15 Trout Limit Discussion PUBLIC

[ckinchen]

Cca is a public organization, w if you want to blame them for what you believe is a decrease in the number of harvested big trout then do what you feel you need to do. What I won't allow is for you to blame X person that is not a public figure for it. You will have to work around those guidelines and when you start smashing the cca it becomes a political discussion and that is why the mods moved you earlier post.

And we move on.....

["W"]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

Cca is a public organization, w if you want to blame them for what you believe is a decrease in the number of harvested big trout then do what you feel you need to do. What I won't allow is for you to blame X person that is not a public figure for it. You will have to work around those guidelines and when you start smashing the cca it becomes a political discussion and that is why the mods moved you earlier post.

And we move on.....

Not one time was the CCA bashed in this ......I support the CCA..Pay my dues.....Not going to bash them or let anyone else bash them....

Its a small group who did this...Not any organization

[Salty]

Originally Posted by "W"

Not one time was the CCA bashed in this ......I support the CCA..Pay my dues.....Not going to bash them or let anyone else bash them....

Its a small group who did this...Not any organization

W, you need to get your facts skrate. When you first began this "flip the limit" campaign....you publicly called out Chas Drost and any other member of the CCA that had anything to do with destroying your lake. I could look that up for ya, but, I have a feeling you know what I'm talking about.

Not that it's a personal matter with me, but, I have tried to carry on a rational conversation with you about this. Calling Casey and Daniel "office fishermen" is more immature than you could ever be expected to comprehend. How can anyone take you seriously?

["W"]

Originally Posted by Salty

W, you need to get your facts skrate. When you first began this "flip the limit" campaign....you publicly called out Chas Drost and any other member of the CCA that had anything to do with destroying your lake. I could look that up for ya, but, I have a feeling you know what I'm talking about.

Not that it's a personal matter with me, but, I have tried to carry on a rational conversation with you about this. Calling Casey and Daniel "office fishermen" is more immature than you could ever be expected to comprehend. How can anyone take you seriously?

LMAO...#1 Yes I called OUT CD for him to post us some Facts..He was there I was not

#2 I never bashed the CCA

#3 I never called Danial or Casey office fisherman....(they took that there own way)

I said the ones who ran to baton rouge to push this BS were office fisherman and this comes from way more than little me....(even thought you would like it to be)

Im saying do tell me or anyone who spends lots of time on the water that we don't know what the hell where talking about when we see it all the time

[Salty]

Originally Posted by "W"

LMAO...#1 Yes I called OUT CD for him to post us some Facts..He was there I was not

#2 I never bashed the CCA

#3 I never called Danial or Casey office fisherman....(they took that there own way)

I said the ones who ran to baton rouge to push this BS were office fisherman and this comes from way more than little me....(even thought you would like it to be)

Im saying do tell me or anyone who spends lots of time on the water that we don't know what the hell where talking about when we see it all the time

OK, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. There.

You have a theory. That's all it is...a theory. I'm sure this theory has been talked about loooong before you took the credit for it. You have no facts to back up your theory. So, therefore...it's just a theory.

I do not disagree that the limit should not be reversed. My arguement is that you are guilty of the very same thing you're accusing the ones of that changed it in the first place....a lack of facts.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Salty

OK, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. There.

You have a theory. That's all it is...a theory. I'm sure this theory has been talked about loooong before you took the credit for it. You have no facts to back up your theory. So, therefore...it's just a theory.

I do not disagree that the limit should not be reversed. My argument is that you are guilty of the very same thing you're accusing the ones of that changed it in the first place....a lack of facts.

No I'm actually I'm the 1st one who has talked about it....now it has spread and opened eyes of other people..

Don't you find it funny that no one can post one fact of why the limit was changed

I can post facts that our SPR #s are healthy enough to support a 25 trout limit.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by "W"

No I'm actually I'm the 1st one who has talked about it....now it has spread and opened eyes of other people..

Don't you find it funny that no one can post one fact of why the limit was changed

I can post facts that our SPR #s are healthy enough to support a 25 trout limit.

W, you can post numbers that suggest......not prove. There is a big difference in facts and numbers. Every number that you come up with can be argued in reverse.

No, you are not the first one that has "talked" about "it". You might be the first one that has posted a campaign on the interweb. I can tell you right now that it's gonna take more than Salty Cajun to get it overturned. If those guys really cared what you thought....they'd have invited you to the meeting.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Salty

You have a theory. That's all it is...a theory. I'm sure this theory has been talked about loooong before you took the credit for it. You have no facts to back up your theory. So, therefore...it's just a theory.

I do not disagree that the limit should not be reversed. My arguement is that you are guilty of the very same thing you're accusing the ones of that changed it in the first place....a lack of facts.

W's theory (as I understand it) has two main parts:

1. There was no scientific basis to change the limit from 25 to 15.
2. The Calcasieu estuary would be more likely to produce more large trout if the limit were changed back from 15 to 25.

In support of part 1 (no scientific basis for limit change to 15), it has been pointed out in W's thread that:

1A. The original rule change was motivated by political rather than scientific factors.
1B. LDWF biologists openly stated that there was no biological need for the rule change.
1C. An LSU PhD Thesis states: Stock assessments periodically conducted by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), the agency that assesses, manages, and protects the state’s fisheries resources, suggest that Louisiana’s spotted seatrout population is abundant, in good health, and not overfished (LDWF 1997; Blanchet et al. 2001). Indeed, fishing regulations for the recreational sector have remained unchanged since 1988, except for the recent (2006) implementation of more stringent creel and size limits in the southwestern portion of the state (Cameron and Calcasieu parishes), which was largely due to socio-economic factors rather than compromised productivity of the stock.
See: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/et...lihan_diss.pdf

I think there were even more facts brought out into the discussion in support for W's theory. But the most telling thing (in my opinion) is that with such a long discussion, no one really brought anything approaching a scientific argument to the table in support of the limit change to 15. I am also underwhelmed with a state agency refuses to share it's data, especially if the data are likely to support the theory that a rule change occurred at the same time as a sharp decline in the fishery.

[MathGeek]

In support of part 2 of W's theory (a limit change back to 25 would produce more bigger trout), it has been pointed out in W's thread that:

2A. An angler who fishes the estuary over 100 days a year is seeing far fewer large trout than before the limit change.
2B. The tournaments since the limit change in 2006 are recording far fewer of the largest trout than the tournaments before 2006.
2C. The available data suggest that while the trout in the Calcasieu estuary were fatter than the Louisiana average before 2006, the trout are thinner than the Louisiana average after 2006. This suggests an overabundance of trout relative to their food sources after the limit change. It is well known in fisheries science that reducing a population of fish relative to their food sources will probably produce faster growth and larger fish.

There were probably additional facts that I am not remembering right now, but the totality of the facts are rather compelling, though not definitive.