 |
Corpusfishing.com
Fishing Reports and information for the Coastal Bend
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HsBnAtty
Finger Mullet
Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 22
Location: North Padre Island
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I wasn't able to attend the meeting (but will attend the next on the Island), but suspect that the 1997-1998 data they are relying on is primarily found at the following link -
http://www.cbbep.org/publications/virtuallibrary/cc25b.pdf
Note from a review of Figure III.2. on the JFK Causeway area in the study that very few sea grass scars exist on the portion of the area south of the Causeway. The reason is that such area is generally deeper than the northern portion (except for the Boat Hole area). These two areas should not be grouped together. It appears that less scaring appears in the south JFK Causeway area than in any other area discussed in the study.
Based upon existing data, no justification exists for even proposing that the south JFK Causeway area needs any sea grass protection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
topdog15
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 4566
Location: Flour Bluff
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thaks for posting that. Didn't even think to look at CBBEP website. Been looking for that paper most of the morning.
_________________
"Ya'll must eat a lot of fish" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rebecca of Sunnybrookfarm
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 3974
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Central Scrutinizer wrote: | As far as the "no current data" mantra, I would not hang my tin foil hat on that one too tight.
Newton introduced his theory of gravity in 1687 and we are still using it today. So 10 years ago doesn't sound like all that long, relatively speaking!!! |
Current or not, I"m with you on that point. but, you have something other than the Dunton paper (listed above from the CBBEP that ranks the JFK area as 6th down the list of scarring) AND information that additionally doesn't agree with the following? AT THE END OF THE DAY, I can't find ANY data that ranks the scarring around the JFK worse than other places that warrants this witch hunt. anyone?
| porkfetus wrote: | I'm low on patience and time today. And I dont know why this thing won't post portrait for me. Here's the numbers, please check my math.
There's the science. Where's this SSA issue coming from?
PF |
_________________
| Central Scrutinizer wrote: | | Thanks for the Memories, Ranger Rick. |
| ziacatcher wrote: | | However I bet if you were fishing naked Ranger Rick would have a problem with that |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tyler
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 12865
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do you think the redheads will observe the SSA and not eat themselves out of house and home as they apparently did at Yarborough a few years ago? 
_________________
Like Corpusfishing.com on Facebook! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
topdog15
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 4566
Location: Flour Bluff
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tyler wrote: | | Do you think the redheads will observe the SSA and not eat themselves out of house and home as they apparently did at Yarborough a few years ago? |
There was actually a suggestion made (jokingly) that if we want to conserve seagrass that we should eliminate the "red headed ducks"
_________________
"Ya'll must eat a lot of fish" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Central Scrutinizer
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Posts: 3585
Location: Flour Bluff
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| porkfetus wrote: | AT THE END OF THE DAY, I can't find ANY data that ranks the scarring around the JFK worse than other places that warrants this witch hunt. anyone?
|
Apparently, nobody really got the Einstein reference in my joke "relatively speaking".... but I'll let that one go.
As far as ANY DATA, look very closely at the "data" that is used to support your case for the witch-hunt, and think closely about the myriad of assumptions that went into coming up with the numbers in Table 1 - even though it is sideways..... 
The "Upper Laguna Madre" encompasses a very large area, and it's not exactly spelled out how that area compares to the area delineated by the folks leading the presentation last night. Dunton et al. (1998) do indeed show a number of areas within the same area that was discussed last night that did show "Heavy Scarring". Apples=Oranges, or perhaps Apples=Avocados??? 
Now granted, Christmas Bay has made a remarkable recovery in terms of acreage of "seagrass" in recent years (but again, not differentiating among the 5 different species, which all have very different growth rates and recovery rates from prop-scars), but what exactly do you pin those recovery factors on???
So.... if we can agree on one thing, perhaps it is "this is not an easy nut to crack".
Now, if anyone out there that drives over the JFK Bridge, and at the very top looks over to the right and does not see the "jigsaw puzzle" pattern in the seagrass below, then I'm all for the statement I heard last night of "I don't see ANY problem in this area".  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ziacatcher
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 22 Dec 2008
Posts: 6573
Location: The Bluff
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IN YOUR BACKYARD! no more two minute HH, Zia and IMS. paddle craft only. not with the SSA, but with the LIFA, which will be proposed sooner than you know it, especially if the SSA passes and is implemented.
That's what I'm afraid of, Porkfetus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rebecca of Sunnybrookfarm
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 3974
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Central Scrutinizer wrote: | [So.... if we can agree on one thing, perhaps it is "this is not an easy nut to crack".
Now, if anyone out there that drives over the JFK Bridge, and at the very top looks over to the right and does not see the "jigsaw puzzle" pattern in the seagrass below, then I'm all for the statement I heard last night of "I don't see ANY problem in this area". |
granted on the cracking of the nuts, I do agree. however, the way the meeting was run last night, it seemed like a "done-deal" despite overywhelming opposition AND the acknowledgement that there were other areas being scarred.
as for the "there's NO problem", that DID make me cringe a little every time I heard it. While I"m not going to sit here and tell you there isn't one scar out there, I WILL tell you from experience that it's not as bad as other places that really could stand some protection - SHAMROCK...
can we agree on that one?
PF
_________________
| Central Scrutinizer wrote: | | Thanks for the Memories, Ranger Rick. |
| ziacatcher wrote: | | However I bet if you were fishing naked Ranger Rick would have a problem with that |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rebecca of Sunnybrookfarm
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 3974
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ziacatcher wrote: | IN YOUR BACKYARD! no more two minute HH, Zia and IMS. paddle craft only. not with the SSA, but with the LIFA, which will be proposed sooner than you know it, especially if the SSA passes and is implemented.
That's what I'm afraid of, Porkfetus. |
Zia, please show up to the meeting next week.
PF
_________________
| Central Scrutinizer wrote: | | Thanks for the Memories, Ranger Rick. |
| ziacatcher wrote: | | However I bet if you were fishing naked Ranger Rick would have a problem with that |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Central Scrutinizer
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Posts: 3585
Location: Flour Bluff
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| porkfetus wrote: | | -I WILL tell you from experience that it's not as bad as other places that really could stand some protection |
 Yes indeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
topdog15
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 4566
Location: Flour Bluff
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Central Scrutinizer wrote: | | porkfetus wrote: | AT THE END OF THE DAY, I can't find ANY data that ranks the scarring around the JFK worse than other places that warrants this witch hunt. anyone?
|
Apparently, nobody really got the Einstein reference in my joke "relatively speaking".... but I'll let that one go.
As far as ANY DATA, look very closely at the "data" that is used to support your case for the witch-hunt, and think closely about the myriad of assumptions that went into coming up with the numbers in Table 1 - even though it is sideways.....
The "Upper Laguna Madre" encompasses a very large area, and it's not exactly spelled out how that area compares to the area delineated by the folks leading the presentation last night. Dunton et al. (1998) do indeed show a number of areas within the same area that was discussed last night that did show "Heavy Scarring". Apples=Oranges, or perhaps Apples=Avocados???
So.... if we can agree on one thing, perhaps it is "this is not an easy nut to crack".
|
I got your Einstein reference, but I thought you were talking Newtonian physics 
You're definately right about Table 1. It speaks to the ULM as a whole but I think the important thing it shows is that of the areas listed ULM has increased in seagrass percentage 82% in 30 years. Now that data is "old" and my "guess" would be that in the decade since that data was collected, the numbers have gone up even more.
As for Dunton's data (from CBBEP website), he does differentiate btwn ULM and JFK Causeway area and I happen to be looking at it so I'll share........He uses three measures of scarring intensity: "light" less than 5% scarred, "moderate" 5-20% scarred, and "heavy/severe" >20% scarred. For the eight areas studied(ULM, JFK Causeway, Shamrock Island, East Flats, Redfish Bay, Harbor Island, Lydia Ann/Mud Island, and Estes Flats) the JFK Causeway area is six out of eight for lowest total percent scarring (18.4%) behind some whoppers like Estes Flats 97.6% or East Flats 49.0 or Shamrock Island 37.3%. As for "severe" scarring %, the JFK Causeway area ranks 7 of 8 in lowest % of severe scarring at 1.4%. Severe scarring % for the three areas mentioned above were 75.4%, 15.1%, and 7.0%.
To me, the paper as a whole says "here are 8 places we looked at in 1997, and here are the percentages of those places that have prop scars. It certainly does not, as was implied last night, justify the establishment of a Scientific Study Area in the JFK Causeway area. Shamrock looks like a good spoth and it's a turtle grass stronghold for that area. The data seems to indicate that in 1997 Shamrock had 37.3% scarring, twice that of the proposed SSA. I'm in no means against SSA as a tool to manage habitats. It has obviously made an impact in Redfish Bay. The problem (to me) is that this is not Redfish Bay. There is no indication that seagrass is even threatened in the JFK Causeway area. If anything the data tells me that there are other more deserving places in need of seagrass protection. What's more is these 8 areas are all within a boat ride of each other. What about the numerous other places along the coast where seagrass is actually in trouble?
On a side note, we need some recent arial photographs.
One tough nut, indeed.
_________________
"Ya'll must eat a lot of fish" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fishinglady
Member White Shrimper Boot Club
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 857
Location: N. Padre Island
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe we need to all pitch in a few bucks and hire Uncle D to take some aerial photos of the area for us.
So, Don, what would it cost for us to get photos of the areas in question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason Slocum
Flour Bluffian in training
Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess none of the naysayers would think an in house TPWD study of the seagrass would be biased?
Also if new data showed high occurrences of prop scarring would the naysayers still be opposed to a SSA? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fishinglady
Member White Shrimper Boot Club
Joined: 05 Feb 2007
Posts: 857
Location: N. Padre Island
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The "naysayers" on this board are people who take care of the environment...picking up trash left behind by others, rescuing [or at least trying to rescue] injured birds and cold stunned turtles. We simply have not seen any proof of excessive prop scarring or decline of sea grasses in the LM that we fish on a very regular basis. Look at the outrage expressed by board members about the "flats-burning tower boats".....usually around when there are fishing tournaments, and the outrage and calls made to game wardens when we see people blatantly and knowingly violating the size and take limits. As a whole, the members of the board do a great deal to protect the fish and the environment because we value it.
The presenters at the meeting couldn't even supply any data to show that prop scaring actually threatens fish populations. Redheaded ducks do tear up and eat the roots of sea grass, but that hasn't seemed to decrease the areas covered in sea grass. I've never heard anyone argue against the rule banning fishing in the deep channels during a freeze. We can all sense and appreciate the deep unfairness of hauling out freezing fish from their one refuge.
If anyone could prove that prop scarring was very wide spread in the LM and that it was doing serious harm to the aquatic life, then I would be willing to try to come up with a solution. Until then, I only sense a hidden agenda to severely restrict the use of boats other than kayaks in the LM. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CaptWildBill
Finger Mullet
Joined: 18 Jul 2011
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Right on fishinlady, " hidden ( agenda ) "!
I thought this would be a good time to resurrect this post from the Dead, do you guys remember this?
Posted on Corpusfishing forum years ago....
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:55 am Post subject: The Feds want to take away some of your fishing areas Reply with quote
Watch out or the Texas coast may become similar to the California coast, where fishermen have lost a lot of fishing areas. Go to the TKF website and read about the current administration's plans to limit fishing. Act before it is too late.
http://texaskayakfisherman.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=131156
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
