SaltyCajun.com http://www.boltonford.com//

Notices

Go Back   SaltyCajun.com > Fishing Talk > Inshore Saltwater Fishing Discussion

Inshore Saltwater Fishing Discussion Discuss inshore fishing, tackle, and tactics here!

LMC Marine
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 04-16-2014, 10:27 AM
Natural Light Kid's Avatar
Natural Light Kid Natural Light Kid is offline
Red Snapper
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lake Charles
Posts: 1,100
Cash: 1,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek View Post
Since there are multiple factors in play, multiple steps are needed to improve the fishery in Calcasieu, with a focus on habitat. Here is what I recommend:

1. Raise the limit on specks back to 25. Remove the limit on black drum (including the commercial limit). Double the limit on redfish (10, including two bulls). This will reduce pressure on the oyster reefs and the food supply.
2. End oyster dredging. The oyster reefs provide essential ecosystem services and habitat for much of the food web at lower trophic levels.
3. Line the lower channel with stout rock walls to control erosion and saltwater intrusion. Only have a couple of narrow cuts between lake and channel for boats to pass.
4. Once the salinity in the lake is lower, you can open the weirs for most days each month.
5. Ban tagging of all species for non-scientific purposes.
6. Insist that all future limit changes be based on scientific data assessing the population of all dominant species relative to their food supply.
7. Place a bounty on bull drum to protect the oysters. Perhaps allow an additional limit of specks or reds for each bull black drum in possession.
I promise this is not a smart a$$ question, but what does tagging have to do with anything?
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 04-16-2014, 10:30 AM
noodle creek's Avatar
noodle creek noodle creek is offline
Red Snapper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: lake charles
Posts: 1,590
Cash: 2,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smalls View Post
The real question here is: how do you grow more "trophy" fish by reducing a limit?

The only logic there is that by reducing a limit, you are leaving more fish in, thereby increasing the chances of growing larger fish. You are giving more opportunity for those fish to get bigger.

But on the ecological flip side of that--I think its poppycock. If you leave more fish in the system, there is greater competition for a food source, and if the food source is not increasing, you are going to see an overall decrease in size. You can't grow bigger fish by leaving more in. You have to reduce the amount of fish so there is less competition on the food source.

I don't know, that seems pretty logical to me. I mean, if there are 100 of us in a room with only 100 sandwiches, it stands to reason that, on average, one person in that group is going to eat less than one person in a group of 50 would get to eat. (Assuming everyone shares, which just about seems impossible around here )

And for all those that don't want to sift through that huge document that MG posted earlier, here is the section on Tripletail:
Maybe if the weirs were gone, they wouldn't have to compete so hard for their food. It's crazy that sabine is good right now and BL has been terrible lately. No weirs in Sabine and oyster reefs that aren't destroyed. To me it's pretty clear that these issues need to be taken care of.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 04-16-2014, 10:32 AM
noodle creek's Avatar
noodle creek noodle creek is offline
Red Snapper
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: lake charles
Posts: 1,590
Cash: 2,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duck Butter View Post



nope, nope, nope, you guys are too far into it, can't bring you back, minds already made up

I commend Raymond and biggun for not wading through the b.s. anymore also. Nothing good can come out of it, best just to walk away


draconian sanctions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:grin pimp:
Is everything that Cajunmade said B.S.?
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 04-16-2014, 10:53 AM
Clampy's Avatar
Clampy Clampy is offline
Ling
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Flats
Posts: 3,509
Cash: 5,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural Light Kid View Post
I promise this is not a smart a$$ question, but what does tagging have to do with anything?

It's just something he doesn't like. Think of it as a ear mark on a bill.


Spiral Out
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 04-16-2014, 11:10 AM
mr crab's Avatar
mr crab mr crab is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bridge City, TX
Posts: 2,725
Cash: 7,965
Default

Can anybody tell me what monetary or political gain cca leadership, or politicos involved in these limit reductions have received? Just trying to locate the money trail. I know that a certain guide service was documented supporting limit reductions. But does one guide service have enough stroke to change things like this? Also I keep hearing "WD"..... how or what would he personally gain from these decreases? This b.s. is happening in tx to a greater extent, and I'm trying to understand who benefits from these changes, and what motivates cca to back it up even when a lot of the membership clearly disagrees with it. I know the answer is $$$$, but I'm not smart enough to figure out who's getting paid and who is footing the bill? Maybe yall are?

Last edited by mr crab; 04-16-2014 at 11:18 AM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 04-16-2014, 11:15 AM
MathGeek's Avatar
MathGeek MathGeek is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 2,931
Cash: 4,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural Light Kid View Post
I promise this is not a smart a$$ question, but what does tagging have to do with anything?
It is not in the interest of true conservation to have the lobbying groups in bed with the LDWF. CCA supports license fee increases. LWF Commission passes restrictions with no scientific support and LDWF approves redfish tagging needed for tournament in which CCA generates most of their annual revenues. LDWF should not be giving perks CCA.

Any group should be free to hold a tournament, and any fishing tournament will involve some luck. But the redfish tagging removes all the skill and is functionally equivalent to winning the lottery rather than the more reasonable tournament goal of catching the biggest fish.

The whole "tagged redfish" deal is to circumvent rewarding big bull reds and suggests a long term motive to restrict angler liberties to keep bull reds. CCA has actively campaigned for more restrictive redfish limits in TX and FL, and in the long term I fully expect them to eventually lobby for more restrictive redfish limits in LA.

LDWF should not be assisting with fundraising for a lobbying group focused on restricting angler liberties. This is what the tagged redfish contest amounts to. The "lottery" aspect of the STAR tournament is one of the big challenges to an effective boycott.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 04-16-2014, 11:16 AM
meaux fishing's Avatar
meaux fishing meaux fishing is offline
Great White
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Meaux
Posts: 12,531
Cash: 22,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr crab View Post
Can anybody tell me what monetary or political gain cca leadership, or politicos involved in these limit reductions have received? Just trying to locate the money trail. I know that a certain guise service was documented supporting limit reductions. But does one guide service have enough stroke to change things like this. Also I keep hearing "WD" how our what would he personally gain from these decreases? This b.s. is happening in tx to a greater extent, and I'm trying to understand who benefits from these changes, and what motivates cca to back it up?
they are saving us from ourselves, because its the "right thing to do"
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 04-16-2014, 11:18 AM
meaux fishing's Avatar
meaux fishing meaux fishing is offline
Great White
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Meaux
Posts: 12,531
Cash: 22,543
Default

They are the democrats of coservation
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 04-16-2014, 11:20 AM
MathGeek's Avatar
MathGeek MathGeek is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 2,931
Cash: 4,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr crab View Post
Can anybody tell me what monetary or political gain cca leadership, or politicos involved in these limit reductions have received? Just trying to locate the money trail. I know that a certain guise service was documented supporting limit reductions. But does one guide service have enough stroke to change things like this. Also I keep hearing "WD" how our what would he personally gain from these decreases? This b.s. is happening in tx to a greater extent, and I'm trying to understand who benefits from these changes, and what motivates cca to back it up?
CCA raises most of their $$$ from the STAR tournament. A number of positions within CCA are paid. The STAR tournament is possible because the state wildlife agencies approve the tagging and other aspects of the tournament.

It is a back scratching fest. The state agencies support CCA fundraising efforts (redfish tagging, tournaments), and CCA supports license increases and more restrictive regulations. More restrictive regulations carry the illusion of conservation progress to keep the fundraising cycle going.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 04-16-2014, 11:23 AM
Goooh's Avatar
Goooh Goooh is offline
Swordfish
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Broussard
Posts: 5,660
Cash: 7,216
Default

MathGeek is on a rolllll
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 04-16-2014, 11:28 AM
Ratdog's Avatar
Ratdog Ratdog is offline
Red Snapper
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: We're my boat is
Posts: 1,107
Cash: -514
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek View Post
Since there are multiple factors in play, multiple steps are needed to improve the fishery in Calcasieu, with a focus on habitat. Here is what I recommend:

1. Raise the limit on specks back to 25. Remove the limit on black drum (including the commercial limit). Double the limit on redfish (10, including two bulls). This will reduce pressure on the oyster reefs and the food supply.
2. End oyster dredging. The oyster reefs provide essential ecosystem services and habitat for much of the food web at lower trophic levels.
3. Line the lower channel with stout rock walls to control erosion and saltwater intrusion. Only have a couple of narrow cuts between lake and channel for boats to pass.
4. Once the salinity in the lake is lower, you can open the weirs for most days each month.
5. Ban tagging of all species for non-scientific purposes.
6. Insist that all future limit changes be based on scientific data assessing the population of all dominant species relative to their food supply.
7. Place a bounty on bull drum to protect the oysters. Perhaps allow an additional limit of specks or reds for each bull black drum in possession.
What he said. Stop making new laws to feed the never ending cycle of inforcement.
Or there will be turits on LwF patrol boats.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 04-16-2014, 11:39 AM
mr crab's Avatar
mr crab mr crab is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bridge City, TX
Posts: 2,725
Cash: 7,965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek View Post
CCA raises most of their $$$ from the STAR tournament. A number of positions within CCA are paid. The STAR tournament is possible because the state wildlife agencies approve the tagging and other aspects of the tournament.

It is a back scratching fest. The state agencies support CCA fundraising efforts (redfish tagging, tournaments), and CCA supports license increases and more restrictive regulations. More restrictive regulations carry the illusion of conservation progress to keep the fundraising cycle going.
Honestly mg...sounds kinda weak...not saying that you are wrong at all, I just think there is something more sinister than the "illusion of conservation progress" that's driving this. Especially when the TPWD hosted local (Port Arthur) public meeting on decreasing the flounder and trout limits here in TX had 0% support, and it still passed by a landslide because CCA backed the recomendation. How does CCA directly benefit monetarily from lower limits? I, like many on this site, will not be chipping in this year, which I think would be a negative impact on their bottom line???
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 04-16-2014, 11:44 AM
Clampy's Avatar
Clampy Clampy is offline
Ling
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Flats
Posts: 3,509
Cash: 5,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek View Post
It is not in the interest of true conservation to have the lobbying groups in bed with the LDWF. CCA supports license fee increases. LWF Commission passes restrictions with no scientific support and LDWF approves redfish tagging needed for tournament in which CCA generates most of their annual revenues. LDWF should not be giving perks CCA.



Any group should be free to hold a tournament, and any fishing tournament will involve some luck. But the redfish tagging removes all the skill and is functionally equivalent to winning the lottery rather than the more reasonable tournament goal of catching the biggest fish.



The whole "tagged redfish" deal is to circumvent rewarding big bull reds and suggests a long term motive to restrict angler liberties to keep bull reds. CCA has actively campaigned for more restrictive redfish limits in TX and FL, and in the long term I fully expect them to eventually lobby for more restrictive redfish limits in LA.



LDWF should not be assisting with fundraising for a lobbying group focused on restricting angler liberties. This is what the tagged redfish contest amounts to. The "lottery" aspect of the STAR tournament is one of the big challenges to an effective boycott.

Yeah. Right on.
Prison guards shouldn't lobby to keep laws that the majority of citizens don't like either.


Spiral Out
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 04-16-2014, 12:03 PM
MathGeek's Avatar
MathGeek MathGeek is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 2,931
Cash: 4,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clampy View Post
Prison guards shouldn't lobby to keep laws that the majority of citizens don't like either.
Everyone, even special interests should be free to lobby the legislature for the laws they think are right. This is just free speech and due process.

But wildlife regulations that are set by an executive branch bureaucracy should be subject to stricter scrutiny because they have the force of law (criminal penalties) without the benefit of due republican processes.

When a lobbying group gets too cozy with an executive branch bureaucracy and the bureaucracy is protecting the lobbying group's cash cow, and the lobbying group is supporting revenue increases for the bureaucracy, then due process and transparent government has been circumvented. The tight relations between CCA and LWF Commission has essentially shut out both scientific data and meaningful input from other stakeholders. Prying the lovers apart is the next step in making progress.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-16-2014, 12:03 PM
"W"'s Avatar
"W" "W" is offline
Catch fish in DA face!!
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Big Lake LA
Posts: 32,974
Cash: 7,829
Default

Got some great news, just talked to a guide who said the weirs are all closed up, awesome full moon great tides

Choke lake out again
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-16-2014, 12:07 PM
keakar's Avatar
keakar keakar is offline
Red Snapper
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Laplace
Posts: 1,869
Cash: 1,852
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek View Post
Since there are multiple factors in play, multiple steps are needed to improve the fishery in Calcasieu, with a focus on habitat. Here is what I recommend:

1. Raise the limit on specks back to 25. Remove the limit on black drum (including the commercial limit). Double the limit on redfish (10, including two bulls). This will reduce pressure on the oyster reefs and the food supply.
2. End oyster dredging. The oyster reefs provide essential ecosystem services and habitat for much of the food web at lower trophic levels.
3. Line the lower channel with stout rock walls to control erosion and saltwater intrusion. Only have a couple of narrow cuts between lake and channel for boats to pass.
4. Once the salinity in the lake is lower, you can open the weirs for most days each month.
5. Ban tagging of all species for non-scientific purposes.
6. Insist that all future limit changes be based on scientific data assessing the population of all dominant species relative to their food supply.
7. Place a bounty on bull drum to protect the oysters. Perhaps allow an additional limit of specks or reds for each bull black drum in possession.
1,000% agree with everything on that list and it is well thought out and all will have the desired resulting impact except for #7 and I would amend #1 part "b" as it pertains to red limits to reduce the size limit to 14". I only keep 16-18" reds because those are the best eating and I would love to have a 14-18" slot to be able to keep because finding something in that 16-18" slot isn't easy to do.

I think promotion of black drum as good to eat and a strong effort to get people to stop calling it and treating it as trash fish will do more to get people to start keeping and eating them and "maybe" even targeting them as a food item. this can and should be done weather they make any changes to the present system or not but there needs to be a change in peoples opinions of black drum as good to eat so people start removing them from the water.

I just don't see the bounty idea being feasible or practical and you definitely cant double other limits as a reward without having cheaters keep one big drum in the freezer so every trip they just bring it with them to be able keep double limits. i'll admit it now that if that were the system I wouldn't be able to resist the urge to cheat as I described because my fishing activities provide me with a much needed and depended on food source.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-16-2014, 12:30 PM
meaux fishing's Avatar
meaux fishing meaux fishing is offline
Great White
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Meaux
Posts: 12,531
Cash: 22,543
Default

The LWF commission is composed almost entirely of CCA members... Coincidence? I think not
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 04-16-2014, 12:41 PM
mr crab's Avatar
mr crab mr crab is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bridge City, TX
Posts: 2,725
Cash: 7,965
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meaux fishing View Post
The LWF commission is composed almost entirely of CCA members... Coincidence? I think not
ok....so how does LWF comission directly benefit monetarily from decreasing the limits? I've been thinking about this for a while....can't figure it out....Could there be very wealthy fishermen and or guides willing to make large contributions to CCA and politicians campaign funds just so they can say they caught a limit? This seems unlikely to me...but its the best I've come up with. Who stands to benefit from the average joe only keeping 5 triples or 15 trout instead of 25? And why would he be willing to pay big money for it?
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 04-16-2014, 12:43 PM
MathGeek's Avatar
MathGeek MathGeek is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 2,931
Cash: 4,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by keakar View Post
I just don't see the bounty idea being feasible or practical and you definitely cant double other limits as a reward without having cheaters keep one big drum in the freezer so every trip they just bring it with them to be able keep double limits. i'll admit it now that if that were the system I wouldn't be able to resist the urge to cheat as I described because my fishing activities provide me with a much needed and depended on food source.
Bull drum have a lot of meat and are not hard to catch. If I were fishing mainly for meat I think I would tend to target them first on most days out. Targeting bull drum would also produce significant catch of reds and gafftops also. It's just not that hard to catch a lot of meat in a little time once you have a bit of experience targeting them. Guys who run trot lines can catch thousands of pounds of drum every day. Remove the limit on drum and no one fishing in Big Lake would ever be hurting for meat.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 04-16-2014, 12:44 PM
mr crab's Avatar
mr crab mr crab is offline
King Mackeral
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Bridge City, TX
Posts: 2,725
Cash: 7,965
Default

Who stands to benefit from the average joe only keeping 5 triples or 15 trout instead of 25? And why would he be willing to pay big money for it? I think this answer is the beginning of the solution.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:42 AM.



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - [ARG:3 UNDEFINED], Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vB.Sponsors
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007 - 2008, PixelFX Studios
SaltyCajun.com logo provided by Bryce Risher

All content, images, designs, and logos are Copyright © 2009-2012,
Salty Cajun, LLC
No unathorized use is permitted
Geo Visitors Map