175

American Fisheries Society Symposium 74:175–189, 2011© 2011 by the American Fisheries Society

Regulations as a Tool in Asian Carp Management

Jerry L. rasmussen*,1

Natural Resource Management Associates 3821 Adam Court, Bettendorf, Iowa 52722, USA

Abstract.—Regulations are one of the few tools available in the aquatic inva-sive species (AIS) management toolbox. In a perfect world, they could be used to effectively prevent spread of AIS from watershed to watershed or from continent to continent. But the regulations needed to prevent invasions by species such as Asian carps in North America and the United States are slow to evolve and used reluctantly by federal authorities because they are heavily influenced by regional and national political and economic considerations. State regulations, on the other hand, suffer from the influence of their own local and regional political and economic issues. Some states maintain strict policies and regulations with regard to Asian carp possession and use, but neighboring states may not. And since 48 of the 50 U.S. states are connected by a vast network of rivers, waterways, streams and roadways, invasions continue to occur and to spread. Consequently, Asian carp management in the United States is largely controlled by “least common denominator” state regulation that applies in a given watershed and beyond. This paper presents an overview of Asian carp regulations in the 50 U.S. states and of-fers suggestions for improved regulations.

* Corresponding author: ijrivers@aol.com1 Current address: 4 Cobblestone Lane, Le Claire, Iowa 52753, USA.

Introduction

State and federal regulations are among the few tools available for controlling introduction and spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS) such as Asian carps. By definition, regulations can be used to (1) govern or direct; (2) bring a situation under control of law or constituted authority; and (3) bring order, method, or uni-formity to one’s habits.

With regard to AIS management, regula-tions can be used to

• PreventnewAISintroductions,• PreventspreadofAIS,• EnhanceharvestofAIS,

• EncouragesomeusesofAISwhiledis- couraging others,• Protectthreatenedandendangeredspe- cies• Protecthabitats,and• Protectthehealthofnativespecies.

PathwaysneedingregulationintheUnitedStates include

• Imports,whichbringnewAISintothe country;• Landandwatertransportationroutes, which allow for spread of AIS over great distances in a short period of time;• Commercialsalesandtrades,which spread AIS through the marketing system;• Waterways,whichprovideaquaticpath ways for AIS to spread under their own

176 rasmussen

power or by hitchhiking aboard commer- cial and private vessels;• Water discharge from aquaculture hold- ing facilities (Naylor et.al. 2001) and private ponds;• Baitharvestanduse,whichcanspread AIS through fishing and recreational activity; and• Foodandpetindustries,whichcanspread AIS through live sales and improper dis- posal.

Politics of Asian Carp Regulations

Primary fish management responsibility inthe United States falls with the states, and de-velopment and implementation of regulations to manage Asian carp are often controlled more by political and economic consider-ations than by science and resource manage-ment needs. Such considerations influence when, how, and why regulations are written (Simberloff 2005), as well as where they ap-ply and the penalty for violation. Because we have 50 states, we can have as many different interpretations of science and determinations of the need for, language of, and use of Asian carp regulations.

Federal regulations affect the entire coun-try, but few exist with regard to fisheries man-agement, and those that do are used very con-servatively, especially for species such as Asian carps, which are in commercial trade in aqua-culture industries. The primary federal regula-tion that applies to Asian carp management in theUnitedStatesistheLaceyAct.Itisimple-mented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and has been used recently to de-clare some Asian carp species as “injurious.” Such a declaration is designed to prevent inter-state shipment of live individuals of a species across state lines and thus between watersheds.

ListingdateandstatusofAsiancarpundertheLaceyActaredisplayedbelow:

• BlackcarpMylopharyngodon piceus— October 18, 2007• SilvercarpHypophthalmichthys molitrix— July 10, 2007• LargescalesilvercarpH. Harmandi—July 10, 2007• BigheadcarpH. nobilis—under review

In 2000, the Mississippi Interstate Coop-erative Resource Association (MICRA), rep-resenting the interests of 26 of its 28 member states in the Mississippi River basin, petitioned USFWS to list black carp as an injurious species in order to protect threatened and endangered snails and mollusks (W. C. Reeves, Febru-ary 24, 2000 letter to J. Rappaport Clark, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.) should black carp escape captivity of commer-cial fish ponds. Political intervention by com-mercial interests in the aquaculture industries slowed that listing by as many as 7 years. Fish farmers, primarily in Mississippi and Arkansas, had just begun using black carp as an agent to control snail populations in their catfish ponds. The snails provide an intermediate host for a trematode parasite that infects catfish, reduces their growth rates, and reduces marketability of their flesh (Mitchell 2002). The politics of the situation with regard to MICRA’s petition was documented by MICRA (2000–2007) and by Williams (2001).

Because of the delayed Lacey Act listing,Missouri Department of Conservation officials were forced into a unique situation by political fallout in their state from the MICRA petition. The Missouri fisheries chief (also serving as MI-CRA chairman at the time) was forced by the economic and political interests of the aquacul-ture industry in his state to reach a compromise. PartofthatagreementwasthatMissouriwould(beginning in 2000) hold fertile (diploid) black

177regulations as a tool in asian carp manangement

carp in a state fish hatchery and supply sterile (triploid) black carp to fish farmers in Missouri for a period of 5 years for snail control before banning the fish altogether (Stucky 2000). That policy was, however, extended through the end of 2006 by the state Conservation Commission when USFWS failed to list black carp as an inju-riousspecies(S.Eder,MissouriDepartmentofConservation, personal communication).

In 2005, Congressman Mark Green (R-WI) attempted to bypass the federal listing process for Asian carps by introducing legislation to list bighead, silver and black carps as injurious speciesundertheLaceyAct,buthisbillneverreached the floor of Congress. In 2007, Con-gresswomanJudyBiggert(R-IL)tooksimilaraction introducing legislation to list black carp, bighead carp, silver carp, and largescale silver carps. Finally, as noted above, USFWS acted on the issue and listings have occurred for black and silver carps, but bighead carp listing remains under review.

In his press release announcing the listing of black carp, USFWS Director H. Dale Hall stated that “This is an attempt to head off a potential problem. Black carp have the potential to cause major damage to America’s native mussel popu-lations, and we want to get out in front of the issue now. Stopping the transport of these fish is crucial to the future of our native aquatic spe-cies” (USFWS 2007). Unfortunately, however, black carp were widely used in aquaculture, and within a few years after the MICRA petition, the species began to appear in catches of commer-cialfishermeninLouisiana.Itisalmostcertain(Nico et al. 2005) that black carp had escaped captivity and established wild populations in certain reaches of the mainstream and tributar-ies of the lower Mississippi River basin well be-fore the USFWS decision was made to list the species as injurious.

State agencies and regulations face simi-lar political problems, especially in southern

states such as Mississippi and Arkansas where catfish farming (and use of Asian carps) is con-sidered an important economic concern. For example, the influence of an individual fish farmer on legislators in the state of Mississippi with regard to tilapia Sarotherodon spp. was de-scribed by Williams (2001). In the 1990s, the fish farmer wanted to raise tilapia—sunfish an-alogs from Africa that were already established and considered invasive in Florida. When the farmer learned that state law prohibited this, he took his case to the state legislature, which promptly changed the law (Williams 2001). Although Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks Department (MWFPD) required thefarmer to install screens and filters to guard against escapement, tilapias soon escaped and began reproducing in tributaries of the nearby PascagoulaRiver(Williams2001).

MWFPDtemporarilyrevokedthefarmer’spermit and attempted eradication of the tilapia, removing six truckloads from the river (Wil-liams 2001). But the fish farmer again took his case to the state legislature. Fish farming is economically important in Mississippi, and state legislators acted promptly by transfer-ring regulatory authority for fish farms from MWFPDtoMississippiDepartmentofAgricul-ture. When Mississippi’s fish farmers began us-ing black carp in the late 1990s, there was little thatMWFPDcoulddoexceptadvisetheMissis-sippi Department of Agriculture, an agency that is not charged with aquatic ecosystem health as its primary mandate (Williams 2001). To date, Mississippi fish farmers continue to use black carp in aquaculture.

A complicating factor in state regulations is the primary focus or management interest of the state legislature and the state agency charged with developing and implementing AIS regulations. For most states this author-ity lies within the conservation or natural re-sources agencies (see Figure 1) whose primary

178 rasmussen

Figure 1. State agencies in charge of Asian carp introductions.

interests are management and protection of native species. But for 12 states (AR, AZ, CA, DE,GA,ID,MA,MI,NJ,NY,SC,andUT),that authority is shared between the state agri-cultural agency and the conservation and natu-ral resources agencies. As noted above, in Mis-sissippi that authority is held solely by the state agricultural agency, a strong advocate for aqua-culture and fish farming industries. Mississippi has possibly the most liberal regulations for Asian carp possession and use of any state and therefore strongly influences the effectiveness of regulations promulgated by other states in the Mississippi River basin.

Asian carps and other animals that escape captivity do not recognize political boundaries or state lines. Any organism that is imported to one state is free, once it escapes captivity, to enter adjoining states and any other state that lies within its watershed by way of natural and manmade waterway connections. The weakest state regulation in a watershed thus becomes the least common denominator regulation of

that watershed. Other states with more strict regulations must manage the invasion even though possession of the species may be illegal in their state.

Most states require a permit to stock any organism into public waters. Some states place strong restrictions on importation and culture of nonnative species while others do not. More restrictive states ban possession of any Asian carp. Other states allow use of triploid (sterile) grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella or black carp. In the case of triploidy, fertilized eggs are subjected to hydrostatic pressure to induce sterility in the offspring. Critics claim that this procedure is not 100% effective. Rottman et al. (1991) found that 0.6–1% of tested fish in trip-loid shipments were fertile, diploid fish. Some states enforce a permit system for lake owners, but not for fish culture operations. These are examples of the wide variety of regulations in place as each state attempts to control Asian carps in their own way, within the political re-alities of their state.

179regulations as a tool in asian carp manangement

Methods

All 50 state Web sites were viewed, and follow-up e-mail contacts were made with AIS coordi-nators and/or fish administrators of all 50 states. Asian carp control regulations were compiled, then reviewed and interpreted to consolidate regulations into a manageable list that could be displayed on maps for each of the four Asian carps. These interpretations were then provided to the AIS coordinators and/or fish administra-tors for their review and approval.

Asian Carp Regulations

Grass Carp

Grass carp regulations were broken down into six categories:

• Prohibited• Prohibited,exceptunderpermitforre- search/education purposes only• Restricted(allowedunderspecialpermit)• Triploidsallowedunderspecialpermit• Nopermitrequiredforpossession,but needed for stocking• Diploidsandtriploidsallowedunder special permit

Grass carp was first of the four Asian carps to invade the United States. The species arrived at the federal Stuttgart, Arkansas Fish Farming Experiment Station in the 1970s for experi-mental use in control of aquatic vegetation in ponds. Use of the species outside of controlled, experimental waters became highly controver-sial, especially between Arkansas (which pro-moted their use) and Missouri (which wanted to prevent their release to the wild). Grass carp advocates argued that rivers in the United States were so different from those of grass carp’s na-tive rivers in eastern Asia that the species would never be able to reproduce in the United States (Stanley 1976). They also argued that grass carp

would feed primarily on nuisance aquatic veg-etation (Rottman 1977; Mitzner 1978). Op-ponents disagreed. Stanley (1976) and Stan-ley et al. (1978) argued that grass carp would probably reproduce in the United States. Some argued that if grass carp removed certain key aquatic plants from a lake or pond, natural eco-systems would be disrupted and habitats de-stroyed (Forester and Avault 1978; Stanley et al. 1978). Additionally, if all vegetation in a pond or lake was removed or under control, they ar-gued that grass carp would feed on other aquatic organisms (Forester and Avault 1978) and thus disrupt food chains of native organisms.

Despite this controversy, grass carp were widely stocked into Arkansas lakes. By the late 1970s, wild grass carp reproduction was docu-mented (Conner et al. 1980). In the meantime, fish culturists had developed triploidy tech-nology to ensure that stocked fish would not reproduce. However, fertile grass carp had al-ready been stocked or had escaped to the wild (Mitchell and Kelly 2006). As wild grass carp populations appeared in the basin, more states allowed grass carp use for aquatic vegetation control in lakes and ponds.

Today, only seven U.S. states (AK, MD, ME,MI,MT,NH,andVT)continuetocom-pletely prohibit possession of grass carp (Fig-ure 2). Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Massachu-setts prohibit possession of grass carp except under permit in controlled waters for research and education purposes only. Four states (ND, NE,SD,andVA)requireaspecialpermit forpossession of grass carp. Twenty-six states (AZ,CA,CO,CT,DE,FL,GA, ID,KS,LA,NC,NJ,NM,NV,NY,OH,OR,PA,RI,SC,TN,TX,UT,WA,WV, andWY) allowonlytriploid grass carp under a special permit. Of this group, Delaware disallows even triploid grass carp in waters directly emptying into any Chesapeake Bay tributary. Colorado is also unique in that triploid regulation applies

180 rasmussen

Figure 2. Grass carp regulations by state.

only to the western slope of the Rocky Moun-tains and the headwaters of the Colorado and Rio Grande rivers. On the eastern slope of the Rockies (the Mississippi River basin), Colora-do,alongwithnineotherstates(AR,HI,IA,IL,IN,KY,MO,MS,andOK),allowspossessionof both triploid and diploid grass carp without a permit. Illinois and Indiana require a permit for possession of either triploid or diploid grass carp but allow for stocking of only triploid grass carp in private waters. These two states are included in this group because they also allow possession of diploid grass carp by aquaculturists for pro-duction of triploids.

As noted earlier, all states require a permit for stocking any fish in public waters and some states where grass carp are allowed in private waters do not allow stocking of grass carp in public waters. For those states where posses-sion is allowed, usually no permit is required for stocking in private waters (i.e., farm and aqua-culture ponds). Only in Alabama is a permit not required to possess diploid or triploid grass carp or to stock those fish in private waters. The

permit process in most states includes site in-spections of each property and installation of an emigration barrier where needed.

Despite the best intentions of each individ-ual state, the contiguous 48 states are connected by networks of waterways, rivers, and roads. The waterway network (impeded only by a few high dams) is shown in Figure 3 for the Mississippi River basin’s large, interjurisdictional rivers. The natural pathways that these rivers provide for the spread of AIS throughout the basin’s 32 states are extensive and problems faced by state AISmanagersareobvious.Evendamsprovideno obstacle to spread of AIS if they are carried overland by trucks, in fisherman’s bait buckets, or by some other means.

As noted earlier, Missouri opposed grass carp use when they were first introduced in Ar-kansas, and yet today they are among the most liberal states with regard to grass carp use. I be-lieve this is because Missouri found it futile to ban grass carp when the species began to arrive in their state by means of waterway connections with Arkansas. Other states that border the low-

181regulations as a tool in asian carp manangement

Figure 3. Map of the United States showing major interjurisdictional waterway connections of the Mis-sissippi River basin.

er Mississippi River have found themselves in a similarposition.LiberaluseofgrasscarpbyAr-kansas thus ultimately became the least restric-tive or “least common denominator” regulation that dictated future grass carp regulations of its bordering states, and for many other states in the Mississippi River basin (Figure 4).

If a state wants to introduce a new organism, it is free to do so as long as no federal regula-tion prohibits it. Despite objections from other

states within the river basin, little can be done to prevent fish escaping captivity in the original state from reaching other states through wa-terway connections. Use of triploids may have helped to slow down the spread of grass carp. Nevertheless, grass carp (and other Asian carp species discussed below) are probably here to stay. More restrictive regulations and interstate cooperation could have, but did not, prevent this situation.

Figure 4. Grass carp regulations by state showing Mississippi River basin and its major waterways.

182 rasmussen

Bighead Carp

State regulations for control of bighead carp were grouped into five categories:

• Prohibited• Prohibited,exceptunderpermitforre- search/education purposes only• Restricted(allowedunderspecialpermit)• Nopermitrequired• Noregulationexists

Bighead carp first entered the United States in a similar manner and at the same place as grass carp, except that bighead carp was used for control of nuisance algal blooms in catfish ponds and in sewage treatment instead of nuisance aquatic vegetation. Introduction of bighead carp was perhaps less controversial because the battle over grass carp had already been lost by opposing states and there was little or no demand for stocking bighead carp outside

of aquaculture ponds. Unfortunately, however, bighead carp escaped captivity and has spread throughout the Mississippi River basin, often reaching extremely high population densities (ChickandPegg2001).Becauseoftheirabun-dance, their impact has most likely been greater on the ecology of the rivers and streams of the Mississippi River basin than that of grass carp.

Seventeen states (AK, CO, CT, IA, KS, LA,MD,ME,MI,MT,NH,PA,OR,TX,UT,VT, andWA)prohibitpossessionofbigheadcarp (Figure 5).Ten states (ID, IL, IN,MA,MN, OH, OK, TN, WI, and WY) prohibitpossession of bighead carp except under per-mit for research and education purposes only. Fifteenstates(AR,AZ,CA,FL,GA,HI,KY,ND,NE,NM,NY,NV,SD,VA,andWV)al-low possession of bighead carp with a valid permit. Notably, however, some states com-mented that they would only issue a permit for bighead carp under exceptional circumstances.

Figure 5. Bighead carp regulations by state.

183regulations as a tool in asian carp manangement

An example would be possession of dead fish by commercial fishers who are assisting with control and eradication. No permit is required in Alabama, Mississippi, or Missouri. It is in-teresting that despite Missouri’s strong opposi-tion to introduction of grass carp in the 1970s, Missouri seems to have capitulated to the real-ity that the bighead carp invasion has already occurred and therefore a permit system would be too late to provide protection. Ironically, in Arkansas (where bighead carp were originally imported), a possession permit is required. The EastCoaststatesofDelaware,NorthCarolina,New Jersey, Rhode Island, and South Carolina have no regulations specific to bighead carp, perhaps because of their distance from estab-lished populations. It should be noted, howev-er, that bighead carp, probably escapees from the live food trade, have been captured from thewildinnearbyVirginia(Kolaretal.2007).

Mississippi, Missouri, and Alabama main-tain the most liberal, least common denominator regulations for bighead carp in the Mississippi River basin. By default, North and South Caro-lina should also be considered least common denominator states for the Mississippi River ba-sin since no regulations exist for bighead carp in eitherstate.TheotherthreeEastCoaststatesliecompletely outside of the basin. Similar to grass carp, bighead carp is expanding its range and will probably find its way throughout the Mis-sissippi River basin, except where stopped or slowed by strict regulations or high dams. Other watersheds and river basins are not without risk because bighead carp can be easily transported as bait, as live food, or as an aquarium specimen across watershed lines.

Silver Carp

State regulations for control of silver carp were grouped into the same five categories as big-head carp.

Silver carp entered the United States for the same purposes as the bighead carp and with the same low profile among the states. Like other Asian carps, silver carp escapedcaptivity and are spreading at an alarming rate (Chick and Pegg 2001). Silver carp has re-ceived the most public attention because of its erratic swimming and jumping behavior when disturbed by noise or boat traffic.

Eighteenstates(AK,CO,CT,IA,KS,LA,MD,ME,MI,MT,NH,NY,OR,PA,TX,UT,VT, and WA) prohibit possession of silvercarp(Figure6).Tenstates(IL,IN,ID,MA,MN, OH, OK, TN, WI, andWY) prohibitpossession of the species except under permit for research and educational purposes only. Fifteenstates(AR,AZ,CA,FL,GA,HI,KY,MO,ND,NE,NM,NV,SD,VA,andWV)al-low possession of silver carp with a permit. Again, some states indicated that they would only issue a permit for silver carp under ex-ceptional circumstances, such as possession of dead carp by commercial fishers. While no possession permit is required in Alabama or Mississippi and no permit is required for stocking in private waters (i.e., farm or catfish ponds), a permit is needed for public water stocking. So Alabama and Mississippi set the least common denominator for silver carp in the basin and share responsibility for the spe-cies with Arkansas (where silver carp were first introduced). No regulations specific to silver carp exist in the East Coast states ofDelaware, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. Again by default, in having no regulations for silver carp, North and South Carolina should be included in the least common denominator category.

Similar to grass and bighead carps, silver carp will probably expand throughout the Mississippi River basin except where stopped or slowed by strict regulations or by high dams. Other U.S. watersheds and river ba-

184 rasmussen

Figure 6. Silver carp regulations by state.

sins are not free from risk because silver carp can be transported as bait or as an aquarium specimen.

Black Carp

State regulations for control of black carp were grouped into five categories:

• Prohibited• Prohibited,exceptunderpermitforre- search/education purposes only• Restricted(allowedunderspecialpermit)• Diploidsandtriploidsallowedunder permit• Nospecificregulationexists,butwould likely be prohibited

Black carp initially entered the United States as a contaminant in a shipment of grass

carp (Nico et al. 2005). After the initial ac-cidental importation, black carp were inten-tionally introduced into the United States to control nuisance snail populations in aqua-culture ponds. The controversy surrounding their introduction, use, and spread is described above.

Twenty-onestates(AK,AL,CO,CT,IA,KS, LA,MD,ME,MI,MO,MT,NC,NH,NY,OR,PA,TX,UT,VT,andWA)prohib-ited possession of black carp (Figure 7). Ten states(ID, IL, IN,MA,MN,OH,OK,TN,WI, andWY) prohibit possession of blackcarp except under permit for research and educational purposes only. Eleven states(FL,GA,HI,KY,ND,NE,NM,NV,SD,VA,and WV) require a special permit to pos-sess black carp. However, as with bighead and silver carps, some states indicated that

185regulations as a tool in asian carp manangement

Figure 7. Black carp regulations by state.

they would only issue a permit under excep-tional circumstances such as possession of dead fish. Mississippi and Arkansas allow both diploids and triploids under special permit and therefore are the least common denominator states with regard to black carp management in the Mississippi River basin. No regulations specific to black carp exist in Arizona, California, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and South Carolina, but in some cases, officials indicated that if a per-mit application were submitted for approval in their state, it would probably be denied. For the Mississippi River basin, South Caro-lina thus should also be considered a least common denominator state.

As with the other Asian carps, black carp have been collected in the wild (see above) and have the potential of expanding its range across the United States.

U.S. Highway System as a Path-way

In addition to the nation’s waterway system, the U.S. highway system (Figure 8) provides a vast network for spread of AIS. Millions of vehicles travel these roadways daily, and ev-eryone has the potential to carry AIS. In one instance in Virginia, a truckload of bigheadcarp was reportedly spilled onto a roadway, and passersby (thinking they were doing the right thing) carried the live fish a short distance and released them into the South Holston River, a tributary of the Tennessee River. This is considered by some to be the source of bighead carp in the upper Tennes-see River system (Hodge 2006). Another ver-sionof this incident,asreportedbyVirginiastate authorities, states that all of the carp in this accident were destroyed, and the source

186 rasmussen

Caption 8. Map showing U.S. highway system and the potential pathways they provide for the spread of aquatic invasive species.

of bighead carp in the South Holston River is probably escapement from live haul fish trucks that exchanged water at a public boat ramp near an interstate highway (Kolar et al. 2007) Whichever version is correct, the public roadways and live haul fish trucks are the most likely pathway for introduction of bighead carp into the South Holsten River, a headwater tributary in the Tennessee River system. Similarly in Illinois, Asian carp have been found alive on roadways, presumably escapees from trucks used in the live food fish trade (Kolar et al. 2005).

Livefoodfisharemostoftensoldineth-nic markets in large cities. Unfortunately, some persons who purchase these fish follow a cultural or religious practice of purchas-ing and releasing captive organisms such as fish (Severinghaus and Chi 1999; Shiu and Stokes 2008). This may have been related to the capture of a live bighead carp in a fountain in downtown Toronto, Ontario near markets selling live food fish, and possibly the inva-sion pathway of a few bighead carp that have beencapturedfromLakeErie(CrossmanandCudmore 1999).

States officials from Oregon, Idaho, Mas-sachusetts,andNewYorkpointedoutthatthey

had little control over the transport and sale of live food fish. Authority for this activity often falls in a gray area between state fish and game and state agriculture agencies. Also, interstate commerce laws dictate that individual states can do little to control shipment of live fish through their state via roadways. The federal Lacey Act does affect interstate transport. Itwas passed by Congress to prohibit interstate shipment of species listed as “injurious” and, as noted above, is currently being used to control the spread of black and silver carps and to pro-hibit introduction of largescale silver carp. The situation with regard to bighead carp remains under review.

Summary and Recommendations

The state or agency in any watershed that maintains the least restrictive regulations for a species is the “least common denominator” state that will ultimately control the invasion of a species to other states via connecting riv-ers and waterways. The best way for states sharing a watershed to influence or change this situation is to organize under a com-pact or commission with statutory author-

187regulations as a tool in asian carp manangement

ity to standardize regulations and establish clean species lists. A clean species list would include only those species that have been determined to do no harm to native organ-isms. Species included on such a list could be possessed by anyone without the need for a permit. However, even then, a permit would likely be needed if someone wanted to stock aspeciesinpublicwaters.Possessionofspe-cies not on the clean species list would be il-legal. Another option would be for states to support some form of federal control over the species. In this situation, better use could be madeoftheLaceyActandadditionalregula-tions could be enacted.

In order to prevent a species from enter-ing the United States, the federal government could establish a federal clean species list. In ad-dition, the federal government could establish a screening process for any species proposed for import into the United States. Such a pro-cess should include stringent research controls to ensure that the subject species would do no harm. The burden of conducting such research, however, should not be at the expense of the public or government. The importer should have to bear this as a cost of doing business, but the research should be conducted by an in-dependent group without direct financial con-nections to the importingagent.Perhaps thiscould be handled by establishment of some form of trust fund that the importing agent would be required to support.

The federal government could also es-tablish ballast water inspection and control mechanisms for ships entering U.S. waters and passing between watersheds within the United States, including barges. It may be possible for live Asian carp eggs and larvae to survive in the ballast water of ships and barges long enough to be transported between watersheds. This is also true for live wells and bilge of recreational boats.

State and federal agencies could bet-ter regulate the aquarium, baitfish, fish cul-ture, and aquatic garden industries. Each ofthese entities regularly handles products that can be contaminated with unwanted fish or aquatic organisms. Some of these entities also intentionally handle Asian carp species with-out fully understanding the potential conse-quences of their mishandling. Additional ed-ucation and enforcement is needed to correct the latter.

State agencies could better regulate private bait collections in watersheds infested with Asian carp. Small bighead and silver carps can easily be confused with popular baitfish used by both sport and commercial fishers. Fishers use cast nets and other gear to collect bait and transport it overland to fishing areas that may not be infested with Asian carps; thus they can easily and unknowingly be vectors for Asian carps. States could control this by prohibit-ing collection of baitfish in areas infested with Asian carps.

Federal and state laws could be adjusted so that fines for violation of AIS regulations are substantial enough to discourage behaviors leading to violations. Many federal and state fish and game laws carry fines that are low in comparison to potential profits being made, so large commercial operators can easily absorb them as a small cost of doing business. Fines should be increased to a level that would put habitual violators out of business.

It should be noted, however, that regula-tions are not the ultimate solution to the AIS problem. Regulations need to be supplement-ed with strong educational programs about the many adverse effects of invasive species so that we have a well-informed public. Most of all, Congress and the states need to consider AIS as the serious problem that they are and en-act appropriate legislation and laws that carry measures and funding commensurate with the

188 rasmussen

magnitude of the problem. Such measures and funding levels do not currently exist.

The Asian carp problem is one of the most important resource management issues fac-ing biologists today. Interestingly, use of both bighead and silver carps as control agents for nuisance aquatic algal blooms has been largely abandoned by most aquaculturists. It is an un-fortunate tragedy that for a relatively short pe-riod of use, we allowed these species to be in-troduced into the country and to contaminate our native fish stocks, most likely forever. We need to better serve the interests of our native species in the future. Improved and enforced regulations could be an important tool to that end. Most likely, the best way to handle this would be through establishment of some form of Mississippi River basin fishery commission through which the states could work collabor-atively to promulgate and enforce basin-wide regulations, at least for those interjurisdic-tional species whose ranges and populations spread between two or more states.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the following persons for reviewing this document and providing input to their state’s regulations on Asian carp management: Steve Rider, Alabama Depart-ment of Conservation and Natural Resources; Bob Piorkowski, Alaska Department of Fishand Game; Larry Riley, Arizona Game andFish Department; Mike Armstrong, Arkansas Game andFishCommission;PeterG.Walk-er, Colorado Division of Wildlife; Catherine Martin, Delaware Division of Fish & Wildlife; Scott Hardin, Florida Fish and Wildlife Con-servationCommission;FredPartridge, IdahoFish and Game Department; Steve Shults, Il-linois Department of Natural Resources; Doug Keller, Indiana Department of Natural Re-sources; Kim Bogenschutz, Iowa Department of Natural Resources; Jason Goeckler, Kansas

Wildlife and Parks; Roy Bouchard and JohnBoland, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife; Harley Speir, Maryland Depart-ment of Natural Resources; Tom French, Mas-sachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife; Roger Eberhardt, Michigan Department ofEnvironmentalQuality;JayRendall,Minneso-ta Department of Natural Resources; Dennis Riecke, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, FishandParks;BrianD.Canaday,MissouriDe-partmentofConservation;EileenRyce,Mon-tanaDepartmentofFish,WildlifeandParks;Steve Schainost, Nebraska Game and ParksCommission; Richard Hansen, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish; Timothy J. Sinnott and Douglas Stang, New York StateDepartmentofEnvironmentalConservation;Carl Kittel, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission;LynnR.Schlueter,NorthDako-ta Game and Fish Department; John Navarro, Ohio Department of Natural Resources; Jeff Boxrucker, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation; Jim Gores, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Bobby Wilson, Tennes-seeWildlifeResourcesAgency;EarlChilton,Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; DonArcher, Clay Perschon andWalt Donaldson,Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; Tom Jones,VermontFishandWildlifeDepartment;Pam Meacham, Washington Department ofFish and Wildlife; Ron Martin and Bill Horns, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resourc-es;Frank Jernejcic,WestVirginiaDivisionofNatural Resources; and Mike Stone, Wyoming Game and Fish Department. I would also like to thank Duane Chapman, U.S. Geological Survey Columbia, Missouri for his critical re-view of this manuscript.

References

Chick,J.H.,andM.A.Pegg.2001.Invasivecarpinthe Mississippi River basin. Science 292:2250–2251.

189regulations as a tool in asian carp manangement

Conner,J.V.,R.P.Gallagher,andM.F.Chatry.1980.Larvalevidenceforthenaturalreproductionofgrass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella in the lower MississippiRiver.Pages1–19inL.A.Fuiman,editor.ProceedingsoftheFourthAnnualLarvalFish Conference. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-80, Washington, D.C.

Crossman,E. J., andB.C.Cudmore. 1999. Sum-mary of North American introductions of fish through the aquaculture vector and related humanactivities.Pages297–303in R. Claudi andJ.Leach,editors.Nonindigenousfreshwa-ter organisms: vectors, biology, and impacts. LewisPublishers,BocaRaton,Florida.

Forester,J.S.,andJ.W.Avault,Jr.1978.Effectsofgrass carp on freshwater red swamp crawfish in ponds. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 107:155–160.

Hodge, B. 2006. Hodge: bighead carp not a good catch for some. Knoxville (TN) News Senti-nel, 2/19/06.

Kolar, C. S., D. C. Chapman, W. R. Courtenay, C. M.Housel,J.D.Williams,andD.P.Jennings.2005. Asian carp of the genus Hypophthalmich-thys(Pisces,Cyprinidae):abiologicalsynopsisand environmental risk assessment. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Geo-logicalSurvey,LaCrosse,Wisconsin.

Kolar, C. S., D. C. Chapman, W. R. Courtenay, C. M.Housel,J.D.WilliamsandD.P.Jennings.2007. Bigheaded carps: a biological synopsis and environmental risk assessment. Ameri-canFisheriesSociety,SpecialPublication33,Bethesda, Maryland.

MICRA (Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Re-source Association). 2000–2007. River Cross-ings, volumes 9–16. MICRA, Marion, Illinois.

Mitchell, A. J. 2002. Nailing the snail that har-bors a fish parasite. Agricultural Research 50(9):8–9.

Naylor,R.L.,S.L.Williams,andD.R.Strong.2001.Aquaculture: a gateway for exotic speices. Sci-ence 294(23 November):1655–1656.

Nico,L.G., J.D.Williams, andH.L. Jelks.2005.Black carp: biological synopsis and risk assess-

ment of an introduced fish. American Fisher-iesSociety,SpecialPublication32,Bethesda,Maryland

Mitchell, A. J., and A. M. Kelly. 2006. The public sector role in establishment of grass carp in the United States. Fisheries 31(3):113–121.

Mitzner,L.1978.Evaluationofbiologicalcontrolof nuisance vegetation by grass carp. Trans-actions of the American Fisheries Society 107:135–145.

Rottman, R. 1977. Management of weedy lakes and ponds with grass carp. Fisheries 2:8–13.

Rottman,R.W.,J.V.Shireman,andF.A.Chapman.1991. Induction and verification of triploidy in fish. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, SRAC Publication 427, Stoneville, Missis-sippi.

Severinghaus,L.L., andL.Chi.1999.Prayerani-mal release in Taiwan. Biological Conserva-tion 89:301–304.

Shiu,H.,andL.Stokes.2008.Buddhistanimalre-lease practices: historic, environmental, public health and economic concerns. Contemporary Buddhism 9(2):181–196.

Simberloff, D. 2005. The politics of assessing risk for biological invasions: the USA as a case study.Trends in Ecology andEvolution20(5):216–222.

Stanley, J. G. 1976. Reproduction of the grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) outside its native range. Fisheries 1(3):7–10.

Stanley, J. G.,W.W.Miley, II, and D. L. Sutton.1978. Reproductive requirements and likeli-hood for naturalization of escaped grass carp in the United States. Transactions of the Amer-ican Fisheries Society 107:119–128.

Stucky,N.P.2000.Afive-yearplantoeliminateallblack carp from Missouri. Missouri Depart-ment of Conservation, Jefferson City.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. Imports and interstate transportation of black carp banned. USFWS News Release, October 18, 2007, Washington, D.C.

Williams, T. 2001. Want another carp? Fly Rod and Reel, June:18–24.