Hahahahaha....:rotfl:

This dude can always lighten it up with a little humor.

^^^ this right here.

So realistically is there any chance in the limits being returned to what they once were? Seems like lsu or someone could do a study do provide some hard data to show that we are losing reefs and land rapidly. I know land loss maps show this clearly but do you really think they will do something to change it?

Once the government taketh away. They do not giveth back

"What I am against is anybody pushing for regulations without adequate science to back up their position."
Meaux fishing

Guides do it all the time. You don't have to be a "scientist" to have valid position on a subject. In fact, I think common sense (which isn't so common) trumps scientific studies sometimes. What works on paper doesn't always work in the real world. Do y'all really think the decrease in the limit in an open estuary system like Calcasieu is effecting the fishing that much? Sabine has had a lower possession and larger size limit for a long time and everyone is running over there to fish now. Could have more to do with weirs, erosion, etc. than the limit but I'm not poor or a scientist so what do I know.

i look at the stars all the time, moon also... yet i dont wanna tell people what needs to be done on the international space station because i stayed at a holiday in express.

Sabine has not had their oyster reefs destroyed.

Usually factors work together to negatively impact a situation. In Calcasieu, the biggest factors negatively impacting specks are (in no particular order):

1. Oyster reef destruction
2. Speck limit of 15 (lowered from 25) leading to overpopulation of specks relative to their food supply and slower growth rates
3. Management of weirs preventing flow of forage from marsh to lake
4. Erosion degrading habitat for peak forage production
5. Overpopulation of black drum (destroying oysters and reefs)
6. Overpopulation of red drum (competing for limited forage)

The biggest error in CCA thinking is that sport fish are the main resource. Habitat is the main resource. Protecting what the fish eat is more important given the current dynamics. CCA is trying to produce more beef by shoving 400 cattle into a 100 acre pasture. All they are doing is destroying the grass and lowering the overall production.

Just like the cattle would bust down the fences in an overpopulated pasture, the specks have started hanging out in nearby waters where there is better grass (more forage).

I know guides do it, look back at the article W posted, that doesnt mean its right. No I dont think it is affecting the fishing, fishing in any estuary system goes in cycles in my opinion. I also agree what works on paper doesnt always apply in application, but when the experts say there is no reason to lower the limit, then why do it? If you fish alot and dont want to keep 25 fish everytime you dont have to, I dont understand why somebody feels like they have to "save a resource" when it isnt in trouble.

boom

Since there are multiple factors in play, multiple steps are needed to improve the fishery in Calcasieu, with a focus on habitat. Here is what I recommend:

1. Raise the limit on specks back to 25. Remove the limit on black drum (including the commercial limit). Double the limit on redfish (10, including two bulls). This will reduce pressure on the oyster reefs and the food supply.
2. End oyster dredging. The oyster reefs provide essential ecosystem services and habitat for much of the food web at lower trophic levels.
3. Line the lower channel with stout rock walls to control erosion and saltwater intrusion. Only have a couple of narrow cuts between lake and channel for boats to pass.
4. Once the salinity in the lake is lower, you can open the weirs for most days each month.
5. Ban tagging of all species for non-scientific purposes.
6. Insist that all future limit changes be based on scientific data assessing the population of all dominant species relative to their food supply.
7. Place a bounty on bull drum to protect the oysters. Perhaps allow an additional limit of specks or reds for each bull black drum in possession.

I promise this is not a smart a$$ question, but what does tagging have to do with anything?

Maybe if the weirs were gone, they wouldn't have to compete so hard for their food. It's crazy that sabine is good right now and BL has been terrible lately. No weirs in Sabine and oyster reefs that aren't destroyed. To me it's pretty clear that these issues need to be taken care of.

Is everything that Cajunmade said B.S.?

It's just something he doesn't like. Think of it as a ear mark on a bill.


Spiral Out

Can anybody tell me what monetary or political gain cca leadership, or politicos involved in these limit reductions have received? Just trying to locate the money trail. I know that a certain guide service was documented supporting limit reductions. But does one guide service have enough stroke to change things like this? Also I keep hearing "WD"..... how or what would he personally gain from these decreases? This b.s. is happening in tx to a greater extent, and I'm trying to understand who benefits from these changes, and what motivates cca to back it up even when a lot of the membership clearly disagrees with it. I know the answer is $$$$, but I'm not smart enough to figure out who's getting paid and who is footing the bill? Maybe yall are?

It is not in the interest of true conservation to have the lobbying groups in bed with the LDWF. CCA supports license fee increases. LWF Commission passes restrictions with no scientific support and LDWF approves redfish tagging needed for tournament in which CCA generates most of their annual revenues. LDWF should not be giving perks CCA.

Any group should be free to hold a tournament, and any fishing tournament will involve some luck. But the redfish tagging removes all the skill and is functionally equivalent to winning the lottery rather than the more reasonable tournament goal of catching the biggest fish.

The whole "tagged redfish" deal is to circumvent rewarding big bull reds and suggests a long term motive to restrict angler liberties to keep bull reds. CCA has actively campaigned for more restrictive redfish limits in TX and FL, and in the long term I fully expect them to eventually lobby for more restrictive redfish limits in LA.

LDWF should not be assisting with fundraising for a lobbying group focused on restricting angler liberties. This is what the tagged redfish contest amounts to. The "lottery" aspect of the STAR tournament is one of the big challenges to an effective boycott.

they are saving us from ourselves, because its the "right thing to do"

They are the democrats of coservation

CCA raises most of their $$$ from the STAR tournament. A number of positions within CCA are paid. The STAR tournament is possible because the state wildlife agencies approve the tagging and other aspects of the tournament.

It is a back scratching fest. The state agencies support CCA fundraising efforts (redfish tagging, tournaments), and CCA supports license increases and more restrictive regulations. More restrictive regulations carry the illusion of conservation progress to keep the fundraising cycle going.

MathGeek is on a rolllll

What he said. Stop making new laws to feed the never ending cycle of inforcement.
Or there will be turits on LwF patrol boats.

Honestly mg...sounds kinda weak...not saying that you are wrong at all, I just think there is something more sinister than the "illusion of conservation progress" that's driving this. Especially when the TPWD hosted local (Port Arthur) public meeting on decreasing the flounder and trout limits here in TX had 0% support, and it still passed by a landslide because CCA backed the recomendation. How does CCA directly benefit monetarily from lower limits? I, like many on this site, will not be chipping in this year, which I think would be a negative impact on their bottom line???

Yeah. Right on.
Prison guards shouldn't lobby to keep laws that the majority of citizens don't like either.


Spiral Out

Everyone, even special interests should be free to lobby the legislature for the laws they think are right. This is just free speech and due process.

But wildlife regulations that are set by an executive branch bureaucracy should be subject to stricter scrutiny because they have the force of law (criminal penalties) without the benefit of due republican processes.

When a lobbying group gets too cozy with an executive branch bureaucracy and the bureaucracy is protecting the lobbying group's cash cow, and the lobbying group is supporting revenue increases for the bureaucracy, then due process and transparent government has been circumvented. The tight relations between CCA and LWF Commission has essentially shut out both scientific data and meaningful input from other stakeholders. Prying the lovers apart is the next step in making progress.

Got some great news, just talked to a guide who said the weirs are all closed up, awesome full moon great tides

Choke lake out again

1,000% agree with everything on that list and it is well thought out and all will have the desired resulting impact except for #7 and I would amend #1 part "b" as it pertains to red limits to reduce the size limit to 14". I only keep 16-18" reds because those are the best eating and I would love to have a 14-18" slot to be able to keep because finding something in that 16-18" slot isn't easy to do.

I think promotion of black drum as good to eat and a strong effort to get people to stop calling it and treating it as trash fish will do more to get people to start keeping and eating them and "maybe" even targeting them as a food item. this can and should be done weather they make any changes to the present system or not but there needs to be a change in peoples opinions of black drum as good to eat so people start removing them from the water.

I just don't see the bounty idea being feasible or practical and you definitely cant double other limits as a reward without having cheaters keep one big drum in the freezer so every trip they just bring it with them to be able keep double limits. i'll admit it now that if that were the system I wouldn't be able to resist the urge to cheat as I described because my fishing activities provide me with a much needed and depended on food source.

The LWF commission is composed almost entirely of CCA members... Coincidence? I think not

ok....so how does LWF comission directly benefit monetarily from decreasing the limits? I've been thinking about this for a while....can't figure it out....Could there be very wealthy fishermen and or guides willing to make large contributions to CCA and politicians campaign funds just so they can say they caught a limit? This seems unlikely to me...but its the best I've come up with. Who stands to benefit from the average joe only keeping 5 triples or 15 trout instead of 25? And why would he be willing to pay big money for it?

Bull drum have a lot of meat and are not hard to catch. If I were fishing mainly for meat I think I would tend to target them first on most days out. Targeting bull drum would also produce significant catch of reds and gafftops also. It's just not that hard to catch a lot of meat in a little time once you have a bit of experience targeting them. Guys who run trot lines can catch thousands of pounds of drum every day. Remove the limit on drum and no one fishing in Big Lake would ever be hurting for meat.

Who stands to benefit from the average joe only keeping 5 triples or 15 trout instead of 25? And why would he be willing to pay big money for it? I think this answer is the beginning of the solution.

Average Joe truly believes that he is doing his part for conservation by embracing the new limits. Giving money justifies the right for him to harvest fish/game. Look at DU and Delta...the more ya give the more you might be able to shoot!

I really think they believe that they know what is best for everybody, so they will use their influence to "help" the state

Well let's see. As we all know there are good great and stinky years,there are good great and stinky days. Drop the limit on a stinky day year and in the next great good day year saturate the water with patroles and rack up on fines. Oops I miss counted by one fish osifer and you pay hefty fine and at the rate it's going the fine will increese too. I wonder why w&f needs so many bullets they have requested.? In my day flack jackets and armed patrols were never seen . Has regulation gotten so tight the people are fighting back?
I wonder as mentioned too many organizations involved in one.


So I support the law that if you work for any branch of LWF you can belong to no other organization due to conflict of intrest and jail time pen. An fines. Not even the boyscouts. Let's limit there associations as they limit my meals.

Stop the armed patrols

Set a moratorium on new regulations and allow only new regs with sound multi year data.

Allow the natural flow of water to return to areas and stop the stoppage without sound data

Make them educate the public by only allowing expenditure of funding for news paper articals and commercials about species as they might educate themselves more.

Heck I have not run into a LWF agent unarmed or armed that could give the same info other than call this number. What use is that other than a hired gun and phone book. I'm not jokeing and if you are WLF and you have your feelings hurt becouse of that statement then I'm sorry don't tase me bro.

Lastly has every one in a government position traded common sence for a pay check. Or there respect for other living humans for a screwed up law.

Shame shame shame lets fix this and if it were to happen from within I might gain respect again but to use enforcement to make money and laws to increese inforcement then dang it's hopeless now.

I am so worried that one day ,might not be in my life time but just the stepping aboard a boat will constitute the intention to go fishing and you go to jail . Is itmy intention to catch fish yes . Is it my intention to follow the rules yes as best I can as there are so many conflicting . Is it my intention to follow the laws ...I better as the rules are now laws inforced with guns.

Evidence that the weirs are not being operated the way they were meant to.

If the weirs were operated properly, the fisheries population would not be negatively impacted. The weirs were supposed to open around new and full moon, and remain open for a period before and after the date of the full or new moon.

Sadly, that appears to not be the case.

Took the east bank up just now coming back in and every weir is closed shut


How are shrimp and bait fish suppose to supply the lake if you choke it to death!! If we get another summer with the life support shut off were going to be in a world of hurt

Just heard the same thing. That is unreal. All the recent rains and strong north winds and they are closed. If they aren't open now, when are they ever going to be open?

Aren't "experts" controlling the weirs?

High school kids

Don't know who has control now, but it shouldn't matter who it is. There is a plan that was written that isn't being followed. Simple as that.

I was an "expert" in high school lol.

Did anyone call to find out why the weir is closed at Grand bayou or do you just like to get mad?

This closure is only temporary [2 1/2 days] due to expected strong north winds that would cause excessive drainage from the marsh due to very low water level in the lake.

It is scheduled to be opened on Friday.

Not the point

The rule is for them to be open on full and new moon


Last night was full moon and they closed then yesterday afternoon

that would let too much salt in and kill the mosquitoes

There are no set, steadfast rules. Its an adaptive management plan, set in place to manage the marsh, not the fishery. Is the fishery managed as well? Of course it is, but the primary objective of the weirs was to manage salinities in the marsh.

Typically, the weirs would open around the moons to allow ingress and egress. But the conditions were not right for that initially.

How did this thread degrade into another "W hate weirs" discussion? Who said the word "weirs"?

Smalls, Don't confuse them with facts!!!!! LOL

I'm not sure why they built the levee and put the weirs in, so I won't try to act like I know. However, I feel like the marsh versus the lake should come into play. It seems to me that the lake is hurting far more from having the weirs put in than the marsh would hurt without them. If, and I said if, the weirs were put in to manage the grasses in the marsh in order to help attract waterfowl and other bird species, I feel that is far less important than choking off the lake of one of it's major bait sources. Waterfowl have the whole gulf coast to find marshes and farmlands to thrive in. The fish have one lake, and if they cannot find food they will not be there.

I really hope there is more to the weirs than I can understand, because as of now they seem to be a bust in my opinion. Sabine has no weirs, and everytime i fish it in late winter the marshes off of the east bank of Sabine are loaded with teal, greys, pintail, widgeon, and mottle ducks. There is also plenty of grass in the marshes off of Sabine.

Since the weirs, we have seen a huge redfish kill a few years back, and trout fishing diminish more and more every year. I sure hope the ducks are thick back there, because they were really thick in that marsh before the weirs.

Someone please explain the benefit of the weirs to this point, and all of the reasons for the weirs being there.

Weirs nothing more than Lake Killer!!

Rita took em out for a reason!!

The purpose is for rich duck hunters to have wedgion grass for hunting season
That is 100% fact

For years the weirs stayed open year around never being closed off until duck hunters started having bad years and pumped money into a control issue that they needed Wedgion grass for duck hunting


Now Wedgion grass > estuary

Preventing marsh destruction by limiting saltwater intrusion is a long term win for all stakeholders.

The challenge is doing it in a way that allows a high level of flow between the lake and marsh.

Right now, the flow between the lake and Gulf are too high. The high salinity levels and large tidal fluctuations in the lake are problematic if the coupling between the lake and marsh are higher (weirs open more).

The answer is reducing the flow and coupling between the lake and Gulf. One option is a saltwater barrier at the pass. I think a better option is lining each side of the channel with a solid rock barrier with only a few shallow cuts to allow passage of recreational boats. The system is too dynamic to have sharp demarcations between fresh and salt water. The ship channel can be the saltiest. The lake more brackish, and the marsh more on the fresh side.

Had the weirs been opened on Tue night, the extreme low tide would have allowed all the water to drain out and the following high tides would have pushed way too much salt back into the marsh. We need a plan that will allow the weirs to be opened 7-21 days each month. The present high level of coupling between the lake and the Gulf is much too high for that.

We need something like the fish ladders they use on dams to keep the salmon migration flowing.

Water is controlled, bait flows back and forth.