Heating up on new fees

["W"]

This is from LSM but it's a great write up and the WL&F should release data to us

Money generated by a proposed increase in the saltwater fishing license fee is unnecessary to fund research on saltwater fisheries as officials with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries have attested, a retired biologist familiar with the budget told Louisiana Sportsman today.
“The (LDWF) Office of Fisheries has adequate revenues to conduct the game fish research and recreational fisheries creel that are used as justification for the (proposed) license fee increase,” said the retiree, who spoke only on condition of anonymity.
The proposal, which is slated to be discussed on the floor of the Louisiana House of Representatives tomorrow, would hike the price of a resident saltwater fishing license from $5.50 to $13 — a 136-percent increase.
LDWF’s Randy Pausina has said the money would be used to collect more-precise recreational harvest data than ever.
“It would give use the ability to look at all the species we need to manage, including the federal species, but more importantly state species like trout, redfish, white trout, sheepshead and everything else,” Pausina said earlier this month. “It would give us the ability to get more confidence, more precision in the data and run better stock assessments.”
The Coastal Conservation Association Louisiana supports the license fee increase, despite the fact that LDWF officials have refused to share their analysis of existing research data*since the BP oil spill.
And, the retired LDWF biologist said, personnel and funding already exist for such an expanded research program — if those resources were properly focused.
“… (T)he statement by Office of Fisheries personnel that additional research money was needed for marine sport fish is very misleading, because a very expensive marine research lab at Grand Isle was recently built using federal disaster funds and Rigs to Reefs money …,” he explained. “The lab has a large staff that the department manages, but current research priorities are targeted to offshore fish species that the federal government manages.”
The retiree also said expenses associated with a reorganization of the LDWF’s Office of Fisheries casts doubt on the need for new funding.
“We were initially told that there would be a new division using existing employees to increase cost efficiency by consolidating tasks,” he said. “However, the Office (of Fisheries) began an unprecedented spending spree that created large programs such as outreach, public relations (and the) new research lab, and sustainability (costs) and many new employees were hired.
“Consequently, funds were siphoned from the remnants of the old Marine Fisheries Division for other activities such as the historic fisheries independent sampling program ….”
Money associated with the BP oil spill exasperated that problem, he said.
“The BP sampling expansion, in my opinion, was used to obtain additional funds to fund the reorganization of the Office of Fisheries,” the retired biologist said. “(F)urthermore, it was not reduced to (previous) levels (when) the BP funds were no longer available or cut.
“Ample funds would be available to continue the new marine recreational fisheries creel (which I support) and also conduct research on marine sport fishes if the massive and very expensive fisheries reorganization had not taken place.”
The biologist also said he believes the proposed license fee increase might tied to the LDWF’s stated objective of building new saltwater fish hatcheries.
“I cannot verify but strongly suspect that another reason the department introduced the saltwater license fee increase was to fund future staffing needs for the soon-to-be-built saltwater fish hatcheries,” he said. “The department aggressively pushed that saltwater fish hatcheries be included for funding from the BP oil spill fines. These monies will fund the physical construction and administration for the hatcheries, but will not fund future operational costs.”
And, the experienced fisheries biologist said, no scientific reason exists for building saltwater fishing hatcheries — which is a controversial idea.
“There is no legitimate research validating saltwater fish hatcheries in the northern Gulf of Mexico,” he said. “Additionally, I cannot identify an experienced marine biologist from the academic or state side (who) would agree with a marine fish hatchery for stocking purposes.”
The retired biologist said his experience with the budget of the LDWF’s fisheries division points to the need for more transparency before rushing to provide additional money to the agency.
“The current budget of the Office of Fisheries should be subjected to detailed examination before any saltwater fishing license increases are approved,” he said.

[mallardhead]

Good read thanks for shareing W.

Sent from my LGL45C using Tapatalk 2

[keakar]

the part that scares me the most is this comment:

"It would give use the ability to look at all the species we need to manage, including the federal species, but more importantly state species like trout, redfish, white trout, sheepshead and everything else,” Pausina said earlier this month.

so let me guess, new limit restrictions will now soon be created for white trout, sheepshead and everything else? it must be in the "master plan" for them to want to "get more confidence, more precision in the data and run better stock assessments"

its good to know the truth behind the lies and that this whole money grab increase is just because they blew up the budget with the BP money and now don't want to go back to a regular normal sized budget that doesn't have a ton of money to waste on everything under the sun

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by keakar

the part that scares me the most is this comment:

"It would give use the ability to look at all the species we need to manage, including the federal species, but more importantly state species like trout, redfish, white trout, sheepshead and everything else,” Pausina said earlier this month.

so let me guess, new limit restrictions will now soon be created for white trout, sheepshead and everything else? it must be in the "master plan" for them to want to "get more confidence, more precision in the data and run better stock assessments"

its good to know the truth behind the lies and that this whole money grab increase is just because they blew up the budget with the BP money and now don't want to go back to a regular normal sized budget that doesn't have a ton of money to waste on everything under the sun

Randy Pausina is the only person Im not worried about in fisheries management.

[Smalls]

Sometimes I wish these guys would give their names. If this is someone like Mike Harbison, who I think just retired, that would be a HUGE blow to this thing. He's one if the most respected biologists in the state. That's the kind of voice that LDWF and CCA would not want opposed to this.

I could be wrong though. No telling who it is. Not sure if Mike did retire or not, but I thought I heard he may be.

[Speckmeister]

Smalls,

I don't think it would be Jerald Horst because he didn't retire from the LDWF. Horst retired from LSU.

I hate anonymity too. I resent it because I have to put my name on everything I write and take the good and bad with it in journalism. Same held true when I published research in professional journals before I retired in psychology.
Most everybody knows who I am on here by looking at my profile.

To those of you who don't - it's Chris Berzas.

You know I can sort of understand anonymity if there were "life and limb" concerns.
This is fishing . . . but it is more than that for many - it's their livelihood and passion.

["W"]

I had been sending emails to WL&F for last two years asking about the Lake Calcasieu SPR# and never got a answer.

After talking with Mr Chris I now know why, some belive they don't want people to know the fisheries are in good health and that would mean less BP sue money

Sad Sad Sad that our own WL&F black ball the people who pay their salaries

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Sometimes I wish these guys would give their names. If this is someone like Mike Harbison, who I think just retired, that would be a HUGE blow to this thing. He's one if the most respected biologists in the state. That's the kind of voice that LDWF and CCA would not want opposed to this.

I could be wrong though. No telling who it is. Not sure if Mike did retire or not, but I thought I heard he may be.

Scientists and bureaucrats can be pretty harsh when someone speaks and and doesn't toe the party line, especially with funding issues or sacred cows (environmental issues). I've had a long career, with mostly positive feedback from colleagues and administrators. But a couple of times the data just did not support the party line, and I was not quiet about it. I ended up with a bulls eye on my chest, so I understand the desire for anonymity.

Especially in the present case. This brave biologist is basically a whistle blower, calling out LDWF for poor planning and wasteful spending and giving testimony that might cost them millions in funding for "research." My name is firmly attached to all my published papers, including some material that has contradicted the "received wisdom" on some things. But seeing how Louisiana bureaucracies play this game, I think this biologist would likely be shunned from future research opportunities and would be panned in any grant proposals and a lot of peer-reviewers would dis his papers just for this move. He'd certainly be cited for possessing redfish past 3 miles.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by "W"

After talking with Mr Chris I now know why, some belive they don't want people to know the fisheries are in good health and that would mean less BP sue money

Sad Sad Sad that our own WL&F black ball the people who pay their salaries

The fisheries data should be available. We've asked and been turned down with lawyerly letters.

Our first LA fisheries study was assessing the inshore species in Terrebonne and Barataria bays the year after the spill. Things were a tiny bit down, but well within annual variations. The inshore species in Big Lake were actually significantly worse in 2011 than in the oil spill area.

Habitat loss and oyster reef issues are hurting the inshore species more than the oil spill ever did. I've also read many of the papers on other fishery impact studies, and other than the closures in 2010, lingering impact in following years is very small and hard to discern.

["W"]

I sent my emails to our senators to vote NO
And we demand the WL&F to release data on our SPR#s

[specknation]

Dude this is enough you ***** more than any human on earth are you half woman. No offense to the women out there.

["W"]

Originally Posted by specknation

Dude this is enough you ***** more than any human on earth are you half woman. No offense to the women out there.

Simple don't like don't read

But looks like I made you read


Why u mad?

[specknation]

Originally Posted by "W"

Simple don't like don't read

But looks like I made you read


Why u mad?

Not mad, agree with you on this one.

[Duck Butter]

This is like reading the National Enquirer. Why is this even a story? There is always a person in disagreement with ANYTHING. Why not interview the other 99% of folks and get their opinions rather than the ONE who is against it?

Journalism has gone so far downhill, its why the current president got elected due to misinformation getting spread and a lack of journalistic integrity.

#draconiansanctions

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

This is like reading the National Enquirer. Why is this even a story? There is always a person in disagreement with ANYTHING. Why not interview the other 99% of folks and get their opinions rather than the ONE who is against it?

Journalism has gone so far downhill, its why the current president got elected due to misinformation getting spread and a lack of journalistic integrity.

#draconiansanctions

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.

["W"]

I just want SPR#s that's all


Why hold this from us??

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by "W"

I just want SPR#s that's all


Why hold this from us??

Giving the Big Lake spawning numbers without the rest of the state makes it clear that LDWF is witholding the other numbers preferentially.

Giving all the numbers runs the risk of some areas in the state looking worse than the oil spill areas.

A group at USM did a sampling project studying specks in the oil spill area back in 2011. They were in the area sampling fish for their field studies shortly before we were in 2011. They also did some lab studies. Their lab studies got published, their field studies got buried. The description of their work is here:

http://www.northerngulfinstitute.org...ct.php?pid=150

We have eager awaited release of their field results for three years. It has not been forthcoming. Their lab results shows some small reductions in growth when specks are exposed to oil and dispersants in the lab. I suspect their field results got buried because they did not show any problems with reproduction or growth associated with the spill.

[MathGeek]

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.

I agree. The reasoning the biologist gives seems very sound. It is telling that no one is answering by giving a contrary view of the facts, but rather pretending that the fee hike has 99% support.

When I was an Air Force civilian employee, the opinions aired on funding issues were always in support of increased funding for Air Force projects. I was often in favor of cutting bloated DoD funding, but I tended to keep my opinions to myself at work. The sequester was particularly unpopular. I actually supported what the Republicans were trying to do in Congress, but there may have been negative consequences for speaking about it at work.

The appearance of support among a majority of state employees who are being paid from these funds should not be taken as overwhelming support.

[Catch]

I may not agree with the increase in fees, but I don't think this anonymous biologist knows his facts. Or perhaps he/she has some ax to grind. For one, the so-called monies he speaks of, that could be used for data research and analysis, come from the federal government which the Obama Administration has recently put mandates on, and has restricted the use by LDWF to the data it receives. Pausina has stated that a large part of the fee increase would be to replace the federal dollars that the state would no longer accept from the feds.

As for the money being used to possibly build saltwater hatcheries/research centers, that money has already been allocated from the BP settlement.

This is what I hate about anonymity: no way to cross-examine the "witness".

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Catch

For one, the so-called monies he speaks of, that could be used for data research and analysis, come from the federal government which the Obama Administration has recently put mandates on, and has restricted the use by LDWF to the data it receives.

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.

Originally Posted by Catch

As for the money being used to possibly build saltwater hatcheries/research centers, that money has already been allocated from the BP settlement.

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.