W. I found your Texans

[southern151]

MedHeavy, I applaud your valor. I'm doing my part in this too. I just don't catch big fish. I have a special repellant for them!

I won't keep one 13" or less. To me, there is no point. And, in all honesty, I can put on one hand how many I've caught over 20". I don't much care that I'm not catchin sows, although I would someday like to catch one.

I've never even caught a limit. I don't think I would keep 25 fish because I don't feel like cleaning them all and it's more than my family and I would eat before they went bad. 10-12 is all I need in a day and I still have some left in the freezer right now.

See, MedHeavy, I told you I was doing my part!

[Duck Butter]

Wow, what happened here

Someone is comparing deer to trout? That article 'W' posted from Jerald Horst should be the death knell of this conversation. He does know a little about fishes after all. The fact of the matter is that when the limit on trout was reduced to 15 on Big Lake there was not ONE BIT OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support a reduction. It was all POLITICAL. A bunch of crybabies whined and got the limit dropped. I would really like to hear Jerald Horst's opinion on the matter or ANY fisheries biologist opinion on the matter. The reason trout get big in Big Lake is look at all the damn food. Throw a castnet behind those damn weirs and see what comes up. There is an abundance of food, and trout are eating machines. They eat, eat eat. They grow fast. They are prolific spawners, they will spawn repeatedly. The big females do not search out a genetically superior male to spawn with. Its more like an orgy, they just release eggs and the male fertilizes it (the nearest male, not the biggest baddest male). They don't make beds like a male bass and try and impress the female, Its wham bam thank you m'aam. If you guys want to release big trout that is great, I would do the same thing, because I know I can catch more smaller ones that I would rather eat. But to criticize someone else who keeps a PERFECTLY LEGAL fish is ridiculous.

..and for the record - I shoot does, hens, and jake turkeys

[Ray]

Waltrip is catching all the females with good genes, when they are 12 to 14 inches.
So what's the difference if you catch them before they get big or after they get big???

[yak'em-n-stack'em]

Originally Posted by Hopedale Hustler

mah daddy is a big ole samoan/coonass dude...strange mix...but i did inherit his genes no doubt....but i aint a fish and fish are the topic of discussion here....fish do not directly inherit genes from there parents....or mother...thats why they all look the same for the most part...how many speckled trout have you seen with birth defects inherited from their parent?? in fact studies say that the one thing fish are most likely to inherit from their parent is color believe it or not..

so you think that color doesnt come from genes?

you are a winner sir

[southern151]

Originally Posted by Ray

Waltrip is catching all the females with good genes, when they are 12 to 14 inches.
So what's the difference if you catch them before they get big or after they get big???

Exactly what I was asking in an earlier post!

[yak'em-n-stack'em]

i know most of you will not understand this next statement.

Please keep eating these big fish. they have more toxins in them through bio accumulation. so go for it

[SULPHITE]

Its more like an orgy, they just release eggs and the male fertilizes it (the nearest male, not the biggest baddest male). They don't make beds like a male bass and try and impress the female, Its wham bam thank you m'aam. If you guys want to release big trout that is great, I would do the same thing, because I know I can catch more smaller ones that I would rather eat. But to criticize someone else who keeps a PERFECTLY LEGAL fish is ridiculous.

All this talk makes me want to go tag some hogs........

[SULPHITE]

Originally Posted by yak'em-n-stack'em

i know most of you will not understand this next statement.

Please keep eating these big fish. they have more toxins in them through bio accumulation. so go for it

Yak...would that be the accumulation of toxins through digestion over a long period of time???

I got good genetics...

[yak'em-n-stack'em]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

that is 1957 science! This is crap really. Fecundity = amount of offspring produced, the Florida study says the larger the fish the more eggs, whereas the second study says that basically the middle aged fish are producing most the eggs. So in the Fl study, they claim fecundity increases with size (age) whereas the LOUISIANA study (our state = the state where Lake Calcasieu physically embodeis) does NOT increase with size. Egg production went down in THIS ONE STUDY.

Egg production %

Age II females 24%
Age III females 41%
Age IV females 27%

So in conclusion to this study, we can clearly see that the bigger and older trout are producing as many eggs as the Age II females. Think how many more baitfish and shrimp they consume and take away from the middle age class of females. The 3 to 4 lbers are 'our' spawners in THIS study. So, everybody go out and get those big fish outta the lake, they rapin the pogies, they rapin the shrimps, they rapin erybody

in the 1950's studies showed that children were being born without arms and legs due to mothers taking thalidomide during pregnancy.

so were gonna do an experiment, next time your loved one is pregnant give her some and see how to kid turns out.

i mean after all

its crap science

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Ray

Waltrip is catching all the females with good genes, when they are 12 to 14 inches.
So what's the difference if you catch them before they get big or after they get big???

Exactly right, if you catch a 14" female and keep it that fish will not produce ANY eggs in her lifetime. So she is removed from the 'gene pool'. This is yet another thing in favor of KEEPING the larger trout.

If you wanna compare it to deer hunting (which is silly, but for sihts and giggles). The big thing now is not antler restrictions - its shooting for age, shooting old deer, even the old ones that are not 'trophies'. They are actully selecting the oldest deer in the herd to shoot. And for the record, there is no shoot and release in the deer hunting world. Once that deer is 'selected' it is not coming back to reproduce.

So, keep the big trout if you want, let the little ones have a chance

[yak'em-n-stack'em]

Originally Posted by SULPHITE

Yak...would that be the accumulation of toxins through digestion over a long period of time???

I got good genetics...

yes,

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by yak'em-n-stack'em

in the 1950's studies showed that children were being born without arms and legs due to mothers taking thalidomide during pregnancy.

so were gonna do an experiment, next time your loved one is pregnant give her some and see how to kid turns out.

i mean after all

its crap science

that study is good science. The trout study IS crap. I bet very few studies these days on trout reference those previous studies. If they do, it is to negate what they found versus what the author found in that particular study

[yak'em-n-stack'em]

if you think you can rape a resource for as long as you want with no effects

go look at the freshwater trout fisheries of the 1900's when you had pictures of guys with hundreds of fish a day and then go look at those areas now.

still no fish.

[yak'em-n-stack'em]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

that study is good science. The trout study IS crap. I bet very few studies these days on trout reference those previous studies. If they do, it is to negate what they found versus what the author found in that particular study

again

it is accepted science until proven wrong

[tumbleweed]

I would love to see these pictures, for whatever reason I can't see them. I guess it is these stupid work filters.

I am with Southern151, i never catch a limit because I hate cleaning fish. I have no need for all that fish.

If everybody used a little common sense when enjoying the outdoors we would not need arbitrary rules like only 15 fish in big lake. Will Rogers said it best."You can't legislate inteliligence and common sense into people."

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by yak'em-n-stack'em

if you think you can rape a resource for as long as you want with no effects

go look at the freshwater trout fisheries of the 1900's when you had pictures of guys with hundreds of fish a day and then go look at those areas now.

still no fish.

there were no limits, we have limits now, and our fisheries biologists have been managing trout populations for years, they know what they are talking about.

Think of a crazy scenario like this:

Lets say that everyday of the year there are 1,000 people on Big Lake who catch there limit of trout. That means 15,000 trout per day come out of Big Lake. Multiply that 15,000 by 365 days a year and you get

5,025,000 trout. Thats 5 million trout per year

We also must ASSUME that Big Lake is shut off from the rest of the gulf meaning no trout can enter or leave the lake. Pretend here.

5 million trout! Lets then say the average number of eggs laid by ALL females, not big, little, medium sized, just the average pooled together is 50,000 eggs. It would only take 100 trout to make up for the 'raping' of the 5 million trout each year. BUT, this area constantly gets new trout from the gulf, and lets say 1/10th of those 50,000 eggs don't make it, then it would only take 1,000 trout to make up for last years loss. It is a self-sustaining fishery. I bet in some areas of the lake RIGHT NOW there are 1,000 trout stacked up.

[Ray]

Originally Posted by tumbleweed

I would love to see these pictures, for whatever reason I can't see them. I guess it is these stupid work filters.

I am with Southern151, i never catch a limit because I hate cleaning fish. I have no need for all that fish.

If everybody used a little common sense when enjoying the outdoors we would not need arbitrary rules like only 15 fish in big lake. Will Rogers said it best."You can't legislate inteliligence and common sense into people."

I can clean 15 Trout faster than I can clean 5 Reds.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by yak'em-n-stack'em

again

it is accepted science until proven wrong

i assure you in the last 50 years since this study, many many studies have had different conclusions than the Fl study. Does not PROVE anything, just SUGGESTS

[Ray]

Originally Posted by yak'em-n-stack'em

again

it is accepted science until proven wrong

Accepted science killed the Pintail population at one time.
We knew the population was depleting faster than you can crap Mexican food.
But they kept the limit at 10 Pintail for years, no one can explain why, they just said they knew what they were doing, it was science and we didn't know what were were talking about.
Then when there were practically none left, they dropped the limit to 1.

[Duck Butter]

We PAY fisheries biologists to regulate our fisheries, we should listen to them before making a hasty decision like lowering limits on Big Lake. They are the experts. I am just saying that it was a very abrupt decision on just a few trout. It is called BIG LAKE, there are thousands of fish bigger than the ones those Texans caught. Get out there, catch some, keep em, throw em back, whatever, next year there will be more