MarEx Mailbag
This week’s Mailbag contains two letters. Both writers felt that last week’s lead editorial was inaccurate in some way and one characterized the editorial as “wide of the mark”. Last week our lead piece referenced the U.S. Coast Guard’s long awaited (proposed ballast water treatment (BWT) standard. In our editorial, entitled, “Long-Awaited Ballast Water Standards Proposed by Coast Guard,” we said that the Coast Guard proposal represents progress and provides clear guidance to ship owners who were previously reluctant to do much of anything in the absence of any standard on this side of the pond. That’s a good thing, and we said why. Not everybody agreed with all aspects of the article, however. You can read our September 3rd editorial by clicking HERE. Or, simply read on to see what our readers thought about the matter:
Joseph, Thank you for a very good and concise article on the USCG Ballast Water Discharge Standard. The following statement is false: Typically, ocean-going vessels use some sort of ballast water exchange regimen to flush out their tanks in open seas before entering a U.S. port, but the practice has been proven to be ineffective. NOAA, University of Windsor, the Canadian Aquatic Invasive Species Network (CAISN) and scientists working for the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans have proven the effectiveness of deep-ocean ballast water exchange, including the salt water exchange and flushing of residual ballast in empty tanks. Ballast Water treatment systems have no proven track record. Best Regards, Ivan Lantz MarEx Editor’s Remarks: I would agree that ballast water treatment systems are short on track record. It is a little hard to convince someone to install an expensive piece of equipment until a standard is actually published that would give them some confidence that the money is well spent. Regarding his first point: I’m not a scientist and I can take what Mr. Lantz says at face value if he can agree that few of these scientists (if any) have ever stood ankle deep in the very bottom of a ship’s ballast tank – AFTER it has been repeatedly flushed – with a shovel trying to muck out the mud while nasty little fish slip and slide around trying to find something to swim in. I’ve been there and I’m available to talk about it. And it is not a “treat to stick your feet in the Mississippi mud.” Read on for one more:
Mr. Keefe, Your editorial on the Coast Guard finally addressing the ballast issue is wide of the mark. I live in Michigan, the old "Great Lakes State" and our waters have been devastated by invasive species. The last number I read was 165 so far and gaining a new one every three months! Most were and are introduced by ballast water discharge. Michigan finally introduced its own ballast water treatment requirements as have other states in a belated although laudable effort to take some action against the destruction of the Great Lakes by saltwater shippers coming up via the Seaway system. IF the Coast Guard and done their job 20 years ago, or even 15 or 10, instead of toddying to the saltwater shippers destroying the Great Lakes, none of the "Balkan-like" regulations would be in place. The recently introduce Coast Guard standard is a classic case of too little, too late. Instead of actually providing national leadership on a vital issue, the Coast Guard admirals just rolled over to the shipping industry, again! I am no "environmentalist wacko" but rather a simple citizen of the Great Lakes. Frederick Stonehouse www.frederickstonehouse.com MarEx Editor’s Remarks:” Mr. Stonehouse has some strong words for me. I want to address every single one of his points, however. He claims that my editorial is “wide of the mark.” On the contrary. In fact, Michigan’s effort to legislate BWT had (a.) no effect on the ingress of invasive species (did they think the fish and organisms would respect an imaginary line of demarcation?) and (b.) had a markedly deleterious effect on Michigan’s foundering economy and discouraged any number of ships from calling on her ports at a time when the Great Lakes state could least afford it. Those are the facts. As to whether the Coast Guard could have gotten around to this just a bit sooner, I’m in full agreement, and I said so. Finally, the writer’s comments related to “Saltwater Shippers Destroying the Great Lakes” belong squarely in the category of “be careful what you wish for.” I challenge him to tell me – or you – that commercial ocean shipping is a dirtier, less-efficient or economical means (than any other) of moving the cargo that simply has to be moved from point A to point B. Nevertheless, I encourage you to click on his WEB site. He has apparently “been there and done that,” and his WEB site is fascinating.