POLICY AND PRACTICE Evaluating the Policy to Restrict the Potentially Invasive Black Carp (Mylopharyngodon Piceus): A Decision Protocol with Assurance Bonding MICHAEL H. THOMAS* & TERRILL R. HANSON** *Agribusiness Program, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL, USA **Department of Agricultural Economics, Mississippi State University, MS, USA (Received April 2006; revised June 2006) ABSTRACT The introduction of potentially invasive species is a concern to the public and the aquaculture industry. Used to protect channel catfish from infectious trematode infestations, the non-indigenous black carp has been evaluated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and deemed potentially ‘injurious’ under the terms of the Lacey Act. Consequently, the black carp may be restricted from interstate commerce and eventually removed from US waters. An alternative approach to evaluating the risks posed by invasive species is considered and compared to that used by the USFWS. Short of outright restriction, reasonable options for management of such invasive species probably exist, including better use of environmental assurance bonds and return-deposit models. Introduction The introduction of non-indigenous species to generate various benefits to private agents and/or the public at large may adversely affect the indigenous fauna and flora, causing harm to humans and their enterprises. Aquaculture is one potential source of invasive aquatic species because each year many non-indigenous aquatic species are reared in ponds, raceways, pens, tanks and cages for the human food and pet industries. The efforts of the aquaculture industry to confine and/or restrict these introduced non-indigenous species may greatly lower the probability of a successful escape and the eventual establishment of such species. However, many observers believe no guarantees of avoidance exist and that the probability of an invasion remains greater than zero. For this reason, some experts believe all non-indigenous species used in aquaculture should be considered potentially invasive. Nevertheless, others argue Correspondence Address: Michael H. Thomas, Agribusiness Program, Room 302 South Perry-Paige Bldg., Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL 32307, USA. Email: michael.thomas@famu.edu Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 50, No. 1, 153 – 162, January 2007 ISSN 0964-0568 Print/1360-0559 Online/07/010153-10 ª 2007 University of Newcastle upon Tyne DOI: 10.1080/09640560601048614