LWF discussing changing red/spec regs

[BeastMan]

Randy Pausina, LDWF?s head of fisheries, said commissioners have inquired about the possibility of reducing the speckled trout creel limit from 15 to 10 in the western part of the state to match more conservative regulations recently put in place by Texas, and also the possibility of reducing the minimum size limit for redfish to make fish under 16 inches legal

http://www.louisianasportsman.com/details.php?id=6683

I wish they would quit messing wish it for a few reasons, especially since its 100% reactionary. First, if your estuary is in good shape, don't kill tourism and guides in those areas. My biggest fear is that the pressure drift east towards the areas I fish. If they are worried about Texas pressure in western LA, then make it more expensive for native TX anglers to get a LA license. I'm not for lowering the redfish limit under 16 inches for anywhere. If they change it to 14, they may as well drop the size limits all together.

[BeastMan]

A bunch of guides and regular fisherman on big lake are pissed off, rightfully so http://www.saltycajun.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53890

[SpeckleDawg]

"Social issue"...Do what??

Not much of that makes any sense. I absolutely love smaller slot sized reds, but much smaller than 16" isn't going to have enough meat to make it worth fileting. It's always amazing to me the changes that are made, or at least discussed, without any evidence to back it up.

They really need to just charge the hell out of these out-of-state TX guides if that is their issue.

[Johnson85]

http://www.louisianasportsman.com/details.php?id=6683

I wish they would quit messing wish it for a few reasons, especially since its 100% reactionary. First, if your estuary is in good shape, don't kill tourism and guides in those areas. My biggest fear is that the pressure drift east towards the areas I fish. If they are worried about Texas pressure in western LA, then make it more expensive for native TX anglers to get a LA license. I'm not for lowering the redfish limit under 16 inches for anywhere. If they change it to 14, they may as well drop the size limits all together.

I don't get why there is a slot at all. Whenever we catch redfish, we usually throw back more for being too big than for being too small. Not a huge deal since I'm not crazy about eating them that big, but I don't get the rule. Are the bigger ones particularly important for breeding or something? Is it just about leaving easy fish in the water for charter fishermen to put people on? Or is it the case of a rule being successful where now it could be loosened? Or is my experience that abnormal?.

[SpeckleDawg]

I don't get why there is a slot at all. Whenever we catch redfish, we usually throw back more for being too big than for being too small. Not a huge deal since I'm not crazy about eating them that big, but I don't get the rule. Are the bigger ones particularly important for breeding or something? Is it just about leaving easy fish in the water for charter fishermen to put people on? Or is it the case of a rule being successful where now it could be loosened? Or is my experience that abnormal?.

Yes. The upper end of the slot is set for a reason. That is when most of them reach sexual maturation and move on to spawn. However, the bottom end of the slot doesn't mean much. If you kill one at 10" before it can reproduce or at 18" before it can reproduce, it makes no difference. I would not want any smaller than 16" though as there is not much meat on them at that point.

[BeastMan]

Yes. The upper end of the slot is set for a reason. That is when most of them reach sexual maturation and move on to spawn. However, the bottom end of the slot doesn't mean much. If you kill one at 10" before it can reproduce or at 18" before it can reproduce, it makes no difference. I would not want any smaller than 16" though as there is not much meat on them at that point.

Bingo and that was kind if my point. I like redfish at 16 (wish MS would change from 18) but if you're going to drop it to 14, might as well not have one. The trout issue was much bigger IMO. Why would they change it b/c TX did? The LA fish population is what should make the LA limits, not what TX does.

[BeastMan]

This debate is getting serious in la!!

[PassInterference]

While states are copying each other's policy, can we have a damn gator season here significant enough to peel back the population?

Look at this shit.. http://www.thereznews.com/2014/05/al...-causeway.html

When I was a kid it was hard to see a gator at the reservoir. Now they are ****ing everywhere.

[SpeckleDawg]

Bingo and that was kind if my point. I like redfish at 16 (wish MS would change from 18) but if you're going to drop it to 14, might as well not have one. The trout issue was much bigger IMO. Why would they change it b/c TX did? The LA fish population is what should make the LA limits, not what TX does.

You are correct. The trout issue is definitely bigger. They have no data released to make changes like that. It bothers me to see that, but I don't know a whole lot about the Big Lake/West LA fisheries. I have mixed feelings about trout size limits/slots. I wouldn't complain about only being able to keep 10 trout (in MS, opposed to the current 15), because I have always lived so close that I can go fishing anytime that I want. It would be great to increase the average size of our trout and see more studs caught. We actually have a pretty good number of big trout caught in MS, compared to other coastal states though. That said, my situation has changed and I go about 1/4 as much as I was able to for the last 20 yrs. There's a chance that could get cut to even a 1/4 of that and I need to keep a freezer full of trout or I will lose my mind!

[BeastMan]

I gotcha speck. I think eventually west LA goes to 15 instead of 25. I'll be honest though, we rarely limit that 25 per person anyway. Occasionally we bring in bigger than MS limits though. But the whole 10 or even 5 fish limit (like TX) is ridiculous. The science and not speculation is needed.

[Johnson85]

You are correct. The trout issue is definitely bigger. They have no data released to make changes like that. It bothers me to see that, but I don't know a whole lot about the Big Lake/West LA fisheries. I have mixed feelings about trout size limits/slots. I wouldn't complain about only being able to keep 10 trout (in MS, opposed to the current 15), because I have always lived so close that I can go fishing anytime that I want. It would be great to increase the average size of our trout and see more studs caught. We actually have a pretty good number of big trout caught in MS, compared to other coastal states though. That said, my situation has changed and I go about 1/4 as much as I was able to for the last 20 yrs. There's a chance that could get cut to even a 1/4 of that and I need to keep a freezer full of trout or I will lose my mind!

I'd be fine with Mississippi limit coming down to 10 per person. The people I hear of doing more than that are usually in LA waters anyway. I wish they'd get more granular than that. I think the easier it is to get to a place, the lower the limit should be because usually that means an area gets fished by more people. I know it gets hard to enforce when people bounce from spot to spot, but they could at least do a 10 or five trout limit for north of the bridges or even better, with 1 mile of the beach. Enforce it like they do people coming back from LA waters. If you move from a higher limit to a lower limit area and that puts you over the limit, you have to come directly in without stopping to fish anymore.