Why would they over rule the WLF the oyster task force is paid to control and over see harvest...
If WL&f says they have to close due to no legal size oyster...that's the bottom line

You can fish something that's not there...
They control it the same as shrimping...they open and close ,,,that's how it works
There are no oysters left to harvest right now ,so it will not be long

"You were one of the loudest most vocal opponents on the over harvesting of oysters until one of you close “family friends” decided to introduce a bill to the contrary (I can pull the post for everyone to see it if you would like). Since then you have completely changed your position. You also served on the board of the CCA after the limits were changed and stood firm behind their mission and values so for you to blame them now after having been a part of management and the decision making process to me is shady politics. "

Can we hear more about this, please? :smokin:

Correct me if I'm wrong and I know that you will. But in the not only in this thread or the first one and on numerous occasions you and maybe some others have pointed out that MOST people fishing the lake can't catch a limit of specs. With that being said wouldn't it be hard for the FEW THAT CAN catch their limit to put a dent in the trout population. Wouldn't you have to increase the limit to lets say 50 to make up for us slackers. This is just a question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't help yourself, can you???


LLMMMMAAAAOOOOOOO

It gets my attention when someone throws gas on a dying fire. :smokin:

I fish out of an old beat up aluminum boat and only catch a few each trip with my cheap rods so I would be fine with them lowering the limit to maybe 5, least I could say I caught a limit that way :rolleyes:

Hit the nail on the head, The argument is contradicting itself. One one hand you are saying that this lake can't be outfished with road and reel, and most "office fisherman" can only catch 10 trout a day.

On the other hand, the ten trout reduction is severely harming the big trout population because of overpopulation.

I dont know the answer, but i would suggest if you want to be taken seriously on this trout limit quest be sure to address that contridiction.

So far every contradiction has been a contradiction to address a contradiction

Yep, that cleared it up for everyone. :rolleyes:

:DFigure only peoples time I can waste is the "office fishermen" since all the real fishermen or out fishing and can't reply right now:smokin:

I am trying to figure this out as well. According to one of the research articles posted:

"Because the spawning season lasts so long, and the fish produce so many (larvae), it compensates for any factors that might interrupt reproduction," Shepard said. That dynamic reproduction cycle results in a survival rate that so out-paced the high predation factor, it would be almost impossible for hook-and-line anglers to make a telling difference in their overall numbers, Shepard said."

Seems like a limit change would have very little impact, if any, especially with office fisherman only catching 5 fish :rolleyes:

Surprised it took this long to bring up this very valid point.

I agree 100%. W is upset that some powerful people changed the limit without as much research as he would of liked. I understand his gripe there, but that does not mean that is the cause for not catching as many big trout.

I think that what you highlighted above proves that oyster issue chiken brought up is way more important than the 15 vs 25 limit. However, Brother W doesn't want to preach that verse from the pulpit i guess.

I brought it up awhile back but MathGeek shot it down as a straw man. Of course it was one in the context of his particular argument, but I didn't have the energy or the time to explain that I was lumping all of the arguments together.

Actually, I think we'd all like to hear how he shifted direction in mid-stream of the oyster issue. Can't say I'm at all surprised. :shaking:

Here are Facts...CCA and Lawmakers and a small group of office fisherman came up with this law..
There was Zero facts and biologist and WL&F biologist were ignored and pushed aside

In 6 years it is fact that Big Trout numbers or down.
.every guide who fishes will tell u this also

90% of you on this thread spend 3/4 less time on the water than I do.. So don't tell me my theory is wrong when you don't spend the time or know 1st hand the problem
99% of you talk about crap you don't know..you yap yap yap behind a desk and fish on weekend and think you know something

You don't know

...you don't see it enough to know
...your not around enough to know
I been on this lake from 5years old and I spend more time on the water in one year than 80 % of you do in 10years

So please save the B.S. For someone who you can blow smoke ups azz

I'd like to hear this one as well.
sounds to me like you're getting mad at the people on this site who have agreed with you. Since you're the "1%" why don't you spread the wealth around and let some people know where to fish with your infinite 30+ years of knowledge on the lake. That would reduce trout numbers by "office fisherman" catching limits each time they go out. But, you get mad if ANYONE comes within 1000yards of you while you are on the lake.

Rather than changing the limit back to 25 (which you state most people can't catch a 15 fish limit) and that 25 fish will reduce the population to numbers that support big fish, why not lead the pilgrims to the land of opportunity? Higher number of boat with higher number of limits equals more fish taken. Simple math, but then again that takes kindness towards fishermen that don't spend as much time on the lake in 10 years as you do in 1 year. If you're trying to get the average joe or office fisherman in this case on you're side, you shouldn't be attacking them, or giving them ***** because they aren't privlaged to work offshore. At least they're working.

Gaining support by how you treat people sounds more difficult than getting the limits changed.

I wish my life was simple enough to have a "fish weight" as my biggest concern.

W, we all want to hear about the oyster situation that Chicken mentioned. "Cents" you ain't denied it....are we to assume it's true? C'mon, "Mr. I've fished Big Lake "cents" I was 4' tall."

Inquirin' minds want to know.