Heating up on new fees

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by meaux fishing

I heard it was going up to $10 I think

I think they should make it $15 or maybe even $20... this type of license is a convenience thing for people... make them pay extra for that convenience.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by mr crab

Also points 2-4 are true of any state? Whats your point?

Not completely. On many Colorado waters, you need to pay a fee and get an inspection to put your boat in the water. There is one booth to pay the fee before you get to the boat ramp and then a second booth where you pay the fee. During the off season and after hours when the booths are closed, the boat ramp is gated off and it's a crime to put your boat in the water. I've also been to a number of lakes in southern states that required paying an additional fee to put a boat in the water (usually $4-$10 each day).

I've never seen or heard of a governmental entity in Louisiana charging a fee to access the water, though private ramps (like Hebert's and Spicer's) reasonably do charge a fee. A number of places in Florida do have access fees for public waters, with the fee scale depending on one's residency status.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

Last word I got on SPR# see dates

Thanks for your interest in spotted seatrout management. As you
are probably aware it takes several years after regulatory changes are
in place before those changes can be accurately measured in an
assessment. We are currently compiling any and all new information that
has been collected since our last full stock assessment in 2005 with
plans to complete a new assessment in late 2009 or early 2010. We will
be happy to provide you with those results as they become available.
Thanks again.



The Department's adopted a conservation standard is 18% static
SPR per biological examination of stock, as outlined below in the 2005
assessment. What this means is that we believe there is a possible risk
of adversely impacting recruitment if SPR is allowed to remain below
18%. In order to avoid going below the threshold, the department has
adopted the following conservation standard. For spotted seatrout,
fishing regulations should not allow cumulative fishing mortality rates
to reduce the spawning potential of a cohort on average below 18% static
SPR. This conservation standard is designed to stabilize the spawning
potential of a cohort at or above the median level found in the 1980's,
where existing evidence indicates that the spawning stock had not been
reduced to a level that would adversely impact recruitment.



The 2004 status of the stock, defined as the static SPR, is
14.5%, a substantial decline from the 20.9% SPR reported in 2000. This
is below the conservation standard of 18% described above.



Current assessment in 2005, with data through 2004. Static SPR
of 14.5%. We are currently in process of reviewing, updating and
modifying this assessment to include new information sources and
assessment methods.

dang W, I think you just stumbled up and found your scientific evidence of why a limit reduction may have been warranted SPR was below the threshold.

[Speckmeister]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

dang W, I think you just stumbled up and found your scientific evidence of why a limit reduction may have been warranted SPR was below the threshold.

Until we get current SPR or any other approximation of the speckled trout biomass specifically in Big Lake, we won't know.

My GUESS and prediction is that we are not unlike our neighboring states (Tx. and Fla.). I hope I am wrong but habitat loss and degradation (like the feverish oyster reef debate) - which are historical problems in every state will point to less trout numbers - again I hope I am wrong, and this is by no means a scientific opinion based on data.

Since all the data in Louisiana - especially in Big Lake - points to speckled trout being an estuary-specific fishery - then we will have no choice but to expect lower limits - probably statewide. Of course, I expect vehement disagreement. The data is clear regarding Big Lake although someone here may argue there wasn't a large enough "n". There is not a significant number of trout that move into the lake from the Gulf (Tide-runner theory). That inference comes from the electronic tracking studies, previous tagging studies statewide, and research in other states.

If one however can easily and quickly restore habitat and limit degradation - we may have a chance. But remember - - more and more development is expected in Big Lake with the more LNG and other industries. This is good for the area and us humans, but bad for the habitat and resource. Can't have it both ways.

Unfortunately, I foresee the day (I'll probably be dead because I have some years on me) when we'll have "catch and release" practices like Florida and Texas.

In the 500s BC, Heraclitus was the philosopher who said, "You can't step into the same river twice." In this case, substitute "inland saltwater lake."

If anything at all is permanent on this earth - it is change.

[mr crab]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Not completely. On many Colorado waters, you need to pay a fee and get an inspection to put your boat in the water. There is one booth to pay the fee before you get to the boat ramp and then a second booth where you pay the fee. During the off season and after hours when the booths are closed, the boat ramp is gated off and it's a crime to put your boat in the water. I've also been to a number of lakes in southern states that required paying an additional fee to put a boat in the water (usually $4-$10 each day).

I've never seen or heard of a governmental entity in Louisiana charging a fee to access the water, though private ramps (like Hebert's and Spicer's) reasonably do charge a fee. A number of places in Florida do have access fees for public waters, with the fee scale depending on one's residency status.

So? What does that have to do with the reciprocity of non resident fishing licenses between tx&la. Tx don't charge out of staters anything extra to launch. Just buy a license and go fishing...just like la does. I'm not connecting the dots

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by mr crab

So? What does that have to do with the reciprocity of non resident fishing licenses between tx&la. Tx don't charge out of staters anything extra to launch. Just buy a license and go fishing...just like la does. I'm not connecting the dots

You were asking/asserting about "any state" (your words) not just Texas. I've never fished in Tx, so I have no direct knowledge, but I have fished in Colorado and many southern states so I was able to speak about their additional launch fees.

By advocating the increase of saltwater license fees for LA residents by 136%, but giving non-residents a pass on fee increases, CCA (a TX dominated organization) is clearly shifting more of the burden to LA residents and protecting Texans from paying their fair share. Texans may be paying CCA lobbyists, but at least they can't vote in Louisiana.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

Until we get current SPR or any other approximation of the speckled trout biomass specifically in Big Lake, we won't know.

Interestingly, Louisiana recently adopted (in 2006) a spatially-explicit management plan for Calcasieu Lake. The premise of this management decision, which included a reduction in daily bag limits and imposition of a slot limit, was to ‘preserve’ the renowned trophy-fishery for spotted seatrout in Calcasieu Lake. However, the decision to enact this regulation was based exclusively on socio-economic factors, rather than the biological status of the subpopulation. In fact, no formal stock assessment was conducted as part of the decision-making process. Thus, the status of the subpopulation (stock) was largely unknown (i.e., overfished or not?) at the time regulations were changed.

- Callihan PhD Thesis (LSU p. 182)

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

My GUESS and prediction is that we are not unlike our neighboring states (Tx. and Fla.). I hope I am wrong but habitat loss and degradation (like the feverish oyster reef debate) - which are historical problems in every state will point to less trout numbers - again I hope I am wrong, and this is by no means a scientific opinion based on data.

Louisiana habit has declined, but the fact is that we were so far ahead of FL and TX to begin with, that we are still far ahead. Louisiana has 3-10x the quantity of marsh per licensed saltwater angler compared with TX or FL. Oyster reefs in LA have declined, but LA has more oyster reef habitat than all other Gulf states COMBINED.

We need to keep working hard in Louisiana to maintain far superior fisheries, and there is some real risk of eventually falling to FL or TX levels, but we are currently nowhere close by any available measure of habitat quality, quantity, or productivity.

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

Since all the data in Louisiana - especially in Big Lake - points to speckled trout being an estuary-specific fishery - then we will have no choice but to expect lower limits - probably statewide. Of course, I expect vehement disagreement. The data is clear regarding Big Lake although someone here may argue there wasn't a large enough "n". There is not a significant number of trout that move into the lake from the Gulf (Tide-runner theory). That inference comes from the electronic tracking studies, previous tagging studies statewide, and research in other states.

The Callihan study was the most detailed study of fidelity to the Calcasieu estuary. The graph shows that his detectors had much less than 100% efficiency which provided the specks many opportunities to sneak out undetected. The acoustic detectors he used have lower effectiveness on windy days, hot days, and more turbid days. His hypothesis regarding less than 50 km movement was supported in the study years of 2007-2009, but you should also keep in mind that in these were the post-Rita years when the lake was very well fed as the marsh detrius was producing huge amounts of shrimp.

It is well known that most species of fish show greater dispersal when stressed by inadequate food or greater variations in salinity. I expect a lot more specks enter the Sabine and Mermantau estuaries from Calcasieu in years when these estuaries have abundant forage and Calcasieu does not (and vice-versa). It is also well known that many species of fish make their longest migrations during tropical events. It is too bad that Callihan took his system off line and had no data during the passing of topical storm Edouard in 2008, though this storm probably would have moved more fish from Sabine to Calcasieu than from Calcasieu to Sabine.

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

If one however can easily and quickly restore habitat and limit degradation - we may have a chance. But remember - - more and more development is expected in Big Lake with the more LNG and other industries. This is good for the area and us humans, but bad for the habitat and resource. Can't have it both ways.

Better environmental laws and enforcement make this much less of an issue, and I expect the next 20 years will see far less pollution of the Calcasieu estuary than the 1970s and 1980s. Further, many of the long term industrial changes have made the estuary friendlier to specks. The deep ship channel provides refuge from rapid changes in salinity and temperature in shallower water. Has Calcasieu ever seen a winter kill of specks like is occasionally seen in estuaries with no deep water refuge?

Further, the oysters on the east side are slowly coming back, and the weirs are being effectively operated to protect the east side marsh. Further, the moving of Omega protein's menhaden operation out of Cameron should also increase the availability of pogies of all sizes to better feed the specks. The sky is not falling.

The estuary is resilient. There is need for due diligence in protecting the oyster reefs, protecting the marsh, improving weir management, and stemming erosion to prevent the possibility of an ongoing decline following the past several years of management mistakes. But the sky is not falling.

Specks are particularly versatile in their ability to spawn effectively in various habitats. I strongly recommend Bortone's book on the life history and biology for relevant details.

We should note though that James Cowan, who has been a key player in buggering the red snapper stock assessments, is also playing a dominant role in spotted seatrout assessments. We need to pay careful details in how SPR numbers are determined from stock assessment data, as there is opportunity to tweak the assumptions and methods to obtain different SPR numbers from the same data. Just as methods were changed for snapper, methods could also be changed for spotted seatrout to make it look like SPR numbers have decreased between assessments, when in reality the appearance of declining SPR numbers is due to change in the methods. I am also uncomfortable with how Will Horst has inserted himself in most state-sponsored seatrout assessment. This is why we need all the data and detailed descriptions of the methods, to prevent the quality of the science in the stock assessments from declining down to red snapper levels.

Originally Posted by Speckmeister

Unfortunately, I foresee the day (I'll probably be dead because I have some years on me) when we'll have "catch and release" practices like Florida and Texas.

This is possible, but it would take another decade or two of mismanagement. If we focus on habitat rather than creel limits and careful, open data-driven science, then such an outcome should be unlikely.

[meaux fishing]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

You were asking/asserting about "any state" (your words) not just Texas. I've never fished in Tx, so I have no direct knowledge, but I have fished in Colorado and many southern states so I was able to speak about their additional launch fees.

By advocating the increase of saltwater license fees for LA residents by 136%, but giving non-residents a pass on fee increases, CCA (a TX dominated organization) is clearly shifting more of the burden to LA residents and protecting Texans from paying their fair share. Texans may be paying CCA lobbyists, but at least they can't vote in Louisiana.

There are very few places on the east side of the state that dont have launch fees, that is because it is a business and you are launching on private property. They pay to maintain the launch. The west side of the state has as nice a public launch and facilities as I have ever seen. I am guessing this is thanks to casino and industry money. I've never launched a boat in Colorado, but in any other place I have launched a boat, fresh or salt, they collect fees to pay for the maintenance of the launch and surrounding area.

So youre saying you want to charge people from out of state more, and make them pay a launch fee when residents dont? who will collect this fee? Will the money generated from this fee be able to pay their salary? Lets discourage people from out of state from coming over, buying gas, eating at restaurants, buying fishing tackle, etc...

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by meaux fishing

So youre saying you want to charge people from out of state more, and make them pay a launch fee when residents dont? who will collect this fee? Will the money generated from this fee be able to pay their salary? Lets discourage people from out of state from coming over, buying gas, eating at restaurants, buying fishing tackle, etc...

No, I am saying that if the in-state license fee is raised by 136%, the the out of state saltwater fee should be increased by a similar percentage. Collecting launch fees is silly because you spend so much to collect the fee, and if you just leave a box and use an honor system, people don't pay.

I was just making the point that higher (fishing and hunting) license fees make sense for out of staters because they do not pay Louisiana income taxes or property taxes, nor do they have to register their vehicles in Louisiana. My understanding on the E. Side, you will pay to launch at the private marinas (Rigolets, Bridgeside, Bobby Lynns, etc.), but that the boat ramps owned by the public (state, parish, or city) are all still free on the E side (Williams and Bonnabel on Lake P., Port Fourchon, Oakridge, etc.) just as they are free on the W side (Calc. Pt., Jetties, ICWW, etc.)

Of course, with the cost of fuel, it just makes sense to go ahead and pay $5-$10 to pay to launch at a private ramp if it is much closer to your fishing areas.

Here's a long list of ramps in Lafourche and Terrebonne. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all the public launches are free, and there are a lot of them. I think you have to go a bit further east (Orleans, St. Tammany) before you really have trouble finding free (public) launches.

http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20...NG03/901290951

[mr crab]

mg...out-of-staters already do pay a much higher fee for hunting and fishing licenses than residents. its always been that way. and might I add that la resident fishing and hunting licenses are among the lowest in the nation

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by mr crab

mg...out-of-staters already do pay a much higher fee for hunting and fishing licenses than residents. its always been that way. and might I add that la resident fishing and hunting licenses are among the lowest in the nation

God Bless Louisiana. Don't be hating 'cause we are the Sportsman's Paradise. The natural resources of each state are legally owned by the citizens of that state. Texans should have to pay.

I know non-residents pay more, because I've paid the $90 from 2000-2013 when I was not a resident. I deserved to pay more to share in the rich blessings of the kind, generous, and magnanimous people of Louisiana.

[mr crab]

tx non resident all water fishing license is $68/year.....La non-resident all water is $90/year............tx resident all water is $40.....la resident all water is $15....quit crying bruh...its $15....and La is already hitting out of staters harder than most states.

[mr crab]

LA is definitely the sportsmans paradise tho.....heading across the border at 3 today to slang some of them oh so tasty LA specks....SL4L

[mr crab]

mg....you need to go fishing too man. you been on fire lately with the oysters and cca and license fees. need to get your line tight and remember what all this is about

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by mr crab

mg....you need to go fishing too man. you been on fire lately with the oysters and cca and license fees. need to get your line tight and remember what all this is about

I agree. My travel and consulting schedule is keeping me from the salt life until late May.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by mr crab

tx non resident all water fishing license is $68/year.....La non-resident all water is $90/year........

A bit of math:

So the LA NR license cost amounts to $6 per speck you can keep each day.
The TX NR license cost amounts to $13 per speck you can keep each day.

The LA NR license cost amounts to about $0.25 per bull redfish you can take home in an entire year.

The TX NR license cost amounts to $68 per bull redfish you can take home each year.

Supply and demand. Out of staters will pay to fish in Louisiana because the fishing is so good and the limits are so high. Far fewer non-residents are interesting in paying to fish in Texas.

[mr crab]

Don't keep bulls...not an issue....and I wonder what the real numbers on the non resident licenses sold per state are? I know a lot of snow birds winter around corpus? Either way...the original point I made is valid.....the non-resident licenses in LA are higher than TX, and the resident licenses in LA are cheaper than TX. For me personally, it really doesn't matter what either license costs because the license is by far the cheapest part of the game. I will not quit my passion over a license fee, PERIOD.

["W"]

Big Lake SPR was around 18-19 when the last SPR was released

Which is above

[slickfish]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

A bit of math:

So the LA NR license cost amounts to $6 per speck you can keep each day.
The TX NR license cost amounts to $13 per speck you can keep each day.

The LA NR license cost amounts to about $0.25 per bull redfish you can take home in an entire year.

The TX NR license cost amounts to $68 per bull redfish you can take home each year.

Supply and demand. Out of staters will pay to fish in Louisiana because the fishing is so good and the limits are so high. Far fewer non-residents are interesting in paying to fish in Texas.

Well you boasted about la just enough to call bs. Why would you want to promote something that is not the truth? On the gulf coast what does la have to offer out of towners Bl and Venice? I'd put money on it that Texas has more out of state tourism from Sabine to Galveston than the whole state of la. Think your just running your bubble gums to keep pace with the lake midget.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by slickfish

Well you boasted about la just enough to call bs. Why would you want to promote something that is not the truth? On the gulf coast what does la have to offer out of towners Bl and Venice? I'd put money on it that Texas has more out of state tourism from Sabine to Galveston than the whole state of la. Think your just running your bubble gums to keep pace with the lake midget.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

This guy is mad.