59 survey participants responded to Q19. 9/59 (15%) said that they did not know the current laws and regulations; 1/9 felt that current laws are not published to the general public. (See Government Effort section of Results for more discussion of this question.)

6 (all ANLA) respondents who chose "5" (government efforts don't go far enough - Q18), 1 complained that there are no Federal laws dealing with new plant introductions and that states need to work together within their regions, 2 complained that enforcement was poor, 1 felt the laws were generally weak, and 1 said that there are no laws in their state (Tennessee), to their knowledge.

Of the 12 (11 ANLA) respondents who chose 4 in Q18, 1 wasn't familiar with existing laws, 1 did not respond to Q19, the remaining 10 complained that the laws are weak (3); too general (2); inconsistent (2); poorly enforced (3); and that there needs to be more funding (2); eradication efforts (1); more information for "individuals", the public, and/or nurseries (3). They also see a need for ways to deal with new introductions, like screening (2). Of the twelve respondents who chose 4, 10 were able to justify their opinion in Q19, indicating that (along with those who chose 5, above), 16/76 (21%) survey respondents feel that policy improvements need to be made that would increase government efforts on preventing and controlling plant invasions.

The 26 (23 ANLA) respondents who chose "3" for Q18, 5 did not respond to Q19, 2 didn't know the laws, 2 feel that there are radicals or extremists influencing the decisions, 3 feel that the regulations are too broad, 1 complained of government promotion of certain invasive plants, 1 screening, 2 eradication, 1 lack of funding, 4 felt more science or studies need to be done, 1 individual lack of info, 1 inconsistent, 4 regionality, 1 poor inspection, 1 felt they were weak, 1 wanted more input by nurseries, 2 felt the laws were vague, 1 complained about government bureaucracy, 1 stated laws were sufficient. Only one of the respondents who chose "3" actually felt that the current laws were sufficient and stated that explicitly. Excluding the 5 who did not respond to Q19 and the 3 who said "don't know", 18/76 (24%) chose a moderate answer, "3", but still had opinions about changes that need to be made in the current regulations of invasive plants.

As I mentioned above, 18/76 respondents chose "Don't know" for Q18. Despite the fact that they felt that they didn't know how they felt about existing government efforts to control invasive plants, 7 still had opinions about the current regulations. These seven had similar opinions as those who chose "3". 3 felt that laws need to be more regionally based, 3 felt that there needs to be be more information to base the policy on, and one felt that there needs to be a way to prevent new introductions. Because of the similarities in responses, I feel that many of the nurseries choosing "3" also feel poorly informed about current regulations. In general, my nursery-respondents seemed unfamiliar with regulations of invasive plants, indicating that the regulations probably have very little affect on their everyday operations and that there is an opportunity for education in informing nurseries about current and future regulations. 5 (all ANLA) chose "1" to Q18, 8 (7 ANLA) chose "2". Of the 8 who chose "2", 2 did not respond to Q19 and 2 don't know the laws. Of the remaining 9/76 (12%) who felt that government effort goes too far, and justified their opinion in Q19, 2 complained about unreasonable government bureaucracy, 1 felt the laws were too vague, 3 wanted more nursery industry input, 1 felt invasiveness should be defined on a regional basis, 1 felt that government should not be involved at all, 3 feel that more information needs to be gathered, 1 felt that the laws were too broad ("black-balling entire genera"), and 2 felt that poorly informed radicals or extremists were influencing the laws.

Table Q19 shows how respondents’ answers to Q18 (government effort) and Q19 compare.