You blow **** way out of proportion? Where have I ever said that? Find where I've said that. When have I ever said I was an "expert"? I haven't. Never tried to, just merely speaking from research and experience.

What makes you an expert on the marsh? Because you fish over half a year? How does that make you an expert on the marsh?

Funny that you want limits based on research, but yet when someone is speaking from research on a topic, its not true.

Where's the research??? U learned different types of grass making 15$ hr planting grass??? Show me an acreage land loss rate pre weir and post weir.... That's research... We don't need dr. Zeus encyclopedia on types of grasses


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's not even joke about this.

Blowing up any water control structure will be treated as an act of domestic terrorism. Being found illegally possessing explosives anywhere in the Calcasieu Estuary will be suspected as such.

How far up your butt do you want the FBI and BATFE?

Blowing stuff up without all the proper permissions and permits will be treated as a federal matter. Any damage that might result to a NWR will be tacked on as additional charges in addition to the explosives violations and domestic terrorism prosecutions.

Are you under illusions that this kinda crap is not exactly what Eric Holder's justice department is waiting to pounce on?

Please, please don't go there.

So I take it ur a no go on a donation?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm just going to throw this out there because no one has really mentioned it...

Could it be that the erosion in the lower ship channel (9-mile/supercut) area over time has increased the need to keep the weirs closed more over time?

Maybe the weirs were a proactive approach to land loss and as the erosion has gotten worse and worse over the years there is a greater and greater need to keep the weirs closed more often. Does anyone have any average salinity reports from both sides of the weirs from when they were first constructed until current dates? I think that would be interesting to see and add a lot to understanding the issues here.

Either way, It sounds like this is a very complex problem that isn't going to be fixed with dynamite.

Tannerite maybe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BOOM!!!! Poor ole bubble gums. Ole w doesn't even know what he has in his own backyard.

The closest I can get to that right now is a land/water analysis on the entire Calcasieu/Sabine Watershed. This is from data available on the CRMS Spatial viewer (http://lacoast.gov/crms_viewer2/Default.aspx), so if you want to check my numbers, please do so.

The total land area in the watershed in 1956 was 477,929 acres.

The total land area in 1988 (last year pre-weirs) was 370,089 acres.

The total land area in 2008 (last year of quantification) was 344,585.

So from 1956 to 1988, the rate of loss was approximately 3370 acres per year. From 1988 to 2008, the rate of loss was approximately 1275 acres per year.

That is across the entire watershed though. I will see if I can dig up some of the maps I've found that show the differences in land loss, but I'm not sure if I've ever come across any that just specifically analyze the cameron-creole.

Need 2008 to 2014 to make any kinda conclusion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What happened in 88 to prevent land loss???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How come CCA does not get involved with erosion or marsh restoration projects like it's mission statement says?

CCA has never helped on erosion problem on Big Lake in there history as far as I know?

Can a CCA sunshine pumper help us here get an answer? Or is it because they rather place a half million reef and call it good ( easy work load)

Who's buddy owned the construction company???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, the levee was constructed in 1983. Weirs went into operation 1989. 1988 was the closest date to those two to show any difference. If you look at 1956 to 1978 land loss (1978 was the only year in between '56 and '88 that was analyzed), the rate of loss was approximately 4639 acres per year. From 78 to 88, it was about 500 per year then.

I don't know where you're going to get a land loss analysis for the last 6 years. I haven't seen one. The sabine/calcasieu basin lost approximately 14,000 acres of land based on Barras's (2006) estimate of land loss after Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. There is another Barras publication from 2009, but it analyzes landloss over the entire Chenier plain and not by watershed.

In 1989 the weirs weren't opened and closed as they are now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Our tax money pays for that marshb,land and weirs and yet we can not access it as we please

The local economy from the weirs takes a hit also

My neighbor here at Heberts has two girls and is not a big fisherman be rather go behind the weirs and crab with family or fish for flounder. He spends around $300-500 a day when he is down here but when weirs are closed he never comes along with several other family's. If you want to manage them this way at least open on weekends and allow family's access and close Sunday night or close every night and open during daylight ( but that's is too much work and that is asking to much from our tax money)

W u run a haynie!!! PVC pipe on the levee hit 60 and trim up ! U got this!! Ol swamper Troy ain't got nothing on u!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Found out some goods... now it's all coming together.......wheeeeee this some good info and I will post his name when I find out his last name


Turns out the people who now contract the weirs are from Cameron and the head man who controls the weirs is a huge duck hunter in this marsh!!!!

Now you know the rest of the story!!

I know who had the contract last year. Can't remember the name of the company right now. Don't know who it is this year. Lets hear it Waltrip. I'm curious.

WOW! Good find! Answer to all questions as y'all said. Soooo.... What's the plan?


"Go ahead, share your opinion! I won't cry"

Smalls, no disrespect intended, is the marsh on the west side of west cove going to eventually erode up to hwy 27, or is it more of a saltwater marsh that can tolerate high salt content? Also, how much has west cove eroded since 1956 when the land loss data started being obtained?

These conversations used to consist of you and duck butter saying that the weirs aren't managed for "weigeon grass" but on this thread it turned into "it is a NWR and all NWR are managed for waterfowl."

If different people can obtain contracts to manage the weirs, how can we be so sure that they really are being used for their purpose of stopping erosion, and not just for the good of duck hunters in that marsh?

If the erosion issue is the number one priority for our estuary, and the answer to the west cove question is yes, then why aren't there weirs over there?

I completely understand the good intent behind the weirs, I just feel that if we could rock the ship channel, maybe mother nature ought to be left alone to do her thing.