15 Trout Limit Discussion PUBLIC

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

You're a funny little man. So there is no biological data, just opinions of the biologists.

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.

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.

I would say the facts are compelling, though not conclusive.

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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.

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.

I would say the facts are compelling, though not conclusive.

Available data suggests,This suggests, not conclusive. Yes, my point. No real correlation has been made, just assumptions!

Isn't it also well known that the destruction of habitat also has a negative impact on fisheries? For example, the grass carp that effectively killed bass fishing in Caney lake?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

Available data suggests,This suggests, not conclusive. Yes, my point. No real correlation has been made, just assumptions!

There are important differences between conclusive proof and correlations.

Most sound wildlife management decisions are made by a compelling "preponderance of the evidence" rather than conclusive proof that puts the matter "beyond a reasonable doubt." There are several reasons for this:

1. Even in cases where controlled prospective experiments are feasible, hypotheses are rarely absolutely proven in science. Hypotheses can be falsified, but not absolutely verified.
2. Most studies in large ecosystems are retrospective (looking back) rather than prospective (looking forward). Potentially confounding factors can be understood and sometimes mitigated, but not absolutely controlled. It is prohibitively expensive, time consuming, and possibly destructive to repeat the trials many times with varying conditions to isolate the effect of each separate condition.
3. Given the limitations of financial resources, most management professionals try and make decisions based on the best available scientific data on a given ecosystem because the resources are simply not available to gather perfect data for all the systems needing to be managed. Allocating resources to improve the data available for one ecosystem invariably takes money away from improving the data available for managing others.

There are compelling correlations with the limit change in the Calcasieu estuary and the decline in abundance of larger specimens and the decline in body condition (fatness) of the typical specimen.

The available data suggests that raising the limit would decrease the pressure on the spotted seatrout's limited food sources and contribute to an increase in growth rates and body condition. It's not proof, but it is much more compelling than the scientific basis for lowering the limit in the first place, and it represents the preponderance of the evidence that is commonly used in sound scientific wildlife management decisions.

The discussion could be better informed by additional data:

1. Analysis of LDWF weight vs. length data for all available species from 2000 to the present in the Calcasieu estuary to better quantify the relative condition factor of each species over that time period.
2. Analysis of top ten trout weights for all tournaments from 2000 to the present to better quantify the abundance of the larger trout.
3. Acquisition and analysis of weight vs. length data from any available independent sources to quantify the relative condition factor of different species in years when data is available.
4. Analysis of any other data that might be available to assess the stocks and the relative abundance of different species and their food supplies.
5. Analysis of any other data that might be available to quantify variations in growth rates from 2000 to the present.

Even after any proposed limit changes took place, the ongoing discussion and management would be better informed by continuing stock assessments. Using relative condition factor was pioneered in the Calcasieu estuary by Jill Jenkins of the USGS in a 2004 study. This approach is relatively inexpensive to implement compared with other stock assessment methods and usually reveals the relative abundance species to their food sources. An annual assessment of the relative condition factors of several species, along with analysis of the annual tournament data would be much more informative, but a more complete stock assessment would probably be useful every five years, as suggested by Callihan in his 2011 dissertation.

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The discussion could be better informed by additional data:

1. Analysis of LDWF weight vs. length data for all available species from 2000 to the present in the Calcasieu estuary to better quantify the relative condition factor of each species over that time period.
2. Analysis of top ten trout weights for all tournaments from 2000 to the present to better quantify the abundance of the larger trout.
3. Acquisition and analysis of weight vs. length data from any available independent sources to quantify the relative condition factor of different species in years when data is available.
4. Analysis of any other data that might be available to assess the stocks and the relative abundance of different species and their food supplies.
5. Analysis of any other data that might be available to quantify variations in growth rates from 2000 to the present.

Even after any proposed limit changes took place, the ongoing discussion and management would be better informed by continuing stock assessments. Using relative condition factor was pioneered in the Calcasieu estuary by Jill Jenkins of the USGS in a 2004 study. This approach is relatively inexpensive to implement compared with other stock assessment methods and usually reveals the relative abundance species to their food sources. An annual assessment of the relative condition factors of several species, along with analysis of the annual tournament data would be much more informative, but a more complete stock assessment would probably be useful every five years, as suggested by Callihan in his 2011 dissertation.

I agree with this. Also, I really don't care if the limit is 15 or 25. I am very annoyed that a change was implemented without any biological reason whatsoever. Hell to study the affects of the limit reduction, they can do a 5 year study with the limit back at 25 and then study the impact. But keep politics out of it and let the biologists do their jobs.

[Wag]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

I agree with this. Also, I really don't care if the limit is 15 or 25. I am very annoyed that a change was implemented without any biological reason whatsoever. Hell to study the affects of the limit reduction, they can do a 5 year study with the limit back at 25 and then study the impact. But keep politics out of it and let the biologists do their jobs.

Sad, but this is Louisiana, and how things are done, Politics play into everything here and decisions are based on contributions to campaigns and favors to those that contribute and support those that are elected, and not to logical, factual or biological reasoning. If you want to raise the limits back up to 25, go find someone that has contributed a lot of money to someone in power, (someone other that the guy that got it down to 15) and have him put pressure on the law makers to change the limit back to 25 on big lake.....Money talks and Bull**** walks....my 2 cents worth.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Wag

Sad, but this is Louisiana, and how things are done, Politics play into everything here and decisions are based on contributions to campaigns and favors to those that contribute and support those that are elected, and not to logical, factual or biological reasoning. If you want to raise the limits back up to 25, go find someone that has contributed a lot of money to someone in power, (someone other that the guy that got it down to 15) and have him put pressure on the law makers to change the limit back to 25 on big lake.....Money talks and Bull**** walks....my 2 cents worth.

Your 100%. Right ,its sad how a few guys with zero knowledge were able to do this
What's even worst is they used data from another State and area that is no where near the estuary we are


If they want a study we need to enforce 25 limit back for 6 years and them look at the over all facts

[BIG RED 1983]

Originally Posted by "W"

Your 100%. Right ,its sad how a few guys with zero knowledge were able to do this
What's even worst is they used data from another State and area that is no where near the estuary we are


If they want a study we need to enforce 25 limit back for 6 years and them look at the over all facts

They had enough knowledge to know which pockets to line with green backs

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by Wag

Sad, but this is Louisiana, and how things are done, Politics play into everything here and decisions are based on contributions to campaigns and favors to those that contribute and support those that are elected, and not to logical, factual or biological reasoning. If you want to raise the limits back up to 25, go find someone that has contributed a lot of money to someone in power, (someone other that the guy that got it down to 15) and have him put pressure on the law makers to change the limit back to 25 on big lake.....Money talks and Bull**** walks....my 2 cents worth.

It doesn't even have to be a law change. They can change it back to 25 for a 5 year impact study. Then offer up the data for a change if one is warranted.

[Wag]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

It doesn't even have to be a law change. They can change it back to 25 for a 5 year impact study. Then offer up the data for a change if one is warranted.

There ya go....sounds like a good plan, now you need someone with some Political influence to get it done.

[SULPHITE]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

It doesn't even have to be a law change. They can change it back to 25 for a 5 year impact study. Then offer up the data for a change if one is warranted.

a logical statement