# Is this how we want to portray ourselves??



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

This was a inshore charter trip not from our area but it does give a graphic display of wanton desruction. They caught their limit of fish and itlooks like many are on the small end of the scale. How can this be justified? I hope none of it was wasted. Is this the image that we want to give of ourselves as recreational anglers?? I guess it's good advertisement for the inshore charter guy but I still think it is a waste of resources.

Kim


----------



## User6882 (Feb 4, 2009)

this cant be justified first of all.. it pisses me off how theres sime jerk offs that try to ruin something for everybody :banghead

what could somebody possibly do with this much fish? that is enough to feed an entire neighborhood


----------



## Travis Gill (Oct 6, 2007)

Im goin to guess that in LA. That is doin nothing to the resource over there thousand and thousand of trout are killed by inshore guides everday and its still the best fishery in the world.


----------



## -=Desperado=- (Jun 19, 2009)

brandon you just jump on whatever bandwagon seems fit at the time huh?If they was within there limits who cares.It looks more than obvious there IS NO SHORTAGE of whatever trash fish they have laying on that table.dry your tears and book your charter with that captian because he can obviously put you on em


----------



## 60hertz (Oct 1, 2007)

> *Freespool (12/1/2009)*Im goin to guess that in LA. That is doin nothing to the resource over there thousand and thousand of trout are killed by inshore guides everday and its still the best fishery in the world.




Yup. It is amazing, but their fishery can support this. 



Us? 



We are much more limited in our resources so we can't catch and keep this kind of haul.



Mississippi is much of the same - I grew up there and can remember hauls like this all of the time.


----------



## Splittine (Nov 24, 2007)

> *BigBrandon (12/1/2009)*this cant be justified first of all.. it pisses me off how theres sime jerk offs that try to ruin something for everybody :banghead
> 
> what could somebody possibly do with this much fish? that is enough to feed an entire neighborhood


Who the hell are you to judge someone if they are within the bag and lenght limits. Do you only keep 1 snapper instead when you can legally keep 2.


----------



## Capt. Alex Pinney (Jan 23, 2008)

good for them guys. you dont know , that may be the only time those guys ever got to saltwater fish and catch trout. if they were legal then quit complaining. would i keep that many ? no , but only cause im not going to clean them. like travis said , thats in LA and they have been doing it for years . once again awesome catch .


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

> *Freespool (12/1/2009)*Im goin to guess that in LA. That is doin nothing to the resource over there thousand and thousand of trout are killed by inshore guides everday and its still the best fishery in the world.


I agree... there are 3 slot reds and a big mess of trout. I don't know if you've ever driven to Venice. It's a HUGE watershed from a huge river (second or third largest in the world I think by water flow).

I would not do it myself, heck I'd limit it to 10 fish a piece, but a limit is a limit is a limit. I have doubts about fish management... I really do, but this is an EXCEPTIONAL fishery. I'm looking forward to someday fish it. 

But yeah, sometimes the swinging lever goes too far either way... our Snapper season is certainly too short, and I'd agree their trout limits are too high.

But you gotta see it to believe it...

Jim


----------



## FishinFool (Oct 2, 2007)

In Louisiana the legal size limit for trout is 12" and over, the bag limit is 25 per angler per day. Redfish legal size limit is 16" to 28", the bag limit is 5 per angler per day. One can even be over 28".

The resourceCAN handle the recreational fishing. Not every trip results in a limit of fish. A limit of fish is a great day of fishing. That's why they took the pictures.

Stop being such cry babies and assholes about it! 

And YES, we can eat that much fish! Get over it and eat your mullet!!! :sick


----------



## jspooney (Oct 2, 2007)

Used to live in Buras, La just before Venice and I've done that numerous times. I can think of a ton of reasons to keep that many fish. Big family, family reunion, office fish fry, block party, Saints win the Superbowl, aunt sally's funeral, like to fry fish weekly but can't fish weekly, etc...etc... If it is legal you and I have no right to throw them under the bus.


----------



## jspooney (Oct 2, 2007)

almost forgot the most important reason......



.....to feed the entire neighborhood. 



I LOVE to give fish away.


----------



## User6882 (Feb 4, 2009)

i sure love how i voice my opinion and get flammed by several people within 10 minutes.. its my opinion and nothings gona change that

will i thought we got civil for a while but i guess you cant keep going on a straight path for too long can ya?


----------



## Splittine (Nov 24, 2007)

> *BigBrandon (12/1/2009)*i sure love how i voice my opinion and get flammed by several people within 10 minutes.. its my opinion and nothings gona change that
> 
> will i thought we got civil for a while but i guess you cant keep going on a straight path for too long can ya?


Your going to call these guys "Jerk Offs" when they are within their RIGHTS and your going to complain because its not civil.


----------



## sealark (Sep 27, 2007)

> *BigBrandon (12/1/2009)*i sure love how i voice my opinion and get flammed by several people within 10 minutes.. its my opinion and nothings gona change that
> 
> will i thought we got civil for a while but i guess you cant keep going on a straight path for too long can ya?


Damn, Brandonyesterday you were inquiring on how to get a commercial license.:doh:doh


----------



## jspooney (Oct 2, 2007)

Wasn't my intention to flame...just answering your question



"what could somebody possibly do with this much fish? that is enough to feed an entire neighborhood"



to explain why the guys may not be "jerk offs that try to ruin something for everybody"



You can have an opinion, sail on.


----------



## -=Desperado=- (Jun 19, 2009)

> *BigBrandon (12/1/2009)*i sure love how i voice my opinion and get flammed by several people within 10 minutes.. its my opinion and nothings gona change that
> 
> will i thought we got civil for a while but i guess you cant keep going on a straight path for too long can ya?


never realized i was on a "right path"toned down yes but im still me.Your opinions here are alot like others.they seem to follow suit or go with the flow of what the rest of the class is doing.grow a set and be yourself


----------



## Travis Gill (Oct 6, 2007)

> *BigBrandon (12/1/2009)*i sure love how i voice my opinion and get flammed by several people within 10 minutes.. its my opinion and nothings gona change that
> 
> will i thought we got civil for a while but i guess you cant keep going on a straight path for too long can ya?


Youc an voice your opinion all you want and doesnt mean its right. Beofore you go flaming someone for keeping fish within their limits maybe you should know a littel bit about the resource its coming from. Have you trout fished in louisiana? Its no big deal to go catch 100 or more fish in a morning


----------



## nb&twil (Oct 2, 2007)

I don't understand how these rec fishermen's intent is questioned. People ask "what could they possibly do with that amount of fish?" or "That could feed an entire neighborhood!" Of couse it can, and it just might. Maybe someone wants to have a fish fry to celebrate something, or a memorial type thing, or whatever the heck they choose. They're within the legal limits to keep that much fish, why not keep that many? I promise you that much fish is very easy to get rid of (not wasted, but used or given to people who would LOVE to have it). Same thing with people complaining about how many deer someone kills... It's easy to go through a lot of meat if you don't want to buy so much fish/beef/chicken from WallyWorld. I know that I could personally go through A LOT of fish at a time when we get a lot of family/friends together. Then, on top of all those legitimate arguments to the questions, how about a vacuum sealer and freezer?!?! Some peopel can't fish any time they want to and get one or two cracks at it per year. If your family likes fish, it is not hard AT ALL to go through that much trout over a period of time.


----------



## King Crab (Dec 28, 2008)

Oh its horrible to catch & keep that many fish! But its ok to go to Joe Patti's & buy that much fish. Louisianna has plenty of redfish & trout, Why? Because our dumbasses release them! :doh


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

I've fished LA a lot about 15 - 20 years ago when I was stationed there. I can definitely say that the fish we caught were bigger. If you fillet them small trout it's about equal to two slices of bologna. I can understand the commercial guys defending useless slaughter or our fisheries because that's how they define a good trip and advertise for customers. Try this sometime, go to Orange Beach on a summer weekend evening and you can probably get a cooler full of ERS, YFT and BFT from people giving it away in the parking lots or watch them throw it in the trash. Then the crews on the boats take a haul home as well because the customers don't want the fish. That my friends is not how you manage a sustainable fishery. The very same people who defend the slaughter because it's the limit and legal will be the first people to bitch when bag limits and seasons are shortened or even canceled. There is a difference between taking what you need, what you can use and what looks good in pictures. If we don't fish responsibly now, it won't be long before we can't fish at all. Just look at the Red Snapper and Amberjack situation that we find ourselves in now. The fishing of 40 years ago is gone and we'll never see the likes of it again because of ego and greed.



Kim


----------



## SUNDAY-FUNDAY (Apr 17, 2008)

trust me they didnt put a dent on the LA fishery. we fish over there exclusively (its only an 18 mile run by boat from long beach MS) and if we fish 6 guys "wading" and come home with less that 100 trout its considered it a bad haul. normally we release all but a few reds because we dont feel like cleaning them. the best day we had last year was catching trout for a cookout- 8 guys with 198 trout by 1:30pm. thought we had 200:doh:banghead:doh:banghead most of the guides over there (and there are HUNDREDS of them) limit everytime they go out. and they dont even scratch the surface of the amount of trout over there.


----------



## bonita dan (Oct 3, 2007)

Looks to me like a nice legal haul from LA. :hungry


----------



## cbigcarl (May 28, 2009)

I don't see the big problem with this if all fish were in the legal limits. In todays economy people can only afford to take a few trips fishing and they need to maxamize their catch to put the same amount of fish in the freezer. I have been fishing in this area for over 15 years and have never seen the abundance of fish in the bay and offshore. I take one offshore charter each year to catch tuna and swordfish. I also fish the bay and mainly close to shore.


----------



## ammo angler (Oct 21, 2007)

Amazing comparisons infish limits between local states.Its funny how we justify harvesting so many fish by quoting the local laws. Yet here in Florida we piss and moan about our laws which are intended to mirror/sustain (which ever way you look at it)the incredible fisherieswhich lie just down the road. To behonest with you I could care less what LA does with there fish stocks.But I do care about Florida, at least here in the northwest. Great bag of fish! I imagine there egos are pegged out. I would bet my Xmas stocking that those fish do not land up in the community, but gather freezer burn over the comming months.

Rich

26 year vet


----------



## Death From Above (Sep 28, 2007)

> *Kim (12/1/2009)*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's asshole opinionslike this that cause folks (including myself) to not post reports or pics onthis forumanymore. These guyswere well within their rights (andLA laws) to keep those fish. Who are you to judge them? I would bet your motive for this post is more jelousy than concern about "wanton destruction" of resources. I'm sure none of the fish in that picture were wasted and even if they were it's none of your business.


----------



## chad403 (Apr 20, 2008)

I bet you he would catch his limit in snapper grouper trigger and wouldnt think twice about it.


----------



## jspooney (Oct 2, 2007)

> *Kim (12/1/2009)* There is a difference between taking what you need, what you can use and what looks good in pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> Kim




Precisely! My point is that you do not know the answers to these questions because you only see a picture. You can't know their motives. To keep the fish just for a picture? Yes, wanton destruction and waste. To keep to eat? Perfectly acceptable catch. Not my call or anyone else's.


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

If they are wasted that's everyone's business. Historically if you look at our fisheries there is one common denominator. At some point the fishery becomes unsustainable and it forces the closure of that fishery. Look what happened with the drift netters, long liners etc. Ten years ago it was tough to catch a Swordfish, after a closure to long liners for ten years we can now go out and catch one in the daytime!! Virtually every reef species that we target is being regulated out of our coolers a little more every year. Face the facts, we can not expect to take the maximum limits forever and maintain a sustainable marine resource. I love to fish, but as for myself I will only take what I need and the rest I release for the next guy to take a shot at. I don't keep the minimum size fish either if they can be released with a good chance of survival, next year they will be a bigger. All I'm saying is that we should try and be good stewards of our resources. 





Kim


----------



## jigslinger (Sep 30, 2007)

LOUISIANA, SPORTSMAN'S PARADISE!

There ain't but one thing wrong with this picture as far as I'm concerned and that is I'M NOT IN IT! Congrats to whoever it is and I hope they did it again the next day. PETA is looking for members you bunch of crybaby do gooders. Give me a f'n break.


----------



## -=Desperado=- (Jun 19, 2009)

> *Kim (12/1/2009)*If they are wasted that's everyone's business. Historically if you look at our fisheries there is one common denominator. At some point the fishery becomes unsustainable and it forces the closure of that fishery. Look what happened with the drift netters, long liners etc. Ten years ago it was tough to catch a Swordfish, after a closure to long liners for ten years we can now go out and catch one in the daytime!! Virtually every reef species that we target is being regulated out of our coolers a little more every year. Face the facts, we can not expect to take the maximum limits forever and maintain a sustainable marine resource. I love to fish, but as for myself I will only take what I need and the rest I release for the next guy to take a shot at. I don't keep the minimum size fish either if they can be released with a good chance of survival, next year they will be a bigger. All I'm saying is that we should try and be good stewards of our resources.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if they wanted to take them home and use em for ferterlizer its there business.the law says 25 per person for whatever reason they have.i dont believe in killing blue marlin but if someone correctly measures the fish they are within there rights.this is the worst forum to complain about folks keeping there limits.may i suggest a more user friendly blog to post your complaint

http://blog.peta.org/


----------



## Marine Scout (Nov 18, 2007)

Heck, that's a nice mess of fish but I wouldn't call it excessive. I caught 83 fish mostly trout some mullet and croaker at the Garcon and 3MB in one day. I didn't think it was excessive and certainly wasn't wasteful ... fed my family very well!! I wish someone would organize a catfish rodeo to take out some of the cats all over the place. Anyway, just thought I would add my 2 cents before inflation destroys them.


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

It's not a complaint, just pointing out something. A perceived image can and does at times lead to a negative impression. That's the last thing that we as recreational anglers need. Right now the fight for the right to fish is being waged. That fight is bigger than any of us or our own personal opinions because the outcome will determine the future of recreational fishing. I may look at a picture and think to myself "damn what a waste of fish". Now if they had a caption "this is what we caught for our fish fry", that would give a whole different connotation to the picture. In today's PC world it probably would be advantageous for us to avoid putting ourselves in what can be considered a negative limelight. There is probably some nutcase from PETA or some other anti-fishing group collecting our pictures of our limited out catches off the internet and they are going to compile all that into something that goes into a Bill that will be passed by the people we elected to represent us, that is going to restrict and limit our options to fish for recreation. All I'm trying to say is let's not give them ammunition that we will be shot with. Why not show a positive public image of ourselves? Why not show that we are stewards of our fisheries by example? Why not be anglers that enjoy the fruits of our sport while at the same time practicing moderate conservation of resources?



Kim


----------



## konz (Oct 1, 2007)

So when is the fish fry?

Seriously if they are legal there isn't much to say. When I see that picture I see a couple of guys that had a good time. 

Oh and those trout will fry up whole just fine!


----------



## Travis Gill (Oct 6, 2007)

The only thing I see wrong is they could have added a couple more redfish


----------



## TOBO (Oct 3, 2007)

Hate to say it ( not really) but that is exactly how I want to be portrayed. Anyone upfor a trip?Maybe they are inviting the neighborhood over.


----------



## jjam (Dec 9, 2007)

quote]*jigslinger (12/1/2009)*LOUISIANA, SPORTSMAN'S PARADISE! 

There ain't but one thing wrong with this picture as far as I'm concerned and that is I'M NOT IN IT! Congrats to whoever it is and I hope they did it again the next day.[/quote] 

I agree! 

Grew up in Lafishing out of Empire, just north of Buras and although dad couldn't fish very often we made the most ofeach trip and packed our freezer with filetsthat fed our family of six many meals til gone... I would get excited when I saw the freezer emptyanticipating making more groceries....LOLand I still believe nothing wrong with that in La. 

My La buddies send reports back to me oftentelling me the fish stocks are healthier thanmany years ago..Severalreasons for thisbut oneI believe was the water diversion project back in the 90's that has done wonders for the upper marsh system.

I haven't fished La in a few years now but the last time I fished out of Myrtle Grove which is just a few miles south of Belle Chasemy buddy and Ireleased 100+ specs usingartificial Cocahoe Minnows under a cork or just throw to the grass marshand free line...Fish on every time...

I can understand how some who haven't fishLa may see it differently..and you definitely are entitled to your opinion. But in La, it'smore of a culture way of feeding families for some...just look at the cuisine we have...so many different recipes whencooking our seafood...

I'm glad Florida doesn't harvest crawfish or I'd be considered a down right outlaw cause we take several hunder pounds at a time..LOL

Jimmy


----------



## angus_cow_doctor (Apr 13, 2009)

I think it is commendable that there is still a state that allows its residents to use the natural resources. I certainly feel like the state of Florida is systematically bowing to pressure from the feds and the limits are decreasing by the year. Meanwhile, the costs of boat ownership, fishing tackle, and license requirements never stop increasing. Pretty soon, all our children will think the only place to get fish is at captain D's. And we will all be part of the problem because we let it happen. Partly by comments like the ones starting this thread.

Personally, I take pride in feeding my family things that I can harvest from natural resources MYSELF. When I sent home my family from Thanksgiving at my house, they ALL had bags of fresh mingo snapper fillets, and I sent my brother home with several bags of frozen fillet as well (he has 3 kids, and no time/money to fish).

Believe me, no fish goes to waste at my house. I certainly am not going to tell someone else they are wrong for keeping their limit. More power to them.


----------



## jjam (Dec 9, 2007)

> *angus_cow_doctor (12/1/2009)* When I sent home my family from Thanksgiving at my house, they ALL had bags of fresh mingo snapper fillets, and I sent my brother home with several bags of frozen fillet as well (he has 3 kids, and no time/money to fish)


Sounds like amingo grocery trip in the near future may be necessary:hungry

Way to go sharing with family...nothing wrong with that either...

Jimmy


----------



## NavySnooker (Sep 10, 2008)

> *Kim (12/1/2009)*It's not a complaint, just pointing out something. A perceived image can and does at times lead to a negative impression. That's the last thing that we as recreational anglers need. Right now the fight for the right to fish is being waged. That fight is bigger than any of us or our own personal opinions because the outcome will determine the future of recreational fishing. I may look at a picture and think to myself "damn what a waste of fish". Now if they had a caption "this is what we caught for our fish fry", that would give a whole different connotation to the picture. In today's PC world it probably would be advantageous for us to avoid putting ourselves in what can be considered a negative limelight. There is probably some nutcase from PETA or some other anti-fishing group collecting our pictures of our limited out catches off the internet and they are going to compile all that into something that goes into a Bill that will be passed by the people we elected to represent us, that is going to restrict and limit our options to fish for recreation. All I'm trying to say is let's not give them ammunition that we will be shot with. Why not show a positive public image of ourselves? Why not show that we are stewards of our fisheries by example? Why not be anglers that enjoy the fruits of our sport while at the same time practicing moderate conservation of resources?
> 
> Kim


WOW!! backpeddling are we? talking smack about being "PC" but that's all you're doing pal!! let's save the tree hugging for the hippies!! if i'm within my legal limit, I'm gonna kill whatever's in my path.. you gonna get on my a$$ next for killing my limit in ducks every day of the season??


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

I don't have a crystal ball for fishing but I do think about the future and how much recreational fishing will be in it. I support by membership dues and donation to fight for the rights of recreational anglers in the here and now as well as in the future. Next year there will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the proposed 30 day season and one Red Snapper a day. Throw on top of that the Amberjack season which is still in limbo because the numbers for 09 won't be in until early 10. Over fished commercially in 08 by almost 10 %, probably about the same for 09. All of that over the TAC is going to be taken off the top of the 2010 TAC once the numbers are crunched. We will have a shorter AJ season, same as this year's Grouper reductions. What's going to happen is that we will target other species and in few years the same thing will happen with them. 



We can't cry bad data every time there is a legislative change to regulate our fisheries. At some point all of us will have to pony up and become better stewards of our resources because if we don't there may not be any. Today the USCG patrols our national waters to run off the fishing fleets from other countries because they have pretty much fished out the waters around their homelands. This should be a warning to us all. We all are entitled to catch our bag limits as entitled by regulation and law. Just because we can does not mean that we should. I try to be a good sportsman, I do bring fish home, I love to eat fresh fish and by choice I keep just what I can consume at home in a few meals. If I'm having a fish fry I may limit out on fish depending on how many people are invited. I used to have the big freezer and kept it packed with fish and venison, not any more and that's my choice. 



Each of us must make our own choices in life and be responsible for them. I think that if we all practiced a little conservation with our catches now, it will make a big difference in the long run. All that I am suggesting is that we all think about the future as well as the present. What good will it do future generations if we decimate our fisheries like other countries have done, none what so ever. The responses to this post almost read like I'm trying to sell shares in PETA or something like that. Believe me I'm not, I support recreational fishing 100%, I believe that the laws and regulations should give recreational angles the maximum benefit of our fishery resources, but I also believe that all of us should be stewards of that resource to ensure that it remains sustainable now and for future generations.



They say a picture is worth a thousand words and it probably is, but the meaning if that thousand words is based on how that picture is perceived. What did I base my initial post on?? I know a lot of guys that are meat fisherman which is not a problem in itself. I had someone ask me this week if I wanted some fish because he had too much and they were starting to get freezer burned. That definitely jaded me on the post and that was the reason I posted in the first place. I told my buddy that if he didn't want freezer burned fish, either eat more fish or take less home. He thought that made sense.



Kim


----------



## jspooney (Oct 2, 2007)

I hear your point, but you are making way too many assumptions based on one picture. Unless you are in the picture or know some "inside story" behind the picture you cannot conclude (or rightfully insinuate) that these guys are portraying a negative image of the recreational fishing community. They did nothing wrong. As you say, it is your choice to not keep your limit (unless you are having a fish fry) so you must extend that same courtesy to others. 



In reality, I don't think this picture does anything to help or to hinder recreational fishing regulations. The regs are seemingly made in a vacuum, void of any data or reason. I say enjoy your more conservative approach and let the rest enjoy their (legal) "whatever" approach. I doubt your gonna get the answer you are looking for on this thread.


----------



## choppedliver (Apr 4, 2009)

How long does it take a trout to grow to that size? So maybe there is 30 pounds of meat there filleted?That's not really a lot of fish. It's a large number of fish, but its a fish that doesnt take long to grow and replenish. One Amberjack or Wahoo or King or Grouper can have more meat than is on that whole table. You gonna make a big deal about that? How long does it take an Amberjack to get to 40 or 50 pounds? It's not that big of a deal I caught 100 white trout last week and every one of those suckers is gonna get eaten. And you know what? It wasn't that much meat filleted. 100 trout is really not that much meat, and judging by the bite, I didn't put a dent in them. And I would bet if every active forum member did the same, there would still be plenty of white trout to go around. Don't be so judgemental. Like everyone said, it's their legal right, they had fun, and you don't have first f'in clue what they are going to do with them. One party with 4 or 5 friends and every single one of those trout would be eaten. Oh, and I guess it's ok for the commercial guys to catch sh*tloads of fish and sell them to you, but it's not ok to catch them for yourself?


----------



## Water Spout II (Feb 26, 2009)

I am all for keeping something you want to eat but that right there is ridiculous for many reasons. 



1. If they want to feed the neighborhood or have an office party, there are cheaper ways to do it than a $700 dollar charter.



2. You can't get anything for filets off of trout that small. I eat trout all the time and fish that small produce nothing as far as meat is concerned. It's better to throw small ones back and keep bigger ones. If not, you don't let the fish go and get in a cycle of killing a ton of tiny trout to get something to eat. 



3. Its funny the people that defend this by saying its "legal." It's legal to haul ass past an anchored boat but I don't do it or run through someone's chum slick but I don't do it. By defending this by stating that its "legal" means you think its ok to do. That means that you trust the state government (state in this case since they were most likely caught in state waters) to make correct bag limits and have no concern that this high bag limit combined with small minimal length might be harmful to fish stocks. If you didn't trust their assesment or were concerned, you wouldn't keep this many fish or defend the keeping of this many fish.



Then, people turn right around and on the other hand bash the national government in regards to red snapper controversy and ignore the fact that the states are following the NMFS's lead and implementing the same bag limits on snapper. It's like saying, I trust the state government to set limits on one species but not another. If an organization is dishonest, its dishonest.I find it hard to believe that the state government would be out to get snapper fisherman but don't give a damn about the trout stocks. Louisiana, where these fish were caught, put their state red snapper bag limits in line with the federal government. So the state can be trusted to set the correct limits for specks but not for red snapper? That doesn't make sense.



That's what I don't get. 



And before people respond with the following, let me address them.



1. Yes I can catch this many fish, I have been to Louisiana a ton of times and done it so I am not jealous. I just don't take home and keep every damn fish. 

2. I am not a liberal bleeding heart peta lover, I kill what I eat but try not to slaughter the hell out of fish just because I can. 

3. I can't say those guys were not going to eat all the fish but if you search this forum, its not that difficult to find where those pics come from and those types of pictures show up a lot. I worked at a marina (remained unnamed) and constantly saw guides bring in this many fish and then tourists try and give them away to dock workers, waiters at the restaurant because they did not want that many, could not take it with them, or didn't know what to do with it. Odds are, a lot of the people that bring home this many trout from a charter do the same thing. Reason I say this, I saw it happen for two summers so nothing would lead me to think otherwise.


----------



## NavySnooker (Sep 10, 2008)

> *BullBoxer (12/2/2009)*I am all for keeping something you want to eat but that right there is ridiculous for many reasons.
> 
> 1. If they want to feed the neighborhood or have an office party, there are cheaper ways to do it than a $700 dollar charter.
> 
> ...


----------



## jspooney (Oct 2, 2007)

problem with your logic on point number 3...



Snapper and trout are totally different species of fish. They are governed differently by different organizations.


----------



## NavySnooker (Sep 10, 2008)

> *jspooney (12/2/2009)*problem with your logic on point number 3...
> 
> Snapper and trout are totally different species of fish. They are governed differently by different organizations.


MY logic, or his?!?!? i'm bloody confused


----------



## jspooney (Oct 2, 2007)

Sorry. His.


----------



## jspooney (Oct 2, 2007)

Navy, you don't have a point number 3.


----------



## NavySnooker (Sep 10, 2008)

i figured so, but after 5 beers, one can get a bit confused LOL... this thread is going nowhere but down anyway, I'm fixin to hit the sack..


----------



## Water Spout II (Feb 26, 2009)

State's regulate state limits. Louisiana chose to follow the federal limits. Their state limits are the same as federal limits.


----------



## Water Spout II (Feb 26, 2009)

That little face throwing up though is pretty funny. It made me laugh.


----------



## choppedliver (Apr 4, 2009)

> *BullBoxer (12/2/2009)*
> 
> 3. Its funny the people that defend this by saying its "legal." It's legal to haul ass past an anchored boat but I don't do it or run through someone's chum slick but I don't do it. By defending this by stating that its "legal" means you think its ok to do. That means that you trust the state government (state in this case since they were most likely caught in state waters) to make correct bag limits and have no concern that this high bag limit combined with small minimal length might be harmful to fish stocks. If you didn't trust their assesment or were concerned, you wouldn't keep this many fish or defend the keeping of this many fish.


 Since keeping them is wrong according to you, I guess we should ignore what the law says and ask you next time? Who is the judge and jury? I will abide by the law, whether it's keeping twoRed Snapper or Keepinga pile of trout.I shouldn't feel guilty for doing what thelaw says I can. 




> Then, people turn right around and on the other hand bash the national government in regards to red snapper controversy and ignore the fact that the states are following the NMFS's lead and implementing the same bag limits on snapper. It's like saying, I trust the state government to set limits on one species but not another. If an organization is dishonest, its dishonest.I find it hard to believe that the state government would be out to get snapper fisherman but don't give a damn about the trout stocks. Louisiana, where these fish were caught, put their state red snapper bag limits in line with the federal government. So the state can be trusted to set the correct limits for specks but not for red snapper? That doesn't make sense.


This is just plain moronic. Some of thegovernment decisionsmake sense, some don't. Simple as that.

I don't know what the Red Snapper is like in Louisiana, but there is NO shortage here. There is also no Shortage of TROUT here. That's why I SUPPORT the trout limit and DONT support the Snapper limit. And if there is a shortage, then the commecial people shouldnt be selling them, because I can't catch them and they shouldnt either. Your arguments have no validity. Sorry try again. If Red Snapper are endangered in BFE, Florida, then restrict them there don't shut them down where they are thriving.


----------



## NavySnooker (Sep 10, 2008)

yeah, my bad boss, but thinkin about those nasty worms just about made me puke.. it always broke my heart to fillet a big breeder trout and see those worms.. i just let 'em go now.. fun as hell on topwater for sure!!


----------



## Water Spout II (Feb 26, 2009)

I agree that if recreational anglers can't catch them, commercial should not either. I am all for recreational anglers because I am one.



I am just pointing out that in my opinion, it is ridiculous to keep 100 small trout. I am not against keeping and eating fish. I do it. But I do think that its dumb to just keep a ton of fish because you can, especially when they are small as hell and you can't get any meat off of them....which is the point of keeping them. 



I think my points are very valid. You may not and that is fine too. I always learn more about topics by discussing them with folks and seeing others points of view. adios fellers


----------



## choppedliver (Apr 4, 2009)

> *BullBoxer (12/2/2009)*I agree that if recreational anglers can't catch them, commercial should not either. I am all for recreational anglers because I am one.
> 
> I am just pointing out that in my opinion, it is ridiculous to keep 100 small trout. I am not against keeping and eating fish. I do it. But I do think that its dumb to just keep a ton of fish because you can, especially when they are small as hell and you can't get any meat off of them....which is the point of keeping them.
> 
> I think my points are very valid. You may not and that is fine too. I always learn more about topics by discussing them with folks and seeing others points of view. adios fellers


If they are small, but within limits, thats obviously a judgement call. I personally do not want to mess with a ton of small fish, but I will pan fry a few small ones to round out a good meal


----------



## -=Desperado=- (Jun 19, 2009)




----------



## Orion45 (Jun 26, 2008)

<P align=left>Sometimes a bit of background included with a photo will go a long way towards preventing misconceptions. Some interesting facts about the Louisiana speckled trout fishery from the *Louisiana Sea Grant*. Note their reasoning for size limit. It was released in 2003 but the reasoning is still current. I have included the proposed 2010 Louisiana speckled trout limits at the end of the post. Apparently, Louisianais successfully managing their speckled trout fishery because the limits have not changed. Bottom line: The speckled trout fishery is alive and well, the for-hire guides are happy, andthe recreational anglers are benefiting.  If only the federal government would adopt a similar rational approach towards the "nearly extinct" red snapper fishery.... :banghead<P align=left>About Louisiana Sea Grant: <P align=left>*Louisiana's fisheries touch the people of Louisiana every day, providing food, recreation, and employment to all ages in all parts of the state. Through this website, all of Louisiana's fishermen, women and children can find information about Louisiana's **species**, **gear**, **regulations**, and **the environment** that support them. Louisiana Sea Grant specialists and agents from the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center are dedicated to sustaining these fisheries and their environments.*<P align=left>http://www.seagrantfish.lsu.edu/about/index.html<P align=center><P align=center>*SPECKLED TROUT FACTS
**by Jerald Horst*
(Revised June 2003)<BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE>

The spotted seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus, or as we call it in Louisiana, the speckled trout, is one of the most popular saltwater fish in the state. Besides being popular in many south Louisiana restaurants, it is targeted by more recreational fishermen than any other saltwater fish. In the last 10 years, recreational fishermen have harvested an average of 6,578,061 speckled trout from Louisiana waters annually ? this is more than 93% of the combined recreational/commercial harvest. The best year for recreational landings was 2000 with a take of 9,615,942 specks and the poorest year was 1990, the year after the great freeze, with 2,679,167 landings.

Although the commercial catch had been regulated by minimum sizes and gear restrictions, the recreational fishery was unregulated until 1977, when a combined daily limit of 50 was placed on speckled trout and redfish. In 1984 the possession limit was reduced to the daily limit, and a new saltwater fishing license was required. This was followed by a 12-inch minimum size (14- inch commercial) in 1987 and the recreational limit was reduced to 25 in 1988. Speckled trout management and biology remain an area of high public interest. Some of the most commonly asked questions on the subject are answered below.

*Why do we have a 12-inch minimum size on speckled trout? *
A minimum size of 12 inches allows most fish to spawn at least once before reaching harvestable size. All of the males and more than 75% of the females are sexually mature at 12 inches long. The minimum size also increases the overall yield of the fishery. Each year since the regulation went into effect, the average size of recreationally caught specks has been more than 13 inches. Before the minimum size requirement, the average size of recreationally taken specks was as low as 10 inches.

*Why don?t we have a larger minimum size, such as 14 inches?*
Speckled trout have sex-specific growth and survival rates. Males grow slower and don?t grow as large as females. In Louisiana, males do not reach a size of 14 inches until their third or fourth years. Since few specks live beyond age 5, and more than 70% of the total speckled trout population is age 3 or younger, very few males grow to larger sizes. This would result in a loss of recreational opportunity to harvest the males and could possibly cause a shift of harvest pressure to females.

*How many of the undersized, released speckled trout really survive?*
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.

*Why don?t we close the season during spawning time?* 
Speckled trout exhibit a protracted spawning season, lasting from April to September. Females ready to spawn have even been recorded in March and October. Closing the season during spawning would result in a 5 to 7 month closure. Also, from a biological perspective, any removal of a female fish from a population has the same impact. Regardless of whether the fish is caught 8 months or 8 days before it spawns, the result is the removal of the fish and all of her future offspring. Since there is little biological advantage to such a measure and since the closure would take place during the months of best fishing weather and most intense recreational activity, the negatives outweigh the possible benefits.

*Why can?t I catch more big trout?
*Aside from the fact that there are many more small trout than large ones, large speckled trout are very specialized creatures. Large trout are not as widely distributed as small trout. The largest trout are taken in the spring, next largest in winter, then fall and summer, out in the Gulf. Large but lesser sized trout are taken near beaches, lesser still in lakes and bays, and the smallest usually in the marsh. Anglers prefer to fish for specks in summer and the second preference is fall. Fishing is most intense in sheltered inside waters. More big trout are caught in spring because they move into shallow beach and bay habitats at that time for their first spawn of the season. The rest of the summer and early fall, the larger trout tend to stay in cooler Gulf waters and only periodically enter beach and bay habitats for subsequent spawns. Many of the large fish winter offshore, with a few wintering in the interior marshes, where they are very sluggish. 

Large trout also have very different food habits than school trout. Small trout eat large amounts of shrimp and other crustaceans. As trout become larger, their diet shifts toward fish, the larger, the better. Studies in Texas and Mississippi show that really big trout strongly prefer to feed on mullets; a large trout will find the largest mullet it can handle and try to swallow it. Often the mullet is half or two-thirds as large as the trout. The key to catching large trout is to fish where they are and use big baits.

*What is the future of recreational speckled trout fishing? *
The future of the fishery depends on two factors: good habitat and good management. If our coastal areas remain unpolluted and coastal erosion is controlled, management will be the key. Very few more speckled trout can be produced from other sources. If the entire commercial speckled trout harvest were divided up equally among Louisiana?s over 400 thousand recreational anglers, each sport fisherman would get less than one fish per person per year. Research has also shown that very few speckled trout appear in shrimp trawl bycatch. This means that gains and losses will be the result of management within the recreational fishery. Management priorities, as set by recreational leadership, will determine whether the fishery is managed for liberal limits and smaller fish or restrictive creel limits and larger fish. 

http://www.seagrantfish.lsu.edu/resources/factsheets/speckledtrout.htm

2010 Louisiana speckled trout limits (draft):

*Seatrout, Spotted (Speckled Trout)*: 12 inches minimum total length. 25 fish per person daily bag limit. *EXCEPT*: 15 fish daily take and possession limit, with no more than two spotted seatrout exceeding 25 inches total length, regardless of where taken, in a defined area of Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes in southwestern Louisiana. 
<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman">
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman">W<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman">ithin the area described here, of the daily take and possession limit of *15 *spotted seatrout, no person <SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman">shall possess, regardless of where taken, more than two spotted seatrout exceeding 25 inches total length, <SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman">which are considered part of the daily bag and possession limit. These regulations apply to the area of the <SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman">state, including coastal territorial waters, south of Interstate 10 from its junction at the Texas-Louisiana <SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman">boundary eastward to its junction with Louisiana Highway 171, south to Highway 14, and then south to <SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman">Holmwood, and then south on Highway 27 through Gibbstown south to Louisiana Highway 82 at Creole <SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman">and south on Highway 82 to Oak Grove and then due south to the western shore of the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1lace><st1laceName><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman">Mermentau</st1laceName><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman"> <st1laceType><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman">River</st1laceType></st1lace><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman">, <SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman">following this shoreline south to the junction with the <st1lace><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman">Gulf of Mexico</st1lace><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman">, and then due south to the limit of the state territorial sea.<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman"><P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-layout-grid-align: none"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times-Roman; mso-bidi-font-family: Times-Roman">http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/fishing/recreational/saltwater/regulations/
</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>


----------



## Deep Jiggin (Apr 14, 2008)

judge not least you be judged.


----------



## Splittine (Nov 24, 2007)

Hey Kim you better tighten up, they caught those trout off your dock. Better get the dog and sprinkler set up on the end of the dock to run them off.


----------



## Crappie1962 (Oct 2, 2007)

Kim do u know for a fact that this group always has a catch like this?

For all you know this could be all they have caught in a few weeks or months. So in future you should not judge people by one posting. People like you are why fishing will soon be a past time. 

God put fish in the oceans and rivers for us to eat so we are gonna eat what he provides for us. And letpeople just wonder why we will continue to have them to eat.

Ye should mind ur own business .


----------



## reelthrill (Oct 3, 2007)

First of all, it is within the legal limits so I have no problem with it. Secondly; There is a vast amount of fertile water in that area which holds great numbers of fish. I used to fish down there 30 years ago and the fishery has not changed. Good catch guys.


----------



## hjorgan (Sep 30, 2007)

Well I know one thing.... I am taking my kids to LA for a fishing trip this spring.

(Might just keep a few too.....)

Trout are one of my favorite eating fish and if you freeze them correctly, they are really good for a year or so.

Fried up.... taters and onions.... ummm ummmm :hungry


----------



## nextstep (Jun 27, 2008)

i have racked like that in the bay on white trout (usually bigger fish) many times and you can believe they did not go to waste and there were plenty left swimming when i left.


----------



## BWNN (Nov 17, 2009)

I myself have caught fish like that in the Mobile area...many years ago before the age of limits & i must state LIMITED FISH!

Great that they can still have the high limits & as long as the fish dont go to waste, have no problem. That may have been the only trip those guys were able to take all year. Legal, no problem :sleeping...otherwise, shame on them:nonono


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

Everyone knows the old adage about assuming something. Just about every response to this post has been negative and some hostile. This is a forum that Chris has established as a public forum for anglers. My thoughts and opinions are just as pertinent to this site as yours are. The prevailing attitude is like I'm trying to take something from you, believe me, I'm not. I love to fish and try to go as often as I can. I hope that our future generations can enjoy the same recreational advantages that I have had.



Some of you have said things like they can take the limit because it's legal and use the fish for fertilizer and it's none of my business. It is my business because I am part of the recreational angler community and I believe the we should utilize our resources to the maximum extent without waste. Using your legal theme, it's legal to drive 65 miles an hour as posted on the highways, well if it's a downpour rain and you can't see squat you slow down to a safe speed or stop on the side of the road. It's still legal to drive 65 MPH but very dangerous. If you start talking about road conditions that would be something like conservation.



I'm sure that each of you has an opinion about the process of regulating recreational fishing and I'm sure that all of you has complained at least once about restrictions of seasons and bag limits, I know I have. The fix for the whole fishing situation if we rely on State and Federal Government legislation will be drawn out and painful for us all. We are the one that enjoy the sport of recreational fishing and we are the ones that leave our footprint on our fisheries. We can continue to take our limits every time we go fishing and hope that the fishery remains sustainable or we can practice a little conservation to help ensure that it does. 



I'm more concerned about my grand daughter being able to fish with her grandchildren than I am about what my bag limits and season length will be next year. I doubt that the government can guarantee that but I know that if all recreational anglers practiced some conservation of resources by taking just what they can use without waste it would do more to make our fisheries sustainable than what the government has done so far.



Every year the fishing regulations are getting more restrictive and have no doubt in your mind that the year 2010 will be no different. We as recreational anglers pretty much agree that there is a problem, the best way to solve a problem is to become part of the solution



Kim


----------



## Kevdog540 (Aug 7, 2008)

Looks like a great day on the water to me. Limits are there for a reason, meaning you should be able to catcha certain amount of a particular species without detriment to that species. If there trout limits are setby the samepeople that set snapper limits, then they could probably catch 75 fish a piece and not effect the long term population of trout. 

With that said, I've fish plenty of times for trout in the past 15 years and have only gotten into them like that once. It was a blast, and Yes we did eat them all.


----------



## sel1005 (Jan 10, 2008)

I agree, I get totally sick looking at things like this too. But as I read the posts, two points usually come out:

1. if they are within their "legal limits" why should people care?

2. the fishery / capt / whatever, seems to be able to support catches like these

I have a totally different view: are you going to clean and eat all those fish? If not, who cares what the limits are? Or if there are millions of other fish out there that can be caught? Why do you want to kill a bunch of fish you have no intention of eating?

I don't hunt anymore for just this reason. I grew totally sick of seeing "males" (vs men) go out and kill beautiful animals, cut the horns off to mount and leave the body in the woods to rot. 

Or take a hind quarter off for meat and leave the rest of the deer. 

They were within their "legal limit" too, but was that right? 

Hell no, it was wrong, just as wrong as catching dozens of fish you have no intention of eating. You can catch 10 flounder a day in NW FL, buthow many people will realistically eat 10 flounder, or 20 or more? Some folks may do the work, but I would bet 90% just want to catch a lot of fish and could care less about the killing and wastefull practice because they were within the legal limits.

I know posting this on PFF this will not be a popular reply, but so be it. I am not arguing the issues on red snapper or grouper or amberjack limits or closures, my only point is - in my tiny, slow thinking, old fashioned mind - a TRUE SPORTSMAN will not kill more than they need, or plan to eat, regardless of the bag or catch limits.

Just because you can kill something does not make it right.


----------



## FelixH (Sep 28, 2007)

Sure, I wouldn't mind being portrayed as a law-abiding sportsman who is good at his sport and stays within the legal limits.

oh, and an edit to add this:

I grew up over in South LA. Who says the fish will be wasted? We fished a lot when I was growing up, and we always had a good bit of fish in the freezer. We ate more seafood than beef because it was cheaper for us. And anyone who says specs aren't any good after being frozen is doing something wrong in the freezing/thawing process. I've eaten them fresh and frozen almost all my 37 years and you can hardly tell the difference which piece of fish was frozen if done properly.


----------



## markw4321 (Oct 4, 2007)

Interesting debate thatmay be bestconsidered against the backdropof the much larger "court of U.S. population public opinion" versus "was it a legal catch?"

Pretty sure the charter captain has the picture up to document his guide skills and to drum up business in essencemaking the statement with the picture on his charter website to interested fisherman:"Come visit Louisianaand fish with me andI will put you on some fish, Look what these gentlemen caught when they fished with me!" 

There is nothing wrong with that in my mind. 

However, considerthe below type picture thatenvironmental organizations are putting upfor the "court of public opinion" to judge and to raise funds to stop "overfishing". 










I would venture to say that 70%? or more of the current US population has neverbutchered an animal that they themselves have killed. When you take the poor knowledge base thatthe US general population is working from in terms of their individual knowledge of fishery conservation requirements, you can beganto understand whyenvironmental groupscan get the "soccer mom" in suburban Chicagoto pull money out of her purse and give it to the environmental group that says they want to "save our seas" by showing them a picture like the oneabove versus supporting recreational fishing rights.

Kim,

Believe what you are asking would best be described in terms of a military psychological campaignor aMadisonAvenue marketing campaignwhere the minds of the people (US population) are influenced to support recreational fishing. Don't think we will ever get there. The tideturned somewhere 20+years ago "court of U.S. population public opinion" and we are becoming more isolated as a group recreational fisherman)and fighting alosing battle...how long will we last?

Mark W


----------



## choppedliver (Apr 4, 2009)

Kim and SEL1005,

Your opinions are without merit without more information regarding the fishermen in the picture.

We can all agree that you shouldnt keep more than you are going eat, your friends or going to eat, or whatever your plans for. Just dont let them go to waste. This is a no brainer. 

But you have no idea if this is whats happening. You are just assuming they dont have a good reason, and passing judgement upon them. 

Since you don't have this information, you should just keep your "opinion" to yourself as you cannot "portray someone a certain way" without the facts. If these guys arecatching them and letting them rot on the shore, and you know that for a fact then that would "portray them in a negative light". I repeat you do not have this information. What if they take those fish to the homeless shelter and feed a bunch of homeless people? I bet you would eat your f'in hat then! And I would laugh my ass off at what a judgemental a'hole you are being.

As said before, they could be catching 100 fish and thats their only trip this year.Would you get upset if they made 10 trips a year and caught 10 fish each time? It's still 100 fish. Who cares how many trips it takes? 

You have no clue what there intended use is for those fish, so you should really just stop defending yourself with your argument with no merit, just like you did when you told us all you hate us fishing near your dock because it spoils your view then we watch you back peddle for a week straight and defend an undefendable position.

You cannot judge them, as you haveinadequate information. That is not my opinion, that is fact.


----------



## Capt.Eugene (Nov 28, 2008)

> *Chopedliver*
> 
> Please do not support any of the captains or vessels on the list below. They support the SOS plan and intend to lie to you and steal from you so that they can stay fat and happy.
> 
> ...




Practice what preach Sir!


----------



## choppedliver (Apr 4, 2009)

> *Capt.Eugene (12/2/2009)*
> 
> 
> > *Chopedliver*
> ...


I would say to you to do the same thing,Capt Eugee.(Got mine wrong, thought I should return the favor)

We can always count on a quote from Eugene that adds nothing to the discussion and is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.


----------



## Capt.Eugene (Nov 28, 2008)

> *Choppedliver*
> 
> You cannot judge them, as you have inadequate information. That is not my opinion, that is fact.


Sorry I missed a "P" point is still the same you can Judged people but others can't.


----------



## choppedliver (Apr 4, 2009)

Stating facts, is not judging. The sky is blue. Not an opinion, not judging. Its a fact. 

Kim does not have info to back up his opinion. Move along.


----------



## Capt.Eugene (Nov 28, 2008)

> Please do not support any of the captains or vessels on the list below. They support the SOS plan and *intend to lie to you and steal from you *so that they can stay fat and happy.




*intend to lie to you and steal from you* 





I am not asking for your support don't want it. protest it that is fine BUT WHAT MAKES THE STATEMENT OK. 



Were are your facts that make me A Thief and a Lier. answer this and I might move along


----------



## choppedliver (Apr 4, 2009)

> *Capt.Eugene (12/2/2009)*
> 
> 
> > Please do not support any of the captains or vessels on the list below. They support the SOS plan and *intend to lie to you and steal from you *so that they can stay fat and happy.
> ...


Oh so this is about my signature? lol... sorry Eugene, thought you had something relevant to say about this thread. Let's not derail this any further , start a new one, or reply to one of the many threads on here already posted about the SOS plan. My last response to you on this thread as I do not wish to participate furtherin your derailing.


----------



## 69Viking (Oct 30, 2008)

> *choppedliver (12/2/2009)*Kim and SEL1005,
> 
> Your opinions are without merit without more information regarding the fishermen in the picture.
> 
> ...


I've read this post a few times and have to agree with you, this is a pretty stupid post. Kim you are raising a stink why because you are making assumptions based on inadequate information. It's pretty well known now this picture came from LA and these guys were most likely within their legal limits with the fish they caught so quit being a closet PETA supporter by raising such a stink over something you have no clue about. Geez, these guys probably saved up their moneyto make one trip to LA each year to catch their limit on fish to fill their freezers for the year to feed their families and here you are calling them out for doing what,obeying the law, enjoying their fishig trip and taking a picture of their success? 

I can imagine how you would reacted whenI went fishing with my Grandparents whenI was a kid. The limit for Bluegill on the lake we fished was 50 a piece and guess what, everytime we went fishing we caught 150 Bluegills among the 3 of usand then went home and cleaned them and put them in the freezer and fed the whole family for weeks. What a concept, we followed the rules (legal limits in place)and provided food for thewhole family, how is that sowrong and what is wrong if we took a picture of our success? Justplain stupid this post is.


----------



## Deeplines (Sep 28, 2007)

> *Kim (12/2/2009)*
> Some of you have said things like they can take the limit because it's legal and use the fish for fertilizer and it's none of my business. It is my business because I am part of the recreational angler community and I believe the we should utilize our resources to the maximum extent without waste. Using your legal theme, it's legal to drive 65 miles an hour as posted on the highways, well if it's a downpour rain and you can't see squat you slow down to a safe speed or stop on the side of the road. It's still legal to drive 65 MPH but very dangerous. If you start talking about road conditions that would be something like conservation.
> 
> 
> Kim


Just to let you know it is illegal to drive 65 in the conditions you posted. So that arguement doesn't hold water. Was waiting on a LEO to say something but I will. 

This is out of FLORIDA STATUE 316.183

(4)The driver of every vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements of subsection (1), drive at an appropriately reduced speed when: 

(a)Approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing; 

(b)Approaching and going around a curve; 

(c)Approaching a hill crest; 

(d)Traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway; and 

(e)Any special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.



Here is the complete law if you would like to see it on the STATE website. 



http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0316/SEC183.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0316->Section%20183


----------



## Water Spout II (Feb 26, 2009)

Look, I eat fish a lot but can we please get over the whole "they were doing this to feed their families" thing. 



Charters cost in the ballpark of $700 plus plus tip plus lodging plus gas to drive down there. Acting like these people are so poor they can't get food and are keeping all these fish to feed themselves and their families is a joke. You can get the same amount of meat in bubba burgers or hot dogs from the grocery store for nothing compared to the cost of going and catching fish. If you can go pay for a charter, you can feed your family. Its not like they are starving and their only source of food is small ass Louisiana trout.


----------



## Capt.Eugene (Nov 28, 2008)

> *choppedliver (12/2/2009)*
> 
> 
> > *Capt.Eugene (12/2/2009)*
> ...




Actually it is relevant (altho i don't agree with Kim on all subjects) this is a good point made even tho it is legal is it MORALY CORRECT you may over fish a species and end up with more plan's to fix the problem 



Kim will say I told you so. 



And I'll say we tried to fix it, 



And you'll say Your a lier And a thief and you cant judge me I did not Break the Law.



Question here is: Is it morally correct "NO"



Is it legal "YES"


----------



## FelixH (Sep 28, 2007)

> *BullBoxer (12/2/2009)*Look, I eat fish a lot but can we please get over the whole "they were doing this to feed their families" thing.
> 
> Charters cost in the ballpark of $700 plus plus tip plus lodging plus gas to drive down there. Acting like these people are so poor they can't get food and are keeping all these fish to feed themselves and their families is a joke. You can get the same amount of meat in bubba burgers or hot dogs from the grocery store for nothing compared to the cost of going and catching fish. If you can go pay for a charter, you can feed your family. Its not like they are starving and their only source of food is small ass Louisiana trout.


If you're responding to my post, that wasn't the point. The point is many people are saying the fish are going to be wasted. They don't know that. We caught, froze, thawed, and ate plenty of specks when I was a kid. 

No one here said they couldn't feed their families without these fish. As you pointed out, that would be a rediculous assumption, since guides aren't cheap. 

My point was "don't claim to know these fish will be wasted." That's all.


----------



## Deeplines (Sep 28, 2007)

OK, lets look at this from a REAL point of view, ok with some sarcasm thrown in. This is over the 100 TROUT correct? It has been stated that these were SMALL trout. SO... How many small trout does it take to make a pound of fillets. Lets say 4. That's 25 lb of filleted trout. 

4 people married with 2, no lets say 4 kids apiece becasue they are inbreed cajuns. After all they must be to keep that many trout correct? Plus we all know that cajuns are 1st cousins of us ALABAMA ********, so 4 kids per family. After all we are assuming alot of this crap, correct?

so 4 husbands, 4 wifes, and 16 kids = 24 people. That is just over 1 lb apiece for diner. :banghead

As Billy Mays would say: BUT WAIT.......

These are inbreed hillbillys, ******** or Cajuns. 1 of them HAD, just HAD to have thier girlfriend over also (A.K.A. 1st or 2nd cousin.) That makes 25 people eating 25lb of fish. 

I don't know about you but I can eat more then 1 lb of fried fish. :moon


----------



## 69Viking (Oct 30, 2008)

> *BullBoxer (12/2/2009)*Look, I eat fish a lot but can we please get over the whole "they were doing this to feed their families" thing.
> 
> Charters cost in the ballpark of $700 plus plus tip plus lodging plus gas to drive down there. Acting like these people are so poor they can't get food and are keeping all these fish to feed themselves and their families is a joke. You can get the same amount of meat in bubba burgers or hot dogs from the grocery store for nothing compared to the cost of going and catching fish. If you can go pay for a charter, you can feed your family. Its not like they are starving and their only source of food is small ass Louisiana trout.


You miss the point, it's obvious they don't WANT bubba burgers or hot dogs. The whole family comment is not about money to feed the family, that's an ASSUMPTION YOU made. It's meant to say that just because a couple people catch that many fish it doesn't mean they are going to be the only ones to eat it. They will share with each of their family's and maybe give some to their friends so what is wrong with them taking home the legal limit of fish? I have friends that go to LA a few times a year to catch trout and redfish and guess what, they bring me back some fish every time, nothing wrong with that. The point is if these guys are fishing and taking home a catch that falls within the legal limits of where they are fishing then nobody has the right to complain.


----------



## angus_cow_doctor (Apr 13, 2009)

So, lets look at this picture:

1) I could be outraged, because here are 2 people that look completely capable to be at work, and yet are not. They are hanging out and chatting instead.

2)perhaps they are terrorists plotting the next 911.

3)maybe they are college kids and getting ready for class.

4)Maybe they are drug dealers and are about to make a sale.

Point is, I don't know. This is a random picture off the net. I don't pass judgement on them because I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THE SITUATION IS.........


----------



## Deeplines (Sep 28, 2007)

> *69Viking (12/2/2009)*
> 
> 
> > *BullBoxer (12/2/2009)*Look, I eat fish a lot but can we please get over the whole "they were doing this to feed their families" thing.
> ...




Sounds llike what they want you to do is only catch what you are gonna eat THAT NIGHT and then go out and buy it at a store if you want anymore. Problem with that is the commercial guys will have to go out and Catch them SAME DARN FISH for them to eat. :banghead:banghead

1/2 a dozen as the other.


----------



## K-Bill (May 14, 2009)

did i miss something? 4 guys catch a legal limit of fish and we're doggin' 'em for it? where do we get off assuming not every one of these fish will be eaten? and why is that so hard to believe?? 25 fishfor afamily? ever heardof a freezer? they have to bedropped in the grease rightfrom the cleaning table.i'd actually do a fish fry at the house and invite the boys over. and yeah, i'd rather catch a mess of trout with my buddies than go buy bubba burgers. this whole thread is weird for a fishing forum IMO.


----------



## sealark (Sep 27, 2007)

K-Bill I can explain it.

The weater is horrible and all the cry baby cronic bitchers are depressed and have nothing better to do.:reallycrying Just wait until next week when no one can get out to fish because of the high winds and cold. :banghead:banghead


----------



## K-Bill (May 14, 2009)

> *sealark (12/2/2009)*K-Bill I can explain it.
> 
> The weater is horrible and all the cry baby cronic bitchers are depressed and have nothing better to do.:reallycrying Just wait until next week when no one can get out to fish because of the high winds and cold. :banghead:banghead


LOL... oh ok. carry on then! :letsdrink


----------



## 69Viking (Oct 30, 2008)

> *K-Bill (12/2/2009)*did i miss something? 4 guys catch a legal limit of fish and we're doggin' 'em for it? where do we get off assuming not every one of these fish will be eaten? and why is that so hard to believe?? 25 fishfor afamily? ever heardof a freezer? they have to bedropped in the grease rightfrom the cleaning table.i'd actually do a fish fry at the house and invite the boys over. and yeah, i'd rather catch a mess of trout with my buddies than go buy bubba burgers. this whole thread is weird for a fishing forum IMO.


I think most of the people on here agree with you and justcan't understand the madness of this post to begin with. It's like PETA imposters have infiltrated the PFF! :banghead:banghead:banghead


----------



## choppedliver (Apr 4, 2009)

> *K-Bill (12/2/2009)*did i miss something? 4 guys catch a legal limit of fish and we're doggin' 'em for it? where do we get off assuming not every one of these fish will be eaten? and why is that so hard to believe?? 25 fishfor afamily? ever heardof a freezer? they have to bedropped in the grease rightfrom the cleaning table.i'd actually do a fish fry at the house and invite the boys over. and yeah, i'd rather catch a mess of trout with my buddies than go buy bubba burgers. this whole thread is weird for a fishing forum IMO.


Yep you got that right


----------



## Realtor (Oct 1, 2007)

Wow, I have a hunch, This may be the last picture from this Capt. for a while?????

I mean, come on, Like someone up in the chain said. "I can only eat a single snapper today" I'll only kill a single snapper even though the limit is two."

These guys probably cleaned every fish there, put them in freezer bags and took them back to Kansas to eat over the winter and next year. They may have been on their only vacation in years, and might be their last vacation for many more years.

Just because "most of us live here" and can go fishin, these guys may have not fished for 10 plus years together.

Think about it. Just a thought......... wow


----------



## kahala boy (Oct 1, 2007)

> *Realtor (12/2/2009)*
> 
> These guys probably cleaned every fish there, put them in freezer bags and took them back to Kansas to eat over the winter and next year. They may have been on their only vacation in years, and might be their last vacation for many more years.
> 
> ...


X1

They were legal so I don't see any harm. If you are going to get on these guys for being legal, I hate to see you when the others here get their limit......:banghead


----------



## mkpitts6 (Feb 23, 2008)

Granted many limits and restrictions placed on recreational fishing have been beneficial for the fisheries. But thats not enough!!! Bash'em with what "you" think is right too! Even if they are within their legal rights!

Mike


----------



## ?MEGA (Jan 31, 2009)

> *Kim (12/1/2009)*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

I have to say that you guys has banded together and stand united that's great. However it's painfully apparent that few people that have responded care about the future or how we as recreational anglers are perceived. Just because there is a bag limit does not mean you have to catch it. That's where sportsmanship, conservation and unfortunately having to cow tow to a growing non-fishing public opinion.



Sure we can catch out bag limits now and wait for the government to try and fix out messed up fishery until they finally just close it for a number of years so nature can recover. Or we can be proactive, set the example as sportsmen/sportswomen and help keep out fisheries sustainable by taking home what we can use with out waste. 



I can take each or the assumptions that most of you have used and spin a totally different story, that's not the point. The point is that we need to present our image as sportsmen and women. With the crisis brewing over our fisheries the last thing we need to do is provide what can be perceived as a negative image of ourselves that can be used against us to further restrict our recreational sport.



I say to you all, stay banded together united but consider the possibility that as a united group you can become proactive as recreational anglers, as sportsmen/sportswomen, support recreational fishing and present ourselves to the American public as such. If you plan on having any kind of decent fishing 10 years from now, it''s time to start doing something positive about it to ensure that it is there for future generations.



Next year when we have 30 day Red Snapper season, a 75 day Amberjack season, perhaps even a 3 Grouper a day bag limit you are not going to be happy about that and neither will I. The difference between us is that the five friends I take fishing I'll ask them to release anything that they are not going to eat so it's not wasted. I believe that tunnel vision, legal bag limits, and not looking at the big picture for the future of recreational fishing has you folks in a quagmire you will plod blindly along until it's too late. Then government regulation will severely restrict your options for recreational fishing and it will be too late for us as recreational anglers to do anything to make the situation better.



What we see here is classic mob mentality. Only a few people showed serious thought and posted specifics which is about the best way to present an opposing view. It's easy to jump on the bandwagon and get into a hatchet fight online. It's a lot harder to say hey, maybe I should think about this and act in a thoughtful manner rather than some mass mob emotion. We have a problem here and it will not go away no matter how much you ignore it, it won't go away. 



Kim


----------



## Orion45 (Jun 26, 2008)

> *Capt.Eugene (12/2/2009)*
> 
> 
> > *...Question here is: Is it morally correct "NO"
> ...


----------



## choppedliver (Apr 4, 2009)

> *Kim (12/2/2009)*I have to say that you guys has banded together and stand united that's great. However it's painfully apparent that few people that have responded care about the future or how we as recreational anglers are perceived. Just because there is a bag limit does not mean you have to catch it. That's where sportsmanship, conservation and unfortunately having to cow tow to a growing non-fishing public opinion.
> 
> Sure we can catch out bag limits now and wait for the government to try and fix out messed up fishery until they finally just close it for a number of years s nature can recover. Or we can be proactive, set the example as sportsmen and help keep out fisheries sustainable by taking home what we can use with out waste.
> 
> ...


Kim, please tell everyone what the correct number of fish to keep is for :

Me

Me and my gf

Me and my gf who want to eat fish all Winter long

My friend Bob and his wife and his 5 kids

My friends who are coming over for a fish fry this weekend

Please oh enlightened supreme majesty, PLEASE PLEASE tell us poor ignorant souls what is the "proper" number of fish to keep in the name of the Oracle who dost call thineself Kim?


----------



## choppedliver (Apr 4, 2009)

> *Kim (12/2/2009)*I have to say that you guys has banded together and stand united that's great. However it's painfully apparent that few people that have responded care about the future or how we as recreational anglers are perceived. Just because there is a bag limit does not mean you have to catch it. That's where sportsmanship, conservation and unfortunately having to cow tow to a growing non-fishing public opinion.
> 
> Sure we can catch out bag limits now and wait for the government to try and fix out messed up fishery until they finally just close it for a number of years s nature can recover. Or we can be proactive, set the example as sportsmen and help keep out fisheries sustainable by taking home what we can use with out waste.
> 
> ...


BTW,

I'm glad you dont keep more than you will eat. Guess what Kim? Neither will most anyone on this forum. But guess what else? The number YOU will eat and the number CHOPPEDLIVER will eat is probably NOT the same. So if you keep ONE and I keep ONE HUNDRED, GUESS WHAT? NONE OF THOSE FISH ARE GOING TO WASTE. I made my determination what my needs are, NOT KIM.


----------



## jigslinger (Sep 30, 2007)

Give it up Kim. Have you ever fished in Louisiana? You don't have a clue.


----------



## Redfish (Nov 9, 2007)

Well I Guess Winter has Set In!!! The Guys In the Picture HAVE a LEGAL LIMIT Of Fish from the State They are Fishing out Of !!! So What's The Problem Here:banghead, As Far as We Know They Could Have had a COMPANY COOKOUT!! That Night!!!!!!:doh:doh


----------



## Death From Above (Sep 28, 2007)

To the ignoramus who said you can't get any meat off those small trout. There's folks on here that say the same shit about 12" flounders. You all need to work on your filet skills. 

I don'tprefer speckled trout, but the best eaters (specor white) are the 10"-14" variety. They are not near as mushy, less worms and fry up firmer/crisper.


----------



## Brant Peacher (Oct 4, 2007)

First...Kudos to the captain of this charter. He is getting great business publicity.

Second...If you devide all of those filets up between 4 men who most likely have families then it really doesn't turn out to be that much meat.

Third...Whoever keeps calling these trout small:doh Have you taken a look at a Pensacola Bay trout lately?

4th...If you want tocomplain about someone keeping to many fish then get mad at theanglerswhacking hundreds of white trout every night around the 3 mile. Is it possible for a family to eat 150lbs of white trout?? I dont know but I also don't care. It's legal and there seem to still be thousands of white trout around that bridge. Is it possible that the people researching and making some of these laws actually know what they are doing?? hmm...

5th... They are perfectly legal and LA marsh holds enough fish for everyone. They have been whacking them like that for years and it keeps getting better everytime i go.


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

Kim...what can i say...you should have done your homework on speckle trout.



Orion45...good job on your research!



the male speckle trout lives five years. when the male reaches 14" he is in his 4th year of life. What does that mean...when you catch him at 14" there is a good chance he will die very shortly after you release him.



the female lives 10 years and will grow to 36"



once the speck has reached maturity they will reproduce two to three times a year!!!! they will create 2 females per spawning. this results in at least 4 to 6 females added to the resource per year. One spawning female equals six females. Science says if 40% of the total stock spawns every year the fishery will grow. Science takes that in as a factor and adds all the anglers and other predators and that is what tells them how many fish and size each angler can keep. Now i would say that fishing and hunting is a BIG revenue for LA so you can bet they are going to take real good care of their fishery!



there are many males to each female. It does not take 10 males to fertilize 1 female but one male can fertilize 10 females.



now kim you and a couple of others talked about let the small one go and keep the bigger ones. Well that is the reason we are having an issue with specks in our own back yard. You see we can only keep them if they are 15" or bigger...so what we are doing is keeping all the females...now you cannot sustain a fishery if you are catching up all the egg carriers. The sperm is no good if you do not have an egg!



Just so you all know...That is Capt Gene Dugas anglers. Myself and three of my buddies will be fishing with Capt Gene friday and saturday. I sure hope will get 200 specks and 40 redfish!



Oh and as for redfish in LA they put 30 million finger red fish in their water ways every year!


----------



## angus_cow_doctor (Apr 13, 2009)

Kim,

I hear and understand what you are trying to say. I have read and re-read your posts.There are some major problems with your logic, and that is why you are getting jumped on in here.

For me, the biggest problem is ASSUMING that the government will always be the way it is right now. Considering the current trends, and the current administration, I expect hunting/fishing to be a "rich-mans sport" in under 30 years. The laws will be so strict, the licenses will be so high, and there will be so many do-gooders in the government that it will be nearlyimpossible for the average joe to go fishing. Only someone with enough money could afford to pay a government employee for a day of "supervised" fishing, which is EXACTLY where I think we are going. A NMFS official standing by to write you up for every gut-hooked fish, every fish too small, and any accidental "by-catch".

Thats right! When we finally get there, you all heard that prediction from me, on PFF, in the year 2009.

Just look around you. The signs of our demise due to "regulation for our own good" is all around us. I am not a big conspiracy theory kind of guy. That is just how this deck is stacked.

For that reason, I think that worrying about how grandchildren will be able to enjoy the same fishing we do now is like worrying how a clydesdale horse is going to pull a hybrid car around a city. Just is not going to happen. As long as it is legal, and the fish are put to good use, I say go for it. I promise that the government is only good for taking stuff away. They never give it back once they take it away, and that means we are all on borrowed time.

Politicians lie. All of them.


----------



## Brant Peacher (Oct 4, 2007)

Exactly right Wes! I was talking with a few guys today about it. It would be much better on our trout fishery in the Pensacola area if our limits were say 12in to 18in. with 1 over. I personaly believe there are lot's of 12 to 14 inch male trout that need to be harvested out of our bays each year. 

As I guide i see it every day. We will catch 25 to 40 trout a morning in the summer and only between 5 and 6 of them will usually be legal. That means for the most part we are harvesting strictly femalesand releasing all the males.


----------



## Water Spout II (Feb 26, 2009)

I saw a couple of guides respond to this thread. I have a question for the guides.



When you take charters, do you tell your guests that they can throw back whatever or do you just not mention it and only do it if the angler mentions it? Reason I ask is that when I was little and we started going to La., the guides would just assume that we wanted all the fish and throw everything in the box but after about the second trip we told them we didn't want that much because we could not eat it or give it away so we'd throw some back.



I go to Louisiana multiple times a year and hammer them like the pic in the post that has caused this discussion but I throw back most of them and keep what I want to eat (for the near future, not like for 6 months). Do you get many charters like that or are most of them wanting to take home whatever they catch? 



Just wanted to know what most of your guests want.


----------



## biggamefishr (Oct 26, 2007)

this is absolutely not how we want to portray ourselves...bashing other members and reports is not something anyone on this forum should do especially when the people are abiding by the laws and regulations set by the state in which they are fishing.


----------



## Deeplines (Sep 28, 2007)

Damn guys, I guess my post didn't make you laugh. 

OK, I'm done. 

Kim, you are WRONG. :banghead


----------



## -- Saints Domination -- (Jun 24, 2008)

> *-=Desperado=- (12/1/2009)*
> 
> 
> > *Kim (12/1/2009)*If they are wasted that's everyone's business. Historically if you look at our fisheries there is one common denominator. At some point the fishery becomes unsustainable and it forces the closure of that fishery. Look what happened with the drift netters, long liners etc. Ten years ago it was tough to catch a Swordfish, after a closure to long liners for ten years we can now go out and catch one in the daytime!! Virtually every reef species that we target is being regulated out of our coolers a little more every year. Face the facts, we can not expect to take the maximum limits forever and maintain a sustainable marine resource. I love to fish, but as for myself I will only take what I need and the rest I release for the next guy to take a shot at. I don't keep the minimum size fish either if they can be released with a good chance of survival, next year they will be a bigger. All I'm saying is that we should try and be good stewards of our resources.
> ...




lmao. Well said


----------



## celebriduck (Jan 24, 2008)

That's Hopedale, LA. For those that haven't been there, it's a truly amazing fishery. I'm there twice a month and the fish stocks are healthier now than they ever have been. Some of my best friends are charter captains in that area and I can tell you that there are no better stewards for that resource than the guys who rely on it to feed their families. 



One question I do have is what the mortality rate is on smaller trout when released. I remember reading something on it done by LSU but I can't find it. The gist of it as I remember it was it's difficult to handle and release smaller fish without damaging them. I'm sure that someone out there is well educated on the subject and would love to hear the science.



This will keep you busy for a while:



http://www.louisianasportsman.com/forum.php?sec=forum&term=&srch_order=modified&catID=17&regID=18


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

75% of released specks make it!


----------



## Orion45 (Jun 26, 2008)

> *celebriduck (12/3/2009)*...One question I do have is what the mortality rate is on smaller trout when released. I remember reading something on it done by LSU but I can't find it. The gist of it as I remember it was it's difficult to handle and release smaller fish without damaging them. I'm sure that someone out there is well educated on the subject and would love to hear the science....


From my earlier post on page 2.

*How many of the undersized, released speckled trout really survive?*
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.

http://www.destinfishingforum.com/fishingforum/FindPost474578.aspx


----------



## jjbl223 (Nov 19, 2009)

> *Kim (11/30/2009)*I didn't measure this one and with my uncalibrated eye, I'd say it's over 40". Using big live baits these are caught every day in the East Pass.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So how do we know you didn't just put this in the back of the truck and haul a$$??? What is the intent of this fisherman? Hmmmm...


----------



## fishinpox (Dec 4, 2009)

i fish like that everyday! probally kill 50-100 trout per day 300 days a year


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

That's a lot of trout!!



Kim


----------



## choppedliver (Apr 4, 2009)

> *fishinpox (12/3/2009)*i fish like that everyday! probally kill 50-100 trout per day 300 days a year




LOL

opcorn


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

See how easy it is to get everyone to pay attention to an issue. Present it in a provocative manner and you will get responses, they may not be what you had in mind but you get them. Over 3,000 views on a post and over one hundred responses, some were well reasoned in disagreeing and they also took the time to look for documentation to support their rebuttal. If i wore a hat, it would be off to Orion45 and the others that took the time to give a thoughtful response.



I believe that we are all entitled to our just due under the laws of the land, I believe that we as recreational angles should conduct ourselves as sportsmen/sportswomen, I believe in practicing conservation and I believe that our recreational fishery has entered a period of crisis. 



What can we do about it? Pretty simple, right now we can all do one of two things. First we can choose to ignore the whole situation and hope for the best. Second we can choose to band together and present a united front to our elected officials who are supposed to represent us. We basically hired them to help make the government work for us, the people. So why don't we just tell them what we want them to do for us. 



What we as recreational anglers want is for NOAA, Gulf Coast Marine Council and the Department of Commerce to adhere to what they are supposed to do by law. They are supposed to manage a sustainable fishery for the Department of Commerce interests and the American public/recreational anglers.



Send them your e-mails and stay on them with it (some of you guys might want to ask Orion45 for a few tips before blasting off that first one) hang into them like a tick on a dog. After a while they might get tired of hearing from us over and over and actually do something to help us, just to keep us quiet.



Kim


----------



## lsucole (May 7, 2009)

I just saw this post and figured I would wade in. I live in Baton Rouge and bought a condo at Pens. Beach last year. I grew up fishing in Cocodrie, Fourchon , and Venice mostly inshore fishing for specks and reds. However I have had a blast learning and fishing in Pensacola over the past two summers. Thanks Capt. Wes for helping me learn the area. Part of my enjoyment has been because of the easy access to go fishing. Back home in La., it is a 2-3 hr. drive to get to a fishing location for most people who actually live in south La. When I am in Pensacola, it is a 15-20 minute drive to a boat ramp. Understand there are no population centers that close to any of these fishing areas. Also, if you have never fished in La., understand we do not have any real beaches or a coast line like you have in Fl. All we have is marsh and whats left of uninhabitable barrier islands [ except for Grand Isle]. The best way I can describe our coastal area is if you go to Mobile towards the tunnel, look to your right -- that is basically what our coast is like all the way from the Miss. state line and around the Miss. River to Texas. It is one big connected marsh nursery and breeding grounds!

I am hoping this will help explain why there is such a difference between the limits. I will admit that La. fishermen are too " limit obsessed ", I used to be one of them. I believe it has something to do with that 4-5 hr. round trip drive to go fishing that I mentioned. Now I am just too lazy to clean all those fish and by 11:00 - 11:30 I am just not mad at 'em any more ! 

Let me also add that the limits in La. just a few years ago was 50 specks with no limit on the number of redfish then it went to 10 and now 5. I agree with the guides and there comments on the catching/keeping too many female trout in Florida. I would like to see a 12- 13" min. size with one over to help solve this. 

Most of my fishing is now in Pens. because this where I am on most weekends and it is so convenient. But if I really want to go catch a lot of specks and reds, I will be in Louisiana. 

Now for a REAL controversy, let's compare LSU tailgating to U of F !!!


----------



## Tuna Man (Oct 2, 2007)

I find this thread very ironic. Were we have a poster so concerned as to how WE should portray OURSELVES but will portray himself as one whom speaks out of the side of his mouth... I feel Kim should be more concerned as to how he portrays himself to others...to me anyways.


----------



## troutslayer (Nov 18, 2009)

Interesting mix of opinions in the forum. I have have spent my life hunting and fishing around the Southeast. I have traveled to Arkansas to hunt ducks. When I was there, I shot my limit. If you look at the picture of the people posing with the ducks, it looks like I killed 21 ducks. Not quite, I shot my limit. I participated withing the letter of the law but maximized my travel experience. The picture was not captioned to say how many people were involved, how far they traveled or how much they spent for this experience. When I go to Georgia to hunt quail. I also shoot my limit. If I am deer hunting in Mississippi, I don't pass up the 10 point deer just because a 4 point may have enough meat. We have no idea who, how many or for what purpose these fish were caught. If, however, they were within the law, these guys had a great trip and as fellow sportsmen we should share in their success.



Most of all, I would like to agree with the spirit of the initial posts. This forum, and all others like it, should be for fellowship and the sharing of ideas. It should make our sport better. It should not be an online forum gossipy school girls (I will admit I have enjoyed some of the cat fights). Everyone has a right to their own opinion but why not take inventory of that opinion before you post. Is it positive for the forum or is sarcasm being petty jealousy's little friend.



My two cents. Sometimes we may just have to agree to disagree


----------



## Tuna Man (Oct 2, 2007)

> *troutslayer (12/4/2009)*Interesting mix of opinions in the forum. I have have spent my life hunting and fishing around the Southeast. I have traveled to Arkansas to hunt ducks. When I was there, I shot my limit. If you look at the picture of the people posing with the ducks, it looks like I killed 21 ducks. Not quite, I shot my limit. I participated withing the letter of the law but maximized my travel experience. The picture was not captioned to say how many people were involved, how far they traveled or how much they spent for this experience. When I go to Georgia to hunt quail. I also shoot my limit. If I am deer hunting in Mississippi, I don't pass up the 10 point deer just because a 4 point may have enough meat. We have no idea who, how many or for what purpose these fish were caught. If, however, they were within the law, these guys had a great trip and as fellow sportsmen we should share in their success.
> 
> Most of all, I would like to agree with the spirit of the initial posts. This forum, and all others like it, should be for fellowship and the sharing of ideas. It should make our sport better. It should not be an online forum gossipy school girls (I will admit I have enjoyed some of the cat fights). Everyone has a right to their own opinion but why not take inventory of that opinion before you post. Is it positive for the forum or is sarcasm being petty jealousy's little friend.
> 
> My two cents. Sometimes we may just have to agree to disagree


Ummmm ducks


----------



## Orion45 (Jun 26, 2008)

> *lsucole (12/4/2009)*... Back home in La., it is a 2-3 hr. drive to get to a fishing location for most people who actually live in south La....


Not if you you move down da road toda parish.Saint Bernard. oke


----------



## BananaTom (Feb 16, 2008)

> *Orion45 (12/4/2009)*[hr
> 
> Not if you you move down da road toda parish.Saint Bernard. oke


_*You Mean "Doooown The Road"*_


----------



## 155SprtFsh (Oct 2, 2007)

Kim i think you need to refund some of our money....the Capt cut us short this time...THANKS AGAIN!!!!!!

NOW DON'T YOU FILL BAD!!!!!!










Tom,Wes,Bill and Ken not pictured!!!!conservation at it's BEST!!!!!!!

Damn im good at photo shop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

December 4, 2009


----------



## fishinpox (Dec 4, 2009)

> *155SprtFsh (12/4/2009)*Kim i think you need to refund some of our money....the Capt cut us short this time...THANKS AGAIN!!!!!!
> 
> NOW DON'T YOU FILL BAD!!!!!!
> 
> ...






LMFAO!!!!


----------



## 155SprtFsh (Oct 2, 2007)

SIKE!!!!!!!


----------



## choppedliver (Apr 4, 2009)

> *155SprtFsh (12/4/2009)*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh shit I almost soiled myself lmfao!


----------



## Boatjob1 (Oct 2, 2007)

Hi Ken, Thanks for getting those pics up ASAP..... To all concerned we JUST got back (Friday 12/4/09) from Louisiana after a 50 / 50 shot at some good fishing with Captain Dugas.....These are todays results in some of the worst inshore fishing conditions I have ever experienced.With the weather that blew through, we just weren't sure. As you can see, The GREAT Captain pulled through again....... Ken will be posting more pictures and more of the story in the appropriate section very soon. Thanks again Captain Dugas, Captain Wes Rozier, Ken Canady, Bill, (I'm the goof in the middle of the second picture) and the good Lord for making this possible................... We are ALL worn out, and calling it a day!........ Needless to say,,,,,, TIGHT LINES........................ T :bowdown


----------



## injun (Dec 6, 2009)

I know I am new here but have to say wow !!


----------



## lsucole (May 7, 2009)

Is your wow for the fish or for boatjob1's picture ???


----------



## cedar (May 25, 2009)

I just love La. speck fishing:bowdown


----------



## cedar (May 25, 2009)

These are from Port Sulphur


----------



## fisheye48 (Sep 28, 2007)

DANG i hate to be a jerk off for this wanton destruction of the resources!


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

I looked up the PETA site yesterday, have never done that before you guys talked about it here. It turns out that they have over 1,700 sites dedicated to stopping us from enjoying the sport of recreational fishing. Does it really matter to me if you catch your limit or not? Not at all, I just recommend a little conservation in the process.



Since you guys post these pics on public forum's without copyright or trademark protection, that means anyone can take them off the public forums and use them for what ever they choose. Imagine how you would feel if you came online one day and found yourselves the poster children of some PETA anti-fishing campaign.



A quote from today's paper "Any frontal attack on ignorance is bound to fail because the masses are always ready to defend their most precious possession, their ignorance." Hendrik Willem van Loon



Kim


----------



## fisheye48 (Sep 28, 2007)

> *Kim (12/7/2009)*I looked up the PETA site yesterday, have never done that before you guys talked about it here. It turns out that they have over 1,700 sites dedicated to stopping us from enjoying the sport of recreational fishing. Does it really matter to me if you catch your limit or not? Not at all, I just recommend a little conservation in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So are we suspose to go catch and release everything? the state and federal goverment put limits in according to the resources, if the state of Louisana felt that 25 trout per person per day was overfishing the resources then they would lower it, if you feel that it is being overfished then please by all means write them a letter and be sure to include where you are from and currently live..



and arent you the same wack job that was complaining about people fishing your dock and ruining your view while you drank coffee?


----------



## nextstep (Jun 27, 2008)

> *Kim (12/7/2009)*I looked up the PETA site yesterday, have never done that before you guys talked about it here. It turns out that they have over 1,700 sites dedicated to stopping us from enjoying the sport of recreational fishing. Does it really matter to me if you catch your limit or not? Not at all, I just recommend a little conservation in the process.
> 
> Since you guys post these pics on public forum's without copyright or trademark protection, that means anyone can take them off the public forums and use them for what ever they choose. Imagine how you would feel if you came online one day and found yourselves the poster children of some PETA anti-fishing campaign.
> 
> ...


i am so glad we have you and hendrik willem van loon-a-tick to keep our ignorant azzez straight


----------



## afishanado (Oct 26, 2009)

> *Kim (12/7/2009)*
> Since you guys post these pics on public forum's without copyright or trademark protection, that means anyone can take them off the public forums and use them for what ever they choose. Imagine how you would feel if you came online one day and found yourselves the poster children of some PETA anti-fishing campaign.


I don't know about everyone else but I would be proud to be the Poster Child for PETA's anti-fishing campaign pictured with a mess of fish like that, but my luck the only poster I will end up on is a "America's Most Wanted Poster" or advertisement for birth control. :doh


----------



## 155SprtFsh (Oct 2, 2007)

I THOUGHT YOU DIDN'T POST DESCRIMINATING EVIDENCE...PICTURE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF...

Did you buy that wood or did you cut it down?

(SAVE A TREE)

Do you have the proper emissions on your fire place or did you poll you neighbors to see if they cared?

Or did you stink up the ladyslaundry hanging on the line next door?

GET A LIFE MAN AND GROW A SACK

LIFE's A bitch and Then You die!!!!!!!!!!!!!

or do you beleive in religion?

Is that your opinion or is that what your parents taught YOU

OR MAYBE 1 to many BEEEERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

I wouldn't mind at all if each of you posted rebuttals in any sort of reasonable manner, but all of the what if's and the other BS which is about all you can come up with sure can't convince me to change my mind.



Kim


----------



## fisheye48 (Sep 28, 2007)

> *Kim (12/7/2009)*I wouldn't mind at all if each of you posted rebuttals in any sort of reasonable manner, but all of the what if's and the other BS which is about all you can come up with sure can't convince me to change my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Kim




Remember we didnt start the fire:doh so dont complain about something you started


----------



## 155SprtFsh (Oct 2, 2007)

You didn't answer one of the QUESTIONS.......Just like the fourthat caught all the fish...THEY were unabe to defend themselves...go figure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

If you can compare fire wood burning in a fireplace or a football game against a photograph of over a hundred fish in a pile that would be considered by some that it is wasteful even if it was within regulations, I would have to say that you have an unusual thought process.



Kim


----------



## Boatjob1 (Oct 2, 2007)

> *Kim (12/7/2009)*I wouldn't mind at all if each of you posted rebuttals in any sort of reasonable manner, but all of the what if's and the other BS which is about all you can come up with sure can't convince me to change my mind.
> 
> Kim


Kim, don't know ya man, but to be honest, what in the world makes you think anybody on here gives a S%$# what you think? AND I honestly don't think anybody is trying to change your mind either. *I mean this in the kindest way.* We ALL have our own opinions, and ideas of how things "aught to be". I honestly have NOT seen one post on here with pictures of where ANYBODY has broken the law as far as limits in whatever state they were reporting from. If theres something that you don't agree with, write a letter to somebody that you think can make a change in the direction that will please you! Those fish in Louisiana are so thick in those marshes that you can just about walk on top of them and not get wet. Be it the good Lord, progressive hatchery management programs, natural wonder, whatever it is, that's just the way it is....... Get over it! I respect the fact that you think it's wrong, BUT be a man and respect the fact that I will slay those species EVERY time I go over there up until the point that the law says I need to stop (25 trout max day limit) or my heart quits beating in my chest......... Just the way it is friend.......... Tight lines to you, and I'll post more pics as I load the coolerzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....... Enjoy! :letsdrink Tom Brewer


----------



## 155SprtFsh (Oct 2, 2007)

Your RESPONSE TIME IS DOWN maybe tooooo many beersopinions to think of.... i hate to be yourmind...WHAT A TERRIBLE THING TOOOWAIST!!!!!!!


----------



## 155SprtFsh (Oct 2, 2007)

NEXT TIME... DON'T POST YOUR OPINION WITH a picture attached!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I REST MY CASE END OF THE STORY.....





ps. GOD STILL LOVES YA!!!!


----------



## BananaTom (Feb 16, 2008)

> *Kim (12/1/2009)*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_*Kim, If this offends you, then I feel very, very sorry for you. Maybe you go over to Louisiana and try it once. You could then post with knowledge. *_

_*I have done this type of fishing and had better trips than thismany many times in my life. Not ONE fishwas wasted. The all got eaten, I guarantee!!!!*_

_*God gave us this many fish to eat, NOT to Watch.*_

_*Have you ever watched all the bears eat the spawning salmon, now that is a waste. They eat only the roe, and leave the meat to rot on the banks of the rivers. Think of themillions of eggs that do not get hatched, or even laid.*_

_*Maybe you should be campaiging against the Bears, and impose your ideas on them,instead of law abidding citizens.*_


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

kim...i respect your point of view. Now tell me in your own words how many fish should an angler keep?


----------



## fisheye48 (Sep 28, 2007)

and just thinking....going with that captain and catching those fish is no differant if they got in their own boat and went out and did the same thing...the limits are the same either way


----------



## injun (Dec 6, 2009)

> *lsucole (12/7/2009)*Is your wow for the fish or for boatjob1's picture ???




What pic I never saw a picture..............Oh the one with the great wood railing!


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

Wes that's easy to answer. Any recreational angler is entitled to keep what is allowed by the bag limits. I believe that sportsmen and sportswomen keep what they can use without waste and practice conservation. I also believe that if we as recreational anglers give those that want to take our sport away from us the ammunition they will shoot us right between the eyes with it. None of these pics are trademark or copyright protected and they are on a public forum which means that anyone can take them and use them for their own purposes with out asking anyone's permission. So all the folks that post these pics could possibly find themselves as the poster children of PETA and various other ECO groups and there isn't anything they could legally do to stop it. They say a picture is worth a thousand words and that thousand words is determined on how the picture is spun in the PC world.



Kim


----------



## fisheye48 (Sep 28, 2007)

> *Kim (12/7/2009)*Wes that's easy to answer. Any recreational angler is entitled to keep what is allowed by the bag limits. I believe that sportsmen and sportswomen keep what they can use without waste and practice conservation. I also believe that if we as recreational anglers give those that want to take our sport away from us the ammunition they will shoot us right between the eyes with it. None of these pics are trademark or copyright protected and they are on a public forum which means that anyone can take them and use them for their own purposes with out asking anyone's permission. So all the folks that post these pics could possibly find themselves as the poster children of PETA and various other ECO groups and there isn't anything they could legally do to stop it. They say a picture is worth a thousand words and that thousand words is determined on how the picture is spun in the PC world.
> 
> 
> 
> Kim




so what you are saying is that they are gonna take our limits away because we go out and catch them then show our catches off in pictures???


----------



## K-Bill (May 14, 2009)

are you against them keeping this many fish or just against posting a picture of it on the internet? i really don't get it. should they only pose with half the catch to keep from being picked out by PETA? seriously?


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

Bill I really think that would be a good idea or they should trademark or copyright their photographs. I think that that is the kind of photo's that are going to be used against us to restrict or close our fisheries by groups like PETA and other ECO groups. I'm afraid that one day we will discover that perception will be used as a tool against us.



Kim


----------



## K-Bill (May 14, 2009)

> *Kim (12/7/2009)*Bill I really think that would be a good idea or they should trademark or copyright their photographs. I think that that is the kind of photo's that are going to be used against us to restrict or close our fisheries by groups like PETA and other ECO groups. I'm afraid that one day we will discover that perception will be used as a tool against us.
> 
> Kim


ok. i'll respect your opinion on that, agreed or not. at least i don't think _you're _the tree-hugger anymore! :letsdrink


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

I'll ask all of you guys that are trying to nail me to a cross here to do one thing. Go check out the PETA websites about recreational fishing, I did that this past Sunday and was surprised to find that they had over 1,700 sites dedicated to stopping recreational fishing alone, I didn't pull up the sites against the commercial sector. Read some of the stuff they are posting and hope that none of them ever decide to use our pics against us with their propaganda.


----------



## nextstep (Jun 27, 2008)

when ya get your foot out of your mouth be a man and admit you may have been mistaken


----------



## choppedliver (Apr 4, 2009)

> *nextstep (12/8/2009)*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




+1


----------



## fishn4real (Sep 28, 2007)

Kim:

I have read with interest your post, the many replies back and forth, and wish to offer my opinion.

1. You opened your post by asking "Is this how 'we' want to portray 'ourselves?'" By asking that question in the manner that "you" did, "you" automatically attempted to group *everyone on this forum* inwith "your"ownpersonal opinions and feelings about "percieved"and "assumed" waste of a depleteable resource.

2. After a few short volleys back and forth, "your" stance changed from "we" and "ourselves" to "*you guys*", intentionally throwing down the gauntlet for all fishermen to keep no more than what they can eat and to avoid waste. In all of these posts and replies not 1 singleperson has in any way inferred that they have *ever* wasted a single filet off any fish that has been kept, regardless of how many have been caught.

3. You are a deep water fisherman and fish for snapper, AJ, and probably tuna. Has anyone on this forum, or anywhere for that matter, ever lambasted you for taking any of these large fish because you couldn't possibly eat it all at one setting? NO. And they never will, because anyone who fishes understands and knows that when you go fishing, you invest a large amount of time and money for that adventure, and you are lucky enough to catch; you catch.

4.It has been pointed out numerous times onthis forumalready of the great fishery in Louisiana; and also, in Texas, Mississippi, and even in Alabama. Different fisheries with different rules and regulations. It is a GREAT experience to be able to save all year for a long week-end or week vacation to one of these great adventures, and to be able to experience the abundance of fish available. I have done it. Lane and I spent Thanksgiving 2007 in Hopedale, LA, and yes, we brought to the dock a limit of speckled trout, (50) per day for 4 days. They weren't very big, but the size of 12-14 -18" is the most delicate and sweet, for eating,of all the sizes of the speckled trout. Not a single fish went to waste. Couple of fish fries for the office, one for the neighborhood, and maybe even some for a forum bash.

5. Now, having said all of that Kim, and to remind you that "I" have on more than one occassion defended "you" in some of your positions on this forum, "WE" (you can read backwards to see who would be included in that "WE") would very much appreciate it if "YOU" would in the future not include "US" in "YOUR" personal crusades. 

Thank you. Thank you very much.


----------



## nextstep (Jun 27, 2008)

elvis has left the building


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

The intent was to be provocative in order to elicit the largest possible response. Ignoring something won't make it go away and we have a lot more problems heading our way as concerning our fisheries. My beliefs may not be the same as yours, however I really am concerned with the future of recreational fishing and I do believe that we need to give the general public an image of us that is palatable.



If I hadn't provoked a hatchet fight on the forum it never would have received over 4,000 views or had over 140 response posts. We as a group don't come together unless their is some base of hysteria that causes it. I'm happy that people are at least thinking about what has been in these posts by reading them.



Look at the post about next years fishing, that's a good example. The fishing closures of the SE Atlantic coast is going to have an impact on every aspect of Recreational and Commercial fishing through out the Gulf Coast but it's not a hot enough topic to get a lot of people to pay attention or notice it.



Our fisheries are going to see out of state people come in that normally would have gone to South/North Carolina or the East coast of Florida, we'll probably see some charter boats shift from the East coast to the West coast and we will definitely see thousands of recreational anglers haul their boats across the state to enjoy their sport on the West coast fisheries because they are open.



That's a big bag of mixed good and bad there. Sure it will boost the economy somewhat, it will keep some folks from going out of business. At the same time it's going to put a lot of extra fishing pressure on a limited fishery resource that wasn't planned on. I'm pretty sure it will affect our season lengths by having them close earlier than scheduled, it will put a lot more fishing pressure on the resources available and it may hurt us for next year.



So if I was to say hey guys, catching your limits is all fine and well but try not to post photo's that could be perceived that we are raping the oceans and estuaries, you would have told me the same thing you have already. Soft reasoning doesn't work here, the brick approach does because it generated the desired response. We need to become aware of what's going on with our recreational pastime, we need to become proactive with organized groups to ensure that there are watch dogs keeping an eye on the government regulating agencies, we need to bite the bullet and start practicing some conservation of our resources and we need to work on making our public image more PC to the general public.


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

kim...excellent points...i think my group who went to hopesdale last week practiced very good conservation...we kept only what our limit was...we new that 25 specks each after being cleaned would produce about 8 lbs of fish for each of us. now for me that is 2 dinners...my family can eat 1lb of capt wes' fried fish each. so we ate fresh fish once and we will eat another this week sometime.



as for picture taking what should we take that you would find to be exceptable?



i know you fish for red snapper...how many red snapper do you throw back everytime you go red snapper fishing? Kim you have to answer this question or every comment you make from this point will never be herd again from us recreational anglers.


----------



## choppedliver (Apr 4, 2009)

> *Kim (12/8/2009)*The intent was to be provocative in order to elicit the largest possible response. Ignoring something won't make it go away and we have a lot more problems heading our way as concerning our fisheries. My beliefs may not be the same as yours, however I really am concerned with the future of recreational fishing and I do believe that we need to give the general public an image of us that is palatable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Summary: Kim made a stupid post to make us all go "hmmmmmm".



BS. 



Grow a pair and admit you made a mistake.


----------



## fishn4real (Sep 28, 2007)

There you go. AGAIN lumping we and us,. 

quote "*We* as a group don't come together unless their is some base of hysteria that causes it. *I'm* happy that people are at least thinking about what has been in these posts by reading them."

"WE" have come together and you have heard"OUR" reply. Now, why don't "*YOU*" admit that you screwed up and stop with all the BS? "WE" don't subscribe to your philosophy, therefore, don't waste forum space.


----------



## HaterAide (Nov 9, 2007)

Kind of hard to believe this thread is still going strong.


----------



## Boatjob1 (Oct 2, 2007)

Captain Wes. It's obvious that your not going to get an answer (by the way, those fresh fish were GREAT last Sunday, thanxxxx). I swore I wasn't going to continue with this madness, but this picture is more than appropriate for what has been posted on this thread. Is it getting hotter in here? I'm done..................


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

As long as I am a recreational angler and you are, then we, are a we, no matter if you like it or not, no matter if we agree on anything or not, "we" still are recreational anglers. I don't see myself becoming a commercial fisherman, so unless you are, then we are stuck with we, weather you like it or not. This is a public forum and as such I have exactly the same rights here as you or any other member of the forum. Nothing says that we have to conform to a specific train of thought to be here, the purpose of a forum is for the exchange of information and idea's. 



It's unfortunate that it takes something so controversial in nature to get a large group of people to look at something, even if it is out of curiosity. Yes I believe that we should be more PC in the photo's we post, yes I believe that we should practice conservation and I believe that our fisheries are in trouble. That doesn't mean that every niche of fisheries are in trouble, but by and large most are. Something needs to be done and who is going to do it? If we as recreational anglers do nothing active on our own and wait for what ever happens, then the results of that will be on our heads. If we band together, voice ourselves to our elected officials, promote a positive image of ourselves, our sport and support organizations large enough and with enough money to fight for us at the Federal level it could still go either way for us, but at least we tried rather than wait like sheep.



If I hadn't poked the forum in the eye with a sharp stick, do you think there would have been over 5,000 hits on a post? If I hadn't done that it would be more likely to find the Devil Himself making snow balls than people here paying attention to a boring post. At least people have given it some thought. I don't think I have done anything to harm the recreational angler community other than draw a lot of ire towards myself. I'm happy that people have looked at these posts and perhaps have given it some serious thought.



If only a few people from this forum make an effort to help improve our image or practice a little conservationism, I think it has been well worth my time to kick a hornets nest and get the crap stung out of myself. I guess what I really want for Christmas is for people to start thinking past here and now and start looking towards the future. The recreational and commercial sectors want sustainable fisheries with the max limits. I don't believe that it is unreasonable to expect ourselves and the commercial sector to help get there.


----------



## nextstep (Jun 27, 2008)

<H1 class=firstHeading id=firstHeading>Delusional disorder</H1><DIV id=bodyContent sizset="0" sizcache="0"><H3 id=siteSub>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</H3><DIV id=contentSub></DIV><DIV id=jump-to-nav>Jump to: navigation, search</DIV><TABLE class=infobox style="FONT-SIZE: 88%; WIDTH: 22em; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.5em; TEXT-ALIGN: left" cellSpacing=5><TBODY><TR><TH style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 125%; BACKGROUND-COLOR: lightgrey; TEXT-ALIGN: center" colSpan=2>Delusional disorder</TH></TR><TR class=""><TD class="" style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" colSpan=2>_Classification and external resources_</TD></TR><TR class=""><TH style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">ICD-10</TH><TD class="">F22.0</TD></TR><TR class=""><TH style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">ICD-9</TH><TD class="">297.1</TD></TR><TR class=""><TH style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">eMedicine</TH><TD class="">article/292991</TD></TR><TR class=""><TH style="TEXT-ALIGN: left">MeSH</TH><TD class="">D012563</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><DIV class="rellink boilerplate seealso">See also: Delusion</DIV>

*Delusional disorder* is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental disorder that is characterized by holding one or more non-bizarre delusions<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-0>[1]</SUP> in the absence of any other significant psychopathology. Non-bizarre delusions are fixed beliefs that are certainly and definitely false, but that could possibly be plausible, for example, someone who thinks he or she is under police surveillance. In order for the diagnosis to be made auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent, although olfactory or tactile hallucinations related to the content of the delusion may be present.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-DSM_1-0>[2]</SUP> To be diagnosed with delusional disorder, the delusion or delusions cannot be due to the effects of a drug, medication, or general medical condition, and delusional disorder cannot be diagnosed in an individual previously diagnosed with schizophrenia. A person with delusional disorder may be high functioning in daily life and may not exhibit odd or bizarre behavior aside from these delusions. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) defines six subtypes of the disorder characterized as erotomanic, grandiose, jealous, persecutory, somatic, and mixed, i.e., having features of more than one subtypes.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-DSM_1-1>[2]</SUP> Delusions also occur as symptoms of many other mental disorders, especially the other psychotic disorders.<TABLE class=toc id=toc sizset="0" sizcache="0"><TBODY sizset="0" sizcache="0"><TR sizset="0" sizcache="0"><TD sizset="0" sizcache="0"><DIV id=toctitle><H2>Contents</H2><SPAN class=toctoggle>[hide]</DIV><UL><LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><SPAN class=tocnumber>1 <SPAN class=toctext>Indicators of a delusion <LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><SPAN class=tocnumber>2 <SPAN class=toctext>Features <LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3"><SPAN class=tocnumber>3 <SPAN class=toctext>Types <LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-4"><SPAN class=tocnumber>4 <SPAN class=toctext>See also <LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5"><SPAN class=tocnumber>5 <SPAN class=toctext>References <LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-6"><SPAN class=tocnumber>6 <SPAN class=toctext>Further reading <LI class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7"><SPAN class=tocnumber>7 <SPAN class=toctext>External links </LI>[/list]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit] <SPAN class=mw-headline id=Indicators_of_a_delusion>Indicators of a delusion</H2><TABLE class="vertical-navbox nowraplinks" style="CLEAR: right; BORDER-RIGHT: #aaa 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 0.2em; BORDER-TOP: #aaa 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0.2em; FONT-SIZE: 88%; BACKGROUND: #f9f9f9; FLOAT: right; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.2em; MARGIN: 0px 0px 1em 1em; BORDER-LEFT: #aaa 1px solid; COLOR: black; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.4em; PADDING-TOP: 0.2em; BORDER-BOTTOM: #aaa 1px solid; TEXT-ALIGN: center; border-spacing: 0.4em 0" cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD class="" style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0.4em; PADDING-LEFT: 0.4em; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 145%; BACKGROUND: lightblue; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.2em; LINE-HEIGHT: 1.15em; PADDING-TOP: 0.3em">Psychology</TD></TR><TR><TD class="" style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.5em; PADDING-TOP: 0.2em; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid"><DIV class=center><DIV class=floatnone></DIV></DIV></TD></TR><TR><TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0.2em">

History of psychology
Branches of psychology</DIV></TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 1.1em; BACKGROUND: #f0f0ff; PADDING-TOP: 0.5em">Basic science</TD></TR><TR><TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.2em">

Abnormal<SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">· Behavioral neuroscience
Cognitive<SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">· Developmental
Experimental<SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">· Evolutionary
Mathematical<SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">· Neuropsychology
Personality<SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">· Positive
Psychophysics<SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">· Social
</DIV></TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 1.1em; BACKGROUND: #f0f0ff; PADDING-TOP: 0.5em">Applied science</TD></TR><TR><TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.2em">

Clinical<SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">· Educational
Forensic<SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">· Health
Industrial and organizational
Occupational health
School<SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">· Sport</DIV></TD></TR><TR><TD style="BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 1.1em; BACKGROUND: #f0f0ff; PADDING-TOP: 0.5em">Lists</TD></TR><TR><TD style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.2em">

Outline<SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">· Publications
Topics<SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">· Therapies</DIV></TD></TR><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 1.1em; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0.5em; PADDING-TOP: 0.5em">Portal</TD></TR><TR><TD><DIV class="noprint plainlinks navbar" style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: xx-small; BACKGROUND: none transparent scroll repeat 0% 0%; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px"><SPAN title="View this template">v<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 80%">?<SPAN title="Discuss this template">d<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 80%">?<SPAN title="Edit this template">e</DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

The following can indicate a delusion:<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-isbn0-521-58180-X_2-0>[3]</SUP>
<LI>The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force. <LI>That idea appears to exert an undue influence on his or her life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent. <LI>Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it. <LI>The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief. <LI>There is a quality of _centrality_: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly. <LI>An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility. <LI>The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural and religious background. <LI>The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of his or her psyche. <LI>The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs. <LI>Individuals who know the patient will observe that his or her belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien. </LI>
<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[edit] </H2></DIV>


----------



## fla_scout (Sep 28, 2007)

Reminds of the guy on the hunting forum last year that got on here and bragged about killing a deer with his muzzleloader the day after the season closed and when he got called out on it said it was just part of an experiment to see what kind of responses he would get for some kind of psychology class or some bullcrap like that. Different screen name but same result...just stand up and sayyou screwed up. This incident nor the one I mentioned abovewas for provoking thoughtit was just some made up bunch ofcrap you dreamed up.:nonono


----------



## 155SprtFsh (Oct 2, 2007)

Just a few facts on where these fish were caught:

The Breton-Chandeleur Sound Area (BCSA) is a large, shallow marine bay protected by the Chandeleur Islands. Presently it is more than *500,000* acres in size, but as the mainland marshes and Chandeleur Islands continue to erode, the Breton and Chandeleur Sounds will enlarge. 

This protected expanse of shallow water is rich in biological resources and contains productive beds of SAV. Commercially important estuarine and marine species such as *red drum*, *spotted seatrout*, Gulf menhaden, brown shrimp and white shrimp are found in the Breton-Chandeleur Sound. The Sound is a popular destination for recreational fishing. Federally listed endangered species found in the Sound include the Gulf sturgeon and the loggerhead and Kemp's Ridley sea turtles. The threatened brown pelican can also be commonly found throughout this area. Most fish and shellfish populations are projected to continue a steady population through *2050*, as are most bird populations in the area. 

Maybe they will have a better solution by 2050...but fornow...25 fish per angler!!!!!!!!they can't keep you from fishing... *just keeping*... doesn't bother meif i can't bringbring them home!!!!I'm still going to have a good time!!!!!


----------



## fishn4real (Sep 28, 2007)

Rite on Dr. Mark!


----------



## Kim (Aug 5, 2008)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, you have yours and I have mine. What did it take to get over 5,000 hits on any other post ??

I'm hoping that at least a few people have read all the posts and make their own choice of what to do concerning our recreational sport.


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

kim...how many fish do you keep when you go fishing?



how many red snapper do you throw back to get your limit?



what do you do when you get a 25lb red snapper?



what do you do when to catch a 40lb amberjack?



how many dolphins (mai mai)would u keep if you were in a school of say 200 and they were all 2 pounders?



again did we use good conservation practices when we went to hopesdale LA?


----------



## 155SprtFsh (Oct 2, 2007)

The way i see it thereare three anglers...can they eat all this fish at one time? looks like 70+ LBS!!!!!

probably not... if you post a justifiction for this...YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN.....US!!!! so cry to someone else!!!!!

KIM picturedright...is that a frown on his face or does he feel GUILTY AS CHARGED!!!!


----------



## 155SprtFsh (Oct 2, 2007)

Maybe I will start another post staring the one and only KIM!!!!!and maybe i will become a grouper status with 5000 hits!!!!










NOW I'M DONE!!!!!!!:takephoto:takephoto:takephoto:takephoto:takephoto:takephoto:takephoto:takephoto:takephoto:takephoto:takephoto:takephoto:takephoto


----------



## C-monsters (Mar 28, 2008)

155sprtfsh!!!!

Everything you type!!!!

Does not soundmore convincing!!!!

Just because you put 10 exclamation points after a statement!!!!!!

okeokeokeokeokeokeoke


----------

