Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek
The discussion could be better informed by additional data:
1. Analysis of LDWF weight vs. length data for all available species from 2000 to the present in the Calcasieu estuary to better quantify the relative condition factor of each species over that time period.
2. Analysis of top ten trout weights for all tournaments from 2000 to the present to better quantify the abundance of the larger trout.
3. Acquisition and analysis of weight vs. length data from any available independent sources to quantify the relative condition factor of different species in years when data is available.
4. Analysis of any other data that might be available to assess the stocks and the relative abundance of different species and their food supplies.
5. Analysis of any other data that might be available to quantify variations in growth rates from 2000 to the present.
Even after any proposed limit changes took place, the ongoing discussion and management would be better informed by continuing stock assessments. Using relative condition factor was pioneered in the Calcasieu estuary by Jill Jenkins of the USGS in a 2004 study. This approach is relatively inexpensive to implement compared with other stock assessment methods and usually reveals the relative abundance species to their food sources. An annual assessment of the relative condition factors of several species, along with analysis of the annual tournament data would be much more informative, but a more complete stock assessment would probably be useful every five years, as suggested by Callihan in his 2011 dissertation.
|
I agree with this. Also, I really don't care if the limit is 15 or 25. I am very annoyed that a change was implemented without any biological reason whatsoever. Hell to study the affects of the limit reduction, they can do a 5 year study with the limit back at 25 and then study the impact. But keep politics out of it and let the biologists do their jobs.