So, after spending millions of dollars and inspecting tens of thousands of boats in CA, has a single mussel been found at any lake in CA? Has the spending been justified, or a total waste?

I've had my boat inspected at Del Valle, San Pablo, Coyote, Santa Margarita, Casitas, Perris, Diamond Valley, Clear Lake, and at the California border with Arizona. At most of those locations I've asked the inspectors if they've ever found anything. In every case the answer has been no.

One inspector actually told me that if they did find something, they would send the person home and not report it to the water district because even a single finding could scare the district bad enoguh to close the lake completely. Which would mean they would lose their job. This is a classic . Given this, can we even expect that if mussels are found they will be reported? I would reason that in most cases they will not be reported.

The most likely scenario I see for mussel infestation in Northern California is via a house boat or similar large vessel that comes from an infested location like Mead or Havasu. I watched the woman who inspected my boat when I crossed the CA border coming from Missouri. Water could have been in my lower unit or in the livewell and she would never have found it. I doubt she knew what a livewell was or where to find one in a boat. The inspection was a joke compared to what they put you through at DVL or Coyote. If my next stop was a place like Don Pedro, McClure, Melones, San Antonio, Nacimiento, Clear Lake, Oroville, the CA Delta and Shasta where there are no inspections or joke inspections (Clear Lake) the mussel would get in.

The second most likely scenario to my mind is that the mussels will come from a boat in San Diego that launches at one of those large water bodies named above. That one is a no brainer since lakes like Lower Otay and El Capitan have mussels and there's nothing to stop people from driving straight to a place like Don Pedro and launching. They dump the bilge when they get there and off go the mussels.

We all know that most of those large lakes listed above drain to the CA Delta. So as soon as one is infested, the Delta is only a matter of time. Stopping the mussels from getting downstream will be as futile as or stopping . Those programs make fun work for biologists and headlines in the newspaper but they don't work. They just waste a lot of money that could have been spent doing something useful things like creating fish habitat or cleaning up garbage on the shore of the lake. Just imagine if all the quagga mussel inspectors in the state had been cleaning up trash and planting fish habitat instead of sticking their finger up drain plugs.

I see mussel infestation in the CA Delta is inevitable. When it does happen the question will then be, "What's next?" Water from the Delta flows all over the state. It may be possible to treat and filter to these 'downstream' locations and keep the mussels out, but at what cost? Would it be cheaper to just open up boating at all lakes again and let the mussels go where they may?

Is it cheaper to install equipment at the lakes to deal with the mussels than to inspect for them for year after year? Has anyone done a cost-benefit analysis here? Or was the California response to the dreaded mussel infestation just a knee-jerk reaction based on ignorance of the facts? Here's a map showing mussel locations across the country.

http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/7911-qm_map.jpg

Should we feel pity for everyone around the great lakes and points south that are infested by the mussel? I mean, their lives must be terrible, right?. Or should we have a reality check and look at the well known fact that the only time any humans have lost water in the United States because of mussels was in Monroe, MI in 1989 for 2 days. Time for a reality check people.

Mussel infestation across California is inevitable. The results will not be disastrous. Fishing will be fine. Drinking water will be fine. The only disaster is continuing to harass boaters and pour money down the drain inspecting boats. The water districts should just save the money for the day when they have to start filtering for mussels. If they had started two years ago they'd have a nice chunk of change saved up already.

Attachment #1, (.jpg file)

To answer a couple of your questions. Per Jay Rowan DFG there has been 2 boats that have had adult size quagga's stopped at Tahoe. I know its hardly anything. but hey you asked. I am unsure of any beyond that and haven't asked.

Yes this is a knee jerk reaction by CA, it is Ca after all. That's what we do.

On another note: The more the topic keeps coming up the better. Its all about awareness and I believe its helping to slow the inevitable. I just wish the wake, ski and PWC discussion boards talked more about it.

I have never seen that map before. Kinda cool

2 at Tahoe, interesting. I thought people wanted Tahoe to be clearer? Maybe the quagga would eat up the pollutants and make the water clear like Lake Michigan.

But that might have a bad effect on the lake trout, rainbow trout, brown trout, and bass that live in Tahoe. Oh wait, those are all non-native species. Should we call them invasive too?

I just thought about it. I am Italian and Irish. I hope they dont concider me invasive. Think I'll go hide in someones pasta now
:+

Human beings are the ultimate invasive species on the planet. We just get grumpy when other critters try to hone in on our racket.

>I just thought about it. I am Italian and Irish. I hope they
>dont concider me invasive. Think I'll go hide in someones
>pasta now
> :+


Do you fight with yourself much?

Lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what have-yous

I think I just kicked my own arse a couple minutes ago.

On another note. I would be more concerned about spotted bass then these critters. These fish have proven to ruin a fishery.

Yeah!! But I believe they did get all of the pike at Davis in the last attempt. Personally I'd rather fish pike than truck trout.

Maybe the mussels will destroy the CA water conveyance system and force us to develop de-sal plants and other futuristic water tech in favor of the traditional California corrupt, crooked, horrific, etc.... types of water policy we're currently enjoying.

While I agree with you 100% on the environmental side, we're being forced through mussel inspection stations for almost entirely economic reasons. There in fact have been studies comparing estimated costs of different management/non-management strategies, and they mostly end up with conclusions like this one:

"Without public management, the expected net economic impact from zebra mussels is a loss of $244.1 million over 20 years. Public investment in prevention and eradication will reduce expected damages and generate a net expected gain of $188.7 million."

Sucks for us, but it's hard to blame a water management agency for managing it's costs correctly. Anyway, I only spent a few minutes in google looking at case studies, maybe there are more encouraging ones out there.

This is why Nico and I make a good fishing team - he is never afraid to call me a dumbass :)

Here is the study he is referencing:

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/fe693

It's a bit confusing to read but if you look at the table at the bottom, a more accurate comparison of the alternatives according to the writers is to say that doing nothing about mussels will cost Florida will cost $244 million while inspecting and educating will cost $55 million.

Included in that $244 million loss value is $219 million for "Lost Wetland Function". I have no idea what the means because the article does not define it. Intentional vagueness is a common tactic of people who are trying to convince you of things that are unfounded. I suspect that it is not an economic impact, but more of an intangible impact to society of damage caused to wetlands.

This is why we have to read this kind of "evidence" carefully and use a critical eye when evaluating it.

I consider myself an environmentalist and do not like the idea of unnecessarily spreading species around the globe. At the same time I am a realist who believes that successful species should not be vilified when it is the humans who stupidly drug them around to new places.

We're all big fans of survival of the fittest until our own stupidity causes weaker species to get quashed by species that we introduce.

This is probably one of the relevant documents. From the DFG website:

http://www.nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=3871

It includes a summary that Rob would probably enjoy:

"Published estimates of the costs of the American zebra mussel invasion vary greatly, and the actual cost remains uncertain.16 Extrapolating from surveys conducted in 1995 of a portion of affected facilities, the retrofitting, operations and maintenance costs to facilities in eastern North America appears to be somewhere around $100 million per year—not including secondary economic costs or environmental costs."

And the lengthy footnote:

"16 For example, the U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment projected U.S. costs of $3.4 billion in 1991 dollars over 10 years (OTA 1993), or somewhere around $550 million per year in 2007 dollars. An often cited figure of $5 billion—given as $5 billion in the U.S. through 2000 by Miller et al. 1992, as $5 billion in the Great Lakes through 2000 by Ludyanskiy et al. 1993, and as $1-5 billion annually in the U.S. by Aldridge et al. 2006—is apparently based on a projected cost of $4.82 billion in North America over 10 years, of which $2.11 billion was for impacts to facilities and vessels and $2.71 billion was for impacts to Great Lakes fisheries (C.R. O'Neill, pers. comm.). Other published figures include a projection of $2 billion in the Great Lakes region over 10 years (McMahon et al. 1993), and in two frequently cited reviews of the costs of invasions in the U.S., estimates of $100 million per year (Pimental et al. 2000) and $1 billion per year (Pimental et al. 2005). In most cases it's not clear what these estimates and projections are based on, and whether they are limited to facilities costs or include secondary or environmental costs.
"

So, yes, the economic costs are uncertain at best. But my point still stands, which is that the water management agencies are making their decisions about requiring boat inspections based on their best estimates on how their decision will effect their budgets.