# Trout limit stays at 10 fish



## saltaholic (Feb 19, 2005)

http://2coolfishing.com/ttmbforum/showthread.php?t=323577

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

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

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

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


----------



## fishsmart (Dec 5, 2004)

Let me know when the trout population has grown. What a bunch of do nothings.

Charles


----------



## apslp (Jul 1, 2008)

For those who prefer keeping 5, I think you should promote this idea among your friends and circles that you fish in. Educate your fellow fisherman as to why they should only keep 5, you have the info that makes you feel the need to keep 5 so persuade others to do the same. 

I don't mind keeping 5 but my problem with this issue is the state coming in and taking our limits. These limits will never go back to what they were before once they are taken. This just leads the state to believe that they can do whatever they want. Next it will be closure to areas, fishing seasons etc. I believe that we can spread the word and and encourage responsible fishing habits and practices. I think the state should focus on better enforcement of the current laws.


----------



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

*Really!!!*

Now we can go back to fishing!:fishy:


----------



## muddyfuzzy (Jan 2, 2011)

sorry to hear that, promote c&r.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

I am against the just keeping 5 crowd, but if this is true, I will do it now just (only keep 5) to help. I am totally against restrictions, and speak out against it every chance I.get. But, as a sportsman, I am compelled to assist out natural resource however possible. 

I know, that's kinda contradictory, but I'm a rebel without a PAUSE!!


----------



## hightailangler (Jul 10, 2007)

The best possible thing that could have been done was to reduce the limits to 5 from East Matagorda Bay and south from there. Where the 5 fish limit has been in place for three years the fishing for mature trout has improved big time.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

Good news....


----------



## spike404 (Sep 13, 2010)

Good. I am for C&E. Catch and eat.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

Sad day for the lower coast trout population. The only positive from this is it looks like tpwd reads their emails. An organized opposition can still be successful, in maintaining the status quo. Please continue to be active.


----------



## trophytroutman (Mar 21, 2009)

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## rc10j1 (Jul 15, 2010)

I think it should be regulated by bay system and not state wide. Changing regs for Galveston and lake Sabine because the decline in trout in port Mansfield is like passing laws in Texas for something that is happening in California.


----------



## playinhooky (Dec 6, 2008)

Really, only 1240 replys ? I thought I sent that many myself.


----------



## VBF (Oct 25, 2009)

I never keep more than 5. That is not by choice, but by (lack of) skill!


----------



## Wiley64 (May 28, 2008)

If you are on the ropes about this, ask a red snapper fisherman what they think, oh wait.. There aren't any.


----------



## JimD (May 25, 2004)

*Do you really need a law*

There is nothing stopping any one from *keeping Zero to 10 trout a day* with out some rule.

The fact is some people will keep any and every thing they catch and others keep very few fish to eat or for a friend to eat. We have both on the board.

I was into serious flounder fishing 4-5 years ago. 
I had a great fall with several 9-10 fish limits. Kept a lot of the fish to eat and for friends.

Bottom line I ended up with too many fish freezer burned and wasted before we ate them. This cured me from meat hauling without some really good reason to keep the fish or deer meat for that matter.

Keep what you can eat and let the little 24-29" trout go.

They are "Too big" to eat and too small to mount even if you wanted a skin mount..

I like the way most ofthe guides are trying to have more CPR.

Nothing uglier to me than a #3 washtub full of small popping cork size trout and "too big" trout dumped on a boat deck or dock some were with a px posted.


----------



## muddyfuzzy (Jan 2, 2011)

the move from being a "meat-hauler" to a practioner of c&r is the natural order of things for most experienced anglers. many of those that lack the ability to be effective anglers now never hone their skills enough over time to make the change to a trophy fisherman. the point being that these individuals never really "put it on" the fish enough to cause any real dent in the population. of course, there are some people that can just flat out catch fish and really like eating them too.

i can just speak of my personal exp. and of those who i have had the pleasure to fish with over the years. we are all hard-wired a little different and sometimes take a different path to the same end. promote c&r, just keep 5 or what ever you do just make sure that your time on the water is positive for yourself, your quarry and the environment.


----------



## mustfish (May 26, 2010)

muddyfuzzy said:


> the move from being a "meat-hauler" to a practioner of c&r is the natural order of things for most experienced anglers. many of those that lack the ability to be effective anglers now never hone their skills enough over time to make the change to a trophy fisherman. the point being that these individuals never really "put it on" the fish enough to cause any real dent in the population. of course, there are some people that can just flat out catch fish and really like eating them too.
> 
> i can just speak of my personal exp. and of those who i have had the pleasure to fish with over the years. we are all hard-wired a little different and sometimes take a different path to the same end. promote c&r, just keep 5 or what ever you do just make sure that your time on the water is positive for yourself, your quarry and the environment.


well said.


----------



## ComalClassic (Apr 16, 2010)

Im ready for some of these guides to start leading the way. A few of them have talked big on how they have practiced catch and release for years. Plenty of you say your for only keeping 5 but dont want the state to regulate. These guides are the primary source for teaching people how to fish, why dont more of them start teaching new or unfamiliar anglers there is more to it than filling their freezer. We need to start looking at the bigger picture.

What ever happened to "a bad day on the water is better than a good day at work."

First guide I see with a banner on 2cool saying they only practice CPR or "just keep 5," Ill book 3 trips for this year. Thats from the Cut to Matagorda.. lower coast has to keep 5, I dont care to fish Galveston and North.


----------



## Rippin_drag (Sep 2, 2008)

How do we know this is official? I see nothing on the TP&W website.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/

Plus i thought this wouldn't be decided until around Sept. this year.


----------



## grman (Jul 2, 2010)

I don't think there is anything to celibrate here. This nasty process demonstrated that the state does not have a comprehensive management plan for our bay and coastal resourses. They can't quantify if the resource is in trouble or if it is okay. If they truely had the data to quanitate a trout population crash and a management plan in place to deal with - why the dog and pony show? I mean - making important resource decisions based on Facebook responses? Give a break!


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

grman said:


> I don't think there is anything to celibrate here. This nasty process demonstrated that the state does not have a comprehensive management plan for our bay and coastal resourses. They can't quantify if the resource is in trouble or if it is okay. If they truely had the data to quanitate a trout population crash and a management plan in place to deal with - why the dog and pony show? I mean - making important resource decisions based on Facebook responses? Give a break!


I agree whole heatedly with your comments on TPWD gauging user input to make a decision...they don't need yours or my opinion. I do disagree that the decision was based on bad science but I figured those who wanted 5 would blame the science now.


----------



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

*Good points*



grman said:


> I don't think there is anything to celibrate here. This nasty process demonstrated that the state does not have a comprehensive management plan for our bay and coastal resourses. They can't quantify if the resource is in trouble or if it is okay. If they truely had the data to quanitate a trout population crash and a management plan in place to deal with - why the dog and pony show? I mean - making important resource decisions based on Facebook responses? Give a break!


The State of Texas Parks & Wildlife seemed to be short on many things on this trout issue. One thing short for shure is or was the "lack of re-stocking of fingerling trout in our bays" (it just has not been done with a thorough constant stocking or release program = which costs $$$). Another point is the lack of knowledge or scientific fact about the resource....some think it is in trouble while others believ it is in great shape. So, what shape is it really in from Sabine Pass to Brownsville? Or is it just spotty, some places good while some not so good? Oh yes, the dog & pony show came and it has gone for awhile, but it will come back again in some other form. I would like to see annual re-stocking of trout fingerlings all up and down the Texas Gulf Coast, but to do that it would require funding. As for catch & releae or catch and eat or catch and decide what to do, please be sure that the trout you keep you will harvest and not go to waste. As for facebook respnses and that kind of stuff, much of it comes from personal opinions and opinions comes from either experience or what has beenread in publications. Instead of opinions, we need facts.


----------



## KR (Aug 20, 2005)

TPWD is always being accused of holding these public input meetings just for show, when they had already decided on an issue. I think this issue at least will let people know that their voices do not go unnoticed. It can be readdressed in the near future, and perhaps more regional limits looked at further. Texas is a big state with varying fisheries. I think on the upper coast, we have too many redfish pushing the trout out of some areas. It's a complicated issue, but hasty restrictions that will likely never be reversed(ie goverment),should not be made.


----------



## Mad Mike (Dec 28, 2005)

rc10j1 said:


> I think it should be regulated by bay system and not state wide. Changing regs for Galveston and lake Sabine because the decline in trout in port Mansfield is like passing laws in Texas for something that is happening in California.


x2


----------



## Tight Knot (Sep 8, 2004)

Science wins over common sense......eat what you keep.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

Whew...For awhile there I thought I was going to have to shave a few people off of my guest list for my fish frys. They would be the ones that show up with the least amount of beerz. :cheers:


----------



## paymerick (May 19, 2010)

Maybe Tpw needs to conduct better research, but I have no problem with them asking the public what they think should be done when the data gathered doesn't show an urgent need to do anything... 

This seemed like a case where they could justify both keeping the 10-trout limit or lowering it to 5/7/whatever... I enjoy the fact that they left it up to us...

Now, when the data shows they absolutely need to lower the limit, I have confidence that they will nike (just do it) after informing us of the problem... 

Personally I would like to see another year or two of research... I'm cool with 10 and I'm cool with five...


----------



## DRH (Oct 14, 2009)

It's personnel opion if you want to keep 5 or 10 trout, that's your opion...If, I catch two for dinner for me and the wife that is my choice...if, I want to catch 10 to feed my family that is my choice..I just like to see people obey the laws and help promote the stocking program and educate people how to handle fish.


----------



## Team Burns (May 6, 2008)

I have to agree with the general sentiment of making a decision based on research. Develop a plan on how to manage a fishery and help the general public to understand. We obviously know there is going to be a built in bias among fisherman. Conversely, just because it sounds like a "good idea" should not prevail. Personally, I keep enough fish to cook for a meal. C&R is a beautiful thing if you have plenty or enough fish in the freezer.


----------



## hockeyref999 (Aug 12, 2005)

apslp said:


> For those who prefer keeping 5, I think you should promote this idea among your friends and circles that you fish in. Educate your fellow fisherman as to why they should only keep 5, you have the info that makes you feel the need to keep 5 so persuade others to do the same.
> 
> I don't mind keeping 5 but my problem with this issue is the state coming in and taking our limits. These limits will never go back to what they were before once they are taken. This just leads the state to believe that they can do whatever they want. Next it will be closure to areas, fishing seasons etc. I believe that we can spread the word and and encourage responsible fishing habits and practices. I think the state should focus on better enforcement of the current laws.


Amen.

You don't HAVE to keep ten fish. If five suits you keep five. I just keep enough for dinner that night, usually two or three, but it's nice to have the option of taking up to ten if I need to.

HR999


----------



## JustAddWater2 (Oct 10, 2005)

Now if they got Trinity Bay cleaned up so we could eat over 8 ounces a month I'd be wonderful bring even 2 home.


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

We will get it done eventually. I think the whole exercise exposed many issues and is just sending TPW back to the drawing board. For example, the arguement of lowering the minimum size MAY have merit from the standpoint that we are harvesting too many females.

Keeping only a handful of fish will be law eventually.

I can promise you that it is a HUGE accomplishment that more than 50% supported a lowering of the limit to 5. That level of support would have been unheard of just 10 years ago. In 5-10 years, we will have 60% support the idea and in another 5-10 years, we will have 70%...etc.

Supporters, hang in there, we will get it done.


----------



## specks&ducks (Nov 9, 2010)

It's frustrating to see the lack of understanding on the importance of managing a natural resource from such a large group of people who of use it. If TPWD sees fit that a reduction is not necessary at this time, then I accept that. I personally feel that there was large amount of pressure from business owners up and down the coast who felt that another blow to their economy was coming. The summertime crowds makeup of a large amount of their annual business, and they do not want that to take a hit. I can understand that also. This is where a lot guides make their money, and telling clients they can keep only five does not appeal to them. 
However, with the exception of a pretty good fall and now winter, trout fishing on the mid coast has been way down for about three years. Everyone knows that. Hopefully the good fishing will continue, but if we encounter another dry period or hard freeze we could go back to tough fishing. By keeping limits down, we greatly reduce the impact of those events. Thats called MANAGING THE FISHERY! No one enjoys, TPWD included, telling people they have to keep less fish. Does a rancher put more cows on his land that it can handle? Does a herd manager shoot all his good looking bucks every year? Does a business owner spend all of his profit every week, or does he set aside a reserve? No, they all manage their resource so it will continue to produce. 
Bottom line is our fisheries cannot sustain the old worn out attitude of "meat hauls."
Doing so shows a lack of respect, concern and understanding. We have to take care of it. Teddy Roosevelt knew this, Rudy Gigar knew this, we should too. Just Keep Five!


----------



## Kevin70 (May 24, 2010)

TailHunter3 said:


> We will get it done eventually. I think the whole exercise exposed many issues and is just sending TPW back to the drawing board. For example, the arguement of lowering the minimum size MAY have merit from the standpoint that we are harvesting too many females.
> 
> Keeping only a handful of fish will be law eventually.
> 
> ...


You act like the end goal is to have a lower trout limit. Shouldn't the end goal be to have a healthy and sustainable trout population. If data says lowering the limit is not needed, why lower the limit?

If people believe that a lower limit is needed to keep a sustainable trout population, so be it. It doesn't appear the data is that conclusive either way. But your attitude appears to be that we need a movement to lower the trout limit no matter what. If it really is inevitable that "keeping a handful of fish will be the law eventually" then we live in a sad state and a sad country. I'm glad you love more regulation whether needed or not.

Supporters, please don't lose sight of what the actual goal is. I hope there is never a need for you to "get it done."


----------



## OxbowOutfitters (Feb 17, 2006)

I just keep 5 anyway.. thats enough to feed the Familly for a Good meal..
if its not fresh.. it just dont taste right


----------



## flounderdaddy (Aug 2, 2009)

I have not had a hard time finding trout the last three years. You just have to no where to go. Keep five it you want to keep five. If you want to keep ten then keep ten. That way everyone is happy.


----------



## tailchaser22 (Aug 14, 2005)

To many this is just another topic to argue about but what are we arguing about anyway? One, two, five, ten these are just numbers. How many of us are actually going fishing to feed our families, if I would have to guess I would say very few. We go fishing for the enjoyment of fishing and being in the outdoors. Yes if we kill that big buck or catch the personal best fish of a lifetime it adds a little more thrill to it and all of us like to take a little meat home because we like it or to fulfill the needs for a fish fry. 

What happens when the resources that we enjoy so much dwindles and not that they are at the current time, because our gill net surveys really don't indicate it, but what happens when they do. How many of us like high fences, how many of us like all the regulations that are upon us from others. If we don't want these regulations then we have to be able to manage ourselves. It is not about the TPWD managing our resources as it is about us not managing them. 

As humans and especially the younger generation (and that generation includes me) look for instant gratification to show how good we are. Its about look what I can do, look how many I caught and I deserve mor than you. Well these are great things and they make America great but we will do these things till a resource is no longer exists. How many of us complained when the commercial fisherman were depleting the sport fish population. How many of us have said thank you to the TPWD for banning that. I am sure we all complained about lowering the redfish limit but that seems to be working out pretty good and no one is complaining now. 

I am a believer in the 5 fish and me and my fishing circle and friends adhere to this as strongly as we can. And I am not going to tell anyone else what to do or how many to keep but I will say is if we look in the rear view mirror and have seen what conservation has done then maybe we will be a little more receptive instead of saying I want mine and screw the rest. Sounds a little like our government right now and the our future tax bills for our children.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

JustAddWater2 said:


> Now if they got Trinity Bay cleaned up so we could eat over 8 ounces a month I'd be wonderful bring even 2 home.


The fact that Mickey Eastman is still alive is a good sign!


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

Common sense applies Kevin. I believe lowering the limit is backed by both science and common sense in improving our fishery.

I believe TPW faced too much outcry from the minority (the less than 50% group) and TPW was unable to make a clear recommendation AT THIS TIME.

Everyone should agree that the fishery wasn't facing total devastation at this very moment. Thus, how could TPW support a change when it would cause so many to be so vocal and assenine towards the agency? Status quo is the path of least resistance.

The point from the beginning was to lessen the gaps in the cycle of the population. In the end, it is not at the crisis level so why make a change at this very point is what TPW has to be thinking.

Some of us just get it. It is not about eliminating disaster as it was about improving it. Some of us want to make it better. For some of us, status quo wasn't good enough.

Yes, I can keep 5 and you can keep 10. But, we all need a speed limit as we can't all just drive the speed we want to drive.



Kevin70 said:


> You act like the end goal is to have a lower trout limit. Shouldn't the end goal be to have a healthy and sustainable trout population. If data says lowering the limit is not needed, why lower the limit?
> 
> If people believe that a lower limit is needed to keep a sustainable trout population, so be it. It doesn't appear the data is that conclusive either way. But your attitude appears to be that we need a movement to lower the trout limit no matter what. If it really is inevitable that "keeping a handful of fish will be the law eventually" then we live in a sad state and a sad country. I'm glad you love more regulation whether needed or not.
> 
> Supporters, please don't lose sight of what the actual goal is. I hope there is never a need for you to "get it done."


----------



## Bayscout22 (Aug 9, 2007)

TailHunter3 said:


> We will get it done eventually. I think the whole exercise exposed many issues and is just sending TPW back to the drawing board. For example, the arguement of lowering the minimum size MAY have merit from the standpoint that we are harvesting too many females.
> 
> Keeping only a handful of fish will be law eventually.
> 
> ...


Just to be technically correct... The report didn't say that 50% favored lowering the limit to five. It said 50% (actually 51%) were "favoring some kind of change". The report is obviously produced by bureaucrats. It would have been nice to know what percentage favored lowering the limts to five.

Honestly, I'm happy the limits are staying the way they are and I would have been just fine with them lowering the limits _*if they had science that supported it.*_ I fully expect it will happen at some point. When it does, I'll be on board.

As it turns out, the impression I'm left with is that they didn't lower limts due to pressure at the open meetings. That, I'm not OK with. It's like asking a bunch of teenagers if their curfew should be 11PM or 2AM. I adhere to EVERY game law because I believe the powers that be are making decisions in the best interest of the resource.

*Is that really what just happened here? *


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

TP&W is a bunch of old, fat, bloated, worthless, state employees that continue to show us they are way behind in almost everthing they do from a management standpoint.

I guess I need to get my trout caught early again this summer because by mid july there is nothing left but 13" fish.

If you think this decision was wrong, then, try asking a TPW biologist why there is no harvest of deos allowed north of 59 in Goliad County, when there is a 20-1 doe to buck ratio.


----------



## jiginit (Jun 8, 2010)

*No limit change*

For once The TP&W has done something sensible. They based a decision on fact rather than a bunch of hype from guides and elitest who cry because of a rough couple of years fishing. Simple fact is the limits are set for the benefit of the ecosystem, not for a few. All I can say is Thank you TP&W.


----------



## Captain Hough (Jan 10, 2010)

This subject is a tough one and more heated than a political debate or a discussion on religion.

Before stating my opinion which is like you know what, everybody has one.I would like to start with 2 questions.

How many of you that are in favor of a 5 trout limit went to a meeting ?

How many of you have read the data ?

I went to our local meeting, I read and re-read the data.

Contrary to the belief of the "keep five crowd" the guides aren't against change, the majority of us want to make sure the right change is made. The fact is that at this time, TPWD is not sure what the correct action would be based on their own data. They weren't strong armed by opposition or busnessmen. Most of us that make our living on the water our more concerned about our fishery than most sportfishermen.

I have been guiding for 17 years and have called Operation Game Thief many times, pulled over game wardens to inform them of concerns, spotted and reported gill nets, and much more. You know what, I have NEVER gotten a ticket for an illegal fish , limit, or anything related. I was one of the first group of the CBGA that proposed one large trout a day. 

So, I would appreciate it if everyone would get their facts straight before casting stones. We need to work on ths together rather than drawing a line in the sand.


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

Of the folks who favored change, about 52 percent (315 comments) suggested a five-fish daily bag



Bayscout22 said:


> Just to be technically correct... The report didn't say that 50% favored lowering the limit to five. It said 50% (actually 51%) were "favoring some kind of change". The report is obviously produced by bureaucrats. It would have been nice to know what percentage favored lowering the limts to five.
> 
> Honestly, I'm happy the limits are staying the way they are and I would have been just fine with them lowering the limits _*if they had science that supported it.*_ I fully expect it will happen at some point. When it does, I'll be on board.
> 
> ...


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

TailHunter3 said:


> Of the folks who favored change, about 52 percent (315 comments) suggested a five-fish daily bag


 Has anyone figured out that whether you think the votes support one position or another that it is BS? If one thousand fishermen were all that we are dealing with we could keep 100 fish a day. The number represents all who the CCA could muster vrs all the guides with a sprinkling of those like me who looked at the science and said no. If creel studies are worth anything they tell us the rest like to keep their 10 fish. And that is my big problem with the whole process. Why in the H#ll does TPWD need to hear from anyone when they supposedly have the best scientific tools at their disposal to make an objective decision?


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*They have too*



trouthammer said:


> Has anyone figured out that whether you think the votes support one position or another that it is BS? If one thousand fishermen were all that we are dealing with we could keep 100 fish a day. The number represents all who the CCA could muster vrs all the guides with a sprinkling of those like me who looked at the science and said no. If creel studies are worth anything they tell us the rest like to keep their 10 fish. And that is my big problem with the whole process. Why in the H#ll does TPWD need to hear from anyone when they supposedly have the best scientific tools at their disposal to make an objective decision?


I believe its the law, where they are required to have public input meetings. Kinda like the Corps of Engineers rerouting the ICW through your back yard. You would want a chance to have input to voice your concerns. Anytime something like that is done it is open for public comment. Problem most of the time is it's posted in the classified section of the local paper and most people miss it.

People talk bad about the TP&WD department when they are looked to for information from agencies across the Country. They are not perfect, none of us are and (IMHO) with the exception of waiting too long to make a move on the Flounder I think they have done a real good job of managing our fishery over the last 30 years.

Gater


----------



## Captain Hough (Jan 10, 2010)

trouthammer said:


> Why in the H#ll does TPWD need to hear from anyone when they supposedly have the best scientific tools at their disposal to make an objective decision?


Exactly.

Does anyone really think that me complaining and asking for (among other things) an economic impact study as well as more research on transient fish and water quality really had an affect on TPWD ? Did my questions have them so concerned that they chose to side with me ? NO, they read their own data and made a determination.


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

TPWD has the best scientific tools? Compared to what?



trouthammer said:


> Has anyone figured out that whether you think the votes support one position or another that it is BS? If one thousand fishermen were all that we are dealing with we could keep 100 fish a day. The number represents all who the CCA could muster vrs all the guides with a sprinkling of those like me who looked at the science and said no. If creel studies are worth anything they tell us the rest like to keep their 10 fish. And that is my big problem with the whole process. Why in the H#ll does TPWD need to hear from anyone when they supposedly have the best scientific tools at their disposal to make an objective decision?


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

TailHunter3 said:


> We will get it done eventually. I think the whole exercise exposed many issues and is just sending TPW back to the drawing board. For example, the arguement of lowering the minimum size MAY have merit from the standpoint that we are harvesting too many females.
> 
> Keeping only a handful of fish will be law eventually.
> 
> ...


Did you get that from Al Gore's playbook???


----------



## capt mullet (Nov 15, 2008)

I am very dissapointed with TP & W for not lowering the limits. Our Trout fishery is fair to good here in Texas as a whole but making it great would be beneficial for the economy. More people coming to Texas to fish for trout means more money in our economy. Not only for guides but for hotels, restaurants, out of state license sales, etc etc

Will the fishery be hurt by not lowering the limit? I think not but as a guide I want it to improve. I want bigger trout, I want more trout, I want more reds and flounder. I want to be able to put on my website that our fishery here is world class and cant be beat. 

Louisiana has all of the marsh and all of the great wetlands so their fishery puts ours to shame. We dont have that great marsh so we have to accomodate in other ways. 

I would think the avg fishermen would want this also. 

Before I was a guide I was strictly catch and release and so are my buddies I fish with today. Like bass fishermen that is where we need to be. Catch and release. I was looking at Levi's website today and he had a discount for CPR. I commend him for that and think it is a great idea that I might add to my website. 

COnservation minded anglers is where we need to be headed not meathwag anglers which I am afraid that the majority is.


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

If by Al Gore, you mean the liberals playbook, then "yes". It is very effective method they have employed for years.

But, I may believe strongly in making changes to improve the fishery but make no mistake... I am no liberal supporter. I am as anti-current administration as you will ever find.



Haute Pursuit said:


> Did you get that from Al Gore's playbook???


----------



## specks&ducks (Nov 9, 2010)

I think that is well put TailHunter. It's not about being an "elitist", it's just being proactive and using what we know to make a better fishery and creating a buffer for events that have an impact. i.e. Droughts and Freezes. I think everyone can appreciate that. I think there is a very small percentage of fisherman that go spend money on fuel, equipment, and all that goes with it for a limit of trout filets as a food source. 
I grew up in the Corpus area, I've seen some real high's and low's, gill nets, hard freezes, Blackened Redfish, etc. I've been fishing the mid coast for forty years, quality in trout is down right now. We can all go get a quart of shrimp and catch a limit of 15 inchers, but I think the majority of us would like to let these fish grow some. Am I wrong?


----------



## muddyfuzzy (Jan 2, 2011)

capt mullet said:


> I would think the avg fishermen would want this also.
> 
> Conservation minded anglers is where we need to be headed not meathwag anglers which I am afraid that the majority is.


too bad many of the average minded fishermen are of below average intelligence.

this was or never will be about us, it's about managing a natural resource. it's not about hurting anybody's feelings or the man telling you what to do.....it's about the fish. whatever is best for the fishery is the direction we should move to.

promote c&r, tell your friends and lead by example. it's the right thing to do. i like to eat fish just as much as the next guy i'm just sensible in my approach.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Capt, I live 96 or so miles from the coast. So when I get to go down and enjoy(which ain't often) the coast I would like the option to bag 10th. Unlike others I really don't think the taste of frozen fish is that bad. So the way I see it, the guides book trips daily!! Well, let's cut the bag limit for guided parties in in half. The few times I get down there and if lucky catch ALMOST 10, Pales in in comparison to a professional that guides 3 or 4 people and catches that same ALMOST 10. And there again, please don't do like the 13" crowd and help to impose your agenda (trophy fish) on the guys that are out to feed the family and at the same time, have a good time. Not everyone has the money to just go fish and spend 100 dollars on gas for the boat and another 50 in the truck not counting refreshments, just to c & r. And I know its hard to tell someone's tone from type so I will tell you this was not said in anger just discussion. 

J W


----------



## Melon (Jun 1, 2004)

Game is over. Now let's all go fishing! lmao


----------



## CDOGS (Apr 27, 2009)

flounderdaddy said:


> I have not had a hard time finding trout the last three years. You just have to no where to go. Keep five it you want to keep five. If you want to keep ten then keep ten. That way everyone is happy.


I agree...I am by no means a world class trout fisherman...but you guys saying the last 3 yrs have sucked?? Find another spot, try something diffrent. I have fished with same group of guys and over the same time you speak of we have had maybe a couple of trips where on the way home we decided the fished kicked our butt...other then that its been on! Not 30" every cast but always nice fish, and *I know there is a special place in hell for me*...but yes i did keep 10!


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

Melon said:


> Game is over. Now let's all go fishing! lmao


Agree 1000% and anybody who thinks this dead horse needs to be shot some more this is for you.


----------



## Bayscout22 (Aug 9, 2007)

TailHunter3 said:


> Of the folks who favored change, about 52 percent (315 comments) suggested a five-fish daily bag


_The overall opinions submitted for or against change (1,229) were split 49 percent to 51 percent, with 608 favoring some kind of change and 621 favoring the status quo. A smattering of others did not clearly state what they wanted. Of the folks who favored change, about 52 percent (315 comments) suggested a five-fish daily bag. _

I'm no math whiz but... If 1,229 people submitted an opinion and 315 suggested a five-fish limit... a guy could assume that it was more like 1 in 4 that were in favor of a five fish limit.


----------



## Captain Hough (Jan 10, 2010)

trouthammer said:


> Agree 1000% and anybody who thinks this dead horse needs to be shot some more this is for you.


Now that was funny. LMAO.

Just for that I'm gonna go fishing tomorrow in my ...what'd you call it? Gay twin boat. LOL:rotfl:

I was gonna go today but Mayra was stuck in DC, finally got her home so now I can fish.


----------



## Captain Hough (Jan 10, 2010)

Bayscout22 said:


> _The overall opinions submitted for or against change (1,229) were split 49 percent to 51 percent, with 608 favoring some kind of change and 621 favoring the status quo. A smattering of others did not clearly state what they wanted. Of the folks who favored change, about 52 percent (315 comments) suggested a five-fish daily bag. _
> 
> I'm no math whiz but... If 1,229 people submitted an opinion and 315 suggested a five-fish limit... a guy could assume that it was more like 1 in 4 that were in favor of a five fish limit.


Yep, like we had to explain to Art that 1 in 5 trout that become transient is 20%!!!!!!!!! :walkingsm

Greenies to you too.:texasflag


----------



## let's go (Nov 14, 2005)

I'm just wondering something after reading so many questions about the "science" used by TPWD. Many have complained that they need better science, better methods, etc. What could that possibly be? Other than the gill net surveys, siene samplings and creel surveys what would you guys suggest? I have given it a lot of thought recently and honestly can't fathom a better way to count a wild, basically unseen resource. I would really like to hear from the critics what they should do differently.

And for the record I have been and will continue to be in support of lowering the limits. My view comes from many years of fishing our coast. I recall a time when catching a redfish was an oddity. I went out for three hours this afternoon and caught ten reds in less than ideal conditions. Conservative limits work.

Think of it this way. Would you prefer to have a ten fish limit that few people are able to obtain or would you like to see a healthy fishery where catching ten is far more common even though you're only allowed to keep five. Personally, the joy of catching far out-ranks filling a freezer.


----------



## McTrout (May 22, 2004)

I am not a scientist so I can't really comment. What I can ask, however, is why everybody is coming down here now?? Please offer a real explanation...


----------



## CoastalOutfitters (Aug 20, 2004)

i'm really glad they made croaker a gamefish, this was long overdue

now at least they are illegal to fish with.................


----------



## let's go (Nov 14, 2005)

McTrout said:


> I am not a scientist so I can't really comment. What I can ask, however, is why everybody is coming down here now?? Please offer a real explanation...


I believe we went over this on the phone yesterday. You better go ahead and build an addition on to the house. lmao


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

CoastalOutfitters said:


> i'm really glad they made croaker a gamefish, this was long overdue
> 
> now at least they are illegal to fish with.................


HUH!?!?


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

If this thread makes 3 pages at 60 posts per page, I'm adding three fish to my personal 5 trout limit . Now go fishing!!


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

McTrout said:


> I am not a scientist so I can't really comment. What I can ask, however, is why everybody is coming down here now?? Please offer a real explanation...


Because the jetty is unplugged and you can cull and kill until you get a big nice 5 stringer apparently. I guess now that everyone is flooding Port M they will actually get a real restaraunt? High rises? Can you explain why your gill numbers are flat? And why people who have this supposed renewable resource mentality are culling fish to get the "biggest" stringer of 5 they can?


----------



## Captain Hough (Jan 10, 2010)

trouthammer said:


> Because the jetty is unplugged and you can cull and kill until you get a big nice 5 stringer apparently. I guess now that everyone is flooding Port M they will actually get a real restaraunt? High rises? Can you explain why your gill numbers are flat? And why people who have this supposed renewable resource mentality are culling fish to get the "biggest" stringer of 5 they can?


They had estimated fiures onthis too.

Art Morris's presentation showed that if we went to a 50% reduction in limit (5 fish) we would have a 20% increase in "mortality" from people culling/releasing, and a 25% increase in "discard" which is when people throw back dead fish in order to retain a bigger one they just caght.

In my math class I learned that would add up to an increase in dead fish of 45%. So, reducing the limit by 50%-the 45% increase in dead fish=5% net. Hardly seems worth printing the new regulation.

I think there are better things we can do to gain more than 5%.

Well, enough of this for now, I am headed to the marina. (ok maybe I'll wait till 9:00 LOL) I don't want to keep more than 2 today.


----------



## The Driver. (May 20, 2004)

McTrout said:


> I am not a scientist so I can't really comment. What I can ask, however, is why everybody is coming down here now?? Please offer a real explanation...


Harbormaster says its because of your moustache and good looks!


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

McTrout said:


> I am not a scientist so I can't really comment. What I can ask, however, is why everybody is coming down here now?? Please offer a real explanation...


ask yourself why you went down there... Hi Tricia! nobody goes to see you mb.


----------



## fishshallow (Feb 2, 2006)

Sorry to shoot the dead horse again. I have fished the middle coast extensively for the past 15 years or more and have watched the # of keeper trout dwindle. I support changing the limit to 5. 
Everyone is so adamant about the science of the health of the bay system but what about the other half of the science. That being fishing pressure. This includes the dramatic increase in # of fisherman on the water every year and the efficiency at which all of these fisherman are able to catch fish. Anyone who has been on the water in the past ten years can attest to how "crowded" it has become. Sleepy little fishing towns become zoos on weekends during the summer time. As for the efficiency of the modern fisherman this includes; GUIDES, tackle, boats and technology. (guides ex. If four guys go out with a guide and all limit out that's 40 fish, if they go out separately and average four fish each that's 16 fish, do the math and that's an increase 250% in number of fish no longer reproducing, multiply that by all the guides along the coast.)
The bay system can only support and produce a certain number of fish per year so it seems like common sense to me that if there are more people on the water and those people are catching more fish, then there must be a limit change in order for the bay system to support the increase in fishing pressure. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

TailHunter3 said:


> If by Al Gore, you mean the liberals playbook, then "yes". It is very effective method they have employed for years.
> 
> But, I may believe strongly in making changes to improve the fishery but make no mistake... I am no liberal supporter. I am as anti-current administration as you will ever find.


The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Fear it! :rotfl:


----------



## TooShallow (May 21, 2004)

The real explanation is that since the 5 fish limit went into effect the trout fishery has improved in the LLM. It will never be like it was when I used to prowl the flats back in the 70's but it is improving none the less. There is a tremendous amount of fishing pressure on the LLM contrary to popular belief and something had to be done as the trout fishery was in a state of collapse. KUDOS to TPW&D for making the change; albeit a bit too late. Let's just hope they don't wait too long for the rest of the coast.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

TooShallow said:


> The real explanation is that since the 5 fish limit went into effect the trout fishery has improved in the LLM. It will never be like it was when I used to prowl the flats back in the 70's but it is improving none the less. There is a tremendous amount of fishing pressure on the LLM contrary to popular belief and something had to be done as the trout fishery was in a state of collapse. KUDOS to TPW&D for making the change; albeit a bit too late. Let's just hope they don't wait too long for the rest of the coast.


The upper coast is fine. Most of us have no problem with the 5 fish limit where it is needed and the need has been verified scientifically. There are far to many factors other than fishing pressure that contribute to a specific fishery over a short period of time.


----------



## let's go (Nov 14, 2005)

Captain Hough said:


> They had estimated fiures onthis too.
> 
> Art Morris's presentation showed that if we went to a 50% reduction in limit (5 fish) we would have a 20% increase in "mortality" from people culling/releasing, and a 25% increase in "discard" which is when people throw back dead fish in order to retain a bigger one they just caght.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but I don't buy those numbers. Nobody I fish with has ever "discarded" dead fish in order to upgrade. And outside of tournaments I haven't fished around anybody stringing fish and then culling up to get a bigger stringer. To top all of that off, there have been multiple studies that show trout are far tougher than most people give them credit for and survive C&R at a very high rate.

They can pull whatever survival numbers they want when gustimating what MIGHT happen with a 5 fish limit, but there is no disputing that those extra 5 fish kept in a 10 fish limit are 100% dead.


----------



## capt mullet (Nov 15, 2008)

spurgersalty said:


> Capt, I live 96 or so miles from the coast. So when I get to go down and enjoy(which ain't often) the coast I would like the option to bag 10th. Unlike others I really don't think the taste of frozen fish is that bad. So the way I see it, the guides book trips daily!! Well, let's cut the bag limit for guided parties in in half. The few times I get down there and if lucky catch ALMOST 10, Pales in in comparison to a professional that guides 3 or 4 people and catches that same ALMOST 10. And there again, please don't do like the 13" crowd and help to impose your agenda (trophy fish) on the guys that are out to feed the family and at the same time, have a good time. Not everyone has the money to just go fish and spend 100 dollars on gas for the boat and another 50 in the truck not counting refreshments, just to c & r. And I know its hard to tell someone's tone from type so I will tell you this was not said in anger just discussion.
> 
> J W


TP& W doesnt think that way as far as making guides have one limit and everyone else another limit so it isnt even worth discussing.

There is nobody on this board that fishes to feed their family except of course the professionals and that isnt for meat.

You only fish a few times a year so you are not the problem but unfortunately for you you will be part of the solution if it goes to 5.

Try not think of yourself when making this decision. You are thinking "I want MY 10 in the freezer" Pardon me but thats sounds greedy. What if trout populations dramatically decline and it isnt even possible to catch 10 anymore? Is it worth it that your kids and grandkids cant experience great fishing on the coast like you did because you want an extra 5 fish in the freezer. Go buy snapper at Kroger and think of conservation instead of trout. I personally think that sacrifice is worth our fisheries becoming better. Like you I agree this is a discussion and not an argument. No hard feelings on either side just opinions.


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

*TPWD Pulls Seatrout from Fishing Regulation Proposals*

AUSTIN - The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department will not recommend any changes to spotted seatrout regulations this year, citing no biological urgency and split reactions to potential length or bag alternatives during public scoping meetings and in online angler surveys.
Recent declines in relative abundance of spotted seatrout in some of the mid-coast bays led TPWD to open discussions regarding possibly implementing additional conservation measures for other bay systems. "We're seeing increased spotted seatrout recruitment in many Texas bay systems and our creel surveys are showing fairly high angler satisfaction levels," said Robin Riechers, TPWD Coastal Fisheries Division Director. "We opened the idea up for discussion at public scoping meetings and saw no compelling reason to move forward with a proposal at this time."


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

The above story tells me what we kind of already know:

The fishery is not in dire straits so no biological reason to make a change

TPW thought they could improve the fishery or go from good to better but too much opposition to try and improve anything at this time.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

"Improve" is a relative term. Improve the fishery for trophy catch an release elitist's has different meaning than improve for "average Joe" who only fishes a couple of times per month or less. Average Joe's voice was heard.


----------



## HIGHFIVE (Apr 27, 2010)

*10 Fish Limit*

Very sad day for the Middle Coast, particularly the POC area. We have been experiencing a severe decline in keeper fish for many years and were hopeful TPWD would change the trout limit to five. Its not uncommon to catch 7 or 8 throwbacks for every keeper. The decline in trout over 18-20 inch has severely decreased.

There is simply too much pressure on the keeper population at the 10 fish limit. Between the use of croakers and the large guide services literally taking thousands and thousands of keeper fish annually, the keeper population will steadily decline further.

We had our hopes up but TPWD has let us down. Hopefully, they will reconsider soon. The 5 fish limit in the lower Laguna is a proven success and sorely needed in the Middle Coast.

Good Fishing !


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

Haute Pursuit said:


> "Improve" is a relative term. Improve the fishery for trophy catch an release elitist's has different meaning than improve for "average Joe" who only fishes a couple of times per month or less. Average Joe's voice was heard.


wurd!!! :cop:


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

The average Joe can't catch 5 much less 10 so just shot himself in the foot to make the fishery better and improve his chances of catching 5 when he does go fishing.

The number of anglers catching 5 trout in the lower laguna shows this as it had a 250% increase in those catching 5 keeper trout after the limit was put at 5.



Gilbert said:


> wurd!!! :cop:


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

seems like the average joe has no problem catching 10 trout now or they would have wanted a change


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Gilbert said:


> seems like the average joe has no problem catching 10 trout now or they would have wanted a change


No kidding! My elitist hammer struck the nail square on the head. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

Dumb logic and assumes the average joe has above average strategic vision. Right!

Data from TPW suggests that 96% of anglers catch less than 5 trout on any given fishing trip.

A reduction to 5 trout would only affect professional fishing guides and a few select anglers who are also good fisherman.

The average joe currently has no limit as they can fish all day and not catch 5 much less 10.

Leave it up to the average Joe and we wouldn't have limits on anything.



Gilbert said:


> seems like the average joe has no problem catching 10 trout now or they would have wanted a change


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

I bet you are in their 96 percent category and would feel better if you could catch a limit like us joe's. It must be hail being un underacheiving elitist... Have to try to bring everyone down to your level to feel good. :cheers:


----------



## The Driver. (May 20, 2004)

Haute Pursuit said:


> I bet you are in their 96 percent category and would feel better if you could catch a limit like us joe's. It must be hail being un underacheiving elitist... Have to try to bring everyone down to your level to feel good. :cheers:


X2!


----------



## muddyfuzzy (Jan 2, 2011)

Haute Pursuit said:


> I bet you are in their 96 percent category and would feel better if you could catch a limit like us joe's. It must be hail being un underacheiving elitist... Have to try to bring everyone down to your level to feel good. :cheers:


i would be more concerned about being a *****......... there is nothing more rewarding than releasing a limit, how many times have you done that? and it doesn't count releasing them after you already killed 10.


----------



## playin thru (Jul 6, 2009)

I fish exclusively in Port Mansfield so it really doesnt hurt or help me but I can tell you first hand it has made a world of difference down there. Not only numbers but bigger, healthier fish too. There is no need to keep more than 5. You will always have greed involved within the crowd but to me its about the experience not showing off at the cleaning table, most of them freezer burn anyway. We have been keeping just what we are planning on eating and letting ALL trout go over 23" for the past 10 years. You get what you deserve because before 10 years ago I could count on 2 hands how many trout I had caught over 25"s, since I have been letting them loose I have been blessed with an avarage of a dozen a year over 25"s and 95% on Topwaters. Just give C&R a chance and see what it does for you...


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

muddyfuzzy said:


> i would be more concerned about being a *****......... there is nothing more rewarding than releasing a limit, how many times have you done that? and it doesn't count releasing them after you already killed 10.


I release fish over 25" as I already have a 31". You can release all you want. I could care less. Hope you have many rewards from here on. :cheers:

I like to just "nick" deer too... gives me great pleasure. :spineyes:


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

CAPT YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED AT HOW MANY GUYS CATCH FISH TO SUPPLEMENT THEIR INCOME . IF YOU SAY I'M GREEDY FOR WANTING THE OPTION TO KEEP 10TH, I'VE ARE NOT ALLOWED AND AGAIN I SAY, PLEASE DON'T PUSH YOUR GUIDING PEOPLE TO CATCH "TROPHY" TROUT ON US. MY BAY SYSTEM AND MOST OTHERS NEED NO "HELP". SORRY BOUT THE CAPS, DANG PHONE IS KICKING MY BASS!


----------



## TooShallow (May 21, 2004)

Wow this went in the gutter real quick. WTH does "I like to just "nick" deer too... gives me great pleasure. :spineyes:" have to do with any of this.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

playin thru said:


> I fish exclusively in Port Mansfield so it really doesnt hurt or help me but I can tell you first hand it has made a world of difference down there. Not only numbers but bigger, healthier fish too. There is no need to keep more than 5. You will always have greed involved within the crowd but to me its about the experience not showing off at the cleaning table, most of them freezer burn anyway. We have been keeping just what we are planning on eating and letting ALL trout go over 23" for the past 10 years. You get what you deserve because before 10 years ago I could count on 2 hands how many trout I had caught over 25"s, since I have been letting them loose I have been blessed with an avarage of a dozen a year over 25"s and 95% on Topwaters. Just give C&R a chance and see what it does for you...


I keep seeing posts like this and really question the hype. Your jetty was plugged for years and the fact is I can match all your claims(plus 5) and I fish north of the cut where we heathens keep 10. How does it work with all those big fish? Do you cull in the water, at the boat or once you hit a spot that has bigger fish? The guide I fished with in PM this year did HIS stringer both at the boat and at the big fish spot while he bashed croaker fishermen. I guess you all have caught all the trout since the gill net studies show a big fat zero gain since the limit was lowered. Get off the high horse and just enjoy what you have created in your own mind.


----------



## Melon (Jun 1, 2004)

McTrout said:


> I am not a scientist so I can't really comment. What I can ask, however, is why everybody is coming down here now?? Please offer a real explanation...


Lmao

One of these or bigger!


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

playin thru said:


> I fish exclusively* in Port Mansfield *so it really doesnt hurt or help me but I can tell you first hand it has made a world of difference down there. * Not only numbers but bigger*, healthier *fish* too.


Here is your answer McTrout.. what was once called the gold rush is now the trout rush... letting the world wide interwebs know about it helps generate tourist income for yall poor folks down there.. LMAO


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

TooShallow said:


> Wow this went in the gutter real quick. WTH does "I like to just "nick" deer too... gives me great pleasure. :spineyes:" have to do with any of this.


Shoot and release...

That was sarcasm in case you haven't heard of it or just plain don't get it. :rotfl:


----------



## Melon (Jun 1, 2004)

InfamousJ said:


> Here is your answer McTrout.. what was once called the gold rush is now the trout rush... letting the world wide interwebs know about it helps generate tourist income for yall poor folks down there.. LMAO


Why you wanna ne so hard on Sohn? lol


----------



## Melon (Jun 1, 2004)

I believe there are more bambi's too!


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

Small minds make small comments.

Quite the contrary on the catching part, it is the people who have lots of time on the water and know what they are doing that generally support lowering the limits to improve the fishery.

You Internet fisherman are all alike. You guys just type on a keyboard providing nothing of value to the conversation.



Haute Pursuit said:


> I bet you are in their 96 percent category and would feel better if you could catch a limit like us joe's. It must be hail being un underacheiving elitist... Have to try to bring everyone down to your level to feel good. :cheers:


----------



## bamdvm (Apr 3, 2010)

I think that if the limit is 10, then you should have to keep your *first* ten fish regardless of size. I would be curious to see what type of mobidity/mortality rates *actually* occur due to "catch and release". It would be hard to enforce though.


----------



## Captain Hough (Jan 10, 2010)

capt mullet said:


> TP& W doesnt think that way as far as making guides have one limit and everyone else another limit so it isnt even worth discussing. .


Sure they can. They did that to us in 2002 when they eliminated the guides' limit from the "boat limit". They raised our license fee too, and didn't raise freshwater guides. Hmmm I'm guessing they can do whatever they want.


----------



## let's go (Nov 14, 2005)

bamdvm said:


> I think that if the limit is 10, then you should have to keep your *first* ten fish regardless of size. I would be curious to see what type of mobidity/mortality rates *actually* occur due to "catch and release". It would be hard to enforce though.


Studies have been done and prove that C&R works. The old wives tale that "they're just gonna die anyway" is a BS excuse used by those who want to justify keeping everything they catch.

From Dr Greg Stunz research.....

"As with any scientific study, the more answers you find, the more questions you develop, but Phase I clearly demonstrated that these fish are hardier than anyone imagined," Stunz said. "Catch-and-release is a valid management tool."
Stunz is a lifelong fisherman and clearly enthusiastic about his work, so much so that he has turned his home in Port Aransas into a sort of lab for the project. Living on a canal just minutes from the open bay provides the perfect venue to house freshly caught trout. Tucked away under his dock are large enclosures where the fish are kept five to a cage for about 72 hours before being tagged and released. Other fish are kept for 30-day observation periods at the CCA/AEP/TPWD Marine Development Center in Flour Bluff.
Stunz and his team simulated true fishing conditions when capturing the hundreds of fish for the study by wadefishing and keeping the trout in mesh baskets for at least 30 minutes before transferring them into coolers for the boat ride back to the holding pens. The coolers are oxygenated, but not supercharged, and no special care is taken with the fish. They are handled in a variety of ways just as they would be on a regular weekend trip, and some are even kept on stringers hooked through the jaw to simulate normal angling practices.
The team measures oxygen content, salinity and temperature of the water both at the capture point and in the pens to establish relationships between the two locations. To ensure that nothing fishy is happening in the water around the holding pens, a control cage is situated nearby, stocked with healthy fish that have not been handled. These fish help the team keep tabs on any holding stress associated with the "cage effect."

*RESULTS*
The results have been encouraging. From October through April, not a single fish caught by the team and held for three days in the pens died. As water temperatures heated up, fish began to exhibit more signs of stress, but even in August 85-90 percent of the fish survived. Results from the fish kept for 30 days revealed that if a fish makes it past the first 72 hours survival is almost assured.
Further analysis revealed no difference in survival rates for those originally kept in mesh baskets or on a stringer through the jaw. Big fish fared as well as smaller ones, and there was no appreciable difference in the survival rates of fish caught using traditional J hooks, kahle hooks or treble hooks. Types of bait did not sway the results either, with trout hooked on live finfish or croaker just as likely to survive as those hooked on lures.
"We hypothesized that we would see higher mortality for the big fish, but it is just not there," Stunz said.
In addition to the fish caught by Stunz and his team, several catch-and-release fishing tournaments on the Texas coast have participated in the study, providing some real-world validation of the study's findings. 
"Generally we have found a 75 to 90 percent survival rate for fish brought to the dock in these events," he said. "Given the amount of stress associated with tournament handling, those survival rates are very high."
Without the facilities to hold fish for an extended period at the tournaments, the team tallies up how many fish arrive alive or dead, and then observe the survivors for several hours before tagging and releasing them. By tagging those fish, Stunz and his team can collect data on long-term survival and dispersal of released trout. 
"We have some fish that have survived two of these tournaments," he said. Recently, the most significant factor on survival for tournament fish seems to be whether the format allows wadefishing. Non-wadefishing formats have a 90 percent survival rate versus 75 percent for those that allow wadefishing.
"If you are on a tournament boat and catch a fish, it goes right into an oxygenated livewell, so there is a lot less stress," he said. "Waders often hold fish in a mesh basket or on a stringer for extended periods of of time. Tournament fish are also handled more, all of which increases stress."

*WHERE AND HOW*
Although not nearly as many as anyone thought, some trout do not survive, and so Phase II of the study focused on the specific reasons for a trout's demise. 
"Really it all comes down to a couple of overriding factors and where the fish is hooked seems to be the most critical," Stunz said. "Also playing a large part in mortality rates is the experience of the angler."
A trout that inhales a bait and ends up swallowing the hook is almost certainly doomed, with only 5 percent of such fish living to tell the tale. Fish hooked in the gills tend to appear healthy for about 45 minutes, but only about 25 percent survive long term. Fish hooked externally with large wounds to the body cavity also have a very high mortality rate. 
However, trout hooked anywhere in the mouth externally or even in the eye, for example, have very good odds for long-term survival. The good news is that on average 85 percent of fish captured by anglers are hooked in the mouth.
Not surprisingly, angler experience plays a role on whether a trout lives to fight again. Old salts generally land fish quicker and know how to handle and release them quickly, with a minimum of stress. Novices are much harder on fish.
"Whether you are a pro or a rookie, if you have to handle a fish, remember not to use a towel. It removes scales and the slime layer from the fish," Stunz said, referring to the protective layer covering the fish's body. "One tournament where the weigh-master used a towel was our highest mortality for a tournament that we measured. Use a wet hand, support the fish's weight, minimize their time out of the water and don't let them hit the deck."
The information gathered by Dr. Stunz and his team will be packaged and made available to anglers as a brochure and on the CCA Texas webpage, providing valuable tips for how anglers should handle trout to increase the odds of survival. There will also be catch-and-release information for tournaments that will be available to participants.
"Some of these tournament fish will come in looking pretty bad and you think there is no way they are going to survive, but in 30 days they are completely recovered," Stunz said. "The fish we catch and hold for our studies do a lot better than anyone thought. We can only expect the results would be even better for fish caught and released right on the spot by anglers."


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

TailHunter3 said:


> Small minds make small comments.
> 
> Quite the contrary on the catching part, it is the people who have lots of time on the water and know what they are doing that generally support lowering the limits to improve the fishery.
> 
> You Internet fisherman are all alike. You guys just type on a keyboard providing nothing of value to the conversation.


HaHa... small minds like yours are always looking for company. I bet you dress head to toe in Columbia/Simms gear so you can look good when you don't come in with any fish. You probably buy croakers down the road from the ramp so noone sees you. Elitist preek. I'll give you my number if you care to compare "time on the water".


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

Again, nothing of value. Nothing!

Weak!

I am guessing you can't make a legitimate arguement supporting your stance on trout limits so you go to personal attacks. Why should the limit on trout be 10 versus 12 or whatever. You probably can't do it. Much easier to sit there on a keyboard and type garbage.

I'd give you a call and inform you of my time on water, tournament placings and amount won in the Trout Series, Baffin Bash and other tournaments, multiple years worth of fishing logs detailing locations and fish caught that day, years owning a commercial fishing license...etc. IF YOU MATTERED. But you don't matter!

Loser.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

TailHunter3 said:


> Again, nothing of value. Nothing!
> 
> Weak!
> 
> ...


LMAO... You got your boat wrapped too I'd bet. Talk about an elitist, "look at me" loser. I don't fish tournaments. I fish with friends who also like to fish. You are the one who does not matter. Log that.


----------



## flounderdaddy (Aug 2, 2009)

Dang, if you want to keep 5 then keep 5. That is cool with me. If you want to keep 10 then keep 10. That is cool with me.


----------



## capt mullet (Nov 15, 2008)

spurgersalty said:


> CAPT YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED AT HOW MANY GUYS CATCH FISH TO SUPPLEMENT THEIR INCOME . IF YOU SAY I'M GREEDY FOR WANTING THE OPTION TO KEEP 10TH, I'VE ARE NOT ALLOWED AND AGAIN I SAY, PLEASE DON'T PUSH YOUR GUIDING PEOPLE TO CATCH "TROPHY" TROUT ON US. MY BAY SYSTEM AND MOST OTHERS NEED NO "HELP". SORRY BOUT THE CAPS, DANG PHONE IS KICKING MY BASS!


You got me all wrong salty spur. Yes I want bigger trout but in my opinion more trout in the bay system is more important. My business here in Galveston is not based on trophy trout trips. Those guides run the baffin bay and matty areas. My business is based on catching a lot of fish and showing people the best time possible on a boat. From your first thread the way it sounded was that you dont care what the fishery is like, you just want 10 in the freezer for you. If you think keeping 10 is OK and will help our populations and make them better then I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is guys not thinking about the resource and just wanting to fill their freezers no matter what the cost is to the fishery. That to me is thinking only of your self and not considering the fishery. My intentions were not to try and insult you by calling you greedy it was just the best adjective I could think of at the time. Yes I am a guide (please dont hold that against me because it is just my job) but I am also a long time catch and release fishermen that cares about improving our fishery for everyone. Being a guide is not a dirty word. Most guides care a lot about the health of our fisheries and want to see it improve.


----------



## capt mullet (Nov 15, 2008)

Captain Hough said:


> Sure they can. They did that to us in 2002 when they eliminated the guides' limit from the "boat limit". They raised our license fee too, and didn't raise freshwater guides. Hmmm I'm guessing they can do whatever they want.


But do you really believe they are going to make guided trips keep less than the legal limit? I really find that a ridiculous statement that they would.

Lets turn the tables. On guided trips clients are allowed to keep 10 and the rest of the population can keep 5.

It just will not happen.


----------



## playin thru (Jul 6, 2009)

trouthammer said:


> I keep seeing posts like this and really question the hype. Your jetty was plugged for years and the fact is I can match all your claims(plus 5) and I fish north of the cut where we heathens keep 10. How does it work with all those big fish? Do you cull in the water, at the boat or once you hit a spot that has bigger fish? The guide I fished with in PM this year did HIS stringer both at the boat and at the big fish spot while he bashed croaker fishermen. I guess you all have caught all the trout since the gill net studies show a big fat zero gain since the limit was lowered. Get off the high horse and just enjoy what you have created in your own mind.


The East cut was never plugged unless you were in a battleship and I have never culled a stringer unless there was money on the line, whats the point if you just keep a few for the dinner table. And yes I created this in my mind and I am not telling the truth so keep soaking your croakers up North.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

playin thru said:


> The East cut was never plugged unless you were in a battleship and I have never culled a stringer unless there was money on the line, whats the point if you just keep a few for the dinner table. And yes I created this in my mind and I am not telling the truth so keep soaking your croakers up North.


 Will do...and if I were you I would buy up all that soon to be valauble land in PM but maybe you better do some advertising as well because for such a great fishing mecca you should at least be able to get a decent hamburger. Or do you eat at the "club" as I suspect?


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

You will never convince these keep 10'rs. Cause they would have to admit that all the 100's if not 1000's of trout they kill every year (and let spoil in their freezer) is hurting the fishery. Those who want a better fishery will only keep what they need for supper. Those who are selfish,greedy, or trying to prove something will continue to bring limits to the cleaning table for their hero photos. 

If these guys were confident in their abilities they would know they could catch supper nearly every trip out instead of thinking they have to fill the freezer every time they stumble on to fish.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

I.guess what it all boils down to is TPWD didn't deem it necessary to bring the bag limit down due to the results from their "studies". I would like to see them do ! more comprehensive.study before they make a decision, and definitely not base it on us greedy wkenders or the trophy guide. I'm all about conservation but if there's no trend pointing to decline, then yes leave it alone. If its the other way, catch it before there's a major problem. Right now obviously there's no problem, so let's all get a shovel and bury this dam horse. I'm sure there will be.plenty of.other trout limit threads for everyone to bash each other.

capt I have nothing against guides, have never even seen one on the water I think?. I only hear their support of just keep five and trophy trout. This is my only prob. Other than that, your just another fisherman.


----------



## Captain Hough (Jan 10, 2010)

capt mullet said:


> But do you really believe they are going to make guided trips keep less than the legal limit? I really find that a ridiculous statement that they would.


They already do. I have a fishing license, but I am not allowed to keep fish when I'm guiding. How is that not TPWD making me keep less than the limit?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think most of my clients need to have any more fish than they are allowed to legally catch. Heck I have plenty that keep a few and then CPR the rest.


----------



## flounderdaddy (Aug 2, 2009)

Most of the people that guide take out are just wanting to catch fish. Yes, you do have those that are just looking for a big trout.


----------



## Captain Hough (Jan 10, 2010)

spurgersalty said:


> capt I have nothing against guides, have never even seen one on the water I think?. I only hear their support of just keep five and trophy trout. This is my only prob. Other than that, your just another fisherman.


I don't think this was directed at me, however I did want to comment. Not even the guides can agree on what if anything should be done. Some want a 5 fish limit, some want 10, some want larger slot, some want a smaller slot. I think you will find that most guides want to do what is right and whatever is "necessary" to maintain our fishery.


----------



## Flat's Hunter (Oct 18, 2007)

I have an idea. Why doesn't everyone stop B1TCH1NG about it and start a real conservation movement of catch and release. You know kind of like bass fishing. Growing up I didn't even know you could keep and eat a large mouth bass. No one ever told me or commanded me, that's just the way it was I thought from seeing it on tv. 

Just a little observation.... The more you push and command people the less they will want to change. So let's start a new culture of catch and release by example. Stop ramming it down peoples throat and yelling at them at boat ramp cleaning tables. And the key..... Catch and release no kill tournaments! May not be quick, but it will work especially on the younger generation

I did not grow up coastal fishing but when I started I learned pretty quick from the entire fishing community that it is all about the limit. Completely different from the bass world.

Start SHOWING people you catch and release and I think you will get somewhere. The keep 5 slogan is kinda of ruined I think. Also a little flawed In several Ways. For those you fish a lot in may still be too many. For those who don't fish alot in may not be enough. 

Let's promote
CONSERVATION: keep what ya eat and release the rest. See, no artifical limits, no numbers( other than state limit of course) people aren't put on the defensive about what they will keep. It's a state of mind (like bass fishing) not a fight and a command. 

It won't happen overnight but if we try it will happen 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

Guys, we need to get on the same page with this "Science" thing and I will try to keep this simple.

Some of you need science to tell you it is time to make a change to the fishery to save it from total disaster. This is the page of the book of your debate.

The rest of us are on the next page in the book. TPW had science to support that a lowering of the limit would improve IMPROVE improve IMPROVE improve the fishery. Yes, TPW considered a proposal that based upon their information, including their science and use of their tools, would improve the fishery. That was it from the beginning. R. Reichers stated that he could flatten out the upward and downward cycle in the fishery or in other words IMPROVE improve IMPROVE the fishery.

So, please, take the science arguement from that page of the book so we are atleast debating the same topic.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Some of you guys have a God complex. Mother Nature is all encompassing. Don't bring your socialist '"one size fits all" to her. She can take care of herself. Stop stocking redfish and increase the limit and see how much better the trout fishing becomes. I can't speak for the lower coast because I only fish down there a couple of times a year but from the Colorado River and North, the fishing is outstanding.

Mr. Railbird, maybe you have let fish spoil before, but I, and I would bet most on here, never have. Regardless of if it was 10 fish or over 100 like we used to catch at night off of our dock before there were any limits.


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

H Pursuit

So, if "Mother Nature is all encompassing", should we not have any limits at all? Your statement implies that... Should we go back to 100 per day of any size you want to keep since Mother Nature can take care of herself?

History is full of daily bag and size changes, are all or some of those changes due to your so called God complex and socialism? Wouldn't the trout population still exist today had those changes not been made but we would all probably be fishing for 10 +/- inchers? Can you admit that changes in limits and sizes have historically had positive results and that in a way that is science and proof that limits/min size changes work?

I agree the consensus seems to be that the Galveston area seems to have a good fishery going. But, why insert yourself into how the mid-coast should be managed which is what you are doing when you support no limit changes at all for the whole coast?

And, notice that I refrained from calling you names or other ridiculous comments which called for quite a bit of restraint on my part. I can do that because I can actually have substinance to my debate. Of course, you call that a complex...


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

TailHunter3 said:


> H Pursuit
> 
> So, if "Mother Nature is all encompassing", should we not have any limits at all? Your statement implies that... Should we go back to 100 per day of any size you want to keep since Mother Nature can take care of herself?
> 
> ...


I never said the mid-coast didn't need to have limits looked at. I said from the Colorado River northward that things are fine as they are. Did you not read that? Each bay system should be regulated on its own IMO. Reducing the limits statewide may be easier but that does not make it right. Also Mr Elitist, I have wide shoulders so you won't hurt me with anything you care to drop on me.


----------



## gater (May 25, 2004)

*Limits*



TailHunter3 said:


> H Pursuit
> 
> So, if "Mother Nature is all encompassing", should we not have any limits at all? Your statement implies that... Should we go back to 100 per day of any size you want to keep since Mother Nature can take care of herself?
> 
> ...


And you are right, but those limits were set for a reason not because one certain group wants to practice CPR or "just keep 5".

If there was a problem I don't think one person that supported keeping it at 10 would have a problem cutting it to 5 but to cut it so you can treat the coast like one big high fenced ranch is not for me and I think many others feel the same way.

Gater


----------



## troutomatic1488 (Jun 18, 2006)

I'm suprised they did not lower it to 5. I hate to be negitive but I see it as only a matter of time before it is lowered. The people pushing this will try and try again.


----------



## Captain Hough (Jan 10, 2010)

gater;3259116
If there was a problem I don't think one person that supported keeping it at 10 would have a problem cutting it to 5 but to cut it so you can treat the coast like one big high fenced ranch is not for me and I think many others feel the same way.
Gater[/QUOTE said:


> My point exactly. :doowapsta
> You are the :walkingsm


----------



## DRH (Oct 14, 2009)

*Ten Fish Limit...*

If, I want to keep five fish, that's my bussiness,,If,I want to keep ten fish that's my business, I'm happy with two trout is enought for us.. So, I'm happy with ten fish limit too..because one day, I might want to have a fish fry...:texasflag


----------



## TailHunter3 (May 21, 2009)

TPW stated they thought they could make the fishery better. No, the species isn't facing total depletion but they used science and their tools to propose to fisherman they could make it better.

The average Joe's spoke out that they don't want it better and are not really interested in hearing how it could be better. They are fine with status quo. Those 5 extra fish are just that important assuming they can catch them.

For once, TPW was trying to get in front of fishery issues but were rewarded with name calling by the average Joe.

In any event, case closed. The average joe proved he is just that- average.


----------



## Captain Hough (Jan 10, 2010)

Whatever...

I stated before that we all need to join forces and find the BEST solution to aid our fishery. Those of you that would prefer to sit around whining about how the TPWD got "forced" to do something you don't agree with, need to step up and make some recomendations. Support more research, demand more funding, don't just talk the talk, you need to walk the walk.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

TailHunter3 said:


> TPW stated they thought they could make the fishery better. No, the species isn't facing total depletion but they used science and their tools to propose to fisherman they could make it better.
> 
> The average Joe's spoke out that they don't want it better and are not really interested in hearing how it could be better. They are fine with status quo. Those 5 extra fish are just that important assuming they can catch them.
> 
> ...


I think it was you "tools" that got it on their agenda... not their tools.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

gater said:


> And you are right, but those limits were set for a reason not because one certain group wants to practice CPR or "just keep 5".
> 
> If there was a problem I don't think one person that supported keeping it at 10 would have a problem cutting it to 5 but to cut it so you can treat the coast like one big high fenced ranch is not for me and I think many others feel the same way.
> 
> Gater


Dang, I agree with Gater for once. Someone must have spilled their beer. LOL

Cheers Gater!


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

If the "keep five" fish huggers are so worried about the trout population....maybe they should stay home and not go fishing at all...EVER. 

That would be a very noble way for them to show us all how serious they are about protecting the resource...


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

Captain Hough said:


> Whatever...
> 
> I stated before that we all need to join forces and find the BEST solution to aid our fishery. Those of you that would prefer to sit around whining about how the TPWD got "forced" to do something you don't agree with, need to step up and make some recomendations. Support more research, demand more funding, don't just talk the talk, you need to walk the walk.


best solution to aid our fishery............open up closed passes and lets some freshwater back into the bays. Talk about how great an improvement that would be. Work on that instead of running your 5 fish pie hole! :cop:

oh, and up the redfish limit to 5. That heard needs to be thinned out. :rybka:


----------



## tailchaser22 (Aug 14, 2005)

So now with the potential of a fish killing freeze I guess we will just go to fishery closures.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

tailchaser22 said:


> So now with the potential of a fish killing freeze I guess we will just go to fishery closures.


LOLOLOL!!!!

Again with "the sky is falling". Are you Al Gore's illegitimate son?


----------



## tailchaser22 (Aug 14, 2005)

Haute Pursuit said:


> LOLOLOL!!!!
> 
> Again with "the sky is falling". Are you Al Gore's illegitimate son?


Maybe! Just want to keep the thread going to see how long it will get.


----------



## cruss (Aug 31, 2005)

*limits*

since it was shown that the guides are the ones catching the highest percentage of fish maybe they should go ahead and put a five fish limit on their boat limit.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

cruss said:


> since it was shown that the guides are the ones catching the highest percentage of fish maybe they should go ahead and put a five fish limit on their boat limit.


Jealousy is a terrible thing...


----------



## flounderdaddy (Aug 2, 2009)

It is time for a midol machine!!


----------



## sabine lake hustler (Dec 17, 2007)

they are only fun to catch. Who eats those nasty fish anyways. They need to raise the sheepshead limit to 10. tough to clean if you don't know how, but taste 100X better than trout. Drum 5, sheepshead 5, trout 10. shouldn't it be the other way around?


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

sabine lake hustler said:


> they are only fun to catch. Who eats those nasty fish anyways. They need to raise the sheepshead limit to 10. tough to clean if you don't know how, but taste 100X better than trout. Drum 5, sheepshead 5, trout 10. shouldn't it be the other way around?


Post your recipes, i want to be sure and not use them!:rotfl:


----------



## Txfirenfish (Jan 8, 2005)

THANK GOD!!!!!


----------

