Invasive Species
n...@here.com
Invasive Species in the Great Lakes....whaddya think?
Kathi
>Ok, lets wake this place up a bit......
>Invasive Species in the Great Lakes....whaddya think?
There were two articles in the Detroit News recently (I don't know
where you live, so I don't know if you read them).
This one, from Friday Jan. 18 has a ballast water theory:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008801180303
And this one, from Monday Jan. 21 says ballast water may not be to
blame:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008801210357
Those Asian carp in Illinois sound nasty too.
http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/invasive/asiancarp/
.
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups
n...@here.com
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:23:06 -0800, n...@here.com wrote:
>
>>Ok, lets wake this place up a bit......
>>Invasive Species in the Great Lakes....whaddya think?
>
>There were two articles in the Detroit News recently (I don't know
>where you live, so I don't know if you read them).
>
>This one, from Friday Jan. 18 has a ballast water theory:
>http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008801180303
>
>And this one, from Monday Jan. 21 says ballast water may not be to
>blame:
>http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008801210357
>
>
>Those Asian carp in Illinois sound nasty too.
>http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/invasive/asiancarp/
>
As a former Great Lakes Seaman and shipyard welder - who has spent
hundreds of hours in ballast tanks - I can tell you that flushing them
out will not eliminate the foreign invaders. Those tanks are HUGE,
complex structures, with hundreds of small spaces that are an intregal
part of the ships' structure. These tanks hold tons of mud and rust
scale. You could fill those things with Clorox and not kill
everything in them
Wolfgang
<n...@here.com> wrote in message
news:1crlp3hoq4hbojj44...@4ax.com...
> Ok, lets wake this place up a bit......
> Invasive Species in the Great Lakes....whaddya think?
I think they're bad.
You?
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
<n...@here.com> wrote in message
news:he1op3hpgics0e6vq...@4ax.com...
> As a former Great Lakes Seaman and shipyard welder - who has spent
> hundreds of hours in ballast tanks - I can tell you that flushing them
> out will not eliminate the foreign invaders. Those tanks are HUGE,
> complex structures, with hundreds of small spaces that are an intregal
> part of the ships' structure. These tanks hold tons of mud and rust
> scale. You could fill those things with Clorox and not kill
> everything in them
Still, it seems that trying to eliminate whatever might be lurking in there
isn't likely to be a lot less effective than not trying.
Or has ordinary good sense been declared anathema in North America and
nobody told me?
Wolfgang
Bruce Burden
:
: Still, it seems that trying to eliminate whatever might be lurking in there
:
: Or has ordinary good sense been declared anathema in North America and
: nobody told me?
I think the point is, the tanks are very big, and a simple
flush of fresh water is not necessarily going to eliminate any
invasive species lurking in the tanks.
Also, it would take time to have some customs inspector etc.
verify that, indeed, the ballast tanks have been completely
flushed, the vessel may now ballast with fresh water and begin
to proceed up the St. Laurence. Time, after all, is money, and
the current US administration is very business friendly.
So, as a result, most salties arrive at the mouth of the
St. Laurence, pump out some ballast, since fresh water is not
as bouyant as sea water, and proceed up the seaway. If they
cross Lake Erie, they may have to pump out some more ballast,
depending on lake conditions. When they arrive at their port,
they will pump out more ballast, before/while the cargo is being
loaded.
Any time you do that, there is a chance for the creepies
to be unloaded as well.
Nor does that address issues like the snake head fish, which
was probably a gift that was flushed when interest faded. The
only solution there, I expect, is the Australian solution - it
is the onus of the importer to prove that the foreign species
will not cause problems. Good luck on that one. Still does not
address smuggling, however.
And, yeah, the government has been waging war on "good sense"
for decades now. Haven't you noticed the amount of stupid law suites,
and the idiotic patents the USPTO has issued lately?
Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
- Thuganlitha
The Power and the Prophet
Robert Don Hughes
n...@here.com
wrote:
While some may call it "drastic", I feel that the ocean-going ships
should be banned from the Great Lakes - at least the upper 4 Lakes.
"Write-Off" Lake Ontario and establish a cross-docking operation in
the St Catherines, ON/Buffalo, NY area. By doing this, you would not
only help to greatly reduce the invaders, but would put thousands of
folks to work....Folks would be needed to operate the docking
operation, more would be needed on Great Lakes ships, and more working
in the shipyards to keep up with the demand for newer vessels.
Wolfgang
"Bruce Burden" <bru...@realtime.net> wrote in message
news:fnmbr...@enews5.newsguy.com...
You're a better reader than me. I didn't see any of that in the message I
responded to.
> And, yeah, the government has been waging war on "good sense"
> for decades now. Haven't you noticed the amount of stupid law suites,
> and the idiotic patents the USPTO has issued lately?
Stupid law suits are initiated by all kinds of folks. Generally, "the
government" is present in such matters by virtue of the fact that they run
the courts. The litigants tend to be private citizens, corporations, and
other non-governmental entities. I don't pay much attention to patent law.
However, as I understand it, the patent office isn't required to make
determinations as to the silliness of the object or process under
consideration.
Wolfgang
Wolfgang
<n...@here.com> wrote in message
news:brntp3dl4vge973l3...@4ax.com...
> While some may call it "drastic", I feel that the ocean-going ships
> should be banned from the Great Lakes - at least the upper 4 Lakes.
> "Write-Off" Lake Ontario and establish a cross-docking operation in
> the St Catherines, ON/Buffalo, NY area. By doing this, you would not
> only help to greatly reduce the invaders, but would put thousands of
> folks to work....Folks would be needed to operate the docking
> operation, more would be needed on Great Lakes ships, and more working
> in the shipyards to keep up with the demand for newer vessels.
That actually sounds like it might be of some help in checking the
introduction of new epizootics. However, ideas.....whatever their
charms.....aren't worth anything unless implemented. What do you suppose
the odds are of something like this coming to pass?
Wolfgang
n...@here.com
wrote:
Wolfgang, I have written to all of my Congress-critters with the
reasons why "flushing" won't work - I even told them that if they had
any doubts, to go and visit a shipyard so they could see the insides
of the ballast tanks themselves. I also gave them the cross-docking
suggestion. What I received from each politicrat was pretty much the
same "boiler-plate", form letter response stating that they shared my
concern, etc etc etc.
Until the both the USA and Canada wake up and realize what they could
lose if foreign species continue to arrive and be introduced unabated
into the Great Lakes watershed*, one of our greatest resources is in
grave danger.
*The invasive species are affecting bodies of water FAR outside of the
Great Lakes region. Last summer, it was confirmed that the Quagga
mussel has established a firm foothold in Lake Mead, just outside of
Las Vegas.
Calling an Illegal Alien an "Undocumented Worker" is like calling a
Crack Dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist"
Wolfgang
<n...@here.com> wrote in message
news:7ea0q3t1tloa1end3...@4ax.com...
Well, this last sentence says all that needs to be said about the chances of
anyone who thinks at all taking you seriously.
Good luck in your saving the world business. :)
Wolfgang
n...@here.com
wrote:
Wolfgang, please elaborate a bit about your statement "Well, this last
sentence says all that needs to be said about the chances of
anyone who thinks at all taking you seriously."
I am not out to save the world as you say. I just believe that
everyone needs to realize that invasive species ARE a direct threat,
not only to the biosystems of the Lakes, but the economy of the region
as well.
--
Wolfgang
<n...@here.com> wrote in message
news:6vr2q3tpv9nfv7lj7...@4ax.com...
No, I don't think I'll do that.
> I am not out to save the world as you say.
Good thing. Your qualifications are dubious, to say the least.
> I just believe that
> everyone needs to realize that invasive species ARE a direct threat,
> not only to the biosystems of the Lakes, but the economy of the region
> as well.
I think there are probably very few people likely to be concerned about such
matters who are not already aware. Efforts to "wake this place up a bit"
aren't going to make any difference.
> Calling an Illegal Alien an "Undocumented Worker" is like calling a
> Crack Dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist"
Jingoistic slogans as a substitute for thinking presumably make their users
feel better about themselves. This is rather ironic as it also alerts
readers to the truth about them.
Wolfgang
n...@here.com
wrote:
Wolfgang my attempt to "wake this place up a bit" was an attempt to
get some dialogue going in this far under-used group. As for the rest
of your dribble....its about what I have come to expect from
newsgroups Trolls, such as yourself. You add nothing but assumptions
based on misguided perceptions. Go away little boy.
--
Wolfgang
<n...@here.com> wrote in message
news:tjj5q314qgm4m7402...@4ax.com...
> Wolfgang my attempt to "wake this place up a bit" was an attempt to
> get some dialogue going in this far under-used group.
Yeah, and how's that working for you so far?
> As for the rest of your dribble....
Drivel is the word you're looking for. Next time you decide to wake a place
up a bit, how about you find out what language is in use there and work on a
minimal grasp of it, o.k.?
> its about what I have come to expect from
> newsgroups Trolls, such as yourself.
Someone who makes a lame attempt to impress people and thus bolster his own
flagging ego by posting crap to wake a place up a bit is a troll. Someone
who replies, in an effort to help the troll demonstrate that the troll is
not very bright, is not a troll.
> You add nothing but assumptions
Really? What did I assume?
> based on misguided perceptions.
Saw you, didn't I? :)
> Go away little boy.
And, if not?
> Calling an Illegal Alien an "Undocumented Worker" is like calling a
> Crack Dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist"
So, how many people do you suppose read this dumb line and think, "wow, I
wish *I* could endlessly repeat something THAT clever!"?
Wolfgang
chatnoir
> <n...@here.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1crlp3hoq4hbojj44...@4ax.com...
>
> > Ok, lets wake this place up a bit......
>
> I think they're bad.
>
> You?
>
> Wolfgang
Nazi!:
http://www.helium.com/tm/670604/everywhere-encounter-seeds-which
The facts about invasive species issues
by Sydney Singer
Writing:
AAA
"Everywhere we encounter seeds which represent the beginnings of
parasitic growths which must sooner or later be the ruin of our
culture...(O)ne of the most potent principles of Nature's rule: the
inner segregation of the species of all living beings on this earth."
- Adolph Hitler, 1943
"Now, more than ever, is the time to be vigilant, and for us all to
play a part in protecting those things which quintessentially define
us as a nation -these things make our country and our spirit unique
and special in the world." - Biosecurity New Zealand, 2004
In 2006, the legislature of the state of Hawaii passed a law
officially defining the introduced coqui tree frog as a "pest"
species. The frog, loved in its native Puerto Rico, has a distinctive
nocturnal chirp that disturbs some Hawaii residents. While other
residents and property owners appreciate the coqui and its sound,
those who wish to silence the frogs have agitated for a "Frog War",
and have pushed through legislation to allow the Hawaii Department of
Agriculture to force its way onto private property to spray poisons to
kill coquis without owner consent. The official "pest" designation
gives the government this right, trumping private property rights. And
Hawaii is not the only place this is happening. The attack on non-
native species is challenging property rights worldwide, and poses a
grave threat to life and liberty. (See www.HawaiianCoqui.org.)
Due to human intercourse around the planet, species of animals and
plants are being introduced, intentionally and unintentionally, into
environments where they are not currently found. Some of these
introductions can lead to environmental changes and a shift in the
natural equilibrium. Governments around the globe are developing
methods for controlling this spread of species, including programs for
excluding imports, preventing exports, and eradicating unwanted
"aliens" that "don't belong".
That the introduction of species can alter the environment into which
they immigrate is undeniable and can be scientifically and objectively
assessed. Whether or not such changes are desirable or beneficial,
however, is a subjective matter, based on value judgments and
politics, and not on science.
There are many instances where the introduction of a species is
clearly against the best interests of human health. For example,
nobody who values human life would encourage the introduction of
disease carrying mosquitoes to areas where they are not currently
found. The issue, however, is not that the mosquitoes are "alien" to
the new environment, but that they are dangerous, regardless of their
"nativity". In fact, eradication campaigns against these mosquitoes
would be conducted even if they were a "native" species. The same
would apply to other clearly noxious pests that pose a threat to human
health.
Preventing the spread of noxious pests is something responsible
governments and agencies have been doing for decades. It is relatively
noncontroversial.
However, there are instances where the introduction of a species is
decried, not as a threat to human health, but as a threat to the
environment. Newly introduced species can alter the dynamics of the
food chain, and compete with local species for space. As development
and pollution destroy environments on a daily basis, the further
stress to local species caused by introductions seems a threat to
local "biosecurity".
However, is this really an issue of biosecurity, or of human
insecurity?
Changes to the fauna and flora that can result from introductions are
part of a natural selection process. If a species is better fitted to
survive in an environment, then its success is a natural outcome. The
environment has no value system to judge what species are good or bad.
If a species survives and favorably competes with its neighbors (new
or old) for space and food, then nature deems it the winner in the
struggle for life. That is, until another species comes along to
challenge its position in the scheme of things.
This means that new species introductions do not harm the environment.
They may change it. But the concept of "harm" derives from human-
centered notions of good and bad, of desirable and undesirable. When
we see a volcano destroy a forest with a lava flow, for example, that
is not environmental harm. It is environmental transformation.
However, if people wanted the trees more than the lava, then it is
considered environmental harm. To call a species introduction a threat
to the environment, then, is not a scientifically valid statement,
since it reflects human priorities and not natural ones.
It does, however, reflect the human/cultural desire to live in a
specific environment and control the influences on that environment. A
culture that believes that humans are stewards of the environment
believes that it is our responsibility to define the nature of that
environment. Introduced species take away our sense of control.
Introductions can also effect human economy. Clearly, a species that
is a pest to agriculture can hurt business. There are billions of
dollars spent each year controlling these pests. And the changes in
habitat that can result from some introductions can lead to aesthetic
issues, as "weed" species replace desirable ones.
But here, again, we see human values defining the problem with
introductions. Agriculture and aesthetics are human concerns. In fact,
all the concerns over introduced species are anthropocentric, making
them the subject for sociology and anthropology, not biology.
Nevertheless, the field of "invasion biology" has emerged over the
past few decades to fight alleged threats to the biosecurity of an
area. Biosecurity is the new term for invasive species control. In
2004, New Zealand pioneered a new Biosecurity New Zealand agency.
According to is website, www. biosecurity.govt.nz, "Biosecurity New
Zealand is passionate in its desire to keep this country free of
unwanted organisms, to prevent or reduce any damage these may cause
should they occur, and to protect and preserve our land, our water,
our industry and our people."
Is this a rational, scientific agenda, or a political one?
The zealous and "passionate"agency wants to keep the country "free of
unwanted organisms". Who will define what is "unwanted". According to
their mission, "unwanted" includes species that can threaten the
health, environment, or the economy. But it also includes, " Those
things which quintessentially define us as a nation -these things make
our country and our spirit unique and special in the world."
Here the nationalistic agenda of biosecurity is made clear. You might
think biosecurity would deal with issues like the spread of anthrax.
For New Zealand, it is concerned with the preservation of national
identity, which is somehow connected to the environment. To these New
Zealanders, they are the environment. Aliens from outside threaten
their identity and spirit.
This same identification with the environment was part of Nazi
environmental sentiment during the Third Reich. In fact, the Nazis
planned for the creation of hunting preserves in conquered eastern
forests, which they wanted to stock with European bison, bear, wolves,
and as much of the ancient mega-fauna as possible. They wanted to
eliminate all "alien" species from Europe.
Intolerance for aliens knows no species boundaries. If the Nazis were
able to extend their hatred for aliens to include humans (i.e., Jews,
homosexuals, blacks, etc.), could the New Zealanders and those who are
planning on following their lead do the same? Can biosecurity lead to
a loss of political security?
Consider the following example.
Imagine that you owned a large tract of land. You have landscaped the
land just the way you like it, and spend much effort keeping it that
way. Your place is fenced all around to keep out unwanted creatures,
and keep in desirable ones. Next to you is another large tract of
land, owned by your neighbor, who has the same concern for his place,
although a different sense of aesthetics. He has different plants and
animals, ones which you do not want.
It would be reasonable for you to have concern for the "biosecurity"
of your place. If weeds started to sprout, you would be wise to
vigilantly control them and eradicate them if possible. You would be
careful about any plants you brought onto your place, inspecting it
for insect pests or other problems, lest you introduce trouble to your
small world.
Imagine, now, that you are sharing that tract of land with other
people. When the land was yours alone to define, there were no
political issues involved. It was your personal tastes and judgments
that directed your management of your environment. However, living
with others adds a political dimension to your management plans. What
happens if someone living with you has different values and aesthetics
that you have? What if the others want some of the animals and plants
that your neighbor on the other side of the fence has on his place?
Should these species be introduced? What is the others want to
eliminate some of the plants or animals that are already on your
place?
Suddenly, environmental policy becomes politicized. It is no longer
just your place. Should things be handled democratically, with
everyone voting on which species should stay and which should go?
Unless the community is fully informed about the environmental outcome
of their decisions, which even trained scientists can not predict with
certainty, any decision could lead to environmental chaos and an
undesirable outcome.
Should there be a dictatorship, with the decision left to a small
group of individuals? That's what is happening in New Zealand. A small
group of "biosecurity" "experts" are defining what is "unwanted". They
are defining the "quintessential" things that make New Zealand's
people and "spirit" what it is.
What if you are part of that environment and do not agree with that
definition? Perhaps you are an immigrant yourself. Would the keepers
of this sacred spirit turn on you, too, as an enemy of the country?
Returning to our example, let's say a group of people on your tract of
land did rise to power and decide what species of plants and animals
are acceptable and wanted, and which are to be destroyed. And let's
say that the people who disagree with this and who try bringing in
verbotten species are forced into compliance by laws and threats of
imprisonment. Would this guarantee the "integrity" of the homeland?
Not necessarily.
Suppose that the neighbor has a plant whose seeds are spreading to
your environment. You can repeatedly engage in seed reconnaissance and
destroy seedlings as they appear. Or you could get at the source of
the seeds, which is your neighbor's trees. Stopping a problem at its
source is much more effective in the long run than treating a problem
endlessly. So the environmental dictators in your community decide to
approach your neighbor and demand that they eliminate their offensive
trees.
Of course, the neighbor may not be willing to eliminate his trees. And
politics, again, will determine how this will play out. Will your
community force the neighbor to comply? Will there be a war?
Since your community has created a sort of national identity that
correlates with the species in its environment, it would seem
essential to fight to preserve that identity and environment. Bio-
identity becomes personal identity.
To maintain the identity of your community you must make sure, as
well, that there is no dissension from within. Those people who import
"alien" thoughts and values become as much a threat as those who bring
in "alien" species. If a community deems it necessary to fight for its
identity and "spirit" by opposing influences from without, then it
will also oppose such decadent influences from within.
This is how the Nazis used their environmental policy of exclusivity
and abhorrence for the "alien" to justify genocide. Unless you are one
of them you are an alien, and a threat to their identity.
New Zealand's Biosecurity program wants to keep out and destroy
"unwanted organisms" that can threaten the "quintessential" nature of
New Zealand. There is no explicit exclusion for humans, who are also
organisms. After all, people bring in these other species. Some human
immigrants can pose as great a threat to the "spirit" and
"quintessential" nature of New Zealand as any other immigrant species.
Indeed, humans are the most "invasive" species of them all, since
humans activities are a constant threat to human health, the
environment, and the economy.
It is only a matter of time until biocide becomes genocide. The
environment is the State. And the State is everyone. The enemy of the
State must be destroyed. The Nazis showed how this works. New Zealand,
and nations wanting to emulate their policies, such as South Africa,
Australia, and the United States, are goose-stepping their way down
the same dark passage.
chatnoir
> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 05:56:42 -0500, Kathi <seidl-nospam-ka...@ic.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:23:06 -0800, n...@here.com wrote:
>
> >>Ok, lets wake this place up a bit......
>
> >There were two articles in the Detroit News recently (I don't know
> >where you live, so I don't know if you read them).
>
> >This one, from Friday Jan. 18 has a ballast water theory:
> >http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008801180303
>
> >And this one, from Monday Jan. 21 says ballast water may not be to
> >blame:
> >http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008801210357
>
> >Those Asian carp in Illinois sound nasty too.
> >http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/invasive/asiancarp/
>
> As a former Great Lakes Seaman and shipyard welder - who has spent
> hundreds of hours in ballast tanks - I can tell you that flushing them
> out will not eliminate the foreign invaders. Those tanks are HUGE,
> complex structures, with hundreds of small spaces that are an intregal
> part of the ships' structure. These tanks hold tons of mud and rust
> scale. You could fill those things with Clorox and not kill
> everything in them
http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161270630
The ultimate invasive species
Julian Kenny
Tuesday, January 29th 2008
Sometimes one has to read words over and over to try to get some idea
of what the authors of a particular statement actually mean. The words
"justice" and "ethic", and even "moral" and "morality", on their own,
are probably understood by many. The words "ecology", "ecological",
"environment" and "environmental" however constantly appear in the
print and electronic media, as well as in official documentation,
international bureaucratic publications, treaties and laws. But
combining the adjectives "ecological" and "environmental" with
"justice" can only cause confusion and possibly convince some readers
that the terms "ecological justice" or "environmental justice" have
some profound philosophical meaning.
The Environmental Management Act 2000 requires the board of the
Environmental Management Authority to prepare and submit to the
minister a comprehensive National Environmental Policy (NEP). This was
done in September 1998 but the Government decided that in view of the
rapid expansion of the housing sector and development of
infrastructure the NEP should be revised. The version of the NEP that
I purchased from the EMA as well as the one I obtained from Parliament
(they are both the same and contain numerous, identical and
inexcusable errors and lack a date stamp) make interesting reading. It
is here in Chapter 2 that one reads of the goals, objectives and basic
principles on which the policy is founded.
Let's take first the concept of "ecological justice". This is supposed
to be an "ethic" based on respect for one another and for nature and
is the foundation of sustainable development. The use of the word
"ecological" continues to be extremely puzzling. It can have nothing
to do with that branch of biology known as Ecology, which studies the
relationship of organisms with their environments.
Possibly the word is used in its corrupted vernacular sense as when
people argue that the "ecology" of this or that part of the country is
altered or damaged. It can never be the ecology but only the nature of
the ecosystem. But the NEP goes on to explain that following the
mandate of that ethic that development should not be at the expense of
other groups nor threaten the existence of other species.
This is really weird. Can the authors of this document have any
understanding of ecology? Or for that matter history? Or have seen the
human influence on the natural environment of the country, the
conversion of forests to agriculture and built environments? One can
read in elementary Ecology textbooks the basic processes of what is
called inter-specific competition, unless of course the authors, with
religious zeal, somehow separate the human species completely from all
of the ten or 20 million species of living organisms. We are competing
with every other organism for the resources under our influence.
Bizarre.
Let's take "environmental justice" next. This is also an "ethic" that
demands that the benefits and costs of resource use and environmental
conservation should be shared fairly and equitably among different
communities and between our generation and the next to follow. As it
is clear that the authors have little understanding of inter-specific
competition I should therefore not expect them to understand the
processes of intra-specific competition, or competition that occurs
amongst members of the same species, and I am not talking about
cannibalism. Species compete with themselves and competition often
leads to dispersal.
There is nevertheless some other phenomena in Ecology that warrant
some comment. One is known simply as competitive exclusion. Where an
exotic species disperses or is introduced into the natural range of a
close relative it enters competition with it for the same resource.
The introduced species often thrives and excludes ultimately the
original disappears. But there is also another phenomenon linked to
invasive species. Invasive species may disperse naturally or by human
hands. When such a species establishes itself in a new location,
because of absence of predators or other organisms that may regulate
numbers, populations explode and become, to humans, a nuisance or
pest.
The irony is that few will accept that homo sapiens is obviously the
ultimate in invasive species, in part for its intra-specific
competitive dispersal over the past few hundreds of thousands of
years, but more importantly for its direct effects on natural systems,
all this undoubtedly related to the development of a larger brain,
tool-making, agriculture and technology. The species has thrived
simply by domesticating a few species and establishing artificial
ecosystems, all at the cost of life forms and ecosystems that support
it directly and indirectly, the ultimate in competitive exclusion.
But in all fairness to the NEP authors the general idea of their
principles chapter is essentially a general wish list, as noble and
desirable as some of the wishes are. But looking at the history of
human settlement in this country, and indeed throughout the world, is
any attainable? William Lucie-Smith suggests that when politics and
economics compete politics triumphs. But when economics and
environment compete - guess what? The NEP gives you the answer, but
you have to read it yourself. The "Rapture Ready" crowd, however, has
no fears.
Wolfgang
"chatnoir" <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:43d2aa27-d97c-44db...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 28, 8:41 am, "Wolfgang" <wolfg...@mcw.edu> wrote:
> <n...@here.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1crlp3hoq4hbojj44...@4ax.com...
>
> > Ok, lets wake this place up a bit......
> >InvasiveSpeciesin the Great Lakes....whaddya think?
>
> I think they're bad.
>
> You?
>
> Wolfgang
Nazi!
So, sue me.
Wolfgang
chatnoir
> "chatnoir" <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
No sue the person who wrote the article
Wolfgang
Why?
Wolfgang
n...@here.com
kills too -
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008802040334
and - http://www.npca.org/stateoftheparks/great_lakes/
--
n...@here.com
Article from the Detroit Free Press dealing with the fishery in Lake
Michigan and the quagga mussel
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080207/SPORTS10/802070406/1058
Al Gillis
> Invasive Species in the Great Lakes....whaddya think?
Well, not necessarily Great Lakes related but important nevertheless...
The AP reports that zebra mussels have been found in a reservoir southeast
of San Francisco, California. The San Justo Reservoir has been a one of the
better bass fishing sites in California. An official with the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (Oregon is my home state) is concerned
because boaters trailering their boats around the country could easily bring
that invasive species to Oregon lakes and rivers as well (it's likely that's
how the Zebra Mussel got to California).
AP also reported that another unwanted visitor (and now resident) called the
Quagga Mussel has turned up in Lake Mead.
So the damnable little beasts are spreading...
n...@here.com
wrote:
REALLY spreading, and threatening the operation of Hoover Dam... From
Monday's Las Vegas Review Journal
http://www.lvrj.com/news/15502852.html
n...@here.com
>As a former Great Lakes Seaman and shipyard welder - who has spent
>hundreds of hours in ballast tanks - I can tell you that flushing them
>out will not eliminate the foreign invaders. Those tanks are HUGE,
>complex structures, with hundreds of small spaces that are an intregal
>part of the ships' structure. These tanks hold tons of mud and rust
>scale. You could fill those things with Clorox and not kill
>everything in them
Well, it appears that the Quagga is really starting to enjoy the mild
winters and warmer water of the Colorado River system, and is
spreading far faster than believed possible -
http://www.lvrj.com/news/16174522.html