Thank You

[BuckingFastard]

Originally Posted by "W"

I don't campaign I'm not a politician

But I have done plenty and still doing

At one time I probably tagged the most fish ever in this estuary
After both Hurricanes Rita and Ike I was out on the water tagging and locating debris for removel
Today I'm working with a group of guys that will be involved with the rocking of the wash out and 9mile project to lower the salinity in the lake
What have you done?

seems hes at least been there and has tried to voice his opinion which is all he needs to do. hes done more though apparently. the thing is, we pay CC-fn-A to do this crap for us!! they dont! i just cant comprehend how its not understood. none of us "haters" are trying to point anyone out. just want something to be done correctly. just like mathgeek said, they just sitting back and getting fat off this.

[BuckingFastard]

i meant to quote natrual light guy in that also since he was calling out someone he has no clue about and got shut down.

[Natural Light Kid]

Originally Posted by BuckingFastard

i meant to quote natrual light guy in that also since he was calling out someone he has no clue about and got shut down.

Get off your knees man. Like I said, I wasn't trying to call him out. More giving him a chance to show people what he has done rather than going around quoting anonymous people. There is no doubt w has done more than me. I have done very little nor do I pretend that I have. At this stage in my life, I am barely a recreational fisherman anymore. Honestly I do not have the time or energy to help as much as I would like. I wish some people (notice how I didn't call out lil w) would do more and say less. Some are full of personal opinion and that's fine. Just don't get mad when someone else's personal opinion doesn't jive with yours. I'm not saying I'm for or against CCA. I'm for big lake and whatever/whoever it takes. I do get a kick though how much time some spend on this sight. I read and post when I have a chance (bathroom, waiting in lobby, etc.). Some of y'all take these postings way too serious. This is the closest thing I do to twitter, Facebook, etc. My family, friends, career, etc. are way to precious to me to spend that much time on here. However, I do get a kick out of the internet muscles that pop up, empty threats of never posting again, my daddy can beat up your daddy kind of stuff that takes place on here. Great entertainment.

[BuckingFastard]

what does anyone have to prove to you? nobody asked how diligently you use your time during the day either. i did say, dont call people out that you dont know. i dont know w at all but i do know that he doesnt like the same ideas that i dont in this matter. aint a matter of getting on your knees. this idea that were discussing here is NOT my personal opinion... apparent to say the least since there have been 100 threads with many pages of crap talk about EVERYONES personal take on it.

[Natural Light Kid]

W
This question is specifically for you. What do you recommend for someone in my position? Not much money and hardly any time to donate to the cause of helping the Calcasieu estuary. In the past I have been a member of CCA and participated in STAR. Do you have a better idea of where those dollars should go if CCA is such a horrible organization? For the record, it was at a CCA banquet that I met you at years ago. You were wearing a starched fishing shirt and taking money at the door lol.

[BuckingFastard]

Originally Posted by BuckingFastard

what does anyone have to prove to you? nobody asked how diligently you use your time during the day either. i did say, dont call people out that you dont know. i dont know w at all but i do know that he doesnt like the same ideas that i dont in this matter. aint a matter of getting on your knees. this idea that were discussing here is NOT my personal opinion... apparent to say the least since there have been 100 threads with many pages of crap talk about EVERYONES personal take on it.

i would have quoted "slickfish" if he made you eat your words just like that. you stuck your neck out and now youre offended. youre the one who just started talking smack about getting on knees...

[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 Natural Light Kid

W
This question is specifically for you. What do you recommend for someone in my position? Not much money and hardly any time to donate to the cause of helping the Calcasieu estuary. In the past I have been a member of CCA and participated in STAR. Do you have a better idea of where those dollars should go if CCA is such a horrible organization?

I'd recommend keeping your money in your pocket for now. Why the feeling that you need to give to a "conservation" organization to "do something"?

Writing to the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission and to state legislators and attending meetings where policy makers are receiving input on policies is more important right now than giving money to organizations that have proven ineffective or disinterested or supporting harmful policies.

A well-written letter to the Commission and your legislator on an important issue (oyster dredging, tripletail limits, marsh loss, speck limits, scientific management, etc.) would be more beneficial at the present time than donations and membership fees to CCA. Let them know that it is a travesty to allow ongoing limit changes that are not supported with sound scientific data while neglecting the more important habitat preservation and restoration issues.

Cost: price of a stamp.

Benefit (compared with CCA donations): priceless.

[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.

[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?

[Natural Light Kid]

Originally Posted by Natural Light Kid

W
This question is specifically for you. What do you recommend for someone in my position? Not much money and hardly any time to donate to the cause of helping the Calcasieu estuary. In the past I have been a member of CCA and participated in STAR. Do you have a better idea of where those dollars should go if CCA is such a horrible organization? For the record, it was at a CCA banquet that I met you at years ago. You were wearing a starched fishing shirt and taking money at the door lol.

Seriously w, I want your feed back on this. Thanks math geek too. Trying to do what's best.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

["W"]

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.

You must be from Texas ?

["W"]

Originally Posted by Natural Light Kid

W
This question is specifically for you. What do you recommend for someone in my position? Not much money and hardly any time to donate to the cause of helping the Calcasieu estuary. In the past I have been a member of CCA and participated in STAR. Do you have a better idea of where those dollars should go if CCA is such a horrible organization? For the record, it was at a CCA banquet that I met you at years ago. You were wearing a starched fishing shirt and taking money at the door lol.

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

[redaddiction]

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

Are only people who fish a certain amount of days a year allowed to be concerned about coastal conservation? (Even though I understand CCA does nothing) Quit making comments about people who "don't even fish Big Lake". You've done that a lot. I might fish it once a year, because i mainly fish the cocodrie area. But I am still very concerned about what's going on there. And would gladly join any grass roots effort to protect it. I am from Louisiana, and that should be good enough!