Navigation Links
Examining the Lacey Act

Andrea Fowler, David Lodge, and Jennifer Hsia (University of Notre Dame) examined the efficacy of the Lacey Act in their research communication, Failure of the Lacey Act to protect US ecosystems against animal invasions. The study appears in the September issue of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

With over 100 years on the books (passed in 1900), the Lacey Act is the main legal defense against invasive animal species. The injurious wildlife provision of the Lacey Act seeks to regulate foreign invasive species that may damage ecosystems, replace native populations, and kill off valuable natural resources and fisheries.

If the US is to reduce the probability of future damage from invasive animal species, revision or replacement of the Lacey Acts injurious wildlife provision is essential, say the authors. The contemporary threat of invasive species has far outstripped current authority and practice under this statute.

Examining all Federal Register documents, Fowler and colleagues searched the listed names of organisms, references to the Lacey Act, and references to injurious wildlife to determine which species were listed, considered for listing, and either added or not added to the list.

Many animals were already established when they were added to the list and continued to spread after their listing. The most common way to begin the process of listing a species in the last 25 years has been by petitioning the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. However, by March 1, 2007, when the authors wrote the paper, it took an average of more that three and a half years to list a species in this way.

According to the report, the lack of an efficient and consistently applied risk assessment procedure undermine the Lacey Act. Currently, most imported species only need to be declared to customs or permitted through the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The act was expanded from mammals and birds to include mollusks, crustaceans, reptiles, and amphibians in the late 1960s and early 1980s. In the 1970s there was a movement to limit importation to a list of low-risk wildlife, but the list was never implemented.

Fowler et. al. point out that the Lacey Act contains no authority or funding to manage the spread of established wild invasive species, which will do little to slow down organisms already present in the US.

The researchers suggest that prescreening, as well as switching from the use of a list of banned animals to approved species, would better protect the nations environment and natural resources.


Contact: Annie Drinkard
Ecological Society of America

Post Your Comments:
(Date:11/20/2015)... , November 20, 2015 ... company focused on the growing mobile commerce market and ... Gino Pereira , was recently interviewed on ... will air on this weekend on Bloomberg Europe ... America . --> NXTD ) ("NXT-ID" or ...
(Date:11/19/2015)... , Nov. 19, 2015  Based on its ... & Sullivan recognizes BIO-key with the 2015 Global Frost ... year, Frost & Sullivan presents this award to the ... catering to the needs of the market it serves. ... line meets and expands on customer base demands, the ...
(Date:11/19/2015)... 2015  Although some 350 companies are actively involved ... few companies, according to Kalorama Information. These include Roche Diagnostics, ... market share of the 6.1 billion-dollar molecular testing market, ... for Molecular Diagnostic s .    ... controlled by one company and only a handful of ...
Breaking Biology News(10 mins):
(Date:11/25/2015)... India , November 26, 2015 ... The Global Biobanking Market 2016 - 2020 report ... by maintaining integrity and quality in long-term samples, ... enabling long-term cost-effectiveness. Automation minimizes manual errors such ... the technical efficiency. Further, it plays a vital ...
(Date:11/25/2015)... Nov. 25, 2015  PharmAthene, Inc. (NYSE MKT: PIP) ... a stockholder rights plan (Rights Plan) in an effort ... carryforwards (NOLs) under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue ... PharmAthene,s use of its NOLs could be substantially ... defined in Section 382 of the Code. In general, ...
(Date:11/25/2015)... , November 25, 2015 2 ... première fois les différences entre les souches bactériennes ... celles des êtres humains . Ces recherches ... et envisager la prise en charge efficace de ... diagnostiqués chez les chats .    --> ...
(Date:11/25/2015)... Studies reveal the differences in ... pave the way for more effective treatment for one of ...   --> --> Gum ... in cats, yet relatively little was understood about the bacteria ... been conducted by researchers from the WALTHAM Centre for Pet ...
Breaking Biology Technology: