Originally Posted by ckinchen (Post 441600)

It's a free country W, do what you feel will make you happy. Your little crew has all but left the site already so who cares.

Post about your opinion if you would like but keep people's names out of it. And for the record I have never even met the family in Lake Charles that you blame for this, I just do not think it is right to smash individuals on here that cannot defend themselves.

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 436835)

Contaminants can be a confounding factor in interpreting condition index, but the majority of the Calcasieu esturary would not be considered contaminated by the Jenkins criteria. Of course, more data always raises the level of confidence. But I think the data that is needed and can be obtained would be relative condition factor in additional years. All we have is a relative condition factor of 1.03 +/- 0.020 for a sample size of 23 (mixed species) from the non-comtaminated sites in the Jenkins 2004 study and 2011 relative condition factors of 0.971 +/- 0.010 for 138 spotted sea trout, 0.965 +/- 0.014 for 66 redfish, and 0.955 +/- 0.017 for 26 black drum.

In 2011, the fish were significantly thinner than in 2004 in the Calcasieu estuary. If the fish are also significantly thinner in other years, then there would be more convincing evidence that there are too many fish relative to the available food in the Calcasieu estuary. If this is the case, the most reasonable remedies would be some combination of 1) protect the food souces by reducing shrimping, oystering, and crabbing pressure 2) reduce the pressure on the food souces by increasing the harvest of the most abundant predators. I think the evidence suggests that the best combination of the above would probably be to reduce the oystering and increase the spotted sea trout limit as well as encouraging the harvest of more black drum (because they really hammer the oysters). Hard data from additional years would, of course, further clarify the situation and make a more compelling case.

There are other approaches to stock assessment, but the LDWF has not been willing to share their methodologies or their data. (We've asked for their Calcasieu data from 2001-2010 and our data request has been denied.) It would be enlightening if additional pressure could compel LDWF to share all their available data on Calcasieu so the data could be analyzed by independent parties. I've found that some states (like Colorado) are much more open with their data and justification that their management decisions are data-driven rather than political. However, there are PETA-type forces and pseudo-conservationist type forces at work in every state simply trying to limit the use of natural resources. I tend to be skeptical of wildlife management that says "trust us, we're scientists" without sharing of data openly so that their results and recommendations can be independently reviewed by other scientists.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 441573)

Then I could be loved like WD and cry about big lake Limits and killing big trout but get on the cover of the BIG TROUT Book and magazine holding 9lb trout


WINNING

Originally Posted by ckinchen (Post 441604)

Cca is a public organization, w if you want to blame them for what you believe is a decrease in the number of harvested big trout then do what you feel you need to do. What I won't allow is for you to blame X person that is not a public figure for it. You will have to work around those guidelines and when you start smashing the cca it becomes a political discussion and that is why the mods moved you earlier post.

And we move on.....

Originally Posted by longcast (Post 441608)

How the **** is limits destroying our resource. There was a time when there were no limits and the fish still did not go extinct. Off course people back then only took what they needed Unlike you bro. Why do you need to catch 25 fish a day. You damn sure can't eat that many. My freezer is fish less. You know why. I can go catch a few to eat anytime I want. Don't need to take more than I'm going to eat.

Originally Posted by longcast (Post 441608)

How the **** is limits destroying our resource. There was a time when there were no limits and the fish still did not go extinct. Off course people back then only took what they needed Unlike you bro. Why do you need to catch 25 fish a day. You damn sure can't eat that many. My freezer is fish less. You know why. I can go catch a few to eat anytime I want. Don't need to take more than I'm going to eat.

Originally Posted by Montauk17 (Post 441612)

So he can take pics with huge piles of trout to make himself feel taller.

Originally Posted by SaltyShaw (Post 441618)

Really?? Y'all need to grow up and look at the matter at hand not Waltrips ego this discussion isn't about him. It's about the fact that 15 trout limit has hurt the lake be mature if your going to enter a discussion

Originally Posted by Montauk17 (Post 441612)

So he can take pics with huge piles of trout to make himself feel taller.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 441609)

Not one time was the CCA bashed in this ......I support the CCA..Pay my dues.....Not going to bash them or let anyone else bash them....

Its a small group who did this...Not any organization

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 441625)

You ever got a Job Yet????

Originally Posted by Salty (Post 441626)

W, you need to get your facts skrate. When you first began this "flip the limit" campaign....you publicly called out Chas Drost and any other member of the CCA that had anything to do with destroying your lake. I could look that up for ya, but, I have a feeling you know what I'm talking about.

Not that it's a personal matter with me, but, I have tried to carry on a rational conversation with you about this. Calling Casey and Daniel "office fishermen" is more immature than you could ever be expected to comprehend. How can anyone take you seriously?

Originally Posted by Top Dawg (Post 441630)

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.

Originally Posted by Evans (Post 441637)

Was this change maybe done cause of that pic with all those big fish on the bottom of that boat. If so I think they should have just changed the limit to just 2 over 25" still 25 total

Originally Posted by Evans (Post 441637)

Was this change maybe done cause of that pic with all those big fish on the bottom of that boat. If so I think they should have just changed the limit to just 2 over 25" still 25 total

Originally Posted by Evans (Post 441651)

Well the two things I think that is hurting the big fish being caught now is the pressure and the limit and nothing is gonna make the pressure go down so I would like to see what would happen if the limit went back!

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 441631)

LMAO...#1 Yes I called OUT CD for him to post us some Facts..He was there I was not

#2 I never bashed the CCA

#3 I never called Danial or Casey office fisherman....(they took that there own way)

I said the ones who ran to baton rouge to push this BS were office fisherman and this comes from way more than little me....(even thought you would like it to be)

Im saying do tell me or anyone who spends lots of time on the water that we don't know what the hell where talking about when we see it all the time

Originally Posted by Salty (Post 441666)

OK, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. There.

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 argument 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.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 441654)

Here is one thing about pressue....


I fished last Saturday 45 trout...Suday 60 Trout and Monday (holiday) 45 trout all before 11am...

I fish most of the time on weekdays and still catch trout so presure does not play a factor to me..You can still catch trout...

Now I know lots of people did not catch these days for what ever reason but I watch a lot of people fish....
Most come run up throw 30mins and leave.....When I sit and catch my trout in one spot all day...

SO I rule out pressure as a main fact because in Jan Feb and March you have no Pressure ....and In August you have the most and that's when I catch more big trout than any other month...

I have found this..I catch more trout on places that I usually just catch one or two trout....Some of the popular trout spots are putting out more numbers than big trout...

I fished one spot on the north east bank this year and caught the most trout I ever caught on that bank.....

Originally Posted by Evans (Post 441669)

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

Originally Posted by mcjaredsandwich (Post 441673)

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

sammich

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 441667)

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.

Originally Posted by Top Dawg (Post 441630)

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.

Originally Posted by Salty (Post 441682)

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

Originally Posted by Salty (Post 441666)

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.

Originally Posted by Salty (Post 441680)

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.

:smokin:

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 441686)

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 (Post 441693)

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.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 441688)

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...

Originally Posted by Top Dawg (Post 441684)

Why?

Originally Posted by Salty (Post 441709)

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.

Originally Posted by Top Dawg (Post 441713)

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

Originally Posted by Salty (Post 441709)

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.

Originally Posted by Big Kahunaz (Post 441716)

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;)