Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Butter
On what planet does it make sense that a weir being open ("lifeblood of the estuary") make fish skinnier? It deoesnt. I would bet the fish that are caught at the weirs are significantly fatter than fish caught elsewhere in the estuary Those weirs affect one very small portion of the entire estuary that is Big Lake. There is a large portion of marsh on the west side as well
|
That is not the point I was making, try to keep up. You said:
"Those "thin" fish may have been caught miles away from the weirs at black lake or prien lake. They may have not even swam within miles of the weirs."
I'm not arguing whether the weirs make the fish skinnier or not. Hell, there is only one person in this thread that has anything to back up that argument, so you argue that until you are blue in the face and it won't make a difference. No data equals no foundation.
So do you believe that the west side of the lake affects a majority of the lake, considering the east marsh only affects "one very small portion of the entire estuary that is Big Lake"? What is your basis? That whole marsh on the west side is not feeding into Calcasieu Lake, mind you, considering Sabine Lake is to the west.
For what its worth, I will agree with you on the effect of the weirs on the entire lake. You are doing a
fantastic job of arguing a point I've long made here--that those weirs don't have near the effect on the lake as some on this forum would lead people to believe. Hell, even the negative correlation in MG's study does that. I could look at that opposite of the way you are. To me it says those weirs being open doesn't do a damn thing for the fish.