First Post From Aqua Services, Inc., The Aquatic Herbicide Application Company

[Carl Guffey]

<font face="georgia,palatino" size="2">Actually most of what we have today is due to mankind. The original river was a barren flow with some vegetation around the banks, but the yearly floods carved out all of the soils that would support aquatic vegetation. The ever moving water flow also stayed muddy, so no life giving sunlight could reach it's depths. So thanks to TVA we have some flood control and clearer water since the reservoirs act as a catch basin and the particles of dirt fall to the bottom as sediment.</font></p>

<font face="Georgia" size="2">90 percent of the aquatic vegetation is invasive due in large part to aqua-culture and aquarium trade. There is one North American Milfoil but it has never been found anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon Line. All the others, Water Hyacinth, Asian Milfoil, Water Cabbage, Hydrilla, and a ever growing number of invasive plants are here because someone somewhere got tired of caring for an aquarium or thought that if it was good for a tank what could it do in a lake or pond.</font></p>

<font face="Georgia" size="2">Aquatic vegetation can be a good thing, but just like cake or pie to much of a good thing can be detrimental.</font></p>

 

[troy goldsby]

Carl,

Dead on about the impoundments, but it is difficult to complain about impoundments that improve quality of life and provide the recreation that we all enjoy.

I am not sure if your figure of 90% is referring to exotic or invasive, but most aquatic vegetation, in the right growing conditions can be invasive. However, 90% of the aquatic vegetation species aren't exotic, a lot are, but not 90%. Your point about the aquarium trade and water gardens is spot on. They are certainly a problem and should be regulated much more heavily. I see hyacinths sold regularly in southern Tennessee, and yes, they can over winter here. Milfoil, on the Tennessee River can be tracked back to an initial dumping from an aquarium but the largest dispersion of these plants is through wave action, currents, boat trailers, boats themselves, and intentional plantings. Hyacinths, I believe are traced back to a World Fair in New Orleans in the late 1800's. So, certainly blame can be placed on different trade organizations but we all need to look at our boating habits if we want to prevent future infestations. We always check our trailers before launching at a new site.

Spot on again about vegetation being a good thing, no argument here. I have repeatedly stated that too much is the issue. Great post and thanks a million. Hope to hear from you soon.

Troy

 

[billyc]

Apparently I don't have any rights to say anything about spraying around homeowner/ piece of the lake owners docks or property no matter how many hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxes I've paid over the years. I thought my tax dollars went to pay for this country and all it had to offer. Sorry I guess I was just wanting it my way and I will appologize for the others on here who just seem to want it their way also. To bad the damn fish can't talk but I supose I can't really say anything about them because I'm just trying to catch them and kill them for tournament purposes too. What a piece of s--t I was . You know I bet if I bought a big speed boat or yacht instead of paying my taxes it would get bogged down in all that super heavy grass that covers the lake. Funny how they have made these fishing boats for these poor fishermen that have no problem going through the grass on chickamauga but the rich mans boat just stalls out. I wouldn't have any problem with homeowners just sraying around their docks but this never seems to happen. First we start around a dock then it goes down the whole property line and then we have to have boat lanes which turns into the whole slough. This is not TVA's doing they could care less for property owners and grass, they are just interested in power generation for profit.. This is strictly political pressure from the wealthy well to do's. I guess I will fish Chickamauga regardless of its condition, I can't afford to move somewhere else where they have common sense and don't pour chemicals in the water to change it to the way they want it. Carl why don't you see if you can go out on the spray boats to make sure they are just killing what their suposed to, sounds like Troy and his company could use all the help they could get sterilizing the lake since you think theres too much grass. If you'all keep puring this s--t in the lake you might as well just kill all the fish in it and put them out of their misery.

 

[action jackson]

it looks like ole yroy could give a crap about anying thing but the money he is making on the spraying .troy being the one doing the spraying will tell everybody what they want to hear and bet you it will make a showing on our lakes.he must own a big boat and some lake front propery .

 

[Fishin Fool]

Troy I know I said I would not post anymore but one last thing is nagging at me. Hopefully you can provide insight. In the "about us" section on your company website, it mentions that your dad, Terry Goldsby, actually started the company. This is a copy and paste of that information:

"Aquaservices was founded by Terry Goldsby in January of 1982. Terry's work in the field began in 1971 as an undergraduate at Northwestern State University of Louisiana. After completing course studies at NSU, he subsequently worked for the Florida Department of Natural Resources and the Tennessee Valley Authority as a researcher and aquatic resource manager. He received a M.S in botany from NSU in 1976."

He apparently worked as the Aquatic Resource manager for TVA shortly after 1976. The odd thing is, and this is the question I was hoping you can answer, is during that particular time is when the discussion about using massive dosages of Sonar on Lake Chickamauga came up. According to your own website, your dad was the Aquatics Manager for TVA, and actually started Aqua Services in 1982, a date and time that most bass fishermen remember as the death of lake Chickamauga due to spraying. It is very hard to believe he didn't have any input, as Aquatic Resources Manager into this decision. Is it just coincidence that your dad worked for TVA advising them on Aquatic Plant Management in the late 70's and early 80's, and then, during a time when TVA decided to drop Sonar (fluridone) in the lake, started Aqua Services in 1982, a company that provided those very services and make a profit from it? You have to admit, the timing is a little interesting. I am not accusing, I am just asking an honest questions about something on your website that you encourage us to look at. What was his role in the spraying of the lake during this time? It will certainly be easy enough under a freedom of information act request to find out who TVA used for consulting and application on this contract. I have a request pending now, that I sent off yesterday. Thanks in advance for your answer.


The other thing that I am trying to understand is this next question, and hopefully, no one thinks I am spewing "venom" in your direction by asking it, or not trusting you, as a few posters have indicted they totally do. I'm sorry to be an ass, but I am a little skeptical of being told I just totally trust people I don't know from Adam's house cat. Hope you understand. My question is this; if a land owner has to pay the $690 permit fee to the state in the past, and let's say for the sake of argument, there are 500 lake front owners that want to spray in the entire state, and you bring them all under your permit doing it as you said in an earlier post; "To ease the burden on the property owners." (Lord love them, I am sure they need the money to put gas in the yacht. It really makes me shed a tear), aren't you depriving the state of about $345,000.00 in revenue from those permits? Or should I say you are SAVING the land owners that? Are my figures off? It also seems to me, that by doing this, for the sake of this discussion, you are charging them about $455.00 per acre to spray (yes I know, some will be larger areas, some smaller but I am using an average here) that you are making $227,500.00, while costing the state $345,000.00 to help out these poor lake front home owners. Is the state still collecting all these permit fees for each individual in this amount or are they all covered under your blanket permit? If so, how much did your company have to pay for that permit? If you paid $690.00 for one blanket permit, then the state has lost $345,000.00 in fees if we assume you have 500 clients statewide. Am I am totally incorrect because that is the way I read your response about permits and using your company exclusively, (kind of like a monopoly when you think about it). Please don't think I'm bashing you, I simply want to know what kind of deal the state is giving you folks on permits. I'll look forward to your post

 

[troy goldsby]

Billyc,

It's not that you don't have the right to say what you want, but it appears that you have a double standard. You can use any of the water that you want, and homeowners should be able to also.

Thanks for the apology, everyone gets caught up in want they want sometimes and forgets about others.

Don't know what kind of boat or prop you have, but unless it's an airboat you will absolutely burn an engine up in topped out hydrilla. Once again, a fact that is proven time and time again.

The rest of your post is just based in a lack of knowledge on the subject and distrust. It is okay to have a lack of knowledge about a subject, there are a lot of subjects that I don't fully understand, but it is not okay when faced with the facts not to learn. I have repeatedly stated that we aren't spraying anything but fixed structures and 100' from those fixed structures, with the exception of 50' wide boat lanes.

I don't know what location your are talking about, but every reservoir in the southeast, with aquatic vegetation problems, treats that aquatic vegetation with herbicides. It doesn't matter where you move, the issue will be the same.

Anyone is welcome to follow me any time they want and observe our operation.

Lastly, no fish will be harmed from what we do. Herbicides kill plants, not fish I will look for your next post.

Troy

 

[troy goldsby]

Fishin Fool,

It is great of you to point out some highlights from my Dad's career. I'll point out a couple of more. He has also been the president of the Midsouth Aquatic Plant Management Society, he will be the president-elect of the International Aquatic Plant Management Society beginning this month , he has been on boards across the country and into the caribbean discussing and helping decide the best choices to implement for aquatic plant management, and has consulted with many around the world on the subject. He has been published in numerous magazines and has been in a leader in furthering this industry. He is regarded as an authority in this field. As for what he did before Aqua Services, Inc., it was not the large scale reservoir applications that you assume. He began this company because there was a niche to fill for private property and lake owners across the southeast and on the Tennessee River. So his role, on the Tennessee River in the 80's, was a private applicator working for private citizens. Just to give you a few more accomplishments from our company, my brother has also been the president of the Midsouth Aquatic Plant Management Society as will I beginning in October. I am also the sitting president of the Alabama Fisheries Association, the Tennessee Vegetation Management Association, and the new organization, the Tennessee River Property Owners' Aquatic Resource Management Association. I really can't think of many companies, in any field, as involved as Aqua Services, Inc.

As for your numbers, they would be right if your assumptions were correct, but they aren't. I really wish we had 500 clients in Tennessee on the Tennessee River, maybe in a couple of years. Lost revenue to the state? They liked the idea, agreed to it, and issued the permits. How is that my fault? I am not sure if you have ever been in charge of running a business, but if you know anything about business you know that what you charge isn't what you make. We are currently running 11 airboats throughout the southeast, 15 trucks, a couple of john boats that we use for applications, an electro-fishing boat, and we have to maintain all of the equipment and make sure we are paying our biologists and employees. Not to mention the cost of herbicides and fuel. Why don't you check some herbicide prices before you make assumptions about what we charge and what we make. You may be surprised what you find. The fact is, you can't by the aquatic herbicides for what we do the entire application.

Lastly, it doesn't matter what you think about my decision to try and help folks, because in the end, that was how I came to that decision. I saw that there was a need, and found a way to fill that need. Certainly, it helps business, but the permits have totally changed between now and this time last year. That is due to the federal government, and liberal courts, making regulatory judgements that should still be kept with FIFRA, CWA, and the Dept. of Ag. Actually, if the old permits were still in place, we wouldn't be having this conservation because the need for TRPOARMA would probably not have been necessary. What would you prefer, an extremely burdensome permit process where folks can't get a permit and apply herbicides on their own, or one where Aqua Services, Inc. is involved and applying herbicides legally and in the proper manner? Once again, if your fishing license tripled in one year and began taking 6 to 10 weeks to acquire, you would be looking for alternatives. As for political pressure, the majority of my clients on Chickamauga didn't contact me until last year and certainly didn't know that political pressure was an option. However, I can assure you, I let them know that it is and option. There is already court precedent in the Midwest, where homeowners have sued local governments over decreased property values, because of aquatic vegetation, and the unwillingness of those governments to reassess property taxes and lower them. Guess who won. The property owners. They won and the local governments were forced to either lower their property taxes or help with the aquatic vegetation control efforts. The state isn't giving us anything, and as stated before, they are issuing permits because of folks that don't like what we do. So, the only political pressure is from your end, hopefully that will change soon. I'll look for you next post.

Troy

 

[Fishin Fool]

Thank you Troy for your humble, friendly, non-combative, informative answer. I certainly can't blame you for taking advantage of the State if the State allows it! It is in your best interest to do so. I hope that we as fishermen and hunters we can follow this example. I think it would be great for us to approach the State, ask that they allow, say one fisherman or organization, to buy a blanket fishing and hunting license/permit that covers all the rest of us! Maybe we could pay this one person or organization a small fee of say $5 to act as our license/permit holder, so that we could fish and hunt under that one permit. We could all sign a pledge saying that we will adhere to the guidelines across the state. Can you imagine how much cash that would save many fishermen and hunters, who can barely get by on what they bring home now? It looks like from recent data that could be between 16 and 20 million dollars. It is super idea Troy, and folks like you and your dad are to be applauded for thinking of it! It certainly would take away from the amount of money used to protect the lakes, fisheries and wildlife, but hey, a buck is a buck right?

I appreciate you taking the time to post your dad's resume and that of yourself and your brother. You still didn't answer my question about your dad's involvement as aquatic manager for TVA, and the decision of the spraying of Lake Chickamauga in the early 80's. But again, thank you for your answers to all the questions you chose to answer.

As for those court cases; I think it's a great idea! Maybe folks in the Tennessee Valley that have kudzu growing in the back yard on state property can sue the state and make them lower property taxes, or else pay to have the kudzu cleaned up! It certainly is something to think about. We could extend that principle to trees, weeded lots.........the applications are endless! We just hold the state responsible for maintaining control of any weeds, bushes or trees we don't like!

By the way, 500 wasn't an assumption, I used it as an example, as I stated. If you want to provide actual numbers, then folks on the forum can see exactly how much money the state is losing in permitting fees and you are gaining in client fees. As for making assumptions about what you charge, you were the one that told us in an earlier post how much you charged. It wasn't an assumption, it was your figure. I have no desire to check herbicide prices. It's great to know that you are shooting for 500 clients in 2 years! With work for 11 airboats, 15 trucks, 2 john boats and all that you sound like you are well on your way.

As an earlier poster said; I am done with this thread because it is beating a dead horse. Thank you Troy for giving us the information you have. Hopefully everyone is a little more informed now about who is spraying. Everyone will have to make up their minds and take it from here. Have a good 4th.


Thanks again for all of your answers and replies.

 

[troy goldsby]

Fishin Fool,

Your very welcome, I certainly haven't been combative, just answered combative questions with good, factual answers. As far as approaching the state with your idea, go for it, if they agree, like they did in my case, I guess it will benefit you. And hey, the money for the permits doesn't go to me or Aqua Services, Inc. It goes to the TRPOARMA, a non-profit organization.

I did answer your questions about my Dad, he had nothing to do with any large scale Tennessee River Reservoir aquatic herbicide applications in the 80's. Maybe you should read a little closer. By the way, I have responded to every blog since posting the first one, open, honestly, and truthfully.

Maybe homeowners should sue to have invasive weeds sprayed that detract from their property value in terrestrial environments. I don't know, I am only involved in aquatics.

You did base your numbers on 500, a number that you called an assumption. As for my Tennessee River clients in Tennessee, probably 150. And yes, that is what we charge, certainly not what we clear. As I said before, it doesn't appear that you have ever been involved with a small business. As before also, I hope I get to 500 on the Tennessee River in Tennessee. As for assumptions, you do make them, not to mention furthering myths, rumors, and lies. Nothing you have posted has been based in facts, only based in those myths, rumors, and lies.

And as I stated before, not a dead horse, one that never existed and never will. You are simply beating wildly at the air. I guess you are done this time, I don't know, that is what you said last time. However, I will keep looking for future posts from you.

Troy

 

[billyc]

Troy I do appreciate you coming on here to listen to the fishermens point of view. To assume that we are just swinging wildly in the air is plain insulting. I don't remember seeing you around here when this lake was left baron after hosting the largest bass tournamnet in the world in the late 80's. No offense but thats how all this happened back then, first a little spraying here and there ,and next thing you know we get what we got left with then, a baron sick fish lake, that took almost two decades to recover. The resurgence of this lake with healthy fish populations was about the time the aquatic vegetation started to grow back what a coincidence. So here we go agin, maby if you look at from our point of view you might see where we are more than a little apprehensive about spraying the lake agin. As for these home owners isn't this like moving to the forrest and winding up cutting down the trees, the grass doesn't grow year round but the effects of spraying does have lasting effects for years to come we know this from all the innocent sraying in the 80's. I still don't understand how home owners can obtain permits or you can or who ever, to spray any area that they cannot produce a deed of ownership for that land underwater. It was my understanding that tva even owned the land so far inland from the shore at full pool which is 682.5 . I guess our only hope is that you won't kill it all so that you will have repeat business. Lets all pray they don't want to dye the water permanatly blue to say they own ocean front property, or ban us peasants from using the lake . I'd be willing to bet this isn't but a very small amount of rich folks with some influence causing all this what a shame. Good luck convincing everyone that this spraying endevor is for the better .

 

[troy goldsby]

Billyc,

That comment was made toward those thawing accusations at Aqua Services, Inc. And that won't listen to the truth. Saying that you are beating a dead horse, in reference to the way we apply these herbicides, is implying that we have applied those herbicides the same way they have been applied by others in the past. That is the insult when I have repeatedly told you what we do, how we do it, why we do, and our intentions going forward. You just won't listen to the truth.

Again, what was done int past, in the 80's in any large scale manner on the Tennessee River, was not done by us. We are only spraying what we are allowed to spray, 100' from fixed structures, a few boat lanes 50' wide, and no more than 2 acres for any one property owner. If you can't understand that, you may never. I know your point of view and it does not apply here. Actually, it is exactly what you claim about the property owners. You say they only care about themselves, it is not true, I've talked to a bunch of homeowners and they aren't trying to prevent you from fishing. It is right the opposite, you are concerned with your interests and that's all. You are the one trying to stop folks from having water access.

For the majority of these folks, hydrilla was not present when they moved to the lake. Your comparison of moving to the forest and cutting the trees is just wrong. It is not a valid argument.

As for getting a permit for spraying, it is the same as you getting a license to fish the same waters, that you don't own. If they are not allowed to have access through these applications, then you should not be able to fish public waters. Dyeing the water? That doesn't make any sense. Can't even comment on that one.

And again, you need to read the rest of the blogs, the only influence is from those that oppose this process, that is why we have permits.

If I am able to convince some, that is great. However, that's not why I am here. I wanted to tell the truth and make sure that those that want to change their minds have the knowledge they need to do so. In the end, the truth is all that matters, if you can't take it and learn that is your problem. I certainly hope I reach some, but at least everyone now has the truth and not just myths, rumors, and lies. I'll keep looking for your posts.

Troy

 

[bigkuntry1282]

i know you keep saying that everything you are doing is within regulations of the goverment and everything, but just because the goverment says its ok does not mean that it is right. the gov is the most corrupt people in america so what they say dont mean too much. in my opinion it is dumb to put chemicals in our waters that are not needed. and i have never had a problem getting close to these property owners docks to fish because of the grass so i dont know why they have a problem getting out. dont make sense to me. if they dont own the water and they dont, then how can they get a permit to do something to affect something that doesnt belong to them. its no different then if i went to my neighbors house and killed all of his grass just because i wanted to or didnt like his grass being there. i would have the law called on me and be in trouble, simply cause it doesnt belong to me.

 

[GAfisherman]

Troy thank you for coming on here and informing us about what is going on. I have one question though. You stated earlier that they have the right to spray just like we have the right to fish. You keep saying that everyone that is comparing things are completey wrong and I agree with you on some points but how is fishing and spraying the same at all. You also say they have a right just like we do and I agree to that completely, but since they do not own the water how does their right matter more than ours. Technically the water is as much as ours as it is theirs so why would it not be a matter that is voted on or something to that matter. It looks like they have money on their sides and although you are not saying it, it shows that they have more rights than us on the lake. I agree that the lake needs to be managed but I would like to see more of a discussion and other options. I believe we have just as much input as they do. Hopefully Churly and some others are finally getting more options under the spotlight.

 

[troy goldsby]

Bigkuntry1282,

Have you read the previous posts? This is getting silly, I keep having to repeat myself. It is legal, and right, and the herbicides are needed! Your analogy of killing a neighbors weeds is absurd. It's not even close to relevant. I am not going to repeat myself, again, about the permits that are being use and how they were obtained. But I will state, one more time, you are fishing and harvesting and affecting waters that don't belong to you. If you don't want homeowners to have the aquatic vegetation controlled, then you need to quit fishing. I'll look for you next post, but please read the previous posts before you bring up topics we have already discussed.

Troy

 

[troy goldsby]

GAfisherman,

Everyone has the same rights. I have never disputed that. All homeowners want is the vegetation around their docks controlled and a boat lane to access the lake. You have an entire reservoir, not to mention river system, to express your rights and go fishing. The homeowners have one small lot, that they pay 10 times more property taxes for, because of the water access and esthetics, that are gone when the vegetation moves in. All they want is access and to utilize what they are being taxed highly to keep.

Once again, if money and politics were on their side we would not have a permitting process in the first place. It is because of fishermen and environmentalists that we have to work through such a difficult permitting process.

Y'all keep on discussing other options, I'll even discuss them with you. Oh, I forgot, I already have. Read some of the earliest posts, their are even some stats. about harvesters and mulchers in a couple of my posts. And if I may, I am the only one in this discussion posting stats. Why don't you find some that supports your claims and post them, just like I have posted facts and stats that support everything that we are doing in our aquatic vegetation control efforts. I'll look for your future posts.

Troy

 

[jim4596]

troy goldsby - 7/4/2011 8:46 PM
It is legal, and right, and the herbicides are needed!

I have refrained from posting since my first few posts. this is what makes our country great is that we can all have our own opinions. Happy July 4th everyone.
anyway, your opinion is that its legal and right and needed. i will go out on a limb and say that no one on here agrees with you (or at least not many people). while i agree it is legal, its not right and its not needed. there are other alternatives than dumping poison in our waters. you have agreed with the statement that the grass can be removed by other means, but you say that its not "practical." practical or not, we (the member of CFF) dont want anymore chemicals dumped in our water. for me this has nothing to do with the fishing or killing the fish. i havent fished a tournament in over a year. in fact i think i have only fished a few times this year in TN. The reason i am against it is because herbicides are poison, plain and simple, and i dont want them dumped in the same body of water (TN river) that we get chattanooga's drinking water from. its that simple. you and your company are putting poison in our drinking water. It is poison that you are using, and anyone that read the labels on these items has to agree.
you make money from dumping poison in the water. you are a salesman that must defend what he sales so that it remains legal so you can continue to do it to provide for your family. you want everyone to "think" its safe, good, and right. Good luck continuing to go around and tell everyone how "right and good" these chemicals are. while you are doing that, i will continue to stand up in opposition of your posioning of our drinking water. as i said before i am a lake front property owner and i am also a fisherman, but first and foremost i am someone that lives in chattanooga and i dont want the poison dumped in water that i drink from (hixson utility takes water from a spring located in soddy and tn american takes water directly from the tn river). this is no different than TVA dumping ash in the lake. it didnt kill anyone directly, but come back in 20 years and see how the cancer rates have changed in our area. posion is poison, and i dont care who approves of it. epa approved or not means nothing to me. this is simply the curtain that you hide behind to make money. that its "legal and epa approved." that alone doesnt make it right and healthy. there is nothing at all healthy, good, or right about what you do. this is evidenced by the "no swimming or drinking" after treatment. if you think that what you are doing is anything short of poisoning our water, then you are sadly mistaken.
I will try not to post on this subject again as we are beating a dead, poisoned horse, but its awfully hard to stand by and watch people dump poison in our drinking water and then arrogantly try to tell us that its "good and right." you are screwing us with poison while you are personally profiting from it. plain and simple.

 

[action jackson]

these so called property owners dont own the water that joins the property. like billy c said tva owens it thats whats call having priviledge to using the water not saying its thiers

 

[CATCHMAN]

Troy,

If someone can get a permit to control vegetation that they do not own, can someone get a restraining order to keep you from controlling vegetation that they do not own? Have you been restrained before?

 

[marc2007]

it seems to me that this guy is not going to stop,its all about $,if someone cant see some of the "good" points of views that have been stated, then why bother to even discuss with him about somthing that he"knows" everything about already, you cant make someone like him see it any other way, he cant help it, its how he was raised, their is always a happy medium in every situations, but you cant always see it due to your own blindness, if you cant understand "right from wrong" than why bother,you coming on here stating your case was fine, you will stick up for what you have been a custom to, words will never change anything, it wouldnt matter anyway,he is a knowbody anyway, doing a job, he cant change it,one day when the gov. and epa find that this poison does cause problems, i hope you remember all the sticking up you did for this company, then it may take your head out so you can see the light.

 

[bigkuntry1282]

before you say that i didnt read the previous post then you need to get your facts straight as you keep saying. i read everyone of them before i posted. thats why it took me so long before i posted. i am a slow reader. lol. just because you say it is right or the government says its right does not mean that it is right. as i said in my post that it is my opinion that chemicals are not safe. i did not state it as a fact but it is my opinion. and i dont like it. and if you are saying that me keeping about 10 catfish a year is affecting the lake then that is a pretty stupid comment. i know you are backing your company so nothing will change your mind about what you do. as i said what i said was my opinion