|
|
Member
Posts: 319
| You know Jake,
There is nothing you have said that is not third hand information also, unless you have paid the money out of your pocket and went out to personally do the science and research. What is really sad is I posted a statement directly from the DNR that gives good facts about the situation and you still dismiss it out of hand. The only way you will be happy is if your scenario plays out, anything else is just third hand information. It's amazing what you find out when you actually do some real research and not just rely on the hyperbole of others. Let me ask, would you rather have Lake Michigan murky and polluted like it has been in the past or the condition of the water as it is found today? The fish populations are on the rise because of the cleaner conditions, same with the algae amounts.....its nature. Much less the argument is over primarily the salmon....a fish species that is not supposed to be in the lake by nature.
As for the other question, the salt in the Caspian Sea is 1/3 that of the oceans. I personally do not think that has any effect on how an ecosystem reacts to an intruder that can viably live in that environment.
Edited by RedNeckTech 7/6/2008 2:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2445
Location: Fremont, Wisconsin | Bagz, I am glad you said that. Let me tell you, there are many things that want to change on our waterway on the wolf river, mostly it is land owners that want the whole river shut down to slow no wake, see another thread, so they can have on golden pond. This is defensable now. The whole invasives are another issue. I will not point out points that have allready been made, but I will let you in on one thing. The general public does not care if a person makes a living on a waterway. They are more people concerned about there own happiness, verses you making a living. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 538
| Redneck,
Thanks for that long posting. That is information I have not seen and I found it interesting. I appreciate your lonely input. I have found some of your wording to appear flippant to the casual viewer, but I do follow your logic and supporting information. I am in the closing the seaway camp. We do not need any more introductions into the ecosystem.
Take care,
Jim O |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 185
Location: Port Washington, wisconsin | Oh how true that is Stacker. I see so many customers that have not the faintest idea what is happening to their environment, that it's hard to believe, the sand can be so full of all those heads.
Edited by bagz 7/7/2008 1:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 300
Location: Lincoln Park, Mi | I don't think, it'a heads in the sand, even with Redneck. I take it more as hands in the pockets, in denial. Why? Wish I could tell you a blanket answer, but I think most realize the problems, but also realize that the solutions may be burdonsome on their pleasure, so they're not admitting any problem or willing to even let others offer a cure or preventive measures. You're exactly right, they don't care about people who make a living on the water. Them having to dump out minnows or whatever is far more imporant to some than the quy who has to shut his baitshop or quide/charter down. Even if all of the preventive measures end up being for not, and it proves out to be no threat, it's all worth it to me. I'd rather dump minnows or do whatever for a few years while it plays out than people like Redneck taking the hands-off approach and being wrong, then waiting much, much longer for a fisherty to recover. I respect Redneck for all the research he does before making a decision and the facts he presents, but in his case, I think it's more personality than facts driving him. I definitely see a pattern of denial on every issue like this presented to him. No hard feelings Redneck. You take the pattern you do, and I and others will keep on the pattern of better safe than sorry.  |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2680
Location: Essexville, MI./Saginaw Bay. | I'll co-sign that last post.  |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| In every post I never stated to keep allowing ballast dumping, in fact I have been on the side of stopping it. I just happen to be the type of person that researches things before I fall on one side or the other. Trust me, my hands are not in my pockets doing all this research. You can't post an article about the algae being a by product of the zebra mussels when it is not. Even take the number of zebra mussels the article claims is in the lake, that is equivalent to having the entire lake bottom covered in 1" of zebra mussels. This is not hands-in-pocket approach, to me it is being logical. All of these invasives have been found in the lakes to the east before they got to Lake Michigan and by all accounts the fish in the lakes are fine....so why is Michigan any different? Lake Michigan's eco-system is very different today than it was 100 years ago and it will be very different 100 years from now. Why are you not for getting rid of all invasives including the ones planted there by us? If you can show me a lake where zebra mussels did more harm than good for a lake I would think a little differently about it but again, in the other Great Lakes it has improved the water clarity and boosted the fish populations. The minnow laws are not the reason guides and bait shops are having a hard time, a lot of the guides and bait shops have themselves to blame for poor business sense.
Over blowing the actual situation on the lake is doing more damage than anything else. Who really wants to come fish Lake Michigan when they hear there is nothing but round goby eating everything except for the poisonous algae that is covering the entire lake, and what the goby doesn't eat will just die off because zebra mussels are eating all other food sources or they will be infected with VHS anyhow.
I take none of the opposing arguments personally (unless they are nasty and derogatory) and if I am proven wrong I will be the first to admit it, hopefully that door also swings the other way. All I did was provide facts that show that what is happening to the lake is not how many are portraying it.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | One's 'Reality', in it's most pure form, is based in most cases entirely on one's perceptions.
I bet I could successfully argue several opposing angles on the impact and potential future impact of invasives based entirely on my perception of the data and studies available to me. After all, waves on the water DO make the wind blow. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| Anyone can take data and morph it into what they want if one implies something that is not there. I rely more on the history of the subject than anything else. In this particular subject it is the zebra mussels and cladophora, they have been on this earth long before you or I have been and the history shows that they do not damage fish populations, in fact they show to help grow the populations. I believe the issue here is the fact that they are an invasive. It does not matter if they are helping the lake or not, people don't like invasives unless they are planted there by us.
Cladophora is not a rancid slime as the article states, it is a native plant life to the great lakes, as it breaks away and dies it forms the ooze. Out of the whole shore line of Lake Michigan it accumulates right now on a tiny section.
Cladophora is a food for smaller fish, the more cladophora the more food for the small fish.
Lake Michigan's eco-system will balance out from the mussels. With all the fear that they will end fishing as we know it, why has the small mouth bass population more than doubled in Lake Erie....the zebra mussels cleaning the water. Why has the perch population in Lake St Claire increased up to five fold....zebra mussels cleaning the water. In both of these examples the DNR directly credits the zebra mussels for increasing the fish populations. If you’re going to say that you would much rather have Lake Erie, Michigan or any other of the great lakes in the condition they were in back in the 60's rather than today then I don't know what to say....I can't straddle a fence that big without hurting myself. Zebra mussels alone did not clean up the lakes, but they are heavily credited for that and for helping increase fish populations.
I also believe that guides and bait shops are more passionate about their view because for some reason they have the mind set that because their business exists they are entitled to make a complete living from it whether the conditions or economy calls for it. I'm sorry, fishing guides are a dime a dozen and the market is saturated with them. Not a good condition to make a living from much less throw the economy in there. The part of the economy my business was in almost completely disappeared five years ago, I didn't sit around and complain that I was hurting...I did something about it. One should feel very fortunate to make money from a passion, but if times don't call for it (for any reason) then adjust and go back full throttle when the times call for it.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 2393
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin | Redneck:
I'm beginning to like you. You are articulate and stay focused to your ideas. You stand up to what you believe in and do not appear to attack others, even when they the attack you.
I may not agree with all that you suppose but I like your style. You grow on me like I am shore line rocks and you are the Cladophora being washed away from the system.
It takes a little courage to stand up to this group when you are the lone ranger. For this, I salute you. I'll even ignore the guide comment about us being a dime a dozen.
You are correct that Cladophora is nothing new.
Here are a few more passages from the documents that you researched:
It is the aesthetics of the blooms that draws most attention, especially the odors from the rotting material, and the appearance on the shore and in the nearshore water. Such problems clearly have effects on property values, but they also affect tourism and recreational uses. While the effects of large quantities of Cladophora on the shore are obvious, much of the Cladophora probably settles deeper in the lakes; the effects of this biomass on the lake benthos are not known. It is also not clear if the decay of Cladophora blooms can affect oxygen levels and whether it is therefore implicated in fish kills.
Additional risks are posed by the tendency of blooms to clog water intakes. Such events can be quite serious. There have been power outages caused by fouling of power plants in Wisconsin, and shut-downs of nuclear power plants in Lake Ontario have been caused by Cladophora blooms
In terms of direct effects on human health, there is some evidence of increases in botulism due to decreases in O2 levels in Lake Ontario, which may be related to Cladophora decay. It is clear that the moist, protected environment created by Cladophora mats could aid in survival of some pathogens on recreational beaches, though the real importance of this process is not known.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| Hey Sunshine,
Wanted to clarify my comment about the guilds. I did not mean it in a negative way. What I am trying to say is when the economy is down, too much of any particular thing is a hindrance to try to make any profit. This goes for other things such as trucks, houses and even handyman services, they are all cut-throat due to the economics of the country right now. I was also not referring to Lake Michigan specifically, when you get up north to Minocqua area everyone who has a resort in that area is also a guide....and there are a ton of them. Didn't mean it in a bad way, guilds are great for getting people to the fish who otherwise would not be able to.....or find them.
|
|
| |
|
| it amazes me on how far poeple will argue a point and even thought it may be well written or make sense they still miss ther point of discussion. let your ego rest for awhile dude. Bottom line for past 10 years i have been visiting this site there has been many discusions on the st lawerance waterway and how exotic species have been entering into out system. Close the damn seaway! period |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | I wasn't talking about issues that are not there, I'm talking about those that clearly are. One can argue any aspect successfully if one takes the time to do so; who's 'correct' may not even matter in the long run. Revisionist History will probably take care of that, as happens in so many cases when we are talking about 'protecting' our environment and our natural resources. As an example, define that term, 'protecting'... |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| Guest - Been visiting the site for ten years but logs in as guest.....brave. The seaway needs to be dealt with but keep in mind totally closing it will have a bigger economic impact on communities than anything else. I will give my ego a rest, as soon as I find where I put it, as long as this never ending drum beat of "Lake Michigan is on its last leg" stops. As long as people are making predictions on how something will affect the waters while totally ignoring the history of the subject, I will be bringing it up.
Mr. Worrall - You and I have never seen eye to eye and the revisionist history comment bolsters that. Why not look at the history of the subjects as it stands? I have asked you similar questions in the past and I will ask again...name a lake or water system, in the world, that zebra mussels have ruined the eco-system. I can point out specific ones where it has help the waters.
As for protecting the natural resources, it has become more of protecting man-made resources; it is whatever we decide we want in what water system and then put there. Nature doesn't have too much to do with it anymore. The word prtoect is defined as "To cover or shield from exposure, injury, or destruction" and natural resources is difined as "naturally occurring substances that are considered valuable in their relatively unmodified (natural) form." These are the definitions unless we're not using the English language as a guide.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Define 'ruined'.
Guests are welcome to post here and always will be, long as everyone is reasonably civil.
Revisionist history abounds regarding the 'public's' responsibility RE: our feeble and sometimes pitiful attempts to protect our natural resources from ourselves, and the spread of invasives clearly indicate how bad we are at it. That's all of us, government of the people and by the people...but there's a fair share of revisionist history going on there, too.
You seem to like zebra mussels and seem to welcome them to our waterways. I don't. Doesn't make either of us 'right', which was my point. Ruined...well, how about irrefutably and forever changed, and perhaps not for the betterment of the total ecology of the system? Your comment that zebra mussels make the fishing better could be compared to mine...waves on the water make the wind blow. Go ahead, argue with me...either of us is more than capable of making nearly any point sound convincing, cherry picking an example while sidelining the obvious big picture.... and the damage occurring from invasives as simple as milfoil is to see and understand, yet so difficult to control will continue because...we are lousy stewards.
You say VHS is nothing to worry about, I disagree, and the majority of the scientific community seems to come down on the side of extreme caution until we all know better what we are dealing with. I agree with the idea that a disease that HAS done damage in fish populations needs be carefully controlled as much as is possible, and studied to the extreme. I disagree with those who are NOT scientists insinuating those who are and are charged with the stewardship of our fisheries are all morons or idiots incapable of observing the obvious, and are simply trying to scare us like little children around a campfire. I'm pretty sure that isn't their intent, and these folks are not Chicken Little, not even close.
My argument isn't with any particular point you have made, it's with the rhetoric that excuses or even perhaps encourages bad public stewardship EVEN when talking about a disease like VHS or an invasive like Zebra Mussels, perhaps reinforcing many to decide it's not a problem, certainly not THEIR problem, possibly then making lousy stewardship even worse...that in my opinion is irresponsible. Whomsoever has a trailer dragging a string of Milfoil, or carrying a boat livewell full of VHS infected water from Bay of Green Bay to Lake George by my house, the base responsibility as a sportsman and joint steward with the rest of us has failed us all because of careless behavior. It was careless behavior that allowed those invasives to be released in our waters in the first place, correct? Of the people, by the people? Where does that responsibility cease, and apathy or worse become acceptable?
Red Rusty crayfish. What a disaster those damnable things are up here, and all because they were good 'bait' to catch Perch. they have irreparably damaged countless waters up here, and the alarm WAS sounded and in plenty of time...unfortunately, not enough of us listened. they do, however, taste quite yummy boiled and added to an Etouffee. Some folks made a decent living trapping and exporting them for awhile, even.
By the way, when the DNR's from three or four states intentionally stock fish not natural to the system with the intent of engineering a viable sport fishery where none existed, those fish are not considered an 'invasive species'. Salmon didn't show up in a ship's bilge water, if you take my meaning.
There are precious few 'natural' Muskie waters in the US, most are 'created' or heavily managed to increase the population and quality of the fishery, yet those Muskies ARE undeniably a 'natural' resource once established, just like our forests that do not even SORT of resemble the forests that were here in the 1800's and the deer population now almost out of control in many midwest states because of agriculture, destruction of the old growth forests, etc, creating incredible habitat for Whitetails--is that a good or bad thing???--...and so on.
By your definition of 'protecting', one would have to agree that VHS ( or gobies or milfoil or rusty crayfish,or Asian Carp --which, when canned, taste much like tunafish-- or...) is a potential threat, and even if it proves to be less a threat than we thought, most if not all of our inland lakes need to be 'protected' if possible....or did I miss something here?
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| Never said I welcomed them in our waterway, I am saying they are here for good but stop with the constant pounding drum beat of how terrible they are when they are doing more good than harm. You said we all have been bad stewards of the resources but yet the answer for most is putting faith in the same "bad stewards" instead of trusting Mother Nature to take care of the issues. After all, Mother Nature has done a pretty good job for billions of years.
As for VHS, the majority of the scientific community does not come down on the side of extreme caution...it is about 50/50. Half say be very cautious and the other half say it is just another virus....like the other 100 viruses in the waterways and it will take the course of all other viruses.
Yes, musky is a natural resource no matter where it is planted. You also stated a fact that I agree with and is my point. Planting musky in systems that did not have them as well as the forests not looking anything the way they did in the 1800's shows that eco-systems change. In the life of the earth the only thing that has remained constant is it has changed dramatically through its long life span. It's changing again and yes, man is aiding in it when it comes to the great lakes. But the things arriving are not mutant, man made lab creatures. They are other life that is found naturally on earth.
I believe Mother Nature will tend to her own creatures. Will Lake Michigan look exactly like it did in the 1800's....no. But it sure will not be a dead lake with no thriving eco-system either. Very few things in the lake are naturally supposed to be in there and this includes salmon and trout that can't reproduce. We are, by far, not the only country that has the eco-systems changing from all the shipping we all depend on to live. No system had been ruined, changed yes but all eco-systems change from various things including invasives. Long before man, animals and fish migrated into new territory, how do you think our lakes became what they are today? Pretty damn impressive eco-system that popped up over the last 10,000 years when the lakes were just a puddle from melting glaciers. Guess what, man didn't bring all the new invasive life into the lake by ship 10,000 years ago but they still found their way.
Trying to label me as pro-invasive or irresponsible means one didn't really read my posts. I never said such things were not a problem, I have stated that Mother Nature takes care of itself. You can go ahead and put your faith in man and the DNR to handle this, I put mine in God and Mother Nature. Can you show me where Mother Nature has really messed up or has not been able to revive itself after any natural or man-made catastrophe? Pick some lakes around the world that has had invasives enter it and the result was the things you are shoving out there you fear will happen to Lake Michigan. Unless you can show a track history of Mother Nature doing what you claim MIGHT happen then your point, in my eyes, is mute and irresponsible.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 300
Location: Lincoln Park, Mi | A quick search yielded a good example of Mother Nature not being able to fix problems caused by invasive species. Check out Nile Perch, introduced by man into Victoria Lake in Africa. To date 200 of the 300 Ciclid species there are EXTINCT because of it. Mother Nature sure can't fix extinction. Unfortunately, neither can we. Yes, both can adapt to life without those species, but once they're gone, they're gone.
Another point I'll make is the $$$ aspect of it. Over $5 billion was spent by the Great Lakes states to control zebra mussels. That's alot of money that could have been spent elsewhere. Plus the billions of dollars spent to control other species.
BTW, yes zebra mussels are great filterers, and have cleaned the water up well, but in doing so, they've increased the levels of toxins like PCB's and mercury in the food chain, ultimately to us. They store 10x the amount of toxins than native species and super filter the toxins out that would normally settle less harmfully into the sediment, and pass them along when eaten. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 300
Location: Lincoln Park, Mi | That is a masterpiece Steve! :) |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | I didn't try to label you anything, RT. I said that encouraging dismissing, ignoring, or looking the other way from the impact of Invasives is irresponsible behavior in my opinion, illegal in many areas for good reason, and is what it is IMHO; do as you please, I'll do the same.
'Naturally on earth' is a very wide perspective. Asps and Cobras are natural to many countries, but I sure wouldn't want them sneaking into my living room when vacationing in Florida. Africanized bees are bad business. Asian carp are natural to some waters too, but they sure are messing up the Illinois River. And the majority of the scientific community indeed DOES choose to err toward caution on VHS and the strains now identified and it's potential spread to our inland waters, and that IS a fact or the laws we see in place now and changes coming wouldn't be happening. I'm happy about that, too. Policies some folks obviously don't like have been implemented to slow the spread of invasives to waters still free of them, perhaps after the fox has left the henhouse in some cases, but better a bit late than never, and that unhappiness breeds some publicized 'agreement' with that camp...that's politics and inevitable.
Wholesale lake a river conservation laissez-faire is a bad idea, plain and simple, and insisting that no matter what comes down the pipe from ballast water or bilge, livewell or trailer axle Nature will make all things whole again IS exactly what I called irresponsible behavior, especially if trying to induce others to to take a no harm-no foul approach.
As far as 'putting my faith in man and the DNR' I certainly WILL put my 'trust' there and extend every effort to support them when I think they are doing a good job, and be critical when I do not, that's my position and responsibility as a US citizen, and my 'faith' will be applied where it belongs. Thank the stars we don't have to vote for THAT position in the grand scheme of things.
It's up to us to do a better job top to bottom to protect what we have or it WILL be gone. Sure, something else will be in it's place, but the Lake Erie of 20 years back isn't what I'd call attractive, weedless infertile bottoms devoid of nitrogen cycle where rusty crayfish have destroyed the vegetation certainly might be eventually coated with water clearing mussels, but I kinda LIKED Pelican Lake before the rusty crayfish invasion, and before the milfoil that is now showing up in Oneida County .
Salmon and trout planted as put-and-take in Michigan have been a monstrous economic success in a body of water that didn't have much of a charter type sport fishery available, and I applaud the program. I like to eat salmon, too, so I go catch a few every year and enjoy it immensely. Too bad we dumped ( and continue to dump) millions of tons of toxic waste and poison the very resource we treasure to the point where I should only enjoy that salmon once a week to avoid glowing in the freaking dark.
I'm not talking about damage from Mother Nature. Man is responsible, and Man (collective, here) usually gives a tinker's damn about Mother Nature when it comes down to it. Shoving out there? Milfoil is real, and sucks, bad. rusty crayfish are real, and destructive as hell. The jury is out on many new invasives, but they are not gonna be all rosy wonderful great to what we have now for the most part, and I'd like to see us avoid spreading that potential misery inland. That isn't 'mute' from this old boy, it's loud and clear.
As far as examples where Mother Nature has not recovered from damage man has caused, look no further than what covers most of the earth's surface. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| Terroreyes, you are partly right on the Nile Perch. The introduction of that fish to that lake was devastating to the eco-system but as Steve has pointed out with the musky, salmon and trout....man purposely planting a fish in a lake is not an invasive species and they did a lot of planting of that fish in the lake. As for the toxins like PCBs, they do not settle harmlessly into the bottom. Long before zebra mussels were even heard of there has been eating restrictions on Little Lake Butte Des Morts and others due to the PCB levels. Steve is very correct when he said we have been bad stewards of the waters....very, very bad stewards.
On the other hand, Steve, I am not encouraging dismissing, ignoring, or looking the other way from the impact of invasives. There are more than just negative impacts that any species has on an eco-system. Looking at the good impact on certain things out weighs the negative, and some don't even have a negative at times.
Sorry, I just got a disturbing phone call and I lost my train of thought, take care.
|
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 1406
| New Illinois VHS Laws to hash through!
http://dnr.state.il.us/pubaffairs/2008/July/vhsvirus.html
Good Luck
Tyee |
|
| |
|
Location: Rhinelander | Hope everything is OK, RT, and I agree. |
|
| |
|
Member
Posts: 319
| Thanks Steve. It was a bad information phone call. I had more to write but I couldn't remember what it was after the phone call...but it would have been good! LOL |
|
| |
