LDWF meeting to talk about Big Lake Oysters

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Therefore, I would recommend contacting Commission members today with your input regarding oystering. Some points to consider:

1. Damage to oyster reefs by dredging not only harms the future of the oyster fishery, but also harms the entire ecosystem and fishery.

2. Healthy oyster reefs provide essential ecosystem services including filtering of anthropogenic inputs, benthopelagic coupling, biological resistance to algae blooms and subsequent hypoxia, nursery areas for finfish, areas of concentrated benthos, and high quality habitat.

3. Over harvesting of oysters was a key factor in the decline of many fisheries along the southeastern Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States, including the Chesapeake Bay and Galveston Bay.

4. Scientists estimate that each 10 square meters of high quality oyster reefs produce an additional 2.6 kg/year of finfish and large crustaceans.

I just got the report with the 2014 oyster stock assessment data from LDWF. It looks like the 2014 oyster numbers are up slightly above the 2013 numbers. So it is possible to interpret the data as if the oyster stocks are rebounding, even though they are nowhere near the levels in 2009-2010 (before the steep decline due to high harvest pressure). It is possible that the Commission may leave next year's regulations about the same as this year's (allowing dredging in West Cove, but no harvest on the east side).

If you would like to see oyster dredging stopped in West Cove, you should make plans to attend the meeting tomorrow or contact Commission members today.

Also of interest is the map of the 2014 Gulf of Mexico dead zone, released a few days ago by LUMCON. Notice the large area of hypoxic bottom water in the Gulf between Sabine and Mermantau. The dead zone area in this region has been growing since the oyster overharvest in 2010, and review of NASA satellite images showing Chlorophyll a concentration appear to provide the explanation. (See: http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi/l3 ) Two valuable ecosystem services provided by quality oyster reef habitats are curbing anthropogenic inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus (which fertilize algae blooms) and directly reducing algae concentrations by filter feeding on algae. Hypoxic bottom water is caused mainly by the decaying of abundant algae and other photosynthetic biomass after it sinks to the bottom.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I just got the report with the 2014 oyster stock assessment data from LDWF. It looks like the 2014 oyster numbers are up slightly above the 2013 numbers. So it is possible to interpret the data as if the oyster stocks are rebounding, even though they are nowhere near the levels in 2009-2010 (before the steep decline due to high harvest pressure). It is possible that the Commission may leave next year's regulations about the same as this year's (allowing dredging in West Cove, but no harvest on the east side).

If you would like to see oyster dredging stopped in West Cove, you should make plans to attend the meeting tomorrow or contact Commission members today.

Also of interest is the map of the 2014 Gulf of Mexico dead zone, released a few days ago by LUMCON. Notice the large area of hypoxic bottom water in the Gulf between Sabine and Mermantau. The dead zone area in this region has been growing since the oyster overharvest in 2010, and review of NASA satellite images showing Chlorophyll a concentration appear to provide the explanation. (See: http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi/l3 ) Two valuable ecosystem services provided by quality oyster reef habitats are curbing anthropogenic inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus (which fertilize algae blooms) and directly reducing algae concentrations by filter feeding on algae.

You are not trying to correlate the oyster dredging with increased dead zone now are you? Bit of a stretch



as usual

[MathGeek]

One of the reasons my colleagues and I have been so successful in science is that we rigorously adhere to the scientific method of testing ideas (hypotheses and theories) against experimental data without bias regarding expert opinions or popularity.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0&authuser=0

The hypothesis that chlorophyll a concentrations (as measured by NASA satellites) are correlated with oyster stocks (as measured by the LDWF stock assessment program) is a perfectly testable scientific hypothesis.

The hypothesis that hypoxic zone areas (as measured by Dr. Nancy Rabalais and colleagues) are correlated with oyster stocks is also a perfectly testable scientific hypothesis.

The logical chain used to formulate the above hypotheses are well established, and the correlations between oyster stocks and algae blooms and hypoxic zones have been experimentally verified in other ecosystems.

A preliminary analysis shows that correlation is likely in the near shore waters off of Cameron parish, so it would take a fairly unscientific mind to suggest performing more complete analysis would be foolish.

[Duck Butter]

This year's dead zone, measured from July 27 to August 2, is smaller than the five-year average of 5,550 square miles, and well under 2002's record 8,481 square miles.



oysters are very good at performing certain ecosystem services by filtration, but they can not process all those nutrients that are found in most fertilizers. The problem is upstream with ag runoff. We now farm fencerow to fencerow with no strips in between the fields to the water. There was a push to start using buffer strips (10' wide native grass and forb strips) along field borders near waterways but as usual people said no, we aren't conforming to what big bad gov't is trying to get us to do

where you see the largest dead zones are right where one would expect - at the mouths of the rivers and waterways (because they carry fertilizer with them). People farm all up and down the MS River and on up the Calcasieu. There has been a dead zone for decades.

[MathGeek]

It looks like LDWF is recommending to the Oyster Task Force and the LWF Commission that oystering be open in West Cove next season starting Oct 27, 2014 (including dredging), but limited to 10 sacks of oysters per vessel per day. That's quite a bit lower than the 25 sacks per day set by the legislature for the maximum in Calcasieu Lake and the 50 sacks per day limit in the other open areas of the state.

Short of a complete ban on dredging, this may be about the best outcome that could be hoped for at the present time. Depending on the market price, spending the fuel and time to go out for 10 sacks of oysters may not be attractive enough to many harvesters.

I'm re-reading a paper right now that discusses all the valuable ecosystem services that are lost when valuable oyster reef habitat is destroyed. http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/marinebio..._grabowski.pdf

I think this is a great way to communicate our concerns to other anglers, to state policy makers, and to CCA-types in terms of maintaining habitat and valuable ecosystem services.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

It looks like LDWF is recommending to the Oyster Task Force and the LWF Commission that oystering be open in West Cove next season starting Oct 27, 2014 (including dredging), but limited to 10 sacks of oysters per vessel per day. That's quite a bit lower than the 25 sacks per day set by the legislature for the maximum in Calcasieu Lake and the 50 sacks per day limit in the other open areas of the state.

Short of a complete ban on dredging, this may be about the best outcome that could be hoped for at the present time. Depending on the market price, spending the fuel and time to go out for 10 sacks of oysters may not be attractive enough to many harvesters.

I'm re-reading a paper right now that discusses all the valuable ecosystem services that are lost when valuable oyster reef habitat is destroyed. http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/marinebio..._grabowski.pdf

I think this is a great way to communicate our concerns to other anglers, to state policy makers, and to CCA-types in terms of maintaining habitat and valuable ecosystem services.

Agree with all that ^^^^

Oysters do a world of good but hypoxia (dead zones) and oysters are not correlated (you will see that its not mentioned in the the graph you presented also). There have been studies in Chesapeake Bay with hypoxia and oysters and the consensus is that oysters are great and all but definitely not a magic bullet. Oysters essentially can't operate in hypoxic conditions and shut down until the conditions pass (no filtering taking place)

Interesting on the greenhouse gases mentioned in the slide also. May also want to read some of N. Rabalais papers on hypoxia and mentions of climate change caused by humans

http://www.tos.org/oceanography/arch..._rabalais.html

CLIMATE CHANGE WILL
LIKELY WORSEN LOW OXYGEN
I N COASTAL WATERS
The world’s climate has changed because of human activities, and it will continue to change even if greenhouse gas emissions are stabilized because of lagging impacts that will last for centuries

[jchief]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

It looks like LDWF is recommending to the Oyster Task Force and the LWF Commission that oystering be open in West Cove next season starting Oct 27, 2014 (including dredging), but limited to 10 sacks of oysters per vessel per day. That's quite a bit lower than the 25 sacks per day set by the legislature for the maximum in Calcasieu Lake and the 50 sacks per day limit in the other open areas of the state. Pretty sure that is what it was last year also.

Short of a complete ban on dredging, this may be about the best outcome that could be hoped for at the present time. Depending on the market price, spending the fuel and time to go out for 10 sacks of oysters may not be attractive enough to many harvesters.

I'm re-reading a paper right now that discusses all the valuable ecosystem services that are lost when valuable oyster reef habitat is destroyed. http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/marinebio..._grabowski.pdf

I think this is a great way to communicate our concerns to other anglers, to state policy makers, and to CCA-types in terms of maintaining habitat and valuable ecosystem services.

.

[T-TOP]

Yes, that's what it was last year. That is the minimum. Anything other that that will be a stoppage of oyster harvest. Which is what probably needs to happen.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by T-TOP

Yes, that's what it was last year. That is the minimum. Anything other that that will be a stoppage of oyster harvest. Which is what probably needs to happen.

I tend to agree. But more restrictive regulations are a hard sell when the stock assessment data shows an INCREASE in oyster stocks from 2013 to 2014.

The stock assessment data puts us in the position of gently educating regarding the importance of habitat and ecosystem services in hopes of opening people's eyes toward the need to rebuild significant and sustainable large oyster reef complexes throughout both the E and W sides of the lake.

The sky isn't falling, and overzealous claims that it is damage credibility in future policy discussions.

[jchief]

Originally Posted by T-TOP

Yes, that's what it was last year. That is the minimum. Anything other that that will be a stoppage of oyster harvest. Which is what probably needs to happen.

Don't think there is a minimum, only a maximum. I asked that specific question at the meeting.

[MathGeek]

I've read most of the published literature on hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, and cited a lot of it in papers I've co-authored.

The suggestion in the above discussion that the hypoxia in the near shore waters off of Cameron Parish may be attributable to nutrient loading from the Calcasieu estuary or negatively correlated with its oyster stocks has not appeared in the published papers which have focused primarily on the role of the Mississippi River and secondarily on the role of mobile muds from the larger rivers and existing sediments.

But all the existing evidence supports the plausibility of inverse correlations between oyster reefs in Calcasieu and algae blooms and hypoxia in the adjacent Gulf waters:

1. Oyster reefs reduce the effects of nutrient loading, effectively reducing N, P, and C levels in the water before it exits the estuary.
2. Oyster reefs reduce turbidity in the estuary, allowing sunlight to penetrate deeper supporting more photosynthesis and a greater food web within the estuary.
3. Oysters remove tremendous amounts of phytoplankton from the water, thus reducing the quantity of algae that reaches nearshore Gulf waters and decomposes on the bottom.
4. Oyster reefs reduce erosion by several mechanisms, thus reducing the carbon in existing sediments from reaching near shore waters from erosion and tidal action.
5. Oyster reefs grow and maintain tremendous biomass in the estuary itself, increasing the average trophic level of carbon that enters the system via photosynthesis. Carbon that reaches higher trophic levels is not decomposing in bottom waters during the summer months where risks of hypoxia are the greatest.

[T-TOP]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I tend to agree. But more restrictive regulations are a hard sell when the stock assessment data shows an INCREASE in oyster stocks from 2013 to 2014.

The stock assessment data puts us in the position of gently educating regarding the importance of habitat and ecosystem services in hopes of opening people's eyes toward the need to rebuild significant and sustainable large oyster reef complexes throughout both the E and W sides of the lake.

The sky isn't falling, and overzealous claims that it is damage credibility in future policy discussions.

LDWF built a 15 acre reef on the south end of the lake, (east oyster zone) the reef was built after oyster harvest had been stopped in that area. The reef was growing and healthy until a couple years ago. It is basically dead now, very few oysters on it. We have a bigger problem than oyster dredging. Drill snails.

LDWF will be building a 50acre reef in 2015. Hopefully it goes well.

[T-TOP]

Originally Posted by jchief

Don't think there is a minimum, only a maximum. I asked that specific question at the meeting.

That is the minimum maximum... LOL
That is as low as they will set the daily harvest limit at.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I've read most of the published literature on hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, and cited a lot of it in papers I've co-authored.

The suggestion in the above discussion that the hypoxia in the near shore waters off of Cameron Parish may be attributable to nutrient loading from the Calcasieu estuary or negatively correlated with its oyster stocks has not appeared in the published papers which have focused primarily on the role of the Mississippi River and secondarily on the role of mobile muds from the larger rivers and existing sediments.

But all the existing evidence supports the plausibility of inverse correlations between oyster reefs in Calcasieu and algae blooms and hypoxia in the adjacent Gulf waters:

1. Oyster reefs reduce the effects of nutrient loading, effectively reducing N, P, and C levels in the water before it exits the estuary.
2. Oyster reefs reduce turbidity in the estuary, allowing sunlight to penetrate deeper supporting more photosynthesis and a greater food web within the estuary.
3. Oysters remove tremendous amounts of phytoplankton from the water, thus reducing the quantity of algae that reaches nearshore Gulf waters and decomposes on the bottom.
4. Oyster reefs reduce erosion by several mechanisms, thus reducing the carbon in existing sediments from reaching near shore waters from erosion and tidal action.
5. Oyster reefs grow and maintain tremendous biomass in the estuary itself, increasing the average trophic level of carbon that enters the system via photosynthesis. Carbon that reaches higher trophic levels is not decomposing in bottom waters during the summer months where risks of hypoxia are the greatest.

No one is denying the benefits of oysters, they are extremely important as you have pointed out. But oysters are not a magic bullet, nor do they decrease hypoxia to a noticable extent. They will shut down in hypoxic conditions. They can't just uproot and move away from the conditions, so they shut down, therefore no more filtration.

And not everything is published material, some is just common sense. Rivers are what brings in the nutrients, why would the Calcasieu River and the waters that drain into it not be full of nutrients like every other river in the lower US?


oysters and hypoxia
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/msc_facpub/160/

Actual oyster filtration potential must be lower than many advocates of oyster restoration assume, and replenishing the bay with oysters is not the means of controlling blooms and hypoxia.


http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps...1/m341p299.pdf
[SIZE=1][SIZE=1]Recently published models, which allow for spatial and temporal matching of oyster and
phytoplankton populations in mainstream Chesapeake Bay, support the conclusion of Pomeroy et al.(2006; Mar Ecol Prog Ser 325:301–309) that oysters cannot, and could not, control the spring blooms that are the ultimate cause of summer hypoxia.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

No one is denying the benefits of oysters, they are extremely important as you have pointed out. But oysters are not a magic bullet, nor do they decrease hypoxia to a noticable extent. They will shut down in hypoxic conditions. They can't just uproot and move away from the conditions, so they shut down, therefore no more filtration.

Chesapeake Bay is a much different system than Calcasieu. The water stays in the bay for much longer, and most of the bay is too deep to support oyster reefs. Further, the oysters are in the estuary, whereas, most of the hypoxia is in the Gulf of Mexico.

No one is suggesting that oysters offer complete control or are a magic bullet. The question is whether algae blooms and hypoxia go down when oyster populations go up, and if so, by how much?

Certainly, maintaining a balanced ecosystem requires more than oyster reef restoration. But if oyster reef restoration could reduce the average hypoxia in the near shore Gulf off of Cameron Parish by 50%, wouldn't this be an interesting and relevant finding?

Isn't it worth analyzing the existing data to explore the potential?

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Chesapeake Bay is a much different system than Calcasieu. The water stays in the bay for much longer, and most of the bay is too deep to support oyster reefs. Further, the oysters are in the estuary, whereas, most of the hypoxia is in the Gulf of Mexico.

No one is suggesting that oysters offer complete control or are a magic bullet. The question is whether algae blooms and hypoxia go down when oyster populations go up, and if so, by how much?

Certainly, maintaining a balanced ecosystem requires more than oyster reef restoration. But if oyster reef restoration could reduce the average hypoxia in the near shore Gulf off of Cameron Parish by 50%, wouldn't this be an interesting and relevant finding?

Isn't it worth analyzing the existing data to explore the potential?

it would be very relevant, but it hasn't been found despite decades of oyster research and decades of hypoxic zones

low to no oxygen is low to no oxygen to an oyster whether its in Calcasieu Lake, Sabine Lake, Florida, Delaware, or Japan. Everything else you have been saying is spot on, just leave the hypoxia out of the list of ecosystem services oysters perform is all. You put a fish in a hypoxic zone, it swims away or dies, a shrimp swims away or dies, an oyster does not have that option so it closes up and does not filter feed. There are studies showing oysters get stressed and die during hypoxic conditions, they can't magically filter out phosphorus, nitrogen, and potassium out of the water when they have no oxygen to survive on.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

it would be very relevant, but it hasn't been found despite decades of oyster research and decades of hypoxic zones

low to no oxygen is low to no oxygen to an oyster whether its in Calcasieu Lake, Sabine Lake, Florida, Delaware, or Japan. Everything else you have been saying is spot on, just leave the hypoxia out of the list of ecosystem services oysters perform is all. You put a fish in a hypoxic zone, it swims away or dies, a shrimp swims away or dies, an oyster does not have that option so it closes up and does not filter feed. There are studies showing oysters get stressed and die during hypoxic conditions, they can't magically filter out phosphorus, nitrogen, and potassium out of the water when they have no oxygen to survive on.

How many cases have been tested where the oysters are upstream of where the hypoxic zone forms (not actually in it)?

You must have missed this essential feature of the Calcasieu system because you keep mentioning how oysters shut down when oxygen levels drop. The hypoxic zone off of Cameron was not there in late June when Texas A&M scientists measured oxygen levels. It was there in late July when LUMCON scientists sampled the area again. At no time where the waters in the main Calcasieu Estuary hypoxic this summer, but it may be that N, P, C, and algae flowing into the Gulf from the estuary contributed to the size of the hypoxic zone.

Further, it has been estimated that at their peak historical levels, oysters in the Chesapeake Bay completely filtered the water in the bay every 3-4 days.

Since some oyster reefs have been restored, the complete water filtration time is estimated at 300-400 days. Drawing conclusions on the potential to mitigate hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay seems ill advised when the water filtration by the oysters is only 1% of what is possible.

Calcasieu Lake is much shallower than Chesapeake Bay. The potential exists for oysters in Calcasieu Lake to completely filter the water once per day or more if the oyster reef potential were optimized. Sabine drains a much larger area and inevitably has higher levels of agricultural runoff than Calcasieu. Yet, there is very seldom any hypoxic zone there.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

How many cases have been tested where the oysters are upstream of where the hypoxic zone forms (not actually in it)?

You must have missed this essential feature of the Calcasieu system because you keep mentioning how oysters shut down when oxygen levels drop. The hypoxic zone off of Cameron was not there in late June when Texas A&M scientists measured oxygen levels. It was there in late July when LUMCON scientists sampled the area again. At no time where the waters in the main Calcasieu Estuary hypoxic this summer, but it may be that N, P, C, and algae flowing into the Gulf from the estuary contributed to the size of the hypoxic zone.

Further, it has been estimated that at their peak historical levels, oysters in the Chesapeake Bay completely filtered the water in the bay every 3-4 days.

Since some oyster reefs have been restored, the complete water filtration time is estimated at 300-400 days. Drawing conclusions on the potential to mitigate hypoxia in the Chesapeake Bay seems ill advised when the water filtration by the oysters is only 1% of what is possible.

Calcasieu Lake is much shallower than Chesapeake Bay. The potential exists for oysters in Calcasieu Lake to completely filter the water once per day or more if the oyster reef potential were optimized. Sabine drains a much larger area and inevitably has higher levels of agricultural runoff than Calcasieu. Yet, there is very seldom any hypoxic zone there.

The hypoxic zone is typically most noticeable during July and August, not June. The whole process takes awhile. Spring rains and snow melt come down the river (carrying fertilizer) and the phytoplankton bloom takes place. Takes 4 - 8 weeks (July-August) after that before maximum phytoplankton die off occurs resulting in the hypoxic conditions

Filtration:
If you took an aquarium of Calcasieu lake water and let oysters filter it, there would still be suspended particles. Oysters can't filter every particle in there, if they could, then they would filter out the salt and you would be left with nothing but pure freshwater. I would definitely advise against drinking the water still after the filtration process as you may end up sick from fecal coliform

You are reaching for cause and effect and that is all I am commenting on, everything else about oysters is great. Just leave out the hypoxia stuff. Oysters are wonderful creatures and every estuary should try and find a balance of having enough of them to perform the ecosystem services they provide and still be able to harvest enough for consumption commercially BUT oysters are not a magic bullet.

[MathGeek]

Aftering the LDWF recommendations, background, and stock assessments, as well as receiving input from various stakeholders, the Commission passed the LDWF recommendation that the harvest regs next year stay about the same as they were this year. That is, 10 sacks, West Cove only, opening 27 October, etc. The Commission pointed out that they are not empowered by the legislature to change the dredging, but only to set opening and closing dates and limits.

Raymond Little (Lake Charles CCA) was there and did a great job articulating the concerns of recreational anglers regarding the importance of oyster reefs to the sport fishery.

A representative of CCA Louisiana was also there and also spoke about the concerns of recreational anglers, the importance of habitat conservation, etc.

I spoke for a bit on the importance of habitat and our use of fish as bioindicators of ecosystem condition. As "canaries in the coal mine" the fish are telling is that there is a real problem in the estuary with the benthic food web. I often fail to articulate things as well when speaking as I do in writing, but I think I did manage to succeed in emphasizing the importance of oyster reef food web and habitat contributions, and offered the tangible suggestion of doubling black drum limits as an additional step the Commission could take to help oyster stocks recover from the steep decline in 2010.

The feeling I got was that the Commission follows the LDWF recommendations 95+% of the time, especially with respect to oyster harvesting and basic fishery limit issues. Effective policy change likely requires working with the relevant LDWF folks to get them to recommend the desired policy change. This seems to be how CCA has succeeded in issues like reduced speck limits and the imposition of tripletail limits. Merely showing up and speaking is of limited effectiveness if the guy presenting the LDWF policy recommendation is saying something else.

I was favorably impressed with most of the speakers, including the "oyster lobby" and oystermen. They seemed to emphasize the importance of scientific management and several advocated depoliticizing the process in favor of a more scientific approach.

Patrick Banks (LDWF Oyster Biologist) made a very favorable impression. I believe LDWF is doing a great job with the oyster science within the limitations of their available resources.

I think the best interests of all stakeholders will be best served by increasing the focus on the ecosystem services provided by healthy oyster reefs and lobbying toward a more more extensive reef system in the lake. Patrick Banks pointed out that high salinity in the SE part of the lake stresses oysters and makes them much more susceptible to the oyster drill snail, a parasite that kills them. This is a key problem slowing the recovery and reestablishment of reefs in the SE areas of the lake. Apparently, salinity control would be of great benefit to the oysters in addition to allowing the weirs to be open more often.

Talking to some oyster fishermen afterwards, I can see no scientific reason why Sabine cannot be opened for oyster harvest. This could take a lot of the harvest pressure off of Calcaisieu and may be a reasonable compromise which allows local fisherman a chance to maintain their income while allowing valuable habitat to come back in Calcasieu. Sabine is in no danger of overharvesting, and could easily provide 2-10x the oyster harvest as Calcasieu. According to this oyster fisherman, CCA has been working behind the scenes to ensure that oystering in Sabine stays off the table.

[MarshRat89]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Aftering the LDWF recommendations, background, and stock assessments, as well as receiving input from various stakeholders, the Commission passed the LDWF recommendation that the harvest regs next year stay about the same as they were this year. That is, 10 sacks, West Cove only, opening 27 October, etc. The Commission pointed out that they are not empowered by the legislature to change the dredging, but only to set opening and closing dates and limits.



Raymond Little (Lake Charles CCA) was there and did a great job articulating the concerns of recreational anglers regarding the importance of oyster reefs to the sport fishery.



A representative of CCA Louisiana was also there and also spoke about the concerns of recreational anglers, the importance of habitat conservation, etc.



I spoke for a bit on the importance of habitat and our use of fish as bioindicators of ecosystem condition. As "canaries in the coal mine" the fish are telling is that there is a real problem in the estuary with the benthic food web. I often fail to articulate things as well when speaking as I do in writing, but I think I did manage to succeed in emphasizing the importance of oyster reef food web and habitat contributions, and offered the tangible suggestion of doubling black drum limits as an additional step the Commission could take to help oyster stocks recover from the steep decline in 2010.



The feeling I got was that the Commission follows the LDWF recommendations 95+% of the time, especially with respect to oyster harvesting and basic fishery limit issues. Effective policy change likely requires working with the relevant LDWF folks to get them to recommend the desired policy change. This seems to be how CCA has succeeded in issues like reduced speck limits and the imposition of tripletail limits. Merely showing up and speaking is of limited effectiveness if the guy presenting the LDWF policy recommendation is saying something else.



I was favorably impressed with most of the speakers, including the "oyster lobby" and oystermen. They seemed to emphasize the importance of scientific management and several advocated depoliticizing the process in favor of a more scientific approach.



Patrick Banks (LDWF Oyster Biologist) made a very favorable impression. I believe LDWF is doing a great job with the oyster science within the limitations of their available resources.



I think the best interests of all stakeholders will be best served by increasing the focus on the ecosystem services provided by healthy oyster reefs and lobbying toward a more more extensive reef system in the lake. Patrick Banks pointed out that high salinity in the SE part of the lake stresses oysters and makes them much more susceptible to the oyster drill snail, a parasite that kills them. This is a key problem slowing the recovery and reestablishment of reefs in the SE areas of the lake. Apparently, salinity control would be of great benefit to the oysters in addition to allowing the weirs to be open more often.



Talking to some oyster fishermen afterwards, I can see no scientific reason why Sabine cannot be opened for oyster harvest. This could take a lot of the harvest pressure off of Calcaisieu and may be a reasonable compromise which allows local fisherman a chance to maintain their income while allowing valuable habitat to come back in Calcasieu. Sabine is in no danger of overharvesting, and could easily provide 2-10x the oyster harvest as Calcasieu. According to this oyster fisherman, CCA has been working behind the scenes to ensure that oystering in Sabine stays off the table.

You did a great job man!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk mmm