# New Salinity study shows East Bay will be harmed if Rollover is Closed



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

The study is great reading and will explain what the contractor for the GLO did and that Closing Rollover Pass would Harm East Bay. The Gilchrist Community Association has the complet study on our website
www.rolloverpasstexas.com 
(it is 23 pages long so we had to break it up into section to get it on our webpage) I hope this will clear up alot of questions people have. Also there is youtube video for those who would like to know more about the history of Rollover Pass and that can be seen by going to this link






if you would like a copy of the study email me at [email protected] and I get it to you.
Ted Vega 
Pres. Gilchrist Community Association


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

I haven't read the report yet (but fully plan on it). Is Blackburn Carter the firm that filed the suit on behalf of GCA? I ask because it is addressed like an expert report in litigation.


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

irbjd said:


> I haven't read the report yet (but fully plan on it). Is Blackburn Carter the firm that filed the suit on behalf of GCA? I ask because it is addressed like an expert report in litigation.


Yes Jim Blackburn is the attorney for the Gun Club and the GCA, there is a press release that explains on one page the jist of the study, but if you look at the full study you will see the details/graphs that fairly clearly shows that the GLO's contractor cooked the books.

I appreciate your interest, if you need to send me the full study as a word document, I can do that. Ted


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Interesting read. 

Although there is plenty of data and evidence that show the GLO is wrong, I'm glad to see some professional analysis that counters the GLO position.

There are several here that want to see EB as a freshwater bay to attract ducks. This report shows that they will indeed get their freshwater bay if the pass is closed.

Keep up the fight, there are a lot of guys out here that support your efforts. If you see Mr. Blackburn give him a big TY on our behalf.


----------



## SaltyRichard (Jan 10, 2014)

So the side that wants it closed did a study saying East bay would be fine if not better off by closing the pass? Now, the side that wants it to remain open is saying that closing it will negatively effect East bay? Go figure...


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Yeah, I know but weigh the arguments on their individual merits.

What that guy says is true. In the EA report from the consultants of TxGLO it says, straight-up, that their model (and the resulting data) was "simplified" to save time and money.

And it is also true that their model did not include freshwater inflows from Oyster Bayou or the ICW.

These guys didn't start the fight.


----------



## Captain Dave (Jul 19, 2006)

I will add TPWD and CCA will be in middle East this year on a few reef projects... Lovely


----------



## BMTAngler (Aug 17, 2008)

Oh god, not again.....


----------



## dinodude (Mar 17, 2013)

BMTAngler said:


> Oh god, not again.....


100 page thread coming soon...


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Nah, all the points that need to be made have been made.

No opinions on either side have been changed here. 

Hopefully folks that were not aware of the problem can now make an "informed and balanced" opinion.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

The benefits of increased salinity in our bays is going to be a hard sale. It will be interesting to see what side TPWD and The Galveston Bay Foundation weigh in on. Jerry Patterson's replacement is also a wild card...


----------



## Mr. Breeze (Jan 6, 2005)

Last sundays sports 610 radio had a attorney answering questions on the lawsuit, etc. Capt. Mickey Eastmans show. They have a podcast of it on their website.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

In 1955 the Texas Game and Fish Commission opened Roll Over Pass w/ the idea that would help salintity levels in East Bay and Roll Over Bay, also to aid w/ the vegetation growth and assist in fish spawning. If this IS the case, why do individuals want to fill it in 65 yrs later? I've not kept up w/ this ''closing'' issue for sure. If someone would tell me briefly WHY people want it filled in would help me. Evidentley, prior to 1955, someone said the ECO System was in danger in East Bay and if so, Roll Over corrected the problem, at least for 65 yrs. Now This...Whats up? ed/vb


----------



## Part Timer (Jul 2, 2012)

V-Bottom said:


> In 1955 the Texas Game and Fish Commission opened Roll Over Pass w/ the idea that would help salintity levels in East Bay and Roll Over Bay, also to aid w/ the vegetation growth and assist in fish spawning. If this IS the case, why do individuals want to fill it in 65 yrs later? I've not kept up w/ this ''closing'' issue for sure. If someone would tell me briefly WHY people want it filled in would help me. Evidentley, prior to 1955, someone said the ECO System was in danger in East Bay and if so, Roll Over corrected the problem, at least for 65 yrs. Now This...Whats up? ed/vb


Have you been to east bay lately? No vegetation. They were wrong 65 years ago. Also the increase in salinity has allowed drill snails to flourish and they kill oysters. That in short is the debate.


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

Part Timer said:


> Have you been to east bay lately? No vegetation. They were wrong 65 years ago. Also the increase in salinity has allowed drill snails to flourish and they kill oysters. That in short is the debate.


This.

The increase in salinity has proven to be detrimental to the bay. In other words, the decreased salinity in East Bay from closing ROP is a BENEFIT NOT A DETRIMENT.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

If people would leave **** alone it work itself out.

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


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> If people would leave **** alone it work itself out.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


Meaning it would fill itself in...:dance:


----------



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

Have you been to east bay lately? No vegetation. They were wrong 65 years ago. Also the increase in salinity has allowed drill snails to flourish and they kill oysters. That in short is the debate.

man cannot improve on what mother nature has evolved..........


----------



## Super Dave (May 26, 2004)

V-Bottom said:


> In 1955 the Texas Game and Fish Commission opened Roll Over Pass w/ the idea that would help salintity levels in East Bay and Roll Over Bay, also to aid w/ the vegetation growth and assist in fish spawning. If this IS the case, why do individuals want to fill it in 65 yrs later? I've not kept up w/ this ''closing'' issue for sure. If someone would tell me briefly WHY people want it filled in would help me. Evidentley, prior to 1955, someone said the ECO System was in danger in East Bay and if so, Roll Over corrected the problem, at least for 65 yrs. Now This...Whats up? ed/vb


Follow the money.


----------



## Jean Scurtu (Dec 6, 2011)

Finn Maccumhail said:


> Meaning it would fill itself in...:dance:


:texasflag

I agree with Mac.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> If people would leave **** alone it work itself out.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy





Jean Scurtu said:


> :texasflag
> 
> I agree with Mac.


So...Y'all are implying that God never needed man's assistance with His creations in the first place.


----------



## KillerShrimp (Jan 12, 2005)

I don't believe there is a lack of vegetation due to rollover pass. The lack of vegetation we suffer from lately is from hurricane Ike. I fished beautiful grass flats in trinity bay for 8 years prior to the hurricane and we have squat *** but widgeon grass. And I have seen no regrowth of any other grasses since. Although the widgeon grass has gotten stronger over the years since Ike, there still no regrowth of the other grasses.


----------



## LouieB (Jun 7, 2005)

Jean Scurtu said:


> :texasflag
> 
> I agree with Mac.


You'd be a fool not to.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

You guys that keep bringing God into the discussion...chew on this.

How do you know that God didn't want Rollover Pass built. He certainly cou;d have stopped it. I say he sent ROP angels down to build ROP to fix the problems that were occurring there.

That makes just as much sense as what you are saying.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I don't think Smac gives a flying flip about anything North or East of the Brazos River


----------



## bigspeck68 (Dec 22, 2013)

Is the guy just trying to close rollover from fishing? 

Or is going to fill it in?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

The TxGLO, after Hurrican Ike, came in and concocted a plan to close and fill-in ROP.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

There have been discussions for years about the erosion issue, but after Ike, when the bridge got damaged they got real serious about shutting it all down.

The problem is it is private property and the owners and the majority of the local community don't want it closed.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

jampen said:


> You guys that keep bringing God into the discussion...chew on this.
> 
> How do you know that God didn't want Rollover Pass built. He certainly cou;d have stopped it. I say he sent ROP angels down to build ROP to fix the problems that were occurring there.


What problems?  I thought that everything that God created was perfect. By your rationale, God also sent His Boob Job angel down to enhance Anna Nicole's breasts.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I wasn't there, but I doubt they went to all that trouble to dig it out because they were bored.

Maybe God told them to do it.

Perhap because there was no easy access to the bay, and low-salinity, the only fish that lived there were alligator gar and catfish.


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

jampen said:


> There have been discussions for years about the erosion issue, but after Ike, when the bridge got damaged they got real serious about shutting it all down.
> 
> The problem is it is private property and the owners and the majority of the local community don't want it closed.


Oh for Christ-sakes, it's not private property. At least not in the way you're trying to make it out to be. The pass was granted to the GLO via a perpetual easement. If the state wishes to terminate the easement they're required to restore the area to it's previous condition (ie- fill it in).

There is no taking of private property unless the state plans to use private property to build a pier &/or park on and not compensate the landowner.

The fact you keep bringing this up doesn't help your case. It shows you've got no clue whatsoever about real estate law. Seriously, if you're so certain this is taking private property why don't you lay it out point-by-point?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

So "eminent domain" is used to take public property??

You're right...I must be ignorant as hell...stupid me. Why wouldn't the GLO spend millions of taxpayer dollars (including a $1.5M bribe to Galveston County) on a lengthy legal battle if all they had to do was roll in there and go to town for free??

Also I am sure that the rightful landowners are thrilled to have a fishing pier built on their property?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Read the TxGLO permit application to the COE.

Even there it says that, at that time, they did not have ownership of the pass, but that they fully expected to be able to acquire ownership of the property. 

It was a complete fraud by the GLO on the COE and is now a major legal point, that the permit should be withdrawn, on the grounds that it was issued under false pretenses.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

I have been to many of the scoping meeting with TPWD over the years and a constant theme is the negative effects of salinity on our bays. Yet in this case we are being told its a "good" thing? I'm thinking that's not going to fly. 

It's a great fishing spot and easily accessible but I think the damage being done both to the bay and the beach has become to detrimental.


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

jampen said:


> Read the TxGLO permit application to the COE.
> 
> Even there it says that, at that time, they did not have ownership of the pass, but that they fully expected to be able to acquire ownership of the property.
> 
> It was a complete fraud by the GLO on the COE and is now a major legal point, that the permit should be withdrawn, on the grounds that it was issued under false pretenses.


Here's the GLO application. It says no such thing about them not owning the land. It mentions the club owning adjacent land.

And I'm guessing you don't understand how an easement works.

http://www.glo.texas.gov/what-we-do...ver-pass/rollover-pass-permit-application.pdf


----------



## MIKE S. (Apr 8, 2007)

glennkoks said:


> I have been to many of the scoping meeting with TPWD over the years and a constant theme is the negative effects of salinity on our bays. Yet in this case we are being told its a "good" thing? I'm thinking that's not going to fly.
> 
> It's a great fishing spot and easily accessible but I think the damage being done both to the bay and the beach has become to detrimental.


I thought the pro-pass folks originally argued that Rollover didnt have much of an effect on the salinity levels of East bay? Now it seems they're saying the opposite and that without it the bay will suffer?


----------



## dinodude (Mar 17, 2013)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> If people would leave **** alone it work itself out.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


Exactly!
Let nature take its course.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

MIKE S. said:


> I thought the pro-pass folks originally argued that Rollover didnt have much of an effect on the salinity levels of East bay? Now it seems they're saying the opposite and that without it the bay will suffer?


I'm sure rollover pass has beneficial qualities. If you or an oyster conch or drill.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

If someone would just install a huge pipe, take away the bridge and well....you know


----------



## topwatrout (Aug 25, 2009)

Are the people who are wanting to close this bay not the ones catching huge trout out of it every winter? That would explain alot.

Consistently many people's biggest trout of the winter come from the back of that bay and its no secret. So we're doing it for the grass and not the big trout fishery?


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

topwatrout said:


> Are the people who are wanting to close this bay not the ones catching huge trout out of it every winter? That would explain alot.
> 
> Consistently many people's biggest trout of the winter come from the back of that bay and its no secret. So we're doing it for the grass and not the big trout fishery?


Anecdotal accounts from the folks who fished back there pre-ROP were that it was a better fishery.

Cleaner, clearer water. More grass beds. More oysters. More diverse fishery.


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> If people would leave **** alone it work itself out.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


Verdad.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

My Dad told me stories of fishing East Bay before ROP was dug. He said there were grass flats for miles, and pristine clear water in the grass flats. Lot's of trout and reds....always sounded good to me.

Baffin Bay & Port Mansfield don't get much fresh water influx either. I've caught a lot of really nice trout & reds in those places :smile:.

Why all the "sky is falling" attitude of the potential closing of ROP...I don't see it at all.


----------



## Jean Scurtu (Dec 6, 2011)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> If people would leave **** alone it work itself out.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


:texasflag

"Natura non facit saltus"


----------



## Part Timer (Jul 2, 2012)

topwatrout said:


> Are the people who are wanting to close this bay not the ones catching huge trout out of it every winter? That would explain alot.
> 
> Consistently many people's biggest trout of the winter come from the back of that bay and its no secret. So we're doing it for the grass and not the big trout fishery?


They are doing it cause it cost tax payers 1 million a year to keep it open cause of the silt it dumps into the ICW. Pretty simple solution...........close the pass save a million. The beneficial aspect to the bay and oyster population is just a plus.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

They dredge the ICW at ROP once every 18 months (not every year) and the extra dredging cost attributed solely to ROP is said to be less than $100K (not $1M).

The TxGLO environmental assessment report says that they can only expect a 50% reduction in the dredging after closure...so you're looking at saving maybe $50K every year and a half, best case.

The silt comes from freshwater run-off and inflow (bayous and ICW)...sand comes in from the beach


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Bocephus said:


> Baffin Bay & Port Mansfield don't get much fresh water influx either. I've caught a lot of really nice trout & reds in those places :smile:.


Exactly the point. All the experts on here justify the seizure of private property by saying it's good for the environment, will lower the salinity in EB and the fishing will improve.

Meanwhile, the best trophy trout fishing in the world (BB) is just a few miles south, has double the salinity yet enjoys tons more grass (real sea grass...not marsh grass) as East Bay.

Hard to figure why salinity is so destructive for East Bay and Baffin does so well.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Finn Maccumhail said:


> Here's the GLO application. It says no such thing about them not owning the land. It mentions the club owning adjacent land.
> 
> And I'm guessing you don't understand how an easement works.
> 
> http://www.glo.texas.gov/what-we-do...ver-pass/rollover-pass-permit-application.pdf


This is from the lawsuit...


----------



## irbjd (Aug 11, 2005)

Jean Scurtu said:


> :texasflag
> 
> "Natura non facit saltus"


Nature doesn't make jumps, until people start jacking with it.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

Salintity and Genetics of a Species.......hummmmmmmmm


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Ok so what about all the really nice trout caught every day in East Bay?? Hummm


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

The fishing is East Bay is just as good as anywhere else in the GB complex...so ROP can't possibly be doing much to hurt the fishing.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

If you have any back-up to your claim that the trout in Baffin are genetically different from the trout in East BAy, lets see it...otherwise we will just add this claim to all the other assumptions and speculation


----------



## Part Timer (Jul 2, 2012)

Jampen for the zillion time I don't think you understand how a easement works. They own the land not the pass. The owners gave them the land to build it basically. Its theirs now. Just cause there is a lawsuit doesn't make them right. A man can break into my house me shoot him and then he can sue me. That's doesn't mean he is in the right. Its just the way America works. Anyone can sue anyone.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Sure...you're right...they own it... that's why they are spending millions of taxpayers dollars on a lengthy legal battle and having to coerce Galveston County into a condemning and eminent domain action...but ignore all that...you're right ...they own it

Sure they do


----------



## Part Timer (Jul 2, 2012)

So if they own the pass they ok with footing the bill for bulk head maintenance and dredging? 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Yes...on their property


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

The state doesn't do any maintenance on ROP proper...zero

Except immediately following Hurricane Ike, they cleared debris out of the pass.


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

jampen said:


> This is from the lawsuit...
> 
> View attachment 1044121


Just because that's what's alleged in the suit doesn't make it correct. The state is not taking anything. They are giving it back. The club may own the bottom under the pass but it only exists because the easement granted which allowed the state to cut the pass and do the dredging.

But it's the only thing you can hang your hat on so your group is slinging stuff at the wall to see what sticks.

And for the thousandth time. The reason for the quality fishery in Baffin and the LLM is not the salinity itself. It's the abundance of structure which attracts bait and the relative isolation reducing pressure. The salinity isn't what's impacting the fish populations. And it's a different species of grass than what used to be present in East Bay.

It has been proven without a doubt that the increased salinity has harmed the oyster population and grasses which can't handle the higher salinity. And the increased sediment clouds the water killing even more grass. It's a vicious cycle which harms the bay.

I swear, trying to educate you is like trying to teach my dog to drive.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

...but the salinity is not hurting anything down there now is it??

Is it??


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

jampen said:


> Sure...you're right...they own it... that's why they are spending millions of taxpayers dollars on a lengthy legal battle and having to coerce Galveston County into a condemning and eminent domain action...but ignore all that...you're right ...they own it
> 
> Sure they do


There's no coercion going on and the GLO is spending the money on the suit & eminent domain because they're being forced to by the baseless lawsuits.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

You seem to struggle understanding or more likely are conveniently ignoring the fact that the trout, redfish, sea-grass, shrimp, bait-fish and all the other good things that make up a healthy bay eco-system on the Texas Coast are alive and well in the hyper-saline waters of the LLM and Baffin Bay.

So for once and for all let's get past the idea that 15-25 ppm salinity, in East Bay is bad for the bay generally nor bad for the fishing specifically. 

It's not and you know it.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Finn Maccumhail said:


> There's no coercion going on and the GLO is spending the money on the suit & eminent domain because they're being forced to by the baseless lawsuits.


They gave $1.5M of taxpayer dollars to Galveston County for no specific use other than as a "general fund" to grease the wheels.

No...not coercion...ignore that


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

...and if the salinity falls below 10ppm, which it most likely will do if ROP is closed, then the oysters that are established in the eastern half of EB will die.

No question


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

In the end, we are fortunate to live in the US. 

If the case is allowed to work it's way through the legal system, in the end we will end up with a just outcome.

Even if they close ROP, as long as a competent and unbiased judge is allowed to rule then I'll accept the decision.

It needs to get out of Galveston County and probably out of Texas


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

jampen said:


> You seem to struggle understanding or more likely are conveniently ignoring the fact that the trout, redfish, sea-grass, shrimp, bait-fish and all the other good things that make up a healthy bay eco-system on the Texas Coast are alive and well in the hyper-saline waters of the LLM and Baffin Bay.
> 
> So for once and for all let's get past the idea that 15-25 ppm salinity, in East Bay is bad for the bay generally nor bad for the fishing specifically.
> 
> It's not and you know it.


Jesus tap-dancin' Christ, are you insane?

Nobody has ever said the salinity harms the fish. It harms the fishery. Meaning the habitat.

The increased salinity harms the bay by killing native seagrass which is a different species from the grass in Baffin or the LLM. This removes a silt/sediment filter and reduces cover for baitfish. Which means fewer big fish.

The increased salinity also allows for oyster parasites to flourish which removes even more filtration capacity and cover for baitfish.

All of which increases turbidity and is detrimental to the fishery.

Nice try at moving the goalposts though. Why don't you post more studies that you completely misinterpret?


----------



## Finn Maccumhail (Feb 16, 2009)

jampen said:


> ...and if the salinity falls below 10ppm, which it most likely will do if ROP is closed, then the oysters that are established in the eastern half of EB will die.
> 
> No question


No they won't. The oyster population pre-ROP was higher in EB and the salinity was much, much lower then.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Yeah cause the hyper-saline "habitat" in Baffin is "harmed".

I'm quoting you.

...and, right or wrong, many fisherman down there still want Yarborough opened to the Gulf

...just like ROP is


----------



## dinodude (Mar 17, 2013)

lol I knew this would start up again :rotfl:


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Finn Maccumhail said:


> No they won't. The oyster population pre-ROP was higher in EB and the salinity was much, much lower then.


Are you saying that oysters thrive at salinity below 10ppm.

There no way you are making THAT claim. You're know better than that.

There is AMPLE scientific data to show that fresh water kills oysters.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

If all you care about are oysters...ten there definitely is a window or sweet-spot for salinity between 15 and 28 ppm. And true enough at the higher salinity levels you increase the likely hood of oyster predators (algae and snails).

But those predators will be in the saltier water whether ROP is open or closed (via HSC) and the fresh water (below 10ppm) will kill more oysters than algae or snails all together.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

*Possibly Yes........*



jampen said:


> If you have any back-up to your claim that the trout in Baffin are genetically different from the trout in East BAy, lets see it...otherwise we will just add this claim to all the other assumptions and speculation


A Fishing Tournamnet was held at Harborwalk Marina a few short yrs ago and the fish entered were allowed to come from anywhere. These fish were SEPARATED in holding tanks(by the Fisheries Dept.) due to their GENETICS and furthured elsewhere by the Marine Fisheries Dept.i.e. being caught in different regions along the TX Coast..... my.02


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

How many tanks and what biologist were there to verify the genetic differences??


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Look, I don't doubt that if you pulled a trout out of the back lakes of Sabine and drove it down to Baffin and threw it in...it might not make it.

That not genetics, that's acclamation, like an aquarium fish...you have to give it time to adjust.

What we know, unequivocally, is that trout, redfish, shrimp, baitfish and many types of sea grass live and multiply (some to a very large size) in super-salty water. Much more salty than you will ever see in East Bay


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

So again, please, can we move past the idea that the moderately saline water, in the very localized mouth of ROBay, are detrimental to the fishing in all of East Bay.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

...expect another left turn...coming any time now

Remember to use your signal


----------



## indaskinny (May 25, 2009)

I truly find it hard to believe, that a pass, 100yrds wide, provides that much salinity to a body of water that has a pass to the west that is what, 4 miles wide?

And I believe when Rudy Grigar fished east bay that ROP was not there. He seemed to think the fishery was quite nice back then.


----------



## ut755ln (Mar 19, 2013)

indaskinny said:


> And I believe when Rudy Grigar fished east bay that ROP was not there. He seemed to think the fishery was quite nice back then.


My grandfather says the same thing. There is little doubt that the erosion is a significant problem. In order to protect the peninsula, they needed another jetty or to close the pass.


----------



## whalerguy28 (Jun 3, 2009)

Leaving out grass and salinity, that's the main problem ut755, and the real reason for closing it as far as I can see. If the erosion the pass is creating isn't handled the peninsula will erode to the highway and real estate. A quick fix of closing the pass is way cheaper than having to pay to reroute a highway or start paying for real estate loss. The peninsula is washing away through that pass, and as bad as it stinks to land based fishermen it needs to be closed, period!!!!


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

*In 1985.....*



jampen said:


> They dredge the ICW at ROP once every 18 months (not every year) and the extra dredging cost attributed solely to ROP is said to be less than $100K (not $1M).
> 
> The TxGLO environmental assessment report says that they can only expect a 50% reduction in the dredging after closure...so you're looking at saving maybe $50K every year and a half, best case.
> 
> The silt comes from freshwater run-off and inflow (bayous and ICW)...sand comes in from the beach


it cost the Corps of Engineers $720,000 to dredge the ICW every 18mos. to 2 yrs and deposit it in sites #35 and 36. This dredge sand was eventually deposited on the S.W. side of ROP.....which is part of the 7 miles thats been eroding (5ft/yr.) since the pass was built.


----------



## Part Timer (Jul 2, 2012)

V-Bottom said:


> it cost the Corps of Engineers $720,000 to dredge the ICW every 18mos. to 2 yrs and deposit it in sites #35 and 36. This dredge sand was eventually deposited on the S.W. side of ROP.....which is part of the 7 miles thats been eroding (5ft/yr.) since the pass was built.


He doesn't care about your silly factual numbers. Think of the sea turtles! Tax payers be darned he needs a spot to fish fo free......well not free anymore but still cheap.

Which brings me to another point. The original owner who granted them permission to open the pass, said he okay-ed it.............as long as the pass was always free to the public. Which is not the case any longer.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

Well.......excuse me......Sea Turtles!!


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

You're not paying to fish...you're paying $5 to park. Fishing is free


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

USACE is going to continue maintaining that stretch every 18 months whether ROP is open or not.

It's what they do


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

*How ya figure......*



jampen said:


> USACE is going to continue maintaining that stretch every 18 months whether ROP is open or not.
> 
> It's what they do


 ''IF" ROP is filled in, the West Side beach sand will not erode into the ICW. Therefore, there should not be any further 2yr. dredging IMO. Why would they need to continue? On the other hand, if ROP is not filled in, we will see ''Bolivar Island'' one day.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

I'm buying $100 worth of rocks every weekend and driving down there to start helping to close it beginning tomorrow! :bounce:


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

jampen said:


> ...but the salinity is not hurting anything down there now is it??
> 
> Is it??


There are no oysters reefs to mention in Baffin and most of the Laguna Madre. It's to salty.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> I'm buying $100 worth of rocks every weekend and driving down there to start helping to close it beginning tomorrow! :bounce:


Good luck, they will end up in the Gulf


----------



## indaskinny (May 25, 2009)

Jampen, no response to my post? Why not?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

You didn't really ask a question...skinny

There are "lots" of fishermen "right now" that think fishing in EB is great. FYI


----------



## indaskinny (May 25, 2009)

jampen said:


> You didn't really ask a question...skinny
> 
> There are "lots" of fishermen "right now" that think fishing in EB is great. FYI


I agree with that, but history proves it was in fact better, when the pass was not there.

I would love for the fishing to be as great as it was when Grigar was around. But man has caused that to not be the case. Whether it is the amount of fish they used to harvest, or digging an unnatural pass into a peninsula. Both of those have been caused by man.

But please explain your thoughts that a 100yrd wide pass is the deciding factor on the salinity.


----------



## dinodude (Mar 17, 2013)

indaskinny said:


> I agree with that, but history proves it was in fact better, when the pass was not there.
> 
> I would love for the fishing to be as great as it was when Grigar was around. But man has caused that to not be the case. Whether it is the amount of fish they used to harvest, or digging an unnatural pass into a peninsula. Both of those have been caused by man.
> 
> But please explain your thoughts that a 100yrd wide pass is the deciding factor on the salinity.


Actually the pass was already there. They only widened. 
I think immediately closing the pass will also cause harm because probably the decreased salinity may stress the organisms (that finally became used to the higher salinity levels)
Quick variation of salinity will definitely harm the east bay.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Skinny...I'm not sure what you are asking.

Others here claim that because ROP lets more salty gulf water in to the far east end of EB then the more salty water has killed the sea grass, killed the oysters, and killed EB.

I disagree...they are wrong, and there is plenty of evidence to support it; including record oyster harvest just prior to Hurricane Ike and loads of pictures of big trout, flounder, redfish, black drum, and, yes, dare I say it, sea turtles in East Bay and ROP


----------



## indaskinny (May 25, 2009)

dinodude said:


> Actually the pass was already there. They only widened.
> I think immediately closing the pass will also cause harm because probably the decreased salinity may stress the organisms (that finally became used to the higher salinity levels)
> Quick variation of salinity will definitely harm the east bay.


The pass was opened in 1955


----------



## yellowmouth2 (Aug 16, 2005)

How do the oyster people stand on this issue? Do they believe it's going to effect them? If so, I would think they would be pretty vocal about it but to be honest I haven't heard anything on their stance.


----------



## indaskinny (May 25, 2009)

jampen said:


> Skinny...I'm not sure what you are asking.
> 
> Others here claim that because ROP lets more salty gulf water in to the far east end of EB then the more salty water has killed the sea grass, killed the oysters, and killed EB.
> 
> I disagree...they are wrong, and there is plenty of evidence to support it; including record oyster harvest just prior to hurricane ike


Since records have been kept on oysters. Tell me the year the state started keeping tabs on oyster harvest.


----------



## indaskinny (May 25, 2009)

And so Jampen, have you ever seen the stringers they used to haul off of hannas reef? Before the opening of the pass?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I'm not an oysterman but 2003 was a record year for oysters out of Galveston Bay (including EB)


----------



## dinodude (Mar 17, 2013)

indaskinny said:


> The pass was opened in 1955


It was naturally over there.
They only widened it.
I guess when they mean by open they meant for public usage (not really sure)


----------



## indaskinny (May 25, 2009)

Please include a reference if you provide a snipit


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

That came out of Texas Monthly...google search it


----------



## indaskinny (May 25, 2009)

jampen said:


> That came out of Texas Monthly...google search it


Awesome, a reliable source....

Close the danged pass already.


----------



## MIKE S. (Apr 8, 2007)

dinodude said:


> 100 page thread coming soon...





jampen said:


> Nah, all the points that need to be made have been made.
> 
> No opinions on either side have been changed here.
> 
> Hopefully folks that were not aware of the problem can now make an "informed and balanced" opinion.


Jampen- congratulations! You managed to clutter another RP thread.


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

jampen said:


> I'm not an oysterman but 2003 was a record year for oysters out of Galveston Bay (including EB)
> 
> View attachment 1046769


Jampen, a record harvest is not necessarily a reflection of a healthy and large population. We covered that in the other thread. All that means is that more were harvested nothing more nothing less. We all understand that Ike had a negative impact on the oyster population in East bay, it is a fact. What you do not realize is that it has ZERO to do with ROP. They are two separate issues. Hurricanes are a natural occurrence, ROP is not. It is man made not natural. I don't know how that fact can be made any clearer.


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

SaltyRichard said:


> So the side that wants it closed did a study saying East bay would be fine if not better off by closing the pass? Now, the side that wants it to remain open is saying that closing it will negatively effect East bay? Go figure...


It's not quite that way, one side did the study improperly and manipulate a state modeling program TexBlend to show salinity levels that do not reflect true conditions. The side that want it open paid to have someone check the facts and found this out. I really believe closing RP will indeed harm east bay. Thanks for your time to write.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

Pre-IKE.........17,000 ACRES of leased oyster reefs were available to harvest oysters(East Bay)
Post-IKE.......Now 8,000 acreas of these reefs are now silted over.
Oyster harvesting dropped DRASTICALLY, .....the oyster boats went SOUTH
to Maddy. Boats were so thick there it was like bumper cars. Smith Point oyster buyers
used to get their yearly quota of 90 million pounds, now they are lucky to get 20M.
Thats it for me, no more oyster talk....the original issue about ROP was side tracked.
Next.............!!


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

well said, the more people are informed the better we all are. The small community of Gilchrist and the people that enjoy coming to Rollover Pass deserve the facts good or bad, I am still learning all the time, Take Care


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

glennkoks said:


> The benefits of increased salinity in our bays is going to be a hard sale. It will be interesting to see what side TPWD and The Galveston Bay Foundation weigh in on. Jerry Patterson's replacement is also a wild card...


The study shows that the salinity is in the range that it needs to be with RP open, leaving RP open is good, closing it will cause EB to revert back to the very reason it was opened in 1955, If you would like to read more about the reason you can see it on the Texas historical marker #7166. Take Care


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

glennkoks said:


> The benefits of increased salinity in our bays is going to be a hard sale. It will be interesting to see what side TPWD and The Galveston Bay Foundation weigh in on. Jerry Patterson's replacement is also a wild card...


The study shows that the salinity is in the range that it needs to be with RP open, leaving RP open is good, closing it will cause EB to revert back to the very reason it was opened in 1955, If you would like to read more about the reason you can see it on the Texas historical marker #7166. Take Care


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

Mr. Breeze said:


> Last sundays sports 610 radio had a attorney answering questions on the lawsuit, etc. Capt. Mickey Eastmans show. They have a podcast of it on their website.


Yes the show was great I along with Jim Blackburn our attorney from Blackburn & Carter was invited to the three hour show so that the fisherman can be better informed on the issue and get a chance to ask questions.

The podcasts are now on the GCA website at www.rolloverpasstexas.com and so is the video on our battle to keep it open.


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

I wish I knew more or could find out more about the grass issue, Ike was a terrible storm and did so much damage to the bays and eco system, and who knows how long before things return. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the grass


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

Finn Maccumhail said:


> This.
> 
> The increase in salinity has proven to be detrimental to the bay. In other words, the decreased salinity in East Bay from closing ROP is a BENEFIT NOT A DETRIMENT.


Doesn't speckled trout and other species need a proper range of salinity to survive and prosper. Closing RP will decrease the salinity to levels that are not good for the species, this was the reason RP opened. Another item for all of us to consider is the large stormwater diversion system call Needmore Diversion that will drain stormwater from Beaumont into the ICW, this will dump a huge amount of stormwater and sediment into the ICW then to EP and really drop the salinity. My thoughts anyway take care


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

RP will not fill itself in due to the construction and water flow in and out, rollover pass has done what it was designed to do, and as a benefit fisherman who cannot afford aboat can enjoy fishing with their families.


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

one question I ask is why and who is behind this, guys the CCA's Mark Ray is quoted as saying that anytime you have a opening between the Gulf and the bay it is good for the the bay and the fisherman who enjoy it. Why won't the CCA put their support into RP, one is the study done by the GLO indicated that closing RP would not have a effect when in reality it would everyone took this bait and agreed with the studies, now I ask the CCA to look into this and do what their mission says they are for. Jerry Patterson appears to be the only person that keeps pushing for the closeure, why I don't know


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

7 miles of beach erosion on the West side of ROP went into that 200 yd. wide cut and was diverted into the ICW areas.This started the almost 2 yr. dredging process by the ACE. That dredge sand was deposited in site #35 and 36. From there it went back to the West side beach area and eroded again. We have already touched on this. In 1876 when the North Jetties was made, the entire beach area/landscape from the base of the North Jetties Eastward DID NOT look like it does today and that build up in land mass was due to the construction of ROP studies show.Ten to one, if the dredging stops in RO Bay, the pass will eventually fill up


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

indaskinny said:


> And so Jampen, have you ever seen the stringers they used to haul off of hannas reef? Before the opening of the pass?


Hannah's Reef is barely in East BAy and certainly won't be changed in the least by anything that happens at ROP

The HSC has 1000x more effect on Hannah than ROP


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Mr. Vega, can you address the construction and maintenance easement issue?

Who was the easement originally granted to, what were the original terms, and what is the status of the easement today?

Have you read or seen the original, actual easement agreement?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

indaskinny said:


> Awesome, a reliable source....


If you don't consider Texas Monthly magazine to be a reliable or credible source of information, then by all means provide some info that proves them wrong.

Otherwise, you're just being petty


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

Hannas barely in East Bay? Jampen Hannas is alot bigger that just Bull Shoals and Laddies Pass


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

I have not seen the original easement, it was given to the Fish & Game Commission, I was told the details by the Pres. of the Gun Club and the attorney. But I will try and get a copy and will share that with you when I do. The Gilchrist Community Assoc. has ownership in RP, we are the caretaker and represent the voice of the people that use it. Take Care


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Commercial oyster harvest in East Bay has been on the decline for years starting long before Ike. And then there is the issue of erosion which is doing damage to the beaches and costing taxpayers millions.

Mr. Patterson and the GLO did not recommend closing Rollover because they want to play the Grinch and steal everyones favorite fishing hole. They are keenly aware of the costs done by the pass and the damage done.


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

jampen said:


> Hannah's Reef is barely in East BAy and certainly won't be changed in the least by anything that happens at ROP
> 
> The HSC has 1000x more effect on Hannah than ROP


Barely in East Bay? How can anyone take you serious with comments like that? The HSC is not going anywhere, you know that. Why do you keep bringing that up? Any negative impact the HSC had on EGB has zero to do with ROP.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

Just got back from unloading my first $100 worth of rocks into ROP. My arms are sure to be sore tomorrow!


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

OK Glen hopefully for the the last time...

Prior to Ike, oysters in Galveston Bay had "not" been in decline, on the contrary, since the mid-1980 they had generally been making a nice recovering, up until Hurricane Ike.

This is from TX-AM Study and Report to Oyster Industry about the storm damage (Ike) and recovery recommendations...









Find it here...http://texas-sea-grant.tamu.edu/WhoWeAre/AgentsSpecialist/mike_haby/Report-to-Oystermen.pdf

Texas harvest is in green

I know the ROP issue is about a lot more than oysters but you always seem to go back to that tired argument, so hopefully this ends it.

You need to quit living in the 1970's

I want to see you write "Prior to Ike the GB oysters were not in decline". If you don't, or can't, admit that you're wrong about that, despite all the proof to the contrary, then you're small man with a small mind and you forfeit any credibility that you might have had.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I realize that there is small likelihood that you will admit that you're wrong, being a professional fisherman and all, and that there is good chance you will point out that oysters are harvested from other bays in Texas besides GB so here is a comparison of GB harvest vs. all other bays









You can combine the blue and green amounts to get an idea of the total GB harvest.

As you should be able to comprehend, prior to Ike, GB was "by far" the largest source of Texas oysters...consistently accounting for 70% or more of the total Texas oyster harvest


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

We all understand that Ike covered up reefs in East Bay. Like I have said before, Ike has nothing to do with ROP. Hurricanes happen, they will happen again. There is nothing we can do about that, hurricanes are natural. ROP is not, it is man made. Just because a hurricane or the HSC has a negative impact on EGB does not mean we turn a blind eye to ROP. We cant do anything about the HSC or hurricanes. ROP is a different story.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

tcbayman said:


> Barely in East Bay? How can anyone take you serious with comments like that? The HSC is not going anywhere, you know that. Why do you keep bringing that up? Any negative impact the HSC had on EGB has zero to do with ROP.











Sooo...where is the confusion here??


----------



## FISHROADIE (Apr 2, 2010)

I would love to hear from someone that fished east bay before the pass was open and see what they say about how the fishing was. I know my grandfather did, but I don't remember any stories about. I do remember him and a friend that had a old yellow jacket wooden boat, fished the bay all the time in the early 1960s. They flipped the boat out in the bay on one trip and ended up afloat and got lost from each other. My grandfathers friend was picked up by a shrimp boat. My grandfather was holding on to the fuel tank and was about to give up when a barge came by and picked him up. They did not get home till 3 am, my grandmother was frantic. We had many pictures and we don't know what happened to them. But the stringers of speckled trout were longer than the boat by quite a few feet. I do not see how closing it can hurt the bay except to trap more pollutants in the bay. It would be a shame to take away the good bank fishing from people that do not have boats or are disabled. The pass was not there before 1955 and I am sure it has changed the bay to were it would never recover to what it was back then. I am on the fence on this one, I think all the studies are one sided.


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

jampen said:


> View attachment 1047481
> 
> 
> Sooo...where is the confusion here??


Your the one that is confused. What you have pointed out in your map is bull shoals. Its the only part of Hanahs that sticks out of the water. Hannahs covers about half of east bay. You really should get a clue


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

And like I have said before. We can not do anything about the HSC so it doesnt make a flip what it does to East Bay anyways.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Point is...about 3% of the gulf water flowing in to Galveston Bay comes through ROP.

The other 97% comes through HSC and SLP. Whatever benefits you think you might get from closing ROP are 97% negated by the other inflows


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Yeah I understand that...but don't blame ROP for problems that are prolific throughout Galveston Bay and are much bigger than any closure of ROP could possibly solve.


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

Ok well what about the beach erosion? What about the sediment? What about the money? Those are benefits too. What about your little map where you tried to say that Hannahs reef only exists where it is exposed out of the water. You made it clear with that post that you really are clueless.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I've said since day one that the erosion issue needs to be addressed and fixed.

I just think a small jetty (as was proposed back in the 1950's when ROP was originally designed but was never built) is a cheaper and better solution than the millions of taxpayer dollars the state is spending on the legal battle to seize the private property and more millions they will have to spend on the actual closure.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

tcbayman said:


> What about your little map where you tried to say that Hannahs reef only exists where it is exposed out of the water. You made it clear with that post that you really are clueless.


Yes or No...Are you claiming that Hannahs Reef is closer to ROP than HSC??

Yes or No??


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Jampen,

You keep using all of Galveston bay oyster data. East bay oyster production has been in decline dating back long before Ike. Ask any commercial oyster fisherman, I should know I worked the bay for years commercially harvesting them. The decline is well documented and maps have been posted and links provided in previous threads. 

You simply interpret them differently or ignore them.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Here is the Navionics map that showing depths...









Even if you include the shallower areas to the East of Hannah's as being part of the reef, you are still twice the distance to ROP as the HSC.

And that's as the crow flies, cutting across Goat Island...its a good bit farther by water.


----------



## tcbayman (Apr 27, 2006)

Hannahs extends all the to pretty to elmgrove. So if its closer to the HSC it is not by much. You said earlier that it is barely in East Bay. Your clueless man go ahead and admit it.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

tcbayman said:


> Your the one that is confused. What you have pointed out in your map is bull shoals. Its the only part of Hanahs that sticks out of the water. Hannahs covers about half of east bay. You really should get a clue


Actually that is Bull Hill, which many call Bull Shoals. Bull Shoals is farther NNW from the part that sticks out of the water.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

glennkoks said:


> Jampen,
> 
> You keep using all of Galveston bay oyster data. East bay oyster production has been in decline dating back long before Ike. Ask any commercial oyster fisherman, I should know I worked the bay for years commercially harvesting them. The decline is well documented and maps have been posted and links provided in previous threads.


This is false...I have reviewed "ALL" of your previous posts on here for the last year and have found not one single link or "map" to GB oyster decline data.

Your only contribution has been anecdotal and "good-ole-days" hearsay stories.

If you have any verifiable data or information on oyster decline in GB since the 1980's please provide it here and now.

Otherwise admit the validity of the TAMU data I gave just a few short posts ago.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I will admit that I don't have a lot of hours on the water in East Bay. Probably a lot less than you guys. Although I have taken boat down several times. I am going mostly by what the maps show.

Regardless of where you start and stop your particular lines, because of proximity and dominating overall volume, the HSC has a much, much greater influence on East Bay (and Hannah Reef) than ROP

...and that was the response to the posts about stringers full of trout coming from Hannah's. 

Point made.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

jampen said:


> I will admit that I don't have a lot of hours on the water in East Bay. Probably a lot less than you guys. Although I have taken boat down several times. I am going mostly by what the maps show.
> 
> Regardless of where you start and stop your particular lines, because of proximity and dominating overall volume, the HSC has a much, much greater influence on East Bay (and Hannah Reef) than ROP
> 
> Point made.


True, but ROP sure keeps the salinity levels too high way in the back from Frozen Point to Oyster Bayou.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Ok so you want to claim to claim Elm POint as the eastern edge...









...at best, you can say that Hannah's is equidistance between HSC and ROP (although we should be able to agree that the "bulk of Hannah's is much closer to HSC).


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> True, but ROP sure keeps the salinity levels too high way in the back from Frozen Point to Oyster Bayou.


True enough. In the far eastern part of East Bay and especially ROBay, the salinity is obviously much higher than it would be without ROP.

The question remains...is the salinity "so" high that it is detrimental to the fishing and over-all ecology of the area. I say no

And, I side with the models that indicate that the fresh-water bay resulting from the closure of ROP, and the lack tidal exchange and gulf access, would prove more detrimental to the oysters, trout, and especially the flounder fishing in the ROP area than the moderately saline water conditions that exist now.

Especially during times of extreme freshwater flooding and inflow from the bayou and ICW...


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

These are the very reasons that ROP was originally opened


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I really wish there was annual harvest data available for East Bay specific oysters, trout, redfish. flounder etc from the 50's until now.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

I got $100 says it gets closed...want some?


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

If the salinities in East Bay would be too low if Rollover Pass were closed then why is Oyster Bayou name Oyster Bayou?

It was named that long before Rollover Pass was opened.

And good thing Rollover Pass was opened so that the salinities could increase by 5-10 fold and kill off the thousands of acres of seagrasses. 

There is zero evidence Rollover Pass has done anything to improve the productivity of the bay system. What it does is concentrate fish and bait around and through it. 

There is years of data that conclusively shows the damage it has, and is, causing.


----------



## Mr. Breeze (Jan 6, 2005)

Have not read all the posts but most of the comments heard from old timers say the oyster reefs produced a lot more before it was opened. What does Johnny Valentino at Eagle Point say? He would know. Also all the oyster people at Smith Point.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Goose Lover said:


> There is years of data that conclusively shows the damage it has, and is, causing.


Where?? Please provide, if you can


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Goose Lover said:


> If the salinities in East Bay would be too low if Rollover Pass were closed then why is Oyster Bayou name Oyster Bayou?


Are you claiming there were ever oysters in Oyster Bayou??

I'd like to see that proof also


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> I got $100 says it gets closed...want some?


Give me 10 to 1 and I'm in

Deal??

You got the State of Texas and millions of taxpayer $ on your side...


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

jampen said:


> Are you claiming there were ever oysters in Oyster Bayou??
> 
> I'd like to that proof also


There is a fence post on the side of my house when you run out of victims here on 2COOL.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Some real hard heads here...that's for sure

...including me


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

jampen said:


> This is false...I have reviewed "ALL" of your previous posts on here for the last year and have found not one single link or "map" to GB oyster decline data.
> 
> Your only contribution has been anecdotal and "good-ole-days" hearsay stories.
> 
> ...


A picture says a 1000 words. We've been over it you have seen it but this indicates there is a lot of reef that was there in the 1950's that is now gone and has been gone prior to Ike.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Here is the pic:


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Yes, there were Oysters at the mouth of Oyster Bayou. There are mostly dead oyster reefs that line the edge of Anahuac NWR along east bay. A likely victim of the spike in salinity levels due to Rollover. 

Drive down there and you can walk on them yourself. 

How do you not know these things?

You make ridiculous and unsubstantiated comments like they are fact.

You claimed that Eelgrass which grows in Maine and Nova Scotia was native to Texas. And you also claimed that rice grows in the upper Laguna Madre along with many other inaccurate claims. 

The agency that opened Rollover (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department) wants it closed. They acknowledge the damage the salinity spikes caused to the seagrasses.

And we all know of the beachfront erosion and with the dumping of sediment into the GIWW. All of this is in the EA.

Instead of making everyone else prove what is known fact why don't you give us the factual data that shows Rollover has improved the bay system. That there are more shrimp, trout, oysters, crabs ect being produced. 

The highly saline water from the Gulf goes into Rollover Bay and then into the eastern side of East Bay. From there it travels through the GIWW and into the high fragile marshes of High Island and eastward. That never ending supply of highly saline water traveling into those marshes is like acid to that system. 

If Rollover is closed it will have benefits far beyond the East Bay system.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Now you represent TPWD??

What a joke

That picture you posted is mine...and it shows new reefs (in the red circle) much closer to ROP, that were not present in the 50's. 

Have some EB reefs declined between the 50's and the 90's...yes

Are all the oysters dead in EB...no

Were there new reefs, closer to ROP in the 90's than the 50's...yes

Prior to IKE, where oysters in EB recovering...yes

Is the fishing good in EB...yes

Is it a goose sanctuary...no

Too bad for you


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

What caused all those orange reefs to disappear from around San Leon and Trinity Bay??

Was that ROP also?


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

jampen said:


> What caused all those orange reefs to disappear from around San Leon and Trinity Bay??
> 
> Was that ROP also?


Don't be stupid. ROP only killed the huge masses of orange that are in East Bay.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Jampen,

Show us studies or factual information that Rollover has produced more fish, shrimp, oysters, crabs ect from East Bay than before. In other words show us the bay grows more marine life than ever before.


Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the EA and historical accounts all show that seasgrasses were solid along the shoreline of East Bay. 

There are documented recordings of salinities before and after Rollover was opened. It increased 5 to 10 fold.

The representative of Gilchrest Homeowners Association keeps writing how we needed to increase the salinities to improve the fishery of East Bay. What was wrong with it before? That's how it evolved and it was incredibly productive for many things. Fish, wildlife, seagrasses ect. And now somehow we are led to believe that East Bay becoming and muddy and turbid water body is a good thing. 

Jampen, take one of your three boats and motor on over to the mouth of Oyster Bayou and along the edge of the Anahuac NWR. You can still see and feel the oyster reef's. Would that be documentation enough for you that oysters existed there. 

Do you think they named it Oyster Bayou for nothing?


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

*Individuals......*



jampen said:


> What caused all those orange reefs to disappear from around San Leon and Trinity Bay??
> 
> Was that ROP also?


that leased these areas may no longer have these private leases and most likely not marked any more, but actually do exist.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Well if that is true...and I'm not saying that it isn't...then the same could apply to the reefs in East Bay.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I've been a little way up in oyster bayou from East Bay


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

It sure can happen in East Bay that way also.....


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

Fence post is getting lonely...Jus Sayin.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Jampen,

That's all well and good you've been "a little way up Oyster Bayou" but you must not have seen much.

Go to Anahuac NWR and take their road all the way back to East Bay. You will be looking right across the bay to Rollover.

If you wade ( you probably don't do much of that given you have 3 boats that you have proudly posted photos of) you will see and feel some remnants of oyster shells. I can't recall seeing much in the way of a live reef anywhere around there but there might be some. 

The refuge has been busy the past several years lining their shoreline with rock trying to stop the erosion. The thought is that sediment will fill in between the rock and current shoreline which will stimulate smooth cordgrass to grow and stabilize things.

Historically he erosion probably wasn't much of a problems when that shoreline had healthy and large oyster reefs along with extensive stands of seagrasses deadening the water and keeping the wave action from building and/or reaching the shoreline. 

The huge spike in salt water most every day since 1955 or so has changed things immeasurably for the worse. 

And as I wrote earlier that highly saline water travels through the Intracoastal Waterway and has been a nightmare for those marshes, which are primarily fresh and intermediate. Some of the most productive marshes on the Anahuac NWR are starting really fall apart now. And that's due to the saltwater intrusion.

If Rollover is closed things will freshen up, the land and bay system will heal and we will start to see glimpses of the grandeur that East Bay and the associated marshes once were. 

Loads of fish, clearer water, seagrasses, waterfowl and a much more productive fishery.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

Oysters are saltier in East Bay than West Bay...call those in WB ''sweet'' oysters .....FACT


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

jampen said:


> Now you represent TPWD??
> 
> What a joke
> 
> ...


Jampen,

You claim oysters were on the rebound in East Bay prior to Ike and yet the very picture YOU posted tells a different story. Anyone can see there has been substantial oyster loss in East bay from the 1950's through the 1990's.

Are you claiming the map with all the orange and green you posted is incorrect because anyone can see there has been substantial oyster reef loss in East bay and they were clearly not doing good before Ike.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

I would venture to say he map shows a 40%-50% loss in oysters in East Bay.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Remember the photos of an "oyster reef" in East Bay that he posted as evidence of how well the oysters are doing?

It was tons of mud and a few oysters in between. 

The biggest problem I see is that most people have no idea what East Bay was like historically. It has been too long for people to understand how dynamic and productive it once was. So they just can't visualize what the big deal is. 

But if it does get closed and then recovers, which will take some time, people will never want to lose that again.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

For all you guys talking about how clear and wonderful the fresh water coming out of the bayou is and how the ugly Gulf water is intruding on the pristene-ness...here is an interesting satellite photo of GB that I found









...eww, ahh, look all that beautiful clean water


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Jampen,

Nobody is claiming the water coming out of the bayous is "clean" or "clear".

Just fresh.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Goose Lover said:


> Remember the photos of an "oyster reef" in East Bay that he posted as evidence of how well the oysters are doing?
> 
> It was tons of mud and a few oysters in between.
> 
> ...


I only have anecdotal evidence of what east bay was like prior to rollover. But my father and other "old timers" have first hand knowledge of just what East Bay produced in the 1960's and what it produces now. It's been in long term decline.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Mr. Breeze said:


> ...most of the comments heard from old timers say the oyster reefs produced a lot more before it was opened.


There May have been more oysters in EB in the 50's than in the 70's. (I'm not saying there were, just saying that it is possible).

But not I, you, the "old-timers", any of the oyster experts on here, or the real experts for that matter can say with absolute certainty, that there was one cause of the decline.

These guys have a convenient target in ROP so they keep banging away.

The truth is that oysters and sea grass all over GB struggled throughout the last century and the causes of decline were many and complicated.

Some of the real culprits include pollution, habitat destruction, oyster predators, storms, silt and sediment from dredging and freshwater run-off, and harvesting of oyster reefs for construction materials.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

jampen said:


> There May have been more oysters in EB in the 50's than in the 70's. (I'm not saying there were, just saying that it is possible).


It is not a "possibility" it is a well documented fact clearly illustrated by the picture YOU provided. How much of the loss can directly be attributed to Rollover is debatable. But when you add the loss of reef, natural grasses and the erosion and dredging. One thing is clear. The cost of the pass is too high.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

2003 - All Time Record Oyster Harvest

Enough said


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Lucky for all of us there are those caring individuals that do more than sit around *****ing on the computer and are out actively involved in the oyster and sea grass recovery effort.

No matter what happens at ROP and baring any more major storms for a while, I am confident that through the efforts of TAMU, TPWD and other interested parties, we will see continued improvement in the oyster harvests, and sea grass recovery. 

That should make all the commercial guys giddy.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Is there any way to find out who has leases in East Bay?


----------



## indaskinny (May 25, 2009)

Jampen, elmgrove point is barely in east bay from what you say, correct?

Dark area shows hannas. All 475 acres of it. But I am sure you already know how big it is.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

jampen said:


> 2003 - All Time Record Oyster Harvest
> 
> Enough said


Irrelevant unless you provide data from East Bay.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

jampen said:


> Is there any way to find out who has leases in East Bay?


Yes, Lance Robertson with TPWD would know. I could be mistaken but I don't think there are private oyster leases in East Bay. If there are they would be really close to Oak Island.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

indaskinny said:


> Jampen, elmgrove point is barely in east bay from what you say, correct?


I didn't say anything about Elm Grove, you did. You claimed Hannah's extends all the way to Elm Grove Point. All I said was that even if you measure from EGP you are still equidistant between HSC and ROP; certainly no closer to ROP than the ship channel.

What I said, perhaps not as clearly as I might have and in response to another post about large stringers of trout caught off Hannah's reef back in the day, was that Hannah's reef was barely in East Bay and thus any cause and effect on Hannah's by ROP would be minimal compared to the HSC.

I think I am correct for the most part. From what I see, Hannah's is a barrier reef, lining the opening of East Bay into Galveston Bay (and HSC) proper.

Here is a great reef map with names for all of GB...
http://gbic.tamug.edu/gbeppubs/50-2/OysterReefs.pdf

...and it shows the boundaries of the individual reefs


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Here is very revealing TAMU oyster reef study comparing data from the 1960's (completed in early 70's) to a 1990's survey. Basically a 20 year comparison

http://gbic.tamug.edu/gbeppubs/50/gbnep_50_05-30.pdf

Here is what it says about East Bay...









..and this...









Soooo...boom


----------



## indaskinny (May 25, 2009)




----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

More from the comparison report...









...this could be the answer my earlier question about what happened to all the oyster reefs in Trinity and along Dickinson Point

This study really hammers away at the Texas City Dike for altering the flow pattern in all of Galveston Bay. When was it built??

Various stages throughout the 30's and 40's but mostly completed in its present form in the mid-50's...hmmm interesting


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Very interesting...









What say ye now boys??


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

It just keeps coming...


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

indaskinny said:


> Dark area shows hannas. All 475 acres of it. But I am sure you already know how big it is.


No...and apparently you do not know how big it is either...









You're off just a tad


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I think we have all learned something here tonight...

I appreciate your attention


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)




----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)




----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

http://repositories.tdl.org/tamug-i...nds in Galveston Bay 1973-1978.pdf?sequence=1


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

More info . . .

*Galveston Bay Foundation Releases 6 Things You Should Know About Galveston Bay Oysters*

Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:37am EDT

*** Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release. 
0 Comments

*See Below........................*

*Galveston Bay Foundation Releases 6 Things You Should Know About Galveston Bay Oysters* 
As public oyster season starts, Galveston Bay Foundation is releasing a list that links the health of the oyster crop health to the health of the Bay. Commercial leaseholders can harvest oysters year-round, but the open-to-everyone season runs Nov. 1 through April 30. As oyster season begins, hereâ€™s the lowdown on Galveston Bay oysters. 







Commercial leaseholders can harvest Galveston Bay oysters year-round, but the open season starts Nov. 1. Photo courtesy of Texas Parks & Wildlife Department Â© 2004, Earl Nottingham

1) The man who wrote the book on oysters says Galveston Bay oysters are at their peak Christmas to Easter. Robb Walsh is the food editor at _Houstonia Magazine_ and author of the book _Sex, Death and Oysters: A Half-Shell Loverâ€™s World Tour._ He says Gulf oysters are at their biggest and sweetest from January to March. During that time, they are easily the best-tasting oysters in North America. 
2) One Bay, many flavors: Each part of Galveston Bay grows a different-tasting oyster. East Galveston Bay oyster reefs produce saltier oysters. Oysters harvested farther to the west, away from the Gulfâ€™s saltwater inflow, taste less briny and tend to be fatter and sweeter than East Bay oysters. Central Galveston Bay oysters are, naturally, somewhere in the middle. Itâ€™s the different mixes of salt water and fresh water that give each areaâ€™s oysters their flavor. 
3) Even people who hate eating oysters have reason to love them. A single oyster can filter up to 50 gallons of water per day. A healthy Galveston Bay oyster population filters lots of water, improving the overall quality. And those reefs the oysters attach themselves to when growing? They provide great habitat for bottom-dwelling fish and invertebrates that attract larger game fish. Reefs also stabilize the Bay bottom and break wave energy, preventing shoreline erosion and providing protection from storm surges. 
4) Galveston Bay oysters are making a comeback after taking a big hit from Hurricane Ike in 2008. Now they face another threat â€" lopsided salinity. The balance of salt water and fresh water in Galveston Bay is what makes it an oyster paradise. When salinity's too low, oysters can't survive. When salinity's too high, oyster predators â€" like the oyster drill â€" thrive. Galveston Bayâ€™s freshwater inflows come mostly from the Trinity River and the San Jacinto River. Texasâ€™ record drought is causing more water to be pulled from those sources for agriculture and private use. This is happening when there is less fresh water in the rivers to begin with. So less fresh water is reaching Galveston Bay, throwing off the salinity balance and endangering the perfect environment for oysters and other seafood. 
5) Most of the oysters harvested in Texas are from Galveston Bay. And most of the oysters being eaten on the East Coast and West Coast are from Texas. Walsh says Texas ships out three-quarters of its oyster crop to the right and left coasts. So next time you order Blue Point or Chincoteague oysters at one of those fancy New York restaurants, you may be eating Texas mollusks. 
6) Oysters grow best on other oyster shells. Galveston Bay Foundation's Oyster Shell Recycling Program collects empty shells from restaurants, cures them for six months in the sun to kill bacteria, and then puts them back into the Bay. So far, the program has delivered 125 tons back into Galveston Bay.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Freshwater kills "all "oysters...









http://repositories.tdl.org/tamug-i...nds in Galveston Bay 1973-1978.pdf?sequence=1


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Jampen,

You must have lost your mind. 

There is no data to show that East Bay is better off with Rollover Pass. The best you have is that Hannah's Reef has been relatively unchanged. And that is a considerable distance from Rollover. 

If the reef's in East Bay could outgrow salinity increases they would have done it in the 60 years since it was opened. The closer you get to Rollover the worse it gets for the bay system. And maybe Rollover reduced the food in bay system and he oysters have been starved. You lose the biomass (seagrasses) and you lose the food. 

Where is a study or publication that shows Rollover helped oysters, crabs, fish, seagrasses, shrimp or anything else. 

It doesn't exist.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

and even more......

http://www.cbbep.org/publications/virtuallibrary/CC20.pdf


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)




----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

So riddle me this batman...

If EB is so hazardous to oysters, why does one of the largest commercial oyster operations transplant spat from GB proper in to East Bay for later harvest???

http://www.houstoniamag.com/eat-and...es/deadliest-catch-galveston-bay-october-2013

Very curious


----------



## indaskinny (May 25, 2009)

jampen said:


> No...and apparently you do not know how big it is either...
> 
> View attachment 1048641
> 
> ...


Show your source rather than just highlighting parts. I included only Hannas. Not little hannas and al the reefs directly next to. I could if you would like me to prove you wrong once again.

Just keep soaking your dead shrimp bringing home sand trout, black drum, and croaker.


----------



## indaskinny (May 25, 2009)

Close the dang pass so Jampen will quit his bischin and moanin.


----------



## J.T. Barely (Jan 28, 2012)

*WTH*

Man, I just read this entire thread, and it was exhausting. First off, Jampen, you need to go to work for the TPWD. Evidently, you are a marine biologist. I say close that bad boy, it will be sweet back there. The only effect I see it having are on the people that rely on the pass for a fishing spot. There are quite a few handicapped people who go there. I say as long as they build a pier, go for it. Ask yourself this, If Mother Nature wanted that pass there. Why is she trying so desperately to fill it in. Quit fighting it and let nature run its course. It will be just as diverse as all the other bay systems along the coast. It is an ecosystem that requires the presence of both fresh and salt water. The dredging done to the HSC has more effect on GB than Rollover ever will. Besides, I know where several small reefs are back there but, I would never tell any of you degenerates where they are. :wink:


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Save money and time by building a small jetty to fix the erosion problem

Quit bullying the private landowners and the Town of Gilchrist

Support the local shop owners and bait stands

Keep the politician and bureaucrats out of the private lives of the taxpayers

Let the disabled and elderly have a great place to fish

Let the trout, flounder, redfish and sea turtles have their gulf / bay access

Support continued recovery efforts of oyster reefs and sea grass

Everybody is happy...

...except for the politicians and bureaucrats trying to screw the little guys


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

What I would really like to see, along with a jetty, is an expanded pass that is navigable by small craft and a lock that can be opened or closed accordingly based on the freshwater inflow from the bayou and ICW to keep a near perfect balance of salinity and tidal exchange in East Bay.

But I'm sure a mosquito infested swamp will be better for ya'll


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

None of this matters unless you do something about it directly.

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


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Jampen,

No one is bullying anyone. The State has realized the damage done by Rollover to both the private sector and public taxpayer has become to much. They have correctly deemed that they are fighting a losing battle against mother nature.

The locals will still be supported by a first class handicapped pier.

Redfish, sea turtles, flounder, trout will have the same gulf/bay access they have had for millennia before man decided in his infinite wisdom that he could do a better job than mother nature. 

The oysters will finally be able to relax and breathe a deep sigh of relief as the oyster drills migrate back to saltier waters. 

And over time the natural sea grasses will slowly return.

And a great scar upon a once prolific bay will be healed.


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

Hi, it would be really nice, there is a architect drawing of what the pass would look like, having a way to travel thru the pass would be a huge benefit for people who wanted access to both the bay and gulf.


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

Rollover Pass had a visit from David Watts Jr. who is a candidate for Land Commissioner, he talked to some people and I gave him a short tour, he is against closing Rollover Pass and the use of eminent domain by Govt. If you get a chance look him up on facebook or WattsForTexas.org


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

The unwanted fishing pier, up to this point is lip service and empty verbiage. The very thing that politicians do best.

No studies have been commissioned, no blue-prints have been drawn, no permits have been applied for.

It is a carrot dangling at the nose of all you mules to get you to pull the cart.


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

You have the right to say as you wish, if you believe the state is not bullying or pressuring Galv County with hampering funds than go ahead, we cannot even get security lighting at the Pass because of the state. 

The Pass was opened for a reason and it is going its job,


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

This pictorial history of the damage done by Rollover:


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

HeeHaww

Hia there mule, get up there mule


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Jeri's seafood spends thousands of dollars to move their oyster spat from the HSC to their leases in East Bay

http://www.houstoniamag.com/eat-and...es/deadliest-catch-galveston-bay-october-2013

Doesn't sound like a blight to me. Commercial guys, who's very livelihood depend on the health and abundance of the harvest, go all-in on East Bay.

I'm getting a clearer picture of why you didn't make any money commercial fishing and had to sell your boat.


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

Nice pictures, I don't understand most of them, the geotube was something the state tried not because of Rollover but erosion which will occur with the pass or without, if you look at the salinity study there are some state of texas erosion figures and picture that shows beach erosion around Rollover is about normal for the upper texas coast. For the picture of the erosion on the east side of Rollover this is mostly due to the fact there is no jetty (BTW was in the original Fish & Game Commission Plan when the Pass was built, but failed to do it). 
Take Care


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Only one of those pictures has anything to do with ROP, the one of the beach erosion.

Those snails came out of HSC and they were culled from the spat so as not to transplant them in to East Bay with the spat. 

The geotube project was a nation-wide experimental initiative to deal with rising sea-levels caused by global warming. It was done somewhere on Bolivar but not related at all to ROP. 

The dredge rig is just a stock picture he dug-up somewhere cause he was running low on ammo. It's not ROP


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> None of this matters unless you do something about it directly.
> 
> You're right...I wish I could do more to help.
> 
> Maybe this...


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

The picture with the red line was taken by Texas Coastal Geologist Richard L. Watson PHD who had this to say about Rollover:

"The strong current through Rollover Pass is still carrying hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of sand from Peninsula beaches into Rollover Bay and the GIWW where it is lost to the beaches forever. The General Land Office needs to get on with permission to close Rollover Pass while there is still some sand left on the Peninsula."

Mr. Watson has been studying the coast and taking aerial photos for years.

http://texascoastgeology.com/passes/rollover.html


----------



## RedXCross (Aug 7, 2005)

V-Bottom said:


> More info . . .
> 
> *See Below........................*
> 
> By the way M-R- DELICIOUS!


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Ted,

Everything I see from you is about exploiting the bay. You want a channel to the gulf. You want a jetty. It's like you want to strip mine it. You want the money the people bring to your area but don't seem to take any responsibility for the damage Rollover has caused. Vast areas of marsh are dying and eroding away because of the huge amounts of salt water that flow into East Bay and the marshes every day. The miles are seagrasses died out a long time ago because of it. The sign that was at Rollover clearly states one of the reasons it was opened was to improve the seagrasses in East Bay. We know that was completely wrong so why keep it open? 

It has wiped out the seagrasses, most of the oysters and is currently wiping out the marshes. And we as taxpayers pay extra money to keep the GIWW dredged while it causes all this damage. 

How much more water from the gulf do you want to send into East Bay?

I watched the video you provided. 

Why would put photos on the video of people holding up way undersized trout and redfish?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

glennkoks said:


> The picture with the red line was taken by Texas Coastal Geologist Richard L. Watson PHD who had this to say about Rollover


The same Richard Watson that is a professional paid witness for big companies and politicians all up and down the coast??









What do you have there, maybe 2 miles of moderate beachfront erosion.

Easily rectified without trampling on the private property ownership rights of the taxpayers and small business owners.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Jampen,

Is Dr. Watson being paid in this litigation?

And what about the paid experts of the plaintiffs? Are disqualifying them because they are paid? 

Ted Vega seems to have a personal interest in this as well. Are you disqualifying him also?

Doesn't those photos of the undersized trout and redfish being proudly help up in the video bother you?

If this is indicative of what happens at Rollover Pass that is very disturbing.

And where are the studies showing Rollover Pass has resulted in more fish, crabs, oysters, shrimp, seagrasses in East Bay.

Still waiting.


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

I will be trying to find out more about the grasses, I am not exploiting anything, I looked at the video and did not see children with undersized trout or redfish, I hope to find someone and talk to them about how the bay was before RP was opened. this video was something I put together to show what the Pass is about and our fight to keep it open, Soon we will be putting our some true facts about the cost on dredging, I hope you realize that the dredging occurs every 17 months or so. This dredging is a maintenance project that occurs along the whole peninsula and wherever the intercoastal runs. I seriously doubt that people can say that RP causes dredging all over the state of texas. Take Care
Here is the video for people to see for themselves a






People can read more at www.rolloverpass.com


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)




----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)




----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

So what exactly is your problem with taking kids fishing Mr. Grinch??

They're not catching wall-hangers...geez

No where does it say that any of the small fish were retained or killed.

What a tool...

Get those kids out and teach em to fish


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Mr. Vega is obviously not a game warden like you.


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

nice pictures, I did not take them but used them, the kids and families are looking happy, this is another benefit of Rollover Pass,having a good experience. Take Care


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

jampen said:


> The same Richard Watson that is a professional paid witness for big companies and politicians all up and down the coast??
> 
> View attachment 1049233
> 
> ...


To the best of my knowledge Dr. Watson has not received one penny to weigh in on the closing of rollover. He comment was unsolicited on his website based on years of experience monitoring the Texas coast. It does not take a rocket scientist to see the damage being done.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

To the best of my knowledge there is no big corporation going to profit by closing rollover. No politicians pockets are going to be lined, no palms greased.

Nobody want's to see local business damaged or the handicapped lose a great fishing spot. The GLO and other interested parties have just weighed in on the damage being done by Rollover and it far exceeds the benefits which can be easily mitigated. 

As far as I can tell Jerry Patterson is acting on best behalf of the people of Texas and closing the pass is correcting a wrong made many years ago.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

I was not aware Dr. Watson was involved in this litigation either. 

According to Jampen we should believe people with a vested interest without question and completely disbelieve anyone that is impartial or has no vested interest in the issue. 

What I can't understand is why the GLO doesn't go to the edge of the gulf and bay, where the state waters meet private property lines, and pump up a huge sandbar on one or both sides of Rollover. That would the stop flow of Rollover and it would silt in on it's own. 

Or they could construct a concrete seawall or some other armored block on Rollover.

They wouldn't have to touch private property or worry about the easement.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

approximately what yr. did someone feel this pass was causing problems?


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Various agencies, groups or individuals have expressed concerns for decades. Some were based upon environmental issues and others were focused on the beach erosion and/or the impacts on the GIWW. 

The damage to the East Bay and interior marshes has been an issue for many years. Highly saline water from Rollover Pass moves into the marshes and badly degrades them. Then they fall apart. 

This same water travels up the GIWW for miles so the impacts to the fresh and intermediate marshes from Rollover extends over thousands and thousands of acres and for many, many miles. 

Rollover is so close to these areas and moves so much water the impacts are widespread.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

This so called Highly saline water travels UP the ICW? The ICW runs East and West. On one hand this incoming water moves East towards La. and West towards West Bay and some into far East Bay? Right? Whats your definition of ''Up the ICW?''


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

The intermediate marshes the GIWW cuts through when it goes inland are east of Rollover


The water isn't so called highly saline water. It is highly saline water. When the tide roars in from Rollover that is straight from the Gulf of Mexico.


----------



## SaltwaterParadise (May 4, 2010)

To what extent if any is closing RP tied to the complexities of divyying freshwater allocations, upstream & along the coast where inflow is critical to bay/estuary sustainability. Perhaps the powers that be may see closing RP as an opportunity to divert more FW elsewhere, than otherwise if RP remains open.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

It is written that West Bay is saltier than East Bay. I am assuming thats because of SLP and the HSC at the jetties. ROP is 200ft wide and basically at the FAR END of East Bay. How wide is SLP at the FAR END of West Bay? I am trying to visualize how much Gulf Water runs thru these 2 passes. Does SLP dump MORE water into West Bay Eastward or does ROP dump more Westward? Do you think its about the same? Is this ''Grass'' dead on the West End ? I don't know, but I'm sure we will get an answer soon! what a mess!! AND most all the freshwater influx comes from the Trinity River and the San Jacinto River


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

SaltwaterParadise said:


> To what extent if any is closing RP tied to the complexities of divyying freshwater allocations, upstream & along the coast where inflow is critical to bay/estuary sustainability. Perhaps the powers that be may see closing RP as an opportunity to divert more FW elsewhere, than otherwise if RP remains open.


I don't know if freshwater allocations ever came into the equation. Nor do I believe that Mr. Patterson and the GLO give too much of a hoot about the health of East Bay. For the state it probably boiled down to $$$$$. The continued cost of dredging and probably more importantly tax revenue or the threat of lost tax revenue was the key motivational factor for Mr. Patterson.


----------



## ut755ln (Mar 19, 2013)

The environmental issues are interesting, a very passionate debate on both sides. I still think the driving issue is the beach erosion. We are talking 10s of millions of dollars worth of beach houses losing their beach. While I agree that another jetty system would stop the erosion it is easier to close the artificial pass (just stop dredging).


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

Back to what I wrote earlier, studies have shown that 5 ft of beach area have been lost each yr. since it was open. If left open, it won't be long until we see Bolivar Island!


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

V-Bottom said:


> It is written that West Bay is saltier than East Bay. I am assuming thats because of SLP and the HSC at the jetties. ROP is 200ft wide and basically at the FAR END of East Bay. How wide is SLP at the FAR END of West Bay? I am trying to visualize how much Gulf Water runs thru these 2 passes. Does SLP dump MORE water into West Bay Eastward or does ROP dump more Westward?
> 
> Here are the flows from the three passes... ROP accounts less than 5% total, WOW
> 
> ...


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

Really!! and SO MUCH DESTRUCTION.....


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

ut755ln said:


> ... the driving issue is the beach erosion. We are talking 10s of millions of dollars worth of beach houses losing their beach.....


I agree although, I'm not sure where you came up with that dollar amount.

That 2 mile stretch of beach, SW of the pass, was pretty desolate the last time I was there, because of IKE.

The erosion issue should be, and can be, addressed without destroying ROP.

Mr. Vega can tell you how many existing homes are directly effected.


----------



## FISHROADIE (Apr 2, 2010)

Jampen your google map of roll over pass has convinced me it probably should be closed. Look at all of the erosion on the bay side. That was all land at one time right up to the intercostal canal. They have to dredge the intercostal from time to time to keep it deep enough for barge traffic, right there at the pass. I never noticed how much it has caused the bay side to erode till now.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

tedvega said:


> Nice pictures, I don't understand most of them, the geotube was something the state tried not because of Rollover but erosion which will occur with the pass or without, if you look at the salinity study there are some state of texas erosion figures and picture that shows beach erosion around Rollover is about normal for the upper texas coast. For the picture of the erosion on the east side of Rollover this is mostly due to the fact there is no jetty (BTW was in the original Fish & Game Commission Plan when the Pass was built, but failed to do it).
> Take Care


You are correct but a jetty will not fix the problem just move it somewhere else. 
You are always going to have erosion with or without a pass but without a pass it will correct itself over time. With the pass there the sands that would normally replenish the beach in up in the ICW.


----------



## ROBALO23 (Jul 7, 2011)

Does anybody know where the Galveston jetties are was that once a natural pass? 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*ROP*



V-Bottom said:


> This so called Highly saline water travels UP the ICW? The ICW runs East and West. On one hand this incoming water moves East towards La. and West towards West Bay and some into far East Bay? Right? Whats your definition of ''Up the ICW?''


Nothing that comes through ROP moves into West Bay, very little moves into East Bay. What little water that comes through the pass goes into Far East Bay and the ICW as Far East as Taylor Bayou.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Pass*



ROBALO23 said:


> Does anybody know where the Galveston jetties are was that once a natural pass?
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


Yes the Galveston jetties is a natural pass.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

FISHROADIE said:


> Look at all of the erosion on the bay side. That was all land at one time


I'm not aware of any erosion problem on the bay side?? That's where the sand from the gulf side goes,

If your talking about Rollover Bay, to my knowledge, it has always been like that.

Roll Over Pass was a natural marshy, low spot on Bolivar for eons before the present day pass was dredged.

Merchants, seamen, pirates etc, trying to avoid paying duties at Port of Galveston, would off-load barrels of market goods and roll them across the land there.

It was always the shortest "over-land" way to cross the peninsula. Old maps from the 1800's show that bay there.

Here is one from 1851...


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

1892









1940









So needless to say... closing ROP won't change the contour of the bay shoreline.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Jampen,

Biologically there is a huge difference between the flora and fauna you see near the gulf and what you see at the upper reaches of the bay. Historically, the headwaters of east bay were very brackish. Rollover changed all that. 

Think of the damage a 200 ft wide and 8 ft deep ditch dumping straight saltwater from the Gulf into the brackish estuary of Clear Lake would do. In the past the headwaters of East Bay were much more akin to Clear Lake than San Louis Pass.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

and the beat goes on........

http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=nw...t=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=9749645&encType=1


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

A side note for some background ---
Here is an article I recently ran across that provides a simple summary of salinity gradients and the ecosystems they engender. 
Though it pertains to a Florida estuary - the info is equally applicable to Texas.

http://baysoundings.com/seasons-of-salt/

BTW - As a kid, I grew up sleeping in a screen porch underneath a cabin on the south-west side of ROP - some of the best times, and some of the most miserable times, of my life - HA !
Carry On ----


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

Jampen: The rightful owners don't want a pier largely because that Is the wish of the thousands of fisherman who enjoy Rollover Pass. The legal battle is being funded by these very people. Do you really think after the pass is closed that they would build that pier?
BTW, I believe there was a bridge long before the pass was enlarged, and there will have to be another because this is a naturally low area that has flowed water when nature needed it to. Yes the bridge was damaged during IKE and 400 residence were lost, the water level here got to 22 ft, I think losing some of the bridge is probably fair game. take care


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

Your facts are very good and right on the money, thanks for sharing


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

Hi, if you would look thru the salinity report you will see a diagram of the coast and the recent erosion figure, the area around RP is moderate and less than other area on the coast, beach erosion will continue even if the pass is closed. The real problem is loss of sediment getting into the gulf, the waves and current will carry the sand westward to the north jetty area where the beach continues to grow. Lot at the erosion on the west side of Galveston, this is RP fault either.


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

Thank you, the only reason the 5$ fee is there is the legal fund,


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Mr. Vega:

This is from TAMU in 1999:

The 40 years of sand lost through Rollover Pass have removed the natural sand storage in the offshore bars, beach and dunes. As a result, the beach cannot rebuild between storms by moving sand onshore from the bars back onto the beach, as would normally be the
35 case. This is going to result in ever increasing acceleration of erosion with each succeeding storm because the profile inland from the present vegetation line contains even more clay and less sand.
The Parks and Wildlife Department has known of the sand loss through Rollover Pass and 40	the need for beach nourishment of 20,000 to 200,000 cu yd/yr since at least 1959. This
estimate was raised to 240,000 to 290,000 cu yd/yr in 1985.

http://coastal.tamug.edu/am/Rollover_Pass_Bolivar_Peninsula/Rollover.pdf


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I'm glad to see we are done with the oysters and can finally discuss the one "real" issue.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Jampen,

There are multiple "issues" or problems with Rollover and most of them are bad.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

jampen said:


> I'm glad to see we are done with the oysters and can finally discuss the one "real" issue.


----------



## fishguru00 (Aug 10, 2011)

Sea turtles?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

This is from the same "paid" report. It was not produced by A&M. It is from Doc Watson outlining his "paid" opinion for the state's attorneys.









Just so everybody knows, with ROP or without ROP, that 5 feet per year erosion number remains the same. Its been going on for 100's of years.

Full report...

http://coastal.tamug.edu/am/Rollover_Pass_Bolivar_Peninsula/Rollover.pdf


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

jampen said:


> I'm glad to see we are done with the oysters and can finally discuss the one "real" issue.


Simple: Build the jetties that were part of the plan for ROP but never built. Look at the north jetty on Google earth and the land build up to the north.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

fishguru00 said:


> Sea turtles?


Yes...they got em


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I've personally seen pairs of them navigating through the Pass.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Your fence is looking kinda ragged.

Better fix it or your mules are gonna get out in the road.


----------



## robolivar (Oct 7, 2011)

*why reply*



dinodude said:


> 100 page thread coming soon...


sooo...what do you have to say about it since you are replying? whats your take on this?


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

That turtle, right there, is protected by international law.

Every civilized country in the world recognizes their endangered status, their intrinsic value to the eco-system, the fragile nature of their habitat and their vulnerability.

Any location, they are found to inhabit or regularly use, is some place to be protected and appreciated.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

monkeyman1 said:


> Simple: Build the jetties that were part of the plan for ROP but never built. Look at the north jetty on Google earth and the land build up to the north.


I agree...jetties can be designed to retain a certain percentage of the suspended sand and allow a certain percentage to move on down the beach.

You don't want to trap all the sand, just enough to end the very localized erosion.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

State law prohibits the disturbance or harassment of sea turtles. It is nice to know the promoters of Rollover Pass proudly post video of people taking them from the water.

If the supporters of Rollover were so worried about turtles why are they disturbing them?


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Oh my God!!!!! How did the Sea Turtles ever make it before rollover was dredged?????

And then there was the environmental study that the taxpayer is on the hook for saying the impacts on sea turtles would be non existent.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

It was fowl-hooked...

They had to remove the hook and the release it.

Nice try though.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

I beginning to think we need to close rollover on entirely different grounds. Outlaws! There has been pictures of undersized redfish, trout and now hooligans are using the pass to harass sea turtles!


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

NO sea turtle study has been completed. Jerry is scared of what they will learn and what that will mean for his ROP coup.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Another hard left-turn.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

glennkoks said:


> I beginning to think we need to close rollover on entirely different grounds. Outlaws! There has been pictures of undersized redfish, trout and now hooligans are using the pass to harass sea turtles!


Yup...Poachers Paradise! I say close it TODAY! :work:


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

jampen said:


> Another hard left-turn.


Only of you are coming in from Boliver. If coming in from Winnie you need to make a right turn.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Yeah...10 year old poachers


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

jampen said:


> Yeah...10 year old poachers


Yup...They come in all races, genders, & ages.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

The game wardens routinely patrol the area around ROP, in fact, some say they have a surveillance cam on the top floor of the big house on the SE side of the pass. The one that survived IKE.

Don't know if that's true but I am sure that any illegal activity there is minimal and certainly no more than Sea Wolf, TCD, or anywhere else on the Gulf


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

Goose Lover said:


> State law prohibits the disturbance or harassment of sea turtles. It is nice to know the promoters of Rollover Pass proudly post video of people taking them from the water.
> 
> If the supporters of Rollover were so worried about turtles why are they disturbing them?


Hooking them happens...

http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/prd_fishing_around_sea_turtles.html#oktohelp

Was surf fishing Bolivar...a sea turtle poked his head up not 20 feet from me. I casted away from him at 90 degrees. He made a complete circle around me, looking at me, then I guess he got bored and left. It was def a cool/beautiful sight.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

They're running out of real ammo to support their arguments, so they are grasping for sticks and stones.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

jampen said:


> They're running out of real ammo to support their arguments, so they are grasping for sticks and stones.


No lack of ammo. The negative effects of the pass have continued for 60+ years. They are not going away.

Erosion

The effects of saltwater intrusion on the oyster reefs, sea grasses and marsh.

And from the states concern the cost to the taxpayer.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Jetty...fast, cheap and effective solution to all of the real problems at ROP (erosion, dredging)


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

jampen said:


> They're running out of real ammo to support their arguments, so they are grasping for sticks and stones.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

..and you're not screwing the landowners, small businesses, disabled and elderly


----------



## dinodude (Mar 17, 2013)

robolivar said:


> sooo...what do you have to say about it since you are replying? whats your take on this?


My take on this is to let nature take its course
Immediately filling it in will probably stress the fish in East Bay.
Nature would eventually fill it in slowly and gradually.
And that is what I am for.
Letting nature takes its course.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

dinodude said:


> My take on this is to let nature take its course
> Immediately filling it in will probably stress the fish in East Bay.
> Nature would eventually fill it in slowly and gradually.
> And that is what I am for.
> Letting nature takes its course.


For nature to take its course you would have to knock down the steel and concrete bulkhead holding back the sides.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

If the supporters of Rollover Pass loved the turtles they would know that some species of sea turtles each seagrasses and the organisms that inhabit them.

But since Rollover spiked the salinity levels 5 to 10 fold the seagrasses were exterminated.

I am quoting from a 2003 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Magazine titled: STATE OF THE BAYS.

It states " People can't resist tinkering with nature. Old times say that East Bay was once clear as gin and floored with Eelgrass. In 1955 the Texas Fish and Game Commission dredged a channel across Rollover Pass to improve fishing inadvertently spiking East Bay with salt water and killing the vegetation".

NOTE TO JAMPEN: This isn't the same Eelgrass species that you tried to mislead people about by posting diagrams and illustrations, which grows in cold water in Maine and Nova Scotia. You don't even know the difference between seagrass species. How could you not know that. That's like saying Kelp grows around here. 
Why would anyone believe anything you write?


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

Be nice...jampen is a legend in his own mind. :fish:


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

dinodude said:


> My take on this is to let nature take its course
> Immediately filling it in will probably stress the fish in East Bay.
> Nature would eventually fill it in slowly and gradually.
> And that is what I am for.
> Letting nature takes its course.


Then we had better let the ship channel silt in to 6' deep like it was in 1837.


----------



## tedvega (Apr 4, 2011)

Goose Lover said:


> If the supporters of Rollover Pass loved the turtles they would know that some species of sea turtles each seagrasses and the organisms that inhabit them.
> 
> But since Rollover spiked the salinity levels 5 to 10 fold the seagrasses were exterminated.
> 
> ...


I do know that turtles are often seen in the Pass, they like to eat squid and organisms off the walls, I have tried to get the Turtle People in Galvestion USFW to come and do some studies to track these turtles but have had no luck. I think it is important to where they go, do the inhabit or nest in EB?


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

dinodude said:


> And that is what I am for.
> Letting nature takes its course.


So....you don't think we should have erradicated polio?


----------



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

*ROP*

if/when they get around to filling in the pass ...are we going to get to remove all the oysters first or are they just going to get buryed in place ???


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

Momma's Worry said:


> if/when they get around to filling in the pass ...are we going to get to remove all the oysters first or are they just going to get buryed in place ???


Are you talking about the oysters IN the pass?


----------



## dinodude (Mar 17, 2013)

glennkoks said:


> For nature to take its course you would have to knock down the steel and concrete bulkhead holding back the sides.


Yes.
But my point is maybe the organisms in east bay are becoming slowly accustomed to the higher salinity levels.
Closing rollover pass immediately will drastically lower the salinity levels and I personally believe that , that will also cause some harm.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

dinodude said:


> Yes.
> But my point is maybe the organisms in east bay are becoming slowly accustomed to the higher salinity levels.
> 
> I think I understand what you mean. It's kind of like the organisms in this country who are slowly becoming accustomed to government handouts. How do you see this all playing out in the end?


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

I don't believe there are oysters in the pass itself. 

And any oysters on the bayside of the pass will benefit immediately from the improved habitat because they won't be subjected to gulf strength water almost every day..


----------



## ROBALO23 (Jul 7, 2011)

Its crazy all the different answers about how the back of east bay used to be. Mickey Eastman on 610 outdoor show said its was orange an polluted before the pass was opened. 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

Since West Bay in known to be saltier than EB, is the ''GRASS'' over there dying? or is their any at all? I know the oysters are good


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Jetties*



jampen said:


> Jetty...fast, cheap and effective solution to all of the real problems at ROP (erosion, dredging)


The real solution is filling the pass with concrete and erecting some palapas 
And a few picnic tables. The pass is worthless and always has been and jetties are not cheap and will not fix the erosion problems. Do you not think if jetties were the save all that they would have been put in years ago.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

more info:

http://www.galvbaydata.org/Portals/2/projects/reports/docs/Watershd_TrinityBay.pdf


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

ROBALO23 said:


> Its crazy all the different answers about how the back of east bay used to be. Mickey Eastman on 610 outdoor show said its was orange an polluted before the pass was opened.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


I like Mickey Eastman but I know for a fact that East Bay was considered the crown jewel of all Texas Bays for hunting, fishing and commercial oystering. So much so that as early as 1937 there was a bill introduced banning commercial fishing from the bay to preserve it's pristine qualities.

It does not show up very good but it is from the Feb 1937 Galveston Daily News:


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Well its nice to see this issue has finally been settled.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

That's a great article. How in the world did you find that?

Maybe you come up with some other historical articles about East Galveston Bay.

To think that someone wanted to protect part of East Galveston Bay in 1937 is pretty incredible. Nobody wants to protect much of anything important in this area today much less in 1937. 

You really have imagine how full of fish, shrimp, oysters, crabs, waterfowl ect is must have been back then. To propose protecting something in those days in Texas was completely unheard of.

And still people on this site keep trying to tell everyone East Bay wasn't all that great in the old days. 

I think that article puts that to rest.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Goose Lover said:


> That's a great article. How in the world did you find that?
> 
> Maybe you come up with some other historical articles about East Galveston Bay.
> 
> ...


I subscribe to an online service called newspaperarchive.com. They have millions of copies of old newspapers microfiche in their collection from all over the world. It's pretty cool just spending time searching and reading old newspaper articles.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Goose lover,

Here is an article from March 14, 1933 from the Galveston Daily News about a bill trying to outlaw the use of seines in East Galveston Bay. I learned how to highlight the article and take a screen shot on my wife's Mac so it is actually readable. However, all the other cool articles are gone so you don't get to see that a brand new Ford with a "New V8" was only 869.00 brand new. Those were the days...


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

And here is an article from the Galveston daily news dated Feb. 1, 1913 discussing the proposed route of the intracoastal waterway. It does mention the marsh between Taylor's Bayou and East Galveston Bay:


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Here is the original article I posted blown up where you can actually read it. It's food for thought for those interested in the history of our bays. Anyway enough for one night.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

This puts to rest all the talk about East Bay being "too fresh". 

Oyster Bayou was given that name for a reason. It had zillions of oysters around it. 

This was the early 1900's and people wanted to protect East Bay way back then. That's just not something that was done in those times. East Bay must have been an extraordinary place absolutely loaded with birds, fish, crabs and other marine life. 

Find some more articles and post them. Very interesting reading. 

I am going to forward these to the GLO so they can let the public know just how important it is to return East Bay to its former glory.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Here is a link to the plan to open Cedar Bayou to the Gulf this spring...

http://www.restorecedarbayou.org/the-plan/

It is basically the same situation as ROP with the exception that Mesquite Bay is even "less-fresh" than East Bay, and I don't think there any houses on St. Joe Island so I guess the erosion there is not considered to be detrimental.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

Seines = Gill nets...?? Good read


----------



## Capt Jim West (Feb 24, 2010)

I just got done reading every ones post on this ROP issue.. I am amazed at how many of you people on here voice your opinions at an issue that you really don't have a clue about. Its almost like some of you believe everything you read in an article or what you here on the radio or so & so said it so it must be true. Both sides have been throwing mud at each other for several years. I'm not going to single out any of you, although I would like too but I'm not. 
I live on a narrow point on the ICW beside Seivers cut. Its a 140 yards across to the other side. Most of the ICW is about 170 yards across. The ICW depth is 12 ft deep. Now as I look out towards Smith Point. I'm guessing its about 5-6 miles across the bay here maybe more maybe less. Now ROP is 200 Ft wide 5-6 feet deep. The water flow that comes through the pass is so so small compared to the water flow that goes through the bay. When there is an incoming tide get your *** in your boat and look a what is going on behind the pass. The water coming in through ROP takes a hard right turn when it meets up with water from the ICW. Most of the water runs into RO Bay and also stays in the ICW as it runs up towards High Island. You can really see this on a breezy day when you have muddy water coming through the pass and clear water in the ICW. No one knows for sure but I bet its less than 1% of the water that flows into East bay flows through ROP. Galveston bay is where most all of the water flow comes from. I spend a lot of time fishing the spoil islands and reefs just behind the pass. And there is not very much water that comes through ROP.
Now the damage or change has already been done. The dredging and widen of the Houston Ship Channel is the reason the Salinity is higher in the back of our bays. Closing ROP is not going to help or hurt the fishery in East Bay. You can argue all you want. Sure its called a fish pass. Thousands of pounds of fish get caught there every year. I don't see how any fish get through the gauntlet of fishermen fishing there on pretty weekends during the summer. There are so many more issues concerning ROP that I didn't even touch on. I don't blame the people for being ****** off that fish there. Several businesses there that relies on the people who come down to fish whats going to happen to them? Huh? 
I run about 175 charters a year here on East Bay give or take. I get asked all the time what's gonna happen if and when they are going to close ROP. To be honest I really don't care one way or the other. But I sure would like for them to make a final decision on the pass and lets get done with it.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Capt. West,

I don't think anyone knows the full extent of the damage done by the increased salinity to fish/oyster/seagrasses/marsh. It may not be as bad as some are claiming it may be worse. 

I think the GLO's primary concern for closing it is the erosion caused and the amount of sand/silt being transferred into the bay from the beaches. 

I don't think that closing it is going to be a panacea for East bay marshes, seagrass and oyster reef. It will probably help some. But it will certainly slow the erosion and save the taxpayers millions.


----------



## Capt Jim West (Feb 24, 2010)

There are some many other issues that concern ROP . The water flow is really the only issue that I touched on. Some of the claims about the back of East Bay, water flow, and the fishery that I read or that I here on the radio are just wrong. 

East Bay is a healthy bay. Either way closing the pass or leaving it open is not going to do much to our fishery. The change will be very small if any change at all.


----------



## whalerguy28 (Jun 3, 2009)

That's what I'm getting at Jimmy, what it does to the bay isn't that big of a deal to me compared to the erosion it's doing to the peninsula. Heck you can see how insignificant the tidal flow is through the pass when we get big rains in our area, if rollover exchanged large amounts of water the back would salt back up way quicker than it does now. I'm like you l think the bay would be just fine with it closed but I do think the closure would slow down the erosion, which is my biggest concern.


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

Contrary to West and the others, I care what happens to it because many landlocked and mobility impaired people fish there. I have a house on Bolivar Peninsula that connects to the ICW by a canal. But I don't think this makes me more of an expert on the issue than anyone else. I do, however, have an opinion that is as good as anyone.

Edit: This thread has been viewed >10K times. Some people must care about it.


----------



## ut755ln (Mar 19, 2013)

monkeyman1 said:


> Contrary to West and the others, I care what happens to it because many landlocked and mobility impaired people fish there. I have a house on Bolivar Peninsula that connects to the ICW by a canal. But I don't think this makes me more of an expert on the issue than anyone else. I do, however, have an opinion that is as good as anyone.
> 
> Edit: This thread has been viewed >10K times. Some people must care about it.


Landlocked and mobility impaired people can fish off the shoreline, off of piers, off of boats just to name a few options. None of these activities destroy or erode the peninsula like ROP does.


----------



## Capt Jim West (Feb 24, 2010)

Monkeyman1

You are right that we all have our on opinions and we can surely voice them, right or wrong. I made a point not to single anyone out because of some of the remarks that some have said that is totally BS about East Bay.

I sympathies for those business and the people who maybe be loosing their favorite place to fish. I also said that I don't blame people for being ****** off either.

This ROP issue has been a drawn out argument now for several years and it just keeps going on and on and on. 

I'm not taking sides! That's why I said I don't care! I guess I should have clarified that a little better. Anyway I just hope its resolved soon!


----------



## gunsmoke11 (Apr 30, 2012)

Close it and be done.....east is all I fish and I think rop will not change anything....BTW global warming is the real issue that's what the scientists say. Sunny and 90 degrees on Friday god I wish we could reverse this global warming issue......


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

Does the Pass get dredged ? If not, does mean it's filling itself in? Curious!!


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

I've been fishing East bay since I was a kid and I care about it's future. I also hate to see people lose a fishing spot. But when you factor in everything: the erosion, the damage to the marsh, oyster reef, continual dredging costs etc... The decision becomes easier and the costs are just too high. 

I would just make sure the pier promised is fully funded and operational before filling in the pass starts.


----------



## dinodude (Mar 17, 2013)

glennkoks said:


> I've been fishing East bay since I was a kid and I care about it's future. I also hate to see people lose a fishing spot. But when you factor in everything: the erosion, the damage to the marsh, oyster reef, continual dredging costs etc... The decision becomes easier and the costs are just too high.
> 
> I would just make sure the pier promised is fully funded and operational before filling in the pass starts.


I think what the captain just said is the salinity brought from rollover pass had very little effect.
If to me this so is the case then I would just use a jetty.
ONLY if this so is the case

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

ut755ln said:


> Landlocked and mobility impaired people can fish off the shoreline, off of piers, off of boats just to name a few options. None of these activities destroy or erode the peninsula like ROP does.


Where would the elderly and mobility impaired fish from a saltwater shoreline between the ship channel and Sabine Pass? Wade fish the surf? The jetties? If they had a boat, they wouldn't be fishing at ROP.



V-Bottom said:


> Does the Pass get dredged ? If not, does mean it's filling itself in? Curious!!


It used to be dredged pre-hurricane Ike.



glennkoks said:


> I've been fishing East bay since I was a kid and I care about it's future. I also hate to see people lose a fishing spot. But when you factor in everything: the erosion, the damage to the marsh, oyster reef, continual dredging costs etc... The decision becomes easier and the costs are just too high.
> 
> I would just make sure the pier promised is fully funded and operational before filling in the pass starts.


When the kids were small and we couldn't afford a boat, we brought them to ROP, which is where my kids learned to fish. ROP is a place where the mobility impaired/wheelchair bound and less fortunate financially can wet a hook and have a good chance of catching decent fish. A pier will be difficult - if not impossible - for those in a wheelchair to fish given the tackle, cooler, etc. that they will need. Not impossible, but not encouraging either.

Call me a fool, but I think our federal tax dollars will be expended either on things like ROP or Moochelle's birthday parties. I'd rather see ROP remain a viable fishing spot.

I wouldn't mind seeing the state purchase the land on either side of the pass and make it a state park. The prerequisite would be that jetties must be built to counter beach erosion and mitigate ICW fill in. Concrete pavilions, camp sites, fees, the whole bit.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

The pass isn't dredged. The water moves so fast and has so much energy it keeps itself open.

I don't understand why someone would say that a 200 foot wide cut that is 5 to 8 feet deep doesn't carry enough water to really affect East Bay. 

It is all about the velocity of the water. Higher velocity equals greater volumes.

A fire hose isn't very big and only carries a small amount of water if the hydrant is barely opened.

When the hydrant is fully openedl the fire hose shoots a stream almost to the moon.

Same principal applies to Rollover Pass. 

Both sides of the debate seem to agree that closing Rollover Pass will freshen up East Bay. Models for the GLO study state it will result in a measurable amount of freshening. But the opponents say the models do not include the flows from Oyster Bayou so East Bay will become too fresh and to them that's a horrible thing.

So it seems no matter which side look at the models East Bay will become more fresh it just depends upon the amount.


----------



## Cylinder (Oct 8, 2006)

Read all the posts. My 2 cents...
Grew up fishing in Corpus Christi, a lot at Packery Channel and Newport Pass. These were natural passes where water flowed between gulf and bay. A causeway was built between Flour Bluff and Padre Island with only two cuts in it to allow water to exchange between the Laguna Madre and Mustang Island. This, and the deepening of the Port A ship channel resulted in the passes silting closed. Newport will open during a hurricane and Packery has become a permanent channel with jetty support. These were awesome places to fish. This area is now a growing with housing, hotels, shops, etc. 

Cedar Bayou is talked about like its a religious experience. Big money is being moved around so it can be dredged. Water surveys will be taken pre and post to determine its positive effects on the inland areas receiving life giving gulf waters. CCA is committing large $$ to help make it a reality.

Mansfield Jetties were silting in to the point that only small boats could get out. COE said it was not cost effective to dredge. Finally it was dredged and the area is seeing a positive benefit from its re-opening.

Then there is poor ol' Rollover Pass. Eating up all the sand on the gulf side of the beach. Filling up the IW with silt. Causing sea grasses to die. Close the sob!!!

Not so fast...Seems like there are still too many unanswered questions. 
1) Why is the fishing always better "way back when"? I keep reading about solid trout (3-5lbs) being caught from Hannah's and surrounding areas. Only difference is now you get your a** handed to you for posting a picture with a 10 fish limit. Fishing seems pretty good to me.
2) Where is the discussion about pollution and its effects on the bay system? Seems to me this could have as big effect on the sea grasses as any other variable. 
3) How about the dredge material from the HSC? Is it disturbing the water enough to cause sea grass issues? I know there are a lot of people in West Bay *****ing about the routine dredging of the IW dredge material being dumped back into WB right on top of the sea grass growing there.
4) How about routing the dredge material back onto the beach when it is time to dredge the IW behind Rollover?
5) How many houses have been lost at Surfside to coastal erosion? It's my understanding the several rows of houses have been lost. A study I read about the Mansfield jetties effect on Padre Island was that one side looses sand while the other side benefits.
6) What happens when we are in drought conditions and no fresh water flows from Trinity? What happens when we have flooding and too much water flows from Trinity?
7) Water levels are rising cause the ice is melting. Ships are getting iced in because there is too much ice.

How does all of this balance out? Beats the ***** out of me. 

My vote...keep Rollover, build jetties with the pier money, shore up the back side of the island, use the dredge material from the IW to re-supply the gulf side, build a larger bridge to allow for larger boats. Develop, not destroy!!! 

Have a nice day  Roger


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Thats way out there!*



Cylinder said:


> Read all the posts. My 2 cents...
> Grew up fishing in Corpus Christi, a lot at Packery Channel and Newport Pass. These were natural passes where water flowed between gulf and bay. A causeway was built between Flour Bluff and Padre Island with only two cuts in it to allow water to exchange between the Laguna Madre and Mustang Island. This, and the deepening of the Port A ship channel resulted in the passes silting closed. Newport will open during a hurricane and Packery has become a permanent channel with jetty support. These were awesome places to fish. This area is now a growing with housing, hotels, shops, etc.
> 
> Cedar Bayou is talked about like its a religious experience. Big money is being moved around so it can be dredged. Water surveys will be taken pre and post to determine its positive effects on the inland areas receiving life giving gulf waters. CCA is committing large $$ to help make it a reality.
> ...


You really are dreaming, you can't put dredge material from the HSC on the beach you can't build a jetty because it will do more harm than good and why build a bridge when you can't navigate the channel to begin with.

If there is one thing you can't do is compare the passes down south to the passes on the upper coast.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Please sign the petition to save ROP...

http://www.rolloverpasstexas.com/


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

gater said:


> You really are dreaming, you can't put dredge material from the HSC on the beach


They are putting some of the dredge material from the ICW and ROBay back on to the beach.


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

It is further from the ship channel to the very upper end of East Bay than it is to the upper end of Trinity Bay. 

That is 22 miles versus 18 miles. 

If the upper end of Trinity Bay stays fresh enough to grow bountiful sea grasses while being closer to the ship channel then East Bay will be even better off. 

Now does anyone want to tell me that East Bay can't freshen up because of the ship channel?

All we have to do is close Rollover. It is now conclusive and without question of the benefits that will occur.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

Monkeyman and Gooselover seem have 2 different answers when it comes to the Pass has ever been dredged!! Well, which is it? This whole discussion about ROP, benefits and destructiveness has been wishy washy. Maybe theirs not an answer to any of this. Someone has to the weigh the facts and I am sure that this is being done. The Pros and Cons of ROP.....Pro's keep it open, Cons...shut it down.
I like the idea of a Pier....similar to the ''destroyed Lighted Pier'' on the TCD. It accommodated everyone, handicapped as well...A lot of people wanted a new one built, but since the City ceased all leases.....oh well.. Another question....What section or % of EB and its envionment is getting destroyed? I know studies have shown us that 7 miles of beach SW of ROP has been eaten away and will continue being eroded by 5 ft/yr. if ROP left open. This is a ROP CON !! IF kept up at this rate, you will see Bolivar Island one day.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

According to GLO report, the 5 ft. a year erosion is "baseline erosion". It happens with or without ROP.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

I just saved a lot of money on my car insurance.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Dredge material*



jampen said:


> They are putting some of the dredge material from the ICW and ROBay back on to the beach.


There is a huge difference between the material coming from the HSC and the ICW at ROP


----------



## Cylinder (Oct 8, 2006)

Gater... 
Never said use dredge from the ship channel. If ROP is moving beach sand from the gulf to the IW, then move it back. You say no to jetties, I say yes to jetties. Have you seen how narrow Packery channel is between the jetties? Its the new gulf access point and its taking (some) business away from Port A. And I can compare upper and lower because they're the same thing, performing the same functions. Roger


----------



## Goose Lover (Jan 23, 2012)

Rollover Pass was opened mechanically in 1955. As far as I know it has never been dredged since. 

The original plan was for it to be a little pass that would require mechanical assistance to keep it open. 

That was wrong. In almost no time it blew open to 500 feet wide and had to bulkheaded and armored to keep it at its present size. 

Cylinder are you saying that upper and lower bay systems are the same thing and perform the same functions?

If so that would not be accurate. There are some parallels but they also have substantive differences. 

Why in the world do we want jetties. The erosion on the west side of Rollover will explode if jetties were put in. And what about the cost. It would be huge.

Filling in the pass is a lot cheaper and actually does a lot of good for the world.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Cylinder said:


> Gater...
> Never said use dredge from the ship channel. If ROP is moving beach sand from the gulf to the IW, then move it back. You say no to jetties, I say yes to jetties. Have you seen how narrow Packery channel is between the jetties? Its the new gulf access point and its taking (some) business away from Port A. And I can compare upper and lower because they're the same thing, performing the same functions. Roger


Moving sand from the ICW to the beach is an expensive never ending process. It is tantamount to paying people to dig holes and fill them back in. Jetties may help but that is a process that also costs the taxpayer and the we still have the salinity intrusion problem.

A nice handicapped accessible pier seems to make the most sense to me.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

Vince Young could really use y'alls help right now! hwell:


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

V-Bottom said:


> IF kept up at this rate, you will see Bolivar Island one day.


Technically it already is an island...you must cross over water to get to it.

So stop with the drama.


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

V-bottom:
Gooselover is correct, I misspoke; ROP has not been dredged to my knowledge. The ICW was dredged where it intersects with ROP. The dredge pipe used to go thru ROP to pump the silt on to the beach.

glennkoks:
I assume you've fished from a pier and know the amount of gear that must accompany the fishermen. R&R's, tackle box, cooler at minimum. Have you ever netted a fish from a pier that is ~20 feet from the water? From a wheelchair or sitting in a chair because your legs don't work?

We have the perfect opportunity in ROP to make it a state park (must include jetties) for all to continue to enjoy. Once closed, it will never re-open.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

No Monkey, I have not netted a fish from a WC bc I am not HC'd. I have seen people that have and w/ some help (TC Lighted Pier).Have you ever seen a seriously HC'd?? net a fish from ROP? Point being, handicapped folks do fish from piers and do have assistance bringing gear on the pier. You may want to ask some of those folks how they do it when Galveston's ''POINT TOURNAMENT" comes, they may fish from a boat but still some need a lot of help. Despite what they do w/ the Pass, it would be nice to bring in a Pier over there, similar to the one at SWP.


----------



## kinja (May 21, 2004)

Fill it in. The quicker the better.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

V-Bottom said:


> Have you ever seen a seriously HC'd?? net a fish from ROP?


Yep...Mr.Scurtu has a long (about 10 ft) extended handle net that he uses, and if you try to help him he will (lightly) scold you. He doesn't really trust your ability to get the fish on to shore.


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

V-Bottom said:


> No Monkey, I have not netted a fish from a WC bc I am not HC'd. I have seen people that have and w/ some help (TC Lighted Pier).Have you ever seen a seriously HC'd?? net a fish from ROP? Point being, handicapped folks do fish from piers and do have assistance bringing gear on the pier. You may want to ask some of those folks how they do it when Galveston's ''POINT TOURNAMENT" comes, they may fish from a boat but still some need a lot of help. Despite what they do w/ the Pass, it would be nice to bring in a Pier over there, similar to the one at SWP.


V, the part about dredging was for you and the rest for glennkoks. But, I've seen people in a wheelchair net fish from ROP. But at ROP, you really don't need a net to land the fish. You're right on the waters edge.

I'd like to see a pier as well, but not as a bone to closing the pass. The wife and I had lots of fun fishing at night off of whatever the last pier was left standing on Bolivar (Shorty's Longest Pier?). We used the circular net with rope tied at 4 quadrants to land fish from the pier. Brings back some memories...


----------



## Jean Scurtu (Dec 6, 2011)

jampen said:


> Yep...Mr.Scurtu has a long (about 10 ft) extended handle net that he uses, and if you try to help him he will (lightly) scold you. He doesn't really trust your ability to get the fish on to shore.


:texasflag:texasflag

In this picture taking by Ed Snyder you can see my long, telescopic handle landing net(home made by me),landing one flounder catch by me on jig with 16'4" telescopic spinning graphite rod (built by me)at ROLLOVER PASS :


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Really*



jampen said:


> According to GLO report, the 5 ft. a year erosion is "baseline erosion". It happens with or without ROP.
> 
> View attachment 1059689


You need to highlight that entire page or at least read it!


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I've read it...


----------



## Ron R. (May 21, 2004)

Jean Scurtu said:


> :texasflag:texasflag
> 
> In this picture taking by Ed Snyder you can see my long, telescopic handle landing net(home made by me),landing one flounder catch by me on jig with 16'4" telescopic spinning graphite rod (built by me)at ROLLOVER PASS :


Jean, I hope you'll be able to fish from ROP for years to come brother!!!!! Keep sending us pics of all those great fish catches from ROP!


----------



## Jean Scurtu (Dec 6, 2011)

:texasflag

Thanks Ron,i hope too!!!


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

Jean...

Looks like you brought your LONG pole experience to the US. Maybe on another post, you can tell us more history about Long Roding in your homeland and using it here. A 16ft 4'' homemade spinning rod is just not talked about around here..well, not to knowledge. It serves a great purpose and thats to catch fish and I am very curious about WHY so long? I know this would be a super read and thanx if u start a post somewhere.


----------



## Jean Scurtu (Dec 6, 2011)

V-Bottom said:


> Jean...
> 
> Looks like you brought your LONG pole experience to the US. Maybe on another post, you can tell us more history about Long Roding in your homeland and using it here. A 16ft 4'' homemade spinning rod is just not talked about around here..well, not to knowledge. It serves a great purpose and thats to catch fish and I am very curious about WHY so long? I know this would be a super read and thanx if u start a post somewhere.


Please check this link to see is possible to catch big fish fishing from the bank with artificial using long rod,not just with short rods.With long rod you can cast long distance,you control better the line,you strike better if the fish bite and you can fight better with some big fish.

http://www.fishingworld.com/News/Read.php?ArtID=000010715

I suppose you are very good fisherman and maybe,one day ,you have time to teach me how to catch better salt water fish ,because in my ex-country,Romania i never fish in salt water just in fresh water.I am old ,like you ,but i like to know to catch and salt water fish ,but just with artificial how long the God give the chance to be able to fish.

I have and 19'7" fiber glass spinning telescopic rod(built by me on telescopic pole),and with this rod i was catching the limit on white bass (drop fishing from the bank) on TRINITY river when the water was huge ,fast,and very dirty.
You can see the picture with white bass catch with this rod,below LIVINGSTON DAM ,when all the 12 gates was open :


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

PM sent Jean.....better stop here about the Long Rod subject, and let the others talk about poor ROP's destiny and salintity


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

V-Bottom said:


> PM sent Jean.....better stop here about the Long Rod subject, and let the others talk about poor ROP's destiny and salintity


LOL...You sound jealous that Jean is slinging a longer rod than you are!


----------

