MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1567767256

Exotic Pets Invade United States Ecosystems: Legislative Failure and a Proposed Solution

2006· article· en· W1567767256 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert C. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueIndiana law journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntroduced speciesInvasive speciesWildlifeNative americanFisheryEcologyGeographyBusinessBiologyEthnology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4. Id. (noting that "[s]ome invasive species may be 'stowaway' organisms that arrive here inside packing materials, or micro-critters that are dumped from ships' water tanks.But many plants and animals also enter the U.S. as part of the booming trade in exotic pets or food.");see also Charles Seabrook, Endangered Creatures for Sale: Illegal Animal Trade Reaps Billions Yearly, ATLANTA J.-CONST., Dec. 21, 2003, at Al ("Tens of thousands of endangered wild creatures from Brazil, Indonesia, Ghana and other countries are being [illegally] smuggled each year to black markets in the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan.Traffickers entice native people.., to capture coveted animals from rain forests and other wild habitats.")(alteration in original).5. See Lovgren, supra note 1. 6. Daniel P. Larson, Combating the Exotic Species Invasion: The Role ofTort Liability, 5 DuKE ENVTL.L. & POL 'Y F. 21, 34 (1995).7. Id.insects may be inside these crates. 8Third, exotic species are introduced through intentional importation of captive exotics that escape into the ecosystem. 9This includes exotic pets that humans transport into the country and release, or pets that escape from captivity. 10Focusing only on this subset of the third category, this Note discusses existing regulations and makes proposals regarding the legal pet-trade industry.This Note analyzes problems stemming from the exotic pet trade, and concludes with two alternative solutions.First, this Note examines examples of various types of non-native invasive species introduced as a product of the legal pet-trade industry.Second, this Note offers an overview of the pet-trade industry, including the various lobbying groups that support the industry.Third, this Note discusses existing federal regulation that the U.S. government could use to combat the effects of invasive exotic pets, specifically the Lacey Act, 1 the Endangered Species Act,' 2 Executive Order 13,112,13 and the National Invasive Species Act of 1996.14Fourth, this Note examines various state laws, including those of Florida and Indiana.Finally, this Note proposes two alternative solutions to existing federal and state legislation, and concludes that Congress should reform the Lacey Act to strictly regulate the importation of exotic species at both the national and local levels. I. INTRUSION OF THE EXOTIC PETSThe Burmese python, a native to Southeast Asia, is "poised to overrun Everglades National Park.' 15 Since the mid-1990s, park rangers have captured or killed sixty-eight pythons.1 6 A wildlife biologist at the Everglades National Park explained that he has "no doubt [there is] a breeding population of pythons in the Everglades," while noting that these snakes are being found as deep as fifteen miles into the park.' 7 According to the biologist, "[a]ll of the Burmese pythons .. .in the park are a product of international pet trade."' 8The United States allowed the importation of more than 144,000 Burmese pythons in the past five years, with hatchlings selling for as little as twenty dollars each.' 9 However, many pet dealers do not warn potential buyers as to how large certain exotic pets can become, 20 and the "once cute little baby snakes '2 can grow up to twenty feet long. 22

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.006
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0070.008
Research integrity0.0660.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndiana law journalSame topicWildlife Conservation and Criminology AnalysesFrench-language works237,207