# Millions of snapper......



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

I am just back from Orange Beach Alabama. I attended the Gulf Council Meeting with "Lighting Rod" Tom Hilton. The Gulf Coucil Meeting is a post for the Conservation Crossfire page.

This is what I wanted to share with you.

Alabama has @ 1.5% of the Gulf of Mexico Shoreline. The recreational fisherman, and charter /head boats harvest 43 % of the red snapper taken in the Gulf of Mexico.

HOW CAN THIS BE?

The answer is quite simple.....artficial reefs. There maybe 100,000 or more of them in the 1200 SQUARE MILES of gulf bottom DESIGNATED for private reef building in the tiny state of Alabama.

We visited with ECOSYSTEMS owner David Walter. A genuinely great guy, down to earth and of modest means. Except when it comes to deploying artificial reefs. This man has got it going on. His company has deployed over 20,000 REEFS. WOW.

Check out www.reefmaker.net.

To my point.

Texas Parks and Wildlife, The Army Corps of Engineers, The State of Texas, all state congressmen/women, state Senators as well as national representatives of Texas, HAVE DROPPED OUR BALL.

The State of Texas has a few hundred ACRES of designated bottom for artificial reefs, and enough red tape to choke godzilla. PATHETIC.

There is a saying "YOU ARE MAKING DUST OR EATING IT".

When comes to artificial reef dust, Texas is definately eating it.

Kenneth


----------



## Salty Techsan (May 28, 2004)

very interesting, thanks for posting. What was the general consensus (sp?) on the overall health of the snapper fishery in the gulf? specifically our far western portion?


----------



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

Everyone from Florida to Texas said the same thing. Tons of Snapper.

We are hoping to the ONE MILLION pounds not caught last year added to this years quota. Crabtree is balking.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

They are rebuilding a main road nearby my house. I see tons of culvert and jersey barriers they've pulled up, stuff that can never be used again. I've been wondering why they don't dump it as reef material.


----------



## kweber (Sep 20, 2005)

whut if we call all artificial reephs an' rigs phish pharming and philp off ol' Crabby?


----------



## capt. stealth (Jul 7, 2008)

I am not much of a artificial reef guy but I do like fishing wrecks and used up rigs. I guess if you are a NFMF then I am cool with the artificial reef thing. Broken bottom, ridges and rocks that's the way, just go to the instant fisherman book of numbers store. :texasflag


----------



## EndTuition (May 24, 2004)

True enough. We like to point out all the mistakes and mismanagement of the Feds, and we should, but our own State has failed us in this one regard as well.
I see some progress and support recently, and I wonder about some of the state water even being feasible for snaps, but there is no doubt we have not done what we could with what we have.
What happened to the Great Texas Barrier Reef program ? What program is making headway now ?


----------



## ding-a-ling (Jul 29, 2005)

*It's frustrating*

Capt4fish,
You are exactly right - TX has dropped the ball bigtime on this one. Several years ago I emailed TPWD rigs to reefs folks about the 160 acre designated reefing sites out of each port and it was being "worked on". I haven't heard any such area yet off Port A, maybe there is. 

160 acres offshore is 1/4 mile by 1/4 mile, a small area out there and it defies logic why we haven't followed Alabama's lead and allow public and private reefing efforts (with approved material) in large approved areas. This is what David at Reefmaker has been doing for 15 plus years and we all see the result. 

Here we are now in TX with numerous platforms being scheduled to come out, a short 2 fish season in Fed waters, snapper so thick its hard to get a bait past them, and no large scale plans for state water reefing. Yes, there are a few areas on the upper coast and Mansfield that are moving with some material going out, but we need what Tom Hilton and others designated the TGBR a while back to happen. Large apporved areas running along the entire coast in state waters, do that and we would have more snapper than we'd know what to do with, along with other species that come with the added hard structure. And the feds not running the show, which might just be the best part. 

This is the kind of list I would like to see for Texas http://www.conservation.alabama.gov/fishing/saltwater/where/artificial-reefs/dgps_coordinates.htm

The list is from 2003 and doesn't include any private numbers, that plus any public reefing thats gone on in the last 8 years and you get the idea how substantial their program is over there.


----------



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

Alabama to repeat, has 1200 SQUARE MILES, that is an area 40 miles by 30 miles. WOW.

David (Reefmaker) in Alabama told us they catch snapper in any water depth greater than 30ft on his reefs. His words.

An area in Texas Waters of a few miles wide, but stretching almost the entire coast would allow us to tell NMFS and Crabtree to take a hike. 

Can you imagine the economic impact to coastal towns, year round with snapper fishing just a few miles offshore? CFH, Recs, even headboats that are not federally permitted could enjoy this fishing. 

So where are our state officials that represent our coastal counties? 

So WHERE IS THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE on a viable, large scale reefing project such as Alabama has? This needs to be a front-burner, get it done now action. A few hundred acres of reefing site scattered up and down the Texas coast is no more that a PACIFIER, A TOKEN EFFORT AT BEST.


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

*T.P.& W. needs some help*

T.P.& W. went all the way for us on State Snapper limits. Too bad they do not understand the whole picture. They have made mastakes by putting reefs in the wrong spots. The Vancover area is an example. The Vancover was on its way to become part of the V.A. Fogg reef and broke loose in bad weather. She ended up inshore of the East and Mid Bank area offshore Freeport. They left it were it sank. This is a bad area as it is in the mud and just a little too far inshore. Also this area gets too much run off from the Brazos and San Bernard. Silt and Dow have not helped. Another example is Mitchells & Barrs offshore Galveston. Mitchells is still there but Barrs is gone. Mitchells is not state waters. T.P.& W. needs help to figure placement. Upper Texas coast has less naturel spots for sure than the lower coast.
Hate to say it but some areas that used to be great on the upper coast are not nearly as good as they were in the late 60`s and early 70`s while almost every area and spot in Fed. waters is much better now & I blame pollution. Having said that we could still improve Texas Stae Waters with reefs in the right spots. Another problem is that there are great state water spots upper coast but most times they are small and hard to find (most larger spots have been found). Normally when a man finds one he keeps it to himself as that sort of thing is "Gold". Who can blame them?
Rik

P.S. Most State Water Snapps (pounds & no. of fish) are lower coast where the bottom is better and water is deeper at the same distance.
I have many spots around Mansield & SPI just off the beach I do not publish because they are so close to land there is danger in fishing them.
Hard to imagine how many Snapper & Triggers on some of those shallow spots till you see em. All reefs in those areas will thrive.


----------



## lucas_shane (Mar 9, 2009)

Im not gonna mention any names as Im not sure it was legal. But I worked on a big head boat and the capt was he!! bent to make him some small spots to fish. We would take some concrete and mono ( from a long line rig ) and tie pvc to the concrete and then tie bleach jugs on top of the pvc. We would deploy about 10 of these at a time. Each time going back to the same area trying to make the spot bigger and better. One year later we hit this spot and caught small fish and 2 yrs yrs later we was catching keeps.

With all that being said why dont more of the local guys do this type deployment ?


----------



## whos your daddy (Jun 2, 2004)

Its illegal


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

*Right you are!*



lucas_shane said:


> Im not gonna mention any names as Im not sure it was legal. But I worked on a big head boat and the capt was he!! bent to make him some small spots to fish. We would take some concrete and mono ( from a long line rig ) and tie pvc to the concrete and then tie bleach jugs on top of the pvc. We would deploy about 10 of these at a time. Each time going back to the same area trying to make the spot bigger and better. One year later we hit this spot and caught small fish and 2 yrs yrs later we was catching keeps.
> 
> With all that being said why dont more of the local guys do this type deployment ?


Put your reef in the sight spot and "They Will Come"!
Rik


----------



## DavidCorpusTX (Aug 11, 2005)

lucas_shane said:


> Im not gonna mention any names as Im not sure it was legal. But I worked on a big head boat and the capt was he!! bent to make him some small spots to fish. We would take some concrete and mono ( from a long line rig ) and tie pvc to the concrete and then tie bleach jugs on top of the pvc.  We would deploy about 10 of these at a time. Each time going back to the same area trying to make the spot bigger and better. One year later we hit this spot and caught small fish and 2 yrs yrs later we was catching keeps.
> 
> With all that being said why dont more of the local guys do this type deployment ?


Sounds like a bunch of bleach jugs washing up on the beach in a year or two to me. "Clean" waste concrete makes great reef building material, I wish that state would get on board with expanding the program.


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

*EPA & other Gov.*



whos your daddy said:


> Its illegal


Another example of how the gov. is much more on the problem side of this issue. Cons. org. like SCA sought to buy back old shrimpers. Their two fold approach: purchased shrimpers taken off active would help the shrimp and other baitfish. Make reefs of purchased boats and get some of these junkers out of the water where many are wrecked and leaking fuel. Makes total sense! EPA comes allong and says "NO - Huge Fines".

This shows what we are fighting. Here you have an org. that would trully help but for gov.

EPA & others should offer "inspections" of old shrimpers and issue permits.
What they do helps nothing.
Rik


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*reefs*

I have personally witnessed that TPWD has been ramping up reefing efforts significantly recently in addition to trying to get permits for several 160 acre sites up and down the coast.

One MAJOR obstacle to developing more reefing areas and/or on a larger scale is the permitting process that they have to go through with the USACE and other agencies.

I think that if the NMFS would get behind a Gulf-wide habitat program that the permitting process would be easier since it is a federal agency. It boggles my mind that they don't have a habitat component in their fisheries management program especially when the proof is in the pudding over off of Alabama.

All the best,
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton.


----------



## ding-a-ling (Jul 29, 2005)

I am glad to hear TPWD is moving on this and the recent activity is encouraging. It just kills me though to see that their Artificial Reef Program began in 1990 http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/water/habitats/artificial_reef/rigs_to_reefs.phtml
That's 21 years ago and what do we really have to this point? The program is primarily focused on platforms, hence "Rigs to Reefs", and that's fine, but they need to broaden the scope and look at nearshore opportunities with smaller pieces of material and lower costs. We all know it only takes something the size of a living room to hold lots of fish so moving in that direction would make sense. 
Tom, do you know how has AL been able to get around the permitting issues with USACE and move so quickly? As you pointed out that seems to be the major problem at this point.


----------



## capt. stealth (Jul 7, 2008)

The artificial reef thing is cool but what ever happened to the old school do a little research and find a spot. I just don't get it. There is 10 times more satisfaction when you find a new spot slab rock, junk that fell off a ship or what ever the spots are there. Artificial reefs don't make more snapper, they are already there rooting in the flats. :texasflag


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Kenneth*

It was very good to see at the Gulf Council Meeting. The question was what happened to the "Texas Great Barrier Reef" project. The environ's and the State and Federal Agencies blocked at every turn our permit process.

All I can say is to the men that run Texas Parks and Wildlife and The Feds if one moves one foot on land from the mean high tide line the world changes. They scream habitat for Deer,Quail, Turkey, Song Birds and all sorts of other furry creatures. Habitat-structure is the battle cry even in the lakes but simply step one foot into salt water and forget getting anything done due to the PhD's going to war to stop any reefing as it is not natural. Idiots all in the PhD world driven by EDF once again.

Texas could have the best offshore near shore fishery in the Gulf once we reef like Alabama has done. There was a very dynamic video presentation
done in Alabama. It was breath taking seeing the visual success of their reefing program. The study had everyone sitting around the room with their mouths wide open. I will let Tom Hilton give a report on that presentation as he can post up links to the videos.

Sorry about getting to into the background on Bluewater Board but felt it needed to be said where people will read it as I am not sure everyone checks the Conservation Crossfire Board. There is a report over there on the Council Meeting.

Jim Smarr
RFA-Texas


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

*my take on it*



capt. stealth said:


> The artificial reef thing is cool but what ever happened to the old school do a little research and find a spot. I just don't get it. There is 10 times more satisfaction when you find a new spot slab rock, junk that fell off a ship or what ever the spots are there. Artificial reefs don't make more snapper, they are already there rooting in the flats. :texasflag


You are right on about the satisfaction of finding new spots. Wrong about artificial reefs not making more Snapper. 
Rik


----------



## capt. stealth (Jul 7, 2008)

Rsnap said:


> You are right on about the satisfaction of finding new spots. Wrong about artificial reefs not making more Snapper.
> Rik


Wrong I am not. I would love to see a artificial reef make more snapper. It will hold snapper from around the surrounding area. What most people don't under stand is snapper move. They go where the food is. You can find fish in a area for a week or two lets say and all the rocks are loaded with fish from top to bottom on your fish finder and now gone with nothing but a clean bottom looking like a dead zone. Artificial reefs don't make more snapper they hold them as long as they are in a area. :texasflag


----------



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

Capt. Stealth,

43% of red snapper caught in the GOM DO NOT MIGRATE FROM TEXAS, LA, OR FLORIDA to live on artificial reefs in Alabama. There is no snapper internet advertising
free condos for snapper off of the Alabama coast line. 

You are correct in saying "snapper move", but, I do not believe they migrate long distances, they are not the swimmers pelagics are. They follow bait, they have to to live.

The snapper harvest off of Alabama tells me that artificial reefs do indeed "raise snapper", how else would such numbers be possible with only 1.5% of the coastline?

Kenneth


----------



## tpool (Aug 21, 2005)

Rsnap said:


> T.P.& W. went all the way for us on State Snapper limits. Too bad they do not understand the whole picture. They have made mastakes by putting reefs in the wrong spots. The Vancover area is an example. The Vancover was on its way to become part of the V.A. Fogg reef and broke loose in bad weather. She ended up inshore of the East and Mid Bank area offshore Freeport. They left it were it sank. This is a bad area as it is in the mud and just a little too far inshore. Also this area gets too much run off from the Brazos and San Bernard. Silt and Dow have not helped. Another example is Mitchells & Barrs offshore Galveston. Mitchells is still there but Barrs is gone. Mitchells is not state waters. T.P.& W. needs help to figure placement. Upper Texas coast has less naturel spots for sure than the lower coast.
> Hate to say it but some areas that used to be great on the upper coast are not nearly as good as they were in the late 60`s and early 70`s while almost every area and spot in Fed. waters is much better now & I blame pollution. Having said that we could still improve Texas Stae Waters with reefs in the right spots. Another problem is that there are great state water spots upper coast but most times they are small and hard to find (most larger spots have been found). Normally when a man finds one he keeps it to himself as that sort of thing is "Gold". Who can blame them?
> Rik
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I agree with the pollution statements and shallow water statements about the upper coast - I have a couple of spots within 9 miles of Galveston that keep & hold 5-10lb snapper and it's less than 50ft deep. They are VERY small spots. But they are structure. Sounds like that is the same in Alabama (reefman said keeper snaps holding in water 30ft or so right?). I believe it would be the same here if we give them structure to hold on...

T-BONE


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

*Hope this helps*



capt. stealth said:


> Wrong I am not. I would love to see a artificial reef make more snapper. It will hold snapper from around the surrounding area. What most people don't under stand is snapper move. They go where the food is. You can find fish in a area for a week or two lets say and all the rocks are loaded with fish from top to bottom on your fish finder and now gone with nothing but a clean bottom looking like a dead zone. Artificial reefs don't make more snapper they hold them as long as they are in a area. :texasflag


Thanks for the lesson! Yes, Snapper move. So - all the Snapper are already there. Extra structure does not provide shelter and protection?
Snapper are not everwhere. They follow paths like pipelines ridges and they follow bait. More structure means more bait. Any new spot in an area that is not found and published can become a super spot like "Red Mountain"! A super spot full of "Sows" (super breeders just like Bull Reds) will lay unfished for years and then the Sows help the local areas when they move. T.P.& W. does not always publish new ones right away. I have personally "stumbled" on to some of their non published stuff.
Wow! Just as you rightly pointed out new spots can fall off a ship in a storm. New wrecks are always sinking. Any new structure by man is an artifical reef. Structure that falls off a ship is the same. Do not take me the wrong way. I only say what I do to help you and others understand the big picture.

So again I say -put your reef in the right spot or "path" and they will come. Put it in the wrong spot or area (like Vancover) and not so much!
Rik


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

*hope I am wrong on pollution*



tpool said:


> I'm not sure I agree with the pollution statements and shallow water statements about the upper coast - I have a couple of spots within 9 miles of Galveston that keep & hold 5-10lb snapper and it's less than 50ft deep. They are VERY small spots. But they are structure. Sounds like that is the same in Alabama (reefman said keeper snaps holding in water 30ft or so right?). I believe it would be the same here if we give them structure to hold on...
> 
> T-BONE


I also have like non published spots there offshore Galveston and they hold fish well. I am not talking everwhere. I mentioned Vancover more than once. This area is covered with silt from run off of San Bernard and Brazos and pollution from Dow. I hope you are right about pollution,as I want to be wrong on that. Your spots must be in a better area or path than others like Barrs reef that went away in the mud. Ask T.P.&W! I pointed out Mansfield and other southern ports have Snaps at the same depth. Their bottom is different as is the bottom in Alabama. Better bottom in some upper Texas coast areas but not all.

Every spot and area is not equil to the Snapper. When you want lots of them vrs a small handfull - just as in real estate Location, Location, Location! Belive me or do not. I have watched as comm. fisherman and others have made their own reefs. Some spots and areas never thrive and some are off the charts!

Don`t want to argue - I throw this out because I want Tom Hilton and others to help us with reefs. Not just anywhere. So if I am wrong about areas or pollution please someone tell me - Have you found Barrs reef where T.P.&W says it is? How many of you guys that bought reefs from Tom in the Vancover area are catching limits of 5 - 10 lb. Snapper there? Lmits of keepers?
Rik

P.S. I have looked at the Vancover area and as of now I only publish the wk itself. I could publish the others but I do not as I consider them a waist of time. I also do not publish Barrs as it is not where T.P.&W. says.


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

*BTW*

. Broken bottom, ridges and rocks that's the way, just go to the instant fisherman book of numbers store. :texasflag[/QUOTE]

BTW , that is me also! No one loves naturel bottom more! We need guys like Tom to add to what God gave us! Nature does not mind a little help!:idea:
Rik


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

First of all, Alabama does NOT have 43 percent of the red snapper withinin its 3-miles state natural resources territorial limit, but is somehow jiggered into an "Alabama sector" that extends way out into federal waters. You'd have more luck catching snapper within 3 miles off Port Mansfield - although we got 9 miles for state waters down here and those indeedy are "Texas State Snapper" even if they grow turbo-jets on them and move around!

Second, I'm hearing a great deal of practical, fisherman-based sense here from Rik, Tom, Jim, and similar. Nothing to dispute there, but I was interested in a side comment by Rik (Rsnap) about pollution.

If you want to read my junk about pollution and red snapper, read on.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There used to be many red snapper off Sabine, Galveston, Freeport/Brazos, and in the general upper part of the Texas Coast. These three major ports did several things over the decades that were bad for snapper:


Dredging the ship channels
Constructing jetties
Extracting sulfur & salt from underwater salt domes
Allowing on-land pollution to flow out into the Gulf
Offshore ammunition disposal areas
The way these water bodies used to work is that sand would come out the Mississippi, get cleaned of the brown clays, and form very nice reefs of sand banks close to rocky area where red snapper would migrate, as well as the many ship wrecks (later, oil wells would provide a substitute for rocky structure). The shifting sands were a real threat to marine shipping, since most ships required 12-14 feet of water, lest the ground. So the ports and Army Corps of Engineers and some visionaries constructed breakwater jetties and mined channels extending quite a bit out to sea.

These spoils, as dredge wastes are called, tended to be a mixture not just of Mississippi sands, which would be OK, but layers of high clay muds, which were dumped offshore in giant spoil areas - which obliterated the good red snapper grounds quickly by suffocating them. Today, most of those three channels are dredged and maintained to between 45 and 50 feet deep! Thus in addition to suffocating some areas with brown turbid mud, the natural cleaning currents were changed as well.

I won't get into the sulfur, salt, and oil mining that started after 1900, but in those days all "tailings" and unneeded products were dumped into the waters in millions of tons. The Frasch Process made mineral extraction profitable for a while but was gradually abandoned other finds such as in West Texas became more profitable - the oil & gas business stayed, however, as down-hole technology got better. These production platforms, while slightly polluting because of high releases of lead and hydrocarbons, is credited with helping provide structure that was suffocated from the natural marine sands.

The issue of "pollution" from land-side sources isn't fully known, but there were some very strange chemical processes used especially during the WWII effort that ended up as having PCB, dioxins, poisons, and goodness knows what. The reason why many waters in the upper Houston Channel are closed to fishing is because many former storage lagoons chemical pits subsided, breached, or degraded enough to allow the wastes to flow right into the bayous, out the channel, and to the snapper banks. Not to bore you, but just like humans who can get sick with cancers, reproductive problems, and birth defects from dioxin compounds, fish can too.

Finally, the issue of offshore ammunition disposal isn't well known because much of it is classified or lost to the annals of history, but after WWI and WWII the US had massive stockpiles of ammunition, everything from flares and grenades to poison gas bombs containing mustard gas, Lewisite, and worse. Entire ships and barges were scuttled. You will see many of these sites on the nautical charts as "Ammunition Disposal Area." They are quite large, and as the casings of the bombs corrode, are still releasing enormous amounts of poison into the water. Some think that some of the dolphin deaths in that part of the Gulf might be from female dolphins aborting babies, after trace chemical exposures that nobody can seem to identify because it might be parts per trillions (by comparison, crude oil is benign stuff).

About ten years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers pumped a bunch of "good" marine sand onto the coastline of New Jersey, which was eroding at a fast rate. Soon, kids who were playing in the sand making sand castles were uncovering cluster bombs, flares, grenades, and aerial practice bombs. This was from an area that was NOT marked as an offshore ammo disposal area on the marine charts. The beach was closed for over a year to remediate it, and yes, nearly all of the ammo was live, not dummy target bombs.

Now consider all that, and aside from some natural rocks by Mansfield, ask yourself why the lower Texas coast has the inshore snapper now - and you don't.

Now consider why Alabama, even if it doesn't 43 percent of the red snapper in the US Gulf, is doing so very well. While there was some military operations off Mobile, they didn't have all the heavy industry, ammo dumping grounds, and so forth. They are also bless by being isolated from the highly polluted "Black Triangle of Death" in the Freeport-Houston-Beaumont industrial area by being on the back-current of a cold water eddy (upwelling) that extended over two major and very deep marine trenches.

And yes, the good folks in Alabama started dumping cars, trains, tugs, ships, barges, concrete, and anything they could get their hands on to make red snapper artificial reefing. It worked! But was that the only key to success?

So far, nobody has proven the pollution theory of which Rik suggests and I am speaking. They may never, and it will remain a mystery. But us old salts can't be fooled, because many years ago there were many more red snapper inshore, and they are gone today - even off SPI with its large jetty, deep channel, spoil and ammo dumping areas, and changed currents. Yep, even we have to go up off Mansfield to find some semblance of "the old days."


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

I can promise you that many of the old spots are just flat gone, ask Rik or Tom as well.

Much of the old stuff was metal, parts of old shrimpers and oil rigs and such, and it just flat rotted away or was buried with the storms or drug off with the shrimpers.

Now, when they pull a rig , which they are doing by the hundreds in the GOM, they send in sweeper boats to pull heavy shrimp nets and clean the bottom bare, I have talked to those guys several times, they pretty much get it all. Again not like the good ol' days.

If we don't get behind reef building programs or rigs to reefs asap, we will be in real trouble in the near future. 

Snapper are reef fish by definition and they will move to find a structure to suspend around, which means not here if we don't provide it.


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

*Well said*



Swells said:


> First of all, Alabama does NOT have 43 percent of the red snapper withinin its 3-miles state natural resources territorial limit, but is somehow jiggered into an "Alabama sector" that extends way out into federal waters. You'd have more luck catching snapper within 3 miles off Port Mansfield - although we got 9 miles for state waters down here and those indeedy are "Texas State Snapper" even if they grow turbo-jets on them and move around!
> 
> Second, I'm hearing a great deal of practical, fisherman-based sense here from Rik, Tom, Jim, and similar. Nothing to dispute there, but I was interested in a side comment by Rik (Rsnap) about pollution.
> 
> ...


Very well stated! Divers that have dove those areas tell me in "the old days" the areas I spoke of were clean. Newer reports speak of a large layer of silt. I can remember the water being so clear in there some days you could pick out rock features on the bottom and see everything from Kings & jacks on top then Snapper & large shapes close to the bottom but tough to make out. Have not seen that now for 30 years. You may be right. Mabie we can not prove pollution has hurt shallow water spots over time but that is what I belive.
Rik


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

*Right you are*



CoastalOutfitters said:


> I can promise you that many of the old spots are just flat gone, ask Rik or Tom as well.
> 
> Much of the old stuff was metal, parts of old shrimpers and oil rigs and such, and it just flat rotted away or was buried with the storms or drug off with the shrimpers.
> 
> ...


Lots of the old stuff is gone just as you say. Clean sweep is stupid!
Might help to have some big storms come thru certain areas and clean out what we could not (not wishing for storms). Ike broke up some spots and un covered some old ones that had died. I do belive in the reef program. I just want them well placed. There are still plenty of shallow areas that are still good for Snapper to thrive. We just need to chose smartly.
Rik


----------



## capt. stealth (Jul 7, 2008)

capt4fish said:


> Capt. Stealth,
> 
> 43% of red snapper caught in the GOM DO NOT MIGRATE FROM TEXAS, LA, OR FLORIDA to live on artificial reefs in Alabama. There is no snapper internet advertising
> free condos for snapper off of the Alabama coast line.
> ...


I realy don't think that is what I said was *QUOTE*:It will hold snapper from *around the surrounding area.* What most people don't under stand is snapper move.
We need some artificial reefs in Texas but, form Freeport to Sabine the water is not deep enough except maybe to protect small snapper which would help the fishery.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*Alabama Reefs*

The proof is in the pudding.

1.5% of the Gulf coastline has been accounting for about 40% of ALL recreationally-caught snapper (and unknown % of commercial snapper) in the ENTIRE GULF OF MEXICO for several years.

Before these reefs were deployed, there was basically no fishery there at all. If these reefs are not providing adequate food, shelter, and other things vital to survive, then where are they being recruited from?

These reefs are PRODUCING a SUSTAINABLE fishery where none existed before - that is a fact. There is also substantial spillover effect happening the last few years in adjacent areas that didn't have viable populations of snapper, but do now (such as off of Tampa). Hurricanes re-shuffle the deck and move the fish around to new areas.

All the best,
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton


----------



## broadonrod (Feb 26, 2010)

hilton said:


> The proof is in the pudding.
> 
> 1.5% of the Gulf coastline has been accounting for about 40% of ALL recreationally-caught snapper (and unknown % of commercial snapper) in the ENTIRE GULF OF MEXICO for several years.
> 
> ...


Tom 98 % of all of the swords are caught inside the little yellow headed mans smilly face...:spineyes: LOL Capt. Ahab


----------



## tpool (Aug 21, 2005)

Guys,

I don't want to give y'all a false sense that I know what I'm talking about on the pollution thing - I do feel it is/was/has happening/happened. The main point I was conveying is these couple spots I have are SHALLOW, and they HAVE NO CLOSE STRUCTURE next to them (or cover either). It is flat where these are at. The only structure is very small and man made/placed. And it's loaded with keepers (I say loaded - we get our limits and move on - I have been skunked there from one week to a couple weeks later, but it has only happened once - I think guys are catching on to the spot). So, I was just thinking any structure will bring them to it (when the bait passes it). 

Again, y'all have more knowledge of snapper in your pinky than I have in my whole body (x's 10). I was just merely stating what I am witnessing 9 miles "straight" off the Galveston jetties...

T-BONE


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

No problem T, and I don't think anyone is disputing what you say. There's also fishing pressure as well. Houston has something like over 3 million in population in the metro area and goodness knows how many fishermen - but there are a ton of 'em. If you go to other parts of Texas where the summer fishing pressure isn't so intense - maybe not Sabine but you know what I mean - you'll generally find more snapper.

And Cap'n Ahab I like yo picture better!


----------



## surfcowboy (Jun 29, 2005)

Hey guys I've fished a lot of AR off Nc they do hold fish whats also nice about NC is they have a lot of live bottom. the only live bottom i know about are a few rocks, and over in the flower garden area. 

I've driven past many of road construction companys and they have any area were they store all the old concert that is about 5ac and the concret in piled 100ft high. I also have an old friend were his family was paid by a company to dump about 10ac of old highway that stand 6ft tall 25-30 years this stuff you could probably get for free and it will give them use of the land again. Just the cost of getting it out of there would the the only cost. 

I don't know why they don't use all this old stuff it would be easy for coral to grow on. and give a few dive site for us divers.


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

*Why they (U S Corps of Engineers) don't allow Reef Permits*

The Environmentalist fight every single permit to reef offshore Texas with a vengeance. These Environmentalist have infiltrated every single State and Federal Agency that has to approve the required permits. If we could fire about six people I know personally we could have Reefed the Coast. The New Environmental Right is growing fast. We will have a voice soon so maybe these thugs will be in the unemployment line.

I would love to out them as they have stalled the Cedar Bayou and Vinson's Slough project along with the reef permiting.

1.
2.
3.
4. 
6.

How much I would like to fill in the names so everyone in the fishing world would know who to "love"! lol

Jim Smarr
RFA- Texas


----------



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

Swells, 

I hear ya about pollution. I am not an expert on it but..

If pollution was the culprit, wouldn't we have other fish in trouble as well. Bull reds for example. They are THICK in our near shore state waters. This also applies to gaftop, drum, sandtrout flounder.....the list goes on. 

I am not disputing pollution may be a problem, I am just saying that Alabama has PROVEN that "if we build artificial reefs they will come." This is indisputable.

This is also in my view what we need to focus on desperately.

Maybe Tom can post what the projections will be from NMFS on sector separation, should it be implemented. These people want to deny every recreational angler as much as 55% of the recreational harvest. Believe that.


Kenneth


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Kenneth some fish have a remarkable ability to survive, as was witnessed after the BP/Deepwater oil spill last year. How pollution works is very strange - it took the herring 3 years after the Exxon Valdez incident for the herring population in Prince Edward Sound (Alaska) to completely collapse - nothing, nope, nada. Who knows? The scientists are still baffled.

Surfcowboy we do have a bunch of live ground, hard bottom, and structure off Texas. We have a smattering of sponge, hard coral, soft coral, and even Southern Spiny Lobster. Hard to find and deep? Yes but it is there.

As to all that unwanted concrete such as culverts and stuff poured from emptying concrete trucks into forms that ain't no good, the costs are in hiring a large ocean barge and a tugboat with some kind of dozer or excavator on the large to push the waste overboard. We can find some deals on the tug-barge part but all that concrete has to be trucked to a marine terminal and loaded with a crane onto the barge. 

That is very expensive!


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

Texas put out those Liberty ship wrecks back in the 1970s and then you didn't hear squat for decades about artificial reefs. Except "rigs to reefs," carting old oil rigs away on barges off to the Eastern Gulf. We depended on working oil rig fishing off Texas, for our snapper. And now they're cutting off those rigs below the mud line, leaving little trace, even trawling up barnacle debris left behind. Useless, for the future. Looks like Alabama went the other way, developing a viable snapper fishery.


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

*Yep*



capt4fish said:


> Swells,
> 
> I hear ya about pollution. I am not an expert on it but..
> 
> ...


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

*Kingfish patterns/Large Shrimp fleets gone*

Not to change thr subject, but Kingfish in the 60`s & 70`s were way better in shallow water than now. More of a change there than Red Snapper! Rec. fisherman had a role in this. At the time with no limits there was a huge charter fleet that chased them. Standard day was 2 big igloos full. Many caught them just to take pictures at the dock - then put them in the garbage. Another difference then was the Kings followed the huge Shrimp fleet that does not exist now!
Rik


----------



## CHA CHING (May 21, 2004)

If you drop concrete and steel into 20 feet of mud you'll have a burried reef very quickly. Location is the key. Alabama and northern Florida have SAND bottom not the deep mus that we have. 
Take a 4ft x 5ft plastic tote, set in the water next to the boat and fill it with hbags of sand till it sinks like a brick. Have poly rope jugs floats balls tied to it. Put 3 or 4 of them in the right spot and you'll have a sure fire honey hole.
The best part is when a shrimper drags over it the ropes and balls fold down, the fish move over and the nets push the balls into the mud and nets bounce right over them. The tote sinks in the mud because it's foot print is very small and very dense.
It's clean and easy and can be deployed from any cc boat on a god day.
I've heard they really work well.


----------



## mahiseeker (Jan 26, 2006)

That's what the 2coolcondos was for, start some reefing in close. Not many anglers cared to donate ,but for those of you that did, I congratualte you, although i never heard if they were built. Tried to get anglers to get it going, but...a lot of talk, but little action. It sure would come in handy, when gas reaches $10 a gallon.
Kind of glad i'm not a boat owner anymore.


----------



## CHA CHING (May 21, 2004)

When you put those 2coolcondos in the mud and they sink and their gone you have NO REEF!!!
Unfortunatley as I said you can't just go drop Sh!t it any spot and expect it to work.


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*reefs*

Capt. Gerrans,
We designed many of the reefs to have an optimum footprint/weight ratio for the very reason of preventing subsidence. I can show you readings that illustrate that all of the structures that we have placed in the Vancouver site are still there, and have not subsided. TPWD researchers have dove the site and examined the bottom composition to determine whether or not it was suitable for reef deployment, as they are very sensitive to losing any to sinking (as has happened off of Galveston and Port A).

I agree that the Vancouver is not the best location in the world, but it's all we have until new reef sites are approved.

Mahiseeker - yes, the 2Cool condos were built and deployed - go to this site to check them out;
http://www.reef-man.com/index_vancouver.php
Click on the icon of any of the sponsors and it will take you to their site.

All the best,
Capt. Thomas J. Hilton


----------



## CHA CHING (May 21, 2004)

Tom,
I am glad to hear that all of your sites are still there and working..
I have in years past wondered why certain structures that I know where there just vanished in the mud. Then I was educated by Mr Walker.
Keep up the good work Tom.


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

*Right you are!*



CHA CHING said:


> Tom,
> I am glad to hear that all of your sites are still there and working..
> I have in years past wondered why certain structures that I know where there just vanished in the mud. Then I was educated by Mr Walker.
> Keep up the good work Tom.


T.P.& W. should work with real fisherman on location and construction.
Rik


----------



## jim smarr (May 21, 2004)

TPWD needs help with $$$ for deploying reefs. They need to fight for grants and private foundation money. Oil Companies certainly have plenty $$$$ about now.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

i guess you didn't read your plastic disposal placard :>


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Rsnap said:


> Not to change thr subject, but Kingfish in the 60`s & 70`s were way better in shallow water than now. More of a change there than Red Snapper! Rec. fisherman had a role in this. At the time with no limits there was a huge charter fleet that chased them. Standard day was 2 big igloos full. Many caught them just to take pictures at the dock - then put them in the garbage. Another difference then was the Kings followed the huge Shrimp fleet that does not exist now!
> Rik


I agree. As late as 1997 we were able to slaughter all the kings we wanted, forget when the fish limits were cut down to 2 per person but it was always easy, and packing 12 smokers was a problem with our cooler space! You could catch some off the second sandbar in the surf sometimes, a real blast on a trout pole, although that's more like the late 80s as I recollect. Oh course, down by SPI we used to have conch (Texas Lightning whelk) and sand dollars back then. But now them and the mackerel seem to be gone or in such puny numbers as to be a real shame. I can't explain it, other than pollution and over-fishing. Heck, maybe them damme snappers ate all their forage food, dunno, along with the shark and the dolphin.


----------



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

Guys,
I disagree with the kingfish. There are plenty caught close now. 
Maybe because fewer people are fishing for them they seem to be short supply close.
Kingfish effort seems to have dwindled alot in my judgement.

On the other hand I believe the near shore snapper are being wiped out by the shrimpers. Seems to me the majority of effort by shrimpers is state waters. Right now shrimpers are working the hell out of state waters. This cannot be good for snapper. 
I believe this is the main reason state water snapper are slower than we would like. I also believe alot of this can be solved with designated private reefing areas in state water. 

Kenneth


----------



## Blue Fin Charters (Mar 2, 2010)

capt4fish said:


> Guys,
> I disagree with the kingfish. There are plenty caught close now.
> Maybe because fewer people are fishing for them they seem to be short supply close.
> Kingfish effort seems to have dwindled alot in my judgement.
> ...


Couldn't disagree more!
I do not know the difference in the amount of boats fishing for Kings near shore now versus in years past, but I do know that the number of shrimp boats fishing near shore is less than in years past and pullng more devices to reduce bycatch. There used to be hundreds or thousands of boats fishing the beach in the GOM. The fleet keeps getting smaller each year. Go look at Freeport, Port A or any port and you will notice a major drop in boats. Many years ago the boats stayed close to land due to the size of the boats and the lack of ability to fish deep waters or hold ice for a long time. The boats grew larger with larger engines, winches, holds and freezers to fish longer and deeper. Fuel prices, imports, and strict regulations concerning turtles and bycatch have just about killed the shrimping industry. The number of shrimping licenses issued each year keeps dropping. These guys pull numerous by catch reduction devices and get boarded and checked by the USCG very often. I think we as sport fisherman, especially those of us that like to fish around the shrimp boats in July and August, are going to have to find someone or something other than shrimpboats to blame for poor fish numbers.


----------



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

I agree that the shrimping effort is way off by what it used to be. 

The facts are that there are still alot of shrimpers fishing close to the shore in state waters. The facts are that despite by-catch-reduction devices, they still kill a significant amount of by-catch some of which is juvenile snapper. 

Yes, I am a hypocrit because I love shrimp.

I am not saying that we should eliminate the shrimp fleet. 

I do believe that a zone set up for just private reefing, with no shrimping allowed would help solve this problem.

Kenneth


----------



## Blue Fin Charters (Mar 2, 2010)

capt4fish said:


> I agree that the shrimping effort is way off by what it used to be.
> 
> The facts are that there are still alot of shrimpers fishing close to the shore in state waters. The facts are that despite by-catch-reduction devices, they still kill a significant amount of by-catch some of which is juvenile snapper.
> 
> ...


I do not know how much experience you have in the shrimping industry or who you get your information from, but the by-catch is not that significant. I hope that Tom and anybody else involved in reefing efforts off the Texas coast gets the support that they need to move on this project. I do not think shrimp boats will want to drag their nets accross old rigs or any other reefing material. We should worry less about shrimp boats and more about getting some good structure in good locations.


----------



## donaken (Nov 25, 2010)

*seriously???*

Blue Fin...I can assure you capt4fish has been in this coastal neighborhood long enough to remember when....and your comment regaring bycatch is ridiculous....I fished for years as a charter capt out of Galveston and can remember more times than I can count seeing acres of finfish bycatch floating on the surface from shrimpers....between the gov'nt buyouts, aquatic farming and importing...the shrimp fleet has dwindled...I think Kenneth is dead-on regarding designated reefing areas in state waters...its all just a bunch of beaurocratic B.S....:cloud:


----------



## hilton (Jan 28, 2008)

*reefs*

Now boys, remember that we are in this together...

Both arguments have merit - yes, shrimpers DO kill a LOT of juvenile snapper, but that fact of the matter is that most of those juvies were destined to die anyways since they are the bottom of the food chain. Whether or not the shrimpers catch em or not is made a moot point since it is the larger fish killing a large majority of them.

That being said, shrimpers do account for about 20+% of the mortality (not 80% of every year class as some would have you to believe).

I would like to see more and larger reefing areas made available, especially offshore of areas that have large demographics that need them and could make good use of them. Of note is the impact that the Alabama/Fl panhandle reefs have had on providing a *SUSTAINABLE* fishery in an area of the Gulf that has the most effort. Just think where we would be on a Gulf-wide basis *IF* those reefs were not there?

Sadly, many of our fisheries managers have turned that whole idea upside down and basically destroyed the reefing initiative through their unnecessary and onerous regulations. People simply cannot justify spending any $$ to go out and catch 2 snapper 2 months out of the year.

Hopefully, things will change for the better soon.

Capt. Thomas J. Hilton


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Much has changed over the years though captain, even if about the same 20 to 30 thousand metric tons of shrimp are landed in Texas every year since 1990. 

BRD - by-catch reduction device, a requirement for all offshore shrimping

TED - turtle excluder device, another serious requirement

In addition, mesh size, trawl width, and many aspects are heavily regulated. There are much fewer shrimpers on the water now, significantly reducing level of effort and needless dragging. 

Now there are six state zones, north and south and out to 9 miles, but the offshore federal zone is where the money is. Indeed, you'll find most shrimpers during the day riding at anchor in federal waters, as the brown shrimp just aren't as thick on the inshore flats. While some shrimping does happen in state waters, I have found it to me mostly the crews testing their gear for deep-water trawling (e.g., winches, blocks, head-ropes, try-net, and so forth, for which they are always repairing). The shrimpers from Brownsville I know go out for at least a month and cruise all the way up to off Lousiana in federal waters, and typically load up about 10,000 gallons of #2 diesel. 

My take is that there's no disputing all the cull, especially various small crab and fingerling finfish, but over the years the by-catch has been significantly reduced. The "millions of red snapper" are testimony that things are indeed working! In fact the way I see it, there are so many red snapper offshore that we could use some more shrimper culling! They compete for all the bait and are growing to phenomenal sizes where +30 inch red snapper have become common. 

You can't tell me that there are millions of snapper out there in federal waters, no need for such stringent recreational fishing limits, and that the shrimpers are killing off all the red snapper, like the famous CCA "expert" who said that shrimpers claim 85 percent of the red snapper biomass. That's a contradiction!


----------



## Snookered (Jun 16, 2009)

While there have been much more ambitious claims by other organizations, there has been one that has stuck in there and is quietly getting it done one reef at a time.....

http://www.ccatexas.org/cca-texas-funds-port-mansfield-artificial-reef-project/

More is on the horizon....thanks for the comments on the Vancouver site, good to know how y'all feel about its location and whether its effective or not.....

much more material is stockpiled, and as someone said, just waiting for the boat-ride.....need to put pressure on the Fed agencies to get permits through faster to TPWD....
Snookered


----------



## Snookered (Jun 16, 2009)

Since we're on the topic, can I get some feedback from you guys on

http://www.reefmaker.net/

and BTW, just found the 2coolcondos reef building/Hiltons site/business link on this page near the top.....good job and we need more of the same!
Snookered


----------



## Blue Fin Charters (Mar 2, 2010)

donaken said:


> Blue Fin...I can assure you capt4fish has been in this coastal neighborhood long enough to remember when....and your comment regaring bycatch is ridiculous....I fished for years as a charter capt out of Galveston and can remember more times than I can count seeing acres of finfish bycatch floating on the surface from shrimpers....between the gov'nt buyouts, aquatic farming and importing...the shrimp fleet has dwindled...I think Kenneth is dead-on regarding designated reefing areas in state waters...its all just a bunch of beaurocratic B.S....:cloud:


I was not reffering to capt4fish's time in the coastal neighborhood or your experience as a charter capt out of Galveston. My comment regarding bycatch is correct. I do not know if you are speaking of acres of finfish bycatch prior to BRDs or if you were around boats that are not in compliance. I was simply making a point that there is VERY LITTLE by-catch now compared to years past. These devices that shrimpers are using, along with imports, and raising fuel prices are putting shrimpers out of business. My family has been in the Gulf Shrimp bussiness for over 60 years. We have had as many as seven boats at once down to currently ONE. I have been out working on Gulf Shrimp Boats and I have been out trolling around Gulf Shrimp Boats. The difference in by-catch now compared to when I first went out on a shrimp boat is HUGE. One minute people are saying shrimpers are killing all the juvenile snapper, the next minute the same people are saying the Gulf is overloaded with snapper and we need a longer snapper season. Like I said, I want to see a reefing program off the Texas Coast as much as anybody. I do think location of reefing is key. We all want to see a healthy GOM. I depend on the GOM not only for the success of a shrimp boat, but a charter boat as well. Swells hit the nail on the head, yes there is some by-catch along with great snapper numbers to prove that everybodies efforts are working.

The WIND needs to die down so everybody can get away from the computers and FISH!!!


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

as stated above the ocean floor here is more mud than sand, our stuff settles in pretty fast and for that reason has to have a pretty large footprint to last.

Also TX has lots of hoops to jump thru agency wise to get anything placed offshore, far more than apparently ALA.

you might want to read up on the old threads before you bring up the cca reefing and snapper, I am pleased that they are trying now to do something.


----------



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

Snookered said:


> Since we're on the topic, can I get some feedback from you guys on
> 
> http://www.reefmaker.net/
> 
> ...


Tom and I visited this place while in Orange Beach for the Gulf Council meeting. This man has got it going on. He has hundreds if not thousands of tons of material and reefs ready to be deployed. He has deployed over 20,000 reefs, his words to us. WOW.

Alabama has made reefing a priority on its coast, has pulled the proper strings with the feds and has a disignated private reefing area of 1200 square miles.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

capt4fish said:


> Tom and I visited this place while in Orange Beach for the Gulf Council meeting. This man has got it going on. He has hundreds if not thousands of tons of material and reefs ready to be deployed. He has deployed over 20,000 reefs, his words to us. WOW.
> 
> Alabama has made reefing a priority on its coast, has pulled the proper strings with the feds and has a disignated private reefing area of 1200 square miles.


I don't want to say that Alabama took advantage of a sweet deal with the NMFS, Corps of Engineers, some very aggressive watermen, and huge barge loads of clean reef material, but that's exactly what it seems to me!

Down here in Texas we have to fight about putting in a reef condo into a muddy area on a strictly limited permit, no wholesale large reefing like the TPWD said we could blast everything along a strip from the Sabine to Port Isabel offshore in the designated areas away from the ship channels.

And that's totally different, not fair to compare! See this link here:
http://www.outdooralabama.com/fishing/saltwater/where/artificial-reefs/reefhist.cfm

Now come on, they started in 1953 - before I was even born and hatched - and started dumping entire cars (illegal today), airplanes, unclean vessels, culverts, entire bridges, and all kinds of stuff that was probably toxic, no telling what. I mean, give me a break!

Was that the right thing to do? One supposes so, but I tend to think they got an unfair head start on everyone. Proud of it too, dumping all that sh!t out there.

That kind of thing just makes my blood boil. Sheesh, down here in Texas we got to check the horizon just to make sure there's no laws if we so much as sink as a beer bottle offshore!


----------



## capt4fish (Dec 4, 2004)

Sammy,

My question remains. Where have our state people been, besides asleep at the wheel. Just a **** poor job by TPWD in my opinion. Texas should be well on our way to having the largest reefing area in the States. 

I liked the part in the link you posted about the economic value of the tanks. Spread over the the estimated lifespan of the reefed tanks. Worth millions.
Great find.

It was obvious at the last Gulf Council meeting that our TPWD reps are not respresenting us. 

In my opinion these guys have just been corrupted as well. They need to drag up.


Kenneth


----------



## Rsnap (Aug 16, 2004)

*Fishing patterns change over time*



Swells said:


> I agree. As late as 1997 we were able to slaughter all the kings we wanted, forget when the fish limits were cut down to 2 per person but it was always easy, and packing 12 smokers was a problem with our cooler space! You could catch some off the second sandbar in the surf sometimes, a real blast on a trout pole, although that's more like the late 80s as I recollect. Oh course, down by SPI we used to have conch (Texas Lightning whelk) and sand dollars back then. But now them and the mackerel seem to be gone or in such puny numbers as to be a real shame. I can't explain it, other than pollution and over-fishing. Heck, maybe them damme snappers ate all their forage food, dunno, along with the shark and the dolphin.


Hard to say for sure. Check out the other thread "Lots of Kings Landed". That proves they can sure come in closer in the right area with the right bottom. Our bottom is not like theirs. All I am sayin is at one time they came in closer here on a regular basis. Belive it or not - in the "old days"
on rough days we trolled inside the jetty at Freeport and caught Bonita, Spanish Mackerel, Moonfish and a few Kings from the C.G. station to jetty end! We also trolled the mouth of the Brazos & San Bernard for Tarpon that were also strong for years! What happened? 
Rik


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

I agree, by most accounts the old timers say there was more fish back in the 60s and 70s. We mentioned pollution but that might not be the entire answer. As us Americans developed the coastline for our houses and industries and whatnot, tens of thousands of acres of marsh were paved over. This dramatically impacted the back-bay nurseries that thrived in marsh grass, cat-tails, reeds, and other forbs. In addition, the water seemed to become more turbid or cloudy in some areas. The marsh couldn't naturally clean out clays and provide the right balance of freshwater and nutrients, which changed the pattern of baits like oyster, crabs, fry, and especially the white and brown shrimp. 

I'm no biologist by far, but my limited understanding is that the back bays are connected to the seashore, the inshore, the near-shore, and the pelagic zone out at sea. For example, the blue crab and brown shrimp can be found about anywhere on the Continental Shelf. 

At the same time, biologists seem to be finding more strange bacteria, fungus, viruses, algae and diatom blooms and so forth. You might know some of these as brown tide, red tide, the mysterious illness that caused oysters and lobsters to die off in the Northeast, higher vibrio counts, and so forth. It's difficult to say whether there was more or less because they didn't know much about them in the old days, but the more it was studied, the worse things seemed to get! 

When people blame "over-fishing" and screwy fishing regulations, that's only a small part of the puzzle, IMHO. Even simple erosion and subsidence can account for big changes in the ecosystem - over the decades, Louisiana lost about the same amount of land as the State of Delaware.


----------

