Got it. Sending it to colleagues in an email to consider how much data/analysis/drafts we might share.

What kind of time frame are we talking about here? I mean are you talking about 30 or 40 years ago?

Historically, that area was probably not near as open as it is now. Most of the openings are due to hurricanes, salt stress, high water events, etc.

But the most that can be done from an ecosystem standpoint is being done. Without control over salinities in the lake, you have to get control over them in the marsh. If that marsh dies, you have no nursery, you have no duck habitat, you have no hurricane protection, and it is also a source of water for farmers and communities.

If you can get the lake conditions under control, maybe the weirs aren't as important to maintaining that marsh.

I've attached USGS salinity graphs for the last four years at Hackberry and in the lower Calcasieu. I'm not exactly sure of the lower Calcasieu sampling location, but it might be the station I've noticed at the fishing pier. The lake salinities by the weirs (SE corner of Big Lake, not the West Cove structures) are probably closer to the lower Calcasieu readings.

Notice how seldom these readings are below 5-10 ppt (parts per thousand) and how much time the salinity is above 20 ppt. Getting to full Gulf salinity (35 ppt) is a rare event and only occurred briefly in late summer/early fall 2011. Nevertheless, separating the lower lake from the ship channel is key in lowering the lake salinities which would allow opening the weirs more often to allow fish and bait to move more freely back and forth into the marsh to the benefit of both marsh and lake systems.

Less Than 10 PPT or Bust should be the new slogan for improving the fishery by opening the weirs more days per year.

You aren't accounting for the fact that the marsh, on average, is shallower than the lake. I have taken measurements of gulf strength water (35 ppt) behind the weirs, but the salinity on the lake side was around 24 ppt.

Less water, higher salt content. Include evaporation in that, and the salt content in the marsh is higher than that of the lake. Also, during low water events, soil salinity can become hypersaline, and there are very few plants on the earth that can survive those conditions.

Right. But all the salt originates from the Gulf. If management of control structures could ensure that more salt flowed out of the marsh over time than flowed back in from the lake (and the Gulf), then the salinity of the marsh would gradually decrease.

If the salinity in the lake were never above 10 ppt, the weirs could be opened more days per year and still attain lower salinity over time.

Now, I will agree with you there. The problem is figured on the means to an end. Until I see something saying they are going to rock the ship channel, I won't believe it. CPRA has never spoken of such a project, I've not heard anything from the Corps, and National Marine Fisheries has been ademantly opposed to any more rock being installed anywhere, because it "destroys fish habitat". This is word of mouth mind you, but that is the reason the proposal to rock the entire coast has continually been shutdown.

So if it isn't even on the radar for CPRA or the Corps, then when will that ever happen? No way anyone is doing it without them on board, because you are going to directly affect Coastal Resources (whether positive or negative) and a Navigable Water of the United States, which would require a public comment period, yatta yatta yatta, and Corps of Engineers approval.

Like all real progress, there may need to be a showdown between the state and the feds to get the project done.

I'm in the more scientific brainstorming stage right now. You gotta consider scientific validity sometimes before you get too entrenched and shut off ideas too early based on perceived bureaucratic viability.

This is still America. I hold out hope that scientific validity, public (stakeholder) interest, and financial interests can overcome bureaucratic roadblocks.

The feds are shooting themselves in the foot with the red snapper debacle and stuff like the BLM land grabs. Louisiana is positioned to assert itself and not let the feds twist their arm as the coast washes away.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it won't happen. But those are the organizations that would make it happen. If that were such a viable plan (which I believe it could go a long way to alleviating the salinity issue), I don't understand why that was not proposed instead of the salinity control structure that is currently proposed for the mouth of the Ship Channel.

Maybe it was looked at, and CPRA felt it was not feasible, or would not accomplish the same goal. Who knows.

The eroding marsh on the southeastern side of the lake... and it is significant - one of the worst hit areas in the state looking at the last geographic survey of the area....is a significant competing hypothesis in my opinion. If you're a trout angler - then you better be worried, especially since the electronic tracking studies indicate that the trout fishery on Big Lake is an estuary fishery. Research (mostly tagging) in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi point to trout as an estuary fishery. Some scientists here are under the opinion that only silver trout (some up to 6- and 7- pounds) remain mostly offshore. Here's an outdoor article that reviews some research in Texas...a very good review but it is opinionated by an avid speckled trout angler who I respect. But...if the speckled trout are only estuary-specific in Big Lake - my guess is we are heading into smaller limits (oh-ohhh I understand the problems with this). But if we don't have the biomass of stock in Big Lake that we used to (although LDWF hasn't given out that data since 2011 because of BP litigation), then fishing pressure may certainly be a factor. Most scientists here in La. are under the opinion that the trout coming into estuaries like Big Lake from the Gulf are not significant at all. Also, there is research in Texas that hypersalinities have killed trout in some estuaries. That finding was made in the 1950s where they experienced trout kills with hypersalinity. Nevertheless, here's the article. It's from a paid circulation website, but you may still be able to read it. http://www.texassaltwaterfishingmaga...ubpage429.html

Also, here's a link to the article by the scientist that Cochran responded to: http://www.texassaltwaterfishingmaga...ubpage315.html

Im talking last 15 years I have seen a dramatic change with it getting worse every year. Its not only me that has noticed.

Sent from my LGL45C using Tapatalk 2

Careful, you are contradicting Waltrip's whole argument that the weirs are for duck management.

easy....1911...those are his trophies...LMAO...Me and the kids threw back 6-8 of those last night....jussayin....my 10/yo boy is making the call nowadays. Dude is getting picky. Over 22 inches and back it goes. He says momma don't like the big ones. Cracks me up

It's sad nobody took the bait here

I've done creel surveys at Big Lake and in the Lafourche area. Not many folks are bringing in limits with any regularity. Most of the guys who put in at Bobby Lynns, Bridgeside, and Fourchon are not catching anywhere near limit of trout most of the time. Bobby Lynn and the guides he works with do it consistently, but they're really not fishing with clients 5 days a week most weeks. Most boats return to the ramp/dock with less than 10 specks. 50 trout in the box is a rare event. We've only seen 100 trout in a box once or twice.

In terms of anecdotal reports, I hear the same occurring in Venice and Lake P. MG, count yourself lucky to have the privelege to see some data that the press has been prohibited from seeing since 2011. As for as creel surveys, research on standardized oral interview validity is horrible. Many lie. Much better to have objective data. We need to have them counted in the cooler even when anglers say they didn't catch any. Same is true in AMA interview studies...haven't kept up with validity and reliability as such in field biological studies.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

MG

My memory may be bad.. But when all this was going down??? Sabine, BL. and Lake P. were being considered for Trophy Lake Status; if I'm not mistaken...There are lots of factors in the fishing on any lake or bay.. My experience say's, you ALL have VALID concerns..

But it's not just CCA to Blame, nor the oyster dredging, nor the ship channel or the weirs being closed.. Swimming Species are cyclical.. It can be a domino effect..

I think instead OF MOANING and *****ING!!!! Here is a Novel IDEA...

Why don't U all call UR area elected representatives for a meeting on BL concerns.. Call CCA LEADERSHIP FROM Lake Charles, From BR. CALL your LC WLF representative..

Present some of your graphs and finds on the different species U have studied. . Get a Saltwater WLF biologist there.. Ask him to look at some of your data..

Work to MAKE A DIFFERENCE..


While all is gathered there, find out what's the latest is on the dredging of the Channel??? ETC.. Ask intelligent Questions???

Another words, DO SOMETHING!!!!!!! STOP BIT--ING... I Didn't post this to Dis U or anyone.. Stop talking and DO SOMETHING..

U all are on the Defense OR being reactive.. Try being PROACTIVE..

As a safety consultant, with over 25 yrs experience, I'm proactive EVERYDAY AT WORK with over 300 construction PPL... If U need for me to EXPLAIN the Difference between the 2, PM me..