# Just got back from TPWD meeting.



## trackatrout (Aug 10, 2010)

Art Morris from TPWD did a presentation that showed data collected from 1984 thru 2009 on several different points. I will not bore you with the specifics but it was a bunch of graphs with statistical data collected over the years on licenses sold vs fishing effort, to number of trout caught in gill net surveys, to number of trout landings by anglers via surveys at boat ramps...etc. You get the picture. All in all it was an educational session for me. 
In the end, the data showed trout numbers go up and down throughout the years with numbers consistently trending upwards or remaining the same overall.​
TPWD is having these meetings to get an idea of what we want to do. They want our input. They have been receiving a lot of comments/complaints mainly from the middle coast areas that speckled trout catches are not as good as they used to be. So they are considering implementing some type of management strategy, but do not know exactly what yet. One being considered is the 5 trout bag limit. There were many comments and concerns at the meeting but from what I gathered everyone at the meeting was against making any change at all. Which by looking at the data presented I wouldn't see any reason to make changes because it all looks good. But in the end it is in the TPWD commisioners hands.​
Art did say at the end of the meeting that he had received 77 emails prior to todays meeting with a ratio of 5 to 1 in favor of dropping the bag limit to 5.​
I am AGAINST it. If there is a problem in a specific bay, study the cause and find a way to fix it. Don't just impose a broad limit change to everyone.​
Let your voice be heard 2coolers!​
email your comments to [email protected]​
If you are reading this, just copy the email link and send your comments in.​


----------



## trackatrout (Aug 10, 2010)

*Other regulations proposed*

Increase minimum size
Seasonal closure
Restricted fishing areas/no fishing zones

who knows what else will be proposed


----------



## johnmyjohn (Aug 6, 2006)

Unreal, they spend all that money on tests and survey history and now they want to go to every barbershop and donut joint to see what they think? Sounds like they been reading some of 2cool threads.


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

I think I remember reading something about that hwell:

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/showthread.php?t=312213


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Well track-a-trout let them know your views, and as I said in a different thread the problem is mainly very specific parts of the San Antonio and Aransas Bay system.

Now think about that for a minute. The southern part of the Laguna Madre was regulated as a special area for speckled trout in 2007, recognizing that not all parts of the Texas coastline were the same. The TPWD mentioned a "middle coast" up by Aransas, so there be an upper coast to include most of you guys from Lake Jackson, Galveston, and Sabine. Well that's not a bad idea, management districts. 

So my comment would be so take a chill pill and figure out that special management area on the map, collect data, and come back next year at this time with a firm proposal, be it 5 trout or whatever. Right now the TPWD appears to be fishing for an answer without no cause. Don't give them no ammo, man. :work:

edit - I have to tell why I said that. The charter boys only want you to have 5 trout a day, thinking that was their average anyway, and plus the TPWD said the fish would get bigger if we only took five. Now these guys (and a few gals) can fish over 150 days a year and 5 trout per peep isn't bad. Poor slobs like us recreational fishermen go out a few times a year, so in effect we're giving the charter boys a huge gift of FISH. See, we still catch more poundage than they do but they're getting a bigger piece of the pie now. Hey it's your management area, be sure to say what you think.


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

If you think management districts are good idea look at California's situation. You needs a master's degree just to figure out which days they can fish and which fish they can keep. The first step they need to be taking is figuring out if there is an actual problem or this is just a slower year due to nature's natural ebb and flow.


----------



## saltwater_therapy (Oct 14, 2005)

whoa whoa now! seasonal closure, no fishing zones... ***? Looks like I might have to cut my hunting trip short tomorrow and make the Port Lavaca meeting.


----------



## FTAC03 (Sep 12, 2007)

After listening to the presentation last night in Port Arthur I came to some conclusions of my own. Gill net surveys on the upper coast show that there is a very cyclical nature to their catch rates and also the catch rates in their angler surveys at the dock. Parks and Wildlife biologists believe that they could even out these big swings in the fish population by a reduction in harvest. To me the big benefit of this would be that while we would keep less fish we would catch more and bigger trout. I don't know about you guys but I like to catch more and bigger fish and wouldn't really miss 5 trout. The vast majority of anglers surveyed at the dock by TP&W are not catching 10 or even 5. So what would it really matter? Would you rather have a good shot at 5 good ones, or a low chance of catching your 10???? 

I would also like to point out a potential problem with a regional approach to fisheries management. If the middle coast goes to five fish along with the lower coast I am concerned there would be a big shift of angling pressure to the upper coast. I don't want to suffer through a declining fishery here because of increased pressure while the rest of Texas fisheries are on the rebound. Btw, it's already happening up here for those who haven't been on the water lately. Since I am not a TX native I am not going to speak for or against the five fish limit. My intention is just to present a different point of view. I hope you will take my .2cents for what it's worth, not much. - John West


----------



## calicojim77 (Oct 24, 2010)

You have to speak out/stand up for you fishing rights NOW!!!! Here is a link to the history of California's "Marine Life Protection Area". (MLPA) The majority of the prime kelp/reef areas will be closed as of Dec. 2011. IT HAS PASSED. Not just no take but NO FISHING. There are still some legal action we can try to stop this but the cards are stacked against the fishermen.Sport-fishing landings,bait operations,guide services commerical fishermen will be out of work. California does not care. Get involved ASAP 

jim


----------



## El Capitan de No Fish (Sep 20, 2007)

I don't have a problem with reducing the limit, but the other stuff is BS.
What about 7? Or 8? Why does it have to be 5 or 10?


----------



## trackatrout (Aug 10, 2010)

My problem isn't with having to drop the limit to 5. It is with imposing a new regulation when the data shows no need. The TPWD computer model actually shows a higher mortality rate of fish under the minumum due to catch and release if the minimum length is increased and it "may lead to increases in discard mortality, i.e. "high grading" due to the lower bag limit.

Go to your local meeting, if you missed it drive to the next one. There was a guy that drove in from middle coast to hear what anglers here had to say. I would like to see a white paper once TPWD gathers all comments and information from these meetings. Before they present it to the board/commisioners for a proposed action.


----------



## aggiemulletboy (May 31, 2006)

If you want to keep the limit at 10, you need to find a biologist or someone with the credentials to speak up for it. Putting every guy with a boat that fishes on weekends up on the stand to speak against a limit change doesn't help. I've seen it first hand. 

One guy that was at the meeting where they changed the flounder limit stood up and talked about how him and his son could go out on any night during the run (conditions permitting) and limit out and that meant the population was ok. Anyone with any fisheries experience knows that anything like the run, spawning, etc. that causes fish to congregate skews data. And maybe someone who was a biologist or fisheries manager could have given a better speech with some true data in it to support their opinion. In the day I was there, not one person gave a convincing argument that went against the state biologist's data for changing the limit. You know the result. If you don't, read your annual from TPWD now and the one from 3 years ago.


----------



## steveh (Oct 13, 2005)

*Recap*

I was at the meeting tonight in Dickinson. The turnout was decent but not quite what I expected. There were only a handful of guides (maybe a dozen) with the majority being made up of individual fishermen. Art's Power Point presentation showed cyclical changes for all bay systems discussed with Galveston Bay being the healthiest overall. Bill Balboa took note of everyone's comments and the attendees' consensus was that there should be no change in the regulations. If there were individuals in the audience who were in favor of a change they certainly didn't speak up. 

The facts: 
1. Scientific data does not justify a change in Gal. Bay for sure, 
2. Since the implementation of the 5 trout limit down south (3 years ago) there have been MORE and BIGGER trout harvested (killed) (Is the objective to kill more and bigger trout?), 
3. Bag seine studies show increased numbers of juvenile trout for all 5 bay systems discussed, 
4. There are peaks and valleys documented from 1982 through 2010 which are directly correlated to Mother Nature (aka: Natural Cycles). Line graphs indicated healthy populations of trout for the Lower Laguna Madre in some years while it showed decreased populations for some of the other bay systems in the same years and visa versa.
5. There are many variables that are not included in the studies (excessive rainfall years, drought, tropical storms, hurricanes, etc.). All of these natural occurrences greatly affect our fishery.
6. TPWD gill net locations are chosen at random by a computer and do not take into account the seasonal migrations of trout within our bays. 

The bottom line is this...There is not a problem here in Galveston Bay and it should not even be included in the discussion. Data is being combined and viewed on a coast-wide basis when in fact each bay is different (hydrology, fresh water inflows, depths, tidal flow, etc.) and should be evaluated separately. In addition, the 5 trout limit in the Lower Laguna Madre has resulted in MORE fish killed (landed) since 2007 so the formula has shown to be flawed (If you don't believe this then take a look at the graph on Page 9 of the Power Point handout titled "Lower Laguna Madre Landings"). What's interesting is that tens of thousands more trout were landed by PRIVATE recreational (non-guides) fishermen since the 5 trout rule went into effect down there. 

Management tools that were discussed: 
1. Decrease Bag Limit, 
2. Increase Minimum Size, 
3. Area Closures, 
4. Seasonal Closures. 

As mentioned a decreased bag limit does not guarantee a reduction in harvest. Graphs shown indicate that by increasing the size limit to 16" actually increases mortality by 20% because of improper handling of released trout that are below 16 inches. Area closures are difficult to enforce and would be the beginning of something that could snowball into more closures down the road. Seasonal closures simply don't make any sense with trout and there is certainly no available data to support such a thing.

If you didn't attend the meeting then you may not be able to relate to some of the information I've shared. It's all in the graphs and was discussed at great length tonight. By the way, if I thought there was a legitimate need for a change I would be the first to support it. The science doesn't support a change and what I see on the water every week doesn't support it. Our trout fishery is in excellent shape and has been for a long time. In addition, I'm a little tired of folks wanting the government to dictate to them what they can and can't do. It seems to be the trend these days. Employ a little self-governance for a change and be a responsible steward of our fishery. You don't need a state agency to do it for you. I'm not alone in my views. I saw that tonight.

Sorry for the rant,

Steve Hillman


----------



## texacajun (May 2, 2005)

"...In addition, I’m a little tired of folks wanting the government to dictate to them what they can and can’t do. It seems to be the trend these days. Employ a little self-governance for a change and be a responsible steward of our fishery. You don’t need a state agency to do it for you. I’m not alone in my views. I saw that tonight."

That sums it all up for me too. IMO, the "Just keep 5" crowd needs to sitdown and shutup. I feel they are aligning with the "green agenda" and I don't care for that. If I want to drive SUV's, keep my a/c set on 51 in my house, and keep 10 trout...well gosh darn I'm entitled to do so. Last I checked this was America.....Land of the Free. It boggles my mind how some can push for more government. Keep your agenda to yourselves if you want to keep 5. Let the rest of us police ourselves within the current guidelines. If the numbers are good for trout, why kick a sleeping dog and try to fix something that isn't broke. I'm not the sharpest pencil in the pack but this ain't rocket science if you ask me.

Now Mr. Hillman that was a rant!!!! Thank you for the information sir.

Mike


----------



## impulse (Mar 17, 2010)

steveh said:


> In addition, the 5 trout limit in the Lower Laguna Madre has resulted in MORE fish killed (landed) since 2007 so the formula has shown to be flawed (If you don't believe this then take a look at the graph on Page 9 of the Power Point handout titled "Lower Laguna Madre Landings"). What's interesting is that tens of thousands more trout were landed by PRIVATE recreational (non-guides) fishermen since the 5 trout rule went into effect down there.


Lowered the limits and more and bigger fish were caught. Tens of thousands more.

Flawed? What's flawed about having anglers catching more and bigger fish? I just don't understand any argument against policies that are shown to increase angling success for the maximum number of people. Yeah, a tiny minority goes home with fewer fish than they could have, but that's not a very convincing argument. Spend another $6 on your way home and buy some tilapia fillets and leave some fish for the rest of us.

We share the world, the USA, Texas, and the waters we fish with more and more people each year. My fair share of the pie is getting smaller. So is yours and that's a fact. The good old days of killing and keeping everything you happen across "because it's legal" are in the past- and good riddance as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe lowering the limits and increasing the success rate of the average Joe Angler sent those tourist dollars INTO the reduced limit areas.


----------



## texacajun (May 2, 2005)

Impulse-

I'll have to politely disagree with you. I don't understand the concept of inviting more regulation on a system (Galveston Bay Complex) that isn't broken. If studies indicate a thriving population despite the current pressure, why fix something that isn't broken.

Wouldn't it be better to just have a voluntary "just keep 5" program, rather than a mandated state law that will be nearly impossible to repeal at a later time? Furthermore, with a troubled economy, oil prices projected to skyrocket, and gasoline projected at $5/gl......mother nature will keep a lot more than 5 as more and more anglers stay home. 

Help me understand your logic sir.

Mike


----------



## steveh (Oct 13, 2005)

impulse said:


> Lowered the limits and more and bigger fish were caught. Tens of thousands more.
> 
> Flawed? What's flawed about having anglers catching more and bigger fish? I just don't understand any argument against policies that are shown to increase angling success for the maximum number of people. Yeah, a tiny minority goes home with fewer fish than they could have, but that's not a very convincing argument. Spend another $6 on your way home and buy some tilapia fillets and leave some fish for the rest of us.
> 
> ...


Impulse,
It has nothing to do with "sharing" or doing something "because it's legal." It's a great thing to CATCH more and bigger fish. That's what the objective is. I'm simply saying that the initial goal was to accomplish just that. BUT, if you look at the data for the Lower Laguna Madre dating back to the implementation of the 5 trout limit in 2007 you will clearly see that MORE TROUT HAVE BEEN KILLED (AKA TAKEN FROM THE RESOURCE) since it went into effect. Isn't that the exact opposite of what we're trying to achieve? Did you attend the meeting? Have you looked at all of the available data? By the way, my clients and I release all of our trout over 25 inches (that are not gut-hooked) and do not keep everything we catch.

Steve Hillman


----------



## Back Bay boy (Apr 7, 2010)

impulse said:


> Lowered the limits and more and bigger fish were caught. Tens of thousands more.
> 
> Flawed? What's flawed about having anglers catching more and bigger fish? I just don't understand any argument against policies that are shown to increase angling success for the maximum number of people. Yeah, a tiny minority goes home with fewer fish than they could have, but that's not a very convincing argument. Spend another $6 on your way home and buy some tilapia fillets and leave some fish for the rest of us.
> 
> ...


To be honest with you the average joe probably wont catch a limit of trout but probably 1 or 2 times a yr if he is lucky. I fish for yrs and yrs atleast twice a week and I know how to cartch fish and dont always catch my limit. Not becouse the fish are not there becouse it tough to do at times. Ofcourse you have those days were everything goes just right it all comes together and you have a great day but they are not very trip. We need to keep these guys out of our fisheries or we wont be taking any fish home with us. I think we ahve to many regulations as it is and all it does is make it tougher on the average joe. Why dont the gamewardens go down to oso were everyone knows that people go and sit on the railroad tracks and take mounds of undersized fish home everyday. Go penalize the guys breaking the law not the guys who are following them.


----------



## impulse (Mar 17, 2010)

SteveH, The purpose of the limits is to improve the fishery. Seems like the data show that's what's happening. Hopefully, they'll track the resources remaining to see if the limits should be tweeked to keep the success rate up.

The objective of the limits isn't to take people's rights away- it's to maintain and improve the quality of the fishery for everyone, and our kids and grandkids. Maybe it's a fluke that more people are catching more fish. Or maybe it's working just like it should.

Sorry if you thought I was referring to you on the latter comment. That wasn't aimed at you, but I was too lazy to start a separate post. 

My point is that the fish are way more valuable as a recreational resource than as fillets. Gone are the days when a significant portion of the expense of a fishing trip could be offset by the meat. Today, I probably dump $50-200 into the economy (gas, tackle, bait, soda, fast food, etc) for a simple wading excursion. Multiply that by 5 or 10 for a few days of fly fishing in the Rockies or a bay trip in a boat. Compare that the the $6.89 I dump into Walmart for 2 lb (maybe 3 lb, I forget) of tilapia fillets. In my mind, the trout, reds and bass are too valuable to catch just once.


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

Did ART talk more about a Midcoast management area like the lower coast management area or were they talking about for the whole coast?

I had posted this several days ago on it own thread and few people looked at it.* You guys need to voice your opinion one way or the other: lower the limit? set up a midcoast management area? or ?

On the links Art has some of the basic info under the blue links at the bottom.

Participate: Use link below to comment on the (possible) change in trout regulations- TPWL *
To provide comments online and to peruse the frequently asked questions section concerning spotted seatrout, see:

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business..._scoping.phtml

Art Morris
Fishery Outreach Specialist
Corpus Christi Field Station

(361) 825-3356

*Scoping: Spotted Seatrout Conservation Measures*

*Comment Period:* 5 p.m. December 22, 2010, through 5 p.m. January 19, 2011
Due to continued public interest in overall spotted seatrout population health, Texas Parks & Wildlife Department Coastal Fisheries Division is obtaining public input on potential conservation measures for spotted seatrout as part of the annual statewide proclamation process. Coastal Fisheries staff would like input on how spotted seatrout are currently managed in Texas.
Check these frequently asked questions for more information.
See a list of the January scoping meeting sites and dates.
Please provide any comments you have concerning spotted seatrout management in Texas in the space below, then click the Submit button.​


----------



## impulse (Mar 17, 2010)

texacajun said:


> Help me understand your logic sir.
> 
> Mike


Mike, from JimD's link:

_4. What is the status of trout along the upper and lower coast?

a. Data from our fisheries-independent monitoring program indicates that spotted seatrout populations on the upper coast are in good shape with a slightly overall increasing trend since 1986 with variation from year to year....

5. Will a 5-fish bag limit help?

a. A 5-fish bag limit has the potential for some modest gains in spotted seatrout conservation. For one, there could be a leveling off of the recently seen wide fluctuation in annual catch rates. Early results from the lower Laguna Madre (where a 5 fish bag limit was imposed on Sept 1, 2007) may give us some indication of what a 5 fish bag limit might mean to other areas on the coast. In the lower Laguna Madre more anglers are catching and keeping more fish per trip under a 5 fish bag limit than they did under a 10 fish bag limit. It also appears that anglers are targeting larger fish since the 5 fish bag limit went into place. *Overall, it appears that larger fish are being landed with more anglers landing more fish per angler.* We do not know if these trends will continue._

That sounds like they don't plan to mess with the upper coast because it isn't broke, like you've said.

More and bigger fish per angler in LLM sounds like a pretty favorable result of lowering the limit. Why? I don't know. My only logic is the data.

In times of economic woe, fishing actually picks up as people take less expensive vacations closer to home. I suspect the mode of fishing will change and we'll see more wading, kayaking and jon boats (like we had in Corpus in the '80s), but I hope the activity level in the bays will see an increase. I do worry about the effects of higher fuel prices on those who enjoy offshore fishing.


----------



## djduke47823 (Jun 7, 2005)

TROUT-10 (1 over 25)
REDFISH-5 (20-28)(1-oversize with tag)
FLOUNDER -5 (all year)


----------



## paymerick (May 19, 2010)

Just some quick opinions on what I've seen so far in this thread:

-For the guy on the front page who thought it was silly that TPW does all of the scientific research and gathers info then comes to us to ask our opinion: No it is not, that's exactly what they should do... Esspecially when you see data like this where it's about 50/50 on doing something or not doing anything...

-The person who brought up future higher gas prices keeping folks off of the water in the coming years: Very good point, I never considered that... that point alone makes you think "let's wait a few more years and see where we're at..." but we shall see...

-As for "why don't we just lower the limit to 7 instead of 5? Why does it have to be 10 or 5?" I've asked that myself, but I guess it's because their data shows the average trout-stringer size to be somewhere between 6-7 maybe (I don't know that number)? so lowering it to 7 wouldn't add-up "on paper"? maybe?... that'd be my guess anyway...

Personally I go by the "Keep Four" motto... mainly because I can't even catch one, so four seems more doable than 5 or 10


----------



## shallowist (May 28, 2009)

There were a lot of very interesting comments made last night, both from the audience and Art. A couple that caught my attention: 
Along with the increased population that would theoretically come from reduced bag (5) there would be a corresponding increase in mortality. No one wants to hear that but the thought is that if more people fish and release, or try to cull when they catch a better fish later in the day, some lesser fish will get released, and perish.

They made it clear that overall populations for the entire Texas coast are on a slight increasing trend. I asked, "What does TPWD think would happen if we made no change?" No definite response, but Art agreed that the fishery is increasing under current regulations.

The point was made that maybe redfish populations are causing a problem with trout stocks (eating trout fry, depleting available forage for trout.....) The response was that the commission has offered to increase the redfish limit and it was declined by those surveyed. 

An intersting point, the guide catches on the middle coast represent a much smaller portion of the overall catches than in many other areas. 

The most effected areas are those that have been the most popular fishing destinations along the coast and have the greatest number of licensed guides. 

The Galveston system, sees more "fishing pressure" than any other system yet remains one of the strongest fisheries on the coast. 

I heard a lot of interesting comments from some of the very veteran guides along with two very salty and seasoned commercial fishermen. Fishing, and fish populatons are very seasonally cyclical, and many of the trends we saw on the graphs would have been similar without fishing pressure. Factors that are hard to quantify, such as seasonal patterns, salinity level, economic impact on fishing participation and others will play a significant role in how TPWD and anglers view the health of the fishery. 

For those of you who are in fear of regional regulations, you are way to late! That has already been introduced in the TPWD management practices. I could go either way hear, knowing the vast disparity between bays along the Texas Coast. If managed properly, it could be a very valuable tool that protects certain areas from suffering under regulations that aren't necessary in one place but may benefit another. 

One of the biggest concerns that I heard and share is the potential that TPWD may not give us an increase down the road as populations return. 

I have no personal issues with a reduction or maintenance of the current limits. Most importantly, substantiate the data and regulate it for the overall health of the bays. Anyone who has taken the time to read this thread or take part in a conversation about the subject, obviously has some level of concern about what is going on. Probably not very many involved in the conversation are willing to accept a continual decline in population or size, so we have to voice our opinions, preferably educated ones, and offer any assistance that can be given in terms of overall fisheries heath. 

Last point that I see as highly valuable, the guides that were there from the Galveston system all agreed that they have made an effort over the years to educate their customers about the benefits of catch and release of larger(brood stock) trout that can safely be released. This is the RESPONSIBILITY of anyone who fishes and understands what WE can do to help maintain the fisheries that we have. I hear it repeatedly that we don't want people who don't have our understanding regulating us, but if we aren't being the good stewards of the fishery, then the government will take over and do it for us. 

I'm sure that some will have a different view than I do, and hope again that all will voice an opinion that is founded on their personal experience and can add value to TPWD's effort to accept public input about management proposals.


----------



## shallowist (May 28, 2009)

The question about 7 fish was answered. The difference is so minimal that it wouldn't be worth the effort. It is a 25% decrease in limit that yields something less than a 5% difference. At 50% there is a more perceptable change in the fishery.


----------



## workn2huntnfish (Aug 1, 2008)

*5*

I just emailed Art to tell him I am for the 5 fish limit.


----------



## grman (Jul 2, 2010)

The reason why you have to go 50% cuts in limits to see measurable difference in trout populations is that every single mortality study run by every single state shows that the sport/recreational harvest in not a factor in trout population numbers. Habitat, weather, environmental factors are factors. Someone trying to justify government $$$$.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

in a nut shell tp&w threw out so called data that they claim was science which most people in attendance agreed was flawed. net survey spots picked from a computer! give me a break. say they have a spot picked on a north shoreline and when the nets are set it blows for a few days from the south at 30! what do you think they are going to catch? surveys done at ramps, bait camps very subjective too. too many variables, weather, tides,wind ect.. bottom line this just keep five stems from a certain user group who wants their agenda spread to everyone who fishes the coast. they talked about increase saltwater license sales,but remember in recent years all anglers who didn't need to purchase a saltwater stamp now do.( exempt anglers,crabbing,cane pole fishing and fishing off private piers). directly attributes to the increase. if there is a problem in certain bays address the issue as too why? lowering the limit is just a band-aid!!!!!! if you want too keep five then go ahead. galveston bay fishery is fine. lowering the limit here too five will not help the other bays that might or might not have a problem!!!


----------



## BullyARed (Jun 19, 2010)

10 trout down to 5 trout a day = half price for license.

I haven't caught a spec for last 10 months and that was not count zero for previous year! Will someone check if Al Gore is now running TPWD.


----------



## 100% Texan (Jan 30, 2005)

Once again lets be carefull what we ask for with all this just keep 5 nonsense.I have never seen any laws go back to the original.Give up 5 trout now and in ten years they will ask for 2 more then they will ask us to eat gold fish like the Jap's and all the other hungry nations


----------



## tickbird (Apr 11, 2008)

*Thoughts?*

What are your thoughts on lowering the size limit instead of raising it? Two factors come to mind for me: 1) How many fish are being killed as you go through 50 13 to 14 inchers before you get a limit of 10? 2) After two years, males and females are both around 12 to 13 inches. If the minimum size limit were lowered, we would be harvesting more males than we do now waiting for them to get to be 15 inches. This would take the pressure off of the sexually mature females that are ready to spawn at 12 inches and 2 years. Most would be happy with 10 13 inchers and go home proud because they caught a 'limit'. This could take the pressure off of catching and keeping big sow trout.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

tick i hear you but not even on the agenda to lower it back to 14. education seems needed instead of lowering the limit. if you are catching a ton of small fish compared to keepers, it is time too move location imo. too much mortality in order to keep ten. against a slot limit also. trout mortality increases as water temps rise.


----------



## tickbird (Apr 11, 2008)

*Capt. David*

I completely agree with the mortality and moving, etc. You and I realize and understand when it is time to move to another spot. Educating anglers will always be a tough chore as long as people think that catching a limit is the ultimate reason for fishing. I'm not for the slot or actually lowering the limit. Catch what you need, lie about catching a limit if you need to, and throw the others back. Too many fish being freezer burnt.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

lowering from 10 to 5 brings up a real "high grading " issue,esp with wade fisheremen.

i would be more for a seasonal closure during a peak spawn month(s), c&r only
keep the limit at 10 tho

try it for a few years with a target change date.


----------



## paymerick (May 19, 2010)

I'm against closure... If a month of limits going from 10 to five would work, that'd be different, but no complete closures...


----------



## Power Pole (Jul 13, 2010)

Keep the limit the same.
14" min.
you can keep 1 fish a day in the 20-25 inch slot. - primary breeders
you can keep one over 30" per year. 
Do it for 2yrs and see how the quality of fish improves.
No closures or "seasons"


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

guides will be all for the 5 fish limit......... we have to decide is it really necessary, or is it just who yelled the loudest to make the change


----------



## grman (Jul 2, 2010)

Yall are just throw numbers around without any science to back any of it up. Sportfisherman talking 10 fish is not the problem. A multi-year drought along the middle coast was the problem. And the middle coast is the only thing that matters in Austin. Follow the money! Look at where the state boat ramps are! Look at where the state hacheries release the most fish!
Believe it or not - there are not that many serious trout fisherman, even in Galveston Bay, that are capable of catching limits day after day. You guides know this. You can reconize their trucks at the boat ramp. You know their boats on the water at 1000 yards.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

guides want the 5 fish limit? don't think so here in galveston. last thing we want is any type of closure!


----------



## Capt. Dustin Lee (Jan 16, 2006)

100% Texan said:


> Once again lets be carefull what we ask for with all this just keep 5 nonsense.I have never seen any laws go back to the original.Give up 5 trout now and in ten years they will ask for 2 more then they will ask us to eat gold fish like the Jap's and all the other hungry nations


I hear gold fish taste like harheads? lol I agree, look at what has happened to offshore fishing.

I may have missed this but was the numbers showed for the mid coast? All I keep hearing about is the upper and lower coast.


----------



## steveh (Oct 13, 2005)

impulse said:


> SteveH, The purpose of the limits is to improve the fishery. Seems like the data show that's what's happening. Hopefully, they'll track the resources remaining to see if the limits should be tweeked to keep the success rate up.
> 
> The objective of the limits isn't to take people's rights away- it's to maintain and improve the quality of the fishery for everyone, and our kids and grandkids. Maybe it's a fluke that more people are catching more fish. Or maybe it's working just like it should.
> 
> ...


Impulse,
I didn't take anything you said personally nor that it was directed at me so no apology necessary. One important thing that I forgot to mention is that while landings have increased down there since the 5 trout limit, the gill net reports show a *decrease* during the same time period. So what have we accomplished? It would be totally different if the landings were up AND the gill net studies were up. Then I would say it's working. That's not the case however.

Please understand that all I'm trying to do is shed some light on the subject in an effort to help others come to an educated decision before sending their comments over to Art Morris. I'm sure the folks that attend the scoping meetings down south will have different perspectives than us up here and that's fine. But, Gal. Bay is more than holding it's own and nothing needs to change. I would challenge anyone to give me one reason why we need a reduction up here. Too many people are jumping on the 5 trout band wagon with nothing to substantiate their decision.

Steve Hillman


----------



## steveh (Oct 13, 2005)

capt. david said:


> tick i hear you but not even on the agenda to lower it back to 14. education seems needed instead of lowering the limit. if you are catching a ton of small fish compared to keepers, it is time too move location imo. too much mortality in order to keep ten. against a slot limit also. trout mortality increases as water temps rise.


David. You beat me to the punch on this one. Well stated. There definitly needs to be more education.

Steve Hillman


----------



## Bowl_full_o_Jelly (Jan 1, 2011)

Lower it to 5 or leave it at 10. Doesn't matter much to me. I can't seem to catch 10 trout anyway.


----------



## calicojim77 (Oct 24, 2010)

This is how it started in CA. 5/6 years ago rockfish limit changes and seasonal closures. Then changes in sport fish limits. All with no scientific studies to back up changes. Fishermen stepped up to a compromise, catch and release areas but the ENVIROS want NO fishing and that is what they got. Thanks to the Democratic Goverment in CA.


----------



## j wadd (Sep 21, 2009)

keep it at ten fish and just outlaw fishing with croakers as bait..... (sry guides i know its easy to put customers on fish with croaker )..... i see way more fish being hammered on with croakers during the summer than any other thing out on the water


----------



## grman (Jul 2, 2010)

I'd worry more about the croaker population from using them as bait than the spec population being caught on croakers. Again we are talking about a very small segment of the fisherman. Probably less than 50. Add to that a limiting supply of croaker. Add to that the fact that croaker fisherman fish very tiny areas of water. The few thousand fish they take in the summer are small potatoes.


----------



## Sow Trout (Jun 28, 2004)

What data shows a need for a 10 trout limit? Why not a 9 or 11 fish limit? I think a max should be 7 trout. I don't have a problem with 5. If you want fish to eat go to the market. Those fish will be much better for you than the fish from Galveston Bay. You'll save a lot of money. I think the red fish limit should be increased. I believe we have messed up the balance of nature by stocking so many hatchery red fish. I think they have a lot to do with the reduced numbers of trout and crabs.


trackatrout said:


> My problem isn't with having to drop the limit to 5. It is with imposing a new regulation when the data shows no need. The TPWD computer model actually shows a higher mortality rate of fish under the minumum due to catch and release if the minimum length is increased and it "may lead to increases in discard mortality, i.e. "high grading" due to the lower bag limit.
> 
> Go to your local meeting, if you missed it drive to the next one. There was a guy that drove in from middle coast to hear what anglers here had to say. I would like to see a white paper once TPWD gathers all comments and information from these meetings. Before they present it to the board/commisioners for a proposed action.


----------



## Rojo Runner (Mar 21, 2006)

What is funny is this whole thing was not even brought about by environmental whack jobs - its our own kind!! 

If the middle coast is suffering in the trout population department I think the 3 top reason would be:

1. Cedar Bayou is now closed.
The Answer: Make the Bass family open it.
2. Too many stinking dolphin going nuts on schools of trout.
The Answer: Regulate the dolphin some how, not the fisherman.
3. Freshwater fluctuations have been significant in recent history from drought to a flood back to drought and so on.
The Answer: There's not one, it's nature.

Fisherman, both croaker soakers and lure chunkers, would be hard pressed to make a dent in the fishery compared to the effects the above mentioned have.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

j wadd let's just outlaw fishing period! quess how much tackle you will sell then? croaks are not the issue. i know other guides and people that don't use them and catch fish in the summer. croaks are not on the agenda. sow we brought that issue about the number of reds in our bays to art's attention and he did not want to hear that issue.


----------



## Capt. Dustin Lee (Jan 16, 2006)

Rojo Runner said:


> What is funny is this whole thing was not even brought about by environmental whack jobs - its our own kind!!
> 
> If the middle coast is suffering in the trout population department I think the 3 top reason would be:
> 
> ...


Those dolphin are something on a school of trout. Like you said there are a bunch of them and seem to be getting more and more every year. Also dont forget the freeze we had last winter where there was a fish kill on the middle coast. This is why I want to see or hear what the numbers are showing on the middle coast with TPWD to compare them to see how much or if the number dropped in their surveys after that. Yes nature does her thing but just wondering how much she did last year. Reason I'm wanting to know too is that TPWD was jumping through hoops to go out and catch broodstock to bring back to the hatchery at Sea Center to restock these bays that the freeze had gotten.


----------



## POCLANCE (Apr 5, 2006)

*Trout Limits*

I'm against the 5 trout limit. This really effects those of us who don't have the opportunity to fish much. When we do, we like to keep 10 trout if we catch them. For folks/guides fishing more often, 5 may be OK. So if you are going to drop it to 5, make it like deer hunting. With a saltwater license you will have fish tags, allowing you to keep a certain amount every year. Using a tag off your license for your daily limit. This would be easier to enforce because most boats have to return to a dock. Deer hunters travel from the field on many roads to many points of destination. This would make it fair for all, if it is decided to lower the limit.


----------



## Sow Trout (Jun 28, 2004)

I'm not surprised that he didn't want to hear it.


capt. david said:


> j wadd let's just outlaw fishing period! quess how much tackle you will sell then? croaks are not the issue. i know other guides and people that don't use them and catch fish in the summer. croaks are not on the agenda. sow we brought that issue about the number of reds in our bays to art's attention and he did not want to hear that issue.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

_With a saltwater license you will have fish tags, allowing you to keep a certain amount every year. Using a tag off your license for your daily limit. _


don't even think about it, bad idea


----------



## sea ray (Mar 15, 2006)

capt. david said:


> j wadd let's just outlaw fishing period! quess how much tackle you will sell then? croaks are not the issue. i know other guides and people that don't use them and catch fish in the summer. croaks are not on the agenda. sow we brought that issue about the number of reds in our bays to art's attention and he did not want to hear that issue.


X2
Never herd of a tackle salesman that made money with a "my way or the highway additude"
just sayin


----------



## johnmyjohn (Aug 6, 2006)

The writing is on the wall. It tells you TPWD is looking to see how the public feels about the limits by e-mail or other contact. The fish surveys and science is not enough, they are doing a people survey now. It's nothing more than TPWD is digging deeper into politics and further away from fish management. It wants to please the mob now.
And just because they did an individual limit for the lower coast in the past what makes you think they're going to do the right thing twice. They may throw the whole coast in together regardless of fish populations.
I hope TPWD goes to what they should do and that is manage wildlife according to their tests. 
The squeaky wheel gets the grease and the previous poster already told you he wants 5 fish limits regardless of the science and e-mailed them telling them so. What are you going to do?


----------



## paymerick (May 19, 2010)

Good points, jmj... Only disagreement I have is that TPW _should_ present us the info and should get our input on it because we are their superiors, and they need to check with us... But that's as far as I disagree, the proof is right there: trout populations seem to be trending upward according to the research... If that population is considered a healthy one, why try to tweak the working system?

As of right now, NOTHING should be done until research suggests otherwise...

I'm no expert on this issue, but these are just my opinions...


----------



## Capt. Tim Bradbeer (Jun 27, 2006)

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to "troll" this issue. Hillman brings just as many fish to the dock as we do with croakers and shrimp. If you know how easy it is to put customers on fish with them then start guiding.



j wadd said:


> keep it at ten fish and just outlaw fishing with croakers as bait..... (sry guides i know its easy to put customers on fish with croaker )..... i see way more fish being hammered on with croakers during the summer than any other thing out on the water


----------



## Capt. Tim Bradbeer (Jun 27, 2006)

...and for the record, I am against lowering the limit to 5. 

Here's a thought, how about putting a moratorium on guide licenses? Make these things worth something monetarily. Last time I checked there was no "guide pension" being issued when someone reached retirement age or was forced out of the business due to health reasons.


----------



## porkchoplc (Aug 12, 2009)

Can they not make a limit for the areas hit hardest by a lack of trout? Why should it be the entire state when fishing here is not being impacted to the degree as else where and Im sure there are more fisherman in the Galveston Bay area annually than there are else where in the state.


----------



## Bonito (Nov 17, 2008)

Drop the limit to 5 per day and slot limits. 17 to 24 inches with a tag for an oversized trout. The quality and quantity would increase in a short period of time.


----------



## j wadd (Sep 21, 2009)

why not cut the size limit back to 14 or even 13 inches.. i see a lot of guys in the fall that will flip fish in the boat and stomp on them and throw them back because there half a inch to short.. theyll be happier to keep the smaller fish just to say they got there limit for the day


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Guides*



Rojo Runner said:


> What is funny is this whole thing was not even brought about by environmental whack jobs - its our own kind!!
> 
> If the middle coast is suffering in the trout population department I think the 3 top reason would be:
> 
> ...


Down cycles, know matter what they are caused by are difficult to rebound from when the mid coast guides by the hundreds rape the resource.

Gater


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Trout Meeting*

Look, you are waisting time here throwing out ideas such as cut it 7, make a slot, ect...... The meeting agenda was not about that. TP&WD simply wants to know if we should change the bag limit to 5, thats it!

Capt. Steve and Capt. Dave have covered everything that when on last ight pretty well here. Re-read the post and you decide. If you want to be heard email your comments to Art Morris.

Gater


----------



## steveh (Oct 13, 2005)

Capt. Dustin Lee said:


> Those dolphin are something on a school of trout. Like you said there are a bunch of them and seem to be getting more and more every year. Also dont forget the freeze we had last winter where there was a fish kill on the middle coast. *This is why I want to see or hear what the numbers are showing on the middle coast with TPWD to compare them to see how much or if the number dropped in their surveys after that.* Yes nature does her thing but just wondering how much she did last year. Reason I'm wanting to know too is that TPWD was jumping through hoops to go out and catch broodstock to bring back to the hatchery at Sea Center to restock these bays that the freeze had gotten.


Dustin,
Just shoot Art Morris an email and I'm sure he can email his Power Point presentation which includes graphs for East & West Matagorda Bays ([email protected]) or you can attend one of the following remaining scoping meetings:

Port Lavaca, Jan. 6, USDA Extension Service Auditorium, 186 County Road 101.

San Antonio, Jan 11, Lion's Field Adult & Senior Citizens Center, 2809 Broadway.

Rockport, Jan. 12, Aransas County District Court Room, 301 N. Live Oak.

Port Isabel, Jan. 13, Port Isabel High School Auditorium, 101 Port Road.

Corpus Christi, Jan. 18, Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, Natural Resource Center, Rm. 1003, 6300 Ocean Dr. 

I still don't think certain folks are understanding the issue. Despite the fact that there is no data to support a change I'm still reading all of these arbitrary numbers and solutions thrown out there. Solutions for what? To fix what? I've read most of the posts dating back several weeks ago about changes in bag limits, scoping meetings, etc. I intentionally waited until after I attended the meeting, did extensive research and spoke with the powers that be (at TPWD) leading up to the meeting before drawing my conclusion or making a public post. I would encourage others to do the same. Don't be mislead. Educate yourselves. Once you feel that you've gathered enough information to form your opinion then email Art Morris or go to http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines...oposals/201101_spotted_seatrout_scoping.phtml
and make your comment.

Steve Hillman


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Sow Trout said:


> What data shows a need for a 10 trout limit? Why not a 9 or 11 fish limit? I think a max should be 7 trout. I don't have a problem with 5. If you want fish to eat go to the market. Those fish will be much better for you than the fish from Galveston Bay. You'll save a lot of money. I think the red fish limit should be increased. I believe we have messed up the balance of nature by stocking so many hatchery red fish. I think they have a lot to do with the reduced numbers of trout and crabs.


I don't agree with lowering the trout limits statewide but I do agree with you on redfish numbers. The red limit could be 10 fish and the slot @ 18-28'" and no one would be able to tell any difference numbers wise.


----------



## Back Bay boy (Apr 7, 2010)

Originally Posted by *Sow Trout*  
_What data shows a need for a 10 trout limit? Why not a 9 or 11 fish limit? I think a max should be 7 trout. I don't have a problem with 5. If you want fish to eat go to the market. Those fish will be much better for you than the fish from Galveston Bay. You'll save a lot of money. I think the red fish limit should be increased. I believe we have messed up the balance of nature by stocking so many hatchery red fish. I think they have a lot to do with the reduced numbers of trout _



_Are you serious the fish in your local markets are out of your local bays dam this is what the problem is this kind of logic is being applied to out fisheries. Everyone has a right to keep fish and not buy it. And let mer tell you somthing show up at that same local fish market at 5am in the morning to buy bait and check th condtions of the place yikes. Makes me gag till I get down the road about a mile_


----------



## Capt. Dustin Lee (Jan 16, 2006)

steveh said:


> Dustin,
> Just shoot Art Morris an email and I'm sure he can email his Power Point presentation which includes graphs for East & West Matagorda Bays ([email protected]) or you can attend one of the following remaining scoping meetings:
> 
> Port Lavaca, Jan. 6, USDA Extension Service Auditorium, 186 County Road 101.
> ...


Thanks Steve. I'm like was at this point on trying to do some research to to figure out what my conclusion would be on all this.


----------



## Porky (Nov 1, 2006)

I still think the problem is drought & freshwater outflow in the affected areas and until it truly ends, thus will the problem!


----------



## cruss (Aug 31, 2005)

*aransas bay*

I would put the problem in aransas bay area in these areas
1. the weather, droughts, heavy rains
2. cedar bayou
3. Too much pressure, too many idiots running around screwing up good fishing areas including the 250 plus guides
4. dolphins- i have continuously been harrassed by swarms of dolphins this fall and winter and they will follow you to the next spot.

will a 5 fish limit help in these areas, I doubt it.


----------



## Brian Castille (May 27, 2004)

My two cents:

They will never do trout tags or limit tags or anything to make it more complicated.

If there is a one fish in the 20"-25" slot or whatever, what happens when you have two 20"+ trout inhale a topwater and are going to die? I guess one of them gets wasted&#8230;.

They are never going to outlaw croakers. Croakers are not some magical bait. If I want to take my grandfather out on the water and soak croakers, how can I do that if they are outlawed? Sometimes it can actually be challenging to catch trout on croakers when the bite gets weird. No matter what you are fishing with, to catch fish, you have to be on fish.

I think 15" is a good minimum length - you get a decent sized fillet off of it. There is talk of lowering the limit to get a better balance of male and female fish taken. I don't really see a problem if there is an imbalance of male and female fish. If there are way more males than females, I guess some of them will just be lonely, lol. If it's a 12" minimum, then instead of catching lots of 14.5" throwbacks I think you'll just be catching 11.5" throwbacks. If the minimum goes up, I think there will be a lot more wasted fish that are not handled properly when released.

Just remember, once limits are dropped they will never be increased. Look at Florida - they have this for trout and redfish:

Redfish 18"-27", 1 per day, no oversized.
Speckled trout 15"-20", 4 per day (south region) 5 per day (northeast and northwest regions), one fish over 20" per day
They also have some closed months.

I think some of the people that are gung ho about 5 fish are the ones that don't catch many fish and think if the limit is lowered there will be more fish out there and they will be easier to catch.

I think guides are a great source of information of how it really is, not some gill net placed in a random place on a random day that is determined by a computer. Guides are on the water day in and day out and I would expect this to be the best way to determine the state of the fishery. There are so many factors that affect where fish can be and how many. Sometimes salinity levels drive fish out of an area altogether. 

What if one year we get 20" of rain north of Galveston Bay during June and on July 4th the gill net catches 1000 trout in a random place south of Dollar Reef. Then the next year, we get 0" of rain during June and on July 4th the gill net catches 500 trout in a random place north of Halfmoon Reef. Does that mean that there are a lot less trout? I would say no - the freshwater influx just pushed trout south where the salinity is favorable one year then the next fish spread out more.

I don't think the survey checkpoints do a whole lot either since there are a lot of people that catch a lot of fish that launch from private docks and marinas.

Ok, I am done adding my two cents, lol.


----------



## johnmyjohn (Aug 6, 2006)

paymerick said:


> Good points, jmj... Only disagreement I have is that TPW _should_ present us the info and should get our input on it because we are their superiors, and they need to check with us... But that's as far as I disagree, the proof is right there: trout populations seem to be trending upward according to the research... If that population is considered a healthy one, why try to tweak the working system?
> 
> As of right now, NOTHING should be done until research suggests otherwise...
> 
> I'm no expert on this issue, but these are just my opinions...


 Sorry, I need to clarify myself. We as the public do need shared info, elect what we think is the right leaders, let them do their job. We can take that info and see how they do their job and if we don't like it, replace them. Everybody is an expert and I'm one of them, but we have to be careful about too many cooks. The info and surveys is an expensive no brainer. Lets use it.


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

We currently have a regional limit of 5 trout in place. It has showed some positive signs such as a 250% increase of those catching 5 trout in just the THREE *3* years it has been in place.

Both the fisherman and the data being provided show that the mid-coast could use some help.

The data and the fisherman up North in Galveston show that their fishery is where they want it to be.

Therefore, we need to move the 5 trout limit line further North to East Matagorda such that from East Matagorda to South Padre is 5 and Galveston and Sabine remain at 10.

The data should be collected and re-evaluated in 5 years to determine if the limit should remain at 5 or changed back. The criteria for determining if it is successful should be determined now and the data should be compared to this criteria.

Also, as a symbol of good faith, the redfish limit should be raised to 4 or 5 to erase fears of the public that what is taken can be given back!


----------



## Wading Mark (Apr 21, 2005)

TailHunter3 said:


> Also, as a symbol of good faith, the redfish limit should be raised to 4 or 5 to erase fears of the public that what is taken can be given back!


C'mon, that would make too much sense.

I would like to personally invite any TPWD official to stay at my house on Tiki Island for a week this summer to sample our fine speckled trout fishing in Galveston Bay. My house, my boat, my gas - just bring your rod and yourself.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

TailHunter3 said:


> We currently have a regional limit of 5 trout in place. It has showed some positive signs such as a 250% increase of those catching 5 trout in just the THREE *3* years it has been in place.
> 
> Both the fisherman and the data being provided show that the mid-coast could use some help.
> 
> ...


Make the line south of the Colorado River please...


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*LLM Trout limits*



TailHunter3 said:


> We currently have a regional limit of 5 trout in place. It has showed some positive signs such as a 250% increase of those catching 5 trout in just the THREE *3* years it has been in place.
> 
> Both the fisherman and the data being provided show that the mid-coast could use some help.
> 
> ...


I believe the limits have been in effect for 2 years not 3 and has I mentioned at the meeting last night the 5 limit imposed in the LLM was not because of number of fish but the numbers of a certain size of fish. In fact, at the time the 5 fish limit was made law the gill net data showed that the number of fish in the LLM was right in line with the rest of the coast.

Another misconception is that they will never give back is not true. In fact, they have tried twice to raise the limit on Redfish but it was the overall input from anglers opposing it that kept it the same. It proves one thing, that they will listen!

Gater


----------



## texacajun (May 2, 2005)

j wadd said:


> keep it at ten fish and just outlaw fishing with croakers as bait..... (sry guides i know its easy to put customers on fish with croaker )..... i see way more fish being hammered on with croakers during the summer than any other thing out on the water


Firstly, why fix something that isn't broken? I can't seem to comprehend the logic in changing anything if we have a healthy system. Next, your suggesting the method in which trout are caught is a problem also. So, at what point would you draw the line? If croakers are wrong, what about shrimp...if shrimp is improper what about artificial baits? Why not just throw some monofiliment in the water and try to snag them with a slip knot since a hook would be unfair!!! Really??? Come on bro.



j wadd said:


> why not cut the size limit back to 14 or even 13 inches.. i see a lot of guys in the fall that will flip fish in the boat and stomp on them and throw them back because there half a inch to short.. theyll be happier to keep the smaller fish just to say they got there limit for the day


And here is another recommendation based on what data that suggests a change is needed? Furthermore, I don't know who you fish with or what guys you see doing this, but I would have to say that would be a first for me. Stomping on a fish to get a half inch outta them....hmmmm...some low down dirty dawgs hard pressed if thats truly the case. Not calling you a liar, just sayin. If in fact you did see this did you call the GW? I digress. Seems like someone in your field would be more subject to promote a healthy responsible fishery rather than a shotgun approach to more regulation.

I don't wish you any ill will, I just don't know why you would continue to make suggestions that affect me directly as a sports fisherman w/o any data to support it. Just Keep 5 cronies have you buffaloed and it certainly won't help your market. JMHO!

Mike


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Restore Cedar Bayou and Vinson's Slough before a limit change on anything!!!*

TPWD has opposed opening or restoration of Cedar Bayou and Vinson's Slough for their Chairman Emeritus Lee Marshal Bass. H-ell there are three studies done by TPWD showing the importance of these passes and surrounding Nursery Grounds lost to appease The Bass clan. Federal funds were used illegally to destroy wetlands buy these outlaws. TPWD needs a house cleaning as none of them have the reproductive organs of a humming bird when it comes to confronting "God Bass". At some point we need to revolt from the environmental right and tell Governor Perry,Peter Holt and the Bass boys we have had enough.

We have to stop the constant reduction of our fishing rights until the State of Texas gets off their high horse and restores all passes closed due to the IXTOC OIL Spill.
Flounder and trout come to mind.

TPWD has no backbone. They are aware of the true problem in the mid coast caused by God Bass and his Son Lee by killing Vinson's Slough which was a death sentence for Cedar Bayou. TPWD needs to grow a pair and start opening passes. Surely they are not all spineless at TPWD. TPWD should throw Lee Bass under the bus as he is not Chairman Emeritus material by a long shot.

Using Fed Funds to kill wetlands is illegal. We believe TPWD and the Bass bunch will soon find out just how illegal.

Say No to any further reductions until our passes are restored and Lee Marshal Bass is removed as Chairman Emeritus of Texas Parks and Wildlife.

Remember inherited wealth has no connotation of intelligence of which one Lee Marshal Bass has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. He has destroyed the Coastal bend for personal gain as did his father. Both inherited their $$$.:work:


----------



## Capt. Tricia (Nov 1, 2004)

I believe the limits have been in effect for 2 years not 3 and has I mentioned at the meeting last night the 5 limit imposed in the LLM was not because of number of fish but the numbers of a certain size of fish. In fact, at the time the 5 fish limit was made law the gill net data showed that the number of fish in the LLM was right in line with the rest of the coast. 

It has been three years!!! Sorry I could not help but respond to this post.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*LLM limits*



Capt. Tricia said:


> I believe the limits have been in effect for 2 years not 3 and has I mentioned at the meeting last night the 5 limit imposed in the LLM was not because of number of fish but the numbers of a certain size of fish. In fact, at the time the 5 fish limit was made law the gill net data showed that the number of fish in the LLM was right in line with the rest of the coast.
> 
> It has been three years!!! Sorry I could not help but respond to this post.


Sept. 2007, I stand corrected, thanks Capt. Tricia. Gater


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Come on Jim!*



jim smarr said:


> TPWD has opposed opening or restoration of Cedar Bayou and Vinson's Slough for their Chairman Emeritus Lee Marshal Bass. H-ell there are three studies done by TPWD showing the importance of these passes and surrounding Nursery Grounds lost to appease The Bass clan. Federal funds were used illegally to destroy wetlands buy these outlaws. TPWD needs a house cleaning as none of them have the reproductive organs of a humming bird when it comes to confronting "God Bass". At some point we need to revolt from the environmental right and tell Governor Perry,Peter Holt and the Bass boys we have had enough.
> 
> We have to stop the constant reduction of our fishing rights until the State of Texas gets off their high horse and restores all passes closed due to the IXTOC OIL Spill.
> Flounder and trout come to mind.
> ...


Cedar Bayou, whether opened are closed has very little to do with the fishing in Rockport. I really think you know that but until you win or lose your little war with the Bass family you will not admit it. Hold on to your hat, I'd be willing to bet that area will see the best fishing it has seen in years this Spring and Summer and the pass will still be closed. Of course I have been wrong before.









Gater


----------



## McTrout (May 22, 2004)

Sorry, but some of y'all are talking out of fear and not fact. Why not ask someone who lives under the five fish rule what the outcome is? 

True, if it's not broke don't fix it!!!!, but you mid-coast boys know darn well you are in trouble with not only quality but numbers of trout. (sorry Jim, but even if our beloved Cedar Bayou gets re-opened it's but a soda straw in an olympic sized pool considering the large area between POC and JFK)

Here's some sure-nuff facts. We are catching more and bigger fish than we ever did under a ten fish limit. ( whoever wants to fish for dinks raise their hands!)

We are throwing 4 lb trout over our shoulders most days.

For those of you who think the fishing masses will leave your area and go where limits are higher, please explain why everybody is coming down here now...

For those of you who think your business is over without being able to take ten fish per person, please explain why I did 182 trips last year and Tricia did 171? If you are selling seafood for two hours using finfish I might understand the fear....but is this really about food anymore? don't think so....

Bottom line is that none of us wants to see change and we certainly didn't either, however, you can't believe what we are catching down here now... Our five fish will probably weigh more than most ten fish stringers will elsewhere, and we don't have to try very hard to catch them. 

Who doesn't want to catch more and bigger fish? Just sayin'....


----------



## texacajun (May 2, 2005)

Mctrout-

I understand your plight, however my issue with changing the law is where will it stop? Instead of a petition to change the law to lower limits why not promote a voluntary reduction. It has been mentioned most guides already try and utilize a keep what you need and throw the big mommas back rationale. For our bay system, its working.

I fish for food and for pleasure, but I'm just an average joe. I'm not a guide and I'm no expert, just an average guy. I don't get to go as often as some do, and many fit in the same mold as I do. So when we do go we like to have the option to keep 10 fish for our fish fries. If its not hurting the fishery....why change it?

Giving the government more control is a mistake. Fisherman practicing sound conservation for the species is ideal.

In my experience the average stringer for us is 18"-23"...give or take an inch. That might not be trophies, but I'm quite happy and proud of that...but then again...I'm just an average fisherman that gets out on the water when I can (which isn't much lately since I blew my powerhead on my motor!!!). Most of us average joe's don't catch 10 everytime anyway. Its very seldom I limit out. I think I did it twice this past spring/summer. A good average for me is 4 to 7 fish.

My proposal is to leave the limit alone until solid data can be collected to prove otherwise. Once that data indicates we *need* change and its not just an agenda....I'm all for it.

Mike


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

mike(mctrout) those people that want to fish for (big trout) know and have known, you head south! always been like that. 4 pounders over your shoulders everyday, good for you!!! galveston has its share of big trout just not that many anglers percentage wise willing to put forth the effort. no elite group should push their agenda on a fishery that belongs to all who utilize it in texas!


----------



## pmgoffjr (Jul 30, 2009)

It's NOT the five or ten keeper fish you keep that makes the difference...It's the forty smaller trout that are crab food after they are mishandled and slung back in the water that will make the difference.

If we can reduce that number by making it quicker to get a limit, then there's not a doubt the entire fishery will improve.


----------



## shalor57 (Feb 24, 2005)

There is alot of dink catching that goes on in the ULM/Baffin and I see very few trout floating when I'm riding around. I have had many days when I caught 30-40 dinks and I would say 90-95% swam vigorously away...so I think if people make an honest effort to release trout ethically, they do pretty dang good. Another thing, when I go fishing with a couple guys, somehow I'm always the one with the knife at the end of the day...I don't really want to clean more than 10-15 trout. Call me lazy.


----------



## McTrout (May 22, 2004)

Texascajun & capt. david,

Agreed. I was talking to the mid-coast boys who all come down here and say their fishing has been near dismal for quite a while. 

Oh, and y'all please don't put me in that 'elite' group. I just like to catch fish period, and only catch bigger ones sometimes because we have them.


----------



## Red3Fish (Jun 4, 2004)

*Posted by Grman...Speck Facts....on a different string..*

Interesting Info....from Grman.....

First some speck facts. There is a lot of info available online from LSU although their research brings together lots of data provided by all the State wildlife departments -La, Miss, Alabama and tons from TPW.
Specs reach 8 inches by 1 year old
Specs reach 12 inches by 2 years old and females reach sexually maturity.
This is where the sexes get different - very few males live longer than 5 years where females can live 10 or more years.
90% of the tagged fish have been recaptured within 5 miles of their tagging site.
The farthest distance a recaptured fish traveled was 131 miles.
73% percent of the catch and release fish survive.
93% of the Spec harvest is by sport/recreational fisherman
Their spawning season runs from May to August but could vary greatly because of weather.

One of the most interesting things, that is pretty much know by all everyone and that is pointed out in the papers I read from LSU - human fishing pressure is really not an issue in Spec population - in any state that they drew data from. Environmental, weather and habitat with the major factors that affected Spec population. For example, in 1989, Louisiana creel surveys indicated that 6.5 million speckled trout were taken from Louisiana waters. In 1990, after the 1989 freeze, this number dropped to 2.2 million.

The LSU data also supports why Louisiana has a 12" min length. As you add inches to this length - you start taking more females than males. And as you go up - say 15" to 16" this ratio gets worse and worse. At 12" - you take about 50/50 males and females.

Later
R3F


----------



## driftwoodfisher (Oct 4, 2005)

jim smarr said:


> TPWD has opposed opening or restoration of Cedar Bayou and Vinson's Slough for their Chairman Emeritus Lee Marshal Bass. H-ell there are three studies done by TPWD showing the importance of these passes and surrounding Nursery Grounds lost to appease The Bass clan. Federal funds were used illegally to destroy wetlands buy these outlaws. TPWD needs a house cleaning as none of them have the reproductive organs of a humming bird when it comes to confronting "God Bass". At some point we need to revolt from the environmental right and tell Governor Perry,Peter Holt and the Bass boys we have had enough.
> 
> We have to stop the constant reduction of our fishing rights until the State of Texas gets off their high horse and restores all passes closed due to the IXTOC OIL Spill.
> Flounder and trout come to mind.
> ...


Mr. Smarr
You have been saying for years how the closing of CB/VS would effect the fish populations in SAB/Mesquite/Aransas bays and not many people would listen. You were right then and you are still correct. I agree with you about opening up CB/VS (Cedar Bayou and Vension Slough) before changing any current regulations.
*
*


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

Their spawning season runs from May to August but could vary greatly because of weather.

make a reverse slot limit, nothing over 20" retained May -Aug


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

coastal what about mortality during the hot summer months? you might be best to move to florida with their restrictions.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

I'm offering some valid alternatives to keeping 5, not running my mouth.

no-one with any sense would turn up a chance at a 10 fish stringer of 18-20" trout, they taste better anyway.


----------



## paymerick (May 19, 2010)

McTrout: why do you want us mid-coast boys hauling in bigger trout? If it were so, we wouldn't book you guys in hopes of catching your bigger trout, eh?

is there a sex analogy for this? I wanna hear it...

"It's kinda like sex... The ones that say 'size doesn't matter!' say it for one reason only: they lack the size.."


----------



## Capt. Tricia (Nov 1, 2004)

Thanks paymeric for the funny!!!! Everything Mike talks about has some sort of sexual twist nowadays. "TTF video"


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

McTrout said:


> Sorry, but some of y'all are talking out of fear and not fact. Why not ask someone who lives under the five fish rule what the outcome is?
> 
> True, if it's not broke don't fix it!!!!, but you mid-coast boys know darn well you are in trouble with not only quality but numbers of trout. (sorry Jim, but even if our beloved Cedar Bayou gets re-opened it's but a soda straw in an olympic sized pool considering the large area between POC and JFK)
> 
> ...


Mike could that be because it's just part of the cycle, you know one of the peaks on the TP&WD gill net data chart. Trout don't grow that fast, so in three short years you don't go from not hardly having any big fish to throwing 4lb'ers over shoulder. We were throwing 4lb'ers back this fall from fishing the birds. Will we see that next year, may not, just like you may not be throwing back 4lb'ers next year. It does'nt mean the fishery is about go belly up and we need to start adjusting limits.

I am glad you are some good fish and I think they will see some of that on the middle coast this spring and summer, it's part of the cycle. The problem with the middle coast is you cannot keep hammering them the way they do when they are at the bottom of that cycle. It makes it harder for them to rebound.

Gater


----------



## The Driver. (May 20, 2004)

McTrout said:


> Sorry, but some of y'all are talking out of fear and not fact. Why not ask someone who lives under the five fish rule what the outcome is?
> 
> True, if it's not broke don't fix it!!!!, but you mid-coast boys know darn well you are in trouble with not only quality but numbers of trout. (sorry Jim, but even if our beloved Cedar Bayou gets re-opened it's but a soda straw in an olympic sized pool considering the large area between POC and JFK)
> 
> ...


Mike,

I agree that there was a problem in the LLM but the rebound did not come strictly form lowing the limit to 5 fish. You have had several good storms down there the last few years which will help the fisheries tremendously. Galveston, Sabine and Calcasieu are in great shape due to the storms. The middle coast has not had a storm since 2003 when Claudette came thru. Fishing this past fall and winter are the best I have seen in years in the Matagorda bay systems are doing fine. One good storm in the middle coast and the #s will rebound!

I did write my letter to Art Morris and added this to the end of it!

One other item of concern are the fringe groups wanting to lower the limit across the state to 5 with no basis of science to back them up. You and I know that the 10/90 rule holds true. 10% of the fisherman who put their time on the water have no problem catching fish! The other 90% struggle and would still struggle to catch 5 fish. Just because you buy a nice rod & reel and a boat are you guaranteed to catch fish! Please do not let the political correct crowd who do not put in their time to learn the water dictate and try to bring socialism into the picture which I do think is what started this latest batch of meetings.


----------



## Pete A. (Dec 10, 2010)

Just look at the fishing report portion of this site. Guide report/pictures in the middle coast with full stringers of "hatchet handle" length fish (15"-18"). Kinda wonder about the advertising advantage of those pics. 

Bass fisherman caught on to the reduced limits and 'catch & release' years ago. Many heavily fished lakes have healthy populations of large bass. Most of the guides on these bodies are fully on the "catch & release" program. Why do so few salt water guides embrace this?

Count the number of lighted piers from Matagorda to Corpus Christi. That's lots of trout taken every single evening.

Seems interesting how many still pursue redfish with it's lowly 3 fish limit.

I am aok with 5 trout limit. Even suggest a 7" minimum on croakers.

Pete A.


----------



## donkeyman (Jan 8, 2007)

when was the last time tpw restocked trout ..I know they have the ability. why not add small fee ar a stamp that would cost $5.00 100% of that money goes in restock...what about the guides taking multi groups out per day limit it to 1 group of four , and crokers maybe put a limit on moths they can be used ...Lousiania regs seem to work I fish La . several times per year .


----------



## Gorda Fisher (Aug 19, 2005)

*A few thoughts*

Just about every trip:
I jump outta the boat, say to whoever im with- are we keeping fish?....I don't really need any I say. They answer 99% of the time: yes. Get back to the house and they say you want these fish? I say no I got a little left. You take em if you need em. Turns out they don't really need em & say well Ill take em, then some get put in their freezer to get burnt or given to someone else. ***? Take just enough that you can eat, don't let it get freezer burnt & go to waste, & don't try to feed the whole village. Use some common sense.

How are yall "killing" all these undersize fish? It seems that the good majority I catch swim off healthy as ever, yall most be handling em wrong. Trout are not some delicate bouquet of flowers, their heartier than most think it seems. Do some die, sure. Just use some common sense in handling.

Theirs always an argument that if you have a lowered size, say to 20'' and you have 2 20''+ gut hooked trout one will just have to be wasted. Well no **** but how many will be saved? Wayy more. Their just has to be a cutoff point somewhere. People are not very smart and use no common sense so that's what laws are for too help "manage" best they can. Now are laws always good or do what their supposed too, heck no.

As for lowering limits/sizes whatever, same thing applies&#8230;use some common sense. Don't change anything just cuz some group is belly aching. You got to have real data to analyze and make an educated decision. And all the bay systems are different, there is no answer for the whole group. There is way too many factors that effect populations. Factors that are far greater than angling pressure. All these make this data collection and how it is interpreted very difficult. And whatever that data says to do is fine with me as long as its well supported/justified, as long as we can fish and have fish to catch. All this nonsense talk about what it should be raised/lower too does no good. 90%+ of you have no clue what should be done really, including me. All I know is common sense tells me keep just enough that I can use, don't waste, and have a little respect. I choose to keep 15-20'' fish (just what I know ill use) and release everything over 20. Why? I see no reason to keep fish of that size because if you catch those regularly you catch plenty of smaller "eaters" too. Is that right, I don't know for sure but it seems so to me.


----------



## ExplorerTv (Apr 18, 2006)

*McMansfield is right...*



McTrout said:


> Sorry, but some of y'all are talking out of fear and not fact. Why not ask someone who lives under the five fish rule what the outcome is?
> 
> True, if it's not broke don't fix it!!!!, but you mid-coast boys know darn well you are in trouble with not only quality but numbers of trout. (sorry Jim, but even if our beloved Cedar Bayou gets re-opened it's but a soda straw in an olympic sized pool considering the large area between POC and JFK)
> 
> ...


This pretty much sums my thoughts on this whole deal. I don't want to just get bit... 
Why are there not 11-13lb trout caught in Baffin on a regular basis like the mid 90's??? Were people fishing with croaker in the mid 90's??? The answer is NO! Meat heads are throwing croaker in summer taking the fish from the system that have the potential to get this size... As far as I know there have not been many fish caught that even came close to breaking Wallace's record. I can't tell you how many times I am at Bluff's or Bird Island in the summer and someone at the ramp is showing off a 30in 7lb trout that they caught on bait!!!! (seen this a lot in PM too) These fish are the ones have the potential to be a great fish. The time has come my friends, it is time for a change for the better. I am sure the Corpus meeting will get real nasty because there are probably going to be a lot of representation from both sides of the issue.
I fish Mansfield every month of the year and I have seen what it has done for the system. You not only catch quality down there&#8230; you catch a lot. So lets follow the LLM's results and get some of the same results in ULM and Baffin!
Sounds like the Upper Coast is doing fine&#8230; You guys stay up there and stroke em


----------



## McTrout (May 22, 2004)

You guys are right about the LLM rebound. I didn't mean to credit 5 fish as being the only reason for the upswing. Many factors involved I would guess, but I would also guess that it hasn't hurt the curve. 

My point was, that despite our fears as well, lowering the limit really didn't change things very much here as far as participation. Not only did folks keep coming down but now they're bringing their buddies with them. I haven't heard the first person complain (especially when they are staying busy all day!), so if a change DOES come to an area near you...it might not be all doom & gloom. 

If it's not broke let's don't fix it, but if the science show a need, fine. We do know that Florida waited too long however, and now they have closed seasons plus 4 fish per day with only one over 20" I think. We sure don't want that happening here!


----------



## cobrayakker (Mar 23, 2006)

Man is greedy by nature. Most will take and take just because they can until there is no more. We need rules and limits because society has proven we can't police ourselves.
Trout are not the only fish in the bay you can eat. If the limit changes I can keep 5 trout, 3 reds, 5 black drum, 5 sheepies,5 flounder and all the sand trout I want. That's allot of meat for one guy. If my wife and daughter are with me you can triple those numbers. That is way more than I would ever think about putting in the cooler. It is also more than enough to keep me busy for the day targeting the different species.
If all you can do is catch trout, then you might ask yourself if you are as skilled a angler as you think you are. If all you enjoy is catching trout catch all you want. The limit has no effect on catching, just keeping.
I'm all for the 5 fish limit and I also wish they would make croaker a game fish so we could catch some of them for the table like we did when I was a kid.


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

Absolutely! Great post!



cobrayakker said:


> Man is greedy by nature. Most will take and take just because they can until there is no more. We need rules and limits because society has proven we can't police ourselves.
> Trout are not the only fish in the bay you can eat. If the limit changes I can keep 5 trout, 3 reds, 5 black drum, 5 sheepies,5 flounder and all the sand trout I want. That's allot of meat for one guy. If my wife and daughter are with me you can triple those numbers. That is way more than I would ever think about putting in the cooler. It is also more than enough to keep me busy for the day targeting the different species.
> If all you can do is catch trout, then you might ask yourself if you are as skilled a angler as you think you are. If all you enjoy is catching trout catch all you want. The limit has no effect on catching, just keeping.
> I'm all for the 5 fish limit and I also wish they would make croaker a game fish so we could catch some of them for the table like we did when I was a kid.


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

Why is 10 the right number?

No one has answered that one yet.


----------



## grman (Jul 2, 2010)

Why is 10 the right number?

EXACTLY the problem tailhunter

Why is 5 a better number than 10?

And better for what?


----------



## ksk (Aug 9, 2008)

I said this on another thread and will repeat it here.I only fish out of Seadrift[2-3 times a week] with plastics.I only report what I see.It seems that every swinging d--- is a guide now there.I heard Capt. Mickey say this morning that there are 400 guides in the midcoast area.It seems 200 of them fish out of Seadrift or Charlies.I'm not even counting Port O.I 'm not here to slam guides but guys do the math,from late April until late September there are guides bringing full limits of trout everyday in.There are several lodges in the area that have anywhere from 4-12 guides working everyday.This time of the year the trout catching has slowed down for these folks because most paid customers want to throw bait not plastics.I do not see a number problem in this area,I see a size problem.This past year I caught 431 trout.Only 55 were of keeper size.I kept 18 to eat this past year.ALL were caught on plastics.Many of the trout I caught were 10-14 1/2'' long.I don't know if lowering the limit would help this area but lowering the size limit to 14 might.By the way,these areas are over run with redfish 18-21 ''.


----------



## guiness (May 9, 2005)

1. Are all the meetings along the coast? 
2. Not being a biologist, I do believe the cut on the south end does affect the fish population as I believe Cedar Bayou affects the Rockport area. I was around for the freeze in 82 or 83, can't remember now but that freeze caused such a fish kill that limits I believe came into affect. 
3. The Bass family is what it is......the only way to get the off center is the State doing something and the Gov. is not going to do it. Fact of life. But let another freeze come into that area and you see the kill off of our resources and you'll see the true colors of TPW. St. Charles Bay was ice from bank to bank as were the dead fish. Pretty **** ugly. No way to escape to the deep waters of the Gulf.


----------



## paymerick (May 19, 2010)

"Five!".... "10!"... We're all assuming we all have a right to even 3 trout...

10's good for him, 5 works for him, those guys just want 3... Who's wrong here?

I think cobrayaker may have made the argument against his position while trying to make the argument for it: there are sheepshead, reds, blacks, flats etc... Who says you have to catch trout?

You're right, cobrayaker, maybe people need to sharpen their angling skills, heck the guides are having no problem rippin' 'em!

Our trout population isn't even in danger of being endangered and the numbers do not seem to be throwing anything off in our systems, if there were proof of that I'd be for a 5 or maybe something else that would help... But until then, get better at catching trout because they're there, or start catching something else because as cobrayaker said: it's there as well... You do not have a right to even have a better chance at bringing home *your* desired number of trout


----------



## Bigwater (May 21, 2004)

One is the lonliest number that you'll ever do...

Biggie:biggrin:


----------



## Salt Water Texan (Oct 1, 2009)

*Trout Limits*

The problem with studies, reports, facts and figures is the same as reading the Bible. 12 people can read the same thing and still come up with 12 different versions, and each person can prove they're right from the facts and reports. It's unfortunate that some of this argument is sounding a lot like what the commercial fishermen in the 70's had to say about laws to protect redfish & trout." Things are fine, if it ain't broke don't fix it, if TPWD passes any more laws we'll lose our freedom and wind up just like California., just to name a few. 
I have lived to see a lot of changes in fishing laws in Texas, from the no license - no limits days of the 50's to present day rules. No one wants more rules, but a quick look at the unregulated fishing in the Mexican portion of the Laguna Madre will make you happy to have TPWD.
Don't want more laws? Then some of us have got to change. Guides who insist on ganging up on a school of fish and hitting them day after day until the fish are gone and then moving to a new area to do the same thing need to realize that they are their own worst enemy. The day is quickly approaching when you will not be welcome anywhere. Give the rest of us a break and take up car sales, pipefitting, or carpentry. Recreational fishermen who have 300 fillets in the freezer and still insist on bringing home a limit every trip really need to rethink their priorities.
" If it ain't broke don't fix it" just doesn't carry much weight with me. You guys ever hear of preventive maintenance. Ever change the oil before the truck throws a rod, ever clean your reel before it freezes up, ever tell your wife you love her before she packs her bags and walks out the door. The truth is it's better to do some fix up, clean up before it breaks. As good stewards of Texas' resources let's not be like the farmer who watched his barn burn down and then decided it was time to see why the water pump on the well wasn't working.
I love to catch big trout and I practice catch and release 99% of my fishing trips ( I still enjoy a good fish fry). I'm not rich nor do I represent some special interest group and I never considered myself an elitist. I believe I'm just like most of you. I love Texas and saltwater fishing. I'm opinionated and willing to stand up for what I believe in, but I'm still willing to listen to you and if I don't get my way I can learn to live with it. My prayer is that together we can come up with a solution to benefit Texas fishing for years to come.
As far as Texas ever being like California you'll know its true when your local paper runs this story.'
" Government agents track down and kill a group of rebels and fishermen known as The Sutton Boys. These outlaws were holed up at their fishing cabin in the Laguna Madre. Rumor has it that the gunfight lasted for three days until the Suttons ran out of ammo for their model 1911's. After running out of ammo they still held off the troops for two days with their fishing poles."


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

cobra fyi croaker being used as bait did not deplete the atlantic croaker, like you remember as a child. hell i remember catching them growin up too, along the beach and passes in the fall. the croaker runs stopped happening long before they got popular as a bait. ksk seems like you have a problem with reds vs trout. imo too many reds in a area has direct impact on the trout fishery!


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

Here is my Cliff notes on the subect

1 no changes needed, keep 10, business as usual
2 change limit to 5 entire state
3 same as 2, but only by bay system
4 seasonal closures by bay or by month
5 change length restrictions
6 restrict means and methods (croaker, piggies, etc)
7 seasonal limits, peak of spawn
8 some kind of combo of 2-7



miss anything ?


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

lets restrict tournaments and all baits. corkies and topwaters catch too many big fish! ya'll keep fighting over this and tp&w and cca will put no fish zones, closed months, no outboard motor areas ect.... stick your fancy boats and power poles in that! have fun arguing, i am going to belize!!!!


----------



## Salt Water Texan (Oct 1, 2009)

capt. david said:


> lets restrict tournaments and all baits. corkies and topwaters catch too many big fish! ya'll keep fighting over this and tp&w and cca will put no fish zones, closed months, no outboard motor areas ect.... stick your fancy boats and power poles in that! have fun arguing, i am going to belize!!!!


 Can someof us help you pack?


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

> I have lived to see a lot of changes in fishing laws in Texas, from the no license - no limits days of the 50s to present day rules. No one wants more rules, but a quick look at the unregulated fishing in the Mexican portion of the Laguna Madre will make you happy to have TPWD.


Thank you Salt Water Texan for saying that. Down in old Mexico they've caught so many fish the hombres are raiding the LLM because we have the fish and they don't. I mean, they done netted everything and there's very little left on the Mexico side. Remember the nets? Remember cutting nets out of your outboard prop hub?

We have one of the best fishery agencies in the whole world and I'm not bragging, just a fact. They're just asking YOU for your opinion in these scoping meetings. You don't have the statistics and models like the experts at TPWD do, and they're not expecting that. There is some indication which is not clear that more people are getting limits of larger trout in the LLM with the 5-fish rule but that's not a proven fact that I know.

I think one old boy nailed it when he said something like "they fish for sport down south, but we fish for meat." If you want to continue to be a bunch of freezer meat packers, well, there can be some consequences. I ain't no Junior GW but I have called the laws on people going out twice to fill a second ice chest. Maybe I'm just not into the meat packer mentality.

But that doesn't mean y'all should change the rules now, either. You can go probably another couple years before the TPWD has to do something out of dire necessity, should things get bad. Who knows? I think we should give the TPWD some credit for at least asking us dumb-arses what we think ... in most other states, they don't! :cheers:


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

Amen Salt Water Texan.


----------



## ksk (Aug 9, 2008)

capt. david said:


> cobra fyi croaker being used as bait did not deplete the atlantic croaker, like you remember as a child. hell i remember catching them growin up too, along the beach and passes in the fall. the croaker runs stopped happening long before they got popular as a bait. ksk seems like you have a problem with reds vs trout. imo too many reds in a area has direct impact on the trout fishery!


I totally agree Capt.David about the red numbers.For years we had very few but now we are over run with them.I lost count of reds 2-2 1/2 lbs. 18-21'' that I threw back last year.I would like the red size limit, be dropped to 18,but what I'm hearing,that won't happen.I really believe''big brother'' will be telling us one of these years where,when,and how to fish.Can you picture a particular bay for croaker fishing only and another bay for soft plastics? It sounds sureal, but never under estimate an eduaction and power[TPWD].


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

The Driver. said:


> Mike,
> 
> I agree that there was a problem in the LLM but the rebound did not come strictly form lowing the limit to 5 fish. You have had several good storms down there the last few years which will help the fisheries tremendously. Galveston, Sabine and Calcasieu are in great shape due to the storms. The middle coast has not had a storm since 2003 when Claudette came thru. Fishing this past fall and winter are the best I have seen in years in the Matagorda bay systems are doing fine. One good storm in the middle coast and the #s will rebound!
> 
> ...


 Come on and tell it brother....Don't let CCA have their way with their money anymore. I was a bit longer in my email but the message was the same. Can you believe TPWD wanted to raise reds to 5 but "we were told fishermen didn't want it raised" Maybe if they found a way to talk to the less elite of the fishermen (who do catch more fish) they might have found out what the majority wants. Besides why should they care what any of us wants when the supposedly have the best science to use. Politics at its worst.


----------



## guiness (May 9, 2005)

fyi. CALLED TPWD HERE IN AUSTIN LATE THIS AFTERNOON. ALL PUBLIC FORUMS FOR THIS MATTER ARE ALONG THE COAST. ANY COMMENTS REGARDING THIS ISSUE BY INLAND INTERESTED PARTIES NEED TO E-MAIL THEIR COMMENTS. THEY'VE GOT MINE.


----------



## BBKing (May 22, 2010)

As it's been stated previously, very seldom do most fisherman catch more than 5 trout amd that sure applies to me. However, it sure is nice on those few times when I get lucky and limit out. It makes up for all those times when I come home with very few. Also, if most of us aren't catching more than 5 fish anyway, who does reducing limits really affect? I guess unless I understand the need, I am not understanding the change. I think that there are other measures that could make a difference such as making croaker a game fish. I use to enjoy catching croaker but now with their use as bait, I catch very few and less of any significant size. How about a comprise at 7 trout and increase the Redfish limits? I would really like that!


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

Well there you have it, it's all CCA's fault! This thread has had it all now.


----------



## paymerick (May 19, 2010)

No one wants to dispute the fact that they do not have a right to 1, 3, 4, 5 or 10 trout every time they wet a line?

We're not talkin' Whooping Cranes here (actually endangered)...

Why must Grandpa Joe, who gets out only once every two months keep only five as oppose to 10 because you think it is a good enough number for YOU?

I haven't even gotten to the size of the trout... Wasn't the average size around 17" back in the day? And by "back in the day" I mean when the Karankawas were using mud for bug-spray? I remember reading an article where they discovered trout bones from Karankawa "landfills"... the studies showed adult trout to be an average of 17" (I may be off)... maybe that study has been proven wrong since then (I really don't know, it was about 5 years ago I read this)... But to my point: Should we limit some from keeping more fish because we want the fish to be bigger than they're *supposed* to be? Sure, catching a 15 pound blue-gill would be cool, but it's not supposed to be 15 pounds, silly...

Let's really make it fair: Mid-coast anglers may only use wooden spears to harvest spotted sea-trout...


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

Im Headed South said:


> Well there you have it, it's all CCA's fault! This thread has had it all now.


I wouldn't say its ALL their fault >>>BUT<<< they do have great influence AND THEY USE IT and it don't matter WHAT the dues paying members think, they are hand in hand with eviro wackos>>>what you don't believe it, just go to the Conservation Crossfire brd and enlighten yourselves...WW


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

Im Headed South said:


> Well there you have it, it's all CCA's fault! This thread has had it all now.


CCA does some really good things but I hope you will even agree it does only represent a small part of fishermen and the part it does represent are frankly wealthy and able to make the
large donations it lives off of...


----------



## shallowist (May 28, 2009)

Interesting thought for all of you participating in this conversation, seems like quite a few that know a good bit about fishing and catching trout. 

What would happen if those who are the most upset about their trout population would make a greater effort (read self police) to fish catch and release, reduce their personal consumption, educate their customers, fishing buddies and anyone they have contact with about the issues at stake? I seroiusly doubt that the people that travel the coast, and pay for guided trips would disagree with the thought of releasing some of their fish to ensure that they would continue to have the opportunity to come back and fish again for generations. 

I firmly believe, and there is plenty of data that supports the fact that recreational angling is not a aignificant cause of population decreases noted along our coast. Changing recreational limits will most likely not create much of a change in what the average participant sees on a trip to the coast. 

Though I am not on the mid coast much, I would venture to guesss that the seasonal weather, occurence of significant weather events ( hurricane, drought, flood, and temperature) along with environmental influence, play a far greater role in the fishery and what the average angler sees on a trip. There are some big differences in what the typical mid coast angler sees versus the upper or lower coast. Salinities tend to be much more stable for the mid and lower coast, than the upper where fish move greater distances freequently. When the lower and mid coast see big swings, it causes a big shake up, as evidenced over the last two years and especially this fall. 
I'm wondering if this could be the cause of the reported shortage of fish. I say this mostly because TPWD data doesn't really support the thought that the populations are really that different in that area. They also are showing good recruitment numbers, indicating that you will likely see a better spring and remainder of 2011. (if the little ones are released well)

I would sure hate to have to relive this entire discussion when the mid coast is disappointed about only being able to keep 5, when the fishery or anglers rebound from what has happened in the last two years. 

Galveston is thriving!! excellent populations of fish, good number of big fish. They just move around, with the seasonal patterns. Fishing the right schools of fish is the key to catching the fish that you want, they aren't always going to be in the same spots you caught them yesterday or last year.


----------



## The Driver. (May 20, 2004)

shallowist said:


> Interesting thought for all of you participating in this conversation, seems like quite a few that know a good bit about fishing and catching trout.
> 
> What would happen if those who are the most upset about their trout population would make a greater effort (read self police) to fish catch and release, reduce their personal consumption, educate their customers, fishing buddies and anyone they have contact with about the issues at stake? I seroiusly doubt that the people that travel the coast, and pay for guided trips would disagree with the thought of releasing some of their fish to ensure that they would continue to have the opportunity to come back and fish again for generations.
> 
> ...


Another example of Political Correctness!

Shallowist,

Do you really think that releasing a few fish will ensure that fishing will be good for generations.

Sorry to burst your bubble!

One good freeze which will happen sooner or later will reduce the population and the strong survive. Mother nature will start rebuilding the populations and another cycle begins.
I can remember the last freeze in 1989 and how people could not catch fish. The salts adapted and were able to keep on catching!


----------



## grman (Jul 2, 2010)

My main issue with this proposal is that we have a govt bureaucy instituting a change without a stated problem. And how can measure if the change is successful if you don't know what the problem is in the first place. I guess it shows I am a CMMI trained engineer. 
I have no issue with reducing limits for a species if TPWD comes out and says "this is what our surveys show and it is a big problem". Like they did with flounder. A very specific action to address a problem with good scienticific data to measure the results. 
This just demonstrates that they do not have a long term overall management plan for the resourse. Honestly, with most of the bay systems better than they have been in twenty years, I think that TPWD is just doing something to justify budget.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

grman said:


> My main issue with this proposal is that we have a govt bureaucy instituting a change without a stated problem. And how can measure if the change is successful if you don't know what the problem is in the first place. I guess it shows I am a CMMI trained engineer.
> I have no issue with reducing limits for a species if TPWD comes out and says "this is what our surveys show and it is a big problem". Like they did with flounder. A very specific action to address a problem with good scienticific data to measure the results.
> This just demonstrates that they do not have a long term overall management plan for the resourse. Honestly, with most of the bay systems better than they have been in twenty years, I think that TPWD is just doing something to justify budget.


X2 on no good plan but I would go further and say they can't make a decision without seeing how it plays to their "lobby" groups like CCA.
Seems funny to me that TPWD has full time scientist but at the end of the day this whole subject is not on the table because of a departmental reccomendation but is on the table because "the advisory commitee" and catch and release advocates think it is the right thing to do. Here are the exact words on scoping from the 11/3 consevation commitee meeting
_"COMMISSIONER HOLT: So scoping would be done for Lower Laguna Madre or are you talking about ‑‑

MR. RIECHERS: No, we're talking about scoping coast-wide, specifically these middle coast areas where we've had a lot of feedback and belief that a lot of folks believe there's a real change in angler ethic and the desire to have greater conservation. Certainly, our Coastal Resource Advisory Committee expressed that, as well.

COMMISSIONER HOLT: Change in angler ethic.

MR. RIECHERS: Meaning ‑‑

COMMISSIONER HOLT: Help me.

MR. RIECHERS: ‑‑ more of our coastal anglers are practicing catch and release and have a desire to possibly see that bag limit go down.

COMMISSIONER HOLT: Even you've got ‑‑ in busier areas. Okay."_


----------



## On The Hook (Feb 24, 2009)

Does anyone have the dates and locations for the meetings or a link that shows where and when? Tried google and found nothing but people saying you could have input, but nothing stating where.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

On The Hook said:


> Does anyone have the dates and locations for the meetings or a link that shows where and when? Tried google and found nothing but people saying you could have input, but nothing stating where.


Its on TPWDs site but here they are

January 6, 2009, Port Arthur Public Library, Gallery Room, 4615 9th Avenue, Port Arthur, TX
January 7, 2009, TPWD Dickinson Marine Lab, 1502 Pine Street (FM 517 E), Dickinson, TX
January 8, 2009, Calhoun County Extension Service, Auditorium, 186 County Road 101, Port Lavaca, TX
January 14, 2009, Aransas County Courtroom, 301 N. Live Oak, Rockport, TX
January 15, 2009, Port Isabel High School, Lecture Hall, 101 Port Road, Port Isabel, TX
Now if you can't go you can make online comments to the proposed regs here
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines...oposals/201101_spotted_seatrout_scoping.phtml


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

I am hoping that everyone that posted their opini0on(s) here bothered to post an email to Art above can actually make a meeting.
I am not sure just how much an email means but if you can make the meeting.

From reading there are a lot of opinions. Seems midcoast is crying about fewer fish and want the 5 limit.

Sounds like most people here want to keep what we have now for the upper coast and practice C and R here except for a mess to eat. 

Let them know what you think.


----------



## shallowist (May 28, 2009)

The Driver. said:


> Another example of Political Correctness!
> 
> Shallowist,
> 
> ...


I guess that this comment was directed at my statement about guides releasing and educating???? It wasn't inteded to indicate that I believe that will change the fishery, but to state that those who have typically taken some of the largest bags seem to cry the most when they can't catch them. I think that I clearly stated that sesonal cycles have a much larger effect on trout populations. Simple math will tell you that if you aren't taking them out of the systems, there will be more in the system...

In reality, much of that post was to state it gently that I think that when the fish move from "not so normal" conditions along the middle and lower coast, anglers aren't very accustomed to where to look and how to fish for them. Up here, it's not out of the ordinary for us to have to fish under a layer of fresh water to find trout. Again, I don't and haven't fushed down there much over the last few years, so maybe someone who is down there could shed some light. Seems like I heard some rumors recently stating that it was a banner winter going on the mid coast.


----------



## Bigwater (May 21, 2004)

Would it make good sense for TPW not to lower the bag limit here after they have warned anglers to watch how much they eat of this species due to the level of PCB's being present in the meat? I'm not saying that the Galveston Bay Complex is considered the entire upper coast but it is a big part of it. 
This change is a done deal and taking public opinion is a formality that is required by law in order to change the bag limit. What the meat haul crowd needs to fight for is relaxing the limit for Redfish. This would surely stop them from starving to death and would continue to make their fishing experiences more pleasurable. 

Biggie:biggrin:


----------



## kenny (May 21, 2004)

Politicians and governmental bureaucracies like TP&W are constantly solving problems that don't exist. It's a lot easier than solving real problems and unlike genuine problems they can take years and a lot of money!


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Lol, I might as well kill all the fish I can cause a bad freeze will come along sooner or later and wipe them out anyway. Funny how humans can rationalize thei behavior.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

railbird said:


> Lol, I might as well kill all the fish I can cause a bad freeze will come along sooner or later and wipe them out anyway. Funny how humans can rationalize thei behavior.


Yup, and don't forget Armageddon, that's gonna wipe us all out!


----------



## flounderdaddy (Aug 2, 2009)

What is the deal that I saw in the paper today about also making the minimum length 16 inches? Give me a freaking break.


----------



## ksk (Aug 9, 2008)

flounderdaddy said:


> What is the deal that I saw in the paper today about also making the minimum length 16 inches? Give me a freaking break.


Which paper?


----------



## TOOEXTREME (Jun 23, 2004)

*mayan calendar*

12-21-12 we won't have to worry about trout.


----------



## Troutslurp (Dec 19, 2004)

TOOEXTREME said:


> 12-21-12 we won't have to worry about trout.


LOL


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

TOOEXTREME said:


> 12-21-12 we won't have to worry about trout.


Might as well kill em all now.


----------



## flounderdaddy (Aug 2, 2009)

It was an article in the Victoria Sunday sports section.


----------



## muddyfuzzy (Jan 2, 2011)

FTAC03 said:


> The vast majority of anglers surveyed at the dock by TP&W are not catching 10 or even 5. So what would it really matter?
> - John West


these aren't the folks you you need to worry about. like they say you got 10% of the people catching 90% of the fish.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

The TPWD presentation in Port Lavaca covered a short presentation of the management tools available to fisheries managers seeking to improve a fishery; i.e. bag and possession limits, size restrictions, keep-no keep seasons, keep-no keep areas. All of these are currently in use today in some or fashion to manage recreational and commercial fisheries in all coastal states including Texas.

I did not hear Art Morris say the 15" minimum length regulation was going to be changed to 16". I did not hear Art Morris say the bag limit was going to be changed from 10 to 5 or 7. I did not hear Art Morris say TPWD was planning to enact no-keep season or area regulation.

What I heard Art say was that there is cyclic nature to relative abundance of any fishery given natural influences and that recreational harvest pressure can also have significant impact on relative abundance. He also said local seatrout fisheries are documented to be declining since peak abundance of the past 30 years was recorded in the late-90s.

He went further to explain that some of the natural high-low cycle could be smoothed through revision of current rec harvest regulations. His explanation included TPWD's best projection of the seatrout population if certain of the tools might be employed. 

In summation he asked the audience what they wanted from their fishery -- continued deep natural cycles or greater relative abundance on average. It should be noted that "do nothing/wait and see" was one of the options. Unfortunately, much of what Art presented was drowned by some in the audience asserting that TPWD had no clue.


----------



## baffinbeaver (Jun 24, 2009)

TPWL aren't idiots. they are educated biologist that do this stuff for a living. If they get 20" of rain in a certain area they aren't going to put the nets up in that area. might as well start setting them up in the san antonio river by san antonio and see how many trout are cuaght. come on man. the nets are distributed through out the coast in the areas where they can gather the most data possible at that time. these guys working for the TPWL are just trying to help us out and provide the public with as much information as possible and then let us make the decision as fishermen. lets try to take and educated approach to this discussion and think about what we are posting before we post.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

What concerns me is the reported # of anglers and # of fish being calculated as removed out of the bays.

The super combo lic. throws a wrench in the calculated # of saltwater anglers, the lic. is a "deal" and buying it does not make you a saltwater angler in any shape or form, you may just need the other endorsements. If calculations are going from that # , they need to stop immed.

Secondly creel surveys leave a lot to be desired. I would think this tool needs to be used more extensively than it is, poss. coast wide on a given day per month........daylight to dark , but it takes a tremendous amnt. of manpower and ultimately $$$$


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Coastal - Whether or how the combo and super combo purchase skews or might skew the participation calculation was answered by Robin Riechers on Friday at the Sharing the Bays workshop. He says licensees are polled to determine what percentage of combo-super combo licenses end up going fishing in saltwater and this is what they bake into the number.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

I've never been polled... have any of you?


----------



## finfeather98 (Aug 19, 2008)

EJ made some good points above but you must missed that the modeling and propaganda did not match up. Since LLM dropped their limit to 5 the biomass has not gone up in their system it has actually gone down. This illustrated that fisheries harvest under the current regulatilons has little effect on populations and fluctations that some are so worried about will continue even when limits change. Habitat and freshwater inflows are the limiting factors for our trout and all other fish populations. As conditions change carrying capacity for the bay system increases or decreases. With the state in a 19 to 26 billion dollar budget crisis this is a waste of time and money to try to change something that is not broke. If you want higher fish populations increase freshwater inflows and marsh areas to increase recruitment.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

He says* licensees are polled to determine what percentage* of combo-super combo licenses end up going fishing in saltwater and *this is what they bake into the number. 

*

I knew that , that's why I brought it up. It is being done for snapper as well. They would be way better served to do a HIP type survey than a poll and a guess.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

finfeather - Your points points all well made. Indeed, even TPWD still scratching their heads as to why no bounce in gill net numbers. It was believed/predicted this would have begun to show in third year surveys. Fact is though, LLM anglers are catching the fire out of bigger fish and this is showing in the creel survey as well as anecdotal fishing reports. 

I would have to politely disagree that reducing harvest has little effect on populations. Did the net bans work? The first-ever limit for spotted seatrout was 20 fish at 12 inches. Did reducing to 10 fish at 14 inches work? Did raising the minimum length to 15 inches work? Are the fishermen of the LLM not enjoying exceptional numbers of fish in the 18-24 inch class? Maybe we just need to give the LLM regs a bit more time. And, please do not discount the fact there has been a significant re-focus of effort from ULM-Baffin anglers to take advantage of what's available further south. Lots of boats running the Land Cut to get on better fish.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

You have to identify the real number of fishermen and the number of fish removed from ea. bay system accurately. 
So, question is, are they dealing with accurate numbers to begin with?

We deff. have better fishermen , with better gear and more of them, fishing 7 days a week and not just mainly weekends like the old days. Not too long ago, many of these areas were barely fished due to extreme distance or special boat requirements.


Fish populations fluctuate due to environmental pressures as much as anything, is there something we can do there ?


----------



## Bigwater (May 21, 2004)

Haute Pursuit said:


> I've never been polled... have any of you?


If you fish with Harbormaster long enough you'll be polled...

Biggie


----------



## Shallowminded6200 (Jul 2, 2006)

*Contact Art Morris with TPWD*

In the length of time it takes to post on this forum you can send a simple email that indicates you are a. Against any changes or b. For changes.

Contact Art Morris with your opinion at [email protected] .

If it helps just copy and paste whichever of these reflects your opinion into your email program and send.

Art,

I don't feel TPWD needs to make any changes at this time regarding changes to the Spotted Seatrout regulations.

________________________________________________________________

Art,

I feel there may be a problem with the Spotted Seatrout fishery and would support a change in regulations.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

Shallowminded6200 said:


> In the length of time it takes to post on this forum you can send a simple email that indicates you are a. Against any changes or b. For changes.
> 
> Contact Art Morris with your opinion at [email protected] .
> 
> ...


Or you could say Art, you have some of the best state of the art scientific tools known to fishery management so please use them and decide without any influence from me, CCA or any other group or person....which coincidentaly is a vote for no change if they just use science.


----------



## McTrout (May 22, 2004)

Trouthammer, my question exactly. 

TPWD has done a better job than any other similar group in the USA. For example, our redfish went from non-existent to absolutely stupid...Why open Pandora's box with all of this public sentiment stuff? 

If something needs doing just do it, and if it needs to be left alone do that too.....I for one trust the biologist as knowing more than us, especially after being able to work closely with some of the best. We are always going to have extremist from either side, so let's just do what makes the best sense based on science and enjoy the results...


----------



## polecat (Jan 21, 2005)

Everett, hasn't there been more quality fish caught in the LLM even before the 5 fish limit,? totally different habitat.


----------



## capt mullet (Nov 15, 2008)

Trout fishing in galveston Bay is good and so is the redfishing. Does Galveston need to lower the limit? In my opinion NO but it wouldnt hurt my feelings if they did. Reducing the total catch per year is simple math. Less taken home means more fish in the system. And no matter who you are it seems to me that is a good thing for everyone. 

I am not a hardcore croaker guide in Summer. Last year I threw croaks with clients no more than twice. So I am not defending the croaker guides because I am not really one of them. But these guys stating that bait and or croakers should be banned as bait is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. My personal feeling is that more 7 pound and bigger trout were caught on corkies last year rather than croakers. Are you going to outlaw corkies? Geesh give me a break. I ran 15 to 20 trips a month during the summer last year and 90% of the trips we used shrimp and my clients caught a lot of fish. What does it matter if I caught 20 on croakers or 20 on Shrimp?? or 20 on plastics? My feelings are that with good fishermen throwing plastics my clients can catch more fish than with bait. All of these croaker guides can still go out use a popping cork and shrimp and bring their clients back with limits.

If scientific data says that the croaker population is gone because of using it as bait then that is different in my mind. If that is the case then croakers should be given gamefish status. BUT NOT BECAUSE THEY CATCH MORE FISH AND YOU ARE TOO ELITIST TO THROW BAIT

In defense of the croaker guide bashers I do agree that running more than 2 trips a day and coming back with 70 to 80 fish (no matter what bait they use) is not healthy for populations and TPWD should address that issue somehow.

I caught more 18 to 19 9/10 redfish this year than ever. Lets lower the slot to 18-27. In my mind that is more important than lowering the trout limits here in Galveston Bay.

My 2 cents Peace out!!


----------



## Aggieangler (May 28, 2004)

I fished Rockport for the 80s and 90s and now rarely go back to that area unless it's not to fish. I feel the mid-coast is overfished, given the present environmental conditions and lack of water exchange since Cedar Bayou sealed up. Also, multiple kill tourneys out of Port A and Rockport per weekend all summer take a toll. I could see a regional plan put in place there, but what scares me, like others is that I have never seen a fish limit relaxed in my lifetime. Once you give them up, you never get the chance to take more fish again, even if it rebounds.

Now....they did recently raise the dove limit, so maybe they would do the same if the fish came back. I agree that the data is spotty at best. I know they have some really smart folks working on this across the Texas Coast at TPWD, and I agree with McTrout that they seemed to have solved the redfish issue we had in the 70s and 80s, so I will support what they decide either way.

I am a member of CCA, and I fish about 6 weekends a year if I am lucky. I want some fish to be around for my grandkids to catch! I don't fault anyone for keeping what they can legally. I would favor more enforcement of existing laws, but there's a shrinking pool of money for enforcement I guess.

It's not an easy problem to solve, but if it was, I guess we would already know the answer.

Just out of curiousity, how many folks would get behind 5 trout, 5 reds at the current size limits? Seems like reds could help fill some of the trout void, IF they decide we need to lighten up on trout. (not saying they will or won't)


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

CoastalOutfitters said:


> You have to identify the real number of fishermen and the number of fish removed from ea. bay system accurately.
> So, question is, are they dealing with accurate numbers to begin with?
> 
> We deff. have better fishermen , with better gear and more of them, fishing 7 days a week and not just mainly weekends like the old days. Not too long ago, many of these areas were barely fished due to extreme distance or special boat requirements.
> ...


Creel surveys take place at boat ramps.
There are lots of fisherman that do not launch at boat ramps and are not surveyed -- they have private slips, dry storage barns, etc. There are more kayak anglers and bank fisherman than ever -- they are not surveyed.
I have been told that lots of anglers refuse to be surveyed -- especially many of the guide community -- for whatever reason.
Do these facts skew the "fishing effort" survey results and graphs to a meaningful extent? I am not sure -- but it surely does not help.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*I have never seen a fish limit relaxed in my lifetime. Once you give them up, you never get the chance to take more fish again, even if it rebounds.*
*QUOTE]*

That is not true, they tried twice to raise the Redfish limit!

Gater


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

it is a piece of cake to identify the number of salt anglers

did you fish salt last year y/n
do you intend this year y/n
inshore y/n
offshore y/n

4 questions takes less than a minute

i sold lic. for years, this is a no brainer


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

gater said:


> *I have never seen a fish limit relaxed in my lifetime. Once you give them up, you never get the chance to take more fish again, even if it rebounds.*
> *QUOTE]*
> 
> That is not true, they tried twice to raise the Redfish limit!
> ...


And when they have tried to raise the Red limit CCA was there to stop them...well not really stop them because theoretically they can do what they want but this issue demonstrates my point. TPWD needs to turn a deaf ear to outside influence. Will it happen? Probably not. They catered to the private ranch ownership interest with deer management and now we have the most expensive, least accessible deer hunting in any state. Not to mention a complete perversion of mother nature just for the sake of "trophies".

I think this qoute at the meeting wherein scoping was the issue sums it up best. When you read it think of all your fishing experience and in particular what percentage of those who fish actually engage in catch and release.

_"COMMISSIONER HOLT: So scoping would be done for Lower Laguna Madre or are you talking about ‑‑

MR. RIECHERS: No, we're talking about scoping coast-wide, specifically these middle coast areas where we've had a lot of feedback and belief that a lot of folks believe there's a real change in angler ethic and the desire to have greater conservation. Certainly, our Coastal Resource Advisory Committee expressed that, as well.

COMMISSIONER HOLT: Change in angler ethic.

MR. RIECHERS: Meaning ‑‑

COMMISSIONER HOLT: Help me.

MR. RIECHERS: ‑‑ more of our coastal anglers are practicing catch and release and have a desire to possibly see that bag limit go down.

COMMISSIONER HOLT: Even you've got ‑‑ in busier areas. Okay."

Now please don't get me wrong as I admire those who do catch and release and the last 30 incher I caught was released BUT TPWD does creel studies which are interviews at the dock and they KNOW what percentage of fishermen represent catch and release ethics. I really don't think "ethics" is the right word since there is ethically nothing wrong with keeping a limit. The point is why is a group who represents catch and release "ethics" able to get scoping on a subject in their interest when the majority (we are a democracy right?) do not fish the same way?

That is the real problem when you boil it down. Science is not controlling what is the right thing to do and TPWD is courting favor to lobby groups._


----------



## AaronB (May 15, 2010)

I agree Galveston Bay doesn't see the same problems as mid/lower coast bays. If the 5 trout limit went coast wide, we here on Galvetraz would only see improvement in my eyes. 10 trout fillets(5 fish) per person is more than enough imo for anyone not giving away fish to neighbors and friends, while still stock piling their own freezer. All the more reason to get them off the couch and go fishing. If stock piling is your thing, go sit in 20ft of water in a channel somewhere and fill your cooler with sand trout! Your lazy mooching neighbors wouldnt notice the difference.. 

I am FOR a change in Speckled Trout regulations!

-AaronB


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*We call B.S.*



trouthammer said:


> And when they have tried to raise the Red limit CCA was there to stop them...well not really stop them because theoretically they can do what they want but this issue demonstrates my point. TPWD needs to turn a deaf ear to outside influence. Will it happen? Probably not. They catered to the private ranch ownership interest with deer management and now we have the most expensive, least accessible deer hunting in any state. Not to mention a complete perversion of mother nature just for the sake of "trophies".
> 
> I think this qoute at the meeting wherein scoping was the issue sums it up best. When you read it think of all your fishing experience and in particular what percentage of those who fish actually engage in catch and release.
> 
> ...


_

I have to say B.S. on the statement the Mid Coast is now a catch and release fishery or headed that way. The group Robin was referencing does not mirror our area. 
The main problem in our area is the fact That Cedar Bayou died due to the Illegal Closure of Vinson's Slough
several times to pacify the God Almighty Bass Family who have been either on the TPWD Commission or Chaired the Commission for decades and still remain as Chairman Emeritus. We feel until all remaining 8 passes closed for various reasons from oil spills to Bass influence are restored T.P.W.D. should refrain from cutting any limits on any species. A half a million dollars worth of studies done for the restoration of Cedar Bayou and Vinson's Slough show the problems in our area could be fixed 
with restoring what God Bass killed not us as Recreational Anglers have killed.

Look at the membership of the think tank supporting these statements. :hairout:

Jim Smarr
R.F.A.-Texas
361-727-2245_


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Smarr*

Has nothing to do with opening Cedar Bayou. The discussion is about whether or not we should cut the limit to 5. I'm sure the meeting in Rockport tonight is going to turn into a circus with you and Lynn there. 
Go blow your smoke somewhere else, your CB stuff gets old. I'd be willing to bet that area will see the best fishing it has in years come this spring and summer. All the while Cedar Bayou is still closed.

Gater


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

gater said:


> Has nothing to do with opening Cedar Bayou. The discussion is about whether or not we should cut the limit to 5. I'm sure the meeting in Rockport tonight is going to turn into a circus with you and Lynn there.
> Go blow your smoke somewhere else, your CB stuff gets old. I'd be willing to bet that area will see the best fishing it has in years come this spring and summer. All the while Cedar Bayou is still closed.
> 
> Gater


Gator,

Comments from you an active CCA chapter member are exactly what I would expect. LOL I am surprised you would not suggest going from 10 to 1 as you guys did on Yellow Fin Tuna. lol

Jim Smarr
RFA-Texas
"From the growing environmental right"


----------

