Invasive Species-related Bills in the Oregon Legislature

​Our elected representatives have returned to Salem. Every session they consider thousands of bills designed to modify or delete existing laws or create new ones to address current and emerging issues. This year there are a handful of bills related to invasive species. If you care about any of them, or if you care about protecting Oregon's economy and natural resources, now is the time to let your legislators know how you feel.

​Bills come from a variety of sources, including citizens, lobbyists, business groups, etc. State agencies also propose legislation, usually to fix perceived problems with existing laws. Our ideas are vetted by the Department of Administrative Services and the Governor’s Office. If they survive, they become agency bills. State employees, like me, are officially neutral on all proposed legislation with the exception of “agency bills.”  

​A good example is HB 2247. This is an agency bill proposed by the Department of Agriculture.  HB 2247 would delete obsolete statutes related to gorse, aquatic weeds, and experiment stations. Another section would get rid of a widely ignored law requiring farmers to post copies of the state weed law on all their farm machinery. All of these oldies predate the first edition of the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) published  a whopping 60 years ago! It is time they were retired.

​The final section of HB 2247 would correct an error from two sessions ago when Oregon's weed statutes were consolidated into ORS chapter 569. Previous to that, our weed laws were scattered across three different chapters related to agriculture. When the consolidation occurred, the existing civil penalty provisions didn’t migrate to the new chapter. HB 2247 would fix that. I drafted the legislative concept that became HB 2247, and I’m allowed to tell you I think it would be a good idea if it passes.

​SB 571 would add the Marine Board to the Oregon Invasive Species Council as well as another at large seat. This is not an agency bill, but it has the blessing of the Governor’s office, the Marine Board, and the Oregon Invasive Species Council (OISC). ODA is neutral on this bill, but as the current chair of the OISC, I testified in favor of it on behalf of the Council. The Marine Board has been a valuable member of the Council and has had an at-large seat in recent years. It is especially important they be at the table now as we attempt to keep zebra and quagga mussels and other boat hitchhikers out of Oregon.

​Other bills related to invasive species include:

SB 116 – reinstates the Shipping Transport of Aquatic Invasive Species Task Force, an important group that focuses on potential invasives associated with shipping pathways.

HB 2813 – bans Arundo donax (giant cane), a species currently being cultivated for biomass production to replace coal at the Boardman PGE plant. This species has been known to be invasive in warmer climates in the United States.

HB 2188 & HB 3364 – create mechanisms to enhance cooperation, coordination, and communication amng agencies that implement integrated pest management.

​ODA is neutral on these bills, and I have to keep my opinions to myself, but if you’re not a state employee, you can speak up, join the legislative process, and let your voice be heard. One thing I’ve learned about the legislative process is that our representatives like to know what their constituents are thinking and relatively few people take the time to tell them.

Dan Hilburn

Paying for Invasive Species Programs

I used to buy 50 Christmas cards to cover everyone on my staff, and it was never quite enough. This year I bought 44 and had several left over. Like most parts of state government, the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s Plant Program is shrinking. Downsizing is hard. It is especially difficult when there is plenty of work, but money to pay people to do it is not there.

Seventeen years ago when I took this job, the Plant Division, as it was called then, received over 50 percent of its funding from state general funds (your taxes and mine). That proportion has shrunk to just 3.5 percent. You've probably noticed that state (and federal) funds are increasingly being diverted to other priorities, like schools, prisons, and health care. For us it has meant a series of budget cuts to our base funding. I don't see an end to that trend. The current Governor’s Recommended Budget includes another $500,000 cut to ODA’s Noxious Weed Control Program.

Thankfully, some cuts have been offset by additional federal and lottery funds, but these are typically tied to on-the-ground projects or national priorities. If a noxious weed or invasive pest is causing a problem, grant funding becomes available for that species. This sort of targeted funding makes for good accountability, but it fosters a reactive approach. When something bad happens, money appears; when nothing bad happens, the money disappears. The problem with invasive weeds and pests is that nothing bad happens for the many years after an introduction until the infestation has spread and starts to impact desirable crops or habitats. By then, it is very costly or impossible to eradicate the problem.

We'd be better off with a proactive strategy. Exclusion-based on early detection and rapid response (EDRR) is the most cost effective way of dealing with invasive species, but the money that used to fund our early detection surveys has largely disappeared. No one wants to pay for a prevention program, especially when there are so many other demands on public funds.

So where do we go from here? We can accept shrinking budgets and convert to reactive programs knowing they will be less successful, or we can figure out a better way to fund EDRR programs. The options I see fall into three categories:

1. public base funding, i.e., the old system

2. a dedicated fee (a surcharge on something) or

3. tax the pathways approach (small surcharges on trade and travel activities that bring us invasive weeds and pests)

Personally, I think our public invasive species programs are crucial. Because there is no profit in EDRR, I can't imagine them being done by the private sector. Who else but public agencies are going to survey for gypsy moths, zebra mussels, or kudzu? Who else has the authority to eradicate an infestation of Japanese beetle or distaff thistle no matter the land ownership?  

In the next couple of years, I expect to spend considerable time trying to find stable funding for Oregon's invasive species programs.  I think it is time for a fresh, comprehensive look at the needs and possible revenue sources. The first steps were discussed yesterday at the Oregon Invasive Species Council meeting. If you have ideas or passion about protecting Oregon from invasive species, we’d love to hear from you. Our chances of success are better if we work together.

Dan Hilburn

Seeing the Forest Through the Trees

Another new year is upon us, complete with a significant percentage of the population vowing to implement new years' resolutions, from lifestyle changes that take off the extra pounds gained from holiday festivities and age, to those pledging more time to volunteer and help those in need.

I've always been somewhat ambivalent about the new year - it seems like if something needs to be done, we have the capacity within each of us to do it "now," not wait until a certain date on the calendar. Why even talk about falling off a fiscal cliff when we can make a decision months in advance that prevents the cliff from ever forming? Do we need the threat of a catastrophe to act? In some arenas, apparently so.

We see the need for a crisis in order to act play out time and again in the invasive species arena. We don't realize we've got a garlic mustard problem in one part of the state until several hundred acres of garlic mustard "suddenly" appear on the landscape. Quagga and zebra mussels, first introduced in the Great Lakes region of the country, suddenly jump several states, appear in a different region of the country, and remain a threat to places like the Pacific Northwest, despite what we know about how this species moves. Japanese beetles invade our state on an annual basis, threatening our nursery and agricultural industries (not to mention my back yard gardening), yet in 2012, the Oregon Invasive Species Council had to declare an "emergency" to find funds to fill the gap and allow treatment programs to occur. And feral swine, a species on the global 100 Worst List of invasive species, continue to spread across North America, while we give birth to television shows that celebrate their presence, such as "Hogs Gone Wild." Given our understanding of invasive species pathways and vectors, we should not have these recurring episodes. It's like Groundhog Day playing itself out over and over again.

We're missing the forest for the trees. We often forget the most important part of the invasive species equation is people. Of all the issues associated with natural resource management, the human dimensions aspect is the most challenging and unpredictable, yet offers the most hope and our greatest chance for success. In other words, we're the problem -- and we're the solution.

We make investments in one stretch of a watershed, while ignoring the fact that new invaders from upstream areas will inevitably set back those initial investments. We point fingers at other regions of the country, saying "They're the problem". We don't acknowledge the tradeoffs that must occur with global commerce -- and set aside adequate funds to pay for treatment programs to eradicate species that are introduced on a regular basis. We try to make good of a bad situation and create short-term economic benefits by selling wild hog hunts (illegal in Oregon), spawning a recreational "opportunity" from what is, quite literally, an ecological disaster. Or we put all of our eggs in one basket, claiming one particular invasive species is and will be the greatest threat ever to our state and region, lessening our ability to communicate the need to deal with high risk species in the future.

What we haven't done is take a step back, remove ourselves from the emotional struggles and hard work that comes along with dealing with invasive species, analyze the human dimensions aspects of each of these issues, and then take strategic steps to prevent them from recurring. Sure, we need more funding and more resources for invasive species prevention -- no argument here. But we especially need to focus on effective positive behavioral changes in people -- and do so by modeling good behavior.

• An "A" listed noxious weed in Oregon wouldn't suddenly appear in a patch spanning hundreds of acres if Oregon had a healthy statewide early detection rapid response program that engages people in rural and urban areas alike to watch for and then report suspected sightings of these high risk species. We can do a better job of informing the public about high risk species, and creating the infrastructure for them to report and for experts to respond.
• We can prevent the introduction of quagga and zebra mussels from invading the Pacific Northwest if we work collaboratively with our neighbors already under siege, developing a multi-pronged approach that focuses on pathways and vectors -- and that could serve as a model for how we deal regionally with invasive species issues. 
• If we accept the fact that global commerce is important to Oregon's economy (and few would doubt that, despite a healthy "buy local" perspective), then we need to convene the industries that unwillingly transport these hitchhikers into Oregon and develop new, cost-effective ways to treat cargo and shipments at the source as well as obtain a long-term commitment to adequately fund treatment programs for any invaders that slip through the cracks. It has to become the "cost of doing business." We can convene industry representatives, assist with providing the science on invasive pests, and help industry problem-solve this issue.
• We can stem the spread of feral swine in Oregon. The recently launched "Squeal on Pigs" outreach campaign is a good start at raising awareness about and reporting suspected sightings of feral swine. Everyone in Oregon must understand the human health, natural resource, and economic threats this species has to our quality of life. We've developed a Facebook page, Squeal on Pigs, and are about to launch a smartphone application for use by every state in the nation. Our ability to eradicate this species relies heavily on public sightings and reporting.

We must begin to approach each and every invasive species issue with an understanding of the human dimension elements that foster continued reintroductions, barriers to engaging in healthy and productive discussions about prevention, and creative ways to engage the public in this important long-term fight. It's worth looking past the trees to save Oregon's forests.

Lisa DeBruyckere