#401
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1. There was no scientific basis to change the limit from 25 to 15. 2. The Calcasieu estuary would be more likely to produce more large trout if the limit were changed back from 15 to 25. In support of part 1 (no scientific basis for limit change to 15), it has been pointed out in W's thread that: 1A. The original rule change was motivated by political rather than scientific factors. 1B. LDWF biologists openly stated that there was no biological need for the rule change. 1C. An LSU PhD Thesis states: Stock assessments periodically conducted by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), the agency that assesses, manages, and protects the state’s fisheries resources, suggest that Louisiana’s spotted seatrout population is abundant, in good health, and not overfished (LDWF 1997; Blanchet et al. 2001). Indeed, fishing regulations for the recreational sector have remained unchanged since 1988, except for the recent (2006) implementation of more stringent creel and size limits in the southwestern portion of the state (Cameron and Calcasieu parishes), which was largely due to socio-economic factors rather than compromised productivity of the stock. See: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/et...lihan_diss.pdf I think there were even more facts brought out into the discussion in support for W's theory. But the most telling thing (in my opinion) is that with such a long discussion, no one really brought anything approaching a scientific argument to the table in support of the limit change to 15. In support of part 2 of W's theory (a limit change back to 25 would produce more bigger trout), it has been pointed out in W's thread that: 2A. An angler who fishes the estuary over 100 days a year is seeing far fewer large trout than before the limit change. 2B. The tournaments since the limit change in 2006 are recording far fewer of the largest trout than the tournaments before 2006. 2C. The available data suggest that while the trout in the Calcasieu estuary were fatter than the Louisiana average before 2006, the trout are thinner than the Louisiana average after 2006. This suggests an overabundance of trout relative to their food sources after the limit change. It is well known in fisheries science that reducing a population of fish relative to their food sources will probably produce faster growth and larger fish. I would say the facts are compelling, though not conclusive. |
#402
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Or that mathgeek is the smartest person on this site
__________________
Waltrip's Saltwater Guide Service jeremy@geaux-outdoors.com https://m.facebook.com/waltrip.guideservice?id=148838538646862&_rdr |
#403
|
||||
|
||||
Nope, no conclusive biological data either way.
|
#404
|
||||
|
||||
I say continue, let it go on until it dies. I would also like to see a poll as to what people think about changing the limit back based on these recent discussions. Just to see what kinda progress ole W is makin.
|
#405
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Well everything except for your flip flop over your political friend and your role in the CCA board of directors immediately after the limit change. Other than that I think we are all clear. |
#406
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Isn't it also well known that the destruction of habitat also has a negative impact on fisheries? For example, the grass carp that effectively killed bass fishing in Caney lake? |
#407
|
||||
|
||||
I would suspect the majority still want to see the limit raised, generally speaking people are greedy and most people hate authority or regulation so in general keeping the limits the same would be a huge underdog from a poll standpoint. Although I would argue that has little to do with anything W has said. MathGeek maybe, W, probably not.
|
#408
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Waltrip's Saltwater Guide Service jeremy@geaux-outdoors.com https://m.facebook.com/waltrip.guideservice?id=148838538646862&_rdr |
#409
|
|||
|
|||
The only fact we have is that there was no biological data to support a limit reduction from 25 to 15. That is the only fact there is on this entire thread! And that's a fact! LOL
|
#410
|
||||
|
||||
I like the word
Filibuster
__________________
Waltrip's Saltwater Guide Service jeremy@geaux-outdoors.com https://m.facebook.com/waltrip.guideservice?id=148838538646862&_rdr |
#411
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I guess the boss has spoken |
#412
|
||||
|
||||
Damn "W" I checked it and you spelled Filibuster correctly! You on a roll 25 or bust |
#413
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Support Salty Cajun - Where else can you find Flipper the great = W. He has been banned from all of the other sites and he is our feature poster on the SC. |
#414
|
||||
|
||||
Nah go ahead we can keep it open for a little longer, I have a busy day tomorrow so I may not be able to keep Mr. Obama I mean flipper, I mean W in line so someone has to take my spot. I have to go back to my office fishermen role.
|
#415
|
||||
|
||||
Spoken like a true Office Fisherman!
|
#416
|
||||
|
||||
Copy n paste
|
#417
|
||||
|
||||
Well, one thing's for sure...he ain't the dumbest.
|
#418
|
||||
|
||||
Lol so who are you saying is?
|
#419
|
||||
|
||||
from wikipedia
A filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure where an individual extends debate, allowing a lone member to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal
|
#420
|
||||
|
||||
So up to this point for 25 trout limit is winning
__________________
Waltrip's Saltwater Guide Service jeremy@geaux-outdoors.com https://m.facebook.com/waltrip.guideservice?id=148838538646862&_rdr |
Bookmarks |
|
|