How many have been to the Lake Charles CCA meetings and asked these questions there?

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Is membership required to attend the meetings?

The meeting last night was the first I saw advertised as open to the general public without requiring a banquet fee or membership. I believe in discussing the issues, but not in paying a group that is advocating poor policies.

I am a member but have not made a meeting. I do, however, plan on making them now.

I don't think you have to be a member to attend, if I heard David Cresson right last night.

Now just need to find out when and where the meetings are.

If one of the LC Board members wants to PM me I'll be glad to post it on the site.

Almost 200 attendees last night and only 29 voters in the poll so far. Please vote.

don't think there was that many there from this site...

I voted last. Although I try to be optimistic, I'm voting realistically.

Not 200, but more than 30 I bet. And they may not all post on this site, but I suspect most of them visit and lurk. SC has a huge reach and a great reputation.

I suspect your results would be similar to what they are now. I'm amazed that there are this many people that think something will come out of this meeting. All I gathered was the Agencies stating what they are doing, and what they plan to do. I don't believe there was any honest interest in taking management advice from the general public (as there shouldn't be). If the majority were actually interested in the science, the discussion of the weirs would have had more of an impact that it has, as is evident by some of the responses about outdated management plans. Anything beyond the year the Management Plan was written is witchcraft.

wish I could be positive but I cant! Nothing will good will come of that meeting...

Where you there? I know you avatar is a pic of you but I can't tell...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are correct about the majority.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hope there will be change in the oyster regs. This from the comments and questions. Most didn't know how bad the data was.

There has been a steady decline since the dredging started. LDWF would not say they could draw a correlation in the data and nor will they. Too much politics involved there.

But I don't think anyone had seen the data before.

And you should have seen the cell phones come out when the posted pic of the oyster beds in the southern part of the lake. LOL.

I took a pick, but I promise, the map missed a lot and it aint near as big as they showed it to be.

Oyster has too much science

You can't change things with science for some reason only issues with out science or studies get changed on the fishing industry !!



Funny how the ones who shoved the 15trout limit and triple tail limit was no where to be found

A few of them were there. Should have said something, I would have introduced you.

I must be missing something from the meeting. The corp paid 20 million to put dredge material in black lake area. It was expensive to snake the pipe 4 miles so they put in a permanent pipe to make it easier next time. Now the black lake levees have failed as planned so why have the permanent pipeline. If they want to build land behind the weirs put the dredge material there so the marsh can flourish like they want it to. Get rid of Chuck and his crew that makes a fortune for making not one decision.
The lady from the corp has no idea where the ship fee for use of the channel goes. More ship traffic does not concern her. I say save" her" as she said many times 15 million and let the channel silk up. Then I bet the channel users would pay to have it dredged.
I thought the presenters did a great job and are very interested in keeping their gold mine. I trusted that the WLF oyster guy sincere and wants the reef to grow.
My last thought. Why didn't cca get people to speak that had the authority to do something. That's right those would be politicians that would rather be cutting a ribbon at a new dollar store.

You definitely missed something if you think they purposely don't make decisions. The Cameron-Creole Advisory Committee, which CPRA is not on, calls the shots; all CPRA can do is advise. CPRA wouldn't even be in that position if USFWS, who is on the Committee, had a backbone and didn't give up operational control over the weirs.

Don't let Chuck fool you. He tried to paint it like they were given control because it fell in their realm of expertise. That is not the case. CPRA became a separate entity from DNR in late 2005. They didn't assume their current "position" in regards to the Cameron-Creole until 2012. Know why? Cause USFWS had control, and got tired of taking all the flack from crabbers, shrimpers, and fishermen. So they said, find a new person to operate the weirs, we're taking our ball and going home.

What blows my mind is the black and white data showing the decline in oysters, and nothing is done about it. On the other hand, data shows that our trout numbers are fine, but they lower the limits for precautionary matters and social issues.

Not me. There was overwhelming support in SW La for the 15 limit, no matter that there was no science. Very little opposition and what there was, was not organized.

The oyster harvesters and the restaurant association is very organized, have money and influential people involved in them. That is why you won't here LDWF come out and say that the dredges are destroying the lake. Political suicide.

Is it right, hell no. But that is the facts of the matter.

Serious question! How is it that big lake is hit so hard by oyster harvest and its not even allowed in sabine? BL the only place on the west side being harvested for oysters?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Law on the books that doesn't allow Sabine to be harvested. This question was asked at the meeting.