Calcasieu Relative Condition Factor Study 2012 Preliminary Results

[MathGeek]

We've wrapped up data collection for our 2012 Calcasieu Estuary relative condition factor study along with some preliminary analysis. The more detailed and definitive analysis will have to wait until we're back in Colorado and until the documents go through the public release process.

But it looks pretty clear that all four species (gafftop, specks, drum, redfish) we measured are significantly thinner than they were last year. Furthermore, specks, drum, and redfish are also thinner than the long term Louisiana average, and thinner than reported in the 2004 Jenkins study.

This tends to support the theory that relative to their food sources, the fish in the estuary are overpopulated.

We're headed to Grand Isle tomorrow to work on reducing the fish population in that neighborhood. Thanks to all the Salty Cajun members who assisted with our study. We had tons of help with sample collection, suggesting survey sites, and also some assistance weighing and measuring the fish.

I also want to give a plug to the Berkley FS-15 digital scale. We carefully check the calibration each time we use the scale and all three of our scales of this model are consistently within 1%. With our calibration adjustment, we end up with weight uncertainties below 0.3% for individual readings. Having had some scale failures last year, we brought several back-ups to LA, but we experienced no scale failures with this model. The 50 lb model we used for the bigger fish also performed well.

[PaulMyers]

Thanks for the preliminary findings and safe travels as you continue on your quest.

[rustyb]

O OH.. Is "W" possibly right?

["W"]

Originally Posted by rustyb

O OH.. Is "W" possibly right?

Never had any doubt about it..... Its easy to tell by size of trout falling off., we will always have the ones who want to make it sound more difficult by saying you have to take more variables to look at

No its simple ,real simple when you cut the number of trout you take out by 40%. When you had zero reason to cut that percentage down.

Its like you having a chicken laying 10 eggs a day and you pick 6...and leave 4 for reproduction ...your chicken stock is working fine but now you only pick 4 eggs a day In stead of 6....
^^^^^ how many more chickens will you have in on year extra ???

Simple 3rd grade math

[Texas Tiger]

Thanks for gathering the data, and the feedback.
It'll be interesting to see how the Calcasieu data compares to other areas

[Spunt Drag]

Originally Posted by Texas Tiger

Thanks for gathering the data, and the feedback.
It'll be interesting to see how the Calcasieu data compares to other areas

X2

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

Never had any doubt about it..... Its easy to tell by size of trout falling off., we will always have the ones who want to make it sound more difficult by saying you have to take more variables to look at

No its simple ,real simple when you cut the number of trout you take out by 40%. When you had zero reason to cut that percentage down.

Its like you having a chicken laying 10 eggs a day and you pick 6...and leave 4 for reproduction ...your chicken stock is working fine but now you only pick 4 eggs a day In stead of 6....
^^^^^ how many more chickens will you have in on year extra ???

Simple 3rd grade math

This is ONE study on ONE day. Lots of factors come into play - male vs female trout is one. The study needs to be done on the same day year after year to get an accurate sample - promise you that MathGeek knows this. If a female trout has spawned of course they weigh less, needs to be male trout only to keep the bias out of there. Repetition is the key to good science, best to keep this study going for a while not one day, but it is great that MathGeek got out there and is doing this, it is at least better than nothing. I really want to meet MG, he seems like a cool fella

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

This is ONE study on ONE day. Lots of factors come into play - male vs female trout is one. The study needs to be done on the same day year after year to get an accurate sample - promise you that MathGeek knows this. If a female trout has spawned of course they weigh less, needs to be male trout only to keep the bias out of there. Repetition is the key to good science, best to keep this study going for a while not one day, but it is great that MathGeek got out there and is doing this, it is at least better than nothing. I really want to meet MG, he seems like a cool fella

There is not a lack of bait ....as of last time I was out
..it was glass calm and bait consumed the whole lake....it was full of mullet and shad

The trout MG measured and weight with me were full of eggs and only two were males that I recall

This has been more than one day he worked a week on this ...

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

There is not a lack of bait ....as of last time I was out
..it was glass calm and bait consumed the whole lake....it was full of mullet and shad

The trout MG measured and weight with me were full of eggs and only two were males that I recall

This has been more than one day he worked a week on this ...

Any female trout should probably not be counted to get a good measure. The females reproductive cycle is so variable, they can be 'full' of eggs, half 'full' 3/4 'full' and it throws off the numbers too much. For instance a 24" female full may weigh 6 lbs, lays her eggs and be 5 lbs the very next day, so right now may not be the best time to be 'weighting' a female trout, weights are highly variable at this time

(disclaimer: I have no idea if those numbers/lengths/weights are correct just an example, my boga and tape measure are set to Texas standards)

[bmac]

Originally Posted by "W"

There is not a lack of bait ....as of last time I was out
..it was glass calm and bait consumed the whole lake....it was full of mullet and shad

This seems like another contradiction to me. How can there be plenty of bait if the the trout are overpopulated? Do they somehow know they have too many of them so they each eat less bait to conserve their food supply?

If you can stop contradicting your own arguments I think more people could support you. This is along the lines of "you cannot over fish the lake on rod and reel", but then asking to increase the limit back to 25 because the fish need to be thinned out.

I'm not for or against your cause, I'm just tired of seeing you contradict yourself.

[PaulMyers]

Originally Posted by rustyb

O OH.. Is "W" possibly right?

That's not the real question.

Can he get the limit changed back to 25? Now that's the real question!

["W"]

Thanks for your hard work.....I will keep in contact with you over the next few months and hopefully we can get a plan together and summit some info to WLF .

Thanks again

[BigChaf]

Could the weirs be responsible for lack of food in Big Lake?

[jchief]

Originally Posted by BigChaf

Could the weirs be responsible for lack of food in Big Lake?

Or coiuld the lack of oyster reefs be the culprit???

or a lack of plankton??

Or 2 years of drought proceeding this year??

Or higher number of sunspots this year??

[jchief]

I really wish it was as simple as a lack of bait or too many fish or whatever.

This study provides valuable data, but there are other data that need to be considered.

Great job Math Geek. Keep up the work.

["W"]

Originally Posted by "W"

Never had any doubt about it..... Its easy to tell by size of trout falling off., we will always have the ones who want to make it sound more difficult by saying you have to take more variables to look at

Originally Posted by jchief

Or coiuld the lack of oyster reefs be the culprit???

or a lack of plankton??

Or 2 years of drought proceeding this year??

Or higher number of sunspots this year??

Originally Posted by jchief

I really wish it was as simple as a lack of bait or too many fish or whatever.

This study provides valuable data, but there are other data that need to be considered.

Great job Math Geek. Keep up the work.

[BIG RED 1983]

w one study for one week out of a year will not help you get the limit back to 25 it should have been done the day the limit was reduced to compile evidence that the limit reduction has hurt the lake there will have to be a lot more studies and hard evidence to get the limit back up

["W"]

Well I'm sure and if we had someone who was certified to do a study for the paperwork..my belief are 100%.right ...were over populated and this is causing the over all size of trout to drop dramatically

So if it takes a biologist to already re prove what was said before the limit changed to say the same thing now....so be it

You took 40% less trout per year over a 6 year time frame.....

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

Well I'm sure and if we had someone who was certified to do a study for the paperwork..my belief are 100%.right ...were over populated and this is causing the over all size of trout to drop dramatically

So if it takes a biologist to already re prove what was said before the limit changed to say the same thing now....so be it

You took 40% less trout per year over a 6 year time frame.....

Trout will take care of themselves - they will eat each other, keep all the drum, they eat the oysters

Shoot all the seagulls too, they are eating all the shrimp

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by "W"

You took 40% less trout per year over a 6 year time frame.....

You took POTENTIALLY 40% less trout. You have no clue what the real number is.