Hard Data LDWF on specks
 

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/d...tober22014.pdf

The hard data on speck stock assessments was presented in the October LWC meeting and is now available in the minutes (starting on p. 18)

The bottom line is specks are in good shape. Any limit changes would be due to social and not scientific factors.

Here's a graph of the spawning stock biomass showing plenty of spawning females.

Thanks for the information!

How was the target and limit determined and what exactly is meant by these terms?

Spawning stock biomass is the stock population (or its weight) that is capable of reproducing. The target and limit are most commonly determined with numerical models that suggest what levels of SSB are needed to reproduce healthy population levels with some allowance for uncommon events like winter kills.

A "gut check" on target and limit levels is provided by the historical levels. If populations have rebounded after historical lows in this parameter, then it is likely that the population will rebound if the SSB dips again. If more restrictive limits were needed to rebound from historical lows, then they may be needed again if the SSB dips.

Ok just making sure they did it right..........


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In my opinion, there is no objective evidence here (necessary or sufficient) to rule out less speckled trout in the Calcasieu Lake estuary.

For certain - these data are a statewide analysis and summation.
"Commissioner Manuel asked if this data is statewide data and Mr. Blanchet responded yes, it is data collected statewide." - page 25.

"Commissioner Graham asked if this survey was through the year 2013 and Mr. Pausina stated that yes it is and the Real Time data is through 2014 but not used in this data group." - page 25. Not at all sure what this means.

"Commissioner Taylor then asked if there was concern about marsh loss and Randy Pausina stated that the assessment is clouded because its statewide data – we manage fisheries not coastal rehabilitation" - page 27. Not sure what he's asserting to Ms. Taylor here.

"Mr. Blanchet stated it will take four (4) years to get basin level harvest data needed for assessment – the first two (2) years, there is no context of the data stream." - page 27, I am hoping Blanchet is explaining collecting baseline data here.

"Commissioner Yakupzack asked - in three years? Mr. Blanchet stated in ½ year of LA Creel program" -

So then, will fisheries dependent data also be collected in each differing estuary in addition to LA Creel? Also, it will take time to obtain a baseline of all this collective data, therefore never ever answering the questions regarding relatively and seemingly poorer catches in the Calcasieu Lake Estuary from 2011-2013.

I am happy that at least we're looking toward regional measurement, something other states have been doing for some time now. Unless . . . of course the fund is raided.

I don't think there is any solid evidence for poorer catches in that time frame. The fish were skinnier and more slowly growing, but that is more related to too little forage for the specks trying to eat a lot and grow quickly rather than low speck population.

I think anglers have also learned some lessons about posting pics with big trout hauls. Pics of big hauls leads to jealousy, pot licking, and pushes from Texans for more restrictive regulations.

And as fall 2014 proved, failure to catch many fish in the summer does not mean the fish aren't there, just that you aren't catching them.

We spent more time doing creel surveys on Calcasieu in 2011, 2012, and 2013. There were no hints of a shortage of specks.

My biggest hope is that any management actions are data driven rather than driven by politics or socio-economic reasons. If the data shows larger harvest numbers would be sustainable, will they raise the limit back to 25 specks per day in Calcasieu? Probably not if CCA continues to yield their current level of political power. CCA only wants to see limits lowered.

ROFL


Sent

Lol glad you caught my sarcasm!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MathGeek, fisheries management has always been shaped by politics. Since the days of dwindling stocks of redfish, I have seen people and professionals interpret and explain even hard data from varying perspectives. For example, I am witnessing Louisiana abandon quality bass management on a few specific lakes without at least changing one management prescription varying from the original in 1992. And the explanation was that "anglers were not keeping many bass under slot restrictions." But that's the zeitgeist in government these days - deregulation. But as for data, c'mon man you're a scientist and you can't make me believe that data has been ever a virgin in its description or analysis.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Dr. Ed Zganjar, a physics professor and one of my mentors at LSU taught me, "You must respect your data as a Rabbi respects the Torah."

Physicists have a very high view of data, and my core value is that one must treat data exactly as described in the written experimental and analysis methods.

I've had a few students over the years attempt to fudge the data. I check for this carefully and each one paid a high price. (I have students send me their raw data as soon as it is acquired and then repeat their analysis independently once I have their final report.)