Here is the deal with that...you have a better chance changing limits than this....no Sen is going to allow someone to lose their jobs. This has been made a point already as Dan Morish pulled his 1st bill.

WL&F make a killing on oyster fisherman fines....so will get limits back 1st

There are plenty of people that recognize the danger that is present with the over harvesting of oysters, some of which are people have the power to make sure the lake is protected.

I assume a small publication or two will pick up on the current limit debate that is going on here due to the outreach of this website but I suspect it will not make an impact.

I personally and speaking for the site will not get involved in the limit issue one way or another on either side as I believe there are bigger issues and that bigger issue is protecting the food resources in the lake (oysters). I recognize that you have to pick your battles and in politics you should only fight the battles that really matter the most. I would however stand firm behind a push to continue to limit oyster harvesting in the lake and I would be willing to us the contacts and resources that I have obtained. There are a large number of people on the sidelines that would help us take up the oyster conservation fight. You were one of the loudest most vocal opponents on the over harvesting of oysters until one of you close “family friends” decided to introduce a bill to the contrary (I can pull the post for everyone to see it if you would like). Since then you have completely changed your position. You also served on the board of the CCA after the limits were changed and stood firm behind their mission and values so for you to blame them now after having been a part of management and the decision making process to me is shady politics.

You had an excellent opportunity to bring about change when you actually had a vote and voice, where was this 14 page thread then (I recognize you were on LAS then)? What if one of your neighbors or close family friends takes another stand against raising the limit, will you leave all of your apparent supporters on the site standing alone holding the bag like you did on the oyster issue? In a thread that speaks to conservation and what is best for the lake even though they may be joking there are people on this very thread talking about gill nets which almost destroyed the redfish and trout population and would have had it not been for the work of the CCA. This thread and cause needs leadership, right now it is heading in multiple directions and any mention of gill nets and what will happen “after” the limits are raised would possibly cause you all to not be considered conservationist but instead greedy fishermen, if that is the case both causes are finished.

This is my last post on this thread but just a few food for thoughts as this thread continues and I am not interested in the current direction and or debating the limit topic. If you guys want to get serious about the over harvesting of oysters let me know.

If there is a group that pushes for the 25 trout limit and science shows that such limit is good for the lake then I wish you guys the best. However having to pick one cause to support the choice for me is very easy, the food resources of the lake are a much higher priority.

1st I'm 100% against oyster dredging and still want it fixed..but I have also seen 1st hand that oysterfisherm are not going to lose there jobs no matter how much money you got to push them out.
I said from day one that dredging would kill the lake....there is a bill right now to protect our artificial reefs

Just because someone can make a living off of the public's resources does not mean it should be accepted. People made money while fishing with gill nets, we all agree that was not a good idea. People can make money dumping toxic waste in the Sabine Refuge, still not a good idea.

Some oystering is ok, the complete lack of oversight and over harvesting that took place on the lake prior to this year was a serious mismanagement of the estuary and there are people in power right now that are trying to get us back to that point.

If big lake become a giant mud hole with no significant food for the trout population you/we will have bigger issues than what our limits are. This in my mind is a big picture issue.

Mark this down...oystering will be shut down for 10years in the next 2 by WL&F

?????????????????????????

Because it will be WL&F not CCA or Senate

And if those oyster fisherman go to the Legislature with it? Do you not think the WLF will get overruled?

Not trying to stir the pot. Being honest here.

How long can this horse be beat before people realize its dead?

Why would they over rule the WLF the oyster task force is paid to control and over see harvest...
If WL&f says they have to close due to no legal size oyster...that's the bottom line

You can fish something that's not there...
They control it the same as shrimping...they open and close ,,,that's how it works
There are no oysters left to harvest right now ,so it will not be long

"You were one of the loudest most vocal opponents on the over harvesting of oysters until one of you close “family friends” decided to introduce a bill to the contrary (I can pull the post for everyone to see it if you would like). Since then you have completely changed your position. You also served on the board of the CCA after the limits were changed and stood firm behind their mission and values so for you to blame them now after having been a part of management and the decision making process to me is shady politics. "

Can we hear more about this, please? :smokin:

Correct me if I'm wrong and I know that you will. But in the not only in this thread or the first one and on numerous occasions you and maybe some others have pointed out that MOST people fishing the lake can't catch a limit of specs. With that being said wouldn't it be hard for the FEW THAT CAN catch their limit to put a dent in the trout population. Wouldn't you have to increase the limit to lets say 50 to make up for us slackers. This is just a question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't help yourself, can you???


LLMMMMAAAAOOOOOOO

It gets my attention when someone throws gas on a dying fire. :smokin:

I fish out of an old beat up aluminum boat and only catch a few each trip with my cheap rods so I would be fine with them lowering the limit to maybe 5, least I could say I caught a limit that way :rolleyes:

Hit the nail on the head, The argument is contradicting itself. One one hand you are saying that this lake can't be outfished with road and reel, and most "office fisherman" can only catch 10 trout a day.

On the other hand, the ten trout reduction is severely harming the big trout population because of overpopulation.

I dont know the answer, but i would suggest if you want to be taken seriously on this trout limit quest be sure to address that contridiction.

So far every contradiction has been a contradiction to address a contradiction

Yep, that cleared it up for everyone. :rolleyes:

:DFigure only peoples time I can waste is the "office fishermen" since all the real fishermen or out fishing and can't reply right now:smokin:

I am trying to figure this out as well. According to one of the research articles posted:

"Because the spawning season lasts so long, and the fish produce so many (larvae), it compensates for any factors that might interrupt reproduction," Shepard said. That dynamic reproduction cycle results in a survival rate that so out-paced the high predation factor, it would be almost impossible for hook-and-line anglers to make a telling difference in their overall numbers, Shepard said."

Seems like a limit change would have very little impact, if any, especially with office fisherman only catching 5 fish :rolleyes:

Surprised it took this long to bring up this very valid point.

I agree 100%. W is upset that some powerful people changed the limit without as much research as he would of liked. I understand his gripe there, but that does not mean that is the cause for not catching as many big trout.

I think that what you highlighted above proves that oyster issue chiken brought up is way more important than the 15 vs 25 limit. However, Brother W doesn't want to preach that verse from the pulpit i guess.

I brought it up awhile back but MathGeek shot it down as a straw man. Of course it was one in the context of his particular argument, but I didn't have the energy or the time to explain that I was lumping all of the arguments together.

Actually, I think we'd all like to hear how he shifted direction in mid-stream of the oyster issue. Can't say I'm at all surprised. :shaking:

Here are Facts...CCA and Lawmakers and a small group of office fisherman came up with this law..
There was Zero facts and biologist and WL&F biologist were ignored and pushed aside

In 6 years it is fact that Big Trout numbers or down.
.every guide who fishes will tell u this also

90% of you on this thread spend 3/4 less time on the water than I do.. So don't tell me my theory is wrong when you don't spend the time or know 1st hand the problem
99% of you talk about crap you don't know..you yap yap yap behind a desk and fish on weekend and think you know something

You don't know

...you don't see it enough to know
...your not around enough to know
I been on this lake from 5years old and I spend more time on the water in one year than 80 % of you do in 10years

So please save the B.S. For someone who you can blow smoke ups azz

I'd like to hear this one as well.
sounds to me like you're getting mad at the people on this site who have agreed with you. Since you're the "1%" why don't you spread the wealth around and let some people know where to fish with your infinite 30+ years of knowledge on the lake. That would reduce trout numbers by "office fisherman" catching limits each time they go out. But, you get mad if ANYONE comes within 1000yards of you while you are on the lake.

Rather than changing the limit back to 25 (which you state most people can't catch a 15 fish limit) and that 25 fish will reduce the population to numbers that support big fish, why not lead the pilgrims to the land of opportunity? Higher number of boat with higher number of limits equals more fish taken. Simple math, but then again that takes kindness towards fishermen that don't spend as much time on the lake in 10 years as you do in 1 year. If you're trying to get the average joe or office fisherman in this case on you're side, you shouldn't be attacking them, or giving them ***** because they aren't privlaged to work offshore. At least they're working.

Gaining support by how you treat people sounds more difficult than getting the limits changed.

I wish my life was simple enough to have a "fish weight" as my biggest concern.

W, we all want to hear about the oyster situation that Chicken mentioned. "Cents" you ain't denied it....are we to assume it's true? C'mon, "Mr. I've fished Big Lake "cents" I was 4' tall."

Inquirin' minds want to know.

W sure spouts a lot of numbers and statistics here. The truth is he can't show one (1) single piece of statistical evidence to back any of it up

That is so true! :thumbup:

It sure does suck having to go to work to provide for my family and then on my days off from work know that I have to spend time with my family.... does anyone feel sorry for me because I sure don't...... guess some prod are just born *****$

Especially with a recent first born child. :eek:

First it was PILGRIMS.... now its Office fishermen.......lol

Im still waiting on if they raised the limit to whatever made him happy how is it gonna solve the problem. Being according to him and Jared said the samething that only a handful of people can catch a limit on bl. This goes along with what Jared said. If he wants to thin out the trout population then, 1 start telling everybody where to fish and stop blacking out the background, 2 take more people fishing with him, 3 stop making fun of people fishing the weirs, 4 go to Calcasieu Point everyday he's off and make sure ever boat has life shrimp with them. If they don't then go buy them a quart or however much they want. This is just a start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is a statistic, 99% of the people on this site are taller than W! He just mad he wasn't tall enough for the rides at Contraband Days.

As for office fisherman.......GUILTY! I fish on Saturday's and could care less how much I catch. Anymore than 5 fish and thats more than I want to clean/cook lol.

Not speaking for Big Lake b/c I don't know, but if they were to lower the limit in Lake P to 10 per person, more fish would still be caught and kept this year than in 2006 b/c of the increase in boats. Years ago, you could fish the causeway all day and never get near another boat. Now, it is a circus out there. Since the internet phase began(LAS, salty cajun, Rodnreel etc..) more guys are fishing Lake P. I can only assume the fishing traffic is much heavier now in Big Lake.

Show me facts about oyster fishing how its hurting....have all day.....we have 15 facts here that we did not need trout limit reduce



Show me fact that we need oyster fishing reduce......show me a quote from WLF or biologist

I argued this BS from the start simply because I knew it was a ploy for W to draw attention to himself. If you do not see that......you are worse off than SpellGeek.


:smokin:

I don't care about "facts". Are you, or, or you not guilty of what Chicken accused you of concerning the oyster situation? Choose your words carefully because I'm pretty sure he's prepared.

:work::work:

Com on Casey and Salty.

.all want to cry about osytering so me some facts that the lake needs to stop oystering

Pull up facts like mathgeek did on trout limits,,,,you show me where a biologist said osytering is hurting the lake I will shut up

Sickem :smokin:

So, we'll just assume Chicken ain't makin' up this crap.

People have to be careful who they line up with to do battle. You have to make sure that the person that has convinced you that he is right will be standing beside you (not behind you) in the end.

W = Obama.

Great post but too bad you will not be around long enough to enjoy it.....ClubW is gonna take you out....lol

just posting some past info not poo stirin...limits or oysters whatever just help the lake:

http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/show...ghlight=OYSTER

Just what I thought.....we have plenty of hard facts that proved we never needed a limit reduction

We have Zero facts about oyster dredging destroying the lake..

(but since I spend so much time on the water I can tell you 1st hand that oyster dredging is hurting the lake, but I guess my time on the water is not justified for support of the 25trout limit but could be justified for oyster dredging (hypocritical ) )

My point proving to the T

I'm Winning ......

W it seems like you sure were hell bent on taking out the oyster problem, but now you have completed your 180? That office politician that is a family friend sure did put you in your place.

See below, I have plenty more where this came from Mr. Obama/ W.


[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]

Obama/W you better check with your close family friend the office politician and make sure that he does not support 15 trout limits or you may have to do another 180.

What a joke, I am glad everyone can see this. Like you said "keep it in the public area so everyone can see". Well you got it buddy....