ruffe numbers have expanded within Duluth Harbor, native fish 

 species have declined. There are no species-specific controls for 

 ruffe. 



We certainly are not now in control of ruffe and we may never 

 be in control of ruffe. The ruffe is another multibillion dollar 

 annual insult to the fisheries of North America. 



Probably the best example of our society's inability to control an 

 unwanted species is the sea lamprey. While ballast water figures 

 prominently in the introduction of zebra mussels and ruffe, the sea 

 lamprey expanded from the Atlantic Ocean into the Great Lakes 

 through the canal building era of the 19th Century. The sea lam- 

 prey is rather unique among aquatic nonindigenous nuisance spe- 

 cies since its life cycle predisposes it to effective control. We can 

 control sea lamprey. 



Since 1955, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has developed 

 effective technologies to markedly reduce sea lamprey in most 

 areas of the Great Lakes and there are new technologies that offer 

 promise of even more effective control without using chemicals. 



Despite these capabilities, sea lamprey control is only a partial 

 success. Why? Because we have not been willing to invest adequate 

 money in the control effort. There is no indication from either the 

 U.S. or Canadian Governments that this attitude will change in 

 the near future. 



So the solution for dealing with the potential ecological and eco- 

 nomic impacts from yet to be introduced nonindigenous species is 

 not to base future national strategies on our ability to control 

 them. Our record has not been impressive in that area. 



As the Ballast Control Act recommends, we must expeditiously 

 invest in research to find the best and safest methods for prevent- 

 ing introduction of new organisms through ballast discharge. 



I thank you very much for letting us give our opinions. 



Mr. LiPiNSKi. Thank you very much. 



[The statement of Mr. Shupp may be found at end of hearing.] 



Mr. LiPiNSKi. Our next witness will be Mr. George Ryan. 



Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of course, as we know. 

 Lake Michigan was really called Lake Illinois by the Indians, and 

 those folks in Michigan must have done something to you that was 

 really wrong. 



Mr. LiPiNSKi. Yes, I don't know if we can trust those people in 

 Michigan or not. You have to watch them closely. 



STATEMENT OF GEORGE J. RYAN, PRESIDENT, LAKE CARRIERS' 



ASSOCIATION 



Mr. Ryan. Mr. Chairman, we are very pleased to share our expe- 

 riences with ballast water management in the hopes that some of 

 these experiences may help in the development of legislation to 

 study the problems related to the introduction and the spread of 

 nonindigenous nuisance species and then to help to evaluate and 

 test the promising ballast management technologies and practices. 

 We certainly support your legislative process. 



As you already know, Lake Carriers' Association, in connection 

 with many other maritime interests in the Great Lakes, instituted 

 a voluntary ballast water management plan to control the spread 



