Thank You

[Natural Light Kid]

Originally Posted by "W"

Yes I was a CCA member and yes I did support the CCA , but I learned quickly the CCA is nothing but a social event where guys can get away from the wife once a year and say it's for the fishing


You look around and all you see is people you never see on the water !! But hey it's cool to be CCA


Like Mathgeek said you can write letters to your senators and WL&F ( I prefer emails)

You can still support the CCA and spend you $50 a year and watch nothing unfold here on big lake and if that's cool with you that's your money


I rather talk to other chains of commands who don't have big money individuals from Lake Charles telling them what to do !!



Chenier Energy is more fired up about helping this lake than our own CCA

Chenier had done more for the lake than the CCA

Who, in particular, do you suggest I write? What am I supposed to say? I don't have the answers. Also, what has Cheniere done? I haven't heard of anything. Glad to here they are stepping up.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Natural Light Kid

Who, in particular, do you suggest I write? What am I supposed to say? I don't have the answers. Also, what has Cheniere done? I haven't heard of anything. Glad to here they are stepping up.

Stand your ground on sound evidence that oyster dredging is hurting our lake

WL&F studies show the massive decline ever since oyster dredging was allowed


We have more hard evidence that Oyster dredging is hurting us than they had on Trout and 3tail

[BassYakR]

Originally Posted by "W"

We have more hard evidence that Oyster dredging is hurting us than they had on Trout and 3tail

And CCA still wont help to fight the issue!

[Natural Light Kid]

Originally Posted by "W"

Stand your ground on sound evidence that oyster dredging is hurting our lake

WL&F studies show the massive decline ever since oyster dredging was allowed


We have more hard evidence that Oyster dredging is hurting us than they had on Trout and 3tail

Is there somewhere I can see this evidence?

[ifsteve]

W

To say that since there is no scientific data, and I will take your word for that since I have no reason to believe otherwise, you are a fool, from a scientific perspective to say that there should be no limit.

Any scientist worth a **** will tell you the same thing. When you have no data you take the scientifically cautious approach which in this case would be some type of limit. Could it end up being more restrictive than needed? Certainly. Could it end up being less restrictive than needed. Certainly. But you at least have established some baseline that is safer than a free for all.

["W"]

Originally Posted by ifsteve

W

To say that since there is no scientific data, and I will take your word for that since I have no reason to believe otherwise, you are a fool, from a scientific perspective to say that there should be no limit.

Any scientist worth a **** will tell you the same thing. When you have no data you take the scientifically cautious approach which in this case would be some type of limit. Could it end up being more restrictive than needed? Certainly. Could it end up being less restrictive than needed. Certainly. But you at least have established some baseline that is safer than a free for all.

Ok so how do you justify putting a limit on a fish who 1st off does not reproduce in La
does not live in La
And is only allowed to be targeted 2 months out of the year most of the time ?


Putting an 18inch Mim is like putting a 25inch Mim on trout

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by ifsteve

W

To say that since there is no scientific data, and I will take your word for that since I have no reason to believe otherwise, you are a fool, from a scientific perspective to say that there should be no limit.

Triple tail stocks have thrived very well in Louisiana waters without any limit.

Why is one suddenly a fool for thinking that a policy that has succeeded for decades will continue to succeed?

Where is the scientific data showing that the stocks are threatened if a limit is not imposed?

Is one a fool for suggesting other species do not need a limit? Should we impose a limit on hardheads? Gafftops? Croaker? White trout?

Does every species need an arbitrarily set limit?

Species whose stocks can reasonably be shown to be in likely danger from fishing pressure can and should have limits. Species whose stocks have been healthy for decades with no limit and are likely to continue to be healthy for decades are not in need of arbitrarily imposed limits. Determining the health of a stock (in order to impose a limit) should include a quantitative stock assessment and evaluation of all the available data.

[OnePunchRex]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Triple tail stocks have thrived very well in Louisiana waters without any limit.

Why is one suddenly a fool for thinking that a policy that has succeeded for decades will continue to succeed?

Where is the scientific data showing that the stocks are threatened if a limit is not imposed?

Is one a fool for suggesting other species do not need a limit? Should we impose a limit on hardheads? Gafftops? Croaker? White trout?

Does every species need an arbitrarily set limit?

Species whose stocks can reasonably be shown to be in likely danger from fishing pressure can and should have limits. Species whose stocks have been healthy for decades with no limit and are likely to continue to be healthy for decades are not in need of arbitrarily imposed limits. Determining the health of a stock (in order to impose a limit) should include a quantitative stock assessment and evaluation of all the available data.

How well are the tripletail stocks "thriving" if y'all can't catch a limit of 18" fish? Go to Texas and it's common to catch limits of 18 pound fish. 18" fish are babies.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by OnePunchRex

How well are the tripletail stocks "thriving" if y'all can't catch a limit of 18" fish? Go to Texas and it's common to catch limits of 18 pound fish. 18" fish are babies.

Tripletail are only susceptible to being caught at all for a short time each summer due to their habits. Whether or not you get into a group of smaller ones or a group of larger ones just depends on where you are fishing and which size group one happens to run into.

Reports from a few anglers over a short number of fishing days does not constitute a valid sample of length frequencies, so any inferences regarding the abundance of larger fish is invalid. It's like running into dink trout for a few days in a row and then claiming that there are not many large trout because you keep catching dinks. Being a pelagic species, tripletail are spread over many thousands of square miles of Louisiana waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Running into a few groups dominated by 16-18" fish says nothing about the stocks of larger fish.

Straightforward stock assessment techniques exist for determining length frequencies, spawning stock biomass, reproduction rates, etc. for almost any desired species. This was not done before establishing a limit on tripletail, nor was available data on this species on Louisiana waters consulted before establishing a limit.

The reports on guides catching nice big tripletail (but too short to keep) were intended to emphasize that this foolish and unsupported rule is hurting guides and anglers, especially when combined with the foolish and unsuppported red snapper regulations. There are a number of occasions this time of year when getting into a mess of tripletail can salvage a trip that might otherwise be relatively unproductive (due to the snapper regs). Rather than going home satisfied with a box full of tripletail, a lot of anglers returned to the dock empty handed when they could have shared in Louiaiana's bountiful supply of tripletail. In the long run, this will hurt license sales and guide businesses, as well as supporting industries (fuel, ice, bait, tackle, lodging, etc.)

Damaging these industries by imposing unscientific limits is foolish.

[noodle creek]

Originally Posted by OnePunchRex

How well are the tripletail stocks "thriving" if y'all can't catch a limit of 18" fish? Go to Texas and it's common to catch limits of 18 pound fish. 18" fish are babies.

They are thriving just as good as they ever have. Where is scientific data saying that we are seeing a decline in triple tail numbers?

Texas has nothing to do with this, you are making yourself sound unintelligent when you act like Texas limits help triple tail grow bigger in Texas. We in Louisiana catch the same triple tail you do in Texas. They migrate, it's simple. Go ahead and take that dumb comment back.

People rarely run across triple tail, especially large schools. There are plenty out there, but one has to be lucky enough to run across the right rip or piece of debree. It is hard for someone to leave the dock on any given day and KNOW that they are going to find them. This is exactly why we should be able to keep them when we do find them.

When was the last time you were out there triple tail fishing? I'm tired of hearing input from people who most likely hardly ever fish.

[OnePunchRex]

Originally Posted by noodle creek

They are thriving just as good as they ever have. Where is scientific data saying that we are seeing a decline in triple tail numbers?

Texas has nothing to do with this, you are making yourself sound unintelligent when you act like Texas limits help triple tail grow bigger in Texas. We in Louisiana catch the same triple tail you do in Texas. They migrate, it's simple. Go ahead and take that dumb comment back.

People rarely run across triple tail, especially large schools. There are plenty out there, but one has to be lucky enough to run across the right rip or piece of debree. It is hard for someone to leave the dock on any given day and KNOW that they are going to find them. This is exactly why we should be able to keep them when we do find them.

When was the last time you were out there triple tail fishing? I'm tired of hearing input from people who most likely hardly ever fish.

Never said there was a decline in tripletail numbers, you made that inference

Never said anything about Texas limits making tripletail grow larger in Texas. I am aware that they're pelagic and I highly doubt that the same tripletail caught out of big lake are the same ones caught in Matagorda Bay. By the way, I live in Louisiana, not Texas. As far as dumb comments, you got that covered.

I fish about 200 days a year, so know who you're talking about before opening your mouth.

[noodle creek]

I love throwing back 5-6lb triple tail. Makes me feel really good about myself, knowing that I am conserving fish for the future, even though they were perfectly fine without a limit. Can I get a conservation trophy?

[ifsteve]

From a purely scientific perspective I will give you my opinion and I am sure it will go over like a turn in a punch bowl with the keep em all crowd.

YES I believe that there should be some kind of limit with every game fish species. Lacking better evidence it is safer for the future to put on some reasonable restrictions. Again for species defined as game fish.

If you kill a fish it will not contribute to the future biomass. At some point overfishing is a possibility.

[OnePunchRex]

Originally Posted by ifsteve

From a purely scientific perspective I will give you my opinion and I am sure it will go over like a turn in a punch bowl with the keep em all crowd.

YES I believe that there should be some kind of limit with every game fish species. Lacking better evidence it is safer for the future to put on some reasonable restrictions. Again for species defined as game fish.

If you kill a fish it will not contribute to the future biomass. At some point overfishing is a possibility.

Great post!

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by ifsteve

If you kill a fish it will not contribute to the future biomass. At some point overfishing is a possibility.

Right, but red snapper and other species are currently close to their maximum sustainable biomass. There is a quantity of fish that can be safely harvested from the ecosystem each year without significantly reducing future biomass.

Biomass is dominated by lower levels of the food chain (what fish eat) rather than by how many fish are available to harvest. Letting fish continue to multiply uncontrolled simply puts too much stress of forage sources and leads to lots of little, slow growing fish rather than more fat, happy, fast growing fish. Right now, black drum and red snapper are clearly over stressing their food sources, and there is some risk of real ecological damage if underfishing continues.

Only the ignorant ASSUME that every game species is on the brink of overfishing and in need of additional protections. Since populations of many larger predators (sharks, etc.) are far below historical levels, a high level of fishing pressure is necessary in many cases to maintain balanced populations and prevent too much stress of food sources. NOAA data show tripletail harvests have been steady over time (no over fishing) and ichthyoplankton surveys show that there had been no drop in reproductive rates (future biomass was safe). No limit was needed in Louisiana waters.

[ifsteve]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Right, but red snapper and other species are currently close to their maximum sustainable biomass. There is a quantity of fish that can be safely harvested from the ecosystem each year without significantly reducing future biomass.

Biomass is dominated by lower levels of the food chain (what fish eat) rather than by how many fish are available to harvest. Letting fish continue to multiply uncontrolled simply puts too much stress of forage sources and leads to lots of little, slow growing fish rather than more fat, happy, fast growing fish. Right now, black drum and red snapper are clearly over stressing their food sources, and there is some risk of real ecological damage if underfishing continues.

Only the ignorant ASSUME that every game species is on the brink of overfishing and in need of additional protections. Since populations of many larger predators (sharks, etc.) are far below historical levels, a high level of fishing pressure is necessary in many cases to maintain balanced populations and prevent too much stress of food sources. NOAA data show tripletail harvests have been steady over time (no over fishing) and ichthyoplankton surveys show that there had been no drop in reproductive rates (future biomass was safe). No limit was needed in Louisiana waters.

Ok then there is scientific evidence to support the current situation. Great.

W

No I aint' from TX....MS.

["W"]

Originally Posted by ifsteve

Ok then there is scientific evidence to support the current situation. Great.

W

No I aint' from TX....MS.

I can tell you that Gafttop catches are substantial and all I use is artificial!!


So should we put a limit on them ???

What about sheepshead ? Or sand trout ? Or croaker caught 5 yesterday

[Natural Light Kid]

Can the overall well being of game be determined by the numbers that are caught/killed?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by ifsteve

Ok then there is scientific evidence to support the current situation. Great.

Uh, no. There is scientific evidence to support the former situation (no limit on tripletail).

There is no scientific evidence to support the current situation. (Newly imposed limit.)

How ignorant does one have to be to claim that data showing that everything was fine without a limit actually supports a newly imposed limit?

This is CCA-esque reasoning through and through.

[ifsteve]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Uh, no. There is scientific evidence to support the former situation (no limit on tripletail).

There is no scientific evidence to support the current situation. (Newly imposed limit.)

How ignorant does one have to be to claim that data showing that everything was fine without a limit actually supports a newly imposed limit?

This is CCA-esque reasoning through and through.

I didn't realize there was a recently put in place limit. Bottom line is that if there is data that showed the previous structure (no limit) is working fine then ok leave it alone.