Wiers not opening this year

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by noodle creek

I'm not for or against weirs, but as far as Sabine Refuge is concerned, that land loss was pretty much all from Rita. Weirs or no weirs, that land is lost regardless. I also believe that some of the vegetation is starting to come back, just like it has for the past hundreds of hurricanes.

I also have a hard time believing that the east side of Sabine Lake is less prone to saltwater intrusion. There is no way there is a major difference in salinity on the southeastern bank of Sabine Lake than there is on the southeastern bank of Big Lake.

To me, it seems that it's a lose lose situation. Put up weirs and keep mother nature from running her course but save the marsh, or no weirs and let mother nature have her way but maybe lose some marsh.

We messed with Mother Nature when we put in the ship channel, the levees along the MS River, etc. Now we are paying for it. But, without the ship channel what would the Lake Charles really be? Shipping is a boom to that economy, and also SE La the same argument could be made I guess. There are going to be some hard decisions made and not everyone is going to be happy with them

Wish there was a way to do it and make everyone happy, but once you get accustomed to doing something for so long (like catching trout on the lake), its hard to go back.

[SULPHITE]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

We messed with Mother Nature when we put in the ship channel, the levees along the MS River, etc. Now we are paying for it. But, without the ship channel what would the Lake Charles really be? Shipping is a boom to that economy, and also SE La the same argument could be made I guess. There are going to be some hard decisions made and not everyone is going to be happy with them

Wish there was a way to do it and make everyone happy, but once you get accustomed to doing something for so long (like catching trout on the lake), its hard to go back.

Agreed 100%

[kb7722]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

We messed with Mother Nature when we put in the ship channel, the levees along the MS River, etc. Now we are paying for it. But, without the ship channel what would the Lake Charles really be? Shipping is a boom to that economy, and also SE La the same argument could be made I guess. There are going to be some hard decisions made and not everyone is going to be happy with them

Wish there was a way to do it and make everyone happy, but once you get accustomed to doing something for so long (like catching trout on the lake), its hard to go back.

Well put! Can we end this thread now?

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by kb7722

Well put! Can we end this thread now?

It will come up every year by W

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

It will come up every year by W

Scientists and professionals should not tire or express frustrations when presented with opportunities to engage with the public. Public misperceptions exist because the experience of the general public is much different than the experiences of professionals, scientists, and policy makers.

Publishing papers and reports and hobnobbing with policy makers may impact the world of the common man, but does little to educate him regarding "why"? Many citizens are left wondering and speculating regarding the relative importance of money, influence, science, and power in shaping policy that effects them.

For every "W" who bothers to post and challenge for better answers, there are ten others reading the thread and possibly dozens of others who harbor similar sentiments without bothering much follow-up. The "new media" goes beyond Fox news, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. It is played out on twitter, blogs, discussion forums, Wikipedia, etc. every day. And even on SaltyCajun.

The saltwater intrusion page at wikipedia is pretty good, but can be improved. Improving the Calcasieu Lake wikipedia page would be warmly welcomed, and could certainly have a section for the importance of the weirs in reducing saltwater intrusion into the marsh. Then in the future, you could simply cite that material.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Scientists and professionals should not tire or express frustrations when presented with opportunities to engage with the public. Public misperceptions exist because the experience of the general public is much different than the experiences of professionals, scientists, and policy makers.

Publishing papers and reports and hobnobbing with policy makers may impact the world of the common man, but does little to educate him regarding "why"? Many citizens are left wondering and speculating regarding the relative importance of money, influence, science, and power in shaping policy that effects them.

For every "W" who bothers to post and challenge for better answers, there are ten others reading the thread and possibly dozens of others who harbor similar sentiments without bothering much follow-up. The "new media" goes beyond Fox news, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. It is played out on twitter, blogs, discussion forums, Wikipedia, etc. every day. And even on SaltyCajun.

The saltwater intrusion page at wikipedia is pretty good, but can be improved. Improving the Calcasieu Lake wikipedia page would be warmly welcomed, and could certainly have a section for the importance of the weirs in reducing saltwater intrusion into the marsh. Then in the future, you could simply cite that material.

First off, knowing you are a scientist, I am amazed you would suggest citing Wikipedia in even a semi-scientific study.

Second, I don't believe it makes a difference in what we, as scientists, have to say, when it is obvious that the public thinks that they know what is best based on a fish population. Very few people here, in my opinion, based on what I have read, understand that that lake is far more than fish. That the marsh is far more than fish. Just because a Marsh is green does not mean it is healthy. I could explain all of this for the thousandth time on this board, and it would make no difference, because minds are made up. The weirs are bad. There is no changing that mindset when it is solely based on fish.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I847 using Tapatalk 2

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

First off, knowing you are a scientist, I am amazed you would suggest citing Wikipedia in even a semi-scientific study.

You missed the point. I am suggesting using Wikipedia as a public outreach and educational too to improve understanding. Colleagues and I began doing this years ago, realizing that thousands of desperate students every day google up math and physics topics and learn more from Wikipedia than from their textbooks. You can see the usage stats show many more hits on weekdays than weekends and many more hits during the spring and fall semesters, and even more hits at the time in a semester when a subject is typically taught. See the hit stats on "Chain Rule" (a method of differentiation taught in Calculus).

Improving the Wikipedia article on saltwater intrusion would impact thousands of readers each year and give you something to cite rather than repeating everything when it comes up again next year rather than having to create a single use answer for a limited SaltyCajun audience.

Originally Posted by Smalls

Second, I don't believe it makes a difference in what we, as scientists, have to say, when it is obvious that the public thinks that they know what is best based on a fish population. Very few people here, in my opinion, based on what I have read, understand that that lake is far more than fish. That the marsh is far more than fish. Just because a Marsh is green does not mean it is healthy. I could explain all of this for the thousandth time on this board, and it would make no difference, because minds are made up. The weirs are bad. There is no changing that mindset when it is solely based on fish.

Wikipedia is a much louder and effective microphone than SaltyCajun, and many laymen turn to it to get the scoop on many topics. Improving the saltwater intrusion and Calcasieu Lake articles, linking them to each other and to other related articles (shrimp, crabs, specks, redfish, Cameron Parish, marsh, wetlends, etc.), and visiting them regularly to reverse the introduction of bad info can be a powerful tool in the long term improvement in the perspective of the general public. Links from high traffic wiki pages pay the biggest dividends by increasing readership.

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by Smalls

First off, knowing you are a scientist, I am amazed you would suggest citing Wikipedia in even a semi-scientific study.

Second, I don't believe it makes a difference in what we, as scientists, have to say, when it is obvious that the public thinks that they know what is best based on a fish population. Very few people here, in my opinion, based on what I have read, understand that that lake is far more than fish. That the marsh is far more than fish. Just because a Marsh is green does not mean it is healthy. I could explain all of this for the thousandth time on this board, and it would make no difference, because minds are made up. The weirs are bad. There is no changing that mindset when it is solely based on fish.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I847 using Tapatalk 2

Hey Smalls it sounds to me like you are saying that this is a hopeless endeavor, and that people who fish the lake just don't care. Well just wanted to give you a quick thank you for attempting to do the right thing and inform people that the marsh is far more than fish. I hope and trust we can continue to rely on folks like yourself doing the right things for the greater good of the whole marsh ecosystem.

I'm no scientist, (but i did stay at a holiday inn a few days ago) and i can say for certainty that any plan will always have those who will disagree with it. It's certainly understandable as well, No one wants their "sacred cows" to be the one's going to slaughter.

Keep up the good work!

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Scientists and professionals should not tire or express frustrations when presented with opportunities to engage with the public. Public misperceptions exist because the experience of the general public is much different than the experiences of professionals, scientists, and policy makers.

Publishing papers and reports and hobnobbing with policy makers may impact the world of the common man, but does little to educate him regarding "why"? Many citizens are left wondering and speculating regarding the relative importance of money, influence, science, and power in shaping policy that effects them.

For every "W" who bothers to post and challenge for better answers, there are ten others reading the thread and possibly dozens of others who harbor similar sentiments without bothering much follow-up. The "new media" goes beyond Fox news, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. It is played out on twitter, blogs, discussion forums, Wikipedia, etc. every day. And even on SaltyCajun.

The saltwater intrusion page at wikipedia is pretty good, but can be improved. Improving the Calcasieu Lake wikipedia page would be warmly welcomed, and could certainly have a section for the importance of the weirs in reducing saltwater intrusion into the marsh. Then in the future, you could simply cite that material.

W just likes to stir the pot
The wikipedia page should also include the word 'troll' and a pic of W on it

I do agree with most of that though. It is much easier to work with an animal than it is the general public and especially in Louisiana. We do not like change and for this reason it is why we are always last at getting things done. I still have family members who refuse to call in deer they kill even though the tagging system has been going on for several years, they do not want anyone knowing how many deer they killed and then they will be the first ones to gripe about the way LDWF handles things

And look at attendance at public meetings on issues that actually affect people, no one attends them. Surveys go out to people looking for public comment and no one answers them. For instance, the Coastal Master Plan has been going on for many years and there have been many meetings and the public was encouraged to attend. The meetings were posted on every outdoor site around for years and now when some of these things get rolling the public cries wolf and acts like they knew nothing about any of this (see the Save Louisiana Coalition another story altogether though)

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Scientists and professionals should not tire or express frustrations when presented with opportunities to engage with the public. Public misperceptions exist because the experience of the general public is much different than the experiences of professionals, scientists, and policy makers.

Publishing papers and reports and hobnobbing with policy makers may impact the world of the common man, but does little to educate him regarding "why"? Many citizens are left wondering and speculating regarding the relative importance of money, influence, science, and power in shaping policy that effects them.

For every "W" who bothers to post and challenge for better answers, there are ten others reading the thread and possibly dozens of others who harbor similar sentiments without bothering much follow-up. The "new media" goes beyond Fox news, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. It is played out on twitter, blogs, discussion forums, Wikipedia, etc. every day. And even on SaltyCajun.

The saltwater intrusion page at wikipedia is pretty good, but can be improved. Improving the Calcasieu Lake wikipedia page would be warmly welcomed, and could certainly have a section for the importance of the weirs in reducing saltwater intrusion into the marsh. Then in the future, you could simply cite that material.

This..... Solid science based conservation = good, Rumor mongering = Bad