Dude your fuggin weird mike the tiger....I bet u wear short shorts and tight shirts to??? I said they do inherit color u dumb****. Toxins?? Yellowfin Tuna are big I've ate off of several 100 plus lbs tuna and I'm doin fine with my toxins?? So wats the difference....and I like it how u can call me a winner and make fun cause ur so much better than me cause u got a LSU education..and u know everything about trout since u catch so many of them(NOT) in your kayak...get a life loser and don't put down on people if you don't expect to get some back...

I agree with the first statement you made Ray. I just find it funny that those who are suggesting a fisherman has a right to keep what they want within the limits of the law are the same ones who are closed lipped about any fishing spots they are catching fish in. It seems that you are trying to protect "your" spots from something.

Dude do you know who your talking too???? Son you better recognize
Yak em is LSU alumni....and has PHD and Masters in categories below
BP Oil expert
Marsh Grass
Echo system effects from Oil
Trout Genes
Trout reproduction cycles
And he is not even 25 years old yet!!!! Could be the Next Bill Gates!!!! You better. Respect him

keeping whatever you want to keep and keeping spots secret have nothing to do with each other.

A general location like say Turner's Bay is not a secret spot, nor are the weirs. Everyone knows the fish are at these places at certain times, I doubt there are any 'secret spots' there, unless you get on a school of fish. Those fish move around so..
If someone had a secret reef out there and were the only ones who knew about it, then i would keep quiet too, or next time you go out there, someone else will be in the spot.

I have met a few folks on the site and i know of a few my age.
You youngsters don't have a clue about "raping" the trout population.
When some of us were y'alls age a trip was measured in how many ice chest of filets you brought home . Not boxes of fish boxes of filets!. no we didn't have 120qt chest back then . but i have been on a few trips where you couldnt put another 48qt box of filets in the bed of the PU.
This was back when they had gill nets and commercial fishing for trout and reds.
we would each take the filets we wanted and the rest were sold at the fish mkt to pay for our fishing trips.
We weren't the only ones doing this and it didn't put a dent in the trout population.
I don't belive that the gillnets put a dent in the overall trout population either. Maybe a short term reduction in a small area . After saying that i will also say this . getting rid of the nets did have the positive affect of letting the trout grow to a larger overall size.
If iremember right when those pics of the stringers came out there was ALOT more trash talk about it being Texas fishermen w/ a Texas guide coming to Louisiana and not spending any $$$ here than there was about the stringers of trout.
And also if you look back at that time there were only a select few that even knew about wading the lake and catching trout this size.
I think alot of the post were abouit the $$$ and alot were just jealous that someone could come down here and make it look that easy?
I understand now why we have limits . and i wont keep a big fish of any type unless it's going on my wall.
But It's your decision to make wether you do or not .
We are not going to hurt the trout population in an open body of water w/ rod and reels.
We should all be alot more worried about the estuaries . As long as we have the marsh we will have plenty of trout. But once the marsh goes so goes the fish.
IE: Texas and Florida.
Think about it!

:d:d:d:d:d:d:d

[QUOTE=Duck Butter;222422]keeping whatever you want to keep and keeping spots secret have nothing to do with each other.

But don't they? If you have a secret spot it is a good thing because, you can go out and limit when you want without pressure from other fishermen. So, if someone discovers your secret spot then you would have a harder time catching all these fish you intend on keeping. Justification is a modern marvel of the human ego.

After speaking with an ichthyologist here at lsu today. I'm just gonna stop arguing.

He told me

"fish do pass down genes. Some of these genes can be attributed to survival and being able to live longer and grow older. That doesn't mean that a random fish without these genes can't grow to a large size in the right conditions, but there is definitely genes that are passed on that can be attributed to survival"

My argument is over with y'all on this everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I know that I won't keep a large fish "just because I can" I would rather a kid or first time fisherman catch and enjoy it.

Also hopedale. Please stop talking. You don't know your facts about anything about me but nice try.

And yes I do feel smarter than you on this subject because you said that color was passed down through fish but in the same sentence said that fish do not pass down genes.

Again you have every right to do as you please within the limits of the law. But be a man and think of someone other than yourself for once. I know this is against the "Louisiana way" but a little bit of decency goes a long way

Oh by the way W

Ichthyology Is the study of fish

I'll save you a trip to google or a call to "youre" doctor/lawyer/biologist/superman

That makes millions a year

Everything passes down genes. Tapeworms, crickets, crawfish, monkeys, humans, etc. This is not the argument here, maybe a side argument with 'w' :p, but read what you just typed. 'these genes CAN be attributed to SURVIVAL and LIVE LONGER and OLDER. So they CAN, doesn't mean they DO. and the next sentence you write about how a random fish can grow to large size also.

The genes do not change, in other words, lets say Fish X if left alone in Big Lake would grow to 10 lbs in 5 years if left alone. She already has those genes, and wether it spawns at age 1, 2, or 5, it is still putting out the big trout genes. They don't get a new set of genes when they reach 10 lbs. If this was the case, a fish would have a chance to acquire a gene that maybe lets them detect a hook, so if you catch the big trout and release her, they acquire this gene and then pass it down the line, eventually trout would be impossible to hook.

And also, we must remember that female trout only give half the genetic information, the other half comes from the male. Like in deer, the biggest buck in the world doesn't always produce trophy bucks, the doe comes into play also

I don't believe the toxin thing either.
I have been eating fish and other seafood from Big Lake all my life.
I am still alive, a little fat, but still healthy.
Saying big fish are full of toxins won't stop me from eating them.
Steak can kill you faster than fish.

Oysters and Crabs filter more toxins than anything in the lake.
There is probably no one on this forum that eats more Crabs than me
and it never put me down yet.

I have gotten deathly sick eating raw Oysters. Never again. But cooked,
Oysters never made me sick.

I want to die fat and happy, with no money in the bank. Not healthy and
in shape due to eating only what's good for you.

X2 ...'cept I love me some raw ersters.

If you want to learn about genetics:

Where's the greenie button when ya need it!!!!!

:*****::work::rotfl:

This thread went to crap. :eek:

uduntsay

The Mod deleted it and I got a -10 point infraction.

They closed it.

my favorite quote from over there

"Luckily, those are Texans. If they had been cajuns they would of done a blast and cast and had full limits of bald eagles and whooping cranes too."

Yeah, I :rotfl: at that when I saw it.

A debate like this is why I am addicted to this site.