# Time to act is NOW!!! Smoking gun



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

If there isn't a huge influx of callers opposing LIFA's, WPP will have won this battle and the slippery slope will be geased. Robin Riechers needs to here from us all.

http://www.statesman.com/sports/out...ut-a-proposed-1960028.html#.TsFNnBnZoyU.email

Read to the bottom, they have their nose under the tent.


----------



## helvet (Oct 25, 2010)

Director of Coastal Fisheries
Robin Riechers 
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744 
Telephone No.: (512) 389-4645
Headquarters Staff:
Deputy Director/Management Resources Manager: Mike Ray - (512) 389-4649
Science and Policy Resources Manager: (Vacant) - (512) 389-4645
Water Resources Manager: Cindy Loeffler - (512) 389-8715


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

Railbird- We need an email. Really nice to use to communicate with. Remember how the guy responded when they were looking at changing the limit of trout caught for the middle and upper coast.


----------



## Tslick (Aug 13, 2007)

Here you go.

[email protected]


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

*I talked with Robin's assistant and he said that an email comment box will be set up probably within the next week devoted to comments about this proposal.
*
He said he would probably be the person that gets the email comments and do the tracking on what was posted.

His email was [email protected]

May wait but might not hurt to post our comments to both to be sure we are heard.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

The coastal resources conservation commission refused to recomend this in their last meeting, however somehow Mr Riechers has been instructed to research the possibility anyways. It appears the constant hounding of the state commission has resulted in them agreeing to study it. If all of us do not act we will be headed the way of florida. NO MOTOR ZONES everywhere.


----------



## Comeback (Jul 30, 2010)

E Mail sent

"Mr. Riechers, I read an article in the American Statesman today that referenced Low Impact Fishing Areas. I know there is a strong push by paddle enthusiast to have Low Impact Fishing Areas. I want to voice my opinion that No State Water Resource should be limited to any particular method of traversing. I wade fish regularly and do not have a problem with motorized boats nor paddle boats. 
Perhaps an emphasis should be placed on education and making paddle boats easier to identify on the water. "


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

Comeback said:


> E Mail sent
> 
> "Mr. Riechers, I read an article in the American Statesman today that referenced Low Impact Fishing Areas. I know there is a strong push by paddle enthusiast to have Low Impact Fishing Areas. I want to voice my opinion that No State Water Resource should be limited to any particular method of traversing. I wade fish regularly and do not have a problem with motorized boats nor paddle boats.
> Perhaps an emphasis should be placed on education and making paddle boats easier to identify on the water. "


I'm not sure that addresses the issue, Comeback. Now, I understand that this issue may essentially be a turf war between powerboaters and waders/kayakers, but the proported issue is habitat protection, i.e., shallowwater grasses. That's a hard argument to easily brush off because a reasonable position can't be made for its destruction. And, clearly, powerboaters, if not universally, are almost always the guilty party.

Sure, there are laws on the books making prop scars a fineable offense. But, there are just not enough game wardens available to make a serious dent among offenders. So, as I see it, unless we boat operators are able to police ourselves ... this may be a priviledge we do not deserve. What we should be lobbying for, if anything, is a moratorium on a final decision from the TPWD giving reasoned boaters the opportunity to demonstrate the ability of responsibility.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Railbird, Long story short is we are getting to a point where regulators do not want you keeping anything. Simply look at the long term trend. I am 43 years old and the amount of regulation has grown exponentially in my lifetime.


----------



## jm423 (Sep 18, 2011)

Glennkoks, try looking at the amount of regs from age 73!! Sounds to me like the paddlers would have those of us that can't paddle or wade all day resign our fishing to sitting on the bank or a pier. I vote for responsible boat operation, although self-responsibilith seems to be a vanishing quality now.


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

I have fished this area a bunch, and over the years it has becomse a mad house ....especially during big tournaments ....

I don't paddle or pole, but do wade, and have seen the impact of prop scaring ...

Does something need to be done to protect the seagrass? ... not sure

Is this a push by some extremist who would like to see only paddlers in certain areas? ... I dought it.

Is it worth having a public meeting and input from us ...Absolutly!

Just becsue TPWD wants our input does not mean they are taking it away ...

We might want to learn what is going on in that eco-system before passing judgement ... and if you have never fished that area or have limited knowledge of it, try learning about it before jumping on a bandwagon... on either side....

BTW
I wish there was somone looking out for Galveston Bays grass beds before they all dissapeared ... just a thought


----------



## wickedwader (Jun 30, 2010)

It's easy to gripe about the gov't putting its nose where it doesn't belong but there isn't anyone to blame but ourselves for the increased regulations. Unfortunately people don't take responsibility anymore. It's a "everyone for themselves" society that we live in. I can't tell you how many times I have seen pictures or videos or read testimony on this site about how shallow someone's boat can run or how cool it is to run through an area that basically has no water in it at all. I realize not everyone has that mindset but like they say it only takes one bad apple to ruin the whole batch. When there is an increase of people who elect to abuse the natural resources the more regulations you can expect.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

This discussion only includes sea grass because it is their only arguement with traction. It was agreed by tpwd that the RFBSA regulations are working. This group is arguing for paddle only in 2 areas that are about 2500 acres aproximately 3.5 miles long. They are the light house lakes and B&R flats. The area is traditionally used by duck hunters, waders, paddlers, and flats boats. The wpp guys want the area completely to themselves, because a small group of them have decided that any internal combustion engine operated in that area is harassment of fish. If they were honest, they would not have created an incident with an airboat and lied about the situation and location where it happened. 

It is not a coincidence that they (WPP.net officers) have homes right in the middle of this area. Air boaters have been there for 40 or more years, these guys have been around for only a few of those years. As far as I'm concerned the place was a much better fishery before they (kayaks) started fishing the area. 

Their argument is as silly as if we decided to bann all kayaks, because they are catching too many fish (depleting the resourse) and are a hazard to safe navagation in the area, because some of them don't use lights at night or make themselves visable to aproaching boats in the channels that feed the lakes.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

wickedwader said:


> It's easy to gripe about the gov't putting its nose where it doesn't belong but there isn't anyone to blame but ourselves for the increased regulations. Unfortunately people don't take responsibility anymore. It's a "everyone for themselves" society that we live in. I can't tell you how many times I have seen pictures or videos or read testimony on this site about how shallow someone's boat can run or how cool it is to run through an area that basically has no water in it at all. I realize not everyone has that mindset but like they say it only takes one bad apple to ruin the whole batch. When there is an increase of people who elect to abuse the natural resources the more regulations you can expect.


I would assume you are talking about my video, shot in an oilfield channel cut through a marsh in nueces bay. The tides were low and the channel was full of silt. The channel in question was cut to allow boats access to the marsh. I guess you would be complaining about a barge being pushed down the ICW next!


----------



## wickedwader (Jun 30, 2010)

No Railbird...I never saw your video and I don't think a barge being pushed down the ICW is relevant to my comment at all. I know you care about the natural resources based on your stance of reducing the trout limit to 5 so my comment was not directed at you in any way. I mainly wadefish but I do need a boat to get where I fish so I appreciate your argument. I just think there is a misconception that gov't is always so eager to get involved. I would be willing to bet that TP&W would love to eliminate limits on all game fish but do you think the general public could be trusted with that, I don't. This is just one example of many. I think if people were more responsible as a whole you would see fewer governmental regulations and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. That's the real point I was trying to make but I also know I would be preaching to the choir if my comment was directed to you.


----------



## reeltimer (Feb 5, 2010)

Railbird you are dead on on this one and i support your thought's on this bunch.Limiting the masses to please the few is what i read between the lines.


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

The area needs to be open to all as long as there is no damage to it.

Someone posted the link to the guy on the news last week that was a kayaker complaining about the boaters and hunters down in that area. *Wonder who he knew to get the on the water tv coverage? *

He was complaining about not being seen in one of the narrow channels by the boaters and again that the bird hunters might not know that he was there. *Where is his "360 light" is my question? *

I duck hunt some and if they have a legal blind then they have the right to hunt. 
BUT 
*how do you let people know there is a blind there and it is being hunted is a question I would have as a boater, kayaker, or wader.* Being peppered with dove shot is one thing but duck and goose shot may be another.

Duck hunters do not want to have anyone run up on them about shooting time either.

The question is first come first serve but how do you let people know that you are set up and hunting an area before daylight to dodge conflicts?

What is safe for both parties ? Marker or what for some of these dual useage areas?


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

railbird said:


> If there isn't a huge influx of callers opposing LIFA's, WPP will have won this battle and the slippery slope will be geased. Robin Riechers needs to here from us all.
> 
> http://www.statesman.com/sports/out...ut-a-proposed-1960028.html#.TsFNnBnZoyU.email
> 
> Read to the bottom, they have their nose under the tent.


Railbird, you and I find ourself on the same side on this one and I sent my email before this thread got started. So you will know I am sticking to my guns that TPWD is there for all the public and it is wrong for them to give consideration to any user group who doesn't represent what is best for all the public and has a "special interest".
I just don't get why TPWD feels compelled to give the time of day to any interest group when they have all the decision making tools they need at their disposal. Be it CCA, TWPP me or anyone else they don't need us. Having said that they are unfortunately prone to influence and we have to play the game. Send an email if you haven't already.


----------



## RockportRobert (Dec 29, 2006)

Thomas Phillips had an article in Lone Star Outdoor News citing research that sea-grass could grow back in as little as 4 months, and regrowth inside of a year was not at all uncommon. A little different than what we told a few years back. Seems the sea-grass argument is a front for someone's agenda. Good stewards? Absolutely! But don't let the territory grabbers fool anyone into believing they are doing anything on behalf of good ol' mother earth!


----------



## troutsupport (May 22, 2006)

Whether right or wrong,... the commission will react to public comment and I've seen things in the past where those that thought things would never change were blind sided when they did not comment 'squeaky wheel get's the grease'.... If the commission is asking for public comment, please consider adding your voice so the commission can make decisions based on the larger customer base.


----------



## Life Aquatic (Oct 24, 2006)

Where is the proposed JFK area being talked about? 

North of Packery? Deadmans? The flats around the power lines? 

This can't be about B&R and Lighthouse Lakes being referenced as "Near JFK Causeway in Nueces County." Does anyone have the boundries of the 15,500 acre area being proposed?


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

My understanding is its from peta island to corpus christi bay, including deadmans and boathole.


----------



## fjperales (Dec 26, 2007)

so if this goes through we (boaters) will not be allowed to run through these flats or the channle that run threw them?


----------



## chicken (Mar 21, 2005)

Let's get one thing straight before this becomes a kayak bashing thread. I fish from my kayak, wade from my kayak and have done so with NO problems with waders, boaters or kayakers. I coexist with everyone because I show respect to my fellow fisherman irregardless of their methods, so don't lump me in with some of those "bad apples" as I don't lump you in with your "bad apples". I am OPPOSED to any regulation of my liberties, your liberties and those that come after us. Instead, education and enforcement should be the option and it takes ALL of us to educate and enforce, otherwise it will be done for us (read regulations). Do you ever stop and educate your fellow fisherman? Do you ever enforce a rule? I didn't think so and this is why we are facing this "smoking gun". Folks we have got to take care of our sport or it will fall into the government's hands. The choice is yours, be silent or take your sport into your own hands in a proactive manner!

And yes I do educate and enforce with my fellow kayakers. . . . .

Happy Fishin'
chicken


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

I have been out of town. 

Railbird had anyone posted the correct email to send our letter or email or opinion to ??? 

Lots of other talk the last few post but not much of where to send letter or our emails to register our opinions. 

How about a NEW post with the correct info afaict so we can get back on track. The guy told me it was to be up later in the week and I left that Thursday.

Jim D


----------



## capt mikie (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is the TP&W information link there is also a map/chart of the proposed area, just follow the links
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20111102b&nrtype=all&nrspan=2011&nrsearch=

Mike


----------



## capt mikie (Feb 22, 2005)

Scoping meetings dates. times and locations

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20111118a

Mike


----------



## Timemachine (Nov 25, 2008)

Boundries are shown at the botttom of the page.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/public_comment/proposals/jfk_state_scientific_area/


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Map of Proposed State Scientic Area


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

*Public Scoping Meetings Dates and Locations*


Nov. 30, Dickinson Marine Lab - 1502 FM 517 East, Dickinson, Texas 77539
Dec. 1, Bass Pro Shops - 17907 IH-10 West San Antonio, TX 78257
Dec. 5, Natural Resources Center, Room 1003 - Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi, 6300 Ocean Drive Corpus Christi, TX 78412
Dec.13, Holiday Inn North Padre Island - 15202 Windward Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78418
Dec. 14, Port Isabel Community Center - 213 Yturria, Port Isabel, TX 78578
Dec. 15, TPWD Headquarters, Commission Hearing Room, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744
See an earlier news release detailing the two possible regulation changes online.
---
On the Net:

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20111102b
2011-11-18

More Information:

*Publication* - Permission is granted to publish, in whole or in part, any news releases on this page.
*Print* - A print-friendly version of the news release shows only the release with font sizes set to the browser default.
*E-mail* - This link launches your e-mail client with the subject and message filled in. All you need to do is fill in the recipient.
*Plain Text* - Plain text versions of TPWD news releases are provided for copying and pasting into editing software.
To copy text into an editing software:

Click a *Plain Text* link to display the plain text page in your browser.
Select all.
Copy.
Paste in a document in your editing program.
*Permalink* - This is a direct link to the news release, omitting the navigation context from the URI.
*English/Spanish* - News releases posted in both English and Spanish have one of these links.
If you have any suggestions for improving these pages, send an e-mail to [email protected] and mention Plain Text Pages.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

*Why is TPWD doing this?*

The RBSSA was originally designated an SSA in 2000. This designation allows the TPWC to make and publish rules and regulations necessary for the management and protection of an SSA. In 2006, after voluntary no-prop zones proved to be ineffective, a regulation went into effect prohibiting the uprooting of seagrass with the propeller of a boat. TPWD conducted several studies to assess the effects of the regulation over the course of five years. During the same period of time, an extensive education and outreach campaign was undertaken. Over 10 million impressions were made through presentations, magazine and newspaper articles, radio and TV programs, brochure dispersal at boat ramps and in boater education classes. Results from the studies showed a significant decrease in propeller scarring as well as changes in boater behavior. No significant change in the number of boaters using the area was observed. Based on the success of these efforts, TPWD Coastal Fisheries (CF) staff was directed by the TPWC to investigate the possibility of expanding seagrass protection efforts.
*How was this location chosen?*

TPWD staff generated a list of 10 selection criteria to help identify potential sites. Initially, 15 sites were suggested by TPWD staff. Using the selection criteria, five priority sites were identified. Following site visits and further discussions among TPWD staff, the "JFK Causeway area" was identified as the highest priority site.
*Why did TPWD staff choose the "JFK Causeway area"?*

The area was chosen because it contains large expanses of seagrass beds in water with an average depth of 2 feet. The area is highly populated with numerous boat access points including canal subdivisions and several popular boat ramps. The high amount of boat traffic combined with the shallow water makes seagrasses in the area particularly vulnerable to propeller scarring. In addition, the area's vast seagrass beds located adjacent to a Gulf pass provide critical nursery habitat for larvae entering the bay through the pass. From a logistical standpoint, the area has well defined boundaries which will simplify enforcement and minimize confusion amongst boaters.
*Why is protecting seagrass so important?*

Seagrasses are rooted, flowering plants that convert sunlight into energy through photosynthesis. In doing so, they produce food for a wide variety of organisms and oxygenate the water column. They have extensive root structures that stabilize and oxygenate sediments thus improving water clarity and preventing erosion. Seagrasses also improve water quality by absorbing nutrients in the water. Dense seagrass beds serve as vital nursery areas for juvenile fish and invertebrates including important sport fish such as spotted seatrout and red drum.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

If this goes through, it will be an excellent example of incrementalism. They implemented the no prop zone in nine mile hole, it lead to RFBSA, now its the upper laguna madre, next, the lower laguna madre, and the rest of the state follows.

If we allow WPP to get the LHL's as a LIFA, the rest of the state will follow over time. We need to feel an urgency with both of these issues. If you don't think it will happen, look at florida.

Send an email every week about this and forward a link to some of these discussions to your buddies and ask them to email their thoughts on this matter. If we don't the other side will be all they hear.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

*Excellent email sent by a friend. A good blue print for fighting this LIFA stuff.*

*To:* '[email protected]'
*Subject:* Public Comment - Low Impact Fishing Areas

Dear Mr. Morris,

In as much as the TPWD Coastal Fisheries Division may be considering the implementation of LIFA within certain portions of the RedfishBay State Scientific Area (or any other coastal region) - I would like to take this opportunity to state that I do not believe LIFA is necessary or useful as a resource management tool. 

LIFA is a means through which a certain tiny yet vocal minority within the Texas saltwater angling community are seeking to restrict the activity and access of the greater majority of Texas anglers to secure a shallow water playground of their own. In short - the group known as Wade-Paddle-Pole are prostituting the true mission of coastal resource conservation and stewardship to advance their own selfish agenda.

Until it can be proven that LIFA yields measurable improvement to relative abundance of recreationally and commercially important species, the ecosystem in general, or any portion thereof (apart from seagrass), I believe it is a weak attempt at social engineering within the framework of resource management and therefore has no place on our coast.


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

Maybe I'm missing something but what does WPP wanting the LHL set up as a LIFA/MNZ have to do with TPWD wanting to scope the possibility of a new SSA in the ULM? Isn't it possible to support the SSA if TPWD deems it necessary but still be against any form of a MNZ anywhere in public waters? 

Mike


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

Life Aquatic posted this on another post and it does a good example of explaining the problem..

I found this from David Sikes column in the Caller Times:

Direct comments on the JFK seagrass protection area or low impact fishing areas (LIFA) to Art Morris at 361-825-3356 or [email protected].

Here is the article:

http://www.caller.com/news/2011/nov/...ic-opinion-on/

Please read this and send your comments to Art at the email listed.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Im Headed South said:


> Maybe I'm missing something but what does WPP wanting the LHL set up as a LIFA/MNZ have to do with TPWD wanting to scope the possibility of a new SSA in the ULM? Isn't it possible to support the SSA if TPWD deems it necessary but still be against any form of a MNZ anywhere in public waters?
> 
> Mike


I don't disagree with you mike. I was just drawing a correlation between starting things like SSA's and the proliferation of them. They are planning on scoping LIFA's also.


----------



## oysterman (Jan 10, 2011)

*How about this...*



railbird said:


> *Excellent email sent by a friend. A good blue print for fighting this LIFA stuff.*
> 
> *To:* '[email protected]'
> *Subject:* Public Comment - Low Impact Fishing Areas
> ...


Railbird,
In response to the second half of your "blueprint email" I think you hit the nail on the head, "until there is proof" How about the TPWD Biologist present the protocol for a study of the designated area(2800 acres) without the LIFA (Low Impact Fishing Area) program implemented for x amount of time,collect the data and evaluate, and then implemant the LIFA program for x amount of time and present the results with peer review? With the projected dramatic increase of population and fishing pressure it is just a matter of time before this issue is the mid-coast's biggest problem. This data collection and evaluation will not happen over night so lets get ahead of it before we are working from behind. Approaching a looming problem scientifically would answer a lot of questions and put the resource first which I know you would agree with. Just my thoughts


----------



## Vampiro (May 1, 2009)

Im Headed South said:


> Maybe I'm missing something but what does WPP wanting the LHL set up as a LIFA/MNZ have to do with TPWD wanting to scope the possibility of a new SSA in the ULM? Isn't it possible to support the SSA if TPWD deems it necessary but still be against any form of a MNZ anywhere in public waters?
> 
> Mike


WPP is not what it portrays itself to be and has been previously exposed, check out the link to railbirds post earlier this year

http://2coolfishing.net/ttmbforum/showthread.php?p=3328963

If you need to convince yourself further look into who is actually in charge of that organization and their agenda and links to enviromental 
extremist organizations.


----------



## CaptDocHoliday (Feb 3, 2011)

My email to Mr Art Morris:

Hello,

It has come to my attention that TPWD is reviewing the potential implementation of additional LIFA zones along the Texas bay system. As a fisherman who frequents a great deal of this habitat, I must voice my opposition to such programs. The success of these programs is still not well known, and I believe that such programs will do more harm than good. I would suggest that more be done in the way of boater education versus increasing regulations that will limit and close off large areas of habitat that we anglers enjoy. Support for such programs comes from a very small portion of the population, and is not reflective of the majority of those who use and enjoy Texas's coastal resources. Furthermore, the majority of boat owners I know (myself included) are already cautions about boating sea grass and are very careful not to do harm to it. The occurrences of 'prop scars' and other grass bed destruction is not common in the middle coast areas I frequent, and I attribute that to the already ongoing boater education policies in place. 

Thank you very much,

Response



While it is true that we are researching the concept of a potential Limited Impact Fishing Area (LIFA) internally for somewhere along the coast, we do not have a scoping item concerning a LIFA currently on the table. But appreciate your comments nonetheless. 

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Art Morris
Fishery Outreach Specialist
Corpus Christi Field Station
(361) 825-3356


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

Vampiro said:


> WPP is not what it portrays itself to be and has been previously exposed, check out the link to railbirds post earlier this year
> 
> http://2coolfishing.net/ttmbforum/showthread.php?p=3328963
> 
> ...


I know all I need to know about WPP's true agenda, I follow issues like this pretty close and all you have to do is check the Conservation Crossfire section to see that. My question is why we are flooding the SSA scoping process with emails about our disagreements about the LIFA issue? They are 2 separate issues and TPWD is going to treat them as such, it's kind of like during Trout scoping process when people were bringing up Redfish limits. Mr. Morris made it pretty clear then they weren't interested in hearing about anything beyond the issue they were scoping at the time. I'm still opened minded to the SSA for the ULM if they can make a compelling case for it and will choose to keep my power dry for when the LIFA/NMZ's come up.

Mike


----------



## pafisherman (Dec 6, 2010)

*Good endorsement for trying out the LIFA concept.*

This is interesting. These two quotes from this thread make a good argument for a test of the LIFA concept. I'm glad that they shared them with TP&WD.

"The success of these programs is still not well known, and I believe that such programs will do more harm than good."

"Until it can be proven that LIFA yields measurable improvement to relative abundance of recreationally and commercially important species, the ecosystem in general, or any portion thereof (apart from seagrass), I believe it is a weak attempt at social engineering within the framework of resource management and therefore has no place on our coast."

They say they want proof and then give their personal opinion. Everyone has an opinion. Let's get the proof.


----------



## pafisherman (Dec 6, 2010)

*Incrementalism???*



railbird said:


> If this goes through, it will be an excellent example of incrementalism.


Here is a better example of incrementalism!


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

Read David Sike's article from the Corpus paper then read this inc the Frequently ask questions to see more on the 15,500 acre area in the bay that could be affected.

Reply from TPWL



We appreciate your comments. While we are currently scoping a State Scientific Area designation with a no up-rooting rule for the area immediately surrounding the JFK Causeway and researching the concept of a potential Limited Impact Fishing Area (LIFA) internally for somewhere along the coast, we do not have a scoping item concerning a LIFA currently on the table. But appreciate your comments nonetheless. 

Also for more information about the State Scientific Area designation and no up-rooting rule, please see the Frequently Asked Questions page on our website.

Thanks again and if you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Art Morris
Fishery Outreach Specialist
Corpus Christi Field Station

(361) 825-3356

*Read the FA Questions to see a map of the proposed area of 15,500 acres that TPWL is looking at. *


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

pafisherman said:


> Here is a better example of incrementalism!


Population is growing, but fishing license sales is trending down.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

pafisherman said:


> This is interesting. These two quotes from this thread make a good argument for a test of the LIFA concept. I'm glad that they shared them with TP&WD.
> 
> "The success of these programs is still not well known, and I believe that such programs will do more harm than good."
> 
> ...


There is absolute proof that if a LIFA is done in any area, all but those using paddle craft will be excluded. That will dramaticly impact usage by all other means, by banning all other usage. How does that enhance the access to the public? These are public navigable waters, being targeted by those that want it private.


----------



## PL (Sep 28, 2011)

It enhances the fishing which is to the benefit of the public. It wont be long before we become Florida and have to take drastic measures.


----------



## pafisherman (Dec 6, 2010)

*Absolute Proof? Where is it?*



railbird said:


> There is absolute proof that if a LIFA is done in any area, all but those using paddle craft will be excluded.


Where is this absolute proof??? Is there a LIFA somewhere that your data comes from? I don't see how anyone is excluded. Wade fishermen (yes), Boats with trolling Motors (yes), Boats with push poles (yes), Boats on wind drifts (yes), and paddlers (yes). Don't tell me the LIFA area is a dead end and can't be drifted, trolled or poled because there is no area proposed. There are plenty of areas that are drifted, poled and trolled by responsible folks now and they get tooled by tower boats, air boats and other burners as reward for their efforts.

LIFA would be open to all users and methods of access, however running motorized craft outside of designated access lanes would be prohibited. The engine of a motorized craft must be turned off and raised if possible. The use of electric trolling motors in these areas would be allowed. The use of motorized craft during duck seasons, and for a designated time period before and after duck season would be allowed.

The purpose of a LIFA is to provide a managerial model to conserve and protect sensitive natural resources located within areas managed by the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department under their code 13.01, and to discourage destructive and/or disruptive human behavior within such areas.

Pursuant to Texas Parks & Wildlife code / chpt. 61 / subchpt A /


----------



## reeltimer (Feb 5, 2010)

This sounds like a land grab on the water.Sure are a lot of low post experts chiming in with fancy smart growth babble.These WP&P crowd remind me of the light rail crowd.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

pafisherman said:


> Where is this absolute proof??? Is there a LIFA somewhere that your data comes from? I don't see how anyone is excluded. Wade fishermen (yes), Boats with trolling Motors (yes), Boats with push poles (yes), Boats on wind drifts (yes), and paddlers (yes). Don't tell me the LIFA area is a dead end and can't be drifted, trolled or poled because there is no area proposed. There are plenty of areas that are drifted, poled and trolled by responsible folks now and they get tooled by tower boats, air boats and other burners as reward for their efforts.
> 
> LIFA would be open to all users and methods of access, however running motorized craft outside of designated access lanes would be prohibited. The engine of a motorized craft must be turned off and raised if possible. The use of electric trolling motors in these areas would be allowed. The use of motorized craft during duck seasons, and for a designated time period before and after duck season would be allowed.
> 
> ...


The light house lakes are the area they are attempting to create the lifa. That area by design cannot be set up to allow reasonable access by powered equipment without running across the area post drift. Winds do not allow for a 1-2 mile pole or trolling motor return to make another drift or exit the area. The geography of the area will make it absolutely a paddle only area if they get their way. They do not even want air boats in there. Don't insult my intelligence by saying its open access for all who want to drift. Running lanes are impractical in this area. They want it kayak only.


----------



## pafisherman (Dec 6, 2010)

*Anger Effort is increasing and will into the future.*



railbird said:


> Population is growing, but fishing license sales is trending down.


You can't tell me that there were more people fishing 5, 10 or 20 years ago then there are today. Likewise you can't tell me there will be fewer people fishing 5, 10, 20 years from now.

Effort is increasing and more population = more effort. (See the two graphs for proof) TP&WD effort numbers are based on boat ramp surveys so they don't include most kayak fishermen, wade in fishermen, private lift fishermen, non-public ramp fishermen. Therefore these numbers are understated.)


----------



## CaptDocHoliday (Feb 3, 2011)

You can't legislate good judgement or common sence. Asking the Government to fix all of life's "problems" will never work. Heck, they can't even run the Post Office profitably! RailBird is right on. Poling/Drifting/and Electric Motoring are going to be more burdensome than you recognize, and will shut off large parts of these LIFA's, especially in some of the furthest and most secluded areas (which is where I catch a lot of my fish). Once the LIFA is established, the hard part is over. In time additional regulations could be added, further limiting the anglers ability to access a public resource. Public access to hunting is very limited in TX, and this would be a start in the direction of privatizing fishing as well. Its a slippery slope once you start down it, all to fix a problem that has other simpler solutions, such as enhanced boater education.



pafisherman said:


> Where is this absolute proof??? Is there a LIFA somewhere that your data comes from? I don't see how anyone is excluded. Wade fishermen (yes), Boats with trolling Motors (yes), Boats with push poles (yes), Boats on wind drifts (yes), and paddlers (yes). Don't tell me the LIFA area is a dead end and can't be drifted, trolled or poled because there is no area proposed. There are plenty of areas that are drifted, poled and trolled by responsible folks now and they get tooled by tower boats, air boats and other burners as reward for their efforts.
> 
> LIFA would be open to all users and methods of access, however running motorized craft outside of designated access lanes would be prohibited. The engine of a motorized craft must be turned off and raised if possible. The use of electric trolling motors in these areas would be allowed. The use of motorized craft during duck seasons, and for a designated time period before and after duck season would be allowed.
> 
> ...


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

pafisherman, 

Funny that you have posted just 10 times in the last year and most posts are related to and in favor of this closure? ?? 

For the most part I have yet to see government regulation the the answer to anything unless you or your borther in law are invloved with the government then it is usually a great program for your benefit (only). Most things are not regulated or usually after a while over regulated once government gets involved.

Doc is right. We need common sense regulations no closures.


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

railbird said:


> The light house lakes are the area they are attempting to create the lifa. That area by design cannot be set up to allow reasonable access by powered equipment without running across the area post drift. Winds do not allow for a 1-2 mile pole or trolling motor return to make another drift or exit the area. The geography of the area will make it absolutely a paddle only area if they get their way. They do not even want air boats in there. Don't insult my intelligence by saying its open access for all who want to drift. Running lanes are impractical in this area. They want it kayak only.


First off Railbird, there has been no formal proposal from TP&W regarding the formation of a LIFA. Your claim that the Lighthouse Lakes will become a LIFA is nothing more than paranoid conjecture.

Second: If a LIFA is established on the Texas Coast, it will likely be no more than a couple of thousand acres. That equals 1/1000th of our 2 million acres of inland waterway. If established, there will be plenty of room outside the LIFA for you to run your deer stand contraption wherever you please.

The people pushing for a LIFA are only wanting a small area where they can get away from RUNNING boats. They'll gladly share that area with ALL OTHER paddlers, drifters, polers, and trollers. In contrast, you want to be able to run your boat wherever you please across every inch of water on the Texas coast.

Which party is the selfish one, here?

And regarding your theory of "incrementalism", explain to us how TP&W can afford the staff to close off and monitor every flat in Texas (or even 1/10th of the flats). You seem to be in the know about everything going on with TP&W. Did you not follow the news of their budgeting ills over the past several months? They can barely afford to pay the staff that they have. How can they afford the staff required to monitor the entire Texas bay system?

Take off your tinfoil hat Railbird, and try to look at this from a point of rationale. If you want to talk incrementalism, let's discuss the increase in redfish tournaments, airboats, tunnel hulls, tower boats, and bad behavior over the last 10 years. Fishing license sales may be trending down, but the percentage of destructive and irresponsible anglers WITH fishing licenses is trending UP and it will continue to do so until we slap them with a fine for destroying habitat and disrupting a fragile fishery.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

*LOL*



pafisherman said:


> You can't tell me that there were more people fishing 5, 10 or 20 years ago then there are today. Likewise you can't tell me there will be fewer people fishing 5, 10, 20 years from now.
> 
> Effort is increasing and more population = more effort. (See the two graphs for proof) TP&WD effort numbers are based on boat ramp surveys so they don't include most kayak fishermen, wade in fishermen, private lift fishermen, non-public ramp fishermen. Therefore these numbers are understated.)


Actually your post proves my point. You guys will lie and twist the facts to make your arguments. Fishing effort was flat on your graph from around 2000 until 2007 when there was a slight increase. Also fishing effort still hasn't reached that of 2000. It was stated in your conference you set up that fishing effort has fallen over the past 3-4 years, some speculate its because of the economy. How can you claim this proves that population growth is going to correlate to increased fishing effort if it hasn't over the past 11 years?

If you want to use data to argue your point, at least try to find some that supports your argument.


----------



## CaptDocHoliday (Feb 3, 2011)

I do not think it is fair for you to talk down to RB as a crazy person with a tin foil hat. His concerns are legit, and shared by a lot of us both on and off the water. The fact that you wish to rope off a public resource as "our area only" is the real issue. It is a public resource, as as such should be accessible to everyone. If the LIFA were established, would you support the banning of Kayaks outside it's boundaires??? After all, us 'boat runners' would sure like to have an area without those pesky kayakers. (Do you see how lopsided and stupid this arguement is?). Talking down to someone is lousy way for you to make an arguement, but is often the tactic left once people become educated about the subject. Next I suspect we will start to see the 'scare tactics' and the doom and gloom.

Govt regulation is not needed in this case.



saltangler said:


> First off Railbird, there has been no formal proposal from TP&W regarding the formation of a LIFA. Your claim that the Lighthouse Lakes will become a LIFA is nothing more than paranoid conjecture.
> 
> Second: If a LIFA is established on the Texas Coast, it will likely be no more than a couple of thousand acres. That equals 1/1000th of our 2 million acres of inland waterway. If established, there will be plenty of room outside the LIFA for you to run your deer stand contraption wherever you please.
> 
> ...


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

saltangler said:


> First off Railbird, there has been no formal proposal from TP&W regarding the formation of a LIFA. Your claim that the Lighthouse Lakes will become a LIFA is nothing more than paranoid conjecture.
> 
> Second: If a LIFA is established on the Texas Coast, it will likely be no more than a couple of thousand acres. That equals 1/1000th of our 2 million acres of inland waterway. If established, there will be plenty of room outside the LIFA for you to run your deer stand contraption wherever you please.
> 
> ...


Lets be very clear. The "workshop" you boys put together and manipulated the data from was almost solely geared towards the light house lakes. Please show me your data on your last statement, I know of no study on the subject of air boat and tunnel boat operators behavioral changes. Please enlighten us. Thats like me saying kayakers have been harassing hunters more over the last ten years in the light house lakes. The difference is I can likely get that data from TPWD on calls over harassment of duck hunters increasing over the past ten years. Maybe we should think about banning kayaks in the LHL's.

LOL, newbies crawling out of the wood work.


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

JimD said:


> pafisherman,
> 
> Funny that you have posted just 10 times in the last year and most posts are related to and in favor of this closure? ??
> 
> ...


Where is the closure?
Closure to what?


----------



## chicapesca (Jun 7, 2004)

I was at the meeting last night in San Antonio and their were 6 people in attendance. LIFA's are not on the table. Period. This scoping meeting is about an SSA exactly like the RBSSA, and the freeze issue, that is it. TWPP was there and read a statement that basically said they support the JFK Causeway SSA. It did not mention LIFA's at all. The meeting was over in less than an hour.


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

CaptDocHoliday said:


> Next I suspect we will start to see the 'scare tactics' and the doom and gloom.


They're already in play. Go back and check the title of this thread.

And Railbird: so if I'm reading your statement correctly: you wouldn't have a problem with a LFA if it offered a way for you to drift across it with the prevailing wind, or if it offered easy access with a trolling motor?

And by the way, I've seen plenty of people poling their skiffs into the LHL. They'll enter through one of the deepwater guts, and leave through another (Little Slough to Big Slough on a south wind). I've also seen waders and boats with trolling motors that used the same means of access.

The only "scare tactic" I've seen is the misguided claim that LIFA = Kayak Only Area. You can trumpet that BS all you want, but that doesn't make it true.


----------



## reeltimer (Feb 5, 2010)

pafisherman said:


> You can't tell me that there were more people fishing 5, 10 or 20 years ago then there are today. Likewise you can't tell me there will be fewer people fishing 5, 10, 20 years from now.
> 
> Effort is increasing and more population = more effort. (See the two graphs for proof) TP&WD effort numbers are based on boat ramp surveys so they don't include most kayak fishermen, wade in fishermen, private lift fishermen, non-public ramp fishermen. Therefore these numbers are understated.)


So there's more people on the water according to you and lets limit the space or sensitive habitat or whatever PC fancy *** word ya'll use this week.Logic tell me you limit the area people can go will cause more issues.


----------



## Whoopin It Up! (Dec 20, 2010)

chicapesca said:


> I was at the meeting last night in San Antonio and their were 6 people in attendance. LIFA's are not on the table. Period. This scoping meeting is about an SSA exactly like the RBSSA, and the freeze issue, that is it. TWPP was there and read a statement that basically said they support the JFK Causeway SSA. It did not mention LIFA's at all. The meeting was over in less than an hour.


I live in SATX and I wanted to attend last night's meeting held at the Bass Pro Shop on I-10 SATX, but could not get there because of issues at work.

However, I did send and email to Mr. Art Morris at the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department.

He returned a respone to me today, just after noon. So he is reading his emails!

I sent this simple message:
*To the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department* 
*Mr. Art Morris* 

*I am writing you to say that I do NOT support the proposal for the JFK seagrass protection area. *

*I also do NOT support low impact fishing areas (LIFA).* 

*However, I do support emergency rules to protect fish during coastal freezes. *

There was no need on my part to debate the issue with TXPWD, but the need was to be heard, so my 2 cents did land on the right desk in Austin!!! 

I urge each of you to send a short, but simple message to Mr. Art Morris at the agency. 

His email address: [email protected]


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

Asked Art a few questions and heard back with the reply on how they might set this area up if it passes.

Jim

Running lanes would likely be part of the project. Currently the Nature
Conservancy has marked many of the oil field channels in the proposed
area, but some additional work would likely have to be completed,
similar to what's been done in the Redfish Bay State Scientific Area
(SSA) for example. 

The proposal for the JFK State Scientific Area would be identical to
what's going on in the Redfish Bay SSA. You can run, idle,
etc...anywhere within the boundaries but you would be responsible for
uprooting seagrass. Poling, trolling (with a trolling motor),
anchoring, wading, etc...would not be affected.

There is not a formal LIFA scoping item on the table at this time,
nevertheless we are receiving and considering comment and thank you for
your comment.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Lol, PAFISHERMAN, CHUGGER AND SALTANGLER, all show up in 24hrs. Welcome back chugger. Did i hit a nerve? hehehe 

Oh by the way chugger I have a copy of your email.


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

Typical Railbird. Plenty of uninformed fearmongering but no response to a relevant question.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Here is a link to part of this story. Ish has a very good argument. I can't vouch for other threads there, but i think this sums the argument up. What do you think?

http://www.flyhonkey.com/showthread.php?t=2809


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Dude! its gonna be about 6 more hours till you can post again. You better edit that and show me something.


----------



## reeltimer (Feb 5, 2010)

saltangler said:


> Typical Railbird. Plenty of uninformed fearmongering but no response to a relevant question.


Typical posts from somebody with three post's!You don't even know Chuck!


----------



## kenny (May 21, 2004)

Art's been earning his pay the last few days.....

I’m sorry Mr. Luce but there is a lot of confusion going on about this subject.

Currently, we are scoping a State Scientific Area designation and no up-rooting rule for the area surrounding the JFK Causeway in the northern portion of the upper Laguna Madre AND a clarification of proclamation concerning freeze closures. The no up-rooting rule for the ULM would be identical to the current seagrass rules currently in effect in the Redfish Bay SSA. One may run anywhere they want to within the boundaries of the SSA, but would be responsible for up-rooting seagrass. Poling, trolling with a trolling motor, anchoring, wading, etc...are NOT restricted by the regulation. See our FAQs for more information.

However, we are researching the concept of the creation of a LIFA (working title) for somewhere along the coast, but we currently have no formal proposal that is being scoped. But because of the confusion we are considering the comments we are receiving into that discussion.

Art Morris
Fishery Outreach Specialist
Corpus Christi Field Station
(361) 825-3356


----------



## Blue Fury (Nov 5, 2006)

Apparently WPP is not aware of the flood the LLM went through last year. When it flooded the rio grande, they diverted the water flow to the levee protection barrier that dumps into the first and second sloughs in west bay. This caused a major shock with a large amount of fresh water in the system. Yes it helps to flush, but when It consumes the whole water column and does not leave the area, It damages. 

From this, 95% sea grass was killed from the arroyo north past the north east pocket north of the east cut. I cant even describe how many acres that would be, that's easily 17 miles of water. 

It would take a thousand years for the damage of prop scars to amount to that damage that flood did. 

Railbird, let me know what i can do to help.


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

railbird said:


> Lol, PAFISHERMAN, CHUGGER AND SALTANGLER, all show up in 24hrs. Welcome back chugger. Did i hit a nerve? hehehe
> 
> Oh by the way chugger I have a copy of your email.


Chuck

If you are talking about the email of mine that was posted on Corpusfishing.com -- post it here if you like -- but I don't see that it is pertinent to this thread.
I only asked them to remove my personal contact information that was included on the post.

As to your -- "Did i hit a nerve? hehehe "

No -- not really, I find your nonsense irrelevant . My post was to ask JimD two simple questions.
I must also assume that this is still your mind set when posting here -- as indicated by the PM you wrote to me ( 2-11-2010) :

PM from Railbird to chugger:

I know you and I see lotsa things the same way and we both enjoy the bantor. I am usually trying to pick a fight, for the debate. I sure couldn't see anything wrong with what you and I were doing. what do you think?

chuck

_______________

I see no need to enter into a debate with someone whose only goal is to "pick a fight".
I take these issues seriously, and I do not post here simply for sport or to create entertainment for myself.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

A blast from the past! I have no problem admitting I enjoy a good debate/fight. That has little bering on the fact that I am on the right side of this argument. You boys have been slithering around the halls of tpwd for 2 year at least now. It appears they are tired of hearing from you so they are considering throwing you a bone. You dang right you are going to have a fight from me. 

Have fun today, I have a golf game to attend.


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

reeltimer said:


> Typical posts from somebody with three post's!You don't even know Chuck!


We don't exchange Christmas cards, but I met Chuck at the workshop in Corpus Christi and I've been reading his posts for a couple of years.

I know him well enough to know where he stands on this issue.

Interesting that he still won't answer my question but chooses instead to refer us to another website where another internet expert has typed up 5,000 words of misguided opinion.

Hey Chuck, regarding that golf game: How would you respond if someone came zig-zagging down the middle of the fairway and cutting ruts with their cart while you were in the middle of your backswing?


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

railbird said:


> A blast from the past! I have no problem admitting I enjoy a good debate/fight. That has little bering on the fact that I am on the right side of this argument. You boys have been slithering around the halls of tpwd for 2 year at least now. It appears they are tired of hearing from you so they are considering throwing you a bone. You dang right you are going to have a fight from me.
> 
> Have fun today, I have a golf game to attend.


Funny -- The last time I saw you was in the halls of the TPWD headquarters cozying up to the imported Florida airboat lobbyist --- ???


----------



## Hogheaven (May 25, 2004)

Nuthing wrong with a little extra support from our friends in Florida... As its known WPP as modled their fight from Florida. Insight Is nice...From all and many more Directions. 

Plenty of Past post on this subject... Do a search. 

Letters sent... Remember it aint just Art Morris, Its the Commisioners, CCRC as well. 
Let as many people know to keep LIFAs out of the picture.


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

"Nuthing wrong with a little extra support from our friends in Florida... As its known WPP as modled their fight from Florida. Insight Is nice...From all and many more Directions." QUOTE Hogheaven 

That's rich --- or more accurately -- hypocritical.
Whenever someone from WPP, or others, mention the many similar situations and precedent from Florida, we get jumped like we were talking about France, and opponents yell, "Apples and Oranges".
But when other Texans (ie: airboaters) bring in a hired gun lobbyist from Florida to fight their battles, suddenly it's -- "Insight Is nice...From all and many more Directions." 

Decide which way you want it.


----------



## Hogheaven (May 25, 2004)

decided...


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

Hogheaven said:


> decided...


---- to remain a hypocrite.


----------



## Hogheaven (May 25, 2004)

Now, Name Calling is a last resort of what? 



We each have our own Malai Kilavan we embrace.


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

This is not name calling -- it is a calling out on your mind set -- which is conflicted, or at the very least, easily transformed to fit whatever "insights" are most convenient for you at the time.

I don't know what you are "embracing" there? -- but it sounds strange to me.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

I'm so conlicted?


Lol!


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

FORE!


----------



## gray gost (Jul 8, 2010)

not enough fresh water in Trinity bay has killed all the seagrass and they are worried about seagrass "scars" in south texas. tpw needs to take care of state not selected individual intrests.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Can someone explain how airboats kill seagrass?


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

saltangler said:


> First off Railbird, there has been no formal proposal from TP&W regarding the formation of a LIFA. Your claim that the Lighthouse Lakes will become a LIFA is nothing more than paranoid conjecture.
> 
> Second: If a LIFA is established on the Texas Coast, it will likely be no more than a couple of thousand acres. That equals 1/1000th of our 2 million acres of inland waterway. If established, there will be plenty of room outside the LIFA for you to run your deer stand contraption wherever you please.
> 
> ...


First, there is no doubt what area you have in your sights. You guys have been trying to make that area private since the formation of the kayak trails.

Second, your statement,"it's only a few 1000 acres, 1/1000 of the acreage of all of texas waters", that statement is true. Good job, you gave us some accurate data. However, the number you used is quite convienient for your argument, and quite deceptive. Why would anyone accept this on face value? Your target area encompasses about 3000 acres, approximately 1/5 of the total RFBSA. When you look at it from my perspective, you are trying to privatize 1/5 of all the uasable flats in redfish bay. I believe many of us can see the truth. This argument is a smoke screen to help you slip by without giving the full story.

I understand TPWD has budget constraints, another good reason not to create any more headaches for them.

Obviously, it doesn't take a tin foil hat to pick up the signals coming from a group wanting to create private property out of public waters. I am not here attempting to exclude anyone from operating within our navigable waters. How is it being selfish of me to want all 900,000 fishermen in the state of texas to have their rights protected from the 10 guys who want to steal them.

Where is your data for your argument that bad behavior on our flats is increasing? Please supply use with the results of your study. As I understand it, TPWD has stated on many occations, "the RFBSA has been a great success, upwards of 90% claim to have changed their behavior within this area". This would indicate your statement is a biased observation with no scientific foundation.

As for some of the comments over the LHL's=closure of access, the entire west end of the lakes and moving north will be off limits for all power boats, because of the geography of the area. Drifting, poling, and trolling into a box canyon with the only exit point being 3 miles back into a 20-30 mph wind, creates a need for running the big motor. If it is turned into a LIFA, it will be a NMZ too.


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

On your comment on Closure I asked Art about narrow boat lanes and a few areas to be able to get your boat up and posted his remarks below. *

I can see a potential problem. *

Great that I can idle, drift, and such but to be fair to all they need boating lanes and a few small spots to be able to get up and get out of some of these areas if you get a 20-25 mph wind and cannot get out and your boat is back in there.

Nice to have a few small areas designated as a place to push your boat to and get up on plane then down the marked channel to get out. This would be a more reasonable alternative or addition to the plan.

To ans your question this could cause the area to be closed to me or others to fish the area if you can not get out.

*From Art*
Running lanes would likely be part of the project. Currently the Nature
Conservancy has marked many of the oil field channels in the proposed
area, but some additional work would likely have to be completed,
similar to what's been done in the Redfish Bay State Scientific Area
(SSA) for example.

The proposal for the JFK State Scientific Area would be identical to
what's going on in the Redfish Bay SSA. You can run, idle,
etc...anywhere within the boundaries but you would be responsible for
uprooting seagrass. Poling, trolling (with a trolling motor),
anchoring, wading, etc...would not be affected.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Correction, I just checked some numbers, RFBSA is actually around 32000 acres, I had numbers confused with the proposed SSA near JFK causeway (15000 acres approximetely). There are a few thousand acres of open water so the numbers are more like 1/10 of the total useable flats within RFBSA. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

JimD said:


> On your comment on Closure I asked Art about narrow boat lanes and a few areas to be able to get your boat up and posted his remarks below.
> 
> *I can see a potential problem. *
> 
> ...


These accomodations for those needing power to gain access to these area are not reasonable within the lighthouse lakes. The geography of the marsh does not allow for power free ingress and egress. These are all diversionary arguments to gain a foothold on a NMZ within the lakes. Its kind of like them saying, "we would be ok with allowing airboats in there for duck season". Really? Do you actually believe they won't be right back in there next week wanting to bann air boats all together?


----------



## big-john (Jan 6, 2011)

I started reading this biased but with an open mind.All I've heard was valid arguments from one side and from the other all I've heard is...Greed,laziness,self-importance and a few unlikely what-if situations.

I will be using the contact info and encouraging others of like mind to do the same ,thanks.


----------



## gdavis (Oct 25, 2011)

I'm all for the proposed legislation. Quit ripping up seagrass... More fish will be the product... There are obviously more people going out now... It's the age of information and people don't have to fish for years and years at the same spots anymore to learn how to take home quality game fish.... Especially with the affordability and accessibility of a decent kayak.

Simple enough to understand...

I don't know why anyone on here would be upset with the regs. It's not saying you boaters can't go into these areas and harvest fish. It's just saying to take care of the habitat of the fish for future generations to come. Many of you practice catch and release for this purpose... It's the same thing. I fish in Aransas Pass and the seagrass areas are amazing. You can pole through it all day long. I see jerks run their boats through this area constantly ripping up grass and being inconsiderate to the fish, fisherman nearby, and the ecosystem. 

I do however have a problem with a governmental takeover of the fishing industry and this is a slippery slope IMO. Gotta keep an eye on them feds.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

*Meeting tonight at 7pm...... All meetings will be at 7pm*
*This is concerning the JFK SSA.*

*Public Scoping Meetings Dates and Locations*

Nov. 30, Dickinson Marine Lab - 1502 FM 517 East, Dickinson, Texas 77539
Dec. 1, Bass Pro Shops - 17907 IH-10 West San Antonio, TX 78257
Dec. 5, Natural Resources Center, Room 1003 - Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi, 6300 Ocean Drive Corpus Christi, TX 78412
Dec.13, Holiday Inn North Padre Island - 15202 Windward Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78418
Dec. 14, Port Isabel Community Center - 213 Yturria, Port Isabel, TX 78578
Dec. 15, TPWD Headquarters, Commission Hearing Room, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Here is a link to the meeting where SSA's and LIFA was discussed recently. The meat of what has me going is, it is sounding like wpp has shifted their focus toward a trial area for up to 3 years. They know if they can just get the first one more will follow. The area of concern happens about 7/8 of the way to the end.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publica...102/20111102_com_01_regulations_committee.mp3


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Just got in from SSA/freeze closure scoping meeting. There were very few people there in support of the SSA. All were supporting freeze closure rules changes. It appears TPWD is making a proposal on 10-12 year old data. They have zero data since research was done for the RFBSSA, that they can point to that says we have a sea grass destruction problem within the proposed area. The overwhelming response was the state needed to do a better job of educating the public about sea grass conservation. 

The LIFA discussion seemed to be an off limit topic tonight. Art Morris seemed to not want to entertain any discussion of the subject. A few of us got on the record we are in opposition of any area becoming a LIFA.

Its my opinion we need to pick up the pressure with communications with TPWD to let them know the general fishing public are not interested in creating these areas.


----------



## reeltimer (Feb 5, 2010)

I have no problem with the freeze closure rules.The seagrass is doing better all up and down the coast since IMO we aren't putting or burying toxin stuff in our bays.NO LIFA!


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

I recieved some info from 1998, it indicates the Upper Laguna Madre had an 82% increase in sea grass since 1950's. It increased from 30,445 acres to 55,456 acres. All of this data came from a study done in 1998. If you fish the upper laguna, you know that the health of the sea grass is even better since packery channel was dredge.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2006/5287/pdf/StatewideSummaryforTexas.pdf

Makes you wonder why they chose this area. What group do you think is behind this push?


----------



## pafisherman (Dec 6, 2010)

*Who's behind this?*



railbird said:


> What group do you think is behind this push?


Oh yes BIG Conspiracy here. I don't know, but it could be the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, CCA, SEA, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society, Coastal Bend Bays Foundation, Texas Wade Paddle and Pole. But who knows what conservation minded organizations are lurking out there trying to protect a small portion of our 2 million acres of inland coastal waters.


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

railbird said:


> It appears TPWD is making a proposal on 10-12 year old data. They have zero data since research was done for the RFBSSA, that they can point to that says we have a sea grass destruction problem within the proposed area.





railbird said:


> I recieved some info from 1998, it indicates the Upper Laguna Madre had an 82% increase in sea grass since 1950's. It increased from 30,445 acres to 55,456 acres. All of this data came from a study done in 1998.


So you're yapping on the state about antiquated data, but then you trot out a study done in 1998 to bolster your own platform?

More classic Railbird hypocrisy.

Let's talk some more about your golf game. You never answered my question.


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

Railbird- WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

You have more new posters here opposing you on this issue that I have ever seen. The guys posting against you for the most part all joined the board in late 2010 and early 2011 and have Zero rep power.

They must have taken a vote to join our board to be ready to voice their view knowing people like you would oppose them.


They must be taking turns telling us why you are "wrong" and they are "right" in their opinion. There must not be anyone left posting on their web site because they are all here posting.


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

railbird said:


> Where is your data for your argument that bad behavior on our flats is increasing?


Where is your data that it's NOT?

Were there tournaments and tower boats blasting the flats every weekend from April to September 10 years ago?

Nope.

Was "Burn Boat" even a familiar term 10 years ago?

Nope.

Were there people posting Youtube videos of themselves tearing up the flats 10 years ago?

Nope.

I spend a lot of time on the water. I don't need any egghead data to tell me whether bad behavior is more/less of a problem now than in the past. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be supporting the LIFA concept.

The seagrass is important, but that's only one part of it. I'm tired of making significant effort to reach quiet areas where I can cast to a tailing fish, and then having a full-plane jackass run right through the middle of where I'm fishing.

Opponents of LIFA like to say "Well, you can't legislate good manners".

That's BS.

So is the notion that you can educate a jerk that doesn't give a flip about the resource or those that use it responsibly. The only way to educate that guy is to slap him with a fine.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

saltangler said:


> Where is your data that it's NOT?
> 
> Were there tournaments and tower boats blasting the flats every weekend from April to September 10 years ago?
> 
> ...


You almost have half of a valid argument there. Now post some seagrass research and such and it might be a whole argument.
On the peace and quiet, tough ****. You have to deal with it in parks, all other public places and on the roads. How is that any different? Do you think I want to hear obnoxiously loud exhaust systems or gangsta rap when I have my wife and kid in the car?
Quit whining.


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

spurgersalty said:


> You have to deal with it in parks, all other public places and on the roads.


I can't think of any parks where it's not illegal to drive a vehicle through sensitive areas where people are trying to get away from the exact **** you just described.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

saltangler said:


> I can't think of any parks where it's not illegal to drive a vehicle through sensitive areas where people are trying to get away from the exact **** you just described.


Get out a little more often and camp. People playing music loud, generators running all through the night, kids screaming and playing, all experienced at numerous state parks and federal parks.
Answers from parks personnel: they have a right to run their generator to power lights,ac (in a freakin' tent no less), fans, radio.
It's day time sir, I'm sorry you didn't get any sleep last night due to their generator, but, we cannot just tell them their kids can't be kids.
They did get them to turn the radio down though.


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

Maybe the parks personnel wanted YOU to "Quit Whining"


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

spurgersalty said:


> People playing music loud, generators running all through the night, kids screaming and playing, all experienced at numerous state parks and federal parks.


We were talking about vehicles: trucks running through parks and boats running across grass flats.

Oh, and golf carts, too.

If someone wants to play their boom box nearby where I'm fishing, that's fine. Just don't run over the fish or trench the flats, that's all I'm asking. It used to be a matter of common courtesy on the Texas coast, but not anymore.


----------



## reeltimer (Feb 5, 2010)

saltangler said:


> Where is your data that it's NOT?
> 
> Were there tournaments and tower boats blasting the flats every weekend from April to September 10 years ago?
> 
> ...


WP&P Troll go clean your pool and spend some more time in the water.You got about 9 post bashing Chuck's creditability on the subject.Bottomline you don't bring much to the table.If your so tired of making a effort to get to YOUR quiet place go exercise.


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

Besides being the Defender Of Chuck's Credibility, what exactly do you bring to the table reeltimer?


----------



## reeltimer (Feb 5, 2010)

About 260 lbs with manners.The bays all them should be open for ALL watercraft.I bet this would go over with the freshwater guys wouldn't it.I bet there are of this SO call "sensitive area's" in freshwater.maybe we should shut down yakking on the san marcos because of the little salamander.Lets ban hunting with a gun because of the golden check warbler.Lets stop drilling oil in texas because someone thinks drilling rigs are ugly.How bought this lets stop making plastic's because it's bad for the environment.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

saltangler said:


> Besides being the Defender Of Chuck's Credibility, what exactly do you bring to the table reeltimer?


Still wondering the same about you saltangler. No proven research and a desire to legislate morality. You say it can be done......try reading your local papers crime reports and then get back with me.
Your ulterior motives surfaced with the whine about losing peace and quiet to a boater who (just by chance) screamed across your fishing area. I'm suprised you didn't add he dumped you from your yak to really drive home the sympathy vote.
Why not push for legislation that would fine people for driving too close to ANY fisherman be-it wader, kayaker, PBer, commercial, oysterman, crabber, or whatever instead of trying to target your chosen areas of outdoor entertainment? Answer: because those other areas don't impact you, and you could care less about their success.
Try not to be so transparent next time.


----------



## ccraver (Jun 20, 2008)

How come there are only a handful of people who support LIFA's but an overwhelming majority who are against it? That should be enough to show that you guys might be in the wrong.


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

spurgersalty said:


> about losing peace and quiet to a boater who (just by chance) screamed across your fishing area.


Were you there?

If I'm not easily visible where I'm fishing, then it's my fault if someone runs too close. I'm talking about dozens of times over the past few years where I'm in the middle of a wide open flat and someone comes beelining right up to me or runs right past me to burn the water straight downwind from where I'm fishing.



spurgersalty said:


> Answer: because those other areas don't impact you, and you could care less about their success.


Thanks for making an assumption on my behalf, but I'd vote all day long for the law you proposed where everybody minds their distance from everybody else.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

saltangler said:


> Were you there?
> 
> If I'm not easily visible where I'm fishing, then it's my fault if someone runs too close. I'm talking about dozens of times over the past few years where I'm in the middle of a wide open flat and someone comes beelining right up to me or runs right past me to burn the water straight downwind from where I'm fishing.
> 
> Thanks for making an assumption on my behalf, but I'd vote all day long for the law you proposed where everybody minds their distance from everybody else.


Well then, there's no need for LIFAs as Texas already has a law against unsafe operation of a motorboat across the entire coast and even in the lakes. Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

spurgersalty said:


> Well then, there's no need for LIFAs as Texas already has a law against unsafe operation of a motorboat across the entire coast and even in the lakes. Thanks for the discussion.


And that law isn't being enforced, so it's completely ignored by a growing number of boaters, especially in the lakes.

You're welcome. Nice talking with you.


----------



## Life Aquatic (Oct 24, 2006)

Let's see some progressive aerial photographs of the scaring in the JFK area. I doubt it exists. Not because I haven't seen any photos, but because I fish that area and don't see the trenches.

I've fished the Crash Channels extensively, covering a lot of ground (or seagrass as the case may be). That is what has really got my attention here. As I recall the Redfish Bay study had grids laid out, photos made, and real science before made into a regulated area. I just don't see JFK as being abused even on a high volume Saturday with nitwits gone crazy.

I'll go on record as saying JFK and in particular the Crash Channels is one of the most undisturbed areas going. Running is not a problem. There is adequate depth. And, I believe there is a greater sense of awareness among the using public to not rip up the bottom.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Saltangler, what we need then is more enforcement of the current laws. I don't believe more regs are gonna help.
People will come around to an ideal way of operation if constantly chastised about their current habits (well, most at least). But there's always gonna be a "Billy Badazz" who's a slave to speed and ego. He may or may not eventually get caught by the GWs or another fisherman that might just instill a little more humility and manners. As it is, you and I aren't worlds apart on the issues at hand, our division is in a plan of attack to correct the issues.


----------



## trackatrout (Aug 10, 2010)

I didn't read every post on this thread. But if you have not sent your comments it can be done here: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines...nt/proposals/201201_jfk_scientific_area.phtml


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Testosterone is getting thick in here. I dont live in the area they are speaking of but i do kayak and run around in shallow draft boats, airboats and wade fish. Its all about courtesy. Drunk asses motoring around and running aground in a frickin deep vee boat onto a sandbar a foot deep right between me and another fellow wader 20 yards away will **** anyone off. Ive been tossed out of my yak by joyriders who think its funny to fly by at 40 mph and throw beer cans out and buzzed by other fisherman while catching trout in the middle of birds working...its all about courtesy and the way it sounds some of the people on here are getting offended by this because they bully the bays themselves. I just want to fish and fish around others who give a **** and try to be courteous. Call it whining or crying or whatever you want but its the way it used to be and the way it should still be. Do any of you think its funny to do any of these things we are talking about? I think its unsafe and dont think its funny or cute to **** people off or tear up seagrass or anything. I may be new to 2cool but ive been fishing for quite a while and this is my opinion on the subject. Sorry for the ranting and raving and soapboxing but thought i could get a piece of this discussion and tell you all how i feel. Lets just all go fishing!


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

saltangler said:


> So you're yapping on the state about antiquated data, but then you trot out a study done in 1998 to bolster your own platform?
> 
> More classic Railbird hypocrisy.
> 
> Let's talk some more about your golf game. You never answered my question.


This is exactly what i am talking about. This is the last survey of sea grass in texas that i know of. TPWD is using data at least this old from a study done when they set up RFBSSA. JFK was the next most prop scarred area to redfish bay back then. They have done absolutely no research since that report was done 10+ years ago. Now they are coming in looking for a place to start a new one.

I have it on good authority that the real reason TPWD is doing this is its a way to get control of the guys who burn instead of drift. There has been an increase in complaints from many people who fish this area, over burn boats. There are a few guys who are tearing up the flats and are bad about burning every inch of water until they find fish. They are making all top drives look bad. This behavior is inconsiderate and selfish.

I have a tower boat. I do not burn looking for fish. I make huge drifts several miles long until I find the fish, then I concentrate on the fish I found. There is a proper way to use a tower boat. Burning in my opinion, is not the way to do it.

In my opinion this regulation is not the answer, its just the answer some are looking to find.

Finally, lets be clear. Just because you paddled into an area doesn't mean I should have to. Just because Aransas was nice enough to give you a place to park, doesn't mean they gave you the lighthouse lakes.


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

All Quotes from purgersalty --

"Saltangler, what we need then is more enforcement of the current laws. I don't believe more regs are gonna help."

Tell us exactly how these "current laws" can be applied effectively.
They are certainly not working now -- what can be done to make them work?
More GWs ? Not going to happen.

"People will come around to an ideal way of operation if constantly chastised about their current habits (well, most at least)."

Who's going to do these on the bay educational moments -- you -- me? Most folks are packing heat on boats these days -- No thanks.

"But there's always gonna be a "Billy Badazz" who's a slave to speed and ego. He may or may not eventually get caught by the GWs or another fisherman that might just instill a little more humility and manners."

When is this going to happen ? Are we supposed to follow every arse hole back to the ramp and kick his tail?
Especially hard to do if you're a kayak or wade fisherman. 

" As it is, you and I aren't worlds apart on the issues at hand, our division is in a plan of attack to correct the issues."

I appreciate your acknowledgement of the problems. Correct - let's work on solutions together as concerned anglers.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Yep Chugger, the entire coast and inland lakes have a problem. We agree on that. But its not just flats and back waters.
Last year, I had a couple of preek bass tourney guys troll in and start fishing the edge of my decoys at Rayburn. ***?? I asked him to leave, and he promptly informed me "this is a fishing lake, it ain't no duck hunting lake". Gotta love self entitlement.


----------



## pafisherman (Dec 6, 2010)

railbird said:


> There are a few guys who are tearing up the flats and are bad about burning every inch of water until they find fish.


There are more than a few guys but this is Progress! I remember a time when there was no problems at all on Texas flats and burning to find fish was perfectly acceptable behavior on this forum. Baby steps. Then: Burning=Good (Endorsed by Jose on ESPN) Now: Burning=Bad (Jose is not welcome in Texas)

Here is a link to the current image on google maps that actually caught a burner on 12/31/08 in the proposed SSA. You can see the mud trail. If you follow it north you can see the dust cloud where they had burned earlier around the spoil islands. Then drifted a little, spun up then stopped and drifted again. You can see the boat drifting. (Tower Boat?) How many more times did they spin up that day? How many miles did they burn and trench? Mind you, this was in the heart of TPWD "education campaign" in the coastal bend around sea grass protection related to the RBSSA. Post regulation, we have seen improvement in the RBSSA - Education alone: unsuccessful, Education+Regulation: Successful

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Flour...Bluff,+Corpus+Christi,+Nueces,+Texas&t=h&z=15


----------



## reeltimer (Feb 5, 2010)

Burning a shoreline and what that guy did are to different things.That boat could have been a yahoo in a non tunnel boat for all we know.What he did was wrong we can agree on but to insert tower boat is just to predictable from ya'lls crowd.


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

railbird said:


> There are a few guys who are tearing up the flats and are bad about burning every inch of water until they find fish. They are making all top drives look bad. This behavior is inconsiderate and selfish.


Finally, something we agree on.



railbird said:


> lets be clear. Just because you paddled into an area doesn't mean I should have to.


And if a LIFA is established on the Texas Coast, you'll still have 99.99% of the inland waterway where you can run your boat across shallow grass all you want.


----------



## pafisherman (Dec 6, 2010)

reeltimer said:


> What he did was wrong we can agree on but to insert tower boat is just to predictable from ya'lls crowd.


Point taken. You can't see a tower in the image. Just as easily a regular flats boat running too shallow.


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

reeltimer said:


> What he did was wrong we can agree on but to insert tower boat is just to predictable from ya'lls crowd.


Much like y'alls crowd inserting "closure" and "kayak only fishing area" into every post and discussion.

If you want to talk semantics, I'll need to pour a cup of coffee, because we'll be up for a while.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Lol, that is propable smoke from his prop wash. slack tide calm day. Making 1/2-3/4 mile drifts and creating smoke, no proven prop scar. I can't see any tower. The funny thing about this picture is the fact that there are nothing but beautiful grass meadows with not one other prop scare. You are a moran if you think any burn boat made these marks. If that is a prop scar, it would have been done bay a v bottom, deep running boat, not by a flats boat.


----------



## flatsmaster14 (Mar 25, 2011)

How deep is the water in that picture?


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

"I have it on good authority that the real reason TPWD is doing this is its a way to get control of the guys who burn instead of drift." Railbird

Who is this "good authority"?
I bet if you asked a TPWD Coastal Fisheries Division staff member what "burning" is -- you would get a vacant blank stare.
How many of these TPWD guys do you think actually fish? 
TPWD is all about resource / habitat protection -- and they are just starting to understand what the user conflict issues are about in the bays.
This is new territory for them, and it is certainly not their motivation for the JFK Causeway SSA proposal.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

saltangler said:


> Finally, something we agree on.
> 
> And if a LIFA is established on the Texas Coast, you'll still have 99.99% of the inland waterway where you can run your boat across shallow grass all you want.


You boys are smooth I will give you that. 99.99% of texas, true. The difference here is it represents a very large percentage of the flats in the RFBSSA. I think we are likely talking about they're LIFA covering all of brown and root flats and the light house lakes. I see it as a very large portion of the RFBSSA.

I would hope its not a trend. Create an SSA and take half for the kayakers. Its no wonder TXWPP is in support of a new SSA. If they get 1 LIFA they're going to want more. Thats how this works.


----------



## Life Aquatic (Oct 24, 2006)

Depth...between the spoils is a foot or less and he had no business running through there. The channel end is clearly marked. I'd say the whole second run and the position of the drifting boat is minimum two feet given it is taken in December. A good portion is unwadable because it is too deep. I've never seen anyone wade out there.


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

railbird said:


> I think we are likely talking about they're LIFA covering all of brown and root flats and the light house lakes. I see it as a very large portion of the RFBSSA.
> 
> If they get 1 LIFA they're going to want more. Thats how this works.


A few pages back you claimed that TP&W was going after the Lighthouse Lakes for a LIFA. Now you're claiming LHL and Brown & Root?

Sounds like your slippery slope theory is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This yet-to-exist LIFA is growing before our eyes.


----------



## trackatrout (Aug 10, 2010)

pafisherman said:


> There are more than a few guys but this is Progress! I remember a time when there was no problems at all on Texas flats and burning to find fish was perfectly acceptable behavior on this forum. Baby steps. Then: Burning=Good (Endorsed by Jose on ESPN) Now: Burning=Bad (Jose is not welcome in Texas)
> 
> Here is a link to the current image on google maps that actually caught a burner on 12/31/08 in the proposed SSA. You can see the mud trail. If you follow it north you can see the dust cloud where they had burned earlier around the spoil islands. Then drifted a little, spun up then stopped and drifted again. You can see the boat drifting. (Tower Boat?) How many more times did they spin up that day? How many miles did they burn and trench? Mind you, this was in the heart of TPWD "education campaign" in the coastal bend around sea grass protection related to the RBSSA. Post regulation, we have seen improvement in the RBSSA - Education alone: unsuccessful, Education+Regulation: Successful
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Flour...Bluff,+Corpus+Christi,+Nueces,+Texas&t=h&z=15


Does google have a shot of that same area from a few hours later when all the dust and clouds settle? Probably not, but even a tunnel boat with the prop running up in the tunnel will stir up lots of silt and mud when running at speed. Imagine how much prop wash is created. The thrust developed by the prop is the most probable cause of the dust IMO.


----------



## Joe. T. (Jun 7, 2008)

Life Aquatic said:


> Depth...between the spoils is a foot or less and he had no business running through there. The channel end is clearly marked. I'd say the whole second run and the position of the drifting boat is minimum two feet given it is taken in December. A good portion is unwadable because it is too deep. I've never seen anyone wade out there.


X2 we drift this area year round and theres no way thats a trench(too deep) its prop wash.heres the tide for that day.and yes RB look at all that purty grass.


----------



## shallowgal (Jun 11, 2004)

*Latest newsletter from TWPP*

Texas Wade Paddle & Pole Members and Supporters,

We hope youre having a great fall season and finding time to get out on the water. Its been awhile since our last newsletter, so we would like to update you on a few recent developments.

Texas Parks & Wildlife is proposing to expand their seagrass protection efforts on the Texas Coast, and we are in full support of this initiative. However, there will be no change to the status quo unless our individual members take a moment to submit public comment. We urge you to read the following and take appropriate ACTION where called for.

Formal Proposal for the JFK Causeway State Scientific Area

TP&W has brought forth a proposal to create a new State Scientific Area (SSA), similar to the existing Redfish Bay State Scientific Area. The new 15,500 acre SSA, if passed, will be located in the Upper Laguna Madre, near the JFK Causeway Bridge, southeast of Corpus Christi. Its main purpose is for the protection of seagrass beds in this area.

For details and a location map please click here.

We are in full support of this proposal and we will voice our position statement at the publicly held scoping meetings. We hope our members will take the short time necessary to send in an affirmative vote for this proposal. TP&W reads and counts these comment and submissions. It is important to be heard.

TAKE ACTION!
Submit your comments by clicking this link:

Comment online until 5 p.m. Jan. 24, 2012

Sample Comment:

I SUPPORT the proposal for the creation of the JFK Causeway State Scientific Area. This is an important step towards providing adequate protection for valuable seagrass beds in a highly trafficked area. Thank you for registering my affirmative vote for this proposal.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Public Scoping Meeting Schedule"

If you wish to comment publicly on the JFK Causeway SSA proposal, here are the dates and locations for the Public Scoping Meetings:

Nov. 30, Dickinson Marine Lab 1502 FM 517 East, Dickinson, Texas 77539
Dec. 1, Bass Pro Shops 17907 IH-10 West San Antonio, TX 78257
Dec. 5, Natural Resources Center, Room 1003 Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, 6300 Ocean Drive Corpus Christi, TX 78412
Dec.13, Holiday Inn North Padre Island 15202 Windward Drive, Corpus Christi, TX 78418
Dec. 14, Port Isabel Community Center 213 Yturria, Port Isabel, TX 78578
Dec. 15, TPWD Headquarters, Commission Hearing Room, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744

Pending Proposal for a Low Impact Fishing Area (LIFA)

TP&W has indicated that they will soon present a formal LIFA proposal. At this point they have not indicated a location, size, or boundaries for a possible LIFA.

We do not know at this point how TP&W will interpret or define a LIFA, but here is how we have presented the concept on our website:

We will alert you if/when a formal LIFA proposal is presented by TP&W.

TAKE ACTION!

Support TPW efforts to finalize and present a formal LIFA proposal.

Please send an email to [email protected].

Sample Comment:

I SUPPORT the establishment of Low Impact Fishing Areas (LIFA) in areas of Texas inland coastal waters which are highly pressured, highly trafficked, and highly impacted. A LIFA will serve as a managerial experiment to reduce resource impacts, fishery & wildlife disturbance, safety concerns and user conflicts.

A LIFA will help to provide more equitable use of a shared public resource.

We Need Your Voice!

Numbers do count and we need your help to present a substantial and unified voice on these important issues that will define the future health of our shallow water fishery on the Texas Coast.

Please tell your friends, family, and co-workers about Texas Wade Paddle & Pole, and encourage them to join. Here is a sample email that we hope you will use to help us spread the word.

Dear _________________,

Im a supporter of the angling organization, Texas Wade Paddle & Pole. This group is providing a voice for Texas shallow water anglers seeking to:


----------



## reeltimer (Feb 5, 2010)

Thanks Shallowgal for post up there propaganda.I like to know what the other team is up to.I'm sure in there heart of heart they think they are doing is whats best for us because were clueless.


----------



## Specks&Spots (Aug 26, 2007)

Just what we need, more laws to deter the people who are ignoring them already. Why don't we just enforce the ones we already have? Isn't it already illegal to uproot sea grass in this area? If people are still doing it, does anyone actually believe that passing another law is going to make it stop?


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Don't forget to attend the meeting tuesday night 7pm at the holiday inn on the island.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Meeting starts at 7pm at the holiday inn on north padre island tonight. Please get out there and make your voice heard. Hope top see some of you there.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Tonight was the corpus christi scoping meeting. It went a whole lot like last time. Presenters saying we have a problem, all the guys that fish it all the time saying we don't. They did discuss the fact that sea grass has increased by 82% since the 60's with very little recent change in total acrage since 2002.

Had a conversation with TPWD official about LIFA"s, he explained that the commission had instructed them to investigate the idea of LIFA"s. We had a conversation over a large range of issues around this idea. The one statment that stands out was " you can't have a LIFA without a SSA or a state park". 

This means they are trying to figure out a way to do a LIFA. If we don't get better organized, they will happen. After attending the last 2 meetings, it appears things are pretty much a done deal by the time they are scoping them. If LIFA's go to scoping, LIFA's will happen.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

This is the easiest way to be heard, it literally takes 30 seconds to be heard.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines...nt/proposals/201201_jfk_scientific_area.phtml


----------



## texasdave (Aug 15, 2005)

I have given my opinion to TP&W. Along with the suggestion that if thiis does pass all watercraft needs to be liscensed to help poay for this BS. No more free rides just because you pole or paddle.


----------



## bamdvm (Apr 3, 2010)

Railbird, 

Do you know if there is a link to any audio or video of the meeting so those who couldn't attend can hear how LIFA's are being introduced to the conversation about a SSA?


----------



## shallowgal (Jun 11, 2004)

I'm sick as a dog but I'll be at the scoping meeting at Port Isabel tonight. I posted up about it on TexasFlats.net, and on the Shallow Sport Facebook page as well as a few other fishing organizations I'm a member of and sent emails to everyone in the industry an all the guides I know. Should be an interesting meeting tonight, though I hate to think SSAs and LIFAs are a forgone conclusion and this is just a puppet show to appease the proletariat.


----------



## Ish (Oct 30, 2008)

chugger said:


> Tell us exactly how these "current laws" can be applied effectively.
> They are certainly not working now -- what can be done to make them work?
> More GWs ? Not going to happen.


Simple, park a game warden in an airboat with a sheap gopro camera to record evidence in LHL, Brown and Myers, er Root, etc. and have them cite anyone who violates the law and uproots seagrass.

if the problem is as rampant as you guys claim it is, he'll be able to generate all sorts of income for TPWD via fines. heck, take it a step farther and set-up a spiff/incentive where the officer gets to keep a portion of the fine on all convictions. motivate them to catch and document people breaking exisitng laws, and of course require evidence for a conviction.

if sea grass uprooting is truly such the serious issue you and rest of the gaggle at WPP claim it is, why isn't TPWD parking an officer in RBSSA to do that?

why wouldn't you be satisfied with an officer in LHL full time with a cheap hi-def gopro to catch and document offenders? because, while fixing the problem, it wouldn't get you guys the NMZs and exclusionary paddlecraft-only areas that you guys want so badly.

That's why y'all's little organization has become such a laughingstock... there are easy ways to fix the problems you cite but you guys want nothing to do with those solutions because it doesn't leave you guys with NMZs. _(well, that and the manufactured pictures and stuff you guys put out there...)_

if current laws can't be enforced or applied effectively, how are new laws going to be enforced or applied effectively?

sure, if an officer sees someone running through one of your proposed NMZs he can cite them, just like he can cite them if he sees them uprooting seagrass in the RBSSA now. If he has to have evidence of uprooted grass to get a conviction, he's gonna have to have evidence of NMZ violations to, no?

TPWD claims they don't have the resources to monitor the areas sufficiently. if that's the case, how are they going to monitor it sufficiently when it's a NMZ? if they aren't around to catch someone running through there, how are they going to enforce it?

best case for you guys if you get an NMZ is it turns out like the FL NMZs you guys like to go on and on about... no officer present, NMZ rules disregarded...

in the end all you guys will have done is get the state to waste time and money it doesn't have on things we not only don't need or want, but things that can't be enforced and are largely ignored.

and if there isn't enough money to enforce current laws, how is there enough money to set up and enforce more SSAs?

why not put all of these issues up for a vote? how about every year with boat registration renewal or fish license renewal you are required to cast a vote (yes/no/do not care) for or against NMZs? let the users who actually pay to play determine what they want for their public resource?

how many people around here are ready to pay higher licensing fees and boat registration fees to provide TPWD with enough resources to police Tosh and Will's NMZs?


----------



## Ish (Oct 30, 2008)

saltangler said:


> And if a LIFA is established on the Texas Coast, you'll still have 99.99% of the inland waterway where you can run your boat across shallow grass all you want.


and we'll have very dangerous precedent that can be used by other special interest groups to go after additional areas they want closed down.

it's a very steep, very slippery slope to go down to appease the very small number of users that make up WPP.

have you ever considered how terrible the fishing is going to be in an NMZ if it happens? with every single yakker concentrated in that one area so they aren't getting "run over by powerboats"?

lets say brown & myers gets shut down... how good is the fishing in there going to be if 100s of kayakers are splashing and paddling through there all day long? how many fish are gonna hang around on that flat with that much paddle traffic going through there? and most of them are gonna hang around the causeway because they can't make it all the way to the back or to the end, or because the don't want to get caught back there by a wind shift.

same thing would go for LHL...

then the next argument is gonna be "we need more NMZs because this one is too crowded...." and we lose even more access.

there it is again, incrementalism.


----------



## mikedeleon (Aug 9, 2010)

Ish said:


> and we'll have very dangerous precedent that can be used by other special interest groups to go after additional areas they want closed down.
> 
> it's a very steep, very slippery slope to go down to appease the very small number of users that make up WPP.
> 
> ...


Both of those areas are already overrun with kayaks. Start making them have flags for safety and charge them registration fees for using the resource.

Ish - I don't know who you are but your idea to put a GW at the entrance of the areas is entirely too logical for our government to comprehend.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

I wouldn't worry too much about the enforcement of this if it does pass. I am retired and have lived on N Padre Island for 11 years and fish or hunt 5 days a week. In that time I have been checked ONE TIME. I know it's a large area, but the TPW can't enforce the current laws around here (just go out and watch the duck hunters shooting as many redheads as they can load the boat with) and then add the responsibity of the TPW trying to enforce this stupid grass uprooting thing.

Rant over.............


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Ish said:


> and we'll have very dangerous precedent that can be used by other special interest groups to go after additional areas they want closed down.
> 
> it's a very steep, very slippery slope to go down to appease the very small number of users that make up WPP.
> 
> ...


Nice to see another batter at the plate that can go deep.


----------



## shallowgal (Jun 11, 2004)

*Recap of last nights Port Isabel scoping meeting*

The one thing that most people were so angry about was the lack of advertising or notice for these meetings. Most people heard about the meeting the day of and I would say you could cut the tension in the room with a knife. About ten minutes in one guy was speaking pretty loudly and got up and starting walking pretty quickly towards the speaker, one of the TPW agents got out of his chair to intercept they guy. We all thought he was going to attack the speaker and then he says "I'm just going to show you something on this map" and of course everyone starting laughing.

First topic was about the freeze closures, which dragged on forever, and people starting standing up yelling at the speaker that they were only dragging that topic on forever to keep from going on to the real reason why people were there ( to talk about the proposed SSA's)

Once we started talking about the proposed SSA's, they showed a map of Texas where they narrowed down to a "short list" of proposed sites for SSA's in Texas, they included:

Galveston Island state Park (GISP)

Christmas Bay (CB)

Matagorda Island Wildlife Management Area (MIWMA)

Upper Laguna Madre (JFK Causeway Area)

Mexiquita Flats/South Bay (SB)

The selection of criteria included: Seagrass coverage, Extensive shallow-water areas (2 feet or less), Boating pressure/accessibility, Proximity to Gulf Pass, Need for protection

Keep in mind, there were several questions asked about whether or not there was even a need for this because of lower fish levels, and the speaker said repeatedly that fish stock levels were on the rise throughout the state. So it was very confusing for most people there as to why we needed these new SSA's when they already had one just 20 miles away. The speaker kept saying that they don't have the capabilities to pull data from other areas of the sate so they need these areas to study themselves (which makes no sense)...

We estimated around 90-100 people attended the meeting- a lot of high profile guides, people who are in the industry, and the newspapers.


----------



## shallowgal (Jun 11, 2004)

*continued......*

How many were against the SSA proposal?
-99%- Keep in mind there was no formal vote held, and even after an hour and a half of people standing up and speaking against the proposal, one of the speakers said and I quote " So what does everyone think? We still don't know what you are thinking..." I knew it would be like that so we took petition sheets to sign and got around 72 signatures and turned them in to the speakers. Just as a precautionary measure we also took photo copies of the petitions. We just wanted to make sure that if there were any question about how people really felt at this particular scoping meeting, we had the evidence in hand.

How many were for the SSA proposal?- Only 1 person, Capt. Bruce Shuler from Port Mansfield's Redfish Inn. However he said he would never approve of a no motor zone.

The speakers kept saying the JFK causeway area was the "next" area chosen for a SSA. I among others stood up and made statements, and my main point was that we support education over legislation. When we deliver a boat to our customers we take them on the water and teach them proper boat etiquette and where they can and cannot go, how to read the tides, etc.

One of the speakers admitted that "helping to educate boat buyers is good however, making an area and SSA is a tool, and regulation is the hammer that drives home the education through handing out citations ($500.00 fine for uprooting sea grass)." Granted there have been several warnings and only 17 prosecutions in the past 6 years. They said the only way they think will be effective to educate the public about seagrass is through regulation.

They also repeatedly admitted they have no proof or physical evidence that prop scars are causing any damage to fish or the environment, but "they have a strong feeling that protecting it will be a good thing". They have no progressive aerial photos of any of the areas they propose to protect. And the data they do have suggests there is more seagrass now than in the past. So most present don't see this SSA or any SSA as having much of a purpose.

ONe of the main reasons why we oppose the SSA is because we know without a doubt they are only the first step towards LIFA areas. They say that they are not moving forward with the other areas " today but that could change tomorrow".

Bottom line: The lines are drawn, the leg work is done, they are most likely moving forward with this despite opposing public opinion. Our main goal is to keep these areas from becoming LIFA's or no prop zones, and honestly to keep every shallow area of every bay with seagrass from becoming an SSA......

Currently they claim that RFA is the only organization opposing the regulation. They claim the Coastal Bend Guides Association is not against this regulation. So, if any of the organizations you belong to (DU, guides associations, fishing groups) are indeed against this regulation. Be sure to send in a formal letter saying so because they seem to believe hardly anyone is against it.


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

shallowgal said:


> I among others stood up and made statements, and my main point was that we support education over legislation. When we deliver a boat to our customers we take them on the water and teach them proper boat etiquette and where they can and cannot go, how to read the tides, etc.


Really?

Is this the education that your boat owners receive: How to grind a flat in a Shallow Sport?






Or maybe this little gem: how to hand your friend a beer while he runs his Shallow Sport through 3 inches of water?






Oh, and let's not forget this one: how to plow an offshore boat over a grass flat while jamming to AC/DC!!!






Yeah, that's some quality education you've got going there, Shallowgal. I especially appreciate your "No Seagrass Harmed!" disclaimer.

If you folks don't want legislation, then you better start policing your own message and stop encouraging jackass behavior. If not, then legislation is exactly what you'll get, and it may end up being what NONE of us want.


----------



## CaptDocHoliday (Feb 3, 2011)

saltangler said:


> and stop encouraging jackass behavior.


And how would you define your behavior exactly???


----------



## southpaw (Feb 25, 2009)

saltangler said:


> Really?
> 
> Is this the education that your boat owners receive: How to grind a flat in a Shallow Sport?


No, once again if you read the entire statement or just didn't choose to ignore certain parts then you'd see this is how they educate their clients.

"When we deliver a boat to our customers we take them on the water and teach them proper boat etiquette and where they can and cannot go, how to read the tides, etc."

Are chugger's actions with the air boat the way you're teaching the members of WPP to act?


----------



## shallowgal (Jun 11, 2004)

Saltangler, as a long time member of 2coolfishing.com, let me be the first to welcome you to our community of anglers. Judging from the tone of all 28 of your posts over the past 2 weeks, I can tell you are going to be a valuable addition to our conversations.

Welcome aboard buddy!


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

Hey Saltangler- You came on the board a month ago and this is all you post on. Not seen any pictures of fish you caught poling or kayaking or anything else. 

What happened to the other guys that were here when this started? I asked them but never heard back if they had a vested interest in joining our board at the last minute and just posting on this one topic. 

I am confused to the way they flashed by here it almost looked like a job the way they posted all the time for a few days then gone. Do you know?


----------



## Ish (Oct 30, 2008)

shallowgal said:


> They also repeatedly admitted they have no proof or physical evidence that prop scars are causing any damage to fish or the environment,...


that's the key take-away right there.

until there is such proof using valuable resources to create SSAs and NMZs is a waste of our time and our money.

TPWD is already cash strapped...why should they be spending more money they don't have?

why go down that road when they can't even effectively enforce the regulations they have on the books now?

thanks for the update, gal.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

shallowgal said:


> They claim the Coastal Bend Guides Association is not against this regulation. So, if any of the organizations you belong to (DU, guides associations, fishing groups) are indeed against this regulation. Be sure to send in a formal letter saying so because they seem to believe hardly anyone is against it.


Good response Shallowgal... but keep in mind that the guides from Coastal Bend Guides Assoc. are essentially targeting trout with croakers during the spring and summer (or whenever they can get them). So I think they don't have a dog in this fight.

This whole issue is more about us guys that target reds in that shallow water where the grass grows. All the Coastal Bend Guide Assoc. guides I see up here in the ULM are anchored up in on the outside of the grasslines in 5 feet of water and throwing croakers for trout.


----------



## Ish (Oct 30, 2008)

regardless of how you fish you have a dog in this fight.

the precedent that could be set by some of these proposals affects _*all*_ anglers in this state.

every single angler who sees this stuff needs to understand what's going on, why it's going on, and how it could affect them regardless of how or where you fish. and every angler need to let parks and wildlife know where they stand on it.

any organization or entity that has opinions about this situation needs to let TPWD know about it.

failing to do so could cost you dearly in the long run.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

In a nutshell whats the cut and dried point here and how does it affect a kayaker and wadefisherman that spends most fishing days ear seadrift, indianola and port oconnor? Ill stand up if its going to save anhlers like me some rights. I dont have time to read all these arguments so give me something quick


-mac-


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

spurgersalty said:


> Nice to see another batter at the plate that can go deep.


Recognize when you are being used.
Here's a thread started by Ish on his personal web site about you 2cooler's :

"here's what we've been missing over at 2fags ---- "

http://flyhonkey.com/showthread.php?t=294

67 pages and counting -- all making fun of the 2cool community.

I guess politics DO make for strange bedfellows -- willing to bed down for a quickie with those they have previously insulted.


----------



## saltangler (Dec 1, 2011)

shallowgal said:


> Saltangler, as a long time member of 2coolfishing.com, let me be the first to welcome you to our community of anglers. Judging from the tone of all 28 of your posts over the past 2 weeks, I can tell you are going to be a valuable addition to our conversations.
> 
> Welcome aboard buddy!


Hey, thanks!

Now back to those videos: maybe I jumped the gun when I assumed that you're using them for education. That's probably unfair when they're obviously intended as a marketing tool.

But that begs another question. So you use these videos to entice people into buying your boat by sending them an obvious message that a Shallow Sport can throw mud plumes, trench flats, and destroy habitat like no other. But then you switch to education mode after the sale and tell them that they shouldn't do those things?

And regarding my post count: it doesn't take 5,000 visits to this board to spot a hypocrite.

I'll say it again: if you don't want legislation, then don't encourage irresponsible boating behavior.


----------



## Joe. T. (Jun 7, 2008)

.


----------



## CaptDocHoliday (Feb 3, 2011)

So now we are worried about protecting mud???

I don't know if you know this, but sea grass doesn't grow everywhere. Messing with mud is harmless, and it often silts back in in a matter of days (i.e. Fish a spot on a weekend and go back a week or 2 later and see if you can find your tracks in the mud, bet you cant). There is context for everything, and all you and the rest of the WPP liberals are attempting to do is manipluate your very limited "data" to support your arguement. Not unexpected, but very dispicable.

My personal observations of the area are that grass coverage is on the rise, fish numbers are on the rise, and fishing pressure is level or up slightly. Until you can *prove* other wise, using current data and current & impartial studies, your arguement is ****.



saltangler said:


> Hey, thanks!
> 
> Now back to those videos: maybe I jumped the gun when I assumed that you're using them for education. That's probably unfair when they're obviously intended as a marketing tool.
> 
> ...


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Thanks for asking for support from fellow anglers then ignoring a simple question to continue debating


-mac-


----------



## flatsmaster14 (Mar 25, 2011)

Could all the wpp people put wpp stickers on yalls kayaks so you can be identified?


----------



## Ish (Oct 30, 2008)

chugger said:


> "I have it on good authority that the real reason TPWD is doing this is its a way to get control of the guys who burn instead of drift." Railbird
> 
> Who is this "good authority"?
> I bet if you asked a TPWD Coastal Fisheries Division staff member what "burning" is -- you would get a vacant blank stare.


the director of coastal fisheries admitted that to all of us last night at the meeting you were at. I think he is a "good authority".

after the meeting i had a discussion with him and 3 of the other TPWD officials that were there and every single one of them knew what "burning" was. you guys have done a fantastic job talking that up to them. they also know that WPPs whole effort is about nothing more than getting exclusionary NMZs set aside for specific usergroups like yours.

the guys i spoke to are aware that you guys have been trying to get NMZs put in place for over 10 years now. they are aware that it'd been rejected for 10 years when it was called ~"kayak-only fisheries". they also know that your effort didn't start gaining any traction until you and tosh formally organized, learned from other special interest groups with unpopular agendas, and changed strategies. they are aware that you guys simply put an "environmental" spin on it and concocted the more p.c. term LIFA to camouflage NMZs in an attempt to gain support.

the ironic thing is that the environment has actually been doing better in recent years (per TPWD data) since you guys changed strategies and your claims of natural catastophe created by motor usage have been thoroughly debunked.


----------



## Ish (Oct 30, 2008)

chugger said:


> Recognize when you are being used.
> Here's a thread started by Ish on his personal web site about you 2cooler's :
> 
> "here's what we've been missing over at 2fags ---- "
> ...


i don't have my own personal website. that's why i'm here playing on these. you know this because we've had this discussion before.

that you have no problem continuously spreading false information (even after you've been advised in writing it's false) simply because it promotes your agenda speaks volumes about you. by all means keep doing it. we're keeping track of all of it and the right people are going to be made aware of this sort of stuff when the time comes.

the thread you mention above should also point out what a great job you guys have done uniting once *greatly* divided user groups. kudos.

when railbird and the airboaters and i are all working together to protect user access rights for everyone you know there is a serious issue at hand.

that thread started shortly after Mont kicked me out here. after seeing the photo of your fabricated airboat incident back in january, learning about all the inside info i had on you guys, and discovering that we were together on this very important issue, Mont ask me to come back and share it all with these guys. it's another broken relationship that you guys mended. thanks again.

shouldn't you be out creating more set-up, staged pictures trying to frame law-abiding captains and making fraudulent reports to the game wardens about it??

and next time, make sure that the photographer that takes the pictures backs up your version of the story rather than the person who calls you out on it.


----------



## Ish (Oct 30, 2008)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Thanks for asking for support from fellow anglers then ignoring a simple question to continue debating
> 
> -mac-


it's not that we want to ignore you. it's that it takes a great amount of time to address every question individually. many of us don't have that kind of time to type it all up. it simply can't all be put in a nutshell.

many of us have taken lots of time to get the information out there on many, many threads, and it's counterproductive to re-type that plethora of information everytime we're asked for it. we simply don't have that kind of time. it's nothing personal.

i hope you understand.

please take the time to read about it, or come to the meetings where it's being discussed.


----------



## southpaw (Feb 25, 2009)

Mac,

I'll try to put this as cut and dry and unbiased as possible. TPWD is proposing another State Scientific Area or SSA along the JFK causeway. This area will have similar regulation to the Redfish Bay SSA which if you aren't familiar with has regulations which prohibit uprooting sea grass. You are allowed to go across the sea grass under power however if you uproot it you will be fined. As of now there is essentially no enforcement of these laws in Redfish Bay. TPWD doesn't exactly have the resources to keep wardens parked out there all the time so I think it was something like under 10 tickets since the law was put in place. There is really no basis for the law or studies that show that sea grass is endangered along the JFK causeway or that these SSAs improve the fishing or anything like that so many anglers see this as a stepping stone or slippery slope towards these areas becoming no motor zones and they feel it's fueled by private interest of a small minority. TPWD has a list of areas that are next on this list for SSA's and they span all across the coast so yes it can eventually affect the areas you mentioned.


----------



## "Reddrum" (Dec 15, 2005)

*SSA's*

Guys - If you recall the driving force behind the Redfish Bay SSA was primarily to protect Texas' northernmost stand of Turtle grass. Turtle grass grows extemely slow and is highly vulnerable to prop scarring so TPW was right in trying to protect that area. However, the JFK area they've outlined is Shoal and Widgeon grass which grows very fast and recovers well from prop scars. TPW also doesn't have any data, year over year pictures, etc. showing these grass meadows are decreasing in size.

So the question is since there is no Turtle grass in the JFK area, no scientific data to support special regulations and the grasses there are currently healthy or expanding why do we need an SSA?

None of us like having to deal with the people on the water who cut off your drift, burn the area you're trying to fish or just plain don't what they're doing but an SSA or LIFA isn't the answer.

The answer to these problems and also sea grass protection is education - and as much as I don't like dealing with the gov or paying more to use the resource a boating license with mandatory boater education would be a good start. Clearly marked running lanes through the flats they want to protect would help too.

Food for thought - take care.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

southpaw said:


> Mac,
> 
> I'll try to put this as cut and dry and unbiased as possible. TPWD is proposing another State Scientific Area or SSA along the JFK causeway. This area will have similar regulation to the Redfish Bay SSA which if you aren't familiar with has regulations which prohibit uprooting sea grass. You are allowed to go across the sea grass under power however if you uproot it you will be fined. As of now there is essentially no enforcement of these laws in Redfish Bay. TPWD doesn't exactly have the resources to keep wardens parked out there all the time so I think it was something like under 10 tickets since the law was put in place. There is really no basis for the law or studies that show that sea grass is endangered along the JFK causeway or that these SSAs improve the fishing or anything like that so many anglers see this as a stepping stone or slippery slope towards these areas becoming no motor zones and they feel it's fueled by private interest of a small minority. TPWD has a list of areas that are next on this list for SSA's and they span all across the coast so yes it can eventually affect the areas you mentioned.


I would like to take a look at this list...could you send me a link if its handy? Thanks

-mac-


----------



## Stuart (May 21, 2004)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> In a nutshell whats the cut and dried point here and how does it affect a kayaker and wadefisherman that spends most fishing days ear seadrift, indianola and port oconnor? Ill stand up if its going to save anhlers like me some rights. I dont have time to read all these arguments so give me something quick
> 
> -mac-


I guess if you only fish from a kayak in those three spots the rest of your life, you'll probably be okay.


----------



## shallowgal (Jun 11, 2004)

Mac - I dont have a link to the list but I have a print out given to us at the meeting by TPWD of the "short list" they narrowed down from 15 bays they had interest in. They are as follows:

- Mexiquita flats/ South Bay (LLM)
- JFK Causeway area (ULM)
- Matagorda Island Wildlife Management Area
- Christmas Bay
- Galveston Island State Park


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

chugger said:


> Recognize when you are being used.
> Here's a thread started by Ish on his personal web site about you 2cooler's :
> 
> "here's what we've been missing over at 2fags ---- "
> ...


You must think I am stupid or something not to have known about that thread. It's the right of anyone to have their opinion of 2C, good, bad or otherwise. If I kept track of every bad thing that was said about this place, I wouldn't have time to do anything else. If those guys want to fish in pink too-too's, more power to them. They aren't the ones trying to get bays closed to power boats. WPP is dangerous, and the more people that find out about their whacko ideas, the less chance they have of getting them implemented. I have seen this exact thing happen offshore to snapper fishing, to the point I no longer enjoy it. I won't sit back and let it happen in the bays. If you notice, one of the areas they looked at was my backyard (GISP). To look at it like it's only a down coast problem misses the obvious fact that it could easily happen here.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

If you stop and look at the way all of the RFBSSA came about, and see where we are today, you will see its vital we make a stand here. I have outlined below the chain of events on SSA"s through today.

1. Guide gets mad because other guides are fishing his spot. (nine mlie hole )
2. Guide uses his power as president CCA and his willing accomplice Dr. Mckinney to get a NMZ enacted in NMH (1995-2000).
3. State realizes they were scammed and reverses their actions.
4. Dr Mckinney trys to get voluntary rules put in place in redfish bay. They don't advertise it because they want to say voluntary doen't work.
5. State enacts a temporary SSA in Redfish Bay 2006.
6. State makes it perminant 2010.
7. State decides that went pretty well, so lets do it in other areas of the state.
8. Here we are today looking at 10-15 different areas the state wants to create with RFBSSA as their model of success.

If this is not incrimentallism, I don't know what is. Do any of you actually believe the LIFA concept is not going to take a simular path? I was told point blank in that meeting "*we have to have a SSA before we can have a LIFA*". Isn't it conveniant that these areas they are listing are scattered pretty evenly up and down the coast. Then there can be a NMZ every few hundred miles all along the texas coast.

If we don't make a stand, we will lose. Remember the sea grass is only a strawman here. It is their only argument they have the state will listen to. You can call it incrementallism or slippery slope, but its definantly going to follow a simular path as the SSA's. *JUST SAY KNOW TO LIFA"s.*


----------



## Ish (Oct 30, 2008)

and just say *NO* to LIFAs too!!! :smile:

the incrementalism is getting to you and it's working, railbird.

you are using their term, the term tosh and will created, to describe the closures.

about a 1.5-2 yeas ago tosh and will created that term "LIFA." tosh told me they came up with it because they needed something that didn't sound as bad as what their proposal *actually is* - exclusionary NMZs. they wanted a term that more suckers would fall for and be willing to get behind...lipstick on a pig if you will.

don't fall for it. call them what they are, exclusionary no motor zones. don't use that ridiculous term that they made up.

the scariest thing is that the TPWD has already fallen for it and drank the kool-aid. they are already using that silly, more p.c. term "LIFA" in the closure proposals they currently have in the works.

tosh and will learned from other special interest groups that if your agenda is failing or is extremely unpopular like their's has been for the last 10 years, you can often have more success if you re-brand and cloak your efforts with environmentalism, even if it's bogus.

and it's working. for the last 10 years "kayak-only fisheries" were flat-out rejected by TPWD (*when sea grass acreage was actually less than it is today!!!*)and out of the question. about 1.5-2 years ago tosh and will formally organized (WPP), re-branded (LIFA), and took "kayak-only" type of language out. they attempted to make it about sea-grass habitat destruction, and now TPWD has proposals in the works.

from 10 years of "hell no" to proposals on the table after only 1-2 years of the same guys pushing the same agenda, just camouflaged as LIFAs.

during that same time that they've claimed the sea grass is being destroyed and the government needs to step in, sea grass acreage has increased by double-digit percentages. sea grass is not in danger. anyone (without an NMZ agenda) who's spent a lot of time out there over the years can tell you that.

when tosh revealed this new strategy to me a couple of years ago i bailed. not because i'm against protecting the environment, but because in this case the environment doesn't face the threats they're claiming. if it were actually in such danger why wouldn't people like me who utilize the resource the most want to protect it so it's there for the future?

getting even more unnecessary regulations in place to exclude user groups based on bogus environmental claims sets very dangerous precedents. nothing good can come of creating bogus issues to hide the true agenda. look at what that kind of stuff has done in CA and other parts of the country...


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Now click the links below and just say no*

*Coastal Fisheries:
Designation of the JFK Causeway Area as a State Scientific Area*

Frequently Asked Questions
News Releases
Comment online until 5 p.m. Jan. 24, 2012.

Please also email the Director of Coastal Fisheries Robin Riechers a response to SSA's and No Morotr Zones desquised as the new environmental lefts softer kinder term "Limited Impact Fishing Area".

Robin Riechers [email protected]


----------



## ccraver (Jun 20, 2008)

Come on 2coolers, don't get complacent and forget about this issue just because the meetings are over. Lets keep this post at the top! Make sure you send out your emails to all the TPWD officials that are involved in this SSA proposal. Thanks Chuck and Ish for staying on top of these guys.


----------



## shallowgal (Jun 11, 2004)

"LIFA" sounds pretty. I might name my next daughter Lifa.


----------



## paymerick (May 19, 2010)

> tosh told me they came up with it because they needed something that didn't sound as bad as what their proposal *actually is* - exclusionary NMZs. they wanted a term that more suckers would fall for and be willing to get behind....


I heard the term "LIFA" is now starting to be thought of as a "dirty word" on the coast, and that the WPP guys will be going with a new one... "FKBA": Free Keg Beer Areas...

I may be on board now...


----------



## paymerick (May 19, 2010)

Ish said:


> and we'll have very dangerous precedent that can be used by other special interest groups to go after additional areas they want closed down.
> 
> it's a very steep, very slippery slope to go down to appease the very small number of users that make up WPP.
> 
> ...


 Ya know Ish, I've never really considered the possibility of increased kayak traffic in these LIF, errr, NMZs... Very good point...

As a relatively new kayaker, I'd be lying if i said i wouldn't be paddling to one of these NMZs to fish over a non-NMZ most of the time, if there were any near me (my area isn't in the crosshairs.....yet...)... I'm fat and sometimes clumsy, so the less wake the better for me, esspecially until I'm fully comfortable with my paddling skills... And let's face it, my kayak isn't decked out like some Star Trek spaceship as the one in the staged airboat photo is, so no added balance...

I was reminded of your point when i read one of these guy's posts on another board, and they suggest these NMZs would also be about "reducing pressures on the fish population in a given area so as to create better angling opportunities for everyone." - A significant increase in kayak traffic = increased pressure on the fish population in that given area...

Also, it was said that "it would also be about reducing impacts upon each other, or reducing user conflicts." - upon "each other"? Don't you mean "on us"? Either way, what happens when kayakers start getting pizzed at each other, wouldn't that be a user conflict? I can see it now, "Coming in June on Nat Geo, what happens when kayakers battle over fishing holes? PFDs become armor, paddles become lances, kayaks become horses and the flats become the jousting grounds! Watch as these fishermen storm toward each other at three miles an hour dealing blows as crushing as an orange peel hitting the trash heap, all for the chance to gain the rights to the hole. 'Yaks of Mayhem.' Only on Nat Geo"... It'll be bananas...

But seriously, we can't have this happening, so keep on emailing etc...


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Please write an email in opposition to this proposal and submit it. They are working the environmentalist wacco's getting coorespondence on their end, if we don't organize our opposition to this we will loose.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

This isn't over yet, the next meeting is later this month. Please continue to contact tpwd officials and voice your concern. Also contact the commisioners and let them know you are in opposition to both of these measures. Without continuous feedback, they will forget about the opposition and move right along with these measures. We must stop them here or it will go viral up and down the coast. Time to make a stand is now!


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

I just talked to someone who attended an important meeting today. It appears the SSA for the ULM is a dead issue. I will be watching the agenda for the upcoming meeting of the TPWD commission. As I understand it, the LIFA issue is not dead. We must continue to voice our opposition to this measure. Conflicts in our bays can be resolved through education rather than confiscation. 

Thank you all for your help in this issue.


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

Railbird, 
We still need everyone to call and email their opposition for the record. 

We cannot have enough support for this. You know that the group will regroup and respin this need they see for no motorized areas while the rest of us are out fishing with our families.

If you have not emailed your opinion please do asap.


----------



## JPChavez23 (Sep 4, 2006)

railbird said:


> I just talked to someone who attended an important meeting today. It appears the SSA for the ULM is a dead issue. I will be watching the agenda for the upcoming meeting of the TPWD commission. As I understand it, the LIFA issue is not dead. We must continue to voice our opposition to this measure. Conflicts in our bays can be resolved through education rather than confiscation.
> 
> Thank you all for your help in this issue.


I appreciate all that you've done to keep WPP from closing off areas. I commend you and every one else that's spoken up against their agenda. I've been pretty quiet about my feelings on this issue in the past but one of my resolutions this year is to be more involved with matters such as this one.


----------



## Snookered (Jun 16, 2009)

railbird said:


> It appears the SSA for the ULM is a dead issue. I will be watching the agenda for the upcoming meeting of the TPWD commission.


don't count on it yet! I have it on some information that Staff will be recommending a "modified proposal"......so while it may not be a full blown SSA, it will be "something"....I have not seen exactly what staff will be recommending to the Commission in two weeks from today in Austin...

there's still a foot in the door somewhere.....stay vigilant...
snookered


----------



## flatsmaster14 (Mar 25, 2011)

What happened to all the wpp people on here? Seems like they would have alot more to support there so called issue, they need to leave the flats boats alone and start messing with the dredging company's that are covering all there sea grass with a foot of mud!


----------



## Snookered (Jun 16, 2009)

flatsmaster14 said:


> What happened to all the wpp people on here?


they are busy in Austin writing their speeches for the Commission meeting Jan 25-26, and also lobbying the Commission for LIFA's and SSA's...
probably talking to at least one Commissioner on the phone as I type this...

please don't forget to turn in your comments....only takes a minute...

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/busines...nt/proposals/201201_jfk_scientific_area.phtml

snookered


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Caller Times article. This may shed some light on the states plans. I would suggest all stay informed on this issue.

http://www.caller.com/news/2012/jan/12/texas-parks-and-wildlife-alters-its-jfk-seagrass/


----------



## CaptDocHoliday (Feb 3, 2011)

Well done guys. Keeping a public resource public outta be a fight we all stay engaged in. Hope to see you on the water. 

CDH


----------

