# New Restrictions on the Horizon



## TRF (Jul 14, 2013)

Looks like a few more regs are coming around for Trout and Flounder.

http://www.chron.com/sports/outdoors/article/Falling-trout-numbers-will-force-changes-4988351.php


----------



## boltmaster (Aug 16, 2011)

It's been coming for awhile now.


----------



## essayons75 (May 15, 2006)

They need to spend more time enforcing laws than making laws.


----------



## Cody C (May 15, 2009)

essayons75 said:


> They need to spend more time enforcing laws than making laws.


You mean all of those nice people down at <insert your local spot> that don't speak English that are keeping all of cute little 10" fish are part of the problem?

Cody C


----------



## fwoodwader (Jul 18, 2008)

I may be in the minority but I'm for a 5-5-3 limit....and the folks going to the Laguna Madre aren't looking for 5 fish limits IMO they are looking for the 30inchers.

I'd rather catch 5 "healthy specs"(20-23in) than 10 schoolies any day of the week.


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

*Its a lack of freshwater*

and too many vacuum cleaners going at one time, for the number of new recruits produced by hypersaline estuaries --


----------



## Pat Harkins (Jun 28, 2006)

fwoodwader said:


> I may be in the minority but I'm for a 5-5-3 limit....and the folks going to the Laguna Madre aren't looking for 5 fish limits IMO they are looking for the 30inchers.
> 
> I'd rather catch 5 "healthy specs"(20-23in) than 10 schoolies any day of the week.


X2


----------



## Drundel (Feb 6, 2006)

Hmm... I'd be more ok with a 5 trout limit vs a even more reduced flounder limit, but like said above, I'd like to see more and harsher penalties for rule breakers.


----------



## Goags (May 28, 2004)

I've no problem w/ reduced limits or harsher penalties...as long as they enforce them.


----------



## Lone-Star (Dec 19, 2009)

Good...five trout a day is enough.


----------



## boltmaster (Aug 16, 2011)

Goags said:


> I've no problem w/ reduced limits or harsher penalties...as long as they enforce them.


I have long favored a reduced limit.....and have practiced that voluntarily for years. I think if a five trout or whatever is set as a state law the great majority of us will honor that limit. We do it now with a ten fish limit. The ones intent on trying to " dodge the game warden" and keep more than a limit will do it regardless. There is a lot of territory for a relatively few TPW officials to police. It's really up to us to police ourselves ......my .02


----------



## bragwell (Apr 15, 2010)

Cody C said:


> You mean all of those nice people down at <insert your local spot> that don't speak English that are keeping all of cute little 10" fish are part of the problem?
> 
> Cody C


A lot of that going on. Also many English speaking North Americans violate as well. Every time I go to fish with the masses I see multiple violations happening. Saw some red necks in full camo wading garb, laguna rods, and cores with 3 or more flounder on their stringers/donets, also a lot of culling, and people taking their limit home then returning with a different colored camo jacket to catch 2 more. They know they're breaking the law. I'd like to see $10,000 fines and a few boats being confiscated from violators. Maybe then these idiots would get the message.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

The past couple of years has been the poorest for wade fishing for trout in the surf that I have seen in 30 plus years. 

I can still take limits during the wade fishing season but not nearly as frequently as in past years.

And I don't believe my fishing skills have diminished a lot although some would probably disagree with that statement.

In my opinion something has definitely changed in the trout fishery. Whether or not cutting the limit in half is going to turn that around I just don't know. I hope that is the case and not something a lot worse such as an irreparable decline in the quality of habitat in the bay system. If that is the situation that's a tough thing to come back from.


----------



## GSMAN (May 22, 2004)

Really???? "Reducing the 10-trout bag limit could be a way to do that without having a dramatic impact on anglers; currently, *about 70 percent of anglers targeting trout catch two or fewer fish per day.*" Kind of surprised at this statistic. I really haven't noticed a decline in the Galveston area for trout. Maybe their sample was non-representative!


----------



## Chuckybrown (Jan 20, 2012)

I'm all for it.


----------



## saltwatersensations (Aug 30, 2004)

Some guys need a lower limit so they have a better chance of limiting out.


----------



## saltwatersensations (Aug 30, 2004)

Goose Lover said:


> The past couple of years has been the poorest for wade fishing for trout in the surf that I have seen in 30 plus years.
> 
> I can still take limits during the wade fishing season but not nearly as frequently as in past years.
> 
> ...


There werent near as many "fishable" days in the surf this year for trout. IMO.


----------



## GuyFromHuntsville (Aug 4, 2011)

fwoodwader said:


> I may be in the minority but I'm for a 5-5-3 limit....and the folks going to the Laguna Madre aren't looking for 5 fish limits IMO they are looking for the 30inchers.
> 
> I'd rather catch 5 "healthy specs"(20-23in) than 10 schoolies any day of the week.


Ditto


----------



## Bird (May 10, 2005)

Hmmm...I've caught more big trout (25"+) this year than any of the previous 13 yrs I've lived on the water here. That being said, I've caught less total numbers of trout overall this year. Fair trade off to me, especially since I've caught more reds and flounder this year than I have in the last 5 years or so. I release most of my fish but I still keep track of my numbers. I'd like to read more data on it for my own info. Guess I'll call my game warder buddies.


----------



## shalor57 (Feb 24, 2005)

Let's get it done this time! I don't need 10 trout flopped on the dock to prove to myself or anyone else I have had a good day. This will help the trout fishery in my opinion.


----------



## fishin shallow (Jul 31, 2005)

bragwell said:


> A lot of that going on. Also many English speaking North Americans violate as well. Every time I go to fish with the masses I see multiple violations happening. Saw some red necks in full camo wading garb, laguna rods, and cores with 3 or more flounder on their stringers/donets, also a lot of culling, and people taking their limit home then returning with a different colored camo jacket to catch 2 more. They know they're breaking the law. I'd like to see $10,000 fines and a few boats being confiscated from violators. Maybe then these idiots would get the message.


You better take that back...we all know that only non english speaking fisherman break the law


----------



## sun burn (Jun 12, 2008)

How do the guides feel about this? Think about It, how many people will want to spend large amounts of money just to go catch a few fish??


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

sun burn said:


> How do the guides feel about this? Think about It, how many people will want to spend large amounts of money just to go catch a few fish??


The ones down south aren't hurting to my knowledge, the pressure in Mansfield is as high as ever.


----------



## Cmac4075 (Dec 3, 2012)

The guides will have an easier time getting their clients a limit and of better fish. Personally, I would like to see the slot decreased for trout as well. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## shalor57 (Feb 24, 2005)

sun burn said:


> How do the guides feel about this? Think about It, how many people will want to spend large amounts of money just to go catch a few fish??


I will, if they are big girls! But some people do have that mentality and they may go less which will be good for the trout population.


----------



## Cmac4075 (Dec 3, 2012)

bragwell said:


> A lot of that going on. Also many English speaking North Americans violate as well. Every time I go to fish with the masses I see multiple violations happening. Saw some red necks in full camo wading garb, laguna rods, and cores with 3 or more flounder on their stringers/donets, also a lot of culling, and people taking their limit home then returning with a different colored camo jacket to catch 2 more. They know they're breaking the law. I'd like to see $10,000 fines and a few boats being confiscated from violators. Maybe then these idiots would get the message.


At least they had nice set ups.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hot Diggy (Jan 27, 2013)

I'm good with it, I dont want to clean more then 4 or 5 anyway


----------



## fwoodwader (Jul 18, 2008)

Personally I wouldn't go out with a guide just to bag a limit, I'd go out with a guide to gain knowledge of a particular area, learn somethings about patterns etc, try to pick the brain of the guide as much as possible. But that is just me I try to absorb as much information as possible.


----------



## KingTut (May 19, 2005)

With Fish Consumption Bans what they are today, bring on the restrictions. As sad as it is, I've been releasing everything I catch for quite some time now,


----------



## kenny (May 21, 2004)

Bird said:


> Hmmm...I've caught more big trout (25"+) this year than any of the previous 13 yrs I've lived on the water here. That being said, I've caught less total numbers of trout overall this year. Fair trade off to me, especially since I've caught more reds and flounder this year than I have in the last 5 years or so. I release most of my fish but I still keep track of my numbers. I'd like to read more data on it for my own info. Guess I'll call my game warder buddies.


Which end of West bay do you mainly fish? I ask because the summer & fall have been the worst in 20 years for me.

I'm good with the 5 fish limit too.


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

If you wish to listen - Here is the archived audio of the TPWD Commission Nov. 6th Work Session from which the information reported in the original post's , Houston Chronicle, Nov.17 article was gathered.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publica...ion_20131106/20131106_com_00_work_session.mp3

Discussion of Flounder and Trout regulations & limits begins at :
Flounder discussion - 3:05:45
Trout discussion - 3:18:50


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

Here we go again. More than likely they will keep the trout limits the change for upper coast. I have heard that they Flounder limit may be no catch in November! You better watch what you ask for because there is no getting it back. Redfish limit needs to be increased to 5 imo. Those surveys at the ramps are a joke.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

If any of you are fishing just for a bag of fillets you are missing out. There is no denying the middle coast trout fishery is nothing near what it used to be. Let them do what they need to. Who cares if they make November no flounder, maybe I can go out and see a flounder every five feet like it used to be.

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


----------



## POCLANCE (Apr 5, 2006)

*Tags?*

I understand the reason for the limit change. But what about the folks that fish everyday, or several times a week, virsus those that fish only a couple of times a month? Why don't we make it like deer hunting or oversize red tags. You get tags and are only allowed to catch only so many per year. IMHO it would be easier to inforce than deer hunting. With fishing, most everyone has to return to a dock/ramp. Deer hunters return to their home.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Here's the thing, more and more people are fishing. What you see on the Texas coast is not much different than what you'd see during the spawn on your local bass lake. Have you ever been to Fayette on a Saturday in mid-March? You can nearly walk from boat to boat due to all the traffic.

Maybe a better idea, is to encourage catch and release. A BIG campaign for catch and release may be better for the fishery than reducing the number of fish you can take home. In my opinion, we've seen ridiculous limits set already on red snapper. When it costs in excess of $150 to catch two fish, it gets a bit ridiculous...especially when we all know the numbers of snapper aren't actually declining.

Personally, all the reduced numbers will do, is force me to drive the extra hour and a half to Calcasieu so I can put some meat in the freezer.


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

kenny said:


> Which end of West bay do you mainly fish? I ask because the summer & fall have been the worst in 20 years for me.
> 
> I'm good with the 5 fish limit too.


x2


----------



## bragwell (Apr 15, 2010)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> If any of you are fishing just for a bag of fillets you are missing out. There is no denying the middle coast trout fishery is nothing near what it used to be. Let them do what they need to. Who cares if they make November no flounder, maybe I can go out and see a flounder every five feet like it used to be.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


I'm in agreeance. Let them do whatever it takes to help species rebound. I'd also like to see them enforce the laws we have in place. Stiffer fines, and a few boat confiscations might get some of these idiots attention. I've seen more violations this year than any other year fishing the run.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

capt. david said:


> Those surveys at the ramps are a joke.


Yup...Don't mess with those folks anymore after the last one I cooperated with acted like he just stumbled out of an icehouse.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Be careful what you wish for. If they lower the limits now from 10 trout to 5 we will be one killer freeze away from the same type of regulations they have placed on the snapper fishery. 

In addition not word about the multi-year drought that has effected the bays the last three or four years? 

We are already down to 2 flounder in November, none gigging. The next step is zero flounder.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

glennkoks said:


> Be careful what you wish for. If they lower the limits now from 10 trout to 5 we will be one killer freeze away from the same type of regulations they have placed on the snapper fishery.
> 
> In addition not word about the multi-year drought that has effected the bays the last three or four years?
> 
> We are already down to 2 flounder in November, none gigging. The next step is zero flounder.


What do you mean "already down to two"? That isn't enough? People act like they feed their families with the fish they catch and releasing a few more fish means they will starve...cmon! 
I love to gig but it does not bother me to do something else for four weeks out of the year. There are also redfish, trout and the ever popular gafftop and ribbonfish people can feed their starving kids.

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


----------



## Momma's Worry (Aug 3, 2009)

worn out subject.......hook and gig is not the problem


----------



## jfish87 (Feb 15, 2010)

Cody C said:


> You mean all of those nice people down at <insert your local spot> that don't speak English that are keeping all of cute little 10" fish are part of the problem?
> 
> Cody C


I'm from LA and I had a job near Freeport, TX so of course I brought my poles and bought a temp license and went check out the scene at the jettis. There were probably 60 Asians keeping every fish they caught, even saw one couple catch and keep about a 4ft tarpon.... I nearly called the game warden, but figured they know about this spot and they wouldn't have done anything but tell them to leave.


----------



## Makaira_Nigricans (Apr 30, 2013)

jfish87 said:


> I'm from LA and I had a job near Freeport, TX so of course I brought my poles and bought a temp license and went check out the scene at the jettis. There were probably 60 Asians keeping every fish they caught, even saw one couple catch and keep about a 4ft tarpon.... I nearly called the game warden, but figured they know about this spot and they wouldn't have done anything but tell them to leave.


Really?!? You watched them keep a 4' Tarpon and didn't report any game theft? That made you a part of the problem. I am very Disappointed in your lack of judgment. It's bad enough that they were keeping under reg fish of all species, but you just sat back and watched them do it. :headknock


----------



## SURF Buster (Feb 17, 2008)

I bet if the State increased the Wardens pay by $25,000.00 more a year they just may write more tickets and start confiscating more gear and vehicles. They are no doubt under paid and overworked.


----------



## jfish87 (Feb 15, 2010)

Makaira_Nigricans said:


> Really?!? You watched them keep a 4' Tarpon and didn't report any game theft? That made you a part of the problem. I am very Disappointed in your lack of judgment. It's bad enough that they were keeping under reg fish of all species, but you just sat back and watched them do it. :headknock


I've reported many outlaws before and I've never seen anything drastic happen... Take the fish and make them leave, then they are out the next day doing the same thing.... I'm just as upset as everyone else man, I promise.


----------



## dinodude (Mar 17, 2013)

I think it is a good idea to lower the trout limit. 
Who needs 10 trout!!?!
Heck I will be OK with a 2 trout limit for a few months and that's the same for flounder.
However it may also encourage more people to start going over the limit.
I think there needs to be better enforcement along with tighter limits.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

dinodude said:


> I think it is a good idea to lower the trout limit.
> Who needs 10 trout!!?!
> Heck I will be OK with a 2 trout limit for a few months and that's the same for flounder.
> However it may also encourage more people to start going over the limit.
> I think there needs to be better enforcement along with tighter limits.


How many fish have you caught this year?

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


----------



## Brian Castille (May 27, 2004)

One thing I have noticed is a lot of those that complain about limits being too high just want to put the blame somewhere because they can't catch many fish and it won't matter what the limits are. I have seen it at the cleaning tables plenty of times where people are watching guides clean a limit of fish and muttering to their buddies, "That's why we don't catch any fish". Like mentioned above, once the limits are dropped, they aren't ever going back up....


----------



## saltwatersensations (Aug 30, 2004)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> What do you mean "already down to two"? That isn't enough? People act like they feed their families with the fish they catch and releasing a few more fish means they will starve...cmon!
> I love to gig but it does not bother me to do something else for four weeks out of the year. There are also redfish, trout and the ever popular gafftop and ribbonfish people can feed their starving kids.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


Maybe some people do....all personal opinion..maybe some only get a few times a year to fish. :headknock


----------



## dinodude (Mar 17, 2013)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> How many fish have you caught this year?
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


10 croaker 
7 of them were bull croaker


----------



## nightgigger (Oct 13, 2008)

*Additional Flounder Regs unnecessary*

The Article said the Flounder populations were coming back with the existing 
regulations. I attended both of the scoping meetings held in Dickinson
before the last change. Change was needed.
The Recommendation sent to the board then was, "No flounder 
in November". The board gave back the 2 per person hook and line.
The original projections for a November closure, was a 55% increase
in harvest numbers after 6 years. 


> Flounder relative abundance in Texas waters has increased 80-100 percent since the regulation changes took effect,


Here we are 4 years into the 6 year test, and we are ahead of the curve.
At this point, I think any additional flounder regulations will be an unnecessary burden on both the fishermen, and the bait camps.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

saltwatersensations said:


> Maybe some people do....all personal opinion..maybe some only get a few times a year to fish. :headknock


It is a discussion, don't get offended but I guess I don't see it...whoever they are should save the gas money and grab some Tilapia from HEB, it's cheaper.

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


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

Trout,redfish, flounder , oysters, crabs , shrimp etc..... Let man keep polluting the bays and our estuaries and you won't have to worry about limits on any of the above.
The hook and line is not the problem


----------



## dinodude (Mar 17, 2013)

nightgigger said:


> The Article said the Flounder populations were coming back with the existing
> regulations. I attended both of the scoping meetings held in Dickinson
> before the last change. Change was needed.
> The Recommendation sent to the board then was, "No flounder
> ...


Now that you mention then maybe flounder regulations are ok
I think what's needed the most is strong enforcement on regulations.


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

boltmaster said:


> I have long favored a reduced limit.....and have practiced that voluntarily for years. I think if a five trout or whatever is set as a state law the great majority of us will honor that limit. We do it now with a ten fish limit. The ones intent on trying to " dodge the game warden" and keep more than a limit will do it regardless. There is a lot of territory for a relatively few TPW officials to police. It's really up to us to police ourselves ......my .02


 Call the number, 1-800-892-GAME.

As far as limits, it matters little to me. I'd rather have a slot, 14"- 20". 2 > 25" & keep 10 if you want...


----------



## Texxan1 (Dec 31, 2004)

I am all for a 5-5-5 Limit statewide!!!!!!!!!!

The flounder levels are DEFINITELY coming back, but we must have ENFORCEMENT. We have some good current laws on the books, but being on the water half the days of the month I see alot of game violations from small to very large violations

I have operation game thief on speed dial and i am not afraid to use it, but never once have I called and the game warden shown up. They are understaffed and doing the best that they can...

As for reds, they are everywhere and most people go out and dont even catch a redfish, so im all for increasing the limit on reds. I bet it will stay at 3 forever though.. No worries either way.


It will be interesting to see what they come up with, but I bet we get a 5 trout limit atleast all the way to the Brazos.. Not sure if they will go statewide, since I dont think galveston has that much of a population issue. We do however, have an average size decrease from what I have seen in the last few years.


Capt Thomas


----------



## Fishtrap2 (Sep 16, 2005)

*New Regulations*

All for the new regulations.

Quality over quantity.


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

*Yep*



Momma's Worry said:


> worn out subject.......hook and gig is not the problem


Exactly


----------



## J_Philla (Oct 22, 2009)

yall better hope that the state does a better job than the feds have done with fisheries management. if you look at current federal offshore bag and season limits, for the most part they never give back what they take from us.


----------



## Dad+2kids (Jul 31, 2011)

I enjoy catch and release. When the kids are with me we sometimes keep a couple for dinner to teach them the value of providing food for your self and the family and not being wasteful. When I'm alone and I know we have fillets in the freezer I just release them all. I just enjoy being out there.


----------



## Stumpgrinder (Feb 18, 2006)

Two thoughts on the thread 
1. 5 per day is plenty 
2. I dont care "what the guides will think"


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

Texxan nails a problem on the head with "reds are everywhere" Those fish play havoc in the places where juvenile fish live. They don't discriminate at feeding time!


----------



## Kevin70 (May 24, 2010)

POCLANCE said:


> I understand the reason for the limit change. But what about the folks that fish everyday, or several times a week, virsus those that fish only a couple of times a month? Why don't we make it like deer hunting or oversize red tags. You get tags and are only allowed to catch only so many per year. IMHO it would be easier to inforce than deer hunting. With fishing, most everyone has to return to a dock/ramp. Deer hunters return to their home.


I agree with your solution, but most on this board will not. Alot of those saying they want to decrease the limits likely get to fish every week or more. Their freezer/refrigerator is always full. If a person only gets to go out a few times a year, I see no problem with them keeping 10 trout.


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

capt. david said:


> Texxan nails a problem on the head with "reds are everywhere" Those fish play havoc in the places where juvenile fish live. They don't discriminate at feeding time!


5, 5, 5 statewide. Works for me... maybe drop redfish back to 18".

Prevalence of reds and a good trout fishery today speak pretty well for overall management of inshore fisheries going back several years...

Changing pops.and resources, weather-related and freshwater issues, etc. might require revisits from time to time...


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

I could be wrong but I can't imagine enough funding for proper enforcement ever existing...

So, as a number of people have suggested, enforcement through harsh fines, stiff penalties or even jail time may need another look. 

If it works as a deterrent... I'm for it!


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

5-5-5


----------



## capt.dave (Jan 3, 2007)

I'm fine with a 5 trout limit. That's plenty of fish to eat. Not to mention, other species such as whiting, croaker, red and black drum, etc, all eat good and could be targeted in addition if fish meat is your main goal. 

From what I've seen, the majority of the people opposed to this only fish the coast a couple times per year and want to maximize their efforts when afforded the opportunity to do so. I can see that side of the argument, but it is what it is. I only bass fish a couple times per year and the limit is not 10.

I'd also be curious to know how often people keep a limit and some of the fish ends up getting thrown out due to freezer burn, etc.


----------



## bowmansdad (Nov 29, 2011)

I wouldn't have a problem with a 5 trout, 2flounder and 3 red limits. That is a bunch of fillets if you are successful. Catch and release is a lot of fun!


----------



## RedfishStalker (Jul 27, 2012)

5-5-3 and if I want a meat haul I can drive to Louisiana its not that far


----------



## BigBay420 (Jun 20, 2005)

5 is fine with me. I would be lucky catching one.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> What do you mean "already down to two"? That isn't enough? People act like they feed their families with the fish they catch and releasing a few more fish means they will starve...cmon!
> I love to gig but it does not bother me to do something else for four weeks out of the year. There are also redfish, trout and the ever popular gafftop and ribbonfish people can feed their starving kids.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


Do you hunt with a paintball gun? I fish for sport but also enjoy eating what I catch. I support conservation not foolishness.


----------



## sun burn (Jun 12, 2008)

Stumpgrinder said:


> Two thoughts on the thread
> 1. 5 per day is plenty
> 2. I dont care "what the guides will think"


I do, they are the ones giving weekly if not daily reports!!


----------



## BigBay420 (Jun 20, 2005)

sun burn said:


> I do, they are the ones giving weekly if not daily reports!!


I stopped reading fishing reports years ago.


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

If science proves we need to reduce the limits I will support a reduction

The flounder data showed it and it's being fixed

But the trout data does not justify a reduction .... Just becuse your not catching them is not the only reason to reduce the limits

Tx has some of the best data for our resource... If we use it it's hard to argue 

I spoke against the reduction of trout limits and I will do it again with TPWDs own data


----------



## sun burn (Jun 12, 2008)

BigBay420 said:


> I stopped reading fishing reports years ago.


I'm talking about your personal buddy guides!! Not 2cool!! I have a few buddy's they give me a call at least once a week!! It helps when trying to decide weather to fish or not!!


----------



## Makaira_Nigricans (Apr 30, 2013)

*Its all about C&R*

90% of the fishing I do is C&R. I keep fish every once in a while to have a fish fry with friends. I just enjoy the thrill of the hunt and excitement of the fight. I am all for smaller limits. The fishing isn't even close to what it used to be. If you don't eat it Catch and Release it!


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Redfish*



capt. david said:


> Texxan nails a problem on the head with "reds are everywhere" Those fish play havoc in the places where juvenile fish live. They don't discriminate at feeding time!


You are best leaving things the way they are. If need be implement zone restrictions but don't shoot for lower limits coast wide. What people fail to realize is there are already regs in place and the regs state that you are legally within your right to keep 10 trout. No where does it say you must keep 10 trout, 5 flounder or 3 reds. If you choose to keep 10,5, or none thats your right. For some strange reason people tend to think guides catch limits everyday. As mentioned before hooks and gigs are not the problem, guides are not the problem, to be honest I'm not sure there is a problem!

If you are not familar with a purse seine here is a picture of one. They are redfish killing machines and the commercial groups that use these are lobbying to open the Gulf back up to purse seining and they have lots of money. The scary thing is that the Federal idiots that control the Gulf waters are actually considering it.

Be careful what you wish for!

Gater


----------



## Hot Diggy (Jan 27, 2013)

I only speak for me, If you or not feeding a family of 10 and just average house whole of 4, then 5 fish of each is plenty.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

I can assure everyone on these boards that there are other interests at work here behind the scenes. If you look at the history of limits in Texas you can see that in the last 40 years we went from zero limits with an exploiting commercial fishery to very restrictive limits and no commercial fishery. If this trend continues we will be at zero-zero-zero within a few years. 

I remember very well a bitter freezing December day in 1983 on the lower coast where I personally saw millions upon millions of dead redfish at a time where there were not supposed to be that many redfish left in our bays. The gulf snapper fishery serves as perfect example of "regulation gone wild". The gun control lobby comes to mind as does the global warming lobby.

The fact that so many with interests on the water are willing to give this up with the necessary science to back it up scares me. 

One mans opinion...


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

X2 Be careful what you all wish for!


----------



## Bull Red (Mar 17, 2010)

Can someone tell me what good it does to decrease Texas limits when only a few miles away in Louisiana you can keep 5 reds (16" min), 10 flounder (no min) & 25 trout (12" min)? Call me crazy, but I don't see the benefit in that.


----------



## dinodude (Mar 17, 2013)

Bull Red said:


> Can someone tell me what good it does to decrease Texas limits when only a few miles away in Louisiana you can keep 5 reds (16" min), 10 flounder (no min) & 25 trout (12" min)? Call me crazy, but I don't see the benefit in that.


That's so true!
Even if regulations are tighter people will find ways to the cheat the system!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

glennkoks said:


> Do you hunt with a paintball gun? I fish for sport but also enjoy eating what I catch. I support conservation not foolishness.


Don't sensationalize my response. Did you read anywhere in my post anything about releasing ALL of the fish I catch? I eat fish but don't horde fish when I already have some in the freezer. I understand some people live up in the hill country and only get to fish a fraction of the times others do but that is no reason to change limits. I was not referring to redfish either, specks and flounder were the species I was referring to. Trout in particular. If it will help numbers and quality of fish I am all for it. Who wants to catch dink trout all day because all the big girls have been eaten, mounted or both. If any of you think flounder numbers are anywhere near what they were in the 80's and before, you are trippin. 
And yes, I hunt with a paintball gun, all the bucks running around on my land have splatter marks on their necks.

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


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

dinodude said:


> That's so true!
> Even if regulations are tighter people will find ways to the cheat the system!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So tell me how it's "cheating the system" to legally purchase a Louisiana fishing license and drive the extra hour to Hackberry?

What Texas will REALLY do, is lose revenue to Louisiana.

As far as the proposed catch limits...many of us, and I'd venture a guess that its 90% of fishermen, fish only on weekends. Most of us only get to fish once or twice a month. Given those stats, and the fact that I limit out "occasionally", I don't have an overflowing freezer full of fish. I'd venture a guess that many are like me.

It's going to be pretty ridiculous when they regulate us to the point that the only fish you'll see live is when you visit the downtown Aquarium!


----------



## Texxan1 (Dec 31, 2004)

You mean you guys actually eat fish!!!!!!!!!!!! YUCK lol


----------



## boltmaster (Aug 16, 2011)

Texxan1 said:


> You mean you guys actually eat fish!!!!!!!!!!!! YUCK lol


If you cooked fish the way I and my lovely wife do.......you would release em all too:cheers:


----------



## Sportsman3535 (Jun 24, 2010)

chugger said:


> If you wish to listen - Here is the archived audio of the TPWD Commission Nov. 6th Work Session from which the information reported in the original post's , Houston Chronicle, Nov.17 article was gathered.
> 
> http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publica...ion_20131106/20131106_com_00_work_session.mp3
> 
> ...


Who is the D-bag on the audio that basically forced the flounder reduction back into the picture? The guy presenting the material basically said the flounder are doing great, and are on track for rebound the way it is!

I am totally in favor of what helps the species, and 5 flounder is PLENTY. But no gigging in December....give me a break.... I swear those people in Austin HATE anyone that gigs flounder


----------



## Hot Diggy (Jan 27, 2013)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Don't sensationalize my response. Did you read anywhere in my post anything about releasing ALL of the fish I catch? I eat fish but don't horde fish when I already have some in the freezer. I understand some people live up in the hill country and only get to fish a fraction of the times others do but that is no reason to change limits. I was not referring to redfish either, specks and flounder were the species I was referring to. Trout in particular. If it will help numbers and quality of fish I am all for it. Who wants to catch dink trout all day because all the big girls have been eaten, mounted or both. If any of you think flounder numbers are anywhere near what they were in the 80's and before, you are trippin.
> And yes, I hunt with a paintball gun, all the bucks running around on my land have splatter marks
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


LOL Smack you tha Man


----------



## Stumpgrinder (Feb 18, 2006)

I hear the voices saying "be careful what you wish for" and I get that . If they lower the limit it will never go up again . Never.

Having said that , usually when we go fish there are what 3-4 people in the boat ? 15 - 20 fish for the table is enough. It just is.

For those that would quit fishing because 5 "isnt worth it" I say , good, please do quit . There will be more room on the shoreline in your abscense.


----------



## shalor57 (Feb 24, 2005)

I am in favor of the 5 trout limit in the ulm and Baffin, despite what some will tell you the fishery is not near what it has been...plus with limit 5 in LLM and fish that migrate back and forth through the Landcut, it would make since.


----------



## Lone-Star (Dec 19, 2009)

photofishin said:


> So tell me how it's "cheating the system" to legally purchase a Louisiana fishing license and drive the extra hour to Hackberry?
> 
> What Texas will REALLY do, is lose revenue to Louisiana.
> 
> ...


If all they care about is meat hauling and would leave the state because they can only keep five trout a day, good riddance.

To think that the amount of fishing pressure could increase exponentially as it has with no change in the limits and there be no adverse affect on the quality of the fishery is absurd.

Are you arguing that a 5 trout limit would not improve the quality of the fishery? They've proven it has in the LLM already. I'm willing to trade a reduced bag for improved quality. If you only fish 1 or twice a month what do you care anyways.


----------



## Dick Hanks (Aug 16, 2007)

photofishin said:


> So tell me how it's "cheating the system" to legally purchase a Louisiana fishing license and drive the extra hour to Hackberry?
> 
> What Texas will REALLY do, is lose revenue to Louisiana.
> 
> ...


I agree, that at some point, Texas will start losing some license revenue to Louisiana. But it will be mostly meat harvesters that make the switch. That could actually benefit Texas.

Louisiana has more tidal marshland than all of the rest of the gulf states combined. This is ideal spawning ground. Texas will never be able to produce the # of fish that Louisiana can. Texas also has more people fishing for the smaller number of fish being produced.

Yes, at some point the meat haulers will have to shift to Louisiana. Texas won't miss them though. With a smaller harvest, the quality of fishing will go up and more people that are into sport fishing will be attracted to buying Texas licenses. These people also spend more money per fishing trip as well. Also good for Texas. Proven in the States and Provinces that have made the switch. Barbless hooks are also mandatory in some of the Canadian Provinces to protect the fish that have to be released.

This concept has already proven to be a very effective revenue enhancer and very positive for many States and Canadian Provinces. Texas is starting to understand on that those fish are more valuable in the water than in a belly. Resource management is getting more sophisticated.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Don't sensationalize my response. Did you read anywhere in my post anything about releasing ALL of the fish I catch? I eat fish but don't horde fish when I already have some in the freezer. I understand some people live up in the hill country and only get to fish a fraction of the times others do but that is no reason to change limits. I was not referring to redfish either, specks and flounder were the species I was referring to. Trout in particular. If it will help numbers and quality of fish I am all for it. Who wants to catch dink trout all day because all the big girls have been eaten, mounted or both. If any of you think flounder numbers are anywhere near what they were in the 80's and before, you are trippin.
> And yes, I hunt with a paintball gun, all the bucks running around on my land have splatter marks on their necks.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


I did not "sensationalize" your response. I dismissed it as lacking in fact. If you do not choose to keep your catch feel free to "catch and release". I wish to keep mine.


----------



## Ratred20 (Apr 11, 2007)

Let the studies speak for themselves. The redfish population rebounded yet the regulations remain the same. They are stating the flounder population is getting better. The surveys last year indicated the trout population is as healthy as its ever been. 

Opinion: we(I) caught less trout this year than ever before. Well for one I do believe the drought had changed the typical pattern and 2, I never found a weekend I could get into the surf. I didn't locate the fish i was looking for in the normal places. But I did see nicer catches at the cleaning tables taken by other fisherman so I think the population is in decline? The answer is no! I just was hard headed and refused to adjust and look elsewhere. 

I'm not for a change but just because I fish more often than a lot of people and don't feel a need to fill my freezer every trip. If the scientific data supports it then I'm in. If this is a push from special interest groups then to He77 with them. 

Make 5 a personal decision! Not a law based on a lack of scientific data.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

For all the folks using "quality" in your argument: you're basing your argument for reduced limits on your own personal goals of trophy satisfaction (quality over quantity)and not considering others ideas of satisfaction(quantity over quality, a long fast paced day of catching and or hook setting) or even the science involved in the basis for consideration.
Elitist? Yep, in my opinion.
BTW, I don't keep trout. Just an occasional red and flounder for my mother. So keep that BS argument to yourselves.


Â©


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

glennkoks said:


> I did not "sensationalize" your response. I dismissed it as lacking in fact. If you do not choose to keep your catch feel free to "catch and release". I wish to keep mine.


There was ample fact contained in that post. Im done arguing, I can go back and forth with you for the duration of the thread but I will not.
Lets all go fishing when we can and enjoy it while we can.

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


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> What do you mean "already down to two"? That isn't enough? People act like they feed their families with the fish they catch and releasing a few more fish means they will starve...cmon!
> I love to gig but it does not bother me to do something else for four weeks out of the year. There are also redfish, trout and the ever popular gafftop and ribbonfish people can feed their starving kids.


It's the meat haul mentality Smack...if the cooler isn't full then they didn't have a good day.

For those of you spouting that once they lower limits they won't raise them again, remember that the state offered to raise the limit on redfish from 3 to 5 not too long ago and we the people said no, we're okay with 3 per day.

I'm all for them lowering the limits on trout but I think flounder are shown to be on the road to recovery at the limits imposed right now.

TH


----------



## Lone-Star (Dec 19, 2009)

Ratred20 said:


> Let the studies speak for themselves. The redfish population rebounded yet the regulations remain the same.


So what, they should increase the limits so the population goes down?

We should wait until fisheries are depleted before conserving?

Why not be proactive and prevent a decline rather than reacting to one?

Rather than being the "Plugger" generation that raped the resources why not be the one that rebuilt it?


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Trouthunter said:


> It's the meat haul mentality Smack...if the cooler isn't full then they didn't have a good day.
> 
> For those of you spouting that once they lower limits they won't raise them again, remember that the state offered to raise the limit on redfish from 3 to 5 not too long ago and we the people said no, we're okay with 3 per day.
> 
> ...


I don't remember that TH? I do, however, remember people(quite a few) bringing this up during the last trout limits scoping session, and it being dismissed. And rightfully so, as it had no direct correlation with the intent of that specific meeting.
I would think if they brought this up in its own "scoping meetings" it would in fact garner more support. 
Maybe I'm just not that in touch.

Â©


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Lone-Star said:


> So what, they should increase the limits so the population goes down?
> 
> We should wait until fisheries are depleted before conserving?
> 
> ...


No. Increase the limit when they think the population can sustain it.
Again, no. Be proactive just as you said and they have. For years! Texas has taken a good stance in conservation in my lifetime. They've brought redfish, flounder, and deer back from troubling numbers to flourishing numbers. Why doubt them now? They do yearly stock assessments along the coast and break it down for us. It doesn't make sense to me to lower it statewide when the upper coast isn't hurting. Why does it to you?
And as far as the last quote, I'm not sure if that's a factual statement, so, I won't respond to it.

Â©


----------



## Lone-Star (Dec 19, 2009)

spurgersalty said:


> And as far as the last quote, I'm not sure if that's a factual statement, so, I won't respond to it.
> 
> Â©


My great grandfather and grandfather were right in the thick of it and they admitted the rampant abuse of the natural resource that went on those days in retrospect.

Yeah it was a real hoot to feed 5 or 10 tarpon to the hammerheads off the Flagship but doesn't seem so funny now.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Lone-Star said:


> My great grandfather and grandfather were right in the thick of it and they admitted the rampant abuse of the natural resource that went on those days in retrospect.
> 
> Yeah it was a real hoot to feed 5 or 10 tarpon to the hammerheads off the Flagship but doesn't seem so funny now.


All I was saying was, I've never read the book, or, talked at length with someone from "the old days".
If you would like to debate current conditions, I'm all ears. If not, and you choose to play to the uneducated masses with sensationalized stories of yore, I'll disregard.
You had good questions and points in your original post I quoted, all this one did was to over emote a time long gone.

Â©


----------



## speckcaster (May 5, 2012)

*humor......*



Smackdaddy53 said:


> What do you mean "already down to two"? That isn't enough? People act like they feed their families with the fish they catch and releasing a few more fish means they will starve...cmon!
> I love to gig but it does not bother me to do something else for four weeks out of the year. There are also redfish, trout and the ever popular gafftop and ribbonfish people can feed their starving kids.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


What's for dinner? Gafftop & Ribbonfish ...... the kids are sprinting to the table! ....... LOL:rotfl:


----------



## Clint Sholmire (Nov 9, 2005)

*limits*



sun burn said:


> How do the guides feel about this? Think about It, how many people will want to spend large amounts of money just to go catch a few fish??


 If TP&WL says it needs to be done then I'm all for it. You guys have to realize that we are not just " GUIDES" we are also fisherman and I would do what ever it takes to keep our resource healthy even if it meant not guiding. I can find other ways to make money if I have to.


----------



## Ratred20 (Apr 11, 2007)

Lone-Star said:


> So what, they should increase the limits so the population goes down?
> 
> We should wait until fisheries are depleted before conserving?
> 
> ...


First of all you only quoted part of my statement.

I didn't mention raising the limits but leave them alone unless scientific data shows otherwise.

I like many others already practice conservation. I don't need a full limit or need to fill my freezer in order to have fun doing what I enjoy most in the outdoors. As a matter of fact I can go to the deer lease without taking a gun and be just fine.

I am proactive. I get too darned tired to stay on the water all day looking to fill my limit, lol!

I've read the book Plugger. It was the commercial netters that wiped out the Redfish, remember the Blackened Redfish Craze - That's right, commercial greed almost wiped out the Redfish but now they are back in large numbers and I have witnessed large schools feeding heavily in Mataorda Bay and though I don't know exactly what they were eating they were on the Humps where juvenile trout are all the time in large numbers.

All in all this is an argument that could go on for weeks, months and years. I'm glad that TPWD conducts their polling of the public regarding these issues. But in the end it was TPWD's opinion that no changes were needed.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Ratred20 said:


> First of all you only quoted part of my statement.
> 
> I didn't mention raising the limits but leave them alone unless scientific data shows otherwise.
> 
> ...


I have a hard time buying the idea that the redfish were ever "wiped out". I bought into that until I saw millions upon millions of them dead in the killer freeze of 1983. Then twice again in 1989.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

TP&W is a governmental agency. It may not be a "federal" entity but I harbor a healthy amount of skepticism of what any bureaucracy says. Keep in mind the same types brought you global warming, gun control and snapper regulations. 

I certainly would not give up our rights to a resource without an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. I just don't see that in this case.


----------



## Ratred20 (Apr 11, 2007)

glennkoks said:


> I certainly would not give up our rights to a resource without an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. I just don't see that in this case.


X2 - I only borrowed part of your quote.:biggrin:


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

I can understand upper coast angler sentiment against changing the spotted seatrout limit from 10 to 5...and mind you TPWD is not looking to make a change to upper coast trout regs. 

What I would like to know is how many on this thread who oppose the idea for the middle coast actually live on the middle coast and fish it regularly. -EJ


----------



## RedXCross (Aug 7, 2005)

Very Well said.



[email protected] said:


> I can understand upper coast angler sentiment against changing the spotted seatrout limit from 10 to 5...and mind you TPWD is not looking to make a change to upper coast trout regs.
> 
> What I would like to know is how many on this thread who oppose the idea for the middle coast actually live on the middle coast and fish it regularly. -EJ


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

I'm all for reducing the trout limit to 5.
It seems to have helped the trout fishery in the LLM.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I can understand upper coast angler sentiment against changing the spotted seatrout limit from 10 to 5...and mind you TPWD is not looking to make a change to upper coast trout regs.
> 
> What I would like to know is how many on this thread who oppose the idea for the middle coast actually live on the middle coast and fish it regularly. -EJ


First off they want to include the ULM as well and originally they considered doing it for the entire coast to make enforcement easier. They changed their mind because it would take too much manpower to scope. You should listen to the audio of the meeting and everyone who wants to comment should as well. The bottom line is there is zero science (and it is admitted) that trout populations have really changed much over the last 20 years save and except for cyclical periods.

What I find interesting is recall with the middle coast last time they predicted things would get better due to seine studies that showed a jump in juvenile fish. Guess what? It happened and those fish are now online in bays like San Antonio, Aransas and matagorda. Bottom line as predicted the last time this issue came up the suspect bays have improved.

I fish ULM and we don't need the restrictions and it is just one group of fishermen imposing their preference for slightly bigger fish on guys who enjoy keeping 10. I will be the first to vote yes if the science says the 10 limits are doing damage to the fishery such that future generations will have fewer fish. The truth is they do NOT have that science or data and once again are pandering to a influential segment of fishermenâ€¦.too bad this same influential group struggle to catch 10 or we probably wouldn't have this debate.


----------



## tngbmt (May 30, 2004)

spurgersalty said:


> *For all the folks using "quality" in your argument: you're basing your argument for reduced limits on your own personal goals of trophy satisfaction *(quality over quantity)and not considering others ideas of satisfaction(quantity over quality, a long fast paced day of catching and or hook setting) or even the science involved in the basis for consideration.
> *Elitist? Yep, in my opinion.*
> BTW, I don't keep trout. Just an occasional red and flounder for my mother. So keep that BS argument to yourselves.
> 
> Â©


nailed it ..


----------



## Ratred20 (Apr 11, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> I can understand upper coast angler sentiment against changing the spotted seatrout limit from 10 to 5...and mind you TPWD is not looking to make a change to upper coast trout regs.
> 
> What I would like to know is how many on this thread who oppose the idea for the middle coast actually live on the middle coast and fish it regularly. -EJ


For the record I live in Katy. I grew up near Matagorda and fished Matagorda and POC regularly. I still do and between the two I probably fish at least 50 to 60 days a year with friends, family and clients so hopefully I qualify.

EJ, I have fished Matagorda & Espiritu Santos for almost 40 years. The fishing has been as good if not better than it ever was. We don't always catch large quantities of trout. Sometimes we do but there are few times I'm at The Harbor or Froggie's dock that I see fisherman standing around with their heads hung low. Overall catches look pretty good.

Both Matagorda and POC have issues though. Way too many tournaments that promote the killing of Big Trout. That little fact is always overlooked. Is that because these tournaments attract a lot of money that floods an otherwise failing economy.

As far as the limits go, if the surveys show the population in decline then I am in support of a change. Personally I would like to see the size limit drop on the lower end. There are a lot of trout 15" and smaller thrown back to die from improper handling and deep hooksets. Less fish thrown back only to die will fill a stringer faster and send a fisherman back to the dock earlier. Less trout killed for that day.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Lone-Star said:


> If all they care about is meat hauling and would leave the state because they can only keep five trout a day, good riddance.
> 
> To think that the amount of fishing pressure could increase exponentially as it has with no change in the limits and there be no adverse affect on the quality of the fishery is absurd.
> 
> Are you arguing that a 5 trout limit would not improve the quality of the fishery? They've proven it has in the LLM already. I'm willing to trade a reduced bag for improved quality. If you only fish 1 or twice a month what do you care anyways.


Sorry but when anyone who has a boat and a little knowledge can drive to Hackberry and have a blast catching 100 plus fish a day and have a large percentage of the bay to himself, I see very little reason to fish a local fishery when you're elbow to elbow with every yahoo with a boat.

By the way, trout tastes good. Bass and marlin, while edible, aren't high on my list of eating fish. The Texas current limits seem to keep a healthy population of fish already. If you're concerned, do catch and release and suggest others do the same. I fish to have fun and put some good eats in the freezer. I only keep enough for me and my immediate family. I do so legally and don't see a reason why anyone should disparage anyone else who does the same.


----------



## Ratred20 (Apr 11, 2007)

RedXCross said:


> Very Well said.


Yes, An eloquent question that added very little.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> I don't remember that TH? I do, however, remember people(quite a few) bringing this up during the last trout limits scoping session, and it being dismissed. And rightfully so, as it had no direct correlation with the intent of that specific meeting.
> I would think if they brought this up in its own "scoping meetings" it would in fact garner more support.
> Maybe I'm just not that in touch.


"With the passage of HB 1000 in 1981 â€" along with progressively tightened recreational fishing regulations, the creation and designated funding of saltwater fishing stamps and, perhaps most notably, the construction of a world-class saltwater hatchery complex â€" Texas anglers, working in tandem with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, paved the path for a dramatic recovery. Today, redfish populations are both healthy and stable. *Despite being offered the opportunity to liberalize redfish size and bag limits on three different occasions in years past, the stateâ€™s coastal fishermen have ardently refused the option.*"

http://www.tpwmagazine.com/archive/2011/jun/ed_1/

TH


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

You guys really really need to listen to the audio. If you just listen to the science and ignore the "I fished with some friends" anecdotal stuff you will find that our specked trout fisheries are doing as good as they ever have and that includes the bays that were allegedly in trouble last time they did scoping. 

Now here is what blows me away. With respect to Mansfield/LLM while "fishermen dependent" studies show increases in catch rates as well as size (some of which is attributed to culling) the science, meaning seine and gill net studies show NO INCREASE in trout populations. 

This is politics and when you get to the end he mentions who they need to consultâ€¦and there are two Cs in the acronym.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Trouthunter said:


> "With the passage of HB 1000 in 1981 â€" along with progressively tightened recreational fishing regulations, the creation and designated funding of saltwater fishing stamps and, perhaps most notably, the construction of a world-class saltwater hatchery complex â€" Texas anglers, working in tandem with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, paved the path for a dramatic recovery. Today, redfish populations are both healthy and stable. *Despite being offered the opportunity to liberalize redfish size and bag limits on three different occasions in years past, the stateâ€™s coastal fishermen have ardently refused the option.*"
> 
> http://www.tpwmagazine.com/archive/2011/jun/ed_1/
> 
> TH


Its not that I didn't believe you, I just never heard of scoping meetings regarding the issue. I'll find time to research it and read the entire article later. Thanks for the link.

Â©


----------



## Stumpgrinder (Feb 18, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> I can understand upper coast angler sentiment against changing the spotted seatrout limit from 10 to 5...and mind you TPWD is not looking to make a change to upper coast trout regs.
> 
> What I would like to know is how many on this thread who oppose the idea for the middle coast actually live on the middle coast and fish it regularly. -EJ


EJ, I don't get down much anymore but I support a limit of 5 everywhere.

( I don't know how it is exactly but I know for a certain fact that its harder to catch trout for you guys than it was 20 years ago. Lots harder)


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

Definition of "scoping" from the TPWD website ---

*Scoping*

_"Scoping is the process of gathering preliminary information for the formal rulemaking process. "_

One must ask - what is the point of the scoping process if indeed the science (information) dictates a change is necessary to preserve / protect the fishery ? ----

Is it to gather ideas from the public that TPWD staff may not have thought of? 
Is it to sell an idea that TPWD has already concluded is necessary ? 
Is it to put a wet finger in the air to test the political winds ?
Is it to give the appearance of involving the public ?


----------



## RedXCross (Aug 7, 2005)

SWEET, He asked and you wrote a Memo, thanks for your input, Next! I have been to every scoping meeting here in my area of Sabine, I get it, most people do not like change others do, to get everyone to agree is a lesson in futility. Best Regards!



Ratred20 said:


> Yes, An eloquent question that added very little.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

This is from Matagorda Bay but I really don't see any need for any changes at this time. At least the data does not support it. Spotted seatrout is in yellow.


----------



## shalor57 (Feb 24, 2005)

They have not made the 2013 numbers public to my knowledge. I think they will release the 2012 and 2013 trout numbers at the meetings. I predict the numbers in the ULM/Baffin are going to look less than stellar, then we will see how people react to dropping the trout limit to 5. I think this change could make a big difference in the health of the fishery. I know some will say we still catch them there(and I do too), but for our kids sake I hope this passes this time. I want my 2 yr old twin boys to be able to experience what I did down there 5-10 years ago.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

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


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Bocephus said:


> Most people couldn't catch 10 trout in a day if you put a gun to their head.


Especially when you aren't after 10 trout unless it's 10 trophies you plan to CPR.

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


----------



## Lexy1 (Jul 12, 2012)

I'm good with the lower limit but I'm even better if they can enforce the law.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

shalor57 said:


> They have not made the 2013 numbers public to my knowledge. I think they will release the 2012 and 2013 trout numbers at the meetings. I predict the numbers in the ULM/Baffin are going to look less than stellar, then we will see how people react to dropping the trout limit to 5. I think this change could make a big difference in the health of the fishery. I know some will say we still catch them there(and I do too), but for our kids sake I hope this passes this time. I want my 2 yr old twin boys to be able to experience what I did down there 5-10 years ago.


I wouldn't make that betâ€¦.Baffin was off the charts in 2011 and just because BT slowed the catching that doesn't mean they were not there.


----------



## dinodude (Mar 17, 2013)

Bocephus said:


> Most people couldn't catch 10 trout in a day if you put a gun to their head.


You got that right 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> I really don't see any need for any changes at this time


How long have you been a fishery biologist? Do you work for TP&W?

Same question for you trouthammer...

If not let's let the department who runs the show decide. They've done a pretty good job so far.

TH


----------



## DCAVA (Aug 5, 2013)

The bag limit restrictions on the LLM have shown good results, most of the trout we have caught are pigs....20" +

If the laws change it is what it is....

Better fish for the future. IMHO


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

photofishin said:


> Sorry but when anyone who has a boat and a little knowledge can drive to Hackberry and have a blast catching 100 plus fish a day and have a large percentage of the bay to himself, I see very little reason to fish a local fishery when you're elbow to elbow with every yahoo with a boat. .


Yep- load up with some croaker and a yeti and you won't even have to bring the boat. Just drive by the shore line real slow and watch them jump outta the water.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Trouthunter said:


> How long have you been a fishery biologist? Do you work for TP&W?
> 
> Same question for you trouthammer...
> 
> ...


I agree completely. Take the redfish, white tail deer, and now flounder as examples. All three populations were hurting sometime in the past 35 years or so and are now recovered or well on their way to recovery 
Regardless of my opinion, I'll trust the experts. And I'm actually curious as to why they do the scoping meetings??? If the data says cut the limits or not to help a population in trouble, why not just do it? Asking the general public just brings OPINIONS to the table, not necessarily facts. Or, am I missing something?

Â©


----------



## let's talk fishin (Jan 4, 2008)

essayons75 said:


> They need to spend more time enforcing laws than making laws.


^^^^^^


----------



## hard over and hooked up (Jul 11, 2011)

*You have got to be kidding me!*

Do y'all honestly think that the people that are fishing with a rod and reel are doing more damage then the people that are dragging nets with up to 70% by catch. Nets kill more fish in one drag than most guides kill in a year. Y'all that want more rules and regulations for the life time fisherman are crazy. Limit the shrimp boat.


----------



## whistlingdixie (Jul 28, 2008)

I still probably will not keep a limit. I enjoy catching them more then keeping them even though I do like trout thrown in the fryer every once I awhile.


----------



## dinodude (Mar 17, 2013)

spurgersalty said:


> I agree completely. Take the redfish, white tail deer, and now flounder as examples. All three populations were hurting sometime in the past 35 years or so and are now recovered or well on their way to recovery
> Regardless of my opinion, I'll trust the experts. And I'm actually curious as to why they do the scoping meetings??? If the data says cut the limits or not to help a population in trouble, why not just do it? Asking the general public just brings OPINIONS to the table, not necessarily facts. Or, am I missing something?
> 
> Â©


I agree!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## redseeker1 (Nov 4, 2011)

Not big into this type of debate subject, but as I understand it, the change would only regulate how many you can KEEP, correct? Then quit complaining, get out there and have fun, learn something, make memories, and keep CATCHING if that is what is about for you.

If you are big into KEEPING a "limit", keep the 5 fish limit and keep fishing while releasing everything afterwards. Do you really need to cull a 22" fish for a 24"'er? 

If your argument is, I will never be able to pay for my boat by only catching my limit of 10 fish to pay for my investment, you have issues and are fighting a losing battle with a boat payment.

If it is about numbers to brag, you will never win the nonexistent contest by boasting a pic of a stringer on the internet and become a know bada$$ for catching fish. Congratulation, but the 2Cool board will forget about you when the next report pops up. Good luck on your journey becoming the next Griggar while you freezer burn half your fillets.

If angler satisfaction is a sampling technique, and it is not being removed from the data collection methods, it still should be considered. Is it biologically accurate on the population density of a fish population? Absolutely not, however, the state works for the people and I believe they will listen, given a good enough argument.

TPWD should do their job and enforce rules instead of constantly change them?? I figure, like most companies today, they are understaffed and underpaying due to constraints or miss-management. Are you able to take on everything you were hired to do, plus the responsibilities of 2 other employees that do not exist? Does the DEA and US border patrol catch all of the drug smugglers or illegals? All we hear about is what they didn't do, versus what they did do.

For those of you who think that the limit will never go back to 10, trust in those we pay to manage the fishery to know when you have the majority of a population in a sample, showing under weight with 5lb heads and 3lb body to do something about it. It may not happen, but they will have no choice but to change so you cannot make the argument it wont.

In regards to proposed changes in the ULM/Baffin area, let the trend continue as it did in the LLM. From what I gathered, it did no harm. I'm all for a change. Larger, healthier, and more fish, should be seen by the balance in the system from the proposed change in one way or another. Changes like this will not happen overnight, just have to wait it out to see the results. It is easier to kill a species than to bring on back. Patience and time will show the results. 

Fire away....


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Trouthunter said:


> How long have you been a fishery biologist? Do you work for TP&W?
> 
> Same question for you trouthammer...
> 
> ...


I am not a climatologist, nor am I an economist or a legal expert on the Constitution. But I do believe that global warming is BS, Obamacare is going to hurt the economy and they are after your guns.

Do you need to be a biologist to read a graph?

Perhaps you can are smart enough to interpret the same data TPWD is using and explain to the rest of us how we are anywhere but "above average" on catch rates?


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Lets face it. This is not about trout populations per bay. It's about Trophy Trout hunters wanting to control a resource.


----------



## Bigwater (May 21, 2004)

Wha happa to the its legal so I'll kill em crowd?

Biggie


----------



## Bigwater (May 21, 2004)

One reason for lack of enforcement is initiative. When the fine money starts going back to TPW you'll see more enforcement. Until then you'll see TPW trucks driving around town when it's not hunting season.

Biggie


----------



## D45 (Nov 22, 2004)

hard over and hooked up said:


> Do y'all honestly think that the people that are fishing with a rod and reel are doing more damage then the people that are dragging nets with up to 70% by catch. Nets kill more fish in one drag than most guides kill in a year. Y'all that want more rules and regulations for the life time fisherman are crazy. Limit the shrimp boat.


 x2


----------



## BullyARed (Jun 19, 2010)

Starting Jan 01, 2014, the daily and possession limit for flounder is 0.5 flounder/day.


----------



## Ratred20 (Apr 11, 2007)

BullyARed said:


> Starting Jan 01, 2014, the daily and possession limit for flounder is 0.5 flounder/day.


Belly side only can be retained


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

glennkoks said:


> Lets face it. This is not about trout populations per bay. It's about Trophy Trout hunters wanting to control a resource.


Oh Lord. You would rather catch ten 14 1/2" trout and go home than put 5 20-24" trout on ice and then catch a few more that actually have a chance at pulling some drag? You better switch to ultralight gear and tighten up that chin strap!

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


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Oh Lord. You would rather catch ten 14 1/2" trout and go home than put 5 20-24" trout on ice and then catch a few more that actually have a chance at pulling some drag? You better switch to ultralight gear and tighten up that chin strap!
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


Smackdaddy,

It is not a quality vs quantity argument for me. I have been around long enough to see how these things go and if we go down to 5 now it will be down to 2 within a few years and then zero.

You will have to pardon my reluctance to give up our rights to a resource without scientific data supporting such a move.

In addition there are many out there who could not catch 5 20-24" inch trout if they were stocked in a bathtub!


----------



## Pasadena1944 (Mar 20, 2010)

the state is going to regulate you people out of fishing in a few years and ya'll don't seem to have a problem with it!!!!! "I'm with government and I'm here to help you!"


----------



## POCLANCE (Apr 5, 2006)

*Still think this is the way to go*



POCLANCE said:


> I understand the reason for the limit change. But what about the folks that fish everyday, or several times a week, virsus those that fish only a couple of times a year? Why don't we make it like deer hunting or oversize red tags. You get tags and are only allowed to catch only so many per year. IMHO it would be easier to inforce than deer hunting. With fishing, most everyone has to return to a dock/ramp. Deer hunters return to their home.


Still think this is the way to go.


----------



## DUTY FIRST (Jun 23, 2012)

glennkoks said:


> Lets face it. This is not about trout populations per bay. It's about Trophy Trout hunters wanting to control a resource.


Yep ! 

I remember a quote from a CCA Corpus Christi Chapter officer at a TPWD scoping meeting in Corpus Christi a few years ago. In response to a humble individual who stated that all he was interested in was being able to catch and keep enough trout for a few meals for his family. said *"This is not a sustenance fishery. If you want fish to eat, get them at HEB."*

I will not name the CCA representative, as in all fairness I cannot be certain he was officially speaking for CCA as a whole, or just the Corpus Chapter. He DID introduce himself as representing CCA Corpus however.

I'm certain some of y'all were there and remember that meeting and know who I am referring to.


----------



## Brian Castille (May 27, 2004)

POCLANCE said:


> Still think this is the way to go.


They'll never go to a tagging system - would be way, way too complicated to enforce. What if you are on a good school of trout? Would you have to fill out a tag for each one as you caught them? Couldn't wait until the end of the trip because the "I was planning on filling out tags" excuse doesn't work, just like on bull reds. If you are caught without a tag on one, you are getting fined no matter if you have a valid tag or not in your wallet.

Just leave it like it is. If you want to keep 10 trout and will not waste them - go for it. If you want to keep 2 for dinner and release the rest - nothing wrong with that either. Law doesn't say you have to keep your limit if you catch it.

There was mention about keeping quality vs quantity - personally, I would rather have 10 16" - 20" in the cooler than 5 20" -24". They are better eating.


----------



## POCLANCE (Apr 5, 2006)

Brian Castille said:


> They'll never go to a tagging system - would be way, way too complicated to enforce. What if you are on a good school of trout? Would you have to fill out a tag for each one as you caught them? Couldn't wait until the end of the trip because the "I was planning on filling out tags" excuse doesn't work, just like on bull reds. If you are caught without a tag on one, you are getting fined no matter if you have a valid tag or not in your wallet.
> 
> Just leave it like it is. If you want to keep 10 trout and will not waste them - go for it. If you want to keep 2 for dinner and release the rest - nothing wrong with that either. Law doesn't say you have to keep your limit if you catch it.
> 
> There was mention about keeping quality vs quantity - personally, I would rather have 10 16" - 20" in the cooler than 5 20" -24". They are better eating.


I'm with you. If they are talking about it, it will most likely happen.

My expirence with goverment is, if they are having meetings, and asking the public their input, it's because they are going to make a change the public will not like. It's so they can respond, " We asked and it's what the public wanted."

However, if they do change the limit, the playing field needs to be level for those who fish everyday and those who fish a few times a year on a yearly bases. I'm refering to total fish kept per year.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

POCLANCE said:


> I'm with you. If they are talking about it, it will most likely happen.
> 
> My expirence with goverment is, if they are having meetings, and asking the public their input, it's because they are going to make a change the public will not like. It's so they can respond, " We asked and it's what the public wanted."
> 
> However, if they do change the limit, the playing field needs to be level for those who fish everyday and those who fish a few times a year on a yearly bases. I'm refering to total fish kept per year.


I'd think that everyone that buys a license gets to keep X amount of fish per day is a pretty level playing field.


----------



## POCLANCE (Apr 5, 2006)

*Missed the point*



boom! said:


> I'd think that everyone that buys a license gets to keep X amount of fish per day is a pretty level playing field.


You missed the point.... I said per year not per day.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

*Glenn*



glennkoks said:


> Lets face it. This is not about trout populations per bay. It's about Trophy Trout hunters wanting to control a resource.


Aren't you a commercial fisherman or wasn't your family into the commercial fishing business?

It's been a while but I seem to remember something about that being your occupation.



> It is not a quality vs quantity argument for me. I have been around long enough to see how these things go and if we go down to 5 now it will be down to 2 within a few years and then zero.


Oh really? Didn't work out that way with the red fish did it? But it did remove the red fish and trout from the commercial fishery.

TH


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

I am completely in favor of changing the bag limits for the entire laguna madre to the current rules for the lower laguna. I would love for my grandson to be able to catch fish the way I have in the past. Stricter limits will return our fishery to its glory days. 

CPR those big girls and save them for our children and grandchildren!


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

POCLANCE said:


> You missed the point.... I said per year not per day.


I don't think that I did miss your point. You want to drive down one or two weekends a year and take home a years worth of harvest, right?


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Trouthunter said:


> Aren't you a commercial fisherman or wasn't your family into the commercial fishing business?
> 
> It's been a while but I seem to remember something about that being your occupation.
> 
> ...


I work in the oil business so my interests are strictly recreational. But my father was a commercial fisherman and had a wholesale and retail seafood market on the Kemah Waterfront in the 70's and 80's.

Now I just fish with my kids for enjoyment but I do enjoy eating what I catch.


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

Multitude of opinions shown here. To each his/her own...

Depends on what you want out of your fishery.

I'm not necessarily a trophy trout hunter but do consider myself first and foremost a speck fisherman. Personally, I would like to see us try to produce the greatest number of large fish possible...

For several years now, trout over 20" get released. I like to catch 'em, but I dont like to eat them... I eat the little ones...

If I'm not mistaken, TPWD data on the Upper Coast, doesn't show a need for a change on trout limits. However, appears to me many are happy with a 5 fish limit.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

So what I am gathering from all this is the trout population for the middle coast is down. Maybe they need too stop and figure out why. Galveston Bay is thriving with a city of 4million plus at its front door. Don't give me the shrimper ****... Less shrimpers now than 15 years ago. There may not even be a problem just a elitist group pushing their own agenda. By the way I have a feeling TP&W have already made up their minds. Scope meeting are nothing but a pony show and ******* match between those who attend.


----------



## TOOEXTREME (Jun 23, 2004)

capt. david said:


> So what I am gathering from all this is the trout population for the middle coast is down. Maybe they need too stop and figure out why. Galveston Bay is thriving with a city of 4million plus at its front door. Don't give me the shrimper ****... Less shrimpers now than 15 years ago. There may not even be a problem just a elitist group pushing their own agenda. By the way I have a feeling TP&W have already made up their minds. Scope meeting are nothing but a pony show and ******* match between those who attend.


 Right on!!!


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Bull Red said:


> Can someone tell me what good it does to decrease Texas limits when only a few miles away in Louisiana you can keep 5 reds (16" min), 10 flounder (no min) & 25 trout (12" min)? Call me crazy, but I don't see the benefit in that.


 You're a few miles away from a relativey small area. You're hundreds of miles away from others. You can't base our laws on LA customs, laws, and fish.


----------



## Totally Tuna (Apr 13, 2006)

If they lower the trout limit they should offset with a change in Red limits. 

Louisiana limits for redfish would be a good place to start. 5 fish 16"-28". I'd lower the upper limit of the slot down to say 25 or 26". I used to love eating the 14" reds in the days prior to the '83 freeze. Reds over about 24" to me start to be less desirable for table fare.

After all, Louisiana is know as the Redfish Capitol of the World.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

railbird said:


> I am completely in favor of changing the bag limits for the entire laguna madre to the current rules for the lower laguna. I would love for my grandson to be able to catch fish the way I have in the past. Stricter limits will return our fishery to its glory days.
> 
> CPR those big girls and save them for our children and grandchildren!


 You need to become familiar with the data. Bottom line leaving limits at 10 will not have an adverse effect on future generations. Bottom line save and except for cyclical variations, trout populations have been the same since the 80s. 2011 saw the second highest landings ever. Spring 2013 CPUE was the 5th highest ever.
And now here is the interesting data. In the so called utopia region, the LLM where 5 fish has ben in place now for 6 years, there is NO statistically significant gains in gill net studies and in fact they are DOWN in 2012 from their averages in bag seines.

Bottom line their is even WORSE science this time than there was at the last scoping meetings. The middle coast is doing much better just like they predicted. This is NOTHING more than a certain group of fishermen who think if they can stop guides and people who know what they are doing from keeping 10 it will raise their odds of catching a "trophy" . Do not confuse Trophy management with conservationâ€¦your fear is what our TPWD should be protecting against and not listening to those who want to use the rules to "trophy manage"â€¦.

What I find interesting in TPWDs own data shows indeed Guides and a select few constantly catch more and bigger trout. The unskilled want to use that against them when in fact it shows you can very much catch "trophy" trout without cutting limits. Unfortunately for them it does take work and time on the waterâ€¦..


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

trouthammer said:


> You need to become familiar with the data. Bottom line leaving limits at 10 will not have an adverse effect on future generations. Bottom line save and except for cyclical variations, trout populations have been the same since the 80s. 2011 saw the second highest landings ever. Spring 2013 CPUE was the 5th highest ever.
> And now here is the interesting data. In the so called utopia region, the LLM where 5 fish has ben in place now for 6 years, there is NO statistically significant gains in gill net studies and in fact they are DOWN in 2012 from their averages in bag seines.
> 
> Bottom line their is even WORSE science this time than there was at the last scoping meetings. The middle coast is doing much better just like they predicted. This is NOTHING more than a certain group of fishermen who think if they can stop guides and people who know what they are doing from keeping 10 it will raise their odds of catching a "trophy" . Do not confuse Trophy management with conservationâ€¦your fear is what our TPWD should be protecting against and not listening to those who want to use the rules to "trophy manage"â€¦.
> ...


You may very well be right, but i believe the pressure on the landcut would drasticly reduce if the limits were reduced to 5 trout. Many people and guides would stay closer to the Kennedy causeway if they could only box 5/person. The number of boats in the landcut from spring break until mid may is insane. I for one believe the fishery would be stronger if there wasn't 100 boats lined up and down the icw for 60 days killing everything that swims by. I can remember the 70's very well and long for the abundance the landcut delivered.

Finally, whats wrong with managing the fisheries to allow for the production of more trophy trout in an area considered THE destination for trophy trout in Texas?


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

railbird said:


> You may very well be right, but i believe the pressure on the landcut would drasticly reduce if the limits were reduced to 5 trout. Many people and guides would stay closer to the Kennedy causeway if they could only box 5/person. The number of boats in the landcut from spring break until mid may is insane. I for one believe the fishery would be stronger if there wasn't 100 boats lined up and down the icw for 60 days killing everything that swims by. I can remember the 70's very well and long for the abundance the landcut delivered.
> 
> Finally, whats wrong with managing the fisheries to allow for the production of more trophy trout in an area considered THE destination for trophy trout in Texas?


As to your last question, I can only guess some would say its a restriction on a public resource for a specific end group(trophy trout hunters) that impacts all. It can be related to your fight against TWPP. I personally don't keep trout, just provide an argument either way to spark thought between the two groups.

Also, to the other "sides" argument that once they take, you'll never get back: I call BS. Back in the early to mid eighties the deer population was in a bind(at least in east Texas) we had a 1 or 2 deer limit which has now turned into 4. Go figure! They gave back!

Â©


----------



## DCAVA (Aug 5, 2013)

spurgersalty said:


> as to your last question, i can only guess some would say its a restriction on a public resource for a specific end group(trophy trout hunters) that impacts all. It can be related to your fight against twpp. I personally don't keep trout, just provide an argument either way to spark thought between the two groups.
> 
> Also, to the other "sides" argument that once they take, you'll never get back: I call bs. Back in the early to mid eighties the deer population was in a bind(at least in east texas) we had a 1 or 2 deer limit which has now turned into 4. Go figure! They gave back!
> 
> Â©


U don't keep trout spurg? It's one of the best tasting SW fish out there IMO.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

DCAVA said:


> U don't keep trout spurg? It's one of the best tasting SW fish out there IMO.


No Sir. I don't "stock the freezer" bit keep enough of certain fish to last a couple of months because I sometimes wind up on a 7 day a week project and can't fish. 
Well, I noticed trout doesn't freeze well, and also, just doesn't taste "good"????
I'd much rather have a sheepy or a red as far as inshore is concerned on the table..
Just my opinion and reasoning behind my actions.

Â©


----------



## DCAVA (Aug 5, 2013)

spurgersalty said:


> no sir. I don't "stock the freezer" bit keep enough of certain fish to last a couple of months because i sometimes wind up on a 7 day a week project and can't fish.
> Well, i noticed trout doesn't freeze well, and also, just doesn't taste "good"????
> I'd much rather have a sheepy or a red as far as inshore is concerned on the table..
> Just my opinion and reasoning behind my actions.
> ...


U gotta eat the trout when they're fresh can't freeze em too long; the meat is too tender.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

DCAVA said:


> U gotta eat the trout when they're fresh can't freeze em too long; the meat is too tender.


Doned that too, no joy. Not even close(IMO) to the clean taste of a sheepy
I've too much snapper and tuna to be keepin' specks:longsigh:
Its a good deal for you! I throw mine back, for all of y'all!!!!:rotfl:

Â©


----------



## DCAVA (Aug 5, 2013)

spurgersalty said:


> Doned that too, no joy. Not even close(IMO) to the clean taste of a sheepy
> I've too much snapper and tuna to be keepin' specks:longsigh:
> Its a good deal for you! I throw mine back, for all of y'all!!!!:rotfl:
> 
> Â©


X2.....keep on throwin' em' back!:smile:


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

railbird said:


> You may very well be right, but i believe the pressure on the landcut would drasticly reduce if the limits were reduced to 5 trout. Many people and guides would stay closer to the Kennedy causeway if they could only box 5/person. The number of boats in the landcut from spring break until mid may is insane. I for one believe the fishery would be stronger if there wasn't 100 boats lined up and down the icw for 60 days killing everything that swims by. I can remember the 70's very well and long for the abundance the landcut delivered.
> 
> Finally, whats wrong with managing the fisheries to allow for the production of more trophy trout in an area considered THE destination for trophy trout in Texas?


Last question first, there are guys/gals who get just as much enjoyment out of have a day catching 10 decent trout as a guy who is equally happy fighting a few big fish. It is not right for one fishermen to impose his style on another. Also the data shows and you know it because I bet you catch plenty of trophy fish that they are thereâ€¦it just takes some work and skill to get them. This past summer I caught at least 20-30 trout over 25 inches and all but a few that were hooked bad were released. Trophies are there to be had.

I occasionally fish the cut and yes there for a while it was crowded with shall we say the marker 37 crewâ€¦ If the fish were not there you reckon the boats would go away:dance:

On the 5 to keep them away if you make fishing so you can only keep 1 it will for sure keep a lot of people off the water altogether. The amazing part of the statistics is the amount of fishing pressure has remained pretty constant. Unfortunately for you you fish one of the hottest spots on the coast.


----------



## shalor57 (Feb 24, 2005)

I am with Railbird...after the Landcut got hammered in the spring it was subpar this summer. I think 5 trout limit would really help the ULM/Baffin/Landcut area. I didn't see the Landcut in the 70's but I saw it 5 years ago when gas was $4 a gallon, and it was pretty good. That area is too awesome not to protect!!


----------



## Nicademas (Jan 31, 2006)

slippery slope slippery slope slippery slope slippery slope

They drop the limits to 5 and then this will surely happen next:

1. Any fishing reel sold in Texas will not be able to hold more than 20 ft of fishing line.

2. No rubber material will be allowed on any structure descending into water that possesses any NaCl content.

3. No cameras will be allowed in boats on any water that touches water adjacent to the ICW or any port or gulf pass.

4. Too many more will follow, by necessity; dear lord, I believe we may all need to increase the anti-anxiety meds to deal with the impending doom!


----------



## rattelsnake (Aug 20, 2013)

heck i would like to catch just one or two instead of going home empty handed!


----------



## Dick Hanks (Aug 16, 2007)

For what it's worth.... As an outsider, I think that Texas has done a really good job of managing their fish and game. If you look back over this thread, there is a fairly even split on opinions on how to manage the resource (ie. bag limits). They will never be able to please everyone. 

It's not like you are dealing with the Feds and how they manage the Red Snapper. States need the support of their sportsmen to have bag limits honored by the majority. They can't afford to have wardens everywhere. That's part of the reason for public meetings when changes are being considered. They need your support.

I have been fortunate enough to be able to fish in a lot of States. Obviously, they all try to match the catch limits to the States ability to replenish the resource. This refers to the non-migratory fish management. If they error at this, it is usually on the "too conservative" side. From what I've observed, Texas seems to be walking the fine line better that other states.


----------



## kenny (May 21, 2004)

Lone-Star said:


> So what, they should increase the limits so the population goes down?
> 
> We should wait until fisheries are depleted before conserving?
> 
> ...


You really had to be there, and you weren't.


----------



## cruss (Aug 31, 2005)

*limits*

They can set the limits wherever they want and it isnt gonna make much difference at least on the middle coast where i fish. The problem as I see it is red tides, no crabs, no shrimp, fewer finfish, continuous droughts too much boat traffic. With 70 percent catching fewer than two trout a day i dont see where limits are going to help. The fish are not there for other reasons.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*ULM*

If there was any place that needed it would be the ULM. The hundreds of boats lined up along the ICW will just about catch every trout south of the JFK Causeway if something is not done. For the most part this is the guides, 95% of them seasonal and a handful of greedy locals that has wiped out the fishing in the Rockport Aransas Bay area. When the fishing in the Rockport area went south so did this group of guides and anglers.

The good thing is they can't make the run to Mansfield, the bad thing is, with a 5 fish limit they can run 3-4 trips a day instead of the more traditional 2 trip day.









Gater


----------



## Lone-Star (Dec 19, 2009)

kenny said:


> You really had to be there, and you weren't.


No I wasn't but I was raised and taught to fish by those that were...they realized the excess of the times and saw in retrospect the damage that was done, and taught us the importance of conservation.


----------



## rippin lips (Jan 8, 2005)

If the law went on the dike and brought INS with them they could knock out two birds with one stone. 
Man they are keeping every flounder. I made the call and NO one showed up. Maybe to much paper work involved???


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

Just under maned

It's a shame how many don't abide to the flounder regs for November

If you can get license plate or Txt numbers it will be easier to help them


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

railbird said:


> You may very well be right, but i believe the pressure on the landcut would drasticly reduce if the limits were reduced to 5 trout. Many people and guides would stay closer to the Kennedy causeway if they could only box 5/person. The number of boats in the landcut from spring break until mid may is insane. I for one believe the fishery would be stronger if there wasn't 100 boats lined up and down the icw for 60 days killing everything that swims by. I can remember the 70's very well and long for the abundance the landcut delivered.
> 
> Finally, whats wrong with managing the fisheries to allow for the production of more trophy trout in an area considered THE destination for trophy trout in Texas?


I agree 100%.

I fished the Land Cut back before the freezes in the 80's, and BC (Before Croakers). The number of big trout was incredible! We used to keep the 20"ers and release the big ones. In the evenings you could sight cast to big trout with their backs out of the water.

I don't even bother going there anymore to fight the "Marker 37" meathauler crowd.

Just my opinion...


----------



## uncle dave (Jul 27, 2008)

I've read this thread and read many instances where people have called for wardens about people violating the game laws, where do you go next to file a complaint. If the wardens don't respond, then some one in charge above them have some questions to answer, after all, the paying sportsman fund this project.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Just curious, how accurate is the data the tpw uses? Seems like seining would be a bit hit or miss to be real accurate


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

Dick Hanks said:


> For what it's worth.... As an outsider, I think that Texas has done a really good job of managing their fish and game. If you look back over this thread, there is a fairly even split on opinions on how to manage the resource (ie. bag limits). They will never be able to please everyone.
> 
> It's not like you are dealing with the Feds and how they manage the Red Snapper. States need the support of their sportsmen to have bag limits honored by the majority. They can't afford to have wardens everywhere. That's part of the reason for public meetings when changes are being considered. They need your support.
> 
> I have been fortunate enough to be able to fish in a lot of States. Obviously, they all try to match the catch limits to the States ability to replenish the resource. This refers to the non-migratory fish management. If they error at this, it is usually on the "too conservative" side. From what I've observed, Texas seems to be walking the fine line better that other states.


 Agreed. Thanks...


----------



## kenny (May 21, 2004)

Lone-Star said:


> No I wasn't but I was raised and taught to fish by those that were...they realized the excess of the times and saw in retrospect the damage that was done, and taught us the importance of conservation.


I was jacking with you. 
We used to seine the Galveston beach front for trout when I was a kid in the '50's. As a young man in the 70's we'd catch a hundred trout a day at the Pass. We all eventually learned about those meat-hauls and the need for conservation. The difference in this particular discussion, is that we decided individually whether to keep fish or not; not some paper-pusher in Austin making the decision for us.


----------



## wos (Oct 12, 2009)

*Couldn't agree more, just five*

Shalor: Couldn't agree with you more, how many fish does it take to make one happy? Five drum, 3 Reds, 5 trout and don't forget flounder and sheeps. With our Texas population doubling in the next 20 years, it is no longer about maximizing how many of anything we can keep, it is about conserving the resource. Glad to see all the positive posts on here about conserving our trout fishery and having more and better quality fish available for everyone to catch and not necessarily keep. Scott (wos)


----------



## BullyARed (Jun 19, 2010)

1. Half trout half flounder daily/possession limit!  
2. Each fisherman must bag at least 2 hardheads per day to be eligible for other fish.


----------



## wos (Oct 12, 2009)

*Spot on!*



rippin lips said:


> If the law went on the dike and brought INS with them they could knock out two birds with one stone.
> Man they are keeping every flounder. I made the call and NO one showed up. Maybe to much paper work involved???


Rippin: I heard a very similar story not long ago. Sounds like TPWD needs some help in that area for sure. I talked to one of the state guys the other day and he said his work ratio was about 35 % field and 65 % office work. Keep your calls coming and eventually the squeaky wheel will get the grease. wos


----------

