View Single Post
  #8  
Old 06-05-2012, 08:05 PM
ckinchen's Avatar
ckinchen ckinchen is offline
Site Owner/Admin
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Woodlands, TX / Hackberry
Posts: 11,646
Cash: 22,467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek View Post
Sometimes the best deer management is to harvest more does because the deer are overpopulated and there is simply not enough food to feed all the hungry mouths. Old deer management thinking was to harvest only bucks and leave all the does for the benefit of the herd. When applied to overpopulated situations, this is bad management.

Preserving the trout resource ultimately means preserving the habitat and food sources on which the trout depend. Data shows that the spotted seatrout in Calcasieu estuary are thinner and growing more slowly than they were before the limit change in 2006. The most likely explanation is that there are more trout relative to their available food sources than there used to be. Spotted seatrout in the estuary used to be fatter than the statewide average. After the change in the limits, the data show they are thinner than the Louisiana average.

Some have suggested that greedy/lazy guides may have supported lowering the limits so they would only have to help clients catch 15 trout per day rather than 25 which would take considerably less time and less gas and allow them to fit in more trips in a week.
If those involved are guilty of anything it is not the desire to spend less gas or be required to catch fewer trout. If the decision to lower the limit was wrong (and I am not saying it is because I do not know) it was done with good intentions. I can assure you these people want what is best for the estuary from a long term perspective.

I have heard a rumor and this is strictly a rumor not from anyone I know or anyone involved in Baton Rouge that part of the desire to see the limit go down was to try and help reduce some of the pressure on the lake. The thought was that Texas fishermen may not have been as willing to drive all the way to Lake Charles for only 5 more fish than they could catch in their own water. I do not believe that theory worked but again that rumor was not from anyone that was involved.

My belief is that those that made this decsion did so becuase they saw the signfiicant increase in pressure on the lake and they were concerned about the long term future of the estuary with the increased pressure. These people like all of us I'm sure want their grandkids to enjoy fishing on big lake.

Maybe they were wrong, I personally believe that are a number of factors in play regarding big trout and we would need more data to prove that such a theory were in fact correct. All you guys can do is bring your data and concerns to the LDWLF and possibly the CCA and see how they feel.

Like I have said before if as a group you/we want to take on the Oyster harvesting issue, I would support that cause and get behind it. I am not convinced that 15 v/s 25 makes a great difference either way and I am more concerned about oysters in the lake which long term I believe is the 800lb gorilla in the room. That and how the weir system is managed.
Reply With Quote