Much like in healthcare, preventative action for invasive species is typically much cheaper and simpler than palliative action. Preventing the establishment of a problem is crucial in the management of invasive species. Currently, much of the regulation concerning invasive species deals with specific species. This is something that policy-makers have to work on. Given the sheer volume of species that are moved from area to area that have the potential to become invasive, more regulation needs to be established about the vectors of transportation rather than targeting individual species themselves. While policy that deals with one specific species may be better suited to be dealing with that species, the other potential invasive species are essentially ignored. Spending so much time on one species, no matter how problematic it may become is baffling when one thinks about the broader policies that could be enacted which would cover both the species in question as well as others. In imposing a broad set of regulation to the various vectors of species transport, whether it be through ballast water, live bait, aquaculture or other anthropogenic factors, one ultimately protects the environment better than they would through individual species policy.
One interesting idea brought up in the article that was proposed in 1999 by Reeves was that any person or corporation wanting to introduce a species must first prove that it will not cause ecological or economic harm. This policy would hold that entity accountable for the actions of the introduced species. I think that this would be a highly effective policy as it would add a more prominent economic incentive to those companies who would want to establish a species. It would be crucial to have an opposing point-of-view do their own research into the potential damage of the species though, as statisticians can create misleading data. Only if the two sides are in concordance with the results could the species be introduced.