Comments on: New EPA Great Lakes advisory group needs laser focus

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 11:24:54 +0000

EPA not listening to my recommendation for seven advisors, it’s shooting for 15. I was prepared to go to nine, but 15, really?

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/06/29/2012-16056/request-for-nominations-to-the-great-lakes-advisory-board-glab

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: jbbiceboom

jbbiceboom — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 03:47:38 +0000

I wonder if this brain council will be able to convince the I.J.C. to take a real and serious look at the N.Y.P.A. s use if the “Ice Boom” on Lake Erie? As I have said for years now, The single biggest threat to the Great Lakes, is the ice conveyor disruption on the Lower Great Lakes. Only a return to the normal functioning ecosystem and not this “hold back the ice to increase corporate profits” method of nature manipulation, will we ever see a return to a healthy Lake Erie, a clean Niagara River and a well fed Lake Ontario. Please read more at http://www.bantheboom.com and help me spread the truth. Send Help or a real reporter. Thank you. Joe Barrett

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Tom M.

Tom M. — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:55:37 +0000

I agree with Bob, most of the Asian carp “control” plans lean towards “special interests” who’ll benefit. Invasive species control seems to have become an industry in itself.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Anne

Anne — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:42:20 +0000

While I fully agree with most of Gary’s recommendations for this advisory board – small group, no special interests/pet projects, keep a narrow focus – I would like to point out that the formation of this group by EPA is actually a good thing for the Great Lakes. It is so easy to criticize the government system and its processes, especially in our current political climate, but in the long-term it is usually these large, complicated, and often painfully-slow-moving groups which will in fact change how we manage these water resources. I for one believe that this process and the layers of advisory groups and task forces may be excruciating to witness, but in the end they may indeed lead us down the path of improved Great Lakes management, restoration, and protection.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Michelle

Michelle — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:14:17 +0000

In my 20 years of advocacy I have lost track of the number of committees, groups, agencies, plans, RAPS, collaboratives, joint ventures to address restoration and protection of the Great Lakes.

So sick of the talking one can hardly get excited about EPA’s decision. Not hanging my hat on a darn thing.

Like or Dislike: 1 0

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:44:41 +0000

Gary, Thanks for putting into words what I have been thinking since I started reviewing the list of different projects that were being funded by the GLRI every year. The word “restoration” appears to be so over used in the quest to obtain Federal money. As a former consultant, I also agree with your statement that the folks doing the “advising” should not have a potential financial interest in any of the projects being considered.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Harold

Harold — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:14:40 +0000

Too bad the EPA can’t just pick a handful of contributors and commentators to Great Lakes Echo to advise them. They’d probably do a lot better that way. I’d nominate Gary to be Chair.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Tom M.

Tom M. — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:18:16 +0000

They are also forming a Michigan invasive “team” only 1 1/2 $million bucks a year, advisory of course. The recent “Save the alewives salmon cuts survey” results even with heavy media promotion, that the whole big lake fishery could collapse. Only got 580 responses from all 4 states. This was a vote to increase an invasive species, (alewives) Quote “in recognition of the fact that Lake Michigan and it’s fish are shared resources” Only 580 people cared what happens to the alewife/salmon and voted to increase alewives in some fashion, (reduce predators) thus adding to/maximizing our invasive problem. All these committees have the “fight invasive species’ statement as a goal. It appears 580 people didn’t get the memo. Loss of the salmon is not the loss of the whole big lake fishery. Losing to the Asian Carp we lose the big lake fishery and the inland fishery. Protecting the alewives will only speed that up.

Like or Dislike: 1 0