["W"]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I think the oyster issue is more important, but when I consider the challenge for data, I have to concede that I have not seen as much data on the oyster issue in Calcasieu as I have on the trout limit issue. My convictions on the oyster issue come more from the historical decline of Galveston Bay and Chesapeake Bay fisheries after the oyster reefs were dramatically over harvested in these systems. However, there were other pollution and urban run-off factors that are not present in Calcasieu. The reason so little data is available in Calcasieu is that the issue only started to become as serious as I believe it is now in 2010. Usually it takes some time for studies to be conducted and the data to become available. So the absence of data is not evidence for the absence of a serious problem. Calcasieu might be more resilient with respect to other estuaries with regards to the decimation of its oyster reefs. I don't think so, but there is too little data at this time.

Since the trout limit change occurred in 2006, there has been more time for data to emerge, though I think the data is not really definitive. The data is rather compelling that the problem is real and raising the limit would probably improve both the overall health of the ecosystem and be likely to increase the number of larger trout by improving growth rates and body condition. However, the available data shows that there is not likely a looming disaster, only an opportunity for improvement.

The oyster issue is probably more important in the long run, and I hope folks keep their eyes open for data and bring hard facts into the discussion.

..

Thank You!!!!