15 Trout Limit Discussion PUBLIC

[all star rod]

W, winning is getting the limit changed back to 25....so until then, you are LOSING.....sorry to bust your bubble.

Btw, I think it should be 25..

[jdm4x43732]

Originally Posted by all star rod

Btw, I think it should be 25..

Ding ding ding!!! Winner winner Chicken Dinner!!! We found something you two can agree on!!

[1fastmerc]

Originally Posted by "W"

Show me some proof from biologist that supports this above??? We proved over and over on our issue with facts
If you show me one biological fact on this issue I will shut up

Somebody find something even if you gotta resort to the "Obama" way and make it up so he will SHUTUP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ckinchen]

Maybe the lack of oysters is what has caused the apparent decrease in big trout, maybe it is cold winters that we had in 2009 and 2010, maybe it is due to the red tide we had two summers ago, maybe it is due to salinity levels, maybe it is due to the weirs finally having an impact with less bait in the lake, maybe it is due to fishing pressure or maybe it is due to the limit reduction.

Let's assume Math Geeks data is right (because you can't spell data). You have failed to address what others have pointed out to be large flaws in your logic of raising the limit resulting in more big trout.

At the end of the day I am according to you just another office fishermen and I have you so punch drunk you can't see straight. You had better be ready for people that ask for more difficult questions than me when you bring this to Baton Rouge.

I still remain fairly neutral on the limits but I cannot support this crusade led by you, if others want to that is up to them. You have waffled to many times in the past and your background and attitude towards others will kill are too much for me to be involved. I will help on the oyster issue if you flip back over to being opposed to "oyster rapping" as you called it.

Otherwise this has been an entertaining thread.

I have some work to do at the office if you can imagine that, take care.

[BIG RED 1983]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

Maybe the lack of oysters is what has caused the apparent decrease in big trout, maybe it is cold winters that we had in 2009 and 2010, maybe it is due to the red tide we had two summers ago, maybe it is due to salinity levels, maybe it is due to the weirs finally having an impact with less bait in the lake, maybe it is due to fishing pressure or maybe it is due to the limit reduction.

Let's assume Math Geeks data is right (because you can't spell data). You have failed to address what others have pointed out to be large flaws in your logic of raising the limit resulting in more big trout.

At the end of the day I am according to you just another office fishermen and I have you so punch drunk you can't see straight. You had better be ready for people that ask for more difficult questions than me when you bring this to Baton Rouge.

I still remain fairly neutral on the limits but I cannot support this crusade led by you, if others want to that is up to them. You have waffled to many times in the past and your background and attitude towards others will kill are too much for me to be involved. I will help on the oyster issue if you flip back over to being opposed to "oyster rapping" as you called it.

Otherwise this has been an entertaining thread.

I have some work to do at the office if you can imagine that, take care.

w thinks data is the little kid from the goonies

[SaltERedneck]

Originally Posted by BIG RED 1983

w thinks data is the little kid from the goonies

pahahhahahahah X 10000000.....

[BIG RED 1983]

w why dont you go do figure 8s around the boats dredging for oysters if you hate it so much you hate pilgrims and politics and you do it to them maybe it will teach them a lesson not to mess up your reefs

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by BIG RED 1983

w why dont you go do figure 8s around the boats dredging for oysters if you hate it so much you hate pilgrims and politics and you do it to them maybe it will teach them a lesson not to mess up your reefs

He doesn’t hate them anymore. His "family friend" who is an office politician (much like the office fishermen that he pushed the limits up that has him so upset) introduced a bill to approve oyster fishing and told him what he needed to support. Since then Mr. Obama I mean W supports the oyster guys. It is now CCA that he wants to figure 8.

[Lake Chuck Duck]

Originally Posted by BIG RED 1983

w why dont you go do figure 8s around the boats dredging for oysters if you hate it so much you hate pilgrims and politics and you do it to them maybe it will teach them a lesson not to mess up your reefs

Its not oyster dredgers messing up the reefs, its office pilgrims dragging their power poles

[adamsfence]

http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/et...BeckThesis.pdf

alot of info here but this is a study on several sites including a comparision of the north and south ends of big lake.......maybe someone smarter than me can interpet it. its on the effects of oyster dredging. i personally don't care either way what ever is best for the lake.....probly both

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by adamsfence

http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/et...BeckThesis.pdf

alot of info here but this is a study on several sites including a comparision of the north and south ends of big lake.......maybe someone smarter than me can interpet it. its on the effects of oyster dredging. i personally don't care either way what ever is best for the lake.....probly both

Great find and a valuable resource to inform this discussion. Thanks for posting the link.

["W"]

1st off I didnt ask for anyone support but one guy on here and he is the only one I need...this is not a boycott bandwagon. I can do all the damage I need in News papers, news stations and Magazines
I don't need an army ...

Btw..did you find that oyster dredging fact

[adamsfence]

Originally Posted by "W"

1st off I didnt ask for anyone support but one guy on here and he is the only one I need...this is not a boycott bandwagon. I can do all the damage I need in News papers, news stations and Magazines
I don't need an army ...

Btw..did you find that oyster dredging fact

i just post one

["W"]

Originally Posted by adamsfence

i just post one

Just read thought that...that says zero about hurting Big Lake....they only thing mention was how north end stays closed which it has always been closed and water temps....lol

[MathGeek]

I think the oyster issue is more important, but when I consider the challenge for data, I have to concede that I have not seen as much data on the oyster issue in Calcasieu as I have on the trout limit issue. My convictions on the oyster issue come more from the historical decline of Galveston Bay and Chesapeake Bay fisheries after the oyster reefs were dramatically over harvested in these systems. However, there were other pollution and urban run-off factors that are not present in Calcasieu. The reason so little data is available in Calcasieu is that the issue only started to become as serious as I believe it is now in 2010. Usually it takes some time for studies to be conducted and the data to become available. So the absence of data is not evidence for the absence of a serious problem. Calcasieu might be more resilient with respect to other estuaries with regards to the decimation of its oyster reefs. I don't think so, but there is too little data at this time.

Since the trout limit change occurred in 2006, there has been more time for data to emerge, though I think the data is not really definitive. The data is rather compelling that the problem is real and raising the limit would probably improve both the overall health of the ecosystem and be likely to increase the number of larger trout by improving growth rates and body condition. However, the available data shows that there is not likely a looming disaster, only an opportunity for improvement.

The oyster issue is probably more important in the long run, and I hope folks keep their eyes open for data and bring hard facts into the discussion.

["W"]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I think the oyster issue is more important, but when I consider the challenge for data, I have to concede that I have not seen as much data on the oyster issue in Calcasieu as I have on the trout limit issue. My convictions on the oyster issue come more from the historical decline of Galveston Bay and Chesapeake Bay fisheries after the oyster reefs were dramatically over harvested in these systems. However, there were other pollution and urban run-off factors that are not present in Calcasieu. The reason so little data is available in Calcasieu is that the issue only started to become as serious as I believe it is now in 2010. Usually it takes some time for studies to be conducted and the data to become available. So the absence of data is not evidence for the absence of a serious problem. Calcasieu might be more resilient with respect to other estuaries with regards to the decimation of its oyster reefs. I don't think so, but there is too little data at this time.

Since the trout limit change occurred in 2006, there has been more time for data to emerge, though I think the data is not really definitive. The data is rather compelling that the problem is real and raising the limit would probably improve both the overall health of the ecosystem and be likely to increase the number of larger trout by improving growth rates and body condition. However, the available data shows that there is not likely a looming disaster, only an opportunity for improvement.

The oyster issue is probably more important in the long run, and I hope folks keep their eyes open for data and bring hard facts into the discussion.

..

Thank You!!!!

[Salty]

Originally Posted by "W"

1st off I didnt ask for anyone support but one guy on here and he is the only one I need...this is not a boycott bandwagon. I can do all the damage I need in News papers, news stations and Magazines
I don't need an army ...

Btw..did you find that oyster dredging fact

W, I love how you use the word "we" so much. If you weren't looking for support (attention)....why did you post a "pole" to find out who was in agreement with you? Jeff Poe knows alot more about the goings-on in Big Lake than you, yet, he does not have facts that 100% prove that the limit reduction was a bad thing. Nobody cares what you think because you are too wishy-washy. You do the very same thing in the Sports Bar time after time. Chicken proved that and you had no defense to state otherwise.

BTW, Will Drost must have had the evidence to get the limit reduced because he sure got it done.

[BIG RED 1983]

Originally Posted by Salty

W, I love how you use the word "we" so much. If you weren't looking for support (attention)....why did you post a "pole" to find out who was in agreement with you? Jeff Poe knows alot more about the goings-on in Big Lake than you, yet, he does not have facts that 100% prove that the limit reduction was a bad thing. Nobody cares what you think because you are too wishy-washy. You do the very same thing in the Sports Bar time after time. Chicken proved that and you had no defense to state otherwise.

BTW, Will Drost must have had the evidence to get the limit reduced because he sure got it done.

No no no no salty you have it all wrong according to w drost had money. If you have not realized yet that is why w started this thread to build up his salty cash so he can have the 25 trout limit put back into law

[Salty]

Originally Posted by BIG RED 1983

No no no no salty you have it all wrong according to w drost had money. If you have not realized yet that is why w started this thread to build up his salty cash so he can have the 25 trout limit put back into law

Will Drost has more influence on Big Lake than 10 W's.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Salty

BTW, Will Drost must have had the evidence to get the limit reduced because he sure got it done.

....