SW LA items for LDWF meeting

[Gerald]

Items 10, 12, 13, & 14 might be of interest to some of you guys.
************************************************** ***

The next regular Commission Meeting will be held at 9:30 AM on Thursday, July 7, 2016, at the Wildlife and Fisheries Headquarters Building located at 2000 Quail Drive, Baton Rouge, LA

The following items will be discussed:
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of June 02, 2016 Commission Meeting Minutes
5. Commission Special Announcements / Personal Privilege
6. To hear Enforcement Reports June 2016
7. To hear an update by Ducks Unlimited on the Wildlife and Fisheries Commission funded Waterfowl Breeding Grounds Habitat work in Canada
8. To hear an update on the White-Fronted Goose Telemetry Project
9. To consider a Declaration of Emergency for Extended Falconry Season for Rails and Gallinules

10. To hear an update on the public comments received on the Black Bass regulations on the Sabine River Notice of Intent (presented May 5, 2016)

11. To consider an NOI to establish the rules and regulations on the importation of cervid carcasses

12. To consider an NOI to prohibit commercial harvest of blue crabs during a thirty day period for the years 2017-2019 and restrict the commercial harvest of immature female blue crabs for the years 2017-2019

13. To hear a presentation on information relating to the management of Red Snapper and related costs

14. To hear an update on the Red Snapper Season

15. Set November 2016 Meeting Date
16. Receive Public Comments
17. Adjournment
A live audio/video stream of this meeting will be available via Gotowebinar.com. To attend this meeting via webinar visit:
https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/9114826425593768195
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

[Smalls]

#7 ought to get em going as well.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Duck Butter]

Should be interesting to hear about the costs of the state taking over red snapper management. There seems to be some discrepancies in the numbers from this administration and the last administration.

Strangely the head of marine fisheries for LDWF resigned recent my as well hmmm

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Should be interesting to hear about the costs of the state taking over red snapper management. There seems to be some discrepancies in the numbers from this administration and the last administration.

Strangely the head of marine fisheries for LDWF resigned recent my as well hmmm

Yeah, and the commission either doesn't believe Melancon, or doesn't care what he's saying, since they have shown support for Graves' bill.

[Duck Butter]

Pretty cool talk on specklebellies right now. Had a bird caught in Thornwell, left and went to Stuttgart for a day and flew right back to the same spot in Thornwell the next

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Yeah, and the commission either doesn't believe Melancon, or doesn't care what he's saying, since they have shown support for Graves' bill.

Yep, we may find out today on what the actual costs are. Here is another article on what is happening as far as costs to manage snapper in-house. Seems like lots of politics at play

http://www.louisianasportsman.com/details.php?id=9773

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Secretary Charlie Melancon’s opposition to a congressional bill to hand over red snapper management to the Gulf states hinged on the bill’s lack of federal funding and what he estimated could be a $10 million annual price tag.

But that flew in the face of previous statements by his predecessor’s administration, which said in a congressional hearing that the agency had plenty of money for state management thanks to a saltwater fishing license increase instituted to fund the data-collection program known as LA Creel.
So who’s correct?

“Unfortunately, I would tend to say my current boss is more than likely closer to the truth,” LDWF Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fisheries Patrick Banks told LouisianaSportsman.com.
The reason is pretty simple, Banks said: LA Creel collects only one part of the data needed to perform full stock assessments necessary to effectively manage fisheries.
“LA Creel collects fisheries-dependent data,” the biologist said.
That includes information on recreational and charter catches, he said.
“What fish are caught, what types of fish are caught — stuff like that,” Banks explained.
However, LA Creel doesn’t capture any commercial landings, fisheries-independent data (think scientific sampling) or enforcement between state waters and the boundary of federal waters at 200 nautical miles.
And there probably just isn’t enough money in the program to cover those non-recreational aspects of management, he said.
“We would have to replace all that offshore sampling (currently done as part of the federal management program) and enhance that sampling so we could have a complete Louisiana stock assessment,” Banks said. “I’ve done my best to find what kind of proof (former LDWF Secretary Robert) Barham and Randy (Pausina, the former head of LDWF’s fisheries division) had to go to Congress and make those statements.
“There was no cost estimate done.”
LA Creel has brought in about $3 million since the saltwater license increased in 2014, Banks said. The amount in Fiscal Year 2016, which ended at the end of June was $1.7 million, he said.
But Banks said a cursory look at what it would take to fully administer red snapper management indicates the expenses would outstrip that funding.
“The amount of money that is generated through the saltwater license increase certainly covers LA Creel and a little bit of lagniappe — but not much more,” he said. “What (LA Creel revenue is) paying for is one segment (of fisheries data collection).
“There was just no way that the little over $2 million we get in LA Creel (annually) will cover all that.”
Congressman Garrett Graves, who authored the bill to remove federal oversight of red snapper in the Gulf and hand the responsibility over to the states, has said funding was removed from his legislation after Barham’s administration asserted sufficient funding existed without tapping into the federal treasury.
Saying that Melancon’s stance is “political crap,” Graves told LouisianaSportsman.com that current federal funding used in Gulf of Mexico red snapper management could be sent to the states.
“… I plan on ensuring that those monies are removed from the National Marine Fisheries Service at the end of the day, and (that funding) could be given to the states or returned for deficit reduction,” he said.
Banks said a cost analysis was under way last week.
The Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission — which unanymously passed a resolution supporting the Graves bill — has requested "information related to the cost of red snapper management," Banks said.
"We will be presenting such on Thursday (during the July LWFC meeting)," he said. "We are hoping to have most of the cost estimate completed by then."
But he said he would be shocked if additional funding was not required.
“I feel pretty confident it’s going to be over the little over $2 million we get off the licenses,” Banks said.

[jchief]

I see another push for license increase coming if this passes or as an excuse to support it

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by jchief

I see another push for license increase coming if this passes or as an excuse to support it

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Make a permit, or increase the cost of that if one is already present. No need to increase the cost of the recreational license for something that everyone doesn't target.

I buy a saltwater license every year. I have never fished offshore. If they increase the saltwater license to fund this, I will be buying a lifetime license. But until I do, I won't be buying a saltwater license again. The money isn't the issue. It's the principle of the thing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[jchief]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Make a permit, or increase the cost of that if one is already present. No need to increase the cost of the recreational license for something that everyone doesn't target.

I buy a saltwater license every year. I have never fished offshore. If they increase the saltwater license to fund this, I will be buying a lifetime license. But until I do, I won't be buying a saltwater license again. The money isn't the issue. It's the principle of the thing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

I agree.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

[jchief]

And I already have my lifetime license

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Make a permit, or increase the cost of that if one is already present. No need to increase the cost of the recreational license for something that everyone doesn't target.

I buy a saltwater license every year. I have never fished offshore. If they increase the saltwater license to fund this, I will be buying a lifetime license. But until I do, I won't be buying a saltwater license again. The money isn't the issue. It's the principle of the thing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Kinda like our stamp money going to DU?

[rardoin]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

Kinda like our stamp money going to DU?

Not exactly...sell the commercial permits at a price equitable to the increase in in management expenses. If you want to fish our state waters you pay to play. The rec license obviously covers the expense on that side as the La Creel program is cost effectively obtaining that data.

[Duck Butter]

Had a SC member get up and talk a minute ago

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Had a SC member get up and talk a minute ago

and another

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

Kinda like our stamp money going to DU?

Don't see the correlation. If you duck hunt, you buy a stamp. The funds are then used to preserve/create/restore duck habitat, either here or up north, both of which are significant to our hunting success down here.

Regardless, this has no relevance to the point I made. Every hunter is not required to buy a duck stamp that funds those activities. I don't believe saltwater licenses should be increased when not all SW license holders pursue red snapper.

If every hunter was reauired to by a duck stamp, whether they hunted ducks or not, then that is the same. But they aren't, so, no, it's not the same principle.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Don't see the correlation. If you duck hunt, you buy a stamp. The funds are then used to preserve/create/restore duck habitat, either here or up north, both of which are significant to our hunting success down here.

Regardless, this has no relevance to the point I made. Every hunter is not required to buy a duck stamp that funds those activities. I don't believe saltwater licenses should be increased when not all SW license holders pursue red snapper.

If every hunter was reauired to by a duck stamp, whether they hunted ducks or not, then that is the same. But they aren't, so, no, it's not the same principle.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

But duck hunters that do not support DU are forced to buy a stamp that the proceeds are given to DU. Taxation without representation.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

But duck hunters that do not support DU are forced to buy a stamp that the proceeds are given to DU. Taxation without representation.

DU isn't making you buy the stamp, nor are those funds automatically directed towards DU. Delta competes for those funds as well (although not as well, apparently).

There is still a difference between this and the red snapper management issue. Whether you agree with it or see the benefit of it, DU spends that money on waterfowl that WATERFOWL HUNTERS enjoy. Not all SW fishermen pursue red snapper, so the SW license fee should not be increased for the sole purpose of diverting those funds to a singular species. Rather, a species-specific permit should be established or fee increased for an existing permit.

If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by Smalls

DU isn't making you buy the stamp, nor are those funds automatically directed towards DU. Delta competes for those funds as well (although not as well, apparently).

There is still a difference between this and the red snapper management issue. Whether you agree with it or see the benefit of it, DU spends that money on waterfowl that WATERFOWL HUNTERS enjoy. Not all SW fishermen pursue red snapper, so the SW license fee should not be increased for the sole purpose of diverting those funds to a singular species. Rather, a species-specific permit should be established or fee increased for an existing permit.

If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Lol... cher

[Lreynolds]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

But duck hunters that do not support DU are forced to buy a stamp that the proceeds are given to DU. Taxation without representation.

If we are going to hijack a thread, let's at least get some things straight:

1) The work done by DU and Delta Waterfowl on the breeding grounds for LDWF since 1965 has NEVER been funded by sale of Louisiana Duck Stamps. LA Duck Stamp money is legally required to be spent in Louisiana.

2) State law (that would be laws made by your elected representatives, ie. representation) dictates that 10% of basic hunting license revenues are allocated "for the preservation and development of breeding grounds for migratory waterfowl" as decided by the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. Since at least 2002, those funds have been made available to any organization with a proposed use of those funds for those specific purposes approved by the LWF Commission. Since 2008 there have been open calls for proposals, evaluation by LDWF biological staff and associated partners, public presentation of those evaluations at Commission meetings, summaries of public comment, and public decisions rendered by the Commission for use of that money. In 2010, there was even an oversight hearing by the Senate Natural Resources Committee regarding that process.

[bluewing]

snapper stamp!!