15 Trout Limit Discussion PUBLIC

[MathGeek]

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. While perhaps setting a bad precedent for fisheries management (i.e., making a decision based purely on socioeconomic reasons), this situation affords a unique opportunity to evaluate the response of spotted seatrout to a spatially-explicit (estuarine-scale) regulations change (i.e., adaptive management, sensu Hilborn and Walters 1992).

from Callihan PhD thesis LSU 2011 p. 182

["W"]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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. While perhaps setting a bad precedent for fisheries management (i.e., making a decision based purely on socioeconomic reasons), this situation affords a unique opportunity to evaluate the response of spotted seatrout to a spatially-explicit (estuarine-scale) regulations change (i.e., adaptive management, sensu Hilborn and Walters 1992).

from Callihan PhD thesis LSU 2011 p. 182

Socioeconomics= a very small group of people who are office fisherman, who spend less than 30 days a year on our waters but think they have the right to change the whole ecosystem

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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. While perhaps setting a bad precedent for fisheries management (i.e., making a decision based purely on socioeconomic reasons), this situation affords a unique opportunity to evaluate the response of spotted seatrout to a spatially-explicit (estuarine-scale) regulations change (i.e., adaptive management, sensu Hilborn and Walters 1992).

from Callihan PhD thesis LSU 2011 p. 182

Good find, thanks.

[jchief]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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. While perhaps setting a bad precedent for fisheries management (i.e., making a decision based purely on socioeconomic reasons), this situation affords a unique opportunity to evaluate the response of spotted seatrout to a spatially-explicit (estuarine-scale) regulations change (i.e., adaptive management, sensu Hilborn and Walters 1992).

from Callihan PhD thesis LSU 2011 p. 182

Old news.

["W"]

Originally Posted by jchief

Old news.

Really ....did not know that.....thanks for letting us know......its on my sig.....how could that be

We only quoted 5 times in this thread alone

Great catch

[Salty]

I had hopes that this crap would have died by now.

[jdm4x43732]

Originally Posted by Salty

I had hopes that this crap would have died by now.

He is a man on a mission!!!

[jlincecum]

Originally Posted by Salty

I had hopes that this crap would have died by now.

I know you're drawn to W like a magnet but there's a real easy solution, don't click on this thread.......

["W"]

Originally Posted by Salty

I had hopes that this crap would have died by now.

It will die when two things happen
#1 I win
#2 the office fisherman admit they made a stupid law that they should of listen to people above there pay scale


So unless these happen .....no end in site


I would accept one of the office fisherman to come on here publicly and admit fault

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by "W"

I would accept one of the office fisherman to come on here publicly and admit fault

Do the office fisherman include guides? Cause they sho don't want to see the limit raised!

[jdm4x43732]

But the suggestion is also coming from sports fishers, who wonder if the quality of their trout fishing experience would improve if we had more conservative regulations.
To find an answer to that question, and to reconfirm we are not "fish hogs," I turned to the fisheries biologist at the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
I got a quick, one-word answer: No.
"We've run (computer) scenarios on lowering the creel limits and increasing the size limits, and from our assessments those actions did not noticeably increase the number of fish in the system or the number of big fish," said Joey Shepard, acting deputy assistant secretary of the LDFW, and a biologist who has spent much of his long career studying specks.
But there is also some real-world experience to back up those computers. In 2006, yielding to requests from some guides and sports fishers hoping for more large specks, the state reduced regulations on Calcasieu Lake. The daily limit was dropped to 15, and although the minimum size remained at 12 inches, anglers were restricted to only two fish of more than 25 inches.
The result six years later?
"From our assessment, it did not increase the number of big fish in the system," Shepard reported. "Of course, we didn't anticipate it would."
This certainly seems counterintuitive. After all, logic dictates the fewer of objects you remove from a container, the more you'll have left. And everyone knows if the limit on, say, deer were raised to 10 per day, we wouldn't have many left. For that matter, why is the daily limit on redfish only five?
Well, the answer is that nature works with a different logic, one much more complicated than simple math.
In the case of speckled trout, we're dealing with a species that has adapted to survival on the very mean streets of the Mississippi estuary by reproducing in stupendous numbers for a fairly short lifespan.
Some points to remember:
Natural mortality in this critter-eat-critter world means every speck spawning class loses 25 percent of its surviving members every year. So if you start with 100, you're left with just 75 by Year 1, then just more than 30 by year 3.
"Basically, most of the fish you put back, or leave, will be taken by natural mortality -- predators (including larger specks), disease, weather and environmental conditions," Shepard said.
Specks start reproducing at about 18 months. The spawning season runs from about mid-April to late September, and females typically reproduce ready-to-spawn roe sacks every four to five days. That's "days" with a "d." So the marsh is flooded with trout larvae for five months.
"Because the spawning season lasts so long, and the fish produce so many (larvae), it compensates for any factors that might interrupt reproduction," Shepard said. That dynamic reproduction cycle results in a survival rate that so out-paced the high predation factor, it would be almost impossible for hook-and-line anglers to make a telling difference in their overall numbers, Shepard said.
The state has been on the 25/12 system for almost 20 years, and even with anglers taking home 8 million to 10 million annually, the resource continues to show very little change in abundance.
The agency studies various reduction in creel limits to determine their impact on fishing, and came up with this. Reducing the limit from 25 to 20 would reduce harvest by only 4 percent; from 25 to 15 by 8 percent; from 25 to 10 by 15 percent, and from 25 to 5 by 30 percent.
"Based on those numbers, our assessment is we would have to reduce the daily limit to five before anyone would notice a difference in the fish available," he said.
The daily limit of 25 is seldom reached by most anglers. Studies show that the average catch per trip is fewer than five fish. Obviously, if all of the almost 1 million anglers fishing caught 25 each trip, the limit would have to be lowered.
OK, so what about reducing the minimum size to increase the number of big fish? Shepard said the LDWF ran the numbers and got these results: Increasing the minimum from 12 inches to 15 inches would put 13 percent more fish back in the water; from 12 inches to 16 inches would reduce harvest by nine percent.
But because anglers would be hooking and releasing more fish, the improvement is dampened by an estimated 10 percent release mortality.
"Essentially, we would increase spawning potential by about four percent if we raised the minimum to 15 inches, and six percent if we raised it to 15 inches," he said. "Either way, the improvement would not be noticeable to fishermen."
So for all those anglers worried about the fish-hog label, the advice is: Forgettaboutit! Certainly, if you're not going to eat them (fresh), put 'em back. Otherwise, ignore the critics and enjoy one of the great natural, renewable resources in North America.
And for those guides: If you want lower limits, move to Florida. Or Texas, Mississippi, Alabama .

["W"]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

Do the office fisherman include guides? Cause they sho don't want to see the limit raised!

There is only a few guides on the west side of the lake that don't want 25

I have emails and text from many guides who support 25trout limit


And any guide that wants 15 is because they can't catch a 25 trout limit.... It said in one article on here from one Guide service...they only fill a limit of 75 trout 5% of the time..... Here on the east side they would fill them over way over 5% of the time

[jchief]

Originally Posted by "W"

Really ....did not know that.....thanks for letting us know......its on my sig.....how could that be

We only quoted 5 times in this thread alone

Great catch

So why keep repeating?

If you want to reach some people about this, write a letter to the editor of the papers.

Posting the same stuff here only reaches the people that want to look at it.

I don't care whether the limit is 15 or 25.

["W"]

Originally Posted by jchief

So why keep repeating?

If you want to reach some people about this, write a letter to the editor of the papers.

Posting the same stuff here only reaches the people that want to look at it.

I don't care whether the limit is 15 or 25.

Well that's easy..stop reading or commenting on the subject...because its not going anywhere....

[Salty]

Originally Posted by "W"

Well that's easy..stop reading or commenting on the subject...because its not going anywhere....

You got that right!

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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. While perhaps setting a bad precedent for fisheries management (i.e., making a decision based purely on socioeconomic reasons), this situation affords a unique opportunity to evaluate the response of spotted seatrout to a spatially-explicit (estuarine-scale) regulations change (i.e., adaptive management, sensu Hilborn and Walters 1992).

from Callihan PhD thesis LSU 2011 p. 182

Note that this 2011 PhD dissertation not only says that the rule changes were not justified by biological considerations, it also says that the rule changes afford an opportunity to evaluate the response of the spotted seatrout population to the rule changes.

In other words, the assertion is that current assessments of the spotted seatrout population in Big Lake would be measuring the impact of lowering of the limit and slot rather than other things like hurricane Rita which have been asserted by others in the discussion as potentially confounding factors. The dissertation studies the impact of changes in salinity and meteorological effects of things like tropical storms, and yet it concludes that impact of the regulation change can be measured through standard stock assessment methods.

And this is not only the opinion of the author, Dr. Jody Callihan, as the thesis was carefully reviewed by his thesis advisor, Dr. Jim Cowan, a Professor in the Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences at LSU. Dr. Cowan is a national leader in the biology of estuarine fishes having authored dozens of papers, overseen millions in research dollars, and served on the editoral board of several prestigious fisheries journals. Dr. Callihan's PhD Dissertation was also reviewed and approved by Dr. Jaye E. Cable, now a Professor in Marine Sciences at UNC-Chapel Hill and Dr. James Geaghan, Professor and Dept. Head in the LSU Dept. of Experimental Statistics.

["W"]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Note that this 2011 PhD dissertation not only says that the rule changes were not justified by biological considerations, it also says that the rule changes afford an opportunity to evaluate the response of the spotted seatrout population to the rule changes.

In other words, the assertion is that current assessments of the spotted seatrout population in Big Lake would be measuring the impact of lowering of the limit and slot rather than other things like hurricane Rita which have been asserted by others in the discussion as potentially confounding factors. The dissertation studies the impact of changes in salinity and meteorological effects of things like tropical storms, and yet it concludes that impact of the regulation change can be measured through standard stock assessment methods.

And this is not only the opinion of the author, Dr. Jody Callihan, as the thesis was carefully reviewed by his thesis advisor, Dr. Jim Cowan, a Professor in the Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences at LSU. Dr. Cowan is a national leader in the biology of estuarine fishes having authored dozens of papers, overseen millions in research dollars, and served on the editoral board of several prestigious fisheries journals. Dr. Callihan's PhD Dissertation was also reviewed and approved by Dr. Jaye E. Cable, now a Professor in Marine Sciences at UNC-Chapel Hill and Dr. James Geaghan, Professor and Dept. Head in the LSU Dept. of Experimental Statistics.

You mean these guys know more that the office fisherman who ran to Baton Rouge??? Man that's hard to believe that someone who studies this kind of thing is overlooked by a hand full of people who out of greed want to control the lake





Wait it's Louisiana , Almost forgot