WLF commission meeting

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Don't know that I agree there. Plenty of people e-mailed their thoughts and opinions to the commission, and plenty more spoke out through the surveys. Yet, a vocal minority that showed up at the meeting was able to sway the commissioners to change the season dates proposed by Mr. Reynolds.



Sure you can. People here do it all the time.

So, the marsh can be the lifeblood of the estuary, but it can't affect fish all over the estuary? Isn't the marsh a foundation of the estuary? A nursery ground for the nekton that live in the entire estuary?

Come on, DB. You want to call MG out for not using common sense. Well, you need to do it yourself. Go read up on estuary ecology again. Pretty sure there is a good read on this website somewhere that talks about the trout move throughout the estuary.

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

[Smalls]

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.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Smalls

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.

"The more he weirs are open the skinnier the fish are" is what MG said. That is laughable. On what planet does it make sense that when there is more food (weirs open) that fish would be skinnier? It doesn't. He tries to overanalyze things. In any organism, the more food available = healthier (fatter) organism whether it a fish, bird, earthworm, etc

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

"The more he weirs are open the skinnier the fish are" is what MG said. That is laughable. On what planet does it make sense that when there is more food (weirs open) that fish would be skinnier? It doesn't. He tries to overanalyze things. In any organism, the more food available = healthier (fatter) organism whether it a fish, bird, earthworm, etc

In the limit that the coupling between the marsh and lake were zero, you are right.

But think of the analogy with pasture rotation of cattle. Restricting access part of the time leads to more beef per acre than allowing complete access all the time.

Could it be that reducing the feeding pressure of finfish on the bait for part of the time allows the system to produce a larger total quantity of forage and the finfish get fatter because the bait has a chance to grow up before getting eaten?

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

In the limit that the coupling between the marsh and lake were zero, you are right.

But think of the analogy with pasture rotation of cattle. Restricting access part of the time leads to more beef per acre than allowing complete access all the time.

Could it be that reducing the feeding pressure of finfish on the bait for part of the time allows the system to produce a larger total quantity of forage and the finfish get fatter because the bait has a chance to grow up before getting eaten?

You are overthinking this. If you want to produce bigger deer, bigger fish, bigger pigs, you feed them more. It's that simple.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

You are overthinking this. If you want to produce bigger deer, bigger fish, bigger pigs, you feed them more. It's that simple.

You know its not that simple. Genetics, nutrients, environmental all play a role. More food also equals more competition, which can decrease fitness as well.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Smalls

You know its not that simple. Genetics, nutrients, environmental all play a role. More food also equals more competition, which can decrease fitness as well.

The weirs are a buffet of everything. Throw a castnet by one and see. If you eat at a buffet everyday you get fatter than someone who eats a Subway sandwich everyday😄