re: Would a 10 fish limit on specks be so bad?

That's a fact

Big lake's "trophy" trout all hit the ice

It’s been a 25 fish limit for a long arse time and LA is still the best inshore fishing in the world so I’m good with it.

My self imposed limit is however many trout I have in the boat at 10am / how hot it is/ how may beers I've had already X what I have to do the rest of the day X tidal movement.

if the fishery can support it , I'm all about it.

quote:

---

I’d support 15. We typically don’t take in more than 20-25 with 2 people

---

so you want everyone else to reduce what they catch because you aren't good at catching?

quote:

---

You're telling me only certain fish can reach trophy size, and all of those have been caught?

---

I'm not a biologist, but I assume all female trout can grow to at least the lower end of the "trophy" size and weight. So to answer your question, yes, only certain fish can reach trophy size. The females. And I suspect, just like humans, only certain females have the right genes to reach the 9 to 10 lb class. They also have to survive long enough to get there.

In my post I said that all of the big fish have not been caught. You can still catch big fish in BL. But to me, it's no different than eating a bag of M&Ms and you start picking out the red ones. Sooner or later it gets hard to find another red M&M.....lol. And you will never find a red M&M fishing the birds.

The other theory I've heard is that there was a freeze kill. Freezes supposedly effect the big fish the most. If that truly happened I think it would be an unusual event for BL. Quick access to the ship channel's deeper, warmer waters has always protected BL from major freeze kills. The ice storm that hit that area several years ago didn't have a significant impact.

I'm still seeing plenty of food fish/shrimp in BL. Loss of habitat/oyster reefs certainly makes it harder to know where to fish. But IMO big fish depletion by trophy fishermen, combined with a tremendous increase in fishing pressure has had the greatest impact on the numbers of big fish.

I would have no problem with a 10 fish limit but agree that a 15 on BL and 25 elsewhere doesn't seem to be a problem.

quote:

---

Studies show that the average catch per trip is fewer than five fish.

---

I feel like me and ClassicGold might be single-handedly responsible for this average being so low. Especially, at Calcasieu.

quote:

---

Reducing the limit would likely result in no changes to trophy trout caught as Louisiana doesn't have the high salinity levels of Texas and Florida, which is what big trout need.

---

Serious question: do trout stop growing if the salinity levels are lower? Simple logic would tell you, less fish boated, more fish in the water to grow and/or breed?

quote:

---

The cost of a trip with a lower limit may get some anglers to hang up the pole. That would mean less revenue for Wildlife and Fisheries. Less money to study and manage the fisheries. So for some to drop $200+ and come home with a handful of fish does not cut it. So if the studies say we are good at 25 go for, but if you only want to keep your set amount go for it!

---

My point was that if there is harm in fishing at the current limit (not saying there is, just as an example), then we shouldn't fight to keep that harmful limit just because weekend warriors spend a lot of money. That's sacrificing our ecosystem for money. Hell I'm in O&G and as an example am willing to admit that we destroyed our marsh for a buck. It's not right.

quote:

---

The cost of a trip with a lower limit may get some anglers to hang up the pole.

---

But this argument doesn't hold water when you take into consideration the fact that the average speckled trout angler catches less than 10.

And FWIW, I am vehemently opposed to lowering the limit until data suggests it would be beneficial. In fact, I would be in favor of raising the limit until we hit a point that it becomes detrimental, a point which we have yet to hit.