|
|
|
|
May 20, 2001 Commissioner Allen Garber 500 Layfayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155-4037 Dear Commissioner Garber, I would like to respond to your recent letter responding to my March 20, 2001 informal complaint of unethical behavior on the part of Mr. Wingate at the House hearing of HF 834. I agree that we have a disagreement on the safety of using small numbers of sterile grass carp in isolated man-made ponds to replace aquatic herbicides. I also believe we have different standards of ethical behavior. Personally I believe that deliberately misleading the House committee about the dangers of allowing the importation of sterile grass carp is unethical. I will respond by copying my original statements followed by your comments. My new responses will follow your comments. 1. Testing for triploid grass carp has a 2.5% error rate. DNR: Our testimony and fact sheet was in regards to batch testing which is known to have a 2.5% error rate (see Shultz et al. 2001), North American Journal of Fish Management 21:96-101) on tests for ploidy. The error rate can be reduced by testing each fish, however, the error rate is never zero. Any possibility of bringing in diploid grass carp is too risky to the aquatic resources due to the potential for escapes and diploids that were not caught in the testing procedure. My comments: The bill was amended to include individual testing BEFORE Mr. Wingate testified thus it was misleading for him to state facts concerning batch testing when the bill clearly required individual certification. This makes the 2.5% error rate false and misleading because it greatly exaggerates the risk of reproduction. The risks associated with using aquatic herbicides to myself or the environment are not zero either and I suspect are much higher than the use of small numbers of sterile grass carp in isolated ponds. 2. High likelihood that Asian tapeworm would be spread throughout the state. DNR: You suggest that treatment with prazinquantel is 100% effective in eliminating Asian tapeworm. Few chemical treatments are foolproof and 100% effective. Even individual fish treatments may not provide this 100% protection, particularly due to the literature evidence that fish escape culture facilities (Schultz et al. 2001). You also mentioned in previous correspondence that this parasite has already been introduced to the state by illegal importation of bait fish species. While this may be true, we are trying to regulate importation of fish to prevent parasite and exotic introductions. Because it may be present to some extent due to illegal introductions is not a compelling reason to allow more of these organisms into the state. My comments: Thirty eight states currently allow the use of grass carp in one form or another yet it is legal to import other fish species from those same states. Furthermore, it is legal to import fish that were raised in ponds containing grass carp so to target grass carp as a risk and not even mention other species that are equally capable of carrying Asian tapeworms is misleading. As my September 2000 letter to Mr. Payer stated the MN DNR currently allows the legal importation of fathead minnows, a known tapeworm carrier, for forage in walleye ponds. The walleyes that consume those fatheads are then sold throughout the state. I personally spoke with the author of the prazinquantel study and he assured me that it is 100% effective. The DNR requires sampling of populations to detect other disease organisms and there is no reason that this is any different. To target this organism as an excuse to prohibit the use of sterile grass carp when the same standard does not apply to other disease organisms is nothing more than a deliberate attempt to invent excuses. 3. If permitted, it is only a matter of time until grass carp are reproducing in the state. (Also, in email to Mr. Wingate.) DNR: There is some evidence that triploid male grass carp can produce viable gametes and will fertilize diploid female eggs (Van Eenennan et al. 1990, Aqua. 86:111-125, and Zhang et al. 1999, Aqua.175(1-2):63-74). More importantly, our inability to guarantee 100% accuracy checking for triploidy and compliance with proposed laws to allow importation of triploid grass carp would mean that fertile fish would probably end up in state waters sooner or later. We do not want any opportunity for diploid fish to be accidently imported into the state. My comments: This is speculation not supported by fact. Watersheds that require triploids have NO documented reproduction. The testing procedure is done twice on each fish and while it may not be precisely zero by the time the testing is done twice it is so close to zero as to be functionally zero. Operators routinely discard any fish that is not clearly a triploid. A far greater threat is that some unscrupulous person operating outside of any law will cross into Iowa and for twenty dollars buy diploids. They could then be deliberately transported into Minnesota. Diploids require NO paperwork or notification to the receiving state by the USFWS. The risk of that is not zero either. It has already been done at least once and most likely the fish were diploids capable of reproduction if they were able to reach suitable habitat. Some states have legalized triploids to reduce this risk. 4. Grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) were designated as prohibited in 1995 via the public rule making process (Minn. Rule 6216.0250). No opposing comments were received. DNR: I'm sorry that you believe it is futile to communicate with the Fisheries Division. Nevertheless, we did not receive comments opposed to designating grass carp as prohibited, which I believe indicates that there is not widespread interest in bringing this fish into the state. My comments: If the number of people interested in using triploid grass carp to replace aquatic herbicides in isolated ponds is small as just suggested than the number of fish imported would be an insignificant number thus limiting an already miniscule risk even further. The thirty fish I would require to replace herbicides on my farm would be insignificant in even a ten acre pond let alone a small 100 acre lake. The probability that two diploid fish of opposite sex could make it through the testing undetected has to be one chance in many trillions. I would also question the DNR's notification process. For instance, did the DNR notify the golf course owners association? I believe there is much interest in replacing aquatic herbicides by golf course managers. 7. Reversion of ploidy to the diploid state. (email to Mr. Wingate.) While there is no direct literature reference for such a reversion in fish, reversion to the diploid state in other aquatic organisms is documented (Allen et al. 1999, J. of Shellfish Research 18:293). This would tend to indicate that reversions could occur in fish. My comments: I've personally spoken with Mr. Allen at Virginia Institute for Marine Science and he explained how shellfish undergo changes that make them unlike any other group of organisms. He also said he has never heard of ploidy reversion in fish and said he seriously doubts that it is possible. Mr. Dunham, the fish genetics professor at Auburn University, my Alma Mater also stated that he has never heard of this phenomenon before and is highly skeptical of the possibility. Mr. Wingate stated in an email that " I have not been able to meet with Lee this AM to answer your question on the triploids becoming diploids. This is not unusual in the fish genetics world." There is a big difference between 'could' and 'not unusual' and that if it were not unusual it would be supported in the literature. To imply that it is common is misleading. I remain firm on my allegations of no response to many of my sincere questions. If you read the communications between Mr. Johannes and myself beginning September 8, 1999 you will see that most of the sincere questions were ignored. Mr. Payer states in his August 2000 letter that he personally followed the correspondence thus he was also aware that many of the questions went unanswered. I also disagree that allowing the importation of sterile grass carp for use in isolated ponds will result in establishing a reproducing population given all the biological barriers to reproduction of this species. My ponds are located in a dry cornfield over 2,000 feet from the nearest public water and have no connection to that water thus represent no threat to public water. It is misleading to suggest otherwise. Sincerely, John Reynolds Midwest Fish and Crayfish 26385 County Road 3 Merrifield MN 56465 cc. Brad Moore Wendy Underwood Senator Samuelson Representative Walz Kim Bonde House committee members Senate committee members |