Equus quagga quagga, otherwise known simply as the Quagga lived in South Africa and was a close relative of the zebra. I say was because this species was rendered extinct in 1833 through hunting and pointless killing to reduce competition with herd animals. If a half-zebra half-horse looking critter sounds far fetched, just read .

The quagga we all know (and don't love) has a similar coloration, but the similarities end there. In contrast to its mammalian namesake, the quagga mussel has no trouble surviving man's every attempt to eradicate it and keep it from spreading. We label it as invasive and describe areas where it lives as "infected".

On the other hand, if you stroll through the article linked above you learn that people around the world are attempting to bring back extinct species through somatic cell nuclear transfer (that's cloning). We would never refer to an extinct species brought back through cloning as "invasive". We'd never call the place where it lived "infested". Rather the nightly news would celebrate the fact that one half-horse half-zebra lived in the face of human induced destruction. Hooray!

For some reason, as citizens of a modern world, we feel compelled to save and preserve that which is rare, and decry those species who are common and good at expanding their range. Yes, the quagga mussel creates a nuisance when you are in the business of moving water to faucets, but South African farmers in the 1800's thought that quagga zebras were quite a nuisance as well. They did, after all, go through the trouble of killing each and every one.

My point is - who is right? And what is right? Does preserving biodiversity fly in the face of Darwinism? Do we really know best when it comes to nature? Should we attempt to arbitrate which species are allowed to spread, and which species should be saved at all costs?

It seems that our collective track record in this area is poor. I know that I do not feel qualified to make those kinds of decisions. The way I see it, human beings are the most successful invasive species on the planet, and we have done a very thorough job of infesting the place. Should we try eradicating ourselves? Sounds stupid doesn't it.

I bring this up because it seems that 99% of the people involved in the invasive mussel issue have already moved past this larger issue and are focused with a single mind on preventing and eradicating the bivalves. When I step back from the lake closures and high-pressure washes, I wonder if the money and effort couldn't be better spent on something else.

Need evidence that the fear may be misguided? After reading dozens of articles about Dreissena mussels, I have only found one instance where a municipal water supply was interrupted by mussels. That was in the early 90's, and the interruption lasted two days. If a human being ever died as a result of quaggas clogging the pipes, I'm sure we would have heard about it. It hasn't happened.

So the water districts are tapping the emergency budgets, and ramping up ranger overtime in response. Recreational fishing is getting a kick to the groin, and all for what? To save a few bucks on the water bill? To "save" lakes that are populated with nothing but introduced species? To keep stinky mussel shells off the shore of a few swim beaches? Or just because we should hate species that are good at reproducing fast and spreading on the pontoon boats that man created and drove across the country?

As the dollars spent in response to the "threat" add up, I am beginning to think of all the things those dollars could be going toward. How about a half-million in fish habitiat, or a million dollars in fishing access projects? Why not spend a quarter on more trout, and another two-mil on enforcement? OK, issue a million dollar bounty for the person who figures out how to keep the pipes clean. I bet we'd spend it on the half-horse half-zebras.

The backbone of this argument is that maintenance costs due to zebra/quagga mussels would be less than what we're paying now for closures/inspections. Which most people and most case studies I've read don't seem to support. It's not being overlooked either.

I don't necessarily think you're wrong about letting nature take its course, but humans crunching the numbers are part of nature taking its course. And at the moment, the numbers support keeping them out :-(

That's a good point. How much does it cost to maintain a water system vs. protect it? What value do we put on lost recreational activities when evaluating these costs? Who has commissioned this study, and what was the outcome?

From what I can gather, the preferred method is to, "install feed lines for chlorine or potassium permanganate, which kill larvae and settling adult mussels". I wonder what that costs? Is it the type of thing that will (or already has) become cheaper as more lakes have installed them on the east coast?

I wonder.

Unfortunately to become a water board member does not require much. You need to get elected and thats about it. You would think that as important as water is to humans there would be some major qualifications required that would bring a scientific element to the water boards. I was blown away attending the Casitas board meetings at the apparent lack of scientific knowledge on such a subject as the quaggas.

Maybe we need to let our legislators know that we want these water board personell to meet some qualifications. All I heard was conjecture and hearsay when you would like to think they would hire some specialists. At the last meeting it sounded like a quagga commitee may be formed but who will they be and what qualifications will they have. There have been numerous studies done on the quagga and I would like to think that information and those individuals will be utilized for the best possible extent.

It is a trip, they are working hard to save the steel head trout and I do not think it can be done. I do not think we have the water in the river for it. We will spend plenty of money on that though and we let a lot of fresh water flow to the ocean to try and make room for them. There is not much difference between steel head and rainbows except the steel head get washed down to the ocean when fry and come back up to spawn. I believe they are the same as rainbows which we grow at the Fillmore fish hatchery. So isnt that saving that species.

I guess evolution is open to interpretation and the powers that be make the decision based on their perspective. Lets hope they use science and study facts and disregard emotion. A lot is going on in the world today and though this seems relevant to me it pales in comparison to the Trans Texas Highway and the Security and Prosperity Partnership that will ruin the middle class and is hardly being talked about.

Peace

Rich