed by injurious species. The primary problem with the United States’ federal program is that 

the Lacey Act—the primary tool the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has to regulate 

harmful organisms—is not focused specifically toward proactively assessing the risk 

of importations before they occur. Implementation of the act has not been as aggressive as is needed, such that only a small number of species are listed as injurious 

under the Lacey Act. In fact, despite the proliferation of injurious species, only three 

families of fishes, one species of crustacean, one species of mollusk, and one reptile 

species are listed under the act. Hundreds await review and the list does not include 

many species that have been banned by state governments. Furthermore, the process for adding to the list is cumbersome. Although the Fish and Wildlife Service has 

37 

the authority to issue emergency regulations, it has generally operated through a 

standard notice and comment process. The average time it takes for the service to 

list a species (from the time it is first proposed) is nearly five years (Fowler et al. 

2007). Species continue to spread and cause harm during that lengthy review process, perhaps making the final listing less meaningful. To make matters worse, the 

Lacey Act creates an almost impossible situation. To be listed under the act, a 

species must be proven to be injurious. To merit listing, a species must be shown 

to cause significant economic and environmental harm. The problem is, to prove 

such harm, the species must be causing damage. By the time such a determination 

is made, the species has likely spread to a point where management would be unfruitful. On the other hand, research has shown that of the species that were not 

in the country prior to a Lacey Act listing, none subsequently became established 

(Fowler et al. 2007). Clearly, proactive prevention, not an ex post facto review, is 

critical. 

As the implementation of the Lacey Act and the lack of an effective risk assessment process demonstrate, most approaches to reducing and eliminating the release 

of aquatic invasive species from pathways involving trade and commerce are reactive rather than preventative. The existing trade regime has left the waters of the 

United States extremely vulnerable. Overall, a lack of sufficient resources to complete the cumbersome process to list species as injurious, and the lack of an effective 

risk assessment process to evaluate proposed importations, promote this vulnerability. 

The current catastrophic floods in the Midwest offer another stark reminder of 

how exposed the United States remains to escapement. In addition to the human 

misery and enormous economic damage that are the result of these floods, the environmental harm is staggering and includes the spread of non-native species when 

aquaculture facilities are inundated. No fewer than 19 fish species are raised in 

aquaculture facilities in the State of Iowa alone, many in facilities near the Mississippi River flood plain. Some of the species raised (e.g., tilapia, grass carp, hybrid 

striped bass, blue and flathead catfish) are not present in the Great Lakes; some 

are not even indigenous to North America. 

THE GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COLLABORATION 

Addressing the invasive species threat is a top priority for the Great Lakes region, 

Congress, and the administration. In May, 2004, President Bush called for the development of a comprehensive Great Lakes restoration plan and identified invasive 

species as one of eight focal points. The ‘‘Great Lakes Regional Collaboration’’—comprising representatives of government agencies at all levels, industry, the public, 

and non-government organizations—was formed to develop the restoration plan, 

which was submitted to government in December, 2005. Implementing the provisions contained in the restoration plan has been a challenge, with few major recommendations fulfilled. The Non-native Wildlife Prevention Act, if enacted, would 

address several key recommendations. 

The Great Lakes Fishery Commission actively participated in this large endeavor 

by co-chairing the Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Strategy Team of the regional collaboration. The AIS team had the responsibility of developing the invasive species 

portion of the restoration plan. More than 1000 people participated in the Great 

Lakes Regional Collaboration and more than 150 people were a part of the AIS 

Strategy Team. The recommendations were developed by consensus. 

The threat posed by the lack of a risk assessment process for the importation of 

live species was a major component of the AIS action plan. The complete report of 

the ‘‘organisms in trade’’ subcommittee of the AIS Strategy Team is included as an 

appendix to this testimony. The recommendations are summarized as follows: 

‘‘Federal and state governments must take immediate steps to prevent the introduction and spread of AIS through the trade and potential release of live organisms. 

Specifically governments should: 

• implement...a federal screening process for organisms proposed for trade; 

• [mandate] that the screening process...classify species proposed for trade into 

three lists—prohibited, permitted, and conditionally prohibited/permitted; 

• develop a list of species of concern for the Great Lakes basin and an immediate 

moratorium by the States on the trade of species on that list, until the species 

are screened and approved for trade; 

• develop and implement risk models for organisms in aquaculture. 

• clearly state that the screening process established must place the burden of 

proof of non-injuriousness on the importer; 

• allocate sufficient resources to heighten the number of species under the Lacey 

Act as ‘‘injurious,’’ to prevent the interstate transportation of harmful species; 

38 

the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) should list black, bighead, and silver carps 

as injurious under the Lacey Act; and • significantly increase resources for the enforcement of laws governing the trade 

of live organisms.’’ 

THE NON-NATIVE WILDLIFE INVASION PREVENTION ACT 

A bill introduced by Chairwoman Madeleine Bordallo—H.R. 6311, the Non-native 

Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act—is welcomed legislation and badly needed. I commend Representatives Abercrombie, Kildee, Klein, Hastings, Kind, and McCollum 

for being original co-sponsors. As globalization continues to drive world trade regimes and policies, governments must redouble their efforts to eliminate the risk of 

dispersing harmful organisms. This legislation takes a significant step towards that 

goal. The legislation establishes a risk assessment process for organisms proposed 

for importation, closing a major vector for invasive species into the United States 

and the Great Lakes region. The legislation also fulfills many of the recommendations of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration’s AIS Strategy Team. The Great 

Lakes Fishery Commission has reviewed this legislation and supports it. 

The bill has many positive points: 

• The bill calls upon the Secretary of Interior to promulgate regulations that establish a process to assess the risk of all non-native wildlife proposed for importation into the United States before the organisms are imported. The bill clearly 

outlines several factors that the secretary must consider to assess the risk of 

organisms proposed for importation. The list of factors is solid and protective, 

as it calls upon the secretary to consider such factors as the potential of the 

species to become established, the potential injuriousness to new ecosystems in 

the United States, and the likelihood that pathogens could accompany the imported species. 

• The bill establishes both ‘‘clean’’ and ‘‘dirty’’ lists of species and only those 

species on the clean list can be imported. This is a major, positive element of 

the legislation, as experience has shown that reliance only on ‘‘dirty’’ lists alone 

does not provide the level of protection needed. For instance, a major shortcoming of the Lacey Act is that it is basically a ‘‘dirty’’ list; species that do not 

appear on the list are approved for importation (so long as they are not on other 

prohibited lists such as those governing endangered species). To make matters 

worse, not all imported or harmful species are scrutinized, only those are that 

have proven to be injurious and that have been petitioned to be added to the 

list (though the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can initiate a review as well). 

In contrast, by relying on a ‘‘clean’’ and a ‘‘dirty’’ list approach, this legislation 

is proactive and complete in its review of proposed importations. Only species 

that have been scrutinized and included on the ‘‘clean’’ list will be allowed. 

The ‘‘grandfather clause,’’ under the heading ‘‘animals imported prior to prohibition,’’ is reasonable, as it allows individuals to continue to posses (but not rear) organisms that have been imported legally. In theory, organisms that were imported 

legally, but later prove to be injurious, should be addressed by the Lacey Act. However, problems with implementing the Lacey Act have precluded effective management of injurious species. The process to list a species under the Lacey Act as injurious is cumbersome, slow, and often ineffective in preventing the spread of an organism. The process proposed in the Non-native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act is 

far superior to what we’ve experienced under the Lacey Act. 

The legislation clearly states that in assessing the proposed species, the secretary 

must determine that the species is not harmful to the economy, the environment, 

or human or animal health. By demonstrating a lack of harm—as opposed to demonstrating harm—the burden of proof is stronger and more appropriately placed. 

History has demonstrated that simply expecting a species to not escape or invade 

an ecosystem is foolhardy. One must assume the worst unless proven otherwise. 

The legislation creates an open, transparent process whereby the organisms are 

assessed. By mandating the publication of proposals in the Federal Register and by 

requiring input from interested parties, this legislation gives those with pertinent 

information, or those affected by the proposed listing, an opportunity to be heard. 

The Secretary of Interior will have some discretion about how, exactly, the risk assessment process will be established, and, once this legislation is enacted, the commission urges the establishment of a robust process that involves peer reviews, application of the best science available, consultation with other government agencies 

and university experts, and periodic improvement. The commission also urges that 

any process that is established be capable of undertaking the assessments in a quick 

and efficient manner. 

The bill provides the secretary with emergency authority to act if a species poses 

a serious and imminent threat. Such authority, also granted under the Lacey Act, 

39 

is essential and, in fact, was important in the response a few years ago to the 

escapement of snakehead. 

The legislation allows the states to be more protective of their ecosystems than 

the federal government. For most states, a strong federal policy is appropriate, as 

the federal government can oversee a national process to protect all of the United 

States. In other cases, however, states may wish to put in place special, unique protections for their ecosystems. This legislation allows states the flexibility to go beyond what the federal government requires, while still maintaining a national foundation of protection. 

I respectfully offer the following comments for improvement or clarification: 

• The legislation should clarify what should happen if a species is assessed but 

not enough information is available to state conclusively whether the species 

should be on the ‘‘clean’’ or the ‘‘dirty’’ list. While the legislation is clear that 

only species on the ‘‘clean’’ list can be imported, the legislation does not provide 

direction to the secretary about how to decide on which list to place a species 

when that choice does not present itself unambiguously during the risk assessment process. It appears the intent of the legislation is that such a species not 

be allowed for importation, but that intent should be explicit. An option would 

be to state that the secretary shall place the species on the ‘‘dirty’’ list until 

more information is presented. Another option would be to create an interim list 

(often called a ‘‘grey’’ list), where such species would be prohibited, but placed 

on the list until further scrutiny can be applied. The ‘‘grey’’ list approach has 

worked in many states and in other countries and would dissuade the reviewer 

from simply placing a species on an approved list for expediency or lack of information. 

• The penalties and enforcement provisions of this act rely on the penalty and 

enforcement provisions of the Lacey Act. While the Lacey Act is one of the 

strongest laws on the books with respect to wildlife enforcement, the stronger 

penalties are rarely imposed and are often too low to dissuade behavior. Moreover, Lacey Act penalties are tied to the market value of the species that were 

imported, not the potential harm to an ecosystem. For instance, a violator could 

be fined based on the value of his shipment of fish (which might be small, but 

still large enough to establish a population) rather than the impact the fish 

would have on the environment. The committee is urged to consider improving 

the law enforcement provisions to ensure that this act serves as an effective deterrent and that penalties are truly commensurate with the threat to the ecosystem. 

• The section establishing fees to recover the costs of the risk assessment process 

is important, as it requires the recovery of the costs of assessing the risk of 

species for the ‘‘clean’’ list. However, the legislation does not specify that the 

fee should be collected from those who propose an importation; the bill should 

be specific as such. Moreover, the bill should be more explicit about not requiring fees from citizens who petition for a species to be included on the ‘‘dirty’’ 

list. Such citizens are petitioning for the public good and, therefore, should not 

be dissuaded from asking for a species to be evaluated. 

• The legislation does not include enforcement as a recoverable cost under the fee 

collection system and, therefore, the commission assumes that the service would 

have to find enforcement funds from within its regular budget, or request funds 

from Congress. We have learned from the implementation of the Lacey Act that 

even a strong, well-intentioned law is not implemented optimally if enforcement 

is not funded adequately. While it would be overly optimistic to expect every 

shipment of live organisms to be inspected, additional training and enforcement 

will be necessary to implement this legislation. More law enforcement officials 

will be required to be present at points of entry, law enforcement officials will 

require training to identify different types of species, and fines will have to be 

sufficient to deter lawbreakers. The committee should consider adding a specific 

‘‘authorization of appropriations’’ for implementation or to specify that the fees 

should be sufficient to cover enforcement, as well as the risk assessment 

process. 

ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION ISSUE 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife certainly does not have to start from square-one when 

it comes to considering processes for assessing the risk of live organisms. Several 

models for risk assessment and management are in various stages of development. 

Such screening tools, though primarily developed for state use, would certainly support and complement the provisions of this legislation. 

That said, implementation will be a significant undertaking, and the Great Lakes 

Fishery Commission remains concerned that the service will not have adequate reVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:12 Jan 30, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\43302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
40 

sources to do the job. The legislation calls upon the service to assess the risk of all 

organisms proposed for importation. It is expected that the initial list for review 

could be in the hundreds, if not thousands, of species. The legislation establishes 

a process to collect fees, which the commission supports, and urges the service, 

when this legislation is passed, to not let the potential cost of the undertaking deter 

the establishment of a robust, transparent risk assessment process. 

The commission believes it is worth considering a recommendation by the Ecological Society of America that risk assessment processes could be undertaken by ‘‘independent organizations that are authorized to certify that species for sale are not 

likely to be invasive’’ (Lodge et al. 2006, p. 2042). While the intent of this recommendation might have been to encourage industry organizations (e.g., importers) 

to proactively and voluntarily assess the risk of organisms, this recommendation 

could also be used to add additional expertise and capacity in implementing the 

large task of screening organisms. 

COORDINATION WITH CANADA 

Although this legislation is limited to importations into the United States, other 

countries—primarily Canada and Mexico—will play a critical role in protecting connected ecosystems. Indeed, just as a national policy is needed because organisms 

spread from state to state, an international approach is needed to keep harmful organisms from migrating among contiguous countries. 

Like the current situation in the United States, federal statutory authority does 

not exist in Canada which targets invasive species directly or explicitly. However, 

also like the United States, the importation of certain species is prohibited into Canada for health or disease reasons. Legislation, Bill C-32, is pending before the Canadian House of Commons that would grant the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans additional authority to manage invasive species. The bill also authorizes the Governor 

in Council ‘‘to make regulations for the conservation or protection of fish or fish 

habitat, including regulations for controlling aquatic invasive species, which in turn 

include regulations respecting the export of members of such species, their import, 

and their transport.’’ While this legislation does not explicitly establish a risk assessment process, it does call for imports to be managed. The pending legislation 

in Canada, thus, is in the same spirit as the Non-native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act and it is the commission’s expectation that the legislation in both countries, 

together, will inspire a coordinated approach. 

Moreover, the Mississippi Panel on Invasive Species has developed a risk assessment/risk management process that includes a risk assessment tool for use by U.S. 

states. This tool could be useful nationally and, as was discussed during a recent 

meeting of the Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and 

Management (comprising officials from Canada, Mexico, and the United States), 

North America-wide. The hope is to develop one day a standardized protocol for risk 

assessment that could be used by all North American jurisdictions. 

CONCLUSION 

The Non-native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act is sound legislation and, when 

implemented, will do much to protect the ecosystems of the United States. The legislation is well-conceived, is designed to close a major gap in invasive species control 

policy, and is generally consistent with the recommendations of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. The commission appreciates its introduction and urges its enactment. Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to offer my thoughts about 

your bill.q 

REFERENCES 

Alexander, Ann. 2004. Proposed solutions and legal tools to address regulatory gaps 

relating to commerce in exotic live fish affecting the Great Lakes ecosystem. In 

Report to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (phases I and II). Chicago: Environmental Law and Policy Center. 

Fowler, Andrea J., David M. Lodge, and Jennifer F. Hsia. 2007. Failure of the Lacey 

Act to protect U.S. ecosystems against animal invasions. Front Ecol Environ 5 

(7):353-359. 

Glassner-Shwayder, Katherine. 2007. Testimony presented by Katherine GlassnerShwayder, Great Lakes Commission, September 27, 2007. Subcommittee on 

Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans, Committee on Natural Resources. 

IAGLR. 2008. Research and Management Priorities for Aquatic Invasive Species in 

the Great Lakes, at http://iaglr.org/scipolicy/ais/background.php: International 

Association for Great Lakes Research. Accessed June 20, 2008. 

Livengood, E.J., and F.A. Chapman. 2007. The ornamental fish trade: An introduction with perspectives for responsible aquarium fish ownership: University of 

Florida IFAS Extension. 

41 

Lodge, David M. 2007. Testimony by David M. Lodge, University of Notre Dame, 

September 27, 2007. Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans, Committee on Natural Resources. 

Lodge, David M., Susan Williams, Hugh J. MacIsaac, Keith R. Hayes, Brian Leung, 

Sarah Reichard, Richard N. Mack, Peter B. Moyle, Maggie Smith, David A. 

Andow, James T. Carlton, and Anthony McMichael. 2006. Biological invasions: 

Recommendations for U.S. policy and management. Ecological Applications 16 

(6):2035-2054. 

Mills, Edward L., Joseph H. Leach, James Carlton, and Carol Secor. 1993. Exotic 

species in the Great Lakes: A history of biotic crises and anthropogenic introductions. Journal of Great Lakes Research 19 (1):1-54. 

Padilla, Dianna, and Susan Williams. 2004. Beyond ballast water: Aquarium and ornamental trades as sources of invasive species in aquatic ecosystems. Frontiers 

in Ecology and the Environment 2 (3):131-138. 

Ricciardi, Anthony. 2001. Facilitative interactions among aquatic invaders: Is an 

’invasional meltdown’ occurring in the Great Lakes? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 58:2513-2525. 

Sturtevant, Rochelle, David F. Reid, Anthony Ricciardi, Rebekah Kipp, and Pam 

Fuller. 2008. Great Lakes aquatic nonindigenous species list, online at http:// 

www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/Programs/ncrais/greatllakesllist.html: National Center for Research on Aquatic Invasive Species, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, accessed June 23, 2008 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Dr. Gaden, for your careful consideration of this legislation, especially as related to the 

Great Lakes. 

Next, I would like to invite Mr. Horne to present his testimony. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE HORNE, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE RESOURCES, 

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 

Mr. HORNE. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I am 

the Deputy Executive Director of the South Florida Water Management District, Operations and Maintenance Division. Thank you 

for inviting me to speak. 

The South Florida Water Management District manages oneand-a-quarter-million acres of land for various ecosystem benefits. 

We have 2,000 miles of canals and associated levees. We manage 

for flood control, water supply, and environmental enhancement. 

In a time when we are concerned with national security and have 

strengthened our nation’s laws to deal with outside threats to our 

country, we find ourselves in Florida being quickly overrun with 

outside threats which have very little regulation. 

You may ask what that is. Well, it is the spread or escape of released exotic animals. Research has proven that a five percent reduction of a species changes the ecosystem. In Florida, we are currently dealing with 30 percent of our wildlife that is exotic. 

Our canal systems and levees have become safe conduits, or 

highways, if you will, for their range extensions. The environmental threat that we are facing is they change the food web. The 

predator-prey relationship is changed, and, indeed, our predators 

have become the prey. They bring parasites and diseases. 

We have infrastructure concerns. We have sailfin catfish digging 

on the inside of reservoirs, digging burrows, and iguanas on the 

outside digging, which can cause the failure of those levees. 

We have had workforce impacts. We have had python inside our 

pump stations, and, indeed, chased one of our employees back to 

a vehicle when they were doing water sampling. 

42 

There is damage to agriculture, and I think this is probably one 

of the worst things. They are consuming our endangered and 

threatened species. We know, and can confirm, they are eating 

wood rats, wood storks, burrowing owls, and gopher tortoises, as 

well as many other species that are out there. 

In the fishing industry, there are areas where guides are only 

taking people out to catch exotic fish because that is all that exists 

in that particular area. 

But our biggest threat of all is the python. In the past four 

months, the South Florida Water Management District, in the Everglades National Park, has removed 32 pythons in a five-mile 

stretch in the heart of the Everglades, for a total of about 826 

pounds of body mass. 

Professor Stephen Secor of the University of Alabama determined in a lab that for every 2.2 pounds of body weight in the 

python, it takes 6.6 pounds of prey to sustain that. This suggests 

that the pythons removed in that five-mile area have consumed 1.4 

tons, one and a quarter tons, of native mammals, birds, and reptiles. 

The state and the Federal government are trying to protect those 

and restore the Everglades, but it is going to be an issue for us, 

particularly since one of our indicators for restoration is bird 

counts, and if they get into a rookery, they are going to stay there 

until they eat all of the birds. 

What is sobering is those snakes were about three to seven years 

old. They live to be 25 years old. So you can only imagine how 

many. The climatological map shows that these creatures can live 

across the entire southern tier of the U.S. and almost as far north 

as Washington, D.C., and there are probably already subpopulations that exist in other areas where they have been released. 

In closing, we, the South Florida Water Management District, 

encourage the passage of this legislation. We currently spend $25 

million for the control of exotic plants, and we have no budget for 

exotic animals. These animals are not essential to our survival, yet 

they impact and overwhelm our nature ecosystem and eliminate 

species that are totally unique to South Florida. This is to say 

nothing of the countless migratory birds that winter in our area 

and pass through during the migration, as well as many socioeconomic impacts to sport fishing, to tourism, to agriculture. 

We view this as the first real control step to ensure our precious 

natural resources are not destroyed, and thank you for inviting me 

to be here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horne follows:] 

Statement of George Horne, Deputy Executive Director, 

Operations and Maintenance, South Florida Water Management District 

Madam Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee 

on a matter of great importance to the South Florida Water Management District, 

specifically H.R. 6311, ‘‘the Non-Native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act.’’ I am 

George Horne, Deputy Executive Director of Operations and Maintenance for the 

South Florida Water Management District. Our regional agency maintains 2,000 

miles of flood protection and water management canals in South Florida’s 16 counties and is actively engaged in many initiatives to protect and restore the South 

Florida ecosystem, which includes Lake Okeechobee, the second largest lake in the 

southeastern U.S. and America’s Everglades. We have a long history of successful 

invasive plant management and experience, but only recently have we had to comVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:12 Jan 30, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\43302.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
43 

mit more and more resources to the emerging populations of non-native animals appearing across our landscape. If effective preventative programs were in place to 

limit introductions of non-native animals, such as the legislation now under consideration, these much-needed taxpayer-funded resources could be re-directed to other 

important resource management efforts. Today, however, the negative impacts from 

the unlimited importation of new pest animals require active responses on our part. 

Effective prevention of additional introductions, as proposed in this bill, is the only 

path to prevent these costs from continually increasing. 

While Florida, California and Hawaii are currently among the states most impacted by introduced invasive species, every state is affected. Globally, exotic 

invasive species, including pest animals, weeds and pathogenic diseases are a major 

cause of global biodiversity decline. In particular, non-native animals compete for 

food and habitat, upset existing predator/prey relationship, degrade environmental 

quality, spread diseases and, in our case, may threaten the integrity of flood protection levees and canal banks, and electrical power delivery. Nationally, more than 

50,000 species of introduced plants, animals and microbes cause more than $120 billion in damages and control costs each year (Pimentel 2005). Already, 192 non-native animal species are established in Florida, calling for the development of methods to forecast and respond to the potential economic loss, environmental damage 

and social stress caused by invasives whether new introductions or long-established 

organisms. Collaborative management, education, training and broadening public 

awareness along with baseline population analyses may provide a foundation for 

building effective control strategies and tools. Several states, including California, 

Hawaii and Idaho are currently devising non-native animal invasion prevention programs and/or lists. The federal initiatives included in the bill could serve to unify 

and standardize these efforts and provide a critical framework to evaluate current 

and potential problems. 

Specific Support for H.R. 6311 ‘‘The Non-Native Wildlife Invasion 

Prevention Act’’ 

The South Florida Water Management District supports the underlying premise 

of the draft language. Establishing compulsory risk assessments and a ‘‘clean list’’ 

of approved species represents a needed and important step for regulating the flow 

of potentially harmful non-native wildlife into the United States. Our specific comments on the draft bill include: 

• Inclusion of a ‘‘gray list’’ of provisionally-approved species. Such a list could 

limit trade in species for which inadequate information exists to call for their 

complete prohibition. The animals to watch list could be used to assess their 

full importation risks. Requirements could mandate that these animals be imported and kept only under special containment. This action would allow fair 

commerce while not allowing unlimited importation of a potentially harmful 

species. 

• The Non-Native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Fund, as proposed, is critical to 

the success of this initiative. 

• The emergency rule provision, giving authority to temporarily place a species 

on the unapproved list, is another vital component of the draft legislation. This 

would prevent the establishment of potentially harmful animals while scientific 

and official processes proceed. 

• The draft language correctly protects existing pets from being confiscated if that 

species is later prohibited from importation. This ‘‘grandfathering’’ clause 

should ease concerns of pet owners who legally purchased exotic animals. 

Current Measures 

In 2005, Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission created an invasive 

animals management section. One of their key recommendations led to a new Florida rule limiting commerce in ‘‘reptiles of concern’’ including the world’s five largest 

non-venomous snakes and the carnivorous Nile monitor. These animals were selected as most threatening because of their large size and extreme predatory natures. Now in force in Florida Administrative Code, the rule requires $100 annual 

possession permits and they must be identified via implanted microchip. Prior to 

this action, however, these species were already present in Florida’s pet commerce 

and, to varying degrees, have been reported in Florida’s wilds. In fact, Burmese 

pythons are now thoroughly established in South Florida’s natural areas and already number from several thousands to more than 100,000. Uncertainty remains 

regarding their actual population and a comprehensive assessment of their numbers 

across the region would significantly help eradication. Currently, the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s exotic animals section is engaged in serious 

44 

management efforts against species present only in isolated areas and in small populations. Broader management efforts would benefit from federal engagement. 

Introduction Pathways—Florida’s Pets on the Loose 

In Florida, the introduction of invasive pest animals has primarily been through 

the pet trade. Other pathways of introduction include overseas transport of ballast 

water which has introduced zebra and quagga mussels to North America. These 

Asian mussels imperil our aquatic ecosystems and clog commercial and public utility 

intakes and processes. Accidentally imported within cargo pallet wood, the Asian 

longhorn beetles now threatens North American hardwood trees. But, to date, Florida’s most threatening vertebrate pests have come to us via the pet trade. 

Whether accidentally or intentionally released, when an animal succeeds in establishing a new population in South Florida the impacts may be broad and devastating or they may barely be detected. Better predictive methods would sufficiently gauge the risk posed by specific animals before they are regularly imported 

and bred as pets. Screening and risk assessment methods are imperfect, but must 

be developed. Several nations, including Australia and New Zealand, already have 

implemented pre-import screening and risk analysis systems that proscribe import 

of potentially harmful animals. Further, new economics research indicates that 

proactive screening measures can be economically beneficial in the long run for nations that implement them. These programs may provide valuable guidelines and 

lesson learned in the control of exotic animals. 

Building upon the successes of other nations, this legislation and related funding 

would enable us to better regulate imports and determine the appropriate levels of 

limitations. Practices can be developed without tremendous adverse impacts on the 

pet industry and yield savings to taxpayers and decreased threats to the environment. 

Public Education 

Public education programs can be creative, such as the nationally-branded 

HabitattitudeTM effort led by the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. This program advises the public at pet shops never to release exotic aquatic fish and plants 

into any U.S. waters. Yet, releases continue regularly as evidenced by frequent appearances of new species in U.S. waters. 

Sailfin catfish from South America appeared only within the past decade in Lake 

Okeechobee. Commonly sold as ‘‘plecostomus’’ as a fish tank ‘‘vacuum cleaner,’’ these 

fish dig deep burrows in sediments and potentially threaten the integrity of canal 

banks and flood protection levees. They are also overtaking areas of rocky lake bottom, depriving native fish of their preferred spawning sites. The ultimate impacts 

of the establishment of this species in South Florida are still unknown, but many 

thousands of the fish already inhabit our lakes and canals, disrupting commercial 

fishing and displacing natives. 

The actions specified in this bill would strongly influence the public to recognize 

the risk inherent in releasing exotic pets into our natural areas and better support 

the effectiveness of programs such as HabitattitudeTM. 

Public Health Concerns 

Invasive vertebrate pests may also harbor other threatening organisms such as 

parasites and disease. The three-pound African pouch rat has become established 

on Grassy Key in the Florida Keys and serves as a vector for African monkey pox 

virus. The first human infections from this virus were reported in Africa in the 

1970s, arising from contact with monkeys and rodents. In the U.S., this virus was 

first reported infecting humans in 2003 and was traced to contact with pet African 

pouch rats. Fortunately, monkey pox is rarely a serious disease for humans with 

symptoms similar to mild chicken pox or smallpox. But, this disease spread to our 

shores directly as a result of importation of the African pouch rat as pets. What 

other species will be imported carrying currently unknown diseases or parasites? 

Innovations Needed 

There may be creative solutions that enable trade in some otherwise invasive 

species. For instance, Asian grass carp are legal for use in aquatic weed control in 

Florida only when the fish are certified as triply-chromosomed, sterile varieties created by treatments of the eggs. Research is needed to identify how other species 

could be rendered unable to establish wild populations. Tropical species could be 

legal for sale only outside their climate tolerance range, only males of a species may 

be legal for sale, or sterile hybrids may be developed. It is simply too irresponsible 

and too dangerous to keep trading in pest organisms capable of unlimited spread 

when, with appropriate research, credible ways may be found to allow trade in some 

of these species. 

45 

Management Case History: Brown Tree Snake 

The Australian brown tree snake made its way to the U.S. territory of Guam in 

the late 1940s, most likely as stowaway in airplane cargo. This relatively small, nocturnal snake quickly spread and has devastated the island’s native bird, lizard and 

flying fox populations, resulting in numerous extirpations of species. Also, brown 

tree snakes routinely climb across power lines leading to outages as the lines short 

circuit. There is promise for management of brown tree snakes, but only after decades of environmental and economic losses. Development of management methods 

has taken decades as the biology and susceptibilities of this snake were researched. 

One current management method involves baiting the snakes with mice treated 

with toxic doses of acetaminophen, although serious challenges remain such as how 

to place such baits in vast areas of isolated forest. 

Select Invasive Species in South Florida 

South American Apple Snails 

Several species of South American apple snail are established in South Florida 

waters. The largest of these is the island apple snail reaching tennis ball size and 

producing many times more eggs than the smaller, native Florida apple snail. In 

Asia, these voracious mollusks are known to strip rice fields and wetlands of vegetation. They are displacing our native Florida apple snail with sheer overwhelming 

numbers and reported predation upon the native snail. Apple snails are the sole 

food of the Federally-endangered Everglade snail kite. Lake Tohopekaliga, an 

18,000-acre located in Central Florida, now harbors thousands of island apple 

snails. During recent years of drought, this lake has been a critical refuge for snail 

kites. Because the exotic snails are larger, heavier and stronger than the native 

snail young snail kites have difficulty lifting and opening them to extract their 

meat. As a result, many young kites are not surviving to maturity there. Also, Lake 

Munson in the Florida panhandle was historically heavily vegetated, yet today has 

no vegetation due to the snail’s arrival and proliferation. Rice crops in South Florida 

and the vast wetlands of the Everglades may become fodder to this rapidly spreading, readily reproducing pest snail. 

Monk Parakeets 

The South American monk parakeet is firmly established in South Florida, perhaps numbering as many as 150,000. To date, their numbers have doubled roughly 

every five years. Stable North American populations of the bird may also be found 

from Connecticut to Colorado. They breed rapidly and extensively damage grain, 

fruit and citrus crops in their native Argentina. As escaped pets in South Florida, 

they readily establish breeding colonies and build large colonial nests, often choosing power poles and niches in power substations and transformers. The accumulated 

nest materials damage power transmission hardware with accumulated humidity 

and serve as sources of ignition. Significant crop damages seem inevitable, but have 

not yet been documented in Florida. They are outlawed in many states, yet thousands are still sold annually in others. Enacting this bill will provide a standardized, nationwide mechanism for limiting further incursions of this species. 

Burmese Python 

Upfront prevention of the introduction of new pests will not only prevent damages 

to natural areas but would also preclude economic loss stemming from an injurious 

species’ gaining economic value in the pet trade only to be regulated later. For instance, the Burmese python is a top predator that is known to prey upon more than 

twenty native Florida species. Notable among these are the federally-listed Key 

Largo wood rat, white tailed deer, American alligator, bobcat and numerous wading 

birds common to the Everglades. Our agency is deeply committed to preserving and 

restoring South Florida’s environmental health and, unfortunately, the Everglades 

ecosystem is now home to these exotic snakes. Attempts to manage Burmese 

pythons divert taxpayers’ funds from these other urgent primary restoration and 

protection tasks. Yet, failure to do so will leave this aggressive animal as a serious 

impediment to our Everglades restoration progress. This python also threatens agricultural interests as small livestock are also likely prey. In 2008, USGS published 

a climate tolerance model predicting that this snake will likely survive throughout 

most Southeastern states and westward across the southern reaches of the country 

to the Pacific. 

Adverse experience already gained in Florida strongly indicates the need to regulate the importation and sale of this snake. The significant value of current sales 

of this snake would be affected if commerce in the species is regulated. Such economic loss could have been avoided if the Burmese python had earlier been identified as a serious potential pest and trade had focused on less threatening snakes. 

46 

Green Iguana 

Central American green iguanas already number in the hundreds of thousands in 

South Florida. They are herbivores and prefer riparian sites where they dig extensive burrows on slopes such as highway embankments, canal banks and flood protection levees. The resulting erosion threatens canals and levees critical for flood 

control and water management. Their burgeoning numbers in South Florida recently spurred Palm Beach County commissioners to petition the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission to add them to the State list of regulated ‘‘Reptiles of Concern.’’ They are sold for as little as $5 in area pet stores. 

Spiny-Tailed Iguana 

South American spiny-tailed iguanas are also established in Florida and are 

known to occupy the burrows of the federally-threatened gopher tortoise. Further, 

the USDA Wildlife Services has confirmed that this lizard preys on juvenile gopher 

tortoises. This is another aggressive predator threatening South Florida’s environmental preservation and restoration goals. 

Nile Monitor 

The African Nile monitor is now established in a 20-square-mile area around 

Cape Coral, Florida. This lizard grows to seven feet and is highly aquatic, climbs 

well and runs very quickly. It consumes a large variety of prey including the Stateprotected burrowing owl. Stomach content analyses also indicate that the Nile monitor is a voracious egg eater, raising serious alarm for many of Florida’s threatened 

native animals that are egg-bearing and/or occupy burrows. Wildlife biologists consider the Nile monitor to be a serious threat to gopher tortoises, burrowing owls, 

Florida gopher frogs and other ground nesting species. According to the USFWS 

Law Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS), there were more than 

60,000 Nile monitors imported through Florida’s ports between 2000 and 2004. 

Conclusion 

While the South Florida Water Management District and other agencies try to 

contain the documented damage and growing threat of existing invasive animals in 

Florida, the flow of potentially harmful exotic animals into the state continues. For 

example, nearly 1,000 venomous puff adders were imported through Florida’s ports 

between 2000 and 2005 (LEMIS data). This African viper is common in its native 

range and is considered to be one of Africa’s most dangerous snakes. The Oriental 

water dragon is another popular imported species with a potential for establishment 

in south Florida. Between 2000 and 2005, more than 210,000 Oriental water dragons were imported through Florida ports (LEMIS data). More effective tools are 

needed to accurately predict if either of these reptile species will become established 

in Florida. Our state appears to offer an agreeable climate for both species and their 

broad feeding preferences suggest they are likely to adapt readily to our subtropical 

setting. Rather than wait for the next Burmese python or zebra mussel to become 

established in the United States, a proactive approach such as the proposed legislation being discussed today is urgently needed to protect our environment, economy 

and quality of life—not just in Florida but throughout the nation. 

Citations 

Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United 

States. Ecological Economics 52:273-288. 

Rodda, G. H., et al. 2007. Climate matching as a tool for predicting potential North 

American spread of brown treesnakes. In: Proc. of managing vertebrate invasive 

species symposium. 7-9 august 2007, Ft. Collins, CO. USDA APHIS Wildlife 

Services, Ft. Collins, CO. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Horne, especially for 

the attachment, which we have shared up here with the Members 

of the Committee, which shows the types of invasive species you 

have to manage in South Florida. 

Mr. Meyers, it is now your turn to testify, so please begin. 

47 

STATEMENT OF MARSHALL MEYERS, EXECUTIVE VICE 

PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, PET INDUSTRY JOINT 

ADVISORY COUNCIL 

Mr. MEYERS. Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, 

I appreciate being invited to testify, though I feel like I am the lone 

gladiator in a lion’s den, being the only industry member here 

today. 

The pet industry, like other industries, is dependent on the importation of nonnative species. The invasive species issue is not 

new to our industry. Our involvement dates back to the early seventies, when the Service desired to ban all nonnatives until proven 

innocent. This bill could cause the same result. It places an untenable burden on the trade, as well as the Service, to scientifically 

prove the unprovable, a negative: the absence of harm. 

Absent a crystal ball, it is impossible to prove conclusively that 

no harm has ever occurred, nor will ever occur, anywhere in the 

United States. 

Moreover, the Service has never been provided the resources, 

human or financial, to adequately implement existing programs. 

Until that is accomplished, this approach here will only cripple an 

already faltering program. 

To provide some semblance of scale, thousands of nonnative 

species, involving hundreds and hundreds of millions of specimens, 

have been in the pet trade for decades. The overwhelming majority 

have never established feral populations. Even fewer have been 

demonstrated to have caused harm. 

If 6311 is enacted, the Service would face a managerial nightmare. Assuming, arguendo, that the science was available to enable 

the risk-assessment process outlined in the bill, the Service would 

not be physically capable to complete a sufficient number of species 

assessments within the mandated time limits and permit industry 

to continue operating, or even put the oysters in the Chesapeake 

Bay, in the Gulf, or in Puget Sound. 

Currently, it takes an average of four years to list a species as 

injurious, yet the Service is to establish multiple lists, possibly for 

thousands of species, in a scientifically credible and justifiable 

manner, within a 24-to-37-month period if trade is not to be crippled. 

We urge the Committee to take into consideration the recommendations in the Invasive Species Management Plan incorporating the ANSTF concepts submitted to Congress in 1994. A 

phased-in screening approach, we supported then and support 

today, consisting of Phase 1, Federal agencies working with stakeholders to screen species proposed for first-time imports; and, 

Phase 2, the process would broaden to include systematic screening 

of species in trade without disrupting the trade. 

This approach was proposed in several bills amending the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act. It called for establishing a 

catalog of organisms in trade. Species not in the catalog would be 

first-time introductions. Species in the catalog could still be subject 

to an assessment while trade continued. It was a clear and easy 

way to not disrupt trade while a screening went on. 

48 

We also urge the Committee to clearly incorporate risk analysis 

into the way forward. While that may have been what was intended in 6311, it is clearly absent. 

Risk assessment is only one part of the process. Equally important is requiring the identification of measures that can be implemented to reduce or manage these risks, risk management, taking 

into account socioeconomic and cultural considerations. That means 

also looking at benefits, as well as harm, and should not be excluded from the analysis. We urge you to make that part of any 

congressionally mandated process. 

I will briefly touch on several sections in the bill that cause some 

concerns. 

Section 3 mandates specific listing factors but offers no direction 

on how those factors must be evaluated. There is a reasonable inference, however, that a positive finding of one or more of those factors is sufficient to prohibit import. Far greater statutory clarity is 

required. Would most nonnatives be banned if shown there is a 

likelihood that ‘‘environmental conditions suitable for the establishment or spread exist anywhere in the United States’’? 

Marine organisms would be banned in Kansas because they 

might become established in Hawaiian waters. A parakeet would 

be banned in Minnesota because it can survive in South Florida. 

Section 4[c] provides for adding species to the list in a reasonable 

time period. Absent inserting a prescribed timeframe for action, 

‘‘reasonable’’ means it simply will not happen. 

Equally troublesome are the prescribed deadlines to implement 

the process. We think they are simply unrealistic. History has demonstrated time and again that agencies seldom comply with such 

congressionally mandated timeframes. 

The prohibition and penalties section needs to be revisited carefully. Clarity is required since violators face felony sanctions. 

The fee-based risk assessment system is fraught with problems 

which will result in rank discrimination, and small business just 

cannot compete. It is an expensive undertaking. 

A clear definition of ‘‘wildlife’’ is essential in Section 11. Some 

animals, icons of the American family, such as cats, are technically 

nonnative species. 

So, in conclusion, the debate here is not whether invasives is a 

valid issue. We all agree that invasives are a very valid concern. 

The issue on the table is whether this bill provides an effective way 

forward. We need to avoid falling into a reactionary crisis mentality that undermines the progress made to date, as well as our 

ability to take strategic steps forward. Other industries need to be 

at this table. This is not simply a pet industry issue. 

We look forward to working with your Subcommittee in crafting 

legislation that will serve the public and affected industries alike 

in concert with the National Invasive Species Management Plan 

and Executive Orders calling for that plan. Thank you, Madam 

Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meyers follows:] 

Statement of Marshall Meyers, Executive Vice President and 

General Counsel, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council 

Madam Chair and members of the Committee, I am Marshall Meyers, Executive 

Vice President and General Counsel of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council 

49 

(PIJAC). Thank you for inviting me to submit comments on the Nonnative Wildlife 

Invasion Prevention Act (H.R. 6311). 

PIJAC is a non-profit service-oriented organization comprised of members who 

care about pets and the pet industry. As a national trade association, PIJAC represents all segments of the pet industry: companion animal importers/exporters/ 

breeders, wholesale distributors, product manufacturers, retail outlets, and affiliated 

hobby clubs, aquarium societies, and other industry trade associations. Our members serve the 63% of the U.S. households that care for and maintain pets of all 

types, sizes and descriptions: the majority of these pets fall within the purview of 

the regulatory system contemplated in H.R. 6311. 

PIJAC’s explicit mission is to: 

‘‘Promote responsible pet ownership and animal welfare, foster environmental stewardship, and ensure the availability of pets.’’ 

The pet industry, like several other industries, is dependent on the importation 

of non-native species, most of which are farm raised. Pet owners across the U.S. possess a wide variety of non-native species in significant numbers. This is not a new 

phenomenon. For generations, people have maintained a wide variety of non-native 

mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish as companion animals. Unlike some 

industries dealing in nonnative species, it is not the intent of the pet industry or 

the majority of pet owners to place or release these animals into the natural environment. 

Background 

PIJAC is well aware of the problems posed by invasive species. Our involvement 

with this issue dates back to the early 1970s when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a proposed list of ‘‘Low Risk’’ wildlife. Like H.R. 6311, that 

proposal would have banned all wildlife not otherwise appearing on the clean list 

as being ‘‘injurious’’ (invasive) under the Lacey Act. We challenged that approach 

because (1) it failed to provide science-based support for how it classified ‘‘low’’ 

versus ‘‘high’’ risk species, and (2) it was premised upon broad-based conclusions 

that all nonnative species were per se injurious until proven innocent. We successfully challenged the proposed regulatory action by making government officials and 

stakeholders aware of the fact that it placed an untenable burden on the trade to 

‘‘scientifically prove’’ a negative—i.e. the absence of harm. 

For many years, PIJAC has been providing leadership on invasive species issues, 

serving as an advisor to and collaborator with numerous government agencies. The 

PIJAC staff serves on various Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) committees and regional panels, the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) and 

a number of State invasive species advisory committees or working groups. Additionally, PIJAC leads several initiatives and proactive campaigns designed to minimize the introduction and impact of invasive species. These campaigns reflect a 

strong collaborative effort between industry, the government, and other stakeholders. 

PIJAC believes that effective measures should be in place to reduce the risk of 

the adverse impacts of invasive species. We further believe that the appropriate directives for risk management are contained in the Lacey Act, the National Invasive 

Species Management Plan (per Executive Order 13112), and several ANSTF initiatives, among others. As we have testified previously, the requisite human and financial resources have yet to be made available to the relevant federal agencies so that 

they can fully and effectively implement and enforce existing policies and programs. 

Until the government is willing to invest in implementation and enforcement of the 

regulatory measures it has already enacted, additional regulations will serve only 

to cripple an already faltering system. 

With regard to H.R. 6311, first and foremost I note that it reckons back to a 

failed, technically flawed approach of the early 1970s. As previously mentioned, it 

imposes on persons interested in importing or possessing a species for commercial 

or non-commercial purposes the task of having to scientifically prove a negative— 

that the species will not cause harm or be likely to cause economic or environmental 

harm or harm to human and animal species’ health. Simply on the grounds of ‘‘Statistics 101’’ this is unworkable. Absent a crystal ball, it is impossible to prove conclusively that no harm has ever nor will ever occur at any time, anywhere in the 

United States. 

Thousands of non-native species have been in the pet trade for decades, yet the 

overwhelming majority of them have never established feral populations and even 

fewer have been demonstrated to have caused harm to the environment, economy, 

or human health. In rare instances where former pets have become invasive, the 

impacts have generally been to localized areas in urban and suburban contexts 

which are already heavily impacted by habitat loss and degradation. 

50 

It is, thus, both unnecessary and unrealistic to conduct a risk assessment for 

every non-native species in the pet trade (e.g., more than 1600 freshwater fish), let 

alone those brought in by other industries as well. 

While we recognize that the Lacey Act process is inefficient in many ways, it is 

clear to us that this is largely due to the lack of capacity both in terms of staffing 

and funding. Because H.R. 6311 mandates a far more comprehensive process than 

currently exists under the Lacey Act, it is set up for failure. If enacted as drafted, 

H.R. 6311 would force the Fish and Wildlife Service into a managerial nightmare. 

It would have to: 

1. conduct risk assessments on more than 10,000 species currently in trade, many 

of which are not even scientifically identified to the species level let alone extensively studied, and complete those assessments in time to meet the statutory deadlines set forth in Sections 3 and 4; or, upon failure to do so, 

2. shut down a number of industries dependent upon nonnative species—such as 

the pet industry, food aquaculture, and sports fishing. 

Even if there was ample scientific information available to enable the risk assessment process, it is clear that the USFWS would not be physically able to complete 

a sufficient number of species assessments given its extremely limited staff and financial resources. It is also readily apparent that industries cannot exist on a handful of imported species for the short or long-term. 

H.R. 6311 is an overly simplistic approach to a very complex problem which involves much more than running a series of risk assessments in order to publish a 

list of approved species. The socio-economic, as well as biological, issues impact hundreds of millions of Americans and a more reasoned approach is needed to address 

the invasive species conundrum. 

I, therefore, urge the Committee to take into careful consideration the findings 

and recommendations of the National Invasive Species Management Plan, as well 

as initiatives of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and numerous state agencies that are dealing with this issue. Initiatives under these programs already reflect stakeholder-inclusive reviews on and recommendations to address the import 

of live organisms in the invasive species context. 

For well over a decade, government and industry have been working collaboratively to enhance prevention, improve early detection and rapid response, develop 

screening mechanisms applicable to different animal types, identify pathways and 

pathway related problems, and increase public awareness on the importance of not 

introducing nonnative species into the environment. A major component of that 

process is recognizing that screening or risk analysis must be carefully constructed 

to ensure that the analysis is science-based, credible, transparent, involves stakeholders, and evaluates and promotes viable management policies. In our opinion, 

H.R. 6311 has the potential to jeopardize and set back achievements of the past 

several years. 

For example, the 2001 National Invasive Species Management Plan (Plan), was 

developed through a transparent, science-based, stakeholder-inclusive process. It 

was intended to provide a constructive way forward for Federal agencies and partners to minimize the impact of invasive species in a manner that was timely, practical, and cost-effective. Plan developers concluded that a phased-in screening approach was the most effective way to reduce the risk of import of potentially 

invasive species. In the first phase of the process, relevant Federal agencies would 

work with stakeholders to screen species proposed for first-time imports into the 

US. Three years later, the second phase would broaden the approach for the systematic screening of species already in trade. PIJAC encourages Members of Congress 

to review the Plan, and meet with NISC Policy Liaisons and original members of 

the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) in order to garner a better understanding of the process already agreed to by Federal agencies and stakeholders, as 

well as the underlying basis for the decisions made—such as the lack of scientific 

data, staff capacity, and economic implications. 

If Congress decides to ignore the Plan, then we urge that H.R. 6311 be redrafted 

to direct a risk analysis process rather than a risk assessment. According to the 

definitions adopted under the Convention on Biological Diversity (and supported by 

the US), ‘‘risk analysis refers to: (1) the assessment of the consequences of the introduction and of the likelihood of establishment of an alien species using science-based 

information (i.e., risk assessment), and (2) the identification of measures that can 

be implemented to reduce or manage these risks (i.e., risk management), taking into 

account socio-economic and cultural considerations.’’ 

As evidenced at several recent meetings dealing with screening processes and 

other analytical approaches, it has become abundantly clear that such a process is 

complex and that there is not agreement within the scientific community or other 

interested parties on how to deal with this complex problem. Screening is one part 

51 

of the process; risk management and evaluating socio-economic issues and other 

benefits is equally important and challenging. We do not believe that this can simply be resolved via legislation mandating criteria that needs to be subject to scientific and legal scrutiny. That should be left to the regulators. 

Unless socio-economic and cultural considerations are adequately accounted for in 

this process, numerous domesticated animals (e.g., domestic cats and livestock) are 

likely to qualify for the ‘‘black list’’ as there is considerable scientific data to indicate 

that these nonnative wildlife species (as currently defined by H.R. 6311) have 

caused substantial economic harm when they become feral. Furthermore, there are 

already management measures in place for some species that would reduce the risk 

of invasiveness. For example, ferrets that are spayed/neutered cannot establish viable populations. Finally, in the current economic environment, Congress must carefully consider both the financial costs and benefits of imported species. The loss of 

certain high-income fish, for example, could result in the collapse of the entire ornamental fish industry and have significant repercussions for product manufacturers, 

distributors, and retailers throughout the country. 

Understanding the broad biological and socio-economic implications of developing 

lists of approved and unapproved wildlife species, countries such as Australia and 

New Zealand explicitly employ risk analyses. Reference materials for their programs 

are readily available on the Web. 

The following comments address key sections of H.R. 6311. 

Risk Assessment Process (Section 3) 

PIJAC questions the advisability of the Congress mandating specific criteria that 

the Secretary must factor into the Department’s assessment protocols. As evidenced 

by the work of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee and the ANSTF. The Department’s scientists need flexibility to design analysis protocols depending on the 

taxa, the purpose of introduction, and other relevant factors. A ‘‘one-size-fits-all’’ set 

of factors will not enable an effective result. 

For example, it is not technically feasible to identify some species in trade—including some very high volume and income species—to the ‘‘species level’’ (Section 

3(b)(1)). Many armored catfish, a staple of the aquaria trade, are only identified 

with ‘‘L’’ numbers; they have not been scientifically described. Nor is it clear how 

the prescribed process would deal with taxonomic name changes in cases in which 

molecular studies indicate that the classifications should either be ‘‘split’’ or 

‘‘grouped.’’ If the scientific classification changes, would the risk analysis have to be 

repeated for the affected species? Furthermore, how would agency staff address the 

fact that some countries (particularly developing, exporting countries) are using different taxonomic names (often ‘‘old’’ versus ‘‘new’’) than others? 

Section 3(b)(2) requires information on the ‘‘geographic source of the species and 

the conditions under which it was captured or bred.’’ Is this section designed to 

identify the evolutionary origin of the species, the geographic location of its initial 

export, or the last country of export before entering the United States? What is the 

relevance of analyzing the ‘‘conditions under which it [the species] was captured?’’ 

Is this introducing an animal welfare element into the risk analysis process? 

Section 3(b)(3) incorporates terms such as ‘‘established,’’ ‘‘harm’’ and ‘‘spread’’ 

without the benefit of definitions. Is the USFWS free to adopt its own definitions? 

Does ‘‘established’’ mean a self-sustaining reproducing population? Is an analysis as 

to benefit versus harm part of the evaluation? 

Sections 3(b)(4) through (10) incorporate the subjective, non-scientific standard of 

‘‘likelihood’’ for determining the probability that a species will become established, 

spread, do harm, or be accompanied by a ‘‘pathogenic species, parasite species, or 

free living species...’’ Does ‘‘likelihood’’ connote some level of probability—a specific 

statistical term—or is it merely a subjective conclusion that something might establish, spread, cause harm or be accompanied with parasites? The mere presence of 

parasites or other associated organisms is not necessarily problematic. Furthermore, 

an extremist could argue that any species has some probability of establishing somewhere in the U.S. given the right ecological conditions and propagule pressure. If 

that probability in scientific risk-based terms presents a negligible risk, how is it 

assessed under the ‘‘likelihood’’ doctrine? What methods would be used to determine 

or score ‘‘likelihood?’’ 

Section 3 sets forth specific factors that must be taken into account in the 

USFWS’s evaluation of risk but offers no direction as to the manner in which such 

factors must be evaluated. A reasonable inference, however, is that a positive finding of one or more of those factors is sufficient to prohibit import. Far greater statutory clarity is required. Is the USFWS compelled to list a species as prohibited in 

any case in which some combination of these factors are determined in the affirmative? Is the mere absence of biological data, because it does not exist, sufficient to 

52 

compel the USFWS to ban a species that has been imported in the millions or 

farmed in this country for 30 to 50 years absent evidence of invasiveness? 

Based on such a standard, common goldfish, many tropical fish, and myriad common species of birds and reptiles would be banned from the entire United States 

if it could be demonstrated that under Section 3(b)(4) there is a likelihood that ‘‘environmental conditions suitable for the establishment or spread...exist anywhere in 

the United States.’’ Marine organisms would be banned in Kansas because they 

might become established in Hawaiian waters; a parakeet would be banned in Minnesota because it could survive in south Florida. Absent inclusion of some qualifying 

language, the factors become mandates and mandates become prohibitions even 

though a likely adverse impact is never shown. 

Transparency (Section 3(d)) 

Transparency is critical to the credibility of the process being mandated by this 

bill. Stakeholder involvement at all stages of the process is essential to attain the 

level of transparency recommended by the National Academy of Sciences’ National 

Research Council. PIJAC urges that language be inserted making it abundantly 

clear that there is stakeholder involvement at all stages of the process. Furthermore, language should direct that the persons making the management decisions 

are not the same people conducting the risk assessment(s). 

List of Approved Species (Section 4) 

The concept of assessing first-time introductions surfaced during the ANSTF ‘‘Intentional Introductions Policy Review’’ in the mid-1990s. In a report to Congress in 

1994, the ANSTF focused on two main concerns: 

1. ‘‘the need to make ecologically credible decisions; and 

2. the need to strike a balance between greater risk reduction and accommodating 

current activities and economies that depend on the use of nonindigenous 

species.’’ 

The ANSTF went on to conclude that: 

1. ‘‘to the maximum extent possible, the decisions should be based on ecosystem 

considerations; and 

2. the recommendations should generally apply only to new introductions.’’ (emphasis added) 

The ANSTF further recommended establishing a Federal permit system for firsttime imports coupled with a credible, science-based review process, and called for 

improvements in implementing the Lacey Act to include, inter alia, expediting the 

injurious species listing process, fostering compliance through clearer listings, and 

initiating a review system for species not listed. The ANSTF also made a series of 

proactive recommendations, including adoption of good business practices through 

codes of conduct promoting ‘‘continued commercial operations in a manner that is 

compatible with the conservation of natural ecosystems’’ such as education and public outreach programs targeting invasive species issues. 

The National Invasive Species Plan incorporated that concept following lengthy 

deliberations among the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) and National 

Invasive Species Council (NISC). The Plan, at page 32, specifically calls for 

‘‘...the development of a risk-based screening process for intentionally introduced species in a series of steps or phases. During the first phase a screening system for first-time intentional introductions will be developed...The 

screening system will then be modified...during the second phase to deal 

with species already in the U.S.’’ 

Several iterations of bills amending the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act 

(NAISA) incorporated the establishment of a ‘‘catalog’’ of organisms in trade. That 

was to be accomplished as a collaborative effort involving the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and concerned stakeholders. The language which subsequently appeared in 

at least five bills in the House and the Senate was agreed to by a diverse group 

of stakeholders including various nongovernmental environmental organizations. 

Any species not appearing on that list would be subject to a screening process as 

a first-time introduction. The screening process would evaluate the ‘‘probability of 

undesirable impacts.’’ 

That legislation did not exempt species appearing in the catalog from risk assessment and possible listing under the Lacey Act. Rather, the catalog was to ensure 

that species that have been in trade with no apparent ill effects would not suddenly 

be prohibited absent a science-based risk analysis. This was recognized as the only 

reasonable and feasible method of addressing thousands of species that have long 

been imported into the United States and for which no adverse consequences have 

been identified. Moreover, a number of species in trade have been captive raised 

within the United States for decades with no demonstrated detrimental impacts. 

53 

Section 4(c) provides a mechanism to add nonnative wildlife species to the approved list and requires the Secretary to make a determination ‘‘in a reasonable period of time’’ in accordance with the Section 3(b) factors. PIJAC urges the insertion 

of a specified time frame within which the USFWS shall make such determinations, 

similar to time limits imposed under other laws. If history is prologue, there is a 

high likelihood that few new additions will be made to the list absent a statutorily 

imposed deadline, and perhaps not even then. 

When a list is published will there be any grace period for an importer or person 

possessing listed species already in the United States to revamp their operation(s) 

and ethically dispose of animals in their possession or do they become violators of 

this Act, as well as the Lacey Act, overnight? The perception, alone, that this would 

be the case is likely to motivate frightened individuals to abandon animals. In short, 

it could facilitate the introduction and establishment of numerous non-native 

species. 

Deadlines (Sections 3(e) and Section 4(a)(1)). 

The prescribed timeframes to implement H.R. 6311 are unrealistic. According to 

Section 3(e)(1), the proposed regulations and an initial list of approved species must 

be published within two years of enactment of HB 6311. The final regulations, the 

initial list of approved species and a notice of the list of prohibited species must be 

published, pursuant to Section 3(e)(2), no later than 30 days before the date on 

which the Secretary begins assessing the species. The assessment process must 

start within 37 months of H.R. 6311’s enactment (Section 3(e)(3). Yet Section 4(a)(1) 

mandates that the list of approved species be finalized and published no later than 

36 months following enactment. How is this possible? 

History has demonstrated that agencies are often unable to comply with such 

mandated timeframes. Will the USFWS be provided adequate appropriations to 

fund this initiative? How will the USFWS be able to develop regulations, publish 

them in the Federal Register seeking public comment, review and finalize the regulations, seek and obtain OMB clearance and publish final rules and lists within such 

brief timeframes? To date, the USFWS has required an average of four years to accomplish such a process for a single species proposed for injurious wildlife listing. 

The NISC and ANSTF approaches referenced earlier alleviate the USFWS’ need 

to expend significant effort assessing species documented as being in trade and allowed it to concentrate on first time introductions as well as go back and selectively 

review and assess any of the species in the catalog. The USFWS was not subjected 

to a series of artificial time frames it could not meet. We recommend a return to 

the previously agreed upon Catalog approach as a more workable mechanism—a 

mechanism that is science-based, measurable, transparent and implementable. 

List of Unapproved Species (Section 5) 

Section 5 calls for the Secretary to publish a list of nonnative wildlife species prohibited or restricted from entering the United States. The list would incorporate 

those species listed under the Lacey Act as well as any other species added pursuant to this Act. Is this intended to be an amendment to the Lacey Act? 

Since violations of the proposed Act would also constitute a violation of the criminal provisions of the Lacey Act, full and complete lists of what is legal and illegal 

should be published by the USFWS to ensure adequate notice of what constitutes 

a violation of law. Due process calls for no less. To ensure proper notice and avoid 

confusion, the approved and unapproved lists should contain every species in the 

animal kingdom to ensure that the public is aware of what is illegal as well as legal 

inasmuch as they are subject to a strict liability criminal statute. 

Prohibitions and Penalties (Section 3(f) and Section 6(3), (5) and (6)). 

Interestingly, a person already engaged in the captive propagation or farming of 

a species in the United States that does make the ‘‘approved list’’ finds him or herself in the rather awkward position of being subject to conflicting provisions of the 

law. According to Section 3(f), the ‘‘Act shall not interfere with the ability of such 

people to possess an individual animals of a species that was imported legally.’’ Yet 

a close reading of the prohibitions in Section 6 raises significant issues which will 

undoubtedly compel millions of frightened people to kill or abandon their pets. Once 

a species appears on the ‘‘unapproved list,’’ the imaginary grandfather clause of Section 3 apparently evaporates because it would be illegal to breed, possess, sell, barter any nonnative species appearing on the Section 4 prohibited list! 

The prohibition section will significantly impact not only the pet industry, but also 

food aquaculture, sport fisheries, the bait industry, and the livestock industry. 

These sections need to be revisited. 

54 

Fees (Section 8) 

The establishment of a fee-based risk assessment system is fraught with problems. Apart from trying to ascertain how the amount of the fee(s) will be determined, this system will result in rank discrimination whereby small business will 

no longer be able to compete. It places the entire financial burden on larger companies willing to assume the financial risk of going through a nondescript assessment 

and listing process. This becomes a significant burden if the importer imports hundreds or thousands of species for which there is sketchy biological or scientific data, 

yet the species has been in trade in extremely large numbers for many, many years 

absent adverse impacts. 

Unlike other areas of the economy where fees are assessed to seek government 

approval of a patented or proprietary drug or chemical product, importers of nonnative species would be funding an assessment not only for themselves but for all 

of their competitors, and even other industries that trade in the same species for 

other purposes. How will the USFWS determine which importer is selected to bare 

the costs? Risk assessments and risk analyses are expensive undertakings. Will the 

fees be $10,000, $25,000, $50,000 or $100,000 or more per assessment per organism? 

How will the figures be determined and consistently applied? 

Definitions (Section 11) 

Failure to provide a clear definition of ‘‘wildlife’’ further adds confusion to 

H.R. 6311. As crafted, ‘‘nonnative wildlife species’’ includes ‘‘any species that is not 

a native species.’’ The definition goes on to specifically cover the entire animal kingdom including insects, mollusks, crustaceans, arthropods, coelenterates, and all 

other invertebrates. 

By this definition, many species of animals that are longstanding staples of the 

pet industry, food aquaculture, sports fishing, and livestock would have to go 

through the process to ascertain if they pose the ‘‘likelihood’’ of harming the environment or other factors set forth in H.R. 6311. These would include cattle, cats, 

dogs and numerous animals considered ‘‘domesticated.’’ A clear definition of ‘‘wildlife’’ is essential. 

Conclusion 

On behalf of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), thank you for providing us an opportunity to share our thoughts and concerns regarding H.R. 6311. 

Despite our reservations about H.R. 6311, we remain committed to working with 

your Subcommittee to address this important environmental issue. 

We believe that we have raised a number of valid issues regarding H.R. 6311 and 

its potential for shutting down several industries dependent on nonnative species. 

Additionally, it could end up encouraging rather than preventing the release of nonnative animals. 

We respectfully suggest that the bill as currently crafted sets the USFWS up for 

failure. Its whole approach is one that defies practical implementation, and demands exorbitant resources. In short, it would not visit upon the public the beneficial results to which it aspires. The measure demands the nearly impossible task 

of conducting thousands of scientifically valid risk assessments in a short timeframe, and presumes that all species subject to these assessments shall be prohibited pending a contrary finding, even though no evidence of adverse impact exists. 

Unlike a risk analysis, it does not explicitly account for socio-economic and cultural 

considerations. The bill assigns such an impossible task to an agency woefully bereft 

of resources for the job, and holds hostage several vital sectors of a challenged economy. 

We believe that there is a better way to achieve a superior result. To that end, 

we recommend that a working group comprised of various stakeholders be convened 

to offer recommendations on the most effective method for moving the screening 

process forward, as called for in the National Invasive Species Plan. A number of 

key industries need to be at the table. This is not simply a pet industry issue. A 

number of pathways have proven to be far more significant vectors of nonnative 

species than pets. 

We look forward to working with your Subcommittee in crafting more realistic legislation that will serve the public and affected industry alike in concert with the 

National Invasive Species Management Plan and the Executive Orders calling for 

such a plan. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Meyers, for your testimony, and, finally, our final witness, Mr. Riley. I invite you to 

present your statement. 

55 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE M. RILEY, DIVISION COORDINATOR, WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT DIVISION, ARIZONA GAME 

AND FISH DEPARTMENT 

Mr. RILEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am here on behalf of the 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. It is a quasi-governmental organization that brings together the state wildlife agencies 

and wildlife authorities, as well as territorial Canadian provinces, 

the government of Canada, and the government of Mexico. 

I would like to thank you and the Committee for your leadership 

in bringing this legislation forward at this point. 

The association is supportive of H.R. 6311, and we find the bill 

to be well conceived and pretty well organized. We especially applaud the inclusion of language in Section 3 that requires consultation with the states and, in Section 10, which recognizes the states’ 

authority to exercise more stringent regulations. 

The bill, however, could be improved in a few specific areas, and 

the association would very much like to work with you and the 

Committee to address those areas. I will touch on those very briefly. 

We believe, in general, that the mechanism described in Section 

3 of the bill establishes a much-needed framework to determine 

risk in advance of importation, including process transparency and 

critical consultation with state authorities. 

Section 3 of the act requires the Secretary of the Interior to carefully consider the identity of organisms. This is a new challenge. 

With the advance of science, we have not only new tools but also 

new challenges in identifying organisms that are arising and will 

arise in the future. These advances should be considered. The act 

identifies things like viable eggs as items that can be regulated. It 

does not, however, address other gametes, such as milt or sperm, 

which is more readily preserved for transportation, storage, and 

later use in the creation of hybrids or like individuals. 

Likewise, the act does not identify or address treatment of hybrid 

wildlife, transgenetic animals, or genetically modified organisms. 

All of these should be considered in some manner. 

We believe that the considerations in Section 3, the ‘‘consideration factors,’’ will differ greatly from within the contiguous United 

States to the island states and territories and to Alaska, and, thus, 

such risk assessment may benefit from regional consideration. The 

challenge is how to undertake that with a national listing process. 

We believe this highlights the importance of the partnership and 

collaboration among the states and the Executive Branch in preventing nonnative wildlife invasions. 

The provisions of Section 10 of the act, ensuring that the states 

can maintain and establish prohibitions stricter than those established in Federal regulation are critical. 

Additionally, we support the idea in Section 3 of evaluating the 

likelihood of parasites, pathogens, diseases in free-living organisms 

accompanying species proposed for importation. 

But the thresholds of these components of risk assessment must 

certainly be scientifically based, but they must also reasonably 

evaluate the potential transmissibility of parasites and disease 

agents to humans, resident wildlife, livestock, pets; must evaluate 

the potential for establishment of unplanned hitchhikers; and must 

56 

fairly consider the reasonable mitigation of those risks in making 

determinations. 

The bill does consider the complexity of issues involved in regulating the possession of wildlife. While Section 3[f] of the bill addresses animals imported prior to prohibition of importation and 

allows persons to possess animals that would later be identified as 

prohibited, the details of the importation or acquisition are rarely 

held by the owners and may not always be traceable. So some provision should be provided to allow folks to disclose or declare their 

pet at the time or at the time period before an animal being listed 

is unapproved. 

Section 8 of the act sets forth a system where proponents would 

reasonably be assessed the cost of determination, but there are 

challenges in this financing strategy. While we generally favor 

user-pay programs, please consider these three challenges. 

First is the challenge of program establishment during the first 

37 months of operation, the second is the challenge of long-term 

program sufficiently, and perhaps a third, less immediately apparent, challenge, but a critically important one, is inspection and enforcement. The Department of the Interior and other Federal agencies are already stretched, and this bill will place further demands 

upon the departments to inspect and enforce. 

We believe the best way to implement this framework envisioned 

by the bill is to be unified across jurisdictions. Assessing risk and 

regulating importation and possession of wildlife is a role that the 

states hold in common with the Federal government, and the two 

systems must work in concert. 

H.R. 6311 ensures collaborative law enforcement by allowing 

state peace officers to take into possession unapproved animals, but 

consideration should be given to protecting those officers enforcing 

both this act, as well as state prohibitions, and to protect those employees, contractors, agents, or designees that may hold and care 

for those animals under a chain of evidence or custody until final 

disposition of the animal can be determined. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide you with these thoughts. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Riley follows:] 

Statement of Lawrence M. Riley, on behalf of the 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am Lawrence Riley, Wildlife Management Division 

Coordinator of the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and Vice Chair of the 

Invasive Species Committee for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Association). I appreciate the opportunity to share with you the Association’s perspectives on H.R. 6311, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. The Association 

was founded in 1902 as a quasi-governmental organization of public agencies 

charged with the protection and management of North America’s fish and wildlife 

resources. The Association’s governmental members include the fish and wildlife 

agencies of the 50 United States and U.S. Territories, Canadian Provinces, and federal governments of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. All 50 states are members. The 

Association has been a key organization in promoting sound resource management 

and strengthening federal, state, and private cooperation in protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest. The cross jurisdictional nature and North American perspective of the Association is of particular relevance in that nonnative wildlife, introduced either intentionally or accidentally, respect no boundaries and are an issue of local, State, regional, national, and international concern. 

The State fish and wildlife agencies have broad statutory authority and responsibility for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources within their borders, both 

57 

native and nonnative. Because of our responsibility for and interest in the conservation of fish and wildlife resources, state fish and wildlife agencies have vested concerns in the prevention and control of unwanted and unplanned introductions of 

nonnative species that can cause damage to our wildlife resources, ecosystems, the 

economies of our states and the nation, or pose risks to animal or human health. 

To that end, the Association maintains a standing committee on Invasive Species 

and has been active with the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) virtually since its inception as an ex officio member, and is also represented on the 

Invasive Species Advisory Committee. 

Madam Chair, on behalf of the Association, I would like to thank you for your 

leadership in bringing forward this important legislation. As a result of the Association’s roles and involvement in planning for Invasive Species, we are supportive of 

H.R. 6311. We find the bill to be well-conceived and well-organized. It is consistent 

with our Invasive Species Committee’s principles for federal legislation and is 

aligned with strategies of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and the Invasive 

Species Advisory Committee. We especially applaud the inclusion of language in 

Section 3 (c) that requires consultation with the States as well as with the ANSTF 

and the National Invasive Species Council, and in Section 10 (a-b) which recognizes 

States’ authority to exercise more stringent regulations. In addition, we are supportive of the establishment of fees to create a Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Fund to manage the costs of assessing risk. Still, the Association believes that 

the bill could be strengthened in a few specific areas; we would be glad to work with 

you and your staff to do so. We present here suggestions for your consideration. 

Risk Assessment Considerations 

The application of a Risk Assessment process for importation of nonnative wildlife 

into the United States, if conducted in a fair, equitable, and transparent manner, 

is a key element of managing the challenges that Invasive Species pose to wildlife, 

ecosystems, economies, and human and animal health. The Association recognizes 

that some nonnative species can be valued assets as a component of wildlife resources, as economic assets for agriculture or forestry, as subjects of educational displays and scientific research, and in some circumstances as pets. In a number of 

cases, State wildlife agencies manage introduced species as components of a State’s 

wildlife resources. We believe that the mechanism described in Section 3 of 

H.R. 6311 establishes the much-needed framework to determine risk in advance of 

importation, including process transparency and critical consultation with the State 

authority, and provides promise of making reasoned determinations that consider 

and balance potential risks and benefits from import. 

Section 3 (b) (1) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to carefully consider ‘‘the identity of the organism to the species level, including to the extent possible more specific information on its subspecies and genetic identity.’’ This is an 

important provision, as the subspecific and genetic characteristics of species can 

greatly contribute to the invasive (or non-invasive) nature of an organism. That 

said, with the advance of science, new challenges in identifying organisms are arising and will arise in the future. To the extent possible, these advances should be 

considered in regulations that emerge from this Act. The Act identifies viable eggs 

as items that can be regulated. It does not identify gametes other than eggs, such 

as milt or sperm—which is more readily preserved for transportation and storage. 

Likewise, the Act does not identify or address treatment of hybrid wildlife, 

transgenic animals, or genetically modified organisms. While it may not be necessary to address them specifically in legislation, the manner in which such organisms would be addressed should be considered as part of the development of plans 

to implement resulting regulations. 

We also believe that the considerations in Section 3 (b) (4-9) will differ greatly 

from within the contiguous United States to island States and Territories and to 

Alaska; and thus such risk assessment may benefit from regional considerations. 

The variety and breadth of ecosystems within the United States presents a large 

spectrum of vulnerabilities. This highlights the importance of the partnership 

among the States and the Executive Branch in preventing nonnative wildlife invasions. The provisions of Section 10 of the Act, ensuring that States can maintain 

and establish prohibitions stricter than those established in federal regulation, are 

critical. Specifically, ensuring that a species otherwise ‘‘Approved’’ for importation 

into the United States under federal regulation can still be prohibited from importation into a particular State based upon that State’s laws and regulations, is a an 

essential companion to federal regulations resulting from this bill. 

In addition, we support the idea in Section 3 (b) (10) of evaluating the likelihood 

of parasites, pathogens, diseases, and free-living organisms accompanying species 

proposed for importation as part of risk assessment. Realistically, most wild animals 

58 

are likely to carry some parasites or pathogens, and almost any shipping strategy 

may pose a risks with regard to free-living hitchhikers. The threshholds of these 

components of risk assessment must be scientifcally-based; must reasonably evaluate the potential transmissibility of parasites or disease agents to humans, resident 

wildlife, livestock, and pets; must evaluate the potential for establishment of unplanned hitchhikers; and must fairly consider the reasonable mitigation of those 

risks through handling and shipping procedures. 

H.R. 6311 appropriately considers the complexity of issues involved in regulating 

the possession of wildlife, particularly in Section 6. However, while Section 3 (f), 

Animals Imported Prior to Prohibition of Importation, allows persons to possess animals that were ‘‘imported legally even if such species is later prohibited’’ from importation, however, the details of importation or acquisition may not always be 

traceable in the case of nonnative wildlife kept legally (per individual State and/or 

local statutes and regulations) as pets in the United States. Thus it may be important to include considerations for pet owners to declare their pet at or during a period before the time of listing as ‘‘Unapproved’’ and thus maintain posession of nonnative pets (if legal in their state of residence) even following prohibition, with the 

understanding that the provisions regarding eggs or progeny stated in Section 6 (a) 

(1) will apply to that animal. Because State Law Enforcement personnel are often 

involved in the regulation of wildlife kept as pets, such a provision could reduce the 

law enforcement burden for the States. 

Financing Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention 

Section 8 of H.R. 6311 sets forth a system where proponents for an importation 

would be reasonably assessed the costs of risk assessment and public process for 

making determinations. State wildlife agencies have long relied upon user-pay, userbenefit approaches to wildlife conservation. It is a tried and true strategy. However, 

there are challenges that the Subcommittee should consider in adopting this strategy for this program. 

The first challenge is program establishment during the first 37 months of its operation. The legislation does not address appropriations to initiate program development and risk assessment. Therefore, if federal agencies are intended to reallocate 

resources to initiate this program, the Association would like to work with you and 

your staff to ensure that such a reallocation would add to, rather than replace, existing federal activities or missions critical to the States. 

The second challenge is program sufficiency. At this point of development, it is 

unclear what federal cost would be for a user requesting evaluation of a species for 

listing, either as an ‘‘Approved’’ or and ‘‘Unapproved’’ species. We assume that the 

cost would not be trivial. While these factors will certainly be weighed during the 

process of regulation development as a result of this bill, having an understanding 

of potential costs and reasonable charges to requestors would help us gauge the potential sufficiency of the program envisioned by this Act. A less immediately apparent federal cost, but a critically important one, is inspection and enforcement. We 

believe that the Department of Interior’s capacity is already stretched to inspect incoming deliveries of live wildlife, and the process improvements described by this 

bill will place further demands upon the Department to inspect and enforce. Workforce needs for inspection and enforcement should be considered as Congress develops a financing strategy for this effort. 

Prevention is, of course, always the most cost-effective method of addressing potentially invasive species, and this bill is an excellent step in the right direction. 

This bill should be viewed as one step in development of a comprehensive approach 

that will included provisions for, and funding toward, Early Detection and Rapid Response if ‘‘Unapproved’’ species are detected in the early stages of establishment in 

the wild. Further, a comprehensive approach would enlist the assistance of States 

through implementation of their existing Aquatic/Terrestrial Invasive Species management plans and parther with State Wildlife Law Enforcement to extend the effectiveness of federal enforcement. 

Building Unified Lines of Defense 

H.R. 6311 provides a framework to address incursions of potentially invasive 

species so that their importation can be rationally controlled and losses to our natural resources and economies can be avoided. The best way to implement this 

framework is to be unified across jurisdictions. The proposed legislation to utilize 

scientifically credible and defensible risk assessment to identify animals ‘‘Approved’’ 

for importation into the United States is a reasonable approach to regulating the 

risks posed by animals that can, once introduced, directly affect the ecosystems in 

the United States. 

59 

Assessing risk and regulating importation and possession of wildlife is a role that 

the States hold in common with the Federal Government. The Federal role is focused on our national boundaries and importation into the United States, while the 

States regulate the possession, sale or exchange of wildlife resources into and within 

their borders. The two systems must work in concert. Because our roles are allied 

and intertwined, close consultation and coordination among the States and between 

the State and Federal approaches is essential. Recognizing the role of the States in 

Section 3 of the bill is a key provision to ensure coordination and collaboration, 

while Section 10 appropriately recognizes the role of States in establishing laws and 

regulations and does not preempt the States’ authority to be more restrictive. 

H.R. 6311 ensures collaborative law enforcement between federal and state jurisdictions in Section 6(c) by allowing State peace officers to take into possession any 

‘‘Unapproved’’ animals. However, consideration should be given to protecting those 

officers enforcing this act as well as State prohibitions, and to protecting those employees, contractors, agents, or designees that may hold and care for those animals 

under a chain of evidence or custody until final disposition of the animals can be 

determined. 

Finally, it is important to remember that the United States shares borders with 

neighbor nations, thus building our lines of defense in collaboration with our neighbors is a prudent strategy. The Association, whose membership includes the Canadian Provinces and federal government of both Canada and Mexico, is committed 

to working through our members to continue to align our approaches. This Act 

would provide a strong foundation for a North American strategy to reduce the occurrences of unwanted and unplanned invasions of nonnative wildlife. 

Concluding Remarks 

Madam Chair, the Association believes that H.R. 6311 as introduced is an excellent start in providing a mechanism for risk assessment of nonnative wildlife species 

proposed for importation, and in turn reducing opportunities for such species to become problematic or invasive. We applaud you for your efforts to raise this important legislation. However, given the attention to this issue, and the management 

burden of nonnative wildlife invasions in the States, the bill as currently drafted 

could be strengthened to be more comprehensive in its treatment of preventing nonnative wildlife invasions. Again, the Association would very much like to work with 

your staff, the Subcommittee, and the Executive Branch as this bill is refined and 

moves toward implementation by federal wildlife authorities in the Department of 

the Interior. 

Again, thank you for providing us with the opportunity to testify on this legislation. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Riley, for your support of the legislation, and I want to thank all of the witnesses. 

We will begin. I have a few questions here, and, hopefully, my 

colleagues will return from voting and will join me also with a few 

questions. 

The most important question I have is to Mr. Cravalho. Are 

there any brown tree snakes in Hawaii? 

Mr. CRAVALHO. Other than the eight finds that we have had 

since 1984, we are unaware of any brown tree snakes in Hawaii. 

Ms. BORDALLO. When you say ‘‘eight finds,’’ is that a single 

snake? 

Mr. CRAVALHO. We have had, over a period from 1984 to 1998, 

eight finds of brown tree snakes. It would entail not only live specimens but dead specimens as well. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So when you say a ‘‘find,’’ is that a single snake, 

or is it a colony? 

Mr. CRAVALHO. A single find. 

Ms. BORDALLO. A single find. You are very fortunate. I do know 

that a lot of the funding that goes to Hawaii for eradication, it is 

the eradication of the snakes. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. CRAVALHO. Currently, the funding that I am aware of that 

we obtain from the Office of Insular Affairs under U.S. DOI is 

60 

about $210,000. That money is utilized by our Detector Dog program, monitoring at least 98 percent of commercial flights that 

come in from Guam, as well as maritime ships, and about 96 percent of our military flights that arrive into Hawaii are also monitored by our dog program. 

Ms. BORDALLO. So how about DoD? Is there any funding from 

there? 

Mr. CRAVALHO. I am unaware of any DoD funding that is forwarded to the State of Hawaii. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Another I have is, Section 10[a] of my bill allows 

stricter approaches by states and territories to nonnative wildlife 

imports. Why would you say this provision is important to Hawaii? 

Mr. CRAVALHO. It is very important to the State of Hawaii. For 

example, being an island state, as Guam is as well, we have natural barriers that prevent things from coming into the area, and, 

as such, we need to ensure that what can come into our part of the 

world is not going to be a problem to Hawaii. 

It may not be a problem for the continental U.S. and the State 

of Alaska, but Hawaii has a very unique situation, being in the 

middle of the Pacific, and, as such, we would like the opportunity 

to have the potential of being much more stricter. 

For example, snakes in the pet trade could be done here in the 

U.S. mainland. In Hawaii, all snakes are strictly prohibited from 

entry into the state, except for two males, nonvenomous snakes 

that are allowed for the zoo for exhibition, as well as for the State 

of Hawaii bringing in four sterile, male brown tree snakes, which 

our Detector Dog program can use as a target to ensure that they 

are finding snakes. 

So it is essential that states can reserve the right to be a lot 

stricter than existing law under 6311. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Another question is, what is the average length of time it takes to list a species in Hawaii once a permit 

application is received? 

Mr. CRAVALHO. Once a permit is received, it is reviewed for completeness. Upon acceptance of the permit, it may take anywhere 

from six months to one to two years to get an animal listed. You 

have to imagine that the listing process is an ongoing process 

throughout the year, and we try to incorporate all of these changes 

throughout the year, with one rule revision on an annual basis. 

Ms. BORDALLO. And then I have a final question. Can you give 

an example of an animal on the list of restricted animals that requires a permit for both import into the States and possession, and 

explain why it is given that listing? 

Mr. CRAVALHO. OK. The restricted listed animals are allowed 

into the state for import, as well as possession. A good example for 

that would be grass carp. Grass carp is allowed into the State of 

Hawaii for algae control, as well as aquaculture production for 

food. It is a requirement for a permit to be issued that the facility 

that is holding this animal is biosecure. In other words, the animal 

cannot escape into natural environs and will not pose a problem or 

introduce any parasites or pathogens with the introduction. 

So prescreening processes from the source would be a requirement prior to entry, and anyone touching that animal in the State 

of Hawaii would then require a permit for possession as well. 

61 

So, for example, I, as the aquaculture producer that brings the 

animal into the state initially, would need an import permit, and 

then if I was to sell that product as a live product to another facility for usage, then that facility would require the same inspection 

requirements for a biosecurity facility, and then a permit would be 

issued by the Department. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Gaden, are the factors to be considered in a risk-assessment 

process listed in Section 3[b] appropriate to evaluate nonnative 

wildlife species? Would you say that? 

Mr. GADEN. I would say so, and it is a good list. As I stressed 

in the spoken statement, the list does include factors that you 

should consider. Is it going to be harmful to an ecosystem potentially in the United States? Has it caused harm in other places? 

What I particularly like on the list, as well as the pathogen question, ‘‘Is it likely to bring in a pathogen?’’ because the sort of new 

frontier of invasive species problems in the Great Lakes Basin 

seems to be, among other things, viruses and pathogens, and, as 

far as I know, this is the first piece of legislation that explicitly includes that, though there are entities looking at whether ballast 

water brings in pathogens and transports them around. 

So, yes, I think this list is appropriate. I also understand that 

there has been considerable input on these types of factors on the 

appropriateness of them from outside entities who have reviewed 

them and discussed this at length over the years. 

We are not starting from square one here. There has been quite 

a bit of discussion about these kinds of factors that you would use 

to evaluate it. 

I also think that, while we have considerable faith in the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, as they would develop the regime to assess 

the organisms, to actually establish a suitable process that would 

take these factors into account and have it be transparent, peer reviewed, and all of the things, scientifically based, that need to 

occur for it to be a meaningful process. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I have another question. Why do species in trade 

need to be evaluated under a risk-assessment process? 

Mr. GADEN. The problem on the most basic level right now is 

that we do not do it. There are problems when species enter new 

ecosystems. They do not have predators. They sometimes can find 

the ecosystems to be very suitable. Not every species or critter that 

gets into a new ecosystem will take hold, will reproduce or spread 

and cause harm, but the small percentages that do can cause enormous damage, and I use the sea lamprey as an example. 

This is a species that came in, not through trade but through canals, but the single species alone has cost the taxpayers of the 

United States and Canada more than $300 million over 50 years 

to control, and that is one species. 

So we need to be deliberate about what we do when it comes to 

the movement of species, the importation and the trade of those 

species, and we have to be very clear, in our minds, is this species 

going to be a problem? Is it likely to invade, and is it likely to 

cause harm? 

If you are not deliberate about that, and if you do not think 

about that ahead of time, you are taking enormous chances. You 

62 

cannot predict often what that species will do, and I would suggest 

to the Committee that it is far better to think about these things 

ahead of time than to try and, as somebody said earlier, close the 

barn door after the horse has left, because you will not be able to 

control the species, in all likelihood. 

In the Great Lakes region, for example, the sea lamprey is the 

only aquatic species that we can control out of hundreds that are 

nonnative species in the basin. So prevention is what needs to 

occur, above everything else. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I certainly agree with that. Given the devastating 

floods in the Midwest, is the Great Lakes Fishery Commission worried about the escapement of invasive species from aquaculture facilities, and could this maybe have been prevented? 

Mr. GADEN. In answer to the first question, absolutely. One of 

the species that is causing the region enormous headaches right 

now is Asian carp, actually three species of Asian carp—black, silver, and bighead carp—which escaped when there were devastating 

floods back in the nineties from the southern United States. 

These carp, after they escaped, spread throughout the Mississippi River system. They became, in some places, 97 percent of 

the biomass found; put commercial fishermen out of business. Their 

nets are chocked full of these Asian carp. They grow to enormous 

sizes, and if they get into the Great Lakes, which is connected artificially to the Mississippi system through the Chicago Sanitary and 

Ship Canal, we expect similar results in the Great Lakes and certainly in some parts of the lakes, which are well-suited to Asian 

carp. 

So that gives us a very real example of why aquaculture is a vector that we are very concerned about. We have to assume, once 

brought into North America, that a species will escape and will 

spread and could cause harm. 

The Asian carp were reared in aquaculture facilities. They were 

enclosed facilities, but when they were inundated with flood waters, they were allowed to escape and have been spreading since. 

The current floods that are taking place in Iowa and other parts 

of that region certainly do cause us concern because there are, I believe, somewhere around 16 or 20 species that are raised in aquaculture facilities in Iowa alone, many of which are currently not in 

the Great Lakes and many of which are not even native to North 

America. We know, from history, that floods like this are a vector 

for the spread of these species. So, yes, we are very concerned 

about it. 

Could it have been prevented? I think, if there had been a meaningful screening process 20 years ago or more, 30 years ago, we 

would have had a chance to consider some of these issues before 

the species that were raised in aquaculture would have been allowed entry into North America. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Horne, Section 10[b] of my bill encourages the voluntary surrender of invasive, nonnative wildlife species. Can you speak to the 

effectiveness of Florida’s amnesty days and why this is an important provision in the bill? 

Mr. HORNE. Yes, I can. It has been effective. With time, I guess 

we will tell truly how effective it has been, but the first one that 

63 

we did, the last one, we collected 220 animals. There were actually 

some of the injurious species that were in there that were actually 

microchipped and licensed and put back out because we allowed 

them to be readopted. 

So I think, with time, that is going to be a proven entity, especially if it is extended to where reptiles, in particular, and other 

invasive species can be surrendered to Animal Control, but, as of 

right now, most will not take reptiles, in particular, so that would 

be something that would certainly help in the future, or even something that the industry could to help assist in surrendering animals that people no longer wanted. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Another one is your Governor, Governor Christ, 

recently announced the agreement between the U.S. Sugar Corporation and the State of Florida that would work toward Everglades restoration. Will preventing the import of invasive, nonnative, wildlife species also contribute to the ecosystem health of 

the Everglades? 

Mr. HORNE. Well, it will not contribute to the restoration because 

one of the things that we are finding with particularly pythons, 

tegos, now monitors, is they are eating a lot of the species that we 

are actually looking for restoration counts. One of the things we 

have to do is bird counts, which is critical to the restoration efforts. 

It is one of our key indicators, and, of course, we know, from the 

ones that we have captured and did necropsies on their stomachs, 

most of the contents in there are birds and native wildlife. 

So it will be hard for us to determine truly what is restoration, 

particularly as these creatures move further and further north, and 

there are certainly indicators that they are not just in the Everglades. We have actually captured pythons enough to say that they 

are there in the Melbourne area, which is midway the state, and 

as food depletes, they will move to find additional food. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. 

I have a question also for Mr. Meyers. Given the inadequate authority, under the Lacey Act, to ban the species on a pre-import 

basis, inadequate authority that PIJAC pointed out in its October 

2007 testimony, what new steps would PIJAC propose to reduce 

the risk of harm from imported animals? 

Mr. MEYERS. There are two aspects to that. Number one, I would 

go back to the 1994 recommendation of coming up with a catalog 

of species in trade so it is clear, any species not on that catalog 

must go through some form of a risk analysis before it would be 

allowed to come into the country. That is number one. 

Number two, on some species that are in trade, we think that 

more work could be done with CDC and others on what type of 

screening should be done to make sure there is screening for health 

issues and things of that nature. 

Had health certificates been required, or some screening or testing prior to the importation of the Gambian pouch rat, or whatever 

the animals were that brought the monkeypox in, that would have 

been prevented. We would like to work with getting those things 

put into place. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Very good. I have another question. Your testimony states that the H.R. 6311 places an untenable burden on the 

64 

trade to scientifically prove a negative; example, the absence of 

harm. 

Now, isn’t it true that Federal laws require similar efforts by 

other industries? For example, those who want to introduce new 

pharmaceuticals, new food additives, new food contact materials, 

medical devices, and so on; they all have to go through a similar 

process of demonstrating their products are not harmful before introducing them into commerce. 

So why can’t the pet industry, then, meet this burden for its 

products, as other industries already do? 

Mr. MEYERS. Well, because if you look at the harm that you go 

through on approving a drug, it is a lot different than trying to 

meet all of the criteria of harm that are listed here. That is why 

the risk-management aspect, I think, is very important to put in 

juxtaposition because risk assessment is only part of that, proving 

the harm or not providing the harm. 

We think it has to be part of a risk-analysis process to where you 

can take into account and make some of those types of judgmental 

factors because the science is not as clear on proving harm to my 

body with a drug or a chemical as it may be to the introduction 

of some animals where some of the science may be a little nebulous, and also all of the different factors. 

I happen to have been on the black carp assessment protocol that 

we did to try to test the system, and I will tell you, had the catalog 

system been in effect, and that risk assessment had been done 

prior to its coming in, I suspect that the black carp would not have 

been allowed in the United States, and that is why we support the 

first-time-introduction approach because I think there are different 

criteria, both in terms of looking at the risk assessment, looking at 

harm or potential, as well as the management that can go with it. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. I have a question for Mr. Riley. 

Section 3[c] requires consultation with the United States, as well 

as other stakeholders, and 3[d] requires transparency. Now, why 

are these provisions important to fish and wildlife agencies? 

Mr. RILEY. Madam Chair, the states have broad authority within 

their own boundaries to regulate the possession and importation, 

the exchange, sale, barter of resident wildlife, both native and nonnative. These are key provisions, and a bit of that discussion came 

up when Dr. Frazer talked a little bit about the long-arm provisions of the Lacey Act. Those state authorities work in concert with 

Federal authorities. 

One thing to consider, in terms of enforcement, was if we are 

going to do this, we probably ought to enforce it as well. There are 

probably, at least in my state, about 15 times the number of wildlife enforcement officers at the state level as there are with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. In many instances, it is the state wildlife 

officer that is the one that makes contact with an individual with 

regard to either permitting or an enforcement contact with regard 

to illegal possession of an animal. 

The complementary roles and the collaborative roles between the 

state and the Federal authorities are crucial in terms of making a 

system like this work. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Another question I have. In a hearing we had 

earlier this week, Mr. Wittman asked a question to the Director of 

65 

the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries about the 

exasperated effect of invasive species in the face of climate change. 

With increasing temperatures in Southwestern lands and rivers, is 

this an additional reason to control the import of invasive, nonnative wildlife species? 

Mr. RILEY. Madam Chair, it certainly is. As climate change progresses, however it manifests itself, habitats will change. Habitats 

that are already stressed are those that are most likely to be susceptible to wildlife invasions. So maintaining the health of habitats 

and restoring habitats, so that they can be resilient is a key strategy in maintaining their protection against invasions. 

We may also find ourselves in the position of making interesting 

and difficult decisions in the future where, because of the species 

complement changes, we may need to consider, is there a nonnative 

that will provide a service, an ecological service, to replace something that is perhaps not savable? Those will be very, very difficult 

decisions, and so part of our emphasis within our states certainly 

has to be on restoration and maintaining the resilience of ecosystems. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Meyers, I will go back to you again, just to clarify for the 

Committee here, for first-time introductions, you want a screening 

process similar to my bill, and for species in trade, you recommended a phased-in approach, just to clarify. 

Mr. MEYERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think, for first-time introductions, while the management plan calls for a screen, there is 

a lot of discussion as to what is a screen versus a risk assessment? 

A risk analysis should be done on a first-time introduction to 

screen it, determine whether or not there is a potential problem, 

and to deal with the risk-management aspect. 

For species in trade, we are not opposed to their having a screening process, an expedited screening process, or something that is 

clearly not going to happen under the current injurious wildlife 

structure. But any species in trade should still be able to be subject 

to an analysis to determine whether or not it ought to go on a prohibited list, but to have a de facto prohibition because it cannot be 

done within the timeframe prescribed under a statute just puts a 

lot of species out of trade that may be of absolutely no harm whatsoever. 

We are not opposed to having species in trade looked at, reviewed, and having certain types of controls. Again, by letting the 

states have stricter domestic measures, or stricter measures, that 

also allows them to control more vigilantly what may come into 

their state that they do not want that may be allowed somewhere 

else in the country. 

You must remember, a person knowingly bringing that in has a 

Lacey Act violation, which has very serious consequences. So the 

stricter state authority is very critical. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Just one final question to you, Mr. Meyers. To 

the extent data are limited in understanding the scope of the potential issue with the pet trade, would PIJAC or its partners be 

willing to make available to the Committee and/or independent scientists the available records on which species have been imported, 

when, and how many individuals? 

66 

Mr. MEYERS. We had already started that process in anticipation 

that the catalog would have gone through in the earlier legislation 

for the ornamental fish trade, and we are pulling together because, 

unfortunately, the LIMAS database quite often just puts down 

‘‘tropical fish,’’ and they do not have the species data. 

So we had asked the major importers in the United States to provide to us the lists of all of the species that they have imported 

over, while the earlier drafts said ‘‘as long as 15 years,’’ we asked 

them for the last five years or 10 years. I do not remember exactly. 

We have compiled that list. It has been reviewed. It will probably 

be published in some type of a journal. 

We have no problem making that available, and we will work 

through all segments of the industry to gather that data, work with 

the agency and other stakeholders, environmental organizations, to 

verify that these are legitimately species in trade, and one way to 

do it is going back to the lists of people that are licensed to commercially import. 

Ms. BORDALLO. What would be the timetable on this? Could you 

give us some idea? 

Mr. MEYERS. It took us, to develop the freshwater fish list by 

using biologist interns, probably about eight or nine months, and 

I believe one of those papers may be actually published by that student as part of her thesis work. 

I would say that it could probably be done, and I may be overly 

optimistic, within an 18-month time period. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Very good. Thank you very much, Mr. Meyers. 

The Subcommittee now welcomes our guest from Florida, The 

Honorable Congressman Klein, and I ask unanimous consent that 

Mr. Klein from Florida be allowed to join the Subcommittee on the 

dais to participate in the hearing. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I would like to ask you, Mr. Klein, to ask the questions that you 

wish to. 

Mr. KLEIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate the democracy in action here at this Committee. Thank you very much 

for holding this hearing, a very important issue, and thank you to 

the guests on the panels that have been with us today to talk about 

this and find ways to work with the Chair and other Members of 

the Congress to make a more efficient and streamlined process to 

deal with what many of us around the country are concerned with, 

in terms of nonnative wildlife and the impact it is having on our 

states. 

One of the main reasons that I have taken an interest in combatting this, invasive nonnative species, relates to the Florida Everglades. The Florida Everglades are a big part of the State of Florida. As many of us know in the Congress, there has been a tremendous effort, at the state and Federal level, and one of the largest 

combined efforts in U.S. history to work together as state and Federal governments to the Corps and other agencies to protect what 

we know as the ‘‘River of Grass.’’ 

Because there are so much of the resources that are being invested in this, there is a great stake of making sure that the plans 

are working, that the water is restored in many ways to sheet flow, 

and that the impact to the ecology and the environment of the area 

and the entire state is restored as much as possible. 

67 

The issue of nonnative wildlife is a big issue, and, for number of 

reasons, there are a lot of different types of wildlife that have gotten into the Everglades in the wild and have created a very, very 

significant problem, which are changing, in many cases, the impact 

of the native species and impacting the Everglades themselves. 

The Burmese python is something that has been mentioned by 

Mr. Horne and others, and this is something that we know, in our 

area, is a big issue. If it is OK with the Chair, my good friend, 

Alcee Hastings, Congressman Hastings, from Florida, was unable— 

he has got a competing scheduling item today, but he has a written 

statement, and if I could submit it, with your consideration, to be 

admitted to the record, I would appreciate that. 

Ms. BORDALLO. No objection, so ordered. 

Mr. KLEIN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alcee Hastings follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Alcee L. Hastings, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Florida 

Thank you, Chairwoman Bordallo, for introducing the Non-Native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act and for holding this extremely important hearing on this legislation today. 

First, I would like to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses for attending the 

hearing. In particular, I appreciate the presence of Mr. George Horne, Deputy Executive Director of the South Florida Water Management District. 

The introduction of non-native species can often be effectively managed. But 

sometimes, as is evident now in Florida, invasive species pose a major threat to the 

health of the native species and humans alike and harms our environment and 

economy. 

The Lacey Act’s injurious wildlife provision is the main regulatory safeguard from 

invasive animal species introductions in the United States. It is my belief that the 

Act, last amended in 1988, does not comprehensively address the challenges of today’s world, as it does not take into account the increasing flow of commerce and 

globalization and the growing emergence of non-native species. 

Specifically, the Lacey Act only lists a limited amount of species as injurious and 

the average time between initiation and final actions of listing reviews has increased to over four years in the last decade. Further, the Act only evaluates species 

after they have caused widespread damage to the environment and to human and 

animal species’ health. 

In my judgement, we need a fresh approach to confronting the threats posed by 

non-native species. The increasing emergence of non-native species can strain our 

management resources and cause long-term damage to our environment. We need 

more effective preventive measures to limit intentional importation of invasive 

species. This bill seeks to accomplish just this by evaluating the risk of such species 

before it is imported and established. 

My interest in this issue initially arose because of the impact of Burmese pythons 

on Florida’s Everglades. The Burmese python preys on more than twenty species native to Florida. Their presence threatens the endangered species and plants of the 

Everglades’ unique ecosystem and hinders Everglades restoration efforts. Further, 

it has the serious potential to cause harm to the people visiting and living in the 

Everglades and surrounding communities. 

This problem is not merely relegated to Florida. A 2008 United States Geological 

Survey model predicted that the Burmese python may snake its way up the Southeast and even toward the Pacific states. 

Last September, Congressman Ron Klein (D-FL) and I wrote to the Director of 

the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (27 January 2009USFWS) expressing 

concern over the sharp rise of wild Burmese pythons in and around Everglades National Park. We urged USFWS to fast track the injurious wildlife review of this 

harmful invasive species. We also called on USFWS to establish a task force to its 

internal injurious listing process to ensure that the Lacey Act is implemented commensurate with the contemporary challenges we face with invasive species. 

State agencies, including the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 

have developed and implemented python control programs in Florida to prevent the 

68 

species from becoming more widespread. However, our state lacks sufficient resources to continue to effectively manage this species. 

Florida isn’t alone. States across the nation are increasingly attempting to tackle 

the same threats. If we are to successfully address this issue in the long-term then 

we need to comprehensively address non-native species introduction and importation. 

I strongly support the provisions in this bill that assist with the regulation of potentially harmful non-native wildlife into the United States. Our nation would benefit from federal policies that enhance the screening process and increase management, control, and enforcement measures of these species. This bill puts us on the 

path toward finally doing just that. 

Mr. KLEIN. Senator Nelson and Congressman Hastings have 

been taking a lead on dealing with the Burmese python, and, 

again, it is just one example of a number of various species, but 

that one, in particular, I am highlighting because I know the water 

management district has petitioned the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to list the Burmese python as an injurious species, and this has, 

unfortunately, been going on for quite some time, and it does not 

seem like we are where we need to be, and it just seems to be taking an inordinate amount of time. 

If I can direct a question to Mr. Horne, in what ways have these 

types of delays hampered the efforts to prevent the spread of the 

Burmese python in the Everglades, and if you could explain to us 

what you believe the impact of that is? 

Mr. HORNE. Well, there is very little effort going on out there except for the fact that there is some assistance from Everglades National Park. They have licensed one of our employees. He carries 

a weapon. In his daily runs, he takes pythons. Last month, I believe he had taken seven in one day. You can go down the same 

levee every single day and pick up a python. 

They are eating the wildlife at enormous rates. In some areas 

where you used to see lots of rabbits and birds, you see nothing, 

but you find pythons every time you go there. 

As I stated earlier, one of our key indicators in restoration is bird 

counts, and if we are successful, we have reestablished those rookeries in the ’Glades, and the fact that the pythons are there and 

that they are establishing themselves in and around rookeries 

means that the bird counts are going to go down, and some of the 

species which are not in threat now will be because they are going 

to eat them, and every time you find one, you know, they typically 

always have a bird in it. 

So it is going to really hurt our ability, or our measures for restoration are going to have to change, but I think birds are one of 

the critical things that truly attract people to the Everglades and 

have made it what it is today, and they may not be there if we do 

not have, you know, a concerted effort to extinguish these animals. 

They need to disappear. The mere fact that there are anywhere 

between five to 40,000 animals out there, according to estimates 

from biologists, that means we are probably never going to get 

them under control. In other species that are going to spread—the 

Nile monitor, we already know they have a 20-square-mile area 

they have established, and tegos are in Everglades National Park, 

and we have captured one of those recently in cages that our staff 

helped manufacture. 

69 

So they are there. They are not going to go away. We need a concerted effort to eliminate them, and this provision certainly helps 

control new things coming in, and maybe go back and look at some 

of the other animals that are there to limit their spread. 

Mr. KLEIN. May I follow up, Madam Chair? 

Ms. BORDALLO. You have as much time as you wish to consume. 

Mr. KLEIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Thank you for that explanation. The reason I brought up the 

python is because that is a very significant identified issue, but 

there are others. I think the concern that we have with the Everglades, and, again, similar to other parts of the country, is that 

many of these are in an earlier stage, and, if not stopped now, we 

will continue to have a proliferation of the types of nonnative animals that will impact the ecology and the various other types of 

wildlife in the Everglades, which will have a damaging effect on 

the Everglades itself. 

As a follow up to this, obviously, the Everglades are a very large 

area, but it is also surrounded by a very vibrant agriculture business in Florida, and the other concern that we have, of course, is 

that these pythons do not necessarily know borders or what is public land and what is private land, and there is a concern also in 

the agriculture industry that these could migrate into other areas 

and consume livestock and do other things which would impact the 

agriculture industry. Any sense of the threat of that? 

Mr. HORNE. Well, indeed, some of that has happened already. 

One of the snakes that was being tracked had actually eaten a 

farmer’s goose, which is adjacent to the Everglades. 

Mr. KLEIN. Did the goose have a name? 

Mr. HORNE. I am sure it probably did, and it probably squawked 

quite loudly for a moment, but they have spread out, and, of 

course, there are lots of chicken farms and other things that are 

in the ’Glades. If they get there, they will get in, they will eat the 

livestock, and, of course, the critical thing with the python: They 

can eat 80 percent of their body mass, and they can weigh up to 

in excess of 200 pounds. So there are not many things that it cannot eat, so they are an absolute threat. 

Mr. KLEIN. Thank you for that information as well. Again, I 

think this is a very significant issue, and, again, the python is the 

example because of the size and the proliferation and its ability to 

consume large animals, large quantities as well. But, again, I am 

very concerned about the overall impact in the agricultural community and the wild. 

A lot of people are not necessarily familiar, even in Florida, of 

the fact that when you have a large area like the Everglades, there 

is a responsibility to maintain. It is not just letting wild be wild. 

We have an invasive species of plant life that is creating problems, 

which the water management district is working on, as well as the 

animals. 

A second question: I know there has been some activity in Florida, and maybe some other states that you can comment on, to try 

to creatively deal with invasive species, and I understand the 

Chairwoman has been very interested in this as well, and I appreciate that. But maybe you can talk to us regarding some of their 

70 

ideas about amnesty and other ways they are trying to get the public to participate in the elimination. 

We know that, unfortunately, many animals get into the wildlife 

based on dumping of snakes and things like that into that area, 

and then they grow very rapidly, but can you share with us some 

ideas and programs that are out there that the public can work 

with us on, and we can encourage as well? 

Mr. HORNE. We have actually started an amnesty day in Florida 

where you can come in and surrender your pets, and, of course, 

they put them back out for readoption. If they are an injurious animal, they will have microchips placed in them and licensed. The 

pythons, for instance, you have to pay a license now. You have to 

register. You have to pay a $100 fee to own the python, and, of 

course, report its loss or transfer, if you are going to get rid of it. 

Our agency has printed cards so we can have, like, a first responder. If you see a python, we have a number for our employee. 

You can call, and he will come and take it out or contact the Park 

Service in Everglades National Park, and they will come out and 

assist with that as well. 

So we have some programs started, but it needs to be far expanded to take care of all animals, and, particularly, not just an 

amnesty day. It needs to be where you can surrender these animals 

at any time because my biggest concern is what happens the week 

after you have an amnesty day, and someone decides they want to 

get rid of their large reptile? So we need to expand that program, 

but I think it is going to work well. There just needs to be more 

of it. 

Mr. KLEIN. And, Madam Chair, as we work through this issue, 

obviously, ideas from around the country would be helpful in working with our agencies and the state and Federal government, in 

terms of coming up with ideas. 

Clearly, the piece of legislation that is being considered, I think, 

goes a long way in moving in the right direction. Obviously, there 

is an interest of pet owners to own pets and have the enjoyment 

of that, but there is also a major public policy concern that impacts 

cost of operations and maintenance of large areas like the Everglades or other park systems or water systems, as well as the impact that it has on the local communities. 

So the balance of interests is there, but, at the same time, I 

think we would all agree that something that is against the law 

should not be allowed in the country, and something that should 

be considered a threat; there needs to be a process to, using science 

and the best science available, to make decisions expeditiously and 

appropriately, with everybody at the table, and then when that 

happens, we have the resources available, through our various levels of government, to enforce and to work with local communities 

to make sure that we do not have problems that get out of control. 

So, Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to participate 

today, and I look forward to working with you on this legislation. 

Ms. BORDALLO. I thank the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Klein, 

for his input. He may have problems in his state, but we have 

problems in our territory, and that is the brown tree snake, Mr. 

Klein. You have the pythons; we have the brown tree snake. 

71 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for their participation in the 

hearing today, and Members of the Subcommittee may have some 

additional questions for the witnesses. We were interrupted with 

the votes, and some of them wanted to come back. So we will ask 

you to respond to these in writing. The hearing record will be held 

open for 10 days for these responses. 

If there is no further business before the Subcommittee, the 

Chairwoman again thanks the Members of the Subcommittee and 

our witnesses, and the Subcommittee now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ