East Side your Limit drop is comming

[Reefman]

Originally Posted by "W"

Creel limit for sure , only 40% if that is oyster harvest in big lake and the heavy harvest was only 3 years ago when dredging was allowed for the 1st time.
That had no effect on our trout size as our lake is over abundant with bait year around . You can not fish a day with out finding bait..

But that dredging destroyed complete reefs that sustain fish populations of all sizes. Trout relate to structure just as bass do. Deplete the lake of reef structure and the fishery depletes no matter how many schools of mullet are in the lake. I have a hard time understanding your postion of catch more fish out of BL in order to produce larger fish. I do believe for a few short years this may be the case but in the long haul I see this as adversely affecting the dynamics of the trout population. If this was the case then Cocodrie eastward should be overflowing with 9lb trout.

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by Reefman

But that dredging destroyed complete reefs that sustain fish populations of all sizes. Trout relate to structure just as bass do. Deplete the lake of reef structure and the fishery depletes no matter how many schools of mullet are in the lake. I have a hard time understanding your postion of catch more fish out of BL in order to produce larger fish. I do believe for a few short years this may be the case but in the long haul I see this as adversely affecting the dynamics of the trout population. If this was the case then Cocodrie eastward should be overflowing with 9lb trout.

I say we open gill netting again.....you would see 15 pound trout in no time.

[Reefman]

Originally Posted by Montauk17

I say we open gill netting again.....you would see 15 pound trout in no time.

LMAO! but ya can only keep 15 trout..and only 2 big ones..

["W"]

Originally Posted by Reefman

But that dredging destroyed complete reefs that sustain fish populations of all sizes. Trout relate to structure just as bass do. Deplete the lake of reef structure and the fishery depletes no matter how many schools of mullet are in the lake. I have a hard time understanding your postion of catch more fish out of BL in order to produce larger fish. I do believe for a few short years this may be the case but in the long haul I see this as adversely affecting the dynamics of the trout population. If this was the case then Cocodrie eastward should be overflowing with 9lb trout.

We have a super estuary that is made for big trout ...all signs point straight to limit reduction. Also in the areas where oysters were harvested we have several atrifical reefs along with rock jetties up and down our channel with marsh flow from even angle .
When you don't take enough trout out of a given area you start having more smaller trout hog your food source . As you know big trout will not compete with school trout for food . Places where you target bigger trout you can now catch limits of trout . And if you look at WestCove the hardest hit of oystering every year buy yields the biggest trout in the lake every year !

So the 2-3 years of dredging would of depleted West Cove the most but West Cove is the strongest area of big trout
Our big trout decline started year after limit change and has fallen lower and lower of big 9-11lb trout caught

Don't get me wrong we still have lots of 5-8lb trout but no where close to 2006 and before

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Reefman

We've become our own worst enemy. To say that trout fishing is as good as it was 20 years ago is not facing the reality of fishing success, or lack there of, today. The presure placed on our resources of trout is infinitely higher than it was back then. I beleive that fishing presure has indeed impacted the fisheries. BL looks like a parking lot on weekends with all the boats beatin the waters. T Butte can have over 50 boats in a small area on calm days. Diamond not much better. The rigs out of
vermilion looks like LaFonda; you need a number to wait in line to fish live bait. Cocodrie is overcrowded on any given day.There are far more people fishing today than there were in the 80-90s.

We are the custodians of our resources today. Every effort should be made to acknowledge what problems face our natural resources and act accordingly. Responsibilities lay with us to protect them. We need factual information by our WLF along with coastal scientific studies specific to trout populations made public. I just can't see our trout fishing taking the pounding it has over the past ten years continue without a colapse in this fisheries. Just MHO.....

We are our own worst enemies if we insist on managing wildlife with anecdotal opinions of anglers rather than comprehensive and sound scientific data and valid stock assessments.

Human pressure on spotted seatrout has increased, but pressure from all other natural predators on seatrout has decreased substantially. Most prey species tend to move to areas where there is more food and less threat from predators. The expansion of oil platforms in the Gulf provides more open water habitat than ever, and the nutrient loading from the Mississippi river has increased the biomass of their prey between four and sixfold. Combined with the decrease in sharks in open water and the increase in anglers inshore suggest that significant fractions of the seatrout populations are simply spending more time in the open Gulf where there are fewer predators and more prey.

The spotted seatrout is much more flexible than other inshore species with respect to acceptable habitat, and it is unlikely that human harvest provide the most significant life history bottleneck. Habitat use does not necessarily imply habitat dependence. Concluding that a wildife population is threatened because they are not in the same place where they used to be has been proven to be bad science time and again. Whitetail deer populations have shifted over the decades from wild woodlands to prefer farmland and suburbia. Red Snapper have shifted their population from the eastern Gulf of Mexico to the northern and western Gulf of Mexico. Spotted seatrout may have simply learned to avoid the inshore predators in favor of safer habitat with more abundant food.

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by "W"

We have a super estuary that is made for big trout ...all signs point straight to limit reduction. Also in the areas where oysters were harvested we have several atrifical reefs along with rock jetties up and down our channel with marsh flow from even angle .
When you don't take enough trout out of a given area you start having more smaller trout hog your food source . As you know big trout will not compete with school trout for food . Places where you target bigger trout you can now catch limits of trout . And if you look at WestCove the hardest hit of oystering every year buy yields the biggest trout in the lake every year !

So the 2-3 years of dredging would of depleted West Cove the most but West Cove is the strongest area of big trout
Our big trout decline started year after limit change and has fallen lower and lower of big 9-11lb trout caught

Don't get me wrong we still have lots of 5-8lb trout but no where close to 2006 and before

Originally Posted by "W"

That had no effect on our trout size as our lake is over abundant with bait year around . You can not fish a day with out finding bait..

If there is so much bait how is a large population of small trout hogging the food source. LMAO classic case of foot in mouth.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Montauk17

If there is so much bait how is a large population of small trout hogging the food source. LMAO classic case of foot in mouth.

Explain????


When you have areas of bait and schools of thousands of trout ... Big trout willnot stay !!

For one big trout eat big fish, mullet croaker etc... Not shrimp and tiny shad

When you over run small trout in a area like big lake you deplete big trout



A trout can eat Breakfast in Turners , Lunch at wash out and Supper @ Jetties

We don't not have a huge place when you are not culling enough trout out!

If science would of said.: yes big lake needs to reduce its limits to keep health trout population , that's one thing . They actually said Big Lake from its SPR #s could support a 30 trout limit per person which is double from what we have !!

So there is your answer why Big Trout #s are down!!! Too Many Trout

[Reefman]

I too have noticed a decline in really big trout along with it being harder to catch any size trout out of BL. Granted I don't fish BL year round but have been fishing there for over thirty years. I do believe there were far more trout of all sizes in the lake in those early years..including your 8-9lbers. Catching was far easier back then compared to what it takes to put a limit in the boat today. Why? Fishing pressure pure and simple along with reef destruction. The less structure you have in that lake the more fish will compete over them until the structure can no longer sustain that many fish. The more reefs, the more fish and with more fish the percentage survival rate of larger fish will increase.

[Wide Open]

Math Geek! You wanna be our NXT Presidient? You seem sum kinda Smart.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Montauk17

I say we open gill netting again.....you would see 15 pound trout in no time.

You laugh but during these times you could sink your boat with rod n reel on big lake every day and trout were 4-7lb adv

My grand paw and great grand paw would go out in lake shrimp and pull shrimp boat up to spots in lake and catch 250 trout in no time . You talk to old timers about big lake during gill net days.There was no having to wake up at 5am to catch the bite .. You got out at 8-9-10 am and never stop catching fish

[Reefman]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

We are our own worst enemies if we insist on managing wildlife with anecdotal opinions of anglers rather than comprehensive and sound scientific data and valid stock assessments.

Human pressure on spotted seatrout has increased, but pressure from all other natural predators on seatrout has decreased substantially. Most prey species tend to move to areas where there is more food and less threat from predators. The expansion of oil platforms in the Gulf provides more open water habitat than ever, and the nutrient loading from the Mississippi river has increased the biomass of their prey between four and sixfold. Combined with the decrease in sharks in open water and the increase in anglers inshore suggest that significant fractions of the seatrout populations are simply spending more time in the open Gulf where there are fewer predators and more prey.

The spotted seatrout is much more flexible than other inshore species with respect to acceptable habitat, and it is unlikely that human harvest provide the most significant life history bottleneck. Habitat use does not necessarily imply habitat dependence. Concluding that a wildife population is threatened because they are not in the same place where they used to be has been proven to be bad science time and again. Whitetail deer populations have shifted over the decades from wild woodlands to prefer farmland and suburbia. Red Snapper have shifted their population from the eastern Gulf of Mexico to the northern and western Gulf of Mexico. Spotted seatrout may have simply learned to avoid the inshore predators in favor of safer habitat with more abundant food.

I always look forward to your posts on these topics MathGeek. Emotional and personal opinions have no weight in proper mangement of a fisheries. Most here feel that there are problems facing the future of trout fishing. To address this issue we must gather any and all information to make sound judgements towards solutions based on scientific data and studies geared towards the trout species....and no, I don't think it is just a matter of fishing pressure but rather multiple issues involving habitat destruction, errosion and loss of coastal estuaries along with the technological advances made recently in fishing gear (electronics).

[Duck Butter]

The limit of trout is probably the very least important thing for the east side fisheries. We are losing land at an incredible rate. You can see it for yourself if you just drive over the new bridge in Leeville. The old roads go under water often, and the places you caught fish the year before look different each year due to erosion and subsidence. We better all take good pictures every tiime you go to Grand Isle because it is going to look different even in a decade. Even Elmer's Island looks different from what it looked like 10 or 15 years ago due to sea level rise. Its very noticeable

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

The limit of trout is probably the very least important thing for the east side fisheries. We are losing land at an incredible rate. You can see it for yourself if you just drive over the new bridge in Leeville. The old roads go under water often, and the places you caught fish the year before look different each year due to erosion and subsidence. We better all take good pictures every tiime you go to Grand Isle because it is going to look different even in a decade. Even Elmer's Island looks different from what it looked like 10 or 15 years ago due to sea level rise. Its very noticeable

I agree. Over harvest of spotted seatrout is about the least likely factor to have a long term negative impact on the estuary and lowering limits in the absence of careful, thorough, published, and reviewed stock assessments is tilting at windmills because limit changes have not been shown to produce any benefit.

In contrast, erosion, saltwater intrusion, conversion of marsh type, loss of oyster reefs, and industrial contamination are the bigger issues facing most of the estuaries in southern Louisiana. However, because of high fecundity, fast growth rates, early maturity, and less dependence on marsh habitat, the spotted seatrout has a life history that is much less likely to be strongly impacted by these factors than other inshore and nearshore species.

At present, it is unclear whether observations of fewer trophy spotted seatrout in some estuaries that have previously demonstrated outstanding trophy potential are due to loss of oyster reef and other habitat issues or whether reduction in the trophy potential is due to overpopulated smaller seatrout (due to underharvest). Addressing this question would likely require a thorough stock assessment both of spotted seatrout as well as their major food sources. A spotted seatrout stock assessment should include both fisheries dependent and fisheries independent survey methods, surveys of larval and juvenile stages, analysis of weight, length, body condition, and growth of both juveniles and adults.

Without a sound stock assessment, it is unclear whether a limit reduction would help or hurt the stocks. If the spotted seatrout are currently overpopulated relative to their available food supply in a given estuary, then reducing limits will exacerbate the problem by increasing pressure on the available food supply. If the spotted seatrout are underpopulated then limit reductions may be necessary as a part of a management plan.

You can think of it this way: if the reduction of an estuary's trophy trout potential is due to overharvest, then a stock assessment will show a much smaller proportion of older fish, but the fish that are present will be plump and fast growing because there is relatively abundant forage for the fish that are present. In contrast, if the reduction of an estuary's trophy trout potential is due to overpopulation relative to the food supply, then a thorough stock assessment will show slower growth rates, thinner fish, and declining body condition with the age and length of the fish that are present. The sampling protocol is something of a challenge and would need to include significant sampling in the nearshore Gulf waters adjacent to the estuary to be sure because it would be likely that spotted seatrout would be migrating to the Gulf at earlier ages in search of food if food is limiting their growth in the estuary.

I understand the temptation to lower limits because it is an easy answer and at least represents "doing something" when faced with the concern of the future of a fishery. Unfortunately, government types are often too quick to give into this temptation because rule changes are cheaper and easier than thorough stock assessments and good science. The esturaries and future of the fisheries would be better served if we pressured the government types to conduct, publish, and explain thorough stock assessments rather than pressuring for rule changes in their absence.

["W"]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

We are our own worst enemies if we insist on managing wildlife with anecdotal opinions of anglers rather than comprehensive and sound scientific data and valid stock assessments.

Human pressure on spotted seatrout has increased, but pressure from all other natural predators on seatrout has decreased substantially. Most prey species tend to move to areas where there is more food and less threat from predators. The expansion of oil platforms in the Gulf provides more open water habitat than ever, and the nutrient loading from the Mississippi river has increased the biomass of their prey between four and sixfold. Combined with the decrease in sharks in open water and the increase in anglers inshore suggest that significant fractions of the seatrout populations are simply spending more time in the open Gulf where there are fewer predators and more prey.

The spotted seatrout is much more flexible than other inshore species with respect to acceptable habitat, and it is unlikely that human harvest provide the most significant life history bottleneck. Habitat use does not necessarily imply habitat dependence. Concluding that a wildife population is threatened because they are not in the same place where they used to be has been proven to be bad science time and again. Whitetail deer populations have shifted over the decades from wild woodlands to prefer farmland and suburbia. Red Snapper have shifted their population from the eastern Gulf of Mexico to the northern and western Gulf of Mexico. Spotted seatrout may have simply learned to avoid the inshore predators in favor of safer habitat with more abundant food.

I kind of agree with this about trout moving to less pressure areas like offshore. I stated above that lots of trout never come inland just make offshore and beaches there habitat
On another note our trout study showed our trout seldom left the estuary. Also as Jeff Poe stated about big lake, we don't have the pressure like we did 8-10 years ago. Anglers have become more spread out and no longer see 50 -70 boats on long point , commissary or wash out like before. Trout do get resting time more now than before .

[Salty]

Originally Posted by "W"

Also note the info about Big Lake added!!

http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.s...l#incart_river

Louisiana's speckled trout population has fallen below the level that for years has been used as the conservation standard, according to information provided to NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries.

Responding to a list of emailed questions, saltwater fisheries biologist Harry Blanchet said spawning potential ratio of speckled trout was between 8 and 14 percent the last time it was calculated in 2011.

Even at the high end of the estimate, spawning potential ratio is still well below the previously established conservation standard of 18 percent.

Spawning potential ratio, or SPR, is a number that represents the percentage of biomass for adult members of a particular fish species compared to what would exist in a completely virgin fishery. In this case, department biologists estimate Louisiana has 8 to 14 percent of the mature speckled-trout biomass it would have if the fish were completely off-limits to humans.

In general, when SPR falls below a certain threshold, that particular fishery is unable to sustain itself.

Retired LSU fisheries professor Jerald Horst said we're not necessarily there with speckled trout.

"The truth is that any of these standards are best guesses," he said. "But the number is clearly below the conservation standard of 18."

Horst said that overfishing usually first manifests itself in a smaller number of bigger fish being caught.

"Generally speaking, you'll see fewer big fish at first," he said. "It takes four years to grow a big (speckled trout). If we're cropping more fish at a smaller size, then obviously fewer of them will have the chance to get big."

Chas Champagne believes we may be at the point. The owner of Dockside Bait & Tackle in Slidell has seen a significant decline in the size of fish that cross over his gunwale while fishing the bridges in eastern Lake Pontchartrain.

"From 2000 to 2003, just in the fall, I probably caught 50 6-plus-pound speckled trout," he said. "If you had a calm day, you could go and make a couple hundred casts and almost guarantee a 4-pound trout or better. Now, if you catch a 3-pounder, you start taking pictures.

"I took it for granted. I was 15 to 17 years old. I just figured that's how it would be forever."

Farther to the south, former STAR winner Ed Sexton says there are far fewer big trout in the Venice area than a decade ago.

"I have fished for trout for 15 years, and it's definitely declined from when I first started," he said. "Last year, I caught one trout that was 7 pounds. I can remember 10 years ago, almost every trip when the fishing was good, if you didn't catch a 6- or 7-pound trout, that was unusual."

But Horst said it's impossible to peg the decline on overfishing. Many variables, including weather and river levels, have a tremendous impact on speckled trout reproduction, he said.

Still, it's undeniable that the SPR is falling. Horst said Wildlife & Fisheries has pointed to episodic events in the past to explain away numbers that are below the conservation standard.

"But now the average SPR is below the standard, so now we either have to come up with a different reason or change the standard," he said.

Changing a minimum conservation standard isn't unheard of in science. In fact, it should be part of the norm, Horst said, as better testing methods are developed and more information is gathered.

"There is no clear-cut standard that is 100-percent right all the time," Horst said. "If we treat these numbers as iron-clad standards, that's how we end up with a situation like we have with red snapper. We've got red snapper coming out of our ears. We're gagging on them, but we have a 27-day season."

In his emailed response, Blanchet said Louisiana's SPR estimates are in line with those of Mississippi (6-13 percent) and North Carolina (4-15 percent).

But Horst said, if we are overfishing speckled trout, it isn't any wonder as to why. An avid trout fisherman himself, Horst said anglers have gotten remarkably more efficient at targeting and harvesting trout.

"Without a doubt, fishing pressure is higher," he said. "Not just in numbers of people but in equipment. We have everything from Power-Poles to graphite rods to braided lines to depth finders. It's really something.

"When commercial fishermen went from nylon to monofilament gill nets, it really alarmed all sport fishermen, but it was not one-tenth of the increase in effectiveness that recreational fishing has had in the last four decades."

If the department determines that speckled trout are, in fact, overfished, any changes in regulation will have to be severe, Horst said.

"When the time finally comes that we do reduce creel limits, it won't be to 15. That's not enough," Horst said. "The result would be too small."

That's borne out in numbers Blanchet supplied. According to LDWF research data, 66 percent of anglers catch five or fewer speckled trout per trip, 3 percent catch 10 per trip, 2 percent catch 15 per trip and 4 percent catch 25 per trip.

"Dropping the limit to six would only impact 34 percent of the fishermen," Horst said. "Anglers need to be ready because if the regulation ever changes, it could be a five-, six- or seven-fish limit. You've got to have an impact if you're going to make the change."

Currently, Southwest Louisiana is under a special management regime for speckled trout. Anglers there may harvest only 15 fish per day with no more than two measuring in excess of 25 inches.

That regulation has had very little impact on the fishery there, as the department predicted.

"Our analyses indicated that the results of those regulations would be a small (about 10 percent) change in the harvest, less in stock size," Blanchet wrote.

The measure was pushed by local anglers and implemented by the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. It was not proposed or supported by department biologists.

Horst said at some point, Louisiana will have to change its speckled trout regulations, but he wouldn't venture a guess as to when. Will it be sometime in the next 10 years?

"I don't know," he said. "If the price of gas goes to $17 a gallon, then the answer's no. If our marsh decline causes the fishery to collapse, then the answer's yes. But I've been hearing we're right on the verge of that for 30 years."


I Want to point this out also:
----------------------------------------
Currently, Southwest Louisiana is under a special management regime for speckled trout. Anglers there may harvest only 15 fish per day with no more than two measuring in excess of 25 inches.

That regulation has had very little impact on the fishery there, as the department predicted.

"Our analyses indicated that the results of those regulations would be a small (about 10 percent) change in the harvest, less in stock size," Blanchet wrote.

The measure was pushed by local anglers and implemented by the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission. It was not proposed or supported by department biologists.

Sorry, but I don't see any mention of "Big Lake".

[Captain Brian]

In regards to Lake Pontchatrain I think from the mid 90s-early 2000 we were in a "big fish cycle",personally I would take the wait and see approach,another cycle could be right around the corner.What I see out there is patterns are changing,the great wall of Chalmette blocking MRGO changed the plumbing of the area,spillway openings have a longer impact than before.In areas I used to catch small mangrove snapper am now seeing Bass.Too many variables other than fishing pressure.

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

The limit of trout is probably the very least important thing for the east side fisheries. We are losing land at an incredible rate. You can see it for yourself if you just drive over the new bridge in Leeville. The old roads go under water often, and the places you caught fish the year before look different each year due to erosion and subsidence. We better all take good pictures every tiime you go to Grand Isle because it is going to look different even in a decade. Even Elmer's Island looks different from what it looked like 10 or 15 years ago due to sea level rise. Its very noticeable

I agree, well said. I only fish the Grand Isle and Leeville area once a year now since we moved but for 15 years we fished there almost every weekend. When we go back the changes we see now from erosion are both astounding and very disturbing. I have found from talking with several guides and residents of the island, generally speaking fishing in that area is not as strong as it once was. Oil spill related? Limits being to high? Erosion? Maybe a function of all three? I am a CPA not a biologist so I won't speculate but a full assessement with subsequent action would seem to be needed.

["W"]

MathGeek, could WL&F afford to put you on pay roll?? And why don't you pursue a job like this ?

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by "W"

MathGeek, could WL&F afford to put you on pay roll?? And why don't you pursue a job like this ?

They already have their own experts on the "payroll", do they need more? It seems like what they need to do is to take action against erosion sice we all know that is an issue, biology degree not required. First your Governor will need to out the large sum of money Bp provided into the estuary as it was designated in the first place.

More state or government jobs is the last thing Louisiana needs.

[ckinchen]

Year after year more land is lost in the baratria estuary, sad situation.