Zebra and Quagga Mussels

"Non-native" mussels which pseudo-environmentalists identify as "invasive"....are removing billions of pounds of "environmentally damaging biotica" from rivers and lakes.
 
This must be viewed as an immense feat of environmental CLEANUP, not damage.
 
Give the non-native mussels fair credit for the good they do.
 
Yes there is a negative side to the ledger:
The mussels do clog pipes and industrial structures...and there is a cleanup cost.
 
BUT BALANCE IN, the fantastic and immense Environmental Cleanup, a cleanup so huge it's impossible to frame any kind of dollar-estimate even approaching what it would cost-----by any means available or concievable-----that would remove similar quanties of "biotica" from public waters.
 
We taxpayers
    We humans
        We environmentally inclined individuals....
            We could NEVER afford to pay, to have done, what the mussels are doing free.
 
Now please re-visit:   This issue of obstructed industrial pipes:

Come-right-down-to-it...???...

Doesn't the cost of industrial cleanup pretty much fall exactly where it should fall: 

On the guys like Hyperion Plants.....
And on Industry (discharging warm-water....if only that)...
And on PG&E generation (definitely discharging hot water).....
And pumping stations..???..already marked as an enemy-of-fish....
 
Judd

Interesting side of the fight...

  Sounds Good...

 Sould we have Stickers on our Kayaks......

   " Go Quagga !!! "

 Can't wait till they hit the Delta Pumps......

"Non-native" mussels which pseudo-environmentalists identify as "invasive"....are removing billions of pounds of "environmentally damaging biotica" from rivers and lakes.
 
This must be viewed as an immense feat of environmental CLEANUP, not damage.
 
Give the non-native mussels fair credit for the good they do.
 
Yes there is a negative side to the ledger:
The mussels do clog pipes and industrial structures...and there is a cleanup cost.
 
BUT BALANCE IN, the fantastic and immense Environmental Cleanup, a cleanup so huge it's impossible to frame any kind of dollar-estimate even approaching what it would cost-----by any means available or concievable-----that would remove similar quanties of "biotica" from public waters.
 
We taxpayers
    We humans
        We environmentally inclined individuals....
            We could NEVER afford to pay, to have done, what the mussels are doing free.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "environmentally damaging biotica".  I'm going to guess something like fecal coliform bacteria. Am I close?  Anyway, such bacteria is often a response to poor water quality and tends to go away when water quality improves.  Relying on an invasive species like zebra mussels to filter our dirty water seems like a poor excuse not to address the water quality problem itself.   

Maybe you meant the organisms that cause harmful algae blooms (HABs), organisms like cyanobacteria.  Well, it just so happens that zebra mussels have been implicated in promoting harmful alga blooms in the Great Lakes by filtering out competing green algae, altering the water chemistry, and increasing light penetration.

What you forgot to mention where the vast amounts of non-harmful phytoplankton zebra mussels remove from the environment.  These phytoplankton are the base of the food webs that support many of our freshwater fisheries.

Now please re-visit:   This issue of obstructed industrial pipes:

Come-right-down-to-it...???...

Doesn't the cost of industrial cleanup pretty much fall exactly where it should fall: 

On the guys like Hyperion Plants.....
And on Industry (discharging warm-water....if only that)...
And on PG&E generation (definitely discharging hot water).....
And pumping stations..???..already marked as an enemy-of-fish....
 
Judd

Sure the power plants will have to deal with zebra mussels clogging thier pipes.  But I'm pretty sure that just like the utilities in the Great Lakes region they'll just pass the price of this management on to their customers.   Unless you're living off the grid, that means people like you and me.

Brian

Good morning Brian...hey dude...you are just the guy I had in mind when I wrote the post.   I hoped you would respond.

"Enviromentally damaging biotica"....yes, very general term, but deliberately so because the list of "flora" that grow in the presence of "fertilizers" (combined forms of Nitrogen, Phosphorous, Potassium that stimulate every kind of plant growth)......the list of all those flora is so large that "enviromentally damaging biotica" becomes a reasonable moniker that will adequately encompass all the organic life-forms "growing out of any normal proportion" because the water has been so artificially enriched (by the sets, and sub-sets, of human-activity introduced nutrients that they can metabolize).

And I was not really thinking of e-coli or any of the anerobic forms.  Most public waters are not so evil.....not THAT evil....

I was thinking (at least...just to name two) of the "bluegreen" algae types such as microcystis and anabaena.   But these are plant-life.   Human-introduced nutrients also stimulate bacterial growth.   The web of "food-chains" that feed upon one another in an overall artifically nutrient-rich environment is exceedingly intertwined.

The net effect to any casual viewer is:  turbid water.

=======

Now.....when you accuse mussels of the crime of "increasing light-penetration"....you are crediting them with clarifying the water.   

Clarifying the water.

Clarifying the water to a state of "cleanness" perhaps equivalent to an earlier "environmental state" before man's influence, you know, unbalanced things.

Also credit the mussels:   

When environmental damaging biotica metabolize "nutrients" artifically introduced by human activity, such as nitrogen, potassium, iron & phosphorous, those elements become part of organic protien & carboohydrate chains.  Then mussels consuming THOSE life-forms---take them out of general suspension in the water-column.     

So mussels-----remove-----those nutrients------from the water-column----as well as----the organic biotica......that consumed them originally....and now...

The water-column is observably CLEARER (more pure) than before.

=========

OK....and then you point out that the cost of cleaning the industrial pipes & stuff will be transmitted back to us in higher rates.....

Yes.
Certainly.
Of course.

But whoever said that "environmental cleanup" would be FREE...???...

But at least with the service done by mussels it's something manageable.
The mussels are doing a cleanup whose price we NEVER could afford to pay.
The cost of getting those "nutrient" ions and elements out of the water?
Why man.....we don't even know how we would do it...much less pay for it.

=============

You object that mussels remove non-harmful phytoplankton that are a food source for fisherys.

Yes they do but...
Well first of all, and for heaven's sake, nothing is perfect....

And "that the mussels remove a volume quantity of phytoplankton---that desirable fishery types are left STARVED...".......my goodness.....these are just empty rhetoric without scientific quantification.    And the notion of "devastating removal" is delivered as a blanket notion (that it occurs everywhere in a waterway)....yet in the experience of most scientific men, such processes do not apply in any blanket way, but rather by zones.....     And one cannot make the assumption that where a "fish stock" finds that it's food has been depleted in one zone, that very "fish stock" will not swim over to an adjacent zone where it's food is again available in abundance.

In short:   this notion that the mussels in a broadband way, deplete the food supplies of fish and their prey......is just rabid enviro-activist rhetoric.

Come with me on this Brian...
We both love fish and clean water...
And we admire enviromental remediation...

What better way, to get that remediation, than through the service of a biological species....native or non-native...a trivial trivial issue.

Judd

Instead of armchair theorizing, let's see what scientists in Michigan have to say after 20 years of dealing with these mussels:

http://blog.mlive.com/chronicle/2008/04/zebra_mussels_called_the_most.html

Gandoderma.....the link you cite says all the things I have said with different emphasis.

One would not expect ANYTHING to be a perfect solution----
A "free" remedy would be unlikely to be a perfect remedy----

The Great Lakes authorities you cite say unequivocally that mussels have produce great improvement in water quality, in areas of the lakes.

Furthermore, your cite is quite clear that while it is    f e a r e d     that quagga and zebra mussels will have a negative effect on net fish stocks......that this is still a speculation, not a demonstrated fact.

I see the COSTS that quagga and zebra mussels impose (pipes, the internal cooling channels of marine engines, ship-bottoms...etc) as just AN EXTREMELY MINIMAL TRANSFER COST ....for the immense cleanup they perform.

Finally-----the Great Lakes are an extremely archtypal exhibit----of historic human pollution.    The USA "industrialized" in a pattern that moved from East to West.    The Great Lakes are within the eastern portion of that pattern and therefore REPRESENT AN AGGREGATE OF POLLUTION-OVER-TIME that is dramatically more severe than anything in the western states.     

It is not much of an exxageration to call The Great Lakes as the collective archtype-exhibit of all waterway pollution.

People looking at the Great Lakes without this historic perspective----and listening to notions that quagga and zebra mussels are "destroying the lakes"----are missing that other viewpoint that:   The Great Lakes have historically been man's sewer----the filtering action of mussels is working a huge remediation----and we who view that remediation are getting wrapped-around-the-axle about micro-sized negative effects.   

The main problem, as already mentioned, is that too much water clarity indicates that the base of the food web has been removed.

Judd,

I was well aware that you were probably baiting me there, but somehow I couldn't ignore it this time.  Zebra mussels are in many ways the poster child of aquatic biological invasions and this thread seems to be your attempt at telling me that my chosen line of work is based on a false premise.

Anyway, if secchi depth is going to be your chosen metric of what constitutes a clean lake then you're right, the zebra mussels are a godsend.  Having grown up on Lake Ontario I can attest to the fact that right after the invasion the lake was much clearer.  However, I don't ever recall there really being a problem with Lake Ontario being over run by plankton.  The real problem with Lake Ontario in terms of cleanliness comes in the form of industrial pollutants which the zebra mussels have no effect on.  I'd continue with this line of reason, but after the mercury consuption thread, we all know where you stand on the relative harm these types of pollutants may cause so it seems like a fruitless battle.

As an ecologist however, I can't over look the dramatic changes that zebra mussels have caused to the benthic habitat and the composition of the plankton in the lakes they've infested.  The lakes simply aren't what they once were.

Judd, I doubt that you and I will ever be able to bridge the ideological gap we seem to have regarding mankind's impact on the environment. 

Brian

Brian.......you are 35.......I am 69.....neither of us is old enough to have a picture in mind what any body of water looked like....."originally."

In fact back in 1800 no one was surveying "the environment" so none of us has a window to what "it" looked like then but one can conjecture that the water-column was "purer" and therefore more light was admitted and supported a very large photo-reactive fauna.    The appearance of those "clear" waters might look quite different, to the same waters we, who grew up in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's....saw.

It's basic that all Bivalves filter water; it's a natural thing, it's a good thing.

Why get out of joint whether it's one variety of bivalve over another?

This is a very fundamental question and with respect to Zebras and Quaggas a reasonable man has to ask:  Why invest effort in hating them.

I'm a reasonable guy and a friendly one, jovial even...
But I'm not inclined to mix my science with emotion.

I know that Zebras and Quaggas cause financial loss to power plants and industry.    I've rubbed shoulders with the political system long enough to understand as well, all of the usual social/economic dynamics.   Industry does not want to bear the cost of mussel-caused damage.    If they can frame the issue as An Invasion Of Demons, they can get fed-buck help and tax writoffs.   

A good "Invasion Story" makes good press and sells papers and interviews...so there is absolutely no motive for The Press to ask hard questions or to point out the good the mussels are doing for the environment.

Hating Quaggas and Zebras is "a natural" for the "Chicken Little" side of society who believe that the sky is falling in.   Quagga-hate is a natural for the set of people who hate all things foreign.   Quagga-hate is a natural for all the people who make money from Quagga-hate.

Add them all up and you have a anti-Quagga movement that has real momentum.

But someone has to stand up and say.....
Hey wait a minute....
Hey wait a minute...these guy are cleaning the water....
Lets study that.

Judd

what eats quagga mussels?

They must have some predator.

Instead of armchair theorizing, let's see what scientists in Michigan have to say after 20 years of dealing with these mussels:

http://blog.mlive.com/chronicle/2008/04/zebra_mussels_called_the_most.html

even this was not very conclusive.

consider this quote from that article:

Charter boats on Lake Michigan have caught near-record numbers of salmon the past two years...

jmairey------

Birds, fish & crustatians, eat mussels.

Small mussels, like the zebras and quaggas, are a primary fish food.

Mussel eggs/embrios---which mussels produce by the billions----are an immense source of food for embrionic & minnow-sized fish.   

A mussel-egg is 40-microns in diameter.

They don't stay free-swimmers long, they attach; but even attached they remain "browse" for fish.

Crabs, eat adult mussels.
It's amusing-but-nevertheless-so that....Mitten Crabs..!!...eat mussels.

Birds will eat anything they can reach......but that's the shortcoming.

Mussels stay ahead of the game with volume egg-production.

The allegation that mussels "take food away" from embrionic fish is weakened by the fact that they themselves are a food source.   Since all the money goes toward zebra-and-quagga-eradication, it's unknown (at least to me) what might offset what.

Judd

POST SCRIPT....to Brian Steves...

Brian, I looked for your direct e-mail address and didn't find it....so am posting directly to you here:

I am NOT knocking your profession as an environmental researcher/contractor.
I am emphatically not dissing you.   
I find you bright, interesting, informative.
Why else would I want to talk with you.

The economic sector that benefits from a "quagga-enemy" is way-bigger than researchers or the Environmental Impact Statement contract-business.

.....Park departments can justify the imperitive of hiring new people to inspect boats.
.....Boat inspections are time-consuming.  The Freeway Entrances to California will require additional staffing.
.....The mechanical business of cleaning mussels from intakes = employment.
.....The people who raise and train "zebra & quagga-sniffing" dogs...
.....The Sheriff's Deputys who will be specially hired to handle those dogs.

.....Quaggas & Zebras.....turn out to be a strong & effective budget justifier.

Brian, you are my friend and correspondent
I never dis my friends and correspondents
You are a fellow oregonian...I never dis my fellow oregonians

I am a fellow, who will argue the contrary case if, you know, it seems to me that the contrary position desperately needs its own advocate.

I do wish to remain friends.

Judd

JWS, what eats adult mussels? is there some kind of trigger-fish equivalent? that can crush the shells?

cause that would be cool!

I buy there are things that eat the juvenile forms.

btw, Brian is not going to answer this one.

Brian gets paid to stop "invasive species".

jmairey......Crabs can and do crush their shells... 
Perhaps crawdads...that's speculation on my part.
Once they're adult they may have immunity.

When I did this post it WAS with BSTEVES in mind...but not to insult him.

He's bright, a scientist, I thought there was a fair chance of getting him to sign on to my notion that the GOOD that Quagga's and Zebras do......really does need fair scientific evaluation.

Might offset their "costs."
Might not.
I would happily recieve that.

There's the "science of environmentalism"
There's the "politics/economy of environmentalism"

I want bsteves to know that I see both sides...
I figure that he does too......
And that was/is the issue I intended to raise with this post.

As I see it (and saw it when I posted) he could come with me on the subject of this post...and in no way be denying the validity of his occupation as a scientific environmental contractor.

Judd