# We are all responsible for what's about to happen...



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

Just during the spring TPWD sample season, JUST the one coming up in April - June, the following will happen. Then it will happen again in the fall.

Each bay system along the coast will be assaulted by numerous teams of biologists, *utilizing public funds*, each armed with gill nets 600' long consisting of 4 panels (each 150') with mesh size of 3", 4", 5", and 6". There will be * 45* sets in each bay system from April through June, with the coordinates of sets chosen randomly by computer. Each set will be made in the afternoon, will start near a shoreline coordinate selected by computer, and run perpendicular to the shore for 600' with largest mesh panel farthest from shore. The sets will be picked up beginning early next morning and all fish measured and tallied. Nowhere will you ever see a report of total fish killed during the survey, only the #fish per unit of effort.

Since we all know that the saying 95% of the fish are in 5% of the water at any given time is near enough true, then the science of this survey methodology is really a stretch to say the least. What gets me really fired up is this. What if the computers hit the lottery one year and all their coordinates ended up being at viable locations on top of large schools. Imagine how many large, spawning females would be killed in a single night.

They could get a MUCH better assessment by doing thorough interviews 2X a year with all the bay guides in operation along the coast, and never have to waste our money or our fish on gill nets again. Or I suppose we can just keep 5, maybe just keep 2 in a few years, that way the biologists will still have plenty for their spring and fall fish fry.


----------



## Logan (Aug 7, 2009)

relax...the use of nets allows for counts of all sizes and species, not just our favorite target species. TPWD biologist are worried about a lot more than just trout and redfish numbers.

Plus...not every fish that hits the net dies. especially the hardier species

Don't get worked up to much about it.


----------



## Salty_Dawg (Mar 28, 2013)

I would add with so many fisheries being overfished world-wide, I like our TPWD being as proactive and aggressive as possible, using whatever scientific methods are considered the best by what is surely huge amounts of data from similar studies and fisheries surveys across North America and even the world. 

No matter what they do, or don't do, someone will be upset. We just have to believe they are using the best techniques, and only serve to protect our local fisheries so our kids can fish them for years to come.


----------



## Shrimpzilla (May 21, 2004)

Category5 said:


> Just during the spring TPWD sample season, JUST the one coming up in April - June, the following will happen. Then it will happen again in the fall.


Yeah, let's see, Joe Blow on the Internet, or state biologists. I'm sure your opinion is correct, and the educated biologists are all incorrect. We should definitely base our fisheries laws on your bright ideas.


----------



## Salty_Dawg (Mar 28, 2013)

That escalated quickly. I guess all internet forums are the same.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

It is an "old-school" and time consuming way of surveying...maybe it is the most accurate way, but I hate to lose a bunch of fish just to say "yeah well there "was" some biguns here". 

I think the shock boats are less harmful.


----------



## rat race (Aug 10, 2006)

Chilllllll!


----------



## southpaw (Feb 25, 2009)

Category5 said:


> Each bay system along the coast will be assaulted by numerous teams of biologists, *utilizing public funds*, each armed with gill nets 600' long consisting of 4 panels (each 150') with mesh size of 3", 4", 5", and 6". There will be * 45* sets in each bay system from April through June, with the coordinates of sets chosen randomly by computer. Each set will be made in the afternoon, will start near a shoreline coordinate selected by computer, and run perpendicular to the shore for 600' with largest mesh panel farthest from shore. The sets will be picked up beginning early next morning and all fish measured and tallied. *Nowhere will you ever see a report of total fish killed during the survey, only the #fish per unit of effort.*


I honestly wouldn't worry too much about this. I attached some survey results below for coastwide gill net surveys for trout. If you look on the Y-axis there's numbers for catch per hour. The max number is slightly over 1/hour. Note this is for trout, which probably die the easiest. So they set the nets 1 hour before sunset and retrieve them 4 hours after sunrise so that's around 16 hrs at the most for that time of year. So on average 16 trout caught per survey and they do 45 per coastal region. So over that period that's on average 720 trout that we're assuming are killed. That takes place over 3 months or say 90 days. So that's 8 trout per day, that's not even a limit buddy. A drop in the bucket compared to what guides and recreational fishermen take out daily. A portion of those 8 aren't legal fish either. It's really not that big of a loss considering the daily bag limit is 10.

If you're upset about 8 fish per day then you need to be fighting the 10 fish per day daily bag limit. But what you really should be upset about is them using tax dollars on a method that doesn't even give you any kind of accurate gauge of fish population. They think that counting 8 fish per day gives them an accurate gauge on a fish population that is probably in the 100s of thousands if not millions. Not to mention all the other variables that come into play. I posted something awhile back in a different thread, scratching the surface of the statical error in that. I can post it here later if anyone is interested.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

TPWD doesn't give a red rats arse what you think about their plans.


----------



## JWS.HOOKEM (Jun 24, 2008)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> TPWD doesn't give a red rats arse what you think about their plans.


That would be TRUE.

_*"Just keep 25; 10M Cajuns Caint be Wrong"!*_


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

JWS.HOOKEM said:


> That would be TRUE.
> 
> _*"Just keep 25; 10M Cajuns Caint be Wrong"!*_


Louisiana and the middle coast are totally different fisheries. More estuary/marsh there.

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Electro-fishing does not work in saltwater. Due to the superior conductivity of the water, DC current put off by the anode does not seek a direct path to the cathode. The reason it works in freshwater is because the body of the fish is more conductive than the water it swims in - so it naturally attracts current.

The comments concerning the miniscule number of fish killed in survey nets - as a percentage of the whole - are right on target. The idea is to obtain a sample via identical gear and methods year after year, and then comparing that sample to the historic data base. 

There is no better method for sampling and describing relative abundance of marine finfish species being used anywhere in the world. TPW-Coastal Fisheries Division earns exceptionally high marks in peer review and nearly all coastal states have modeled their program very similarly. We should all take pride that Texas was a pioneer and remains a leader in this.

Interviewing fishermen to determine relative abundance of a species unfortunately includes fishing knowledge and skill - which we all know is not equally shared - data gathered way is termed "anecdotal" because it is "fishery dependent." The term fishery in this case referring to the sport or business of fishing. Some fishermen try harder than others, some know more than others, and their fishing success or lack of is therefore not the same. 

The gill net does not discriminate, it puts forth the same effort every day. A gill net built to TPW specs, when fished according to protocol, will fish the same today as it did 20 years ago and will 20 years from now.

The only other method for positively counting fish is poisoning, but that only tells you how many were present when the poison was released, not how many might have ridden a current through the area or foraged a shoreline during a 12 hour period. And besides - I don't think anybody would want TPW pouring poison in our bays.


----------



## southpaw (Feb 25, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> The comments concerning the miniscule number of fish killed in survey nets - as a percentage of the whole - are right on target.


But in that same regard, how is sampling a miniscule number of a population in any way representative of the population as a whole?



> There is no better method for sampling and describing relative abundance of marine finfish species being used anywhere in the world. TPW-Coastal Fisheries Division earns exceptionally high marks in peer review and nearly all coastal states have modeled their program very similarly.


This may be true, but just because there's no better method than gill netting, doesn't make it right. Combine an extremely small sample size with an abundant amount of variables that could affect the results and you've got a not so good method for population sampling. Just look at some of the graphs that TWPD uses for gill net surveys, they spike up and down year to year with no real definitive trend. Some people like to call it cyclical, but I call it statistical noise.

Now, I hate it when people bring up problems and don't propose any solutions, but to be honest I can't think of a better method to use without killing a bunch of fish. It's fine if TPWD uses gill net surveys for other things, but to try and use it to quantify the health of a fishery probably isn't the best idea, especially if they're going to then try to use it to justify regulation change or vice versa.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Hey Southpaw...I'm only a guy that's done a lot of reading and studying; Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Carolinas, Virginia there's tons of reports and data available. And not all state resource management agencies either, you can also check out the projects and programs of the major universities with marine science programs. I can tell you what they do because I read it - you would need somebody more directly involved to tell you the "why" behind what they do and the reasons they do not use other methods.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

southpaw said:


> But in that same regard, how is sampling a miniscule number of a population in any way representative of the population as a whole?


 You really have no grasp of the concept of statistical sampling? It's only essentially the basis for the entire science of statistical analysis, and is mathematically quantifiable.


----------



## D'sBaystealth (Apr 10, 2013)

those studies are all for the ones who want the information for their benefit.
for instance..
unemployment.. is a lets say 6 percent.
that is the number of population that is requesting unemployment at local government agencies.
what about those who used all their benefits and still don't have a job. 
those who quit looking for a job and panhandle on the street. 
those who work part time and still look for a full time job.
there are many different ways you can use information and you can also leave out information. For a better argument on what you want to represent. 
Information obtain is documented information for the use of the beholder. It is not an exact it is a study of what if.
You have read books on how to do something but really how many times after you read the how to and it was not done???
So the concept of a sample analysis is bull. All you analyze is a sample in a certain area. 
so you say the mercury content in an area around port Lavaca is to high for public consumption. ( don't remember the exact place but there is a history)
so will that sample area prove to be pertinent information for Port Mansfield or Galveston bay? No because it is a sample analysis. 
so use the information as you wish but be fair about the studies and not one sided for what you want.


----------



## bigbarr (Mar 9, 2010)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> TPWD doesn't give a red rats arse what you think about their plans.


Thats it right there,,,


----------



## turd hearder (Jul 5, 2012)

How about only cpr like me and then there will be plenty of fish


----------



## jcdc_tx (May 14, 2013)

After the carp were dumped in here in Lake Austin, I have lost respect to the tpwd


----------



## jake100 (Oct 10, 2011)

Well I went on one or those gill net boats last year and I can tell you that more fish were releasted alive than died Jake


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

I still don't like it, nobody has made a really compelling argument to convince me yet. FYI @ shrimpzilla - BS / fisheries science TAMU class of '95. We discussed sampling science ad nauseam and there was considerable disagreement even among the professors.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

Has anyone heard/know if these nets are going to be float nets or sink nets ? If you don't know what I am referring to, is this: w/ a Float net the floats are on top of the water and can be seen, as w/ sink nets....they do have floats but are submerged and of course one can't see them.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Electro-fishing does not work in saltwater. Due to the superior conductivity of the water, DC current put off by the anode does not seek a direct path to the cathode. The reason it works in freshwater is because the body of the fish is more conductive than the water it swims in - so it naturally attracts current.
> 
> The comments concerning the miniscule number of fish killed in survey nets - as a percentage of the whole - are right on target. The idea is to obtain a sample via identical gear and methods year after year, and then comparing that sample to the historic data base.
> 
> ...


If the fish were in any way, even close to, evenly distributed through the bay, then maybe I could bite on the science. Try planning your fishing trips by randomly selecting GPS coordinates for a year. The hit or miss factor renders the data useless IMO. Now maybe if you could make sets in exactly the same spots year after year, and with the exact same environmental conditions each time, but that's very nearly impossible. I wouldn't mind the killing fish if I didn't think it was junk science, but until anyone convinces me otherwise I don't agree with them killing a single fish much less thousands.


----------



## Tx_Biologist (Sep 7, 2012)

Cat 5- Be careful what you wish for, Youre old enough to remember early 80's. Get ride of research, TPWD and analysis. Bring back commercial sale and harvest of Reds and Trout and see the difference. You would not be so critical of the efforts this agency goes through, all to enhance the recreational sport you so dearly cherish. We work hard to ensure that there is a fishable population to catch. Even though i work the wildlife side of the business i understand the analysis and sampling. It is necessary to understand reproduction and population structure.


----------



## Pat Harkins (Jun 28, 2006)

jake100 said:


> Well I went on one or those gill net boats last year and I can tell you that more fish were releasted alive than died Jake


You know Jake, when you can't spell "released" your credibility is suspect.


----------



## ak (May 6, 2012)

someone find the nets and dump rotten shrimp around them and clean out the gastops and hardheads


----------



## ToddyTrout (Mar 15, 2005)

*Smart*

The one thing I've noticed lately CAT5, you love to stir the pot but you never seem to have solutions or suggestions for anything!!! If you don't like the way they do things work to change it, or do some research and find out why TPWD is a model agency for most all other states with coastal fisheries in the United States. If you think it is junk science, tell us all what would be a smarter and more effective method. We're all waiting now, come on and tell us since you're so intelligent.


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

I'll take the TPWD method over the NOAA/Gulf Council method any day of the week. If you're really interested in seeing how these net surveys take place go down to your local TPWD office and ask about volunteering to help.


----------



## Fishin' Soldier (Dec 25, 2007)

turd hearder said:


> How about only cpr like me and then there will be plenty of fish


Keep all the hardheads you want. I dont think we need more of the turd hustlers.


----------



## southpaw (Feb 25, 2009)

dwilliams35 said:


> You really have no grasp of the concept of statistical sampling?


I actually have a fairly good grasp of the concept of statistical sampling, statistical analysis, numerical methods and numerical models.



> It's only essentially the basis for the entire science of statistical analysis, and is mathematically quantifiable.


Although highly simplified and generalized, I can for the most part agree with this statement. Perhaps I didn't do a good job of explaining in the second part of my response. It's not that I don't think it's mathematically quantifiable, heck anything is quantifiable, however that doesn't mean it's being accurately or properly represented.

You seem to have some understanding of statistics and sampling so you would understand that, in general, sample size plays a large factor in how accurate that sample represents the whole. Also, you'd understand that the more variables that could affect the sample size, the larger the sample size needs to be to ensure accuracy. So my point was how accurate could gill net samples be if the sample could be described as miniscule, which it is, and have countless variables affecting it. Furthermore, this method may work if they were screening for some kind of characteristic trait, but population growth or decline? I don't see anyway that could be possible to do with any kind of confidence with only sampling, on average, 700-800 fish. Please, if there's a way to do it with any accuracy, do explain.

For the sake of discussion, consider this hypothetical situation. Texas decides that the census is no longer an accurate way of tracking population, so instead they decide that every year they're going to randomly select 46 counties and send an employee of the state to go to the county to sit on a street in the square and count the amount of people he/she sees for 16 straight hours. Doesn't matter if the county has a population of 500 or 500,000 it's randomly selected. It doesn't matter if it rains that day, if that county has an influx of people bc of a recent oil boom, if that county has tourist attractions, if it's a border county that has a lot of document challenged individuals, etc. They will go and just count. They then take these results and try and gauge the fluctuations in the whole population of Texas. Do you honestly believe that would give accurate results or would you see year to year jumps and dives in the numbers due to the variables listed? Would you be able to discern any kind of trend with reasonable confidence?


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

ToddyTrout said:


> The one thing I've noticed lately CAT5, you love to stir the pot but you never seem to have solutions or suggestions for anything!!! If you don't like the way they do things work to change it, or do some research and find out why TPWD is a model agency for most all other states with coastal fisheries in the United States. If you think it is junk science, tell us all what would be a smarter and more effective method. We're all waiting now, come on and tell us since you're so intelligent.


I already proposed a solution in my original post, or do you not read so well.


----------



## LanceR (May 21, 2004)

*TPWD sampling programs*

A lot of good discussion and questions being asked about the sampling programs that have been utilized by TPWD Coastal Fisheries Division for 30+ years. I won't get into the debate about some of the comments challenging the statistical validity associated with our sampling programs but our sample size analyses associated with the current methodology we utilize is statistically valid. The data we collect must be of a standard that can withstand the scrutiny of any legal challenge and has done so in the past (e.g. red drum in the 1980's).

We take very seriously the quality of the data that's collected and the statistical validity it imparts. To ensure our sampling methodologies are sound and appropriate for the purposes it is being used, in 2005 we asked the American Fisheries Society, the principal professional organization of fishery scientists in the United States, to conduct an independent review of both the Inland Fisheries and Coastal Fisheries sampling programs to determine whether "the best, most efficient techniques for monitoring, managing, and protecting its aquatic natural resources" were being used.

The Coastal Fisheries Division is proud of the effort that's been put forth in developing one of the longest running fishery independent sampling programs in the country and the AFS review has been available on our website for almost 10 years for anyone to download and read. The final report of this review can be found at http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publica...fisheries_divisions_science_review_report.pdf.

As with any sampling program there is always an opportunity to improve upon what's being done and we are constantly looking for ways to improve upon what we're already doing without compromising the integrity of the data previously collected. I'm happy to discuss any aspect of our sampling design but find that trying to have conversations through a message board with anonymous posters to not be very productive. As such, my phone number is listed below. If I can't answer your questions I will certainly get the answer for you or put you in touch with someone on our staff who can answer it for you.

Lance Robinson
TPWD Coastal Fisheries
Dickinson Marine Laboratory
281-534-0101


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

ak said:


> someone find the nets and dump rotten shrimp around them and clean out the gastops and hardheads


W T F is a gastop?

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## dc1502 (May 25, 2006)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> W T F is a gastop?
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


You know what they are..................


----------



## CroakerChoker (Jan 24, 2013)

I like how things were in the 90s and every single body of water was dwindling with species(except gastop and hardheads). At the least TPWD gives a fecal matter and uses funding to try to make things better, whether it releases ueric acid on what you think is best or not, it's doing more than y'all are doing.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

LanceR said:


> A lot of good discussion and questions being asked about the sampling programs that have been utilized by TPWD Coastal Fisheries Division for 30+ years. I won't get into the debate about some of the comments challenging the statistical validity associated with our sampling programs but our sample size analyses associated with the current methodology we utilize is statistically valid. The data we collect must be of a standard that can withstand the scrutiny of any legal challenge and has done so in the past (e.g. red drum in the 1980's).
> 
> We take very seriously the quality of the data that's collected and the statistical validity it imparts. To ensure our sampling methodologies are sound and appropriate for the purposes it is being used, in 2005 we asked the American Fisheries Society, the principal professional organization of fishery scientists in the United States, to conduct an independent review of both the Inland Fisheries and Coastal Fisheries sampling programs to determine whether "the best, most efficient techniques for monitoring, managing, and protecting its aquatic natural resources" were being used.
> 
> ...


Thank you! I may well give you a call and see when I could meet with you in the near future. I've never called intentions or effort into question, just the oversimplification of the statistical model and the assumption of normal distribution of the error sum. I feel like TPWD is hanging their hats on a flawed perversion of already questionable fiducial inference theory, and is choosing to ignore a problem with the dataset (that it is a nearly insurmountable web of environmental bias) and instead points with pride to the randomization of the model as though it fixes all the other massive flaws. I also call the very basis of the randomization assumption into question, since only a single variable out of dozens (the GPS coordinates, constrained by proximity to shoreline and thus eliminating a large percentage of the database from the survey right from the start) is truly random. It's like this: the only thing worse than not having a dog on a duck hunt is having a dog that won't hunt. I'm just not convinced y'alls dog fetches is all.


----------



## ToddyTrout (Mar 15, 2005)

Cat5, I read very well.
Your solution is a joke!!! Guides are given an opportunity to give input just like other fishermen at boat ramps and marinas where surveys are done.
That info is taken into account on fisheries assessments from what I'm told. You should seriously give Lance a call and report to us your opinion after talking to him instead of calling out an entire agency just because you don't understand their methodology.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

I get that you don't like me Toddy, it's been hard to miss with the reds and the antagonistic comments, but I don't believe I was stirring and I wasn't joking about the guide interviews. It would take a number of years to get a useful data set going, but if guides were required to maintain a daily log book of man hours spent for each of the big 3 and total caught with estimated size, then that could be assembled into a meaningful stock assessment. The only assumption being that the guides that are in business and making a living are generally able to locate and catch fish consistently, thus a fish landed per man hour effort chart should normalize and cluster well around the mean. Just like the gill nets, it wouldn't be possible to extrapolate an entire population estimate, but UNLIKE gill nets it WOULD show you real population density swings year to year without the statistical noise of just throwing a net over the side willy-nilly because a computer said to put it there.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I would think that a "guide survey" would tend to skew the numbers to the positive side of their target species.

Being professional fisherman, and by your own admission, they are "better" at finding fish.

The info needed is this..."what is the broad and random distribution across all species and all habitats".

I do agree that only setting shallow-water nets will exclude species that prefer deeper water during the the survey time.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Just FYI TPW's sampling effort includes gear types other than gill nets. There's also bag seines, bay trolls and creel surveys. It is also important that the gill net is used during seasons when most species inhabit shallow water; i.e. April-June and September-November.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

*Dadgummed iPhone spell-correct*

I meant to say bay trawl...as in net...not bay troll.


----------



## jake100 (Oct 10, 2011)

Well I'm so sorry mister Harkins please for give for not being a pro on the keyboard!


----------



## full limits (Jul 6, 2011)

*Rats a*

Tpwd.....he'll what do they know they get out and fish and talk to guides or folk who fish all the time. Nope. They always take away and never give back,,,,


----------



## fishanywhere (May 21, 2004)

They don't stretch nets across the entire mouth of every good cut. The nets are scattered through the bay to get samples from everywhere. This has been going on for decades. A lot of the nets catch hard heads and trash fish, not trout or reds. This debate is ridiculous.


----------



## wos (Oct 12, 2009)

*TPWD hearing in C.C.*

The TPWD hearing was held in C.C. last night. The overwhelming majority of those attending were in favor of both of TPWD's proposals for a five fish trout limit and added closure for flounder gigging. Interestingly, previous trout scoping meetings in C.C. during 2011 also showed that the majority of the people attending wanted a bag limit reduction for trout. Let's get it done this time around and put the resource before personal agendas. wos (L. Scott Murray)


----------



## KeithR (Jan 30, 2006)

wos said:


> The TPWD hearing was held in C.C. last night. The overwhelming majority of those attending were in favor of both of TPWD's proposals for a five fish trout limit and added closure for flounder gigging. Interestingly, previous trout scoping meetings in C.C. during 2011 also showed that the majority of the people attending wanted a bag limit reduction for trout. Let's get it done this time around and put the resource before personal agendas. wos (L. Scott Murray)


The 5 fish push is nothing but personal agendas. Really makes no difference to me but it is not a science based decision. Let's at least be honest and call it what it is.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

KeithR said:


> The 5 fish push is nothing but personal agendas. Really makes no difference to me but it is not a science based decision. Let's at least be honest and call it what it is.


Bingo! Science seems to be optional in fisheries management these days.


----------



## merle (Jul 13, 2010)

KeithR said:


> The 5 fish push is nothing but personal agendas. Really makes no difference to me but it is not a science based decision. Let's at least be honest and call it what it is.


Who's personal agenda? This isn't directed specifically at you, but based on my numerous years of reading posts and talking to others, a majority of people only want to catch and keep as many fish as they can. Why not try to improve the bay systems that can produce bigger trout? Most don't want to shot a little buck...they want to shot a big buck. Why not "try" a plan that can make both styles (quantity & quality) of fishing possible?


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

wos said:


> The TPWD hearing was held in C.C. last night. The overwhelming majority of those attending were in favor of both of TPWD's proposals for a five fish trout limit and added closure for flounder gigging. Interestingly, previous trout scoping meetings in C.C. during 2011 also showed that the majority of the people attending wanted a bag limit reduction for trout. Let's get it done this time around and put the resource before personal agendas. wos (L. Scott Murray)


 the vast majority were also for not extending the 5 fish possession limit, so hopefully that actually happens. It didn't sound like there is any legitimate reason for the 5 fish possession limit anyway.


----------



## Porky (Nov 1, 2006)

You youngsters seem not to be aware of the 60's-80's on the Reds & Trout or the Flounder in the 2000's and the turn arounds because of the TPWD. What in the heck is wrong with Y'All ?
OK Flame Away !


----------



## gunsmoke11 (Apr 30, 2012)

Porky said:


> You youngsters seem not to be aware of the 60's-80's on the Reds & Trout or the Flounder in the 2000's and the turn arounds because of the TPWD. What in the heck is wrong with Y'All ?
> OK Flame Away !


For the oldies if you cant get a limit lets drop it to make it easier so everybody gets a limit....jk


----------



## Pat Harkins (Jun 28, 2006)

jake100 said:


> Well I'm so sorry mister Harkins please for give for not being a pro on the keyboard!


I apologize sir. 
All the best to you.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

You want to improve the health of our bays, and improve the numbers of game species? Two easy steps:

1. Outlaw the sale of live bait
2. Outlaw fishing tournaments

Propose that at one of your "sustainable fishing" meetings, and watch who screams. I can tell you that a lot of the people who are 100% behind TPWD right now, would turn on them like a BLM riot.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

I feel sorry for TPWD biologists. They are underpaid to work in a State where we have so many weekend biologists telling them how to do their jobs.

TPWD has one of if not the best historical sampling surveys out there. Using the same gill nets they have collected data for decades.

All of you critics need to spend more time on the water and less time on public forums pouring nonsense out of your pie holes.


----------



## robolivar (Oct 7, 2011)

turd hearder said:


> How about only cpr like me and then there will be plenty of fish


because my family and I LOVE eating fish, not to mention that's what they were put here for

...pshh..dumb question.


----------



## skinnywaterfishin (Jul 1, 2015)

Pat Harkins said:


> I apologize sir.
> All the best to you.


You realize you replied to and resurrected a 2 year old thread?


----------



## robolivar (Oct 7, 2011)

jcdc_tx said:


> After the carp were dumped in here in Lake Austin, I have lost respect to the tpwd


I haven't lost respect for them but they are taking a route that has historically ****** river systems and lakes up.

THEY DONT ALWAYS MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICES....but when they do, the fish pops increase

and I just realized this thread was two years old...DOH!!!!!


----------



## Brian Castille (May 27, 2004)

pocjetty said:


> You want to improve the health of our bays, and improve the numbers of game species? Two easy steps:
> 
> 1. Outlaw the sale of live bait
> 2. Outlaw fishing tournaments
> ...


Neither is ever going to happen so no need to worry, lol.


----------



## kickingback (Dec 20, 2013)

Oh boy...my tax dollars hard at work again...


----------



## tomtom83 (Oct 1, 2007)

skinnywaterfishin said:


> You realize you replied to and resurrected a 2 year old thread?


Better late than never, right?


----------



## Spec-Rig.006 (Nov 2, 2007)

I don't always claim to be a fisheries biologist, but when I do, I soak croaker ...


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

Brian Castille said:


> Neither is ever going to happen so no need to worry, lol.


My point exactly.


----------



## Red3Fish (Jun 4, 2004)

I am with Porky!!

"You youngsters seem not to be aware of the 60's-80's on the Reds & Trout or the Flounder in the 2000's and the turn arounds because of the TPWD. What in the heck is wrong with Y'All ?"

#2....I am pizzed at someone for leading me down the path of a 2 yr old string and wasting the last 15 mins.!! LOL

We have the acknowledged best fish management group on the whole Gulf Coast....stop trying to trip them, while doing their job!!

Later
R3F


----------

