# Cut from E. Matty to Colorado



## gordaflatsstalker (Jul 3, 2008)

I saw they proposed a cut from east matagorda bay to the colorado river. I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing or if it will even effect anything at all.


----------



## luna nueva (Jul 4, 2007)

Ive heard that before. Im not sure if it would be good or bad as well. It would let in more tidal movement but that could be a bad thing as well. Correct me if Im wrong but East Matty is like the Laguna because its extrasalty and does not get a whole lot of tide movement. Thats one of the reasons for the big trout in that bay. I am no scientist and do not know all the pros and cons and would be interested in hearing reasons and consequenses.


----------



## Salty Dog (Jan 29, 2005)

There has been talk of dredging a cut there for many, many years. Hasn't happened and probably never will. 

One thing for sure, everytime people get involved trying to improve things it usually has some unintended consequences and they often are not that good.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Salty Dog said:


> There has been talk of dredging a cut there for many, many years. Hasn't happened and probably never will.
> 
> One thing for sure, everytime people get involved trying to improve things it usually has some unintended consequences and they often are not that good.


Amen to that!


----------



## fishin 24/7 (May 8, 2008)

I hope it stays like it is. If it is not broke don't fix it.


----------



## gordaflatsstalker (Jul 3, 2008)

Just like when they closed parker's cut. I was too young to fish but I heard fishing was way better when it was open.


----------



## Capt. Hollis Forrester (Jun 17, 2006)

All it will be is basically a ditch. East Matty needs to breathe, its stagnet enough as it is. It'll help out that west end of the bay as far as tidal flow , etc. I agree that when they closed Parkers cut that was the biggest mistake ever. The CORP, basically does a fine job of screwing things up, common sense is what they lack! A ditch from the colorado to East Matty wont hurt a thing, but it'll help in lots of ways. www.capthollisforrester.com


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Does anybody know of any cases where they opened a cut and it didn't ultimately improve things? I cant remember any offhand.


----------



## gordaflatsstalker (Jul 3, 2008)

I don't know. East Matagorda Bay is my stomping grounds. I've been fishing there since I was a little kid. I would hate to see something happen to it. I've had some of the best memories of my entire life there. Just the thought of something negative happening there is the reason I don't want to see anything there.


----------



## Salty Dog (Jan 29, 2005)

Capt. Hollis Forrester said:


> A ditch from the colorado to East Matty wont hurt a thing


How can you be 100% sure?


----------



## explorer05 (Jun 22, 2006)

Hollis is probably correct, based upon the fact that the water currently flows in and out through the Colorado via the ICC and Old Gulf Cut now. If the new cut is small enough, it would just replace some of the flow from OGC. The key is not making it too large.

The reason they want to do this is to eliminate the Vibrio in the hot (85+) water temps of summer.


----------



## Capt. Hollis Forrester (Jun 17, 2006)

Salty Dog said:


> How can you be 100% sure?


 Why do you pick out one sentence out of many that I've wrote. I've explained things prior to that portion of my comment. This is how it all gets started. Next time use the whole quote instaed of one segment.


----------



## KappaDave (Aug 29, 2005)

Capt. Hollis Forrester said:


> All it will be is basically a ditch. East Matty needs to breathe, its stagnet enough as it is. It'll help out that west end of the bay as far as tidal flow , etc. I agree that when they closed Parkers cut that was the biggest mistake ever. The CORP, basically does a fine job of screwing things up, common sense is what they lack! A ditch from the colorado to East Matty wont hurt a thing, but it'll help in lots of ways. www.capthollisforrester.com


Stagnet? Maby... If it's not broke why fix it???


----------



## Salty Dog (Jan 29, 2005)

explorer05 said:


> Hollis is probably correct, based upon the fact that the water currently flows in and out through the Colorado via the ICC and Old Gulf Cut now. If the new cut is small enough, it would just replace some of the flow from OGC. The key is not making it too large.
> 
> The reason they want to do this is to eliminate the Vibrio in the hot (85+) water temps of summer.


It also comes in thru Mitchell's cut on the other end of the bay.

The vibrio statement is way off base. It has nothing to do with vibrio.


----------



## Salty Dog (Jan 29, 2005)

Capt. Hollis Forrester said:


> Why do you pick out one sentence out of many that I've wrote. I've explained things prior to that portion of my comment. This is how it all gets started. Next time use the whole quote instaed of one segment.


Come on man, give me a break. Yeah, I took part of your quote but I didn't twist it around. You made a statement of certainty that there would be no ill effects. That is the portion I have a problem with so that is the part I included. We all know what you posted.

So, how do you know there will be no ill effects?


----------



## Bayscout22 (Aug 9, 2007)

As far as I know what has been proposed is not a "boat" cut. It is basically a drain to the Colorado. I'm not sure we - as fishermen are going to have much of a say but it seems like it is a positive thing to me.

BTW - I have become very educated on vibrio in the last month. One thing I learned is that you have to search (in Houston) to find a doctor that is educated about vibrio. Based on what I have learned - ANYTHING that improves water flow may have a positive impact on vibrio.


----------



## Salty Dog (Jan 29, 2005)

Vibrio is everywhere on the gulfcoast. Nothing is going to get rid of it. It has always been here and it is always going to be here. Noone is going to spend big money to open a cut so that there might be a decrease of vibrio in a bay. 

I know 3 people who have gotten vibrio within sight of Pass Cavallo and the POC big jetties. If that isn't enough water exchange and current flow to knock it back, nothing is. Not to mention there was a guy in the local paper a couple years ago who got it on the beachfront. 

Past proposals have always been for a boat cut. Increased access to the bay has always been part of the equation, which would be great. If there will be any meaningful water exchange the cut would have to be big enough to run a boat in. 

I understand the possible positives and for years I thought it was a great idea. Increased water exchange, fish passage to deeper water in the event of a freeze, easier access to the bay, etc, what is not to love, right?

All I am saying is everytime man has dinked with the bay system in our area there have been unintended consequences to some degree or another. I really cringe when folks start talking about "improvements". I just hope folks will slow down a minute and think things thru before they jump on the bandwagon. Yeah, there will be some positives but what will the negatives be? Will there be any negative hydrological effects? Any negative biological effects?

All I am saying is think things thru carefully. Our little bay is way to valuable to make a dumb mistake.


----------



## capt. stealth (Jul 7, 2008)

Sounds like East Bay is good already where we need a pass is Drum/Christmas Bay in a good location! Don't disturb the grass!


----------



## Mudwhistle (Apr 29, 2008)

capt. stealth said:


> where we need a pass is Drum/Christmas Bay in a good location! Don't disturb the grass!


Huh? How would that be done w/out cutting through Bluewater Hwy and ending road access along there? LOL


----------



## Oceola (Mar 25, 2007)

Mudwhistle said:


> Huh? How would that be done w/out cutting through Bluewater Hwy and ending road access along there? LOL


For what it's worth...

There was a post on a thread about this not too long ago. Seems there was a natural pass from Christmas to the gulf at one time. Basis the way the Bluewater floods during storm surges I suspect it was somewhere between access 5 and the pass...Anyone know? The thread mentioned some agency looking into opening up passes all up and down the coast. And if they did, building bridges over them. kind of like Rollover I guess.

Frank


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

The USACE did a study about opening up some flow between East Matagorda and old river channel some years ago and canned it (large pipes planned that connected E. bay with old river near Rawlins Bait Camp). They are still studing hydraulics to get River flow back into old channel from West Matagorda bay but this is more about helping move sand out of pass (higher current velocity). Check the Corps web site and check search for facts about what they are doing - right now I expect nothing is going to be done. All that is currenty funded is a cointinued hydrology study of the Lower Colorado River and Matagorda bays USACE main concerns appear to be the locks. Without funding nothing is going to heppen. Right now the USACE cannot even fund required dredging projects along the ICW.

http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/


----------



## troutredfish (Apr 18, 2005)

fishin 24/7 said:


> I hope it stays like it is. If it is not broke don't fix it.


 AMEN, I agree with you 100%


----------



## tcountz (Apr 3, 2006)

About 6 or 7 years ago there was a study done by TPW about the proposed cut from East Matagorda Bay into the lower Colorado River entering it near the old Parker's Cut area. The final results of the study indicated that East Bay is one of the richest bays on the Texas Coast and that there was no indication that it would improve things if the cut was put in place. If it aint broke don't screw with it. However the US Army Corp of Engineers doesn't always abide by their studies. Within the past couple of years they have developed the opinion that opening the cut could help keep the mouth of the river at the Jetties open. The real reasoning behind their wanting the cut open is to relieve some of the pressure that we get from tide movement at the swing bridge which will be going away in November or December. The cut will not give boat access to the river and would be about 100 ft in width and only 6 to 8 ft deep. There would be a lot of pressure created by tide movement thru it regardless of its width. Right now there are very few sharks, sting rays compared to West Bay. That would change. Also any time the Gulf is a dirty mess from strong southeast winds, that dirty water would fill the west end of East Bay on an incoming tide. The west end is on of the few places that you can find clean water to fish when we have southwest winds like we often experience in July and August. It could however bring more shrimp into the bay and some surf runner trout. It could reduce the numbers of big trout that the bay produces. Who really knows. My theory and its only a theory is that whwn Parkers Cut was closed, we started catching more big trout in east bay and less in The upper river. If any of you are old enough to remember the numbers of big trout that the river produced in the winter and how no one fished east bay in the winter then you will understand my reasonings. Winter fishing in the upper river back then was fantastic and East Bay fishing wasn't. I believe that big trout from the surf came in and rode the strong tidal currents all of the way to east Bay rather than making the turn thru the locks which are often closed when the tide movement is strong and headed into East Bay. If this is right and it might not be then the big trout would still come into East Bay from the Gulf thru the new cut. The only thing keeping the cut from being opened is money and the Corp is broke. Will it happen at some point in time? Probably. Can you stop it from happening? Probably not.


----------



## tcountz (Apr 3, 2006)

About 6 or 7 years ago there was a study done by TPW about the proposed cut from East Matagorda Bay into the lower Colorado River entering it near the old Parker's Cut area. The final results of the study indicated that East Bay is one of the richest bays on the Texas Coast and that there was no indication that it would improve things if the cut was put in place. If it aint broke don't screw with it. However the US Army Corp of Engineers doesn't always abide by their studies. Within the past couple of years they have developed the opinion that opening the cut could help keep the mouth of the river at the Jetties open. The real reasoning behind their wanting the cut open is to relieve some of the pressure that we get from tide movement at the swing bridge which will be going away in November or December. The cut will not give boat access to the river and would be about 100 ft in width and only 6 to 8 ft deep. There would be a lot of pressure created by tide movement thru it regardless of its width. Right now there are very few sharks, sting rays compared to West Bay. That would change. Also any time the Gulf is a dirty mess from strong southeast winds, that dirty water would fill the west end of East Bay on an incoming tide. The west end is on of the few places that you can find clean water to fish when we have southwest winds like we often experience in July and August. It could however bring more shrimp into the bay and some surf runner trout. It could reduce the numbers of big trout that the bay produces. Who really knows. My theory and its only a theory is that whwn Parkers Cut was closed, we started catching more big trout in east bay and less in The upper river. If any of you are old enough to remember the numbers of big trout that the river produced in the winter and how no one fished east bay in the winter then you will understand my reasonings. Winter fishing in the upper river back then was fantastic and East Bay fishing wasn't. I believe that big trout from the surf came in and rode the strong tidal currents all of the way to east Bay rather than making the turn thru the locks which are often closed when the tide movement is strong and headed into East Bay. If this is right and it might not be then the big trout would still come into East Bay from the Gulf thru the new cut. The only thing keeping the cut from being opened is money and the Corp is broke. Will it happen at some point in time? Probably. Can you stop it from happening? Probably not.


----------



## luna nueva (Jul 4, 2007)

Well said Tommy


----------



## kennyw (Jun 12, 2006)

I know that yrs. ago when brown cedar cut was open, it was one of the very best fishing holes on the entire Texas coast. The hardest part was just getting there; the fishing was easy.


----------



## tiderunner (Aug 3, 2005)

IMO, the cuts produces a buy product of silt (near a river) or sand (through the beach. They create a delta. Same as the old Brown Cedar area and the 4th Cedar Lake. Basically starts filling the area up. Almost a catch 22. Pros and Cons on both sides. I have to agree with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".


----------



## scout II (Jan 2, 2008)

Now that this project has money, whats going to happen to Sargent? Sargent end being shallower than Matagorda. Are we going to have a mud hole? What is going to happen to Mitchell's cut? 
My understanding is that the cut is going to be bigger than a "ditch".

more info here

http://www.eastmatagordabayfoundation.com/things_to_know/things_to_know.htm


----------



## wannaBfishin (Dec 6, 2009)

Leave it alone. It is a GREAT place to fish. Why screw it up!


----------



## SolarScreenGuy (Aug 15, 2005)

*Don't Worry!*



gordaflatsstalker said:


> I don't know. East Matagorda Bay is my stomping grounds. I've been fishing there since I was a little kid. I would hate to see something happen to it. I've had some of the best memories of my entire life there. Just the thought of something negative happening there is the reason I don't want to see anything there.


I grew up fishing that bay. I'm talking about the 50's and 60's. There was a gulf pass called Brown Cedar Cut. I fished that bay when Brown Cedar was wide and deep. If you think E. Matty is good now, you should have seen it then! Still pluggin'-Old Salty


----------



## 11andy11 (Aug 12, 2004)

was reading this weekend about it. The article was saying that east bay is higher than the Colorado and that the ditch would make the bay shallower. They also mentioned the possibility of Mitchells cut shoaling completely across. Sounds like a crappy end result for people that have places in Sargent.


----------



## scout II (Jan 2, 2008)

> Sounds like a crappy end result for people that have places in Sargent./QUOTE]
> 
> exactly!


----------



## 100% Texan (Jan 30, 2005)

I beleieve let mother nature change it or leave it alone east matty is awesome just the way it is.Everyone is always wanting to change something that works I wish all of these people that want to change something would start in Washington and leave Texas alone.


----------



## StarlinMarlin (Aug 3, 2004)

11andy11 said:


> was reading this weekend about it. The article was saying that east bay is higher than the Colorado and that the ditch would make the bay shallower. They also mentioned the possibility of Mitchells cut shoaling completely across. Sounds like a crappy end result for people that have places in Sargent.


I am neither for or against the southwest cut being opened to the river. I will say that the Save Matagorda Campaign that the gentlemen from Sargent started is full of misleading information. I have a place on the river between Rawlings and Riverbend. East Matagorda bay is in NO WAY three foot higher than the river. The river is higher when the tide starts rising and lower when it first starts falling. Will the cut drain the east end of East Matagorda Bay? did 3 Mile Cut drain the east end when it was open after hurricane Claudette? No it didn't. 3 mile enters the west end of the bay not far from the proposed southwest cut and would have similar effects. As far as it being a ditch with culverts, I doubt it. If Matagorda county commisioner George Deshotels gets his way it will have a bridge and will be a boat cut. With LCRA's plans for a marina near the jetty park more of a reality with the recent start of the new jetties, I am sure that Deshotels will have LCRA's backing as the boat cut would make the new marina more desirable.


----------



## ATE_UP_FISHERMAN (Jun 25, 2004)

East bay has been an awesome fishery for many many years with Trout sometimes compared to Baffin with it's Hyper saline environment. The only thing hurting it is the fisherman. If they really wanted to help they could save their pennies on the ditch and maybe restock it with Trout that won't eat Croakers. Or use the money to clean that log jam that used to be West Matagorda bay.


----------



## Kevin Nicholls (Nov 22, 2005)

I,ve had a place in sargent for 23 years now and I've seen alot of changes down there. I think it will happen no matter what we want. Look at the money spent down on the matagorda end the last few years. My taxes in sargent have gone from $58 dollars a year to $1500 in the last 8 years.And do they fix our beachs or roads? Will they dredge our canals-mine averages about 3 feet deep or less. The old saying "follow the money comes to mind. When they blocked off the beach down there for the condo's I figured that would be the start of bad things, I guess we'll see soon enough.

Kevin


----------



## Blackie7319 (Oct 16, 2006)

I'll have to agree with the captain. An opening into east bay from the old river would be a plus in several ways. Remember years ago East and West bay were connected and there was no road between the two bays. I'll bet there were plenty of fish there then. I remember when Parkers cut was open. You could launch at River Bend and in minutes be fishing the East end of West bay. The fishing in that area now is nowhere near the quality that it was before they closed Parkers cut. The best thing that could happen is for them not only to to dredge a cut into East bay but to reopen Parkers Cut and maybe the fishing would come back like in the old days. After all how bad was it when 3 mile cut was open directly to the gulf? Much better than now I believe.

Blackie


----------



## slabseaker (Dec 7, 2009)

I dont thank it will hurt a thing. been fishing it for years also.It can only help if any. it does get stagnent in the summer time on that end. that all use to be open years ago just like West mata before they closed it all up for devlopement.that would give us a way end from that end instead of having to go all the way to the cut. if it stays open and dosn't silt in. but you will have to have a shollow running boat...lol


----------



## slabseaker (Dec 7, 2009)

I do remeMber when 3 mile cut was opened back up after the hurricane a few years back. tore up the trout and reds back there while it was open.....didnt even need a boat...SS


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

tcountz said:


> About 6 or 7 years ago there was a study done by TPW about the proposed cut from East Matagorda Bay into the lower Colorado River entering it near the old Parker's Cut area. The final results of the study indicated that East Bay is one of the richest bays on the Texas Coast and that there was no indication that it would improve things if the cut was put in place. If it aint broke don't screw with it. However the US Army Corp of Engineers doesn't always abide by their studies. Within the past couple of years they have developed the opinion that opening the cut could help keep the mouth of the river at the Jetties open. The real reasoning behind their wanting the cut open is to relieve some of the pressure that we get from tide movement at the swing bridge which will be going away in November or December. The cut will not give boat access to the river and would be about 100 ft in width and only 6 to 8 ft deep. There would be a lot of pressure created by tide movement thru it regardless of its width. Right now there are very few sharks, sting rays compared to West Bay. That would change. Also any time the Gulf is a dirty mess from strong southeast winds, that dirty water would fill the west end of East Bay on an incoming tide. The west end is on of the few places that you can find clean water to fish when we have southwest winds like we often experience in July and August. It could however bring more shrimp into the bay and some surf runner trout. It could reduce the numbers of big trout that the bay produces. Who really knows. My theory and its only a theory is that whwn Parkers Cut was closed, we started catching more big trout in east bay and less in The upper river. If any of you are old enough to remember the numbers of big trout that the river produced in the winter and how no one fished east bay in the winter then you will understand my reasonings. Winter fishing in the upper river back then was fantastic and East Bay fishing wasn't. I believe that big trout from the surf came in and rode the strong tidal currents all of the way to east Bay rather than making the turn thru the locks which are often closed when the tide movement is strong and headed into East Bay. If this is right and it might not be then the big trout would still come into East Bay from the Gulf thru the new cut. The only thing keeping the cut from being opened is money and the Corp is broke. Will it happen at some point in time? Probably. Can you stop it from happening? Probably not.


I had a visit with an old timer in matagorda. He hangs around the boat ramp sometimes. He basicly had the same opinion, the fish (trout included) that come into the jettys following the current, end up in east bay, because of the locks being closed on the east end. Instead of going both ways when they are closed, they all go east with the tide. Giving a higher concentration of all types of fish in east bay. He was of the opinion that west bay was being cheated of tide changes when the locks were closed. With the recent work being done, I would say if the theory is right, fishing in east bay should be spectacular for the near future. Very interesting fella, he had been fishing maty since the 50's.

chuck


----------



## Porky (Nov 1, 2006)

Too bad it's not like it was a hundred years ago when there was no E/W Matagorda bays, there was just one bay from Caney to POC, the colorado had a massive log jam upstream and emptied into the bay via a delta which is where all of those bayous & lakes came from between caney and hotel point. The only cuts in the peninsula where the storm cuts like brown cedar,greens, 3 mile. The river outflow went out Pass Cavalo or Caney creek.
But they blew up the log jam and after a few epic floods in the 1920's, we now have the current mess.
Imagine what it was like!


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

I've been fishing dow there since the mid 60's and the colossal F'up was when they diverted the river into West Bay... that along with closing Parkers make West bay too fresh on that end. The answer should not be spoil East Matty to fix it.


----------



## tcountz (Apr 3, 2006)

Thanks for quoting me from a past post on this subject. The money is available from the stimulus fund that the Corp has recieved. It won't be a "ditch" and TexDot has agreed to put in a bridge over the cut. Small boats (flat bottoms) will probably be able to go thru it. It has good points and bad points and the bad probably out weighs the good as far as fishing is concerned but the Corp is intent on doing it most likely within the next two years. It isn't just going away! If you don't like it email the Corp and the Port of Bay City Authority. I am a commissioner on the Port Board.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Tommy, can you provide physical address's or email address's?


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

As a commercial oysterfisherman I have seen the effects of the reduction of freshwater in the bay. The Colorado river and Caney Creek have both been altered by the Corp of Engineers over the years so that the bay recieves much less freshwater. On top of that the dredging of the Intracoastal waterway acts as a barrier to what little freshwater left. 

The best coarse of action would be to restore as much of the freshwater inflows as possible to that bay. It becomes hypersaline far to often in the dryer years.


----------



## captaincoach (Jul 11, 2009)

*cut into EMBay, southwest pocket*

If it happens I'm sure it will allow for tidal flow and a fish passage, and guess what two species will begin to be in abundant numbers.....sharks(big ones) and porpoises. I have fished this bay system for alot of years and have seen only a hand full(no more than 15) of porpoises, I have never had a encounter with any big sharks(I'm sure some are there, but not like West Mata. bay)........these two additions to this bay system will change the fishing somewhat, especially in the warmer months.......there are some interesting takes on this....good informative information....thanks guys


----------



## 11andy11 (Aug 12, 2004)

here a study on it. They do suggest that there is the possiblity of Mitchells cut shoaling in and the east bay water would flow in through Mitchells and out through the cut.
http://goliath.cbi.tamucc.edu/Texas...ions/Colorado River Mouth Hydro ECMC Conf.pdf


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

tcountz said:


> Thanks for quoting me from a past post on this subject. The money is available from the stimulus fund that the Corp has recieved. It won't be a "ditch" and TexDot has agreed to put in a bridge over the cut. Small boats (flat bottoms) will probably be able to go thru it. It has good points and bad points and the bad probably out weighs the good as far as fishing is concerned but the Corp is intent on doing it most likely within the next two years. It isn't just going away! If you don't like it email the Corp and the Port of Bay City Authority. I am a commissioner on the Port Board.


I'm all for the cut.........


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

glennkoks said:


> As a commercial oysterfisherman I have seen the effects of the reduction of freshwater in the bay. The Colorado river and Caney Creek have both been altered by the Corp of Engineers over the years so that the bay recieves much less freshwater. On top of that the dredging of the Intracoastal waterway acts as a barrier to what little freshwater left.
> 
> The best coarse of action would be to restore as much of the freshwater inflows as possible to that bay. It becomes hypersaline far to often in the dryer years.


True dat!.............

East Matagorda Bay, one of the richest little bodies of water in the State,(use too be)

The closure of Parkers and the diversion of the Colorado River has taken it's toll, what you might ask?........the River is on the "west" side, yes, but before the closure the much needed freshwater would pour over Beach road on a rise and bring with it "goodness", for those of you who don't know, everything that strives and lifes in "salt" starts with fresh water......

Now "we" have dead reefs in certain parts of the Bay, tidal flow has been diverted from a gradual flow, to a harsh surgement from west to East ,restricted to the North....

Way to much info to type, bottom line.....the cut would help, more circulation can't hurt, those against it argue "if it aint' broke, don't fix it", well it's broke, time to fix.........

What are the BAD things to consider in the event the "cut" takes place?, have'nt heard any, please enlightment me!


----------



## Capt Ryan Rachunek (Feb 16, 2006)

The Last Mango said:


> What are the BAD things to consider in the event the "cut" takes place?, have'nt heard any, please enlightment me!


One negative impact associated with the cut would be an increased number of species that see trout as an easy meal.... Big trout = Big meal for something with lots o' teeth....


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Capt Ryan Rachunek said:


> One negative impact associated with the cut would be an increased number of species that see trout as an easy meal.... Big trout = Big meal for something with lots o' teeth....


We don't manage our bays for the benefit of trout. An overall healthy estuary has just the right mix of salt and fresh water and all species benefit.


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

Capt Ryan Rachunek said:


> One negative impact associated with the cut would be an increased number of species that see trout as an easy meal.... Big trout = Big meal for something with lots o' teeth....


if the comment was not meant for humor, I'd deem a demise in a rebuttal!


----------



## Capt Ryan Rachunek (Feb 16, 2006)

glennkoks said:


> We don't manage our bays for the benefit of trout. An overall healthy estuary has just the right mix of salt and fresh water and all species benefit.


I wasn't implying that we manage the bays for trout, just giving an example. An increase in predators in the bay system would have a negative impact on most, if not all, gamefish species.


----------



## JohnnyWalkerRed (May 3, 2007)

I am afraid more sharks, dolphins or other predators could enter EMB which could hurt the big trout populations. What do ya'll think about this theory?


----------



## JohnnyWalkerRed (May 3, 2007)

JohnnyWalkerRed said:


> I am afraid more sharks, dolphins or other predators could enter EMB which could hurt the big trout populations. What do ya'll think about this theory?


OOPPS! I did not read all the posts earlier and now I see someone was quicker than me with the same thoughts.


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

Capt Ryan Rachunek said:


> I wasn't implying that we manage the bays for trout, just giving an example. An increase in predators in the bay system would have a negative impact on most, if not all, gamefish species.


all fish are predators, last time I checked, with the exception of mullet, fish EAT other fish!


----------



## AlanKulcak (Aug 24, 2007)

*west end cut*

The main bad thing about the CORP opening a "ditch/cut" into the west end of the bay system is that's where 80% of the marsh/back lake habitat around 3mile lake area and SW pocket that acts as the bays main nursery is. If the cut is opened the juvenile bait and game fish you find back there would have direct access to the gulf and would not filter threw the entire bay system and also allowing predators easier access to reach these young fish in the most important stage of there life. No where else in the east matagorda bay system is there a vas secluded marsh system that supports as much habitat for bait fish and game fish alike. These lakes also hold huge amounts of white & brown shrimp in the summer months that work there way threw the bays to the cuts during the fall which triggers some of the best bird fishing the state has to offer. With an easy pass out to the gulf, why would they struggle to swim 15 miles out of the way to the gulf. This would dramatically effect the bay system as a hull and completely ruin the near perfect balance of a bay system that we currently have.

Please help spread the word in a formal written statement to the CORP, stressing the need to hold a public hearing on the matter for one last stand.

[email protected]
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1229
Galveston, TX 77553-1229
(409) 766-3004
(409) 766-3176​
http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/where.asp

http://www.eastmatagordabayfoundation.com/

Alan Kulcak
Sargent, Texas


----------



## StarlinMarlin (Aug 3, 2004)

Alan, I would say I disagree with you on several issues regarding the proposed cut. Looking at google earth it is clear that the west end of the bay does not hold 80% of the back lake estuaries. Yes, the brown shrimp will migrate out of th proposed cut, no different than they do at Mitchels cut. No different than they did at 3 mile when it was open after huricane Claudette.

Let me state that I am neither for or against the cut at this point as I see pros and cons for it. It does amaze me to here the therories posted on the EMBF website that have no validity. East Matty is not 3' higher than the Colorado River for one. The cut would drain the bay and leave mud flats on the west end? Did this happen when 3 mile was open in 2003 after huricane Claudette? Did the oyster reefs die? Did the fishing go down hill? 3 mile was open for probably 18 months without any negative impacts that I am aware of.


----------



## AlanKulcak (Aug 24, 2007)

Only time will tell. The fact is the CORP could careless about how the bay is affected, there only concern is creating more water flow threw the colorado jetty system to prevent them from having to dredge it as often. I would hope that they will postpone the cut opening to see how the new jetty system will work out. But it is our obligation to try and help preserve what is a healthy bay system to be able to pass on to future generations. And if that is meaning less to you then ask yourself why would you even care enough to respond.

Anyone who as spent any significant time in the east matagorda bay system can appreciate how fragile and vital the south west area is to the bay system as a whole.

Alan Kulcak
Sargent, Texas


----------



## AlanKulcak (Aug 24, 2007)

Anyone with some common sense can see that the bay system is not 3 feet higher than the river... And you can not judge the health of a bay system within a cut that was formed by a hurricane in a mere 18 month time frame.. A tide surge from a hurricane will flush the entire bay system not just an isolated region. Those lakes/marsh around the 3mile pass also had the ability to filter out the muddy water on incoming tides from a churned up gulf. A ditch/pass directed strait into the bay system will have no buffer and will push massive amounts of dirty water into the bay. And with more murky water there will be less grass growth on the west end due to the lake us sun light penetration threw the water, which will lead to even more murky water.. So if you want the west end of the bay to look like it does now on far east end. Then go right ahead and support them opening it.


Alan Kulcak
Sargent, Texas


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

AlanKulcak said:


> Anyone with some common sense can see that the bay system is not 3 feet higher than the river... And you can not judge the health of a bay system within a cut that was formed by a hurricane in a mere 18 month time frame.. A tide surge from a hurricane will flush the entire bay system not just an isolated region. Those lakes/marsh around the 3mile pass also had the ability to filter out the muddy water on incoming tides from a churned up gulf. A ditch/pass directed strait into the bay system will have no buffer and will push massive amounts of dirty water into the bay. And with more murky water there will be less grass growth on the west end due to the lake us sun light penetration threw the water, which will lead to even more murky water.. So if you want the west end of the bay to look like it does now on far east end. Then go right ahead and support them opening it.
> 
> Alan Kulcak
> Sargent, Texas


Cut needs to happen for reason I stated earlier, "Sargent" has always been oposed to anything happening in Matagorda:

1) Objected the Jetty Construction
2) Objected the Harbor Construction
3) Objected the Cut proposal
4) Objected the Diversion Proposal
5) Objected Beach Road Construction
6) Objected LCRA River Park

And NOW the CUT...................WHY?

Not because of any eco-reason, but plain and simple jealousy of $$$$$
that might be detered from Sargent.:brew:


----------



## Jerry L. West (Aug 28, 2009)

Well alot of info is flowing on this topic as of now sure hope this cut/ditch or what ever works as well. This subject is a very touchy one to so many and it is good to voice ones thoughts. It is a valuable resource to be handled by the hands of man so keep on top of this and maybe we will get it right the first time. One doesn't know what he has until its taken from him. What the Corp. did last summer really took a toll on East bay when they diverted all traffic at the locks. So thankful we had this major bay to go to and it really needs help to replense its flow. Like was stated when talked about the effects of the locks and the fish movement, these things are very real. It was stated to call and voice your thoughts and this is the way that it should work in this matter. As for as me I don't know what its effect can really hurt to the future of this very important system I just feel that the gain would be better felt if this cut was in the middle of the bay.That is another topic all together!!!


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

nothing is dumber than man thinking they know what's best for the bays :headknock


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

Gilbert said:


> nothing is dumber than man thinking they know what's best for the bays :headknock


Everybody needs to load up in Leemo's boat and let him tell you what has changed and transpired, this guy knows what's going on when it comes to the eco-sytem of Gorda'.....


----------



## Bayscout22 (Aug 9, 2007)

I tend to agree that we should mess with mother nature. I also don't trust the Corps.

How did this thread get started up after being dormant for almost a year and half?


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Does anyone have an aerial photo or map of E. Matagorda before all the changes? I am all for getting as close to the way it was before all the dredging, rerouting, locks etc. Its hard to beat mother nature. Obviously within reason. They are not going to fill in the intracoastal or close the locks.


----------



## SolarScreenGuy (Aug 15, 2005)

glennkoks said:


> Does anyone have an aerial photo or map of E. Matagorda before all the changes? I am all for getting as close to the way it was before all the dredging, rerouting, locks etc. Its hard to beat mother nature. Obviously within reason. They are not going to fill in the intracoastal or close the locks.


Re-open Brown Cedar Cut! Now, those were the "Glory Days"! Still pluggin-Old Salty


----------



## StarlinMarlin (Aug 3, 2004)

glennkoks said:


> Does anyone have an aerial photo or map of E. Matagorda before all the changes? I am all for getting as close to the way it was before all the dredging, rerouting, locks etc. Its hard to beat mother nature. Obviously within reason. They are not going to fill in the intracoastal or close the locks.


That would be pretty tough thing to do. I hear all all the time that east bay needs to be left like mother nature created it. Man has altered everything about east bay. First of all their used to be no east and west Matagorda bay. The Colorado river dumped into the bay and the flow of the river basically exited out pass cavallo. The river channel that we know now that seperates east and west bay was dredged to resolve a continuall log jam problem that hindered boat access for trade in the 1920's. The dredge spoils created the land on either side of the river. Fresh water was still supplied to east bay after the river was altered especially when the river was high through sloughs such as St. Maries an Rudacell's. This of course was changed when the beach road was built. Yet even then when the river was at flood stage water would breach the road and spill into east bay. This again was altered when the diversion channel was completed to restore fresh water influx into west bay and the river was plugged off as well as parkers in the early 1990's. This all not to mention the intercoastall waterway, the locks, and mitchell's cut. We also have to remember that the river was also altered upstream with the highland lakes built that reduce the frequency of the river rising to flood stage. Caney creek was also altered in Wharton. The creek was damed off At Wharton. Before it was altered there, when the Colorado river flooded it spilled into caney creek witch brought more fresh water into the east end of the bay. As you can see, east bay will never be the way mother nature created it. If it could be, it would just be the east end of "Matagorda Bay".


----------



## StarlinMarlin (Aug 3, 2004)

Bayscout22 said:


> I tend to agree that we should mess with mother nature. I also don't trust the Corps.
> 
> How did this thread get started up after being dormant for almost a year and half?


It has become a hot topic in Matagorda county as Matagorda county commisioner Deshotells (sp) is working to get the southwest pass built. He has the money earmarked for the project basically from some of the federall government's bailout money. He is getting opposition from a group from Sargent that don't want the cut dredged. They have created an organization to fight it call "The East Matagorda Bay Foundation". I personally have not really decided how I feel about the cut. There definately would be bennifits. Being a property owner on the old river channel in Matagorda I am very interested in the outcome. I do think one of the side bennifits would be that the old river channell will come back to life. The old river channel was negatively impacted when the diversion channell was built and Parkers closed. Since then the river basically has been dead.


----------



## explorer05 (Jun 22, 2006)

glennkoks said:


> Does anyone have an aerial photo or map of E. Matagorda before all the changes? I am all for getting as close to the way it was before all the dredging, rerouting, locks etc. Its hard to beat mother nature. Obviously within reason. They are not going to fill in the intracoastal or close the locks.


 I have a map of east and west bay from the 50's before the diversion channel was dredged and Parker's Cut was closed. It shows Brown Cedar Cut, the old Green's Cut in West Bay, etc. Spring Bayou was a large bayou back then, and St. Mary's was fairly large and went into the river.

What most people don't know is what caused the current split in the 2 bays. It was log jams created by the c. river rising back in the early 1900's. There were actually 2 huge log jams and that's what started the silting and subsequent land mass. The government came in after the first log jam and cleared a lot of it away, but refused to do it after the second one. Until then, it was all one bay system.

If they do anything, I would think they would open St. Mary's into the river.


----------



## StarlinMarlin (Aug 3, 2004)

explorer05 said:


> If they do anything, I would think they would open St. Mary's into the river.


they will not open St. Mary's. There is development there. The southwest cut location is not a possibility, it is reality. The money is there and the permitting process IS underway. The only thing that would prohibit the construction from happening is an injunction that the EMBF is pushing in order to get the permits revoked. There is cut north of River Bend that likely will be constructed between the old river and the diversion chanell as well.


----------



## Capt. Hollis Forrester (Jun 17, 2006)

StarlinMarlin said:


> they will not open St. Mary's. There is development there. The southwest cut location is not a possibility, it is reality. The money is there and the permitting process IS underway. The only thing that would prohibit the construction from happening is an injunction that the EMBF is pushing in order to get the permits revoked. There is cut north of River Bend that likely will be constructed between the old river and the diversion chanell as well.


A cut from the old river to the Diversion would be a dream, anything would be better than going through those locks, and would reduce traffic in the locks as well, which is the only reason they'd be doing that anyhow. East Matty has been needing a breather for years, a cut would be great other than Mitchell's. When Brown Cedar closed, the Bay hasn't ever been the same. To those whom are worried about predator fish in East Matty because of a cut, your fooling yourself if you think they aren't already there!!!


----------



## StarlinMarlin (Aug 3, 2004)

Capt. Hollis Forrester said:


> A cut from the old river to the Diversion would be a dream, anything would be better than going through those locks, and would reduce traffic in the locks as well, which is the only reason they'd be doing that anyhow. East Matty has been needing a breather for years, a cut would be great other than Mitchell's. When Brown Cedar closed, the Bay hasn't ever been the same. To those whom are worried about predator fish in East Matty because of a cut, your fooling yourself if you think they aren't already there!!!


The reason for the cut from the old river into the diversion is to reduce the current in the east lock. Currently the water from west bay trades with the gulf down the diversion, through the east lock and down the river. The cut would bi-pass the lock. It would also cut down on the small boat traffic as you said. I would rather see parkers opened but I don't think I will ever see that happen. Oh, and on the east bay cut, you mention those that are worried about predator fish, some others have mentioned the cut would turn the west end of the bay into a mud hole, probably just like the Indianola shoreline at POC is a mud hole from Pass Cavallo, lol. Let me tell you, if the water coming in the jetties is dirty, you can bet east bay was already muddy as well!


----------



## tpool (Aug 21, 2005)

"you can bet east bay was already muddy as well"

And even if it wasn't already muddy, just give it a few hours - a 15mph wind rakes that bay anyways. I love that bay, but there are not many fishable days for guys that live 50+ miles away. Getting tired of going down and seeing a mudhole. I think a cut to the beach (like Brown's) could do nothing but help the fishing. But I'm off topic - not sure how the new cut to the river is going to affect it....

T-BONE


----------



## deke (Oct 5, 2004)

Capt Ryan Rachunek said:


> One negative impact associated with the cut would be an increased number of species that see trout as an easy meal.... Big trout = Big meal for something with lots o' teeth....


X2, first thing that came to my mind.

But I don't have a dog in this fight either way. I have had EM get the better of me too many times, always with people that give me the"I know the bay like the back of my hand", or "I always catch fish in East Matagorda". And guess what...the fish win,lol. Some day I will have someone that actually knows East Matty take me fishing. Heck all they would have to do is put me on 2 trout and I doubled my best day ever in E Matty. Sucks because I know it is great place to fish, or so I have heard,lol.


----------



## The Driver. (May 20, 2004)

Been watching this thread the last few days and I have fished Matty for 23 years and own property there. I do support the opening of the cut and CC Deshotells efforts. Would like to see a small bridge built to allow bay boats to enter the bay there. Also would like to see a boat cut built around the locks. We might get a few extra critters in East Matty but I think with the boat traffic in the river and at the jetties the will keep them away. If you think about it when you fish West Matty in the summer its just a few Bull sharks that hang out for several months that you have to contend with!


----------



## Capt. Hollis Forrester (Jun 17, 2006)

East Matty was a top notch hatchery at one time when cuts were open. You used to be able to wadefish the south shoreline and fight small Trout all day by the hundreds. Sure we catch our fair share of small fish, but not like it was when Brown Cedar was open, proving the hatchery issue.


----------



## wannaBfishin (Dec 6, 2009)

Leave E Mat. as it is. If you don't like the fishing there, go somewhere else. If you don't like the oystering there, go somewhere else. 
Go to W. Mat. Bay and enjoy the Bull sharks and the other stuff that I don't want to deal with and don't have to deal with ......... yet.
If a new cut is needed, let mother nature decide when and where.
That's my dime worth.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

The argument of letting more fresh water into the bay is ridiculous. You might as well just make some more cuts thru the spoil banks on the intracoastal to accomplish that. The river water has to make it thru the locks and make a U-turn before it will get there... it's alot easier for it to go straight into West Bay. I wouldn't be opposed to the new cut if it was accompanied by a re-opening of Parkers... otherwise, it doesn't do much of anything except make surf fishing better in the summer as I see it.


----------



## Capt. Hollis Forrester (Jun 17, 2006)

Haute Pursuit said:


> The argument of letting more fresh water into the bay is ridiculous. You might as well just make some more cuts thru the spoil banks on the intracoastal to accomplish that. The river water has to make it thru the locks and make a U-turn before it will get there... it's alot easier for it to go straight into West Bay. I wouldn't be opposed to the new cut if it was accompanied by a re-opening of Parkers... otherwise, it doesn't do much of anything except make surf fishing better in the summer as I see it.


 I never argued that East Matty had a fresh water issue!!! It does have a cut issue of tidal influence that it used to have, and needs those back wether they be man made or not. The fishery can survive BULL SHARKS!!!


----------



## sweenyite (Feb 22, 2009)

Leave EMB alone! If they want to open something, open Parkers!


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Capt. Hollis Forrester said:


> I never argued that East Matty had a fresh water issue!!! It does have a cut issue of tidal influence that it used to have, and needs those back wether they be man made or not. The fishery can survive BULL SHARKS!!!


I wasn't referring to you Hollis F. There was another poster who mentioned it was becoming hypersaline and that being a problem. The funny thing is that some of the biggest trout are caught in hypersaline bays... Baffin and East Matty. There has never been a natural freshwater passage into East Matty since I have been alive other than the local creeks. Seems to me that oysters are what they are interested in... not trout. I'm cool with that but call it what it is. It is not going to make East Matty any better imo... look at the damage we and the Corps have already done down there.


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

Haute Pursuit said:


> The argument of letting more fresh water into the bay is ridiculous. You might as well just make some more cuts thru the spoil banks on the intracoastal to accomplish that. The river water has to make it thru the locks and make a U-turn before it will get there... it's alot easier for it to go straight into West Bay. I wouldn't be opposed to the new cut if it was accompanied by a re-opening of Parkers... otherwise, it doesn't do much of anything except make surf fishing better in the summer as I see it.


Freshwater is a MUST..........you my friend are wrong!

You are entitled to your opinion, but let the "people" who make a living on the water decide what's best, I have been comm. fishing the Bay since I was 16,..........I just get furious when someone who sits behind a desk all day 100 miles from the coast decides he or she knows more about "what" needs to be done.........


----------



## ol' salt (Jun 11, 2006)

I've been fishing it since 1955. I remember it both ways. Imo it would be better with a cut, but for all you that remember it being better that way, there were not as many fishermen and boats back then. Certainly not boats with today's technology. Less fishermen; more fish is probably why memories of the past seem better.


----------



## wannaBfishin (Dec 6, 2009)

Since it ain't broke, let's spend a couple billion studying it and then a couple trillion fixing it. Let's make a CHANGE! (Sound familiar?
???????????????????????????????????????
You don't think someone expects to make any money with this new proposal, do ya. Surely not. It's for the good of the (not broken) bay system.
We're all so stupid!
Let the Corp go open the San Benard River to the gulf (again). Seems it's about closed up according to some folks I know that live down there. That was a well spent couple of million.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

The Last Mango said:


> Freshwater is a MUST..........you my friend are wrong!
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion, but let the "people" who make a living on the water decide what's best, I have been comm. fishing the Bay since I was 16,..........I just get furious when someone who sits behind a desk all day 100 miles from the coast decides he or she knows more about "what" needs to be done.........


So Mr. Einstein commercial fisher... how does this new cut provide freshwater??? I may sit behind a desk but I was fishing in Matty before any of the Corps projects and we have had a house down there on the river since the 70's. I know a little about how it is and how it was...


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

ol' salt said:


> I've been fishing it since 1955. I remember it both ways. Imo it would be better with a cut, but for all you that remember it being better that way, there were not as many fishermen and boats back then. Certainly not boats with today's technology. Less fishermen; more fish is probably why memories of the past seem better.


Ol Salt, it wemt downhill as soon as the new harbor opened up and created easy access. I love the harbor facility but that was the straw...


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

Haute Pursuit said:


> So Mr. Einstein commercial fisher... how does this new cut provide freshwater??? I may sit behind a desk but I was fishing in Matty before any of the Corps projects and we have had a house down there on the river since the 70's. I know a little about how it is and how it was...


pulls water from the east to the west.......did'nt mean to sound rude in the previous post, but rc. fishing 3-4 times a month is not in "tune" with what's going on, one must first realize "why" everything has a balance was my point!, and yes a hypersaline bay produces outstanding catches of speckled trout.


----------



## explorer05 (Jun 22, 2006)

Capt. Hollis Forrester said:


> A cut from the old river to the Diversion would be a dream, anything would be better than going through those locks, and would reduce traffic in the locks as well, which is the only reason they'd be doing that anyhow. East Matty has been needing a breather for years, a cut would be great other than Mitchell's. When Brown Cedar closed, the Bay hasn't ever been the same. To those whom are worried about predator fish in East Matty because of a cut, your fooling yourself if you think they aren't already there!!!


 Agreed, that would be awsome. If they would open Parker's, we could catch trout like in the old days. I have caught them by the hundreds in the old Parkers cut area.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

The Last Mango said:


> pulls water from the east to the west.......did'nt mean to sound rude in the previous post, but rc. fishing 3-4 times a month is not in "tune" with what's going on, one must first realize "why" everything has a balance was my point!, and yes a hypersaline bay produces outstanding catches of speckled trout.


It will pull water to an extent.. but more salt water will come in than freshwater and all ot the freshwater will be from the intracoastal and the drain from Lake Austin mainly. I've heard people who are declaring that the river will provide fresh water which is BS. My father lives at Selkirk and our family has had a place at either Exotic Island or Selkirk since the 70's... I think I might be in "tune".


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

Haute Pursuit said:


> It will pull water to an extent.. but more salt water will come in than freshwater and all ot the freshwater will be from the intracoastal and the drain from Lake Austin mainly. I've heard people who are declaring that the river will provide fresh water which is BS. My father lives at Selkirk and our family has had a place at either Exotic Island or Selkirk since the 70's... I think I might be in "tune".


Having a "house" in a certain location has nothing to do with "it", I have a house in Bay City, does that make me a candidate for city council?............Everyone listen up, if you owen property in Matagorda, you are "up to par", almost like sleeping in a Holiday Inn Express,.......geez!


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Without freshwater East Matagorda will lose more reef, crabs, white shrimp and just about everything else dependent on estuary.

By definition Estuary is where fresh and saltwater mix. It is a unique blend. We will never be able to restore east mat. to where it was before but we can do our best to restore salinity levels to beneficial levels.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

The Last Mango said:


> Having a "house" in a certain location has nothing to do with "it", I have a house in Bay City, does that make me a candidate for city council?............Everyone listen up, if you owen property in Matagorda, you are "up to par", almost like sleeping in a Holiday Inn Express,.......geez!


Yeah, and you continue to evade my question. You must have your white boots pulled up over your ears. You think you own the place don't you Einstein.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

glennkoks said:


> Without freshwater East Matagorda will lose more reef, crabs, white shrimp and just about everything else dependent on estuary.
> 
> By definition Estuary is where fresh and saltwater mix. It is a unique blend. We will never be able to restore east mat. to where it was before but we can do our best to restore salinity levels to beneficial levels.


Where will the fresh water come from through this proposed cut? That is the question.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

The biggest problem is both Caney Creek in the east and the Colorado river have both been changed and the water bypasses the bay and pours directly into the gulf. For most of this past summer during the drought the bay was saltier than the open waters of the gulf. 

East Matagorda will never have the trout fishery that Baffin does no matter how saline the water gets. Baffin has rocks and grass beds that act as structure. All east mat has is its reef which offer structure and protection for all of the stuff trout eat. The amount of reef in east mat has been in decline for years and will not get better without more freshwater runoff. It is safe to say the bay fishery is directly correlated with the oyster reef and quality of the estuary.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

glennkoks said:


> The biggest problem is both Caney Creek in the east and the Colorado river have both been changed and the water bypasses the bay and pours directly into the gulf. For most of this past summer during the drought the bay was saltier than the open waters of the gulf.
> 
> East Matagorda will never have the trout fishery that Baffin does no matter how saline the water gets. Baffin has rocks and grass beds that act as structure. All east mat has is its reef which offer structure and protection for all of the stuff trout eat. The amount of reef in east mat has been in decline for years and will not get better without more freshwater runoff. It is safe to say the bay fishery is directly correlated with the oyster reef and quality of the estuary.


I agree with what you are saying but how is this cut going to add freshwater? As you stated, the river has been diverted to West Bay and having the cut will only pull water from the intracoastal and its tributary which used to be the old river channel as I see it. The oyster reefs are important but so are the grassbeds. Look at what the corps has done down there and the resulting damage. I am for mother nature taking care of her problems, not the Corps covering it's mistakes.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Any cut into the Colorado river that diverts freshwater into the bay would be a good thing. Reopening Brown Cedar cut and routing Caney back into East bay would also be a good thing. 

As it is now freshwater flows out of Caney into the Gulf and for the most part skips the bay completely.


----------



## SolarScreenGuy (Aug 15, 2005)

glennkoks said:


> Any cut into the Colorado river that diverts freshwater into the bay would be a good thing. Reopening Brown Cedar cut and routing Caney back into East bay would also be a good thing.
> 
> As it is now freshwater flows out of Caney into the Gulf and for the most part skips the bay completely.


X2 and Amen!


----------



## Bayscout22 (Aug 9, 2007)

I agree with some of the sentiment on this thread...let MOTHER NATURE take her course. 

However, if there were no Hurricane Ike there wouldn't be so much money floating around Matagorda County for the county government and the Corps to fund projects. Lots of these initiatives - and a few other complete boondoggles - caught a second wind because of the money that FEMA and US Gov agencies are pumping our way after Ike.

So....

Since Hurricane Ike was an act of nature...and the cut will be funded with found money because of Ike... You might say the proposed cut is kind of nature taking it's course.

Right?


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

*Freshwater Exchange*



Haute Pursuit said:


> Where will the fresh water come from through this proposed cut? That is the question.


I don't have a dog in this fight, but I think he's trying to say that with a cut into the GOM the exchange of water will decrease the salinity of E. Matty during periods of draught when the saline content of E. Matty was higher than it was in the surf.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

glennkoks said:


> Any cut into the Colorado river that diverts freshwater into the bay would be a good thing. Reopening Brown Cedar cut and routing Caney back into East bay would also be a good thing.
> 
> As it is now freshwater flows out of Caney into the Gulf and for the most part skips the bay completely.


My point is that the old river channel is now just runoff from the intracioastal... not freshwater. As you know, the river now empties into West Bay. It has to take a hard left and then an abrupt u-turn to make it to the old river mouth. Opening Parkers would be the best scenario if this plan goes through. I don't think the proposed cut alone is the answer to anyones problems except maybe making the oyster dredgers happier. I hope like hell it does not affect the grassbeds or drain the bay during a norther.


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

Haute Pursuit said:


> Yeah, and you continue to evade my question. You must have your white boots pulled up over your ears. You think you own the place don't you Einstein.


For the record.........I do wear white boots, I also "sport" my college ring on my right hand, now; IF I did own the Bay, I would PUT fresh water in there some how!:ac550:


----------



## Capt LC (Feb 3, 2010)

The USACE has announced comments for a Public Hearing are being heard. Go to www.swg.usace.mil.reg/pn.asp to see. Do East Matagorda Bay a favor and send them a comment against the proposed cut. I am opposed because of a concern for salinity levels and the destruction of marsh estuary habitat. Help save the bay.


----------



## Capt LC (Feb 3, 2010)

*USACE accepting Public Comment ln E. Matty*

:flag:The USACE is now accepting public comments on the proposed cut from East Matagorda Bay and the Colorado River channel.
I am againts the cut because of concern that the salinity gradient will be greatly affected, and because of damage to much needed marsh estuary habitats.
Do your bay a favor and comment against the cut and for a Public Hearing. Help save your bay!
Visit www.swg.usace.mil.reg/pn.asp to see.


----------



## StarlinMarlin (Aug 3, 2004)

Capt LC said:


> :flag:The USACE is now accepting public comments on the proposed cut from East Matagorda Bay and the Colorado River channel.
> I am againts the cut because of concern that the salinity gradient will be greatly affected, and because of damage to much needed marsh estuary habitats.
> Do your bay a favor and comment against the cut and for a Public Hearing. Help save your bay!
> Visit www.swg.usace.mil.reg/pn.asp to see.


Link does not work. The more I think about it, the more in favor of the cut I am. I would like to voice that I am in favor of it.


----------



## Sambo_The_Great (Dec 10, 2008)

In favor or not, a public hearing needs to take place on this. An action of this magnitude should not go forward without public participation from each and every one of us with a stake in this. I urge everyone to read the public notice and look at the plans. A 114.5-foot long, 100-foot wide, 7.34-foot deep channel with a 2-3 ft per second flow isn't exactly a minor modification (in my opinion, of course).


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

StarlinMarlin said:


> Link does not work. The more I think about it, the more in favor of the cut I am. I would like to voice that I am in favor of it.


x10..........


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

These links work and if you value the grass beds in East Matty, I would suggest you oppose the Corps messing with this bay. The stated purpose is to prevent flooding on River Road but in reality it is to help flush the new jetties. This could be done better by re-opening Parkers Cut on the other side of the river.

http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/reg/notice/PN2005-01312.pdf

http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/reg/notice/2005-01312.pdf


----------



## StarlinMarlin (Aug 3, 2004)

Haute Pursuit said:


> These links work and if you value the grass beds in East Matty, I would suggest you oppose the Corps messing with this bay. The stated purpose is to prevent flooding on River Road but in reality it is to help flush the new jetties. This could be done better by re-opening Parkers Cut on the other side of the river.
> 
> http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/reg/notice/PN2005-01312.pdf
> 
> http://www.swg.usace.army.mil/reg/notice/2005-01312.pdf


I do value the grass beds in east bay, west bay as well. Last I remember, west bay has great grass beds that are very healthy. West bay also has a huge amount of gulf water exchange from pass cavalo and the jetties at the Matagorda ship channel and before the diversion channel was built, there wasn't much fresh water inflow into west bay. That being said, the western pocket of easy bay has very little if any real grass beds. You have to go almost to hog island before you have any real appreciable amounts of grass beds.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

West bay is a much larger and deeper bay system. There is no way to compare it This new cut will provide some more freshwater but the tidal changes will pull it out faster and also bring in saltwater faster. The whole premise of it being done to keep River Road from flooding is a farce. If they want River Road not to flood they need to raise the grade. The "Bridge" is the same grade as the existing road. The area leading into this new cut from the bay is extremely shallow and the majority of the silt should be sucked thru it now instead of being distributed thruout the bay. This is an attempt to keep the jetties clear to make up for what the closing of Parkers did at the expense of East Matty IMO.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

This is taken directly from the application proposal...

"A preliminary review of this application indicates that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. Since permit assessment is a continuing process, this preliminary determination of EIS requirement will be changed if data or information brought forth in the coordination process is of a significant nature."

 
Why?


----------



## willbo (May 21, 2004)

*hmmm...*



> "A preliminary review of this application indicates that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. Since permit assessment is a continuing process, this preliminary determination of EIS requirement will be changed if data or information brought forth in the coordination process is of a significant nature."


Makes you wonder if an Environmental Impact Statement also was not needed when USACE decided diverting Colorado River into West Bay and closing Parkers Cut was a good idea.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

willbo said:


> Makes you wonder if an Environmental Impact Statement also was not needed when USACE decided diverting Colorado River into West Bay and closing Parkers Cut was a good idea.


Exactly...


----------



## matagordaman (Jun 1, 2004)

*COE*

Any time the COE has been involved in any endeavor in Matagorda (which is just about anything involving our waterways) they have screwed it up. They are perhaps the most inept governmental agency next to our current Administration in Washington. I have been coming to Matagorda since I was a baby and I will soon be 69 years old... I remember lots of good things pre COE and not to many good things after they put their stamp on a project... I own property on the lower river near Riverbend and have watched the demise of fishing since the closure of Parker's Cut. I for one do not know how in the world freshwater is going to get from the Colorado River to this proposed cut since it has to make a left turn, go through the east gate and then turn right into the old river channel. Hell, most of the time the east gate is closed when the current is flowing at a rate to benefit east Matagorda Bay. Remember the big delta that built up in the middle of the old river channel some fifteen years or so ago near the proposed new cut to east Bay. You had to hug the west side of the river channel or you would run aground. I'm just sick of the COE screwing around with our waters and then "studying" their mistakes for 10-12 years and spending millions of dollars. Look at the so called jetties we have and the wasted dredging dollars spent over the years.


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

matagordaman said:


> Any time the COE has been involved in any endeavor in Matagorda (which is just about anything involving our waterways) they have screwed it up. They are perhaps the most inept governmental agency next to our current Administration in Washington. I have been coming to Matagorda since I was a baby and I will soon be 69 years old... I remember lots of good things pre COE and not to many good things after they put their stamp on a project... I own property on the lower river near Riverbend and have watched the demise of fishing since the closure of Parker's Cut. I for one do not know how in the world freshwater is going to get from the Colorado River to this proposed cut since it has to make a left turn, go through the east gate and then turn right into the old river channel. Hell, most of the time the east gate is closed when the current is flowing at a rate to benefit east Matagorda Bay. Remember the big delta that built up in the middle of the old river channel some fifteen years or so ago near the proposed new cut to east Bay. You had to hug the west side of the river channel or you would run aground. I'm just sick of the COE screwing around with our waters and then "studying" their mistakes for 10-12 years and spending millions of dollars. Look at the so called jetties we have and the wasted dredging dollars spent over the years.


Dahhhhhh...........freshwater is not suppose to come from the river Einstein!, it will be "pulled" from the east........

stay where you are at, HOME!


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

The Last Mango said:


> Dahhhhhh...........freshwater is not suppose to come from the river Einstein!, it will be "pulled" from the east........
> 
> stay where you are at, HOME!


Pulled right thru and out to the gulf then replaced with saltier water from the gulf at a faster rate than before... until the condo pocket closes in from the silt left behind. Shouldn't take that as long as it has taken for the diversion canal and the eastern part of West Bay to silt in.


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

Haute Pursuit said:


> Pulled right thru and out to the gulf then replaced with saltier water from the gulf at a faster rate than before... until the condo pocket closes in from the silt left behind. Shouldn't take that as long as it has taken for the diversion canal and the eastern part of West Bay to silt in.


Wow...........it's amazing how much you know about the Bay system, where did you learn so much? must be all those countless hours "working" on the water. Which comm. fishing boat is yours? I've looked and can't seem to find it. I'd love for you to show me around East Matagorda Bay. Maybe you should write a book about your everyday adventures on the water, a good title would be, " How I learned everything I know from sitting behind my desk".:rybka:


----------



## mud minner (Apr 12, 2009)

i hope it doesn't affect the croaker fishing.............


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

The Last Mango said:


> Wow...........it's amazing how much you know about the Bay system, where did you learn so much? must be all those countless hours "working" on the water. Which comm. fishing boat is yours? I've looked and can't seem to find it. I'd love for you to show me around East Matagorda Bay. Maybe you should write a book about your everyday adventures on the water, a good title would be, " How I learned everything I know from sitting behind my desk".:rybka:


That's all you have? LMAO Get over your desk envy.


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

Haute Pursuit said:


> That's all you have? LMAO Get over your desk envy.


answer the question...........:ac550:


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

I'm done with your diversion tactics. Mangoloid.


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

Haute Pursuit said:


> I'm done with your diversion tactics. Mangoloid.


it will be ok...........there will be other problems you can assist in, this one is not for you.:slimer:


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

This message is hidden because *The Last Mango* is on your ignore list.

Village meet idiot...


----------



## Bayscout22 (Aug 9, 2007)

*Message to Mango*

Being a good mechanic doesn't qualify a guy to run Ford Motor Company. Being a commercial fisherman doesn't qualify you - anymore than anyone else weighing in on this thread - to comment on the impact of a cut in EMB. Personally, I'm still on the fence and like the dialog.

What bugs me is I have to obtain a certificate from the COE to level my lot in Sargent (and was turned down due to possible impact on "wetlands") but the COE doesn't need an impact statement to proceed with a cut in the bay.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Bayscout22 said:


> What bugs me is I have to obtain a certificate from the COE to level my lot in Sargent (and was turned down due to possible impact on "wetlands") but the COE doesn't need an impact statement to proceed with a cut in the bay.


Thats true and if we cover or cut any grasses on a river lot, we have the Texas GLO all over us. Yet the COE has carte blanche to do as they please.


----------



## StarlinMarlin (Aug 3, 2004)

Actually if you look at the mitigation along with the permit the cut will effect .10 acres of wetlands. To compensate for the .10 acre loss they will plant .30 acres of smooth cord grass between two designated areas. And as far as an impact studie, there was some studies done in 1995-96. If you search, it is on the USACE site.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

I'm not really concerned with the mitigation efforts. What I'm concerned about are the grassbeds on the south shoreline being negatively impacted by a drain cut on the south end of the bay. As it is now, the freshwater from rainfalls and runoffs is pooled into there from Lake Austin to Caney Creek. Once it drains in there, the only thing removing it is tidal movement... gradually. By opening a cut on the south end, it will drain faster and also flush more salt water in faster with the tides.


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

Haute Pursuit said:


> I'm not really concerned with the mitigation efforts. What I'm concerned about are the grassbeds on the south shoreline being negatively impacted by a drain cut on the south end of the bay. As it is now, the freshwater from rainfalls and runoffs is pooled into there from Lake Austin to Caney Creek. Once it drains in there, the only thing removing it is tidal movement... gradually. By opening a cut on the south end, it will drain faster and also flush more salt water in faster with the tides.


:bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce::bounce: popcorn


----------



## StarlinMarlin (Aug 3, 2004)

C'mon, caney basically drains straight to the gulf since Mitchel's cut was built. Take a look at google earth and it's pretty easy to see. Peytons creek that lake Austin is on does drain into the bay for the most part but we all know that the ICW affects it's flow. In now way great way does the west pocket bennifit from fresh water from caney or peytons. Let's also call the cut what it is, a "cut". It is not a "drain". Water will go both ways, in on an incoming tide and out on an outgoing tide. It will not drain the bay! The ditch in front of my house is a drain. Water goes one way, to the creek down the road.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

I did not mean drain the bay dry... LOL It will pull water out faster during tidal changes. There is no freshwater going into E. Matty now other than what comes thru the intracoastal and runoffs from the two creeks mentioned. Can you cite a COE project done in Matagorda involving water flow that has had its intended effect? What really hacks me also is that this one is being done under the guise of preventing flooding on River Road. Right....


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

Haute Pursuit said:


> I did not mean drain the bay dry... LOL It will pull water out faster during tidal changes. There is no freshwater going into E. Matty now other than what comes thru the intracoastal and runoffs from the two creeks mentioned. Can you cite a COE project done in Matagorda involving water flow that has had its intended effect? What really hacks me also is that this one is being done under the guise of preventing flooding on River Road. Right....


for the tenth time, the diversion channel has done EXACTLY what it was intended to do, you just can't see the forest cause' of the trees!:headknock


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Seems I am not alone...

http://www.eastmatagordabayfoundation.com/Fight brewing proposed E Matagorda cut.doc

I see you are posting Mango but I can't see what it is...LOL

This message is hidden because *The Last Mango* is on your ignore list.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

More... http://www.eastmatagordabayfoundation.com/SOUTHWEST_CORNER_CUT_UPDATE.doc


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

Haute Pursuit said:


> Seems I am not alone...
> 
> http://www.eastmatagordabayfoundation.com/Fight brewing proposed E Matagorda cut.doc
> 
> ...


childish...........hiding behind a screen, but yet you want to have "input" on an important decision, you must also be a obama supporter, none the less, the cut will happen and it will benefit!:cheers:


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

From the last link I posted...

"Texas Parks and Wildlife cannot justify the cut for the purpose of a fish pass and does not believe that East Matagorda Bay needs enhancing - it is doing just fine."

This is why it is being done under the guise of "Preventing flooding on River Road"


----------



## dirt dog (Feb 3, 2010)

Here we go again. EMB freshwater comes from Boggy, Peyton,Liveoak, and Caney. If any cut hurts freshwater it would be Mitchells because of location. If the land bridge wasnt built when the river was dredged, water would be flowing into EMB today. When Brown Cedar Cut was open directly into the gulf , with rapid tide changes the fishing was great. The southwest cut will only help circulate water in and out of the bay. It will in no way bring more freshwater because the river now goes into west bay. When you try to keep bait alive, what do you do? Circulate the water.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

dirt dog said:


> Here we go again. EMB freshwater comes from Boggy, Peyton,Liveoak, and Caney. If any cut hurts freshwater it would be Mitchells because of location. If the land bridge wasnt built when the river was dredged, water would be flowing into EMB today. When Brown Cedar Cut was open directly into the gulf , with rapid tide changes the fishing was great. The southwest cut will only help circulate water in and out of the bay. It will in no way bring more freshwater because the river now goes into west bay. When you try to keep bait alive, what do you do? Circulate the water.


Before the Corps got involved down there the fishing was better everywhere you went. You could paddle out from Rawlings in what used to be the river and catch 100 trout on some days. There is no problem with East Bay as it stands other than fishing pressure. Don't mess with it.


----------



## cva34 (Dec 22, 2008)

*CUT*

Fished around there all my life.Parkers Cut,3 Mile Cut,Brown Cedar Cut,Mitchels Cut, (when open/when closed)and I just don't know if it would be a GOOD thing or BAD. A 7.5 ft deep channel cut into river might give the fish a way out during times like today 24DEG and refuge from the COLD. Thats a GOOD I can think of that ain't been beat to death.I saved the BAD for last if it pass that Boats can pass through It will make a OVERFISHED BAY, OVERFISHED X2orX3.But would save GAS at $3.00+++.Just some cold morning thoughts.....CVA34


----------



## Rippin_drag (Sep 2, 2008)

*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## juanpescado (Dec 22, 2006)

For years i've heard people crying about the state opening up Brown Cedar cut, re-opening Parker cut, and how great things are when 3-mile was opened up, why would a small tidal cut be bad for the west side, it wouldnt, has anyone seen the before and after difference packery made in the laguna, its a huge difference, East bay needs to breath a little....


----------



## paymerick (May 19, 2010)

Rippin_drag said:


>


Ha... My blackberry just had its first coffee shower...


----------



## 1fisher77316 (Oct 30, 2004)

There seem to be a lot of "local"Sargent/ Matagorda area people that think the "new ditch" will be a bad thing. Most fear that it will open that small bay to a tremendous amount of fishing pressure. Just my 2 cents!
1fisher77316


----------



## juanpescado (Dec 22, 2006)

1fisher77316 said:


> There seem to be a lot of "local"Sargent/ Matagorda area people that think the "new ditch" will be a bad thing. Most fear that it will open that small bay to a tremendous amount of fishing pressure. Just my 2 cents!
> 1fisher77316


East bay is already under a ton of pressure, I dont think the cut would change a thing, it only takes 5 minutes to hit the bay from Russells and the same to hit it from sargeant, theres always gonna something new to blame for fishing pressure.


----------



## Burt (Jan 16, 2011)

IT IS THE BEST BAY FOR TROUT ON THE CAOST . WHY CHANGE IT?


----------



## Fishdog (Jun 22, 2004)

Anybody ever wonder why EMB tends to hold bigger Trout than the POC area? After all, POC has plenty of water exchange which should help put plenty of big trout all over ESB and SAB. All our areas get plenty of fishing pressure, but we all know that if you want to maximize your chances for a trophy Trout - on the middle coast you go to EMB.

A new, deepened 'fish exchange pass' will not be a good thing for EMB's big Trout fishery. It may, or may not, help overall 'catching' but that is debatable. It will definitely hurt, however, the trophy Trout fishery.

WHY???? In one word - PORPOISE!

Porpoise will decimate the big Trout population, just like they do in the POC areas. There might be a few now that occasionally spend time in ESB, but a new, deep channel will throw the door wide open to herds of porpoise which will wreak havoc on the big Trout. You think freezing weather is hard on 'em ...... just wait till you invite these warm blooded marauders into your bay system. A new channel is a HUGE MISTAKE!! Mark my words.

You guys who 'own' ESB should fight this channel boondoggle with everything you've got. Talk to your Representative and petition for hearings. Find a marine biologist to help you fight. I'm telling you guys who are complacent about this that you will forever regret that 'beneficial' channel.


----------



## juanpescado (Dec 22, 2006)

Fishdog said:


> Anybody ever wonder why EMB tends to hold bigger Trout than the POC area? After all, POC has plenty of water exchange which should help put plenty of big trout all over ESB and SAB. All our areas get plenty of fishing pressure, but we all know that if you want to maximize your chances for a trophy Trout - on the middle coast you go to EMB.
> 
> A new, deepened 'fish exchange pass' will not be a good thing for EMB's big Trout fishery. It may, or may not, help overall 'catching' but that is debatable. It will definitely hurt, however, the trophy Trout fishery.
> 
> ...


So your saying porpoise cant get to East bay ???? How far is Baffin from a pass ?????? I've seen porpoise around Boiler before, and you mention "Big" trout and POC, instead of right, take a left and try the east side of West Matty bay, i've seen absolute hogs come out of that bay, bigger bay-harder to locate a big fish, smaller bay-easier to locate....


----------



## gordaflatsstalker (Jul 3, 2008)

I started this thread back in '08. Glad to see it's still kicking.


----------



## Fishdog (Jun 22, 2004)

juanpescado said:


> So your saying porpoise cant get to East bay ???? How far is Baffin from a pass ?????? I've seen porpoise around Boiler before, and you mention "Big" trout and POC, instead of right, take a left and try the east side of West Matty bay, i've seen absolute hogs come out of that bay, bigger bay-harder to locate a big fish, smaller bay-easier to locate....


Your argument is that you saw a porpoise in Baffin once? Uhhh, ok. Like I said, I'm sure there a few that roam EMB on occasion. But, could you imagine the fishery damage in Baffin if literally a hundred or more porpoise could roam that bay at will? You might still catch a hog, but it would be a lot less frequent.

Anyhow, I'm not going to argue with anyone on here. My post was meant as 'food for thought' ... and a warning, of course. EMB will definitely see a large increase in marauding porpoise with a 7' deep channel. Porpoise LOVE big trout and will herd them up and decimate them - daily. Day in and day out. I've seen it many times. Welcome to the real world - a world that EMB has been somewhat protected from by shallow entrances, just as Baffin is protected by distance.


----------



## saltwater_therapy (Oct 14, 2005)

dolphins and sharks are in East Bay in limited numbers now, with a pass that close to the gulf threre will be lots of them moving in, why? because there is lots of food for them in there. top predators go where the food is. another bad effect from this cut would be water flow, too much of it. anyone who has seen how low the tide is in there the last few weeks imagine how low it would be with a north wind pushing a dropping tide out the south west pocket. (more holes easier to drain). 
I really hope this terrible harm doesnt come to one of the best big trout bays on the Texas Coast!


----------



## talkshow (Aug 11, 2006)

I'm pretty sure you've never seen a porpoise in any of our bays.


----------



## JohnnyWalkerRed (May 3, 2007)

To heck with the west end, put cut on the east end which is shallow and always muddy, Let some fesh gulf water in down there, LOL. 

However, I think the guy talking about the dolphins eating big trout is on to somehting too so I aint against leaving it alone either! I have caught some big trout that I dont think would make in other bays because of the predators present.


----------



## capt.doggy (Jan 23, 2011)

with water temps climbing a little each year, some clean river water will be an improvement. global warming is real. i beleive MILD human intervention is ok


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

capt.doggy said:


> with water temps climbing a little each year, some clean river water will be an improvement. global warming is real. i beleive MILD human intervention is ok


Clean river water has no chance of getting thru this proposed cut. The river water dumps into West Matty now.


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

Haute Pursuit said:


> Clean river water has no chance of getting thru this proposed cut. The river water dumps into West Matty now.


lol......when's the last time he's been down to gorda? :spineyes: :help:


----------



## JohnnyWalkerRed (May 3, 2007)

great first post bro! These guys on here are gonna luv you! LOL!


----------



## Sow Trout (Jun 28, 2004)

Wo way!


capt.doggy said:


> with water temps climbing a little each year, some clean river water will be an improvement. global warming is real. i beleive MILD human intervention is ok


----------



## reeltimer (Feb 5, 2010)

capt.doggy said:


> with water temps climbing a little each year, some clean river water will be an improvement. global warming is real. i beleive MILD human intervention is ok


Hey man step out side and tell me how that global warming is real!:help:'There is no such thing as mild human intervention we run the show for better or worse.Come wade with me this weekend and tell me water temps are rising!:biggrin:


----------



## Cool Hand (Mar 24, 2010)

:ac550: Shhhhhhhhh....it's Boashna.


----------



## MikeS2942 (Mar 5, 2010)

The river was closed off to the bay years ago. The cut fed the east bay originally like several of the cuts into west bay from the river that have all been closed off. The bay use to be a continuous bay system before progress redirected the river and cut the bays in half.


----------



## Timemachine (Nov 25, 2008)

So where is the river redirected to. I thought it flowed into West Matty.??

If they want to dig somewhere, re-open Parkers cut to WMB.. let me at them ducks!!!


----------



## Uncle Doug (May 26, 2009)

According to the Bay City Tribune May 25, this proposed project has been pulled and the money will be redirected to Sargent Beach improvement and elswhere. Good news for me.


----------



## 1fisher77316 (Oct 30, 2004)

It's not happening! Matagorda commissioners court voted to move the funds to another project at last weeks meeting. Too much controversy!
1fisher77316


----------



## fishnfool (Jul 23, 2004)

Good news - what about the cut around the locks from river to diversion - that still happening?


----------

