Originally Posted by fishinpox (Post 555194)

live swimps, 40 lb big game , steel leaderzz, upside down 4000 series spinning gear reeling backwards! rape dat shizzzzzz

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 555196)

I know a lot of people think that trout have to have a estuary to reproduce but millions of trout lay eggs offshore along beaches and islands. I'm sure the Gulf of Mexico holds billions of trout that most never go inland and live there whole life near beaches or close platforms or reefs

Originally Posted by YellaBlazer (Post 555183)

I don't disagree that things aren't what they used to be 20 years ago. That's a painful reality. But over on our end, the decline is more environmental than anything. 20 years ago, there were nice, pretty islands dotting the bay. They all held trout. A combination of storms and a choked off river have cost us a lot of essential trout habitat. Big Island, Cat Island, Manilla Village... the list goes on. Trout will not stay in an environment that will not support them.

As far as having 20x better fishermen now, I highly doubt that when the average guy catches less than 10 trout per trip. The same 10% will catch all the fish.

Also, there are no guides over in Lafitte that use live bait. All of the trout are caught on artificial.

Originally Posted by Reefman (Post 555204)

I think this applies to most of our coastal waters. Check out Montauk's post...scarey. Enviromental issues have played an ever increasing role in fish dynamics. Our waters cannot support what was once thriving estuaries that were growing until we started building levees everywhere.

Its all relative Blazer...there are 20 times more fishermen out here now which also raises the number to 20 times good fishermen.

Originally Posted by Montauk17 (Post 555198)

So what yours saying is................................................ .....:shaking:

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 555188)

First let's make one thing clear , Big Lake 15 trout limit had Zero to do with facts, this was 100% politics at its finest . A few rich office fisherman who spend 20 days a year on the water listen to a few other rich guys who have homes on the lake , and said let's make big lake a " Trophy Lake" by cutting limit to 15
Before the 15 trout limit we had 10lb trout getting caught every year of the STAR and it took a 8-9lb trout to win the shootout .
Now 6 years into the trout reduction our over all big trout population had declined due to over population of trout .
Bio. said big lake could support a 30 per person limit

Originally Posted by Reefman (Post 555204)

I think this applies to most of our coastal waters. Check out Montauk's post...scarey. Enviromental issues have played an ever increasing role in fish dynamics. Our waters cannot support what was once thriving estuaries that were growing until we started building levees everywhere.

Its all relative Blazer...there are 20 times more fishermen out here now which also raises the number to 20 times good fishermen.

Originally Posted by Reefman (Post 555207)

In your opinion W, do you think the absense of 9lb trout lately has been caused by that creel limit or the destruction of oyster reefs and surrounding estuaries in BL. Over oyster harvesting would be my answer.

Originally Posted by Reefman (Post 555170)

Right you are W; however, look at what they're catching and how they're catching. Juvenile to maybe 14 inch fish. Guides reluctant to leave landing without live shrimp. Trout that haven't reached spawning age. It's a numbers game as you well know. I'll take 10 fish from BL or VB anyday over what the 25 they catch east of here. Do we really need to be catching 100 trout a day to call it a successful trip. Those guides might be catching a bunch now but look at the other 99.99% of fishermen in those same waters. They're not catching those numbers today like they did years ago.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 555211)

Creel limit for sure , only 40% if that is oyster harvest in big lake and the heavy harvest was only 3 years ago when dredging was allowed for the 1st time.
That had no effect on our trout size as our lake is over abundant with bait year around . You can not fish a day with out finding bait..

Originally Posted by Reefman (Post 555235)

But that dredging destroyed complete reefs that sustain fish populations of all sizes. Trout relate to structure just as bass do. Deplete the lake of reef structure and the fishery depletes no matter how many schools of mullet are in the lake. I have a hard time understanding your postion of catch more fish out of BL in order to produce larger fish. I do believe for a few short years this may be the case but in the long haul I see this as adversely affecting the dynamics of the trout population. If this was the case then Cocodrie eastward should be overflowing with 9lb trout.

Originally Posted by Montauk17 (Post 555241)

I say we open gill netting again.....you would see 15 pound trout in no time.

Originally Posted by Reefman (Post 555235)

But that dredging destroyed complete reefs that sustain fish populations of all sizes. Trout relate to structure just as bass do. Deplete the lake of reef structure and the fishery depletes no matter how many schools of mullet are in the lake. I have a hard time understanding your postion of catch more fish out of BL in order to produce larger fish. I do believe for a few short years this may be the case but in the long haul I see this as adversely affecting the dynamics of the trout population. If this was the case then Cocodrie eastward should be overflowing with 9lb trout.

Originally Posted by Reefman (Post 555145)

We've become our own worst enemy. To say that trout fishing is as good as it was 20 years ago is not facing the reality of fishing success, or lack there of, today. The presure placed on our resources of trout is infinitely higher than it was back then. I beleive that fishing presure has indeed impacted the fisheries. BL looks like a parking lot on weekends with all the boats beatin the waters. T Butte can have over 50 boats in a small area on calm days. Diamond not much better. The rigs out of
vermilion looks like LaFonda; you need a number to wait in line to fish live bait. Cocodrie is overcrowded on any given day.There are far more people fishing today than there were in the 80-90s.

We are the custodians of our resources today. Every effort should be made to acknowledge what problems face our natural resources and act accordingly. Responsibilities lay with us to protect them. We need factual information by our WLF along with coastal scientific studies specific to trout populations made public. I just can't see our trout fishing taking the pounding it has over the past ten years continue without a colapse in this fisheries. Just MHO.....

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 555244)

We have a super estuary that is made for big trout ...all signs point straight to limit reduction. Also in the areas where oysters were harvested we have several atrifical reefs along with rock jetties up and down our channel with marsh flow from even angle .
When you don't take enough trout out of a given area you start having more smaller trout hog your food source . As you know big trout will not compete with school trout for food . Places where you target bigger trout you can now catch limits of trout . And if you look at WestCove the hardest hit of oystering every year buy yields the biggest trout in the lake every year !

So the 2-3 years of dredging would of depleted West Cove the most but West Cove is the strongest area of big trout
Our big trout decline started year after limit change and has fallen lower and lower of big 9-11lb trout caught

Don't get me wrong we still have lots of 5-8lb trout but no where close to 2006 and before

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 555211)

That had no effect on our trout size as our lake is over abundant with bait year around . You can not fish a day with out finding bait..

Originally Posted by Montauk17 (Post 555246)

If there is so much bait how is a large population of small trout hogging the food source. LMAO classic case of foot in mouth. :spineyes:

Originally Posted by Montauk17 (Post 555241)

I say we open gill netting again.....you would see 15 pound trout in no time.

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 555245)

We are our own worst enemies if we insist on managing wildlife with anecdotal opinions of anglers rather than comprehensive and sound scientific data and valid stock assessments.

Human pressure on spotted seatrout has increased, but pressure from all other natural predators on seatrout has decreased substantially. Most prey species tend to move to areas where there is more food and less threat from predators. The expansion of oil platforms in the Gulf provides more open water habitat than ever, and the nutrient loading from the Mississippi river has increased the biomass of their prey between four and sixfold. Combined with the decrease in sharks in open water and the increase in anglers inshore suggest that significant fractions of the seatrout populations are simply spending more time in the open Gulf where there are fewer predators and more prey.

The spotted seatrout is much more flexible than other inshore species with respect to acceptable habitat, and it is unlikely that human harvest provide the most significant life history bottleneck. Habitat use does not necessarily imply habitat dependence. Concluding that a wildife population is threatened because they are not in the same place where they used to be has been proven to be bad science time and again. Whitetail deer populations have shifted over the decades from wild woodlands to prefer farmland and suburbia. Red Snapper have shifted their population from the eastern Gulf of Mexico to the northern and western Gulf of Mexico. Spotted seatrout may have simply learned to avoid the inshore predators in favor of safer habitat with more abundant food.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 555283)

The limit of trout is probably the very least important thing for the east side fisheries. We are losing land at an incredible rate. You can see it for yourself if you just drive over the new bridge in Leeville. The old roads go under water often, and the places you caught fish the year before look different each year due to erosion and subsidence. We better all take good pictures every tiime you go to Grand Isle because it is going to look different even in a decade. Even Elmer's Island looks different from what it looked like 10 or 15 years ago due to sea level rise. Its very noticeable:redface:

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 555245)

We are our own worst enemies if we insist on managing wildlife with anecdotal opinions of anglers rather than comprehensive and sound scientific data and valid stock assessments.

Human pressure on spotted seatrout has increased, but pressure from all other natural predators on seatrout has decreased substantially. Most prey species tend to move to areas where there is more food and less threat from predators. The expansion of oil platforms in the Gulf provides more open water habitat than ever, and the nutrient loading from the Mississippi river has increased the biomass of their prey between four and sixfold. Combined with the decrease in sharks in open water and the increase in anglers inshore suggest that significant fractions of the seatrout populations are simply spending more time in the open Gulf where there are fewer predators and more prey.

The spotted seatrout is much more flexible than other inshore species with respect to acceptable habitat, and it is unlikely that human harvest provide the most significant life history bottleneck. Habitat use does not necessarily imply habitat dependence. Concluding that a wildife population is threatened because they are not in the same place where they used to be has been proven to be bad science time and again. Whitetail deer populations have shifted over the decades from wild woodlands to prefer farmland and suburbia. Red Snapper have shifted their population from the eastern Gulf of Mexico to the northern and western Gulf of Mexico. Spotted seatrout may have simply learned to avoid the inshore predators in favor of safer habitat with more abundant food.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 555023)

Also note the info about Big Lake added!!

http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.s...l#incart_river

Louisiana's speckled trout population has fallen below the level that for years has been used as the conservation standard, according to information provided to NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries.

Responding to a list of emailed questions, saltwater fisheries biologist Harry Blanchet said spawning potential ratio of speckled trout was between 8 and 14 percent the last time it was calculated in 2011.

Even at the high end of the estimate, spawning potential ratio is still well below the previously established conservation standard of 18 percent.

Spawning potential ratio, or SPR, is a number that represents the percentage of biomass for adult members of a particular fish species compared to what would exist in a completely virgin fishery. In this case, department biologists estimate Louisiana has 8 to 14 percent of the mature speckled-trout biomass it would have if the fish were completely off-limits to humans.

In general, when SPR falls below a certain threshold, that particular fishery is unable to sustain itself.

Retired LSU fisheries professor Jerald Horst said we're not necessarily there with speckled trout.

"The truth is that any of these standards are best guesses," he said. "But the number is clearly below the conservation standard of 18."

Horst said that overfishing usually first manifests itself in a smaller number of bigger fish being caught.

"Generally speaking, you'll see fewer big fish at first," he said. "It takes four years to grow a big (speckled trout). If we're cropping more fish at a smaller size, then obviously fewer of them will have the chance to get big."

Chas Champagne believes we may be at the point. The owner of Dockside Bait & Tackle in Slidell has seen a significant decline in the size of fish that cross over his gunwale while fishing the bridges in eastern Lake Pontchartrain.

"From 2000 to 2003, just in the fall, I probably caught 50 6-plus-pound speckled trout," he said. "If you had a calm day, you could go and make a couple hundred casts and almost guarantee a 4-pound trout or better. Now, if you catch a 3-pounder, you start taking pictures.

"I took it for granted. I was 15 to 17 years old. I just figured that's how it would be forever."

Farther to the south, former STAR winner Ed Sexton says there are far fewer big trout in the Venice area than a decade ago.

"I have fished for trout for 15 years, and it's definitely declined from when I first started," he said. "Last year, I caught one trout that was 7 pounds. I can remember 10 years ago, almost every trip when the fishing was good, if you didn't catch a 6- or 7-pound trout, that was unusual."

But Horst said it's impossible to peg the decline on overfishing. Many variables, including weather and river levels, have a tremendous impact on speckled trout reproduction, he said.

Still, it's undeniable that the SPR is falling. Horst said Wildlife & Fisheries has pointed to episodic events in the past to explain away numbers that are below the conservation standard.

"But now the average SPR is below the standard, so now we either have to come up with a different reason or change the standard," he said.

Changing a minimum conservation standard isn't unheard of in science. In fact, it should be part of the norm, Horst said, as better testing methods are developed and more information is gathered.

"There is no clear-cut standard that is 100-percent right all the time," Horst said. "If we treat these numbers as iron-clad standards, that's how we end up with a situation like we have with red snapper. We've got red snapper coming out of our ears. We're gagging on them, but we have a 27-day season."

In his emailed response, Blanchet said Louisiana's SPR estimates are in line with those of Mississippi (6-13 percent) and North Carolina (4-15 percent).

But Horst said, if we are overfishing speckled trout, it isn't any wonder as to why. An avid trout fisherman himself, Horst said anglers have gotten remarkably more efficient at targeting and harvesting trout.

"Without a doubt, fishing pressure is higher," he said. "Not just in numbers of people but in equipment. We have everything from Power-Poles to graphite rods to braided lines to depth finders. It's really something.

"When commercial fishermen went from nylon to monofilament gill nets, it really alarmed all sport fishermen, but it was not one-tenth of the increase in effectiveness that recreational fishing has had in the last four decades."

If the department determines that speckled trout are, in fact, overfished, any changes in regulation will have to be severe, Horst said.

"When the time finally comes that we do reduce creel limits, it won't be to 15. That's not enough," Horst said. "The result would be too small."

That's borne out in numbers Blanchet supplied. According to LDWF research data, 66 percent of anglers catch five or fewer speckled trout per trip, 3 percent catch 10 per trip, 2 percent catch 15 per trip and 4 percent catch 25 per trip.

"Dropping the limit to six would only impact 34 percent of the fishermen," Horst said. "Anglers need to be ready because if the regulation ever changes, it could be a five-, six- or seven-fish limit. You've got to have an impact if you're going to make the change."

Currently, Southwest Louisiana is under a special management regime for speckled trout. Anglers there may harvest only 15 fish per day with no more than two measuring in excess of 25 inches.

That regulation has had very little impact on the fishery there, as the department predicted.

"Our analyses indicated that the results of those regulations would be a small (about 10 percent) change in the harvest, less in stock size," Blanchet wrote.

The measure was pushed by local anglers and implemented by the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. It was not proposed or supported by department biologists.

Horst said at some point, Louisiana will have to change its speckled trout regulations, but he wouldn't venture a guess as to when. Will it be sometime in the next 10 years?

"I don't know," he said. "If the price of gas goes to $17 a gallon, then the answer's no. If our marsh decline causes the fishery to collapse, then the answer's yes. But I've been hearing we're right on the verge of that for 30 years."


I Want to point this out also:
----------------------------------------
Currently, Southwest Louisiana is under a special management regime for speckled trout. Anglers there may harvest only 15 fish per day with no more than two measuring in excess of 25 inches.

That regulation has had very little impact on the fishery there, as the department predicted.

"Our analyses indicated that the results of those regulations would be a small (about 10 percent) change in the harvest, less in stock size," Blanchet wrote.

The measure was pushed by local anglers and implemented by the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. It was not proposed or supported by department biologists.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 555283)

The limit of trout is probably the very least important thing for the east side fisheries. We are losing land at an incredible rate. You can see it for yourself if you just drive over the new bridge in Leeville. The old roads go under water often, and the places you caught fish the year before look different each year due to erosion and subsidence. We better all take good pictures every tiime you go to Grand Isle because it is going to look different even in a decade. Even Elmer's Island looks different from what it looked like 10 or 15 years ago due to sea level rise. Its very noticeable:redface:

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 555318)

MathGeek, could WL&F afford to put you on pay roll?? And why don't you pursue a job like this ?

Originally Posted by ckinchen (Post 555319)

They already have their own experts on the "payroll", do they need more? It seems like what they need to do is to take action against erosion sice we all know that is an issue, biology degree not required. First your Governor will need to out the large sum of money Bp provided into the estuary as it was designated in the first place.

More state or government jobs is the last thing Louisiana needs.

Originally Posted by Dink (Post 555328)

Blow the mississippi river levee south of Baton Rouge. Let the river do what it wants......

Originally Posted by Dink (Post 555328)

Blow the mississippi river levee south of Baton Rouge. Let the river do what it wants......

Originally Posted by Dink (Post 555328)

Blow the mississippi river levee south of Baton Rouge. Let the river do what it wants......

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 555288)

I understand the temptation to lower limits because it is an easy answer and at least represents "doing something" when faced with the concern of the future of a fishery. Unfortunately, government types are often too quick to give into this temptation because rule changes are cheaper and easier than thorough stock assessments and good science. The esturaries and future of the fisheries would be better served if we pressured the government types to conduct, publish, and explain thorough stock assessments rather than pressuring for rule changes in their absence.

Originally Posted by YellaBlazer (Post 555344)

I don't know about BR, but definitely south of Port Sulphur on both sides of the river.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 555371)

This^, the squeaky wheel gets the grease and in Louisiana its politics, not science based 'greasing'.

I don't think that a change in limits will do one thing, whether the limit is 5 or 50, take by legal fishing means is not even a drop in the bucket in the overall trout population. These fish grow fast, have lots of little trout at a relatively early age, and can spawn multiple times, so recreational fishing does very little. Habitat is infinitely more important.

One more thing is the oil spill and the Corexit, there are studies out there that are showing impacts of this stuff. I listened to an entymologist talk about not being able to find any insects around the areas where oil was present. It sounds minor, but this is the basis of the food chain. You know that if you ever walk in the marsh, there is no shortage of insects. And also, oil from the Macondo spill washes up on Elmer's and Grand Isle every time there is a storm:redface: and will probably be like that for many years

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 555371)

This^, the squeaky wheel gets the grease and in Louisiana its politics, not science based 'greasing'.

I don't think that a change in limits will do one thing, whether the limit is 5 or 50, take by legal fishing means is not even a drop in the bucket in the overall trout population. These fish grow fast, have lots of little trout at a relatively early age, and can spawn multiple times, so recreational fishing does very little. Habitat is infinitely more important.

One more thing is the oil spill and the Corexit, there are studies out there that are showing impacts of this stuff. I listened to an entymologist talk about not being able to find any insects around the areas where oil was present. It sounds minor, but this is the basis of the food chain. You know that if you ever walk in the marsh, there is no shortage of insects. And also, oil from the Macondo spill washes up on Elmer's and Grand Isle every time there is a storm:redface: and will probably be like that for many years

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 555394)

Well I need two truck loads of corexit ..because we have skkeeters thick thick thick in freezing weather here at the lake

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 555371)

... the squeaky wheel gets the grease and in Louisiana its politics, not science based 'greasing'.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter (Post 555371)

One more thing is the oil spill and the Corexit, there are studies out there that are showing impacts of this stuff. I listened to an entymologist talk about not being able to find any insects around the areas where oil was present. It sounds minor, but this is the basis of the food chain. You know that if you ever walk in the marsh, there is no shortage of insects.

Originally Posted by Dink (Post 555328)

Blow the mississippi river levee south of Baton Rouge. Let the river do what it wants......

Originally Posted by ckinchen (Post 555319)

They already have their own experts on the "payroll", do they need more? ...

More state or government jobs is the last thing Louisiana needs.

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 555413)

Practice a bit if jumping up and down like Cuba Gooding in Jerry McGuire:

Show me the science!

Show me the science!

Show me the science!

Originally Posted by meaux fishing (Post 555515)

Say what you want but I have every confidence that the state biologists have all the capacity to make the right recommendations. I also know that the head biologist is an avid trout fisherman as he was one of the people that taught me to fish. He also worked out of the grand isle biology station for a long time so is very familiar with that area. I know he will not recommend a limit change unless it is absolutely necessary. What the politicians do is another story however.,,,

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 555318)

MathGeek, could WL&F afford to put you on pay roll?? And why don't you pursue a job like this ?