# Official Trout Limit Survey. Please Vote.



## Won Mo Kasst

Ok guys...

This is the last bit of research I need for my final paper in college. The public opinion of current bag limits for spotted seatrout in Texas.

Please feel free to leave a quick opinion, but let us not get out of control with discussion or debates.

Many thanks to the 2cool community.


----------



## PHINS

Keep 5.


----------



## saltwatersensations

PHINS said:


> Keep 5.


You keep just two to offset the ten I keep.


----------



## daniel7930

I think it's fine the way it is set up


----------



## corykj

just keep 5


----------



## CaptDocHoliday

Drop to 7 or 8. No need to cut the limit in half. 20-30% decrease will be fine with me. Fewer fish kept will = bigger fish kept. 5 - 15" trout won't make for a very big fish fry for a family of 3+.


----------



## saltwatersensations

Whay decrease the limit at all? Is there a shortage of trout? I think not. Is just keep five just personal opinion backed up by studied info or just because you may not eat as much fish as the next guy? Or maybe you fish more and dont need to keep ten?


----------



## PHINS

SS that is fine.


----------



## Fish-a-mon

Keep it were it currently is at. Somedays you can bang out 10 keepers most days you dont.


----------



## PHINS

I think lower limits would allow for more fish to be hatched thus increasing the potential for bigger fish. The 25" plus fish are not laying as many eggs as the smaller ones. 

I fish for fun and usually don't keep any fish. Might be a holdover from my bass fishing days.


----------



## saltwatersensations

PHINS said:


> I think lower limits would allow for more fish to be hatched thus increasing the potential for bigger fish. The 25" plus fish are not laying as many eggs as the smaller ones.
> 
> I fish for fun and usually don't keep any fish. Might be a holdover from my bass fishing days.


That may be true but not everyone trophy fishes. How many eggs does a young fish lay vs. a 25"?


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

keep it where it's at, unless FACTUAL studies can be done with REAL data to prove the fishery is hurting by true biologist for the area, not armchair TPW wardens.

just keep fife is a personal thing being pushed, just like paddle, poll, drift.


----------



## patwilson

IMO keep 5...


----------



## CaptDocHoliday

Once you give up something to the govt, it's a hell of a fight to get it back.


----------



## jhua

Won Mo Kasst said:


> Ok guys...
> 
> This is the last bit of research I need for my final paper in college. The public opinion of current bag limits for spotted seatrout in Texas.
> 
> Please feel free to leave a quick opinion, but let us not get out of control with discussion or debates.
> 
> Many thanks to the 2cool community.


What does your final paper entail?


----------



## grman

Keep it the way it is. Every study has determined that recreational fisherman take less that 2% of the viable trout population in a given year. Environmental factors ( droughts, freezes) are the real dangers to the resource.


----------



## Long Pole

10 ~ 22-28" trout make for better photos than 5.


----------



## saltwatersensations

Just keep whatever you want(5) and I will keep whatever I want (10 if I catch ten) and try not to shove opinions and personal beliefs down others throats.


----------



## dan_wrider

I didn't see the box for 12" min 25 bag per day


----------



## Blk Jck 224

:headknock


----------



## AaronB

TPWD needs to lower the 15" minimum to 12" and leave the bag limit at 10 to make better use of a large percentage of the male population. Just ask those Louisianna boys..


----------



## Rippin_drag

Serious question. When you say "Official", is this going to be used by Tex. Parks & Wildlife or maybe CCA?


----------



## whalerguy28

AaronB said:


> TPWD needs to lower the 15" minimum to 12" and leave the bag limit at 10 to make better use of a large percentage of the male population. Just ask those Louisianna boys..


Their bag limits have little to do with the amount of fish they have. Lousiana it seems has more fish than Texas because of the vast amounts of marsh land surrounding their bays, not because of their bag limits!!!!


----------



## Won Mo Kasst

Rippin_drag said:


> Serious question. When you say "Official", is this going to be used by Tex. Parks & Wildlife or maybe CCA?


Could it? Most definitely. Will it? Depends on if I have the energy to take it past the classroom. I will post all of my findings here... This will include all of my scientific data as well. I will answer all questions after I let the survey run for a while.

Thanks again.


----------



## saltwatersensations

I think most of you just keep five people want it changed just so you have a better chance to tell people you limited out. :slimer:


----------



## Trout Asassin

Status Quo for me


----------



## Richard P

I think it is great that alot of those that fish regularly only "keep 5". If there is a scientific basis for lowering the limit to 5 then I would be all for it. For now though, I think the 10 fish limit is working just fine. Lots of folks only fish once or twice a year. If they get into the fish then why shouldnt they keep 10 fish? There are lots of other factors that determine trout populations besides limits.


----------



## BIGMIKE77

saltwatersensations said:


> I think most of you just keep five people want it changed just so you have a better chance to tell people you limited out. :slimer:


 :work: Hit it on the head with a sledge ... Keep it 10, i know of 2 older gentlemen that won't show me their honey holes  but rely on the fish they do get catch to feed their families. and as they cant afford a boat, they wade most the day for them and reds


----------



## Richard P

saltwatersensations said:


> I think most of you just keep five people want it changed just so you have a better chance to tell people you limited out. :slimer:


Exactly. I fish Port Mansfield mostly. I can catch my 3 reds, 5 trout and then come home telling everyone I double limited, lol.


----------



## saltwatersensations

I have about ten in the cooler from a two hour trip yesterday evening. Will filet them in about two hours. Caught a lot of schoolies too.


----------



## justletmein

osoobsessed said:


> keep it where it's at, unless FACTUAL studies can be done with REAL data to prove the fishery is hurting by true biologist for the area, not armchair TPW wardens.
> 
> just keep fife is a personal thing being pushed, just like paddle, poll, drift.


This guy knows what he's talking aboot. ^^


----------



## Trout Asassin

From my fishing experience over the last 42 years, limits should be imposed on the geographical stressed areas of fish. A perfect example would be the Port O'conner area compared to San Antonio Bay. I don't honestly know of any counts, but there seems to be alot more trout in San Antonio Bay.


----------



## live2fish247

A few years ago I would have been fine with a 5 fish limit. I fished a few times a week very rarely kept a full limit and the freezer always had fish in it. Now I get to fish a few times a month if I'm lucky so if I catch 10 trout then 10 trout are going home with me. I would be willing to bet that most of the keep 5 guys are lucky enough to fish quite often. I understand the view but it doesn't work too well for me anymore.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## dparkerh

5


----------



## specks&ducks

Keep 5


----------



## Bull Red

You keep 5, I'll keep 10 (when I can).


----------



## saltwatersensations

Just keep 2.5


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

saltwatersensations said:


> Just keep 2.5


don't use lead and barbed hooks!

keep 1 :slimer:

if people were that concerned about the trout limit, then they would push to have Croakers as a game fish and illegal to use as bait.


----------



## Dane-gerous

I only get to fish a few times a month so I believe that lowering the limit to 5 fish/day would only "make" people such as myself take advatage of this and cull out the smaller legal fish. 5 20" trout > 5 15" trout. When I catch a 15" presently I dont think twice about putting him on my stringer, but if they changed it to 5/day I definately would. Obviously there are pros and cons to both sides. People aren't forced to keep 10 fish, if you're a person that believes in keeping 5 then do it, don't hamper the people who choose to keep 10 that may not be as lucky to fish as much as you. But if there is factual evidence that says otherwise then I'm all for it.


----------



## justletmein

osoobsessed said:


> don't use lead and barbed hooks!
> 
> keep 1 :slimer:
> 
> if people were that concerned about the trout limit, then they would push to have Croakers as a game fish and illegal to use as bait.


Oh now you're just stirring the pot! :slimer:

As for the limits, I'll just keep 2 because that's aboot all I can ever catch anyway but you can be **** sure if I am ever actually able to catch 10 they're going in the cooler!


----------



## big john o

Its rare that I catch 10, much less 5... I say keep 10 for recreational fishermen..


----------



## justletmein

Here's an idea. Anyone with a home address that's more than 75 miles from the closest salty boat ramp can keep 10, everyone else gets 5.


----------



## TrueblueTexican

*Better management*

That would reflect on health of bay systems and pressure an area gets, highly migratory fish are hard to get handles on, but the bay systems that still get better freshwater inflow have better recruitment of trout. Ten fish may be too many for some areas and not enough in others.

Its always been managed for numbers, not necessarily to grow bigger trout.


----------



## saltwatersensations

*.*



justletmein said:


> Here's an idea. Anyone with a home address that's more than 75 miles from the closest salty boat ramp can keep 10, everyone else gets 5.
> 
> That would not be fair to the people that live 74.5 miles from the coast. :slimer: LOL!


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

saltwatersensations said:


> justletmein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an idea. Anyone with a home address that's more than 75 miles from the closest salty boat ramp can keep 10, everyone else gets 5.
> 
> That would not be fair to the people that live 74.5 miles from the coast. :slimer: LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> or have 2 homes, one that is in SA the other in Corpus, what do they do....only keep 7 and 3/4? :slimer:
Click to expand...


----------



## Icetrey

justletmein said:


> Here's an idea. Anyone with a home address that's more than 75 miles from the closest salty boat ramp can keep 10, everyone else gets 5.


Make it 50 miles :wink:


----------



## whalerguy28

I think without a doubt the one idea I can get behind no matter what is the one or two 25"+ tags a year for trout. There is no reason to keep a big fish, it seems the upper coast has plenty of fish so 10 fish limit should stand but a tag for 25"+ trout should be implemented ASAP!!!!


----------



## mikereds

keep 5


----------



## NOCREEK

Wow!! How many times are some of these guys gonna chime in! Just throw in your 2 cents and answer the kids question! - Keep it the way it is for now and just stay on top of it.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

I would say keep five but it really does depend on how overfished certain areas are and stress from more fishermen in a certain bay system but if we have too many boundaries it just adds to the confusion. Id like to see more data before stating an ignorant opinion. 


-mac-


----------



## SSST

I like the 75 mile rule, lol. Like alot of you have stated, until i see sone hard evidence, keep it like it is. I fish quite a bit all over the coast, maybe limit out 10% of my trips, but bekieve me nothing gets freezer burned. But if somebody can prove too many fish are being taken, i'll stand by a 5 fish limit.


----------



## FishFinder

I would be curious how much fish is thrown away due to freezer burn by people who keep to much. The only reason I mention this is I used to keep allot and found myself doing it. Now I only keep one meal in the freezer and release unless it's time to replenish...(This is just an opinion but might be another good poll if people where honest about it)


----------



## Cody C

Y'all crack me up


Cody C


----------



## saltaholic

Keep 10 but decrease the limit to 12" ........

A decrease on the small males would help build better fish stocks


----------



## RobRed

Drop it to 5, just to make it easier for me to get my limit....


----------



## bubbas kenner

saltwatersensations said:


> You keep just two to offset the ten I keep.


x2


----------



## Sowhunter

5 for croaks, 10 for arties.


----------



## Won Mo Kasst

Just wanted to thank you guys. Only posted the survey a few hours ago, and the votes are still pouring in. Will post all the stuff you want to hear as the week goes on.


----------



## kro

CaptDocHoliday said:


> Once you give up something to the govt, it's a hell of a fight to get it back.


Is everyone ok? CaptDocHoliday just dropped an infobomb.


----------



## Number_Five

I'll say five...just because the fish I catch in the lower laguna with the 5 fish limit are much better quality than the 10 I catch in the middle coast (if I'm lucky).

If you want to keep 10 fish where it's legal, more power to ya'. I rarely get to a 10 fish limit on a daily basis, so it doesn't matter too much to me. Even not catching 10 trout limit with 3-4 guys on the boat we usually have a a pretty big fish fry when you factor in reds and the flounder.

Five


----------



## G-2

5 is ok with me but I'd rather a compromise like 7. Once a year I take a trip to Port Mansfield and with the 5 trout limit down there, you catch a lot of fish and it's a blast!


----------



## Bingo baits

Keep 5


----------



## Richard P

G-2 said:


> 5 is ok with me but I'd rather a compromise like 7. Once a year I take a trip to Port Mansfield and with the 5 trout limit down there, you catch a lot of fish and it's a blast!


Just FYI for some folks, Not only is the bag limit 5 for speckled trout in the LLM so is the possession limit. I hope you are not keeping more than that on your trips down there.

I dont mind the 5 trout per day but do not understand why the possession limit is not 2 days worth like everything else including speckled trout in other places along the cost.

From TPW website..... *Spotted Seatrout* Special Regulation: For the Lower Laguna Madre, the daily bag limit and the possession limit shall be 5 fish in all inside waters south of marker 21 located inside the area known as the Land Cut. Inside waters are all bays, inlets, outlets, passes, rivers, streams, and other bodies of water landward from the shoreline of the state along the Gulf of Mexico and contiguous to, or connected with, but not a part of, the Gulf of Mexico and within which the tide regularly rises and falls. [/B]


----------



## Ratred20

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Some of you just don't get it. If you don't catch fish in a given area that doesn't mean the population is in bad shape. It just means you didn't find them. Someone's comment about San Antonio Bay vs. POC. Ha - I haven't caught anything worth bragging about there ever! POC works just fine for me because I keep detailed notes, fish my areas based on the conditons and the tides. Also I always look for the signs (you have to read the water). No secret honey holes just a little bit of effort looking and a lot of effort fishing. Catch and Release Guys - you guys probably kill more spawners than the guys keeping their limit, if they are fortunate to do so. Look up the mortality stats on released fish. Bottom line, keep your opinions out of it, TPWD has hard evidence the fishery is in better condition as ever. Tags for 25" trout is a joke - The big ones are there but only a select few understand enough to get them. One 25+ a day is fair.


----------



## spurgersalty

10 here
Oh, BTW, last years gill net surveys reported the entire coast as an upward trend. Even areas that were still "historically" low, if I remember right.
But hey, we're all "arm chair biologists" and know more than them. You know, 13" rule for deer was the best thing since sliced bread(according to some), buuuuuut, now, its, "tpwd doesn't know what they're doing. They should drop the limit to 5 to better the fishery. The trout are going to disappear".


----------



## o.b.

Personally I could care less either way. There are good points on all aspects. I am just fortunate enough to be able to fish at least twice a week so I almost always have fresh fish to eat. Each individual knows what they can keep and if they are going to utlilize their catch then thats okay with me.


----------



## IWade

three redfish limit, and nobody complains!

five trout, ten in possession works for me.

black drum is a great option for those who need more to eat.


----------



## fishingtwo

5


----------



## nuecesdave

Very difficult to say. Both are legitimate arguments. IMO, we should have 5 across the board for all species. Heck I wouldn't mind even seeing it drop to 5 AND drop it an inch to 14; it was there before. The thing that is a known fact, however, is that there are more and more fishermen every year; I think anyone that has lived on the coast for 30+ years can attest to that. I release most days, but also keep only 3-5 when I do want to eat some. Some people do like me, some people keep everytime. As long as the fish IS NOT wasted, I'm not going to judge you if you want to keep unless they are wasted.


----------



## reeltimer

Hang ten !


----------



## saltwatersensations

Ok drop it to five. I have the wife and soon to be the third child. Ill just keep 25 per trip.


----------



## wickedwader

Every person I have talked to that fishes the LLM has claimed the fishing has dramatically improved since the limit went to 5. Of course that is pretty unscientific but to a man/woman...they all say the same thing.


----------



## backwater

Keep Five!!


----------



## reeltimer

The Tea baggers are pulling away.Question were is or did the scientific info come from that you speak of?


----------



## dfalt

Only fish a few times a year and we never limit out anyhow.


----------



## flatsmaster14

You know how much fish you eat and how much is too much, if you got a freezer full of fish don't keep any at all. But I still think the limit should stay the same, cause ever now and again there is that friend that has a last min fish fry and need a meat haul! And if you catch a 25-30 inch trout let it go, take a few pictures and let a fellow fisherman have the joy of catching it another day.


----------



## Flat's Hunter

I think the redfish limit should be raised to 4 or 5, but that's just my opinion, no science. I think we should fish trout like bass, if you want to keep them, do so, if no let them go. Make a responsible choice and respect others choices

You know what you never see in the fish surveys? Environment impacts from year to year. Big freezes and multi year droughts are sure to affect numbers. A lot of so called science is mostly ****. I have never seen an real statical analysis of the data presented in any public forum or magazine. Sure they show you graphs and charts and they may look real nice, and even seem to "show" something but I don't see any numbers to show statistical significance, and without that any variation in numbers can be due to pure chance. Human nature usually causes us to bias results in the direction we beleive in. Science is supposed to exclude bias. Problem is it takes strict discipline and knowledge of the scientific process and statistics to achieve a unbiased conclusion. I haven't seen data presented in a way that really supports me making a decision one way or the other. What I have seen is graphs that haven't shown huge changes and some claiming fishing sucks and others claiming they have no problems limiting out. I mean look at some of the guide reports they slam them on a consistent basis.


----------



## saltaholic

Why is no one considering the effect the size limit has? Multiple well known fisherman have said for several years now that a 12" limit would reduce the small male population and in turn truly help the overall numbers.

Just a thought.......


----------



## yakfinaddict

*My Brain's Melting!*



spurgersalty said:


> 10 here
> Oh, BTW, last years gill net surveys reported the entire coast as an upward trend. Even areas that were still "historically" low, if I remember right.
> But hey, we're all "arm chair biologists" and know more than them. You know, 13" rule for deer was the best thing since sliced bread(according to some), buuuuuut, now, its, "tpwd doesn't know what they're doing. They should drop the limit to 5 to better the fishery. The trout are going to disappear".


I apologize for the length of this post but I have a lot to say about the subject and have done my homework. Don't want to step on anyone's toes but that is what this website is about, discussing fishing and seeing how awesome it is for people who do well at this recreation/career!

Spurger is right on the gill net surveys, trend is up for this year. From a pre-biologist's (almost, will graduate this summer, and not marine) view point that has talked with several TPWD employees (they like to discuss what they do because most of them do it for the love of the outdoors, look at their pay and you'll know what I'm talking about) the fisheries will fluctuate with given conditions (as one has mentioned, environmental conditions and pressure). There are studies that have shown this trend going up and down over the past several decades but any one cause has not been pin-pointed (except for natural occurences). There is an easy and understandable study called population dynamics in my old Biology textbook that shows when there is any rise in a population of prey the predator population goes up as well because there is more food, thus, more animals period (a desert isn't very populated, at least by humans, is it?). So, as we have more recreational fisherman the population of the targeted species may drop due to fishing pressure plus environmental conditions and the species will try to rebound, plain and simple, but may not be able to keep up. TPWD doesn't just make decisions based on what they feel, YOU, the 2cool community and everyone else that fishes are basically paying their salaries so they want to keep everyone happy and they do this with studies and possibly Won More Cast's survey or something of the sort. 1979 studies showed redfish populations low and there was something done about it, now look at it, almost everyone can confirm that you can almost always catch redfish, anywhere (feel free to make a joke about catching on the land, I can take it)!

Basically this whole rant could have been summed up in one little phrase,

More fish = more catching

Now how you think it should be executed is your opinion (keeping 5 or 10), if you want to have a say in it than become a biologist, like I am doing, or go to meetings (TPWD, Environmental, Conservation), or voice your opinion to people that are knowledgeable about the subject, share valuable information (degredation of environment, poaching, polluting) and try to make educated decisions about the future of what we all love to do, FISH and enjoy the outdoors!

Won More Cast, I vote keep it 10 until TPWD decides other wise. They are doing the leg work of studies and restocking and we are just the users (and I mean this literally) of a limited resource that needs time to recover since it's not renewable. Good work and good luck on your survey, I think it's pretty cool that we still have some people that care enough about this to do what you're doing for a college paper.

If anyone has any dilemmas with what I have posted send me a PM and voice your opinion, I'm a big boy and I can take criticism or praise, your choice. Be good and I hope everyone catches 10, or between 1-9, whatever your hearts desire, just enjoy the outdoors, have fun and relax............ at least that's what I try to do!


----------



## jsbay

*bag limit*

Based on the fishing I have seen down south since the bag limit has been lowered to 5, I say make it 5 every where along the coast. How can that hurt anything ?


----------



## SaltwaterJunkie

IMO keep 5


----------



## finaddiction

I vote for keeping only 5. I have witnessed the benefits of this reduced bag limit in Port Mansfield. Just 3 - 4 years ago, we would catch plenty of redfish but the trout were not as plentiful and downright hard to find. Now we are catching plenty of trout and the average size is increasing. I mean honestly, keeping 5 trout and 3 reds is a great stringer. How much more do you need in one day? Now what I don't like down there is that the possession limit on trout is also 5. If you are down there for a couple of days and you can only have 5 trout in your possession - I don't like that.


----------



## El Capitan de No Fish

finaddiction said:


> I vote for keeping only 5. I have witnessed the benefits of this reduced bag limit in Port Mansfield. Just 3 - 4 years ago, we would catch plenty of redfish but the trout were not as plentiful and downright hard to find. Now we are catching plenty of trout and the average size is increasing. I mean honestly, keeping 5 trout and 3 reds is a great stringer. How much more do you need in one day? Now what I don't like down there is that the possession limit on trout is also 5. If you are down there for a couple of days and you can only have 5 trout in your possession - I don't like that.


Gotta say I agree with this.

For guys who fish a lot and keep your 10 every time you catch it, what do you do with all that fish? Do you give some to friends/coworkers or does a good amount go bad? Do you keep 10 so you'll have a cool pic?


----------



## A1

10


----------



## 24Buds

voted.


----------



## SSST

I voted 10, but i'll be making my first trip to Baffin soon, that trip may get me on the 5 fish bandwagon, we shall see.


----------



## netboy

wickedwader said:


> Every person I have talked to that fishes the LLM has claimed the fishing has dramatically improved since the limit went to 5. Of course that is pretty unscientific but to a man/woman...they all say the same thing.


I gotta agree with this. I have a freind that fishes Port Isabel and he has seen a dramatic improvement in the quality of the trout fishery down there. He fishes a lot so he rarely even keeps his 5. He says nowadays a typical 5 fish limit that you see strung up at the dock will weigh more than a 10 fish fish limit before the change.


----------



## justletmein

finaddiction said:


> I vote for keeping only 5. I have witnessed the benefits of this reduced bag limit in Port Mansfield. Just 3 - 4 years ago, we would catch plenty of redfish but the trout were not as plentiful and downright hard to find. Now we are catching plenty of trout and the average size is increasing. I mean honestly, keeping 5 trout and 3 reds is a great stringer. How much more do you need in one day? Now what I don't like down there is that the possession limit on trout is also 5. If you are down there for a couple of days and you can only have 5 trout in your possession - I don't like that.


Aren't they recovering from a freeze a few years back?

This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between posts. Please try again in 28 seconds.

This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between posts. Please try again in 18 seconds.

This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between posts. Please try again in 10 seconds.

This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between posts. Please try again in 2 seconds.


----------



## Wompam

10, mother nature monitors the bay system just fine.


----------



## Wompam

justletmein said:


> Aren't they recovering from a freeze a few years back
> 
> Freeze didn't affect the trout much down there, I think the record rainfall the llm had several years back has more to attribute to the population boom than anything else, just like the upper coast this year.


----------



## justletmein

Wompam said:


> Freeze didn't affect the trout much down there, I think the record rainfall the llm had several years back has more to attribute to the population boom than anything else, just like the upper coast this year.


Gotcha. I was just wondering if there could be other factors "helping" the fish other than the 5 fish limit. Angling pressure supposedly accounting for 2% of fish mortality and all...


----------



## ComeFrom?

saltwatersensations said:


> Just keep whatever you want(5) and I will keep whatever I want (10 if I catch ten) and try not to shove opinions and personal beliefs down others throats.


I agree. There are a few guides out there who would love to see it reduced to two. They believe that they should take their customers to big trout, they don't have to stay out as long and, of course, makes for good repeat business. "It's good for the 'health' of the trout population." Pffffffllltt. CF?


----------



## Wompam

justletmein said:


> Gotcha. I was just wondering if there could be other factors "helping" the fish other than the 5 fish limit. Angling pressure supposedly accounting for 2% of fish mortality and all...


:bounce:Take the upper Texas coast, Galveston bay system specifically, a few months ago some tree hugging former big trout killers were saying there were no big fish left in Galveston, I've heard of at least 7 - true pigs coming from up here in the last 3 months, it's all about rainfall & nature, period.:bounce:


----------



## Ratred20

jsbay said:


> Based on the fishing I have seen down south since the bag limit has been lowered to 5, I say make it 5 every where along the coast. How can that hurt anything ?


Has the fishing improved? Quanitiy, Quality, etc...? Are there more or less fisherman on the water?

There are a lot of factors involved in your fishery but it is only a small portion of the overall fishery being removed by fisherman.


----------



## Ratred20

finaddiction said:


> I vote for keeping only 5. I have witnessed the benefits of this reduced bag limit in Port Mansfield. Just 3 - 4 years ago, we would catch plenty of redfish but the trout were not as plentiful and downright hard to find. Now we are catching plenty of trout and the average size is increasing. I mean honestly, keeping 5 trout and 3 reds is a great stringer. How much more do you need in one day? Now what I don't like down there is that the possession limit on trout is also 5. If you are down there for a couple of days and you can only have 5 trout in your possession - I don't like that.


That is an easy one, keep the five you want on both days...leave the limit 10 and you're good.


----------



## Ratred20

SSST said:


> I voted 10, but i'll be making my first trip to Baffin soon, that trip may get me on the 5 fish bandwagon, we shall see.


 Limit in Baffin is 10


----------



## SSST

Oh, shows you what i know!


----------



## Joe. T.

Five.........


----------



## water doc

I voted to keep it at 10, but drop size to 12" because most of released trout die anyway. Make it illedgal to catch and release once limit is achieved. This will help the trout population, and give fisherman a legitimate chance to have the best eating trout ( those 12"- 20").


----------



## saltwatersensations

water doc said:


> I voted to keep it at 10, but drop size to 12" *because most of released trout die anyway*. Make it illedgal to catch and release once limit is achieved. This will help the trout population, and give fisherman a legitimate chance to have the best eating trout ( those 12"- 20").


Where do you get this info? I disagree, but maybe you can prove me wrong.


----------



## justletmein

saltwatersensations said:


> Where do you get this info? I disagree, but maybe you can prove me wrong.


The studies I saw referenced somewhere were mortality rate of something like 10-13 percent for experienced anglers and 18% for inexperienced. That's a long way from "most" fish.


----------



## saltwatersensations

justletmein said:


> The studies I saw referenced somewhere were mortality rate of something like 10-13 percent for experienced anglers and 18% for inexperienced. That's a long way from "most" fish.


Thank You. If you properly handle a fish and know how to use a pair of pliers, proper sized hooks, dont squeeze the crud outta of them, dont touch the gills etc.... I have no doubt that almost all the schoolies I released Sunday are eating today. Maybe a mandatory seminar on how to properly handle fish to be released would be better than a limit drop.


----------



## flatsmaster14

Stop using treble hooks and your fish won't die


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

maybe they should just make trout catch and release, illegal to use croaker, no treble hooks, no gulp...

btw, someone mentioned if we wanted to keep fish for us to eat Black drum instead, well....i do not like BD at all except for shark bait in the fall/winter months.


----------



## muddyfuzzy

i can't believe how ignorant some people are on subjects like this. some people are just so worried about what the "man" wants to do, guess what i'm the man! the constant sarcasim has really gotten old, really old.


----------



## muddyfuzzy

Wompam said:


> :bounce:Take the upper Texas coast, Galveston bay system specifically, a few months ago some tree hugging former big trout killers were saying there were no big fish left in Galveston, I've heard of at least 7 - true pigs coming from up here in the last 3 months, it's all about rainfall & nature, period.:bounce:


7 pigs out of the largest bay system on the gulf coast is nothing to be proud of, the fishery should be able to produce more than that.


----------



## wickedwader

It seems like the only reason people keep 10 is because someone wants to have a fish fry.

I think we should outlaw fish fry's .


----------



## sandyfork

No need to cut the limit in half. Drop the limit to 7 or 8 and see what happens. The limit can always be reduced to 5 in a year or so.


----------



## XtremeAngler

Keep it at 10. If it goes down to 5, it will never go back up. Look at redfish. There's plenty of carp now and I can't ever see the limit being raised.

This idea is a little out there, but I could see people catching 5 fish and getting all excited that they "limited out" which may encourage them to go more often and kill more fish than normal limits. Just a theory I have......


----------



## fishin shallow

wickedwader said:


> Every person I have talked to that fishes the LLM has claimed the fishing has dramatically improved since the limit went to 5. Of course that is pretty unscientific but to a man/woman...they all say the same thing.


It was a combination of record rainfall, dredging of the East Cut and the 5 trout limit that has made fishing in the LLM so good. Lots of people claim it was just the reduction but alot more came to play during that time.


----------



## theyallbreak

Lower it to 5. I want some left for my future grand kids. I am 32 and since i was a kid the amount of people fishing has quadrupled and the upper coast limit has not changed.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

muddyfuzzy said:


> i can't believe how ignorant some people are on subjects like this. some people are just so worried about what the "man" wants to do, guess what i'm the man! the constant sarcasim has really gotten old, really old.


ok 

can i ask, all mighty man....are you a biologist?


----------



## southpaw

The mortality rate on released fish is actually pretty good. There's been a few studies on it and trout a tougher than most think. I'll try and dig up one of the studies later. 

As for the limit question, I think in some areas, not all, it should drop to 5. This is just my opinion. There's no good way to scientifically prove the health of a fishery and gill net surveys are not indicative of the whole population of a bay system. From a statistical standpoint, there's a lot of error that you have to deal with, but it's the best method we have so it's what we go with. I've posted something similar before but i'll go ahead and do it again as to why I think certain bay systems should drop to 5. I've grown up fishing in Rockport/ Aransas Pass. Been going there since the mid 90's. In that short span of time I've seen a definite decrease in the amounts of trout we catch down there. I know the bay system and can consistently find fish, but it's gotten increasingly harder to find quality fish. Yeah I can spend all day sorting through dinks to eventually fill a 10 fish limit, but from what I've heard (not scientifically proven, but it does make sense) this is indicative of overfishing. The legal sized fish are being retained so you're left with a bunch of small trout. Now every now and then yes I'll get on a good school and could catch a limit, but that isn't the norm. Blame it on whatever you want; overfishing, freeze events, red tide, too many dolphins, etc. But when you get around to it freeze events, red tide, fish kills aren't something we can control, but the one thing we can control is fish limits. No there's no scientific evidence to prove cutting the limit will increase trout populations, but it's pretty simple math. 50% less fish get taken out means 50% more fish still swimming.

I personally could care less how many I can keep, but I do care about having a healthy fishery and I care about leaving a better fishery than what we have for my children and grandchildren one day. If something isn't done now I think we'll keep following the same trend and future generations won't be able to experience the same kind of fishing I was able to experience when I was younger. There's no doubt in my mind fishing will get better if we cut limits, so why are so many against better fishing? If you're goal is to fill coolers when you fish, I think you need to reevaluate the reason as to why you go. I understand people want to catch fish for fish fries and what not, but fish pretty much all taste the same when fried, so keep some of the other species. The above is all just my opinion, I won't tell anyone what to do within their rights, but it is my personal belief that we can really benefit from a smaller bag limit.


----------



## justletmein

muddyfuzzy said:


> 7 pigs out of the largest bay system on the gulf coast is nothing to be proud of, the fishery should be able to produce more than that.


Something tells me the 7 he heard about are probably not the only fish caught out there. You guys do realize that some people actually go fishing and catch trout and don't run straight out to the internet forums to brag about it, right?


----------



## Jeff SATX

i'd be fine with 7, 5 would make me toss back the 16-17"ers and wait to fill up on those fatty egg filled +20"ers


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

Jeff SATX said:


> i'd be fine with 7, 5 would make me toss back the 16-17"ers and wait to fill up on those fatty egg filled +20"ers


exactly...and nobody has mentioned this yet...


----------



## Jeff SATX

dang, didn't realize there were 12 pages of post, i'm sure my post was rather redundant.


----------



## Flat's Hunter

wickedwader said:


> Every person I have talked to that fishes the LLM has claimed the fishing has dramatically improved since the limit went to 5. Of course that is pretty unscientific but to a man/woman...they all say the same thing.


That seems to be the perceived effect. The data shows otherwise. numbers have been declining every year rule has been in affect. I guess everyone assumes it is working because hey, I know know one else is keeping 10 when I can only catch 5 on average, so now I am limiting out on a consistent basis.

Too bad we can't figure out what made the numbers increase right before rule went into affect.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## justletmein

Flat's Hunter said:


> That seems to be the perceived effect. The data shows otherwise. numbers have been declining every year rule has been in affect. I guess everyone assumes it is working because hey, I know know one else is keeping 10 when I can only catch 5 on average, so now I am limiting out on a consistent basis.
> 
> Too bad we can't figure out what made the numbers increase right before rule went into affect.
> 
> http://img.tapatalk.com/a6934890-e64f-a4d6.jpg[IMG]
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
> 
> How dare you bring real data into this debate?!? Shame on you! :mad:


----------



## muddyfuzzy

osoobsessed said:


> ok
> 
> can i ask, all mighty man....are you a biologist?


something like that.......


----------



## FTAC03

I'm all for keeping what you need with a 5 fish limit. I perceive the people who so vehemently oppose reducing the limit to be the same "crowd" that opposed the antler restrictions for deer in Texas. How did that work out for ya? It took a few years for things to adjust but in every county where it has been implemented the harvest increased in number as well as size. But wait TPWD also lowered the limit on flounder but everyone knows this didn't work. The reason we catch more and larger flounder now than we have in the past is because this fishery is cyclical and we are just going through a cycle. Whatever! Finally everyone knows that the data from TPWD indicates that trout populations have not been affected in the least by the 5 fish limit imposed in the LLM. Where is the public outcry to go back to the old reg's in Sotex? Is it quiet in here or is it just me. And when Art Morris stood up in Port Arthur and told us that a reduction in the limit would lead to more and bigger trout caught by everyone the crowd just looked at him with a blank stare. That sounded like a pretty dang good idea to me but it just didn't sit too well with the armchair biologists who were sure that because he worked for the Gubment that he had to be lying through his teeth, and that the data he presented was akin to Hoodoo, Voodoo, and all that other weird ****! I'll keep on fishing because that is what I do and you all can keep kicking this terd around the internet. I want to be able to participate in the best trout fishery on the gulf coast which Texas was once known as. Not so much anymore.


----------



## moganman

If anything I say change the size. Small trout have small chance after they get released.


----------



## FTAC03

Please take time to read this article citing the results of the study done on trout mortality. For some it could be very enlightening.

http://www.joincca.org/TIDE/trout%20-%20venker.html


----------



## muddyfuzzy

justletmein said:


> Something tells me the 7 he heard about are probably not the only fish caught out there. You guys do realize that some people actually go fishing and catch trout and don't run straight out to the internet forums to brag about it, right?


i didn't start throwing numbers out there, the other dude did. in this day and age most pigs end up on facebook, 2cool or some other similar public forum. i think the net does a pretty good job of keeping up with people pumping up their egos.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

FTAC03 said:


> I'm all for keeping what you need with a 5 fish limit. I perceive the people who so vehemently oppose reducing the limit to be the same "crowd" that opposed the antler restrictions for deer in Texas. How did that work out for ya? It took a few years for things to adjust but in every county where it has been implemented the harvest increased in number as well as size. But wait TPWD also lowered the limit on flounder but everyone knows this didn't work. The reason we catch more and larger flounder now than we have in the past is because this fishery is cyclical and we are just going through a cycle. Whatever! Finally everyone knows that the data from TPWD indicates that trout populations have not been affected in the least by the 5 fish limit imposed in the LLM. Where is the public outcry to go back to the old reg's in Sotex? Is it quiet in here or is it just me. And when Art Morris stood up in Port Arthur and told us that a reduction in the limit would lead to more and bigger trout caught by everyone the crowd just looked at him with a blank stare. That sounded like a pretty dang good idea to me but it just didn't sit too well with the armchair biologists who were sure that because he worked for the Gubment that he had to be lying through his teeth, and that the data he presented was akin to Hoodoo, Voodoo, and all that other weird ****! I'll keep on fishing because that is what I do and you all can keep kicking this terd around the internet. I want to be able to participate in the best trout fishery on the gulf coast which Texas was once known as. Not so much anymore.


actually, i do hunt in a AR county and a "no doe" county, but we get MLD tags for them...

although we had a healthy herd to start with, if genetics are not in the area, they will never produce what the state deems a "trophy", now instead of a 2 year old deer being killed because he is 13 inches, they are now 3 years old, that has been the only difference we've seen, despite water/protein and plots....in our county, the genetics are just not there. the only thing the AR has done is increased the age of deer with antlers inside 13 inches and according to our GW and our Biologist, there is nothing we can do about it.

and just to clarify, just because a AR might work in one county, that does not mean it works in every county, which is why it has not been set for every county in Texas.

so getting back to the fishing part, if they drop it to 5, what are "we" going to do when you see people keeping the largest 5, then heading out again the next day and catching and keeping the largest 5 again....i know when i travel back home, i'm not there for just one day.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

muddyfuzzy said:


> i didn't start throwing numbers out there, the other dude did. in this day and age most pigs end up on facebook, 2cool or some other similar public forum. i think the net does a pretty good job of keeping up with people pumping up their egos.


egos?

such as your avatar? you know you could have picked one that didn't have fish in it, right, especially one that you have your arm forward and high to show off the big fish?

believe it or not, some people just like to share their catches or their trip, whether here or FB or twitter or where ever....it's not always about the ego.


----------



## justletmein

muddyfuzzy said:


> i didn't start throwing numbers out there, the other dude did. in this day and age most pigs end up on facebook, 2cool or some other similar public forum. i think the net does a pretty good job of keeping up with people pumping up their egos.


...and my point being that You or I or the "other dude" who brought up the numbers are not on everyone's Facebook nor every other public forum on the net. Some people don't brag about their catches AT ALL, and the ones that do we may not ever see them. The fact that he personally heard of 7 pigs caught from that bay system tells me that there's a hell of a lot more than 7 that have been caught.


----------



## spots

for those who think the fishery is "good enough" to not have to reduce the limit, imagine what the fishery could be like by lowering the limit to 5. you want good, or great?


----------



## Trout Asassin

> If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Some of you just don't get it. If you don't catch fish in a given area that doesn't mean the population is in bad shape. It just means you didn't find them. Someone's comment about San Antonio Bay vs. POC. Ha - I haven't caught anything worth bragging about there ever! POC works just fine for me because I keep detailed notes, fish my areas based on the conditons and the tides. Also I always look for the signs (you have to read the water). No secret honey holes just a little bit of effort looking and a lot of effort fishing. Catch and Release Guys - you guys probably kill more spawners than the guys keeping their limit, if they are fortunate to do so. Look up the mortality stats on released fish. Bottom line, keep your opinions out of it, TPWD has hard evidence the fishery is in better condition as ever. Tags for 25" trout is a joke - The big ones are there but only a select few
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> understand enough to get them. One 25+ a day is fair


Here is Sunday, 4-22-2012 San Antonio Bay


----------



## pelochas

10 is fine for me.

If u fish for meat, you probably need more than 5. 

And if u fish to just fill a cooler, u dont understand limits. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Trout Asassin

That was for Ratred or Redrat or whatever his name is


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

spots said:


> for those who think the fishery is "good enough" to not have to reduce the limit, imagine what the fishery could be like by lowering the limit to 5. you want good, or great?


edit...sorry spots, deleted my post, got you confused with someone else from TO... :cheers:


----------



## spurgersalty

osoobsessed said:


> egos?
> 
> such as your avatar? you know you could have picked one that didn't have fish in it, right, especially one that you have your arm forward and high to show off the big fish?
> 
> believe it or not, some people just like to share their catches or their trip, whether here or FB or twitter or where ever....it's not always about the ego.



:cheers:


----------



## stillgrinding

I say Keep 10

Kids like to catch and count how many fishes they catch and that's how we can help kids to enjoys fishing for the future.


----------



## Mad Mike

Most of the people that say only keep 5, couldn't catch 10 trout.


----------



## Croaker slinger

Just Fillet Ten !


----------



## moganman

Mad Mike said:


> Most of the people that say only keep 5, couldn't catch 10 trout.


That's probably true. I say keep it the way it is. Nothing wrong with the trout population. If anything, lower the length requirement. The small trout don't have much of a chance to live after they get handled roughly anyway. I'd like to see a tagging similar to redfish, but that would hurt tournament fishing.


----------



## DMC

We need to impose a rule on trout. Make them stack up where I want to fish, where the wind is blocked, where I can easily catch them. Until they begin to pull their half of the load, I ain't budging.


----------



## plasticsnaks

Amazing that 18 fish are still not enough for one person per day...5trout 3reds 5drum 5flounder...with all the hoopla bout egos,why don't we insert greed into the mix?..and culling trout to get more meat?..is that legal?
5 for the ULM/BAFFIN and instead of assuming that TP&W data is the holy grail,listen to the majority of the local hard core trout chasers(ULM/Baffin) that have been at it for 20+ years.Also listen to the locals who live in the LLM if you want true data!..PLease show me the TP&W data that proves MID to LARGE size trout are as plentiful as ever here on the mid coast...there is no such data !..If the upper coast is in such good shape then I'm sure you who live there would welcome all the guides and others who just can't stand a 5 trout limit and would no longer fish here in the ULM!


----------



## Mad Mike

Limits should be set on a bay by bay basis IMO.


----------



## wellconnected

I am biased about the keep 5 because I give most of my fish away anyhow. Something does need to be done to help protect the resource but I am not truly sure what. I have fished baffin-land cut for the last 30 years and have seen a lot of different years due to different events happening. Here is the strange part, I do not see a true decline in quantity but rather quality. 20 years ago there were very few boats that fished the spoil islands between baffin and the landcut where our cabin is. We fished this area just about every weekend March - September. In our family group of fathers and sons, at least one person would catch a 30+ inch trout almost every weekend. This slowly starting changing about 15 years ago and now we are lucky to catch 1 30 inch trout each season. I am not convinced that they are gone or any fewer numbers, but may think that the added boat congestion has added to these trout being much more elusive. I am not embarrassed to say that I use both artificial and live baits depending on the season. I think there are several things the state can do to help the population well into the future including the following:

1)make croaker a game fish
2)limit the number of licensed guides and limit the area they are registered to fish

I think by doing number one, number two will pretty much take care it itself. The state already regulates certain financial things such as not allowing land cabin owners the ability to rent their cabin out for financial gain. I admit that I do use croaker depending on the time of year and who I have on the boat. I too am to blame. I think croaker are a very important part of the ecosystem and food chain and should not be wasted by the thousands for bait. 

I do not look down upon anyone who keeps a full limit of trout or their one trout over 25". It is the law and their legal right to do so and should never be shunned for this. I do however think that something needs to be implemented to ensure the fishery for years to come.


----------



## capt.dave

I'd be alright with 5. However, like others have said, what about dropping it to 7 or even 8 and meet in the middle somewhere.

5 keepers is still a good stringer especially if you have a couple reds as well. Not to mention, if you had a couple people on the boat, that's at least 10 kept if not more. I've kept the 10 before, but would also confess that I've thrown some fish out due to freezer burn as well.

I think one of the major variables is the growing number of people fishing.


----------



## nuecesdave

Mad Mike said:


> Most of the people that say only keep 5, couldn't catch 10 trout.


Lol....HARDLY THE TRUTH!!!


----------



## go shallower

Mad Mike said:


> Most of the people that say only keep 5, couldn't catch 10 trout.


i see mr Rowsey's name on the keep 5 and i would bet my left nut he could.


----------



## flatsmaster14

Keep what you can eat plain an simple, and everyone knows a fresh trout is way better than a frozen one!


----------



## jeffm66

I probably couldn't catch 10 good ones more than once or twice a year and even if I could 5 will be enough for me.


----------



## Number_Five

All this and the separation is only 10 votes...interesting.


----------



## Won Mo Kasst

Wow... this is closer than I thought it would be. Awesome stuff guys. Numbers are starting to slow, but I would like to get as many votes as possible... spread the word if you got the chance. Thanks again, people.


----------



## Dick Hanks

Limit 5


----------



## Im Headed South

Looking over the names it looks like a bunch of upper coast guys want to leave it the same and a bunch of middle/lower coast guys want to see a change. About what I expected, I don't look for TPWD to revisit the issue any time soon without a major fish kill. Like what was said in the newest TSFM, it's unfortunate but they are a reactive not a proactive agency.


----------



## Bigwater

You guys that need to eat a lot of Trout should get a LA license. Stock up with 20 at a time. Drop the bag limit here and get the population of better fish here and make it a hole lot more fun. 

Just Box 5

Biggie


----------



## rvd

Croaker slinger said:


> Just Fillet Ten !


I'm disappointed it took you this long to post slinger...must have been filleting some?


----------



## Spotted Wadin

I will offer my _personal_ opinion about this trout situation. I say this because even though I have a degree in Fisheries, I have not spent the necessary hours reviewing scientific data to have an _informed_ opinion on the subject.

I have spent 20+ years fishing the middle coast. I remember the days of no bag or size limits on trout. I remember filling the boat with hundreds of trout. I remember the big freezes and their impacts. I've seen the impacts of gill nets. But what was different then was the small amount of recreational fishing pressure compared to now. No matter how you slice it, this is purely a numbers game. More people fishing equals more people targeting trout and more trout being removed from the population.

Let me also state that _to me _it really doesn't matter whether a trout is caught on a topwater, tail, fly, spec rig, shrimp, gulp, croaker, mullet, piggie, ballyhoo, spoon, or a bare hook. What matters is how many are put to the knife. If we remove more than the fishery can reproduce then we are going to continue to see a diminishing population.

In my opinion the our trout fishery is in decline in the middle coast both in quantity and quality. Perhaps I should have voted for a middle coast only reduction in limit? But I already cast my vote, sorry. East Matagorda bay sure seems like a good geographic boundary if regional reductions are implemented. To me something has to be done to reduce the number of trout taken out of the fishery because all the data I have seen shows that our population here in Texas in not going to diminish in the future, which means that more and more people are going to be fishing. A reduction in the limit seems the only way to be fair to everyone.

Just a couple weeks ago, I was able to catch a 10 fish limit on a wade. I also released several including a 4.5lber. To be honest, I really wasn't counting but I went back to the boat after an hour or so and saw that I had my 10. So I put them on ice and headed back out. While getting back to the sweetspot, I asked myself when was the last time I was able to do that? The answer was very few times over the last several years. I continued to catch over 20 keepers that morning. I felt a little guilty cleaning those 10 because I normally keep 5 (now when I tell myself I am going to stop at 5, I don't catch anymore) but I was legal. It was the way I was brought up years ago, that success was based on a full limit. Many of us were raised that way. But things have changed and we have to become better stewards of our resources.

I feel that most people who are fishing for trout are not doing so to provide a primary source of food for their family. For those that believe that five trout are not enough to feed their family need to learn how to catch flounder, drum, redfish, etc. Also those people who base their success on the number of fillets they take home should take some time to really think about what is so enjoyable about fishing. We need to learn to take in the whole experience of a fishing trip. Enjoy the time with friends and family, enjoy a solo evening sunset wade(lets face it, we all need alone time!), enjoy the experience of releasing a keeper trout know that one day your son or daughter, or grandson/grandaughter may catch that same fish when its 8+ pounds. Imagine the smile on his or her face! Imagine the smile on your face when you are there to witness it, knowing the two reason that they caught that fish was one, you took the time to teach him/her to fish and two, you released that fish years ago.

No one can say that the current phenomenal Lower Laguna Madre trout fishery is 100% result of a five fish limit but I don't think you will find anyone that will tell you 5 fish limit made it worse.

I would also recommend to anyone that likes to catch trout to read Scott Murray's book "World Class Trout Tomorrow". If you can't afford a copy, I'll give you mine, as long as your promise to share it with others. Send me a PM.

Thanks for reading my opinion. Save some for the future.

JM


----------



## Dampy

looks like overtime, got a tied ball game!


----------



## Profish00

Won Mo Kasst said:


> Ok guys...
> 
> This is the last bit of research I need for my final paper in college. The public opinion of current bag limits for spotted seatrout in Texas.
> 
> Please feel free to leave a quick opinion, but let us not get out of control with discussion or debates.
> 
> Many thanks to the 2cool community.


Paper...lol. look for a book deal and get rich!!!:mpd:


----------



## Ratred20

Trout Asassin said:


> That was for Ratred or Redrat or whatever his name is


 That is a nice mess of fish there...note, my message was long and therefore may have left out that all though I haven't caught many fish in SA Bay doesn't mean they aren't t there. Only that I haven't found them there but rest assured I am certain there is nothing wrong with the fishery there in SA Bay, POC or Matagorda.

Just a lot of folks trying to push their own agendas. When our Govt Entity thinks there is a problem they will change the rules fast enough.


----------



## Joe Richter

*Trout limits*



Won Mo Kasst said:


> Ok guys...
> 
> This is the last bit of research I need for my final paper in college. The public opinion of current bag limits for spotted seatrout in Texas.
> 
> Please feel free to leave a quick opinion, but let us not get out of control with discussion or debates.
> 
> Many thanks to the 2cool community.
> 
> It is very obvious that the trout population along our coast has been drastically reduced. There are many things totally out of our control that have excellerated this problem. Pollution, fishing pressure, traffic, etc. The one simple thing that we can all do to help this is to reduce the amount of trout we harvest. How many freezer burned trout do we need to throw away before we realize this! Its a limited resource...it's time we reduce our limits and save some for our grand kids.


----------



## sdereki

:cheers:these posts are always fun to read


----------



## Cwedge

Make the limit 8 per day.


----------



## Colorado

You really are going to use this in a paper? This has nothing to do with conservation, no data to support limit reductions. LLM is a different ecosystem so don't go there, and no data supports limit reduction did anything there. This is about trophy fishing egos, leave the limit at 10. Oh, good luck on your grade!


----------



## Wompam

Colorado said:


> You really are going to use this in a paper? This has nothing to do with conservation, no data to support limit reductions. LLM is a different ecosystem so don't go there, and no data supports limit reduction did anything there. This is about trophy fishing egos, leave the limit at 10. Oh, good luck on your grade!


Bingo


----------



## southpaw

Colorado said:


> You really are going to use this in a paper? This has nothing to do with conservation, no data to support limit reductions. LLM is a different ecosystem so don't go there, and no data supports limit reduction did anything there. This is about trophy fishing egos, leave the limit at 10. Oh, good luck on your grade!


I mean do you really need data? It's pretty simple math, 50% less trout coming out a day means 50% more trout swimming. We can argue until our faces turn blue on the what MIGHT happen if we lower the limit. But we truly won't know what happens until we do it, but cutting limits sure as hell ain't gonna hurt anything except some fishermen's feelings. Colorado, I'm not telling you you should only keep 5. You're a grown man and you can do whatever you want within your rights. But I am curious, why are you so against lowering the limits? Why wouldn't you want to be proactive in making the fishery the best it possibly can be for yourself and future generations? I'm not trying to be facetious I really am curious as to why some people are so against it.


----------



## justletmein

southpaw said:


> I mean do you really need data? It's pretty simple math, *50% less trout coming out a day means 50% more trout swimming*. We can argue until our faces turn blue on the what MIGHT happen if we lower the limit. But we truly won't know what happens until we do it, but cutting limits sure as hell ain't gonna hurt anything except some fishermen's feelings. Colorado, I'm not telling you you should only keep 5. You're a grown man and you can do whatever you want within your rights. But I am curious, why are you so against lowering the limits? Why wouldn't you want to be proactive in making the fishery the best it possibly can be for yourself and future generations? I'm not trying to be facetious I really am curious as to why some people are so against it.


50% of 2% != 50% total pop


----------



## southpaw

justletmein said:


> 50% of 2% != 50% total pop


Okay sorry 50% of the populations being caught. Still a lot of fish still swimming. It'll be more than we currently have isn't it? Compounded over time that's a lot of fish still swimming.


----------



## justletmein

southpaw said:


> Okay sorry 50% of the populations being caught. Still a lot of fish still swimming. It'll be more than we currently have isn't it? Compounded over time that's a lot of fish still swimming.


Since we're on the topic, I have no idea what the number that 2% correlates to. Anybody know what the actual annual harvest estimates come out to?


----------



## redman35

Lets, be real how many people on here fish every day? Than how many people actually keep there limit? I only fish maybe twice a month if my work and my sons baseball allows. So why lower the limit. There are lots of people out there in the same situation.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

redman35 said:


> Lets, be real how many people on here fish every day? Than how many people actually keep there limit? I only fish maybe twice a month if my work and my sons baseball allows. So why lower the limit. There are lots of people out there in the same situation.


Redfish, flounder and drum are legal to keep too! Not bad table fare either.

-mac-


----------



## go shallower

southpaw said:


> Why wouldn't you want to be proactive in making the fishery the best it possibly can be for yourself and future generations? I'm not trying to be facetious I really am curious as to why some people are so against it.


crickets


----------



## Smackdaddy53

The comment about other species is for those who act like trout are the only fish you can catch and eat. Redman i see where youre coming from but there are a lot of people on the water every day, its not about how many times an individual gets to go but volume of people on the water on general. It doesnt matter if its the same people out there every day its still a lot of hooks in the water. Just sayin


-mac-


----------



## Im Headed South

There is plenty data available that show's a downward trend in trout populations over the last 10+ years in the middle coast. I already posted it all when this was all argued about during the last scoping process so I'm not doing it all again. But to say there is no data is false. TPWD is counting on a bumper crop of one and two year old fish that their surveys have shown to be out there as the saving grace to the middle coast...like I said before - reactive not proactive. The question that I had then that no one could answer was what happened to all the fish that were spawned during the 2nd best spawning season they'd recorded back in the early 2000's? They were counting on those fish to stop the downward trend as well and they didn't help it at all, in fact the numbers in some areas fell faster than before.

I was for the regional plan before but after thinking about it more and seeing the increase in pressure that Mansfield is under now with the improved fishery I'd be for changing it state wide (not that I see it happing any time soon). Just think of the fishing pressure that would be put on East Matty or Rockport if a reduced limit had the same effect it had in Mansfield. I'm surprised the numbers have recovered so well and I am worried that they about to flatten out very shortly in Mansfield due to the pressure. The success of increasing the quality of fish down there the limit reduction has drawn a lot more folks to make the run now and with the brown tide in the ulm it's only driving more guides further south. The south end of the cut and where it opens up is now a parking lot of boats on the weekends and most are guides with 30 or 40 dozen croaker running out of CC. They run down there for 5 good fish each then work there way back and pick up another 5 each on the north end. They do it every day in late spring and all summer. My .02


----------



## Bull Red

I can't believe it's this close. sad3sm


----------



## justletmein

How did we get a bumper crop of 1 and 2 year old fish if the breeding parents are at such low numbers? I'm not trying to be difficult I'm just curious...


----------



## Im Headed South

How many time someone gets to go should not factor in to the process, it should be about what is the "health of the fishery" period. In my opinion the current health of the trout fishery from east matty to CC sucks from everything I've read and observed over the last 10+ years.


----------



## Gilbert

we need to raise the redfish limit. those stupid carp are all over the place and become a pain in the arse when they move in while trying to trout fish.


----------



## TPD

*Its simple to me*

I don't see a downside to lowering the limit to 5. I don't fish only for the meat. Increasing the population will better prepare the fishery for whatever the next disaster may happen to be, such as freeze, drought, red tide or whatever. You can still catch and release as many fish as you'd like. Seems like win - win to me.

Of course, I'd trade leaving the limits where they are for making croaker a gamefish. 

And BTW, denying that limit reductions have made a major impact on the fishing in the LLM is ridiculous. Even if the reduction only accounted for 30% of the increase in quantity and quality, that fishery hasn't been this good in most of our lifetimes. Of course other factors have contributed, but its kind of like saying flounder fishing hasn't benefitted all up and down the coast by the recent rule changes. Does anybody recall a better flounder season in the last 15 years?

The main road block to this being done is the guides. TP&W doesn't make decisions solely based on scientific data and the guides showed up en masse to protest this when it was last brought up. And they will again.


----------



## Im Headed South

justletmein said:


> How did we get a bumper crop of 1 and 2 year old fish if the breeding parents are at such low numbers? I'm not trying to be difficult I'm just curious...


Never gave me a good answer about that either, they said they chalked it up to a much higher survival rate for whatever reason.


----------



## reeltimer

Smackdaddy53 said:


> The comment about other species is for those who act like trout are the only fish you can catch and eat. Redman i see where youre coming from but* there are a lot of people on the water* *every day*, its not about how many times an individual gets to go but volume of people on the water on general. It doesnt matter if its the same people out there every day its still a lot of hooks in the water. Just sayin
> 
> -mac-


I think you need to think that statement over because there are days that i have seen nobody or one or 2 boats.The you have wind,rain that play a factor.The oyster and shrimp boats don't count.The gill surveys remind me of the rise and fall of my favorite stock.There are patterns and this hype that we are overfishing or taking more than we should is hogwash.Then you have the oh there are more fisherman crowds stating there's to much pressure.

I got a theory or thought since the invention of light pier's does anybody think the fish feeder pattern has change compared from the 50s to present.There are 1 million lights that come on along the cost that weren't there back in the day.....something to ponder?


----------



## Im Headed South

Plenty of theories out there and they all lead to more pressure, another one I have is the increase in the number of winter texans in the rockport area. It's been my observations that most of them old men that have nothing to all day but go soak bait with their buddies in their walleye boats don't throw anything back if it's legal lol. They will happily admit it and can tell you exactly how many fish they've cleaned when they get ready to head back north about this time of year. I've had several tell me the numbers and it just blows my mind, they take more out in 4 or 5 month's than we do in 2 years. There is never a shortage of fish for the RV Parks weekly fish fry lol.


----------



## reeltimer

Im Headed South said:


> Plenty of theories out there and they all lead to more pressure, another one I have is the increase in the number of winter texans in the rockport area. It's been my observations that most of them old men that have nothing to all day but go soak bait with their buddies in their walleye boats don't throw anything back if it's legal lol. They will happily admit it and can tell you exactly how many fish they've cleaned when they get ready to head back north about this time of year. I've had several tell me the numbers and it just blows my mind, they take more out in 4 or 5 month's than we do in 2 years. There is never a shortage of fish for the RV Parks weekly fish fry lol.


No doubt about that.I have met a few that were allright.I blew my motor in Estes flats years ago and had about five look at me like i was man with a killer infection waving my hand trying to get a tow back to Cove harbor.Thankfully a local fisherman made my day.


----------



## Tailshot

# 180...


----------



## Smackdaddy53

reeltimer said:


> I think you need to think that statement over because there are days that i have seen nobody or one or 2 boats.The you have wind,rain that play a factor.The oyster and shrimp boats don't count.The gill surveys remind me of the rise and fall of my favorite stock.There are patterns and this hype that we are overfishing or taking more than we should is hogwash.Then you have the oh there are more fisherman crowds stating there's to much pressure.
> 
> I got a theory or thought since the invention of light pier's does anybody think the fish feeder pattern has change compared from the 50s to present.There are 1 million lights that come on along the cost that weren't there back in the day.....something to ponder?


1 or 2 boats? Where are you fishing?

-mac-


----------



## reeltimer

All up and down the coast during all seasons but mostly during the week.


----------



## capt mullet

10 is too many 5 is too little. 7 is my vote.

Degradation of habitat, more fishermen on the water, not only more fishermen but the amount of good fishermen has increased dramatically, pollution, and natural events. 

Lowering the limit is going to help some but not much. A small percentage of fish will remain in the bays and not be harvested. Will it help? Sure every little bit helps so yes I am for it. But more has to be done on the loss of habitat and pollution also. Attacking the problem from several sides is what will be most beneficial to all of us. 

When they close rollover pass the trout will not be able to go from surf to bay so the trout population will dramatically decrease in East Bay. No matter what the limits are the fishing will go downhill and fast in that bay. 
So yes a reduced limit is needed but we need to take care of the loss of habitat at the same time. In my opinion that is what the true health of our fisheries is based upon.


----------



## Lance214

*Keep 5*

My vote is keep 5.

Look what happened to redfish population #s when bag limits were reduced!!! Quality over quantity any day of the week for me.


----------



## specks&ducks

Same here Lance. It's pretty simple, more trout swimming around equals a better chance for some to them to get big.


----------



## justletmein

I'm changing my mind I'm switching to the 5 crew. I figure the odds of me "getting into the fish" are so slim that I'm better off with even a slight bump in population. Hey I need all the help I can get just to catch a few.


----------



## Blue Fury

Keep 5 in peak months, 10 in off season months.


----------



## Richard P

Smackdaddy53 said:


> 1 or 2 boats? Where are you fishing?
> 
> -mac-


Well, if he tells ya, then there will be 2 or 3 boats. That would just ruin it for him.


----------



## justletmein

Richard P said:


> Well, if he tells ya, then there will be 2 or 3 boats. That would just ruin it for him.


If he tells him in this thread you'll have to add a zero to those estimates. :bluefish:


----------



## Smackdaddy53

I dont know about being a potlicker but as im reading this im lickin popcorn butter...this is too good. Won mo could write a report on lots of topics after reviewing these replies! I love it. All i know is ill be at least knee deep in the water somewhere saturday morning trying for ten, three and five if time and weather permits


-mac-


----------



## poppadawg

I never figured out some anglers attitude towards just keep 5. If you told those same people you would give them free meat, but it was loaded with toxic pollutants (PCB's) they would look at ya like you were crazy. But if they catch it they must put it in the ice chest. Been fishing with people like that. It is wierd.


----------



## specks&ducks

It would be interesting to see how this survey would turn out 5 or 7 years ago, and really cool to see how it would turn out 5 years into the future.


----------



## poppadawg

I bet Won Mo is a psych major and this doesn't have anything to do with fish


----------



## LHandler

poppadawg said:


> I never figured out some anglers attitude towards just keep 5. If you told those same people you would give them free meat, but it was loaded with toxic pollutants (PCB's) they would look at ya like you were crazy. But if they catch it they must put it in the ice chest. Been fishing with people like that. It is wierd.


Makes no sense.

Today 01:42 PM
poppadawg: I bet Won Mo is a psych major and this doesn't have anything to do with fish

Makes perfect sense.


----------



## Trout Asassin

I am just curious, for instance, I am a weekend warrior due to work. Some days we hammer them and others we don't do so well. I don't think has anything to do with population of fish. I think it has to do with feeding patterns of the fish. I am not on the water enough to keep them in my target area. I have fished hard on weekends for the last 2 years and if there is one thing I do know, the farther away I can get from boat traffic the more fish I catch!


----------



## crowsox

I cant hold my tounge anymore. I used to be in favor of the 5 trout limit, thinking it would inturn lead to more fish, but a lot of gill net surveys are proving that numbers state wide are on the the incline. I manage a ranch and I use the example of the Texas Hill Country and facts from it. If you look at deer numbers in the Texas Hill Country 50 years ago there were a lot few deer but they produced some great "FREE RANGE" trophy deer. Now days there is an over population of deer in the Hill Country and those deer are not near as big as they used to. There is not enough natural forage to support all of these animals so that they can reach their maxium genetic potential. Now look at South Texas, the deer density is no where near as high as it is in the Hill Country and that area produces some very impressive "FREE RANGE" bucks. There density is no where near as high and that habitat has plenty of forage to support these deer and allow these animals to reach their maxium potential. So what I am saying is, what are you trying to do by reducing the limit to five? Are you trying to get bigger fish? If you are and you are not taking some of their competition out of the equation you are going to have more fish competing over a shorter food supply, inturn leading to your target species(big trout) not reaching their maxium potential, leading to fewer big trout.

I don't care either way, I fish all the time and hardly ever keep a full limit because I simply can't eat that many and I would just be wasting it by throwing it away. What I am saying is history repeats itself and look at other cases before you start jumping on the bandwagon. With the deer population above the regions carrying capacity you can always supplemental feed to try to help them reach max potential, To my knowledge I dont believe Academy or your local feed store sells supplemental feed for trout.


----------



## crowsox

specks&ducks said:


> Same here Lance. It's pretty simple, more trout swimming around equals a better chance for some to them to get big.


more trout equals more competition for food which leads to skinnier fish... look at a bass pond that is over stocked. Everything in there has a bigger head and small body. You have to get rid of some to grow some.


----------



## justletmein

crowsox said:


> I cant hold my tounge anymore. I used to be in favor of the 5 trout limit, thinking it would inturn lead to more fish, but a lot of gill net surveys are proving that numbers state wide are on the the incline. I manage a ranch and I use the example of the Texas Hill Country and facts from it. If you look at deer numbers in the Texas Hill Country 50 years ago there were a lot few deer but they produced some great "FREE RANGE" trophy deer. Now days there is an over population of deer in the Hill Country and those deer are not near as big as they used to. There is not enough natural forage to support all of these animals so that they can reach their maxium genetic potential. Now look at South Texas, the deer density is no where near as high as it is in the Hill Country and that area produces some very impressive "FREE RANGE" bucks. There density is no where near as high and that habitat has plenty of forage to support these deer and allow these animals to reach their maxium potential. So what I am saying is, what are you trying to do by reducing the limit to five? Are you trying to get bigger fish? If you are and you are not taking some of their competition out of the equation you are going to have more fish competing over a shorter food supply, inturn leading to your target species(big trout) not reaching their maxium potential, leading to fewer big trout.
> 
> I don't care either way, I fish all the time and hardly ever keep a full limit because I simply can't eat that many and I would just be wasting it by throwing it away. What I am saying is history repeats itself and look at other cases before you start jumping on the bandwagon. With the deer population above the regions carrying capacity you can always supplemental feed to try to help them reach max potential, To my knowledge I dont believe Academy or your local feed store sells supplemental feed for trout.


Along the same lines, I wonder how the Redfish population fluctuations affect the Trout. Surely they share some of the same food sources.


----------



## LHandler

Crowsox, you are talking apples and oranges. Plenty of food to support trout of any numbers. Loss of habitat (oyster reefs getting rapped by the oyster boats) mostly, and porpoises, as well as angling pressure prevent these fish from ever reaching their potential. Limit should be 5, 14-25" slot. Watch how fast the flounder rebound due to the lowered limit, already seeing it.


----------



## crowsox

I agree with you on 100% on the loss of habitat. Thats a lossing battle we are fighting constantly. Like I said I don't care either way, it doesn't affect me one bit, I just think some of these folks need to step back for a second and look at some of the effects a rule change like that would do. If TPWD does it and it shows great results then I am all for it. I just know that when you try to manage for one thing inparticular, a non target usually gets impacted in a negative way


----------



## matterboy123

I think it should be raised to 15 a day and the posession limit should drop to 15.


----------



## specks&ducks

Crowsox, you make a couple of valid points. However, to many bass in a pond is
a density issue. If there is less bait in the bays than before or if trout being caught were stunted or thin I think we could tell we had an overpopulation problem. I don't feel we have an overpopulation problem. I do agree with you that when you begin managing one aspect you run the risk of getting something else or the whole system out of balance. Again, with all the factors affecting the trout fishery right now, they probably do need some focused and specific management. I am by no means a biologist and my previous post was not meant to over simplify a complex problem, however, I do feel as well as many others as evident in the polling numbers, that the size (and numbers in some areas) has become a problem.


----------



## TRW

So in five years when the same people that can't catch a limit now still think the trout population is declining and want to cut it down to two fish what will you say? Has anyone got proof that the 5 fish limit helped the LLM or is it all just peoples opinion? It is called fishing we do not limit out every time we go but we almost always catch fish. Not all fishermen are equal some are just better than others. Even if one area shows the population declining then that does not mean all of the areas should be managed the same. No one makes you keep ten trout if you catch them that is a personal choice you make. If the science shows the limit needs to be cut in half then do it. I personaly have not seen any data that shows this is needed.
TRW


----------



## poppadawg

The fish are loaded with pcb's. Why would anyone need to keep 10.? Kids and women of child bearing age should not eat them at all. I don't get it


----------



## Number_Five

I'd be really curious to see the statistical relationship for members of cca and how they voted. Just to see if there is any correlation between the two.

Five


----------



## specks&ducks

That would be interesting No.5. I would also be curious to see the ratio fisherman would have of quality trout to numbers. For example, I would rather catch one 24" speck to three 16" fish. To me its a quality issue.


----------



## Number_Five

I agree specks, to catch 24" - 27" trout on a regular...err....more regular basis would be worth it alone. 

I think it would be interesting to see how many paying members of CCA support 5 fish, or support keeping it 10. Not that it matters, just would be interesting.

Five


----------



## reeltimer

LHandler said:


> Crowsox, you are talking apples and oranges. Plenty of food to support trout of any numbers. Loss of habitat *(oyster reefs* *getting rapped by the oyster boats) mostly*, and porpoises, as well as angling pressure prevent these fish from ever reaching their potential. Limit should be 5, 14-25" slot. Watch how fast the flounder rebound due to the lowered limit, already seeing it.


You had to blame somebody didn't you.It would be a stretch to say populations are controlled by cycles,fishing pressure,predators,water quality,the amount of freshwater influx and red tide.What your gonna blame the shrimpers next right.


----------



## spurgersalty

TRW said:


> So in five years when the same people that can't catch a limit now still think the trout population is declining and want to cut it down to two fish what will you say? Has anyone got proof that the 5 fish limit helped the LLM or is it all just peoples opinion? It is called fishing we do not limit out every time we go but we almost always catch fish. Not all fishermen are equal some are just better than others. Even if one area shows the population declining then that does not mean all of the areas should be managed the same. No one makes you keep ten trout if you catch them that is a personal choice you make. If the science shows the limit needs to be cut in half then do it. I personaly have not seen any data that shows this is needed.
> TRW


:cheers:
Very well stated!


----------



## The1ThatGotAway

Only 5??? I can catch 5 in one cast with my tandem Alabama Rig dragging 10 deep diving top water spinner swim lizards with a rattling square bill soaked in Croaker juice.


----------



## LHandler

If you don't think oyster reef annihilation is a major contributor your head is in the sand and you don't spend much time fishing for winter trout. I see it getting worse on a yearly basis. There are other factors for sure, but yes I do blame unregulated oystering. It would be nice to see Texas ''crop rotate" it's bays.


----------



## TRW

Number_Five said:


> I'd be really curious to see the statistical relationship for members of cca and how they voted. Just to see if there is any correlation between the two.
> 
> Five


I will bet it has more to do with what bay system they fish more than CCA. Most of the people I bet that voted for just keep 5 fish from Matagorda South/and most who fish Freeport to Sabine Want to keep it as is.


----------



## big john o

Some people fish for fun, some people fish to bring home some dinner... For me like most, its both... I dont get to go but maybe a hand full of times in a year, and hardly ever catch 10 trout... but when I do get on them that one time, it would sure be disappointing to only be able to keep five... you guys that are pushing this can kiss my butt... :biggrin:


----------



## justletmein

big john o said:


> Some people fish for fun, some people fish to bring home some dinner... For me like most, its both... I dont get to go but maybe a hand full of times in a year, and hardly ever catch 10 trout... but when I do get on them that one time, it would sure be disappointing to only be able to keep five... you guys that are pushing this can kiss my butt... :biggrin:


It's different when someone fishes a few times a week and has a 5 minute drive to the ramp. When you have to drag the boat 180 miles one way and fish once a month things change.


----------



## Im Headed South

I'm one of the lucky one that get to fish quite a bit so I maybe wrong but if I were in the boat of only going down 3 or 4 times a year I think I'd rather be able to go down and catch a bunch of really solid fish and only be able to keep 5 instead of going down and catching a some 13" to 16" fish and maybe one solid one every once in a while and end up with 6 or 7 keeper at the end of the day. We had days down in Mansfield earlier this year where we caught 50+ fish over 20", double digit numbers of fish over 6 pounds in a day, how would you like to have your personal best day ever and catch 10 fish for 64 pounds only to be out done by your buddy who had 10 for 72! None of those fish were kept btw, but if I only had a chance to fish for trout a hand full of times or less per year I'd much rather have the opportunity for a day like that than what the middle coast has had to offer for the last decade.


----------



## redman35

Smackdaddy53 said:


> The comment about other species is for those who act like trout are the only fish you can catch and eat. Redman i see where youre coming from but there are a lot of people on the water every day, its not about how many times an individual gets to go but volume of people on the water on general. It doesnt matter if its the same people out there every day its still a lot of hooks in the water. Just sayin
> 
> -mac-


Mac, well like i have always said the people that think the limit should be 5 can keep there 5. I like my 10 when i get a chance to go. That would be like me telling you that you can only have 1 beer a day instead of 5.


----------



## Spotted Wadin

justletmein said:


> It's different when someone fishes a few times a week and has a 5 minute drive to the ramp. When you have to drag the boat 180 miles one way and fish once a month things change.


Why is it different? You can't tell me your driving 360 miles RT to just put food on the table. I would imagine you do it because you enjoy fishing, just like all of us here. Sure its great to eat a meal of fresh trout, I know I like eating trout. I would also bet your not driving 360 miles to fish one day. So lets say you have 10 trout from you two day trip. I can feed my family of 4.5 (my 3 yo doesn't eat much) 4 meals out of 20 trout fillets. Not to mention the other species of fish you may catch. BTW, Its 350 miles round trip for me, and I'll do it to keep 5 trout any day, because I LOVE TO FISH!

Justletmein- we are about the same age, you were probably raised like me, to think that a successful trip was based on the number of bags of fillets. I would imagine a vast majority of us were brought up the same way. Things have changed. There are so many people on the water, so many people taking from the resource that if we don't do something about it, the numbers will continue to decline. Once again this is _my opinion_ and you are entitled to yours as well.


----------



## justletmein

Spotted Wadin said:


> Why is it different? You can't tell me your driving 360 miles RT to just put food on the table. I would imagine you do it because you enjoy fishing, just like all of us here. Sure its great to eat a meal of fresh trout, I know I like eating trout. I would also bet your not driving 360 miles to fish one day. So lets say you have 10 trout from you two day trip. I can feed my family of 4.5 (my 3 yo doesn't eat much) 4 meals out of 20 trout fillets. Not to mention the other species of fish you may catch. BTW, Its 350 miles round trip for me, and I'll do it to keep 5 trout any day, because I LOVE TO FISH!
> 
> Justletmein- we are about the same age, you were probably raised like me, to think that a successful trip was based on the number of bags of fillets. I would imagine a vast majority of us were brought up the same way. Things have changed. There are so many people on the water, so many people taking from the resource that if we don't do something about it, the numbers will continue to decline. Once again this is _my opinion_ and you are entitled to yours as well.


A successful trip is a trip when I don't get my boat stuck and I come home alive, LOL. But I was not raised to keep fish at all because my dad didn't like getting his hands dirty. I remember him filleting fish on ONE trip my entire life because I begged so hard and promised all sorts of extra chores and then my step-mom botched the cooking of the fish but I choked down every scrap anyway just on principle. The question is irrelevant to me anyway because I will never catch 10 trout, but that's not the point. Heck usually we fish all day and when we finally do end up catching a "keeper" or two we just release them because cleaning one or two fish is not worth it. My boys will gobble 10 trout in half an hour and not leave any for me so nobody is winning an argument for "keep 5" based on feeding the family with fish.  It almost doesn't matter how many fish we have they really never end up getting frozen, even with a 2 day full family limit of reds not a single one of those fish made it to the freezer. How is it different? I dunno it just is. Having said all that, I've switched over to the Keep 5 side of things anyway as I figured it's in my best interest if there are a few more fish out there for me to actually be able to catch one. :biggrin: I don't think it's going to help the population all that much though.


----------



## Haute Pursuit

Raise the limits on redfish and the trout will do better. Redfish own the shorelines now.


----------



## Salt Water Texan

Conservation of any natural resourse really has very little to do with anyone's ego, where they live, how many fish they can catch, how many they eat, or what kind bait they use. I believe that President Teddy Roosevelt summed up very well in June, 1905. " In utilizing and conserving the natural resourses of the nation, the one characteristic more essential than any other is FORESIGHT. " Foresight is defined as an act of looking forward; taking action in reference to the future.

After 22 pages of arguments it's easy to see that some people don't have it and some people do.

Some simple facts from TWPD. Trout limits were set in 1984, in the 28 years since recreational fishing pressure has increased by 300% and the number of saltwater fishing guides has also increased by 300%. It doesn't take much foresight to understand that it's way past time to lower the limits on trout.

The key to the future of Texas trout fishing is that we need to be proactive, not reactive. In the 70's during the "Redfish Wars" we learned that TWPD will react if enough pressure is applied. If you want lower limits you need to be proactive, contact TWPD and your state representative and make your feelings known.

I'll quote Teddy Roosevelt one more time " In any decision the best action is to do the right thing, the next best option is to do the wrong thing, but the very worst thing you can do is to do nothing at all."


----------



## southpaw

Salt Water Texan said:


> Conservation of any natural resourse really has very little to do with anyone's ego, where they live, how many fish they can catch, how many they eat, or what kind bait they use. I believe that President Teddy Roosevelt summed up very well in June, 1905. " In utilizing and conserving the natural resourses of the nation, the one characteristic more essential than any other is FORESIGHT. " Foresight is defined as an act of looking forward; taking action in reference to the future.
> 
> After 22 pages of arguments it's easy to see that some people don't have it and some people do.
> 
> Some simple facts from TWPD. Trout limits were set in 1984, in the 28 years since recreational fishing pressure has increased by 300% and the number of saltwater fishing guides has also increased by 300%. It doesn't take much foresight to understand that it's way past time to lower the limits on trout.
> 
> The key to the future of Texas trout fishing is that we need to be proactive, not reactive. In the 70's during the "Redfish Wars" we learned that TWPD will react if enough pressure is applied. If you want lower limits you need to be proactive, contact TWPD and your state representative and make your feelings known.
> 
> I'll quote Teddy Roosevelt one more time " In any decision the best action is to do the right thing, the next best option is to do the wrong thing, but the very worst thing you can do is to do nothing at all."


Quite possibly the best post on this thread. Foresight is the most important aspect of this debate and it doesn't seem like some really care what they leave future generations. I've always been taught to leave things better than I found them, our fisheries are no exception


----------



## reeltimer

Salt Water Texan said:


> Conservation of any natural resourse really has very little to do with anyone's ego, where they live, how many fish they can catch, how many they eat, or what kind bait they use. I believe that President Teddy Roosevelt summed up very well in June, 1905. " In utilizing and conserving the natural resourses of the nation, the one characteristic more essential than any other is FORESIGHT. " Foresight is defined as an act of looking forward; taking action in reference to the future.
> 
> After 22 pages of arguments it's easy to see that some people don't have it and some people do.
> 
> Some simple facts from TWPD. Trout limits were set in 1984, in the 28 years since recreational fishing pressure has increased by 300% and the number of saltwater fishing guides has also increased by 300%. It doesn't take much foresight to understand that it's way past time to lower the limits on trout.
> 
> The key to the future of Texas trout fishing is that we need to be proactive, not reactive. In the 70's during the "Redfish Wars" we learned that TWPD will react if enough pressure is applied. If you want lower limits you need to be proactive, contact TWPD and your state representative and make your feelings known.
> 
> I'll quote Teddy Roosevelt one more time " In any decision the best action is to do the right thing, the next best option is to do the wrong thing, but the very worst thing you can do is to do nothing at all."


Since 1984 the number of full time guides has decreased most have other jobs as well.I would wager that.So that is in question.Recfishing throws all fishing in there and not specific to salty.Gill net surveys are a better way but just as questionable.fish move to certain areas depending on what time of the year it is.This whole argument can be cut, chopped ,screwed and dressed up to make it look good for either side.


----------



## Gilbert

Haute Pursuit said:


> Raise the limits on redfish and the trout will do better. Redfish own the shorelines now.


that's what I've been saying for the past two years! :headknock


----------



## BigBay420

Ill be lucky to catch 3 hardheads


----------



## wickedwader

reeltimer said:


> *Since 1984 the number of full time guides has decreased* most have other jobs as well.I would wager that.So that is in question.Recfishing throws all fishing in there and not specific to salty.Gill net surveys are a better way but just as questionable.fish move to certain areas depending on what time of the year it is.This whole argument can be cut, chopped ,screwed and dressed up to make it look good for either side.


You HAVE GOT to be kidding! You must have a lot of disposable income if you are really willing to wager on that statement.


----------



## reeltimer

Full Time guides no other income!When you get your list pm me.Out of respect for all guides names and such should be kept private.btw this is just salt water.not the guys that duck hunt,guide on fresh and salt water.

The problem with most people they wanna blame somebody for the so called decline in fish pop.croakers soakers,oyesterman,shrimpers,rec fisherman,guides,commercial fisherman,crabbers and so forth.When the forces working agaisnt's use are the envrons wackos,gubermint and the likes of WPP.I'm all for conservation myself.


----------



## AaronB

I'm not an expert on math, but with roughly a 300% increase in fisherman of all sorts on our coast since the trout limits were established, Dropping the limit to 5 statewide (50%) would only be a baby step in conservation of our speckled trout fishery. Now if they dropped the limit to 5 AND made the minimum 12".. That would be an even bigger step. And for all the people saying "keep it 10", I respect your opinion as one human being to another, but youre not thinking about the future of the fish you suposedly enjoy catching. We call that selfish in today's world. It wouldn't hurt the coastal economy or your state of peacefulness to go fishing more often.


----------



## Cork & Jig

Im Headed South said:


> I'm one of the lucky one that get to fish quite a bit so I maybe wrong but if I were in the boat of only going down 3 or 4 times a year I think I'd rather be able to go down and catch a bunch of really solid fish and only be able to keep 5 instead of going down and catching a some 13" to 16" fish and maybe one solid one every once in a while and end up with 6 or 7 keeper at the end of the day. We had days down in Mansfield earlier this year where we caught 50+ fish over 20", double digit numbers of fish over 6 pounds in a day, how would you like to have your personal best day ever and catch 10 fish for 64 pounds only to be out done by your buddy who had 10 for 72! None of those fish were kept btw, but if I only had a chance to fish for trout a hand full of times or less per year I'd much rather have the opportunity for a day like that than what the middle coast has had to offer for the last decade.


Man, this was being done BEFORE they dropped the limits to 5. I know! We regularly caught our limits of really nice fish there. I couldn't believe it, when I heard that the limits were being reduced. I, personally, think the fishing's no better, now, than before. That area has ALWAYS been very good, IMO.

What is dropping the limits going to accomplish, when the average trout/day has consistently been 1/2 trout/person for 30+ years?

Most people aren't experienced enough to consistently catch any more than that amount. It's just the way it is, changing the limit will accomplish what???

People need to realize that fishing in the bays and consistently catching lots of good fish requires a lot of KNOWLEDGE. Simply buying a boat, a rod, and all the "right lures" or bait doesn't gaurantee them anything, unless they have some "idea" what to do with it, once they get there. This seems to be something a lot of people do not realize.

And, I often hear people saying that fishing was better decades ago. IMO, no, it wasn't. We still catch lots of fish. What has changed is the distance people are willing to travel in their boats to fish. Increased traffic, in many areas, changes fish behavior. If YOU don't adapt YOUR methods, you won't be successful. The fish are here. You've just got to figure out them out. Do that, and you'll be successful.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

AaronB said:


> I'm not an expert on math, but with roughly a 300% increase in fisherman of all sorts on our coast since the trout limits were established, Dropping the limit to 5 statewide (50%) would only be a baby step in conservation of our speckled trout fishery. Now if they dropped the limit to 5 AND made the minimum 12".. That would be an even bigger step. And for all the people saying "keep it 10", I respect your opinion as one human being to another, but youre not thinking about the future of the fish you suposedly enjoy catching. *We call that selfish in today's world*. It wouldn't hurt the coastal economy or your state of peacefulness to go fishing more often.


see...there lies the problem from those that want the 5 rule...not everyone fishes for trophy trout, not everyone catches that daily 10, most get skunked or catch nothing but dinks all day...

at what point do we draw the line or go over the "might happen/foresight", it's almost as bad as the dooms day preppers, to be honest...

we don't know what the future holds, why live with the fear of something "might" happen and just live life and let the experts do what they have studied and do their entire life...

if TP&W comes out with hard facts about the fishery in decline and they lower the limit to 5, i have no issues with that...but i do have issues with the "world is going to end" mentality to push for that same "just keep 5".

personally, i'm all for conservation myself, but i want facts and reason, not speculation and fear being used as evidence.


----------



## justletmein

300% increase in fishermen doesn't mean anything if fishermen aren't the delimiting factor of the trout population though. I'm now in the Keep 5 camp so don't shoot me, just saying! 

Have the population of Dolphins gone up, small sharks in the bay, Redfish competing for resources (you know **** well Redfish numbers are UP), Croaker food source depleted, etc...


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

justletmein said:


> 300% increase in fishermen doesn't mean anything if fishermen aren't the delimiting factor of the trout population though. I'm now in the Keep 5 camp so don't shoot me, just saying!
> 
> Have the population of Dolphins gone up, small sharks in the bay, Redfish competing for resources (you know **** well Redfish numbers are UP), Croaker food source depleted, etc...


Josh, how can you be in the keep 5 camp when you can't even catch 1, seriously....

the last few trips you took, you stuck the boat, got skunked where we usually fish, you were skunked in the bays last year as well IIRC...

so there lies the issue, the numbers are skewed as not everyone catches the limit every time out or 1 fish every trip.


----------



## justletmein

osoobsessed said:


> see...there lies the problem from those that want the 5 rule...not everyone fishes for trophy trout, not everyone catches that daily 10, most get skunked or catch nothing but dinks all day...
> 
> at what point do we draw the line or go over the "might happen/foresight", it's almost as bad as the dooms day preppers, to be honest...
> 
> we don't know what the future holds, why live with the fear of something "might" happen and just live life and let the experts do what they have studied and do their entire life...
> 
> if TP&W comes out with hard facts about the fishery in decline and they lower the limit to 5, i have no issues with that...but i do have issues with the "world is going to end" mentality to push for that same "just keep 5".
> 
> personally, i'm all for conservation myself, but i want facts and reason, not speculation and fear being used as evidence.


The only logical choice ^. Make decisions based on facts established by the people in charge of researching the fish populations.


----------



## justletmein

osoobsessed said:


> Josh, how can you be in the keep 5 camp when you can't even catch 1, seriously....
> 
> the last few trips you took, you stuck the boat, got skunked where we usually fish, you were skunked in the bays last year as well IIRC...
> 
> so there lies the issue, the numbers are skewed as not everyone catches the limit every time out or 1 fish every trip.


Why you gotta go and rub it in, vato?  sad3sm

But you just explained exactly why, if there's ONE more fish in there because everyone else can only keep 5 then I've got a better chance of catching ONE. :rotfl:

This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between posts. Please try again in 41 seconds.
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between posts. Please try again in 32 seconds.
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between posts. Please try again in 23 seconds.
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between posts. Please try again in 13 seconds.
This forum requires that you wait 120 seconds between posts. Please try again in 4 seconds.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

justletmein said:


> The only logical choice ^. Make decisions based on facts established by the people in charge of researching the fish populations.


and if the research shows that the limits need to be dropped, then i would be fine with that, honestly...

what erks me is the push from some that almost have that "trophy hunt" mentaility....it ain't for everyone.


----------



## AaronB

As surprising as it might sound, some of us have no problems catching big trout on a regular basis as the fishery is now. The change to five, in my mind, is for a better overall fishery and has nothing to do with trophies. And regardless whether TPWD researches the issue and says we don't NEED it, it's foolish to say trout populations would not benefit from it. That's how I think about it at least.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

AaronB said:


> As surprising as it might sound, some of us have no problems catching big trout on a regular basis as the fishery is now. The change to five, in my mind, is for a better overall fishery and has nothing to do with trophies. And regardless whether TPWD researches the issue and says we don't NEED it, it's foolish to say trout populations would not benefit from it. That's how I think about it at least.


Not surprising at all, on the net...LOL

You bring up good points, but if the people in charge give you facts that the fishery is good, why would you refute that? That is their proffesion, not just rec fisherman....not saying they are never wrong, but I would like to see facts other than a motivated push for a drop, but again, unless we fish every bay system in and around the gulf, the drop may or may not work for every fishery, such as AR restrictions on deer being only for certain counties, not the entire state.

just like with land, a fishery can only sustain so many critters...what happens when the fish become weak and skinny due to challenges finding or fighting for food, will the limits then go back up?

Sent from my mobile T&A viewer


----------



## Im Headed South

Numbers are getting close to where they were at the end of the scoping process. I have it from a very reliable source that took part in those meetings that the numbers were 55% for some kind of change (either coast wide or regional) to 45% leave things as they are. Sadly the 45% won out because of two things - power and money! Science didn't have a **** thing to do with it, opened my eyes big time to how things really work in government and it really worries me that a group like WP&P can and will get their agenda pushed through despite what the majority of users feel or what the science says because they have no shortage of money or powerful friends.


----------



## specks&ducks

I've managed to catch some nice trout this year, 25 inch range, no monsters though. Most have come from a couple of old places that I use to fish years ago and probably have not seen much pressure lately. I still want the change
I'm not what I would call a trophy seeker but I do fish areas specifically for larger fish. I think we will probably see a change in the not too distant future.


----------



## Cork & Jig

justletmein said:


> Have the population of Dolphins gone up, small sharks in the bay, Redfish competing for resources (you know **** well Redfish numbers are UP etc, ...


How bought LARGE sharks? Sharks are predators, of the first order. They will readily eat as many trout and other finfish as they can get ahold of and still want more. I can't tell you how many times they've hammered our stringers and hooked fish over the years.

Dolphins are really, really large consumers of trout. How many of y'all have watched them tearing into a school of trout? I've watched them carrying them on the tops of their noses and then chunk them out of the water, into the air. Next thing you know there's oil popping up everywhere. The dinks may keep biting, but the bite's usually over, at least for the larger fish. They seem to enjoy playing with their prey much like cats.

Do you know what Baffin and East Matagorda, two of the premier producers of larger than average trout, have in common? Both have small dolphin populations and few sharks. Actually, I've never heard of any sharks in Baffin.


----------



## spurgersalty

It's amazing how mis-informed many are 
Do some research before you say the trout population is in decline and in dire straits.
If you mean 1 certain area, say that, not the entire coast.
Only a certain (small) part of the gulf coast is still "historically" low. 
The sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!


----------



## Kyle 1974

Friggen dolphins. No one gave a rats *** about them until flipper came on TV


----------



## The1ThatGotAway

I say make the trout an endangered species so you guys will quit wasting valuable bandwidth.


----------



## Joe. T.

AaronB said:


> As surprising as it might sound, some of us have no problems catching big trout on a regular basis as the fishery is now. The change to five, in my mind, is for a better overall fishery and has nothing to do with trophies. And regardless whether TPWD researches the issue and says we don't NEED it, it's foolish to say trout populations would not benefit from it. That's how I think about it at least.


 X2 .mullet ,croaker,pinfish,needle nose,mud minnows,shrimp,crabs,worms,thats a pretty good buffet for trout.plus we know they eat there own also.


----------



## The1ThatGotAway

Kyle 1974 said:


> Friggen dolphins. No one gave a rats *** about them until flipper came on TV


I love dolphins, they taste just like sea turtle.


----------



## Wompam

*X2*



Cork & Jig said:


> Man, this was being done BEFORE they dropped the limits to 5. I know! We regularly caught our limits of really nice fish there. I couldn't believe it, when I heard that the limits were being reduced. I, personally, think the fishing's no better, now, than before. That area has ALWAYS been very good, IMO.
> 
> What is dropping the limits going to accomplish, when the average trout/day has consistently been 1/2 trout/person for 30+ years?
> 
> Most people aren't experienced enough to consistently catch any more than that amount. It's just the way it is, changing the limit will accomplish what???
> 
> People need to realize that fishing in the bays and consistently catching lots of good fish requires a lot of KNOWLEDGE. Simply buying a boat, a rod, and all the "right lures" or bait doesn't gaurantee them anything, unless they have some "idea" what to do with it, once they get there. This seems to be something a lot of people do not realize.
> 
> And, I often hear people saying that fishing was better decades ago. IMO, no, it wasn't. We still catch lots of fish. What has changed is the distance people are willing to travel in their boats to fish. Increased traffic, in many areas, changes fish behavior. If YOU don't adapt YOUR methods, you won't be successful. The fish are here. You've just got to figure out them out. Do that, and you'll be successful.


I concur


----------



## TRW

Im Headed South said:


> Numbers are getting close to where they were at the end of the scoping process. I have it from a very reliable source that took part in those meetings that the numbers were 55% for some kind of change (either coast wide or regional) to 45% leave things as they are. Sadly the 45% won out because of two things - power and money! Science didn't have a **** thing to do with it, opened my eyes big time to how things really work in government and it really worries me that a group like WP&P can and will get their agenda pushed through despite what the majority of users feel or what the science says because they have no shortage of money or powerful friends.


Funny you mention WP&P and their agenda, But the just keep five folks are trying to push their agenda when all of the science shows no need.So does the majority rule or the science in this case? I am sure most of the people who feel that the limit is fine right now would not have a problem with the limits being reduced if the data shows it is needed. No one has shown any proof they need to be cut in half. Until they do well if it ain't broke don't fix it. In God I trust all other must provide DATA. As said before no one makes you keep 10 it is your choice.


----------



## justletmein

TRW said:


> Funny you mention WP&P and their agenda, But the just keep five folks are trying to push their agenda when all of the science shows no need.So does the majority rule or the science in this case? I am sure most of the people who feel that the limit is fine right now would not have a problem with the limits being reduced if the data shows it is needed. No one has shown any proof they need to be cut in half. Until they do well if it ain't broke don't fix it. In God I trust all other must provide DATA. As said before no one makes you keep 10 it is your choice.


Can't argue with that.


----------



## Im Headed South

TRW said:


> Funny you mention WP&P and their agenda, But the just keep five folks are trying to push their agenda when all of the science shows no need.So does the majority rule or the science in this case? I am sure most of the people who feel that the limit is fine right now would not have a problem with the limits being reduced if the data shows it is needed. No one has shown any proof they need to be cut in half. Until they do well if it ain't broke don't fix it. In God I trust all other must provide DATA. As said before no one makes you keep 10 it is your choice.


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

There was plenty of data and science posted and argued about in that thread, in the end then just like now I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about what the data says. Like I said before when it came to nut cutting time last year after all public response neither science or majority mattered, you had a certain user group along with a few municipalities from up north threating legal action if the proposal continued on and was passed by the full commission. Their claim was the reduced limit would adversely effect their tax revenues and income as less people would spend the money for only being able to retain 5 trout, according to my source TPWD felt like they would win in court eventually just as they had done when the shrimpers took them to court a few years back over a similar argument. This was all going on at the same time of the highly continuous budget battle in Austin, remember the reported 27 billion dollar shortfall? TPWD was told they could be looking at up to a 35% reduction in the budget and some felt right or wrong getting into a costly court case was not prudent at the time. So theirs your fisheries management 101 course for the day, it all comes back to Green and I'm not talking about water clarity.

Mike


----------



## WADER13

I don't think the croaker soakers would get their moneys worth if it went to 5......

But what I would like to know is what the numbers are for artificial only vs live bait guys and the ratio of how many live baiters want the limit lowered. I would think the vast majority of the "keep 5" crowd are artificial only. Just my opinion


----------



## Smackdaddy53

I cant understand why a good percentage of saltwater anglers act like trout are all they can catch and eat. As if the limit went to five it would be a waste of time and money to go fishing.. I said it before, catch some reds, flounder and sheepshead! You wont starve with five less fish on ice...JMO


-mac-


----------



## southpaw

spurgersalty said:


> It's amazing how mis-informed many are
> Do some research before you say the trout population is in decline and in dire straits.
> If you mean 1 certain area, say that, not the entire coast.
> Only a certain (small) part of the gulf coast is still "historically" low.
> The sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!


The data that is currently available is based off of gill net surveys, a process in which TPWD will admit is inherently flawed and is not a good method of doing it but it's the best way they have so it's what they go with. It's nearly impossible to judge the health and population of a bay system based off of a relatively small sample size taken from an even smaller percentage of bay. Throw in the variability of tide, weather, environmental effects and countless others and you have an extremely large margin of error. This is then again compounded with the fact that data can be easily skewed either way to back a certain group's agenda. Just look at global warming, you cut the data off at a certain trend and say there's your increase or decrease in numbers. So if you ask me, "scientific/ political data" means absolutely nothing to me. I trust it about as much as I trust the sheeeet that comes out of our president's mouth. It pushes the agenda of those with money. Even if it supports what I believe I still take it with a grain of salt.

My feelings toward a 5 fish limit are solely based on my personal experience and what I believe to be my duty as a responsible outdoorsman to not just leave our resources as I've found them but to improve them for the future. With all the different problems our fisheries face today, whether you blame it on increased habitat destruction, fishing pressure, numbers of sharks/dolphin/redfish or whatever we can't expect our fisheries to sustain itself with antiquated rules and regulations that were made nearly a quarter century ago. Maybe I'm wrong but that to me is just common sense. Some of yall have children and maybe even grandchildren that you are passing the sport of fishing on to. Don't you want to pass on a fishery that isn't just the same as what you had, but better? I don't have kids and don't plan on it for awhile, but that's something that's always in my mind when this debate comes up. But what do I know I'm just a guy with a stick throwing plastic at animal with a brain the size of a pea.


----------



## Top Brass #2

What's a Trout?:headknock 5 for Croaker Soakers (with a guide), 10 for Artificial. IMO.


----------



## spurgersalty

southpaw said:


> The data that is currently available is based off of gill net surveys, a process in which TPWD will admit is inherently flawed and is not a good method of doing it but it's the best way they have so it's what they go with. It's nearly impossible to judge the health and population of a bay system based off of a relatively small sample size taken from an even smaller percentage of bay. Throw in the variability of tide, weather, environmental effects and countless others and you have an extremely large margin of error. This is then again compounded with the fact that data can be easily skewed either way to back a certain group's agenda. Just look at global warming, you cut the data off at a certain trend and say there's your increase or decrease in numbers. So if you ask me, "scientific/ political data" means absolutely nothing to me. I trust it about as much as I trust the sheeeet that comes out of our president's mouth. It pushes the agenda of those with money. Even if it supports what I believe I still take it with a grain of salt.
> 
> My feelings toward a 5 fish limit are solely based on my personal experience and what I believe to be my duty as a responsible outdoorsman to not just leave our resources as I've found them but to improve them for the future. With all the different problems our fisheries face today, whether you blame it on increased habitat destruction, fishing pressure, numbers of sharks/dolphin/redfish or whatever we can't expect our fisheries to sustain itself with antiquated rules and regulations that were made nearly a quarter century ago. Maybe I'm wrong but that to me is just common sense. Some of yall have children and maybe even grandchildren that you are passing the sport of fishing on to. Don't you want to pass on a fishery that isn't just the same as what you had, but better? I don't have kids and don't plan on it for awhile, but that's something that's always in my mind when this debate comes up. But what do I know I'm just a guy with a stick throwing plastic at animal with a brain the size of a pea.


That "pea brained animal" has beaten me out on more than a few occasions.
Wouldn't it be better to ask for new developments in population estimates instead of just dropping limits based off of opinions?


----------



## chugbug2000

Here is an idea, lets put the numbers from 0 to 10 on the lic for trout. When you buy your lic, you pic your number of trout you want to keep when you go fishing, if your caught with more than you picked, then you get a ticket.


----------



## Im Headed South

spurgersalty said:


> That "pea brained animal" has beaten me out on more than a few occasions.
> Wouldn't it be better to ask for new developments in population estimates instead of just dropping limits based off of opinions?


Have you ever looked at the gill net survey charts that TPWD releases?


----------



## southpaw

spurgersalty said:


> That "pea brained animal" has beaten me out on more than a few occasions.
> Wouldn't it be better to ask for new developments in population estimates instead of just dropping limits based off of opinions?


I see your point, but I don't see that being feasible anywhere in the near future. In order to get any accurate data you would either have to take a large sample (which means a lot of fish in gill nets) or spend a lot of money coming up with a new way or technology to monitor trout numbers. Neither of which I see happening any time soon. Even then, you have the problem of data skewing. So then what? We stay with the same antiquated limits until some one finally gives some honest accurate data and at the very best we can hope for trout populations stay the same? We can't deny that our fisheries are under more pressure than ever and I'm not just talking about fishing pressure. Closing of passes, pollution, habitat destruction, booming dolphin populations, environmental impacts etc all will slowly but surely take a toll on our fisheries. I realize that mother nature tries to find a way but there is a breaking point and we'll reach it one day to where she can't keep up with all the different impacts. So in my opinion we either wait until it get's really bad and drastic measure are taken (as seen with redfish) or we be proactive and do what we can to prevent it by taking reasonable measures to improve what we have.


----------



## bigt1786

I'm to the point that I'm not even reading half of what anybody writes unless its less than a few lines long. Talk about a waste of breath (or energy, bandwith, time, etc.). This post was somehow supposed to generate reliable statistical information for a research paper (I could make one of those long posts about how this information has incredibly weak reliability, validity, etc. and would get me laughed at in grad school but I wont) and it's strayed far from that. It's interesting to read what people have to say...until its 26+ pages and 257+ posts long. That being said here's my two cents if you havent gotten tired of reading yet - The limit, as it stands, (with the obvious exceptions) is 10. If you want to keep 10, you can. If you think you or everybody else is killing off the trout fishery by keeping 10, than keep 5 (or less) and do your part. Until 'scientific' data is generated or there is a financial gain, or a combination of both, not much is going to change.


----------



## wickedwader

bigt1786 said:


> I'm to the point that I'm not even reading half of what anybody writes unless its less than a few lines long. Talk about a waste of breath (or energy, bandwith, time, etc.).


Sorry I missed your point...I quit reading after a few lines.


----------



## bigt1786

wickedwader said:


> Sorry I missed your point...I quit reading after a few lines.


 I dont blame you, I would have too. It's just for the people that are actually reading all of this.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

what if TP&W were to set a catch and release only of trout...would you guys be in favor for that?

it would save fishes for our kids kids and their other kids in the future. :biggrin:


----------



## spurgersalty

Im Headed South said:


> Have you ever looked at the gill net survey charts that TPWD releases?


Some....why?


----------



## Texas Javelina

First of all, I am in favor of keeping the limit where it is until TPWD determines that something needs to be done. I am confused by many stating that that there has been a 300% increase in pressure since the early 1980’s but I believe that the amount of hooks has actually declined (trout lines/gill nets)… The destruction of resources has always been made by two elements---Mother Nature and man’s inventions. Man has always used his/her ingenuity to reap greater rewards in their quest for money/survival. Trout lines and gill nets are two of these inventions that were deemed destructive to the fisheries and have been removed which had a much larger and devastating effect than the 300% increase people are referring to. I have fished the Baffin area since the late 70’s and have seen the devastating effects of Mother Nature (1983). Looking at another species, we caught flounder consistently in and around Baffin into the early 90’s with quite a few big hauls by gigging (this was with no limits in place). Flounder size and bag limits were put into place in 1996 and yet the population has drastically declined. Does anyone really believe this is from rod and reel fisherman? Could the decline be from another one of man’s inventions –shrimp boats….I for one believe that the TPWD should continue to monitor the trout population and make changes that reflect the data and not use an arbitrary “keep 5” number someone made up. After a freeze, the number might be 2 for a year but please show me some type of data that 5 is the “right” number for a rod and reel fisherman.


----------



## Gilbert

There is always a massive fish kill when I hit the water.


----------



## spurgersalty

Dynamite has been proven very effective


----------



## southpaw

osoobsessed said:


> what if TP&W were to set a catch and release only of trout...would you guys be in favor for that?
> 
> it would save fishes for our kids kids and their other kids in the future. :biggrin:


I'm almost positive that would start a war haha. But you know they do that in Florida after freeze events. They have a pretty take no sheeet attitude when it comes to fishery management, but that's a different mentality over there so we won't get into that.



> Until 'scientific' data is generated or there is a financial gain, or a combination of both, not much is going to change.


While I realize you probably know everything since you're in grad school (thank you for pointing that out by the way) this is exactly the type of complacency that breeds mediocrity.


----------



## LHandler

The problem with scientific data is it is collected by scientist not fisherman. I have fish the middle coast regularly my whole life and know other friends/fishermen that have fished their whole lives here, one thing we unanimously agree on is the trout numbers have dropped considerably as well as size. What to do about it may be debatable but it is fact the numbers are down over the last 20 years, hell last 10 years.


----------



## justletmein

Put a daily bag limit on Dolphins, that'll fix it.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

southpaw said:


> I'm almost positive that would start a war haha. But you know they do that in Florida after freeze events. They have a pretty take no sheeet attitude when it comes to fishery management, but that's a different mentality over there so we won't get into that.
> 
> While I realize you probably know everything since you're in grad school (thank you for pointing that out by the way) this is exactly the type of complacency that breeds mediocrity.


war yes! LOL

as for florida, i've heard of something like that, but never knew it to be true, just stories around the camp fire type conversations....cool information to know, thanks! :cheers:


----------



## spurgersalty

That's what scientists do....provide an unbiased assessment of the overall health of the fishery. Unlike fishermen whom are known to stretch the truth


----------



## Spec-Rig.006

I like to fart in the water when I'm fishing and yell "jacuzzi-balls" real loud when I do it ...


----------



## Mad Mike

Gilbert said:


> There is always a massive fish kill when I hit the water.


You should take a bath more often.


----------



## shallowgal

We all freaked out and whined when they dropped it to 5 in the LLM (including me, not gonna lie), all the guides thought it would be the end of their industry, but guess what? Before the drop it was pretty rare to even get 10 good trout down here, now they're everywhere! And big ones too. There are more and more over 25" getting bagged, and the 5 you do take home are good ones. 

Just my opinion.


----------



## Padrerich

TPW needs to continue to manage each bay as necessary based on fish surveys, number of fisherman, etc. Most would agree that the 5 trout limit has benefited the LLM. Dont know how much longer the benefit will be realized with all of the fishing tournaments being held.


----------



## Salt Water Texan

Texas Javelina said:


> First of all, I am in favor of keeping the limit where it is until TPWD determines that something needs to be done. I am confused by many stating that that there has been a 300% increase in pressure since the early 1980's but I believe that the amount of hooks has actually declined (trout lines/gill nets)&#8230; The destruction of resources has always been made by two elements---Mother Nature and man's inventions. Man has always used his/her ingenuity to reap greater rewards in their quest for money/survival. Trout lines and gill nets are two of these inventions that were deemed destructive to the fisheries and have been removed which had a much larger and devastating effect than the 300% increase people are referring to. I have fished the Baffin area since the late 70's and have seen the devastating effects of Mother Nature (1983). Looking at another species, we caught flounder consistently in and around Baffin into the early 90's with quite a few big hauls by gigging (this was with no limits in place). Flounder size and bag limits were put into place in 1996 and yet the population has drastically declined. Does anyone really believe this is from rod and reel fisherman? Could the decline be from another one of man's inventions -shrimp boats&#8230;.I for one believe that the TPWD should continue to monitor the trout population and make changes that reflect the data and not use an arbitrary "keep 5" number someone made up. After a freeze, the number might be 2 for a year but please show me some type of data that 5 is the "right" number for a rod and reel fisherman.


The 300% numbers I used in my previous post represent the increase in recreational fishermen and saltwater fishing guides. They simply show the ever increasing pressure on Texas' natural resourses and teach us that this trend will only continue and will not cure itself. Is it wise to simply wait until TWPD says " we have a problem " or is it best to be proactive and take steps now to improve trout fishing in the future?

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the number of hooks in the water and the fishing pressure on trout. I believe you overlooked two important factors. While we lost a lot of pressure with the removal of trotlines and gill nets, most commercials targeted drum and redfish. In the years since then we have seen a 300% increase in the number of saltwater fishing guides whose target fish is the speckled trout. A coastal fishery that once supported a few hundred guides now has to support well over a thousand. Most guides don't fish by themselves, they always have 2 to 5 people with them. That number alone represents a lot of hooks.

The first person I heard use the number 5 was a fishing guide it is also the number that TWPD used in their scoping meetings last year on this issue. Perhaps you could show me some data that shows that 10 is the right number for rod and reel fishermen.


----------



## Cork & Jig

Salt Water Texan said:


> The 300% numbers I used in my previous post represent the increase in recreational fishermen and saltwater fishing guides. They simply show the ever increasing pressure on Texas' natural resourses and teach us that this trend will only continue and will not cure itself. Is it wise to simply wait until TWPD says " we have a problem " or is it best to be proactive and take steps now to improve trout fishing in the future?
> 
> I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the number of hooks in the water and the fishing pressure on trout. I believe you overlooked two important factors. While we lost a lot of pressure with the removal of trotlines and gill nets, most commercials targeted drum and redfish. In the years since then we have seen a 300% increase in the number of saltwater fishing guides whose target fish is the speckled trout. A coastal fishery that once supported a few hundred guides now has to support well over a thousand. Most guides don't fish by themselves, they always have 2 to 5 people with them. That number alone represents a lot of hooks.
> 
> The first person I heard use the number 5 was a fishing guide it is also the number that TWPD used in their scoping meetings last year on this issue. Perhaps you could show me some data that shows that 10 is the right number for rod and reel fishermen.


Gill nets "target" ANY fish not big and strong enough to tear their way through them. Where'd you get the notion that they didn't catch a LOT of trout? Have you ever picked one up? I have.

They will pretty much catch whatever runs into them. That's the way they work. Crabs, stingrays, drum, reds, trout, sharks, sheepshead, gar, you name it. And trust me, ever trout they caught was gutted and gilled and went to the fish house.

There were over half a dozen full-time crews working the Matagorda systems when I was young and they caught anywhere from 500lbs. to several thousands pounds a night, every night, each. Sport fishermen catch nowhere near this amount. Not even close. And guess what? We still caught lots of fish back then.

Btw, TPWD's data supports a limit of 10 trout daily. They are NOT the ones pushing for 5 trout a day. Individual interest groups are doing this, not TPWD.


----------



## wickedwader

Cork & Jig said:


> Btw, TPWD's data supports a limit of 10 trout daily. They are NOT the ones pushing for 5 trout a day. Individual interest groups are doing this, not TPWD.


Excuse me for my ignorance but which individual interest groups are pushing for 5 trout a day? I know there are a lot of individuals pushing for it but I haven't heard of any _interest groups_ doing the same.


----------



## plasticsnaks

Cork & Jig said:


> Gill nets "target" ANY fish not big and strong enough to tear their way through them. Where'd you get the notion that they didn't catch a LOT of trout? Have you ever picked one up? I have.
> 
> They will pretty much catch whatever runs into them. That's the way they work. Crabs, stingrays, drum, reds, trout, sharks, sheepshead, gar, you name it. And trust me, ever trout they caught was gutted and gilled and went to the fish house.
> 
> There were over half a dozen full-time crews working the Matagorda systems when I was young and they caught anywhere from 500lbs. to several thousands pounds a night, every night, each. Sport fishermen catch nowhere near this amount. Not even close. And guess what? We still caught lots of fish back then.
> 
> Btw, TPWD's data supports a limit of 10 trout daily. They are NOT the ones pushing for 5 trout a day. Individual interest groups are doing this, not TPWD.


No need to get upset.Even though a thin majority have voted "5" this is an Unofficial Poll...I'm still perplexed at the statements made about the LLM never needing a trout limit reduction and how fishing(I assume you mean trout fishing in mid coast, SA bay south to the landcut) is as good now as it was "decades" ago...If you are talkin 20+ years and non dinks,I'm sorry but no way not in any stretch of a dream!
And sport fisherman not even coming close to taking 500 to 1000lbs of trout per day out of a bay system?..how do you know and where is the data you so feverishly insist upon?
TPW presented facts and actually made the reccomendation to reduce the trout limits in the LLM durning their scoping meeting years ago..Darn near 100% of the hard core trout chasers from that area and everyone I've talked to and TPW agree that it has been a success in a very short time...I completely agree with them but you do not..Oh but,that's right..we "5"ers all have an agenda.
BTW,I'm happy you are a such a good fisherman and still are able to locate and load up with quality trout on a regular basis!..would be interesting to know what bay system you fish most often and if you attain these results year round and in every bay syatem you frequent... Oh,and there are sharks in baffin too.


----------



## reeltimer

wickedwader said:


> Excuse me for my ignorance but which individual interest groups are pushing for 5 trout a day? I know there are a lot of individuals pushing for it but I haven't heard of any _interest groups_ doing the same.


http://wadepaddlepole.net/


----------



## Won Mo Kasst

I cannot thank y'all enough for the help. I was very surprised at the numbers and results I have seen. I will get all the info I have gathered posted ASAP. Burning the midnight oil to finish this and another paper. Thanks again!


----------



## flatsmaster14

reeltimer said:


> http://wadepaddlepole.net/


They need to go wade paddle and pole their *** to Florida where there is already no motor restrictions


----------



## Salt Water Texan

Cork & Jig said:


> Gill nets "target" ANY fish not big and strong enough to tear their way through them. Where'd you get the notion that they didn't catch a LOT of trout? Have you ever picked one up? I have.
> 
> They will pretty much catch whatever runs into them. That's the way they work. Crabs, stingrays, drum, reds, trout, sharks, sheepshead, gar, you name it. And trust me, ever trout they caught was gutted and gilled and went to the fish house.
> 
> There were over half a dozen full-time crews working the Matagorda systems when I was young and they caught anywhere from 500lbs. to several thousands pounds a night, every night, each. Sport fishermen catch nowhere near this amount. Not even close. And guess what? We still caught lots of fish back then.
> 
> Btw, TPWD's data supports a limit of 10 trout daily. They are NOT the ones pushing for 5 trout a day. Individual interest groups are doing this, not TPWD.


Gee whiz, golly, shasam. All I can say is: What a fishery, What a boat, and What a fisherman.

Matagorda Bay in a year produced: 7 crews x 7000 lbs. of fish x 7 days a week = 15 million, 120 thousand lbs of fish per year. Not to metion the thousand of fish you seem to have caught. What a fishery!

Most commercials in my area run 16' -22' commercial skiffs. I would love to see a commercial fishermans boat that could haul 7000 lbs of fish. What a boat!

Everytime he goes fishing he limits out on big fish because he is so much smarter than the rest of us, and knows all the secret spots that fish hide in. What a Fisherman!

AT the scoping meeting I went to TWPD asked the question . Do you favor changing the trout limit to 5 per day or do you prefer leaving it as it is? In that case the number 5 did come from TPWD.

Just about every trout fisherman in Texas knows that TWPD says their data supports a 10 fish per day limit . Does it seem very peculiar to anyone else that their data shows the same thing that it did 28 years ago? 28 years without a change in data. Amazing.

'


----------



## spurgersalty

Salt Water Texan said:


> Gee whiz, golly, shasam. All I can say is: What a fishery, What a boat, and What a fisherman.
> 
> Matagorda Bay in a year produced: 7 crews x 7000 lbs. of fish x 7 days a week = 15 million, 120 thousand lbs of fish per year. Not to metion the thousand of fish you seem to have caught. What a fishery!
> 
> Most commercials in my area run 16' -22' commercial skiffs. I would love to see a commercial fishermans boat that could haul 7000 lbs of fish. What a boat!
> 
> Everytime he goes fishing he limits out on big fish because he is so much smarter than the rest of us, and knows all the secret spots that fish hide in. What a Fisherman!
> 
> AT the scoping meeting I went to TWPD asked the question . Do you favor changing the trout limit to 5 per day or do you prefer leaving it as it is? In that case the number 5 did come from TPWD.
> 
> Just about every trout fisherman in Texas knows that TWPD says their data supports a 10 fish per day limit . Does it seem very peculiar to anyone else that their data shows the same thing that it did 28 years ago? 28 years without a change in data. Amazing.
> 
> '


Let me guess.....it doesn't allign with your agenda, soooooooo....its obviously flawed.


----------



## Cork & Jig

plasticsnaks said:


> No need to get upset.Even though a thin majority have voted "5" this is an Unofficial Poll...I'm still perplexed at the statements made about the LLM never needing a trout limit reduction and how fishing(I assume you mean trout fishing in mid coast, SA bay south to the landcut) is as good now as it was "decades" ago...If you are talkin 20+ years and non dinks,I'm sorry but no way not in any stretch of a dream!
> And sport fisherman not even coming close to taking 500 to 1000lbs of trout per day out of a bay system?..how do you know and where is the data you so feverishly insist upon?
> TPW presented facts and actually made the reccomendation to reduce the trout limits in the LLM durning their scoping meeting years ago..Darn near 100% of the hard core trout chasers from that area and everyone I've talked to and TPW agree that it has been a success in a very short time...I completely agree with them but you do not..Oh but,that's right..we "5"ers all have an agenda.
> BTW,I'm happy you are a such a good fisherman and still are able to locate and load up with quality trout on a regular basis!..would be interesting to know what bay system you fish most often and if you attain these results year round and in every bay syatem you frequent... Oh,and there are sharks in baffin too.


Growing up with someone who spent 33 years gathering research material for TPWD has giving me a unique perspective into the status of our fisheries. It was often a subject of discussion while I was growing up, since we were so passionate about it.

But, you're right, I know nothing about it. I guess all the fish we catch are figments of my imagination, as well. Arguing on here is ridiculous and accomplishes nothing. I give....you win


----------



## JimmyS

And drop the size limit to 12' on specs and 16' on reds


----------



## redman35

Why don't we just sell our boat, kayaks, rods and reels. Leave the fish alone and just eat chicken.


----------



## Truchas

*Right on Target*

Well said Salt Water Texan. Honest fishermen should be held accountable for throwing out wild and unsupported statements about fishery stats and historical trends. If we really care about the future of our trout fishery, it will be us fishermen who make needed changes happen not TPWD. This is precisely what happened in the Lower Laguna Madre just a few years ago. It wasn't TPWD that made the push for change in bag limits, it was conservation minded fishermen who wanted to turn a declining fishery around. Boy did they ever make a good decision. Serious trout fishermen don't make a left turn off 77 anymore to go to Baffin, they turn left at Raymondville.


----------



## Oyster Dog

Salt Water Texan said:


> Does it seem very peculiar to anyone else that their data shows the same thing that it did 28 years ago? 28 years without a change in data. Amazing.


It is statements like this that amaze me. 28 years ago we experienced the December 1983 killer freeze, which devastated our bays and very nearly destroyed the trout fishing. Still want to stick with your statement?


----------



## Fishspert

I feel like the 5 fish limit down south has improved that fishery


----------



## Redfishr

5 trout and 5 redfish.....AND 5 flounder.


----------



## The Last Mango

Cork & Jig said:


> Gill nets "target" ANY fish not big and strong enough to tear their way through them. Where'd you get the notion that they didn't catch a LOT of trout? Have you ever picked one up? I have.
> 
> They will pretty much catch whatever runs into them. That's the way they work. Crabs, stingrays, drum, reds, trout, sharks, sheepshead, gar, you name it. And trust me, ever trout they caught was gutted and gilled and went to the fish house.
> 
> There were over half a dozen full-time crews working the Matagorda systems when I was young and they caught anywhere from 500lbs. to several thousands pounds a night, every night, each. Sport fishermen catch nowhere near this amount. Not even close. And guess what? We still caught lots of fish back then.
> 
> Btw, TPWD's data supports a limit of 10 trout daily. They are NOT the ones pushing for 5 trout a day. Individual interest groups are doing this, not TPWD.


Yes, you are 100% correct, the yahoos' who promote just keep 5 etc.... are full of pooo!


----------



## wickedwader

The Last Mango said:


> Yes, you are 100% correct, the yahoos' who promote just keep 5 etc.... are full of pooo!


I always find it a little humorous when the minority thinks the majority's way of thinking is "full of pooo".


----------



## Rippin_drag

There really needs to be 2 polls.
-One for fishermen that fish almost exclusively south of the Brazos river
-One for fishermen that fish almost exclusively north of the Brazos river

I'd be willing to bet close to a majority of the 'change limit to 5' voters fish south of the Brazos river.


----------



## The Last Mango

wickedwader said:


> I always find it a little humorous when the minority thinks the majority's way of thinking is "full of pooo".


look at your last presidential election, you must have voted for obama!


----------



## McTrout

Curious as to why we in Port Mansfield are now suddenly covered up with mid & upper coast boats...


----------



## wos

Well said McTrout. The good news about the far superior Lower Laguna Madre trout fishery, travels fast and the fishermen with it. Welcome to the new "Baffin Bay", over publicized and overfished. What's even more amazing is why the guys up the coast don't get it. Smaller bag, more fish and bigger fish. Guides and John Q. Pulbic fishermen, take a lesson in trout fishery management from down South. wos


----------



## LHandler

52.55% of us get it. Your right though, the numbers should be higher.


----------



## eastmatty

Guides and John Q. Pulbic fishermen, take a lesson in trout fishery management from down South. wos WELL SAID!!!!!!!!!! NO NEED TO FILL THE FREEZER!!!!


----------



## Gilbert

wos said:


> Well said McTrout. The good news about the far superior Lower Laguna Madre trout fishery, travels fast and the fishermen with it. Welcome to the new "Baffin Bay", over publicized and overfished. What's even more amazing is why the guys up the coast don't get it. Smaller bag, more fish and bigger fish. Guides and John Q. Pulbic fishermen, take a lesson in trout fishery management from down South. wos


you can't compare the LLM or baffin with the upper coast bays. :headknock


----------



## Haute Pursuit

Just Keep OBAMA!!! :spineyes: :spineyes: :spineyes: :spineyes: :spineyes:


----------



## wennis1

I say lower it to 5 for the entire state. No big deal. I like eating trout but I like catching trout more than eating them.


----------



## redman35

Mctrout I only come fish south twice a year and it's for the clear water not the big trout. Reminds me of when i lived in florida and it's closer to drive than Florida


----------



## AaronB

Refer to post #227


----------



## bigt

*300% ????*

Where did you get that number?


----------



## SurfRunner

I say keep it at 10 unless it gets as bad as the redfish pops in the 80's, or there is hard scientific evidence that we need to lower it.......Capt Doc Holiday said it best - It will be hard to get it back once it is given up. Plus, people will never be satisfied. If the limit was lowered to 5, then there will be the argument that it needs to be lowered to 3 - Especially after the first killer freeze once the limit has changed. Then 3 to 2, 2 to 1, and so on. This will never end. I'll bet PETA folks are reading this and sitting back with a smile on their face.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

we fished this past weekend, caught 3 redfish and i KEPT 5 trout, nothing over 23"....sunday for my wife's bday, i made redfish on the half shell, 2 slabs and fried the trout...

we are out of trout, but that was our once a month trip...might not go until august again....

my point.....for us and our family, 5 trout just ain't enough and i ain't buying from HEB. :headknock


----------



## Big Loon

I just want to know how many of us actuall catch a limit every time. No need in changing it. I've been many times with no fish. I would be willing to bet if you averaged all the trout we caught with days fished it would be low. some times chicken some times feathers.


----------



## The Hook Remover Guy

Limit of 10 is good. But fatally damaged fish between 14" and 15" should be kept and counted against the limit. Unharmed fish between 14" and 15" should be released.


----------



## AaronB

bigt said:


> Where did you get that number?


That's the increase in recreational and commercial fisherman on our coast since the limit of 10 was set according to TPWD and was mentioned in several posts.

So with a 300% increase, even a 5 fish limit doesn't make up for the amount of people harvesting. I just don't see our trout population being healthy for my kids and kid's kids under the current regulations.


----------



## saltwatersensations

Whatever.


----------



## POCLANCE

*I'll Keep 10T/5F/3R*

I don't get to fish much, so I like the current limits. If the guides want to change the limit, they go many more times year than I do, lower the limits on them and their customers. If the limits need to be changed, how about issuing tags like other game. That way everyone can keep the same per year.


----------



## mustfish

How about maybe a trial period for one year before changing anything. Maybe similar to the flounder limits.I would be happy to go with that ruling. If it's all for the better I wouldn't have a problem with that. I would even be okay with closing the season for maybe a month. If it helps.

The bioligist's aren't always correct with their idea's


----------



## Won Mo Kasst

mustfish said:


> How about maybe a trial period for one year before changing anything. Maybe similar to the flounder limits.I would be happy to go with that ruling. If it's all for the better I wouldn't have a problem with that. I would even be okay with closing the season for maybe a month. If it helps.
> 
> The bioligist's aren't always correct with their idea's


The problem with that, is that limits are very rarely reversed. Redfish should definitely be brought up to five, but probably never will... and the current trout populations will reflect that competition. Also, a full closure on trout for a month? That is playing with fire, my friend.


----------



## [email protected]

Hey Won Mo - 

Maybe you already know this... TPWD introduced increasing the redfish limit twice in the past ten years during various public scoping campaigns. Joe Angler said "no thanks" we're happy with the current management plan.

EJ


----------



## Gilbert

[email protected] said:


> Hey Won Mo -
> 
> Maybe you already know this... TPWD introduced increasing the redfish limit twice in the past ten years during various public scoping campaigns. Joe Angler said "no thanks" we're happy with the current management plan.
> 
> EJ


during which scoping meetings did this come up in and I have yet to meet a joe angler that doesn't think the redfish limit should be raised. they are ruling the flats right now in big schools.


----------



## [email protected]

Gilbert - I would have to do some digging to get it exact. Memory says maybe 2003 and again in about 2007 or 08. 

EJ


----------



## Won Mo Kasst

[email protected] said:


> Hey Won Mo -
> 
> Maybe you already know this... TPWD introduced increasing the redfish limit twice in the past ten years during various public scoping campaigns. Joe Angler said "no thanks" we're happy with the current management plan.
> 
> EJ


Interesting. Never heard of it being brought up either. I would have been sure that most fishermen would have jumped at that opportunity...


----------



## [email protected]

Won Mo - Word that I received from TPWD indicated overwhelming rejection of the offer to increase the redfish bag limit both times. 

As an aside, and this is purely anecdotal, I spend a lot of time fishing the Lower Laguna Madre. Given my job as a writer and publisher I get to talk to lots of anglers, fishing guides and folks who run coastal businesses. Many were nervous and even skeptical that reducing the trout bag limit in the LLM would cripple their enterprise. However - five years later and with a marked improvement in the fishery - they now say business has never been better. You could probably interpret this in some measure as the general fishing public as well as the local business people being quite satisfied with the change.

I think TPWD deserves more recognition for listening to what folks want from their fisheries when crafting regulatory changes than your average fisherman understands or gives them credit.

With the population of Texas growing at such an incredible rate (more fishermen) and constantly shrinking habitat, regulatory changes are an inevitability. It is reassuring to know that we can participate in that process.


----------



## billclemens

Won Mo Kasst said:


> Interesting. Never heard of it being brought up either. I would have been sure that most fishermen would have jumped at that opportunity...


Too hard to clean. Three slot sized Red's is plenty.


----------



## Truchas

*5 fish now*

Big Loon: You make the comment that not many fishermen catch a 10 fish limit so just leave it at 10. Have you ever stopped to think why most fishermen aren't catching 10 fish limits any more? We need to go to a five fish limit now. Truchas


----------



## wos

*Florida's trout regs.*

A number of years ago, Florida realized that their trout population was begining to decline due to over fishing. The State, along with concerned fishermen, took a proactive approach and reduced recreational bag limits. Current regulations for trout are: 15-20" total length statewide; 6 per day with 1 over 20" in the Northeast Region; 5 per day with 1 over 20" in the Northwest Region and; 4 per day with 1 over 20" in the Southern Region. Because the trout fishery has now exceeded their management goals, the Spotted Seatrout Commission recently removed seasonal closures statewide and increased the bag limit to 6 fish in the Northeast Region. Florida's trout management success story has resulted in a quality fishery with greater size and numbers. HELLO! wos


----------



## Cork & Jig

IMO, the fishing's great. We regularly fish the waters from West Matagorda Bay down to the Land Cut. Limits are not out of the norm for us, any more today, than 35 years ago. 

Just yesterday we left the boat ramp at 4:30 pm and caught a bunch of nice trout, by dark. It was easy and predictable, too. Experience has taught me where they're gonna be and when they're gonna feed. In this case, it was the moon phase and outgoing tide. Because of this, we knew exactly where we needed to be and when we needed to be fishing. 

We apply the same principles, no matter where we are fishing, to greatly increase the odds of our success. Again, it's predictable. We expect to catch fish because we are fishing in areas we KNOW contain fish. We are not guessing.

Too many people go fishing without a predictable game plan. They are unsure where they need to fish, when they need to fish it, and how they're going to fish it. This is a recipe for poor fishing. 

For instance, at POC, I regularly watch the same boats running from one spot to another, back and forth they go while we stay at the spot we KNOW has fish. We stay there until they bite. We don't throw gimmick lures, crazy colors or stuff we read about on the Internet the day before, either. We throw lures we KNOW have very high likelihood of success and will produce under most circumstances. Because of this, we fish with confidence and fully expect to be successful.


----------



## TRW

wos said:


> A number of years ago, Florida realized that their trout population was begining to decline due to over fishing. The State, along with concerned fishermen, took a proactive approach and reduced recreational bag limits. Current regulations for trout are: 15-20" total length statewide; 6 per day with 1 over 20" in the Northeast Region; 5 per day with 1 over 20" in the Northwest Region and; 4 per day with 1 over 20" in the Southern Region. Because the trout fishery has now exceeded their management goals, the Spotted Seatrout Commission recently removed seasonal closures statewide and increased the bag limit to 6 fish in the Northeast Region. Florida's trout management success story has resulted in a quality fishery with greater size and numbers. HELLO! wos


You like Flordia? Most places in Flordia call a 4 pound trout a trophy(Gator) and they are pretty rare that is why it is one over 20 they rarley see a 25 inch trout. Flordia also has Regions and they look at each one diffrent. They also have closed seasons for all kinds of fish. Texas does not need to mimic Flordia. Some areas might need to be looked at a little closer but as a whole Texas trout fishing way better than Flordia as I have fished from 10,000 islands to Pensacola. and was not real impressed with the trout fishing. Of course this is just my opion.


----------



## Truchas

Cork and Jig, COME ON MAN! Truchas


----------



## HunterGirl

[email protected] said:


> Won Mo - Word that I received from TPWD indicated overwhelming rejection of the offer to increase the redfish bag limit both times.
> 
> As an aside, and this is purely anecdotal, I spend a lot of time fishing the Lower Laguna Madre. Given my job as a writer and publisher I get to talk to lots of anglers, fishing guides and folks who run coastal businesses. Many were nervous and even skeptical that reducing the trout bag limit in the LLM would cripple their enterprise. However - five years later and with a marked improvement in the fishery - they now say business has never been better. You could probably interpret this in some measure as the general fishing public as well as the local business people being quite satisfied with the change.
> 
> I think TPWD deserves more recognition for listening to what folks want from their fisheries when crafting regulatory changes than your average fisherman understands or gives them credit.
> 
> With the population of Texas growing at such an incredible rate (more fishermen) and constantly shrinking habitat, regulatory changes are an inevitability. It is reassuring to know that we can participate in that process.


I well remember that the TPWD alleges that most anglers didn't want to raise the limit to five on redfish. But, has been stated on this fishing forum more times than not, most anglers I know would prefer to have a five fish limit. Besides, since when does TPWD care what the average angler says. Their job at TPWD is to do what is biologically sound management, not a poll. I went to the hearing at the TPWD in League City a couple of years ago and most anglers were against the proposed flounder changes and they still did it. TPWD should raise the limit to five on redfish.


----------



## GusDawg

wickedwader said:


> I always find it a little humorous when the minority thinks the majority's way of thinking is "full of pooo".


I voted twice. So it's not that cut and dry who the 'majority' is.


----------



## GusDawg

HunterGirl said:


> I well remember that the TPWD alleges that most anglers didn't want to raise the limit to five on redfish. But, has been stated on this fishing forum more times than not, most anglers I know would prefer to have a five fish limit. Besides, since when does TPWD care what the average angler says. Their job at TPWD is to do what is biologically sound management, not a poll. I went to the hearing at the TPWD in League City a couple of years ago and most anglers were against the proposed flounder changes and they still did it. TPWD should raise the limit to five on redfish.


This isn't the metric system. I don't understand why 5 and 10 are the only two options....


----------



## Won Mo Kasst

GusDawg said:


> I voted twice. So it's not that cut and dry who the 'majority' is.


So you have two names on 2cool, and you water down my research? Nice... Granted this is a very informal survey, and I have included its limitations into my discussion, but I did not think anyone would admit to it.


----------



## [email protected]

HunterGirl - The scoping process is conducted statewide, or at least in eight or ten coastal communities when pertaining to saltwater fishing regulations. What you see at one meeting may be the opposite of public feedback at another. Plus - they also count emails, letters and testimony given during public comment session at commission hearings.

Despite what you may think, public response to saltwater fishing regulation proposals have tipped the balance in more than few cases during the past 10 or 15 years. We see this mostly when the "science" can go either way. I never meant to imply nor have I ever seen solid science trumped by public opinion and this is as it should be.


----------



## GusDawg

Won Mo Kasst said:


> So you have two names on 2cool, and you water down my research? Nice... Granted this is a very informal survey, and I have included its limitations into my discussion, but I did not think anyone would admit to it.


I do, I did, and I'm not the only one.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

Cork & Jig said:


> IMO, the fishing's great. We regularly fish the waters from West Matagorda Bay down to the Land Cut. Limits are not out of the norm for us, any more today, than 35 years ago.
> 
> Just yesterday we left the boat ramp at 4:30 pm and caught a bunch of nice trout, by dark. It was easy and predictable, too. Experience has taught me where they're gonna be and when they're gonna feed. In this case, it was the moon phase and outgoing tide. Because of this, we knew exactly where we needed to be and when we needed to be fishing.
> 
> We apply the same principles, no matter where we are fishing, to greatly increase the odds of our success. Again, it's predictable. We expect to catch fish because we are fishing in areas we KNOW contain fish. We are not guessing.
> 
> Too many people go fishing without a predictable game plan. They are unsure where they need to fish, when they need to fish it, and how they're going to fish it. This is a recipe for poor fishing.
> 
> For instance, at POC, I regularly watch the same boats running from one spot to another, back and forth they go while we stay at the spot we KNOW has fish. We stay there until they bite. We don't throw gimmick lures, crazy colors or stuff we read about on the Internet the day before, either. We throw lures we KNOW have very high likelihood of success and will produce under most circumstances. Because of this, we fish with confidence and fully expect to be successful.


a successful trip doesn't always include the catch, same with hunting...

people fish for fun, it don't matter to them if they are out there without "knowing" where fish are like most other gods here, they are happy just to be free and living the dream, even if it's only for a couple of days on the weekend.

and just a picture to lighten the mood a bit in the thread, so Cork & Jig, don't take this the wrong way, but i couldn't pass up sharing the image. :biggrin:


----------



## cobrayakker

Why not a aggregate limit? Ten fish per man 15-25". No more than 5 trout, 3 reds, 5 flounder, 5 drum or 5 sheepies. All the sandies and croakers you want. Get up to 2 trophy tags to use on a fish over 25" of your choice.
It would make you a better fisherman because if you felt like you just had to have 10 fish to show off you would need to learn to fish for different species.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

cobrayakker said:


> Why not a aggregate limit? Ten fish per man 15-25". No more than 5 trout, 3 reds, 5 flounder, 5 drum or 5 sheepies. All the sandies and croakers you want. Get up to 2 trophy tags to use on a fish over 25" of your choice.
> It would make you a better fisherman because if you felt like you just had to have 10 fish to show off you would need to learn to fish for different species.


Not knocking your idea but imagine the nightmare a game warden would have opening an ice chest with mord than one fishermans fish in it! Maybe color coded tags to designate whos are what?

-mac-


----------



## Gilbert

cobrayakker said:


> Why not a aggregate limit? Ten fish per man 15-25". No more than 5 trout, 3 reds, 5 flounder, 5 drum or 5 sheepies. All the sandies and croakers you want. Get up to 2 trophy tags to use on a fish over 25" of your choice.
> It would make you a better fisherman because if you felt like you just had to have 10 fish to show off you would need to learn to fish for different species.


lol.....all you did was drop the limit of trout to 5. reds are already at 3. flounder, sheepshead, and drum are already at 5. :spineyes:


----------



## Bonito

5 fish per person per day. 

Size limit should be 17 to 24 inches with 1 over 25 with a tag. Same as Red fish tag.

Watch the trout population grow and quality fish being caught.


----------



## wos

Hey Bonito, you are right on target. Can you imagine what our fishery would look like in a few years. Everybody wins, guides, tournament fishers and private fishers. wos


----------



## cobrayakker

Gilbert said:


> lol.....all you did was drop the limit of trout to 5. reds are already at 3. flounder, sheepshead, and drum are already at 5. :spineyes:


Hey Gilbert your last name isn't McFly is it? Why do I feel like somebody should spud you on the forehead and ask if anybody is home! :headknock

I said aggregate limit with a ten fish per man total limit. Let me see if I can esplain this to you. If you have 4 flounder, and 3 reds, then you can only have 3 trout. Comprende now? Kinda like bird hunting.:spineyes:


----------



## cobrayakker

Bonito said:


> 5 fish per person per day.
> 
> Size limit should be 17 to 24 inches with 1 over 25 with a tag. Same as Red fish tag.
> 
> Watch the trout population grow and quality fish being caught.


I like this idea too!


----------



## Cork & Jig

Truchas said:


> Cork and Jig, COME ON MAN! Truchas


What? Seriously? I only said the truth. I get tired of people saying the bays are in trouble or catching regular limits of trout is impossible. It's not.

We do not go fishing expecting anything less than being successful. While it ain't brain surgery, it does take knowledge.

Monday afternoon wade's results for two of us. Nothing atypical, either.


----------



## specks&ducks

Cork, you are no doubt a solid angler. Would have been great to see about half of those swim away.


----------



## Gilbert

cobrayakker said:


> Hey Gilbert your last name isn't McFly is it? Why do I feel like somebody should spud you on the forehead and ask if anybody is home! :headknock
> 
> I said aggregate limit with a ten fish per man total limit. Let me see if I can esplain this to you. If you have 4 flounder, and 3 reds, then you can only have 3 trout. Comprende now? Kinda like bird hunting.:spineyes:


you dumber than I gave you credit for only half *** reading your post if you think a 10 fish aggregate is gonna fly or a good idea. welcome to 2cool forrest gump.


----------



## saltwatersensations

34 pages of opinions......


----------



## cobrayakker

Gilbert said:


> you dumber than I gave you credit for only half *** reading your post if you think a 10 fish aggregate is gonna fly or a good idea. welcome to 2cool forrest gump.


Awww Bubba just because you are being a smart ***** I'll still be your most very bestest friend!

Now if you can have an intelligent thought, tell me why 10 fish per man aggregate would not work. Most people seem to be happy with 10 trout and stop. They seem to think that is enough fish for the day and go have a beer rather than fish for reds, flounder or whatever. Why not 10 fish mixed?


----------



## wos

I am disappointed in old Cork and Jig. Gave him more credit than that. This is exactly why we will have to go to a five fish limit and perhaps fewer in our fishing life time. wos


----------



## Won Mo Kasst

cobrayakker said:


> Awww Bubba just because you are being a smart ***** I'll still be your most very bestest friend!
> 
> Now if you can have an intelligent thought, tell me why 10 fish per man aggregate would not work. Most people seem to be happy with 10 trout and stop. They seem to think that is enough fish for the day and go have a beer rather than fish for reds, flounder or whatever. Why not 10 fish mixed?


That is a drastic cut in the amount of fish someone could keep. Just no reason for it... or to go about in that manner.


----------



## cobrayakker

Won Mo Kasst said:


> That is a drastic cut in the amount of fish someone could keep. Just no reason for it... or to go about in that manner.


Your right it is a cut, but the point is the majority of folks fish for trout only and think ten fish is enough. Why does it have to be 10 trout? 10 fish per man mixed isn't enough for most people? I don't know. Its more than enough for me. Maybe you should do another poll on that subject for your research.


----------



## El Capitan de No Fish

2 1/2 weeks later and everyone is still wrong.

As my man Jack Nicholson said: "shut up kids!!"


----------



## Won Mo Kasst

cobrayakker said:


> Your right it is a cut, but the point is the majority of folks fish for trout only and think ten fish is enough. Why does it have to be 10 trout? 10 fish per man mixed isn't enough for most people? I don't know. Its more than enough for me. Maybe you should do another poll on that subject for your research.


Who said the majority of people fish for trout? That would actually be a good survey...


----------



## Kyle 1974

I mainly troll for carp.


----------



## wos

*Texas trout no. 1*

Yes, trout are the no.1 sport fish fished for inshore in Texas. wos


----------



## trouthammer

Cork & Jig said:


> What? Seriously? I only said the truth. I get tired of people saying the bays are in trouble or catching regular limits of trout is impossible. It's not.
> 
> We do not go fishing expecting anything less than being successful. While it ain't brain surgery, it does take knowledge.
> 
> Monday afternoon wade's results for two of us. Nothing atypical, either.


Don't confuse these no catching guys who don't put in their time on the water with facts or science. We have a BIG CRISES HERE. The only answer to why a guy with full Sims clothing wardrobe, a CCA hat and a 50k plus boat can't catch fish is because our bays obviously don't have enough fish because the heathens that do know where to find them are keeping 10. I say we just take all their money they spend thinking it will make them successful fishermen and dedicate a bay for them with stocked fish. They could all have nice wine and cheese parties celebrating their fishing prowess and us heathens can scrape what we can from our badly depleted bays we are left with.....


----------



## reeltimer

This thread is over the limit.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Whats a trout? Can i catch them around here? Anyone have a photo? 


-mac-


----------



## Number_Five

I think statistically the data won't deviate much more than where it's at %'age wise. What are you gonna do with it now?

Five


----------



## [email protected]

I held off joining this thread with this data so that Won Mo's poll would not get skewed. But now that the vast majority of the votes are cast, let's look at something interesting. At least I think it's interesting.

Listed below is a chronology of Texas' spotted seatrout regulations and a few other related events (net bans etc).

Now before you think read and think about where and how the regs evolved, think about these facts first:

-Up until about 1990 a shallow water boat drafted at least 1.5-2.0 feet at rest and few could plane in less than a foot and a half.
-Outboard motors were about as reliable as weather forecasts.
-We had no GPS and depth/fish finders of the era could barely tell you the depth.
-A quality rod n reel outfit weighed about three time what we use today.
-Waders were made of rubber on canvas fabric. Even neoprene was still in the future.
-Premium monofilament fishing lines - Royal Bonyl, Stren, etc had more stretch per foot than a bag of bungee cords.
-Topwater plugs had no rattles.
-If anybody understood the effectiveness of live croaker as bait for spotted seatrout they were tight-lipped.
-You could tally the number of fishing guides on the entire Texas coast without opening the calculator app on your I-Phone.
-Nobody ever heard of flourocarbon.
-The population of Texas was less than 15,000,000. Today it is 25,000,000. For those who suggest Texas should mirror the fisheries management strategies of Louisiana, their population in 1980 was 4.2 million and grew to 4.5 million by 2010. Generally speaking, larger population equates to more fishermen and more fishing pressure.

*A HISTORY OF TEXAS SPECKLED TROUT REGULATIONS* 
*Prior to 1978* 
No statewide bag limit or minimum size requirement, although some coastal counties impose a 12-inch minimum length limit. 
*1978* 
In December, a 20-fish daily bag limit and 12-inch minimum length requirement take effect statewide. But because some counties retained authority to override state regulations, the daily bag limit did not apply in Galveston Bay or part of San Antonio Bay. 
*1979* 
Texas Legislature bans use of single-strand monofilament gill nets in most bays. 
*1980* 
All types of gill nets banned in all of state's coastal waters. 
*1981* 
Texas Legislature designates speckled trout and redfish as game fish, prohibiting the commercial sale of those species. 
*1983* 
Texas Legislature passes Uniform Wildlife Conservation Act, removing counties' authority to override Texas Parks and Wildlife Department regulations. All state coastal waters are under a 20-trout, 12-inch minimum daily bag limit. 
*1984* 
In response to a record-breaking freeze in December 1983, which killed millions of speckled trout and other inshore marine fish, the TPWD cuts the daily limit on speckled trout to 10. Minimum size is increased to 14 inches.
*1989* 
Following a fish-killing freeze in February, the TPWD increases the minimum length for speckled trout to 15 inches. The daily bag limit remained at 10. 
*2002* 
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts rules limiting anglers to retaining no more than one speckled trout measuring 25 inches or more per day, and prohibiting licensed fishing guides from keeping fish (speckled trout or other species) when the guides have clients aboard their boat. 
*2007* 
The TPWD reduces the daily bag limit for speckled trout caught in the Lower Laguna Madre to five fish. The bag limit remains 10 fish in all other Texas bays. The 15-inch minimum length remains in place statewide


----------



## specks&ducks

Very interesting EJ, thanks for posting. Many people feel the fishery is under considerable strain, and it is easy to see why. A lot of these people are knowledgable and very good fisherman.


----------



## Kyle 1974

specks&ducks said:


> Very interesting EJ, thanks for posting. Many people feel the fishery is under considerable strain, and it is easy to see why. A lot of these people are knowledgable and very good fisherman.


You mean like the guides that are on the water catching more fish than the average fisherman 5-6 days a week? Are those some of the people concerned about strain on the fishery?


----------



## specks&ducks

Yes, Kyle they are a big part of that group. That is why many of them are promoting catch and release or just keeping a few fish for dinner. Many of them are not in this group and go on meat hauls.


----------



## rdkerrville

5 trout and 3 reds is a nice stringer for the day.


----------



## Cork & Jig

trouthammer said:


> Don't confuse these no catching guys who don't put in their time on the water with facts or science. We have a BIG CRISES HERE. The only answer to why a guy with full Sims clothing wardrobe, a CCA hat and a 50k plus boat can't catch fish is because our bays obviously don't have enough fish because the heathens that do know where to find them are keeping 10. I say we just take all their money they spend thinking it will make them successful fishermen and dedicate a bay for them with stocked fish. They could all have nice wine and cheese parties celebrating their fishing prowess and us heathens can scrape what we can from our badly depleted bays we are left with.....


Wow. That's funny. 

My wife and I once took our jet ski out at POC to do a little fishing. We do not own one that is specially rigged out for carrying a cooler or your rods, either, so we had to carry our two limits of reds/trout on our stringers. These stringers were carried down by our feet and in plain sight of anyone who might notice us.

We returned to the Fishing Center after fishing and happened to pull up next to a very expensive looking fishing boat. It had all the latest electronics, navigational aides, etc. The two guys sitting behind the console were also dressed in expensive fishing attire. Their rods and reels were also higher end.

Well, when we pulled up to the pier separating the ramps, one of them glanced downward at us and quickly noticed all the nice fish. He then elbowed his buddy saying he should see what we caught.

In the meantime, I had slipped our stringers into the water until I could back up my truck to the ramp. Without a cooler, I didn't want to get too hot before I could out them on ice.

He then asked if I could lift the fish back up to show his buddy. I said sure and lifted them back up. That's when the other fella got upset and said I can't believe it, I've spent $50,000 in my boat and equipment and we got skunked and "y'all" killed them on that thing. I thought he was gonna break one his rods he got so excited.


----------



## AG

hmm...5?10? whatever is best for our bays and fishermen. some good input both ways. as long as they just don't keep changing it. 

Maybe i'll get that 30"er yet!!


----------



## Cork & Jig

wos said:


> I am disappointed in old Cork and Jig. Gave him more credit than that. wos


I'm so crushed.....oh, whatever will I do?

And, don't worry, I was never tempted to give you any more credit than you deserved. Your agenda is transparent.

And, so, because I can go out and consistently catch good numbers of quality fish, we need to change the limits? Really?

TPWD has been conducting creel surveys for decades. This information, along with that gathered from the gill nets indicates that our bays are in great shape.

The limits are set to account for the fact that most people do not catch very many. If everyone had the knowledge to consistently be able to catch 10 keepers, then the limit would have to be reduced. But, as it is, few people have the experience needed to draw from in order regularly find their own fish. Changing the limits won't help them.


----------



## Rodsdiesel62

*my 2 penny's.*

What TPWD game restrictions for the season require's, mother nature has altered those from time to time so nothing's in stone and I believe our state agency should be the one to set the rule's because they protect our resources and leave us to our own mind to keep what we personally need for the table. Stay within the law and don't expect someone to jump off your bridge just to be followed. Those who lead by example never worries about the number's that don't follow.


----------



## justletmein

Cork & Jig said:


> The limits are set to account for the fact that most people do not catch very many. If everyone had the knowledge to consistently be able to catch 10 keepers, then the limit would have to be reduced. But, as it is, few people have the experience needed to draw from in order regularly find their own fish. Changing the limits won't help them.


I can vouch for that, I personally offset this guy on ever trip ^^. LOL


----------



## [email protected]

_But, as it is, few people have the experience needed to draw from in order regularly find their own fish. Changing the limits won't help them._

Yessir Mr. Cork, you are 100% correct. They hire guides. Guided effort over the past 20 years has increased at a phenomenal rate in all bay systems. I'm not knocking guides - I ran a guide business myself for ten years. When I first started fishing at POC there were fewer than 20 guides. Just guessing, but I'd wager the number has increased 10X since then.


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

justletmein said:


> I can vouch for that, I personally offset this guy on ever trip ^^. LOL


x2, but only because i mainly hunt for redfish in the skinny water...trout are a bonus.


----------



## southpaw

Cork & Jig said:


> IMO, the fishing's great. We regularly fish the waters from West Matagorda Bay down to the Land Cut. Limits are not out of the norm for us, any more today, than 35 years ago.
> 
> Just yesterday we left the boat ramp at 4:30 pm and caught a bunch of nice trout, by dark. It was easy and predictable, too. Experience has taught me where they're gonna be and when they're gonna feed. In this case, it was the moon phase and outgoing tide. Because of this, we knew exactly where we needed to be and when we needed to be fishing.
> 
> We apply the same principles, no matter where we are fishing, to greatly increase the odds of our success. Again, it's predictable. We expect to catch fish because we are fishing in areas we KNOW contain fish. We are not guessing.
> 
> Too many people go fishing without a predictable game plan. They are unsure where they need to fish, when they need to fish it, and how they're going to fish it. This is a recipe for poor fishing.
> 
> For instance, at POC, I regularly watch the same boats running from one spot to another, back and forth they go while we stay at the spot we KNOW has fish. We stay there until they bite. We don't throw gimmick lures, crazy colors or stuff we read about on the Internet the day before, either. We throw lures we KNOW have very high likelihood of success and will produce under most circumstances. Because of this, we fish with confidence and fully expect to be successful.


Cork & Jig, I agree with most of what you're saying. Trout fishing does take a certain degree of knowledge and planning to consistently catch fish. You've got the pictures to prove that you have this knowledge and you do your homework before going. I can go out most days given a set of conditions and determine with some degree of certainty where fish will be staging with certain conditions. Yes I can catch limits of fish on a regular basis, however this IMHO is still not indicative of a healthy fishery. If the food source is concentrated in a certain place and time the trout will be there to feed whether or not there a 5 million or 500,000 fish in the bay. So if you ask me having the knowledge to locate a group of fish does not justify a healthy fishery.

They're so many factors that exist today that work against our fisheries whether you want to blame it on guides, croaker soakers, dolphins, sharks, pollution, red tide or whatever that I think it's irresponsible to not do anything about it. I guess in the end it won't matter if we have another major freeze event bc the limits will again change after that. This is just me speculating, but moving to a lower limit now could help us to better prepare for that when it happens, because it will happen again.


----------



## southpaw

[email protected] said:


> _But, as it is, few people have the experience needed to draw from in order regularly find their own fish. Changing the limits won't help them._
> 
> Yessir Mr. Cork, you are 100% correct. They hire guides. Guided effort over the past 20 years has increased at a phenomenal rate in all bay systems. I'm not knocking guides - I ran a guide business myself for ten years. When I first started fishing at POC there were fewer than 20 guides. Just guessing, but I'd wager the number has increased 10X since then.


Again not to blame it on guides but at one point I remember someone telling me that in AP/ Rockport there were over 100 registered guides.

EJ, I don't remember off the top of my head but I think I remember reading in TSFM one time that there was 1 registered guide for something like every 1.5 miles of coast in TX? You may be able to get the correct one but it was something ridiculous. I know guides are out there making a living and I'm not trying to put the blame solely on them, but it's hard to to say that that many guides aren't having some kind of impact


----------



## Gilbert

how many guides are actually fishing every day and catching a limit every time?


----------



## blackmagic

Gilbert said:


> how many guides are actually fishing every day and catching a limit every time?


There is only one person that would know.THEM


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

Gilbert said:


> how many guides are actually fishing every day and catching a limit every time?


i know of 1 but they usually stop at 5 quality trout...his choice to do so.


----------



## specks&ducks

Southpaw, that was well said. If I spend a couple of days at the coast I can usually find the fish and catch limits or more, but I can't remember the last time I brought in 10 trout. It's usually a couple for dinner. 
Conservation is a mind set. I look at Cork's picture and I can remember when I was that way also. I have shoe box full of fishing pictures and now I really don't even enjoy looking at the ones where the cleaning table is covered with trout. Fishing at the coast to feed the family is long past. It's recreation, if you want to bring in a few for dinner that's fine, but your not impressing anyone who understands the fishery situation with cooler full of trout.


----------



## southpaw

Gilbert said:


> how many guides are actually fishing every day and catching a limit every time?


Can't say and I don't think anyone could but them. But for examples sake let's say there's 100 (There's more but for this example will just go with 100) guides just in Aransas Pass/ Rockport. Of the 100 guides 3% of them go out and limit per day. So that's 3 guides going and limiting out per day. Conservatively, we'll say they have 1 client on their boat for each trip. So in 1 day, in my opinion this is very conservative, there are 30 trout in coolers. So in a week there are 210 per week, just from guides. You think this does not have some kind of impact on a fishery? Now again I chose pretty conservative numbers so in actuality it is probably worse bc it doesn't account for weekends multiple clients or guides who go out and just catch a few fish. When it's done on a consistent basis, it will have some kind of impact.

Again as a disclaimer I have nothing against guides. The majority are great guys and do what they do bc they love the sport. But again it's hard to refute that they do not have some kind of effect on the trout fishery. There's so many things that can negatively impact a trout fishery, some worse than others, but you can't just blame one. It's a culmination of a lot of things and I don't think our current management is doing enough to be proactive about it.


----------



## wos

*Fishing Pressure*

*Let me say right up front that many of my friends and associates are fishing guides and they would be the first to tell you that there are too many guides on the water today. Quoting from a chapter in my book on fishing pressure, "Licensed saltwater commercial fishing guides are at an all time high in Texas. There has been a 360% increase in fishing guides since 1980. ** As of 2008, there were approximately 936 licensed commercial guides in Texas and, to date, no cap has been established..." . This is not the individual guides fault, it is a system that continues to allow unchecked growth of the commenrcial guide business. wos*


----------



## [email protected]

WOS - What you say is true up to a point but I have a slightly different take on it. I was a member of that growing legion from 1999 to 2009 running as many as 100 days some years. Guides perform a very popular and useful service to the general fishing community, that's why there are so many nowadays. It is easy to single out the fishing guide. I have always said though, that blaming the state of the fishery on the number of guides is akin to blaming automakers for potholes in the highways. I am not against guides, people who hire them, folks who use croakers, etc. The responsibility of maintaining healthy fisheries belongs to all of us and we should all practice good conservation. The responsibilty of surveying the fisheries and enacting regulations to limit harvest lies with TPWD. However, and having said all this, I also believe it is entirely appropriate to let them know what we would like to see in our fisheries (quantity, quality, etc.) and lobby them accordingly.


----------



## Croaker slinger

wickedwader said:


> I always find it a little humorous when the minority thinks the majority's way of thinking is "full of pooo".


How do you know your the majority!


----------



## justletmein

Croaker slinger said:


> How do you know your the majority!


Maybe he was referring to himself.


----------



## Croaker slinger

McTrout said:


> Curious as to why we in Port Mansfield are now suddenly covered up with mid & upper coast boats...


PM is covered up because you , capt Tricia , Getaway adventures , Cisneros, and Mr. Johnson write five articles a month and sell the mags all over the state , you have done it to yourselves by over promotion !


----------



## specks&ducks

Croaker Slinger, a lot of middle coast guides are not using the LLM now because they are reading articles in EJ's magazine. There quality of trout down there is better largely because of the lowered limits and I will venture to say that you will find more conservation minded guides in the PM area than you will in Rockport or POC. 
I think the sooner we address the issue on the mid coast the quicker we will have a higher quality fishery.


----------



## Kyle 1974

Croaker slinger said:


> PM is covered up because you , capt Tricia , Getaway adventures , Cisneros, and Mr. Johnson write five articles a month and sell the mags all over the state , you have done it to yourselves by over promotion !


LMAO.

"it's awesome here!!!"

Translation. We don't really want you here. Don't keep my fish unless you're paying for me to guide you.

This seems to be a common theme with some guides.


----------



## CaptDocHoliday

Croaker slinger said:


> PM is covered up because you , capt Tricia , Getaway adventures , Cisneros, and Mr. Johnson write five articles a month and sell the mags all over the state , you have done it to yourselves by over promotion !


very true.


----------



## commtrd

PHINS said:


> I think lower limits would allow for more fish to be hatched thus increasing the potential for bigger fish. The 25" plus fish are not laying as many eggs as the smaller ones.
> 
> I fish for fun and usually don't keep any fish. Might be a holdover from my bass fishing days.


Yes! Wish more salt water fishermen were conservation minded. Fishing in Corpus sucks and it is due to extreme fishing pressure. PM dropped bag limits and the trout fishery rebounded nicely.


----------



## Hogie70

Once you lose it you will not get it back. Be careful what you wish for...


----------



## Croaker slinger

Kyle 1974 said:


> LMAO.
> 
> "it's awesome here!!!"
> 
> Translation. We don't really want you here. Don't keep my fish unless you're paying for me to guide you.
> 
> This seems to be a common theme with some guides.


Well said , the sad thing is its all about $ and greed ,it's a double edged sword for the LLM entitlement lobby!


----------



## Croaker slinger

Hogie70 said:


> Once you lose it you will not get it back. Be careful what you wish for...


You talkin about the fish or your rights guaranteed you by the constitution !


----------



## specks&ducks

Maybe they are just a little more evolved down there. They see there the fishery as their livelihood and rather than take every **** thing they can out of it they try and put a little back. A little different approach from the your mind set. Would you disagree?


----------



## Hogie70

Croaker slinger said:


> You talkin about the fish or your rights guaranteed you by the constitution !


Both


----------



## Croaker slinger

specks&ducks said:


> Maybe they are just a little more evolved down there. They see there the fishery as their livelihood and rather than take every **** thing they can out of it they try and put a little back. A little different approach from the your mind set. Would you disagree?


I do disagree , y'all looked pretty conservation minded during the harbor slaughter , I witnessed back in the mid 80's, guides and locals , I was there and saw who was there!


----------



## Hogie70

specks&ducks said:


> Maybe they are just a little more evolved down there. They see there the fishery as their livelihood and rather than take every **** thing they can out of it they try and put a little back. A little different approach from the your mind set. Would you disagree?


I like to know if I want to keep 10 fish I can do that. If I want to keep 5 fish I can do that, or if I don't want to keep a thing that day I can do that as well. That is a personal preference that doesn't need to have regulations. If we lose the 10 fish per day bag limit we will not get it back... Keep politics out of the bay let the fisherman make their own decisions. That's my 2 cents so **** you and your mind set homeboy... :flag: Peace Out


----------



## Hogie70

I'm here now and the croaker soakers are keeping their 5 fish aday limit but killing 20 trying to get a limit worthy for the day... LMAO evolution is a MF'r LMAO


----------



## southpaw

Croaker slinger said:


> I do disagree , y'all looked pretty conservation minded during the harbor slaughter , I witnessed back in the mid 80's, guides and locals , I was there and saw who was there!


This may be a dumb question, but I'm just curious as to what the harbor slaughter back in the 80's was?


----------



## Croaker slinger

Hogie70 said:


> I'm here now and the croaker soakers are keeping their 5 fish aday limit but killing 20 trying to get a limit worthy for the day... LMAO evolution is a MF'r LMAO


X2 , we go for a week , instead of for the weekend , and we cull all day , I think the plan has backfired!


----------



## Hogie70

That's what I'm talking about... This whole trout limit BS is just that BS... I think the trout population bounces back on its own... The number of fish saved is probably the same as it was with the 10 fish a day limit... LMAO The pelicans love the 5 fish a day limit down south LMAO more diving practice...


----------



## Croaker slinger

southpaw said:


> This may be a dumb question, but I'm just curious as to what the harbor slaughter back in the 80's was?


It was in November of 84 or 85 , the temp went from the 90's to the 20's in less than 24 hours , every trout in the LLM stacked into the PM harbor , it was a four day slaughter people elbow to elbow on every square foot of the harbor , we went out with a guide and we never left the harbor for two days , it was locals , guides , anyone that could fish, our boat caught 10 fish over 30" on plastics in the harbor , ask around nobody talks about it , but it happened !


----------



## Gilbert

Croaker slinger said:


> It was in November of 84 or 85 , the temp went from the 90's to the 20's in less than 24 hours , every trout in the LLM stacked into the PM harbor , it was a four day slaughter people elbow to elbow on every square foot of the harbor , we went out with a guide and we never left the harbor for two days , it was locals , guides , anyone that could fish, our boat caught 10 fish over 30" on plastics in the harbor , ask around nobody talks about it , but it happened !


I know it happened. I've seen pictures.


----------



## southpaw

Croaker slinger said:


> It was in November of 84 or 85 , the temp went from the 90's to the 20's in less than 24 hours , every trout in the LLM stacked into the PM harbor , it was a four day slaughter people elbow to elbow on every square foot of the harbor , we went out with a guide and we never left the harbor for two days , it was locals , guides , anyone that could fish, our boat caught 10 fish over 30" on plastics in the harbor , ask around nobody talks about it , but it happened !


I got you. Thanks for the info. I guess that's why they made it illegal to fish in harbors when it freezes now.


----------



## specks&ducks

Hogie, the fact you have to kill 20 to keep 5 proves my point. They'll never get big if we cut em open when they are 17 inches long. 
Also, it's not about your rights, it's about taking care of the fishery.


----------



## Hogie70

specks&ducks said:


> Hogie, the fact you have to kill 20 to keep 5 proves my point. They'll never get big if we cut em open when they are 17 inches long.
> Also, it's not about your rights, it's about taking care of the fishery.[/QUOTE
> 
> Hang on homeboy... I fish 100% lures dude I'm referring to the so called evolved folks in the Port Mansfield area LMAO... I take pride in fishing homeboy... LOL I am not a fan of losing the 10 fish limit BUT I don't keep that many fish... That should be a personal preference... If you want to keep 5 good keep 5 if you invite legislation into our bays you're asking for problems


----------



## trouthammer

[email protected] said:


> _But, as it is, few people have the experience needed to draw from in order regularly find their own fish. Changing the limits won't help them._
> 
> Yessir Mr. Cork, you are 100% correct. They hire guides. Guided effort over the past 20 years has increased at a phenomenal rate in all bay systems. I'm not knocking guides - I ran a guide business myself for ten years. When I first started fishing at POC there were fewer than 20 guides. Just guessing, but I'd wager the number has increased 10X since then.


Just canceled my subscription... At least CCA had the smarts to publicly say they were not taking a stand on the issue (even though privately they rallied the members). Maybe my cancellation will give you some insight as to why they chose to stay neutral. This whole thing was debated barely a year ago and SCIENCE won over old wives tales. Even the midcoast guys have stopped their whining and are quietly catching the fish the cycle of mother nature is now providing in abundance. If more of you guys who want limits cut learned to fish AND put in the time on the water you wouldn't worry about how many the guides or anyone else is catching.


----------



## Hogie70

trouthammer said:


> Just canceled my subscription... At least CCA had the smarts to publicly say they were not taking a stand on the issue (even though privately they rallied the members). Maybe my cancellation will give you some insight as to why they chose to stay neutral. This whole thing was debated barely a year ago and SCIENCE won over old wives tales. Even the midcoast guys have stopped their whining and are quietly catching the fish the cycle of mother nature is now providing in abundance. If more of you guys who want limits cut learned to fish AND put in the time on the water you wouldn't worry about how many the guides or anyone else is catching.


AMEN!


----------



## reeltimer

wos said:


> *Let me say right up front that many of my friends and associates are fishing guides and they would be the first to tell you that there are too many guides on the water today. Quoting from a chapter in my book on fishing pressure, "Licensed saltwater commercial fishing guides are at an all time high in Texas. There has been a 360% increase in fishing guides since 1980. ** As of 2008, there were approximately 936 licensed commercial guides in Texas and, to date, no cap has been established..." . This is not the individual guides fault, it is a system that continues to allow unchecked growth of the commenrcial guide business. wos*


936 fishing guides and 25 million people in Texas(estimate) yep it to many guides!:rotfl:

Thats like me say there are to many author and we need to regulate that so sorry your out of business.I don't like how you use commercial along with guides to lump them in with commercial fisherman.


----------



## reeltimer

trouthammer said:


> Just canceled my subscription... At least CCA had the smarts to publicly say they were not taking a stand on the issue (even though privately they rallied the members). Maybe my cancellation will give you some insight as to why they chose to stay neutral. This whole thing was debated barely a year ago and SCIENCE won over old wives tales. Even the midcoast guys have stopped their whining and are quietly catching the fish the cycle of mother nature is now providing in abundance. If more of you guys who want limits cut learned to fish AND put in the time on the water you wouldn't worry about how many the guides or anyone else is catching.


somebody can see the Forrest Thur the trees!:texasflag


----------



## plasticsnaks

trouthammer said:


> Just canceled my subscription... At least CCA had the smarts to publicly say they were not taking a stand on the issue (even though privately they rallied the members). Maybe my cancellation will give you some insight as to why they chose to stay neutral. This whole thing was debated barely a year ago and SCIENCE won over old wives tales. Even the midcoast guys have stopped their whining and are quietly catching the fish the cycle of mother nature is now providing in abundance. If more of you guys who want limits cut learned to fish AND put in the time on the water you wouldn't worry about how many the guides or anyone else is catching.


All that,and you complain about others whining?...and then cancell your subscription?...LMAO
Enough already on the spining of people "not being able to fish" thing..It is obvious that no amount of data or SCIENCE or what hard core locals from the LLM,ULM-baffin or midcoast who have put in a lifetime of chasing trout have to say,even if it's guarenteed to enhance the quality of this trout fishery for everyone..for some,nothing will ever be enough to compete with greed..and it IS all about greed..5trout 5flounder 3reds 5 drum=36fillets...not even counting sandies n sheepshead n adult croakers we once had..if that is not enough fish for 1 person per day then what other conclusion can one make?..I'm sure "rights" will quickly be mentioned..guessin your rights are more important now than what the gill netters and shrimpers once had?


----------



## specks&ducks

Plastic, you have made a sound point. Sometimes I don't think some guys get it, it's not about yanking your rights away, it's about making a better fishery. Greed screws up a lot of good things.


----------



## trouthammer

plasticsnaks said:


> All that,and you complain about others whining?...and then cancell your subscription?...LMAO
> Enough already on the spining of people "not being able to fish" thing..It is obvious that no amount of data or SCIENCE or what hard core locals from the LLM,ULM-baffin or midcoast who have put in a lifetime of chasing trout have to say,even if it's guarenteed to enhance the quality of this trout fishery for everyone..for some,nothing will ever be enough to compete with greed..and it IS all about greed..5trout 5flounder 3reds 5 drum=36fillets...not even counting sandies n sheepshead n adult croakers we once had..if that is not enough fish for 1 person per day then what other conclusion can one make?..I'm sure "rights" will quickly be mentioned..guessin your rights are more important now than what the gill netters and shrimpers once had?


What are you talking about? There are/were a handful of guides, who may seem like many because they have time to post here (draw whatever conclusion you want), who wanted lower limits but the vast majority of them did not. The science was debated to death. The facts and science supported that all the fisheries were either fine OR on their way to being fine. The matty boys are now quiet. The boys in rockport are nailing trout. And the boys in mansfield are still "culling" and getting a 3/4 inch bigger catch (conclude from that what you want but TPWD considers it a negative). TPWD heard all the arguments and despite the pressure put on them by elitist groups went with the science and left limits alone. You didn't win then and you can't win now....particularly in light of the fact that the science has now been proven right by the rebound of the midcoast bays.

What most of the 5 limit guys want is a bigger "trophy" and they are the same people who have no problem with genetic engineering of "trophy" deer and scientific diets for "trophy" deer. All this done behind a prison fence. I am the guy in the middle of nature working my *** off and yes I am still looking for him but it will never be behind a high fence. You have no more right to dictate how I fish and what I want than I do you. Science is how the issue should be decided and it has been decided. You lost


----------



## LHandler

Our bays are not grocery stores. It is nice to catch a few to eat, but this "fill the freezer" mentality is part of the problem, not the solution. As this earth gets more and more populated the pressures on our natural resources increase. Recreational sportfishing is just that, recreation and sport. Enjoy Mother Nature and all she has to offer on a sustainable level. Lower the limit and catch more and bigger fish. A lowered limit will unarguably help the fishing, look at the redfish and now the flounder. This philosophical change must take place at the fisherman level for our fisheries to be better off. I started keeping no more than five, or anyone fishing on my boat keeping more than five several years ago, taking a proactive approach.


----------



## Hogie70

plasticsnaks said:


> All that,and you complain about others whining?...and then cancell your subscription?...LMAO
> Enough already on the spining of people "not being able to fish" thing..It is obvious that no amount of data or SCIENCE or what hard core locals from the LLM,ULM-baffin or midcoast who have put in a lifetime of chasing trout have to say,even if it's guarenteed to enhance the quality of this trout fishery for everyone..for some,nothing will ever be enough to compete with greed..and it IS all about greed..5trout 5flounder 3reds 5 drum=36fillets...not even counting sandies n sheepshead n adult croakers we once had..if that is not enough fish for 1 person per day then what other conclusion can one make?..I'm sure "rights" will quickly be mentioned..guessin your rights are more important now than what the gill netters and shrimpers once had?


The point is it should be a choice one makes... Why make a change to the daily limit??? Greed??? Where did that come from??? Are you *********** retarded dude??? If you can not catch and release a limit of trout in the first hour of the day you should not even be posting on this thread... It sounds like we have a bunch of no catching mofo's that are trying to make the bay water a even playing field. It is not going to happen... Put your time on the water learn how and where to fish, catch your fish and then come to a conclusion... The trout population is not hurting at all...


----------



## Hogie70

LHandler said:


> Our bays are not grocery stores. It is nice to catch a few to eat, but this "fill the freezer" mentality is part of the problem, not the solution. As this earth gets more and more populated the pressures on our natural resources increase. Recreational sportfishing is just that, recreation and sport. Enjoy Mother Nature and all she has to offer on a sustainable level. Lower the limit and catch more and bigger fish. A lowered limit will unarguably help the fishing, look at the redfish and now the flounder. This philosophical change must take place at the fisherman level for our fisheries to be better off. I started keeping no more than five, or anyone fishing on my boat keeping more than five several years ago, taking a proactive approach.


*** that is the point dude you made a choice to change your daily bag limit... Keyword CHOICE sometimes my choice is to keep none... Keyword CHOICE get the picture???


----------



## justletmein

specks&ducks said:


> Plastic, you have made a sound point. Sometimes I don't think some guys get it, it's not about yanking your rights away, it's about making a better fishery. Greed screws up a lot of good things.


Question is which side of this debate is greedy, the guys who are trying to force their methods on others so they catch more 30"+ fish or the ones who want to invite friends over for a fish fry?


----------



## Hogie70

justletmein said:


> Question is which side of this debate is greedy, the guys who are trying to force their methods on others so they catch more 30"+ fish or the ones who want to invite friends over for a fish fry?


The guys that cant catch a gator trout everytime they go out... They want to catch a 30 inch trout every trip... LMAO


----------



## Truchas

*No Brainer*

It seems so simple to me and the proof is in the pudding, look objectively without all the song and dance ,at what the fishermen/guides have acheived in the Lower Laguna Madre with a five fish limit. This is now the most sought after trout fishery on the coast. If we can have a better fishery with more fish to catch and better fish to catch, why would anyone not want this? Are some afraid that we are losing something by not having a 10 fish limit when we would be gaining a better fishery? How many fish does it take to make you or a customer happy? Folks drive all the way from San Antonio, Dallas and Houston just to catch three reds. Truchas


----------



## specks&ducks

Hogie, a bunch of us have put there time in up and down the coast. About 35 yrs myself. 
I think if you asked around the Rockport area, tackle shop and guides, you would meet quite a few people I have fished with or know me. I don't expect to catch a 30 inch trout every trip. I do think it is a reasonable expectation to catch 20 to 25 inch trout easily like it used to be. That is what I would like to see restored. 
Glad to hear you sometimes bring in no fish by choice, a lot of us have been doing that for years.


----------



## aggiefishinDr

Hogie70 said:


> The point is it should be a choice one makes... Why make a change to the daily limit??? Greed??? Where did that come from??? Are you *********** retarded dude??? If you can not catch and release a limit of trout in the first hour of the day you should not even be posting on this thread... It sounds like we have a bunch of no catching mofo's that are trying to make the bay water a even playing field. It is not going to happen... Put your time on the water learn how and where to fish, catch your fish and then come to a conclusion... The trout population is not hurting at all...


Wow, you and cork&jig must fish together!! Your statement above about catch and release a limit of trout the first hour of the day would limit this argument to you and cork, the best fisherman of the world!! Maybe you guys can take some time from slaying your quick limits daily and make a reasonable and valid point without making fun of everyone else and there points on this matter. Even if I cannot catch a limit the first hour of the day I still have a say and an opinion about fishing regulations, not that it means anything, but neither does yours. Can you spare an hour some morning to take me fishing?


----------



## Hogie70

Truchas said:


> It seems so simple to me and the proof is in the pudding, look objectively without all the song and dance ,at what the fishermen/guides have acheived in the Lower Laguna Madre with a five fish limit. This is now the most sought after trout fishery on the coast. If we can have a better fishery with more fish to catch and better fish to catch, why would anyone not want this? Are some afraid that we are losing something by not having a 10 fish limit when we would be gaining a better fishery? How many fish does it take to make you or a customer happy? Folks drive all the way from San Antonio, Dallas and Houston just to catch three reds. Truchas


Do you really think the 5 fish limit in LLM contributed to the fishery??? About 80% of the fisherman in LLM soak croakers and mullet. They kill more fish culling through the day than before, I'm sorry I do not see it myself... Just sayin no brainer fo'sho'...


----------



## Hogie70

aggiefishinDr said:


> Wow, you and cork&jig must fish together!! Your statement above about catch and release a limit of trout the first hour of the day would limit this argument to you and cork, the best fisherman of the world!! Maybe you guys can take some time from slaying your quick limits daily and make a reasonable and valid point without making fun of everyone else and there points on this matter. Even if I cannot catch a limit the first hour of the day I still have a say and an opinion about fishing regulations, not that it means anything, but neither does yours. Can you spare an hour some morning to take me fishing?


Anytime you want to go fishing I am there... I am always looking for a fishing partner with you being an Aggie you will do just fine PM me your info and once I get back to the casa I will hook you up... I will even spring for your nights stay... How about them apples??? I will show you just how bad our fishery is doing... LMAO


----------



## Hogie70

specks&ducks said:


> Hogie, a bunch of us have put there time in up and down the coast. About 35 yrs myself.
> I think if you asked around the Rockport area, tackle shop and guides, you would meet quite a few people I have fished with or know me. I don't expect to catch a 30 inch trout every trip. I do think it is a reasonable expectation to catch 20 to 25 inch trout easily like it used to be. That is what I would like to see restored.
> Glad to hear you sometimes bring in no fish by choice, a lot of us have been doing that for years.


It is ok to agree to disagree... But if I have family coming in and I want to fry fish, I would like for that option to be there...


----------



## Croaker slinger

Truchas said:


> It seems so simple to me and the proof is in the pudding, look objectively without all the song and dance ,at what the fishermen/guides have acheived in the Lower Laguna Madre with a five fish limit. This is now the most sought after trout fishery on the coast. If we can have a better fishery with more fish to catch and better fish to catch, why would anyone not want this? Are some afraid that we are losing something by not having a 10 fish limit when we would be gaining a better fishery? How many fish does it take to make you or a customer happy? Folks drive all the way from San Antonio, Dallas and Houston just to catch three reds. Truchas


The BS in this comment is the part about what fisherman and guides have achieved in the llm by the five fish limit , the regs and lower limits had nothing to do with it , it's a natural cycle by mother nature and a few greedy people are taking credit for it to push an agenda , when did fish become more important than humans, sounds Like a PETA slogan. Greed and money as usual!


----------



## Croaker slinger

By the way I have fished the llm for 30 years and there were more and better fish 10 years ago than today , but go ahead and keep 5 , I'll Just Fillet Ten!


----------



## Truchas

*Five fish now*

That's exactly what some of the guides said almost word for word at the TPWD scoping meetings on the Lower Coast. What's interesting now is that some of these same "objecters" would never go back to a 10 fish limit, times are too good. Sound familiar? Truchas


----------



## Hogie70

Truchas said:


> That's exactly what some of the guides said almost word for word at the TPWD scoping meetings on the Lower Coast. What's interesting now is that some of these same "objecters" would never go back to a 10 fish limit, times are too good. Sound familiar? Truchas


When was the last time you went fishing sir?


----------



## GHSmacker

I remember my first trout....


----------



## Kyle 1974

Are fisheries managers not smart enough to calculate a different bag limit.... something crazy like 7 fish a day? What's the deal with cutting it in half? Will we have the "just keep 2.5 crowd in 5 years?


----------



## Croaker slinger

Kyle 1974 said:


> Are fisheries managers not smart enough to calculate a different bag limit.... something crazy like 7 fish a day? What's the deal with cutting it in half? Will we have the "just keep 2.5" crowd in 5 years?


LOL , now that's funny!


----------



## justletmein

Truchas said:


> That's exactly what some of the guides said almost word for word at the TPWD scoping meetings on the Lower Coast. What's interesting now is that some of these same "objecters" would never go back to a 10 fish limit, times are too good. Sound familiar? Truchas


Yeah they wanna go home early. I'd love to cut my daily work in half too. LOL


----------



## Hogie70

GHSmacker said:


> I remember my first trout....


Let me hear about it GHS???


----------



## trouthammer

Truchas said:


> That's exactly what some of the guides said almost word for word at the TPWD scoping meetings on the Lower Coast. What's interesting now is that some of these same "objecters" would never go back to a 10 fish limit, times are too good. Sound familiar? Truchas


If you mean the mansfield guides would not go back to 10 you are right. Their job is so much easier doing just 5 and saying they caught limits. He will go un-named but I fished down there with a known guide and he had us cull stringers. When he showed up at the boat after my pal who arranged the trip and I finished our wade to my surprise he had a nice stringer of 7 that he culled and KEPT in addition to our limits. What's worse is he showed the game warden the ice box with HIS 5. And this is from a guy who talked down the fact that I will use croakers...In the minutes of the meetings TPWD made note of the new culling practice in mansfield. They are killing fish and why? Since they can't keep 10 I guess the "greedy" guys who want to lower the limits want 5 BIG ones.....

Anyone who thinks Mansfield is a mecca needs to see more places. I can catch just as big and MORE from JFK to the middle of the land cut. The truth is they finally got water through their plugged jetty at the same time the limit went down. Their creel studies and gill net studies have shown once again that mother nature in its cyclical way has smiled on them. I wonder what the argument will be next time she frowns on them. I hope they go to 1 trout, kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face...more for the ULM.


----------



## Croaker slinger

trouthammer said:


> If you mean the mansfield guides would not go back to 10 you are right. Their job is so much easier doing just 5 and saying they caught limits. He will go un-named but I fished down there with a known guide and he had us cull stringers. When he showed up at the boat after my pal who arranged the trip and I finished our wade to my surprise he had a nice stringer of 7 that he culled and KEPT in addition to our limits. What's worse is he showed the game warden the ice box with HIS 5. And this is from a guy who talked down the fact that I will use croakers...In the minutes of the meetings TPWD made note of the new culling practice in mansfield. They are killing fish and why? Since they can't keep 10 I guess the "greedy" guys who want to lower the limits want 5 BIG ones.....
> 
> Anyone who thinks Mansfield is a mecca needs to see more places. I can catch just as big and MORE from JFK to the middle of the land cut. The truth is they finally got water through their plugged jetty at the same time the limit went down. Their creel studies and gill net studies have shown once again that mother nature in its cyclical way has smiled on them. I wonder what the argument will be next time she frowns on them. I hope they go to 1 trout, kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face...more for the ULM.


You hit the nail on the head with the timing of the east cut opening , and the limit drop, also we had 3 small hurricanes that circulated the bay down there , those big trout didn't grow 15" in one year!


----------



## FTAC03

trouthammer said:


> If you mean the mansfield guides would not go back to 10 you are right. Their job is so much easier doing just 5 and saying they caught limits. He will go un-named but I fished down there with a known guide and he had us cull stringers. When he showed up at the boat after my pal who arranged the trip and I finished our wade to my surprise he had a nice stringer of 7 that he culled and KEPT in addition to our limits. What's worse is he showed the game warden the ice box with HIS 5. And this is from a guy who talked down the fact that I will use croakers...In the minutes of the meetings TPWD made note of the new culling practice in mansfield. They are killing fish and why? Since they can't keep 10 I guess the "greedy" guys who want to lower the limits want 5 BIG ones.....
> 
> Anyone who thinks Mansfield is a mecca needs to see more places. I can catch just as big and MORE from JFK to the middle of the land cut. The truth is they finally got water through their plugged jetty at the same time the limit went down. Their creel studies and gill net studies have shown once again that mother nature in its cyclical way has smiled on them. I wonder what the argument will be next time she frowns on them. I hope they go to 1 trout, kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face...more for the ULM.


I have to call into question your "story" relating to culling and showing the guide limit to the GW. To go along with anyone who would do that is both illeagal and unethical. I have a hard time believing that anyone who makes a living off of our fishery would behave in such a manner. I would hope at least that you would not fish with said person again. There is no doubt that some culling goes on all up and down the coast. I do not believe that it is a widespread problem because the majority of the participants in the fishery are honest ethical anglers. The same argument was made when the flounder harvest was reduced. It has proven to be a non issue even though it happens. Finally I certainly appreciate the passion from the just filet ten crowd, but let's be honest amongst one another there is not one single solitary fishery on the planet that has not seen a marked improvement from a reduction in harvest except for a few overstocked bass ponds. While I respect the fact that you believe you are entitled to ten trout, the simple fact is that a reduction in harvest will improve the quality of the fishery in both size and quantity. And I for one will do everything I can to improve the quality of fishing on our coast.


----------



## Croaker slinger

FTAC03 said:


> I have to call into question your "story" relating to culling and showing the guide limit to the GW. To go along with anyone who would do that is both illeagal and unethical. I have a hard time believing that anyone who makes a living off of our fishery would behave in such a manner. I would hope at least that you would not fish with said person again. There is no doubt that some culling goes on all up and down the coast. I do not believe that it is a widespread problem because the majority of the participants in the fishery are honest ethical anglers. The same argument was made when the flounder harvest was reduced. It has proven to be a non issue even though it happens. Finally I certainly appreciate the passion from the just filet ten crowd, but let's be honest amongst one another there is not one single solitary fishery on the planet that has not seen a marked improvement from a reduction in harvest except for a few overstocked bass ponds. While I respect the fact that you believe you are entitled to ten trout, the simple fact is that a reduction in harvest will improve the quality of the fishery in both size and quantity. And I for one will do everything I can to improve the quality of fishing on our coast.


What about Lousiana , with all there strict limits , they have a terrible fishery over there , LMAO


----------



## Haute Pursuit

Croaker slinger said:


> What about Lousiana , with all there strict limits , they have a terrible fishery over there , LMAO


Exactly... Having more redfish in the shallow bay systems is more of a problem than fishing pressure. Just Keep your own problems!


----------



## FTAC03

4.5 million people versus 25 million people. I went to A&M so I'll let you do the math. But you still dodge the question. Name a single fishery that did not benefit from a reduction in harvest? You can't do it. You can circumvent the question but you can't deny the answer.


----------



## Haute Pursuit

FTAC03 said:


> 4.5 million people versus 25 million people. I went to A&M so I'll let you do the math.


Because you went to A&M is not a valid excuse...lol


----------



## Rodsdiesel62

*Poor guy maybe a different college study is in order?*

I fish as often as I can what with being a husband, father and blue collar tax paying American. It' is a privlege when I get to go not so much for sport or recreation but for the food for soul and table it provides. I used to be able to hunt. The pure natural field fed protien for my family is missed due to the cost of sport and recreation. I feel proud when I'm able to provide for my family and I enjoy the chance to be in the company of people who share in this life what GOD provided. If there are people who feel they have to oversee over those who would take advantage and let greed over take them then so be it, but men stand on there own two feet and need not someone to tell them their needs they know. This bickering must seem like chum to the PETA and activist groups. God Bless and let our children be the better.


----------



## reeltimer

FTAC03 said:


> 4.5 million people versus 25 million people. I went to A&M so I'll let you do the math. But you still dodge the question. Name a single fishery that did not benefit from a reduction in harvest? You can't do it. You can circumvent the question but you can't deny the answer.


I can't see anything with all the Florida gator trout blocking my screen!:headknock

Stay home and count to ten!


----------



## Rad A Tat

Drop the limit to 5 per day


----------



## FTAC03

reeltimer said:


> I can't see anything with all the Florida gator trout blocking my screen!:headknock
> 
> Stay home and count to ten!


I know man. It's hard to see much past the world record speckled trout caught in Florida. But I still ain't mad at ya! Look man that's exactly my point. Stop by the Floridasportsman.com or take a trip over there. I go 2-3 times per year. If you could see how far their fishery has come. Well let me just say this their fishery is definetely not in a state of decline like ours is. I have seen what sound management has done for that fishery. Don't kid yourself Florida gives up a ton of big Trout.


----------



## Hogie70

FTAC03 said:


> 4.5 million people versus 25 million people. I went to A&M so I'll let you do the math. But you still dodge the question. Name a single fishery that did not benefit from a reduction in harvest? You can't do it. You can circumvent the question but you can't deny the answer.


Can you name one?


----------



## CJ PORTER

Raise the limit back to 15 and drop the minimum length back to 12 inches!


----------



## Rodsdiesel62

*Wow really?*

If you know what's good for the fisheries then do right by it! Quit waiting for some one to pat you on your back. The good deed is supposed to go ( lead by example as a bright light in the darkness) or better yet quit being like Barney Phife who alway's tried to hard to do the right thing and in doing so made things worse. Let Andy do his job in Mayberry until a new sheriff comes to town!


----------



## FTAC03

Hogie70 said:


> Can you name one?


Seriously?! Redfish and Flounder certainly come to mind. Or the elusive Red Snapper.


----------



## Croaker slinger

CJ PORTER said:


> Raise the limit back to 15 and drop the minimum length back to 12 inches!


That is exactley what needs to happen!


----------



## Hogie70

IMO there was nothing wrong with the redfish & flounder fisheries... I catch the same fish now as I did before no more no less... 

The red snapper? I'm more of a inshore guy but the few times I went out last year it was fast limits... It seemed like the boat trip was 80% of the day... But I do know that at the end of the day there are alot of fish that never make it to the bottom again... The South Texas Cullfest is not limited to South Texas if you get my drift LMAO...


----------



## Rodsdiesel62

Ok! stay here and argue, I'm going fishin. And staying within the law mind you I may catch 10 but I MIGHT keep 5? Or vise versa? In posession limit, who know's.


----------



## Hogie70

Rodsdiesel62 said:


> Ok! stay here and argue, I'm going fishin. And staying within the law mind you I may catch 10 but I MIGHT keep 5? Or vise versa? In posession limit, who know's.


Good Luck... I'm going to PM in the morning to net the floaters for my dailey limit...


----------



## Rodsdiesel62

And same to you. And finally we have a winner! Some one who understands the program. LOL!


----------



## Rodsdiesel62

Rodsdiesel62 said:


> And same to you. And finally we have a winner! Some one who understands the program. LOL!


 And by the way HOGIE 70, If you do scoop up your legal limit of floaters, don't worry I'll do my part and scoop up the rest! lol.... Barney Phife here reporting for duty sir!!!!!! LOL:tongue:


----------



## Hogie70

LMAO Good Luck


----------



## Cork & Jig

FTAC03 said:


> I Well let me just say this their fishery is definetely not in a state of decline like ours is. I have seen what sound management has done for that fishery. Don't kid yourself Florida gives up a ton of big Trout.


You're ridiculous! Our fisheries are not declining.

Anyone not able to successfully catch trout is doing something wrong. Our fisheries are unbelievably good. We usually catch and release WAY more than our limits, but keep only our limits.

People who do not regularly catch good numbers of fish are making some fundamental errors when it comes to catching trout.

Successful fishermen fish:

1) in the RIGHT PLACES
2) at the RIGHT TIME
3) the RIGHT WAY

Unsuccessful fishermen fish:

1) in the WRONG PLACES
2) at the WRONG TIMES
3) the WRONG WAY


----------



## trouthammer

FTAC03 said:


> I have to call into question your "story" relating to culling and showing the guide limit to the GW. To go along with anyone who would do that is both illeagal and unethical. I have a hard time believing that anyone who makes a living off of our fishery would behave in such a manner. I would hope at least that you would not fish with said person again. There is no doubt that some culling goes on all up and down the coast. I do not believe that it is a widespread problem because the majority of the participants in the fishery are honest ethical anglers. The same argument was made when the flounder harvest was reduced. It has proven to be a non issue even though it happens. Finally I certainly appreciate the passion from the just filet ten crowd, but let's be honest amongst one another there is not one single solitary fishery on the planet that has not seen a marked improvement from a reduction in harvest except for a few overstocked bass ponds. While I respect the fact that you believe you are entitled to ten trout, the simple fact is that a reduction in harvest will improve the quality of the fishery in both size and quantity. And I for one will do everything I can to improve the quality of fishing on our coast.


I can certainly see how you would call into question the credibility of my experience. All I can say is I couldn't believe it either. Sorry to tell you but it is true and if you spend time down there it is a small community. I asked about the guide keeping 5 and was told the GW didn't care with this particular guide.

Don't miss the bigger point which is a fact commented on by TPWD. They are culling their 5 keepers and fish are dying because of it. That is the reason for the size increase. If anyone is guilty of GREED it is those who chose to unstring a half alive fish so the weight of the 5 they keep is more. That is going to happen when you lower limits.

I too believe in improving the quality of our fishery. This year I have caught in excess of five 25 inch or more fish that are all back in the water. Frankly I have let 22-24 go as well. They just don't fry up that good and those sows are the most productive spawning. That is my personal choice and I have plenty of times chose to keep less than limits. You too are free to do what you want as long as it is legal.

HERE is where you and I differ. While science probably does support that size would improve with 5 limits (despite the downside of culling) science DOES NOT support quantity needs to be improved. Despite cyclical ups and downs our fisheries are fine. Your desire to have better odds of catching a 30 inch trophy is a matter fishing style and you have no right to impose your style on those who enjoy catching and keeping 10. Again, TPWD gave this issue a thorough vetting and based on the SCIENCE did not agree with the "trophy" crowd.


----------



## Truchas

*Go for it!*

Let's just keep on keeping on with 10 trout, drop the size limit to 14", raise the limit of reds to 5 and that way we can be sure that in the near future, our kids and grandkids will be out of the fishing business in TX. But the good news is that folks who have to have as much meat as possible to please themselves or customers will be happy over the short haul. Come on you guys!


----------



## trouthammer

Truchas said:


> Let's just keep on keeping on with 10 trout, drop the size limit to 14", raise the limit of reds to 5 and that way we can be sure that in the near future, our kids and grandkids will be out of the fishing business in TX. But the good news is that folks who have to have as much meat as possible to please themselves or customers will be happy over the short haul. Come on you guys!


Funny, based on science, something your assertions are sorely lacking, TPWD has suggested increasing the red limit. Seems the same ones who have trouble catching 10 trout were against it.......


----------



## aggiefishinDr

Cork & Jig said:


> You're ridiculous! Our fisheries are not declining.
> 
> Anyone not able to successfully catch trout is doing something wrong. Our fisheries are unbelievably good. We usually catch and release WAY more than our limits, but keep only our limits.
> 
> People who do not regularly catch good numbers of fish are making some fundamental errors when it comes to catching trout.
> 
> *Successful fishermen fish:
> 
> 1) in the RIGHT PLACES
> 2) at the RIGHT TIME
> 3) the RIGHT WAY
> 
> Unsuccessful fishermen fish:
> 
> 1) in the WRONG PLACES
> 2) at the WRONG TIMES
> 3) the WRONG WAY*


Wow, thats deep.....thanks for the help!!! I have it figured out now.


----------



## spurgersalty

aggiefishinDr said:


> Wow, thats deep.....thanks for the help!!! I have it figured out now.


And it only took 450 or so posts


----------



## Wedge

The way I see it I paid for 3660 this year.


----------



## Swells

LHandler said:


> Your ridiculous! Our fisheries are declining. Steadily. Not what they were 20,10 or even 5 years ago. If you can not recognize this then I question your credibility. Any fisherman as great as you has surely spent many years fishing our bays. Anyone that has fished for years on a consistent basis and does not agree our fishery has declined is miss guided. What to do about it is debatable. The decline in size and numbers is not.


Back in the 1920s the bays along the Gulf in Texas were teaming with so many fish it looked like you could walk on water. While pole fishing was starting to get popular, such as for 6-foot long jewfish and tarpon, one had to be careful because a circle net would get so many tons of fish in it the cat-boat would be pulled over, or sink. Ice houses and special trains with ice were sent to the coast for the booming redfish trade. Every spring some locals would get together and pull a load of humongous white shrimp out of the bay, often with horses, donkeys, and Model-A cars the net was so heavy.

While there was some depletion in the very old, large fish, the bays were relatively healthy except in certain areas around Houston and Louisiana, which became polluted from the oil industry. During WWII most of the fishing stopped, as men men were called off to duty and some bays such as the lower Laguna Madre were used for bombing and strafing practice. The destruction started when the men returned from WWII and started heading to the coast, such as from Bolivar to Boca Chica in large numbers building shacks by the beach that could be nailed back together if a hurricane got them (which several did). It's a fascinating story how the homes were built from scrap lumber, leftover paint, spare nails, and sometimes Tiki designs from the Navy sailors who spent time in the Pacific theater; developers started building summer homes as well.

By the 60s, coastal development hit big-time and the pressure was on the bays in a serious manner, complete with the netters who used newfangled "mono" instead of hand-tied twine. This is what the GCCA was all about in later years, stopping the gills nets. The invention of high powered outboard motorboats in the late 60s and early 70s - I remember when a 50 HP was HUGE and waterskiing became popular - put the nail in the coffin. Over 90 percent of the fish were simply gone, as compared to the 1920s.

But still, the older folks can remember when the fishing was seriously hot back in the 60s and 70s, with huge schools of bait and thousands of predator fish feeding on them. The rise of large corporate tackle companies only made the problem worse, such as Bass Pro and others spreading from Arkansas to the coastal areas with saltwater versions of what was bass bait. The larger these companies got, and the more boats with even larger and larger outboards that were sold, the less fish there were in the bay.

State regulators clearly had to do something, and regulations were put in place eventually over time, lest the entire bay fishery be lost forever. The push for regulation really didn't start until the 1980s when the NMFS started handing out state grants to help run local fishery programs. Texas was lucky in that several families such as the Bass family deeded millions over for restocking hatcheries, starting with inland species like trout and certain bass hybrids and eventually some bay species as well. Flounder is a new one, both in the hatchery and commercial "gigging" categories, since they have become so depleted.

Somehow through all of this you'll have some stubborn old-timers say "the fishing is better than ever" and they know that it's a big fat lie so as to insult the younger generation. Perhaps they grew up on lakes - which is odd because there were any in Texas until the reservoirs were built in the 1950s, other than farm ponds. Over-fishing, pollution, development to landfill the marshes and drain them for mosquito protection, and dredging all messed up the fishing so bad there really isn't much left compared to what it could be. If a huge fish kill comes, such as from red tide, winter freezes, low oxygen waters, and oil spills, the fishing can be wiped out for many years - almost nothing! Nope, a real person with some historical knowledge will say we really, really farked up.


----------



## wos

*Changing Tx salt water fisheries*

Well said both "Swells" and "LHandler". You both have a clear vision of the reality of Tx population growth and the ever increasing pressure on our coastal habitats and fisheries, particularly our trout fishery. The question then becomes, what are we going to do about it? TPWD will tell you that their only real magangment tool for our coastal fisheries is size and bag limits with emphasis on the latter. You would think that all fishermen, whether they are guides,tournament fishers or private fishermen, would clearly realize our dilema and gladly put conservation of the resource first. FIVE FISH NOW! wos


----------



## CJ PORTER

HEY common man here is my prediction --- Fishing will become over-regulated and taxed to the point that a handful of wealthy individuals will be the only ones who can afford the luxury of saltwater bay fishing and the lack of pressure from the middle class will allow the populations to rebuild.


----------



## goodwood

I voted for 5. 10 is really a lot of fish. But then again I do want to get my time/money's worth when I'm out fishing.


----------



## GHSmacker

If the only way you're getting your money's worth out of a fishing trip is a gallon bag full of fillets...well...they make catfish farms for that.

I still want the 10 fish limit for our bay systems until TPWD comes out with cold, hard facts that state we need to do otherwise. Just riding the coattails of popular guides, editors of major magazines, authors of books, and joe blow the weekend warrior is not the way to go about it. This almost seems like a game of "telephone" gone terribly wrong. 

That being said, if the science backs it up, I'll be the first guy jumping on the bandwagon advocating the reduction in bag limit and the increase of the minimum length if need be. 

Ok...now let the cat fight continue!


----------



## Hogie70

GHSmacker said:


> If the only way you're getting your money's worth out of a fishing trip is a gallon bag full of fillets...well...they make catfish farms for that.
> 
> I still want the 10 fish limit for our bay systems until TPWD comes out with cold, hard facts that state we need to do otherwise. Just riding the coattails of popular guides, editors of major magazines, authors of books, and joe blow the weekend warrior is not the way to go about it. This almost seems like a game of "telephone" gone terribly wrong.
> 
> That being said, if the science backs it up, I'll be the first guy jumping on the bandwagon advocating the reduction in bag limit and the increase of the minimum length if need be.
> 
> Ok...now let the cat fight continue!


There is no science that backs it... Now tell me about your first trout...


----------



## GHSmacker

Hogie70 said:


> Now tell me about your first trout...


It all started with a croaker and a dream....


----------



## spurgersalty

GHSmacker said:


> It all started with a croaker and a dream....


:rotfl:

Nice!!


----------



## clint623

Geeeeeeez how is this thread still going???


Clint


----------



## Cork & Jig

aggiefishinDr said:


> Wow, thats deep.....thanks for the help!!! I have it figured out now.


Wow.

First of all I appreciate the sarcasm, especially from a fellow Aggie.

Anyways, my point is simple. Fishing's great.

I hold this opinion because myself and the others I fish with, for the last 30+ years, have consistently caught large numbers of trout. For us, the fishing's as good now, as it's always been.

I realize that some cannot or will not believe that this is true simply because they themselves are not successful.

Let me ask those of you who disagree with me, why is it we do so good, if the fisheries are so bad?

Call me misguided, delusional, whatever you want, but I do not believe our bays need help, that's all. If your not catching them it's not because they aren't out there.

I don't have a lot of pics on my phone but here's a few.


----------



## Cork & Jig




----------



## Cork & Jig




----------



## Cork & Jig




----------



## Cork & Jig

g


----------



## spurgersalty

A master of Photochop according to most here. There's no way that many good fish exist in our bays.....hell....even the entire coast


----------



## aggiefishinDr

Wow as well, and an aggie has nothing to do with it, but I appreciate the easy sarcasm!!!! I like the pictures of the last 20 years of your fishing trips, including yourself and people you know. Just because you have pics of nice trout and some trout not worthy of pictures does not justify the overall condition of our fishery. Yes you may catch decent trout from time to time and I am happy for you. But.....just because you are such an advanced fisherman and do so well does not support the argument either way. I am happy for you and hogie and may you continue to catch fish easily. Gig em!! Could you please post a pic of a nice trout with the A&M logo in the background so I can sleep easier.


----------



## spurgersalty

aggiefishinDr said:


> Wow as well, and an aggie has nothing to do with it, but I appreciate the easy sarcasm!!!! I like the pictures of the last 20 years of your fishing trips, including yourself and people you know. Just because you have pics of nice trout and some trout not worthy of pictures does not justify the overall condition of our fishery. Yes you may catch decent trout from time to time and I am happy for you. But.....just because you are such an advanced fisherman and do so well does not support the argument either way. I am happy for you and hogie and may you continue to catch fish easily. Gig em!! Could you please post a pic of a nice trout with the A&M logo in the background so I can sleep easier.


You aggies are picky about your lullabys'


----------



## Truchas

*Croaker and a Dream*

Very ,very nice! Truchas


----------



## team cut em deep

Here's there big question!!! And let's be honest

Those of you wanting to drop the limit to 5 trout, how many times in the past year or so have you kept 10 trout instead of stopping at 5 trout???


----------



## Cork & Jig

aggiefishinDr said:


> I like the pictures of the last 20 years of your fishing trips, including yourself and people you know. Just because you have pics of nice trout and some trout not worthy of pictures does not justify the overall condition of our fishery. Yes you may catch decent trout from time to time and I am happy for you. But.....just because you are such an advanced fisherman and do so well does not support the argument either way.


Decent trout? 20 years? These are just a few, most of which were caught over the last year.....but putting them on here obviously proves nothing to those who've already formed their opinions about the state of our "devastated fishery".

Btw, we rarely get pics since most over 25" are quickly returned to the water when we're too far apart from each other to take a quick pic. But, your right they're aren't any fish.

As far as not supporting the argument, that makes no sense. We catch fish because they're THERE. They've ALWAYS been. Anyone who knows how to catch them can do the same thing as us.


----------



## Im Headed South

Funny I see someone in a several of those pics that's one of the biggest keep 5 proponents I know. I can assure you that he does not share your belief that Baffin Bay is better than ever in either quality or quantity of trout.


----------



## justletmein

Hey Cork & Jig, nice pics man got me turning green here. I see what looks to be a treble hook slider on a lot of your cork rigs. Would you mind elaborating on that and do you find it useful increasing hookups?


----------



## Troutslurp

Dang Won Mo, 25k Looks and Counting!


----------



## trouthammer

Troutslurp said:


> Dang Won Mo, 25k Looks and Counting!


It would be interesting to compare this one with its twin thread right about the time TPWD had scoping meetings on lowering to 5. Happened about a year ago. People argued blue in the face just like now. The same unsubstantiated by science claims were made and people just flat ignored what data was in the public domain. At the end of the day TPWD did not lower the limits yet here we are again....makes you wonder why. I guess if you keep saying it loud and often some think it becomes true. Good thing TPWD relies on science.


----------



## Won Mo Kasst

Alright, hoooolllllyyyyyy sheeeet, guys. First, words cannot describe how happy I am to be done. Graduated on Saturday, draped my stringer around my neck, and wore my Costas on stage.

In no way, shape, or form do I feel like posting all of the data right now, but I can break it down in a nutshell. And I looked through ALLLLLLL of the research out there. 

What the science shows... we hardly have any good data from pre-1980. Other than the amazing pics and countless stories of "how it used to be," we really have no hard science in which to compare our current info to. Those stories are great qualitative data, but no quantitative exists from back then... at least good quantitative data. As best as we can figure, we had a really, really, really, really, really, superbly, amazing, unfathomable fishery up until the 60's. Now, we just have a really, really, awesome fishery.

Has there been a drop in trout populations since we started gathering sound data in the 80's? Yes. But a correlation that I made in my research that most people fail to consider is this... the drop in trout populations is not correlated to the rise in fishing pressure. Let me see if I can explain this without typing another 30 page, single space paper... (These numbers are just an example) The trout population is a 9, and it drops to a 7. The fishing pressure is a 2 and rises to a 6. If the fishing pressure rises to a 9, the trout population drops to a 6.5. The Texas population and fishing pressure has risen exponentially, but that rise is not matched by an equal decline in the fishery. Even with trout facing natural predation, droughts, freezes, water quality issues, and many many many many other variables that we probably have not even thought to test for... the trout population still stays ahead of a exponentially growing fishing pressure. Even amongst this hard data are incredible variations of trout populations. The one constant variable is the amount of fishing pressure... even then trout populations still vary, so that is indicative of natural pressures having waaaay more influence on trout populations than fishing pressure. Within the last few years there has been a generally leveling off of trout populations... and maybe even an upward trend in some cases. That's the science... now, what does this mean in terms of limits?

Not everyone fishes for big trout... which, let's face it, is basically what most people who want a 5 fish limit are after. A better chance at catching bigger fish. Very few are die hard, frozen, in the mud, nasty weather blowing, grind it 'til the bone shows through, big trout hunters. The majority of fisherman just want a tug on the end of their line, and to go home with some food to show for it. That is a beautiful thing that we have... the ability to use a public resource. Some people enjoy eating their fish, some people are joyous in letting let them go. There is just no science to justify the taking away of warranted rights of all people wanting to take 10 trout home. A limit change down south was warranted because the fishery is more susceptible to natural damage caused by salinity issues, freezes, and algae blooms. The LLM is just one big flat, and a freeze combined with 10 fish limits was estimated to be just too much. Trout do have the incredible ability to bounce back, which they have done in the past as populations were decimated from freezes. They reach sexual maturity very quickly and are back to making more trout right away. 

So, what is to be done... Fishing pressure shows little impact on trout populations. The natural adversities trout face are the more apparent opponent. Working towards cleaner water and a better environment would be the best bang for your buck if you want to fight for a better fishery. Look at Galveston... I believe we are finally starting to see the benefits of working toward a better environment that was started in the 60's and 70's. Water quality is starting to get back to normal. I have been seeing grass sprouting up in places I have never seen before. We have had some major stud trout come out up here and I bet it only gets better.

A little background about me... just in case you think my results and discussion are biased. I kept 4 redfish in 2011... that's it. Wait, I lied. I also kept 7 trout one time(for the girlfriend and her mom to eat as they live in Shreveport), but I gave those to a father and son who were fishing when I heard the little boy tell his father that he wanted to bring some fish home to mama and they had not caught anything all day. 

Typed this up super quick. I will clarify as the questions roll in.


----------



## whalerguy28

Nice job Won Mo, and congrats on graduation too!!!!


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Congrats bro, get your fishin pants on 


-mac-


----------



## Won Mo Kasst

whalerguy28 said:


> Nice job Won Mo, and congrats on graduation too!!!!





Smackdaddy53 said:


> Congrats bro, get your fishin pants on
> 
> -mac-


thanks guys! forgot to thank all of 2cool for helping with this! truly amazing stuff!


----------



## Hogie70

Won Mo Kasst
Congrats & very well said thanks


----------



## Truchas

*Just Keep 5*

Glad someone did another poll on attitudes on trout limits. These poll numbers certainly confirm what most Texas fishermen are advocating: 1. Fishing pressure on our trout fishery is at an all time high. 2. Generally Texas fishermen are not catching the quanity or quality of trout that they once did. 3. Texas fishermen would like to see the same success coastwide that the Lower Coast has had by reducing the bag limit to five fish. Let's take the pressure off of our trout fishery and have better fishing now and in the future. JUST KEEP FIVE~ Truchas


----------



## Hogie70

Truchas said:


> Glad someone did another poll on attitudes on trout limits. These poll numbers certainly confirm what most Texas fishermen are advocating: 1. Fishing pressure on our trout fishery is at an all time high. 2. Generally Texas fishermen are not catching the quanity or quality of trout that they once did. 3. Texas fishermen would like to see the same success coastwide that the Lower Coast has had by reducing the bag limit to five fish. Let's take the pressure off of our trout fishery and have better fishing now and in the future. JUST KEEP FIVE~ Truchas


If the sience backs up the drop in bag limits... I will do so with no problem what so ever... The sience is not there though... I'm not on board just because it is the fade of the day... Just keep 5 and sometimes none keep 10 very every now and then I don't need a regulations change to tell me that...


----------



## Kyle 1974

I think the biggest problem is a lot of fisherman suck, but have the latest fishing equipment and simply can't accept the fact they don't know how to catch fish. So the problem must be the fishery, not the fisherman.


----------



## Hogie70

Kyle 1974 said:


> I think the biggest problem is a lot of fisherman suck, but have the latest fishing equipment and simply can't accept the fact they don't know how to catch fish. So the problem must be the fishery, not the fisherman.


Well said they are trying to make the bay system like a black jack table... LMAO a even playing field... That will never happen even if they cut the limit to 2...


----------



## commtrd

team cut em deep said:


> Here's there big question!!! And let's be honest
> 
> Those of you wanting to drop the limit to 5 trout, how many times in the past year or so have you kept 10 trout instead of stopping at 5 trout???


For me I guess its a moot point. Haven't caught a 10-limit of trout in several years. Didn't used to be that way at all. I started fishing in Corpus Christi when I moved here with my parents at the age of three. That was fifty years ago. The fishing used to be off-the-charts awesome. Several years ago I noticed the fishing trips were starting to involve a lot more boat riding looking for fish than actual catching. Before that I would be trying to give fish to people as I was catching so much. Now it is not just extremely rare to catch a 10-limit of trout, it just does not happen. Period. I do much much better in Port Mansfield. No comparison.

So there is just one person's opinion as I have lived in Corpus Christi for fifty years and been a pretty hard-core fisherman. I can personally see the fishery is not near as robust as it used to be. So now if I go fishing I tend to go to PM or not at all. Kind of getting much more into other things as fishing in CC is just really not much fun anymore... But it does leave more for the meat haulers to go get huh?


----------



## Kevin70

How about we set the limit at 100 per year? I'm sure that are alot of people who would be fine with that limit.

I expect alot of people who are pushing for a 5 trout per day limit are people who get to go out and fish for these trout alot (often multiple times a month or week). Keeping 5 likely doesn't hurt them as they likely always have filets available. 

For someone who gets to fish for trout a handful of times a year (or even once or twice a year), they likely want to keep a full 10 if they are either skillful or lucky enough to catch 10.

I think alot of those who advocate a daily limit of 5 and get to fish ALOT would fight hard against a yearly limit. They are making a bigger hit to the trout population than the people who go out a few times a year even if those people kept 10 every time.


----------



## Won Mo Kasst

Truchas said:


> Glad someone did another poll on attitudes on trout limits. These poll numbers certainly confirm what most Texas fishermen are advocating: 1. Fishing pressure on our trout fishery is at an all time high. 2. Generally Texas fishermen are not catching the quanity or quality of trout that they once did. 3. Texas fishermen would like to see the same success coastwide that the Lower Coast has had by reducing the bag limit to five fish. Let's take the pressure off of our trout fishery and have better fishing now and in the future. JUST KEEP FIVE~ Truchas


This poll is certainly very informal, and can basically be assumed that the opinion is split evenly. Also, this assesses the opinion of 2cool... which there are about 50,000 members, of whom only about 850 have voted, when there are between 900,000 to a million fishing licenses out there. Fishing pressure has little affect on the fishery. The success down south can coincide with seasonal fluctuations in fish populations... especially so when we have seen the same rise and falls in areas where there are 10 fish limits.

Fish populations rise and fall, even in the face of fishing pressure. Though there has been a SLIGHT decrease over the years, this decrease does not represent what increases we have seen in fishing pressure. Even if I did agree with dropping to a 5 fish limit... I still would not pursue it as there much more successful ways to improve the resource than cutting limits. It just a bad idea that is not needed. Plain and simple.



Kyle 1974 said:


> I think the biggest problem is a lot of fisherman suck, but have the latest fishing equipment and simply can't accept the fact they don't know how to catch fish. So the problem must be the fishery, not the fisherman.


This is actually truer than most would think. haha Because the sport has grown so much, a lot of new people do not understand how much time is required to become a good fisherman. Becoming a good fisherman starts waaaaay before you even pick up a fishing pole. In no way do I consider myself a good fisherman, but I spend about 2-3 days a week trying.


----------



## Truchas

*"fish a lot"*

Glad that those folks who are advocating five fish are the same folks that "fish a lot". Must be talking about guides, tournament fishermen and all of us other guys who "fish a lot". Truchas


----------



## Troutslurp

Kyle 1974 said:


> I think the biggest problem is a lot of fisherman suck, but have the latest fishing equipment and simply can't accept the fact they don't know how to catch fish. So the problem must be the fishery, not the fisherman.


Thanks For the Laugh Kyle,

Most Folks dont understand the concept of Fishing the Moon!

I,m Sure i could go On and On , About Better Times/Scenarios for Catching, or Better Times For a Booze Cruz..

Keep What You Need and Release the Fatty's

Slurp


----------



## Hogie70

Truchas said:


> Glad that those folks who are advocating five fish are the same folks that "fish a lot". Must be talking about guides, tournament fishermen and all of us other guys who "fish a lot". Truchas


I fish every trout tourney in the galveston area and most redfish tourneys so that is not issue...


----------



## bigt1786

Won Mo Kasst said:


> So, what is to be done... Fishing pressure shows little impact on trout populations. The natural adversities trout face are the more apparent opponent. Working towards cleaner water and a better environment would be the best bang for your buck if you want to fight for a better fishery.


Won Mo Kasst - I know I made a comment some 20+ pages ago about how the scientific data you were gathering here was worthless. I didnt understand the intent of your paper and therefore my comment was pretty pathetic so I apologize for that. I congratulate you on your graduation and after reading the little synopsis of your studies I think, having not read every single comment on this thread, you pointed out something that many people (including myself) have missed. Maybe if we take care of our resources first, before worrying about who should catch how many fish, we might end up a little better off because of it.


----------



## specks&ducks

Won Mo, I sent you a PM


----------



## Truchas

*Get it right*

Won Mo Kasst, your statement(s) in your no. 478 post about the LLM are incorrect. The decision to lower the bag limit to five fish in the LLM was not based on water quality issues, freezes , algal boom or any other environmental factor, it was based on a steady decline in the mid size spawning population from fishing pressure. The bag limit was changed because the fishing public wanted to regain a quality trout fishery. Please read David Sike's article in yesterday's Sunday paper and I quote "And most anglers, along with biologists willing to speculate, agree the 25-inch statewide trout rule combined with the five-trout limit south of the Landcut has improved trout fishing - with a marked improvement in big trout catching - near Port Mansfield, Port Isabel and South Padre. Before the five-trout restriction, state biologists concluded a persistent dip in the midclass trout popullation there could only have been caused by angler harvest. Spawning success, good recruitement and healthy juvenile stocks in the lower coast left no other reasonable explanation. Most questions regarding the cause have been answered by today's rebounding angling success in the Lower Laguna." What do we want for the rest of the coast? Truchas


----------



## Hogie70

Truchas Lets keep the limit at 10 but not keep any every other trip, or keep 5 every other trip like most of us already do... I may want to keep 10 one day? Who Knows??? Your post is not science I want good sound science and I'm on board...


----------



## specks&ducks

Hogie, it may not be science but it is very strong evidence from good sources. The fact that TPWD biologist feel that the increase in quality has something to do with the adjustment to limits is pretty good evidence in my book. 
I appreciate the fact you do practice convservation and you want the ability to keep 10 if you want to on some days, but lets not keep throwing out "its not science" over and over 
when there are other creditable sources indicating the success from reduced bag limits. 
There are so many factors involved in the health of the fishery that it is probably really difficult to isolate one specific factor in its decline or rebound. Bottom line is the LLM is improving in quality of fish, and the only way they will get bigger is if less are taken when they are smaller.


----------



## Im Headed South

Well I don't have time to go through everything you concluded right now but I can tell you that you are flat wrong about what brought on the 5 fish limit in the LLM. 8 straight years of declining numbers even though there were no major fish kills from a freeze or algae blooms lead TPWD to conclude the decline was due to over fishing.


----------



## IWade

If you like to fish, then go fishing and catch all the fish you want legally!

*Limits only apply as to what you can take home.* Could lowering the limit to 5 trout per day hurt our trout populations? Of course not. And personally I would rather take home 5 larger trout than 10 smaller ones.


----------



## Flat's Hunter

Here is an interesting article about fisheries management in La.

http://mobile.nola.com/advnola/pm_29228/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=V353dNDi

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FTAC03

Hogie70 said:


> Truchas Lets keep the limit at 10 but not keep any every other trip, or keep 5 every other trip like most of us already do... I may want to keep 10 one day? Who Knows??? Your post is not science I want good sound science and I'm on board...


Here's your science. I went to the TPWD scoping meeting last year and looked at the science that Art Morris laid out for us. They haven't changed any since then so I will lay it out for you. Let me preface this by saying that TPWD is considered a pioneer in data collection through net and creel surveys. TPWD pioneered the mothods of data collection, and is considered the standard by which most states aspire to in fisheries management.

1. From TPWD data The trout fishery in Texas has been on a gradual decline since the early 1990's, and has been relatively stable for the past few years. The fishery is considered sustainable by the scientists barring an increase in fishing pressure or environmental factors ie.. freeze, red tide, and/or loss or degration of habitat and water quality.

2. The statewide trout fishery maintains about a 30 SPR which is considered by fishery managers as the bare minimum for a fishery to be considered healthy. We are at the bare minimum of what is considered a healthy fishery, and it is still pretty **** good!

With an SPR that low it leaves a tremendous amount of room for improvement. Now let me be the first to say that our fishery is good. Could it be better? Absolutely! We are in absolutely no danger of overharvesting the fish we currently have. But we could certainly have alot more. Is anyone not in favor of doing anything and everything to improve our fishery?

Spawning Potential Ratio is a measure of the carryover of fish from year to year that will reproduce this year or can next year. Let's look at some science. Consider that fishing pressure has very little impact on trout mortality. Let's say we only account for 30 percent of the mortality of trout from year to year. If we cut down our harvest by 50% (5 fish limit) we could theoretically increase the SPR of the trout population by 10.5%. That would equate to a 25% increase in the number of trout roaming the bay for you and I to catch. The only problem is with 25% more trout in the water we'll never increase the SPR by the theoretical potential increase. Why you ask? Because with 25% more fish in the bay everyone catches more and larger trout.

TPWD never proposed to decrease the limit on speckled trout. They held scoping meeting to determine if the participants of the fishery wanted to continue with the status quo and wait to determine if their data continued to indicate that speckled trout were in a further state of decline before taking corrective measures. As opposed to taking some proactive measures which their science indicates would improve the overall quality of the fishery.

I for one am emphatically in favor of doing everything we can to improve the quality of the fishery. It has nothing to do with catching more and bigger fish. Although that is a pretty nice secondary benefit. It is simply the right thing to do for a resource that we all treasure.


----------



## whalerguy28

FTAC03 said:


> Here's your science. I went to the TPWD scoping meeting last year and looked at the science that Art Morris laid out for us. They haven't changed any since then so I will lay it out for you. Let me preface this by saying that TPWD is considered a pioneer in data collection through net and creel surveys. TPWD pioneered the mothods of data collection, and is considered the standard by which most states aspire to in fisheries management.
> 
> 1. From TPWD data The trout fishery in Texas has been on a gradual decline since the early 1990's, and has been relatively stable for the past few years. The fishery is considered sustainable by the scientists barring an increase in fishing pressure or environmental factors ie.. freeze, red tide, and/or loss or degration of habitat and water quality.
> 
> 2. The statewide trout fishery maintains about a 30 SPR which is considered by fishery managers as the bare minimum for a fishery to be considered healthy. We are at the bare minimum of what is considered a healthy fishery, and it is still pretty **** good!
> 
> With an SPR that low it leaves a tremendous amount of room for improvement. Now let me be the first to say that our fishery is good. Could it be better? Absolutely! We are in absolutely no danger of overharvesting the fish we currently have. But we could certainly have alot more. Is anyone not in favor of doing anything and everything to improve our fishery?
> 
> Spawning Potential Ratio is a measure of the carryover of fish from year to year that will reproduce this year or can next year. Let's look at some science. Consider that fishing pressure has very little impact on trout mortality. Let's say we only account for 30 percent of the mortality of trout from year to year. If we cut down our harvest by 50% (5 fish limit) we could theoretically increase the SPR of the trout population by 10.5%. That would equate to a 25% increase in the number of trout roaming the bay for you and I to catch. The only problem is with 25% more trout in the water we'll never increase the SPR by the theoretical potential increase. Why you ask? Because with 25% more fish in the bay everyone catches more and larger trout.
> 
> TPWD never proposed to decrease the limit on speckled trout. They held scoping meeting to determine if the participants of the fishery wanted to continue with the status quo and wait to determine if their data continued to indicate that speckled trout were in a further state of decline before taking corrective measures. As opposed to taking some proactive measures which their science indicates would improve the overall quality of the fishery.
> 
> I for one am emphatically in favor of doing everything we can to improve the quality of the fishery. It has nothing to do with catching more and bigger fish. Although that is a pretty nice secondary benefit. It is simply the right thing to do for a resource that we all treasure.


Very good post and I agree 100%!!!!:cheers:


----------



## wos

*Excellent Discussion*

FtaCo3: Very well stated and an accurate assessment of TPWD's recent Public Scoping Process to improve out trout fishery. Good explanation of fishery management terms as well. Very refreshing and encouraging to read a well documented and factual discussion of our trout management issues in the Lone Star State. You are right, our trout fishery is a Texas treasure and all fishermen should cherish it. wos


----------



## TRW

Hey why stop at five let just have a catch and release fishery, Hell close the season, imagine how good it would be in 10 years. Everyone would catch trophy trout every cast. Give me a break cutting the limits just because is not the answer. Hell TPW should just issue one Deer Tag a Year no matter what county you hunt in. Hell one deer is plenty and can feed your family if not you can hunt hogs and rabbits (lol). Trophy bucks for everyone. Hell I hope the feds also cut the duck limit in Half just because I like mallards and if they cut the limit then that means Even though I do not hunt where they want to be I should be able to kill them. This is the most idiotic **** I have ever heard. Good luck in your Crusade. I will keep my ten just because.

.


----------



## southpaw

FTAC03 said:


> Here's your science. I went to the TPWD scoping meeting last year and looked at the science that Art Morris laid out for us. They haven't changed any since then so I will lay it out for you. Let me preface this by saying that TPWD is considered a pioneer in data collection through net and creel surveys. TPWD pioneered the mothods of data collection, and is considered the standard by which most states aspire to in fisheries management.
> 
> 1. From TPWD data The trout fishery in Texas has been on a gradual decline since the early 1990's, and has been relatively stable for the past few years. The fishery is considered sustainable by the scientists barring an increase in fishing pressure or environmental factors ie.. freeze, red tide, and/or loss or degration of habitat and water quality.
> 
> 2. The statewide trout fishery maintains about a 30 SPR which is considered by fishery managers as the bare minimum for a fishery to be considered healthy. We are at the bare minimum of what is considered a healthy fishery, and it is still pretty **** good!
> 
> With an SPR that low it leaves a tremendous amount of room for improvement. Now let me be the first to say that our fishery is good. Could it be better? Absolutely! We are in absolutely no danger of overharvesting the fish we currently have. But we could certainly have alot more. Is anyone not in favor of doing anything and everything to improve our fishery?
> 
> Spawning Potential Ratio is a measure of the carryover of fish from year to year that will reproduce this year or can next year. Let's look at some science. Consider that fishing pressure has very little impact on trout mortality. Let's say we only account for 30 percent of the mortality of trout from year to year. If we cut down our harvest by 50% (5 fish limit) we could theoretically increase the SPR of the trout population by 10.5%. That would equate to a 25% increase in the number of trout roaming the bay for you and I to catch. The only problem is with 25% more trout in the water we'll never increase the SPR by the theoretical potential increase. Why you ask? Because with 25% more fish in the bay everyone catches more and larger trout.
> 
> TPWD never proposed to decrease the limit on speckled trout. They held scoping meeting to determine if the participants of the fishery wanted to continue with the status quo and wait to determine if their data continued to indicate that speckled trout were in a further state of decline before taking corrective measures. As opposed to taking some proactive measures which their science indicates would improve the overall quality of the fishery.
> 
> I for one am emphatically in favor of doing everything we can to improve the quality of the fishery. It has nothing to do with catching more and bigger fish. Although that is a pretty nice secondary benefit. It is simply the right thing to do for a resource that we all treasure.


vs.



> Hey why stop at five let just have a catch and release fishery, Hell close the season, imagine how good it would be in 10 years. Everyone would catch trophy trout every cast. Give me a break cutting the limits just because is not the answer. Hell TPW should just issue one Deer Tag a Year no matter what county you hunt in. Hell one deer is plenty and can feed your family if not you can hunt hogs and rabbits (lol). Trophy bucks for everyone. Hell I hope the feds also cut the duck limit in Half just because I like mallards and if they cut the limit then that means Even though I do not hunt where they want to be I should be able to kill them. *This is the most idiotic **** I have ever heard*. Good luck in your Crusade. I will keep my ten just because.


[Yes and your argument is sooooo intelligent] 
[]<----- These are my sarcasm brackets.

Let me ask you something TRW. What exactly is cutting the limit going to hurt other than your feelings obviously. And you're right arbitrarily saying extremes like closing the fishery for harvest and trying to relate fishery management to deer and waterfowl management is some of the most idiotic **** I've ever heard.


----------



## Hogie70

Like I said if the science is sound I'm on board 100%. Good post though; I practice catch & release on a regular basis and rarely keep limits... If everyone that is for the drop in limits practiced this, wouldn't that be as good as dropping the limits??? How many times do you keep your limit? I am not willing to lose the 10 fish limit just because it is popular... I support the CCA in every way and Sea Center Texas is a blessing in more ways than one... I guess I'm just hardheaded...


----------



## Kyle 1974

Creel surveys... Back to my point about many fisherman not being able to catch fish. 

Some people just own rods and reels. Other people catch fish.


----------



## aggiefishinDr

TRW said:


> Hey why stop at five let just have a catch and release fishery, Hell close the season, imagine how good it would be in 10 years. Everyone would catch trophy trout every cast. Give me a break cutting the limits just because is not the answer. Hell TPW should just issue one Deer Tag a Year no matter what county you hunt in. Hell one deer is plenty and can feed your family if not you can hunt hogs and rabbits (lol). Trophy bucks for everyone. Hell I hope the feds also cut the duck limit in Half just because I like mallards and if they cut the limit then that means Even though I do not hunt where they want to be I should be able to kill them. This is the most idiotic **** I have ever heard. Good luck in your Crusade. I will keep my ten just because.
> 
> .


Did you read any of the posts? The arguments from both sides? Or did you wake up and decide to post the most idiotic statement I have heard. How about we allow you not fish or hunt, at least that is a start.


----------



## Truchas

*Buffalo Hunters*

Some folks don't think byond their own nose, it's like "I want mine now and as much as I can get". Some folks would rather wait until there are more people in TX than fish before they are willing to do something for the resource, and that time is fast apporaching. Hail the buffalo hunters. Truchas


----------



## plasticsnaks

Kyle 1974 said:


> Creel surveys... Back to my point about many fisherman not being able to catch fish.
> 
> Some people just own rods and reels. Other people catch fish.


Believe me Kyle,there are many who support lowering the limit to 5 who have much more time persuing trout under their belts than you or any of the others who choose to talk this smack.....some have dedicated more than double the time chasing trout than you could of even attempted and that dedication is backed up by state record trout..Many that support the lower limit are extremely talented fishermen!
Sorry that it hurts your feelings that so many people desire a better quality trout fishery.No need to bash people or put your "spin" on it just because they have that desire!
Don't forget,even if this does(5 limit) eventually go into effect,you can still keep 36+ fillets per day per person for your freezer...shouldn't be a problem for you most awesome fisherpersons!


----------



## baffinbeaver

PHINS said:


> I think lower limits would allow for more fish to be hatched thus increasing the potential for bigger fish. The 25" plus fish are not laying as many eggs as the smaller ones.
> 
> I fish for fun and usually don't keep any fish. Might be a holdover from my bass fishing days.


This is in reference to your post.

The majority of a trouts spawning biomass is between 22 and 30 inches. A Younger female trout releases around 100,000 eggs a year compared to a mature female trout which releases over 1 million eggs a year. That means that the mature trout release more than 10 times the eggs of a smaller trout.


----------



## baffinbeaver

Fish-a-mon said:


> Keep it were it currently is at. Somedays you can bang out 10 keepers most days you dont.


Fish-a-moran....... don't you think your recent post solidifies your ignorance on our current trout fishery? "somedays you can bang out 10 keepers but most days you don't" wow. dont you think that would be a reason to lower the limits? and as a result would equal more trout left in the bays which would equal more spawning which would equal more trout so in the end you can start catching more fish on a more consistant basis?


----------



## Kyle 1974

plasticsnaks said:


> Believe me Kyle,there are many who support lowering the limit to 5 who have much more time persuing trout under their belts than you or any of the others who choose to talk this smack.....some have dedicated more than double the time chasing trout than you could of even attempted and that dedication is backed up by state record trout..Many that support the lower limit are extremely talented fishermen!
> Sorry that it hurts your feelings that so many people desire a better quality trout fishery.No need to bash people or put your "spin" on it just because they have that desire!
> Don't forget,even if this does(5 limit) eventually go into effect,you can still keep 36+ fillets per day per person for your freezer...shouldn't be a problem for you most awesome fisherpersons!


how could you possibly know how many fish I catch or how often I do it.but you throw out a statistic that people who do it twice as much as me are for a 5 fish limit.

sounds like solid science to me.

you probably just want the limit reduced to 5, that way you can claim you "limited out".


----------



## TRW

southpaw said:


> vs.
> 
> [Yes and your argument is sooooo intelligent]
> []<----- These are my sarcasm brackets.
> 
> Let me ask you something TRW. What exactly is cutting the limit going to hurt other than your feelings obviously. And you're right arbitrarily saying extremes like closing the fishery for harvest and trying to relate fishery management to deer and waterfowl management is some of the most idiotic **** I've ever heard.


If you look at any of the post or Past topics on this subject you will see that I am not opposed to lowering the limits if it is needed. But No one can prove that lowering the limit will help anything. Everyone keeps talking about the LLM and how much the limit helped. Did they not open or put in a pass to improve water quality around the same time? Also the LLM and Upper coast are completely different and they need to be looked at separately if you cannot see this not much else me or anyone else can say. What I am trying to point out is the Sky is not falling. There are lots of other things that can be done to improve the fishery a whole lot more than just cutting limits. That is not a fix that is just a band aid. I do not have all of the answers but I will not jump on a band wagon just because you feel guilty about keeping 10 trout. I do not always keep my limit but if I choose to then I will. I can have an opinion right? This is still the U.S.A. at least for a little while longer.


----------



## AaronB

If you're against the 5 speckled trout limit for food reasons, perhaps you should pursue sand trout. That or use your 'would be' gas money and go buy some HEB fish.


----------



## Hogie70

AaronB said:


> If you're against the 5 speckled trout limit for food reasons, perhaps you should pursue sand trout. That or use your 'would be' gas money and go buy some HEB fish.


And this is coming from the same arronb that wacked limits and shared with all on tejas bahias??? Never returning a fish to swim another day??? Come on arron for real???


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

AaronB said:


> If you're against the 5 speckled trout limit for food reasons, perhaps you should pursue sand trout. That or use your 'would be' gas money and go buy some HEB fish.


i enjoy eating speckled trout and redfish, money ain't a issue for us when we go fishing, it's not always about the catch, big guy.

new slogan "just keep fife, if not...go to HEB for the rest"

yes!


----------



## Gilbert

why isn't this thread locked already?


----------



## Capt. Marcus Canales

Hogie70 said:


> And this is coming from the same arronb that wacked limits and shared with all on tejas bahias??? Never returning a fish to swim another day??? Come on arron for real???


and another in this thread:



> TPWD needs to lower the 15" minimum to 12" and leave the bag limit at 10 to make better use of a large percentage of the male population. Just ask those Louisianna boys..


----------



## Hogie70

WOW all over the place lol???


----------



## Hogie70

AaronB said:


> If you're against the 5 speckled trout limit for food reasons, perhaps you should pursue sand trout. That or use your 'would be' gas money and go buy some HEB fish.


Didn't you use to meat haul with ole' Kicker? Cause he was a meat hauling, fish catchin mofo.. Does the phrase fillet and reliese come to mind?


----------



## jmou50

A week ago last Friday, headed North out of POC, just past the Bulkhead. I counted 23 boats until you got to Greens. 19 of them in Their boats, potlicking. You think they killed any trout under 15 inches?


----------



## AaronB

Hogie70 said:


> And this is coming from the same arronb that wacked limits and shared with all on tejas bahias??? Never returning a fish to swim another day??? Come on arron for real???


Hey Hogie, Yep that's me. Since then ive done a 5 year stint on a submarine and did a little growing up and alot of fishing in between. 
I've thrown out many ideas that could possibly benefit our trout fishery on several threads. I've caught and kept my fair share. Still catching too and still keep a few. But I think as people evolve as a trout fisherman over the years it gives a good perspective of how it was, how it is and how it could be. And i wasnt even a twinkle in my dad's eye when it was "outstanding". Some people I fish with don't eat trout and only fish the tournaments, some are catching fish to feed the geezers at church. Regardless, our trout would benefit if a change was made. That's all I'm sayin'

I am surprised this isn't locked also.


----------



## cobrayakker

jmou50 said:


> A week ago last Friday, headed North out of POC, just past the Bulkhead. I counted 23 boats until you got to Greens. 19 of them in Their boats, potlicking. You think they killed any trout under 15 inches?


Wow!!!! I just learned something new! People who fish out of a boat are potlickers! Never knew that.

Also never knew that the mortality rate of small trout was higher out of a boat compared to someone who wades. How many trout were plucked off stringers of waders by sharks only to be replaced with more trout only to be plucked off by sharks only to be replaced with more trout and the cycle goes on!

Also if you headed north on your way to greens from poc you went the long way. I just go east.


----------



## Hogie70

AaronB said:


> Hey Hogie, Yep that's me. Since then ive done a 5 year stint on a submarine and did a little growing up and alot of fishing in between.
> I've thrown out many ideas that could possibly benefit our trout fishery on several threads. I've caught and kept my fair share. Still catching too and still keep a few. But I think as people evolve as a trout fisherman over the years it gives a good perspective of how it was, how it is and how it could be. And i wasnt even a twinkle in my dad's eye when it was "outstanding". Some people I fish with don't eat trout and only fish the tournaments, some are catching fish to feed the geezers at church. Regardless, our trout would benefit if a change was made. That's all I'm sayin'
> 
> I am surprised this isn't locked also.


Keep it up Aaron, we need to go out and do some C&R one day...


----------



## Kyle 1974

The horror.


----------



## southpaw

TRW said:


> If you look at any of the post or Past topics on this subject you will see that I am not opposed to lowering the limits if it is needed. But No one can prove that lowering the limit will help anything. Everyone keeps talking about the LLM and how much the limit helped. Did they not open or put in a pass to improve water quality around the same time? Also the LLM and Upper coast are completely different and they need to be looked at separately if you cannot see this not much else me or anyone else can say. What I am trying to point out is the Sky is not falling. There are lots of other things that can be done to improve the fishery a whole lot more than just cutting limits. That is not a fix that is just a band aid. I do not have all of the answers but I will not jump on a band wagon just because you feel guilty about keeping 10 trout. I do not always keep my limit but if I choose to then I will. I can have an opinion right? This is still the U.S.A. at least for a little while longer.


I agree with you in the sense that we can't compare the LLM to the upper coast or parts of the middle coast. I also agree that the sky is not falling, IMO in some areas it is coming down. My opinion is based on fishing a certain bay system for 15+ years and seeing a very noticeable decrease in numbers and quality of fish in said bay system. This decrease seems to correlate with the sharp influx of people that now fish this bay system. Like the LLM, Aransas Pass/ Rockport has a nearby pass and at times the water quality seems just as good as it is down there. What differs with us and the LLM is the fishing pressure. Compound that with the fact that we just got hit with a pretty nasty case of red tide and you've got a fishery that is currently under a lot of stress. Naturally would the trout fishery bounce back from a red tide event on it's own? Sure, but IMO with the mass amounts of fishermen that pound that fishery on a regular basis, its going to be increasingly harder for the fishery to bounce back. Now like I've said in previous posts, it's not that I can't go out and catch a limit of trout, it's a grind but we can do it. Yes I do my homework before trips and pick spots based on wind, tide, logs I've kept, etc but based on my experiences the past 15 years the fishing is not anywhere near what it was when I was younger. Yes we've adapted our tactics and we've evolved over the years to try and match trout movements and feeding patterns, but again the numbers and quality just don't seem to be there anymore. Redfish are easy and if you want an example of how cutting limits can help a fishery, look at redfish. Do you honestly think redfishing would be like it is today had we had a 10 fish limit on them? I realize that redfish are a different case, but it is an example of how lowering limits affects number increases. Everyone here is saying that they want proof that cutting limits will help the fishery, but then say we can't point at the LLM or things along that line. You want proof but everytime someone tries to give you proof no one is willing to accept it. I again just trust numbers. If less fish are being kept that means there's more fish swimming. Yes there will be some that die due to improper handling and what not, but it still equates to more fish in the bay than before. Other than opening passes, limits are the one tangible thing we can control and opening passes, as seen with Cedar Bayou, is becoming an almost impossible task due to economic reasons. So an actual feasible solution would be to cut limits. It may just be a band aid on the wound, but it's better than doing nothing.

Now again for the record, I have nothing against people who keep what their legally entitled to. I've kept full limits and taken many a hero shot of fish on docks or on a stinger slung over my shoulder. In my younger days that's what I thought defined the success of my fishing trip (and I'm not faulting anyone who does define success in this way) but over the years and through my experiences my mindset has changed and I've evolved as a fisherman and I do believe certain fisheries have problems that need to be addressed. This thought pattern was formed from my own experiences and beliefs not from any bandwagons or magazine propaganda that's constantly forced on people.


----------



## glennkoks

How about adding C. on this multiple choice poll. 

C.) Lets leave it to the biologists at TPWD who actually have years of training and know what they are talking about.


----------



## Hogie70

glennkoks said:


> How about adding C. on this multiple choice poll.
> 
> C.) Lets leave it to the biologists at TPWD who actually have years of training and know what they are talking about.


D.) 
good idea


----------



## Truchas

*Leave it to who?*

Leave it to the fishermen, not the biologists. TPWD make their decisions to a large extent based on public opinion. The science is there. Five and Alive. Truchas


----------



## baffinbeaver

southpaw said:


> I agree with you in the sense that we can't compare the LLM to the upper coast or parts of the middle coast. I also agree that the sky is not falling, IMO in some areas it is coming down. My opinion is based on fishing a certain bay system for 15+ years and seeing a very noticeable decrease in numbers and quality of fish in said bay system. This decrease seems to correlate with the sharp influx of people that now fish this bay system. Like the LLM, Aransas Pass/ Rockport has a nearby pass and at times the water quality seems just as good as it is down there. What differs with us and the LLM is the fishing pressure. Compound that with the fact that we just got hit with a pretty nasty case of red tide and you've got a fishery that is currently under a lot of stress. Naturally would the trout fishery bounce back from a red tide event on it's own? Sure, but IMO with the mass amounts of fishermen that pound that fishery on a regular basis, its going to be increasingly harder for the fishery to bounce back. Now like I've said in previous posts, it's not that I can't go out and catch a limit of trout, it's a grind but we can do it. Yes I do my homework before trips and pick spots based on wind, tide, logs I've kept, etc but based on my experiences the past 15 years the fishing is not anywhere near what it was when I was younger. Yes we've adapted our tactics and we've evolved over the years to try and match trout movements and feeding patterns, but again the numbers and quality just don't seem to be there anymore. Redfish are easy and if you want an example of how cutting limits can help a fishery, look at redfish. Do you honestly think redfishing would be like it is today had we had a 10 fish limit on them? I realize that redfish are a different case, but it is an example of how lowering limits affects number increases. Everyone here is saying that they want proof that cutting limits will help the fishery, but then say we can't point at the LLM or things along that line. You want proof but everytime someone tries to give you proof no one is willing to accept it. I again just trust numbers. If less fish are being kept that means there's more fish swimming. Yes there will be some that die due to improper handling and what not, but it still equates to more fish in the bay than before. Other than opening passes, limits are the one tangible thing we can control and opening passes, as seen with Cedar Bayou, is becoming an almost impossible task due to economic reasons. So an actual feasible solution would be to cut limits. It may just be a band aid on the wound, but it's better than doing nothing.
> 
> Now again for the record, I have nothing against people who keep what their legally entitled to. I've kept full limits and taken many a hero shot of fish on docks or on a stinger slung over my shoulder. In my younger days that's what I thought defined the success of my fishing trip (and I'm not faulting anyone who does define success in this way) but over the years and through my experiences my mindset has changed and I've evolved as a fisherman and I do believe certain fisheries have problems that need to be addressed. This thought pattern was formed from my own experiences and beliefs not from any bandwagons or magazine propaganda that's constantly forced on people.


very well said sir.


----------



## The Last Mango

you can't hurt a species recreationally with a hook and line


----------



## FTAC03

The Last Mango said:


> you can't hurt a species recreationally with a hook and line


Would you care to elaborate on that a little further. That's a pretty open ended statement. Do you have proof? Can you site a source for the basis of your statement.

I would take your statement to mean you are bashing guides since they are not fishing for recreation.


----------



## Truchas

"The last Mango" apparently doesn't know that the "commercial harvesting" of trout on pole and line in Texas is at an all time high, even when compared to the days before the net ban and making trout and red a non commercial entity. Truchas


----------



## Kyle 1974

there are no more gill netters in the texas bay systems.... however, there are hundreds of "commerical" fishermen in nice columbia attire and 50,000$ for-hire boats.


----------



## Frankie14

Truchas said:


> "The last Mango" apparently doesn't know that the "commercial harvesting" of trout on pole and line in Texas is at an all time high, even when compared to the days before the net ban and making trout and red a non commercial entity. Truchas


Where can you find a statistic like that? Pretty good argument if accurate.


----------



## aggiefishinDr

The Last Mango said:


> you can't hurt a species recreationally with a hook and line


Ever fished for tarpon?


----------



## reeltimer

The Last Mango said:


> you can't hurt a species recreationally with a hook and line


He's right you gotta have bait!Get tight sucker's!:biggrin:


----------



## trouthammer

glennkoks said:


> How about adding C. on this multiple choice poll.
> 
> C.) Lets leave it to the biologists at TPWD who actually have years of training and know what they are talking about.


That's what amazes me about this thread. I have seen all kinds of "this is what the science shows and it is bad". I wished I had kept all the quotes from TPWD and the meetings when I heard this same **** but the bottom line TPWD admitted there was a segment of the fishermen who wanted to improve trophy quality(CCA imho) and ultimately found that in most cases our fisheries were doing well and in those areas where it wasn't there was no proof that overfishing was the problem. They noted that with rains etc even the areas of concern showed record juvenile trout which would come on line...and they have because all the rockport and aransas guys are staying home and catching trout. At the end of the day the biologists who are in charge of our fisheries declined to lower the limit. That leaves us with 2 choices as to why we keep hearing all the BS science arguments in this thread. A. TPWD biologist are idiots B. The hard headed trophy advocates are idiots....take your pick. You fish your way but leave mine alone...


----------



## FTAC03

Since you cannot grasp science, let me give you an analogy that perhaps youcan relate to.

If the company you work for was performing poorly and was on the verge of going bankrupt. Would you wait around to see what happened or would you start looking for a new job?? It's common sense, C'Mon Man!


----------



## Hogie70

trouthammer said:


> You fish your way but leave mine alone...


I agree! well said...


----------



## Gilbert

for those of you that are having trouble catching 10 trout in the bay, the surf is full of trout with good to great size. Go get you 10 and see what it feels like to catch a limit.


----------



## The Last Mango

FTAC03 said:


> Would you care to elaborate on that a little further. That's a pretty open ended statement. Do you have proof? Can you site a source for the basis of your statement.
> 
> I would take your statement to mean you are bashing guides since they are not fishing for recreation.


Not bashing guides or anyone else, as a commercial fishermen most of my life, I personnally have only seen the the fisheries get better, or stay at a staus quo. Is there more or less trout, reds etc. in our bay systems now than say back in the 50's, 60's or any other era? The only stastical measure is creel surveys and net surveys done by TP&W. Is the info flawed, maybe not but what about how the info is gathered and interpulated? A computer for example generates for the "models" where and when the nets get set. Repeatedly over time this info is gathered for that location. The computer does NOT take into account eco-changes in the bay system etc. that might have effected the outcome of the survey. What about the creel surveys done at the dock? Q's for the fishermen that has been on the water, did the fishermen give accurate data? Lied one way or another?

I cannot think of a better way at this point to account for a population of a wild species short of "draining" the bays' and physically accounting for the dead fish laying on the bottom. Heck, a county can't even get a population count on people correctly living in a given area. How are we, you, or anybody else gonna keep tabs on a live swimming species of fish. FISH move, the last time I checke they had fins and tails. The commercial seafood biz. is a little different, yes some of the info is flawed at times, but this is not the norm. X- amount of boats fishing and offloading ex- amount of product reported via-computer, or maunually thru paper reports.

Limits are merely like traffic laws, they are only guide lines to go by. Run a stop sign, get a ticket. Do I keep my limit, sometimes, do I always catch my limit ,NO. If a game law is implemented by the state, then it's each individuals right as a Texan to choose whether or not he or she keeps their limit.

I personally do not care how, where or what method a person usues to fish. I throw artificials when I want. I use live shrimp at times, cut mullet. crab etc.. My pleasure is being on the water, catching is a bonus.

So if the limit goes to 5, jumps to 20, makes know difference to me. I will still fish, because the greatest pleasure is not the catching, but the chase.

sure is a pretty day, what the heckkkk am I doing inside?


----------



## Mako1970

This thread is awfully long and I have not read the whole thing. A couple of points I would like to add (if someone hasn't already). If you reduce the limit from 10 to 5, you do not reduce the number of fish retained by half. That would only be true if every time we fished we kept 10. I know few have that problem!! Also, TPWD has a good handle on the status of the fishery. That's not the problem. The problem is too many interests groups with their wishes and desires. As we have seen on this post, some say 5, some say 10, some say 7 or 8, and all have their own reasons (fish only a few times a year, want more quality fish, want more trophy fish, etc). Personally I think all wildlife and fisheries should be managed for the benefit of the species and leave the politics out of it. Unfortunately, this is almost impossible.


----------



## FTAC03

The Last Mango said:


> Not bashing guides or anyone else, as a commercial fishermen most of my life, I personnally have only seen the the fisheries get better, or stay at a staus quo. Is there more or less trout, reds etc. in our bay systems now than say back in the 50's, 60's or any other era? The only stastical measure is creel surveys and net surveys done by TP&W. Is the info flawed, maybe not but what about how the info is gathered and interpulated? A computer for example generates for the "models" where and when the nets get set. Repeatedly over time this info is gathered for that location. The computer does NOT take into account eco-changes in the bay system etc. that might have effected the outcome of the survey. What about the creel surveys done at the dock? Q's for the fishermen that has been on the water, did the fishermen give accurate data? Lied one way or another?
> 
> I cannot think of a better way at this point to account for a population of a wild species short of "draining" the bays' and physically accounting for the dead fish laying on the bottom. Heck, a county can't even get a population count on people correctly living in a given area. How are we, you, or anybody else gonna keep tabs on a live swimming species of fish. FISH move, the last time I checke they had fins and tails. The commercial seafood biz. is a little different, yes some of the info is flawed at times, but this is not the norm. X- amount of boats fishing and offloading ex- amount of product reported via-computer, or maunually thru paper reports.
> 
> Limits are merely like traffic laws, they are only guide lines to go by. Run a stop sign, get a ticket. Do I keep my limit, sometimes, do I always catch my limit ,NO. If a game law is implemented by the state, then it's each individuals right as a Texan to choose whether or not he or she keeps their limit.
> 
> I personally do not care how, where or what method a person usues to fish. I throw artificials when I want. I use live shrimp at times, cut mullet. crab etc.. My pleasure is being on the water, catching is a bonus.
> 
> So if the limit goes to 5, jumps to 20, makes know difference to me. I will still fish, because the greatest pleasure is not the catching, but the chase.
> 
> sure is a pretty day, what the heckkkk am I doing inside?


Let me just say that I appreciate the fact that you took the time to write a logical and well thought out reply. I can respect your opinion and will respectfully agree to disagree.

You are correct that TPWD is not perfect and there are some aspects of their data that are currently inexplicable other than a logical estimation. For example, TPWD data doesn't show a substantial increase in size or population in the LLM despite the anecdotal evidence from fishery participants to the contrary. As I have stated in prior posts TPWD never proposed any changes in regulations regarding the trout fishery. They asked the participants what we wanted to do. They told us that a reduction in harvest would most likely lead to an improvement in the fishery. I advocate change in the fishery for the following reasons.

1. Current data indicates that trout populations are signifigantly lower than they were 20 years ago. Antecdotal evidence by fishermen seems to confirm this data.

2. Parks and wildlife has done a fantastic job in managing our fisheries. I have yet to see an example of where they went the wrong way regarding regulations. Even to the extent of the elusive American Red Snapper. (TPWD thumbed their nose at the feds, and continues to keep the state limit at 4 with no closed season) They have also signifigantly improved the flounder, redfish, and snook fishery through scientific data collection and corresponding harvest regulations.

So when the state says we could potentially improve our trout fishery through a reduction in harvest. I ask everyone why wouldn't you want to do the best you can for our resource? Doing the right thing for the resource benefits everyone, except for the folks that feel entitled to entitled to 10 trout. If the fishery could sustain it I would be in favor of a 20 trout limit or more.

One cannot truly become a fisherman, until he becomes an advocate for the fish.


----------



## reeltimer

1. Current data indicates that trout populations are signifigantly lower than they were 20 years ago. Antecdotal evidence by fishermen seems to confirm this data.

For us mental midgets post a factual link pleez!

So when the state says we could potentially improve our trout fishery through a reduction in harvest.

If the state said give me your guns and money are you gonna hand them over with a smile?


----------



## FTAC03

If the weatherman says a hurricane is coming straight for your community. Are you gonna stand around and argue with his science? I think I'd go home and board up my house. Just saying'! 

Obviously some of y'all will never buy into what we're selling and that's ok I'm not mad at ya. Hell I respect the fact that you voted on this poll and cared enough to voice your opinion 50k views and and less 900 people cared enough to voice their opinion. I feel like I am repeating myself in these posts so I am going to excuse myself from the conversation. The links to the data i referenced have been posted on here before but I'll dig them up and repost the links. See y'all on the water.

FWIW - I'm with you on the guns and money argument. Agree 100%! But I don't think that analogy is applicable in regards to this discussion.


----------



## El Capitan de No Fish

Oh squiggly line in my eye fluid. I see you lurking there on the peripheral of my vision.
But when I try to look at you, you scurry away. 
Are you shy, squiggly line? 
Why only when I ignore you, do you return to the center of my eye? 
oh, squiggly line, it's alright, you are forgiven.


----------



## JWS.HOOKEM

*Trout Limit*

Raise the limit to 25. 10 MM Cajuns cant be all wrong!


----------



## Texas Javelina

First, let me say that I am for letting TPWD dictate limits and not special interest groups and I voted to keep the limit at 10 until such time they feel a change is needed. I have seen many people point to anecdotal evidence from fisherman that it is much harder to catch fish now than before and that the size of trout has diminished. Several reasons are given for this including many more fishermen on the water and the change in technology we have seen over the last 20 years in equipment including shallow water boats, gps, rods, reels, etc. Let me say that I believe these fishermen are 100% correct in their assessment, but I do not believe this evidence points to less fish. I know many fishermen who catch less fish than they did 20 or more years ago in areas they would normally fish. I believe that because of the increase of fisherman on the water and technology mentioned above, fish patterns have changed. 

A quick example, I grew up in the Baffin area and we would put in and run down the channel to the black bluff area quite often. We would leave the channel and idle quietly up to the bank making sure we didn’t hit any rocks. We would then get out and wade fish the entire morning starting at the bank and working our way out and would normally do very well. Beginning in the early 90’s, shallow running boats began running the shoreline. Our catch rate began to diminish immediately. We became aware that we were going to have to change our patterns due to all of the boat traffic. This included trying to find areas without as much traffic and becoming much more patient when fishing. We have continued this pattern and been very successful. I was able to fish for trout with a friend one time this year in late March. We fished for about three hours south of the JFK and after moving a few times to avoid the traffic, we found an area that we liked and quietly landed 16 keepers including a 30 ½ and a 27 all out of the boat. 

I cannot tell you how frustrating it is for me to sit in Redfish bay on a weekend with my kids having boats do donuts around us after just leaving a spot they spent 20 minutes fishing and not getting a bite. I assure you that they would tell you that fishing for them was much better 20 years ago and I would agree with them 100% Let’s see what TPWD recommends based on their surveys.


----------



## williamcr

patwilson said:


> IMO keep 5...


I am with you buddy.

But in my life I have kept a lot of trout and I want everyone that fishes to have fun and have some fish in their box.


----------

