15 Trout Limit Discussion PUBLIC

["W"]

Originally Posted by Evans

How many of those fish were over 5lbs? Im just saying. I think the pressure of boats on the lake now a days affects the BIGGER trout more

None were over 5 but we had a bunch of 3s and 4s....they were no dink trout for sure

["W"]

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich

Hope many out of state people do you think will come IF the limit were to change back?

sammich

Less than when they said...the 2over 25 inches were to make big lake a trophy lake
And that was part of the 15limit deal
,give big lake the title of Trophy lake

[Salty]

Originally Posted by "W"

No I'm actually I'm the 1st one who has talked about it....now it has spread and opened eyes of other people..

Don't you find it funny that no one can post one fact of why the limit was changed

I can post facts that our SPR #s are healthy enough to support a 25 trout limit.

W, you can post numbers that suggest......not prove. There is a big difference in facts and numbers. Every number that you come up with can be argued in reverse.

No, you are not the first one that has "talked" about "it". You might be the first one that has posted a campaign on the interweb. I can tell you right now that it's gonna take more than Salty Cajun to get it overturned. If those guys really cared what you thought....they'd have invited you to the meeting.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

W def has his own way with words. But if you look through it and realize the point of what he's saying, he's right. It's not about pics, fish in the freezer, it's about keeping the lake healthy. You ever fished a pond and catch a bass with a 6 pound head but weighs 3? And hundreds of pickles in said pond? Tell tell sign it's over populated and fish have to be taken out to keep the pond healthy. Same scenario just on a MUCH larger scale.

Big Lake may be the size of a pond, but, the comparison stops there.

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by Salty

Big Lake may be the size of a pond, but, the comparison stops there.

Why?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Salty

You have a theory. That's all it is...a theory. I'm sure this theory has been talked about loooong before you took the credit for it. You have no facts to back up your theory. So, therefore...it's just a theory.

I do not disagree that the limit should not be reversed. My arguement is that you are guilty of the very same thing you're accusing the ones of that changed it in the first place....a lack of facts.

W's theory (as I understand it) has two main parts:

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. I am also underwhelmed with a state agency refuses to share it's data, especially if the data are likely to support the theory that a rule change occurred at the same time as a sharp decline in the fishery.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Salty

W, you can post numbers that suggest......not prove. There is a big difference in facts and numbers. Every number that you come up with can be argued in reverse.

No, you are not the first one that has "talked" about "it". You might be the first one that has posted a campaign on the interweb. I can tell you right now that it's gonna take more than Salty Cajun to get it overturned. If those guys really cared what you thought....they'd have invited you to the meeting.

So now your saying others said it before me????? but when I 1st said it you said i was crazy...Now that people agree Im right and back my sayings you say someone else came up it??? How amazing

Im not saying I can turn the limits around..but I can get proof....

And SPR #s are FACTs...

[MathGeek]

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.

There were probably additional facts that I am not remembering right now, but the totality of the facts are rather compelling, though not definitive.

["W"]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

W's theory (as I understand it) has two main parts:

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.

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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.

Thanks for ^^^^ Info..you are right on with you findings.....and I think we need a reason....

["W"]

The acceptable minimum limit for trout SPR in Louisiana is 18. That means that Louisiana’s fishery could remain healthy with 18 percent of spawning-age trout compared to an unfished stock.

Last check Big Lake was 18 SPR

[Salty]

Originally Posted by "W"

So now your saying others said it before me????? but when I 1st said it you said i was crazy...Now that people agree Im right and back my sayings you say someone else came up it??? How amazing

Im not saying I can turn the limits around..but I can get proof....

And SPR #s are FACTs...

What I'm sayin' is that I've seen discussions on the subject on 2cool on more than one occasion. This is not the first time I've heard of it. I never said you were "crazy", either. I said you don't have any facts to back up your claim. If you do, then, by all means, take it to 'em. You certainly don't need my permission. If you feel you do...then, you got it. Geaux for it. Good luck.

[1fastmerc]

:shaki ng::be athorse::beathors e:

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

Why?

If you have a good-sized creek or river flowing through your pond, then, it would be much more comparable. Diggin' a whole in the middle of nowhere and lettin' it fill with water has no relation to Big Lake....no matter how many fish you have.

[1fastmerc]

Originally Posted by Salty

If you have a good-sized creek or river flowing through your pond, then, it would be much more comparable. Diggin' a whole in the middle of nowhere and lettin' it fill with water has no relation to Big Lake....no matter how many fish you have.

Agreed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Top Dawg]

If you have a river flowing through your pond it would over populate a lot faster right?

[Salty]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

If you have a river flowing through your pond it would over populate a lot faster right?

Wrong. It's flowing through...not into.

[Big Kahunaz]

Weird are the most pressured spot on the lake and fella had a 3 man limit in orange basket of 3-7brs

I feel the big girls are still in there but when u have running and gunning up and down all the banks reefs etc more than likely she ain't going for your hook

I'll try the deep water channel soaking and post reports. I'm even thinking about making my own channel reef outta cinder blocks busted up in 8-15 ft of water off the channel

["W"]

Originally Posted by Salty

If you have a good-sized creek or river flowing through your pond, then, it would be much more comparable. Diggin' a whole in the middle of nowhere and lettin' it fill with water has no relation to Big Lake....no matter how many fish you have.

60 ft deep River?????

[Big Kahunaz]

*weirs*

["W"]

Originally Posted by Big Kahunaz

Weird are the most pressured spot on the lake and fella had a 3 man limit in orange basket of 3-7brs

I feel the big girls are still in there but when u have running and gunning up and down all the banks reefs etc more than likely she ain't going for your hook

I'll try the deep water channel soaking and post reports. I'm even thinking about making my own channel reef outta cinder blocks busted up in 8-15 ft of water off the channel

so no boats were running down these areas from 2006 -1988