Originally Posted by "W" (Post 441573)

Then I could be loved like WD and cry about big lake Limits and killing big trout but get on the cover of the BIG TROUT Book and magazine holding 9lb trout


WINNING

Originally Posted by SULPHITE (Post 441569)

This is the problem...being well thought of could potentially help.

Originally Posted by ckinchen (Post 441587)

And that is why these threads get moved. You cannot have a discussion without bashing an orgnization (which is now a site sponsore) or a person or their family. If you started a thread lime MathGeek does with facts and his we could leave this in the open area.

I don't care personally if the limit is 15 or 25, if 15 helps the lake then I support it, if not I don't. What I have said is 15 trout (which by the way it has been a long time since I did not catch at least 15 trout on my trips you claim me to be an office fishermen whatever that means) is plenty for me.

Learn to state your opinion with facts or at least without singling people out who are not here to defend themselves.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 441593)

I post plenty of Fact.....More than were given when the limit was changed.....SO dont call me out for not knowing fact....
Ill re post them all again hang on

Originally Posted by ckinchen (Post 441592)

What I find funny is the club w guys no longer post reports on the site and rarely post, why should I as the owner continue to allow you or your club to push the envelope? It's an honest question. I personally do not care to be associated with you when you start attacking people on here, I become guilty by association.

Originally Posted by ckinchen (Post 441592)

What I find funny is the club w guys no longer post reports on the site and rarely post, why should I as the owner continue to allow you or your club to push the envelope? It's an honest question. I personally do not care to be associated with you when you start attacking people on here, I become guilty by association.

Originally Posted by SaltyShaw (Post 441601)

I haven't been posting reports .......... sorry been crazy busy I'll do a weekly report for ya

Originally Posted by ckinchen (Post 441600)

It's a free country W, do what you feel will make you happy. Your little crew has all but left the site already so who cares.

Post about your opinion if you would like but keep people's names out of it. And for the record I have never even met the family in Lake Charles that you blame for this, I just do not think it is right to smash individuals on here that cannot defend themselves.

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 436835)

Contaminants can be a confounding factor in interpreting condition index, but the majority of the Calcasieu esturary would not be considered contaminated by the Jenkins criteria. Of course, more data always raises the level of confidence. But I think the data that is needed and can be obtained would be relative condition factor in additional years. All we have is a relative condition factor of 1.03 +/- 0.020 for a sample size of 23 (mixed species) from the non-comtaminated sites in the Jenkins 2004 study and 2011 relative condition factors of 0.971 +/- 0.010 for 138 spotted sea trout, 0.965 +/- 0.014 for 66 redfish, and 0.955 +/- 0.017 for 26 black drum.

In 2011, the fish were significantly thinner than in 2004 in the Calcasieu estuary. If the fish are also significantly thinner in other years, then there would be more convincing evidence that there are too many fish relative to the available food in the Calcasieu estuary. If this is the case, the most reasonable remedies would be some combination of 1) protect the food souces by reducing shrimping, oystering, and crabbing pressure 2) reduce the pressure on the food souces by increasing the harvest of the most abundant predators. I think the evidence suggests that the best combination of the above would probably be to reduce the oystering and increase the spotted sea trout limit as well as encouraging the harvest of more black drum (because they really hammer the oysters). Hard data from additional years would, of course, further clarify the situation and make a more compelling case.

There are other approaches to stock assessment, but the LDWF has not been willing to share their methodologies or their data. (We've asked for their Calcasieu data from 2001-2010 and our data request has been denied.) It would be enlightening if additional pressure could compel LDWF to share all their available data on Calcasieu so the data could be analyzed by independent parties. I've found that some states (like Colorado) are much more open with their data and justification that their management decisions are data-driven rather than political. However, there are PETA-type forces and pseudo-conservationist type forces at work in every state simply trying to limit the use of natural resources. I tend to be skeptical of wildlife management that says "trust us, we're scientists" without sharing of data openly so that their results and recommendations can be independently reviewed by other scientists.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 441573)

Then I could be loved like WD and cry about big lake Limits and killing big trout but get on the cover of the BIG TROUT Book and magazine holding 9lb trout


WINNING

Originally Posted by ckinchen (Post 441604)

Cca is a public organization, w if you want to blame them for what you believe is a decrease in the number of harvested big trout then do what you feel you need to do. What I won't allow is for you to blame X person that is not a public figure for it. You will have to work around those guidelines and when you start smashing the cca it becomes a political discussion and that is why the mods moved you earlier post.

And we move on.....

Originally Posted by longcast (Post 441608)

How the **** is limits destroying our resource. There was a time when there were no limits and the fish still did not go extinct. Off course people back then only took what they needed Unlike you bro. Why do you need to catch 25 fish a day. You damn sure can't eat that many. My freezer is fish less. You know why. I can go catch a few to eat anytime I want. Don't need to take more than I'm going to eat.

Originally Posted by longcast (Post 441608)

How the **** is limits destroying our resource. There was a time when there were no limits and the fish still did not go extinct. Off course people back then only took what they needed Unlike you bro. Why do you need to catch 25 fish a day. You damn sure can't eat that many. My freezer is fish less. You know why. I can go catch a few to eat anytime I want. Don't need to take more than I'm going to eat.

Originally Posted by Montauk17 (Post 441612)

So he can take pics with huge piles of trout to make himself feel taller.