# TPWD survey



## rubberducky (Mar 19, 2010)

Did anyone else get a trout survey In the mail? Looks like they my be considering lowering the limit from 10 to 5 on the upper coast. 

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk


----------



## AFORWW (May 2, 2018)

Not I, but in my recent reading it might be warranted. Just looking at the reduction in larger trout from SPI on up and less keepers as well, it might be beneficial to hold folks back a bit. At least down here in the Corpus area I'm seeing lots and lots of trout pulled in from the various people, guide services, etc. Seems from talking to folks the big catches keep getting smaller. I know they are plentiful but sure seems people are taking em faster than they are reaching maturity.


rubberducky said:


> Did anyone else get a trout survey In the mail? Looks like they my be considering lowering the limit from 10 to 5 on the upper coast.
> 
> Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## Texun4 (Jun 13, 2017)

Yes I got it.


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

No I didn't. This is becoming insane. If anything they need to raise the limits on the upper coast and lower the length. It needs to be 25 trout, 12" minimum, and do away with the stupid 25" rule. They need to change redfish too, 10 per day, with a 16" to 30" slot.


----------



## SaltwaterSlick (Jun 11, 2012)

sharkchum said:


> No I didn't. This is becoming insane. If anything they need to raise the limits on the upper coast and lower the length. It needs to be 25 trout, 12" minimum, and do away with the stupid 25" rule. They need to change redfish too, 10 per day, with a 16" to 30" slot.


...ain't never gonna happen... too politically incorrect, but I 100% agree with you.

Do most of my fishing East of the Sabine now. Plenty of trout/reds generous limits, can bow fish them, etc... I'm sorry, I just don't buy the CCA and BASS story line and our TPWD Commission is absolutely in the tank for them... Same with the Alligator Gar regs... When they were being considered, I went to all the meetings, spoke, provided data, etc... Many others did as well... Regulations set solely on emotional/financial benefit to the few rather than science. Zero confidence in TPWD Commission. It's just a glorified PAC only with law-making/regulations power. That is very dangerous.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> Not I, but in my recent reading it might be warranted. Just looking at the reduction in larger trout from SPI on up and less keepers as well, it might be beneficial to hold folks back a bit. At least down here in the Corpus area I'm seeing lots and lots of trout pulled in from the various people, guide services, etc.


If I misread your statement I apologize. The limit has been 5 trout per angler from SPI to Sargent for a good while and it has helped the fishery in the lower Laguna.

I do not know how the fishery is from Sargent to Sabine Pass but with the number of people out catching them I can't see how it would hurt.

It has not hurt us at all.



> They need to change redfish too, 10 per day, with a 16" to 30" slot. and do away with the stupid 25" rule.


They've tried raising the bag limit on reds on three different occasions that I know of and the public turned them down.

I agree with getting rid of the 25" rule. Instead make it so you can't keep a trout over 24".

TH


----------



## AFORWW (May 2, 2018)

I'd be interested in seeing your data that indicates the consideration is unjustified.


SaltwaterSlick said:


> ...ain't never gonna happen... too politically incorrect, but I 100% agree with you.
> 
> Do most of my fishing East of the Sabine now. Plenty of trout/reds generous limits, can bow fish them, etc... I'm sorry, I just don't buy the CCA and BASS story line and our TPWD Commission is absolutely in the tank for them... Same with the Alligator Gar regs... When they were being considered, I went to all the meetings, spoke, provided data, etc... Many others did as well... Regulations set solely on emotional/financial benefit to the few rather than science. Zero confidence in TPWD Commission. It's just a glorified PAC only with law-making/regulations power. That is very dangerous.


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## AFORWW (May 2, 2018)

No you read it correctly. I probably should clarified. I only know what I see and hear from anglers. I'm not a trout guy. I don't eat em and unless it's light tackle don't enjoy catching em.

What I understand is numbers are high with our limit but the numbers of large fish are falling. I don't know this to be true but rough statistics based on observed catches crudely supports it.

Now, the other thing I'm not familiar with is spawning habits of these fish. Maybe the reduction of the area will help overall? I just don't know. I never stated my opinion as a matter of fact just observations. I'm always up for new knowledge so hit me with some opposing views and hard facts bud. Lol


Trouthunter said:


> If I misread your statement I apologize. The limit has been 5 trout per angler from SPI to Sargent for a good while and it has helped the fishery in the lower Laguna.
> 
> I do not know how the fishery is from Sargent to Sabine Pass but with the number of people out catching them I can't see how it would hurt.
> 
> ...


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jt89 (Sep 25, 2013)

I 100 percent agree with us in Galveston going to a 5 limit I think they need to raise the limit on reds to 5 also. Or at least change it to 5 trout limit on a guides boat. U get a guide with a full boat at 10 per person itâ€™ll add up quick 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> so hit me with some opposing views and hard facts bud. Lol


I don't have an opposing view lol. I'm okay with the 5 trout per person per day because I've seen it improve a fishery.

TH


----------



## El General (Jun 18, 2007)

It seems there are a bunch of threads/posts regarding how there seem to be more and more anglers on the water. There are technological advances that are making fisherman more and more effective every year. Estuary habitat is in decline everywhere. Freshwater inflow to bays is only decreasing as more and more users take water out up stream.

More people fishing, less nursery habitat, less freshwater. 

I can't find recent gill net surveys. The most recent I have are from the trout scoping meetings from 2014. But, I doubt the data is vastly different. It shows that trout numbers are on a general increase over 30 years or so of data and trout size are on a general decrease over 30 years or so of data for the Upper Coast.

In wildlife management, it is a whole lot easier to keep what you have than it is to get back what is gone. If I was a fisheries manager looking at ever increasing fishing pressure on top of ever decreasing estuary habitat, I'd have to think about decreasing bag limits as one option to keep trout numbers from declining in the future.

It is really unlikely that they can do anything to decrease fishing pressure. There are programs for habitat restoration, but it is very slow and dollar intensive. Freshwater is a growing problem that TPWD has no jurisdiction over. 

So, fishing managers really only have one tool to manage speckled trout and that is size and bag limits.


----------



## Texun4 (Jun 13, 2017)

I am not opposed to the limit on Specs moving to 5 as I only ever keep enough to cook for that night any ways (2-3) and I tend to only keep the good eaters (15"-18"). I love catching big fish taking a few pics and letting them go. If moving to 5 would increase the # of larger trout in our fishery that would be great!! (notice I said "if" I am not in the know with all the statics on this) 

I am really interested in how guides feel about this?............ Maybe some will chime in.


----------



## El General (Jun 18, 2007)

Texun4 said:


> I am not opposed to the limit on Specs moving to 5 as I only ever keep enough to cook for that night any ways (2-3) and I tend to only keep the good eaters (15"-18"). I love catching big fish taking a few pics and letting them go. If moving to 5 would increase the # of larger trout in our fishery that would be great!! (notice I said "if" I am not in the know with all the statics on this)
> 
> I am really interested in how guides feel about this?............ Maybe some will chime in.


Guides are generally overwhelmingly in favor of anything that gets them to a limit quicker.


----------



## capt2016 (Mar 4, 2016)

ShoalTower said:


> I 100 percent agree with us in Galveston going to a 5 limit I think they need to raise the limit on reds to 5 also. Or at least change it to 5 trout limit on a guides boat. U get a guide with a full boat at 10 per person it'll add up
> 
> I agree make it 5 trout heck make it slot 16 to 22in, give us 2 extra reds, make flounder 3 year round split tha difference on all of it still gives every fisherman plenty to take home and maybe some ppl will target different fish, trout, reds, and flounder aren't tha only edible fish in tha system


----------



## Salty Dog (Jan 29, 2005)

AFORWW said:


> Now, the other thing I'm not familiar with is spawning habits of these fish. Maybe the reduction of the area will help overall? I just don't know. I never stated my opinion as a matter of fact just observations. I'm always up for new knowledge so hit me with some opposing views and hard facts bud. Lol
> 
> Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


Just as an FYi... trout start spawning at about 12" long. That is the reason we have a 15" minimum. It gives them a year of protection after reaching sexual maturity before they can be harvested. The reason it isn't higher than 15" is because male trout don't grow as big as females and if you increase the minimum size too much you won't have an even harvest of males and females, you'll end up harvesting more females. Trout spawn multiple times per year. In the trout population the bulk of the spawn is from smaller fish because there are just so many of them. While 25" + trout carry a ton of eggs per fish there are just so few of them that they don't carry a significant portion of the overall spawning load.

All that said, if we kill 'em at 25" they will never get to be 30". So if we want more big trout we have to eat lower slot fish and let the mid-sized and upper end fish go.

I like the 5 fish limit. 5 per person is a nice mess of fish and our fishery has improved with the lower bag limit, IMO. I don't think we'd see the quality we see with the fishing pressure the bays get with a 10 fish limit. Again, IMO.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

Hurricane Harvey is the biggest reason fishing south has been good this year. We saw the same after Rita, Humberto and Ike. Harvey didn't do anything for us but dump 56" of rain and wash half of East Texas into Sabine.

And it ain't like millions of 12" trout haven't been hauled out of the East side forever.


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

They've tried raising the bag limit on reds on three different occasions that I know of and the public turned them down.

You've mentioned this about the redfish before, but they never asked me, or anyone I know for that matter. I know a lot of fishermen on on the upper coast, recreational fishermen, tournament fishermen, and guides, and all of them want the limits raised on redfish.

I agree with getting rid of the 25" rule. Instead make it so you can't keep a trout over 24".

TH[/QUOTE]

As far as big trout go, most peoples opinions are based on false propaganda rather than facts.
Fact: Although bigger trout carry more eggs, it's the smaller trout that do the majority of the reproducing. 
Fact: While practicing catch and release, the mortality rate is higher for larger trout then it is for smaller trout.
Fact: Bigger trout, 28"+, are reaching the end of their life cycle.
Based on these facts, I see no advantage whatsoever for releasing big trout.
Now, If you want to release big trout for your own personal reasons, it's fine by me. I know people who just like to fish and release everything. I actually release most of the fish I catch, but I like being the one that gets to make that decision.
They are trying to ruin fishing the same way they ruined deer hunting. I use to be able to go shoot a deer to have meat. Now I can't shoot a deer unless it has a minimum 13" spread. I don't know about ya'll, but I have never ate a set of deer antlers in my life, I eat the meat. What happen is a bunch of rich trophy hunters paid off TP&WD to change the laws so they can have a bigger set of horns on their wall. Now we have a bunch of rich trophy fishermen paying off TP&WD to change the laws so they can brag about the 30" trout they released.


----------



## ReedA1691 (Jan 29, 2018)

Reducing to 5 East of Caney Creek neither offends me nor affects me, because I so rarely fish there. The reduction to 5 in the LLM preceded the rest of the state, minus Galveston, by several years and the anecdotal info I have gotten from LLM guides is that it has been good for the LLM. For me, fishing Baffin to Matagorda, I have seen more good trout in the last 3 years than I had in the previous 6 or 7. I couldn't find a 4+ lb trout in Rockport to save my life between 2004 and the time of the reduction to 5. 

As far as 1 over 25" or not, there's little harm to the breeding biomass if I keep a 29" trout (I have not put a trout over 25" in a cooler in years unless it was injured or over 8 lbs and the Star tournament was under way). Compare the number of eggs produced in a year by one 29" fish compared to five 19" trout and it's not even close

I would think raising the limit on reds wouldn't hurt a thing. Too many of those rubber lipped bottom feeders anyway


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

I don't eat trout . I don't care if they make them off limits from Jan to June. But changing the regs on the Sabine isn't going to do anything but sell more license for LA. I live 5 min from the ramp on Sabine but I drive 30 min around to a LA ramp for anything other than boat riding. If we didn't have a camp on East bay i wouldnt buy a Texas lisense.


----------



## ReedA1691 (Jan 29, 2018)

And don't mess with the flounder regs. I have caught more 24" plus flounder in the last 3 years than I have caught in the 30 years prior. That's working.


----------



## Salty Dog (Jan 29, 2005)

El General said:


> Guides are generally overwhelmingly in favor of anything that gets them to a limit quicker.


Most of your better guides are more worried about a healthy fishery than anything. 5 or 10 doesn't change when I come in. But it does shift my efforts towards other species a good deal of the time instead of grinding on trout all day long to hit 10 trout per person. Instead we box 5 each and go redfishing, or go catch drum, or whatever.

The guides in my area were originally concerned that a limit reduction would hurt their business. You can go fish Galveston or Sabine and catch 10, why would anyone pay to come catch 5? Well, it was unfounded. Business is still very good and I hear very little negative about the 5 fish limit. I might get 1 or 2 calls a year where the person makes the reduced limit a big deal, usually trying to get a reduced rate by arguing that we have a lower limit so we should charge less. I don't even waste my time, I send them on to Galveston and wish them luck. That wasn't going to be 'my' customer anyway. The vast majority of my customers do not have a problem with a 5 fish limit. They like to do different stuff and it's cool to them to get to catch their trout and then go fish for redfish for a couple of hours. They also like the increased number of bigger trout we are catching.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

I don't see any reason for lowering the number to 5. 

Is there any actual data that indicates it should be lowered or is just what people "feel" is best for the fishery?


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

Redfish 18"-28", or even 18"-30" I would even be good with going to 4 fish or possibly 5 fish. I agree that there seems to be more flounder, I'm good with leaving trout alone, but wouldn't be devastated if they lowered the limit to 5.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

SaltwaterSlick said:


> ...ain't never gonna happen... too politically incorrect, but I 100% agree with you.
> 
> Do most of my fishing East of the Sabine now. Plenty of trout/reds generous limits, can bow fish them, etc... I'm sorry, I just don't buy the CCA and BASS story line and our TPWD Commission is absolutely in the tank for them... Same with the Alligator Gar regs... When they were being considered, I went to all the meetings, spoke, provided data, etc... Many others did as well... Regulations set solely on emotional/financial benefit to the few rather than science. Zero confidence in TPWD Commission. It's just a glorified PAC only with law-making/regulations power. That is very dangerous.


100% agree. Data has nothing to do with their decisions. If CCA wants it they get it and **** the rest of the 95% license paying public.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

Fact: Although bigger trout carry more eggs, it's the smaller trout that do the majority of the reproducing. Big trout have more eggs. 
Fact: While practicing catch and release, the mortality rate is higher for larger trout then it is for smaller trout. True if you're fishing croaker or shrimp with treble hooks.
Fact: Bigger trout, 28"+, are reaching the end of their life cycle. Maybe, but if you kill them at 25 they sure as hell aren't going to get any bigger.
Based on these facts, I see no advantage whatsoever for releasing big trout. That's because you don't want to see it...you've got a very negative attitude about fishing and even hunting conservation and you prove that over and over again with your statements. such as what you typed below.
Now, If you want to release big trout for your own personal reasons, it's fine by me. I know people who just like to fish and release everything. I actually release most of the fish I catch, but I like being the one that gets to make that decision. Big trout don't eat nearly as good as the 15"-18" fish do.
They are trying to ruin fishing the same way they ruined deer hunting. Keeping 5 fish instead of 10 doesn't ruin fishing unless you only measure your happiness by the number of fish in your cooler. I use to be able to go shoot a deer to have meat. Now I can't shoot a deer unless it has a minimum 13" spread. I don't know about ya'll, but I have never ate a set of deer antlers in my life, I eat the meat. Doe eat well too you know so shoot them if you don't have bucks over 13". What happen is a bunch of rich trophy hunters paid off TP&WD to change the laws so they can have a bigger set of horns on their wall. Now we have a bunch of rich trophy fishermen paying off TP&WD to change the laws so they can brag about the 30" trout they released.I don't even know where to begin with that diatribe...hopefully you don't really believe that but if you do, prove it.


TH


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

fishinguy said:


> I don't see any reason for lowering the number to 5.
> 
> Is there any actual data that indicates it should be lowered or is just what people "feel" is best for the fishery?


No, there is "0" scientific data to support a drop to five trout on the upper coast. People are being brain washed to believe bigger is better, and it's not just fish, it's everything. Now if you don't have a 26' bay boat with a 400hp outboard, that can run 97MPH across a 2" deep sand flat, with a $15,000 stereo that can be heard 38 miles away, with 12 8' LED light bar that are brighter then the sun,so you can fish all weekend to catch 1 30" trout,that you just release anyway, then your not in the club. 
There was a time when people fished for food, or enjoyment, or maybe both. Now it seem the only reason people fish is to out do the other guy. All that matters now days is who's boat is faster, who's truck is bigger, who's reel cost more, and who's custom rod is fancier.
I fish because I enjoy it, and I share my knowledge with others so they can enjoy it as well, and that's what fishing should be about. I'm not a conservationist, because I've never seen any scientific data to convince me that I should be. If there is ever any data supporting changes to length or bag limits, I would be behind it 100%, but the fact is there isn't any.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

You know sharkchum, back before you were born and even when you were 20 there were a lot less people fishing in the bays.


Now it's not like that, but somehow you think the fishery can keep up with the number of people fishing without having limits.


And what difference does it make what kind of boat someone has anyway? I've caught a hell of a lot of fish out of a 16' aluminum boat with a tiller steered 35 outboard.


You need to step back and get off of the me me me attitude and look at the big picture which is that there are just way too many people now doing what we like to do and it's up to us to see to it that our grand children and great grand children can enjoy it too.


It ain't about you and it ain't about me, it's about everyone who enjoys fishing the bays. All the doom and gloom that was cast about when the middle and lower coast went to 5 per day was all a bunch of **** and the fishery has proven that; it's better.


TH


----------



## Chuckybrown (Jan 20, 2012)

.....hmm....this subject sounds familiar....


----------



## El General (Jun 18, 2007)

sharkchum said:


> *No, there is "0" scientific data to support a drop to five trout on the upper coast.*


What are you basing this on?

Trout aren't in decline in Sabine and Galveston bay, but should we wait to act until they have been in decline for 30 years like they did in the LLM?

Average size is in decline, which generally indicates a shifting age structure and is usually not an indicator of a positive trend in the general population.

Fishing pressure is increasing. Habitat is decreasing. I don't think anyone would argue these facts. I don't think anyone would argue that these two things will negatively impact fish populations in the long run.

So, really it boils down to whether you think TPWD should:

1. React to a problem after thoroughly documenting it for many years. 
2. Try to control what they can to mitigate potential issues in the future.

The old saw about TPWD being paid off by rich elitists to do XYZ is thoroughly undocumented. Isn't accusing them of that without any proof the same thing you are against (changing regulations without "science")?


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

Trouthunter said:


> You know sharkchum, back before you were born and even when you were 20 there were a lot less people fishing in the bays.
> 
> Now it's not like that, but somehow you think the fishery can keep up with the number of people fishing without having limits.
> 
> ...


 I agree, there are a lot more people on the water now, but I think your missing my point. 
Why do you get to decide that catching a big trout is more important than catching a small trout? Why is catching 1 big trout more important than catching 10 small trout? What makes your opinion more valuable then mine?Me and my people are perfectly happy catching a bunch of smaller fish, while you and your people are happy catching a few bigger fish. What does it matter as long as were both happy? I'm just tired of my choices being taken away. 
How would you like it if they passed a law saying you can no longer fish for trophy trout, not that you couldn't keep them, but that you couldn't fish for them at all. I bet you would let your voice be heard. That's how I feel about lowering the limits on the upper coast.
I'm not trying to argue with you. I completely understand your side. You want the fishery to have a greater number of bigger trout, because that's what you like to do, and I can respect that. There is nothing wrong with releasing big trout, in hopes that one day it will be even bigger so your grand kids will catch it, I get it. I just want you to try to understand my side. We both enjoy fishing, we just measure the joy in different ways. It doesn't make me right and you wrong, or you right and me wrong, it just means were looking for different things out of life, and there's nothing wrong with that. 
Your also right about me crying me,me,me, all the time, that's because I'm the only one looking out for me.


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

The smaller the fish the better they taste in my opinion . Ill take a 16 in red all day over a trout. This is why I tell the fish survey guy with the Texas logo sitting at the la ramp to pound sand. He's on the wrong side of the river.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

El General said:


> Trout aren't in decline in Sabine and Galveston bay, but should we wait to act until they have been in decline for 30 years like they did in the LLM?


If they are not in decline then why should we do anything? If they begin to decline then many people including myself would understand there is a reason to change limits. I don't think we would wait 30 years either.

What is ridiculous is changing the limit because you and others "feel" like it will be better for the fishery. Before you know if it'll be like the Red Snapper fiasco we'll have a 3 day season to catch 2 fish per day. Just remember some people also feel like you shouldn't be catching any fish at all. Should we accommodate their feelings? https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/cruel-sports/fishing/

I also don't care about catching trophy trout. I just like catching fish, if I get a big one it is a bonus but I don't target big trout specifically. We usually catch one or two 28" fish a year and that's great but I'd rather catch 10 20" fish than I would 5 28" fish.


----------



## BigGarwood (Oct 13, 2008)

sharkchum said:


> I agree, there are a lot more people on the water now, but I think your missing my point.
> Why do you get to decide that catching a big trout is more important than catching a small trout? Why is catching 1 big trout more important than catching 10 small trout? What makes your opinion more valuable then mine?Me and my people are perfectly happy catching a bunch of smaller fish, while you and your people are happy catching a few bigger fish. What does it matter as long as were both happy? I'm just tired of my choices being taken away.
> How would you like it if they passed a law saying you can no longer fish for trophy trout, not that you couldn't keep them, but that you couldn't fish for them at all. I bet you would let your voice be heard. That's how I feel about lowering the limits on the upper coast.
> I'm not trying to argue with you. I completely understand your side. You want the fishery to have a greater number of bigger trout, because that's what you like to do, and I can respect that. There is nothing wrong with releasing big trout, in hopes that one day it will be even bigger so your grand kids will catch it, I get it. I just want you to try to understand my side. We both enjoy fishing, we just measure the joy in different ways. It doesn't make me right and you wrong, or you right and me wrong, it just means were looking for different things out of life, and there's nothing wrong with that.
> Your also right about me crying me,me,me, all the time, that's because I'm the only one looking out for me.


Sharkchum I think you're basing your opinion about lowering the bag limits on the wrong objective.

The reason to lower the bag limits is to decrease the overall pressure on the fish population so that it may increase.

This in turn would improve your fishing each trip. Over time, You would have a higher population of fish to pursue.

A side effect of having a larger fish population, is having more big trout for anglers to pursue.

Example: If there is 5 trout over 28" per every 1000 and we double that population. Then we would have 10 available trout to catch out of 2000 fish. This means the average angler not only has a better chance to catch his limit. But also has a higher probability to catch one over 28".

We cant take and take and take and take from the resource without measures to ensure our future population.

If you want more filets then go target other species. Go catch reds, then catch black drum, then flounder, then sheepshead, then gaftop. You have plenty of opportunity to fill the freezer. Catching five less trout a day wouldn't kill you or starve your family. And by all means, catch them and release until you are blue in the face. Nobody said you cant still fish for enjoyment and catch a hundred if youd like. You should only be able to keep enough to eat.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

BigGarwood said:


> We cant take and take and take and take from the resource without measures to ensure our future population.


This is a reproducing resource so their is not this finite number of fish and there is no data indicating a decline. They set the limit at 10 (not 30, 20 , 15, 5, 2 etc) because according to science (not feelings) that is the number that is sutainable. That means we can catch this number of fish and the resource will should remain close to the same as the data has indicated.

They used real data and scientist to come to this number it wasn't just their feelings. If these scientists gather new data indicating the number should be changed then myself and many others would likely see the need to change the limits aswell. As of now there is no reason to do this.


----------



## blackjack runner (Feb 24, 2015)

I think we need to open up a dolphin season.:rotfl:


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

blackjack runner said:


> I think we need to open up a dolphin season.:rotfl:


If we lower the number of those then we can increase our limit on trout. Those things never respect the limits on any species. :brew:


----------



## El General (Jun 18, 2007)

fishinguy said:


> If they are not in decline then why should we do anything? If they begin to decline then many people including myself would understand there is a reason to change limits. I don't think we would wait 30 years either.


The problem is that it takes a long time to establish a trend line. 5 years of a downward trend might just be bad luck, bad weather, or any of a dozen things. Avoiding downward trends seems like a reasonable goal for TPWD.

And, of course there would be more trout in the bays.

And, since nearly everything that happens in the future is unpredictable and nearly all of the things in the future are bad, it might be a good idea to bank a few extra trout away today.

So, if we have a few extra trout when the next freeze comes around or some drank tanker captain dumps 1 million gallons of quaker state into Sabine, then the recovery for those trout won't take as long.



> What is ridiculous is changing the limit because you and others "feel" like it will be better for the fishery. Before you know if it'll be like the Red Snapper fiasco we'll have a 3 day season to catch 2 fish per day. Just remember some people also feel like you shouldn't be catching any fish at all. Should we accommodate their feelings? http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/cruel-sports/fishing/


I can only guess that you did not do me the courtesy of reading my post thoroughly. I did not state my preference for the changes either way. And, I laid out several reasons (that are based on more solid science than gill net surveys) for TPWD to consider taking action.

The red snapper comparison is totally apples to oranges, thank goodness, as the federal government does not have jurisdiction over management of wildlife in Texas. And, we should be very thankful for that.



> I also don't care about catching trophy trout. I just like catching fish, if I get a big one it is a bonus but I don't target big trout specifically. We usually catch one or two 28" fish a year and that's great but I'd rather catch 10 20" fish than I would 5 28" fish.


I like catching big trout, but I like eating trout more than I like catching big ones and I don't keep many trout bigger than 23" because medium size fish eat the best to me. I also don't keep many 15" for similar reasons. If it needs to be measured on either end, I generally chunk it back. Part of this is lazyness and part because I wade fish and don't trust rod rulers.

For me personally, I don't care whether it is 5 or 10. It won't change one single thing for me.

Of course, why should my preferences have any bearing on this discussion? It shouldn't.

TPWD should maximize angling opportunity while protecting the resource. If they think a five fish limit is necessary to protect the resource, I don't have a reasonable argument against that. If they think a 10 fish limit is where the intersection between opportunity and conservation is, then that is also fine with me.

I haven't seen a reasonable argument against a five fish limit in this thread.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

Also if you feel like keeping 5 then just keep 5. If you don't feel like keeping bigger fish then don't. You don't have to try and make everyone else feel like you. Why should your feelings control the fishery?

What if someone else feels like you should only be allowed to keep 5 fish over 25" because that size only has a limited number of reproduction years left because of their old age. Should we adapt to their feelings instead of yours? I mean we are taking less fish right and the average size and population should increase right?


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

El General said:


> The problem is that it takes a long time to establish a trend line. 5 years of a downward trend might just be bad luck, bad weather, or any of a dozen things. Avoiding downward trends seems like a reasonable goal for TPWD.
> 
> And, of course there would be more trout in the bays.
> 
> And, since nearly everything that happens in the future is unpredictable and nearly all of the things in the future are bad, it might be a good idea to bank a few extra trout away today.


You can't really bank a few extra trout as there is limited habitat and food resources as well. Only a limited number of fish can survive in the system. The scientists took this into account as well when they established that 10 was the optimal limit.

If you have an over abundant population you could be more likely to have a larger die off in a major event than you would if you were to maintain a healthier population.

We're not too far off on the Red Snapper comparison. That limit is also established without proper science and based more on BS and politics than data.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> I agree, there are a lot more people on the water now, but I think your missing my point.


No I get it, I heard it over and over when the discussions were about this happening on the middle coast and lower coast.

We'll just have to agree to disagree and see what happens. I don't have any say as to what the TP&W do with limits; I'm just a fisherman, same as you.

I just want my grand kids to be able to go out and catch a mess of trout like we can and if they catch a big one, that's great.

TH


----------



## El General (Jun 18, 2007)

fishinguy said:


> This is a reproducing resource so their is not this finite number of fish and there is no data indicating a decline. They set the limit at 10 (not 30, 20 , 15, 5, 2 etc) because according to science (not feelings) that is the number that is sutainable. That means we can catch this number of fish and the resource will should remain close to the same as the data has indicated.
> 
> They used real data and scientist to come to this number it wasn't just their feelings. If these scientists gather new data indicating the number should be changed then myself and many others would likely see the need to change the limits aswell. As of now there is no reason to do this.


Actually, there isn't a ton of science for any of this stuff. There is some data and statistics. Data and statistics aren't science. When they set the limit for 10 fish, there was almost no data and definitely no science.

They set the first bag and possession limits for speckled trout as an emergency response to the freeze kill of 1983. They started standardized gill net surveys in 1982. They had done some population surveys before this, but they weren't using any standard method, so they were fairly worthless for determining population trends.

They did not change the speckled trout bag limits from 10 between 1983 and whenever they changed it to 5 for the LLM, even in response to the freeze in 1989 which was by many accounts nearly as deadly a fish kill as 1983.

They waited 30 years or so to recognize the trend line in the Lower Laguna Madre of declining trout populations.

I think the claim that they are doing this just because they "feel" like it is completely spurious. It's not like they have just been changing them willy nilly.

By now, they have some decent data on trout numbers and how resilient these fish are because of there amazing fecundity. They actually do have a negative trend line in size, which isn't a negative effect in regards to trophy fish, which are outliers, but shows that the whole population is trending younger in age or growing slower, and those aren't good signs.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> Also if you feel like keeping 5 then just keep 5. If you don't feel like keeping bigger fish then don't. You don't have to try and make everyone else feel like you. Why should your feelings control the fishery?
> 
> What if someone else feels like you should only be allowed to keep 5 fish over 25" because that size only has a limited number of reproduction years left because of their old age. Should we adapt to their feelings instead of yours? I mean we are taking less fish right and the average size and population should increase right?


What the hell are you talking about?

Whose feelings are making bag limit laws? I have my personal feelings about what I would like and that's to control the outtake of trout from the bay systems if it's needed. I'm already under the 5 trout bag limit and it hasn't done anything but make our catching better. I don't fish north of Sargent so it's a non-issue for me. I just know it worked for the middle and lower coast.

There were 1,745,002 people in Texas in 2017 with a fishing license; granted not all of them fished in the salt water but.... It's not going to get any better.

Your voice is just as strong as anyone else so let TP&W know your thoughts.

I'll do the same.

TH


----------



## El General (Jun 18, 2007)

fishinguy said:


> You can't really bank a few extra trout as there is limited habitat and food resources as well. Only a limited number of fish can survive in the system. The scientists took this into account as well when they established that 10 was the optimal limit.


I addressed this in the post above, but there was no science behind the original bag limit.



> If you have an over abundant population you could be more likely to have a larger die off in a major event than you would if you were to maintain a healthier population.


This is theoretically possible, but nobody knows the carrying capacity of the bay systems. Also, this statement is totally unbacked by any science. I don't think you could name any game species whether fish, fowl, or furthat have had populations significantly impacted by a major die off due to overpopulation and the subsequent lack of resources.



> We're not too far off on the Red Snapper comparison. That limit is also established without proper science and based more on BS and politics than data.


That limit has been established using *statistics* and politics. Statistics aren't science.

People are still catching a ton of red snapper, it just isn't going to recreational anglers. Federally, commercial fishing has a much stronger lobby. Speckled trout are a game fish in Texas, so commercial fishing interests are irrelevant. In Texas, the recreational fishing lobby is stronger than the commercial one. That is why this is a bad comparison.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

I live and work on Sabine Lake. I have fished the area extensively for fifty years. Thirty five years ago there was an expansive commercial fishery for redfish and trout because of it's reciprocation with Louisiana. There were far more trout then there were now. The law wasn't changed( banning netting) because of conservatism. It was changed because of the culture clash between rude purse seiners that would encircle recreational fishermen and create frequent altercations.

I don't care what the limits are, we'll go with it, but the arrogance of people who believe that humans have ultimate control over nature is nauseating...no different than the global warming croud. 

You don't get lucky (or unlucky) with conditions and weather events and take credit for it.

Unless you work for the government or have an alternate agenda.


----------



## El General (Jun 18, 2007)

Anyone that is against a 5 fish limit is against having more fish in the bays. It is really that simple.

I don't care what the limit is, but I am totally for more fish in the bays.


----------



## El General (Jun 18, 2007)

ltppowell said:


> I don't care what the limits are, we'll go with it, but the arrogance of people who believe that humans have ultimate control over nature is nauseating...no different than the global warming croud.
> 
> You don't get lucky (or unlucky) with conditions and weather events and take credit for it.
> 
> Unless you work for the government or have an alternate agenda.


You know this is the argument for more conservative bag limits, right?


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

Trouthunter said:


> What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> Whose feelings are making bag limit laws? I have my personal feelings about what I would like and that's to control the outtake of trout from the bay systems if it's needed.


Your feelings would be the ones I am referring too. You already admit you don't fish the Upper Coast but you sure have strong "feelings" about how many fish we should keep. Not only that but you voicing your opinion (based on feelings) to TPWD to change the limits, that is the correlation between feelings and bag limits that I am referencing.

If there was a problem with the population or if there were not enough fish I would agree that something should be done. However I have no problems going out and finding some fish. Gill net surveys are showing that the population is healthy. So why is there a need to change anything?

I haven't heard one bit of factual information that says we should change the limit.

The population decline in other sections of the coast were documented prior to the bag limit change. The scientist did not see the same population issues in the upper coast that is why our limit was not changed. So again, why do we need to change the limit?


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

I'm not arguing against them...less fish I have to clean at the end of the day. I'll pose a question that my wife asked me one time. How many fish is enough?


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

El General said:


> Anyone that is against a 5 fish limit is against having more fish in the bays. It is really that simple.
> 
> I don't care what the limit is, but I am totally for more fish in the bays.


Anyone that is against a 0 fish limit is against having more fish in the bays. It is really that simple.

I don't care what the limit is, but I am totally for more fish in the bays.

Do you agree with that?


----------



## andy409 (May 31, 2016)

Lets just make it simple and call it The Texas 5*.

5 Red
5 Trout
5 Flounder

*Size limits and temporary spawn season limits can be set according to population statistics and surveys.


----------



## BigGarwood (Oct 13, 2008)

fishinguy said:


> This is a reproducing resource so their is not this finite number of fish and there is no data indicating a decline. They set the limit at 10 (not 30, 20 , 15, 5, 2 etc) because according to science (not feelings) that is the number that is sutainable. That means we can catch this number of fish and the resource will should remain close to the same as the data has indicated.
> 
> They used real data and scientist to come to this number it wasn't just their feelings. If these scientists gather new data indicating the number should be changed then myself and many others would likely see the need to change the limits aswell. As of now there is no reason to do this.


Well first of all I'm not basing anything I said whatsoever on feelings.

Where do you get your data? How do you know there is no decline in fish population? Do you work hand in hand with the biologist or do you just want to get on 2cool and gripe about people that agree with a five fish limit? If there was no data to support an unhealthy population then why do we spend millions on restocking programs????

The limit is based on maintaining a population. Not a population at any given point in time. And at TPWD statistics are based on 10, 20, 30 year averages. And after 10 years of decline they are polling the public for additional input bc they know the fish are suffering.

Now if your variables that control the population change, the correlating changes in population of fish should change. AND THAT IS SCIENCE.

What are those variables?

Fishing pressure due to human population on the coast has increased. 
Harvest of bait (fish forage) has increased
Habitat Loss has increased 
Natural weather events relatively closer together over the last 10 years have taken a toll. 
All of these things add up to decrease the population of fish.

Any idiot this side of the Mississippi knows that to protect and maintain a resource you manage the resource conservatively. That's why its called "Conservation". And if that means dropping the limit to 5 now to be proactive *before* we have a problem, then that's what needs to happen.

You don't wait until you have lost too much of the resource where its at a critical point to save it. That's when they impose seasons for 1 month a year to fish, and 3 trout limit.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

ltppowell said:


> I'm not arguing against them...less fish I have to clean at the end of the day. I'll pose a question that my wife asked me one time. How many fish is enough?


Who gets to determine the definition of "enough" is really the question to ask.

If you think that 6 is enough are you going to tell the guy next to you that 7 is too many?


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

I'm old. I've fought enough battles. You guys that still have testosterone decide and let me know.


----------



## edwardg361 (Jun 6, 2011)

amen x2:brew:


----------



## Fish4Life (Jul 8, 2005)

well I got to page 4 and decided I must say â€œSHARKCHUMsâ€ opinions are just that...chum....worthless...idiotic....insanely selfish...sounds like a jealous little girl talking about people boats that are cooler than his. Lol


----------



## Fish4Life (Jul 8, 2005)

And by the way Sharknuts...Iâ€™m dropping my survey in the mail today and am writing on the comments question at the end that we should drop it to 5 because of idiots like you that think we have a infinite number of trout that will never decline when we have an ever growing amount of anglers on the water. Idiot


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

El General said:


> What are you basing this on?
> 
> I'm basing it on the fact that there is no scientific data.
> Do you know how TP&WD conduct their so called data? Whenever they are going to do a creel survey or gill net survey, they have a computer generate a random date and location, and that is where and when they do their survey. They may set a gill net on a shallow mud flat in the middle of August, or be conducting a creel survey in the middle of a thunderstorm. I've never seen them set a gill net in a location known to hold high concentrations of fish, and I've never seen them doing a creel survey on a good fishing day. This isn't science, it's a joke. I'm actually friends with a couple of the guys who do the gill net and creel surveys in Galveston bay, and they also think it's a joke. If you don't believe me you can call them your self, 281-534-0101.
> ...


 Actually, this is documented almost daily by CCA, when they brag about how much money they donate to TP&WD. CCA is a group of rich elitists and they do influence TP&WD with bribes, I mean donations.
Can you sit there with a straight and tell me that CCA has never gave money to TP&WD, I thought not. 
Lets not forget about the other company's who "donate" to TP&WD. Dow chemical, Shell Oil, and BP just to name a few. The same people who destroy our habitat and pollute our air and water. If you think TP&WD can't be bought, you better think again.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

On a side note, surveys are better than obscure meetings that can manipulated by activists. That's how we got the Snapper Cartel.


----------



## longhornbubba (Jul 7, 2006)

If you really want to do something limit the number of guides like they do shrimpers.They kill more fish than any average angler.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

longhornbubba said:


> If you really want to do something limit the number of guides like they do shrimpers.They kill more fish than any average angler.


Lol...are you saying that people who fish with guides are below average?


----------



## Salty Dog (Jan 29, 2005)

longhornbubba said:


> If you really want to do something limit the number of guides like they do shrimpers.They kill more fish than any average angler.


That is flawed logic. Whether they guide or not they will be on the water putting people on fish. If not customers it'll be friends and family. Most guides were killing piles of fish long before their license came in the mail.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

Can't argue with that. Good fishermen have been feeding other people for tens of thousands of years.


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

El General said:


> Anyone that is against a 5 fish limit is against having more fish in the bays. It is really that simple.
> 
> I don't care what the limit is, but I am totally for more fish in the bays.


 It's really not that simple. Lowering the limits doesn't necessarily mean there will be more fish in the bays. 
Where should I start. How about forge, there is only so much forge in our bays, and it can only support a certain amount of trout. If the trout overpopulate the forge species, than there is no food left and everything is gone.
How about predators, they prey on the week and sick. If there is to many trout then one of two things will happen. Either the predators will over populate and wipeout the trout or the trout will overpopulate faster then the predators can eat the weak and sick, and the trout will die off from disease.
I would like more fish in our bays as much as the next guy, but mother nature is gonna do what it's gonna do. You have to understand that you can't change one thing without it having a effect something else, it can't be avoided.
Do you know the history of Yellowstone National Park? 
It was such a beautiful place, that on March 1st, 1872, President Ulyssess S. Grant signed a bill to have it preserved as a National Park, for all future generations to enjoy. The problem was, mother nature didn't want to be "preserved", and they had no idea how to"preserve" it. The chain of events that happen next has effected the park to this day.
The first thing they did was kick out all the Native Americans who had lived in the area for 11,000 years. The Native Americans knew all about the balance of nature, but the people trying to preserve the park could care less. All they knew is that the Native Americans were killing animals, and everyone knows that if you take less away there should be more, right.
Next came the wolfs. 
Once the Natives were gone they decided to kill off all the predators, since they were killing animals to, because after all, if less is coming out, than there should be more, right. Is this starting to sound familiar? 
Anyway, with the Natives and predators gone, the elk and bison populations rose. The populations grew so big so fast that they soon decimated all the natural forge, which lead to starvation, and with no predators to take care of the sick and injured, disease soon spread. Before long they were almost gone.
It didn't take long for them to figure out they weren't very good at "Preserving" wildlife, so they thought they would give plants a try.
They started to worry that a wildfire could could destroy they entire park, so they started taking preventive measures to make sure that didn't happen. What they didn't realize is that wildfires were a critical part of life in the area. Most of the native trees had thick barks to protect them from the wildfires, that have been happening in the area for thousands of years. The wildfires would keep the area clean of weeds and deadfall, promote new growth, and were important to several of the trees and plants who needed the heat from the fires to open their seed pods.
By preventing fires they destroyed the native plants and trees in the area, and when a wildfire did happen, it was devastating.
It took several decades before they finally realized that mother nature didn't need help to "preserve" itself, so they brought back the wolfs and brought back the fire and let mother nature do it's best to fix what man had destroyed. It has somewhat returned to normal, but it will never be the way it was in 1871.

The point of all this is that man don't have the answers to mother natures plan. The trout populations on the upper coast have been in good shape for years, everything is in balance, and I don't see any reason to change it.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

They **** sure don't come here for beaches, bars and pretty water.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

What's really interesting is that most of these people don't even fish the upper coast yet have such strong feelings about how many fish we should keep.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

Trouthunter said:


> You know sharkchum, back before you were born and even when you were 20 there were a lot less people fishing in the bays.
> 
> Now it's not like that, but somehow you think the fishery can keep up with the number of people fishing without having limits.
> 
> ...


Where I fish in the ULM it hasn't really changed. It was **** good before and still is. The middle coast has seen improvement but that was predicted by TPWD before they went to 5. Their creel studies were record setting right before the change and gill net studies were showing big improvements. Most agreed the better creel studies were due to better salinity conditions in the Middle coast and other cyclical factors.

I find it interesting that TPWD no longer puts the year to year data up on creel and gill net surveys. Likewise you can no longer see the data on average length when they do dock surveys. Bottom line anyone claiming "improvement" is doing so using anecdotal evidence and not real data since it is conspicuously not on their site anymore. One can get it through freedom of information requests though.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that the clearer the water, the less stuff is in it.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

sharkchum said:


> It's really not that simple. Lowering the limits doesn't necessarily mean there will be more fish in the bays.
> Where should I start. How about forge, there is only so much forge in our bays, and it can only support a certain amount of trout. If the trout overpopulate the forge species, than there is no food left and everything is gone.
> How about predators, they prey on the week and sick. If there is to many trout then one of two things will happen. Either the predators will over populate and wipeout the trout or the trout will overpopulate faster then the predators can eat the weak and sick, and the trout will die off from disease.
> I would like more fish in our bays as much as the next guy, but mother nature is gonna do what it's gonna do. You have to understand that you can't change one thing without it having a effect something else, it can't be avoided.
> ...


The he fact of the matter is trout were doing just fine with the normal cyclical ups and downs in the Middle, Upper and Lower coasts with no real data difference between the upper coast to justify the lowering to 5 in one place but not the other. I was at a scoping meeting in Corpus armed with TPWD's own data I got under FOIA requests. I pointed out the no real historical distinction between the data being used to lower limits in one place not differing from the Upper coast and bottom line was told the reason the Upper Coast stayed at 10 was because "that's the feedback as to what they want". Make no mistake about it, we got stuck with 5 only because the CCA dominated "Advisory Board"
wanted it reduced to 5 because they wanted a fishing style imposed that gave an angler a better chance at bigger fish and used conservation concerns as a means to that end. Funny part is at the time the 5 fish limit in the LLM had been in place for a good while and despite known culling the average length studies showed no real gain. The Upper Coast crowd was more vocal about keeping 10 and that is what they got. I warned at the time it was only a matter of time before they came calling. Bottom line neither decision was data driven and all about politics and imposing one style of fishing which targets bigger fish on a guy who is just as happy taking 10 eaters.

Before the flamers come out know that long before they change to 5 I was releasing anything over 24 and only when I knew it would get eaten keep 10. Lots of times just fished to fish and kept 0. My gripe is TPWD owes it duties to license payers and the public in general and should not take direction from me, you or more importantly the CCA. They should base their decision on science only and not on what their pals would like to see as our future. I really don't want the "high fenced, protein fed, genetically shaped" outdoorsmen to take our fisheries over like they have hunting.


----------



## gman1772 (Jul 15, 2012)

sharkchum said:


> No I didn't. This is becoming insane. If anything they need to raise the limits on the upper coast and lower the length. It needs to be 25 trout, 12" minimum, and do away with the stupid 25" rule. They need to change redfish too, 10 per day, with a 16" to 30" slot.


Hungry?


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

Fish4Life said:


> well I got to page 4 and decided I must say â€œSHARKCHUMsâ€ opinions are just that...chum....worthless...idiotic....insanely selfish...sounds like a jealous little girl talking about people boats that are cooler than his. Lol


 I just love people like you. I bet your a lifetime member of CCA and a honorary member of the Mickey Mouse fan club.
We are discussing our opinions on weather or not the limits should be changed on the upper coast. We're not hating each other, calling each other names, or disrespecting each other. If you have something to add to the discussion, aside from your obvious hate for me, than please let us hear it. If you just have some personal problem with me, then maybe you would like to discuss it face to face.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

Salty Dog said:


> That is flawed logic. Whether they guide or not they will be on the water putting people on fish. If not customers it'll be friends and family. Most guides were killing piles of fish long before their license came in the mail.


 Guided trips accounted for 32% of the spotted seatrout landed during the 2009-2010 fishing year.

I think they account for 14% of the fishing pressure so about 1 out of 3 trout landed is with a guide.

Maybe using El Generals logic we could say

Anyone that is against "limiting guides" is against having more fish in the bays. It is really that simple.

I don't care what the limit is, but I am totally for more fish in the bays.

Or we could go by what TPWD says "TPWD gill net, bag seine and harvest data indicate they are not overfished. Fishing pressure and landings are different for each bay, with some bays higher than others. Spotted seatrout are the most sought after species by anglers in Texas inshore waters, but the landings are currently at a sustainable level. "


----------



## BigJake (Jul 1, 2004)

Make croaker a game fish and the problem is solved. 
And for the person that said limit the number of guides.. I'm not worried about what they harvest. Think about 25 boats on Hannahs at one time croaker soaking. Or shoulder to shoulder people at the lighted piers every night catching 2 at a time on speck rigs. I don't have a problem with people who fish like that, but it's easier now. And a lot people are more worried about taking a dock shot of fish to post to instagram. To me, it's more complex than just changing bag limits or size limits. Get a hard freeze or the wrong tide with the wrong moon and the fishery will suffer no matter what the regulations are. The solution should be systematic. There needs to be extensive research and size and bag limits should be subject to change. Unfortunately the "researchers" are money hungry hores who can be bought.


----------



## Bird (May 10, 2005)

One thing I never hear mentioned in these arguments for keeping the limit at 10 is the amount of specks, reds and flounder that TPWD stocks in all the major bay systems. Everyone agrees that there is more fishing pressure, better technology that allows folks to find and catch more fish, and loss of habitat and wetlands, right? Well what would happen to the fish populations if TPWD wasn't stocking? We are already spending on credit so to speak with regard to fish populations. Let the fisheries biologists to the science and manage from that.


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

What percent of trips do you folks on the upper catch more than five trout?.......I think weâ€™re safe either way.....


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Trout*



El General said:


> What are you basing this on?
> 
> Trout aren't in decline in Sabine and Galveston bay, but should we wait to act until they have been in decline for 30 years like they did in the LLM?
> 
> ...


The limit wasnâ€™t decreased to five on the lower coast because there were not any fish


----------



## PiratesRun (Jun 23, 2004)

Five on my returned survey and looking forward to the decision.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

PiratesRun said:


> Five on my returned survey and looking forward to the decision.


10 on mine, my wife's, my kid's, my neighbor's and my friend's.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

BretE said:


> What percent of trips do you folks on the upper catch more than five trout?.......I think we're safe either way.....


Lol...like anywhere else, 10% of the people catch 90% of the fish.

Fishermen were bad enough about lying before the anonyousity of the internet created all of these fishing superheroes.

Lol.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

ltppowell said:


> Lol...like anywhere else, 10% of the people catch 90% of the fish.


That is the truth. The number 1 excuse for the 90% is that everyone else caught all the fish.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

It's really just a matter of priority. The more you fish the easier it is. Kinda like having a pet box turtle outside. It's not too hard to find if you look for it every day
... don't look for a couple of weeks and you gotta find a new one.


----------



## transportcmr (Sep 23, 2005)

*my .02$*

I am no fisheries biologist, just someone who has fished the coast 80-120 days per year for 28 years. for trout mostly.
what I KNOW : there are far fewer big trout now, there are more boats at the ramps every year, 20 years ago it was rare for us to catch an undersized trout out of EMB, more fisherman and less habitat can not possibly equate to more fish, state/gov agencies let down the redfish in the 80's and the flounder in the 90's, a population of anything with out mature individuals can not be healthy, with absolute certainty I know the trout pop. benefitted from the 5 fish limit(trout over 22" anyway), it was rare to see beer cans and trash on the bottom in the laguna

we already fish a non-sustainable fishery. if it weren't for hatcheries, how many reds/trout do you think you would catch? cca tags a few dozen reds for the s.t.a.r. every spring and most are caught that year!!!!!

I honestly had a policy on my boat to release every trout over 22", we fished enough to have great family fish fries on just the trout that were gill raker hooked. well, last year I had enough, after having to listen to 3 diff radio stations on the water, the lack of courtesy of the anglers, poor boat ramp etiquette, and the sickening filleting of big trout by croaker soakers. this January I started filleting every legal fish landed. I felt sick to my stomach the first few times I filleted 27-30" trout, but I know if I released it a croaker soaker wouldn't release it for me.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Fish*



sharkchum said:


> Actually, this is documented almost daily by CCA, when they brag about how much money they donate to TP&WD. CCA is a group of rich elitists and they do influence TP&WD with bribes, I mean donations.
> Can you sit there with a straight and tell me that CCA has never gave money to TP&WD, I thought not.
> Lets not forget about the other company's who "donate" to TP&WD. Dow chemical, Shell Oil, and BP just to name a few. The same people who destroy our habitat and pollute our air and water. If you think TP&WD can't be bought, you better think again.


Where do you come up with this stuff. Of course CCA donates to the Texas Parks and Wildlife. They have always had a partnership with them. Maybe you should get youâ€™re facts in line before typing.

What does oil company donations have to do with fish limits?


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

transportcmr said:


> I am no fisheries biologist, just someone who has fished the coast 80-120 days per year for 28 years. for trout mostly.
> what I KNOW : there are far fewer big trout now, there are more boats at the ramps every year, 20 years ago it was rare for us to catch an undersized trout out of EMB, more fisherman and less habitat can not possibly equate to more fish, state/gov agencies let down the redfish in the 80's and the flounder in the 90's, a population of anything with out mature individuals can not be healthy, with absolute certainty I know the trout pop. benefitted from the 5 fish limit(trout over 22" anyway), it was rare to see beer cans and trash on the bottom in the laguna
> 
> we already fish a non-sustainable fishery. if it weren't for hatcheries, how many reds/trout do you think you would catch? cca tags a few dozen reds for the s.t.a.r. every spring and most are caught that year!!!!!
> ...


Are you fishing the upper coast regularly?


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

transportcmr said:


> I am no fisheries biologist, just someone who has fished the coast 80-120 days per year for 28 years. for trout mostly.
> what I KNOW : there are far fewer big trout now, there are more boats at the ramps every year, 20 years ago it was rare for us to catch an undersized trout out of EMB, more fisherman and less habitat can not possibly equate to more fish, state/gov agencies let down the redfish in the 80's and the flounder in the 90's, a population of anything with out mature individuals can not be healthy, with absolute certainty I know the trout pop. benefitted from the 5 fish limit(trout over 22" anyway), it was rare to see beer cans and trash on the bottom in the laguna
> 
> we already fish a non-sustainable fishery. if it weren't for hatcheries, how many reds/trout do you think you would catch? cca tags a few dozen reds for the s.t.a.r. every spring and most are caught that year!!!!!
> ...


That's actually a perfect example of the problem with state regulation of a local resource. Trout will hardly bite a croaker east of Bolivar. The term "croaker soaker" means nothing to us, except you're a foreigner.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

ltppowell said:


> That's actually a perfect example of the problem with state regulation of a local resource. Trout will hardly bite a croaker east of Bolivar. The term "croaker soaker" means nothing to us, except you're a foreigner.


On that note good luck buying any croaker on Bolivar. They haven't really been available consistently in 3 or 4 years.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

fishinguy said:


> ltppowell said:
> 
> 
> > That's actually a perfect example of the problem with state regulation of a local resource. Trout will hardly bite a croaker east of Bolivar. The term "croaker soaker" means nothing to us, except you're a foreigner.
> ...


I've never bought one before, but only because they're not a good bait here, relatively. I caught a buttload a few days ago in a castnet, along with about 500 largemouths!


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

I did run into Takahiro Omori in the north end of Sabine Lake Thursday. He and his wife ventured out to try and catch a redfish and take a break from the Bassmasters cluster. That alone should give some of you guys some idea of how different the upper coast ecosystems are than the lower. Texas is big place. Even the coast.


----------



## 2Ws (Jun 28, 2016)

More pressure today and smaller limits, when there was less pressure there were NO LIMITS on both reds n specks. Useing todays #s I MYSELF have caught 10+ limits in ONE DAY I have no idea how many times over the years before the limits we have today. After the limits were in place in Texas WE started fishing the La side of Sabine and taking 25 specks and 25 reds dailey. 
So yes there was less pressure years back BUT.
Before any ask what did we do with all the fish, I would say
Its none of YOUR business


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

Easy to not understand that Sabine is as close to Pensacola as it is Brownsville.


----------



## rubberducky (Mar 19, 2010)

Seems like I kicked a hornets nest! 


Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk


----------



## DUTY FIRST (Jun 23, 2012)

SaltwaterSlick said:


> ...ain't never gonna happen... too politically incorrect, but I 100% agree with you.
> 
> Do most of my fishing East of the Sabine now. Plenty of trout/reds generous limits, can bow fish them, etc... I'm sorry, I just don't buy the CCA and BASS story line and our TPWD Commission is absolutely in the tank for them... Same with the Alligator Gar regs... When they were being considered, I went to all the meetings, spoke, provided data, etc... Many others did as well... Regulations set solely on emotional/financial benefit to the few rather than science. Zero confidence in TPWD Commission. It's just a glorified PAC only with law-making/regulations power. That is very dangerous.


I totally agree.

If CCA has their way it will be total catch and release and artificials only before long. I don't participate in the dockside surveys. I just tell them it's pointless. Regardless of the scientific data, they just do what CCA wants anyway. Per CCA, if you want fish to EAT, you can buy them at H.E.B. !


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

DUTY FIRST said:


> I totally agree.
> 
> If CCA has their way it will be total catch and release and artificials only before long. I don't participate in the dockside surveys. I just tell them it's pointless. Regardless of the scientific data, they just do what CCA wants anyway. Per CCA, if you want fish to EAT, you can buy them at H.E.B. !


Actually if you have a cooler full it would be beneficial if you shared that information at the dock. The more cooler fulls of fish they see the better the catch rate. The better the catch rate the less reason to change the limits.


----------



## Gulfgoose (Sep 25, 2017)

DUTY FIRST said:


> I totally agree.
> 
> If CCA has their way it will be total catch and release and artificials only before long. I don't participate in the dockside surveys. I just tell them it's pointless. Regardless of the scientific data, they just do what CCA wants anyway. Per CCA, if you want fish to EAT, you can buy them at H.E.B. !


Nothing could be further from the truth. Every single person I know involved in CCA catches and EATS fish. Most refuse to even think about buying fish at HEB. And artificial only? Give me a break.


----------



## Snaggletoothfrecklefish (Jul 11, 2016)

A buddy and I fished with croaker one day last weekend and only caught 1 trout with them. Switched to lures and caught a dozen. Thought using croaker meant reeling in an 8 lb. trout every cast 

I just enjoy going fishing, I don't go to fill the cooler and just take pics to outdo the other guy on FB. If you are one of those people, instead of taking one picture of 10 trout, just take one with 5 trout and one of each of the other ones you release. :biggrin:


----------



## rubberducky (Mar 19, 2010)

I fish both upper coast as well as mid coast. I catch a few limits a year but I usually only keep one limit a year. Most of the time I keep 4 or 5 eat them in a day or 2. I said I agreed with 5 trout limit but I also added I would like to see the reds slot changed and the limit increased. 
I believe it's needed but I may be wrong I'm not smart enough to figure out what mother nature wants or needs I'm just a dumb fisherman doing the best I can.
James


Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk


----------



## Aggieangler (May 28, 2004)

sharkchum said:


> No I didn't. This is becoming insane. If anything they need to raise the limits on the upper coast and lower the length. It needs to be 25 trout, 12" minimum, and do away with the stupid 25" rule. They need to change redfish too, 10 per day, with a 16" to 30" slot.


Trout don't reproduce for the first time until around 12 inches in length. So I am in favor of leaving the minimum length at 15 inches, as you get on average, at least 2 spawning cycles from a fish (at minimum) before they are potentially killed. In addition, I've rarely seen a 12 inch trout that had enough meat to bother with. If your goal is lots of fish, try black drum.

I've never seen any data that justified raising a limit in Texas to 25 speckled trout on any part of the coast. The fishery in that area would be in amazing shape, and I'd love to see it come to that!

If you were joking, sorry I didn't catch the sarcasm!


----------



## Aggieangler (May 28, 2004)

DUTY FIRST said:


> I totally agree.
> 
> If CCA has their way it will be total catch and release and artificials only before long. I don't participate in the dockside surveys. I just tell them it's pointless. Regardless of the scientific data, they just do what CCA wants anyway. Per CCA, if you want fish to EAT, you can buy them at H.E.B. !


LOL...I am on a CCA Chapter board locally and have been for 16 years. I have met thousands of CCA members, and almost every State officer, over the years. Everyone I know throughout CCA loves to fish, and eats fish, and we fish any chance we can get. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but yours couldn't be further from the truth!!! We need a BS icon.


----------



## Fishing Logic (Aug 25, 2005)

This thread hasnâ€™t got closed yet? 
This old dude would like to see.
5 trout, 5 flounder, & 5 redfish limits on upper coast with a 14â€ min on them all. Leave the 25â€ rule in place. I hated reducing flounder to five because, thatâ€™s what I target a lot but, have been seeing a few more big flounder overall.


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

gater said:


> Where do you come up with this stuff. Of course CCA donates to the Texas Parks and Wildlife. They have always had a partnership with them. Maybe you should get youâ€™re facts in line before typing.
> 
> What does oil company donations have to do with fish limits?


 I get my facts straight from CCA. You just said yourself that they donate money to Texas Parks and Wildlife. What fact's did I get wrong? CCA admits to giving money to Texas Parks and Wildlife, and Texas Parks and Wildlife admits to getting money from CCA. This has been well documented since CCA first formed, it was actually called GCCA back then, so how did I make any of this up when it's a proven fact, that even you admit to. 
Here's some more proven facts for you. CCA was the main driving force behind getting gill nets band, getting redfish and trout gamefish status, and getting length and bag limits set. They openly admit to influencing Texas Parks and Wildlife and Texas law makers, if fact this was there claim to fame. They have not only influenced Texas regulations, but other States as well. CCA does not deny any of this, in fact they are proud of what they've done. Take a look at their web site or check out a copy of Tide magazine, all they do is brag about the influence they have. 
So now would you like to tell me what facts I got wrong.

The oil company donations have nothing to do with fish limits, but they have everything to do with the fact that you can get away with anything if you have enough money. They make huge donations to cover up the destruction they've done to our bays.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

sharkchum said:


> I get my facts straight from CCA. You just said yourself that they donate money to Texas Parks and Wildlife. What fact's did I get wrong? CCA admits to giving money to Texas Parks and Wildlife, and Texas Parks and Wildlife admits to getting money from CCA. This has been well documented since CCA first formed, it was actually called GCCA back then, so how did I make any of this up when it's a proven fact, that even you admit to.
> Here's some more proven facts for you. CCA was the main driving force behind getting gill nets band, getting redfish and trout gamefish status, and getting length and bag limits set. They openly admit to influencing Texas Parks and Wildlife and Texas law makers, if fact this was there claim to fame. They have not only influenced Texas regulations, but other States as well. CCA does not deny any of this, in fact they are proud of what they've done. Take a look at their web site or check out a copy of Tide magazine, all they do is brag about the influence they have.
> So now would you like to tell me what facts I got wrong.
> 
> The oil company donations have nothing to do with fish limits, but they have everything to do with the fact that you can get away with anything if you have enough money. They make huge donations to cover up the destruction they've done to our bays.


I'm all about the habit efforts that are made possible by contributions from CCA. CCA is like any other mega non profit it is full of politics and tons of money however I think they do make a decent effort at keeping the fishing great. All efficiencies are going to be moved in any organization of that size but in the end they are doing things that benefit the fishermen.

They are going to influence law makers in the same manner as all other lobby groups. They are going to leverage the voting power of their member base as well to promote the agenda of the members. Since most of the members are recreational fishermen then in general this agenda s going to be beneficial for recreational fishermen. I don't really see any negative impact by the CCA.

Back to the topic, if you want to keep 5 then keep 5, I'm keeping 10.


----------



## Andy_Holland_25 (Aug 8, 2007)

Why the hell they ask our opinion is beyond me. Let the scientists decide what the resource can handle and go with it.

I donâ€™t understand why this is not just a scientific decision?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DUTY FIRST (Jun 23, 2012)

Aggieangler said:


> LOL...I am on a CCA Chapter board locally and have been for 16 years. I have met thousands of CCA members, and almost every State officer, over the years. Everyone I know throughout CCA loves to fish, and eats fish, and we fish any chance we can get. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but yours couldn't be further from the truth!!! We need a BS icon.


That BS icon would be your avatar.

I was at the TPWD scoping meeting years ago in Corpus Christi when the President of the CCA Corpus Christi Chapter officially and publicly made that exact quote about buying your fish at H.E.B.

I've also read the official unfiltered TPWD biologist reports of every proposal to change limits for the past 20 years. In every instance they stated the fishery is not currently threatened by angling pressure or type of bait used. The comments about being proactive for the future, came not from the biologists, but from those with their own agenda not based on science, but on the undocumented lay opinion of some folks who can be convinced of anything if it sounds sympathetic to conservation. If questioned, the biologists will tell you that you cannot stockpile fish as they are dependent on the environmental effects of the fishery as it exists.

The only change I have supported except for increasing the redfish numbers limit was changing the trout limit to one fish over 25 inches in the Lower Laguna Madre. I was initially against that proposal until personal discussion with TPWD biologists convinced me it would have a big positive effect on trophy trout production (in the Lower Laguna only). I changed my opinion based on that fact, but only for the that geographical area.

Should the fishery be threatened by genuine fishing pressure issues in the future, such as a major freeze or widespread environmental disaster, I will be among the first to support whatever necessary measures the biologists recommend. I will not support knee jerk, feel good measures like the tree hugger crowd.


----------



## DUTY FIRST (Jun 23, 2012)

Andy_Holland_25 said:


> Why the hell they ask our opinion is beyond me. Let the scientists decide what the resource can handle and go with it.
> 
> I donâ€™t understand why this is not just a scientific decision?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


*Follow the money !*


----------



## lurker (Feb 26, 2015)

there are actually in this thread who believe that removing more (10 vs 5) trout from the fishery keeps it (relatively) stronger? Good lord. Not only would 5 reduce the numbers of spawning fish taken from the water, it would limit the damage to undersized fish caught on the way to a limit.

Itâ€™s amazing there are even any trout in 2018 considering that they werenâ€™t efficiently fished-for, for tens of thousands of years. Figured they wouldâ€™ve eaten all of the forage and wiped themselves out a long time ago. LOL.


----------



## Tango (Jul 31, 2017)

Keep in mind that if they reduce the number to 5, they will never raise it back up to 10, no matter how â€œhealthyâ€ the population. Careful what you wish for.


----------



## BigGarwood (Oct 13, 2008)

DUTY FIRST said:


> That BS icon would be your avatar.
> 
> I was at the TPWD scoping meeting years ago in Corpus Christi when the President of the CCA Corpus Christi Chapter officially and publicly made that exact quote about buying your fish at H.E.B.
> 
> ...


Well, if its so healthy then why are we paying money to restock the bays with fish???

Did we not have two major freezes this past year that caused a fish kill?

Have we not suffered droughts and floods and natural disasters that take their toll on the resource?

Is there any reason whatsoever that a five fish limit would not be beneficial or positive for the upper coast?


----------



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

sharkchum said:


> What happen is a bunch of rich trophy hunters paid off TP&WD to change the laws so they can have a bigger set of horns on their wall. Now we have a bunch of rich trophy fishermen paying off TP&WD to change the laws so they can brag about the 30" trout they released.


False. That literally makes no sense. And so long as "your people" continue segregating fisherman from fisherman, and hunters from hunters - we'll continue to dismantle every privilege we have, to our detriment. This is NOT a case of big bank take little bank.



sharkchum said:


> No, there is "0" scientific data to support a drop to five trout on the upper coast.
> 
> There was a time when people fished for food, or enjoyment, or maybe both. Now it seem the only reason people fish is to out do the other guy. All that matters now days is who's boat is faster, who's truck is bigger, who's reel cost more, and who's custom rod is fancier.


False. Empirical evidence exists, and most recently, especially so in regard to habitat reduction on the upper coast and the POSITIVE benefits of lowering limits on the lower and middle coasts.

People still fish for food, enjoyment, and both. Don't mistake consumerism and capitalism for "sportsmanship". They are not the same.



sharkchum said:


> Why is catching 1 big trout more important than catching 10 small trout? What makes your opinion more valuable then mine? I'm just tired of my choices being taken away.


It isn't, nothing, and the effort isn't being made and/or isn't being considered to take your choices away, it's being considered to protect YOUR resource. Please note the below:



BigGarwood said:


> The reason to lower the bag limits is to decrease the overall pressure on the fish population so that it may increase.
> 
> This in turn would improve your fishing each trip. Over time, You would have a higher population of fish to pursue.





DUTY FIRST said:


> I've also read the official unfiltered TPWD biologist reports of every proposal to change limits for the past 20 years. In every instance they stated the fishery is not currently threatened by angling pressure or type of bait used. The comments about being proactive for the future, came not from the biologists, but from those with their own agenda not based on science, but on the undocumented lay opinion of some folks who can be convinced of anything if it sounds sympathetic to conservation. If questioned, the biologists will tell you that you cannot stockpile fish as they are dependent on the environmental effects of the fishery as it exists.


Even so - if accurate, and not completely subjective, red and brown tide, drought cycle, algae bloom from crop runoff, flood cycles, hurricanes and winter kill negatively effect fish population - which has a direct correlation on the productivity of fishing, similar to hunters accounting for single digit percentages of mortality on ducks and therefore a correlation between the responsibility of fisherman to propagate/protect species while harvesting it for their own reasons if they choose to do so.

I'd like to see those official unfiltered documents.

Let's split the difference ... lower it to 7. You're welcome.

And start keeping your gafftop, hardheads and ladyfish ... increased populations of by-catch (if you want to call it that) compete with the species you want to catch for forage. Hell, you don't even have to eat them. Put them in your compost and spread em across your lawn and flowerbeds.


----------



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

sharkchum said:


> Lets not forget about the other company's who "donate" to TP&WD. Dow chemical, Shell Oil, and BP just to name a few. The same people who destroy our habitat and pollute our air and water. If you think TP&WD can't be bought, you better think again.


Wow! Just got to this. I'm done. You have zero credibility, but I'll listen to you if you can find a single TP&W payoff.

Don't forget about the literal BILLIONS they put into habitat remediation and reclamation.


----------



## capt2016 (Mar 4, 2016)

Lol man lots of negativity about all this alot of ppl whining and complaining, surely someone will be negative to me about this but tha fact of tha matter is fish populations aren't what they used to be and most likely will never be that way again, lower limits, higher limits whatever tha faster we can agree on somthing tha faster we might be able to keep all these fish around a little longer maybe use tha energy some of yall are using to complain to do somthing good for tha bay


----------



## James Howell (May 21, 2004)

One good, cold, winter, and this whole conversation is a moot point. Plenty of trout on the upper coast, for now. Most folks apparently don't remember trying to catch a trout (or a red) in 84, or 90, when pretty much the whole biomass dissappeared. Most folks don't remember trying to find a redfish when there were gillnets and commercial fishermen everywhere. One good freeze, and you will be able to buy the bay boat of your dreams for about 10 cents on the dollar.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

By the time TPW sends out questionnaires and then follows up with "public meetings" for input, it has already been decided. I expect by Jan 1 limits on the upper coast will be decreased. I expect it to have a positive impact too.


----------



## BullyARed (Jun 19, 2010)

What next? Limit hardhead!


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*TP&W*



sharkchum said:


> I get my facts straight from CCA. You just said yourself that they donate money to Texas Parks and Wildlife. What fact's did I get wrong? CCA admits to giving money to Texas Parks and Wildlife, and Texas Parks and Wildlife admits to getting money from CCA. This has been well documented since CCA first formed, it was actually called GCCA back then, so how did I make any of this up when it's a proven fact, that even you admit to.
> Here's some more proven facts for you. CCA was the main driving force behind getting gill nets band, getting redfish and trout gamefish status, and getting length and bag limits set. They openly admit to influencing Texas Parks and Wildlife and Texas law makers, if fact this was there claim to fame. They have not only influenced Texas regulations, but other States as well. CCA does not deny any of this, in fact they are proud of what they've done. Take a look at their web site or check out a copy of Tide magazine, all they do is brag about the influence they have.
> So now would you like to tell me what facts I got wrong.
> 
> The oil company donations have nothing to do with fish limits, but they have everything to do with the fact that you can get away with anything if you have enough money. They make huge donations to cover up the destruction they've done to our bays.


Admit what! So when the biologist do data collection they input how many trout were caught, how many Reds were caught and how many night vision goggles CCA purchased for the game wardens and the come up with the number of fish we can keep. Do you believe the stuff you type! Do you have a clue as to who makes the delicious at CCA. I donâ€™t think you have a clue about anything


----------



## DUTY FIRST (Jun 23, 2012)

Well, if its so healthy then why are we paying money to restock the bays with fish???

*Because it's a feel good measure. TPWD biologist will privately admit that they cannot identify the percentage of stocked fish that survive to maturity, but they believe it constitutes less than 1 to 2% of the fish now swimming around in our bays.*

Did we not have two major freezes this past year that caused a fish kill?

*The majority of fish killed were not gamefish. Except for the really major gamefish kills (like 1983) the stock recovers on its own and actually has a bumper crop the next couple years. The recent freeze had no significant impact on the gamefish population, thus no adjustment of limits is warranted.*

Have we not suffered droughts and floods and natural disasters that take their toll on the resource?

*Those are natural occurrences and have had little significant impact on the fishery. Again, you can't stockpile fish.*

Is there any reason whatsoever that a five fish limit would not be beneficial or positive for the upper coast?

*Yes. *
*Because it's merely a feel good measure, and it is an unnecessary action of no benefit, which will never be rescinded. It's a slippery slope on the way to a drastic ban or unnecessary reduction on our ability to responsibly harvest the resource. Where do we draw the line on the way to a total catch and release fishery? It could eventually be worse than the current federal red snapper debacle.*


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> CCA was the main driving force behind getting gill nets band, getting redfish and trout gamefish status, and getting length and bag limits set.


Just curious but did you send them a Thank You card for getting that done for us?

If gill nets were still legal, if reds and trout were not classified as game fish we wouldn't be having a discussion about reducing bag limits.

TH


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

_Just curious but did you send them a Thank You card for getting that done for us? __If gill nets were still legal, if reds and trout were not classified as game fish we wouldn't be having a discussion about reducing bag limits. -Trouthunter_

Amen to that!


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

Spec-Rig.006 said:


> Wow! Just got to this. I'm done. You have zero credibility, but I'll listen to you if you can find a single TP&W payoff.
> 
> Don't forget about the literal BILLIONS they put into habitat remediation and reclamation.


 You must be another proud CCA member, probably the president of your local chapter.
How can you say my opinions are false when they are my opinions. Someones opinions can't be true or false, only facts can.
I've already proven that CCA pays off Texas Parks and Wildlife, they even admit to it. Are you going to sit there and tell me that CCA has never given Texas Parks and Wildlife any money? I thought not.
It's you and your people that are segregating the fishermen. We just want to leave well enough alone, but ya'll want to force your beliefs on us. If you only want to keep 5, I don't have any problem with it. If you want to release everything you catch, fine by me. But when it comes to me wanting to keep what the law allows, all of a sudden I'm the enemy. Why should I be forced to follow your beliefs. Most of us who support the 10 fish limit are open minded and want to see real scientific data before a change takes effect. If they can actually prove there is a reason for the change, we would all be behind it. Your people on the other hand only believe in the "my way or the highway" approach. 
The truth is, there haven't been enough true scientific studies done to tell one way or another. The fact that the Texas Parks and Wildlife's study sights and dates are computer generated make them inaccurate. Even if they only tested in the best locations at the best times based on reports from local fishermen or guides, the results would still be inaccurate. Even the studies conducted by independent biologist are inaccurate, because of bias.
For example, If you payed a biologist to conduct a study showing that the trout numbers in Galveston Bay are declining, his study would reflect, and it would show numbers are in fact decreasing. While on the other hand, if I pay the same biologist to do a study showing that the trout populations in Galveston Bay are increasing, his study would reflect that to, and I would end up with a study showing a increase in trout numbers. This happens because of bias. This is one of the reasons the FDA makes drug companies go through a long series of double blind studies, so bias cant influence the out come.
Unfortunately, it's like this with almost any study on any subject in the would. You can give both sides the exact same date, and they will both slant it to fit their own agenda.
I'm more than willing to listen to anything the opposition has to offer, and give them a chance to change my mind. But it will have to be based on indisputable scientific proof, without bias. 
As far as my credibility goes, it's 100% intact.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

Anyone who thinks the 10 to 5 debate has anything to do with overfishing is just dead wrong. When they changed the limits to 5 in the Lower, ULM and Middle coasts it was admittedly not about overfishing. This was TPWDs own statement on overfishing back during scoping:
*Are spotted seatrout overfished?*
_No. TPWD gill net, bag seine and harvest data indicate they are not overfished. Fishing pressure and landings are different for each bay, with some bays higher than others. Spotted seatrout are the most sought after species by anglers in Texas inshore waters, but the landings are currently at a sustainable level. A reduction in landings would increase the number of older and larger fish in the population._
https://tpwd.texas.gov/newsmedia/releases/related/2013-12-18_scoping_coastal_faq/

So what is the issue really about? The desire of a segment of fishermen who have more fun catching bigger fish than those who are equally happy taking 10(see in red above). That was and still is the issue and any attempt to hide the real goal of lowering limits behind a claim of over fishing is disingenuous and certainly not supported by the data(at least at the time) . My personal but selfish preference is to manage the resource so that I have better odds at catching bigger fish. BUT I am not selfish and want TPWD to do what is best for all of their constituents which they sometimes forget are ALL the license payers in the state. Unlike the vast majority of license payers I get to fish a lot and understand that what is best for my personal style is not best for the guy that doesn't get on the water as much.

And anyone who denies CCA has a powerful voice with TPWD also has an agenda to obfuscate the issue. They were formally non committal last time the issue was raised but that was to their membership in general. The move to lower limits to five began with a recommendation from the Advisory Committee that was choke full of CCA guys at the time...one of which has shown up in this thread and will hopefully not deny the CCA members of the advisory committee were full on in support of 5 limits. CCA influence was and is behind the move to 5 despite them not taking a stand with their general membership. That is the ultimate definition of "politics" imho. Dont do anything to **** off your general voters but make sure the elite get what they want.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

sharkchum said:


> I get my facts straight from CCA. You just said yourself that they donate money to Texas Parks and Wildlife. What fact's did I get wrong? CCA admits to giving money to Texas Parks and Wildlife, and Texas Parks and Wildlife admits to getting money from CCA. This has been well documented since CCA first formed, it was actually called GCCA back then, so how did I make any of this up when it's a proven fact, that even you admit to.
> Here's some more proven facts for you. CCA was the main driving force behind getting gill nets band, getting redfish and trout gamefish status, and getting length and bag limits set. They openly admit to influencing Texas Parks and Wildlife and Texas law makers, if fact this was there claim to fame. They have not only influenced Texas regulations, but other States as well. CCA does not deny any of this, in fact they are proud of what they've done. Take a look at their web site or check out a copy of Tide magazine, all they do is brag about the influence they have.
> So now would you like to tell me what facts I got wrong.
> 
> The oil company donations have nothing to do with fish limits, but they have everything to do with the fact that you can get away with anything if you have enough money. They make huge donations to cover up the destruction they've done to our bays.


SC I appreciate that you are one heck of a fisherman, and I really appreciate that you are more than willing to share your expertise and techniques with others. But your motives in this â€œdiscussion â€œ seem to be very selfish.

Unfortunately, when man relies on self regulation, things can go south very quickly. IMHO getting gill nets banned was a great thing. Size and bag limits are a good thing for the future of fishing. I saw your post on your stepson, and how proud you are of his fishing abilities. And you should be. Wouldnâ€™t it be a shame, if in 10-20 years that he might be extremely limited as far as doing what he loves, fishing, because we ignored studies and surveys that could indicate there might be a problem.

I know that most on here think there are too many rules and regulations, and in some instances there are. But many rules and regulations are necessary or there would be complete chaos. Everything I read from you is that your should be able to keep more, more, more. Sometimes more, more, more, is not best.


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

Trouthunter said:


> Just curious but did you send them a Thank You card for getting that done for us?
> 
> If gill nets were still legal, if reds and trout were not classified as game fish we wouldn't be having a discussion about reducing bag limits.
> 
> TH


 Actually, my dad and grandpa were commercial fishermen and made their living running gillnets. When gillnets were band my family almost starved to death. 
I can understand that you and a lot of other people probably thought is was the greatest thing in the world, but it drove my family into poverty.
How would you like it if someone took away your only means of making a living? 
I guess you just chalk it up to "collateral damage", and the fact the some people must suffer so others can prosper, but it don't look so good when your the one suffering.


----------



## AFORWW (May 2, 2018)

Although I can understand that stance, its very narrow in scope. The simple fact of the matter is they would suffer one way or another. Either they lose their livelyhood because there are no more fish to catch to take to market or they find another way of conducting business and suffer short term. One clearly makes more sense. Without conservation efforts we would have destroyed the ecosystem and the economy a long time ago. That's fact.


sharkchum said:


> Actually, my dad and grandpa were commercial fishermen and made their living running gillnets. When gillnets were band my family almost starved to death.
> I can understand that you and a lot of other people probably thought is was the greatest thing in the world, but it drove my family into poverty.
> How would you like it if someone took away your only means of making a living?
> I guess you just chalk it up to "collateral damage", and the fact the some people must suffer so others can prosper, but it don't look so good when your the one suffering.


Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

sharkchum said:


> Actually, my dad and grandpa were commercial fishermen and made their living running gillnets. When gillnets were band my family almost starved to death.
> I can understand that you and a lot of other people probably thought is was the greatest thing in the world, but it drove my family into poverty.
> How would you like it if someone took away your only means of making a living?
> I guess you just chalk it up to "collateral damage", and the fact the some people must suffer so others can prosper, but it don't look so good when your the one suffering.


Truly sorry it had such a negative effect on your family, but it was absolutely necessary and was a very good thing for the recreational fisherman.


----------



## SETXJR (May 12, 2014)

sharkchum said:


> I get my facts straight from CCA. You just said yourself that they donate money to Texas Parks and Wildlife. What fact's did I get wrong? CCA admits to giving money to Texas Parks and Wildlife, and Texas Parks and Wildlife admits to getting money from CCA. This has been well documented since CCA first formed, it was actually called GCCA back then, so how did I make any of this up when it's a proven fact, that even you admit to.
> Here's some more proven facts for you. CCA was the main driving force behind getting gill nets band, getting redfish and trout gamefish status, and getting length and bag limits set. They openly admit to influencing Texas Parks and Wildlife and Texas law makers, if fact this was there claim to fame. They have not only influenced Texas regulations, but other States as well. CCA does not deny any of this, in fact they are proud of what they've done. Take a look at their web site or check out a copy of Tide magazine, all they do is brag about the influence they have.
> So now would you like to tell me what facts I got wrong.
> 
> The oil company donations have nothing to do with fish limits, but they have everything to do with the fact that you can get away with anything if you have enough money. They make huge donations to cover up the destruction they've done to our bays.


Let's not forget that CCA holds a statewide fishing tournament that tags 60 redfish and are put in spots in which they WANT people to catch them. Offer prizes to heaviest fish and so on. They also just pushed for the most red snapper fishing days in over a decade. CCA also donates money to poorly funded Game Wardens, at times too much, but those guys protect our resources. CCA also opened up Cedar Bayou which has flourished since....different situation from Rollover Pass. CCA also pushed hard for oyster regulations and got those passed as well. All those things HELP you and me catch more fish. They are also fighting to clean up these super dump sites south of Houston.

As other have stated, you are a great fisherman. We all want to go out there and catch fish when we get that opportunity. CCA has done more for the Texas coast than any other organization or government entity.

I listened to a CCA Podcast in which the biologist stated that the Upper Texas Coast IS NOT in need of a reduction in daily bag limits. I think 5 is a little much when numbers dont support it. 8 would be a nice number to prevent a problem from drought or extreme freeze. 8 trout is plenty to feed a whole family. Sometimes you gotta give a little to get back. I think this is one of those times. I do not agree with a 5 trout limit on the Upper Coast.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

James Howell said:


> One good, cold, winter, and this whole conversation is a moot point. Plenty of trout on the upper coast, for now. Most folks apparently don't remember trying to catch a trout (or a red) in 84, or 90, when pretty much the whole biomass dissappeared. Most folks don't remember trying to find a redfish when there were gillnets and commercial fishermen everywhere. One good freeze, and you will be able to buy the bay boat of your dreams for about 10 cents on the dollar.


That is the truth and it doesn't matter if the limit today is 1 or 20, a big freeze or natural distarter could decimate the population at any time.



WillieT said:


> we ignored studies and surveys that could indicate there might be a problem.


What study are we ignoring?. You and many others seem to be ignoring the statement from TPWD

"TPWD gill net, bag seine and harvest data indicate they are *not overfished*. Fishing pressure and landings are different for each bay, with some bays higher than others. Spotted seatrout are the most sought after species by anglers in Texas inshore waters, but the *landings are currently at a sustainable level*. "


----------



## Totally Tuna (Apr 13, 2006)

Lots of misinformation and emotions in this thread, albeit entertaining.

It would be nice if we would focus on more projects helping to create habitat than lobbying for lower limits. Projects like the Half Moon reef in W. Matagorda Bay is what the CCA does best when they partner with the state. 

We just returned from fishing the Pickets in Louisiana (Similar project to Half Moon) and the same results could be going on in Texas in many bay systems. We caught our 75 fish limit in about 75 minutes. In hind sight we would have had a conversation with the guide that we didn't want a full limit, but that's for next trip. He was happy we didn't decide to catch and keep his limit that we were entitled to do and could have done in 30 minutes or less.

Those that had tried to compare this issue with the Red Snapper debacle have no clue. There is absolutely no comparison to the two issues. 

BretE and Itppowell have it right in my opinion. Most people don't catch much.


----------



## SETXJR (May 12, 2014)

sharkchum said:


> Actually, my dad and grandpa were commercial fishermen and made their living running gillnets. When gillnets were band my family almost starved to death.
> I can understand that you and a lot of other people probably thought is was the greatest thing in the world, but it drove my family into poverty.
> How would you like it if someone took away your only means of making a living?
> I guess you just chalk it up to "collateral damage", and the fact the some people must suffer so others can prosper, but it don't look so good when your the one suffering.


So, pretty much you have an ax to grind with CCA. I hope you can see that if your family and others continued to do what they were doing, your family would have been out of business either way.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

SETXJR said:


> I listened to a CCA Podcast in which the biologist stated that the Upper Texas Coast IS NOT in need of a reduction in daily bag limits. I think 5 is a little much when numbers dont support it. 8 would be a nice number to prevent a problem from drought or extreme freeze. 8 trout is plenty to feed a whole family. Sometimes you gotta give a little to get back. I think this is one of those times. I do not agree with a 5 trout limit on the Upper Coast.


Why 8, where did you get that number? Why not listen to the biologist and leave it where it is? No bag limit is going to prevent a natural fish kill. If there are more fish in the system then you would just have more dead fish.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

fishinguy said:


> That is the truth and it doesn't matter if the limit today is 1 or 20, a big freeze or natural distarter could decimate the population at any time.
> 
> What study are we ignoring?. You and many others seem to be ignoring the statement from TPWD
> 
> "TPWD gill net, bag seine and harvest data indicate they are *not overfished*. Fishing pressure and landings are different for each bay, with some bays higher than others. Spotted seatrout are the most sought after species by anglers in Texas inshore waters, but the *landings are currently at a sustainable level*. "


You need to read the entire sentence, right from the beginning. If you still donâ€™t understand, let me know and I will splain it to you.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

Totally Tuna said:


> It would be nice if we would focus on more projects helping to create habitat than lobbying for lower limits. Projects like the Half Moon reef in W. Matagorda Bay is what the CCA does best when they partner with the state.


I agree 100%, more habitat = more fish. I know I have enjoyed catching fish on many of the CCA funded habitat projects in East bay. I also like that the oystering was restricted on these reefs and we don't get run out by the oysterboats.


----------



## SETXJR (May 12, 2014)

fishinguy said:


> Why 8, where did you get that number? Why not listen to the biologist and leave it where it is? No bag limit is going to prevent a natural fish kill. If there are more fish in the system then you would just have more dead fish.


You are talking about one event, a freeze. Not accounting for hurricanes, floods, droughts, other natural occurring events that we have all witness in the last decade, we've had it all. Also, the 1983 freeze was a once in a lifetime event in which Houston was under the freezing mark for 10 consecutive days.

And 8 is a number I would be ok with if they were to have any reduction.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> How would you like it if someone took away your only means of making a living?


Well it was surely a necessary thing to get done but it does explain why you think like you do.

TH


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

SETXJR said:


> You are talking about one event, a freeze. Not accounting for hurricanes, floods, droughts, other natural occurring events that we have all witness in the last decade, we've had it all. Also, the 1983 freeze was a once in a lifetime event in which Houston was under the freezing mark for 10 consecutive days.
> 
> And 8 is a number I would be ok with if they were to have any reduction.


Natural events are always going to occur taking all that into account according to TPWD " the landings are currently at a sustainable level".

Why 8 though? Is that just based on your feelings or is this just something to appease both sides? What is wrong with setting the limits based on TPWD gill net, bag seine and harvest data?

I don't know why we can't just listen to the professionals and leave it where it is.


----------



## SETXJR (May 12, 2014)

fishinguy said:


> Natural events are always going to occur taking all that into account according to TPWD " the landings are currently at a sustainable level".
> 
> Why 8 though? Is that just based on your feelings or is this just something to appease both sides? What is wrong with setting the limits based on TPWD gill net, bag seine and harvest data?
> 
> I don't know why we can't just listen to the professionals and leave it where it is.


But you are basing your logic on one event. Drought might kill say 10,000 trout in EB. Well, if you have more fish in that bay due to lower limits, well, there are more fish left. A long period freeze event is the ultimate death nail to our coast. Nothing you can do about that.

When the Trinity flooded a few years back I witnessed guide after guide, day after day, rape one reef in East Bay that had trout stacked up on the bottom. Self regulation doesn't work. Greed sets in. I would be totally cool with no change in the bag limit as I am with you and agree with you about what the biologist say, however if they were to lower it (they have final say) I would be content with 8. Thats 16 filets


----------



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

sharkchum said:


> You must be another proud CCA member, probably the president of your local chapter
> 
> As far as my credibility goes, it's 100% intact.


False, false, and VERY false. You're just like those idiots in south Louisiana blaming BP for ruining their fishery while they boat and fillet over 500 12" trout 3 - 5 days a week.

Maybe what you actually need is an education instead of a high trout limit.

Who are ... "my people" exactly, and what in the actual **** are you talking about. No one owes your opinion any respect simply because it's yours, your opinion CAN absolutely by wrong, and you've proved nothing.

Keep twisting that foil hat tighter, if we're lucky you'll pop something important.


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

WillieT said:


> SC I appreciate that you are one heck of a fisherman, and I really appreciate that you are more than willing to share your expertise and techniques with others. But your motives in this â€œdiscussion â€œ seem to be very selfish.
> 
> Unfortunately, when man relies on self regulation, things can go south very quickly. IMHO getting gill nets banned was a great thing. Size and bag limits are a good thing for the future of fishing. I saw your post on your stepson, and how proud you are of his fishing abilities. And you should be. Wouldnâ€™t it be a shame, if in 10-20 years that he might be extremely limited as far as doing what he loves, fishing, because we ignored studies and surveys that could indicate there might be a problem.
> 
> I know that most on here think there are too many rules and regulations, and in some instances there are. But many rules and regulations are necessary or there would be complete chaos. Everything I read from you is that your should be able to keep more, more, more. Sometimes more, more, more, is not best.


 My eyes are open to both sides, I just want to real data backing everything up, and there isn't any. Have you noticed that no one has posted any links to any studies that have been done that shows the true state of the upper coast fishery. That's because they don't exist. Sure, there have been studies done, but none of them are accurate or without bias. I completely agree that there needs to be limits in place, but they need to be based on facts, not opinions.
To be perfectly honest, I don't need to keep 10 fish, I don't even need to keep 5 fish. The fact is, I rarely keep any fish and release almost everything I catch. At this time I don't have a single piece of fish in my freezer. But this is not about how many fish I think I should be able to keep, it's about having a choice. Everytime Texas Parks and Wildlife has lowered limits, they have never brought them back up, even when the data proves the fishery can sustain the increase.
There are a lot of people who think we shouldn't be able to own a AR. They say we could get by with a regular rifle for hunting and a shotgun for self defense, and they are probably right. But you know what, I like my AR, and I like having a choice on weather I can own one or not, and if someone trys to take that choice away from be, they will have to pry my AR from my cold dead hands. I feel the same way about the fishery.

For all the people who think I'm just selfish and out to destroy the fishery, nothing could be farther from the truth.
I started tagging sharks for National Marine Fisheries Service when I was 16. I volunteered my money, my labor, and my time to help scientists gain a better understanding of sharks. This all started because of a article I read in a fishing magazine that discussed how the decline in shark populations was having a negative effect on oceans around the world. This was before the internet, so I went to the library to do more research. All the information I found lead to the same conclusion. Sharks were slow to reach sexual maturity, they produced very few offspring, and they were being killed faster then they could reproduce. All the scientist were in 100% agreement that these were facts, so I decided to do my part to help. I mailed National Marine Fisheries Service a letter stating that I wanted to tag sharks, and a couple weeks later they sent me a pack of shark tags, and tagging needle, and instructions. I've been tagging sharks ever since, and now I tag them for the Texas Shark Rodeo as well. I don't do this for money or notoriety, I do it because I'm trying to make a difference in the fishery. I'm always teaching and educating people about sharks, in hopes that they will want to help also. 
Aside from sharks, I also do my best to educate people on bull reds. What most people don't realize is that redfish actually spend most of their lives offshore, and only come inshore to breed. The reds everyone loves to catch so much in our bays are just the juveniles. Redfish take a long time to reach sexual maturity, and all the "Bulls" should actually be called cows, because they are all female. Unlike trout that spawn several times a year, redfish only spawn once a year, usually around October, when the water temperature is around 77 degrees, and there is about the amount of daylight and dark. They are so sure about this data, that all the hatcheries are able to trick redfish into spawning twice a year. They adjust the temperature and amount of daylight and dark in the building to make the redfish think a year has went by in a 6 month period. If you ever get a chance to take a tour of the hatchery at Sea Center Texas, I suggest you do. It's because of all this factual data the scientists had found on redfish, that I started trying to help protect bull reds on my own. Not trying to brag, but I probably catch more bull reds a year than anyone in Texas, and I release everyone of them. I also help other people catch them, and educated them on why it's important to release them. Before there were hard facts on the life cycle of redfish, I would keep them, but once I was introduced to the real scientific data I started protecting them.
You see I'm not a monster out to destroy the fishery. I just want some true scientific data to prove if changing the limits on the upper coast are really necessary.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

The wisdom of youth is quite evident in this thread. While arrogant and misdirected, it does an old man's heart good to know that people still care enough about the outdoors to be passionate about it. If you really care about the future...

Go hunting and fishing and take every kid you can drag away from their TV and cell phone. The rest will take care of itself.


----------



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

What they should do is make the cost of your fishing license proportionate to your taxable income on your tax return - so if "my people" make a whole bunch of money, "my people" pay way more - but in return, we get to keep way more fish ... say, 35 - 40/day or so ... and then they can use the extra money for habitat reclamation. I mean, since it's about rich people paying off TP&W and all.


----------



## Sgrem (Oct 5, 2005)

I think they should absolutely lower the daily limit of tournaments from 10 down to 5.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

Spec-Rig.006 said:


> What they should do is make the cost of your fishing license proportionate to your taxable income on your tax return - so if "my people" make a whole bunch of money, "my people" pay way more - but in return, we get to keep way more fish ... say, 35 - 40/day or so ... and then they can use the extra money for habitat reclamation. I mean, since it's about rich people paying off TP&W and all.


Can we also get exclusive bay and reef access and naming rights if we pay enough? I want to underwater and above fence Baffin and introduce some Florida trout and kill off all those nasty hardheads and drum to make more room for reds, trout and flounder. Floating feeders around the rocks as well. Living the dream I tell ya...


----------



## Dubdee (Jul 22, 2015)

I don't really care whether they go to a 5 trout limit on the upper coast or not. I don't fish there and probably never will. But, I am glad that we have a 5 trout limit in the middle and lower coast. No one needs 20 trout fillets every trip per man unless they are doing some freezer burn science projects.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

I don't care either, but I'm not pompous enough to say what other people need. Some people don't fish 300 days a year and don't catch a limit every time they do.


----------



## schoalbeast101 (Oct 23, 2014)

Sorry but after the Red snapper decisions made by our government scientist, I have little faith in scientific studies and data. When my buddies who fish off shore who have for a few years now chum up Red snapper and catch them on top waters, I knew we had liar's doing the studies. For what? Shark chum, you even admitted yourself that any studies done would be bias so what science are you waiting for to make a decision. You know where to get the real data you need to make a honest decision. Go talk to the honest, long time, fishing guides who have made their living's fishing that area. Talk to any of them and they will tell you they contributed to the problem with the number of keeper trout in East Galveston Bay. Anyone who fished East Galveston Bay the last 3 years knows the fish were pounded on the deep reefs. Trout were pushed from trinity Bay with the fresh water run off from the rivers running into East Galveston Bay from Trinity Bay. That being said I'll be honest. The Galveston fishery is an amazing fishery. The problem with going from 10 to 5 is that it would probably never go back to 10 after the fishery recovered (and it will in the near future). If there was a like a 2 or 3 year life on the limit reduction then I would probably be for it but if that wasn't in it, I would oppose the reduction. It's a tough call to make and that's my opinion. It isn't wrong or right it's my opinion formed from people who have fished this bay 300 plus days a year for the last 35 to 40 years. Their opinion matters the most to me since they have the most knowledge about the bay. I am not saying the surveys and gill net work TPWD does it not beneficial, I just think there are people on the water with better knowledge than any of us. We should listen to them.


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

Mickey talked about this last weekend... lol. So, get ready, as Plaag said. Mick said scoping mtgs next spring, regs in fall, as I recall... I'm all for it. I supported it the last time it was proffered. Mickey supports it now after the stack ups in recent years got hammered so hard... I'd like to see flounder and Croaker both become gamefish, too...


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

We are quickly regulating ourselves into a catch and release only fishery. Not everybody gets a trophy and limiting the successful is not going to help the incompetent. 

In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan


----------



## tngbmt (May 30, 2004)

trout conservation .. ok
i like the 5 limit but if we can change legal lengths to 15-20" only and one trophy over 20" per year tag like red fish. maybe the limit can stay 10.

i fish sabine weekly (3-4hr in the morning) and dont care too much for 10 trouts or eating the 20+ inches.
my opinion is free


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

This is really all about Galveston Bay anyway. All it's gonna do to Sabine is make everybody buy a Louisiana license. For those that don't know, the bay shares reciprocity with Louisiana from bank to bank and the La. trout limit is 25 fish, 12" in length.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Fishing*



sharkchum said:


> Actually, my dad and grandpa were commercial fishermen and made their living running gillnets. When gillnets were band my family almost starved to death.
> I can understand that you and a lot of other people probably thought is was the greatest thing in the world, but it drove my family into poverty.
> How would you like it if someone took away your only means of making a living?
> I guess you just chalk it up to "collateral damage", and the fact the some people must suffer so others can prosper, but it don't look so good when your the one suffering.


What most commercial fisherman donâ€™t understand that itâ€™s only a matter of time and they will fish themselves out of job.


----------



## tngbmt (May 30, 2004)

careful, i think Louisiana size and daily creel limits in sabine are ..

â€¢ Speckled trout: 15 fish; 12-inch minimum size, only two of which may be over 25 inches.
http://www.louisianasportsman.com/details.php?id=9821


----------



## Reel Screamer (Jun 8, 2004)

sharkchum said:


> Actually, my dad and grandpa were commercial fishermen and made their living running gillnets. When gillnets were band my family almost starved to death.
> I can understand that you and a lot of other people probably thought is was the greatest thing in the world, but it drove my family into poverty.
> How would you like it if someone took away your only means of making a living?
> I guess you just chalk it up to "collateral damage", and the fact the some people must suffer so others can prosper, but it don't look so good when your the one suffering.


Just because someone was making a living at it doesnâ€™t mean it should stay the same forever regardless of current circumstances. People have to change what they do for a living all the time based on the current environment. Nothing ever lasts forever.


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

tngbmt said:


> careful, i think Louisiana size and daily creel limits in sabine are ..
> 
> â€¢ Speckled trout: 15 fish; 12-inch minimum size, only two of which may be over 25 inches.
> http://www.louisianasportsman.com/details.php?id=9821


You are correct. 
They can change the limit all they want but I'll still fish all day and hook and release ad many as I want. Many of which will still die regardless of if it's in the cooler or bleed out because they swallowed the hook . I'm not gonna change my day over y'alls 5 fish limit.


----------



## ltppowell (Dec 21, 2015)

Yes...you're right. I thought so too until I pulled up general regs. My bad. I only fish on a Texas license. For now. May be forced to go with an La guide license if it goes to 5. Nothing personal...just business.


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

El General said:


> Anyone that is against a 5 fish limit is against having more fish in the bays. It is really that simple.
> 
> I don't care what the limit is, but I am totally for more fish in the bays.


I haven't read this whole thread yet. I have to admit you almost had me thinking you really are for what ever limit the system can support with the expected numbers of people fishing. Whatever that number may end up being based on sound unbiased available data.

Until you posted that.


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

Reel Screamer said:


> Just because someone was making a living at it doesnâ€™t mean it should stay the same forever regardless of current circumstances. People have to change what they do for a living all the time based on the current environment. Nothing ever lasts forever.


Actually ,people don't have to change what they do for a living. I've worked at the same place for 25 years and will be able to retire in 3 more years. I could chose to change what I do for a living, but I don't have to.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Stalkin Spots (Jan 12, 2014)

*Quoting what appears to be a response from Sharkchum to El General:*

I'm basing it on the fact that there is no scientific data.
Do you know how TP&WD conduct their so called data? Whenever they are going to do a creel survey or gill net survey, they have a computer generate a random date and location, and that is where and when they do their survey. They may set a gill net on a shallow mud flat in the middle of August, or be conducting a creel survey in the middle of a thunderstorm. I've never seen them set a gill net in a location known to hold high concentrations of fish, and I've never seen them doing a creel survey on a good fishing day. This isn't science, it's a joke. I'm actually friends with a couple of the guys who do the gill net and creel surveys in Galveston bay, and they also think it's a joke. If you don't believe me you can call them your self, 281-534-0101.

What you are describing is called Random Sampling. It is not a joke, it is an accepted method of gathering data in wildlife and fisheries management. If creel surveys were only done on ice cream days, and gill net surveys only done on guts emptying from grass flats, the gathered data would be skewed.

Example: If you are doing a spotlight survey for deer and you only count deer on large open food plots where they are likely feeding and you can see 300 yards, and you donâ€™t include areas where the brush is dense and you can only see 25 yards, your extrapolated numbers would be skewed so that they grossly overestimate your population. Forgive the deer example, but I am a wildlife biologist, not a fisheries biologist. The methodology is the same.


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

Stalkin Spots said:


> *Quoting what appears to be a response from Sharkchum to El General:*
> 
> I'm basing it on the fact that there is no scientific data.
> Do you know how TP&WD conduct their so called data? Whenever they are going to do a creel survey or gill net survey, they have a computer generate a random date and location, and that is where and when they do their survey. They may set a gill net on a shallow mud flat in the middle of August, or be conducting a creel survey in the middle of a thunderstorm. I've never seen them set a gill net in a location known to hold high concentrations of fish, and I've never seen them doing a creel survey on a good fishing day. This isn't science, it's a joke. I'm actually friends with a couple of the guys who do the gill net and creel surveys in Galveston bay, and they also think it's a joke. If you don't believe me you can call them your self, 281-534-0101.
> ...


I watched them put the gill nets out last year during the flounder run. We were 200 yards away bringing fish in as fast as you could reel . 10 boats lined up all doing the same. The spot they chose to run the net doesn't hold fish . I don't know how long it soaked but they didn't pull a fish up.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Sharkchum - Your family were not the only ones who faced hard times when commercial net fishing was outlawed in Texas bays in the late-70s early-80s era. But coastal people are a resilient lot. Bunches of them on the middle and lower coast were similarly effected but figured out pretty quick a much easier and more profitable way to make a living...they became fishing guides. I mean after all, the market for fishing charters was booming (darn rich people) and who knew more about fish and fishing than the netters? Howard Brown of Rockport used to take Geroge H W Bush.


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Your example with the deer is spot on also. No matter how they do it, the samples are gonna be inaccurate. So, the big question is, how can we get more accurate data? I wish I had the answers, but I don't, and neither does anyone else. It's a vexing problem that's been plaguing biologists for years, with no anwsers. With the advancement in infrared technology, they have been able to get better counts on deer populations in thick brush because it can pick up their body heat. Maybe in the future they will make enough advancements in sonar technology to be able to simple fly over a bay system and get a accurate count of the fish.


Stalkin Spots said:


> *Quoting what appears to be a response from Sharkchum to El General:*
> 
> I'm basing it on the fact that there is no scientific data.
> Do you know how TP&WD conduct their so called data? Whenever they are going to do a creel survey or gill net survey, they have a computer generate a random date and location, and that is where and when they do their survey. They may set a gill net on a shallow mud flat in the middle of August, or be conducting a creel survey in the middle of a thunderstorm. I've never seen them set a gill net in a location known to hold high concentrations of fish, and I've never seen them doing a creel survey on a good fishing day. This isn't science, it's a joke. I'm actually friends with a couple of the guys who do the gill net and creel surveys in Galveston bay, and they also think it's a joke. If you don't believe me you can call them your self, 281-534-0101.
> ...


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Stalkin Spots (Jan 12, 2014)

sharkchum said:


> Actually, my dad and grandpa were commercial fishermen and made their living running gillnets. When gillnets were band my family almost starved to death.
> I can understand that you and a lot of other people probably thought is was the greatest thing in the world, but it drove my family into poverty.
> How would you like it if someone took away your only means of making a living?
> I guess you just chalk it up to "collateral damage", and the fact the some people must suffer so others can prosper, but it don't look so good when your the one suffering.


Iâ€™m sorry about the difficulty put upon your family, but I would say they were the problem. If they were able to continue in the same manner, we probably wouldnâ€™t have a red left I. The the fisherery. Never mind all of the other fish indiscriminately caught in their gill nets. Gill nets donâ€™t target one species.


----------



## Stalkin Spots (Jan 12, 2014)

sharkchum said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Your example with the deer is spot on also. No matter how they do it, the samples are gonna be inaccurate. So, the big question is, how can we get more accurate data? I wish I had the answers, but I don't, and neither does anyone else. It's a vexing problem that's been plaguing biologists for years, with no anwsers. With the advancement in infrared technology, they have been able to get better counts on deer populations in thick brush because it can pick up their body heat. Maybe in the future they will make enough advancements in sonar technology to be able to simple fly over a bay system and get a accurate count of the fish.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


There is no way to count 100% of any population, whether it is the trout in East Galveston Bay, the deer on your ranch or the number of people living in Houston this very minute. To expect anything else is pure folly.


----------



## Stalkin Spots (Jan 12, 2014)

sharkchum said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Your example with the deer is spot on also. No matter how they do it, the samples are gonna be inaccurate. So, the big question is, how can we get more accurate data? I wish I had the answers, but I don't, and neither does anyone else. It's a vexing problem that's been plaguing biologists for years, with no anwsers. With the advancement in infrared technology, they have been able to get better counts on deer populations in thick brush because it can pick up their body heat. Maybe in the future they will make enough advancements in sonar technology to be able to simple fly over a bay system and get a accurate count of the fish.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


That may be, but we have to do the best we can with the scientific methods available

IR cameras can show you what is in .1 acres of a 5,000 acre ranch, but not the other 4,999.9 acres. What it can give you is an idea of population structure. What is the buck to doe ratio? What is the fecundity rate? It will not tell you the number of deer on the place. It basically serves the same purpose as a stand count.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

Sharkchum, you're right about our scientific community being biased, and often corrupted by grant funding. If you want a study to make a certain finding, you can get one. If you need a court expert to take a particular position, you can buy one. There are well-respected studies that show Vitamin D reduces/prevents cancer, causes cancer, and has no effect on cancer. There are a lot of reasons, and not all of them are directly related to money. David H Freedman wrote a great book called, "Wrong!" that is spot on. It's a sad state of affairs, but I automatically question almost all "studies" that I read.

But... if you're going to think like that, you have to be willing to look at the flip side, too.

Some people have been forced out of their livelihoods - it isn't limited to just fishermen. Prohibition put everyone in who sold alcohol out of work, and a bunch of other people who served, poured, did their accounting, etc. Poof! Overnight, out of work. (Except for the ones who became outlaws.) That's just one example, but there are many.

And who put the buffalo hunters out of business? Who forced people to stop killing passenger pigeons? It wasn't government regulation. People killed too many, until the populations collapsed. You don't have to kill off all of a particular animal to reduce it below a sustainable population.

When those gill net regulations went into effect, I am convinced that it was necessary. I could tell you stories about nets we used to find in Pringle Lake, for instance, when we were floundering at night. But that wouldn't be scientific either. I don't have a valid scientific study to fall back on, but that's my very strong opinion. I remember what it was like, and I have vivid memories of a LOT of commercial fishermen grousing about how bad it had become. If they didn't do something drastic, I believe we would have had a catastrophic collapse in the populations of many fish that would have taken a generation, at least, to recover from.

Just about that time, Texas was having a massive population inflow from all over. Cities started pumping their drinking water from our rivers, and the outflow into our estuaries and bays dropped drastically. On top of that, we started having prolonged droughts. I could go on and on, but these bays are simply not capable of holding the biomass that they used to. And for that reason, they can't support the number of fishermen, nor the size of harvest they used to.

In retrospect, I wish we had put more time and thought into the effect the regs had on fishermen and their families. We put a floor under farmers, in a number of ways. I understand why that time left some scars on you and your family.

The worst thing of all is that a select group of people made windfall profits off of the regulation boom around that time. Not just in Texas, but all along the Gulf Coast. The practice of leasing quota is obscene. People making hundreds of thousands of dollars because they "happened" to get handed a golden ticket. Follow that practice far enough up the food chain, and you have to conclude that some people got bought off. And, as always, the hard-working people at the bottom get screwed.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

I am not Nostradamus but I will put forth a prediction.

The entire coast will have a 5 fish limit within 5 years.

The same people whining now about limits, croaker, guides, shrimpers, oystermen fill in the blank with your gripe _______________ will still be whining in five years about something.

Whiners are going to whine.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

*Some food for thought...*

Been following this thread from the beginning and noticed numerous attempts to justify more generous bag limits. Of course some people favoring more generous limits are quick to point toward Louisiana where the daily bag is 15 trout in the Sabine and Calcasieu estuaries and 25 for the rest of the state. The minimum length for specks is 12-inches state wide.

I would like to point out though, trying to compare Texas to Louisiana in terms of fisheries and fisheries management would invite at least as much error as trying to compare Austria with Australia. Texas and Louisiana share a border while Austria and Australia have similar names...but that's about it.

Consider if you will the CCA Texas STAR Tournament with the CCA Louisiana STAR - if either of these could be considered representative of the estuarine habitats and fisheries management in play.

Texas STAR recognizes three regions - Upper, Middle and Lower Coast. Louisiana has four - East, Southeast, West and Southwest.

In the Texas STAR a trout must weigh a minimum of 8.0 pounds to be eligible. In Louisiana is must be a minimum of 20-inches length.

The current Texas STAR Upper Coast leaderboard is headed by 9lb-0ounce fish.
Middle Coast has a 8lb-4-ounce leader and Lower Coast is led by a whopping 11-pounder.

Over in Loisiana, the East leader is 6.82, Southeast 5.68, Southwest 3.92, and West has a 7.50 pounder.

So I'll just leave this for you to consider which fisheries management plan delivers the fishery you consider most appropriate for the region you fish and your personal fishing expectations.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

Stalkin Spots said:


> That may be, but we have to do the best we can with the scientific methods available
> 
> IR cameras can show you what is in .1 acres of a 5,000 acre ranch, but not the other 4,999.9 acres. What it can give you is an idea of population structure. What is the buck to doe ratio? What is the fecundity rate? It will not tell you the number of deer on the place. It basically serves the same purpose as a stand count.


I can 100% guarantee you that I could strategically place an IR camera to skew the results (and therefore the conclusions) in a desired direction. The same can be said for creel surveys. We have entirely too many "studies" being commissioned by people who have an agenda. If your study gives the the wrong results, they won't commission another study - at least not with you. Lots of people, faced with that kind of pressure, find ways to justify fudging the study or the data.

TPWD is not as independent as they should be, plain and simple. That doesn't automatically mean that what they say is wrong or biased. But it does mean that we should be skeptical. And it's not just TPWD. NOAA and NASA leap to mind as government agencies who have decided that scientific method is optional.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> Been following this thread from the beginning and noticed numerous attempts to justify more generous bag limits.


For the record (and I have talked to you personally about this), I would be find if we closed down ALL harvest of ALL sea life from the bays for a couple of years, so we could settle the discussion once and for all. I love fishing as much as the next person, and more than most. And I love to eat fish that I catch. But I would CnR for a year or two, if it enabled us to come up with plans that kept the fish populations strong for the future.

I'm not trying to justify bigger bag limits, or anything like it. I think there are a lot of good people working for TPWD, but I don't trust the bureaucracy, and I don't ever trust "science" that has an agenda baked in.

If you read through a LOT of TPWD's papers, they make it clear that they are managing the economics, the dollars, of the harvest. They should be managing the resource, and totally agnostic to the economics. They are biologists, not economists. And just like sports, or online gambling, or journalism, or most anything else: when there are millions and millions of dollars at stake, somebody is going to cheat.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

POCjetty...we think a lot alike in many ways...but as to the mission TPWD-Coastal Fisheries is charged with by the legislature:

(Paraphrased) To maximize the socio-economic benefit that can be derived from the fishery with a view toward sustainability.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> POCjetty...we think a lot alike in many ways...but as to the mission TPWD-Coastal Fisheries is charged with by the legislature:
> 
> (Paraphrased) To maximize the socio-economic benefit that can be derived from the fishery with a view toward sustainability.


LOL. We're still pretty close, EJ. I don't question that's what they do. I'm saying that it's a recipe for manipulation of the science. You get biologists taking directions from economists... and the economists get "nudged" by politicians... and the politicians get supported by lobbyists.

For those who don't understand what I'm talking about - there are a lot of stakeholders involved, when you start talking about "maximum" socio-economic benefit: commercial fishermen, fish buyers, HEB, restaurants, tourist trade, etc. All of them have lobbyists, trying to influence the decision making process to get as much of that benefit for themselves as possible. Eventually that trickles down, in the form of culture and instructions, to the biologists in the field.

The scientists should be independent. They should be measuring and interpreting the data, without any interference. Then the economists can fight over how to maximize the "socio-economic benefit". If they are wrong, the biologists' measurements will show it within a year or two.

It's not that way, I'll give you that.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Fish*



pocjetty said:


> LOL. We're still pretty close, EJ. I don't question that's what they do. I'm saying that it's a recipe for manipulation of the science. You get biologists taking directions from economists... and the economists get "nudged" by politicians... and the politicians get supported by lobbyists.
> 
> For those who don't understand what I'm talking about - there are a lot of stakeholders involved, when you start talking about "maximum" socio-economic benefit: commercial fishermen, fish buyers, HEB, restaurants, tourist trade, etc. All of them have lobbyists, trying to influence the decision making process to get as much of that benefit for themselves as possible. Eventually that trickles down, in the form of culture and instructions, to the biologists in the field.
> 
> ...


Biologist skewing numbers to benefit one group or another is about far out there as you can get.


----------



## 2Ws (Jun 28, 2016)

gater said:


> Biologist skewing numbers to benefit one group or another is about far out there as you can get.


Yep, kind of like the Red Snapper issue........right? 
I remember a day not long ago CCA WAS on the wrong side on this issue....WITH MY MONEY, quoting SCIENCE as the reason. Did they change their stance due to science 
or members complaint???


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

2Ws said:


> Yep, kind of like the Red Snapper issue........right?
> I remember a day not long ago CCA WAS on the wrong side on this issue....WITH MY MONEY, quoting SCIENCE as the reason. Did they change their stance due to science
> or members complaint???


Winner winner chicken dinner. I also find it humorous people are talking about the legitimacy of the data gathering methods of TPWD and using that as a means to explain why we may have enough fish to sustain present fishing pressure and limit numbers. Wake up people that want to keep the limits at 10 or return to 10. Their methods, right or wrong, good or bad, DO NOT in the first place support the argument we are overfishing. They in fact are on the record saying we can sustain 10 and the decision to reduce to 5 was not about overfishing. From their website:
*Are spotted seatrout overfished?*
No. TPWD gill net, bag seine and harvest data indicate they are not overfished. Fishing pressure and landings are different for each bay, with some bays higher than others. Spotted seatrout are the most sought after species by anglers in Texas inshore waters, but the landings are currently at a sustainable level. A reduction in landings would increase the number of older and larger fish in the population. http://tpwd.texas.gov/newsmedia/releases/related/2013-12-18_scoping_coastal_faq/

This is all about preferring fishermen who like better odds at Trophies(see red above) as opposed to those equally happy to have a box of 10. And guess who else is all about trophies? CCA. I laughed this morning when I got an email from TPWD that directed me to this..http://fishgame.com/2018/06/speckled-trout-finding-the-monsters/
Don't get me wrong I like catching big trout and did so long before the limits were reduced but I would never impose my style on a guy just as happy with a box of 10 2 pounders unless it made sense for conservation as opposed to trophies hunting considerations. To do otherwise is elitism IMHO


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> Been following this thread from the beginning and noticed numerous attempts to justify more generous bag limits.


What more justification do you need than this "TPWD gill net, bag seine and harvest data indicate they are not overfished. Fishing pressure and landings are different for each bay, with some bays higher than others. Spotted seatrout are the most sought after species by anglers in Texas inshore waters, but the landings are currently at a sustainable level. "

Do you not agree with their assessment? What data to you have to counter their statement that "landings are currently at a sustainable level"?

I don't understand why we completely overlook the expert input and start saying we should make changes based on opinion and personal feelings.


----------



## DUTY FIRST (Jun 23, 2012)

The joker in the deck regarding establishing bag limits is that only a small fraction of inshore fishermen actually catch and retain the daily bag limit, regardless of what it is set at.

TPWD biologists admit they don't have a handle on the number but estimate (based mainly on dockside interviews) that it is in the lower single digits, despite the many pictures published of guides and clients with multiple limits This, along with the fact that *it's impossible to stockpile fish populations* for the possibility of a future decimation of numbers (either man made or due to natural causes) makes trying to be pro active by bag limit manipulation a futile endeavor. Being reactive is the only sure method of judging and managing the state of the fishery.

A couple years of significantly reduced netting surveys will reveal the need for reexamination of the regulations. Anything else is just feel good, non science based opinion. If not careful, we will allow the liberal "but we have to do SOMETHING!" mentality to lead to an end of sport fishing as we know it. The current state of federal fishery management is a prime example.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it starts to break, fix it, but do so based on science and the laws of physics, not popular opinion, politics, and individual personal agendas.

"If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion." -- Lazarus Long


----------



## BigGarwood (Oct 13, 2008)

fishinguy said:


> What more justification do you need than this "TPWD gill net, bag seine and harvest data indicate they are not overfished. Fishing pressure and landings are different for each bay, with some bays higher than others. Spotted seatrout are the most sought after species by anglers in Texas inshore waters, but the landings are currently at a sustainable level. "
> 
> Do you not agree with their assessment? What data to you have to counter their statement that "landings are currently at a sustainable level"?
> 
> I don't understand why we completely overlook the expert input and start saying we should make changes based on opinion and personal feelings.


Do you change your oil before the engine explodes or after? Do you have to be a **** expert to know if you should, or just keep pluggin away bc its fine for right now.

Or are you a proactive car owner that wants his engine to last for a really long time so you change the oil before the warning light comes on?

You see where Im going with this????

You think everything is all hunky dory bc the population is okay for right now.

What you don't get is the FACTORS THAT LEAD TO A POPULATION DECLINE ARE INCREASING AND WE NEED TO BE PROACTIVE TO PREVENT A POPULATION COLLAPSE IN THE FUTURRRRREEEEEEEEEEE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOOOOOOOWWWWW OR SHOULD WE TYPE SLOOOOWWWEEERRRR?????


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

gater said:


> Biologist skewing numbers to benefit one group or another is about far out there as you can get.


Well since you're the expert here on... well, everything... why do people spend all those millions of dollars on lobbyists? I mean, since it doesn't change anything, it seems like a really stupid way to spend money. But they keep on doing it?

LOL. You know NOTHING about study framework or methodology, do you? Of course you don't.

.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

BigGarwood said:


> Do you change your oil before the engine explodes or after? Do you have to be a **** expert to know if you should, or just keep pluggin away bc its fine for right now.
> 
> Or are you a proactive car owner that wants his engine to last for a really long time so you change the oil before the warning light comes on?
> 
> ...


When my PHD educated team of mechanics tells me based on their extensive experience, judgment, research and data analysis my oil doesn't need changing I don't change it because I think without any real data he is wrong.


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

I worked in the grocery business for many years, with a food broker, not retail. We represented many very large conglomerates in the grocery industry. I know for a fact that numbers can be used to tell whatever story you want, except market share.

Not saying you shouldnâ€™t pay attention to numbers, but thatâ€™s just a starting point.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

If only the "real world" numbers could be calculated...

And the real world I'm talking about is that the major majority of people fishing the inshore waterways of Texas from Brownsville to Sabine on any given day....are not limiting out, regardless of 10, or 5 possession limits.

I think it's funny when people act as if everyone is limiting out every time they go fishing. 

Carry on


----------



## BullyARed (Jun 19, 2010)

Take the survey and respond with 20 trouts per day and possession limit to 40!


----------



## DUTY FIRST (Jun 23, 2012)

BigGarwood said:


> Do you change your oil before the engine explodes or after? Do you have to be a **** expert to know if you should, or just keep pluggin away bc its fine for right now.
> 
> Or are you a proactive car owner that wants his engine to last for a really long time so you change the oil before the warning light comes on?
> 
> ...


What you don't get is that you are TOTALEEEEEE CLUELEEEESSSSSS.

Or have you found a way to stockpile biomass for the future, in spite of the laws of physics? If so, please share it with the scientific community. You could win a Nobel Prize in Science and end hunger worldwide.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOOOOOOOWWWWW OR SHOULD WE TYPE SLOOOOWWWEEERRRR?????


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Leave the trout limit alone, increase reds limit to 10. Reds are overpopulating our bays causing stress on other species...


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

BigGarwood said:


> Do you change your oil before the engine explodes or after? Do you have to be a **** expert to know if you should, or just keep pluggin away bc its fine for right now.
> 
> Or are you a proactive car owner that wants his engine to last for a really long time so you change the oil before the warning light comes on?
> 
> ...


Type slower??? You are the genius comparing an eco system to an engine. When my engine suddenly learns to reproduce I might be inclined give thought to your analogy.

You can not stockpile the fish if there is a die off you get more dead fish.

Now lets break it down for you slowly the biologist ( biologist is a scientist who studies life, specifically organisms and their relationship to their environment. Generally speaking, biologists study humans, animals and bacteria to gain a better understanding of how the body works and how external factors influence each organism.) employed by TPWD stated that "landings are currently at a sustainable (able to be maintained at a certain rate or level) level" .

If that changes IN THE FUTURRRRREEEEEEEEEEE we can reassess the bag limits.


----------



## BigGarwood (Oct 13, 2008)

fishinguy said:


> Type slower??? You are the genius comparing an eco system to an engine. When my engine suddenly learns to reproduce I might be inclined give thought to your analogy.
> 
> You can not stockpile the fish if there is a die off you get more dead fish.
> 
> ...


No the analogy is that you don't wait until you have a major problem on your hands before you try to fix it.

You don't wait until the next flood, or freeze, or oil spill or any catastrophe to play the oh $H1t game bc by then the damage is done, by then it takes way more time and money to try and fix.

Take for instance CWD in whitetails. TPWD is doing everything they possibly can to prevent CWD from catching root in our whitetail population.

Why though????? We have plenty of deer. The population isn't suffering. The surveys show everything is perfectly A OK..

BC we want to protect and preserve them. Not wait until $h1t hits the fan to go into protect mode.

Could we increase the tag allotment and kill more deer in Texas without harming the population? Sure we could. Hell we have ranches that get more tags than they can even kill in a season. But we don't, bc we are conservative. Bc we are preserving the future herd in case of natural or man made disasters.

You may not see any concern for the upper coast fishery at this point and that's perfectly okay. Im sure the population is fine RIGHT NOW.

But your logic on management is completely moronic. The pressure on the fishery is increasing. Habitat is decreasing. Forage is decreasing. Pollution is increasing. Hydrology has been altered by manmade cuts and channels. By the time they discover we have a major problem, the regulations will be much more severe. That's when they close the fishing down in certain areas, or make a season, or cut the limit to 1. Did you ever think they would have to close oystering down in certain bays bc of over harvest?????? They reproduce too. Doesn't mean a dang thing. Too late.


----------

