State risk practices and responses to Lacey Act changes for injurious wildlife

Abstract Objective The Lacey Act of 1900 gave authority to the U.S. Department of Agriculture—authority later transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)—to regulate the importation of injurious wildlife. Beginning in the 1960s, the USFWS broadened its interpretation of the Lacey Act to include authority to prohibit interstate commerce of injurious wildlife. A 2017 court ruling on this interpretation changed the regulatory landscape for federally listed injurious wildlife. The USFWS lacks authority to regulate interstate shipment of injurious wildlife, which could lead to uncertainty for state natural resource managers and—if changes are made at the state level—industries that ship live animals across jurisdictions. Our goal was to identify overall risk analysis and regulatory practices in addition to enacted or anticipated changes at the state level. Methods We conducted a survey of state aquatic nuisance species coordinators using a standardized questionnaire. The strengths and weaknesses of identified regulatory/policy options were then evaluated. Results Survey responses indicated that risk-based processes for identifying potentially invasive species were utilized but rarely standardized: 32 states had no standardized procedure; 13 states had a standardized process; and two states used a process, but it was not standardized. Few states intended to change the process of identifying potentially invasive species. In the years since the Lacey Act court ruling, 43 states made no changes, three states added species to their prohibited list, and one state harmonized regulations with USFWS injurious wildlife lists. Of the 43 states that had yet to make changes, 33 had no plan for changes, 9 were in the process of assessing their options, and 1 had plans for harmonization with USFWS lists. Conclusions While few changes were made in response to the court ruling on the Lacey Act, states lacking appropriate regulation may be at risk. We provide recommendations for states on adoption of risk-based processes, development of expertise, and membership in international, regional, and watershed consortiums to effectively evaluate their risk exposure.