People Power vs. Bp

Earlier this summer, a state agency gave a refinery permission to increase pollution in
the Great Lakes. Commentator Cameron Davis takes a look at lessons learned and
what they mean for the future of the nation’s waterways:

Transcript

Earlier this summer, a state agency gave a refinery permission to increase pollution in
the Great Lakes. Commentator Cameron Davis takes a look at lessons learned and
what they mean for the future of the nation’s waterways:


When the Indiana Department of Environmental Management gave approval for BP’s
refinery to pollute more in Lake Michigan, who would have guessed that within weeks
more than 100,000 people would sign petitions against the proposal?


The people of the region seemed to instinctively know that more pollution had to be
stopped. After all, millions of us rely on Lake Michigan for drinking water and recreation.


Of course, coverage of the pollution proposal took off, with the Chicago Sun-
Times
calling for a boycott of BP gasoline. The New York Times and CBS
Evening News ran national pieces about the pollution increases. A bi-partisan coalition
of politicians from neighboring states cried foul, including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley,
U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, Representatives Rahm Emanuel, Mark Kirk, Jan
Schakowsky, Vern Ehlers and the entire Michigan Congressional delegation, among
others.


But while the media, elected officials, and even those of us in the conservation
community talked about the permit, the real story wasn’t about the permit. It wasn’t
about its allowance for 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more suspended
solids from treated sludge to be discharged.


It wasn’t even an argument about jobs versus the environment. That debate was discounted long
ago by the many businesses that decided or were mandated to pollute less and then
still prospered.


The real story was what you, the public, said and what you are saying now: how we
treat the Great Lakes is emblematic of how we treat our waterways all around the
country. You’re saying that you want a new standard of care for the nation’s waters. You
don’t want the standard to be “to keep things from getting worse.” You don’t want the
status quo. You want our waters to be proactively restored. You want it better.


Like those of us who used to be in the cub scouts, inspired to leave our campsites
better than the way we found them, you want the standard for our waters to be: leave
things better for the next generation.


HOST TAG: Cameron Davis is the president of the Alliance for the Great Lakes.

Related Links

Fish Stocking Taxing

  • As fewer Brown Trout from a state stocking program survive in the waters of Thunder Bay in Lake Huron, the fish takes on the allure of a trophy fish, especially since those that do survive can grow very large. Last year, a 28 pound Brown Trout won the tournament. It may be the biggest Brown ever to be caught in the state of Michigan. (Photo by Linda Stephan)

Most cities have their symbols. Imagine San Francisco without
the Golden Gate, New York without the Statue of Liberty, or
Miami without dolphins. Linda Stephan has the story of a
community that has linked itself with a fish that is not native to
its waters. And stocking that fish is costing taxpayers a lot:

Transcript

Most cities have their symbols. Imagine San Francisco without
the Golden Gate, New York without the Statue of Liberty, or
Miami without dolphins. Linda Stephan has the story of a
community that has linked itself with a fish that is not native to
its waters. And stocking that fish is costing taxpayers a lot:


The brown trout arrived in Lake Huron’s Thunder Bay by a
fluke. Back in the 1970s, about a thousand fish – surplus stocks
from inland waters – were simply tossed out into the bay by
biologists, as if the bay were a trash bin.


No one expected them to survive. They thought they’d just be
food for other fish. But the brown trout did survive. They
quickly grew large and feisty. The state started to stock these
waters with young brown trout every year because anglers
liked catching them.


In fact, it was so popular, they named a fishing tournament after
it: the brown trout Festival in Alpena, Michigan. This year, a
crowd of hundreds gathered, despite periodic rain showers, as
festival o-“FISH”-als weighed in a day’s catch… lake trout, walleye:


(Sound of announcer at tournament)


You don’t need a brown trout to win at the brown trout
Festival. And it’s a good thing because these days, most boats
don’t catch even one. That’s because things have changed.


The ecosystems of Lake Huron and the other Great Lakes are
changing rapidly, as foreign invasive species, such as the zebra and
quagga mussels, steal away food at the bottom of the lake’s
food web.


Plus, a migratory bird that’s been showing up in this bay in huge
numbers, cormorants, have been eating the small browns
stocked by state fish nurseries before the fish ever make it into
open waters.


For the past decade, the Brown hasn’t survived all that well in
Lake Huron. So today biologists estimate that, taking into
account all those fish that don’t survive, every time an angler
catches a big Brownie, it now costs taxpayers close to
three hundred dollars.


In other words, each brown trout caught represents about
three hundred dollars spent by the state stocking program.
Even though the brown trout is not native, people here say the
fish belongs in these waters.


Hobbyist Dick Cadarette at the brown trout Festival says the Brown has a special allure for
the angler:


“Well, because they’re the best eating and they’re the hardest to
catch. That’s why we call it the brown trout because anybody
can catch a steelhead – I mean a lake trout – but they can’t
everybody catch a Brown.”


As the large fish becomes more and more elusive, it takes on
the allure of a trophy fish.


Fisheries Biologist Dave Fielder says because of the cost – for
years now – the state has had good reason to quit stocking these
waters with brown trout, but they still haven’t. No one’s
willing to see the namesake of the brown trout Festival
disappear:


“What’s always amazed me is how the natural resources in
Michigan, including the fisheries that we enjoy in the Great
Lakes, is really a part of that local heritage and quality of
life for these local communities and becomes an important part of the local existance and indentity it’s important that we
as scientists don’t lose sight of that.”


But some say the fact that the local community has gotten used
to seeing the brown trout does not mean it belongs in the lake.
Mark Ebener is a Fisheries Biologist for the Chippewa-Ottawa
Resource Authority. It regulates fishing for five Native
American tribes:


“You tell a lie long enough and sooner or later people
believe it and accept it as the truth. You know it’s not that
brown trout belong here. brown trout were introduced
and they continue to be defined as an introduced species
into North America.”


Ebener says since the brown trout does no harm to native fish,
such as the lake trout, his organization doesn’t oppose the
stocking program. But he also says at the current cost, the
brown trout is a clear waste of taxpayer money.


Back in Alpena, Biologist Dave Fielder agrees the state can’t
keep stocking the lake with browns if so few continue to
survive. But, an angler himself, he looks with envy on a
mounted brown that took last year’s top prize in the tournament,
an unbelievable 28.2 pounds:


“Can you imagine landin’ that fish? That must have been
somethin’. Anybody’s who’s caught fish can look at that and imagine the battle they must’ve went through and the excitement they must’ve felt. And those are real feelings and that’s not to be
trivialized.”


That’s evidence to Fielder, and others who fish these waters,
that at least some brown trout have what it takes to complete
for food in the changing ecosystems of Lake Huron.


For the Environment Report, I’m Linda Stephan.

Related Links