Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
of its alien introductions consisting of internal movement of herpetofauna in cargo
(Fig. 2.29). Introductions via the pet trade have been virtually non-existent in
Australia. And that country and New Zealand are the least invaded of all Western
countries. In contrast, Europe, North America, South America, and Asia all have
the majority of their reptile and amphibian introductions occurring via pet-trade
releases, and regulation of that pathway is virtually absent in those regions.
The difference in approach and effectiveness between the United States and
New Zealand has historical roots. As suggested by Gordon Rodda, the ecological
histories of the nations certainly play a role. New Zealanders are very familiar
with the heavy toll taken by introduced mammals in their land, and many native
species today are famous taxonomic curiosities to be seen only on offshore
islands where introduced mammals are lacking. Commitment to invasive-species
management is high among both the public and government sectors in New
Zealand. Similar histories in Australia and Hawaii have no doubt made each of
those jurisdictions similarly sensitive to invasives. In contrast, the iconic stories
of wildlife conservation in North America revolve around elimination of bison,
passenger pigeons, and a variety of other species at the hand of human gunners.
Concern with those losses led to passage of the Lacey Act (primarily protecting
native wildife but subsequently prohibiting some alien animals) and creation of
the national wildlife refuge system. Invasive-species issues and reptile and
amphibian conservation consequently have had much less historical salience
among the American public.
Much of the programmatic ineptness in the United States would appear to be the
historical baggage of bureaucratic structures: it would no doubt be politically
charged to attempt to reorganize the quagmire of agencies that deal to one extent or
another with alien species. This could perhaps reflect a diseconomy of scale, with
the United States Government too large and unwieldy to respond to any social
problem with dexterity and finesse. If true, greater delegation of prevention and
management responsibilities away from the federal government and toward
regional and local structures might help improve invasive-species responsiveness in
the United States. Similarly ineffective bureaucracies may have hindered responses
to invasives in European countries too, which historically have been lax in manag-
ing alien reptiles and amphibians. It could be that the political upheaval involved in
forming the European Union may now allow scope for devising effective manage-
ment programs across that region by forcing attention to the issue and setting
minimal standards of action. Recent European planning and control activities
against alien herpetofauna suggest that such might be the case. Alternatively, the
European Union might instead also be approaching a diseconomy of scale as well
as expanding its fragmentation of authorities among several hierarchical levels
(EU/nations/provinces/municipalities). Hence, it remains too early to be certain
whether response effectiveness will be embraced in Europe as it has been in
Australia or New Zealand. In any event, ineffective bureaucracies having no clear
line of responsibility have certainly served to hinder meaningful management of
invasive herpetofauna (and many other species) in a wide variety of countries,
including the United States.
