# Dates set for public input spec trout limit changes



## capt mikie

Dates, time and locations have been set.......

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20101222b

Mike


----------



## Texas Tackle Factory

Thanks for posting.


Whoever planned these meetings are not college football fans LOL BUT Props to TPWD for not planning meetings on Jan 7(Cotton Bowl..A&M/LSU) and Jan 10(BCS Championship). 

Who's gonna make some these meetings?


----------



## Im Headed South

My soapbox and I will be at one or two of them lol. 

Mike


----------



## capt. david

will more than likely be at the dickinson meeting. hope it doesn't turn into a ******* match among those who attend.


----------



## sweenyite

Just keep ten.


----------



## Texas Jeweler

sweenyite said:


> Just keep ten.


X2


----------



## trouthammer

The whole process is crazy and invites "lobby" groups to promote their interest. Through taxes and license fees we pay for TPWD to do a job like protect our fisheries. They have all the objective tools of science at their disposal and instead of relying on those tools they open the debate to subjective beliefs held by groups that are the very cause of the meetings in the first place. The "advisory" board of outsiders is the only reason this subject is on the table. This is no different than say OSHA listening to refinery owners on how they should be regulated. Total BS. How many hard working blue collar fishermen you reckon will make these meetings as opposed to the "elite" crowd?

No matter where you stand on this it is hard to agree with the process. Again I am of the opinion that if science says 5 great but let the decision be based on objective science, not what one group thinks. If you think the same as I do about the process email Art Morris below and urge TPWD to make their decision strictly on science.

[email protected]


----------



## Capt Scott Reeh

Question......why be reactive to conservation and not proactive ? More fisherman one the water every year.Let's think about future generations and not just the "me, here and now ".My opinion, 5,5 and 5.Five trout,redfish and flounder...period.Let the mudsling'n start. LOL


----------



## 51 King

i don't understand why they would change....


----------



## das71198

I agree Capt Scott, however do you really think that they will raise the limit on reds to 5? My fear is that we will promote 5 trout and they will keep the reds the same. I hope that they will listen to the people and not the special interest groups.



Capt Scott Reeh said:


> Question......why be reactive to conservation and not proactive ? More fisherman one the water every year.Let's think about future generations and not just the "me, here and now ".My opinion, 5,5 and 5.Five trout,redfish and flounder...period.Let the mudsling'n start. LOL


----------



## McTrout

Trouthammer,

I thought along those same lines; i.e., why should public input be solicited concerning regulation changes? They are supposed to have a stronger grasp about what is needed than us, right?

However, I've since learned that they are required by law to hold these types of meetings. Agreed, let's just hope extremist and special interest groups (on either side!) will carry little weight. My opinion is that science should prevail, and then I'm good for what ever is best.


----------



## capt. david

science? lol more fisherpeople than 20 years ago! noway. don't look at license sales. now people that never had to buy one do. manage the resource according to areas that might have a problem, but not state wide.


----------



## McTrout

There ya go Capt. David, and that's part of what I'm hoping means good science....Manage when and where needed according to good data. 

A big problem with all regulation changes however has always been the 'when' part. It sucks to either be too early or too late on any change. Consequences either way. Hard job...no thanks.


----------



## Wading Mark

Capt Scott Reeh said:


> More fisherman one the water every year.


There seems to be less people on Galveston Bay with each passing year. I fish a lot in that bay so that's the only one I'm qualified to pass judgment on. The people who know what their doing on G-Bay have no problems catching limits consistently.

I would also like to see the redfish limit raised to 5 with a 16-27" slot but I'm not holding my breath on that.


----------



## netboy

I wonder if they are going to entertain discussions on redfish limits when looking at the title of their sessions?? 
*TPWD Seeks Public Input on How Spotted Seatrout Should be Managed*


----------



## Capt Scott Reeh

Wading Mark said:


> There seems to be less people on Galveston Bay with each passing year. I fish a lot in that bay so that's the only one I'm qualified to pass judgment on. The people who know what their doing on G-Bay have no problems catching limits consistently.
> 
> I would also like to see the redfish limit raised to 5 with a 16-27" slot but I'm not holding my breath on that.


The Galveston people your NOT seeing, all came to Matagorda and POC . LOL


----------



## SpecklFinAddict

Capt Scott Reeh said:


> The Galveston people your NOT seeing, all came to Matagorda and POC . LOL


No way?????


----------



## Poncho

This is BS. These meetings are just a formality. By the time TPWD schedules these "public input" meetings. their mind is already made up and they will do what they have already decided to do.


----------



## Wading Mark

Capt Scott Reeh said:


> The Galveston people your NOT seeing, all came to Matagorda and POC . LOL


I'll go tarpon fishing down at POC but I'll go ahead and leave the trout alone.


----------



## trouthammer

McTrout said:


> Trouthammer,
> 
> I thought along those same lines; i.e., why should public input be solicited concerning regulation changes? They are supposed to have a stronger grasp about what is needed than us, right?
> 
> However, I've since learned that they are required by law to hold these types of meetings. Agreed, let's just hope extremist and special interest groups (on either side!) will carry little weight. My opinion is that science should prevail, and then I'm good for what ever is best.


That is exactly what stinks about these meetings. The proposal is not coming from the department but by way of advisory board recommendations. Here is how it happened
Move the cursor to 31 mins...it is funny at the end when questions are asked about why and who.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publica...103/20101103_com_02_regulations_committee.mp3

Every time I hear a cry for cutting limits based on some anecdotal claim like "fishing pressure" or some other claim I coincidentally see a lack of numbers to back it up...fishing pressure as monitored over the past ten years has remained relatively constant with a slight DROP in the last two years. The audio is very informative and doesn't paint a picture of doom and gloom.Quite the contrary. The three bays that are used the most for the case to lower limits (San Antonio, Aransas and W. Matty) are reporting record numbers in juvenile and pre-legal size fish. Mansfield, where 5 has been around is showing NO gain. They are catching bigger fish(the average size is a whopping 1 inch bigger) but get this...they attribute it to a practive of dumping smaller fish from a stringer which is NOT a POSITIVE in TWPD's opinion. This is all about one groups beliefs that they think should be taken as gospel. What amazes me is the lack of guides who are active on the subject...make no mistake about it this will take food off your table.


----------



## flounderdaddy

This whole deal hacks me off. POLITICS! Trout if NO problem to catch where I fish. I see no problem with the trout population.


----------



## JimD

We will probably be to 5 state wide. 

Least they could do would be raise the redfish limit to 4 or 5.


----------



## troutomatic1488

*here we go again*



Poncho said:


> This is BS. These meetings are just a formality. By the time TPWD schedules these "public input" meetings. their mind is already made up and they will do what they have already decided to do.


 This is the sad truth they are just wasting everyones time and money. The outcome is already set in stone.


----------



## BullyARed

The less fish they (TPWD) impose on what you can catch and keep, the more money they will make because more will break the rules. Who would want to spend $100 worth of gas to catch two flounders or 2 trouts!


----------



## BCjaybird

What I was told in Port Arthur Tx. last year at the Flounder meeting was that TPW wanted to give the two redfish back to make a 5 fish limit, but CCA keeps voting it down. sounds kind of fishy.


----------



## TailHunter3

I hate change. Why does everyone always want to change things? I like it the way it is. I pay my money I should be allowed to keep what I want. I want to keep all the fish I can because I like to throw as many as I can onto the cleaning table for all to see. I catch plenty of fish so in MY eyes there is no reason to change. My eyes see the whole truth and nothing but the truth. My eyes definitely have the bigger pciture in mind. I don't want them to take my toy away from me. It's my toy and I want to play with it and no one else.. It's me it's all about me, I and myself. I think we should make it like Lousianna and keep 25 twelve inchers a day. Besides, can you imagine all the bad stuff that would happen if we could only keep 5. There is definite doom and gloom on the horizon if we change to a daily limit of 5. Besides, look at all of the other changes TPW has made that has been so horrible... They reduced the bag limit of redfish to 3 way back when and look what happened... there's no redfish anywhere... They reduced the limit on trout in the LLM and look what happened... No one fishes there anymore and the businesses have all gone bellyup... And, they even touched the holy grail of deer hunting and made bucks be 13 inches wide between antlers and look what happened... every one either quit hunting or became poachers and the deer still aren't any better... Gosh, TPW has such a bad habit of making changes that hurt things... Besides, let's wait until we have a fish freeze or other disaster and there is no fish left before we make a change. There is absolotuly no reason in the world to try and improve anything. It is much better to take all you can and don't give back nuttin. Me, myself and I have this all figured out.


----------



## Wading Mark

BCjaybird said:


> What I was told in Port Arthur Tx. last year at the Flounder meeting was that TPW wanted to give the two redfish back to make a 5 fish limit, but CCA keeps voting it down. sounds kind of fishy.


The redfish population at Sabine is absurd. The most fishing-illiterate angler can go out there with some Wal-Mart lure and easily limit out on reds.


----------



## Nocturnal

What's the downside to 5?


----------



## wet dreams

BCjaybird said:


> What I was told in Port Arthur Tx. last year at the Flounder meeting was that TPW wanted to give the two redfish back to make a 5 fish limit, but CCA keeps voting it down. sounds kind of fishy.


Not suprising at all, they could drop the size to 18" the reds are NOT suffering in Sabine. I think all 'outside intrest' should do just that REMAIN OUTSIDE, look at whats happened to the fishing offshore, EDF is running the show behind a smokescreen, they are no dought trying to keep us off the water....WW


----------



## BullyARed

Well, since they can't close all the water or the land where you can fish or hunt, they just limit the size or the amount you can keep. It has the same effective.


----------



## jabx1962

When a Sr.TP&WD Biologist admits "little or nothing" is known, and "no real" Biological data exist about a certain migratory fish, but is successful in persaudiing the Wildlife Commisioners to impose size and bag limits on the species speaks volumes.

If bag limits are a real issue with fisherman, then start demanding the "Real" data from the Biologist.

They are State of Texas employees. You can reach them here:

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/about/divisions/coastal_fisheries/offices/

Art Morris' contact info.Corpus Christi Field Station: (361) 825-3356, [EMAIL="[email protected]"][email protected][/EMAIL]


----------



## Sow Trout

I don't mind a 5 trout limit (I might catch a limit), but they should add back a red. A limit of 7 trout would be a good compromise. If people are fishing to eat they could save a lot of money buying fish in the market. Like Billy Sandefer says, "If you don't leave any, there won't be any".


----------



## RedXCross

This ought to be an entertaining one in Port Arthur usually is. I just can't wait.


----------



## Kenner21

You can tell how much science is involved by how they are trying to cut the limit in half. 10 is too many, well how many is just right? 5..yeah 5 sounds good. 

Trout in my limited expierence don't handle catch and release all that well. Meanwhile every illegal with no license will keep whatever fits in their buckets.


----------



## saltwater_therapy

gonna try and be at the Port Lavaca meeting if a fishing or hunting trip doesnt get in the way.


----------



## DigDog57

X2, true! The public stuff is all bs fluff! Do the math, do the science and make a decision. Uh it's how a lot of people earn their living without being questioned.



trouthammer said:


> The whole process is crazy and invites "lobby" groups to promote their interest. Through taxes and license fees we pay for TPWD to do a job like protect our fisheries. They have all the objective tools of science at their disposal and instead of relying on those tools they open the debate to subjective beliefs held by groups that are the very cause of the meetings in the first place. The "advisory" board of outsiders is the only reason this subject is on the table. This is no different than say OSHA listening to refinery owners on how they should be regulated. Total BS. How many hard working blue collar fishermen you reckon will make these meetings as opposed to the "elite" crowd?
> 
> No matter where you stand on this it is hard to agree with the process. Again I am of the opinion that if science says 5 great but let the decision be based on objective science, not what one group thinks. If you think the same as I do about the process email Art Morris below and urge TPWD to make their decision strictly on science.
> 
> [email protected]


----------



## Gilbert

I love to fish!


----------



## glennkoks

Without the data to support this reduction. Count me out. I have been around along time and have lived through too many "natural cycles". 

Save the limit reductions for the next killing freeze when they will be needed. The AMO will be changing from a warmer cycle back to a colder one soon and it is very likely we will return to winters like we had in the 70's.


----------



## Pcwjr4

*10 trout stamp*

As most everything almost always revolves around money,
Why not lower the limit to 5, and then make available a '10' trout stamp.
Additonal $ 150.00 and you can then catch your 'stamp limit of 10'.

'You want to play, You have to Pay'.


----------



## Bigwater

Oh Goody another Trout Limit Thread.

Biggie


----------



## jabx1962

RedXCross said:


> This ought to be an entertaining one in Port Arthur usually is. I just can't wait.


I think I will saddle up and go to that one. Nothing like drinking excessive amounts of beer and stirring the pot with a bunch of *********. I will volunteer to translate the questions, and answers.


----------

