CCA Reef Protection

[Reefman]

W, you have a very good point here. I find it totally asinine to destroy an artificial reef, EI 71 for example, that has produced in excess of a 100,000 trout. How long would it take to make a reef that can produce those kind of numbers. The State and Feds need to get their ****e together and come up with a viable plan to keep these obsolete rigs from being pulled and brought to Alabama and Florida. Guys, we have to make some noise...
I'm stunned that they removing so many of our long time trout producing rigs with no one screaming.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Reefman

W, you have a very good point here. I find it totally asinine to destroy an artificial reef, EI 71 for example, that has produced in excess of a 100,000 trout. How long would it take to make a reef that can produce those kind of numbers. The State and Feds need to get their ****e together and come up with a viable plan to keep these obsolete rigs from being pulled and brought to Alabama and Florida. Guys, we have to make some noise...
I'm stunned that they removing so many of our long time trout producing rigs with no one screaming.

Agree with this ^^^. There is money that was alotted just for this I think it was called 'From rigs to reefs", well ol politics as usual came in and took some of this money and stuck in the general fund. There is a stink being raised already about this, but it will probably be swept under the rug, just like everything else. Remember when the money generated from the Louisiana Lottery was supposed to go towards education and teachers salaries?

This issue would probably be something CCA may need to get involved in and may already be, not sure

[Raymond]

SB 406 will makes it illegal to oyster any artificial reefs. It will pass without governor Jindal's signature making it a law. Now, if the state will fly drones over those reefs, we might be able to make sure the oystermen stay off them.

[jchief]

Originally Posted by Raymond

SB 406 will makes it illegal to oyster any artificial reefs. It will pass without governor Jindal's signature making it a law. Now, if the state will fly drones over those reefs, we might be able to make sure the oystermen stay off them.

So, Jindal is not signing the bill?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by jchief

So, Jindal is not signing the bill?

Technicality, it still becomes law if he doesn't sign it. A political way to endorse but not endorse with signature. Yep, confuses me also but in the end, we get protection.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Technicality, it still becomes law if he doesn't sign it. A political way to endorse but not endorse with signature. Yep, confuses me also but in the end, we get protection.

Great