CCA Endgame: Limit of Two Revealed in Membership Commercial

[MathGeek]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWeXBHDSJUs&t=286

All anglers with common sense have been offended by CCA's never ending push for more restrictive limits, even when there is no sound science showing that maintaining generous limits endangers the future of the fishery. Louisiana natives know that the incredible productivity and lower fishing pressure in Louisiana waters allows more generous limits that more heavily pressured, less productive waters of other states.

While trying to improve my skills fishing the Mississippi River for catfish around Baton Rouge, I came across a CCA commercial that indicated that CCA won't be happy until they've reduced the limit to only two fish:

Fishing ... it's about taking a couple home for dinner tonight and saving a few for tomorrow.

So there it is, a clear revelation of the CCA view that a keeping a cooler full of fish to stock up the freezer is raping the resource and taking more than our fair share, even though there is no data supporting the idea that it is not sustainable four fisherman to keep 100 specks (when they can catch them) and/or 20 redfish and/or 40 flounder.

Think I'm exaggerating: Have a look at this article bragging on CCA Texas for getting TX limits lowered to 2 flounder and 5 specks. CCA Texas controls the purse strings and the policy positions of CCA Louisiana and the recent tripletail restrictions (and the support of CCA LA) were taken straight from the CCA TX playbook. http://www.texassaltwaterfishingmaga...bpage2086.html

Let's stop CCA's efforts to take home sustainable harvests of fish to stock up the freezer and share with family and friends. Boycott the S.T.A.R.

[ifsteve]

My wife and I can only eat a couple.
I prefer eating them fresh versus frozen.
If I release a fish it may survive and reproduce more for the future. If I kill it then it won't for sure.
Ya'll do what you like within the limits.
The fishery may or may not be able to sustain the incredible good fishing LA has right now. I prefer to hedge my bets.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by ifsteve

My wife and I can only eat a couple.
I prefer eating them fresh versus frozen.
If I release a fish it may survive and reproduce more for the future. If I kill it then it won't for sure.
Ya'll do what you like within the limits.
The fishery may or may not be able to sustain the incredible good fishing LA has right now. I prefer to hedge my bets.

And hedging your bet is your right.

But why criminalize others keeping a cooler full of fish for the freezer in cases where there is no data showing that a species is threatened by generous harvest limits?

Should fisheries be managed by data-driven science, or by fear and elitists from Texas who have learned to skillfully manipulate LA politics?

I can see keeping fewer fish once our children are in college. But unless there is good science and hard data showing it's not sustainable, I would not advocate criminalizing keeping a cooler full if someone has a big family, wants to host a fish fry, or just wants to fill his freezer. We enjoy frozen fish a couple time a week. Properly cleaned and trimmed, it can be very, very good.

["W"]

Trout limits in La should be like this

25 trout -12inch min
5- reds -14inch min 1 over 27 per day
10 flounder 10inch Mim
Black drum . 14inch no limit
Sheephead -no limit or size
White trout - no limit or size

Sailcats -$5 bounty for every one killed

[ifsteve]

MG

Nowhere did I say anything about "criminalizing" somebody who keeps a cooler full of fish. But back to the real issue.

As a retired engineer I totally support a science/fact based approach to wildlife management. The question becomes two fold.

1. Do we really have a scientific basis for our decisions. How current, accurate, and thorough are the studies? It is simple as heck to send a biologist out to gather some data and then make all sorts of claims of scientific evidence. I am NOT saying that is the case. Merely pointing out that I have seen first hand many "scientific studies" that were junk science.
2. Should the management structure be only about what the science suggests is sustainable or is it prudent to take a bit more conservative approach?

Now I recognize that #2 can be a slippery slope.

[jlincecum]

Originally Posted by ifsteve

My wife and I can only eat a couple.
I prefer eating them fresh versus frozen.
If I release a fish it may survive and reproduce more for the future. If I kill it then it won't for sure.
Ya'll do what you like within the limits.
The fishery may or may not be able to sustain the incredible good fishing LA has right now. I prefer to hedge my bets.

keeping just a few for you to eat and releasing the rest is everyone's choice, and not a bad one. But having limits too low and not removing a certain amount of fish from the fisheries can be just as bad as removing too many. There has to be a balance driven on what the fisheries can sustain and stay healthy. Those numbers are science based and not socially based.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by ifsteve

My wife and I can only eat a couple.
I prefer eating them fresh versus frozen.
If I release a fish it may survive and reproduce more for the future. If I kill it then it won't for sure.
Ya'll do what you like within the limits.
The fishery may or may not be able to sustain the incredible good fishing LA has right now. I prefer to hedge my bets.

Limits are not just about, or shouldn't be just about, how many you can eat. Limits are based on the estimated ability of a population to sustain a harvest and not crash. It is also to protect the population from outeating itself, so to speak. That's putting it in laymen's terms, but that is the jist of it. It is just as much about the health of the population. If you don't take enough individuals out of a population, it can crash just as easily as it can by taking too many out.

Further, when you are talking about species that are predators, i.e., specks and reds, the damage of leaving too many can spread to their prey species. If there are too many predators, prey populations could potentially crash.

That is why limits, and management decisions in general, should be set based on science, not politics. I believe there have been multiple studies, cited by our own MG here, that contradict CCA and it's reasoning for lowering the limit.

There is nothing wrong with being conservative, but you still have to draw a line. You can be too conservative and damage the resource just as much as being too liberal can.

Everyone is free to do what they want within a limit, but lowering it based on socioeconomic factors, and not science, is bad management.

["W"]

It has been proven

CCA does not need science to push for limit changes all they need is one or two of there lifetime members to say ; look I have you a check for $100k and think we keep to many trout on Lake Calcasieu so push limits down to 10 per person !

I know the biologist tell us different but will they give you 100k check ? No so get me my 10 trout limit !

o yea and when I die please name a reef after me also !

[keakar]

Originally Posted by "W"

Trout limits in La should be like this

25 trout -12inch min
5- reds -14inch min 1 over 27 per day
10 flounder 10inch Mim
Black drum . 14inch no limit
Sheephead -no limit or size
White trout - no limit or size

Sailcats -$5 bounty for every one killed

very reasonable and completely supported by science that these limits would improve all of those fisheries.

but science shows you can double the red limits to 10 a day, which is what I support and think needs to be done.

it all depends if you are keeping 16"-18" reds or 24"-26" reds as to how much meat you are putting in the ice chest but its not about the meat haul aspect but I do realize people see it in those terms.

many look at it as, why would anyone would need more then 5 big reds but if my freezer is empty and im catching reds then that is a food source for me to live on and not just a hobby I do for an occasional meal as a "treat".

I am a sportsman and don't keep more then I need but I am not a "strictly for fun" fisherman, I NEED to put fish in the freezer the same way a gardener plants his crop to help offset food costs and have a healthier food source then processed foods.

redfish populations have exploded and they are overpopulated and reducing oyster and crab populations because of it. doubling the red limit doesn't mean everyone will take the full 10 limit, it just ensures that if a guy like me who is wanting to feed his family or just have a fish fry for the family reunion, can do so and it isn't in the least way harmful to the species to do just that. so base the limits on the amount of fish that the science says can be taken and not on "feelings" based on opinions of how much is enough for one person should "want" to keep, that's no different then what the CCA does in ignoring science based management.

I don't hunt, I only fish, and when I fish I need to catch roughly 20% of my yearly grocery supply in some form of fish so I can have one fish meal a week to make it on fixed income and I am not alone in this. many who think only in terms of "keep what you can eat in one meal" don't stop to think in terms of others who don't have the luxury to whip out a big wad of cash and buy food every day.

now the sailcats um I dunno on that one,
but I have eaten em "just to see" and while they are of course not better then specks, reds, or flounder, I find then not much different then regular blue or yellow catfish, they dont taste bad at all.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by "W"

Trout limits in La should be like this

25 trout -12inch min
5- reds -14inch min 1 over 27 per day
10 flounder 10inch Mim
Black drum . 14inch no limit
Sheephead -no limit or size
White trout - no limit or size

Sailcats -$5 bounty for every one killed

These are limits I can get behind, but who's gonna pay for the sailcat bounty? CCA? I doubt it. It would be good use of CCA funds though.

Sailcats are fine eating, and I'd just as soon have a bunch of bags of sailcat fillets in the freezer as channels or blues.

The harm sailcats do is how strongly they compete with specks and reds for available forage, and that they are good enough predators to prey on pretty good numbers of age zero specks and reds.

Look at the mouth size and basic design of a sailcat. It's a efficient piscivore (fish eater) much more like a flathead than like a channel catfish. When behthic resources are depleted (as they are with the oyster reef destruction), sailcats transition to higher in the water column and feed on whatever fish they can fit into their mouths. So, if you release them, I recommend euthanizing them first and releasing them to feed the crabs rather than letting them live to continue competing with adult sport species and preying on age zero redfish and specks.

[DaPointIsDaBomb]

Before my family was oyster men they were commercial fishermen and cca put them outta business when they banned gill nets

[DaPointIsDaBomb]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

These are limits I can get behind, but who's gonna pay for the sailcat bounty? CCA? I doubt it. It would be good use of CCA funds though.

Sailcats are fine eating, and I'd just as soon have a bunch of bags of sailcat fillets in the freezer as channels or blues.

The harm sailcats do is how strongly they compete with specks and reds for available forage, and that they are good enough predators to prey on pretty good numbers of age zero specks and reds.

Look at the mouth size and basic design of a sailcat. It's a efficient piscivore (fish eater) much more like a flathead than like a channel catfish. When behthic resources are depleted (as they are with the oyster reef destruction), sailcats transition to higher in the water column and feed on whatever fish they can fit into their mouths. So, if you release them, I recommend euthanizing them first and releasing them to feed the crabs rather than letting them live to continue competing with adult sport species and preying on age zero redfish and specks.

Been saying this for years to them trophy fishermen that throw the big ones back. Them big bass and trout eat the little bass and trout! That's why they make baits that are colored like bass and trout! Shouldn't be any size or slot limit either because I caught a 9" trout on Caldwell last year that had a 5" trout in its mouth. Ain't mo telling how many baby trout them things eat.

they all piscivores is why. I didn't know that word but now I do thanks

[DaPointIsDaBomb]

Originally Posted by "W"

Trout limits in La should be like this

25 trout -12inch min
5- reds -14inch min 1 over 27 per day
10 flounder 10inch Mim
Black drum . 14inch no limit
Sheephead -no limit or size
White trout - no limit or size

Sailcats -$5 bounty for every one killed

This is the kind of science I am talkin bout. Where did u get this study from?

Don't agree with sailcats though yall ain't cooking them right. Bring them to Erath and we will show u how to cook em


D

[legallimits]

If everybody fished VBay, this wouldn't be an issue. We haven't seen a limit since July.

[lil bubba]

The only thing worth doing with a 14 inch red is to fry it whole like a perch...Maybe around big lake all ya'll have is dink reds but in the south east there is no need for 14 unless you can't fish...Trout ought to be 14 inch...As the marsh erodes all there is gunna be is 8 inch trout and the occasional red...If you have to feed your family on 5 reds 16 inches and can't do that in southeast la. you need to take up golf...

[Bluechip]

Originally Posted by lil bubba

The only thing worth doing with a 14 inch red is to fry it whole like a perch...Maybe around big lake all ya'll have is dink reds but in the south east there is no need for 14 unless you can't fish...Trout ought to be 14 inch...As the marsh erodes all there is gunna be is 8 inch trout and the occasional red...If you have to feed your family on 5 reds 16 inches and can't do that in southeast la. you need to take up golf...

I think the reference to the 14 inch redfish was that's a perfect eating size and easy to clean.

[evis102]

We need to lower trout limits to keep all the people from Vbay from coming to Big Lake.

[marty f]

Originally Posted by Bluechip

I think the reference to the 14 inch redfish was that's a perfect eating size and easy to clean.

See I prefer an 18, for me and my fam, Ill grill a 1/2 shell of an 18 and we are good (3 peps), if I took home 16s Id be grilling two 1/2 shells

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by evis102

We need to lower trout limits to keep all the people from Vbay from coming to Big Lake.

Pretty sure that is why the limit was lowered in the first place, to try and keep the Texas plates out the parking lots, among other things.

[B-Stealth]

Originally Posted by evis102

We need to lower trout limits to keep all the people from Vbay from coming to Big Lake.

Nail on the mother ****ing hammer; why y'all think the limit was reduced in the 1st place.