That's laughable. While the govt and their various programs are not anywhere near perfect, please take a look at the species in the following link and tell me which ones were introduced by the govt, into the Great Lakes.
www.invadingspecies.com
What about zebra mussels, and quagga mussels, did the govt introduce those as well?
Maybe the govt introduced Hydrilla, too? Or not.
I am often asked can we eat Hydrilla? The answer is no, and yes. There is only one species of Hydrilla, verticillata. The Hydrilla you buy in the health food store is the same that clogs lakes around the world. Can you take it out of a lake, cook it up, and chomp it down? […]
www.eattheweeds.com
Florida is reported to spend upwards of 30 million each year in an attempt to control it. There's your future tax dollars hard at work, Frank. Another SNAFU apparently created by someone in the aquarium trade back in the 50's. Nice work, moron. It's everywhere now, including where I grew up along the shore of the Detroit River, and Lake St Clair.
People talk about education being a good thing, yet they walk around with their heads up their ass, looking to always point blame at others. Blaming big brother is nothing more than a convenient cop out. I can tell you that without government intervention (going back 50+ yrs in some cases) our native waters would be a disaster.
www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Canada/USA, no difference really, many of our waterways are shared.
As of today, several hundred non native aquatic species have found their way into the Great Lakes.
AIS = aquatic invasive species.
Conclusions
"The five AIS considered have a range of possible effects on recreational fishing participation and value, according to study projections (Table 35). The worst case scenarios for Asian carp and quagga mussel could involve losses of $130,000,000-$140,000,000 in consumer surplus per year and 375,000-400,000 fishing trips annually. Improvements to recreational fishing were also considered possible outcomes for Hydrilla and Asian carp, with projected gains of almost $30,000,000 in value and 86,000 fishing trips annually. Scenarios projecting improvements were less common than those involving losses, however.
The pattern of states affected would vary depending on the particular scenario, but generally those in the central Great Lakes region were expected to bear the greatest impacts (Table 36). Illinois and Michigan had the potential to be most negatively. Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and New York also bore substantial negative effects under some scenarios while Pennsylvania and Minnesota tended to be less affected. In those scenarios involving improvements to recreational fishing, Michigan and Ohio would be most likely to experience the greatest benefits. Scenarios that generated increases in fishing and value generally involved increases in warm water species, which are more heavily targeted in these two states."
And that's just from a sport fishery perspective, on the Great Lakes.
For anyone that actually gives a sheet about any of this, buy a clue and educate yourself, and your kids, and your grand kids. Standing on your front lawn waving the flag isn't going to get it done.
Rant over 
My point is, the focus on fish should widen, by both governments and ordinary people. One leads the other, question is who leads and where it all leads to.
