WLF commission meeting

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by biggun

Guys.. If U can NOT make it?? Not a problem... Every commission member has a contact email.. U can email everyone of them ur thoughts and opinions.. Just go to WL&F home page.

EVERY OPINION COUNTS. Get INVOLVED....

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.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

This makes zero sense. You can't sit at calcasieu point and do a creel survey from fishermen and assume that all fish are affected by the weirs. 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.

Overanalyzing it

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.

[redchaserron]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The weir management plan is reasonable and based on sound science. Since they took over management of the weirs in 2012, CPRA has done a very good job managing the weirs according to the management plan. CPRA has been kind enough to share detailed weir opening data with us that has allowed us to compute correlations between the condition of finfish in the lake (specks, redfish, drum, and gafftops) with the weir openings.

The most consistent and strongest correlations between our data on fish condition and any environmental factor we've considered are the NEGATIVE correlations between weir openings and fish condition. In other words, the more the weirs are opened, the thinner the fish are. The attached graph completely disproves the hypothesis that weir closures somehow negatively impact fish condition. The asterisks denote statistical significance at the p < 0.05 level.

Our working hypothesis to explain the NEGATIVE correlations between weir openings and fish condition is based on an analogy with rotating pastures to maximize the forage available for cattle. If the gates between pastures are open all the time, cattle graze all the pastures continuously which results in less production than limiting the pastures that can be grazed and opening the gates occasionally. As applied to the weirs, the idea is that the marsh behind the weirs produces more forage if more separation is allowed to reduce feeding pressure from the finfish until the crop of forage has achieved a larger biomass.

In any event, there is no scientific basis to complain about CPRA's management of the weirs. The biggest issue relating to Big Lake that is within regulatory control is the overharvesting of oysters.

MG,

Thanks for posting the information from your study. Is it possible, and has consideration been given to the idea that the difference in condition of the fish during open and closed periods may be due to a change in WHAT they are feeding on? If for example open weirs provided easy pickings on shrimp so the fish avail themselve of it, but when the weirs are closed they feed more on menhaden and finfish, it could be a matter of the fish being thinner when the weirs are open becasue they are taking advantage of easy prey that is lower in nutrients verses eating more nutrient dense food.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by redchaserron

MG,

Thanks for posting the information from your study. Is it possible, and has consideration been given to the idea that the difference in condition of the fish during open and closed periods may be due to a change in WHAT they are feeding on? If for example open weirs provided easy pickings on shrimp so the fish avail themselve of it, but when the weirs are closed they feed more on menhaden and finfish, it could be a matter of the fish being thinner when the weirs are open becasue they are taking advantage of easy prey that is lower in nutrients verses eating more nutrient dense food.

That could be. But note that our correlations are not between fish condition and whether the weirs were open the day a fish was caught, but rather our correlations are between fish condition and the average weir openings over the 90 day period immediately before each fish was caught.

But thanks for the idea, we need to give more consideration to whether weir closures forces the fish to feed on more nutritional forage.

[redchaserron]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

That could be. But note that our correlations are not between fish condition and whether the weirs were open the day a fish was caught, but rather our correlations are between fish condition and the average weir openings over the 90 day period immediately before each fish was caught.

But thanks for the idea, we need to give more consideration to whether weir closures forces the fish to feed on more nutritional forage.

[QUOTE=MathGeek;780718]That could be. But note that our correlations

How much influence do you think the seasonality of the opening/closing of the weirs have to do with it. For example, the weirs are more likely to be closed in July - August than in April/May. Obviously there are some seasons where fish will weigh more or less Did you compare same season openings/closures?

[MathGeek]

[quote=redchaserron;780724]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

How much influence do you think the seasonality of the opening/closing of the weirs have to do with it. For example, the weirs are more likely to be closed in July - August than in April/May. Obviously there are some seasons where fish will weigh more or less Did you compare same season openings/closures?

All of our studies are in the same period each year (late May/early June). Seasonality can affect fish body weight, but we are comparing with the long term Louisiana average weights from the same time of year for each species.

The weir openings are more governed by salinity than season. For example, the average 30 day weir openings over our study period (same time each year) has varied from a low of the weirs only being open 15% of their maximum possible to a high of about 70%.

Weir openings and closures in July-Aug do not impact our study at all, because all our fish are measured in late May/early June and we only consider the weir openings in 30, 60, and 90 day windows before each fish was weighed and measured.

[capt coonassty]

All that cardio from the flowing water.

I should make a burn handle.

[biggun]

Guys.. If U can NOT make it?? Not a problem... Every commission member has a contact email.. U can email everyone of them ur thoughts and opinions.. Just go to WL&F home page.

EVERY OPINION COUNTS. Get INVOLVED....

[Nickt87]

They can only gain weight if they are consuming more calories than they are burning. Imagine all the calories they are burning while swimming in that current and eating all that food. That's a lot of tail movement and jaw movement in unison, burning the candle from both ends.

amiright amiright?

Fishing success probably drops off too when the weirs are open. All those fish getting that lock jaw after eating that much.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Nickt87

They can only gain weight if they are consuming more calories than they are burning. Imagine all the calories they are burning while swimming in that current and eating all that food. That's a lot of tail movement and jaw movement in unison, burning the candle from both ends.

amiright amiright?

Fishing success probably drops off too when the weirs are open. All those fish getting that lock jaw after eating that much.

Which goes back to the original point. How can you say a fish brought into heberts or call point has ever swam in the current at the weirs?


And do you think the fish caught at the weirs are skinnier or fatter than a fish caught anywhere else in the lake? They are fatter because of te buffet of good coming out of them


Unless the fish are bulimic

[Smalls]

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

So data that shows "fatter" fish with less openings is just all wrong? Where is your data to support that, huh? You want to discredit someone else's work with nothing but "common sense" to back it up.

Not saying science is always right, but you can't just go around discrediting stuff because it goes against "common sense". The earth as the center of the universe was once "common sense".

You are also assuming that there are more food sources in the lake when the weirs are open, which is not necessarily true either. The weirs are opened for ingress and egress. If the bait population is traveling into the marsh, there would inevitably be less in the lake, correct?

You've never been to the weirs, but yet know, without a doubt, that those fish must be fatter because of the "buffet coming out of them"?

How else would you explain low BMI then? Take away the weirs?

The fact that you want to argue that MG's stats are wrong because there is no way the weirs could be making the rest of the lake skinnier, but then you argue that them being open would make the entire lake fatter is asinine. Correlation does not indicate causation anywhere in this. That estuary is very complex, and no one factor can be pointed to as the cause for any one thing, because very few relationships in that estuary are linear.

By the way, what about that "west side of the lake" theory you threw around? Care to elaborate on that?

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Smalls

So data that shows "fatter" fish with less openings is just all wrong? Where is your data to support that, huh? You want to discredit someone else's work with nothing but "common sense" to back it up.

Not saying science is always right, but you can't just go around discrediting stuff because it goes against "common sense". The earth as the center of the universe was once "common sense".

You are also assuming that there are more food sources in the lake when the weirs are open, which is not necessarily true either. The weirs are opened for ingress and egress. If the bait population is traveling into the marsh, there would inevitably be less in the lake, correct?

You've never been to the weirs, but yet know, without a doubt, that those fish must be fatter because of the "buffet coming out of them"?

How else would you explain low BMI then? Take away the weirs?

The fact that you want to argue that MG's stats are wrong because there is no way the weirs could be making the rest of the lake skinnier, but then you argue that them being open would make the entire lake fatter is asinine. Correlation does not indicate causation anywhere in this. That estuary is very complex, and no one factor can be pointed to as the cause for any one thing, because very few relationships in that estuary are linear.

By the way, what about that "west side of the lake" theory you threw around? Care to elaborate on that?

There is no good science in his dataset. Sitting at a ramp collecting data only does so much because you are only getting a sample of fish (fish that are susceptible to being caught) which is simply a creel survey. A true survey of what is actually there is done by shocking and gillnetting it's a creel survey only. You can only infer so much with a creel survey

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

There is no good science in his dataset. Sitting at a ramp collecting data only does so much because you are only getting a sample of fish (fish that are susceptible to being caught) which is simply a creel survey. A true survey of what is actually there is done by shocking and gillnetting it's a creel survey only. You can only infer so much with a creel survey

This is true. No argument from me, but that doesn't change the fact that he at least has some data, while you have none. You are essentially no better than any other person who has ever questioned the validity of scientific data while holding none themselves.

You have no proof to argue what you have, yet do so with authority.

"There is no way that fish caught while the weirs are open could be thinner than those caught while they are closed."

Where is your data? While his may be a creel survey, it is a sampling method. While not as intensive as shocking, it is an acceptable method. Shocking would still only be a sample, and it would take a considerable amount of time and money. What if the data still showed the same thing? Would you discount it then?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Smalls

This is true. No argument from me, but that doesn't change the fact that he at least has some data, while you have none. You are essentially no better than any other person who has ever questioned the validity of scientific data while holding none themselves.

You have no proof to argue what you have, yet do so with authority.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

If someone tells you they did a study and found out that the moon is made out of cheese, do you really need to do a study on it yourself? Or are you just going to discredit that person?

[Nickt87]

Originally Posted by Nickt87

They can only gain weight if they are consuming more calories than they are burning. Imagine all the calories they are burning while swimming in that current and eating all that food. That's a lot of tail movement and jaw movement in unison, burning the candle from both ends.

amiright amiright?

Fishing success probably drops off too when the weirs are open. All those fish getting that lock jaw after eating that much.

This was complete sarcasm but I'm glad that it was brought in to the debacle. True sportsmanship.

[Smalls]

Inferring anything based on a handful of structures doesn't make sense when the lifeform is affected by so many variables. This isn't grass we are talking about, which is affected by a handful of variables that can be quantified or qualified and manipulated quite easily. This is a highly mobile population that is affected by competition, predation, salinity, tides, moon phase, prey abundance, weather, etc. Unless you can eliminate or control all other variables, it is impossible to say that one factor alone contributes to the BMI of a species.

You can control the weirs, but can you control prey abundance, predator abundance, moon, sun, weather, tides, salinity, competition? No. So how do you know that the weirs are responsible, even partly, for the condition of the fish.

My thesis was heavy on statistics, so I know all about what they can and can't tell you. The difference is, I could quantify or qualify ever variable I dealt with. You can't do that here. You miss half the picture because of that. It's not a linear relationship, and will never be a linear relationship.

Weir openings alone do not equal thin fish or thick fish. They may correlate, but again, correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Inferring anything based on a handful of structures doesn't make sense when the lifeform is affected by so many variables. This isn't grass we are talking about, which is affected by a handful of variables that can be quantified or qualified and manipulated quite easily. This is a highly mobile population that is affected by competition, predation, salinity, tides, moon phase, prey abundance, weather, etc. Unless you can eliminate or control all other variables, it is impossible to say that one factor alone contributes to the BMI of a species.

You can control the weirs, but can you control prey abundance, predator abundance, moon, sun, weather, tides, salinity, competition? No. So how do you know that the weirs are responsible, even partly, for the condition of the fish.

My thesis was heavy on statistics, so I know all about what they can and can't tell you. The difference is, I could quantify or qualify ever variable I dealt with. You can't do that here. You miss half the picture because of that. It's not a linear relationship, and will never be a linear relationship.

Weir openings alone do not equal thin fish or thick fish. They may correlate, but again, correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

EXACTLY! That is why I am discrediting his entire hypothesis which was"The more the weirs are open the skinnier the fish are". Its silly to think a weir is the only driving force. There are many many

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

EXACTLY! That is why I am discrediting his entire hypothesis which was"The more the weirs are open the skinnier the fish are". Its silly to think a weir is the only driving force. There are many many

Except that you pointed numerous times to fish at the weirs likely being fatter because the weirs are open. Your argument this whole time has centered around his hypothesis not being true because you would bet that "fish at the weirs are fatter because of all the baitfish". that implies that the weirs are the reason for the fish being fatter because they concentrate the baitfish.

[DaPointIsDaBomb]

I have been feeding deer at my lease all year round for the last 4 years and now that I think about it, they have gotten skinnier. I am going to stop feeding them now so they will get back fatter again. You guys are saving me some money

[fisheye]

How are the whooping cranes doing

[B-Stealth]

Originally Posted by fisheye

How are the whooping cranes doing

Doing great, had some WC's show up on my buddies lease in Sweetlake. LDWF found out they arrived, then banned my buddy from hunting his lease until the WC's left the area.