- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: No Change to Speckled Trout regulations
Posted on 2/2/23 at 5:53 pm to TJG210
Posted on 2/2/23 at 5:53 pm to TJG210
quote:
Did you purposely ignore the part where I mentioned the ecosystem is unlike the ecosystem in any of the other coastal states?
No. I just don’t think that’s a valid point in regards to the two proposed counter arguments (new regs will harm female spawning and will result in impactful release mortality).
The model ldwf used accounted for this two things.
What we have have right now is one side claiming that, based on multiple studies and accounting for as many variables as possible, we have a few options to get the SPR to 18.
The only claim the opposition has is that those studies are faulty, without any evidence to support that claim.
I am choosing to believe the best research we have, with all of its faults, and you are choosing to believe t-boy.
1
Posted on 2/2/23 at 6:00 pm to TJG210
Let’s do this as a thought experiment. You steel man an argument for the regs and I will steel man an argument in opposition to the regs:
Bringing the limits to 15/13.5 will have a negative affect on the guide and marina industry. Those industries help support conservation in our state. It also may reduce license purchases in state and by anglers from other states. That will have a direct negative impact on ldwf and conservation efforts protecting our fishery. That negative impact override any benefits from from the limit changes.
I would have still had some respect for CCA, LA Charter Boat Association, and that committee if they would have just been honest and said we are afraid of how this will impact our bottom line.
Posted on 2/2/23 at 6:54 pm to hall59tiger
quote:
The only claim the opposition has is that those studies are faulty, without any evidence to support that claim.
They were conducted in areas inundated with River water, I don’t know what other evidence you want, it’s there on the study in black and white.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 5:49 am to TJG210
quote:
They were conducted in areas inundated with River water, I don’t know what other evidence you want, it’s there on the study in black and white.
Did you watch the video? They collected data from both high and low salinity areas and saw similar decreases in both. I used to actually believe the whole ”collection data was faulty because of river water” narrative but, if they are being honest, they accounted for that. Now, I’m still not sure I trust the collection data entirely but not because of river water.
Regardless, you are redirecting from the actual arguments. Like I’ve said countless times, cca and lcba argued that these changes would have a negative impact (harming female trout and release mortality). In doing so they abandoned all common sense, evidence, and any thread of integrity. One of the committee members tried to compare the reg changes to Covid lock downs lol.
LDWF, with all of their faults, came with evidence and CCA, LCBA, and that resource committee came with an absolute clown show. If you watched that video and saw anything else then I don’t know what to say.
This post was edited on 2/3/23 at 5:53 am
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:38 am to hall59tiger
quote:
LDWF, with all of their faults, came with evidence and CCA, LCBA, and that resource committee came with an absolute clown show.
They are all at fault and the entire situation is a clown show! Trout have been studied intensely for last 20 years. Every year, every report shows the biomass lower and lower, and the SPR lower than where it should be, yet all anyone ever says is "we need to study it further"
what a shite show!
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:50 am to TopWaterTiger
quote:My favorite part of this is, and I am not calling out any individual, but when fisherman say they limits should be reduced, the opponents say, "The science doesn't support it". When the scientists say limits should be reduced, the opponents say, "The science is faulty". It hilarious
Every year, every report shows the biomass lower and lower, and the SPR lower than where it should be, yet all anyone ever says is "we need to study it further"
Posted on 2/3/23 at 8:57 am to AlxTgr
quote:
My favorite part of this is, and I am not calling out any individual, but when fisherman say they limits should be reduced, the opponents say, "The science doesn't support it". When the scientists say limits should be reduced, the opponents say, "The science is faulty". It hilarious
People make decisions emotionally then, once their mind is made up, look for reasons to support their emotional decision. The problem with the opposition’s view is there are no credible reasons to support their point of view. Therefore, they are left to just question the validity of the actual evidence that justifies the reg changes. It’s just constant misdirecting.
If people are willing to do the work that it takes to be objective then they would be able to see our fishery is in decline and, under current management practices, there is no end to that decline in sight. We have less habitat than ever, more freshwater in the fishery, better technology than ever, and more fisherman than ever. Common sense and the “science” is pointing to the same thing.
This post was edited on 2/3/23 at 9:01 am
Posted on 2/3/23 at 12:53 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
The science is faulty". It hilarious
I guess it was a coincidence that last year we had low rivers and great salinity and people from the Mississippi line to Dulac had great fishing?
Posted on 2/3/23 at 1:04 pm to TJG210
Great fishing????
Where are you talking about?
I, along with all my fishing friends, had tough times finding specks or reds in the Delacroix/Hopedale areas.
Where are you talking about?
I, along with all my fishing friends, had tough times finding specks or reds in the Delacroix/Hopedale areas.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 3:08 pm to TigerKurt
quote:
Where are you talking about?
Only area I can speak from first hand knowledge is Cocodrie, however i heard great reports from people I trust from Venice on west. If you believe the fishing forums, people on the east did well too….but judging from the amount of bass being caught in that area I bet I know the issue.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 6:21 pm to TigerKurt
quote:
Great fishing???? Where are you talking about? I, along with all my fishing friends, had tough times finding specks or reds in the Delacroix/Hopedale areas.
You might should have tried somewhere else... '22 was one the best trout years I've had in a long time.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 7:38 pm to TJG210
The word you're looking for is anecdotal.
Posted on 2/3/23 at 7:40 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
The word you're looking for is anecdotal.
Right, but that also goes for someone saying they "didn't catch shite in X location" as above.
Posted on 2/4/23 at 4:19 am to Sheesh125
quote:
on the Kevin Ford show.
That’s got to be tough on the ears.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News