Please Sign In

New To Sportsman Network?

Trout Limits

I have seen the Questions being asked over and over again and you don't like the answers I am giving you. I am giving you answers that are the Truth and My Thoughts. You might not like my answers but they are MY answers, Plain and Simple!!!

I will NOT resign from the LDWF Commission and before you start some movement, which is your choice, you need to read Title 56 about the LDWF and the make up of the Commission. There have been some Commissioners in the past that missed meetings for two plus years and the Governor that appointed them could NOT remove them from the Commission becasue the LA Constitution set it up that way. If you don't belive me, find it out on your own.

On the Post about the 80 Trout, that was made by my 12 year old son, we kept 66 Trout, we caught 80. YES, six over the 4 man Limit, we lost count and had the Limit been 60 and we have been checked by a Game Warden, I would have NOT told him who I was and when he saw we were over the Limit, I would have asked him to write me a ticket. I have been stopped many times in the time I have been on the Commission, NEVER once have I told the Game Warden who I was, several times they checked Fish Limits, I was always under the Limit, they checked for Life Preservers, Fire Extinguishers, Flare Kits, etc and every time, I was in Compliance and I will always be in compliance.

On Tuesday, we could have fished longer to get to 45 Trout but it was time to go home at 2:30. I would have gone in earlier but Martin wanted to catch a Bull Red.

Criticize me if you like, call me a Liar if you like, call me a Communist if you like, call me a Trader if you like, call me WHATEVER you want to call me, it will NOT bother me, I will always belive what I did was Right and I will ALWAYS err on the side of caution.

I will NOT read any of further Post about this issue, go ahead and call me what you want. I will sleep well tonight knowing that myself, Fred Miller, Terry Denmon and Wayne Sagera did the Right Thing.
Don't you believe it!
If you think there is NO WAY to get you off the commission, you need to come down off your high horse and think again. There is ALWAYS A WAY FOR ANYONE TO LOSE THEIR JOB! Personally, I think there should be an investigation of this whole limit reduction and the WRECKLESS DISREGARD of scientific data you people have shown. But, I guess we will have to wait until Big Lake is full of tiny trout that look more like SPOTTED LADYFISH, before anything happens! You had better gat your son on that wallhanger quick before the results of your rouge commissionís decisions make it imposable!
LOL....are you trying to prove to us or yourself that this doesn't bother you? You seem to be end quite a few of your responses that way. Sleep well, Henry. :D
I have read all the posts on this site and respect everyone's opinion. Mr. Mouton is the only commission member willing to even discuss the issues that are in our state. I for one respect him for that. I also respect him for making time to take his son and others fishing. Everyone is concerened about a few fish more or less. In the scheme of things it probably doesn't make any difference. If we want an issue to rally around let it be loss of critical marshland by eroison. Everyone acts like it's the end of the world. I suspect it is not and in a short time will probably not even be remembered.
I would like to thank Mr. Mouton for having the foritude and character to stand up for what he believes despite being stoned for it by some who lost the battle. Someone always wins or loses. Get over it.
with all due respect
Mr. Mouton, I find it funny that a career beaurocrat like yourself would have the audacity to post in the latest issue of the LA Sportsman that the DWF doesn't need a press secretary, as it is a waste of money. This is how many of us view the position you fill. The entire Commission you sit on is a joke and just adds pork and red tape to the wheels of progress. To make matters worse, they don't listen to scientific data or the majority of sportsman. I, however wouldn't ask you to step down. The entire panel needs to be disbanded.
Typical La Politics
So what you are saying is that you can do whatever you want, and there's really very little anyone can do about it?

So the biologists say a limit reduction is unnecessary and won't have an effect on the fishery, so you make a move to reduce the limits.

Several scientific articles have been publishing showing robo duck has lead to a drastic change in the age structure of the duck population that was stable for 40 years before robo, yet you do nothing.

It doesn't sound like you're doing what's best for the fish, the ducks, or the sportsman of the state. You're doing whats best for Henry Mouton.

I've always given you the benefit of the doubt in the past for posting on here seeking opinions, but no more. Its apparent you will do what Henry Mouton wants to do and could care or less what the experts, much less the rest of us think.
Henry Wiggins for President!
Nice post Mr. Wiggins.... Mr. Mouton, please do what I have asked you to do in the past. ADMIT you made a mistake on the creel limit of trout in Big LAke and move on.....We don't care that you have no feelings for the general public, or their wishes, but at least have some common sense to pass on to little Mouton.

You really lost my respect when your article to LA Sportsman magazine said the press secretary was a "waste". Mr. Mouton, please go to and look up the word "hypocrite".
Mr. Mouton illustrated yet another flaw with the Commission. By stating that some appointees in the past have missed meetings for two years and could not be removed from the Commission, points out to me that some of those on the Commission do not take it very seriously. I don't see the point of having the Commission in the first place. Maybe some of the "legal eagles" on this site could figure out a way to get rid of the entire thing.
Specchaser...with all due respect....Us fishermen WOULD rather rally around an issue like our vanishing coastline, but the commission doesn't have the cahunas to do it. I am in agreement with the others below...the commission is USELESS at this point.

By the way, the constitution may be written to make it extremely difficult to remove someone from the commission, so their job may be safe for now. Maybe if we elect another governor, they won't be able to remove the commissioners from office either, but we can surely elect the right legislatures who will propose the right bill to make it easier for the right governor to throw you out of office. How's that sound????
term limit
How long has Henry Mouton been on the commission? What about the 3 knuckleheads that voted with him?
Most of the people who supported this thing did so because they wanted to lower the number of boats on Big Lake! Lower limits there would make outsiders fish elsewhere. With Big Lake being mostly impounded, it should be managed more like a big pond. Limit reductions should not be imposed unless there is a need for it (and there isn't one right now according to the fishing reports and the biologists). You got your reduction, so just wait a couple years and watch the health of the fish TAKE A NOSEDIVE! I have not heard of the legislature reversing their resolution to urge the LWFC not to go forth with this issue. So you snubbed your nose at the Legislature, the biologists, and the majority of Louisiana's fishermen. How popular are you now? And how popular do you think you will be when Big Lake takes the dive you have imposed upon it? YOU LET A GROUP OF UNINFORMED YOUNGSTERS DRIVE YOU TO START A MOVEMENT WHICH GREEDY AREA FISHERMEN JOINED INTO AND YOU IGNORED ALL COMMON SENSE AND BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION AND YOU HAVE CONDEMNED THIS LAKE TO DEATH. IF YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THAT RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT TO OUR FISHERIES IS NOT ENOUGH TO GET YOU OFF THE COMMISSION, GO FOR IT! WHATEVER. I HAVE READ TITLE 56 AND IT DID NOT SAY THAT YOUR APPOINTMENT IS ABOVE THE LAW AND GOD HIMSELF.
Like I said, I really could care less about Big Lake personally. I just believe that you have done a MAJOR INJUSTICE to the fishery and others who might fish the area. WHEN THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE GOING TO REALIZE THAT LIMIT REDUCTIONS ARE NOT THE ANSWER TO EVERY PROBLEM? I recall covering this in an earlier conversation and in a few posts on LASMAG.COM.
I said it before and I will say it again. The reason we don't have trout like we did 30 years ago is that we don't have the estuary that we had 30 years ago. Sure other states have lower limits than us. There are even places in Florida that have almost no trout at all anymore. But that is because they no longer have any estuarious marshes in those areas. The trout are not endangered of becoming extinct. They are only in danger of moving to better living areas. NO REDUCTION IN LIMITS IS GOING TO STOP THAT! We have a healthy, self-sustaining population of trout in the marshes we have left. I honestly believe that we could actually raise the limit and still be ok but I am satisfied for now with what we have. I do believe, however, that we will lose our trout population in the future due to the fact that we are losing our marsh. If there is no marsh, there will be no trout. We can stop catching them altogether right now and it is not going to help a bit if we don't do something to stop coastal erosion. The trout will survive; the question is "where?" We have a healthy, self-sustaining population of trout in what estuary we have left. The only way we get more trout is to create more estuaries for them to live in. If you try to cram more fish into a shrinking estuary, you are not going to end up with a better fishery. What you end up with is overpopulation. What happens then? Smaller fish, poor overall health and early death for the fish. We need to leave limits alone and fix the REAL problem.... coastal erosion. Just look at Florida, There are places there that used to be full of trout but now there are none left because they lost the estuaries that held them. Florida tried MAJOR limit reductions but it did not work because they were not looking at the real problem. There are still trout in Florida but as they lose more estuary, they will lose the trout until there are none left. Big Lake may put out more large fish for a short while but then, YOU WILL SEE THE DECLINE!!! The fishery will come to a point where it canít sustain any more fish. Then your precious lake will start putting out limits upon limits of trout that look more like spotted ladyfish. Starved because of overpopulation, they will remain small and skinny and die younger; BUT AT LEAST YOU WILL FEEL BETTER. IF YOU WANT YOUR KIDS TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY A HEALTHY TROUT FISHERY, GET OFF THE OLD-TIME FIX-ALL OF LIMIT REDUCTIONS AND START FIXING THE REAL PROBLEM!!!! It has already been proven that lower limits is not the answer to lost estuary (look at Florida) but we continue to futily cut limits in some VAIN, FEEL GOOD ATTEMPT TO BE ABLE TO SAY ďWE ARE DOING SOMETHINGĒ. WHO THE HECK NEEDS BIOLOGISTS ANYWAY? WE HAVE THE LWFC THAT FEELS GOOD. THATíS ALL WE NEED ISNíT IT? I WANNA FEEL GOOD TOO!!!! SOMEBODY PLEASE GET ME A BEER!!!!!!!!!

The amazing Budfish
Budfish, it must truly be a magnificent gift, as well as a tremendous burden to be able to look into the hearts and minds of men from across the state and know their motivation for supporting lower limits. I live in Lake Charles and fish the Calcasieu and Sabine estuary. I belong to a couple of different angler associations here (not CCA) and have spent a lot of time talking with other anglers about the limit reduction in our area of the state. People from this area have supported the limit reductions because they are genuinely concerned about the future of our fishery.

No on who is remotely familiar with what the situation is like here, believes for a minute that lower limits will equal fewer boats on the lake. It won't, there will still be just as many anglers on the water here, and that number will likely continue to grow. People here are aware of and have accepted that. People who spend little to no time fishing the Calcasieu estuary have gotten on this board and called the folks of S.W. Louisiana greedy, selfish, unsportsmanlike and a myriad of other names because we took a step to try to preserve the future of the fishery we spend our time on. I ask all of those who aren't from this area to honestly ask yourself why you're opposed to this reduction that has no impact on your back yard. If, and I'm only asking, because I don't know your motives, but if it's because you're afraid that one day you may have to give up keeping 10 additional fish, then ask yourself who's being greedy?

Would people here support habitat and estuary restoration? In a heartbeat, and when the opportunity avails itself to support such measures we do and will. Honestly I think that railing against the Wildlife and Fisheries commission for not doing more about reclaiming/rebuilding estuaries is misplaced. While I'm not certain on what jurisdiction lies where, that sounds like more of an issue for the Corps of engineers, Natural Resources Committee and the legislature.

As to speculation that we're going to end up with overpopulation and stunted fish, that's a fact more than that. I'd wager any amount that I can afford that won't happen. For Budfish and any others that think our estuary will overpopulate ending up with stunted fish, here's an invitation. Pick the time frame that you think the overpopulation and "crash" of our estuary will occur in. I'll save you a spot on the front of my boat to come see how things are at that time. Worst case scenario, we'll have a fun fishing trip.

All the best,


well said
thanks ron that was very well put. i to don't believe this will effect the amount of boat trafic on big lake. and the whole argument about economic meltdown in s.w. la. because of this is a crock also. but what do i know. like you i actually fish this lake. i still have only seen one person from this area opposed to the reduction, while everyone else supports it.
when we start trying to manage cocodrie, or venice from over then ya'll have apoint until then we'll take care of our backyard.