Final post

While doing this blog throughout the semester I can say I've learned a lot about aquatic invasive species that I didn't know existed, including many regulations and techniques to prevent the spread and growth of invasives.
While doing research on all the different types of ways we try to stop the the spread and growth of aquatic invasiveso made me really agree with Evans in that we need both government and governance to be working as one in order to really make a difference in this field. I think while we need to have the government involved to not only provide funding but to also help with enforcement in certain situations when getting people or companies to work along is difficult. We also need the governance from small organizations to make sure that the work is actually being implemented and done.
One of the limitations of this area is that both of these groups don't always work together and it makes things difficult to accomplish. I covered mostly the area of Sea Lamprey regulation and while in the past few years there has been a lot of progress made there is still a far way to go. While many of the different tactics for stopping the spread of invasives have worked, I think one of the better ones is education. If we can educate people on ways they can help and give them better descriptions of what they should be looking for than I think we could see even more of a decline in aquatic invasive species.

Assessment of roles in maintaining AIS

There have been multiple actors involved in combating AIS addressed throughout the semester by myself and the members of my blog group. Some of the major actors include the DNR, NOAA, and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI). I feel that the role these actors play are quite significant in combating the problems that are linked to invasive species in the Great Lakes. These organizations work with others in order to tackle issues. Networks are a crucial aspect in dealing with these environmental dilemmas.

I agree with Evans in that both government and governance matter when approaching environmental issues. I find that it is important for the DNR to enforce the Invasive Species Rule in Wisconsin. Educating the public, in general, is an important approach in combating the destruction invasive species cause to the ecosystem. The strengths of actors involved is providing education and setting limits, in particular.

The manner in which individuals deal with the environmental issues related to AIS may vary, but most people want to see changes. Change will happen much quicker and seems to be more effective through the form of governance, rather than government.

I don't think there is any quick resolution to the infestation of the Great Lakes with invasive species. However, we do have the ability to minimize the spread of them. I think all the science/technology available provides a huge advantage in prevention of AIS. Prevention of foreign species seems to be the most cost-effective and logical approach.

Overview of Aqautic Invasive Species Managment

Aquatic invasive species is a wicked problem, not due to unclear definitions on what the problem is exactly but due to the impossible task of completely eradicating (or solving) an invasive species in a lake or body of water. Though I’ve shown examples of how eradicating isolated and low populations of aquatic invasive species (AIS) through chemical treatment, there is no technical answer to eradicating dispersed AIS with large populations, which brings me to my first limitation pertaining to solutions.  

Most of the actors and regulations I’ve gone through in my blog only pertain to the dispersion of AIS into other bodies of water rather than focusing on eradicating methods. Needless to say my actors are concerned about infested lakes through monitoring and maintenance techniques, but are more highly concerned with the problem expanding, as only 5% of MN lakes are infested. In my mind a major limitation to solving AIS is that infested lakes are deemed to be doomed for eternity, and that there’s really no hope for a lake to bounce back after the arrival of an AIS. By transportation being the main concern, the focus is on public boat launches, as they are at risk for possible transportation of AIS on boats and equipment from lake to lake. The DNR is the main actor in monitoring boat launches, inspecting and cleaning equipment as needed. Boat launch inspectors are prioritized at launch sites that have a lot of traffic on big lakes, but it will be impossible to deploy inspectors on every single boat launch on all “at-risk” lakes. So a major limitation is having the resources to inspect boat launches on all lakes at all times, but this problem is addressed by a new boat decal initiative.

I find the boat decal initiative to be a strength with confronting AIS as it mandates boaters to become knowledgeable about AIS and how to prevent travel from lake to lake. Starting in 2016 all  boats using a public boat launch must have a decal sticker symbolising they have passed an AIS assessment. This initiative helps garner a knowledgeable network of lake goers, which aims to cut the transportation of AIS at its source, in hopes to reduce the reliance on boat launch inspectors. I also find the use of networks of stakeholders to be a strength. This problem affects  lake goers and lake homeowners most directly and leads to very proactive and concerned network of people worried about this problem. Whether you're a removal business or a concerned lake home owner you have many opportunities to get involved with a variety of agencies combating AIS.

Connecting this problem to J.P Evans 8 hypothesis I find myself agreeing that markets and networks “are the best thing we have” to solving this particular problem. The DNR and other publicly funded agencies don’t have the resources to confront lakes that contain massive amounts of AIS. Removal of AIS has been commodified and gives business a market incentive that generally helps the cause. Although these removal companies are in it for the money they function as buffering the adverse effects AIS have on lakes. People in the removal company I worked for told me that they’ve noticed a decrease presence of Eurasian milfoil on properties we return to annually. The removal companies remove tons and tons of invasive biomass from lakes, which must provide some sort of “leg room” for other animals to thrive. Networks are proving their effectiveness to combat limitations in lake monitoring across the state, through the DNR lead Zebra Mussel Monitoring program. This vast network of people saves the DNR a lot of manpower and resources. Monitoring all of the lakes in Minnesota that are “at-risk” to AIS would be impossible without the use of networks. As for the other 7 hypothesis I don't believe they’ll be more important than networking and markets due to the nature of the problem. There is only so much you can do when it comes to invasive species and I feel that a lot the solutions fall under the 1st order of governance rather than addressing it through a hybrid government or other actions on the 2nd or 3rd levels. The thing with AIS is that we clearly defined the problem and know generally know how to stop or slow it down, but the uncertainty is getting citizens involved on a proactive basis or educating the masses on how to prevent AIS from dispersing.