This is the first of three columns on fishery issues affecting area waterways. The second installment will cover baitfish regulations, and the third will focus on Asian carp concerns.

“I hate quotations. Tell me what you know,” wrote American essayist and philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson.

The spirit of that Emerson quote pervaded invasive species discussions during focus groups gathered at the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service office in Amherst on Tuesday.

Sessions moderator Leah Sharpe, a doctoral candidate specializing conservation biology at the University of Minnesota, applied the spirit of Emerson’s quotation when describing discussion conduct. “We ask that participants not be identified and that their [comments/ insights/input] during the discussions not be quoted,” Sharpe said before each session meeting with hopes of prompting diversity and spontaneity from participants.

The Amherst gathering was the fourth of eight fact-finding focus groups she is conducting on biocontrol of invasive species prior to an International Symposium on Genetic Biocontrol of Invasive Fish that will be held in Minneapolis, June 21-23.

Area experts, from professional fisheries personnel to active anglers, contributed substantial “tell me what you know” content to discussions throughout the day and evening.

Bernie (nee Maciejewski) Clabeaux, a doctoral student at the University at Buffalo specializing in aquatic plant studies, served as secretary for discussions. Her focus is upon use of native species when designing controls of invasive species.

“Every session brings to the discussion table unique ideas and suggestions,” Sharpe said of the Amherst focus groups. First and most emphasized topic developed here dealt with GMOs(genetically modified organisms). Sharpe tried to maintain a balance between pros and cons on GMOs, but discussions generally keyed on cautions and fears modifying organisms’ genetics might have on aquatic plants and animals before and after experimental attempts to remove intrusive aquatic invaders such as Asian Carp, exotic mussels, and other flora and fauna in our waterways.

While area waters have seen ill and favorable outcomes for species such as rainbow/steelhead trout, blue pike, Chinook (king) salmon, rainbow smelt, golden shiners, and many other fishes, we have yet to find what many referred to as a “silver bullet” for dealing with newly arrived and about-to-arrive invaders such as round gobies, bighead and silver carp, ruffe, and northern snakeheads to name a few of the invasive fish a USF&WS identifies in “A Field Guide to Fish Invaders of the Great Lakes Region.”

The plight of foreign organism invasions is generally considered much more vast and unclear to scientist/ observers than those critters that arrive on native soils and above-ground plant life.

Uncertainties about designing and applying GMOs dominated the discussion. From possible weakening of existing, desirable organisms to unplanned and unfavorable outcomes after a modification effort drove discussions more toward skeptical if not totally negative perceptions of genetic modification technology.

Before the focus groups met, Paul Stoos, Erie County Fisheries Advisory Board member, noted that fish targeted for protection with a GMO application may suffer more after the procedure than before any modifications were applied.

Tom Marks, a Great Lakes Sport Fishing Council director, and staunch advocate of addressing fishery issues immediately and effectively, said before and after the Tuesday forums that attempts to modify any aquatic ecology has to be done with caution. He stressed a need for thorough research because of the complexity of things that go on under the surface of our waters.

Rich Davenport, outdoor writer with extensive fisheries involvements, has concerns about any and all aquatic-improvement efforts. After the Tuesday sessions Davenport said, “It’s good to seek stakeholder [public] input, but we need to sort out objections and [possible] negative outcomes before going with any GMO program.”

He, and many others before and after the discussions, also pointed to the money motive. “These [programs] could be more profit-driven than solution-seeking efforts,” Joe Jemiolo said of many privately and governmentally funded projects.

Paul Fuhrmann, with Ecology and Environment in Lancaster, said on Wednesday, “GMO applications are scary.” While Fuhrmann would not rule out GMO’s entirely, he voiced a strong regard for overall effects on the ecology, money concerns, and the possibility of unintended uses of technologies that might become useful to anyone intent on terrorizing with environmental controls.

Despite all the negative concerns expressed, Leah Sharpe considered the Tuesday focus groups a success. She said, “The Western New York groups offered the widest range of concerns and a good scope of options on aspects of invasive species issues.” Input from these sessions prompted her to add two additional questions to the focus group question agenda.

To view formats and findings of these focus groups and obtain results of the June 21-23 symposium, go to seagrant. umn.edu and click through the “research” options.