Quote:
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.