Thoughts on CCA meeting tonight on state of Calcasieu fishery

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by T-TOP

from what i understand the new data being processed will be the most accurate data gather to date. The data issue shouldnt be the problem in the years to come. correct?

I'm not so sure.

The LDWF has some risk of becoming like the US EPA using hidden data that they claim supports restrictive regulations without making the data and scientific rationale public. LDWF has released no data since 2010, and the LWC has an established pattern of passing regulations without supporting scientific data. When LWC was challenged to do a more thorough review of existing triple tail data before passing limits, they refused and instead passed the restrictions in a secret meeting in which the meeting minutes were not subsequently published in the usual way.

My personal observations of the LDWF creel survey at Calcasieu Point has not boosted my confidence that the LA Creel results will yield "the most accurate data to date." I observed the LDWF surveyer approach anglers and only ask where the fish observed on the cleaning station were caught, before returning to sit in his truck.

The anglers were not asked:

How many anglers contributed to the catch?

How long did the group fish?

What species were the group targeting?

How many fish were caught and released?

Do the fish on the cleaning station represented the entire take for the trip?

In fact, one group of anglers had a whole unopened box of fish they had caught that had not been emptied onto the fish cleaning station yet.

I've participated in creel surveys in other states, and I have also reviewed the fisheries literature regarding sampling techniques needed to acquire accurate fisheries data from fishery dependent surveys. The above questions are all essential parts of acquiring accurate data to help managing a fishery.

It seems more that LA Creel is more of a public relations effort to justify the increase in license fees than a legitimate attempt to improve the scientific quality of management. Given my personal observations, I tend to have more confidence in LDWF's fishery independent sampling (nets and trawls), the data our team has collected over the past four years, records of tournament results regarding the availability of trophy trout, the steady stream of observations and reports here at SC, and my personal observations and interactions on the lake and at the boat ramp.

[T-TOP]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I'm not so sure.

The LDWF has some risk of becoming like the US EPA using hidden data that they claim supports restrictive regulations without making the data and scientific rationale public. LDWF has released no data since 2010, and the LWC has an established pattern of passing regulations without supporting scientific data. When LWC was challenged to do a more thorough review of existing triple tail data before passing limits, they refused and instead passed the restrictions in a secret meeting in which the meeting minutes were not subsequently published in the usual way.

My personal observations of the LDWF creel survey at Calcasieu Point has not boosted my confidence that the LA Creel results will yield "the most accurate data to date." I observed the LDWF surveyer approach anglers and only ask where the fish observed on the cleaning station were caught, before returning to sit in his truck.

The anglers were not asked:

How many anglers contributed to the catch?

How long did the group fish?

What species were the group targeting?

How many fish were caught and released?

Do the fish on the cleaning station represented the entire take for the trip?

In fact, one group of anglers had a whole unopened box of fish they had caught that had not been emptied onto the fish cleaning station yet.

I've participated in creel surveys in other states, and I have also reviewed the fisheries literature regarding sampling techniques needed to acquire accurate fisheries data from fishery dependent surveys. The above questions are all essential parts of acquiring accurate data to help managing a fishery.

It seems more that LA Creel is more of a public relations effort to justify the increase in license fees than a legitimate attempt to improve the scientific quality of management.

So what your saying is, we are just screwed???

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by T-TOP

So what your saying is, we are just screwed???

I am saying that we're not home free and we need to maintain polite but firm pressure on CCA, LDWF, and LWC regarding improving the quality of the science and resource management based on good science. LDWF has had good fishery independent sampling techniques in place for a number of years (trawls and net samplings). There is also a lot of data from various federal agencies and studies and from university research.

A good fishery-dependent survey would add to the base of data available, but over the past decade CCA and LWC has not demonstrated a commitment to data driven fisheries management, nor have they demonstrated a commitment to habitat conservation. LA Creel has some potential, but pressure is needed for the data collection and use efforts to live up to that potential.

[T-TOP]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I am saying that we're not home free and we need to maintain polite but firm pressure on CCA, LDWF, and LWC regarding improving the quality of the science and resource management based on good science. LDWF has had good fishery independent sampling techniques in place for a number of years (trawls and net samplings). There is also a lot of data from various federal agencies and studies and from university research.

A good fishery-dependent survey would add to the base of data available, but over the past decade CCA and LWC has not demonstrated a commitment to data driven fisheries management, nor have they demonstrated a commitment to habitat conservation. LA Creel has some potential, but pressure is needed for the data collection and use efforts to live up to that potential.

agree

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I'm not so sure.

The LDWF has some risk of becoming like the US EPA using hidden data that they claim supports restrictive regulations without making the data and scientific rationale public. LDWF has released no data since 2010, and the LWC has an established pattern of passing regulations without supporting scientific data. When LWC was challenged to do a more thorough review of existing triple tail data before passing limits, they refused and instead passed the restrictions in a secret meeting in which the meeting minutes were not subsequently published in the usual way.

My personal observations of the LDWF creel survey at Calcasieu Point has not boosted my confidence that the LA Creel results will yield "the most accurate data to date." I observed the LDWF surveyer approach anglers and only ask where the fish observed on the cleaning station were caught, before returning to sit in his truck.

The anglers were not asked:

How many anglers contributed to the catch?

How long did the group fish?

What species were the group targeting?

How many fish were caught and released?

Do the fish on the cleaning station represented the entire take for the trip?

In fact, one group of anglers had a whole unopened box of fish they had caught that had not been emptied onto the fish cleaning station yet.

I've participated in creel surveys in other states, and I have also reviewed the fisheries literature regarding sampling techniques needed to acquire accurate fisheries data from fishery dependent surveys. The above questions are all essential parts of acquiring accurate data to help managing a fishery.

It seems more that LA Creel is more of a public relations effort to justify the increase in license fees than a legitimate attempt to improve the scientific quality of management. Given my personal observations, I tend to have more confidence in LDWF's fishery independent sampling (nets and trawls), the data our team has collected over the past four years, records of tournament results regarding the availability of trophy trout, the steady stream of observations and reports here at SC, and my personal observations and interactions on the lake and at the boat ramp.

sounds to me like a lazy surveyor.. I was asked most of those questions in some form or another by a girl in fourchon