Another Reason to Boycott S.T.A.R.: Tripletail regulations passed

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by keakar

im sure that based on this evidrence the black drum are also in the same situation since they are so very closely related

Excellent insight. We'll post on black drum in a few days.

[marshrunner757]

Now that is scary numbers. Something needs to happen and quick.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

[Speckmeister]

I applaud your research here . . . but it is only correlational in inference . . . no cause and effect.
And I am not criticizing here - because you did something that the purpose of correlational research suggests. And that is to point out factors which may associated with the health of the species you studied.
But....oyster reefs in themselves provide habitat for trout forage species. The habitat issue...the marsh loss on the southeastern section of the lake that is noted may also contribute to the lack of forage species entering the lake as well as the numbers of the species themselves - such as speckled trout and redfish. This would be certainly a competing hypothesis. But . . .I certainly still will not in any way Boycott the STAR. Maybe it's my age, but I remember the effects of nets for both speckled trout and the lack of redfish in the not-too-distant past. Back then , recreational fishing for speckled trout in terms of numbers was even much poorer than the recent two years. We would not be having this discussion if the politics of anti-netting had not resulted in the favor of recreational anglers. But again, I like what you have found . . . but there may be more competing hypotheses for this cause than you suggest. E-mail me and I'll be happy to discuss this. A look at the most recent marsh loss statistics in area demonstrate alarm especially for speckled trout unless you believe in the tide-runner theory.

[keakar]

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

I applaud your research here . . . but it is only correlational in inference . . . no cause and effect.
And I am not criticizing here - because you did something that the purpose of correlational research suggests. And that is to point out factors which may associated with the health of the species you studied.
But....oyster reefs in themselves provide habitat for trout forage species. The habitat issue...the marsh loss on the southeastern section of the lake that is noted may also contribute to the lack of forage species entering the lake as well as the numbers of the species themselves - such as speckled trout and redfish. This would be certainly a competing hypothesis. But . . .I certainly still will not in any way Boycott the STAR. Maybe it's my age, but I remember the effects of nets for both speckled trout and the lack of redfish in the not-too-distant past. Back then , recreational fishing for speckled trout in terms of numbers was even much poorer than the recent two years. We would not be having this discussion if the politics of anti-netting had not resulted in the favor of recreational anglers. But again, I like what you have found . . . but there may be more competing hypotheses for this cause than you suggest. E-mail me and I'll be happy to discuss this. A look at the most recent marsh loss statistics in area demonstrate alarm especially for speckled trout unless you believe in the tide-runner theory.

people have been calling to boycott the STAR because CCA has done nothing since its gill net victory but restrict fishermens rights to catch and keep fish as we have always done and they have been doing this more and more lately by ignoring the scientific evidence saying not only there was no reason to do it but that it would cause overpopulations and issues related to that such as not enough food supply for healthy fish resource management.

even though all sane people were and still are in favor of the gill net ban, if you stop and think about it, really think about it, the gill net ban was another restriction of the rights of fishermen.

in truth they haven't changed in that they always work against the benefit to fishermen, its just we were in agreement with them for one issue that gill nets had to go and since then we are realizing that they are NOT on the side of recreational fishermen.

they never were on our side they just happened to champion a cause that everyone supported weather you were on the side working for fishermens rights or against them.

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by keakar

people have been calling to boycott the STAR because CCA has done nothing since its gill net victory but restrict fishermens rights to catch and keep fish as we have always done and they have been doing this more and more lately by ignoring the scientific evidence saying not only there was no reason to do it but that it would cause overpopulations and issues related to that such as not enough food supply for healthy fish resource management.

even though all sane people were and still are in favor of the gill net ban, if you stop and think about it, really think about it, the gill net ban was another restriction of the rights of fishermen.

in truth they haven't changed in that they always work against the benefit to fishermen, its just we were in agreement with them for one issue that gill nets had to go and since then we are realizing that they are NOT on the side of recreational fishermen.

they never were on our side they just happened to champion a cause that everyone supported weather you were on the side working for fishermens rights or against them.

If my memory serves me correctly . . . the purpose of the lower creel limit as well as the two fish over restriction on Big Lake and Sabine (as well as areas nearby) was never a "scientific" endeavor although the many pictures of huge stringers strapped over wade-anglers backs supported some concern over numbers. The restrictions were proposed at the time to support a "trophy trout lake" in Big Lake just like we had trophy and quality bass lakes. Whether or not the average size in trout samples have increased is still questionable . . . or I haven't seen any data on this as yet.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

If my memory serves me correctly . . . the purpose of the lower creel limit as well as the two fish over restriction on Big Lake and Sabine (as well as areas nearby) was never a "scientific" endeavor although the many pictures of huge stringers strapped over wade-anglers backs supported some concern over numbers. The restrictions were proposed at the time to support a "trophy trout lake" in Big Lake just like we had trophy and quality bass lakes. Whether or not the average size in trout samples have increased is still questionable . . . or I haven't seen any data on this as yet.

The trophy trout aspirations missed the scientific need to feed trout sufficiently to support fast growth rates. Specks are not long lived, and if they are not fed very well and growing very fast, you don't get good numbers of big trout. Tournament results are more anecdotal than scientific, but since 2005, most tournaments have been won with smaller trout than previously. Our data also shows that the longer trout in recent years have been thinner which suggest slower growth rates and lower egg production.

This dynamic is well known in the bass world where one needs to control the bass population relative to the food supply to produce good numbers of trophy bass. Recent efforts in the basin failed to produce a trophy bass fishery because the bass were not growing fast enough or living long enough. Producing trophy fish in good numbers requires much more than tighter harvest restrictions, and in these two cases, tighter harvest restrictions actually had a negative impact.

See the LDWF report on Basin Bass here:

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/d...1o-01-2012.pdf

It would be nice to see that kind of science BEFORE more restrictive limits are implemented to determine the likelihood of delivering on the promise.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

I applaud your research here . . . but it is only correlational in inference . . . no cause and effect.
And I am not criticizing here - because you did something that the purpose of correlational research suggests. And that is to point out factors which may associated with the health of the species you studied.
But....oyster reefs in themselves provide habitat for trout forage species. The habitat issue...the marsh loss on the southeastern section of the lake that is noted may also contribute to the lack of forage species entering the lake as well as the numbers of the species themselves - such as speckled trout and redfish. This would be certainly a competing hypothesis.

We've given a lot of consideration to competing hypotheses, and there are most likely many contributing environmental factors to the decline of fish condition.

The loss of marsh is certainly important. However, if the marsh loss were the dominant factor, then one would expect that the fish most strongly dependent on the marsh (speckled trout and shorter length classes of redfish) would be most strongly impacted. We find the opposite. The most strongly impacted fish are the more benthic species and the fish most strongly associated with oyster reef habitat: black drum, gafftop catfish, bull redfish. The shortest length classes of redfish and specks are the least impacted. We expect to post additional data in coming days as the discussion develops. The most convincing evidence of the role of oyster reefs will be if the fish condition rebounds with the oyster stocks.

USGS data showed that prior to 2005, fish condition in Big Lake was above the long term statewide average with mean Kn 1.03 +/- 0.02. The main reason to boycott the S.T.A.R. is because CCA has been pushing fishing restrictions since 2000 when they should have been more focused on habitat issues (oyster reefs, weir management, saltwater intrusion, marsh loss, erosion, etc.)

[MOJO]

I see you are making your rounds.

[MathGeek]

The S.T.A.R. Boycott is about taking money out of the hands of parties who have proven to be ineffective and unproductive because they consistently push for harvest restrictions rather than habitat protection. Unless CCA feels it in the pocket book, I would not expect them to change their modus operandi.

[eman]

Wasn't it the GCCA that got the commercial netting Stopped?

[keakar]

Originally Posted by eman

Wasn't it the GCCA that got the commercial netting Stopped?

they dropped the G after that, for the most part its the same organization

[eman]

Originally Posted by keakar

they dropped the G after that, for the most part its the same organization

NO WHERE near the same organisation . Gcca was a bunch of fishermen and guides and volunteers who got together and worked to get the job done.

[3FLa]

Originally Posted by eman

Wasn't it the GCCA that got the commercial netting Stopped?

CCA has never had a gill net victory as mentioned above. When the gill net ban was pushed, accepted and passed as law in Louisiana, it was done so by GCCA. That group was completely in tune to recreational fishermen and ran by ALL volunteers.

["W"]

Texas guys post pictures of huge trout on stringers
CCA says cut limit

Few Guides go rape 3tail on a once in lifetime trip and post pictures
CCA says need limit

I'm going catch 500 sheephead and post pic to see of we can get limit

[keakar]

dats about da size of it

[Reefman]

I see there are quite a few fishermen with valid concerns toward the future of fishing on BL. I also see there is quite a lot of bashing aimed at the one conservation organization that is in place that can give almost immediate help in our efforts to improve and turn around conditions on BL.
I strongly recommend a sit down with the Lake Charles chapter of CCA and prioritize exactly what we want done on BL....Stop Oyster dredging, repair the wash-outs and address the openings of the weirs. I feel that once the ship channel has been contained with just a few openings to the lake, salinities will drop in the lake proper allowing free flowing water through the weirs for most of the year.
I hate the idea of re-inventing the wheel but if CCA doesn't want to get involved in our plight, then by all means stop giving them your money and re-direct these funds to a more local, focused grass roots organization that will stand up for our issues. This organization might have to be started up by concerned outdoorsman such as ourselves. BL Preservation Association might work. Keep objectives simple and few with everyone on board in agreement. A house divided can't accomplish a thing.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Reefman

I strongly recommend a sit down with the Lake Charles chapter of CCA and prioritize exactly what we want done on BL....Stop Oyster dredging, repair the wash-outs and address the openings of the weirs. I feel that once the ship channel has been contained with just a few openings to the lake, salinities will drop in the lake proper allowing free flowing water through the weirs for most of the year.

This approach seems to down play the fact that numerous concerned anglers and guides have already been doing this for many years. This isn't 2005. CCA has been informed of and has chosen to ignore these important concerns for a looooooong time in favor of other priorities (decreasing speck limits, imposing tripletail limits, banning bowfishing, increasing fees, etc.)

How is your approach different from "give CCA your money for one more year"?

How many years is enough?

[Reefman]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

How is your approach different from "give CCA your money for one more year"?

How many years is enough?

If an open meeting with concerned BL fishermen and the LC CCA chapter cannot come up with an agreement of total support of our issues then we know our efforts will have to come from a new grass roots front. I feel this can be set up within a month giving ample time to schedule such a meeting. I would strongly suggest the State Director of CCA be in attendance to give a thumbs up or down to our requests.

I do agree time is of the essence. By mid summer we should all know exactly where the State and CCA stands on BL fishery resources. I would be very careful in biting the hand that feeds the money to accomplish building of rock banks along with closing oyster dredging in BL namely WLF. We must maintain a working and amiable relationship with this State Dept.....just like CCA has done.

I see nothing wrong with having an additional conservation group that is focused and solely committed to the betterment of BL. Pontchartrain has a very active one that seems to be working well.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Reefman

If an open meeting with concerned BL fishermen and the LC CCA chapter cannot come up with an agreement of total support of our issues then we know our efforts will have to come from a new grass roots front. I feel this can be set up within a month giving ample time to schedule such a meeting. I would strongly suggest the State Director of CCA be in attendance to give a thumbs up or down to our requests.

I do agree time is of the essence. By mid summer we should all know exactly where the State and CCA stands on BL fishery resources. I would be very careful in biting the hand that feeds the money to accomplish building of rock banks along with closing oyster dredging in BL namely WLF. We must maintain a working and amiable relationship with this State Dept.....just like CCA has done.

I see nothing wrong with having an additional conservation group that is focused and solely committed to the betterment of BL. Pontchartrain has a very active one that seems to be working well.

We already know where CCA stands, as past actions are more telling than present promises. Progress might be possible, but only if CCA realizes that maintaining their present course is going to start costing them in terms of reduced membership. It is a mistake to let them get through most of their fundraising in the current year.

I expect CCA to continue to give lip service to keep membership high and dues flowing in, mainly through S.T.A.R. participation. We really need them to commit to immediately CEASE and DESIST pushing increased regulations without sound scientific support.

Adding agenda items that support habitat issues in Big Lake would be unconvincing without simultaneously renouncing past support for bad policies.

[Reefman]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

We already know where CCA stands, as past actions are more telling than present promises. Progress might be possible, but only if CCA realizes that maintaining their present course is going to start costing them in terms of reduced membership. It is a mistake to let them get through most of their fundraising in the current year.

I expect CCA to continue to give lip service to keep membership high and dues flowing in, mainly through S.T.A.R. participation. We really need them to commit to immediately CEASE and DESIST pushing increased regulations without sound scientific support.

Adding agenda items that support habitat issues in Big Lake would be unconvincing without simultaneously renouncing past support for bad policies.

Meaning no disrespect MathGeek but I feel there is an undercurrent of a vendetta placed on CCA by your posts. I would have nothing to do with that. I would rather go forward in the hopes of bettering BL by working with State/CCA and other agencies in an amiable fashion. You seem hell bent on destroying any credibility that CCA has earned in this State. I still believe that CCA has been doing a good job in conservation issues affecting our whole coast as well as our neighbors in the Gulf.