15 Trout Limit Discussion PUBLIC

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Choupique

I would spend my energy on them worrying about the oystering over there, but thats just me.

I agree completely. The over harvesting of oysters carries the risk of significant habitat destruction which is much more likely to have longer term negative impacts compared with the under harvesting of spotted seatrout which is much more quickly reversible, especially if reversed within a few years.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Choupique

I would spend my energy on them worrying about the oystering over there, but thats just me.

Well you see............................................... .....


That one group who got the limits changed.....don't eat oysters..so there not worried about it

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by Choupique

I would spend my energy on them worrying about the oystering over there, but thats just me.

Exactly, that is the real issue we should all work together on.

["W"]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

Exactly, that is the real issue we should all work together on.

Here is the deal with that...you have a better chance changing limits than this....no Sen is going to allow someone to lose their jobs. This has been made a point already as Dan Morish pulled his 1st bill.

WL&F make a killing on oyster fisherman fines....so will get limits back 1st

[ckinchen]

Originally Posted by "W"

Here is the deal with that...you have a better chance changing limits than this....no Sen is going to allow someone to lose their jobs. This has been made a point already as Dan Morish pulled his 1st bill.

WL&F make a killing on oyster fisherman fines....so will get limits back 1st

There are plenty of people that recognize the danger that is present with the over harvesting of oysters, some of which are people have the power to make sure the lake is protected.

I assume a small publication or two will pick up on the current limit debate that is going on here due to the outreach of this website but I suspect it will not make an impact.

I personally and speaking for the site will not get involved in the limit issue one way or another on either side as I believe there are bigger issues and that bigger issue is protecting the food resources in the lake (oysters). I recognize that you have to pick your battles and in politics you should only fight the battles that really matter the most. I would however stand firm behind a push to continue to limit oyster harvesting in the lake and I would be willing to us the contacts and resources that I have obtained. There are a large number of people on the sidelines that would help us take up the oyster conservation fight. You were one of the loudest most vocal opponents on the over harvesting of oysters until one of you close “family friends” decided to introduce a bill to the contrary (I can pull the post for everyone to see it if you would like). Since then you have completely changed your position. You also served on the board of the CCA after the limits were changed and stood firm behind their mission and values so for you to blame them now after having been a part of management and the decision making process to me is shady politics.

You had an excellent opportunity to bring about change when you actually had a vote and voice, where was this 14 page thread then (I recognize you were on LAS then)? What if one of your neighbors or close family friends takes another stand against raising the limit, will you leave all of your apparent supporters on the site standing alone holding the bag like you did on the oyster issue? In a thread that speaks to conservation and what is best for the lake even though they may be joking there are people on this very thread talking about gill nets which almost destroyed the redfish and trout population and would have had it not been for the work of the CCA. This thread and cause needs leadership, right now it is heading in multiple directions and any mention of gill nets and what will happen “after” the limits are raised would possibly cause you all to not be considered conservationist but instead greedy fishermen, if that is the case both causes are finished.

This is my last post on this thread but just a few food for thoughts as this thread continues and I am not interested in the current direction and or debating the limit topic. If you guys want to get serious about the over harvesting of oysters let me know.

If there is a group that pushes for the 25 trout limit and science shows that such limit is good for the lake then I wish you guys the best. However having to pick one cause to support the choice for me is very easy, the food resources of the lake are a much higher priority.

["W"]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

There are plenty of people that recognize the danger that is present with the over harvesting of oysters, some of which are people have the power to make sure the lake is protected.

I assume a small publication or two will pick up on the current limit debate that is going on here due to the outreach of this website but I suspect it will not make an impact.

I personally and speaking for the site will not get involved in the limit issue one way or another on either side as I believe there are bigger issues and that bigger issue is protecting the food resources in the lake (oysters). I recognize that you have to pick your battles and in politics you should only fight the battles that really matter the most. I would however stand firm behind a push to continue to limit oyster harvesting in the lake and I would be willing to us the contacts and resources that I have obtained. There are a large number of people on the sidelines that would help us take up the oyster conservation fight. You were one of the loudest most vocal opponents on the over harvesting of oysters until one of you close “family friends” decided to introduce a bill to the contrary (I can pull the post for everyone to see it if you would like). Since then you have completely changed your position. You also served on the board of the CCA after the limits were changed and stood firm behind their mission and values so for you to blame them now after having been a part of management and the decision making process to me is shady politics.

You had an excellent opportunity to bring about change when you actually had a vote and voice, where was this 14 page thread then (I recognize you were on LAS then)? What if one of your neighbors or close family friends takes another stand against raising the limit, will you leave all of your apparent supporters on the site standing alone holding the bag like you did on the oyster issue? In a thread that speaks to conservation and what is best for the lake even though they may be joking there are people on this very thread talking about gill nets which almost destroyed the redfish and trout population and would have had it not been for the work of the CCA. This thread and cause needs leadership, right now it is heading in multiple directions and any mention of gill nets and what will happen “after” the limits are raised would possibly cause you all to not be considered conservationist but instead greedy fishermen, if that is the case both causes are finished.

This is my last post on this thread but just a few food for thoughts as this thread continues and I am not interested in the current direction and or debating the limit topic. If you guys want to get serious about the over harvesting of oysters let me know.

If there is a group that pushes for the 25 trout limit and science shows that such limit is good for the lake then I wish you guys the best. However having to pick one cause to support the choice for me is very easy, the food resources of the lake are a much higher priority.

1st I'm 100% against oyster dredging and still want it fixed..but I have also seen 1st hand that oysterfisherm are not going to lose there jobs no matter how much money you got to push them out.
I said from day one that dredging would kill the lake....there is a bill right now to protect our artificial reefs

[Salty]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

There are plenty of people that recognize the danger that is present with the over harvesting of oysters, some of which are people have the power to make sure the lake is protected.

I assume a small publication or two will pick up on the current limit debate that is going on here due to the outreach of this website but I suspect it will not make an impact.

I personally and speaking for the site will not get involved in the limit issue one way or another on either side as I believe there are bigger issues and that bigger issue is protecting the food resources in the lake (oysters). I recognize that you have to pick your battles and in politics you should only fight the battles that really matter the most. I would however stand firm behind a push to continue to limit oyster harvesting in the lake and I would be willing to us the contacts and resources that I have obtained. There are a large number of people on the sidelines that would help us take up the oyster conservation fight. You were one of the loudest most vocal opponents on the over harvesting of oysters until one of you close “family friends” decided to introduce a bill to the contrary (I can pull the post for everyone to see it if you would like). Since then you have completely changed your position. You also served on the board of the CCA after the limits were changed and stood firm behind their mission and values so for you to blame them now after having been a part of management and the decision making process to me is shady politics.

You had an excellent opportunity to bring about change when you actually had a vote and voice, where was this 14 page thread then (I recognize you were on LAS then)? What if one of your neighbors or close family friends takes another stand against raising the limit, will you leave all of your apparent supporters on the site standing alone holding the bag like you did on the oyster issue? In a thread that speaks to conservation and what is best for the lake even though they may be joking there are people on this very thread talking about gill nets which almost destroyed the redfish and trout population and would have had it not been for the work of the CCA. This thread and cause needs leadership, right now it is heading in multiple directions and any mention of gill nets and what will happen “after” the limits are raised would possibly cause you all to not be considered conservationist but instead greedy fishermen, if that is the case both causes are finished.

This is my last post on this thread but just a few food for thoughts as this thread continues and I am not interested in the current direction and or debating the limit topic. If you guys want to get serious about the over harvesting of oysters let me know.

If there is a group that pushes for the 25 trout limit and science shows that such limit is good for the lake then I wish you guys the best. However having to pick one cause to support the choice for me is very easy, the food resources of the lake are a much higher priority.

"You were one of the loudest most vocal opponents on the over harvesting of oysters until one of you close “family friends” decided to introduce a bill to the contrary (I can pull the post for everyone to see it if you would like). Since then you have completely changed your position. You also served on the board of the CCA after the limits were changed and stood firm behind their mission and values so for you to blame them now after having been a part of management and the decision making process to me is shady politics. "

Can we hear more about this, please?

[ckinchen]

Just because someone can make a living off of the public's resources does not mean it should be accepted. People made money while fishing with gill nets, we all agree that was not a good idea. People can make money dumping toxic waste in the Sabine Refuge, still not a good idea.

Some oystering is ok, the complete lack of oversight and over harvesting that took place on the lake prior to this year was a serious mismanagement of the estuary and there are people in power right now that are trying to get us back to that point.

If big lake become a giant mud hole with no significant food for the trout population you/we will have bigger issues than what our limits are. This in my mind is a big picture issue.

["W"]

Originally Posted by ckinchen

Just because someone can make a living off of the public's resources does not mean it should be accepted. People made money while fishing with gill nets, we all agree that was not a good idea. People can make money dumping toxic waste in the Sabine Refuge, still not a good idea.

Some oystering is ok, the complete lack of oversight and over harvesting that took place on the lake prior to this year was a serious mismanagement of the estuary and there are people in power right now that are trying to get us back to that point.

If big lake become a giant mud hole with no significant food for the trout population you/we will have bigger issues than what our limits are. This in my mind is a big picture issue.

Mark this down...oystering will be shut down for 10years in the next 2 by WL&F

[jchief]

Originally Posted by "W"

1st I'm 100% against oyster dredging and still want it fixed..but I have also seen 1st hand that oysterfisherm are not going to lose there jobs no matter how much money you got to push them out.
I said from day one that dredging would kill the lake....there is a bill right now to protect our artificial reefs

Originally Posted by "W"

Mark this down...oystering will be shut down for 10years in the next 2 by WL&F

?????????????????????????

["W"]

Originally Posted by jchief

?????????????????????????

Because it will be WL&F not CCA or Senate

[jchief]

And if those oyster fisherman go to the Legislature with it? Do you not think the WLF will get overruled?

["W"]

Originally Posted by jchief

And if those oyster fisherman go to the Legislature with it? Do you not think the WLF will get overruled?

Why would they over rule the WLF the oyster task force is paid to control and over see harvest...
If WL&f says they have to close due to no legal size oyster...that's the bottom line

You can fish something that's not there...
They control it the same as shrimping...they open and close ,,,that's how it works
There are no oysters left to harvest right now ,so it will not be long

[jchief]

Not trying to stir the pot. Being honest here.

[weedeater]

How long can this horse be beat before people realize its dead?

[1fastmerc]

Correct me if I'm wrong and I know that you will. But in the not only in this thread or the first one and on numerous occasions you and maybe some others have pointed out that MOST people fishing the lake can't catch a limit of specs. With that being said wouldn't it be hard for the FEW THAT CAN catch their limit to put a dent in the trout population. Wouldn't you have to increase the limit to lets say 50 to make up for us slackers. This is just a question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weedeater]

Originally Posted by 1fastmerc

Correct me if I'm wrong and I know that you will. But in the not only in this thread or the first one and on numerous occasions you and maybe some others have pointed out that MOST people fishing the lake can't catch a limit of specs. With that being said wouldn't it be hard for the FEW THAT CAN catch their limit to put a dent in the trout population. Wouldn't you have to increase the limit to lets say 50 to make up for us slackers. This is just a question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I fish out of an old beat up aluminum boat and only catch a few each trip with my cheap rods so I would be fine with them lowering the limit to maybe 5, least I could say I caught a limit that way

[lsufish]

Originally Posted by 1fastmerc

Correct me if I'm wrong and I know that you will. But in the not only in this thread or the first one and on numerous occasions you and maybe some others have pointed out that MOST people fishing the lake can't catch a limit of specs. With that being said wouldn't it be hard for the FEW THAT CAN catch their limit to put a dent in the trout population. Wouldn't you have to increase the limit to lets say 50 to make up for us slackers. This is just a question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hit the nail on the head, The argument is contradicting itself. One one hand you are saying that this lake can't be outfished with road and reel, and most "office fisherman" can only catch 10 trout a day.

On the other hand, the ten trout reduction is severely harming the big trout population because of overpopulation.

I dont know the answer, but i would suggest if you want to be taken seriously on this trout limit quest be sure to address that contridiction.

[weedeater]

Originally Posted by lsufish

Hit the nail on the head, The argument is contradicting itself. One one hand you are saying that this lake can't be outfished with road and reel, and most "office fisherman" can only catch 10 trout a day.

On the other hand, the ten trout reduction is severely harming the big trout population because of overpopulation.

I dont know the answer, but i would suggest if you want to be taken seriously on this trout limit quest be sure to address that contridiction.

So far every contradiction has been a contradiction to address a contradiction

[mikedatiger]

Originally Posted by lsufish

Hit the nail on the head, The argument is contradicting itself. One one hand you are saying that this lake can't be outfished with road and reel, and most "office fisherman" can only catch 10 trout a day.

On the other hand, the ten trout reduction is severely harming the big trout population because of overpopulation.

I dont know the answer, but i would suggest if you want to be taken seriously on this trout limit quest be sure to address that contridiction.

I am trying to figure this out as well. According to one of the research articles posted:

"Because the spawning season lasts so long, and the fish produce so many (larvae), it compensates for any factors that might interrupt reproduction," Shepard said. That dynamic reproduction cycle results in a survival rate that so out-paced the high predation factor, it would be almost impossible for hook-and-line anglers to make a telling difference in their overall numbers, Shepard said."

Seems like a limit change would have very little impact, if any, especially with office fisherman only catching 5 fish