# Trouble in the Sportsmans Paradise?



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

http://www.nola.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2014/07/louisiana_guides_take_our_insh.html

For the "Well Louisiana does it like this and they don't have any problems" crowd. I've been hearing about how fishing has been way off lately over there from several folks but I guess it's now getting brought up with regulators. Several interesting points brought up in the article, one interesting one that caught my eye was 721 saltwater guides for the whole state most of which are only part timers. Makes it even funnier when folks try to compare the Tx and La fisheries, hell there's way more than that just in the middle coast of Tx during the summer months. I doubt taking the guides limit is going to give them much bang for their buck given the numbers, sure is going to be interesting to see how things go down if and when they propose a limit reduction in SE Louisiana.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

Maybe they have finally realized that overfishing a resource eventually takes a toll.


----------



## El General (Jun 18, 2007)

They weren't overfishing when the regs went in place, but with the marsh disappearing at an alarming rate . . .


----------



## T. Rep (May 24, 2009)

Kudos to the guides for taking this step. Just because you can catch a limit doesnt mean you should keep a limit.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

T. Rep said:


> Kudos to the guides for taking this step. *Just because you can catch a limit doesnt mean you should keep a limit.*


But if you want to keep your limit, you shouldn't have some "Jr. Game Warden" telling you any different. As long as someone is following the fish & game laws...."Jr. Game Wardens" need to mind their own farking business.


----------



## peelin' drag (Oct 21, 2005)

AMEN!


Bocephus said:


> But if you want to keep your limit, you shouldn't have some "Jr. Game Warden" telling you any different. As long as someone is following the fish & game laws...."Jr. Game Wardens" need to mind their own farking business.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Bocephus said:


> But if you want to keep your limit, you shouldn't have some "Jr. Game Warden" telling you any different. As long as someone is following the fish & game laws...."Jr. Game Wardens" need to mind their own farking business.


If people feel that way they are entitled to their opinion. People that have a conscience about killing more fish than necessary just may be the people that make a difference one day. That does not make a person a Jr, Game Warden, it means we give a **** about the sport and not about a pile of fillets. TPWD may not know what is good for the resource so why do you think some guides here in Texas have an incentive program where they give a discount on CPR trips? How about the guides that do not allow clients to kill fish over a certain size? Are they Jr. wardens too? If congress made murder legal here in Texas would you be wrong to think it is not right just because it is legal? If people don't start taking some things into their own hands there is no hope for the inshore fishery. It may just be a matter of opinion but pictures of a bunch of 24" dead trout and some over 25" piled up on the deck of a boat or a dock gets old after a while. The yuppies that pay a guide to go kill a bunch of trout don't give a **** one way or the other because they may only fish a couple of days a year and just may not know any better. But it's legal and that is all that matters right?
Good for those guides for stepping back and looking at the big picture.

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## big3slayer (Jun 29, 2008)

kill em all jack never stopped people in 40's through the early parts of 2000


----------



## T. Rep (May 24, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> If people feel that way they are entitled to their opinion. People that have a conscience about killing more fish than necessary just may be the people that make a difference one day. That does not make a person a Jr, Game Warden, it means we give a **** about the sport and not about a pile of fillets. TPWD may not know what is good for the resource so why do you think some guides here in Texas have an incentive program where they give a discount on CPR trips? How about the guides that do not allow clients to kill fish over a certain size? Are they Jr. wardens too? If congress made murder legal here in Texas would you be wrong to think it is not right just because it is legal? If people don't start taking some things into their own hands there is no hope for the inshore fishery. It may just be a matter of opinion but pictures of a bunch of 24" dead trout and some over 25" piled up on the deck of a boat or a dock gets old after a while. The yuppies that pay a guide to go kill a bunch of trout don't give a **** one way or the other because they may only fish a couple of days a year and just may not know any better. But it's legal and that is all that matters right?
> Good for those guides for stepping back and looking at the big picture.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


My thoughts exactly. Just didnt feel like typing all of that!


----------



## Lagunabob (May 19, 2005)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> If people feel that way they are entitled to their opinion. People that have a conscience about killing more fish than necessary just may be the people that make a difference one day. That does not make a person a Jr, Game Warden, it means we give a **** about the sport and not about a pile of fillets. TPWD may not know what is good for the resource so why do you think some guides here in Texas have an incentive program where they give a discount on CPR trips? How about the guides that do not allow clients to kill fish over a certain size? Are they Jr. wardens too? If congress made murder legal here in Texas would you be wrong to think it is not right just because it is legal? If people don't start taking some things into their own hands there is no hope for the inshore fishery. It may just be a matter of opinion but pictures of a bunch of 24" dead trout and some over 25" piled up on the deck of a boat or a dock gets old after a while. The yuppies that pay a guide to go kill a bunch of trout don't give a **** one way or the other because they may only fish a couple of days a year and just may not know any better. But it's legal and that is all that matters right?
> Good for those guides for stepping back and looking at the big picture.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


You seem to harp on "yuppies" quite a bit. The dumb ******** are the ones soaking croaker with or without guides just to kill as many trout as possible so they can post a pic on the internet looking as tough as they did in their high school football photo.

Even more pathetic are the guides soaking croaker themselves to fill their clients limits so they can advertise stringers full of dead trout in the fishing reports section.

Too bad our great state is populated with some of the dumbest, most selfish individuals in the country.


----------



## TheSamarai (Jan 20, 2005)

if guides dont keep their limit then will they reduce there rates since they dont have to work as hard to get the extra 25?


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> You seem to harp on "yuppies" quite a bit.


As it should be...yuppies need to be harped about.



TH


----------



## ddakota (Jun 28, 2009)

LA is the same as any other coastal state. Increased pressure + habitat depletion = resource reduction. The primary difference was their starting point was higher due to vastly superior habitat creating larger resouce. What they are seeing is an accumulation of these factors. 

Habitat destruction leads to temporary population booms as the influx of nutrients increases. Once the temporary influx increase is gone, populations crash due to nutrients reduction because there is no more habitat to provide nutrients. Read it - its in the science journals. LFW has been predicting this for years. 

Its not just the SE part of the state, its coastwide. Despite the photo piles you see, even Calcasieu is showing signs of stress, compared to the past. LFW surveys being done at Calcasieu Point. Ancedotal reports are catches are down significantly this year. 

Kudos to those stepping up in the Sportsman Paradise to address the issue.

.........and nothing brings a smile to my face more than seeing a yuppie in his high dollar skinny running go fast boat stuck in the mouth of Charlies Cut into Esprito Santos because he aint got the sense God gave a goose.


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

I mentioned SE because they already changed limits on Big Lake not too long ago although the status quo crowd seems to forget that in their post, I've heard the Hackberry guides have been trailering to Sabine just about every day due to the slow conditions in their own backyard.


----------



## Wading Wonder (Apr 18, 2010)

troutphishin said:


> You seem to harp on "yuppies" quite a bit. The dumb ******** are the ones soaking croaker with or without guides just to kill as many trout as possible so they can post a pic on the internet looking as tough as they did in their high school football photo.
> 
> Even more pathetic are the guides soaking croaker themselves to fill their clients limits so they can advertise stringers full of dead trout in the fishing reports section.
> 
> Too bad our great state is populated with some of the dumbest, most selfish individuals in the country.


So you're saying I'm a dumb ******* because I like to throw croakers? Way to be mature about it. Apparently you have no clue who or why people use a certain bait. To group everyone that uses croakers in the same boat is childish. As you can tell I chunk croakers, but how many pics have you seen that I have posted trying to brag on how many fish I caught lately? (BTW, I limited out Saturday and you have seen no pics) Now if you don't want someone, lets say me, to use croakers, all you have to do is pay my boat payment and gas. Then ill use whatever you would like me to use. Do we have a deal? I thought not.


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

Just goes to show that despite the fact that most of us hate legislation, we aren't capable as a society to responsibly manage our own eco-system.


----------



## BobWhite (Oct 23, 2012)

I dont get to fish much.. but I fish to eat and I will soak a croak to put some food on the table. Guieds are the problem regardless of Artifical, croaker, shrimp or what ever you decide to use. Limmint after limmint they bring in weekly, hell ill be lucky to limmint when I do go im just an average ole joe so in my opinion its not the guy that uses croaker once a month that is "killing the population". Between what a guide brings to the cleaning table and what I catch using croaker once in a blue moon are 2 Drastict diffrent numbers. I just like to drink cold beer and be on the water.:brew:!


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

Ok, let's please not turn this into another croaker thread. Let's get back on topic.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

I think the Louisiana guys are seeing what has happened on the Texas middle and lower coast are trying to be a little proactive before it gets to that level. Good for them. Fishing and Hunting is a huge part of what Louisiana is all about and they want to protect that. They've lost a lot of habitat in the last two decades and I'm sure it is affecting the fishery. 
I think the days of filling ice chests full of fillets are winding down, nothing wrong with keeping a couple for dinner, but these fisheries can't hold up to the pressure. I agree with Rugger, it is sad that something we all hold so dear has to have legislation step in, something we don't want, to help correct the problem. A few dumbasses and screw up a good thing for everyone.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

With a 25 fish limit, do you really need the guides fish too? Been fishing in La many times. They have the greatest fishery of 12 inch trout in the world. Its a shame they don't do more with what they got.


----------



## SeaY'all (Jul 14, 2011)

troutphishin said:


> You seem to harp on "yuppies" quite a bit. The dumb ******** are the ones soaking croaker with or without guides just to kill as many trout as possible so they can post a pic on the internet looking as tough as they did in their high school football photo.
> 
> Even more pathetic are the guides soaking croaker themselves to fill their clients limits so they can advertise stringers full of dead trout in the fishing reports section.
> 
> Too bad our great state is populated with some of the dumbest, most selfish individuals in the country.


You must be a Yuppie.... If you dont like Texas, and you feel that we are the dumbest individuals you have met, Move out of here.


----------



## EdK (Jun 20, 2012)

Someone brings up a point of interest and it degenerates into absolute silliness and verbal attacks having nothing to do with the original point put forth. Folks share an opinion and get attacked for it. Really bizarre behavior. Some might say its a tad un-american. As if points made here are a threat...still, it is amusing. And by the way, them yankees anint leavin either..


----------



## barronj (Sep 30, 2013)

25 fish limit, minimum 12"? No wonder they're having problems.

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/fishing/regulations
*12â€ minimum total length. 25 fish per person daily bag limit. Except: 15 fish daily take and possession limit, with no more than two spotted seatrout exceeding 25â€ total length, regardless of where taken, in a defined area of Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes in southwestern Louisiana.


----------



## txdukklr (Jun 30, 2013)

blows my mind that folks can't have a conversation without personal attacks. Too many tough guys behind keyboards on 2cool. It's too bad lots of folks like me that enjoy the information, learning opportunities and camaraderie when it can be had.

one thing i'll say . . . .if clients take the fish its because they want to eat them. Not because they simply want to kill the fish.


----------



## Jared (Jun 18, 2007)

If i am lucky I get to fish the coast three times a year. I keep what i legally can, and us it sparingly. I guess if you saw me at the cleaning table you would think I was selfish too.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

txdukklr said:


> blows my mind that folks can't have a conversation without personal attacks. Too many tough guys behind keyboards on 2cool. It's too bad lots of folks like me that enjoy the information, learning opportunities and camaraderie when it can be had.
> 
> one thing i'll say . . . .*if clients take the fish its because they want to eat them. Not because they simply want to kill the fish.*


Yep...imagine that, people keeping a legal limit because they want to eat them. :cheers:



Jared said:


> If i am lucky I get to fish the coast three times a year. I keep what i legally can, and us it sparingly. I guess if you saw me at the cleaning table you would think I was selfish too.


No, I'd think you had a good day fishing, and I would congratulate you.


----------



## barronj (Sep 30, 2013)

Jared said:


> If i am lucky I get to fish the coast three times a year. I keep what i legally can, and us it sparingly. I guess if you saw me at the cleaning table you would think I was selfish too.


I would think you were darn good or very lucky.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Keeping fish of any species (within the law) is a personal choice for every angler to make.

But having said that; I would like to say three more things:

-The supply is not endless and if you really don't need them for personal use then let them swim away.

-Having been a fishing guide for ten years; you'd be amazed how many people wanted their fish when we were into them, and then tried to give them to me at the cleaning table.

-Personally, the greatest joy I find in fishing is catching. I'd rather catch twenty or thirty and keep a few than the way it is right now on the middle coast. Two or three trout (sadly) is becoming a fairly decent day.


----------



## Chuckybrown (Jan 20, 2012)

txdukklr said:


> blows my mind that folks can't have a conversation without personal attacks. Too many tough guys behind keyboards on 2cool.


*preach on brother, preach on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Keeping fish of any species (within the law) is a personal choice for every angler to make.
> 
> But having said that; I would like to say three more things:
> 
> ...


Exactly what some of us are trying to convey. Thanks EJ.

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

X2 on EJ's post


----------



## reeltimer (Feb 5, 2010)

troutphishin said:


> You seem to harp on "yuppies" quite a bit. The dumb ******** are the ones soaking croaker with or without guides just to kill as many trout as possible so they can post a pic on the internet looking as tough as they did in their high school football photo.
> 
> Even more pathetic are the guides soaking croaker themselves to fill their clients limits so they can advertise stringers full of dead trout in the fishing reports section.
> 
> Too bad our great state is populated with some of the dumbest, most selfish individuals in the country.


You are the reason my ancestors came here before it was a state.im not leaving so pack your bags,bagels,berkenstocks and bad intention against ******** and head for Ohio.you know you might be a *******...now back on topic of lets keep all the fish and build homes in da marsh.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

It's been my experience that increased regulation does not necessarily equal increased fish...

I would even venture to say that those preaching for more and more regulation don't benefit one iota from the regulation they support.

I go golfing about 3 times a year and I freely admit that I suck. The only difference is I don't ask the marshal for rule changes to "improve my game"


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

Its Catchy said:


> It's been my experience that increased regulation does not necessarily equal increased fish...


Look what it did for the flounder and redfish.


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

Its Catchy said:


> It's been my experience that increased regulation does not necessarily equal increased fish...
> 
> I would even venture to say that those preaching for more and more regulation don't benefit one iota from the regulation they support.
> 
> I go golfing about 3 times a year and I freely admit that I suck. The only difference is I don't ask the marshal for rule changes to "improve my game"


So half the people are saying that since they only fish 3 times a year, the limits should not be changed so that they can take full advantage of their trips. The other half are saying that the people that only fish 3 times a year are jealous that they can't a full limit because they suck at fishing. Which is it?

Your golf comparison is apples and oranges. Game regulations do, in fact, have direct correlation to population. If you haven't (not assuming you haven't...), take a trip up to wyoming or British Columbia where there regulations are very strict and the actual fish resources much lower. You will see a HUGE difference between us and them; not only in populations but also in mentality. We have to get over the "everyone who supports legislation is just jealous" line, because, while some people may get jealous, that argument holds little to no water. If I'm fishing 3 days a year, I don't give a #%# how much I suck at fishing - just like if I golf 3 times a year, I don't care if I suck.

I think those preaching legislation changes aren't people who are jealous of not being able to catch fish, but rather people who care about our future (and current) fish and game populations and want to see Texas (and Louisiana for this thread) remain outdoor-friendly states. Not like most of us would care anyways, but many, much more conservation-friendly states would laugh at the "sportsmen" in this state who not only continue to think that populations are an endless resource, but who also routinely destroy their habitat in the process of trying to catching fish.

my 0.02


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Netboy, I have been fishing a long time. And if we added regulation every time somebody uttered the words:

"I've been hearing about how fishing has been way off lately over there from several folks"

We would not be allowed to keep anything. Fish populations are and will never be in some constant state of utopia.


----------



## big3slayer (Jun 29, 2008)

Ive had an outstanding winter this past winter in lousiana too many redfish and 14 inch trout... but hell the only thing ive noticed is the population in tripletail shoot down my buddy has been fishing triple tail for his whole life and he said last summer and this summer have been the worst years hes ever experienced


----------



## big3slayer (Jun 29, 2008)

seems like capt brandon can find the trout


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

When you catch a 15 inch trout in La its a "nice one". The vast majority that I have caught on guided trips in La are barely over 12". I am suprised the general fishing population havent pushed for regulation that would allow their fish to grow to maturity.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

rugger,

Comparing the the narrow creeks, rivers and lakes of Wyoming (which I have fished) with that of the Louisiana delta is comparing apples to oranges. All of the water in Wyoming would not fill two bayous in LA. 

Fish populations are most certainly a limited resource. However I don't think managing them by public opinion and "coffee shop" sentiment is a wise choice.

It's why we hire and train biologists.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

Its Catchy said:


> Netboy, I have been fishing a long time. And if we added regulation every time somebody uttered the words:
> 
> "I've been hearing about how fishing has been way off lately over there from several folks"
> 
> We would not be allowed to keep anything. Fish populations are and will never be in some constant state of utopia.


I don't think anybody that fishes on a regular basis can say that the new regs have not helped the flounder fishery. If so, then let's hear about it.


----------



## big3slayer (Jun 29, 2008)

nobody left us any buffalo


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Its Catchy said:


> It's been my experience that increased regulation does not necessarily equal increased fish...
> 
> I would even venture to say that those preaching for more and more regulation don't benefit one iota from the regulation they support.
> 
> I go golfing about 3 times a year and I freely admit that I suck. The only difference is I don't ask the marshal for rule changes to "improve my game"


I don't care if you have been fishing for a hundred years, your view makes absolutely zero sense. What you are saying is taking fewer egg laying females out of the water and fewer trout all together will not benefit the population? That is ignorant. You really believe that the population on trout has grown exponentially along with the number of people fishing for them? Dream on Cletus. I am no biologist but just because a biologist went to college doesn't mean they know their arse from a hole in the ground. Look at our president, he may be president but he sucks *** and no one really understands why we allow him to continue. Where I am going with this is just because a law says it is OK doesn't make it so. 
I don't give a **** if it is a pile of fish caught on plastic, shrimp, croaker or jalapenos on a treble hook, those fish are out of the picture are not laying any more eggs or getting any bigger. Like I have stated before and others support, more people on the water taking the same limits of fish out of the water equals fewer fish in the water. Then the point argued is "just because more people are on the water does not mean they are catching and keeping more fish, most of them couldn't catch a limit if you held a gun to their head." This may be true if they were not aided by guides and put on fish. Even so, with the sheer numbers of people out there dragging a few trout home and accidentally catching a 28" sow and killing it because they think they may never get to touch one again, more fish are still taken no matter what anyone says. Then we are presented with the argument that it isn't fishermen causing the lack of trout, it is loss of habitat and lack of freshwater. Well ****, I guess if the populations are hurting we should keep on keeping the same slot and bag limits JUST BECAUSE WE ARE SO SELFISH THAT WE THINK ONCE A LIMIT OS SET IT WILL NEVER BE RAISED AGAIN. Well I hate to break it to yall but if thats what it takes to get the fish back I guess it makes sense huh? Would you guys rather continue bagging limits and killing breeder trout with good genetics and scrounge for them a few years from now or would you want to accept the reality that maybe limits should be lowered and the maximum slot lowered as well so we get back what has already been hurting before it is too late? Oh, that's right, the populations are not hurting at all, they are just dandy and fishing has been as good as it has been in years right? Keep teling yourselves that. Once again the meat haulers cry about people like me are just after a trophy trout population. Well hell yeah! Why wouldn't you want to help quality AND quantity? Would you stringer shot junkies rather catch dinks all day or actually put your hands on some real fish? 
Look at largemouth bass populations. Why do you think any fat boy with a spinnerbait can go to **** near any freshwater body of water, sit on his *** and catch bass fairly consistently even without really knowing what he is doing? It is simple, catch and release of LMB is very popular and even though you can go to any given lake and there are bass fishermen everywhere the fish are still there and people are still catching them. How many fishing shows have you seen where the guys are filling up ice chests with bass? How many bass tournaments are live weight in only? I have never seen a guy on Bassmasters holding up a dead 8-10 pound bass at weigh in! If it has happened it was not very many times. You can say comparing largemouth bass and trout are comparing apples to oranges (closer than trout numbers to golf skills) but the reality of it is, common sense tells some of us that once you kill a fish it can't get any bigger or lay any eggs can it? How do you think a 32" trout gets to be 32"? Sure as hell not by being caught, photographed then chunked in an ice chest to fillet when it is 24". That fish has probably been caught once, if not a few times by someone that practices CPR. For you meat haulers that stands for Catch, Photo, Release. 
Oh, and in golf you can keep shanking, hooking and slicing balls but you can always go back to the ol' golf bag or clubhouse and buy more, trout have to grow and they don't get to trophy size and numbers overnight. 
Rant over, back to work!

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## Law Dog (Jul 27, 2010)

No wonder they're having problems.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

smackdaddy,

Lower limits do not necessarily equate to more fish. Salinity, disease, predation and natural cycles will always play a much bigger role than recreational harvest. 

How about you let the biologists do their jobs and let them manage the fish stocks. I'm guessing they have a better take on it than you do.


----------



## bragwell (Apr 15, 2010)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> If people feel that way they are entitled to their opinion. People that have a conscience about killing more fish than necessary just may be the people that make a difference one day. That does not make a person a Jr, Game Warden, it means we give a **** about the sport and not about a pile of fillets. TPWD may not know what is good for the resource so why do you think some guides here in Texas have an incentive program where they give a discount on CPR trips? How about the guides that do not allow clients to kill fish over a certain size? Are they Jr. wardens too? If congress made murder legal here in Texas would you be wrong to think it is not right just because it is legal? If people don't start taking some things into their own hands there is no hope for the inshore fishery. It may just be a matter of opinion but pictures of a bunch of 24" dead trout and some over 25" piled up on the deck of a boat or a dock gets old after a while. The yuppies that pay a guide to go kill a bunch of trout don't give a **** one way or the other because they may only fish a couple of days a year and just may not know any better. But it's legal and that is all that matters right?
> Good for those guides for stepping back and looking at the big picture.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


Well said.


----------



## double play (Jun 9, 2010)

I agree with "Smackdaddy" and "It's Catchy". Too many people taking too many fish. But, lowering limits doesn't mean things will bet better either. Look at the LLM. The fishing has been relatively poor down there going on two consecutive years.


----------



## LA Wader (Oct 22, 2013)

I was just scanning through all these posts and saw a couple pertaining to Calcasieu/Sabine and limit changes. I have spent more days over the last 20 years fishing in Big Lake. The last 10 years I have been a part time guide on the lake. I can tell you that things have changed. We pushed for a 15 fish limit years ago because we could see the writing on the wall. I really don't see where it helped us catch any more fish. Before the limit change we caught piles of fish. What I considered a bad day 10 years ago would be a good/great day now. Don't get me wrong, there are still fish to be caught (obviously due to photos), but its not a walk in the park like it was years ago. There has been rumor to change our limits again. i think that is a band-aid to the problem. I think that the ecosystem has been damaged by all the erosion, destruction to the oyster reefs, lack of water flow through the weirs, and fishing pressure. I just don't think limit changes will fix our problem. I could go on and on. I am no expert, just a guy that loves to fish. I just hope my kids can see some of the things I have seen.

Capt. Steve Stroderd


----------



## fishingtwo (Feb 23, 2009)

No one can predict what the future holds..but the reduction is certain. Two many croaker soakers and the such..sad
But everyone has a right to fish and keep what is allowable by law...always a fact..
\
It is just a reasonable conscience that will allow the populations to sustain.
In any of the gulf states mainly texas and Louisiana the numbers will continue to decline without limits....just my 2cents


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Double play
Do you think trout grow to 15" in two years? You can't expect results this soon after a limit drop.

LA Wader
I do not doubt this a bit but why keep taking the same amount of fish? That is definitely not helping the population right? I don't understand where my reasoning is wrong. If the habitat/ecosystem is playing hell on numbers why throw salt on the wound?

Fishingtwo
Why is it always croaker soakers? You can release a trout caught on a circle hook usually in better shape than one that is hooked in the throat with a jig or has two or three treble hooks from a plug in its eyes and gills. It is the friggin people on the end of the rod bro!

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## LA Wader (Oct 22, 2013)

Hey Smack, I agree with what you say. When we were pushing to have the limits changed in Big Lake ( both creel and upper size limit), we were hoping for a trophy lake. She still gives up some brutes, but not like she use to. PM me sometime and we can talk about some of these issues.


----------



## Mr. Saltwater (Oct 5, 2012)

I'm old enough to remember the days of beach seines and all the fish markets and grocery stores well stocked with commercially caught big sow trout on ice. I don't think the recreational harvest now even comes close to what was taken out of the water in those days.

The only thing that has remained constant since then is the continual destruction of habitat. Lower limits and stocking programs may have bought us a few more years but unless we address the actual cause of the problem the decline in the fishery will continue. 

Just my opinion.


----------



## double play (Jun 9, 2010)

Smack - wasn't disagreeing with you and I don't know the answer to your question. I am all FOR lowering the limit, makes total sense. A lot more sense than making Croaker a gamefish. My point was that 5 may not be low enough. I could see it going to 2 or 3 at some point. Mansfield is a good example of what I'm talking about. Yes, lowering the limit to 5 worked wonders for a while. But the last two years have yielded relatively poor fishing compared to the years prior. Not crying about it, I spend most of my time in Baffin which has its own issues.


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

Its Catchy said:


> Fish populations are most certainly a limited resource. However I don't think managing them by public opinion and "coffee shop" sentiment is a wise choice.
> 
> It's why we hire and train biologists.


Absolutely agree, but did you see the reaction when the middle coast limit was changed to 5 trout? These were biologists making the call, the fishing world still went up in arms.

I agree on your statement regarding the differences in size between WY and TX, I was only making a statement that despite their limited resource, they have been able to sustain a fishery that rivals almost any in the world. here in Texas and Texas we are blessed with a much larger fishery, yet we are having difficulty keeping populations healthy. All I'm saying is we can learn a thing or two from their idea of conservation.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

rugger said:


> Absolutely agree, but did you see the reaction when the middle coast limit was changed to 5 trout? These were biologists making the call, the fishing world still went up in arms.
> 
> I agree on your statement regarding the differences in size between WY and TX, I was only making a statement that despite their limited resource, they have been able to sustain a fishery that rivals almost any in the world. here in Texas and Texas we are blessed with a much larger fishery, yet we are having difficulty keeping populations healthy. All I'm saying is we can learn a thing or two from their idea of conservation.


Rugger,

Our fisheries management needs to be based on biological data not public sentiment/politics. I have no problem with TPWD pressing for needed regs. There are people who fish for sport but still enjoy eating what they catch. There are "catch and release" folks and there are trophy trout hunters all wanting their own "taylor made" regulation.

I prefer hiring "experts" in fisheries management and let them do their jobs.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Its Catchy said:


> Rugger,
> 
> Our fisheries management needs to be based on biological data not public sentiment/politics. I have no problem with TPWD pressing for needed regs. There are people who fish for sport but still enjoy eating what they catch. There are "catch and release" folks and there are trophy trout hunters all wanting their own "taylor made" regulation.
> 
> I prefer hiring "experts" in fisheries management and let them do their jobs.


What is so bad about wanting a god healthy population of nice fat trout? Do you enjoy catching dinks all day?

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

Its Catchy said:


> Rugger,
> 
> Our fisheries management needs to be based on biological data not public sentiment/politics. I have no problem with TPWD pressing for needed regs. There are people who fish for sport but still enjoy eating what they catch. There are "catch and release" folks and there are trophy trout hunters all wanting their own "taylor made" regulation.
> 
> I prefer hiring "experts" in fisheries management and let them do their jobs.


Coastal Fisheries Managers proposed the changes to the trout limit to the full commission who then voted based on those recommendations to change things on the middle coast. Coastal Fisheries presented the science in Austin at that meeting to back up their reasoning, the notion the decision was not based on science is 100% false. Feel free to listen to a archive of the meeting online if you doubt what I'm saying.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Smackdaddy,

I have no problem catching "nice fat trout".

I've caught "nice fat trout" in the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, 2000's and 2010's.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

I'm headed south,

I was at the meeting in Dickinson where outreach specialists clearly stated that our trout populations on the middle coast were "healthy". Yet they changed the rule anyway.


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

I listened to the audio of the commission meeting live while it was taking place and the science issue was brought up more than once and ever time Coastal Fisheries refuted the idea their recommendations were not based on scientific data. Have you listened to the meeting?


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Mansfield*



double play said:


> Smack - wasn't disagreeing with you and I don't know the answer to your question. I am all FOR lowering the limit, makes total sense. A lot more sense than making Croaker a gamefish. My point was that 5 may not be low enough. I could see it going to 2 or 3 at some point. Mansfield is a good example of what I'm talking about. Yes, lowering the limit to 5 worked wonders for a while. But the last two years have yielded relatively poor fishing compared to the years prior. Not crying about it, I spend most of my time in Baffin which has its own issues.


Lowering the limits in Mansfield did not make much difference at all. What 
Mansfield saw was the good end of the cycle, the same thing happens up and down the coast. Lowering the limit is a good thing only if it makes you feel better. As was mentioned earlier there were far more trout removed from the bays 20-25 years ago with less people. The are far more important things that effect the fishing than whether you take 5 or 10 fish.


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

gater said:


> As was mentioned earlier there were far more trout removed from the bays 20-25 years ago with less people. The are far more important things that effect the fishing than whether you take 5 or 10 fish.


This has been brought up time and time again, but I just don't buy it. Is there a source for this?

I do agree that fishery management has more to do than just imposing limits, but, to me, it's a critical part of it.


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

Two of the biggest factors in Mansfield's decline is that TPWD screwed up taking a wait and see approach 3 years ago with the trout limits in the middle coast along with the water quality issues in baffin and the ulm in the last 2 1/2 years. Go check out the west shoreline and spoils where the land cut opens up and look at all the pressure from the CC and RP fisherman running down there everyday with their barking monkeys in tow. Doesn't do any good to cut the limit in half if you have 5 or 6 times more fisherman taking from the same area. I realize there are many factors that go into fisheries management but I also know there's no way to make it rain and the powers that be in SA and Austin aren't going to close off growth because they care how much water makes into our estuaries. So what's the answer? Continue to take at the current rate? Remind me how that work out for the Tarpon in Port A?


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

Gater, your way off track bud. The continued fishing pressure on the middle and lower coast is what has decimated quality trout. I cannot believe there are still some people out there that refute this. These are relatively small, shallow bays, they cannot hold up to the kind of pressure they have been receiving in the last few years. I saw it coming 6 years ago. 
Smack, I agree circle hooks are easier to get out than a jig, but the croaker fishing style is almost like worm fishing for bass, they get it down deep and the mortality rate shoots way up. Throw in the fact that it is usually in the hottest months and most trout cannot live through that. Also, throw in the fact that a majority of croaker fisherman are on meat hauls and very few fish are released. While I'm on croakers, I strongly feel this is the item has done the most harm, quality trout taken during spawning months has wrecked the fishery, any responsible guide will tell you this. I use to not get into the croaker debate, but I have seen what it has done to the fishery and am pretty p od' about it.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

> The are far more important things that effect the fishing than whether you take 5 or 10 fish.


Basic math proves you wrong.

If 100 people catch 10 trout each and keep them that's 1000 trout caught and kept.

If 100 people can only catch 5 trout each and keep them that's 500 trout caught and kept.

TH


----------



## Oyster Dog (May 21, 2005)

gater said:


> As was mentioned earlier there were far more trout removed from the bays 20-25 years ago with less people. The are far more important things that effect the fishing than whether you take 5 or 10 fish.


25 years ago was the aftermath of the devastating Christmas 1989 freeze. Very few trout were available for several years afterwards, so how do you figure fewer people removed more fish back then?


----------



## Friendswoodmatt (Feb 22, 2005)

OK I read thru this thread and Gater hit it on the head. This is all a cycle -- It always has been, what has changed is:
Better data -- 
Better electronics, 
more information readily available (videos, TV shows, guides pages, this board and others) ,
better/faster more reliable boats, 
more pressure, more people on the water-- 
so that when the fish are there to be caught, more catch them and more are removed, when we hit a down year in the cycle, then more catch them and more are removed than used to because they are simply easier to find than they were in the old days-- you are not poking around with a cane pole to find the reefs you know where the structure and the currents are or your electronics know where they are. Then, when we finally get the next upswing in the cycle there are less fish than there used to be in the good ole days. 
Couple all of this with some key areas having droughts, and all the boat traffic and viola -- not as many fish-- and the ones there don't bite just anything-- cause they have seen it all-- they may be easier to find, but they are getting harder to catch.
So do smaller limits help-- prob so in some cases, but what would really help is if people didn't measure the trip by the box and only kept what they needed for a meal or 2 and quit trying to big dog it and feed the dang neighborhood every weekend.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Let's take Trouthunter's point a bit further:

I hear often that the modern day rod-n-reel harvest in no way adds up to the commercial gill net take of the 70s. I disagree and here's why.

How many commercial fishermen worked San Antonio, Aransas, the ULM or Baffin back in the day? Did they have nets in the water 24/7/365 or did they take days off, move around to neighboring bays, or layoff entirely until the market came back up?

Just for the sake of discussion, let's say there were ten in each bay and each took 100 trout per day. That would be 1000 trout. 

When our mid-coast fisheries were strong one of my friends flew over SAB and counted 92 boats on reefs and shorelines, fishing croaker from the boats and/or wading with bait buckets. Let's say the average boat carried three fishermen and each fishermen boxed 7 trout. Do the math and they took 1932 trout.

Now I'm not saying that croaker-fishing is the whole problem, in fact, I'm not saying recreational harvest in any style of fishing is the whole problem. But I will say if you have back to back freezes in 2010 and 2011, a mother of a red tide in 2011, if you are in year five of the worst drought in history with nearly zero fresh inflow --- and a continued high rec harvest of trout going on --- you could run out of fish. 

My best trip since January this year has been seven keeper-size trout. My average has been about three. I use lures only and 95% of the time I will be wading. If you run these results against the quality of fishing that encouraged me to move here and make my living as a fishing guide for ten years, you would understand why I enacted a five trout limit on my charters in 2003. Like an Indian scout with his ear to the ground listening to distant hoof beats, I suspected this day was coming a long time ago.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

I will agree EJ that it is a combination of factors that has got us to this point. However, would you not agree that a healthy fish population would be able to endure a freeze like the one in 2010 and 2011 and the drought? Also, if we were back to normal production in 2012, would we not have a good class of 3 yr old (20 inch) trout? There are not near as many 20 inch trout swimming around as there was 4 or five years ago.
A devastating freeze would have wiped them out, no doubt. We did not have that. The drought has been severe, but salinity levels never completely skyrocketed. Red tide will move fish but not eliminate them entirely. 
My point is that I strongly feel that overharvest has been the main source of the problem, and a huge part of the overharvest has come from the explosion of croaker fishing.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

I am glad a couple of people can do math and math makes sense. Trouthunter, friendswoodmatt and EJ get it! 
The one thing about the five trout limit that worries me is if the bag limit is dropped to 5 and the slot is still ending with one trout over 25" what do you think most people will naturally do? Catch 5 small trout and call it a day? Doubt it. I bet they keep fishing and cull fish until they get four trout as close to 25" as they can and if they happen to catch one over 25" there is an even smaller chance they will CPR it out of greed. You know they have to "get their money's worth"...
Would it be wrong to lower the maximum size? I think it makes more sense. Oh, but now the stringer shot fanatics and the piles of dead trout on docks and decks won't look as appealing to their buddies and possible future clients. Me and several buddies believe this is exactly the mindset MOST people will have. 
I guess I am crazy for just taking a few fish home to eat and releasing the rest. When I go on trips I will ask the other guys how hard up they are for fillets and usually a meat haul is not what we are going for. If it is, we dang sure don't kill fish over 25" to fillet unless they are floaters or inevitably will end up crab bait.

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

Smack you really think that is what people would do? Sounds far fetched but who knows. I guess if they were in the star they might cull but I'm sure the rules don't allow that. Not sure though. 
So, the limits 5 these people catch 5. They just keep fishing for a trout thats bigger & cull the smaller ones.
Man if thats the problem we are doomed. 
I would think a true sportsman would pull up the anchor & head for the casa. Man its a crazy world.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

Yeah, I'm hoping we have not got to the point where people would cull trout if they had 5 keepers in the boat.


----------



## DCAVA (Aug 5, 2013)

^^I have never seen anyone doing that down here in the LLM. Unsportsmanlike to say the least. I think everyone is trippin' cause the bite right now is not as it was last year @ this time. Has alot to do with the long arse winter we had like has been mentioned on many threads.

Tougher to catch and take home keepers is a fact right now though.....


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

duckmania said:


> Yeah, I'm hoping we have not got to the point where people would cull trout if they had 5 keepers in the boat.


When I was younger fishing with my dad. I'd see my dad catch a big trout & he always threw them back. We never filleted fish we cooked them whole. I asked my dad I was probably 5 dad why do you keep throwing them back. Dad replied mom won't cook the big ones. I thought hmm smart man. LOL!
My mother cooked them in the oven the whole trout. She would cut slits in the skin sprinkle lowery's, pepper, & garlic then some butter with lemon slices on top. Man the skin was the best part well kinda. LOL.
I think my next trout will be in the oven. Memory's there great.
I sure miss those folks they were down to earth. I was blessed.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Who here remembers the drag seines in the 1970's? Thousands of pounds of trout were caught just about everyday up and down the beach. 

Does anyone remember when gill nets were stretched across all of the inland bays?

Having witnessed this personally nobody will ever and I repeat ever convince me the recreational take now adds up to the commercial take in the 1970's.


----------



## Mr. Saltwater (Oct 5, 2012)

Its Catchy said:


> Who here remembers the drag seines in the 1970's? Thousands of pounds of trout were caught just about everyday up and down the beach.
> 
> Does anyone remember when gill nets were stretched across all of the inland bays?
> 
> Having witnessed this personally nobody will ever and I repeat ever convince me the recreational take now adds up to the commercial take in the 1970's.


I remember the beds of trucks overflowing with trout from the beach seines.


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

So there were trout on the beach front year around in the good old days? How about the wind, did not ever blow back then either? Bet you could fill up a truck bed every week day and a couple of time per Saturday at bird island in that magical time when the barking monkeys hit that prefect size and the trout are moving through the cut. 150 boats x 4 soakers x 10 each = 6000 trout, reckon that would fill up the a bed or two.


----------



## kbp (Aug 6, 2013)

Fished Mansfield last wknd with a well known artificial only guide. We are all in the STAR tournament. There were 2 guys and 2 girls fishing. The way we decided to stay within the rules of tourney was we would each box our first four and then c&r all unless a STAR contender was caught. No culling. Three of us boxed 4 each and one caught no keeper sized trout. We probably caught over 100 f


----------



## kbp (Aug 6, 2013)

Sorry hit wrong button- we caught over 100 fish and ended up with 12 in the box- no STAR contenders. Great time had by all and a little fish fry.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

Somehow I miss on the logic on the netting back in the 70's. Evidently it didn't wipe em out, we had good fishing in the 80's through about 2010. Now we don't have netting and the fishing is tough for trout. Why? I believe from too many people too many fish. 

kbp, I wish there were more fisherman like you and your crew, good job!


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Im Headed South said:


> So there were trout on the beach front year around in the good old days? How about the wind, did not ever blow back then either? Bet you could fill up a truck bed every week day and a couple of time per Saturday at bird island in that magical time when the barking monkeys hit that prefect size and the trout are moving through the cut. 150 boats x 4 soakers x 10 each = 6000 trout, reckon that would fill up the a bed or two.


There were hundreds if not thousands of commercial net fishermen in the 60's and 70's harvesting millions of pounds per year.

Ask some of the old timers who were around Kemah say in 1975 who have witnessed semi-truck load after semi-truck load loaded with trout. I have seen it and the recreational take cannot compare.


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

Only problem this ain't the old days. That was along time ago. Forget the past & live for the future. Everything is different now. The whole gig is to keep em going for the next generation & so forth. Spread the wealth.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

To those of you that say that reduced limits don't have an effect on fish populations, let me ask you this...

1. Do you think that reduced limits on flounder implemented a couple of years ago did not increase the flounder population?

2. Do you think that that the federal water snapper limits (which are extreme and lasting way too long) didn't help the red snapper recovery?

3. Do you think that the redfish limits implemented many years ago didn't help the redfish fishery?


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

Amen!


----------



## Team Burns (May 6, 2008)

Some good disscussion about the topic of the future of Texas. I mainly can go by the eye test and there is no doubt the spec population has taken a hit over the years. Especially watching the trout make their way through the night lights and noticing how the schools have deceased in size year by year. Never understood the big deal of releasing fish if you have plenty of time on the water. No doubt agree with Everett about getting ahead of the issue. Then again, our main way to help is input to TP&W and quietly taking care of the fish that are in front of us.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

netboy said:


> To those of you that say that reduced limits don't have an effect on fish populations, let me ask you this...
> 
> 1. Do you think that reduced limits on flounder implemented a couple of years ago did not increase the flounder population?
> 
> ...


Answers:

1.) No

2.) Yes mainly by limiting commercial catch

3.) Absolutely not. Outlawing gill nets and making redfish gamefish helped the fishery. Recreational fishery impact is small.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Its Catchy said:


> Answers:
> 
> 1.) No
> 
> ...


Wow

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## Salt Water Texan (Oct 1, 2009)

Its Catchy said:


> There were hundreds if not thousands of commercial net fishermen in the 60's and 70's harvesting millions of pounds per year.
> 
> Ask some of the old timers who were around Kemah say in 1975 who have witnessed semi-truck load after semi-truck load loaded with trout. I have seen it and the recreational take cannot compare.


 Do you base your claim of thousands of netters catching millions of pounds of trout per year on any facts or merely on hearsay? If based on facts please provide them. Exactly how old were you in 1975 when you saw this going on?


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Salt Water Texan said:


> Do you base your claim of thousands of netters catching millions of pounds of trout per year on any facts or merely on hearsay? If based on facts please provide them. Exactly how old were you in 1975 when you saw this going on?


It's not hearsay. I was 7 years old in 1975 and my father was a commercial fisherman and ran a wholesale and retail seafood market in Kemah. We caught bought, iced and gutted and gilled hundreds of thousands of pounds over the years. If you have seen what I have seen you would:

A.) Be very, very, sick.

B.) Be very skeptical of what many are now claiming.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

I remember as a teenager back in the 70's you couldn't run down the shorelines in Trinity Bay or you'd run over a gil net. They outlawed gil nets in 80, or 81.


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

I call BS, thousands? I found a state report that put the commercial harvest of speckled trout right at 1.1 million pounds for the entire year in 1977 and 1978. A little math tells 1,100,000 divided into 250 fishing days per year comes out to 4400 pounds per day. So your telling me 1000 commercial guys averaged 4.4 pounds per person a day? :spineyes:


----------



## Mr. Saltwater (Oct 5, 2012)

Salt Water Texan said:


> Do you base your claim of thousands of netters catching millions of pounds of trout per year on any facts or merely on hearsay? If based on facts please provide them. Exactly how old were you in 1975 when you saw this going on?


According to TPWD records, 1.74 million pounds of commercially caught Speckled Trout were reported in 1975. That does dot include all the ones caught by recreational beach seiners that were taken home and sold or given away. Also does not include bycatch of trout that were too small for market or the ones wasted in the catching of 74 million pounds of shrimp.

http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth113814/m1/178/?q=commercial fishing pounds


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)




----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

While looking back through old reports I also found that they estimated that the year was 1976 when recreational catches pulled even with commercial catches then it's grown larger every year since.


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

Fresh water shortage/drought and burgeoning populations are of paramount importance now and in the future for our fisheries to remain vital, IMO.

James Plaag made a statement on the Outdoor Show 2-3weeks ago about the limit reductions down south. He didnt mince words and I believe he called it right... anyone else hear his comments? 

I remember a pic(3-4years?) ago of about 100 tripletails(a pelagic species)some less than a foot long as I recall, unceremoniously dumped on a pier somewhere in La... some of y'all remember I'm sure...
And now, someone posted on this thread about a problem his buddy his having with finding/catching TT now?.. That pic was lambasted on this forum and rightfully so... even though no laws were broken. Everything conspires to damage the resource on a cumulative basis.

Unbroken law does not necessarily constitute ethical behavior...

Thanks for your input EJ.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Im Headed South said:


> I call BS, thousands? I found a state report that put the commercial harvest of speckled trout right at 1.1 million pounds for the entire year in 1977 and 1978. A little math tells 1,100,000 divided into 250 fishing days per year comes out to 4400 pounds per day. So your telling me 1000 commercial guys averaged 4.4 pounds per person a day? :spineyes:


Imheadedsouth,

There were no mandatory reporting requirements in the 1970's. Those numbers are are made up bureaucratic nonsense. Not worth the paper they are written on.

My father paid cash as did all the buyers. No reporting, no computers, no GPS monitoring.

Completely and utterly laughable.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

If you don't believe recreational fishing can hurt fish populations, specifically weak populations, you have your head in the sand.

There is no doubt loss of fresh water and habitat destruction is a greater threat, but why kick them when they are down? Reduced limits sure doesn't hurt the population.


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

I wish some of the texans attitudes regarding limits and what makes a great trip would rub off on some of our population here. It's not the catch but the memories that makes trips memorable IMO. Slowly some of my guide friends are realizing this. Until then we can only hope that more will buy into the thought.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Yep*



Its Catchy said:


> Imheadedsouth,
> 
> There were no mandatory reporting requirements in the 1970's. Those numbers are are made up bureaucratic nonsense. Not worth the paper they are written on.
> 
> ...


Agreed, 1 million pounds in a year, that's a joke! The system if you want to call it that was a guessing game , kinda like the NMFS guessing how many millions of pounds of snapper we caught this year in a 9 day season.


----------



## karstopo (Jun 29, 2009)

I like the idea of managing the population to produce bigger fish. One or two 4 pound or greater fish caught on a trip way beats a slew of 12"-14" ones. I'd still fish if the limit was three fish. Texas seems to be on the right track managing for bigger fish. I know some people here in Texas love to go over to Louisiana to fish so they can get that photo with a bunch of dink trout scattered on the deck. That kind of fishing doesn't get me excited.


----------



## limpline (Sep 15, 2009)

Use what ever bait you want to use and keep just what fish you will eat. When their is a "limit" then that is the goal everyone tries to meet. Years ago when their was no limit, my dad and I would just keep what fish we were going to eat that week. 
Waste not, want not...


----------



## captgrif (May 29, 2007)

My friends and I who have long ago gotten over the need to take a big stringer picture always joke how hungry some people must be. I don't care what you fish with or how many you keep, but the truth is a family of 3-4 only needs 5-6 fish to eat off of. The rest is just excess. But hey, this is America!!


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

captgrif said:


> My friends and I who have long ago gotten over the need to take a big stringer picture always joke how hungry some people must be. I don't care what you fish with or how many you keep, but the truth is a family of 3-4 only needs 5-6 fish to eat off of. The rest is just excess. But hey, this is America!!


 yes, for ONE meal...for those people who hire a guide and only go out once or twice a year, this puts meat in the freezer for the year. Frankly, if it's legal, what OTHER people do is none of my dammed business.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

photofishin said:


> yes, for ONE meal...for those people who hire a guide and only go out once or twice a year, this puts meat in the freezer for the year. Frankly, if it's legal, what OTHER people do is none of my dammed business.


It will be all of our business when there are no more trout to catch.

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## gettinspooled (Jun 26, 2013)

Didn't they already lower the limits 5 up to Sargent? What are yall proposing now? They cut the limit in half. Are yall proposing to further lower the limit or now you want the limit to be 5 and get rid of using croaker for bait?


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

photofishin said:


> yes, for ONE meal...for those people who hire a guide and only go out once or twice a year, this puts meat in the freezer for the year. Frankly, if it's legal, what OTHER people do is none of my dammed business.


I HATE this mentality. None of my business? It's just as much my resource as it is yours!

Some of yall have no problem tearing into people in different areas of society, even though it is none of their business...but when it comes to catching fish, its all "shutup jr game warden i'ts none of your business what I do, it's LEGAL."

I'm not sure when legal became a synonym for ethical but it's getting pretty absurd.

Also, if you're going to the coast twice a year, you clearly don't have to fish to survive. Therefore, who cares if you can't "fill your freezer." That's why we have fish markets and super markets where you can buy fish year round. Just because I only go deer hunting once every other year doesn't give me the right to fill all my freezers with as much deer as I can shoot.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> It will be all of our business when there are no more trout to catch.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


 While I agree with catch and release, SOME have taken it to an extreme and think they can force their views on others. Trout are good to eat and if the fishery is properly maintained by the governing body, there will be plenty to catch. I have fished in Calcasieu. The fishing is ten times better than Galveston, mostly because of fishing pressure. I DON'T believe in wasting fish, but to assume that someone catching their limits in Louisiana is doing damage to the fishery is a stretch. I'll take a fisheries biologist's word ahead of an overzealous catch and release angler any day of the week.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

rugger said:


> I HATE this mentality. None of my business? It's just as much my resource as it is yours!
> 
> Some of yall have no problem tearing into people in different areas of society, even though it is none of their business...but when it comes to catching fish, its all "shutup jr game warden i'ts none of your business what I do, it's LEGAL."
> 
> ...


 Sorry, but if you don't like it...then change the law/fishing regulations. What I do legally...is none of your business...period. Don't like it...there are far less lenient countries to live in.


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

photofishin said:


> What I do legally...is none of your business...period. Don't like it...there are far less lenient countries to live in.


Respectfully disagree. We don't live in a vacuum.


----------



## gettinspooled (Jun 26, 2013)

photofishin said:


> I'll take a fisheries biologist's word ahead of an overzealous catch and release angler any day of the week.


That says it all right there.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

rugger said:


> Respectfully disagree. We don't live in a vacuum.


 *I *also don't vote Democrat...for this very reason.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

I personally like eating fish...I also like catching fish. I don't catch my limit every time I go and I don't fish every weekend. If the limit says 10 trout and I keep 10 trout, then who are YOU to tell me I'm doing something wrong? Who's being the Jr Game Warden?
This discussion reminds me of the purists who think that they've achieved some sort of God status if they catch a 10lb bass with a crankbait and the guy next to them is scum if he catches one on live bait...lighten the **** up and enjoy fishing and quit pretending someone just elected you head of fishing rules.


----------



## rugger (Jul 17, 2009)

photofishin said:


> I personally like eating fish...I also like catching fish. I don't catch my limit every time I go and I don't fish every weekend. If the limit says 10 trout and I keep 10 trout, then who are YOU to tell me I'm doing something wrong? Who's being the Jr Game Warden?
> This discussion reminds me of the purists who think that they've achieved some sort of God status if they catch a 10lb bass with a crankbait and the guy next to them is scum if he catches one on live bait...lighten the **** up and enjoy fishing and quit pretending someone just elected you head of fishing rules.


I get the feeling that you completely missed the point of this thread/my post.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

rugger said:


> I get the feeling that you completely missed the point of this thread/my post.


not at all...the point of this post is that people feel the limits in LA are way too high and that guides keeping fish for their clients is wiping out the fishery in LA. SOME of the comments here are to the extreme, bashing anyone who catches a limit of trout/redfish/flounder in LA and keeps them for consumption. God forbid they actually follow the law.
To me, there are far more pressing issues than to bash the weekend angler who gets lucky and puts a few trout in the freezer. Both the catch and release angler and the fisherman who fishes for enjoyment and keeps his catch is contributing positively towards this sport. If there are scientific proofs that catches are diminishing, I'm sure the Louisiana authorities will change their rules. MANY times changes in catch rates are environmental/seasonal etc and have little to no basis on fishing pressure.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

photofishin said:


> yes, for ONE meal...for those people who hire a guide and only go out once or twice a year, this puts meat in the freezer for the year. Frankly, if it's legal, what OTHER people do is none of my dammed business.





photofishin said:


> While I agree with catch and release, SOME have taken it to an extreme and think they can force their views on others. Trout are good to eat and if the fishery is properly maintained by the governing body, there will be plenty to catch. I have fished in Calcasieu. The fishing is ten times better than Galveston, mostly because of fishing pressure. I DON'T believe in wasting fish, but to assume that someone catching their limits in Louisiana is doing damage to the fishery is a stretch. I'll take a fisheries biologist's word ahead of an overzealous catch and release angler any day of the week.





photofishin said:


> Sorry, but if you don't like it...then change the law/fishing regulations. What I do legally...is none of your business...period. Don't like it...there are far less lenient countries to live in.





photofishin said:


> *I *also don't vote Democrat...for this very reason.





photofishin said:


> I personally like eating fish...I also like catching fish. I don't catch my limit every time I go and I don't fish every weekend. If the limit says 10 trout and I keep 10 trout, then who are YOU to tell me I'm doing something wrong? Who's being the Jr Game Warden?
> This discussion reminds me of the purists who think that they've achieved some sort of God status if they catch a 10lb bass with a crankbait and the guy next to them is scum if he catches one on live bait...lighten the **** up and enjoy fishing and quit pretending someone just elected you head of fishing rules.


You're wasting your time trying to reason with these guys. They learned to catch fish, think they've figured it all out.... and now they are the fishing God's.

Are they tunnel visioned enough to think that EVERY person fishing on the Texas coast on any given day...is catching 10 trout, 3 reds, and 5 flounder EVERY TIME THEY GO FISHING ???

I don't limit out all the time, you don't, and they sure as hell don't !....but they sure as hell want to tell you not to keep 10 if you happen to catch that many every now and then. And to tell me what is ENOUGH to feed me and my family ????....LMAO. I wish one of these guys would walk up to me at the ramp after a trip and tell me I was wrong to keep the 10 legal trout in my ice chest.....

I'm all for conservation, and protecting out resources. I'll do whatever we need to do to insure the fish are there for my kids and grand kids. I'll let the Fish & Game Biologist's determine a path forward and I'll follow it to a T just like I do the regulations now.

But I'm not letting one of these "Jr. Game Warden Nanny's" tell me how many fish is enough to feed my family.....or try to make me feel guilty for keeping a limit of fish on occasion. FARK EM !


----------



## DCAVA (Aug 5, 2013)

^^^lol!!

We all invest money, time and sweat to catch the fish we catch. I love fresh fish, and will be fishing on the weekend TRYING to limit out and catch a CCA contender. 

Jus sayin.....


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Bocephus said:


> You're wasting your time trying to reason with these guys. They learned to catch fish, think they've figured it all out.... and now they are the fishing God's.
> 
> Are they tunnel visioned enough to think that EVERY person fishing on the Texas coast on any given day...is catching 10 trout, 3 reds, and 5 flounder EVERY TIME THEY GO FISHING ???
> 
> ...


Sounds like we need to go wet a line together soon...you're welcome in my boat anytime!


----------



## Jpaulp (Nov 14, 2012)

photofishin said:


> yes, for ONE meal...for those people who hire a guide and only go out once or twice a year, this puts meat in the freezer for the year. Frankly, if it's legal, what OTHER people do is none of my dammed business.


I don't post much but have to agree here. Hypothetically speaking, because I've gone on one guided fishing trip in my life, what is the difference in me going with a guide twice and keeping my 20 trout and someone else who fishes 5 days a week keeping a couple every time they go?


----------



## Jpaulp (Nov 14, 2012)

rugger said:


> Also, if you're going to the coast twice a year, you clearly don't have to fish to survive. Therefore, who cares if you can't "fill your freezer." That's why we have fish markets and super markets where you can buy fish year round. Just because I only go deer hunting once every other year doesn't give me the right to fill all my freezers with as much deer as I can shoot.


I think people come down to the coast and go on guided trips for various reasons but most likely to have fun and catch fish and have something to show for it afterwards. There is no difference in you keeping 5 fish, 4 times a year, or someone on a guided trip keeping 10 fish, 2 times a year.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

My thoughts on all of this is directed to the guy that fishes > 75 times a year. If you keep every legal fish that you are allowed in your bag limit, you WILL waste fish. I would bet every year someone in the above category throws out freezer burned filets. I for sure will not. If it never goes in the freezer, it will not be left to waste. 

I keep only what I need for a meal and that's it. If someone on my boat wants a bunch of fish, they can keep their legal limit. I seldom contribute any of my limit to their haul, I release everything but the few I want. If it's a pattern with him, he only gets invited a few times a year.

IMHO


----------



## DCAVA (Aug 5, 2013)

railbird said:


> My thoughts on all of this is directed to the guy that fishes > 75 times a year. If you keep every legal fish that you are allowed in your bag limit, you WILL waste fish. I would bet every year someone in the above category throws out freezer burned filets. I for sure will not. If it never goes in the freezer, it will not be left to waste.
> 
> I keep only what I need for a meal and that's it. If someone on my boat wants a bunch of fish, they can keep their legal limit. I seldom contribute any of my limit to their haul, I release everything but the few I want. If it's a pattern with him, he only gets invited a few times a year.
> 
> IMHO


Agreed railbird.

A question though, how many times a week are you able to fish, or let me rephrase that, how mant times a week do you fish on average?


----------



## big3slayer (Jun 29, 2008)

the guys at the plant never go hungry if i dont eat the fish i catch and clean they go to the guys at the plant and there families as well


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

railbird said:


> My thoughts on all of this is directed to the guy that fishes > 75 times a year. If you keep every legal fish that you are allowed in your bag limit, you WILL waste fish. I would bet every year someone in the above category throws out freezer burned filets. I for sure will not. If it never goes in the freezer, it will not be left to waste.
> 
> I keep only what I need for a meal and that's it. If someone on my boat wants a bunch of fish, they can keep their legal limit. I seldom contribute any of my limit to their haul, I release everything but the few I want. If it's a pattern with him, he only gets invited a few times a year.
> 
> IMHO


 I'd agree to that...but if you surveyed 2Cool...how many here fish 75 times a year or more? Unless you're a guide, retired and have a pretty decent sized disposable income or single and fish every weekend out of the year, MY bet is that the number on 2Cool is pretty small.


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

pickn'fish said:


> James Plaag made a statement on the Outdoor Show 2-3weeks ago about the limit reductions down south. He didnt mince words and I believe he called it right... anyone else hear it?


 Capt. James Plaag said it on the radio recently on a week day and I think he was 100%right... The new regs in Middle and Lower Texas coast was all about the impact of croaker fishing...

Trout don't get a break in the hottest time of year like they have historically... croaks are lethal during Dog Days of summer...


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Ok, what about having tags like people fo for deer, turkeys, oversized reds etc. You get a certain amount of trout tags per year and when you're out of YOUR tags you have to CPR or stay home? 
That would keep the three day a week fisherman and few times a year fisherman equal. 
Naa, that would never work would it? I think that would put a stop to all this finger pointing.

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

The assistant director of La. Wildlife and Fisheries in the article said he didn't think the guides limit would make any difference either way. 
I tend to agree...

2000acres daily as I recall. Lost La. marsh. Eventually, that has to hurt.
Fortunately, I think the La. population is not exploding like the Lone Star State...


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Ok, what about having tags like people fo for deer, turkeys, oversized reds etc. You get a certain amount of trout tags per year and when you're out of YOUR tags you have to CPR or stay home?
> That would keep the three day a week fisherman and few times a year fisherman equal.
> Naa, that would never work would it? I think that would put a stop to all this finger pointing.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


 Not a bad sounding idea on one hand but too impractical l fear.


----------



## double play (Jun 9, 2010)

This was a great thread until it got derailed. Stop it with the Croaker bashing. It reminds me of the gun debate. Guns don't kill people and Croaker don't kill trout.


----------



## copano_son (Dec 17, 2007)

I think some are confused on what others are saying regarding keeping too many fish. Those that are in favor of keeping less fish per day arenâ€™t saying no one is allowed to keep their limit of legal fish, but are suggesting to consider not keeping a full limit. Even more so if there are 4 people on the boat. If the vast majority of fisherman, and women, made a decision to only keep 5-7 trout (if they catch that many), this could only benefit trout in the long run. Even if you only fish once a year and/or hire a guide. 

Nobody is claiming lower limits will increase the population in 2-3 years or even increase them on its own, but I donâ€™t see how it is not beneficial!?! Stop comparing now with the 60â€™s, 70â€™s, 80â€™s, and 90â€™sâ€¦things are WAY different now! About the only similarities they have is the fish species, I mean the entire fishing industry has drastically changed along with many other things that impact fishing. There really is no comparison. No one knows what the trout population, or any game fish for that matter, will be like in 25 years, or 10 years. There are few things we do know that we can create ideas off of to benefit the populations. 

Iâ€™m curious what it will take for those that think â€œall is goodâ€ to realize it is not? Those that believe this is cyclical and the population(s) will rebound, are you making this claim assuming all other factors will improve as well, or is it purely a guess because it has in the past?


----------



## copano_son (Dec 17, 2007)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Ok, what about having tags like people fo for deer, turkeys, oversized reds etc. You get a certain amount of trout tags per year and when you're out of YOUR tags you have to CPR or stay home?
> That would keep the three day a week fisherman and few times a year fisherman equal.
> Naa, that would never work would it? I think that would put a stop to all this finger pointing.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


I suggested something similar in a thread I started a few weeks ago, but my idea went more towards a "season." Most hated the thought because they're incapable of expanding their minds past the word "season," and the simple fact it could "NEVER" work.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

Wrong double play. I use to never croaker bash, but I spend about 1/2 the year at my place in Rockport and I have seen what croaker fishing has done to the fishery. Croaker fishing has became very popular because 
1. It is effective
2. It is easy (or at least use to be) for the average angler to catch some quality fish

Because of this it has opened up a large segment of the fishing population to good fishing. I'm not against that at all, glad for it, however, when these people keep every **** fish, especially during the spawning season when croaker season is in full swing, what do think will happen? It common sense.

I use to never want to tell anyone how to fish because I want the same in return, but until everybody gets their heads out of the asses on what croaker fishing has done, we will be slow to make any progress. I don't like catching dinks, dinks will never get bigger if never given the chance. Keep a couple for dinner, throw the rest back. Take care of what we have. How hard is that to understand?


----------



## Jpaulp (Nov 14, 2012)

pickn'fish said:


> The assistant director of La. Wildlife and Fisheries in the article said he didn't think the guides limit would make any difference either way.
> I tend to agree...
> 
> *2000* acres daily as I recall. Lost La. marsh. Eventually, that has to hurt.
> Fortunately, I think the La. population is not exploding like the Lone Star State...


Way off

http://americaswetlandresources.com/background_facts/thenumbers/index.html


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

double play said:


> This was a great thread until it got derailed. Stop it with the Croaker bashing. It reminds me of the gun debate. Guns don't kill people and Croaker don't kill trout.


 This thread is about conservation and fisheries management in La. and (seeing as how most of us live in Tx.) in Texas, generally.

Most of us don't want to restrict people's methods of fishing unless it becomes an outsized detriment to the resource...

Capts.: Mike McBride, Bill Pustejovsky, James Plaag, Mickey Eastman are all on record as to the effectiveness, i.e.negative impact of croaker fishing. These guides have YEARS ON THE WATER, I value their knowledge & opinions. If presses privately I'm sure there would be others. I'm glad they have the intestinal fortitude to speak out on a very unpopular subject. Croakers target the quality fish at times when they are especially vulnerable, such as late summer spawning season. There is no silver bullet and many issues that are related. Each must be addressed and weighed individually...


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

:idea:


Jpaulp said:


> Way off
> 
> http://americaswetlandresources.com/background_facts/thenumbers/index.html


You might be correct. My memory isn't as good as it once was. Nevertheless, would you agree, it is vanishing at an alarming rate? Which is what I have been hearing for many years...


----------



## SeaOx 230C (Aug 12, 2005)

This thread kinda makes me sad. It started out should La change thier regs and has ended up with the same old "Im better than you because I don't do_______" bashing of your fellow fisherman.

Growing up I was taught to fish for food and fun. Yes like everyone else we wanted to catch the glamour fish and lots of them and still do. But if the "good eating" fish wern't bitting we changed tactics until we got something to pull our line even if you couldn't eat it, and I still do.

How many of you truly fish just because you like to fish and if you catch something good to eat or a "trophy fish" great and if not great I'll try and catch something else? I guess my question is for those that of you that say catch and release is the only way, and to those that say keep all the law allows if you want to, and everyone in between.

Lets say you go fishing and when you get there the water is terrible and not a trout, red, flounder are to be had. Are you a person that will just go home and say "fishing was terrible today" or will you still fish even it means you just catch some croaker, sandys, or yes even piggys and hardheads if thats whats biting. Is it all about getting your line pulled, or is it all about catching only certain kinds of fish, and they have to be "this" big or "this many" and if not it was a bad day and you are going home. Are you really some one who likes to fish? Or are you in some kind of competition.

Ask yourselves, "Do I really fish for the enjoyment of it? Or have I been caught up in the hollier than thou competion of, "mines bigger", "I only use articifials", "I catch more than you", "croaker are for ametuers", "my way is better because its more sporting" etc.......

Have some of you ever stopped long enough to really look at some of the things you say about other fisherman and how they fish?

A fishery should never be managed for "trophy fish" or max numbers of fish. You manage a fishery to keep the population and age structure as close to the natural predator to prey balance that you can.


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

pickn'fish said:


> :idea:
> 
> You might be correct. My memory isn't as good as it once was. Nevertheless, would you agree, it is vanishing at an alarming rate? Which is what I have been hearing for many years...


75sq. Kilometers annually, football field an hour or 16.57 sq. miles a year for last 25 yrs. Take your pick...
La. represents ~40% of our marsh but accounts for 80% of loss the last couple centuries. Which at the current net annual loss is the estimate of how long before it's gone. 200 years. It's a HUGE problem...

Given half a chance the natural resources have great ability to come back...


----------



## big3slayer (Jun 29, 2008)

lol just quit fishing and buy golf clubs or a gym membership maybe get in good with the tennis club noone will have to worry about it after that lmao


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Ok, what about having tags like people fo for deer, turkeys, oversized reds etc. You get a certain amount of trout tags per year and when you're out of YOUR tags you have to CPR or stay home?
> That would keep the three day a week fisherman and few times a year fisherman equal.
> Naa, that would never work would it? I think that would put a stop to all this finger pointing.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


 What about listening to people who have jobs to manage the subjects? Like Fisheries Biologists? 
Smack, did Al Gore put you up to this?


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

copano_son said:


> I think some are confused on what others are saying regarding keeping too many fish. Those that are in favor of keeping less fish per day arenâ€™t saying no one is allowed to keep their limit of legal fish, but are suggesting to consider not keeping a full limit. Even more so if there are 4 people on the boat. If the vast majority of fisherman, and women, made a decision to only keep 5-7 trout (if they catch that many), this could only benefit trout in the long run. Even if you only fish once a year and/or hire a guide.
> 
> Nobody is claiming lower limits will increase the population in 2-3 years or even increase them on its own, but I donâ€™t see how it is not beneficial!?! Stop comparing now with the 60â€™s, 70â€™s, 80â€™s, and 90â€™sâ€¦things are WAY different now! About the only similarities they have is the fish species, I mean the entire fishing industry has drastically changed along with many other things that impact fishing. There really is no comparison. No one knows what the trout population, or any game fish for that matter, will be like in 25 years, or 10 years. There are few things we do know that we can create ideas off of to benefit the populations.
> 
> Iâ€™m curious what it will take for those that think â€œall is goodâ€ to realize it is not? Those that believe this is cyclical and the population(s) will rebound, are you making this claim assuming all other factors will improve as well, or is it purely a guess because it has in the past?


 Keep in mind proper fisheries management ALSO manages population control...so who's to say that if we lower limits in LA or start this idea that it's BAD somehow to keep trout, that the average size of trout goes way down. Personally I think this is a good debate, however until someone with a real degree in managing a saltwater fishery posts in here, to me it's a bunch of hooey!


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> It will be all of our business when there are no more trout to catch.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


Let's all circle the wagons and save the trout before those evil recreational fishermen armed with a hook and line fish them to extinction.

All together. Save the trout, save the trout, save the trout!!!!!!!

Seriously, it just goes to show you how ignorant you really are. The trout survived drag seines, gill nets and purse seines of the 1970's, two horrible fish freezes in the 1980's and thousands of shrimp trawls in 80's and 90's yet there will be no trout to catch?

That type of alarmism belongs in an Al Gore movie not in any reasonable debate about the management of our fishery.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Louisiana coastline 2114









Baton Rouge may be beach front


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

Catchy - Why do you think they changed the laws on seines? 

Your posts speak volumes of your understanding of what has happened and probably how much time you spend on the water. It's not about what happened 40 yrs. ago, its about what is going on with the fishery now.


----------



## baron von skipjack (Jun 23, 2009)

what i dont get is the those 'clients' on LA,,keeping 12 inch trout,,,you see hanging on their 'show-off' picture board


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

It's a different mind set I guess. Sometimes guys like myself and many others on this thread get labeled "elitist" because we enjoy catching larger fish and wish there were more swimming around. In my mind, a true "elitist" is someone who thinks they have the right to take as many as the law allows and don't give a **** about the fishery. 

I know I get spun up on this stuff but I hold it close to my heart, like many others on here, just hate to see what has happened.

btw, love the tag "baron von skipjack"


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

duckmania said:


> Catchy - Why do you think they changed the laws on seines?
> 
> Your posts speak volumes of your understanding of what has happened and probably how much time you spend on the water. It's not about what happened 40 yrs. ago, its about what is going on with the fishery now.


duckmania,

The fishery is fine. It's been better, its been much much worse. Future trout populations are in know way threatened.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

baron von skipjack said:


> what i dont get is the those 'clients' on LA,,keeping 12 inch trout,,,you see hanging on their 'show-off' picture board


Cause it's legal over there.


----------



## copano_son (Dec 17, 2007)

Its Catchy said:


> Let's all circle the wagons and save the trout before those evil recreational fishermen armed with a hook and line fish them to extinction.
> 
> All together. Save the trout, save the trout, save the trout!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


 
And do you honestly believe the trout population is the same now (last 2-3 years) as it was in any of these decades you keep mentioning? I guess you also believe there were just as many people fishing back then as there are now? Also, do you think the resources necessary for trout to reproduce successfully are just as abundant today as they were in the 60s-90s? Do you think the resources are getting better? The trout were able to recover successfully from these weather, human, and environmental events because of restocking, abundance of environmental resources, and fewer fisherman. Youâ€™d have a hard time convincing anyone any of these things are the same now. Development is slowly choking out the freshwater and marshes. There are WAY more people fishing today than there has ever been. Freshwater and marsh habitat are probably the two biggest factors in maintaining healthy trout populations and reproductionâ€¦limiting the amount of fish kept helps support them.

Nobody is claiming in 5 years there will be no more trout, but what is being said, is one day in the near future it could become difficult to catch a limit of 5 trout over 15" if changes arenâ€™t made soon. Unless you know how to slow the wheels of progress, limiting the number of fish people keep is the easiest and most simple way for fishermen to protect trout populations. Even that may not be enough.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

"And do you honestly believe the trout population is the same now (last 2-3 years) as it was in any of these decades you keep mentioning?"

The same? No. Fish populations have never been the "same". I have seen great years, horrible years but most fall somewhere in-between. 

I am open to anyone providing one piece of standardized data collected by TPWD that indicates Trout populations are in trouble. As a matter of fact the gill net data collected from more than 30 years of sampling indicates populations are above the mean.

I will be waiting for hard data, not whining and uninformed opinion.


----------



## EdK (Jun 20, 2012)

Compare apples to apples. The inability to correlate cause with effect is the definition of a particular six letter S word widely regarded as something that cannot be fixed. 


Texas Population

1960 9,579,677
1970 11,198,655
1980 14,229,191
1990 16,986,510
2000 20,851,820
2010 25,145,561
2014 28,000,000+


----------



## big3slayer (Jun 29, 2008)

so all we need is rain itll fix it all


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

TPWD data:

Both Galveston bay and Baffin well above the mean. Matagorda Bay close to slightly below. Baffin graph 1, Matagorda graph top right. Galveston Bottom.


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

In regards to the middle coast, Coastal Fisheries presented the falling numbers of the adult trout and more importantly the absolutely terrible recruitment numbers for future trout stocks at the commission meeting in March which is why they changed the limit. You've been told that already so to say you want hard data is BS, doesn't matter what data is brought up you'll just say it's not creditable if it doesn't draw the conclusion you want. Enjoy your 5 fish limit in the middle coast come September 1st, scoreboard.


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

EdK said:


> Compare apples to apples. The inability to correlate cause with effect is the definition of a particular six letter S word widely regarded as something that cannot be fixed.
> 
> Texas Population
> 
> ...


EdK,

What can be deduced from the data provided by TPWD is the population increase in Texas has not hurt trout one iota...


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

EdK said:


> Compare apples to apples. The inability to correlate cause with effect is the definition of a particular six letter S word widely regarded as something that cannot be fixed.
> 
> Texas Population
> 
> ...


Yeah Ed...but probably 8-9 million of that 2014 number are illegal ********. I bet their not catching 10 trout every day :biggrin:

Their probably putting a hell of a dent in the rice & bean harvest every year though !


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Im Headed South said:


> In regards to the middle coast, Coastal Fisheries presented the falling numbers of the adult trout and more importantly the absolutely terrible recruitment numbers for future trout stocks at the commission meeting in March which is why they changed the limit. You've been told that already so to say you want hard data is BS, doesn't matter what data is brought up you'll just say it's not creditable if it doesn't draw the conclusion you want. Enjoy your 5 fish limit in the middle coast come September 1st, scoreboard.


We're not talking about Texas, we're discussing Louisiana and guides using their catches as a part of their client's catch, or not.
Once again, show me REAL numbers and quit pretending a speckled sea trout in Louisiana is in danger of going the way of the dodo bird unless we all quit eating seafood.


----------



## manwitaplan (Dec 9, 2005)

photofishin said:


> We're not talking about Texas, we're discussing Louisiana and guides using their catches as a part of their client's catch, or not.
> Once again, show me REAL numbers and quit pretending a speckled sea trout in Louisiana is in danger of going the way of the dodo bird unless we all quit eating seafood.


 Right On!


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)




----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

Back to the OP, we are told that trout populations are good in the state of Louisiana BUT WL&F will not release their numbers due to the ongoing BP suit.
Kinda like their very own ace in the proverbial hole they don't want to show. We have an ungodly amount number of 10"-11" trout in our estuary and always have. IMO those 12" trout need to be culled so those left can grow up but I am no biologist.


----------



## Mr. Saltwater (Oct 5, 2012)

copano_son said:


> I think some are confused on what others are saying regarding keeping too many fish. Those that are in favor of keeping less fish per day arenâ€™t saying no one is allowed to keep their limit of legal fish, but are suggesting to consider not keeping a full limit. Even more so if there are 4 people on the boat. If the vast majority of fisherman, and women, made a decision to only keep 5-7 trout (if they catch that many), this could only benefit trout in the long run. Even if you only fish once a year and/or hire a guide.
> 
> Nobody is claiming lower limits will increase the population in 2-3 years or even increase them on its own, but I donâ€™t see how it is not beneficial!?! Stop comparing now with the 60â€™s, 70â€™s, 80â€™s, and 90â€™sâ€¦things are WAY different now! About the only similarities they have is the fish species, I mean the entire fishing industry has drastically changed along with many other things that impact fishing. There really is no comparison. No one knows what the trout population, or any game fish for that matter, will be like in 25 years, or 10 years. There are few things we do know that we can create ideas off of to benefit the populations.
> 
> Iâ€™m curious what it will take for those that think â€œall is goodâ€ to realize it is not? Those that believe this is cyclical and the population(s) will rebound, are you making this claim assuming all other factors will improve as well, or is it purely a guess because it has in the past?


Looking at changes from the past is often the best way to predict the changes of the future and the best course of action!!

Here's an interesting look at how we got where we are:

http://www.texassaltwaterfishingmagazine.com/fishing/plugging-texas-coast-part-2/p1/subpage707.html


----------



## LA Wader (Oct 22, 2013)

If I remember right, back when some of us guides/recreational fishermen (Calcasieu Lake) were concerned with dropping the limits, our biologists said that our fishery was healthy and didn't need to have the limits reduced. I'm guessing our biologist are gonna also let the oyster dredging continue until they have cleaned west cove out! That just shows me the mindset we deal with over here. There was a meeting over here in Lake Charles this week to address issues with Calcasieu, and basically nothing was accomplished as usual. I won't debate on what someone can keep, as long as they follow the set laws.


----------



## RedXCross (Aug 7, 2005)

photofishin said:


> We're not talking about Texas, we're discussing Louisiana and guides using their catches as a part of their client's catch, or not.
> Once again, show me REAL numbers and quit pretending a speckled sea trout in Louisiana is in danger of going the way of the dodo bird unless we all quit eating seafood.


----------



## JWS.HOOKEM (Jun 24, 2008)

*Just Keep 25*



Bocephus said:


> But if you want to keep your limit, you shouldn't have some "Jr. Game Warden" telling you any different. As long as someone is following the fish & game laws...."Jr. Game Wardens" need to mind their own farking business.


AMEN brother!


----------



## JWS.HOOKEM (Jun 24, 2008)

*YEP!*



troutphishin said:


> You seem to harp on "yuppies" quite a bit. The dumb ******** are the ones soaking croaker with or without guides just to kill as many trout as possible so they can post a pic on the internet looking as tough as they did in their high school football photo.
> 
> Even more pathetic are the guides soaking croaker themselves to fill their clients limits so they can advertise stringers full of dead trout in the fishing reports section.
> 
> Too bad our great state is populated with some of the dumbest, most selfish individuals in the country.


**** straight! and proud of it!
Just KEEP 25!


----------



## droebuck (Oct 17, 2011)

JWS.HOOKEM said:


> **** straight! and proud of it!
> Just KEEP 25!


wow


----------



## Lagunabob (May 19, 2005)

JWS.HOOKEM said:


> **** straight! and proud of it!
> Just KEEP 25!


You are a great example of just how dumb the majority of our society has become. I guess some folks just can't help it and with stupidity comes selfishness. It's a shame, Texas just isn't what it used to be. Too much of the me, me, me! mentality.

Btw, there are only 4.5 million people in Louisiana, not 10. Compare that to 28 million in Texas. But you are right, we should have the same limits as them since all factors are equal....same habitat, same population, same issues, etc.

Let me clarify my ******* comment since it obviously got some panties in a wad. I don't think it is any one group of people doing the damage....********, yuppies, guides, etc...the common theme is stupidity and selfishness.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

troutphishin said:


> You are a great example of just how dumb the majority of our society has become. I guess some folks just can't help it and with stupidity comes selfishness. It's a shame, Texas just isn't what it used to be. Too much of the me, me, me! mentality.
> 
> Btw, there are only 4.5 million people in Louisiana, not 10. Compare that to 28 million in Texas. But you are right, we should have the same limits as them since all factors are equal....same habitat, same population, same issues, etc.
> 
> Let me clarify my ******* comment since it obviously got some panties in a wad. I don't think it is any one group of people doing the damage....********, yuppies, guides, etc...the common theme is stupidity and selfishness.


I guess you sir seem to be missing the original point to this thread...it *ISN'T* about Texas and *OUR* limits...it's about *Louisiana limits* and guides adding their catches to the client's catch for a boat limit...and the controversy because somehow, a few Texans feel slighted because even though people are following the law, they think this practice is destroying the fishery in LA. I and many others here say to change the limits when it's shown through science that this is the case and not because a bunch of catch and release purists say so.


----------



## Lunkerman (Dec 27, 2004)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> The yuppies that pay a guide to go kill a bunch of trout don't give a **** one way or the other because they may only fish a couple of days a year and just may not know any better.


So who kills more fish, the yuppie who comes down to the coast once or twice a year & takes a limit or the local fisherman who keeps 5 everytime he fishes.

It's not about them knowing any better, it's about their chance to catch some fish which they don't get to do very often.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

JWS.HOOKEM said:


> **** straight! and proud of it!
> Just KEEP 25!


Oh my....Beam me up Scotty....well you know the rest.


----------



## CaptJadams (Jul 27, 2012)

To the ones that keep talking bout the 12 inch trout there's a reason behind it.... 18-23 inch trout put out the most eggs and spawn 8 times a yr over here... Catching those small fish does nothing to the population Bc u leave ur breed stock those 18-23 inch fish... Those are the fish that will keep ur lake goin. Where as Texas w lower limits and higher size ur forcing people to keep ur breed stock fish in return lowers the population....there's still plenty of big fish here but u have to fish for em differently and 90 percent of my clients from Texas just wanna limit out and aren't worried bout size 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Lunkerman said:


> So who kills more fish, the yuppie who comes down to the coast once or twice a year & takes a limit or the local fisherman who keeps 5 everytime he fishes.
> 
> It's not about them knowing any better, it's about their chance to catch some fish which they don't get to do very often.


They could always fish for bass.

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

They could even buy Mrs Paul's fish sticks at HEB :biggrin:

Not sure what kind of fish that is though


----------



## dbarham (Aug 13, 2005)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> They could always fish for bass.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


Lol


----------



## RedXCross (Aug 7, 2005)

Most people that you are taking are a lot like my folks, they fish 5-6 times a year and they want as many as they can legally take.



CaptJadams said:


> To the ones that keep talking bout the 12 inch trout there's a reason behind it.... 18-23 inch trout put out the most eggs and spawn 8 times a yr over here... Catching those small fish does nothing to the population Bc u leave ur breed stock those 18-23 inch fish... Those are the fish that will keep ur lake goin. Where as Texas w lower limits and higher size ur forcing people to keep ur breed stock fish in return lowers the population....there's still plenty of big fish here but u have to fish for em differently and 90 percent of my clients from Texas just wanna limit out and aren't worried bout size
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Its Catchy (Apr 10, 2014)

CaptJadams said:


> To the ones that keep talking bout the 12 inch trout there's a reason behind it.... 18-23 inch trout put out the most eggs and spawn 8 times a yr over here... Catching those small fish does nothing to the population Bc u leave ur breed stock those 18-23 inch fish... Those are the fish that will keep ur lake goin. Where as Texas w lower limits and higher size ur forcing people to keep ur breed stock fish in return lowers the population....there's still plenty of big fish here but u have to fish for em differently and 90 percent of my clients from Texas just wanna limit out and aren't worried bout size
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I agree 100%

Texas would be better to lower the size limit and protect the 18-23 inch fish.

A 10 fish limit with one over 18" makes much more sense to me than a five fish limit focusing on the "spawners".


----------



## ComeFrom? (May 21, 2004)

:rotfl:


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

baron von skipjack said:


> what i dont get is the those 'clients' on LA,,keeping 12 inch trout,,,you see hanging on their 'show-off' picture board


If you would quit selling commas, and understand their correct usage, you might get it


----------



## SuddenJerk (May 12, 2014)

pickn'fish said:


> 75sq. Kilometers annually, football field an hour or 16.57 sq. miles a year for last 25 yrs. Take your pick...
> La. represents ~40% of our marsh but accounts for 80% of loss the last couple centuries. Which at the current net annual loss is the estimate of how long before it's gone. 200 years. It's a HUGE problem...
> 
> Given half a chance the natural resources have great ability to come back...


This is the cold hard facts right here. You guys can argue southeast La. limits all you want, but the truth is most of you guys are ignorant to our fisheries here. I'm not trying to sound harsh, but it's the truth.

For reference I was listening to Walten and Johnson the other day and they were talking about some American that had pics of them killing lions and rhinos and such on a hunt in Africa and people were all up in arms about it. A woman called in that was from Africa and said it was a necessity and there was a season for it. The same goes for alligator hunting in La. If the population doesn't get in check the population gets out of control. Southeast La. fishery is totally different from the western part of the state, Texas and Florida for that matter. I'm not saying this is the same for trout, just that if you are ignorant to the situation than maybe you should not say anything at all.

I do agree with the Venice guides that they shouldn't be able to give their limit to their clients, but it's not because I think the fishery is in trouble. I just think a 25 man trout limit is a **** ton of meat. Someone already posted and said it best that southeast La. is the best place to be if you want to catch all of the 12" trout you want and that is true. This is their breeding grounds and one one of the best estuaries possible for their fry to thrive. You don't see the monster trout that big lake and Texas are known for here because this is where they grow before moving offshore.

I see a lot of you guys trying to do the math and figure it all out, but do you realize a single female will release over a million eggs? I admit, I'm ignorant to that fact and couldn't even begin to do the math and I haven't seen a single biologist claim to have those numbers either. There's just too many factors to figure in. Just because the guides in Venice aren't catching the numbers they are use to doesn't mean the numbers are dwindling either. They could be catching more in Lafitte or Grand Isle or Dularge, trust me the fish are there just in a different location.

I fish redfish trails and it's the same thing. One or two years the heavy fish or here or there and then next year you find them elsewhere. This year the late cool fronts kept the bait from moving inshore as early as usual and all of that has an impact. I never keep my limit and only keep what my family will eat fresh for that week, but I fish a lot more often than a lot of people and I do not blame anyone for keeping their limit as long as it doesn't go to waste.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Bocephus said:


> They could even buy Mrs Paul's fish sticks at HEB :biggrin:
> 
> Not sure what kind of fish that is though


Probably snot shark because tunnel rat testifies they taste better than chicken...

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## 1971snipe (Aug 9, 2012)

ddakota said:


> .........and nothing brings a smile to my face more than seeing a yuppie in his high-dollar, skinny-running, go-fast boat, stuck in the mouth of Charlies Cut into Esprito Santos because he aint got the sense God gave a goose.


Brought a smile, although with different cut, and different bay ... (hyphens and commas added).


----------



## Lagunabob (May 19, 2005)

photofishin said:


> I guess you sir seem to be missing the original point to this thread...it *ISN'T* about Texas and *OUR* limits...it's about *Louisiana limits* and guides adding their catches to the client's catch for a boat limit...and the controversy because somehow, a few Texans feel slighted because even though people are following the law, they think this practice is destroying the fishery in LA. I and many others here say to change the limits when it's shown through science that this is the case and not because a bunch of catch and release purists say so.


I guess you need a little help with reading comprehension.


----------



## LA Wader (Oct 22, 2013)

Bingo Sudden Jerk, you nailed that one. Big lake and Sabine Lake are different from the south central LA, and southeastern LA. There are lots of areas in LA that just are void of bigger trout. As posted above, those vast marshes are the nursery. We have some of that in SW LA, but most fishing takes place in Big Lake or Sabine Lake.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

troutphishin said:


> I guess you need a little help with reading comprehension.


No, I've read this thread from the beginning. I'm glad Jared Adams posted as he knows more about Calcasieu than most people here.


----------



## Category6 (Nov 21, 2007)

I always say "just keep zero"....only God has the right to kill a fish!


----------



## big3slayer (Jun 29, 2008)

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/showthread.php?t=1063801

hes claiming its the best year hes had in awhile


----------



## noskunks (Jul 27, 2006)

Trout taste good. If all the "sportsman" care about is the experience why not target skipjack or jack crevalle that are actually more exciting to catch or some other less edible species like they do in Florida with bonefish? 

The biologists monitor the population and decide what the limits should be. I don't limit out every trip but have had a few pretty good trips and me and my family eat all the fish we keep. I like teaching my kids how to fish, and how to clean and cook fish. 

I wouldn't stop eating ribeyes because someone decided "trophy cows" were fun to hunt either.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

Would you kill your trophy cows so you could eat them? 
Your logic is really, really, twisted. Are you suggesting that guys chasing trout should just go after jacks so you can eat more trout? Who is the elitist here? Go learn a little about fishery management and check back.


----------



## noskunks (Jul 27, 2006)

duckmania said:


> Would you kill your trophy cows so you could eat them?
> Your logic is really, really, twisted. Are you suggesting that guys chasing trout should just go after jacks so you can eat more trout? Who is the elitist here? Go learn a little about fishery management and check back.


My logic is that there are no trophy cows as there were once no â€œtrophyâ€ trout. 30 years ago a man pulling up to the dock with a box of trout was congratulated by other fisherman and no one really was concerned whether any of them were "over 30."

Today if a single fish is brought in over 28, that fisherman has to explain his intentions of what he will do with the fish and basically defend his decision to bring that fish in because a few have decided that particular trout is a trophy and they would have really enjoyed catching that fish one day.

The people that decided they would like to CPR fish instead of eat them so everyone else should do the same are who most people consider the elitists.


----------



## noskunks (Jul 27, 2006)

duckmania said:


> ...Are you suggesting that guys chasing trout should just go after jacks so you can eat more trout?...


Would this be any more outrageous than the way it is now with one group of fisherman telling another group of fisherman to stop eating big trout so they have bigger ones to CPR?


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

Ask any breeder of registered cattle if his herd sire is not a "trophy cow." Then ask him if he plans to slaughter it or keep it in the pasture because he can raise more fine cattle. 

The reason more and more fisherman get excited about a 28 inch trout on the cleaning table is because there are so few of them now. Enjoy catching it, take some pictures, release it so it can grow some more. What do you knot understand about that? 

Guys that release fish are doing nothing more than helping to insure that there will be some left swimming around for the next trip. 

If you want to take a couple home for dinner fine. Teach your kids conservation as well as fishing skills.


----------



## Kenner 23 (Sep 14, 2009)

duckmania said:


> Ask any breeder of registered cattle if his herd sire is not a "trophy cow." Then ask him if he plans to slaughter it or keep it in the pasture because he can raise more fine cattle.
> 
> The reason more and more fisherman get excited about a 28 inch trout on the cleaning table is because there are so few of them now. Enjoy catching it, take some pictures, release it so it can grow some more. What do you knot understand about that?
> 
> ...




Well said Duckmain


----------



## noskunks (Jul 27, 2006)

duckmania said:


> If you want to take a couple home for dinner fine. Teach your kids conservation as well as fishing skills.


lol, and you wonder where the elitist thing comes from? Did you just give me permission to keep a couple of trout for the table and then your opinion on what I need to teach my kids?

I keep what I think we need, and can catch of course; up to the legal limit. The conservation I'm teaching my kids is probably different than what you are teaching yours, and I'm okay with that.


----------



## gettinspooled (Jun 26, 2013)

noskunks said:


> lol, and you wonder where the elitist thing comes from? Did you just give me permission to keep a couple of trout for the table and then your opinion on what I need to teach my kids?


You are just lucky that he is letting you fish in his water.


----------



## lil mambo (Jul 22, 2009)

MY MY MY, Between the fishing god's, jr. game wardens, croaker soakers, and wannabe biologist you have made my afternoon. All of you talking about an article written by a sniveling lil wannabe lobbyist. Todd Mason has been running this same line of smack for years. None of you and I don't care how dam good a fisherman you are will ever be able to overfish the estuaries in southeast LA with a rod n reel. The simple fact is that there are more fisherman on the waters these days that just don't know how to fish and then come home and tell people there are no fish left because they couldn't catch them. This includes 90% of the so called guides who took a course and got an OUPV liscense,paid a fee and got a charter captains license. 

How do I know this you ask? I was born and raised there, fished it all my life and still do with darn near a 100% success rate. I know most of these guides and their parents who taught them to fish as well. The only thing that has somewhat hurt the fish populations are environmental factors which the president of the LA GCCA (at the time) emphatically told me was not one of the reasons they were in business. This was in response to a company dumping tons of Bauxite into the Mississippi river, and me asking him why they had nothing to say about it.

Those of you that have been talking about cycles have hit the nail on the head as well. This however does not mean there is less fish, just means they have changed their habits to survive. They have been doing this since pre-historic times. If they hadn't they would be extinct and the species we are talking about are nowhere near extinction. They just happen to be smarter than 98% of the fisherman out there.

I will continue to catch all the fish I legally can every trip I make. I will continue to catch every snapper I can in the dead zones off the LA coast as well. If I have more than I can eat I will feed as many of my elderly aunts and uncles who cannot fish anymore but where kind enough to teach me how and provide me with the opportunitys to do so.

The bottom line is the Author of this article is just fueling the fire that feeds his Lobbyist friends in Baton Rouge and has been doing so his whole career.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

lil mambo said:


> MY MY MY, Between the fishing god's, jr. game wardens, croaker soakers, and wannabe biologist you have made my afternoon. All of you talking about an article written by a sniveling lil wannabe lobbyist. Todd Mason has been running this same line of smack for years. None of you and I don't care how dam good a fisherman you are will ever be able to overfish the estuaries in southeast LA with a rod n reel. The simple fact is that there are more fisherman on the waters these days that just don't know how to fish and then come home and tell people there are no fish left because they couldn't catch them. This includes 90% of the so called guides who took a course and got an OUPV liscense,paid a fee and got a charter captains license.
> 
> How do I know this you ask? I was born and raised there, fished it all my life and still do with darn near a 100% success rate. I know most of these guides and their parents who taught them to fish as well. The only thing that has somewhat hurt the fish populations are environmental factors which the president of the LA GCCA (at the time) emphatically told me was not one of the reasons they were in business. This was in response to a company dumping tons of Bauxite into the Mississippi river, and me asking him why they had nothing to say about it.
> 
> ...


Well said mambo. Now, what the heck are you doing up here????


----------



## noskunks (Jul 27, 2006)

spurgersalty said:


> Well said mambo. Now, what the heck are you doing up here????


X2. well said.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

I suggested you keep a couple, knowing your probably going to fill the box if you can. It's this mentality that has contributed a lot to the problem. Some guys get it, some don't.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

duckmania said:


> Ask any breeder of registered cattle if his herd sire is not a "trophy cow." Then ask him if he plans to slaughter it or keep it in the pasture because he can raise more fine cattle.
> 
> The reason more and more fisherman get excited about a 28 inch trout on th*e cleaning table is because there are so few of them now.* Enjoy catching it, take some pictures, release it so it can grow some more. What do you knot understand about that?
> 
> ...


no, there are plenty of big fish. The problem is too many internet jockies who fish 5 times a year and then complain all the big fish have been killed.

Thanks for giving the go ahead on keeping a couple for dinner though. I was on the fence about doing that prior to your post.

even when I let my kid bring in a big fish to the dock, there were people giving the evil eye. I've about had enough of that BS... a 10 year old kid, with the biggest fish he's caught can't keep it to show his mom because someone might get their panties in a knot.

Good God Almighty.... we just watchedthe "just keep 5" posse work, I guess now we'll have to deal with the "just keep a couple". Fkn whiners.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

duckmania said:


> I suggested you keep a couple, knowing your probably going to fill the box if you can. It's this mentality that has contributed a lot to the problem. Some guys get it, some don't.


And your "control freak" mentality is asinine....but you just don't get it do you ?
You might want to Google "Asinine" since I'm sure you don't get that either.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

duckmania said:


> If you want to take a couple home for dinner fine. Teach your kids conservation as well as fishing skills.


 From MY point of view, I go out and catch my legal amount of fish, leave the lake/bay/gulf better than I found it, teach my children to follow the laws and do the same as me, and to respect other people on and off the water. If you have a problem with that, I'd highly suggest some education for you AND your children.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

I fish 75 to 100 days a year, mid and lower coast. Been fishing the mid coast since the mid 60's when I was a kid. I've caught and kept a lot of fish. I even used croaker 15 yrs ago when they first got popular. Someone mentioned cycles above, one cycle that is definitely in play is the "by gawd I'm keepin mine" mentality. I'm not a control freak, just someone who gives a **** about the bays and has spent a little time learning about them, and I will **** sure let you know how I feel about it.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

duckmania said:


> I will **** sure let you know how I feel about it.


Same here....and you think we're gonna change each others minds ?...

Not a chance....


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

duckmania said:


> I fi*sh 75 to 100 days a year, mid and lower coast.* Been fishing the mid coast since the mid 60's when I was a kid. I've caught and kept a lot of fish. I even used croaker 15 yrs ago when they first got popular. Someone mentioned cycles above, one cycle that is definitely in play is the "by gawd I'm keepin mine" mentality. I'm not a control freak, just someone who gives a **** about the bays and has spent a little time learning about them, and I will **** sure let you know how I feel about it.


well now that's really sad that you don't catch any big fish....

I agree with cycles of people.. namely the "I can't catch a cold so it's someone else's fault that I suck at what I'm trying to do"... crowd.


----------



## Mr. Saltwater (Oct 5, 2012)

duckmania said:


> I suggested you keep a couple, knowing your probably going to fill the box if you can. It's this mentality that has contributed a lot to the problem. Some guys get it, some don't.


I assume from your name you enjoy duck hunting as well. Do you stop shooting at just a couple and photograph the rest that work the decoys, or try to fill your limit within the law?


----------



## lil mambo (Jul 22, 2009)

spurgersalty said:


> Well said mambo.* Now, what the heck are you doing up here????*


Normally don't comment on TX conservation issues as I still catch my speckle trouts in LA where they don't have signs posted at the landing that have phone numbers on them that when you call tell you not to eat more than 8 oz's of the fish a month that you catch from the waters local to that landing. From reading some of the comments in this thread it is obvious that some have eaten a lot more than 8 oz's a month and diahrea of the month has set in due to their consumption.

If the majority of the fisherman in this state don't want to catch more than 5 trout a day all they have to do is stop at 5. After all, aren't they the majority. These nanny state loving bastages still haven't figured out you don't need a law to make you do what you think is right. If a guide doesn't think it's right to give somebody his limit all he has to do is let his clients fish and try and teach them how to fish and take their fish off the hook and tie knots or stand by his client and work with them. If they did that no one would complain about them not keeping a limit because they would be guiding and not fishing like they should be in the first place.

Bottom line is they were putting down my peep's who they nothing about other than whet they read. That makes the coonarse come out in me real quick.:headknock

By the way I didn't realize croaker soaking only got popular 15 years ago. remember duckman, no more than 8 oz's


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

holy ****.... the day has come. 

I agree mambo!

I think I like crazy ******* mambo better than thoughtful politically correct mambo... LOL


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Kyle 1974 said:


> holy ****.... the day has come.
> 
> I agree mambo!
> 
> I think I like crazy ******* mambo better than thoughtful politically correct mambo... LOL


Apocalypse Now...2Cool.


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

*Bull Carp Ola*

Just got back from a month on Barataria Bay and offshore there - catching for us was off the hook, especially for specks using topwaters - if you got out thirty minutes before daylight - you were limited in two hours

same old BS - fishermen rod and reel caught fish account for about two percent of any mortality - IF you have never been to this area its likely the richest marine estuary in the WORLD - the variety and abundance of bait and inshore species of fish is what Galveston USED to be in the sixties

Texas is failing because inland human populations are sucking up the available freshwater vital to coastal fisheries health

Fishing pressure is unlikely to ever hurt Louisiana swamps - as long as the Mississippi rolls on --

Those that can catch fish will - those that can't will ***** on internet chat rooms and paper rag articles to show they can cry in their beer --


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

duckmania said:


> I fish 75 to 100 days a year, mid and lower coast. Been fishing the mid coast since the mid 60's when I was a kid. I've caught and kept a lot of fish. I even used croaker 15 yrs ago when they first got popular. Someone mentioned cycles above, one cycle that is definitely in play is the "by gawd I'm keepin mine" mentality. I'm not a control freak, just someone who gives a **** about the bays and has spent a little time learning about them, and I will **** sure let you know how I feel about it.


 Last I checked, this has ZERO to do with fishing in Louisiana, which this thread is about. Maybe you ought to go back and reread this topic from the beginning. And by the way, NOBODY in this thread has a "by gawd I'm keeping mine" mentality. We're simply stating that we follow the law and good conservation practices and who the #$%^ are YOU to tell us what we can and cannot do?


----------



## plasticsnaks (Sep 22, 2009)

I just want to ask that you LA boys continue posting the boat loads and dock loads of fish pics . We have a couple hundred guides and couple thousand fishermen who frequent the TX midcoast to landcut that are in need of relocating. The pics are great motivation in getting these people to move. I'm sure you guys have plenty o fish and would welcome them all with open arms to your " infinite numbers of trout waters"!:biggrin:


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

The OP was about Lousiana fishing, and if you'll note that my first reply was I was glad they are adopting some conservation measures to insure they keep good fishing.

I suggested, more than once, that keeping less than a limit would be good for the fishery. I'll continue to do so until until we see improvement in the quality of fishing. Just like lot a of the guides are doing who spend way more time on the water than you, a lot of responsible fisherman who spend way more time on the water than you, and biologist who know a little more about it than you. Got it?


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

The bottom line is trout fishing is suffering on the mid coast, be it from reduced inflow, habitat loss, fishing pressure, down cycle, Obama, or all the above. This is not even debatable. The only intent anyone who proposes that we keep fewer fish is to help out the fishery. Nothing more, no one is trying to make it their own water. Just because the law says I can keep 10 is a weak excuse.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

I wish you would come up to me at the ramp and tell me I am wrong to keep 10 trout, or that I don't need that many to feed my family....please do that sometime.


----------



## Wad_Slinger (Jun 25, 2012)

*fussy math*

I'm no biologist either but I feel a controlled limit is a good thing as well as disiplined anglers/outdoorsman/women/kids (you get the point). If you don't plan on eating fish every night or you are fishing 30 times a year and know where to catch fish then why keep a limit just to do so.

Someone share some insight on my thought. If the limit was lowered so the population could increase and the size limit was lowered so fish can grow larger, that equals more bigger fish right? So now more bigger fish are eating more bait fish and their own little species to the point you have to raise the limit back up to make sure there is enough bait fish to feed the population of more bigger fish. Sounds like a ecosystem to me.

Let the games begin.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

Well Bocephus, come Sept. 1 your "gimmedat" attitude towards our bay systems will take a big hit so it won't be as necessary.


----------



## Trueno (May 24, 2014)

So what's ahead...10mo fishing licenses? 8mo boat licenses? 


careful whatcha wish for.

t


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

The ONLY thing I'm wishing for is Texas Coastal Fisherman taking responsibility for our fisheries and taking care of them. If we are in a bad cycle, okay, lets don't just keep raping it because we can legally do so. It's an incredible resource, it won't last forever if it is not taken care of.


----------



## EndTuition (May 24, 2004)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> It will be all of our business when there are no more trout to catch.


I keep and eat every single legal trout I catch. You only keep what you call "necessary" amounts of fish. I guaratee you the resource would be better off if YOU stoped fishing than if I did.


----------



## long shot (Sep 23, 2006)

Trueno said:


> So what's ahead...10mo fishing licenses? 8mo boat licenses?
> 
> careful whatcha wish for.
> 
> t


Bingo! Some folks will never be happy until they catch 8lb trout every trip out.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

Incorrect, if we take care of it now, we won't need seasons. That's the whole point. I've had one trout over 8lbs in the last few months, and that was fishing very hard with a guide. 
Use to be able to catch 3 or 4 every year.


----------



## Trueno (May 24, 2014)

Despite the seaweed at Rollover, I scored a 20" Sheephead in my castnet.

didn't need it, 
didn't want it, 
didn't release it, 
didn't eat it,

wasn't entered in STAR yet,

...it wasn't a Red or Speck so I gave it away to a senior couple down the way a lil bit. They were very grateful as nobody was catching anything. Sure, if nobody had wanted it I probably would have thrown it back...oops, sorry, "released" it while of course holding out my pinkie finger.

translation: 





:dance:


----------



## Trueno (May 24, 2014)

duckmania said:


> Incorrect, if we take care of it now, we won't need seasons. That's the whole point. I've had one trout over 8lbs in the last few months, and that was fishing very hard with a guide.
> Use to be able to catch 3 or 4 every year.


Quit using that guide.

t


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

Mr. Saltwater said:


> I assume from your name you enjoy duck hunting as well. Do you stop shooting at just a couple and photograph the rest that work the decoys, or try to fill your limit within the law?


If you hunt on the middle/lower Texas coast, that is usually the reality of duck hunting. 90% of the ducks are redheads and the limit is 2 per day. Some days you can also get your 2 pintails or maybe a wigeon.

I've got some great video of swarms of redheads bombarding the decoys. Even with the reduced limits, I still hunt 30-40 times each season and enjoy watching them come into the decoys as much or more than shooting them.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

Big leap from people crying over trees and watching what is going on with the fishery. 
Don'tcha think?


----------



## gettinspooled (Jun 26, 2013)

duckmania said:


> Well Bocephus, come Sept. 1 your "gimmedat" attitude towards our bay systems will take a big hit so it won't be as necessary.


What is changing in the LA fishery Sept. 1?


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

duckmania said:


> Incorrect, if we take care of it now, we won't need seasons. That's the whole point. I've had one trout over 8lbs in the last few months, and that was fishing very hard with a guide.
> Use to be able to catch 3 or 4 every year.


well then CLEARLY these are dire times if you have only caught one 8 lbr all year....

there's a hard lined stasticial analysis for reduced trout take....


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

duckmania said:


> The bottom line is trout fishing is suffering on the mid coast, be it from reduced inflow, habitat loss, fishing pressure, down cycle, Obama, or all the above. This is not even debatable. The only intent anyone who proposes that we keep fewer fish is to help out the fishery. Nothing more, no one is trying to make it their own water. Just because the law says I can keep 10 is a weak excuse.


 Funny that you mention Obama and then want to tell us how to fish and what to keep.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

Funny you want to act like a gimmedat.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

duckmania said:


> The ONLY thing I'm wishing for is Texas Coastal Fisherman taking responsibility for our fisheries and taking care of them. If we are in a bad cycle, okay, lets don't just keep raping it because we can legally do so. It's an incredible resource, it won't last forever if it is not taken care of.


Seriously stop...dude...I'm not on the water 100 days a year...95% of 2Cool fishermen aren't either. If we follow the law, we ARE taking responsibility for our fishery. If YOU want to practice C&R with every trout you catch...feel free...but quit acting like we're destroying the coastal fishing by following the current laws.

By the way, no trout which goes in my freezer goes to waste. We eat fish. I don't keep every single trout I catch, however I seriously doubt 90% of fishermen get a limit every time they go out. I'd venture a guess that MOST fishermen get a limit a couple times a year. I used to be a guide....you HAVE to be on the water a LOT to consistently limit out. (and I'm not talking about once or twice a month)


----------



## Trueno (May 24, 2014)

duckmania said:


> Big leap from people crying over trees and watching what is going on with the fishery.
> Don'tcha think?


Yeah, maybe a lil dramatic but it pushes the point home. 
EPA = bureaucracy with lots of citizen-converts and way more $budget$ than it needs and NO sign of letting up.

TPW = $380,000,000.00 - up from $357m last year
$380m = $272m for 3,100 salaries (avg $88,000/year)

$108m left over for...?

TPW likely has its share of converts/fans too, just sayin'. 
(sorry, rambling now, I'll spend more time on popcorn and reading)

t


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

duckmania said:


> Funny you want to act like a gimmedat.


 Not sure of that term...if you mean self respecting southern outdoorsman who follows the law...then yes, that's me. If you want to disparage people, then do so by showing factual data rather than playing jr game warden.


----------



## Trueno (May 24, 2014)

Sure is pretty in Louisiana.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

The term refers to people that are out to get what they can, even if it is within the law. 

Look, I'm not a biologist or a Jr.Game Warden. I'm just a guy who fishes the mid coast a lot. It use to be pretty good, now it is mediocre on a good day. I enjoy eating trout as much as anyone. I come across hard on the subject because I'm passionate about it. I don't want it to get worse. That's all, nothing more. The more fish released, the more for everyone to catch. The more fish spawning, the more that will grow. Its real simple. When things turn around, rain, hurricane, reduced limits, whatever, it won't be such a big issue with guys like me. Until then, I encourage guys to take a hard look and do a little to improve the fishing. That's all.


----------



## Trueno (May 24, 2014)

It's in the water. The water is preventing ovulation spawning reproduction etc etc. The rest are killed outright because of the chemicals coming downstream. 

Would you drink the water you fish in? 

t


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

duckmania said:


> The term refers to people that are out to get what they can, even if it is within the law.
> 
> Look, I'm not a biologist or a Jr.Game Warden. I'm just a guy who fishes the mid coast a lot. It use to be pretty good, now it is mediocre on a good day. I enjoy eating trout as much as anyone. I come across hard on the subject because I'm passionate about it. I don't want it to get worse. That's all, nothing more. The more fish released, the more for everyone to catch. The more fish spawning, the more that will grow. Its real simple. When things turn around, rain, hurricane, reduced limits, whatever, it won't be such a big issue with guys like me. Until then, I encourage guys to take a hard look and do a little to improve the fishing. That's all.


 We've heard you loud and clear. There's zero evidence you've shown that backs up your points. You're making assumptions. You stated it well...you're not a fisheries biologist, so you have no clue if total catch and release would help or harm the fishery. You also state that fishing is worse than it used to be? I see people at the cleaning tables at nearly every bay system I fish, almost every time I go. Maybe you ought to focus more on fishing and less on preaching, as you come off as someone who wants to control what others say and do, even when it's within the bounds of the law.
Fishing is fun for me. I also enjoy eating fish. If someone interrupts my fun on the water with retarded nonsense like this, I'll likely just shake my head at the fool who spends way too much time focusing on other people rather than his own challenges. Remember when you point a finger, three more are pointing back at ya.


----------



## lil mambo (Jul 22, 2009)

Trueno said:


> It's in the water. The water is preventing ovulation spawning reproduction etc etc. The rest are killed outright because of the chemicals coming downstream.
> 
> Would you drink the water you fish in?
> 
> t


I really doubt he would, nor would anyone tell their sweetie pies to lay off the birth control pills when they are at the beach or bay house. This does all eventually end up in the bay systems. Heck if second hand smoke can cause cancer, I'm sure second hand birth control could very well be effecting marine life.

So I have a question for all you trout Gods that think you are so good you can recreationally catch a species of fish into extinction. Please tell us game hogs the name of the species where it was ever proven to have happened too. Google is your friend whiners, get after it.


----------



## Mr. Saltwater (Oct 5, 2012)

netboy said:


> If you hunt on the middle/lower Texas coast, that is usually the reality of duck hunting. 90% of the ducks are redheads and the limit is 2 per day. Some days you can also get your 2 pintails or maybe a wigeon.
> 
> I've got some great video of swarms of redheads bombarding the decoys. Even with the reduced limits, I still hunt 30-40 times each season and enjoy watching them come into the decoys as much or more than shooting them.


Very true. I often frustrate the eager shooters in my group by waiting a long while to call the first shot in the morning just to enjoy the dawn spectacle.
Yes, the limits are reduced from the days of 10 point Pintails, but increased from the years of 3 duck limits. Thanks to the efforts of sportsmen UNITING to conserve habitat, abide by game laws and police our own ranks, and Mother Nature providing some drought relief on the Northern Prairies, the outlook for waterfowl is bright!!

Hopefully we can say the same for our coastal fisheries in the near future!!


----------



## tealnexttime1 (Aug 23, 2004)

haven't read all 24 pages and this might have already been said. but to all the guys who think letting trout go after a catch doesn't seem like such a good idea. ever seen a trouts mouth after a hook has been it? and is everyone gonna perform a perfect hook out on a trout? those mouths are mangled pretty good plus all the trout against shirts and squeezing. i doubt any of the fish released are gonna do all that good anyway. plus, u fish all day in that heat, put all the time getting ready and spend all that money. you have every right to keep what the law allows. we ain't gonna just keep catching the same fish over and over. come on, man.


----------



## coker101 (Jun 13, 2014)

I'm a new fisherman but imo (for whatever it's worth) I think it depends on how often you're going out. I mean if you go out 2 times a week, do you really need to limit out and keep everything every time?

I mean sure it's legal but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. 

I think it also should depend on how healthy the population is and how much the area is fished.

I don't know I just think if you can help the local fishing area that you love so much, why not?


----------



## SuddenJerk (May 12, 2014)

duckmania said:


> Incorrect, if we take care of it now, we won't need seasons. That's the whole point. I've had one trout over 8lbs in the last few months, and that was fishing very hard with a guide.
> Use to be able to catch 3 or 4 every year.


Here is something else that has to do with the OP of this thread. In over 20 years of fishing SE La. I have never caught an 8lb+ trout and I'm sure 80% of the people that live and fish SE La. can say the same thing. So for all of those that say why doesn't the SE part of the state let their fish grow and blah blah blah just do not understand this fishery. Small trout, FAT reds with plenty to go around!


----------



## Trueno (May 24, 2014)

coker101 said:


> I'm a new fisherman but imo (for whatever it's worth) I think it depends on how often you're going out. I mean if you go out 2 times a week, do you really need to limit out and keep everything every time?
> 
> I mean sure it's legal but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
> 
> ...


Agreed, it's just that the hugger drama of "10,000 fishermen a day are hitting their limit so more laws are needed" gets old. About as sensible as people thinking New York's 7rd limit in firearms will cut crime in half.

Really man, who do ya want in your boat, "Sheldon Cooper" or "Johnny Fever"?

:slimer:

eta - welcome to the forum!


----------



## lil mambo (Jul 22, 2009)

duckmania said:


> *The term refers to people that are out to get what they can, even if it is within the law.
> *
> Look, I'm not a biologist or a Jr.Game Warden. I'm just a guy who fishes the mid coast a lot. It use to be pretty good, now it is mediocre on a good day. I enjoy eating trout as much as anyone. I come across hard on the subject because I'm passionate about it. I don't want it to get worse. That's all, nothing more. The more fish released, the more for everyone to catch. The more fish spawning, the more that will grow. Its real simple. When things turn around, rain, hurricane, reduced limits, whatever, it won't be such a big issue with guys like me. Until then, I encourage guys to take a hard look and do a little to improve the fishing. That's all.


 Wrong again. The term refers to those who want the government to step in and take something away from another person because they believe they have to much. Sound like anyone you see in the mirror each morning.

I have always felt like thinning out the herd leads to a great population of fish as it makes sure that there is always plenty enough bait fish to support a healthy fishery. My opinion for what its worth.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

lil mambo said:


> So I have a question for all you trout Gods that think you are so good you can recreationally catch a species of fish into extinction. Please tell us game hogs the name of the species where it was ever proven to have happened too. Google is your friend whiners, get after it.


1. Flounder. 
Yes the commercial giggers did a lot of damage to the population in the middle and lower coast, but the recreational anglers really did the damage in the northern coast. Not a whole lot of gigging in Galveston bay proper and Sabine. Water is too deep and not clear enough most of the time. The damage was done in those areas (Sea Wolf Park, Bolivar, SLP, Rollover, Sabine Pass, etc.) by the recreational guys during the fall migrations. I personally saw and reported quite a few violations of over the limit harvesting. The GW actually showed up a couple of times and once he actually thanked me for reporting the guys. Call me a Jr Game Warden if you must but it's pretty sickening to see those violations.

2. Red Snapper.
Again, yes the commercials have done much of the damage, but I can remember going out on party boats out of Freeport in the 60's and EVERY snapper that was caught went into the box. That was just the mindset in those days. It was an endless recourse. Yeah, right. Then I bought an offshore boat and took part in the slaughter. No limits, kill em all. Well that started the snapper population to diminish. Then came a limit of 7 snapper @14". Didn't help much. Then more restrictive limits each year to what we have today. Yes the current limits are ridiculous, but the snapper populations are better than ever.

Bottom line is both of these species were significantly diminished by over fishing. Whether it be commercial or recreational really is a moot point. It was a combination of both.

Just a couple of observations after 50 years of fishing this coast.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

duckmania said:


> The ONLY thing I'm wishing for is Texas Coastal Fisherman taking responsibility for our fisheries and taking care of them. If we are in a bad cycle, okay, lets don't just keep raping it because we can legally do so. It's an incredible resource, it won't last forever if it is not taken care of.


Right on

http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

netboy said:


> The GW actually showed up a couple of times and once he actually thanked me for reporting the guys. Call me a Jr Game Warden if you must but it's pretty sickening to see those violations.


Call a "real" Game Warden next time you see someone with 10 legal trout....see what he tells you :biggrin:

Right on ?


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

*Ain't NOTHIN broke in Louisiana*

Nothing that needs fixin, especially by a bunch of whiners who can't catch a cold much less fish

I saw the writing on the wall in Texas ten years ago, stupid people without a clue how to manage a fishery -

pumping millions of red drum into systems that could not support that many mouths given the state of the available forage , just so TPWD could appease the public when its not sound biology, overabundant dolphin, crashed menhaden and sand eel stocks , not to mention brown and white shrimp

Look UPSTREAM that's where the problem lies - the catch rates in Texas will continue to plummet until there are solutions to lack of inflow to the estuaries, and the finfish populations adjust to that lack of forage and nursery areas.

I made my choice after 54 years fishing the mid coast - and it was move to better grounds - Louisiana manages its inland fish stocks just fine and does no supplemental stocking - the bays and sounds teem with forage and gamefish - unlike the almost silent seas inshore Texas.

It won't matter how much limits are cut, how many you keep or don't keep as longs as the estuaries remain super salty. There just won't be many fish and those left will be harder to find -

Cutting limits are causing high grading by lot of fishermen - which does the OPPOSITE of putting more specs in the system. Texas is cutting its nose to spite its face.


----------



## lil mambo (Jul 22, 2009)

netboy said:


> 1. Flounder.
> Yes the commercial giggers did a lot of damage to the population in the middle and lower coast, but the recreational anglers really did the damage in the northern coast. Not a whole lot of gigging in Galveston bay proper and Sabine. Water is too deep and not clear enough most of the time. The damage was done in those areas (Sea Wolf Park, Bolivar, SLP, Rollover, Sabine Pass, etc.) by the recreational guys during the fall migrations. I personally saw and reported quite a few violations of over the limit harvesting. The GW actually showed up a couple of times and once he actually thanked me for reporting the guys. Call me a Jr Game Warden if you must but it's pretty sickening to see those violations.
> 
> 2. Red Snapper.
> ...


Do you understand what he word extinct means and what the definition of a recreational fisherman is. It's funny how there really seems to be no shortage of either species you mention and neither are extinct or anywhere near it. Like I said earlier, I really love catching the almost extinct snapper in the dead zones off the southeast LA coast.


----------



## noskunks (Jul 27, 2006)

I wonder how many trout a dolphin eats? My little sis hasn't been on the water south of bird island in years and was shocked at the number of Dolphin in the water. I wonder what dolphin taste like?


----------



## Mr. Saltwater (Oct 5, 2012)

TrueblueTexican said:


> Look UPSTREAM that's where the problem lies - the catch rates in Texas will continue to plummet until there are solutions to lack of inflow to the estuaries.


This!!^^^^


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Not hard to manage when you got the #1 freshwater drainage on the continent. Kinda like going all-in with a straight flush...No brainer

There ought to be trophy specs coming outa the bayou all the time. But (correct me if I'm wrong), you got a 12 pound state record that was caught in 1950??

Texas is doing fine with the regs we just need more freshwater and until we get it, we have to be "conservative".


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Interesting thread. If rod and reel fishing cannot have an impact on a fish populations, should there even be limits? Of any kind?


----------



## Trueno (May 24, 2014)

poppadawg said:


> Interesting thread. If rod and reel fishing cannot have an impact on a fish populations, should there even be limits? Of any kind?


There was a time when there weren't any.

One would think that with all the doom-n-gloom in this thread that the STAR tournament would be wrapped up in 2 weeks due to all the tagged reds being caught overnight.

t


----------



## reelfast (Aug 25, 2011)

*Fishing issues*

Maybe we have a bad dolphin problem.... :an5:

Then again, it could be all of those yuppies from Houston driving SCB's with wetsounds blaring down the shoreline everywhere.

Why dont we hire a bunch of federal bureaucrats and professors to take it over since we (State of Texas) can't manage to deal with it ourselves. We can pay them millions to tell us we need to lower the limits and allow the females to spawn because we are so far gone we have lost all common sense and the gov't needs to hold our hand on this one.... lol

Look at these old pictures from fishermen Galveston circa 1000 A.D. and then look at the scene today.

Da** Karankawa screwed up the fishing for everybody!

I may have been born yesterday but I wasn't born in the dark....

There's always someone to blame, but few with solutions.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

So, now that we got all that rain...


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> So, now that we got all that rain...


Huge pporpoise crop coming to our bays. They must be stopped


----------



## Jeff SATX (Jan 18, 2011)

Kyle 1974 said:


> Huge pporpoise crop coming to our bays. They must be stopped


I'm all about it. But I hope to be rescued one day by flipper's cuz so we can't make them human/boat shy. Perhaps hunting parties in airboats and cat suits blasting Lil Wayne will make them less judgemental against normal fishermen. :ac550::an5:


----------

