Extreme? Yes. Justified? Definately.

The Battle Creek Enquirer weighs in with an editorial in favor of banning international shipping on the Great Lakes, and makes the essential point that while this is extreme, it is also reasonable. There is an alternative, but the shipping industry will not take those measures voluntariy, and sued the state of Michigan when made to take those measures legally.

Concern over invasive species has prompted a call to ban ocean freighters from the Great Lakes - and moderate lawmakers are not dismissing the proposal as extreme.

The idea of giving up the millions of dollars in trade generated by seafaring ships on the Great Lakes certainly seems radical at first glance. But as the conservation group Great Lakes United points out, oceangoing vessels have been the prime source of at least 183 foreign organisms now living in the Great Lakes. The invasive species have harmed native fisheries, ruined beaches and cost billions of dollars for industries that depend on Great Lakes water.

In other words, the damage caused by invasive species may be approaching a point that it outweighs the economic benefit of shipping by oceangoing vessels.

Dave Dempsey does the math, and the and the Great Lakes region is way past the cost-benefit point.

With $55 million in annual economic benefits from the shipping industry, and $5 billion in annual costs for damage control of invasive species, the costs of banning international freighters could easily be absorbed in the annual costs. Additionally, there is no better way to fight invasive species than to not let them into our waters, and banning the freighters will provide the best bang-for-your-buck investment.

Why does the shipping industry think they can win?

Lobbyists, lawyers and public relations firms will not prevent a determined constituency from doing what it must to protect its most valued resource.

Stop the invasive species, and ban the salties if you must.