Thoughts on CCA meeting tonight on state of Calcasieu fishery

[BassYakR]

Originally Posted by slickfish

10!!!

Quackkkkkkkk



Choot em Waltrip

[T-TOP]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I think we need to mull this over for another day or two, while considering whether and how to call for an ongoing and more effective Boycott of the S.T.A.R. Tournament now that CCA has had ample opportunity to address angler concerns.

Certainly, we need to reach out to a broader base of anglers to expand the boycott next year. But we might also consider how we might effectively reach out to CCA sponsors and participating businesses (sign-up locations and weigh stations). Since it may well cost participating businesses some business to join the boycott, effective outreach here will require tact and care and likely an ongoing effort to make them well informed regarding the justifications for the boycott and what we hope to accomplish by it. We may also need to try and effectively steer boycott participants to local businesses that are willing to join the boycott efforts.

Please give some consideration to how the boycott might be effectively expanded next year. The key to making these efforts effective in the long term is reducing CCA's influence with LDWF and LWC. The license fee increase hasn't passed yet, even though CCA supported it. I also think CCA's credibility has taken a hit with local anglers, with LWC, and with LDWF.

I would be much more discouraged if CCA had gained 100 new members last night.

I'm not trying to be negative about your post, but that meeting last night was organized by the cca. Not because of a boycott or lost funds due to it, but because people took the time to voice their concerns about the issues to the CCA. We have the CCA's attention, why not take advatage of it and keep pushing the concerns. That may be more productive than working hard to boycott them.

[BassYakR]

I have to believe that all the negative talk about the CCA caused them to have the meeting. I may be wrong but I`m sure it had some influence on the decision for a meeting.

[T-TOP]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Legislative pressure is a great idea, but I expect it to take a while to work.

I've begun to think outside the box a bit. Do you know that there are a host of new regulations that the oyster harvesters need to comply with and also that DHH has the authority to close oystering grounds for health reasons? One idea that has potential is to begin photographing and documenting the oystering activities, both to improve our documentation of the ecological damage done by the dredging and also to gather information and make reports regarding non-compliance with the regulations. If state officials give oyster harvesters a pass on non-compliance, I don't think it would be too hard to get the FDA involved to shut down non-compliant operators, and some other states are very eager to cite health concerns as reasons to stop buying Louisiana Oysters. There is real potential to give the local oyster industry a black eye on failure to comply with new health regulations. Give some of the new regs a careful read, and I bet some action items come to mind:

http://new.dhh.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/page/629/n/210

http://new.dhh.louisiana.gov/assets/...n_05102014.pdf

http://new.dhh.louisiana.gov/assets/...hure_14x17.pdf

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/news/37809

http://oysterlease.wlf.la.gov/oyster...tification.pdf

How many signatures on a petition to stop the dredging do you think it would take to get some attention? Along with the graph that we saw last night.... that clearly shows a decline.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by T-TOP

We have the CCA's attention, why not take advatage of it and keep pushing the concerns. That may be more productive than working hard to boycott them.

Why not do both?

I've never opposed an open dialog with CCA as long as they are willing to maintain a conversation that includes anglers who are not giving them our money.

But given CCA's track record over the past 15 years, I think expansion of boycott efforts is likely necessary to effectively alter past behaviors. Do you really think their emphasis over the past 15 years is likely to change if revenues remain high? I think that a 10-20% reduction in their Louisiana revenues will maintain their attention better than continued growth.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by T-TOP

The
weirs topic was very informative, and they will work for what they are intended. To save the marsh behind the levee. The best idea I heard about access was the guy that asked about rollers or some form of access while the gate is closed. Cameron parish would have to pay for that, i think. There was a long member list of people that make the decision on opening and closing the weirs weekly or even daily. Kinda blows the whole duck hunter running the marsh complaint that gets discussed here a lot.

Don't see that ever happening. Too much money and liability involved. The guy next to me was laughing about that. Said there are too many people that can't even launch a boat, let alone lift it over the levee.

When I get a chance, I'm going to call Chuck. I've remembered a few questions I wanted to ask him about the management plan that didn't come to me last night. Something about those marsh figures and them moving to Phase 2 of the MP didn't add up to me.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by T-TOP

How many signatures on a petition to stop the dredging do you think it would take to get some attention? Along with the graph that we saw last night.... that clearly shows a decline.

I wish I could say. There are some aspects of the Louisiana policy making process that are a mystery to me. Another SC member posted the list of committee members along with the view that the normal political pressures are unlikely to change anything. I noticed that Randy Pausina is on that committee and he has made an impression on me as a man who is concerned with sound science and science based policy.

It might take some time to get change, but ongoing pressure and dialog are a good thing toward that end. Dredging on the E side has been closed for a few years now, it is West Cove that has been getting raped, and I am optimistic that the E side may be coming back. My hope is to get the policy changed before the E side is re-opened. In addition to the committee and the legislature having the authority to close the E side, DHH and the LDWF Secretary also have the authority.

[T-TOP]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Don't see that ever happening. Too much money and liability involved. The guy next to me was laughing about that. Said there are too many people that can't even launch a boat, let alone lift it over the levee.

When I get a chance, I'm going to call Chuck. I've remembered a few questions I wanted to ask him about the management plan that didn't come to me last night. Something about those marsh figures and them moving to Phase 2 of the MP didn't add up to me.

I agree,

["W"]

Oyster fisherman must have the most money in the commercial industry !! It was clear cut last night that dredging has taken a major toll on the lake , but yet they don't want to say it's all dredging !!!

They even blamed it on snails

Does oysters bring in the most income for our state of commercial fishing ?

How can the WLF be so blind and dumbfounded to that graph last night ?

[Nickt87]

Originally Posted by fishwater

Whoever the guy that said I didn't come in here with a belt buckle on and and a cowboy hat I am not from Texas haha. He had a lot of good points

That was me, and that was my nicest way of telling that goon that I don't give 2 turds what the hell Texas does with their fishery, especially after you just stated that their creel limit decision wasn't based primarily on scientific data but partially on social premise.

Other than that statement I tried to keep most of my comments black and white and to the point for the presenters to understand and answer as well as the audience to follow. I frown upon anyone that does nothing but rant on the internet and then sit back and watch when they get in front of people that they supposedly want to hang. I understand some feel like it falls on deaf ears but if you're going to take the time to drive over and attend then go ahead and take the opportunity to put them on the hot seat. Interrogation and quarreling can be done in an educated and fair manner and still have a monumental impact.

As for the content provided I feel some of it was eye opening and some of it was redundant and part of the horse and pony show.

My biggest concern leaving the meeting was that they have black and white data and charts explaining that oyster habitat and population is rapidly decreasing and they have done slim to none to protect, conserve, and restore it. Later in the night I voiced that people are in panic because we are hearing of trout limit cuts and we are afraid it is for all the wrong reasons. What makes us think that you have the estuaries best interest in mind? You have already proven that you can't manage and maintain a species that you have concrete data on. How are we supposed to trust and support your decision on trout limits when you say that you haven't collected data on speckled trout since 2010? And that data isn't even region specific!


Overall, I did apprecitate CCA for taking the time to show and put on the meeting. Possibly, if they would have recieved questions and comments from the most concerned the meeting could have been even more informative. You never know what one question or comment can lead to.

[hewes]

It's the restaurant lobby that is so strong.

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by Nickt87

How are we supposed to trust and support your decision on trout limits when you say that you haven't collected data on speckled trout since 2010?

I asked about the Speckled Trout Stock Assessments data. The last guy (I think his name was Harry Blanchette?) said that they continually collect data and that they have the data but that it is only posted every 3-5 years.

I asked that question specifically because of all the talk on SC. I couldn't remember what the historical postings of this data was during the meeting so I asked if it was historically posted annually and he said no.

After the meeting I was pondering that response and it hit me that maybe it was historically posted every 3 years in the past? 2004 - 2007 - 2010... Either way if they are saying 3-5 years it should be published soon.

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by "W"

It was clear cut last night that dredging has taken a major toll on the lake , but yet they don't want to say it's all dredging !!!

They even blamed it on snails

W I think the biologist that was there talking about oysters had some pretty good scientific data based on field work. They are taking monthly and sometimes bi-monthly samples from these reefs. If he tells me that there are other factors like Oyster Predation, I am inclined to believe him.

He didn't say how much of the impact was due to dredging and how much due to other factors, but I think it is naïve to think that dredging was the ONLY concern when these guys are out there constantly sampling these reefs.

[Nickt87]

Originally Posted by Reggoh

I asked about the Speckled Trout Stock Assessments data. The last guy (I think his name was Harry Blanchette?) said that they continually collect data and that they have the data but that it is only posted every 3-5 years.

I asked that question specifically because of all the talk on SC. I couldn't remember what the historical postings of this data was during the meeting so I asked if it was historically posted annually and he said no.

After the meeting I was pondering that response and it hit me that maybe it was historically posted every 3 years in the past? 2004 - 2007 - 2010... Either way if they are saying 3-5 years it should be published soon.

Agreed. My second concern is the area in which the data is gathered. They are taking generally aquired data and applying it to centralized zones. I fish from the The Biloxi Marsh down to Venice and over to Big Lake every year and they are all totally different ecosystems. It is erroneous to think that wide range data is accurate for centralized zones.

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by Nickt87

Agreed. My second concern is the area in which the data is gathered. They are taking generally aquired data and applying it to centralized zones. I fish from the The Biloxi Marsh down to Venice and over to Big Lake every year and they are all totally different ecosystems. It is erroneous to think that wide range data is accurate for centralized zones.

I was thinking quite a bit about this last night too.

LDWF obviously understands that different ecosystems should impact the management of those systems because they do this for Whitetail deer. The ecosystem on the west side of the state is totally different from the area along the Mississippi River and it is managed differently.

I think they need to explore different management regulations for the different estuaries based on the science and data from each area.

I've heard on here a number of times people comparing Sabine to Calcasieu... These are close together but they are also very different systems and probably should be managed differently.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Reggoh

W I think the biologist that was there talking about oysters had some pretty good scientific data based on field work. They are taking monthly and sometimes bi-monthly samples from these reefs. If he tells me that there are other factors like Oyster Predation, I am inclined to believe him.

He didn't say how much of the impact was due to dredging and how much due to other factors, but I think it is naïve to think that dredging was the ONLY concern when these guys are out there constantly sampling these reefs.

Let me ask you something

You saw that chart last night right?

Ok if you put your life savings in the market in one stock and it looked like that ENRON chart last night ! How much longer do you keep your money in that stock and let it fall?

Since dredging it has plummeted downward and guess what ? We are still allowing dredging with out any solution and you trust the Goverment ?

CMON

Did you notice there were at least 50 guides who showed up and more than half left after the weir discussion because it's the same old ****

We can't answer nothing or we are not the ones to talk to blah blah blah

[fishwater]

Yeah but like stated last night the east side of the state is all leased. Oyster fishermen there want to keep thier investment a good one so they work to rebuild their reefs. On big lake they suck em up and do nothing to help reseed I think that's where the deal problem is. Something needs to be done along the lines of making them put shells back or help with reef restoration projects if you oyster fish, but I image that's like pulling alligator teeth with those guys. I would be scared to death if all I knew how to do is catch oysters and I saw those graphs of the lake. It scares me just being a recreational fisherman.

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by "W"

Let me ask you something

You saw that chart last night right?

Ok if you put your life savings in the market in one stock and it looked like that ENRON chart last night ! How much longer do you keep your money in that stock and let it fall?

Since dredging it has plummeted downward and guess what ? We are still allowing dredging with out any solution and you trust the Goverment ?

CMON

Did you notice there were at least 50 guides who showed up and more than half left after the weir discussion because it's the same old ****

We can't answer nothing or we are not the ones to talk to blah blah blah

If I had to put my money on it based on the chart and the data given.... I would just say the decline is probably 75% dredging and 25% other factors. But that is just a gut feeling.

As far as "Trusting the Government"... that's a little out there. I'm saying that I believe that the Oyster Biologist that was in attendance last night was credible and is doing his best to help the Oyster fishery in our estuary with data and practices that he feels is the best available.

Maybe what we learned from this meeting is that we need a more diverse audience to voice our concerns. If CCA can organize this meeting, why can't they organize another one with decision makers. Make these guys answer the tough questions. Voice your concerns to the people making the decisions!

The problem is even if you get the decision makers in the room, no decisions will be made right on the spot. These things take time and usually require a panel of people voting on the issues. While this may not give the 50 guides the immediate satisfaction they are looking for, it's the system we have in place. We just need to work it properly.

[fishwater]

Another thing since when is the Corp not responsible for rocking the channel or that's what I got from the lady last night. They can only rock the federal channel and nothing else is what it sounded like and there are no plans to do anything about erosion except dredge the channel ever couple yrs that makes no sense to me.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Reggoh

W I think the biologist that was there talking about oysters had some pretty good scientific data based on field work. They are taking monthly and sometimes bi-monthly samples from these reefs. If he tells me that there are other factors like Oyster Predation, I am inclined to believe him.

Black drum dominate the oyster predation. Word among the commercial fishers is that there are a lot more black drum in Sabine than in Calcasieu, and several commercial guys whose home base is in Hackberry are regularly fishing Sabine now because there are more black drum over there. The predation and parasite pressure on oysters are comparable between Sabine and Calcasieu, so what's causing the biggest difference in the oyster stock assessments? Dredging is the obvious dominant factor, so don't let them blind you with reports of confounding factors.

But the Oyster Predation issue may open the door toward a useful policy change that both the oyster lobby and the sport anglers can agree on: Commercial and recreational limits on black drum should be completely eliminated state wide.

There is very little risk of extirpating the species state wide, and other than human activities, heavy predation of black drum on oysters is likely the most significant contributor to declining oyster reefs and challenges in oyster reef restoration. Now, I personally like black drum and enjoy catching them, but the scientific fact is that black drum are a nuisance species destroying far more value in oyster reef habitat than their value in the commercial and recreational fisheries.

There is a small commercial black drum fishery in the state, but they may not even object to removing limits, because the commercial fishery may even be sustainable without limits, and these guys also earn money in the oyster fishery, which is much more lucrative. In addition to protecting the oyster reefs, removing limits on black drum would also have the effect of reducing competition among juveniles for forage resources shared with other species. There are certain subcultures (mostly ethnic shore anglers) who would also appreciate removal of restrictions on black drum harvest. Like many fishery regulations, there were never any stock assessments showing the regulations were needed, someone simply decided that the life history of black drum was close enough to redfish to manage them with the same recreational regulations.