Important Information Regarding the Quagga Mussel

[Gator]

BLACK BASS ACTION COMMITTEE
DELTA- FOOTHILLS CHAPTER
MIKE RIEHL- HABITAT PROJECT ADVISOR
165 RUBY CT. LIVERMORE, CA. 94550
925-443-8811 W OR 925-443-2913 H

1/27/08
THIS MORNING I OPENED UP THE TRI-VALLEY HERALD AND SAW AN ARTICLE BY DENIS CUFF THAT STATES THAT BECAUSE OF THE THREAT OF THE QUAGGA AND ZEBRA MUSELS, THE EAST BAY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RESERVOIRS WILL HAVE RESTRICTIONS ON THE BOATERS USE TO BE EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1.

IN EFFECT, BOATS FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, SAN BENITO AND SANTA CLARA WILL BE BANNED FROM USING THE LAKES, WHILE THE BOATS NOT FROM THE AREAS BANNED, WILL HAVE THEIR BOATS PASS INSPECTIONS BY EBMUD BEFORE THEY CAN BE LAUNCHED IN THE LAKES.

THE LAKES ARE SAN PABLO, BRIONES, LAFAYETTE, AND CHABOT IN THE EAST BAY, AND LAKE CAMANCHE AND THE ASSOCIATED EBMUD LAKES IN THE FOOTHILLS.

SO, IF YOU ARE HAVING A TOURNEMENT IN LAKE CAMANCHE AND YOU LIVE IN MILPITAS, YOU CANT PUT YOUR BOAT IN THE WATER, WHILE THE GUY THAT LIVES ACROSS THE LINE IN FREMONT CAN LAUNCH IF HIS BOAT MEETS THE INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS.

THE DECISION BY EBMUD, APPEARS TO BE THE FACT THAT THE SAN JUSTO RESERVOIR NEAR HOLLISTER HAS THE INFESTATION. THE EBMUD DECISION IS THE FIRST WATER DISTRICT IN THE BAY AREA TO IMPOSE BOATING RESTRICTIONS. IT WONT BE THE LAST. YOU CAN CONTACT THE REPORTER ’DENIS CUFF’ AT 925-943-8267 OR E MAIL INFO AT: dcuff@bayareanewsgroup.com OR FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE MUSSELS: www.dfg.ca.gov/invasives/quaggamussel.

WE ARE HAVING A SCHEDULED DELTA FOOTHILLS BBAC MEETING ON TUESDAY AT THE ORCHARD RESTAURANT IN TRACY (JUST OFF HIGHWAY 205 ON THE GRANT LINE ROAD) PLEASE COME AND WE CAN DISCUSS HOW WE AS AMERICAN CITIZENS AND FISHERMEN CAN AGGRESSIVELY ACT TO CORRECT THIS PROBLEM.

BY DOING NOTHING WERE ARE ALLOWING THE PROBLEM TO CONTINUE.

[Matt Moreau]

Thanks for the heads up Gator!!!

[CORAL 96]

HMMM?? No restrictions on us folk coming from the Colorado river area. That's strange right there. Would think their list would have had us on it 1st. Glad not so far!!! But really, all's they'd have to check would be to see if it's DRY in all the right places!! Mine hasn't been in the water since Sept 07, so it's plenty DRY!!! Next thing CALI will do is not let anyone from another state register their boat say if they wanted to move back.

[MikeD]

I just got a message from Steve Hunger with similar info, below is my response. I hope this will open a constructive debate

Steve's group broadcast message, similar to gators above:

On 1/28/2008 10:29 AM, steve hunger wrote:
Seems we have a fishin’ issue (hence, “a Fishue) on the table. Pay attention, this one is serious!

They’ve announced that on 2/1 Lake Comanche and several others will be closed to certain boaters from certain counties due to fears the quagga and zebra mussels may invade those waters via those boaters. As this type of closure will likely be deemed unconstitutional, I fear that we might lose these impoundments altogether as they decide to keep our ALL boats. I’m guessing that this will hit tournament boaters first and EBMUD waters first, but this IS California and there’s little doubt it will stop there, or even slow down. How long before the Mother Lode lakes are impacted and this program moves to Clear Lake and the Delta?

I’ve posted a 1/27 article at the end of this email. It will also be on the website, www.fishnccc.com with regular updates. Visit the site often and we’ll try to keep informed. Pass the information along to other clubs and anglers as well. This will impact us all. All clubs with websites should pass their links and other news to marshall@fishnccc.com so we can list you on the site. This whole thing is about information exchange and keeping the angling community informed.

The BBAC is having a 7:00p meeting at the Orchard Restaurant in Tracy on Tuesday if you can’t make it, I’ll try to let you know (via the website) what transpires at that meeting. Representatives from Fish & Game and the author of the article are among the expected attendees.

Please pass this along to other area anglers and clubs. Encourage those clubs to get involved with NCCC and check the website frequently for news and information pertinent to CA fishin’.

We also encourage our clubs and other anglers to support our sponsors. They support us so we can support you.

If you want off this list, please reply to this email accordingly.

Thanks,
SteveH………..

[MikeD]

my reply back to Steve:

Steve,

I'm responding with a message of encouragement for you to consider the bigger picture - if boats from these counties do end up bringing in mussels then what? Does your "constitutional right" to fish these waters irregardless of the risk override the protection of the water - regardless of whether you believe there is a risk or not? If you are a paying EBMUD water customer are you/should you be willing to foot the costs for a cleanup within your monthly water bill just because its some boaters say they have a 'right' to access to these waters and end up contaminating them?

is your organization or BBAC willing to be legally responsible for guaranteeing that contamination will not occur in order to get these waters opened back up?

if you feel that boating these waters is a need for those boats identified as a risk, then what steps do you suggest to prevent the spread of this invasive species when boats bring them in? are you up to speed on the impact of these species and the damage they will do, and the consequences of allowing these actions?

> This will impact us all.

this already impacts us all - boaters and non boat owners - at a much more dangerous level than just restricting boating. getting these mussels into these waters would be a very bad thing for many water consumers for many years to come.

Again - consider the bigger picture. Instead of what looks like you taking a fairly myopic stance of "we must have boats on these waters" perhaps work to understand how boats are a risk, and offer alternatives that assist the agencies involved vs making their job harder.

how about:
1) VIN #'s of boats that go on santa clara county lakes will be tagged and will be on a list that will not be allowed on EBMUD lakes, if you want to fish EBMUD lakes then don't take your boat into santa clara county water.

2) determine if there is a way to sanitize the boat by cleaning the hull/bilge prior to launching at EBMUD lakes and come up with a means of inspection that EBMUD could adopt.

3) ****, who knows? but at least 1&2 are an effort.

you've included a bit of FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) that doesn't lend itself well to distributing "just the facts" and maintaining your credibility:

"As this type of closure will likely be deemed unconstitutional, I fear that we might lose these impoundments altogether as they decide to keep our ALL boats. "

this is private water owned and operated by EBMUD, this is not a state agency program. Are you a lawyer? "will likely be deemed unconstitutional" is a pretty broad brush... I'd think it is entirely within EBMUD rights to close their waters to all boats given a danger/threat. What part of the constitution states that boaters who pose a risk are allowed access to private water?

"I’m guessing that this will hit tournament boaters first" - so what is it? all boats from these counties, or just tournament boats? again, FUD with a broad brush.

"but this IS California and there’s little doubt it will stop there, or even slow down" - FUD, this is EBMUD, not a state program. you can't state for sure that this will happen with "little doubt" - what facts do you have to support this statement?

Stop with "the sky is falling" and start with working with EBMUD to see if there is a way to assist with their program. If this restriction stays in place as it probably will, have you come up with an exit strategy so that when the mussel threat is resolved you have a way to ensure that boats can get back on the water? Alienating EBMUD with a misguided last second protest will only make it more difficult to get closure on the situation and boats back on the water in the future.

is someone from EBMUD invited to the meeting noted below? this is their ban and really has nothing to do with DFG.

clearly my response here goes against the reaction you are after, but I hope it can be received with an open mind to consider something other than what you seem to be proposing below. thanks for including me on this info, I appreciate it

md

[fish_food]

this is private water owned and operated by EBMUD, this is not a state agency program. Are you a lawyer? "will likely be deemed unconstitutional" is a pretty broad brush... I'd think it is entirely within EBMUD rights to close their waters to all boats given a danger/threat. What part of the constitution states that boaters who pose a risk are allowed access to private water?

Right, that's what most folks aren't seeing. These are private waters built for the SOLE purpose of being municipal water supplies. Recreation is a secondary benefit to the general public.

this already impacts us all - boaters and non boat owners - at a much more dangerous level than just restricting boating. getting these mussels into these waters would be a very bad thing for many water consumers for many years to come.

Yep, there's more at jeopardy than just fishing/recreation opportunities at EBMUD reservoirs. EBMUD's delivery infrastructure will be impacted by the infestation which will also impact all the water consumers of said water utility further down the line if nothing is done.

I'm against any total knee-jerk-reaction closure of their waters but people should at least try to see the bigger picture before running around like Chicken Little...

[Ray L.]

Are some of you really kidding with this stupid idea of it will be ok and just work with it.
Give me a break this is just the beggining. Maybe most of you have been in a closet with this attitude.
I have been trying to work with Lake Casitas and it is a total mess down here.
Well now banning us S. Cal. people from going on some of those lakes. Please fight this tooth and nail because this is what the other water districts are looking for so they can close there lakes to all boats.
I am behind the guys fighting this.
Go get 'em Gator.
I know Pardee is probably going to be on the list and if I am banned from there I will be fighting tooth and nail.
I already am fighting back by being on the Lake Casitas advisory board and also a t.d. for the federation. All anglers need to jump on this and fight back. Please do so or what we love will be taken from us.

[fish_food]

Are some of you really kidding with this stupid idea of it will be ok and just work with it.
Give me a break this is just the beggining. Maybe most of you have been in a closet with this attitude.
I have been trying to work with Lake Casitas and it is a total mess down here.
Well now banning us S. Cal. people from going on some of those lakes. Please fight this tooth and nail because this is what the other water districts are looking for so they can close there lakes to all boats.
I am behind the guys fighting this.

The closures of EMBUD reservoirs SHOULD be fought--no argument against that. But people seem to think these reservoirs were built purely for their enjoyment or recreational benefit--they were built by a utility to supply East Bay communities with water, and said reservoirs could very well have been kept entirely off limits much the way the SF Water District had Upper and Lower Crystal Springs Reservoirs closed off after their completion. People should know what they're fighting and to be armed with properly thought out responses to the closures, that's all...

[blkdog812]

the quagga mussel was found in the colorado river in 2007 and later in san diego and riverside county. they closed san justo to ALL BOATING because of the zebra mussel.
fyi san luis feeds san justo.
what makes u think they wont close any other lakes off to boats?

[fish_food]

the quagga mussel was found in the colorado river in 2007 and later in san diego and riverside county. they closed san justo to ALL BOATING because of the zebra mussel.
fyi san luis feeds san justo.
what makes u think they wont close any other lakes off to boats?

I know the infestation has only been a relatively recent west coast concern but what damage or impact have they found here that was actually caused by the quagga and the zebra mussels?

What impact did the infestation have on eastern fisheries and how do they live with them now that they've become established? I remember reading about the Great Lakes having to deal this problem a long time ago...

[blkdog812]

call f/g they will give you the details on how they disrupt the natural food chain and release toxins that effect other species. read also the internet write ups.

remember this is california. any excuse to ban, bar, stop, prohibit or restrict is their favorite thing to do, whether you like it or not

[mac (Doyle McEwen)]

It is also well known that Lake Eries exceptional small mount fishery is somewhat due to the zebra mussels..It is also well known they have also caused damage to water projects getting water from Lake Erie..I do not doubt we are only seeing the start of the problems and the consequences..

mac

[drew]

Are you sure that your comment is correct without any doubt before we give up our right to fish most of the reservoirs in California? Have you checked the original documentation to see where the funding for the reservoirs came from and want reasons were used to secure the funds? Maybe the primary use was for recreation and the secondary reason as a auxiliary water source.

But people seem to think these reservoirs were built purely for their enjoyment or recreational benefit--they were built by a utility to supply East Bay communities with water, and said reservoirs could very well have been kept entirely off limits much the way the SF Water District had Upper and Lower Crystal Springs Reservoirs closed off after their completion. People should know what they're fighting and to be armed with properly thought out responses to the closures, that's all...

[Dewayne]

Probably the best way to be safe is to have an online database created where boats are tracked as to what lakes they have been on and when. You go onto a lake that is infested or is later found to be infested and you boat has to be held dry for how ever many days are needed to ensure any hitch hikers are dead.

This would not be easy with places like CL and the Delta where we currently have easy access. Either we are going to be inconvienienced, loose access, and/or pay more to go fishing, that is a fact. When the Delta get infested our lives will change big time.

[MikeD]

Are you sure that your comment is correct without any doubt before we give up our right to fish most of the reservoirs in California? Have you checked the original documentation to see where the funding for the reservoirs came from and want reasons were used to secure the funds? Maybe the primary use was for recreation and the secondary reason as a auxiliary water source.

http://www.ebmud.com/about_ebmud/overview/default.htm

EBMUD Mission Statement

To manage the natural resources with which the District is entrusted; to provide reliable, high quality water and wastewater services at fair and reasonable rates for the people of the East Bay; and to preserve and protect the environment for future generations.

[Dan McKenzie]

another knee jerk reaction by those that don't have a clue.

how does banning such a large group of boat owners stop the spread of these pests? anyone can take their boats to any santa clara county lake and then to a lake or body of water outside santa clara county the next day, so long as they don't live in that county, if you live in that county and don't frequent reserviors there you are banned from ebmud lakes? now one of these brilliant civil servants will get the bright idea to import another pest to control this pest and really make a mess out of things, if they're going to screw it up they might as well finish the job!

remember how the mitten crab was going to destroy the delta? who knows maybe we can train otters to eat the mussels and leave the fish alone. my way of keepin it positive

[fish_food]

Maybe the primary use was for recreation and the secondary reason as a auxiliary water source.

Wow, are they so altruistic as to build an entire reservoir for the public's recreation? Right, and the government is here to "help" you!

Name one reservoir that was built for recreation as it's primary purpose (bet there's less than a handful, if that).

If people want to sway officials they better educate themselves and not have their arguments come across as hot headed, knee-jerk reactions (the way many gummint agencies themselves are guilty of acting)...

[Brian Linehan]

great points!

[crawdaddy]

This is crazy. Do the facilities at Camanche or Pardee receive any funding from the state of California? This is where the money we pay to register our boats goest to right? I live in Santa Clara County but I have not fished a lake in this area in almost 1 year. When I fished a tournament at Camanche earlier this month there was a person at the gate asking us a lot of questions about where we were from and where we had last used our boats. I guess this was the reason.

[drew]

I agree people should educate themselves before laying down and playing dead.

I can't stand to read posts about how correct the water boards are without having a professional examine the legal documentation. I'm sure we have some rights.

I’m not recommending any kind of hot headed strategy.

I do think its time for some major unity and more advanced representation.

If people want to sway officials they better educate themselves and not have their arguments come across as hot headed, knee-jerk reactions (the way many gummint agencies themselves are guilty of acting)...

[CORAL 96]

I'll have to say I agree with crawdaddy. Boats registered in the state are sending some funding to lakes like Camanche, Pardee, etc. I would venture to say they could lose some or all of that funding by being "selective". Lets hope it doesn't come to that. I remember in 2005 going there "Camanche". I thought it was a rip-off what they charge to get in there $20. Lots of folks will be spending their money elsewhere. Might end up "Hurting" them in the end.

[Ray L.]

We are in the process of building a website that will have soo much info on it for everyone.
Please stay tuned for the announcement.
This is a state wide problem that is going to grow huge in possible Lake closures.

[MikeD]

its interesting, to me at least, that all the responses that I've read from those who think this is a bad decision -- not one has addressed the impacts of boats bringing mussels into these waters, not one has considered or proposed any alternative strategy, but have instead taken the position of "I have rights" and "I will fight" and this is "stupid" and since I don't blindly follow along ergo I must be "in a closet".

your "rights", whatever they may be and I don't know myself what they are, do not give you carte blanche to use a resource to the detriment of others who use the same resources. do the rights of boaters trump rights of rate payers for water consumption? so you as a boat owner with your one, two, ten visits a year are allowed to jeopardize the well being of the resource.

scenario - explain to me the difference:

if a boat owner brings his leaky boat full of pesticides and used motor oil, pays the fee at the gate and puts his/her boat on the water with the sole intention of fishing but in doing so s/he allows the boat to leak out into the water. in the same sense that a boat from the identified counties poses a similar risk to the heath of the resource by invasive species transport, causing a risk to the consumers who drink the water - given an argument that all boat owners have rights to use the resource without consideration for possible risk - doesn't this boat owner have the right to do this?

in the end its really pretty easy -- if you are so dead sure that your boating does not pose a risk to the heath of EBMUD waters, or state waters in the future since you are so darn sure that state water closures are inevitable, then step up and sign a individual legal agreement to take full financial responsibility to cover the costs for any and all damage caused by any and all boats brought in from any areas identified as a risk now and in the future. I'm sure EBMUD or the state would be happy to hear from you. if this position seems untenable to you, then please explain why EBMUD should be willing to take it a the expense of their rate payers.

I got a great letter back from Steve H this morning that I haven't had a chance to get all the way thru, but it seems well thought out and on point from an initial glossover. I'll post it here later today if all goes well.

[drew]

I'm sure everyone is aware that the mussels could pose a threat to the reservoirs and water is more important for our survival then for recreation.

I believe that our concern is that we are being used as a scape goat without a real study of how the mussels are actually getting into the reservoirs.

The current trend in CA is to over regulate hunting and fishing. Over regulate to the point extinction. Of course we are going to be skeptical of any new radical knee jerk regulation.

its interesting, to me at least, that all the responses that I've read from those who think this is a bad decision -- not one has addressed the impacts of boats bringing mussels into these waters, not one has considered or proposed any alternative strategy, but have instead taken the position of "I have rights" and "I will fight" and this is "stupid" and since I don't blindly follow along ergo I must be "in a closet".

your "rights", whatever they may be and I don't know myself what they are, do not give you carte blanche to use a resource to the detriment of others who use the same resources. do the rights of boaters trump rights of rate payers for water consumption? so you as a boat owner with your one, two, ten visits a year are allowed to jeopardize the well being of the resource.

scenario - explain to me the difference:

if a boat owner brings his leaky boat full of pesticides and used motor oil, pays the fee at the gate and puts his/her boat on the water with the sole intention of fishing but in doing so s/he allows the boat to leak out into the water. in the same sense that a boat from the identified counties poses a similar risk to the heath of the resource by invasive species transport, causing a risk to the consumers who drink the water - given an argument that all boat owners have rights to use the resource without consideration for possible risk - doesn't this boat owner have the right to do this?

in the end its really pretty easy -- if you are so dead sure that your boating does not pose a risk to the heath of EBMUD waters, or state waters in the future since you are so darn sure that state water closures are inevitable, then step up and sign a individual legal agreement to take full financial responsibility to cover the costs for any and all damage caused by any and all boats brought in from any areas identified as a risk now and in the future. I'm sure EBMUD or the state would be happy to hear from you. if this position seems untenable to you, then please explain why EBMUD should be willing to take it a the expense of their rate payers.

I got a great letter back from Steve H this morning that I haven't had a chance to get all the way thru, but it seems well thought out and on point from an initial glossover. I'll post it here later today if all goes well.

[SteveH]

Thanks. I’m just happy that people are talking about this. Too often in the world of bass fishin’, I hear words to the effect like, “they’ll take care of thisâ€

[John Barron]

We have taken a different position and approach rather than "I have rights" We have also discussed the several aspects and determents of the Quagga mussel and not just to the water system. You should read some of the SCBF posts regarding this subject.

The water district has a responsibility to deliver water to its customers. The Quagga Mussel damages their delivery system that's why they are making "panicked decisionsâ€

[mac (Doyle McEwen)]

Excellent response John..There may well be some positive aspects of these invasive species as I said in my post above..The problem lies in the damage that can be done, rather than any possible positives that may result..I think the "clean and dry" method of dealing with the problem is a great way of dealing with the problem..Sure, it may create some problems with some people and in some situations may seem an imposition, but it most definitely is one option to assist in limiting the spread of the mussels..

mac

[MikeD]

I agree with mac, excellent points, thanks for chiming in with good info John

[Ray L.]

Thanks John.
I can say that kind of thing but my typing skills as many of you know are along the lines of Gary

[crawdaddy]

I feel the need to chime in on this one. Why do some on this board insist that EMBUD owns the water in the resevoir? The majority of the water in their lakes comes from Sierra snowpack meltoff. The lake is a navigateable waterway we do have rights in that regard. EMBUD has offerred the body of water as a concession and allows admission to the lake and use of the body of water for a fee. Now they are arbitrarily banning certain individuals because of where they live? GMAFB. What if we banned people from Oakland because there was a lot of crime there and we didn't want crime at our lakes? There are solutions to this problem that don't involve banning the use of these lakes by certain individuals. Nothing like doing the time for a crime you didn't commit. I would say there are some legal challenges that could be made to this. If they want their water they should make the lakes completely off limits like Calaveras and Crystal Springs. But they also like the money they collect from their concessions at those lakes I would think or they were told when they made the resevoirs that they had to be open to the public. If any public money went into the creation of these resevoirs then we as a public have rights to it. Or we can all just get PO boxes in other counties and register our boats through them.

[drew]

I agree with you. However there is one point I would like to make from a business standpoint. If they lose revenue from the loss of recreational use they will just increase the selling price of the water. Its a common practice to pass on the extra costs to the consumer.

Its a two fold problem, loose the right to access the reservoirs and pay more for water.

I feel the need to chime in on this one. Why do some on this board insist that EMBUD owns the water in the resevoir? The majority of the water in their lakes comes from Sierra snowpack meltoff. The lake is a navigateable waterway we do have rights in that regard. EMBUD has offerred the body of water as a concession and allows admission to the lake and use of the body of water for a fee. Now they are arbitrarily banning certain individuals because of where they live? GMAFB. What if we banned people from Oakland because there was a lot of crime there and we didn't want crime at our lakes? There are solutions to this problem that don't involve banning the use of these lakes by certain individuals. Nothing like doing the time for a crime you didn't commit. I would say there are some legal challenges that could be made to this. If they want their water they should make the lakes completely off limits like Calaveras and Crystal Springs. But they also like the money they collect from their concessions at those lakes I would think or they were told when they made the resevoirs that they had to be open to the public. If any public money went into the creation of these resevoirs then we as a public have rights to it. Or we can all just get PO boxes in other counties and register our boats through them.

[Dewayne]

The laws pertaining to navigable water do not cover most lakes and from what I have read only affects the CA Delta and orther navigable systems. The law as I have read pertains to waters that are directly connected to the ocean. Since you cannot drive a boat over a dam they are not "Navigable waters".

We have no right to any privately owned lake. They own the property surrounding the lake and therefor can control access to the lake with what ever rules they choose to impose. I expect we will see many lakes that are primarily for drinking water purposes made completely off limits.

The best thing we can do is learn what it takes to prevent the spread, work with these water districts to have fair and effective practices put in place, and do our best to adhere to safe practices.

[MikeD]

Why do some on this board insist that EMBUD owns the water in the resevoir?

ummm, cause they built it and own the water rights? show me something that says they don't

The majority of the water in their lakes comes from Sierra snowpack meltoff.

correct, and for example Oakdale irrigation district is part owner of the "Tridam" system of water runoff from beardsley to lyons to tulluch. they sell the water as well as power generated from the moving water. they own the water rights in these locations.

The lake is a navigateable waterway we do have rights in that regard.

I believe that you are confusing waterway rights on public bodies of water (delta/bay/some river systems) with "rights" on owned water.

EMBUD has offerred the body of water as a concession and allows admission to the lake and use of the body of water for a fee. Now they are arbitrarily banning certain individuals because of where they live? GMAFB.

here's your break - wake up. the deal is that boats from identified counties pose a risk of transmission of invasive species. they are not just banning boats for the pure pleasure of banning boats - there is no Mr Scrooge plotting an evil scheme to ban boats while he sits high and mighty in his tower of evil and picks out unsuspecting boat owners to inflict his wrath on. There is a real problem. There is a reason/cause/justification for these actions. There is nothing in your post that speaks to the fact that that show that you have considered the entire scope of the issue - you appear to be only interested in how this negatively impacts you, there is a bigger picture that you should try to understand that impacts many many people.

What if we banned people from Oakland because there was a lot of crime there and we didn't want crime at our lakes?

poor example, this issue is not about crime. no crime has been committed, no one is guilty. living in an identified county does not make you "guilty". it means that your boat "might" pose a risk, not that the boat owner has done anything wrong.

There are solutions to this problem that don't involve banning the use of these lakes by certain individuals. Nothing like doing the time for a crime you didn't commit.

again, poor example. there is no crime committed here. trying to connect the dots via crime shows a lack of conceptual understanding as to the significance of the current problem.

I would say there are some legal challenges that could be made to this.

possibly, there appear to be many efforts afoot. but to their credit most efforts that I have read seem to be interested in working with vs working against the agencies involved.

If they want their water they should make the lakes completely off limits like Calaveras and Crystal Springs. But they also like the money they collect from their concessions at those lakes I would think or they were told when they made the resevoirs that they had to be open to the public.

had to be open?? at the possible expense of those who drink/consume the water? to the risk of the the health of the reservoir itself? please...

If any public money went into the creation of these resevoirs then we as a public have rights to it.

yes, possibly so, but within the scope of responsible use.

Or we can all just get PO boxes in other counties and register our boats through them.

that's pretty short sighted. so you haul your wet boat full of mussels thru the gate and splash it now that you have easily circumvented the restriction and the lake water begins to get destroyed a few weeks later as the mussel population you brought in begins to grow. some months later rate payers start seeing rates rise as the environmental cleanup begins at rate payer expense. the mussels are growing faster than the cleanup rate. costs continue to soar. bait fish start to die due to competition for food/air and other habitat issues. Big fish start to die off because their food chain is impacted. but the gates are still open but now there are no fish. great, you win. nice job. but you got your day on the lake right? hope it was worth it.

how about something more constructive, maybe find ways to work with the process and become part of a better solution??

[Riplip]

Just a question...how could "clean and dry" be enforced or regulated in this rain? A two hour drive through this weather and my carpet is soaked, washing down into the bilge and out the drain hole...even if wiped clean and dry before leaving, the bilge area would no doubt be wet and dirty.

[SteveH]

Excellent Post! As an industry, we, the bass guys, need to be the leaders in addressing this issue and cooperate as much as humanly possible with DFG and EBMUD in controlling, slowing, or whatever we might do with this little monster.

I currently have a lot of literature and information to sift through, but as I complete this, I will ask our webmaster to post it on the NCCC website with as much supportive and educational material as I can without sounding too redundant. In the meantime, there are a number of websites and places to find information. Start with http://www.100thmeridian.org/ and go from there.

This is not a problem that’s going to go away. We need to show that this industry can and will support those who legally control and protect our waters.

[crawdaddy]

Mike,

I live in Santa Clara County but I have not had my boat in one of those lakes in nearly a year. My wet *** boat full of mussels is a horribly inaccurate statement. My post about the PO address was tongue and cheek. Their blanket banning of individuals based on their county of residence is absurd. Like I said in my post there are other ways to combat this like recommendations for draining our bilges and/or treating them with something. I really could care less about fishing in those lakes, I have never fished in Pardee. But if we just say oh well then the next time the issue comes up those in power will take the easiest path again and eventually we will have no place to enjoy our hobby. There is always a balance and as a group we should be able to come to some form of agreement. I don't accept that this is the best solution for EVERYONE. If you think this is the best way to go then more power to you. I don't.

[BassAddiction]

[quote="John Barron"]We have taken a different position and approach rather than "I have rights" We have also discussed the several aspects and determents of the Quagga mussel and not just to the water system. You should read some of the SCBF posts regarding this subject.

The water district has a responsibility to deliver water to its customers. The Quagga Mussel damages their delivery system that's why they are making "panicked decisionsâ€

[John Barron]

It's San Benito not San Mateo. I apologize for the error. I will correct it in my post.
John Barron
"Clean and Dry"

[BassAddiction]

Thanks John. You had me worried when I read that.

Dave

[CORAL 96]

As I stated on the southwest board, what's to keep a "Shorefisherman" from bringing in a bucket full of minnows while fishing. Now let's say he thinks his water's giong bad in the bucket. He dip's it into an EBMUD lake to freshen it. You would have contamination then. Birds could possibly carry from lake to lake. Sounds like instead of the "Knee Jerk" band-aid maybe they should be looking for a solution. There may just be more than one way to contaminate a lake with these PESTS!!!

[nipples]

As I stated on the southwest board, what's to keep a "Shorefisherman" from bringing in a bucket full of minnows while fishing. Now let's say he thinks his water's giong bad in the bucket. He dip's it into an EBMUD lake to freshen it. You would have contamination then. Birds could possibly carry from lake to lake. Sounds like instead of the "Knee Jerk" band-aid maybe they should be looking for a solution. There may just be more than one way to contaminate a lake with these PESTS!!!

We can't control nature, and no one is saying we can, but we can control ourselves. And controlling ourselves IS something we all have to do. Initially targeting the most common culprit of the spread IS valid and IS the most effective approach to start with. No one ever said it was a 100% solution, but it does help. We still do not have a valid way to eradicate these mussels.

They are trying to get rid of them in the great lakes, but are not having success. Granted, the Quagga is responsible for the comeback of those fisheries as they took the lakes from polluted to healthy, but they are in motion and cannot be stopped. They threaten to filter the water too much at this point and clear all the remaining nutrients out of the water and take it to the opposite extreme. Not to mention they are causing some very expensive damage. Perhaps we can only delay the inevitable, but at least we delay it. And if for no other reason then to delay it, our efforts are worth the extra effort to prevent the spread.

I would like to see an approach of introducing a predator that will eat the Quagga instead of trying to poison it. Or, since they are little tiny water filters, is there something natural we can target them with to "clog" those little filters with minimal impact to the rest of the eco-system (feed them some Jello or something)...

Anyway.... Preventing the spread does buy us time to try to find a good way to eradicate them. And in the long run, it can and will save tax dollars. But by all means... Yes... Let's delay it... For at least a few more fishing seasons...

Good Fishing,

-Paul-

[John Barron]

Dave:
This is a subject that is real close to my heart because I'm in So Cal on temperary assignment and will be going home before too long (I hope) but in the mean time I don't want to be banned from heading north to fish. I have been bidding some work in San Mateo County so while I was banging on keys that came to mind instead of San Benito. I didn't mean to scare you and I will be much more careful in the future.
jb
"Clean and Dry"