# Corpus Christi scooping meeting



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

I am currently in the meeting and it's been almost unanimous for the 5 fish limit. Water quality seems to be a buzz word. I'm hoping alleetings went this positive for the keep 5 trout regulation.


----------



## shalor57 (Feb 24, 2005)

Thanks Railbird! I can tell from your posts that you are representing what I think. Tell Rowsey hello. I think it's going to happen this time despite a few who are against it.


----------



## Salt Water Texan (Oct 1, 2009)

I stayed till the end of the meeting and I believe like you said, the majority were in favor of changing the limit to five. By the way you must have been sitting right behind me, I,m the bald guy in the tan shirt on the left side of your picture.

Water quality did seem to be on everyone's mind. Improvement in that area would definitely help the fishery.


----------



## Big Guns 1971 (Nov 7, 2013)

That's to bad that they want to kill the fishing guides business by doing that. Who wants to pay 500-600 dollars for 5 trout and 3 reds. Good luck to all of you fishing guides.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

And, most of them couldn't catch 10 trout in a day if you held a gun to their head.

I guess at 5 they have a better chance of some day saying they "limited out"....LMAO.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Bocephus said:


> And, most of them couldn't catch 10 trout in a day if you held a gun to their head.
> 
> I guess at 5 they have a better chance of some day saying they "limited out"....LMAO.


The room was filled with guides and the most well known fishermen in south Texas. Almost every single one was in favor of the trout regulation change. I'd venture to say that room full of men have caught more 10 pound trout than you could ever imagine. One man spoke of a day when he caught 10 ten plus pound fish before noon. He was adamantly in support of the new regulations. He hopes (as I do) to experience that again someday with his children and grandchildren.

I don't know if it's necessary for up above Matagorda and east of there, but I can tell you something needs to be done down south.


----------



## Salt Water Texan (Oct 1, 2009)

Big Guns 1971 said:


> That's to bad that they want to kill the fishing guides business by doing that. Who wants to pay 500-600 dollars for 5 trout and 3 reds. Good luck to all of you fishing guides.


Most guides who fish the lower laguna madre say that after TPWD reduced the limit to 5 in that area their business improved. So much for your theory about killing the guide business.

You are also mistaken about people paying to just catch a few trout . There are quite a few quides who offer catch and release trips, or trips where the clients only keep a few fish. These quides are in high demand in the laguna madre and Baffin bay, and they stay booked year round.

If you want to bad mouth the 5 per day limit perhaps you should try a different approach.


----------



## bwhaler19 (Dec 12, 2013)

Big Guns 1971 said:


> That's to bad that they want to kill the fishing guides business by doing that. Who wants to pay 500-600 dollars for 5 trout and 3 reds. Good luck to all of you fishing guides.


If customers are already paying 500-600 bucks for 10 trout an thinking they are getting a good deal. Then what makes you think 5 trout would be any different? When people quit focusing on limits an focus on the experience as a whole then the monetary concern goes to the wayside.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk


----------



## willydavenport (Jun 4, 2004)

I was at the meeting in San Antonio tonight and the 20 or so there were mostly in favor of the 5 fish limit as well.


----------



## Capt. Forrest (Jan 5, 2005)

bwhaler19 said:


> If customers are already paying 500-600 bucks for 10 trout an thinking they are getting a good deal. Then what makes you think 5 trout would be any different? When people quit focusing on limits an focus on the experience as a whole then the monetary concern goes to the wayside.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk


 you hit the nail on the head with that comment. I have not had a single trip where the people that got on the boat showed up with the intentions of killing every fish they caught! It's the experience and the memories made while on the water that count.

at the end of the day, I evaluate my day by looking at the clients faces when we get back to the dock, not by how heavy the cooler full of fish is.
most people I know that fish or book trips are looking for relaxation in an enjoyable environment!

Heck, this time of year, I go out with the intentions of getting 1 bite. All it takes is the right 1 bite and your whole day is made! and even if that 1 bite doesn't happen, what better way to spend a day than waist deep in the laguna or Baffin with the anticipation of getting that 1 bite!

good luck to all who are hitting the water!


----------



## Cold Beer (Sep 19, 2009)

bwhaler19 said:


> If customers are already paying 500-600 bucks for 10 trout an thinking they are getting a good deal. Then what makes you think 5 trout would be any different? When people quit focusing on limits an focus on the experience as a whole then the monetary concern goes to the wayside.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk


 I agree!


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

If you are after meat go to HEB. I would rather see more quality fish and less meat haul photos. It takes a real fisherman to spend most of their time and lots of their money to take a few pictures and release all but a few of the fish they catch each trip. 
I put my word in via email on trout and flounder regulations.

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


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

willydavenport said:


> I was at the meeting in San Antonio tonight and the 20 or so there were mostly in favor of the 5 fish limit as well.


X2


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

It doesn't matter if you change the limit to ZERO, unless habitat is improved, it's not gonna matter


----------



## Empty Pockets CC (Feb 18, 2009)

The Last Mango said:


> It doesn't matter if you change the limit to ZERO, unless habitat is improved, it's not gonna matter


Wrong. The LLM didn't change the habitat at all and they have a much better trout fishery now. The limit needs to be changed to 5 so we can enjoy an overall better trout fishery in the ULM and Baffin Bay. I wrote my email voicing my years of experience fishing the LLM before and after the 5 fish limit and what I'm currently encountering in the ULM and Baffin Bay. 5 fish is plenty, most guides support it, and if you're going to complain about 10 fish versus 5 and the cost of hiring a guide being 500 bucks and working out the price per pound of meat I recommend that you start purchasing kobe beef tenderloins in bulk...you will save money buying the beef over hiring a guide...a lot of money. My .02


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

railbird said:


> The room was filled with guides and the most well known fishermen in south Texas. Almost every single one was in favor of the trout regulation change. I'd venture to say that room full of men have caught more 10 pound trout than you could ever imagine. One man spoke of a day when he caught 10 ten plus pound fish before noon. He was adamantly in support of the new regulations. He hopes (as I do) to experience that again someday with his children and grandchildren.
> 
> I don't know if it's necessary for up above Matagorda and east of there, but I can tell you something needs to be done down south.


That's a touching story dang near brought a tear to my eye. It's all fine and dandy but until you address the guide/rec croaker issue down there nothing is going to change. They will line the ICW and catch every last one of them. If there is not a problem now there will be. Don't give me the Mansfield speech either on how the 5 fish limit made a difference, totally different that what's going on to the north.

Water quality is a big concern and plays a part but in no way by itself will it wipe out a fishery, man will do that on his own. The 5 fish limit on the ULM will not solve the problem it will only slow it down. Be careful in what you wish for because after the 5 fish limit your next step is the Florida way, closed seasons.

From reading some of these post it makes it sound like most down there want a trophy fishery, we'll I think those days of 10 trout over 10 lbs are well behind us.
By the way did he release those for his kids and grand kids.


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

Empty Pockets CC said:


> Wrong. The LLM didn't change the habitat at all and they have a much better trout fishery now. The limit needs to be changed to 5 so we can enjoy an overall better trout fishery in the ULM and Baffin Bay. I wrote my email voicing my years of experience fishing the LLM before and after the 5 fish limit and what I'm currently encountering in the ULM and Baffin Bay. 5 fish is plenty, most guides support it, and if you're going to complain about 10 fish versus 5 and the cost of hiring a guide being 500 bucks and working out the price per pound of meat I recommend that you start purchasing kobe beef tenderloins in bulk...you will save money buying the beef over hiring a guide...a lot of money. My .02


Put down the beer cowboy, I never once said anything about 5,10 or guides, I'm a commercial fishermen, my only concern is water quality, you got me mixed up with somebody else


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*LLM*



Empty Pockets CC said:


> Wrong. The LLM didn't change the habitat at all and they have a much better trout fishery now. The limit needs to be changed to 5 so we can enjoy an overall better trout fishery in the ULM and Baffin Bay. I wrote my email voicing my years of experience fishing the LLM before and after the 5 fish limit and what I'm currently encountering in the ULM and Baffin Bay. 5 fish is plenty, most guides support it, and if you're going to complain about 10 fish versus 5 and the cost of hiring a guide being 500 bucks and working out the price per pound of meat I recommend that you start purchasing kobe beef tenderloins in bulk...you will save money buying the beef over hiring a guide...a lot of money. My .02


There was never a problem in the LLM and maybe you don't spend enough time on the water because fishing runs in cycles. The 5 fish limit did not make that a good fishery, there was nothing wrong with it to begin with.

It's great you lower coast guys are all about CPR, I'm not unless it is a trout over 25 inches. I'm not into spending a bunch of money to throw fish back in the water. If I catch 2 or if I catch 10 they are going home. If I wanted beef I would raise a cow but I'm into catching and eating fish. Maybe it's because we are closer to Louisiana and killing everything is in our DNA. I really hope the 5 fish work out well for you, until the lower coast trophy agenda rubs off on the TP&WD I'll keep what I want when I want up to the legal limit allowed!


----------



## flounder daddy (Mar 22, 2012)

Capt. Forrest said:


> you hit the nail on the head with that comment. I have not had a single trip where the people that got on the boat showed up with the intentions of killing every fish they caught! It's the experience and the memories made while on the water that count.
> 
> at the end of the day, I evaluate my day by looking at the clients faces when we get back to the dock, not by how heavy the cooler full of fish is.
> most people I know that fish or book trips are looking for relaxation in an enjoyable environment!
> ...


You sir GET IT! Thank you! Most people hiring a guide are not locals, and are family/friends of a local that in from out of town. They arent there to "kill everything", they are on a vacation to have fun! I took a friend of mine and his cousin out on a night fish in the ICW a few weeks ago. Soaked fish bites and shrimp. They hadnt fished in 20 years. Nothing but hardheads and a ray, but they smiled and had a blast. Its about having fun folks, not "killing everything".

With that said, what was said on the flounder issue? I had to work and couldnt make the meeting.


----------



## fishin shallow (Jul 31, 2005)

Empty Pockets CC said:


> Wrong. The LLM didn't change the habitat at all and they have a much better trout fishery now. The limit needs to be changed to 5 so we can enjoy an overall better trout fishery in the ULM and Baffin Bay. My .02


I would have to disagree. The Mansfield channel was dredged increasing water exchange and also had a few storms that dumped a ton of fresh water within the same time the 5 fish limit was put in place. Reducing the limit wasn't the sole reason for the improved fishing.


----------



## surf_ox (Jul 8, 2008)

You'd be amazed at what change in water quality would do. Last time I flew into Norfolk VA I could actually see bottom structure in the Chesapeake bay. Years ago it was nasty cloudy green. VA Beach did a save the bay campaign stressing natural fertilizer and proper disposal of product as well as oyster seed raising and that area has much improved. Also fish and aquatic life has greatly improved look at jetskibrians pus. He runs that area.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

gater said:


> That's a touching story dang near brought a tear to my eye. It's all fine and dandy but until you address the guide/rec croaker issue down there nothing is going to change. They will line the ICW and catch every last one of them. If there is not a problem now there will be. Don't give me the Mansfield speech either on how the 5 fish limit made a difference, totally different that what's going on to the north.
> 
> Water quality is a big concern and plays a part but in no way by itself will it wipe out a fishery, man will do that on his own. The 5 fish limit on the ULM will not solve the problem it will only slow it down. Be careful in what you wish for because after the 5 fish limit your next step is the Florida way, closed seasons.
> 
> ...


Actually the croaker subject was broached multiple times. There were numerous calls to put a 14" limit on croaker. As for catch and release, all the old timers were preaching that. Many of them seemed to feel guilty about acting like a greedy child when it came to keeping those huge fish. Those days are not behind us, they could still return if we manage our fishery correctly. On July 29, 2013. I made one drift sight fishing big trout and had 11 trout between 26" and 29.5", which I cpr'd, not one fish was over 7lbs. Water quality is part of that and season was the other part of that.

Water quality is the largest concern in the ulm and Baffin Bay. All agree, that's a big part of why the 5 fish limit is so critical now. I absolutely agree the croaker situation is out of control down there, but live shrimp is the bait of choice when they start stampeding south to catch all those fish migrating through the Landcut. The croaker just finishes the job!

So now it's time to start calling for opening Yarborough pass to create a stronger tide and better life giving water exchange from the gulf. In my opinion now is the time to start this push for a grant. The state is flush with tax money from the eagle ford shale, let's improve the water quality over night.


----------



## Wadeking (Jan 4, 2013)

*5 trout limit*

All this is all fine and good for the pepole who get to fish every weekend but what about the one's who only get to go once a month or so and like to have fish to eat . I say make this limit for the guids who go every day


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Wadeking said:


> All this is all fine and good for the pepole who get to fish every weekend but what about the one's who only get to go once a month or so and like to have fish to eat . I say make this limit for the guids who go every day


How many fish do you need? You can keep 5 trout, 5 drum, 3 redfish, 5 flounder, 5 sheepshead, and all the croaker you can box. That number times the number of people on your boat and you will be cleaning fish for days. As many here have said, if you need to kill all those fish to justify owning a boat and going fishing, you have the wrong goals.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

any talk of possession limits? I could go along with the 5 fish limit, but would expect a double limit possession to stay in place. 

wanted to go last night but had a minor medical emergency with one of the kiddos... hated to miss it.

railbird, that's not the right argument about lowering the limit... deciding what one person thinks another person needs isn't the way you manage the fishery. let the numbers dictate it. I have 4 kids and we eat a ton of fish. I'll have to start dragging the entire family along so I can get some more 5 fish limits! 

plus, who wants to clean a limit of sheepshead?


----------



## FREON (Jun 14, 2005)

railbird said:


> Water quality is the largest concern in the ulm and Baffin Bay.
> 
> So now it's time to start calling for opening Yarborough pass to create a stronger tide and better life giving water exchange from the gulf.


 X2


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

FREON said:


> X2


that will start a *** storm.... I think everyone is on board about freshwater, but there are a lot of people that will fight Yarborough being re opened.


----------



## POCTX (Apr 16, 2007)

TPWD says there is not need to go to 5 fish limit, but Itâ€™s sad that people are not listening to the people who we pay to manage our fishery. Instead, people would rather make changes based on what they read in magazines and not with the experts.


----------



## mmcclure9 (Dec 19, 2011)

Kyle 1974 said:


> any talk of possession limits? I could go along with the 5 fish limit, but would expect a double limit possession to stay in place.
> 
> wanted to go last night but had a minor medical emergency with one of the kiddos... hated to miss it.
> 
> ...


ill clean sheepshead all day long


----------



## bwhaler19 (Dec 12, 2013)

POCTX said:


> TPWD says there is not need to go to 5 fish limit, but Itâ€™s sad that people are not listening to the people who we pay to manage our fishery. Instead, people would rather make changes based on what they read in magazines and not with the experts.


It's not what I read out of magazines it's the proven fact that fishing today is nothing like it was all up an down the coast due to one reason. Overfishing. If paid experts can't figure that out then why are they being paid?


----------



## enielsen (Dec 27, 2004)

POCTX said:


> TPWD says there is not need to go to 5 fish limit, but Itâ€™s sad that people are not listening to the people who we pay to manage our fishery. Instead, people would rather make changes based on what they read in magazines and not with the experts.


Amen.


----------



## Wadeking (Jan 4, 2013)

*5 fish limit*

Hat off to railbird hell of a fisherman can limit on all as for croaker great fish lets make them a game fish so their numbers can get back to what they once where no one needs to use them as bait


----------



## Muddskipper (Dec 29, 2004)

David Sikes mentioned there was no consensus but the crowd was leaning toward the change in limits

What's sad is the ones who catch 1-3 trout believe they are going to catch more fish... When the data even says they will still catch those 1-3 fish but they will be a tad bigger

With the re-opening of the new pass down there I am surprised more did not want a wait and see outlook with the data showing the fair to good in trout populations

We are coming off a drought, and you know that took a toll, but does not mean its permanent. We are in a down cycle that data shows we are coming out of....

Even the LLM had a recent down cycle in trout harvest with the current limits...I believe in 2011/12

Some years are better then others.... And it has been that way for years.... And these changes will not change the natural cycles of our ecosystem


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

Wadeking said:


> Hat off to railbird hell of a fisherman can limit on all as for croaker great fish lets make them a game fish so their numbers can get back to what they once where no one needs to use them as bait


Don't have to make them a game fish, just put a size/daily limit on them just like black drum, sheepshead and flounder (which are not game fish). Game fish status just means that the species cannot be sold commercially.


----------



## Wadeking (Jan 4, 2013)

Amen


----------



## Wadeking (Jan 4, 2013)

Just getem out of the bait box


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Muddskipper said:


> David Sikes mentioned there was no consensus but the crowd was leaning toward the change in limits
> 
> What's sad is the ones who catch 1-3 trout believe they are going to catch more fish... When the data even says they will still catch those 1-3 fish but they will be a tad bigger
> 
> ...


David Sikes left at 6:55, not even half way through the meeting. The entire last hour of the meeting was people talking in favor of the trout regulations and 3 guys speaking about flounder. In the last hour 1 person said keep it as it is.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

Just curious if they mentioned the status of the email responses they are getting. I couldn't attend, but I sent an email with my comments and urged my friends to send their opinions.


----------



## RobRed (Jan 9, 2011)

RailBird it was nice to put a face to a name as I was one of the gentlemen sitting to your left. There were some educated comments made and others not so educated. The water quality issue came up several times and I think with good reason but the issue at hand is the bag limit. I'm all in for 5. We as anglers must take care and maintain our fishery and this is just the first step in doing so for the ULM. One person can not do it alone.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

water quality being the issue that it is... does anyone know what biomass the bay systems can handle, and what percentage are we at? how much higher population can a bay system with poor water quality handle? 

with TPW releasing 20-25 million redfish per year, do we have an imbalance with redfish competing with trout and flounder?


----------



## chugger (Jul 12, 2009)

It is wrong for the press - or for anyone - to portray these scoping meetings as a public referendum upon which a final TPWD decision will be made. At least they are not supposed to be referendums. One side or the other could just be poorly represented as a matter of circumstances . It is not a fair or scientific polling process. The purpose of the scoping process is for TPWD to share their information - and gather information - from the public, not as a popularity barometer.
This cartoon states it well - just replace Natl. Institute of Health with TPWD in the caption bubble ---

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1027234&stc=1&d=1389281615


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

I'm not going to say that I'm against a 5 fish limit of trout, because I probably release 80% of everything I catch. But what I am against is the fact that T.P.W.D. keeps taking away, and never giving back. Can anyone think of any species of fish, in the last 30 years, that T.P.W.D. has reduced size and bag limits on, and than increased them after the fisheries recovered. I don't think so. The main problem is the lack of fresh water inflow, pollution, and habitat destruction, and there is nothing T.P.W.D. can do about that. If you want to get to the root of the problem, follow the money, because the money is what is destroying our fisheries, not fisherman. Look at all the chemical plant, all the marshes being filled in to build new subdivisions, look at your pretty green grass you have because of your sprinkler system that dumps thousands of gallons of want on it a month to keep it green. Water is my lively hood, I have been licensed by T.C.E.Q. for over 20 years to treat both drinking water, and sewer water, and I take my job very seriously. I have to attend 60 to 100 hours of classes every year, to keep up with the ever changing rules & regs, and one of the main thing they have been pushing is for more stringent water conservation. If you knew how many millions of gallons a day the chemical plants use it would make your head spin. There are restrictions on how much water they are allowed, and if they go over there allotment they get fined, but when they get fined $20,000 a day, and there making $10,000,000 a day, it just good business all the way around, because everyone is getting MONEY.


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

Kyle 1974 said:


> any talk of possession limits? I could go along with the 5 fish limit, but would expect a double limit possession to stay in place.


It was brought up at the SA meeting, I suggested that allowing the possession limit to remain at double the daily limit may help gain support for a change with a lot of folks that have cabins on the water. They took the suggestion down but as of now I'm not sure how seriously it's being considered, I do plan to include it in my emailed comments.


----------



## Jb1 (Jul 19, 2013)

Sounds like a bunch of tree hugging liberals (Obama voters) are trying to represent us fisherman.


----------



## Wadeking (Jan 4, 2013)

Tell us how you reply feel


----------



## Empty Pockets CC (Feb 18, 2009)

Jb1 said:


> Sounds like a bunch of tree hugging liberals (Obama voters) are trying to represent us fisherman.


I can assure you I hate Obama's guts and I support the 5 fish limit. This has nothing to do with tree hugging and being liberal. It's the liberal trout limit that got us to where we are today. It's time to be more conservative about our fisheries.


----------



## Jb1 (Jul 19, 2013)

Show me some data


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

Jb1 said:


> Show me some data


there is none to support the 5 fish limit. Its just a bunch of snobs trying to push their agenda of what the fish should be. In my eyes, these 5 fish guys are no better than the wade, paddle, pole trying to shut down areas.


----------



## Empty Pockets CC (Feb 18, 2009)

Show me some "data" where the 5 fish limit has hindered the trout fishery in the LLM. 
I have experience fishing the LLM frequently before and after the 5 fish reg and like what I saw after that limit was put in place. I don't give sole credit to the 5 fish limit improving the fishery down there but I feel it is a contributing factor. Therefore, I support the 5 fish limit. You have your opinion and I have mine. Have you fished the LLM complex? Before and after the 5 fish limit? These seems "personal" to some folks on here. It's not. The LLM has a great trout fishery and it is of my opinion that the 5 fish limit had something to do with that.


----------



## bwhaler19 (Dec 12, 2013)

Gilbert said:


> there is none to support the 5 fish limit. Its just a bunch of snobs trying to push their agenda of what the fish should be. In my eyes, these 5 fish guys are no better than the wade, paddle, pole trying to shut down areas.


If you need data to figure it out you might need another recreation.


----------



## Empty Pockets CC (Feb 18, 2009)

Gilbert said:


> there is none to support the 5 fish limit. Its just a bunch of snobs trying to push their agenda of what the fish should be. In my eyes, these 5 fish guys are no better than the wade, paddle, pole trying to shut down areas.


Gilbert, you are wrong sir. I'm not a snob and I don't have an agenda. I don't support no boating zones or no fishing zones. I just want a better fishery for myself and future generations. I think we should leave this place in a condition that is as good or better than when we started fishing it. Don't you?


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

Empty Pockets CC said:


> Gilbert, you are wrong sir. I'm not a snob and I don't have an agenda. I don't support no boating zones or no fishing zones. I just want a better fishery for myself and future generations. I think we should leave this place in a condition that is as good or better than when we started fishing it. Don't you?


sure do but I am not wrong. Look at the comments on the ones that want a 5 fish limit. Fish snobs that want a version of high fence deer hunting. Grow them big so I can go catch a monster. Lowering limits won't do anything. Start with the lack of freshwater inflow and go from there. It also wouldn't hurt to get the redfish limit up and get some of these large schools of reds on the flats eating everything and anything, including small trout.


----------



## Jb1 (Jul 19, 2013)

I'm guessing you have a hard time catching fish. Since you love the 5 trout limit so much why don't you just start fishing LLM full time. The reason that the guides that are in favor of this 5 trout limit just want to be back at the boat ramp sooner.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

Gilbert said:


> It also wouldn't hurt to get the redfish limit up and get some of these large schools of reds on the flats eating everything and anything, including small trout.


I cleaned a 24" trout a couple of months ago that had a 5" redfish in it's belly. Over the years I have found small trout in big trout's bellies, small redfish in big redfish's bellies, etc. A small trout or a small redfish is only a meal to a bigger trout or red.

It works both ways.


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

Gilbert said:


> sure do but I am not wrong. Look at the comments on the ones that want a 5 fish limit. Fish snobs that want a version of high fence deer hunting. Grow them big so I can go catch a monster. Lowering limits won't do anything. Start with the lack of freshwater inflow and go from there. It also wouldn't hurt to get the redfish limit up and get some of these large schools of reds on the flats eating everything and anything, including small trout.


x2. I agree with you 10000000% Fix the water, and the fish will fix their self.


----------



## LandsEnd (Feb 17, 2013)

*My .02*

I like to eat fish. I prefer Black Drum (or Amberjack, Ling, Wahoo, although a nice fresh trout makes really good ceviche). I like to catch fish. I have fished with quite a few guides over the years. I have done the croaker 40 trout in 1-2 hours thing, popping cork shrimp having to work harder thing and CPR with lures for big trout. In my opinion catching a couple of good fish is more enjoyable than jerking up a 10 fish limit of small fish. Didn't use to fell that way I don't think but then I never really caught any big fish.

I like lures for all fish. I would like to have a better chance at catching better fish so I support the revision of both the trout and flounder regulations. 
Nobody has commented on the Redfish since the change to 3 per day and I never really fished for them before but I've had a pretty good bite every time I go out.

Having spent 55 years observing deer in Leon County before TPWD and after I generally support them. 
The new proposed regulations just makes good sense to me.

And I am all for guides. It is a tough buisness. Lots of work, very little if any glamour. I am not bad mouthing them. They are supplying a product for a demand. I hope they all survive and make a good living. I still hire them (last month) it just that somebody moved my cheese and I have a new paradigm.

And I voted for Bush even when he wasn't running.:texasflag


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Fixing the water quality will take years if not decades, by then, we will have wiped out the trout population at current limits. It's crazy to wait to see if the rest of the world will give us more water before we protect what we have.

Also someone asked how the for against responses were on the email link. As of last night, it was running 51% for and 49% against. I also spoke to Tpwd personnel last night and got the impression they were leaning toward making the 5 trout limit effective for only areas south of Colorado river, starting in west Matagorda bay moving south to Brownsville.


----------



## LandsEnd (Feb 17, 2013)

*Lol*



Jb1 said:


> I'm guessing you have a hard time catching fish. Since you love the 5 trout limit so much why don't you just start fishing LLM full time. The reason that the guides that are in favor of this 5 trout limit just want to be back at the boat ramp sooner.


JB1

Dude you are hiring the wrong guides is all I can say.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

sharkchum said:


> If you knew how many millions of gallons a day the chemical plants use it would make your head spin. There are restrictions on how much water they are allowed, and if they go over there allotment they get fined, but when they get fined $20,000 a day, and there making $10,000,000 a day, it just good business all the way around, because everyone is getting MONEY.


I read it takes 18 gallons of fresh water to process 1 gallon of crude oil


----------



## johndoughy (Sep 8, 2013)

The reasons people are arguing for 10 trout limits would be exactly the same if there were 30 trout limits.

The reasons they want the limit reduced to 5 is because only 5% of landings are reduced and average fish size goes up.

What I want to know is why there are so many people slobbering to keep 10 of the fish they catch every trip. What do you need all that meat for so bad? If I caught a meat haul like I see guides posting--3 guys, 25 trout, 11 reds, 6 flounder and a drum--I would not keep a fish for food for WEEKS. 5 is plenty. Then I can target other species, and be back on the water sooner with a viable excuse.


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

I agree that the water problem will take decades to fix, if it can be fixed at all. I've never fished down south, so I know nothing about the trout fishery down there, but the Galveston bay fishery is strong. With the population increase consuming all the fresh water,if something doesn't start changing fast, in 20 years we will have no estuary's left. The way things are going, I can see us having this same debate in 10 years over Hardhead limit's.


----------



## flounder daddy (Mar 22, 2012)

flounder daddy said:


> With that said, what was said on the flounder issue? I had to work and couldnt make the meeting.


anyone???

Also, the corpus hatchery does release alot of trout also. They do reds, flounder, and trout.


----------



## flounderdaddy (Aug 2, 2009)

More and more government regulations. Bought par for these days.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Keep lying to yourselves about how great the middle coast trout fishery is. I don't understand why some of you can't see the problem. More people on the water means more fish are being taken out of the water. It is simple!
I guess none of you see the Espritu Santo and San Antonio Bay fishing guides reports. Usually a bunch of 15 1/2" trout a bunch of reds and a few black drum. How about East Matagorda Bay? Some of the guides will fish the trout so hard in the Summer that they rotate between East and West Matagorda Bay just to keep filling ice chests for yuppie customers that keep shelling out cash to go on meat hauls. You don't see any reports from them during the cooler months because they don't want to grind it out in the cold and chunk Fatboys to CPR some real trout. Galveston may very well have a strong trout fishery but I would not know, I don't fish there. As for all the areas around the middle coast, if you think the trout population is where it needs to be you are crazy. Keep meat hauling and freezer burning fish just so you can show everyone what a fantastic angler you are, before you know it we will have to drive 200 miles from the middle coast to catch a trout over 15". Maybe a five fish limit is not needed in every bay system but it sure as hell is needed around these parts. I won't even waste gas to fish Rockport and POC much any more because the fish are so few and far between. Most people that want to catch trout load up and either head north or south and don't even bother fighting the middle coast crowds and the huge schools of redfish.

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


----------



## enielsen (Dec 27, 2004)

As others have mentioned. Once the limits are lowered they will never be given back. Let the TPW data and experienced biologists decide what the limits should be not a bunch of arm chair biologists. I have fished Baffin bay and the LLM all my life, grew up there. I own property on Baffin I am planning on building on next year which I am seriously questioning now. I can assure you there is a water quality issue. The bay water is in bad shape (barnacles are dead) and not from overfishing. As someone stated look to the $$$. Look to the King Ranch which allows untold amounts of fertilizer are washed into the Bay and LM every time it rains. The entire north side of the bay and west side of the LM border the land which is primarily used for farming. Baffin was the premier commercial fishing grounds for black drum on the entire coast for ever. In the last two years it is non existent. It is not fishing pressure or limits causing the issues plain and simple.


----------



## Empty Pockets CC (Feb 18, 2009)

They don't farm along the banks of the LLM? No run off ends up in the bay from the fields down there? It's more than a water quality, fertilizer, power plant, fresh water problem.


----------



## enielsen (Dec 27, 2004)

Empty Pockets CC said:


> They don't farm along the banks of the LLM? No run off ends up in the bay from the fields down there? It's more than a water quality, fertilizer, power plant, fresh water problem.


No it runs into the creeks that feed into the bay. Where do you think run off ends up??????


----------



## flounder daddy (Mar 22, 2012)

enielsen said:


> No it runs into the creeks that feed into the bay. Where do you think run off ends up??????


Has anyone gone out to those creeks that supposidly run into the LM and ACTUALLY taken water samples and checked for nitrites and the other chemicals??


----------



## enielsen (Dec 27, 2004)

There are studies and water testing currently happening. I believe but don't quote me there is a group from A&M C.C. and TPW conducting studies on the issues. I was speaking to an individual about a month back down at the bay who is a participant an I believe is a 2cool member who was informing me of some of the issues. I hope he is reading this thread and can post some more accurate and informative information than I can on this ongoing issue.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

enielsen said:


> No it runs into the creeks that feed into the bay. Where do you think run off ends up??????


Also...have you ever been in south Texas during a really windy day in the middle of a dry summer? A lot of that bad stuff hits the bays from the dust that blows off those fields. Just ask anyone that has a swimming pool in the area, they end up with a thick layer of dirt on the bottom.


----------



## johndoughy (Sep 8, 2013)

When that issue was brought up in our meeting, tpw just said 'well pass it on'. But the commercial guys attested to an annual dieoff and said fish houses have bays they won't buy from at certain times of year because they 'just don't have near the shelf life'. But the focus was mostly on herbicides, fertilizers and seagrass.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

I still can't figure out why the state treats multiple bay systems like it's all the same body of water....


----------



## ksk (Aug 9, 2008)

Wish I had posted it here,but if you have a chance,see my post in The Best Book Written on Giant Trout...


----------



## 535 (May 23, 2004)

railbird said:


> So now it's time to start calling for opening Yarborough pass to create a stronger tide and better life giving water exchange from the gulf. In my opinion now is the time to start this push for a grant. The state is flush with tax money from the eagle ford shale, let's improve the water quality over night.


cut off access to over 2/3 of a national park?


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

Kyle 1974 said:


> I still can't figure out why the state treats multiple bay systems like it's all the same body of water....


100% because of the enforcement issues, has nothing to do with the health of particular bay system.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

jc said:


> cut off access to over 2/3 of a national park?


Yes, if that is what is necessary to save Baffin Bay and the nine mile hole ecosystem. It would also make for a much better turtle nesting environment. However, cutting off 2/3's of the national sea shore from vehicle access wouldn't be necessary if a bridge over the pass were planned as well.


----------



## redkiller99 (Feb 28, 2013)

Empty Pockets CC said:


> Gilbert, you are wrong sir. I'm not a snob and I don't have an agenda. I don't support no boating zones or no fishing zones. I just want a better fishery for myself and future generations. I think we should leave this place in a condition that is as good or better than when we started fishing it. Don't you?


This is how I feel about it...I'm still in high school and I know that south padre, port Aransas and Rockport are fished out...I've been to the Jettys 10 times in the last few years and have only caught one keeper redfish and a couple mangroves..all on live bait...it would not even bother me a bit if we couldn't even keep trout. Just the satisfaction of catching one on a piece of plastic is enough for me

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

http://www.texassaltwaterfishingmagazine.com/fishing/response-trout-tracking-study/subpage429.html

Good trout article


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I'm curious about forage...

Are there any good studies about abundance of bait fish? 

You can stock all you want but if they can't eat they won't make it


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

*Just Follow ME*

To Barataria Bay Louisiana - they still have freshwater, shrimp, crabs, sand eels, bay anchovies, menhaden,threadfin and a HUGE variety of inshore funny fish

Its what TEXAS bays USED to be thirty years ago

I've given up trying to affect change where I grew up, even though I still butt my head against a STUPID wall - you guys can fight till the last fish is gone and it won't change a danged thing till forage bases come back and water flows to the coast

My assessment ain't gonna happen in the thirty years I have left to fish -


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

railbird said:


> Yes, if that is what is necessary to save Baffin Bay and the nine mile hole ecosystem. It would also make for a much better turtle nesting environment. However, cutting off 2/3's of the national sea shore from vehicle access wouldn't be necessary if a bridge over the pass were planned as well.


since Baffin evolved as the hypersaline bay that it is, don't you think there might be some negative implications?

what's to say that opening Yarborough would "save" Baffin?

no doubt... there starts to be talk about isolating part of PINS, you'd have the turtle people onboard with it.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

I would think a comprehensive and balanced plan would include all these variables in this order of importance...

1. water quality
2. bait fish / forage
3. abundance and mix of existing target species (ratios of breeding adults / juvenile)
4. harvest pressure (both recs and commercial)
5. cost to recover...ie. flounder are a lot more expensive to stock than redfish etc. 

When you know the answers to these questions, then you can put together a plan of attack. Otherwise you're just shooting at a moving target, while blind-folded.

And every body of water will be different.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

Everyone is talking about the lack of forage due to reduced freshwater inflow. That is probably true for the middle coast but I have lived on the ULM for 12 years and fished it quite a bit before then. There aren't any rivers that feed this area so most freshwater inflow comes from rain events. I have cleaned a lot of trout and redfish in those years and I always look at the stomach contents. The most common things I see in their stomachs are..

#1 pin perch
#2 sand eels (especially in the cooler months)
#3 grass shrimp
#4 small crabs (not blue crabs, what some call spider crabs)
#5 mullet
#6 toadfish
#7 small drum/reds/trout/mud minnows 

I don't think anyone would argue that there is no shortage of pin perch in the ULM... just throw a shrimp out there under a popping cork in the summer and see how long it stays alive. Also no shortage of mullet down here, millions of them along every shoreline.

The drought has definitely affected the blue crab population and probably reduced the shrimp population as well.

I know the areas north of the ULM depend on freshwater inflow from rivers, but with major cities like San Antonio and Austin capturing the water it's not gonna change.

I think the reduction to 5 trout will definitely help the fishery.


----------



## t-tung (Nov 13, 2005)

railbird said:


> Yes, if that is what is necessary to save Baffin Bay and the nine mile hole ecosystem. It would also make for a much better turtle nesting environment. However, cutting off 2/3's of the national sea shore from vehicle access wouldn't be necessary if a bridge over the pass were planned as well.


I couldn't disagree more. To start off, a bridge on the Seashore?? Wow, GREAT idea. :headknock Opening Yarborough is not the knee-jerk "solution" we need. We need to find the SOURCE of the problem and address it accordingly. Opening a pass would up-end an ecosystem that is unique to the world. All in the interest of a select few who have aspirations fishing a Florida-esquÃ© fishery. Why do you think the trout in Baffin get so big? Their diet and a lack of an abundance of natural predators (though we fishermen as a whole have become quite abundant and efficient at killing them). Just a theory. You see a few pods of trout terrorists (dolphins)down there already, imagine what it'd be like an open pass..... Not to mention, have you seen sharks they drag in off that beach? How about erosion? 
Baffin is the fishery it is because of the high salinity, a wind-blown tide instead of a lunar tide, a lack of close proximity to a pass and of course the worm rock.

I respect your opinion, but I will be on the front line fighting tooth and nail against you on this.

Respectfully, 
Tommy Hartung


----------



## t-tung (Nov 13, 2005)

Not to mention a higher susceptibility to Red Tide. That's always good for an ecosystem, isn't it? It's kinda like Pandora's box....don't open it.


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

*Well stated sir !!*



t-tung said:


> I couldn't disagree more. To start off, a bridge on the Seashore?? Wow, GREAT idea. :headknock Opening Yarborough is not the knee-jerk "solution" we need. We need to find the SOURCE of the problem and address it accordingly. Opening a pass would up-end an ecosystem that is unique to the world. All in the interest of a select few who have aspirations fishing a Florida-esquÃ© fishery. Why do you think the trout in Baffin get so big? Their diet and a lack of an abundance of natural predators (though we fishermen as a whole have become quite abundant and efficient at killing them). Just a theory. You see a few pods of trout terrorists (dolphins)down there already, imagine what it'd be like an open pass..... Not to mention, have you seen sharks they drag in off that beach? How about erosion?
> Baffin is the fishery it is because of the hi salinity, a wind-blown tide instead of a lunar tide a lack of close proximity to a pass and of course the worm rock.
> 
> I respect your opinion, but I will be on the front line fighting tooth and nail against you on this.
> ...


----------



## shalor57 (Feb 24, 2005)

Well, get the King Ranch to stop dumping liquid fertilizer on their fields just upstream of Baffin and we might not have to argue about Yarborough being opened...but I don't think anyone is going to tell the KR what they can do with their fertilizers. Maybe a nice Cat 3 that epicenters at Yarborough and ducks south of CC would keep us from having to argue about it. But the 5 trout change is a no brainer to me.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> If you are after meat go to HEB. I would rather see more quality fish and less meat haul photos. It takes a real fisherman to spend most of their time and lots of their money to take a few pictures and release all but a few of the fish they catch each trip.
> I put my word in via email on trout and flounder regulations.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


 http://www.panews.com/outdoors/x681427732/So-what-kind-of-fish-should-we-eat?mobRedir=false

So Mac, what kind of fish should I be looking for in HEB?



johndoughy said:


> The reasons people are arguing for 10 trout limits would be exactly the same if there were 30 trout limits.
> 
> The reasons they want the limit reduced to 5 is because only 5% of landings are reduced and average fish size goes up.
> 
> What I want to know is why there are so many people slobbering to keep 10 of the fish they catch every trip. What do you need all that meat for so bad? If I caught a meat haul like I see guides posting--3 guys, 25 trout, 11 reds, 6 flounder and a drum--I would not keep a fish for food for WEEKS. 5 is plenty. Then I can target other species, and be back on the water sooner with a viable excuse.


Who are you to determine what someone else needs??? 
Also, you're mistaken in your argument about the meat haul the guides make. The CLIENTS take the fish home....NOT the guides! So take that BS argument elsewhere and quit painting the guides as bay rapists that are keeping all the fish!


----------



## POCTX (Apr 16, 2007)

*Liberals* believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.


----------



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

Gilbert said:


> there is none to support the 5 fish limit. Its just a bunch of snobs trying to push their agenda of what the fish should be. In my eyes, these 5 fish guys are no better than the wade, paddle, pole trying to shut down areas.


Yep.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

T-tung, I agree it is not something we should jump right into but, here is the way I see it. The Upper Laguna Madre in the 70's had 2 drains for the entire bay system. The aransas jettys and the Mansfield Jettys. In the early 80's the supply of fresh water basically dried up. (Choke canyon dam). Prior to that nearly every spring, storms would cause flooding and require the dam at lake Corpus Christi to let water out. Three rivers fed lake Corpus Christi then. The frio, the atascosa, and the nueces rivers, when a storm happened flooding would fill the bay system and fresh water would replenish the bays, as they had for hundreds of years. Lake Corpus Christi was being fed by rivers that virtually kept the lake full all the time. I grew up on a river cabin near Sweeney Switch. In 18 years I never saw the river below about 89 feet. After the choke canyon dam, I virtually haven't seen lake Corpus Christi full since. In fact it has seldom been above 89' since the closing of choke canyon dam. Let me clarify, before the dam, fresh water reached the bays, after the dam, it basically doesn't. All the research you've read always points to the early 80's as the glory days. There is a reason, since choke canyon closed its dams, the supply of fresh water is non existent. Hyper saline conditions in my opinion is a more recent event, in historical terms. Restoring Yarborough, in my opinion, would relieve the hyper saline conditions and rejuvenate the system. In the 70's water around the mouth if Baffin was much different than today, I believe opening Yarborough pass will resurrect the bay, flushing all the pollution from the system.

Here is a recent example. This fall we had a rain in the water shed. In one day of rain in the water shed, we filled lake Corpus Christi from like 20' low. If that had happened in a time before choke canyon, virtually every drop would have ended up in our bay system. Instead, we picked up a few thousand acre feet instead of 100's of thousand acre feet into our system. Relieving hyper saline conditions has always been a part of our past until choke canyon.


----------



## clint623 (Jan 31, 2012)

One thing that a my moms cousin asked me is why all the oysters are dead.. I didn't really have an answer except for the quality of the bay. If you look at POC , the grass isn't healthy, you can't really find live oysters anymore, and the fishing sucks more than ever. I'm one with Gilbert and believe we need to get the bays back in good working order before we knock it down to 5 fish which we will never get back. I myself go for meat hauls and package the meat appropriately for freezing and have never had a piece of freezer burnt fish (Mac). One thing I have noticed is that most if not all the fish are females. Does that mean the males are smaller?? What about instead of changing it to 5, we change the size limit. Kind of like what we did for bucks (13" rule). Except we focus it to the smaller sizes so we can start hooking up with some males. Besides, most of you guys that go for big yellowmouths are big time CPR people. So, it wouldn't affect you. If I could get ahold of some big girls, I would CPR them.
TPWD needs to do more than netting. I haven't seen a surveyor from TPWD at the dock in quite some time. The guides I don't believe will be harmed by it as well. Whatever TPWD decides, people will conform with and that will be the final word. As others have mentioned, I need to see more stats that prove that we are catching to many fish compared to the quality of the bay over time. I also believe that whoever wants to tell someone that they are liberal really doesn't know what the hell they are talking about and are taking the wrong approach....

On another topic, I got burned by an airboat in lighthouse cove and started catching fish almost immediately after. I guess it kinda woke them up.

Clint

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## t-tung (Nov 13, 2005)

railbird said:


> T-tung, I agree it is not something we should jump right into but, here is the way I see it. The Upper Laguna Madre in the 70's had 2 drains for the entire bay system. The aransas jettys and the Mansfield Jettys. In the early 80's the supply of fresh water basically dried up. (Choke canyon dam). Prior to that nearly every spring, storms would cause flooding and require the dam at lake Corpus Christi to let water out. Three rivers fed lake Corpus Christi then. The frio, the atascosa, and the nueces rivers, when a storm happened flooding would fill the bay system and fresh water would replenish the bays, as they had for hundreds of years. Lake Corpus Christi was being fed by rivers that virtually kept the lake full all the time. I grew up on a river cabin near Sweeney Switch. In 18 years I never saw the river below about 89 feet. After the choke canyon dam, I virtually haven't seen lake Corpus Christi full since. In fact it has seldom been above 89' since the closing of choke canyon dam. Let me clarify, before the dam, fresh water reached the bays, after the dam, it basically doesn't. All the research you've read always points to the early 80's as the glory days. There is a reason, since choke canyon closed its dams, the supply of fresh water is non existent. Hyper saline conditions in my opinion is a more recent event, in historical terms. Restoring Yarborough, in my opinion, would relieve the hyper saline conditions and rejuvenate the system. In the 70's water around the mouth if Baffin was much different than today, I believe opening Yarborough pass will resurrect the bay, flushing all the pollution from the system.
> 
> Here is a recent example. This fall we had a rain in the water shed. In one day of rain in the water shed, we filled lake Corpus Christi from like 20' low. If that had happened in a time before choke canyon, virtually every drop would have ended up in our bay system. Instead, we picked up a few thousand acre feet instead of 100's of thousand acre feet into our system. Relieving hyper saline conditions has always been a part of our past until choke canyon.


I hear what you're saying but, I don't think the damming of either lake had any effect on Baffin nor do I believe releasing of flood-water "flushed" Baffin. That floodwater came out the mouth of the Nueces and conveniently exited our bays through the near Port Aransas jetties. There are 3 main creeks that feed and flush virtually all of the ULM and they're all in Baffin. Have you seen satellite images of the "dead zone" around the mouth of the Mississippi? It's basically the same thing we have here. Farming bi-products supplementing an algae that just sits and incubates in a warm bay system....sounds like the perfect petre dish to me. I will agree, dilution is A quick solution but it is not THE solution, rather a band-aid. I'd rather find a cure than treat the symptoms.


----------



## t-tung (Nov 13, 2005)

As far as the limits on trout, I'm for the lower limit. I'm REALLY for self regulation.... I don't need a law to tell me what I should or should not be doing. A lot of us have morals and know what we should and should not be doing. Unfortunately without some kind of regulation, there would be clowns out there killing every fish that hit the deck, regardless of whether they NEEDED it for food or not. Gotta have regulations...... 

This may be an unpopular proposition but here goes. 
Keep the 10 fish limit and drop the slot to 12" like Louisiana has now. What's the mortality rate of the 12" snaggle-tooth bastards compared to a 17-20" trout. The littles ones are more likely to die anyways, especially gut-hooked with a 7/0 croaker hook. Why not fill coolers with them instead tossing them back for crab food? Aransas Pass and Rockport would be "hot"..... limits daily.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*12 inches*



t-tung said:


> As far as the limits on trout, I'm for the lower limit. I'm REALLY for self regulation.... I don't need a law to tell me what I should or should not be doing. A lot of us have morals and know what we should and should not be doing. Unfortunately without some kind of regulation, there would be clowns out there killing every fish that hit the deck, regardless of whether they NEEDED it for food or not. Gotta have regulations......
> 
> This may be an unpopular proposition but here goes.
> Keep the 10 fish limit and drop the slot to 12" like Louisiana has now. What's the mortality rate of the 12" snaggle-tooth bastards compared to a 17-20" trout. The littles ones are more likely to die anyways, especially gut-hooked with a 7/0 croaker hook. Why not fill coolers with them instead tossing them back for crab food? Aransas Pass and Rockport would be "hot"..... limits daily.


Everyone wants to lower the size limit to 12 inches. There is no meat on a 12 inch trout and the lower limit is there for a reason.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

railbird said:


> T-tung, I agree it is not something we should jump right into but, here is the way I see it. The Upper Laguna Madre in the 70's had 2 drains for the entire bay system. The aransas jettys and the Mansfield Jettys. In the early 80's the supply of fresh water basically dried up. (Choke canyon dam). Prior to that nearly every spring, storms would cause flooding and require the dam at lake Corpus Christi to let water out. Three rivers fed lake Corpus Christi then. The frio, the atascosa, and the nueces rivers, when a storm happened flooding would fill the bay system and fresh water would replenish the bays, as they had for hundreds of years. Lake Corpus Christi was being fed by rivers that virtually kept the lake full all the time. I grew up on a river cabin near Sweeney Switch. In 18 years I never saw the river below about 89 feet. After the choke canyon dam, I virtually haven't seen lake Corpus Christi full since. In fact it has seldom been above 89' since the closing of choke canyon dam. Let me clarify, before the dam, fresh water reached the bays, after the dam, it basically doesn't. All the research you've read always points to the early 80's as the glory days. There is a reason, since choke canyon closed its dams, the supply of fresh water is non existent. Hyper saline conditions in my opinion is a more recent event, in historical terms. Restoring Yarborough, in my opinion, would relieve the hyper saline conditions and rejuvenate the system. In the 70's water around the mouth if Baffin was much different than today, I believe opening Yarborough pass will resurrect the bay, flushing all the pollution from the system.
> 
> Here is a recent example. This fall we had a rain in the water shed. In one day of rain in the water shed, we filled lake Corpus Christi from like 20' low. If that had happened in a time before choke canyon, virtually every drop would have ended up in our bay system. Instead, we picked up a few thousand acre feet instead of 100's of thousand acre feet into our system. Relieving hyper saline conditions has always been a part of our past until choke canyon.


Baffin has been hyper saline long before choke canyon was built. Now whether there were more periodic changes to salinity over time, it may be.

There were studies done in the 50's and 60's that documented hyper saline conditions at that time. Historical data has shown the bay has gone through different cycles in salinity since it was closed off a few thousand years ago, but from what I've seen mainly deals with drought conditions and immediate stream flow into Baffin.

The stream inflow into Baffin has been weak for thousands of years. It's in an arid climate, high evaporation, low rainfall and with historically low tidal change hyper salinity is the way it has evolved. Nothing has changed it more in the last 100 years than the ICW has. What can you do about that.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

Another point... There is data showing that even when Yarborough was open it didn't have much of an effect in the salinity of Baffin. 

I think unless you ran the channel all the way across the Laguna directly into Baffin, you would not see any change to the water.


----------



## kingtender (Oct 12, 2005)

I would like to see a limit on the number of trips these guides run a day. 50 60 trout with three different groups of clients can't be healty to our ecosystem. Also how come we can only keep one red over 28 a year but one trout over 25 daily.


----------



## poco jim (Jun 28, 2010)

Also how come we can only keep one red over 28 a year but one trout over 25 daily. (Quote)

Very good question kingtender!


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Before the icw and the port aransas Jettys were built, the passes along the coast all existed because of rivers and streams flooding the bays and keeping the passes open to the gulf. It wasn't until the icw was cut through the Landcut that Yarborough lost its ability to stay open. If I remember right, Yarborough pass and cedar bayou were dammed up around 1980 because of an oil spill in the gulf. Prior to that it would have flow sometimes and not in other times. Farming was prevalent on the KR all the way back into the 60's if I remember right. Baffin was a very good fishery and Yarborough was still open regularly. 

Before packery channel was built the water from nueces bay would have 2 directions to go when it hit the bay, south into the Laguna and north out Jettys. When Yarborough pass was open, flood waters (at least some) would have to have traveled through ulm and out the pass or through the LC. The same would have happened with the creeks of Baffin. Flushing was a regular part of the system. With a regular jetty at Yarborough, the tides would be very different there and wind would be less of a factor. If that happened, all those "experts" on the system might lose a bit of there advantage, that's why some are reluctant to restore Yarborough pass. A more robust exchange of sea water would dilute and possibly remove many of those elements causing all of those ills we see today.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

kingtender said:


> ...how come we can only keep one red over 28 a year


Just for accuracy, you can keep 2 reds over 28" per year, but your point is well taken.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

How about guides being classified as commercial fisherman. (because that's basically what they are)

And limit them to Catch and Release only, or a one-man limit for the whole boat.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

railbird, what I'm saying.... is that even when Yarborough was open, there was no appreciable difference in Baffin's salinity (extrapolated to water "quality") 

don dalrymple did his PhD dissertation on the deposition history of Baffin sometime in the 60's. It's a geology paper, but deals a lot with water inflow


----------



## team cut em deep (May 14, 2010)

In 20 years I can see the limit being 1 trout and 1 red,, and 1 flounder only during the first weekend of July.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

team cut em deep said:


> In 20 years I can see the limit being 1 trout and 1 red,, and 1 flounder only during the first weekend of July.


Fear mongering: when you can't make a point, its the best alternative


----------



## team cut em deep (May 14, 2010)

spurgersalty said:


> Fear mongering: when you can't make a point, its the best alternative


All points have basically been covered on both sides. Was just making a prediction.


----------



## 535 (May 23, 2004)

railbird said:


> Before the icw and the port aransas Jettys were built, the passes along the coast all existed because of rivers and streams flooding the bays and keeping the passes open to the gulf. It wasn't until the icw was cut through the Landcut that Yarborough lost its ability to stay open. If I remember right, Yarborough pass and cedar bayou were dammed up around 1980 because of an oil spill in the gulf. Prior to that it would have flow sometimes and not in other times. Farming was prevalent on the KR all the way back into the 60's if I remember right. Baffin was a very good fishery and Yarborough was still open regularly.
> 
> Before packery channel was built the water from nueces bay would have 2 directions to go when it hit the bay, south into the Laguna and north out Jettys. When Yarborough pass was open, flood waters (at least some) would have to have traveled through ulm and out the pass or through the LC. The same would have happened with the creeks of Baffin. Flushing was a regular part of the system. With a regular jetty at Yarborough, the tides would be very different there and wind would be less of a factor. If that happened, all those "experts" on the system might lose a bit of there advantage, that's why some are reluctant to restore Yarborough pass. A more robust exchange of sea water would dilute and possibly remove many of those elements causing all of those ills we see today.


Yarborough isn't a natural pass. It was originally dredged in 1938. It required dredging every few years so it was abandoned in the 1950's

I found one pic of Yarborough re-opening as the result of Hurricane Buelah in 1967. It hasn't opened up since then from what I can tell


----------



## topdawg jr (Nov 4, 2009)

In respect to water quality, I think I'd rather tongue kiss Hillary's fart box than eat a Sylvan Beach spec in the summer. As far as guides and meat hauls go, the most memorable trips are always ones where you enjoy the company of a humorous captain while catching a few. 5 per man is plenty IMHO


----------



## kingtender (Oct 12, 2005)

Ive never tagged a red in my days so I wouldn't know. Yall get my point tough


----------



## troutomatic1488 (Jun 18, 2006)

If lowering limits helps the fish population then the problem should be solved as many times as I have seen limits lowered in my lifetime.Why is it the states with the most liberal limits seem to have the highest populations? The tail is wagging the dog.


----------



## JoeFlo (Jan 10, 2014)

TopDawg, this absolutely made my day. "In respect to water quality, I think I'd rather tongue kiss Hillary's fart box than eat a Sylvan Beach spec in the summer."


----------



## Dick Hanks (Aug 16, 2007)

It seems that most of the perceived and actual causes of fish population problems, are the direct or indirect result of too many people. Putting limits on the number of kids that people can have would solve a lot more problems that just the trout fishing situation. It's not socially acceptable to consider that option, so we will plug along treating the symptoms and not the cause.

I didn't open a can of worms here did I?


----------



## baffinbeaver (Jun 24, 2009)

POCTX said:


> TPWD says there is not need to go to 5 fish limit, but Itâ€™s sad that people are not listening to the people who we pay to manage our fishery. Instead, people would rather make changes based on what they read in magazines and not with the experts.


you are correct. TPWL's data does say that over the last three years the fishery is not in decline and by their numbers it is not getting any worse. so yes you are correct on that but...... that is just over the last three years and they aren't saying that is hasn't declined. they are just saying that it is not getting any worse at the moment. if you attended the meetings you would also have seen that TPWL showed the quality and quantity of how the fishery has declined over the last 15, 10, and even five years over the whole coast with the Aransas/laguna/and Baffin/ being the most. so if you are ok with the current fishery then vote yes. but like you said in your post These guys work for us. and you have to ask the right questions to get the right answers. if you ask one of them "with the data recorded over the last fifteen years do you think that reducing the limit to five will help improve the overall quality and quantity of our fishery back to where it was fifteen years ago? they will say "yes". how do I know they will say this? because I attended the meetings and personally asked them myself. and you can also ask them "why do you think it will improve our fishery"? and they will tell you "the numbers say it will improve our fishery". so yes if you are ok with the current fishery then vote against the limit reduction. but if you are like me and the rest of the people for the five fish limit and fished ten or fifteen years ago and would like to try and get the fishery back to where it was then vote for the 5 fish limit. its that simple. hopefully there are more people this year in favor of improving our fishery than being greedy so they can have "more fish to eat".


----------



## baffinbeaver (Jun 24, 2009)

also,,,, I see a lot of people saying "instead of limiting the amount of trout we can keep why don't we work on water quality". so,,,,,,does this mean that you fishermen saying this are agreeing that personally you have also seen a decline in our fishery as well??? especially in the corpus/Baffin/laguna areas???


----------



## baffinbeaver (Jun 24, 2009)

enielsen said:


> As others have mentioned. Once the limits are lowered they will never be given back. Let the TPW data and experienced biologists decide what the limits should be not a bunch of arm chair biologists. I have fished Baffin bay and the LLM all my life, grew up there. I own property on Baffin I am planning on building on next year which I am seriously questioning now. I can assure you there is a water quality issue. The bay water is in bad shape (barnacles are dead) and not from overfishing. As someone stated look to the $$$. Look to the King Ranch which allows untold amounts of fertilizer are washed into the Bay and LM every time it rains. The entire north side of the bay and west side of the LM border the land which is primarily used for farming. Baffin was the premier commercial fishing grounds for black drum on the entire coast for ever. In the last two years it is non existent. It is not fishing pressure or limits causing the issues plain and simple.


so you are agreeing that there is a problem with Baffins/laguna madres fishery?


----------



## baffinbeaver (Jun 24, 2009)

t-tung said:


> I couldn't disagree more. To start off, a bridge on the Seashore?? Wow, GREAT idea. :headknock Opening Yarborough is not the knee-jerk "solution" we need. We need to find the SOURCE of the problem and address it accordingly. Opening a pass would up-end an ecosystem that is unique to the world. All in the interest of a select few who have aspirations fishing a Florida-esquÃ© fishery. Why do you think the trout in Baffin get so big? Their diet and a lack of an abundance of natural predators (though we fishermen as a whole have become quite abundant and efficient at killing them). Just a theory. You see a few pods of trout terrorists (dolphins)down there already, imagine what it'd be like an open pass..... Not to mention, have you seen sharks they drag in off that beach? How about erosion?
> Baffin is the fishery it is because of the high salinity, a wind-blown tide instead of a lunar tide, a lack of close proximity to a pass and of course the worm rock.
> 
> I respect your opinion, but I will be on the front line fighting tooth and nail against you on this.
> ...


I couldn't agree more. great post


----------

