["W"]

FACTS

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Contaminants can be a confounding factor in interpreting condition index, but the majority of the Calcasieu esturary would not be considered contaminated by the Jenkins criteria. Of course, more data always raises the level of confidence. But I think the data that is needed and can be obtained would be relative condition factor in additional years. All we have is a relative condition factor of 1.03 +/- 0.020 for a sample size of 23 (mixed species) from the non-comtaminated sites in the Jenkins 2004 study and 2011 relative condition factors of 0.971 +/- 0.010 for 138 spotted sea trout, 0.965 +/- 0.014 for 66 redfish, and 0.955 +/- 0.017 for 26 black drum.

In 2011, the fish were significantly thinner than in 2004 in the Calcasieu estuary. If the fish are also significantly thinner in other years, then there would be more convincing evidence that there are too many fish relative to the available food in the Calcasieu estuary. If this is the case, the most reasonable remedies would be some combination of 1) protect the food souces by reducing shrimping, oystering, and crabbing pressure 2) reduce the pressure on the food souces by increasing the harvest of the most abundant predators. I think the evidence suggests that the best combination of the above would probably be to reduce the oystering and increase the spotted sea trout limit as well as encouraging the harvest of more black drum (because they really hammer the oysters). Hard data from additional years would, of course, further clarify the situation and make a more compelling case.

There are other approaches to stock assessment, but the LDWF has not been willing to share their methodologies or their data. (We've asked for their Calcasieu data from 2001-2010 and our data request has been denied.) It would be enlightening if additional pressure could compel LDWF to share all their available data on Calcasieu so the data could be analyzed by independent parties. I've found that some states (like Colorado) are much more open with their data and justification that their management decisions are data-driven rather than political. However, there are PETA-type forces and pseudo-conservationist type forces at work in every state simply trying to limit the use of natural resources. I tend to be skeptical of wildlife management that says "trust us, we're scientists" without sharing of data openly so that their results and recommendations can be independently reviewed by other scientists.