Quote:
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