Please Sign In

New To Sportsman Network?

Overfishing speckled trout

Todd Mssson's article on overfishing speckled trout

Just curious of what your thoughts are of this article.
Not Sure?
I'm not sure of the real reason the speck population is down, but I would be in favor of decreasing the limit from 25 to 10-15 per person. Maybe increase the size limit as well, or maybe even a slot. I'm just speaking for myself, I don't want 25 specks for myself. I eat them fresh and hope there's no leftovers. When I see all the pictures of fish spread all over a doc, I wonder how many of them go to waste? It sickens me to even think about wasting fish, take what you're gonne eat and let the rest go for someone else or maybe even you the next time you fish. Just my opinion!
so these morons (and those who read and believe this so-called facts that are wildly speculative) all think the limits should be only what you can eat for supper and have nothing for the freezer. well some people cant fish every day and make a few trips each year and they NEED to put some in the freezer so the 25 fish limit is SMALL compared to that situation. yes if they fished every day then i could see you have a reason to say they dont need 25 on every trip but the few trips when you do limit out make it cost effective to enjoy this hobby yet calling people greedy is wrong and shows ignorance by that person.

i cant see people lining up to pay $600 for a charter trip and need to go home in 30 minutes of leaving the dock with 5-6 fish to go home to cook for the family and need lots of french fries with that or the kids go hungry.

if these zellots get thier way then the charter capts can start selling your boats now and need to go get a job to be a greeter at wallyworld.

freakin morons dont ever even hint at the BP oil disaster that cause the decline in fish populations and the continued long term effects of that on fish populations rather then blame it on greedy fishermen and the present limits being too high.

clearly this is a propaganda piece for environmentalists trying to stop all fishing by making it too costly with no reward for doing it.

now where i CAN see a need to lower the take limits is charter boats who do fish every day and take hundreds of trout each day. something reasonable such as 4 fishermen per boat and a 100 trout limit with the capt not getting his own limit so he is being included in that 100 trout per boat per day limit.
OK, here we go. Not everyone wants to fill their freezer, certainly not me and not anyone I fish with. I fish enough to have fresh fish, if I don't, its time to go fishing, free yard pass!!!
fill the freezer???
if you think you can fill a freezer on 5 or 6 trips a year where if you are really lucky you MIGHT limit out on 3-4 trips then you are clearly clueless.

it boggles my mind to hear people such as yourself admit:

''I'm not sure of the real reason the speck population is down, but I would be in favor of decreasing the limit from 25 to 10-15 per person.''

yet are full support of reducing the rights of everyone else with no evidence doing so is the right thing to do. the same arguement can be made that if you make ALL fishing catch and release only then fish populations will grow so lets do that if you want to take unreasonable actions without sound reasons for doing it.
I don't believe you can't deplete the resource with rods and reels. I think the biggest negative impact is trawlers by catch from using salt boxes. Everything that goes into the salt box dies.
I'd like to know where they are seeing the decline, I certainly don't see it? I bet it's the areas that were hit the hardest by BP?

I wouldn't be totally against increasing the size limit, it would be tough for a couple years but, would pay off in the long run.

Capt E
Keakar - You know what boggles my mind? It's people like you (i guess you cause all I've ever read from you was know it all comments and NEVER any contributions, so I'm assuming you fish!) who fish for meat. Why on earth would you want to pay a guide, or buy a boat/gas/tackle and EVERYTHING else it takes to put meat in your freezer when you could just go buy fish (live at that) at Tony's a WHOLE lot cheaper. I fish because I love the sport and would rather keep enough to eat and release the rest. I think the poster was just looking for opinions, so there it is. Good Night!
to all that think the rod/reel is hurting the fish population lets have the gov do a study let the launches do the studies and make the money they can use it whether its dockside rigolets hopedale delocroix laffite venice pay those guys with the gov funds to count fish i know the average guy won't limit out we all know its cheaper to go to a fine restuant than to go fish what four guys and their wives spend an average of 600.00 for meals of spec trout/ if they do i will open a resturant
Well said...when it stops being fun, you might as well stop doing it
us older folks know the truth
Those of us who fished in the 1970s know there are fewer trout today. I could overload this section with stories of 'two at a time with shad rigs' over any oyster reef. That ended a long time ago. Scientific metrics like spawning potential ratio show a decrease as well. To those saying scientific studies are needed....they've already been done and the facts are in.

For a long time, we've compensated by becoming more sophisticated with our techniques and 'trout knowledge.' And fishing is still good. But, trout have become harder to come by in recent years. Its not just loss of habitat and fishing pressure, but this insane idea that pumping freshwater into areas rebuilds marsh (it does not alone, it also needs silt). Trout eggs need saltwater to float and hatch. They are killing an unknown number of trout (and we are still losing marsh, no benefit whatsoever)

Are we reaching a tipping point? Perhaps. I'd support reduced number limits. I'm strongly opposed to increasing the size limit, though. At 12 inches, you've gotten at least a few spawns out most trout, and their natural mortality is high in later years. Reducing it to 5 is dumb, though, they are batch spawners and can recuperate fast. 15/person is a good number.

And, during the spawn, turn off those stupid diversions. The one area where trout are still really plentiful is Cocodrie. Guess what, no diversion there.
Do we really need MORE GOVERNMENT AND MORE RULES telling us what we can or can't do? If you want to keep 5 fish then that's your right. Don't infringe on my right to keep 25. Look at the mess with red snapper right now. Do we really need that with speckled trout?
Trout limit
I totally agree with Lordbud that we don't need more government regulation because of the instability of where it may take us but I would be in favor of a 15 fish limit with only one or two over so many inches to protect the big spawning females. Wouldn't it be nice to make shorter boat runs and catch a limit of fifteen more often. I would rather a more consistent trip of fifteen fish with a shorter run than a couple 25 fish trips and a handful of poor trips and having to make the long runs to the trout meccas to try to get on em. The guides are putting a hammering on the fish 7 days a week weather permitting. Nothing against them for making a living but the client would still go if limit were 15 and if they caught them quick maybe chase a few reds. Guides wouldn't complain either as it would leave more fish for the next day and make it easier to put clients on fish and obtain a limit. There are so many guides now days that it is a huge number of fish that come out the water. Now most trout fisherman have long reach high speed boats that can reach the trout meccas with a relatively easy run where that was sanctuary for trout years ago. I more often than not catch a limit but don't go that often. When I do go I usually keep about five smaller trout for me and 4 for my dad and give rest to whoever went with me. I like them fresh. Just my 2 cents.
well said Lordbud7
when the limits NEED to be reduced is ONLY when limits are hard to come by and that is NOT the case.

i am all for doing whats needed but not BEFORE its needed ''just in case''

just like ''man made global warming'' there is always a way to make data say what you want it to say just by the way you collect it and how you use it.

seasonal catches of trout go up and down for a lot of reasons and the low survival rates of the spawn is not because of less fish out there but more to do with the environment they must survive in.

things like fresh water diversions and loss of marshlands for them to mature in as well as polution and massive kills in trawls.

i used to trawl regularly and i tried to throw back the fish still alive (usually a gallon or two worth) but on average i would still see a dozen or two dead specks around 2-4 inches long and about 20 litle croakers and a few small reds in every 30-45 minute drag so every trip we killed at least a full 5 gallon bucket of fishermen targetted fish as bycatch. i hated it but what can you do? you cant catch shrimp without bycatch.

people who like to fish ONLY for sport and dont want anyone else to be able to put fish in a freezer to eat later have a right to that opinion but they dont have the right to use voodoo science that the scientist themselves admit is unreliable to limit my ability to fish so i have something to eat.

if something needs to be done to help the specks spawn survival rate it needs to be done environmentally or by closing certain estuaries to fishing of any kind so young fish reach spawning age without harm.

increasing the size limits is a bad idea because fish dont survive long enough to get very big so a 14 or 16 inch limit would do nothing to help the fish survive being eaten by other fish. fishermen thou could do this on their own if they want to. i usually dont keep fish unless they are 14 inches mainly because a skinny 12 inch speck isnt much of a fillet so i dont keep them unless they are fat.

@ wdietz - thats a very interesting opinion you have there that people shouldnt hunt or fish expecting to put anything in the freezer just because they can go to mcdonalds if they are hungry. you must be a PETA member for sure.

i have a great idea, lets make all fishermen use hookless lures and make hunters use paintball guns instead of bullets, thats more your style isnt it?
like the convo going on here
Big Jim decent points but even if the trout population was double what it is now, that's not going to allow you to make shorter runs. 90 percent of the fish will still be in 10 percent of the water. They will migrate around fresh water and they will go to outside waters in the summer.
by catch
The single largest threat is by catch from commercial trawlers. The advent of the salt box is the direct connection with the 100% mortality of the by catch. I've been a live bait fisherman using croaker and pogies almost my entire life. Starting in the mid 60's we would make short 20 minute drags to catch croakers behind Grand Isle. In the catch would be every other fish imaginable, red snapper, spade fish, triple tail, gobbies, ribbon fish, puffer fish, trout red name it! The fish by catch was the largest driving force behind the introduction of TED's. The turtle's were a cover. Yes there was turtle mortality happening offshore, especially off Texas as they headed to their lay area, but officials knew they could never sell saving the by catch, so the turtles took the story. The old method of using a picking box vs the salt box, some of the by catch survived, nothing does coming out of the box
Everyone is a expert
Been fishing for trout over 50years have had a commercial and guide lic. Have seen red fish go from a trash fish to a prize. Seen drum go from below a trash fish to a NO rest. prize. For me weather is the problem for a poor year. I would agree that inside shrimping should end in the lakes and shallow water. They could still use the skimmer nets on the main deep channels. One thing for sure the limits will go down because we are going to have a bad weather year or a storm and then the so called experts will give theit cry lower limits. This is off the subject but the GW gang had retails up North talking about how they were not selling snow products. Then said no snow now records and no word. Look at Florida you can't keep trout in same locations during the winter. PS Gill nets did hurt the trout fishing but rod and reel will never do it. There is no inside shrimping in Florida. I do think we should add a few dollars to the lic. and pay the shrimpers for money lost.

I hear you loud and clear...I can read between the lines of your post. There is NO DOUBT, that you can not deplete this resource with rods and reels...
Sorry I left this out
No way rod and reel and a 25fish limit can hurt LOUISANA TROUT FISHING. Please check the Florida limits as of today and it keep you up all night.
by catch
@ Secret Formula - i totally agree the needless killing of young fish in trawls is a huge problem but im also on the side of shrimpers because unless some new form of shrimping is introduced there is just no way to avoid it.

methods that reduce by catch also mean you reduce the shrimp catch and those guys are near going broke as it is so its not like they can afford to reduce what they are catching by 25%, 15%, or even 10% (which is unavoidible if you use any successfull method of allowing young fish which are close to the size of the shrimp you want to keep) from being able to escape.

i think by catch should be eliminated but i dont see how it is possible without putting shrimpers out of buisness and so im against measures that simply let too much of the targetting shrimp escape just to be sure a few fish do. i saw first hand how bad teds were and still are.

now here is something interesting to think about:

in years of good shrimp populations this food source for fish would be increased and they wouldnt feed on other fish as much since fish feed on the easiest meal and catching shrimp is easier and takes less energy then feeding on baitfish trying to get away. so food source also has an impact and could reduce the self canabilizing of fish to some degree and also help fish survive to adults more.

there are just too many things that effect survival rates to point to creel limits as the solution OR the problem.

with the overpopulation of redfish today you still dont see anyone suggest increasing the limit to 10 fish and reducing the size limit to 14'' which i would be in favor of because 16''-18'' reds are the best eating, over that size they just taste different.

reds were reduced from 50 to 5 !!! it was much needed at the time but that need has passed and the only reason it hasnt gone up (as originally promised they would increase it later when the fish recovered) is politicians only take things away and will never give you anything back.

maybe some of you have money and can ''sport fish'' only and dont NEED the extra food source provided by the lucky days when you do catch a limit and can freeze fish for a few free meals later that helps you. some of us are poor and what you might consider a small expense to go fishing isnt a small expense to us so it helps a lot when we get more then one meal in return for spending nearly half the weeks paycheck. its not about being greedy anymore then being cost effective as something a poor person can afford to do on a very limited budget.

if some of you can afford to not keep fish to eat then more power to ya but leave me and my fish alone because i need fish in the freezer for lent and sometimes just to help make groceries each month.

the end game in all of this is for groups to make people stop fishing and they can only do that in small steps so in the end people will decide there is no mnore benefit left in fishing, at that point they come after you ''sport fishermen'' as being cruel and hurting fish for ''sport'' and at that point you dont have the recreational fishermen around anymore to help fight them.

its right out of the playbook on how you shut down a popular thing with wide support, you do it in small steps until you reduce the opposition so they cant fight back anymore.
This is the best post
'There is NO DOUBT, that you can not deplete this resource with rods and reels...'

We need to stand up to the line of thinking of that recreational folks deplete the trout population to the tipping point using a rod and reel. What happens when the limit is reduced and populations bounce back? They will never raise the limit back. NEVER.
nature will find a way
I do not believe rod and reel can compete with all the natural predation a fish endures. If it were a small lake or someones pond, yes. In the case of a trout you are talking about massive amounts of habitat, food sources, and predators. Its like the global warming argument. Some say humans can make a difference and others believe the earth will go through warm and cold periods. When you are in the middle of the food chain like speckled trout, the population will wax and wane depending on food source and predator population. As shrimp numbers and pogie numbers increase, the ecosystem will support more trout, reds, crokers etc. If this trend continues the ecosystem will then support more porpoises, sharks, etc. As the top predators grow in numbers the middle of the food chain will suffer and if this trend continues there will not be enough biomass to support a large population of top end predators and they will decline in numbers. As for shrimpers bycatch, that may be a different story than rod and reel. I am not that versed on the subject to give an opinion.

Sometimes a columnist writes articles that get people talking because they have a boss that wants to know people are reading what they write. Not sure if that is whats going on here. No disrespect to Gerald or Todd.
Trawl by catch can't be the huge blame that it once was. Trawling activity in areas I fish and have trawled commercially are down 80% or more. Lake Ponchatrain use to have 30 to 100 boats a day trawling every day. Nowdays if you find 2 or 3 boats 3 days a week trawling thats alot. Lake Borgne is a similar story. My friend pushes skimmers commercially out of Lafitte. He only pushed a few nights the whole year as it was not worth the fuel to go out. This may give some insight to another problem. Trout need shrimp to flourish and their hasn't been near as much shrimp in recent years in many places. Delacroix area had a pretty good shrimp run and I'm sure other places did too. Our environment has changed drastically in past 8 years with Katrina, the Great Wall affecting tides and fish movement, BP, Isaac and who knows what else. No biologist knows whats gonna happen each time one of these large eco changing events happen they can just make recommendations based on their opinion from info they gather. This is like a surgeon entering the body for the first time with no one to tell him what to do as no one has ever seen the scenarios we're experiencing. Biologist are just making their best recommendations. They really need to see whats up with shrimp populations. I've trawled in lake Ponchatrain for 25 years and this year was really different from any other. Very few brown shrimp this year just like past 5 years but the white shrimp we're incredibly late. Usually by september 15 white shrimp are at least 21/25s but usually 16/20s and sometimes 10/15s. I had 10 crab traps out and would pull up crab traps in October and tiny white shrimp would cover my deck falling out of bait box. These shrimp we're nearly 200 count first of October. Question is why did these shrimp come in so late and so small ________??? Good news with mild winter and shrimp so small they didn't have the bioligical need to leave to go spawn so they stayed over in lake which makes for great trout fishing if you find one of those schools.
Please don't tell me I lived it
Shrimping off the sea wall and catching shrimp by the tubes is BS. We lived on the lake every night and a good night was maybe a few pounds. We now catch more off our camp dock in Lafitte. No one fished in the winter without bait and 60% would not go until they could get live shrimp. Most of those great catches were school trout never heard of 3 and 4 pound trout. Now people don't want to purchase live shrimp and I don't think you can go to the lake at night. No one would leave Campo's without live shrimp. Last year you could purchase shrimp for 2dollars in Lafitte this same shrimp 40years ago was 4dollars. Now crawfish was 10cents and now 4dollars. Fisherman in the old days fished from day light to dark and the only lures were MR.GOGO and Shad Rig. The good times were that gas was 30cents and your live shrimp at Campo's was 10cents and Mrs Campo would give you another 30 in the counting net she used. Just watched the classic due to weather KVD caught 8 bass in two days of fishing bass for 8hours. The winner of last years classic did not catch one fish on the first day. Hackney could only catch a few pounds why weather,weather,weather. Guess they will have some talk about lower limits on that lake today, PS Last year with no rain and cold you could not find crawfish. This year with all the rain people are selling them all over the road even in BR. Saw a show called Swamp Pawn and they did a test run and were catching about 80% more crawfish in traps then last year why weather.
Amateur Marine Biologists
Catching a 25 trout limit is like catching pork chops on sale. When you do you bring home some to freeze for a meal later on.
If you would rather catch fish with a lower limit, then go bass fishing.

With that being said I guess I will throw in my Amateur Marine Biology observations into this circus ring as well.
During the 1970s and 1980s we had a shrimping armada in force. All had the brine barrels back then. Same as today. What is different today and over the past years is we don't have a shrimping armada anymore. It is barely a fleet. It will be extremely hard to blame the majority of the problem on the shrimpers bycatch nowadays.
Lets put some blame on coastal erosion. Where eggs were dropped and fertilized last year isn't there this year.
Lets put some blame on diversions. The egg needs a certain ppm of salt to water so they can float and go along with the current. Not enough they sink to the bottom, get stuck and die.Too much freshwater? More on diversions shortly.
Lets put some blame on pollution. The Mississippi River gets chemical discharges from plants, runoff from farming operations with their chemicals (insecticides, weed control chemicals, fertilizers) and whatever comes with the discharge from the foreign ships bilges is now going not just into the Gulf of Mexico but also to our marshes through the diversion projects. With more diversion projects to come we get to pollute more of our marshland.
And BP with the oil and dispersants. How many years before that stuff gets broken down and becomes inert? More than a year I would venture a guess.

Everything boils down to NOT protecting the fish, but protecting the egg. The way I see it.
In my limited experience fishing in Louisiana, the problem's not so much with numbers as with size. I grew up fishing the Texas coast, and we routinely caught fish over 7 pounds. Texas has a 10 fish limit only one of which can be over 25 in. Trout also have to be 15 in. rather than 12. When I was younger, and fishing hard, I'd often have to work quite a bit to put together a ten fish stringer, but the stringer was nearly always composed of 20 in+ fish.

In Louisiana, on the other hand, my experience, which again is limited (I've only lived here a couple years), is the reverse. Lots of school fish but few over 20 in. A couple times here I've caught ten fish in as many minutes ( a rarity in TX), but of those, only one or two would be over 15. I enjoy stacking a lot of fish, but I do miss those 28, 29, 30 inchers that I grew up catching. Not sure of the cause, nor of a way to fix it; just my experience.
fishing limits
I am not looking to offend anyone because I know my opinions are not everyones. I also have not had any training on this topic but just using what makes sense to me. I am actually for a 15 fish limit. The reason is because I am afraid if the situation does get worse which I believe it will the limit will be in single digits. I think that nets are much more a threat to the fish population than rod n reel. I also believe that the marsh needs to be restored and that it is worth the money to get that done. the barrier islands are going away at a very quick rate that needs to be fixed I dont care if the put a giant rock wall with cuts out there kind of like the mrgo rocks but more openings. might not be the prettiest and I am sure very expensive but would be a buffer for the marsh against hurricanes. I also think we need to add land to the marsh and islands and plant vegetation on them to make them more stable. The problem is that this will be expensive and probably will never happen. like i said i have no experience with this this is just some ideas. what do yall think
The average joe recreational fisherman will not hurt the trout population at all , that's obvious . I agree with everyone on that but what's the difference between a shrimper accidentally catching a couple hundred trout , and a good speckled trout guide catching 200 trout everyday , everyday ??

There are thousands of guides along the coast of La. and everyone of them boast of catching limits in an hour or two . Multiply the thousands of guides and their 4 man limits , twice daily and see what you come up with .

There are other factors like habitat and Bps doings but just my opinion , I would lower the guides limits and keep the recreational limit the same .
thats not smart
guides don't always have four people on board, they don't always limit out, and they do not fish every day. some do but the thousands you are talking about do not. its like the friend who gambles all the time --- he is not going to tell you when he looses 1K but will tell the whole world when he wins a few bucks. it is also easy for someone to say lets limit the guides catch because they are good at it. especially when its not taking food off of your table. your data is off and your logic is off in my opinion.
Come on man,i am 64 -- Used your heads 2and2 is4 it not rocket science.I used to trawl years back , in 1 bay you would see 5 to 10 boat now i see 0 in the same bays.Ther were more trout then, like 10 time more.Bottm line to manny line in the water. In my time ther were no fishing guides and you new every boat that was out that day witch were only on weekend most of the time, now ther r more boat at the lunch on a MONDAY.then ther were on a SAT. back then. And almost every house has a boat. I have 2 my slef. I post it on here a long time back that we need a 15 a day limt.And for you out ther that don't agree it won't make a difference because u will not b able to catch 15 it we don't do some ting about it now.
Push pole ?
I'm no biologist , just my thought on the subject and that's what capt Kim asked was our thoughts ... But let me get this straight , are you saying that when a guide post everyday for a month straight that he's limiting out before 9am , he's more likely not telling the truth and is like a compulsive gambler that can't get his facts right ? How do you come up with this data ?
no sir
I am saying that guides dont tell you about when they are not catching fish. I am saying you suggested something that will put limits on a certian group of people and not another group for no reason other than they are good at what they do. I am saying that you used third grade math to make a bold statement. Let me break it down for you. 2000 X 4 X 2 X 25 = 400,000 trout per day that you are suggesting die from guide fisherman alone. I am saying that you threw a statement out there that is way off of the mark.
That's what I'm saying
People make statements trying to put the blame on commercial fishermen , they're only making statements . Why is my statement about guide fishermen 'bold' ?

And yes I concur with your math . Coast wide , there are tons of fish taken out of our waters by guides and their clients everyday . Just my opinion again but I would say guides do more harm than a commercial shrimper any day .
I agree with Choupic-man. I shrimped and very seldom and many trips never caught a spec in my trawl. Never caught a redfish. Just didn't drag fast enough to catch many.

As far as guides go.....I don't see why with 4 clients on the boat that they need to bring in 125 trout. Does the captain need to catch his limit as well every trip? But I still dont think that is the problem. Pollution and estuary loss is.
Guys i did some extensive research on this subject a few years ago. 'You will not hurt the trout population with rod n reel' is 100% accurate. Some people are talking about raising the size limits. By the time a trout is 12 in long it has already spawned more than once (i don't remember exactly how many times). Another big problem with raising the size limit is the mortality rate of trout released. Say they raise the limit to 15 inches. Think of how many 12-14in trout you will hook and have to release. I think there was a 60-70% mortality rate (if i remember correctly) with trout that are released. So even if you raise the size limit you are still killing the trout when you release them.
Look how redfish can be a nusance now. Did they ever raise the limits back to 10 or 15 reds like promised years ago? Once limits go down they rarely ever get raised again.
Bottom line is if they put everything @ 15 you will still not be helping the population any. 15 trout in the box plus another 20 released @ 12-14 inches with a mortality rate of 50%... guess what?? You just killed 25 trout. Only problem is 10 of them are wasted as they swim off and die.
Redfish ... a nuisance?
'Look how redfish can be a nusance now.' I think you're gonna be hard-pressed to find someone who sincerely thinks that the abundance of redfish is a bad thing. If that abundance is the product of a creel limit reduction, then I say go for it. I don't think this line of thinking is helping your case :)
Come on man
No trout are ever caught in a net other than a gill net. What inside shrimping does is killed the grass, and shells where the young fish live. Also kills all the bait like crockers called bycatch. Remember when we had billions of the them in the lake and around the rigs. Florida has no inside trolling anywhere. Please also don't compare reds to trout as trout need clear water and more salt. As a guide we made a ton of trips the limits showed up with the shrimp and the low river. Until then it was red fish and a few trout. Problem is that most people don't know how to fish for trout and live shrimp and gas now is killing them so they try plastic and it is not working. Again the old times everyone used shrimp. PS to the guys in Texas they use live crockers most of the time for those big trout and they cost a ton.
I've had several occasions when we were on a good trout bite and the redfish move in. They become a nuisance when you have your 5 already and are targeting another species. Or you get a school of bulls move in on the trout bite. It becomes a nuisance.
It would be the same for offshore captains targeting other species and pulling up red snapper on every line. It's a nuisance.
@ CaptJS
You're right that croaker has, in the past decade or so, become the go-to bait for novices and weekend warriors (known derisively as 'croaker-soakers') to catch trophy fish. But it's unnecessary. We threw mirrolures for most of our big fish, with the occasional sow on topwater. So, in short, no: the reason that more people catch big trout in Texas is not because they use croaker. I'm no icthyologist, but my humble opinion is that it has something to do with the creel limits and the density of fishermen (there are fewer in Texas, or at least they are more spread out). Of course, I could be wrong.
Hate to disagree with you but
Texas fisherman by the ton come to Big Lake for the fishing why if they are so big in Texas. Cost for a La. would be about 59plus. Keith Warren has a TV show and he was using them. PS The reason they put in a special limit for big lake was Texas fisherman coming over here think this should close this case.
This from a Texas fishing magazine
Lake Calcasieu Offers Anglers Convenience, Great Fishing

For decades, anglers from Texas as well as other Gulf Coast states have flocked to Lake Calcasieu, just outside Lake Charles, Louisiana, to sample its legendary fishing. Located a scant 2 1/2 hours from downtown Houston, Lake Calcasieu is close enough to be convenient, yet far enough to be 'exotic' for fishermen from the Lone Star State. Most often, Texas fishermen take their initial trip to Big Lake to 'do something different.' But, after that first foray, they are hooked and become regular Lake Cal fishermen
I agree
I'm not contesting the fact that Louisiana has great fishing and more fish. I grew up around Port Arthur (right across the TX/LA border), and we'd sometimes fish Big Lake and (more often) the LA side of Sabine. Most of my buddies in Texas still buy out-of-state licenses so that they can enjoy Big Lake. The reason: more action in less time and liberal limits (and also better flounder fishing). In Texas, there aren't near the numbers; I just feel like they're bigger. But hell, it may be that I just haven't figured out the trout in LA yet. I know there's some monsters in Lake P, but I've been too intimidated to fish it. Besides my own experience, my opinions are based largely on the reports I see on this site.
holy moly
good points from everybody guys, but weather its this or that doesnt matter, wheather we like it or not, the day is comming that the 25 fish limit will be reduced. I think the majority of people will agree there are less fish in common places these days because of over fishing, RIGHT???? he who does not agree please post all your hot spots here with gps coordinates, because it cant be fished out RIGHT? Did not think so. Now I would like to let the cat out the bag, about something. here goes, does anyone ever get frustrated reading about posts of people catching fish in certain areas but when you go you cant catch? oh its because they lying right? nope. Heres what goes on, guys who are cathing fish are digging deep going into places way in the marsh, hidden pipelines, hard to get to bays, far away islands, you know places with less fishing pressure. Not to say that fish still cant be caught ocassonally at certain times of year in certain common spots, but guys have these go to places that just make them seem to be fish gods, when you cant catch. I have a few of those spots, oops did i say that? knowing your area helps, but my point is that i did not need these spots before i could just catch fish in so many other places, that i just zoom by now. So, by this i have no choice but to say yes, we must be hurting the population as much as i dont want it to be, my experiences beg to differ. Just my opinion hope no one is offended.
Over Fishin
^5 keakar!!!!!...........Yo Gaspard Dude Ummmm ya wana go hit one thoses Spots Saturday????....If weather permits? Any Reports?
you know as well as i do that when the trout are running, the boats are so thick in bay canard gris that you can walk boat to boat and everyone and their mom is catching specs and whites. at the launch you can hear the heavy redneck accents asking where 'grey duck bay' is. actually took me a while to put two and two together to figure out what they were talking about. i KNOW that when i go to the 4 dams, or bayou monnei that i dont catch nearly as many reds or trout as i used to. BUT habitat change has alot to do with that. heck, theres shortcuts i take through the marsh that wasnt there 10 years ago, or canals that are now silted in. everytime i go to the launch theres a new rig, or dredge or pipeline. i dont think weekend warriors are making that big of an impact on it. heck, i can go off the beach or out the pass during spawn, get a 4 man limit of 4+ pound sows by 9 in the morning, full of eggs.
I agree erosion has a part, but i think we do too. thats why no one ever says exactly where they catchin fish, because they know it will get fished out. ask for advice and you get these answeres. fish the points and cuts with current in ----- lake. when they should say go in the corner of ----- lake, take the first cut, go down and there is a canal that crosses a small pond. get right off the point comming into the pond. thats were i been catching. LOL. no one wants to admit it, but after a month youll never catch a fish there again. lol.
lol at lordbud
Without that 'big government' infringing on your speckled trout 'rights,' there wouldn't be any speckled trout left. Catching speckled trout isn't a 'right.' It's a privilege. Any true conservationist knows that.

This is a thought provoking article and it's a subject worthy of debate. To bash Todd for writing this article is just plain stupid. Todd Masson knows more about speckled trout than all of us combined, and he does his research before writing.

My personal opinion - decreasing the limit wouldn't change much. Increasing the size limit would be more effective. That being said, you still run into the problem that ~30% of the small trout (
Maybe I missed something. Did someone really imply that a large redfish population is a 'nuisance?' Please give me all of your redfish gear. I'll be happy to take care of that nuisance for you.

Also, whoever posted up there that mortality rate for trout is like 70% or something ridiculous like that is WAY off base.

'The majority of hook-caught speckled trout survive when released. Louisiana conducted a 18-month study ending in 1995 on the survival of released speckled trout. The survival rate depended on the fishing method. Treble hook artificials had a 97% survival rate, single hook artificials were 91%, treble hook with bait had 83%, and single hook with bait was 74%. The overall average survival rate was 82.5%. Research done in 1984 in Texas showed a survival rate of 73%, and a Georgia study, done in 1990, showed a 63.8% rate.'

Taken from
Well this was a very interesting discussion.

This is my take on the fishing since i have been doing it all my life(i am 59).I mainly base this on fishing the Delacroix area .When i first started fishing this area(early 1970's) there were not many people fishing.There were just a handful of people fishing this area and the Black Bay -Breton Sound and inland marsh area.Fishing conditions were ideal and there were no fresh water diversions except for the Mississippi river.At that time there were no breaks in the levees to let river water into this area except through the Ostrica locks.The was very clean and salty with plenty of baitfish (mullets,shrimp,poogies,etc).The baitfish would be around islands,reefs,wellheads and rigs by the thousands.We had plenty of shrimpers and gill netters.We caught fish till your arms fell off.The saltwater marsh was healthy and erosion was a slight problem.Back then it seemed to take longer for the erosion to take its toll.We fished without any high tech fishfinders,gps,cell phones,just a good compass and a standard black and white paper map.The area we fished were the best of the best(Black Tank,Silver Tank,Pt.Fortune Reef,8 Pilling,Stone Island,Iron Banks,Telegraph Point,The Wreck,Battledore Reef,Breton island,Curlew,Gosier ,The Compressor, The 3 Barges and many many more excellent places).Many of these places are no longer there due to erosion and the oil companies pulling up the rigs and wells.Live bait (shrimp,croakers,cochahoes) were the bait of choice.Not many fished with plastic baits then.

Over the next several years more people started fishing,mainly on the weekends.Then came fishfinders,gps,cell phones,internet,trolling motors.People were able to fish further and find there way around easier. The Blackened Redfish craze started.Purse sieners from Florida showed up and started netting redfish by the hundreds of thousands of pounds.Then thousands of dead redfish were found floating in Breton Sound due to a purse siener letting his catch go because of no more room on his ship.The public found out and this was banned along with gill netting.

Erosion and fishing pressure have increased at a faster pace now. Fresh water diversions are changing the salinity, clarity, and lowers the water temp of the water.This makes it harder for the specks to spawn as they need specific conditions for therir eggs to survive.With this the specks may have to spawn further offshore and are more vulnerable to more predators in the more open waters than the protected inland marsh, hence less survive.The Caernaveron Diversion is not helping the situation at all.i think it is hurting more than helping.The fresh water marsh that it is suppose to produce is just not happening.I just read an article on this subject. ( diversion is to preserve over 16,000 acres over a 50 year time frame.The article also says that Hurricane Katrina destoyed more than 26,000 acres of marshland in this very same area.This can't be doing any good if we lost that much land over night.It is also killing the oyster reefs and the silt is covering the shell reefs of years gone bye.

We have many things going on at the same time that is not helping the fish catching of the public.The weather the last couple of years has not been favorable, the high Mississippi River levels,the BP Oil spill, just to name a few. Some people are saying we need to lower the limit,and or increase the size,limit the catches of charter boats etc.Should that happen i do not know without more information other than people saying 'i am not catching what i use to'.I would like for that article to have more facts in it,like how many specks do we have,how many are taken annually,and how many spawners survive.The LWDF should have this data.I think this should have been included in the article to give it some substance.(not just a couple of people saying i am catching less and smaller fish)

Now for another side note on 'catching less specks'.The modern day fisherman has changed over time.They do not want to put in the time and money to find the specks on their own.They want to go out catch fish witout any thought or effort.More people are fishing with plastics than live bait( i am a firm believer that live bait catches more fish),but that is another subject.People want to know spots to fish,how to fish ,what bait,what technique,what time of year, etc.They read the internet,see a tv show and off they go to that'hotspot' of the week.Thats fine but most do not catch fish and then they blame the charter captain or tv host.Yes there are common 'hotspots' that are good but,and this is a big but.When too many boats are fishing the same spot over and over day in and day out ,the fish are being caught but the fish are also being scattered and go somewhere else because of the fishing pressure.Specks have tails and bait fish also have tails.Specks and baitfish do not like boats running all around them.they move to another quite place.I find fishermen now have no respect for the fellow fisherman.They will fish or run right over where you are fishing and think nothing of it.When they do that the fishing shuts off more times than not.

We have many things that we can blame this on if in fact it is true.Some could be real and some could be fictional.

i hope i did not bore you with my babling,just my 2cents.....

Capt. Kim
good post Kim
I agree with Kim. Let's see the science and the data backing it up. The problem is that if we are willing to let the state take over management of snapper, then we have to trust them to manage trout too.

All we want is GOOD science to rely on, not just reports from folks who say they caught less than they did 20 years ago.
opinions are like you know what
I was a marine biologist and worked with ldwf right out of college. I am here to tell you that hook and line recreational anglers are not impacting the spotted seatrout population negatively. These fish are batch spawners and spawn multiple times over the course of the summer. I catch trout with eggs all the way into october some years. For all of you that are asking for lower limits you need to have your heads examined. once they take them away you never get them back. You all have the option to start releasing fish at any time you choose. If i want to keep my 25 fish limit then so be it. I only limit out a few times per year. As far as the shrimpers go i don't believe they catch many trout at all. We pulled trawls with extra small mesh with ldwf in order to catch even the very small shrimp/fish and i can count on one hand the amount of trout that were caught in those trawls. environmental factors play the biggest role in population. why are the fish bigger in texas? an old biologist and i had this discussion about 12 years ago. the theory was that currents push nutrients westward towards texas from the miss river. louisiana has a much larger biomass but the size of the fish on average were smaller than in texas. where do people go to catch big trout in la? Venice, pontchatrain, big lake They don't go to cocodrie do they? no, because there are numbers there but not many very large trout. who knows why but its not because of rodnreel anglers. end of rant
I too am a schooled marine biologist from Nichols State, (didn't want to labeled as an expert). My original comment about by catch was relating to the demise of biomass and game fin fish. I've fished trout exclusively with live fin fish for 50 years. We caught our own using 16' bait trawls in Caminada Bay and I can assure you there were always game fish in the catch, everything from from trout, triple tail, snapper spade name it. For years we'd make an 8 minute drag and catch 200 croakers. Then after a couple of years of the inside boys using salt boxes we had to make 12 minute drags,and then 20 minute drags. Now you might have to make 3, 20 minute drags to catch 200 croakers. So I believe the mortailty of the by catch had effected the trout population, especially the bigger fish because they eat smaller fish given a choice. Trout reach a certain size and their diet changes from shrimp to fin fish. Bring on the spring beach bite. You can not deplete the resource using rods and reels. ARRIVE ALIVE!!!
Salt Barrels have been around forever. Is there By-catch? Yes. Not enough to knock down the Speck population. if this was the case, they would be extinct by now. And TEDS do not let fish out. not sure where you got that. Back in the 80's, there was close 2 16,000 Shrimpers in the state. Now, under 3000 shrimpers. Stop pointing the finger at them. Your facts dont add up.
just the facts please
I have seen the red snapper seasons almost totally done away with because science isn't being used. I see the redfish limit at 5 because of politics not science. I saw the limits dropped in west La. because of politics, not science! Number of monster trout there is down... didn't help did it!

My one wish is not for a 50 fish limit or a 25 fish limit or a 1 fish limit. My one wish is that the limit fit the science and not let politicians and heresay affect the limits.
Back in the day 60's and 70's the inside shrimpers used picking boxes before salt boxes caught on. The old timers didn't mind the labor involved in picking without the expense of salt. That slowly changed to where they all used salt. As for TEDs not letting catch escape, you sir are mistaken. It allows bycatch and shrimp escape, thats been the fight from day one between the commercial shrimper and the Feds. Had the number of shrimpers not diminished, trout might have been wiped out, certainly reduced
over fishing speckled trout
there is a gambit of issues affecting the speckled trout population. #1 on the list is coastal errosion of inland marshes that are the main life line for all young trout and the food source for the trout. now you have to think whats adding to this major problem. #1 B.P. didnt do nothing but destroy the eco system to a point we all will discover in a year or so from this day on.and then top if off with millions of gallons of dispersant. #2 the coastal restoration of building back beaches with dredgeing sands from offshore pumping to the beaches in empire all the way west to west timbalier that i see has the water so funky a fish will not live in that, they will move to cleaner waters. #3 i worked on a shrimp boat in high school with a salt vat system and know what it kills in juvinile fish from flounder to everything known in these waters and is dumped back into the gulf dead. #4 people who go out and catch 60 to 100 trout in the 4lb to 6lb range and dont even eat fish , they go to the other side of the river from grand isle to catch all these hugh mamma trout who lay thousands of eggs at a time in the peak of spawn to come back to the marina and throw their box on the dock and show off and dont even eat trout.
personally i think the limit is fine where it is but if it were me i would put a limit on how many fish you can have over 24inches. one fish over 24in per person. why do you think the redfish population came back strong, because the limit is one per person over 27 inches. thats when they begin laying eggs. i dont know the exact number of eggs a trout lays and what number survives but i grant you a 25inch speck is laying thousands of more eggs than a 12 inch trout.
the fresh water is pushing fish out no doubt. the shrimp are not in numbers like it use to be.
we have a whole lot less shrimpers on the water as per 5 years ago. in grand isle on any given night or day you could see boats upon boats trawling and now if you see 3 or 4 thats the most you will see.
its truely sad to see our heritage dissappear in our face like it has. the errosion is happening so fast now is really scarey. there is so much water volume flowing in and out with the tides that islands dissappear in one year. i see a 5 ft gap in a island one spring and watch it grow to the summer of 30ft and 6ft deep when before it was to shallow to pass.
so for these who want to believe its the recreational guy over fishing the trout they are full of it! whats hurting the specks is the lack of eco system and estuary to support the food chain. somebody on this topic said cocodrie was holding trout and i been hearing the same all the way to vermilion bay to the west. well put two and two together. the oil spill didnt affect anything west of east timbalier. all the shrimpers from grand isle were catching shrimp like crazy west of east timbalier to cocodrie. so that right there tells me the fish will move to better waters with high salinity and clear water where they can breath. you dont have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what hurts this inviroment.
another big thing is knowing when to fish where and if you dont have that skill in your head you will always struggle to produce fish.
Ok I'm in!!
I have fished Pointe a la Hache for over a decade. When I first started, 3-4 miles out, the local partner, that had grown up there, said he would ride his bike to the same area and catch bass as a kid. Yes, things have changed. My favorite, Telegraph point, is long gone and I actually watched the Pelicans fight over it the last few days. The oyster guys, finished it off. You can run over it all day long with your depth finder, but its over.
What I would like to add is that the Pointe is known for quantity, not size. I may, but normally don't limit out on trout. If 40 for two, it is a good day. Depending on the tides and conditions, I target the trout and a redfish limit is easy.
I have been chased by guides from the westbank, and this gets old. I understand they have a job to fulfill their limits. This has happened several times,I'm off in some unknown internet, undiscussed location and they come in on top of my bite. I am not against them doing there job, until they bother me. One guy, I just had to let him run behind me until he ran out of water. Later dude and circled back to my spot.
I think 99% of guides are great people and conservationist. Some of these 'boat runners' are idiots. The current limits are fine. The trout population is good. We have had strange weather to our diminishing estuary and the siphons can not recover from the last 1000 years.
Just my two cents.
redfish problem
^5 bluemoon!!!!!...........I'll take ummm too
Just when we were having an intelligent come JLS

Anyway, the biologists that posted just above are correct. There is no way the rod and reel angler can have an effect on trout populations.

AGAIN--once they convince us that it is OUR FAULT that populations decline and we succumb to the notion that limits need to be reduced because of something we did (WHICH WE DID NOT), the limits will be reduced in the name of junk science.

THE LIMITS WILL NEVER BE RAISED AGAIN. Sorry for all Caps, but there is no other way for me to emphasize on this forum.
C'mon guys you cant blame the guides for the over fishing of specked trout. These are guys that put in hard time and effort into finding and catching huge amounts of fish. This is exactly the same thing as saying the rich successful businessmen are the sole reason for our economy being in shambles. I believe that when people work hard and devote pretty much their lives to something, they should be rewarded. Guides are out there 4 to 5 days a week working their tails off to find those fish let them keep 25 a person. Thats how they make their living, they aren't hurting the population. They are not the problem here. Sure, facts show that reproduction is decreasing on the trout but there are still plenty of them for us they are just changing their patterns. I think they are adjusting to high fishing pressure, hurricanes, and of course the oil spill. WIth the past few hurricanes i think the saltwater has moved further north into the marshes and has stayed there. I noticed last summer that i was catching big trout all summer on the northern end of sister lake near the old Wildlife and Fishery's camp. Most people run far offshore to catch them during the summer and there are tons of trout out there but i think the fish are staying further inland than many people think now. This is a very complicated subject and I could type for hours on it, but the main thing is just don't blame the charter captains for this because i hate to see good, honest people get criticized for putting in hard work and dedication to become successful at what they do. I am not a charter captain or anywhere near one but i know a few and they are great people
Some info from the LDWF

But the suggestion is also coming from sports fishers, who wonder if the quality of their trout fishing experience would improve if we had more conservative regulations.

To find an answer to that question, and to reconfirm we are not 'fish hogs,' I turned to the fisheries biologist at the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.

I got a quick, one-word answer: No.

'We've run (computer) scenarios on lowering the creel limits and increasing the size limits, and from our assessments those actions did not noticeably increase the number of fish in the system or the number of big fish,' said Joey Shepard, acting deputy assistant secretary of the LDFW, and a biologist who has spent much of his long career studying specks.

But there is also some real-world experience to back up those computers. In 2006, yielding to requests from some guides and sports fishers hoping for more large specks, the state reduced regulations on Calcasieu Lake. The daily limit was dropped to 15, and although the minimum size remained at 12 inches, anglers were restricted to only two fish of more than 25 inches.

The result six years later?

'From our assessment, it did not increase the number of big fish in the system,' Shepard reported. 'Of course, we didn't anticipate it would.'

This certainly seems counterintuitive. After all, logic dictates the fewer of objects you remove from a container, the more you'll have left. And everyone knows if the limit on, say, deer were raised to 10 per day, we wouldn't have many left. For that matter, why is the daily limit on redfish only five?

Well, the answer is that nature works with a different logic, one much more complicated than simple math.

In the case of speckled trout, we're dealing with a species that has adapted to survival on the very mean streets of the Mississippi estuary by reproducing in stupendous numbers for a fairly short lifespan.

Some points to remember:

Natural mortality in this critter-eat-critter world means every speck spawning class loses 25 percent of its surviving members every year. So if you start with 100, you're left with just 75 by Year 1, then just more than 30 by year 3.

'Basically, most of the fish you put back, or leave, will be taken by natural mortality -- predators (including larger specks), disease, weather and environmental conditions,' Shepard said.

Specks start reproducing at about 18 months. The spawning season runs from about mid-April to late September, and females typically reproduce ready-to-spawn roe sacks every four to five days. That's 'days' with a 'd.' So the marsh is flooded with trout larvae for five months.

'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.

The state has been on the 25/12 system for almost 20 years, and even with anglers taking home 8 million to 10 million annually, the resource continues to show very little change in abundance.

The agency studies various reduction in creel limits to determine their impact on fishing, and came up with this. Reducing the limit from 25 to 20 would reduce harvest by only 4 percent; from 25 to 15 by 8 percent; from 25 to 10 by 15 percent, and from 25 to 5 by 30 percent.

'Based on those numbers, our assessment is we would have to reduce the daily limit to five before anyone would notice a difference in the fish available,' he said.

The daily limit of 25 is seldom reached by most anglers. Studies show that the average catch per trip is fewer than five fish. Obviously, if all of the almost 1 million anglers fishing caught 25 each trip, the limit would have to be lowered.

OK, so what about reducing the minimum size to increase the number of big fish? Shepard said the LDWF ran the numbers and got these results: Increasing the minimum from 12 inches to 15 inches would put 13 percent more fish back in the water; from 12 inches to 16 inches would reduce harvest by nine percent.

But because anglers would be hooking and releasing more fish, the improvement is dampened by an estimated 10 percent release mortality.

'Essentially, we would increase spawning potential by about four percent if we raised the minimum to 15 inches, and six percent if we raised it to 15 inches,' he said. 'Either way, the improvement would not be noticeable to fishermen.'

So for all those anglers worried about the fish-hog label, the advice is: Forgettaboutit! Certainly, if you're not going to eat them (fresh), put 'em back. Otherwise, ignore the critics and enjoy one of the great natural, renewable resources in North America.

Additional info:
Young spotted seatrout grow rapidly, reaching 8 inches by their first birthday and over 12 inches by age 2. Spotted seatrout can live to over 12 years of age. Male trout grow slower and don't live as long as females. Males don't reach 14 inches long until 3 or 4 years old. Few males live over 5, so virtually all spotted seatrout 5 pounds and larger are females.

Spotted seatrout are voracious predators, especially in the summer when high spawning activity creates tremendous metabolic demands. Fish under 12-14 inches eat a variety of foods, but more shrimp and other crustaceans than anything else. As they grow, they shift their food preference to fish, first to smaller fish such as silversides and anchovies, then later to larger prey fishes such as mullets, croakers and menhaden.
Size : Typically 1-3 pounds, fish to 5 pounds are not rare, and occasional fish exceed 10 pounds.

i really dont mind keeping fish, or anyone that keeps fish. we cook what we catch, and if we catch too much, we freeze the rest.
Awesome info Capt Kim
That is some great info you have given there and really sheds valuable info on the subject. So what we really need to do is put all our collective efforts behind projects that will improve and retain habitat. Whether deer, ducks or fish or any other game it's all about the habitat and quality of the feeding and reproduction grounds. Thx for the good subject matter and enjoyed following and being a part of it.
To: Wolfmanjack and Secret formula.
Can one of you give us the total number of eggs produced per female trout and the survival rate of that one spawn,how many times does she spawn in 1 year.
Capt Kim that's a LOT of good info ! I'm nowhere near as knowledgable about speckled trout as you are and only fish trout a couple times a year at best .

So my question is , if rod and reels don't hurt the speckled trout in the least , why do we even have a limit ? Why not make it 50 per person , or 100 , or even make it unlimited for recreational anglers ?
some cant see the forrest for the trees
the article was pure speculation based on generic numbers that the study itself said couldnt be relied upon so they wrote an article for the sole purpose to ''imply'' specks were in trouble and limits needed to be reduced.

why would they do such a thing you might ask? its because its called a trial balloon, you send up a trial balloon in the form of an idea you want to enact, in this case its reduced speck limits, then you sit back and see what the reaction is.

if they get a very strong negative reaction to the idea then they do nothing because there is no real problem except the imaginary one they tried to imply exists but if the response is wishy washy or they find some support for the idea then they announce ''we have the support of fishermen'' and it is working because a lot of you guys, based on no evidence that it is needed, want to reduce limits for absolutely no reason when the fish populations are strong and healthy and the scientist have said it wont help the speck population at all to do so.

this article was just written as an exercise to see if they could find people stupid enough to go along with reducing limits for no reason just because an article said it was needed.
GREAT info!! I read that from LDWF a while back. Notice Western End had limits lowered and it did nothing for the population!!
^5 bro
the article
Actually the article didn't say over fishing was definitely the problem.
I just wonder how much dispersants a human can consume before any harmful side affects.
Or how many ppm to water before it affects trout eggs.
And how much did we have not too long ago.
And is it still here.
trout spawn
Size does matter when talking about numbers of eggs produced per famale trout. The bigger females produce more eggs. A small trout may produce 100,000 eggs per spawn where as a large female may produce a million or more per spawning event. Now don't everyone get there panties in a bunch and say all larger trout should be released. We know from history that our trout population is healthy enough so that those larger trout can be harvested and still maintain a large trout population. Evolution has enabled the trout to maintain its population or bounce back rather quickly from a decline in population secondary to enviromental factors. Larval survival rates vary I do believe again based on environmental factors. We are talking about hundreds of millions or maybe even billions of fertilized eggs hitting the water over a single reef during a spawning event. This happens all over the state, you cannot comprehend the sheer numbers here and its a numbers game. The guides and weekend warriors aren't damaging these trout populations. Hook and lines are not depleting this resource. Keep what you want to eat freeze etc...
Thanks capt Kim
You found a bunch of data that i had been searching for but could not find. Said it before, sometimes people in the press write articles because they cause people to read and comment and then they can go back to boss man and say look at all the people reading my stuff maybee i need a raise. Pic- i hope you see now why your comment was BOLD. Wildlife and fisheries data says all anglers, not just guides catch an average of 25,000 fish a day. You suggested that guides alone 16X that ammount on a daily basis. Just slinging false facts around and then getting defensive when someone says you are wrong. I have heard people wondering where all the croakers have gone in the last 5-10 years. Don't see a bunch of dock shots with croakers coming out of the ice chest. Same thing with blue crabs. Its the habitat habitat habitat.
Spot on keaker! I've never seen people roll over so easy in my life. Cut & post your response to the other site.
Spirited discussion
To everyone in this thread it has been enjoyable to participate and take in all of the good information presented and the passion we all have for our great resource. There is a tremendous amount of experience expressed by those in this thread. I'll say this one last time with extreme confidence; 'You can not deplete this resource with rods and reels'. That being said, I can't wait for the spring beach bite to kick off so I can run 60+ miles to drown croakers and pogies and catch a limit of 3 to 4 pounders. ARRIVE ALIVE!!!
i dont see how rod and reel fishermen can deplete a renewable resource like that, i would still like to see numbers, though. also seems like i catch way more specs than whites though, yet whites are 'no size no limit'
I just think that if truly we could not hurt specks by rod and reel, there would not be a size limit or quantity limit on it at all. we all have our different opinions on things, but wheather its rod and reel, erosion, or something else, the majority agree we are catching less trout now than years ago. so even if its not rod any reel depleting, if you raise our size limit or lower quantity limit, it has to help, its common sense you may not see it right away, but each fish that gets put back will spawn and multiply only helping. it cant hurt and i think people who are not so good at finding or catching trout will notice it first.
two cents worth
[quote]if you raise our size limit or lower quantity limit, it has to help[/quote]

Not true. This isn't bass we are talking about. Sometimes taking fish out of a population actually helps. Usually with species who's population cycles. Sometimes keeping fish can smooth out those peaks and valleys and make the fishing better.

Another potential way that it can help is by protecting the resource. If limits are lowered less fishing trips will be made. Less fishing means less interest. Less interest means the people making the rules care less about them as well. In other words make something valuable and people will take care of it and the habitat that supports them.

Not saying these necessarily apply to what is happening with specks right now but you can't say more catch and release will have to help... it doesn't have to help despite what common sense would indicate.

Biologist have said repeatedly that unless the limit is drastically lowered it isn't going to help. It is ALL about the habitat! when it comes to specks.

Much stricter limits and LESS trout everywhere else in the world!
Not sure where these people are fishing, but still catching specs in Golden Meadow.

don't blame lack of fishing skills on over fishing. If it was easy, everyone would be a guide.
@ gaspard
well then you are calling the dozens of scientists and experts whos job it is to keep track of these things that they are wrong because they all say (no matter the cause) that reducing limits or increasing size limits will have NO IMPACT on the numbers or size of the speck population.

you are looking at this from a common sense assumption that specks are like other fish when they are NOT. you cannot use the same logic that if it works for reds it works for specks to because it doesnt.

specks die on there own and are more delicate, they succomb to many preditors and canablised by there own kind.

we all want a strong health speck population but calling for lower limits when the experts say it does as much good as a fart in the wind isnt a logical point of view.

point 1 - the sky is not falling, nothing NEEDS to be done

point 2 - the article itself said there was no evidence of a problem with limits existed

point 3 - if you want to claim something needs to be done then only something the SCIENTISTS and experts say WILL WORK is what should be considered.

your premis to lower limits is flawed because it assumes what works for reds will also work for specks and that is incorrect and makes about as much sense as if your house is on fire you want to drive your car into the ditch to help
We went from:
1- no limits on specks
2- 50 speck limit
3- 25 speck limit

shouldn't that prove that lowering specks limits does not work since we are still talking about lowering limits still.
some people just don't get it.
SCIENTIST say we came from monkeys, do you agree?????? YES i am smarter than scientist. I am not calling for lower limits, but i bet my life that day will come because trout or over fished. use common sense guys its a GOD givin gift. lol.
It did not help u say because there are more and more people fishing better boats and so on, if they would not have limited them they would have none left. i also agree with all other things mentioned that are hurting the fisheries too, like erosion. dont get me wrong.
People are too greedy
The fact of the matter is that people are too greedy. There is no reason for somebody to take home 25 Trout for themselves. If you need more than 5 trout for yourself you are probably eating too much. Then you are contributing to other epidemics in the USA. I'm fine with making the limit 5 a person.
ten of many things scientist have been wrong about in the past. hope some of you guys still did not believe some of this stuff LOL
# 1-- Tell Me y way back ther were more trout then, then now. All i ever fished was Catfish lake. It was full of fish then. I would go every SAT . and catch my limth # 2-- Ducks way back full of Ducks. Now 6 a day, they say if 6 is ok then y not let us feed . After all the limth is 6 so let me kill my 6. That my point. I for 1 am ok with 15 a day if it will make my fishing back in the Lake the same as it was back then. Less runing less gas.
5 fish limit?
Then why go? I freeze fish for when I can't go. Just last night at work I ate fried trout taken from the freezer and Redfish courtboullion also from the freezer.
My family eats a lot of fish. But I don't always have 6 days a week to go fishing. Haven't fished in about 6 weeks actually. And don't know when I will be able to go in the near future.
If you want to limit something then limit the catch on guided trips to only the amount of paying customers. The guides had any sense they would do this on their own. 25 more fish for the next boatload of paying customers in the water instead of 25 more fish going to Alabama or where ever the clients come from.
Cut your own throats if you want to I say but keep that knife away from me and my chance to get some fresh fish for my freezer.

You want to go catch fish with a lower limit then go bass fishing.
wah wah wah
Your still upset about not being able to feed your duckies??? That is not being a sportsman, that is being lazy. First you feed them and then you are tempted to shoot more because its so easy. and thats why you can't do it. but this is about trout not ducks, but The same reason still stands. you dont want lower limits because the trout population needs it, you want lower limits because you think it will allow you to catch trout on your back doorstep. Quit being lazy people, the animals in our environment are living breathing and changing. If you want the same ol same ol just go to the store and buy some fish and chicken.
dont listen to him
Fishingislife has his own greedy box of 25 or more trout right there in his photo section. He is going to tell you he had 6 people on board on that day but i call bull-ish on that as well. In fact i call bull on most of the people pushing for the issue. I bet if they actually found a good trout bite and started catching there is no way they would stop at 15. Jealousy is a mother
lowering limits wont help, yet people still believe it will. you dont think that its the reig they keep moving around in the lake or the fact that canals have silted in or widened and eroded or the constant dredging and laying of pipelines in catfish lake that has ANYTHING to do with the fishing?
I believe the past that after 75 years of study it was agreed that at some point we would see a decline in aquatic populations due to habitat loss...I belive it refered to as the COLLAPSE of the ECOSYSTEM...personally I don't believe the bp spill has a whole lot to do with it...
I enjoy it
I go because I enjoy it. I go almost once a week and RARELY keep anything. Just two weeks ago I caught 28 nice trout and 16 nice Reds and released them all. I often tag a lot of my fish. For me fishing is a sport not a livelihood. I only use artificial lures unless under weird circumstances. I only eat fish 3 or 4 times a year. Except for the occasional Tuna I get at a restaraunt.

If you notice that was in May of 2011. And the only reason we kept fish was because I had family in from out of state and even hen we only kept 15-18 of the trout we caught.
Your absolutely right. No one should be able to keep fish in the freezer because you don't. Everyone should do as you do.
scientist recently discoverd that not all of us come from apes. some have evolved from squirlel's, and have some of the same habits from there former ancestors leading them to wanna stock food for the winter. these people have been known to wanna catch loads of trout for the freezer. some seek help for these bad habits from doctors. the only cure is to quit whinning and take more time to fish. moving closer to the water could help fourchon is hiring. lol
well doesent look like either side is gonna give up on whether we need to lower the limit of specks. so cant wait for saturday so i can go deplete the trout population in my secret spots behind golden meadow.
Tree huggers
Wish I could go wit ya Gasp.
Like to do some freezer fish.
But alas I need to go feed the unicorns and sing happy songs with the garden fairies.
greedy huh
Or may bee some people like eating untainted natural
Foods. Foods that are not chocked full of pesticides or steroids etc. Go take a tour of a sanderson farms or tyson facility, a slaughter house, or grain elevator. If I can limit my consumption of processed foods or foods full of chemicals and hormones by stocking the freezer with some great tasting fish fillets then I will. Especially if there is no data supporting a needed change. Speckled trout,sac a lait, catfish, ducks,rabbit, deer, pigs, shrimp, all off it. It was put on this earth by God to be eaten .
[quote]The fact of the matter is that people are too greedy. There is no reason for somebody to take home 25 Trout for themselves. If you need more than 5 trout for yourself you are probably eating too much. Then you are contributing to other epidemics in the USA. I'm fine with making the limit 5 a person.[/quote]

Are you serious? You are saying I can feed my family with just five trout? I like to eat trout and I don't do it very often. But I can tell you I wouldn't do it at all if I could only keep 5.

I eat fish year round. I hunt not fish during deer season. The only way to do that is to put a few in the freezer when I do go. I think it is rediculous to expect me to drive 100 miles one way to catch just 5 specks ever time I want to eat trout.

I wouldn't advocate keeping the limit at 25 if that limit was hurting the resource. But just because you can hunt every weekend doesn't mean I can as well.

You probably kill more fish that you let go in a year that I kill all year counting the ones I keep. Don't try to impose you beliefs on me when my belief are not negatively impacting you in any way.
This has just about run its course.I think we are just beating a dead horse now.Everybody said their oppinion for or against.
Lets get some good weather and go catch 5 or 25 specks.Me i like 25 ,i give my mom and step dad all the fish i do not use,they are in their 80's and eat fish 3 times a week.They keep me busy filling their freezer.
Back in
To Mike G. , and Capt Kim;

I was out of this , but now I'm back in... because I too like /want to eat trout 2x's a week, and I too fish in the summer and hunt in the the only way to for me to enjoy eating healthy (trout 2x's per week) is to fish hard in the summer and make my 25 limit as often (weekends) as I can and freeze them for the winter while I duck hunt. Hopefully I harvest enough ducks to allow a duck dinner once a week from my winter efforts. Most of the time I prevail, but it's achieved through; love of the sport, application of accumulated knowledge and discipline, .....not greed.... I AM NOT OUT OF THIS....ARRIVE ALIVE!!!!
^5 Mike and PPP
I eat fish 3-4 times a week. And Yeah this thread has gone beyond its usefulness.
Ok - my last post webfoot 83 ho every you r, I am not a guid i fish with my son.I have not fished in 3 weeks going SAT 10 15 25 50 ok by me, and i will and always catch fish. i fish from G.M. to Grand Isl. and the gulf we have a camp right out of grand Isle. All this is my back yard. I do not brake the law on fish and ducks . This post ask our thougths. You r a verey rud man.Look me up i have noting to hide i fild my post.But like it r not water in feed, feed in water it is all the same. that my point.And my thought. Have a good day if you can.
rouses supermarket in larose sells trout reds drum case yall get hungry dont have to do all that work to go fishing, lol. no they really do tho.
here it is
sell those costly bay boats save thousands on fuel and hours of back breaking labor
Rouses:The seasonal fish — drum, sheepshead and flounder — will be flash-frozen and sold under Rouses’ brand
This does not say anything about trout or redfish.
in the article i posted read all the way to the bottom it says they will soon be adding trout.
LA vs FL
Florida's recreational regulations are 5 specks, 15'-20' with one over 20', but the speck fishing in LA now is a lot better than in FL.

Florida's flounder regulations are 12' minimum but the flounder are bigger and more of them in LA.

Florida's Redfish regulations are 18'-27' with ONE fish limit in South FL and 2 fish in NW-NE FL, but the red fishing in LA now is a lot better than in FL.

Therefore, the LA politicians should stop trying to put stiffer regulations on the recreational fisherman.

Just sayin.
long thread
it IS very interesting how those of you who support unwarranted and unreasonable restrictions on others rights are fine with promoting the MASS selling of the resource at commercial outlets then turn around and call recreational fishermen greedy for wanting fresh fish for his family when and where they might want it including freezing it for a later meal.

the laughable part of this is your unhealthy belief in that against all scientific data and logic and ignoring the way nature works, you still think you gain ''something'' by preventing others from enjoying a properly managed renewable resource.

you are right that this thread has gone on long enough because you keep crying the sky is falling and something must be done, well ... THE SKY IS NOT FALLING

leave our rights alone and limit yourself to 1 or 2 fish if that makes you happy
no opinion on limits, but is it logical a guide with customers catches 200 trout in a weeks worth of trips ?? 50 weeks a year ? = 10,000 trout. 40 guides between Mississippi and Lake Charles ? 400,000 trout plus recreational people = million specs ???
No one thinks that can deplete a source after 15 years? just askin. Maybe instead of reducing limits, close the season for a single month in May when trout spawn ??
Money in the bank
If a guide can average 200 trout a week for a year he would be the best guide in the world. He would also have a unlimited number of customers. PS Anytime you have Small Craft warning or even high winds they forget about trout and go for reds. Just think about how many times you have high winds blow on the coast.
I love pickin on you guys so much fun lol, back to fishing tomorrow tho, time to get serious uhummm.
That's not what I'm saying......
I'm not saying nobody should keep fish I'm just saying I don't. You asked me why even go then so I was telling you why I go.
And @Mike
I don't think 5 trout will feed your family but I didn't know that you go fishing solo every time. I expect that more than likely someone mike come along with you (maybe a child). Then you can have 10. And I'm pretty sure you can feed a family on 10 Trout and still have some to freeze.
I've bit my tongue long enough. FishingisLife are you SERIOUS??? 90% of the time when I am not running a charter I DO go fishing by myself. What about the 3 elderly couples that live down my street that are physically unable to go ou fishing? Would 5 fish feed them along with my family? What about the neighborhood fish fry we have every few months? Would 5 fish feed a neighborhood? What about all the charitable fish frys that ask me to donate fish so they can raise money in our community? How far would 5 fish go?
Better yet what gives YOU the right to dictate to ME how many fish I should keep?? 5 fish does it for you then that's fine. The law states 25 and I am well within my legal limit to keep 25. According to SCIENTIFIC PROOF (and not a FICTIOUS story written by a writer who used a bunch of 'we don't catch fish like we used to' to get people to read his article) the trout population is fine. I have been catching trout ever since I could hold a rod. Everything goes thru phases. Pre Katrina I caught a 10.02lb speck in Lake P. last year my biggest was 8.2. My son had a 7.5. We had several boxes with fish over 6lbs. The Lake has been producing more in the past few years than I can remember (when I was a kid it was always dirty from dredging). Hopedale the past 2 years on the inside has tapered off some for me. Bottom line is just because some aren't catching as much isn't any reason to lower he limits. That's like 'changing he rules' so everyone can win. It's sissy liberal thinking like that which has gotten this country in the shape that its in. If you want to catch more fish then get off the damn Internet and go put your time in on the water!! Don't expect to be able to read a post on it and then go catch fish!! Go try new things. Try new places. Try new lures. Keep a log/journal.
With me being a guide you'd think I would want limits lowered so I could get off the water faster but that's far from it. I want limits to stay where they are for several reasons.
1. There is NO SCIENTIFIC STUDY that says they need to be lowered.
2. Once a limit is lowered it's rare for it to ever get raised again.
3. Tourist come to our great state to catch more fish here than they can back home. Do you think people would pay a guide to to catch 5 trout? Do you realize the impact that would have on the marinas,charter businesses, tackle companies, boat yards, etc??
4. Because I really enjoy being able to make people smile when I hand them a bag of fresh trout or invite people over for some fresh fried fish or to hand a check to a family who had something tragic happen and we raised money to assist them with a fish fry.
5. I hope it pisses you off LivingtoFish to know I may have 25 trout in my cooler.
To everyone else I apologize for my long winded rant. It pisses me off to know end when people say things like that. It was this kind of thing that got limits lowered In Big Lake. A bunch of IDIOTS talking like this wih NO EVIDENCE at all. JUST TALK!! Notice how the population is over there now?? NO CHANGE!! The people who couldn't catch fish whn the limit was 25 STILL CAN'T catch fish now that its 15.
Y'all can have your soap box back. I'm done. Will be out on the bridge this weekend trying to get my clients a few limits of trout!!
Lordbud7, well said.Why is that the people who can't do something always want to change the rules?
Exactly Kim
When I was a kid if you played sports there was a trophy for 1st, 2nd and 3rd. It gave you something to play for. Now a days 'everybody wins' and they all get a trophy. Why should little Johnny bust his butt practicing every day when little joe doesn't practice at all and he's going to get the same trophy??
It's the way the worlds going. SOCIALISM at its finest and now it's coming to fishing!!!!! BEWARE!!!
Hey dude, I thought you'd be hooking up by now headed back to that dirty water. I'd be headed that way but am waiting for my new freezer to be delivered. Freezer!, Oh no not another freezer!!!
Very noble
It's very noble of LordBud to feed half of his neighborhood every time he's goes out. And if you think I want the limits lowered because I can't catch a limit you are sadly mistaken. I catch a limit 90% of the time I go out. All I'm saying is that unless your like LordBud (who is obviously a better person than most of us) you don't new 25 trout for yourself. I'm not saying it needs to be 5 either just probably no more than 15.
A Limit 90% of the time?
90%,if you know how to fish and where to go then 90% is believable.Remember 10% of the fisherman catch all the fish,glad i am part of the 10% club.
i dont think so
FishingisLife is full of it, how DARE you try and tell someone else what they need to feed their family!

the people i know as well as those in my family will eat an average of 5-6 fillets when we eat fish.

a 25 fish limit gets you 50 fillets and thats ten servings or five servings over 2 meals by putting 25 fillets in the freezer for another meal later. not exaqctly what any NORMAL person would call too much.

now his claim of limiting out 90% of the time i suppose could be done but i dont think he is telling the truth about being that great of a fisherman because real fishermen who take the time to be that good arent the ones crying to lower limits for no reason, only those who envy those who really can catch limits that go around talking such silly nonsense!

look at the posts from this guy who claims to limit out 90% of the time and see how he cant keep his stories straight.
Who are you?
Who are you to tell someone else what they NEED? Are you a scientist or biologist? Do you have any facts from studies that you have done that the rest of us don't know about? That's rather 'Ballsy' to try to tell others what's best for them. Isn't this still America?? Aren't we allowed to still do what's best for our families within the limits of the law?? Isnt the current limit 25?? This guy reminds me more and more of Obama with each post.
Allright guys,lets get back to the original topic please.
This always happens on long posts ,it always gets personal.
FishingisLife posted a Inshore Fishing report titled: Late Report.

My brother came down from Oklahoma this past weekend to do some fishing. I was really looking forward to it before the front came through but, after the front I was a little skeptical. We started off Saturday slow but eventually found some good numbers and sized trout. Probably ended up with 35-40 between us. Also, had a few reds to boot, with one big bull. The same thing on Sunday, had to try a different spot but ended up witht the same results. So, after reading some of the reports I don't think we did to bad. We just fished right out of the Cocodrie area.

FishingisLife posted a Inshore Fishing report titled: Specks in lake Boudreaux.
I need some help. U want to take the wife fishing on Saturday and I was wondering if anyone had caught any specks in the Lake Boudreaux area. I had caught some about 3-4 weeks ago but nothing since then. Thanks for any help.

FishingisLife posted a Inshore Fishing report titled: A few Trout at PAC.
Went to Point Aux-Chene today in search of some Specks. Got to my first spot at 7:30 and ended up catching only 3. Only one was legal but I let all three go anyway. Then went to explore, it's my first time to fish out of PAC. Went to the Sulphur Mine and got nothing. Saw quite a few boats fishing but no one catching either. So I decided to head back in hopes that I could find mire trout back in the area I started. Surely enough first spot I tried I ended up catching about 20 before it was time to go. Most were big enough to keep but I only kept 8. Biggest went 18 inches. All but one caught on swimbaits. Then went back home to Dulac to take the wife out and let her catch some Reds. It just like I planned she caught about 5 or 6 before dark and then back to the house for dinner( also swimbaits). Just a side note. It blows my mind to see people fishing in boats and on the side of the road mostly with bait shrimp and I can fish circles around them with plastic because they have no idea what they are doing. If some people would pay attention to some of the subtleties they could do much better. Just wondering if anyone else every notices that.

Lake Boudreaux
Anybody know if the trout are in Boudreaux? Going to be coming down after Christmas. Any help would appreciated.

Late fishing report
My brother and I just got back from one of our many annual trips to Louisiana. We only fished on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. We got an early start on Tuesday and went out to go chase some trout in Cocodrie. We ended up catching about 40 or so between the two of us. Nice 18'-21' trout. Then later in the day we hit Lake Boudreaux for some reds. Got 6 with the big one going 7 lb 6oz. ....

trout in Dulac
Hello, I'm making a trip down to Dulac the week of April 15th. I was wanting to know if anyone has been catching in Trout in the Lake Boudreaux area. I was hoping with the warmer weathher and maybe some improved salinity levels the Trout would come in. Thanks for any help.

Seems to me that someone who limits out 90% of the time wouldn’t/shouldn’t be asking people for advice on this forum. In all of your posts I didn’t see one where you limited out. I’ve lived down here and fished my whole life. When did you move down here from Oklahoma City? 2010? Maybe you should leave the limit to the more experienced fisherman who have 20-30+ years of fishing this area!!
who is the thief
[quote]And @Mike
I don't think 5 trout will feed your family but I didn't know that you go fishing solo every time. I expect that more than likely someone mike come along with you (maybe a child). Then you can have 10. And I'm pretty sure you can feed a family on 10 Trout and still have some to freeze. [/quote]

Wrong again. When I go trout fishing I usually go with my brother or a friend. They are just as much of greedy low life's as I am. So they usually keep their own fish.

But your point is still invalid regardless. No fish I keep ever goes to waste. I am not damaging the resource. So until someone can come up with a reason that is even close to making sense on what I am doing is wrong then I will continue to keep my 50 trout a year and I will fight them tooth and nail to prevent them from taking away from me for no reason.

Sad to say but I view your view as worse than a drugged up thief stealing from me. At least he has a reason to take from me. You don't! You gain nothing but still want to take this from me.
Limits of trout
Just got the new 21cu' freezer delivered. Can't wait for the beach bite to start, be filling that bad boy up chocka block with trout fillet from 3+ pounders!!!
Secret formula
A friend of mine was in an accident recently and passed away. He left a pregnant wife along with a few kids. He was 2 weeks out of insurance at his new job. A local bar held a fish fry and had some raffles(one of them was a trip with me). They raised over $2500 to help his family out. They completely wiped out my freezer and my deep freezer. Soon as I get my freezer restocked ill be more than happy to help you fill that sucker. Better yet you'll have to come in my boat with me and we can try for LIMITS of 4-5lb trout like we caught yesterday!!Man the trout taste great but my favorite is the roe fried up extra crispy!!
Limits of trout
Count me in that number Henry. Headed to the boat show to pass some time, and to remind me of how much I appreciate the boat I have now!
Limits 90% of the time
It is really hard for everyone to limit out 90% of the time. Fish swim everyday so it is real hard to stay on top of fish unless u fish 5 days a week. I haven't fished much so far this year but can I go and catch trout rite now? Yes I can but it may not be a limit. Honestly the 25 trout limit needs to stay. There are trout everywhere to lower the bag limit. Now on the other hand I wouldn't mind seeing the size limit go up to 14 inches. Reason being a 12 inch female trout will spawn twice then first year they are 12 inches. Not saying they will stay 12 inches all year just saying that we would actually have more trout now if they would get a chance to spawn at 12 inches. Just my 2 cents take it what it's worth.

Capt Scott
Why can't someone have an opinion without being bashed and insulted. I personally would not have a problem with a 15 speck limit. Not saying its right or wrong, I just don't need 25 fish for every person onboard. I honesty don't think that reducing the limit from 25 to 15 will have a major impact, but I think it could be a start. I think there are several things that impact the speck population, but will not likely change soon. I'll just continue to keep what I need, and you continue to keep your limit, I REALLY don't have a problem with it. Just MY opinion!
'Sunday 4 O'Clock Forecast: Things are looking better for specks
Informational subject
What a wealth of information! I don't have enough years in to comment one way or the other...but have enjoyed reading every comment!
Great subject - thanks for all the knowledge & information...these kind of articles are my idea of quality!!
Lots of appeals to science and empirical data, and an uncommonly small amount of ideological nonsense. Warms the cockles of my heart. I can legitimately say I learned something. Thank you.
Diversions:More info from an informed source.
Its not just based on my fishing experience, but on research my university group has conducted on the issue. I've included the abstract of a paper we're going to submit to the Journal of Coastal Research soon.

My view is that the status quo cannot continue. The diversion still has potential to be beneficial, but land-building needs to be included, and there are many options for that. A freshwater diversion is not a land-building diversion, and in fact is harmful to that effort.

Abstract below.

This study quantifies the land loss in saline, intermediate, and freshwater wetlands in the vicinity of the Caernarvon freshwater diversion due to the impact of hurricanes in 2005 and 2008. This analysis is performed using data from NOAA’s Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) program, and from the Landsat 5 Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite sensor. Mean water coverage was determined in eleven Areas of Interest throughout the region, and statistical significance Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were calculated for water coverage change before and after the hurricane periods. It is shown that wetland loss is proportionally largest in the freshwater regions near the diversion at statistically significant levels. These results are consistent with other recent studies which postulate that the low salinity marshes near Caernarvon are more vulnerable to hurricanes due to their shallower rooting in organic soil, in contrast to the deep-rooted mineral substrate of saline marsh further east and north from the diversion. An integrated storm surge and wave numerical model shows no wave amplification near the diversion for either hurricane period, confirming that the enhanced wetland loss near Caernarvon is related to soil issues.
to the best of my knowlege about fresh water diversions the only ''real'' reasons they are done is to improve the oyster harvests but they use a whole lot of other baloney excuses to justify why they do them such as rebuilding marsh lands yet all too often they just flood areas with fresh water in such excesses that it hurts the environment it is supposed to be helping.

the main problem is the idiots in charge of doing these projects often dont know or care what the results of what they do has on the long term health of the area.

as far as the status quo has to change, well as far as limits and fish regulations go until a direct proven drop in spawn survival rates and a reduction in the fish population (not just trophy specks) then no change in regulation is needed or should EVER be considered.

now if you are talking about the status quo as far as fresh water diversions and such then yes i agree something needs to be done and someone more intelligent needs to be in charge of decission making as far as managing how those operate.
informed source=Dr. Spot
I'm the 'informed source' :) We've been studying this for several years, and not only have done the statistical analysis of the satellite data, but conducted interviews and tours with a Delacroix commercial fishermen (LSM pseudoname 'Luckyman'). The tours and interviews are on videotape. LSU did the storm surge and wave modeling.

Its not something I take lightly. I desperately want to see the wetlands prosper and new delta's grown off the river. Caernarvon was designed to push the saltwater back and oscillate to match river levels. They confused the situation by hinting it would regrow marsh as well.

After 22 years, its clear that in fact erosion has accelerated in the area for reasons discussed elsewhere in this forum. In addition, while bass, redfish, gators, and crabs have flourished, but other species may be harmed (like specs). Irregardless, I think we could all accept the changes if land was being built, but its not and in fact land loss is accelerating.

All most of us are asking is that real measures be taken to rebuild land before its too late, and to honestly assess whether Caernarvon can really assist in that effort without causing more land loss. Studies on its impact on the speckled trout spawn should also be performed.
Here is the original thread.
Capt. Kim
its back, at least for another 24 hours

Latest Columns