Thread: Weirs Closed
View Single Post
  #16  
Old 04-26-2014, 08:26 AM
Smalls Smalls is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South Central LA
Posts: 2,822
Cash: 3,948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek View Post
The weir management and impact on the estuary are suboptimal, but not the disaster some make it out to be.

The fish are a bit on the hungry side and a bit thinner than the statewide average. Over years, it means a bit slower growth, fewer trophies, and slightly lower reproduction rates. But in the long term, losing the marsh completely would be a worse outcome. The estuary will survive, just not as fat and happy as when being fed more by the marsh.

If that marsh gets destroyed, the productivity of the system will drop down to TX levels. There are also multiple factors in play: weir management, erosion, saltwater intrusion, channel dredging, destruction and recovery of oyster reefs, chemical pollution, etc. Things like chemical pollution have been improving lately in Calcasieu, so they don't get much discussion, but the system is still recovering from long term impacts of years gone by.

I think the angling public would do best to focus on issues with the most promise for action and improvement due to likely agreement among multiple stakeholders. As long as the salinity in the lower lake is 16-22 ppt (parts per thousand) as shown here ( http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=08017118 ), those weirs aren't going to be opened unless there is a lot of freshwater behind them to flow into the lake. In the long term this is a necessary management decision to protect the marsh. There is a much better chance of positive outcomes for the fishery on other issues like dredging, oyster reef destruction, and construction of additional salt water barriers between the gulf and lake. Lining the channel with rocks from the Gulf to the lower lake seems to be a promising alternative to a saltwater barrier across the ship channel as this would both prevent erosion and reduce the salinity in the lake.
First of all, quit contradicting yourself. On the other threads here, you have continually preached that the main reason for fall in condition factor is loss of oysters or too many fish. You have repeated stated, when questioned, that you and your colleagues believe oyster loss to be the main causative factor, and that none of the other competing hypotheses explain the data as well.

So which is it? Are you just bending your argument to "please your audience"?

Haven't you been preaching that the smaller size is related to the destruction of oysters? Yes or no?

Yes, I do see that you address those other factors in the next paragraph, but you yourself have been advocating that the #1 cause of poor condition factor is related to oysters, NOT WEIR OPERATIONS! So which is it?
Reply With Quote