re: ruh roh shaggy.... this might not be good LDWF...

quote:

---

This is a common misconception.

That license fee increase went towards the LA CREEL program which collects harvest rate and angler effort information from the docks and through phone/email survey.

Thr data collected in this program is one part of many used in actual stock assessmemts

---

You're telling me they spent $2.5m/year on phone calls and questionnaires at the boat ramp?

quote:

---

July 16, 2014 - For the first time in 14 years, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries will increase its license fees for recreational, saltwater fishing from $15.00 to $22.50 on August 1. The increase places Louisiana firmly in the middle of saltwater license fees among Gulf States. The Department expects to generate an additional $2.25 million annually, which will be used to fund the agency’s LA Creel program. LDWF recognized the shortcomings of the federally established Marine Recreational Information Program to provide the best available data to fisheries managers and began collecting their own recreational statistics through a new data collection program called LA Creel. Since federal officials do not recognize LA Creel as MRIP compatible, over half a million dollars typically used to fund recreational surveying in Louisiana was pulled, leaving the Department responsible for the financial burden of data collection. The Department recognized that it was unable to adequately fund a high quality, precise recreational survey for the long term and sought angler support to fund the survey through a license fee increase. The Coastal Conservation Association of Louisiana, with LDWF support, sponsored a bill to increase license fees. The bill was introduced by Rep. Stuart Bishop, passed the 2014 Legislative Session, and was signed by Governor Jindal on June 19, 2014. The license fee increase contains a sunset provision where the increase will have to be revisited in 2018.

---

CM is the little bitch of the commercial fishing lobby and is going on a with hunt for all the LDWF staff that isn't. hes gona bend the rec sector over so far we get our tonsils tickled.
if i get banned for this then good GD riddance

bc of CM's record i dont see how i could even think of entertaining this argument.
you do make a good point for the sake of unobjective argument.

quote:

---

What is CMs record?

---

tax and spend democrat. look up his voting record when he was in congress.

quote:

---

Maybe just maybe he is being fiscally responsible and not jumping into something without knowing how to pay for it.

---

see above

That's just it. They are all politicians. Garrett graves, melancon, and barham. I believe Patrick Bamks though that there wasn't any cost analysis done by the previous administration I am. It too sure about the $10 million figure they came up with but I do understand how expensive studies offshore can cost. Even if its half of that and only $5 million I don't think we have that $ laying around and the license increase wa not supposed to be for that.

quote:

---

Isn't there 100's of millions more BP money still coming, seems that money would perfect to use for a stock assessment in the area effected

---

It's not that easy. They can't just use money on whatever they want to. That money has to be approved by a board of trustees of the entire lawsuit, which includes multiple states. The previous administration fricked up royally by agreeing to be part of the trustee lawsuit. We were by far the most adversely impacted state, but we joined a suit that gave us an equal voice to states that had a tiny fraction of the damages.

Furthermore, they would need to show sufficient damages to red snapper stock to justify using money to fund red snapper assessments. Then you'll have to do something to improve red snapper stocks, like cutting the season....

Most of the damages for the state were to coastline, killifish (cocahoes), and oysters. That's where the lion's share of the money is required to be spent according to the terms of the settlement. Now, there are some silly arse projects that were approved, like the cocahoe hatchery, but they are what they are.

Another awesome thing about the idiotic response to the spill was we wasted millions on shite that were technically unfeasable. They took the idea that a belgian company proposed, which would require massive numbers of dredges from the belgian fleet. However, federal law does not allow foreign dredges. Every US dredge working in conjunction couldn't do what the belgians proposed. Plus, many of those dredges were unavailable. So, there was no way to build enough berm to affect any real protection. The engineers knew this, but were ignored.

Why were they ignored? Because Nungesser got on the news and said that HE was going to build a berm. Not to be outdone, Jindal decided to make it happen against the advice of engineers. I mean, why not? BP is going to pay for it, right? That makes it free, right? No, that's not right. Those costs got deducted from the settlement money.


I should probably stop now before I get visited.

quote:

---

It too sure about the $10 million figure they came up with but I do understand how expensive studies offshore can cost. Even if its half of that and only $5 million I don't think we have that $ laying around and the license increase wa not supposed to be for that.

---

Let me start off by saying I don't think previous budget misappropriation going back to 2010 has anything to do with red snapper management. Boats can be auctioned off and wasteful spending can be cut. It's a weak excuse to say the department can't afford something because some money was misspent five years ago. Melacon hasn't come out and linked the two, but he's certainly leading people to that conclusion.

Now, what's clear to me is that Melacon is bought and paid for. He's digging in his heels for the status quo, and thinks the Gulf Council should remain in charge. His comments suggest the funding issue is an excuse, and he is attacking any evidence to suggest the states could handle this.

LINK

quote:

---

"The Gulf Council saved the red snapper,"

---

Melacon was recently scolded by the Wildlife Commission for not providing them with all the information. He clearly has his mind made up that he wants things to stay the way they are, with commercial benefiting the most. He blames the recreational sector for not having this figured out, when the recreational sector has no control. This is a complete about-face from what was said before and shortly after the election, and not something he just decided recently.

quote:

---

"The recreational private sector is the only sector that hasn't resolved its problems," he said. "The commercial (sector) knows how they can fish and when they can fish. The charter people, the same thing. Like it or not, they've got it. It's done. "So do we start dismantling legs that are working already to fix one that isn't working yet?"

---

Now to what Graves is asserting. He is maintaining that the very successful state management of Dungeness crab on the west coast has laid the groundwork for how red snapper will be managed. Through the act, the states submit a plan and report on stock assessments, but the states do not pay for formal federal stock assessments as defined by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, they prepare a less costly version and it is approved by NOAA. Graves asserts that NOAA will still collect data, the state will simply purchase that data from them. This is the point of contention, as NOAA is not obligated to release the data to the states.

quote:

---

At Thursday's meeting, commissioner Chad Courville questioned the amount the department said would be required to collect fisheries-independent data. Currently, much of that information is acquired by federally funded research vessels that go out for days or weeks at a time to set lines and pull trawls. Those scientists catch a wide variety of fish in those efforts. Courville suggested the feds would still acquire that data because their hooks and nets will still run across the fish. "They won't close their eyes when they catch red snapper, will they?" he said. Banks said that data may still be collected, but that doesn't mean it would be available to him and his biologists. "Our hope would be that they would collect that and we could request that, but we can't assume that at this point," he said.

---

Not having to generate formal stock assessment data drops the price tag nearly $5M a year, since $1.6M is already spent on LA CREEL. The rest could realistically be accomplished with roughly $2M more than is already accounted for, which is peanuts in terms of a state budget. For reference, the allegations that started this thread are over $1.3M in boats that aren't being used. $2M is a very doable number considered every study done shows that money spent on recreational fishing generates a huge ROI.

quote:

---

Patrick Banks, head of the department's fisheries division, presented numbers showing full management of red snapper would cost the state $10 million in the first year of the management scheme. Much of that -- $6.4 million -- would be gobbled up by acquisition of fisheries-independent data, which is collected by scientists in the field. Currently, the state spends $1.6 million collecting fisheries-dependent data through its LA Creel Survey program by intercepting guides and recreational anglers at marinas. That cost would stay roughly the same if the state took over red snapper management, but the agency would also be responsible for data management ($400,000), stock assessments ($300,000), administrative costs ($7,000) and enforcement of red snapper regulations ($1 million).

---

quote:

---

enforcement of red snapper regulations ($1 million).

---

So are they saying we need to field agents that only focus on red snapper enforcement? Why do we need a special enforcement branch solely for red snapper? That's like saying we need an enforcement division for waterfowl and one for fish. If an agent pulls me over heading up river he can check my ducks but will have to call another agent to check my trout/reds?

Don't the feds contract out LAWLF agents for enforcement in Federal waters? Why can't the state agree to pay an agreed upon price to the NOAA researchers who will be out there anyway doing the research?

quote:

---

TheDrunkenTigah

---

good points that i didn't have time to make!
also, who is the arse-clown that downvoted this?