70 



8. 

 Eritt and Lake Ontario, unless it receives an increased 

 appropriation. 



The GLFC could conduct its eaa lamprey control proq^ram 

 effectively, including research to develop and bring new control 

 technologies on-line, with an annual budget of only $20.5 million. 

 However, the annual budget of the GLFC for FY 93 is only $11.2 

 million, derived from appropriations from both the U.S. and 

 Canadian governments. Sea lamprey control accounts for 95% of the 

 GLFC FY 93 budget, or, $10.6 million. The impending crisis in 1994 

 is exacerbated by a requirement for $5 million to conduct studies 

 needed to support the re-registration of TFM in the U.S. (Great 

 LaXes Fishery Conmieeion, 1993) . 



There is no indication from either the U.S. or Canadian 

 governments that this level of funding will be forthcoming. It 

 seems more likely that the GLFC capability to control sea lamprey 

 in the Great Lakes basin will continue to be propped-up at a barely 

 effective level or allowed to further deteriorate because of the 

 inability or unwillingness of the U.6. and Cemadian governments to 

 adequately fund GLFC sea lamprey control. Recurring annual budget 

 crises seem likely to continue. 



Other destructive or potentially destructive nonindigenous 

 aquatic nuisance organisms extant in the Great Lakes are far less 

 vulnerable to control than sea lanprey because no stage of their 



