literature about the importance of marsh detritus that is exported offshore. The exports, however, 

 highest in energy content and probably in overall value are the organisms that use the marsh as 

 a nursery. They serve as forage for the offshore fishes, without which these offshore fishes would 

 probably be much less abundant; the survivors grow to become catchable sport and commercial 

 estuarine-dependent fishes, and parents of their next generation. 



It may be that most of the "all other species" have their greatest importance in an ecological 

 role. For nearly all species, we know far too little to say where they fit in the overall "big picture." 

 Some of the species currently considered unimportant may be essential pieces in the ecological 

 puzzle. The sudden demand for redfish and the increase in its dockside price was probably the 

 main impetus for passage of Acts 305 and 386; Act 305 specifically gives red drum (redfish) as an 

 example of a species that may be cultured. If redfish were the only species that were allowed to 

 be cultured, we would not be so concerned about the Acts. We expect the blackened redfish fad 

 to run the course of all fads, and the price of redfish to once again fall to historic levels. If this 

 happens, it would probably be unprofitable to culture them and mariculture operations in the marsh 

 would disappear. But the Acts allow culture of "any fish" (Act 386) and "domesticated and other 

 aquatic species" except any "harmful species of fishery" (Act 305). It is obvious that a mariculturist 

 can make a profit from shrimp (Table 3) if given an exclusive monopoly on shrimp raised in a large 

 area of marsh. Thus, we do not expect to see maricultural operations disappear from the marsh 

 for purely economic reasons. 



Concern about overfishing the wild redfish population also led to the first ever restrictions in 

 Louisiana on the annual poundage of redfish that could be landed commercially, and closing of the 

 season for sport fishing. Restrictions on harvest are certainly prudent measures if there is danger 

 of overfishing to the extent of reducing recruitment of young into the fishable population. But 

 the young redfish must have a place to grow before they can recruit into the fishable population. 

 It is counterproductive to remove large chunks of their nursery and rearing area for mariculture 

 while trying to increase the numbers of those surviving to spawning age. 



The threats to the fishery resource, and possibly to the marsh itself, from mariculture are our 

 greatest concerns, but we will mention a few others. 



Mariculture is also a threat to waterfowl interests. Semi-impoundment has been used for years 

 as a tool for increasing waterfowl food production, thereby improving the hunter's chance of 

 success. The average hunter may expect that the semi-impoundment required for mariculture will 

 do the same thing, but this is doubtful. The water level fluctuation schedules required for 

 waterfowl food production, and those required for successful mariculture, are not likely to be the 

 same. Unlike the freshwater crayfish ("crawfish") aquaculturist, the mariculturist can not accept a 

 drawdown that results in a dense stand of seed-bearing annuals. And if the mariculturist artificially 

 feeds the cultured organisms, water levels will probably be held too high for successful growth of 

 widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima), particularly since decomposition of food and feces, eutrophication 

 of the water, and roiling by the concentration of organisms in the area will all increase water 

 turbidity. The artificially high water levels may also waterlog the soil, thereby killing the emergent 

 vegetation. We generally disagree with the "Recognizing" statements in Act 305; for example, 

 "...and recognizing... that mariculture is compatible with the social and cultural heritage of the coastal 

 area..." (How many Louisiana shrimpers want to exchange their independent life style for the "tied 

 down to routines" life of a farmer?) We particularly doubt that mariculture will reduce 

 unemployment. In 1987, Louisiana had over 26,000 licensed resident commercial fishing vessels. 

 Marsh removed for mariculture will result in a reduction in natural fishery production. The 

 reduction in natural fishery catch because of mariculture will probably result in more unemployment 

 in the commercial fishery than it will in employment in mariculture. 



The 26,000 licensed vessels in 1987 is a considerable increase over 1986 (19,500 vessels). The 

 increase probably resulted from (1) a change in the law making licensing requirements more 

 enforceable, and (2) the depressed economy and layoffs in other occupations, which likely meant 



208 



