Quote:
Originally Posted by lil bubba
I am no biologist by a long shot. I grew up shrimping and fishing in the marsh longer than i can remember. imo it soon won't be about limits up or down or big fish to worry bout being caught. There won't be any marsh left to support fish. As the marsh erodes away there is less place for the fish and shrimp forage to grow so you will have less and smaller fish. I don't think it takes a biologist to figure that out. It was said by mr. horst years ago that as our marsh begins to erode we will have a fish bonanza , then you will see it decline within a few years because it won't be able to support itself no more. Looks to me he knew what he was talking about. I think if all this fuss was put into fighting coastal erosion we may buy a few more years for what we have. You can increase or decrease limits all you want but at the rate we are losing marsh your kids or grandkids aren't going to have nothing anyway. rite or wrong just my opinion.......
|
There certainly is a good chance it could work out this way. I'm optimistic that fairly good fisheries can be preserved over the next 100 years as the marshes turn into open lakes and bays by:
1. Minimizing future loss of marshes and preserving marsh that used to be more brackish or even freshwater swamp.
2. Restoring, establishing, and preserving oyster reefs in the bays to provide valuable ecosystem services.
3. Managing salinity in the lakes and bays by controlling salinity flowing in from the Gulf and freshwater flows from rivers and freshwater swamps.
The big picture is to be more intentional about what levels of salinity are maintained in which regions. The "saltwater" line may end up further north than it is now and there may be some trade-offs between crawfish/bass/crappie habitat and crab/redfish/speck habitat.