15 Trout Limit Discussion PUBLIC

[Keywest18]

Originally Posted by "W"

And I hope who ever you know who is proud because he got his way due to greed and no sportsmanship

Correct me if im wrong here but how is it greedy to "reduce" the limit? I would think greedy would be raising the limit?and as far as sportsmanship I believe it was stated in a previous post about it possibly being people reducing the limit to help preserve the population of trouts so theire kids can fish the lake and catch trout as well. to me thats being a sportsman. Not tryin to start an arguement just confused about the greed part

["W"]

Originally Posted by thegr8cody

Correct me if im wrong here but how is it greedy to "reduce" the limit? I would think greedy would be raising the limit?and as far as sportsmanship I believe it was stated in a previous post about it possibly being people reducing the limit to help preserve the population of trouts so theire kids can fish the lake and catch trout as well. to me thats being a sportsman. Not tryin to start an arguement just confused about the greed part

This crap was never about no kids and future man com on
...that was the scapegoat ..

The main pusher wanted 10trout 14inchs up.because he don't keep fish..
One guide service supported so they could finally catch a full limit in stead of 3-5% of the time under 25limit

Man this is not about no kids its about a very small group of guys who all or family or real close friends that started this crap

They happen to have some family money and when u line the right pockets ..you don't need facts or science

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by "W"

This crap was never about no kids and future man com on
...that was the scapegoat ..

The main pusher wanted 10trout 14inchs up.because he don't keep fish..
One guide service supported so they could finally catch a full limit in stead of 3-5% of the time under 25limit

Man this is not about no kids its about a very small group of guys who all or family or real close friends that started this crap

They happen to have some family money and when u line the right pockets ..you don't need facts or science

From a full disclosure standpoint that is your version of the truth. The version I heard is that the person I know that was involved wanted to see the lake stay what it is/was for decades to come and he saw the increased pressure on the lake and wanted to be proactive and do something about it.

Also the only guide service I saw on the lake that did not support the reduction was Jeff Poe and big lake guide service. It was far from one guide service that was pushing this.

This guy I know would beat you in a fish off by the way and it woudln't be close. Not that it matters or anything but I thoguht your ego could use another kick in the mid section.

I am glad to see that your computer is now working and the standard "25 or bust" no longer shows up. Now maybe you can answer some of the questions that have been asked.

["W"]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

From a full disclosure standpoint that is your version of the truth. The version I heard is that the person I know that was involved wanted to see the lake stay what it is/was for decades to come and he saw the increased pressure on the lake and wanted to be proactive and do something about it.

Also the only guide service I saw on the lake that did not support the reduction was Jeff Poe and big lake guide service. It was far from one guide service that was pushing this.

This guy I know would beat you in a fish off by the way and it wouldn't be close. Not that it matters or anything but I thought your ego could use another kick in the mid section.

I am glad to see that your computer is now working and the standard "25 or bust" no longer shows up. Now maybe you can answer some of the questions that have been asked.

I tell u what Casey come down to Hebert landing @5am and walk down the boat stalls and ask how many supported the 15trout limit

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by "W"

I tell u what Casey come down to Hebert landing @5am and walk down the boat stalls and ask how many supported the 15trout limit

Sure.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by thegr8cody

Correct me if im wrong here but how is it greedy to "reduce" the limit? I would think greedy would be raising the limit?and as far as sportsmanship I believe it was stated in a previous post about it possibly being people reducing the limit to help preserve the population of trouts so theire kids can fish the lake and catch trout as well. to me thats being a sportsman. Not tryin to start an arguement just confused about the greed part

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.

[huntin fool]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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.

X2. You hit the nail on the head.

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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.

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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.

Since W doesn't have an answer(because he himself turned his opinion into a fact in his mind) I will ask you. Is there any data to suggest that the limit change alone is the driving force behind the thinner, slower growing trout? Is there any data or any study at all on what implications the limit change had on the trout? Has there been any study done on what impact the over fishing of our oysters reefs have had on the trout or are we really just speculating and/or making assumptions?
How do you address the fact that most people don't catch 15 trout much less 25 trout?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

Since W doesn't have an answer(because he himself turned his opinion into a fact in his mind) I will ask you. Is there any data to suggest that the limit change alone is the driving force behind the thinner, slower growing trout?

Interestingly, Louisiana recently adopted (in 2006) a spatially-explicit management plan for Calcasieu Lake. The premise of this management decision, which included a reduction in daily bag limits and imposition of a slot limit, was to ‘preserve’ the renowned trophy-fishery for spotted seatrout in Calcasieu Lake. However, the decision to enact this regulation was based exclusively on socio-economic factors, rather than the biological status of the subpopulation. In fact, no formal stock assessment was conducted as part of the decision-making process. Thus, the status of the subpopulation (stock) was largely unknown (i.e., overfished or not?) at the time regulations were changed. While perhaps setting a bad precedent for fisheries management (i.e., making a decision based purely on socioeconomic reasons), this situation affords a unique opportunity to evaluate the response of spotted seatrout to a spatially-explicit (estuarine-scale) regulations change (i.e., adaptive management, sensu Hilborn and Walters 1992).

from Callihan PhD thesis LSU 2011 p. 182

Note that this 2011 PhD dissertation not only says that the rule changes were not justified by biological considerations, it also says that the rule changes afford an opportunity to evaluate the response of the spotted seatrout population to the rule changes.

In other words, the assertion is that current assessments of the spotted seatrout population in Big Lake would be measuring the impact of lowering of the limit and slot rather than other things like hurricane Rita or oyster harvesting which have been asserted by others in the discussion as potentially confounding factors. The dissertation studies the impact of changes in salinity and meteorological effects of things like tropical storms, and yet it concludes that impact of the regulation change can be measured through standard stock assessment methods.

And this is not only the opinion of the author, Dr. Jody Callihan, as the thesis was carefully reviewed by his thesis advisor, Dr. Jim Cowan, a Professor in the Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences at LSU. Dr. Cowan is a national leader in the biology of estuarine fishes having authored dozens of papers, overseen millions in research dollars, and served on the editoral board of several prestigious fisheries journals. Dr. Callihan's PhD Dissertation was also reviewed and approved by Dr. Jaye E. Cable, now a Professor in Marine Sciences at UNC-Chapel Hill and Dr. James Geaghan, Professor and Dept. Head in the LSU Dept. of Experimental Statistics.

Originally Posted by Feesherman

Is there any data or any study at all on what implications the limit change had on the trout? Has there been any study done on what impact the over fishing of our oysters reefs have had on the trout or are we really just speculating and/or making assumptions?

The observation that there are too many spotted sea trout relative to their available food sources is much firmer than the assignment of a definitive cause. The biologists above seem to think that the limit change would have the greater impact on results of stock assessments after the limit change. Some contributors in this discussion think the oysters and tropical storms need to be considered as well.

With respect to whether or not it is a wise idea to change the limits back to 25, the cause(s) of the decline in average body condition and growth rates are not particularly important. Thinning the herd so there are less trout relative to their food supply is a sound management strategy given the fact that there are currently too many trout relative to the available food.

Originally Posted by Feesherman

How do you address the fact that most people don't catch 15 trout much less 25 trout?

The majority of fish are caught by the minority of anglers. If raising the limit to 25 doesn't bring the population under control sufficiently to restore historical growth rates and fatness of trout in the estuary, then further steps can be considered.

["W"]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Interestingly, Louisiana recently adopted (in 2006) a spatially-explicit management plan for Calcasieu Lake. The premise of this management decision, which included a reduction in daily bag limits and imposition of a slot limit, was to ‘preserve’ the renowned trophy-fishery for spotted seatrout in Calcasieu Lake. However, the decision to enact this regulation was based exclusively on socio-economic factors, rather than the biological status of the subpopulation. In fact, no formal stock assessment was conducted as part of the decision-making process. Thus, the status of the subpopulation (stock) was largely unknown (i.e., overfished or not?) at the time regulations were changed. While perhaps setting a bad precedent for fisheries management (i.e., making a decision based purely on socioeconomic reasons), this situation affords a unique opportunity to evaluate the response of spotted seatrout to a spatially-explicit (estuarine-scale) regulations change (i.e., adaptive management, sensu Hilborn and Walters 1992).

from Callihan PhD thesis LSU 2011 p. 182

Note that this 2011 PhD dissertation not only says that the rule changes were not justified by biological considerations, it also says that the rule changes afford an opportunity to evaluate the response of the spotted seatrout population to the rule changes.

In other words, the assertion is that current assessments of the spotted seatrout population in Big Lake would be measuring the impact of lowering of the limit and slot rather than other things like hurricane Rita or oyster harvesting which have been asserted by others in the discussion as potentially confounding factors. The dissertation studies the impact of changes in salinity and meteorological effects of things like tropical storms, and yet it concludes that impact of the regulation change can be measured through standard stock assessment methods.

And this is not only the opinion of the author, Dr. Jody Callihan, as the thesis was carefully reviewed by his thesis advisor, Dr. Jim Cowan, a Professor in the Department of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences at LSU. Dr. Cowan is a national leader in the biology of estuarine fishes having authored dozens of papers, overseen millions in research dollars, and served on the editoral board of several prestigious fisheries journals. Dr. Callihan's PhD Dissertation was also reviewed and approved by Dr. Jaye E. Cable, now a Professor in Marine Sciences at UNC-Chapel Hill and Dr. James Geaghan, Professor and Dept. Head in the LSU Dept. of Experimental Statistics.



The observation that there are too many spotted sea trout relative to their available food sources is much firmer than the assignment of a definitive cause. The biologists above seem to think that the limit change would have the greater impact on results of stock assessments after the limit change. Some contributors in this discussion think the oysters and tropical storms need to be considered as well.

With respect to whether or not it is a wise idea to change the limits back to 25, the cause(s) of the decline in average body condition and growth rates are not particularly important. Thinning the herd so there are less trout relative to their food supply is a sound management strategy given the fact that there are currently too many trout relative to the available food.



The majority of fish are caught by the minority of anglers. If raising the limit to 25 doesn't bring the population under control sufficiently to restore historical growth rates and fatness of trout in the estuary, then further steps can be considered.

I'm glad you took the time
..if he was that lazy to read back at all the facts ,, I just ignore those

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by "W"

I'm glad you took the time
..if he was that lazy to read back at all the facts ,, I just ignore those

You're a funny little man. So there is no biological data, just opinions of the biologists.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

You're a funny little man. So there is no biological data, just opinions of the biologists.

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.

In support of part 2 of W's theory (a limit change back to 25 would produce more bigger trout), it has been pointed out in W's thread that:

2A. An angler who fishes the estuary over 100 days a year is seeing far fewer large trout than before the limit change.
2B. The tournaments since the limit change in 2006 are recording far fewer of the largest trout than the tournaments before 2006.
2C. The available data suggest that while the trout in the Calcasieu estuary were fatter than the Louisiana average before 2006, the trout are thinner than the Louisiana average after 2006. This suggests an overabundance of trout relative to their food sources after the limit change. It is well known in fisheries science that reducing a population of fish relative to their food sources will probably produce faster growth and larger fish.

I would say the facts are compelling, though not conclusive.

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

You're a funny little man. So there is no biological data, just opinions of the biologists.

Nope, no conclusive biological data either way.