^^^^this

So you're assuming everyone always caught their limit?

Com on Man

...really ????

Really! You could be wrong, der could be 60% more trout in our estuary. Or not!

Last year I caught close to 3000 trout and I left 1200 behind due to limit change

So if 100 guides caught 3000 trout last year and each left behind 1200

That's 120,000 that was not culled out last year alone and add that up 3 years at a time
Seeing the picture yet???


I limit out about 75% of the time with 30 -60...and if I catch 30 I could of caught 50... If I catch 45 I could of caught 75...if I catch 60 I could of.caught 100

Agree with you 100% on this. Don't know why people keep trying to compare deer to trout, or pond fish to trout or brook trout to speckled trout… If there is an overabundance of bait then something else is the cause, or a contributor to the cause.

Using the same flawed comparison of deer - land has hugely different carrying capacities when it comes to supporting a healthy deer herd. I have seen both ends of the spectrum and hungry deer will eat dang near anything and pick the area clean - have even seen them eat magnolia leaves…

But we're talking about an open environment with an abundance of bait and a super highway influencing movement.

Ok; all this debate and talk is great.
As W will tell u" I know zero/ nothing about trout. "

But do yal actually think that WL&F or the state is gonna change a limit law based off of a private party study; that was not commissioned by WL&F or the state??
I'm not being negative; just realistic.
I mean we vote for things and that don't change rules and reg....
Jut my .02

They changed it once against wlf biologists.

Theres your answer
sammich

The outcome of bureaucratic and political processes is inherently unpredictable.

As a scientist, I think the role of science should be to inform public policy, but not to dictate it.

As a citizen, I think the best interests of the people are best served if decisions are driven by the best available scientific data and that the burden of proof is always on the parties suggesting that governmental power be used to restrict liberty.

Obviously the result of "research" is equal to the result of votes...... The state and WL&F do as they want .
Mathgeek can tell ya; statistics and research can be manipulated to mean opposites.
2 researches can draw 2 different conclusions ( and back them upbwith validity)using the same research & statistics.

In Louisiana...... Politics rule.... Statistics drool.... Just how it is.

I will say you have a valid point!

Couple things here

1. MG seems to be a very smart fella and I like how he includes his family into all his activities and studies, and I wish I had half the knowledge of statistics and experimental design that he has.

2. I am 100% for the limit being switched back to 25 and will gladly speak or write letters or do whatever it takes to get this changed.

3. "W" is very passionate about this, but is just flat out going about this the wrong way, a one week study or somebody's opinion is not going to do anything. The way to do this is to go to the LWFC and tell them that our fisheries should be managed by professionals and not the opinions of the few. I am fighting this right now on Lake D'arbonne.

4. I have NEVER seen a trout eat another trout. They DO however eat each other if other food supplies are not available - this is probably a good thing that trout are not eating one another as it shows there is 'plenty of bait':). I have also seen thousands of deer, but have honestly never seen one drink water but it happens

5. Science is never just accepted as fact, no matter how many studies are done, it takes long-term studies to show the best results. The world was once thought to be flat, the sun was thought to rotate around the earth, etc. Jeff P may be on the water more than anyone but that does not mean he is right in his opinion, that is all that is is an opinion. Here is another - 90% of climate scientists (experts) think that man attributes to climate change:grinpimp: I ain't touching that one though.

6. Where in the world did the 40% reduction in trout come from? Just because one person or three people who fish all the time caught 40% less that year, means nothing, zero. You would have to be at every ramp and check every single fisherman year after year to get those numbers. A 40 % reduction would mean that the average angler that catches say 10 fish each outing is now only catching 6, or the one who catches 5 is now catching 3, no way to show those numbers. Again, there are not ANY numbers that can attribute the limit reduction to smaller fish, larger fish, more bait, etc without many long-term studies. The best thing here would be to go to the commission or congressman and say 'we' want fisheries to be managed by the professionals and if it ain't broke don't try and fix it.

just saying that if "w" wants to go in 'guns a blazin' to a LWFC meeting and present hard core 'facts' this ain't exactly the study to bring up, they want long-term, as I would want as well. If someone showed me a one week study and wanted something changed because of those numbers I would want a little more data (not knocking this study, i know its just preliminary but at least its something). I would want to see several thousands of fish measured for several years, and I would not measure females during this time as their weights are highly variable during spawning season, and also would definitely want to know the AGE of the fish, because if the fish that were measured last year averaged one year old and 12" as opposed to one year old and 9" this year, then you may have something but without knowing the age of the fish, we can't really assume much

^^^^^
This

What about CCA Shootout results and Star from 2006-Present :confused:

Again, RITA is probably the MOST important influence here. You give those numbers to any statistician, ecologist, biologist, in the world, and show them those very numbers. They will look at them and see that 'something' seems to be happening without even knowing where Big Lake is and could not point out Big Lake on a map of Louisiana. Well, if you give them a little more information such as:

1. the limit was dropped from 25 to 15 during this time
2. a guy fishes the lake a lot and said its because the weirs are blocking off one little bayou into the marsh (that supposedly feed that entire lake even though the entire west side of the lake is marsh)
3. Obama got in office in 2008
4. Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011
5. A freaking Category 4? hurricane came right thru this area in 2005 and completely destroyed and transformed this area and has taken its toll
6. BP Oil spill in 2010
7. A guide that fishes here a lot says their isn't as much pressure on the lake, yet there are twice as many guides on the lake now

Seems pretty obvious to me?:)

One more thing to add:

People always look for just one answer to a complicated problem, sometimes there isn't just one thing, its a combination of many factors. Maybe the STAR shows the biggest fish caught has gone down, but maybe overall the average weight of the average fish caught has gone up? This can be debated over and over and will never be settled. Just look at duck hunting in the last few years - some people have had the best seasons of their lives recently, whereas others are having terrible seasons, and those people will try and put blame on one particular thing whereas its many things working together.

:cool:

Katrina was a Cat 3...Rita was a Cat 4??????? :eek:

Thats why I put the ? mark up there after Cat 4. Wasn't sure, but caused lots of damage but nothing like Katrina! (joking of course!)

I am not going to go much further on this, again I am on the side of putting fisheries biologists in charge of fisheries and not the opinions of a few (this includes guides, potlickers, shrimpers, crabbers, bank fishermen, kayakers, and office fishermen like myself). I will gladly 'right' letters and emails or whatever, just don't go in with 'facts' that are nothing but opinions:)

\
W, he be trying to help ya

My storm's bigger than your storm. :cool: :rolleyes: :smokin: :)

Everything is bigger over at Big Lake even hurricanes:)

Apparently.

Great points. Let me add the over harvesting of the oysters.

Determining what is happening with the fish stocks is generally much easier than ascribing causal factors definitively. Yet, the Callihan thesis seems to indicate that a stock assessment would be determining the impact of the change to the limits rather than any of the possible confounding factors that have been suggested:

Interestingly, Louisiana recently adopted (in 2006) a spatially-explicit management plan for Calcasieu Lake. The premise of this management decision, which included a reduction in daily bag limits and imposition of a slot limit, was to ‘preserve’ the renowned trophy-fishery for spotted seatrout in Calcasieu Lake. However, the decision to enact this regulation was based exclusively on socio-economic factors, rather than the biological status of the subpopulation. In fact, no formal stock assessment was conducted as part of the decision-making process. Thus, the status of the subpopulation (stock) was largely unknown (i.e., overfished or not?) at the time regulations were changed. While perhaps setting a bad precedent for fisheries management (i.e., making a decision based purely on socioeconomic reasons), this situation affords a unique opportunity to evaluate the response of spotted seatrout to a spatially-explicit (estuarine-scale) regulations change (i.e., adaptive management, sensu Hilborn and Walters 1992).

from Callihan PhD thesis LSU 2011 p. 182

Oyster overharvest would be very good to add

Almost all of Louisiana's wildlife or fisheries regulations are set based on socio-economic influences.
That's where you get things like a 16 inch minimum on bowfin, 10 fish recreational limit on flounder (somebody thought there should be one), high-powered metallic cartridges legalized in what used to be a muzzleloader deer season, etc.

Big lake limit change was from a moron idiotic stupid brain dead group of people

Who want the greed to them selves and the ones who pushed it don't even keep trout

I have 100xs more lake data in these books than any signal guy who ran to baton rouge too cry for 15trout limit

These books have every trip, trout keep, reds keep, locations, tides and moon

Has every trout I tagged and every one recaptured

Has side notes on every trout over7lbs caught

Also has data from other anglers who fished on same days as I

U should make a book & donate the profit to the "w reef foundation"

It would take a lot of $$$$$$ for someone to get that black book info 2001-2012

imagine what you could do to improve big lake with all that money......

Imagine all the people that have caught 9 lb. trout without the use of the "black book".

[SIZE=3] All of this rhetoric isn’t going to change the limit, if you truly want to change it then follow the Poe’s lead; because whatever they did worked….the commonwealth wasn’t even considered! [/SIZE]

Coming soon to a Spencer's near you…:D

Let's put the limit at 20. I have no true reason for 20, except for, 20 is easier to multiple if you have many people fishing in the boat. Makes life much simpler.

lmao ain't nothing but a bunch of doodles of hot dogs, honey buns and doughnuts in them books lol

j/k

props for keeping records like that...

Lmao!!
Great !!!!!!:rotfl: