# Cedar Bayou vs. Rollover



## cody2422 (Feb 26, 2013)

It may have been discussed somewhere in the 279 pages of the other thread, but why is opening Cedar Bayou to the gulf good and keeping Rollover open is not good. The argument of the closure has seemed to die down somewhat over the last year, but the proponents of closing it say it will have minimum impact to the water and fishing quality in East Bay, yet the same group is saying opening Cedar Bayou will be good for those bay systems. I know a lot of the close Rollover crowds argument is the erosion factor, but the two situations seem to contradict one another.

Thoughts?


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

Cedar Bayou is a natural pass that has been around for at least 100 years located on what was federal land. Rollover is man made in the not too distant past on private property owned by the Gulf Coast Rod and Gun club.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Main areas of disagreement...

Opponents of ROP
1. Beach erosion
2. Man-made (cause nothing man-made is good)
3. Too much salt water into EB marsh area (killed the oysters, sea-grass, duck weed)
4. Collects trash and losers
5. Seriously neglected over the years (bulkheads, porta-johns etc.)

Friends of ROP
1. Private property (keep your meddling hands off)
2. Word-class fishing spot available to elderly, kids, handicapped, boat-less 
3. Free except for $5 parking fee
4. Great for local business and economy, just ask them.
5. Does much more good, for ecology of EB, than harm (flushing the toilet so to speak)


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Jampen,

It has been explained to you many times why Rollover was bad for East Bay.

You responded by saying that a submerged aquatic grass that grows in Nova Scotia could grow in East Galveston Bay. 

The upper end of East Galveston was primarily an intermediate system. It had a saltwater influence but was fresh enough to grow voluminous amounts of submerged aquatic vegetation along with extensive amounts of oysters. That is why they called it Oyster Bayou, which is what drains into that part of East Bay on the north side where the Anahuac NWR is. It was also crystal clear. 

When Rollover was opened it spiked the salinity levels. Rollover was never intended to be the size it is now. It was supposed to be about 1/4 as wide. It's needs to be closed.

I saw Jerry Patterson recently. And I forgot to ask him about Rollover.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

There was no Intracoastal back then. 

Every other pass along the coast is praised as being "Life giving" to the bays that they support.

Next time you see JP give him a hearty FU for me...


----------



## Zeitgeist (Nov 10, 2011)

Wrong forum brotha!

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/forumdisplay.php?f=104


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

General means general...


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Croaker, Yeti, potlickers, guides, ROP,...some arguments never die


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

The intracoastal canal through East Bay was completed approximately three decades before Rollover was opened. Your statements have no basis in fact. The upper end of East Bay changed radically and very quickly after Rollover was opened. That is a fact and that fact is not in question.

And your statement about every other pass being praised as life giving to the bays isn't correct either. 

What about a compromise? Let put Rollovre back to the planned dimensions. It would be rivulet. If you try hard enough you find photos on the internet of what it looked like shortly after being opened.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Let's close CB before it ruins everything.

The equipment is still there so we will save $ on transport cost


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

I was under the impression CB/VS was CLOSED by man, but, was a natural pass.
RO, on the other hand, was man made and maintained by man.
Right?


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

That is correct.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Keep it closed...too much saltwater...the oysters, the duck weeds. More fish = more fishermen. Close it now


----------



## Zeitgeist (Nov 10, 2011)

Hence, wrong forum!


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I wish these guys would quit being so argumentative


----------



## Ron R. (May 21, 2004)

jampen said:


> There was no Intracoastal back then.
> 
> Every other pass along the coast is praised as being "Life giving" to the bays that they support.
> 
> Next time you see JP give him a hearty FU for me...


Tell us how you feel about JP. GL send JP my best as well. JP sold us out a long time ago. Not forgiven nor forgotten.


----------



## j wadd (Sep 21, 2009)

i find it funny how the argument on rollover is that it killed east bay.... I don't know how many of you fish that area as much as I do but I can tell you this the tide influx doesn't back up your theorys of it killing east bay.... one of our favorite fishing places it just north of the icw by rollover, and you can all call me crazy but when the tide starts to dump in through the pass it it tends to turn east and west and flow down the icw.. which in turn is why the tide is so far bhind when it comes to the refuge and north shoreline in the back of east.. our tide flow for the back in comes through the jetties not all from rollover.. as for oyster bayou, its still full of oyster and gets crystal clear in the winter time


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Yet another reason to fill it in.

All of that gulf strength salt water is flowing into the High Island Marshes, which is destroying them too.

And that's also a fact that is not in question.

Oyster Bayou still has oysters because it is the only place that provides some relief from the salinity of Rollover.

Your idea of what a lot of oysters is doesn't compare to what it was historically. It's called a declining baseline. If you see 400 Canvasbacks in that area during the winter you would likely think that's great.

Old timers would laugh.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

Green to the first who picks which one is jampen.....


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

I'm going with the young fella on the left of the photo.


----------



## robolivar (Oct 7, 2011)

thats just wrong Jack!


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Your girlfriend looks tired


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

3rd from left!


----------



## capt.dave (Jan 3, 2007)

To the OP - 

As stated, one pass was natural and closed by man while the other was not natural and was dug by man. 

The primary arguments reside with whether you believe man getting in the way of what nature intended was a bad or a good thing. A lot of people believe the closure of Cedar Bayou had adverse affects; hence the effort to have it re-opened. As you can see, the Rollover Pass deal has arguments going both ways; some of which is opinion, while some is fact.

Bottom line is I don't think you can compare the two situations as it's really an apples to oranges comparison.


----------



## SolarScreenGuy (Aug 15, 2005)

cody2422 said:


> It may have been discussed somewhere in the 279 pages of the other thread, but why is opening Cedar Bayou to the gulf good and keeping Rollover open is not good. The argument of the closure has seemed to die down somewhat over the last year, but the proponents of closing it say it will have minimum impact to the water and fishing quality in East Bay, yet the same group is saying opening Cedar Bayou will be good for those bay systems. I know a lot of the close Rollover crowds argument is the erosion factor, but the two situations seem to contradict one another.
> 
> Thoughts?


Don't be fooled by the proponents of closing Rollover. It's a bad idea plain and simple just like all the naysayers on the opening of Cedar Bayou/Vinson Slough. I don't understand these people other than to say simply put, passes from the bays to the gulf are a good thing kind of like keeping your heart arteries open.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Why?

What is that based upon?


----------



## Rolls (Jul 8, 2010)

I'm pretty sure that if a pass needed to be there then the good Lord would have put it there.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Go look at the brown dirty surf at Rollover. Then ask yourself why anyone in there right mind would want that water in the bay.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Right on.


----------



## boatfeet (Jul 24, 2011)

*luv it*

hope it stays open forever


----------



## Capt. AB (Mar 1, 2012)

*Close it*

We have seen the results of an open Rollover pass. Let's close it and see what happens. If it's bad for the bay, we can let the next generation fight and open it back up. I believe it will be good for the bay, and absolutely help reduce erosion among many other positives. I know it stinks for the guys that fish rollover on a regular basis. There are other walk in fishing areas. Just my two cents.


----------



## EdK (Jun 20, 2012)

*Degradation*

*PORT MANSFIELD CHANNEL*. Port Mansfield Channel is a cut through Padre Island thirty miles north of the south end of the island (at 26Â°34' N, 97Â°21' W). It is the southern boundary of Padre Island National Seashore and provides access to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the fishing port at Port Mansfield. A private channel with protecting jetties was completed in *September 1957* and destroyed by storms in November of the same year. The United States Army Corps of Engineers completed the present channel and protecting jetties in *1962*. *The channel opening also permits tidal exchange, which has nurtured a more abundant population of redfish, brown shrimp, flounder, and speckled trout, thus enhancing the sport and commercial fishing economy of Port Mansfield.*
BIBLIOGRAPHY: 
Lynn M. Alperin, _Custodians of the Coast: History of the United States Army Engineers at Galveston_ (Galveston: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977). Art Leatherwood

*
*


----------



## EdK (Jun 20, 2012)

Sabine

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/...ghts/eflows/02202009snslb_tatumwhitepaper.pdf


----------



## robolivar (Oct 7, 2011)

Capt. AB said:


> We have seen the results of an open Rollover pass. Let's close it and see what happens. If it's bad for the bay, we can let the next generation fight and open it back up. I believe it will be good for the bay, and absolutely help reduce erosion among many other positives. I know it stinks for the guys that fish rollover on a regular basis. There are other walk in fishing areas. Just my two cents.


why dont you name a few so that the folks who go there reguarly have some options when and if they close it...


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Also, what about people that can't actually walk?? 

Where can you park right next to your fishing spot and catch good quality fish??


----------



## EdK (Jun 20, 2012)

*Roll Over*

I wonder what the busy bodies and do gooders will attack next...Land Cut..

Packery.. or any of the other man made cuts, canals, jetty's etc.


----------



## Rolls (Jul 8, 2010)

jampen said:


> Where can you park right next to your fishing spot and catch good quality fish??


I've been out there 4 times this summer and have yet to see anyone catch a "quality fish"


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

You're not holding your mouth right...


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

How could any pass be detrimental to a bay system? Any time you can enhance the flow of water into a system I just can't see any way it can be bad. Water movement is a good thing.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

Rolls said:


> I've been out there 4 times this summer and have yet to see anyone catch a "quality fish"


You need to go when Mr. Jean Scrutu is there. He post pictures of some very nice fish he catches at Rollover Pass.


----------



## Rolls (Jul 8, 2010)

You would think with 100 lines in the water something would get hooked.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Pencil in some time around Thanksgiving on the full moon when the tide is highest. Take a generator and some 1000w can lights and spend the night.

























































Looks like 2nd weekend in November or 1st weekend inn December would be prime targets. Before and after absolute high tide when it is ripping out of there you will see plenty of good fish caught. Flounder on the bottom during the day.


----------



## JustSlabs (Jun 19, 2005)

I was just there recently and watched a handicapped person catch a bull red. You would have thought he just hit the lottery how excited he was. When I was a kid we couldn't afford a boat so my dad brought me there quite often. Every year during the croaker run we would go a couple times a week. I looked forward to it every year. I say leave it open and let the disabled and less fortunate people fish. As a matter of fact, I will be down there in the next few weeks catching my fair share of flounder!


----------



## Ron R. (May 21, 2004)

JustSlabs said:


> I was just there recently and watched a handicapped person catch a bull red. You would have thought he just hit the lottery how excited he was. When I was a kid we couldn't afford a boat so my dad brought me there quite often. Every year during the croaker run we would go a couple times a week. I looked forward to it every year. I say leave it open and let the disabled and less fortunate people fish. As a matter of fact, I will be down there in the next few weeks catching my fair share of flounder!


Now you just opened a big can of whoopa** on the proponents to close ROP. Those handicapped people can go catch fish somewhere else for all they care. We'll give them a new proposed pier on the gulf side. It will be great...........park the van, unload all your rods/reels, tackle box, ice chest, long landing net.........hopefully they'll have a custom made cart they can pull behind their motorized wheelchair. Why restrict access when these folks can drive right up to the water and fish at ROP? Jean Scrutu is just one of many, many folks with similar limitations.

Someone should send the National Parks Service (U.S. Dept of Interior) a complaint letter about access issues when and if this land becomes public property via eminent domain. Or contact the NOAA's division that deals with sea turtles that migrate to and from the gulf through ROP. Interesting link:

http://www.crystalbeachlocalnews.com/?p=3184

Can't mess with Texas' sea turtles.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Those photos don't provide much of an argument for keeping Rollover open.

Rollover Pass has done so much damage that you can't even tell how bad the damage is because what was damaged is pretty much gone. 

It is called a declining baseline. People that see it now think it's great because that's all they know.

People who used the bay many decades ago can tell you just how much it has declined. More like collapsed.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

You sure put a lot of words in other people's mouths.

Let all the "old-timers" speak for themselves. You weren't there.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

At least my information is accurate. 

More than can be said for you. 

Your buffoonish statements included that a sea grass which grows in Maine and Nova Scotia also grows in East Galveston Bay.

That rice grows in the Laguna Madre.

And that really high salinity levels are good for oysters. 

We need to go back to the photo that was posted last week.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

More BS posted by you and attributed to others.


----------



## Jean Scurtu (Dec 6, 2011)

Rolls said:


> I've been out there 4 times this summer and have yet to see anyone catch a "quality fish"


:texasflag

Sorry sir,if you know how to fish at ROLLOVER PASS,when and what place, you can catch some very nice fish.
I am fishing from the bank,most of the time with jigs and i was catching a lot of nice fish in the last 10 years,fishing just with artificial..IF YOU FISH WITH LIVE BAIT ,OR CUT BAIT FOR SURE YOU CAN CATCH MORE FISH COMPARATIVE LIKE FISHING WITH ARTIFICIAL.

ROLLOVER PASS is the best place for fishing in Texas if you don't have boat ,kayak,disable (like me).You can park the car very close with the channel bank,you must not travel with tackle long distance.I am fishing staying on my ice box(problems with my legs) and i telling you again ,i was catching a lot of nice fish,but not fishing for big fish ,just for average size fish.If you like i can send you a lot of pictures with fish catch by me on jig at Rollover Pass*.You must understand,the fish are not gypsy child to eat everything you give,you must know what the fish want and to know to fish(line ,hook and presentation of the bait).*

In the first picture you can see one 40 inch,23 lb. red fish-C&R-(photo Ed Snyder) catch by me on jig with GULP MINNOW GRUB 3 "chartreuse and in the third picture one 8.5 lb. speckled trout catch by me on jig at ROLLOVER PASS ad in the last picture one 8 lb. speckled trout catch by me on 28 MARCH 2014.


----------



## Capt. AB (Mar 1, 2012)

EDK, I read the article on Sabine, very interesting. It does not make the case for keeping Rollover open. If anything, it makes a pretty good argument for closing it.

As far as walk in areas when Rollover is closed, there are many. (for the record, I did say it would stink for the guys that fish there on regular basis.

1. Old Bridge in Port Bolivar
2. New Bridge in Port Bolivar
3. North Jetty
4. Ferry Landing jetties
5. Bolivar Pocket
6. Texas City Dike
7. The list goes on.

When they close, you will just have to find a new spot. Let's not all cry at once. Good grief, any fisherman worth his or her salt will find a place to fish.

TPWD website has a fairly extensive list of wheelchair accessible fishing areas.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fishboat/fish/recreational/wheretofish/wheelchair.phtml

I still say close it.


----------



## Rolls (Jul 8, 2010)

Mr. Jean, I understand that there are good fish to be caught there and trust me I am fully capable of catching them. I caught my first saltwater fish there when I was around 8 and have fished there many times each year. In fact I fish there a lot more than most of the people on this thread that want it open. My point is that you don't just drive down there jump out and start slinging slabs in the cooler as some would want you to believe. So NO it is not a world class fishing location.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Before Rollover Pass was opened the upper end of East Bay was crystal clear and full of submerged aquatic grasses. It was famous for its fishing and oysters.

If it is closed the bay will heal itself. 

Why would anyone oppose that?

I guess Jampen would but he has written many times that submerged grasses that grow in Maine, Nova Scotia and Washington State grow in Easy Bay. 


Not much credibility there.


----------



## Jean Scurtu (Dec 6, 2011)

:texasflag

[*COLOR="Black"]I hope nobody close the ROLLOVER PASS,the best place for fishing in Texas[/COLOR]*.You can't compare the fishing at ROLLOVER PASS with fishing at TEXAS CITY DIKE,SURF-SIDE JETTY,SEA WOLF PARK,SLP etc.
Before i was disable i was fishing on all this places,and the ROLLOVER PASS is better.I don't like to fish on pier,but i like to fish at ROLLOVER PASS anytime.
I discover ROLLOVER PASS in the fall of 2003 and until today i fish just at ROLLOVER PASS catching a lot of nice fish fishing just with artificial.


----------



## BMTAngler (Aug 17, 2008)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## EdK (Jun 20, 2012)

Capt. AB said:


> EDK, I read the article on Sabine, very interesting. It does not make the case for keeping Rollover open. If anything, it makes a pretty good argument for closing it.
> 
> As far as walk in areas when Rollover is closed, there are many. (for the record, I did say it would stink for the guys that fish there on regular basis.
> 
> ...


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

The dredging of that little fish pass sends millions and millions and millions and millions of gallons of acid water per day into what was a much fresher system. 

Trying sending water from the Gulf of Mexico into a rice field and see what happens. Its a good parallel. 

Rollover is being attacked because it has caused very negative consequences. 

How do limit access to the water by limiting private property rights? 

It is the opposite. Increasing private property rights is what causes the loss of access to the water.

That is what happened with the court ruling that ended the Texas Open Beaches Act. 

Are you in favor of that?


----------



## Ron R. (May 21, 2004)

Capt. AB said:


> TPWD website has a fairly extensive list of wheelchair accessible fishing areas.
> 
> http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/fishboat/fish/recreational/wheretofish/wheelchair.phtml
> 
> I still say close it.


Ignorance must be bliss. "Restrooms are wheelchair accessible".....that must make that fishing spot accessible because it's on a TPW webpage.

It's hard or nearly impossible for some of our physically challenged fellow fisherman to get to their favorite spots, especially those in wheelchairs. Even able-bodied folks lugging fishing poles, ice chest, tackle box......with a wagon or cart is a chore.

Last time I visited Sea Wolf Park all they had were port-a-potties and not ADA accessible.

Sad thing is most of us will join the persons with disabilities club ourselves or have a loved one that will. And lest we forget the thousands of young returning soldiers that earned their disability fighting for your and my freedoms. Their opportunities for fishing spots like ROP with drive up access are almost nil.

Let us know which of the TPW or any fishing spots have drive up, get out of your car right at the water access for someone in a wheelchair. There has to be hard packed sand or a hard level base for them.

I say keep ROP open.


----------



## Ron R. (May 21, 2004)

Goose Lover said:


> Increasing private property rights is what causes the loss of access to the water.
> 
> That is what happened with the court ruling that ended the Texas Open Beaches Act.
> 
> Are you in favor of that?


This is just the opposite. You have landowners at ROP that want to keep this open to the public.

Private property proponents on West Galveston Island, WGIPOA, San Luis developers, Tx GLO and our dear Jerry Patterson wanted the public beaches closed to vehicular traffic.........the public.......you and me and all non-beachfront property owners. Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper or see on TV. Lots of us lived that loss.

I'm from the GLO and here to help you. Be real.


----------



## gettinspooled (Jun 26, 2013)

Goose Lover said:


> The dredging of that little fish pass sends millions and millions and millions and millions of gallons of acid water per day into what was a much fresher system.
> 
> Trying sending water from the Gulf of Mexico into a rice field and see what happens. Its a good parallel.
> 
> ...


Are you in favor of eminent domain, where the government can take your land and do with it as they please?

Tell me, how in the world does East Bay produce so much good fishing if Rollover is sooooo bad? I am perfectly happy with the way that East Bay is right now.


----------



## Fishing Hardcore (Jul 5, 2014)

Has anyone thought that maybe it's not the passes. Bay's are where freshwater and saltwater meet. Maybe we should stop restricting all the freshwater that goes to our bays.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

It really doesn't matter what we do...In another 25 years this over populated rock we live on will not have enough food & water to for people to survive. Recreational fishing will be replaced with cannibalism. There will be limits on how many children you can harvest per week, with a bonus tag for one hot blonde 17-20 years old per year.


----------



## EdK (Jun 20, 2012)

Government and their well funded do gooder minions ALWAYS nibble away at the edges...attacking where numbers are low and under financed for an equitable defense. While NOT addressing items with the greatest impact. I am amused. Its a crisis and "we" must do something...don't cha know.

The decision to have an ICW, Deepen AP, Create the LAND CUT, Mansfield, etc. The decision to allow grand fathering of dis-functional on site sewage. The under mitigated discharge zones from industrial and agricultural areas. -certainly these are all higher impact than Roll Over. AND...wealth and commerce reign supreme & Small guys and gals lose.

I read that " MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of gallons flow through the Rollover Pass" shocking I know, and yes and the fish seem to like it just fine. And the water in Clearwater Florida was gin clear too, till People. Can't imagine how many billions flow through the ICW or AP or the "newly opened" Cedar Bayou. Irony indeed. 

Sometimes folks in a small community should just come first. Nature adapts. 

Y'all have a nice day!


----------



## robolivar (Oct 7, 2011)

gettinspooled said:


> Are you in favor of eminent domain, where the government can take your land and do with it as they please?
> 
> Tell me, how in the world does East Bay produce so much good fishing if Rollover is sooooo bad? I am perfectly happy with the way that East Bay is right now.


exactly. I fish east bay exclusively and havent had any trouble catching fish. I know alot of retired people that live on the peninsula and they catch good fish everyday. EVERYDAY. im not a marine biologist but it looks and seems pretty damm healthy to me


----------



## Rolls (Jul 8, 2010)

Would someone please explain to me what "LAND" the goverment is taking? I still don't understand how filling in a waterway is taking away land.


----------



## robolivar (Oct 7, 2011)

Rolls said:


> Would someone please explain to me what "LAND" the goverment is taking? I still don't understand how filling in a waterway is taking away land.


If your speaking in a literal sense then your right...they are not taking land, per se. BUT

Land, that people own, that has a waterway running through it, that people fish and have fished for years is going to be filled in and no longer used for what the landowner and masses of anglers want to use it for.

SO they would be taking land that they do not own and doing what they want with it. hence the mention of eminent domain


----------



## Capt. AB (Mar 1, 2012)

Just in case anyone wants to read the actual report on the beach erosion.

http://www.glo.texas.gov/what-we-do...ollover -impacts -adjacent-beaches-taylor.pdf


----------



## capt.dave (Jan 3, 2007)

robolivar said:


> If your speaking in a literal sense then your right...they are not taking land, per se. BUT
> 
> Land, that people own, that has a waterway running through it, that people fish and have fished for years is going to be filled in and no longer used for what the landowner and masses of anglers want to use it for.
> 
> SO they would be taking land that they do not own and doing what they want with it. hence the mention of eminent domain


I'm not really against keeping Rollover open, however, this eminent domain argument holds little water.

Isn't the pass an easement that was granted by the property owners? If the easement is filled in, said property will return back to the landowners. Eminent domain is when the gov't takes private property for public use; and the landowner is compensated. No property is being taken by the gov't in this situation. Actually, an easement will be returned to the property owners.

I don't see how this is much different than say a pipeline easement. If the said pipeline is no longer used and the company removes it, then the easement returns back to the property owner and it is their reponsibility to maintain the property.

Like I said, I'm not really for closing the pass, but some of these arguments are a bit misleading. Some of you'll act like the gov't is taking over private property, which really isn't the case.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Then why does JP and GLO have to coerce a county judge to get it done. 

They are efforting to permanently alter and destroy a privately-owned "facility" for lack of a better term so that it can never be enjoyed the way the rightful owners intend it to be. 

You can use what ever legal terminology you feel is appropriate, but that land around, and under, ROP is private property and the GLO has no legal right to be on it.

It is my understanding that the predecessor to TPWD was granted a maintenance easement to build the original channel and to occasionally dredge if they saw fit, but I have never seen or heard of any documentation regarding any exit strategy or being allowed to fill-it in.

The original easement paperwork is in a library in Port Aransas I think. I would like to see it if anyone has a copy.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Filling in the pass would be a present to our children and grandchildren.

Doing something about the GIWW is another great idea. But the GIWW isn't the cause of the salt water intrusion in the upper end of East Bay. When Rollover is closed the GIWW will be primarily freshwater and won't be full of tons of highly saline water that moves through it via Rollover Pass.

There are miles and miles of beach the public can access for fishing from Louisiana to Galveston in that area. And people can also fish from piers, parks and other public areas. The state is offering to build a pier along with other facilities so that people can also access East Bay. They are being very fair. 

Someone pointed out the channels and cuts around Port Aransas have really helped the trout.

If that is the case then why has the limit been cut?

It is very simple. The bays need to be considerably fresher (especially East Bay) than the Gulf of Mexico to be productive. Making them as salty as the surf is bad.


----------



## Jean Scurtu (Dec 6, 2011)

Rolls said:


> Mr. Jean, I understand that there are good fish to be caught there and trust me I am fully capable of catching them. I caught my first saltwater fish there when I was around 8 and have fished there many times each year. In fact I fish there a lot more than most of the people on this thread that want it open. My point is that you don't just drive down there jump out and start slinging slabs in the cooler as some would want you to believe. So NO it is not a world class fishing location.


:texasflag

In my post i was trying to show you at ROLLOVER PASS you can catch some nice fish if you really know how to fish and for this reason i post some picture with fish catch by me.
I never say the ROLLOVER PASS is world class location,just i was saying ROLLOVER PASS is the best place to fish in Texas for people witch don't have boat ,kayak (or money to buy) ,for disable people witch enjoy fishing.Here you can park the car very close to the bank,so you don't need to walk a lot with your tackle,ice box etc.for start fishing.

What i understand you start fishing at 8 years old in salt water ,so you fish in salt water for 24 years .
I was not so lucky because i start to fish in salt water just 11 years ago(when i was 58 years old),and i can't say i am good fisherman.I was catching some nice fish at ROLLOVER PASS,not because i am good fisherman ,i was catching this fish just because i was lucky.
I was posting some picture with some nice fish catch by me there just because you say you can't catch nice fish at ROLLOVER PASS,what is not true.

I am sure you are very good fisherman because you are fishing in salt water for 24 years and i want ,if is possible ,to teach me how to catch more and nice fish in salt water.I want to learn more about fishing in salt water because majority of my live i was fishing in fresh water in Europe.
So if you have some time for me i am ready to learn from you more about saltwater fishing.

Regards,

Jean Scurtu

P.S. In this picture you can see one of my fishing friend from ROLLOVER PASS catching from wheelchair one nice trout on jig.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

There are a number of spots better than Rollover to fish if you don't have a kayak or boat.

Most of the upper and middle Texas coast is open to wade fishermen. 

Many, many great places to be found.


----------



## Capt. AB (Mar 1, 2012)

I am not a huge fan of eminent domain. It is necessary, but should be used very rarely. I personally found The last Supreme Court decision on eminent domain very disappointing. 

With that being said, if there was ever a case for it this is it. Rollover pass is resulting in excess beach erosion. The private property owners up and down the beach are being negatively impacted as a result of the pass. The pass did not exist prior to 1955. In addition, Rollover is causing and will continue to cost taxpayers a great deal of money. Did the private property owners of rollover pass pay for the bulkhead? Ever? No, the taxpayers did. The taxpayers will also be on the hook when HWY 87 is washed out between High Island and Gilchrist. Of course if eminent domain is so evil, I guess we can all drive down the beach to reach rop. Anyone travelled between Sabine and High Island lately? ( yes I realize that the hurricanes are the biggest contributors ). 

Guys, I hate to lose a fishing spot as much as the next. At some point the grown ups need to sit down and make some adult decisions. I guess we will all have to wait on the court ruling for that.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

There definitely needs to be a jetty installed.

I'm sure it would be much cheaper than the $M they have budgeted to close ROP


----------



## Rolls (Jul 8, 2010)

Mr. Jean I have the upmost respect for you and I would say that you are a very good fisherman. My post was not directed at you in any way. I understand that it is a very convenient place to fish and if you can wait it out you can catch something. I would hate for someone in your place to lose a fishing hole that they can access so easily but I think we need we need to make sure we're not hurting a lot of people to help a few.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

A jetty isn't going to stop the erosion. 

It will accelerate it on the west side by starving it from receiving sand.

When you close Rollover the problem is over with.


----------



## Ron R. (May 21, 2004)

Jean Scurtu said:


> :texasflag
> 
> In my post i was trying to show you at ROLLOVER PASS you can catch some nice fish if you really know how to fish and for this reason i post some picture with fish catch by me.
> I never say the ROLLOVER PASS is world class location,just i was saying ROLLOVER PASS is the best place to fish in Texas for people witch don't have boat ,kayak (or money to buy) ,for disable people witch enjoy fishing.Here you can park the car very close to the bank,so you don't need to walk a lot with your tackle,ice box etc.for start fishing.
> ...


Jean, nice pics of some happy fishermen catching some very nice fish! I know you love to fish at ROP and have made some great catches there. I also know drive up access is important as well.

If ROP was closed, where would you fish?


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

I'm just curious,where is the erosion everyone keeps talking about. Here are 3 images of rollover pass from 1974,1996,and 2013. I measured them and couldn't find any significant erosion in this time period.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

About half of the land has been lost between the edge of the water and Highway 87 in 40 years.

That qualifies as substantial.


----------



## Ron R. (May 21, 2004)

sharkchum said:


> I'm just curious,where is the erosion everyone keeps talking about. Here are 3 images of rollover pass from 1974,1996,and 2013. I measured them and couldn't find any significant erosion in this time period.


Sharkchum, if GL says the beaches there have eroded it must be so. His bible is the beach erosion report commissioned by the GLO. ROP is the devil. I believe hurricanes didn't have anything to do with the erosion either.


----------



## Sgrem (Oct 5, 2005)

I asked my ouija board if ROP is good or bad and it went directly to "NO".


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

Goose Lover said:


> About half of the land has been lost between the edge of the water and Highway 87 in 40 years.
> 
> That qualifies as substantial.


In 1974 there was 624 feet of land between the water line at the gulf and hwy 87, in 2013 there was 513 feet of land between the water line at the gulf and hwy 87. In 39 years the distance from the water line at the gulf and hwy 87 has decreased by 111 feet, now I don't know where you went to school but where I went they taught me that half of 624 was 312, not 111. Now the reason it appears that the beach has eroded 111 feet isn't because of Rollover Pass, it because of subsidence caused by the millions of gallons of ground water pumped out of the aquifer in the 60's,70's and 80's, in the last 50 years the land in the Houston/Galveston area has sunk up to 10 feet is some area's because of subsidence. But don't let my facts get in the way of your babbling B.S. By the way, since Rollover pass has destroyed East Bay, why don't you try to get the Galveston Jetties and San Louis Pass shut down to before all the that saltwater inflow destroys Galveston Bay and West Bay.:sarcasm


----------



## dlbpjb (Oct 9, 2009)

I grew up there, actually right behind the old Hardware Store Clauds. When it was first opened the fishing/duck hunting couldn't be beat, now there are some good fishing but not like it was and the duck hunting (not going there). 
I can't and won't say the ROP should be left open or closed. I have a dog on both sides of the fight, a brother who is in a wheel chair and a son who is a disabled vet. And on the other hand have a boat. 
It will be interesting to see what happens.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

It depends on where you are measuring from.

dlbpjb is right about how the fishing and hunting was light years better before Rollover was opened than today. Jampen did you take note of that?

Rollover Pass caused the decline
'
It isn't groundwater pumping or hurricanes that is causing the beach to erode. Some areas are adding beach. Wolf Island west past the mouth of the San Bernard River is building beach at an incredible rate. That area has hurricanes and tropical storms also. 

We should leave San Luis and the mouth of the ship channel open. Those have always been there. 

Put East Bay back like it was. A few years down the road everyone will thank Jerry Patterson for having the foresight to do it.


----------



## JustSlabs (Jun 19, 2005)

Goose Lover said:


> It depends on where you are measuring from.
> 
> dlbpjb is right about how the fishing and hunting was light years better before Rollover was opened than today. Jampen did you take note of that?
> 
> ...


You really believe that hurricanes have had no effect on the erosion? The first hurricane that hits here, the beach will last about as long a that pier they promise to build if ROP is closed. Sure didn't know that HWY 87 East of HWY 124 was destroyed by ROP.


----------



## robolivar (Oct 7, 2011)

Goose Lover said:


> It depends on where you are measuring from.
> 
> dlbpjb is right about how the fishing and hunting was light years better before Rollover was opened than today. Jampen did you take note of that?
> 
> ...


Im only 30 and know that fishing was much better back in the day(with the exception of a few places). When dlbpjb says it was better back then thats a normal statement that has nothing to do with the pass. he wasnt even born til 1969-1970. IMO, Bottom line is, the only real reasons they want to close the pass are because of the cost of dredging the ICW and the eye sore it may seem to be. Im not going for all this talk about the fishing getting better in east bay. beaches will continue erode in some areas and build up in others for a number of reasons. we will continue to pay high and higher taxes forever regardless. we know that.

they care about $$ today..not fishing tomorrow


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

robolivar said:


> they care about $$ today..not fishing tomorrow


So which, precisely, financial interests are served by closing Rollover? I mean other than not continuing to spend taxpayer dollars on a losing battle?

The specific geography, zoning requirements, and infrastructure of Bolivar prevents large scale development. There simply isn't the room or ability to create the kind of infrastructure (specifically water & sewage) to develop the peninsula on a scale which makes it financially worthwhile.

Bolivar is less than 1.5 miles across at it's widest developable point (vegetation line on the Gulf to the ICW) and for most of it the peninsula is less only a bout 3/4ths of a mile. At Rollover Bay it's less than 2/10ths of a mile.

There simply isn't the ability to develop there. Not gonna happen.

In other words, contrary to the conspiracy theories there's no money trail to be found here. Nobody will really financially benefit other than the property owners who will no longer see their investment eroded away and flushed through the pass and their benefit is just that they won't lose their homes.


----------



## Ron R. (May 21, 2004)

Finn Maccumhail said:


> So which, precisely, financial interests are served by closing Rollover? I mean other than not continuing to spend taxpayer dollars on a losing battle?
> 
> The specific geography, zoning requirements, and infrastructure of Bolivar prevents large scale development. There simply isn't the room or ability to create the kind of infrastructure (specifically water & sewage) to develop the peninsula on a scale which makes it financially worthwhile.
> 
> ...


You need to get your head out of the sand buddy. Galveston's West End is just as narrow between the gulf and bay side. I guess all those $500k shacks up to $1m+ palaces are mirages.

Don't think for even 1 minute that plans aren't already in the works for development on Bolivar, if and when ROP closes. It's all about $$$. Always has been and always will be. Who would ever build at SLP? Even the old town that was there and blown/washed away many, many years ago was replaced with homes and condos.

This is the best time to invest in infrastucture, especially after nature left most of Bolivar as a clean slate. Zoning can be changed by new plans and a simple vote. Don't think that conversation isn't happening as well.


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

Different hydrodynamics in play. The West End is accreting beach. They also had/have infrastructure in place.

Bolivar would have to build a new sewer system and water delivery system. Not to mention wastewater treatment facilities. You're talking $100MM+ in just subsurface improvements. The return isn't there.

This is what I do for a living, commercial development and land acquisition. There is no profit in developing Bolivar for anything other than the sort of single-family homes they already have which can exist on individual septic systems.

Bolivar cannot handle the large condo developments which would be required to make such a development profitable.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Look at most any place in Louisiana for an example of how much better east bay would be if Rollover was closed. Ask a ******* if dirty, muddy surf water is good for a marsh and he would laugh at your ignorance. East Bay is a marsh system like in Louisiana. Fresh water is what makes it better, not dirty water from the surf.

Need to close that mudhole down.


as for the public access, Texas has several miles of beach with easy public access and the fishing is better.


----------



## robolivar (Oct 7, 2011)

If i can catch substancial fish just about everytime i go there like the many others i know do, how much better can it get? Am I going to start catching record fish everyday?? is TPWD gunna raise the limits due to "how great the fishing got in east bay after the closure of ROP"?? I highly doubt it. The fishing is just fine..ask anyone on this forum that fishes east bay and theyll tell you its just as good as any other bay system in its own ways. They may even agree with the closure of ROP, but i doubt they will say that any other bay system is better.


----------



## The Salty Raider (Sep 25, 2012)

Ask any old fart anywhere if they think the hunting/fishing/or anything else for that matter was better back in the day than now and i swear they will say it was better back then....has anyone ever heard of anyone else saying that things are better today than way back when...jesus i hear my grandfather talking all the time about how much bigger the bucks were back in the day or how big the spec trout were from corpus to galveston. Yet every year i catch nice trout and shoot big bucks. life is more fun when you were younger regardless so quit trying to say things were so much better back then unless you have factual data to back it up..

also is it beneficial for everyone on here to keep bringing up other locations and trying to compare it to our situation...east bay is nothing like the marshes in Louisiana so i dont understand why that keeps getting brought up along with other places. 

I have been fishing in galveston my whole life but wont claim to be an expert in any of this stuff but i would think that all of the boat traffic, trash left behind, over fishing, pollution from the plants along with the oil spills we often see here would have more to do with the bay systems regression than some small man made cut.


----------



## Jean Scurtu (Dec 6, 2011)

Ron R. said:


> Jean, nice pics of some happy fishermen catching some very nice fish! I know you love to fish at ROP and have made some great catches there. I also know drive up access is important as well.
> 
> If ROP was closed, where would you fish?


If the ROLLOVER PASS is close i don't know if i am fishing anymore,because i don't like to fish on the piers.I like to fish just with artificial,i can't wade because i have problems with my legs,i can't stay long on my legs.I have walker ,but i don't use,i force myself to walk without walker.I am not able to walk long distance without staying down,i can't handle to take my tackle and ice box on the pier ,and i don't like to fish on the pier.
10 years i was able to fish in many places,like below Livingston Dam,SAN LUIS PASS,GALVESTON JETTY and piers,SEA WOLF PARK,TEXAS CITY DIKE,SURF SIDE JETTY,but not now because i am to old with health problem.
I hope nobody close ROLLOVER PASS and what i see just some people witch don't fish here want to close the pass.
No pier can substitute the pass,and why to spend so much money to close the pass and build one pier when with this money can built some jetty ,or another solution to limited the erosion. You can stop total the erosion witch is happening with pass or without pass.I don't think the ROLLOVER PASS make the port channel to be drudge more and in 11 years at ROLLOVER PASS this pass was drudge just one time ,after the hurricane IKE.

Keeping the pass open help the GILCHRIST community and make happy a lot of fishermen witch have no money to afford boat ,kayak etc. for fishing.

And for me is not so easy to fish at ROLLOVER PASS because i must drive 2.5 hours to be there and in the same day to drive back home,over 5 hours driving for some hours fishing.....


----------



## Ron R. (May 21, 2004)

Finn Maccumhail said:


> Different hydrodynamics in play. The West End is accreting beach. They also had/have infrastructure in place.
> 
> Bolivar would have to build a new sewer system and water delivery system. Not to mention wastewater treatment facilities. You're talking $100MM+ in just subsurface improvements. The return isn't there.
> 
> ...


Yes Finn, accreting beach.....different hydrodynamics in play...... This just ain't true. The accreting beach on Galveston's West End is due to the TX GLO spending millions of dollars in sand replenishment. That sand got there in big dump trucks and some even pumped from near shore directly on the beach. Man-made Finn. Look up CEPRA Programs to get your facts straight. Why are the beaches eroding there? South jetties, SLP, hurricanes........

In many parts of the West End there was no infrastructure and much is still being built. Why? Because there is mucho dinero to be made there. $100MM is a drop in the bucket for these big time, commercial developers. These guys are buying pasture land and developing it. Once every tract of land is developed there they will move on to places like Bolivar.


----------



## Ron R. (May 21, 2004)

Jean Scurtu said:


> If the ROLLOVER PASS is close i don't know if i am fishing anymore,because i don't like to fish on the piers.I like to fish just with artificial,i can't wade because i have problems with my legs,i can't stay long on my legs.I have walker ,but i don't use,i force myself to walk without walker.I am not able to walk long distance without staying down,i can't handle to take my tackle and ice box on the pier ,and i don't like to fish on the pier.
> 10 years i was able to fish in many places,like below Livingston Dam,SAN LUIS PASS,GALVESTON JETTY and piers,SEA WOLF PARK,TEXAS CITY DIKE,SURF SIDE JETTY,but not now because i am to old with health problem.
> I hope nobody close ROLLOVER PASS and what i see just some people witch don't fish here want to close the pass.
> No pier can substitute the pass,and why to spend so much money to close the pass and build one pier when with this money can built some jetty ,or another solution to limited the erosion. You can stop total the erosion witch is happening with pass or without pass.I don't think the ROLLOVER PASS make the port channel to be drudge more and in 11 years at ROLLOVER PASS this pass was drudge just one time ,after the hurricane IKE.
> ...


Jean, thank you for sharing this with us. This is one of the reasons I am opposed to closing ROP and will do what I can to keep it open.

You are not the only person that will be affected is ROP is closed. And fishing opportunities for persons with disabilities is more limited than most people would like to admit. You don't know limitations until you've been there personally or know someone that struggles with them daily.

God bless you Jean and I hope to see you post some pics of the beautiful fish you catch at ROP. Keep them coming. I know you get out to fish more when the weather gets cooler.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

If 45 qualifies as "old-timer" then I must be pre-historic


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

If East Bay looked today like it did in 1955 everyone would be up in arms about opening a cut into it 

Nobody would dream of changing it. Because since most everyone is accustomed to the deteriorated condition it is in today they think its great.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Obviously, the "old-timers", back then did not think that way...

Just like Cedar Bayou today, I suspect they opened ROP to grow the fishery


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

You had dlbpjb write that he saw East Bay before and after Rollover was opened.

He said the fishing was great before it was opened but has declined since. 

That qualifies as an "old timer". 

Rollover was opened to improve the fishery. Big mistake. You know those do happen.

Sort of like the GO canal in New Orleans. Now they know they need to close it.

Closing Rollover is no different than the removal of dams on the rivers in the Northwest to restore the salmon runs. 

The dams ruined the salmon fishery and it has taken decades to start the process to restore the fishery by removing the cause of the decline, which was the dams.

Closing Rollover is an attempt to undo the damage caused by a misguided project.

It was originally built and intended to be about the width of one lane dirt road. 

How about we go back to that?

You keep harping about about why it was constructed. But it's way, way different (larger) than the way it was planned. 

Is that a fair compromise?

I doubt it would be to you. Your position is that the decision makers were right to open Rollover but were wrong about the size. You believe you know better and that it should be a hundred times larger than it was planned. 

And maybe that submerged aquatic grass that grows in Maine and Nova Scotia will grow in East Galveston Bay as you asserted many times.


----------



## tmanbuckhunter (Aug 1, 2014)

The Salty Raider said:


> Ask any old fart anywhere if they think the hunting/fishing/or anything else for that matter was better back in the day than now and i swear they will say it was better back then....has anyone ever heard of anyone else saying that things are better today than way back when...jesus i hear my grandfather talking all the time about how much bigger the bucks were back in the day or how big the spec trout were from corpus to galveston. Yet every year i catch nice trout and shoot big bucks. life is more fun when you were younger regardless so quit trying to say things were so much better back then unless you have factual data to back it up..
> 
> also is it beneficial for everyone on here to keep bringing up other locations and trying to compare it to our situation...east bay is nothing like the marshes in Louisiana so i dont understand why that keeps getting brought up along with other places.
> 
> I have been fishing in galveston my whole life but wont claim to be an expert in any of this stuff but i would think that all of the boat traffic, trash left behind, over fishing, pollution from the plants along with the oil spills we often see here would have more to do with the bay systems regression than some small man made cut.


Anytime I hear my 77 year old grandfather tell me that back in the 50's if you didn't catch at least 50 trout in a day you had a bad day, I genuinely have to believe that overfishing has helped in causing a major decline in the fish population, along with everything else said.

I don't know, and I don't really care because there is nothing I can do about it, but I believe the fishing "back in the day" really was probably better.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

You would make a great politician or preacher...you love to speak for other people while being completely oblivious to reality.

He is 45 years old...ROP is "60 give or take"...do the math


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Speaking of salmon in NW...are they efforting to "decrease" access between salt and fresh waters or "increase"???

Does ROP "decrease" access or "increase"??


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Jampen, using your thinking we should make all of the rivers straight Pacific Ocean saltwater by cutting a channel from the mouth of the rivers to their headwaters.

Many species of juevenile fish, shrimp, crabs and so on hatch and grow up in lower salinity water and then move to higher salinity as they grow up.

Would you compromise by putting Rollover back to its original specifications?

Their has been a slow but steady movement in restoring natural systems back to the way they were..

Closing Rollover is part of that change in thinking.

It will happen. I don't know when but it will happen. 

And our children, grandchildren and so forth are going to thank the people that did it. 

It will help heal East Galveston Bay. It won't go back to what it was in the 1800's but I believe it will be similar to what it was in the 1950's.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Ground Control to Major Tom...really...headwaters of rivers in the Pacific North West???

Where are the "headwaters" of Oyster bayou/river?? Is there a channel cut to there?? 

You are struggling dude.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

My children, right now, today, love to fish ROP and EB, as will, I am confident, their children...without your or the GLO's meddling. 

Check the pictures if you don't believe me


----------



## SolarScreenGuy (Aug 15, 2005)

Dreaming of the days when EGB had the crystal clear waters and massive grass beds is never going to happen regardless of closing or not closing ROP. The ICW is the reason. Close the pass and we will close a migratory route for finfish and shell fish that has made that area a very productive fishery. Passes between bays and gulf waters are literally the life blood for the marine environment. Cedar Bayou/ Vinson Slough is a prime example of what happens when passes are closed. How can closing ROP help the overall marine environment?


----------



## boatfeet (Jul 24, 2011)

*salt water bay*

agreed it is a salt water bay ....fresh salt water can only be good ....maybe we can go to the dying marsh and hug a bunny.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

boatfeet said:


> agreed it is a salt water bay ....fresh salt water can only be good ....maybe we can go to the dying marsh and hug a bunny.


Sure, hug him to death. Then, I'd suggest, slow cooked for about 6 hours with a gravy and onions. Maybe a pinch of garlic as well.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

The reason Rollover needs to be closed is very simple. It will freshen up the bay.

If having a fresher system is bad then Louisiana wouldn't be the mother load of fish, crabs, oysters and shrimp. Look at the guides photos from over there. Then check out the photos of Rollover that Jampen so proudly proclaims as world class. 

This is called a declining baseline. People believe the current standard is good because that's what they know. So the standard just keeps dropping and dropping. 

The bays south of us are having tons of trouble. The trout limits have been cut and from my conversations with the guides around Rockport it is a good day for an entire boat to come back with 6 or 7 trout. 

But whatever reason there are people that think if we allows tons of highly saline water into our Galveston Bay system it will help. 

I believe the goal is to angle towards Louisiana, which is what East Bay was more comparable to, and not towards Rockport in the salinity levels. 

There is no access problem for fish in Galveston Bay. The jetties are miles apart. And San Luis has always been there. 

This is very comparable to restoring the Everglades, which also channelized to get the freshwater out faster. Now billions are and will be spent trying to recreate the historic flows across that landscape and undo the damage. 

But Rollover cost pennies compared to that. And it will bring back a large bay system to its former productivity.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Pass*



jampen said:


> Obviously, the "old-timers", back then did not think that way...
> 
> Just like Cedar Bayou today, I suspect they opened ROP to grow the fishery


As far as I am concerned the jury is still out on Cedar Bayou and for Rollover, in 1950 I don't think they had a clue what it would do!


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

I agree Gater. They didn't have any idea of what would happen when Rollover was opened. 

They built it to be the size of a dirt road. And they believed it would need mechanical assistance every few years to stay open. But it blew wide open to 500 feet in almost no time much to their surprise so it had to be contained to its current dimensions.


----------



## The Salty Raider (Sep 25, 2012)

tmanbuckhunter said:


> Anytime I hear my 77 year old grandfather tell me that back in the 50's if you didn't catch at least 50 trout in a day you had a bad day, I genuinely have to believe that overfishing has helped in causing a major decline in the fish population, along with everything else said.
> 
> I don't know, and I don't really care because there is nothing I can do about it, but I believe the fishing "back in the day" really was probably better.


I absolutely believe that the fishing was better back then but i dont think that rollover pass is the ONLY reason it has declined. it was a different time back then. Its just hard for me to believe that this one cut is the sole reason that the entire east bay fishery has declined like some have claimed..people like goose lover make it sound like if we close this small cut then the entire bay will go right back to how it was back in the day before it opened and i just dont buy that. The galveston bay complex is something like 600 square miles so its just tough for me to believe that a 200 foot cut is damaging so much water..could it have some effects on the nearby waters surrounding rollover pass, absolutely but east bay as a whole..im not so sure

With most things in life, I believe there are a variety of factors that have lead to the decline in the fishing around here. How many boats were on the water just 15 years ago compared to today? I remember when I was 5-7years old and my dad had me out on the water, we almost never saw or had to deal with any other boats...now every reef, gut and cut I come up to has 30 boats sitting on top of each other. also with boats running shallower today, that has to be tearing up the aquatic grass when they run through the flats.

I dont know, just my .02


----------



## JustSlabs (Jun 19, 2005)

Goose Lover said:


> I agree Gater. They didn't have any idea of what would happen when Rollover was opened.
> 
> They built it to be the size of a dirt road. And they believed it would need mechanical assistance every few years to stay open. But it blew wide open to 500 feet in almost no time much to their surprise so it had to be contained to its current dimensions.


500 feet??? Which pass are you talking about?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

He is prone to exaggeration when and where it suits his argument. 

He will be claiming you said it before too much longer.


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

Goose Lover said:


> The reason Rollover needs to be closed is very simple. It will freshen up the bay.
> 
> If having a fresher system is bad then Louisiana wouldn't be the mother load of fish, crabs, oysters and shrimp. Look at the guides photos from over there. Then check out the photos of Rollover that Jampen so proudly proclaims as world class.
> 
> ...


Do you have any Scientific facts at all to support your bias opinion's. How is closing Rollover pass going to "Freshen up" East bay when there is no fresh water flowing in. Fact: The average salinity level for the Gulf of Mexico along the Texas coast is about 35 parts per thousand, the average salinity level for the Galveston bay complex ranges from 2 parts per thousand to 25 parts per thousand depending on rainfall, drought, ect. FACT: Baffin bay has salinity levels as high as 100 parts per thousand, and it doesn't seem to affect the fishery down there. FACT: 80% of the tidal exchange between the Galveston bay complex and the Gulf of Mexico occurs at Bolivar Roads, which is between Galveston Island and Bolivar peninsula, less than 20% occurs at San Luis Pass, and less than 1% occurs at Rollover Pass. Here are some more facts ,involving things other than Rollover pass, that may have caused the decline in the fishery and water quality in East bay since the 1950's. Fact: There are over 6 million people living in the Galveston bay watershed. Fact: The county's boarding the Galveston bay complex use over 1.4 million gallons of fresh water a day. Fact: The Galveston bay complex receives 60% of Texas' wastewater discharge. Fact: The Galveston bay complex has the 3rd largest concentration of recreational boat in the United States, and I would bet that half of them are in East bay every Saturday. Now, I don't fish at Rollover pass and I rarely go to East bay, so I don't really care if they close it or not, but the decision to close it or keep it open should be based on scientific facts, not on peoples opinion's, and so far I haven't seen any fact's supporting the closure.


----------



## robolivar (Oct 7, 2011)

gooselover wants an EAST LAKE. Id like it to stay east bay myself. 

and as far as them not knowing what would happen when they opened it...c'mon, give the old timers some more credit. The first computer hard disk was created in 1956. You think they were struggling with figuring out the effects of a pass into the upper galv bay system. They, "The Texas Fish and Game Commission" knew exactly what they were doing...
increase bay water salinity, promote growth of submerged vegetation, and help marine fish to and from spawning and feeding areas in the bay.... and thats exactly what it did.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

I have read the history of Rollover Pass. When it was first opened it was intended to be very small. A rivulet that would need mechanical help to stay open.

But it blew open into something that was completely unexpected. It went to 500 feet wide very quickly and had to pushed back to the approximately 200 or so feet it is now. 

Where is the freshwater going to flow in from? There are a number of bayous and other features that drain in there such as Oyster Bayou, Onion Bayou and others drainage features.

It didn't promote the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation did it? It is gone. 

The Texas Fish and Game Commission is now the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. And they want it closed as well. 

We need to put it back like it was or as close as we can to that. 

The facts are that the resource agencies support the closure. The before and after salinity levels have been modeled. You can read about it in the Environmental Assessment.


----------



## Sgrem (Oct 5, 2005)

We need a trout colored magnetic ribbon for cars and trout shoes and gloves for the NFL players to wear.. .then it might be saved.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Please provide documentation to back-up your comment that any state or federal agencies, other than the GLO, "recommend or support" closure.

TPWD and COE simply allowed the GLO proposal to move forward because they found no environmental reason to oppose it. 

That is not the same as "support". The impact studies and other unbiased reports and permits simply said that closing ROP would cause no harm. 

In fact, the key reports used to issue the permits were seriously flawed due to limited amounts of time and data used to produce them. The GLO was in a rush to push it all through before any negative reaction or opposition could get organized and build momentum.

JP and the GLO is solely driving this bus and they, along with their supporters like you, attempt to add legitimacy to your efforts by putting words in other people's mouth and by skewing and exaggerating the facts.


----------



## Jean Scurtu (Dec 6, 2011)

:texasflag

My friend "jampen" i am fish lover and for this reason i don't like to ROLLOVER PASS to be close,buy if you are "goose lover" you don't care about fishing and like the pass to be close.
I hope ,nobody close the pass and i want to see again you and yours children fishing close with me at ROLLOVER PASS .


----------



## cody2422 (Feb 26, 2013)

Haven't commented since I posted the topic, I knew each side had it's strong held beliefs, but wow! My main question was why is opening a cut to the bay good in one instance and bad in the other, doesn't appear anyone has a verifiable answer, other than one is man made and the other was natural.

I'm down on the peninsula about every other weekend and the way it is now is the way I've always none it, except for that time Ike leveled it, so I can't really argue as to either side. I did stumble across this article today which I thought would be an interesting contribution to the discussion.

http://www.wideopenspaces.com/fish-tales-texas-southern-flounder/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=TX-LA%2025%25&utm_campaign=WOS_newsletter_10.2%20-%20TX%2FLA


----------



## Rolls (Jul 8, 2010)

Cody you should see Rollover during the flounder run. I won't even go near that place Fri-Sun. It's combat fishing at its best. If you catch one you'll have 5 lines casted infront of you and someone asking if they can "borrow" what you're using.

As far as getting back to the question you asked. Yes there are 2 sides and each wants what they want. I just wish we could list all the REAL pro's and con's and see what would really be best for everyone in the long run.


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

I would like to know tpwd stance on the issue. How it would effect the east bay eco system, and leave out all the other b.s. To me this is all that matters.


----------



## robolivar (Oct 7, 2011)

Rolls said:


> Cody you should see Rollover during the flounder run. I won't even go near that place Fri-Sun. It's combat fishing at its best. If you catch one you'll have 5 lines casted infront of you and someone asking if they can "borrow" what you're using.
> 
> As far as getting back to the question you asked. Yes there are 2 sides and each wants what they want. I just wish we could list all the REAL pro's and con's and see what would really be best for everyone in the long run.


the pros and cons of keeping it open are peppered throughout this thread.

it comes down to the REAL cons (on GLO side), being beach erosion and money being spent on dredging the ICW.

with the pro's being so many i shouldnt even have to list them. just read back 11 pages and youll see all the pro's


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

robolivar said:


> the pros and cons of keeping it open are peppered throughout this thread.
> 
> it comes down to the REAL cons (on GLO side), being beach erosion and money being spent on dredging the ICW.
> 
> with the pro's being so many i shouldnt even have to list them. just read back 11 pages and youll see all the pro's


No there are 11 pages of b.s. pros. All that eminent domain stuff is a b.s. pro. All that handicap access is a b.s. pro. All that really matters is how it would effect the east bay fishery. If T.P.W.D. says that an open ROP is beneficial to east bay then I am all for leaving it open if not then they need to close it. If they say that it makes no difference then they need to close it or come up with a way to deal with the beach erosion, dredging, maintenance, etc. without the taxpayers footing the bill.


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

Goose Lover said:


> I have read the history of Rollover Pass. When it was first opened it was intended to be very small. A rivulet that would need mechanical help to stay open.
> 
> But it blew open into something that was completely unexpected. It went to 500 feet wide very quickly and had to pushed back to the approximately 200 or so feet it is now.
> 
> ...


If you are referring to the the Environmental Assessment by Taylor Engineering, I have read it and all that's in there are bias opinions that are slanted towards the closure of Rollover pass. It contained no scientific data to prove that Rollover pass is responsible for any ecological damage to East bay or for the beach erosion. Now for the salinity level model's, in case you didn't already know a "Model" is nothing more than a "Guess", which is nothing more than someone's opinion, a model is not based on facts. Lets talk about the so called supporters of the closure, Texas General Land Office, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and Galveston County, now I don't think anyone can keep a straight face and say that they trust the decisions of any of these agencies.


----------



## robolivar (Oct 7, 2011)

tcbayman said:


> No there are 11 pages of b.s. pros. All that eminent domain stuff is a b.s. pro. All that handicap access is a b.s. pro. All that really matters is how it would effect the east bay fishery. If T.P.W.D. says that an open ROP is beneficial to east bay then I am all for leaving it open if not then they need to close it. If they say that it makes no difference then they need to close it or come up with a way to deal with the beach erosion, dredging, maintenance, etc. without the taxpayers footing the bill.


NO actually several on this thread have stated how it closing it, is only going to stop the flow of good incoming saltwater that this bay needs to stay a "saltwater bay". a saltwater bay that has been nothing but a substancial fishery since they opened it. Several have also mentioned how closing it will effect the passage of fish to and from spawning areas in the bay,
We have yet to hear from a TPWD represetative stating their opinions so unitl that happens, do your research and find out what they have to say. 
Or you can just take it from 100,000 locals and local fisherman with good knowledge and experience to back up their opinions

and handicap access is a definite pro so before you go calling that BS, put yourself in their shoes. People are just as important as our fisheries

I bet if a flock of whooping cranes made it their home, this whole thing would be shut down.


----------



## gettinspooled (Jun 26, 2013)

Goose Lover said:


> Someone pointed out the channels and cuts around Port Aransas have really helped the trout.
> 
> If that is the case then why has the limit been cut?
> 
> It is very simple. The bays need to be considerably fresher (especially East Bay) than the Gulf of Mexico to be productive. Making them as salty as the surf is bad.


Ha nice logic.

East Bay did not have it's limit cut (meaning there are more fish) so we should fill in the pass?

The way it is right now is working perfectly fine for most people that I know. I fish that bay all summer long. It sounds like a a bunch of BS they are spouting that closing the pass is going to improve the fishing.

Why don't you got battle the water authority and their reasoning for damming up all the rivers preventing fresh water from flowing into the bay.

Also if this whole salinity levels thing is sooo decisive why is east bay producing better / more fish than Trinity? By your logic Trinity should be where it is really at all the fish from East bay should be swimming right on up there given that the salinity levels are soo much lower than east bay.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

tcbayman said:


> No there are 11 pages of b.s. pros. All that eminent domain stuff is a b.s. pro. All that handicap access is a b.s. pro. All that really matters is how it would effect the east bay fishery. If T.P.W.D. says that an open ROP is beneficial to east bay then I am all for leaving it open if not then they need to close it. If they say that it makes no difference then they need to close it or come up with a way to deal with the beach erosion, dredging, maintenance, etc. without the taxpayers footing the bill.


All that handicap bs pro is fine as long as you are not handicapped. If you are handicapped it means a lot.

This coming from a 30 year old. Break both of your legs and see how easy it is to go fishing. You will get there one of these days. No, I am not handicapped, but I know several fishermen who are.


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

robolivar said:


> NO actually several on this thread have stated how it closing it, is only going to stop the flow of good incoming saltwater that this bay needs to stay a "saltwater bay". a saltwater bay that has been nothing but a substancial fishery since they opened it. Several have also mentioned how closing it will effect the passage of fish to and from spawning areas in the bay,
> We have yet to hear from a TPWD represetative stating their opinions so unitl that happens, do your research and find out what they have to say.
> Or you can just take it from 100,000 locals and local fisherman with good knowledge and experience to back up their opinions
> 
> ...


No handicap access is not a pro. ROP was built to be a fish pass to enhance East bay. That has absolutely zero to do with handicap fishing access. So yes it is a B.S. argument that should have no bearing on whether ROP stays open or not. Handicap fishing access is a by product of ROP. I do know east bay has a good fishery, this is where I primarily fish. I would be willing to bet that I am out there as much as any non guide on this site. I also know the amount of silt and sediment that flows into east bay through ROP. The argument that ROP enhances east bay by flowing salt water into it can go both ways. Many feel that it artificially increases salinity and that in turn hurts the fishery. I will say that for a fact, yes it does unnaturally introduce higher salinity water into east bay as ROP is man made and an unnatural pass. Now whether or not that is helpful or harmful has yet to be proven. This is the info I want to hear from TPWD or even CCA. Im not saying that your wrong, im just saying that I want to hear from people that do this for a paycheck.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

tcbayman said:


> No handicap access is not a pro. ROP was built to be a fish pass to enhance East bay. That has absolutely zero to do with handicap fishing access. So yes it is a B.S. argument that should have no bearing on whether ROP stays open or not. Handicap fishing access is a by product of ROP. I do know east bay has a good fishery, this is where I primarily fish. I would be willing to bet that I am out there as much as any non guide on this site. I also know the amount of silt and sediment that flows into east bay through ROP. The argument that ROP enhances east bay by flowing salt water into it can go both ways. Many feel that it artificially increases salinity and that in turn hurts the fishery. I will say that for a fact, yes it does unnaturally introduce higher salinity water into east bay as ROP is man made and an unnatural pass. Now whether or not that is helpful or harmful has yet to be proven. This is the info I want to hear from TPWD or even CCA. Im not saying that your wrong, im just saying that I want to hear from people that do this for a paycheck.


Handicap access was not considered when the pass was opened, and had no bearing at the time. But IT IS a pro now and should be given consideration because of the situation. Just because it is a by product does not mean it should not be taken into consideration.


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

shaggydog said:


> All that handicap bs pro is fine as long as you are not handicapped. If you are handicapped it means a lot.
> 
> This coming from a 30 year old. Break both of your legs and see how easy it is to go fishing. You will get there one of these days. No, I am not handicapped, but I know several fishermen who are.


And I feel sorry for them, but ROP was never meant to be a handicapped fishing area. It just turned into that. Its not like they are closing down a handicap park that was built and developed as one, from when they first broke ground. ROP was built as a fish pass, if it is no longer feasible as a fish pass, then yes it should be closed.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Yeah, that's why people line up shoulder to shoulder to fish it...because it is no longer "feasible" as a fish pass.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

tcbayman said:


> And I feel sorry for them, but ROP was never meant to be a handicapped fishing area. It just turned into that. Its not like they are closing down a handicap park that was built and developed as one, from when they first broke ground. ROP was built as a fish pass, if it is no longer feasible as a fish pass, then yes it should be closed.


I have read every post in this thread and have seen no good reason to close the pass.


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

jampen said:


> Yeah, that's why people line up shoulder to shoulder to fish it...because it is no longer "feasible" as a fish pass.


Synonym to feasable is practical. Look it up, it could very well be a great fish pass and still not be practical, and notice I said if. But I guess you pay zero attention to what was actually typed, just like to twist comments to fit your agenda.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

The pass never should have been opened in the first place. The effects have been well documented. Salt water intrusion has played a role in the destruction of both oyster reef and marsh grasses.


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

shaggydog said:


> I have read every post in this thread and have seen no good reason to close the pass.


So have I, I am also out there on the water quite a bit. I have never said that I think it should be closed. All I have said was that I want to hear actual facts from people that do this for a living. Also that I am not interested in emotional arguments for leaving it open or closed just facts. Is it doing what it was designed to do? Yes or no? Thats it.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I'm not twisting anything sir, you wrote feasible...









ROP is a fantastic fish pass in all respects...feasibility, practically, reality


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Its a great fish pass, not so great for the overall health of the bay.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

According to who?? The thousands of boats that fish EB every year are there for a reason.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Jampen,

No point in rehashing this over and over. You have your beliefs and I have mine but I think an objective look at the data highlights the damage done by rollover.

Bottom line is the brackish estuary that was there has been disrupted by saltwater intrusion.


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

jampen said:


> I'm not twisting anything sir, you wrote feasible...
> 
> View attachment 1720898
> 
> ...


Ok, then you read the part that says reasonable and sensible? If it isnt cost effective or if it does more harm than good than it isnt reasonable or sensible or feasable. Correct? I guess you ignored the rest of what I wrote too. I said earlier "if" you still dont care to actually read what people post.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

When was the last time you fished ROP or EB?


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

jampen said:


> When was the last time you I fished EGB last week. Since you are being nosey I keep my boat in a sling on Moses Lake and I only work 14 days a month . Get the drift? How bout you?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I don't really care where you store your boat.

When was the last time you fished ROP or EB and how did you do?

I live in Fort Worth, so I only get down there once or twice a year. This has been a tough year so we didn't do our spring trip. We were there last November. 

I can go anywhere I choose. We spend our time, money at ROP and EB in the fall.


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

jampen said:


> I don't really care where you store your boat.
> 
> When was the last time you fished ROP or EB and how did you do?
> 
> ...


With decent weather and conditions, I have done well this year. I felt like the pattern was a little off this year. I fished West Bay a little more than I have in the past. I just want the best for EGB whatever that may be.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I just don't see closing ROP making any difference except in the very localized area around the mouth of the pass and where it enters the bay.

If the thing is ever closed, those 2 small areas will see significant changes.

Yes, removal would eliminate sand moving into the IC from the pass. It will also eliminate all life moving through there. 

Fish, bait, turtles, nutrients, etc will all stop. That part of the coastline will be like the whole rest of Bolivar Pennisula. A big strip of sand where the gulf is isolated from the marsh.

Other than that there will be little to no changes. Too many other big factors in play

How long until the cumulative effects of over-fishing, pollution and siltation from the IC makes EB a barren watershed. I guess it will always be good for hardheads and gafftops


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

jampen said:


> I just don't see closing ROP making any difference except in the very localized area around the mouth of the pass and where it enters the bay.
> 
> If the thing is ever closed, those 2 small areas will see significant changes.
> 
> ...


Im not arguing with you, because honestly I really dont know. I can arm chair quarterback it, but thats not accomplishing anything. All I am saying is that I want facts from people that do this for a paycheck. To me ROP was built to benefit the ecology of EGB, if it is determined that it is no longer or never was benefitting EGB then it needs to be closed. All other arguments hold no water, either its beneficial or not. Thats just my take on it


----------



## robolivar (Oct 7, 2011)

Rollover was not open for handicaps or intended to be a handicap park..which is something you made up out of ignorance.Does that matter now. NOW, and for alonnnng time it has, and still does, serve well as a great fishing spot for handicaps, and many others for that matter. So far all you have talked about is hearing what the tpwd has to say.....here ill help you out
https://www2.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/webcomment/


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I understand and respect your position. Unfortunately any data presented can be skewed to defend or oppose a particular position. And there is no accounting for bias one way or the other.

The bottom line for me is #1 the place is private property and I don't like the idea of politicians in far away places bullying local land owners and tax payers...where does it end?? #2 local businesses are dependent on ROP and other local attractions to bring visitors to the area. #3 there are lots of fish and bait in ROP and EB. So much so, that it is a destination location for lots of experienced fishermen not to mention elderly, handicapped and newbies.

All the talk about "collapse" and "declining baseline" is so-much vague BS written to support a position from a guy that wants to shoot more ducks.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

I am out for awhile. Probably quite awhile

Major family emergency on my wife's side. 

When, and if, this situation starts to resolve itself (for better or worse) I will be back to continue winning all of the arguments and debates about closing Rollover.


Have a good weekend.


----------



## robolivar (Oct 7, 2011)

Goose Lover said:


> I am out for awhile. Probably quite awhile
> 
> Major family emergency on my wife's side.
> 
> ...


Oh nice. Ur out for a fam emerg. But you end your post by saying you will be back ""to continue winning all the debates""...
classy.

Kinda goes to show how seriously anyone should take what youve said or will say ""when your back""


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

robolivar said:


> Rollover was not open for handicaps or intended to be a handicap park..which is something you made up out of ignorance.Does that matter now. NOW, and for alonnnng time it has, and still does, serve well as a great fishing spot for handicaps, and many others for that matter. So far all you have talked about is hearing what the tpwd has to say.....here ill help you out
> https://www2.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/webcomment/


Getting mad? What did I make up out of ignorance? I simply pointed out the fact that ROP was not built for handicap fisherman. How is that out of ignorance? Ive emailed TPWD?, I will post up thier response. Of course all Ive talked about is hearing thier response. Who else is qualified to determine ROP effect on EGB? You? I doubt it. Me? No sir I boil chemicals for a living.


----------



## JustSlabs (Jun 19, 2005)

From what I have read on this thread, there are a few people that know what will happen to EB if the pass is closed. Only thing I know for sure that will happen if it were closed is there will be quite a few upset people.


----------



## robolivar (Oct 7, 2011)

tcbayman said:


> And I feel sorry for them, but ROP was never meant to be a handicapped fishing area. It just turned into that. Its not like they are closing down a handicap park that was built and developed as one, from when they first broke ground. ROP was built as a fish pass, if it is no longer feasible as a fish pass, then yes it should be closed.


Mad? Nahh..i dont let internet forums get to me. Above you said "its not like they are closing down a handicap park that was built and developed as one"

Handicap park?? Really? Never heard of one. To me that was said out of ignorance and frustration with the fact most of us think it being a handicap accessible fishing spot is one of the very good reasons to keep it open.


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

robolivar said:


> Mad? Nahh..i dont let internet forums get to me. Above you said "its not like they are closing down a handicap park that was built and developed as one"
> 
> Handicap park?? Really? Never heard of one. To me that was said out of ignorance and frustration with the fact most of us think it being a handicap accessible fishing spot is one of the very good reasons to keep it open.


Frustrated? Not even close. If you read all my posts on this thread ive never been for or against closing ROP. I just feel that any decisions to close it should be placed solely on whether or not it's doing what it was originally designed to do.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

What it was originally designed to do, according to the limited amount of documents that exist from the time that I have seen, was to increase flow of gulf water into EB, increase salinity of EB, provide a direct migration route for fir fish , bait etc from the Gulf into EB, improve the fishing in EB, promote the growth of sea grass in EB.

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/rkr05

Of these goals only 2 are in dispute. Is the fishing better? Did ROP help or hurt the sea grass.

I am not aware of any creel surveys that exit from before ROP. All we have are anecdotal remembrances of the "good-old-days" type. Fishing is good to really-good now. So at the very least I believe ROP and EB as a fish and bait habitat is acceptable.

The effect on sea grass is more difficult to determine for several reasons. There are numerous types of grasses and all prefer slightly different conditions to thrive.









However sea grass have declined overall through out the Galveston Bay system during the mid and late 1900. We cannot blame ROP for sea grass decline in Trinity and WB, so there has to be a bigger systemic problem.

Here are just a few of the reports I have compiled regarding sea grass in Galveston Bay...

































My personal feeling is that the biggest culprits for the sea grass decline are sediment and silt from dredging, trawling and barge traffic that coats the blades of grass and interfere with photosynthesis. Something that increase flow and current should mitigate to some degree.

So back to the original question "Has ROP done what it was designed to do?". The answer has to be yes, 1. more Gulf water into EB 2. Increase salinity of EB 3. Fish pass between Gulf and EB 4. Help the Sea Grass (eh..not enough to prevent overall decline throughout Galveston Bay but certainly no worse than any other bay)


----------



## robolivar (Oct 7, 2011)

tcbayman said:


> Frustrated? Not even close. If you read all my posts on this thread ive never been for or against closing ROP. I just feel that any decisions to close it should be placed solely on whether or not it's doing what it was originally designed to do.


haha! we know we know...youve said the same thing 100 times..
hey Im not here for battle of the keyboards man. I do understand what your sayin and I hope you can also see things from our stance. like i said before. It has evolved since, and become something EVEN better.... Jampen has pretty much said everything that I can.


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

jampen said:


> What it was originally designed to do, according to the limited amount of documents that exist from the time that I have seen, was to increase flow of gulf water into EB, increase salinity of EB, provide a direct migration route for fir fish , bait etc from the Gulf into EB, improve the fishing in EB, promote the growth of sea grass in EB.
> 
> http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/rkr05
> 
> ...


"To perpetuate state wildlife resources and enhance local fishing conditions" We don't know one way or the other if that happened or not and niether of us are qualified to answer that question.


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

Good morning,

Â 

Your question regarding Rollover Pass was routed to my office.

Â 

As you are probably aware, Rollover Pass is a man-made tidal inlet located on the Bolivar Peninsula near Gilchrist, Texas on 22 acres owned by the Gulf Coast Rod, Reel and Gun Club of Beaumont, TX.Â  Texas Parks and Wildlife Department holds the title to the bulkheads and channel.Â  Construction of the Pass was completed in February 1955 and was permitted as an 80 foot wide, 8 foot deep channel with a retaining wall at the southwest Gulfside end extending into the Gulf 100 feet.Â  Since construction, erosion on the Gulf side of the pass and high sedimentation rates in the Intracoastal Waterway have proven very costly.Â  Legislation approved during the 81st Legislative session in 2009 gave the Texas General Land Office (GLO) the authority to close a man-made pass if, 1) itâ€™s found that the pass causes or contributes to significant erosion of the shoreline of the adjacent beach; 2) the pass is not a public navigational channel constructed or maintained by the federal government and; 3) the GLO receives legislative appropriations or other funding to close the pass.

Â 

Impacts to East Bay resulting from the proposed closure of Rollover Pass are difficult to quantify.Â  Changes to the ecological dynamics of East Bay will occur just as the opening of the pass changed the ecosystem in the 1950â€™s. Rollover Bay has become shallower as a result of sediment deposition from the Pass (private oyster leases were common in Rollover Bay prior to the Pass opening). Ingress and egress of larval and adult finfish and shellfish through the Pass will be lost with a closure; however, the loss would be very small relative to the pathway available through Bolivar Roads.Â  Salinities within the area of East Bay adjacent to the Pass should drop with a closure, resulting in conditions closer to historic levels, at least since construction of the Intracoastal Waterway in the early 1930â€™s-40â€™s.Â  These lower salinities should stimulate submerged aquatic vegetation growth, increase marsh productivity and may benefit oyster production by reducing the incidence of oyster parasites and predators.Â  This could be especially important for the recovery of oyster habitat in East Bay considering the significant losses (approximately 80% of oyster habitat) that occurred as a result of Hurricane Ike.

Â 

Perhaps the biggest impact of closing Rollover Pass will be the loss of fishing access for recreational anglers.Â  Prior to Hurricane Ike, Rollover Pass was a heavily utilized fishing access location and represented one of the few sites within the Galveston Bay complex where walk-up fishermen had access to coastal waters.Â  The site is still popular for shore-based recreational anglers though hurricane damage to parts of the area still limit some access and sheet pilings are rusted and jagged. Should Rollover Pass be closed, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is committed to working with the Texas General Land Office to ensure recreational fishing access at the site is maintained through the use of fishing piers, paddle craft launching sites, and wade fishing access.

Â 

I hope this addresses your question regarding Rollover Pass.Â  Should you have others please feel free to contact me at this email or one of the numbers below.Â  Questions regarding the actual closure of Rollover Pass should be directed to Ray Newby with the General Land Office (512-475-3624;Â [email protected]).

Â 

Regards,

___________________

Lance Robinson

Regional Director

TPWD Coastal Fisheries Division

Fisheries Management Branch

Dickinson Marine Laboratory

1502 FM 517 East

Dickinson, TX 77539




Heres the email I recieved from TPWD. I hope its cool that i posted it up and I know of no other way to post it other than copy and pasting it.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

All the talk of Gulf water raising the EB salinity level thus damaging oysters, seagrass etc.. makes me go Hmmmmmm lets think about this.

What is the number one source of freshwater entering the Galveston Bay Complex as a whole?

Oyster Bayou ummm OK, I don't think anyone can disagree that the Trinity River is the main source of Freshwater entering the Bay Complex.

So if increased freshwater and lower salinity is so vital to the health of the Galeveston Bay Complex why we arguing over ROP when it only accounts for 1% of the Gulf to Bay interchange of water? Seems to me you could close ROP and stop that 1% of saltwater but if you don't restore the main source of freshwater you won't really accomplish much.

If the health of the Bay System is at stake because the salinity levels are to high why isn't the GLO, Army Corp of Eng., etc.. doing things to ensure a consisteant steady flow of freshwater from the #1 source?

In fact these agencies fought for projects that *restrict* the flow of freshwater to the Bay Complex. The most recent being the Wallisvile Project, a barrier that is intended to prevent saltwater from moving up the Trinity River. This barrier of course also restricts the flow of freshwater into the bays.

The Lake Livingston Dam has done more to change our Bay System as a whole than ROP ever dreamed of. Freshwater from the river is now feast or famine. Upstream rain events cause a massive all at once in rush of freshwater and more muddy sediment than the mind can fathom. When the massive wall of water passes, the dam is almost totally closed off and very little freshwater makes to the Wallisvile Locks much less gets past that point.

So all that being said does anyone trust the motives of these Government Agencies or truly believe what their paid for studies say? How can it be OK to fight for decades in court for projects that restrict freshwater to the bay there by increasing salinity, and at the same time fight for projects that will supposedly lower the salinity levels? If you don't think some BIG Money is involved in this some where you are being very naive.

Does anyone truly believe that simply closing ROP is going to magicaly restore EB to the glories of yester year? Little Ole ROP is just a tiny blip on the Looooooooong list of far more damaging things we have done to the bays.

It is easy to make the argument that ROP should never have been dug in the first place, and I would argree. It is not even logical to think that just filling it back in at this point is going to make a hill of beans difference in the overall health of the bay system. Leave ROP alone, this idea of closing it is not because the GLO and the Corp of Eng. is worried about the health of the Bay.

I apologize for the long post.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

Oh and if you don't think that at some point it will become profitable to develope Bolivar and that there are not folks looking at that long range do some research. While I can't claim to be a big time Land Developer like some I do know that schemes,plans, and land purchases are sometimes made decades in advance. Even my little ole church has bought property that right now is nothing but woods with no imediate plans for developement around it. The thing is everyone in town knows that where we bought is the only direction left for the town to expand so at some point it will likely be very valuable. At some point it will become profitable to develope Bolivar, after all it is the only direction left to go.


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

Look how much Sea Grass disappeared on the north shore of west bay when the COE dredged the ICW and they let the dredgers shoot the mud and cr-- all over the only areas of clear water and sea grass growing in the system. Beautiful area that got covered up with muck.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

I'm going to side with the real expert on the issue Lance Robinson.

"These lower salinities should stimulate submerged aquatic vegetation growth, increase marsh productivity and may benefit oyster production by reducing the incidence of oyster parasites and predators. This could be especially important for the recovery of oyster habitat in East Bay considering the significant losses (approximately 80% of oyster habitat) that occurred as a result of Hurricane Ike."

I think we can all agree that stimulating aquatic vegetation, increasing marsh productivity and reducing oyster parasites and predators is a good thing.


----------



## Sgrem (Oct 5, 2005)

JimD said:


> Look how much Sea Grass disappeared on the north shore of west bay when the COE dredged the ICW and they let the dredgers shoot the mud and cr-- all over the only areas of clear water and sea grass growing in the system. Beautiful area that got covered up with muck.


Years of work and commitment to the grass in that area wasted.... a shame for sure. Could have been handled better.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

Its Catchy said:


> I'm going to side with the real expert on the issue Lance Robinson.
> 
> "These lower salinities should stimulate submerged aquatic vegetation growth, increase marsh productivity and may benefit oyster production by reducing the incidence of oyster parasites and predators. This could be especially important for the recovery of oyster habitat in East Bay considering the significant losses (approximately 80% of oyster habitat) that occurred as a result of Hurricane Ike."
> 
> I think we can all agree that stimulating aquatic vegetation, increasing marsh productivity and reducing oyster parasites and predators is a good thing.


Lots of "should" and "may" in that statement and no firm simple statement like "Yes TPWD supports closing ROP" or "No TPWD does not support closing ROP".

Hmmmm how come Mr. Lance Robinson will not just state TPWD's position with a simple yes or no? It really is a simple question right? Does TPWD support closing ROP yes or no?


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

SeaOx 230C said:


> Lots of "should" and "may" in that statement and no firm simple statement like "Yes TPWD supports closing ROP" or "No TPWD does not support closing ROP".
> 
> Hmmmm how come Mr. Lance Robinson will not just state TPWD's position with a simple yes or no? It really is a simple question right? Does TPWD support closing ROP yes or no?


TPWD, is not immune to the politics in play either. Personally, I think the decision should be made strictly on the biological health of the bay. Ultimately a healthy bay system is paramount.


----------



## gettinspooled (Jun 26, 2013)

If the Salinity is sooo bad for the oysters then why do I see more oyster boats in east bay then any other bay in the Galveston bay complex?


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

Its Catchy said:


> TPWD, is not immune to the politics in play either. Personally, I think the decision should be made strictly on the biological health of the bay. Ultimately a healthy bay system is paramount.


I 100% agree with both of your thoughts. So how do we get the truth when both TPWD and the GLO, Corp of Eng. and all the rest are obviously being Politicly influenced? Myself I not only look at what they say, but what they will not say in straight up terms. And most of the time what a public official will not say tells you alot more than what he will say. Then I look at what they actually do.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

gettinspooled said:


> If the Salinity is sooo bad for the oysters then why do I see more oyster boats in east bay then any other bay in the Galveston bay complex?


How many oyster reefs are in the gulf?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Its Catchy said:


> I'm going to side with the real expert on the issue Lance Robinson.
> 
> "These lower salinities should stimulate submerged aquatic vegetation growth...we can all agree that stimulating aquatic vegetation, increasing marsh productivity and reducing oyster parasites and predators is a good thing.


Not trying to argue with an "expert" but, the lower Laguna Madre and Baffin have the highest salinities anywhere along the gulf coast and there are vast acres of sea grass down there. Why??

Me thinks, much less development, much less industry, much less population, much less dredging have a lot to do with it. Growing sea grass is more complicated than simply measuring salinity.

Where is all the grass in the HSC, Trinity, WB?? Did ROP get all that grass also??


----------



## Ron R. (May 21, 2004)

SeaOx 230C said:


> All the talk of Gulf water raising the EB salinity level thus damaging oysters, seagrass etc.. makes me go Hmmmmmm lets think about this.
> 
> What is the number one source of freshwater entering the Galveston Bay Complex as a whole?
> 
> ...


Well stated. BIG $$$ is definitely involved. We just aren't sitting in on those discussions. And they move in and out quickly for the payout. Just don't get in the way.

Jerry P's top financial campaign contributors come from construction and real estate. Lawyers, lobbyist and the energy & natural resources sectors don't send him as much money as the top 2.

This is the REAL reason the GLO is moving to close ROP.


----------



## gettinspooled (Jun 26, 2013)

Its Catchy said:


> How many oyster reefs are in the gulf?


Why aren't there oyster beds in a lake?

Why are there more oyster boats in East bay than trinity?


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

gettinspooled said:


> Why aren't there oyster beds in a lake?
> 
> Why are there more oyster boats in East bay than trinity?


Oysters like a gentle mix of fresh and salt water. Rollover has changed that mix. The decline in oyster reef has been well documented in East Bay as has the destruction of marsh and sea grasses.

Rollover is not the lone cause of the decline of the overall health of East Bay. But it certainly is not helping.

Saltwater pouring into a bay that was historically brackish is not a good thing


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

jampen said:


> Not trying to argue with an "expert" but, the lower Laguna Madre and Baffin have the highest salinities anywhere along the gulf coast and there are vast acres of sea grass down there. Why??
> 
> Me thinks, much less development, much less industry, much less population, much less dredging have a lot to do with it. Growing sea grass is more complicated than simply measuring salinity.
> 
> Where is all the grass in the HSC, Trinity, WB?? Did ROP get all that grass also??


Jampen, Turtle grass thrives in the higher salinity bays down south. The sea grass that has disappeared from the upper bays thrives in lower salinities of the upper coast.
https://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_r0400_0041.pdf


----------



## Capt. AB (Mar 1, 2012)

I need someone to explain this conspiracy to close ROP. How does closing the pass benefit " big money interests "? They are so good that they have multiple government agencies in bed with them. Really? 

Read the reports and studies. They support closure of the pass. 

Does anyone know the status of the lawsuit?


----------



## Yellow.mouth (May 10, 2013)

In the tpwd statement i saw the following: argument for closure=the pass has become an economic burden argument against closure= loss of bank fishing access. Beyond this, only large amounts of speculation. Correct?


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Yellow.mouth said:


> In the tpwd statement i saw the following: argument for closure=the pass has become an economic burden argument against closure= loss of bank fishing access. Beyond this, only large amounts of speculation. Correct?


The economic burden is from having to continually dredge the intracoastal from all the sand being displaced from the beach into east bay.


----------

