# Trout Limits



## Dead Wait

Picked up the new book last night and was going through the size and bag limits. 
I noticed on for Trout, it says 5 South of FM 457, 10 North of FM 457. So, fm 457 dead ends into Sargent. If im understanding this right. Everything from Sargent headed west is a 5 bag limit. Everything east of Sargent is a 10 bag limit.

Please excuse my ignorance. Just making sure I've got my act together.

And why is it when you download the Fishing Companion app on your phone, there is no size limit on most of the fish?:headknock


----------



## mertz09

You are correct. Only the upper coast will have the 10 trout limit until they take that away.


----------



## Zeitgeist

Correct! Download the Texas Parks & Wildlife Outdoor Annual. They have an app for it now.


----------



## Zeitgeist

mertz09 said:


> You are correct. Only the upper coast will have the 10 trout limit until they take that away.


^^^This and it will happen.


----------



## railbird

Praise The Lord, trout limits are finally here!


----------



## Rubberback

And the bible changes again. Hopefully, it will work. It helped Mr Red. From what I'm hearing its helping Mr Flatty too. Gotta, leave some for the kiddo's.


----------



## Trouthappy

The upper coast won't be able to sustain a 10 trout limit for much longer. That's 40 fillets per day, for two guys. Guides tell me the new 5-bag limit arrived on the middle coast at least three years late, and now they're hurting for trout.


----------



## bigfishtx

TPW always does things about 3-5 years too late. They are not a very pro-active organization.

Most of us saw this coming on the middle coast years ago, yet they staunchly stood their ground saying trout were in good shape.


----------



## Hardwired

...That may be from the thousands of fisherman (from this site alone) that pis n moan, fight, argue etc about every change that is attempted. That and it Is A Government Agency. 

There will be far less freezer burned trout with this change. Change is not always a bad thing.

If one actually needs 20 fillets a day then they will become better red fisherman for it.


----------



## WADER13

Look at it this way....on the tough days when it's a struggle to string 5 trout you can go home knowing you caught your limit with only 5 trout and be happy.

Another thing....

If a poll was started with the question "would you rather"

(1)- catch 10 legal trout all day and keep all 10?
(2)- catch 50 legal trout and only be allowed to keep 5?

Wonder what the outcome would be?


----------



## Trouthappy

Some people have even claimed that trout is all they know how to fish for, they've never targeted the many other coastal species.


----------



## Calfroper81

As long as there's no limits on hardheads im happy. Even if I don't know what I'm doin I can catch them


----------



## Im Headed South

WADER13 said:


> If a poll was started with the question "would you rather"
> 
> (1)- catch 3 legal trout all day and be able to keep 10?
> (2)- catch 50 legal trout and only be allowed to keep 5?
> 
> Wonder what the outcome would be?


FIFY


----------



## Kolorado_Koolaid

agreed change is a good thing and the upper coast needs to drop to sooner rather than later

i know it's hard for some people who've been fishing these waters for decades but the fishing pressure has drastically changed since the 1980's...just drive down league city pkwy one day and you will realize how much the population has boomed on this side of town which ultimately adds to the amount of people fishing.

i'd prefer to catch 50 and keep 5 any day vs catch 10 and keep 10...just my 2cents


----------



## poppadawg

About time there was a fresh topic around here. Hopefully we will get a lot of opinions on this subject


----------



## Puddle_Jumper

The problem with this is that many undersize trout caught will die anyway or be culled for a bigger one.. Personally I would never do that.. But I bet it happens way too often already


----------



## Kyle 1974

Trouthappy said:


> The upper coast won't be able to sustain a 10 trout limit for much longer. That's 40 fillets per day, for two guys. Guides tell me the new 5-bag limit arrived on the middle coast at least three years late, and now they're hurting for trout.


I guess people just got really good at catching fish in the last few years.... must be because of all those outdoor magazines constantly giving updates where all the good fishing spots are, and what the best tactics are to catch them.


----------



## SeaY'all

I would just like to be able to catch 2 on each croaker


----------



## Spots and Dots

^Croaker ARE the problem.
I say make it artificial only.


----------



## Dead Wait

Someone mentioned downloading the app. I did. That was the second part of my question. 

It shows pictures but, there are only a few species with size and bag limits.

Has anyone beside me noticed.


----------



## SeaY'all

HA! Spots I havnt used croakers. I dont really target trout. I like the redfish.


----------



## chicapesca

Dead Wait said:


> Someone mentioned downloading the app. I did. That was the second part of my question.
> 
> It shows pictures but, there are only a few species with size and bag limits.
> 
> Has anyone beside me noticed.


Go to "Fishing", then "Saltwater Fishing", then "Bag & Length Limits" and it lists all of the saltwater fish there with their daily bag and length.


----------



## diverdown

more fishing pressure in way of more guides. less guides equal more fish for the dudes that can't fish every day. i like that one guide's remark "should have done 5 fish sooner". yea,better for his business. i love the system we have. cca stocks more fish every year, guides fish everyday so pretty much a good restocking program for the everyday fisherman. and i bet most guides aren't even cca members cause i don't think they qualify for the STAR. so why enter it? we buy all the memberships,go to all the banquets ,help pay for the fisheries and they catch all the released fish while we are at work. sounds like a good system to me.


----------



## duckmania

New limits are long overdue, glad to see them. Now if we can just get some good seasonal rains.....


----------



## Texxan1

Just keep 5, 5 and 5.....


----------



## Kolorado_Koolaid

Texxan1 said:


> Just keep 5, 5 and 5.....


that would make things easy


----------



## duckmania

There was a nice improvement in fishing in the lower laguna after they went to a 5 fish limit, there was some better conditions (rain) that helped them also. However, a few of the longtime guides out of PM said it brought down a ton of croaker guys and it took another hit. I have fished the LM for several years and it seems it improved some but the last couple of years it was not like it use to be. My home water is the mid coast, as everyone knows it has been dismal at best. The lower limits can only help. I sure hope so.
It will be interesting to see how the upper coast will react, there are some considerations under way at TPWD to change the limits in an effort to not wait too late and not let it become like the mid coast. It seems to me that the fishing up there is considerably better than what we have around Rockport.


----------



## SeaY'all




----------



## reelthreat

I was going to post :work::work:

Realized it doesn't even matter...


----------



## Adobe 11SD

Dead Wait said:


> Someone mentioned downloading the app. I did. That was the second part of my question.
> 
> It shows pictures but, there are only a few species with size and bag limits.
> 
> Has anyone beside me noticed.


No, but just because you are the OP doesn't mean that you can keep the thread on topic.:spineyes:

It is much better when we bash the guides, post about what it could have been without population growth, TPW sucking, etc.

The Fish TXSW app says that for the spotted seatrout the daily bag limit is 10 per harvester per day, but directs you to the special remark section.

Which says - For LLM the daily bag limit and possession limit shall be 5 fish in all inside waters south of marker 21 located inside the area known as the Land Cut. I don't know the area, but it goes on to explain what "inside waters" is.


----------



## Dead Wait

I'm not stirring the pot by no means. I've got a grocery store within walking distance from my house so, Limits of fish for me is of no concern. HEB has all the fresh seafood I can handle. And a heck of alot cheaper.

I think my question has been answered.


----------



## Adobe 11SD

Dead Wait said:


> I'm not stirring the pot by no means. I've got a grocery store within walking distance from my house so, Limits of fish for me is of no concern. HEB has all the fresh seafood I can handle. And a heck of alot cheaper.
> 
> I think my question has been answered.


Not sure who your reply was intended for, but I didn't mean to imply that you were stirring the pot, others are. The point, in my view, is that your original questions were about the location/boundary of the 5 fish bag limit and an app (or information) that would allow you to search/understand size and bag limits. It just went off of the rails after that.

I apologize if I led you to believe that I was criticizing you.


----------



## capt. david

Here we go! If you can't catch 5 now, come Sept. you still will not catch 5!


----------



## ComeFrom?

....


----------



## gater

Kolorado_Koolaid said:


> agreed change is a good thing and the upper coast needs to drop to sooner rather than later
> 
> i know it's hard for some people who've been fishing these waters for decades but the fishing pressure has drastically changed since the 1980's...just drive down league city pkwy one day and you will realize how much the population has boomed on this side of town which ultimately adds to the amount of people fishing.
> 
> i'd prefer to catch 50 and keep 5 any day vs catch 10 and keep 10...just my 2cents


Koolaid do you realy think all those people fish. This area has been under boom for along time and if remember correctly saltwater license sales have actually dropped. 80% of the people running around Galveston can't catch 5 fish much less 10. Yes the pressure as in the number of boats on the water has increased since 1980 but the catching part maybe not so much. You still cant compare the upper and lower coast, totally different fishery.
If was an issue we would have seen long before now. The limit is 10 up here and 5 down there, keep what you want within the limits and be happy!


----------



## sharkchum

I fish Sargent all the time, sometimes on the north side of 457 sometimes on the south side. What will happen if I start the day out on the north side, where I can keep 10 trout, and the fishing is slow and I only catch 5, so I move to the south side, where I can only keep 5, and catch 5 more. So now I have 10 trout total in my possession, and Im on the south side of 457,and only 5 were caught on the south side. Than here comes Mr. Game Warden. Is he going to write me a ticket for being over my limit, even if I only kept 5 trout from the south side and did nothing illegal? I'm thinking I better give my attorney a retainer, because I have a feeling I'm gonna end up in court before the year is over.


----------



## Kyle 1974

Actually the scenario you gave is illegal. You can't be in possession of more than 5 trout south of 457. It's really not that complicated. 

If you're worried, I'd advise starting out on the south side...


----------



## Empty Pockets CC

It's all about possession and where you are located when he pulls you over and checks your catch. If you're on the wrong side of the line you're getting a warning or a ticket.


----------



## trackatrout

Yup! Your everyday Joe that only goes fishing once or twice a month might get lucky and catch their limit every now and then...but the people that pay guides to put them on the fish will limit 8 out of ten times. Just look at the pics that the guides services out of the middle coast put up here. I say 10 limit for us that may actually only limit out once or twice a year. And a five limit to the people that do it it on a daily basis.
I know the people that use guides don't go as often but the every day single or even double trips take a lot of fish from a generally small area.


----------



## sharkchum

Kyle 1974 said:


> Actually the scenario you gave is illegal. You can't be in possession of more than 5 trout south of 457. It's really not that complicated.
> 
> If you're worried, I'd advise starting out on the south side...


I just don't think that would hold up in court. If I take 10 trout to my uncle in Matagorda, that I caught In Galveston bay, and a Game Warden stops me when I get to Matagorda because he see's fishing poles sticking out of the back of my truck and finds 10 fresh trout in my ice chest will I still get a ticket. Is it illegal to transport legally caught fish in the State of Texas? I think this is way more complicated than you may think. I know this new law won't affect everyone, but it will affect me.The scenario I gave above isn't something I made up, I do this every year.


----------



## Kyle 1974

If you're in your boat, fishing. With a pole. You have 6 trout in a 5 trout area, you will get a ticket. 

People have been dealing with this down south for years now. 

5 fish/10 fish boundaries didn't just start this upcoming September.


----------



## mustfish

Nice Avatar Dead Weight!


----------



## sharkchum

If its only in a boat than I have nothing to worry about. I never take my boat down there, I just fish the beach front in my truck. I tried to call T.P.&W., but no warded was there to answer my question so I'll try to call back tomorrow.


----------



## Lone-Star

Kyle 1974 said:


> Actually the scenario you gave is illegal. You can't be in possession of more than 5 trout south of 457. It's really not that complicated.
> 
> If you're worried, I'd advise starting out on the south side...


 Possession limit is 10 south of 457


----------



## trout250

we were told if you are fishing in a boat and put in on the west side of 457 and return back to that ramp you can only have 5 fish to be legal. so i gues if you fish on the beach back east of 457 and stay on the east side when you come out you might get away with keeping 10. Going to be a hassle anyway you cut it.
good luck


----------



## Kyle 1974

Lone-Star said:


> Possession limit is 10 south of 457


Yes, it is. But If you're fishing with more than a daily bag, you'll probably get a ticket.

Try all these theories out fellas. Please let us know how it works out.


----------



## sharkchum

If T.P.&W. had any brain's at all they would have made the dividing line in the center of Mitchell's cut and not the center of the only road to get on and off of Sargent beach. At least that would cut down on the confusion for the surf fisherman.


----------



## Castin-N-Blastin

The new limits are total bs! If you know what your doing you can go out and grind out a limit in west matty most any day of the summer! Hell we usually release a bunch of fish but not now. I'm keeping everything legal and every big sow is going on the stronger from now on. Cause pretty soon we will be down to some non sense like 2 a day or something rediculous! Get em while you still can


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Castin-N-Blastin said:


> The new limits are total bs! If you know what your doing you can go out and grind out a limit in west matty most any day of the summer! Hell we usually release a bunch of fish but not now. I'm keeping everything legal and every big sow is going on the stronger from now on. Cause pretty soon we will be down to some non sense like 2 a day or something rediculous! Get em while you still can


You are a *********** idiot


----------



## Winters97gt

Castin-N-Blastin said:


> The new limits are total bs! If you know what your doing you can go out and grind out a limit in west matty most any day of the summer! Hell we usually release a bunch of fish but not now. I'm keeping everything legal and every big sow is going on the stronger from now on. Cause pretty soon we will be down to some non sense like 2 a day or something rediculous! Get em while you still can


An 18 year old that truly knows his stuff....(insert sarcasm)


----------



## Rubberback

As long as you don't break the laws you can do what you want. Its never a good idea to break a game law & get caught. The wardens will then know who you are & keep a close eye on you. JMO.
These laws are put in place to protect wild life for future anglers & protection from the species going extinct.


----------



## merle

Castin-N-Blastin said:


> I'm keeping everything legal and every big sow is going on the stronger from now on. Cause pretty soon we will be down to some non sense like 2 a day or something rediculous! Get em while you still can


Here's a "reel" genius. The future of our fisheries. This mentality is part of the reason for reductions.

EVERY resource has limits.


----------



## Chuckybrown

Castin-N-Blastin said:


> ell we usually release a bunch of fish but not now. I'm keeping everything legal and every big sow is going on the stronger from now on.


We have kicked guys like this off our lease before.

This mentality is messed up.

BTW, what's a "stronger"?


----------



## WillieP

Dead Wait said:


> Someone mentioned downloading the app. I did. That was the second part of my question.
> 
> It shows pictures but, there are only a few species with size and bag limits.
> 
> Has anyone beside me noticed.


I don't know which app you have but this is the TPWD app.


----------



## Kyle 1974

Castin-N-Blastin said:


> The new limits are total bs! If you know what your doing you can go out and grind out a limit in west matty most any day of the summer! Hell we usually release a bunch of fish but not now. I'm keeping everything legal and* every* big sow is going on the stronger from now on. Cause pretty soon we will be down to some non sense like 2 a day or something rediculous! Get em while you still can


so what happens if you grind out 6 trout over 25"? are they all going on the stringer?

these new laws are so hard to understand!!!!!!


----------



## Rubberback

I was just trying to be nice. I hope he gets caught & the law takes his rights away forever. The world has enough problems and doesn't need another Fruitcake.
Nothing worse than an idiot trying to get even with the system cause he doesn't agree. Go play hopscotch somewhere else.


----------



## duckmania

"get em while you still can"

Its this kind of cement head mentality that is largely why we are in the shape we're in.


----------



## DCAVA

Gotta get used to the 5 trout limit, we've had it for years, and there is also zones where u can catch & keep 1- 25" trout per day. Confusing as heck......


----------



## oakforestmx

bigfishtx said:


> TPW always does things about 3-5 years too late. They are not a very pro-active organization.
> 
> Most of us saw this coming on the middle coast years ago, yet they staunchly stood their ground saying trout were in good shape.


X2


----------



## dparkerh

railbird said:


> Praise The Lord, trout limits are finally here!


Amen. #Fiveisplenty #Tilapiaischeap #Nopotlickers LOL


----------



## dparkerh

Castin-N-Blastin said:


> The new limits are total bs! If you know what your doing you can go out and grind out a limit in west matty most any day of the summer! Hell we usually release a bunch of fish but not now. I'm keeping everything legal and every big sow is going on the stronger from now on. Cause pretty soon we will be down to some non sense like 2 a day or something rediculous! Get em while you still can


Glad to see this nimrod has been banned. WTG Mont.


----------



## sharkchum

I find it funny that everyone is bashing a kid that posted almost word for word the same thing that I posted last week. What I find even funnier is the fact that T.P.& W. has ya'll bending over and spreading your cheeks, and your happy about it. They do creel surveys in the middle of the day during the worst fishing conditions and do gill net surveys in the middle of August on a 2' deep mud flat where the water is 100 degrees and say well there ain't no trout so we better lower the limits, give me a break. Right where they drew the boundary line I caught a ice chest full of trout last Saturday on surf rods with steel leaders on cut mullet while fishing for red fish, and they expect me to believe there are no trout. I'll admit I know absolutely nothing of the trout fishery south of Mitchell's cut, but where I fish the trout population is as strong as I've ever seen it. If they want proof they are welcome to look in my fish box any day of the week. I'm not a guide, and I'm not a professional tournament angler, I'm just a average Joe fisherman who is sick and tired of T.P.&W. always taking away and never giving back.


----------



## Rubberback

sharkchum said:


> I find it funny that everyone is bashing a kid that posted almost word for word the same thing that I posted last week. What I find even funnier is the fact that T.P.& W. has ya'll bending over and spreading your cheeks, and your happy about it. They do creel surveys in the middle of the day during the worst fishing conditions and do gill net surveys in the middle of August on a 2' deep mud flat where the water is 100 degrees and say well there ain't no trout so we better lower the limits, give me a break. Right where they drew the boundary line I caught a ice chest full of trout last Saturday on surf rods with steel leaders on cut mullet while fishing for red fish, and they expect me to believe there are no trout. I'll admit I know absolutely nothing of the trout fishery south of Mitchell's cut, but where I fish the trout population is as strong as I've ever seen it. If they want proof they are welcome to look in my fish box any day of the week. I'm not a guide, and I'm not a professional tournament angler, I'm just a average Joe fisherman who is sick and tired of T.P.&W. always taking away and never giving back.


Wow! So, thats how TP&W does it. LOL I don't think so.


----------



## trouthammer

Kyle 1974 said:


> I guess people just got really good at catching fish in the last few years.... must be because of all those outdoor magazines constantly giving updates where all the good fishing spots are, and what the best tactics are to catch them.


I just love your posts...and to those who have trouble catching limits down south, get better guides and/or learn to fish. And just to preempt railbird who loves the land cut, just for you I have been killing them big time in the cut this summer. One day you might ask yourself how it is a guy can hammer trout in a place you think has population issues...look in the mirror when you ask that ?.


----------



## merle

trouthammer said:


> I just love your posts...and to those who have trouble catching limits down south, get better guides and/or learn to fish. And just to preempt railbird who loves the land cut, just for you I have been killing them big time in the cut this summer. One day you might ask yourself how it is a guy can hammer trout in a place you think has population issues...look in the mirror when you ask that ?.


Do you and Kyle fish together in the same waders? I think you said "you love his post." Change your name to kyleshammer and shut up. Ain't nuttin better than a braggin' fisherman.

What point are you trying to make about trout limits up north? Down there it isn't about "killing them." It's about the BIG trout.


----------



## Winters97gt

If you're not catching fish, you need a more expensive boat...


----------



## spurgersalty

merle said:


> Do you and Kyle fish together in the same waders? I think you said "you love his post." Change your name to kyleshammer and shut up. Ain't nuttin better than a braggin' fisherman.
> 
> What point are you trying to make about trout limits up north? Down there it isn't about "killing them." It's about the BIG trout.


And that is the crux of the argument. You said a mouthful with those last three sentences. 
Have you ever thought its not just about you and the rest of the elitist fishermen looking for "tha' biggun"? Sometimes folks want to go out and catch a "mess" for a fish fry, or, to pass an anticipated holiday away from the water. But no, people such as yourself with your purist/elitist attitude want nothing of it. Its much like partisan politics.


----------



## Kyle 1974

Merle, My 10 year old has probably caught more big trout than most people on this board. And we like to fill the ice chest sometimes as well. Fish how you like and I'll fish how I'll like.


----------



## spurgersalty

Kyle 1974 said:


> Merle, My 10 year old has probably caught more big trout than most people on this board. And we like to fill the ice chest sometimes as well. Fish how you like and I'll fish how I'll like.


BS, you'll do it my way, or else!!!!!:rotfl:


----------



## WADER13

Winters97gt said:


> If you're not catching fish, you need a more expensive boat...


Best quote so far. ^^^^^

It's a proven fact us go fast high dollar boat guys always catch our limits. We just like to blow the spots off all the ones we pass up going to our "honey hole" 30 miles away. :biggrin:


----------



## Finn Maccumhail

100% chance several posters on this thread drive a truck with 2 of the 3 following: 1) truck-nutz; 2) Calvin peeing on the emblem of a manufacturer different than the one they're driving; and 3) modded diesel and something about "rollin' coal."


----------



## merle

spurgersalty said:


> And that is the crux of the argument. You said a mouthful with those last three sentences.
> Have you ever thought its not just about you and the rest of the elitist fishermen looking for "tha' biggun"? Sometimes folks want to go out and catch a "mess" for a fish fry, or, to pass an anticipated holiday away from the water. But no, people such as yourself with your purist/elitist attitude want nothing of it. Its much like partisan politics.


"Down there" it is all about Big trout. I go "down there" only during the season only for big trout.

Up here, I don't complain about or disagree with anyone keeping their legal limits. For me and me only, I do support the limit reduction and do release all fish.....as my contribution to the fountain of smarts.


----------



## rubberducky

Sharkchum I use to be able to fish the bridge at 457 and catch trout on both sides. What am I to do if I am fishing the east side of the bridge but my truck is parked on the west side?


----------



## trouthammer

merle said:


> Do you and Kyle fish together in the same waders? I think you said "you love his post." Change your name to kyleshammer and shut up. Ain't nuttin better than a braggin' fisherman.
> 
> What point are you trying to make about trout limits up north? Down there it isn't about "killing them." It's about the BIG trout.


Wow did you think that up all by yourself? Not to brag but I have released more big trout "down" south than you will ever dream of catching.


----------



## dparkerh

Finn Maccumhail said:


> 100% chance several posters on this thread drive a truck with 2 of the 3 following: 1) truck-nutz; 2) Calvin peeing on the emblem of a manufacturer different than the one they're driving; and 3) modded diesel and something about "rollin' coal."


Don't forget 'Salt Life" and the Browning buck mark even though they've never held a Browning firearm.


----------



## Trouthappy

Why hail nobody left them no buffalo, why should they leave any trout for the next generation?


----------



## Im Headed South

"If we don't leave any, there won't be any"

Captain Billy


----------



## Rubberback

Im Headed South said:


> "If we don't leave any, there won't be any"
> 
> Captain Billy


Yep! Another point if the TP&W didn't make laws for fishing we would of been out of fish years ago. You always here everyone saying take your kid fishing or hunting. I agree! But when you take them teach them about being a conservationist. Its not all about who catches the most are the biggest. Its more about being with nature & having a good time with your friends or your family.


----------



## LaddH

Im Headed South said:


> "If we don't leave any, there won't be any"
> 
> Captain Billy


When Billy was still guiding he had the trout limit set at five on his trips and if you did not like it you fished with someone else. Of course there is no one else like Billy Sandifer.


----------



## trouthammer

Im Headed South said:


> "If we don't leave any, there won't be any"
> 
> Captain Billy


Never mistake not being ABLE to catch ANY with there not being ANY...Billy can catch them with the best but I seriously doubt a self imposed limit or for that matter the new limit will have any effect on those who just don't put time on the water. The fact that the upper stays at 10 while the lower reduces to 5 without any scientific difference tells you this is political to the max. I went to the meetings and asked why the two are treated different and the frank reply was because TPWD determined 5 was wanted in the lower and middle but not in the upper...great reason for change huh?

Has anyone ever given thought to the fact that the good ole days when trout were so plentiful were also the same days shrimpers hammered them in the bays, trout were commercially fished and limits were higher? All of those conditions are gone today.


----------



## Im Headed South

Same ol drivel from the Soaker. Curious why didn't you sign in to speak at the commissioners meeting in Austin when the issue was being voted on? You had all of those facts in the report you put together, it would have been priceless to hear the commissioners tell you that your full of **** just like they told the speaker from the coastal bend guides association when he tried to claim there was no scientific evidence for a change not 5 minutes after Coastal Fisheries Managers laid out the evidence. Enjoy your 5 trout limit next April when the yellow flags start flying again and you anyone else that can rig a salt shaker to a 6/0 khale hook and hit a pothole become a trophy trout specialist :rotfl:


----------



## trouthammer

Im Headed South said:


> Same ol drivel from the Soaker. Curious why didn't you sign in to speak at the commissioners meeting in Austin when the issue was being voted on? You had all of those facts in the report you put together, it would have been priceless to hear the commissioners tell you that your full of **** just like they told the speaker from the coastal bend guides association when he tried to claim there was no scientific evidence for a change not 5 minutes after Coastal Fisheries Managers laid out the evidence. Enjoy your 5 trout limit next April when the yellow flags start flying again and you anyone else that can rig a salt shaker to a 6/0 khale hook and hit a pothole become a trophy trout specialist :rotfl:


I was in trial or I would have attended smart ***. Some people run companies for a living while others post on internet boards all the time. I was at the Corpus meeting and asked the same question and was told there was no science, just a matter of what one area wanted versus another. Looks like they can speak out of both sides of the mouth when necessary or they sold BS in Austin. BTW I use what it takes to catch them including lures and croakers...and if you look down on that practice it says a lot about your legend in your own mind. The way you whine about how bad fishing is in Rockport maybe you should open up to the idea that you should use croakers since you can't catch them with your lure skills....


----------



## dparkerh

^ Man there are some bad a**es on this board


----------



## railbird

Lol. Headed south has made turds bigger than trouthumper!


----------



## Im Headed South

trouthammer said:


> I was in trial or I would have attended smart ***. Some people run companies for a living while others post on internet boards all the time. I was at the Corpus meeting and asked the same question and was told there was no science, just a matter of what one area wanted versus another. Looks like they can speak out of both sides of the mouth when necessary or they sold BS in Austin. BTW I use what it takes to catch them including lures and croakers...and if you look down on that practice it says a lot about your legend in your own mind. The way you whine about how bad fishing is in Rockport maybe you should open up to the idea that you should use croakers since you can't catch them with your lure skills....


Wow, did I touch a nerve croakerhammer, I prefer to fool'em instead of feeding them. As far professions go as someone that started out with a shovel in his hand 25+ years ago with the same nationwide construction company that I'm now part owner of I can honestly say a lawyer is even lower down my tolerable list than a soaker :rotfl:. Guess you never chose to post up any reports of your artificial trips but love to post pics up of your ice chest when your slinging the barking monkeys, guess it's also a coincidence that nearly all of your reports are only between April and September. Love a few of the quotes in them.

"ah you croaker specialists know what I am talking about. You just know by that big thump and line free spooling fast what is about to happen."
"flying croaker flags, like the flowers in spring bloom"
"I put two on the hook(never done that with croaker) and it didn't sit for 1 second before the biggest trout hammered it."
So glad you over came the hardship of those pesky small monkeys in April lol.


----------



## trouthammer

Im Headed South said:


> Wow, did I touch a nerve croakerhammer, I prefer to fool'em instead of feeding them. As far professions go as someone that started out with a shovel in his hand 25+ years ago with the same nationwide construction company that I'm now part owner of I can honestly say a lawyer is even lower down my tolerable list than a soaker :rotfl:. Guess you never chose to post up any reports of your artificial trips but love to post pics up of your ice chest when your slinging the barking monkeys, guess it's also a coincidence that nearly all of your reports are only between April and September. Love a few of the quotes in them.
> 
> "ah you croaker specialists know what I am talking about. You just know by that big thump and line free spooling fast what is about to happen."
> "flying croaker flags, like the flowers in spring bloom"
> "I put two on the hook(never done that with croaker) and it didn't sit for 1 second before the biggest trout hammered it."
> So glad you over came the hardship of those pesky small monkeys in April lol.


Post count, 3,144 on this board. Keep typing big man as that must be where you get your elite status and unsurpassed knowledge of fishing.


----------



## trouthammer

And so there is no mistake about why they did what they did let this soak in....see any science?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: The pushback levels are going to become gigantic if we get up into Galveston Bay.

COMMISSIONER MORIAN: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I'll just tell you that.

COMMISSIONER DUGGINS: Well, it sounds like 457 then is the spot.

Rest my case and look forward to your reply of anything other than personal attacks and stay with facts and science for a change...got to go read a file for a guy just like you that hates lawyers but loves them when they need them.


----------



## Kyle 1974

Trouthappy said:


> Why hail nobody left them no buffalo, why should they leave any trout for the next generation?


why do people keep writing articles on the most effective way to catch more fish? is it good for a fish's overall health and well being to be caught and released?


----------



## Im Headed South

No Science huh? h:

COMMISSIONER JONES: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question? I'm looking at a letter in opposition (fyi, by the coastal bend guides association), and I'm just wanting to make sure I'm understanding at least the chart that I saw. This says that our gillnet surveys do not show a decline in the population of Speckled seatrout, but I thought I just saw a graph that you presented here earlier that did show a decline or what does it show?

MR. ROBINSON: The graph that you see before you is broken out by geographic areas. The upper coast being Sabine and Galveston Bay. Middle coast being Matagorda, San Antonio, Aransas Bays. Lower coast, Corpus Christi, Upper Laguna, and then of course the Lower Laguna. And what you see -- and actually if you look at the graph there, each one of those points is a measure of relative abundance within those regions. So it is a fairly stable population as you see depicted by the graph.

COMMISSIONER JONES: Okay. Stable is not the same as decline.

MR. ROBINSON: Well, I mean if you look at the last three -- the last two points there, I mean you're looking at 2013, 2012, and from 2011, there is a decline in all three of those points. Slight that it may be.

COMMISSIONER JONES: Okay. So there is a decline?

MR. ROBINSON: There is a slight decline on the last three years. What's that? Oh, that's right, yeah. And Jeremy reminded me, we also -- not depicted in this graph; but in other sampling gear that we have, we also show recruitment, juveniles coming into the population has also declined over that same timeframe. So the recruitment of young individuals into the population has declined, is declining in Spotted seatrout.

COMMISSIONER JONES: What does that mean?

MR. ROBINSON: Recruitment is the measure of juveniles coming into the population. It's tied very closely to spawning-stock biomass. The larger -- the more females you have in the population, the goal is to get a higher recruitment. More juveniles in the population. One of our sampling gear that we measure, it looks specifically at juveniles. Shoreline back seine surveys will capture that information and from that -- those data, we do see a declining trend in Spotted seatrout recruitment, juveniles in the population which translates into fewer numbers of adults into the future.

COMMISSIONER JONES: So I guess that's what I was confused about is -- and I'm just reading that this person has written that our surveys do not show a decline, but I'm -- from what you're telling me and what I'm seeing, it does show a decline. At least in middle -- actually lower and upper coast.

MR. ROBINSON: There -- yes, sir. There is a decline there, and more specifically with the recruitment.


----------



## Im Headed South

As far as the boundary goes:


COMMISSIONER DE HOYOS: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Remind me again how did we chose the limit, the 457 Matagorda County line? Or remind me how did we -- why did we choose that versus statewide or... 

MR. ROBINSON: We communicated with Law Enforcement to find out where a good boundary would be and they chose -- decided that that would be a good enforceable boundary, is the Highway 457. Does that...


----------



## netboy

Im Headed South said:


> Same ol drivel from the Soaker. Curious why didn't you sign in to speak at the commissioners meeting in Austin when the issue was being voted on? You had all of those facts in the report you put together, it would have been priceless to hear the commissioners tell you that your full of **** just like they told the speaker from the coastal bend guides association when he tried to claim there was no scientific evidence for a change not 5 minutes after Coastal Fisheries Managers laid out the evidence. Enjoy your 5 trout limit next April when the yellow flags start flying again and you anyone else that can rig a salt shaker to a 6/0 khale hook and hit a pothole become a trophy trout specialist :rotfl:


Well said I'm Headed South. LMAO


----------



## sharkchum

Im Headed South said:


> As far as the boundary goes:
> 
> COMMISSIONER DE HOYOS: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Remind me again how did we chose the limit, the 457 Matagorda County line? Or remind me how did we -- why did we choose that versus statewide or...
> 
> MR. ROBINSON: We communicated with Law Enforcement to find out where a good boundary would be and they chose -- decided that that would be a good enforceable boundary, is the Highway 457. Does that...


That sounds like highly intelligent scientific data to me "Because its good for enforcement", give me a break.


----------



## bigfishtx

Yada yada yada yada.

I think the five fish limit is long overdue.


----------



## trouthammer

*So it is a fairly stable population as you see depicted by the graph* Did you read that? Cherry picking slight recent declines off of monstrous great years?...really?

I don't really have time for this but if you look at the LLM (where limits have been 5 for a long time) there was also a SLIGHT decline.....in fact the fall 2013 was the worst in a long while. That goes for both gill nets and recruitment. One day you will realize trout and the alleged science crude we see from TPWD will prove what guys who have fished seriously all their lives will tell you...mother nature has more to do with it and it is very cyclical.


----------



## Rubberback

trouthammer said:


> I don't really have time for this but if you look at the LLM (where limits have been 5 for a long time) there was also a SLIGHT decline.....in fact the fall 2013 was the worst in a long while. That goes for both gill nets and recruitment. One day you realize trout and the alleged science crude we see from TPWD will prove what guys who have fished seriously all their lives will tell you...mother nature has more to do with it and it is very cyclical.


No doubt. But you need a bunch of stock when things go south. Later.Its like quail the more you have out there the quicker they will rebound. Go figure .I've lived long enough to know that mother nature can end it all quick. But having enough stock can save us. 
Good freeze can wipe us out no doubt.
All we can do is try & take care of what we have.


----------



## trouthammer

Rubberback said:


> No doubt. But you need a bunch of stock when things go south. Later.


Got no problem with that. I would be the first to give TPWD power to make it all catch and release if something bad like a freeze or red tide took a huge toll at any given time. My problem is politics called this shot and we will never get em back even if trout because of mother nature explode...see redfish.


----------



## DCAVA

5 it is fellas, and I am sure the limit will be the same for the entire Texas coast before long....

Jus sayin.....


----------



## Im Headed South

trouthammer said:


> Got no problem with that. I would be the first to give TPWD power to make it all catch and release if something bad like a freeze or red tide took a huge toll at any given time. My problem is politics called this shot and we will never get em back even if trout because of mother nature explode...see redfish.


Wrong again :spineyes::

COMMISSIONER LEE: Quick clarification. Help us understand the mechanics of the five-year sunset provision. Does it sunset back to the current take? I mean how does the sunset work? What if we're wrong?

MR. RIECHERS: You know, we review our rules as you all know every year and so in this particular case, they're -- even though we certainly indicate to folks that, you know, there's a process we go through every year, you certainly are well aware of it. Most of our -- as you can tell by 2500 comments, most of our anglers are well aware of it and follow it closely. 
But in this case, they wanted some assurance that there would be another decision point. And so the way the mechanics of the way we've proposed this rule is that it will go away if we do not take another action.

COMMISSIONER LEE: Meaning it reverts back to the limits that we have today?

MR. ROBINSON: Correct.
MR. RIECHERS: That is correct.


----------



## Rubberback

trouthammer said:


> Got no problem with that. I would be the first to give TPWD power to make it all catch and release if something bad like a freeze or red tide took a huge toll at any given time. My problem is politics called this shot and we will never get em back even if trout because of mother nature explode...see redfish.


I know all about that. But we have redfish. So, Life is good.


----------



## Rubberback

DCAVA said:


> 5 it is fellas, and I am sure the limit will be the same for the entire Texas coast before long....
> 
> Jus sayin.....


Amen! That is the way we can keep it going for the future. Guess, we all love to fish.


----------



## DCAVA

Rubberback said:


> Amen! That is the way we can keep it going for the future. Guess, we all love to fish.


 No doubt bro!


----------



## sharkchum

Another problem that seems to be overlooked is the fresh water inflow. The water supply just cant keep up with the population increase. Most of the water is being used up before it can get to the coast, and the water that does make it down is polluted. The amount of water being wasted is mind boggling. Let me give you a small example, I am a water/wastewater treatment plant operator for a small water district, every day we record the amount of of water going out of the water plant and waste water plant. When I made my rounds this morning I recorded 692,000 gallons of potable drinking water that went into our distribution system, at the waste water plant I recorded 284,000 gallons of treated waste water the went out our effluent, that means 408,000 gallons of water was used watering lawns, filling pools, washing cars, trucks, boats, ect., that is a lot of water wasted, and its not gonna change.


----------



## Chuckybrown

sharkchum said:


> I recorded 284,000 gallons of treated waste water the went out our effluent, that means 408,000 gallons of water was used watering lawns, filling pools, washing cars, trucks, boats, ect., that is a lot of water wasted, and its not gonna change


Sharkchum, I'm kinda with you on this one.

With the "yard of the month" awards, 15 year old boys and shower times, neighborhood car washes, iced water served at every table in every restaurant.....how do we fix this?


----------



## trouthammer

Im Headed South said:


> Wrong again :spineyes::
> 
> COMMISSIONER LEE: Quick clarification. Help us understand the mechanics of the five-year sunset provision. Does it sunset back to the current take? I mean how does the sunset work? What if we're wrong?
> 
> MR. RIECHERS: You know, we review our rules as you all know every year and so in this particular case, they're -- even though we certainly indicate to folks that, you know, there's a process we go through every year, you certainly are well aware of it. Most of our -- as you can tell by 2500 comments, most of our anglers are well aware of it and follow it closely.
> But in this case, they wanted some assurance that there would be another decision point. And so the way the mechanics of the way we've proposed this rule is that it will go away if we do not take another action.
> 
> COMMISSIONER LEE: Meaning it reverts back to the limits that we have today?
> 
> MR. ROBINSON: Correct.
> MR. RIECHERS: That is correct.


I am patient, what do you want to make as a friendly bet that despite science we never go back to 10. I will even bet before then the upper gets stuck with 5 because that is the mantra of the new and emerging CCA elitist politician. Will you admit TPWD wanted to give us raised redfish limits but your ilk said no?


----------



## Im Headed South

About the only way to make more water is desalination but its not cheap, San Antonio has started construction on what will end up being the largest desal plant in the country. Once all the phases are complete in the next 12 years it will produce 30+ million gallons of water per day, at a total project cost of $411 million.


----------



## wos

*Just keep 5,5 and 5?*



Texxan1 said:


> Just keep 5, 5 and 5.....


 Captain: I hope that you don't mean multiple customer trips per day? wos


----------



## sharkchum

Chuckybrown said:


> Sharkchum, I'm kinda with you on this one.
> 
> With the "yard of the month" awards, 15 year old boys and shower times, neighborhood car washes, iced water served at every table in every restaurant.....how do we fix this?


We can't fix it, because we won't fix it. We human beings as a whole are determined to destroy ourselves. We are destroying our planet at a alarming rate,and we will never stop. Everyone talks about saving and protecting things for our children and grandchildren, but that's all we do is just "talk". Sure you have the "Green" people and the "Tree huggers", but that's not enough. I'm not gonna trade my 3/4 ton gas gussling truck in on a bicycle or my outboard powered bay boat in for a canoe, and neither will anyone else. Do you think people are gonna turn off their sprinkler systems and let their pretty green grass die, I don't think so. We have the technology right now to be able to stop using fossil fuels, but it will never happen. Why you ask? That is simple to answer, "MONEY", plain and simple. If the oil and gas industry was shut down today it would lead to a economic meltdown. So, in order to keep the world spinning around, we just keep destroying our self's.


----------



## sharkchum

Im Headed South said:


> About the only way to make more water is desalination but its not cheap, San Antonio has started construction on what will end up being the largest desal plant in the country. Once all the phases are complete in the next 12 years it will produce 30+ million gallons of water per day, at a total project cost of $411 million.


 Desalination sound's like a partial solution, but the problem is what to do with all the salt. Weather they decide to dispose of it on land or back into the water it's going to create a "Dead Zone". One step forward 10 steps back.


----------



## Im Headed South

trouthammer said:


> I am patient, what do you want to make as a friendly bet that despite science we never go back to 10. I will even bet before then the upper gets stuck with 5 because that is the mantra of the new and emerging CCA elitist politician. Will you admit TPWD wanted to give us raised redfish limits but your ilk said no?


Redfish were actually publicly scoped twice and both times the general public at the meetings felt the increased limit was not needed but in the end the choice was made by Coastal Fisheries and the Commissioners in Austin. The Spanish Mackerel limit was more than doubled in the early 2000's if I remember correctly when the population warranted an increase. But don't let these facts get in the way of your conspiracy theories.


----------



## Winters97gt

sharkchum said:


> Another problem that seems to be overlooked is the fresh water inflow. The water supply just cant keep up with the population increase. Most of the water is being used up before it can get to the coast, and the water that does make it down is polluted. The amount of water being wasted is mind boggling. Let me give you a small example, I am a water/wastewater treatment plant operator for a small water district, every day we record the amount of of water going out of the water plant and waste water plant. When I made my rounds this morning I recorded 692,000 gallons of potable drinking water that went into our distribution system, at the waste water plant I recorded 284,000 gallons of treated waste water the went out our effluent, that means 408,000 gallons of water was used watering lawns, filling pools, washing cars, trucks, boats, ect., that is a lot of water wasted, and its not gonna change.


I'm sure my old man and yourself have met. He's been in the "chit" biz for 45 years. He's said some of the same things you have. Combine that with the lack of fresh water from rain some places see, and it can make salinty high.

I'm not on one side or another on this, because I don't ever fish north of SPI but once a year. I have no problem catching fish, we have been hurting on reds compared to you all.


----------



## johnmyjohn

Reading this and the other same type post started me to think from another angle. First of all I'm for letting the science to set the limits instead of the experts. No I don't always agree with the science ( perfect example is the red snapper controls ) but nothing is perfect. I will shamefully admit I caught and kept my limit of trout the last three trips or more I made (10), but I did leave them biting after the limit was made. The way I caught them doesn't matter because I go to fish to catch fish and as a bonus have something to eat. I eat fish a lot , polluted or not and can't recall ever throwing away fillets or freezer burning them. Maybe a hurricane or something to do with loosing electricity. Whether I eat them or someone else does I do with my legal fish as I wish it's really nobody elses' business. The angle I was thinking about was more in a question, if the limits were set to five in the upper coast will the experts on this forum start saying it should be 2 and you're inconsiderate of the future if you keep 5? Or is the word limit the real enemy? More important I started thinking what would ''I'' call myself if I go fishing and throw back most of my legal catch which I enjoy eating then stop at HEB and buy fish which was raised on the other side of the planet under who knows the conditions? In my youth I got into fights over the word I thought of to call myself. Lately laws are passed without consideration to popular demand, politics, science or even religious beliefs. All you need is a feeling I guess to make it right. So you quiet ones out there keep in mind the squeaky wheel does get the grease,,,, a lot of times. I apologize in advance if I offend the original poster by not sticking to his subject matter.


----------



## Rubberback

sharkchum said:


> We can't fix it, because we won't fix it. We human beings as a whole are determined to destroy ourselves. We are destroying our planet at a alarming rate,and we will never stop. Everyone talks about saving and protecting things for our children and grandchildren, but that's all we do is just "talk". Sure you have the "Green" people and the "Tree huggers", but that's not enough. I'm not gonna trade my 3/4 ton gas gussling truck in on a bicycle or my outboard powered bay boat in for a canoe, and neither will anyone else. Do you think people are gonna turn off their sprinkler systems and let their pretty green grass die, I don't think so. We have the technology right now to be able to stop using fossil fuels, but it will never happen. Why you ask? That is simple to answer, "MONEY", plain and simple. If the oil and gas industry was shut down today it would lead to a economic meltdown. So, in order to keep the world spinning around, we just keep destroying our self's.


That is why we live with rules & people hired to enforce these rules. You will quit watering your grass if its against the law to water it. I live in the country & have well water but I can honestly say I ain't gonna water my yard. I'll water my veggie garden & my livestock. I P outside never inside.
They built a so called neighborhood next to me & these cityfied people have automatic watering system to water their yards. Its crazy. They pump water to fill ponds so it looks pretty. What a waste. 
I can afford to water my yard too but choose not to, water is a precious thing. Its needed more for livestock & human consumption then to waste on your yard. Heck, I got better things to do then mow my yard.


----------



## Kyle 1974

Im Headed South said:


> Redfish were actually publicly scoped twice and both times the general public at the meetings felt the increased limit was not needed but in the end the choice was made by Coastal Fisheries and the Commissioners in Austin. The Spanish Mackerel limit was more than doubled in the early 2000's if I remember correctly when the population warranted an increase. But don't let these facts get in the way of your conspiracy theories.


 do you think spanish mackeral being a pelagic species might have helped with that decision?


----------



## Adobe 11SD

And to think that this thread started by the OP asking about the bag limit boundary and the fishing companion app for his phone.

We end up with slamming people for using water for their lawns, washing vehicles, etc -- even though we paid for the **** water. 

Final thought - It seems like every bag limit thread ends the same. My feeling is that for people like me that did not get involved in the TP&W rule making "process", we have no right to criticize the changes. In order to have a valid criticism we need to get off our lazy ***** and get involved while options, alternatives, discussions, meetings, etc are taking place -- prior to the rule change decision.


----------



## Rubberback

Adobe 11SD said:


> And to think that this thread started by the OP asking about the bag limit boundary and the fishing companion app for his phone.
> 
> We end up with slamming people for using water for their lawns, washing vehicles, etc -- even though we paid for the **** water.
> 
> Final thought - It seems like every bag limit thread ends the same. My feeling is that for people like me that did not get involved in the TP&W rule making "process", we have no right to criticize the changes. In order to have a valid criticism we need to get off our lazy ***** and get involved while options, alternatives, discussions, meetings, etc are taking place -- prior to the rule change decision.


I don't even pay for water but I ain't gonna waste it. That is the whole problem right there. Waste not want not. One day water will cost more than gas. It is our most precious commodity. The heck with this.


----------



## Adobe 11SD

Rubberback said:


> I don't even pay for water but I ain't gonna waste it. That is the whole problem right there. Waste not want not. One day water will cost more than gas. It is our most precious commodity. The heck with this.


I really don't want to get into a debate about whether you think me protecting my investments is wasting water.

BTW - I practice water conservation in a different way - I drink way more beer than I do water, so I am doing my part for the "cause".


----------



## dparkerh

trouthammer said:


> I am patient, what do you want to make as a friendly bet that despite science we never go back to 10. I will even bet before then the upper gets stuck with 5 because that is the mantra of the new and emerging CCA elitist politician. Will you admit TPWD wanted to give us raised redfish limits but your ilk said no?


Ok, here is a serious question for you: Why are you so wound up about the limit being 10 instead of 5? I mean, seriously - are you needing to feed your family? I love to eat FRESH fried trout. I get it. But good Lord come on man, why are folks so bent on killing 10 any time they go? And don't tell me the "some people only get to fish once a year" ****....if that is the case then maybe they should buy some fresh tilapia or farm raised catfish instead.... When did fishing turn into a big **** contest?

Lastly, don't throw out that tired old "people that want a limit of 5 can't catch 10" line. I've had days of over 100 trout on artificials so that won't work.

Let's hear some reasonable logic on why you gotta kill 10.


----------



## Kyle 1974

I'm not that torqued up about only keeping 5 trout... like I said in the scoping meeting in corpus (with the whopping participation of about 15 people) I just want to make sure we're making decisions based on science and not what a lobbying group is pushing for. I also mentioned the 5 fish possession was rather stupid, so at least they kept a 2 day possession in effect. 

there were numerous reports of starving drum in baffin last year. many of the drum I've caught this year have been skinny.... but has TPW even mentioned increasing the limit for drum? redfish are everywhere, and we're staying at 3.... flounder went down... trout went down...

blue crab populations seem to be way down from a few years ago, but they're still releasing 20-30 million redfish a year. 

freshwater inflow sucks

seems like they've got it all figured out.


----------



## Rubberback

Adobe 11SD said:


> I really don't want to get into a debate about whether you think me protecting my investments is wasting water.
> 
> BTW - I practice water conservation in a different way - I drink way more beer than I do water, so I am doing my part for the "cause".


Me too.


----------



## Rubberback

Kyle 1974 said:


> I'm not that torqued up about only keeping 5 trout... like I said in the scoping meeting in corpus (with the whopping participation of about 15 people) I just want to make sure we're making decisions based on science and not what a lobbying group is pushing for.
> 
> there were numerous reports of starving drum in baffin last year. many of the drum I've caught this year have been skinny.... but has TPW even mentioned increasing the limit for drum? redfish are everywhere, and we're staying at 3.... flounder went down... trout went down...
> 
> blue crab populations seem to be way down from a few years ago, but they're still releasing 20-30 million redfish a year.
> 
> freshwater inflow sucks
> 
> seems like they've got it all figured out.


Just heard today there fixin to raise the redfish limit. Heard it from a shrimper. Said the TP&W has been riding on his shrimp boat out in the gulf & seeing giant schools of reds. Said the reds are hurting the shrimp industry big time.


----------



## diverdown

I tell u the reason why people should be so torqued up on 5 fish is that we are paying the price in reduced quotas because of the guides. tpw needs to do something about the commercial fishing in the bays are we are all gonna go to 5 fish. There is no difference between what the guides do to the bays and the oyster guys and shrimp trawlers. Except the fishing guides go un-opposed in the bay. They are raping the resource and now we have to pay the price. Y'all need to wake up on these guides.its a business and like every other commercial business they will take all they can until they need to be regulated. And that time is now. It's not just a few guys anymore.


----------



## Psychogatortrout

diverdown said:


> I tell u the reason why people should be so torqued up on 5 fish is that we are paying the price in reduced quotas because of the guides. tpw needs to do something about the commercial fishing in the bays are we are all gonna go to 5 fish. There is no difference between what the guides do to the bays and the oyster guys and shrimp trawlers. Except the fishing guides go un-opposed in the bay. They are raping the resource and now we have to pay the price. Y'all need to wake up on these guides.its a business and like every other commercial business they will take all they can until they need to be regulated. And that time is now. It's not just a few guys anymore.


I agree with what you said. They just reduced the limit to 5 so I think TP&W did well. I think as of right now they just need to up the limit on redfish. I'm seeing a lot more flounder than usual this year and as always there are just a ton of reds to be caught.


----------



## trouthammer

dparkerh said:


> Ok, here is a serious question for you: Why are you so wound up about the limit being 10 instead of 5? I mean, seriously - are you needing to feed your family? I love to eat FRESH fried trout. I get it. But good Lord come on man, why are folks so bent on killing 10 any time they go? And don't tell me the "some people only get to fish once a year" ****....if that is the case then maybe they should buy some fresh tilapia or farm raised catfish instead.... When did fishing turn into a big **** contest?
> 
> Lastly, don't throw out that tired old "people that want a limit of 5 can't catch 10" line. I've had days of over 100 trout on artificials so that won't work.
> 
> Let's hear some reasonable logic on why you gotta kill 10.


I can assure you I have released my share of fish. Last year everything over 25 was released and I am thinking that was over 15 fish. I also do not always keep 10 but I do vacuum seal and eat anything that doesn't get immediately eaten.

So to answer your question sometimes I like to keep 10 (particularly if they are in the 15-17 good eating range) and really don't think one group of fishermen should have more say in whether I can keep 10 or not. I want science based decisions and if the science is there I will happily agree to take none if that's what is needed. If you study the situation the truth is the CCA and middle coast guys pushed this on us and the science for us is no different than the upper coast. The upper coast was vocal about not wanting reduced limits so TPWD listened to them.

Basically TPWD gave what select groups wanted on the middle coast and drew a line to keep the upper coast groups happy....somewhere in there science got pooped on.


----------



## Adobe 11SD

trouthammer said:


> I can assure you I have released my share of fish. Last year everything over 25 was released and I am thinking that was over 15 fish. I also do not always keep 10 but I do vacuum seal and eat anything that doesn't get immediately eaten.
> 
> So to answer your question sometimes I like to keep 10 (particularly if they are in the 15-17 good eating range) and really don't think one group of fishermen should have more say in whether I can keep 10 or not. I want science based decisions and if the science is there I will happily agree to take none if that's what is needed. If you study the situation the truth is the CCA and middle coast guys pushed this on us and the science for us is no different than the upper coast. The upper coast was vocal about not wanting reduced limits so TPWD listened to them.
> 
> Basically TPWD gave what select groups wanted on the middle coast and drew a line to keep the upper coast groups happy....somewhere in there science got pooped on.


I am going to hate myself once I weigh in on this, but the upper/middle coast argument/rationale is a lot like - since Jimmy got to keep his toy and I didn't, I'm really mad.

If you feel like the upper coast fishermen should have a 5 fish bag limit just because you do, I have a hard time getting on board with your entire thought process.

The way that I look at it is just because one person got punished for doing *nothing *wrong, does not mean two people should.


----------



## wahoozy

I'm all for raising the limits to 20 trout and mandatory croaker use to take said 20 Trout.

I'm all for no tournaments and to keep bass fishing types out of coastal fishing who make their comments if you filet a 5lb bass. 

Sadly that's where the coast is headed, fast boats, big tournaments, and arse holes who complain every time you filet a fish. Those who grew up coastal fishing should know their way of life is circling the drain.


----------



## Adobe 11SD

whammy said:


> I'm all for raising the limits to 20 trout and mandatory croaker use to take said 20 Trout.
> 
> I'm all for no tournaments and to keep bass fishing types out of coastal fishing who make their comments if you filet a 5lb bass.
> 
> Sadly that's where the coast is headed, fast boats, big tournaments, and arse holes who complain every time you filet a fish. Those who grew up coastal fishing should know their way of life is circling the drain.


I have to confess that I don't really understand your point, but if I consider bass fishing the same as trout fishing, it would seem that there is no difference between the two with regard to the *sport *of catching them.

My point is probably (again) controversial, but the part that I do not get is IF we are sportsmen, once we catch 5 (or 10, or 20, etc) trout/bass why can't we target a different species while we are on the water - maybe go for the Texas Slam? Maybe catch a mess of catfish, etc?

If we need fish as a food source it would seem that we could agree that although a bass or trout might taste better than other species, ice cream tastes better than spinach, but both can help us survive.


----------



## trouthammer

Adobe 11SD said:


> I am going to hate myself once I weigh in on this, but the upper/middle coast argument/rationale is a lot like - since Jimmy got to keep his toy and I didn't, I'm really mad.
> 
> If you feel like the upper coast fishermen should have a 5 fish bag limit just because you do, I have a hard time getting on board with your entire thought process.
> 
> The way that I look at it is just because one person got punished for doing *nothing *wrong, does not mean two people should.


Not at all the way I feel and I am happy for the upper coast guys. I am using the fact that there are two sets of rules without any real scientific difference between the two regions to show this is all a bunch of political pandering by TPWD and not science based conservation. If the science said we both need to reduce I would be an advocate for reducing anywhere regardless of how the public thought.

Too many here mistake my advocating for no change as meaning I am a meat hauler. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't and at the same time if she isn't going to be mounted and is over 24 or so back in the water she goes. I just hate to see TPWD make decisions based on what I say, you say, or CCA says. I want them to decide issues on science and what is best for conservation. The two different limit standards are without a doubt proof they pander to what others want and not science. That is my point.


----------



## sharkchum

trouthammer said:


> Not at all the way I feel and I am happy for the upper coast guys. I am using the fact that there are two sets of rules without any real scientific difference between the two regions to show this is all a bunch of political pandering by TPWD and not science based conservation. If the science said we both need to reduce I would be an advocate for reducing anywhere regardless of how the public thought.
> 
> Too many here mistake my advocating for no change as meaning I am a meat hauler. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't and at the same time if she isn't going to be mounted and is over 24 or so back in the water she goes. I just hate to see TPWD make decisions based on what I say, you say, or CCA says. I want them to decide issues on science and what is best for conservation. The two different limit standards are without a doubt proof they pander to what others want and not science. That is my point.


I agree with this 100%. If they could show me real proof for limit reductions I would be all for it, but the cold hard fact is the limits didn't change because of science, they changed because of politics.


----------



## [email protected]

Can any of you say 1983 or 1989, when we had fish killing freezes? Did not matter how many we released before most of them froze. Size did not matter either, most died. It will happen again. When we have that freeze in late December or early January limits will not matter nor will size. Speaking of catch and release... recon how many die after you squeeze em and wipe all the slime off of them?


----------



## Psychogatortrout

Michael Smith said:


> Can any of you say 1983 or 1989, when we had fish killing freezes? Did not matter how many we released before most of them froze. Size did not matter either, most died. It will happen again. When we have that freeze in late December or early January limits will not matter nor will size. Speaking of catch and release... recon how many die after you squeeze em and wipe all the slime off of them?


Yeah let's rape the resource because they will all die anyways! That's the attitude! All sarcasm aside, even if every fish dies in the freeze (which they don't), don't you think our fishery benefits as a whole from 1997+? Or 1989-1997? That's like saying as humans we are all going to die anyways so who cares about restrictions on resources (which we are destroying anyways).


----------



## Rubberback

sharkchum said:


> I agree with this 100%. If they could show me real proof for limit reductions I would be all for it, but the cold hard fact is the limits didn't change because of science, they changed because of politics.


You already said that TP&W dropped a net in a hole when it was 100 degrees out & caught no fish & decided to change the limits. Did I miss read your statement?


----------



## Psychogatortrout

trouthammer said:


> I can assure you I have released my share of fish. Last year everything over 25 was released and I am thinking that was over 15 fish. I also do not always keep 10 but I do vacuum seal and eat anything that doesn't get immediately eaten.
> 
> So to answer your question sometimes I like to keep 10 (particularly if they are in the 15-17 good eating range) and really don't think one group of fishermen should have more say in whether I can keep 10 or not. I want science based decisions and if the science is there I will happily agree to take none if that's what is needed. If you study the situation the truth is the CCA and middle coast guys pushed this on us and the science for us is no different than the upper coast. The upper coast was vocal about not wanting reduced limits so TPWD listened to them.
> 
> Basically TPWD gave what select groups wanted on the middle coast and drew a line to keep the upper coast groups happy....somewhere in there science got pooped on.


You keep talking about science but wouldn't you agree that TP&W has more scientific evidence than you or most people in this thread? Are you 100% certain that TP&W didn't leave the upper coast limit on trout alone because they found out, through their studies (science), that the upper coast trout fishery was healthier overall? Just because you are in Texas does not mean that everyone on the coast is entitled to the same limit just because it's Texas. That's ******* logic. The fishery in say Baffin, is vastly different than the fishery in Rockport, or the fishery in Galveston. It's nothing alike. The upper coast is right next to Louisiana, but the limits are completely different because their fishery is different. They are right next to us.

People "poop" on TP&W non-stop. They are not always right, BUT, they do in fact conduct studies that are much more comprehensive than you think and are much more useful than opinions that are NOT based on scientific study.


----------



## wos

*Right on target*



diverdown said:


> I tell u the reason why people should be so torqued up on 5 fish is that we are paying the price in reduced quotas because of the guides. tpw needs to do something about the commercial fishing in the bays are we are all gonna go to 5 fish. There is no difference between what the guides do to the bays and the oyster guys and shrimp trawlers. Except the fishing guides go un-opposed in the bay. They are raping the resource and now we have to pay the price. Y'all need to wake up on these guides.its a business and like every other commercial business they will take all they can until they need to be regulated. And that time is now. It's not just a few guys anymore.


You are right on target "diverdown". At last count, there are approximately 1100 "registered" salt water fishing guides now in Texas, and this does not account for unlicensed "weekend warriors" . There is no doubt that this is the largest "commercially related" fishing business to impact our inshore fisheries ever on the Texas coast. wos


----------



## sharkchum

Rubberback said:


> You already said that TP&W dropped a net in a hole when it was 100 degrees out & caught no fish & decided to change the limits. Did I miss read your statement?


Yes you did, I said they set a gill net on a 2' deep mud flat in the middle of August. This isn't something I made up, I stopped and talked to them about it and asked them why they would do a gill net survey in a area that had no shell, no bait, and no moving water, I even offered to show them some areas that held fish that time of the year. Their answer was that they just do random surveys in different areas to try and get accurate representation of fish populations in the bay. I have also seen them doing creel surveys at the boat ramp when there are only 5 boats out and raining with the wind blowing 30 and asked them the same question and got the same answer. This is the equivalent of doing a whitetail deer survey for Harris county by setting of game cameras on I45 in the middle of downtown Houston.


----------

