Heating up on new fees

["W"]

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

"W"....that's old data....correct?

Yes last one they sent, had to dig through emails to find it


They will not give 2010/2011 data

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by "W"

Yes last one they sent, had to dig through emails to find it


They will not give 2010/2011 data

And in 2011, LDWF said it was between 8- and 14- percent. That's not saying much. We need that data based on samples in specific estuaries - not just statewide. Supposedly, the legislators are going to put pressure on LDWF to release data.

But remember, I think most of the reps are lawyers...am I correct?

So I will believe it when I see it.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

Last word I got on SPR# see dates

Thanks for your interest in spotted seatrout management. As you
are probably aware it takes several years after regulatory changes are
in place before those changes can be accurately measured in an
assessment. We are currently compiling any and all new information that
has been collected since our last full stock assessment in 2005 with
plans to complete a new assessment in late 2009 or early 2010. We will
be happy to provide you with those results as they become available.
Thanks again.



The Department's adopted a conservation standard is 18% static
SPR per biological examination of stock, as outlined below in the 2005
assessment. What this means is that we believe there is a possible risk
of adversely impacting recruitment if SPR is allowed to remain below
18%. In order to avoid going below the threshold, the department has
adopted the following conservation standard. For spotted seatrout,
fishing regulations should not allow cumulative fishing mortality rates
to reduce the spawning potential of a cohort on average below 18% static
SPR. This conservation standard is designed to stabilize the spawning
potential of a cohort at or above the median level found in the 1980's,
where existing evidence indicates that the spawning stock had not been
reduced to a level that would adversely impact recruitment.



The 2004 status of the stock, defined as the static SPR, is
14.5%, a substantial decline from the 20.9% SPR reported in 2000. This
is below the conservation standard of 18% described above.



Current assessment in 2005, with data through 2004. Static SPR
of 14.5%. We are currently in process of reviewing, updating and
modifying this assessment to include new information sources and
assessment methods.

dang W, I think you just stumbled up and found your scientific evidence of why a limit reduction may have been warranted SPR was below the threshold.

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

dang W, I think you just stumbled up and found your scientific evidence of why a limit reduction may have been warranted SPR was below the threshold.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

In the 500s BC, Heraclitus was the philosopher who said, "You can't step into the same river twice." In this case, substitute "inland saltwater lake."

If anything at all is permanent on this earth - it is change.

[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.

["W"]

What is so hard about giving us a SPR# own our own fisheries?

My letter was clear and still zero email back and don't try and call they are not available during working hours never. Funny they are always the ones in the field lmao

[keakar]

as long as you choose to not see the truth it shall always elude you and thus you can honestly deny knowing it and in so doing be able to feel good about supporting them

["W"]

This bill will pass I'm 99.9999999% sure, nothing much we can do other than ***** about how funds will be spent

Guess time will tell



They should also raise out of state fees also

[eman]

Should also do away w/ $5 step aboard license too.

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by eman

Should also do away w/ $5 step aboard license too.

I think that would really hurt the guides... Not sure i would support doing away with it... I wouldnt mind an increase


Sent from my fruity phone

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by Reggoh

I think that would really hurt the guides... Not sure i would support doing away with it... I wouldnt mind an increase


Sent from my fruity phone

I heard it was going up to $10 I think

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by meaux fishing

I heard it was going up to $10 I think

I think they should make it $15 or maybe even $20... this type of license is a convenience thing for people... make them pay extra for that convenience.

[eman]

I'm just saying .If we are going to increase license cost lets start at the cheapest ones?
Let anyone who wants to fish here buy a 1 day or 3 day license or a yearly non resident if they fish here enough.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by eman

I'm just saying .If we are going to increase license cost lets start at the cheapest ones?
Let anyone who wants to fish here buy a 1 day or 3 day license or a yearly non resident if they fish here enough.

I agree. The TX crowd are not paying their fair share. If annual resident saltwater licenses go up 136%, ALL saltwater licenses should go up 136%.

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I agree. The TX crowd are not paying their fair share. If annual resident saltwater licenses go up 136%, ALL saltwater licenses should go up 136%.

Awww MG...don't say that.
I have a NR Tx. all-water license too....they are going to reciprocate on us.

[mr crab]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I agree. The TX crowd are not paying their fair share. If annual resident saltwater licenses go up 136%, ALL saltwater licenses should go up 136%.

Non-resident is already $90. How much should we pay?....I'll gladly pay more tho cuz CCA and TPWD are about to slash our limits so bad that the only chance of bringing home a decent mess of fish will be to launch on the LA side of Sabine and keep LA limits. This is already what me and all my buddies do during the fall flounder run when the TX limit drops to 2/angler/day. There is actually a very successful guide here on Sabine who's whole sale's pitch and motto is "Louisiana Limits....Because Texas Limits Suck"...Name of the guide service is even "Louisiana Limits" this is getting stupid....but on a completely different note...check out some nice ones I busted on tops last night....I don't post a lot of trout pics on account of all the Sabine haters, but the mood is getting negative up in here.....ooohhhh look at the pretty fish pics...my ode to the MIA inchspinner....DOUBLE CREEP MODE SON!!!! Where ya at inch??????

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by mr crab

Non-resident is already $90. How much should we pay?....I'll gladly pay more tho cuz CCA and TPWD are about to slash our limits so bad that the only chance of bringing home a decent mess of fish will be to launch on the LA side of Sabine and keep LA limits. This is already what me and all my buddies do during the fall flounder run when the TX limit drops to 2/angler/day. There is actually a very successful guide here on Sabine who's whole sale's pitch and motto is "Louisiana Limits....Because Texas Limits Suck"...Name of the guide service is even "Louisiana Limits" this is getting stupid....but on a completely different note...check out some nice ones I busted on tops last night....I don't post a lot of trout pics on account of all the Sabine haters, but the mood is getting negative up in here.....ooohhhh look at the pretty fish pics...my ode to the MIA inchspinner....DOUBLE CREEP MODE SON!!!! Where ya at inch??????

Non-resident saltwater is $30. You pay $90 total, because the freshwater (which is also required) is $60. Residents must also possess a valid freshwater license.

Raising the non-resident saltwater license by 136% would make it jump from $30 to $70 or $71, which is very reasonable considering:

1. Louisiana has much better fishing and much more liberal limits than Texas.

2. Louisiana allows Texans to operate their boats in Louisiana waters without any additional registrations or fees beyond registering the boat in Texas.

3. Louisiana allows Texans to drive on Louisiana roads without registering vehicles in Louisiana, obtaining Louisiana drivers licenses, obtaining Louisiana inspection stickers, or paying any additional fees that Louisiana residents must pay to get themselves and their boats to and from the water.

4. Unless they happen to work in Louisiana, Texans do not pay most Louisiana taxes and thus (other than their fishing license fees), contributions to state wildlife management, conservation, and enforcement efforts are minimal.

My wife and I have paid the non-resident license fees from 2000-2013 to enjoy Louisiana's awesome fishing, and I did not complain about it for one minute.

[Goooh]

Are wade fishing licenses going up as well, or are they exempt?

[mr crab]

I'm not complaining....actually said I'd gladly pay more....but it costs me $90 to fish saltwater in LA. not $30. Also points 2-4 are true of any state? Whats your point? As far as LA having better fishing than TX......You are spot on there....Fishing is terrible here. Don't waste your time, all Sabine, Galveston, Matagorda, Baffin, Laguna Madre trout have migrated through the passes to V-bay and B.L........#notxtroutanywhere

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by mr crab

Also points 2-4 are true of any state? Whats your point?

Not completely. On many Colorado waters, you need to pay a fee and get an inspection to put your boat in the water. There is one booth to pay the fee before you get to the boat ramp and then a second booth where you pay the fee. During the off season and after hours when the booths are closed, the boat ramp is gated off and it's a crime to put your boat in the water. I've also been to a number of lakes in southern states that required paying an additional fee to put a boat in the water (usually $4-$10 each day).

I've never seen or heard of a governmental entity in Louisiana charging a fee to access the water, though private ramps (like Hebert's and Spicer's) reasonably do charge a fee. A number of places in Florida do have access fees for public waters, with the fee scale depending on one's residency status.