# Trout limit 5 upper coast



## Pafdrn (Jul 23, 2017)

I heard it passed. Doesn't affect me much 'cause i mostly fish Sabine Lake and have never caught 10. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

Won't affect me either . I fish sabine and put in on the la side. They just sold a bunch of license for La..


----------



## c hook (Jul 6, 2016)

*sad deal*



Pafdrn said:


> I heard it passed. Doesn't affect me much 'cause i mostly fish Sabine Lake and have never caught 10. What are your thoughts?


i personally feel the guides and croakers have completely destroyed our fishery. you couldn't convince me different in a million years.

so after TP&W sits ideally by, for years and years of complete blatant destruction of our fishery, the average laymen has to suffer the consequences. life is a b**^h and then you die. no limit or control of guides, it's a shame how politics works :texasflag


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

It was inevitable on the upper coast, dropping the trout limit to 5. Too many meat fishermen. And on the Louisiana border 100 yard away, they're killing 25 trout apiece every chance they get. Especially a certain guide from 2Cool who has no qualms about it. For many anglers, it is mentally impossible for them to release a legal trout.


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

Trouthappy said:


> It was inevitable on the upper coast, dropping the trout limit to 5. Too many meat fishermen. And on the Louisiana border 100 yard away, they're killing 25 trout apiece every chance they get. Especially a certain guide from 2Cool who has no qualms about it. For many people, it is mentally impossible for them to release a legal trout.


The trout limit is 15 for la on sabine.. and most texas fishermen fish the la side of the lake no matter where they put in..


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

Lots more fish on the Louisiana side, which is natural marsh. The Port Arthur side was levied off in 1969, to fill in with dredge material. I was there and camped on those levies almost every weekend from that fall until the next spring. Saw about five other cars during that entire time. These days I hardly ever keep trout there, except my Cajun friend from Vidor *can not* release a legal trout, it's too painful for him. And he sulks when I release a trout.


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

It hasn't passed yet. The TPWD Commission accepted the proposal for the potential reduction, among other issues. It will now proceed to public comment. The final decision will be made at the March 19-20 Commission meeting.

https://fishgame.com/2019/01/5-trout-proposal-for-upper-coast-accepted/


----------



## sabinewhaler88 (Jan 5, 2013)

Jaysand247 said:


> The trout limit is 15 for la on sabine.. and most texas fishermen fish the la side of the lake no matter where they put in..


No reason for anyone to keep 15 trout


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

irbjd said:


> It hasn't passed yet. The TPWD Commission accepted the proposal for the potential reduction, among other issues. It will now proceed to public comment. The final decision will be made at the March 19-20 Commission meeting.
> 
> https://fishgame.com/2019/01/5-trout-proposal-for-upper-coast-accepted/


Public comment means absolutely nothing to them .. it's a formality.


----------



## Drundel (Feb 6, 2006)

I'm fine with it in this area, but I wish they can figure out a way to leave the surf at 10. When the surf is hot, 10 fish are easy, most under 20" and most males.

One a personal note, it will now be possibly for my brother to catch a limit of trout!


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

sabinewhaler88 said:


> No reason for anyone to keep 15 trout


I don't eat em. They could make them illegal to keep for all I care.. I flounder fish. And I have never had a pack of fish go bad in my freezer.


----------



## fishit (Jul 12, 2007)

I'm for it. 5 has been more than enough for me and I personally only keep what I need.


----------



## tngbmt (May 30, 2004)

now if we can limit the guides to one trip per day ..


----------



## taylork555 (Sep 5, 2013)

Granted I am on the younger side of this forum and primarily fish Matagorda and Rockport, but I couldn't tell you the last time I kept my limit. 

It is not because of a lack of catching quality trout, rather I don't see the need to keep 5 fish. The pleasure of seeing them swim off always outweighs my desire to clean and cook. 

I don't care if people keep a full limit if they are eating them though. Nothing wrong with feeding a bunch of people with fresh fish.


----------



## habanerojooz (Dec 4, 2006)

Aside from my personal feelings, if the ruling change passes, it will improve the trout fisheries on the upper coast. Period.


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

habanerojooz said:


> Aside from my personal feelings, if the ruling change passes, it will improve the trout fisheries on the upper coast. Period.


Man made lakes dumping tons of freshwater into sabine shrimp by catch have an affect on fish numbers. The average weekend fisherman that fishes 12 times a year and can't remember the last time they caught 10 fish of all species put together has little affect on fish.. redfish probably eat more trout than people catch on fishing poles..

Personally I think this is just like the red snapper deal. They keep saying the snapper are in danger and keep regulating the little guy when it's the head boats and guides hurting the fish more than the average fisherman.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

If we're out of fish, my wife and I will keep a pair of 18 inch trout. 
That's enough for dinner and leftovers the next day. 
We've been releasing the bigger trout for decades. 
There are so many tasty saltwater species on the Texas coast, but
the public mostly goes after trout like they're shopping for chicken at HEB.
Anyway I just wrote Shannon at the Chronicle. He says: 

Wednesday, TPW officially proposed expanding the 5-trout limit to the rest of the
coast. Part of the annual package of regs changes. (I was at meetings up there past
two days.) Public hearings on proposal will be next month. And yes, if adopted at TPW
Commission March meeting, change would take effect Sept. 1.


----------



## Stumpgrinder1 (Jul 18, 2016)

This oughta make for some whiney " croaker guides"


----------



## longhornbubba (Jul 7, 2006)

Then my license tax should be cut in half.


----------



## Capt. AB (Mar 1, 2012)

*Too many guides*

Why donâ€™t we limit the number of guides on our bays? Iâ€™ve seen guides take people fishing that donâ€™t have a clue and put them on limits day after day. 
One guide taking 2 to 4 clients a day almost everyday and killing limits of trout has an impact.


----------



## C.Hern5972 (Jul 17, 2009)

Capt. AB said:


> Why donâ€™t we limit the number of guides on our bays? Iâ€™ve seen guides take people fishing that donâ€™t have a clue and put them on limits day after day.
> One guide taking 2 to 4 clients a day almost everyday and killing limits of trout has an impact.


5 Fish... I'm ok with that. Aren't you a guide? Are you in that category you are trying to eliminate?


----------



## karstopo (Jun 29, 2009)

Iâ€™m for dropping it to 5. Canâ€™t see how that will hurt the quality or quantity of the fish available to be caught. I fish for the sport of fishing, not simply or solely to put a lot of food on the table. The rest of the state has lived with 5 fish for a while, I think the upper coast ought to be able to eke by with 5 as well.

I really canâ€™t believe very many folks in Texas fish for Speckled trout for the must put food on the table aspect of it and will get bummed out releasing whatever extra keeper fish over 5 fish they get. I knew of a couple of real old timers that grew up at the end of the Great Depression that fished for meat, period, but they seem to be the exception, not the rule. Anyway, on what Iâ€™ve seen on the amount of money most people nowadays put into boats, fuel, bait, guides and/or gear, those are some mighty expensive groceries no matter how many get kept.


----------



## RedXCross (Aug 7, 2005)

I don't have a problem with the change, but La. will be full on, right across the border and on Sabine. I live 5 minutes away, and usually just keep what I plan on eating soon, and that is spread between Reds, Trout and Bass.
I usually attend all the hearings, I wish I could take popcorn and beer, it is cheap entertainment!!


----------



## Brian Castille (May 27, 2004)

I'm sure there will be some arguing back and forth here about 10 vs 5 but at the end of the day, no matter what the limit is, you can still catch and release as many fish as you want. Or just keep more gafftops, ha.


----------



## Bayscout22 (Aug 9, 2007)

This is only my opinion...

I'm in Matagorda most weekends and as much as I can be. My personal feeling is that if they hadn't instituted the 5 fish limit when they did, Matagorda (and maybe the middle Coast) would be a wasteland now.

The number of guides - many of them slightly above average fisherman - who fish with Croaker has skyrocketed. There are a handful of big lodges that run multiple guides, multiple trips per day. We have guys running night time trips with Croaker. 

I can't say whether it will have the same effect on the upper coast but I don't see how it can be a bad thing.


----------



## Capt. AB (Mar 1, 2012)

C.Hern5972 said:


> 5 Fish... I'm ok with that. Aren't you a guide? Are you in that category you are trying to eliminate?


Iâ€™m not a guide. I enjoy fishing too much to do that LOL.

I think there are quite a few full time guides that would appreciate a limited number of guide licensing. When a guide retires he could sell his license. Similar to the bay shrimpers.


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

The PROPOSED reg change was not based on scientific data ....

It was based on people who canâ€™t catch them....thinking this is going to help you catch more.....

Guess what.....? Theyâ€™re plenty of specs on the upper coast......

You are giving away a right that you have when you say your OK with it.....

We can all catch and release ..... and I do that as well ..... but letting the state take away your legal fish with data that even says population are OK seems illogical 


This is being pushed by one of two commissioners who were told things that were not true ....

Most of the commissioner donâ€™t have a idea......and follow the loudest ones .... they are more concerned with their area in El Paso or Amarillo 

I encourage you to reconsider giving away your limit ..... there is not a population issue currently


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

Muddskipper said:


> The PROPOSED reg change was not based on scientific data ....
> 
> It was based on people who canâ€™t catch them....thinking this is going to help you catch more.....
> 
> ...


Youâ€™re not giving away a right if you actually agree with the proposal.....


----------



## 223AI (May 7, 2012)

Iâ€™ve seen with my own two eyes how much the 5 fish limit has helped the lower coast. Worth it up here too.


----------



## Muddy_Bottom (Oct 9, 2016)

Itâ€™s a good thing, embrace it and enjoy the time fishing. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

Will my license fee go down? These topics are fun a bunch of people pushing their beliefs on others where have I seen this before..


----------



## TXFishin (Apr 26, 2010)

I think the logic should follow everything, no reason to own a fridge / freezer. You shouldn't keep more than you can eat that day, that's just greedy and wasteful.

Whether it's beef, deer, vegetables, fruit, fish, etc, it just doesn't taste as good after it's been frozen or cooled, nothing beats fresh beef, deer, vegetables, fruit or fish

Relentless


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

You donâ€™t need more than one deer per season either......

JUST KEEP ONE WHITETAIL ..... Iâ€™m starting that thread soon


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

Muddskipper said:


> You donâ€™t need more than one deer per season either......
> 
> JUST KEEP ONE WHITETAIL ..... Iâ€™m starting that thread soon


Lol....throw in dove too....

JUST KEEP ONE DOVE.......:rotfl:


----------



## hathatteras (Oct 14, 2013)

Just make croaker a gamefish..bam!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stumpgrinder1 (Jul 18, 2016)

Ive been fishing the salt for over 50 years. Ive seen no limits, freezes, red tide, no redfish , no snapper and on and on and on. I'll still get excited about going fishing no matter the limit. My best advice, if you need a " meat haul" go learn to target multiple species and get over your snobbery about what you'll eat . I'll give you a hint, puppy drum and sheepshead are damned fine table fare if you arent too proud to let down your biases and try


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

Muddskipper said:


> You donâ€™t need more than one deer per season either......
> 
> JUST KEEP ONE WHITETAIL ..... Iâ€™m starting that thread soon


I see your point but thatâ€™s not really a good analogy. Lol


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

Alas, it is past time. I supported it the last time it was posited years ago. The trout stack ups were hammered for 4 years in a row, so much of the damage is done. Nevermind, the unknown fallout from 9 trillion gallons of pollutants flushed out from Harvey... 
I'd support making Croaker a game fish, as well.


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

I'd support closing trout season for a few years. And limiting it to only 3 or 4 baits the rest of the time..


----------



## 223AI (May 7, 2012)

Jaysand247 said:


> I'd support closing trout season for a few years. And limiting it to only 3 or 4 baits the rest of the time..


Don't be so dramatic. There is no doubt that a five trout limit has helped the lower coast, and I'll support the same five trout limit for the upper coast as a result. I'm not fishing for meat hauls, I'm fishing for fun.

Vote however you want, that's why they have the comment period.


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

223AI said:


> Don't be so dramatic. There is no doubt that a five trout limit has helped the lower coast, and I'll support the same five trout limit for the upper coast as a result. I'm not fishing for meat hauls, I'm fishing for fun.
> 
> Vote however you want, that's why they have the comment period.


Like I said earlier I don't eat trout and haven't kept one in 7 or 8 years.. i dont like agenda driven laws like this.. i actually do still fish for the fish we eat. I don't like farm raised fish it's too greasy.. this is trophy driven just like the 13 inch rule for deer..


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

More for consideration, read in its entirety...

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/ne...il-spills-in-Galveston-Bay-Texas-13135619.php


----------



## dk2429 (Mar 27, 2015)

Cool! Now it's easier to put #limitedout with my on Instagram!!! 

Nah really, I'm okay with it. 5 a person is plenty.


----------



## txhornet (Apr 27, 2010)

Five on trout would be fine with me, but I would like regulations change on reds to five in the slot. Five trout, flounder & reds:walkingsm


----------



## TXFishin (Apr 26, 2010)

Better yet, just come up with something like a paintball gun for deer and dove, an equivalent to catch and release only for fish, or tranquilizer darts so you can tag and release game animals

Relentless


----------



## karstopo (Jun 29, 2009)

Jaysand247 said:


> Like I said earlier I don't eat trout and haven't kept one in 7 or 8 years.. i dont like agenda driven laws like this.. i actually do still fish for the fish we eat. I don't like farm raised fish it's too greasy.. this is trophy driven just like the 13 inch rule for deer..


And some of us are for lowering the limit to 5 just like you are for keeping it at 10. You and the others for keeping it at 10 have yâ€™alls agenda and the ones for lowering the limit to five have theirs. I donâ€™t see it necessarily being trophy driven, but even if it was for some of us or most, why is that such a bad thing? Iâ€™d rather have more and bigger fish in the bay system than less. I rather catch and release bigger fish than catch and keep a bunch of 15-16â€ fish. So what, thatâ€™s my agenda. Some other interested parties might share the same or a similar agenda.

We all have agendas and I hope the Texas Parks and Wildlife will ultimately do whatâ€™s considered best for the long term health of the fishery, but if itâ€™s a neutral choice, Iâ€™m weighing in on setting the limit at 5 statewide.


----------



## Cajuntriton (Mar 9, 2015)

Iâ€™m originally from Louisiana and used to keeping 25, and doing it regularly. With that said I dont care if itâ€™s 5 or 10 but I want science or data to back up the decision not someoneâ€™s agenda or opinion. Whatever is best for the fishery Iâ€™m all for. I want my kids to enjoy it in the future as well.

What I canâ€™t stand is people pushing their agenda on others or stating they are greedy for keeping whatâ€™s legal or that no one needs 25 trout. I only fish 4 or less times a year back home and still limit out more there then here at 10. Itâ€™s not an apples to apples comparison, the fishery there is unbelievable if you know what your doing. Also vacuum packed fish taste great out of the freezer, better than what your gonna get at HEB if you want fish but couldnâ€™t fish that weekend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

Muddskipper said:


> You donâ€™t need more than one deer per season either......
> 
> JUST KEEP ONE WHITETAIL ..... Iâ€™m starting that thread soon





BretE said:


> Lol....throw in dove too....
> 
> JUST KEEP ONE DOVE.......:rotfl:


Start the "Just drink one beer thread." I'll sit over here and watch. :biggrin:


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> You donâ€™t need more than one deer per season either......
> JUST KEEP ONE WHITETAIL ..... Iâ€™m starting that thread soon


Well if TP&W passes a law that says so then that's all we'll keep one whitetail.

If you don't like it go to a meeting. Being an arse on a public forum isn't going to help with this.
Fishing is not a right by the way.

TH


----------



## Shalor96 (Jul 26, 2016)

I think the obvious big winner from this would be the Galveston Bay fishery. It has such tremendous bounce back potential for trout with a huge pass to the ocean, plenty of fresh water in flow, ample marsh and many acres of oyster reefs(Although hurricane Ike and more recently excessive freshwater hasnâ€™t done them in favors). I believe the trout numbers are down in Galveston right now, but given a few years of reduced harvest, and no big floods, the trout numbers will be back. Galveston is totally different from the Laguna Madre/Baffin system. Biologist claim that some years recruitment in that system are very minimal due to water becoming to hyper saline. Not so in Galveston. I agree with other posters that somehow Guides should be limited, but Iâ€™m just not sure how thatâ€™s going to be accomplished. Maybe a limit on guide licenses. Iâ€™m afraid the pressure we see on the water these days is only going to get worse, so weâ€™re going to have to figure it out. As a friend of mine often quotes, â€œRemember the Buffalo!â€


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

I am looking for investors for my parking and shuttle bus consession start up at causeway and deep bayou. 
Politics will win out and the rec anglers will lose out on this one. Another feel good approach to wildlife management.


----------



## Hayniedude24 (Jun 15, 2016)

RedXCross said:


> I don't have a problem with the change, but La. will be full on, right across the border and on Sabine. I live 5 minutes away, and usually just keep what I plan on eating soon, and that is spread between Reds, Trout and Bass.
> I usually attend all the hearings, I wish I could take popcorn and beer, it is cheap entertainment!!


You keep and eat bass? Youâ€™re going to hell!


----------



## 1born2fish (Oct 6, 2013)

I'm not a guide, I don't use guides, and I only keep enough fish for a couple of meals, caught on mostly artificial baits, if I take family fishing, I don't use croaker. But in the Guides defense.
Its It's not the Guides keeping the fish. 
It's people like you and I or our friends and family who uses Guides to help them find and catch fish for their for their own interest. Just saying! 
And Yes! 5 Trout is more than enough fish for the table.


----------



## glojim (Aug 9, 2004)

So, does the new limit take effect immediately?


----------



## JoeintheBackyard (Sep 21, 2017)

glojim said:


> So, does the new limit take effect immediately?


It hasn't passed yet, if and when it does at the March commission meeting it will go into effect Sept 1st.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

sabinewhaler88 said:


> No reason for anyone to keep 15 trout


why? Because YOU say so? What about the guy who doesn't fish much and goes with a guide for his once/twice a year meat haul? The Louisiana fishery can handle MUCH more than here in Texas. Paying a guide for 5 15 inch fish will hurt the guides business in my opinion.


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

Capt. AB said:


> Why donâ€™t we limit the number of guides on our bays? Iâ€™ve seen guides take people fishing that donâ€™t have a clue and put them on limits day after day.
> One guide taking 2 to 4 clients a day almost everyday and killing limits of trout has an impact.


Can you you prove your statement with scientific evidence?
I sounds more like your opinion and a misguided one at that.
Why do you follow guides around and peep on them? Lotta class envy in your post, get some help.


----------



## Drundel (Feb 6, 2006)

Muddskipper said:


> The PROPOSED reg change was not based on scientific data ....
> 
> It was based on people who canâ€™t catch them....thinking this is going to help you catch more.....
> 
> ...


This leads to good point, add in a clause that the limit will return to 10 in X number of years UNLESS the change is reviewed and has proof the change is making a difference.

I too like the idea of limiting the guides, its done in numerous other areas, why not here? (HINT, the answer is money).


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

The idea that limiting guides on a body of water is laughable. If there aren't any trout to be caught, wouldn't all of those guides be looking for other more profitable employment? This whole argument is similar to the "fair share" tax people on the Left. There is zero law that says you have to keep any fish much less the maximum limit. The "KeepFive" folks AssUme that everytime a guide leaves the dock he comes back with a boat load of fish, which is false.


----------



## Mouse52 (Jun 15, 2015)

Not sure why people want pick on guides. The people catching and keeping the fish are everyday fisherman that go with them. I have my own boat but still fish a few times a year with guides that are friends and fun to be around. I pick their brains on what the are looking for, why fish a specific spot, etc. to become a better fisherman. I do pay them, thatâ€™s how they pay their bills. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dk2429 (Mar 27, 2015)

Texashookset said:


> RedXCross said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have a problem with the change, but La. will be full on, right across the border and on Sabine. I live 5 minutes away, and usually just keep what I plan on eating soon, and that is spread between Reds, Trout and Bass.
> ...


I personally can't stand when people keep bass... They are a sport fish in my eyes. If ya catch a solid 4-5lber, put it back unharmed so the next guy that hooks him will be holding a 12lb. And so on...

Plus, I'm not big on fish, but I haven't heard anything good about eating bass.


----------



## Captain Marty (Jul 14, 2006)

KemoSabe said:


> I am looking for investors for my parking and shuttle bus consession start up at causeway and deep bayou.
> Politics will win out and the rec anglers will lose out on this one. Another feel good approach to wildlife management.


If it passes, which it will, myself and the other guides on Sabine are going to get real busy. The draw back is there will be an influx on Galveston and Trinity bay fisherman parking at the causeway and Deep Bayou ramps. Louisiana trout limits will still be 15. Redfish limits will still be 5 and flounder limits will remain 10 in Louisiana.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

KemoSabe - Please accept this with the kind intent it is offered and please do not AssUme anything about the Just Keep Five movement unless you were present and involved and understand it in its full context, circa 2002-2014. 



FYI - Although I was not the first to use JKF in print and social media, I was by far the chief protagonist for that entire period. 



Another FYI - The guy who used it first was Jay Watkins, one of Texas' more notable and respected coastal fishing guides. I was a full time guide from 1999 until 2010. Jay and I shared a mutual respect for the fishery we were utilizing. I initiated a five trout limit on my charters from 2002 until 2010 when I retired from guiding and do not believe it cost me a dime in guide income. People fished with me to learn the waterways and the how-where-when of fishing the Middle Coast. The same for Jay, one of the greatest teaching guides that ever took a step in saltwater. Jay is still guiding and practicing conservation and CPR every day. In other words, not all guides conduct their charters for the purpose of enabling meat hauls.



Where the slogan came from was the great kerfuffle that arose during the Spotted Seatrout Work Group Meetings in 2002. When many were clamoring for reducing limits and/or increasing minimum length, others clung tenaciously to the don't give an inch mantra - Jay Watkins said: "It's really very simple, if you think taking ten is more than the fishery can stand, then just keep five. I liked the concept and ran with it in my magazine and every other venue I had access to. 



Sadly, what began as a very noble concept, became distorted and construed as an unjustified attempt to take away Joe Angler's "right" to keep ten trout every day that he went fishing.


But - we have no legal right to any number of fish - what we actually have is a privilege granted by TPWD to go fishing and keep some fish - a number that their application of the best science available deems sustainable, and/or a number that satisfies the greatest number of constituents (that's us) who care enough about the fishery to attend meetings, study the handouts, perhaps join a conservation organization, and generally participate in the management of the fishery.


Anyway - long drawn out reply - just wanted to let everyone know who wasn't on the scene back in the day that JKF was not started by a bunch of liberal-socialist, fish-hugging whackos. If that was not anybody's intent or belief then I sincerely apologize in advance for having gone a rant when none was needed.


----------



## LaddH (Sep 29, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> KemoSabe - Please do not AssUme anything about the Just Keep Five movement unless you were present and understand it in its full context, circa 2002-2014.
> 
> FYI - Although I was not the first to use JKF in print and social media, I was by far the chief protagonist for that entire period.
> 
> ...


Here is an article you are probably familiar with from 2007.
https://www.texassaltwaterfishingma...atures/non-current/billy-sandifer/signs-times

Billy Sandifer was an early proponent of "just keeping five" and told anyone that chartered him "If we don't leave any there won't be any" which was a motto of his. JKF has improved fishing here on the midcoast and guides appear to be busier than ever.
There are other fish out there besides trout.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

This is another one of those battles that will divide those of us that fish. Kinda like what is happening in the political arena of this country. What I would like to know is, has the decreased limit on the lower and upper coast, increased the numbers of trout proportionality? I have always said, if you don't protect the habitat, limits will not help. The footprint of Galveston Bay has changed over the last several years. If there is a problem, this is just a band-aid, on a solution.


----------



## TXBohunk (Aug 25, 2017)

dk2429 said:


> I personally can't stand when people keep bass... They are a sport fish in my eyes. If ya catch a solid 4-5lber, put it back unharmed so the next guy that hooks him will be holding a 12lb. And so on...
> 
> Plus, I'm not big on fish, but I haven't heard anything good about eating bass.


I eat largemouth bass all the time. Love it. Good stuff.

A funny story- A few years back, I had a fish fry at my house and my brother came over. He was eating the fried fish and said "this is good stuff. Where did you get all the fish". I said that I had caught them in the tank(pond) and neighbor's tank. He looked at me and asked what kind of fish it was. I told him bass, and he said "you eat bass? I was told they are nasty". I smiled and said "you're eating it and just said how much you liked it"

Fried, blackend, baked, grilled. It's all good.


----------



## chunker59 (Jul 20, 2011)

If this passes, the next step is to start the whole process all over again with a three trout limit on the lower coast.


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

EJ you know this guy ? Bill Pustejovsky looking back at his thoughts and many others do you believe this would of been a good move? 
Yes are no I don't wanna start a war.


----------



## RedFlounderBass (May 10, 2015)

dk2429 said:


> I personally can't stand when people keep bass... They are a sport fish in my eyes. If ya catch a solid 4-5lber, put it back unharmed so the next guy that hooks him will be holding a 12lb. And so on...
> 
> Plus, I'm not big on fish, but I haven't heard anything good about eating bass.


A 14â€Bass taste almost as good as Crappie IMO-I canâ€™t stand the â€œHolier than Thouâ€ Bass fisherman that act like you murdered someone if you keep one. Bass are Sunfish, same as Crappie. Iâ€™ve eaten up to 5 lbers and they tasted great... If I do keep some for the table, I usually keep 2 or 3 around 16â€-17â€ inchers. Spotted and Smallmouth are even better tasting.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

One of the reasons that some people were against cutting down trout limits way back when is because they perceived that the recreational angler was constantly getting the short end of the stick. And they were right. At the exact same time that recreational limits were being reduced, the feds allowed purse seiners to take obscene...OBSCENE... numbers of redfish from the Gulf. And they allowed it because special interest money bought the decision - NOT because of what was best for the fishery.

Reducing the limits was absolutely the right thing to do. But a lot of the screaming was because the sheer numbers of fish being taken by commercial interests dwarfed the impact of recreational fishermen. Many people were angry about that fact. So they said, "If you aren't going to limit them, you aren't going to limit us." The correct decision would have been to limit both.

We see people being given "quotas" of red snapper that amount to a license to print money. Many don't even bother to fish anymore. They just sell their quotas and rake in money. If fishing isn't a "right" then sitting on your arse and raking in money off of someone else's fishing should not be a right either. But it's like some kind of birthright that they've been given.

Somewhere around 1980 (give or take a year), I was interviewed on television because of something I witnessed and reported. I was fishing a shoreline regularly. One day the shore was pristine. The next day, shrimping season opened and there was a collar of dead fish along the windward shoreline, as far as the eye could see. There were juvenile gamefish, croaker, etc. There were also small sharks and several dead turtles just in the small stretch that the news people covered. Miles, and miles, and miles of it. And the commercial fishing people had been screaming that sort of thing just wasn't happening. That story proved that they were lying... but nothing changed for a long time after that. Why? Because the lawmakers depend on lobbyist money, and they ultimately give marching orders to the agencies in charge of making the regulations.

Lowering limits was/is the right thing to do. But it's only ONE right thing to do. And there isn't the political will to do some of the other right things that need to be done. Too many of the "enlightened" people advocating for recreational restraint are buddies with people in TPWD, and won't admit that they manage the resource for financial considerations, and not for what is really optimal for the fishery. So we have a slower decline that we might, but we continue to have a decline.

I've said many times that I would endorse a total moratorium on harvesting anything from the bays for a year or two, just to have an actual benchmark for what impact we are having. It would put a lot of arguments to bed, because we would have some real evidence on way or another. Virtually no one on either side wants that. To paraphrase Tombstone, "Their hypocrisy only goes so far."


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

capt. david said:


> What I would like to know is, has the decreased limit on the lower and upper coast, increased the numbers of trout proportionality?


Starting on pg. 44 of the September 2018 issues of Texas Saltwater Fishing Magazine there is an article about the status of the trout population after the implementation of the 5-fish limit. Here is the conclusion of the article:


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

dk2429 said:


> I personally can't stand when people keep bass... They are a sport fish in my eyes. If ya catch a solid 4-5lber, put it back unharmed so the next guy that hooks him will be holding a 12lb. And so on...
> 
> Plus, I'm not big on fish, but I haven't heard anything good about eating bass.


you're young so I'll give you a pass. Bass is a good tasting fish. They were table fare long before bass tournaments. Just because you eat a fish doesn't mean that there aren't others to replace it. That's called proper conservation. You only have to take a trip to Fayette County to figure out that although you can catch 3-5lb fish until your arms fall off, there are no predators to take away the bass, so there are VERY few fish over 9lbs caught there.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

irbjd said:


> Starting on pg. 44 of the September 2018 issues of Texas Saltwater Fishing Magazine there is an article about the status of the trout population after the implementation of the 5-fish limit. Here is the conclusion of the article:


Guessing that means 3 anglers are boxing 15 trout pretty **** quick everyday?


----------



## TTH (Apr 28, 2013)

I am in my early 30's and so are most of my fishing buddies. We mostly fish Rockport South to Port Mansfield. It is very obvious that since the limit changed to 5 that the fishing has improved in these parts of the coast. All of our Fathers are fisherman too. We always talk/joke about how our "Boomer" Fathers almost shed tears when we release a keeper trout back in the water. 

I'm not a scientist or Biologist, but I have plenty of common sense. If you keep less and release more trout after being caught, the population is going to fare better. 

All you meathead "boomers" act ridiculous about these limit conversations. 

Five Fish is plenty for a meal for an average size family. 

Remember, you can only legally posses two daily bag limits. This includes the deep freezer at your house.


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

TTH said:


> I am in my early 30's and so are most of my fishing buddies. We mostly fish Rockport South to Port Mansfield. It is very obvious that since the limit changed to 5 that the fishing has improved in these parts of the coast. All of our Fathers are fisherman too. We always talk/joke about how our "Boomer" Fathers almost shed tears when we release a keeper trout back in the water.
> 
> I'm not a scientist or Biologist, but I have plenty of common sense. If you keep less and release more trout after being caught, the population is going to fare better.
> 
> ...


You are absolutely wrong about the limit in the freezer.. if that was the case and I know it's not. Every November most of us would be over the limit on flounder from the last week of October. Someone has the page saved from the regulations and will post it shortly..


----------



## TTH (Apr 28, 2013)

Jaysand247 said:


> You are absolutely wrong about the limit in the freezer.. if that was the case and I know it's not. Every November most of us would be over the limit on flounder from the last week of October. Someone has the page saved from the regulations and will post it shortly..


I'll do it my self. I am wrong on my last statement...

Possession limit (anglers):
The maximum number of fish a person may possess before returning to their residence. Possession limit is twice the daily bag on game and nongame fish, except as provided in this guide, and does not apply to fish in the possession of or stored by a person at their residence.

https://tpwd.texas.gov/regulations/outdoor-annual/fishing/general-rules-regulations/definitions


----------



## hookemandcookem (Jul 14, 2010)

TXFishin said:


> I think the logic should follow everything, no reason to own a fridge / freezer. You shouldn't keep more than you can eat that day, that's just greedy and wasteful.
> 
> Whether it's beef, deer, vegetables, fruit, fish, etc, it just doesn't taste as good after it's been frozen or cooled, nothing beats fresh beef, deer, vegetables, fruit or fish
> 
> Relentless


That is why i eat the deer i kill in one sitting.......... And deer actually taste better aged fyi.


----------



## TTH (Apr 28, 2013)

TTH said:


> I'll do it my self. I am wrong on my last statement...
> 
> Possession limit (anglers):
> The maximum number of fish a person may possess before returning to their residence. Possession limit is twice the daily bag on game and nongame fish, except as provided in this guide, and does not apply to fish in the possession of or stored by a person at their residence.
> ...


I guess my point is that if only keeping 5 trout each time you go fishing ruins your experience... You need to find a new hobby.

In my opinion, a limit has just become an objective for people. A target or a goal. "Let me catch 5 or 10 trout so I can take a picture and show Social Media that I am a good fisherman" I mean I have been guilty of this in the past, but I have matured and reached a point where I have found this to be pointless.

As I have become a better/more experienced trout fisherman, I now get just as much pleasure out of my fishing experience by catching and releasing as I do keeping some to eat.

I'm willing to bet that most of the fisherman that our outraged over this topic have probably never caught a trout over 7 pounds and if they have its been only 1 or 2 in this size range.

I have been on multiple trips with my circle of fishing friends where we have released over 7 trout over 7lbs. We all currently share the same opinion on this subject and I am willing to bet our opinions used to align with the outraged crowd before we got to the level of experience that we are now at.


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

Trouthunter said:


> Well if TP&W passes a law that says so then that's all we'll keep one whitetail.
> 
> If you don't like it go to a meeting. Being an arse on a public forum isn't going to help with this.
> Fishing is not a right by the way.
> ...


Sorry if my sarcasm was interpreted incorrectly - if it offended more than one person I truly apologize.

BTW I was a very vocal advocate at every TPWD meeting on the upper coast when this first came around. I have been giving talks to local fishing chapters that the decision should be based on science not opinions.
We have done a long pod-cast that might get released where I was an advocate for not changing the regs on the upper coast.
I also have logged over a hundred hours volunteering with TPWD on the Fishery side. I believe this proposed change and how it put to a small sub-set of anglers via the mail was in poor taste.

The analogy with the deer was in jest and meant to show that some might save some fish like we do with deer when there is clearly more than we can consume before spoilage.


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

Muddskipper said:


> Sorry if my sarcasm was interpreted incorrectly - if it offended more than one person I truly apologize.
> 
> BTW I was a very vocal advocate at every TPWD meeting on the upper coast when this first came around. I have been giving talks to local fishing chapters that the decision should be based on science not opinions.
> We have done a long pod-cast that might get released where I was an advocate for not changing the regs on the upper coast.
> ...


Filling out my Hurt Feeling Report now and need your address:biggrin:
So, TPWD sent out a questionaire to a limited number of licensed anglers on the upper coast to get suggestions on the future of trout fisheries? Color me shocked that a governmental agency would skew the numbers to get a predetermined outcome. Has TPWD also released their creel surveys for the most recent year? 
The Sky is Falling Regards


----------



## schoalbeast101 (Oct 23, 2014)

I have fished the Galveston area and the Matagorda area on a regular basis since the law change with the 457 border. I can tell you honestly that since the change to 5 trout Matagorda is slowly getting better every year. To be truthful the spring/summers of 2015, 2016, and 2017 were pretty devastating to above average sized trout being pushed out of Trinity Bay by the huge amounts of rain we received. Many of the fish (averaged 4 pounds) stacked like cord wood on many East Bay reefs. It was not uncommon to have 50 boats on an area and everyone was catching fish. It didn't matter if you used croaker or plastic. If you bumped the bottom at the right time you were going to catch some nice trout. I only made 4 trips in 2015 and 2016. 3 times we caught our 2 man limits and 1 time a 3 man limit. The size of the trout was impressive as I had never caught trout of that caliber on a numbers basis. I am not putting anyone down if they went more. The point I am making is that a lot of trout were killed those 3 years and they weren't pencil trout and they weren't all caught by guides. The bottom line is that there isn't an endless supply of nicer fish today. I do support a five fish limit, but only till the fishery recovers which could be a while. Another point that needs to be made though is legitimate reef restoration (not a band aid like we have now.) A program that really gets the Bay back into respectable shape (Oyster wise). Us fishermen who drift the reefs know how important that is to good bay fishing. Is the problem money, organization, etc.? Couldn't fishermen and oyster companies partner to restore many of the reefs? Wouldn't that be a win/win? That's my 2 cents.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

KemoSabe said:


> Filling out my Hurt Feeling Report now and need your address:biggrin:
> So, TPWD sent out a questionaire to a limited number of licensed anglers on the upper coast to get suggestions on the future of trout fisheries? Color me shocked that a governmental agency would skew the numbers to get a predetermined outcome. Has TPWD also released their creel surveys for the most recent year?
> The Sky is Falling Regards


Yes they sent out surveys to recreational anglers and licensed guides aprox. 2500. 50/50 spilt on rec anglers and 75/25 split on guides in favor of change. I spoke to Lance Robinson in depth about this couple weeks ago. According to the creel surveys ect... our trout numbers are healthy.


----------



## schoalbeast101 (Oct 23, 2014)

One other important note. Not 1 fish I caught was on live bait. Most fish were caught fishing the reefs and bumping the bottom and fishing slow with DSL lures.


----------



## cruss (Aug 31, 2005)

*trout*

was reading a book a while back that i had bought on trophy trout caught in texas bays. Each page had a pic of a monster trout, the angler's account of how and where he caught the fish and then a brief thought on what he thought the state of the fishery was for specs. In almost every response the croakers and too many guides came up as reasons for the struggle for the fishery. Also, droughts and other eco matters were mentioned but guides and croakers seem to run a constant theme in the book.


----------



## captain sandbar (Dec 9, 2011)

So here's a thought, it is a lot to do with economics. As one poster alluded to a couple pages back... with the cost of the boat etc, those are some pretty expensive fillets. Inherently a lot of people feel that way - "this is expensive, so I'm going to keep as much meat as it can..." problem is a lot of those meat haulers end up throwing away a lot of old frozen fish, but that doesn't change the mindset of - hey I'm paying $400 for a 1/2 day guided trip so I am going to make the most out of it - worth$$wise. The bigger problem is habitat destruction. you could stop fishing altogether as was suggested for a couple of years, but with all the other changing variables, the conclusions would be hard to say are universally predictable. Fishing the Rockport area for a couple decades has taught me a lot about the resource and habitat, and the five trout limit is helping the fishery. And to all the anti-Croaker whiners, when fish are hungry they eat, and will eat anything - if you don't think that is true then look at the You Tube video where the guy's catching redfish on jalapenos. Also let's not forget the next generation of fishermen who are absolutely needed for the activities survival. I have three boys, they all learned to fish with croakers - it gave them a love for the sport - and once they have that love you can introduce them to lures. without their love for the sport and license fees, etc., there won't be a fishery.


----------



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

Fishing pressure. Cycle of freeze, hyper salinity and flooding (since the 80's). Over fishing of oysters. Silting in of the majority of the oyster beds on the upper coast due to recent hurricanes. Long time coming.


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

captain sandbar said:


> So here's a thought, it is a lot to do with economics. As one poster alluded to a couple pages back... with the cost of the boat etc, those are some pretty expensive fillets. Inherently a lot of people feel that way - "this is expensive, so I'm going to keep as much meat as it can..." problem is a lot of those meat haulers end up throwing away a lot of old frozen fish, but that doesn't change the mindset of - hey I'm paying $400 for a 1/2 day guided trip so I am going to make the most out of it - worth$$wise. The bigger problem is habitat destruction. you could stop fishing altogether as was suggested for a couple of years, but with all the other changing variables, the conclusions would be hard to say are universally predictable. Fishing the Rockport area for a couple decades has taught me a lot about the resource and habitat, and the five trout limit is helping the fishery. And to all the anti-Croaker whiners, when fish are hungry they eat, and will eat anything - if you don't think that is true then look at the You Tube video where the guy's catching redfish on jalapenos. Also let's not forget the next generation of fishermen who are absolutely needed for the activities survival. I have three boys, they all learned to fish with croakers - it gave them a love for the sport - and once they have that love you can introduce them to lures. without their love for the sport and license fees, etc., there won't be a fishery.


It may surprise you but the majority donâ€™t expect a meat haul or that has been my observation. Have had many happy faces without loading the boat.


----------



## GSMAN (May 22, 2004)

*Truth be Told*



capt. david said:


> Yes they sent out surveys to recreational anglers and licensed guides aprox. 2500. 50/50 spilt on rec anglers and 75/25 split on guides in favor of change. *I spoke to Lance Robinson in depth about this couple weeks ago. According to the creel surveys ect... our trout numbers are healthy.*




So the reason for the change is not necessarily due to the health of the trout population it's mainly due to the fact that most fishermen feel that keeping 10 trout is excessive? Nobody needs to keep 10 trout. Correct? I don't have a problem with either limits. I just don't like the fact that the outcome/decision is probably going to be based by emotional or personal preference of fisherman. I believe the decision should be based on scientific data not feelings. On the other hand, maybe the same group of activist fishermen can influence the feds to increase the Snapper limit as well. It could go the other way? Right?


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

At scoping meetings you will here the data TPWD collected and how changing the limit will and wont effect anglers.

The Avg angler harvest 2 and some change specs per trip ....

This average catch will not change per TPWD .... only the avg size will change and go up by 1 to 2 inches.

It comes down to wanting bigger fish (by 1-2") or more fish in the bag.

AGAIN - this is from TPWD not me .... it will likely be discussed at all scoping meetings.
_
LAST- getting more REDS is not on the proposal, limiting guides is not on the proposal, doing anything other than changing the limits of specs is not on this proposal.... when it comes to specs and the limits on the upper coast._

The data from TPWD said from recent surveys said the population was fine ....even the Chronicle reported this .....

I want all to understand - we will not get limits back - reds have never been more plentiful and they are not changing their limits .... this will be a permanent change.

I don't make a living on the resource, I merely try to state facts and perhaps give a different perspective that some don't mind keeping 7 or 8 avg. 16" fish. Sometimes in certain parts of our bay system its generally what you catch ......


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

It's the people that only get to fish 3 or 4 times a year with a guide that it hurts.. guys like myself who live 5 min from the ramp can fish when we want.. I fish 3 or more days a week during the summer. The only real issue I have with regulation is we never get the limit raised once the population bounces back. That's very evident with the red fish ..


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

One thing I've noticed is that few guides every broach the subject of conservation. I've never seen one ask: "So, how many fish do you need today?" They just keep tossing trout in the box, until the charter finally speaks up. Maybe back at the dock, where they profess they don't even eat fish. Most charter customers live inland and have no clue about releasing fish, or if it's even possible. They certainly don't keep up with trout harvest trends or bag limit changes. Meanwhile the guide wants to be seen back on the dock, cleaning a fine mess of trout, hoping to snag a charter next day. In the Florida Keys this is *especially* true, where tourists walk the docks each afternoon, to check out which boat has the biggest pile of fish (often mahi). If nobody mentions conservation, the charter never learns.


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

Muddskipper said:


> At scoping meetings you will here the data TPWD collected and how changing the limit will and wont effect anglers.
> 
> The Avg angler harvest 2 and some change specs per trip ....
> 
> ...


Well there ya go, all those whining about not needing to keep ten fish have been justified. Me thinks most of them couldnâ€™t catch a limit anyway.


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

Jaysand247 said:


> It's the people that only get to fish 3 or 4 times a year with a guide that it hurts.. guys like myself who live 5 min from the ramp can fish when we want.. I fish 3 or more days a week during the summer. The only real issue I have with regulation is we never get the limit raised once the population bounces back. That's very evident with the red fish ..


TPWD has scoped raising redfish limits to 5 on multiple occasions. It has always been rejected.


----------



## Sgrem (Oct 5, 2005)

Trouthappy said:


> One thing I've noticed is that few guides every broach the subject of conservation. I've never seen one ask: "So, how many fish do you need today?" They just keep tossing trout in the box, until the charter finally speaks up. Maybe back at the dock, where they profess they don't even eat fish. Most charter customers live inland and have no clue about releasing fish, or if it's even possible. They certainly don't keep up with trout harvest trends or bag limit changes. Meanwhile the guide wants to be seen back on the dock, cleaning a fine mess of trout, hoping to snag a charter next day. In the Florida Keys this is *especially* true, where tourists walk the docks each afternoon, to check out which boat has the biggest pile of fish (often mahi). If nobody mentions conservation, the charter never learns.


This is a great point.
The discussion of keeping fish etc with my customers starts when talking to them on the phone and again at the dock immediately after the safety talk. And again when the first fish comes in the boat. And again about every 8 or ten or so fish after that.

I am certain this could hurt my business at the dock from potential customers.....and in social media pictures.....but thats not what im here for and certainly not what my customers are here for.

The customers that ask me if i can guarantee a box full of fish get met with the answer that im sorry im already booked....for whatever day they pick. Dont need dead fish stack pictures to make for a successful enjoyable trip.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

These meetings TP&W will hold are not scoping meetings. All the proposed changes will be addressed all over the state. Extending the 5 trout limit is just one of the new changes that the commissioners will vote on in March 19-20.


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

The 5 trout PROPOSAL will be â€œPublishedâ€ in the registraer around mid- February. This actual date could vary slightly- 
The Commisioners will vote on the proposal in March ..... this means public hearings WILL be in Late February up to early March.

They will likely have other items on the agenda at the proposal meetings.

NOTE- if you attend and speak, stay on the subject of the proposal.....this is not the place to ask for more redfish or state there are too many guides or discuss croaker as bait.
-*none of these are on the agenda*-


----------



## Capt. AB (Mar 1, 2012)

KemoSabe said:


> Can you you prove your statement with scientific evidence?
> I sounds more like your opinion and a misguided one at that.
> Why do you follow guides around and peep on them? Lotta class envy in your post, get some help.


No class envy here. Not sure how you surmised that. I fish with guides and have a lot of friends that are guides.

As Mudskipper has correctly pointed out the discussion is about limit changes not guide restrictions. So Iâ€™ll leave the matter alone.


----------



## Kevin Nicholls (Nov 22, 2005)

I'll start by saying I'm a dinosaur drowning in a tar pit. Fishing has changed. I've been on the water my whole life. Attitudes are different now then before. I'll go fishing with you today and lie to you tomorrow about where we were and what we caught. Social Media has made every fish caught a public event. I watch that show Lone Star Law and think only a few of us follow the law. No one on that show seems to have a licence or know the limits. I had a boss that was a really nice guy but he can't throw back a trout on a bet, he keeps them all. ( I will no longer fish with him because of it.) We have lots of problems in our group of fisherman here on the coast. I don't have the answers to most of them but in the words of Ben Franklin " We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately"
Lets try to work together to find whats the best way to protect what we love to do. We need to police our selves as well. I am in no way singling out any one or any single post here. I hope those in charge are making the right decisions for the right reasons. Thanks, Kevin.


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

Capt. AB said:


> Why donâ€™t we limit the number of guides on our bays? Iâ€™ve seen guides take people fishing that donâ€™t have a clue and put them on limits day after day. This statement
> One guide taking 2 to 4 clients a day almost everyday and killing limits of trout has an impact.


Lets stay on topic here, ok?


----------



## JoeintheBackyard (Sep 21, 2017)

Coastal fisheries seems to have a new mindset for the last few years of being proactive instead of reactive. They were reactive in the LLM and and the mid coast and about 5 years behind where they should have been in making changes, the Rockport trout fishery was pretty much dead the previous two years before they finally reduced it to 5. They've heard the same stories as some have told on this thread about how all the freshwater has concentrated trout to certain areas resulting in them being hammered on for weeks on end and know the resource can not hold up to that kind of pressure. Anecdotal evidence by guides and rec anglers who spend 100's of days on the water is telling them there is an issue even if their creel surveys aren't, I'm sure they'll put a sunset date on the regulation just as they did on the middle coast and in five years the limit will be looked at again. Personally I'm pleased with the proactive approach over the reactive one.


----------



## JWS.HOOKEM (Jun 24, 2008)

longhornbubba said:


> Then my license tax should be cut in half.


You would think....probably go up! I lived in Corpus when the limit dropped to 5. I asked my neighbor who was a guide, if he was going to cut his price. Hell no he said. Going to raise it since Iâ€™ll have less charters, and I will start keeping all the bigger fish and Cull! True story.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Just FYI - Guides Losing Business When Trout Limit Was Reduced To Five...


I have many friends and acquaintances who are fishing guides, maybe 100 or more, who work the Middle Coast and Lower Laguna Madre. Not a single one has indicated they lost business when the limit was reduced. Heck, they're busier today than they've ever been.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

Word on the POC docks 2-3 years ago was that a couple of the old-timer local guides there worked as a team, disrupting TPW public meetings, every time a proposal for five trout came up. Yelling "There's plenty of trout!" They'd sit at opposite ends of the room, shouting at the biologists. 

These two guides dipped out countless floating trout from the back bays when there was a minor freeze. They also hammered the tripletail population in upper Matagorda Bay, no limits then, the boat's deck covered with hot fish in June-July, no ice. TPW took note and put a three-fish bag limit on tripletail. Some real choice characters with no moral compass on fish conservation. I mean like none...


----------



## habanerojooz (Dec 4, 2006)

Customers like to say they caught a limit. Guides like to make customers happy. Putting customers on a 5 fish limit is easier than a 10 fish limit. A win/win for the guide and the customer. Guide has less fish to clean and still can boast of putting clients on limits. Same credentials for the guide, same marketing message, same value.

Customers don't care if it was a 5 fish limit or a 10 fish limit. Their friends that they share their stories with don't know the difference either, and they also don't care. All they know is that it is a limit.


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

Iâ€™m surprised at this focus on guides...

Studies show 80% of the fish are caught by 20% of the fishermen 
Sure that includes guides 

I know of few if any guides that are not conservationists. 

I feel like our focus is not on the right thing here:

Itâ€™s how the upper coast wants to manage the fishery?

Do you want a little bigger fish or more fish?.....

Thatâ€™s the question- this limit change will not make you a better fisherman 

Maybe you need to string TEN 15-17â€ with a guide to learn.... 

I know 99% of us here will abide by what ever TPWD decides.....

I just feel like some believe this proposed change is due to a shortage of specs..... TPWDs own data has stated we have a healthy recruitment of specs.
There is no â€œwhat if?â€.....

If a different scenario comes up they can revisit this..... but for now itâ€™s down to the two above choices I stated.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

I want bigger trout and less meat fishing. Five trout would be great. 
For personal use my wife and I would be fine with two trout apiece.


----------



## habanerojooz (Dec 4, 2006)

Ok. I only mentioned guides because the conversation went there. I totally support guides. 

If the crux of the concern is 'data' for which this vote is based upon, then OK. I get the principle of that stance. Good stuff. But is this like throwing a challenge flag and causing play to stop....resulting in delaying or killing the vote?

I guess out of the two choices posed, I'm in the "little bigger fish" camp. I lean towards quality. Numbers mean nothing to me.


----------



## Bayscout22 (Aug 9, 2007)

This could be a more constructive discussion. I propose we remove two things from the discussion...

1) *Any purely selfish perspective.* I know it's hard to do these days. Try and look it this issue from one of two perspectives. Either a) the greater good. What's best for the fishery? Or b) what's best for your grand kids?

2) *Any cry for "more science" if you aren't a biologist.* If you aren't an expert, what makes you think you can interpret the data?

If, for a brief moment, you can look at this issue without using either of those two lenses, HOW CAN THIS BE A BAD THING?

Lastly... this thread is full of new a-holes. It makes me miss all the old a-holes.


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

Bayscout22 said:


> This could be a more constructive discussion. I propose we remove two things from the discussion...
> 
> 1) *Any purely selfish perspective.* I know it's hard to do these days. Try and look it this issue from one of two perspectives. Either a) the greater good. What's best for the fishery? Or b) what's best for your grand kids?
> 
> ...


I'm still around. :cheers:

This thread gives me a headache. Everyone seems to know what I need or should have. Mudskipper is the only level headed thinker in the whole thread and no one is listening to what he is saying. Everyone else are a bunch of democrats. :rotfl:


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

Bayscout22 said:


> This could be a more constructive discussion. I propose we remove two things from the discussion...
> 
> 1) *Any purely selfish perspective.* I know it's hard to do these days. Try and look it this issue from one of two perspectives. Either a) the greater good. What's best for the fishery? Or b) what's best for your grand kids?
> 
> ...


We all have a say. My only contribution is there the ones actually staying on top of this. Fisherman that fish a lot see the need.
The red fish scare was corrected so I'm on board for JKF.
Will there not be more regs. I'm guessing yes but lets see what happens. 
I'm all over take a kid fishing.


----------



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

Bayscout22 said:


> ... Lastly ... this thread is full of new a-holes. It makes me miss all the old a-holes.


Present! But the guides. And the croakers. And the cryologists.


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

Muddskipper said:


> Iâ€™m surprised at this focus on guides...
> 
> Studies show 80% of the fish are caught by 20% of the fishermen
> Sure that includes guides
> ...


Galveston recruitment was actually down in the data available at the end of last year.


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

End of the year like fall?

Fall studies are known to be lower since itâ€™s after summer and the amount of fish harvested plus spring is during spawn.....


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

Take pity on the man or woman who judges the success of a fishing trip by the number of fish in the cooler.

TH


----------



## StinkyFingerMullet (Jan 25, 2017)

I'm all for it, at least lets TRY it... Cant make it any worse. I think some of our problem too is all of our big reds. Guy I fish with caught 25 reds the other day, 21 of them were oversized. May or may not help but like I said, something we could at least try.


----------



## karstopo (Jun 29, 2009)

Does one fish for relaxation and enjoyment or to get groceries. Which ever is more important to you might determine where you are on this 5 or 10 for the limit. 

If the 5 fish one does get run a couple of inches bigger than in the past then the getting groceries crowd really isnâ€™t giving up all that much by losing the extra five fish.


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

Muddskipper said:


> End of the year like fall?
> 
> Fall studies are known to be lower since itâ€™s after summer and the amount of fish harvested plus spring is during spawn.....


As in the most recent data available. TPWD has not made 2018 recruitment available. You are referencing fall gill net studies, which tend to be lower than spring due to the amount harvested over the summer.


----------



## JoeintheBackyard (Sep 21, 2017)

irbjd said:


> As in the most recent data available. TPWD has not made 2018 recruitment available. You are referencing fall gill net studies, which tend to be lower than spring due to the amount harvested over the summer.


Nice to see at least one person in this thread actually knows what they are talking about.


----------



## Drundel (Feb 6, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Just FYI - Guides Losing Business When Trout Limit Was Reduced To Five...
> 
> I have many friends and acquaintances who are fishing guides, maybe 100 or more, who work the Middle Coast and Lower Laguna Madre. Not a single one has indicated they lost business when the limit was reduced. Heck, they're busier today than they've ever been.


Ray told me he lost clients after it was lowered to 5 in the middle coast. I asked if those clients now went to Galveston to fish, no, to Louisiana.


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

There are some people who think highly of themselves in this thread..


----------



## Bayscout22 (Aug 9, 2007)

Drundel said:


> Ray told me he lost clients after it was lowered to 5 in the middle coast. I asked if those clients now went to Galveston to fish, no, to Louisiana.


Hmmm.... He lost clients because of the limit reduction and not because there are dozens more guide options to now? If we are talking about the same Ray, I might disagree with his assessment.


----------



## Drundel (Feb 6, 2006)

Bayscout22 said:


> Hmmm.... He lost clients because of the limit reduction and not because there are dozens more guide options to now? If we are talking about the same Ray, I might disagree with his assessment.


Croaker Ray in Matty.

I asked him on a trip after the limit was reduced from 10 to 5 if he had lost any clients over it, it says not many but yes. I followed up asking if they are now fishing in Galveston with guides and he said nope, Louisiana.


----------



## Sgrem (Oct 5, 2005)

For many fisherman catching 10 in Matty (middle coast) is usually easier than catching 5 in Galv (Upper Coast).


----------



## Capt. Adam Jaynes (Mar 6, 2008)

Captain Marty said:


> If it passes, which it will, myself and the other guides on Sabine are going to get real busy. The draw back is there will be an influx on Galveston and Trinity bay fisherman parking at the causeway and Deep Bayou ramps. Louisiana trout limits will still be 15. Redfish limits will still be 5 and flounder limits will remain 10 in Louisiana.


I disagree. I pray this passes but I do not expect to see any increase or decrease in business related to a decreased limit. The same fishermen will still keep the parking lot full on the LA side of the causeway. In my opinion, if all your customers care about is a meat haul...you've got the wrong customers.


----------



## Salty Dog (Jan 29, 2005)

Capt. Adam Jaynes said:


> In my opinion, if all your customers care about is a meat haul...you've got the wrong customers.


Bingo!


----------



## Shalor96 (Jul 26, 2016)

Several people have referenced the TPWD gillnet survey results. I have searched for these and cannot find them online. I have occasionally seen them in the Texas saltwater fishing magazine. When I get surveyed by TPWD at the boat ramp the biologist will usually tell me what the gill net survey trends look like, but never can tell me where to find this information. Anybody know? Thanks. And to answer the previous question Iâ€™m definitely in the â€œwant a little bit bigger fishâ€ versus being â€œable to keep more fish category.â€ Give Galveston 3 to 4 years of reduced harvest and no catastrophic floodâ€™s, and I think it will be Back to how good it was post Ike... and that was pretty good.


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

If a customer is paying they are the right customer..


----------



## Sgrem (Oct 5, 2005)

.....unless their definition of success is pics of a pile of dead fish for twitbook.

I wont take those customers no matter what they pay. Usually they are unsatisfiable.


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

Jaysand247 said:


> If a customer is paying they are the right customer..


NOPE, you can usually tell in the first 15 minutes what kind of customer they are going to be (similar to poker).


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

KemoSabe said:


> NOPE, you can usually tell in the first 15 minutes what kind of customer they are going to be (similar to poker).


I've delt with a lot of people as a contractor.. some where very opinionated and injected their beliefs every chance they got and some where easy going and nice to work for. But the only ones that where the wrong customers are the ones I had to sue or place a lean on their house to get paid..

I dont know why some of you are so opinionated over a few fish. Kinda like today's politics all emotion and zero facts..


----------



## tngbmt (May 30, 2004)

and if a guide starts and ends a trip with 'that's why they call it fishing and not â€¦ '


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

Shalor96 said:


> Several people have referenced the TPWD gillnet survey results. I have searched for these and cannot find them online. I have occasionally seen them in the Texas saltwater fishing magazine. When I get surveyed by TPWD at the boat ramp the biologist will usually tell me what the gill net survey trends look like, but never can tell me where to find this information. Anybody know? Thanks. And to answer the previous question Iâ€™m definitely in the â€œwant a little bit bigger fishâ€ versus being â€œable to keep more fish category.â€ Give Galveston 3 to 4 years of reduced harvest and no catastrophic floodâ€™s, and I think it will be Back to how good it was post Ike... and that was pretty good.


You have to send TPWD a request for information under the Texas Public Information Act. There is an email address on their website. They'll get you the information in 10 business days. You have to be specific in what you ask for. Feel free to send me a PM and discuss.


----------



## fishawg (Mar 11, 2012)

c hook said:


> i personally feel the guides and croakers have completely destroyed our fishery. you couldn't convince me different in a million years.
> 
> so after TP&W sits ideally by, for years and years of complete blatant destruction of our fishery, the average laymen has to suffer the consequences. life is a b**^h and then you die. no limit or control of guides, it's a shame how politics works :texasflag


I find I strage that people are always blaming others for mother natures cycle. My father was a commercial fisherman for years where we lived on the Sabine River . Iâ€™m not saying that people do not have an impact but nature dictates what the fisheries do. Lack of rain to much rain brown tide alge bloom low oxygen you name it all out of mans comtrol. A 25â€ trout will disperse about 2.5 million fry of those maybe 10,000 grow to an inch . Then of those about .0001 % reach adulthood. All of those 10-13 inches that you touched and released are probably dead . It doesnâ€™t mean you intentionally killed them but when you touch them they get infected and most likely die. Educate yourself and you will realize its out of mans control. Limits are simplify government properganda to control a natural resource. I have fished with hundreds of people and have learned some can fish and some canâ€™t. Those of us that learn behavior and patters are far more successful than those who donâ€™t . They could lower the limit th 2 at 20 inches and most people still will not catch a limit!


----------



## yellowmouth2 (Aug 16, 2005)

Not sure where you are getting your data from, but I found this old thread concerning catch and release of trout.

https://fishwestend.com/forum/threads/14631-Catch-amp-Release-Mortality-of-Speckled-Trout?


----------



## yellowmouth2 (Aug 16, 2005)

Original from AFS
https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M05-181.1


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

yellowmouth2 said:


> Original from AFS
> https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M05-181.1


Interesting.
I guess my first question would be is 11% mortality rate acceptable? If a boat full of people are catching lots of dinks and killing 10% of them is that okay? 
The mid coast has had a very favorable reaction to the limit reduction to 5, obviously some other factors came into play. It would be great to know what all the factors attributing to the upper coast would be, besides pressure.


----------



## POC Fisherman (Jan 14, 2019)

Capt. Adam Jaynes said:


> I disagree. I pray this passes but I do not expect to see any increase or decrease in business related to a decreased limit. The same fishermen will still keep the parking lot full on the LA side of the causeway. In my opinion, if all your customers care about is a meat haul...you've got the wrong customers.


Most individuals that fish with guides are meat haulers. They may only fish once or twice a year. They don't spend fifty thousand dollars on a boat and fifty thousand on a truck to pull it. They have to pay for boat insurance, fishing tackle, or gasoline. But they would like a few meals of fresh fish. That is why there is fishing guides.


----------



## POC Fisherman (Jan 14, 2019)

Salty Dog said:


> Bingo!


Four corners, vertical or horizontal!!


----------



## jethomas (Feb 1, 2019)

Us FL guys have been living with 5 fish limit for years.....we now catch more and bigger trout here ....15 in limit. Who wants to freeze a trout and eat later anyway? I'll take the 5 fish limit....fished in LA and did the 25 per person at 12 in...not exciting. We caught 7 over 22" last week....released and kept our 17" fish to eat.

You'll be happy with the # limit and should go up on length .....just wish we had your redfish numbers


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

So here we are fighting among each other on a outdoor activity we all participate in. 5,10,20 fish limit, does it really matter? We can have the greatest numbers of fish ever imagined. If we don't protect the Habitat and Water, we have nothing. It all starts with the WATER! FYI If you attend the meeting or write a statement stay on point. They don't want to hear about baits,guides ect... Comment only of why you want or don't want the 5 trout limit imposed.


----------



## Capt. Adam Jaynes (Mar 6, 2008)

Jaysand247 said:


> If a customer is paying they are the right customer..


Most definitely not.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

Keep it civil guys and girls. Personal attacks against someone with an opinion will get this thread whacked really quick and the person attacking won't be able to post here anymore.

We all have opinions and whether or not we all agree makes no difference. How we respond does make a difference.

TH


----------



## Stumpgrinder1 (Jul 18, 2016)

Trouthunter said:


> Take pity on the man or woman who judges the success of a fishing trip by the number of fish in the cooler.
> 
> TH


excellent point


----------



## Stumpgrinder1 (Jul 18, 2016)

If you do want a fish fry worthy trip, tell your guide to target multiple species. If all they know how to do is catch speckled trout, they arent a very talented guide. Sheepshead, black puppy drum and redfish may not make for the glory photo that trout do but they danged sure look good on the plate next to some steamed rice and grilled veggies


----------



## POC Fisherman (Jan 14, 2019)

Capt. Adam Jaynes said:


> I disagree. I pray this passes but I do not expect to see any increase or decrease in business related to a decreased limit. The same fishermen will still keep the parking lot full on the LA side of the causeway. In my opinion, if all your customers care about is a meat haul...you've got the wrong customers.


If you are turning down charters because they are meat haulers, I'm sure there are other guides that will take their money!!


----------



## fishawg (Mar 11, 2012)

We all fish for different reasons. I fish for therapy for freedom and for food. My father taught me to respect the environment and what Mother Nature provides. He was a commercial fisherman and a very accomplished one at that. There was never a time that the fishery was impacted by the provisions of Mother Nature. Ive seen people speak of studies from here there and younger. Those stuidies are never done or confirmed by fisherman, they are always done with bias parties. The numbers of people on the water daily do affect the environment but the fish are still here and will be until an act of god destroys the source. We have to change methods and areas all the time to produce. I have personally witnessed countless times of multiple people standing side by side and only one or two people producing because of ability and ability alone. If we tell want to preserve what we have lower the size limit to twelve inches and five fish. Most people chase schools and will work on them for a limit. Thus killing many to achieve a limit. If anyone believes that catch and release is affective on trout (spotted sea trout) you are sadly mistaken and misguided. 

Happy trails to all and the FISHAWG will be chasing and catching


----------



## GooseCommanderozz (Feb 17, 2012)

If TPWD thinks we need a 5 trout limit then by all means letâ€™s do it. Honestly they arenâ€™t the best eating fish out there. Donâ€™t get me wrong, they arenâ€™t bad fresh, but Iâ€™d much rather have redfish or flounder. And before anyone jumps on me, I trout fish 5 times a year if Iâ€™m lucky, and Iâ€™m really lucky if I even catch 5, much less 10. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tngbmt (May 30, 2004)

if tpwd wants a five fish trout limit, then show proof that it is needed.
even before a survey, they must show population decrease for a duration of time.
if they used a survey, it must be representative of the trout fishermen directly affected by the change in policy. take another survey if needed. don't rush into a ruling that will make them look like the nwf and the current snapper policy. roy crabtree looks like a dirty politician who took money from the commercial group. the fishing community wont be pushed into another snapper-like situation quietly.

fyi. I am not against the change if data shows it's warranted.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

The trout limit has been five on the Florida Gulf Coast for at least 22 years, and it hasn't phased anyone, lots of boats out there. However guides in Apalachicola tell me the trout population there has been crushed by sheer numbers of boats. They say it's getting rare for a guided trip to bring in five trout total for the day. Except very early in the season. 

Meanwhile the upper Texas coast has the highest population of people, by far. With a bag limit of 10, it's only a matter of time before they wear down the trout population. Moving the bag limit to five will certainly help.


----------



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

if this is how TP&W manages a fishery ...then everyone holding a salt-water endorsement gets sent a ballot and votes on the topic.... 
low limits will equal high grading..as larger are caught the smaller are released ,dead


to all negative thinkers ....its simple ...Put the Oyster reefs back in Galveston's Bay System as they were only A MERE 100 YEARS AGO and see what happens ....there will be plenty of fish


----------



## tngbmt (May 30, 2004)

Momma's Worry said:


> if this is how TP&W manages a fishery ...then everyone holding a salt-water endorsement gets sent a ballot and votes on the topic....
> low limits will equal high grading..as larger are caught the smaller are released ,dead
> to all negative thinkers ....its simple ...Put the Oyster reefs back in Galveston's Bay System as they were only A MERE 100 YEARS AGO and see what happens ....there will be plenty of fish


ahh the greenie given. tpwd sends junk mail every week to my account, yet they cant send me a survey? ditto on habitat conservation.


----------



## tngbmt (May 30, 2004)

Trouthappy said:


> The trout limit has been five on the Florida Gulf Coast for at least 22 years, and it hasn't phased anyone, lots of boats out there. However guides in Apalachicola tell me the trout population there has been crushed by sheer numbers of boats. They say it's getting rare for a guided trip to bring in five trout total for the day. Except very early in the season.
> 
> Meanwhile the upper Texas coast has the highest population of people, by far. With a bag limit of 10, it's only a matter of time before they wear down the trout population. Moving the bag limit to five will certainly help.


so do you think 2 trouts limit and 17 day season is warranted for florida? (J/k ..don't red me) if texas can't get LA to reciprocate the fish limits (reds, trout, flounder, sheepheads) then reduction will decimate sabine fish population since anyone east of Austin will be fishing sabine. I have a suggestion for LA, if you buy an out of state fishing license and your resident state is not LA, when fishing in LA... you must keep your state's limit (both guides & non-guides) texas game warden can ticket a texas resident even if he has an LA license if the limit exceed texas fish limits


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

tngbmt said:


> so do you think 2 trouts limit and 17 day season is warranted for florida? (J/k ..don't red me) if texas can't get LA to reciprocate the fish limits (reds, trout, flounder, sheepheads) then reduction will decimate sabine fish population since anyone east of Austin will be fishing sabine. I have a suggestion for LA, if you buy an out of state fishing license and your resident state is not LA, when fishing in LA... you must keep your state's limit (both guides & non-guides) texas game warden can ticket a texas resident even if he has an LA license if the limit exceed texas fish limits


Yeah thatâ€™s an idea with tons of merit in the real world:rotfl:
Louisiana limits are what they are because of science and geography with a little politics thrown in for good measure. 
How bout all the Texans fish the Texas side of Sabine ONLY? No crossing the border, no non resident license sold, how would that work? 
This discussion has morphed into an opinion thread void of scientific information.
I did just keep five yesterday afternoon but my Texas buddy kept six because he has a large family to feed.:rotfl:


----------



## ddakota (Jun 28, 2009)

For the record I support the change. 

Iâ€™m 66 yrs old and have fished this coast since I sat on the Surfside Beach in diapers with my dad. 

Itâ€™s time to adjust the limits on the upper coast. 

And for all the talk about LA limits. There is a current movement in LA to reduce the trout limit on Calcasieu Lake and Sabine Lake. 

Recent years science data and creel surveys have shown dramatic declines in the trout population in both systems. 

Biologists and Guides are working together with LWF and a couple of legislators to do something.


----------



## Festivus (Aug 30, 2018)

From my very limited experience I will say that when I was watching Lone Star Law a red snapper charter was coming back and the officers were checking licenses and the boat was LOADED with red snapper. Almost every person caught their limit. I was a little shocked. How can this boat go out full everyday and have all these people catch their limits and this not have an effect on numbers. Again, this is not trout but red snapper but I think the analogy is apt. 

In my opinion most fisherman aren't "good enough" to limit out on high numbers unless they have been at it for a long time or know exactly where to go at the right time. I'm just a land locked novice fisherman that relishes the salt and I'll be happy with literally one legal speck or red. I'm not certain but I'm gonna assume most people don't have access to boats regularly and will fish from shore and anyone who does that regularly realizes how difficult it is to limit from shore on any species at any number. This to me literally seems like a "boat fisherman's" issue if that makes sense. Again, I'm a novice so cut me some slack. 

Quick question: What is the deal with croakers? I keep reading them being mentioned but I obviously don't know what you guys are really talking about. I know croakers are great bait to use but is it such speckled trout candy that you are guaranteed to limit out with them or do they compete with the trout for resources or something else? Thanks. 

Oh yeah, bass is delicious and after I keep hearing about all the shock and disgust about keeping bass I'm keeping legal ones to eat. Sometimes crappy are out deep and I can't get to them but large mouth and white bass come close to shore all the time. haha. Carry on.


----------



## karstopo (Jun 29, 2009)

Make croaker a game fish therefore eliminating them from being used as bait, then that takes some pressure off the trout with so many guides and others using live croaker as trout bait to great effect. That's what the discussion is mostly about in regards to croaker as they relate to trout. 

I don't think TP&W has any plans to make croaker game fish, at least it's not on this upcoming meetings agenda. 

I've never used croaker as bait, but have eaten a few and they are good to eat. 

People get mad about folks eating large trout and Largemouth Bass probably because they themselves would rather catch them and have themselves and others get a shot at catching them again than eating them. And then all those big bass and trout make the most baby fish per fish so taking them out of the system removes some of the prime breeding stock. I catch and release every Largemouth bass I get. But if the law says you can keep some then it's hard to get seriously mad at anyone that does retain their legal catch. 

Maybe if more folks were into the catching fish is fun angle then lowering limits would be an easier sell. Some people just hate any kind of change and that's probably driving at least some of the pushback on lowering trout limits.


----------



## GooseCommanderozz (Feb 17, 2012)

I donâ€™t see why everyone hates on using croaker as trout bait. Some argue that they are â€œtoo effectiveâ€, but couldnâ€™t you make the same argument that gold spoons are too effective on redfish? Food for thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sgrem (Oct 5, 2005)

.....again. More opinion....no science involved.


----------



## Capt. Adam Jaynes (Mar 6, 2008)

POC Fisherman said:


> If you are turning down charters because they are meat haulers, I'm sure there are other guides that will take their money!!


Of course there are. There's several I'm always happy to recommend.


----------



## BBCAT (Feb 2, 2010)

Capt. Adam Jaynes said:


> Of course there are. There's several I'm always happy to recommend.


What do consider a meat haul? A limit of legal trout is far from a meat haul.


----------



## Sgrem (Oct 5, 2005)

How about 6 limits? 

Its more the meat haul mindset of customers. That is usually an unwinnable game with an unsatisfiable customer.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

Momma's Worry said:


> if this is how TP&W manages a fishery ...then everyone holding a salt-water endorsement gets sent a ballot and votes on the topic....
> low limits will equal high grading..as larger are caught the smaller are released ,dead
> 
> to all negative thinkers ....its simple ...Put the Oyster reefs back in Galveston's Bay System as they were only A MERE 100 YEARS AGO and see what happens ....there will be plenty of fish


It all starts with the Water! Out 16 pages of post , you and a couple more get it!


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

capt. david said:


> It all starts with the Water! Out 16 pages of post , you and a couple more get it!


I get it! It wouldn't be hard and cheap to do. Grigar did it with beer cans.


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

Posted this article early in this thread...

"The flow of toxic chemicals from Harvey, however, provides plenty of reason for worry. The Houston Chronicle has reported that 150 million gallons of raw sewage and industrial discharge spilled into communities and waterways as a result of the storm. And about 100 companies, including Valero Energy, ExxonMobil and Arkema, reported spilling chemicals, some of which undoubtedly reached the bay."

"Only water quality received an "A," or "excellent," grade, despite the gallons of toxic sludge that spewed into the waterways during Harvey."

"One of the problems is the lack of monitoring data, both during and after major storms, she said."

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/ne...il-spills-in-Galveston-Bay-Texas-13135619.php


----------



## habanerojooz (Dec 4, 2006)

It seems that most people are 'for' the new limit of 5 on the upper coast.

I tried to create a simple 2-option voting poll: 'For' or 'Against'. Unfortunately, the poll feature of this site isn't working for me. We've captured a lot of opinions and thoughts. I'd like to see how people would vote.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Certainly been a lot of activity on this thread and lots to read and think about. I suggest you start another thread and just ask the folks to respond support or no support. No other comment or opinion.


----------



## habanerojooz (Dec 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Certainly been a lot of activity on this thread and lots to read and think about. I suggest you start another thread and just ask the folks to respond support or no support. No other comment or opinion.


Yes, I tried to create a 'new' thread for just that....a vote. That voting feature is not working at this time, at least not for me.


----------



## Capt. Adam Jaynes (Mar 6, 2008)

BBCAT said:


> What do consider a meat haul? A limit of legal trout is far from a meat haul.


I don't have a quantity that makes me consider a trip a meat haul trip. I agree with how sgrem worded it beneath your post.

Whether I'm guiding or not guiding I'm out there for the experience. I enjoy taking customers that truly enjoy fishing and/or want to learn and enjoy the experience. I encourage only keeping what is needed on my boat and legal. The only "rule" that I impose is no trout over 25" will be kept on my boat unless it is getting mounted.

As for the topic of this thread, I fully support a reduction of the trout limit to 5/day. I also do not believe we will see much of an increase in the number of boats launching on the LA side. Those that care that much about keeping LA limits have already been launching over there and will continue to do so.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

POC Fisherman said:


> Capt. Adam Jaynes said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree. I pray this passes but I do not expect to see any increase or decrease in business related to a decreased limit. The same fishermen will still keep the parking lot full on the LA side of the causeway. In my opinion, if all your customers care about is a meat haul...you've got the wrong customers.
> ...


Lol...most of my customers are mature guys who realize that they can hire a guide 3-4 times a month cheaper than maintaining the equipment I do. They can also go different places and know that they are doing it right when they get there. The majority are also catch and release guys. I do have issue with raising animals for other people to kill however...ref. Sabine Lake.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

You can buy a lot of fish for $500 per day....


----------



## POC Fisherman (Jan 14, 2019)

ltppowell said:


> You can buy a lot of fish for $500 per day....


If a meat hauler goes fishing with a guide twice a year and limits on trout both times, then he has taken home twenty trout, which is enough for his family for a few meals. And that is $1000/yr not $500/day.
Then you have the avid fishermen who fishes twice a month. His average catch is six trout. He keeps only three and releases three smaller trout. The average mortality rate on released fish is 33 percent.
Therefore, the avid fisherman kills four trout a trip. That means he has depleted the trout population by almost one hundred trout per year. (4/trip X 2/month X 12 months)
The difference being is the meat hauler does not have to pay a boat note; boat insurance; maintenance; fishing tackle; boat storage; gasoline; etc.
That adds up to around $6,000/yr.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

My point is that a fishermen can but 100# of fresh jumbo shrimp for the cost of a guided trip. The average customer IS an avid fisherman and doesn't hire a guide "for the meat". Some may keep fish, some may not.


----------



## waterspout (May 21, 2004)

everyone will be glad it's 5 in a few years when they catch better fish. And most can finally limit out on 5 maybe. lol


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

It took 45 years for Louisiana to agree on reciprical limits on The-bend.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

_POC Fisherman says: The average mortality rate on released fish is 33 percent._

Curious whether you can provide a link to the study that concluded this? I would be very interested to read about it. Thanks in advance for digging it up and posting it.


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> _POC Fisherman says: The average mortality rate on released fish is 33 percent._
> 
> Curious whether you can provide a link to the study that concluded this? I would be very interested to read about it. Thanks in advance for digging it up and posting it.


Yeah me too. I've released some to 8lb's and she was sluggish. I think the smaller ones release better but its all in the way you handle them. Boga is the ticket. Try not to touch them is my thoughts.
I've let my share go surely way more than I've kept. There a blast to catch. 
Its worse than crack. LOL!


----------



## Stumpgrinder1 (Jul 18, 2016)

I know one thing. The limit wont change my enjoyment of the hobby. ( and any of us who isnt a full time guide or a commercial is doing this as a hobby ) 

I think it was said best pages ago when someone said words to this effect. If youre judging your success on the water by limits of fish, youre doing it wrong.


----------



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

its a good thing that the public should not be involved in the management of a fishery


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

pickn'fish said:


> Posted this article early in this thread...
> 
> "The flow of toxic chemicals from Harvey, however, provides plenty of reason for worry. The Houston Chronicle has reported that 150 million gallons of raw sewage and industrial discharge spilled into communities and waterways as a result of the storm. And about 100 companies, including Valero Energy, ExxonMobil and Arkema, reported spilling chemicals, some of which undoubtedly reached the bay."
> 
> ...


Not even what I am talking about . It is the amount, too much or lack of fresh water flowing into our bay. Too salty or too fresh is not good!


----------



## POC Fisherman (Jan 14, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> _POC Fisherman says: The average mortality rate on released fish is 33 percent._
> 
> Curious whether you can provide a link to the study that concluded this? I would be very interested to read about it. Thanks in advance for digging it up and posting it.


https://www.seagrantfish.lsu.edu/resources/factsheets/catch_release.htm


----------



## karstopo (Jun 29, 2009)

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M05-181.1

Hereâ€™s another research paper on Speckled trout survival after catch and release.


----------



## Jess2015 (Feb 1, 2019)

I'm so inconsistent with catching specks changing the limit to five is a mercy ruling for a guy like me.:rotfl: That being said, I let them go 99% of the time. I like the idea of them swimming around and getting bigger, especially big ones. It took time and skill for them to get that big which is really cool.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

POC Fisherman - Thank you for posting the release mortality study. Quite different from the study conducted by Drs. Stunz and McKee on spotted seatrout here in Texas. We could opine the disparity in results forever and probably never reach a valid conclusion. Perhaps bass just aren't as hearty as marine fish. I am not qualified to debate that. One thing is certain though, all spotted seatrout placed in box of ice will die. I'll just leave it at that. 
EJ


----------



## Bayscout22 (Aug 9, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> POC Fisherman - Thank you for posting the release mortality study. Quite different from the study conducted by Drs. Stunz and McKee on spotted seatrout here in Texas. We could opine the disparity in results forever and probably never reach a valid conclusion. Perhaps bass just aren't as hearty as marine fish. I am not qualified to debate that. One thing is certain though, all spotted seatrout placed in box of ice will die. I'll just leave it at that.
> EJ


The study on Bass was not exactly exhaustive...

_Two trips were made by four teams, with two anglers per team_

This argument reminds of the time our HOA voted to put speed bumps in our small, gated community. There was initially an uproar. Did they have the authority? What did they base the need on? In two months, it was all forgotten. In two years, most were happy they were there.

In 2 years, I predict most will be happy this happened. In 5 years, people in Galveston will be catching some big *** trout.

That's my opinion only.


----------



## yellowmouth2 (Aug 16, 2005)

I posted this earlier on C&R mortality rates.

https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M05-181.1


----------



## RockportRobert (Dec 29, 2006)

POC Fisherman said:


> https://www.seagrantfish.lsu.edu/resources/factsheets/catch_release.htm


I would think that a study on mortality done in August would have a skew in that the water is so much hotter (thus holding less oxygen) than any other month.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

RockportRobert - I'm pretty sure the Stunz-McKee study was conducted during summer for the reason you mentioned. Either July or August if my memory is good.


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

I was sitting around BSâ€™ing with two of(what I consider) the best guides in my area this afternoon. Both were adamantly for a 5 fish limit. To be honest I was surprised. They both echoed what some of the guides here have said. The last thing they want is a meat haul trip. Both look forward to an improved fishery over time with the new limit. At this point, no matter what some â€œgill net scienceâ€ done once or twice a year says, Iâ€™ll go with these professionals who spend day after day, year after year, on the water.....


----------



## Fishin' Soldier (Dec 25, 2007)

BretE said:


> I was sitting around BSâ€™ing with two of(what I consider) the best guides in my area this afternoon. Both were adamantly for a 5 fish limit. To be honest I was surprised. They both echoed what some of the guides here have said. The last thing they want is a meat haul trip. Both look forward to an improved fishery over time with the new limit. At this point, no matter what some â€œgill net scienceâ€ done once or twice a year says, Iâ€™ll go with these professionals who spend day after day, year after year, on the water.....


No matter what science says. After reading these threads and seeing a lot of discussions it looks like a 70/30 split maybe, Yes vs No. 60/40 at a minimum. I keep seeing the posts of "go voice your opinion" here but it seems to me, the majority wants the change.

Are you guys seeing that as well or am I off?


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

Living on Sabine, the main thing you see is the frustration of Texans by Louisiana limits being three times larger and size being 20% smaller.


----------



## yellowmouth2 (Aug 16, 2005)

Discussing with a guy here at work and he suggested maybe coming up with a one time a year tag to keep 10 trout for folks that may only come to the coast once a year. Sort of like a tag for one over size redfish per year. Not advocating, just throwing it out for discussion. Doesn't even have to be 10, maybe 7-8.


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

The funny thing is when I trout fish I fish the la side. If I go to light house cove it on la side jetties yep la side.. so the limit doesn't matter to me. I doubt Louisiana is gonna match texas on the limit so it's a lost cause on sabine . Other than fishing the levies on pleasure island in the spring all the good fishing is on the East side of the lake..


----------



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

Trouthappy said:


> It was inevitable on the upper coast, dropping the trout limit to 5. Too many meat fishermen. And on the Louisiana border 100 yard away, they're killing 25 trout apiece every chance they get. Especially a certain guide from 2Cool who has no qualms about it. For many anglers, it is mentally impossible for them to release a legal trout.


all the saltwater homies I know here in Liberty County of South-East Texas have an La license and fish for trout there when able .....and they actually eat them ....how strange


----------



## Timemachine (Nov 25, 2008)

Momma's Worry said:


> all the saltwater homies I know here in Liberty County of South-East Texas have an La license and fish for trout there when able .....and they actually eat them ....how strange


Louisiana has a cool law. If you were born there, you can get a fishing license for $5 even if you do not live in the state.


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

Momma's Worry said:


> all the saltwater homies I know here in Liberty County of South-East Texas have an La license and fish for trout there when able .....and they actually eat them ....how strange


Yep and those commenting can't even get the limit right but know so much about what erryone else should do.

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/node/2566


----------



## shadslinger (Aug 21, 2005)

One more "I" statement.

I think the rule should change to 5 a day for guided trips, and stay 10 for recreational fishermen.


Since the guides have noted that customers who are there for a meat haul are a pain in the arse, and they are. 

That should help keep them off the water with a guide who can load the the boat with trout, and limit the number of trout taken. 

A meat hauler who hires a guide is most likely unable to catch 10 on their own, let them eat gaff-topsail catfish, shepshead and whiting.

It would be easy to enforce and make a difference in the trout population.
If that does not halt the decline(?) of trout, make it for all fishermen.
I also think any trout 25"+ should be released.


----------



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

*Trout Wars*

the extremely easy short term near-sighted misguided solution to a perceived or made-up fishery in decline has always been to reduce the harvest down to some arbitrary number taken from thin air ....verses the how can we and what will it take to improve the overall bay fishery's health to increase the bio-mass which is long term and costly IE in this case restoring Oyster Reefs to included all the Galveston Bay System back to what it was before it being dredged almost out of existence over the last 150 years.....what if all of East Bay were leased and farmed for Oysters one day, what do you think the recreational fishing would be like for Spec's....better or worse?

if TP&W wants the public to manage the bag limits then be fair and put it to a vote ...all salt water endorsed tax(State of Texas fishing license) payee's get a ballot mailed to them....vote to change or not to change... if change pick a number between zero and ten ....majority will rule


----------



## Pafdrn (Jul 23, 2017)

I had a conversation with a marine biologist that was in my office a few days ago. This biologist works the Sabine river, Neches River, and Sabine Lake region. Said all the trout for our area are at the short rigs 'cause the salinity is so low; said trout will return when the salinity rises; also held the opinion that the 5 fish limit is a done-deal, and it is from all the guides having influence with CCA and politicians so they can limit out easier and run 2 trips a day. Not my words, just sharing for the conversation.


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

Pafdrn said:


> I had a conversation with a marine biologist that was in my office a few days ago. This biologist works the Sabine river, Neches River, and Sabine Lake region. Said all the trout for our area are at the short rigs 'cause the salinity is so low; said trout will return when the salinity rises; also held the opinion that the 5 fish limit is a done-deal, and it is from all the guides having influence with CCA and politicians so they can limit out easier and run 2 trips a day. Not my words, just sharing for the conversation.


You can run two trips a day every day if you want, what does the limit have to do with it? It's not hard to put 10 fish in the box when they are biting, so easy even a cave man can do it. There aren't many guides on Sabine anymore, maybe 5-6 tops. Of course the 5 fish limit is a done deal, it was a done deal before it was introduced as window dressing. Can't wait to post pics of my 15 fish multiple limits on here to stir up the whiners


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

Pafdrn said:


> I had a conversation with a marine biologist that was in my office a few days ago. This biologist works the Sabine river, Neches River, and Sabine Lake region. Said all the trout for our area are at the short rigs 'cause the salinity is so low; said trout will return when the salinity rises; also held the opinion that the 5 fish limit is a done-deal, and it is from all the guides having influence with CCA and politicians so they can limit out easier and run 2 trips a day. Not my words, just sharing for the conversation.


No doubt a big push for the 5 fish from guides. But telling the CCA and politicians it is to limit out early and run 2 trips a day? I call BS. Would love that marine biologist name and number you talked too.


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

capt. david said:


> No doubt a big push for the 5 fish from guides. But telling the CCA and politicians it is to limit out early and run 2 trips a day? I call BS. Would love that marine biologist name and number you talked too.


When opinions become Fact youâ€™re F***â€™d.:headknock


----------



## RyanW (Jul 17, 2017)

I won’t be commenting on the proposal because I live in Rockport and the upper coast limits don’t concern me, I’ll leave that to those who fish the area. There was a lot of concern when limits were lowered here but 5 is plenty. After a few years everyone was used to it and there are just as many people fishing. The number of people in the state and on the water is steadily increasing and I think these are proactive measures. At some point we as outdoorsman need to learn to enjoy the outdoors and leave the meat haul limit mentality behind. Keeping fish is great and I’m all for it but judging a day on the water by how many you kill is going about it all wrong. If meat per trip is how you judge a day, go to heb, the per pound price is much cheaper.


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

If you guys think CCA is behind this push your wrong....

There are a bunch of guys who work for CCA that even feel this change is being pushed by certain commissioners with TPWD.... those few will get the other commissioners to vote for it as they donâ€™t have a good idea what going on....their districts might be in west Texas or NE TX.....and donâ€™t have a dog in the fight on the coast.

You would think that the DATA provided would help.....but itâ€™s gettign ignored....
- itâ€™s a bummer that we will likely loose the privilege to keep 10 specs

CCA will do what itâ€™s memebers want..... but it Should be telling that the biggest conservative organization with a track record of making statements in regards to things like this has kept quiet......


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Since we all know the outcome has been pre-determined. Regardless of the data.

I wonder how long it will be before the same people who are crying for a five fish limit start crying for a two fish limit?

Two is less than five so obviously it will make sense and the people who are always whining will still be whining.


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

Its Catchy said:


> I wonder how long it will be before the same people who are crying for a ten fish limit start crying for a fifteen fish limit?
> 
> Fifteen is more than ten so obviously it will make sense and the people who are always whining will still be whining.


:biggrin:


----------



## ddakota (Jun 28, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> POC Fisherman - Thank you for posting the release mortality study. Quite different from the study conducted by Drs. Stunz and McKee on spotted seatrout here in Texas. We could opine the disparity in results forever and probably never reach a valid conclusion. Perhaps bass just aren't as hearty as marine fish. I am not qualified to debate that. One thing is certain though, all spotted seatrout placed in box of ice will die. I'll just leave it at that.
> 
> EJ


This is what I know about bass mortality - for over 25 yrs my dad had a 6â€™x4â€™x4â€™ floating rubber mesh fish â€œboxâ€ at his boat house on Toledo Bend. We caught bass all over the lake, put them in the boat livewell and brought them back to the house. We took them from the livewell and tossed them into the fish box. When we wanted a fish fry, pull the box up, grab a few out and feed the family. Those bass lived in that box many times for a week or so, most often being turned loose...... he said he was â€œstocking his Coveâ€.

Mortality was not even measurable. Very few fish died. Only during August when it got hot did it become a problem. We knew it was a problem, so we didnâ€™t use it much during that time. We pulled it out and made repairs, if needed. As soon as the water cooled down a little, back in the lake it went and start using it again.

Gut hooked or gill hooked fish went to the cleaning table because we knew they wouldnâ€™t make it. Lip hooked bass lived....period.

That doesnâ€™t relate to trout but, the trout study showed trout had a very high survivability rate. A lip hooked trout, held by the jig head and shaken off.....is going to survive just fine.

Back in the day, Iâ€™ve tagged trout with a CCA tag, released it and have seen the same trout caught again by someone else in the boat in less than 30 minutes.

I agree, a fish on ice has zero chance of survival. A released fish has much better odds.


----------



## Lone-Star (Dec 19, 2009)

The guides are for it because they know the real solution is a limited entry guide license program similar to all the other commercial licenses.


We all know the mass of weekend warriors, who might limit out once every 10 trips, make nowhere near the impact of the so-called "guides" using croaker, running 2 trips a day and bringing multiple limits to the dock, day in day out.


So I guess we will have to go through the charade of lowering the limit to 5 fish, and then when the problem continues they will finally get around to putting the guide licenses on a limited entry program, just like everyone else.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

BretE said:


> I was sitting around BSâ€™ing with two of(what I consider) the best guides in my area this afternoon. Both were adamantly for a 5 fish limit. To be honest I was surprised. They both echoed what some of the guides here have said. The last thing they want is a meat haul trip. Both look forward to an improved fishery over time with the new limit. At this point, no matter what some â€œgill net scienceâ€ done once or twice a year says, Iâ€™ll go with these professionals who spend day after day, year after year, on the water.....


We don't need none of dat "gill net science" stuff. I think we should turn over the management of our fishery to the guides. They spend day after day year after year on the water. They have our best interest at heart...

Not those so called edumacated biologists.


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

Its Catchy said:


> We don't need none of dat "gill net science" stuff. I think we should turn over the management of our fishery to the guides. They spend day after day year after year on the water. They have our best interest at heart...
> 
> Not those so called edumacated biologists.


Lol....exactly.....:biggrin:


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

Do you guys really think a guide with a couple of people who hold a spinning reel upside down outfishes the average recreational anglers? Or that the typical customer, visiting from New Hampshire, wants to keep a bunch of fish? Some of you are just plain ignorant.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

It doesn't matter how you hold a rod, when you're soaking a live croaker. That isn't a big problem on Sabine Lake, but further down the coast, it is. At Clark's bait shop in POC last summer, they told me they'd sold 800 dozen croaker that weekend. That's $6,400 dollars. No wonder they keep that tiny bait stand open, even if the docks are falling apart. I've never heard of a tourist from way up north fishing the Texas coast during summer, they've all been from small Texas towns or cities like Houston, San Antone and Austin.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Trouthappy said:


> It doesn't matter how you hold a rod, when you're soaking a live croaker. That isn't a big problem on Sabine Lake, but further down the coast, it is. At Clark's bait shop in POC last summer, they told me they'd sold 800 dozen croaker that weekend. That's $6,400 dollars. No wonder they keep that tiny bait stand open, even if the docks are falling apart. I've never heard of a tourist from way up north fishing the Texas coast during summer, they've all been from small Texas towns or cities like Houston, San Antone and Austin.


That is a great story. The shrimper made money on the croaker, Clark's bait shop made money, the guides made money, taxes were paid, light bills, gas, outboard motors were paid for the list goes on and on. It's free market capitalism at it's finest.

Some people don't like that and would prefer a system where everybody works for the government and gets a check every two weeks. Which is fine until there is a shutdown or the government runs out of other peoples money...


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

And every one of those fishermen bought a fishing license.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

Let's see, that's 9,600 croakers from one marina on one weekend. Everyone was happy, but the trout. That's one reason they finally had to go to a five fish limit. The trout got pretty lean around POC a few years ago. They're back now.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Trouthappy don't hate America.

I forgot cornmeal sales to bread all of those tasty trout and cooking oil sales to fry them up. Hotel rooms for happy guide customers, beer sales and restaurant receipts...

We need more bait camps, restaurant's and tackle shops and less needless regulation not backed by science.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

Harvey must have been your first storm.


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

Guys I know itâ€™s easy to point fingers at croaker fishing and too many guides as the reason we are here..... but neither of those are proposed changes nor does TPWD care about those two issues while this PROPOSAL is on the fore front.

I saw how the snapper debates spiraled down but we should feel good about having the forum to discuss this and keeping on topic with out the attacks.

I feel like if we keep on with some of the above post this Thread will get locked and keeping some good info and views muted, when in fact, its this THREAD that will help some make up their mind on the ACTUAL topic.

Trying to write this post without my personal feelings has me changing my words some.

But you all get my point.


----------



## Stumpgrinder1 (Jul 18, 2016)

Lets take the limit to 3 . The less people on the water the happier I get .


----------



## Sabinekid09 (Feb 28, 2017)

Here’s some science for ya, it’s helped tremendously down south and it’s gonna help here too. You’re gonna see a little uptick in LA licenses being purchased but I promise not near what you think. 

I’m 100% behind anything that improves everyone’s fishery.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

So when you say it has helped, does that equate to the average angler going out with three of his buddies and coming back with 20 trout in a relative short time?


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

Muddskipper said:


> Guys I know itâ€™s easy to point fingers at croaker fishing and too many guides as the reason we are here..... but neither of those are proposed changes nor does TPWD care about those two issues while this PROPOSAL is on the fore front.
> 
> I saw how the snapper debates spiraled down but we should feel good about having the forum to discuss this and keeping on topic with out the attacks.
> 
> ...


Spot on!


----------



## habanerojooz (Dec 4, 2006)

It seems that most have expressed their views on the subject and the opinions have been aired. 

Letâ€™s presume for a moment that this passes and comment on the following...

1. Does the reduction change the way you fish? Will you do anything differently?
2. For the JKF promoters out there, would you adjust your motto to...JK2?


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

Muddskipper said:


> CCA will do what itâ€™s memebers want..... but it Should be telling that the biggest conservative organization with a track record of making statements in regards to things like this has kept quiet......


CCA came out in support of the reduction in the upper coast limit late last month or earlier this month.

https://ccatexas.org/cca-texas-supp...universal-five-fish-speckled-trout-bag-limit/


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

irbjd said:


> CCA came out in support of the reduction in the upper coast limit late last month or earlier this month.
> 
> https://ccatexas.org/cca-texas-supp...universal-five-fish-speckled-trout-bag-limit/


Looks like CCA made their decision.... Iâ€™m not not happy with their decision but they have their reasoning.....

With the biggest conservative organization putting their weight behind it, I think we all can agree itâ€™s likely going to change....


----------



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

why 5? ....why not two ..think of how great the fishery will be then ..some think that's plenty and two Spec's under 20" can be considered a meat haul at that ....


----------



## tngbmt (May 30, 2004)

i'll support the 2 spec under 20" limit


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

JK2


----------



## Bayscout22 (Aug 9, 2007)

Its Catchy said:


> That is a great story. The shrimper made money on the croaker, Clark's bait shop made money, the guides made money, taxes were paid, light bills, gas, outboard motors were paid for the list goes on and on. It's free market capitalism at it's finest.
> 
> Some people don't like that and would prefer a system where everybody works for the government and gets a check every two weeks. Which is fine until there is a shutdown or the government runs out of other peoples money...


Hate to break this to you but... not all of free market capitalism rests on the unlimited availability of one finite resource. If you as a free market capitalist - made the decision to start a business that does rest on one finite resource - you win some, you lose some. *That's free market capitalism*. A guy that runs a bait shop in POC (or maybe is a commercial fisherman/oysterman) is probably going to have a somewhat biased view on the topic at hand.

PS...Before you go there, I'm a free market capitalist. I haven't worked at a business I didn't start in almost 30 years.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

As a professional (fisherman), I understand the resentment that some people have toward me. I don't understand the resentment toward the people that hire me. They buy their fishing license just like you do and deserve to catch fish and keep them if they want.


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

ltppowell said:


> As a professional (fisherman), I understand the resentment that some people have toward me. I don't understand the resentment toward the people that hire me. They buy their fishing license just like you do and deserve to catch fish and keep them if they want.


ENVY


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Bayscout22 said:


> Hate to break this to you but... not all of free market capitalism rests on the unlimited availability of one finite resource. If you as a free market capitalist - made the decision to start a business that does rest on one finite resource - you win some, you lose some. *That's free market capitalism*. A guy that runs a bait shop in POC (or maybe is a commercial fisherman/oysterman) is probably going to have a somewhat biased view on the topic at hand.
> 
> PS...Before you go there, I'm a free market capitalist. I haven't worked at a business I didn't start in almost 30 years.


I don't have a problem with conservation of a finite resource. If it is based on science. Not so much when it is based on public opinion. Spring gill net surveys resulted in some of the highest catch rates (if not the highest) ever recorded in over thirty years of sampling for the Galveston Bay complex.

And I am not overly concerned with a five fish limit. But I am overly concerned with where the limits go from here. Before any regulation is even proposed it should be: Needed and effective.

I certainly never want to give up my right to hunt or fish if it is not warranted. I will use the snapper fishery as a perfect example of regulators and public opinion gone wild. I do not want to repeat that fiasco for our inland fisheries.


----------



## tngbmt (May 30, 2004)

2 fish and an 11 day season .. benefiting the snapper lords.
history lesson unlearned.


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

Its Catchy said:


> I don't have a problem with conservation of a finite resource. If it is based on science. Not so much when it is based on public opinion. Spring gill net surveys resulted in some of the highest catch rates (if not the highest) ever recorded in over thirty years of sampling for the Galveston Bay complex.
> 
> And I am not overly concerned with a five fish limit. But I am overly concerned with where the limits go from here. Before any regulation is even proposed it should be: Needed and effective.
> 
> I certainly never want to give up my right to hunt or fish if it is not warranted. I will use the snapper fishery as a perfect example of regulators and public opinion gone wild. I do not want to repeat that fiasco for our inland fisheries.


Where did you get Spring 2018 gill net data? I know this, the biomass caught in 2017 was the lowest it had been in years.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

irbjd said:


> Where did you get Spring 2018 gill net data? I know this, the biomass caught in 2017 was the lowest it had been in years.


Nope, The spring gill net data was the highest in 40 years!

"Speckled trout and redfish populations in Texasâ€™ upper-coast bay systems this autumn continue to hold generally strong and stable, with relative abundance of the stateâ€™s most popular and economically valuable inshore sport fish at or near 40-plus-year record levels in Galveston Bay and the Matagorda Bay systems."

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sp...tems-shows-most-fish-species-are-13413260.php


----------



## karstopo (Jun 29, 2009)

Right, data looks good. Itâ€™s not like the numbers are bad and something has to be changed. The system is healthy. Why change anything? 

Whatâ€™s wrong with having some insurance? Whatâ€™s wrong with getting ahead of a potential problem instead of reacting to it after the fact? 

Either way, 10 or 5, there are still going to be tens of thousands or more of people, more every year, coming to the water to spend their cash on bait, boats, guides, lodging, restaurants and gear. Businesses will continue to thrive or not like they have always done along the coast. Texas is gaining people faster than just about any other spot in the country. More people using the resource, more pressure on the fish. There is no way out of that. Why wait until the gill net survey numbers look grim and then TP&W has to find a more drastic way to restore and protect a resource in trouble? Anything can happen, a big freeze, red tides, droughts. 

How about TP&W stays ahead of the curve instead of trying to play catch up later? Just an idea. I like having some savings and a margin of safety in my own life for unforeseen events. No doubt there will be more people on the water and more people fishing going into the future. That is something we can certainly account for. It just seems smart to stay ahead of that. Why are wild resources not the same as a family facing a greater expense looking forward? Should not any family make adjustments to their budget? Shouldnâ€™t TP&W make adjustments to the trout budget? Why play it closer to the edge and risk an imbalance of accounts? We can all set aside a little capital, in this case trout, for future probabilities and eventualities.


----------



## PRIMETIME PLUGGER (Apr 23, 2018)

karstopo said:


> Right, data looks good. Itâ€™s not like the numbers are bad and something has to be changed. The system is healthy. Why change anything?
> 
> Whatâ€™s wrong with having some insurance? Whatâ€™s wrong with getting ahead of a potential problem instead of reacting to it after the fact?
> 
> ...


Some folks just get it, some don't this horse will be beat to death and they still wont get it. I'm over it.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

karstopo said:


> Right, data looks good. Itâ€™s not like the numbers are bad and something has to be changed. The system is healthy. Why change anything?
> 
> Whatâ€™s wrong with having some insurance? Whatâ€™s wrong with getting ahead of a potential problem instead of reacting to it after the fact?
> 
> ...


We have beat this to death and the die was probably cast before they even asked for public comment. The new limit will be five. I just have a problem limiting access to a public resource without data to support the move. Trout populations are strong and going in the right direction. Reaching 40 year highs.

While the population in Texas is growing, fewer of our kids are getting into hunting and fishing. And for those of us who like to eat what we catch changes to bag limits that are not warranted by hard data are hard to swallow. The snapper fiasco is still too fresh in our minds.

I don't think anyone is going to change their minds because of comments on a public fishing forum. So I am going to quit beating this dead horse and wait for the JK2 crowd to fire up their battle cries.

Were getting very, very close to zero...


----------



## karstopo (Jun 29, 2009)

The snapper thing is a federal government deal, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and if anything the various states affected have been mostly battling against the feds on this. Dropping it to five for trout gets gets the Upper Coast in line with the rest of the state. Most of the folks from the mid and lower coasts are positive about the move to 5 in their area. 

I havenâ€™t seen one person, not one, seriously advocate for just keep 2 so I think thatâ€™s just a ploy to scare folks.


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

How many people keep 10? I agree the man with the big family should be able to keep a limit of 10 for eating. I rarely keep more than 4 for a mess but do not want to give up the right to keep 10 if I need them.



Once you give up 10 you will never see it back again is my problem.


Redfish are back and you have not seen them change the redfish limits to say 5 fish

18- -25?. 



The only area on the water that is sucking is Sabine Lake since the freeze a year ago. Gill net survey sucks and people can still catch fresh water bass and catfish in the lake. 



I am afraid it will pass.


----------



## BluewaterBandido (Oct 24, 2012)

karstopo said:


> The snapper thing is a federal government deal, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and if anything the various states affected have been mostly battling against the feds on this. Dropping it to five for trout gets gets the Upper Coast in line with the rest of the state. Most of the folks from the mid and lower coasts are positive about the move to 5 in their area.
> 
> I haven't seen one person, not one, seriously advocate for just keep 2 so I think that's just a ploy to scare folks.


For "opinion" there are as many people that dont like the 5 fish regulations on the middle and lower coast as there is that are positive about it.

If the data says the fishery is in as good as shape as nearly ever, and we all are for reducing the limit to 5 now... what happens when there is a huge fish kill, years of drought , etc , etc. That's a big can of worms to open.

I'm pretty certain years ago before this super CCA/TPW conservation movement came about no one had ever thought about "just keep 5" either.

If I really thought this were about conservation and saving the fishery for future generations I'd be all for it. But data says otherwise, and I feel it's more along the lines of "now everyone will have a better chance to catch fish". In which the same people will be ******* and moaning then as well.

The truth is no one knows what the future holds for our recreational fishery and the constant variables mother nature throws at us.


----------



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

*Trout Wars*

looks like TP&W will not put this hot topic to a public tax payer vote(salt endorsement) with a majority rule ......let me guess why

tens of thousands of up coming anglers? do salt-water coastal equipment sales reflect this?....the kids around me have no interest in the subject


----------



## karstopo (Jun 29, 2009)

https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/licenseinfo/fishing.htm

Fishing license sales in Texas going up year after year.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> Were getting very, very close to zero...


 Really dude? LOL...geeze, grab your tin foil hat.

For those of you harping about never getting anything back and using redfish as an example...read the entire thread. We've been asked three times that I am aware of if we wanted to raise the limit on redfish and the people have said no, leave it like it is.

Try not to mix fantasy with reality when discussing issues like this. There is enough division in the ranks as it is. All I can say is that the 5 trout limit has helped the lower and middle coast and that's a simple fact.

TH


----------



## habanerojooz (Dec 4, 2006)

Some of us are old enough to remember the popular saying from back in the day.... "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Goto the meeting. There will be data. But just like the sun sets each day, I predict that there will also be disagreements voiced over the data itself. I hope it doesn't spiral into circular discussions over irrelevant points or off-topic subjects. People may not like to be told what to do, but the meeting facilitator has a job to do and needs to own the meeting. 

I've never been to a TPWD meeting where they discussed proposed changes with the public. I may attend this one out of curiosity. I expect there will be a handful of passionate people expressing their opinions and views. This might be interesting.


----------



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

*Trout Wars*

where are the TP&W coastal lenience(salt) holder by year totals ?


----------



## tngbmt (May 30, 2004)

karstopo said:


> https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/licenseinfo/fishing.htm
> 
> Fishing license sales in Texas going up year after year.


2014 1.64M
2015 1.67M
2016 1.71M
2018 1.83M

up 200,00 in 4 years maybe those are just the illegal immigrants getting naturalized. I really don't care about 5 or 10 trout limit. I just don't like thing being ram down the pipes because a few privileged people have access to politicians or law makers


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

Its Catchy said:


> Nope, The spring gill net data was the highest in 40 years!
> 
> "Speckled trout and redfish populations in Texasâ€™ upper-coast bay systems this autumn continue to hold generally strong and stable, with relative abundance of the stateâ€™s most popular and economically valuable inshore sport fish at or near 40-plus-year record levels in Galveston Bay and the Matagorda Bay systems."
> 
> https://www.houstonchronicle.com/sp...tems-shows-most-fish-species-are-13413260.php


TPWD has not made available (that I am aware of) the 2018 gill net data. I've attached a graph for 2000-2017 showing gill net data and the biomass data. Spring gill net was down in 2016 and 2017. Biomass was the lowest it had been since before 2000 (I don't have data from before then).


----------



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

We've been asked three times that I am aware of if we wanted to raise the limit on redfish and the people have said no, leave it like it is...



as a tax payer (salt endorsement ) I was not asked nor informed by TP&W of any bag limit increase on Red Drum.....
seams I am under the misconception that state management is tasked with setting bag through science as to TAC and adjusting it up or down annually as needed...with out outside influence or interference......


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

irbjd said:


> TPWD has not made available (that I am aware of) the 2018 gill net data. I've attached a graph for 2000-2017 showing gill net data and the biomass data. Spring gill net was down in 2016 and 2017. Biomass was the lowest it had been since before 2000 (I don't have data from before then).


The data was cited by Shannon Tompkins and confirmed by TPWD in the link provided. 2018 had the highest number of trout in 40+ years of keeping data. And if you look in the graph that you provided the overall trend is up since 1984 on the spring gill net surveys.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Trouthunter said:


> Really dude? LOL...geeze, grab your tin foil hat.
> 
> For those of you harping about never getting anything back and using redfish as an example...read the entire thread. We've been asked three times that I am aware of if we wanted to raise the limit on redfish and the people have said no, leave it like it is.
> 
> ...


Trouthunter, was it fantasy when we had an 11 day two fish snapper season? It's not fantasy if it has happened before, it's called reality. It can happen on the state level as well.

Public opinion is easily swayed so straying from the science is a slippery slope.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

Texas Parks and Wildlife has never done anything like federal fishery management. Try not to confuse reality with fantasy. :wink:


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

Its Catchy said:


> Trouthunter, was it fantasy when we had an 11 day two fish snapper season? It's not fantasy if it has happened before, it's called reality. It can happen on the state level as well.
> 
> Public opinion is easily swayed so straying from the science is a slippery slope.


So once a limit goes down, it actually has come back up again?....


----------



## bmc4041 (Apr 12, 2006)

BretE said:


> So once a limit goes down, it actually has come back up again?....


Occasionally but I wouldnâ€™t count on it.

Common sense would argue there are more and more fisherman every year and the pie is still the same size. Granted that pie goes up and down based the health of the resource that can be affected by all kinds of things but over the long term itâ€™s relatively the same size pie.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

How many acres of new coastal aquatic habitat are being created?
None....Versus a fast-growing population of Texas coastal residents. 
Better to be proactive and cut the trout bag limit now. Instead of being
reactive, like TP&W did with the failing flounder population several years 
ago.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

If you go by license sales number to say that more people are fishing the bays, that is laughable.


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

Its Catchy said:


> The data was cited by Shannon Tompkins and confirmed by TPWD in the link provided. 2018 had the highest number of trout in 40+ years of keeping data. And if you look in the graph that you provided the overall trend is up since 1984 on the spring gill net surveys.


I grabbed that from a different set of data and didn't realize it went back to 1984. Regardless of how big a data set, the trend is down since 2001.

Regardless of the data, I always find these discussions somewhat amusing because nobody ever talks about TPWD's consumption advisory for the Galveston Bay complex - no more than one 8 ounce meal per month of spotted sea trout for healthy individuals and none for children or women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

BretE said:


> So once a limit goes down, it actually has come back up again?....


Not on the state level.


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

Its Catchy said:


> Not on the state level.


TPWD Increases King Mackerel Recreational Bag Limit

AUSTIN â€"The king mackerel recreational bag limit increases from two to three fish per person, per day on Friday, March 16, 2018. In January, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopted a temporary exception that increases the daily bag limit of king mackerel from two to three fish in state water. This exception is effective until Aug. 31, 2018 at which time a new statewide regulation currently under review may also increase the daily bag limit from two to three fish.


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

It's not being managed based on public opinion.


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

irbjd said:


> It's not being managed based on public opinion.


In this case it is

And not everyoneâ€™s opinion....itâ€™s the small sub set of zip codes on the upper coast TPWD decided to poll....


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

Muddskipper said:


> irbjd said:
> 
> 
> > It's not being managed based on public opinion.
> ...


Right. The limit doesn't bother me...the "science" does. The arrogance of some people is numbing. These are the same people who believe dinosaurs would still be around if cows hadn't started farting.


----------



## smithpointangler (Apr 30, 2010)

*5 trout limit*

Depletion due to meat hauling guides destroying their own resource. Lack of
passing on the need for conservation to their clients. Let's face it. Most 
find'em yourself anglers are rarely able to put ten in the box. I eat what I 
catch and put back the big-uns. Something we all need to adhere to if we
wish to continue to enjoy our passion for fishing. JMO


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

smithpointangler said:


> Depletion due to meat hauling guides destroying their own resource. Lack of
> passing on the need for conservation to their clients. Let's face it. Most
> find'em yourself anglers are rarely able to put ten in the box. I eat what I
> catch and put back the big-uns. Something we all need to adhere to if we
> wish to continue to enjoy our passion for fishing. JMO


Didn't this conversation begin with people being mad at fishing guides because the majority of them supported a lower limit in the name of conservation?


----------



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

*Trout Wars*

Here is what the limit should be.. straight from TP&W.....(1) 15" trout per person per month ......

Spotted Seatrout ..... adults should limit consumption to no more than one, 8-ounce meal per month


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

smithpointangler said:


> Depletion due to meat hauling guides destroying their own resource. Lack of
> passing on the need for conservation to their clients. Let's face it. Most
> find'em yourself anglers are rarely able to put ten in the box. I eat what I
> catch and put back the big-uns. Something we all need to adhere to if we
> wish to continue to enjoy our passion for fishing. JMO


What depletion? This whole idea of managing based on opinion is ridiculous.

We had a couple years of record flooding that have hurt the fishery. According to the experts we are doing just fie number wise.



> â€œThereâ€™s no shortage of trout in either bay system,â€ Fisher said.
> 
> This past springâ€™s gill net survey saw the highest catch rate of speckled trout since the survey was standardized, Glen Sutton, Galveston Bay ecosystem leader for TPWDâ€™s coastal fisheries division, said. That abundance dropped a bit during the fall survey but was higher than the 2017 fall count.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

smithpointangler said:


> Depletion due to meat hauling guides destroying their own resource. Lack of
> passing on the need for conservation to their clients. Let's face it. Most
> find'em yourself anglers are rarely able to put ten in the box. I eat what I
> catch and put back the big-uns. Something we all need to adhere to if we
> wish to continue to enjoy our passion for fishing. JMO


Is this Opinion or Fact? Please enlighten us with the facts about guides running meat hauls to intentionally destroy their lively hood. Which guides do you personally know that don't practice normal conservation methods? How many ten fish limits have you ever caught? You sound like a find'em yourself angler that has plenty of opinions and few facts.
I personally won't cut a trout past 4# and most of the guys i fish with feel the same. Made my guys release two reds yesterday that would have been legal but they were there to catch and we had enough in the box already. Broad brushes create more mess.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

KemoSabe said:


> smithpointangler said:
> 
> 
> > Depletion due to meat hauling guides destroying their own resource. Lack of
> ...


What?All you're catching is reds? There are a couple of guys on the Sabine Lake page that have been catching limits of 10# trout every day! Bwahahaha


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

BretE said:


> TPWD Increases King Mackerel Recreational Bag Limit
> 
> AUSTIN â€"The king mackerel recreational bag limit increases from two to three fish per person, per day on Friday, March 16, 2018. In January, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopted a temporary exception that increases the daily bag limit of king mackerel from two to three fish in state water. This exception is effective until Aug. 31, 2018 at which time a new statewide regulation currently under review may also increase the daily bag limit from two to three fish.


Blacken a king mackeral and then lets talk...LOL


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

Haute Pursuit said:


> Blacken a king mackeral and then lets talk...LOL


Hey, you donâ€™t know how lucky I was to stumble across that.....:rotfl:


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

Trouthunter said:


> Really dude? LOL...geeze, grab your tin foil hat.
> 
> For those of you harping about never getting anything back and using redfish as an example...read the entire thread. We've been asked three times that I am aware of if we wanted to raise the limit on redfish and the people have said no, leave it like it is.
> 
> ...


Well if we are going from 10 to 5, I would say that we are half way to 0. :biggrin:


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

If overfishing and excessive limits are the problem, why is there a fish left in Louisiana?


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

ltppowell said:


> If overfishing and excessive limits are the problem, why is there a fish left in Louisiana?


You are comparing apples to watermelons in trying to compare Texas to Louisiana. There is so much more estuary in Louisiana. Completely different.


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

ltppowell said:


> If overfishing and excessive limits are the problem, why is there a fish left in Louisiana?


We JK2, been doing it for years:rotfl:
TPWD Commission is breaking a big one off in you boys, enjoy the secs.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

Meh...limit doesn't matter to me. I just don't like listening to pompous idiots make up fake "facts" to fuel their personal agendas. Five fish...two fish ..whatever. Did we increase the upper coast limits in 2006- 2009 (Post Rita/Humberto/Ike) when the fishing was so spectacular? 

Why not?


----------

