View Single Post
  #4  
Old 01-26-2009, 02:22 AM
StirCrazy's Avatar
StirCrazy StirCrazy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 7,872
StirCrazy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justinl View Post
well first of all, where did you get 99% from? US EPA states "Over two-thirds of recent non-native species introductions in marine and coastal areas are likely due to ship-borne vectors, and ballast water transport and discharge is the most universal and ubiquitous of these". I do agree that this is a severe problem and is far from addressed despite ballast fill/discharge regulations.

lions associate with reefs and i have a hard time seeing ports sustaining a good enough environment to sustain a them. so i remain dubious concerning the lions-by-ballast theory. im much more inclined to blame it on ignorance of well meaning people... actions with the best intentions applied carelessly can often lead to the most devastating results. and "i didn't know" isn't a good enough excuse to me.
the 99 was a number out of my head, just meant a high amount.

Lion fish are around reefs, yes, but also around man made structures that substitute as artificial reefs, so in theory they could suck up all kinds of fish around old established jetties in the tropics.
__________________
*everything said above is just my opinion, and may or may not reflect the views of this BBS, its Operators, and its Members. If cornered on any “opinion” I post I will totally deny having ever said this in a Court of Law…Unless I am the right one*

Some strive to be perfect.... I just strive.
Reply With Quote