---

I have nothing against attorneys and our legal system. Some of my closest acquaintances are attorneys. Not everyone feels that way, however. Every election cycle we hear politicians promote the idea of setting limits on how much people can recover in lawsuits.

The politician points to multi-million dollar settlements in medical malpractice, personal injury, or wrongful death lawsuits, as causes for high healthcare and insurance expenses. They accuse lawyers of "trolling" for plaintiffs, of promoting the idea that whenever something bad happens to us, we can sue, even when the responsibility may lie with us, or with simple bad luck or bad timing.

It's a chicken-or-the-egg deal. Which comes first? Is it the attorney pushing a pass-the-buck lawsuit scheme? Or is it the opportunistic citizen, hoping to find a deeper pocket to help solve a problem? As with so many things, there's probably enough blame for everyone.

What set off this train of thought was a lawsuit recently filed by several Minnesota lake owners' associations, trying to force the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to focus on their lakes, just west of the Twin Cities, and protect them from an invasion by zebra mussels.

Zebra mussels are clam-like, shelled creatures, typically less than a fingertip long, and unique among freshwater mussels in being able to attach themselves firmly to anything solid, from docks, to boat lifts, to outboards, to water intake systems, even to larger native clams, which kills the harmless hosts.[[In-content Ad]]Zebra mussels hitchhiked to the Great Lakes region from eastern Europe and western Russia in the ballast of ocean-going freighters. Then, via our own watercraft, trailers, and mobile habits, we have spread them to lakes far and wide.

Perhaps even worse than their clogging and clinging habits, zebra mussels filter so many vital microorganisms out of the water that they reduce the ability of the aquatic food chain to support game fish. Their sharp shells can also make beach areas unfit for swimming. Some 60 Minnesota lakes, and a handful of rivers and streams, are already infested, and no one has yet come up with an effective way to get rid of them.

The three lake associations suing the DNR want to force that agency to reallocate its limited personnel resources, require boats bound for their three lakes to be inspected at a central inspection headquarters at a regional park nearby, and only allow boats inspected there to enter their lakes.

You certainly can't fault a lake association for wanting to protect its own interests. Those who live on those near-to-the-Twin Cities lakes are paying a premium price to do so, and rightfully believe that - all else being equal - their property will be less attractive, and less valuable, if it's on a lake infested with an invasive critter like the zebra mussel.

But if lake associations want to bring about change in the form of more resources or better procedures to inspect and clean boats, and to fine boaters who ignore the rules and endanger our lakes, the DNR is the wrong target. The object of lakeshore owner, angler and boater anger should be the lawmakers in St. Paul, who have contributed to a chronic shortage of personnel and program resources within the DNR.

From departmental budgets that would maintain basic staff levels, to something as logical as raising license fees for the first time in more than a decade, lawmakers have simply said "no." They've failed to realize that you can't run a ranch without cowhands, and without feed and horseshoes for the horses.

The DNR has staffing for approximately 150 boat launch inspectors, whose job it is to monitor boat traffic and inspect for invasive "hitchhikers." They naturally are deployed to some of the more high-traffic lakes, which are among the several thousand within our borders.

Instead of suing the DNR and its leaders, lake associations as a broad group should march on St. Paul, and there deliver a loud message demanding better invasive species control from the people who actually hold the purse strings.

---