ShareThis Page

Dams, electricity touted to stop carp

| Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2014, 9:03 p.m.

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. — Placing dam-like structures in Chicago waterways would be an almost foolproof method of preventing Asian carp from reaching Lake Michigan, while a less pricey electric barrier system has solid prospects for shielding the Great Lakes from the invasive fish, according to a scientific analysis released on Wednesday.

While other studies have weighed the pros and cons of different proposals for stopping the carp, this one went further by rating their likelihood of success based on “how sure experts are about each strategy,” said Marion Wittmann, a University of Notre Dame post-doctoral researcher and the report's lead author.

The report was designed to help policymakers choose an effective plan that wouldn't take too long to carry out. It determined that other methods under consideration, such as using strobe lights and water cannons to frighten the carp away, might also be helpful but would be less likely to succeed.

The study was conducted by scientists with Notre Dame, the Forest Service and Resources for the Future, an independent research institution. Their conclusions were based on a survey of experts in fisheries management, aquatic nuisance species and other relevant topics.

They were asked to rate the likelihood for success of a variety of strategies for shutting down what's considered the most direct route to the Great Lakes for Asian carp: a network of rivers and canals around Chicago that link Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River watershed.

Bighead and silver carp, which gobble huge amounts of plankton on which many native species also subsist, were imported from Asia in the 1970s and have infested the Mississippi and its tributaries. Scientists say if they overrun the Great Lakes, they could upend the ecosystem and damage a $7 billion fishing industry.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me