15 Trout Limit Discussion PUBLIC

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by "W"

Then I could be loved like WD and cry about big lake Limits and killing big trout but get on the cover of the BIG TROUT Book and magazine holding 9lb trout


WINNING

And that is why these threads get moved. You cannot have a discussion without bashing an orgnization (which is now a site sponsore) or a person or their family. If you started a thread lime MathGeek does with facts and his we could leave this in the open area.

I don't care personally if the limit is 15 or 25, if 15 helps the lake then I support it, if not I don't. What I have said is 15 trout (which by the way it has been a long time since I did not catch at least 15 trout on my trips you claim me to be an office fishermen whatever that means) is plenty for me.

Learn to state your opinion with facts or at least without singling people out who are not here to defend themselves.

["W"]

Originally Posted by SULPHITE

This is the problem...being well thought of could potentially help.

and getting talked about does do!!! You would not believe me if I told you..

[ckinchen]

What I find funny is the club w guys no longer post reports on the site and rarely post, why should I as the owner continue to allow you or your club to push the envelope? It's an honest question. I personally do not care to be associated with you when you start attacking people on here, I become guilty by association.

["W"]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

And that is why these threads get moved. You cannot have a discussion without bashing an orgnization (which is now a site sponsore) or a person or their family. If you started a thread lime MathGeek does with facts and his we could leave this in the open area.

I don't care personally if the limit is 15 or 25, if 15 helps the lake then I support it, if not I don't. What I have said is 15 trout (which by the way it has been a long time since I did not catch at least 15 trout on my trips you claim me to be an office fishermen whatever that means) is plenty for me.

Learn to state your opinion with facts or at least without singling people out who are not here to defend themselves.

I post plenty of Fact.....More than were given when the limit was changed.....SO dont call me out for not knowing fact....
Ill re post them all again hang on

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by "W"

I post plenty of Fact.....More than were given when the limit was changed.....SO dont call me out for not knowing fact....
Ill re post them all again hang on

Yep then you follow it up with post about organizations or specific people. Let your facts speak for themselves and move on.

["W"]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

What I find funny is the club w guys no longer post reports on the site and rarely post, why should I as the owner continue to allow you or your club to push the envelope? It's an honest question. I personally do not care to be associated with you when you start attacking people on here, I become guilty by association.

Because this issue is destroying our lake we fish...this is a fishing site...

but if you dont want me here...LET ME KNOW TODAY....We will be glad to go!!

If we cant talk about fishing and issues on a fishing site...then what the hell is it far

AND I POSTED 3 Reports last week...but since i dont post that many I can slim that number down to ZERO

[huntin fool]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

What I find funny is the club w guys no longer post reports on the site and rarely post, why should I as the owner continue to allow you or your club to push the envelope? It's an honest question. I personally do not care to be associated with you when you start attacking people on here, I become guilty by association.

By who do you call club w. Just wanting a list of names.
I post reports when I have time. And post when I have time.

[ckinchen]

It's a free country W, do what you feel will make you happy. Your little crew has all but left the site already so who cares.

Post about your opinion if you would like but keep people's names out of it. And for the record I have never even met the family in Lake Charles that you blame for this, I just do not think it is right to smash individuals on here that cannot defend themselves.

[SaltyShaw]

I haven't been posting reports .......... sorry been crazy busy I'll do a weekly report for ya

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by SaltyShaw

I haven't been posting reports .......... sorry been crazy busy I'll do a weekly report for ya

I would greatly appreciate it Kade, thank you.

["W"]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

It's a free country W, do what you feel will make you happy. Your little crew has all but left the site already so who cares.

Post about your opinion if you would like but keep people's names out of it. And for the record I have never even met the family in Lake Charles that you blame for this, I just do not think it is right to smash individuals on here that cannot defend themselves.

All im saying is I know along with others were partially right about this.....

Like you know taxes ...I know fishing...
I might not have the technique MathGeek has to lay it out but In my own words you can get the point

what makes me mad and others is that the ones who made this hide behind a desk and will not own up to there mistakes or even post one signal fact to the public about this ....

Most I talk with have no clue about this site and dont even get on the internet ....But I know they know what the hell there talking about and one thing is we all agree...

Internet can me a tool to get enough eyes open weather its in a good way or bad...someone is talking about it...the more people talk about it.....just maybe it will get to someone who thinks like us and willing to do something

[ckinchen]

Cca is a public organization, w if you want to blame them for what you believe is a decrease in the number of harvested big trout then do what you feel you need to do. What I won't allow is for you to blame X person that is not a public figure for it. You will have to work around those guidelines and when you start smashing the cca it becomes a political discussion and that is why the mods moved you earlier post.

And we move on.....

["W"]

FACTS

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Contaminants can be a confounding factor in interpreting condition index, but the majority of the Calcasieu esturary would not be considered contaminated by the Jenkins criteria. Of course, more data always raises the level of confidence. But I think the data that is needed and can be obtained would be relative condition factor in additional years. All we have is a relative condition factor of 1.03 +/- 0.020 for a sample size of 23 (mixed species) from the non-comtaminated sites in the Jenkins 2004 study and 2011 relative condition factors of 0.971 +/- 0.010 for 138 spotted sea trout, 0.965 +/- 0.014 for 66 redfish, and 0.955 +/- 0.017 for 26 black drum.

In 2011, the fish were significantly thinner than in 2004 in the Calcasieu estuary. If the fish are also significantly thinner in other years, then there would be more convincing evidence that there are too many fish relative to the available food in the Calcasieu estuary. If this is the case, the most reasonable remedies would be some combination of 1) protect the food souces by reducing shrimping, oystering, and crabbing pressure 2) reduce the pressure on the food souces by increasing the harvest of the most abundant predators. I think the evidence suggests that the best combination of the above would probably be to reduce the oystering and increase the spotted sea trout limit as well as encouraging the harvest of more black drum (because they really hammer the oysters). Hard data from additional years would, of course, further clarify the situation and make a more compelling case.

There are other approaches to stock assessment, but the LDWF has not been willing to share their methodologies or their data. (We've asked for their Calcasieu data from 2001-2010 and our data request has been denied.) It would be enlightening if additional pressure could compel LDWF to share all their available data on Calcasieu so the data could be analyzed by independent parties. I've found that some states (like Colorado) are much more open with their data and justification that their management decisions are data-driven rather than political. However, there are PETA-type forces and pseudo-conservationist type forces at work in every state simply trying to limit the use of natural resources. I tend to be skeptical of wildlife management that says "trust us, we're scientists" without sharing of data openly so that their results and recommendations can be independently reviewed by other scientists.

[all star rod]

Originally Posted by "W"

Then I could be loved like WD and cry about big lake Limits and killing big trout but get on the cover of the BIG TROUT Book and magazine holding 9lb trout


WINNING

Who is WD

[longcast]

How the **** is limits destroying our resource. There was a time when there were no limits and the fish still did not go extinct. Off course people back then only took what they needed Unlike you bro. Why do you need to catch 25 fish a day. You damn sure can't eat that many. My freezer is fish less. You know why. I can go catch a few to eat anytime I want. Don't need to take more than I'm going to eat.

["W"]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

Cca is a public organization, w if you want to blame them for what you believe is a decrease in the number of harvested big trout then do what you feel you need to do. What I won't allow is for you to blame X person that is not a public figure for it. You will have to work around those guidelines and when you start smashing the cca it becomes a political discussion and that is why the mods moved you earlier post.

And we move on.....

Not one time was the CCA bashed in this ......I support the CCA..Pay my dues.....Not going to bash them or let anyone else bash them....

Its a small group who did this...Not any organization

[ckinchen]

You are right, this site can become a tool for this and many if we use it correctly. Like I said you just have to think about the approach you want to take and keep from coming across like you are in attack mode.

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by longcast

How the **** is limits destroying our resource. There was a time when there were no limits and the fish still did not go extinct. Off course people back then only took what they needed Unlike you bro. Why do you need to catch 25 fish a day. You damn sure can't eat that many. My freezer is fish less. You know why. I can go catch a few to eat anytime I want. Don't need to take more than I'm going to eat.

So he can take pics with huge piles of trout to make himself feel taller.

["W"]

Originally Posted by longcast

How the **** is limits destroying our resource. There was a time when there were no limits and the fish still did not go extinct. Off course people back then only took what they needed Unlike you bro. Why do you need to catch 25 fish a day. You damn sure can't eat that many. My freezer is fish less. You know why. I can go catch a few to eat anytime I want. Don't need to take more than I'm going to eat.

Dude you missing the whole point....You have to keep fish to keep the system healthy and right..if you dont keep fish then you over populate

Like Deer hunting in Texas....Biologist comes out to my buddies ranch every year and tells him you have to remove 50 does this year..or 70 this year to keep your breeding and ranch healthy and in check..


Same with trout fishing , Trout breed and lay millions of eggs a year and if you did not keep one signal fish in big lake for one year ...there would be no bait left in the lake.....which things would start dieing off..

You keep fish to keep an healthy estuary..... You can chop them up and feed them to your dog..I don't care...but I will keep my limit every time i can

I trade trout for deer meat..Hunting trips.....and all kinds of things...Hell I get my yard mowed at my camp for trout filets

[SaltyShaw]

Originally Posted by Montauk17

So he can take pics with huge piles of trout to make himself feel taller.

Really?? Y'all need to grow up and look at the matter at hand not Waltrips ego this discussion isn't about him. It's about the fact that 15 trout limit has hurt the lake be mature if your going to enter a discussion