Legislation and the capacity for rapid‐response management of nonindigenous species of fish in contiguous waters of Canada and the USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The provision of Canadian and US hard, enforceable, law to authorize rapid response management of nonindigenous aquatic species originating from aquaculture, live fish sales, bait fish, and the pet trade was analysed at the provincial/state levels of government for the Atlantic, Laurentian Great Lakes, and Pacific regions of North America. No federal legal capacity for rapid response management exists in either country. US state legislation is generally better developed than Canadian provincial laws to manage the exotic fish trade. However, much discrepancy exists among provincial and state law regarding provisions to restrict or prohibit potentially harmful species. Aquaculture and baitfish use is generally better regulated than live fish markets and the pet fish trade in both countries. Only the state of Maine has laws authorizing rapid‐response management to control escaped exotic fish. Most species of nonindigenous fish arise from the aquarium, pet, and baitfish trades, and development of improved legislation containing provisions for rapid response management of escapees is warranted in all states and provinces. It is recommended that Canada amends the Fisheries Act to create the appropriate enabling legislation to monitor, assess risk, and deploy rapid response management of nonindigenous aquatic species, including fish that enter federal fresh and sea waters. Two recently‐introduced US Bills, S. 725 and H.R. 1350, with their explicit measures for early detection and fast action response, could, if passed into law, create provisions to control introduced nuisance species throughout North American waters. They would also create precedents for states and provinces that have most jurisdiction over aquaculture and trade in exotic fish to amend and align their laws in a complementary manner. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".