Heating up on new fees
 

This is from LSM but it's a great write up and the WL&F should release data to us

Money generated by a proposed increase in the saltwater fishing license fee is unnecessary to fund research on saltwater fisheries as officials with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries have attested, a retired biologist familiar with the budget told Louisiana Sportsman today.
“The (LDWF) Office of Fisheries has adequate revenues to conduct the game fish research and recreational fisheries creel that are used as justification for the (proposed) license fee increase,” said the retiree, who spoke only on condition of anonymity.
The proposal, which is slated to be discussed on the floor of the Louisiana House of Representatives tomorrow, would hike the price of a resident saltwater fishing license from $5.50 to $13 — a 136-percent increase.
LDWF’s Randy Pausina has said the money would be used to collect more-precise recreational harvest data than ever.
“It would give use the ability to look at all the species we need to manage, including the federal species, but more importantly state species like trout, redfish, white trout, sheepshead and everything else,” Pausina said earlier this month. “It would give us the ability to get more confidence, more precision in the data and run better stock assessments.”
The Coastal Conservation Association Louisiana supports the license fee increase, despite the fact that LDWF officials have refused to share their analysis of existing research data*since the BP oil spill.
And, the retired LDWF biologist said, personnel and funding already exist for such an expanded research program — if those resources were properly focused.
“… (T)he statement by Office of Fisheries personnel that additional research money was needed for marine sport fish is very misleading, because a very expensive marine research lab at Grand Isle was recently built using federal disaster funds and Rigs to Reefs money …,” he explained. “The lab has a large staff that the department manages, but current research priorities are targeted to offshore fish species that the federal government manages.”
The retiree also said expenses associated with a reorganization of the LDWF’s Office of Fisheries casts doubt on the need for new funding.
“We were initially told that there would be a new division using existing employees to increase cost efficiency by consolidating tasks,” he said. “However, the Office (of Fisheries) began an unprecedented spending spree that created large programs such as outreach, public relations (and the) new research lab, and sustainability (costs) and many new employees were hired.
“Consequently, funds were siphoned from the remnants of the old Marine Fisheries Division for other activities such as the historic fisheries independent sampling program ….”
Money associated with the BP oil spill exasperated that problem, he said.
“The BP sampling expansion, in my opinion, was used to obtain additional funds to fund the reorganization of the Office of Fisheries,” the retired biologist said. “(F)urthermore, it was not reduced to (previous) levels (when) the BP funds were no longer available or cut.
“Ample funds would be available to continue the new marine recreational fisheries creel (which I support) and also conduct research on marine sport fishes if the massive and very expensive fisheries reorganization had not taken place.”
The biologist also said he believes the proposed license fee increase might tied to the LDWF’s stated objective of building new saltwater fish hatcheries.
“I cannot verify but strongly suspect that another reason the department introduced the saltwater license fee increase was to fund future staffing needs for the soon-to-be-built saltwater fish hatcheries,” he said. “The department aggressively pushed that saltwater fish hatcheries be included for funding from the BP oil spill fines. These monies will fund the physical construction and administration for the hatcheries, but will not fund future operational costs.”
And, the experienced fisheries biologist said, no scientific reason exists for building saltwater fishing hatcheries — which is a controversial idea.
“There is no legitimate research validating saltwater fish hatcheries in the northern Gulf of Mexico,” he said. “Additionally, I cannot identify an experienced marine biologist from the academic or state side (who) would agree with a marine fish hatchery for stocking purposes.”
The retired biologist said his experience with the budget of the LDWF’s fisheries division points to the need for more transparency before rushing to provide additional money to the agency.
“The current budget of the Office of Fisheries should be subjected to detailed examination before any saltwater fishing license increases are approved,” he said.

Good read thanks for shareing W.

Sent from my LGL45C using Tapatalk 2

the part that scares me the most is this comment:

"It would give use the ability to look at all the species we need to manage, including the federal species, but more importantly state species like trout, redfish, white trout, sheepshead and everything else,” Pausina said earlier this month.

so let me guess, new limit restrictions will now soon be created for white trout, sheepshead and everything else? it must be in the "master plan" for them to want to "get more confidence, more precision in the data and run better stock assessments"

its good to know the truth behind the lies and that this whole money grab increase is just because they blew up the budget with the BP money and now don't want to go back to a regular normal sized budget that doesn't have a ton of money to waste on everything under the sun

Randy Pausina is the only person Im not worried about in fisheries management.

Sometimes I wish these guys would give their names. If this is someone like Mike Harbison, who I think just retired, that would be a HUGE blow to this thing. He's one if the most respected biologists in the state. That's the kind of voice that LDWF and CCA would not want opposed to this.

I could be wrong though. No telling who it is. Not sure if Mike did retire or not, but I thought I heard he may be.

Smalls,

I don't think it would be Jerald Horst because he didn't retire from the LDWF. Horst retired from LSU.

I hate anonymity too. I resent it because I have to put my name on everything I write and take the good and bad with it in journalism. Same held true when I published research in professional journals before I retired in psychology.
Most everybody knows who I am on here by looking at my profile.

To those of you who don't - it's Chris Berzas.

You know I can sort of understand anonymity if there were "life and limb" concerns.
This is fishing . . . but it is more than that for many - it's their livelihood and passion.

I had been sending emails to WL&F for last two years asking about the Lake Calcasieu SPR# and never got a answer.

After talking with Mr Chris I now know why, some belive they don't want people to know the fisheries are in good health and that would mean less BP sue money

Sad Sad Sad that our own WL&F black ball the people who pay their salaries

Scientists and bureaucrats can be pretty harsh when someone speaks and and doesn't toe the party line, especially with funding issues or sacred cows (environmental issues). I've had a long career, with mostly positive feedback from colleagues and administrators. But a couple of times the data just did not support the party line, and I was not quiet about it. I ended up with a bulls eye on my chest, so I understand the desire for anonymity.

Especially in the present case. This brave biologist is basically a whistle blower, calling out LDWF for poor planning and wasteful spending and giving testimony that might cost them millions in funding for "research." My name is firmly attached to all my published papers, including some material that has contradicted the "received wisdom" on some things. But seeing how Louisiana bureaucracies play this game, I think this biologist would likely be shunned from future research opportunities and would be panned in any grant proposals and a lot of peer-reviewers would dis his papers just for this move. He'd certainly be cited for possessing redfish past 3 miles.

The fisheries data should be available. We've asked and been turned down with lawyerly letters.

Our first LA fisheries study was assessing the inshore species in Terrebonne and Barataria bays the year after the spill. Things were a tiny bit down, but well within annual variations. The inshore species in Big Lake were actually significantly worse in 2011 than in the oil spill area.

Habitat loss and oyster reef issues are hurting the inshore species more than the oil spill ever did. I've also read many of the papers on other fishery impact studies, and other than the closures in 2010, lingering impact in following years is very small and hard to discern.

I sent my emails to our senators to vote NO
And we demand the WL&F to release data on our SPR#s

Dude this is enough you ***** more than any human on earth are you half woman. No offense to the women out there.

Simple don't like don't read

But looks like I made you read


Why u mad?

Not mad, agree with you on this one.

This is like reading the National Enquirer. Why is this even a story? There is always a person in disagreement with ANYTHING. Why not interview the other 99% of folks and get their opinions rather than the ONE who is against it?

Journalism has gone so far downhill, its why the current president got elected due to misinformation getting spread and a lack of journalistic integrity.

#draconiansanctions

That's why I said a name would be great with this story. If this is some Guy that spent his whole career just doing sampling or something, its no big deal.

But from the sounds of things, its not. This guy sounds like he was a biologist manager, possibly over the old marine fisheries program. This is a former biologist with an intimate knowledge of how WLF is set up.

Are you honestly saying this is misinformation? That this guy doesn't know what he's talking about? Sounds to me like he has a damn good idea of what he is talking about.

What's in a name? Famous question. A name gives these words a lot of weight. Or maybe not. Depends on the name.

Without a name, maybe its not a story. With a name, if could have blown this thing away.

I just want SPR#s that's all


Why hold this from us??

Giving the Big Lake spawning numbers without the rest of the state makes it clear that LDWF is witholding the other numbers preferentially.

Giving all the numbers runs the risk of some areas in the state looking worse than the oil spill areas.

A group at USM did a sampling project studying specks in the oil spill area back in 2011. They were in the area sampling fish for their field studies shortly before we were in 2011. They also did some lab studies. Their lab studies got published, their field studies got buried. The description of their work is here:

http://www.northerngulfinstitute.org...ct.php?pid=150

We have eager awaited release of their field results for three years. It has not been forthcoming. Their lab results shows some small reductions in growth when specks are exposed to oil and dispersants in the lab. I suspect their field results got buried because they did not show any problems with reproduction or growth associated with the spill.

I agree. The reasoning the biologist gives seems very sound. It is telling that no one is answering by giving a contrary view of the facts, but rather pretending that the fee hike has 99% support.

When I was an Air Force civilian employee, the opinions aired on funding issues were always in support of increased funding for Air Force projects. I was often in favor of cutting bloated DoD funding, but I tended to keep my opinions to myself at work. The sequester was particularly unpopular. I actually supported what the Republicans were trying to do in Congress, but there may have been negative consequences for speaking about it at work.

The appearance of support among a majority of state employees who are being paid from these funds should not be taken as overwhelming support.

I may not agree with the increase in fees, but I don't think this anonymous biologist knows his facts. Or perhaps he/she has some ax to grind. For one, the so-called monies he speaks of, that could be used for data research and analysis, come from the federal government which the Obama Administration has recently put mandates on, and has restricted the use by LDWF to the data it receives. Pausina has stated that a large part of the fee increase would be to replace the federal dollars that the state would no longer accept from the feds.

As for the money being used to possibly build saltwater hatcheries/research centers, that money has already been allocated from the BP settlement.

This is what I hate about anonymity: no way to cross-examine the "witness".

LDWF had had their own silly rules in refusing to share their own data since 2010. Why should anglers pay for data only LDWF gets to see? Data paid for with public dollars should not be hidden and secret.

Right, the claim is that the increased license fees would be used to staff and operate hatcheries that are not really needed. LDWF has enough employees already. We don't need to fund their empire build. They have enough resources already to manage the resources responsibly. They need to use those resources more responsibly which is unlikely if we just keep giving them more money.

I would bet that a great majority of fisheries supervisor biologists and managers are for the increase. We will never know what this guy did if he remains anonymous, remnds me of MathGeek just stirring crap up just for spite :grinpimp:

There are people that disagree with everything, I can't think of many things that go through 100% (besides the Coastal Master Plan). I think its a needed increase, everything else has gone up. Fuel is a huge expense in doing fisheries research and fuel has certainly gone way up.

My problem is just the journalism, they find ONE person that disagrees with something and then run with it rather than get opinions from several people and then make the story. They get it out quick, sit back, and then let the W's of the world (and gov't conspiracists like MG) spread it for them

You know the answer, you have received letters from attorneys. Its called a gag order.

Come on DB, do you really think anyone working for the state is going to come out and say they are opposed to something that their Employer is pushing? I can't imagine getting any current fisheries supervisor or manager to say that he is opposed to it, at least not with his name attached to it.

I'm not saying I'm opposed to it, but he does raise some valid points. That is why I said a name would make this more or less significant, depending on who said it.

I am saying its a non-story. Its what journalists do nowadays, find something that isn't a big deal, make a big deal out of it, and then let the people spread it for them. They are essentially trolling everyone, just to get some clicks on their website, the more clicks, the more $$$$$ they get for advertising:)

similar to all the 'breaking news' stories that are constantly out there. Most of it is just b.s but they add 'breaking news' to it and some hipster might actually read it:rotfl:

It is notable that those supporting the increase in fees have gone into attack mode rather that giving fact-based responses to the retired biologist's fact-based assertions.

Are you guys that are opposed to the increase in fishing license fees only opposed because you are not happy with what you think they will do with the extra money? I think these issues should be separated. The cost of a license needs to be increased from time to time to reflect current cost of living. Where that money is spent is a separate issue.

I think you should look at what the CPI was the last time the cost of a saltwater fishing license was raised and then look at the CPI today... I think you will find that EVERY THING in the world has gone up in price by WAY more than 136% in that time period... why should a fishing license be any different?

LDWF is funded with a number of revenue streams, not just license fees, so the argument that license fees should increase with the consumer price index is invalid. Their overall budget has grown by over 136% since the last change in the saltwater license fee.

But LDWF has represented that this increase is needed to allow them to take better data to better manage the fisheries. We are less than trusting in that representation for several reasons:

1. Dedicated funds are seldom used as promised in Louisiana. Note the robbing of the $26 million artificial reef fund.

2. The actual language of the bill does not dedicate the money to research, and LDWF would be at liberty to spend the money on anything on anything remotely qualifying as conservation, including likely using the money to staff new (unneeded) saltwater hatcheries and fund their operation. The money could also be used for any enforcement efforts related to conservation, including bigger rewards to catch violators who shoot whooping cranes.

3. LDWF has been secretive about their saltwater fisheries data for the past four years, even though this data was acquired with public funds. It would be dishonest to say that this data is under a "gag order" since no court has ordered keeping a lid on the data. The decision to keep the data secret comes from within the executive branch, and they could just as easily decide to share the data with all stakeholders and scientists. This situation is very similar to the EPA which is now refusing to provide the data upon which many of their restrictive policies and regulations are based. Why should we pay for LDWF to acquire more data to analyze in secret and proclaim support for more restrictive regulations? Government should be more open than this.

they are also true blue 100% supporters of CCA and anything it wants to do.

Last word I got on SPR# see dates

Thanks for your interest in spotted seatrout management. As you
are probably aware it takes several years after regulatory changes are
in place before those changes can be accurately measured in an
assessment. We are currently compiling any and all new information that
has been collected since our last full stock assessment in 2005 with
plans to complete a new assessment in late 2009 or early 2010. We will
be happy to provide you with those results as they become available.
Thanks again.



The Department's adopted a conservation standard is 18% static
SPR per biological examination of stock, as outlined below in the 2005
assessment. What this means is that we believe there is a possible risk
of adversely impacting recruitment if SPR is allowed to remain below
18%. In order to avoid going below the threshold, the department has
adopted the following conservation standard. For spotted seatrout,
fishing regulations should not allow cumulative fishing mortality rates
to reduce the spawning potential of a cohort on average below 18% static
SPR. This conservation standard is designed to stabilize the spawning
potential of a cohort at or above the median level found in the 1980's,
where existing evidence indicates that the spawning stock had not been
reduced to a level that would adversely impact recruitment.



The 2004 status of the stock, defined as the static SPR, is
14.5%, a substantial decline from the 20.9% SPR reported in 2000. This
is below the conservation standard of 18% described above.



Current assessment in 2005, with data through 2004. Static SPR
of 14.5%. We are currently in process of reviewing, updating and
modifying this assessment to include new information sources and
assessment methods.

Hi Keakar,

You must have not been there when they (the LDWF) fought strenuously against the anti- netting bill for speckled trout. They used every political punch they could muster - including the governor's office at times.
In fact, there was NO biology supporting a net ban for speckled trout. It was purely political, but I am happy CCA won.
Now there was another "speckled trout" group involved that supported the anti-netting bill.
They had some differences with CCA, but people generally belonged to both organizations . . . sorta like DU and Delta Waterfowl.
Anybody remember that trout association's name??? Something like "Louisiana Speckled Trout Association" I think.
And...the only reason "GCCA" changed its name to "CCA" was because there are now active chapters along the southeastern Atlantic Coast. That meant a change in name was necessary since the organization represented more coastal areas of the US than the Gulf Coast.

"W"....that's old data....correct?

when you requested data, you got a letter from an attorney correct? What did that letter say? Can you post it?

DB....many of us in the outdoor press to include indoor press have even filed FIA (Freedom of Information Act) letters to them. Their attorneys with the support of the courts say "Litigation is in process and we refuse comment at this time."

And...such is true whenever litigation is in process - especially one of this size with BP. The very last Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR) data available came from assessments in 2011.

I support CCA but do not agree with every single thing (100%) of what they do. I can't think of one single organization, or one person (mayor, senator, congressman, etc.) that I am in 100% agreement with either. Everyone has faults and every organization has faults as well. Anyone can sit back and point it out, its easy. I still don't see the need to have a conservation organization whose sole purpose is to attack another conservation organization, it divides all of us.

I agree with you.

yep, and that is why I question how people are coming up with their data when it is not available to the public at this time until the litigation is over.

Yes last one they sent, had to dig through emails to find it


They will not give 2010/2011 data

And in 2011, LDWF said it was between 8- and 14- percent. That's not saying much. We need that data based on samples in specific estuaries - not just statewide. Supposedly, the legislators are going to put pressure on LDWF to release data.

But remember, I think most of the reps are lawyers...am I correct?

So I will believe it when I see it.

It's not dividing anyone, it simply would give people a choice. You say you don't agree 100% with any politician you vote for, but you choose to vote for whoever you feel represents your views best. Same thing here, there is nothing at all wrong with it. If I feel that organization A will do better things with my money than organization B, I will side with them. Simple

What is so hard about giving us a SPR# own our own fisheries?

My letter was clear and still zero email back and don't try and call they are not available during working hours never. Funny they are always the ones in the field lmao

we are saying the same thing I believe but organization A should just come out with their mission statement of NEW ideas of what they plan to do and not just say we are going to do the opposite of organization B. Organization B shouldn't even be referred to in their mission statement. Just do your own thing, you can actually be a member of both if both have ideas you value. No need to bash organization B, just put out your mission statement and get the word out.

Its similar to people that are members of Delta that hate on DU or vice versa. They are not competing organizations, they are both there for waterfowl and you can be a member of one or both or none, and that is how we get divided.

What if they just came out and said we are going to raise license fees from $5.50 to $13.00 effective 2014 without any reasoning besides inflation? Would that be OK? Or are you only opposed to the increase because you are suspect of where the increased funds will be spent?

They could just as easily write into a bill exactly where this money will be spent and abide by that... all the while sliding money from other areas to fund the projects you don't want. :spineyes:

All I'm trying to say is that whether the license increase goes through or not will not necessarily impact your reason for being suspect of budget issues that you don't agree with. Those things are still going to go on unless something is done to change them.

in theory you are right, in a perfect world CCA would mind its own business and not interfere with other organizations efforts to help fishermen but CCA works to undermine them so the CCA by its own actions dictates that it MUST be removed from the position they hold where they can forever no longer dictate the agendas or their opinions hold any sway.

CCA actively works against anyone who speaks out or organizations using science based data to try and help fishermen all the while CCA is lobbying against everything other organizations want to do and paying off politicians to ignore the organizations trying to help fishermen.

so you see when CCA puts a target on other organizations and fights them every step of the way you must first kill off the festering infection that is CCA so an organization that has fishermens interests at heart can do their work without CCA undermining them every step of the way.

it shouldn't be necessary to take down CCA to get responsible resource management action but there really isn't an alternative since CCA cant help fighting against the interests of fishermen.

if CCA would just shut up and stop trying to hurt fishermen and just build their reefs and let other organizations work to help fishermen without interference from CCA then I would support them, not monetarily but in spirit only.

and of course you have at least one valid link you post here for your case right? A link to any of this above please:)

as long as you choose to not see the truth it shall always elude you and thus you can honestly deny knowing it and in so doing be able to feel good about supporting them

Keakar, you are absolutely correct.
CCA is a political organization and they will tell you that out front.
However, if they would have listened to LDWF biologists during the speckled trout gill net controversy - the nets would still be in the water.
Biology's role is to place the biomass population on the table (like speckled trout). It is not biologists' place to say which sector (commercial vs. recreational) gets the better portion - that's a political decision.

But the fact of the matter is...biology has not provided us recently with the data for the public to ascertain the health of the trout fishery in Big Lake. That's a huge problem, and IMO we need to get those answers from any political organization we can.

That's the first step.

In general, funding of government agencies should be subject to citizens being satisfied with the services provided by those government agencies.

Your argument amounts to asserting that agency funding should be increased proportionally to costs of doing business regardless of whether they are adhering to their mission or satisfying citizens with their services.

The law specifies that wildlife and fisheries in Louisiana be managed with the best available science. Good science is at the core of their mission. Citizens have noticed that the LWF Commission and LDWF has deviated from their mission by consistently mismanaging resources and passing more restrictive regulations without and scientific need. Further, LDWF has refused to share data for four years now, while continuing to pass more restrictive regulations.

Refusing to further increase their funding is one reasonable and prudent step citizens can take to encourage state agencies to better achieve their mission. Passing every request to increase funding is more likely to maintain the status quo. I would support cutting funding for the EPA for the same reason.

So you won't be purchasing a fishing or hunting license for the foreseeable future in protest?

Didnt think so

This is my point.. You are condoning by funding as much as i am. The other methods of protest are more inline with my agenda. So i keep these issues separate.



Sent from my fruity phone

This bill will pass I'm 99.9999999% sure, nothing much we can do other than ***** about how funds will be spent

Guess time will tell



They should also raise out of state fees also

Should also do away w/ $5 step aboard license too.