SPECKLED TROUT: LOUISIANA MAKES ONE MORE TRY TO ELEVATE SCIENCE OVER POLITICS

 

There are folks out there—and some big organizations, too—who will try to tell you that state fisheries management programs are far better than those at the federal level.  Louisiana's continuing inability to manage its speckled trout resource demonstrates why that’s not true.

Years ago, when I sat on the Executive Board of the Coastal Conservation Association, one of that organization’s key principles was that fisheries management ought to be performed at the lowest political level possible—in this case, at the state rather than the federal level.  The reason for that is a simple one:  It’s a lot easier to affect political decisions at the state level than it is to affect the federal regulatory and legislative process.

To reduce things to their most basic, and most practical, terms, it’s a lot easier to find someone who knows a state elected or appointed official well enough to approach them about an impending decision than it is to find the same sort of contact that can move the needle in Washington.  And political contributions and related lobbying efforts can have a greater impact on the state level, too.  A thousand bucks goes a lot farther in Baton Rouge than it does on Capitol Hill (note that when I was active within CCA, our Washington lobbyist was very careful to note, when encouraging political donations, that such donations do not buy votes, but merely “access,” which he tried to explain was a much different thing).

That principal was freely acknowledged by David Cresson, Executive Director of Coastal Conservation Association Louisiana, when he spoke before a local Lions Club chapter on June 22, 2023:

“Many of our fish in the Gulf are managed by the federal government, and the federal government—without fail—does a pathetic job of managing fish.  I wish we could get more of the management of those species into state management because, at least at the state level, we have more immediate access to that level; we can go to people like [Senator] Robert Mills and [Representative] Wayne McMahen, and they can help us start making a difference.  Where, at the federal level, even though we’ve got great congressmen and women, the wheels of government in Washington D.C. grind extremely slowly.  [emphasis added]”

Which takes us all back to the problem of speckled trout—more properly called “spotted seatrout—in the so-called “Sportsman’s Paradise.”

The problem itself is simple:  There aren’t enough speckled trout swimming in Louisiana’s waters, most of those that are there are small, and barely old enough to spawn for the first time. 

That problem isn’t particularly new.  I started writing about it five years ago, when Louisiana’s speckled trout stock had already shrunk to a little above half of its biological target (which target is 18% of the spawning potential of an unfished stock), and fishing guides were already complaining that they were seeing nothing but small fish, because as soon as a speckled trout grew above the legal size limit, someone caught it and took it home.

And Louisiana’s current regulations which, with some local exceptions, allow anglers to take home 25 fish per day, so long as they are at least 12 inches long, assure that plenty of fish, once caught, never see the water again.

Since I first started looking at the issue, things have only gotten worse.  The state’s fisheries managers know it, and have stated that

“overfishing and other factors have caused the stock to have become almost completely comprised of smaller, younger fish.  While there are still some older and larger trout out there, nearly 95 percent of today’s stock is comprised of one and two-year old fish.  While it is true that larger fish are more likely to be female (and have more eggs per individual), these smaller fish make up the vast majority of spawning stock biomass (reproductive potential).  Given this imbalance, there is concern that a major collapse could occur in the event of a poor recruitment year (e.g. major freeze).  By decreasing the current creel limit and raising the minimum size, it is hoped that more of these young fish will be allowed to spawn and help the stock recover while rebuilding the older age classes of females.”

But down in Louisiana, decreasing the current creel limit and raising the maximum size are things far easier said than done.  That’s precisely why some folks are so enamored of state-level fisheries management.

The professionals did the best that they could.

They came up with scientifically-defensible ways to rebuild the stock, and then they took those alternatives out to public comment, ultimately selecting the one that seemed to have the greatest public support.  Eventually, they settled on a combination of rules that would have dropped the creel limit to 15 speckled trout—still, by far, the most liberal bag limit on the coast—and raised the size limit to 13 ½ inches.  

About 10 months ago, the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission voted to approve the new regulations, which were generally supported by the state’s anglers.

Louisiana’s fisheries managers had done their job, and it was now time for the politicians, at the urging of two influential special interest groups, the Louisiana Charter Boat Association and the Louisiana chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association, to undo it.

The Louisiana Charter Boat Association, effectively confirming the findings of Louisiana’s fisheries scientists, argued that it was difficult to find speckled trout more than 12 inches long.  But instead of focusing on how such an attenuated size structure might be bad for the resource, their sole concern was that the 13 ½-inch size limit would be bad for business.  They were thus opposed to the rule.

The Coastal Conservation Association continued that organization’s usual practice of the past decade or so, supporting conservation—just so long as it was somebody else, and not the recreational fishing sector, that was doing the conserving.

So it supported the most meaningless aspect of the newly proposed regulations, the decreased bag limit, saying

“Although Louisiana anglers harvest less than 2 trout per trip on average (according to Louisiana’s Department of Wildlife and Fisheries), we see a reduction from 25 fish to 15 fish as a reasonable move, in the spirit of conservation.”

However, it opposed the increase in the minimum size, and then made the remarkable (and, to this long-time striped bass fisherman, demonstrably false) statement that

“Based on our experience, changes in recreational regulations have rarely, if ever, resulted in a direct fishery recovery,”

while blaming just about everything but recreational fishing for the speckled trout’s decline.

The two organizations’ faith in the superiority in state management was borne out after a committee of the Louisiana state legislature, tasked with the job of reviewing and passing judgment on proposed fisheries regulations, overrode the scientists and professional fishery managers in favor of the folks who wanted to keep on killing small speckled trout, and vetoed the proposed, more restrictive regulations.

Now, it appears that the state’s fisheries managers are going to give it another try. 

The Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries commission, in a 4-2 vote, agreed to a new set of proposed regulations, which would reduce the bag limit to 15 fish, just as the recently-killed regulations would have done, but would only increase the size limit to 13 inches, rather than the previously proposed 13 ½,plus add a 20-inch maximum size, with the proviso that two trout of greater length could be retained each day.  The newly proposed rules would, if adopted, decrease landings by an estimated 19.1%, and hopefully rebuild the speckled trout stock within about 6 years.

Patrick Banks, Assistant Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Fish and Wildlife, said of the new proposal.

“It’s not quite the amount of conservation we recommended, but it was very, very close.”

The new proposal will be put out for public comment and, when the comment period ends, again referred to the legislative committee for an up-or-down vote.

Will the committee approve the proposed rules this time, instead of vetoing them just as they vetoed the previous proposal?

The odds are probably stacked against the proposed rule.

While the Louisiana Charter Boat Association does not appear to have made a statement specifically addressing the proposed new size limit, Coastal Conservation Association Louisiana’s policy seems clear.  It states on its website that

“Moving to a 13 or 13.5-inch minimum size seems drastic and unnecessary.  Such a change could damage the female population, and will certainly have tremendous negative impacts on many businesses who depend on recreational anglers, like charter operators, marinas, bait shops, lodges and others.

“The Wildlife and Fisheries Commission should adopt a 15 fish daily bag limit and 12-inch minimum size limit…  [emphasis added]”

It thus seems likely that CCA Louisiana will again take advantage of its “immediate access” to state legislators, and ask that they again override the scientists and professional fisheries managers, kill the proposed, science-based regulations, and uphold CCA’s treasured principle of politically driven fisheries management.

After all, that’s what state-based management is for.