Www-media.floridabar.org



Cover PagePaper title:Worse than the Tourists: Non-Native Invasive Species in Florida -- Lionfish, Pythons, and What New Laws and Federal Funding Can Do to HelpWorse than the Tourists: Non-Native Invasive Species in FloridaLionfish, Pythons, and What New Laws and Federal Funding Can Do to HelpThere are an estimated 4300 non-native invasive animal species in the United States as of the year 2013. Some have posed a major threat, caused harm, and been controlled through modern resource management methods, while others have continued to establish themselves uninterrupted. Government and private inaction regarding non-native invasive species can be attributed to a variety of sources, including lack of funding, unawareness of or apathy towards the harm these species can cause, preference for a “wait and see” approach, or a desire to let a region’s ecosystems adjust to the species without human intervention. In Florida, lionfish and pythons have already negatively impacted the coral reefs in the Florida Keys and the swamps in the Everglades, both of which are home to some of the most important ecosystems in the country. These species have had such a large impact and taken hold so quickly because both are non-native and have no natural predators in the areas they have invaded. The coral reefs and the Everglades are located in in protected areas and are excellent natural resources because they provide a home to numerous endangered species, as well as species that are commercially viable. Recent scientific data has indicated that the lionfish and python populations are growing rapidly and expanding beyond Florida, which means that now is the time to implement a plan that will slow the growth and remove at least some of the lionfish and pythons that are already in the state. Because both species entered Florida’s ecosystems through human involvement, this paper proposes a plan that will decrease the number of new lionfish and pythons entering Florida’s ecosystems by prohibiting the sale of live lionfish and pythons in Florida and imposing criminal sanctions on people who own, sell, or release them. This paper also argues that Florida will be able to obtain federal funds, either in the form of a grant or earmarked federal agency budgetary funds, that it can use to research the size of the problem, educate the public about the dangers of releasing lionfish and pythons into the wild, and fund additional removal efforts. Part I - The Size of the Problem and Why We Should Care An online search for information about Florida’s lionfish population reveals websites with names such as “Death to Lionfish,” “Eat the Invaders,” and “Lionfish Hunters,” many recipes for cooking lionfish at home, and the website for Traditional Fisheries, an enterprising business attempting turn lionfish into the most popular menu item in the country. These websites, in name and in content, show that lionfish are unwelcome, feared, and hated by several sectors of the scientific community and other groups who are passionate about preserving the native populations in the waters off of the southeastern U.S. coast for commercial or personal use. Fear of the negative impact lionfish can have on the coral reefs’ ecosystem and on the reefs themselves is not unfounded, as lionfish eat many species vital to sustaining biodiversity. For example, young lionfish target crustaceans such as banded coral shrimp and spiny lobster, and mature lionfish target fish such as the white grunt, striped parrotfish, and several types of wrasse. The crustaceans in particular are essential to maintaining biodiversity on the reefs because they are eaten by large predator fish, including grouper and snapper. Lionfish competing with these fish for the crustaceans (and winning) can have long-term negative impacts on the reefs’ ecosystem and, in some areas, already has. Parrotfish and some of the other species targeted by the mature lionfish are also essential to the health of the reefs themselves because of the role they play in keeping seaweeds and microalgae from overgrowing the coral. Allowing the lionfish population to grow unchecked could lead to the destruction of the current coral reef ecosystem and cause harm to the ecosystems of the surrounding waters as well. With lionfish taking on the role of the proverbial “boogeyman” in the minds of groups who are concerned about Florida’s oceans, it is surprising that serious action to stop the population from multiplying has not been taken yet. Although there has been no large-scale action, some groups have taken small steps to control the problem by supporting public awareness campaigns and organizing lionfish fishing derbies with clever names such as “If you can’t beat ‘em, eat ‘em!,” aided by private and corporate donations and funding and assistance from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Florida Park Service. The derbies typically incentivize participation by awarding prizes to the individuals and teams who catch the most lionfish during the derby dates, and are well-publicized by local media. The derbies have been made possible in part by Florida Administrative Code Rule 68B-5.006, which allows divers using a handheld net, pole spear, Hawaiian sling, or “any other spearing device specifically designed and exclusively marketed towards lionfish” can hunt an unlimited amount of lionfish without a recreational or commercial license in areas not designated as “no take” zones. Originally signed into law in August 2012 and designed to be a temporary measure, the provision became a permanent rule as of August 2013. The derbies have been taking place since 2009, and the derbies sponsored by the Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF), a large non-profit conservation organization, have removed an estimated 10,231 lionfish total. The derbies have increased public awareness of the lionfish problem but, unfortunately, in light of the fact that lionfish can lay up to 30,000 eggs at once, lay eggs up to three times a month, and have no natural predators on Florida’s coral reefs, the removal of just over 10,000 seems as insignificant as a teardrop in the sea.Pythons pose a similar numerical problem, as current estimates indicate that there are between 100,000 and 150,000 pythons living in the Everglades. Pythons are also particularly difficult to remove because of the Everglades’ dense, swampy terrain and the threats its native species, such as alligators and bears, pose to python hunters. Trekking through the Everglades with an axe or gun in tow is also arguably less enjoyable than snorkeling and diving on the sunny coral reefs, so “python derbies” with clever names and corporate sponsorship are less likely to occur. Removal efforts have been largely conducted by government agents, although the public was encouraged to hunt pythons in the year 2013, with the launch of an event called Python Challenge. Some critics felt that the event encouraged unnecessary violence, and other critics expressed fear for the safety of the hunters, as well as concerns over the environmental impact of having so many boats and feet entering the Everglades at once. The environment seems to have been unaffected by the hunters’ presence, but the hunt was only minimally successful from a numerical standpoint. A group of 1600 hunters, some working individually and others in groups, only caught sixty-eight pythons in a one-month time span. This is a testament to the pythons’ elusiveness and to the need for action on a larger scale. As discussed in subsequent sections of this paper, the modest numerical success of the 2013 Python Challenge indicates that a grant that funds the employment of government agents on a long-term basis to remove pythons from the Everglades would be more effective than a grant that only provides funding for a specified, short amount of time. Additionally, a representative from the FWC indicated that there are no plans for a Python Challenge in the year 2014 or at any other point in the future, which means that the python removal task will once again fall to the government and conservation groups that take the initiative to tackle the endeavor.In addition to pythons’ ability to elude hunters by camouflaging themselves among the Everglades’ trees and moss, one of the biggest issues with the python population is the fact that the longer a python stays in the Everglades, the larger he or she will grow. Pythons are able to reproduce when they are four or five years old and in captivity usually grow to an average length of sixteen feet. In the wild, however, they can grow even larger, and one measuring seventeen feet, seven inches was removed from the Everglades in 2012. Pythons are “voracious and indiscriminate eaters” who eat mammals commensurate with their size so, obviously, a larger python will be able to tackle larger prey. In captivity, a python’s size is somewhat limited by the amount of food its caretakers provide, but in the Everglades especially, pythons have their choice of prey in almost unlimited quantities. Pythons have also been known to attack and kill humans outside of the Everglades and have been found with bird, deer, bobcat, and even alligator carcasses in their stomachs. Pythons preying on these populations may not have an immediate impact, but over time the trend can irreversibly alter the composition of the Everglades’ ecosystem. Some negative effects have already been measured in the past decade, as scientific studies indicate that mammal populations in parts of the Everglades inhabited by pythons have decreased by up to 98 percent. The fact that python necropsies have revealed bird carcasses is particularly troubling, as the Everglades are home to many species of endangered birds, including the wood stork, the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, and the red cockaded woodpecker, and are regarded as the most important breeding grounds in the country for some species. Pythons targeting these birds could have a permanent impact by causing the birds to go extinct, either regionally or completely. It is for these reasons that the National Park Service has declared pythons to be a “major threat” to the Everglades and that measures to reduce the population and limit python growth are necessary at this time. Part II – A Brief Review of Competing Theories of Invasive Species ManagementAs with almost any contemporary environmental law topic, the private and governmental management of nonnative invasive species has fostered several viewpoints that sometimes conflict with one another. There are differences between how individual states approach management of nonnative invasive species, and there are also differences between how the United States and other countries approach regulating nonnative invasive species. In the United States, state governments are usually the first to act when a nonnative invasive species starts to harm the native populations. In other countries, a national approach to preventing and managing nonnative invasive species that harm the native population is more common. For example, several years ago Bermuda was experiencing the beginnings of a lionfish population boom similar to the one in the Florida Keys and responded by placing a strict ban on the import of live lionfish. Bermuda is tiny in comparison to the United States and is a constitutional monarchy, so it has an easier time enacting national legislation. However, the fact that the executive branch of U.S. government could use the powers given to the Department of Interior to unilaterally ban the import of lionfish under the Lacey Act, and has not chosen to do so, shows a definite difference in national mentalities. States’ rights advocates would favor regulating nonnative invasive species at a local level or relying on private entities to do so, but the fact that Bermuda’s lionfish population has remained steady while the U.S. lionfish population continues to grow indicates that a national ban on import and possession might be an effective way to stem the population’s growth. Some scholars advocate for an overhaul of federal regulation of nonnative invasive species, but the benefits of increased federal regulation are frequently balanced against the arguments of people who embrace federalism and are in favor in increased state autonomy. Sometimes federal laws (or a federal court decision, as was the case in Michigan v. Illinois,) are needed to “referee” a dispute between states over liability for the introduction of a species or equitable distribution of the work required to remove a certain species, and sometimes a federal law is useful when a species is too widespread for a state to manage it alone. Some scholars have also argued that federal tort law should be expanded to create causes of action for people, companies, and industries harmed in one state by nonnative invasive species that originated in a different state and migrated. Because lionfish and pythons are entering Florida’s ecosystems as a result of Florida residents’ actions, Florida industries harmed by these species would not have grounds for a cross-state suit, but under some of the proposed reforms, Florida citizens or the state itself could be sued for allowing these populations to become established, grow, and expand beyond the state’s borders. Florida acting to control its lionfish and python populations protects the state’s ecosystems, and could also protect the state and its citizens from lawsuits in the future.At the other end of the spectrum from the viewpoints that advocate for federal and/or state regulation of nonnative invasive species is the argument that the presence of a nonnative invasive species is not something that needs to be stopped, even when the species becomes the dominant (or only) species in the ecosystem it has invaded. This so-called laissez faire approach to the presence of a nonnative species is rooted in the belief that biodiversity is not necessarily something worthy of protection, and that using a desire to maintain biodiversity as the sole justification for passing environmental regulations is archaic and inappropriate for the modern world. Other people argue that regulating nonnative invasive species is futile and unnecessary when factors such as climate change mean that ecosystems are constantly evolving and biodiversity is no longer a stagnant feature. Under this line of reasoning, a nonnative invasive species becomes part of an ecosystem’s “new normal,” and represents an opportunity for the ecosystem to evolve and adapt. Although in some contexts there could be a benefit to deciding not to remove a nonnative invasive species in light of arguments about the allegedly low value of biodiversity and the possibility that nonnative invasive species are just part of an ecosystem’s evolution, this paper argues that Florida cannot afford to do so in the context of the lionfish and python populations. Allowing these populations to destroy the biodiversity of the coral reefs and the Everglades is too risky from an economic standpoint, and would also run contrary to the laws that are in place to protect the federally-recognized endangered species that call the Florida Keys and Everglades their home. It is for these reasons that laws and regulations designed to keep additional lionfish and pythons from entering Florida’s ecosystems and the use of state and federal agencies’ resources to further removal efforts is a more appropriate solution than the laissez faire approach in this situation. Part III – The Likelihood and Effectiveness of Federal Funds1. Florida is Likely to Obtain Federal Funds This section discusses how Florida can obtain federal funds to put towards researching the size of the problem, removing at least some of the lionfish and pythons that are in the state currently, educating the public about the harms associated with releasing lionfish and pythons into the wild, and enforcing laws designed to discourage people from releasing them. There are several major factors increasing the likelihood that Florida will obtain federal funds to assist with these projects: Florida’s Everglades and coral reefs are already protected at the state and federal level, the size and scope of Florida’s lionfish and python problem is similar to the size and scope of other nonnative invasive species problems that have received federal funding, and Florida can demonstrate a real need for federal funds. These factors are discussed below. A. The Everglades and the coral reefs in the Florida Keys are protected at the state and federal level, and Florida’s problems are similar to nonnative invasive species crises that have received federal funding in other statesAs briefly discussed in parts I and II of this paper, the ecosystems the pythons and lionfish have invaded are located in protected areas. The Everglades are protected and maintained by the National Park Service (NPS), and the part of the coral reefs in the Florida Keys most affected by lionfish is located in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, which is administered by National Oceanic and Aquatic Agency (NOAA) and jointly managed by the State of Florida. These designations increase the chances for federal funds, if not in the form of a grant then in the form of an earmarked portion of all the money that is allocated for conservation of these areas. The NPS budget for the 2014 fiscal year totals $2.6 billion, and includes a request for increased support for the efforts directed at managing exotic invasive animals in national parks, along with a separate request for additional support for the management of two specific types of nonnative aquatic invasive species, quagga and zebra mussels, in national parks. The allocation of additional funds for the management of quagga and zebra mussels is a particularly good sign for Florida’s chances of obtaining federal funds to remove pythons from the Everglades, as it shows that the NPS is willing to dedicate a budget line to the management of a specific invasive species. Additionally, the effect the python population is having on the Everglades’ ecosystem is similar to the effect the quagga and zebra mussel populations are having on the ecosystems they invaded, which means that Florida can use the example of the designated quagga and zebra mussel funds to help support its argument that the Everglades deserve federal assistance to help control the python population as well. These factors indicate that if Florida makes the request, obtaining funds designated in the NPS budget is a real possibility. Florida, or a private not-for-profit entity within Florida, is also likely to obtain federal funds to help control the lionfish population. Funds would likely come in the form of a grant from NOAA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), or both. Through its website, the USDA has provided information for entities seeking to apply for funding under its USDA Grant and Partnership Programs that Can Address Invasive Species Research, Technical Assistance, Prevention and Control, and lists examples of grants that have been awarded in recent years. A partnered grant issued by the USDA and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) would be ideal, as the USFWS already designates grant money annually for invasive species risk assessments, which Florida could use to gather additional scientific data in support of the need for action. A grant the USDA issued in the year 2009 to combat aquatic invasive animal species in Wisconsin bodes especially well for Florida’s chances of obtaining a similar grant. The Wisconsin grant totaled $1.3 million and went towards Wisconsin’s efforts to “prevent invasive species from being introduced into new lakes, control them where they’ve become a problem, and to respond rapidly when an aquatic invasive species is detected in new water for the first time.” The grant was distributed among more than twenty local governments, lake districts, and conservation groups, all working in concert to continue advancing Wisconsin’s overall strategy to control invasive animal species and protect its $13 billion per year tourism industry. The similarities between Florida and Wisconsin are notable in this context, as Florida also has a large tourism industry and already has identifiable programs in place to help combat the lionfish invasion.Florida may also be able to obtain a grant from NOAA. NOAA oversees the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, so it is already well aware of the lionfish invasion of the reefs in that area and the size of the problem. NOAA has also awarded grants for projects relating to nonnative invasive species, and has a designated Coral Reef Conservation Grant Program that has awarded over $70 million in federal funds in the last ten years, $12.04 million of which was awarded in the year 2012. A significant portion of the year 2012 funds were directed towards “domestic coral reef conservation grants” and out of those funds REEF received $207,630 for “setting and evaluating ecological targets for invasive lionfish control.” REEF was able to persuade NOAA to provide those funds, so REEF could now make a strong argument in favor of obtaining additional funds to continue researching the lionfish problem and pursue more aggressive lionfish removal efforts. The federal government has also established and funded an Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) to research aquatic nonnative invasive species, make policy recommendations, and enforce the National Invasive Species Act. The ANSTF has listed lionfish as a “species of concern,” but does not actually seem too concerned about it, as the recently-released ANSTF Strategic Plan for the Years 2013 through 2017 does not include taking steps to manage or eradicate the lionfish population. The plan does state that one of the ANSTF’s main goals for the upcoming year is to engage in community education and outreach programs designed to “increase awareness concerning threats of aquatic nuisance species, emphasizing the impacts, importance of prevention, and containment, and recommendations for appropriate domestic and international actions,” so Florida may be able to rely on the ANSTF for in-kind support for the educational programs that are already ongoing. Florida’s chances of obtaining earmarked federal funds to combat the python problem and a federal grant to combat the lionfish problem are both increased by the fact that both species have the capacity to migrate beyond Florida’s borders and negatively impact ecosystems in other states. Lionfish are already in the waters off of twelve states, and pythons from Florida have the capacity to inhabit swamps in Louisiana and the South Carolina low country as well. The multistate impact of these species logically indicates that they should be dealt with as a federal issue, instead of requiring Florida to shoulder the financial cost of removing them alone.B. Florida can demonstrate a real need for federal fundsIn addition to having scientific research from a variety of state and federal agencies and private entities indicating that the lionfish and python populations pose a serious risk to the state’s ecosystems, Florida can make a financial argument in favor of obtaining federal funds for invasive species management. Federal agencies continue to fund conservation and invasive species removal efforts even during budgetary cutbacks, whereas the Florida state government has been decreasing state agencies’ budgets in recent years. Florida’s inability (or unwillingness) to spend more state funds to combat the lionfish and python invasions is also evident from the fact that the relevant state agencies are aware of the issues and have not dedicated funds sufficient to solve the problem. These factors, combined with the science indicating that the lionfish and python populations have the capacity to spread beyond Florida and damage ecosystems elsewhere, indicate that Florida is an ideal candidate for federal funds. 2. How Federal Funds Will Help Solve the ProblemIf Florida state and local governmental agencies and/or non-governmental conservation groups obtain federal funds, they will be able to designate the funds quickly efficiently because Florida already has programs in place that can be continued and expanded. For example, federal funds could be used to hire additional people to manage the lionfish derbies, the lionfish derbies could be held more often, and the certification and education programs that REEF and the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary direct could be made more widely available. Similarly, additional staff members could be added to the Python Patrol that currently removes pythons from the Everglades, so that there would be enough manpower to work on a daily basis and remove a greater number. Federal funds could also be used to research the size of the python problem and purchase the devices that make hunting for pythons and lionfish more effective and safer for native species. The USDA recently obtained a patent for a trap designed specifically for pythons in the Everglades, which has been lauded as smaller and lighter than other traps that are commonly used and also safer for native species because its design is such that only a snake the size and shape of a python will trigger the trap and become ensnared. As of 2013, lionfish can only be harvested without a permit by hand using nets, small spear guns, a device called a Hawaiian sling, or as bycatch in lobster traps. Federal funds can be used to research better ways to capture lionfish, and can also be used to purchase additional nets and other gear used to hunt lionfish currently. Many research boats with certified SCUBA divers on them travel the lionfish-infested waters, so purchasing additional lionfish hunting gear and providing them with at least a few nets or spear guns to keep on board could lead to impromptu lionfish hunts in the course of other research activities. Regardless of which federal agencies Florida obtains funds from, the funds will help the lionfish and python removal programs that are already in place become more effective. The current removal methods are ineffective mainly because they are too limited to make a significant impact on these species’ huge populations. With additional funding, the programs can be expanded and improved if additional research reveals that there are more effective ways to remove lionfish and pythons. The multistate impact of these populations, coupled with Florida’s lack of resources and the size of the problem, makes Florida an excellent candidate for a federal grant or earmarked federal funds. As discussed below, the expanded removal programs and a system of regulations designed to prevent additional released lionfish and pythons from entering the state’s ecosystems will work together to help control these populations. Part IV – Florida Needs Laws Prohibiting Import and Interstate Transport of Live Lionfish and PythonsLionfish and pythons are similar in the size and scope of the threat they pose to Florida’s ecosystems and are also similar in that they were both able to invade Florida’s ecosystems because of human involvement. Lionfish are very beautiful and exotic-looking, so they are commonly purchased by individuals or companies as additions to private aquariums. Although the exact person (or people) responsible for the release of the first lionfish into Florida’s oceans has not been identified, most sources agree that the lionfish population first became established as a result of aquarium owners releasing several lionfish into the wild after they became too large for an in-home aquarium, stung their owners, and/or ate the owners’ other aquarium fish. It is also possible that lionfish were first released into Florida’s oceans accidentally during Hurricane Andrew. Hurricane Andrew brought violent wind and flooding, which could have destroyed the homes with aquariums in them. If the flooding or wind damage was bad enough inside a destroyed home with an aquarium, it could have knocked the aquarium over and released the lionfish, allowing them to swim in the floodwater and reach the ocean. Or, in the case of an oceanfront home, the tide could have risen to the home itself, which would have given the lionfish an easy opportunity to swim to open water if the aquarium had spilled. Unfortunately for aquarium enthusiasts, the probability of a large hurricane making landfall in Florida again means that prohibiting people, especially those who live in hurricane-prone areas, from owning lionfish is probably the safest way to keep additional mature lionfish from entering the waters off of the coast of the southeastern United States. Pythons may have also been released into the wild during a hurricane or tropical storm. Pythons kept in homes as pets may have escaped in the chaos following a storm, or may have been purposefully released by people who could no longer care for them. Although they grow to be nearly twenty feet long and weigh several hundred pounds as adults, most pythons are only twenty inches long as juveniles, which seems like a manageable size and only requires a moderately-sized tank. Given their ability to escape and the amount of space they require when grown, releasing a large python seems like a rational choice for some snake owners. Unfortunately, the purposeful and accidental python releases are probably the cause of the current invasion and harm to the Everglades, so laws prohibiting people from owning them in-state should be upheld. In light of the “human error” factor, Florida needs laws that limit individual and corporate ability to bring pythons and lionfish into the state. Additionally, other states will benefit from law that prohibits importing lionfish and pythons into states with climates that could sustain them. 1. The Lacey ActDue in large part to the efforts of Senator Bill Nelson, pythons were recently added to the Lacey Act. Named after Senator John Lacey, who proposed the legislation and lobbied Congress for it during open session, the Lacey Act was signed into law in the year 1900. The Lacey Act was originally designed to stop the spread of mongooses, fruit bats, English sparrows, and starlings, and although the Act’s main text has been amended multiple times since the year 1900, its purpose has always been to give federal authorities a way to stop the spread of species that pose a risk to domestic interests. The Lacey Act includes an Injurious Wildlife List that is updated regularly, and once a species is on the list, importing or transporting it across state lines is illegal. People or companies caught importing or transporting an injurious species in violation of the Lacey Act can be held criminally liable and also can be fined and held responsible for the cost of the storage, care, and maintenance of any fish or wildlife seized during the enforcement of the injurious species provisions. A species can be added to the list if it endangers the human, agriculture, horticulture, and/or forestry interests of the United States and as of the year 2013, the list includes a wide variety of species that are harmful to U.S. ecosystems, such as bighead carp, black carp, bolga snakes, and walking catfish. Burmese pythons were added to the list along with Northern and Southern African pythons and the yellow anaconda, all of which are classified as “constrictor snakes.” Senator Nelson’s office reported that a “small-yet-powerful lobby of reptile keepers” opposed a congressional ban on the import and transport of pythons and stalled legislation to that effect. Pythons were added to the Lacey Act despite the opposition from the reptile keepers because the Department of the Interior has the authority to amend the Injurious Wildlife List without congressional approval. As discussed below, this authority could be used to add lionfish to the list as well. There is some uncertainty as to whether the Lacey Act’s injurious species provisions prohibit the import and interstate shipment of dead animals, as the text of the Lacey Act only refers to dead animals in the context of allowing them to be imported for museums or scientific collections. Given that the purpose of the Lacey Act’s injurious species provisions is to prevent the spread of species that cause harm to people in the United States or that endanger the country’s agricultural, horticultural, and/or forestry interests, it seems like transporting dead lionfish across state lines would not conflict with the Lacey Act’s main goal. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has used its injurious species regulatory authority to prevent the import of dead salmon, but this is the only example of the injurious species provision being applied to animals that are not alive. The purpose of preventing the import of dead salmon in that instance was to ensure that the salmon were not carrying diseases, but since lionfish are not known to carry diseases, there would be no real reason to prevent individuals and companies from shipping their carcasses across state lines. In the event that the USFWS formally expands the injurious species provisions to apply to dead animals, and lionfish have been included on the Lacey Act’s Injurious Wildlife List, creating a market for lionfish outside of the states where they can be caught would be impossible. The lack of availability of a national market would not prevent lionfish from being consumed in the state where they are caught, however, and the limited geographic availability of lionfish could be an additional draw for tourists, as lionfish could be advertised as “Only available in Florida!” and become a reason to visit the state. Lionfish are also likely to be popular among more adventurous eaters, as they seem to have the added “danger factor,” much like blowfish on sushi menus do. Additionally, restaurants can market lionfish as a food that solves a problem because the population’s growth and invasive nature is so well-documented. The push for the public to become accustomed to lionfish as a food source is quite strong, although not without its critics. Some people argue that creating a national market for lionfish could have negative effects, as it could lead to companies attempting to farm lionfish in areas where they are not already prevalent and accidentally launching another ecosystem-destroying population boom. Additionally, lionfish could become so popular that the lionfish populations in remote ecosystems where they have natural predators and play a key role in sustaining biodiversity become overfished. This could cause long-term problems for those ecosystems, as a nonnative invasive species could move in to fill the gap left by an eradicated lionfish population. Other people dismiss these concerns and argue that risks of creating a national market for lionfish are too remote to be a legitimate concern. Other critics point out that catching lionfish takes more time and skill than catching other types of fish, and that creating a large market for lionfish will not be cost effective. If lionfish were to be included on the Lacey Act’s Injurious Wildlife List, importing them live into other states would definitely be illegal. The website for Traditional Fisheries, the main company attempting to generate a national market for lionfish in restaurants, does not indicate that lionfish are shipped live but instead only indicates that the company ships an order the day after it is placed. If there is no real reason to ship lionfish live, and federal authorities continue focusing the Lacey Act’s injurious species provisions on live animals, then adding lionfish to the Lacey Act would not prevent people from shipping their meat across state lines for human consumption. Even if adding lionfish to the Lacey Act’s Injurious Wildlife List limits the creation of a national market for lionfish as a food source, the criteria and process for adding a species to the list indicate that Florida’s chances of getting the Department of the Interior to agree to add lionfish to the list, and to agree to keep Burmese Pythons on the list, are strong. As discussed below, an alternative to the Lacey Act may be more complicated but might also be a more appropriate remedy at this time. 2. An alternative to the Lacey Act In addition to possibly limiting the national market for lionfish, the other major downside to including lionfish in the Lacey Act is the fact that doing so unfairly deprives people in landlocked states or states with coastal waters too cold to support a lionfish population from having lionfish in their aquariums. Because the waters off of northern California, for example, are not tropical and have no coral reefs in which lionfish could live and breed, a lionfish escaping or being released from an aquarium in that area would have no negative effects on the local ecosystem. Lionfish are beautiful and make a nice addition to a large in-home or corporate aquarium, so the benefits of allowing them in states where they do not pose a threat to the local ecosystem are definitely identifiable. Prohibiting lionfish in all fifty states also hints at the federal overreach some states’-rights advocates are concerned about and seems like too broad of a solution. It is for these reasons that a tailored alternative to the Lacey Act, in the form of a regional ban on the import and transportation of lionfish, could be a more appropriate way to keep additional lionfish out of Florida. Regional and single-state bans on certain items are not unheard of in areas outside the arena of environmental law and are actually quite common when some states have stricter laws regarding drugs and alcohol than others do. For example, some states prohibit the sale of a single, handheld, commercially bottled, container of beer or malt beverage measuring forty ounces or larger, whereas other states allow it. Similarly, and more analogous to a regional ban on lionfish, is Dade County, Florida’s ban on the sale or possession of pit bulls. Pit bulls are allowed in most other parts of Florida and in at least some capacity all fifty states, but were viewed by Miami lawmakers as worthy of a ban because they can be vicious and were becoming a major threat to the city’s residents and other wildlife. The existence of state-specific and county-specific bans in Florida shows that lawmakers are familiar with those types of laws and that a statute banning possession of live lionfish in the state would be possible, although not necessarily popular among all voters. Alternatively, the FWC may be able to use its rulemaking authority to enact a regulation banning the import, sale, and possession of lionfish in the state. The regulation would be codified in the Florida Administrative Code and have force of law, provided that it was announced and open for public comment for the required amount of time. Pet store owners or other people interested in continuing the lionfish trade could challenge the rule at an administrative hearing, which could lead to the regulation being overturned or Administrative Law Judges granting exceptions to it on a case-by-case basis. This would defeat some of the purposes of a uniform, state-wide ban, which is why legislation codified as a Florida Statute would be preferable in the event that lionfish are not included in the Lacey Act. Regardless of whether Florida agencies or individuals petition the USFWS to add lionfish to the Lacey Act or Florida lawmakers choose to enact a state-wide or regional ban, the educational factor is key to enforcing whichever law is adopted. If the public is aware of the harms associated with allowing the lionfish population to grow, private citizens will be more likely to assist with lionfish removal efforts and/or report people who release lionfish into the wild. Part V – ConclusionRecent reports of the harm lionfish and pythons have caused to the ecosystems they have invaded indicates that some of Florida’s most valuable natural resources are at risk. The lionfish invasion is already predicted to be the worst aquatic invasive species boom in history, and Floridians cannot afford to stand idly by and let the prediction come true. Federal spending has generally become more limited in recent years as the American public calls for a smaller budget, but targeted grants and earmarked environmental conservation funds show no immediate signs of tapering off if the cause is worthy. Florida will especially benefit from using the funds to foster increased public awareness of the damage the lionfish and pythons are causing and to continue and expand programs like the Python Patrol, lionfish derbies, and Pet Amnesty Days, as these projects have proven to be a way to remove these species and prevent them from entering the ecosystems. Pythons slithered their way into the hearts of exotic pet lovers and back out to a delicate ecosystem, while lionfish that once dazzled aquarium owners with their beauty are now destroying the equally beautiful coral reefs. The benefits of allowing pythons and lionfish in private homes are far outweighed by the problems they are causing in the wild, problems that will only get worse in the future. Now is the time to act to save Florida’s economy, ecosystems, and protected lands. APPENDIX A ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download