Conservation group proposes ban on seagoing ships in Great Lakes

Not open for further replies.
Answer-- they are economic terrorists aimed at the destruction of: a.) The U.S. economy; and b.) western civilization; and c.) the flow of grain to the third world to feed hungry people.

Invasive species are a problem, if you define it as such. I suppose when the first humans walked out of Africa they were, by modern definition, a "dangerous invasive species." If so, I have a way of reducing the danger by reduction in the numbers of these invaders by at least a few troublemakers....hmmm...

Some of us who love the lakes realize that we cannot let people like these (expletive deleted) speak for us. They are idiots with an agenda. And, they know the press loves controversy more than the truth. But, there are lots of people...serious scientists and just ordinary citizens...who are really working to protect the lakes from pollution while still allowing them to help our species feed, clothe, and shelter itself. That work is dull and quiet. It doesn't fit the agenda of the press, so don't look for any screaming headlines.

Just this morning I received a publication from the Indiana/Illinois Sea Grant organizations about their efforts. Lots of highly-educated people are working behind the scenes to make sure there are fish to catch, water to drink, and shipping as well. I'll bet not one of their stories gets printed by any newspaper anywhere...and the newspaper coverage will be 100-fold better than radio and TV.

But the screamers? Film at 11, as we used to say when I produced news an eon or two ago. Never let the facts get in the way of an emotion.

-- David G. Brown

Lots of highly-educated people are working behind the scenes to make sure there are fish to catch, water to drink, and shipping as well.

Well said, Dave. There are many responsible local/regional officials, business people, researchers, scientists and conservationists out there working hard to solve a variety of environmental problems on the lakes who've actually managed to maintain a balanced approach, despite the media and political frenzy swirling around them. Invasive species on the Great Lakes are a serious problem, but to suggest that shutting the lakes off to "salties" (i.e., ocean-going cargo ships) is not only unrealistic, it's irresponsible. The effects of such a policy would be devastating and far reaching.

It seems that many of these environmental activists (who may have very good intentions) tend to focus on one little thing at the expense of everything (and everyone) else. More often than not, they come up with simplistic solutions to very complex problems. To borrow an environmentally inspired phrase, in the end they "can't see the forest for the trees." ;-)

Can't say as I'm impressed with good intentions. Tomas De Torquemada had "Good Intentions" and look at the result!

I just wish that instead of all the scaremongering, that these people would go with

a) good, sound, science which has survived the scrutiny of peer review and

B) practical, workable, realistic solutions to the problems...of which nobody denies the existance...which would solve the problems without trashing the economy in the same breath. Not just the U.S. economy either. Unfortunately, the people who have that goal in mind aren't getting the press.
From The Buffalo News:

Closing seaway to ocean ships provocative, unneeded

Recently an editorial in a leading Midwest newspaper advocated closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway to ocean-going ships as the “only option” for protecting the Great Lakes against further introduction of ship-vectored aquatic invasive species.

This proposed course of action is stunningly oblivious to real world implications.
To see why, go to

Comment: Yes, it's an OpEd piece, but for once, written by somebody who understands reality.​
Not open for further replies.