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.