Originally Posted by toodeep (Post 678891)

IF every boat that went out every day caught their limit. just using 100 boats. that would be 1000 trout left in the water everyday that have to eat only a given amount of food equal a dead lake in a few years.. the limit needs to raised to keep the fish and food supply in balance. fish are no different than deer. DMAP says you need to X amount of does to keep herd in check.

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 678871)

Actually, some rock walls along the ship channel would probably be effective in reducing saltwater intrusion into the marsh also, especially if they were a nearly unbroken line with just a couple of cuts to allow boat traffic to pass (like the jetties). If this can be pitched as the primary motivating factor (along with erosion control) it might even be possible for some of the BP money to be redirected to the project.

It makes more sense from a cost and long term maintenance viewpoint than attempting a saltwater barrier across the channel at the jetties. The basic idea is to maintain more of a gradient with saltier water being kept in the channel, and lower salinities in the lake. If salinities in the lake were lower, then the weirs could be open more days each year to allow bait and fish to flow back and forth between the lake and the marsh. Looks like many parties could win in this arrangement, protecting the marsh from saltwater intrusion, protecting the banks from erosion, and maintaining and improving the inshore fishery.

Originally Posted by jchief (Post 679066)

One thing on this, I have also heard about them proposing to dredge the channel and put the spoil in the lake inside a rocked in area as they are doing on the channel now. There was a plan to fill in almost all of the Long Point area with spoil several years ago.

Going to have to keep an ear open to this.

Industry is the ones who pay to keep the channel open and at depth now. Long term, the rock will be cheaper than dredging, but it will take a while for them to finish what they started.

Originally Posted by Goooh (Post 679150)

Industry does not pay that, it is the Army Corps of Engineers via our tax dollars. They have allocated $10mm for the widening of a few miles this year.

You can call 504-862-1759 to find out when pertinent meetings will be held to voice your concerns and ideas.

Big business doesn't pay for anything, the govt pays for this stuff due to the economic impact of hindering the businesses that rely on the channel. They are there because of the channel, and only because of it - let the channel close up, and the businesses leave along with all their jobs and money....

Originally Posted by T-TOP (Post 679155)

All of the local industies that share the ship channel, share the cost of dredging the channel. citgo, conoco, PPG, LNG etc. When I say dredging I mean maintaining the depth of the channel for ship traffic. The large dredge barges that we see every year in the channel dredging. I am not sure about the widening of the channel.

Originally Posted by mstulb (Post 679324)

Weirs decrease baitfish and shrimp, which in return harms fish #'s. W.C., Sabine, Trinity, Baffin, Corpus all have free flowing marshes. It blows my mind how you can shut off the migration of shrimp and finfish from the breading habitat with a private weir system ON A PUBLIC LAKE!!!!!!

Dredging ruined spawning habitat, natural oyster reefs for feeding, and was completely unnecessary. Why in the world was this allowed at a time when pasturized oysters have taken over the market( mainly due to lack of risk to consumer). It was not like there was a drastic increase in oyster demand or lack of supply so why.? It makes no fiscal sense on a lake that is funded threw licensing by recreational fisherman.?

Originally Posted by mstulb (Post 679324)

Weirs decrease baitfish and shrimp, which in return harms fish #'s. W.C., Sabine, Trinity, Baffin, Corpus all have free flowing marshes. It blows my mind how you can shut off the migration of shrimp and finfish from the breading habitat with a private weir system ON A PUBLIC LAKE!!!!!!

Dredging ruined spawning habitat, natural oyster reefs for feeding, and was completely unnecessary. Why in the world was this allowed at a time when pasturized oysters have taken over the market( mainly due to lack of risk to consumer). It was not like there was a drastic increase in oyster demand or lack of supply so why.? It makes no fiscal sense on a lake that is funded threw licensing by recreational fisherman.?

Originally Posted by mstulb (Post 679324)

Weirs decrease baitfish and shrimp, which in return harms fish #'s. W.C., Sabine, Trinity, Baffin, Corpus all have free flowing marshes. It blows my mind how you can shut off the migration of shrimp and finfish from the breading habitat with a private weir system ON A PUBLIC LAKE!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Reefman (Post 679360)

I have to agree that rebuilding the wash-out/ 9 mile cut area along with the rebuild cuts into West cove (both) from the Ship channel would be #1 priority. Second would be a band on dredging oysters....only tonging allowed by local oystermen..no out of state. Re-seeding of historic oyster beds with no harvesting for at least 4 years. Get the lake to what it was 15 years ago. With decrease salinity coming from the ship channel the weirs can be left open for longer periods without harm to marshes. This can be done with the majority of fishermen agreeing and present it to WLF along with endorsements from CCA. Grass roots effort must start from us...who's gonna head it up?

Originally Posted by Jadams (Post 679361)

I vote for the resident midget


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Jadams (Post 679363)

Although we will need a translator to interpret his spelling and grammar


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by jchief (Post 679266)

This is correct.

Originally Posted by Reefman (Post 679366)

Ratdog!

Seriously, a start up committee of 5 LOCAL fishermen, guides carry the most influential knowledge along with anyone working with State biologist in the BL estuary; along with local fishermen who have political connections. The involvement of CCA would help pave the way.

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 679417)

That is incorrect, COE has sole responsibility of all waterways in our area; dredging is one. You boys bash CCA on one thread and want them to get involved on another, please make up your minds on this. CCA is either satan reincarnate or Moses parting the seas. No organization,church,corporation,wife or boss is going to march lock step with everyone all the time. Those who don't support CCA now never did or will in the future. So many here think they know what's going on but very few actually have a clue.

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 679417)

That is incorrect, COE has sole responsibility of all waterways in our area; dredging is one. You boys bash CCA on one thread and want them to get involved on another, please make up your minds on this. CCA is either satan reincarnate or Moses parting the seas. No organization,church,corporation,wife or boss is going to march lock step with everyone all the time. Those who don't support CCA now never did or will in the future. So many here think they know what's going on but very few actually have a clue.

Originally Posted by Top Dawg (Post 679466)

I did support CCA but do not now. It's time they start doing something besides lining their pockets and help the recreational fishermen instead of lobby against us.

Originally Posted by T-TOP (Post 679443)

Raymond, I know at least one local refinery contributes to the dredging of ship channel. The Coe May do it, or supervise the work but there are funds coming from the local companies paying at least a share of it. I have seen the numbers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Top Dawg (Post 679478)

CCA said themselves they were lobbying for the 3tail restrictions. Not sure who's on the koolaide here.

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 679486)

How many trips have you caught? Please tell me how many fish are enough for a limit?
Please stay on topic, we are discussing your knowledge of dredging and who pays for it.

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 679486)

How many trips have you caught? Please tell me how many fish are enough for a limit?
Please stay on topic, we are discussing your knowledge of dredging and who pays for it.

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 679430)

Why reinvent CCA? We don't publish what we do behind the scenes before it happens. Govt/industry consults CCA, we consult guides & members affected and make suggestions. Y'all can't agree on the best *** wipe but always agree that CCA is the bad guy all the time.

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 679484)

Pretty easy to find my office, Please email or drop off those facts and figures.

1. If industry takes over dredging of the channel, the Feds will never budget money for dredging ever again.

2. If your really in the loop, you wouldn't be talking out of school on an Internet board about company policy.

3. Say the word and I will get us a meeting with the port of LC, US Fish, COE & CCA to discuss your concerns.

4. Public knowledge, requests for total dredging $$ and actual dredging $$ is never the same.

5. Please introduce yourself at the next port authority board meeting.

Originally Posted by Jadams (Post 679520)

Attachment 65991 Bc of meat wh#res like this lol... A member of cca won't name him but he saw this and said I can assure u they'll have a limit next yr! 3 tail have the least amount of research done on them ever they have no idea how many there actually are...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by T-TOP (Post 679508)

It's not company policy Raymond. It's pretty much common knowledge. I'll say this again... Local industry pay large amounts of money for dredging. Strictly dredging to keep the depth of the channel navigable for ships. I have no idea what you are trying to say...
Do you have any idea how much local industry pays the port of LC to dump dredging spoils in the leveed areas along the ship channel?? It's a lot!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by T-TOP (Post 679704)

That's odd because we dredge the ship channel several times per year in front of our facility, and we pay for it.

I think we may be talking about 2 different issues..

Every one knows that the COE reigns supreme Raymond.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 679729)

There is "Supposed to be a lock box" that contains the tariffs charged to each ship off loading on ship channels pays and those monies are used (supposed to be dedicated for dredging) for maintenance dredging on an annual basis. We recieve very little of that money and beg for what we do get.

I miss Judice Inn

Originally Posted by Raymond (Post 679729)

There is "Supposed to be a lock box" that contains the tariffs charged to each ship off loading on ship channels pays and those monies are used (supposed to be dedicated for dredging) for maintenance dredging on an annual basis. We recieve very little of that money and beg for what we do get.
I miss Judice Inn

Originally Posted by Goooh (Post 679712)

Are you dredging the navigable waterway between markers, or is this an offshoot of the channel or an easement owned by your company?

Industry does not pay or manage dredging of waterways like ICW or ship channels... Just like Judice in can't decide to just re-do Johnston street in front of their restaurant, but can do whatever they want with the parking lot.