# CC Newspaper Article on Croaker Soakers



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

"Local anglers fighting for change

*April 27, 2006*

A loosely organized bunch of South Texas anglers are planning to propose dramatic changes to state rules for harvesting speckled trout. And they're serious.

This is not a new idea, but rather a revival movement led by outspoken activists - anglers and guides - who say they believe South Texas trout fishing is in serious decline, despite Texas Parks & Wildlife's message to the contrary. This movement has not reached groundswell status yet, but it's gaining momentum through an e-mail campaign with a substantial following.

If you'd like to get in on the debate, log on to BillySandifer.com or GetawayAdventuresLodge.com.

At some point, these well-meaning folks plan to ask the Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission to outlaw croaker as trout bait or to reduce the daily bag to five fish, or both. They also might ask for regional rules for the South Texas trout fishery. This regional concept might fly below the Mansfield Channel, TPW officials tell me.

Coastal fisheries biologists, armed with 30 years of records from twice annual gillnet surveys, say the trout fishery is enjoying an upward trend, with rare exceptions. Keep in mind that gillnet surveys measure the relative abundance of fish populations within a bay system and over time rather than angler success during a specific time frame.

You should know that recent surveys - not to mention isolated angler reports - indicate that the trophy and non-trophy trout population is quite healthy, particularly based on an upward trend from 2003, 2004 and 2005 in Upper Laguna Madre. Early spring 2006 survey results from the Upper Laguna Madre have resulted in the highest big-trout numbers ever.

Other sections of the coast, while some are not as bright as this, continue to enjoy above-average trout stocks overall.

The effects of tighter restrictions, proponents hope, would be a reduction in the overall harvest of trout, a more equitable distribution of the resource and a decline in the killing of big trout, as angling pressure on the coast worsens. It's important to note that only a small percentage of anglers regularly come close to catching a legal limit of trout. Many of the anglers who catch 10 keepers do so with the help of a guide. Based on e-mail entries, some of the more enthusiastic proponents of tighter restrictions also would like to steer culture toward a catch-and-release trout fishery, perhaps in conjunction with lowering the daily bag.

TPW officials expect the number of anglers fishing the Texas coast to double within the next 20 years. By maintaining a diligent watch, TPW officials believe they could detect changes in trout populations and react to negative trends. Such a trend could be evolving in Lower Laguna Madre, where the trout population rises and falls slightly within three- to five-year cycles. These seemingly natural cycles exist to some degree throughout the Texas coast.

But in the case of Lower Laguna Madre, the peaks of these cycles have not been as high as they have been historically, based on seining counts of juvenile fish and subsequent gillnet surveys a couple years later. In other words, the numbers of juvenile trout in seines have not resulted in the expected numbers of adult trout later in gillnets.

The cause could be fishing pressure. Nobody knows. This could be a rationale for regional regulations. And there is vocal support for this change among anglers involved with the e-mail campaign I mentioned earlier.

Other sections of the coast also have pockets of public perception that dismiss the overall TPW view of a healthy trout fishery. These folks passionately defend anecdotal evidence that they say indicates their trout fishery is in peril. I don't disregard these observations but I tend to side with science when it comes to deciding policy. On the other hand, a reduced bag limit couldn't hurt.

The anti-croaker sentiment stems from a view that using croaker as trout bait has made trout fishing too easy for the novice masses and at the same time invited too many highly effective seasonal guides into the fishery. Croaker are available as bait mainly from May through September.

Outlawing a bait is not the way to manage a fishery and TPW officials are not going to endorse it. Legislative attempts to bypass the department on this have failed.

Noted Padre Island and Laguna Madre guide Billy Sandifer has made this his crusade with a personal commitment not to use croaker and also to limit his charter clients to five daily trout each. He's not alone. In Port Mansfield, the epicenter of a fiery anti-croaker movement, guide Bruce Shuler, owner of Get-A-Way Adventures Lodge, has been distributing "Just Keep Five" T-shirts along with anti-croaker flags to raise awareness and to punctuate his commitment to the same.

The Port Mansfield Chamber of Commerce imposed the first institutional ban on croakers by disallowing them as bait during its two annual tournaments. Shuler has demonstrated the strength of his convictions by discouraging croaker soakers from staying at his popular lodge.

About five years ago, TPW officials attempted to change its coastal fisheries strategy from managing solely for a sustainable fishery to managing also to enhance trophy trout numbers. Proposals ranged from slight reductions in daily harvests to raising the minimum length requirement. Suggestions also included a slot rule for trout, which would have forced anglers to release all fish greater than a certain length.

Maintaining the status quo was not an option, according to then-Coastal Fisheries Director Hal Osburn.

More than a year of contentious debate resulted in a compromise rule that's been in effect for about two years. This allows anglers to keep only one trout greater than 25 inches per day as part of a 10-fish daily bag. Proposals to reduce the daily bag limit of trout were received well by some, but ultimately were rejected.

We should know if this was effective in a couple of years. Outdoors writer David Sikes' column appears Thursdays and Sundays. Contact him at 886-3616 or HYPERLINK mailto:[email protected] [email protected]"


----------



## call/sign 22 (Aug 11, 2005)

*Clarification of Mr. Sikes Article*

To avoid untruths and rumors, Mr. Sikes used my name and operation for his article without having interviewed me or discussed my stance and that of the guides who work with us and the others who have e-mailed concerns about the future of our fishery. 

Clarification of article in the Corpus Christi Caller Times, by David Sikes. 4/27/06

To clarify our position regarding stewardship of our Coastal Fishery, IT IS NOT OUR INTENT TO FORCE A BAND ON THE USE OF CROAKERS IN HARVESTING TROUT! We do not use them or allow guests staying here to due so. If anglers would use them responsibly this would not be such HOT ISSUE!

IT IS! Our INTENT to lobby for a reduction in the bag limits for TROUT! And a regionalization plan for the entire coast. Feel free to e-mail us if you wish to become part of a bag limit reduction movement. Many guides and others feel our fishery will not hold up at the current pace and should be used for sport NOT to feed the masses.
Capt. Bruce W. Shuler
Get-A-Way Adventures Lodge


----------



## Lat22 (Apr 7, 2005)

I'm too new to fishing the salt (3 years) to know about any long term affects of keeping 10 fish versus 5, but I do know one thing. I don't freeze fish that I catch. It winds up tasting like the stuff you buy at the grocery store. Therefore I only keep 5 (and I have to be dang lucky to get that many!)


----------



## dixierider (May 21, 2004)

So what your proposing is to lower the bag limits for trout from the current 10 fish a day to 5 a day. That may be good for a guide who's on the water 7 days a week with 2-3 customers catching 30 fish a day, but what about the average Joe who can only make it fishing once a week, month, year or whatever does this seem fair? Why should he/she have to lower their catch limit so that guides can continue to put their customers on fish daily


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

Not fearing a reddie from Biggie... LMAO.... 

I'm not for it (banning croakers or lowering the limit) but to each his own. I prefer to have the fishermen just police themselves.


----------



## flatsfats (May 21, 2004)

dixierider said:


> So what your proposing is to lower the bag limits for trout from the current 10 fish a day to 5 a day. That may be good for a guide who's on the water 7 days a week with 2-3 customers catching 30 fish a day, but what about the average Joe who can only make it fishing once a week, month, year or whatever does this seem fair? Why should he/she have to lower their catch limit so that guides can continue to put their customers on fish daily


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to dixierider again.
​


----------



## disgusted (Feb 16, 2005)

Great point. I personally don't use them, but find no fault with someone that does.


dixierider said:


> So what your proposing is to lower the bag limits for trout from the current 10 fish a day to 5 a day. That may be good for a guide who's on the water 7 days a week with 2-3 customers catching 30 fish a day, but what about the average Joe who can only make it fishing once a week, month, year or whatever does this seem fair? Why should he/she have to lower their catch limit so that guides can continue to put their customers on fish daily


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

call/sign 22 said:


> IT IS! Our INTENT to lobby for a reduction in the bag limits for TROUT! *And a regionalization plan for the entire coast.* Feel free to e-mail us if you wish to become part of a bag limit reduction movement. Many guides and others feel our fishery will not hold up at the current pace and should be used for sport NOT to feed the masses.
> Capt. Bruce W. Shuler
> Get-A-Way Adventures Lodge


Imagine that! I said that during all the SSWG meetings and was told I was CRAZY and that it would never work! This said by TP&W as well as several Guides who are now spearheading this. Just ask to see the Meeting Minutes from the Bay City Town Hall Meeting if you don't believe me!

Break the Coast into Regions like the STAR uses and set the limits accordingly to that region and Don't penalize the Regions without a Current problem with Stocks.

Putting on my Flak Jacket!


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

Why even break out the regions? Who needs lower limits? The guides out there running double trips a day or the normal public fisherman with his own boat?


----------



## Wading Mark (Apr 21, 2005)

Rudy Grigar made a good case for building more cuts in the Laguna Madre to strengthen fish poulations. What do y'all think.


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

To early in the thread to change the subject Mark.  We are talking about guides wanting to preach to us solo rec fishermen right now. LOL


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

*Trout Regs*

As far as outlawing Croaker as bait I dont think that will ever happen.They would be taking away some peoples livelyhood which would probably make TPWD open for lawsuits.I guess some of youll have already forgot about the infamous SSWG with all of the meetings all over the coast with TPWD.The consensus of all the meetings was to lower the bag limit to 7 seatrout and leave the size limit alone.then the TPWD left the meetings changed the upper slot limit and blamed the whole deal on the SSWG.I think they probably got a lot of pressure from the various Tourist and city governments of all of the towns that rely on fishing for their economies.We heard during the meetings that they feared that lowering the bag limit would cause less people to come to the coast to fish if they couldnt catch as many fish.


----------



## Wading Mark (Apr 21, 2005)

InfamousJ said:


> To early in the thread to change the subject Mark.  We are talking about guides wanting to preach to us solo rec fishermen right now. LOL


I thought this was about how many fish are in the LLM. Doing some construction might make it completely unecessary to change the current fishing regulations. Guides shouldn't preach to us, but we may not need to go as far as what the propose.


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

OK, carry on.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Welcome back Hard Head. Seems like ol' times on this topic, but just a different board. Hang in there.


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

Doh!


----------



## troy merrill (May 21, 2004)

The croaker war is about to begin. Again. There are many guides that I have spoken to recently that truely believe that the use of croaker by uncscrupulous rec fisherman and guides is having a horrible effect on the trout fishery. Especially down South.

I know they looked at it just 2 years ago, but it needs to be looked at again.

I agree with Capt. Shuler and others that take his stance.


----------



## Spots and Dots (May 23, 2004)

I believe that each angler should police themselves....but that is not very dependable.
I know TPWD is shorthanded on gamewardens, but if the rules and regs were more stringently enforced, It would be more discouraging for folks to break the law.

I don't think that the average angler is a big threat to the fishery, but guides are a whole nother thing. Who is to say that "some" guides wouldn't run 2+ trips a day if the limits were cut in half. It stands to reason that a professionial fisherman could fill a half limit in half a day, thus allowing them to run 2 trips each day and still have the same claim on the resource. (while making more $$$)

I also question the croaker issue. Just putting a croaker on your hook and sliging it out DOES NOT mean you will catch a monster fish. Every trout that eats a croaker bait IS NOT gut hooked. I have killed more fish using live shrimp than any other bait.

It is assumable that croaker fishing is easier than using artificials, thus having a bigger impact on fish, but I think it would hurt the novice fisherman most by eliminating croaks from the bait list.

I am of the opinion that a professional guide should be ale to help their clients catch fish w/out the use of live bait. I know it is a double standard, but by definition a professional should be better than a novice.


It is my opinion that is empirical data shows a major issue with the fisheries, a limit change would be most effective. If you leave more fish in the water today, there will be more fish there tomorrow.



anyway, off my soap box. $0.02


----------



## biged412 (Mar 8, 2005)

Typical Eliteist , Next will be live shrimp, then dead bait , then a test to see if you can cast.


----------



## Bigwater (May 21, 2004)

Fellas,

Here's what you Dont have to worry about:

Tpw survives from license money. They will knot do anything or make any changes that will make Ma and Pa and their children slow or stop fishing. If they continue to speculate that lowering the limit will slow fishing or stop someone from coming to the coast and fishing they will knot lower it. That you can count on.
These gas prices are doing a lot better job of taking the pressure off than TPW. And you can bet that TPW is scared to death of that happening.

Biggie


----------



## lazywader (Mar 6, 2006)

I agree with Dixierider. Maybe all guides should have their customer limits reduced or regulated to 5 instead of 10 and not be allowed to keep their limit while on a trip with customers. That would make alot more sense. I don't think guides would have a problem with that. Some of the guides I go out with already promote c&r heavily and should continue to do so. The recreational angler who fishes every now and then should be able to keep 10. 10 is also pretty tought to get too if you're not doing it everyday. As for croakers I've been out with a guide and we have smoked the trout with them,and I've also been out with the same guide more than once and got our tails kicked by the trout while using croaker so its not always a sure thing like alot of people make it out to be. I dunno, just my take.


----------



## lazywader (Mar 6, 2006)

I find it pretty funny that guides are "preaching" to the average joe about regulating limits and c&r and such. I bet everyone of them has some sort of "meat hog" picture on the front of their websites. lol.


----------



## TheSamarai (Jan 20, 2005)

Maybe we should just limit the amounts of guides just like they do shrimping vessels. A buyback program for fishing guides.:fireworks


----------



## warcat (May 22, 2004)

My take:

Guided trips: 5 ea
Everyone else: 10 ea

Croaker as a bait is perfectly fine.


----------



## El Cazador (Mar 4, 2005)

My problem with fishing with croaker is that whenever me or my freinds have tried to use them, the guides have reserved all of them and if there _are_ any left, the guides have already picked through them, and the ones that are left are almost dead. It is not fair to the recreational angler who tries to buy them and can't because the "guides" have first choice.

My opinion about guides is that most of them take from a natural resource (that most of them think they own) and put very little back into it. And then they want us to fish by their rules. And God _forbid_ you get near _their_ honey hole or their set of rocks in Baffin Bay! (O.K. now I'm starting to get mad).

As far as the trout numbers go; I use to be very involved with my local chapter of the CCA for a long time, and with all of the re-stocking going on these days, the bays have more trout in them than ever before. The gil net surveys have proven that.

Also, these days I get to fish maybe 5 - 6 times a year, so when I _do_ get to go fishing, I _would_ like to keep my 10 trout per day that the current bag limit allows.


----------



## LongRodMaster (Mar 5, 2005)

InfamousJ said:


> To early in the thread to change the subject Mark.  We are talking about guides wanting to preach to us solo rec fishermen right now. LOL


ROFL

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to InfamousJ again.


----------



## ROBOWADER (May 22, 2004)

*LOL, aint that the truth*



lazywader said:


> I find it pretty funny that guides are "preaching" to the average joe about regulating limits and c&r and such. I bet everyone of them has some sort of "meat hog" picture on the front of their websites. lol.


Greenie for you!


----------



## TexasDux (May 21, 2004)

I wonder what percentage of the average rec angler per trip is on actually bringing in a 10 trout limit, vs when the average rec angler goes on a guided trip?

I think too much pressure is put on the guide to get those 10 trout/ea or he didnt do his job. I know some people that judge there own fishing trips that way and won't come in until they've hit that "magic number" ex., 4 anglers, "we gotta get those 40 trout" even if it means keeping more than their 10 to make up for a slacker in the bunch. There is more to the trip than stringing 10 trout.


----------



## Spots and Dots (May 23, 2004)

lazywader said:


> I find it pretty funny that guides are "preaching" to the average joe about regulating limits and c&r and such. I bet everyone of them has some sort of "meat hog" picture on the front of their websites. lol.


...just check Schuler's website www.getawayadventureslodge.com
nothing but single nice fish........perhaps they practice their preaching.

By making that comment, I am not trying to be derogatory. I've heard nothing but great things about that place!


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

Unless TP&W's Creel and Net Surveys show differently, No Changes will be made. We were told at all the SSWG that They are Re-Active to the Fishery, not Pro-Active. I can Applaud those wanting to save the fishery, but it fell on deaf ears in the past and personally, I don't think we'll be heard this time either. But I do believe that 5 is too drastic a number. I can live with 7 per day. 

Not many Guides up this way have the Business Clientele like down South, and they rely on Dad taking the kids out, or a Group of friends. If limits are lowered to 5 per day, WHO's gonna pay $500+ to keep 5 fish? Not Me! Unless the Guide is willing to go after limits of Reds/flounder as well, which is rare. 5 fish, back at the dock by 9:30. That'll be $500 please! 

Fire Away!


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

I second that. I think 7/day is a good compromise.


----------



## SPECtackle (Aug 16, 2005)

Seems to me that guides policing themselves and their big bucks customers will better manage for he future. Just keeping 5 (or 3 or none...catch and release) by those who fish consistently & therefore seem to catch a whole lot will more protect the resource more than passing more laws and stricter limits on those of us who would consider ourselves lucky to consistenly catch a half a limit on the relatively rare occasions when we get to go fishing at all.


----------



## TexasDux (May 21, 2004)

Hard Head said:


> Unless TP&W's Creel and Net Surveys show differently, No Changes will be made. We were told at all the SSWG that They are Re-Active to the Fishery, not Pro-Active. I can Applaud those wanting to save the fishery, but it fell on deaf ears in the past and personally, I don't think we'll be heard this time either. But I do believe that 5 is too drastic a number. I can live with 7 per day.
> 
> Not many Guides up this way have the Business Clientele like down South, and they rely on Dad taking the kids out, or a Group of friends. If limits are lowered to 5 per day, WHO's gonna pay $500+ to keep 5 fish? Not Me! Unless the Guide is willing to go after limits of Reds/flounder as well, which is rare. 5 fish, back at the dock by 9:30. That'll be $500 please!
> 
> Fire Away!


So are you saying that 7 is good for the entire coast? or would it be different if the coast was zoned? do you think 5 would work better for the LLM vs 7 in the Upper Coast?


----------



## TooShallow (May 21, 2004)

Five trout is enough for me. I wish they would lower the limit...but I don't expect that anytime soon.


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

TexasDux said:


> So are you saying that 7 is good for the entire coast? or would it be different if the coast was zoned? do you think 5 would work better for the LLM vs 7 in the Upper Coast?


Pat,
At the SSWG meetings, we were all in agreement that 7 per day was a number we could live with, but that DIDN'T include the 1 over 25". This was intended for the Entire Coast at the time. From what I'm hearing, the issue is Down South right now. I've not heard a peep from the Middle Coast and up about wanting lower limits. I HAVE to believe that TP&W is doing their Job, and they are saying there is NO Current problem. But again, I can live with 7 if need be.


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

This movement is not about banning Croakers and it is not about guides. It is about the meat haul mentality associated with croaker use and about doing something pro active to manage our resource for future generations.


Folks using the i'm not spending the money to catch five fish theme.Think about that for a moment how are the additional fillets any justification of the expense. We all know HEB can supply us all day long at about 6.00 a lb. Your average coastal trip about 6.00 an ounce. I don't buy that arguement. We don't fish for the return on our dollar investment we do it for the enjoyment of it.


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

In that case why don't we just limit it to 2 fish/day, Tony? Why stop at five?


----------



## El Cazador (Mar 4, 2005)

MEGABITE said:


> In that case why don't we just limit it to 2 fish/day, Tony? Why stop at five?


Why stop at two. Just make it illegal to keep any fish at all... we can spend less money just going to the local fish market and watch Mark Sosin on the Outdoor Channel!


----------



## LIONESS-270 (May 19, 2005)

I fished for 20+ years before becoming dis-abled in '96.....Very few times since then, I have lurked and read here to gain as much knowledge as I can so heres my .02
From a current novice.....Having Prof.Guides trying to dictate limits, means and methods would be the same as having high fence and other hunting operations try and do the same.....Too many may have a vested interests other than the common good to either sport.....

My wife is a serious artie angler but will use bait...I can't grind out with her because of serious medical problems. 4 level cervical fusion and 50 % use of my left arm... So a cork and bait will work for me!!!!!!!!!!!! I would keep a limit if I ever caught one.....We don't fish that often and trophy fish are not a big deal for us....
We enjoyed our first catch and release trip recently and It felt good....I did notice that several of the fish were bleeding no mater how gentle we handled them so It begs me to question the TRUE catch and release mortality rate...I suspect that it is much higher than is discussed or addmitted too.....I saw a thread on it here but it didn't last long.......it didn't look good for the fish if I recall
My opinion will remain the same for now....Guides and some weekly fishermen kill more fish than I will ever catch.....If someone can show me different with some honest info,Then I will be the first to humbley appoligize.......

Before any group gets their shorts in a Wad...notice I said "some" and "may"


----------



## TPD (Jun 11, 2004)

*why not lower the limit?*

Honestly, I don't really care one way or the other. It just seems to me that if reducing the stringer limit offers a better chance for the average angler to catch more fish, then it makes sense from both an economic and conservation perspective. Unfortunately, what makes sense doesn't always count when it comes to government run programs.


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

Consider this a pre-emptive warning without pointing fingers at anyone

*please keep this thread civil and on-topic*


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

Tony in Brownsville said:


> This movement is not about banning Croakers and it is not about guides. It is about the meat haul mentality associated with croaker use and about doing something pro active to manage our resource for future generations.
> 
> Folks using the i'm not spending the money to catch five fish theme.Think about that for a moment how are the additional fillets any justification of the expense. We all know HEB can supply us all day long at about 6.00 a lb. Your average coastal trip about 6.00 an ounce. I don't buy that arguement. We don't fish for the return on our dollar investment we do it for the enjoyment of it.


Tony, why not add piggy perch, grunts, ballyhoo to the Croaker list? They are just as, if not more so deadly than Croaker. Now throw in the dreaded Spook, Ghost topwater plugs, Deadly and effective Meat Haul baits!

Yes we do it for the Sport and Enjoyment, but SOME people actually fish to eat, imagine that! Ever been to the Jetties or Texas City Dike and seen the less fortunate sitting along there fishin for food? Hardly worth their effort to keep 5 and try to feed 10 mouths.

If the LLM is hurting, then I'm all for change! If it's a mindset to save more for tomorrow, I can agree with 7, not 5 unless there are hard facts that states it's needed. I personally rarely keep more than 5, but there are times I'll keep my legal 10 limit for a fish fry.


----------



## Bryant (Jul 26, 2004)

A deer really doesn't stand much of a chance against a rifle, either. While everyone's petitioning TPWD, why don't we get them axed for their over-effectiveness as well?

j/k...I say to each his own.


----------



## TexasDux (May 21, 2004)

Hard Head said:


> ........., but SOME people actually fish to eat, imagine that! Ever been to the Jetties or Texas City Dike and seen the less fortunate sitting along there fishin for food? Hardly worth their effort to keep 5 and try to feed 10 mouths. .....


Don,

I don't really think the economics are in balance for "fishing for food" anymore, and that's part of the argument. Once these, "less fortunate" as you have labeled, pay for fuel to get there, licenses, bait, tackle, other equipment, time spent/invested, etc., it's really not feasible to "fish for food". After all this, a trip to Kroger would have fed a family, with or w/o a Lonestar or WIC card.


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

TexasDux said:


> Don,
> 
> I don't really think the economics are in balance for "fishing for food" anymore, and that's part of the argument. Once these, "less fortunate" as you have labeled, pay for fuel to get there, licenses, bait, tackle, other equipment, time spent/invested, etc., it's really not feasible to "fish for food".


Pat, go to Texas City Dike and look with your own eyes Bro.


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

Don't have all the answers folks.Wish i did. I do know that the fishing pressure on our coastal waters is only going to increase. I do know that croaker season coincides with trout spawning seasons and I feel that croakers are highly effective at catching larger trout.


Some of ya'll may find it interesting to note that many of the guides in and around the JFK causeway in Corpus go down the ICW past the Upper laguna,Baffin,and through the cut to fish waters in the Lower laguna Madre with croakers.

These are professionals that fish throughout the year. Asked yourself, Why do these guides find it nessecary to go that far from home. Can it be that maybe they have effectivley stripped mined the waters in areas that were productive just 3-5 years ago?


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

TexasDux said:


> Don,
> 
> I don't really think the economics are in balance for "fishing for food" anymore, and that's part of the argument. Once these, "less fortunate" as you have labeled, pay for fuel to get there, licenses, bait, tackle, other equipment, time spent/invested, etc., it's really not feasible to "fish for food". After all this, a trip to Kroger would have fed a family, with or w/o a Lonestar or WIC card.


You're assuming they're legal with a license in the first place, their rod aint stolen, and they didn't take Metro to the beach. 

I'm for a limit of 5..... 5 redfish... heck 7 would be good to.


----------



## TexasDux (May 21, 2004)

Hard Head said:


> Pat, go to Texas City Dike and look with your own eyes Bro.


I may have to if they are catching limits of trout from the dike bank


----------



## capn (Aug 11, 2005)

To steer it a different way, I would favor differing regulations by zone. The fish are just not the same up and down the coast. Long and skinny down south, short and fat up north around here. I don't buy that they can be managed exactly the same without differing effects. There needs to be some way to adjust length and possession limits for specific areas that need adjustment.

For example, while I kind of like the slot, a 25 inch max doesn't do very much in the way of letting fish go up here. I wouldn't mind seeing that dropped back to 23.


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

Tony in Brownsville said:


> Don't have all the answers folks.Wish i did. I do know that the fishing pressure on our coastal waters is only going to increase. I do know that croaker season coincides with trout spawning seasons and I feel that croakers are highly effective at catching larger trout.
> 
> Some of ya'll may find it interesting to note that many of the guides in and around the JFK causeway in Corpus go down the ICW past the Upper laguna,Baffin,and through the cut to fish waters in the Lower laguna Madre with croakers.
> 
> These are professionals that fish throughout the year. Asked yourself, Why do these guides find it nessecary to go that far from home. Can it be that maybe they have effectivley stripped mined the waters in areas that were productive just 3-5 years ago?


Wow, sounds like the guides need to be stopped.


----------



## Stumpgrinder (Feb 18, 2006)

We already have a precedent with no prop zones and no wake zones, doe counties+ no doe counties etc... How about a *no croaker soakin zone* ?

Yeeeee haaaaaaaaaa, game on ! I'm just gonna rail this one but let's just say I'm kind of a purist with my artificials.


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

TexasDux said:


> I may have to if they are catching limits of trout from the dike bank


lmao, never said they were catching limits! I just said fishing! lol

*Tony = These are professionals that fish throughout the year. Asked yourself, Why do these guides find it nessecary to go that far from home. Can it be that maybe they have effectivley stripped mined the waters in areas that were productive just 3-5 years ago?*

I fished Pita Island south to Emmord's Hole last year and caught just as many there as we did fishing with a Guide in the Land Cut the day before with Croakers! So why do they make the long distance run to the Cut? Easier to locate fish? Massive Flocks of birds, Slick in the Cut?

J, get off the fence! lol


----------



## ExAstro (Jun 22, 2005)

I fished the Galveston bay area in the 70s & 80s and a few times the last couple years.
The trout runs at SLP and the jettys were tremendous. We caught about 60 one night and we caught a 29" and a 30". But times have changed. There is many more anglers today. You can't expect to catch limits or big fish every time. There are still big fish, just a lot more people trying for them. In the 50s, 200-300 trout in West Bay was a typical trip.


----------



## ROBOWADER (May 22, 2004)

Hard Head said:


> . I can agree with 7, not 5 unless there are hard facts that states it's needed. I personally rarely keep more than 5, but there are times I'll keep my legal 10 limit for a fish fry.


You gotta get off the couch and fish first......LOL


----------



## Drew_Smoke (May 21, 2004)

I am gonna start my own campaign to see how many people I can pizz off.

My petiton is to make Croakers a *gamefish.*

Who wants some of me?


----------



## warcat (May 22, 2004)

Ever hear that 10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish?


That's the guides in that 10%. Let them police themselves or get policed by TP&W. The rest of us combined can't even come close to the number of fish they kill. They're out there every day. The average Joe fishes about 8 times a year- catching a total in that year that a guide catches in a week.


----------



## TooShallow (May 21, 2004)

I think there are whole, whole, whole lot more average joes than guides. I don't think it's a guide issue. May be way off on this one but that my gut feeling.


----------



## warcat (May 22, 2004)

It would have to be 52 average Joe's to 1 guide in the example I stated for us to have an equal impact. (52 weeks in a year).

My numbers are just estimations and likely way off. It would be interesting to see the hard numbers if someone were willing to take a survey.


----------



## Tight Knot (Sep 8, 2004)

What is the sswg?
Tight Knot


----------



## Bigwater (May 21, 2004)

Tight Knot said:


> What is the sswg?
> Tight Knot


Spotted Seatrout Work Group

Biggie


----------



## Bigwater (May 21, 2004)

Twitch, Twitch 'em up Boys!

Biggie


----------



## LongRodMaster (Mar 5, 2005)

TooShallow said:


> I think there are whole, whole, whole lot more average joes than guides. I don't think it's a guide issue. May be way off on this one but that my gut feeling.


You have to be kidding right?

The average fisherman say an above average fisherman goes once a week. How many guys here can claim a limit every time out? So figure a great average for some of these guys would be 7 fish a trip (I would think this on the high side) ok so 52 weeks in a year makes 364 fish a year. Lets just figure the average guide fishes what 250 + days a year. I will use this low number. So say he takes 7 fish just him self a trip (not as high a number for him considering he has been paterning fish all year) makes 1750 fish. By him self that is 4.8 once a week guys to average 1 guides bags. This does not include his party of say 2 people on these 250 trips at 7 fish each makes another 3500 fish a year. So thats what 5250 fish for that boat in a year. Vs weekly fisherman with 2 fishing buddys who are above average fisherman boat bag at 1092 fish. This does not take into account the number of skunks the average joe will come home with. I would be happy as heck if I could average 5 keeper Trout a day once a week.


----------



## Bayhouse (Jun 27, 2005)

Last time I checked, guides take average Joes out to fish. I don't think the guides are preaching, I think, because as everyone has mentioned they are out on the water all year long and have patterned the fish, they see something that concerns them.

People talk about policing the guides and the fisherman, but who is policing TPWD. They tell us the net surveys are the highest ever, but how do we know that. TPWD needs to sell licenses, and by saying there is a sig. drop in the trout numbers probably wouldn't help. 

Its not about being fair or not fair if you only fish once a year, and a guide fishes all the time. You yourself could be a guide live on the coast and fish all the time if you wanted. If there is a problem with the trout population, just because you didn't cause it, doesn't mean its not there.


----------



## Fishin-Inc (May 27, 2004)

*TPW will say*

If you take one fish per year you are part of the equasion.
You can say it just commercial or guides or weekend warriors.
It's a pie and we all want a piece.

I would really like some N**kie but that ain't happening either.
So I fish. LMAO

Got a 27" trout last weekend and let her go.
It took about 5 minutes to revive it then it finally hauled arse.
It was fun.


----------



## LongRodMaster (Mar 5, 2005)

I have guided and regret it now for the same things being talked about here. I used to pull in 500 to 1k lbs of fish a day average and have seen the impact it left first hand.


----------



## wadec2 (Nov 11, 2005)

Not to say either way. My experience with the CROAKER SOAKING is as follows:
Fished Port Mansfield last year as usual. Was wading with 4 of the other guys on the trip when a boat dropped anchor within 50 feet directly in front of me and started fishing. The "GUIDE" and his 4 clients started jerking trout out as fast as they could. Yes, I had to stop at the boat and severely voice my opinion (funny I couldn't get either one of tehm to get out of the boat). Within 40 minutes everyone including the guide had their limits and drove off. Almost an hour later this same "GUIDE" returned with 4 new clients and again all including guide limited out and moved on. This happened 4 times that same day. I think this is where the problem lies. Yes I reported the "GUIDE" along with TX Numbers and what I hear is, Yes he is out of business. But I'm sure he is still somewhere POWER CROAKER SOAKING. WHEW BOY, GLAD I GOT THAT OFF MY CHEST, NOW I CAN FISH IN PEACE FOR A CHANGE.


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

you can't truly be at peace till you post that "guides" name


----------



## Harbormaster (May 26, 2000)

Something about Springtime, croakers and Double H to make the world seem whole! Talk about a ground hog! :tongue::biggrin:


----------



## jeffpjacob (Mar 14, 2006)

Here's a Proposal for you - Any fish caught using a Professional Guide should be "catch and release" only. Daily limits apply to recreational anglers not under the direction of a Guide.


----------



## LongRodMaster (Mar 5, 2005)

jeffpjacob said:


> Here's a Proposal for you - Any fish caught using a Professional Guide should be "catch and release" only. Daily limits apply to recreational anglers not under the direction of a Guide.


Well if you want to put guides out of ajob that will do it.


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

ROBOWADER said:


> You gotta get off the couch and fish first......LOL


Conway, glad to know you keep up with my every move Bro! lol


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

I have only resumed fishing in the last 12 months and have yet to catch more than 3 trout personally on any one trip. He!! man, a 5 trout limit would be a goal I might be able to accomplish one day! 

I can live with a seven trout limit for the rec. fisherman. I would like to see the professional guides with a stricter limit whether it be quantity of fish or tighter slot limit sizes.


----------



## jeffpjacob (Mar 14, 2006)

LongRodMaster said:


> Well if you want to put guides out of ajob that will do it.


No it won't. Guides biggest customers are Sport Fisherman. Their business will continue to grow. If anything, it will help dwindle their numbers a bit. I think there are way too many as it is.


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

I'll bet my buddy Tom Nix is rolling over in his Grave wishing he could Chime in! lol Miss ya Old Man!


----------



## TooShallow (May 21, 2004)

LongRodMaster, No, I'm not kidding. Take your average joe number (1000 fish, 100 fish it does not matter) and mulitiply it by the number of average joes who hit the water on a yearly basis. What do think that equation would give. There are hundreds of thousands of average joes to consider in your equation. I really don't think it's a guide issue. Do the guides contribute to the total catch? You bet. I just don't think they are the major contributor.


----------



## LongRodMaster (Mar 5, 2005)

Lets get seriouse the average joe does not even target Trout easy 50% of people on the water today fish with dead bait and are happy to catch croakers and sandys with the ocasional red. The average joe is happy to catch any fish.


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

Seem like this topic pops up every year. And its allways from down south.


----------



## LongRodMaster (Mar 5, 2005)

Any body have any clue as to how many guides there are in just the Galveston bay complex?

Let me also say that have nothing against Guides. I am just saying compareing average Joe to a guide ratio seems silly to me.


----------



## jeffpjacob (Mar 14, 2006)

LongRodMaster said:


> Lets get seriouse the average joe does not even target Trout easy 50% of people on the water today fish with dead bait and are happy to catch croakers and sandys with the ocasional red. The average joe is happy to catch any fish.


I'd have to agree with LongRod on this. Most recreational anglers just don't want to get "skunked". If that means coming home with a puppy drum, then so be it.


----------



## troy merrill (May 21, 2004)

Angler2407 said:


> My petiton is to make Croakers a *gamefish.*


You are not alone on that. Not even close.


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

jeffpjacob said:


> Here's a Proposal for you - Any fish caught using a Professional Guide should be "catch and release" only. Daily limits apply to recreational anglers not under the direction of a Guide.


try and enforce that rule


----------



## LongRodMaster (Mar 5, 2005)

I say we just eliminate bait fishing all together both near shore and off shore!!!!

Im sorry thats just crazy in my book I do not care what you throw 80% of fishing is finding them.


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

*whats the point*

Who really cares what the rules and regs are changed to. I see "enforcement" as the biggest detrement to our bays. Who cares if its 2,5,7,or 10? A very small percentage get checked and even if Joe blow knows croaker are illegal who out there on the water is gonna stop him? Ive seen more people "over indulge" fishing lights and Ive seen the croaker guys on the ship channel make multiple trips to the dock. We can belly ache all day long about how we do it and how many we do it to, but if we continue to have such pathetically weak enforcement then its all just internet bravado and fist shaking. I could care less what they do to croakers or trout limits cause I know there are still bad guides who will make multiple trips and worthless recs who will keep everything they catch regardless of technique, size, and bag limit. I havent personally seen a GW in several years and havent been checked in probably twice as long. Its a joke.

MM


----------



## troy merrill (May 21, 2004)

It's not a usage problem, but an abuse of the resource that is at heart. With more people on the water and a relatively constant amount of fish....you are going to have problems soon enough. With a fishery that is relatively delicate like the one down South it is just a matter of time before the pain is obvious.

A pro-active approach like "just keep five" is a sensible solution. Pro-active.

Luckily we haven't had a big freeze in a long time or this topic would be nuclear in its heat.


----------



## Harbormaster (May 26, 2000)

Hard Head said:


> I'll bet my buddy Tom Nix is rolling over in his Grave wishing he could Chime in! lol Miss ya Old Man!


 His last post!

saltyangler (216.146.16.41) from TEXAS says surf trout
Trout fishing is slow on PINS right now, skinbone. Water is murky and the mullet migration heading south has brought in predators like Bull Sharks, bull Redfish and Jack Crevalle, all dining on the mullet. Best chance for any Trout would be south of the 20 mile marker, using finger mullet for bait. If the water clears some before the next cold front, throw silver spoons or Bass Assassins. 
Tom


----------



## Mr. Breeze (Jan 6, 2005)

Too many people, not enough fish? Where will it all be in 50 years? 2050 Hardheads are qualified as gamefish!


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

troy merrill said:


> It's not a usage problem, but an abuse of the resource that is at heart. With more people on the water and a relatively constant amount of fish....you are going to have problems soon enough. With a fishery that is relatively delicate like the one down South it is just a matter of time before the pain is obvious.
> 
> A pro-active approach like "just keep five" is a sensible solution. Pro-active.
> 
> Luckily we haven't had a big freeze in a long time or this topic would be nuclear in its heat.


Watch it Troy, you'll be labeled the next Hard Head! lol Anytime I mentioned Pro-Active, it got a rise! lol

Harbormaster, Thanks for that post from Tom! Even though he and I fought like Cats and Dogs on the Boards, we were actually good friends off the Board thanks to McTrout! The last time I saw him, we were in Port Lavaca for a SSWG meeting and went to lunch and Everett Johnson told the Check Out Clerk at the Resturant, "Give the Bill to my Dad", while pointing at Tom! lol What a Priceless Moment! Tom's face was like "*** did he just say"! lol

I also remember Tom telling me after a NMFS meeting in Galveston, that he drove over the Causeway in Galveston and that he saw enough Trout in Galveston Bay that you could walk from one side to the other and never get your feet wet! Crazy old Coot!

But Seriously Folks. I fully understand McBride's and Sandifer's concerns regarding saving some for the future. Several Guides have already implemented a 5 Fish limit per trip, per person, and I believe Everett Johnson was the first! My hat is off to that man! Everett has demonstrated that a Guide CAN make a difference! Hopefully, if TP&W refuses to do anything about current Trout limits, OTHER Guides and Joe Fishermen will adopt his policies and help the resource!

I have had literally dozens of PM's and E-Mails since this Thread started and EVERYONE agrees with a Self Imposed 5 fish limit, UNLESS we want a good old fashioned Meat Haul! Cheers to you all!


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

What about the Flounder? LOL


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

Gary said:


> What about the Flounder? LOL


Stop catching them and all will be well Gary! lol


----------



## troy merrill (May 21, 2004)

Gary said:


> What about the Flounder? LOL


Keep stirrin' bro....keep stirrin! Lol! :biggrin:


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

troy merrill said:


> Keep stirrin' bro....keep stirrin! Lol! :biggrin:


Troy, I have a MUCH better picture for the No Croakers! I'll shoot it off to you tomorrow!


----------



## Capt. Chuck Uzzle (Jul 29, 2004)

*A little different perspective....*

Man this thread is on fire!!! From this guides perspective it is difficult to understand the croaker impact due to the fact that we have very little if any "craoker soaking" going on up here around Sabine. One thing that will never ever be legislated is MORALS!!!! If a guy can go out and rip up 10 giant fish on live bait what is the difference between a guy doing the same thing with arties? The fish are still dead. Period. A limit change is the most effective way of making an impact.

For those "math majors" and "stat geeks" out there who think guides average 250 days on the water a year, you need to step away from the crack pipe and re-think that observation. There are very few guys who even come close to approaching that number.

Also, how come all the hostility towards the guides? There are some of us who actually care about what goes on with the fishery, I know I want this place to be as good or better for my son when he gets older.All the guys who run with me have not kept guide limits in several years, even before the law was changed. We also have had a boat rule on 25" trout, if it was not going to the taxidermist it was released. There are some guides who actually help TPWD with information they collect from the days they are on the water. Who better to ask than someone who sees the status of the fishery on a day to day basis?

As far as the croaker debate goes what happened to the great croaker runs of the 70's and 80's when people lined the shores of Rollover Pass and others to get in on the great action? If there were more of these fish you may see a little less pressure on other species. Things that make you go HMMMMM...?

One final thought. If you really want to see how many people out there are "artie only super trout smackers" go hang out at Academy, Oshmans and so on. There are way more guys lugging castnets, egg sinkers, and stainless hooks out the door than 7 dollar super spooks and 200.00 baicasters. The "artie only" world is much smaller than you think.

You will never police morals.

Capt. Chuck


----------



## Hogheaven (May 25, 2004)

I read all of this and I don't think I could have answered any better than Capt. Chuck Uzzle.
Thanks


----------



## Wading Mark (Apr 21, 2005)

Great response Capt. Uzzle. 

Y'all won't believe me, but I haven't kept a limit of my own in 10 years because I don't care for fish. But, most people do eat fish and like to keep their catch. I think more enforcement is the answer to keep some people from going on multiple trips per day and having an unecessary meat haul. The same thing happens in LA., as well. The word conservation doesn't mean anything to game hogs, so maybe a stiff fine would.


----------



## Gottagofishin (Dec 17, 2005)

Captain Uzzel makes a great point, If you count the number of guides on the Texas coast, even assuming they fish 250 days a year and get limits for their customers every time, it still probably doesn't make a dent in the fish population.

If there is a problem... and I far from convinced that there is... I doubt the guides are to blame.


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

"Chuck Who?" I yelled that as they were calling him to the booth to do his presentation in Austin. Man PHEW I am worn out after reading 10 rediculous pages. Thanks for answering chuck. You would have to be crazy to think 250 days on the water. Another crazy thought is that Guides are keeping all the fish. Another ludicrous thought is that a guide would want to completely deplete the very resource that provides him a home, vehicle, food for his family etc... NOW, back on subject, Who polices TPWD someone asked? NO ONE, they are the police, hello? The limits are based on average days on the water, and yes they take into consideration how many guides are working and base numbers on average sized trips. So, the limits that are there, are there because that is what our fishery will sustain. "Croaker soaking" as it is coined, just as Chuck says, is no different from any live bait really.

I think Aubrey was one of the first to throw the slogan " just keep 5" around widespread. Yes, I respect the Shuler's immencely and they are really in touch with what is going on in their fisheries. Yes, I have to agree that the arti only crowd is significantly smaller than you might think. I personally have used bait maybe 1 day total in the last year. I am not going to bad mouth it, because I once used it as I was learning. I became good enough to produce the same results, for the most part, with artificials so I just quit dealing with the hassle of bait. I have had people on board that want to use it and that is fine with me. Again off topic sorry...

Something to note is that TPWD has determined that fishing is down, but those that are fishing are catching more fish per outing compared to years in the past. I believe it. There are a lot of factors, and I will not go into my theories because they are off topic, but the fishery is healthy and TPWD factors in those using croaker for bait. 

Applauded is the efforts all of the other guides getting most all of the trophy trout released on board unless they are being mounted. Remember the 25" rule, that was started by guides, remember the no guide limits being kept? That was started by guides too. So, quit harping on the guides, they are really here to help, while making a living in the process. Ask any guide if they would prefer catching a 32" trout on a topwater versus throwing a croaker at them? So, will croaker be banned? I just do not see it happening and most of the people harping are the very consumers using them. I really do appreciate the shulers etc.. that fish arti only, as it is more of a education than a meat haul, which is what I try and preach. There was a great saying floating around "give a man fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime" or something like that. It is true, educate those out there and they will produce on their own. I try and instill that frozen fish is not near as good as fresh fish. BUT, remember not everyone has that luxury. So, limits should not be changed, TPWD has already established what a maximum sustainable fishery is and we are close. That being said, I will be rolling out a program, HOPEFULLY this year, that will assist in restocking efforts which become increasingly important as the number of fishermen raise in any given year. They fishery is doing great but we must assist some.
Man, I will have to go back and re-read and make sure I hit everything I wanted to touch on.


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

*hmmmm*

So what about enforcement? My thread still goes unanswered by the masses? What good does any rule changes do if thier is no enforcement? Ill gladly pay $100 a year for a fishing license if it puts more badges on the water and at the ramps. I see more illegal fishing/catching now going on than I ever did. Called Operation Game thief once and actually waited and fished nearby waiting for the response. Hours later I left after no response was made. How many here would pony up more to get more enforcement on the water? I know Id gladly pay double to get more of them out there.

MM


----------



## Fishin-Inc (May 27, 2004)

*Well MM*

What have you done lately?

Yes, enforcement is an issue. 
No chit. So...
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaa good night and all through the house
Not a creature was stirrin, but everyone on 2cool.
Stirrin and stirrin.


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

*well*



> What have you done lately?


I do all that I can, I know Im sorta new here and this is a hot topic for sure. But..... I still truely beleive that if enforcement isnt picked up then all the laws and regs in the world wont do a thing. We have proven as a society more than once that if the cats away the mice will play. I see it almost everytime Im on the water. Night gents, I got my limit.


----------



## Harbormaster (May 26, 2000)

Whoa there monkey boy! I dont know who you are, but I'm sure you're much bigger in your own eyes than those of us viewing you now!

The man you're talking to is involved in conservation issues that will affect you, me and our kids long after we're gone!

Usually I only get involved after all other options have been exhausted and chocolate Dairy Queen malts are the only alternative! You're buying! :biggrin:


----------



## Fishin-Inc (May 27, 2004)

*My tackle was cleaned last night!*

I had cubscouts tonight. LOL
Now answer the question.

What have you done but buy a license and kill fish.
Have you helped a conservation group beside spend $20.
That doesn't cover anything. Not the mailers or advertising.

But I know what the $20 does.
It's a vote.
It's another push at a congressman.
It's says you're at least thought about the resource.

So do something...
Don't just complain.
Cuz lordy we got enough complainers. Pass......

Now go waddle back to the fridge. Fat boy.....


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

*Lmao*

Useless post from an unestablished member? Thanks Wading Mark, shows what you know. WOW, my question still wasnt answered about enforcement and the b-list is circling. I asked about enforcement, then instead of an answer I get.....


> Yes, enforcement is an issue.
> No chit. So...


 and then get red dots to boot. Hmmmm, some things never change.


----------



## LongRodMaster (Mar 5, 2005)

Capt. Chuck Uzzle said:


> Man this thread is on fire!!! From this guides perspective it is difficult to understand the croaker impact due to the fact that we have very little if any "craoker soaking" going on up here around Sabine. One thing that will never ever be legislated is MORALS!!!! If a guy can go out and rip up 10 giant fish on live bait what is the difference between a guy doing the same thing with arties? The fish are still dead. Period. A limit change is the most effective way of making an impact.
> 
> For those "math majors" and "stat geeks" out there who think guides average 250 days on the water a year, you need to step away from the crack pipe and re-think that observation. There are very few guys who even come close to approaching that number.
> 
> ...


I can not agree more perhaps my post was not clear. I am not against Guides or changeing the limit. I was simply trying to make a point that guides have I higher impact vs the average Joe. The numbers where fictitiouse points of referance. I would not have a problem with a 5 fish limit hell I would love to be able to catch 5 keepers every trip I made! I just think out lawing croakers is absurd and to many people think that every one out on the water is after trout let alone catching them.


----------



## LongRodMaster (Mar 5, 2005)

MM there is always Operation Game Theft believe me I have used it and denied the reward. I saw 2 guys fishing in Matty with 3 bull reds and noticed one had a tag. So they had to know they were in the wrong. Its up to us to police our water to some extent.


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

If you want to support another effort in our bays, join SEA. 100% of the money goes back into the fishery. www.seatexas.org or pm me and i will do whatever I need to do to get you joined up. Going to start up an austin chapter hopefully follow with a Houston chapter and then a Victoria.


----------



## fishomaniac (May 22, 2004)

You know, back in the olden days when the trout weren't biting we could always catch a mess of big croaker for a fish fry. And they are fine eating fish. So I won't complain if they outlaw croakers for bait. The old croaker runs are just a memory , they barely even happen now. There are plenty of other live baits that will take trout. 
So if you want a meat haul, go ahead and ban croaker as bait. People that want to eat good fish can catch quality croaker again. I don't think it will have much effect on the trout populations however.
And the "average joe" doesn't do guided trips. 
It's just like the war of commercial snapper fisherman against the rec's.
People who make money from fish versus those who fish for fishings sake. 
There are a heck of a lot more of us than them however, and the only way we can make our influence felt is voting carefully.

And supporting our conservation orginazations.


----------



## Fish Aholic (May 13, 2005)

Don`t croaker eat trout eggs? If there are more being used for bait; more trout? There are more trout out there than what people think.


My personal experience with croaker: I went to the Freeport jettys and not a bite until I put on live shrimp. 

Mosquito Island: Not a bite. People with live shrimp caught the hell out of them.

Croaker are fair bait!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## fisherking78 (Dec 18, 2005)

*Jacques Cousteau*

*Jacques Cousteau said: He would not eat anything that was caught less than five-hundred miles offshore. That was fifty years ago.*


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

Fish Aholic said:


> *Don`t croaker eat trout eggs? If there are more being used for bait; more trout?* Croaker are fair bait!!!!!!!!!!


Answer: *NO!*

Contrary to popular beliefs, Trout do not make a nest and lay its eggs inside, then swim around and guard them. Why would a Croaker get near an area containing Trout and chance getting eaten? lol


----------



## Reel Bender (Sep 30, 2004)

Yeah, Ban croaker as bait so I can start catching more of them suckers. I too enjoy the pull of a croaker, I believe they have probably the greatest pull to weight ratio of any fish I have ever caught. Man, you think you got this monster and then it turns out to be a 12" croaker. Finally, man they make for some good eating!!!!!!!

Regarding the limits, I don't think I have ever caught a limit of Trout, I did come close once or twice.


----------



## crite (Apr 20, 2006)

Maybe they should just outlaw "professional" fishing (guiding). Sounds like thats what is hurting the fish population. I seldom catch 4 or 5 trout in a day in my 3 or 4 trips a year and if I want to use croaker I'm going to.


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

*Careful What You Ask For!*

Ban a bait? Where would that lead to eventually...to a ban on a method of fishing?

"I'm sorry, but you can't use a rod and reel that is capable of casting more than 30 feet...it gives you an unfair advantage over the fish."

Treble hooks on topwater baits are an unfair advantage...ban 'em. Any boat that is capable of running faster than 30 mph on the water has an unfair advantage, ban 'em. That DOA shrimp is just too life-like, takes too many fish...ban 'em.

Banning a bait means that's it, the fat lady sang, it's over...then after that's accomplished we can move on to banning other things.

Fly fishermen don't care for bait casters, pluggers don't care for fly fishing...a movement to ban bait casting rods and reels or fly rods? I know, let's ban all forms of rods & reels and go back to using cane poles and pogie bait!

Bah...banning a bait is just a bad idea all around in the case of the croaker war...look to lower limits and single boat trips per day by guides as an answer instead.

Banning a bait isn't the answer...it's an open door to banning other things somewhere down the road.


----------



## Fishin-Inc (May 27, 2004)

*You can!!*



crite said:


> Maybe they should just outlaw "professional" fishing (guiding). Sounds like thats what is hurting the fish population. I seldom catch 4 or 5 trout in a day in my 3 or 4 trips a year and if I want to use croaker I'm going to.


Nice first thread welcome to the bored.
Do what you want if it's legal.

Got a girl friend? Post a picture.
It's FRIDAY !!!!!!!
That means post your girl friend pictures welcome.
It's a tradition.


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

don't be startin stuff Inc.


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

speckle-catcher said:


> don't be startin stuff Inc.


You just HAD to get that 6000th Post didn't ya? lmao!


----------



## Mr. Breeze (Jan 6, 2005)

*Trout*



Hard Head said:


> Answer: *NO!*
> Contrary to popular beliefs, Trout do not make a nest and lay its eggs inside, then swim around and guard them. Why would a Croaker get near an area containing Trout and chance getting eaten? lol


Why would a croaker get near? Their tupid ! lmao Mr. Trout'''' Croak, Croak, eat me!!! Eat Me!!!! lmao munch, munch, mmmm gooood eggs, Croak, Croak, mmmmm, more, need more eggs, lmao Actually, the trout are not trying to eat them, just KILL them when they are spawning.

I vote make Hardheads a gamefish. There world class ones out there.


----------



## Bigwater (May 21, 2004)

I'd say just systematically and methodically keep buying back the shrimp licenses. Once we cleanse the bays of these type of environmetal rapers whether it be killing food substance, dumping their abandoned vessels, or dumping their oil changes over the side we will do the bays justice. How many croakers that are bait size can be caught offshore or nearshore? Probably not as many as they drag outta the bay. 
It appears that many people here have ideas that work but no one has a fix all like getting the shrimpers out of the bays. By getting the shrimpers out in the open water it will heal many problems that have been created over many years. 
Can anyone here imagine what it would be like and what kind of food substance we would have in the bays if the shrimp botes werent alloud to drag them. Shrimp would be busting out of every nook and cranny we would find and the croakers would make a large rebound without making them a game fish.
I dont know about anyone else here but Flounder are growing more scarce as they have been in the past. Getting the shrimpers out would help that cause too. It looks like its a no brainer. It aint the guides and it aint the recs its the shrimpers.
Until CCA modifies the meat haul tourney you cant trust them with yore hard earned dollars either. They have a lot of work to do within and I dont see it happening. 

Biggie:biggrin:


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

Hard Head said:


> You just HAD to get that 6000th Post didn't ya? lmao!


actually I wasn't paying attention - but thanks for pointing that out!

I can now start my own greenie troll thread invoking the "milestone" technique!


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

JUST KEEP FIVE -- Wow, I should have thought of that!

Actually, during the height of the controversy that surrounded Spotted Seatrout Work Group, Jay Watkins penned a piece for the then "Tom Nix's - Saltwater Angler". Jay's point was simple "If you think there are too many people killing too many fish, change the bag limit." Jay suggested five trout rather than ten. I thought it made a lot of sense.

In fact, I liked the message so well that I began to champion the Just Keep Five slogan and have been preaching it in Gulf Coast Connections ever since. Since the summer of 2002 I've written at least a dozen editorials and other pieces encouraging a more conservative approach to trout fishing here on the Texas coast. These writings have been (except for a few readers) well received and a legion of followers have joined the movement. Most are dedicated salts who fish often, fish hard, have great respect for coastal resources, and want to be good stewards. 

As a guide, I always ask the guys who fish with me to begin C&R on trout when they have five iced down to take home for dinner. I also ask them to C&R all trophy fish that will not be mounted. I have enjoyed very high compliance on these requests, probably better than 90 percent. Further; to the best of my knowledge, asking clients to practice conservation at this level has not caused the loss of a single charter. Most clients are actually keeping fewer than five these days, preferring instead to take home redfish and maybe a flounder when we can find them. 

JUST KEEP FIVE is a road map to direct how we enjoy the resource. In all my experience I have yet to meet anybody fishing with a rod and reel that would go to bed hungry if they didn't keep their catch. It has also been my experience that all those folks carrying a rod and reel are looking for two things... they want the big one and they want to catch lots of them. So, in recognition of these two goals, what is better... keeping a few for dinner and C&R'ing the rest, or killing all the law will allow and hoping they'll still be there on your next trip to the coast?

One last point, JUST KEEP FIVE is not an anti-croaker campaign or a campaign against any other bait or legal means of sportfishing. Any fish removed from the fishery is still absent no matter if caught on a croaker, a Trout Killer or a sail line. Hal Osburn said it best, "to outlaw any bait or method in preference of another is to enter a slippery slope." 

Get out there and enjoy the sport and remember to practice good conservation... and if it makes sense to you - JUST KEEP FIVE!

Everett Johnson


----------



## backlasher (Dec 20, 2004)

In Texas Trout Tactics, Chester Moore makes the statement"TPWD has learned trout from one bay system cannot be stocked in another because of genetic differences due to population isolation" Reds are migratory, trout aren't. We can supplement the number of Reds through hatchery raised fish but for each bay system, we'd need a trout hatchery. It seems to me that keeping fewer fish is the right way to insure that our grandchildren will have trout to catch.


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

backlasher said:


> In Texas Trout Tactics, Chester Moore makes the statement"TPWD has learned trout from one bay system cannot be stocked in another because of genetic differences due to population isolation" Reds are migratory, trout aren't. We can supplement the number of Reds through hatchery raised fish but for each bay system, we'd need a trout hatchery. It seems to me that keeping fewer fish is the right way to insure that our grandchildren will have trout to catch.


There are Trout Hatcheries (Sea Center Texas), but not with the numbers that Reds are currently.


----------



## El Cazador (Mar 4, 2005)

Hard Head said:


> There are Trout Hatcheries (Sea Center Texas), but not with the numbers that Reds are currently.


Well then why were so many trout given to the Corpus hatchery after the Baffin Bay Bash? One of the rules for "Trout Masters" tournaments is that fish are to be brought in alive for the purpose of restocking.

See the attached quote by Ron Behnke after the bash.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Ron Behnke*
_I want to THANK everyone who fished the Bash.They did a great job catching and takeing care of the fish.We put 190 prime Trout into the hatchery over the weekend.Fish that did not make it went to Texas A&M Corpus Christi for a research program .I have never seen a better group of anglers than these folks.We are worn out today but we had a ball. Thanks again to everyone including our staff that I think did a great job. Ron Behnke
PS: Top 15 listed on saltyangler.com--Average weight was 4 lb 13 oz per fish weighed in._


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

Flour Bluff and Sea Center Texas are Both TP&W operated Hatcheries. There is also one in Palacious (sp) but can't remember the name of it. Those Trout brought in were to be used for brood stock. Trout caught in the Laguna Madre MUST be restocked in the same body of water due to Genetics.



El Cazador said:


> Well then why were so many trout given to the Corpus hatchery after the Baffin Bay Bash? One of the rules for "Trout Masters" tournaments is that fish are to be brought in alive for the purpose of restocking.
> 
> See the attached quote by Ron Behnke after the bash.
> 
> ...


----------



## TexasDux (May 21, 2004)

Harbormaster said:


> Something about Springtime, croakers and Double H to make the world seem whole! Talk about a ground hog! :tongue::biggrin:


Well I guess HH didn't see his shadow, and he's here to stay for awhile LOL!


----------



## redbyfly (Jun 10, 2005)

Eat more fish!


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

About the genetic differences... and incidentally, not all biologists I've interviewed are in agreement... however why risk mixing stocks if indeed some adaptation to habitat is being transferred genetically. 

As for tournament fish being sent to the hatchery following live weigh-in... 'tis certainly more noble and wise to send them to the hatchery than the cleaning table. However, having said that, we should also be cognizant of the fact that the spotted seatrout stocking program has never been stymied for lack of brood stock, at least such has never been reported. Maybe the greatest value in having these fish added to the brood stock would be the genetic diversity? We would need a bio to answer that one I'm sure.


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

TexasDux said:


> Well I guess HH didn't see his shadow, and he's here to stay for awhile LOL!


Finally a Thread I can Slime! lol


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

EJ, 25% of the Brood Stock is rotated each year to prevent in-breeding and introduce different Genes from the general same population (Bay Complex).



[email protected] said:


> About the genetic differences... and incidentally, not all biologists I've interviewed are in agreement... however why risk mixing stocks if indeed some adaptation to habitat is being transferred genetically.
> 
> As for tournament fish being sent to the hatchery following live weigh-in... 'tis certainly more noble and wise to send them to the hatchery than the cleaning table. However, having said that, we should also be cognizant of the fact that the spotted seatrout stocking program has never been stymied for lack of brood stock, at least such has never been reported. Maybe the greatest value in having these fish added to the brood stock would be the genetic diversity? We would need a bio to answer that one I'm sure.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

HH - Yes, I think everybody is aware that intro'ing new stock makes sense, but the point I was making is that the whole brood stock is still only a small number of fish, and the program in general would not be stymied w/o the tourney stock donation. Proof of this could be seen in the fact that the hatchery program existed for many years w/o tourney fish and presumably those same sources are still available today.


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> HH - Yes, I think everybody is aware that intro'ing new stock makes sense, but the point I was making is that the whole brood stock is still only a small number of fish, and the program in general would not be stymied w/o the tourney stock donation. Proof of this could be seen in the fact that the hatchery program existed for many years w/o tourney fish and presumably those same sources are still available today.


OK, I understand now and totally agree! Many of the Brazoria County CCA Board Members use to bring Trout and Reds to Sea Center for Brood Stock.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

HH - Second point (forgot to include above) not all bios agree on the need to maintain the regionalization of stocks requirement. Some say this is done more out of fear of consequences more than specific scientific fact. Example - If through natural selection trout from LLM have a genetic adaptation that enables them to thrive in high salinity and Sabine trout do not... why risk putting Sabine fingerlings in LLM?


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> HH - Second point (forgot to include above) not all bios agree on the need to maintain the regionalization of stocks requirement. Some say this is done more out of fear of consequences more than specific scientific fact. Example - If through natural selection trout from LLM have a genetic adaptation that enables them to thrive in high salinity and Sabine trout do not... why risk putting Sabine fingerlings in LLM?


I too have heard that from some of the Biologist at TP&W. But then again, there are those that Swear by Genetics.


----------



## Fishin-Inc (May 27, 2004)

*So*

So let's all go get a pint of micro shrimp and go snag a bunch of 14'er's and watch half float away on top. Some say a 14" tastes the best.

Stirr, stirr, add a little more sugar and stirr.


----------



## Bigwater (May 21, 2004)

Hard Head said:


> I too have heard that from some of the Biologist at TP&W. But then again, there are those that Swear by Genetics.


Where is that Bobby Miller dude that used to hang around here. He might know.

Biggie


----------



## br549 (Jan 17, 2006)

*Guides*

I looked at all the coments earlier and wondered just how many guides were working in Texas. I emailed TP&W and just got a response. There are 813 resident guides and 1 non resident guide holding current licenses in Texas. I would have though that there would be a lot more than that. Dont have any answers for the issue just thought I'd put in some #'s to ponder further.
Be good to each other, 
George


----------



## warcat (May 22, 2004)

That's less than I thought also.

But using the numbers of approx 5000 yearly trout per guide (approximated from an earlier post),
That's around 4 million killed per year total!!

Even if guides only get half the days on the water that was stated... that's still over 2 million killed. Adds up pretty quick.


Would any of you guides like to post up an average boat total per year?

I'll tell you...
I fish about once a month (on average) and catch about 4 trout per person per trip (on average), so that 12 x 4 x (3 persons) = 144 per year killed.

Anyone want to contact TP&W for a total number of licenses sold per year?

We could get to the bottom of who is the major contributor of the "problem", if there really is one...


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

I see we have more guide bashing today! I guess I know 10-15 guides personally, and you would be surprised where I met them. At either SCA meetings or at TOBA fund raisers. Im willing to bet that 95% of the paid guides in Texas are conservationists. Its simple mathematics. You make too many withdrawls from the bank, you go broke!

Conservation is everyones job. Allthough I sometimes use live Shrimp, I have only used Croaker once. And I didnt pay for them. If everybody used some common sense and just kept what they needed, it wouldnt matter what that 5% of the Meat Haulers did. And just to state my personal ideals on conservation, I have never frozen a fish in my life, allthough that may change in the future since I dont get to fish that often anymore.

IMO, this whole subject was brought up because of a handfull of guys, or "Eleteists" who only target trophy Trout. Now, I have an issue with that! Save the gene pool!

Flame on! "wink" I wont be here to see it anyway! :slimer:


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

Not even close to that guys. 5000 fish per guide come on even at 200 a year you are still looking at 25 fish average per charter throughout the year.

Not happening no way no how anyone tells you that is the average then they are trying to put one over on you. 

Ok, Jay and a few others withstanding.LOL 

It's NOT a guide thing guys. It is a MEAT HAUL mentality that like it or not has been cultivated in our state for too many years and it is one that must change.

When people that do it for a lving are suggesting reductions it is time to listen.


----------



## warcat (May 22, 2004)

No guide bashing here. I actually love guides, and what they've taught me.

I'm trying to find out the main contributor to the problem. If it turns out that the average guy like myself (taking around 50 trout/yr each) is the main problem, then so be it.

If there's say 25,000 average guys, that would equal a 1.25 million burden on the fishery's trout population per year also.

During this thread, it has been stated that there is a problem with a dwindling supply of trout in the bays. If this is so, the numbers are dwindling because of the numbers being caught (and kept). So I found it logical to see who it is catching (and killing) the fish...

I'm just looking for information.

If a pro guide would post up an average boat total per year, and if we got a total number of average joe's (from licenses sold), the reason for the "dwindling trout population" could be solved. Then real solutions could be discussed.


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

Not targeted at you WC.

Meant it as a statement to all reading this thread in general.


----------



## call/sign 22 (Aug 11, 2005)

*The REAL MESSAGE!*

Our proposal is not so guides can put their clients on more fish. It is to preserve a fishery under attack. With 2000 more anglers coming into the salt water fishery every month you can run the numbers! 
One REAL CONCERN is we have not had a Killer Freezer in more than 16 years, if we continue to increase our harvest at the current rate our fishery might never recover.
If you go to TPW web site they state 85% of the anglers on the Texas Coast never catch 5 trout per outing, with this said, be it the other 15% guides or GOOD recreational anglers, the fish they would not be able to harvest over 5 would be spread to the other 85%. Win/Win! If the limit was five think about all the additional trout in our bays that would be available. Plus having a larger stock would give them the ability to recover from a killer freeze.

Despite what TPW states in their data most full time guides down here see the affects of the increased pressure. This is what has brought this issue to a head!
I fully understand your point if I only got to fish once a month I would like to make sure I could keep fish, and as many as possible. 
I am not interested in taking anything away from anyone, just trying to assure we will have a fishery for our kids and grand kids.

My original post I said I am not interested in banding croaker! I have no intentions to dictate how people fish. As far as a bag reduction, if we can get TPW to put in place a Regionalization plan for the coast we could have different bag limits for different bay systems. If one bay had a problem they would be able to fix it with reduced limits and or other management tools and not affect the entire coast. Another win/win for the Fishery. Thanks for your understanding. 
Later


----------



## call/sign 22 (Aug 11, 2005)

*Forgot to sign post!*

Sorry, I forgot to sign my previous post.


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

Gary said:


> I see we have more guide bashing today! I guess I know 10-15 guides personally, and you would be surprised where I met them. At either SCA meetings or at TOBA fund raisers. *Im willing to bet that 95% of the paid guides in Texas are conservationists. *
> IMO, this whole subject was brought up because of a handfull of guys, or "Eleteists" who only target trophy Trout. Now, I have an issue with that! Save the gene pool!
> 
> Flame on! "wink" I wont be here to see it anyway! :slimer:


*I'll take that Bet Anyday!*

I can take you to Flour Bluff and show you SEVERAL who could give a **** less about conservation! They have the "How many can we weigh in at the dock today" syndrome!


----------



## LongRodMaster (Mar 5, 2005)

Hard Head said:


> *I'll take that Bet Anyday!*
> 
> I can take you to Flour Bluff and show you SEVERAL who could give a **** less about conservation! They have the "How many can we weigh in at the dock today" syndrome!


I agree with you HH but there are alot of good guides out there also who do care and are just all around great guys from what I have seen of them.


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

LongRodMaster said:


> I agree with you HH but there are alot of good guides out there also who do care and are just all around great guys from what I have seen of them.


I Totally agree! But 95% of the Saltwater Guides are not that way. McBride, Sandifer, Uzzle, EJ and others that I know, I'd say YES. But like I stated, there are those that just want their PAID customers to catch as many as possible so they'll go tell their friends what a good time they had.

Keep 5 if that's what you choose to do, or keep 10 like the law allows! Only You can make that decision!


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

Something the guys bashing the trophy trout hunters need to recognize is that they are releasing most of the fish they catch, and in good shape! You can call me whatever you want, but I have not had a trip booked in MANY years that I have not caught more than your numbers and I will guarantee the fish are bigger this year, but a lot of that has to do with the growth rates and time since the last freeze. Figure a 6 yr old female trout is 24" on average and from that point on they grow about 1" per year. I will go so far as to say that I even caught the biggest male trout I have ever caught my last trip, @ almost 27". 

I have to agree to disagree HH, Guides are concerned with their clients having a great trip, a great time, not the numbers. There are still several people with the meat haul mentality but a good majority of those are infrequent coastal anglers and keeping their 2 day limits so they will have some fish for a while. I have the numbers at the house of recreational anglers etc...


----------



## Fishin-Inc (May 27, 2004)

*Wrongo*



Gary said:


> I see we have more guide bashing today! ]
> 
> It's conversation. LOL
> They are trying to figure out #'s for guys like me that can't count.
> ...


Are we catching few fish? I heard about old days of 100's of fish per day.
But we have more fisherman. So what's the real #'s.
Is the answer creel surveys? I don't know.
Have a nice day.


----------



## Gary Brogdon (May 27, 2005)

call/sign 22 said:


> Our proposal is not so guides can put their clients on more fish. It is to preserve a fishery under attack. With 2000 more anglers coming into the salt water fishery every month you can run the numbers!
> One REAL CONCERN is we have not had a Killer Freezer in more than 16 years, if we continue to increase our harvest at the current rate our fishery might never recover.
> If you go to TPW web site they state 85% of the anglers on the Texas Coast never catch 5 trout per outing, with this said, be it the other 15% guides or GOOD recreational anglers, the fish they would not be able to harvest over 5 would be spread to the other 85%. Win/Win! If the limit was five think about all the additional trout in our bays that would be available. Plus having a larger stock would give them the ability to recover from a killer freeze.
> 
> ...


"Despite what TPW states..." Do you think they're just pizzin' off $$ doing net and creel surveys? Do you Mr. Shuler, know more than these men and women that are educated and have years of knowledge on the subject? Granted, you have a reputation as a great guide... does that make you have the ability to dictate what should be law for the saltwaters of Texas? The SSWG was a big waste of our time and $$$. I was at all of the meetings but one. In the end, TPW did exactly what they were going to do... they made up their own mind and didn't give a rat's arse what the panel recommended.

I just don't see where you plan to go with this. If you can get a Guides Assoc. or group to follow the guidelines you propose, then that's great. BUT, why have TP&W waste our time and $$$ on more "focus groups and BS? They already have more research than any other game agency in the nation.

Let them do their job and be the scientists! You do your's and keep putting paying customers on good trout.

I do agree with the idea of regionalization, but I don't think TP&W will listen this time either.


----------



## Fishin-Inc (May 27, 2004)

*G's Hot*

Sweet!!!!!!!

G, glad to see ya.


----------



## LongRodMaster (Mar 5, 2005)

There is an idea!!!!

Let the conservation pros that have done such a great job with the red fish do what they do best.


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

stew1tx said:


> I have to agree to disagree HH, Guides are concerned with their clients having a great trip, a great time, not the numbers. There are still several people with the meat haul mentality but a good majority of those are infrequent coastal anglers and keeping their 2 day limits so they will have some fish for a while. I have the numbers at the house of recreational anglers etc...


Like I stated, Not *ALL* Guides care about Conservation. It's the Numbers. Go to Flour Bluff and see! But Great to hear that you are doing your part Stew1tx!


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

As for croakers, I must agree with HH. Outlaw croakers and what is next.. If there is a concern with numbers, make changes to the bag limit. I don’t know that it is necessary at this point, but I believe that at the rate our great sport is growing, it will be inevitable.

On to guides-

The guide business is still a service industry. As long as it continues as such, it will be driven by the wants and desires of the customer. Guides who have measured their success in the past by the weight of their box at the cleaning table, do so because that is what the public has demanded of them. In short, the meat haul mentality was created by, and in some instances still fueled by the general fishing public’s definition of success. That’s the bad news... The good news.. We as customers have the ability to change that mentality by bringing a new definition of success to the boat dock. Be it the just keep five mantra, or C.P&R approach, we have the power to change what in the past has been popular opinion. No need to point fingers, all we simply need to do is change our perspective.


----------



## lazywader (Mar 6, 2006)

"Our proposal is not so guides can put their clients on more fish. It is to preserve a fishery under attack. With 2000 more anglers coming into the salt water fishery every month you can run the numbers! "

I was trying to look into where/how you got the 2000 new Texas saltwater anglers/month. That sounds like an awful lot but how can you prove it. Thats about 24,000 new saltwater fishermen/year. Does this study account for the guys like me who've fished all their lives but only fished 5-6 times last year and so far 0 times this year because of work? It seems like everybody I fish with is fishing less and less due to work/family stuff.


----------



## LongRodMaster (Mar 5, 2005)

Yeah I have to agree that number seem way high to me. Not to mention the average Joe fishes a hand full of times a year. I know several people who baught a licence to go out one time.


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

lazywader said:


> "Our proposal is not so guides can put their clients on more fish. It is to preserve a fishery under attack. With 2000 more anglers coming into the salt water fishery every month you can run the numbers! "
> 
> I was trying to look into where/how you got the 2000 new Texas saltwater anglers/month. That sounds like an awful lot but how can you prove it. Thats about 24,000 new saltwater fishermen/year. Does this study account for the guys like me who've fished all their lives but only fished 5-6 times last year and so far 0 times this year because of work? It seems like everybody I fish with is fishing less and less due to work/family stuff.


Those numbers, if real and legit, probably included all those Business people flying in for Corporate trips or a Family vacation, and fish 1 or 2 days then go back home. But to say 2000 per month of Anglers fishing 5 to 10 times a year, I can't believe that at all. What was the Saltwater license numbers per year for the past 5 years? That'll give us better numbers to go by!


----------



## warcat (May 22, 2004)

Looks like no guide is willing to give him numbers yet???


Anyone look into license sales yet???


----------



## LongRodMaster (Mar 5, 2005)

Make sure it is saltwater license's also.


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

Dr. Mckinney's 2006 coastal forecast ( Director coastal fisheriesTPWD)

Some things I got from reading his outlook part one in GCC.

Anglers in private party boats invested 5,212,000 hrs on our waters in 04-05. This produced a total catch of 646,484 spotted seatrout or.13 trout per fishing hour. (math majors please check my math to be sure cuase i'm not good with numbers)

Gill net surveys indicate high abundance of trout 19-30" however in looking at the gill net graphs it appears that less than 7% of trout recorded in the gillnets are over 25".

How many of those 646,484 are 19" or over 25" or over? Trying to research that now.


----------



## call/sign 22 (Aug 11, 2005)

*Back up data!*

I trust this data should validate my previous posts!

Texas Fish and Game Mag.
Aug. 2002

A separate TPWD study conducted August 2001 yielded some encouraging figures about saltwater stamp usage in coincidence with Super Combo license purchases. The survey indicated that 67 percent of the 333,321 sportsmen who bought a Super Combo for license year 2000-01 made use of their Saltwater Stamp. Combined with the 472,158 Saltwater Stamps bought individually the same year, the state's number of active salts climbs to 695,483.

"What the numbers bear out is that our saltwater stamp sales are increasing about 7 percent annually," said Robin Riechers, a TPWD coastal fisheries division economist.

695,483 x 7% per year = 48,683 / year!

48,683 / 12 months = 4056 / month!



Who knows if Texas Fish and Game did their home work, just look what Sikes article did with out interviews caused!!!

 The 2000 per month number came from a TPW source, I can't remember name. That OLD Age C.R.S. 

 I appreciate all of your responses but I will not debate it on the internet. If you notice I very seldom post. You never see us post daily or weekly fishing reports or pictures on these boards, only our own web site. We do not write 1000 word dissertations about how good we are and or lengthy reports just to try and market though these venues. 

PLEASE feel free to call anytime and again I appreciate your concerns and rest assured I am only trying to insure I leave a better fishery than what I started with. Hopeful thru this venue we can get enough like minded concerned people to get TPW and others to listen and come up with a Mutually Agreeable solution to all who use this public resource.



THE NEW DATA!!!!!

(_Feb. 16, 2005 - Austin, TX_)... Texas Parks and Wildlife Department surveys confirm what most saltwater anglers already know: the fishing along the Texas coast is getting better (IN SOME BAY SYSTEMS! Edited by author) and more anglers are taking advantage of it. 

About 2,000 new anglers per month on average are discovering Texas coastal fishing, based on saltwater fishing license sales during the last seven years. The economic impact of saltwater angling in Texas exceeds $1.3 billion dollars annually and provides more than 13,000 jobs, according to TPWD research. 

"There are indications that this trend will continue," stated Larry McKinney, Ph.D. and TPWD coastal fisheries director. "The popularity of center-console bay boats continues to increase as does the use of kayaks and the continued increase in the sale of saltwater tackle." 

The amount of time anglers spend plying Texas coastal waters is staggering. In the 2003-04 seasons, according to TPWD creel surveys, anglers spent 5.27 million hours fishing on the Texas coast.


----------



## kenny (May 21, 2004)

lazywader,
Quote:"It seems like everybody I fish with is fishing less and less due to work/family 
stuff."
You just need new fishing buddies! lol


----------



## warcat (May 22, 2004)

Looks like there's tons more regular Joe's than I thought. So, I guess I, and the numerous others like me are the main contributors to the "problem"-- although I'm still not convinced there is a problem... So let's discuss fixes.

Lowering the bag limit to 5 (I'd prefer 7) is something I'd be OK with. Banning croaker as a bait I will not back. Bait is bait.

Regionalizing bag limits is also a good idea. Aren't there different bag limits for deer in different parts of the state???

I would still really like for someone to post a convincing argument that there is a problem with the trout population.

I'm going out tomorrow, and I'll post up a fishing report to show just how good or bad the fishing is.... Mind you, I'm no pro.


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

warcat said:


> Looks like there's tons more regular Joe's than I thought. So, I guess I, and the numerous others like me are the main contributors to the "problem"-- although I'm still not convinced there is a problem... So let's discuss fixes.
> 
> Lowering the bag limit to 5 (I'd prefer 7) is something I'd be OK with. Banning croaker as a bait I will not back. Bait is bait.
> 
> ...


Those numbers prove what? How many of those are once a year fishermen from North/West Texas or from out of State?

From everything I've read and have been told, there really is NO Problem, rather a Group of Pro-Active folks wanting to save a few for tomorrow.


----------



## troy merrill (May 21, 2004)

Hard Head said:


> From everything I've read and have been told, there really is NO Problem, rather a Group of Pro-Active folks wanting to save a few for tomorrow.


Me too! Guess that makes me an elitest.


----------



## Redfishr (Jul 26, 2004)

Looks like I need to start fishing with Croakers............


----------



## Porterhouse (Mar 10, 2005)

*Wow, what a thread.*

*While the 10 trout with an average weight of 4 pounds, all having fallen for a rootbeer assassin on a 16th oz. jighead, were slowly dying on my stringer, and the 26th trout of 22" or better that I released that morning slowly swam out of my hand, the best fisherman and "artificials only" guide I know once told me, "Most of the folks who complain about croaker fisherman are the same ones who want to stay at the bar till 2am, wake up at 10am, launch the boat at 11am, head straight to an area on the Topspot map, fish for 3 hours, and be back at the bar by 4pm so they can complain about how they didn't catch any because the croaker soakers caught them all". I have to agree, the bait ain't what does it. Now, I'd have to say that while many of those who complain are like the one's mentioned above, not all are, as there are many folks who have strong feelings about croaker that are better at finding the fish than this weekend warrior could ever hope to be (several of them have already posted on this thread and there are many, many others that will never see it). I don't fish with bait anymore, but outlawing its use would just be silly. I've killed more with a pumpkin chartruese assassin than I have with any kind of live bait, and some of the "arty only" folks I've had the privilege to fish with have probably cut more trout loose (after taking a full limit) than most croaker fisherman have cut at the cleaning tables. The way I see it, I think its a far better idea to* *just keep 5. Oh, one more thing -- lets give flounder and croaker gamefish status. *


----------



## Gary Brogdon (May 27, 2005)

Porterhouse said:


> *I don't fish with bait anymore, but outlawing its use would just be silly. ... **Oh, one more thing -- lets give flounder and croaker gamefish status. *


But... and I'm sure you already thought of this. If you give croaker gamefish status, then you've outlawed them as bait. Hmmm, pretty sneaky.

166 posts and still going. This will make 300 by Tuesday. When's the meeting? There's bound to be one.


----------



## Hard Head (May 21, 2004)

warcat said:


> *Lowering the bag limit to 5 (I'd prefer 7) is something I'd be OK with. Banning croaker as a bait I will not back. Bait is bait.*
> 
> *Regionalizing bag limits is also a good idea. Aren't there different bag limits for deer in different parts of the state???*


True DAT!


----------



## stew1tx (Oct 15, 2004)

Those numbers do not mean anything, other than that is how many licenses TPWD sold. It is all based on averages. I tell you one thing, I have not been questioned by the TPWD guy at the boatramp in well over 5 years, so my numbers are not included in anything they have said hehehe. I am still trying to find my notes from the meeting that TPWD reported license sales were down for the same time period last year. So, less people fishing....


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

*Wheather*

Freezing weather has done more to kill our fishery than any guide or fisherman
When I grew up in Mansfield in the early 70's we had something like 15-20 years without a major freeze 3 people could catch 40 trout in a morning easy--- we had devistating freezes in the 80' and ninty's--- been there seen hundreds of thousands of fish dead -------now your lucky if you catch 5 in a morning

Wes


----------



## lazywader (Mar 6, 2006)

Those numbers are great but they don't prove anything. Some are interpreting them as x number of new anglers every month. Others just see an annual increase in stamp sales. I interpret that as people who think they may go saltwater fishing once maybe twice during the year so they buy the stamp just in case. Its people who are too cheap to buy the super combo but may add a few stamps here and there just in case. I buy the super combo every year but don't use all of the stamps. I know plenty of people that do this and don't even go once. I bought the federal duck stamps and didn't go once so what does that mean?


----------

