Thoughts on CCA meeting tonight on state of Calcasieu fishery

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Reggoh

Mr. Perrodin did mention that the Grand Bayou structure has some type of flap structures underwater which allow water to flow out of the marsh but do not allow water to flow in. Like a check valve. I don't think he said how many there were or how big they were. He did not have a slide showing the layout of grand bayou weir... only the 1 picture of the boat bay.

Got that in a report. I'll try and scan it and post it.

[Smalls]

Biggest thing to me in that second slide show is slide #11. From 1989 to 2004, 3300 acres of marsh were restored in the CCWS. One hurricane wiped it out. I would like to see what has happened since 2012, but I'm sure there's not enough data yet. So, when weirs are operated, marsh is gained. When they are not, marsh is lost.

Can this be disputed?

["W"]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Biggest thing to me in that second slide show is slide #11. From 1989 to 2004, 3300 acres of marsh were restored in the CCWS. One hurricane wiped it out. I would like to see what has happened since 2012, but I'm sure there's not enough data yet. So, when weirs are operated, marsh is gained. When they are not, marsh is lost.

Can this be disputed?

Yea marsh was lost in 2005 from hurricane Rita and Ike
And levee was blow out

Keeping weir gates open will not have that great of effect like you think

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by "W"

Yea marsh was lost in 2005 from hurricane Rita and Ike
And levee was blow out

Keeping weir gates open will not have that great of effect like you think

Are you nuts? Do you not see what you just said?

With the levee blown out, more saltwater would have been able to enter the marsh.

Why do you think all that marsh disappeared prior to 1988? Hurricanes every year?

Weren't the weirs not operated after Rita? Wasn't the argument y'all made that the fishing was better after the hurricanes because the weirs were open? Doesn't that also correlate with the increased land loss and increased salinity in the marsh after 2005?

Come on Waltrip. The proof is there that the weirs were working. Quit trying to argue that they weren't.

[T-TOP]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Are you nuts? Do you not see what you just said?

With the levee blown out, more saltwater would have been able to enter the marsh.

Why do you think all that marsh disappeared prior to 1988? Hurricanes every year?

Weren't the weirs not operated after Rita? Wasn't the argument y'all made that the fishing was better after the hurricanes because the weirs were open? Doesn't that also correlate with the increased land loss and increased salinity in the marsh after 2005?

Come on Waltrip. The proof is there that the weirs were working. Quit trying to argue that they weren't.

He isn't serious... Can't be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OnePunchRex]

Originally Posted by T-TOP

He isn't serious... Can't be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He is serious, the guy is a walking delusional contradiction packed in a little body with Napoleon syndrome.

["W"]

The "committee " hired the quacks to take the heat while the "committee " gets ready for duck season


Keeping Grand bayou open is not going to affect that marsh

Did you hear how many times they said " could"

["W"]

Before Rita and Ike the weirs stayed open 90% of the time

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by "W"

Before Rita and Ike the weirs stayed open 90% of the time

Maybe so. Doesn't explain the difference between pre-1988 and post-1988.

None of that changes the fact that after the weirs and levee were in place, the land change was reversed, and land was gained. None of that changes the fact that salinities decreased after the levee and weirs were in place.

Where does it stop? All of your arguments are still proving false. After the weirs were installed, land was gained, salinities decreased. What else could have caused that? Hmmm? Can you find anything else that could have?

[jlincecum]

y'all can argue weirs open weirs closed all day long. you can argue that the plan in place works or it doesn't. key point that Chuck and the lady with the severe head lean made last night is that the plan depends on fresh water for the marsh. The biggest factor in all of this that doesn't get brought up in weir discussion is the fact that the southwest portion of the main lake is now blown wide open. The salinity levels will never get down to a low enough level for a long enough period of time to make a difference in the marsh. If it does none of us will be worrying about fishing because we will be watching our homes wash away from flood waters coming down the river and 1000 year rain storms. They need and are depending on rain, straight from their mouths, RAIN. great plan in my opinion. Focus needs to be shifted from finding problems and pointing fingers to finding solutions for the problems

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by jlincecum

Focus needs to be shifted from finding problems and pointing fingers to finding solutions for the problems

I completely agree. That's why I think MG's approach to this is a smart one, but he can't do it alone. I'm going to help him as much as I can, but I'm walking on floatant by getting in this. For reasons that MG understands, I've got to tread lightly, so we need all the vocal support we can get.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by jlincecum

Focus needs to be shifted from finding problems and pointing fingers to finding solutions for the problems

Right, but even recognizing certain phenomena as real problems necessarily includes implicit suggestions regarding responsibility for those problems.

Recognizing historical long term saltwater intrusion and land loss implicitly suggests fault with dredging such a deep and wide ship channel with inadequate mitigation strategies. Recognizing recent land loss and saltwater intrusion implicitly suggests poor weir management from 2005-2011.

Recognizing oyster reef destruction since 2005 implicitly suggests inadequate regulatory oversight by LDWF and LWFC as well as mistaken priorities by local conservation groups pushing other agenda items. It also implicitly suggests that local oyster harvesters have put profit over habitat conservation.

"Finding solutions for the problems" requires parties that have erred in past policies and priorities shift their focus and make concerted efforts to address the problems. The required shift in focus is unlikely for parties that remain in denial about past mistakes.

Real progress is unlikely if CCA and LDWF continue to focus on management by limit reduction when the real priority needs to be habitat conservation. We have a generation of anglers who have been deceived that reducing limits is a sound method of "doing something for conservation" when the preserving the habitat is much more important.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Recognizing historical long term saltwater intrusion and land loss implicitly suggests fault with dredging such a deep and wide ship channel with inadequate mitigation strategies.

I feel it is important to note, lest someone try to take these words out of context, that the weirs were put in place as the mitigation strategy. Dredging operations and saltwater intrusion have continued, but from 1988-2004, marsh was gained. This was due to the system put in place.

Recognizing recent land loss and saltwater intrusion implicitly suggests poor weir management from 2005-2011.

I would partially agree with this. While the weirs were mismanaged from late 2005 through 2011, these were not the primary cause of landloss in the Cameron-Creole watershed. Many reports have been released on the land loss across the coastal zone from 2005 to 2008, and land loss across the entire coastal zone was substantial during this time. In the Chenier Plain, from 2004 to 2008, there was an approximate loss of 433 square kilometers (roughly 106,000 acres). So land loss was not unique to the Cameron-Creole, and the primary cause was not the weirs.

Now, switch the subject to salinity change in the Cameron-Creole, and you can attribute this to the mismanagement of the weirs. There was clearly a trend of freshening conditions in the Cameron-Creole after 1988. What is the one thing that changed? The installation and operation of the weirs.

Can some of the land loss from 2005-2011 be attributed to the weirs? Certainly, but I'm certain it is not the overwhelming majority of that, but more likely a small percentage.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Can some of the land loss from 2005-2011 be attributed to the weirs? Certainly, but I'm certain it is not the overwhelming majority of that, but more likely a small percentage.

You're probably right. Perhaps the more detrimental impact of leaving the weirs open from 2005-2011 is that it allowed anglers' skills to deteriorate as they became overly dependent on the effect of open weirs concentrating fish in locations were they were easy to find and catch.

Easy pickings at the weirs diverted angler attention from the destruction of essential oyster reef habitat on the E side (mostly summer 2010) and created the widespread misperception that wide open weirs are an essential part of sufficient forage in the lake, when the reality was more just making fish easy to catch.

The weirs were open far less in 2014, yet 2014 is the year where we've observed the best fish condition in specks and redfish. It seems that ample forage is entering the lake through the narrow fish slots, from the open Gulf, and being produced in the main lake itself without the need to put the marsh at risk with dangerously high salinities from keeping the weirs open.

[OnePunchRex]

Math geek, you've made multiple great suggestions, just wondering if you've considered the lobbyist route to deal with oyster situation. I'm sure the oyster fishermen have one they use, maybe look into obtaining a counter?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by OnePunchRex

Math geek, you've made multiple great suggestions, just wondering if you've considered the lobbyist route to deal with oyster situation. I'm sure the oyster fishermen have one they use, maybe look into obtaining a counter?

My view is that it is better for scientists themselves to provide data and sound science that may suggest certain policy changes, but it is better for more direct stakeholders to have the more assertive role in advocating for those policy changes.

CCA has the clout and bank account to go the lobbyist route at the magnitude that is likely required for success. ($12M annual budget and a dozen TX residents pulling in six figure salaries.) Lobbyists are expensive.

Grass roots movements can be much more cost effective, especially when they are joined by existing organizations with the clout and $ for legislative action.

[CajunGuy]

Y'all don't get it: CCA doesn't need to hire a lobbyist because it IS a lobby organization.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by CajunGuy

Y'all don't get it: CCA doesn't need to hire a lobbyist because it IS a lobby organization.

CCA is a conservation organization. They have lobbyists; every large conservation organization has lobbyists (DU, Delta, Quail Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, N***, Sierra Club, Hipsters United, etc. etc. etc.). You have to have them to go and well..lobby to politicians. Politicians ultimately make the rules, so someone has to go and speak on the organizations' behalf to educate them on specific items.

An email to a senator or congressperson usually gets a very generic response, but when you go and sit down with that person, they get the point. It is what it is. You can write your congressperson all day, but a face to face meeting is a much better strategy.


nice first post, and welcome

that *** is N W T F by the way

["W"]

Small from 1988-2004 marsh was gained while the weirs were open 90% of the time . I can't ever recall in the 90,s of the weirs ever being closed

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by "W"

Small from 1988-2004 marsh was gained while the weirs were open 90% of the time . I can't ever recall in the 90,s of the weirs ever being closed

Prove it. Its easy to say something, its another thing to prove it.

They were also in a different Phase of operation, as I've previously pointed out. The current Phase does not allow for 90% openings.