what y'all make of this?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by lil bubba

I am no biologist by a long shot. I grew up shrimping and fishing in the marsh longer than i can remember. imo it soon won't be about limits up or down or big fish to worry bout being caught. There won't be any marsh left to support fish. As the marsh erodes away there is less place for the fish and shrimp forage to grow so you will have less and smaller fish. I don't think it takes a biologist to figure that out. It was said by mr. horst years ago that as our marsh begins to erode we will have a fish bonanza , then you will see it decline within a few years because it won't be able to support itself no more. Looks to me he knew what he was talking about. I think if all this fuss was put into fighting coastal erosion we may buy a few more years for what we have. You can increase or decrease limits all you want but at the rate we are losing marsh your kids or grandkids aren't going to have nothing anyway. rite or wrong just my opinion.......

There certainly is a good chance it could work out this way. I'm optimistic that fairly good fisheries can be preserved over the next 100 years as the marshes turn into open lakes and bays by:

1. Minimizing future loss of marshes and preserving marsh that used to be more brackish or even freshwater swamp.
2. Restoring, establishing, and preserving oyster reefs in the bays to provide valuable ecosystem services.
3. Managing salinity in the lakes and bays by controlling salinity flowing in from the Gulf and freshwater flows from rivers and freshwater swamps.

The big picture is to be more intentional about what levels of salinity are maintained in which regions. The "saltwater" line may end up further north than it is now and there may be some trade-offs between crawfish/bass/crappie habitat and crab/redfish/speck habitat.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

There certainly is a good chance it could work out this way. I'm optimistic that fairly good fisheries can be preserved over the next 100 years as the marshes turn into open lakes and bays by:

1. Minimizing future loss of marshes and preserving marsh that used to be more brackish or even freshwater swamp.
2. Restoring, establishing, and preserving oyster reefs in the bays to provide valuable ecosystem services.
3. Managing salinity in the lakes and bays by controlling salinity flowing in from the Gulf and freshwater flows from rivers and freshwater swamps.

The big picture is to be more intentional about what levels of salinity are maintained in which regions. The "saltwater" line may end up further north than it is now and there may be some trade-offs between crawfish/bass/crappie habitat and crab/redfish/speck habitat.

We can't afford anymore conversion to open water. Why do you think the Cameron-Creole and the weirs are such a point of contention? They didn't put those there for ducks or for fish. They put those there for the Marsh. If we lose too much more Marsh in Cameron parish, it will compromise all the infrastructure to the North. All that Marsh is important flood control. Without it, a major hurricane like Rita or Katrina would be devastating.

I hope they don't move the saltwater line further north. We've already lost many acres of valuable fresh water habitat.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

We can't afford anymore conversion to open water. Why do you think the Cameron-Creole and the weirs are such a point of contention? They didn't put those there for ducks or for fish. They put those there for the Marsh. If we lose too much more Marsh in Cameron parish, it will compromise all the infrastructure to the North. All that Marsh is important flood control. Without it, a major hurricane like Rita or Katrina would be devastating.

I hope they don't move the saltwater line further north. We've already lost many acres of valuable fresh water habitat.

I agree, and I did not mean to advocate allowing further losses. I was more hoping to point out that I don't think we've passed a point of no return, as one of the posts had suggested.

Protecting against storm surge is undoubtedly an essential reason to protect the marsh. But the general public has short memories, and you have to sell expensive ideas based on more than events that occurred 9 years ago.

There are a bunch of stakeholders whose focus varies among many short and long term interests. The more interests an expensive plan meets and the fewer perceived difficulties it presents to the common man, the more likely it will be to be accepted.

There are most likely going to be more hurricanes like Katrina and Rita in the next 50 years. But as the memories fade, places like Holly Beach and Rutherford Beach will again be built up with camps and homes as the memory of Rita becomes more distant. Lack of flood insurance will make getting loans harder, and for a time it'll be RVs under shades. But eventually, the mobile home numbers will rise, and then people will be again be building permanent structures, though probably not with federally guaranteed loans.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

There certainly is a good chance it could work out this way. I'm optimistic that fairly good fisheries can be preserved over the next 100 years as the marshes turn into open lakes and bays by:


3. Managing salinity in the lakes and bays by controlling salinity flowing in from the Gulf and freshwater flows from rivers and freshwater swamps.
.

They have these things called a wier or something like that, that does this very thing. Crazy ain't it

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

They have these things called a wier or something like that, that does this very thing. Crazy ain't it

A single level has proven less effective than hoped. I envision more of a staged salinity control system where salinity is gradually reduced from the highest areas (ship channel) to moderate levels (lake) to lower levels (marsh). There is too much flow between the lake and the Gulf for a single level structure (weir) to be effective because it ends up closed to many days each year.

Also, there is a management plan, but it has not really been followed. Opening and closing control structures should be based on the salinity and water levels on each side and the target levels on each side. You know, some measurement science to determine how much salt is flowing.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Also, there is a management plan, but it has not really been followed. Opening and closing control structures should be based on the salinity and water levels on each side and the target levels on each side. You know, some measurement science to determine how much salt is flowing.

Second time in this thread that something that I've said for months gets repeated. Yet, everytime I say these things, it starts a big azz argument as to why I'm wrong.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Second time in this thread that something that I've said for months gets repeated. Yet, everytime I say these things, it starts a big azz argument as to why I'm wrong.

It's almost comical isn't it?

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

It's almost comical isn't it?

No, not at all. I'm the one that did this kind of work, worked in the Marsh for years, continue to work in wetlands, and have conducted research on those wetlands. Yet, I am told repeatedly that I don't know what I'm talking about.

But its ok when other people repeat it.

Makes perfect sense. Yeah, I see no humor in that.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Smalls

No, not at all. I'm the one that did this kind of work, worked in the Marsh for years, continue to work in wetlands, and have conducted research on those wetlands. Yet, I am told repeatedly that I don't know what I'm talking about.

But its ok when other people repeat it.

Makes perfect sense. Yeah, I see no humor in that.

I know right

U say it and certain folks blow it off, those exact same folks say it down the road and it's taken for the gospel