[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

Until we get current SPR or any other approximation of the speckled trout biomass specifically in Big Lake, we won't know.

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.

- Callihan PhD Thesis (LSU p. 182)

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

My GUESS and prediction is that we are not unlike our neighboring states (Tx. and Fla.). I hope I am wrong but habitat loss and degradation (like the feverish oyster reef debate) - which are historical problems in every state will point to less trout numbers - again I hope I am wrong, and this is by no means a scientific opinion based on data.

Louisiana habit has declined, but the fact is that we were so far ahead of FL and TX to begin with, that we are still far ahead. Louisiana has 3-10x the quantity of marsh per licensed saltwater angler compared with TX or FL. Oyster reefs in LA have declined, but LA has more oyster reef habitat than all other Gulf states COMBINED.

We need to keep working hard in Louisiana to maintain far superior fisheries, and there is some real risk of eventually falling to FL or TX levels, but we are currently nowhere close by any available measure of habitat quality, quantity, or productivity.

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

Since all the data in Louisiana - especially in Big Lake - points to speckled trout being an estuary-specific fishery - then we will have no choice but to expect lower limits - probably statewide. Of course, I expect vehement disagreement. The data is clear regarding Big Lake although someone here may argue there wasn't a large enough "n". There is not a significant number of trout that move into the lake from the Gulf (Tide-runner theory). That inference comes from the electronic tracking studies, previous tagging studies statewide, and research in other states.

The Callihan study was the most detailed study of fidelity to the Calcasieu estuary. The graph shows that his detectors had much less than 100% efficiency which provided the specks many opportunities to sneak out undetected. The acoustic detectors he used have lower effectiveness on windy days, hot days, and more turbid days. His hypothesis regarding less than 50 km movement was supported in the study years of 2007-2009, but you should also keep in mind that in these were the post-Rita years when the lake was very well fed as the marsh detrius was producing huge amounts of shrimp.

It is well known that most species of fish show greater dispersal when stressed by inadequate food or greater variations in salinity. I expect a lot more specks enter the Sabine and Mermantau estuaries from Calcasieu in years when these estuaries have abundant forage and Calcasieu does not (and vice-versa). It is also well known that many species of fish make their longest migrations during tropical events. It is too bad that Callihan took his system off line and had no data during the passing of topical storm Edouard in 2008, though this storm probably would have moved more fish from Sabine to Calcasieu than from Calcasieu to Sabine.

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

If one however can easily and quickly restore habitat and limit degradation - we may have a chance. But remember - - more and more development is expected in Big Lake with the more LNG and other industries. This is good for the area and us humans, but bad for the habitat and resource. Can't have it both ways.

Better environmental laws and enforcement make this much less of an issue, and I expect the next 20 years will see far less pollution of the Calcasieu estuary than the 1970s and 1980s. Further, many of the long term industrial changes have made the estuary friendlier to specks. The deep ship channel provides refuge from rapid changes in salinity and temperature in shallower water. Has Calcasieu ever seen a winter kill of specks like is occasionally seen in estuaries with no deep water refuge?

Further, the oysters on the east side are slowly coming back, and the weirs are being effectively operated to protect the east side marsh. Further, the moving of Omega protein's menhaden operation out of Cameron should also increase the availability of pogies of all sizes to better feed the specks. The sky is not falling.

The estuary is resilient. There is need for due diligence in protecting the oyster reefs, protecting the marsh, improving weir management, and stemming erosion to prevent the possibility of an ongoing decline following the past several years of management mistakes. But the sky is not falling.

Specks are particularly versatile in their ability to spawn effectively in various habitats. I strongly recommend Bortone's book on the life history and biology for relevant details.

We should note though that James Cowan, who has been a key player in buggering the red snapper stock assessments, is also playing a dominant role in spotted seatrout assessments. We need to pay careful details in how SPR numbers are determined from stock assessment data, as there is opportunity to tweak the assumptions and methods to obtain different SPR numbers from the same data. Just as methods were changed for snapper, methods could also be changed for spotted seatrout to make it look like SPR numbers have decreased between assessments, when in reality the appearance of declining SPR numbers is due to change in the methods. I am also uncomfortable with how Will Horst has inserted himself in most state-sponsored seatrout assessment. This is why we need all the data and detailed descriptions of the methods, to prevent the quality of the science in the stock assessments from declining down to red snapper levels.

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

Unfortunately, I foresee the day (I'll probably be dead because I have some years on me) when we'll have "catch and release" practices like Florida and Texas.

This is possible, but it would take another decade or two of mismanagement. If we focus on habitat rather than creel limits and careful, open data-driven science, then such an outcome should be unlikely.