commission change.

W is right so stay on em W

Thanks

Management of wildlife should be based upon SOUND scientific evidence, not politics. The resources on public water bodies and land is for everyone in the state, not a select few. Unfortunately, this 'trophy' mentality has come along mainly from Bassmasters and Buckmasters and tv shows. The whole point of the management of public wildlife 'should be' to manage for healthy wildlife populations in order to 'take' (kill and eat) and not to catch and release, not to grow big antlers, but to kill it and eat it. If you want to grow big deer or grow big bass or grow big squirrels then put up a fence or build a pond. Bass fishing is lost, deer hunting is lost, duck hunting is right behind it, I just want what is best for the resource so that it is left behind better than when we got to use it.

I also believe that the numbers of trout caught by rod n reel is not even 1% of what dies by dolphins, sharks, other trout, pelicans, and other natural factors, so the limit could be 100 and it would really not matter that much.

This limit change should have never happened, but it did, and it will likely be very very hard to get changed back. I have only fished there for 2 years so can't chime in on much about Big Lake but I know how wildlife populations work and think management of wildlife should be scientifically driven. LDWF has very competent biologists and if we are going to ignore their EXPERT opinions then what is the point of even having biologists? Anyone can go out and shock fish and measure them, but it takes someone with some knowledge to assess the numbers and look at the trends and figure what is happening and what needs to happen, they went to school for this very thing. Its a sad day when a few stakeholders can make decisions for everyone.

I would really really like to see something like the magnuson-stevens act be placed across the state for ALL our wildlife for the state. This act makes sure that the management is scientifically driven (although it is not perfect and has not reallly been enforced, but it is an excellent tool if used properly) and rules and regulation changes would be due to scientific evidence that supports the best management for OUR resources, not because a few people want to shoot big bucks or catch big bass


:sent from iphone while at the office!

I have rest my case with Facts here

People don't like the way I come across or how I feel about a place I spend half my life at,,, o well


I have several emails out to several people and have gotten a lot of good info...most have. Lot of name calling so I'm not going to post the whole email up. But when I get all of them back I will take what I have and piece it together and make a post
I can tell you this much so far,....WLF contact I emailed is very against the 15 trout limit and he Also agrees with what I'm saying about numbers of fish

Hope to have some good info soon

You gonna screw around and get the limit dropped to 10 with all your "info". :smokin:

Like what was dicussed today in private ,we may not get the power to over turn it until its to late , but he have the ammo to never allow it below 15 for many many many years to come

From a biologist stand point we can support around a 30 per person trout limit as of today

W, there are people in control of this situation. They are not going to allow it to be "to late".

Interesting how you wrote, "From a biologist stand point we". I think you actually believe that.

Your wrong again old timer....they ignored the facts the 1st time...they brushed off bioloigest and scientist by using money to get this past
Had zero to do with helping or hurting...they assumed with zero facts

So don't think for one second "to late" can't become too late when office fisherman ignore facts and use "in case or we assume " as facts

Well, you can prove that I'm wrong when you get this limit reversed. :rolleyes: "Club W" needs to start saving their money for the fight. Holler at me when you get the final draft finished......somebody needs to speel cheek before it is submitted. :smokin:

Wow! Are we really going to assess the validity of scientific assertions by the outcome of bureaucratic processes?

I think I knew better than this by the time I completed the 6th grade at T.H. Watkins Elementary School.

Yep, I'm afraid so. This is Louisiana....not Colorado.

Have you ever been to Louisiana? It's all about who you know, who you bleaux and how much you pay for the privilege of both.

Sent from my PG06100 using Tapatalk 2

T.H. Watkins elementary school is in Lake Charles. I graduated from high school in Metairie, and my first laboratory job was in fisheries science at LSU. I eventually graduated from LSU with a Bachelor's degree in Physics, first in my class.

Please note the actual reasoning in my statement:

I am not saying that I expect the science to have a great impact on the bureaucratic process, that could go either way.

I am saying that it is folly to assess the validity of science from whether it sways the bureaucrats.

In any case, better to have sound science, so at least some of the voting public can be informed and the refusal of bureaucrats to make wise decisions can be public knowledge.

W

This was all based on his opinion and not science!

Will Drost, an avid angler and Lake Charles businessman, supports lowering the limit to 15 trout per day. He actually prefers 10 per day, but believes more people would support a 15-fish limit. However, he wants to see more scientific studies conducted in the estuary.
“The Calcasieu Estuary is different from the rest of the state,” Drost said. “It should be managed differently. I believe that the data the state uses has become outdated. I don’t think the LDWF has the money to do a comprehensive study, but we don’t have the time to wait.”

Found some updated research facts....2011


Interestingly, Louisiana recently adopted (in 2006) a spatially-explicit management plan for Calcasieu Lake. The premise of this management decision, which included a reduction in daily bag limits and imposition of a slot limit, was to ‘preserve’ the renowned trophy-fishery for spotted seatrout in Calcasieu Lake. However, the decision to enact this regulation was based exclusively on socio-economic factors, rather than the biological status of the subpopulation. In fact, no formal stock assessment was conducted as part of the decision-making process. Thus, the status of the subpopulation (stock) was largely unknown (i.e., overfished or not?) at the time regulations were changed. While perhaps setting a bad precedent for fisheries management (i.e., making a decision based purely on socioeconomic reasons), this situation affords a unique opportunity to evaluate the response of spotted seatrout to a spatially-explicit (estuarine-scale) regulations change (i.e., adaptive management, sensu Hilborn and Walters 1992).

from Callihan PhD thesis LSU 2011 p. 182

Old news.

:grinpimp:

Really ....did not know that.....thanks for letting us know......its on my sig.....how could that be

We only quoted 5 times in this thread alone

Great catch :shaking:

I had hopes that this crap would have died by now. :help:

He is a man on a mission!!!