Poor Salty never had this much attention in his life....Boy he will suck on to my thread to he can chime in on his 5 minutes of fame (he never had)
Must be sad to be that lonely you have to stay at the heels of one person you long to be like...
Im glad you look up to me but stop making your self look so desperate

I'd rather have 5 seconds of fame than 5 minutes of shame any day. That cover issue of LAS still burnin' your gut, heh? :smokin: ;)

took me a minute but its not me......Last two days



W
What is up with that Salty guy? what a moron


Dub: is Stan that hard up for attention that he follows you on every thread you make


W
Is Salty in love with you are something, the guy has some serious issues with you "ARE FOR YOU" lmao JK


Dude, why does Casey let Salty ruin every thread you make. Really this guy nothing but here to follow you around and contradict everything you say.

LMBO Boy salty loves to stay tight up your back side: watch out Dub he might like you

W
It is obvious that Salty is just trying to piss you off, don't even acknowledge him. Its getting old and he is getting desperate for attention (very Obvious at this point in the thread)

:rotfl:
:rotfl:
:rotfl:
:rotfl:




I got some, too.


Salty
Does Waltrip honestly think he is that much better a fisherman than most everybody else?

Salty
I think W is still sore over you hitting the cover of Louisiana Sportsman Magazine with them big trout when all he could manage was the last 2 pages. lol!

Salty
W is jealous that you know so much about college sports. All he's got is copy 'n' paste.

Salty
Why don't you make up some fake e-mails like W did? :rolleyes:

Casey, what will the limit be for the tournament? It is unclear to me at this point...........

There are important differences between conclusive proof and correlations.

Most sound wildlife management decisions are made by a compelling "preponderance of the evidence" rather than conclusive proof that puts the matter "beyond a reasonable doubt." There are several reasons for this:

1. Even in cases where controlled prospective experiments are feasible, hypotheses are rarely absolutely proven in science. Hypotheses can be falsified, but not absolutely verified.
2. Most studies in large ecosystems are retrospective (looking back) rather than prospective (looking forward). Potentially confounding factors can be understood and sometimes mitigated, but not absolutely controlled. It is prohibitively expensive, time consuming, and possibly destructive to repeat the trials many times with varying conditions to isolate the effect of each separate condition.
3. Given the limitations of financial resources, most management professionals try and make decisions based on the best available scientific data on a given ecosystem because the resources are simply not available to gather perfect data for all the systems needing to be managed. Allocating resources to improve the data available for one ecosystem invariably takes money away from improving the data available for managing others.

There are compelling correlations with the limit change in the Calcasieu estuary and the decline in abundance of larger specimens and the decline in body condition (fatness) of the typical specimen.

The available data suggests that raising the limit would decrease the pressure on the spotted seatrout's limited food sources and contribute to an increase in growth rates and body condition. It's not proof, but it is much more compelling than the scientific basis for lowering the limit in the first place, and it represents the preponderance of the evidence that is commonly used in sound scientific wildlife management decisions.

The discussion could be better informed by additional data:

1. Analysis of LDWF weight vs. length data for all available species from 2000 to the present in the Calcasieu estuary to better quantify the relative condition factor of each species over that time period.
2. Analysis of top ten trout weights for all tournaments from 2000 to the present to better quantify the abundance of the larger trout.
3. Acquisition and analysis of weight vs. length data from any available independent sources to quantify the relative condition factor of different species in years when data is available.
4. Analysis of any other data that might be available to assess the stocks and the relative abundance of different species and their food supplies.
5. Analysis of any other data that might be available to quantify variations in growth rates from 2000 to the present.

Even after any proposed limit changes took place, the ongoing discussion and management would be better informed by continuing stock assessments. Using relative condition factor was pioneered in the Calcasieu estuary by Jill Jenkins of the USGS in a 2004 study. This approach is relatively inexpensive to implement compared with other stock assessment methods and usually reveals the relative abundance species to their food sources. An annual assessment of the relative condition factors of several species, along with analysis of the annual tournament data would be much more informative, but a more complete stock assessment would probably be useful every five years, as suggested by Callihan in his 2011 dissertation.

I agree with this. Also, I really don't care if the limit is 15 or 25. I am very annoyed that a change was implemented without any biological reason whatsoever. Hell to study the affects of the limit reduction, they can do a 5 year study with the limit back at 25 and then study the impact. But keep politics out of it and let the biologists do their jobs.

Signal. Hahahahahahahahahahaha You are killing me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sad, but this is Louisiana, and how things are done, Politics play into everything here and decisions are based on contributions to campaigns and favors to those that contribute and support those that are elected, and not to logical, factual or biological reasoning. If you want to raise the limits back up to 25, go find someone that has contributed a lot of money to someone in power, (someone other that the guy that got it down to 15) and have him put pressure on the law makers to change the limit back to 25 on big lake.....Money talks and Bull**** walks....my 2 cents worth.

Your 100%. Right ,its sad how a few guys with zero knowledge were able to do this
What's even worst is they used data from another State and area that is no where near the estuary we are


If they want a study we need to enforce 25 limit back for 6 years and them look at the over all facts

It doesn't even have to be a law change. They can change it back to 25 for a 5 year impact study. Then offer up the data for a change if one is warranted.

There ya go....sounds like a good plan, now you need someone with some Political influence to get it done.

They had enough knowledge to know which pockets to line with green backs

a logical statement

Raymond...you think we can get the CCA on board to help us get the 25limit move back for a 5 year study ????
This would be a great thing for Lake Charles Chapter and we can keep track of all trout tagged in the 5 years vs the ones tagged from 2006-up

now this is how you get solid information

He could have just asked for that on page one v/s 24 pages some of which proved some serious holes he has in his on agenda and past history. Go back to my first post on this long thread, as I stated you have to know how to ask and how to handle a situation such as this. Getting on the internet and calling people "office fishermen" and then stating that 99% of the people on this stie are not worthy of an opinion probably is not a good way to get anyone to try and help you. I know I wouldn't help him at this point with this issue.

you are correct sir i think he burned a lot of bridges with this thread.

This aint about "ME" Its about our fishery.....

then stop being macho nacho and ask for help instead of calling everyone out im sure there are a bunch of people who feel the same way you do but do not want to be associated with you in any way what so ever because of your attitude