CCA State of the Fishery Poll
 

Please answer the poll question only if you attended the 9 July State of the Fishery meeting hosted by CCA.

I checked the last option.

But of all the other items, I think changes to the way oysters are managed is most likely to happen sooner rather than later.

I voted for the last answer as well. Wayyyy too much beating around the bush. CCA should have been attacked harder, I just don't think many people at the meeting wanted to be disrespectful. When asked about the limit change in '05, they danced around the question four or five times before finally admitting that the trout numbers were in perfectly fine shape and it was a social issue. They also said that the triple tail limit was based on lots of science. When asked about issues that the CCA is not involved with, they simply gave the generic answer "it is in the works."

Well, first things first, the statement about the weirs being managed based on salinities is false. It is based on much more than just salinities. What I got from that was basically that no one on here is ever going to he able to say exactly when the weirs ought to be open. The plan is just vague enough to allow some discrepancy based on various situations.

Chuck said that even around a full moon, they may not open the weirs if the salinities and tide would negatively impact the marsh.

So, I would vote nothing will change. They didn't get near enough pressure put on them, and they controlled the entire meeting. Hell, half the questions came from one guy.

At least we've gotten this out into the open. I wonder if there is a way to obtain records regarding which days each weir has been opened or closed over the past several years. This might be one place where a FOIA request may be useful.

With the opening data we could compare the openings with the historical salinity and water level records and discern if the pattern of openings is arguably close to the management plan. Accountability may be possible if the pattern of openings is nowhere near what the management plan specifies.

They had zero answers for erosion problems

No one could even give an idea or answer to who is in charge of stopping erosion


Corp blamed it all on money and said that the settlement from dredging is a mystery to where it comes from
Swear on the Bible that is what she said !!

That would really only be applicable back to January of 2012 when they resumed at least trying to follow the management plan. From Sept. 25 2005 to 2012 they basically stayed open, and we lost a hell of a lot of marsh in that time.

I vote for someone (not myself) to blow the weirs up! Let it flow however mother nature sees fit. Plant and animal life will overcome and adapt.

You will have to ask the committe I don't have an answer for that
Again that would have to be a question the committe would have to answer
I'm not sure , again the committe would know
No we don't own that you would have to ask the committe

hahahaha

ever thought of being on the committee? lol:work:

If you could obtain the data... all of the factors that determine the open/close were included in the powerpoint. (Salinity, Tides, Lunar cycles, wind, etc.)

It would probably take a MathGeek to compile all of this data and see how it actually correlates to their management plan. :spineyes:

Apparently the committee hasn't changed its makeup since it was originally formed in 1987. They don't hold regular meetings and the guy basically said "Good Luck" on petitioning them for anything.

I will say that at least the people controlling the weirs had a sound management plan that they laid out for the people to see. They explained their position and there really wasn't much to dispute other than allowing access to the resource that they block off. The science was there and the results seemed to back up the science.

pretty much what i thought. doesn't matter what data there is since they only want it to benefit their own personal agenda.

they had a slide with that data there last night.

I agree with this.

Blame is a little bit of a strong word. What I got from her presentation was that their primary role is to keep the ship channel dredged out. The money they are allocated from the Federal government barely covers that role and there is additional funding needed for extra projects (like rocking the channel).

Someone asked if "XYZ Act" (I don't remember which one) was included in part of her funding and she did not know. She only knows what her annual budget is, and I don't think she really knows which Federal acts contribute to that budget... I don't think it's pertinent to her job.

I would like to know who is in charge of handling erosion issues in the ship channel. Obviously this can be funded through the Port and the USACE can do the work, but that isn't where this originates.

It sounded like they were following the plan and had the info to prove that it works. The problem is access, not the actual operations of the weirs.

Nobody at that meeting had the authority to make any changes. It was purely informational. Whether or not CCA pushes to stop oyster dredging and to rock the wash out will determine if they ever see my support. No point in having a meeting to let the people speak if you do not listen and act

Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana
I would think that the "Calcasieau ship channel fisheries subgroup" will have some input on erosion issues.

[SIZE=3][/SIZE]

Exactly! No reason to have a meeting to give ppl a place to "vent" The meeting needs to include ppl there that can listen to what the ppl that fund their organization have to say and to actually ACT on what is said.

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.

Thats just absurd that they will allow one to be over harvested and one not at all..but I guess that LA politics at its best


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was reading the 11 and 12 oyster assessments and they both show the la side of Sabine as public oyster fishing grounds???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn't they say they had an agreement with TX to not allow harvesting on the lake?

From p. 12-13 of the Beck PhD Thesis (2012):

Sabine Lake: Sabine Lake is located on the Louisiana-Texas border in southwest Louisiana and this area is jointly managed by the LDWF and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). There has been no recorded oyster harvest in Sabine Lake since 1965 (TPWD 2010). Side-scan sonar data indicates approximately 599 ha of oyster reef is present in the Louisiana portion of Sabine Lake with an estimated stock size of 1,391,246 sacks of oysters, including seed and market oysters (Encos 2008). These reefs have been closed to harvest in the past due to previously high levels of fecal coliform bacteria released from nearby sewage treatment plants. With coliform levels now in acceptable range, the LDWF and the TPWD are considering opening Sabine Lake to public oyster harvest [Patrick Banks (LDWF) and Jerry Mambretti (TPWD), pers. comm.].

See: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/et...BeckThesis.pdf

So if we all start taking craps in the lake we can stop the oyster harvest!!!!




:work::work: :help::help: :rotfl::smokin:

Not exactly. Based on a study several years ago DHH shifted to using the river depth at Kinder as a proxy for the fecal coliform counts.

Some of the science is explained here: http://www.seagrantfish.lsu.edu/reso...2012/12-12.htm

It is a crime to discharge sewage withing a certain distance of oyster harvesting areas.

The historical DHH closings based on water depth at Kinder is summarized on p 7-13 of the 2013 oyster stock assessment. See: http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/d...ent_report.pdf

This stock assessment also contains lots of other useful information.

If for some reason, fecal coliform contamination was suspected from a human point source (unrelated to Kinder water levels), one would have to bring that to the attention of DHH who would then sample and test to determine if closure was needed. I imagine such an event would be investigated thoroughly and those responsible for such point source pollution prosecuted aggressively.

Better to pray for rain to get those Kinder water levels up and also to get the weirs open.

In response to MYSPOT

"If they want to build land behind the weirs put the dredge material there so the marsh can flourish like they want it to."

The lady from the corps of engineers said that the reason they do not do that is because almost all of the dredge material is too light to help build land. The material would just wash away, and it would cost more than any benefit it would provide.