East Side your Limit drop is comming

[Salty]

Originally Posted by "W"

Also note the info about Big Lake added!!

http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.s...l#incart_river

Louisiana's speckled trout population has fallen below the level that for years has been used as the conservation standard, according to information provided to NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries.

Responding to a list of emailed questions, saltwater fisheries biologist Harry Blanchet said spawning potential ratio of speckled trout was between 8 and 14 percent the last time it was calculated in 2011.

Even at the high end of the estimate, spawning potential ratio is still well below the previously established conservation standard of 18 percent.

Spawning potential ratio, or SPR, is a number that represents the percentage of biomass for adult members of a particular fish species compared to what would exist in a completely virgin fishery. In this case, department biologists estimate Louisiana has 8 to 14 percent of the mature speckled-trout biomass it would have if the fish were completely off-limits to humans.

In general, when SPR falls below a certain threshold, that particular fishery is unable to sustain itself.

Retired LSU fisheries professor Jerald Horst said we're not necessarily there with speckled trout.

"The truth is that any of these standards are best guesses," he said. "But the number is clearly below the conservation standard of 18."

Horst said that overfishing usually first manifests itself in a smaller number of bigger fish being caught.

"Generally speaking, you'll see fewer big fish at first," he said. "It takes four years to grow a big (speckled trout). If we're cropping more fish at a smaller size, then obviously fewer of them will have the chance to get big."

Chas Champagne believes we may be at the point. The owner of Dockside Bait & Tackle in Slidell has seen a significant decline in the size of fish that cross over his gunwale while fishing the bridges in eastern Lake Pontchartrain.

"From 2000 to 2003, just in the fall, I probably caught 50 6-plus-pound speckled trout," he said. "If you had a calm day, you could go and make a couple hundred casts and almost guarantee a 4-pound trout or better. Now, if you catch a 3-pounder, you start taking pictures.

"I took it for granted. I was 15 to 17 years old. I just figured that's how it would be forever."

Farther to the south, former STAR winner Ed Sexton says there are far fewer big trout in the Venice area than a decade ago.

"I have fished for trout for 15 years, and it's definitely declined from when I first started," he said. "Last year, I caught one trout that was 7 pounds. I can remember 10 years ago, almost every trip when the fishing was good, if you didn't catch a 6- or 7-pound trout, that was unusual."

But Horst said it's impossible to peg the decline on overfishing. Many variables, including weather and river levels, have a tremendous impact on speckled trout reproduction, he said.

Still, it's undeniable that the SPR is falling. Horst said Wildlife & Fisheries has pointed to episodic events in the past to explain away numbers that are below the conservation standard.

"But now the average SPR is below the standard, so now we either have to come up with a different reason or change the standard," he said.

Changing a minimum conservation standard isn't unheard of in science. In fact, it should be part of the norm, Horst said, as better testing methods are developed and more information is gathered.

"There is no clear-cut standard that is 100-percent right all the time," Horst said. "If we treat these numbers as iron-clad standards, that's how we end up with a situation like we have with red snapper. We've got red snapper coming out of our ears. We're gagging on them, but we have a 27-day season."

In his emailed response, Blanchet said Louisiana's SPR estimates are in line with those of Mississippi (6-13 percent) and North Carolina (4-15 percent).

But Horst said, if we are overfishing speckled trout, it isn't any wonder as to why. An avid trout fisherman himself, Horst said anglers have gotten remarkably more efficient at targeting and harvesting trout.

"Without a doubt, fishing pressure is higher," he said. "Not just in numbers of people but in equipment. We have everything from Power-Poles to graphite rods to braided lines to depth finders. It's really something.

"When commercial fishermen went from nylon to monofilament gill nets, it really alarmed all sport fishermen, but it was not one-tenth of the increase in effectiveness that recreational fishing has had in the last four decades."

If the department determines that speckled trout are, in fact, overfished, any changes in regulation will have to be severe, Horst said.

"When the time finally comes that we do reduce creel limits, it won't be to 15. That's not enough," Horst said. "The result would be too small."

That's borne out in numbers Blanchet supplied. According to LDWF research data, 66 percent of anglers catch five or fewer speckled trout per trip, 3 percent catch 10 per trip, 2 percent catch 15 per trip and 4 percent catch 25 per trip.

"Dropping the limit to six would only impact 34 percent of the fishermen," Horst said. "Anglers need to be ready because if the regulation ever changes, it could be a five-, six- or seven-fish limit. You've got to have an impact if you're going to make the change."

Currently, Southwest Louisiana is under a special management regime for speckled trout. Anglers there may harvest only 15 fish per day with no more than two measuring in excess of 25 inches.

That regulation has had very little impact on the fishery there, as the department predicted.

"Our analyses indicated that the results of those regulations would be a small (about 10 percent) change in the harvest, less in stock size," Blanchet wrote.

The measure was pushed by local anglers and implemented by the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. It was not proposed or supported by department biologists.

Horst said at some point, Louisiana will have to change its speckled trout regulations, but he wouldn't venture a guess as to when. Will it be sometime in the next 10 years?

"I don't know," he said. "If the price of gas goes to $17 a gallon, then the answer's no. If our marsh decline causes the fishery to collapse, then the answer's yes. But I've been hearing we're right on the verge of that for 30 years."


I Want to point this out also:
----------------------------------------
Currently, Southwest Louisiana is under a special management regime for speckled trout. Anglers there may harvest only 15 fish per day with no more than two measuring in excess of 25 inches.

That regulation has had very little impact on the fishery there, as the department predicted.

"Our analyses indicated that the results of those regulations would be a small (about 10 percent) change in the harvest, less in stock size," Blanchet wrote.

The measure was pushed by local anglers and implemented by the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. It was not proposed or supported by department biologists.

Sorry, but I don't see any mention of "Big Lake".

[Captain Brian]

In regards to Lake Pontchatrain I think from the mid 90s-early 2000 we were in a "big fish cycle",personally I would take the wait and see approach,another cycle could be right around the corner.What I see out there is patterns are changing,the great wall of Chalmette blocking MRGO changed the plumbing of the area,spillway openings have a longer impact than before.In areas I used to catch small mangrove snapper am now seeing Bass.Too many variables other than fishing pressure.

["W"]

MathGeek, could WL&F afford to put you on pay roll?? And why don't you pursue a job like this ?

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by "W"

MathGeek, could WL&F afford to put you on pay roll?? And why don't you pursue a job like this ?

They already have their own experts on the "payroll", do they need more? It seems like what they need to do is to take action against erosion sice we all know that is an issue, biology degree not required. First your Governor will need to out the large sum of money Bp provided into the estuary as it was designated in the first place.

More state or government jobs is the last thing Louisiana needs.

[Reefman]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

They already have their own experts on the "payroll", do they need more? It seems like what they need to do is to take action against erosion sice we all know that is an issue, biology degree not required. First your Governor will need to out the large sum of money Bp provided into the estuary as it was designated in the first place.

More state or government jobs is the last thing Louisiana needs.

I really like this post!!!!! Give them time and our politicians will rob these funds dry. Need this money to fund the pensions and retirements of guberment jobs! In the end this issue will become totally political based with every coastal representative pegging special pet projects with whatever money is left over from the pillaged funds. We have a golden opportunity to use these funds for stopping the washing away of our coast line along with improving the habitat. I have very little faith that the La. goberment will do the right thing.

[eman]

Originally Posted by "W"

MathGeek, could WL&F afford to put you on pay roll?? And why don't you pursue a job like this ?

They don't listen to the experts they have on the payroll now???

[ckinchen]

Year after year more land is lost in the baratria estuary, sad situation.

["W"]

Reason so much land is lost is due to Man made structures and changing mother nature natural flow.

Will man fix this? No
Will man change this ?No
Man has destroyed our own land ....

And what did we get out of all the land loss on the east side??? New Orleans

[Dink]

Blow the mississippi river levee south of Baton Rouge. Let the river do what it wants......

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by Dink

Blow the mississippi river levee south of Baton Rouge. Let the river do what it wants......

Won't happen though....too many people live south of baton rouge. Not to mention how long it would take for land to build up. Most of the coast is too far gone to save. Just look at the wax lake outlet....it was dug in the 1940's and it took that long for land to build up to what it is today. But that really is the only answer IMO....wax lake area is the only part of the state building land.

[YellaBlazer]

Originally Posted by Dink

Blow the mississippi river levee south of Baton Rouge. Let the river do what it wants......

I don't know about BR, but definitely south of Port Sulphur on both sides of the river.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by YellaBlazer

I don't know about BR, but definitely south of Port Sulphur on both sides of the river.

Yep, the solution is simple but its just dealing with the people. The Coastal Master Plan outlines many of the projects that they are planning. Maybe some of the plan will get going soon

[Captain Brian]

Originally Posted by Dink

Blow the mississippi river levee south of Baton Rouge. Let the river do what it wants......

That's about the size of it,if you really want to fix it.

[Super Spook]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

This^, the squeaky wheel gets the grease and in Louisiana its politics, not science based 'greasing'.

I don't think that a change in limits will do one thing, whether the limit is 5 or 50, take by legal fishing means is not even a drop in the bucket in the overall trout population. These fish grow fast, have lots of little trout at a relatively early age, and can spawn multiple times, so recreational fishing does very little. Habitat is infinitely more important.

One more thing is the oil spill and the Corexit, there are studies out there that are showing impacts of this stuff. I listened to an entymologist talk about not being able to find any insects around the areas where oil was present. It sounds minor, but this is the basis of the food chain. You know that if you ever walk in the marsh, there is no shortage of insects. And also, oil from the Macondo spill washes up on Elmer's and Grand Isle every time there is a storm and will probably be like that for many years

I agree with you and Mathgeek. I have heard several other biologist say the same thing. Mathgeek, if they try to do something stupid with state limits not based on science or facts on the population you need to get involved.

[meaux fishing]

Say what you want but I have every confidence that the state biologists have all the capacity to make the right recommendations. I also know that the head biologist is an avid trout fisherman as he was one of the people that taught me to fish. He also worked out of the grand isle biology station for a long time so is very familiar with that area. I know he will not recommend a limit change unless it is absolutely necessary. What the politicians do is another story however.,,,

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by meaux fishing

Say what you want but I have every confidence that the state biologists have all the capacity to make the right recommendations. I also know that the head biologist is an avid trout fisherman as he was one of the people that taught me to fish. He also worked out of the grand isle biology station for a long time so is very familiar with that area. I know he will not recommend a limit change unless it is absolutely necessary. What the politicians do is another story however.,,,

I agree with this also, it is not the biologists by any means. LDWF has some great staff and Dr. Horst is one of the best and in his article he does mention how limits are set (SPR) and then what the current SPR is and what the SPRs are for other states and how they set their limits. The biologists gather as much data as they can and then they present the data to the Commission and then the Commission decides on the plan. These meetings are at the LDWF headquarters in BR and open to the public. The commissioners vote on the proposals. The commissioners are not wildlife professionals and never have been, they are appointed officials. These are the folks who make the decisions. You can look on wlf.la.gov and check out when the meetings are and what they are proposing for each meeting.

[Kajundave]

10X what Reefman said

[Ray]

Corexit is not as hazardous as people think. And if it wasn't used, there would have been a lot more oil on the beaches and bays.
Just a few bbls of Corexit in billions of bbls of water in the GOM is not as toxic as what the oil companies, menhaden boats and work boats dumped in the GOM in the 60's and 70's, when the fish populations were way higher than now.
In my opinion, non regulated commercial fishing in those days, and killing of Snapper in Shrimp nets is the cause.
Having to throw back dead bycatch on a Shrimp boatis stupid. They should have been able to sell it.
AND, blasting/removing platforms instead of toppling them and making artificial reefs was not so good of an idea either. Fish need habitat or they will move away.

[Ray]

There are several different Corexit formula's.
The oil spill did kill off fish, but the Menhaden numbers have been going down hill long before the spill.
I have a brother in law who is a captain on a pogy boat. His pay has been dwindling over the past 20 years. Less catch, less pay.
There have not been much difference in catch numbers since the spill, but he fishes out of Cameron.

All netting and fishing was shut down towards the East. I agree that there is a lot of tar in Eastern GOM, but not as much inshore. Most is still in deepwater.

[TarponTom]

Watch the interview with the head of the Wisner property who tells them how much oil they are retrieving. Guess you didn't watch the video interview.