Rich,

Thank you for continuing to keep everyone here up to date.

I think the lack of response comes from a lack of understanding about how to fight this.

There are some very difficult issues surrounding this Quagga/Zebra mussel problem. To understand them, you have to look at each stakeholder's best interests. Let's break it down and look at the competing interests affecting the various constituencies:

Water District Board Member:

- Protect the water supply
- Provide recreational opportunities
- Maintain revenues from recreational activities
- Prevent major increases in maintenance costs (likely in the event of mussel infestation)
- Help maintain a balanced ecosystem in the watershed being managed

Park Ranger

- Protect the water supply
- Protect the lake and its ecoystem
- Keep their job
- Enjoy their job
- Appease management
- Appease recreational users

Fishermen

- Preserve access to lakes
- Protect the lake and its ecosystem
- Enjoy their time at the lake

Marina Operator

- Attract fishermen to the lake
- Rent out rental boats
- Sell food and supplies
- Protect the lake and its ecosystem

Looking at these goals, you can see the conflicts the potential mussel infestation creates. These conflicts are not just between fishermen and board members, they are internal to each of the shareholders involved.

The most obvious one from the fishermen viewpoint, is that while the mussels have the potential to damage the ecosystem of the lake by filtering out low level nutrients, that is not as bad as the alternative - which is to have no access to the lake at all. This is a "bad lake" vs. "no lake" problem.

From the Park Ranger's point of view, they are faced with the dilemma of guarding the lake vs. having a job. If they keep mussels out, and the lake stays open - they have a job. If they keep mussels out, and the lake is closed - they don't have a job. If they fail, and mussels get in, they may have a job. In the mean time, they are likely to take heat from the board members and the fishermen. Tough spot!

I have given this issue a lot of thought, and I still do not see a clear solution. I think that the people making decisions here are plagued by similar uncertainty, and their decision making process is suffering as a result.

It seems to me that what is needed most right now is expertise. Some person or group with real experience dealing with this problem. Someone who does not have a large bias toward any stakeholder group (in other words, not a fisherman, park ranger, or board member). Get them involved to facilitate the decision making process. Get qualified representatives from each of the stakeholder groups to the table with this qualified person or group to work toward the best alternative.

My view above is unlikely to mirror reality. In reality, I suspect this will become a legal issue. It won't be me who fights it, my life is to filled up right now, but I put a lot of trust in the fishing community to represent themselves well in this.

Whomever emerges as the leader in preserving fishing access in the face of the mussel problem will have a hard job, but I know the right people will step forward - whether it's national orgs like BASS and FLW, or local anglers and interest groups. Their challenge will be to balance the internal and external conflicts of the stakeholder groups involved. It will not be easy.

We will hear a lot more about this in 2008.