N. Cook
12-08-2005, 03:56 PM
Since the paper generated so far exeeds 300 pages with more to come, I will be glad to discuss the details with anyone who wants to contact me.
Basically, the hydrilla control process in Fl. is in trouble as the current herbicide is being resisted by new strains of hydrilla. To control this hydrilla, which tends to be in the most infected waters, the dosage is raised. Now there is fear the native plants are being impacted too much.
Alternatives for control, such as grass carp and biological agents, have not worked out. The grass carp eat everything to a mud bottom and removal is impossible to save the habitat, the biological agents not effective enough.
The meeting was to study the problem, to make recommendations on how to manage control in the future and to suggest changes in regulations that would increase research funding to the various labs and agencies.
The chemistry is complex, but there are a lot of ideas....for example a cocktail of chemicals, or rotation of chemicals used.
The meeting was attended by invitees representing the herbacide industry, FDEP staff, especially biologists, WMD staffs overseeing spraying, ACOE, FWC biologists and "interested parties". Unfortunately, many of those representing the public recreational users did not show. There was a BASSMASTERS area rep. He was a nice young man, but too timid in such a rough atmosphere of special interests. Thus, it was left to UW-F to fight for the native plants and wildlife.
As we all know, if hydrilla could be totally eliminated and the native plants would return, that would be preferred....but it will never happen. Hydrilla is here to stay. The UW-F position is that hydrilla is not all bad. It is a major food source for waterfowl and structure for fish. We have been advised that a level of 30 % in a lake is optimum for bass.....and we know good for ducks!!!
We believe the control of hydrilla should be considered similar to mowing your lawn. Regular applications to keep structures, ramps, docks and canals and open water areas clear....but fewer, if any, applications in the marshes and shallow water areas. (it was noted that the current "rule of thumb" is not to treat water less than 2 feet deep....I immediately recommended this be adjusted to 3 feet.) There actually were references to allowing 15% to remain in lakes in the meeting agenda handout. The DEP seems to be moving in the right direction on this. Several of the biologists strongly resist any tolerance....these folks have the "kill them all and let God sort them out" mentality with hydrilla and are the major blockage for more tolerant management.
There will be a paper put out on the results of the meeting and it will have a link on the web. I will advise all when that occurs.
I can tell you the UW-F position is not too far off the mark for what will happen unless some new very selective and effective herbacide is developed. The meeting was a "cover" to gain state funding for more research toward that end. You can bet the major recommendation to come out of the meeting will be the request for dollars!
Basically, the hydrilla control process in Fl. is in trouble as the current herbicide is being resisted by new strains of hydrilla. To control this hydrilla, which tends to be in the most infected waters, the dosage is raised. Now there is fear the native plants are being impacted too much.
Alternatives for control, such as grass carp and biological agents, have not worked out. The grass carp eat everything to a mud bottom and removal is impossible to save the habitat, the biological agents not effective enough.
The meeting was to study the problem, to make recommendations on how to manage control in the future and to suggest changes in regulations that would increase research funding to the various labs and agencies.
The chemistry is complex, but there are a lot of ideas....for example a cocktail of chemicals, or rotation of chemicals used.
The meeting was attended by invitees representing the herbacide industry, FDEP staff, especially biologists, WMD staffs overseeing spraying, ACOE, FWC biologists and "interested parties". Unfortunately, many of those representing the public recreational users did not show. There was a BASSMASTERS area rep. He was a nice young man, but too timid in such a rough atmosphere of special interests. Thus, it was left to UW-F to fight for the native plants and wildlife.
As we all know, if hydrilla could be totally eliminated and the native plants would return, that would be preferred....but it will never happen. Hydrilla is here to stay. The UW-F position is that hydrilla is not all bad. It is a major food source for waterfowl and structure for fish. We have been advised that a level of 30 % in a lake is optimum for bass.....and we know good for ducks!!!
We believe the control of hydrilla should be considered similar to mowing your lawn. Regular applications to keep structures, ramps, docks and canals and open water areas clear....but fewer, if any, applications in the marshes and shallow water areas. (it was noted that the current "rule of thumb" is not to treat water less than 2 feet deep....I immediately recommended this be adjusted to 3 feet.) There actually were references to allowing 15% to remain in lakes in the meeting agenda handout. The DEP seems to be moving in the right direction on this. Several of the biologists strongly resist any tolerance....these folks have the "kill them all and let God sort them out" mentality with hydrilla and are the major blockage for more tolerant management.
There will be a paper put out on the results of the meeting and it will have a link on the web. I will advise all when that occurs.
I can tell you the UW-F position is not too far off the mark for what will happen unless some new very selective and effective herbacide is developed. The meeting was a "cover" to gain state funding for more research toward that end. You can bet the major recommendation to come out of the meeting will be the request for dollars!