Heating up on new fees

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Smalls

That's why I said a name would be great with this story. If this is some Guy that spent his whole career just doing sampling or something, its no big deal.

But from the sounds of things, its not. This guy sounds like he was a biologist manager, possibly over the old marine fisheries program. This is a former biologist with an intimate knowledge of how WLF is set up.

Are you honestly saying this is misinformation? That this guy doesn't know what he's talking about? Sounds to me like he has a damn good idea of what he is talking about.

What's in a name? Famous question. A name gives these words a lot of weight. Or maybe not. Depends on the name.

Without a name, maybe its not a story. With a name, if could have blown this thing away.

I would bet that a great majority of fisheries supervisor biologists and managers are for the increase. We will never know what this guy did if he remains anonymous, remnds me of MathGeek just stirring crap up just for spite

There are people that disagree with everything, I can't think of many things that go through 100% (besides the Coastal Master Plan). I think its a needed increase, everything else has gone up. Fuel is a huge expense in doing fisheries research and fuel has certainly gone way up.

My problem is just the journalism, they find ONE person that disagrees with something and then run with it rather than get opinions from several people and then make the story. They get it out quick, sit back, and then let the W's of the world (and gov't conspiracists like MG) spread it for them

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

LDWF had had their own silly rules in refusing to share their own data since 2010. Why should anglers pay for data only LDWF gets to see? Data paid for with public dollars should not be hidden and secret.



Right, the claim is that the increased license fees would be used to staff and operate hatcheries that are not really needed. LDWF has enough employees already. We don't need to fund their empire build. They have enough resources already to manage the resources responsibly. They need to use those resources more responsibly which is unlikely if we just keep giving them more money.

You know the answer, you have received letters from attorneys. Its called a gag order.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I would bet that a great majority of fisheries supervisor biologists and managers are for the increase. We will never know what this guy did if he remains anonymous, remnds me of MathGeek just stirring crap up just for spite

There are people that disagree with everything, I can't think of many things that go through 100% (besides the Coastal Master Plan). I think its a needed increase, everything else has gone up. Fuel is a huge expense in doing fisheries research and fuel has certainly gone way up.

My problem is just the journalism, they find ONE person that disagrees with something and then run with it rather than get opinions from several people and then make the story. They get it out quick, sit back, and then let the W's of the world (and gov't conspiracists like MG) spread it for them

Come on DB, do you really think anyone working for the state is going to come out and say they are opposed to something that their Employer is pushing? I can't imagine getting any current fisheries supervisor or manager to say that he is opposed to it, at least not with his name attached to it.

I'm not saying I'm opposed to it, but he does raise some valid points. That is why I said a name would make this more or less significant, depending on who said it.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Come on DB, do you really think anyone working for the state is going to come out and say they are opposed to something that their Employer is pushing? I can't imagine getting any current fisheries supervisor or manager to say that he is opposed to it, at least not with his name attached to it.

I'm not saying I'm opposed to it, but he does raise some valid points. That is why I said a name would make this more or less significant, depending on who said it.

I am saying its a non-story. Its what journalists do nowadays, find something that isn't a big deal, make a big deal out of it, and then let the people spread it for them. They are essentially trolling everyone, just to get some clicks on their website, the more clicks, the more $$$$$ they get for advertising

similar to all the 'breaking news' stories that are constantly out there. Most of it is just b.s but they add 'breaking news' to it and some hipster might actually read it

[MathGeek]

It is notable that those supporting the increase in fees have gone into attack mode rather that giving fact-based responses to the retired biologist's fact-based assertions.

[Reggoh]

Are you guys that are opposed to the increase in fishing license fees only opposed because you are not happy with what you think they will do with the extra money? I think these issues should be separated. The cost of a license needs to be increased from time to time to reflect current cost of living. Where that money is spent is a separate issue.

I think you should look at what the CPI was the last time the cost of a saltwater fishing license was raised and then look at the CPI today... I think you will find that EVERY THING in the world has gone up in price by WAY more than 136% in that time period... why should a fishing license be any different?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Reggoh

I think you should look at what the CPI was the last time the cost of a saltwater fishing license was raised and then look at the CPI today... I think you will find that EVERY THING in the world has gone up in price by WAY more than 136% in that time period... why should a fishing license be any different?

LDWF is funded with a number of revenue streams, not just license fees, so the argument that license fees should increase with the consumer price index is invalid. Their overall budget has grown by over 136% since the last change in the saltwater license fee.

But LDWF has represented that this increase is needed to allow them to take better data to better manage the fisheries. We are less than trusting in that representation for several reasons:

1. Dedicated funds are seldom used as promised in Louisiana. Note the robbing of the $26 million artificial reef fund.

2. The actual language of the bill does not dedicate the money to research, and LDWF would be at liberty to spend the money on anything on anything remotely qualifying as conservation, including likely using the money to staff new (unneeded) saltwater hatcheries and fund their operation. The money could also be used for any enforcement efforts related to conservation, including bigger rewards to catch violators who shoot whooping cranes.

3. LDWF has been secretive about their saltwater fisheries data for the past four years, even though this data was acquired with public funds. It would be dishonest to say that this data is under a "gag order" since no court has ordered keeping a lid on the data. The decision to keep the data secret comes from within the executive branch, and they could just as easily decide to share the data with all stakeholders and scientists. This situation is very similar to the EPA which is now refusing to provide the data upon which many of their restrictive policies and regulations are based. Why should we pay for LDWF to acquire more data to analyze in secret and proclaim support for more restrictive regulations? Government should be more open than this.

[keakar]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

It is notable that those supporting the increase in fees have gone into attack mode rather that giving fact-based responses to the retired biologist's fact-based assertions.

they are also true blue 100% supporters of CCA and anything it wants to do.

["W"]

Last word I got on SPR# see dates

Thanks for your interest in spotted seatrout management. As you
are probably aware it takes several years after regulatory changes are
in place before those changes can be accurately measured in an
assessment. We are currently compiling any and all new information that
has been collected since our last full stock assessment in 2005 with
plans to complete a new assessment in late 2009 or early 2010. We will
be happy to provide you with those results as they become available.
Thanks again.



The Department's adopted a conservation standard is 18% static
SPR per biological examination of stock, as outlined below in the 2005
assessment. What this means is that we believe there is a possible risk
of adversely impacting recruitment if SPR is allowed to remain below
18%. In order to avoid going below the threshold, the department has
adopted the following conservation standard. For spotted seatrout,
fishing regulations should not allow cumulative fishing mortality rates
to reduce the spawning potential of a cohort on average below 18% static
SPR. This conservation standard is designed to stabilize the spawning
potential of a cohort at or above the median level found in the 1980's,
where existing evidence indicates that the spawning stock had not been
reduced to a level that would adversely impact recruitment.



The 2004 status of the stock, defined as the static SPR, is
14.5%, a substantial decline from the 20.9% SPR reported in 2000. This
is below the conservation standard of 18% described above.



Current assessment in 2005, with data through 2004. Static SPR
of 14.5%. We are currently in process of reviewing, updating and
modifying this assessment to include new information sources and
assessment methods.

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by keakar

they are also true blue 100% supporters of CCA and anything it wants to do.

Hi Keakar,

You must have not been there when they (the LDWF) fought strenuously against the anti- netting bill for speckled trout. They used every political punch they could muster - including the governor's office at times.
In fact, there was NO biology supporting a net ban for speckled trout. It was purely political, but I am happy CCA won.
Now there was another "speckled trout" group involved that supported the anti-netting bill.
They had some differences with CCA, but people generally belonged to both organizations . . . sorta like DU and Delta Waterfowl.
Anybody remember that trout association's name??? Something like "Louisiana Speckled Trout Association" I think.
And...the only reason "GCCA" changed its name to "CCA" was because there are now active chapters along the southeastern Atlantic Coast. That meant a change in name was necessary since the organization represented more coastal areas of the US than the Gulf Coast.

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by "W"

Last word I got on SPR# see dates

Thanks for your interest in spotted seatrout management. As you
are probably aware it takes several years after regulatory changes are
in place before those changes can be accurately measured in an
assessment. We are currently compiling any and all new information that
has been collected since our last full stock assessment in 2005 with
plans to complete a new assessment in late 2009 or early 2010. We will
be happy to provide you with those results as they become available.
Thanks again.



The Department's adopted a conservation standard is 18% static
SPR per biological examination of stock, as outlined below in the 2005
assessment. What this means is that we believe there is a possible risk
of adversely impacting recruitment if SPR is allowed to remain below
18%. In order to avoid going below the threshold, the department has
adopted the following conservation standard. For spotted seatrout,
fishing regulations should not allow cumulative fishing mortality rates
to reduce the spawning potential of a cohort on average below 18% static
SPR. This conservation standard is designed to stabilize the spawning
potential of a cohort at or above the median level found in the 1980's,
where existing evidence indicates that the spawning stock had not been
reduced to a level that would adversely impact recruitment.



The 2004 status of the stock, defined as the static SPR, is
14.5%, a substantial decline from the 20.9% SPR reported in 2000. This
is below the conservation standard of 18% described above.



Current assessment in 2005, with data through 2004. Static SPR
of 14.5%. We are currently in process of reviewing, updating and
modifying this assessment to include new information sources and
assessment methods.

"W"....that's old data....correct?

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

LDWF is funded with a number of revenue streams, not just license fees, so the argument that license fees should increase with the consumer price index is invalid. Their overall budget has grown by over 136% since the last change in the saltwater license fee.

But LDWF has represented that this increase is needed to allow them to take better data to better manage the fisheries. We are less than trusting in that representation for several reasons:

1. Dedicated funds are seldom used as promised in Louisiana. Note the robbing of the $26 million artificial reef fund.

2. The actual language of the bill does not dedicate the money to research, and LDWF would be at liberty to spend the money on anything on anything remotely qualifying as conservation, including likely using the money to staff new (unneeded) saltwater hatcheries and fund their operation. The money could also be used for any enforcement efforts related to conservation, including bigger rewards to catch violators who shoot whooping cranes.

3. LDWF has been secretive about their saltwater fisheries data for the past four years, even though this data was acquired with public funds. It would be dishonest to say that this data is under a "gag order" since no court has ordered keeping a lid on the data. The decision to keep the data secret comes from within the executive branch, and they could just as easily decide to share the data with all stakeholders and scientists. This situation is very similar to the EPA which is now refusing to provide the data upon which many of their restrictive policies and regulations are based. Why should we pay for LDWF to acquire more data to analyze in secret and proclaim support for more restrictive regulations? Government should be more open than this.

when you requested data, you got a letter from an attorney correct? What did that letter say? Can you post it?

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

when you requested data, you got a letter from an attorney correct? What did that letter say? Can you post it?

DB....many of us in the outdoor press to include indoor press have even filed FIA (Freedom of Information Act) letters to them. Their attorneys with the support of the courts say "Litigation is in process and we refuse comment at this time."

And...such is true whenever litigation is in process - especially one of this size with BP. The very last Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR) data available came from assessments in 2011.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by keakar

they are also true blue 100% supporters of CCA and anything it wants to do.

I support CCA but do not agree with every single thing (100%) of what they do. I can't think of one single organization, or one person (mayor, senator, congressman, etc.) that I am in 100% agreement with either. Everyone has faults and every organization has faults as well. Anyone can sit back and point it out, its easy. I still don't see the need to have a conservation organization whose sole purpose is to attack another conservation organization, it divides all of us.

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I support CCA but do not agree with every single thing (100%) of what they do. I can't think of one single organization, or one person (mayor, senator, congressman, etc.) that I am in 100% agreement with either. Everyone has faults and every organization has faults as well. Anyone can sit back and point it out, its easy. I still don't see the need to have a conservation organization whose sole purpose is to attack another conservation organization, it divides all of us.

I agree with you.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

DB....many of us in the outdoor press to include indoor press have even filed FIA (Freedom of Information Act) letters to them. Their attorneys with the support of the courts say "Litigation is in process and we refuse comment at this time."

And...such is true whenever litigation is in process - especially one of this size with BP. The very last Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR) data available came from assessments in 2011.

yep, and that is why I question how people are coming up with their data when it is not available to the public at this time until the litigation is over.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

"W"....that's old data....correct?

Yes last one they sent, had to dig through emails to find it


They will not give 2010/2011 data

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by "W"

Yes last one they sent, had to dig through emails to find it


They will not give 2010/2011 data

And in 2011, LDWF said it was between 8- and 14- percent. That's not saying much. We need that data based on samples in specific estuaries - not just statewide. Supposedly, the legislators are going to put pressure on LDWF to release data.

But remember, I think most of the reps are lawyers...am I correct?

So I will believe it when I see it.

[noodle creek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I support CCA but do not agree with every single thing (100%) of what they do. I can't think of one single organization, or one person (mayor, senator, congressman, etc.) that I am in 100% agreement with either. Everyone has faults and every organization has faults as well. Anyone can sit back and point it out, its easy. I still don't see the need to have a conservation organization whose sole purpose is to attack another conservation organization, it divides all of us.

It's not dividing anyone, it simply would give people a choice. You say you don't agree 100% with any politician you vote for, but you choose to vote for whoever you feel represents your views best. Same thing here, there is nothing at all wrong with it. If I feel that organization A will do better things with my money than organization B, I will side with them. Simple

["W"]

What is so hard about giving us a SPR# own our own fisheries?

My letter was clear and still zero email back and don't try and call they are not available during working hours never. Funny they are always the ones in the field lmao