# TPWD commisioners vote on trout and flounder proposals?????



## Shorty Bang Bang (May 6, 2005)

I listened to the outdoor radio show in Houston this morning and heard them saying that TPWD voted and that they approved new trout regs and that comes into effect on Sept. 1. They were saying the limits would be 5 trout per person per day from Matagorda all the way to the Southern tip of Texas. I did some research online and could not find concrete evidence that the commissioners did vote on new regs. Does anyone know if the TPWD commissioners have meet within the past few days and did vote on new regs for trout and flounder? If they did vote what are the new regs. for trout and flounder? Is there anywhere online to read what the agenda or vote was for the meeting? Thanks in advance for any insights you may have to clarify these questions.


----------



## colbyntx (Jul 18, 2013)

Maybe you could just call TPWD?


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

This was the last I heard and the next meeting is in March in Austin.

* Update on TPWD possible change in Speckled Trout Regulations *

Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission votes to maintain speckled trout limit
10-fish limit will remain after record number of public comments

COASTAL BEND â€" The Texas Parks & Wildlife Commission Wednesday decided not to pursue a change in the daily limit of speckled trout as a coastwide regulation.

TPW Coastal Fisheries Director Robin Riechers recommended against the change from the current 10 fish limit at a Wednesday commission meeting in Austin.

The department received a record 1,243 comments from individuals, businesses, organizations on this issue. These comments came from seven scoping meetings, by e-mail, through the TPW website and Facebook page, by mail and by phone. The Corpus Christi scoping meeting had the highest attendance with more than 100 people.

The overall opinions submitted for or against change (1,229) were split 49 percent to 51 percent, with 608 favoring some kind of change and 621 favoring the status quo. A smattering of others did not clearly state what they wanted. Of the folks who favored change, about 52 percent (315 comments) suggested a five-fish daily bag. About 36 percent of the change group suggested some other form of harvest regulation, ranging from keeping the first 10 fish to changing the minimum harvest length or designing various slot rules that limited the number of bigger trout (females) we could keep


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

Coastwide change yes, but 5 fish from Matagorda south might happen. Also some changes in the flounder regulations. Funny how nothing is posted on TP&W website?


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

I heard from a reliable source that TPWD had no intentions of letting votes count and had already planned on changing the trout bag limit and flounder regulations. The voting and scoping meetings were just "going through the motions."

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


----------



## Tslick (Aug 13, 2007)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> I heard from a reliable source that TPWD had no intentions of letting votes count and had already planned on changing the trout bag limit and flounder regulations. The voting and scoping meetings were just "going through the motions."
> 
> That doesn't surprise me a bit. I listened to the live stream of the meeting and what got me is when the chairman said he didn't favor changing the trout regs on the upper coast because he didn't want his phone blowing up! Really?? Changes should not be made based on public opinion but rather made based on science for the well being of the fishery.
> 
> I am also amazed that they only received 1200 something opinions for or against any changes. You would think that a fishing forum like 2cool with some 30K+ active users there would be more input. Why a stupid thread about T-Tops gets over 6000 views but not even half those people can weigh in on something more important is beyond me. Carry on.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

What votes Smack? Might have a show of hands during the scope meeting, but it is not a vote. They are scope meetings, letting the public know about issues concerning the fishery.
They then present the info and their recommendations to the commissioners in Austin.


----------



## yakamac (Jan 24, 2010)

An article in the chronicle Sunday by Shannon Tompkins said that it is a proposed change to 5 trout from Sargent fm 457 in Matagorda county south also stated that the comission also agreed to go forward with the proposal to extend the 2 flounder limit into the first 2 weeks of December. I didn't see where it was approved but it's just a matter of time


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

I posted a link on here to the TPWD site and no one paid attention. Here it is again if it matters to anyone...too late now!

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/public_comment/proposals/201401_scoping_coastal.phtml

If lowering the limit offends anyone there is a good possibility they are meat haulers that keep everything they catch including big trout. Pretty ignorant to do that in my opinion. Five trout is plenty of meat. 
I gig a lot too and extending the two flounder limit does not bother me one bit. 
http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


----------



## yakamac (Jan 24, 2010)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> I posted a link on here to the TPWD site and no one paid attention. Here it is again if it matters to anyone...too late now!
> 
> http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/public_comment/proposals/201401_scoping_coastal.phtml
> 
> ...


I'm with you Mac, let go of most fish I catch and 5 is plenty anyway. If it helps the fishery I'm all for it. Don't see how it could hurt


----------



## Zeitgeist (Nov 10, 2011)

Link does not work.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Read the top line on that website

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


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

Mont said:


> This was the last I heard and the next meeting is in March in Austin.
> 
> * Update on TPWD possible change in Speckled Trout Regulations *
> 
> ...


I believe the above posted news release is from the Trout proposal vote taken *2 years ago* - and does not not pertain to the current proposal.

Below are the proposals most likely to be scoped this month in Feb. prior to the next TPW Commission meeting , March 27 .
The "official" proposals will be published in the Texas Register at some point soon.

_*Flounder*: extend the 2-fish bag into the first two weeks of December. However, while there is still no gigging allowed during November, anglers will have the opportunity to gig those two fish in those first two weeks of December.

*Trout*: proposing to extend the 5-fish bag up the coast to the FM457 bridge near Sargent._


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

What TP&W needs to do is, sell all their boats, get rid of all creels surveys, fire all biologist if they(TP&W) are going to make decisions from public input instead of science


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

So is the real answer they are going to vote on it in March at that meeting and then make whatever happens effective in September?


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

The Last Mango said:


> What TP&W needs to do is, sell all their boats, get rid of all creels surveys, fire all biologist if they(TP&W) are going to make decisions from public input instead of science


Yep, might as well just hire the "Columbia Mafia" who will work for nothing more than boat decals, tye dyed buffs and patches for their shirts...


----------



## Polla Salada (Jan 21, 2014)

The Last Mango said:


> What TP&W needs to do is, sell all their boats, get rid of all creels surveys, fire all biologist if they(TP&W) are going to make decisions from public input instead of science


Amen. Five trout is plenty for everyone, some guy on 2cool said so!!:headknock


----------



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

What TP&W needs to do is, sell all their boats, get rid of all creels surveys, fire all biologist if they(TP&W) are going to make decisions from public input instead of science


X's two.........their job is to manage the fishery ..know how many harvesters there are...set the annual take at 10% biomass whatever that may be....or get out of it ....public input on bag limits...what a joke


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/meetings/2014/0123/agenda/ appears to be the agenda from the last meeting held and I don't see anything on it about changes. I need to read the transcript of the work sessions though.


----------



## Rippin_drag (Sep 2, 2008)

If it is indeed 5 I hope its Sargent on down instead of Matagorda on down. East Matty needs to be included in the change.


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

Mont said:


> So is the real answer they are going to vote on it in March at that meeting and then make whatever happens effective in September?


Here's the next steps in the process --

1. Publish proposals in Texas Register by Feb. 10th
2. Have scoping meetings on those published proposals prior to March 27 TPW Commission meeting.
3. TPW Commission votes on the proposals -- if passed - enactment date most likely would be Sept 1.


----------



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

_*Flounder*: extend the 2-fish bag into the first two weeks of December. However, while there is still no gigging allowed during November, anglers will have the opportunity to gig those two fish in those first two weeks of December. _

no gig?.........no hook!.........who are the people that came up with the two fish bag?..any data?....any names? or is this a secret?


----------



## JustAddWater2 (Oct 10, 2005)

_Most people can't catch 5 or 10 trout anyway. Guides job gets easier and you might hear a newbie say "I caught my limit". Times of showing out at the cleaning table is over. I haven't heard Mickeys take on this and don't always have to agree, I believe he said we have more trout than ever a while back. I normally agree with people on the water over 200 days a year. I guess those that wait will hear the word in March as Mont said. You understand we have so many new people that have become saltwater junkies overnight and boats sales sore and we wonder why on a Saturday we can't find a launch. So you either cut the fisherman or his catch. _


----------



## Flounder Face (Jun 20, 2012)

chugger said:


> Here's the next steps in the process --
> 
> 1. Publish proposals in Texas Register by Feb. 10th
> 2. Have scoping meetings on those published proposals prior to March 27 TPW Commission meeting.
> 3. TPW Commission votes on the proposals -- if passed - enactment date most likely would be Sept 1.


 I knew this. Thanks for posting so that I did not have to.
All they did was vote on making changes and now will meet to discuss what regulations will be implemented.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

JustAddWater2 said:


> _Most people can't catch 5 or 10 trout anyway. Guides job gets easier and you might hear a newbie say "I caught my limit". Times of showing out at the cleaning table is over. I haven't heard Mickeys take on this and don't always have to agree, I believe he said we have more trout than ever a while back. I normally agree with people on the water over 200 days a year. I guess those that wait will hear the word in March as Mont said. You understand we have so many new people that have become saltwater junkies overnight and boats sales sore and we wonder why on a Saturday we can't find a launch. So you either cut the fisherman or his catch. _


Exactly! Just because there are more people on the water than ever does not mean fish are going to lay more eggs to suit all the yuppies that kill more fish than they can eat and keep every big trout they catch because they think they will never hold another 25" plus trout again in their lives and they take it to the cleaning table and get a replica made...look at the fishing magazines. Half the big trout pics look like they just came out of the ice chest. Hell, there was one in last month's TSF magazine that was over 31" and looked all dried out with the guy holding it up in his driveway... Wake up!

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


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

More "broad brush" science in action...


----------



## mmcclure9 (Dec 19, 2011)

Rippin_drag said:


> If it is indeed 5 I hope its Sargent on down instead of Matagorda on down. East Matty needs to be included in the change.


457 bridge and south. That gets all of east matty. Me, ill be on the other side of the swing bridge slammin 10 trout a day:cheers:... jk smack dont get madsad3sm


----------



## TOOEXTREME (Jun 23, 2004)

*Obama running the TPWD*



capt. david said:


> What votes Smack? Might have a show of hands during the scope meeting, but it is not a vote. They are scope meetings, letting the public know about issues concerning the fishery.
> They then present the info and their recommendations to the commissioners in Austin.


Until they send out voting ballots to each person that has a fishing license in Texas and lets them vote on the proposals it is no better than Obama running the TPWD.


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

Glad I fish sabine. The change won't matter . I'd rather keep 10 15 inch trout than 5 25 inch worm fill trout . I rarely keep trout anyway .


----------



## Polla Salada (Jan 21, 2014)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Exactly! Just because there are more people on the water than ever does not mean fish are going to lay more eggs to suit all the yuppies that kill more fish than they can eat and keep every big trout they catch because they think they will never hold another 25" plus trout again in their lives and they take it to the cleaning table and get a replica made...look at the fishing magazines. Half the big trout pics look like they just came out of the ice chest. Hell, there was one in last month's TSF magazine that was over 31" and looked all dried out with the guy holding it up in his driveway... Wake up!
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


Just because there are more people on the water does not mean there is a problem. Thats why they use surveys, etc. to establish if changes need to be made. Your comment about probably being a meat hauler and keeping everything thats caught is ridiculous. Thats no different than those saying the "keep five" group cant catch fish. As for you seeing a big dead fish in a magazine, I mean really??? Wake up!


----------



## saltwaterjunky (Aug 17, 2012)

*5 fish really/////*

That may fine for all of you that live close to the coast and can go most any day u want.As for me I might be lucky to get down [maybe] twice a year and being on a fixed income costs like hell for 3 day trip counting everything and finding anyone here in Ftworth that wants to go hasn`t helped. Don`t really want to go by myself when I was younger go at the drop of a hat, not so much now just my 2cents.


----------



## mmcclure9 (Dec 19, 2011)

saltwaterjunky said:


> That may fine for all of you that live close to the coast and can go most any day u want.As for me I might be lucky to get down [maybe] twice a year and being on a fixed income costs like hell for 3 day trip counting everything and finding anyone here in Ftworth that wants to go hasn`t helped. Don`t really want to go by myself when I was younger go at the drop of a hat, not so much now just my 2cents.


That's like saying since i live on the coast and I can't hunt moose all the time so I want to be able to shoot more when I go.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

mmcclure9 said:


> 457 bridge and south. That gets all of east matty. Me, ill be on the other side of the swing bridge slammin 10 trout a day:cheers:... jk smack dont get madsad3sm


True for now. If you listen to the Nov 2013 meeting they were not going to scope 5 fish at all for the upper coast (just middle and lower) but then decided to do it since flounder was happening anyway. They will get the upper next go. Welcome to "The Coastal Advisory Committee" aka CCA monarchy.

What tells the story is listen to the audio for the Jan 2014 meeting and bottom line they excluding the upper because the 100 or so plus that showed up for scoping didn't want it. Likewise they are including the lower and middle again because maybe a couple hundred who showed up said they wanted it. 1500 voted on line and it was about 50/50. My problem is there are 100s of thousands of saltwater licensed fishermen and how do they get heard? Very poor effort to find out what the public wants. Worse than that who cares what anyone wants, science should guide them and unfortunately they are lead by the nose by politics.

Think about it. They admit this isn't being done because the present fishing pressure is too much for the resource. They are clear in saying overfishing is not a problem. They are selling limits of 5 supposedly for the size gains and better numbers. I will not bore you with why the LLM numbers really don't support that but just assume for arguments sake we are better off somehow with just 5. Why should they not confer this wonderful benefit on the Upper coast as well? Politics plain and simple.


----------



## mmcclure9 (Dec 19, 2011)

trouthammer said:


> True for now. If you listen to the Nov 2013 meeting they were not going to scope 5 fish at all for the upper coast (just middle and lower) but then decided to do it since flounder was happening anyway. They will get the upper next go. Welcome to "The Coastal Advisory Committee" aka CCA monarchy.
> 
> What tells the story is listen to the audio for the Jan 2014 meeting and bottom line they excluding the upper because the 100 or so plus that showed up for scoping didn't want it. Likewise they are including the lower and middle again because maybe a couple hundred who showed up said they wanted it. 1500 voted on line and it was about 50/50. My problem is there are 100s of thousands of saltwater licensed fishermen and how do they get heard? Very poor effort to find out what the public wants. Worse than that who cares what anyone wants, science should guide them and unfortunately they are lead by the nose by politics.


I agree with you. I wouldn't mind it going up through Xmas bay


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

mmcclure9 said:


> That's like saying since i live on the coast and I can't hunt moose all the time so I want to be able to shoot more when I go.


If the science says the resource can handle both those who live near and far killing x a day then both of you should be able to do itâ€¦.if you cut that number the guy who can't go daily gets hurt more. bad analogy


----------



## mmcclure9 (Dec 19, 2011)

trouthammer said:


> If the science says the resource can handle both those who live near and far killing x a day then both of you should be able to do itâ€¦.if you cut that number the guy who can't go daily gets hurt more. bad analogy


Perfect analogy. If science says we need the limit cut, it needs to be cut. It doesn't need to be not cut to make it "worthwhile" for people. I'm not claiming cutting or not cutting is scientifically correct by any means. But the excuse of I can't go all the time so it needs to stay at 10 isn't a good one at all.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

mmcclure9 said:


> Perfect analogy. If science says we need the limit cut, it needs to be cut. It doesn't need to be not cut to make it "worthwhile" for people. I'm not claiming cutting or not cutting is scientifically correct by any means. But the excuse of I can't go all the time so it needs to stay at 10 isn't a good one at all.


OK I get ya now and agree. If you look at the frequently asked questions on the issue at TPWD's website they are clear the proposals are not due to overfishing and agree the resource for now can take the pressure. They think the change will increase the size of what we catch and spread the resource out to more.

I say it is because CCA who gives tons of $ to favorite TPWD projects (not a bad thing and hats off to CCA for the $ and causes they support) wants this change to support "trophy fishing". I say screw that a guy who puts his time on the water has no problem catching numbers and big fish and they can't turn fishing into some easy sport where all get a prizeâ€¦.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Chugger, thanks. It takes some time to read those transcripts and figure out what's really happening and I was pressed for it earlier. You guys that have an opinion on it one way or the other owe it to yourselves to be heard. Attend the hearings or submit something in writing. Try to be direct to your point, aka I support [enter] and I am a [enter] that fishes [xtimes] per year and spends [x$$] doing that. TPWD is our state agency. It's not some big federal operation like some of these other fishing regulatory agencies are. If you don't care, don't do anything and then don't complain.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

trouthammer said:


> OK I get ya now and agree. If you look at the frequently asked questions on the issue at TPWD's website they are clear the proposals are not due to overfishing and agree the resource for now can take the pressure. They think the change will increase the size of what we catch and *spread the resource out to more.
> *
> I say it is because CCA who gives tons of $ to favorite TPWD projects (not a bad thing and hats off to CCA for the $ and causes they support) wants this change to support "trophy fishing". I say screw that a guy who puts his time on the water has no problem catching numbers and big fish and they can't turn fishing into some easy sport where all get a prizeâ€¦.


 hmmmmm..... Sounds like a perfect utopia! 

As long as they keep the possession as a double daily I'm fine. However I think they're going to do the same BS they did down south and do away with 2x possession limits altogether.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

The folks with the $ will be the only ones to have any influence. It is the way things are so why even beat our heads against a wall over it. I honestly don't believe they really give a dam what our thoughts are on the topic. These meetings are only to give them the ability to say they called community gatherings so the little man could be heard. I will also add that I recently had a head CT scan, & the Radiologist called to tell me that there wasn't anything remarkable in my skull, so my thoughts on the subject are just that. hwell:


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

Mont said:


> http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/meetings/2014/0123/agenda/ appears to be the agenda from the last meeting held and I don't see anything on it about changes. I need to read the transcript of the work sessions though.


Agenda item # 8 for the Jan. 22 Work Session :
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/meetings/2014/0123/agenda/work_session/

The text transcript for the Work Session is not posted yet, but the archived audio is. 
Agenda item 8 / Jan 22 work session / it would be pretty far into the meeting. 
I listened live, so don't have a time line spot for item 8.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/meetings/2014/0123/agenda/


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

Mont said:


> Chugger, thanks. It takes some time to read those transcripts and figure out what's really happening and I was pressed for it earlier. You guys that have an opinion on it one way or the other owe it to yourselves to be heard. Attend the hearings or submit something in writing. Try to be direct to your point, aka I support [enter] and I am a [enter] that fishes [xtimes] per year and spends [x$$] doing that. TPWD is our state agency. It's not some big federal operation like some of these other fishing regulatory agencies are. If you don't care, don't do anything and then don't complain.


Mont, great to see ya posting on this subject. The transcript of the Nov 2013 meeting is up right now. 
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines...014/1107/transcripts/work_session/index.phtml

This is where some of the choice Commissioners logic comes into play like Commissioner Scott saying:

"COMMISSIONER SCOTT: If we don't do nothing else is we stop the naysayers that say the reason we don't get any bigger is because we're catching too many. So if we throw this data out and we get opinions from everybody, at least we're going to be able to get a read on what people really want as opposed to what that science is."

That's what my license fees go for. To ignore science and test the political winds of what "people" as defined by TPWD want. 1500 online surveys split 50/50 and a couple hundred who have the time to make scoping meetings get to tell 100s of thousands of license payers how to fish.

Here is another one if you don't think CCA is involved. This is from Commisioner Hughs:

"Just take it out, talk to the CCA people and talk to our constituents and let's see what type of feedback we're getting"

I like how CCA came before constituents.

For Old guys like Mont I made a PDF of just the part that dealt with trout so you don't have to search through the other stuff.
http://rdonato.com/public/trout/11_2013meeting.pdf

Here is a link to the audio for the Jan. 2014 meeting the net effect of which is the proposal is limits of 5 but exclude the upper coast. Again I cut all the other stuff out and this is just the part that deals with trout. Listen to the part where the Commissioners talk about not having to deal with the Upper coast guys who don't want this. Also it wasn't that long ago that TPWD was saying to the press that guys in the LLM are catching more. They used that as a selling point. In 2012 and 2013 those landing stats took a big hit and bottom line places that allow 10 fish are kicking the LLM's butts. So now what is TPWD doing? Using reduced landings as a selling point.

http://rdonato.com/public/trout/20140122_com_00_work_sessionTROUT.mp3

My point is and always will be science should guide what happens not what I or any other well connected group wants. Unfortunately hunting and fishing are going to listen not to everyday license holders who pay the way but to special interest groups.


----------



## crawdaddct (Sep 14, 2011)

I rarely keep Specks, unless im going to eat it the same day. To me the meat is no good frozen. But im not going to tell other people what they should do. If its legal go ahead. I grew up around too many people who lived off what they could catch. When I was young, we gave away more fish than we ate. We would give it to people who needed to feed their kids. The limmit change is fine. As far as the upper coast, I dont run into as many people focused on trout, like I do down south. Personally, when I go down South im after the drum. The lower coast is some of the best small drum fishing around. It just amazes me how talking about limmits brings out the ethical fishermen who know better than everyone else. Your not the only ones who grew up on the water and know how to fish. Now I remember why I stopped comming to this site... LOL.


----------



## RedXCross (Aug 7, 2005)

Trout H and Mmclure

Trout you are correct, I was at all scoping meetings now and years past in the upper coast and I can tell you both times we had less than 100 people more like 60-70 both times and roughly the same folks too! and yep we have a BUTT ton of lisc. fisherman but very little voices their concern or support one way or another.
To be clear I am fortunate that I live VERY close to my home waters and I am on the water a bunch. I only keep a FEW fish from time to time for the family. I am not impressed how they collect info from ALL involved but it is what it is.(can't control state govt.) My main concern is we are seeing a GROWTH of fisherman some (brand new and some from other areas, no problem). I really don't mind them either leaving it or changing it(limits) . What I do mind is if they do it ALL up and DOWN the coast with the exception of one or 2 bays we are going to get killed with PRESSURE AND BOAT traffic. If you are going to lower limits on the coast and it keeps creeping up the coast you are putting a lot of pressure on those bays that are not 5 limit. 
People will travel great distances for more, ask some of the La. folks.
Oh, and you are correct about the size gains and better numbers, it was riddled all through their presentation!

You mentioned its just a matter of time, I do believe that, My hope and most of my crew hope they do it at the same time! :wink:



trouthammer said:


> True for now. If you listen to the Nov 2013 meeting they were not going to scope 5 fish at all for the upper coast (just middle and lower) but then decided to do it since flounder was happening anyway. They will get the upper next go. Welcome to "The Coastal Advisory Committee" aka CCA monarchy.
> 
> What tells the story is listen to the audio for the Jan 2014 meeting and bottom line they excluding the upper because the 100 or so plus that showed up for scoping didn't want it. Likewise they are including the lower and middle again because maybe a couple hundred who showed up said they wanted it. 1500 voted on line and it was about 50/50. My problem is there are 100s of thousands of saltwater licensed fishermen and how do they get heard? Very poor effort to find out what the public wants. Worse than that who cares what anyone wants, science should guide them and unfortunately they are lead by the nose by politics.
> 
> Think about it. They admit this isn't being done because the present fishing pressure is too much for the resource. They are clear in saying overfishing is not a problem. They are selling limits of 5 supposedly for the size gains and better numbers. I will not bore you with why the LLM numbers really don't support that but just assume for arguments sake we are better off somehow with just 5. Why should they not confer this wonderful benefit on the Upper coast as well? Politics plain and simple.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

I suspect the only ones voting against lower limits is the guides?


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

There is no voting on this only submitting comments. They do not send out ballots!!!


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

I'm happy with the trajectory of the proposal, it's logical to create a boundary for separation of limits where it can be controlled. Hopefully it will reduce the mass slaughter in the ulm that has occurred in recent past. Sorry some of you guys didn't convince Tpwd, that they needed to wait until the trout population was going the direction of the whooping crane before they needed to act. I'm optimistic for the future of the ulm and the Landcut.


----------



## POCLANCE (Apr 5, 2006)

*Email Opinion???*

For those of us who can't attend these meetings in person, is there a site to place opinions or a email address we can send comments to?



trouthammer said:


> Mont, great to see ya posting on this subject. The transcript of the Nov 2013 meeting is up right now.
> http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines...014/1107/transcripts/work_session/index.phtml
> 
> This is where some of the choice Commissioners logic comes into play like Commissioner Scott saying:
> ...


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

capt. david said:


> There is no voting on this only submitting comments. They do not send out ballots!!!


Correction --
There is _*not SUPPOSED to be*_ voting on this only submitting comments.

If you listen to the meeting audio of how TPW staff reports the scoping meeting findings to the Commissioners - they always provide a break down of the numbers of "for's" vs "against's" , and this tends to be main focus of the public input - not their insights, ideas, or opinions.

TPW has gone as far as asking for, and counting, a show of hands. And at one meeting at Port Isabel a few years ago a boat manufacturer rep. brought a petition to the meeting and TPW staff allowed it to be passed around and signed. The results of that petition were subsequently reported to the Commission.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

chugger said:


> Correction --
> There is _*not SUPPOSED to be*_ voting on this only submitting comments.
> 
> If you listen to the meeting audio of how TPW staff reports the scoping meeting findings to the Commissioners - they always provide a break down of the numbers of "for's" vs "against's" , and this tends to be main focus of the public input - not their insights, ideas, or opinions.
> ...


All very true. The problem is scientist really should not concern themselves with what the masses want. But if you are going to include public input you would think they could get more than 1 or 2% of licensed saltwater fishermen involved. The guys who can make the meetings are the same ones who can fish every day.


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

TPWD is a political animal, with some resemblance of being a scientific one. The TPW Commissioners are appointed by the Governor and they do not want to "repay" his "generosity" by creating a s--- storm that he will have to deal with by way of state legislative reps getting in his ear. 
So - in the end - politics will trump science in the decision making process.


----------



## SeaY'all (Jul 14, 2011)

I dont get to be on the water 200 times a year but, I do fish 40 to 50 times a year. I see both sides. I personally dont keep a limit. I keep what my family and I can eat and we usually have a couple left to give to other relatives. I normally have 3 people on the boat at any given time. Thats 15 trout at the new proposed limits. It is a lot of meat either way you slice it. Maybe the thought process should involve lowering the slot size to catch a few more of the males. Maybe a 13 to 23 inch slot would work best with one oversize each day. It seems to work well in Louisiana with lower slots but, then again that is a different water system.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

A bag limit of five trout is fine with me. I usually release all trout anyway and then try for something a little more tasty. Even a sheepshead tastes better. They and a number of other species just don't hold the high esteem of seatrout, nor the bragging rights. Trout do grow to trophy-size status, which helps. Though few trout ever reach that size, thanks to a 10-fish bag limit and tons of fishermen on the bays these days. Catching tons of little dink trout under the lights and tossing them back probably doesn't help, either. Most trout fishermen have never even _seen_ a pompano, for instance...Try comparing trout versus pompano on the table, ha ha.


----------



## POCTX (Apr 16, 2007)

Fishery Managers are only expecting the trout population to increase by 4-5% if they lower the limit to 5 trout. 

Those who struggle to catch fish today, will still have the same struggles tomorrow. 

Good article in the Houston Chronicle if you have not read it that explains alot.. 
http://www.chron.com/sports/outdoors/article/Reducing-daily-fish-limits-a-touchy-subject-5175552.php


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Trouthappy said:


> A bag limit of five trout is fine with me. I usually release all trout anyway and then try for something a little more tasty. Even a sheepshead tastes better. They and a number of other species just don't hold the high esteem of seatrout, nor the bragging rights. Trout do grow to trophy-size status, which helps. Though few trout ever reach that size, thanks to a 10-fish bag limit and tons of fishermen on the bays these days. Catching tons of little dink trout under the lights and tossing them back probably doesn't help, either. Most trout fishermen have never even _seen_ a pompano, for instance...Try comparing trout versus pompano on the table, ha ha.


Yes, we should base all limits on individual's taste buds. Lets increase the trout limits to 25 fish per day on the upper coast so that the poor people don't have to eat them eventually. Screw the science based biomass approach. Just call it the Emeril Management Plan. TPWD can use all the monies now dedicated to science based management to commission Guy Harvey to make trophies for every angler for one trophy trout a year per licensee, regardless of whether or not they possessed the skill to have ever caught one. Good business! :cheers:


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

trouthammer said:


> Mont, great to see ya posting on this subject.


I was just trying to help folks find information they might need. As for the subject at hand, I wouldn't eat anything I caught on upper Galveston bay anyways and I am mostly a drum fisherman. I kept one Red Drum and a couple of Red Snapper last year. Everything else is still swimming. You guys that do have an opinion on things, let TPWD know what it is and why. It's like voting, it may or may not go your way, but participate anyways. At least then, you can complain or be happy depending upon the outcome.


----------



## Bearwolf34 (Sep 8, 2005)

Shhhh..don't mention the pompano or they'll want to limit or tax them...the only prob with pompano is there are never enough of them, especially for as much as I like to eat em.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

I won't tell anyone...heh heh...there isn't even a limit on pompano. Meanwhile people fry up plain ol seatrout and fret over limits like they're something special...


----------



## Jdunn5267 (Aug 17, 2013)

There hasn't been a reg change on trout or flounder yet. The commission just approved a form of a reg change. Now that form has to go out for public hearings and then back to the commission before it can be put into law. Scoping meeting are what help to make the form of reg change than will go out to public meetings.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*TH*



trouthammer said:


> Mont, great to see ya posting on this subject. The transcript of the Nov 2013 meeting is up right now.
> http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines...014/1107/transcripts/work_session/index.phtml
> 
> This is where some of the choice Commissioners logic comes into play like Commissioner Scott saying:
> ...


Get it out of your head that CCA is not pushing this. CCA folks and constituents are one in the same.


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

gater said:


> Get it out of your head that CCA is not pushing this. CCA folks and constituents are one in the same.


CCA has 50,000 TX members.
750,000 saltwater anglers in TX. *

50,000 / 750,000 = 6.66 %

50,000 CCA members represents 6.6% of Texas Saltwater Anglers

* http://asafishing.org/facts-figures/sporfishing-economics/sportfishing-in-america/


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

chugger said:


> CCA has 50,000 TX members.
> 750,000 saltwater anglers in TX. *
> 
> 50,000 / 750,000 = 6.66 %
> ...


if there are truly 750k saltwater fishermen and only 1,500 did surveys that were 50/50 for/against and if scoping meetings statewide MAYBE included 500 people where in the hell does TPWD get their supposed mandate to either include the Middle coast and Lower OR for that matter exclude the Upper. Pure politics and if you think in a process that involves maybe 2k of the public with any type of input that 55k isn't significant you are dreaming. Also the "Coastal advisory Committee" started all this in 2010 and is a noted supporter now in 2013/14. How many CCA guys serve on that advisory committee? better question is how many are not...


----------



## tokavi (May 6, 2006)

bigfishtx said:


> I suspect the only ones voting against lower limits is the guides?


I believe your thinking is a little backwards on this. It is easier for a guide to find 5 fish for a customer than 10. That being the case the guide can find limits for customers quicker making thier job easier. So I doudbt any guide would dislike a lower limit unless, and this is the BIG one, there are different limts close to where they fish. A guide in the lower limit area is going to suffer from bookings by those customers looking for a lot of fish to kill. Those customers are going to book in the higher limit area thus increasing pressure in those areas. Just my .02


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

trouthammer said:


> if there are truly 750k saltwater fishermen and only 1,500 did surveys that were 50/50 for/against and if scoping meetings statewide MAYBE included 500 people where in the hell does TPWD get their supposed mandate to either include the Middle coast and Lower OR for that matter exclude the Upper. Pure politics and if you think in a process that involves maybe 2k of the public with any type of input that 55k isn't significant you are dreaming. Also the "Coastal advisory Committee" started all this in 2010 and is a noted supporter now in 2013/14. How many CCA guys serve on that advisory committee? better question is how many are not...


I would say that 750,000 Tx saltwater anglers is a conservative number. That figure is from a 2011 publication. TPWD has to extrapolate the saltwater angler number somehow from the combo license sales.


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

chugger said:


> I would say that 750,000 Tx saltwater anglers is a conservative number. That figure is from a 2011 publication. TPWD has to extrapolate the saltwater angler number somehow from the combo license sales.


You have to be very careful with info from TP&W, their numbers are just that
Example: at one time the Houston Chroncile reported the were 5x shrimp boats in the bays working, they got this number by combining 3x bay license and 2x bait license, most shrimpers have both license on one vessel , therefore it was reported as almost a double amount of vessels working


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

chugger said:


> I would say that 750,000 Tx saltwater anglers is a conservative number. That figure is from a 2011 publication. TPWD has to extrapolate the saltwater angler number somehow from the combo license sales.


The chronicle article this year says there are 1.2 million saltwater anglers
http://www.chron.com/sports/outdoors/article/Reducing-daily-fish-limits-a-touchy-subject-5175552.php

Either way getting the input of 2k of just call it a million saltwater fishermen and letting that input sway a decision that should be based on science alone is a farce.


----------



## B-Money (May 2, 2005)

I just want things to be simple. I'm not smart enough to remember a bunch of different sets of numbers for the 2 or 3 times I get to go fishing each year.


----------



## cgerace19 (Jul 17, 2008)

I say raise the limit to 25 and drop the size to 12". I miss fishing in La.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

What's a "saltwater angler"? A person that buys a stamp and fishes once a year? 

Yeah. Let's regulate around the one time at band camp. 

Although I understand why chugger likes using inflated numbers since "too many texans" on the water is the driving force behind his group.


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

Kyle 1974 said:


> What's a "saltwater angler"? A person that buys a stamp and fishes once a year?
> 
> Yeah. Let's regulate around the one time at band camp.
> 
> Although I understand why chugger likes using inflated numbers since "too many texans" on the water is the driving force behind his group.


Then I guess you have a beef with these guys as well --
As I said above - I believe the figure I stated - 750,000 TX saltwater anglers - is conservative.

" Under a pair of proposals fashioned this past week by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, anglers fishing coastal waters from East Matagorda Bay through the Upper Laguna Madre would have their 10-fish daily bag limit of speckled trout, the state's most popular game fish, reduced by half, while all of the state's *1.2 million saltwater anglers* would see the conservative two-flounder daily limit that has been in effect only for November extended two weeks into December." -- Shannon Tompkins
re : http://www.chron.com/sports/outdoors/article/Reducing-daily-fish-limits-a-touchy-subject-5175552.php

And from August 2010 TSFM / Everett Johnson --
http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1087521&stc=1&d=1391290642


----------



## ROBALO23 (Jul 7, 2011)

I think it's great. Especially for the croaker soaker guides.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Hmm...


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

TP&W , screwing up Texas fishing and Hunting since


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

The proposed limit of 5 will really help the trout fishery in the ULM.
Kudos to the TPW for listening to the local fishermen.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

chugger said:


> Then I guess you have a beef with these guys as well --
> As I said above - I believe the figure I stated - 750,000 TX saltwater anglers - is conservative.
> 
> " Under a pair of proposals fashioned this past week by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, anglers fishing coastal waters from East Matagorda Bay through the Upper Laguna Madre would have their 10-fish daily bag limit of speckled trout, the state's most popular game fish, reduced by half, while all of the state's *1.2 million saltwater anglers* would see the conservative two-flounder daily limit that has been in effect only for November extended two weeks into December." -- Shannon Tompkins
> ...


like I said.. *A* license sales doesn't really mean a "saltwater fisherman". I see the graphs you present on the population rise, and the agenda you try to push... more people on "your" water. same reason you tried to initiate a no prop zone behind your house.

just because someone buys a saltwater stamp doesn't mean 10 more trout are gone... I'd like to see a true survey on how many people buy a super combo and never fish saltwater, or people who buy a saltwater license just in case.


----------



## Gethookedadventures (Jan 1, 2007)

I think this point is mute being 98% of the fishing public cannot find and catch their limit of trout consistently.


----------



## Dick Hanks (Aug 16, 2007)

trouthammer said:


> Mont, great to see ya posting on this subject. The transcript of the Nov 2013 meeting is up right now.
> http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines...014/1107/transcripts/work_session/index.phtml
> 
> This is where some of the choice Commissioners logic comes into play like Commissioner Scott saying:
> ...


OMG ! Some of those commissioner quotes are almost as bad as Nancy Pelosi's: "We need to pass this bill so we can find out what's in it!"


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Commissioners*

After listening to that 17 minute recording it's very obvious that the Commisioners don't have a clue and that the data the the TP&W collects is worthless because they are basing their decision on what 1k saltwÃ¡ter anglers told them. Even though there are over 1.2 million saltwater anglers the 1k anglers from the lower coast speaks for the entire 650 mile Texas Coast, amazing!


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

netboy said:


> The proposed limit of 5 will really help the trout fishery in the ULM.
> Kudos to the TPW for listening to the local fishermen.


If you think the ULM is in trouble then the honest truth is you need to learn how to fish. Think about your position. Cut the small percentage of guys who can catch 10 (cause you never will without hard work and time on the water) to make it easier for someone who doesn't put the time and effort on the water. You got a lone star card as well?


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

trouthammer said:


> If you think the ULM is in trouble then the honest truth is you need to learn how to fish. Think about your position. Cut the small percentage of guys who can catch 10 (cause you never will without hard work and time on the water) to make it easier for someone who doesn't put the time and effort on the water. You got a lone star card as well?


Dude, I catch plenty of fish. Just don't see the need to kill all of them.
Carry on......


----------



## rvd (Mar 30, 2006)

Trouthappy said:


> A bag limit of five trout is fine with me. I usually release all trout anyway and then try for something a little more tasty. Even a sheepshead tastes better. They and a number of other species just don't hold the high esteem of seatrout, nor the bragging rights. Trout do grow to trophy-size status, which helps. Though few trout ever reach that size, thanks to a 10-fish bag limit and tons of fishermen on the bays these days. Catching tons of little dink trout under the lights and tossing them back probably doesn't help, either. Most trout fishermen have never even _seen_ a pompano, for instance...Try comparing trout versus pompano on the table, ha ha.


Agree!!!


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Kyle 1974 said:


> just because someone buys a saltwater stamp doesn't mean 10 more trout are gone... I'd like to see a true survey on how many people buy a super combo and never fish saltwater, or people who buy a saltwater license just in case.


....and how much that's offset by people who don't even bother to buy a license... They're pulling a lot of fish out of the water as well.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Gethookedadventures said:


> I think this point is mute being 98% of the fishing public cannot find and catch their limit of trout consistently.


It's not just a cut-and-dried 5 or 10: There's a lot of people hung up on this point being moot because a lot of people don't often catch 10: yet, they don't have to catch 10 for it to have an effect; The guy that is catching 9 fish is short of a limit just like the guy catching 5, but change the limits and that's four fish back in the water.. Even somebody with six on the stringer is staring at a 20% difference.. When you include the 6-10 fish "window", there's a heck of a lot more fishermen that come into play..


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

trouthammer said:


> If you think the ULM is in trouble then the honest truth is you need to learn how to fish. Think about your position. Cut the small percentage of guys who can catch 10 (cause you never will without hard work and time on the water) to make it easier for someone who doesn't put the time and effort on the water.


 Of course, those guys that can routinely box 10 are probably pulling as many fish out of the bays as a thousand of the other guys, just by virtue of that "time and effort on the water".. You don't make fifty trips with an empty stringer in order to make one limit trip. That limit in all likelihood represents a few hundred or thousand fish worth of experience.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

dwilliams35 said:


> ....and how much that's offset by people who don't even bother to buy a license... They're pulling a lot of fish out of the water as well.


"a lot"?

and how many is that? in this day and age, with game wardens routinely checking piers and banks for easing pickings, there aren't that many people fishing without a license.

POCTX has a good point. This movement with the just keep 5 group is the same BS that the bass fishing went through years ago. first, start pushing for strict limits...Then begin to demonize people for keeping big fish, then start making the move about (insert fish species here) not being good table fare, and basically everything else is better to eat. .... then start squeezing the slot, and before you know it, it will be the trophy fisherman's dream....

how many times have we heard the example of the southern area with a 5 fish limit not having better numbers, just bigger fish? The movement is about a trophy fishery, not about what the majority of fishermen want, or what's best for the fishery.

with that said, if the actual science comes back and says this is the way to go, so be it. I'll support it. But this T-shirt/bumper sticker movement isn't the right way.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Kyle 1974 said:


> "a lot"?
> 
> and how many is that? in this day and age, with game wardens routinely checking piers and banks for easing pickings, there aren't that many people fishing without a license.
> 
> .


 Not sure what world you're living in. One way or another, one's too many.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

did I say I think it's ok to fish without a license? I thought the discussion was around biomass, total catch... not ethics of licensed and unlicensed anglers (or poachers as they are)


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

POCTX said:


> I think if you are going to look at EJ's quotes, then you need to see what else he stands for.. I believe that his main goal is to make our fishery a catch-and-release fishery only. He has been pushing to get the limits reduced to 5 for over a decade. The magazine is structured with others with the same belief. I still enjoy the mag although I don't agree with the beliefs.


My posting of those two quotes was only to show that other's have have pulled up numbers for the TX saltwater angler population -- both of which were greater than what I posted. It wasn't about their editorial content, or about the conservation philosophy of the authors.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

chugger said:


> My posting of those two quotes was only to show that other's have have pulled up numbers for the TX saltwater angler population -- both of which were greater than what I posted. It wasn't about their editorial content, or about the conservation philosophy of the authors.


I see obscure numbers being throw around, along with perception. I don't see facts.

You say 750k someone else says 1.2 million.... People can't even determine how many people are fishing, but it's "clear" a change is needed?

Are you about the science and what the data shows, or your perception of what you think the limits should go to?


----------



## bigdtbone (Mar 1, 2013)

Are they taking from us so the corporations will have more to catch ?


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Dear POCTX - Not sure how you ever gained the belief that I am on a mission to convert the Texas spotted seatrout fishery to C&R only...I have never uttered nor published words to that effect. In fact, Pam and I fished yesterday and we kept three nice fryer size trout...Super Bowl dinner! 

What I have encouraged though, is wise use. To me, with diminishing habitat and increasing sportfishing participation, it becomes more obvious with each passing year that we're gonna have to learn to share a slimmer slice of a continuously shrinking pie.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

netboy said:


> Dude, I catch plenty of fish. Just don't see the need to kill all of them.
> Carry on......


Ok then why are you saying the ULM needs help? Thanks for making my point that it is just fine. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

Kyle 1974 said:


> I see obscure numbers being throw around, along with perception. I don't see facts.
> 
> You say 750k someone else says 1.2 million.... People can't even determine how many people are fishing, but it's "clear" a change is needed?
> 
> Are you about the science and what the data shows, or your perception of what you think the limits should go to?


I'm about looking at solid facts such as the graphs below depict, and being proactive in light of such facts. Lots of folks are coming to Texas and a lot of them will want to go fishing in the bays.
Given all the variables of dynamic bay systems - I think you can sit around and parse the TPWD biological data forever, and get nowhere with making a definitive conclusion. 
I'm a big believer in the "smell test" (aka - "perception") -- and that tells me the bays are getting more crowded and more pressured - and that this will continue into the foreseeable future.
I see no problem in trying out some management measures, and if they don't help -- disable those measures. 
This is called the "Empirical Method", or the now by the popular term, "Adaptive Management". 
This is what a sunset provision provides for, and should put to rest all the "slippery slope" worries.

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1088969&stc=1&d=1391361416

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1088977&stc=1&d=1391361478


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Dear POCTX - Not sure how you ever gained the belief that I am on a mission to convert the Texas spotted seatrout fishery to C&R only...I have never uttered nor published words to that effect. In fact, Pam and I fished yesterday and we kept three nice fryer size trout...Super Bowl dinner!
> 
> What I have encouraged though, is wise use. *To me, with diminishing habitat and increasing sportfishing participation, it becomes more obvious with each passing year that we're gonna have to learn to share a slimmer slice of a continuously shrinking pie.*


Right there points out how the supporters just do not listen and do not want to hear the truth. Have you not paid any attention to the TPWD biologists who have repeatedly and clearly said we are NOT over fishing and the resource is NOT in trouble. Do you just chose to IGNORE all the data that points to coastwide stable trout populations? Are they wrong or are you so dead set on imposing your style of fishing on others that you can't hear them?

If what you said in bold were true and trout were on the decline I would be the first to support cutting limits to 5. It isn't and TPWD has said so. So unless you have some data no one else has seen quit trying to sell that malarky.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

chugger said:


> I'm about looking at solid facts such as the graphs below depict, and being proactive in light of such facts. Lots of folks are coming to Texas and a lot of them will want to go fishing in the bays.
> Given all the variables of dynamic bay systems - I think you can sit around and parse the TPWD biological data forever, and get nowhere with making a definitive conclusion.
> I'm a big believer in the "smell test" (aka - "perception") -- and that tells me the bays are getting more crowded and more pressured - and that this will continue into the foreseeable future.
> I see no problem in trying out some management measures, and if they don't help -- disable those measures.
> ...


Why don't we go with what TPWD says and has said about fishing pressure. WE ARE NOT OVERFISHING.

Now to be directly on point here is Robin Riechers with TPWD on exactly this subject.

_Just to look at total fishing licenses sold, in the red line there, and itâ€™s on
your left-hand side there or right-hand side â€'â€' Iâ€™m sorry â€'â€' and fishing
efforts on your right-hand axis. Basically, the take home message here is
that our fishing effort rose through the 1980s and basically capped off in
about 2000 and weâ€™ve been relatively stable, with a slight down trend since
then._

When is someone who wants to cut to 5 going to bring facts and not the typical good ole boy anecdotal evidence?


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

Solid facts such as an extrapolated graph with a clear deflection point in a population trend for a time period that hasn't occurred yet? Nice try. 

Like I said, once you figure out how many people are actually fishing in boats (because that's what this is really about for you), let me know. Every argument you make regarding "pressure" involves boats. You know... Resolve the pressure by wade , paddle, or poling? Why doesn't WPP do a survey at boat ramps throughout the summer and take a count? 

No one wants to consider reducing the allowable take by 50% might have a detrimental effect? Every other argument is about water quality or habitat loss. Can the bay systems even support that many additional fish? 

There was a post a couple weeks ago about a decline of blue crabs possibly due to high redfish numbers. 

Last year there were dozens of reports regarding starving/emaciated black drum in Baffin. 

What happens if the habitat can't support the tens of millions of artificially planted fish?


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

trouthammer said:


> Right there points out how the supporters just do not listen and do not want to hear the truth. Have you not paid any attention to the TPWD biologists who have repeatedly and clearly said we are NOT over fishing and the resource is NOT in trouble. Do you just chose to IGNORE all the data that points to coastwide stable trout populations? Are they wrong or are you so dead set on imposing your style of fishing on others that you can't hear them?
> 
> If what you said in bold were true and trout were on the decline I would be the first to support cutting limits to 5. It isn't and TPWD has said so. So unless you have some data no one else has seen quit trying to sell that malarky.


Agreed.

I also find it hilarious that the "Columbia Mafia" want to single out angler's who fish with croaker. Mostly because they think they are catching fish somewhat consistently and 90% of the petroleum based lure chunker's don't catch anywhere near a limit most of the time. "It's the evil croaker I tell ya's! You can blindly chunk one anywhere and initiate a trout feeding frenzy! You got any of that fish juice I can dunk this artificial lure in bro???" :rotfl:


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

trouthammer said:


> Ok then why are you saying the ULM needs help? Thanks for making my point that it is just fine. You can't have it both ways.


I have fished the ULM off and on since the 70's and trust me, it was much better back then. I'd like to see my grand kids experience that kind of fishing.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Kyle 1974 said:


> did I say I think it's ok to fish without a license? I thought the discussion was around biomass, total catch... not ethics of licensed and unlicensed anglers (or poachers as they are)


 And total catch includes illegal catch... The basic existence of people that have no license and follow no bag limits skews the data. Ethics isn't the issue, but it's **** sure a part of the equation..


----------



## tufffish (May 11, 2006)

i think you need to go to port aransas in the winter and see how many reds the winter texans catch day after day. why cut back on the texas fishermen, when keeping out of staters from taking maybe 15 or more reds a week from the water.


----------



## [email protected] (May 24, 2004)

Trouthammer,

Not really interested in engaging you, but I do want to point out a few facts.

Whether anybody wants to admit it, the Aransas-San Antonio estuarine habitat is shrinking at a frightening rate. Oh the bays are still the same size, but the quality of water on average is greatly diminished. Spotted seatrout are primarily estuarine fishes and they thrive best in moderate salinity waters. Estuarine habitat is formed where a significant and dependable source of freshwater mixes with sea water. The primary source of freshwater inflow to the Aransas-San Antonio Bay is the Guadalupe River. Guadalupe inflow is but a tiny fraction of what it once was and summertime salinities over the past several years have exceeded that found in the Gulf of Mexico; i.e. hyper-saline. Human need for freshwater from the Guadalupe is currently at all-time high and predicted to increase commensurate with populate growth. So is habitat shrinking? 

As for growth in inshore sport-angling participation, if you cannot see it out there on the bay then I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree.

EJ


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

TPWD needs to raise the redfish limit to 5, & change the slot to 18-26"


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Trouthammer,
> 
> Not really interested in engaging you, but I do want to point out a few facts.
> 
> ...


So fix the habitat issue by increasing the number of fish living there?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Trouthammer,
> 
> Not really interested in engaging you, but I do want to point out a few facts.
> 
> ...


I don't want to engage you either BUT when TPWD does their studies (bag seine and gill net) they are agnostic to the cause and effect of not only fishing pressure which you used in your first argument as well as water conditions you are using now. TPWD has clearly said we are not overfishing no matter what the amount of fishermen or water conditions. Having said that you will not get any disagreement from me that freshwater has a serious effect on the midcoast. What you won't get from me is some dooms day BS that we have to reduce angler catches or else. To your water point the abundant rains IMHO are a direct cause of the RECORD years of trout recruitment on the midcoast and TPWD has noted the increases caused by those improved conditions repeatedly.

Please I am very open to facts that show for true conservation reasons we need to do this. All I am hearing is if we clip the successful guys back we may get bigger trout in the hopper. I am sure there is some science to that despite the struggles in 2012 and 2013 in the LLM but my question is who has the right to tell guys that are excited about catching 10 that they should change what makes them happy so maybe we can catch an inch on average bigger fish? Again if the science is there I will get big time behind the movement.


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

A rec angler will not hurt a prolific fish species with a hook and line. Simple true statement. Catch and release is a made up bunch of BS


----------



## Gethookedadventures (Jan 1, 2007)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> TPWD needs to raise the redfish limit to 5, & change the slot to 18-26"


Amen to that


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

Gethookedadventures said:


> Amen to that


This is one thing you can not blame TPWD for as they offered to raise the red limits but some magical group decided for all of us we didn't need it. if I am not mistaken the "coastal advisory committee" was against it. Same group who in 2010 suggested the limits of 5 trout and now support it as well.


----------



## DUTY FIRST (Jun 23, 2012)

trouthammer said:


> I don't want to engage you either BUT when TPWD does their studies (bag seine and gill net) they are agnostic to the cause and effect of not only fishing pressure which you used in your first argument as well as water conditions you are using now. TPWD has clearly said we are not overfishing no matter what the amount of fishermen or water conditions. Having said that you will not get any disagreement from me that freshwater has a serious effect on the midcoast. What you won't get from me is some dooms day BS that we have to reduce angler catches or else. To your water point the abundant rains IMHO are a direct cause of the RECORD years of trout recruitment on the midcoast and TPWD has noted the increases caused by those improved conditions repeatedly.
> 
> Please I am very open to facts that show for true conservation reasons we need to do this. All I am hearing is if we clip the successful guys back we may get bigger trout in the hopper. I am sure there is some science to that despite the struggles in 2012 and 2013 in the LLM but my question is who has the right to tell guys that are excited about catching 10 that they should change what makes them happy so maybe we can catch an inch on average bigger fish? Again if the science is there I will get big time behind the movement.


That was well stated Trouthammer, and I am in total agreement with you. When TPWD lowered the limit to 5 fish in the Laguna Madre, I was initially against it, and stated so. However, after seeing the data, I changed my opinion and supported the move. That is NOT the case with the current issue.

E.J. has his own thinly veiled agenda, but he is entitled to his opinion. I lost all respect for him and his opinions many years ago, when he posted that he had never observed a Whooping Crane eat a Blue Crab, when he couldn't see the 30 foot tall sand dam in the mouth of Cedar Bayou from the air, and when he allegedly injured his leg dashing over to his neighbor's so he could post on the old you know what Board under one of his assumed identities, using a dynamic i.p. address.


----------



## shalor57 (Feb 24, 2005)

Well, no matter how much we bang our heads into each other we aren't all going to agree on this one. I have great respect for E.J. and his magazine and am not going to watch y'all dog pile him without chiming in...Galveston has a huge pass and the Trinity river dumping into it and can thus far handle the pressure it receives. The ULM and Baffin are a different animal. Yes there are still big trout there and yes they can still be caught, but all the great old school trout fisherman I respect say that the fishery pails in compare to what it was as recently as the late 90's. I believe them. We chose to do nothing in 2010, and in my opinion things have gone significantly downhill. I am glad there are people standing up to improve our fishery.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

shalor57 said:


> Well, no matter how much we bang our heads into each other we aren't all going to agree on this one. I have great respect for E.J. and his magazine and am not going to watch y'all dog pile him without chiming in...Galveston has a huge pass and the Trinity river dumping into it and can thus far handle the pressure it receives. The ULM and Baffin are a different animal. Yes there are still big trout there and yes they can still be caught, but all the great old school trout fisherman I respect say that the fishery pails in compare to what it was as recently as the late 90's. I believe them. We chose to do nothing in 2010, and in my opinion things have gone significantly downhill. I am glad there are people standing up to improve our fishery.


Exactly my point! Yeah it's good now, but you shoulda seen it back then!


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

shalor57 said:


> Well, no matter how much we bang our heads into each other we aren't all going to agree on this one. I have great respect for E.J. and his magazine and am not going to watch y'all dog pile him without chiming in...Galveston has a huge pass and the Trinity river dumping into it and can thus far handle the pressure it receives. The ULM and Baffin are a different animal. Yes there are still big trout there and yes they can still be caught, but all the great old school trout fisherman I respect say that the fishery pails in compare to what it was as recently as the late 90's. I believe them. We chose to do nothing in 2010, and in my opinion things have gone significantly downhill. I am glad there are people standing up to improve our fishery.


You have to beware of the dogs when you have a pulpit to preach from...


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

shalor57 said:


> Well, no matter how much we bang our heads into each other we aren't all going to agree on this one. I have great respect for E.J. and his magazine and am not going to watch y'all dog pile him without chiming in...Galveston has a huge pass and the Trinity river dumping into it and can thus far handle the pressure it receives. The ULM and Baffin are a different animal. Yes there are still big trout there and yes they can still be caught, but all the great old school trout fisherman I respect say that the fishery pails in compare to what it was as recently as the late 90's. I believe them. We chose to do nothing in 2010, and *in my opinion things have gone significantly downhill.* I am glad there are people standing up to improve our fishery.


I don't mind anyone having an opinion as long as it has some reasonable basis in fact or in this case science/biology. TPWD has been systematically gathering data since 1982 under protocols that are state of the art. I can gripe all day about the politically appointed commissioners but the award winning biologist are the best on the Gulf coast and we have data and facts better than anyone else on the Gulf Coast. If you spent just a cursory review of data the Upper coast you claim is "healthy" actually gets out fished by the lower coast aka ULM.

My point is talk all you want about what he said she said and what the good old days used to be but since your claim is covered 10 years after the 1980s and since bag seine and gill net studies are still being conducted under the same approved peer reviewed protocols where is your facts to back up your opinion bolded above? 
If you want to base decisions on anecdotal BS try this. Last summer, a part time fishermen who lives in Houston but fishes the ULM/Lower Coast released 23 fish over 25 inches. I caught boat limits more often than not and based on my stories we should RAISE limits. See what I mean about anecdotal evidence?


----------



## Team Burns (May 6, 2008)

I have noticed a difference over the past 15 years fishing the surf. Respect that everyone has their own opinions (or motives), but I can not overlook what I have experienced personally.


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

East and west Matagorda bay are full of fish, if someone can't catch em' it's their own fault. Hopefully TP&W make the right decision.


----------



## McTrout (May 22, 2004)

_A rec angler will not hurt a prolific fish species with a hook and line...

_I thought the same but now have to challenge this one...here's why. The 5 fish deal has perhaps backfired on us in the Lower Laguna. Yes...we had a few 'off the chart' years of both size and numbers. However, what nobody considered was the ridiculous amount of fishing pressure that success actually created.

Last summer we easily had 4X the amount of traffic I've personally seen since 2003. Several old timers say they've never seen the parking lots so full. When my croaker buddies told me last July that they quit going up the West shoreline because they had "already taken them out"... I thought they were just kidding. Unfortunately they were apparently right. After the Spring onslaught you basically either caught a 14" fish or an occasional 28. It's been an entirely different trout year, trust all of us who know this area.

Each system is different. Being that we have 50+ miles of water averaging only 2.5' deep, those "prolific species" can indeed get knocked in the head with a rod & reel...especially with the success rates most can have.

Other (deeper) areas can handle some pretty darn heavy pressure. Galveston is on fire for example.., and I hear Sabine is as well.

The real bottom line is that it's just hard to catch 7's & 8's when the majority of 3 to 5's get harvested, and down here, that has been consistently done the past few years.

I personally don't have a dog in this hunt, it is what it is, but this dog is having to work a lot harder. Yes....you CAN whack a system with a rod & reel....down here shallow anyway.

I would be very curious to see the '03 spring vs. fall net surveys...but even if, do they show sizes or just 'fish' per hour?


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

*Water quality*

The water quality is not good enough to support current limits into the future. The southern region of our coast is fed by creeks draining from a desert and the northern part of our coast is more like a forest. Totally different bays,depth and rainfall.

Here is a great example of small areas being adversely effected by environmental conditions. This is port bay over the last 2 months. What you see is tailings being blown from aluminums tailing ponds. There are now tailings covering the entire floor of port bay. Not sure of the environmental effects, but I doubt this helpful. Pump required to keep water on these ponds was removed in recent past and this is the result.

Every time the wind gets up these tailings are going directly in the bay. This has to be stop. So far nothing seems to be happening to change the conditions that allow this to happen.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Here is a picture on a different day from the east side of the bay looking west.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

McTrout said:


> _A rec angler will not hurt a prolific fish species with a hook and line...
> 
> _I thought the same but now have to challenge this one...here's why. The 5 fish deal has perhaps backfired on us in the Lower Laguna. Yes...we had a few 'off the chart' years of both size and numbers. However, what nobody considered was the ridiculous amount of fishing pressure that success actually created.
> 
> ...


2013 spring gill nets showed a nice upward tick up but the fall numbers were bad. That indeed lends credence to your theory the summer fishing has poked a hole in the fish counted in the springâ€¦except for one big time important statistic that makes me wonder just how good this 5 fish experiment really is working.

That number is landings. For the first few years TPWD was touting how landings are up in the LLM and had their BS statistic float out there that it is easier to catch 5 fish in the LLM than anywhere else. Those stats were way off because they forgot to count fishermen who caught 6,7,8,9,and 10 fish elsewhere in their comparison.

In 2012 and 2013 the LLM had two of its worst years (read that includes when limits were 10) of landings. Landings don't care if 10 fishermen catch 10 fish or if 20 fishermen take 5 the number is the number. So while the anecdotal claim that there are way too many fishermen flocking to the LLM may or may not be true the fact is the total fish caught is pathetic as compared to places where limits are ten. As an example in 2012 7.2% of the LLM private (non-guided) fishermen caught five fish (notice that is below the 8% historical LLM ten fish limit number). Coastwide in 2012 where limits were ten fish 14.7% of the private fishermen caught â€œfive and moreâ€ trout. That is TWICE as many.

Now to guides, 38% of non-LLM guides in 2012 caught with their clients five or more fish whereas only 8.3% of the guides in the LLM caught five.
The 2013 numbers are bad as well and that is noted in the FAQs at TPWDs site on this proposal. 
If this trend continues you will not have to worry about people flocking to the LLM for the wonderful fishing.

Here is the relevant language from the FAQs.

_What is the status of spotted seatrout populations in these regions?
In 2002, statewide spotted trout harvest regulations were changed to a 10-fish daily bag and 15-inch minimum size, with 1 fish over 25-inches allowed. Since implementation of these regulations, fishery independent sampling surveys from each of these areas indicate stable or slight increase in relative abundance of spotted seatrout. Recreational harvest from these areas has also showed increased landings with the exception of a drop in trout landings during the 2012-2013 season in the LLM.

Recruitment of spotted seatrout from each of these areas has remained relatively stable. The declines in relative abundance observed on the middle coast in 2009 *were corrected *with the high recruitment levels observed in 2010 and 2011. Recruitment levels in 2012 are consistent with levels from previous years, with the exceptions noted above for 2010 and 2011.

In 2007, special rules were adopted for the lower Laguna Madre (LLM) of which size limits were the same as the rest of the coast, but the bag limit was reduced to 5 fish. Since implementation of these regulations in the LLM, gill net surveys show that relative abundance has remained relatively stable though considerable year-to-year fluctuations occur. *For example, the fall 2013 gill net catch rates are one of the lowest observed following one of the highest catch rates recorded from the spring 2013 sampling.*

*Are spotted seatrout overfished?
No. TPWD gill net, bag seine and harvest data indicate they are not overfished. *Fishing pressure and landings are different for each bay, with some bays higher than others. *Spotted seatrout are the most sought after species by anglers in Texas inshore waters, but the landings are currently at a sustainable level.* A reduction in landings would increase the number of older and larger fish in the population._

The clear message is spotted seatrout are NOT overfished despite all the above water quality and fishing pressure claims. The message is the LLM still has ups and downs just like places where limits are 10 .


----------



## NanoSkiff (Jul 26, 2012)

Maybe I will finally catch a limit.


----------

