what y'all make of this?

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Maybe you'd be more credible with this crowd if you talked more about liberty, small gov't, and RKBA and didn't think your sacred cows were "reasonable" exceptions. Handing out good fishing info doesn't hurt either. Maybe some selfies with some big fish, along with the whens, wheres and hows you caught them.

Did you really just say selfie? Lol!

So catching big fish is what makes you credible now? Funny, and I'm just spitballing here, but I thought if one, I don't know, say for example, worked in a particular environment for years, you know, that might give their opinion some weight on that particular subject.

Guess I need to get busy catching big fish then, or else I'll never be respected.

[PaulMyers]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Did you really just say selfie? Lol!

So catching big fish is what makes you credible now? Funny, and I'm just spitballing here, but I thought if one, I don't know, say for example, worked in a particular environment for years, you know, that might give their opinion some weight on that particular subject.

Guess I need to get busy catching big fish then, or else I'll never be respected.

Nah man, you just sided with the duck weed.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by PaulMyers

Nah man, you just sided with the duck weed.

Oh geez, that again?!?

I didn't side with anything. I stated fact, based on research and experience. It was others (ahem) that spun my argument as such. The weirs were not constructed for that purpose, but the land behind there has been used for that purpose. Lets not even get into the fact that the National Wildlife Refuge system was created with the specific purpose of preserving waterfowl habitat. Yes, half of that land behind the weirs is not NWR, but is there any proof that those landowners control the weirs? No. Just the word of some.

Proof. Where is it?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Oh geez, that again?!?

I didn't side with anything. I stated fact, based on research and experience. It was others (ahem) that spun my argument as such. The weirs were not constructed for that purpose, but the land behind there has been used for that purpose. Lets not even get into the fact that the National Wildlife Refuge system was created with the specific purpose of preserving waterfowl habitat. Yes, half of that land behind the weirs is not NWR, but is there any proof that those landowners control the weirs? No. Just the word of some.

Proof. Where is it?

Why not offer info we can use?

Who (exactly) is responsible for weir operation?

How can they be contacted with citizen input?

What salinity levels and water levels inside and outside does the existing plan use to determine opening and closure?

Where can the written plan be found?

Where is the nearest station measuring inside and outside salinity?

Are these numbers recorded regularly?

Where can they be obtained?

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Why not offer info we can use?

Who (exactly) is responsible for weir operation?

How can they be contacted with citizen input?

What salinity levels and water levels inside and outside does the existing plan use to determine opening and closure?

Where can the written plan be found?

Where is the nearest station measuring inside and outside salinity?

Are these numbers recorded regularly?

Where can they be obtained?

At one point, I could have offered that information pretty accurately. I'm out of the loop now.

I can answer some of those though.

The weirs are bid out now, at least they were at one point. USFWS quit operation after many years of dealing with disgruntled public. I do not know who is in control now. Call LDWF, NRCS, or USFWS. I'm sure one of them knows. Or the Cameron-Creole Advisory committee.

I have a few different documents outlining the plan, or variations of it. Maybe I can upload them one day.

Salinity levels are based on isohaline lines. There is a 5 ppt and 12 ppt line. When the salinity reaches 5 ppt at the 5 ppt line, closure is triggered. Water depth, as far as I know, does not dictate closure.

Look up USGS Water Resources and CRMS. Those systems both have monitoring stations in the lake and Marsh. I do not remember exact sstations anymore, but I was very familiar with those systems during my research.

Its not as simple as just knowing the salinity though. Its about vegetation salinity tolerances as well. There are reports out there on the Cameron-Creole, monitoring reports, that outline the history if the area. Several thousand acres of fresh Marsh were lost because of excess salinity.

MG, you are more than welcome to come to my house sometime and look at these things. I have more information than I care to even try and upload and post. Old vegetation maps, reports, etc.

The weirs are not there to manage duck food, although the Marsh does provide duck food, habitat, fish habitat, fur bearer and alligator habitat, etc. The primary purpose was to maintain a viable ecosystem, which was dieing at a rapid rate.

Again, these things are in various reports I've read over the years.

Most of this I have stated before. I've always used facts to back up my argument.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

At one point, I could have offered that information pretty accurately. I'm out of the loop now.

I can answer some of those though.

The weirs are bid out now, at least they were at one point. USFWS quit operation after many years of dealing with disgruntled public. I do not know who is in control now. Call LDWF, NRCS, or USFWS. I'm sure one of them knows. Or the Cameron-Creole Advisory committee.

I have a few different documents outlining the plan, or variations of it. Maybe I can upload them one day.

Salinity levels are based on isohaline lines. There is a 5 ppt and 12 ppt line. When the salinity reaches 5 ppt at the 5 ppt line, closure is triggered. Water depth, as far as I know, does not dictate closure.

Look up USGS Water Resources and CRMS. Those systems both have monitoring stations in the lake and Marsh. I do not remember exact sstations anymore, but I was very familiar with those systems during my research.

Its not as simple as just knowing the salinity though. Its about vegetation salinity tolerances as well. There are reports out there on the Cameron-Creole, monitoring reports, that outline the history if the area. Several thousand acres of fresh Marsh were lost because of excess salinity.

MG, you are more than welcome to come to my house sometime and look at these things. I have more information than I care to even try and upload and post. Old vegetation maps, reports, etc.

The weirs are not there to manage duck food, although the Marsh does provide duck food, habitat, fish habitat, fur bearer and alligator habitat, etc. The primary purpose was to maintain a viable ecosystem, which was dieing at a rapid rate.

Again, these things are in various reports I've read over the years.

Most of this I have stated before. I've always used facts to back up my argument.

Thanks for such a detailed answer, truly appreciated.

5 ppt is a pretty low salinity for closing the weirs, no wonder they stay closed most of the time. I'm sure that threshold is justified based on the needs of the vegetation behind them, but wow! It would be nice if greater consideration could be given to the needs of the ecosystem as a whole, not just the vegetation behind the weirs. I think we need to work to bring the salinity in the lake down. If 35 ppt is common in the lake, then the oysters are in danger too.

I took the liberty of posting a big fish for you. It would make a great profile pic.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Thanks for such a detailed answer, truly appreciated.

5 ppt is a pretty low salinity for closing the weirs, no wonder they stay closed most of the time. I'm sure that threshold is justified based on the needs of the vegetation behind them, but wow! It would be nice if greater consideration could be given to the needs of the ecosystem as a whole, not just the vegetation behind the weirs. I think we need to work to bring the salinity in the lake down. If 35 ppt is common in the lake, then the oysters are in danger too.

I took the liberty of posting a big fish for you. It would make a great profile pic.

But the most that can be done from an ecosystem standpoint is being done. Without control over salinities in the lake, you have to get control over them in the marsh. If that marsh dies, you have no nursery, you have no duck habitat, you have no hurricane protection, and it is also a source of water for farmers and communities.

If you can get the lake conditions under control, maybe the weirs aren't as important to maintaining that marsh.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Did you really just say selfie? Lol!

So catching big fish is what makes you credible now? Funny, and I'm just spitballing here, but I thought if one, I don't know, say for example, worked in a particular environment for years, you know, that might give their opinion some weight on that particular subject.

Guess I need to get busy catching big fish then, or else I'll never be respected.

You gotta know your crowd. Sheepskins on the wall count in the office and on the resume, but no so much in the bar or at the cleaning station.

Think of SC as a cross between a bar and the cleaning station. You gotta speak the language. You gotta agree everywhere you can and pick your spots to gently educate your peers. And you gotta argue from facts not from authority.

The guides who post know that a lot of credibility on fishing forums comes from box shots and shots from happy customers. They could post average numbers of trout and redfish caught each trip, but they know its pictures, not statistics that make them credible. I'm not saying that's how it should work, but that's how it does work. Would some educational certification in guiding trump box shots and happy customers? Should it?

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

You gotta know your crowd. Sheepskins on the wall count in the office and on the resume, but no so much in the bar or at the cleaning station.

Think of SC as a cross between a bar and the cleaning station. You gotta speak the language. You gotta agree everywhere you can and pick your spots to gently educate your peers. And you gotta argue from facts not from authority.

The guides who post know that a lot of credibility on fishing forums comes from box shots and shots from happy customers. They could post average numbers of trout and redfish caught each trip, but they know its pictures, not statistics that make them credible. I'm not saying that's how it should work, but that's how it does work. Would some educational certification in guiding trump box shots and happy customers? Should it?

Preaching to the choir dude! When have I ever argued from authority over facts?

What happens if you have an "educational certification" and the "box shots"?