Triple tail limit coming

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Actually, LDWF has rejected every request for data we have made of them. In contrast, other states like Colorado, have quickly provided reams of data (many megabytes in conveniently formatted spreadsheets) in response to every data request we have made. I think we have published three different papers on our detailed analysis and interpretation of fisheries data from Colorado Parks and Wildlife. But so far, LDWF has not been willing to share.

You can get the data, believe me. Didnt I offer you some oyster cultch data once and you said don't worry you had gotten it from LDWF? But yes, you have to keep on them about it and maybe go up there and introduce yourself and let them know why you are interested. These data are very very large files and they can't just stop what they are doing and email everyone gigabytes full of fish data.


Any data presented at the meetings is really not the kind or quantity that can be reviewed and assessed by independent experts and stakeholders. See below.

This is junk science. First of all, there is no description of the study design, sample sizes, or actual data. There is just a comparison of recapture rates with "other game fish." Which "other game fish?" Were there comparable delays and comparable recapture efforts with the TT and the "other game fish?"

You are going to have to get a link to these studies and that will answer your questions, I am sorry you were not in the loop of the peer review process, but neither were 99.9% of fishermen


Furthermore, a relatively high recapture rate does not necessarily imply vulnerability to over fishing. It simply means that the specimens that are captured once are more likely to be captured again. This does not indicate that the entire population is subject to likely capture in the first place. There may be large parts of the population that are not subject to easy capture (due to habitat or feeding preferences).

All speculation, you are going to have to speak with the publisher of the paper(s). He/she will probably tell you everything you want to hear. A high capture rate (ease of capture) is exactly what is raising concern.


The issue is not whether there are secret, unpublished studies that policy makers cite to support their exercise of power, but whether the data and methodologies are published with sufficient detail to allow review, assessment, and comment by independent scientists and stakeholders.

Find out what studies they are basing this off, and then go to the meeting and comment

Citing unpublished studies or data is not scientifically based policy making. It is a recipe for any policy the power brokers wish to implement based on pseudoscience.

Who says they are unpublished?

Cite a source for the published data. You should know that throwing out a single numerical conclusion (2.5 times the recapture rate of other species) is a conclusion, it is not the data or methodology needed to assess the validity of the conclusion or the inferences that are based on it.

You know that with the scientific process, you can not just throw out numbers. The article where those numbers came from was not a scientific journal article and I am sure there was limited space in that article to add their introduction, methods, and statistical analyses.

Then explain why the immature redfish and black drum support higher take limits than the sexually mature fish?
See below, and add that it really depends on the ecology of the fish - where it spends its time and its movements as a juvenile and as an adult.

Then why are there no length limits for many species of game fish?
It can be based on their age at sexual maturity, lifespan, how many are targeted each year, and a combination of some or all. For instance, red snapper take many years to reach sexual maturity so they have a different set of regs than say a mahi mahi which grows at an incredible rate and lives a short lifespan (they can reach 25 lbs in one year)

Where is the science to justify adding the tripletail to the list of more highly regulated species requiring a minimum length limit?
Hasn't this been discussed?


What is different about white trout, gafftops, channel catfish, croaker, freshwater drum, spanish mackerel, and jack cravelle that these species don't need the possession limit to be lowered to five?

If there was a real trend towards targeting these species on a broad scale, the limits would certainly be looked into, but as of now there are no concerns with that, whereas tripletail are gaining in popularity and their ease of capture is what is drawing concern

Arbitrary, unsupported harvest restrictions on tripletail raise valid concerns that fishing rights will gradually be whittled away by unsupported "conservation" concerns. Once this proposed restriction is accomplished, they will set their sights on the next area where they can restrict liberty without a soundly supported scientific need.

What? Really? Come on man, LDWF wouldn't even exist without fishermen and hunters, they are on our side. They are there solely to manage our wildlife, not restrict our liberties.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

Yeah.. tapout duck butt... because having a opinion is UNAMURICAN!!!

a VERY informed opinion

["W"]

Duck Butter do I need to start another poll?? 3Tail are not a real target fish!!

80% on this site has never caught one....

more sheephead come to the landing than 3tail in a years time

[Duck Butter]

I am not going to get into a match with MG, I like the guy and wish I knew half as much as he does about statistics, and if this starts going into the pissing match route I will 'tap out'. I am trying to portray what goes on when making decisions with wildlife management. I don't like people spreading false information, and there is a LOT of that going on in here. Hell, I can't remember if this is the CCA thread or the Tripletail thread

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

Duck Butter do I need to start another poll?? 3Tail are not a real target fish!!

80% on this site has never caught one....

more sheephead come to the landing than 3tail in a years time

And probably way less have actually caught 5 in one trip

which is EXACTLY what is amazing to me that there are that many people concerned about a fish they never target

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

You are right CCA has done some good, but they need to do better and stop backing these uncalled for limits on fish they have ZERO info about!
Like MG said: Keep pushing these non-factors on fish and in 10 years were fishing for 3 trout 1 red and 1 flounder but can’t figure out why the biggest trout you catch in big lake is 2lbs

False, there is info and you have seen it you have even posted it here, and once again you are blaming CCA for the Big Lake limit reduction, which is again FALSE


and 'you're' love for MG is astonishing. Anything he says is the gospel to you





(waits for W to post some silly pic)

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

And probably way less have actually caught 5 in one trip

which is EXACTLY what is amazing to me that there are that many people concerned about a fish they never target

Because this is where it starts!!! Like I said next in line will be State wide 15 trout limit and then 10 Trout limit and then 5 Trout limit

3tail are not a fish that people just leave dock and say: lets hammer the shi t out of them today and "DO"

I have not caught over 5 this year...I have caught 1 but when I do go offshore and find that grass line and they have 200 of them, I want enough to last me a few fish frys

[Spunt Drag]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

Yeah.. tapout duck butt... because having a opinion is UNAMURICAN!!!

Haha don't take the Internet or me so serious

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

False, there is info and you have seen it you have even posted it here, and once again you are blaming CCA for the Big Lake limit reduction, which is again FALSE


and 'you're' love for MG is astonishing. Anything he says is the gospel to you





(waits for W to post some silly pic)

Show me facts where CCA was not involed in 15trout limit and where we needed a 15 trout limt.

Getting popcorn out

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

Show me facts where CCA was not involed in 15trout limit and where we needed a 15 trout limt.

Getting popcorn out

You can't prove a negative there "W", howabout show me where they were, should be very easy. And I am talking CCA the organization as a 'hole', not Wil Drost or anyone else. I need an actual press statement or article, get to googling

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

You can't prove a negative there "W", howabout show me where they were, should be very easy. And I am talking CCA the organization as a 'hole', not Wil Drost or anyone else. I need an actual press statement or article, get to googling

Henery FREAKEN Mouton

Big Lake Trout Limits

As a member of the LDWF Commission, let me tell you where this Reduction of Trout Limits on Big Lake got started. Last Spring I recived several phone calls and emails from Big Lake Fishermen asking me to meet with them as they wanted to talk about Reducing the Limit on Big Lake from 25 Trout to 10 Trout. I had probably 10 meetings, many, many phone calls, many, many emails with these fishermen and Guides all wanting this Reduction. They contacted CCA and CCA ran a Poll of its membership that fish the Big Lake Area, over 70% Responded that they DID want to see a REDUCTION in the Limit of fish. 95% of the Guides that operate on Big Lake want to see a Reduciton in the Limit. This issue was brought forward by me, NOT Fred Miller, NOT CCA. CCA supports it becasue their members in that area support it. I have had many phone calls from fishermen that fish S E LA asking me to reduce the Limits Statewide that that is NOT a topic of dicusssion now. These are the FACTS!!!

http://www.louisianasportsman.com/lp...eport&id=10046

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

Because this is where it starts!!! Like I said next in line will be State wide 15 trout limit and then 10 Trout limit and then 5 Trout limit

3tail are not a fish that people just leave dock and say: lets hammer the shi t out of them today and "DO"

I have not caught over 5 this year...I have caught 1 but when I do go offshore and find that grass line and they have 200 of them, I want enough to last me a few fish frys

This is the same mentality that just drove that entire ammo and gun craze we just experienced and not one thing happened but ammo and gun prices went thru the roof This is the LDWF for lord's sake, why in the world would they do anything to decrease the amount of fishermen - they won't. They work FOR us 100%, this isn't the federal gov't

Five 18"+ tripletail will last you a few fish frys, its not even law yet so go and catch 200 of em

["W"]

[SIZE=4]"State could lower speckled trout limit"[/SIZE]
by: John Felsher
State could lower speckled trout limit
By John N. Felsher
Several anglers contacted Henry Mouton, a member of the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission from Lafayette, La., asking him to submit a regulation reducing the trout limit in the Calcasieu Estuary south of Lake Charles, La.
Mouton said he may submit a recommendation to the LWFC in July 2005 after he heard what the members of the Lake Charles chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association wanted to do. The members debated several options, including reducing the limit to 15, 12 or 10 specks per day.
“I can remember counting fish by the number of 150-quart ice chests we filled,” Mouton said. “Now, if we can fill half an ice chest, we’ve had a great day. I think we need to take a hard look at this. Let’s do something on the proactive mode. If we leave more fish in the water, we’ll produce more fish. That can’t be bad.”
If the resolution passes, it will probably apply only from the Mermentau River to the Texas state line. However, it could extend to other parts of the state in the future. Mouton said that he heard from people in other parts of the state who also want to reduce the limit.
“Just a couple years ago, it was almost inconceivable to talk about reducing the trout limit in southeastern Louisiana,” he said. “Now, there’s more traction for a statewide reduction. If we do Calcasieu Lake now, it might take another year or two to do the rest of the state. The feedback that I’m hearing is running 100 to 1 in favor of reducing the limit.”
Biological observations
Biologists don’t see a problem with the trout population in Calcasieu Lake. They said that anglers might catch fewer specks because fish simply don’t bite occasionally or they move to find better food, temperatures or water conditions.
“The speckled trout population in the Calcasieu Estuary is healthy,” said Mike Harbison, a biologist with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries in Lake Charles. “I don’t see a biological need to change the limit. We are finding fish in our sampling. If something is not broken, why fix it?”
Trout spawn from April through September with the peak in June, Harbison said. A speck reaches sexual maturity after one year. One large trout can produce 1.65 million eggs in a spawning season.
A trout may live 13 years, but most die before they live one year. More than 90 percent of trout die before they live four years. About four percent reach 25 inches long. One percent reaches 26 inches. Natural mortality from predators or other environmental factors take 66 percent of the trout regardless of fishing pressure. If the state banned fishing entirely, that percentage will not change, Harbison said.
“If we dropped the limit to 15 fish per day, we’ll only save about 14 percent of the fish caught now,” Harbison said. “If we go down to 10 fish per day, we’ll save about 29 percent of the fish now caught and kept. To make any significant changes, we’ll have to go to eight fish per day or less.”
Too much pressure
Human activity can certainly make fish more difficult to catch. Some people claim that the estuary produces the same amount of fish, but more anglers divide the pie into smaller pieces for each one.
Mary and Jeff Poe of Big Lake Guide Service support lowering the daily limit to 15, but only if the change occurs statewide. They feel that only reducing the limit in southwest Louisiana would send their customers eastward where they could still catch 25 trout per person.
“Jeff and I are opposed to any changes in the limits not recommended by the LDWF,” Mary said. “The department has trained professional fisheries biologists. We think that it would behoove everyone to listen to what they say. They say -- and we believe -- that Calcasieu Lake is very productive and will continue to be for many years.”
However, the Poes did acknowledge problems from too much pressure. As president of the Louisiana Charter Boat Association, Mary estimated that more than 100 licensed guides operate regularly in Calcasieu Lake. That does not include guides who legally come from Texas to fish in Louisiana or self-proclaimed, unlicensed guides who operate illegally. She said that about 30 to 40 licensed guides, more on weekends, fish Calcasieu Lake on any given day.
“The problem with Calcasieu Lake is not a lack of fish, but too much pressure,” Mary explained. “We’ve seen a large increase in the number of boats fishing the lake, both recreational and charter boats. The constant running of outboard motors scatters fish and closes their mouths. We’ve seen people fishing with live bait catch too many undersize fish without thinking of moving to find larger fish. We’ve seen an increase in night fishing from both boats and docks. The fish never get a rest.”
Trophy status
On the other side of Calcasieu Lake, Kirk Stansel of Hackberry Rod and Gun Club wants the lake granted “trophy status.” He also supports a 15-fish daily creel and wants to see the minimum size raised to 14 inches to give fish one more chance to spawn before hitting an ice chest.
“I’d like to see the lake declared ‘the trophy estuary of the Gulf Coast,’” he said. “Everyone wants to catch a limit of fish, but the majority of people who come here from other areas want to catch a big trout, not fill their freezers. If we lower the limit and the rest of the state keeps the 25-fish limit, that will hurt our business some, but if we lose our fish, we won’t have any business at all. If the lake is declared a trophy lake, that might even increase our clientele.”
Stansel said his club fishes about 10 boats per day, each with a guide and one to three anglers. They can expand to 20 boats if necessary. Their boats catch a three-person limit of 75 trout about three to five percent of the time or less.
Too many weirs
Besides fishing pressure, Stansel blames weirs blocking tributaries from entering Calcasieu Lake. Shrimp, crabs, baitfish, specks, redfish and other creatures grow up hiding among marsh reeds to avoid predators. Although “flap gates” allow some water and organisms to flow in and out of the marshes, weirs make such movement far more difficult.
“Weirs choked the life out of Calcasieu Lake,” he said. “Those tributaries feed this lake. More shrimp, crabs and baitfish used to flow in and out of those marshes. Block off those tributaries and that takes the bait out of the estuary. Trout need to eat.”
Technological advances
Technological advances also contribute to people finding and catching more fish. Now, most anglers carry cell phones or radios on their boats. If one person finds fish, he or she calls friends or fellow guides. Within minutes, a flotilla of boats may surround the school of fish.
With bigger boats, people can carry more equipment. Global positioning systems can pinpoint reefs. Giant outboard motors pushing boats in excess of 60 miles per hour allow people to reach any part of the estuary quickly.
More studies needed
Will Drost, an avid angler and Lake Charles businessman, supports lowering the limit to 15 trout per day. He actually prefers 10 per day, but believes more people would support a 15-fish limit. However, he wants to see more scientific studies conducted in the estuary.
“The Calcasieu Estuary is different from the rest of the state,” Drost said. “It should be managed differently. I believe that the data the state uses has become outdated. I don’t think the LDWF has the money to do a comprehensive study, but we don’t have the time to wait.”
What others want
In a survey conducted by Hackberry Rod and Gun Club, anglers voted overwhelmingly to reduce the trout limit. More than 84 percent of the respondents supported dropping the limit from 25 specks per day to 15 per day.
About 66 percent listed catching a 25-fish limit as “not very important” to them. About 85 percent supported raising the minimum size limit from 12 inches to 14 inches. Nearly 90 percent supported keeping only one trout per day over 25 inches instead of the two allowed now.
About 87 percent of the people from outside the area reported that changing the limit to 15 fish per day would not affect their desire to fish in Calcasieu Lake. About 88 percent also supported designating Calcasieu Lake as a “trophy” trout lake and supported managing the lake for bigger fish.
About 67 percent of the people who responded to the HRGC survey lived in Texas. In a survey I conducted of some Louisiana anglers, the results mirrored the other survey. The overwhelming majority supported dropping the daily creel to at least 15 trout with some people preferring a 10-fish limit.
Here are some random comments from my survey:
- “I almost never catch my limit. If I did, I probably wouldn’t keep 25 fish because that is too many to eat. I want to see the statewide limit reduced to 10 per day with a minimum of 14 inches.”
- “I realize that our economy benefits from Texas anglers visiting Calcasieu Lake. If we had similar regulations, maybe some of the ‘meathog’ pressure would ease up. Keep a few. Don’t try to feed the neighborhood.”
- “I do not feel that the limit should be changed, but I do not feel that changing the size requirement from 12 to 14 inches would be a big problem with most people. There are quite a few people like myself that may only get a chance to fish once or twice a month, so reducing the limit would be very disappointing. There are many days when we only get a small handful of fish.”
- “I fish in the Calcasieu Estuary a lot, but I don’t often catch a limit. I think the limit should be changed to 10. I don’t think guides should keep a limit on a paid trip.
- “I fish Calcasieu Lake nearly every weekend and sometimes during the week and on holidays. I agree that something should be done. In recent years, the pressure has been enormous. The fish are definitely getting larger since the netting stopped, but we need to protect numbers too. We should release all fish between 5 pounds and 8 pounds. I support a 14-inch minimum. Maybe we could give people one tag per year to let them keep a trout over 8 pounds. I think the entire state should be on the same program.”
- “Trophy status would open a whole can of worms. I’m against it. Do we really want the legislators determining fishing limits? It would be a convoluted mess. Fishing and hunting regulations are of limited impact at best. Laws only serve to keep honest people honest. The outlaws are already taking more than their limit. The answer in more enforcement.”
- “I fish four to six times a month, but I seldom catch a limit of speckled trout. I target other species equally. I’m not qualified to determine the limit. Let the biologists, not the politicians or the Coastal Conservation Association decide what’s best for the lake.”
- “The trout limit is way too liberal. Trout don’t freeze well. If people don’t eat them right away, a lot are wasted. If people are not going to eat trout in a day or two, they should practice catch and release.”
To comment on this issue, send an e-mail to Mouton at henrymouton@star-service.com.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

and 'you're' love for MG is astonishing. Anything he says is the gospel to you

Oh, W and I have had some pretty good disagreements in the past on management issues. I think we agree most of the time because we are both data driven. W favors data he has personally observed, while I prefer the published type that results from careful application of the scientific method. But when you're on the water as much as W, your personal observations will usually agree with more careful, systematic scientific data collection.

In other words, W is usually right, except when we disagree ...

We definitely disagree about gafftops and drum ...

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

Henery FREAKEN Mouton

Big Lake Trout Limits

As a member of the LDWF Commission, let me tell you where this Reduction of Trout Limits on Big Lake got started. Last Spring I recived several phone calls and emails from Big Lake Fishermen asking me to meet with them as they wanted to talk about Reducing the Limit on Big Lake from 25 Trout to 10 Trout. I had probably 10 meetings, many, many phone calls, many, many emails with these fishermen and Guides all wanting this Reduction. They contacted CCA and CCA ran a Poll of its membership that fish the Big Lake Area, over 70% Responded that they DID want to see a REDUCTION in the Limit of fish. 95% of the Guides that operate on Big Lake want to see a Reduciton in the Limit. This issue was brought forward by me, NOT Fred Miller, NOT CCA. CCA supports it becasue their members in that area support it. I have had many phone calls from fishermen that fish S E LA asking me to reduce the Limits Statewide that that is NOT a topic of dicusssion now. These are the FACTS!!!

http://www.louisianasportsman.com/lp...eport&id=10046

A letter to a website ain't gonna cut it brah. Need to see where CCA officially supported this in a press release or magazine article or anything like that. Seems to me if they DID in fact support the issue, they had overwhelming support if over 70% were in favor of it


"This issue was brought forward by me, NOT Fred Miller, NOT CCA"

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Oh, W and I have had some pretty good disagreements in the past on management issues. I think we agree most of the time because we are both data driven. W favors data he has personally observed, while I prefer the published type that results from careful application of the scientific method. But when you're on the water as much as W, your personal observations will usually agree with more careful, systematic scientific data collection.

In other words, W is usually right, except when we disagree ...

We definitely disagree about gafftops and drum ...

["W"]

Duck Butter I spent over 130 days on the water last year and caught over 3000 fish.....

So please tell me how you know more about my waters than me???

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

What? Really? Come on man, LDWF wouldn't even exist without fishermen and hunters, they are on our side. They are there solely to manage our wildlife, not restrict our liberties.

I'm questioning their methods, not their motives.

Should the executive branch restrict liberties based on public opinion (by whatever sampling method) or by sound science?

When LDWF or CCA or whoever supports a regulation change based on what they are hearing from anglers or their membership or whomever, then they are making decisions based on public opinion rather than science.

In our democratic republic, public opinion should be allowed to influence the elected legislature. However, the elected legislature has delegated certain wildlife management regulatory powers to the executive branch with the understanding and expectation that these regulatory powers only infringe on the liberty of citizens when these restrictions are shown to be necessary by sound scientific methods.

Sometimes being on the side of anglers and hunters means listening to the science and making data driven decisions and ignoring the momentary public opinion of those same anglers and hunters.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

A letter to a website ain't gonna cut it brah. Need to see where CCA officially supported this in a press release or magazine article or anything like that. Seems to me if they DID in fact support the issue, they had overwhelming support if over 70% were in favor of it


"This issue was brought forward by me, NOT Fred Miller, NOT CCA"

http://www.chron.com/sports/outdoors...it-1477065.php
Beginning June 20, anglers fishing the Louisiana waters of Sabine Lake and the Calcasieu Lake bay system south of Lake Charles will be limited to taking no more than 15 speckled trout per day, down 10 fish from Louisiana's current statewide 25-trout daily limit.
The trout limit cut was adopted by a 4-3 vote of the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission at that group's June 1 meeting.
The close commission vote underscored the contentiousness of the move affecting coastal waters, which over the past decade have become increasingly popular destinations of Texas anglers.
That increasing fishing pressure on Calcasieu and, to a lesser extent, Sabine Lake triggered concerns by some Louisiana anglers that the speckled trout population faced overharvest and needed additional protection.
Earlier this decade, concern over anglers, particularly Texas anglers, catching and retaining many large speckled trout from the Calcasieu Lake system generated a move to restrict harvest of those large trout.
The LWF Commission imposed a rule limiting anglers fishing Louisiana waters in the Calcasieu and Sabine systems and the corresponding offshore waters under Louisiana jurisdiction to retaining no more than two speckled trout measuring 25 inches or more.

The move to cut the daily bag limit from 25 specks to 15 was pushed by a coalition including the Louisiana chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association and some of the fishing guides and outfitters operating on Calcasieu Lake.
In January, when the proposal to reduce the trout bag limit in the Calcasieu and Sabine systems was officially proposed, the Louisiana CCA issued a "position paper" on the issue.
The organization said a survey of its 30,000 members indicated 85 percent who regularly fished Calcasieu Lake and 76 percent of all members supported the bag limit reduction in the southwest corner of the state.
During the LWF Commis-
sion meeting, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries coastal fisheries staff told the group the agency's biological data indicates speckled trout fisheries in the bay systems were healthy and said reducing the bag limit would not guarantee increased trout populations in the affected areas.
Those opposed to the bag limit reduction said the fisheries staff's assessment showed the move was not scientifically justified and should not be imposed.
Price is right

Texans looking to sample Louisiana's fishing, saltwater or freshwater, but not wanting to invest in a non-resident fishing license get a chance to do it for free this weekend.
Saturday and Sunday are "free fishing" days in Louisiana. On those days, no fishing license is required, and the exemption applies to non-residents as well as residents.
A one-day Louisiana non-resident saltwater fishing license costs $15. A four-day saltwater license runs $45.
Time to apply

Waterfowl hunting seasons are months down the road, but waterfowlers have just three weeks to apply for the drawing for duck blind permits on the Wallisville Lake Project along the lower Trinity River.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which oversees the Wallisville Project, will accept applications for a drawing to allocate 150 blind permits through June 30.
To apply for the blind permit drawing, applicants must be at least 18 years old. Applications must be submitted on a 3-inch-by-5-inch card and include the applicant's full name as it appears on the applicant's driver's license; driver's license number; complete mailing address; and daytime and evening phone numbers.
The applications can be dropped off at the Wallisville Lake Project Visitor Center or can be mailed to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wallisville Project Office, Attention: duck blind; P.O. Box 293, Wallisville, Texas 77597.
Applications must be delivered to the Wallisville office no later than June 30 or be postmarked by June 30.
For more information, contact the Wallisville Lake Project Office at 409-389-2285.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

Duck Butter I spent over 130 days on the water last year and caught over 3000 fish.....

So please tell me how you know more about my waters than me???

How many did you catch on tournament day?
Seems people who don't fish near that amount on 'you're' lake didn't have a problem catching over there

That is a very cool story though bro, what does the amount of time you spend on Big Lake have to do with CCA and/or tripletail limits?

I think your frustration with the limits on Big Lake are finally narrowed down to Henry Mouton. He says it all in his letter that he was the 'soul' driving force between that, and then over 70% of folks were behind it, thats a vast majority, but of course none have as much expertise as you and your vote should count more though right?
#andherecomesthepostabouthowalltheguideswantedthel owerlimitsbecausetheycan'tfish
blahblahblahyadayadayada

Been fun w, til next time

tune in next week when we revisit how 'the weirs are killing the lake'