Thoughts on CCA meeting tonight on state of Calcasieu fishery

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Tjethro85

If it's a social issue then it would benefit someone/something. Who/what the hell is benefitting from it?

The guides. They don't have to work as long for a limit.

[saute86]

Nothing will be done about big lakes oysters. All on committee members are processors and oyster farmers from the east side of the state. Looks like they want to eventually have a monopoly.
Oyster Advisory Committee Members

Garret Graves
Chair

Al Sunseri
Oyster Processor

Peter Vujnovich
Oyster Farmer in Jefferson and Lafourche Parish

Shane Bagala
Oyster Farmer in Terrebonne, St. Mary and Vermilion Parishes

Brad Robins
Oyster Farmer in Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes

Byron Encalade
Oyster Farmer in Plaquemines

Kenny Fox
Oyster Farmer in Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes

Lauren Estopinal
Oil and Gas Association

Channing Hayden
Port of Lake Charles (Representing Maritime and Navigation)

Jerome Zeringue
Executive Director, Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority

King Milling
Chair, Governor’s Advisory Commission on Coastal Protection, Restoration and Conservation

Norby Chabert
Louisiana State Senator – District 20

Ray Garofalo
Louisiana State Representative – District 103

Lenar Whitney
Louisiana State Representative – District 53

Robert Barham
Secretary, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Randy Pausina, Designe

[jchief]

One other thing, they are looking at diverting some of the ICW into the marsh.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[Smalls]

Overall MG, the points you made in your original post went largely unanswered. I will say I did not stick around for the oyster discussion (I had pretty much had enough and had a 2.5 hr drive back home to deal with), but the rest of it was about what I expected. From my point of view, the weirs appear to be operating as they were intended for the most part. I think the fact that some of the weirs may not appear open when they actually are complicates things. I was unaware that some of the structures could be opened below the surface.

Other than that, and who actually sits on the Cameron-Creole Advisory Committee, I learned very little from the discussion of the weirs. They said nothing that I didn't already know.

In my opinion, the management plan is in no way "outdated". With the exception of the marsh, not much has changed that can be controlled. The potential is on the table for some freshwater introduction in the future, but for now, the management plan seems to he effective enough to curtail any additional loss of land. If not for Rita and Ike, things may be progressing very well. The evidence was there in the data that the Cameron-Creole was freshening, and that is in line with other research I've seen. Rita and the subsequent years of misoperation by the USFWS set back a lot of progress.

The dredging discussion was almost pointless, except to reveal that the Corps is essentially wasting dredge material by depositing it outside the jetties in the gulf.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by jchief

One other thing, they are looking at diverting some of the ICW into the marsh.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

That would be great if they could work out the technical challenges to ensure one way flow so that salt does not get into the ICW. It might be expensive.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

That would be great if they could work out the technical challenges to ensure one way flow so that salt does not get into the ICW. It might be expensive.

Would probably involve a similar design as the flap gates at Grand Bayou. Allows for one way water flow.

[noodle creek]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The triple tail data from Mississippi has not been published or peer reviewed, thus it was only hear-say from the CCA rep who represented it to LWC. And the data on triple tail was life history data from Mississippi waters. There were no life history data or stock assessments from Louisiana waters at all.

We wrote to LWC pointing out that there is available data on triple tail in Louisiana waters (collected by NOAA and other federal groups) and asking them whether the stock data from Louisiana supported imposing the limits. We received no response, and by all appearances, the data from Louisiana waters was not considered.

This is a great example of CCA claiming that their management positions have scientific support, when they do not.

Would it make sense to manage the Louisiana deer herd based on Mississippi data?

Wish you woulda been there for this. We needed someone more educated on this issue. They didn't like hearing what Nickt87 had to say. He admitted the limit change in 05 was a social issue. The last guy to talk, i don't remember his name, but i didn't like him.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Overall MG, the points you made in your original post went largely unanswered. I will say I did not stick around for the oyster discussion (I had pretty much had enough and had a 2.5 hr drive back home to deal with), but the rest of it was about what I expected. From my point of view, the weirs appear to be operating as they were intended for the most part. I think the fact that some of the weirs may not appear open when they actually are complicates things. I was unaware that some of the structures could be opened below the surface.

Other than that, and who actually sits on the Cameron-Creole Advisory Committee, I learned very little from the discussion of the weirs. They said nothing that I didn't already know.

In my opinion, the management plan is in no way "outdated". With the exception of the marsh, not much has changed that can be controlled. The potential is on the table for some freshwater introduction in the future, but for now, the management plan seems to he effective enough to curtail any additional loss of land. If not for Rita and Ike, things may be progressing very well. The evidence was there in the data that the Cameron-Creole was freshening, and that is in line with other research I've seen. Rita and the subsequent years of misoperation by the USFWS set back a lot of progress.

The dredging discussion was almost pointless, except to reveal that the Corps is essentially wasting dredge material by depositing it outside the jetties in the gulf.

Thanks for the feedback, greatly appreciated. On the one hand, it is too bad that the dredge material can't be used to rebuild eroded land. On the other hand, putting it in the Gulf make it unlikely it will end up back in the channel and need to be dredged again. Rocking the length of the ship channel is a very expensive proposition.

I knew that the weirs had gates below the waterline both from personal observation as well as some of the reading materials. It would be nice if they could communicate to anglers when these were open, both for PR purposes and because fish are going to congregate in front of the weirs when the tide is flowing out if they are open.

I agree with you that I don't see where a management plan is outdated. If the science and data that went into the plan were good, the plan should still be good. "Outdated" is a cheap shot unless one can articulate precisely what scientific principles are better understood now than when the original plan was written.

[Gerald]

Just read all these post.

MG..... the question was asked and we were told that some or all of the power point presentation will be posted on the CPRA [Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority] web site. www.coastal.la.gov I talked with Chuck Perrodin after the meeting and he said it might take a couple of days before he can it it posted. He said to find the information: start by clicking on "calendar". Chuck's phone # is 225 342-7615 or 225 768-8882 cell.

There was a post earlier today about the meeting room was going to be "packed"......and it was. There were quite a few people standing in the back and just a couple of empty seats. I made a ruff estimate that there could have been 250 people there.

In the last few minutes of the meeting [with 30-40 people still there] the subject of using data to decide if limits need to be changed was discussed. I tried to get the speaker to say that the LDWF biologist 10 years ago, when the Big Lake limit was lowered, said that a change is not needed. He said that this was not said by the LDWF.

FYI.... Texas is now consider lowering the Trout limit [on the lower half ?] of their coast. Get this........ because there is major land loss and they think they should lower the limit now. Does that sound like the same "bull" we were told 10 years out about Big Lake.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Thanks for the feedback, greatly appreciated. On the one hand, it is too bad that the dredge material can't be used to rebuild eroded land. On the other hand, putting it in the Gulf make it unlikely it will end up back in the channel and need to be dredged again. Rocking the length of the ship channel is a very expensive proposition.

I knew that the weirs had gates below the waterline both from personal observation as well as some of the reading materials. It would be nice if they could communicate to anglers when these were open, both for PR purposes and because fish are going to congregate in front of the weirs when the tide is flowing out if they are open.

I agree with you that I don't see where a management plan is outdated. If the science and data that went into the plan were good, the plan should still be good. "Outdated" is a cheap shot unless one can articulate precisely what scientific principles are better understood now than when the original plan was written.

There have been many project over the years where the dredge material has been used to restore the marshes. Some on refuge land and some on privet land.

When dredging out in the gulf, the water/sludge mixture is pumped into a barge. Only a small % is heavy solids that settles out into the barge. The light "silt" like stuff flow out with the water and the Westward Gulf current carries it away from the channel that is being dredged.

I don't remember if she said what was done with the material in the barge. She did say that they get about 3 barge loads a day.

A representative from David Vittor's office was there to see what was going on at the meeting.

[PaulMyers]

Gerald, thanks for the added information. I'm at work and was not able to attend tonight.

Thanks to everyone that relayed information to us people that were not able to make the meeting

["W"]

Key words I got from meeting

Weirs-committee
Dredge- fluffy
Oysters -red tape power

[BuckingFastard]

i just dont understand how it possible for them to do all of this... i honestly dont know where to start. its just all b s and looks like nothing is gonna change.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Gerald

Just read all these post.

MG..... the question was asked and we were told that some or all of the power point presentation will be posted on the CPRA [Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority] web site. www.coastal.la.gov I talked with Chuck Perrodin after the meeting and he said it might take a couple of days before he can it it posted. He said to find the information: start by clicking on "calendar". Chuck's phone # is 225 342-7615 or 225 768-8882 cell.

There was a post earlier today about the meeting room was going to be "packed"......and it was. There were quite a few people standing in the back and just a couple of empty seats. I made a ruff estimate that there could have been 250 people there.

In the last few minutes of the meeting [with 30-40 people still there] the subject of using data to decide if limits need to be changed was discussed. I tried to get the speaker to say that the LDWF biologist 10 years ago, when the Big Lake limit was lowered, said that a change is not needed. He said that this was not said by the LDWF.

FYI.... Texas is now consider lowering the Trout limit [on the lower half ?] of their coast. Get this........ because there is major land loss and they think they should lower the limit now. Does that sound like the same "bull" we were told 10 years out about Big Lake.

Thanks for the report. CCA has also been pushing for additional limit reductions in TX and FL. FL releases enough of their data to see that additional restrictions were unnecessary, and they even recently raised their limit on slot reds slightly, as indicated by the data. TX has been moving consistently toward lower limits. I have not seen the TX data justifying this, but frankly I have not looked as hard, as I have much less interest in Texas regulations compared with Louisiana.

Since there were probably not any Texas government officials at the meeting last night, I would not be overly confident that you received accurate information regarding why lowering the limit is being considered. In the best case, you may have received accurate information regarding why CCA thinks the Texas speck limit needs to be lowered. Since the CCA-TX people also have tremendous influence over CCA-LA, pressing CCA for the data regarding their position on TX and FL changes should be useful in helping discern their true motives moving forward if they try and represent their position to be changed in Louisiana. The TX move lowering the limit on bull reds to one per year is not justified in the data.

["W"]

In other news

Did anyone see the grow ups playing Dungons and dragons real life in the park?

It was like on the movie "Role Models"
Lmao

Did not know people were that low in life

[T-TOP]

The oyster guy was informative, the problem is it takes legislature to change this. its been talked about on here before, the rep from jennnings tried to change this. He was met by heavy oposition (oyster fisherman) no one was there to support him on the changes and he changed the bill. For any change to occur it seems like it would take a lot of noise from people like the people that were there last night. I asked him for the people in the room that want change on the oyster harvest regs, who should we contact. He said our legislator is the one to contact.

weirs topic was very informative, and they will work for what they are intended. To save the marsh behind the levee. The best idea I heard about access was the guy that asked about rollers or some form of access while the gate is closed. Cameron parish would have to pay for that, i think. There was a long member list of people that make the decision on opening and closing the weirs weekly or even daily. Kinda blows the whole duck hunter running the marsh complaint that gets discussed here a lot.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by BuckingFastard

i just dont understand how it possible for them to do all of this... i honestly dont know where to start. its just all b s and looks like nothing is gonna change.

I think we need to mull this over for another day or two, while considering whether and how to call for an ongoing and more effective Boycott of the S.T.A.R. Tournament now that CCA has had ample opportunity to address angler concerns.

Certainly, we need to reach out to a broader base of anglers to expand the boycott next year. But we might also consider how we might effectively reach out to CCA sponsors and participating businesses (sign-up locations and weigh stations). Since it may well cost participating businesses some business to join the boycott, effective outreach here will require tact and care and likely an ongoing effort to make them well informed regarding the justifications for the boycott and what we hope to accomplish by it. We may also need to try and effectively steer boycott participants to local businesses that are willing to join the boycott efforts.

Please give some consideration to how the boycott might be effectively expanded next year. The key to making these efforts effective in the long term is reducing CCA's influence with LDWF and LWC. The license fee increase hasn't passed yet, even though CCA supported it. I also think CCA's credibility has taken a hit with local anglers, with LWC, and with LDWF.

I would be much more discouraged if CCA had gained 100 new members last night.

[slickfish]

Originally Posted by OnePunchRex

You haven't learned by now that W is all talk, no action??? He knows everything about everything and is smarter than everyone, just lacks the male parts to actually do anything.

10!!!

[T-TOP]

Originally Posted by Gerald

There have been many project over the years where the dredge material has been used to restore the marshes. Some on refuge land and some on privet land.

When dredging out in the gulf, the water/sludge mixture is pumped into a barge. Only a small % is heavy solids that settles out into the barge. The light "silt" like stuff flow out with the water and the Westward Gulf current carries it away from the channel that is being dredged.

I don't remember if she said what was done with the material in the barge. She did say that they get about 3 barge loads a day.

A representative from David Vittor's office was there to see what was going on at the meeting.

I agree this is what I heard. She said the material is to light to use, and it makes sense because of the westward currents. She said the 3 loads of heavier material they dump west of the channel in the gulf, I would assume what doen't settle out is taken away by the same westward currents.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by T-TOP

The oyster guy was informative, the problem is it takes legislature to change this. its been talked about on here before, the rep from jennnings tried to change this. He was met by heavy oposition (oyster fisherman) no one was there to support him on the changes and he changed the bill. For any change to occur it seems like it would take a lot of noise from people like the people that were there last night. I asked him for the people in the room that want change on the oyster harvest regs, who should we contact. He said our legislator is the one to contact.

Legislative pressure is a great idea, but I expect it to take a while to work.

I've begun to think outside the box a bit. Do you know that there are a host of new regulations that the oyster harvesters need to comply with and also that DHH has the authority to close oystering grounds for health reasons? One idea that has potential is to begin photographing and documenting the oystering activities, both to improve our documentation of the ecological damage done by the dredging and also to gather information and make reports regarding non-compliance with the regulations. If state officials give oyster harvesters a pass on non-compliance, I don't think it would be too hard to get the FDA involved to shut down non-compliant operators, and some other states are very eager to cite health concerns as reasons to stop buying Louisiana Oysters. There is real potential to give the local oyster industry a black eye on failure to comply with new health regulations. Give some of the new regs a careful read, and I bet some action items come to mind:

http://new.dhh.louisiana.gov/index.cfm/page/629/n/210

http://new.dhh.louisiana.gov/assets/...n_05102014.pdf

http://new.dhh.louisiana.gov/assets/...hure_14x17.pdf

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/news/37809

http://oysterlease.wlf.la.gov/oyster...tification.pdf