15 Trout Limit Discussion PUBLIC

[Feesherman]

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.

[Wag]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

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.

Sad, but this is Louisiana, and how things are done, Politics play into everything here and decisions are based on contributions to campaigns and favors to those that contribute and support those that are elected, and not to logical, factual or biological reasoning. If you want to raise the limits back up to 25, go find someone that has contributed a lot of money to someone in power, (someone other that the guy that got it down to 15) and have him put pressure on the law makers to change the limit back to 25 on big lake.....Money talks and Bull**** walks....my 2 cents worth.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Wag

Sad, but this is Louisiana, and how things are done, Politics play into everything here and decisions are based on contributions to campaigns and favors to those that contribute and support those that are elected, and not to logical, factual or biological reasoning. If you want to raise the limits back up to 25, go find someone that has contributed a lot of money to someone in power, (someone other that the guy that got it down to 15) and have him put pressure on the law makers to change the limit back to 25 on big lake.....Money talks and Bull**** walks....my 2 cents worth.

Your 100%. Right ,its sad how a few guys with zero knowledge were able to do this
What's even worst is they used data from another State and area that is no where near the estuary we are


If they want a study we need to enforce 25 limit back for 6 years and them look at the over all facts

[BIG RED 1983]

Originally Posted by "W"

Your 100%. Right ,its sad how a few guys with zero knowledge were able to do this
What's even worst is they used data from another State and area that is no where near the estuary we are


If they want a study we need to enforce 25 limit back for 6 years and them look at the over all facts

They had enough knowledge to know which pockets to line with green backs

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by Wag

Sad, but this is Louisiana, and how things are done, Politics play into everything here and decisions are based on contributions to campaigns and favors to those that contribute and support those that are elected, and not to logical, factual or biological reasoning. If you want to raise the limits back up to 25, go find someone that has contributed a lot of money to someone in power, (someone other that the guy that got it down to 15) and have him put pressure on the law makers to change the limit back to 25 on big lake.....Money talks and Bull**** walks....my 2 cents worth.

It doesn't even have to be a law change. They can change it back to 25 for a 5 year impact study. Then offer up the data for a change if one is warranted.

[Wag]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

It doesn't even have to be a law change. They can change it back to 25 for a 5 year impact study. Then offer up the data for a change if one is warranted.

There ya go....sounds like a good plan, now you need someone with some Political influence to get it done.

[SULPHITE]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

It doesn't even have to be a law change. They can change it back to 25 for a 5 year impact study. Then offer up the data for a change if one is warranted.

a logical statement