15 Trout Limit Discussion PUBLIC

[SaltyShaw]

I haven't been posting reports .......... sorry been crazy busy I'll do a weekly report for ya

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by SaltyShaw

I haven't been posting reports .......... sorry been crazy busy I'll do a weekly report for ya

I would greatly appreciate it Kade, thank you.

[ckinchen]

Cca is a public organization, w if you want to blame them for what you believe is a decrease in the number of harvested big trout then do what you feel you need to do. What I won't allow is for you to blame X person that is not a public figure for it. You will have to work around those guidelines and when you start smashing the cca it becomes a political discussion and that is why the mods moved you earlier post.

And we move on.....

["W"]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

Cca is a public organization, w if you want to blame them for what you believe is a decrease in the number of harvested big trout then do what you feel you need to do. What I won't allow is for you to blame X person that is not a public figure for it. You will have to work around those guidelines and when you start smashing the cca it becomes a political discussion and that is why the mods moved you earlier post.

And we move on.....

Not one time was the CCA bashed in this ......I support the CCA..Pay my dues.....Not going to bash them or let anyone else bash them....

Its a small group who did this...Not any organization

[Salty]

Originally Posted by "W"

Not one time was the CCA bashed in this ......I support the CCA..Pay my dues.....Not going to bash them or let anyone else bash them....

Its a small group who did this...Not any organization

W, you need to get your facts skrate. When you first began this "flip the limit" campaign....you publicly called out Chas Drost and any other member of the CCA that had anything to do with destroying your lake. I could look that up for ya, but, I have a feeling you know what I'm talking about.

Not that it's a personal matter with me, but, I have tried to carry on a rational conversation with you about this. Calling Casey and Daniel "office fishermen" is more immature than you could ever be expected to comprehend. How can anyone take you seriously?

["W"]

Originally Posted by Salty

W, you need to get your facts skrate. When you first began this "flip the limit" campaign....you publicly called out Chas Drost and any other member of the CCA that had anything to do with destroying your lake. I could look that up for ya, but, I have a feeling you know what I'm talking about.

Not that it's a personal matter with me, but, I have tried to carry on a rational conversation with you about this. Calling Casey and Daniel "office fishermen" is more immature than you could ever be expected to comprehend. How can anyone take you seriously?

LMAO...#1 Yes I called OUT CD for him to post us some Facts..He was there I was not

#2 I never bashed the CCA

#3 I never called Danial or Casey office fisherman....(they took that there own way)

I said the ones who ran to baton rouge to push this BS were office fisherman and this comes from way more than little me....(even thought you would like it to be)

Im saying do tell me or anyone who spends lots of time on the water that we don't know what the hell where talking about when we see it all the time

[Salty]

Originally Posted by "W"

LMAO...#1 Yes I called OUT CD for him to post us some Facts..He was there I was not

#2 I never bashed the CCA

#3 I never called Danial or Casey office fisherman....(they took that there own way)

I said the ones who ran to baton rouge to push this BS were office fisherman and this comes from way more than little me....(even thought you would like it to be)

Im saying do tell me or anyone who spends lots of time on the water that we don't know what the hell where talking about when we see it all the time

OK, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. There.

You have a theory. That's all it is...a theory. I'm sure this theory has been talked about loooong before you took the credit for it. You have no facts to back up your theory. So, therefore...it's just a theory.

I do not disagree that the limit should not be reversed. My arguement is that you are guilty of the very same thing you're accusing the ones of that changed it in the first place....a lack of facts.

["W"]

FACTS

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Contaminants can be a confounding factor in interpreting condition index, but the majority of the Calcasieu esturary would not be considered contaminated by the Jenkins criteria. Of course, more data always raises the level of confidence. But I think the data that is needed and can be obtained would be relative condition factor in additional years. All we have is a relative condition factor of 1.03 +/- 0.020 for a sample size of 23 (mixed species) from the non-comtaminated sites in the Jenkins 2004 study and 2011 relative condition factors of 0.971 +/- 0.010 for 138 spotted sea trout, 0.965 +/- 0.014 for 66 redfish, and 0.955 +/- 0.017 for 26 black drum.

In 2011, the fish were significantly thinner than in 2004 in the Calcasieu estuary. If the fish are also significantly thinner in other years, then there would be more convincing evidence that there are too many fish relative to the available food in the Calcasieu estuary. If this is the case, the most reasonable remedies would be some combination of 1) protect the food souces by reducing shrimping, oystering, and crabbing pressure 2) reduce the pressure on the food souces by increasing the harvest of the most abundant predators. I think the evidence suggests that the best combination of the above would probably be to reduce the oystering and increase the spotted sea trout limit as well as encouraging the harvest of more black drum (because they really hammer the oysters). Hard data from additional years would, of course, further clarify the situation and make a more compelling case.

There are other approaches to stock assessment, but the LDWF has not been willing to share their methodologies or their data. (We've asked for their Calcasieu data from 2001-2010 and our data request has been denied.) It would be enlightening if additional pressure could compel LDWF to share all their available data on Calcasieu so the data could be analyzed by independent parties. I've found that some states (like Colorado) are much more open with their data and justification that their management decisions are data-driven rather than political. However, there are PETA-type forces and pseudo-conservationist type forces at work in every state simply trying to limit the use of natural resources. I tend to be skeptical of wildlife management that says "trust us, we're scientists" without sharing of data openly so that their results and recommendations can be independently reviewed by other scientists.

[longcast]

How the **** is limits destroying our resource. There was a time when there were no limits and the fish still did not go extinct. Off course people back then only took what they needed Unlike you bro. Why do you need to catch 25 fish a day. You damn sure can't eat that many. My freezer is fish less. You know why. I can go catch a few to eat anytime I want. Don't need to take more than I'm going to eat.

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by longcast

How the **** is limits destroying our resource. There was a time when there were no limits and the fish still did not go extinct. Off course people back then only took what they needed Unlike you bro. Why do you need to catch 25 fish a day. You damn sure can't eat that many. My freezer is fish less. You know why. I can go catch a few to eat anytime I want. Don't need to take more than I'm going to eat.

So he can take pics with huge piles of trout to make himself feel taller.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Montauk17

So he can take pics with huge piles of trout to make himself feel taller.

You ever got a Job Yet????

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by "W"

You ever got a Job Yet????

What the hell does that have to do with anything? If you must know,yes I have a job making close to 6 grand a month.

["W"]

Originally Posted by longcast

How the **** is limits destroying our resource. There was a time when there were no limits and the fish still did not go extinct. Off course people back then only took what they needed Unlike you bro. Why do you need to catch 25 fish a day. You damn sure can't eat that many. My freezer is fish less. You know why. I can go catch a few to eat anytime I want. Don't need to take more than I'm going to eat.

Dude you missing the whole point....You have to keep fish to keep the system healthy and right..if you dont keep fish then you over populate

Like Deer hunting in Texas....Biologist comes out to my buddies ranch every year and tells him you have to remove 50 does this year..or 70 this year to keep your breeding and ranch healthy and in check..


Same with trout fishing , Trout breed and lay millions of eggs a year and if you did not keep one signal fish in big lake for one year ...there would be no bait left in the lake.....which things would start dieing off..

You keep fish to keep an healthy estuary..... You can chop them up and feed them to your dog..I don't care...but I will keep my limit every time i can

I trade trout for deer meat..Hunting trips.....and all kinds of things...Hell I get my yard mowed at my camp for trout filets

[ckinchen]

You are right, this site can become a tool for this and many if we use it correctly. Like I said you just have to think about the approach you want to take and keep from coming across like you are in attack mode.

[SaltyShaw]

Originally Posted by Montauk17

So he can take pics with huge piles of trout to make himself feel taller.

Really?? Y'all need to grow up and look at the matter at hand not Waltrips ego this discussion isn't about him. It's about the fact that 15 trout limit has hurt the lake be mature if your going to enter a discussion

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by SaltyShaw

Really?? Y'all need to grow up and look at the matter at hand not Waltrips ego this discussion isn't about him. It's about the fact that 15 trout limit has hurt the lake be mature if your going to enter a discussion

Pfff....like w has a mature method of getting his "facts" out. Carry on...

[huntin fool]

Still a little offended by the w club.. ii just was wondering on some names.... Carry on

[Top Dawg]

W def has his own way with words. But if you look through it and realize the point of what he's saying, he's right. It's not about pics, fish in the freezer, it's about keeping the lake healthy. You ever fished a pond and catch a bass with a 6 pound head but weighs 3? And hundreds of pickles in said pond? Tell tell sign it's over populated and fish have to be taken out to keep the pond healthy. Same scenario just on a MUCH larger scale.

[huntin fool]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

W def has his own way with words. But if you look through it and realize the point of what he's saying, he's right. It's not about pics, fish in the freezer, it's about keeping the lake healthy. You ever fished a pond and catch a bass with a 6 pound head but weighs 3? And hundreds of pickles in said pond? Tell tell sign it's over populated and fish have to be taken out to keep the pond healthy. Same scenario just on a MUCH larger scale.

Finally someone got my pond scenerio.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

W def has his own way with words. But if you look through it and realize the point of what he's saying, he's right. It's not about pics, fish in the freezer, it's about keeping the lake healthy. You ever fished a pond and catch a bass with a 6 pound head but weighs 3? And hundreds of pickles in said pond? Tell tell sign it's over populated and fish have to be taken out to keep the pond healthy. Same scenario just on a MUCH larger scale.

Big Lake may be the size of a pond, but, the comparison stops there.