a lower per capita income for the fishermen. Nevertheless, the commercial fishery was able to 

 absorb the additional fishermen, thereby decreasing unemployment and the burden that 

 unemployment places on the State. Maricultural operations cannot hire large numbers of suddenly 

 unemployed people. Neither can the suddenly unemployed start mariculturafoperations themselves. 

 Maricultural operations require control of land and water, and large amounts of capital. Extensive 

 mariculture is the province of the large landowner, the wealthy individual, and the well-financed 

 corporation. 



In addition to those licensed to fish commercially, about 200,000 men and women in Louisiana 

 purchase a saltwater fishing license each year. Maricultural operations envisioned in the Acts will 

 result in reduction in the abundance of the species sought by saltwater anglers; reduction in the 

 quality of fishing; and could eventually result in the direct loss of access to a large percentage of 

 the fishing waters to which the public has traditionally had access. This in turn will result in a loss 

 of expenditures and employment in the service areas for sport fishing (e.g., boat and motor sales, 

 transportation, lodging, tackle). Additional losses will occur in the tourist industry because our 

 reknowned saltwater sport fishing is frequently one of the incentives for visiting Louisiana. 



For additional information on this subject, see Herke (1972, 1976, 1977, 1978). 



CONCLUSIONS 



1. Most of Louisiana's important sport and commercial fisheries species must be able to migrate 

 between the Gulf of Mexico and their coastal marsh nursery if they are to maintain fishable 

 populations. 



2. Semi-impoundment by such means as levees, weirs, or other water-control structures interferes 

 with the migratory cycles, and seriously reduces the populations, of fishery species. 



3. The loss of fishery production over the short term is acceptable only if semi-impoundment 

 results in a sufficiently compensatory reduction of marsh nursery loss over the long term. 



4. There is no adequately documented, scientific study in the published literature that shows 

 semi-impoundment reduces marsh loss over the long term. 



5. There are a number of studies in the published literature that indicate semi-impoundment 

 may hasten marsh loss. There are also many other questions regarding semi-impoundment. 

 Until these questions are answered, the attempted "cure" for marsh loss may in many cases 

 may hurt more than it helps. We believe the most expeditious way to determine whether 

 semi-impoundment hastens or retards marsh loss is through the critical examination of aerial 

 imagery of areas that have long been affected by semi-impoundment, and similar areas not 

 so affected. This examination would have to include areas outside the semi-impoundment 

 for which the drainage is not affected by the levees or other structures of the semi- 

 impoundment. (Areas immediately adjacent to the semi-impoundments may have suffered 

 increased land loss caused by altered drainage because of construction of the semi- 

 impoundment.) 



6. Mariculture in the marsh will result in an overall loss of fishery production and possibly other 

 damages such as increased unemployment; conversion of resources belonging to the general 

 public to the profit of a relatively few individuals and corporations; and loss of public access 

 to areas traditionally open to fishing. If mariculture is allowed in the marsh, we foresee the 

 decimation of our natural fisheries, both sport and commercial. In our opinion, Acts 305 and 

 386 of the 1987 Louisiana Legislature are not in the public interest and should be repealed. 



209 



