15 Trout Limit Discussion PUBLIC

[jlincecum]

Originally Posted by Salty

I had hopes that this crap would have died by now.

I know you're drawn to W like a magnet but there's a real easy solution, don't click on this thread.......

[Top Dawg]

With good reason.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Salty

I had hopes that this crap would have died by now.

It will die when two things happen
#1 I win
#2 the office fisherman admit they made a stupid law that they should of listen to people above there pay scale


So unless these happen .....no end in site


I would accept one of the office fisherman to come on here publicly and admit fault

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by "W"

I would accept one of the office fisherman to come on here publicly and admit fault

Do the office fisherman include guides? Cause they sho don't want to see the limit raised!

[jdm4x43732]

But the suggestion is also coming from sports fishers, who wonder if the quality of their trout fishing experience would improve if we had more conservative regulations.
To find an answer to that question, and to reconfirm we are not "fish hogs," I turned to the fisheries biologist at the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
I got a quick, one-word answer: No.
"We've run (computer) scenarios on lowering the creel limits and increasing the size limits, and from our assessments those actions did not noticeably increase the number of fish in the system or the number of big fish," said Joey Shepard, acting deputy assistant secretary of the LDFW, and a biologist who has spent much of his long career studying specks.
But there is also some real-world experience to back up those computers. In 2006, yielding to requests from some guides and sports fishers hoping for more large specks, the state reduced regulations on Calcasieu Lake. The daily limit was dropped to 15, and although the minimum size remained at 12 inches, anglers were restricted to only two fish of more than 25 inches.
The result six years later?
"From our assessment, it did not increase the number of big fish in the system," Shepard reported. "Of course, we didn't anticipate it would."
This certainly seems counterintuitive. After all, logic dictates the fewer of objects you remove from a container, the more you'll have left. And everyone knows if the limit on, say, deer were raised to 10 per day, we wouldn't have many left. For that matter, why is the daily limit on redfish only five?
Well, the answer is that nature works with a different logic, one much more complicated than simple math.
In the case of speckled trout, we're dealing with a species that has adapted to survival on the very mean streets of the Mississippi estuary by reproducing in stupendous numbers for a fairly short lifespan.
Some points to remember:
Natural mortality in this critter-eat-critter world means every speck spawning class loses 25 percent of its surviving members every year. So if you start with 100, you're left with just 75 by Year 1, then just more than 30 by year 3.
"Basically, most of the fish you put back, or leave, will be taken by natural mortality -- predators (including larger specks), disease, weather and environmental conditions," Shepard said.
Specks start reproducing at about 18 months. The spawning season runs from about mid-April to late September, and females typically reproduce ready-to-spawn roe sacks every four to five days. That's "days" with a "d." So the marsh is flooded with trout larvae for five months.
"Because the spawning season lasts so long, and the fish produce so many (larvae), it compensates for any factors that might interrupt reproduction," Shepard said. That dynamic reproduction cycle results in a survival rate that so out-paced the high predation factor, it would be almost impossible for hook-and-line anglers to make a telling difference in their overall numbers, Shepard said.
The state has been on the 25/12 system for almost 20 years, and even with anglers taking home 8 million to 10 million annually, the resource continues to show very little change in abundance.
The agency studies various reduction in creel limits to determine their impact on fishing, and came up with this. Reducing the limit from 25 to 20 would reduce harvest by only 4 percent; from 25 to 15 by 8 percent; from 25 to 10 by 15 percent, and from 25 to 5 by 30 percent.
"Based on those numbers, our assessment is we would have to reduce the daily limit to five before anyone would notice a difference in the fish available," he said.
The daily limit of 25 is seldom reached by most anglers. Studies show that the average catch per trip is fewer than five fish. Obviously, if all of the almost 1 million anglers fishing caught 25 each trip, the limit would have to be lowered.
OK, so what about reducing the minimum size to increase the number of big fish? Shepard said the LDWF ran the numbers and got these results: Increasing the minimum from 12 inches to 15 inches would put 13 percent more fish back in the water; from 12 inches to 16 inches would reduce harvest by nine percent.
But because anglers would be hooking and releasing more fish, the improvement is dampened by an estimated 10 percent release mortality.
"Essentially, we would increase spawning potential by about four percent if we raised the minimum to 15 inches, and six percent if we raised it to 15 inches," he said. "Either way, the improvement would not be noticeable to fishermen."
So for all those anglers worried about the fish-hog label, the advice is: Forgettaboutit! Certainly, if you're not going to eat them (fresh), put 'em back. Otherwise, ignore the critics and enjoy one of the great natural, renewable resources in North America.
And for those guides: If you want lower limits, move to Florida. Or Texas, Mississippi, Alabama .

["W"]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

Do the office fisherman include guides? Cause they sho don't want to see the limit raised!

There is only a few guides on the west side of the lake that don't want 25

I have emails and text from many guides who support 25trout limit


And any guide that wants 15 is because they can't catch a 25 trout limit.... It said in one article on here from one Guide service...they only fill a limit of 75 trout 5% of the time..... Here on the east side they would fill them over way over 5% of the time

["W"]

Originally Posted by jdm4x43732

But the suggestion is also coming from sports fishers, who wonder if the quality of their trout fishing experience would improve if we had more conservative regulations.
To find an answer to that question, and to reconfirm we are not "fish hogs," I turned to the fisheries biologist at the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
I got a quick, one-word answer: No.
"We've run (computer) scenarios on lowering the creel limits and increasing the size limits, and from our assessments those actions did not noticeably increase the number of fish in the system or the number of big fish," said Joey Shepard, acting deputy assistant secretary of the LDFW, and a biologist who has spent much of his long career studying specks.
But there is also some real-world experience to back up those computers. In 2006, yielding to requests from some guides and sports fishers hoping for more large specks, the state reduced regulations on Calcasieu Lake. The daily limit was dropped to 15, and although the minimum size remained at 12 inches, anglers were restricted to only two fish of more than 25 inches.
The result six years later?
"From our assessment, it did not increase the number of big fish in the system," Shepard reported. "Of course, we didn't anticipate it would."
This certainly seems counterintuitive. After all, logic dictates the fewer of objects you remove from a container, the more you'll have left. And everyone knows if the limit on, say, deer were raised to 10 per day, we wouldn't have many left. For that matter, why is the daily limit on redfish only five?
Well, the answer is that nature works with a different logic, one much more complicated than simple math.
In the case of speckled trout, we're dealing with a species that has adapted to survival on the very mean streets of the Mississippi estuary by reproducing in stupendous numbers for a fairly short lifespan.
Some points to remember:
Natural mortality in this critter-eat-critter world means every speck spawning class loses 25 percent of its surviving members every year. So if you start with 100, you're left with just 75 by Year 1, then just more than 30 by year 3.
"Basically, most of the fish you put back, or leave, will be taken by natural mortality -- predators (including larger specks), disease, weather and environmental conditions," Shepard said.
Specks start reproducing at about 18 months. The spawning season runs from about mid-April to late September, and females typically reproduce ready-to-spawn roe sacks every four to five days. That's "days" with a "d." So the marsh is flooded with trout larvae for five months.
"Because the spawning season lasts so long, and the fish produce so many (larvae), it compensates for any factors that might interrupt reproduction," Shepard said. That dynamic reproduction cycle results in a survival rate that so out-paced the high predation factor, it would be almost impossible for hook-and-line anglers to make a telling difference in their overall numbers, Shepard said.
The state has been on the 25/12 system for almost 20 years, and even with anglers taking home 8 million to 10 million annually, the resource continues to show very little change in abundance.
The agency studies various reduction in creel limits to determine their impact on fishing, and came up with this. Reducing the limit from 25 to 20 would reduce harvest by only 4 percent; from 25 to 15 by 8 percent; from 25 to 10 by 15 percent, and from 25 to 5 by 30 percent.
"Based on those numbers, our assessment is we would have to reduce the daily limit to five before anyone would notice a difference in the fish available," he said.
The daily limit of 25 is seldom reached by most anglers. Studies show that the average catch per trip is fewer than five fish. Obviously, if all of the almost 1 million anglers fishing caught 25 each trip, the limit would have to be lowered.
OK, so what about reducing the minimum size to increase the number of big fish? Shepard said the LDWF ran the numbers and got these results: Increasing the minimum from 12 inches to 15 inches would put 13 percent more fish back in the water; from 12 inches to 16 inches would reduce harvest by nine percent.
But because anglers would be hooking and releasing more fish, the improvement is dampened by an estimated 10 percent release mortality.
"Essentially, we would increase spawning potential by about four percent if we raised the minimum to 15 inches, and six percent if we raised it to 15 inches," he said. "Either way, the improvement would not be noticeable to fishermen."
So for all those anglers worried about the fish-hog label, the advice is: Forgettaboutit! Certainly, if you're not going to eat them (fresh), put 'em back. Otherwise, ignore the critics and enjoy one of the great natural, renewable resources in North America.
And for those guides: If you want lower limits, move to Florida. Or Texas, Mississippi, Alabama .

Hell yea...Awesome read!!!!

[Top Dawg]

And what more do we need??

Originally Posted by jdm4x43732

But the suggestion is also coming from sports fishers, who wonder if the quality of their trout fishing experience would improve if we had more conservative regulations.
To find an answer to that question, and to reconfirm we are not "fish hogs," I turned to the fisheries biologist at the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
I got a quick, one-word answer: No.
"We've run (computer) scenarios on lowering the creel limits and increasing the size limits, and from our assessments those actions did not noticeably increase the number of fish in the system or the number of big fish," said Joey Shepard, acting deputy assistant secretary of the LDFW, and a biologist who has spent much of his long career studying specks.
But there is also some real-world experience to back up those computers. In 2006, yielding to requests from some guides and sports fishers hoping for more large specks, the state reduced regulations on Calcasieu Lake. The daily limit was dropped to 15, and although the minimum size remained at 12 inches, anglers were restricted to only two fish of more than 25 inches.
The result six years later?
"From our assessment, it did not increase the number of big fish in the system," Shepard reported. "Of course, we didn't anticipate it would."
This certainly seems counterintuitive. After all, logic dictates the fewer of objects you remove from a container, the more you'll have left. And everyone knows if the limit on, say, deer were raised to 10 per day, we wouldn't have many left. For that matter, why is the daily limit on redfish only five?
Well, the answer is that nature works with a different logic, one much more complicated than simple math.
In the case of speckled trout, we're dealing with a species that has adapted to survival on the very mean streets of the Mississippi estuary by reproducing in stupendous numbers for a fairly short lifespan.
Some points to remember:
Natural mortality in this critter-eat-critter world means every speck spawning class loses 25 percent of its surviving members every year. So if you start with 100, you're left with just 75 by Year 1, then just more than 30 by year 3.
"Basically, most of the fish you put back, or leave, will be taken by natural mortality -- predators (including larger specks), disease, weather and environmental conditions," Shepard said.
Specks start reproducing at about 18 months. The spawning season runs from about mid-April to late September, and females typically reproduce ready-to-spawn roe sacks every four to five days. That's "days" with a "d." So the marsh is flooded with trout larvae for five months.
"Because the spawning season lasts so long, and the fish produce so many (larvae), it compensates for any factors that might interrupt reproduction," Shepard said. That dynamic reproduction cycle results in a survival rate that so out-paced the high predation factor, it would be almost impossible for hook-and-line anglers to make a telling difference in their overall numbers, Shepard said.
The state has been on the 25/12 system for almost 20 years, and even with anglers taking home 8 million to 10 million annually, the resource continues to show very little change in abundance.
The agency studies various reduction in creel limits to determine their impact on fishing, and came up with this. Reducing the limit from 25 to 20 would reduce harvest by only 4 percent; from 25 to 15 by 8 percent; from 25 to 10 by 15 percent, and from 25 to 5 by 30 percent.
"Based on those numbers, our assessment is we would have to reduce the daily limit to five before anyone would notice a difference in the fish available," he said.
The daily limit of 25 is seldom reached by most anglers. Studies show that the average catch per trip is fewer than five fish. Obviously, if all of the almost 1 million anglers fishing caught 25 each trip, the limit would have to be lowered.
OK, so what about reducing the minimum size to increase the number of big fish? Shepard said the LDWF ran the numbers and got these results: Increasing the minimum from 12 inches to 15 inches would put 13 percent more fish back in the water; from 12 inches to 16 inches would reduce harvest by nine percent.
But because anglers would be hooking and releasing more fish, the improvement is dampened by an estimated 10 percent release mortality.
"Essentially, we would increase spawning potential by about four percent if we raised the minimum to 15 inches, and six percent if we raised it to 15 inches," he said. "Either way, the improvement would not be noticeable to fishermen."
So for all those anglers worried about the fish-hog label, the advice is: Forgettaboutit! Certainly, if you're not going to eat them (fresh), put 'em back. Otherwise, ignore the critics and enjoy one of the great natural, renewable resources in North America.
And for those guides: If you want lower limits, move to Florida. Or Texas, Mississippi, Alabama .

[jldsc]

looks like some solid facts to carry a very heafty argument???!!!!!

[Top Dawg]

Wonder what the "glass half empty" people are gonna say about that?

[jdm4x43732]

what ever it is, let's hear it........

[jchief]

Originally Posted by "W"

Really ....did not know that.....thanks for letting us know......its on my sig.....how could that be

We only quoted 5 times in this thread alone

Great catch

So why keep repeating?

If you want to reach some people about this, write a letter to the editor of the papers.

Posting the same stuff here only reaches the people that want to look at it.

I don't care whether the limit is 15 or 25.

["W"]

And I'm the crazy one who nobody likes.....guess sometimes you have to stomp on toes to get things moving....I'm glad and appreciate everyone who contributed to this post with sold info

I hope when we get our final document ready we can impress them enough to get our trout limits back were Biologist said they need to be..(not office fisherman)

[jdm4x43732]

Beginning June 20, anglers fishing the Louisiana waters of Sabine Lake and the Calcasieu Lake bay system south of Lake Charles will be limited to taking no more than 15 speckled trout per day, down 10 fish from Louisiana's current statewide 25-trout daily limit.
The trout limit cut was adopted by a 4-3 vote of the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission at that group's June 1 meeting.
The close commission vote underscored the contentiousness of the move affecting coastal waters, which over the past decade have become increasingly popular destinations of Texas anglers.
That increasing fishing pressure on Calcasieu and, to a lesser extent, Sabine Lake triggered concerns by some Louisiana anglers that the speckled trout population faced overharvest and needed additional protection.
Earlier this decade, concern over anglers, particularly Texas anglers, catching and retaining many large speckled trout from the Calcasieu Lake system generated a move to restrict harvest of those large trout.
The LWF Commission imposed a rule limiting anglers fishing Louisiana waters in the Calcasieu and Sabine systems and the corresponding offshore waters under Louisiana jurisdiction to retaining no more than two speckled trout measuring 25 inches or more.
The move to cut the daily bag limit from 25 specks to 15 was pushed by a coalition including the Louisiana chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association and some of the fishing guides and outfitters operating on Calcasieu Lake.
In January, when the proposal to reduce the trout bag limit in the Calcasieu and Sabine systems was officially proposed, the Louisiana CCA issued a "position paper" on the issue.
The organization said a survey of its 30,000 members indicated 85 percent who regularly fished Calcasieu Lake and 76 percent of all members supported the bag limit reduction in the southwest corner of the state.
During the LWF Commis-
sion meeting, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries coastal fisheries staff told the group the agency's biological data indicates speckled trout fisheries in the bay systems were healthy and said reducing the bag limit would not guarantee increased trout populations in the affected areas.
Those opposed to the bag limit reduction said the fisheries staff's assessment showed the move was not scientifically justified and should not be imposed.

["W"]

Originally Posted by jchief

So why keep repeating?

If you want to reach some people about this, write a letter to the editor of the papers.

Posting the same stuff here only reaches the people that want to look at it.

I don't care whether the limit is 15 or 25.

Well that's easy..stop reading or commenting on the subject...because its not going anywhere....

["W"]

And ....

[Salty]

Originally Posted by "W"

There is only a few guides on the west side of the lake that don't want 25

I have emails and text from many guides who support 25trout limit


And any guide that wants 15 is because they can't catch a 25 trout limit.... It said in one article on here from one Guide service...they only fill a limit of 75 trout 5% of the time..... Here on the east side they would fill them over way over 5% of the time

W, if there is so much support for this limit to be reversed....how in the hell was it ever allowed to be changed in the first place? Money! That's why. More money than you can even fathom. You can get a petition as long as Big lake and it ain't gonna make one bit of difference. It's gonna take money to get it done...money you ain't got.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by "W"

Well that's easy..stop reading or commenting on the subject...because its not going anywhere....

You got that right!

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by Salty

W, if there is so much support for this limit to be reversed....how in the hell was it ever allowed to be changed in the first place? Money! That's why. More money than you can even fathom. You can get a petition as long as Big lake and it ain't gonna make one bit of difference. It's gonna take money to get it done...money you ain't got.

Annnndddd....the glass is half empty again. Not a damn thing would ever get done if everyone were as negative as you.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

Annnndddd....the glass is half empty again. Not a damn thing would ever get done if everyone were as negative as you.

There's a fine line between "negative" and realistic.