# lower limits on trout!!



## capt mullet (Nov 15, 2008)

I will probably be bashed for saying that I am for lower limits and always have been. But there is no doubt that the Texas coast is going to lose a lot of fish because of this freeze. Our trout populations here on the upper coast are doing very well but I have heard that other parts of Texas are not doing as well as we are here in Galveston. POC & Matagorda looks like they are about to undergo a major fish kill. Hopefully this will finally lower our trout limits. I think 7 is the number but I would be glad to see anything lower than 10. We do not need lower limits in Galveston just because we have plenty of trout but a lot of people dont consider the entire Texas coast when considering lower limits.


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

I am sure that TPWD will assess this freeze/kill impact and make whatever decision they deem necessary. BUT, I am not a proponent of before the fact speculation. Considering the current trend for blue water species, they might lower it to two, would you be good with that knowing that they will most likely never raise it again? I wouldn't be.


----------



## Blue Fury (Nov 5, 2006)

Agreed. they need to change the trout limits to 5 per person for the whole state of texas. Also, making the min. size to 16 or 17".


----------



## capt mullet (Nov 15, 2008)

HYDRA SPORTS
"" I am sure that TPWD will assess this freeze/kill impact and make whatever decision they deem necessary. BUT, I am not a proponent of before the fact speculation. Considering their track record for blue water species, they might lower it to two, would you be good with that knowing that they will most likely never raise it again? I wouldn't be. ""


What if they considered all of texas a no fishing zone?? lets be realistic


----------



## Titus Bass (Dec 26, 2008)

I think all fish should be classed as game fish and a strict catch and release policy inforced for all game fish.......


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

Some people couldn't catch 10 trout if you put a gun to their head....

And how many of you buckaroos catch 10 trout every time you go fishing ? And some people like myself fish weekly, some people only a few times a year.

Lot's of variables to consider...


----------



## moganman (Mar 30, 2006)

Let's be real here guys. I do agree with lowering the limits but if we start a trend here as 2coolers it will go a long way. The limits don't have to be lowered for us to only keep 5 fish. Its a decision we can make. I know after I see the results whether good or bad of this freeze, Im not keeping anything over 20 inches for a while.


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

I agree with Moganman, what I was trying to say is why start the hype before any of us know the impact. I was exaggerating about the 2 per day, but they could, just ask the snapper guys. Lets just let them make their decisions without prodding them. If you want to keep 5, then do that.


----------



## troutomatic1488 (Jun 18, 2006)

I like it when a guide thinks a rec. fisherman should give up his fish.


----------



## capt mullet (Nov 15, 2008)

HydraSports said:


> I agree with Moganman, what I was trying to say is why start the hype before any of us know the impact. I was exaggerating about the 2 per day, but they could, just ask the snapper guys. Lets just let them make their decisions without prodding them. If you want to keep 5, then do that.


the snapper situation is so screwy with the way it was handled. I definitely have to agree with you 100% on that. But you know that the hundreds of guides on the middle coast running 2 trips per day are not going to "just take 5". Until it is law, (they will and so will I) let their customers make the decision on how many they want to take home. As a guide myself, I do not tell people what they are allowed to take as long as it is within the legal limits. I do suggest to people to only take home what they need and to let really big trout live but if they want to keep that 1 fish over 25 they do and I fillet it up for them.

The fishing in Galveston Bay in 2009 was awesome. We have very healthy trout and in good numbers. I just get excited at the thought of our fishery becoming even better.


----------



## SolarScreenGuy (Aug 15, 2005)

*Just curious*

To see what everyone thinks. My view point for a long time has been that we sort of have it backwards. I have had to release many, and I mean MANY more undersized trout than keeper size for along time, especially in the Rockport area. I seriously doubt those fish can survive after being impaled by 2 or 3 hooks on a topwater or suspending plug. If the minimum size requirement were lowered, and we were required to keep the first ten, then we could go catch and release for the rest of the day with single barbless hooks. I believe we may be destroying more of our fishery by raising size requirements. Just my 2cents. Still pluggin-Old Salty


----------



## crazycowboy (Dec 7, 2009)

the problem are the guides, obviously not Capt Mullet but the numerous ones in the Galveston Bay complex who are killing hundreds of trout a month. i think the limit should be 3-5 per trip.


----------



## Rippin_drag (Sep 2, 2008)

Fish kill or no fish kill it wouldn't bother me one bit if they changed it to 5(which i think they will eventually). No reason why people need to keep 10 trout these days.


----------



## muggs (May 21, 2004)

*Now Edward......*

"I think all fish should be classed as game fish and a strict catch and release policy inforced for all game fish......."


----------



## Coastal Whaler (Dec 28, 2005)

I say leave it at 10 and lower the size back to 12 inches for sportfishermen. As far as guided trips, probably a max of 20 per boat, no matter how many guys in the boat. That way the guides can feel good about doing their part.


----------



## garybryan (Nov 23, 2009)

I only keep what I'm gonna eat that day. I would rather keep the whiting I catch to put in the freezer, they freeze better than trout & taste just as good.


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

No comment about the guides, etc. I responded to this thread due to what I consider premature lower the limit hype about the current freeze kill. If it killed a lot of fish and TPWD see fit to lower the limit, then so be it. But like I said, I think they don't need any additional prodding to to that, they did it with flounder and now I am sure they will do it with trout, no matter the real amount of fish killed by the cold. Just my .02.


----------



## Capt Scott Reeh (Jan 21, 2006)

Coastal Whaler said:


> I say leave it at 10 and lower the size back to 12 inches for sportfishermen. As far as guided trips, probably a max of 20 per boat, no matter how many guys in the boat. That way the guides can feel good about doing their part.


So....you take 4 of your buddys and yall can keep 50 fish ? I take 4 clients and they can only keep 20 ( 5 per person ) ? Or....I take 6 guys fishing, they can only keep 3.33333 fish per person! Come on.....you want to have your cake and eat it too !!!!!

Be proactive....not reactive.....Lower the limit to 5 per person period !


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Fish kill*

I think many of you are jumping the gun, first of all we don't know how bad it really is and might not know the full extent for a few days. It appears from all indications that the upper coast faired much better than the middle coast and from the reports I have read the middle coast may not be all that bad.

When you look at the numbers from the freezes in 1983 and 1989 I don't think we will be anywhere close.

1983 there were an estimated 624,000 Trout lost and 104,000 Reds
limits lowered to 20 fish with a 12in min length

1989 there were an estimated 759,000 Trout lost and 119,000 Reds
limits lowered to 10 fish with 15in min length

Just to compare, this year the lower coast has lost and estimated 250,000 Trout to the red tide alone.

The TP&WD will be monitoring this very closely and take action if needed.
I think we may be looking at a small percentage of fish compared to 83' and 89'. Gater


----------



## bsartor (Oct 29, 2005)

moganman said:


> Let's be real here guys. I do agree with lowering the limits but if we start a trend here as 2coolers it will go a long way. The limits don't have to be lowered for us to only keep 5 fish. Its a decision we can make. I know after I see the results whether good or bad of this freeze, Im not keeping anything over 20 inches for a while.


Couldn't agree more, the best trout to eat are under 20'' anyways.


----------



## Hal01 (Jul 18, 2005)

Just last week poster "Railbird" was getting railed in the "cooler pic" thread for advocating similar conservation practices. 

What a difference a week makes.


----------



## Fishin' Soldier (Dec 25, 2007)

Hal01 said:


> Just last week poster "Railbird" was getting railed in the "cooler pic" thread for advocating similar conservation practices.
> 
> What a difference a week makes.


Railbird was talking mess.

Also, I personally only keep what trout I am going ot eat that night. trout doesn't freeze well. I keep only 2-3 fish an outing. What do you think would happen with your business, if you started promoting to your customers that they will only be able to keep 7 if they hire you.


----------



## The Driver. (May 20, 2004)

gater said:


> I think many of you are jumping the gun, first of all we don't know how bad it really is and might not know the full extent for a few days. It appears from all indications that the upper coast faired much better than the middle coast and from the reports I have read the middle coast may not be all that bad.
> 
> When you look at the numbers from the freezes in 1983 and 1989 I don't think we will be anywhere close.
> 
> ...


I agree with Gater that untill we know the full impact there should not be anyone wanting to make changes to our system. I can remember the 1989 freeze and we still were able to catch fish. The 10% of the fishermen that catch the majority of the fish will still adapt to the situation and find fish. As for anyone thinking that good guides that average 150/200 trips a year and catch limits everyday has the the IQ of a turnip!


----------



## redfish bayrat (Feb 17, 2006)

Rippin_drag said:


> Fish kill or no fish kill it wouldn't bother me one bit if they changed it to 5(which i think they will eventually). No reason why people need to keep 10 trout these days.


I have a family of 4 that all like to eat fish. If I am lucky enough to get my 10, then I have provided for 2 meals. There is no guarantee that I will get 10 on my next trip. Even though I live on the coast, I only fish 10-15 times a year and can't remember the last time I caught 10 keeper trout.

If you really want to help the trout population, then have TPW limit the number of guides on the coast like they have bay shrimpers. There are way too many guys that are just supplementing their income by guiding. Do it for a living, or no liscense.


----------



## rsparker67 (Mar 30, 2008)

5 should be the limit.
People need to quit thinking about themselves and how they dont fish that often so it ok if i take my ten. Guides take everyday.. yeah yeah yeah
The resource is depleating. Needs to change and the sooner the better.


----------



## Clint Sholmire (Nov 9, 2005)

*"Its the guides"*



crazycowboy said:


> the problem are the guides, obviously not Capt Mullet but the numerous ones in the Galveston Bay complex who are killing hundreds of trout a month. i think the limit should be 3-5 per trip.


 I think it is funny every time someone gets a burr in his craw its the guides they attack.For one most of you on here don't even know that many guides and from the way you talk you have not been in a boat with that many either, so how is it that you can speak for all of the guides actions like you do?Any one on this sight has ever fished with me you know that all guides are not alike.I just would like to see someone on here to realize that alot of guides take better care of our environment than you do!! So give it a rest!!!!!!!!


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Lets get a full assessment of the situation before we go flying off the handle.

The only way I would support a 5 fish limit is if it was for 2 years only. After the fish kills in 83' and 89 the fish bounced back in two years. If we go down to 2 or 5 what happens after the next fish kill? Many people like to actually eat what they catch and don't go fishing that often.

TPWD have marine fisheries experts for a reason. Lets listen to them and follow their recommendations.


----------



## rsparker67 (Mar 30, 2008)

glennkoks said:


> .
> 
> TPWD have marine fisheries experts for a reason. Lets listen to them and follow their recommendations.


And they have been wrong before and learned from their mistakes. They are not perfect.


----------



## Txfirenfish (Jan 8, 2005)

TROUTOMATIC said:


> I like it when a guide thinks a rec. fisherman should give up his fish.


Amen and well said! There's nothing like others trying to force their OPINIONS on others. I'm just glad I fish on Sabine so if the jackholes succeed in lowering the limits in Texas all I have to do is buy a Louisiana license and can keep up to 25 twelve inch trout.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

*Pretty ironic!*

I was just speaking to this in an earlier thread last week. Most of you, not all, sat on your hands. Now that it looks like the worst has happened I guess now I am preaching to the choir.

Well my point was simple then and it is the same now, conservation starts with you not the other guy. I am not and have never advocated catch and release only, I have been consistent in saying if you fish several times a month, keep what you need and release the rest. Don't try to feed the neighborhood. If I kill it its dead, I can't control what the guides or others do. If that makes me an azzhole, well I'm an azzhole then.

chuck


----------



## rsparker67 (Mar 30, 2008)

railbird said:


> I was just speaking to this in an earlier thread last week. Most of you, not all, sat on your hands. Now that it looks like the worst has happened I guess now I am preaching to the choir.
> 
> Well my point was simple then and it is the same now, conservation starts with you not the other guy. I am not and have never advocated catch and release only, I have been consistent in saying if you fish several times a month, keep what you need and release the rest. Don't try to feed the neighborhood. If I kill it its dead, I can't control what the guides or others do. If that makes me an azzhole, well I'm an azzhole then.
> 
> chuck


Azzhole? True
But you are correct


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

*lol*



rsparker67 said:


> Azzhole? True
> But you are correct


Parker how did i know that was coming. No heat for you! Next time I get you in the truck its A/C all the way home. lol

chuck


----------



## Capt. Hollis Forrester (Jun 17, 2006)

crazycowboy said:


> the problem are the guides, obviously not Capt Mullet but the numerous ones in the Galveston Bay complex who are killing hundreds of trout a month. i think the limit should be 3-5 per trip.


 Lmao..... my neighborhood kills hundreds of trout each month, and they aint guides cuz........They are great fisherman, and run just as many trips on there own as a guide does. 90% of a guides occupancy on his boat are with unexperienced fisherman, and trust me they aint catching there limit, and the guide ain't catching it for them if he's doing his job. He should be showing them how to catch the fish, instead of worrying about busting limits for a photo. Customers don't give a **** if you "the guide" can catch fish", they want to learn so they can catch fish, wether it be filling the ice-chest or not.


----------



## The1ThatGotAway (Jun 24, 2009)

*Guides Are Not Gods*

I have been with some and not gotten half a limit on bad days, but I did learn what they were teaching me so I could use it on my own the next time that I went out.

Take what you're going to eat, leave the rest. Limits are 7, 14" to 24" with one over 24". Leave the big ones till they make a good trophy.


----------



## Gottagofishin (Dec 17, 2005)

crazycowboy said:


> the problem are the guides, obviously not Capt Mullet but the numerous ones in the Galveston Bay complex who are killing hundreds of trout a month. i think the limit should be 3-5 per trip.


LOL! I don't know the exact numbers, but I suspect the number of trout in the GB complex numbers in the 100's of thousands if not the millions.

I doubt guides "killing hundreds of trout a month" is the biggest threat to the trout population. I didn't misquote you did I?

The biggest threats to the GB complex are environmental. The destruction of habitat for bait has a much bigger impact on trout population than guides. The biggest impact of this freeze may yet to be felt. The impact on the mullet is an indicator of this. If baitfish population is adversely affected, that will impact the population of trout, redfish, and flounder.

I'm not for lower limits unless the numbers indicate it is necessarry. I catch a limit maybe once a year. Usually I catch enough for dinner and head to the house.

It's going to be a while before we know the true impact of this cold weather.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Limits*

I personally feel that if you should be able to keep what you want. There is nothing wrong with practicing keeping five if thats what you want to do. The upper coast does not have an issue with the Trout or Redfish. The middle coast Trout problems are man made by the unconcious part time croaker soaking guides that use the fishery to supplement their income, not to make a living. They have little by little destroyed the Trout fishery in and around Rockport and now are slowly moving their operation South towards Baffin. It's only a matter of time before they wipe that out!

If you want a five fish limit what happens three years from now when we have another freeze. What does the TP&WD do then, close down the Trout fishing for two or three years, do like Florida and have seasons, make it to where you can't keep any trout during the prime spawning season March to September or maybe something worse. It's the very thing many come on here and complain about, the Goverment getting in our business, No Prop Zones, MPA's, ect.... The TP&WD has been managing our fisheries for well over 60 years and have done and excellent job. If they feel because of this freeze we need to adjust the limits, then that is something we'll have to do but don't try and push if it's not needed.

In a healthy fishery like we have here on the upper coast the guides are not an issue. Sure we have part time seasonal guides that only fish during croaker season and I'm sure there may a few bad apples that abuse the system but for the most part it's nothing like down south. All of the guides I know follow the rules and as mentioned above they surely don't catch full limits everytime they go out. Even if they did, the customers can dictate what they want to keep, it's not up to the guide.

If you want to keep just 5, thats great and I'm sure it's doing a part to help the fishery. If you want to get real serious lets impose a minimum size limit on Croaker at, say around 12 inches.

Gater


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

LOL, not the croaker debate. Wheres my beer and popcorn.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

rsparker67 said:


> And they have been wrong before and learned from their mistakes. They are not perfect.


I would take their word over yours any day.


----------



## Fishin-Inc (May 27, 2004)

*LMAO*

I think that capt mullet is prematurely spammin! h:
Now if he had made a run today and reported what he saw he would have more pull in this post.

We all effect the environment. Every fish we take makes a difference. Every fish released is not a guarantee. We're not drifting in the great lakes so slots are difficult and trout are bruised often when handled. Many just don't make it. But a fish in a cooler will definitely not live. Lets wait and see and still need to keep our fingers crossed.

Railey, go read Rowseys opinion of shoreline burning in this months mag....:redface:

Just stirring.... Play on.:spam:


----------



## fishnstringer (Oct 20, 2006)

*That resembles me!*

:tongue: I don't fish for a limit, but I haven't had the problem with catching too many either! I also don't fish every month.


Bocephus said:


> Some people couldn't catch 10 trout if you put a gun to their head....
> 
> And how many of you buckaroos catch 10 trout every time you go fishing ? And some people like myself fish weekly, some people only a few times a year.
> 
> Lot's of variables to consider...


----------



## rsparker67 (Mar 30, 2008)

glennkoks said:


> I would take their word over yours any day.


ok, they are a start but look at history and see limits have always needed to be minimized. TPWD have always needed to lower limits through time to account for the reduction in fish numbers. 
Lol, Its just My Opinion. Get over yourself


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

*Not a burn boat!*



Fishin-Inc said:


> I think that capt mullet is prematurely spammin! h:
> Now if he had made a run today and reported what he saw he would have more pull in this post.
> 
> We all effect the environment. Every fish we take makes a difference. Every fish released is not a guarantee. We're not drifting in the great lakes so slots are difficult and trout are bruised often when handled. Many just don't make it. But a fish in a cooler will definitely not live. Lets wait and see and still need to keep our fingers crossed.
> ...


I don't know of the magazine you speak. As to the burning issue, if you will climb that tower, I will see just how shallow my boat will run. jk My boat is not designed for burning, its designed for drifting big flats and hunting shorelines with a trolling motor.

As to your point about catch and releasing trout, there are dozens of people catching hundreds of trout under lights from piers in the landcut every weekend all summer. The majority of the fish are released because of size. I seldom if ever, see trout floating in the channel. I think damage from catch and released, is exagerated.

Finally to your point about fish in coolers, as we can see they don't do well on ice. I couldn't agree more.

stir on

chuck


----------



## Titus Bass (Dec 26, 2008)

Guides should be on the same train as the commercial fishermen.......Run them all out of business......Let Obama feed them if they can't find a job......:headknock........:tongue:


----------



## Farmer Jim (May 21, 2004)

I'm primarily an offshore type and rarely fish for trout. I came onto this forum looking to see if there was any information on kills from the freeze and I am amazed at the number of fishery experts who have started frequenting here. Everyone in Texas with a phd in Marine Biloogy or Fisheries Management must have started posting on TTMB. Lance & his buddies all need to resign and just turn their jobs over to you guys. Ya'll can probably handle it all. I'm sure you know as much about managing and cropping oysters as you do about managing trout. 

If you only want to keep five, have at it. But, if TPWD says the resource can stand a limit of ten, keep your five without trying to force your personal values to others.


----------



## bsartor (Oct 29, 2005)

Titus Bass said:


> Guides should be on the same train as the commercial fishermen.......Run them all out of business......Let Obama feed them if they can't find a job......:headknock........:tongue:


WOW i think if you could you could actully catch fish then mabye you wouldn't hate guides so much. Besides not everybody has a boat or time to find fish so if they want to let their kids experience good fishing, well that what guides are for.


----------



## Capt. Hollis Forrester (Jun 17, 2006)

Titus Bass said:


> Guides should be on the same train as the commercial fishermen.......Run them all out of business......Let Obama feed them if they can't find a job......:headknock........:tongue:


From the looks of your location, were really close by. Though I'm sad to say that someone of your calliber even claims homestead in such a great community. You must be a transplant, and definately not one to speak your mind other than hiding behind a keyboard.....


----------



## LaRue (Jul 26, 2009)

*really?*

I just got home from spending a wonderful day with the wife and kids. You guys must REALLY be bored. Good night.


----------



## sanleonjohn (Mar 16, 2009)

*limits*

5 trout, 5 reds Leave everything else as is. Limit the number of guides that can fish a particular bay system. Start a liscence buyback program if necessary. Eliminate the part-timers. Nothing against guides, it's a numbers game. In my opinion, GB fishery is as good as it's ever been in my time(25 yrs). However, as fisheries down south suffer from overfishing,freeze kills, etc, guess where they will eventually turn their attention. Probably sooner rather than later. We need to develope 1 system that will work for everyone. Do your part, practice CPR on the fish you don't personally need. Quit trying to feed the neighborhood. I used to do it myself, but then I started to feel guilty about poisoning the congregation!


----------



## DA REEL DADDY (Jun 7, 2005)

Bocephus said:


> Some people couldn't catch 10 trout if you put a gun to their head....
> 
> And how many of you buckaroos catch 10 trout every time you go fishing ? And some people like myself fish weekly, some people only a few times a year.
> 
> Lot's of variables to consider...


Your so right here. I 'd be crab bait for sure!!


----------



## rsparker67 (Mar 30, 2008)

Farmer Jim said:


> .
> If you only want to keep five, have at it. But, if TPWD says the resource can stand a limit of ten, keep your five without trying to force your personal values to others.


thats not the point, I agree the the TWPD is the source to decide what the limit should be and if you want to take that than go ahead, its your right by law. But, should you? History shows how limits have always needed to be lowered due to declining numbers and yet people always want to take TWPD as their reasoning for their "cooler fill" . I love to eat fish and do as often as i can but i have never put one in the freezer. why? cuz i fish enough to take what i need and no more than that.
If you want to take what the law allows, go head, but understand that history shows that numbers are declining.... JMO


----------



## Hal01 (Jul 18, 2005)

This is turning into a pretty decent thread.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

*I thought keeping legal limits was OK...*

I've nothing to add. Pokey will sue me if I post his pancake headed rabbit pic. :help:


----------



## Specks&Reds (Sep 27, 2009)

I personally would like to see limits stay where they are since I have yet to achieve the current level...although if limits were lowered maybe I would actually "limit out" finally! However, daily limits aren't the real issue but rather annual take. If I fish 10X/year and limit at 10 each time = 100 fish...if someone else goes 50X/year (once per week) and takes 5/trip = 250 fish. Perhaps a maximum annual take, regulated via tags, would get to what most of you are suggesting better than reducing the daily limit. Reducing limits would reduce the number of fisherman and all the related business that goes with that but an annual take wouldn't necessary have negative repercussions from a ripple effect. 

And hey...there is something good about global warming!!...fewer freezes and more fish!


----------



## sanleonjohn (Mar 16, 2009)

*do it anyway*



Blk Jck 224 said:


> I've nothing to add. Pokey will sue me if I post his pancake headed rabbit pic. :help:


 Where is that darn wabbit!!!


----------



## rsparker67 (Mar 30, 2008)

*"I thought keeping legal limits was OK..."

it is. but why all the time? 
So you think every government office has all the right answers including the TWPD? humm
*


----------



## Cork & Jig (Jan 5, 2010)

> If you want to take what the law allows, go head, but understand that history shows that numbers are declining.... JMO


I'll wait to pass judgement on how bad the fishery is declining, until after the freeze is over. I'll also add, that I catch as many, if not more, fish now, than I did 20 or even 25 years ago. And, I've caught a lot more trout over 25+" trout in the last 10 years, than I did in the preceeding decade. Maybe I'm just that much better of a fisherman than I use to be, who knows?


----------



## Clint Sholmire (Nov 9, 2005)

*numbers*

I don't remember who said it but I know I saw it on 2cool.A while back some dumb arss got on here and said that they needed to raise the limit on reds because there where too many and they were hurting the trout numbers, and now I saw it again a min. ago when someone said 5 trout and 5 reds.So my question is are all you just worrying about trout conservation or the entire ecosystem?I think that Park and Wildlife do a pretty good job and I know you see it to just by your coments abot reds.In the late 80's and early 90's you could not find good #'s of reds P&W stepped in and now you want to raise limits on them so I just want to know if you could make up your mind sometime this century on what you want? IMO


----------



## rsparker67 (Mar 30, 2008)

when the reds limit was lowered to 3 people where ****** but now its the norm...same would be the same with trout.


----------



## Titus Bass (Dec 26, 2008)

Farmer Jim said:


> I'm primarily an offshore type and rarely fish for trout. I came onto this forum looking to see if there was any information on kills from the freeze and I am amazed at the number of fishery experts who have started frequenting here. Everyone in Texas with a phd in Marine Biloogy or Fisheries Management must have started posting on TTMB. Lance & his buddies all need to resign and just turn their jobs over to you guys. Ya'll can probably handle it all. I'm sure you know as much about managing and cropping oysters as you do about managing trout.
> If you only want to keep five, have at it. But, if TPWD says the resource can stand a limit of ten, keep your five without trying to force your personal values to others.


You hit the nail on the head there Jim....I put two post on to show how far out things can get....I realize some people can't tell when someone people are getting their legs pulled when a post gets so bazar....



bsartor said:


> WOW i think if you could you could actully catch fish then mabye you wouldn't hate guides so much. Besides not everybody has a boat or time to find fish so if they want to let their kids experience good fishing, well that what guides are for.


I have fished with and hired guides before so don't get your panties in a wad......Getting rid of guides and commercial fishermen would be as good for everyone as making *all* fish game fish (my first post)...... I catch all the fish I want.....When I need 10....I keep 10 when I don't I keep what I want to clean......I was jumping to conclusions at the radical end of the end of the spectrum.....A little stir to the pot........



Capt. Hollis Forrester said:


> From the looks of your location, were really close by. Though I'm sad to say that someone of your calliber even claims homestead in such a great community. You must be a transplant, and definately not one to speak your mind other than hiding behind a keyboard.....


Yes, I am just across the river....I was born in Freeport and grew up here before you were even a spark in your pappy's eye.....I am not hard to find and don't need to hide anywhere....I will not comment on what caliber of person you are because I only know you from this site....Haven't always agreed with your post, but haven't attacked you....Not my style.......And I can usually tell when when people are taking a spoon to the pot.....


----------



## deke (Oct 5, 2004)

A little early to call for lowering limits isn't it? Lets see how this plays out first.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

rsparker67 said:


> *"I thought keeping legal limits was OK..."
> 
> it is. but why all the time?
> So you think every government office has all the right answers including the TWPD? humm
> *


Why are you assuming it is done routinely by everyone but you?

Here we go with the self righteousness again....

I was told that one of the rules on this thread is not to whine about people keeping legal limits.

I'm sure that only you have the right answers.


----------



## rsparker67 (Mar 30, 2008)

deke said:


> A little early to call for lowering limits isn't it? Lets see how this plays out first.


I think its been mentioned before the freeze.


----------



## rsparker67 (Mar 30, 2008)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> Why are you assuming it is done routinely by everyone but you?
> 
> Here we go with the self righteousness again....
> 
> ...


Again, keep all you want... but why Mr. rightous one? lol


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

rsparker67 said:


> Again, keep all you want... but why rightous one? lol


I have a total of two packs of redfish & 1 pack of trout in my freezer that was caught in December. 
I don't have a problem (not that I agree), with people keeping legal limits everytime they fish because it is their choice & it is none of my business.
It really dosen't matter *** I think as long as they aren't breaking any laws.
I'm not the one broadcasting my opinion as to what others should do.


----------



## deke (Oct 5, 2004)

rsparker67 said:


> I think its been mentioned before the freeze.


Really? I have never seen it discussed here....

....I must have missed it the other 10 times, but this thread was obviously written in reaction to the freeze we have just gone through. But thanks for the heads up.


----------



## rsparker67 (Mar 30, 2008)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> I have a total of two packs of redfish & 1 pack of trout in my freezer that was caught in December.
> I don't have a problem (not that I agree), with people keeping legal limits everytime they fish because it is their choice & it is none of my business.
> It really dosen't matter *** I think as long as they aren't breaking any laws.
> I'm not the one broadcasting my opinion as to what others should do.


 Ok again, Like i said... Keep all you want by law... but history shows how limits have always been needed to be lowered due to "whatever"...
Growing up i fished offshore for everything, mainly marlin, and have noticed what killing your resource can do. Now offshore fishermen practice CPR and it has showed benefits for the effort. Personally its only a matter of time before inshore practice is necessary.


----------



## rsparker67 (Mar 30, 2008)

deke said:


> Really? I have never seen it discussed here....
> 
> ....I must have missed it the other 10 times, but this thread was obviously written in reaction to the freeze we have just gone through. But thanks for the heads up.


Dude,,, really? sorry i was referring to the general fishing discussion forum... sorry for the confusion.


----------



## troutomatic1488 (Jun 18, 2006)

I think the pcb issue in trout have cut the amount of trout people keep by a good margin. I don't know who would want to eat that wormy **** anyway.


----------



## sanleonjohn (Mar 16, 2009)

*yum, yum*



TROUTOMATIC said:


> I think the pcb issue in trout have cut the amount of trout people keep by a good margin. I don't know who would want to eat that wormy **** anyway.


 I agree in regards to pcb issue. People are fishing for, and keeping, fewer trout because of advisory. Also, some of our local guides began to work other systems as a result. Why do you think our trout fishing has gotten so good the last couple of years, especially our big trout fishery. Personally, i think they should issue another advisory in case anybody has forgotten. Reds are better anyway.


----------



## Farmer Jim (May 21, 2004)

rsparker67 said:


> thats not the point, I agree the the TWPD is the source to decide what the limit should be and if you want to take that than go ahead, its your right by law. But, should you? History shows how limits have always needed to be lowered due to declining numbers and yet people always want to take TWPD as their reasoning for their "cooler fill" . I love to eat fish and do as often as i can but i have never put one in the freezer. why? cuz i fish enough to take what i need and no more than that.
> If you want to take what the law allows, go head, but understand that history shows that numbers are declining.... JMO


You're the kind of person who drives 55 in the left lane of the freeway because they think that, even though the speed limit is 65, everybody should think the way they do.

And did it ever occur to you that one of the reasons limits decline could be due to more fishermen?
In fact, now that I've thought of that, I think I am going to quit fishing all together and believe that every one else should also. And I'm going to go on message boards and make posts implying that anyone who continues fishing just because it is their legal right to do so doesn't really care about the resource.

BTW, unless you are fishing certain areas of the Laguna, you may just want to check with TPWD on that "history shows that numbers are declining" thing.


----------



## Stumpgrinder (Feb 18, 2006)

5, guides, croaker ? All in one thread ! 

Dang I wish I wasnt working this turnaround and had time to get in the mix.

Yall have fun.


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

I keep 10, you say I shouldn't along with BLA, BLA, BLA, PETA players don't eat meat and say you shouldn't along with BLA, BLA, BLA, I've NEVER tried to force my opinion on anyone and DON'T you try and force yours on me. Put yours back so its MORE for me....WW


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

rsparker67 said:


> Ok again, Like i said... Keep all you want by law... but history shows how limits have always been needed to be lowered due to "whatever"...
> Growing up i fished offshore for everything, mainly marlin, and have noticed what killing your resource can do. Now offshore fishermen practice CPR and it has showed benefits for the effort. Personally its only a matter of time before inshore practice is necessary.


I grew up when everytime it got this cold the shrimpers would run to the deep holes, drop the nets and put 10's of thousands of pounds of trout on the deck run back sell them and do it again.

I grew up when boats with 3600'ft drag seines would start at the north Jetty in Galveston and pull all the way to the beach in the bolivar pocket and fill 18 wheelers up with trout.

I grew up when the average gillnetter in Kemah (which was long before the Boardwalk) would fish a mile of gillnet.

We caught just as many fish back then as we are now and all of the above mentioned practices are highly illegal. Let the people over at parks and wildlife do what they do best and let them make the fisheries management decisions.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

If they deem it necessary Parks and wildlife has emergency management authority or they can propose rule changes and you will have a chance to voice your opinion.

But most of all let the fisheries management team access the situation.


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

I think I'm gonna go fish the outfall ditch at Entergy, they should be stacked in there like cordwood, gonna keep a boat limit.....WW


----------



## drgarrett (Jul 21, 2006)

I think we need a slot limit for trout 12'' to 19'' you can keep 20'' to 28'' let it go if you catch one over 28'' you can keep it or not or use a tag one big trout. this has worked for the red fish I think it would for the trout.


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

i agree with the environmental issues as being the leading deterrent to fish population in galveston bay. i think the reasons differ depending on the body of water (like the laguna). the houston ship channel is the dumping place for too much pollution. on the other hand, the sabine fish population continues to thrive despite their "lack of limits". sabine has some petrochem plants that effect the fishery, but not nearly the number that houston/galv does.

the above is one reason i'm in favor of keeping passes open. with the amount of polution in the bays, they need flushing more than they're getting.

i'm a proponent of the tpwd. but i don't know enough about what they do to know that they look at the environment as a cause for fish reduction, or are they just reactive in reducing limits based on whatever numbers they find in their studies...


----------



## Fishin-Inc (May 27, 2004)

*lmao*

I think we definitely need the bunny on this thread.

STOP WITH THE SLOT LIMIT ON TROUT. It's a pain in the rear....
Imagine if you had 4 guys on the boat and 15 fish in the box....
Sorting around or do I use a spread sheet?!?????


----------



## wannaBfishin (Dec 6, 2009)

Go fish when you can. Keep what you legally want and enjoy what you have!
Let the folks who have the regulatory power do what they need to do and give input at their meetings, when they have them.
Have fun and enjoy.
Have a beer!


----------



## Captain Hough (Jan 10, 2010)

Clint Sholmire said:


> I think it is funny every time someone gets a burr in his craw its the guides they attack.For one most of you on here don't even know that many guides and from the way you talk you have not been in a boat with that many either, so how is it that you can speak for all of the guides actions like you do?Any one on this sight has ever fished with me you know that all guides are not alike.I just would like to see someone on here to realize that alot of guides take better care of our environment than you do!! So give it a rest!!!!!!!!


After guiding full time for 15 years I will have to agree with you. I do know some guides that are irresponsible at times, however, I personally know more sportfishermen that are worse. I think the concern should be wether or not someone's practices are harmful rather than if they are a guide or not.

I think most of us have been guilty of meat hauling at one time or another, guides and locals. Sadly it seems that it is easier to pick on the guides. Maybe some people need to realize that "most" guides are more concerned about taking care of our fishery. Heck it has provided my living for 15 years, why would I want to harm it? How many people that do other things for a living get involved in regulating their own jobs?

Maybe everyone needs to realize we are all fighting for the same cause.


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

why can't these threads pop up during normal business hours of m-f, 8-5? hwell:


----------



## jdot7749 (Dec 1, 2008)

Leave them guides alone. 

If guides are responsible for killing so many fish that they become scarce I would think that some regulatory people who have access to more info and are educated and trained to manage a wildlife resource then they will outlaw guides. Some people seem to forget that a guide is serving as many as four recreational fishermen who have bought licenses, equipment and paid taxes on the equipment, and many of them have boats of their own which generates more revenue for the regulators.

I'm just sayin'


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Sorry Charlies....... I am going to keep what I am going to eat right up to the legal limit.

i
i
i
i
j <{{{{{{{<


----------



## Captain Greg (Jul 19, 2007)

*my .02*

the limits have been 10 for a long while. i have no trouble catching trout. i rarely keep trout over 21" - just my preference and dont judge those that fillet a 25". My grandpa would roll over in his grave if he saw me release a 20" trout, but He used to tell stories of seining the beach years ago when it was legal - unbelievable stories and huge speckled trout and gulf trout. i would like to see if they seined the beach today in the summer (of course when the water is muddy cause that is when Grandpa used to say was the best time because the trout wouldn't see the net) how many trout and what size they would be. I had a good friend that was going to be a game warden tell me he was with TP&W when they seined around mosquito island in TC a few years back for their surveys. He couldn't believe the HUGE trout that were pulled up! I dont know exactly how many trout are out there compared to when my Grandpa used to sein the beach, but I do know I have seen gazillions of trout under the lights in May/June. In my opinion 10 is working... though it wouldn't bother me personally if they lowered, but why if 10 is working...? Maybe someone with real scientific or survey numbers actually know. But what I gather on this forum is allot of arm chair quarterbacks (as myself) that dont actually have the "numbers" to support their claim...only opinions...

my .02 only. not trying to ruffle feathers.


----------



## jmo4sho (Nov 12, 2009)

The limit on speckled trout should be lowered to five. Period. Not just because of the freeze. There is absolutely no reason for the limit on speckled trout to be ten. I don't think many people realize how much food comes from ten speckled trout. This is just by one man mind you. This isn't even mentioning the fifty dead, can't reproduce anymore, speckled trout that get caught by ONE boat full of FIVE people. Jesus Christ did we all go hungry or something? Did Kroger stop selling cheap groceries? Are we that ignorant and blind? I have been enjoying the thrill of catch and release now for years. I can catch fish all day long from sun up to sun down. There isn't a limit on how many you can CATCH, there is only a limit on how many you can KEEP and KILL. If I want to eat fish one night I would keep two or three to myself and hope I can finish all of it. Honestly everyone, if you are not going to eat the fish or mount the monster of a lifetime, why would you kill it. And stuffing bags full of filets in the freezer to sit there for years to get freezer burned should not count as "well I was gonna eat it." We should have more respect for the fish. They are the reason we get to "FISH." I challenge all who read this that if you have to keep speckled trout everytime you go out to establish a limit for YOURSELF. Keep five instead of ten per person. JUST BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL AND YOU CAN DO IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS RIGHT AND YOU SHOULD DO IT!


----------



## Captain Greg (Jul 19, 2007)

*???*

_*"I can catch fish all day long from sun up to sun down."*_

then what is the issue here? is there a "shortage"?


----------



## CORNHUSKER (Jul 12, 2004)

5 trout
5 reds
Perfect!!!!


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

jmo4sho said:


> The limit on speckled trout should be lowered to five. Period. Not just because of the freeze. There is absolutely no reason for the limit on speckled trout to be ten. I don't think many people realize how much food comes from ten speckled trout. This is just by one man mind you. This isn't even mentioning the fifty dead, can't reproduce anymore, speckled trout that get caught by ONE boat full of FIVE people. Jesus Christ did we all go hungry or something? Did Kroger stop selling cheap groceries? Are we that ignorant and blind? I have been enjoying the thrill of catch and release now for years. I can catch fish all day long from sun up to sun down. There isn't a limit on how many you can CATCH, there is only a limit on how many you can KEEP and KILL. If I want to eat fish one night I would keep two or three to myself and hope I can finish all of it. Honestly everyone, if you are not going to eat the fish or mount the monster of a lifetime, why would you kill it. And stuffing bags full of filets in the freezer to sit there for years to get freezer burned should not count as "well I was gonna eat it." We should have more respect for the fish. They are the reason we get to "FISH." I challenge all who read this that if you have to keep speckled trout everytime you go out to establish a limit for YOURSELF. Keep five instead of ten per person. JUST BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL AND YOU CAN DO IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS RIGHT AND YOU SHOULD DO IT!


Naw, I'll just keep 10. Thanks!


----------



## capt mullet (Nov 15, 2008)

Wow guys lots off good feedback and lots of passionate responses. *Just remember this is a discussion forum. Not anyone imposing their beliefs on somone else*. Everybody has a right to their own opinions based on their own experiences. Lets not start fights and hateful threats over a discussion. We are all mature people (well most of us) lol, so lets keep the anger down. Obviously this is not directed to everybody but just a few. The idea of conservation is correct. When I personally fish I *rarely if ever* take fish home. I release everything except 2 or 3 flounder a year.

I have heard a couple of guys on here say that they dont like the idea of lower limits because they cant put enough fish in the freezer. What is wrong with buying fish? I fish because I love to fish not for meat. If you fish for meat then sell all of your tackle and your boat because I guarantee you can buy more fish with the money you spend on tackle on equipment. Fishing for meat just doesnt make economic sense. So I personally dont see any credibility in that argument. Tight lines


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

capt mullet said:


> Wow guys lots off good feedback and lots of passionate responses. *Just remember this is a discussion forum. Not anyone imposing their beliefs on somone else*. Everybody has a right to their own opinions based on their own experiences. Lets not start fights and hateful threats over a discussion. We are all mature people (well most of us) lol, so lets keep the anger down. Obviously this is not directed to everybody but just a few. The idea of conservation is correct. When I personally fish I *rarely if ever* take fish home. I release everything except 2 or 3 flounder a year.
> 
> *I have heard a couple of guys on here say that they dont like the idea of lower limits because they cant put enough fish in the freezer. What is wrong with buying fish? I fish because I love to fish not for meat. If you fish for meat then sell all of your tackle and your boat because I guarantee you can buy more fish with the money you spend on tackle on equipment. Fishing for meat just doesnt make economic sense. So I personally dont see any credibility in that argument.* Tight lines


not everyone that fishes has 5-10k in gear and 50-60k in a boat. :smile:


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

CORNHUSKER said:


> 5 trout
> 5 reds
> Perfect!!!!


it should be 10 and 10. That would be perfect. :cheers:


----------



## Fishin' Soldier (Dec 25, 2007)

jmo4sho said:


> The limit on speckled trout should be lowered to five. Period. Not just because of the freeze. There is absolutely no reason for the limit on speckled trout to be ten. I don't think many people realize how much food comes from ten speckled trout. This is just by one man mind you. This isn't even mentioning the fifty dead, can't reproduce anymore, speckled trout that get caught by ONE boat full of FIVE people. Jesus Christ did we all go hungry or something? Did Kroger stop selling cheap groceries? Are we that ignorant and blind? I have been enjoying the thrill of catch and release now for years. I can catch fish all day long from sun up to sun down. There isn't a limit on how many you can CATCH, there is only a limit on how many you can KEEP and KILL. If I want to eat fish one night I would keep two or three to myself and hope I can finish all of it. Honestly everyone, if you are not going to eat the fish or mount the monster of a lifetime, why would you kill it. And stuffing bags full of filets in the freezer to sit there for years to get freezer burned should not count as "well I was gonna eat it." We should have more respect for the fish. They are the reason we get to "FISH." I challenge all who read this that if you have to keep speckled trout everytime you go out to establish a limit for YOURSELF. Keep five instead of ten per person. JUST BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL AND YOU CAN DO IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS RIGHT AND YOU SHOULD DO IT!


Nice to see you contribute to the forum. 2 posts since Nov when you joined? I will keep what I want. Thanks.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Gilbert said:


> it should be 10 and 10. That would be perfect. :cheers:


Don't forget 10 tarpon also. Hey Gilbert, is this your truck?


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

boomgoon said:


> Don't forget 10 tarpon also. Hey Gilbert, is this your truck?


tarpon taste gross.

where did you get that pic from?  :ac550:


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Gilbert said:


> tarpon taste gross.
> 
> where did you get that pic from?  :ac550:


It's from the other night when you showed me your new spotlight.


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

you're going to get me in trouble jerk. :hairout:


----------



## sanleonjohn (Mar 16, 2009)

Gilbert said:


> not everyone that fishes has 5-10k in gear and 50-60k in a boat. :smile:


 I live within a mile of where i catch most of my fish. I have a used kayak and moderately priced fishing gear. All that being said, if you add it all up on a yearly basis, i'm still eating some pretty expensive meat. Fishing for meat does does not make economic sense no matter how you figure it. I fish because, I LOVE TO FISH! Personally, if I had to clean every fish I caught, I would be tempted to give up the SPORT. Too much of a pain in the butt.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

boomgoon said:


> It's from the other night when you showed me your new spotlight.


It looks daylight to me & I could have went all day without seeing that massacre. sad3sm


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> It looks daylight to me & I could have went all day without seeing that massacre. sad3sm


cause it was taken the next morning when I went to show boom. you can ride with me next time if you want. I know where there are more.  :cheers: They taste yummy.


----------



## Bonito (Nov 17, 2008)

Blue Fury said:


> Agreed. they need to change the trout limits to 5 per person for the whole state of texas. Also, making the min. size to 16 or 17".


I agree Blue Fury
5 fish per day 
17" to 24" ( 1 Over 25" with a tag, just like the red fish tag. )


----------



## 24Buds (Dec 5, 2008)

If you keep 10 your legal. If you don't like it, release them!

Rare I keep 10. Rare I catch 10.

Redfish on the other hand, 4 would be nice.

I will keep 10, you keep your change! lol sorry had 2


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> It looks daylight to me & I could have went all day without seeing that massacre. sad3sm


Log off, this is a fishing and hunting website isn't it?


----------



## Bretticu$ (May 9, 2006)

24Buds said:


> If you keep 10 your legal. If you don't like it, release them!
> 
> Rare I keep 10. Rare I catch 10.
> 
> ...


X2


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

boomgoon said:


> Log off, this is a fishing and hunting website isn't it?


Naah...I'm good, but thanks for your suggestion...It really means alot to me. :wink:

Captain Lambert told me this morning I had to behave.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

Gilbert said:


> cause it was taken the next morning when I went to show boom. you can ride with me next time if you want. I know where there are more.  :cheers: They taste yummy.


I knew it was you Gilbert when I saw the gut shot baby on top of the pile...LOL


----------



## RonnieS (Jan 1, 2010)

Fish are a renewable resource, just like deer, ducks, geese, etc. TP&W manages them for that reason. 
I grow a larger garden than I need - I share a lot of it with others. 
I usaully take one more deer than I need - I share it with others. 
I keep a full limit of specs when I do well - I share them with others. Nothing goes to waste. That is how I was raised. 
I do release all big fish as a personal choice. 
I recently found this site and it seems like everyone here says there are more trout now than ever. I also see that in my waters.
I like the 10 fish limit.
1st post. Take it for what it's worth.


----------



## FXSTB (Apr 23, 2008)

I really don't care about he upper coast, but for the middle and lower why don't we just lower the # of fishermen....wouldn't that be better? Just post the police all the ramps and limit the # of boats launched to 3 if and only if you live within 20 miles of the coast. Send everyone else to the upper coast where there doesn't seem (according to all the rocket scientists on this forum) to be a problem with the game fish populations.:brew2:


----------



## LaAngler (Mar 11, 2008)

solution may be to raise the limits to 15 or 25, works for us


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

RonnieS said:


> Fish are a renewable resource, just like deer, ducks, geese, etc. TP&W manages them for that reason.
> I grow a larger garden than I need - I share a lot of it with others.
> I usaully take one more deer than I need - I share it with others.
> I keep a full limit of specs when I do well - I share them with others. Nothing goes to waste. That is how I was raised.
> ...


Welcome aboard Ronnie. I like the way you think. PM me your address so I come by & potlick a backstrap from you. :biggrin:


----------



## JLGman (Aug 12, 2009)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> I knew it was you Gilbert when I saw the gut shot baby on top of the pile...LOL


Those look like some pretty big babies to me. Are you sure that you know what you are taliking about?


----------



## greg77 (May 22, 2006)

Why is it that many of the advocates of lowering the limit make the point that they catch all the fish they want. No one ever says "Gee, lets lower the limit so I can catch a limit"

I get the feeling that these folks want lower limits so there would theoretically be more fish out there for them to play CPR with. 

I'm no tree hugger but I'm also not a big advocate of going out to see how many fish I can catch and release. Some of those fish are gonna die. You catch legal fish till you get a legal limit (or your personal limit) and that's when you know you're done fishing for the day. You want to hurt animals for no reason other than sport, go kick a cat.

Keep the limit at 10 unless there is scientific evidence that it needs to change up or down.


----------



## RonnieS (Jan 1, 2010)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> Welcome aboard Ronnie. I like the way you think. PM me your address so I come by & potlick a backstrap from you. :biggrin:


No problem. You can get it when we hook up to share fishin spots!
My stompin grounds or yours.


----------



## pmgoffjr (Jul 30, 2009)

Just make croaker a game fish, and the trout catch will drop 50%.


----------



## sanleonjohn (Mar 16, 2009)

*cat?*



greg77 said:


> Why is it that many of the advocates of lowering the limit make the point that they catch all the fish they want. No one ever says "Gee, lets lower the limit so I can catch a limit"
> 
> I get the feeling that these folks want lower limits so there would theoretically be more fish out there for them to play CPR with.
> 
> ...


 I kick my cat every day, but it's not enough to satisfy my need.


----------



## southtxhunter (Feb 1, 2005)

pmgoffjr said:


> Just make croaker a game fish, and the trout catch will drop 50%.


I see more big trout pics with a corky in their mouth than I do a croaker....


----------



## Brian Castille (May 27, 2004)

If someone wants to go out and keep their 10 trout and they are going to eat them or give them to friends and family that are going to eat them, I say let them. 

If 4 people want to go with a guide and keep 40 trout and they are going to eat them or give them to friends and family that are going to eat them, I say let them. 

Remember, guides are not miracle workers and don't put clients on limits every trip.

Also, croakers are not miracle baits of any kind like a lot of the croaker bashers think.

If you don't agree with a 10 fish limit, then just keep 7 or 5 or 3 or none or whatever you think is "correct". 

If you think there should be a 16" or 17" minimum length or a 15" to 20" slot or whatever, then go ahead and play by those rules.

If you don't agree with croakers or pinfish or shrimp or whatever being used as bait, then don't use them. But don't whine if I catch a limit of trout on croakers in muddy water and you catch two on plastics.

If you are a guide that wants the limits lowered, why not discount a trip by $50 if your party does "catch and release" where only gut hooked fish are kept. 

If you want a lower trout limit for croaker soaking, promote the keeping of gafftops and release some of the trout caught.

For those that want to lower the minimum length, I think that is a bad idea. In an article in Fish & Game from November, it talks about how some school in Louisiana conducted a survey of 1038 speckled trout ranging in age from 1 to 5 years. Based on this, 100% of the females were able to spawn by 12" in length.

So, in Texas, mature females are already protected from 12" to 15". They are also already protected with the only one over 25" per day rule. Then people will argue that the 25" fish has better genes than the 12" fish. Who's to say that the 12" fish wasn't a baby from a 34" trout and the 25" trout was a baby from a 26" trout?

If you fish a flock of birds, how many trout are in the 12"-15" range? A bunch! If the minimum was lowered, to 12" or 13", there would be a TON of fish kept out of those schools the first year and then it would be a TON of 10"-12" fish being caught after that instead of 12" to 15".

In my opinion, they should just leave the size and bag limits alone. If you are really THAT concerned about the trout size and bag limits, then write a letter to TPWD and complain. Just remember, once the bag limit is lowered and the minimum length is increased, they aren't ever going adjust them in favor or the fisherman again.


----------



## Aggieangler (May 28, 2004)

This is closely related, but it's interesting to me that they raised the limit on doves this year. That is the first time I know of a limit on anything being raised in the favor of the sportsman, since I have been old enough to hunt and fish.

I think it shows me that they are relying on science more now, and less on assumptions. I know there are some that like to bash TPWD, but I believe they have been doing a good job for lots of years and continue to do so today.

Are they going to get them all right? Probably not....DO YOU or I? I sure as hell don't!


----------



## jdot7749 (Dec 1, 2008)

"Just make croaker a game fish, and the trout catch will drop 50%. " This is the dumbest statement written not by politician.

I hope all the dead bait fish showing up during the latest freeze event aren't croaker or else I won't be able to catch my three limits of 22" to 24" fish next summer.


----------



## afishinman14 (Dec 19, 2007)

*Cat Kicking*



greg77 said:


> I get the feeling that these folks want lower limits so there would theoretically be more fish out there for them to play CPR with...
> 
> ...You want to hurt animals for no reason other than sport, go kick a cat.
> 
> Keep the limit at 10 unless there is scientific evidence that it needs to change up or down.


Man you got me laughing so hard here at work that I was gettin stared at!!! :rotfl:

I dont know which one of you on this board to agree or disagree with! You argue for the sake of arguing! Maybe they should make that a sport too?

But cat kicking sure sounds like fun! And if you want to bash me for that, go for it. Its just how I get my "kicks" 

As for me, all I will say is that I hope my tax dollars over the years have created somethin decent in the TPWD...and I have no other choice than to trust that it has.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

JLGman said:


> Those look like some pretty big babies to me. Are you sure that you know what you are taliking about?


Pretty sure JLGman, but thanks for asking. I havent had much experiencing at aging dead deer in the back of pickups, but the particular animal referenced appears to have about 20% size/weight of some of the others in that pic. From this I gathered it is a much younger animal than the others. :texasflag


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> Pretty sure JLGman, but thanks for asking. I havent had much experiencing at aging dead deer in the back of pickups, but the particular animal referenced appears to have about 20% size/weight of some of the others in that pic. From this I gathered it is a much younger animal than the others. :texasflag


did it make you sad to see that? hwell:


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

Gilbert said:


> did it make you sad to see that? hwell:


Not really. That's the one I want to eat. Young & tender!


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> Not really. That's the one I want to eat. Young & tender!


you got that right!


----------



## Captain Hough (Jan 10, 2010)

southtxhunter said:


> I see more big trout pics with a corky in their mouth than I do a croaker....


LMAO That is very true.

New tree hugger slogan..."Ban artificial lures, they work too well!" (and they are not Natural or organic):rotfl:


----------



## Cork & Jig (Jan 5, 2010)

> If someone wants to go out and keep their 10 trout and they are going to eat them or give them to friends and family that are going to eat them, I say let them.
> 
> If 4 people want to go with a guide and keep 40 trout and they are going to eat them or give them to friends and family that are going to eat them, I say let them.
> 
> ...


Ding, ding! We have a winner!:cheers: It kills me, when you hear someone say ban guides. Lots, and lot of guides strike out or come in with few trout or reds. I've seen lots of them come in with nothing other than a few drum amd a couple of sheepshead. Which there isn't anything wrong with because they taste just fine. Just a little harder to clean nthan a trout, that's all.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

Five trout per day is fine. It's been like that in Florida for more than a decade. Eventually, too many bay fishermen catches up with the trout population. And five fish a day lowers the damage caused by the croaker soakers.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

*Simple concept*

We have no control over parks and wildlife. We have no control over what someone else does. Do I/we have a right to voice our opinion about the practices of others. I would submit absolutely we do. Is it imposing our values on others, I say probably not. Why do people here get so defensive when someone suggests they think about an issue differently. I think the goal of these forums should be to debate an issue and attempt to win readers over to their point of view. Attacking someone personally for trying to debate a point is not much of a tactic as far as I'm concerned.

I have been a proponent of keeping what you need for a meal and releasing the rest. I have and do make the argument that it is not my responsibility to feed my neighbors. If the guy across the street wants me to bring him some fish, I bring him enough for a meal. I have seen the trout population decline in the areas I fish over the last few decades. Is it because there are more fishermen, maybe. Is it because stream inflo has been reduced because of population growth and drought conditions? I'd say thats part of it. Is it because of gulf passes being silted in or intentionally closed? I'd say yeah thats part of it too. The bottom line is there are less trout in my waters than there were even 10 years ago.

When I was a kid, I could go to the landcut and expect to have a great day on just about every trip for trout. It is no longer that way. I can't remember the last time I had half as good of a day as I remember of days gone by. I can say that if my buddies and I had kept every limit of fish we caught in the last 3 years, I don't believe the fishing would be as good where I fish. You might disagree. But don't tell me I'm being sanctomonious for advocating keep what you need for a meal and catch and release the rest.


----------



## coachlaw (Oct 26, 2005)

I'll tell you why it's stupid to lower limits any further. First of all, limits only apply to those of us who actually follow the laws. There are legions of licenseless poachers and abusers all over the place. Secondly no matter how healthy the fish population gets, I have never seen any state go back to a larger limit. 

I am a proponent of changing the redfish limits here. First of all it is absolutely ridiculous that I can't take a 16 inch redfish. Once they get to 20, they're not as good to eat. I'm not holding my breath on that, even though it would make a lot of sense.

It's best to keep the govt. out of it because in the end, they usually screw it up.


----------



## billr23 (Jul 26, 2008)

Just keep 5 trout. Look how successful reducing the limit on redfish has been. They should even consider increasing the daily bag limit to 5 reds. Trout have become the preferred catch for most anglers and it is easier to get numbers if you really get into them. Let's balance out the focus with 5 trout and 5 reds per day. Fishing pressure is only going to get worse in our fisheries with population growth in Texas. Wait too long and we will be dealing with a similar situation with trout that we now have with flounder.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*biilr23*

Redfish and Trout recieved Game Fish status in 1981. The current limit, 3 fish, 20-28 inches has been in effect since 1988, the same year all of the loopholes where finally closed concerning illegal netting. Yes, the outlaws were still very active up to 1988. Prior to that in 1986 Fedral laws went into place closing Federal waters to netting and retaining Redfish for both recreational and commercial fishermen.
From 1983 to 1988 the TP&WD had released close to 7 million Redfish into the 9 major bay systems along the coast. In 1990 15 million Redfish were released and since the completetion of the hatchery in Lake Jackson 1994
and average of 30-50 million Redfish fingerlings have been released every year for the past 15 years. I would tend to think that the fishery could withstand a much higher bag limit on Reds but the majority as spoken on two different occasions to keep it the same. Bottom line is, with netting and the Federal waters being closed to protect the spawners, man and mother nature produces Redfish faster than you can catch'em!

I suggest leaving the regulations up to the TP&WD they know what they are doing and the past two freezes in 83' and 89' are good examples. I really don't think most people realize that prior to 1980 there were no limits on Trout and Reds, you based your catch on how big your ice chest was. The TP&WD did not even have the authority to impose limits until 1983. If I remember correctly, the limits were changed after the 83' freeze to 20 Trout 10 Redfish. In 1988 we went to the current regs on Redfish and there was considerable outcry from recreational anglers at that time because they wanted to lower it and about 5 years later everyone screamed when they wanted to raise it. After the 89' freeze the TP&WD lowered the Trout limit to what it is today, 10 per person.

The 5 fish limit on the LLM is another good example of the TP&WD doing their job. The 5 fish limit was not imposed because there where no Trout in the LLM, actually the number of Trout in the LLM was right in line with the average along the coast. The problem was that number of productive spawning fish was half of what it was prior to the 83 freeze. Knowing this and knowing a major freeze, red tide ect.. could wipe out the Trout fishery in the LLM, the TP&WD took the steps to correct it. The Rockport area could be the next area included in regional management. The upper coast is no where near this and study after study has shown that the Trout populations can withstand todays recreational pressure.

The limit right now is 10 and if I catch 10 I'll keep 10. I don't need anyone telling me what I should keep or throw back. If I keep them myself, or give them to the neighbors thats my right until the TP&WD tells me different.

I suggest we all just keep fishing and keep what you want to within the limits, it's worked for the last 30 years, why change! Gater


----------



## shallowist (May 28, 2009)

Captain Craig, I will take any bashing that anyone wants to give, but after fishing this bay system and the Texas coast very hard for nearing 20 years.....WE NEED to lower the limits to create both sustainability and help the average size of a trout increase. the bays are still strong, especially Galveston system in general, but dropping the regs to 5 per day would make an impact that all would enjoy. 

For all my guide friends that are going to give me **** on this, your limits are 50% easier to catch now.....  

We are at the mercy of TPWD, and I have to respect what they say, I'm not a biologist, but the above is my two cents.

sorry if this is a repeat of something already stated, but I didn't fell like reading everything in the 11 pages prior.


----------



## possum2 (Mar 7, 2007)

It would not bother me to lower the limit to 7 or 5 but raisng the min. size to 16" or 17" I think would hurt more. How many undersize fish die due to handling? Lower the size limit to say 13" or whatever. Keep the first 10 7 or whatever the size limit is and keep the max at 1 over 25". Maybe more peolple would cacth there limit and not catch 4 or 5 times as many throwbacks to have whos knows how many die anyway. Just my 2 cents but seems maybe less released fish killed unknowingly.


----------



## Fishin-Inc (May 27, 2004)

*OMG*

If anyone say they need to increase the length on a minimum trout. I would suggest they make a meeting where a TPW speaker is at. 
They have great charts and graphs. What they are doing works. They have proven it. Lance can really put on a show.

I know it just statistics, but it's better than making stuff up as we go along.

And IMO More slot limits is difficult and not needed.


----------



## Bigwater (May 21, 2004)

From a Galveston Bay perspective the TPW has already condemned our Trout fishery to be PCB laiden to the point that human consumption can be harmful to your health. 
However they have left the take limit at ten fish. This makes no sense whatsoever and it leaves TPW in a legistical situation. They tell us on one hand that we need not eat Trout for health reasons but they leave the limit at ten. 
So is it easy to ask that when someone gets cancer from eating Trout from our fishery how easy will it be to drag TPW through the courts by not only allowing the dredging to take place which caused this mess but why were the limits not adjusted to match the ban on consumption? 
The TPW book directly contradicts itself by stating that we can not waste game fish but we have a PCB ban on Galveston Trout with a ten fish limit. 

Biggie


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Bigwater*

First of all the TP&WD has not condemed anything! The TP&WD has nothing to do with the advisory. The testing is done and the advisories are issued by the Texas Department of Health Services. It is not telling you can't eat them just to limit consumption.

Even with that, if they are telling you to limit intake what purpose would it serve to lower the limit. If anything, it would discourage people from keeping them and if they did I would tend to think they would not keep as many. It almost like you are thinking that people are catching fish and throwing them away because they are contaminated. Maybe I read into it wrong.

I really do not think the advisory has changed too many people, I still eat them and I eat more than 8 ounces a month. Later, I gotto go put something on this rash! Gater


----------



## Pat Harkins (Jun 28, 2006)

Titus Bass said:


> I think all fish should be classed as game fish and a strict catch and release policy inforced for all game fish.......


Don't like eating trout eh? What a shame and a loss that would be!


----------



## Titus Bass (Dec 26, 2008)

I figured it was as good an idea as lowering the limit, before we know what we are faceing.......Like banning all guides and such.....Shoot.....we are not sure we have a problem.....Let's not cure it just yet......


----------



## Clint Sholmire (Nov 9, 2005)

Bigwater said:


> From a Galveston Bay perspective the TPW has already condemned our Trout fishery to be PCB laiden to the point that human consumption can be harmful to your health.
> However they have left the take limit at ten fish. This makes no sense whatsoever and it leaves TPW in a legistical situation. They tell us on one hand that we need not eat Trout for health reasons but they leave the limit at ten.
> So is it easy to ask that when someone gets cancer from eating Trout from our fishery how easy will it be to drag TPW through the courts by not only allowing the dredging to take place which caused this mess but why were the limits not adjusted to match the ban on consumption?
> The TPW book directly contradicts itself by stating that we can not waste game fish but we have a PCB ban on Galveston Trout with a ten fish limit.
> ...


Ok who told this arssss that he could talk? Get a little bit more info before speaking please!!!! Or raise your hand or something.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

Clint Sholmire said:


> Ok who told this arssss that he could talk? Get a little bit more info before speaking please!!!! Or raise your hand or something.


Ha-ha....


----------



## Bigwater (May 21, 2004)

Clint Sholmire said:


> Ok who told this arssss that he could talk? Get a little bit more info before speaking please!!!! Or raise your hand or something.


Ok Clint my hands in the air...now what?? LOL

Biggie:biggrin:


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

Bigwater said:


> Ok Clint my hands in the air...now what?? LOL
> 
> Biggie:biggrin:


Now shake it all about...LOL. You just fell for the Hokey Pokey scam right here in front of all the 2coolers. :doowapsta


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

Bigwater said:


> Ok Clint my hands in the air...now what?? LOL
> 
> Biggie:biggrin:


slap yourself


----------

