§ 6. Other topics and takes on the issues

§ 6.1. Other contributions. Those are the highlights of the discussion focused on some specific major issues. There was, of course, much else discussed. The following comments were offered by individual participants:

§ 6.2. A policy structure. One academic expert on public administration in the area of environmental policy, who submitted a workshop paper on this topic, summed up the current state of our progress on developing "exotic policy" with the comment that it "flunks the test" for an effective policy structure. (See Paul J. Culhane, Professor of Public Administration, Northern Illinois University, "Reflections on Doing Battle Against the Last Invasion," 23 September 1999.) I have to agree, of course. That is why we needed this workshop.

§ 6.3. Blunders ahead. Another academic expert (the political scientist mentioned above) asked the group to discuss "the blunders ahead." Participants had many to mention. These included, in the order in which they were voiced:

1. Writing "one best way" for dealing with the problem into law. (I took this to refer particularly to ballast water control technologies.)
2. Rushing ahead with legislation.
3. Too much focus on controlling past invasions rather than prevention of new ones.
4. Failure to make use of existing policy structures. This participant also argued that it was a mistake to assume that policy makers were pushing for "one solution," as suggested in point (1) above.
5. Continuing to just do research while invasions continue.
6. Incorrectly assuming that the public is fully aware of the nature of the problem. This participant made specific reference to the problem of "mom and pop" businesses, such as those involved in the baitfish trade, who are yet unaware of their role in the problem, and suggested that sport fishing organizations and businesses could be better used to inform such people. She also made the point that sport fishing groups could be better used to support political action, because they are broad coalitions, but that they are less involved than they should be because of the "stigma of environmentalism."
7. Defining the problem in terms which were too narrow. This participant made the point that the problem was not just a technical and legal one, and that we needed more "adaptive" solutions.
8. Opening up the issue beyond aquatics (which had been suggested as a good thing earlier in the session by another participant).
9. Being too preoccupied with toxics (to the exclusion of exotics).