East Side your Limit drop is comming

[YellaBlazer]

Originally Posted by "W"

I would also love to see some evidence that the oil spill hurt the trout ..... Because Venice , Cocodrie , V Bay were not effected at all and Lake P

I don't know about hard evidence, but we've had one of the best trout years in a while this year.

Trout aren't stupid. All they did was move when all this was going on. They flooded Barataria with the diversions, and the trout and bait moved to higher salinities to the west.

No fish will stay in an area that won't support it.

["W"]

Originally Posted by YellaBlazer

I don't know about hard evidence, but we've had one of the best trout years in a while this year.

Trout aren't stupid. All they did was move when all this was going on. They flooded Barataria with the diversions, and the trout and bait moved to higher salinities to the west.

No fish will stay in an area that won't support it.

yep.... but its Bush's fault

And with closing the areas for months from fishing.... Should of stocked up for years

[Reefman]

We've become our own worst enemy. To say that trout fishing is as good as it was 20 years ago is not facing the reality of fishing success, or lack there of, today. The presure placed on our resources of trout is infinitely higher than it was back then. I beleive that fishing presure has indeed impacted the fisheries. BL looks like a parking lot on weekends with all the boats beatin the waters. T Butte can have over 50 boats in a small area on calm days. Diamond not much better. The rigs out of
vermilion looks like LaFonda; you need a number to wait in line to fish live bait. Cocodrie is overcrowded on any given day.There are far more people fishing today than there were in the 80-90s.

History will repeat itself in trout fishing just as it did in bass fishing. There are too many competing for an over fished and over stressed trout population. Again, only my personal observations fishing trout for over forty years. I do agree that 10% of the fishermen out there do catch the majority of the fish. However there are 20 times better fishermen now than there were 20 years ago.

We are the custodians of our resources today. Every effort should be made to acknowledge what problems face our natural resources and act accordingly. Responsibilities lay with us to protect them. We need factual information by our WLF along with coastal scientific studies specific to trout populations made public. I just can't see our trout fishing taking the pounding it has over the past ten years continue without a colapse in this fisheries. Just MHO.....

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by Reefman

We've become our own worst enemy. To say that trout fishing is as good as it was 20 years ago is not facing the reality of fishing success, or lack there of, today. The presure placed on our resources of trout is infinitely higher than it was back then. I beleive that fishing presure has indeed impacted the fisheries. BL looks like a parking lot on weekends with all the boats beatin the waters. T Butte can have over 50 boats in a small area on calm days. Diamond not much better. The rigs out of
vermilion looks like LaFonda; you need a number to wait in line to fish live bait. Cocodrie is overcrowded on any given day.There are far more people fishing today than there were in the 80-90s.

History will repeat itself in trout fishing just as it did in bass fishing. There are too many competing for an over fished and over stressed trout population. Again, only my personal observations fishing trout for over forty years. I do agree that 10% of the fishermen out there do catch the majority of the fish. However there are 20 times better fishermen now than there were 20 years ago.

We are the custodians of our resources today. Every effort should be made to acknowledge what problems face our natural resources and act accordingly. Responsibilities lay with us to protect them. We need factual information by our WLF along with coastal scientific studies specific to trout populations made public. I just can't see our trout fishing taking the pounding it has over the past ten years continue without a colapse in this fisheries. Just MHO.....

Well said

[Bluechip]

Originally Posted by Montauk17

Well said

X 2 ...

[YellaBlazer]

Originally Posted by Reefman

We've become our own worst enemy. To say that trout fishing is as good as it was 20 years ago is not facing the reality of fishing success, or lack there of, today. The presure placed on our resources of trout is infinitely higher than it was back then. I beleive that fishing presure has indeed impacted the fisheries. BL looks like a parking lot on weekends with all the boats beatin the waters. T Butte can have over 50 boats in a small area on calm days. Diamond not much better. The rigs out of
vermilion looks like LaFonda; you need a number to wait in line to fish live bait. Cocodrie is overcrowded on any given day.There are far more people fishing today than there were in the 80-90s.

History will repeat itself in trout fishing just as it did in bass fishing. There are too many competing for an over fished and over stressed trout population. Again, only my personal observations fishing trout for over forty years. I do agree that 10% of the fishermen out there do catch the majority of the fish. However there are 20 times better fishermen now than there were 20 years ago.

We are the custodians of our resources today. Every effort should be made to acknowledge what problems face our natural resources and act accordingly. Responsibilities lay with us to protect them. We need factual information by our WLF along with coastal scientific studies specific to trout populations made public. I just can't see our trout fishing taking the pounding it has over the past ten years continue without a colapse in this fisheries. Just MHO.....

I don't disagree that things aren't what they used to be 20 years ago. That's a painful reality. But over on our end, the decline is more environmental than anything. 20 years ago, there were nice, pretty islands dotting the bay. They all held trout. A combination of storms and a choked off river have cost us a lot of essential trout habitat. Big Island, Cat Island, Manilla Village... the list goes on. Trout will not stay in an environment that will not support them.

As far as having 20x better fishermen now, I highly doubt that when the average guy catches less than 10 trout per trip. The same 10% will catch all the fish.

Also, there are no guides over in Lafitte that use live bait. All of the trout are caught on artificial.

[Reefman]

Originally Posted by YellaBlazer

I don't disagree that things aren't what they used to be 20 years ago. That's a painful reality. But over on our end, the decline is more environmental than anything. 20 years ago, there were nice, pretty islands dotting the bay. They all held trout. A combination of storms and a choked off river have cost us a lot of essential trout habitat. Big Island, Cat Island, Manilla Village... the list goes on. Trout will not stay in an environment that will not support them.

As far as having 20x better fishermen now, I highly doubt that when the average guy catches less than 10 trout per trip. The same 10% will catch all the fish.

Also, there are no guides over in Lafitte that use live bait. All of the trout are caught on artificial.

I think this applies to most of our coastal waters. Check out Montauk's post...scarey. Enviromental issues have played an ever increasing role in fish dynamics. Our waters cannot support what was once thriving estuaries that were growing until we started building levees everywhere.

Its all relative Blazer...there are 20 times more fishermen out here now which also raises the number to 20 times good fishermen.

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by Reefman

I think this applies to most of our coastal waters. Check out Montauk's post...scarey. Enviromental issues have played an ever increasing role in fish dynamics. Our waters cannot support what was once thriving estuaries that were growing until we started building levees everywhere.

Its all relative Blazer...there are 20 times more fishermen out here now which also raises the number to 20 times good fishermen.

Fish don't need habitat....cause "W" said so

[YellaBlazer]

Originally Posted by Reefman

I think this applies to most of our coastal waters. Check out Montauk's post...scarey. Enviromental issues have played an ever increasing role in fish dynamics. Our waters cannot support what was once thriving estuaries that were growing until we started building levees everywhere.

Its all relative Blazer...there are 20 times more fishermen out here now which also raises the number to 20 times good fishermen.

Agreed. It's sad to watch what's going on down here. Small islands that held trout in the springtime are gone by the fall. It's like having to re-learn the area all over again.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Reefman

We've become our own worst enemy. To say that trout fishing is as good as it was 20 years ago is not facing the reality of fishing success, or lack there of, today. The presure placed on our resources of trout is infinitely higher than it was back then. I beleive that fishing presure has indeed impacted the fisheries. BL looks like a parking lot on weekends with all the boats beatin the waters. T Butte can have over 50 boats in a small area on calm days. Diamond not much better. The rigs out of
vermilion looks like LaFonda; you need a number to wait in line to fish live bait. Cocodrie is overcrowded on any given day.There are far more people fishing today than there were in the 80-90s.

We are the custodians of our resources today. Every effort should be made to acknowledge what problems face our natural resources and act accordingly. Responsibilities lay with us to protect them. We need factual information by our WLF along with coastal scientific studies specific to trout populations made public. I just can't see our trout fishing taking the pounding it has over the past ten years continue without a colapse in this fisheries. Just MHO.....

We are our own worst enemies if we insist on managing wildlife with anecdotal opinions of anglers rather than comprehensive and sound scientific data and valid stock assessments.

Human pressure on spotted seatrout has increased, but pressure from all other natural predators on seatrout has decreased substantially. Most prey species tend to move to areas where there is more food and less threat from predators. The expansion of oil platforms in the Gulf provides more open water habitat than ever, and the nutrient loading from the Mississippi river has increased the biomass of their prey between four and sixfold. Combined with the decrease in sharks in open water and the increase in anglers inshore suggest that significant fractions of the seatrout populations are simply spending more time in the open Gulf where there are fewer predators and more prey.

The spotted seatrout is much more flexible than other inshore species with respect to acceptable habitat, and it is unlikely that human harvest provide the most significant life history bottleneck. Habitat use does not necessarily imply habitat dependence. Concluding that a wildife population is threatened because they are not in the same place where they used to be has been proven to be bad science time and again. Whitetail deer populations have shifted over the decades from wild woodlands to prefer farmland and suburbia. Red Snapper have shifted their population from the eastern Gulf of Mexico to the northern and western Gulf of Mexico. Spotted seatrout may have simply learned to avoid the inshore predators in favor of safer habitat with more abundant food.

[Reefman]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

We are our own worst enemies if we insist on managing wildlife with anecdotal opinions of anglers rather than comprehensive and sound scientific data and valid stock assessments.

Human pressure on spotted seatrout has increased, but pressure from all other natural predators on seatrout has decreased substantially. Most prey species tend to move to areas where there is more food and less threat from predators. The expansion of oil platforms in the Gulf provides more open water habitat than ever, and the nutrient loading from the Mississippi river has increased the biomass of their prey between four and sixfold. Combined with the decrease in sharks in open water and the increase in anglers inshore suggest that significant fractions of the seatrout populations are simply spending more time in the open Gulf where there are fewer predators and more prey.

The spotted seatrout is much more flexible than other inshore species with respect to acceptable habitat, and it is unlikely that human harvest provide the most significant life history bottleneck. Habitat use does not necessarily imply habitat dependence. Concluding that a wildife population is threatened because they are not in the same place where they used to be has been proven to be bad science time and again. Whitetail deer populations have shifted over the decades from wild woodlands to prefer farmland and suburbia. Red Snapper have shifted their population from the eastern Gulf of Mexico to the northern and western Gulf of Mexico. Spotted seatrout may have simply learned to avoid the inshore predators in favor of safer habitat with more abundant food.

I always look forward to your posts on these topics MathGeek. Emotional and personal opinions have no weight in proper mangement of a fisheries. Most here feel that there are problems facing the future of trout fishing. To address this issue we must gather any and all information to make sound judgements towards solutions based on scientific data and studies geared towards the trout species....and no, I don't think it is just a matter of fishing pressure but rather multiple issues involving habitat destruction, errosion and loss of coastal estuaries along with the technological advances made recently in fishing gear (electronics).

[Duck Butter]

The limit of trout is probably the very least important thing for the east side fisheries. We are losing land at an incredible rate. You can see it for yourself if you just drive over the new bridge in Leeville. The old roads go under water often, and the places you caught fish the year before look different each year due to erosion and subsidence. We better all take good pictures every tiime you go to Grand Isle because it is going to look different even in a decade. Even Elmer's Island looks different from what it looked like 10 or 15 years ago due to sea level rise. Its very noticeable

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

The limit of trout is probably the very least important thing for the east side fisheries. We are losing land at an incredible rate. You can see it for yourself if you just drive over the new bridge in Leeville. The old roads go under water often, and the places you caught fish the year before look different each year due to erosion and subsidence. We better all take good pictures every tiime you go to Grand Isle because it is going to look different even in a decade. Even Elmer's Island looks different from what it looked like 10 or 15 years ago due to sea level rise. Its very noticeable

I agree. Over harvest of spotted seatrout is about the least likely factor to have a long term negative impact on the estuary and lowering limits in the absence of careful, thorough, published, and reviewed stock assessments is tilting at windmills because limit changes have not been shown to produce any benefit.

In contrast, erosion, saltwater intrusion, conversion of marsh type, loss of oyster reefs, and industrial contamination are the bigger issues facing most of the estuaries in southern Louisiana. However, because of high fecundity, fast growth rates, early maturity, and less dependence on marsh habitat, the spotted seatrout has a life history that is much less likely to be strongly impacted by these factors than other inshore and nearshore species.

At present, it is unclear whether observations of fewer trophy spotted seatrout in some estuaries that have previously demonstrated outstanding trophy potential are due to loss of oyster reef and other habitat issues or whether reduction in the trophy potential is due to overpopulated smaller seatrout (due to underharvest). Addressing this question would likely require a thorough stock assessment both of spotted seatrout as well as their major food sources. A spotted seatrout stock assessment should include both fisheries dependent and fisheries independent survey methods, surveys of larval and juvenile stages, analysis of weight, length, body condition, and growth of both juveniles and adults.

Without a sound stock assessment, it is unclear whether a limit reduction would help or hurt the stocks. If the spotted seatrout are currently overpopulated relative to their available food supply in a given estuary, then reducing limits will exacerbate the problem by increasing pressure on the available food supply. If the spotted seatrout are underpopulated then limit reductions may be necessary as a part of a management plan.

You can think of it this way: if the reduction of an estuary's trophy trout potential is due to overharvest, then a stock assessment will show a much smaller proportion of older fish, but the fish that are present will be plump and fast growing because there is relatively abundant forage for the fish that are present. In contrast, if the reduction of an estuary's trophy trout potential is due to overpopulation relative to the food supply, then a thorough stock assessment will show slower growth rates, thinner fish, and declining body condition with the age and length of the fish that are present. The sampling protocol is something of a challenge and would need to include significant sampling in the nearshore Gulf waters adjacent to the estuary to be sure because it would be likely that spotted seatrout would be migrating to the Gulf at earlier ages in search of food if food is limiting their growth in the estuary.

I understand the temptation to lower limits because it is an easy answer and at least represents "doing something" when faced with the concern of the future of a fishery. Unfortunately, government types are often too quick to give into this temptation because rule changes are cheaper and easier than thorough stock assessments and good science. The esturaries and future of the fisheries would be better served if we pressured the government types to conduct, publish, and explain thorough stock assessments rather than pressuring for rule changes in their absence.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I understand the temptation to lower limits because it is an easy answer and at least represents "doing something" when faced with the concern of the future of a fishery. Unfortunately, government types are often too quick to give into this temptation because rule changes are cheaper and easier than thorough stock assessments and good science. The esturaries and future of the fisheries would be better served if we pressured the government types to conduct, publish, and explain thorough stock assessments rather than pressuring for rule changes in their absence.

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

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

The limit of trout is probably the very least important thing for the east side fisheries. We are losing land at an incredible rate. You can see it for yourself if you just drive over the new bridge in Leeville. The old roads go under water often, and the places you caught fish the year before look different each year due to erosion and subsidence. We better all take good pictures every tiime you go to Grand Isle because it is going to look different even in a decade. Even Elmer's Island looks different from what it looked like 10 or 15 years ago due to sea level rise. Its very noticeable

I agree, well said. I only fish the Grand Isle and Leeville area once a year now since we moved but for 15 years we fished there almost every weekend. When we go back the changes we see now from erosion are both astounding and very disturbing. I have found from talking with several guides and residents of the island, generally speaking fishing in that area is not as strong as it once was. Oil spill related? Limits being to high? Erosion? Maybe a function of all three? I am a CPA not a biologist so I won't speculate but a full assessement with subsequent action would seem to be needed.

["W"]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

We are our own worst enemies if we insist on managing wildlife with anecdotal opinions of anglers rather than comprehensive and sound scientific data and valid stock assessments.

Human pressure on spotted seatrout has increased, but pressure from all other natural predators on seatrout has decreased substantially. Most prey species tend to move to areas where there is more food and less threat from predators. The expansion of oil platforms in the Gulf provides more open water habitat than ever, and the nutrient loading from the Mississippi river has increased the biomass of their prey between four and sixfold. Combined with the decrease in sharks in open water and the increase in anglers inshore suggest that significant fractions of the seatrout populations are simply spending more time in the open Gulf where there are fewer predators and more prey.

The spotted seatrout is much more flexible than other inshore species with respect to acceptable habitat, and it is unlikely that human harvest provide the most significant life history bottleneck. Habitat use does not necessarily imply habitat dependence. Concluding that a wildife population is threatened because they are not in the same place where they used to be has been proven to be bad science time and again. Whitetail deer populations have shifted over the decades from wild woodlands to prefer farmland and suburbia. Red Snapper have shifted their population from the eastern Gulf of Mexico to the northern and western Gulf of Mexico. Spotted seatrout may have simply learned to avoid the inshore predators in favor of safer habitat with more abundant food.

I kind of agree with this about trout moving to less pressure areas like offshore. I stated above that lots of trout never come inland just make offshore and beaches there habitat
On another note our trout study showed our trout seldom left the estuary. Also as Jeff Poe stated about big lake, we don't have the pressure like we did 8-10 years ago. Anglers have become more spread out and no longer see 50 -70 boats on long point , commissary or wash out like before. Trout do get resting time more now than before .