Another Reason to Boycott S.T.A.R.: Tripletail regulations passed

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by noodle creek

I'm not sure why they built the levee and put the weirs in, so I won't try to act like I know. However, I feel like the marsh versus the lake should come into play. It seems to me that the lake is hurting far more from having the weirs put in than the marsh would hurt without them. If, and I said if, the weirs were put in to manage the grasses in the marsh in order to help attract waterfowl and other bird species, I feel that is far less important than choking off the lake of one of it's major bait sources. Waterfowl have the whole gulf coast to find marshes and farmlands to thrive in. The fish have one lake, and if they cannot find food they will not be there.

I really hope there is more to the weirs than I can understand, because as of now they seem to be a bust in my opinion. Sabine has no weirs, and everytime i fish it in late winter the marshes off of the east bank of Sabine are loaded with teal, greys, pintail, widgeon, and mottle ducks. There is also plenty of grass in the marshes off of Sabine.

Since the weirs, we have seen a huge redfish kill a few years back, and trout fishing diminish more and more every year. I sure hope the ducks are thick back there, because they were really thick in that marsh before the weirs.

Someone please explain the benefit of the weirs to this point, and all of the reasons for the weirs being there.

Give me a couple of hours to get in front of a computer and I can give you an exhaustive rundown of the weirs. Contrary to what big mouth says, the weirs were not constructed for ducks. They were put up as a Marsh management. There are logical reasons for why shrimping was so good before the weirs. Shrimp feed on dying Marsh. The dominant vegetation back there is not adapted to high salinity, and saline adapted vegetation was not colonizing fast enough.

[meaux fishing]

Look at the land loss in the grand isle and Leeville area. That is the purpose of the weirs, to stop that from happening around big lake, due to the large influx of saltwater that the ship channel brings.

[marshrunner757]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Preventing marsh destruction by limiting saltwater intrusion is a long term win for all stakeholders.

The challenge is doing it in a way that allows a high level of flow between the lake and marsh.

Right now, the flow between the lake and Gulf are too high. The high salinity levels and large tidal fluctuations in the lake are problematic if the coupling between the lake and marsh are higher (weirs open more).

The answer is reducing the flow and coupling between the lake and Gulf. One option is a saltwater barrier at the pass. I think a better option is lining each side of the channel with a solid rock barrier with only a few shallow cuts to allow passage of recreational boats. The system is too dynamic to have sharp demarcations between fresh and salt water. The ship channel can be the saltiest. The lake more brackish, and the marsh more on the fresh side.

Had the weirs been opened on Tue night, the extreme low tide would have allowed all the water to drain out and the following high tides would have pushed way too much salt back into the marsh. We need a plan that will allow the weirs to be opened 7-21 days each month. The present high level of coupling between the lake and the Gulf is much too high for that.

I think this says it all. Had they protected/rebuilt the levees along the ship channel instead of building weirs, it would have been more beneficial.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[MathGeek]

Basic Principles for Fisheries Management in Louisiana

Sportsmen's liberties in pursuing and harvesting fish and game should not be further restricted unless there is sound and compelling scientific data demonstrating a true conservation need. Regulations should not be based on irrational fear that the resource might not remain for future generations; they should be based on sound scientific data showing the resource cannot be sustained for future generations under current management practices.

Sustainable harvests and use of the resources should always be allowed, and the burden of proof for those proposing new regulations should be on those proposing to impose criminal penalties for liberties which have been previously enjoyed. I see no wisdom in adopting restrictive regulations copying the example of neighboring states. Louisiana waters are generally less pressured and allow a more bountiful harvest than neighboring Gulf states. Whenever possible, Louisiana would do well to support the tourism industry and justify the expense of non-resident hunting and fishing licenses by maintaining more liberal harvest limits than other Gulf states. Our "Sportsman's Paradise" allows us to share our resources more liberally.

[MathGeek]

Some fellows from the site have set up a facebook page dedicated to the S.T.A.R. Boycott:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/712460725459033/

[marshrunner757]

So I'm guessing the guides who are pro ban will refuse to guide sports entered in the star????

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

["W"]

Originally Posted by marshrunner757

So I'm guessing the guides who are pro ban will refuse to guide sports entered in the star????

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Guides can't fish STAR....


And I have no problem if someone on my boat is fishing it, no one makes choices for others they make there own and 99.9 who hire a guide are not around to see the issues we face everyday so you can't really expect them to not support the CCA if they don't know the facts

[Smalls]

Here's a good question. With the early bird registration period already passed, how many people do y'all expect to join this boycott? How many people fish the STAR and how many would it take for this Boycott to be effective? How many people fish saltwater and don't even fish the STAR?

[marshrunner757]

I understand your point. I just don't understand how a guide can claim to ban/oppose CCA when they aren't eligible but constantly bring sports who are registered. Just an observation and not trying to be smart in anyway. I'm still on the wire about the entire thing because I know as soon as I don't register I'll catch a winning fish and CCA knows this is how people think Lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by marshrunner757

I understand your point. I just don't understand how a guide can claim to ban/oppose CCA when they aren't eligible but constantly bring sports who are registered. Just an observation and not trying to be smart in anyway. I'm still on the wire about the entire thing because I know as soon as I don't register I'll catch a winning fish and CCA knows this is how people think Lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Screw that fish, and their junk truck. And screw the under powered boat.

I'll mount the fish with the boycott CCA sticker stuck on the plaque.

[marshrunner757]

Originally Posted by Goooh

Screw that fish, and their junk truck. And screw the under powered boat.

I'll mount the fish with the boycott CCA sticker stuck on the plaque.

This is the mindset I'm working toward lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[Goooh]

Lotteries are a tax on poor people and those that are horrible at math. - Dave Ramsey

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by marshrunner757

I understand your point. I just don't understand how a guide can claim to ban/oppose CCA when they aren't eligible but constantly bring sports who are registered. Just an observation and not trying to be smart in anyway. I'm still on the wire about the entire thing because I know as soon as I don't register I'll catch a winning fish and CCA knows this is how people think Lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

there is no reason to be 'on the wire', do some independent research on how non-profit conservation organizations work, how they are funded, how they are limited in what they can and can't do, and make your decision there. They can only do so much, they are limited by money. Take what you read and hear on the internet with a grain of salt. There was a thread about conservation organization facts and myths on here a while back, look it up. We would be MUCH better served if people would stop getting on a computer or phone and typing what is wrong with xyz organization, if they would volunteer their time and 'expertise' and show them the way, lead by example. Its easy to bash, but when the chips are on the table and its time to put up or shut up, most just stay behind the computer screen. I have nothing else nice to say here so that's my rant. Its painful to watch this unfold with all the mistruths and half-truths being spouted out. Just do your own research is all, or better yet go to a meeting or call and talk to some of these folks and ask them, don't just write an email, give them a call

[Natural Light Kid]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

there is no reason to be 'on the wire', do some independent research on how non-profit conservation organizations work, how they are funded, how they are limited in what they can and can't do, and make your decision there. They can only do so much, they are limited by money. Take what you read and hear on the internet with a grain of salt. There was a thread about conservation organization facts and myths on here a while back, look it up. We would be MUCH better served if people would stop getting on a computer or phone and typing what is wrong with xyz organization, if they would volunteer their time and 'expertise' and show them the way, lead by example. Its easy to bash, but when the chips are on the table and its time to put up or shut up, most just stay behind the computer screen. I have nothing else nice to say here so that's my rant. Its painful to watch this unfold with all the mistruths and half-truths being spouted out. Just do your own research is all, or better yet go to a meeting or call and talk to some of these folks and ask them, don't just write an email, give them a call

Very well said.

[marshrunner757]

For the record, I have not bashed CCA. The only negative I've stated was fact in that S.T.A.R. is a cheated system. There is no organization that will make everybody happy or without some level of corruption. Even if a new organization is formed as mentioned before, in time greed will sneak in and control at least part of it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

["W"]

Originally Posted by marshrunner757

I understand your point. I just don't understand how a guide can claim to ban/oppose CCA when they aren't eligible but constantly bring sports who are registered. Just an observation and not trying to be smart in anyway. I'm still on the wire about the entire thing because I know as soon as I don't register I'll catch a winning fish and CCA knows this is how people think Lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I'm Republican but take Democrats fishing??

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by marshrunner757

For the record, I have not bashed CCA. The only negative I've stated was fact in that S.T.A.R. is a cheated system. There is no organization that will make everybody happy or without some level of corruption. Even if a new organization is formed as mentioned before, in time greed will sneak in and control at least part of it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

sorry, that wasn't directed at you but to everyone really but....how is the STAR a cheated system?

there may be people cheating in the tournament but that isn't the system, that's on the people fishing the tourney

[marshrunner757]

When I personally know someone who caught a fish on private waters and the place, date and name were reported and no polygraph is given I consider that a cheated system.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Its painful to watch this unfold with all the mistruths and half-truths being spouted out. Just do your own research is all, or better yet go to a meeting or call and talk to some of these folks and ask them, don't just write an email, give them a call

One thing I've learned is that most parties are much more likely to misrepresent things in verbal communications than in writing.

The content of written communications is much easier to verify. It is much easier to recall accurately after the fact.

In contrast, holding people accountable for what they say in verbal communications is very difficult. Everyone knows this, so they'll say things verbally that they won't commit to writing.

The converse is also true. It is less common for an honest person to have their written communications misrepresented by less honest parties. And it's pretty easy to point out the duplicity when it does occur.

Those favoring verbal communications often have an ulterior motive.

[keakar]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Some fellows from the site have set up a facebook page dedicated to the S.T.A.R. Boycott:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/712460725459033/

but its not public, you have to sign in to see it

someone created an account for me there that I did not want and I prefer not to sign in at facebook EVER, for my own reasons.