15 Trout Limit Discussion PUBLIC

[huntin fool]

Deal. Stop by the speckled trout on the way out and get a gift that keeps giving??

[Top Dawg]

Lol I ain't gonna comment on that. I've had some rough nights in hackberry. Lol

[Salty]

This thread has gone to crap. Y'all have fun with your "Save the World" campaign, ladies. I'm done.

[matt wahl]

I've been watching this. And here's what I learned.

15 trout limit
Some don't like it
Some are ok with it

And mathgeek is one smart dude.

[Choupique]

I would spend my energy on them worrying about the oystering over there, but thats just me.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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. While perhaps setting a bad precedent for fisheries management (i.e., making a decision based purely on socioeconomic reasons), this situation affords a unique opportunity to evaluate the response of spotted seatrout to a spatially-explicit (estuarine-scale) regulations change (i.e., adaptive management, sensu Hilborn and Walters 1992).

from Callihan PhD thesis LSU 2011 p. 182

Note that this 2011 PhD dissertation not only says that the rule changes were not justified by biological considerations, it also says that the rule changes afford an opportunity to evaluate the response of the spotted seatrout population to the rule changes.

In other words, the assertion is that current assessments of the spotted seatrout population in Big Lake would be measuring the impact of lowering of the limit and slot rather than other things like hurricane Rita which have been asserted by others in the discussion as potentially confounding factors. The dissertation studies the impact of changes in salinity and meteorological effects of things like tropical storms, and yet it concludes that impact of the regulation change can be measured through standard stock assessment methods.

And this is not only the opinion of the author, Dr. Jody Callihan, as the thesis was carefully reviewed by his thesis advisor, Dr. Jim Cowan, a Professor in the Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences at LSU. Dr. Cowan is a national leader in the biology of estuarine fishes having authored dozens of papers, overseen millions in research dollars, and served on the editoral board of several prestigious fisheries journals. Dr. Callihan's PhD Dissertation was also reviewed and approved by Dr. Jaye E. Cable, now a Professor in Marine Sciences at UNC-Chapel Hill and Dr. James Geaghan, Professor and Dept. Head in the LSU Dept. of Experimental Statistics.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Choupique

I would spend my energy on them worrying about the oystering over there, but thats just me.

I agree completely. The over harvesting of oysters carries the risk of significant habitat destruction which is much more likely to have longer term negative impacts compared with the under harvesting of spotted seatrout which is much more quickly reversible, especially if reversed within a few years.

["W"]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Note that this 2011 PhD dissertation not only says that the rule changes were not justified by biological considerations, it also says that the rule changes afford an opportunity to evaluate the response of the spotted seatrout population to the rule changes.

In other words, the assertion is that current assessments of the spotted seatrout population in Big Lake would be measuring the impact of lowering of the limit and slot rather than other things like hurricane Rita which have been asserted by others in the discussion as potentially confounding factors. The dissertation studies the impact of changes in salinity and meteorological effects of things like tropical storms, and yet it concludes that impact of the regulation change can be measured through standard stock assessment methods.

And this is not only the opinion of the author, Dr. Jody Callihan, as the thesis was carefully reviewed by his thesis advisor, Dr. Jim Cowan, a Professor in the Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences at LSU. Dr. Cowan is a national leader in the biology of estuarine fishes having authored dozens of papers, overseen millions in research dollars, and served on the editoral board of several prestigious fisheries journals. Dr. Callihan's PhD Dissertation was also reviewed and approved by Dr. Jaye E. Cable, now a Professor in Marine Sciences at UNC-Chapel Hill and Dr. James Geaghan, Professor and Dept. Head in the LSU Dept. of Experimental Statistics.

You mean these guys know more that the office fisherman who ran to Baton Rouge??? Man that's hard to believe that someone who studies this kind of thing is overlooked by a hand full of people who out of greed want to control the lake





Wait it's Louisiana , Almost forgot

["W"]

Originally Posted by Choupique

I would spend my energy on them worrying about the oystering over there, but thats just me.

Well you see............................................... .....


That one group who got the limits changed.....don't eat oysters..so there not worried about it

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by Choupique

I would spend my energy on them worrying about the oystering over there, but thats just me.

Exactly, that is the real issue we should all work together on.

["W"]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

Exactly, that is the real issue we should all work together on.

Here is the deal with that...you have a better chance changing limits than this....no Sen is going to allow someone to lose their jobs. This has been made a point already as Dan Morish pulled his 1st bill.

WL&F make a killing on oyster fisherman fines....so will get limits back 1st

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by "W"

Here is the deal with that...you have a better chance changing limits than this....no Sen is going to allow someone to lose their jobs. This has been made a point already as Dan Morish pulled his 1st bill.

WL&F make a killing on oyster fisherman fines....so will get limits back 1st

There are plenty of people that recognize the danger that is present with the over harvesting of oysters, some of which are people have the power to make sure the lake is protected.

I assume a small publication or two will pick up on the current limit debate that is going on here due to the outreach of this website but I suspect it will not make an impact.

I personally and speaking for the site will not get involved in the limit issue one way or another on either side as I believe there are bigger issues and that bigger issue is protecting the food resources in the lake (oysters). I recognize that you have to pick your battles and in politics you should only fight the battles that really matter the most. I would however stand firm behind a push to continue to limit oyster harvesting in the lake and I would be willing to us the contacts and resources that I have obtained. There are a large number of people on the sidelines that would help us take up the oyster conservation fight. You were one of the loudest most vocal opponents on the over harvesting of oysters until one of you close “family friends” decided to introduce a bill to the contrary (I can pull the post for everyone to see it if you would like). Since then you have completely changed your position. You also served on the board of the CCA after the limits were changed and stood firm behind their mission and values so for you to blame them now after having been a part of management and the decision making process to me is shady politics.

You had an excellent opportunity to bring about change when you actually had a vote and voice, where was this 14 page thread then (I recognize you were on LAS then)? What if one of your neighbors or close family friends takes another stand against raising the limit, will you leave all of your apparent supporters on the site standing alone holding the bag like you did on the oyster issue? In a thread that speaks to conservation and what is best for the lake even though they may be joking there are people on this very thread talking about gill nets which almost destroyed the redfish and trout population and would have had it not been for the work of the CCA. This thread and cause needs leadership, right now it is heading in multiple directions and any mention of gill nets and what will happen “after” the limits are raised would possibly cause you all to not be considered conservationist but instead greedy fishermen, if that is the case both causes are finished.

This is my last post on this thread but just a few food for thoughts as this thread continues and I am not interested in the current direction and or debating the limit topic. If you guys want to get serious about the over harvesting of oysters let me know.

If there is a group that pushes for the 25 trout limit and science shows that such limit is good for the lake then I wish you guys the best. However having to pick one cause to support the choice for me is very easy, the food resources of the lake are a much higher priority.

["W"]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

There are plenty of people that recognize the danger that is present with the over harvesting of oysters, some of which are people have the power to make sure the lake is protected.

I assume a small publication or two will pick up on the current limit debate that is going on here due to the outreach of this website but I suspect it will not make an impact.

I personally and speaking for the site will not get involved in the limit issue one way or another on either side as I believe there are bigger issues and that bigger issue is protecting the food resources in the lake (oysters). I recognize that you have to pick your battles and in politics you should only fight the battles that really matter the most. I would however stand firm behind a push to continue to limit oyster harvesting in the lake and I would be willing to us the contacts and resources that I have obtained. There are a large number of people on the sidelines that would help us take up the oyster conservation fight. You were one of the loudest most vocal opponents on the over harvesting of oysters until one of you close “family friends” decided to introduce a bill to the contrary (I can pull the post for everyone to see it if you would like). Since then you have completely changed your position. You also served on the board of the CCA after the limits were changed and stood firm behind their mission and values so for you to blame them now after having been a part of management and the decision making process to me is shady politics.

You had an excellent opportunity to bring about change when you actually had a vote and voice, where was this 14 page thread then (I recognize you were on LAS then)? What if one of your neighbors or close family friends takes another stand against raising the limit, will you leave all of your apparent supporters on the site standing alone holding the bag like you did on the oyster issue? In a thread that speaks to conservation and what is best for the lake even though they may be joking there are people on this very thread talking about gill nets which almost destroyed the redfish and trout population and would have had it not been for the work of the CCA. This thread and cause needs leadership, right now it is heading in multiple directions and any mention of gill nets and what will happen “after” the limits are raised would possibly cause you all to not be considered conservationist but instead greedy fishermen, if that is the case both causes are finished.

This is my last post on this thread but just a few food for thoughts as this thread continues and I am not interested in the current direction and or debating the limit topic. If you guys want to get serious about the over harvesting of oysters let me know.

If there is a group that pushes for the 25 trout limit and science shows that such limit is good for the lake then I wish you guys the best. However having to pick one cause to support the choice for me is very easy, the food resources of the lake are a much higher priority.

1st I'm 100% against oyster dredging and still want it fixed..but I have also seen 1st hand that oysterfisherm are not going to lose there jobs no matter how much money you got to push them out.
I said from day one that dredging would kill the lake....there is a bill right now to protect our artificial reefs

[ckinchen]

Just because someone can make a living off of the public's resources does not mean it should be accepted. People made money while fishing with gill nets, we all agree that was not a good idea. People can make money dumping toxic waste in the Sabine Refuge, still not a good idea.

Some oystering is ok, the complete lack of oversight and over harvesting that took place on the lake prior to this year was a serious mismanagement of the estuary and there are people in power right now that are trying to get us back to that point.

If big lake become a giant mud hole with no significant food for the trout population you/we will have bigger issues than what our limits are. This in my mind is a big picture issue.

["W"]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

Just because someone can make a living off of the public's resources does not mean it should be accepted. People made money while fishing with gill nets, we all agree that was not a good idea. People can make money dumping toxic waste in the Sabine Refuge, still not a good idea.

Some oystering is ok, the complete lack of oversight and over harvesting that took place on the lake prior to this year was a serious mismanagement of the estuary and there are people in power right now that are trying to get us back to that point.

If big lake become a giant mud hole with no significant food for the trout population you/we will have bigger issues than what our limits are. This in my mind is a big picture issue.

Mark this down...oystering will be shut down for 10years in the next 2 by WL&F

[jchief]

Originally Posted by "W"

1st I'm 100% against oyster dredging and still want it fixed..but I have also seen 1st hand that oysterfisherm are not going to lose there jobs no matter how much money you got to push them out.
I said from day one that dredging would kill the lake....there is a bill right now to protect our artificial reefs

Originally Posted by "W"

Mark this down...oystering will be shut down for 10years in the next 2 by WL&F

?????????????????????????

["W"]

Originally Posted by jchief

?????????????????????????

Because it will be WL&F not CCA or Senate

[jchief]

And if those oyster fisherman go to the Legislature with it? Do you not think the WLF will get overruled?

[jchief]

Not trying to stir the pot. Being honest here.

[weedeater]

How long can this horse be beat before people realize its dead?