# TPW Tarpon Tag Poll



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

I got a message today that TPW is considering elimination of the tarpon tag. They only sell about 15 a year. I don't know this, but I would assume that if its eliminated, then there will be no opportunity to keep a tarpon in Texas. I do not buy a tag routinely, but am favor of keeping it so that there is a chance to break the state record. Without it, there is no way that could happen.

I would like to take a poll and see what yalls opinion is on this?

Keep it

Don't Keep it

-----------------------------------


----------



## GinMan (Jan 29, 2005)

I wonder how many out of those 15 were actually filled?
I say keep it.
There are more than 15 per year that wash up from down current of BHP every year.


----------



## Bill C (May 23, 2004)

*tarpon tag*

Ron Henry Strait of the San Antonio Express-News reported today that the tarpon tag was going to be eliminated and replaced with a single fish limit.

The idea is that the minimum size of that one fish allowed would be about the size of the current state record fish. This would set up the possibility of the state record being broken.

Strait reports that there are to be hearings on the issue.


----------



## GinMan (Jan 29, 2005)

That makes sense to me.........I wonder what that minimum length would be? 86"? or would they drop it to 84" ? or would they raise it to 90"?



Bill C said:


> Ron Henry Strait of the San Antonio Express-News reported today that the tarpon tag was going to be eliminated and replaced with a single fish limit.
> 
> The idea is that the minimum size of that one fish allowed would be about the size of the current state record fish. This would set up the possibility of the state record being broken.
> 
> Strait reports that there are to be hearings on the issue.


----------



## Capt. Lowtide (Jun 30, 2004)

I would say keep it or better yet go with the single fish limit. I've never purchased the tag, but have considered it just for record purposes. I would hate to see a large breeder die, but I would bring a new record to weigh for one of my clients.


----------



## Wading Mark (Apr 21, 2005)

Keep it.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

Why not do this. Stick a tag on the Super Combo, like we already have for redfish. Add $1 to the price of the license for conservation and make it a one fish over 84 inches per year.

Then use that money to help fund the PAT tagging program. That $1 would fund the program in one year.


----------



## Tarponchaser (May 25, 2005)

Scott,


That sounds like a great idea. I would like to see the length limit be high enough to ensure that a killed fish would definitely be a State record. Would hate to see guys making mistakes & killing breeders that it takes 30 to 50 years to regrow.

TarponChaser


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

Here is the information I got via e-mail today:

----------------------
See below the item that will be presented to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission this Wednesday. With their approval and/or modifications the proposals would go into scoping meetings for public comment. A final set of regulation proposals would then be vetted (after consideration of scoping comments) by the Commission in January for public comment (rule making input) and final action by the Commission in April of 2006.

PROPOSAL: Remove the requirement for the Tarpon tag. Recognizing that there are good business reasons to minimize the use of tags on hunting and fishing licenses, a proposal will be scoped to eliminate the use of a tarpon tag. TPWD has sold less than 20 a year over the past several years. It costs more to manage the tags than they generate in revenue.

In order to still allow for a state record fish to be retained there will be a 1 fish bag limit per day with a minimum size limit that corresponds to the current state record. This would allow for minimal landings of fish that are thought to be in contention for a state record. IGFA certified scales would be accepted and a new class of Texas state record would be established based on length only to further promote catch and release.

Larry McKinney

-------------------------


----------



## fin_adik (Aug 8, 2005)

*whats relevant?*

I understand the allure of record fish, especially tarpon records. But there is absolutely no way I could ever kill one. To me having my name it the book is not as important as watching it swim away. Some would disagree and I encourage them to post up and explain why. But in the group of people I fish with it would mean more to me just to have them know that I put it on them that day. Take plenty of pictures and have one heck of a story to tell. If I had a vote I would most likely say "shut it down"


----------



## Scott G (May 24, 2004)

Scott,

Sorry, the phone message was brief. As I "understood it" when speaking w/ Dr. McKinney, it seems to be more of a burden than it is worth to TPWD, I think from a monetary and a book-keeping standpoint. $1100-$1500 a year isn't worth the hassle to keep up with it.
As you stated from the good doctor, this is open to public input. I kinda like the idea as proposed, that would allow a record to be caught. I think it would be a length limit that would change "on demand".
Personally, I think if they did do it this way, they should make the length a couple of inches less than the current record, as we know, there are "long and skinnies" and "short and fatties". The fish also MUST be taped before retension (sp?)....we all have seen the "estimated length photos/ stories".

The hearings are designed to do what the people want done.....tuff one for tarpon, though, as I know a few people that would want a record and others that don't care.....

Maybe set up a poll here with different ideas as opposed to "do it, or don't do it"....It would be a good start.
SG


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

A fish weighing 200 plus pounds is probably in the latter half of her life. They are so rare in Texas that I am not opposed to keeping them. I hear of maybe one a year in that range. I think it would make people put their money where their mouth is with some of these stories and you'll see those "record" fish that get caught end up not making it to a scale. So, for me, I think the sport is best served with a possible record being out there. I think it is way more important for anglers to do a better job with fish they do catch regardless of size. Many tarpon are killed by people unintentionally. I've even seen guides do a poor job of releasing fish. Doing it right every time is more important than worrying about one or two fish killed a year - if that even happens... which I doubt. Not sure how long Tom's state record tarpon was but I'd say an 86 inch length should do it. Tom can probably give us some good thoughts on this.


----------



## B-Money (May 2, 2005)

The door is open for comments. If you feel strongly about tarpon management, then you need to direct your comments towards TPWD via letter, fax, or in person at a public hearing. Email is probably the least preferred way to receive comments for a number of reasons.


----------



## Bill C (May 23, 2004)

*questions and thoughts*

So how many fish do you think would be killed with this change? 10-20? More?

Is the number of big tarpon killed worth it just for someone to be able to say they caught the state record tarpon?

The current system rewards someone who is willing to make the deliberate effort(and pay the fee) to go out and try catch a new record. That doesn't sound too bad to me.

I don't mean to get too sanctimonious about this because each one of us who targets this species is saying that we are willing to take the chance of killing a tarpon in order to enjoy the feeling of success that comes from hooking/landing one but that seems a little different from deliberately killing one in order to hang it on some scales and receive a certificate.

I don't know what the seasonal population of Texas tarpon is but I would imagine it is in the tens of thousands at least so taking 10, 20, 50, or more probably would not affect the overall population. But the problem is we don't know how many tarpon there are visiting Texas, what the factors are influencing their being here, or what it will take to bring them back to the numbers that were here in the early years. What ever those factors are, I doubt that killing the largest, most mature tarpon is going to help achieve that goal.

The only viable solution I can see is for TP&W to issue to me only, a lifetime big tarpon permit until I finally get the record then close the fishery to taking any more. Surely no one could object to that.


----------



## Unbound (Jul 12, 2004)

*Final solution*

If you kill it, you eat it! With my tarpon skills, I have nothing to worry about.


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

Bill C

I would guess the accidental kill of tarpon from fishing in this state exceeds 10 fish a year. I'd say its probably a higher number than we want to accept. Lots of tarpon in this state are caught be individuals who have no idea how to handle them, fight them and revive them effectively. Are we all going to stop tarpon fishing because of that, no. I don't see how making a length restriction large enough to just be a record fish is going to really impact much of anything from a population standpoint. I think if we look at tag records and all the tags sold, probably none have been filled. Or maybe a couple. The tarpon that are the big cows that come around our coast have made a long trip from Mexico and even Florida but certainly Louisiana. In all those locations, they can kill tarpon. In fact Louisiana is the worst when it comes to their regulations concerning killing fish. Luckily, I think this is offset by fishing techniques and the general ability to release their fish alive as well as the general conservation minded tarpon fishermen over there that only kill really large fish (potential records) and only kill a few for tournaments anyway. I'd say more tarpon die in Louisiana than anywhere on the Gulf coast - except maybe Mexico. I don't think impossing a 86 inch minimum length in the state of Texas to allow a potential record is going to effect anything population wise and I think its better to keep the possibility of a state record out there. The tags are going away. Too hard to administer. I'm in favor of dropping the price and impossing a higher length limit - i.e. 86 inches or something. That way, you raise money and continue protection.

As I hear of public comment opportunities, I'll let everybody know.


----------



## Scott G (May 24, 2004)

I think there is a little more hear to question.
What Dr. McKinney told me was that they were considering making the minimum that of the current state record.....there is no fly fishing record (officially).....so that could open the door to a good number of dead smaller fish, maybe.
Again, I think it's a matter of logistics for TPWD, it's a pain in the *** for 12 tags a year. 
I agree w/ Scott and feel that it's not going to hurt the fishery if they keep the minimum length high (in the mid eighties).
SG


----------



## Bellyup (May 22, 2004)

Why not just change the record books to a length record only? Keep the current weight record as the all time weight record unless someone has a longer fish that actually weighs more. Length is much easier to monitor and, IMO, a better way to keep records (for example, I caught a large amberjack last week that coughed up a 3-4 pound snapper. I also caught a large yellowfin tuna with 21 flying fish in its belly. Obviously, weight would be affected by how much the fish just ate and how much it regurgitated after being caught.). You then can have a minimum size about 2 inches shorter than the current record, so if you fail to measure accurately, you will not be punished.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Tarpon Tags*

I say do away with it. I don't think it will hurt the population even though you may have a few that would want to mount one even if was not a State record and over the limit.

By the way I heard the other day that the limit was going to be set at 70 inches, just what I heard. The TP&W met last week and one of the topics was doing away with the Redfish tag as well. Have not heard how that went, but I don't have a problem with that either. Gater


----------



## Rigo34 (Jun 20, 2004)

As far as *doing away* with the Redfish tag...I'm against. But if they are concidering it, I would not be against increasing the maximum length to let's say to no more than 33".


----------



## LanceR (May 21, 2004)

*Tag Proposals*

As has been mentioned earlier in this string, there is a desire to eliminate all tags within the TPWD licensing system. Coastal Fisheries has decided to look at our tag issues now.

The proposal for tarpon would allow the retention of one fish per day with a minimum size set close to the current state record fish (Tom's fish measured 86.25 inches). We certainly would like to hear ideas that tarpon fishermen might have as to what the minimum should be realizing that the goal is to allow for the harvest of a true record. We also will scope a similar proposal of 1 fish over a maximum size limit (i.e., set at the current state record) for black drum.

For redfish, there are two proposals that we would like input on from anglers: 1) one redfish larger than 28 inches may be taken as part of the 3 fish daily bag limit, or; 2) one redfish larger than 28 inches may be taken in addition to the 3 fish daily bag limit.

Other proposals related to saltwater fishing for which input will be sought include:
- prohibit the take of largetooth sawfish (smalltooth sawfish is listed as an endangered species and due to difficulties in identifying between the two it is believed to be the only way to protect the endangered smalltooth species.);
- reduce the possession limit for flounder to the daily bag limit;
- designate tripletail a game fish and establish minimum size and bag limits.

Public hearing schedules will be set in the next couple of weeks and will be posted on our web site. I'll also ask Monty to post the schedule on several of these boards with information on how to submit your comments.

Lance Robinson
TPWD-Coastal Fisheries
Dickinson Marine Laboratory


----------



## Tarponchaser (May 25, 2005)

If they do away with the tarpon tag, I think the minimum length shoud a sure that all kept would be potential State records. There are not enough tarpon to sustain a harvest.

I think we as individuals & thru CCA, SEA, ECT. should push for less killing in Louisiana.

As far as doing away with the red tag, I am definitely against it. I already hate seeing the Island Queen, an old ferry turned head boat, gaffing out breeders. If each could keep 3 per day, this boat alone could kill 400 to 500 per day when the fish are bunched up

I talked to Dr. McKinney several years ago & he said that we need a certain escapment but if the Gulf population got too big it would be hard to deney commericial harvest again. 

With all the pressure in the Rockport area, I do no see how we could have too many breeders until the estuary will not feed all the juvinile fish. If we get close to that, we should close down the shrimpers & crabbers as the sport industry is many times more important that the bay shrimp/crab industry.

TC


----------



## Tarponchaser (May 25, 2005)

Lance,


Thanks for the good info. You posted while I was writing.. I am for the most conservative limit if we must do away with tags. 

But it would be nice to not have to carry a purse for my combo license.

TC


----------



## Scott G (May 24, 2004)

Belly-Up.....I like your idea of the length only for the record.....that would make me the winner....at 87" . it's noterized with witness and in the hands of TPWD 

If the redfish tag is to be ditched...I like 3 a day only one over 28....my .02 on that.
Also, I think TPWD should start a shrimp stocking program to help replenish the food for the inshore fisheries....and keep buying back shrimp licenses.
SG

PS water temp in POC was 84 today.


----------



## Tarponchaser (May 25, 2005)

Fellow Fishermen,


I slept on the info from Lance & hearsay from Dr. McKinney and I woke up mad as hell.

They have not given one piece of data that indicates that either tag should be done away with except the tarpon tag is not cost effective and it will make their job easier. 

Parks & Wildlife personell work for us. It is their job to protect the resource and enforce the laws.

Unless scientific data is given to support lifting of either tag, they should remain.

Tarpon Tag: If someone wants to have a chance at putting his name in the book by killing a valuable fish let them pay for it. Raise the price til it pays for the program. I cannot comprehend that the current program could be costing much & actually I do not care. If it cost a few thousand to protect the tarpon fishery so be it. Some number cruncher says it will save a few bucks so we should let tarpon be killed? Continued on next reply.


----------



## Tarponchaser (May 25, 2005)

*Continued*

Continued.
On the Redfish Tag: Again no data. There are oversized redfish at the Port Aransas jetties year around. They are protected by the tag system. If the tag is lifted, it will cause the development of a whole fishery of potlickers that know they can keep a breeder fish each day they fish. They are accessable from the jetties as well as boats. This will kill thousands each year.
Without firm scientific data, this is a very bad idea.

Larry, as you know, I am a strong supporter of TP&W but this needs to be looked at carfully. I have not seen any indication that we have too many redfish in out bays. Actually this year in the Rockport area was not as good as usual.

I have talked with you survey people & they say people are catching fish & are satified. They may give a high number for rating the day. Well Yeah. Compared to a day at work a day on the water is a 8,9,or 10 but if this number was based on catching as it should be for a creel survey the numbers would be 0, 1's & 2's.

Parks & Wildlife's job is not to see if people are having a nice day on the water but promoting & protecting the resource & enforcing the laws.

I know that you have buget constraints but do not save a few bucks at the expense of the resource that drives a huge industry. The fishing needs to great to justify the average Joe to buy a license & pay $2-3 a gallon for fuel to get to the coast.

I have been a public meetings all the way back to "The Redfish Wars" & have been disappointed with the responce of TP&W to the publics wishes. If there is not a lot of data forthcoming, I will ask all my friends in CCA, SEA & all the guys that read this thread to organize a ground swell of resistance.

Mad TarponChaser


----------



## Tarponchaser (May 25, 2005)

*More Mad.*

In light of all the damage done by the hurricanes, it made little news that almost all of the brood fish at SeaCenter died.

This is a small loss on the large scale but it was completely unnecessary. We may never know the real reason. The explanation given was that when the power went off, there was a failure in the back-up generator thus the water tempeture went up & the fish died.

This is not acceptable. How can a back-up generator not function??? It's only purpose is for emergencies. This shoud not happen. Heads should roll & we shold be told why our fish died.

Several years ago there was talk of CCA taking over the operation of the hatcher at Corpus Christi because the State did not have the funds to even do the required maintence to continue to put out the normal production much less increase as depand increases. I was on the State Board at the time and was ****** when we did not.

It is a little known fact that the show place "SeaCenter" produces only a fraction (1/3 I think) as the much older Corpus Christi hatchery.

I am not interested in hearing about buget constraints, etc. If there is a problem then "The Commission" should be going to sportsmen & letting them know. The pressure from sportsmen on the Legislature will fix any problem.

We don't mind paying our way. CCA & SEA raises a lot of money. Either, espicially CCA could raise a lot more money if the members could see a large project undertken. Many ex-CCA presidents & State & local board members have pulled away from CCA because they do not see the money used on projects. Lobbist are necessary but local projects are also. The leadership of SEA is mostly disgrundled ex-CCA guys.

*To suggest that the limit be raised on REDFISH or allow brood fish to be killed when incompentince at the hatchery has cause a interuption in production is absolutely unacceptable.*

I encoruage you CCA & SEA members to question your officers & request action.

Lance & Larry,

Please resopnd to the above.

Hope I don't have to stay home many more week-ends. Not good for my blood pressure.

Mad TarponChaser


----------



## LanceR (May 21, 2004)

*To "Mad TarponChaser"*

Wow! A lot of questions and I'm afraid I won't be able to do justice in answering them...but I'll try.

The current tag requirement for tarpon has a minimum size of 80 inches attached to it. As was stated earlier, this was done to allow for a potential record. Less than 20 tags are purchased in a given year and to my knowledge no fish over 80 inches has been harvested and submitted for a potential record. Nothing changes by going to a simple minimum size, especially if it's set close to the current state record. Anglers would still be able to harvest a new state record should they catch one - you just wouldn't have to purchase a tag to do so and current fishing practices would not be impacted.

As for red drum, there will be data presented at the public hearings that will show the status of the population in Texas. In a nutshell, the population of red drum in Texas is at an all-time high - not suprising to many anglers. The life cycle of this species necessitates a unique management strategy. Red drum spawn in the Gulf near passes in the fall (e.g. bull reds in the surf). Larvae move back into the bays and estuaries where they grow up and spend the first 4-5 years of their life, reaching sizes of just over 30 inches or so. Once they reach this size and begin to become sexually mature, they migrate to the Gulf and become part of this population, rarely ever returning to the bays and estuaries. Individuals will live in excess of 35 years. Harvest in federal waters is prohibited so these individuals spend at least 30 years as a member of the Gulf spawning population (hatchery production will never approach these levels of natural production!). The goal of management for this species is to protect for a 30% escapement - i.e. set regulations such that 30% of the individuals growing up in our bays and estuaries return to the Gulf. We have been at 30% or greater for over 15 years, hence the population levels we now see.

We have evaluated the potential impact from both proposals and neither will affect our 30% escapement goal. Certainly the first proposal (allowing one fish over 28" as part of the 3 fish daily bag limit) is the more conservative of the two. I appreciate your concerns for this fishery and we're proud of the success that we've been able to track for this species, due in no small part to fishermen like yourself who have followed the size and bag limits since we began managing the species in the 1980's. We are certainly not going to recommend something that would negate this success.

As for your questions about the loss of brood fish at Sea Center during hurricane Rita I'll refer you to Dr. Robert Vega ([email protected]), Director of Enhancement and in charge of all our our hatchery operations or David Abrego ([email protected]), Sea Center Manager. There is no conspiracy here and Robert or David will be more than happy to answer any of your questions.

We take pride in the work we do to protect and manage the states marine resources and certainly welcome input (pro and con) from those who use and enjoy these resources. I hope you and others will provide your comments on these proposals through the appropriate channels. We value your input and want to hear your thoughts. If you (or anyone else reading this) would like to discuss this further please don't hesitate to contact me either by email ([email protected]) or by telephone (281-534-0101).

Lance Robinson
TPWD-Coastal Fisheries
Dickinson Marine Laboratory


----------



## Tarponchaser (May 25, 2005)

Lance,

Thanks for the responce & information. I keep hearing that we are at all time highs for redfish. I am only sure about the Rockport/ Port Aransas area.

There were less fish caught this year than last and less last year than the year before.

There were very few schools this fall. It was a tough year for guides as well as rec. fishermen.

The fishing pressure is increasing every year and I believe that the goals should be to get the bay shrimpers & crabbers out to provide more capacity for the bays. 

Until the estuaries have reached the maximum carrying capacity, I beleive that no changes should be made on the harvest limits or the removal of more brood stock. 

TC


----------



## LanceR (May 21, 2004)

*Catch rates*

Thanks for your input. Remember, however, that localized angling catch-rate does not necessarily reflect population levels and status of a coastwide fishery. As you know, there are many extraneous factors that can affect the catch-rate of fish by anglers (e.g. bait, skill level, time of year, time of day, environemental conditions such as temp., salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen, etc., etc.) on a given day.

We use several different sampling programs within our fisheries independent monitoring programs to try and gauge changes in population trends over time. Catch rates are standardized to be comparable across years and between bay systems (no. per net hour, no. per hectare, etc.). In addition to looking at population trends of adult and sub-adult species we also monitor recruitment into the bays and estuaries. Using over 25 years of standardized data, both indicators support the high red drum population levels we now see in Texas coastal waters.

The buy-back programs continue for bay/bait shrimp, crabs and finfish fisheries (license moratoriums were established for oyster and Gulf shrimp during the last legislative session but with no buy-back component). To date (through 16 buyback rounds) 687 bay and 652 bait licenses have been retired from the fishery at a cost of $8.3M. That's approximately 41% of the licenses based on an original total of 3,231 in 1995 (note one license does not mean one boat as most boats are dually licensed with bay and bait licenses). We purchase about 140 licenses per year and based on our projections we expect to be down to about 400 boats statewide by 2010. Crab and finfish buybacks are progressing slower but that's due to the small number of licenses we started with (crab licenses - 225 originally; 24 licenses purchased after 5 rounds for just over $112K; finfish licenses - 538 originally; 129 licenses purchased after 7 rounds for just over $607K).

I'll make sure we post the dates of all scoping meetings on this site once they're set. I hope to see you at the one closest to your area. Thanks again for your input.

Lance


----------



## Tarponchaser (May 25, 2005)

Lance,
Thanks for the good information for all to know. I did already know all of this but I am sure many did not.

However; until the flats glow copper red in the Rockport area and many folks are catching limits in the Rockport area ( and I know this is one of the hardest fished areas), I stand by my thinking.

I hope the fishing is great in other areas but I want it great where I fish and it needs improvement.


Hopefully others will have some input.

TC


----------



## Scott G (May 24, 2004)

Lance,

I think my question may have been over shaddowed by TC (that's ok, though, very strong and good opinion). Here goes again....Has there been any discussion about stocking shrimp?

I would think it would be a relatively inexpensive program and I think that it would boost the inshore fishery ten fold, and return the tarpon fishery to what it once was. I've heard *all* the "good old days" stories, and although the fishery is "good", it _ain't _what it was...the fish just arent here....because the food isn't.
Why does POC not have a snook population? ....it's not the H2O temp, I don't buy that for a second if a hundred years ago there was a viable commercial snook fishery _and_ cannery here (and according to the experts it's getting warmer).

I think the most impacting statement to me back when I read Barney Farley's book was how he immediately saw a substantial decline in the fishery when the inshore shrimping began a full century ago. Just buying back shrimp licenses isn't enough, the damage has been done. Stocking fish is fine and necessary, but they need something to eat. It's a little disheartening to go into Matagorda Bay and see one flock of gulls working for as far as you can see.....if that.
I really think that if the food is brought back, the fish will be, too.

SG


----------



## fin_adik (Aug 8, 2005)

*Scott G.*

Im not a shrimpologist just a concerned fisherman. I remember when I was younger, a shrimp farm just north of brownsville had some sort of bacteria/funk it its water. The farm didn't know this until it was too late. Some how the farm water/bacteria washed out of its bank and into the LLM. This casued alot of native shrimp to die. Im not sure even the best biologists in the country could certify what they would be putting into the bay, a sheer number issue. Scott G. I completely understand your point however, I am not really willing to take such a gamble, as fragile as fisheries are it would just take one Duckup. Here is what I dont understand, if there is a man way the heck out in west Texas that can raise shrimp of all sizes in the desert, why cant we push the commercial harvests out of the bay. And if so, could it be done to the GOM? I saw his opperation on TV, very very interesting. He had acres of shrimp popping and they looked as clean as anything pulled up in a net. They do this in Asia widespread and Asia has the largest seafood consuming population on the planet. I want to know if this is possible! Dont let me get ahead of myself here, but just imagine if all bay shrimpers were GONE! not more bay bycatch of finfish/flounder/gamefish and yes tarpon. All who read...................Fire when ready!


----------



## LanceR (May 21, 2004)

*Scott G*

Scott,

Stocking shrimp is impractical and cost prohibitive. You couldn't raise enough shrimp in a hatchery operation to make a dent in the population compared to what is produced by the wild stock. Also, one of the biggest problems affecting shrimp populations (and other estuarine-dependent species) is loss of habitat. If you don't have the appropriate habitat within the estuary it doesn't matter how many you might stock from a hatchery. We've lost over 40,000 acres of marsh since the 1950's. Other sources of mortality (fishing, pollution, insecticides, etc.) compound the problem of lost or reduced habitat. Also, loss of freshwater inflows into bays and estuaries is probably the biggest threat facing the health of these ecosystems in the future as this issue affects habitat and species distributions.

Hatcheries are management tools, just like bag limits and size limits. They can be especially useful in supplementing local populations after a major mortality event such as a freeze, but producing a fish (or other species) to stock is expensive.

Fin-adik - The issue you're referring to was a virus that was brought in with larval Pacific white shrimp (an exotic species) used in these farms. TPWD-Coastal Fisheries now have staff who are responsible for inspecting these operations for diseases and other issues which could potentially have an impact on Texas' coastal ecosystems and native species. Also, larvae brought into the state from hatcheries must be certified disease-free (which is a fairly rigorous process). Water discharged from these facilities require a permit from the Texas Commission on Environemental Quality.

Lance Robinson
TPWD - Coastal Fisheries
Dickinson Marine Laboratory


----------



## Tarponchaser (May 25, 2005)

Scott / Lance,

I do not think we can raise enough shrimp to help the fishery but we can raise enough to replace the bay shrimpers. This will allow billions of shrimp & untold amounts of bycatch to grow to feed our game fish.

We should be putting pressure on the State, CCA, SEA to purchase more licenses & get the shrimpers out of the bays.

There is another smaller group that is buying licenses also. Hats off to you & shame on me for not remembering your name. 

Back to the issue at hand. Tarpon tags.... keep at least an 80" minimum... I see 72" fish killed on the beach while everybody looks for a tape... how about a 84" limit... it would have to longer than your 7' rod.

REDFISH limits: There may be record numbers at some locations. With all the pressure in the Rockport area, perhaps there needs to be a lessor limit for that area. It does not matter if there are lots of fish at Mansfield or S. Padre as the vast majortiy of fishermen from San Antonio/ Austin areas are going to go to Port A & Rockport.

I do not go there but can not imagine that with the pressure from Houston that there is an over population of redfish in the Galveston Bay area. You guys from that area ---- give us a report.

Lance, where can we see the reports that show the high populations that you are seeing?

TC


----------



## Scott G (May 24, 2004)

I know all about the freshwater inflow issue.... I chaired the committee (of 4 of us) to get the summer minimum flows from GBRA (which, by the way TPWD said they would back the River authority 100% if we went to court). CCA wouldn't have anything to do with us either, as we were trying for the flows to protect the rainbow trout fishery below Canyon Lake, and they couldn't see the big picture . GBRA snowed over TNRCC with illegalalities struin throughout the application.....As it stands they legally have the right to drain Caynon Lake dry as a bone if the wish.....anyway, Lance I understand all too well about the state of the estuaries....

I've also given more thought to the redfish deal and think that it should remain where it is with the exception of raising the high end to thirty inches instead of 28....although the fish don't return to the bays, they are still our brood stock and do need to return to spawn.......and speckled trout....ten a day is just way tooo many. If say for the heck of it, it's a great day on the water, 3000 guides have six clients each and they all limit out in one day that's 180000 trout...I know this doesn't happen every day, but I think the "one trout over 24" was just a start in where this should go....

I think the proposed tarpon plan is fine as there aren't that many landed here anyway...and most who land them respect them enough not to kill them (on purpose)....and if Scott A. get's the record, he could apply that $120 to getting it mounted:wink:


----------



## Tarponchaser (May 25, 2005)

Lance,

I concur with Scott. My son, CRT, was also involved with the GBRA deal.

Something that always smokes me is that "Athorities" always wants to lower the limits on rec. fishermen & not the commericial.. Redsnapper---- now flounder... rec. fishermen take only a small per centage of flounder & yet we need to cut the rec limit .... no worries ... the comm. guys will get more .... so no real increase in population.


A way to really make some progress is to have Wardens inforce the recently passed law: guides limits: most guides are still letting clients catch their limits.

This needs to be enforced in the Rockport area. If they think that the client needs more value; they should lower the guide fee not steal fish.

TC


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

Personally, I think they need tougher laws against commercials when they break the law. When a snapper boat breaks the law, they get the catch confiscated and a fine that is relatively small in comparison to the returns if they don't get caught. I think a zero tollerance policy for commercials is best. If you break the law to a gross degree - which is usually what happens when a commercial guy breaks the law - the boat should get confiscated and sold at auction. Proceeds going back to law enforcement. If a recreational guy goes hunting and illegally takes deer, he loses his gun, his license and may loose his right to hunt for years to come. There is no paridy here and there needs to be.

On the guide limit - my 2c is get rid of it entirely. When a guide is fishing with customers, the limit is not based on the guide at all. That's what I think.


----------



## Tarponchaser (May 25, 2005)

Scott,

I agree about the law enforcement.

I did not understand you on the guide limits.

If there are 2 customers & one guide,

could they keep 6 reds or 9 reds?

TC


----------



## Scott (May 24, 2004)

6


----------



## Tarponchaser (May 25, 2005)

I agree...Thanks.

TC


----------

