# CCA calling for urgent action on flounder



## pelochas (Jun 15, 2005)

received an email from CCA with some info about the flounder population declining to 50% and about the majority of flounder taken by gigging

wondering what CCA plans to do with gigging...outlaw it?

*Subject: URGENT!!! Action Required - PLEASE READ​*Greetings,
It is not often that the Executive Board of Directors of the Coastal Conservation Association Texas
asks our membership for individual participation, but now is one of those times.
According to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department surveys, the flounder population in our State
waters is on the brink of collapse.​*DeGraaf Adams*, chairman of CCA Texas' Governmental Affairs
Committee states, "It is an irrefutable fact that the flounder population in Texas has fallen to less
than 50% of historic levels. It is also clear the vast majority of flounder are harvested by gigging,
with overwhelming numbers of spawning females taken during the October, November and
December fall run."
As bleak as this picture is, there is some good news. It is widely believed flounder numbers can be
restored to their historic levels relatively quickly with sound and aggressive action. Your Executive
Board of Directors, in their scheduled November meeting, voted unanimously to approve
aggressive steps urging Parks and Wildlife to take action to reverse the current downward trend in
flounder populations.
CCA Texas President, Bill Schwarzlose summed up the organization's position best when he
stated, "Southern flounder numbers have shown a steady decline over the last 25 years and we, as
a conservation organization, have a responsibility to act. CCA Texas has made hard decisions in
the past regarding redfish and speckled trout regulations and it's time to do the same for
flounder. We must save this important species for future generations of Texans."
In the next very few days, all 50,400 CCA Texas members will have to opportunity to take a vital
and active part in saving our flounder. In the mail*, you will receive a letter *from Robby Byers,
executive director of CCA Texas, explaining in greater detail both the challenge and the solutions
we think necessary to recover flounder stocks. Included in the mailing will be a *yellow card *that
should be filled out and forwarded per the attached instructions*. I urge each and every member
to take the time to read Robby's letter, and forward our position card to the appropriate
parties.*​*
Each and every member is important to CCA Texas' success, let's
show how united a group of over 50,000 conservationists can be and
fill Texas Parks and Wildlife Department mailboxes with our yellow
cards.​*Sincerely,
Mark W. Ray
Chairman of the Board​Coastal Conservation Association - Texas


----------



## nasakid (May 21, 2004)

Gigging by normal folks and guides is not the problem IMHO. Bay shrimping is. The possession limit of 10 is helping, and commercial outfits should be held to that, as well. Shrimp farms are the future, and boat shrimping is the past. They need to wake up and do what's right, not penalize recreational fishermen.


----------



## BIG PAPPA (Apr 1, 2008)

*alot won't like this BUT*

Game fish Status for Flounder.
No selling commercially
Gigging permits and limits cut down for both Anglers and those gigging for personal consumption. 
In my honest opinion our Flounder is in worse shape than our Redfish were years back when the harsh(but neccesary) limits were implemented on the redfish. We should act quickly. The Shrimpboat license byback program has helped but Flounder are still on the decline in EVERY BAY SYSTEM on our Texas Coastline. It is not this reason, or that reason ect ect ect..
It is all the reasons combined. I am not pointing any fingers at anyone, and please do not read between my lines here. I'm an angler that love Flounder and caught more in just "one day" back in the late 60's & early 70's than i have the last 30 years combined. It's total Pressure on the resource, some weigh-in more than the others, but pressure non the less.
all ideas above are just Ideas so please don't pound me too hard. I know all the 2Cool Anglers here can make a difference and no matter what your opinion is, please get involved.


----------



## rjhiv (Dec 13, 2008)

i agree totally! Would you rather keep things like they are and take a chance on the flounder never recovering or take a few years of lower limits so that our kids can enjoy flounder when they get older.


----------



## Capt.Troy (Aug 29, 2006)

Nothing like CCA jumping on the bandwagon after TPWD already had the ball rolling. I'll bet they even take credit for the regulation changes when they go into effect next September. Some things never change.


----------



## coachlaw (Oct 26, 2005)

The biggest problem I see with the whole thing is that lower limits are never repealed. I think it's past time to change the redfish limits. I don't mind the 3 per day, but 20 freakin' inches as the low limit is beyond ridiculous. The best eating fish are 15-20. Let's make reds 3 a day 16-27 inches. Then I'll start believing that limits are not permanent.

Of course the biggest problem with anything is the throngs of unlicenced fishermen who keep anything and everything regardless of size.


----------



## 6.5 shooter dude (Jan 8, 2008)

There sure is a lot of talk about low flounder numbers, but I have to say I personally have seen more flounder this year than any other year.


----------



## kapman (Aug 3, 2006)

What I did not realize is that the commercial giggers can take 60 fish a night. I had no idea it was even near that. Don't care who takes credit for it, either CCA or TPWD, but something needs to be done to make sure there are fish for the next generation.


----------



## BIG PAPPA (Apr 1, 2008)

*Bandwagon??*



ssflounder said:


> Nothing like CCA jumping on the bandwagon after TPWD already had the ball rolling. I'll bet they even take credit for the regulation changes when they go into effect next September. Some things never change.


I respectfully disagree with your analogy here. and here's why.
CCA is mailing cards to everyone(members) with TPWD's info & findings and seeking one of the biggest anglers Petition/opinion/vote on a Species that's been in a troubling decline for years. It is a Tool to help the TPWD get something us as anglers want done. It will probably be one of the best tools TPWD has ever had handed to them. The largest Angling organization in the World (50,000 plus members strong)helping with the decision that has been Reccomended by TPWD. Thats all they are doing. CCA will jump on any bandwagon if the facts and figures are done "properly" which TPWD has done as long as it has Our Resources, and our Anglers and our Future Anglers best intrest at Heart. 
once again this is a Tool to help.


----------



## oceankayaker84 (Dec 16, 2007)

rjhiv said:


> i agree totally! Would you rather keep things like they are and take a chance on the flounder never recovering or take a few years of lower limits so that our kids can enjoy flounder when they get older.


Once the new regs go into effect, I can almost gurantee you they will be permanent. Don't expect a reg change in a few years that again favor the fishermen.


----------



## jjordan (Sep 6, 2006)

in all my years of giging i have only been checked by the game wardens 1 time, so i have an idea, lets oultlaw commercial floundering, cause lets face it, every species that was ever in trouble rebounded after outlawing commercial harvest, and lets have more law enforcement enforceing the laws. they can make the laws all they want, but without someone enforceing them then they arent doing any good. as for cca...........i better not go there


----------



## Freshwaterman (May 21, 2004)

*Bill Schwarloze comments:*

*" CCA Texas has made hard decisions in the past regarding Redfish and Speckeled Trout and it's time to do the same for Flounder"*

*Huh,*

*I don't recall so much as one single comment from ya'll of any significance when we were trying to get the LLM Trout down to 5.*

*In the case of Flounder I think CCA Texas is demonstrating the same reactionary philosphy that TPWD has demonstrated in the past. *

*Am I missing something here or am I way out in left field on this?*


----------



## Silverspoon (Jun 1, 2005)

You can look up my previous posts about this subject and see my opinion. 

With 80% of the total annual harvest of flounder, a result of shrimping bycatch (these were TP&W numbers as printed in TF&G magazine, issue May 2007). That leaves 20% of total annual harvest for rod/reel fishermen and both commercial (even with 60 fish limits) and recreational giggers! I am going to continue to throw the BS card down on this issue and CCAs' stance. To say that gigging is a major culprit in the flounders decline is not true! Neither are lowering the limits! And once the limits are lowered? There will be no chance of ever raising them!


----------



## jeffsfishin (Jan 27, 2008)

*Calling BS on shrimper theory.*

I gotta call BS on the by-catch theory, I base this on 30 years on the bay's. I can remember 10-15 bay shrimp boats working the Chocolate bay area back in the 70's and 80's when flounder were everywhere, Now for the past 7-8 years you rarely see more than one shrimp boat in that area at a time.
The same goes for areas in Galveston as well. Now as far as flounder rigs go, back in the 80's you rarely seen a flounder rig and when you did it was more than likely commercial gigger, Mostly just a person here or there walking with a lantern. Now on any decent night for floundering you will see 5-6 flounder rigs in the Bastrop- Christmas bay area in a night and that is year around, I own a flounder rig so I am part of the problem, but as long as it's legal I will continue. My point is that bay-gulf shimpers are at an all time low, So I have a hard time believing they are the main reason of the decline.


----------



## kingfisherred (Aug 12, 2005)

*Gamefish*

Gamefish status.....Problem solved


----------



## Capt. Hollis Forrester (Jun 17, 2006)

kingfisherred said:


> Gamefish status.....Problem solved


 Hmmmm, dont know about that? Somehow I think there is alot more to this than what they are looking at, and it da#n sure aint the rod and reel fishermen. Bycatch, yah somewhat, giggers- definately if you haunt the same flats night after night! I know this because I did it and seen the same shore get depleted in a 3 day period, thats why I do not gig for my guide service any longer ! Comercial Fishermen - 60 fish a night, Definately is where the problem lyes, and we are not talking about male fish getting hammered during these times, were talking about females full of rowe!


----------



## poc-ed (Oct 15, 2007)

As a recreational fisherman, I would hate to see gigging banned or outlawed. Now if they would reduce limits for commercial and recreational fishermen, then I believe this would help the flounder. I just started to gig flounder 2 years ago and have enjoyed it when I am able to get out on the water. I would hate to see this part of fishing taken away from me and my younger generations due to other peoples ignorance of rules and laws. I am just one person, and always have obeyed rules and regs on fishing, especially when taking guests and other family members fishing. This is just my opinion.

poc-ed


----------



## SolarScreenGuy (Aug 15, 2005)

*First post or reply guys. I have enjoyed this site for a while now and this topic is of great interest to me. I have been fishing the Texas coast for over 50 years. *
*There are some things that seem obvious to me that TPWD and CCA don't see. Flounder should have been given game fish status long ago. Right along with Trout & Reds. On top of that, if we don't do anything to get our passes opened along this coast it won't make any difference what we do to try and conserve our resources. It isn't getting better. I have watched this phenomenon of using croakers for bait since I first noticed some of the midcoast guides using them in the '70s. Back then , the catches were astounding. I have watched the numbers, size, and quality of the catches decline steadily over the last 30 years or so. Two big things have changed since then. There are a lot more people fishing with croakers, and several of our Gulf passes have closed. These are the 2 main issues that threaten our fisheries. Don't believe everything you hear from TPWD and CCA. A little common sense would help. We should hold TPWD & CCA accountable for not taking action on these issues. *


----------



## da fillthy hoe (Nov 13, 2008)

*Head shots sell better!!!!*

Well to everyone tha thinks commercial fishing is the only problem your wrong. Look at how many fish are caught on rod and reel this time of year. Your can fish alot more than you can gig. The last survey i heard of from TPWL was that there was about 340 commercial finfish licenses active in the state. Take in to account the number of recreational fisherman there are now. Then think of how many rec.s have boats as well. Are you coming up with a number yet????? Its not only the permit holders that are the problem, I know of several permit holders that pay their dues just to gig 20-40 nights a year. Oh yeah i forgot were the problem. The solution is easy they spoke of a closure lets try a month just one but it will have to be the peak of the run say Nov. or Dec. let all the fish with eggs pass one month. So youll have to pay more gas bills cause your driving to the hill country, just kill you another axis/pig/white-tail in that time. Cutting the limits and not trying the month off is not the answer. Just think of every fish thats taken in one of those two months.... Now let um breed try that for 3 years see if you see a result. Yeah itll be a month but think of what it could do over time. F1106 Rather Gig Than Dig!!!


----------



## kemahguy (Jun 7, 2005)

*Flounder Regs*

I can't believe any educated person can sit there and say that shrimping bycatch doesn't have much impact on the flounder fishery. Bay shrimping and commercial gigging needs to come to an end! Shrimping w/ nets in the bay should be a felony! I've noticed that a few people have mentioned the good old days when there weren't any limits and you could catch all you want. That's the mentallity and attitude that has always gotten us in trouble in the first place.


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

BIG PAPPA said:


> I respectfully disagree with your analogy here. and here's why.
> CCA is mailing cards to everyone(members) with TPWD's info & findings and seeking one of the biggest anglers Petition/opinion/vote on a Species that's been in a troubling decline for years. It is a Tool to help the TPWD get something us as anglers want done. It will probably be one of the best tools TPWD has ever had handed to them. The largest Angling organization in the World (50,000 plus members strong)helping with the decision that has been Reccomended by TPWD. Thats all they are doing. CCA will jump on any bandwagon if the facts and figures are done "properly" which TPWD has done as long as it has Our Resources, and our Anglers and our Future Anglers best intrest at Heart.
> once again this is a Tool to help.


Why don't you go pee on someone elses leg and tell them its raining. You guys sure waited and got your facts str8 before the Red Snapper issue didn't you and was it in line with TPW recommendations>>>NO it helped the comercial guys and screwed us recs and that IS the rest of the story....WW


----------



## jjordan (Sep 6, 2006)

i personall know and am friends with both shrimpers and commercial fisherman, and still say that it needs to be outlawed............unfortanetly their greed in the past has brought us to where we are today and a change is in need. again i will state that whatever laws are in place are not going to ever work if they are not enforced. if over the last 30 years every had been honest and only harvested what they were allowed them we probably wouldnt be in the shape we are in today. either way we are where we are and things must change. it just frustrates me that the changes usually affect the rec. guys more than the commercial guys and to me thats not fair. the days of makin a livin and livin off what the good lord gave us is over and changes must be made or our children will not get the opportunity to enjoy the things we all grew up enjoyin


----------



## Gamble (Oct 27, 2005)

ssflounder said:


> Nothing like CCA jumping on the bandwagon after TPWD already had the ball rolling. I'll bet they even take credit for the regulation changes when they go into effect next September. Some things never change.


..........CCA has and will always think past the end of their nose......unlike some. You can't fault them for wanting to fix a problem now while it's able to be fixed. It matters not who gets credit for anything...........think about someone other than yourself and be part of the solution, not part of the problem.


----------



## spitfire (Jan 2, 2007)

Get ready boys and girls, like I've said before eventually they are going to get what they want= To stop recreational fishing all together. Then what will we do? Another Boston Tea Party?


----------



## Team Ranger Bob (Jul 13, 2004)

*CCA?*

Well again better late to the party than never coming at all.

What all you CCA defenders of the faith need to do is send a real message written across the yellow cards, *manage our coastal resources in regions!*

The Flounder stocks have been ignored for well over a decade now.

If you attended the Dickinson meeting you would have heard that the Southern flounders range is limited and that the decline South of here is no surprise due to it being the farther reach of the range, you also would have seen with their own data that Galveston and Sabine are in no way as bad as further South, Sabine numbere were flat for the sample data periods indicating no decline and yet again as with the 25" trout we will all have to pay the same price for conservation in what is again predominanty a problem South of us.

Managing by regions means we are more able to protect ourselves from over regulation.
And yes I am also for game fish status with recreational gigging still allowed.

*The thing we as stake holders need to do more than anything is elect legislators that will see to it that Parks & Wildlife receive enough money and direction to hire Game Wardens to ride heard on our resource and drive out the poachers who do not obide by the same laws that the vast majority of observe.*

Ranger Bob


----------



## alw (Apr 30, 2006)

Recreational fishermen should contact Parks and Wildlife by email and mail to conteract what CCA is tring to do. 

CCA has paid no attention to Parks and Wildlife data. Conservation to the extreme will do us no good. Look what they did for the snapper.


----------



## Gamble (Oct 27, 2005)

...........and what they did to the redfish. It worked.


----------



## Capt.Troy (Aug 29, 2006)

Hey Gamble,which are you, an employee of CCA or a commercial fisherman.


----------



## da fillthy hoe (Nov 13, 2008)

*You always gotta pay to play! (giggin that is!!!!!!)*

Yes im a commercial fisherman of course!!!!! Its what i do on the side of my real job. The way I look at it, its like payin on a deer lease. I keep payin cause i like punchin fish. Every year i pay my $360(finfish) +$561(wholesale truck)+ an additional $64(super combo) just so I can play the game. Thats $985 I pay to the state so I can gig and sell my fish. Compared to what a fishing license and stamp cost, I pay for the fish I take. Limits were cut on us as well. Where recs. used to have a 20 poss. we used to have 120 poss now its just 10 and sixty. The answer lies in a month cool down Nov. or Dec. that way the fish leaving the bay make it and spawn. Pointing fingers at a certain one doesnt solve the problem, ur just pointing at a group and saying their the reason for this decline. The point im making is its allready happened. The question is what and how are we gonna deal with it. Commercial fishing is always gonna be around as for shrimpers and fisherman too. If a shorter season is the answer lets do it, the fact remains that most of the breeding fish are taken during the run. Id hate a partial closure just as much if not more than the next guy, but you know it would do good. STICK EM IN DA HEAD!!!! F1106


----------



## Capt.Troy (Aug 29, 2006)

It's illegal to sell deer so that is no comparison and neither is the 20 to 10 possession to 120 to 60.


----------



## alw (Apr 30, 2006)

From what I hear CCA organization is run by some folks with extreem wealth. They probably never fish flounder by any means of taking them. Is there a list of officers in this organization and what they are paid as well as the ones with the big money influence in the operation? Those big money guys probably fish internationally more than in our bays. Some of the folks are worth 100's of millions or more. I guess they got enough money to herd the little guys that go to their meetings. Hopefully the Parks and Wildlife dosn't listen to them. They didn't on the snapper fishing in state waters.


----------



## Redfishr (Jul 26, 2004)

Shut'in the gate after the bull gets out, thats about the norm....


----------



## Redfishr (Jul 26, 2004)

alw said:


> From what I hear CCA organization is run by some folks with extreem wealth. They probably never fish flounder by any means of taking them. Is there a list of officers in this organization and what they are paid as well as the ones with the big money influence in the operation? Those big money guys probably fish internationally more than in our bays. Some of the folks are worth 100's of millions or more. I guess they got enough money to herd the little guys that go to their meetings. Hopefully the Parks and Wildlife dosn't listen to them. They didn't on the snapper fishing in state waters.


Pat Murry is the one of the top dogs in the CCA. He has a bachelors degree in wildlife fisheries or something like that and was a west bay fishing guide for many years .
I bet he catches his share of bay fish.


----------



## TLCurd (Feb 13, 2008)

So I guess my question is, when did the enjoyment of fishing depend solely on how many you could keep and not just catching them in the first place? Forgive me, I am only 24 years old and still have much learning to do, but I find just as much satisfaction in releasing 20 fish as I do in keeping 3 or 4. Furthermore, I have no boat or means of water transportation, so the majority of my time in the water is spent grinding it out on foot for hours on end. But that is why I, personally, fish. It's the hunt and the trap. The pursuit. Landing that bad boy is the victory, throwing him on the stringer is a luxury. If my (or your) releasing that fish ensures that I have a fairly good chance of success the next time I (or you) choose to wade for 6 hours, then I'm all for it. I certainly agree that the majority of regulations should be focused on commercial fishing and not aimed at we recreational fishermen. But I really do have a hard time believing that either of the organizations would really seek to cease all recreational fishing. When you look at the economic impact that our sport brings to the areas we populate, it simply wouldn't be viable in my opinion. Maybe it's the way my uncle and father raised me outdoors, teaching me to flyfish and the importance of conservation, but I have always felt a responsibility to preserve the same fish that I so desperately seek. This forum, and the CCA as a whole, is full of wonderful anglers who feel just as passionately as I and you alike. I guess my point is that I just hope there are others who share this similar view and will have faith in TPWD and CCA and their efforts. Look at the results of our previous efforts. They haven't done us wrong and we all now have waters brimming (for the most part) with redfish and specks (some that glow). So let's do right....catch and release whatever is needed and eat sparingly, soon enough that good ol' flatfish will be booming and our coolers full again. I really do value the opinions that everyone shares on these posts, so I hope you all do the same. I hope this finds everyone in high spirits and I want to wish all of you the happiest of holidays. Take care. - Travis


----------



## jeffsfishin (Jan 27, 2008)

*Finfish license*



da fillthy hoe said:


> Yes im a commercial fisherman of course!!!!! Its what i do on the side of my real job. The way I look at it, its like payin on a deer lease. I keep payin cause i like punchin fish. Every year i pay my $360(finfish) +$561(wholesale truck)+ an additional $64(super combo) just so I can play the game. Thats $985 I pay to the state so I can gig and sell my fish. Compared to what a fishing license and stamp cost, I pay for the fish I take. Limits were cut on us as well. Where recs. used to have a 20 poss. we used to have 120 poss now its just 10 and sixty. The answer lies in a month cool down Nov. or Dec. that way the fish leaving the bay make it and spawn. Pointing fingers at a certain one doesnt solve the problem, ur just pointing at a group and saying their the reason for this decline. The point im making is its allready happened. The question is what and how are we gonna deal with it. Commercial fishing is always gonna be around as for shrimpers and fisherman too. If a shorter season is the answer lets do it, the fact remains that most of the breeding fish are taken during the run. Id hate a partial closure just as much if not more than the next guy, but you know it would do good. STICK EM IN DA HEAD!!!! F1106


Remember as well that 51% of your income must be derived from commercial fisheries to maintain that finfish license, to close gigging down for 2 month's might make that hard to do for some.


----------



## da fillthy hoe (Nov 13, 2008)

Im not selling deer,just saying theres another way way to spend your time in the outdoors in one of the months in question.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

ALW, you know not of that which you speak and your unfounded and untrue accusations just make you look foolish. Before you go accusing anyone in CCA of anything you need to get you facts straight before you look even more ignorant than you already do. Here is something I know about this situation and that is CCA ticked off a lot of people with their stance on the snapper issue and they are already beginning to show up on this thread and attack, no matter what CCA's stance is. CCA is an organization that is darned if they do and darned if they don't in regard to whatever issue is in the forefront.


----------



## Gamble (Oct 27, 2005)

ssflounder said:


> Hey Gamble,which are you, an employee of CCA or a commercial fisherman.


...........neither.


----------



## haparks (Apr 12, 2006)

im no expert but i saw as a kid how hard it was to catch a red in the 80's with my father now no problem--i think it would be great if we could do the same for the flounder


----------



## alw (Apr 30, 2006)

For those that live along the coast and saltwater fish. It's not very difficult to catch flounder by what ever means. There is no problem with the flounder population on the upper coast. Don't really need CCA rules here.


----------



## The Driver. (May 20, 2004)

*Bout time you showed up!*



Team Ranger Bob said:


> Well again better late to the party than never coming at all.
> 
> What all you CCA defenders of the faith need to do is send a real message written across the yellow cards, *manage our coastal resources in regions!*
> 
> ...


Where's Arty when you need him!


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

alw, they aren't CCA's rules, they are the rules and regs set up by the TPWD. You give CCA too much credit. I see you've backed off of your previous foolishness, but you're still not making much sense.


----------



## da fillthy hoe (Nov 13, 2008)

jjordan said:


> in all my years of giging i have only been checked by the game wardens 1 time, so i have an idea, lets oultlaw commercial floundering, cause lets face it, every species that was ever in trouble rebounded after outlawing commercial harvest, and lets have more law enforcement enforceing the laws. they can make the laws all they want, but without someone enforceing them then they arent doing any good. as for cca...........i better not go there


 Well you wanna end commercial gigging thats simple just buy all the permts its that easy. There is only about 340 in use right now... But I wont sell mine bud... Good luck though!


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Seems to be a pattern there...............



ssflounder said:


> Nothing like CCA jumping on the bandwagon after TPWD already had the ball rolling. I'll bet they even take credit for the regulation changes when they go into effect next September. Some things never change.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Actually...they did (at least) put a (very short) comment on record regarding the 5 Trout ruling....I was at all the Austin meetings.
Yup...cca had Joey Park running around TPW the day of the ruling, he was with Todd Baxter who famously lost his elected position for a little scandal over some dirty Tom Delay money. So these 2 have not been at any other meeting and at the last meeting Park sneaks in while the meeting is in progress just in time to comment that "CCA supports the 5 fish rule"...that was it....he stepped away from the podium and walked directly to the exit. I saw him headed out and got up to catch him, I approached him in the parking lot as they were walking to their car and I stopped them and asked Mr. Park a simple question...."if the Trout are in big trouble as cca seems to think they are in the LLM shouldnt they be removed from cca's star tourney...seems a tournament targeting large broodstock fish is counterproductive? Mr. Parks only reply was mumbling as he kept walking (quickly I might add). Months of meetings and public comment and they sneak in the back door at the last minute....hmmmm. Don't want to mess with the star tourney now do they....those fish make them $$$$$ and sign up new members.

Knee jerk reactions is par. How about opening all our passes, habitat improvement ect. *We can manage numbers till we are splitting the last fish with a commercial and a tree hugger....the numbers game is not working towards long term solutions*.



Tony in Brownsville said:


> *Bill Schwarloze comments:*
> 
> *" CCA Texas has made hard decisions in the past regarding Redfish and Speckeled Trout and it's time to do the same for Flounder"*
> 
> ...


----------



## jeffsfishin (Jan 27, 2008)

*51% rule on Finfish license.*



da fillthy hoe said:


> Well you wanna end commercial gigging thats simple just buy all the permts its that easy. There is only about 340 in use right now... But I wont sell mine bud... Good luck though!


If Parks and Wildlife would just enforce's the 51% of your income rule, that number of license will probable be cut by 50%. Would it include your's????


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

If the STAR tourney went away the same amount of fish would be caught and killed. People enter the STAR tourney because they are already going to be fishing. Are there people sitting around some summer weekend who suddenly remember they are entered and run down to the coast. No, I don't think so either.


----------



## JimmyS (May 19, 2005)

Pocboy, there are a bunch of people I know that sign up to fish STARR that would definitely fish as much if it wasn't for the tourney. And some of them take a lot of fish out of the bays that would't otherwise be removed.

One or two stopgap measures to the flounder problen will not fix the overall problem. This will be a complex problem. But my feelings are that gamefish status and management by region will do more to get things moving back than anything else.

I haven't seen the letter from cca yet ... are they TELLING us what to say or ASKING for our wisdom?


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Jimmy, I'm sure it goes both ways in regards to the STAR. However it is not the only "kill" tournament on the coast and why is STAR the only one being attacked? It's because some people have a problem with CCA and this is an obvious target for them. 
As for the letter, I think they are saying that this is what they think needs to be done and if you agree then send the letter in.


----------



## Too Tall (May 21, 2004)

How about ban fishing for flounder in the passes a couple of times a year? Give them a chance to do their thing.


----------



## jjordan (Sep 6, 2006)

pocboy, the star tourney and cca are being targeted because they say trout numbers are low in the llm yet they still have a tournament to get people to go out and try to catch the biggest breeding fish they can to win some money.........why,,,,,,,,,,,,,cause the star tourney is a money maker for them. i used to be a gcca supporter, but when they changed to cca and started caring more about the commercial fisheries and themselves rather than the recreational guys i lost all respect for them. until i see a change for the better i will continue to non supporter


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*JJordan*

Speak only of what you know is true. It's best not to comment on things you know nothing about! Gater


----------



## da fillthy hoe (Nov 13, 2008)

jeffsfishin said:


> If Parks and Wildlife would just enforce's the 51% of your income rule, that number of license will probable be cut by 50%. Would it include your's????


 Yea buddy it would, I think most commercial giggers have other jobs as well too. To make it off floundering alone would be tough.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

The STAR certainly motivates more people to fish, and increases
the number of angler hours spent on the bays. I've made overnight
trips, trying to catch a big trout. Which I never would have otherwise 
done. One day I saw a guy with 40 gafftops lined up on the POC 
boat ramp. He had been out all night, trying to catch a 6- or 7-pounder
for the STAR. None of the dead fish were that big, but some were close.
Would that guy have thrown gafftops in the box all night without a tournament
going on? I don't think so. The same probably happens for flounder; use a 
live, 6-inch mullet for bait all summer, and you should run into a 6-pound
flounder. At least until the population dropped.


----------



## michaelbaranowski (May 24, 2004)

method of taking fish isn't the problem. It is how many are taken. Commericals taking 60 fish or more of a problem than me taking 10 gigging.

Shrimper strapping everything off the bottom I am sure will kill more fish than me gigging 10 flounder.


----------



## KIKO (Oct 24, 2006)

IMO the decline of flounder and other species is the direct effect of commercial fishing; netting (shimpping) or guided fishing. The two methods of fishing typically harvest daily specific zones and put a smack and the fish population. 

Shimmpers drag their nets on the same place just about every day and fishing guides, gigging or rod and reel ,take their cusomer out to the same places over and over. 

I know that this might hurt some $feeling$, but both commercial fishing arts can put the smack our fisharies.


----------



## Sow Trout (Jun 28, 2004)

Do you eat to fish or fish to eat? I know what Coachlaw's position is, but it was genetically bred into him in Lousianna so he can't help it. Regulations that favor the fisherman are those that insure the maximum numbr of fish are available to those fishermen. I don't see the benefit of the shorter season. It is more about how many fish are available to spawn than it is about when they are caught. One guide who does a lot of gigging told me that he does better in the summer than he does in the fall.
Some of you guys have to have something to blame and to complain about. Now that you don't have Bush you blame the CCA. What have YOU done lately to improve fishing for any species of fish????


oceankayaker84 said:


> Once the new regs go into effect, I can almost gurantee you they will be permanent. Don't expect a reg change in a few years that again favor the fishermen.


----------



## augie-m (Apr 12, 2005)

I too worry that a change in flounder regulations would ever be reversed, once changed. One sad fact of the flounder situation and gigging, is the "commercial" giggers. I am sure a lot of the commercial giggers I see and talk to as we are leaving at 10-11 pm, and they are just coming in to unload, is they're licenses were bought before the regulations requiring commercials to declare fishing they're only source of income. How many people knew of that requirement? And how many people think it is being monitored to the extent of the law. It jerks my chain that a lot of them have full time jobs and then fish for a 60 limit on flounder. Mom and pop in a flounder boat with a 10 each limit is not destroying the flounder. Don't believe me? Watch at the docks where commercials unload, and granted, they don't always catch their limit either, but, when they do find them, they tend to hit'em. 
augie-m


----------



## alw (Apr 30, 2006)

The TP&W scope meeting data stated that fishermen only were responsible for 20% of the take. Creel surveys indicated that most fishermen only returned with 1 flounder on a trip. Further reduction of the limit and how flounder are taken won't affect this much. Warmer water was the biggest effect. We have just had two cold winters so now things will look better.

There are very few nites that flounder can be gigged, wind and visibility are very limiting. Gigging trips are not much different than hook and line trips. Not many trips yield limits and some trips there are none. A big factor is knowing when and where to go. Skill and good techniques are required for both gigging and hook and line fishing. 

There are many catch and release tournament fishermen out there that would have us keeping only 2 or 3 a trip and taking them with plastics only. They think they might get bigger fish that way. Do they really need to put that on us.


----------



## DFoley (Sep 11, 2007)

IMO (yep got one!), 

Shrimping is an overused over hyped theory regarding flounder populations, I helped my friend on a shrimp boat many summers and we were lucky to get 5 in a day. That was 10 years ago. When the flounder gigging was at an all time high here in AP so was the shrimping, shrimp boats were everywhere. AP used to boast itself as the shrimp capitol of the world. Now there is hardly any shrimp boats and a good 85% of them are Gulf shrimping only. While in the bays you always hear of some species of fish declining at an alarming level, in the gulf you never hear of a shortage of ling, kings, sails, etc. Unless of course you include the red snapper which everyone knows those fish are as healthy as ever. 

The simple fact of the matter is MORE PEOPLE are on the water, go look down lydia ann channel on any clear night and it looks like a traffic jam. Ive talked to people from as far away as Wisconsin and the will drive all the way down here to fish. More homes are being built on the water and more people are flocking to the coast, catching their limits and going home.Look at the number of fishing licenses being bought every year and has almost always increased. 12 years ago fishing with dad their was about 1/3 of the people on the water than there is today and in the time it has tripled.


----------



## oceankayaker84 (Dec 16, 2007)

alw said:


> Further reduction of the limit and how flounder are taken won't affect this much. Warmer water was the biggest effect. We have just had two cold winters so now things will look better.


Yep, I agree.

In about 4-5 years, we will experience another "outstanding" flounder run.


----------



## the wood man (Sep 14, 2006)

huh? last winter was one of the mildest on record. While shrimpimg and environmental factors are for sure an important part in the flounder decline the giggers are missing the obvious in that those that do survive to maturity are being stabbed at an alarming rate. And it is all due to an increasing number of people doing it with ever increasing modern flounder boats that scower every square inch of the bay floor on a nightly basis. Sorru guys that is just a fact and we have had this debate before


----------



## alw (Apr 30, 2006)

Woodman you have obviously never been in a flounder boat from the statement you have made. One has to be able to see what he gigs. This is not possible most nites. I have been out there on nites when there were several flounder boats and none of them were seeing anything. There are very few places in the bays to even do gigging from a boat. There are maby 4 or 5 nites a month it is possible to do any good and they are not always productive.


----------



## pelochas (Jun 15, 2005)

i think we have a problem. i can remember flounders were plentiful...now its every other weekday or weekend or so. I was not targetting them so that is a valid point why im not catching flounder. 
i think shrimpers bycatch is a problem but i dont know how to resolve this without limit them somewhat or somewhere or sometime..any limits of shrimpers is a big problem to them. i respect them, no one said shrimpers work was easy and made millions $. 
i dont think giggers have that much of an impact. limits on the catch or size limits wont bring back the population. i also feel that if you can adjust giggin, then a lil is better than nothing so i think we should reduce, limit, increase size, whatever it takes to help.
i think the flounder run has been knock off their feet or fins...water temps or whatever is evident. there was a nice spot near the jetties that flounder would love to stop by...everyone would sink their mud minnows or finger mullet...its just not as productive and now you can go weeks and weeks until the flounder finally start to show up.


----------



## kevin122344 (May 25, 2005)

a


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

I wonder if CCA is planning on removing Flounder from their Star Tournament since they are so concerned. Once regs are in place they will never go away. So just remember next year when they realize that flounder are still struggling it will be more regs against the recreational group. I think CCA should be supporting the recreational group since that's who supports them. Or is it all about the money and recognition?

*CCA = Commercialized Coastal Association*

*I am done with them !!*


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

CCA is and always has been about the *fish* and how to protect them for the *future*.


----------



## pelochas (Jun 15, 2005)

i dont hink anyone who fishes in the gulf coast can be done with them cause the 3 redfish limit and size limits are due to GCCA


----------



## Speckled Horn (Mar 5, 2006)

*Maturity, self restraint, conservation...can't have one without the other!*

How about exercising a little restraint. Just because the STAR tourney is a big fish tourney, doesn't mean you have to keep a full 10 fish limit of trout, 3 fish limit of reds and 10 fish limit of flounder each time you go out during the summer. Why not release everything, unless it could possibly win. If everyone did that, it wouldn't be an issue, would it? All you CCA bashers need to grow the heck up and realize the bays are teeming with reds now because a few concerned anglers (most of whom are still pulling the strings in the organization) banned together to do something about the pilaging of the red stocks back in the day.

So, CCA is just jumping on the bandwagon for the flounder huh? I'd rather be on the wagon doing something about it than trolling around some forum b!tching and moaning about some rich guys that don't care about you or your fish. CCA used the TPWD research data to form the following recommendations, (which based on most of the posts I read on this thread, the majority of you have no clue of the recommendations):

Houston, TX- In a unanimous vote and strong statement for marine conservation, the Executive Board of the Coastal Conservation Association Texas (CCA Texas) recommended to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission that a change in flounder regulations are necessary to save the struggling fishery. CCA Texas is calling for the Commission to close the flounder fishery to commercial and recreational gigging during the months of October, November and December and implement a year-round reduction in the recreational bag limit to five fish and commercial bag limit to 30 fish in possession, with a minimum length of 14-inches for both.

For those who are calling the CCA, the Commercial Conservation Assoc...you'll notice the recommendation calls for a closure of the COMMERCIAL fishery as well.

Based on the posts I read, it seems the only bandwagon around here is the Anti-CCA bandwagon. That's unfortunate. A man should not measure the size of his "ego" by the number of fish in his cooler!

I applaud TLCurd's post (#34 I believe). That is a young man that is out there for the right reasons.

I wish everyone a happy and prosperous New Year!


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

Speckled Horn said:


> How about exercising a little restraint. Just because the STAR tourney is a big fish tourney, doesn't mean you have to keep a full 10 fish limit of trout, 3 fish limit of reds and 10 fish limit of flounder each time you go out during the summer. Why not release everything, unless it could possibly win. If everyone did that, it wouldn't be an issue, would it? All you CCA bashers need to grow the heck up and realize the bays are teeming with reds now because a few concerned anglers (most of whom are still pulling the strings in the organization) banned together to do something about the pilaging of the red stocks back in the day.
> 
> So, CCA is just jumping on the bandwagon for the flounder huh? I'd rather be on the wagon doing something about it than trolling around some forum b!tching and moaning about some rich guys that don't care about you or your fish. CCA used the TPWD research data to form the following recommendations, (which based on most of the posts I read on this thread, the majority of you have no clue of the recommendations):
> 
> ...


What is CCA doing about the thousands of flounder that are wiped out with rod and reel during the run.....nothing! Is CCA removing flounder from the Star....nope! Is CCA focusing their proposed regs on commercial shrimping....NOPE! 
If CCA would have used TPWD research data they would have clearly seen that the recreational guys are not the problem. I think maybe you should go do some reading. 
CCA is a bunch of rich guys.


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

the wood man said:


> huh? last winter was one of the mildest on record. While shrimpimg and environmental factors are for sure an important part in the flounder decline the giggers are missing the obvious in that those that do survive to maturity are being stabbed at an alarming rate. And it is all due to an increasing number of people doing it with ever increasing modern flounder boats that scower every square inch of the bay floor on a nightly basis. Sorru guys that is just a fact and we have had this debate before


Scower every square inch? That's one heck of a rig to be able to gig in that deep of water. I wanna go gigging with you.


----------



## Mad Mike (Dec 28, 2005)

Originally Posted by *the wood man*  
_huh? last winter was one of the mildest on record. While shrimpimg and environmental factors are for sure an important part in the flounder decline the giggers are missing the obvious in that those that do survive to maturity are being stabbed at an alarming rate. And it is all due to an increasing number of people doing it with ever increasing modern flounder boats that scower every square inch of the bay floor on a nightly basis. Sorru guys that is just a fact and we have had this debate before_

_Wood man, your above post shows that you don't have a clue about this issue. Do some research!_

_Mad Mike_


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

Speckled Horn said:


> How about exercising a little restraint. Just because the STAR tourney is a big fish tourney, doesn't mean you have to keep a full 10 fish limit of trout, 3 fish limit of reds and 10 fish limit of flounder each time you go out during the summer. Why not release everything, unless it could possibly win. If everyone did that, it wouldn't be an issue, would it? All you CCA bashers need to grow the heck up and realize the bays are teeming with reds now because a few concerned anglers (most of whom are still pulling the strings in the organization) banned together to do something about the pilaging of the red stocks back in the day.
> 
> So, CCA is just jumping on the bandwagon for the flounder huh? I'd rather be on the wagon doing something about it than trolling around some forum b!tching and moaning about some rich guys that don't care about you or your fish. CCA used the TPWD research data to form the following recommendations, (which based on most of the posts I read on this thread, the majority of you have no clue of the recommendations):
> 
> ...


YET they were 100% behind the com snapper fishermen in ALL aspects, you need to stick your head BACK in the sand BTW it was >G<CCA that saved the Redfish...WW


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

I will never keep another flounder if Pat Murray will donate half of his $260,000.00 a year salary to research or restoration, I figure 130,000 is a pretty good lick for a guy who does nothing.

HYPOCRITES...period.

And I will call them out in the Austin meeting at TPW, in public and on record as I did on the LLM trout issue....maybe one day they will get tired of being smacked around and see the light.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Hugh, read your sig before you post, you won't look so lost.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Seems I am able to find my way to TPW headquarters....unlike some who simply play armchair conservationist from their keyboard....and send in their $35 bucks (or whatever the tithe is these days) every year.

And don't go pickin' on Waylon, his wisdom might teach you a thing or two as well.

You guys better build more hatcheries....we are running out of fish!



Pocboy said:


> Hugh, read your sig before you post, you won't look so lost.


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

LOL Hughoo, you're quick on the keyboard yourself.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*HuHoo*

What does Pat Murray and his salary have to do with the Flounder, Pat Murray does not even work for CCA Texas. I would think you could come up with something better than that or at least I hope you do before you go to the meeting in Austin. Gater


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

I've known who Pat was since he was a bay guide, and so he works for CCA national IN Texas....that would in fact make him the grand poobah....and I never pick on the mid-level help.

I usually get my point across to the commission in a firm yet diplomatic way, in fact you might say they know where I stand before the meeting ever starts. You guys should know how it works being CCA operatives and all. :biggrin:



gater said:


> What does Pat Murray and his salary have to do with the Flounder, Pat Murray does not even work for CCA Texas. I would think you could come up with something better than that or at least I hope you do before you go to the meeting in Austin. Gater


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*HuHoo*

Grand poobah, I don't think so. You may have known Pat when he was a guide but you don't have a clue on how the organization is run. I have had this discussion with you and the haters before and it's embedded in your brains that CCA is the doer of all evil and that will never change with you. By the way, since your so smart and seem to think you know everything which is obvious you don't, what exactly is it you would do with the Flounder issue. Gater


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

*CCA*

It's already been determined by TPWD that the recreational group is responsible for 20% of the flounder harvest and the commercial industry is responsible for 80%.

CCA is sponsored by recreational fisherman which also includes the gigging group.

So tell me why CCA is wanting to apply more regulations to the very group that feeds them istead of going after the commercial group?

ONLY ONE ANSWER *$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$*

*Commercial Conservation Association*


----------



## Redshad (Dec 24, 2008)

I have no idea why people are so against CCA stating they are uninvolved and unconcerned. They point fingers at the people who really do work for CCA and dont give a ****, they're called lobbyist. They don't give a ****, they could be lobbying for cancer and still not give a ****, just as long as they get their paycheck. 
They're using people who are willing to kiss whoevers you know what to get the job done, end of story. Saying CCA is not involved is just stupid. If you think that then you know nothing about the enviroment and the resource you desire. CCA has been working on flounder reproduction by way of hatchery for years now, co-working with Texas University on the issue. Working of ways to get Flounder to spawn via simulation.No they're just trying to get your money remember. Wait though Recreational spendatures in the state of Texas is an 8 billion dollar industry, and Texas Parks and Wildlife brings in a large percentage of that money every year yet they're hurting for money, strapped for cash having to shut down state parks, lay off staff, an 8 billion dollar industry is doing that, how so? Answer politics again, that money goes into a mutual fund that is dispersed through out the state going towards road way construciton, increase in salary bonuses for people who dont need them, all sorts of things. Very little money actually gets back to were it should go. So in reallity TPWD couldnt survive without CCA and its research and help from its volunteers, on the other hand CCA couldnt exist with out TPWD working with them, solely because CCA has no legal authority. Now as for the reaason of Flounder decline, there have been different issues that have been brought forth to the table, 1 global warming stating the increase of water tempature has decreased the time period flounder are spawning and fewer flounder are actually spawning, 2 gigging- stating the harvest of flounder due to the gigging process is a directly related reason to the decrease in flounder population, and of course 3 bycatch and commercial stating-the number of flounder that have been harvested due to by catch from shrimping has decreased over the past year(thats from TPWD by the way) and that the amount of commercial harvest has decreased as well.

So in reality niether group knows why the flounder population is suffering. They do agree that the population needs some sort of reg applied, and game fish status really does not amount to **** just to throw that out there, gafftop have regs and they certainly are not a game spieces. They need to establish some sort of system like they did with the Red fish. A slot range and decrease the possesion amount to about 10 or 5 as well, and I'm sorry who ever thinks 3 Redfish a day that is 20-28" long is not enough fish? Well your the reason America is considered fat and greedy thanks alot. The fact of the matter is somebody needs to fix the problem, no matter who gets it done. P.S the Red Snapper issue was considered a small victory. Not some big accomplishment I think there was like a one page article maybe in the CCA magaizine and about 2 in the Texas fish and Game and the same in TPWD. So quit crying and get involved. Unless you've volunteered your time to either organization, I dont believe you have any right to be complaining about how either organization handles their conservation efforts, they tried where were you?

Good Luck and Great Fishing,
Tyler


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Toddbo*

So whats your plan! Dam near every species we fish for has some type of size or bag limit attached to it and those change from and those same limits can change again if the situation calls for it. Why is the Flounder any different. Would your idea be just to keep on fishing, shrimping, and gigging until there was nothing left. All they are asking or proposing is that we give up gigging 3 months out of the year. Is that asking too much to help the Flounder recover, if so whats your idea! Gater


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

gater said:


> So whats your plan! Dam near every species we fish for has some type of size or bag limit attached to it and those change from and those same limits can change again if the situation calls for it. Why is the Flounder any different. Would your idea be just to keep on fishing, shrimping, and gigging until there was nothing left. All they are asking or proposing is that we give up gigging 3 months out of the year. Is that asking too much to help the Flounder recover, if so whats your idea! Gater


 CCA should go after the group responsible for 80% of the harvest!! Obviously CCA did not read TPWD findings. Why is CCA constantly after the recreational group to tighten up? Do you think CCA will remove flounder from their STAR? I don't!! It's one of their money makers. Obviously some one at CCA is biased about how the recreational group harvests the 20% and that is why they are targeting just gigging? Doesn't CCA think that the flounder are slaughtered during the run by means of rod and reel? But I guess that is OK also!

They are using your money to apply more regulations to the party less responsible for the issue at hand!

Apparently you have mistaken me. I am willing to do my part. But it needs to be fair across the board.


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

This is a repeat of a post I made a yr or so back and it STILL holds true!!! Three men came before God, 1 was with the RFA, another a Texas fisherman, and the last was the leader of *CCA*. God asked the RFA member why was he there, he replied I'm here to help the protect the Recreational fishermen rights and see generations to come have acess to what You provided, God replied I like that and asked him to take a seat on His left, He then asked the Texas fisherman why he was there, he replied, I just want the opportunity for me and my grandchildren to catch the fish You have provided, God said I like that too then asked the Tx fisherman to take a seat to His right. He then turned to the leader of the *CCA* and asked what he had to say, he thought for just a second and replied " I think your in my seat" I don't think I need to give the moral of the story. WW


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Shrimping!*

Toddbo you can't ban Bay shrimping and shrimpers don't have control over the bycatch. Things have improved over the last several years with the buy back program and I think Ike probably did some shrimpers in but they will never completely go away nor would we want them to. It's not a CCA thing, if the RFA or any other organization made the same proposal I would agree with them. I think it is a pretty good idea and it will affect the least amount of people. Gater


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

gater said:


> Toddbo you can't ban Bay shrimping and shrimpers don't have control over the bycatch. Things have improved over the last several years with the buy back program and I think Ike probably did some shrimpers in but they will never completely go away nor would we want them to. It's not a CCA thing, if the RFA or any other organization made the same proposal I would agree with them. I think it is a pretty good idea and it will affect the least amount of people. Gater


Sorry but I disagree with you and will continue to disagree with you. First off I don't think I ever said anything about banning bay shrimping. I have no idea where you read that.

So you obviously think that it is ok to put more regulations on recreational and commercial giggers but no one else? You obviously don't gig so just like CCA you don't mind the regulations because it does not affect you.

They can apply more regulations to the recreational group but not the commercial who is responsible for 80%. Give me a break!!

I don't think they are really focused on saving the flounder. If they were the regulations would be applied where it would help the most. Shutting down shrimping in channels and passes during the run would be a good start. Or how about a real novel idea.......shut down all fishing during the run. That would affect everyone especially the fish at hand.

Gater, you must be commercial guy?


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Is 14 years enough? Judging by your registration date...you might want to use the search feature and do a little homework before you get into the ring. The Red Snapper lawsuit was akin to dropping a bomb on your coastal constituents while letting the enemy run wild and free (commercials).:biggrin:



Redshad said:


> P.S the Red Snapper issue was considered a small victory. Not some big accomplishment I think there was like a one page article maybe in the CCA magaizine and about 2 in the Texas fish and Game and the same in TPWD. So quit crying and get involved. Unless you've volunteered your time to either organization, I dont believe you have any right to be complaining about how either organization handles their conservation efforts, they tried where were you?
> 
> Good Luck and Great Fishing,
> Tyler


----------



## kingfisherred (Aug 12, 2005)

I don't think they are really focused on saving the flounder. If they were the regulations would be applied where it would help the most. Shutting down shrimping in channels and passes during the run would be a good start. Or how about a real novel idea.......shut down all fishing during the run. That would affect everyone especially the fish at hand.

Gater, you must be commercial guy?[/quote]

I have disagree with you on this, First off a bay or bait shrimper cannot drag in passes that go into the gulf anytime of the year, and as far as shrimping channels that is where the shrimp are 90% of the time, So we really need to shrimp there to catch the shrimp the rec's love to use for bait. Plus if you are using a TED properly you very seldom catch a keeper size flounder anyway and even if you did you can only keep 10 per person same as everybody else without a finfish license.
If you have never been on a Shrimp boat I invite you to ride along with me anytime to see for yourself.


----------



## Team Ranger Bob (Jul 13, 2004)

*Shrimping*

Shrimping has declined at an alarming rate and all during this decline the Flounder stocks have continued to decline, I think it was said in Dickinson that if we were to stop shrimping today that it would not make a difference.

Look at the comercial numbers supplied by TP&W their impact was south of Galveston, why is this? maybe because the area is much more conducive, larger shallower flats, more grass that enables the water to be clearer more days per year?
The commercials see a higher success rate even though the overall numbers of Flounder recruitment are lower in these areas.
again at Dickinson it was said that lower numbers in Flounder the farther South we go would not be unusual due to it being the end of the Southern Flounders natural range.
Back to the theory of winter water temps having a great effect on recruitment we already know that the further South we go the milder the climate becomes on average, again causing a lower recruitment rate.

One more time we need to stop this one size fits all approach and start managing the reources by areas or regions.

People this is the only way we have at this time to protect our portions of the coast from over regulation and also special interests and politics, regionalization will be far more effective for managing the resource where there may be a real problem.

Ranger Bob


----------



## Redshad (Dec 24, 2008)

Hughoo222 said:


> Is 14 years enough? Judging by your registration date...you might want to use the search feature and do a little homework before you get into the ring. The Red Snapper lawsuit was akin to dropping a bomb on your coastal constituents while letting the enemy run wild and free (commercials).:biggrin:


No do your research. You have been ACTIVELY involved with the CCA for 14 years? Not a member, because I've been that for 5 years, how long have you ACTIVELY been involved, not just sending in your money.They were trying to remove commercial harvesting but, due to congress they were unable to do so. Thats why they called it a small victory. So you go google and wiki some more.

Good Luck and Great Fishing,
Tyler


----------



## Team Ranger Bob (Jul 13, 2004)

*Flounder*

Who plans to voice their opinion at the scoping meetings this month?
Come out and voice an opinion, do not wait and let others speak for you.

Ranger Bob


----------



## snapdragrowb (Oct 30, 2008)

Old Salty said:


> *First post or reply guys. I have enjoyed this site for a while now and this topic is of great interest to me. I have been fishing the Texas coast for over 50 years. *
> *There are some things that seem obvious to me that TPWD and CCA don't see. Flounder should have been given game fish status long ago. Right along with Trout & Reds. On top of that, if we don't do anything to get our passes opened along this coast it won't make any difference what we do to try and conserve our resources. It isn't getting better. I have watched this phenomenon of using croakers for bait since I first noticed some of the midcoast guides using them in the '70s. Back then , the catches were astounding. I have watched the numbers, size, and quality of the catches decline steadily over the last 30 years or so. Two big things have changed since then. There are a lot more people fishing with croakers, and several of our Gulf passes have closed. These are the 2 main issues that threaten our fisheries. Don't believe everything you hear from TPWD and CCA. A little common sense would help. We should hold TPWD & CCA accountable for not taking action on these issues. *


.arg


----------



## snapdragrowb (Oct 30, 2008)

Trouthappy said:


> The STAR certainly motivates more people to fish, and increases
> the number of angler hours spent on the bays. I've made overnight
> trips, trying to catch a big trout. Which I never would have otherwise
> done. One day I saw a guy with 40 gafftops lined up on the POC
> ...


 5 flounder making the leader board for STAR vs. 60 a night during the spawn, which is worse? Second, you can only submit one fish for the tourney, so the 40 fish being kept only happened because the guy was a game hog. Sell it to the Air Force Mayonaise.


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

Redshad said:


> No do your research. You have been ACTIVELY involved with the CCA for 14 years? Not a member, because I've been that for 5 years, how long have you ACTIVELY been involved, not just sending in your money.They were trying to remove commercial harvesting but, due to congress they were unable to do so. Thats why they called it a small victory. So you go google and wiki some more.
> 
> Good Luck and Great Fishing,
> Tyler


ONCE again your misinformed or LIED to CCA HAS been on the Comms side from day 1. Huggo wasn;t talikng about searching google search rite here on this site when you get thru reading which will be a cpl of days then come back with your BS...WW


----------



## Shallow Sport68 (Oct 14, 2008)

snapdragrowb said:


> .arg


LOL!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Hmmm...I quit cca in 94 when I made my living from fishing in Galveston. Since then I have logged a few thousand miles, gone a few rounds with Bill Hogarth, Roy Crabtree, Larry McKinney ect. Spoken to several commissions, secured funding for project research, lobbied various politicians, done presentations all over Texas, written news editorials, written magazine articles, served on panels and advisory boards....whew, theres more but that should give you an idea.

You really want to get down in it lets talk about allocation, habitat, pulse fishing and the numbers game.

I've said it a million times....hatcheries and playing with the numbers as a reactionary measure is getting old. The scientific approach is full of holes until we start looking at habitat and future plans. **** and moan all you want about the shrimpers, fact is Katrina, Ike, Fuel, Asian Shrimp Imports have all but finished them off.....and the little fishies you see in flounder nets are not the Southern Flounder we are talking about here. (I've filled up a few shrimp vats at the bait camp as well and know what comes off the boat)

Pulse fishing is when one species is regulated or overfished to a point that anglers seek out the next best fish and start going after them.....as you can imagine it ends up in a tailspin and sooner or later we all get 2 hardheads a day......or we regularly stock our bays like a farm pond with hatchery raised fish.....that is not stewardship....it is a knee jerk reaction! We tend to get focused on the fish at hand rather than look at the whole picture.....seems most have trouble looking ahead.

Bad fishing "can" be big business...if there were no problems there would be no need for CCA, RFA or any other group....think about it.

I also happen to be very aware of how a 501 is supposed to be run....which is why I find the money trail and political side of things very interesting.

By research I meant the search function right up there at the top of the page. I figure you could read for about 5 days straight if you wanted to.

Wiki can't help you here....



Redshad said:


> No do your research. You have been ACTIVELY involved with the CCA for 14 years? Not a member, because I've been that for 5 years, how long have you ACTIVELY been involved, not just sending in your money.They were trying to remove commercial harvesting but, due to congress they were unable to do so. Thats why they called it a small victory. So you go google and wiki some more.
> 
> Good Luck and Great Fishing,
> Tyler


----------



## Redshad (Dec 24, 2008)

Well thats very sweet of you Hughoo222 to talk all scientific for me, lol. Do you think i have no idea about habitat destruction, the reason your not supposed to eat fish from the morgans point area is due to bioaccumulation not some stupid mercury floating around in the water that they obtain the chemical through the food chain, do you think I have not been on any research functions myself? Hah your wrong if you think that, and if you were as research oriented as you proclaim, you wouldnt suggest reading a board of oponions to obtain factual evidence, would you? I dont think so. I also do not recall stating bycatch of flounder was the main source, I believe I said it has actually been decreased over the years, which means its not a main reason to the decrease in flounder populations. If I'm mistaken I said it was Global warming and commercial am I not right, go back and read. The way to restore any bay system is an easy process, I know hatcheries are not the answer who said that? I just said they've been studying their spawning habits at TU didnt I? OK then my point, You have to start from the bottom of the food change, starting at the producers, then moving on up to consumers, secondary consumers, tertiary, and detritus. So improve habitat, baitfish move in, baitfish move in, predator fish move in. Its a balanced cycle everyone knows that. But heres the problem with as much ship traffic the galveston bay complex recieves through a years time is tremendous, causing much erosion of habitat that anyone would try to make and previously exisisting habitat. Therefor any improvements would be washed away, correct. Ok you got a little science lesson about habitat. You wanna know more just ask. I can tell you about the nutrient influx at the mouth of the mississippi, break down the brain of the fish, give you the anatomy as well, we can talk about gastropods, copepods, mollusks, invertebrates, vertebrates, w/e you wanna talk about dealing with the ocean, So if you wanna chat some more about that subject feel free. But you still have not answered my question how long where you ACTIVELY involved in CCA. Not any other bs. How long were you actively involved with CCA?


----------



## snapdragrowb (Oct 30, 2008)

Hughoo222 said:


> Hmmm...I quit cca in 94 when I made my living from fishing in Galveston. Since then I have logged a few thousand miles, gone a few rounds with Bill Hogarth, Roy Crabtree, Larry McKinney ect. Spoken to several commissions, secured funding for project research, lobbied various politicians, done presentations all over Texas, written news editorials, written magazine articles, served on panels and advisory boards....whew, theres more but that should give you an idea.
> 
> You really want to get down in it lets talk about allocation, habitat, pulse fishing and the numbers game.
> 
> ...


LOL, I knew there would be timely input from the scienced-based politicos of the "Dream Research Team". Hang on, the rest will chime in soon and will provide good laughs for all.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

I said I left CCA in 94...I never said I was "actively" involved with CCA....just rank and file.

I did wrap a few custom rods and donated some gear for CCA banquets, sold tickets at the tackle shop and drank free beer (while I watched the hootchie ticket girls) at said banquets. Guess they never really asked me my opinion or really ever talked about doing anything conservation wise...other than give them money and come get drunk and buy stuff at the banquet. I did get the magazine and some stickers though.:wink:



Redshad said:


> Well thats very sweet of you Hughoo222 to talk all scientific for me, lol. Do you think i have no idea about habitat destruction, the reason your not supposed to eat fish from the morgans point area is due to bioaccumulation not some stupid mercury floating around in the water that they obtain the chemical through the food chain, do you think I have not been on any research functions myself? Hah your wrong if you think that, and if you were as research oriented as you proclaim, you wouldnt suggest reading a board of oponions to obtain factual evidence, would you? I dont think so. I also do not recall stating bycatch of flounder was the main source, I believe I said it has actually been decreased over the years, which means its not a main reason to the decrease in flounder populations. If I'm mistaken I said it was Global warming and commercial am I not right, go back and read. The way to restore any bay system is an easy process, I know hatcheries are not the answer who said that? I just said they've been studying their spawning habits at TU didnt I? OK then my point, You have to start from the bottom of the food change, starting at the producers, then moving on up to consumers, secondary consumers, tertiary, and detritus. So improve habitat, baitfish move in, baitfish move in, predator fish move in. Its a balanced cycle everyone knows that. But heres the problem with as much ship traffic the galveston bay complex recieves through a years time is tremendous, causing much erosion of habitat that anyone would try to make and previously exisisting habitat. Therefor any improvements would be washed away, correct. Ok you got a little science lesson about habitat. You wanna know more just ask. I can tell you about the nutrient influx at the mouth of the mississippi, break down the brain of the fish, give you the anatomy as well, we can talk about gastropods, copepods, mollusks, invertebrates, vertebrates, w/e you wanna talk about dealing with the ocean, So if you wanna chat some more about that subject feel free. But you still have not answered my question how long where you ACTIVELY involved in CCA. Not any other bs. How long were you actively involved with CCA?


----------



## snapdragrowb (Oct 30, 2008)

Hughoo222 said:


> I said I left CCA in 94...I never said I was "actively" involved with CCA....just rank and file.
> 
> I did wrap a few custom rods and donated some gear for CCA banquets, sold tickets at the tackle shop and drank free beer (while I watched the hootchie ticket girls) at said banquets. Guess they never really asked me my opinion or really ever talked about doing anything conservation wise...other than give them money and come get drunk and buy stuff at the banquet. I did get the magazine and some stickers though.:wink:


Do you think marine biology undergrads would have been the more appropriate choice for selling raffle tickets? :wink:


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

snapdragrowb said:


> Do you think marine biology undergrads would have been the more appropriate choice for selling raffle tickets? :wink:


LOL...that depends on whether or not they shaved their armpits first!:rybka:


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

WW, your previous attempt at a joke was childish when you posted it before and it hasn't improved a bit. Are you a representative of rfa or just doing their bashing for them? No one here supporting CCA has, to my knowledge, ever badmouthed rfa in a post. That's a slippery slope you don't want to go down.


----------



## dlewis0358 (Feb 29, 2008)

I agree with nasakid and wish to point out that the latest numbers from TP&W say that it has been an improvement the past year, based on gillnet & seine samplings, for the first time in many years, & they think it is "shrimp buy-backs"
As for CCA, I got my E-mail from the prez condemning gigging & replied that I would not continue support of same if they went "as one" aganist gigging-have not gigged in 20 years but common sense & being out at night can tell you it is not giggers, especially at 10 fish limit which has no by catch or damage to juviniles as hook; I have limited at night with rod & reel from the bank-there is even more limit to access water today especially for giggers and I think CCA is like most other sports; IF YOU CAN NOT AFFORD A $35K RIG OR MUCH MORE, STAY HOME


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

dlewis0358 said:


> I agree with nasakid and wish to point out that the latest numbers from TP&W say that it has been an improvement the past year, based on gillnet & seine samplings, for the first time in many years, & they think it is "shrimp buy-backs"
> As for CCA, I got my E-mail from the prez condemning gigging & replied that I would not continue support of same if they went "as one" aganist gigging-have not gigged in 20 years but common sense & being out at night can tell you it is not giggers, especially at 10 fish limit which has no by catch or damage to juviniles as hook; I have limited at night with rod & reel from the bank-there is even more limit to access water today especially for giggers and I think CCA is like most other sports; IF YOU CAN NOT AFFORD A $35K RIG OR MUCH MORE, STAY HOME


Amen!!


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

When I want to eat a chicken I go get one at the store raised on a chicken farm, same for cow, pig, lamb, sheep. I think that covers the majority of the food group called meat.

Man has not hunted wild cow for many many years, nor has he pitted wits against the wiley wild chicken. You buy them from a farm in effect.

Deer in Texas are owned buy the State (save a few imports), we do not allow commercial harvest or them.....but we have essentially moved to farming them and they are not far off from a cattle breeders business model, in fact many ranchers moved to deer (grandpa) after nafta took effect and the market skidded. Fact is this is not the first evolution of this sort.

So fish...(another food group)...are being pounded with the recs the commercials fighting over their share....this has been compounded by the enviros having a well funded machine and a desire to save every last little fish in the sea (cause they are sooo cuddly I guess). So while we are playing tug of war they sneak in and load the science, use a divide and conquer strategy, and steal the show....no more fish for you! (see MPA's)

OR the commercials (already kicking our butts) just keep taking more than we can keep up with and we stock the bay like a farm pond and just pay by the pound on the way out.

OR we work on ALLOCATION....too many people want tooo few fish...so we remove a user group, guess who that is (yup the commercials)!

Aquaculture could be a solution, and it could be a nightmare if not kept in check with imported diseases and antibiotic laden fish raisen on sewage (that Tilapia you ate a Pappasitos...yup China....yummmm).

Count the times we have dropped bag limits on fish since the 70's....you think the decline is going to slow down on it's own doing the same things we've been doing? (and those redfish stories don't open passes)
Anybody know of any work done on a pass lately?

So we plant a little seagrass and pick up some traps which are both noble gestures but should we not be asking about the larger picture...the welfare and future of *OUR*
fisheries and ecosystems.

Couple years ago TPW and Alcoa had a big ole press party and ribbon cutting at a park Alcoa "donated" to the area. The press release read like a deed done well for the community, a magazine publisher even lauded it as a great thing.....BUT they forgot to mention that the park was actually part of a settlement in a big ole lawsuit finding that Alcoa had been dumping POUNDS of mercury a day into the bay. So do you think the state of Texas or the ACOE wants to do any dredging in that bay system and re-suspend that stuff. How many more similar incidents do you think have occured along our mid/upper coast?

As far as commercial gigging goes I know the old skinny guy with the really thick glasses at Clarks in POC told me himself, he gets 40,000 pounds a year.

Seems a wee bit much for a fish we know we can farm/grow.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Hughoo*

Thats a nice bunch a rambling there that did'nt make much sense but you have yet offer a solution on how you would handle the problem. Ban shrimping, fishing, gigging, what is it.

By the way, can you tell me how many times we have dropped the bag limits since the 70's, I'm sure you have an answer. Gater


----------



## Redshad (Dec 24, 2008)

He's stating if we farm for our meats and produce why not the same for fish, it actually is a very novel idea if you just look a little further into the situation. You could make it a situation to where everyone is happy now that i think about it. All you would have to do is create a commercial farm license and give it and a plot of land to the current owners of commercial rigs. They can farm raise their catch instead of harvesting it from the bay, lower the possesion amount for recreational anglers across the board, rod and reel and gigging, fair is fair for everyone. Hah sounds so simple on paper actually, now if they can just find a way to breed flounder successfully and consistently in captivity we would be set. The basic principal is all in the text you've just gotta read Gater. 

Good Luck and Great Fishing,
Tyler


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Maybe you missed it...stop commercial gigging to start with and remove that user group. Should be able to shoot deer and sell them? So why Flounder or any other bay fish including Drum....we can grow them to sell just like we grow the fish we toss "_into_" the bay.

I also offered up well planned and safe aquaculture as a viable option to lessen pressure. At the rate things are going we cannot afford to slide much further imo.

We know fishing pressure is only part of the problem.....bays with poor gulf exchange and fertilizer laden fresh water inflow makes for some poor water quality. Plenty to be done here as well.

Maybe a vision of bays that did not require constant re-stockings and mercury warnings is tough to imagine, but would asking any less be fair to the ecosystems we are supposed to be stewards of?

While were at it...you got any ideas?



gater said:


> Thats a nice bunch a rambling there that did'nt make much sense but you have yet offer a solution on how you would handle the problem. Ban shrimping, fishing, gigging, what is it.
> 
> By the way, can you tell me how many times we have dropped the bag limits since the 70's, I'm sure you have an answer. Gater


----------



## snapdragrowb (Oct 30, 2008)

Hughoo222 said:


> When I want to eat a chicken I go get one at the store raised on a chicken farm, same for cow, pig, lamb, sheep. I think that covers the majority of the food group called meat.
> 
> Man has not hunted wild cow for many many years, nor has he pitted wits against the wiley wild chicken. You buy them from a farm in effect.
> 
> ...


Say what you want, but that press party is a far cry from the press releases submitted by the rfa and published by those hookers at TF&G. Any sense of journalism integrity was lost, IMO, once those slanted pieces of **** were published. It was all an effort to keep certain boat companies with very strong affiliations to rfa from pulling their ad schedules I bet, although not certain. :spineyes: The worst part is that people actually take articles published in that magazine seriously, even with the silly hero cover shots. Ever noticed how many marketing reps or industry business owners grace the covers holding fish that have been marinating in ice for five days? I think you should examine this closely before calling out a certain "magazine publisher" for highlighting a good deed.

Well, the passes will hopefully get more attention by agencies and groups who can actually make sand fly. I'm sure it would help the health of our bay systems.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Like cca cutting off funding to other conservation groups who opposed them on snapper. The NMMA and ASA were both flapping like flags in the wind after the snapper lawsuit and fuel prices hit the roof. I'll bet some marine trade businesses think long and hard about any future affiliations with such groups.

And I did not mention a "magazine publisher" just "a" magazine.



snapdragrowb said:


> Say what you want, but that press party is a far cry from the press releases submitted by the rfa and published by those hookers at TF&G. Any sense of journalism integrity was lost, IMO, once those slanted pieces of **** were published. It was all an effort to keep certain boat companies with very strong affiliations to rfa from pulling their ad schedules I bet, although not certain. :spineyes: The worst part is that people actually take articles published in that magazine seriously, even with the silly hero cover shots. Ever noticed how many marketing reps or industry business owners grace the covers holding fish that have been marinating in ice for five days? I think you should examine this closely before calling out a certain "magazine publisher" for highlighting a good deed.
> 
> Well, the passes will hopefully get more attention by agencies and groups who can actually make sand fly. I'm sure it would help the health of our bay systems.


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

Gater, you should read what is written before jumping to conclusions. The 19 year old even understood what Hughoo222 was writing. That is because he read it all before replying. You have alot of questions yourself with no resolution. Oh, except for support CCA til I die regardless of what they do or don't do.



gater said:


> Thats a nice bunch a rambling there that did'nt make much sense but you have yet offer a solution on how you would handle the problem. Ban shrimping, fishing, gigging, what is it.
> 
> By the way, can you tell me how many times we have dropped the bag limits since the 70's, I'm sure you have an answer. Gater


----------



## Hangloose (Jun 24, 2008)

Let the commercial guys have 15 and us others have 8 per day.
And make choke lanes off limits for shrimp boats during the migration periods.
May solve the problem.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Toddbo*

My point was that Hughoo has a way of spouting of a bunch of BS about what he has done since he quit commercial fishing in 94' but up until his last post had not made a comment about he would do.

I don't know all of the answers and never pretended too. You can't ban shrimping and I don't think you can't ban commercial gigging without banning the rec side of it. Thats why I think the CCA proposal has some merit. Cutting gigging out for 3 months during the spawn is not going to hurt anyone but maybe the commercial giggers. It sure beats the alternative of closing down rod and reel fishing for three months.

Opening the passes is a great idea but you still need the fertilizer laden fresh water inflow which by the way is something CCA has been working non stop on the past few years. Gater


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

*Ah grasshopper...*

I don't recall saying anything about commercial fishing in 1994.

So why do we need freshwater inflow laden with fertilizer? Glad to hear CCA is bringing in more fertilizer too!!???

Though cca was pretty heavy at the water thing about 2002-2003 and a bit recently, but they have actually done little tangible work to effect change where inflow/pollution are concerned. I thought they might actually use the LLM trout issue to look closer at some of the problems stemming from the Arroyo and pollution....but that would mean battle with TPW and the ACOE. It was much cheaper to sneak in and jump on TPW's bandwagon near the end of the show, and then there is the issue of Trout in STAR in the LLM.

So fess up gater, you send in your annual dues and follow right? I don't seem to recall an original idea or suggestion on your part for any of the issues at hand. You complain a lot but what have you done lately? I figure turn about is fair play.

And give me one GOOD reason commercial gigging cannot be outlawed, year round.



gater said:


> My point was that Hughoo has a way of spouting of a bunch of BS about what he has done since he quit commercial fishing in 94' but up until his last post had not made a comment about he would do.
> 
> I don't know all of the answers and never pretended too. You can't ban shrimping and I don't think you can't ban commercial gigging without banning the rec side of it. Thats why I think the CCA proposal has some merit. Cutting gigging out for 3 months during the spawn is not going to hurt anyone but maybe the commercial giggers. It sure beats the alternative of closing down rod and reel fishing for three months.
> 
> Opening the passes is a great idea but you still need the fertilizer laden fresh water inflow which by the way is something CCA has been working non stop on the past few years. Gater


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Hughhoo*

The bays need freshwater, fertilizer laden or not and this issue is still a fight that CCA is involved in today. It's a very complicated issue with many players involved. I think as much as you claim to know you would have known that as well.

Not for sure, but I wouldn't think you could ban gigging without making Flounder a gamefish which would ban recreational gigging as well.

What issue is there with the Trout and the Star in the LLM?

Gater


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> WW, your previous attempt at a joke was childish when you posted it before and it hasn't improved a bit. Are you a representative of rfa or just doing their bashing for them? No one here supporting CCA has, to my knowledge, ever badmouthed rfa in a post. That's a slippery slope you don't want to go down.


Childish, now come-on, you know it was funny, didn't know you couldn't take a joke, and NO it hasn't improved as I copied and pasted it SO your rite it has had NO change. Heres another for you, You can shear a sheep 1000 times BUT you can only skin it once!!!, and for me and MANY others I was sheared by your group (dues) many times but I along with others feel they skint us on the Sanpper issue, so I'm done with them. BTW I have absolutly NO problem standing on a slippery slope, when I see 1 commin I just put on my cleats....WW


----------



## scubaru (Mar 28, 2005)

Does anyone even know any commercial giggers?


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

gater said:


> My point was that Hughoo has a way of spouting of a bunch of BS about what he has done since he quit commercial fishing in 94' but up until his last post had not made a comment about he would do.
> 
> I don't know all of the answers and never pretended too. You can't ban shrimping and I don't think you can't ban commercial gigging without banning the rec side of it. Thats why I think the CCA proposal has some merit. Cutting gigging out for 3 months during the spawn is not going to hurt anyone but maybe the commercial giggers. It sure beats the alternative of closing down rod and reel fishing for three months.
> 
> Opening the passes is a great idea but you still need the fertilizer laden fresh water inflow which by the way is something CCA has been working non stop on the past few years. Gater


I didn't really think the purpose was to hurt any one. It was to save the flounder. Almost every recreational gigger I know also owns a fishing pole and enjoys fishing. So as long as it is legal we can lay down our gigs for three months and line up at Sea Wolf with the other 200 or so and continue to finish off whats left. So your point of "it beats the alternative of laying down your fishing pole for three months" must mean that it's ok to continue the slaughter at Sea Wolf? CCA's proposal is a protection plan for some, but not the flounder !!

I will agree with you that it would be great if they would outlaw commercial gigging. It's not right that some are allowed to make a living off of the publics resource.

Gater, Do you gig?


----------



## potbellystallion (Aug 15, 2005)

Close the taking of flounder for *1 MONTH, November, for everyone.*


----------



## snapdragrowb (Oct 30, 2008)

Hughoo222 said:


> Like cca cutting off funding to other conservation groups who opposed them on snapper. The NMMA and ASA were both flapping like flags in the wind after the snapper lawsuit and fuel prices hit the roof. I'll bet some marine trade businesses think long and hard about any future affiliations with such groups.
> 
> And I did not mention a "magazine publisher" just "a" magazine.


Read your post again...sheky


----------



## Redshad (Dec 24, 2008)

Well boys and girls the flounder debate is over had a discussion with the TPWD Regional Fisheries Director at the CCA meeting, they're closing the season for flounder. Their only decision left is for how long to close it during the run. 1 month, 2months, or 3months debating with, October, November, and December for the months. So done decision no more debating. Answer to thread.

Good Luck and Great Fishing,
Tyler


----------



## nasakid (May 21, 2004)

You gotta be kidding! I hope they know the mortality rate for flounder caught by hook and line. Pretty high b/c most of them swallow the bait and get a hook in the guts. Do you mean closing it ENTIRELY or just to gigging? Don't know how they could close it entirely. That's just plain stupid. If so, that's a typical knee-jerk gov't BS reaction, and TPWD is gonna make a lot of enemies over that decision. I guess it will be time to head to the Louisiana side of Sabine to get some flounder.


----------



## Big Willy (Jun 20, 2007)

scubaru said:


> Does anyone even know any commercial giggers?


I do. The ones I know are great guys that flounder to supplement their income and pay for gas for fishing. I am not saying that they should be able to continue commercial floundering given the current flounder population issues but I seriously doubt that the ones I know are putting any kind of hurt on the population. They probably go at the most 3-4 times per month and very rarely get more than 20 flounder per trip. I have gone with them before and they only gigged 5-15 flounder every trip when I went. One guy is almost 76 years old and I sure learn a lot about the bays when I go with him. He is one of those guys that has probably forgotten more about the bays than I have learned so far. I met him at the first Dickinson flounder scoping meeting.


----------



## Redshad (Dec 24, 2008)

Yep they mean close it entirely, commercial, gigging, hook and line, everyone. they say closing the season for 1 month alone during that time over a 6year period, will cause an increase by 134% in the flounder population.


----------



## oceankayaker84 (Dec 16, 2007)

I find it hard to believe that they already came up with a decision BEFORE finishing the scoping meetings. I'm going to the one on the 7th in Dickinson. Whatever happened to the 5 fish bag limit that they were still considering?


----------



## Redshad (Dec 24, 2008)

They have finished the scopes, the one in dickinson is just like a public opinion to see which month matching would better suit everyone, do you think the guy would lie or what, he gets paid no matter what happens, its done.


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

Redshad said:


> Well boys and girls the flounder debate is over had a discussion with the TPWD Regional Fisheries Director at the CCA meeting, they're closing the season for flounder. Their only decision left is for how long to close it during the run. 1 month, 2months, or 3months debating with, October, November, and December for the months. So done decision no more debating. Answer to thread.
> 
> Good Luck and Great Fishing,
> Tyler


I'd be ok with that. Who exactly was it that told you that?


----------



## kemahguy (Jun 7, 2005)

*Flounder Regs*

I don't know where this kid got his info, but he's wrong! It will be shut down for giggers only, not recreational fisherman. Everyone that is able should attend the meeting on the 7th and let's find out the facts for sure.


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

kemahguy said:


> I don't know where this kid got his info, but he's wrong! It will be shut down for giggers only, not recreational fisherman. Everyone that is able should attend the meeting on the 7th and let's find out the facts for sure.


And where did you get your info?


----------



## Redshad (Dec 24, 2008)

Toddbo34 thank you for not jumping to conclusions. Anyways to answer your question, Texas Parks and Wildlife Coastal Region 1 Director Lance Robinson, now kemahguy and oceanykayaker84 I didnt get his blood type or do a polygraph but, I'm pretty sure I believed him.


----------



## jeffsfishin (Jan 27, 2008)

*Their License's should be pulled*



Big Willy said:


> I do. The ones I know are great guys that flounder to supplement their income and pay for gas for fishing. I am not saying that they should be able to continue commercial floundering given the current flounder population issues but I seriously doubt that the ones I know are putting any kind of hurt on the population. They probably go at the most 3-4 times per month and very rarely get more than 20 flounder per trip. I have gone with them before and they only gigged 5-15 flounder every trip when I went. One guy is almost 76 years old and I sure learn a lot about the bays when I go with him. He is one of those guys that has probably forgotten more about the bays than I have learned so far. I met him at the first Dickinson flounder scoping meeting.


If your friends are useing the finfish only to suplement their income, and 50% of there overall income is not generated from commercial fishing then they are in violiation, The man that's 76 may be inside the law, but plenty that maintain these license are not. This is a written rule of maintaining a finfish license. TP&W just needs to enforce it.
They should have there license's pulled it does not matter if they are putting a hurt on the flounder or not.


----------



## Big Willy (Jun 20, 2007)

jeffsfishin said:


> If your friends are useing the finfish only to suplement their income, and 50% of there overall income is not generated from commercial fishing then they are in violiation, The man that's 76 may be inside the law, but plenty that maintain these license are not. This is a written rule of maintaining a finfish license. TP&W just needs to enforce it.
> They should have there license's pulled it does not matter if they are putting a hurt on the flounder or not.


Sorry, I should have said I know 2 different commercial giggers. Both are retired construction workers so I am sure that they probably don't make a lot of money other than from their floundering and through social security. They use some of the money from floundering as a way to still do what they love, to go floundering and fishing, since they would not be able to afford it otherwise.


----------



## Leemo (Nov 16, 2006)

jeffsfishin said:


> If your friends are useing the finfish only to suplement their income, and 50% of there overall income is not generated from commercial fishing then they are in violiation, The man that's 76 may be inside the law, but plenty that maintain these license are not. This is a written rule of maintaining a finfish license. TP&W just needs to enforce it.
> They should have there license's pulled it does not matter if they are putting a hurt on the flounder or not.


Law states an "attempt to derive", first of all ,Income Tax Returns are still priveledged info...not making a complete stop at a stop sign is a violation also!:dance:


----------



## Timemachine (Nov 25, 2008)

Have been gigging for over 30 years. Finally after a lifetime of hard work, I could afford a flounder boat. Reg or not, as long as I see flounder on ice at every single market and restaraunt, I'm going to gig 'em .


----------



## da fillthy hoe (Nov 13, 2008)

Hangloose said:


> Let the commercial guys have 15 and us others have 8 per day.
> And make choke lanes off limits for shrimp boats during the migration periods.
> May solve the problem.


 Come on now,i guess if they dropped the price for a commercial license that reflected the cut your talking of. Do you know what we pay compared to a rec. angler you'd be supprised at the different ammont we pay. So if i have 2 legal licenses on the boat i can gig more flounder than a permit yeah that sounds great..... NOT! good luck though. The state makes more money off the permits than the rec. angler


----------



## da fillthy hoe (Nov 13, 2008)

potbellystallion said:


> Close the taking of flounder for *1 MONTH, November, for everyone.*


 Now your talking smart no fish can be takin wether gig or pole


----------



## bk005 (Feb 23, 2005)

Redshad said:


> Yep they mean close it entirely, commercial, gigging, hook and line, everyone. they say closing the season for 1 month alone during that time over a 6year period, will cause an increase by 134% in the flounder population.


*WOW 134% THATS many flounders...*

So in 6 years would you saw we would have a pleothera of flounder?

Oh Yes, TPWD you will have a pleothera of flounders.

Do you even know what a plethera is?


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

SO I did....and we both know who I am talking about then...seems to keep pretty quiet these days too.

So what was you 2cool name before "Snapdragrowb"?



snapdragrowb said:


> Read your post again...sheky


----------



## Redshad (Dec 24, 2008)

Uhm no I dont know what pleothera is or a plethera, but I do know what a plethora is, you friggin reatard. Next time you try to be a smart @ss learn how to spell first dip sh!t.



bk005 said:


> *WOW 134% THATS many flounders...*
> 
> So in 6 years would you saw we would have a pleothera of flounder?
> 
> ...


----------



## snapdragrowb (Oct 30, 2008)

Redshad said:


> Uhm no I dont know what pleothera is or a plethera, but I do know what a plethora is, you friggin reatard. Next time you try to be a smart @ss learn how to spell first dip sh!t.


You're joking, right?


----------



## snapdragrowb (Oct 30, 2008)

Hughoo222 said:


> SO I did....and we both know who I am talking about then...seems to keep pretty quiet these days too.
> 
> So what was you 2cool name before "Snapdragrowb"?


We don't hide behind handles around here, we use real names. The environs and other .arrrrrrg's activities will result in MPAs. DOT RRRRRRG!:biggrin:


----------



## Shallow Sport68 (Oct 14, 2008)

Hughoo222 said:


> SO I did....and we both know who I am talking about then...seems to keep pretty quiet these days too.
> 
> So what was you 2cool name before "Snapdragrowb"?


Oh...... SAVE IT DUDE!:ac550:


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Yeah...I already went once today...:biggrin:



Shallow Sport68 said:


> Oh...... SAVE IT DUDE!:ac550:


----------



## Redshad (Dec 24, 2008)

snapdragrowb im glad you caught on to the reatard, its written like that for a reason lol, I had to put it in a language bk005 would understand, lol. Can you not see that i edited that post. I went back and changed it Thanks for pointing that out, good reading on your part.


----------



## Ted Gentry (Jun 8, 2004)

Redshad said:


> Uhm no I dont know what pleothera is or a plethera, but I do know what a plethora is, you friggin reatard. Next time you try to be a smart @ss learn how to spell first dip sh!t.


*Redshad, I suggest you dig deep and think about any future post, You alone have now made youself look like a dip sh!t. Your R word is not acceptable under any level of public stupidity.*


----------



## scubaru (Mar 28, 2005)

jeffsfishin said:


> If your friends are useing the finfish only to suplement their income, and 50% of there overall income is not generated from commercial fishing then they are in violiation, The man that's 76 may be inside the law, but plenty that maintain these license are not. This is a written rule of maintaining a finfish license. TP&W just needs to enforce it.
> They should have there license's pulled it does not matter if they are putting a hurt on the flounder or not.


Yeah right! Do you have any idea how many active licenses are out there actually being used vs. just being held onto? Same with other commercial fishing licenses and shrimping licenses. You can't even go apply for a finfish license or buy one from the state, you have to just sort of "acquire" one from someone tired of holding on to it, which is exactly what I intend to do.


----------



## Redshad (Dec 24, 2008)

Ok wow Ted Gentry you just cant read any futher than, hey look finally I get to make myslef look like a jackass, lol, since your apparently out of the loop and getting into grown folk talk I'll fill you in, about my R word lol. You see some people like to come off and thank they're smart just like bk005, who uses a word to try and seem smarter than the other person and questions their ability to comprehend their use of lexicon. When in actuality they're just making themselves look like fools, especially when they spell the word wrong. So I was just making a point that when you try to insult somebody over the internet which is stupid anyways(I mean honestly what are you going to do send them a computer virus or something)that you should at least know how to spell the words your going to insult them with or you will be the one who looks stupid.


----------



## Ted Gentry (Jun 8, 2004)

Redshad said:


> Ok wow Ted Gentry you just cant read any futher than, hey look finally I get to make myslef look like a jackass, lol, since your apparently out of the loop and getting into grown folk talk I'll fill you in, about my R word lol. You see some people like to come off and thank they're smart just like bk005, who uses a word to try and seem smarter than the other person and questions their ability to comprehend their use of lexicon. When in actuality they're just making themselves look like fools, especially when they spell the word wrong. So I was just making a point that when you try to insult somebody over the internet which is stupid anyways(I mean honestly what are you going to do send them a computer virus or something)that you should at least know how to spell the words your going to insult them with or you will be the one who looks stupid.


*You just don't get it, I hope in time you will gain some amount of respect for others, the R word is LOL for you, I can only hope you reach some level of maturity before your next post and you might even try using spellcheck on your own post.*


----------



## Redshad (Dec 24, 2008)

yup yours stills rite i wool toutly due tat nest tyme otay, lol, humor buddy im just pickin at you alright lol dang, so tell me what do you honestly think about the flounder regulations? What should be done i guess is what im saying, what is your ideas on this situation.


----------



## da fillthy hoe (Nov 13, 2008)

*Finding a permit*



scubaru said:


> Yeah right! Do you have any idea how many active licenses are out there actually being used vs. just being held onto? Same with other commercial fishing licenses and shrimping licenses. You can't even go apply for a finfish license or buy one from the state, you have to just sort of "acquire" one from someone tired of holding on to it, which is exactly what I intend to do.


 You need to call TPWL and tell them to add you to the buy back list for starters. Sometimes they will help put people in touch with someone thats selling theirs. I had a friend last year that found his that way. I found mine through an independant that kept it valid. Saw someone selling one in a greensheet the other day, check some of the free papers out from time to time youll see one for sale in there. Hey good luck! and stick em in da head...... They always sell better!


----------



## wet dreams (May 21, 2004)

redshad there are a few here that make comments on others spelling BUT its a very few, you mite check into being there leader. BTW you do need to dry the back of your ears and when you get thru your services are need on the main forum to answer a few ?? on cca...WW


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

Redshad said:


> Toddbo34 thank you for not jumping to conclusions. Anyways to answer your question, Texas Parks and Wildlife Coastal Region 1 Director Lance Robinson, now kemahguy and oceanykayaker84 I didnt get his blood type or do a polygraph but, I'm pretty sure I believed him.


Spoke with Lance and no decisions have been made yet. Attend the meetings and input your opinion. It's obvious that some regs are going to be put in place and remember it may be a long time, if ever, reversed. So my vote is closure for two months for everyone with no poessesion change for the first year or two. If the closure does not change the numbers in the first year or two then change the possesion limit.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Toodbo*

What about the recreational fisherman, I thought thats who you where for and CCA was against. You have a change of heart! Gater


----------



## bk005 (Feb 23, 2005)

Redshad said:


> Ok wow Ted Gentry you just cant read any futher than, hey look finally I get to make myslef look like a jackass, lol, since your apparently out of the loop and getting into grown folk talk I'll fill you in, about my R word lol. You see some people like to come off and thank they're smart just like bk005, who uses a word to try and seem smarter than the other person and questions their ability to comprehend their use of lexicon. When in actuality they're just making themselves look like fools, especially when they spell the word wrong. So I was just making a point that when you try to insult somebody over the internet which is stupid anyways(I mean honestly what are you going to do send them a computer virus or something)that you should at least know how to spell the words your going to insult them with or you will be the one who looks stupid.


Redshad, did you just blow up your meth lab or something, because your not making any sense to me.

My use of Pelothera (or however its spelled) was in regards to TPWD, not even you. Plus If you had been on he earth longer than 19 years, and paid attention to fine American Classic movies, you would have realized it was from the "*Three Amigo*s". Possibly the finest movie ever made, next to Blazing Saddles of course.

So in summation you called me the "R" word becasue I somehow insulted you with my far superior knowledge of classic film making. Then you tried to get all 19 year old technical on me and use wods like lexicon and stuff. I wish I knew how long you had to spend on google to figure that one out. Im thick skinned, but serously us a different word to insult me that just aint cool.

Below is my original post for others to read Wow this made my day.

Quote Below:

*WOW 134% THATS many flounders...*

*So in 6 years would you say we would have a pleothera of flounder?*

*Oh Yes, TPWD you will have a pleothera of flounders.*

*Do you even know what a plethera is? *

*.*

Google "Three Amigos" movie quotes, and submerse yourself in knowledge.


----------



## pelochas (Jun 15, 2005)

lets keep the thread about CCA and their action on flounder. i created this thread to voice opinion on the action..

i vote for CCA to urge TPWD on closing for three months on commericial and recreational. if they want to do something..then go all the way and not hold back. in the past redfish were in the same picture and they did drastic change on limits which in turns out to be great redfish numbers now.


----------



## finfinder951 (May 17, 2005)

*Get The Facts*

I have wondered, in the past, if TPWD was really getting realistic data in their fisheries management efforts. Well, not any more! I had the fortune to be able to talk to Lance Robinson, regional Director of the Coastal Fisheris Lab the other night. Lance told me that TPWD has opened their entire management of Texas fisheries up for examination by the most highly regarded fisheries management experts in the U.S. and several universities in the country. They were given the highest marks in every aspect of fishery management by the toughest critics in the world. Lance told me that they have been contacted by fishery managers from around the world that want to see how they do things here.

I would have to believe that TPWD has it together and in a big way. I would also have to believe that what they tell me is based on scientific evidence, not opinion.

There have been a lot of opinions voiced in this thread, some of which are in line with the scientific data TPWD has collected regarding flounder management, some are not.

Shrimp trawls are not a major factor in the demise of the southern flounder. Most male flounder are less than 16" long and make a gradual migration to the deep waters of the gulf over an extended period of the summer months. We target the females because of their size, and they migrate through passes to the gulf mostly October through December. In addition, the temperature window that will determine the sex of a flounder egg when fertilized to be a female is very narrow, too hot its a male and too cold it's a male. In other words, the temp of the gulf has a direct impact on determining the sex of the flounder.

My guess is, they will propose a closure of the flounder fishery during one of the three fall months, just to increase the number of spawning females in the gulf.

I'll see you in Dickinson tonight to get the rest of the facts.

Now, where's that popcorn.........?


----------



## johnmyjohn (Aug 6, 2006)

I'm like most of you here and just writing off the top of my head. I personally fished a lot in past and have noticed a cycle of the populations of different fish species. There's the sheephead year around '73 and a few years later it was jack fish etc., they were countless and you didn't catch much of anything else unless you fished hard. And my point is regardless of how much you don't catch of one fish their population may not increase much due to the population of another fish competing in the same area for the same food. There's only so much bait fish in a limited body of water and some fish are not going to be as plentyful as others. Are specks going to decline because there's more flounder? Will the reds be the strong ones? I may be wrong here but there's a balance we need to find and the regs. need to look at the whole picture to set laws or limits because once they're made it's almost written in stone for ever. We all need to keep an eye on how a limited amount of fish is distributed fairly regardless of how we chose to take it useing counts and hard facts.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

I don't think many have reason to "overly" question TPW's abilities.

When are we going to do something other than cut limits and suppliment obviously ailing ecosystems with hatchery raised fish....kinda like game fence hunting on a big ranch in a way, "just shoot'em, we'll get more".

The topic that needs to be considered is *equity*, we have been hosed on snapper by certain groups while they allow the commercials to sell our resources year round.
Why should any single commercial gigger get 40,000 pounds a year when we are held to much stricter guidelines.

I am all for a closure across the board, as taking spawning flounder in passes is not a bright thing to do all things considered today. However, there best be an equal closure for commercials. It is also considered poor taste to catch a spawning largemouth off a nest as well...not to mention stupid!

If there were no commercial flounder being sold by giggers don't you think the food industry will find a way to raise them in an aquaculture scenario?

I am actually willing to sacrifice a couple years closure if it gets rid of the commercials...won't happen, but it sounds nice.

I vote November.


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

Gator, I knew you didn't interpret what I was saying. I could tell by your responses. I am for even across the board regulations. Please go back and read what I wrote. CCA is out to save what saves them the most, the man with the 30k boat wearing all the CCA clothing. The fish needs a rest so give it a complete rest. Answer one question of mine......just one. What good will it do if you shut down gigging but allow rod and reel fishing to continue when all the giggers who know how to catch flounder will pick up their rod and reels and continue to slaughter? Will you just answer one of my questions? You have had so many for me!!



gater said:


> What about the recreational fisherman, I thought thats who you where for and CCA was against. You have a change of heart! Gater


----------



## oceankayaker84 (Dec 16, 2007)

Hughoo222 said:


> I don't think many have reason to "overly" question TPW's abilities.
> 
> When are we going to do something other than cut limits and suppliment obviously ailing ecosystems with hatchery raised fish....kinda like game fence hunting on a big ranch in a way, "just shoot'em, we'll get more".
> 
> ...


I just attended the scoping meeting in Dickinson and much to my dislike, the closure will be INDEFINITE (most likely it will never be reopened).


----------



## thejimmster (Jul 25, 2006)

I agree. Nice post. Keep it to the facts.



finfinder951 said:


> I have wondered, in the past, if TPWD was really getting realistic data in their fisheries management efforts. Well, not any more! I had the fortune to be able to talk to Lance Robinson, regional Director of the Coastal Fisheris Lab the other night. Lance told me that TPWD has opened their entire management of Texas fisheries up for examination by the most highly regarded fisheries management experts in the U.S. and several universities in the country. They were given the highest marks in every aspect of fishery management by the toughest critics in the world. Lance told me that they have been contacted by fishery managers from around the world that want to see how they do things here.
> 
> I would have to believe that TPWD has it together and in a big way. I would also have to believe that what they tell me is based on scientific evidence, not opinion.
> 
> ...


----------



## snapdragrowb (Oct 30, 2008)

oceankayaker84 said:


> I just attended the scoping meeting in Dickinson and much to my dislike, the closure will be INDEFINITE (most likely it will never be reopened).


You can always gig frogs or bow fish for sheepies


----------



## oceankayaker84 (Dec 16, 2007)

LOL, yeah that's true. But I think I'll stick to rod n reel for the spring flounder run, there's more quantity of flounder during that time anyway


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

Jetties (outside) near the rocks

Pole Spear/Hawaiian Sling, Mask, Fins and Snorkel

Look for the stripes...



snapdragrowb said:


> You can always gig frogs or bow fish for sheepies


----------



## Captain Dave (Jul 19, 2006)

*No Worries*

There are many states that dont have a full year season on game fish.

If it happens, It could be for the better. The fisheries for flounder will be outstanding in the warmer springtime weather. Let em go out and get it on and come back bigger and more tastely from being out in that cleaner gulf water.


----------



## Hughoo222 (Aug 24, 2005)

*Gettin' it on...*

Maybe we should start the Flounder Fornication Association!:biggrin:



Captain Dave said:


> There are many states that dont have a full year season on game fish.
> 
> If it happens, It could be for the better. The fisheries for flounder will be outstanding in the warmer springtime weather. Let em go out and get it on and come back bigger and more tastely from being out in that cleaner gulf water.


----------



## kemahguy (Jun 7, 2005)

*Flounder Scope meeting*

I also attented tonights tpwd meeting and left a little bit frustrated and upset. I have since calmed down and hope everyone realizes that it's looking like flounder season will possibly be shut down for at least one month every year, probably in Nov. with a five fish bag limit. This is supposed to be shut down for commercial and recreational fisherman. Not one comment was made about shuting the shrimping down during this time as I feel that it's just as important. I listened to everyone's ideas, proposals etc. and felt tpwd didn't really seem to be too interested in anone's ideas, even though they were writing some of the feedback down. All the fisherman need to understand that they stressed that once these changed are made they may never change! I'm disappointed that there wasn't a larger turnout and hope everyone and their dog will be there on the final meeting in March.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*flounder*

Howdy,
I attended the meeting in Dickinson tonight.

What struck me the most was that the *BEST* *case scenario* that TPWD was planning to present to the commissioners was closure of the flounder fishery (both rec and comm) for the entire month of November.

That seems a bit drastic, to say the least.

There are other ways that could be explored before *CLOSING* the fishery, since, as we all know, once closed, it will likely never be reopened. Let's try some alternatives and give them 2 to 3 years to analyze their effectiveness before closing anything.

Some options that could produce comparable results without closing the fishery to rod and reel;

1) Prohibit gigging from a boat year-round. If you want to gig, get a lantern and start walking. The average gigger gets 4+ fish per trip, while the average rod and reel guy gets less than 1 fish per trip (don't have the exact figures with me). The boat greatly increases the giggers' efficiency.

2) Prohibit gigging for the month of November. A very small percentage of anglers are giggers, and as such, this will have minimal impact on the fishermen and no impact on the bait camps. If all angling is prohibited for the month, all anglers and the bait camps that make their living providing flounder bait will greatly suffer.

3) Reduce the bag limit to 5 rec/30 comm - 60% of the commercial catch, and 34% of the recreational catch comes from October, November, and December...this reduction in bag limits should achieve substantial results.

4) Increase the minimum size limit to 16". This will give the males 2 full cycles to reproduce before they are legal to catch. Just because the commercials prefer smaller fish should not dictate policy here. I believe recreationals would be more than happy to live with the larger size limit if it prevents closure of the fishery, even for a month (or 3).

Try these out for 2 to 3 years, then analyze the results. If they are not producing satisfactory numbers, then re-look at the problem.

All the best,
Tom Hilton

*PS. Seems to me that the SIMPLEST and QUICKEST way to solve this problem is to prohibit commercial fishing for Flounder, as has already been done for Trout and Reds. *


----------



## da fillthy hoe (Nov 13, 2008)

hilton said:


> Howdy,
> I attended the meeting in Dickinson tonight.
> 
> What struck me the most was that the *BEST* *case scenario* that TPWD was planning to present to the commissioners was closure of the flounder fishery (both rec and comm) for the entire month of November.
> ...


I was at the meeting as well and thought that a month closure..... "Not drastic, just wise"


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

*WHAT I PROPOSED*


5 fish Rec bag limits
60 to 30 commercial bag limits
DO NOT CLOSE THE rod and REEL season, do a temporary closure for all gigers, Recs & Commercial from Oct. - Dec.
Everyone who fishes with a rod and reel needs to let you voice be heard.......what ever they do, do not let them close it off to rod and reel fishermen.

These proposed changes will have a good impact on the flounder, and affect the smallest of the fishing population ( the giggers ) without hurting bussiness who depend on the flounder bussines to keep them going thru the slow season and letting the rod and reel fisherman still have a shot at fish, during the run. *Game fish* status will only hurt the giggers as it will not allow anyone to gig...EVER. Remember you can still catch and release, but you can not do that with a GIG !!!

Giging for flounder still has a place in Texas Coastal traditions, and we can not let it slip away, but the commercial guys have gotten so good at it....there has to be an opportunity for the fish to make it out and spawn.

*Your comments can still be heard before they go befor the commision....*

I encourage you to contact
Tonya Wiley at [email protected] (281) 534-0131 or 
Art Morris at [email protected] (361) 825-3356.

*Please feel free to use my proposed changes.*

Commision takes action March 25- 26 in Austin.

Changes will take effect September 1, 2009


----------



## da fillthy hoe (Nov 13, 2008)

Muddskipper said:


> *WHAT I PROPOSED*
> 
> 
> 5 fish Rec bag limits
> ...


 You must not be a gigger,the laws are good as long as they dont affect you huh????? Lets blame the cause of this on another person "comm. fisherman" what time do you want your wake-up call? Cause your DREAMING DUDE!! This closure needs to be for everyone not just a small portion, and yeah you get real good at finding fish if you put a little grease on it night after night. A month closure is not too much to ask for the future of the plano pescadoes!


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

da fillthy hoe said:


> You must not be a gigger,the laws are good as long as they dont affect you huh????? Lets blame the cause of this on another person "comm. fisherman" what time do you want your wake-up call? Cause your DREAMING DUDE!! This closure needs to be for everyone not just a small portion, .......


I read your 43 post here......did not see any any suggestions other than close it for November....

Also were you at both meetings ? and What did you propose at the meetings........DUDE !

Did you here the impact of shuting it down for a month to people other than fisherman at the 1st meeting?

And do you expect to get that month back after 6 years.....?

What happens when the fish populations are back.....for example like the redfish........Do you expect to get that month back......?

TPWD had presented twice to increase the redfish limits.....but it was shut down.....

*Once these things are in place....we wont get them back folks.....*

Something does need to be done.......NOW.....

But why do somethig as extreme as shuting it down for everyone.....and see if the suggestions I made work first....:question:


----------



## 2wahoo (May 21, 2004)

Don't trust the CCA. Just ask the snapper fishermen.


----------



## da fillthy hoe (Nov 13, 2008)

Muddskipper said:


> I read your 43 post here......did not see any any suggestions other than close it for November....
> 
> Also were you at both meetings ? and What did you propose at the meetings........DUDE !
> 
> ...


 Well dude. I was there and my first suggestion was a nov.-dec. closure but if only nov. happened I'd still be happy we would get alot better return if every fish leaving made it during the month/months in question. And you were proposing a cut in limits do you think we would get that back anytime soon?


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

Well if you did'nt make it to both meetings....numerous points were missed last night......not all the info was given

And I Proposed

5 fish Rec bag limits
60 to 30 commercial bag limits
DO NOT CLOSE THE rod and REEL season, do a temporary closure for all gigers, Recs & Commercial from Oct. - Dec.
You will never get the month back for rod and reel fisherman......just look at the commisions record....once it's in stone thats it.....why not see if these proposals work.....instead of cutting out the heart of every Marina that depends on the flounder fisherman....and the guys who go fish only once or twice a year only during the run.


----------



## KungfuGaspergoo (Nov 13, 2008)

This is a copy of a letter I sent to TPWD

I am greatly concerned about the drop in the flounder populations noticed over the past 20 years. I can remember as a child my father taking me fishing and catching plenty of flounder on a rod and reel. Now days my son (2yr old) and I are lucky to catch one per trip, even fishing with bait on the bottom in areas that were once prime flounder country.
My cousin's, wife's, father (did that make sense?) had a commercial license for flounder. He had an aluminum boat rigged with an air motor and lights. A gigging machine! I have been to their place in Clute (Upper Coast) a couple of times and saw their entire driveway covered in flounder (20 ft. x 60 ft) Several hundred fish. While he would clean them with a pressure washer to blow the scales off. He had a nickname for his boat&#8230;"The Gray Ghost" because the Game Wardens never caught him. It is my understanding that this went on for years, and still might for all I know.
*The point:
*I don't believe that lowering the bag limits for recreational and commercial fishermen, and having a closed season for flounder is either practical or easily managed. I believe that in order to truly allow flounder stocks to rebound you will have to designate it a gamefish and outlaw gigging all together. There simply aren't enough game wardens now to adequately enforce the laws. I think by making a flounder season you compound the difficulty for Game Wardens especially when you consider that it's during the Hunting season also. Please make it easy for them to enforce. Flounder as a gamefish and no gigging. The stocks will rebound much faster. 
Yes there are businesses who depend on flounder as a product. Yes gigging has been a tradition here in Texas since my father was a child. But in my mind gigging is like using a gill net or sein. And we had traditions using those as well. I'm sure there were many complaints when those items were outlawed in the state, and it will be the same with gigging. With gigging there is no fair chase involved. Especially in the fall when the fish stack up in the passes.
The fact is that gigging is the most effective way to catch flounder. It is also a fact that there are more recreational fishermen now than ever before. Thus more giggers. It's simple numbers. 
I'm in it for the long term. I want flounder to still be here when my unborn grandchildren are old enough to fish.
My 2 cents.


----------



## capn (Aug 11, 2005)

I think it is easier than you all are making it out to be. Cut the limits to 5 per day for both recs and commy's, but don't make em a gamefish. Preserves gigging, drastically reduces commercial effort, prevents freezer stuffers during the spawn.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*flounder*

Da Filthy Hoe,
You are free to abstain from fishing for flounder for as many months as you wish, but don't inflict you overzealous desires on the rest of us.

There should be other options explored and exhausted *BEFORE* closing off access to the fishery - that should be the last course of action.

Tom


----------



## Dick Hanks (Aug 16, 2007)

Wouldn't a limit of 5 or 6 flounder be enough for a family meal? If not - the problem is that you had too many kids - not that the limits need to be higher. With growing populations, the days when every fisherman needs to stockpile their freezer has to come to an end anyway. If the commercial limits get dropped to 30 and their license fees stay the same, a bunch of those boys will just give it up. Hopefully, near shore and off shore shrimpers will become a thing of the past in the near future. It hard to believe that it is illegal to run an outboard in some shallow areas, yet the shrimpers are tearing up swaths where ever the go - and everyone just turns their heads and says "Oh - thats ok". How much do the shrimpers pay for their license to kill undersized flounder? Oh, thats right, they get to do that for free ! ! !


----------



## daddyjaxxs (Dec 5, 2005)

*Read this article from a T.P.W.D meeting in 2006*

Looks like all T.P.W.D cares about is shutting down the texas gulf coast seafood buisneses except for bait sales for recreational fisherman. Iwould like to know were all the money is that supose to help the recreational fisherman.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines.../regulations_committee/index.phtml?print=true


----------



## Farmer Jim (May 21, 2004)

Gamble said:


> ...... It matters not who gets credit for anything...........think about someone other than yourself and be part of the solution, not part of the problem.


Good grief!!! Are you naive or just haven't been around for the past few years? It matters to CCA who gets the credit. That is all that matters to them. I think you have CCA confused with GCCA.


----------



## da fillthy hoe (Nov 13, 2008)

hilton said:


> Da Filthy Hoe,
> You are free to abstain from fishing for flounder for as many months as you wish, but don't inflict you overzealous desires on the rest of us.
> 
> There should be other options explored and exhausted *BEFORE* closing off access to the fishery - that should be the last course of action.
> ...


 I'll obide by any decesion that tpwl makes. Is a month closure really too much to ask for we would all benefit from it.


----------



## LandShark! (Jul 16, 2006)

Just two cents is all it's worth. If it's the breaders we are trying to keep around why would we want to increase the size limits? Instead maybe we should have a slot? I understadn it would only apply to those that abide by the rules. No matter how tough the laws are there will always be those that don't participate. It is a tough choice to cut off the flounder fishing for a month because it touches more than just the fisherman, whether it is a comm. or a rec. . Personally I only fish for them durring those months, both rod n reel and gig. I don't fill my freezer just enough to eat the next day. So I hope you got your monies worth out of my two cents!
Ron


----------



## scubaru (Mar 28, 2005)

That like closing deer season in November only. It'll only make it easier for the poachers to have the prime spots all to their selves. Just like they do with Red Snapper in fed waters!


----------



## snapdragrowb (Oct 30, 2008)

Farmer Jim said:


> Good grief!!! Are you naive or just haven't been around for the past few years? It matters to CCA who gets the credit. That is all that matters to them. I think you have CCA confused with GCCA.


Yes, credit is what brought a fishery back. Silly...


----------



## snapdragrowb (Oct 30, 2008)

scubaru said:


> That like closing deer season in November only. It'll only make it easier for the poachers to have the prime spots all to their selves. Just like they do with Red Snapper in fed waters!


Yeah, I imagine game wardens would have a difficult time spotting some arsehole with lights on his boat and a fan motor cruising the shorleine...better watch them flounder poachers, lol. They will utilize a helicopter, like they do for deer poachers, and bust them. .arrrrg


----------



## Farmer Jim (May 21, 2004)

snapdragrowb said:


> Yes, credit is what brought a fishery back. Silly...


Geez, do all you guys just line up and chant whatever mantras the CCA leadership tell you to? GCCA brought a fishery back, not CCA. The only thing silly is the blind, unthinking allegiance some of you seem to have to CCA. You are being used by power hungry, money grubbing people who aren't fit to carry the tackle for the guys who were involved in the Redfish Wars. I know you are sincere, mean well and care about the fisheries, but there are much better organizations to give your talents and money to. Today's CCA is not the same organization that brought back our Redfish.

CCA need to stay out of TPWD's business. The TPWD guys know what they are doing and they genuinely care about the resources they manage. TPWD getting advice from CCA on Texas fisheries is about like Warren Buffet getting financial advice from the folks who ran Fannie Mae.


----------



## Stumpgrinder (Feb 18, 2006)

Not for nothing but when CCA calls for an urgent action I typically make sure I know where my wallet is. Those people waste my yearly dues sending me mail to ask for yet more money.


----------



## TXwhtlHNTR (Nov 19, 2008)

:smile:

If TPWD feels a season closure is needed, I'll follow it willingly to help future fish populations. Making it universal is I feel by far the best (most equatable) way to handle it. I posted regarding this issue in TTMB, so have some of the others I've seen here. Most are pretty set in their opinions, I guess I am too, so (with minor edit) to repeat:

__________________________________________________

"I feel that our best friends can at times be TPWD. They are the ones tasked with safeguarding our outdoors. However, they need input and help from outdoorsmen to provide maximum *recreational* availability of our resources. I hunt, I fish, I gig, I pick wild berries and fruits, I have trapped, I've dug clams, I catch crayfish, I crab. I don't do those things to harvest food, that's a side benefit. I do things like that because I enjoy them.

Too often I think we are our own worst enemies. I have seen much that convinces me and nothing that would dissuade me that the main root causes for flounder population decline can be labeled as *bycatch *and *commercial harvest*. 

I stress this because while I would not object to a lowered limit, or establishing an inclusive boat limit, I have issue with segregating categories of recreational users. To say that someone who enjoys gigging (as pointed out, long a traditional Coastal activity) is not as deserving of equal recreational opportunity as someone fishing with hook and line is a *'they came for them, not me'* outlook.

I hunt more then fish, but I do fish. I also count as one of my favorite salt-shore activities wading shallows trying to gig a nice flounder or three then enjoying a nightme beach picnic with my wife and son. That said, if I really want flounder for the table, I've always caught more wading with a rod and reel then by gigging. Perhaps if I had a tricked out boat devoted to gigging, the numbers would reverse, but...

That also raises the question that if a 'boat limit' is appropriate for gigging flounder, why not the same 'boat limit' for anglers with a rod? Is a 'boat limit' also appropriate for reds, specks, macks? Do the anglers with boats/equipment geared to a given species harvest a higher average % then others?

I'm reminded of hunting squabbles over compound bows, traditional archery equipment, crossbows, muzzleloaders, pistols, and centerfire rifles; with one group claiming that the way another group hunts isn't as sporting as the method they use. Rational reflection shows that the common enemy they all face is anti-hunting zealots.

Is the common enemy (problem) here actually bycatch, and commercial harvest? If so, then they are what should be addressed. If large recreational harvest is also an issue then that shoud be dealt with also, but equatably. Offering someone elses ox (form of recreation) for goring as a method of attemping to shield your own is not at all admirable.

JMO "

_______________________________________________

KK - I can see the position that another major factor is the massive harvest (including recreational by rod & reel) of female spawners. That reinforces rather then changes my view.


----------



## daddyjaxxs (Dec 5, 2005)

*T.P.W.D. William Nagley Fund*

The Texas Parks an Wildlife commisioners have established this fund for the sole purpose of removing the rest of the commercial fishing licences from the gulf coast. It has been funded from private organizations including CCA. They have recieved 1.2 million last May and 3.00 of your money for your fishing licence goes into this fund also the commercial guys licence fees go into this fund. The intention of this is for the buy back of the remaining commercial licences on the gulf coast. How do you put this money to work, Reduce the finfish harvest for comercial fisherman next reduce the harvest of blue crab for the commercial crabbers. Make it harder for them to make a living. This is whats driving T.P.W.D to change the reg's on flounder harvests and blue crab harvests. Do your leg work guys, it's not just about the flounder population!!!


----------



## wading_fool (May 3, 2005)

Can someone tell me another organization that gives as much money to fisheries research, helping to fund Game Wardens with equipment, shrimping buy back program, or a myriad of other programs that CCA helps fund? 

As for the closures, I am for a closure with reduced bag limits for both commercials and recreational fisherman. I don't see how you can close it only for a certain group and not everyone. Yes Bay Shrimping has been the demise of flounder stocks as well as commercial fishing. Flounder is a tricky subject, if you grant flounder gamefish status then you did away with gigging, which others have pointed out is a long time tradition. I will trust the biologists to come up with the best plan for a great flounder fishery again.


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

I see alot of posts in favor of just banning gigging and I think that's just a biased opinion looking out for their own best interest so that they can continue to slaughter fish during the run. I gig and fish and I am in favor of stopping both for a month or even two if that is what it takes. 

I don't like more regulations either. But it's gonna happen so you have to look at what is best for the fish.


----------



## daddyjaxxs (Dec 5, 2005)

*T.P.W.D. funding at the reqest of wading fool*

Here is a transcript from the may 2008 meeting and a list of donaters

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines...8/0522/transcripts/public_hearing/index.phtml


----------



## Speckled Horn (Mar 5, 2006)

*CCA & TPWD as it relates to the flouder issue...*

Yes. I chant...Ohhmm, CCA. Ohhmm, CCA. Farmer Jim you are correct that it was not CCA that saved the redfish. It was GCCA. What you do not know or apparently care to acknowledge is that many of the concerned anglers that formed the GCCA in '77 to save the Redfish are still in executive leadership positions on the Texas State Executive Board and it's many committee's. In other words (your words) the guys that are not fit to carry the tackle of the leaders of the Redfish Wars are the SAME people still running CCA today.

As far as other organizations that mean well, you are correct. There are many and I will not begrudge anyone for supporting them. However, I take issue with people bashing an organization that does so much good for our State's coastal resources. Maybe if you got involved (not just paid $25 a year) you would notice these things.

CCA needs to stay out of TPWD's business, huh? Who do you think funds many of their research projects, provides equipment to game wardens and such? CCA does. It is where member's dues money goes. TPWD seeks CCA's input on things like the flounder issue. It provides support to the people doing the research when the largest marine conservation organization backs the science and says..."Houston...we have a problem" & the recommendations the TPWD are making are backed by the organization.

Do I wish we didn't have to play politics with our marine resources? Yes. But that's not the world we live in.

For the record...I was in the meeting where we voted to recommendation the closure of gigging during the fall run to the TPWD. It was the most aggressive stance to take at the time and what TPWD wanted.

In hindsight, I wish someone would have made a recommendation to close the season to all means of take (rod/reel, gig, et al.) for 1 or 2 of the months of the run, as it seems to make more sense to me and be more equitable for all the stakeholders. Maybe if some of you bashers of CCA were involved instead of on the sidelines, that would have been discussed prior to making a recommendation. It looks like based on what's taking place in the scoping meetings a total closure for one month might be the route taken. Personally, I like that idea.

As it stands, since you have washed your hands of the CCA, you simply have this and other valuable forums to voice your opinion.

Just as with all the resources it is my opinion that just because the law says you can keep "x" number of fish...that doesn't mean you have to. In my most humble of opinions, if more people thought that way and ACTED on that view, we would be in a much better place.

Hope everyone has a great day and nice weekend.



Farmer Jim said:


> Geez, do all you guys just line up and chant whatever mantras the CCA leadership tell you to? GCCA brought a fishery back, not CCA. The only thing silly is the blind, unthinking allegiance some of you seem to have to CCA. You are being used by power hungry, money grubbing people who aren't fit to carry the tackle for the guys who were involved in the Redfish Wars. I know you are sincere, mean well and care about the fisheries, but there are much better organizations to give your talents and money to. Today's CCA is not the same organization that brought back our Redfish.
> 
> CCA need to stay out of TPWD's business. The TPWD guys know what they are doing and they genuinely care about the resources they manage. TPWD getting advice from CCA on Texas fisheries is about like Warren Buffet getting financial advice from the folks who ran Fannie Mae.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Speckled Horn*

Very well said.....the haters are always going to be just that.
By the way Farmer Jim, the figure is over $700,000 that CCA has donated to the TP&WD over the last 5 years. Gater


----------



## saltwater_therapy (Oct 14, 2005)

*Wise Words of an outdoorsman!*



TXwhtlHNTR said:


> :smile:
> 
> If TPWD feels a season closure is needed, I'll follow it willingly to help future fish populations. Making it universal is I feel by far the best (most equatable) way to handle it. I posted regarding this issue in TTMB, so have some of the others I've seen here. Most are pretty set in their opinions, I guess I am too, so (with minor edit) to repeat:
> 
> ...


100%


----------



## saltwater_therapy (Oct 14, 2005)

If nothing is done to protect the flounder we will continue to see fewer and fewer of them. The flounder is a such a fun, and challenging fish to catch, with rod and reel or gig, and very excellent table fare. I would hate to see this happen. 

My Opinion of what should be done:

Lower the bag limit for recreational and commercial fishermen, or stop commercial harvest alltogether, more research and development of the tpwd flounder restocking program. Give the flounder gamefish status with an exception of gigging as a means of harvesting. Closed season on retaing fish during the fall flounder run (catch and realease only). All of these ideas could HELP! 
When the final decision is made and new regs are in place they may not be permanent! If Great improvements are seen, and it is believed stocks can support it after 10-20 yrs or HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES! regs could be changed back to the way they are now. 
!!!!!!!!!! This is no time to be SELFISH, WE may never see it happen in our lifetime, but This is about the FUTURE OF RECREATIONAL FISHING for OUR CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN, AND EVERY GENERATION AFTER!!!!!!!!!!!

REGULATIONS ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT OUR VALUABLE RESOURCES!


----------



## wading_fool (May 3, 2005)

I didn't request to see funding....I know what CCA spends a year on funding various research projects, Game Warden equipment, etc.....but since you posted it, who is Donor #2 & #3 for Game warden equipment?



daddyjaxxs said:


> Here is a transcript from the may 2008 meeting and a list of donaters
> 
> http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines...8/0522/transcripts/public_hearing/index.phtml


----------



## scubaru (Mar 28, 2005)

daddyjaxxs said:


> The Texas Parks an Wildlife commisioners have established this fund for the sole purpose of removing the rest of the commercial fishing licences from the gulf coast. It has been funded from private organizations including CCA. They have recieved 1.2 million last May and 3.00 of your money for your fishing licence goes into this fund also the commercial guys licence fees go into this fund. The intention of this is for the buy back of the remaining commercial licences on the gulf coast. How do you put this money to work, Reduce the finfish harvest for comercial fisherman next reduce the harvest of blue crab for the commercial crabbers. Make it harder for them to make a living. This is whats driving T.P.W.D to change the reg's on flounder harvests and blue crab harvests. Do your leg work guys, it's not just about the flounder population!!!


Did you say buy them back or broker 'em out? Here's what I got from TPWD,

_Regarding your question about commercial finfish licenses, the state is no longer issuing new licenses (since the legislation passed in 1999 creating the License Management Program for Finfish). However, licenses are transferable, meaning you can still get into the fishery but would have to purchase an existing license from someone. We've tried to maintain a list of people wanting to buy and/or sell various commercial licenses. You may want to contact Tonya Wiley (281-534-0131; __[email protected]__) to see what might be available and to perhaps add your name to the list.
_


----------



## daddyjaxxs (Dec 5, 2005)

*T.P.W.D buy back program and big money*

Here is a caption from The May TPWD meeting . There sure are deep pockets funding this program

In 1996, the Commission and the Department launched an innovative and challenging yet aggressive and strategic program of coastal conservation, titled, "Commercial Shrimp License Buy-Back Program." It has spanned four terms of Commission chairs. Lee Bass, Katharine Armstrong Love who is here this morning, Mr. Joseph Fitzsimons, who is here this morning, and now Peter Holt.
It has also spanned the ten years of three executive directors, beginning with Mr. Andy Sansom, Bob Cook and now Carter Smith. Through the multiple phases of this effort and until fairly recently, nearly $12 million has been raised, primarily in public funds, to retire more than 1800 commercial shrimp licenses on the Texas Gulf Coast.
Some funding from various individuals and foundations at strategic times was provided from partners such as the Coastal Conservation Association, the Earl Sams Foundation, and the Saltwater Conservation Association of Texas; 18 months ago, Commission Chair, then Joseph Fitzsimons, suggested that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation establish the William Nagley Conservation Fund to both honor the late and great coastal conservation advocate, and to raise funds for the final phase of the program.
The foundation board, under the leadership of chairman Pat Oles, did just that. The goal was to purchase and retire 325 licenses, available from willing sellers. To kick off the campaign, Chairman Fitzsimons, Ed Harte, Will Harte, who is also here this morning, the Harte Charitable Foundation, Commissioners Dan Friedkin and Commission Chairman Peter Holt were the charter contributors to the Nagley Fund, donating $400,000.
Led by board members Mimi Zoch, Karen Hixon ‑‑ who was then a foundation board member, now a commissioner, and by Board member Pat Murray, the foundation recruited the following partners: The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Robert J. and Helen C. Kleberg Foundation, the Meadows Foundation, the Amon Carter Foundation, Texas Coastal Conservation Association, seven other foundations, and 23 individuals, who together contributed $800,000.
Let me just say that once again, it is the foundation's privilege and honor to be the partner of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and we are thrilled this morning to be able to announce the successful completion of the multi-year Commercial Shrimp License Buy-Back Program, and so today the foundation is happy to present this check to the department.
I'd like to ask Commissioner Fitzsimons, Carter, Larry McKinney, Will Harte, Katharine Armstrong Love, to join us up here for a picture; and the check is in the amount of $1.2 million.
(Applause.)


----------



## SURF Buster (Feb 17, 2008)

What ever the heck happens print the darn rules in at least three different languages.
Otherwise why have rules?


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

It would be nice to see the commercial group brought to control however I just don't see it happening for a long time. Especially with the way us recreational people can't agree on anything. 

It's also funny how some of us are spouting about how great CCA is because of their consevation efforts but the same people are wanting regulations applied to any one other than themselves. 

I also realize that GCCA or CCA has done some great things in the past. I just don't feel that it's right for CCA to call on all their members to sent in a unanimous vote to conserve all the flounder for their members to continue to catch on Rod and Reel. It's either save the flounder or stay to *%*@ out of it!! I would like to think that CCA being made of of recreational members that CCA would go after just the commercial group instead of trying to save the fishery for the Star tournament and the R&R guys. Kind of biased. 

I know it's just an opinion and some of you like Gater are gonna hate me. But Hey, I am atleast willing to give up two months for the flounder.


----------



## daddyjaxxs (Dec 5, 2005)

This is a good one you can see were the flounder rate on the list of donations from the Parks Commission!!

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/meetings/2009/0122/agenda/donations/


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Toddbo*

I'm not a hater, you have a right to your opinion and who knows your opinion may be the right call. My whole point in supporting the CCA proposal is I, like many here don't want to start shutting down any type of recreational fishing if you don't need to. With less shrimping pressure and a 2-3 month closure for recreational and commercial gigging and maybe a reduced bag limit I think the fishery will turn around. But then again maybe your right, maybe it will take a complete closure, who knows, I just know I don't want it to come to that if we can help it.

This is not a me against you thing, I supported the CCA proposal because I think it effects the least amount of people. From what I have read, I have not seen any other suggestion's made from any of the other orgs. just everyone's opinion here and there are many.

My biggest gripe with this entire post is not with the many idea's people have submitted on what is best for the flounder. My gripe is how everyone is quick to fault CCA for making an effort whether you agree or not. It's lose, lose for them because they would be blasted if they said nothing as well.

To answer a previous question of yours, no, I'm not a commercial fisherman, far from it. *I do not gig Flounder, nor do I fish for them with a rod &* *reel, I haven't done either in at least 20 years.* I do know plenty of people that do both and I think the CCA proposal is fairest to both of those groups from what I have seen proposed so far.

I do support making flounder a Game fish and if things don't get better in the next couple of years I think we may see that. IMHO, it's a last ditch thing to do. I don't think the TP&WD, CCA, you, me or anyone else wants to do away with recreational gigging but thats what will happen when the Flounder recieves game fish status.

Gater


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Daddy Jaxx*

What are you implying with your last post! Gater


----------



## daddyjaxxs (Dec 5, 2005)

All I'm saying is that the commissioners in Austin,El Paso, San Antonio and were ever else there from could care less about our flounder issue all they want to do is line there pockets from any foundation that will give them the most. Currently there focus is on placing our fisheries in the Gulf with for profit organizations who donate millions to the Texas Park and Wildlife Commission .They would love to see our penney anny problems just go away down here on the coast. And I don't have any problems with the CCA GCCA or any one else who cares about our fishing industy. I am also for closures and limit reductions to bring back our precious resources so our children and their children can enjoy fishing .


----------



## robul (Apr 26, 2007)

Just got a letter in the mail they want me to fill out this card and send it to tpwd 


My name is ______________. I am a member of the coastal conservation association of texas and I support its position on the recommended changes to the southern flounder regulations, including a complete gigging closure to both recreation and commercial fishermen for the months of October , November, and December and a 50% bag limit reduction for both groups, with a possession limits reflecting one day bag limit and the minimum size limit remaining at 14 inches. 


Well I for one am NOT signing this card and sending it in.. Unless of course I cross out the banning part. Im all for lowering the bag limits but hell those are about the only 3 months of the year where I can find some flounder to put in my oven.. Heck lets make the limit 3 or even 2 but a ban all together???? I can see it now game warden out in full force every evening during those days..


----------



## oceankayaker84 (Dec 16, 2007)

robul said:


> Just got a letter in the mail *they* want me to fill out this card and send it to tpwd


Who sent the letter?


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

robul said:


> Just got a letter in the mail they want me to fill out this card and send it to tpwd
> 
> My name is ______________. I am a member of the coastal conservation association of texas and I support its position on the recommended changes to the southern flounder regulations, including a complete gigging closure to both recreation and commercial fishermen for the months of October , November, and December and a 50% bag limit reduction for both groups, with a possession limits reflecting one day bag limit and the minimum size limit remaining at 14 inches.
> 
> Well I for one am NOT signing this card and sending it in.. Unless of course I cross out the banning part. Im all for lowering the bag limits but hell those are about the only 3 months of the year where I can find some flounder to put in my oven.. Heck lets make the limit 3 or even 2 but a ban all together???? I can see it now game warden out in full force every evening during those days..


*Use it to start a nice cozy fire in your fireplace!!!!*


----------



## trio-assassin (Nov 4, 2008)

one time i went trawling on a boat in one of my classes in the bay...... it was sick how many small flounder got caught in the net and died.......we just need to figure out something to stop this and need to outlaw commercial fishing for these flounder!


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Daddyjaxx*

I'm not sure where you get the Parks & Wildlife Commissioners are lining their pockets from the link you posted. Those are donations, and most of the ones from that link are to support the Wildlife Expo in Austin. The last one on that page for 1.7M is for the Shrimping Buy Back program which goes a long way in helping the Flounder. Gater


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

trio-assassin said:


> one time i went trawling on a boat in one of my classes in the bay...... it was sick how many small flounder got caught in the net and died.......we just need to figure out something to stop this and need to outlaw commercial fishing for these flounder!


I have been there and seen the same thing. It's sickening!


----------



## kemahguy (Jun 7, 2005)

I agree with both "Trio Assasin" and "Robul", it's a scary thought that they'll ban fishing and gigging all together without at least looking into extreme bag limit cuts first. I would've been ok w/ a 3 fish bag limit, but not stop it all together. I also hope I'm not in the minority here w/ thinking that shrimping destroys and kills many more flounder than fishing and gigging could ever have on the populations. If tpwd makes fishing and gigging illegal in the month of Nov. like they want, they need to ban shrimping as well. It's my opinion that shrimping kills thousands of flounder every year and if you're on the water enough you'll understand what I'm talking about.


----------



## robul (Apr 26, 2007)

oceankayaker84 said:


> Who sent the letter?


It was from the CCA. Surprised they can send me a letter asking for donations and support but NEVER sent my STAR card.. LOL!



kemahguy said:


> I agree with both "Trio Assasin" and "Robul", it's a scary thought that they'll ban fishing and gigging all together without at least looking into extreme bag limit cuts first. I would've been ok w/ a 3 fish bag limit, but not stop it all together. I also hope I'm not in the minority here w/ thinking that shrimping destroys and kills many more flounder than fishing and gigging could ever have on the populations. If tpwd makes fishing and gigging illegal in the month of Nov. like they want, they need to ban shrimping as well. It's my opinion that shrimping kills thousands of flounder every year and if you're on the water enough you'll understand what I'm talking about.


True story..


----------



## Team Ranger Bob (Jul 13, 2004)

*People*

Lets remember that the size has been raised from 12" to 14" and that the creel has been cut in half along with a change in the legal posession limit.
Shrimpers are on the endangered species list and we still have a problem.

Ranger Bob


----------



## fancyjaxx (Jan 8, 2009)

gater said:


> I'm not sure where you get the Parks & Wildlife Commissioners are lining their pockets from the link you posted. Those are donations, and most of the ones from that link are to support the Wildlife Expo in Austin. The last one on that page for 1.7M is for the Shrimping Buy Back program which goes a long way in helping the Flounder. Gater





gater said:


> I'm not sure where you get the Parks & Wildlife Commissioners are lining their pockets from the link you posted. Those are donations, and most of the ones from that link are to support the Wildlife Expo in Austin. The last one on that page for 1.7M is for the Shrimping Buy Back program which goes a long way in helping the Flounder. Gater


What my better half is trying to say is we don't understand why is there so little funds used to help replenish the flounder brood stock instead of lobbying and trying to get rid of the commercials. They are just recently really starting to focus on this for flounder. 
It is hard to trust the commissioners when half the time they sound like they don't understand what is being talked about. It's easy for some guy sitting up in Austin , San Antonio, Ft Worth etc. to just say make it a game fish or cut the limits and close it down or what the full impact could be on everyone.
There are 40-50 active commercial finfish license holders who fish for flounder out of 315 on the coast of Texas. Why continue our focus on them when most are gone and they still don't have the numbers "they would like". These guys are all that is left and they provide an important needed service for the Texas seafood industry. I as one of the almost 2 million licensed Texas anglers will park my boat during a closure and take a bag cut but I don't want to focus on hurting the commercials anymore. 30 percent of the flounder are caught in November and they are usually full of eggs. If we just removed November, it seems like the gain in spawning females would be substantial .
The store is full of fish, shrimp and crabs from Thailand etc. I don't want to see our flounder reduced to that when those countries are not held up to the same health standards that we are. I believe we can fix it without destroying the commercials.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Fancyjaxx*

The only way funds will help replenish the brood stock is by buying back shrimping licenses. Funds to go towards research to try and master raising hatchery fish. We have come a long way but we are no where close to what we can do with Redfish.

In the 70's, the Redfish population wasn't reduced to barely nothing because of recreational fishing pressure, it was because of commercial overfishing. Hatchery fish made a big difference in the come back but the biggest thing was making them a game fish and banning gill nets and commercial fishing for them on a State and federal level and by cutting recreational bag limits 2/3's.

I don't think we are too that point and I don't think the TP&WD or CCA is calling for that at this time. They have suggested reducing the bag limits for them just like they are for the recreational fishermen. You said you would park your boat during a closure and take a bag cut but then say you don't want to hurt the commercials. We don't want to end up like the Snapper where the commercials fish all year and the rec's get a few weeks and can only keep two fish. Recreational fishing in this State is a multi BILLIOn dollar industry and supports well over 100k jobs. No one wants to see someone lose their livelyhood but there is much more at stake. If there is no changes on either side they will end up fishing themselves out of job in the long term anyway

IMHO shrimping will never be completely shut down nor would we want it to be. But by slowly buying back license we can get them to a managable number where the impact is not so great. If needed I think we could do the same with commercial finfish license holders.

Commercial Flounder fishermen are not providing a much needed service for the Texas Seafood Industry, they are simply trying to make a living by selling their catch. Not one Resturaunt will go out of business if there is not stuffed Flounder on the menu just like when the blacken Redfish went away no one went out of business and no one went hungry. They will just find something else to blacken.

So if we are to make changes it has to be on both sides of the ball. If the commercials want to keep gigging they are going to have to give a little just like the rec's will. Don't take the above wrong, I'm not for completely shutting down commercial gigging but they are going to have to make changes like everyone else if they want to continue to play the game!

Gater


----------



## wading_fool (May 3, 2005)

Daddyjaxx

Those funds listed on that link are only from the TP&W foundation Trust.......There is more money funneling into Flounder research than what was listed on the last meeting minutes.

another thing if you look at rec's and commercials from other states the limits are the same for both....what I hear from most that are posting is I want to help protect flounder as long as it doesn't effect my fishing, kind of short sighted thinking if your looking long term on the flounder fishery.


----------



## da fillthy hoe (Nov 13, 2008)

fancyjaxx said:


> What my better half is trying to say is we don't understand why is there so little funds used to help replenish the flounder brood stock instead of lobbying and trying to get rid of the commercials. They are just recently really starting to focus on this for flounder.
> It is hard to trust the commissioners when half the time they sound like they don't understand what is being talked about. It's easy for some guy sitting up in Austin , San Antonio, Ft Worth etc. to just say make it a game fish or cut the limits and close it down or what the full impact could be on everyone.
> There are 40-50 active commercial finfish license holders who fish for flounder out of 315 on the coast of Texas. Why continue our focus on them when most are gone and they still don't have the numbers "they would like". These guys are all that is left and they provide an important needed service for the Texas seafood industry. I as one of the almost 2 million licensed Texas anglers will park my boat during a closure and take a bag cut but I don't want to focus on hurting the commercials anymore. 30 percent of the flounder are caught in November and they are usually full of eggs. If we just removed November, it seems like the gain in spawning females would be substantial .
> The store is full of fish, shrimp and crabs from Thailand etc. I don't want to see our flounder reduced to that when those countries are not held up to the same health standards that we are. I believe we can fix it without destroying the commercials.


 WELL SPOKEN MY FRIEND COULDNT OF SAID IT BETTER MYSELF


----------



## FLATTY_PATROL (Sep 7, 2008)

90% OF THE PROBLEM FALLS ON THE BAY SHRIMPERS KILLING TO MANY IN THERE NETS


----------



## John Paul (Feb 22, 2006)

robul said:


> Just got a letter in the mail they want me to fill out this card and send it to tpwd





robul said:


> My name is ______________. I am a member of the coastal conservation association of texas and I support its position on the recommended changes to the southern flounder regulations, including a complete gigging closure to both recreation and commercial fishermen for the months of October , November, and December and a 50% bag limit reduction for both groups, with a possession limits reflecting one day bag limit and the minimum size limit remaining at 14 inches.




This will go in the trash as I do not support this. When will CCA start asking what it's members want?


----------



## bk005 (Feb 23, 2005)

John Paul said:


> This will go in the trash as I do not support this. When will CCA start asking what it's members want?


When there menbership renewals dwindle.


----------



## pelochas (Jun 15, 2005)

robul said:


> My name is ______________. I am a member of the coastal conservation association of texas and I support its position on the recommended changes to the southern flounder regulations, including a complete gigging closure to both recreation and commercial fishermen for the months of October , November, and December and a 50% bag limit reduction for both groups, with a possession limits reflecting one day bag limit and the minimum size limit remaining at 14 inches.


my post card is signed, sealed and delivered. we all know flounder runs in these 3 months. those who know then know very well where to gig and drop a line. flounder in these three months are like fish in a bucket and you with a shotgun, you cant miss.

i thought cca was going all out closure for everyone but 3 months out of 12 closed for giggers and none for rod and reels is better than no action. as in my first post, there is no way i could have seen this coming without some closure to gigging.


----------



## Texxan1 (Dec 31, 2004)

Im still trying to figure out where the flounder that are gigged are going.. Everytime i go to a blasted seafood restruant all i see on the menu is talapia.. Which i HATE....

Something must be done, and i choose to make it a gamefish, with the stipulation that we can still have non commercial gigging.. That will never happen though.. So you have to go with the ideal of the best way to end overfishing and that is the run is what CCA wants, but what about the spring run.. Some believe that the spring run is actually better than the fall run!!!

There are alot of IF's in this business, but we really need to figure out WHY!!!!


----------



## allicat (May 20, 2004)

pelochas said:


> flounder in these three months are like fish in a bucket and you with a shotgun, you cant miss.


You never fished with me! :tongue:


----------



## wading_fool (May 3, 2005)

Texxan1 said:


> Im still trying to figure out where the flounder that are gigged are going.. Everytime i go to a blasted seafood restruant all i see on the menu is talapia.. Which i HATE....
> 
> Something must be done, and i choose to make it a gamefish, with the stipulation that we can still have non commercial gigging.. That will never happen though.. So you have to go with the ideal of the best way to end overfishing and that is the run is what CCA wants, but what about the spring run.. Some believe that the spring run is actually better than the fall run!!!
> 
> There are alot of IF's in this business, but we really need to figure out WHY!!!!


Texxan I think the idea of closing the fall is because those fish are full of eggs heading out to spawn, the spring run is fish coming back into the bays spawned out. The lessor of the two evils are at least the fall fish are getting a chance to spawn


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

I sent in my CCA card too. After I left an impression of my arse on it and stuck a pair of lips sticker on it.


----------



## Redshad (Dec 24, 2008)

Lol when is the CCA going to ask what its members want, that was too funny, they'll ask the day you conduct 20 somethin years of research and get a degree in that field lol. Going to the boat show this weekend and listening to peoples opinions about what is causing the flounder decline, is a good reason they dont ask for our input. I heard all sorts of reasons the best one of all was pollution. That had to be the best, " I tell you its not the giggers who are taking all of the fish, its all them pollutants they're dumpin in the water." LOl. That was too good.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Shrimpers*

It is of my opinion that neither commercial gigging or shrimping is the problem we face today. The new restrictions we are facing are from years past, 10, 15, 20 years ago caused mainly by bay shrimpers bycatch. For what ever reason, I think we have waited to long to react but I think the fishery can be turned around in a few years. To do this though we are all going to have to give a little, both commercials and recs. It's to late for finger pointing, we all need to unite together and do the right thing. I have full trust in the TP&WD Biologist that they will make the right call, to my knowledge they haven't let us down yet. Gater


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

Redshad said:


> Lol when is the CCA going to ask what its members want, that was too funny, they'll ask the day you conduct 20 somethin years of research and get a degree in that field lol. Going to the boat show this weekend and listening to peoples opinions about what is causing the flounder decline, is a good reason they dont ask for our input. I heard all sorts of reasons the best one of all was pollution. That had to be the best, " I tell you its not the giggers who are taking all of the fish, its all them pollutants they're dumpin in the water." LOl. That was too good.


I see you are back with your "REATARD" opinion too.


----------



## John Paul (Feb 22, 2006)

Redshad said:


> Lol when is the CCA going to ask what its members want, that was too funny, they'll ask the day you conduct 20 somethin years of research and get a degree in that field lol. Going to the boat show this weekend and listening to peoples opinions about what is causing the flounder decline, is a good reason they dont ask for our input. I heard all sorts of reasons the best one of all was pollution. That had to be the best, " I tell you its not the giggers who are taking all of the fish, its all them pollutants they're dumpin in the water." LOl. That was too good.


Well someone else called you the retard, lol :cheers: now I don't have too.

It's guaranteed that I have over 20 years on your dumb ***** and I have been spending the last few months in the meetings on this topic. I don't have a degree in fisheries but I do know how to listen and read the data from the biologist. In CCA's own letter, they(CCA) even say that what CCA is proposing is over board on this issue.


----------



## John Paul (Feb 22, 2006)

gater said:


> It is of my opinion that neither commercial gigging or shrimping is the problem we face today. The new restrictions we are facing are from years past, 10, 15, 20 years ago caused mainly by bay shrimpers bycatch. For what ever reason, I think we have waited to long to react but I think the fishery can be turned around in a few years. To do this though we are all going to have to give a little, both commercials and recs. It's to late for finger pointing, we all need to unite together and do the right thing. I have full trust in the TP&WD Biologist that they will make the right call, to my knowledge they haven't let us down yet. Gater


Hmmm.... If this is from 10, 15 or 20 years ago and a Flounder has a 6 year live span, why do we have a monster year for Flounder this year?

Did the buy back program already make its mark?

Are we already on a rebound?

Is CCA jumping the gun on this?


----------



## ULaguna (Jan 2, 2009)

*repealing regulations*



coachlaw said:


> The biggest problem I see with the whole thing is that lower limits are never repealed. I think it's past time to change the redfish limits. I don't mind the 3 per day, but 20 freakin' inches as the low limit is beyond ridiculous. The best eating fish are 15-20. Let's make reds 3 a day 16-27 inches. Then I'll start believing that limits are not permanent.
> 
> Of course the biggest problem with anything is the throngs of unlicenced fishermen who keep anything and everything regardless of size.


TPWD proposed to allow an additional redfish about two years ago but the overwhelming response was NO from fishermen. It would likely not be a good idea totake smaller fish as the idea is for them to spawn a least once before being caught. Texas saltwater fishermen have developed a great conservation ethic and it has paid off - I have to admit I would like to keep a few rat reds, they do taste good (hypothetically speaking, of course)


----------



## junorris (Jan 13, 2009)

Toddbo34 said:


> *Use it to start a nice cozy fire in your fireplace!!!!*


Better yet I whited out the "agree" and put "oppose!!!!" and send it in.

About 10 years ago I went to one of John Cowan's ( stamp program artist and one of the founding members of GCCA) and was taken back at how much he disliked the CCA and the direction it has taken today. He even refused to sign one of the redfish stickers for a guy in line before me.

This aint Salem and the giggers arent the only witches on the water. TPWD even agreed with this at their last meeting. Better enforcement of current laws could help curtal the flounders demise to an good extent. I see more poachers with rods and reels than I do with the sharp sticks in the Fall. I am disapointed in CCA's pointed stance on this.....no pun intended .


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

junorris said:


> Better yet I whited out the "agree" and put "oppose!!!!" and send it in.
> 
> About 10 years ago I went to one of John Cowan's ( stamp program artist and one of the founding members of GCCA) and was taken back at how much he disliked the CCA and the direction it has taken today. He even refused to sign one of the redfish stickers for a guy in line before me.
> 
> This aint Salem and the giggers arent the only witches on the water. TPWD even agreed with this at their last meeting. Better enforcement of current laws could help curtal the flounders demise to an good extent. I see more poachers with rods and reels than I do with the sharp sticks in the Fall. I am disapointed in CCA's pointed stance on this.....no pun intended .


I hope that CCA realizes it's the Members that make up their organization and they should have some input. Maybe with all the negetive response they get they will wake up.


----------



## pelochas (Jun 15, 2005)

Toddbo34 said:


> I hope that CCA realizes it's the Members that make up their organization and they should have some input. Maybe with all the negetive response they get they will wake up.


the postcard is not mailed back to CCA, its mailed to TPW. so CCA will not have any info unless TPW gives them the number of postcards received.

i would suggest that if you dont want this recommendation from CCA to TPW, then you should let TPW know about in a form of postcard, letter, or even email. be sure you state your name and address.

All the posts and replies on this thread wont help squat if you dont contact TPW.


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

pelochas said:


> the postcard is not mailed back to CCA, its mailed to TPW. so CCA will not have any info unless TPW gives them the number of postcards received.
> 
> i would suggest that if you dont want this recommendation from CCA to TPW, then you should let TPW know about in a form of postcard, letter, or even email. be sure you state your name and address.
> 
> All the posts and replies on this thread wont help squat if you dont contact TPW.


I have sent several emails and have made several phone calls. So far TPWD is the only listener and responder. Lance Robinson I must say is a very commendable guy. Just from speaking with Lance you can tell that he is truly concerned for all involved, especially the flounder. With CCA I never got a single response. That was the same with my STAR entry last year. The only notice I got from that was the check that cleared my account. They won't be getting my money this year if they are going to act that way.


----------



## Fubar (Jun 10, 2005)

a lot of good ideas and recommendations.

My two cents.

1) close all gigging. If you've ever gigged, you know how venerable these fish are.
2) Drastic reduction of commercial limits. Closure for 2-3 yrs,would save this species. It needs to be done.
3) Develop "Off Limit Zones". These zones would become nurseries on steroids. Heavy fines for violators / poachers and Develop reefs / habitat (inshore and off).
4) Close off certain areas Off limits to Shrimping. We can farm shrimp far more efficient than we can catch them. The only draw back is that shrimp farming produces a lot of toxins. The by-catch alone wipes out over 35% of the young. 
5) Currently, reduction of Rec. limits with an increase in length. Half the problem is not size but the restraint of the individual fisherman/woman. Keep only what you need. The current size allows for at least one breeding, a size increase could open that up for more out of the same fish. 
6) Increase the farming activity / restocking.

Its good to see action is finally starting because the fall runs just aren't what they use to be.


----------



## BIG PAPPA (Apr 1, 2008)

*HMMMMM*



Farmer Jim said:


> Geez, do all you guys just line up and chant whatever mantras the CCA leadership tell you to? GCCA brought a fishery back, not CCA. The only thing silly is the blind, unthinking allegiance some of you seem to have to CCA. You are being used by power hungry, money grubbing people who aren't fit to carry the tackle for the guys who were involved in the Redfish Wars. I know you are sincere, mean well and care about the fisheries, but there are much better organizations to give your talents and money to. Today's CCA is not the same organization that brought back our Redfish.
> 
> CCA need to stay out of TPWD's business. The TPWD guys know what they are doing and they genuinely care about the resources they manage. TPWD getting advice from CCA on Texas fisheries is about like Warren Buffet getting financial advice from the folks who ran Fannie Mae.


Farmer Jim, CCA is involoved with TPWD on many many issues do to the Fact that they are asked to Partner with them by TPWD. The GCCA Changed the Name years back to include all Coastal waters (not just the gulf) and that was the only reason the name changed. Look everyone, any organization that supports our Passion/fisheries/conservation/law agencies and most importantly our Kids with more Scholarships given than ANY OTHER Angling organization deserves more respect than some on this thread are giving. CCA does MORE GOOD for us all than ANY other angling organization out there. They cannot act on every issue as fast as some think they should. CCA's stand is merely what the majority of their members believe along with scientific data collected to insure the right Support on proper issues at hand. There's only One other Organization that produces as many and More Scholarships than the CCA for our kids and thats the Rodeo. Which also has alot of RICH, and i mean Filthy Rich people backing them as well. So before Bashing CCA or TPWD, look around at the total picture, The Frame around it has a pretty dammmmn good Record.


----------



## El General (Jun 18, 2007)

CCA doesn't tell TPWD what to do, or have any regulatory control, but they do drum up popular support and give funds to support research and hatcheries.

I think some of y'all are wearing tin foil hats and have the black helicopters circling your house. CCA is run by _volunteer_ fisherman. Anyone that thinks any different doesn't have a clue.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Some of the publications I read from cca are so far left, they make al gore look like rush limbau. I for one do not think the agenda of a very few at the top of cca represents the majority opinion of all cca members, ( for that matter I know they aren't shared in my local chapter). I don't have a dog in this flounderfisheries fight, but *I do not* hold the views espoused by the editorial staff of tide and other publications sent out by CCA.

If you look at what is going on in other state chapters, it looks like you might be reading a publication put out by peta. Bragging about putting this industy or that industry out of business. I am not interested in being associated with those actions.

JMHO

with this and a buck you can buy a cup of coffee


----------



## El General (Jun 18, 2007)

By the way, to all the people that think that CCA should focus on the shrimpers, you should remember they have contributed millions of dollars to buying back licenses.

They are not all powerful. They do not make laws. It is very hard to buck the commercial fishing lobby to do things like outlaw shrimping in the bays and or commercial fishing for flounder.

They are just _volunteer _fisherman trying the best to preserve a limited resource.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*CCA input*

Toddbo for you and anyone else that is complaining about not having input or being heard I ask you this. When is the last time you been to a local chapter meeting, or when is the last time you called your chapter president. Do you even know what chapter your in or who the president is. Your Chapter president is your voice and your vote. Don't call the office in Houston, your not going to get an answer, thats not how the organization works. The paid staff in Houston do not have a say so in the matter, but your chapter president does.

Your free at anytime to get involved, ranting here accomplishes nothing. Also be informed that just because you voice your opinion it doesn't always turn out the way the you like, just like with any vote.

If you strongly believe in something raise heck on a local level or better yet, get involved. Gater


----------



## wading_fool (May 3, 2005)

like Gater stated.....if you want to voice your opinion contact your chapter president, chapter presidents are the voice of the membership, not the people everyone likes to place the onus on. CCA is run by its membership thru the voice of chapter presidents, and the board of directors is made up of chapter presidents and officers elected by those chapter presidents, there isn't one paid board member.


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

gater said:


> Toddbo for you and anyone else that is complaining about not having input or being heard I ask you this. When is the last time you been to a local chapter meeting, or when is the last time you called your chapter president. Do you even know what chapter your in or who the president is. Your Chapter president is your voice and your vote. Don't call the office in Houston, your not going to get an answer, thats not how the organization works. The paid staff in Houston do not have a say so in the matter, but your chapter president does.
> 
> Your free at anytime to get involved, ranting here accomplishes nothing. Also be informed that just because you voice your opinion it doesn't always turn out the way the you like, just like with any vote.
> 
> If you strongly believe in something raise heck on a local level or better yet, get involved. Gater


Gater, I have contacted the appropriate people. I know who CCA's Chapter president is. For someone like your self who hasn't fished in 20 years what part do you take in this? How much info have you gathered to come to your opinion? I am not ranting anymore than you or anyone else on this issue so if you don't like my posts please refrain from reading them.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Toddbo*

Where did you gather I haven't fished in 20 years. I sais I have not been gigging in 20 years. I fish 100+ days a year. And who is CCA's Chapter President. I asked who was your Chapter President, can you answer that. My info comes from years of being on the water, I also have family that has been in the commercial fishing industry in the Galveston area for decades, and from the the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, thats all I need. Gater


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

gater said:


> Where did you gather I haven't fished in 20 years. I sais I have not been gigging in 20 years. I fish 100+ days a year. And who is CCA's Chapter President. I asked who was your Chapter President, can you answer that. My info comes from years of being on the water, I also have family that has been in the commercial fishing industry in the Galveston area for decades, and from the the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, thats all I need. Gater


Here is what you said along with all of your questions of doubt for me. " *I do not gig Flounder, nor do I fish for them with a rod &* *reel, I haven't done either in at least 20 years." *

Yep, I have spent "years" on the water too. LOL!!


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Toddbo*

For someone like your self who hasn't fished in 20 years what part do you take in this?

You said fishing (not Flounder fishing). Still can't answer the simple Chapter and Chapter President question? Gater


----------



## wading_fool (May 3, 2005)

Toddbo....if you know the CCA chapter president he should know where CCA Texas money goes as he gets a copy of the budget and any and all proposals that come up before the board and has a vote on each and every one of them.


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

gater said:


> For someone like your self who hasn't fished in 20 years what part do you take in this?
> 
> You said fishing (not Flounder fishing). Still can't answer the simple Chapter and Chapter President question? Gater


You have hounded me since the very first post I have made in this thread with question after question after question. As if you know all the answers!! Do you really think I don't know who the president of the mainland chapter is? Do you really think I haven't contacted them? I'll bet you wear CCA underwear huh? Maybe a few CCA tattoos?

Here Gater I'll answer just one last question for you since you don't seem to know much. Click on this link and read all about it. Any more questions? Man that was a dumb question on my part.

http://www.ccatexas.org/CCATexas/Mainland_Chapter_Home_Page.asp?SnID=5


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Amen*

No, I do not know all the answers concerning the Flounder situation or what is the right thing to do. I do however know CCA and I don't have to use the link you provided to find out. The issue with you is not about Flounder at all, it's about how you and so many others here want to fault CCA for everything. You bring up all sorts of BS about CCA when you know absolutley nothing about the organization and how it is run. Gater


----------



## Aggieangler (May 28, 2004)

I agree that if you don't have much love for what CCA's opinion is right now, you should try to get involved to change it. I haven't missed a local chapter board meeting in 10-12 years. I am also on my local chapter board, so I know how to make a difference. 

I can guarantee you 100%, it ain't gettin on 2cool and whining about it, nor does it have anything to do with calling state headquarters.

It's a volunteer organization that tries to do good. You can't do any good by ignoring the scientific numbers that TPWD puts out. Texas has the number one saltwater fisheries conservation record in the nation. 

If you don't agree, join some other marine conservation organization locally and get involved. Use your energy to help the fish, not moan about this or that.

Also, I agree strongly that all the new laws in the world aren't going to help without proper enforcement. We need more wardens on the water more of the time. Maybe we should start a marine enforcement foundation, that funds an additional 50% game warden staff augmentation and the required assets to make it work. Boats, gas, guns, ammo etc.


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

gater said:


> No, I do not know all the answers concerning the Flounder situation or what is the right thing to do. I do however know CCA and I don't have to use the link you provided to find out. The issue with you is not about Flounder at all, it's about how you and so many others here want to fault CCA for everything. You bring up all sorts of BS about CCA when you know absolutley nothing about the organization and how it is run. Gater


Exactly what CCA BS are you referring to?

You don't know all the answers and you basically have said that I know nothing but then yet you still continue to ask me all the questions. Hmmmmm!


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Toddbo*

This where you started and it's gone downhill since then!

I wonder if CCA is planning on removing Flounder from their Star Tournament since they are so concerned. Once regs are in place they will never go away. So just remember next year when they realize that flounder are still struggling it will be more regs against the recreational group. I think CCA should be supporting the recreational group since that's who supports them. Or is it all about the money and recognition?

*CCA = Commercialized Coastal Association*

*I am done with them !!*


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

gater said:


> This where you started and it's gone downhill since then!
> 
> I wonder if CCA is planning on removing Flounder from their Star Tournament since they are so concerned. Once regs are in place they will never go away. So just remember next year when they realize that flounder are still struggling it will be more regs against the recreational group. I think CCA should be supporting the recreational group since that's who supports them. Or is it all about the money and recognition?
> 
> ...


What part of that is bs?


----------



## bullstuff0 (Aug 29, 2008)

It is really evident that we live in a me me me world and not how can we solve a problem world.

Pick on the shrimper, go ahead catch your own bait but don't use a net.

Pick on the gigger, eat stuffed gafftop in restaurants. 

Pick on the rec fisherman, run the tourist industry in the ground.

Just close the floundering to all giggers and recs for three months and let the commercial fisherman catch drum and the recs catch everything but flounder. Hell go hunting. 

The only way the flounder is going to increase in population is to have the females make it to the gulf. Its not the shrimpers killing these fish its everyone else. 

So quit pointing fingers and make good conservational recommendations that will work for everyone and especially the flounder. 

I think CCA has done some good things, but the concept of the Star Tourny is really hipocritical. Regulate reds and trout so we can have red and trout touraments. Are flounder touraments next during the run. I say we ban fishing touraments and go fish for the sport it was ment to be.


----------



## bullstuff0 (Aug 29, 2008)

Take a CCA organization hunting. Less boats on the water to p?ss me off.

I go to the dock maybe 1 or 2 shrimp boats. Late in the afternoon 3 or 4 floundering boats. Try to park my truck and trailer, I have to go for a marathon hike to get back to the ramp. If every third rod and reel boat catches a flounder I guarantee the floundering boats better find some awfully good ground to try to keep up. When the boats on the water out number the fish you would think maybe rec fishermen do have an impact.

But then I never was very good at statistics. But I do recognize BS when I smell it.

TPW needs to estimate how many flounder are eaten by dolphin maybe we need to put up a bounty on those murderers.



Close the D?mn bay to flounder period for three months and give the poor flounder a break.


----------



## StarlinMarlin (Aug 3, 2004)

*Flounder Regulation Stance*

I urge everyone that does not agree with the 3 month gigging ban to send in there card to TPWD with the "I support CCA's stance marked" out and "I do NOT support CCA's stance" written in. That is exactly what I have done as well as attached a letter with my stance. I do not have a problem at all with bag limit restrictions being lowered as long as there is hard scientific data indicating it is necessary. I also do not mind a temporary seasonal closure if it is necessary as well, but a closure should be a closure for all methods of take. I find it hard to believe that the recreational gigger takes more flounder than the recreational fisherman with hook and line during the fall run. Most hook and line fishermen do not even target flounder any other time of the year except the fall run during October, November, and December. For some people, flounder gigging is a special part of their outdoor recreation just as stalking the flats in search of a sow trout in early spring or watching a yellow fin tuna explode on a top water plug in the fall far off the continental shelf. I want my son to grow up and be able to enjoy the same pleasurable experiences I did throughout life and flounder gigging is one of those experiences. In my opinion, this is CCA's initial step in an underhanded way of eliminating flounder gigging all together. I know that all 500,000 + CCA members do not agree with the stance that CCA is putting forth with the very money that we donated. It is time for those members to stand up and let them know that we all do not agree with there stance.


----------



## CJ PORTER (Jul 27, 2006)

Thankyou StarlinMarlin! That's exactly the way I feel and I'm ****** at the favoratism. Close it for everyone or no one!


----------



## Toddbo34 (Jul 30, 2006)

CJ PORTER said:


> Thankyou StarlinMarlin! That's exactly the way I feel and I'm ****** at the favoratism. Close it for everyone or no one!


Absolutely!! I can't understand why all the pro CCA advocates, which is a conservation group, want to be able to still massacre the flounder during the run. Just don't make sense!!


----------



## Big Willy (Jun 20, 2007)

I need an unbiased poster to tell me what TPWD's proposal was at the last scoping meeting. I thought it was an across the board season closure, for up to three months, for gigging and rod and reel fishing. I was not able to make it to the second one in Dickinson because the wife and I were out on the town. I am sure it is in amongst all of the fighting that has been going on in this thread but I can only read so many of these posts.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Which one of the Chapter Presidents signs the paid lobbyists' checks?


----------



## monster (Apr 11, 2008)

May not be a popular opinion around here, but I don't think gigging is a very sporting way to catch fish. I don't know that gigging is to blame for the dramatic drop in flounder, but it certainly doesn't help. As usual, I suspect the commercial fishing side does way more damage, and the recreational fisherman will pay the price.


----------



## CaptainCrunch (Sep 22, 2006)

Toddbo34 said:


> Absolutely!! I can't understand why all the pro CCA advocates, which is a conservation group, want to be able to still massacre the flounder during the run. Just don't make sense!!


I am a long time CCA member and I have volunteered several times and unforunately my opinion was never ask. I feel that it would make sense to close it down to everyone.


----------

