SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

Zebra Mussels - Lakes

11K views 64 replies 24 participants last post by  travlin-easy 
#1 ·
Zebra mussels made it into the lake last year. Other than keeping the bottom paint fresh, is there anything we should do proactively to protect the Yanmar or head?

Thanks in Advance
Jurgy
S/V Lazy D II
 
#2 ·
We've had zebra mussels in Lake Ontario for something like 20 years. In the 2 years we have had our first boat i have seen no effect to the boat other than a little cluster stuck to the bottom of the wing keel. i haven't seen any sign of them at the thru hulls or engine intake.
They do make the water nice and clear though.
 
#3 ·
We've had the little buggers for decades here on Lake Michigan. I've had them take up residence in the intake on my Catalina 309, but never approaching the point where they might impede the flow of water to the heat exchanger. When I see that they're present, I just clear them out. Swabbing a little bottom paint in there couldn't hurt, but they have not really been a problem.
 
#5 ·
Take one look at the waters of Chesapeake Bay and it will make you wish the zebra mussels would hurry up and get here. Fifty years ago I was scuba diving for oysters during October near the Bay Bridges at Kent Island. The underwater visibility was nearly 20 feet. Today, in the dead of winter, when the water is clearest, 6-inch visibility is considered good to excellent.

C'mon zebra mussels,

Gary :cool:
 
#6 ·
Take one look at the waters of Chesapeake Bay and it will make you wish the zebra mussels would hurry up and get here. Fifty years ago I was scuba diving for oysters during October near the Bay Bridges at Kent Island. The underwater visibility was nearly 20 feet. Today, in the dead of winter, when the water is clearest, 6-inch visibility is considered good to excellent.

C'mon zebra mussels,

Gary :cool:
20 years ago Lake Ontario was viewed by many to be grossly polluted, they wouldn't go any where near it. Now when we have non boat friends out on the boat they are amazed how beautiful the water is.
 
#7 ·
Once as a lad an old salt told me it only takes three days until barnacles start. Since then i've cleaned the hull once a week. It's quick and easy if you get there before the zebra mussels start to mature. Just put a sock over your hand and poke a finger into the through hull.
 
#10 ·
I've been on Lake Ontario for 3 years now and haven't seen one on the boat yet. I still have my hi-power florida ablative. I think that may have an affect.
They definitely are not fun to walk on. You should see what the canal looks like when they drain it for winter. They cover everything! If a tree branch dips in the water; they cover every square inch.
 
#11 ·
Owasco Lake, my lake, has had zebra mussels for a decade or so now. I don't notice them on my boat, which is a Hunter 260 moored in front of my house, except on the depth transducer and speed indicator wheel. Its a simple matter a quick dive in the drink to clean them off. Never noticed them on the ablative, it seems to work quite well for zebra mussels.

Brad
 
#12 ·
Someone should set up an industry to turn them into fertilizer. Then we could eliminate chemical fertilizers which have reated a huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. It would also give kids spending money gathering them.
 
#13 ·
Walking on Zebra mussels would be a pleasure when compared to walking on the black, slimy, bottom of most of the upper Chesapeake's tributaries. Take a nice hike on the bottom of Back River just east of the Eastern Avenue Bridge. Yeah, you know the place, Cox Point State Park, where no one has been able to swim for more than 75 years because of the pollution. If the Zebra Mussels took up residence there they probably would suffocate. Gotta feel sorry for the little critters.

When Zebra Mussels first invaded the great lakes all the marine biologists screamed this invasive species would destroy the lake's ecology. Amazing! When I was 17 years old and in boot camp at Great Lakes, IL you could stand in Lake Michigan in ankle deep water and not see your toes. Today, you can toss a quarter overboard and watch it sink to the bottom in 25 feet of water.

The yellow perch in Lake Erie at the same time were so contaminated that they were considered unsafe to eat. Not so today. Gee, I wonder if the Zebras cleaned up the lake to the point where the fish were now safe to consume? That would be my guess.

Zebras are incredible filter feeders, and because of their sheer numbers they scrub huge volumes of water every minute of every day. They seem to be far more efficient at this than clams and oysters, and because nothing other than diving ducks seems to want to eat them, from my point of view they don't seem to pose any environmental threat at all.

From some of the research I did on them three decades ago, the problems of them clogging intake pipes for municipal water supplies was quickly solved by passing a low voltage across the pipe surface, which kept the vellagers off the pipes, something like a cattle fence. And, the tiny amount of chlorine used to purify drinking water apparently kills any escapees that make into the system.

Bottom line: Despite the billions upon billions of dollars spent on the Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Program, the bay is filthy. I'll take the Zebras over the political hacks and naysayers at Maryland DNR, put my tax money back in my pocket where I can spend it as I see fit, mainly on sailing. Hell, if the water was nice and clean, I probably would still have a great fishing boat and be out on the bay catching striped bass, perch, bluefish and eating them regularly.

Like I said "C'mon Zebras!"

Gary :cool:
 
#14 ·
......Despite the billions upon billions of dollars spent on the Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Program, the bay is filthy. I'll take the Zebras over the political hacks and naysayers at Maryland DNR...
Amen to that.

I also agree that the ecological impact of the zebra muscles was overblown. However, one can't dismiss the downside that these critters ruin lake side access. A friend has a summer lake house on one of the Finger Lakes. I wouldn't call the waterfront a beach, more like grass up to the water's edge with a rocky bottom that you wade out until it drops off dramatically. The kids would bring floaty toys out and play in the deeper water. They can't get out there now, without shoes on. Zebra shells will tear your feet to shreds like little razors.
 
#15 ·
There is no doubt that the zebra mussels have cleaned up the water in upstate NY. Oneida Lake used to be muddy looking and one of the best walleye fisheries in the US. Now it is much cleaner and the walleye population has plummeted.
For those that don't know; zebra mussels are very small, the largest being about the size of a dime. They literally cover the shallows up to a depth of a inch or so. It all depends on the bottom structure.
Given the depth of the finger lakes, up to 618 feet, i doubt the zebra mussels have much affect(at least the deeper ones). For those that have never seen the finger lakes, you don't know what you are missing.
I agree, we should drop a couple of buckets of these babies in Maryland. Save the tax payers a lot of money! Both state and federal.
 
#16 ·
.....Oneida Lake used to be muddy looking and one of the best walleye fisheries in the US. Now it is much cleaner and the walleye population has plummeted.
Good point. I was going to say that clear water is not always better water for every living organism. It depends on what's making it unclear.

For those that have never seen the finger lakes, you don't know what you are missing....
I agree. Spectacular scenery. As they were carved by glaciers, they are not only very deep, but the hills rise straight up from the water's edge. The largest two being roughly 40 miles long each. Gorgeous, but can make for some squirrely sailing, as the hills can either block or redirect the winds.
 
#17 ·
Biggest problem is to the speed transducer paddle wheel. They can clog and stop it from properly functioning. Over the years I have found e few broken pieces of shells in my strainer, but NOTHING to be alarmed about.

Other than the fact that they alter the natural life of the lake they generally are not a problem to boaters. It does seem to be that the species that they affect have found a way to adapt.
 
#21 ·
As has been noted, zebra mussels can filter huge amounts of water. However, this can (and has) resulted in dramatic changes in the lower Great Lakes. Some nutrient and sediment levels have dropped significantly which has resulted in profound alterations in Lake Erie, Ontario, and some portions of Lake Michigan and Huron. The increased water clarity has caused huge increases in macrophyte growth (shoreline owners call them weeds)in shallow areas along shorelines with consequent changes in the types of fish populations that are supported or damages by that type of growth. Walleye and perch populations are faltering in many areas due to lack of zooplankton which feed on algae consumed by zebra mussels. The carpeting of much of the lake bottoms by dead shells has eliminated suitable spawning areas in many areas of the lakes for fish that need that habitat. The altered lake bottoms have also caused native mussels and other lake species to disappear in many areas. Some fish species actually may be enhanced by the increased weed beds (bass).The cascade of impacts to the Great Lakes continues and is well documented. That's why many private lake associations and government agencies try to educate people to not spread them further.
 
#22 ·
crichard's comments are spot-on. If you don't currently have zebra mussels in your water body, you do NOT want them. Their impacts are far reaching and expensive.

As for direct impacts to sailboats: You'll be fine if you check your intakes, rudder post, etc. periodically and clear away the mussels that are trying to grow there.
 
#23 · (Edited)
They also are hell on native shellfish populations. Do you like your crabs, mussels, clams, etc on the Chessie? Better not play Freelance Environmental Engineer, then. Cuz freshwater shellfish in the Great Lakes and Finger Lakes are pretty much hammered.





Lots of trees don't make a healthy forest, and clear water is not the definition of a healthy waterway. If pollution is a problem, the answer is not introducing exotic filter feeders into the mix. The answer is to stop polluting.
 
#24 ·
Are you making the argument that zebra mussels were introduced as a means to control pollution? Or did I misunderstand your point?
 
#28 · (Edited)
First and foremost, Zebra mussels were inadvertently introduced into the Great Lakes when ships from the Baltic Sea region pumped their ballast waters into the lake. At the time, which was more years ago than i would like to remember, Lake Michigan was a filth pit. The waters near Chicago were gray, underwater visibility was essentially zero, most species of fish were considered inedible, at least those that still existed. Most finfish populations were essentially wiped out by both loss of habitat and commercial exploitation. Yellow perch, which at one time were considered the staple of the Great Lakes commercial fishing industry, were so toxic that the consumption level for children, pregnant women, senior citizens, and those with serious health problems were advised to avoid them altogether. Walleye pretty much didn't exist in Lake Erie anymore, their population so low at the time that catching a legal size walleye in a day of fishing was considered a feat in itself. Brown trout, which is another invasive introduced by state and federal fisheries agencies, were thin, sickly looking, and often full of sores or lesions.

The zebras arrived, the water became clear, aquatic grasses emerged from areas of the lake where there previously was insufficient oxygen to support any form of life, yellow perch and walleye soon took up residence in the submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), and their populations immediately increased by huge numbers. Lake trout and brown trout sizes and populations also grew rapidly, and their overall health improved as well. EPA tests of the finfish population's toxins, particular those usually found in the fatty tissue just beneath the skin, revealed that previous toxin levels were once again in the safe to consume range. How could this be? Industrial polluters didn't suddenly shut off the discharge pipes into the lakes. There were no less people contributing human waste to the wastewater treatment facilities, and those facilities were just as outdated as they were a decade earlier.

Now, lets look at the spawning grounds. Where do most of the finfish of the Great Lakes spawn? Not in the lake - that's for certain. The vast majority of them spawn in fast flowing tributaries, locations where zebra mussels do not exist. In order for zebra mussels to exist they must colonize on themselves. They require slow-moving bodies of fresh water, lakes, and the mouths of larger rivers. The main reason there has never been a large colony of zebra mussels in the Susquehanna River is because the river moves too fast for them to colonize upon themselves - it's that simple.

If they do make it to the Chesapeake's upper reaches, which is doubtful, their chances of survival are slim to none. Diving ducks love to eat them, and guess what, we have lots of diving ducks that winter at the Susquehanna Flats. Additionally, they really don't tolerate salinity very well, though there have been some studies that claim they could tolerate levels reached as far south as the mouth of the Patapsco River, but it's doubtful. Blue crabs also love to eat them, but pollution and loss of habitat, coupled with overfishing by commercial interests, has just about wiped out the bay's blue crab population.

If you're worried about zebras competing with oysters and clams for plankton, well, first we would have to restore the bay's oyster and clam populations in order to have any competition at all. We have lots of plankton, though - much more than we need. There is more than enough excessive plankton flowing down every tributary to Chesapeake Bay to feed the entire zebra mussel population of the entire world, and still have lots left over for the oysters, clams, mussels, menhaden, bay anchovy, and all other plankton consuming species combined.

So, who are these so-called experts that claim the zebra mussels will destroy the bay's ecology? Most of the ones I've come across were state and federal biologists that were out looking for grants to study the effect of the zebra mussels - not experts by any means. Keep in mind these are the same so-called experts that claim if you give them more and more of your hard-earned dollars they'll clean up the bay. Yeah! Still be believe in the Tooth Fairy, too. The Chesapeake Bay Cleanup Program has been going on for more years that most of the good folks on this forum have been alive. During that time, the bay has increasingly become more and more polluted. Do you REALLY believe the tales these so-called experts have been telling you? Lets get serious.

Zebra mussels did one Hell of a good job of cleaning up some of the most fouled waters in the United States - the Great Lakes. They did it at no expense to the taxpayer, and they did it in less than two decades. If they arrived in Chesapeake Bay, and managed to survive the horrendous pollution, established viable populations, maybe, just maybe, they could cleanse the bay's upper reaches to the point where you wouldn't have to worry about eating finfish, shellfish, and crustaceans. Maybe the beaches of Baltimore, Anne Arundel and Charles, Calvert, Kent, Queen Annes, Talbot, and other counties bordering the bay would be once again open to the public. All those beaches are currently closed because of extremely high levels of fecal-colliform bacteria in the waters.

Lets see now, if the zebras arrived and cleaned the waters, we wouldn't need to be shelling out huge sums of money to fund the Chesapeake Cleanup Program, which is now well over $15-billion and growing. We wouldn't need a Chesapeake Bay Foundation to study the sources of pollution in the bay and educate the school kids about how to keep the bay clean. We wouldn't need to fund the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Division. We wouldn't need much of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Administration, which consists of a bunch of biologists that spend huge sums of money studying when the bay's fisheries collapsed. Those fisheries would likely recover on their own.

The bay's SAVs, which are a fraction of what they were just 50 years ago, would soon recover because when water clarity improves and life-giving sunlight reaches the bottom, those grasses emerge in all the traditional areas, thereby improving habitat for juvenile finfish and crustacean species. Those same grasses provide a significant portion of the winter dietary needs for migrating waterfowl. Those SAVs also improve the dissolved oxygen level in the bay's depths, locations where oysters and clams currently do not exist because of the incredible nutrient overload now taking place in the bay.

Yes, there is a drawback with zebra mussels - they will attach to any hard substrate, water intake pipes, pier pilings, rocks, etc... Of course, these are the same places where barnacles no longer seem to be able to survive, at least in depths more than 10 feet. That's because there is no longer any oxygen at those depths in mid summer. The same methods used to prevent barnacle attachment to these objects also works with zebra mussels.

So, for all you naysayers, those of us who reside near, and boat in the Chesapeake Bay, send those zebra mussels our way. We'll take em'. We would really like to see the bay's bottom once again, we would like to be able to eat the fish, clams, oysters, mussels, crabs, eels, etc.... We would love to see those SAVs clogging the rivers and the bay's shallows. I just returned to the bay from the beautiful waters of the Florida Keys. When I exited the James River into the bay proper and looked at the brown water I had to traverse to reach home I wanted to turn the boat around and head back to the keys. If you're old enough to remember to TV commercial about pollution where the American Indian stands on a hill overlooking an interstate highway with a tear falling from his eye, that's the way I felt when I returned to the Chesapeake.

Good luck on ever seeing the bay clean in any of our grandchildren's lifetimes - it ain't gonna' happen without the help of the zebras.

Gary :cool:
 
#30 ·
I didn't mean to imply that they should be introduced into another water system (it was more in jest). I would never intentionally introduce any critter/plant life into another system. Yes, clean up the neighborhood.

Zebra mussels have had a huge effect on the NYS water system. Good or bad. I believe it will be years before a true pattern will emerge to truly see how the ecosystem will stabilize.

That being said...... i remember the finger lakes and lake ontario during the early years of the zebra. The finger lakes have always been fairly clean. Lake ontario is much cleaner, impart because of the zebra. Oneida lake is actually kind of swimmable.

Yes, as a child i was told to throw my fish back. Now it's a different story.
 
#31 ·
I dunno, I'm a scientist but not a biologist. But something tells me that when a pervasive species enters a new ecosystem, things can be thrown terribly out of balance for a long time, and unexpected things can happen (some good, some bad).

The only true way to stop pollution is the stop polluting. If we keep dumping the same toxins into the bay and rely on some species like zebra mussels to clean it up, the toxins may not be disappearing, they might be just be getting concentrated in a different location. And then, once a predator for the mussels does come along, you could find those toxins doing harm to other species and maybe even working their way into the human food chain.

Cleanup efforts are not cheap and do not give the immediate gratification that our video game culture has grown to expect. But as someone who works for a large industrial company, I feel an obligation to fund some efforts to figure out how to assist nature in breaking down and safely disposing of the products that otherwise make all our lives a little better.
 
#32 ·
Stopping pollution is easier said than done. Keep in mind that every time a newborn baby enters this part of the world, that baby poops in Chesapeake Bay. It does this many, many times during it's lifetime, and it produces offspring that compound the problem. Now, that person, whom will likely live more than 70 years, requires a significant volume of food in order to survive. The person will likely consume a huge quantity of beef, pork, poultry, vegetables, fruits, etc..., animals that produce lots of nutrients that will wash into the bay's tributaries, and eventually end up in the bay.

This process, reproduction, which is part of human behavior, is not something that will go away. It will continue throughout time, and you must take into consideration that human populations are still increasing worldwide - not just in the Mid-Atlantic region. As those populations grow, each and every person born poops into the bay. This is not going to stop - ever. We keep building more and more homes, and more and more sewage treatment plants to cope with the population expansion. Those treatment plants cannot possibly keep up with the population increases, thus the waters of the bay and its tributaries will continue to worsen. This isn't rocket science - it's just common sense.

Many years ago I published an article about the bay's water quality and why it would never get better. I cited as an example the Susquehanna River, which at the time was listed as the most polluted river in the nation. When the article was published there was approximately 130 sewage treatment plants on the Susquehanna River between NY and the head of Chesapeake Bay. The last line in the article stated "If the good people of Harrisburg, PA do not flush their toilets, Havre de Grace, MD would not have any drinking water." The editor didn't like the line, but he agreed that this was indeed the case. Someone wrote a letter to the editor saying this just revealed how well those sewage treatment plants work. In reality, the plants, nearly all of them, were running at more than 200 percent over their rated capacity. The treatment at that time was huge doses of chlorine to kill the bacteria prior to discharging the water into the river.

A few years ago, when Maryland was experiencing a horrendous drought, the city of Frederick, MD considered piping its waste water into the city reservoir, which at the time was nearly bone dry. An early season hurricane solved their problem, but that water was nothing but a muddy torrent that flowed in from the creeks feeding the lake.

Good luck,

Gary :cool:
 
#35 ·
Cynical - you betcha! Long term? Lets see now, the first studies of Chesapeake Bay were conducted in the 1890s, and from the little research I've done over the past 40 years, there has been at least one or more studies each year pertaining to the bay's water quality. So, how long are YOU willing to wait for the scientific world to solve the bay's problems? Would a couple more centuries do the trick? I don't think so.

Keep in mind there is a massive industry out there of scientists that love to keep those tax dollars flowing into their pocket while they study everything on the planet. They're gobbling down those federal grants as fast as they become available, and some of those studies are open ended. Yep, they're just like highway projects along I-95 - those orange and white barrels seem to always be there. If I recall, the first crab study was created by Governor William Donald Schaeffer back in 1984. Schaeffer called it his "Crab Action Plan." The study revealed that crabs were being systematically wiped out by commercial crabbers in Maryland and Virginia. The study took a couple years, cost about $1-million per year, and the MD-DNR and VMRC biologists are still studying those same crabs today. It took nearly a decade after the results were released before MD-DNR Fisheries Service took any action at all. The very first thing they did was to limit the recreational harvest. (Gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling, doesn't it!) Next, they added a new recreational crabbing license (tax) to generate funds to enhance the studies. A couple years later, the scientists decided that MD-DNR's actions didn't do anything, so the scientific community said maybe we should limit the commercial catch. DUH! So, they shortened the commercial and recreational seasons, and limited the commercial guys to 500 crab pots per license. Big deal.

So, a couple centuries from now, when the earth's population is on the brink of starvation, drinking recycled urine, and still pooping in Chesapeake Bay, let me know how all that scientific stuff works out. Hell, long before then you'll have a bay that is so overloaded with nutrients that you'll be planting corn in the main shipping channel.

Cheers,

Gary :cool:
 
#37 ·
It's weird that the head waters for the bay are adjacent to the finger lakes(utica, binghamton); yet zebra mussels haven't invaded this turf that i know of.
I once considered kayaking the entire length to see what it would be like.

I'm sure that there are a lot of environmental factors from NY PA and the bay basin that need to be addressed before the bay will be what some would considered acceptably clean.

We will see in the future
 
#38 · (Edited)
Brad, I don't know how old you are, but I suspect you are relatively young. I would also venture a guess that the lake you now swim in would be nothing more than a cesspool if it were not for zebra mussels. In fact, there probably would not be any forms of aquatic vegetation growing, and the water would likely be too toxic to swim in.

We have places in Chesapeake Bay where the hydrilla cannot grow because the sun no longer reaches the bottom of the bay, even in the shallows. At one time, the Potomac River was choked with hydrilla. Largemouth bass fishing there was incredible, so good in fact, that Bass Masters held at least one qualifying tournament there every year, and the highest weights ever recorded came from the Potomac River. It was also fairly dense in the upper bay tributaries, Gunpowder, Bush, Chester, etc..., which prompted BASS to hold their Bass Masters Classic in the upper Chesapeake.

Hydrilla, which arrived with the aquarium trade from southeast Asia, if I recall correctly, and got its start somewhere in south Florida. The grass is very resistant to most everything, but like all SAVs it provides a great nursery area for juvenile fish of various species. It does a pretty good job of keeping the water clean as well, filtering out much of the suspended particular matter.

Back in the 1960s, MD-DNR decided to attempt to kill off the hydrilla that had overwhelmed the Northeast River, situated near the head of Chesapeake Bay. They tried various products, copper sulfate, and at least one new product, 24D. The scientists did test strips about 100 yards long and 100-feet wide, seeding grass beds near some of the marinas that were bitterly complaining about the overabundance of the vegetation during the height of boating season.

Well, it worked. In fact, it worked so well that for the next 40 years there wasn't a blade of grass to be found in the entire Northeast River and the adjacent Susquehanna Flats. The bottom was nothing but a mud pit. DNR transformed one of the world's best largemouth bass fisheries into a muddy-bottomed desert where nothing could survive. There was no place for juvenile fish to hide from predators, stripers no longer had shad of any form to feed upon, the freshwater clams suffocated because the grass was no longer there to filter storm run-off, and the overall water quality went down the tubes within just a few years. Yep, those scientists did a real, bang-up job.

About 2000 is when the 24D toxins were either buried in silt and mud, or they just went away. Soon after that the first sprouts of hydrilla were seen along the shallow channel edges of the Northeast River. A few years later, freshwater clams began showing up on the Susquehanna Flats, the grass began to grow, the bass fishery began to rebound and fair numbers of striped bass once again roamed the channel edges in search of juvenile shad. The water quality in areas where the clams and grass abound is relatively clear, often with summer visibilities to 5 feet, which in this part of the world is really good. Just outside those areas, underwater visibilities may be 5 inches at best.

Count your lucky stars, Brad. At least you have water clean enough for swimming. It has been more than 4 decades since the upper Chesapeake's beaches were closed because of pollution. The only beaches still open for swimming are at Maryland state parks south of Baltimore - locations where water quality is still lousy, but the state would never admit to that because it may drive tourists away. Ironically, MD-DNR tried to blame the high fecal-coliform bacteria count in the bay's upper reaches on waterfowl. Yep, the water is polluted because of those damned ducks, geese and swans. :) Oh, it was one of their scientists that made that statement, too. Just makes you feel good all over, doesn't it? ;)

Gary :cool:
 
#41 ·
...Back in the 1960s, MD-DNR decided to attempt to kill off the hydrilla that had overwhelmed the Northeast River, situated near the head of Chesapeake Bay....Well, it worked. In fact, it worked so well that for the next 40 years there wasn't a blade of grass to be found in the entire Northeast River and the adjacent Susquehanna Flats. The bottom was nothing but a mud pit....
It's nice to see that you agree with me that rash actions taken without carefully studying the unintended consequences can lead to disastrous effects. Seeding the upper bay with Zebra mussels would likely lead to similarly unpleasant surprises. Do we know for sure? No. That's why things need to be studied.

So it seems to me that there are a few options here:
  1. Do nothing, and let the pollution grow along with our population. Save money by firing the scientists, since they are unnecessary.
  2. Do our best to limit pollution where possible with existing technology, and fund long term studies to better understand what options might improve the ecology without disastrous unintended consequences. Enact user fees, environmental impact fees, licenses, and other usage-based taxes to distribute the costs to the people who currently damage the environment or benefit from the studies.
  3. Do something abrupt without carefully thinking it out (like seeding the bay with zebra mussels), and live with whatever the consequences happen to be. Save money by firing the scientists, but prepare to hire their children and grandchildren 40 years from now when the sh!t hits the fan from our stupid acts.
I vote for #2. You seem to favor #1 or #3, but I'm not sure which.

By the way, everybody needs to make a living, and everyone will look for a place to apply their skills in a way that supports their families and benefits society. I'm not sure why you feel the need to single out scientists as being uniquely sinister in their motives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Minnesail
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top