#381
|
||||
|
||||
|
#382
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Also the only guide service I saw on the lake that did not support the reduction was Jeff Poe and big lake guide service. It was far from one guide service that was pushing this. This guy I know would beat you in a fish off by the way and it woudln't be close. Not that it matters or anything but I thoguht your ego could use another kick in the mid section. I am glad to see that your computer is now working and the standard "25 or bust" no longer shows up. Now maybe you can answer some of the questions that have been asked. |
#383
|
||||
|
||||
I think you are very close in your thoughts on this regarding the mindset of those involved.
|
#384
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Preserving the trout resource ultimately means preserving the habitat and food sources on which the trout depend. Data shows that the spotted seatrout in Calcasieu estuary are thinner and growing more slowly than they were before the limit change in 2006. The most likely explanation is that there are more trout relative to their available food sources than there used to be. Spotted seatrout in the estuary used to be fatter than the statewide average. After the change in the limits, the data show they are thinner than the Louisiana average. Some have suggested that greedy/lazy guides may have supported lowering the limits so they would only have to help clients catch 15 trout per day rather than 25 which would take considerably less time and less gas and allow them to fit in more trips in a week. |
#385
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#386
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I have heard a rumor and this is strictly a rumor not from anyone I know or anyone involved in Baton Rouge that part of the desire to see the limit go down was to try and help reduce some of the pressure on the lake. The thought was that Texas fishermen may not have been as willing to drive all the way to Lake Charles for only 5 more fish than they could catch in their own water. I do not believe that theory worked but again that rumor was not from anyone that was involved. My belief is that those that made this decsion did so becuase they saw the signfiicant increase in pressure on the lake and they were concerned about the long term future of the estuary with the increased pressure. These people like all of us I'm sure want their grandkids to enjoy fishing on big lake. Maybe they were wrong, I personally believe that are a number of factors in play regarding big trout and we would need more data to prove that such a theory were in fact correct. All you guys can do is bring your data and concerns to the LDWLF and possibly the CCA and see how they feel. Like I have said before if as a group you/we want to take on the Oyster harvesting issue, I would support that cause and get behind it. I am not convinced that 15 v/s 25 makes a great difference either way and I am more concerned about oysters in the lake which long term I believe is the 800lb gorilla in the room. That and how the weir system is managed. |
#387
|
||||
|
||||
I dont care about 12" trout and how many i want bigggguns....this thread is pointless without any actions taken....good day mate....
|
#388
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
How do you address the fact that most people don't catch 15 trout much less 25 trout? |
#389
|
||||
|
||||
You are right about that, it was pointless 19 pages ago. All we are doing is going back down memory lane and talkign about history......
|
#390
|
||||
|
||||
Every time I go to big lake I keep 100's of trout n I own 17 oyster boats so suck it !
|
#391
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Speakin' of trout limits......you 'bout ready to bust out them lights, Casey? My wife has promised me a couple days off. |
#392
|
||||
|
||||
It is about that time, just let me know when. I just got the boat back two weeks ago it is ready to go.
|
#393
|
||||
|
||||
We can all point a finger at something. But until something is written on paper, and pushed, nothing will happen. I believe that was the plan 19 pages ago. Sure we can say the lake is overpopulated and not enough bait, then that leads to the weirs.
|
#394
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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 or oyster harvesting 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. Quote:
With respect to whether or not it is a wise idea to change the limits back to 25, the cause(s) of the decline in average body condition and growth rates are not particularly important. Thinning the herd so there are less trout relative to their food supply is a sound management strategy given the fact that there are currently too many trout relative to the available food. The majority of fish are caught by the minority of anglers. If raising the limit to 25 doesn't bring the population under control sufficiently to restore historical growth rates and fatness of trout in the estuary, then further steps can be considered. |
#395
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Waltrip's Saltwater Guide Service jeremy@geaux-outdoors.com https://m.facebook.com/waltrip.guideservice?id=148838538646862&_rdr |
#396
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#397
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I'm glad you took the time ..if he was that lazy to read back at all the facts ,, I just ignore those
__________________
Waltrip's Saltwater Guide Service jeremy@geaux-outdoors.com https://m.facebook.com/waltrip.guideservice?id=148838538646862&_rdr |
#398
|
||||
|
||||
Do you know how much sleep I could get if it weren't for all this back and forth mess??? I would just hate to miss anything.
25 or bust |
#399
|
||||
|
||||
Seems like it is about time to close this thread, the horse is dead. Most agree there was no study or true science involved in the reduction. The group is split on rather or not they should go back now and try to do something about it. Salty Cajun will only fight the oyster issue or weir management so I think we are done here unless you guys want to continue for 20 more pages which is fine as well. Those that want to do something about it will follow W to Baton Rouge and the rest of us will work in our office or at least be office fishermen and see how it goes.
Hopefuly W's political connection Dan Morrish his "family friend" does not take a stand on this against the increase or those of your following W will find yourselves alone on the front line. If history is an indicator he will do a 180 like he did on the oyster issue and fight against you guys. Of course he will never admit he changed sides, you just have to figure that out yourselves. Oh and let's not forget he is better than 99% of you, and you guys have no voice becuase you do not fish 15 or more days per month, not my words those are his, I think that covers it. Thanks everyone for your contributions. |
#400
|
|||
|
|||
You're a funny little man. So there is no biological data, just opinions of the biologists.
|
Bookmarks |
|
|