S.T.A.R (Before & After Creel Change)

["W"]

CCA STAR Trout weights before and after the limit change in 2006

Trout before the Limit change in 2006
2002

Russell Buckels
8lbs. 5 oz.
David Brown
10lbs. 3oz.
Quentin LeBoeuf
9lbs. 8 oz.
David Foreman
9lbs. 4 oz.

2003
William Jennings
8.90 lbs.
Lynn Vaughn
8.40 lbs.
Catherine Pears
8.55 lbs.

2004
Chad Paulk
9.45 lbs.
Danny Lanza
9.35 lbs.
Dustin Fuselier
9.15 lbs.
Chris Vallette
9.50 lbs.

2005
Jared Burleigh
9.10 lbs.
Jimmie Hebert
8.90 lbs.
Tony Hayden
8.40 lbs.

Trout weights after the Trout limit

2006
Tony Hayden
8.20 lbs.
Gary Burt
7.75 lbs
Jared Verrett
7.65 lbs

2007
Larry Simon
7.80 lbs.
Dennis Lavergne
7.20 lbs.
Mark Jeanes
7.45 lbs.

2008
John Adams
8.85 lbs
Harold Licatino
8.30 lbs.
Tony Hayden
8.25 lbs

2009
Dale Weiman
8.25 lbs.
Donnie Gibbs
8.20 lbs
Buddy Ward
7.95 lbs.

2010
Wayne McElveen
7.68 lbs
Betty Ellender
7.68 lbs
Gary Peltier
7.53 lbs


NO 9 or 10lbers Over Stock means smaller fish!!!

[Duck Butter]

You forgot to add in the global warming factor

[chasin'tail]

I went to the meeting with the biologists, no one would listen to what they had to say. The guides and the CCA got what they wanted, with no science to backup the new creel limits on BL. Call Mike Harbison he'll tell ya. Its all about the bucks... the fish over 5-6 lbs makeup less that 1% of the population. I don't have a problem with 15 fish, but the 2 only over 25" isn't needed. We have the biosystem to support the 12" 25 limit without hurting the fishery.

[SaltyShaw]

Originally Posted by chasin'tail

We have the biosystem to support the 12" 25 limit without hurting the fishery.

Agreed....

[ScubaLatt]

I feel that it was the guides pushing this mostly. Fewer fish = less time on the water for same money. Also, less fish to clean at the end of the day. Just my opinion.

[ckinchen]

Do you guys feel like the "box trout" in the 12 to 16 inch range have increased in population as a result of the creel changes? In other words are you getting to 15 keep trout more efficiently now than you have in the past and finding more trout at least from a numbers perspective than in prior years?

Clearly the data provided by LAS in their yearly trout forecast is far from scientific but they have seen an increase in overall trout numbers in each of the last three years in Big Lake. Of course some of that could be from Ike/Rita as well.

Or is it a bad for the estuary in every perspective? It's clear the majority of the board feels like it hurts the trophy trout population.

[Bluechip]

Originally Posted by ScubaLatt

I feel that it was the guides pushing this mostly. Fewer fish = less time on the water for same money. Also, less fish to clean at the end of the day. Just my opinion.

I agree with you Latt..

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

Do you guys feel like the "box trout" in the 12 to 16 inch range have increased in population as a result of the creel changes? In other words are you getting to 15 keep trout more efficiently now than you have in the past and finding more trout at least from a numbers perspective than in prior years?

Clearly the data provided by LAS in their yearly trout forecast is far from scientific but they have seen an increase in overall trout numbers in each of the last three years in Big Lake. Of course some of that could be from Ike/Rita as well.

Or is it a bad for the estuary in every perspective? It's clear the majority of the board feels like it hurts the trophy trout population.

Lets say Lake 'X' is 100 acres. There are only so many baitfish, shrimp, crabs, etc. in a body of water = food for gamefish. Your lake can only support 'x' amount of lbs of fish with the available food supply, lets say 100 lbs of fish. That can either be 100 1lb. fish or 20 5lb. fish, or 10 10 lb. fish. I would rather catch quite a few fish rather than sit all day and catch one, but some people are set on trophy fish. Either way, if TX people want to go out all day and catch 5 trophy trout, let em do it, I want to catch a bunch of fish and have a big fish cooking for many people

[southern151]

If they are anything like a crappie, overpopulation is terrible for size. We had lakes back home get overrun and they had to be thinned out by way of keeping everything caught or throwing them on the bank.

I know these waters are more open here but, the same principle may still apply. Keep in mind, I'm no marine biologist...

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by southern151

If they are anything like a crappie, overpopulation is terrible for size. We had lakes back home get overrun and they had to be thinned out by way of keeping everything caught or throwing them on the bank.

I know these waters are more open here but, the same principle may still apply. Keep in mind, I'm no marine biologist...

You nailed it, they are the crappie and bluegill of the saltwater. If you don't cull some or supplementally feed them, they will stunt themselves. They grow quick and spawn at an early age. Taking some out of the population only helps the overall health of the population.

[eman]

We tried to say this back when the limits were changed. But CCA said they had
85% support from their membership . even though i can't find anyone that isn't around big lake that got the survey???

[flounder_smacker]

maybe the fish are just getting smarter?

[ckinchen]

I know several guides on the lake, the ones that I know are some of the hardest working people I have encountered. I have spoken with a few on this issue and they believed that reducing the creel would allow the fishery to be healthier and last longer given that there are more boats on the water now than ever. Isn't the greed of the oyster fishermen (taking everything now and not saving it for later) and their inability to see the big picture what had everyone so outraged on here in the winter? Doesn’t that make us allot like them?

The creel change pre-dates me, I still had a camp in Grand Isle and fished that area so I really have no opinion either way on this other than to say that if catching 15 fish and not 25 will give my grandchildren a greater chance to experience what I believe is the one of the greatest outdoor cultures in our country then I'm all for it. If it is true that the reduction in creel had no impact on the fishery other than to reduce trophy trout then even the best of intentions sometimes backfires.

I will say this, the number of lazy guides on our lake are few and far between. Some may be jerks to deal with but these guys work hard for their money and most love this estuary as much as you and I.

Just a different perspective on my end....

[Salty]

Originally Posted by southern151

If they are anything like a crappie, overpopulation is terrible for size. We had lakes back home get overrun and they had to be thinned out by way of keeping everything caught or throwing them on the bank.

I know these waters are more open here but, the same principle may still apply. Keep in mind, I'm no marine biologist...

No conparison.

[eman]

That's the point ckinchen, The biologist told the state that it really wouldn't matter for your kids an grand kids. The reduction from 25 to 15 was all just a feel good help the guides out thing.
We have had this discussion before and NO ONE has been able to produce any biological reason to limit it to 15 trout.

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by eman

That's the point ckinchen, The biologist told the state that it really wouldn't matter for your kids an grand kids. The reduction from 25 to 15 was all just a feel good help the guides out thing.
We have had this discussion before and NO ONE has been able to produce any biological reason to limit it to 15 trout.

The lack of bilogical evidence is the part I never could get my arms around. I really do think it was more a function of people trying to protect the estuary than just being lazzy but your right it could harm it more than help it.

[Bluechip]

I guess I missed where anyone was calling the guides lazy.....

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by Bluechip

I guess I missed where anyone was calling the guides lazy.....

No your right nobody actually said that, I was paraphrasing. I wasn't trying to bash you either, just presenting the other side. Without biological evidence to support the reduction I tend to agree with you guys. I probably disagree from the standpoint that I think the guides (if they were really a part of the change) and the CCA all had good intentions and thought they were doing the right thing. I would find it hard to believe that either would intentionally harm the estuary. People with the best intentions sometimes make mistakes.

[Gerald]

Last week I came back to Heber's landing about Noon.

There were 3 or 4 guides just finshing up cleaning there day's catch..... no fishing 8 hr that day for them. One crab bait barrel that I saw was full.

[SaltyShaw]

Originally Posted by Gerald

Last week I came back to Heber's landing about Noon.

There were 3 or 4 guides just finshing up cleaning there day's catch..... no fishing 8 hr that day for them. One crab bait barrel that I saw was full.

That happens more than often I'm sure, but you can't point the finger at all of them. Some are genuine guys and there intentions are good, some are d bags that want to just wrap it up, hurry up and get done as quick as possible.