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

quote:

---

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.

---

You can't auction boats to pay for this. That's the kind of bullshite accounting that put us in this mess. Auctioning those boats may bring in $750k one time. Assessments will have to be ongoing. Oh, and those boats could be useful in assessments.

quote:

---

I never said that. I said that the budget in 2016 has nothing to do with the budget in 2010. The issue of misappropriation is separate from the issue of funding red snapper management. The former seems to have stemmed from an influx of BP response money anyway. Anyone trying to lump the two together is being disingenuous. That's like saying I spent a quarter of my loan money on bar tabs in 2010 so I can't afford to pay my student loans in 2016. You'll also notice I never once said BP money should or will need to be used for this program either. That's a one time windfall, but even removing it completely, this is very doable even with inflated figures.


I'm all for it if those boats are used in the stock assessments, but that would be a random benefit and really has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

---

Yeah, sorry, I got hung up on the issue of using Macondo money.

quote:

---

I'm all for it if those boats are used in the stock assessments, but that would be a random benefit and really has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

---

Totally agree. You already have them, use them.

quote:

---

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.

---

Lets pretend it will only cost an extra $2 million/year to accomplish all this. Where would this money come from? We can auction those boats off and come up with enough $ for this year, but what about next year and the year after?

Your options are:

1. cut spending from some other program

2. increase revenue (they just increased our saltwater license fees and I would hate for that to happen again)

But per Garrett Graves bill, the feds are going to pay for it?

Maybe it just isnt time to support a bill until the actual hard $ are figured out. The head of marine fisheries up and resigned and I doubt it was because he didnt like his new boss, more than likely a sketchy $ issue

quote:

---

No doubt your employees would think you were a slimy little bitch and question your motives if you treated them that way.

---

let's not act like there weren't employees who didn't think like this about the previous administration as well

quote:

---

Lets pretend it will only cost an extra $2 million/year to accomplish all this. Where would this money come from?

---

The state legislature just approved a budget of 26.9 billion dollars. $2M translates to .007% of the state budget, and .8% of the most recent LDWF budget I've seen. It's simply absurd to argue investing in this will cause the state to go broke, especially as I pointed out, that money spent on recreational fishing generates a positive ROI in every study done on the subject. For reference, the state spends almost $8M a year on the control of aquatic plants. Discretionary spending is a part of any budget, and it makes financial sense for LA to invest in opening the fishery. No, the money can't be just pulled out of thin air, but to act like $2M is a deal-breaker is ridiculous.

quote:

---

But per Garrett Graves bill, the feds are going to pay for it?

---

They are, at least in one sense of the word. They collect data on all reef species as part of the federal research program NOAA uses to monitor fisheries, not just red snapper. Louisiana could then use the data they collect as it pertains to red snapper to prepare the stock assessment report. Absolute worst case, NOAA asks to be reimbursed for a portion of their expenses. This is a far cry from having to produce a research fleet from scratch. This was covered in detail with links in my last post.

quote:

---

No doubt your employees would think you were a slimy little bitch and question your motives if you treated them that way.


let's not act like there weren't employees who didn't think like this about the previous administration as well

---

I was responding to the employer/employee analogy Ron used. In this case the public would be the employees.

He gained the support of the public early on when he went on record saying he will continue on the same path the previous administration started down to work towards regional management. He has now flip flopped on that promise 100% giving various excuses. If he really did support the move to regional management, he should have waited to shite on Graves bill until after he developed a plan that he thinks could work. The way he is choosing to handle it makes it clear he is in the pockets of the comms and really has no interest in pursuing regional management.

quote:

---

This is the same tactic all politicians have used for years, say one thing then do another. The fact that you really believe what this guy says over what he is actually doing is sad or scary. I can't tell which.

---

I dont believe anything any politician says, and thats why I am doubting the bill. I am trying to give both CM and Graves the benefit of the doubt but you and I both know one or both of them is full of it (likely both)

The other thing is that the LWF Commissioner is not the dictator. The vote for this bill comes from Congress whether or not Melancon supports it or now

quote:

---

Yet you have said you believe CM is in favor of regional management based solely on his word despite all of his actions to the contrary

---

I give him the benefit of the doubt until he gives a reason not to. And when he and Patrick banks did an actual cost assessment before supporting something is a good thing is it not? Some may even use the word "conservative"

quote:

---

Well first off, he did go on record saying he would support it early

---

what if he went in supporting it, then talked to LDWF staff and they didn't support it and convinced him that it wasn't worth supporting?

How do you know there is only one reason for his reversal and that is to screw the recs?

quote:

---

How do you know there is only one reason for his reversal and that is to screw the recs?

---

Every other reason has been pretty soundly ruled out, so we're left with the simplest, and one that lines up perfectly with his track record. I know you like the guy cause he did right by your family but if you can read that article I posted the link to and think he has recreational interest even remotely at heart, then I'm not sure what to tell you. He even went so far as to blame recreational for the problem.