Weirs Closed

["W"]

Infinity due to high salinity in April, going to be a long long long summer


Glad I did not waist that $350 to fish the marsh this year

[Bobbynofish]

Right around the corner from shrimp season....again...how ironic?!?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RL33]

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm new to fishing from a boat in the lake. What does this mean for the fishing?

[calcutta37]

It's not good. There is a ton of bait that comes from behind the weirs.

["W"]

Marsh is the heart of your estuary, now the duck hunters don't like saltwater because it kills there wedgion grass and then they can't shoot ducks


Kill the lake for ducks is the motto

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by "W"

Marsh is the heart of your estuary, now the duck hunters don't like saltwater because it kills there wedgion grass and then they can't shoot ducks


Kill the lake for ducks is the motto

Wouldn't requiring face paint bring the ducks back though?

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by "W"

Marsh is the heart of your estuary, now the duck hunters don't like saltwater because it kills there wedgion grass and then they can't shoot ducks


Kill the lake for ducks is the motto

Here we go again. It also kills the Marsh. Geez. All Marsh is not created equal. Some Marsh cannot handle salinity as high as the lake gets at times. I've personally taken salinity readings behind the weirs at 32 ppt. That is gulf strength. And it is not good that Marsh, which cannot tolerate salinity that high.

I do agree with W that shutting the weirs off for a very extended period is not good for the lake. But neither is a dead Marsh.

[Cripley]

So sick of this they are killing our lake ruining recreational shrimping just sick I have a refractometer I will be checking tomorrow I wanna see this for myself

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Cripley

So sick of this they are killing our lake ruining recreational shrimping just sick I have a refractometer I will be checking tomorrow I wanna see this for myself

There are monitoring stations out there. Check out USGS Water Resources and CRMS. Those have salinity readings. Not sure if all are updating in real time.

Its a double edged sword. Close the weirs to maintain the marsh, the lake hurts. Leave the weirs open permanently, eventually you lose marsh, which will also hurt the lake, and land to the north as well. That marsh is more than just wildlife habitat.

[Cripley]

Yes we depended on the meters at the watershed last year then they said oops the meter was broken our bad

And the marsh was fine before the weirs but of course man thinks they can do it better there are plenty places with no weirs use rock ledges for erosion control and let nature work the rest

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Cripley

Yes we depended on the meters at the watershed last year then they said oops the meter was broken our bad

And the marsh was fine before the weirs but of course man thinks they can do it better there are plenty places with no weirs use rock ledges for erosion control and let nature work the rest

Says who? I've got maps and reports showing the change in vegetation. That was a fresh marsh, now its brackish, intermediate at best.

The reason shrimp catches were so good prior to installation of the weirs could probably be easily correlated to the amount of dead vegetation caused by increased salinities. Shrimp eat dead vegetation, but I'm sure you knew that.

I saw many acres of grass die 2 years ago due to high water and salinity behind those weirs. Not all marsh is created equal.

[BradleyPrejean87]

so the all the weirs will be close from now on? is that what your saying?

[Gerald]

Before the Weir was closed this week, the lake level was 12 to 15 inches higher than the marsh level.....so the salt water was "pouring" into the marsh.

Does anyone know if the Weir will be open on the full and New moon?

Other wise there will need to be a 4+" rain in the marsh, to lower the salinity before the Weir will be opened again.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Gerald

Before the Weir was closed this week, the lake level was 12 to 15 inches higher than the marsh level.....so the salt water was "pouring" into the marsh.

Does anyone know if the Weir will be open on the full and New moon?

Other wise there will need to be a 4+" rain in the marsh, to lower the salinity before the Weir will be opened again.

Good question, they are suppose to but who knows right now all our shrimp are coming in to our system to head into marsh and we shut the echo system down, ,just a matter of time till we ruin this lake.

Estuary can not survive with out the food cycle properly working as a system

Just glad I have another job that I don't have to depend on guiding to make my living because it's going to get bad

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by "W"

Good question, they are suppose to but who knows right now all our shrimp are coming in to our system to head into marsh and we shut the echo system down, ,just a matter of time till we ruin this lake.

Estuary can not survive with out the food cycle properly working as a system

Just glad I have another job that I don't have to depend on guiding to make my living because it's going to get bad

The weir management and impact on the estuary are suboptimal, but not the disaster some make it out to be.

The fish are a bit on the hungry side and a bit thinner than the statewide average. Over years, it means a bit slower growth, fewer trophies, and slightly lower reproduction rates. But in the long term, losing the marsh completely would be a worse outcome. The estuary will survive, just not as fat and happy as when being fed more by the marsh.

If that marsh gets destroyed, the productivity of the system will drop down to TX levels. There are also multiple factors in play: weir management, erosion, saltwater intrusion, channel dredging, destruction and recovery of oyster reefs, chemical pollution, etc. Things like chemical pollution have been improving lately in Calcasieu, so they don't get much discussion, but the system is still recovering from long term impacts of years gone by.

I think the angling public would do best to focus on issues with the most promise for action and improvement due to likely agreement among multiple stakeholders. As long as the salinity in the lower lake is 16-22 ppt (parts per thousand) as shown here ( http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=08017118 ), those weirs aren't going to be opened unless there is a lot of freshwater behind them to flow into the lake. In the long term this is a necessary management decision to protect the marsh. There is a much better chance of positive outcomes for the fishery on other issues like dredging, oyster reef destruction, and construction of additional salt water barriers between the gulf and lake. Lining the channel with rocks from the Gulf to the lower lake seems to be a promising alternative to a saltwater barrier across the ship channel as this would both prevent erosion and reduce the salinity in the lake.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The weir management and impact on the estuary are suboptimal, but not the disaster some make it out to be.

The fish are a bit on the hungry side and a bit thinner than the statewide average. Over years, it means a bit slower growth, fewer trophies, and slightly lower reproduction rates. But in the long term, losing the marsh completely would be a worse outcome. The estuary will survive, just not as fat and happy as when being fed more by the marsh.

If that marsh gets destroyed, the productivity of the system will drop down to TX levels. There are also multiple factors in play: weir management, erosion, saltwater intrusion, channel dredging, destruction and recovery of oyster reefs, chemical pollution, etc. Things like chemical pollution have been improving lately in Calcasieu, so they don't get much discussion, but the system is still recovering from long term impacts of years gone by.

I think the angling public would do best to focus on issues with the most promise for action and improvement due to likely agreement among multiple stakeholders. As long as the salinity in the lower lake is 16-22 ppt (parts per thousand) as shown here ( http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=08017118 ), those weirs aren't going to be opened unless there is a lot of freshwater behind them to flow into the lake. In the long term this is a necessary management decision to protect the marsh. There is a much better chance of positive outcomes for the fishery on other issues like dredging, oyster reef destruction, and construction of additional salt water barriers between the gulf and lake. Lining the channel with rocks from the Gulf to the lower lake seems to be a promising alternative to a saltwater barrier across the ship channel as this would both prevent erosion and reduce the salinity in the lake.

First of all, quit contradicting yourself. On the other threads here, you have continually preached that the main reason for fall in condition factor is loss of oysters or too many fish. You have repeated stated, when questioned, that you and your colleagues believe oyster loss to be the main causative factor, and that none of the other competing hypotheses explain the data as well.

So which is it? Are you just bending your argument to "please your audience"?

Haven't you been preaching that the smaller size is related to the destruction of oysters? Yes or no?

Yes, I do see that you address those other factors in the next paragraph, but you yourself have been advocating that the #1 cause of poor condition factor is related to oysters, NOT WEIR OPERATIONS! So which is it?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

First of all, quit contradicting yourself. On the other threads here, you have continually preached that the main reason for fall in condition factor is loss of oysters or too many fish. You have repeated stated, when questioned, that you and your colleagues believe oyster loss to be the main causative factor, and that none of the other competing hypotheses explain the data as well.

So which is it? Are you just bending your argument to "please your audience"?

Haven't you been preaching that the smaller size is related to the destruction of oysters? Yes or no?

Yes, I do see that you address those other factors in the next paragraph, but you yourself have been advocating that the #1 cause of poor condition factor is related to oysters, NOT WEIR OPERATIONS! So which is it?

Like any complex ecosystem, there are multiple contributing factors and interpretation is nuanced.

The loss of relative condition in the more benthic feeding fish (black drum, gafftops, bull redfish) is more attributable to the loss of oyster reef habitat. These are the fish experiencing the greatest loss of relative condition factor, with many fish only 75-85% of their healthy body weight.

The loss of relative condition factor among fish more strongly dependent upon the marsh and coupling between the marsh and lake (specks, shorter length classes of redfish, puppy drum) is more attributable to stress and depletion of their food sources. These fish are experiencing smaller, but still statistically significant reductions in relative condition factor, most coming in at 90-97% of their healthy body weight.

So, the bottom line is that oyster reef destruction is having a bigger negative effect on the fishery, but weir operation is having an effect large enough to be detectable and significant.

Saying that the oyster reef destruction is the "main reason" does not contradict weir management as an additional factor.

[hewes]

why does the refuge limit access to the public through grand bayou? I would love to see it opened every sat and sunday so people would have access to the resource the govt is protecting for the people. I live at heberts. when the weirs are open parking lot is full. I see boaters all the time drive to landing find out weirs are closed and their day is ruined

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Like any complex ecosystem, there are multiple contributing factors and interpretation is nuanced.

The loss of relative condition in the more benthic feeding fish (black drum, gafftops, bull redfish) is more attributable to the loss of oyster reef habitat. These are the fish experiencing the greatest loss of relative condition factor, with many fish only 75-85% of their healthy body weight.

The loss of relative condition factor among fish more strongly dependent upon the marsh and coupling between the marsh and lake (specks, shorter length classes of redfish, puppy drum) is more attributable to stress and depletion of their food sources. These fish are experiencing smaller, but still statistically significant reductions in relative condition factor, most coming in at 90-97% of their healthy body weight.

So, the bottom line is that oyster reef destruction is having a bigger negative effect on the fishery, but weir operation is having an effect large enough to be detectable and significant.

Saying that the oyster reef destruction is the "main reason" does not contradict weir management as an additional factor.

Right on Preacher Man!!

Preaching to the choir again. I know all these things, but your last post spoke in a manner that suggested you felt the weirs were the main problem, when all other posts you have made in the past week pointed to oyster reefs. Just making sure you would clarify that for all your "constituents".

But again, we are talking about multiple causitive factors, are we not? It cannot just be attributed to weir management, or have we forgetten the large argument over the insufficient data that resulted in the unwarranted drop of the limit on specks? Is it possible that a nearly 50% reduction in the limit on speckled trout could be a big causitive factor in the decline of the fishery? You are, in theory, looking at a nearly 50% increase in that population. Couldn't that put a major strain on the food source for all species, if in fact they are all depended on the same organisms as you suggest?

So how can you attribute an "effect large enough to detect" to the weirs, if in fact multiple factors are causing this relative decline in body condition? Do you have data to back this up? You love data, so prove your point. How can you be so sure that it is in fact the weirs that is causing this relative decline?

By the way, half of my thesis was determining cause and effect relationships with multiple potential causitive factors. I know how this stuff works.

["W"]

Originally Posted by hewes

why does the refuge limit access to the public through grand bayou? I would love to see it opened every sat and sunday so people would have access to the resource the govt is protecting for the people. I live at heberts. when the weirs are open parking lot is full. I see boaters all the time drive to landing find out weirs are closed and their day is ruined

They had 3 leave today while I was waiting on my clients
All with kids and your taxes pay for that refuge