Spotted Sea Trout Spawn

["W"]

This was emailed to me yesterday! Which even further backs my statement of you will never fish out trout with rod n reel...

If you keep your estuary healthy,your trout population will remain healthy....Its 2 + 2 math...

What is going to kill Big Lake in the long run is our controlled marsh. When you interrupt mother nature you are bound to destroy something! Rita was a sign that no matter what man builds she can take away any time!

Which then go back to the 15 trout limit( Again I like the limit) but we have no proof to show this was needed! Ship channel is home to millions of trout along with a constant flow of new gulf water daily.

15 trout limit is plenty of fish for anyone person but in the long run will it help? I personally dont think so due to the fact of: you can only hold so many fish in one bowl.
Since the 15trout limit was applied can anyone tell me what is different? No more bigger fish than normal and over the last 10years this lake does not know what big fish are. Back when my dad was in his 20"s-30's and some of your dads will tell you. Going to big lake was a automatic 100trout and most were in the 3-5lb range. Pictures of my dad and grandpa with a table full of trout over 6lbs up to 8 or maybe 9lbs. Talk to anyone who fished the lake in the 80:s and early 90"s and they will tell you what big trout were.
Who knows what kind of sizes were being caught in those days ,because I know my grandpa was going to eat a 10lb trout and never look back on how much it weighed. As many old timers on that lake use to do.
Go sit down with the guys who ran gill nets and let them tell you story's about monster trout and numbers of them. They will tell you a 10lb was common and probably caught ones up to 14lbs.

[LaAngler]

Originally Posted by "W"

Talk to anyone who fished the lake in the 80:s and early 90"s and they will tell you what big trout were. Who knows what kind of sizes were being caught in those days

That's when more nets were in the water, less recreational boats on the lake before the bay boat craze. I don't remember redfish being as easy to catch, but most everyone i've talked to says the big trout fishing was better between 98-03. My best trip was in 1998

now they're all 5-6 lbs

["W"]

Originally Posted by LaAngler

That's when more nets were in the water, less recreational boats on the lake before the bay boat craze. I don't remember redfish being as easy to catch, but most everyone i've talked to says the big trout fishing was better between 98-03

Only popularity big trout fishing ... in the 50;s to 70's no one weighted fish nor did they care and big trout was just a meal if it was landed! having two relatives that fish big lake out of 14ft boats in the late 50's's to 70's will tell you that 6lb trout were as common as sea gulls to the lake! 12inch trout were used as bait on a treble hook and cork and produced even bigger trout!
Trying to get a real weight from them is a hard question because that was never a issue or concern in those days. My Great uncle ****y said if he had to place a weight value on the biggest trout he laid eyes on coming out of the lake in the 60's he said 14-15lbs easy. Same size as huge redfish they were catching in nets and traps. He live few miles from the lake in the late 50's till 80's when he moved to Jennings.

He still laughs at our 12inch fish mimuim because that was un heard of back then and a 12inch trout was look at as bait. This lake has not improved from those times it has only decreased.
My dad who is 57 years old and in his teens to upper 20's said it was so easy to launch your boat in Cameron and drive 7 mins and catch 100 plus trout on artificial in 2 hours. You never came back with less than 75trout and a horrible day was 50trout. It was not uncommon to have 3 guys in a 14ft boat and boat 250 trout by 10am. He said this was fishing in those days. Now you better know this lake to be-able to have success...

So from talking to ones who have been there....Our Lake has not improved one bit

[cmdrost]

Originally Posted by "W"

So from talking to ones who have been there....Our Lake has not improved one bit

You're just one big walking/talking contradiction....

W Case 1 - trout population is fine and you can't out fish it with a rod & reel

W Case 2 - quoted above


There is a big reason the lake isn't like what it used to be back in the days you are talking about.

1 - MUCH more pressure from fisherman
2 - MUCH loss of marsh land

Like the article and boatdriver said.....those 2 combinations aren't a good thing.

["W"]

Originally Posted by "W"

If you keep your estuary healthy,your trout population will remain healthy....Its 2 + 2 math...

What is going to kill Big Lake in the long run is our controlled marsh. When you interrupt mother nature you are bound to destroy something! Rita was a sign that no matter what man builds she can take away any time!

Originally Posted by cmdrost

You're just one big walking/talking contradiction....

W Case 1 - trout population is fine and you can't out fish it with a rod & reel

W Case 2 - quoted above


There is a big reason the lake isn't like what it used to be back in the days you are talking about.

1 - MUCH more pressure from fisherman
2 - MUCH loss of marsh land

Like the article and boatdriver said.....those 2 combinations aren't a good thing.

I said this above already...... Good Try Salty Jr

[cmdrost]

woah!! I must be moving up in the world....

a follow up email from the author of the original article about this same issue:

As I've reported in the past, many fisheries scientists believe coastal erosion to date may actually be priming the pump in terms of specks and reds because it improves the quality of habitat for many forage species (shrimp, menhaden, sardines, silversides, benthic community, etc), by increasing plankton and other invertebrate production, and increases the total acres of edge habitat important to young speckled trout. But eventually the growing acres of open saltwater will begin to dilute, then overwhelm the impact of the descreasing amount of marsh habitat eroding. They surmise that by the time we record a "trend" (which takes several years) in declining production the damage will have been so severe there will be little we can do about it. And, unfortuantely the rate of decline will only accelerate until it reaches a new balance with the remaining habitat. At current trend of wertlands loss being accelerated by sea level rise, by the middle of this century we will have very little habitat left. Louisiana fish production will drop to what we see now in Texas and Florida, or even below. You can get a few of the measureable sea level rise to mdate at this NOAA site. www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

Thanks for reading the TP, and sharing your thoughts.

[boatdriver]

Originally Posted by cmdrost

woah!! I must be moving up in the world....

a follow up email from the author of the original article about this same issue:

As I've reported in the past, many fisheries scientists believe coastal erosion to date may actually be priming the pump in terms of specks and reds because it improves the quality of habitat for many forage species (shrimp, menhaden, sardines, silversides, benthic community, etc), by increasing plankton and other invertebrate production, and increases the total acres of edge habitat important to young speckled trout. But eventually the growing acres of open saltwater will begin to dilute, then overwhelm the impact of the descreasing amount of marsh habitat eroding. They surmise that by the time we record a "trend" (which takes several years) in declining production the damage will have been so severe there will be little we can do about it. And, unfortuantely the rate of decline will only accelerate until it reaches a new balance with the remaining habitat. At current trend of wertlands loss being accelerated by sea level rise, by the middle of this century we will have very little habitat left. Louisiana fish production will drop to what we see now in Texas and Florida, or even below. You can get a few of the measureable sea level rise to mdate at this NOAA site. www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

Thanks for reading the TP, and sharing your thoughts.

This is very, very scary. For our state to be in the same grouping of Texas and Florida about trout populations is troubling, to me anyways. We all know about the TX limits and know about FL's problems too. I hope it never comes to this here. Personally, most of y'all are a little older than me, so it may not affect that generation, but at the rate of land loss and water levels increasing, younger anglers and my children will definitely see the actual damage. I just hope we can find some way to alter or slow the process of "what could be" on years to come.

["W"]

Originally Posted by cmdrost

woah!! I must be moving up in the world....

a follow up email from the author of the original article about this same issue:

As I've reported in the past, many fisheries scientists believe coastal erosion to date may actually be priming the pump in terms of specks and reds because it improves the quality of habitat for many forage species (shrimp, menhaden, sardines, silversides, benthic community, etc), by increasing plankton and other invertebrate production, and increases the total acres of edge habitat important to young speckled trout. But eventually the growing acres of open saltwater will begin to dilute, then overwhelm the impact of the descreasing amount of marsh habitat eroding. They surmise that by the time we record a "trend" (which takes several years) in declining production the damage will have been so severe there will be little we can do about it. And, unfortuantely the rate of decline will only accelerate until it reaches a new balance with the remaining habitat. At current trend of wertlands loss being accelerated by sea level rise, by the middle of this century we will have very little habitat left. Louisiana fish production will drop to what we see now in Texas and Florida, or even below. You can get a few of the measureable sea level rise to mdate at this NOAA site. www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

Thanks for reading the TP, and sharing your thoughts.

He sure did throw a Al Gore

No doubt we have loss of wetland issues...And its our own fault...So simple to let rivers and lakes take their god given course.
Was the extension of the Ship channel good or bad? How much marsh and land have we lost due to the ship channel?? Why are we losing that land? What has water control on marshes accomplished?