# trout bag limits being looked at



## capt mikie

This was in the Corpus Christi paper

http://www.caller.com/news/2010/nov/17/daily-bag-limit-change-for-speckled-trout-in-the/

Mike


----------



## railbird

Its about time!!!!


----------



## greenhornet

I like the idea, if we don't need it today we will surely need it in the near future. I have been fishing the Laguna Madre for about 10 years now and if we continue to see the same increase in boats that we have for these years we will need designated parking spots soon. I would like to see some data on it but from my observations the number of boats on the water has exploded in recent years.


----------



## RockportRobert

railbird said:


> Its about time!!!!


Agree. Now if they would just enforce the law when snowbirds are keeping all they catch!


----------



## Miles2Fish

Sounds good to me!


----------



## Texxan1

we shall see if they even propose changes!!!!!!!

I think that a 5 fish limit statewide is fine... Bring it on


----------



## Im Headed South

Not sure if it needs to be statewide as the numbers up north seem to be doing fine which is hard to believe when consider the population of Houston proper. Personally I would definitely like to see the split moved somewhere north of POC. Maybe the Brazos? I know that would make enforcement around the line a nightmare but I believe something needs to be done in the Aransas and SA Bay Systems, it just cannot sustain the pressure its been under. Don't get me wrong I know all of this was not brought on by fisherman, IMO the poor numbers have more to do with lack of freshwater inflows(both because of man and drought), poor water quality from the increase in population and all that brings, the closure of CB/VS, ect. Some of those items can be repaired and some of them we can't do anything about and may continue to get worse. I don't believe its been discussed and I haven't seen the numbers but it might be time to raise the limit of Redfish to 4 or 5 which might help offset bringing the trout number down to 5. There seems to be plenty of reds in the middle coast but I don't have any number to back that up. "Just Keep 5, Reds and Trout" lol. I would rather catch 15 or 20 and be able to keep 5 than to able to keep 10 and only catch 6 or 7. I hope folks can keep it civil enough to keep the thread open for discussion as I would like to hear other opinions.

Mike


----------



## netboy

I'm all for it! I have a freind that fishes the Port Isabel area and he says he is catching more big trout than ever before since the reduction to 5 was implemented a couple of years ago.

As the article says, be sure to email Art Morris at [email protected] with your opinion and try to attend the scoping session in your area.


----------



## greenhornet

netboy said:


> I'm all for it! I have a freind that fishes the Port Isabel area and he says he is catching more big trout than ever before since the reduction to 5 was implemented a couple of years ago.
> 
> As the article says, be sure to email Art Morris at [email protected] with your opinion and try to attend the scoping session in your area.


Lets not forget the rule change to 1 25"+ fish per day which I think probably helped a lot in terms of more large trout.


----------



## Capt. Bobby Hill

i think this would drastically help the bay systems as these guides can go and consistently pull thousands of trout out of the bay systems every week. this would absolutely help the future of trout fishing. my opinion


----------



## saltaholic

Keeping 5 wouldnt be a bad thing but I would rather them drop the length limit on trout to 14" instead. The number of 13-15" male trout is insane. Make the limit 6 or 7 trout at 14" or better and only 1 over 25" a year with a tag like a bull red....


----------



## aggiephil30

Recreational fishermen have little impact when compared to bay shrimping by-catch. 
Outlaw bay shrimping & commercial fin fish netting.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters

they need to pick the peak spawn month(s) and flat close the entire state


----------



## 2410Rider

I'm all for maintaining our fisheries, but living on the Louisiana border does little for us. There min. size now is 12" and bag limit is 15. We fish in the same water except with a diffferent fishing lic. It's the same with flounder, when Texas goes to 2, during November, Louisiana stays at 10.

What do you do?


----------



## devand

nothing at all against the guides, because I have been fishing with them before and they are class acts, but when you see pictures of 100's of trout hanging from their sign everyday something needs to be done. With that being said I think the overwhelming amout of boats on the water is outrageous. I can remeber once this summer docking at charlies near seadrift and driving across espiritu santo bay and literally seeing boats stacked every 200 yards all the way from pringle to cedar lake. That puts just as much pressure on fish as the amout being taken out of the water.


----------



## saltaholic

Good point


devand said:


> nothing at all against the guides, because I have been fishing with them before and they are class acts, but when you see pictures of 100's of trout hanging from their sign everyday something needs to be done. With that being said I think the overwhelming amout of boats on the water is outrageous. I can remeber once this summer docking at charlies near seadrift and driving across espiritu santo bay and literally seeing boats stacked every 200 yards all the way from pringle to cedar lake. That puts just as much pressure on fish as the amout being taken out of the water.


----------



## Gilbert

trout need to be left alone. up the redfish limit and that will fix the trout problem.


----------



## Bocephus

I would like to see the slot for Reds at 17"-25" with a daily limit of one over 25"


----------



## CoastalOutfitters

reds 18-28"
limit 5


----------



## Gilbert

CoastalOutfitters said:


> reds 18-28"
> limit 5


I agree.


----------



## glennkoks

I don't think we need a 5 fish trout limit, and I'm all about increasing the limit on Reds to 5. They are thick as I have ever seen them and may be having a negative impact on other species.


----------



## whalerguy28

*My opinion sent to TPW!!!*

My name is Rusty Frederick and I fish the upper texas coast exclusively, I am totally in favor of dropping the limit on trout to 5 state wide. It makes total sense when you take into consideration the vast amounts of new fishermen taking up the sport which is putting more and more pressure on the trout population. I know that most new comers to the sport have a hard time catching fish on there own and when they do they want to keep them, but with internet, fishing reports, forums, and all the other tips being passed around more and more people are learning how to catch more fish on a regular basis which in turn is putting more fish in ice chests. Another opinion I personally have would be to lower the trout size limit to say 14 to 22 (or something along those lines), I think that would keep the young females from being killed and the target would land mostly on male trout. I also think that the redfish population has rebounded very well and I personally don


----------



## whalerguy28

see any reason why the limit on redfish should not be raised to 5 also all other bag regulations the same, it would give fishermen a chance to keep ten fish to eat while at the same time taking a little more pressure off the trout. When you have guys coming from places that are hours away from the body of water being fished they have to have something to take home to justify even going, so by giving them more redfish to take home they will have more meat for themselves to consume. I hope the drop in limits is being considered very seriously and I personally hope it goes through, because I always think that fish are like taxes you lower taxes and you have more revenue same thing goes for fish!!!! Thanks for the opportunity to share my views. 
Sincerely, Rusty Frederick


----------



## Del Magic

I can't remember the last time I had more than 5 trout in my cooler, But I've released alot of nice reds or left them biting. They can have my extra 5 trout in exchange for 2 more reds!


----------



## saltaholic

5 reds 17-25
6 trout 14-24


----------



## CoastalOutfitters

I am pretty firmly convinced that this flood of redfish is killing all the small crabs and juvi. flounder, hard to blame it on shrimpers, there aren't near as many as there were 10 years ago


----------



## Fresh2Salt

I'm a little mixed on my assessment of this potential rule. Quantity has not been a problem for me over the past few years. I've had trips even this past summer where my buddies and I have caught well over a 100 fish a piece. I would hardly call that a shortage.

It seemed like we had to go through quite a few dinks to scrounge up some keepers so is that what this rule is really about?


----------



## padrefigure

Would this be a targeted limit--meaning, would the most efficient constituents be given a lower limit than the population as a whole? That might be a good way to limit the impact on the resource and fishermen.


----------



## Bonito

I favor the 5 trout per day limit.
I wish the size limit would increase to 17" to 24" with 1 - 25" per day.
I think we would all be amazed at the quality and quantity of the trout in 2 years.


----------



## CrawfishDanny

all I can say is I have no problem catching fish, I am from louisiana and we have tons of fish over there and tons of people fishing and I go fishin to catch fish and to take them home to eat. I am sure some of yall over here go over to my neck of the woods and catch all our trout and bring them home, and we have some nice trouts over there too. So not into keeping only 5 trout, raise the reds up to 5 so we have food to eat when we spend $100 on gas for da boat and da truck. We have trout here and we have good size trout here, so why change things. go change the way the shrimpers kill our fish


----------



## richg99

Interesting....as suggested above...I emailed Art Morris ([email protected]) and IMMEDIATELY got the response quoted below......_ I included my full name and address in my message to him....rich_
*************************************************************
"
Thanks for your comments. 

If you or others wish to provide further feedback or have questions as we proceed through the scoping process, then feel free to contact me.

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

*From:* Rich 
*Sent:* Friday, November 19, 2010 10:45 AM
*To:* Art Morris
*Subject:* cut the limit....now...

Five trout equals ten fillets. That should be plenty for a single trip. Richg99


----------



## Gilbert

you cut the limit guys are killing me. :headknock:


----------



## XLR_8

5 TROUT HARDLY MAKES IT WORTH YOU'RE WHILE TO LOAD THE BAIT TANK WITH CROAKERS!


----------



## wickedwader

We could preserve our resources ten fold if we just limited the number of days in which Bay Flats Lodge and their possee of guides could operate. They destroy more fish in a week than me and my four fishing buddies take in a year.

Oops, forgot they were a sponsor...nevermind.

Seriously, all for lowering the limit.


----------



## saltwatersensations

Well I better start filling up my freezer.


----------



## Clint Sholmire

*WHAT !!!!!!*



aggiephil30 said:


> Recreational fishermen have little impact when compared to bay shrimping by-catch.
> Outlaw bay shrimping & commercial fin fish netting.


 That is your solution! Raise your hand next time before speaking please! LMAO


----------



## Trouthappy

The trout limit has been five in Florida for many years. Nobody complains, except Georgia meat fishermen who keep anything legal---even sand trout, grunts and seabass. Doesn't matter how small, they want meat in their freezers back in Atlanta.


----------



## Wading Wonder

Gilbert said:


> you cut the limit guys are killing me. :headknock:


X2. IMO the size should be lowered to 14in. How many trout are caught between 14 and 15in that just gets thrown back? And what percentage of what's thrown back dies? This would help the sow trout population and thin the male population which there is no shortage from what I've been seeing while fishing. I also agree that the redfish limit should be raised.


----------



## That Robbie Guy

If it's what's determined to be needed and enforced by law ... i'm all for it.


----------



## WVNative

For the sportsman this is great. Even for the sportsman that takes home a mess of fish for the table this is great. I never understood why you would put so much fish in the freezer. 5 trout is enough, 3 reds and 5/2 flounder. Shoot you can stay within those limits and still have fish in the freezer if that's what you want.


----------



## XLR_8

Man tuff crowd not even one bite on the croaker comment!! :rotfl:
must B a bad day for fishing on here


----------



## Gilbert

WVNative said:


> For the sportsman this is great. Even for the sportsman that takes home a mess of fish for the table this is great. I never understood why you would put so much fish in the freezer. 5 trout is enough, 3 reds and 5/2 flounder. Shoot you can stay within those limits and still have fish in the freezer if that's what you want.


I'm glad you know how much fish is good enough for me to take home. :headknock


----------



## fishin shallow

Why not limit the amount of new boat purchases each year? Getting tired of seeing these brand new rigs set up in my super dooper secret honey holes


----------



## glennkoks

My father was a commercial fisherman and he told me that when the commercials were gone they would go after the fishing guides.

When the fishing guides are gone, they will come after the recreational fisherman.

From reading these posts he sounds like Nostradamus.

Considering the amount of regulations passed in the last twenty years the last legal fish caught and consumed on the Texas Coast will be in January 2025.

Enjoy eating your poop fed catfish and Tilapia from China. Because at this rate everything will be illegal in a few years.


----------



## cobrayakker

Put a 10 fish per person aggregate limit 15-25". No more than 5 trout, 5 reds, 5 flounder, 5 drum, or 5 sheepshead. One trophy tag and be able to get a second to use on the species of your choice over 25". Would that be too simple?


----------



## surfspeck

It wouldnt hurt my feelings at all, start with 7 trout and go down to 5 if necessary. I wouldnt mind an extra red either. 

7 trout, 14" or greater with no more than 1 over 25" per day

4 reds 18" - 28"


----------



## jeffsfishin

Leave it alone, anyone that is a half "you know what" fisherman knows that the trout stock is extremely healthy, in Galveston bay anyway.


----------



## trouthammer

glennkoks said:


> My father was a commercial fisherman and he told me that when the commercials were gone they would go after the fishing guides.
> 
> When the fishing guides are gone, they will come after the recreational fisherman.
> 
> From reading these posts he sounds like Nostradamus.
> 
> Considering the amount of regulations passed in the last twenty years the last legal fish caught and consumed on the Texas Coast will be in January 2025.
> 
> Enjoy eating your poop fed catfish and Tilapia from China. Because at this rate everything will be illegal in a few years.


Couldn't agree more....I just don't understand why the wine sipping "just keep 5" don't just keep 5 and let the rest of us keep 10 so they can still have something in "their minds" that allows them to look down on us...what will happen to their class status if we are regulated to 5. The guides better wake up on this one and think about how many clients will say no to the once or twice a summer trips that are their bread and butter. The wine sippers are all they will have left to fish with.


----------



## Gorda Fisher

*^*

U mean people book a trip just to load up on some filets? Why not just save some money & time, go to the store and buy some? That would be a miserable job to me (the guide), if that was the case


----------



## pevotva

Why not make it just keep 5 on guided trips and enforce it. Have some undercover Game Wardens book trips with the guides and see how many fish are being taken and if there are any squeakers (14 3/4" after a day on ice). Seems like guides are out for one thing these days. Filling up there trout racks with fish so that they can have some good advertisement. Shouldn't they steward the resource if they are making a living from it?


----------



## yellowmouth2

Why cut it to 5? Just because that's a common number? I say cut it to 7 and give us 1 or 2 more reds and see how that affects the bay system. And lower the minimum length to 14". I'm afraid that once it goes to 5 you'll never get it back. I agree that 5 fish for one day is plenty to take home, especially if you fish quite often. But if you don't get to fish but a couple of times a year or you live far off the coast then that's not very much fish to take to the house. I'd like to see a compromise before just cutting the limits in half.


----------



## trouthammer

Gorda Fisher said:


> U mean people book a trip just to load up on some filets? Why not just save some money & time, go to the store and buy some? That would be a miserable job to me (the guide), if that was the case


When they spend their hard earned discretionary money that is a a big consideration and the argument you make means we all should buy fish and the limit should be 0. Bringing the haul in and eating it is a part of the experience for some of us and it is sad that a few eggheads are trying to impose their values on us...cause the science isn't there or TPW would initiate the thing.


----------



## sweenyite

yellowmouth2 said:


> Why cut it to 5? Just because that's a common number? I say cut it to 7 and give us 1 or 2 more reds and see how that affects the bay system. And lower the minimum length to 14". I'm afraid that once it goes to 5 you'll never get it back. I agree that 5 fish for one day is plenty to take home, especially if you fish quite often. But if you don't get to fish but a couple of times a year or you live far off the coast then that's not very much fish to take to the house. I'd like to see a compromise before just cutting the limits in half.


x2


----------



## Clint Sholmire

Gilbert said:


> I'm glad you know how much fish is good enough for me to take home. :headknock


 You have to get off 2cool and go fishing before that makes any difference Gil. LOL


----------



## deke

I am not convinced it needs to be changed, if they do it it should be done by bay system, not just a general change. The upper coast is doing just fine. And why 5, why not 7, then re-evaluate. Because if they take 5 from us we will NEVER get them back, think about that.



Rusty Frederick said:


> When you have guys coming from places that are hours away from the body of water being fished they have to have something to take home to justify even going, so by giving them more redfish to take home they will have more meat for themselves to consume.


Seriously, if you need to take home a cooler of fish to "justify" your trip you have your priorities f'ed up IMO. Take the money and go buy a freezer full of fish at the store. And I don't care where someone lives or if they drive 10 hours, it is not relevant at all!!! So if I drive to South Texas and it is 6 house from here I should get to shoot all I want even if I know it will hurt the land I am hunting?



Rusty Frederick said:


> It makes total sense when you take into consideration the vast amounts of new fishermen taking up the sport which is putting more and more pressure on the trout population. I know that most new comers to the sport have a hard time catching fish on there own and when they do they want to keep them, but with internet, fishing reports, forums, and all the other tips being passed around more and more people are learning how to catch more fish on a regular basis which in turn is putting more fish in ice chests. Another opinion I personally have would be to lower the trout size limit to say 14 to 22 (or something along those lines), I think that would keep the young females from being killed and the target would land mostly on male trout. I also think that the redfish population has rebounded very well and I personally don




I agree, the internet has allowed too many to become more proficient without putting in the time and effort that many of us had to do. Hence the term internet potlickers. Thye tend to be the ones that need to fill a cooler and hang dead fish on boards for pictures as well.
And I would like to see it go to 14" as well, it would stop alot of the fish that are tossed back to die. Plus a 14 trout is SOOO tender and tasty,lol.


----------



## jabx1962

2410Rider said:


> I'm all for maintaining our fisheries, but living on the Louisiana border does little for us. There min. size now is 12" and bag limit is 15. We fish in the same water except with a diffferent fishing lic. It's the same with flounder, when Texas goes to 2, during November, Louisiana stays at 10.
> 
> What do you do?


Sabine is a Nursery Bay. The flounder population in Sabine is not in decline. Since the strike netters and bay shrimpers are not allowed there, the impact of this type of commerical fishing is none. Also, Sabine is 1/15th the size of the Galveston Bay complex, but has 25 times more marsh area surrounding it.

There are not enough Commerical Giggers to make an impact . The water color,lack of sand flats ,and average water depth make gigging a losing proposition.

Comparing Sabine to places like West Galveston Bay,Rockport, Port O'Connor, and other heavily gigged areas is a hollow arguement.

Also, if you want to keep a bucket of 12" Trout, then it's ok. The Trout we are looking for are rarely found in schools with Birds hovering over them. Cold water, a day with a low barometer, and big jumping Mullets will help you find "that" big Trout. Big Suspending plugs with a large profile increase your chances even more for finding that big sow trout.

One of the best days we had on Sabine last winter for catching Gator head trout was the day the Air Temp was in the high 20's. and the water temp started around 42, and dropped to 39 by the afternoon. Did not see another boat the entire day we were fishing. When we got back to the ramp, the was only one truck with a boat trailer. The truck belonged to a local Dr, who has caught the largest Trout officially recorded on Sabine....twice.

He pulled in when we were taking off our waders and he had a Trout so big it would have p.iss,ed off Jesus.


----------



## Im Headed South

May want to check TPWD population surveys on trout, 12 year decline in SAB, 9 years in Aransas, 6 years WB, 6 years in ULM, and 4 years CC. The science is there and thats why the questions are being asked. I'm wondering why it's taken so long. Can you imagine what it might be like if heaven forbid we get a widespread hard freeze along the middle coast? Like I said this morning it may not be for the whole coast but I think its time for the middle coast.

Mike



trouthammer said:


> When they spend their hard earned discretionary money that is a a big consideration and the argument you make means we all should buy fish and the limit should be 0. Bringing the haul in and eating it is a part of the experience for some of us and it is sad that a few eggheads are trying to impose their values on us*...cause the science isn't there or TPW would initiate the thing*.


----------



## KSOP

About time!!!!


----------



## fishnstringer

*When reds and trout were 1st made game fish in Texas about 1980,*

the limits were originally set as follows:
Specs: 14" minimum with bag limit of 10, and possession limit of 20.
Reds: 18" minimum, and 30" maximum, with 5 bag limit, and 10 possession limit.

I'm wondering if any 2cooler knows why the minimum for Specs was changed from 14" to 15"? I don't, but so many posters have referred to the smaller male, I'm wondering if the male spec began to be depleted at some point after the original game limits were set?


----------



## AnglerAl

"Why cut it to 5? Just because that's a common number? I say cut it to 7 and give us 1 or 2 more reds and see how that affects the bay system. And lower the minimum length to 14". I'm afraid that once it goes to 5 you'll never get it back. I agree that 5 fish for one day is plenty to take home, especially if you fish quite often. But if you don't get to fish but a couple of times a year or you live far off the coast then that's not very much fish to take to the house. I'd like to see a compromise before just cutting the limits in half."

I agree, we (people in general) have a bad habit of going too far trying to correct something that may or may not be broken. Let's make a small positive move and evaluate given some time.


----------



## SolarScreenGuy

I remember the first limits on trout and reds were 20 and 10. Those limits have been modified a few times as everyone knows. Always, the allowable limits are reduced whenever there is a change. Can anyone guess where this is going to end up? Yes, the fisheries are in decline but there are better solutions to the problem. Catching dozens of barely undersized trout, on plugs with 2 or three treble hooks, and then releasing them to get hammered by a porpoise or sink to the bottom for the crabs is not what I call sound management practice. The most healthy speckled trout fisheries in the world are in Louisiana. There are some lessons to be learned from them. A 15 inch minimum is a huge mistake. And if you think a maximum of one over 25 inches is a big step in the right direction, it's just not true. Some one earlier in this thread mentioned that they had noticed an improvement in the PM area since the implementation of the 5 fish limit. Don't forget, they redredged the east cut and are now reconnected to the fishery engine of the GOM. Seems like I remember a pass on the middle coast that got closed. Opening that one would be a good place to start. Probably also should take a look at the hundreds of guide boats and recs soaking live croakerbaits during the summer months. Any way you look at it, if the philosophy does not change, we will see a catch and release only world before we know what hit us.


----------



## ol' salt

I have already imposed a 5 fish/day limit on myself. Left some good ones biting on MOn, but hope tom meet them again Sun.


----------



## reeltimer

We will at some point limit ourselves to nothing.Each bay system is unique and different and should be looked at as such.For those of us that have caught and keep a untold amount of trout before the limit's know the smalller ones taste the best.I agree with dropping the size limit on trout to 14 and keeping four reds from 18 to 28.


----------



## 1sicpup

This is all started by the guides.
This would make their jobs so much easier, half the number of fish for the customers to keep makes for a shorter day and limiting the number the "public" can keep makes for more available fish.
Everyone knows the bays belong to the guides.


----------



## whalerguy28

1sicpup said:


> This is all started by the guides.
> This would make their jobs so much easier, half the number of fish for the customers to keep makes for a shorter day and limiting the number the "public" can keep makes for more available fish.
> Everyone knows the bays belong to the guides.


That's a stupid!!!! haha give me a break


----------



## 1sicpup

Rusty Frederick said:


> That's a stupid!!!! haha give me a break


Please clarify what is "a stupid".


----------



## oldguy

We make a few trips to Canada(Ontario) and the possession limit is 4 Walleye and four Northern Pike. I say this because these limits are strictly enforced and the fishing is excellent in these areas. these are not fly in lakes but publicly fished lakes,easy access.
I would love to go out in the Laguna and catch trout like that it would be a ball.
I hope the five fish limit is proposed and passes.


----------



## Trouthappy

The population of anglers and fishing pressure just keeps increasing. And sooner or later a big freeze may clobber the trout again. The last big freeze was 1989, and the populations are still dropping? And you won't find many 14 inch trout, if they become legal. They'll mostly be 13 inch trout.


----------



## cruss

*fish*

when we moved to Rockport in the late 70's there was only about 5 guides working the area that i knew about, now there is close to 300 licensed guides. You combine that with droughts, less river flow, cedar bayou closed, mass amounts of rec, fishermen and technology its amazing that the fishing is as good as it is. I agree with the previous thread, this is started by the guides and yes some of them think they own the bay.


----------



## yellowmouth2

cruss said:


> when we moved to Rockport in the late 70's there was only about 5 guides working the area that i knew about, now there is close to 300 licensed guides. You combine that with droughts, less river flow, cedar bayou closed, mass amounts of rec, fishermen and technology its amazing that the fishing is as good as it is. I agree with the previous thread, *this is started by the guides* and yes some of them think they own the bay.


I just flat out disagree. But let's look at a different way. Say we go to 5 fish limits. And let's say the trout population explodes. Could this affect the bait population? Would there be enough forage for all these fish in the food chain? How many times have you fished a stock tank that was full of small bass and never do the bass seem to get any larger? They need to be thinned out and restocked with bait fish? If you have to many deer on X amount of acres, biologist recommend thinning out the herd to reduce the number of deer per acre to sustain a healthy herd and have enough forage for them to survive. I'm no biologists, but I would think that you would have to look at all angles. My point being maybe we should take small steps instead of leaping off and cutting the limits in half. This may be a far fetched comparison. There are already some comments in this thread that are saying that the redfish population are having an affect on small crustaceans. Just a thought from my perspective. Hopefully we have some of the "smart kids" working for the state that know the answers better than us on the side lines that can make intelligent decisions and they don't fall to public pressures.


----------



## Solid Action

I never thought I would say it, but I'm all for it. Make it 5 everywhere.


----------



## 1sicpup

I will agree we need the science to direct TP&W and not the opinions of a few "squeeky" wheels.


----------



## Danny Jansen

The five fish limit, the night fishermen only being able to keep one limit, and only one fish over 25" has done wonders for our bay at SPI.


----------



## Texas Jeweler

capt mikie said:


> This was in the Corpus Christi paper
> 
> http://www.caller.com/news/2010/nov/17/daily-bag-limit-change-for-speckled-trout-in-the/
> 
> Mike


################################################

OK, you want change, here is my proposal. You get to keep 300 trout a year. Period. That is 5 fish a day for 60 days. You hit that number, go watch birds, fish for gaft top, look for turtles. No more trout for you.:headknock

Now, 300 trout is alot of fish does anyone not agree? So, why not cut it off there? Reasonable, is it not???

If you want change, being the State has bought back numerous Shrimping permits and we have not seen change, make a drastic one. If number do not see change in 5 years, we can try something else. :work:

How's that for you "just keep 5" groupies?:spineyes:


----------



## glennkoks

When I was a kid growing up in Kemah in the 70's my father ran and wholesale and retail seafood market in at pier 6. Now Joe's Crab Shack. I personally watched as we would unload, ice and ship tractor trailer loads of trout and redfish out of there every day in the winter. There were probably a dozen or so more fish houses doing the same thing. You could not ride your boat down the Seabrook shoreline for the gill nets. 

Some years were better than others and I can remember several years there were no trout. They just seemed to vanish out of the bays. Fishing is and always will be cyclical. 

With gill nets, drag seines, and most of the shrimpers gone and having witnessed the harvest of millions of pounds of trout I have a hard time believing that recreational fisherman on a 10 fish limit can be doing much damage to the resource.


----------



## whalerguy28

yellowmouth2 said:


> I just flat out disagree. But let's look at a different way. Say we go to 5 fish limits. And let's say the trout population explodes. Could this affect the bait population? Would there be enough forage for all these fish in the food chain? How many times have you fished a stock tank that was full of small bass and never do the bass seem to get any larger? They need to be thinned out and restocked with bait fish? If you have to many deer on X amount of acres, biologist recommend thinning out the herd to reduce the number of deer per acre to sustain a healthy herd and have enough forage for them to survive. I'm no biologists, but I would think that you would have to look at all angles. My point being maybe we should take small steps instead of leaping off and cutting the limits in half. This may be a far fetched comparison. There are already some comments in this thread that are saying that the redfish population are having an affect on small crustaceans. Just a thought from my perspective. Hopefully we have some of the "smart kids" working for the state that know the answers better than us on the side lines that can make intelligent decisions and they don't fall to public pressures.


I don't think the stocked tank theory for bass holds water to an open bay system. When you have a stocked tank mostly the bass are the apex predators and they have no natural predators so of course when humans don't keep enough out of the tanks the bass pop. boom and eat themselves out of house and home. Now when you look at trout they have porpoises, sharks all kinds of bigger toothier critters that can keep a pop. a i little in check. That brings up another thought all my life i have never noticed so many sharks close to the beach and in the bays as there are now a days. It may just be my imagination but I just can't deny the amount that I am seeing maybe that might have a little to do with something.

And to the gentleman earlier I doubt very seriously that guides are out to get the limits to 5 to make their jobs easier, I seem to think that maybe they are out there everyday and have been for a long time and they are seeing the population decline on an everyday basis. This isn't a guide conspiracy!!!


----------



## 1sicpup

I would not call it a conspiracy, just start dropping a phrase in the right places and the sheepeople will follow. (Just keep 5!) Why not pull out some other arbitrary number like 3? 
Just keep 3!
It worked for the redfish population.
Let's start that now! 3reds, 3 trout, 3 flounder


----------



## TailHunter3

Many guides don't want the limit reduced because they are afraid it will hurt their business. Their concern is will customers continue to pay $600 per trip, plus travel costs, to catch 5 trout per man?

Some suggested to do a trout limit reduction by bay system. How in the world would you ever enforce that? Bad idea for that reason alone.

Move the minimum size down to 14"? Would support that for male trout only if we could all identify males separately. The 15 inch rule is to help the female age structure get closer to peak breading age.

Lower the daily limit to 7 because I only drive from the North to the Coast once a year? I have enough experience to tell you that the majority of those impacted by a reduction of 10 trout to 5 would primarily only affect the guides and a few select others who fish enough. Sorry, coming from Abilene once a year, you don't have enough experience to catch a limit of trout for everyone in the boat/on the jetty and aren't giving up anything on a reduction to 5 trout limit.

Move the daily trout limit to 5 for all bay systems.

Hire more gamewardens to enforce current laws and regulations. We really don't have enough as 1 - 3 gamewardens simply can't enforce land and water areas in the areas they cover.


----------



## Clint Sholmire

*Speak for yourself*

I just love how people get on here and speak for what Guides want and don't want. Very few people that go with me care about getting a limit. Most just want to have something to do to bring their friends or family together to do something outdoors instead of playing video games or work. The trips I take are gauged on a trip by trip basis. I have people that would be thrilled with 5 trout each and I have no problem with that, others come to the coast for a family reunion and want to feed the family some fresh seafood and I also have no prob. with that either. As for we the guides we tend to not keep fish for ourselves untill we are ready to cook it. If we were the people that YOU think we are we would be able to wipe out 90% of this entire gulf in just a few years with our know how and ability, but we don't. We as guides do care and I wish the rightous out there would quit blameing their inability to catch fish on a decline in population or guides!!!!!!!


----------



## InfamousJ

well, if they decrease the fish limit, I'll increase my beer limit...

always someone farking with something...


----------



## InfamousJ

Clint Sholmire said:


> I just love how people get on here and speak for what Guides want and don't want. Very few people that go with me care about getting a limit. Most just want to have something to do to bring their friends or family together to do something outdoors instead of playing video games or work. The trips I take are gauged on a trip by trip basis. I have people that would be thrilled with 5 trout each and I have no problem with that, others come to the coast for a family reunion and want to feed the family some fresh seafood and I also have no prob. with that either. As for we the guides we tend to not keep fish for ourselves untill we are ready to cook it. If we were the people that YOU think we are we would be able to wipe out 90% of this entire gulf in just a few years with our know how and ability, but we don't. We as guides do care and I wish the rightous out there would quit blameing their inability to catch fish on a decline in population or guides!!!!!!!


maybe guides should start pitching in $1 per fish they catch on client trips to a fund run by TPW for restocking... since they make a living off it to begin with.. it'll help them, and be a good gesture for them since they are conscious of the resource as you say

Art Morris, throw that suggestion in the magic hat of "what should we do about these fish"..


----------



## 1sicpup

Clint Sholmire said:


> I just love how people get on here and speak for what Guides want and don't want. Very few people that go with me care about getting a limit. We as guides do care and I wish the rightous out there would quit blameing their inability to catch fish on a decline in population or guides!!!!!!!


So where do you , as a guide, stand on limit reductions?

I personaly do not want a limit reduction. There is no science to suggest a bag limit reduction is needed.
I do know if I can't catch a limit now it is my fault.


----------



## capt. david

first of all you all really think that more people are fishing now than 15 years ago! i think not. imo way too many tournaments putting too much pressure on big trout. ban all tournaments and increase the redfish limit. do ya'll think that too many redfish in a bay system will have a direct impact on the numbers of trout in that bay? give me a break!!! fished today and saw maybe 10 other boats!!!!


----------



## Clint Sholmire

InfamousJ said:


> maybe guides should start pitching in $1 per fish they catch on client trips to a fund run by TPW for restocking... since they make a living off it to begin with.. it'll help them, and be a good gesture for them since they are conscious of the resource as you say
> 
> Art Morris, throw that suggestion in the magic hat of "what should we do about these fish"..


 Tell you what you pay as much as I do to be a guide and then come talk to me! Some how you are under the impression that those fish belong to you. My customers have just as much rite to catch and or release those fish as you do. You want to talk about money as if we as guides are taking something away from you. What does the money go to from fishing license purchases every year? ( TPW conservation) Most of my people go and get their license just to fish on that trip. To me that means money that would not have normally been spent if they where to not ever go. We do generate money for the cause, you just don't see if because you just count the fish. You go out and generate funds and you can then say you helped.


----------



## Clint Sholmire

1sicpup said:


> So where do you , as a guide, stand on limit reductions?
> 
> I personaly do not want a limit reduction. There is no science to suggest a bag limit reduction is needed.
> I do know if I can't catch a limit now it is my fault.


 I am for anything that the TPW deams as needed. I for one do not see the decline as others say they have. We just need to make sure that we do not try to change something just for the special intrest groups that think the only thing worth fishing for is TROPHY trout. Fishing does not need to become an elitist sport just to satisfy a select few. Raising limits on reds is something I just don't understand. We just got this population to where it is from the terrible numbers there were in the late 80's and early 90's. How soon people forget. You can't destroy something to fix something. If someone told me tomorrow that I had to stop keeping fish for a year to help the bays I would do it . Untill that day comes ( hope not ) I will do exactly what TPW tells me to do.


----------



## Im Headed South

The people that keep saying there is no science to back it up are just plan wrong! Every bay south of east bay has shown a decline in trout population according to TPWD survey's for close to a decade. The numbers have been going down 12 straight years in Aransas. How much longer does this need to go on before something is done? A bad fish killing freeze this winter would take years to recover from in the middle coast with the current numbers out there.

Mike


----------



## capt. david

mike how many more redfish do you have in the bay, than you did say 15 years ago? clint i agree with everything you posted so far but increasing the limit to reds(5) will not hurt the population.


----------



## Im Headed South

Haven't seen the survey numbers on redfish but I would say from personal experience there are a lot more reds. So what are we to do thin out the reds because we think more highly of the trout? I'm in favor of doing something to increase trout numbers without hurting the numbers of another game fish.

Mike


----------



## Clint Sholmire

capt. david said:


> mike how many more redfish do you have in the bay, than you did say 15 years ago? clint i agree with everything you posted so far but increasing the limit to reds(5) will not hurt the population.


 I have no proble with 5 reds. Most people don't catch that many anyway.LOL I am just don't like it when governmet tries to step in to change something because someone with deep pockets says they need to! ( GMC) !!!!!!!! If it is broke do what you can to fix it . If its not broke leave it alone.


----------



## Im Headed South

BTW I was the first person on this thread to suggest maybe looking at increasing the limit on redfish if the numbers are there to back it up. I think we should do it because the numbers say we can not because we think it might help the trout numbers.

Mike


----------



## capt. david

impo tpw has done a outstanding job with the redfish population! getting rid of gill nets helped alot. sometimes a inbalance of certain species will have a negative effect on some others. redfish when they go on a feeding frenzy can eat anything and everything they want! including trout!!!!


----------



## fishnstringer

*Mike,*

your last sentence in your last post does not make any sense. Please explain.


----------



## Im Headed South

It has been suggested by some on here that all we need to do is raise the limit on redfish and all of a sudden the trout numbers will come back without even knowing the health of the redfish population. If the numbers suggest the redfish have rebounded to the point that they can take an increase in the limit then by all means let's do it but I don't think that has anything to do with how they manage the trout populations. Hope that cleared it up.

Mike



fishnstringer said:


> your last sentence in your last post does not make any sense. Please explain.


----------



## glennkoks

Im Headed South said:


> The people that keep saying there is no science to back it up are just plan wrong! Every bay south of east bay has shown a decline in trout population according to TPWD survey's for close to a decade. The numbers have been going down 12 straight years in Aransas. How much longer does this need to go on before something is done? A bad fish killing freeze this winter would take years to recover from in the middle coast with the current numbers out there.
> 
> Mike


Regardless of the limits now, a severe freeze like in 83 or 89 will kill just about every trout in the bays. The fish you are saving now will end up floating up on the shore. The effects are usually worse down south because of the lack of deep water and exits to the Gulf. A five fish limit now will do no good. After the "Big Freeze" it will be needed. And it won't take years to recover. Usually after a big freeze they bounce back strong within 3 to 4 years. Look at the Data from TPW's catch rate by bay after the last freeze.


----------



## glennkoks

Im Headed South said:


> It has been suggested by some on here that all we need to do is raise the limit on redfish and all of a sudden the trout numbers will come back without even knowing the health of the redfish population. If the numbers suggest the redfish have rebounded to the point that they can take an increase in the limit then by all means let's do it but I don't think that has anything to do with how they manage the trout populations. Hope that cleared it up.
> 
> Mike


I think it is possible that the over abundance of Redfish may very well be having an effect on the trout populations. They are very ravenous eaters and it is not rare to find trout in redfish stomachs. Not to mention the competition for baitfish etc. That being said I don't think a change in the limit from three to five would produce a noticeable difference.


----------



## flounderdaddy

I am sick and tired of this regulation stuff. They screwed up the flounder gigging, and now they are going to screw up the trout. Give me a break.


----------



## glennkoks

flounderdaddy said:


> I am sick and tired of this regulation stuff. They screwed up the flounder gigging, and now they are going to screw up the trout. Give me a break.


So true. We all know the laws are never liberalized. Fisheries are cyclical. If we only manage our resources on the lows and never give back when recoveries in stocks happen we will be a "catch and release" state in twenty years because there will always be declines. Perhaps thats what they are after and it seems that too many are all too willing to give it to them with our without the science to back it up.


----------



## Clint Sholmire

glennkoks said:


> I think it is possible that the over abundance of Redfish may very well be having an effect on the trout populations. They are very ravenous eaters and it is not rare to find trout in redfish stomachs. Not to mention the competition for baitfish etc. That being said I don't think a change in the limit from three to five would produce a noticeable difference.


 I call BS!!!!! I can say that Me and several friends of mine clean a hell of alot more reds than most people on the coast and I have NEVER found a trout in a red belly. So I believe you are miss informed.


----------



## USAFDAD

If trout limit goes to 5 state wide a lot of people will be going to Louisiana to fish. There you can keep more fish. 
I'm not for this 5 limit thing. I don't see anything wrong with it now. Redfish limit should go up. Their everywhere and I believe they have put the presure on ****. Let me say I would be in favor of a limit like flounder have. Couple months out of the year you can only keep 2 or 5.
With this going on makes me wonder when their going to raise the price on our fishing license.


----------



## chicken

deke said:


> I am not convinced it needs to be changed, if they do it it should be done by bay system, not just a general change. The upper coast is doing just fine. And why 5, why not 7, then re-evaluate. Because if they take 5 from us we will NEVER get them back, think about that.
> 
> Seriously, if you need to take home a cooler of fish to "justify" your trip you have your priorities f'ed up IMO. Take the money and go buy a freezer full of fish at the store. And I don't care where someone lives or if they drive 10 hours, it is not relevant at all!!! So if I drive to South Texas and it is 6 house from here I should get to shoot all I want even if I know it will hurt the land I am hunting?
> 
> I agree, the internet has allowed too many to become more proficient without putting in the time and effort that many of us had to do. Hence the term internet potlickers. Thye tend to be the ones that need to fill a cooler and hang dead fish on boards for pictures as well.
> And I would like to see it go to 14" as well, it would stop alot of the fish that are tossed back to die. Plus a 14 trout is SOOO tender and tasty,lol.


X2, all great points!

Happy Fishin'
chicken


----------



## dwilliams35

Okay, how about something way out of the box: tags. It works for deer, turkeys, and oversized reds, so the process is already there. Just pick whatever number you want for tags in a year, twenty, fifty, a hundred, etc.: everybody has the same shot at the fish that way, somebody on the water every day has to start doing some catch and release more than they otherwise would, while the guy coming down from abilene or something on one guided trip a year can keep all he wants to make the trip worthwhile.. The every-day guys and guides would have to economize their tags to save some for guthooks, etc.

I'm not saying this is the way to go: I've just always had that in the back of my mind as a possibility every time this comes up.


----------



## InfamousJ

Clint Sholmire said:


> Tell you what you pay as much as I do to be a guide and then come talk to me! Some how you are under the impression that those fish belong to you. My customers have just as much rite to catch and or release those fish as you do. You want to talk about money as if we as guides are taking something away from you. What does the money go to from fishing license purchases every year? ( TPW conservation) Most of my people go and get their license just to fish on that trip. To me that means money that would not have normally been spent if they where to not ever go. We do generate money for the cause, you just don't see if because you just count the fish. You go out and generate funds and you can then say you helped.


ok, I see you are not so conscious then about the system as you think... your guide fees to state do not go to restocking.. but since you live off the public fishery, you want ALL of us to leave you some... once you have depleted it you can then find another public resource to make a living off of.


----------



## InfamousJ

Clint Sholmire said:


> I call BS!!!!! I can say that *Me and several friends of mine clean a hell of alot more reds than most people on the coast* and I have NEVER found a trout in a red belly. So I believe you are miss informed.


hence the reason to maybe stop people like you from taking out the resource, and for others to enjoy.. rather than you saying everyone else should keep less fish because of you and your friends.


----------



## jd99problems

InfamousJ said:


> hence the reason to maybe stop people like you from taking out the resource, and for others to enjoy.. rather than you saying everyone else should keep less fish because of you and your friends.


Excellent response InfamousJ....let's take baby steps by limiting guided fishing trips to 5 trout and go from there....as far as the argument of people buying licenses for a once a year trip...that holds no water.....$30+/- to the state and $500 to the guide, hahaha...how about the jobs that I support by buying a boat, trailer, truck to pull the boat/trailer, fuel for the truck/boat, oil for the truck/boat, fishing equipment and money i spend on bait that supports the shrimpers and bait dock personnel?.......holy cow, i'm a one man stimulus package!!.....if the limit goes to 5 then let's see how many customers can justify $500 for the opportunity to take home a 3 man limit of 15 trout......don't count on a tip......and whatever money you do contribute to the restocking is nowhere near enough to restock what you take every year...i don't care what you say......


----------



## dwilliams35

I'd say that if your customers' measure of a successful trip is how many fish they have in their cooler on the way home, you need to get a better class of clientele..


----------



## sweenyite

I'd be happy with 7 if I could keep another red or two.


----------



## glennkoks

Clint Sholmire said:


> I call BS!!!!! I can say that Me and several friends of mine clean a hell of alot more reds than most people on the coast and I have NEVER found a trout in a red belly. So I believe you are miss informed.


I have seen it a few times but here is proof.
http://www.360tuna.com/forum/f11/redfish-eats-trout-543/index2.html


----------



## troutomatic1488

I feel there are enough laws already stepped up enforcement and greater penalties for violating existing laws. If you must pass a new law outlaw the sale of speckled trout in Texas period. Allowing the sale of out of state speckled trout in Texas just opens up the gates for the poachers.


----------



## capt mikie

I thought I had remembered TP&W offering to increase redfish bag limits but in the spring of 2009 but there wasn't any support
I was able to find a this article

http://www.valleycentral.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=305723

Mike


----------



## TailHunter3

I need to see science telling me moving it to 5 is the right number???

Ok, I would like to see science telling me 10 is the right number.... 

That science number thing has been used for 20 years but it works both ways.


----------



## TailHunter3

Clint- Don't let the haters run you off... Most of these guys typing spend more time on a keybpard then on the water and just keep repeating what they read somewhere. We have lost a lot of good guides from 2cool for that same reason....



Clint Sholmire said:


> Tell you what you pay as much as I do to be a guide and then come talk to me! Some how you are under the impression that those fish belong to you. My customers have just as much rite to catch and or release those fish as you do. You want to talk about money as if we as guides are taking something away from you. What does the money go to from fishing license purchases every year? ( TPW conservation) Most of my people go and get their license just to fish on that trip. To me that means money that would not have normally been spent if they where to not ever go. We do generate money for the cause, you just don't see if because you just count the fish. You go out and generate funds and you can then say you helped.


----------



## Rippin_drag

Glad to hear this, should give the trout a chance to multiply for awhile! No reason why we need to keep 10 trout these days anyway, although i have no problem w/people that do. I've done my fair share of 'raping the land' LOL


----------



## CaptPb

When you hear a Schuller bragging about how it (5 trout limit) put So-and-So and You-know-who out of business. And we don't see the Croaker crowd from Corpus no more. 
It doesn't take rocket science to figure out there was NO SCIENCE behind it. It was all POLITICS. Same thing again.


----------



## Clint Sholmire

glennkoks said:


> I have seen it a few times but here is proof.
> http://www.360tuna.com/forum/f11/redfish-eats-trout-543/index2.html


 That is what you call proof. I did not say that it could never happen. Go back and read the statement I called BS to and try again. He said OFTEN!!! One time in 2006 is not all the time.


----------



## dwilliams35

Clint Sholmire said:


> That is what you call proof. I did not say that it could never happen. Go back and read the statement I called BS to and try again. He said OFTEN!!! One time in 2006 is not all the time.


 No, he said "not rare"... Heck, I'VE cut a trout out of a redfish gut, and just the fact that I got to go fishing that time was rare in and of itself.


----------



## Clint Sholmire

InfamousJ said:


> hence the reason to maybe stop people like you from taking out the resource, and for others to enjoy.. rather than you saying everyone else should keep less fish because of you and your friends.


I have never and will never take any more fish then I need for a meal. I catch and release 95% of all fish that I catch personaly. As for my guest it is there rite to keep their limit as deamed by TPW so until that changes I do not see why yall complain about those people doing so. Is it because you can afford a boat, trailer ,bait, ect....... Or do you just think you are better than everyone else. Do you pay a mechanic to fix your car? Do you pay someone to maintain your boat? I bet you do. Why is it then when someone pays a guide to take and teach them how to catch fish you look down on them like they don't deserve that rite. Fix your own dam car!!!! Don't worry about everyone else.


----------



## Bocephus

"Just keep five".....then it will be "Just keep 3"....then "Just keep 1"

Where does it end ?

Another thought along those lines....how many fisherman are fishing 7 days a week and keeping 10 ?.......

How many days in a year do you fish ?.....and when you do, are you limiting out every time you go ?

I think there are lot's of people with ignorant opinions about this issue...


----------



## dwilliams35

Bocephus said:


> "Just keep five".....then it will be "Just keep 3"....then "Just keep 1"
> 
> Where does it end ?


 I certainly understand the "slippery slope" argument, but TPWD has really been fairly good about "bringing them back": they always change the duck and dove limits to get whatever the feds allow them to, (both down AND up), have changed turkey and deer limits UP from time to time, etc. etc.: Barring a real quantum shift in the makeup of the TPWD, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see limits go back up if the populations eventually allow it.


----------



## glennkoks

Clint Sholmire said:


> That is what you call proof. I did not say that it could never happen. Go back and read the statement I called BS to and try again. He said OFTEN!!! One time in 2006 is not all the time.


I think it has been established that Redfish do eat trout (sometimes) and the competition for the same baitfish may be having a negative effect on trout populations as well.


----------



## Nocturnal

Long past due...


----------



## TailHunter3

I am not guide bashing by any means but just stating fact...

Professional fishing guides are the ones on the water the most during any given week and fishing guides are the ones typically and generally with enough knowledge to consistently catch limits or close to limits.

A change in the rule from a daily limit of 10 to 5 would primarily impact the fishing guides and their clients for the reasons stated above. But, I don't think you should target just one group as a change should be made for all.

Every time a change has been made the naysayers all come out with their dooms day scenarios and then once the changes are enacted most see the benefit.

When you list out the pros and cons of the change, reducing the limit to 5 has more positives than negatives.



Bocephus said:


> "Just keep five".....then it will be "Just keep 3"....then "Just keep 1"
> 
> Where does it end ?
> 
> Another thought along those lines....how many fisherman are fishing 7 days a week and keeping 10 ?.......
> 
> How many days in a year do you fish ?.....and when you do, are you limiting out every time you go ?
> 
> I think there are lot's of people with ignorant opinions about this issue...


----------



## TailHunter3

Do you guys even know why the hatcheries raise very few trout fingerlings especially compared to what redfish fingerlings are raised and released every year?

Trout fingerlings simply eat each other up before they can get to the right age to be released. In the TPW hatcheries, the staff can tell when a trout has slipped into the redfish fry tanks (wherever they go when they are very small) because the trout fry will be so much bigger than the others because of feeding on the small redfish.

Redfish however can be raised effectively for the reason they aren't eating each other.

Seems like a dumb statement to say to raise the redfish limit to increase trout populations.

I think you discuss shrimper bycatch, lack of freshwater inflow due to big city usage upstream and polutants/trash running off into the bays before some silly stuff that redfish are eating too many trout. Regardless, reducing the catch by recreational fisherman is just to offset other issues like the ones I just mentioned. Don't matter! Just make it happen.



glennkoks said:


> I think it has been established that Redfish do eat trout (sometimes) and the competition for the same baitfish may be having a negative effect on trout populations as well.


----------



## Fish Doctor

ill actually get to say that i caught my limit every once in a while now


----------



## 1sicpup

TailHunter3 said:


> I need to see science telling me moving it to 5 is the right number???
> Ok, I would like to see science telling me 10 is the right number....
> That science number thing has been used for 20 years but it works both ways.


Sounds good to me.
I am all for what is good for the resource overall.
I am not for a few elitist's pressuring TP&W to cut limits.
I am scared of TP&W eventually treating trout the way feds treat snapper.


----------



## McTrout

All I can say is that our Laguna is extremely healthy now, and the weight of 5 fish here will rival most 10 fish strings elsewhere. BTW, we are busier than ever...

Anyway, it's not what you keep but what you hook. Our guys have been bowed up all day nearly every day lately, and that's what it's really all about. I just don't think this is much about food anymore, and who doesn't want to stay busy out there? True though, sad we even have to look at this, but the ultimate truth is that we're not having to look very hard for fish these days. We started seeing an extreme improvement well before the East Cut was re-dredged, so let's go figger...


----------



## Mritter

I recently fished with a well known guide in Rockport who advocated a 5 fish limit. I agree with him.

I'd say there are trophy guides, meat haul guides, and lodges. Some are about quality fish and some about quantity fish.


----------



## ESCB Factory

I'm in full support of lowering trout limit to 5.


----------



## ExplorerTv

scb factory said:


> I'm in full support of lowering trout limit to 5.


X2... Lets put the sport back into chasing trout in Texas!!!!

Someone post some dates for the meetings around Corpus. I will be there in full support...

Garrett Menefee


----------



## railbird

1sicpup said:


> I would not call it a conspiracy, just start dropping a phrase in the right places and the sheepeople will follow. (Just keep 5!) Why not pull out some other arbitrary number like 3?
> Just keep 3!
> It worked for the redfish population.
> Let's start that now! *3reds, 3 trout, 3 flounder*


sounds good to me make it law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## railbird

McTrout said:


> All I can say is that our Laguna is extremely healthy now, and the weight of 5 fish here will rival most 10 fish strings elsewhere. BTW, we are busier than ever...
> 
> Anyway, it's not what you keep but what you hook. Our guys have been bowed up all day nearly every day lately, and that's what it's really all about. I just don't think this is much about food anymore, and who doesn't want to stay busy out there? True though, sad we even have to look at this, but the ultimate truth is that we're not having to look very hard for fish these days. We started seeing an extreme improvement well before the East Cut was re-dredged, so let's go figger...


X2 Mctrout nailed it, its better to catch all day and keep just a few.


----------



## Bocephus

Maybe we shouldn't catch any....ban all fishing in Texas. That will insure the resource. 

I know, just ban the sale of all fishing related items....boats, motors, rods, reels, lures, etc..

Hell....arrest anyone that even thinks about catching, and eating fish !!!!

That outta do it....


----------



## railbird

If fishing was strictly about how much meat we can get, we would all be doing it with sienes. The enjoyment i get from fishing is fooling the fish into taking my artificial bait, after that, its about landing releasing and finding another. Greed and gluttony will destroy our resources if tpwl doesn't step in and take control this.

Here is why I am mainly a CPR guy. I was a meat haul guy when 20 years ago, I had a great august, I had caught/cleaned about 200 redfish, my freezer was completely packed full of filets. I was planning on eating fish all winter, unfortunately, I came home from a trip and the garage door wouldn't open. I had to go thru the house to open the door, the electricity was off, and there was a faint smell. I went to the freezer and every fish in there was spoiled. I was sick that all those fish were wasted, because i was greedy. I fished all the time and fed half the nieghborhood, my family and friends thought i was the best fisherman in the world, that was part of my selfesteem, I was a great fisherman!!!!!! As a result of that day, I never freeze fish and stockpile fish. I don't feel the need to have 40 nights worth of fish in my freezer.

chuck


----------



## cruss

*limits*

10 fish limits, no more than 5 of any species


----------



## shalor57

If they change the trout limit to 5 per day, I think my 2 yr old son will get a chance to fish a good trout fishery with his dad someday...if they don't I can not say I am confident about that. I would like to think we are leaving something for the next generation(and me when I am old and have more time).


----------



## ExplorerTv

Bocephus said:


> Maybe we shouldn't catch any....ban all fishing in Texas. That will insure the resource.
> 
> I know, just ban the sale of all fishing related items....boats, motors, rods, reels, lures, etc..
> 
> Hell....arrest anyone that even thinks about catching, and eating fish !!!!
> 
> That outta do it....


HA... Guess you care more about eating fish than catching them. This will make trout fishing better for everyone.


----------



## TailHunter3

This topic has come up over and over again even before 2cool was 2cool. 

I'd be interested to see a 2cool vote of Keep it at 10 or Just keep 5. 

Fisherman just weren't ready to accept a lowering of the limit 10 years ago when TPW started the discussion. Maybe now with more information that we have a larger population willing to make a change to "improve the fishery" and defeat the "take" mentality.


----------



## TailHunter3

So, how do you get one of those vote counter things set up as a Sticky?


----------



## Wadefishin

*I will agree...*



McTrout said:


> All I can say is that our Laguna is extremely healthy now, and the weight of 5 fish here will rival most 10 fish strings elsewhere. BTW, we are busier than ever...
> 
> Anyway, it's not what you keep but what you hook. Our guys have been bowed up all day nearly every day lately, and that's what it's really all about. I just don't think this is much about food anymore, and who doesn't want to stay busy out there? True though, sad we even have to look at this, but the ultimate truth is that we're not having to look very hard for fish these days. We started seeing an extreme improvement well before the East Cut was re-dredged, so let's go figger...


I will agree with McTrout on this one 100%. The fishing in the LLM is the best i can ever remember. And those of you who spend enough time in the ULM will probably agree we have seen a lot more boats make the land cut haul more often than ever before. Why is this? The limit is proven IMO. Fisherman are following the fish. Lets give it a try. I cant imagin a negative effect.


----------



## glennkoks

I'm all for making the entire coast "catch and release" only. Then we can all start eating little green wafers supplied by our government.


----------



## railbird

Why does a discussion about changing to a 5 trout daily bag limit, always end in someone wanting to raise the limit on reds to 5. Why should we have to hurt the redfish population to help the trout population. I fish nothing but flats and I can tell you from experience there is not an over abundance of redfish in south texas flats. In fact about 95% of the flats are virtually void of redfish. Now if you are talking marsh areas in the upper coast, there are tons of reds in there. If you are a snobbish trophy trout guy and you get upset when all you catch on your favorite reef is reds, you'll come in here and complain about redfish eating all the trout and wanting to kill all the reds.

As for you drama queens claiming going to a 5 trout/day limt will be the end of the world, well come on in here and make the arguement for continuing down the path of destroying our fishery through greed. Don't give me its the end of fishing as we know it, without making a legitimate arguement for you position.


----------



## jeff.w

I'm all for reducing the trout limit to 5 per day. I think some people are disgruntled about the whole idea because keeping a cooler full of fish, somehow offsets and justifies the purchase of your $30,000 bay boat, and the $1000 trolling motor and the $800 gps and the $400 yeti cooler, and the $200 polarized glasses, and the boga's and columbia outfits, and your chronarchs and cores etc etc. Just do like I did once, and break out the calculator and figure your cost per fillet. Then you'll realize you'll NEVER catch enough fish to break even, lmao! :slimer: After that, you'll realize that recreational fishing is just that, recreational. Bringing home some keepers once in a while is just a nice bonus to doing something we love so much. And it's something I want my 2 year old son to enjoy in the future as I do now.


----------



## pipeliner345

im all for it. reducing the RF to 3 a day has done wonders for them. when i was real young, i remember when we would go to the bastrop bay system and whack the trout. SLP and X-mas bay where real good producers. they just are not there like they use to be. all of those bays were good trout producers. im talking about solid heavy fish, not the schoolies you see a lot of. i think it would be great to lower it. i don't keep alot of frozen fish anymore either. but i do stock up on some when im about to go out of state, i like to have some salt water fish on the road with me cause ya cant get nothing but rancid cod in most northern states.


----------



## Levi

Bring it!! And do oversize trout tags.. 2 per year.. No one needs to keep ten, much less a 25+ everyday


----------



## yakfinaddict

I haven't met many fisherman that argue with this "keep five" montra. It has done wonders for the red fish population and is showing good numbers for the flounder population. If anyone is interested about reading studies and facts about the scientific work being done to see the hard and true numbers, than you can go to your local library or college to access the scientific communities reports and studies that have been done and are being done. Most colleges have subscriptions to many, if not all, science based journals to back up the methods and records to prove that conservation as well as preservation as a means to sustain and strengthen an awesome and relaxing recreation. Hope everyone is catching and being conservative of this natural resource that gives us so many good times! Fish on!!!!!!


----------



## tunchistheman

keeping 5 is no problem for me.heres a good question though,how will this affect fishing guides?how many people are willing to pay the 400 or 500 dollars for a fishing trip to only keep 5 fish or maybe 8 including a limit of reds?will this affect a guides rates?


----------



## Im Headed South

May have the bonus effect of weeding out some of the ones that need to go anyway. All of the successful guides I know and recommend have gotten that way by providing an experience on the water not just a box of fish. All of those have already gone to reducing what they keep and CPR'ing the big ones, they are out there a couple hundreds days a year and have seen the numbers falling for years.

Mike



tunchistheman said:


> keeping 5 is no problem for me.heres a good question though,how will this affect fishing guides?how many people are willing to pay the 400 or 500 dollars for a fishing trip to only keep 5 fish or maybe 8 including a limit of reds?will this affect a guides rates?


----------



## richg99

During the summer, I head up North and fish for muskies and LM bass. No lack of guides or fishermen for those two species. Not a single fish is ever kept. 

I like an occasional fish meal too. But, as was just pointed out...my "cost per fillet" is not a justifiable number.. financially speaking. Rich


----------



## Mritter

I agree with Im Headed South. I believe the best guides, and frankly the most successful and popular, are the ones who give you a good experience. They teach you something, don't care about giving away "secret" spots, etc. In my opinion, the success of the guide isn't measured in the number of fish you caught. It's the experience he/she provided. Jay Watkins comes to mind here (although we also caught fish!). These type of guides will survive no matter what the limit.

There will always be the some clients though who will judge the guide by the final stringer count. And that's ok. I just don't agree.


----------



## uncle dave

I'm for keeping five, but would like to see mimimum at 14 inches.


----------



## let's go

I keep seeing references to folks want to decrease the minimum size limit. I'm curious as to why. The amount of meat from a 13 or 14" trout doesn't amount to much. Even a 15" trout doesn't do much for me. If I'm keeping trout I typically set my personal marks at 18-20". Trout really thicken up around 17 or 18" and provide a much better fillet. 

As for seeing large numbers of trout that are just under sized it only makes sense. I recall when the limit was 12" that we saw lots of 11 1/2" fish. When it was bumped to 14" the number of 13" fish rose. Now at 15 we see lots of 14 1/2" fish. No matter where you set the minimum there will always be a "stacking" effect of fish just under the limit. The fishing pressure exerted on the trout population means that once that fish hits the legal mark it's open game. I think those large numbers of undersized fish is plenty of proof that most survive catch and release just fine.

The 15" minimum was put in place as a means to allow the trout to spawn at least twice before being harvested. They begin spawning at around 12" and should get that second spawn in prior to reaching 15. That extra spawn is far more important in my eyes than the measly fillet of a 14" fish.


----------



## wickedwader

let's go said:


> I keep seeing references to folks want to decrease the minimum size limit. I'm curious as to why. The amount of meat from a 13 or 14" trout doesn't amount to much. Even a 15" trout doesn't do much for me. If I'm keeping trout I typically set my personal marks at 18-20". Trout really thicken up around 17 or 18" and provide a much better fillet.
> 
> As for seeing large numbers of trout that are just under sized it only makes sense. I recall when the limit was 12" that we saw lots of 11 1/2" fish. When it was bumped to 14" the number of 13" fish rose. Now at 15 we see lots of 14 1/2" fish. No matter where you set the minimum there will always be a "stacking" effect of fish just under the limit. The fishing pressure exerted on the trout population means that once that fish hits the legal mark it's open game. I think those large numbers of undersized fish is plenty of proof that most survive catch and release just fine.
> 
> The 15" minimum was put in place as a means to allow the trout to spawn at least twice before being harvested. They begin spawning at around 12" and should get that second spawn in prior to reaching 15. That extra spawn is far more important in my eyes than the measly fillet of a 14" fish.


Well said.


----------



## Texas Jeweler

pipeliner345 said:


> im all for it. reducing the RF to 3 a day has done wonders for them. when i was real young, i remember when we would go to the bastrop bay system and whack the trout. SLP and X-mas bay where real good producers. they just are not there like they use to be. all of those bays were good trout producers. im talking about solid heavy fish, not the schoolies you see a lot of. i think it would be great to lower it. i don't keep alot of frozen fish anymore either. but i do stock up on some when im about to go out of state, i like to have some salt water fish on the road with me cause ya cant get nothing but rancid cod in most northern states.


======================================================

Factually, the redfish population increased due to the removal of gill nets, not dropping the limit to three. Buying back shrimping permits, stopping the commerical haulers, but trout seem to be lacking in numbers. And it is not the recreational fishingerman causing, it is just a cycle.

When you use bad science, you get bad results.


----------



## RustyScupper

Ha! I think it should be changed to 2. Maybe then I could catch my limit. Just kiddin. I definitely support protecting our limited resources. I'd be hard put to release a monster though if I ever caught one. No problem here going from 10 to 5.


----------



## Reel Bender

Well, I caught an upper cost limit today but kept a lower coast limit. But I still would like the option to keep 10 if I choose.


----------



## Blue Fury

5 sounds great!


----------



## TailHunter3

Not exactly the whole story factfinder... The removal of the gill nets saved the fishery but it is the limit of 3 that has allowed and maintained a healthy fishery since that time.

The reduction in trout is more than just a cycle, it is too much human. Too much consumption. It is too many people....

...too many people on the water, too many people on high dollar boats with high dollar equipment, too many people consuming fresh water in big cities, too many people consuming crabs and shrimp, too many people throwing out trash, too many people trying to farm and using pesticides that flows into our bays...etc...

And, more people are coming all the time... Thus, do the smart thing and make a change now to establish a positive impact to our fishery.

As fisherman, we can only control what we can control and for the moment that is what we take from the resource.



Texas Jeweler said:


> ======================================================
> 
> Factually, the redfish population increased due to the removal of gill nets, not dropping the limit to three. Buying back shrimping permits, stopping the commerical haulers, but trout seem to be lacking in numbers. And it is not the recreational fishingerman causing, it is just a cycle.
> 
> When you use bad science, you get bad results.


----------



## Capt Scott Reeh

TailHunter3 said:


> Not exactly the whole story factfinder... The removal of the gill nets saved the fishery but it is the limit of 3 that has allowed and maintained a healthy fishery since that time.
> 
> The reduction in trout is more than just a cycle, it is too much human. Too much consumption. It is too many people....
> 
> ...too many people on the water, too many people on high dollar boats with high dollar equipment, too many people consuming fresh water in big cities, too many people consuming crabs and shrimp, too many people throwing out trash, too many people trying to farm and using pesticides that flows into our bays...etc...
> 
> And, more people are coming all the time... Thus, do the smart thing and make a change now to establish a positive impact to our fishery.
> 
> As fisherman, we can only control what we can control and for the moment that is what we take from the resource.


Excellent post ! Lets be proactive instead of reactive when it comes to the conservation of our resources.Let's keep 5, 5 and 5.Five trout,five reds and five flounder.Release all trout over 25".


----------



## Wading Mark

If we went to 5 trout, I would like to see 5 reds per person with a slot of 16-28 inches. The rat reds are absolutely everywhere on the upper coast. But, our trout population is as healthy as ever. For trout, I would like to see the size lowered to 14" because a lot of borderline trout are killed everywhere along the coast despite being released.


----------



## the wood man

Absolutly lower to 5 because you cannot at this time control the exploding number of guides and fisherman. And also i think lowering the size to 14 has some merit.So count me in


----------



## corykj

i say raise the size limit on trout to 17 or so, change bag limit (by bay or by state, either way) to the 'just keep five' moto, and enforce a trout tag like we have for reds. i see no down side to this. if there is, please speak up...


----------



## corykj

why would people say 'lower the size limit to 14" or lower? i don't follow this logic...


----------



## Wading Mark

corykj said:


> why would people say 'lower the size limit to 14" or lower? i don't follow this logic...


A lot of borderline trout die in the warm months, even if they are released. People would catch a limit of table trout and more fish overall would swim free because less are dying after release.


----------



## deke

corykj said:


> why would people say 'lower the size limit to 14" or lower? i don't follow this logic...


How many "just under" fish do you catch? well lets say most people catch? It can keep that 14 1/2" fish from being tossed back to possibly die, and it can allow people to bag what they are looking for then stop culling through 10 under sized to find that one keeper. especially under birds, or at night under lights. That is the logic, IMO


----------



## let's go

But if you set it a 14 then there will be a big stacking of fish at the 13 1/2" mark. "Stacking" btw, is a term used by some fisheries managers in reference to the large population of fish found at just under wherever the minimum is set. 

How about this, take the time to properly release the undersized trout. Or how about moving when you get into a pile of those borderline trout. They hang out in schools of similar sized fish. Go find a school of bigger fish and quit picking on the easy little schoolies.


----------



## Gilbert

how about just stop fishing all together till the trout population gets back to where everyone thinks its ok to fish again.


----------



## railbird

Gilbert said:


> how about just stop fishing all together till the trout population gets back to where everyone thinks its ok to fish again.


 lol, poor me!!!


----------



## Gilbert

or maybe use railterds idea of crappie hooks and just jerk the **** out of it and release all fish. yeah, that's it.


----------



## corykj

Wading Mark said:


> A lot of borderline trout die in the warm months, even if they are released. People would catch a limit of table trout and more fish overall would swim free because less are dying after release.


i understand this. but isn't the 15" size limit in place to give every trout at least one spawning season. if it's reduced to 14" or less, then each of them won't have the chance to mature and spawn at least once, therefore helping deplete the population, right?



deke said:


> How many "just under" fish do you catch? well lets say most people catch? It can keep that 14 1/2" fish from being tossed back to possibly die, and it can allow people to bag what they are looking for then stop culling through 10 under sized to find that one keeper. especially under birds, or at night under lights. That is the logic, IMO


no matter what the size limit is set at, people will b!tch about it. i think (and there is no proof of this, just going by what i see...) that if we were to move the size limit down to anything less than 15", we will still have a number of fish right on the limit.



let's go said:


> But if you set it a 14 then there will be a big stacking of fish at the 13 1/2" mark. "Stacking" btw, is a term used by some fisheries managers in reference to the large population of fish found at just under wherever the minimum is set.
> 
> How about this, take the time to properly release the undersized trout. Or how about moving when you get into a pile of those borderline trout. They hang out in schools of similar sized fish. Go find a school of bigger fish and quit picking on the easy little schoolies.


exactly, so why not raise the size limit to 17" or 18", reduce bag limit to five or so and put in place a trout tag for one or two over 25" a year to keep the larger trout's genetics out there?


----------



## gatorbait

No fight either way in the trout regs but I would love love to see reds go to 5 and the slot changed to 15"-25", with one per day over 25". Redfish population is getting insane, and hurting the trout population in some areas. IMO


----------



## Buck-horn

I agree and think lowering the limit would be benificial in the long run. Comparing it to the reds limit, I would only imagine size quality would greatly increase... But we shall see what happens...


----------



## yellowmouth2

Gilbert said:


> or maybe use railterds idea of crappie hooks and just jerk the **** out of it and release all fish. yeah, that's it.


 I'm with you on this one. The comment "I'm in it for the strike" on another thread? Come on, get real. Lost all cred with me. Start fly fishing or something if your narrowing it down to "the strike".


----------



## Bretticu$




----------



## yellowmouth2

Quit looking. You know you just can't stand it. LOL


----------



## great white fisherman

Seems kind of interesting that about the time in reduction of numbers of trout has occured along with the increase of the use of live crocker. 10 years ago no one used live crocker on the lower Texas coast. Now they cannot keep crocker in stock. I have noticed that the times I used live crocker I caught more 4-5lb trout than any other time. My son and I released these big females but you can bet that is not the norm. We caught more smaller fish on lures and more larger fish on live crocker. Kind of what happened to Lake Texoma striper fishing. Years ago we had lots of big 15-25lb fish when we where using nothing but lures. Along came the live bait guys from South Carolina and used live bait to win a tournament and live shad fishing took off and big fish where fished out. Maybe we need to look at the bait situation?


----------



## railbird

yellowmouth2 said:


> I'm with you on this one. The comment "I'm in it for the strike" on another thread? Come on, get real. Lost all cred with me. Start fly fishing or something if your narrowing it down to "the strike".


Sorry bud, After the strike, its all down hill from there. With the reel technology of today, any donk can crank on a handle and land a fish. It takes some skillz to see the fish, make a cast, and then make the fish eat it. After that what should i get out of it other than a small workout cranking on a handle that a 5 year old could do. I get far more satisfaction out of hunting the fish down and making it eat, than i get out of fighting it. The only thing you proved to me with this statement is you don't catch very many fish and you have to cherish every fish that bites your hook. I get that, but don't be jammin me for enjoying it differently.

As for fly fishing, I am very handy with one of those too, and I don't necessarily enjoy having to fight big reds on that rig either. I would just rather hook them get the line on the reel and just straighten the hook on them too.

I am perfectly happy going fishing and catching 20-30 reds and coming home with no pictures or fish. I got very little left to prove to anyone and a hero photo of a bunch of dead fish doesn't prove squat except, some greedy ******* decided to prove he is a man because he can catch a limit of fish. Every time i see a picture of stuff like that, i think of all those photos in the corpus christi airport of all those tarpon strung up along the T heads.

They all thought there would be a never ending supply of tarpon and snook, how'd that workout? Its time the state stepped up and protected the trout.

chuck


----------



## Bocephus

I wish everyone could have heard Mickey Eastman, and James Plaag talking about this issue on the 610 fishing show this morning....


----------



## boom!

Bocephus said:


> I wish everyone could have heard Mickey Eastman, and James Plaag talking about this issue on the 610 fishing show this morning....


Yup, that was the best information to date on the subject! :cheers:


----------



## Bocephus

boomgoon said:


> If true (and I'm not doubting you), why even use hooks?


LOL....no kidding !


----------



## boom!

railbird said:


> Sorry bud, After the strike, its all down hill from there. With the reel technology of today, any donk can crank on a handle and land a fish. It takes some skillz to see the fish, make a cast, and then make the fish eat it. After that what should i get out of it other than a small workout cranking on a handle that a 5 year old could do. I get far more satisfaction out of hunting the fish down and making it eat, than i get out of fighting it. The only thing you proved to me with this statement is you don't catch very many fish and you have to cherish every fish that bites your hook. I get that, but don't be jammin me for enjoying it differently.
> 
> As for fly fishing, I am very handy with one of those too, and I don't necessarily enjoy having to fight big reds on that rig either. I would just rather hook them get the line on the reel and just straighten the hook on them too.
> 
> I am perfectly happy going fishing and catching 20-30 reds and coming home with no pictures or fish. I got very little left to prove to anyone and a hero photo of a bunch of dead fish doesn't prove squat except, some greedy ******* decided to prove he is a man because he can catch a limit of fish. Every time i see a picture of stuff like that, i think of all those photos in the corpus christi airport of all those tarpon strung up along the T heads.
> 
> They all thought there would be a never ending supply of tarpon and snook, how'd that workout? Its time the state stepped up and protected the trout.
> 
> chuck


_If true (and I'm not doubting you), why even use hooks?_


----------



## Rippin_drag

Please share, i missed the show this morning. Thanks



Bocephus said:


> I wish everyone could have heard Mickey Eastman, and James Plaag talking about this issue on the 610 fishing show this morning....


----------



## yellowmouth2

railbird said:


> Sorry bud, After the strike, its all down hill from there. With the reel technology of today, any donk can crank on a handle and land a fish. It takes some skillz to see the fish, make a cast, and then make the fish eat it. After that what should i get out of it other than a small workout cranking on a handle that a 5 year old could do. I get far more satisfaction out of hunting the fish down and making it eat, than i get out of fighting it. The only thing you proved to me with this statement is you don't catch very many fish and you have to cherish every fish that bites your hook. I get that, but don't be jammin me for enjoying it differently.
> 
> As for fly fishing, I am very handy with one of those too, and I don't necessarily enjoy having to fight big reds on that rig either. I would just rather hook them get the line on the reel and just straighten the hook on them too.
> 
> I am perfectly happy going fishing and catching 20-30 reds and coming home with no pictures or fish. I got very little left to prove to anyone and a hero photo of a bunch of dead fish doesn't prove squat except, some greedy ******* decided to prove he is a man because he can catch a limit of fish. Every time i see a picture of stuff like that, i think of all those photos in the corpus christi airport of all those tarpon strung up along the T heads.
> 
> They all thought there would be a never ending supply of tarpon and snook, how'd that workout? Its time the state stepped up and protected the trout.
> 
> chuck


 As the old saying goes, if your good you don't have to brag. Not much difference than taking pictures, it's both bragging, but hey that's okay, Bud.


----------



## A Salt Weapon

Wading Wonder said:


> X2. IMO the size should be lowered to 14in. How many trout are caught between 14 and 15in that just gets thrown back? And what percentage of what's thrown back dies? This would help the sow trout population and thin the male population which there is no shortage from what I've been seeing while fishing. I also agree that the redfish limit should be raised.


I'm sorry Wading Wonder, but that makes way too much sense, and we can have none of that when it comes to making rules. The same logic applies to snapper, even more so. When you drag 14" snapper from 50' down, they are gonna die...or get eaten! But every time you increase the size limit, you also increase the mortality rate, but 10 fold. I believe that they could drop the limit to say 7, but lower the size. This will allow for faster limits to be reached, and most folks will go home. People have food for the table, a good day on the water, and less damage done to the population.

JMO....but I know I'm right.


----------



## glennkoks

corykj said:


> i understand this. but isn't the 15" size limit in place to give every trout at least one spawning season. if it's reduced to 14" or less, then each of them won't have the chance to mature and spawn at least once, therefore helping deplete the population, right?
> 
> I disagree. Due to predation many of the smaller trout will never make it to breeding age. The larger trout ARE old enough to breed. We are much better protecting the bigger fish and harvesting the smaller ones. In that aspect many of our laws are bass ackwards.


----------



## Trouthunter

5 trout limit per person per day? I'm all for it from say the Colorado River south and I've seen what it has done for the LLM even prior to having the east cut dredged.

Too many people after the same thing out there boys and girls. If you don't leave some for seed there won't be many for the next generation.

Science? Did anyone read the article that David Sikes wrote? There'sa smidgen of science in there...

"_*The trout limit was reduced to five fish below the Landcut in 2007, at the end of an eight-year decline in the population of mid-size specks. The decline was exclusive to trout. State biologist had to reasonably conclude the problem stemmed from over-harvesting because no other fish species from Port Mansfield south was suffering.*_
_*TPW gillnet surveys indicate a similar decline has occurred since 2000 in the waters of Aransas, San Antonio and West Matagorda bays, said Robin Riechers, TPW's director of Coastal Fisheries.*_

_It's important to note that fishing pressure is increasing everywhere on the Texas coast."_



> isn't the 15" size limit in place to give every trout at least one spawning season.


 Yes that's correct.

TH


----------



## SolarScreenGuy

All of the males and over 75% of the females are sexually mature at 12 inches. Our current regulations have shifted the balance of the harvest to the female population and this is a big part of our problem. There are certainly other issues, but TPWD is way out of line with the 15 inch minimum. As long as we continue to target the females, and that is exactly what we are doing, the population decline will continue. Minimum length requirements should be lowered and all fish caught that are above that length should be counted toward the bag limit. I am tempted to bring up other issues but I will refrain from creating a run on popcorn at the supermarket.


----------



## fishingtwo

*speck overhaul*

1)5 trout limit

2)ban on croaker

3)limit guide lisenses

4)1-2 tags per year for trout over 24"

5)have sweenynite do a survey?


----------



## let's go

Yes, trout begin spawning at 12" and by the time they reach 15" they have had the opportunity to spawn twice. Studies show that trout between 12 and 20" account for approximately 75% of the eggs in a given year. Trout over 25" account for just 19%. This is because the total biomass of smaller trout is greater than that of the larger trout. Thus, protecting the younger trout with a five fish limit and a 15" minimum is a roadmap for better overall numbers of trout in the system. Protecting those larger fish with the 1 over 25" increases the abundance (biomass) of those fish and allows them to contribute more. It certainly seems to be working down south.

As for the tired old argument that we should keep them because they die anyway, it just doesn't hold water. A lengthy study has shown a 90% survival rate. The biggest factor appears to be where the fish is hooked. If it swallows the hook it has about a 5% chance. Hooked in the gills results in about 25% survival. Approximately 85% of the trout are hooked in the mouth. Of those nearly all survive. If you're personally having poor results on catch and release you need to look in the mirror and not blame it on the frailty of the speckled trout. They're actually tougher than we give them credit for. Check out the article on that study:

http://www.joincca.org/TIDE/trout - venker.html

Overall I think TPWD does a good job of looking out for the resources. So why do we sit around arguing about what would be a better answer based on opinions formulated from anecdotal evidence and guessing? Why not pay attention to the science based studies? I just don't get it.


----------



## reeltimer

When has TP&W every increased our limit's.They have only reduced our catch and i'm refering to red's.I think the limit should be increased to 5 with size to 18 to 28.The redfish have made there come back in the bay's due to there work on restocking of bay's. So what are they waiting for?


----------



## let's go

They brought that possibility up at the scoping meetings a couple years ago and the public response was against it.


----------



## let's go

And if you really want to get picky there was a moratorium on keeping oversized reds for several years before the tag system was implented.


----------



## sweenyite

fishingtwo said:


> 1)5 trout limit
> 
> 2)ban on croaker
> 
> 3)limit guide lisenses
> 
> 4)1-2 tags per year for trout over 24"
> 
> *5)have sweenynite do a survey?*


Not this time. I like the limit at 10. If 14 and a half inches was legal, I'd get a limit almost every trip! :redface:


----------



## trouthammer

let's go said:


> Overall I think TPWD does a good job of looking out for the resources. So why do we sit around arguing about what would be a better answer based on opinions formulated from anecdotal evidence and guessing? Why not pay attention to the science based studies? I just don't get it.


Good and well EXCEPT this isn't a department proposal. It is "pressure from anglers" and that is where I get rubbed wrong. Before long will will have "high fenced" fishing with the terms of fishing dictated by the so called elite who make the rules.


----------



## Trouthunter

> When has TP&W every increased our limit's.They have only reduced our catch and i'm refering to red's.I think the limit should be increased to 5 with size to 18 to 28.The redfish have made there come back in the bay's due to there work on restocking of bay's. So what are they waiting for?


Maybe read the entire thread and educate yourself.

TP&W asked anglers if they wanted to increase the bag limit on reds and the majority said no.

TH


----------



## Trouthunter

> Good and well EXCEPT this isn't a department proposal. It is "pressure from anglers" and that is where I get rubbed wrong. Before long will will have "high fenced" fishing with the terms of fishing dictated by the so called elite who make the rules.


"_*The trout limit was reduced to five fish below the Landcut in 2007, at the end of an eight-year decline in the population of mid-size specks. The decline was exclusive to trout. State biologist had to reasonably conclude the problem stemmed from over-harvesting because no other fish species from Port Mansfield south was suffering.*_
_*TPW gillnet surveys indicate a similar decline has occurred since 2000 in the waters of Aransas, San Antonio and West Matagorda bays, said Robin Riechers, TPW's director of Coastal Fisheries.*_


----------



## Im Headed South

trouthammer said:


> Good and well EXCEPT this isn't a department proposal. It is "pressure from anglers" and that is where I get rubbed wrong. Before long will will have "high fenced" fishing with the terms of fishing dictated by the so called elite who make the rules.


The numbers dictate something needs to be done. TPWD base decisions like this on their gill net surveys and the numbers in the middle coast have been falling like a rock for the better part of a decade. Results from the Aransas Bay in 2001 were 100,000 trout and in 2009 they were 40,000 which was actually approx 10,000 less than they were 1990 after the freeze of 1989! Some other results,
　
SAB results in 1998 = 115,000 and in 2009 = 42,000. 
West Bay results in 2004 = 115,000 and in 2009 = 60,000. 
CC Bay results in 2006 = 160,000 and in 2009 = 110,000.
ULM results in 2004 = 140,000 and in 2009 = 110,000.

With all the added pressure shifted toward CC and the ULM because of the decline around Rockport I'm sure the numbers will be declining a lot quicker over the next few years if things continue like they are currently. As I said before anyone that says there is no science to back up the claim something needs to be done is just plain wrong!

Mike


----------



## TailHunter3

Keep a 14 inch trout? Seriously? Is this 1970? Why not go fill the boat up with perch down at the creek? I wish I could find the specific statistic but a 15 inch trout has approximately 40% more weight in a fillet than a 14 inch trout. We should really be talking about moving the minimum up to 16 inches or higher and educating people how to handle fish properly. If having fish in the freezer is that important to you, please go to Sam's as they have a ton of good fillets already package that are super cheap.

I think fisherman should be required to take a fishing education class to learn safety, navigation do's and don'ts, survival, rules of the road, respecting other fisherman, respecting the resource, fishery science basics...etc. Knowledge is power! The increasing HP on back of boats only supports this even more. We arleady have a hunters safety course that is required. An optional boaters safety course is available and will provide a discount on insurance.

I also wish TPW would separate game wardens and have a land game warden and a coastal/water gamewarden. I seldom ever see the gamewarden. I am not criticizing as I just don't think we have enough of them compared to the large area they have to cover. Enforcement is part of the solution to our problems... I'd like to know out of every 10 fisherman on the water, how many do not have the proper license? That license fee is important to the funding of TPW.

I also wish we had voluntary channels marked through popular fishing areas and shorelines. The free-for-all approach we have now just makes everyone angry and scatters fish... BTW, always and I mean always pass a boat on the "Non-fishing side" when you can and when it makes sense...


----------



## Fishin' Soldier

2410Rider said:


> I'm all for maintaining our fisheries, but living on the Louisiana border does little for us. There min. size now is 12" and bag limit is 15. We fish in the same water except with a diffferent fishing lic. It's the same with flounder, when Texas goes to 2, during November, Louisiana stays at 10.
> 
> What do you do?


Buy a La fishing license and launch on that side of the river.


----------



## JED

trouthammer said:


> Good and well EXCEPT this isn't a department proposal. It is "pressure from anglers" and that is where I get rubbed wrong. Before long will will have "high fenced" fishing with the terms of fishing dictated by the so called elite who make the rules.


I think that the WPP faction would be responsible for your vision of future fishing.

Why does a proactive approach to keep the fishery healthy and stable get such negative resistance? We have been nothing but reactive in all approaches of fish conservation so far. Reminds me of the TSA and body searches....................:headknock

There are other variables at play that effect fish populations. As we all know, 'Acts of God' like deep winter freezes and red tides claim thousands if not hundreds of thousands of fish. If they strike and a fish population is unstable and vulnerable it would be disastrous and may never recover or at least take years upon years. I know there was a bad freeze and massive fish kill in parts of Florida last year and has significantly affected the snook populations there.
Or in Louisiana, where they reduced the limit to 15 from 25. I've heard that fisherman there mostly catch dinks and quality trout are few and far between. I wonder why that is...hwell:

This all just a matter of basic principal and logic. 
We should all be ashamed to be anything else but mindful of a resource that we all say is ours but in all reality is not. And to take multiple limits repeatedly is nothing but gluttony, selfishness and is theoretically taking from your children, and there children and so on....IMO


----------



## railbird

JED said:


> I think that the WPP faction would be responsible for your vision of future fishing.
> 
> Why does a proactive approach to keep the fishery healthy and stable get such negative resistance? We have been nothing but reactive in all approaches of fish conservation so far. Reminds me of the TSA and body searches....................:headknock
> 
> There are other variables at play that effect fish populations. As we all know, 'Acts of God' like deep winter freezes and red tides claim thousands if not hundreds of thousands of fish. If they strike and a fish population is unstable and vulnerable it would be disastrous and may never recover or at least take years upon years. I know there was a bad freeze and massive fish kill in parts of Florida last year and has significantly affected the snook populations there.
> Or in Louisiana, where they reduced the limit to 15 from 25. I've heard that fisherman there mostly catch dinks and quality trout are few and far between. I wonder why that is...hwell:
> 
> This all just a matter of basic principal and logic.
> We should all be ashamed to be anything else but mindful of a resource that we all say is ours but in all reality is not.* And to take multiple limits repeatedly is nothing but gluttony, selfishness and is theoretically taking from your children, and there children and so on....IMO*


X 10


----------



## trouthammer

Im Headed South said:


> The numbers dictate something needs to be done. TPWD base decisions like this on their gill net surveys and the numbers in the middle coast have been falling like a rock for the better part of a decade. Results from the Aransas Bay in 2001 were 100,000 trout and in 2009 they were 40,000 which was actually approx 10,000 less than they were 1990 after the freeze of 1989! Some other results,
> 
> SAB results in 1998 = 115,000 and in 2009 = 42,000.
> West Bay results in 2004 = 115,000 and in 2009 = 60,000.
> CC Bay results in 2006 = 160,000 and in 2009 = 110,000.
> ULM results in 2004 = 140,000 and in 2009 = 110,000.
> 
> With all the added pressure shifted toward CC and the ULM because of the decline around Rockport I'm sure the numbers will be declining a lot quicker over the next few years if things continue like they are currently. As I said before anyone that says there is no science to back up the claim something needs to be done is just plain wrong!
> 
> Mike


Let me make one thing clear. I personally could care less if it is 5 or 10 but I just have a real problem with who gets to decide. I will reiterate, this is not a department proposal. Consider this, if a group of fishermen with enough bucks and a loud enough say are able to "help" TPW to increase the limit to 20 where would you stand? TPW should make its decisions based on clear science without the influence of those who think they know what is best for all.

On the science part I really have not studied the methodology of the gill net studies but like fishing I bet sometimes they aren't there when they should be. Creel surveys tell a very different story IMHO...while the supposed decimation of fish is taking place according to the gill net surveys the catch rate per hour keeps going up. TPW has a very nice tool for checking out historical catch rates and they go up and down but the general trend for all the bays you mention are on an upward trend. And before you say that's support for limiting to 5 answer how are those fish being caught per hour if the numbers don't support them being caught?
TPW has a good handle on whether we are killing off the trout and I don't mind if they independently say we are...just let them come to that result "independently". On the rockport guides in the ULM that was in 09 and begs the question of why they stayed put in 2010 (except for the smart ones who recognized the superior fishing in the ULM)...must have been a big rise in the gill studies that explains them having trout this year.


----------



## spurgersalty

*Question?*

Can someone explain how these gill net surveys are done. How could you choose a location or even a few locations that would accurately represent an entire bay system? I've heard a lot about these gill net surveys and have seen that gill netws were banned years ago. Why does TPWD use this device if it was banned for fishermen? I know nothing about them, so this is an honest question. Why were they bannned? But, in regards to the topic, I'm usually against any further restriction to us the consumers. I personally don't keep specs over the 22" mark or Bull Reds at all, because they both seem to have more of the worms than the smaller ones. OOPS, did I say that out loud...lol. Don't tell my wife about the worms.:biggrin:

On a tangent, I can't believe this thread has remained open so long. Seems everyone is playing nice. Good to see for once on a hot topic.


----------



## Im Headed South

Found this online about the process.

Twice a year, Texas' inshore fisheries undergo a kind of "fish physical" to measure their health. Over 10-week periods each spring and fall since 1975, state coastal fisheries crews set gill nets at randomly selected sites throughout every bay system on the coast. Each bay system sees 45 net sets each spring and autumn sampling period. The 600-foot nets are placed at dusk and retrieved the next morning. Fish are counted and measured. Other information is collected — otoliths (ear bones) are removed to determine age of individual fish; stomach contents are recorded; and some fish are tagged before release. The surveys have been conducted exactly the same way for 35 years. Data collected from those standardized gill net samplings, when compared with data from past years, provides a highly reliable way to track overall abundance of fish; changes in abundance of different species; changes in size profiles of species; and other insights crucial in monitoring the health of the fishery.
That information combined with knowledge gained from other standardized sampling projects —bag seines and bay trawls that yield insight into spawning success; boat-ramp creel surveys of anglers that shed light on catch rates; fishing pressure; and angler preferences — produce a snapshot by which to gauge the overall health of the fishery.

Mike


----------



## rideorfish

*Just an Idea*

Here's a thought to throw around: 1- Reduce ,[or at least freeze the number] of guide licenses in the future, and some will be lost thru attrition. 2-Outlaw croakers as bait. 3-Use moderation to make the limits:4 reds,5 flounder,6 trout...It would be easy to remember, "the 4-5-6- Rule".. Try this a few years,then re-evaluate!-----Hey, it's a [conservative]change, and God knows our country,and state could use some of that!:texasflag


----------



## Reel Bender

I say go east to fill your freezers and fish home waters for the bigguns. There is a lil stubby guy on BiG Lake that says he owns it and you can never outfish the trout population by rod and reel. So head on over and ya can keep the 12' trout fill yer freezers and not worry about hurting our local fishing grounds! We can test out his theory!

:biggrin:


----------



## capt mikie

This program is still in the process and I've been told is to determine the truth (science) as to the "tiderunner" trout. I think the results of the program would contribute alot of information as to changes in limits.

http://fisheries.tamucc.edu/Trouttagging.html

Mike


----------



## Southernaggie83

I hope they actually pass this new law!


----------



## 2410Rider

Fishin' Soldier said:


> Buy a La fishing license and launch on that side of the river.


I do , but I still only keep Texas limits. I only use it to get back in the marsh when necessary.


----------



## Momma's Worry

I have often wondered what it would take ...after all the minuses(hassel) and high costs were considered....for the average Joe to throw in the towel and quit fishing.....and spend his money on something else.......


----------



## spurgersalty

Im Headed South said:


> Found this online about the process.
> 
> Twice a year, Texas' inshore fisheries undergo a kind of "fish physical" to measure their health. Over 10-week periods each spring and fall since 1975, state coastal fisheries crews set gill nets at randomly selected sites throughout every bay system on the coast. Each bay system sees 45 net sets each spring and autumn sampling period. The 600-foot nets are placed at dusk and retrieved the next morning. Fish are counted and measured. Other information is collected
> 
> Thanks mike for the info. but why were they banned, too successful, like hoop nets? Or do they do damage to the fish? " GILL" Net


----------



## Aggieangler

*Just keep 5 and optional extra limit day*

I have had this idea for a while now. I would like to see an optional extra limit that can be purchased just like a big red or tarpon tag. You buy your license, and you get to keep 5 trout per day at the current size. Anything much smaller doesn't offer much meat.

So if you are really on fish, or you can only go once or twice a year, you can use that extra 5 fish limit one day.

I would love that for South Texas Dove hunts. It's a long way to drive to not get to take an extra limit provided you paid something reasonable for it. You would only be allowed to purchase 1 or 2 extra limits per license per year.

This way, when you spend big bucks to go on a trip and you get into fish or doves, you can have the option of taking a little extra, while not impacting the resource drastically with high limits year around.

That's my 2 cents.


----------



## letsgofishin

I have an idea "Just follow Lousiana's lead" 25 trout 12" limit! It works! If you don't believe it just fish Louisana!


----------



## glennkoks

I have been around a while, and I have caught more trout than most. But I don't always limit and when I do I don't always keep the limit. Just what I can use. 

I would say that upwards of 90% of the weekend warriors on the bay see very few full limits per year.

my two cents


----------



## letsgofishin

*true true true!!!!*



glennkoks said:


> I have been around a while, and I have caught more trout than most. But I don't always limit and when I do I don't always keep the limit. Just what I can use.
> 
> I would say that upwards of 90% of the weekend warriors on the bay see very few full limits per year.
> 
> my two cents


Your two cents are probably 100% TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Im Headed South

*apples to apples???*

Numbers I found are a couple years old but I think you get the idea.

Number of recreational anglers targeting trout in LA...............400,000
Number of recreational anglers targeting trout in TX............2,500,000

Mike



letsgofishin said:


> I have an idea "Just follow Lousiana's lead" 25 trout 12" limit! It works! If you don't believe it just fish Louisana!


----------



## Bocephus

glennkoks said:


> I have been around a while, and I have caught more trout than most. But I don't always limit and when I do I don't always keep the limit. Just what I can use.
> 
> I would say that upwards of 90% of the weekend warriors on the bay see very few full limits per year.
> 
> my two cents


I agree....and those "weekend warriors" are the ones wanting to lower limits. They think since they can't catch a limit of trout there must not be as many fish.....lol.

:headknock


----------



## Im Headed South

Well I won't speak for all us "weekend warriors" but I can tell you I'm not really worried so much about me being able to catch my limit, hell I've caught plenty but I'm really worried about my kids and their kids being able to catch a few with their kids. Maybe if a few more folks would have thought that way a few decades ago there would still be a few more tarpon or snook left around Port A for us to enjoy.

Mike



Bocephus said:


> I agree....and those "weekend warriors" are the ones wanting to lower limits. They think since they can't catch a limit of trout there must not be as many fish.....lol.
> 
> :headknock


----------



## deke

letsgofishin said:


> I have an idea "Just follow Lousiana's lead" 25 trout 12" limit! It works! If you don't believe it just fish Louisana!


doesn't work that way chief. La has so much more marsh they can handle that kind of limit, throw in the smaller amount of fisherman, and they can do this. TX can not.


----------



## netboy

How about someone who has a bit more computer savvy then me put a poll on the forum for this subject?


----------



## railbird

Im Headed South said:


> Well I won't speak for all us "weekend warriors" but I can tell you I'm not really worried so much about me being able to catch my limit, hell I've caught plenty but I'm really worried about my kids and their kids being able to catch a few with their kids. Maybe if a few more folks would have thought that way a few decades ago there would still be a few more tarpon or snook left around Port A for us to enjoy.
> 
> Mike


Those who greedily kill every fish the law will allow 4 days a week are the problem, not the weekend warriors. Keeping 40 days worth of trout bagged up in the freezer when you are still killing everything you catch is the reason our trout fishery is down as much as 30-50% over the past 10 years.

Mike has it right, its about leaving some for our kids and grandkids, not about how big a hero you can be at the fish cleaning stand.

chuck


----------



## capt. david

headin south? where did they get those numbers?


----------



## trouthammer

deke said:


> doesn't work that way chief. La has so much more marsh they can handle that kind of limit, throw in the smaller amount of fisherman, and they can do this. TX can not.


 I bet if you compare the number of people in LA to Texas and compare the amount of fishery available (our coast and bays are at least 5x greater in total area) you would find we have less pressure. And yes they do have unbelievable marsh systems that allow it to take the beating it does.


----------



## Im Headed South

I've listed several numbers which ones are you referring to?

Mike



capt. david said:


> headin south? where did they get those numbers?


----------



## capt. david

your fiqures for the tx coast. where did the info come from?


----------



## Im Headed South

Google, I'm on the road today and don't have access to my computer but I remember it being in a paper written about which states have the most rec anglers targeting inshore fish. Tx was second behind Fl, shouldn't be hard to find. I think I put something like " number of anglers targeting saltwater trout" in the search bar. I'll look for the link later when I get home, like I said I believe the numbers were from 06 or 07 but given La issues and the growth in Tx the numbers may even be more lopsided now.

Mike


----------



## ATE_UP_FISHERMAN

Again I say straight across the board just to make it easy for the once or twice a year fisherman.

Trout keep 5 @ 15" to 25" one over 25"
Red drum keep 5 @ 15" to 25" one over 25"
Flounder keep 5 @ 15" to 25" one over 25"
Black drum keep 5 @ 15" to 25" one over 25"


----------



## rideorfish

*Simplicity !!*

Your idea sounds great to me---- even better than my 4-5-6- Rule... The simpler the better! Most people can't catch that many anyway, [most of the time me too]--LOL..And even if I did,I usually wouldn't keep all of 'em..:texasflag


----------



## rideorfish

*Simple*

reference---


ATE_UP_FISHERMAN said:


> Again I say straight across the board just to make it easy for the once or twice a year fisherman.
> 
> Trout keep 5 @ 15" to 25" one over 25"
> Red drum keep 5 @ 15" to 25" one over 25"
> Flounder keep 5 @ 15" to 25" one over 25"
> Black drum keep 5 @ 15" to 25" one over 25"


----------



## LaAngler

lower that minimum size! 12" over here doesn't mean we catch 11.5" trout.


----------



## capt. david

www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/outdoors/7108931.html read this!


----------



## TRW

railbird said:


> Why does a discussion about changing to a 5 trout daily bag limit, always end in someone wanting to raise the limit on reds to 5. Why should we have to hurt the redfish population to help the trout population. I fish nothing but flats and I can tell you from experience there is not an over abundance of redfish in south texas flats. In fact about 95% of the flats are virtually void of redfish. Now if you are talking marsh areas in the upper coast, there are tons of reds in there. If you are a snobbish trophy trout guy and you get upset when all you catch on your favorite reef is reds, you'll come in here and complain about redfish eating all the trout and wanting to kill all the reds.
> 
> As for you drama queens claiming going to a 5 trout/day limt will be the end of the world, well come on in here and make the arguement for continuing down the path of destroying our fishery through greed. Don't give me its the end of fishing as we know it, without making a legitimate arguement for you position.


Funny you want to call people drama queens . You are saying don't raise the red fish limit because your area does not have an over abundance, but you want everyone to lower the trout limit everywhere when it is not needed on the uppercoast. 
I fish all up and down the Texas coast. sometimes we catch them and sometimes we don't both north and south. It is called fishing. I do not have a problem with TPW lowering the limits for the places that are in need.


----------



## glennkoks

I posted this on the other thread about POC but its a good link for this topic as well.

It's for Matagorda bay but I think that in most bays the trout fishery is within it's 30 year average. Well down from some years and well up from others. It certainly indicates the cyclical nature of our fishery.

http://gis2.tpwd.state.tx.us/ReportS...atagorda Bay


----------



## sweenyite

If we weren't meant to keep ten trout, Zatarains wouldn't put that much fish fry in a box. Pretty simple really.


----------



## trouthammer

capt. david said:


> www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/outdoors/7108931.html read this!


People should read the article;
"Some species - redfish and speckled trout - have been at or near record highs along the coast in the past few years." Shannon Tompkins is a conservationist if there ever was one and the article quotes Mark Fisher, science director for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's coastal fisheries division. The conclusions are based on gill net surveys combined with other information like creel surveys.

Once again I have no problem if TPWD lowers limits based on science uninfluenced by self interest like minded groups. What a shame that happens with something as natural as fishing.


----------



## Im Headed South

http://www.fishgame.com/feature/featureview.aspx?ArticleID=4418

Might need to read this one as well, unlike the other one this one has some actual numbers listed. Hard to believe things changed that much in a year. Didn't see all that much to be excited about when it came to trout in the article anyway. West matty was a little better? Well seeing how 09 had the worst numbers in 15 years it wouldn't be very hard to get a little better. I've seen the numbers for 2010 and and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about what they say about SAB and Aransas.

Mike


----------



## plasticsnaks

http://www.fishgame.com/content/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=4418&TopicID=1&CatID=2
Not sure of the date of this article by Chester Moore in Texas Fish and Game but it must be fairly recent..I apologize if this has already been posted..TP&W are quoted as acknowledging that there is a problem...hopefully TP&W will soon have data availible to put this arguement to rest for some...at least for those who will accept that they are credible.

sorry, Headed South beat me by a hair.


----------



## trouthammer

railbird said:


> Why does a discussion about changing to a 5 trout daily bag limit, always end in someone wanting to raise the limit on reds to 5. Why should we have to hurt the redfish population to help the trout population. I fish nothing but flats and I can tell you from experience there is not an over abundance of redfish in south texas flats. In fact about 95% of the flats are virtually void of redfish. Now if you are talking marsh areas in the upper coast, there are tons of reds in there. If you are a snobbish trophy trout guy and you get upset when all you catch on your favorite reef is reds, you'll come in here and complain about redfish eating all the trout and wanting to kill all the reds.
> 
> As for you drama queens claiming going to a 5 trout/day limt will be the end of the world, well come on in here and make the arguement for continuing down the path of destroying our fishery through greed. Don't give me its the end of fishing as we know it, without making a legitimate arguement for you position.


I gotta call BS on the 95% and so does the article (see above). Maybe a study on the effects of burning the flats on red behavior is in order with some interest group who doesn't think like you leading a clear path for banning running in x amount of water. I run shallow and don't want those who think it is wrong to influence what I like until the real deal science is there. (somewhere I read some debate on that issue). My wife is convinced I am a pig and after twenty years she made me one so don't snob me. If you want I can show you were those red bottom suckers just ruin my efforts to catch 10 respectable trout.:smile:


----------



## 4 Ever-Fish N

sweenyite said:


> If we weren't meant to keep ten trout, Zatarains wouldn't put that much fish fry in a box. Pretty simple really.


This man has a great point. :spineyes:


----------



## trouthammer

plasticsnaks said:


> http://www.fishgame.com/content/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=4418&TopicID=1&CatID=2
> Not sure of the date of this article by Chester Moore in Texas Fish and Game but it must be fairly recent..I apologize if this has already been posted..TP&W are quoted as acknowledging that there is a problem...hopefully TP&W will soon have data availible to put this arguement to rest for some...at least for those who will accept that they are credible.
> 
> sorry, Headed South beat me by a hair.


Well not that a single date is really important in a math sense when looking for historical "trends" but the article says they are waiting on 09 data and all the comments are based soley on gill net surveys and nothing else. Fact of the matter is there are up and down years which happened long before the claimed fishing pressure overload. Figures don't lie but liars can figure and when it comes to a group of stong minded individuals like fishermen (self included) you can spin the information both ways and sound right in doing it.

Point again is get the influence out of the game and let an objective party make the decision. Where I get "strong minded" is thinking that I pay tax dollars and license fees to some State entity that can be influenced by outside groups whose interest I happen to disagree with. The shoe fits on the other foot if the issue was to raise limits...I shouldn't have any say in that just like those who disagree with keeping them at ten.


----------



## Bocephus

sweenyite said:


> If we weren't meant to keep ten trout, Zatarains wouldn't put that much fish fry in a box. Pretty simple really.


Hell yeah !


----------



## railbird

trouthammer said:


> I gotta call BS on the 95% and so does the article (see above). Maybe a study on the effects of burning the flats on red behavior is in order with some interest group who doesn't think like you leading a clear path for banning running in x amount of water. I run shallow and don't want those who think it is wrong to influence what I like until the real deal science is there. (somewhere I read some debate on that issue). My wife is convinced I am a pig and after twenty years she made me one so don't snob me. If you want I can show you were those red bottom suckers just ruin my efforts to catch 10 respectable trout.:smile:


The article you even mention above doesn't even mention red drum. I am not interested in keeping anyone from using the flats for any reason. My 95% statement might seem like bs to you, but I have spent 1000's of hours drifting across flats in search of reds and drum, and i can tell you from my experience drifting 19' above the surface in 1' of water, there are not nearly as many fish on the flats that people think. There are stretches for miles that don't have a single fish on them, and they are not being burnedup by people like you or anyone else except for a few days a year. So traffic on the flats where i fish is not the issue, there are just huge areas of the flats that don't consistently hold fish and there are areas that always hold fish. When people find the concentrations of fish they assume its like that everywhere. Its not.

I know there are great numbers of reds and trout where there is plenty of marsh and fresh water inflo to sustain higher populations of reds and trout up north, it is not that way down here anymore. Our fishery in the SAB, Aransas bay complex, corpus christi bay, and the ULM, can't sustain the pressure from from all the angling effort, galveston may for now, but with several million people living within an hour drive, how long will it be able to support a 10 fish limit. Why not leave some for the next generation.


----------



## Bocephus

railbird said:


> The article you even mention above doesn't even mention red drum. I am not interested in keeping anyone from using the flats for any reason. My 95% statement might seem like bs to you, but I have spent 1000's of hours drifting across flats in search of reds and drum, and i can tell you from my experience drifting 19' above the surface in 1' of water, there are not nearly as many fish on the flats that people think. There are stretches for miles that don't have a single fish on them, and they are not being burnedup by people like you or anyone else except for a few days a year. So traffic on the flats where i fish is not the issue, there are just huge areas of the flats that don't consistently hold fish and there are areas that always hold fish. When people find the concentrations of fish they assume its like that everywhere. Its not.
> 
> I know there are great numbers of reds and trout where there is plenty of marsh and fresh water inflo to sustain higher populations of reds and trout up north, it is not that way down here anymore. Our fishery in the SAB, Aransas bay complex, corpus christi bay, and the ULM, can't sustain the pressure from from all the angling effort, galveston may for now, but with several million people living within an hour drive, how long will it be able to support a 10 fish limit. Why not leave some for the next generation.


Dude....get a grip.

Do you think that every person on the bays tomorrow in Texas will limit out on trout, redfish, flounder....etc. ?

NO...they won't,...they don't,....and they never will. A very small fraction of the fishermen will limit out tomorrow, or the next day, or the next.

The fish population in my neck of the woods is outstanding at present. Maybe as good as I've ever seen, and I was raised on Trinity Bay and have been fishing the G-Bay complex all my life, since I was a child. Now, in your little slice of the world it may be different, I'll grant you that. But don't throw down we all should go to a limit of five or the speckled trout world will come to an end !!!!!!!....that's a bunch of horsechit. If your speaking for the entire coast of Texas, you don't know what the hell your talking about....

And like I said...10 trout limits are not a given, not even close...

Respectfully saying....


----------



## Im Headed South

This was also in the article so it must have been after the spring numbers from 2009 were released.

*"The spring 2009 surveys showed a catch rate of around .5 fish per hour, which is the lowest since 1995 and the fourth lowest ever after factoring in the catch rate of around .3 after the big freezes in 1983 and 1989."*

Your last paragraph could be said exactly the same for the folks on the other side of the issue as well. Nothing wrong with a healthy debate and I'm sure there will be a lot more numbers and models released prior and during the meeting process. Pretty sure we both want the same out come.:cheers:

Mike



trouthammer said:


> Well not that a single date is really important in a math sense when looking for historical "trends" but the article says they are waiting on 09 data and all the comments are based soley on gill net surveys and nothing else. Fact of the matter is there are up and down years which happened long before the claimed fishing pressure overload. Figures don't lie but liars can figure and when it comes to a group of stong minded individuals like fishermen (self included) you can spin the information both ways and sound right in doing it.
> 
> Point again is get the influence out of the game and let an objective party make the decision. Where I get "strong minded" is thinking that I pay tax dollars and license fees to some State entity that can be influenced by outside groups whose interest I happen to disagree with. The shoe fits on the other foot if the issue was to raise limits...I shouldn't have any say in that just like those who disagree with keeping them at ten.


----------



## trouthammer

railbird said:


> The article you even mention above doesn't even mention red drum. I am not interested in keeping anyone from using the flats for any reason. My 95% statement might seem like bs to you, but I have spent 1000's of hours drifting across flats in search of reds and drum, and i can tell you from my experience drifting 19' above the surface in 1' of water, there are not nearly as many fish on the flats that people think. There are stretches for miles that don't have a single fish on them, and they are not being burnedup by people like you or anyone else except for a few days a year. So traffic on the flats where i fish is not the issue, there are just huge areas of the flats that don't consistently hold fish and there are areas that always hold fish. When people find the concentrations of fish they assume its like that everywhere. Its not.
> 
> I know there are great numbers of reds and trout where there is plenty of marsh and fresh water inflo to sustain higher populations of reds and trout up north, it is not that way down here anymore. Our fishery in the SAB, Aransas bay complex, corpus christi bay, and the ULM, can't sustain the pressure from from all the angling effort, galveston may for now, but with several million people living within an hour drive, how long will it be able to support a 10 fish limit. Why not leave some for the next generation.


You sure you read this link ?http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/outdoors/7108931.html#loopbegin
Second sentence:
"redfish are doing great in EVERY bay"

How bout this one:
"Some species - redfish and speckled trout - have been at or near record highs along the coast in the past few years."

Or this one:
"Results from this spring's gill net sampling season, which concluded this past month, show the state's inshore fisheries, overall, continuing on a 20-year positive roll"

Here is what it boils down to; you have your opinions and beliefs and I have mine. I respect yours but simply disagree on this issue. Neither one of us should be able influence a supposed objective taxpayer paid organization that has objective tools to make its decisions to the detriment of the other. Lobbying is what it is called and it should have no place in deciding whats really best for us all. BTW I fish the same areas you do unfortunately not as often and after seeing how shinny you can run, not as shallow.


----------



## trouthammer

Im Headed South said:


> Nothing wrong with a healthy debate and I'm sure there will be a lot more numbers and models released prior and during the meeting process. Pretty sure we both want the same out come.:cheers:
> 
> Mike


 I agree that healthy debate is good but I feel like I am beating my head on a rock trying to make my point. My point is there shouldn't even be a debate or meeting process. If TPWD wanted one they should set it and not let some group pressure them into having the debate. THIS IS NOT THEIR INITIATIVE! I can accept 5 if THEY decide objectively and without influence that is what we need. Otherwise leave it alone.

On the catch rate numbers, check out this tool. You will see up and down for any bay for any two or three years with a general upward trend though.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/maps/gis/ris/catch_rate/


----------



## railbird

Bocephus said:


> Dude....get a grip.
> 
> Do you think that every person on the bays tomorrow in Texas will limit out on trout, redfish, flounder....etc. ?
> 
> NO...they won't,...they don't,....and they never will. A very small fraction of the fishermen will limit out tomorrow, or the next day, or the next.
> 
> The fish population in my neck of the woods is outstanding at present. Maybe as good as I've ever seen, and I was raised on Trinity Bay and have been fishing the G-Bay complex all my life, since I was a child. Now, in your little slice of the world it may be different, I'll grant you that. But don't throw down we all should go to a limit of five or the speckled trout world will come to an end !!!!!!!....that's a bunch of horsechit. If your speaking for the entire coast of Texas, you don't know what the hell your talking about....
> 
> And like I said...10 trout limits are not a given, not even close...
> 
> Respectfully saying....


I will say this, i think anyone who has 40 bags of filets in their freezer and continues to kill every trout that they can legally kill is a greedy sob no matter what fishery they are doing it in.

If the law changes to 5 it will at least reduce the stockpile you and others like you can create. Thats enough for me to support it, its a shame the limits are having to be reduced because people won't show some self control and respect for what we have, instead of greedily trying to kill everything in their path. Why be a taker all the time, this isn't a huge food stamp operation where you can just grab as many vouchers as you can carry. but i digress, you are of course entitled.

Respectfully saying....


----------



## Fishin-Inc

*Hi*

Just wanted to stop by to say Hi!
Great thread..... Save the Redfish!!


----------



## Im Headed South

Yea I was told the numbers on that app showed no decline and it took me about 20 mins to blow that out of the water. Heres what I found when I did some number crunching for the middle coast area around POC and then posted on that thread.

"Not sure that the catch rate charts have very much to do with the true population of trout, certainly not nearly as much as their gill net numbers. But even with using the chart and you don't see that numbers are down then you need to re sharpen your pencil and do some more figuring. Here's what find with a little adding and dividing. Last year available on the app is 2008. The 2008 numbers show

SAB lowest number since 1995 and 36% below the average since 1995.

ESP lowest number since 1995 and 35% below the average since 1995.

Matty lowest number since 2000 and 27% below the average since 1997.

Combine all of that and it shows a 33% reduction in the catch rate from historical average of the last 10+ years. Have any reason to think things are improving? In flows are getting cut back more and more and the pressure is only rising. BTW thought I would run the numbers on Aransas since I had my pencil out.

Lowest number since 1995 and 40% below the average over that amount of time! "

Sounds like you put way too much stock into what TPWD is telling you without actually looking at the numbers. I've been seeing those articles written for years and they always seem to say the same thing " numbers are holding steady" or " numbers are showing improvement". Then I spend about 85 to 100 days on the water in the middle coast and I just scratch my head. I talk to several guide friends that or on the water way more than I am and they just don't see it either. You shouldn't have to have perfect conditions to be able to have a good day on the water but thats what it as come to in the middle coast. When you start looking at the numbers something just doesn't add up. The following was written just last year after the spring survey numbers were released and it tells me that TPWD knows there is a problem.

"THE STATE OF SPECKLED TROUT

As spring gill net surveys show major declines in Matagorda and Aransas bays, will TPWD go to a statewide five-fish limit like Lower Laguna Madre has?

_*The decline in the seatrout catch is linked to destruction of seagrass beds and over-fishing.* _

*THOSE ARE THE LAST FEW WORDS* of a speckled trout species profile on the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department(TPWD) website. Buried amongst many informative passages on the specie's ecology and life history, it raises the question, "What decline?"

Answer: The decline shown in TPWD's spring gill net surveys in several key bay systems.

G-Nite,
Mike


----------



## Bocephus

railbird said:


> I will say this, i think anyone who has 40 bags of filets in their freezer and continues to kill every trout that they can legally kill is a greedy sob no matter what fishery they are doing it in.
> 
> If the law changes to 5 it will at least reduce the stockpile you and others like you can create. Thats enough for me to support it, its a shame the limits are having to be reduced because people won't show some self control and respect for what we have, instead of greedily trying to kill everything in their path. Why be a taker all the time, this isn't a huge food stamp operation where you can just grab as many vouchers as you can carry. but i digress, you are of course entitled.
> 
> Respectfully saying....


LOL.....I'm a greedy SOB for LEGALLY catching fish ?

You're a moron...and that's about as respectful as I can possibly be.

I'm done...


----------



## sweenyite

I eat every one I keep, and I release a few too. I obey the law. I hope it stays at ten, simply because I can't ever remember them raising a limit.


----------



## glennkoks

"Not sure that the catch rate charts have very much to do with the true population of trout, certainly not nearly as much as their gill net numbers. But even with using the chart and you don't see that numbers are down then you need to re sharpen your pencil and do some more figuring. Here's what find with a little adding and dividing. Last year available on the app is 2008. The 2008 numbers show

SAB lowest number since 1995 and 36% below the average since 1995.

ESP lowest number since 1995 and 35% below the average since 1995.

Matty lowest number since 2000 and 27% below the average since 1997. "
============================================
First, the catch rates are based on their gill net numbers. It's catch rate per hour in their gill nets.

Secondly yes the numbers are down from their highs but still within the thirty year mean or average. To be fair you have to take the average from all 28 years. You don't throw out 15 or 20 years worth of data and make a statement like "SAB lowest number since 1995 36% below the average since 1995". 

The truth is the catch rate per hour is very close to or above the 28 year average.


----------



## railbird

Bocephus said:


> LOL....*.I'm a greedy SOB for LEGALLY catching fish ?*
> 
> You're a moron...and that's about as respectful as I can possibly be.
> 
> I'm done...


The answer to the question above is yes!!!! As to me being a moron, well I'm sure that can be debated if you like, but those with weak arguements always revert back to name calling. Its very consistent of those supporting the status quo to say well its legal to keep 10 everytime, and so few other people can do it, so I'm not hurting anything. You and many others fool yourself into believing you are a superior fisherman because you can catch limits of a given species. I see it in all your posts, the attitude that nobody can catch fish like me and I prove it by killing everything that hits the deck. That disgusting freezer/coffin shot you put up recently is an ubsurd display of greed, its just you and the wife eating fish and you claim you can go out anytime and catch limits. Having 40 nights supply of fish in the freezer tells me you don't have near as much faith in your abilities as you claim here, if you did you would be confident you could catch fish any day. Why do you feel the need to stockpile fish if you fish every week several times a week. Is it because you get your validation from people you see at the cleaning stand? Pretty sad a grown man needs his validation from strangers at a boatramp.

All those who hide behind the statement, (its legal and i'm going to do it till its not legal anymore), lets draw an analogy. It would be legal for me to frequent an old folks home full of senile wealthy alzhiemer patients. It would be legal to organize a no limit poker game with them and clean them out every week. I could do work for them and charge them 5-10 times what the job is worth knowing they wouldn't know any better. It would be legal, but its absolutely wrong.

Here is another example a bit closer to home for you, after "Ike" there were trailors full of food and water being delivered to the needy. Now lets say, you were very well prepared for the storm and had all the food and water you could possibly use. Your arguements above and on many other threads is *I'm intitled to my legal limit, so I'm going to take it*. In the example of the free stuff above, if you follow the pattern you have with stockpiling and hoarding fish, you would go to that trailor with as many people as you have in your family and take the maximum ration each person would be entitled to. Literally taking food/water from people who really needed it just because you and people like you are entitled.

I don't think you are a moron for dissagreeing with me, I believe you very are misguided. good day......

chuck


----------



## shalor57

This does not happen when I fish in Galveston, but when fishing in Corpus you can literally catch 20-30 small trout for every keeper in the summer time...even if you move around and try to get away from the small ones. To me this says there is no problem with trout reproduction but a problem with something or somebody taking them before they reach maturity.


----------



## hullmanmv1650

*louisiana license*

easy way to solve the problem go buy a LA liscense launch in LA keep 15 trout 10 flounder of any size and 5 redfish $90 but worth it cant remember the lasttime i launched in TX TX just keeps chargin more and more every year and u can keep less and less so i chose to fish LA


----------



## trouthammer

Im Headed South said:


> Yea I was told the numbers on that app showed no decline and it took me about 20 mins to blow that out of the water. Heres what I found when I did some number crunching for the middle coast area around POC and then posted on that thread.
> 
> "Not sure that the catch rate charts have very much to do with the true population of trout, certainly not nearly as much as their gill net numbers. But even with using the chart and you don't see that numbers are down then you need to re sharpen your pencil and do some more figuring. Here's what find with a little adding and dividing. Last year available on the app is 2008. The 2008 numbers show
> 
> SAB lowest number since 1995 and 36% below the average since 1995.
> 
> ESP lowest number since 1995 and 35% below the average since 1995.
> 
> Matty lowest number since 2000 and 27% below the average since 1997.
> 
> Combine all of that and it shows a 33% reduction in the catch rate from historical average of the last 10+ years. Have any reason to think things are improving? In flows are getting cut back more and more and the pressure is only rising. BTW thought I would run the numbers on Aransas since I had my pencil out.
> 
> Lowest number since 1995 and 40% below the average over that amount of time! "


Nice try but I am not seeing what you are so below are the HISTORICAL charts. Your methodology is just wrong. You do not take two arbitrary years (even though the ones you picked aren't so bad) and claim a trend. Example: plug 07 in place of 08. Do we get to raise the limit? The data just isnt there in the catch rates for the mentioned bays or any other. The trends are upward.


----------



## cruss

*limits*

One issue I havn't seen come up was the drought for a year and half that we suffered in the middle coast. Salinities were up 7x in aransas bay for over a year and it was like the dead sea, we moved over to corpus bay with a lot more success. This year with all the rain the fishing is excellent, we are catching more big trout than we have in a long time. Also, seeing more shrimp and crabs than in past years.


----------



## Capt. Chris Martin

Cruss,

In agreement with you on this.

One issue I havn't seen come up was the drought for a year and half that we suffered in the middle coast. Salinities were up 7x in aransas bay for over a year and it was like the dead sea, we moved over to corpus bay with a lot more success. This year with all the rain the fishing is excellent, we are catching more big trout than we have in a long time. Also, seeing more shrimp and crabs than in past years.


----------



## glennkoks

Trouthammer, excellent reply. I tried to post that image with no success. 2007 was the best year on record and many replies on these pages would have you believe we are in a 15 year decline of epic proportions. The data just does not support that.


----------



## ksk

Capt. Chris Martin said:


> Cruss,
> 
> In agreement with you on this.
> 
> One issue I havn't seen come up was the drought for a year and half that we suffered in the middle coast. Salinities were up 7x in aransas bay for over a year and it was like the dead sea, we moved over to corpus bay with a lot more success. This year with all the rain the fishing is excellent, we are catching more big trout than we have in a long time. Also, seeing more shrimp and crabs than in past years.


 Capt.Martin I agree with your logic there.Do I read into it that ,that you would be against the limit change?


----------



## Im Headed South

Any reason why you didn't show Aransas or SAB? But even if you use Matty like you posted the last number on there is .07 which is the lowest recorded since 2000, if you avg all those numbers since 1997 that number is .96 which tells me theres a 27% decrease. SAB And Aransas are way worse over a 15 year period. That app is pretty worthless IMO, kind of reminds me of the BCS lol, someone puts all these different numbers into a program and out pops a number that supposed to tell you about how many fish people catch in any given bay across the state...please. They must rely pretty heavily on creel surveys to be able pin point numbers down to bays as small as St. Charles. I can throw a rock and hit the boat ramp in St. Charles and have launched from there probably 200 times in the last two years and you wanna know how many creel surveys I participated in? 0, what about all the folks that live on the water or the lodges that are on the water, when is there data going into formula? You want to know how many trout are out there take a look at the gill net numbers that have been done the same way for decades. Heres a few for everyone to look over and tell me which way the trends are going. They were all headed up since the freeze of 83 until the late 90's where they've been falling from every since. What took 15 years to build up to we lost in about half that time.

Mike



trouthammer said:


> Nice try but I am not seeing what you are so below are the HISTORICAL charts. Your methodology is just wrong. You do not take two arbitrary years (even though the ones you picked aren't so bad) and claim a trend. Example: plug 07 in place of 08. Do we get to raise the limit? The data just isnt there in the catch rates for the mentioned bays or any other. The trends are upward.


----------



## trouthammer

Now you want to do apples to oranges. I have clearly relied on creel not gill net studies. I have always refered to "catch rates" based on creel surveys taken at the dock. I have already commented on the efficacy of setting a net up in the same place at the same time every year (gill net) and will spot you that data suggest a decline...for what it is worth anyway cause nobody I know worth a salt would ever consider fishing that way. TPWD takes all data not just that which suits any particular point. Also I misunderstood SAB to mean sabine and not San Antonio so here you go on San Antonio.


----------



## Captain Greg

Just leave it alone. If it gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling to "just keep 5" - then keep 5. I personally keep 10 if I feel like cleaning them, but generally release trout over 21" - gives me that warm, fuzzy feeling I was talking about. I like to know she is out there swimming around - plus the 16 inchers eat better. But, I have no problem if you want to keep 10 over 21" - its personal preference for me to not, but if it's legal then you wont hear me judge. I have fished Galveston Bay all of my life (35 years old). I used to go with my Grandpa when I was a kid fishing with live shrimp under a popping cork in the summer around Texas City area - we caught plenty trout. Now, I like the fall/winter best - and fish with artificial only - catch bigger, better fish it seems than when I fished with Grandpa. He used to tell me of the days of seining the beach and catching HUGE trout by the pickup truck full. I would like to know if a person could still do that? I know not legally, but are the big ones still out there like they were in the 60's or whenever it was that it was legal? I would bet they are.... He told me they used to like to sein the beach when the water was sandy so the fish wouldn't see the net. Kinda weird - I like to fish the surf when the water is green and calm...He looked for opposite conditions for seining than we do now with rod/reel. You, know it just seems they take, take, take (regs). There is not a decline in the trout population in the areas I have fished all my life. Yes, there are good days, and bad days; good years and bad years - but all in all they are still out there and thicker than ever!
I, personally would love to see the redfish limit go to 18" - 26". They eat better anyway... As far as bag limit, 5 would be nice. I love me some redfish on the 1/2 shell and redfish creole!!!!

You know, at the rate we are going if we really think about it - how long before we will be catch and release only. Or you get 20 tags for the year? I mean - really think about it. Do the math, look at history. If we go to 5 - what will be the next step? Do you think they will say "oh look, the trout are back - lets up it to 10!" Look at what they have done to the snapper (feds) 2 snapper and limit the season - but yet we can go to a restaraunt or fish market year round and buy all we want? If you want to catch and release - then catch and release. if you want to keep 5 - keep 5. 
Maybe if a freeze happens (which it will) then adjust accordingly.

Maybe there are places along the TX coast that are seeing a decline in the trout; fix it there - personally I dont see it here...LEAVE IT BE! Leave the flatties alone too!


----------



## CoastalOutfitters

are the surveys performed on the same day ea. year ?

alot of ways to skew data


----------



## Im Headed South

The gill net procedures were explained back on the top of page #21 on this thread. Agree with being able to skew the numbers, see the "Catch rate charts". Hard numbers of fish in hand or something a computer formula spits out.

Mike



CoastalOutfitters said:


> are the surveys performed on the same day ea. year ?
> 
> alot of ways to skew data


----------



## trouthammer

Im Headed South said:


> The gill net procedures were explained back on the top of page #21 on this thread. Agree with being able to skew the numbers, see the "Catch rate charts". Hard numbers of fish in hand or something a computer formula spits out.
> 
> Mike


 Now we are getting silly, The catch rate numbers come from human beings (myself included) who are surveyed at the docks...now that might need a little addition (number of fish caught) and division (#fish caught/hours fished) but that can be done even by Aggies


----------



## CoastalOutfitters

Im Headed South said:


> Numbers I found are a couple years old but I think you get the idea.
> 
> Number of recreational anglers targeting trout in LA...............400,000
> Number of recreational anglers targeting trout in TX............*2,500,000*
> 
> Mike


curious where this number derived is from?


----------



## hullmanmv1650

amen skint pretty much what i was sayin. the license fees go up and the limits go down. i mean look at flounder u think we will ever be able to keep more than 2 per day in november again? its not even worth goin. i went to calcasieu a couple weeks ago and kept 33 flounder in 2 days. prolly caught 60 amongst the 4 of us. keeping with the line of thought that lower limits = more fish how can LA fishing be so good? they probaly have some of the most liberal game laws in the nation and still the fishin is spectacular could someone explain that please?


----------



## Captain Greg

*exactly*



Capt. Chris Martin said:


> Cruss,
> 
> In agreement with you on this.
> 
> One issue I havn't seen come up was the drought for a year and half that we suffered in the middle coast. Salinities were up 7x in aransas bay for over a year and it was like the dead sea, we moved over to corpus bay with a lot more success. This year with all the rain the fishing is excellent, we are catching more big trout than we have in a long time. Also, seeing more shrimp and crabs than in past years.


There are so many things that affect the trout "fishing". Rain, wind, just weather in general. The fish adjust; go deep/shallow/suspend. If fisherman dont adjust - guess what....they dont catch. I remember a few summers back we had allot of rain - i mean allot. No fish were being caught in the bay. They moved to the jetties, THICK! We were catching allot of fish! The fish were stacked...

I just dont think the trout population is going down... For anyone that does - go to your favorite reef on a summer night with a light, no moon, good moving tides and see how many trout are out there. I bet you change your mind  
No dont do that - someone will try to outlaw that too sad2sm


----------



## Im Headed South

Found it in article that that was discussing the economic impact of fishing, I thought they were referring to inshore only but after re-reading it I now see that was the total number of recreational anglers in TX. My mistake and I'm not afraid to admit it. Sorry about that. I've been looking for a good number of saltwater participates in TX for over an hour and can't find a good number. I'm sure it would be several times the amount of LA anglers though. Not apples to apples IMO.

Mike



CoastalOutfitters said:


> curious where this number derived is from?


----------



## [email protected]

*How does TPWD Coastal Fisheries determine the relative abundance of spotted seatrout?*

There are four major survey methods. First is the bag seine to capture and identify the number of fingerlings in the system. The seining protocol includes standardized seine mesh and size of net. Also included are length/width of seine and method for dragging the seine along the shoreline i.e. depth, speed of movement, length of drag, etc. Bag seine method is the same coastwide. Areas to be seined are selected randomly by computer program. Bag seines are conducted year round. All marine species collected are measured and recorded.

Next is the bay trawl which is very similar to a shrimp trawl. These are used to capture and quantify sub-adult specimens in the system (too large and swift to be captured in bag seine and too small for gill net method.) The nets are standard and the deployment is standard, all field stations do it identically for each survey. Bay trawl surveys are conducted year round. Survey location is selected at random by computer. Again, everything collected is measured and recorded.

Third is gill net. The gill net is a standard size; 600 feet long made of four meshes of 150 feet each - 3 inch, 4 inch, 5 inch and 6 inch. The net is set at dusk and retrieved at daylight. The 3 inch is anchored at the shoreline and the net is then strung perpendicular to the bank and anchored offshore. The location is again determined by the random computer program method. The net is purposely located the same way each time but not in the same spot except by random computer selection phenomenon. Passes and sloughs are avoided as these concentrate fish movement and intent is for the catch to be totally random. Some nets catch no trout (rare), others might get 10, 15 or 20 depending local population density. The coastwide average is somewhere in the range of about 1.0 trout per each hour of "soak time." The mission here is to collect a sample, not to capture as many as possible. Depending how they are held by the net (gilled or simply wrapped), many fish can be released unharmed while some unfortunately die.

Fourth is the dockside Creel Survey. The creel survey is referred to as fishery dependent or anecdotal meaning the outcome depends on how efficient and/or inefficient the angler(s) interviewed might be. The three survey methods described above are termed fishery indepent as the gears do their jobs the same every time so long as they are deployed the same every time - hence the strict adherence to protocol in survey methodology. Even though Creel Surveys can be skewed depending fishing expertise and effort, if enough surveys are conducted over a long enough period, trends in fishing success and also satisfaction level of the users surveyed can be determined.

Coastal Fisheries Division has been using these same methods and prescribed protocol in all bays since 1975. Gill net surveys are conducted in spring and fall each year in each bay or ecosystem as they are called. There are 45 nets set each spring and again each fall during the same ten week period of the season. The spring nets are said to be the best indicator of spotted seatrout abundance and the fall nets are the most reliable for red drum. With 35 years of data collection to describe population density Coastal fisheries can be well-advised of changes in the individual bay populations.

Coastal Fisheries population survey methodology is periodically peer reviewed by agencies from all 50 states and also from US Fish and Wildlife Service. The programs in effect are cited as the best in the US and highly copied and imitated by other agencies.

I have attended and observed a half-dozen each bag seine, bay trawl and gill net. I have written several times in TSFMag to explain how population surveys are conducted and how the data obtained is then used to formulate regulations. Many fishermen simply do not understand the intricate methodolgy and protocol of the management plan. If they did they would not question the data as often as they do.
Hopefully this will help some understand how it is accomplished.

EJ


----------



## glennkoks

There is one problem with the gill net sampling in regards to spotted sea trout. Over 1/2 of each net used is 5 or 6 inch mesh. Only the biggest trout 6 pounds and up will get gilled in the 5 inch mesh and the 6 inch mesh will be void of all trout except ones that have been fowled by their open mouths. So the gill net surveys may not be giving an accurate measurement of trout populations.

You will catch all sizes of redfish in 3, 4, 5, and 6 inch gill net. 

My father was a commercial fisherman and as a kid I personally hung miles (no exaggeration) of gill net. He used 3 1/2 to 4 inch stretch mesh for trout, five inch exclusively for redfish and the 6 inch mesh was used for flounder and drum.


----------



## trouthammer

Thanks EJ that is great info. Is there some combined score that gives the health of each bay with historical data?


----------



## [email protected]

glenkoks - You are absolutely correct as regards mesh size and seatrout. The five and six inch sections will likely not catch many trout in the classic "gilling" sense but they can become entangled in other ways (I've witnessed it) and the 150 foot sections of three inch and four inch certainly will catch trout. Remember what I said in the explanation; the idea is to obtain a sample in the same fashion with the exact same gear everytime, not kill them all.

trouthammer - The bag seine and trwal surveys are used to determine recruitment of fingerlings and juveniles on their way to becoming adults. The gill net data describes the spawning biomass. All three are equally important.


----------



## [email protected]

I was trying to edit my reply to trouthammer but timed out on the edit clock so I'll do it here:

trouthammer - The bag seine and trawl surveys are used to determine recruitment of fingerlings and juveniles on their way to becoming adults. The gill net data describes the spawning biomass. All three are equally important as all fish begin their life as larvae but the gill net data is the one most talked about in fisheries management discussion with the general public. The CPUE (catch per unit of effort) in gill net terminology would be the number of fish captured in the survey net per hour of soak time. Trends in CPUE over five to ten years are considered when making regulatory changes. Example: San Antonio Bay CPUE was 1.8 in 1998 and has declined steadily ever since. The last three years have been in the 0.75-0.80 range. Where did the fish go? Hence the reason for considering changes to the management plan.


----------



## trouthammer

Thanks again, also if I had read the info on the TPWD site the charts I found and posted are actually catch rates per hour from the Gill Net Surveys...and they point to an increasing trend. I have never questioned whether TPWD has the science but whether one group vrs another should get them to either raise or lower limits or cause a vote on the issue for that matter. My point is they should make their decisions uninfluenced by any group do it strictly on science.


----------



## BAMF32

*5 trout a day....*



fishingtwo said:


> 1)5 trout limit
> 
> 2)ban on croaker
> 
> 3)limit guide lisenses
> 
> 4)1-2 tags per year for trout over 24"
> 
> 5)have sweenynite do a survey?


Perfectly said in a nut shell. Seems to be running 4:1 for a reduction to 5 a day. That's a majority even where I come from.


----------



## trouthammer

[email protected] said:


> I was trying to edit my reply to trouthammer but timed out on the edit clock so I'll do it here:
> 
> trouthammer - The bag seine and trawl surveys are used to determine recruitment of fingerlings and juveniles on their way to becoming adults. The gill net data describes the spawning biomass. All three are equally important as all fish begin their life as larvae but the gill net data is the one most talked about in fisheries management discussion with the general public. The CPUE (catch per unit of effort) in gill net terminology would be the number of fish captured in the survey net per hour of soak time. Trends in CPUE over five to ten years are considered when making regulatory changes. Example: San Antonio Bay CPUE was 1.8 in 1998 and has declined steadily ever since. The last three years have been in the 0.75-0.80 range. Where did the fish go? Hence the reason for considering changes to the management plan.


Here is the chart and if you back up to 95 and before we are right where we were then (chart doesn't have 09 but using .75-.80 we are slightly higher)... long term trends are established by using as much history as possible. At the end of the day we could all pick data points and make them work if you select the right history. One question a bit off topic but maybe not is for every bay I looked at 07 was a big statistical jump in the catch rate (see below)


----------



## capt. david

lmao banning croaker! why? i will say that soft plastics catch more trout in a year than croaker. so why ban them? fewer guides now on the water, than say five years ago. guide licenses are not the problem, it's thoses who falsified their seatime in order to obtain a usgc license. the amount of tournaments(trout) on the coast needs to be looked at if you really believe there is a fish shortage!


----------



## BAMF32

Bocephus said:


> Dude....get a grip.
> 
> Do you think that every person on the bays tomorrow in Texas will limit out on trout, redfish, flounder....etc. ?
> 
> NO...they won't,...they don't,....and they never will. A very small fraction of the fishermen will limit out tomorrow, or the next day, or the next.
> 
> The fish population in my neck of the woods is outstanding at present. Maybe as good as I've ever seen, and I was raised on Trinity Bay and have been fishing the G-Bay complex all my life, since I was a child. Now, in your little slice of the world it may be different, I'll grant you that. But don't throw down we all should go to a limit of five or the speckled trout world will come to an end !!!!!!!....that's a bunch of horsechit. If your speaking for the entire coast of Texas, you don't know what the hell your talking about....
> 
> And like I said...10 trout limits are not a given, not even close...
> 
> Respectfully saying....


Bocephus - I usually agree with everything you post but I think the point is this:

I have observed three things that put me in favor of a 5 or 7 trout reduced limit:

1. Look at guide pictures on websites and pretty much every other day they are close to limiting on trout. And there are a lot of guides on the water. And these are just the ones that post pics.

2. Hang out at Marker 37 around 1 pm May through November and tell me there aren't a lot of trout being killed.

3. Watch the same guides the same time of year get pissy that they want their check so they can get back out for their afternoon croaker trip. I am not condemning this, just an observation. Most are great people.

Pretty simple math:
40 guides/bay system x 2 trips/day x 4 ppl/trip x 10 trout/person x 220 days a year = lots of trout


----------



## glennkoks

BAMF32
It's not fair to extrapolate numbers like that. Not all guides work 220 days a year, they don't always limit and they don't always have four people many times its just two or three.


----------



## [email protected]

*SAB Gill Net Population Surveys*

trouthammer - I have not seen the chart you posted. As a member of the TPWD CRAC (Coastal Resource Advisory Committee) I was given a graph of the San Antonio Bay Spring Gill Net Surveys 1982-2010 during our meeting at Sea Center on September 25 2010. The following are the gill net CPUE (Catch Per Unit of Effort; i.e. number of trout caught per hour in population survey nets)values as near as I can interpret from the graph:

1990 (remember the big freeze of '89 whacked the trout) - 0.6 fish per hour
1991 - 0.8
1992 - 0.4
1993 - 0.65
1994 - 0.75
1995 - 0.95
1996 - 1.35
1997 - 1.25
1998 - 1.85
1999 - 1.15
2000 - 1.30
2001 - 0.8
2002 - 1.3
2003 - 1.5
2004 - 0.9
2005 - 1.1
2006 - 0.9
2007 - 0.7
2008 - 0.8
2009 - 0.7
2010 - 0.75

Gill net surveys can be influenced by many of the same factors that influence all forms of fishing; i.e. water conditions brought about by drought, flood, etc., and also by natural events such as fish killing freezes and red tides which reduce populations.

So to interpret the data, the fishery rebounded quickly from the twin freezes of January and December 1989. The 1990 value of 0.6 describes the depleted condition of the fishery. With a few dips and rises, it rose in a generally steady fashion until it peaked in 1998 at 1.85 fish per hour in the survey nets. Then it began to decline, again with a few peaks and valleys along the way, until the years 2007-2010 where it seems to have stabilized at an average of 0.77 which is very near the post-89 freeze level.

What causes this is the $64,000 question to fisheries managers and fishermen alike. We have had no large killing freeze, although we had two minor events in Matagorda Island lakes Dec 2004 and Jan 2010. We have had no red tide except a minor event in Shoalwater Bay Sep 2000. What we have seen is an incredible rise in fishing effort in the region and especially in guided effort. The current seatrout population is now only 40.5% of that which we enjoyed in 1998. Could it be recreational harvest pressure? TPWD have been slow and methodical in their approach, not wanting to jump the gun based on one or two poor survey years. But a steady decline since '98? I for one believe it is time to tweak the management plan.

And BTW, I have no problem catching trout, just tired of catching 30 or 40 short ones on the way to a three pounder.


----------



## capt. david

regionalization of areas might be a answer, but we have no problems on the upper coast imo!


----------



## ksk

EJ,BAMF32,and glennkoks 
Some comments about your comments.I am retired and fish Espiritu and SAB 3-4 times a week.I launch out of Charlies,Seadrift and Swan Point.I 99% throw hardware.In the last three years the number of recreational fisherman and guided trips have increased on a daily basis.More recreational fishermen + more guided trips= more fish per day taken on a daily basis.This is simple math.This past year I probably caught 7-10 undersize trout for every keeper.Glennkoks,one has to only look at the ''fishing reports'' on this site and see what some folks are taking out of this area on a daily basis.The pictures don't lie,do they? This area seems it would benefit with a daily bag lilmit reduction.


----------



## [email protected]

*But wait - there's more!*

If you look back to the spring survey of 1984, the first survey following the disastrous freeze of '83, the CPUE value in SAB was 0.3 fish. Fourteen years later, including the '89 freezes, the fishery rebounded remarkably to a CPUE of 1.8 in 1998.

With no freezes or red tides and total elimination of commercial fishing for seatrout, shouldn't it still be up there somewhere, maybe at least close?

As a guide of ten years experience in this system 1999-2009 (now retired) I witnessed a lot of change. Most notable are increases in fishing effort and rod and reel fishing efficiency! More fishermen catching more fish is the easiest way to put it. Proof of the rise in efficiency can be seen in the Creel Survey data. Interestingly, landings have not declined nearly as steeply as Gill Net CPUE. We've gotten way better at patterning and catching even though the fish are fewer.


----------



## ksk

[email protected] said:


> If you look back to the spring survey of 1984, the first survey following the disastrous freeze of '83, the CPUE value in SAB was 0.3 fish. Fourteen years later, including the '89 freezes, the fishery rebounded remarkably to a CPUE of 1.8 in 1998.
> 
> With no freezes or red tides and total elimination of commercial fishing for seatrout, shouldn't it still be up there somewhere, maybe at least close?
> 
> As a guide of ten years experience in this system 1999-2009 (now retired) I witnessed a lot of change. Most notable are increases in fishing effort and rod and reel fishing efficiency! More fishermen catching more fish is the easiest way to put it. Proof of the rise in efficiency can be seen in the Creel Survey data. Interestingly, landings have not declined nearly as steeply as Gill Net CPUE. We've gotten way better at patterning and catching even though the fish are fewer.


EJ when is the last time you have seen or heard of someone catching a 27+ trout in the SAB areas? I see pictures all the time on web sites and magazines but none out of SAB? By the way,have you ever had a 27+ on your front cover out of SAB?If I ever catch one,I promise to take a picture before I release it and send it to you.


----------



## glennkoks

ksk, Im not arguing the catch. Only the sustainability of it. The catch rate is well within the the 30 year norm.


----------



## glennkoks

[email protected],
Your making the same mistake that was made earlier. Your only taking 15 years worth of data. Use it all dating back to 1982 and you will see that a catch rate of .75 per hour is very near the average for the entire 29 year period. 

Why are you throwing out 8 years worth of data?

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong for any of the data provided by TPWD and the upper coast from Sabine to Baffin.

We clearly saw some good years in the mid 90's but they were just that good years. Due to drought and other cyclical factors our numbers have come back down to average.

The more of the coast you study the smoother the graph will be. Some bays have come on harder times of late others have done better. Like with most things dealing with mother nature its cyclical.


----------



## railbird

glennkoks said:


> [email protected],
> Your making the same mistake that was made earlier. Your only taking 15 years worth of data. Use it all dating back to 1982 and you will see that a catch rate of .75 per hour is very near the average for the entire 29 year period.
> 
> Why are you throwing out 8 years worth of data?
> 
> I challenge anyone to prove me wrong for any of the data provided by TPWD and the upper coast from Sabine to Baffin.
> 
> We clearly saw some good years in the mid 90's but they were just that good years. Due to drought and other cyclical factors our numbers have come back down to average.
> 
> The more of the coast you study the smoother the graph will be. Some bays have come on harder times of late others have done better. Like with most things dealing with mother nature its cyclical.


You are arguing we should go far enough back to include the 83 freeze. Those years will absolutely skew the data to your point of view. For you to argue for the 30 year norm requires you to stretch into the worst fishkill disaster in the bays for a generation. Those .3/hr and .4/hr will deffinantly skew the numbers, they are your only hope for winning the arguement on the numbers.


----------



## trouthammer

EJ
I am getting my data from TPWD site 
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/maps/gis/ris/catch_rate/
At the bottom click on the "catch rate by minor bay application"
From there you can select, year, species and bay or select a historical graph for the same data points. Also for each year notice they have a legend for high medium and low...have seen nothing in any bay that says low with most high and a few medium for any of the last five years. Also we can not make decisions that effect all bays base on unique circumstances in one or two.

I don't fish San Antonio and hate to rely on anecdotal stories but there are some out there that experienced fishermen say explains the drop in that bay and overfishing is just one of them. The comments made in the Tompkins article is more than just a half full description and speak to bays in general as opposed to one example. I also am puzzled why the head of TPWD science wouldn't take this oppertunity to make his case for lower limits if that is what is needed. He in fact makes the case for why they are fine. See below link
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/outdoors/7108931.html

All the debate and numbers still have not answered my question which is since this is NOT a department proposal why and the hell is it being considered? If they thought we objectively needed it then do it. My fear is the motive is for those that enjoy a style of fishing that targets just big trout are at work "lobbying". It is more than a coincidence that one of the benefits of 5 in Mansfield is the weight of their catch is up. The truth is I have no problem with 5 and it won't stop me from fishing just like I do now. I also like targeting big trout. But some like catching ten and unless real reasons exist to take that away it is elitist to do so. We pay taxes and fees that pay for TPWD and it appears to me they are doing things at the request of "lobby" groups and that ain't right.


----------



## railbird

trouthammer said:


> Here is the chart and if you back up to 95 and before we are right where we were then (chart doesn't have 09 but using .75-.80 we are slightly higher)... long term trends are established by using as much history as possible. At the end of the day we could all pick data points and make them work if you select the right history. One question a bit off topic but maybe not is for every bay I looked at 07 was a big statistical jump in the catch rate (see below)


Take a look at the drum numbers over the 30 year period. Look what taking the fishing pressure off did for the drum population over that period. They have experienced an exponential rise compared to other species that are more regularly targeted. Then you tell me fishing pressure has nothing to do with the trout population.


----------



## Im Headed South

:headknock Welcome to the "fun" EJ, lmao.


----------



## [email protected]

OK guys, maybe it's just best that we just agree to disagree on this, I doubt we can accomplish much else. 

Good fishing and I hope to meet some of you at the Scoping Meetings in January.


----------



## sweenyite

Ya'll keep arguing, I'm going fishing in the morning... I hope I catch ten keeps, but I'll only keep five...only have half a box of Zatarains left....


----------



## glennkoks

railbird, if you want to exclude 1984 and 1990, the years after the freeze from the average. You still get a mean very close to .75. Its not my "point of view" its what the facts are. 

Once again prove me wrong. Don't cherry pick the data use it all and tell me the average is not very close to .75 fish per hour over the entire data sample. Too many people are making a "shortage" of fish when their is none. 

And I would argue that a very successful restocking program did more for the red drum populations than the regulations did.


----------



## deke

capt. david said:


> regionalization of areas might be a answer, but we have no problems on the upper coast imo!


Of course it is, just to say it needs to be all over the coast is wrong. Fix what is wrong in certain bays. A blanket fix is just like the ******** Obama did with healthcare. Screw over a whole country because a few things need to be addressed and changed.


----------



## railbird

glennkoks said:


> railbird, if you want to exclude 1984 and 1990, the years after the freeze from the average. You still get a mean very close to .75. Its not my "point of view" its what the facts are.
> 
> Once again prove me wrong. Don't cherry pick the data use it all and tell me the average is not very close to .75 fish per hour over the entire data sample. Too many people are making a "shortage" of fish when their is none.
> 
> And I would argue that a very successful restocking program did more for the red drum populations than the regulations did.


Not talking about red drum on the last post, I was referencing the increase in the black drum population when the drum recieved much needed protection. What year did the drum regulations last change? was it 95 or 96? Reducing limits have proven to be a way to increase populations of all species. How is that a bad thing?


----------



## JohnnyWalkerRed

My 2 cents. 
I fish 2 bay systems. Galvez and EMB. 
I think EMB needs A 5 fish limit and Galvez is good at 10. Just my obervations. Regionalizing the coast sounds good to me. Leave Sabine and Galvez at 10 and lower the limit for the rest of the coast. 
I drink alot so I could be way off on this! LOL!


----------



## glennkoks

Reducing the flounder limits multiple times has not helped the flounder population. Which leads me to believe that there are other factors at play having a bigger effect on their population than our harvest.

Not too many people I know target black drum and they are still harvested by commercial fisherman on trotlines by the ton. Their population explosion has absolutely nothing to do with regulation and everything to do with natural cycles.

Responsible management of our fisheries is a good thing. But needless regulation pushed by one user group with an agenda is not. In the last 30 years I have seen the commercial fisherman run out of our bays, shrimpers run out of our bays, giggers run out of our bays during november and now the crosshairs are on the fishing guides.


----------



## TailHunter3

Reading through the posts I was reminded of something from my hunters education course that I think is relative to understanding why people are responding the way they are on this topic... Of course, age, experience and intelligence way into the discussion.

*The Six Stages of Hunter Development*

It should be the goal of every responsible hunter to become a true sportsman. As a hunter gains experience and skill, studies have shown that he or she will typically pass through six distinct stages of development. Keep in mind, however, that not everyone passes through all of these stages, nor do they necessarily do it in the same order.








*Shooting Stage*

The priority is getting off a shot, rather than patiently waiting for a good shot. This eagerness to shoot can lead to bad decisions that endanger others. A combination of target practice and mentoring helps most hunters move quickly out of this stage.









*Limiting-Out Stage*

Success is determined by bagging the limit. In extreme cases, this need to limit out also can cause hunters to take unsafe shots. Spending time with more mature hunters helps people grow out of this phase.








*Trophy Stage*

The hunter is selective and judges success by quality rather than quantity. Typically, the focus is on big game. Anything that doesn't measure up to the desired trophy is ignored.








*Method Stage*

In this stage, the process of hunting becomes the focus. A hunter may still want to limit out but places a higher priority on how it's accomplished.








*Sportsman Stage*

Success is measured by the total experience-the appreciation of the out-of-doors and the animal being hunted, the process of the hunt, and the companionship of other hunters.








*"Give-Back" Stage*

In this stage, hunters are interested in introducing others to hunting and passing on the proper hunting values. These hunters also teach others about safety and the responsibilities of hunting.​


----------



## Bocephus

glennkoks said:


> Reducing the flounder limits multiple times has not helped the flounder population. Which leads me to believe that there are other factors at play having a bigger effect on their population than our harvest.
> 
> Not too many people I know target black drum and they are still harvested by commercial fisherman on trotlines by the ton. Their population explosion has absolutely nothing to do with regulation and everything to do with natural cycles.
> 
> Responsible management of our fisheries is a good thing. But needless regulation pushed by one user group with an agenda is not. In the last 30 years I have seen the commercial fisherman run out of our bays, shrimpers run out of our bays, giggers run out of our bays during november and now the crosshairs are on the fishing guides.


Good points Glenn.

I'm surprised more Guides haven't weighed in on this thread. And yes these "elitists" with an agenda won't stop until they can micromanage "their" bays as they see fit....

And if you go out tomorrow and legally catch & keep 10 trout, you're a "greedy SOB" in their eyes......lol.


----------



## Joe. T.

.


----------



## McBeast

Its about time, I'm tired of seeing massive stringers of trout come in for a picture...only for 1/2 of it to be wasted.


----------



## trouthammer

TailHunter3 said:


> Reading through the posts I was reminded of something from my hunters education course that I think is relative to understanding why people are responding the way they are on this topic... Of course, age, experience and intelligence way into the discussion.


The end of the progression is sharing the experience with your family and getting them involved. I agree that is important and should be done whether the limit is 5 or 10. But has nothing to do with this issue. 

The only mention of bag limits pertains to getting off unsafe/unwise shots to do it. I have never hurt anyone excitedly catching my 10th. Bad analogy and it only applies if the science shows my daughters will not have the same fishing opportunities I do.

And since you brought up intelligence, I would be remiss in not pointing out the proper use of the word way....I think you meant to use the word "weigh" when you so boldly commented on intelligence. Those are the very kind of remarks which support that one group wants to dictate their beliefs systems to others. I will leave out the word for that.


----------



## yellowmouth2

I found this while doing a search. Found it pretty interesting.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Texas'+fisheries%3A+a+brief+history-a09102731


----------



## TailHunter3

Thanks spell checker... I read some of your past posts and didn't take long to find similar mis-spellings. Such an original attack you take there!

I do disagree, obviously, that indeed my previous post is relevant. There are many people making an emotional arguement on here about keeping the limits where they are based upon "I" "Me" "Myself".... etc. They are squarely in the middle of the phase of must limit out. EJ and some of the others are much further along and have caught 100's if not 1000's of limits and are at a much more advanced phase of their fishing experience. I would think someone stuck in the "must limit out phase" wouldn't know that's where they are because their field of vision is much more narrow.

I still have not seen an intelligent post from anyone on the side of keeping it at 10. Why keep it 10? Would you guys support moving it to 15 or 20? How about no limits at all? The depth of your support for keeping it 10 is emotional and arguementative the best I can tell.

Ok, do what you do. Attack me for having an opinion.

And, it is rather contradictory of you to make the comment "that one group wants to dictate their beliefs systems to others". Could you not say the same in reverse? We have one group that wants to take as many limits as they can, whenever and wherever they want and want everyone else to have that same belief? So, Everyone should have the limits of 10 for all mentality?



trouthammer said:


> The end of the progression is sharing the experience with your family and getting them involved. I agree that is important and should be done whether the limit is 5 or 10. But has nothing to do with this issue.
> 
> The only mention of bag limits pertains to getting off unsafe/unwise shots to do it. I have never hurt anyone excitedly catching my 10th. Bad analogy and it only applies if the science shows my daughters will not have the same fishing opportunities I do.
> 
> And since you brought up intelligence, I would be remiss in not pointing out the proper use of the word way....I think you meant to use the word "weigh" when you so boldly commented on intelligence. Those are the very kind of remarks which support that one group wants to dictate their beliefs systems to others. I will leave out the word for that.


----------



## railbird

TailHunter3 said:


> Thanks spell checker... I read some of your past posts and didn't take long to find similar mis-spellings. Such an original attack you take there!
> 
> I do disagree, obviously, that indeed my previous post is relevant. There are many people making an emotional arguement on here about keeping the limits where they are based upon "I" "Me" "Myself".... etc. They are squarely in the middle of the phase of must limit out. EJ and some of the others are much further along and have caught 100's if not 1000's of limits and are at a much more advanced phase of their fishing experience. I would think someone stuck in the "must limit out phase" wouldn't know that's where they are because their field of vision is much more narrow.
> 
> I still have not seen an intelligent post from anyone on the side of keeping it at 10. Why keep it 10? Would you guys support moving it to 15 or 20? How about no limits at all? The depth of your support for keeping it 10 is emotional and arguementative the best I can tell.
> 
> Ok, do what you do. Attack me for having an opinion.
> 
> And, it is rather contradictory of you to make the comment "that one group wants to dictate their beliefs systems to others". Could you not say the same in reverse? We have one group that wants to take as many limits as they can, whenever and wherever they want and want everyone else to have that same belief? So, Everyone should have the limits of 10 for all mentality?


X2 well said. Funny how these guys with the weakest arguements have to resort to spelling errors for rebuttals. lol


----------



## glennkoks

Tailhunter3, This is about a resource shared by us all. It may be all about sport to you but the decisions your advocating effect the livelihood of many coastal residents. If the biology does not support a change why put those dependent on the resource through an unnecessary burden?


----------



## CaptPb

*Wow*



BAMF32 said:


> Bocephus - I usually agree with everything you post but I think the point is this:
> 
> I have observed three things that put me in favor of a 5 or 7 trout reduced limit:
> 
> 1. Look at guide pictures on websites and pretty much every other day they are close to limiting on trout. And there are a lot of guides on the water. And these are just the ones that post pics.
> 
> 2. Hang out at Marker 37 around 1 pm May through November and tell me there aren't a lot of trout being killed.
> 
> 3. Watch the same guides the same time of year get pissy that they want their check so they can get back out for their afternoon croaker trip. I am not condemning this, just an observation. Most are great people.
> 
> Pretty simple math:
> 40 guides/bay system x 2 trips/day x 4 ppl/trip x 10 trout/person x 220 days a year = lots of trout


I really would like to know who this is, because our business models for the rest of us are way off. 
More so, I really want to know who the 1760 customers are that are willing to pay a guide to go fishing. I won't be greedy, just half of them would be fine. I know darn well none of them are in this group.


----------



## railbird

glennkoks said:


> Tailhunter3, This is about a resource shared by us all. It may be all about sport to you but the decisions your advocating effect the livelihood of many coastal residents. If the biology does not support a change why put those dependent on the resource through an unnecessary burden?


If they are depending on the trout they catch to survive, owning a boat is a very bad finacial decision. Just sayin!!!


----------



## specks&ducks

There is over 300 responses on this topic, pretty amazing. I'm glad to see the majority are in favor of bag limits. I fish the Rockport area mostly, from San Antonio Bay to Baffin. The last three years have been really tough for catching trout, everyone will truthfully admit to that, even the best guides in the area. That is why many of them are fishing the laguna more. I see three things that have created this problem:

1. Increased pressure - year round
2. More people on meat hauls during live bait season
3. Record drought in 08 - 09 time frame

I can't speak the the redfish part of the discussion because I'm not sure if that is contributing to the problem. Five trout per day is enough for anyone. It's time for the adjustment, I would like see this put into place before the next live bait season. And before anyone gets excited, I'm not against using bait, just against seeing a boatload of people bringing 40 or 50 trout. This is nonsense and the fishery cannot sustain this forever.


----------



## capt. david

specks according to bamf32 there catching trout everyday out of marker 37 from may-november! smack dab in the middle of where you fish! regionalization of the coast seems to be the answer too limit changes.


----------



## TailHunter3

Actually, while his numbers may be off (very few guides get over 200 trips a year and it might me more like 125 on average) the point is valid.

The shere number of trout cleaned at the marinas weekly in Corpus from about March/April to September would absolutely blow the minds of most people on this board.



capt. david said:


> specks according to bamf32 there catching trout everyday out of marker 37 from may-november! smack dab in the middle of where you fish! regionalization of the coast seems to be the answer too limit changes.


----------



## capt. david

tail if that is the case seems like the trout fishery there is fine. why drop the limit?


----------



## TailHunter3

To maintain and to improve.

To be proactive instead of reactive.

For Corpus, overall length is decreasing why numbers may be fine. Corpus/Baffin needs protection because it's value to the fishing community is one of quality and not quantity.

In a perfect world, region by region limits may be ideal but it is completely unenforceable. A fisherman can fish in so many different bay systems today in one day due to efficiency of the boats today.

Plus, it is just the guides slamming the trout in Corpus and a few select average Joes. Not slamming by any means but it is the guides that are simply good enough and also on the water enough to be at the top of the list of boxing trout (speaking on average).

A reduction in the daily bag would primarily only impact the fishing guide community, on average. But, that would put 10,000's of trout back in the water each year which would all spawn to produce 100,000's of trout.



capt. david said:


> tail if that is the case seems like the trout fishery there is fine. why drop the limit?


----------



## glennkoks

railbird, guides do not depend on the trout they catch to survive. They are not commercial fisherman. However it will effect their pocketbooks because people that go fishing once or twice a year want to take their catch home with them. Many will find it hard to justify the expense and it will end up hurting them.


----------



## trouthammer

railbird said:


> X2 well said. Funny how these guys with the weakest arguements have to resort to spelling errors for rebuttals. lol


Actually if you took it the right way(pun intended) and thought about it on a deeper level you would realize the poster slung out an insult to those who want to keep limits at 10...I will spell it out for you. He implied we are not intelligent (which is an attack that prompted my response) and in the same sentence used "way" when "weigh" was appropriate. That is called irony. And just blabbing all I have is misspellings does show your reading and comprehension of ten other posts with charts is about what I would expect. BTW you misspelled arguments badly.:doowapsta


----------



## capt. david

tail tpw does regionalization management alot! deer hunting, bird hunting, oystering, ect... it can be done! also tail they have already taken away 10 fish on our trips. which was fine because we already were doing that in most cases. bottom line is if something really drastic happens to our fishery or limit changes and we can't ban together as a collective group, we are all in trouble!!!!!!!


----------



## let's go

glennkoks said:


> railbird, guides do not depend on the trout they catch to survive. They are not commercial fisherman. However it will effect their pocketbooks because people that go fishing once or twice a year want to take their catch home with them. Many will find it hard to justify the expense and it will end up hurting them.


That same argument was made when limits were first introduced at 20. It was the battle not that many years ago when it was dropped to 10. Some said the same thing when they placed the upper slot limit at 1 over 25". A bunch of the meat haul guides said their customers wouldn't pay to go fishing with them if they couldn't also keep the guide's limit on a trip. It has been proven false each time as there are more guides on the water now than there ever were before. It hasn't hurt business.

I've been around for each of those changes and find it interesting that only a few years after each drop there are very few people who continue to disagree with the changes. Emotion gets the better of people whenever something is taken away. With time and perspective you begin to realize that it was needed.

How many people still feel we should have no limit? Very few and those that do are pretty selfish.

How many think that keeping 20 trout per person per day is overkill? Most everyone.

How many people think that we should be able to keep a full limit of ten 25"+ fish every day? Again, very few.

I predict that years from now everyone will look back on the 10 fish limit much the way those of us who used to keep 20, 30, 40, 50....see those days. Even though it was legal, it wasn't the right thing to do.


----------



## ksk

Fished SAB today.Myself and a friend caught 23 trout and 2 reds.Five keeper trout and both reds under 20''.Most trout were 13- 14 1/2''.We threw hardware.


----------



## BAMF32

*You're right.....*



glennkoks said:


> BAMF32
> It's not fair to extrapolate numbers like that. Not all guides work 220 days a year, they don't always limit and they don't always have four people many times its just two or three.


Just an observation. It's just the concentration of fish being cleaned at the tables that blows some people away. I used rough numbers. Some bay systems (Rockport has 300 guides) have more and I know for a fact some guides book 220 trips a year albeit probably a minority.

All I know is East and West Matagorda Bays are parking lots Friday through Sunday and I didn't even count the recs in my observation.

Maybe a little of how I feel is jealousy but gets old for weekend warriors to go out and fight for spots. It's the sheer numbers of people on the water that is frustrating sometimes, but hey, I'm part of that problem.


----------



## railbird

trouthammer said:


> Actually if you took it the right way(pun intended) and thought about it on a deeper level you would realize the poster slung out an insult to those who want to keep limits at 10...I will spell it out for you. He implied we are not intelligent (which is an attack that prompted my response) and in the same sentence used "way" when "weigh" was appropriate. That is called irony. And just blabbing all I have is misspellings does show your reading and comprehension of ten other posts with charts is about what I would expect. BTW you misspelled arguments badly.:doowapsta


ROFLMAO!!!!!!!Yeah, you boys on the other side of this dabate are deep thinkers........ The only time you boys aproach a deep thought is when you have your head stuck in the sand. Oh, wait I guess that does mean a form of deep thinking is in use when you oppose these regulations. Now only if you could raise your consiousness to a level that would protect our resource. Pull your head out and get your reading comprehension skills you are so proud of, and do the right thing. Attitudes toward our resource are not changing, the limits have to change before its completely destroyed.

chuck


----------



## trouthammer

railbird said:


> ROFLMAO!!!!!!!Yeah, you boys on the other side of this dabate are deep thinkers........ The only time you boys aproach a deep thought is when you have your head stuck in the sand. Oh, wait I guess that does mean a form of deep thinking is in use when you oppose these regulations. Now only if you could raise your consiousness to a level that would protect our resource. Pull your head out and get your reading comprehension skills you are so proud of, and do the right thing. Attitudes toward our resource are not changing, the limits have to change before its completely destroyed.
> 
> chuck


Wow! I learned alot from that. I changed my mind. You are right. Can I be one of the boys on your side now?


----------



## Bocephus

mmmmmmm....had fresh trout filets for supper tonight !!!


----------



## Nicademas

*Really?*



trouthammer said:


> Actually if you took it the right way(pun intended) and thought about it on a deeper level you would realize the poster slung out an insult to those who want to keep limits at 10...I will spell it out for you. He implied we are not intelligent (which is an attack that prompted my response) and in the same sentence used "way" when "weigh" was appropriate. That is called irony. And just blabbing all I have is misspellings does show your reading and comprehension of ten other posts with charts is about what I would expect. BTW you misspelled arguments badly.:doowapsta


Deep thinkers don't have to emphasize puns or rhetoric in their writing. Just saying.


----------



## Clint Sholmire

*QUESTION !!!*

I have a small question. Where do the numbers come from for the trout that are caught in the beach front? Those numbers are not captured on any of these surveys as I see them. Do those trout not exist until they move into your bays or what? I think the biggest problem I can see for the just keep 5ers is that you look at the bays like they are a bowl of M&M'S, once you take out the last one their will not be anymore. If there are 3000 fish per day comming out of the bay, how many are going in? How many spawning trout eggs (per fish) make it into the system? Just to answer the statement about my business suffering do to regs, not to worry we as guides have more to offer than rather or not we get limits or not.


----------



## chugger

Trout Regs. article from Houston Chronicle today:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/outdoors/tompkins/7320245.html

If you want to listen to the Trout presentation by Robin Riechers, TPWD Coastal Fisheries Director, which is mentioned in the article , click on the link below and move audio cursor to minute 31.00

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publica...103/20101103_com_02_regulations_committee.mp3


----------



## boom!

Croakers.


----------



## trouthammer

chugger said:


> Trout Regs. article from Houston Chronicle today:
> 
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/outdoors/tompkins/7320245.html
> 
> If you want to listen to the Trout presentation by Robin Riechers, TPWD Coastal Fisheries Director, which is mentioned in the article , click on the link below and move audio cursor to minute 31.00
> 
> http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publica...103/20101103_com_02_regulations_committee.mp3


Great find and it defines the issues. What amazes me is Mansfield isn't doing any better at least as shown by gill net surveys. Now they are catching bigger trout and so it raises the question whether the whole 5 limit thing is something the trophy trout crowd wants.

The article defines the only three bays(West Matagorda, San Antonio and Aransas)which are struggling and points out poor spawning is a part of the problem.

"There are no huge alarm bells going off," Morris said. 
"We don't have to propose any changes in the regulations if we're willing to live with the constant ups and downs we're seeing," Riechers said. "But we want to let fishermen know the situation and hear what they think."

Morris is the outreach specialist and Morris is the director of fisheries.

After taking it all in I am thinking why not keep it like it is for all the bays except those which have problems and use them as experiments. Mansfield doesnt have a long enough history to really rely on one way or the other but if they are not improving and the others don't as well then leave it alone. Mother nature tends to run bays anyway.
Thanks again for the find.


----------



## railbird

trouthammer said:


> Great find and it defines the issues. What amazes me is Mansfield isn't doing any better at least as shown by gill net surveys. Now they are catching bigger trout and so it raises the question whether the whole 5 limit thing is something the trophy trout crowd wants.
> 
> The article defines the only three bays(West Matagorda, San Antonio and Aransas)which are struggling and points out poor spawning is a part of the problem.
> 
> "There are no huge alarm bells going off," Morris said.
> "We don't have to propose any changes in the regulations if we're willing to live with the constant ups and downs we're seeing," Riechers said. "But we want to let fishermen know the situation and hear what they think."
> 
> Morris is the outreach specialist and Morris is the director of fisheries.
> 
> After taking it all in I am thinking why not keep it like it is for all the bays except those which have problems and use them as experiments. Mansfield doesnt have a long enough history to really rely on one way or the other but if they are not improving and the others don't as well then leave it alone. Mother nature tends to run bays anyway.
> Thanks again for the find.


You convieniantly skip over the fact that twice as many fisherman catch 5 fish than previously did per outing in the lower laguna madre. If that number is correct, there are 2 times more people bringing home 5 fish now than before the change. I would say that is letting more anglers share the resource than before.


----------



## railbird

Bocephus said:


> mmmmmmm....had fresh trout filets for supper tonight !!!


What was the date on the bags you had to throw out to fit those 10-12 new bags in your freezer. If your previous statement was true, why didn't you put all the fresh stuff in the freezer and pull out that 1-2 YEAR OLD STUFF IN THE BACK AND EAT IT? Just sayin.


----------



## POCKID

Definitely a pencil trout specialist


----------



## Bocephus

railbird said:


> What was the date on the bags you had to throw out to fit those 10-12 new bags in your freezer. If your previous statement was true, why didn't you put all the fresh stuff in the freezer and pull out that 1-2 YEAR OLD STUFF IN THE BACK AND EAT IT? Just sayin.


We eat fish a couple of times a week at my house, there probably isn't any trout in my freezer over 2 months old.

What else ya got ?......

Tell ya what after they lower the limit to 5 trout a day, which we all know will happen. Why don't we then focus all our energy on a proposal to ban all shoreline burning in skinny boats....you know like RFL's. That continued harrassment of our fish can't be good for them.

How about it ?....lets join forces on that proposal.


----------



## glennkoks

Clint, you brought up a good point. They don't take surveys from the gulf and there is a mind boggling amount of trout out there.

However, if we move the limit to five and there is a devastating freeze (and there will be sooner or later) we will be starting at a two fish limit or a complete closure. Thats when it will start to really hurt.

Im 100% against changing the limit unless the biologists deem it necessary. However, I much prefer a bay to bay limit vs. a coastwide limit. That gives people options. If you only go fishing a couple of times a year and like eating fish go to a bay with a bigger limit. 

There will also be unintended consequences of such a regulation. Once a limit it reached many people will start targeting other species. A decrease in trout fishing pressure will probably amount to an increase in flounder, redfish and drum pressure. Which is another good reason not to change limits unless absolutely necessary.


----------



## railbird

Bocephus said:


> We eat fish a couple of times a week at my house, there probably isn't any trout in my freezer over 2 months old.
> 
> What else ya got ?......
> 
> Tell ya what after they lower the limit to 5 trout a day, which we all know will happen. Why don't we then focus all our energy on a proposal to ban all shoreline burning in skinny boats....you know like RFL's. That continued harrassment of our fish can't be good for them.
> 
> How about it ?....lets join forces on that proposal.


Actually, I think burning to locate fish is a very bad habit, shorelines or otherwise. I fish flats by making drifts for miles, outlawing burning would have 0 effect on me and my fishing buddies. I would say to your point about it being bad for fish to be harrassed by burning shorelines, would be far better than said fish ending up in your freezer.

As for your comment about eating fish 2 times/week, how many times a week do you fish 2-3? What makes it necessary for you to have 50 bags of filets when you say you can go out and catch 20 anytime you want.


----------



## railbird

glennkoks said:


> Clint, you brought up a good point. They don't take surveys from the gulf and there is a mind boggling amount of trout out there.
> 
> However, if we move the limit to five and there is a devastating freeze (and there will be sooner or later) we will be starting at a two fish limit or a complete closure. Thats when it will start to really hurt.
> 
> Im 100% against changing the limit unless the biologists deem it necessary. However, I much prefer a bay to bay limit vs. a coastwide limit. That gives people options. If you only go fishing a couple of times a year and like eating fish go to a bay with a bigger limit.
> 
> There will also be unintended consequences of such a regulation. Once a limit it reached many people will start targeting other species. A decrease in trout fishing pressure will probably amount to an increase in flounder, redfish and drum pressure. Which is another good reason not to change limits unless absolutely necessary.


I suspect clint and other upper coast guides would like management to be regional by the bay system, leaving the upper coast at 10 and mid and lower coast at 5. Wouldn't that bring all the meat haulers to galveston and trinity bays to hire guides instead of middle and lower coast. Now that I think about it, the upper coast guys should start lobbying as fast as they can to pass such a regulation.

Oh, but wait all that extra pressure on galveston by the meat haulers will deplete the population and require lower limits in a few years. I guess statewide is the only good solution for the long haul.


----------



## monkeyman1

I personally don't gave an opinion on lowering the limit. But if it must me done, needs to be done for all TX bays. Otherwise the guides will fish the 10 fish bays.


----------



## Bocephus

railbird said:


> Actually, I think burning to locate fish is a very bad habit, shorelines or otherwise. I fish flats by making drifts for miles, outlawing burning would have 0 effect on me and my fishing buddies. I would say to your point about it being bad for fish to be harrassed by burning shorelines, would be far better than said fish ending up in your freezer.
> 
> As for your comment about eating fish 2 times/week, how many times a week do you fish 2-3? What makes it necessary for you to have 50 bags of filets when you say you can go out and catch 20 anytime you want.


Well...let me explain it you you.

The picture I posted (just to get you riled up) was from a trip a few weeks back. There are 28 trout in that pile....the results of 4 fishermen. Let's see that divides out to an average of 7 trout per person. Greedy SOB's !!!!!!

Anyway, back to the freezer.....there are many times I go fishing and only catch 2, or 3 fish, and occasionally none. Sometimes if you looked in my freezer you might only find 3, or 4 bags of fish. But right now it's got a lot of fish because I've had a good fall. I haven't had my boat in the water in 2 weeks. So let's see....that's 140 trout I didn't slaughter. :biggrin:

I have tried to stir this thread up with you because of your ***ked up logic. Not every fisherman is catching 10 trout everytime they go fishing....myself included. But you can't seem to grasp that, so I'll give up trying to explain it.

If they drop the limit to 5, okay. I'll go and catch only 5 trout....will I be a greedy SOB for catching a full limit then ?.....LOL.

Your a trip Dude...and I'm done with this thread. Best wishes to you Railbird...

Bo


----------



## Worthy 2 Keep

Here's a relevant story just published Dec. 1 in the Houston Chronicle

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/outdoors/tompkins/7320245.html


----------



## TailHunter3

Good story... A couple of interesting facts...

1/3 of the fish taken from bays come from quided trips.

Only 4 % of the fishing public in the lower Laguna caught 5 or more trout. It more than doubled after the limit to 5 to 10%.

Some bays are definitely seeing declines. But, all bays see up and downs. A reduction to 5 per day shows to improve the health of the fishery and reduce the up and down cycle.

It sure seems like if you love the coast and are interested in improving it that moving to 5 for all bays systems is the right thing to do.



Worthy 2 Keep said:


> Here's a relevant story just published Dec. 1 in the Houston Chronicle
> 
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/outdoors/tompkins/7320245.html


----------



## glennkoks

Railbird your being a little dramatic don't you think? The 10 fish legal limit now is a "meat haul"?

If the data shows that the current limit has not depleted the resource now I don't think it will in the future. But then again this really is not about data is it? I don't think that anyone on here would have a problem with reducing the limit if there was a need. People tend to support regulation changes when they are needed but they tend to get less support when shortages are "created" or dreamed up.

Trout stocks are well within the 30 year average, let save crisis management for when its really needed and quit trying to create drama when there is none.


----------



## trouthammer

railbird said:


> You convieniantly skip over the fact that twice as many fisherman catch 5 fish than previously did per outing in the lower laguna madre. If that number is correct, there are 2 times more people bringing home 5 fish now than before the change. I would say that is letting more anglers share the resource than before.


OK so you are saying the creel studies taken at the dock are the gauge of whether we need change? They have never been better in most bays my friend. I get it that more people are catching 5 than before and it is not statistically insignificant and a good thing...since you fish down there you think maybe uplugging the jetty has any significance or was that wasted time and effort? There are lots of things that go into the decision and what you continually miss is I am not opposed to 5 if it is based on science but what I am opposed to is either you or me getting TPWD's ear and deciding for others.

Trout reductions ARE NOT a TPWD departmental recommendation and "lobby" groups for 5 have their ear and that ain't right. If I start a lobby group who says 100 is the right number how would you feel if we had their ear?....its the process I am not happy with.


----------



## trouthammer

TailHunter3 said:


> Good story... A couple of interesting facts...
> 
> 1/3 of the fish taken from bays come from quided trips.
> 
> Only 4 % of the fishing public in the lower Laguna caught 5 or more trout. It more than doubled after the limit to 5 to 10%.
> 
> Some bays are definitely seeing declines. But, all bays see up and downs. A reduction to 5 per day shows to improve the health of the fishery and reduce the up and down cycle.
> 
> It sure seems like if you love the coast and are interested in improving it that moving to 5 for all bays systems is the right thing to do.


If you look at the data on other species like red and black drum, which both saw limit reductions they are still up and down. We have an experiment working in mansfield which is somewhat clouded by the fact they opened up the plugged jetty and I was surprised the gill surveys are still the same. Makes me wonder about how useful they really are. They are certainly counter intuitive to how I find fish. Imagine sitting in the same spots on certain days for certain times no matter what.


----------



## Clint Sholmire

*What ever*



railbird said:


> Actually, I think burning to locate fish is a very bad habit, shorelines or otherwise. I fish flats by making drifts for miles, outlawing burning would have 0 effect on me and my fishing buddies. I would say to your point about it being bad for fish to be harrassed by burning shorelines, would be far better than said fish ending up in your freezer.
> 
> As for your comment about eating fish 2 times/week, how many times a week do you fish 2-3? What makes it necessary for you to have 50 bags of filets when you say you can go out and catch 20 anytime you want.


 Hey Hitler ( I mean Railbird) It seems to me that you are ok with something being changed as long as it doesn't pretain to you or your ways. Why is it that if someone has fish in the freezer that they are "GREEDY SOB'S " but you didn't think is was that way until your power went out and you lost all those redfish that you killed and waisted? Make up your mind! It would seem to me that you don't care about what other poeple want to do with their resourse as long as they see it your way! (Again sounds like Hitler). I would suggest that if you want anyone to take what you have to say serious then you might want to concern yourself with what others want also.I think in the past you have had some good things to say, but you lost me with that crappy hook statement. That was just stupid. SORRY All I can say is if we as a group want to see our state bay waters stay healthy then we all need to come together for the greater good and not for special intrest. I am a true lover of the sport and don't need to be told how I should handle my self according to you or anyone else that just has an opinion on how they would do it. Good luck and hope you can find some way of actually having some kind of fun!!


----------



## [email protected]

glennkoks - You raise a very valid point when you say fishery managers should take a wide enough view of the fishery to avoid the pitfall of basing new regulations on a few tough years. 

You have continually made reference to the 30-year average. I think it is very important to recognize that the fishery of the early 80s would hardly be a good benchmark as the net ban had just gone into effect and the 1983 freeze had a tremendous impact on the fishery. The fishery of the mid-late 90s would probably make a better benchmark. 

In SAB the 2007-2010 gill net CPUE average is running in the 0.7-0.8 range, same as 1982 and 1983. The mid-late 90s average was more like 1.4-1.5 which is nearly double. 

In Aransas Bay the 2007-2010 CPUE average is something like 0.6 whereas in the mid-late 90s it was running in the neighborhood of 1.1-1.2 fish per hour in the survey net. In 1982-83 it was approx 0.65 fish per hour.

I guess the question is - with respect to historic averages we have seen in the fishery - are we happy to have 1982-83 level populations of spotted seatrout in these bays for the future?

I'm sure you will remember when the nets were blamed for depleting the fisheries, rec anglers loved to say, "You can't hurt 'em with a rod and reel." To be fair, this was true for a while. But over time, participation in saltwater fishing grew at an amazing rate and effort since the early 80s has nearly doubled. Sadly, I believe we have hurt them with rod and reel. Even guided effort is now averaging fewer than half limits nowadays.

In closing I want to thank everybody for keeping this discussion as civil as it has been. Not easy when a bunch of trout fanatics discuss something as near and dear to their hearts as spotted seatrout and bag limits. Hats off to you gentlemen!


----------



## trouthammer

I agree you should throw out anamolies which skew the numbers but that cuts both ways....why cherry pick mid 90s?.
On the guided numbers are the creel surveys not saying we are still catching them at the same rate? Somewhere I remember someone using the explanation that we are better at catching them and that explains the catch rate per creel....can't have it both ways. Also two or three bays do not justify imposing limits on the rest. Maybe the answer is add those bays to mansfield and then look at the data and make decisions.


----------



## cruss

*aransas*

I have fish this bay since the late 60's and have spent countless hours fishing all over this bay system. I can remember the 80's and the freezes, red tides, droughts, too much runoff and oil spills. Ii have spent countless hours fishing at night wading various sloughs and shorelines during summer months and you wouldn't believe the fish we would catch back in the mid 90's through about 2005. The reason we fished at night was to beat the heat and the crowds. The last few years the night fishing for trout in aransas has been terrible. One summer we had massive amounts of rain and then came the worst drought in history. We use to see tons of shrimp in the water on the outgoing tides now not as much. I will say the day fishing for me has been great the last three months but I wade and know certain areas to target trout. As I am fishing and running the bay i see all the boats moving around and watching how people fish these areas there is no way they are going to catch anything. I am hoping as the rains we have had over the last year and the shrimp and bait improves so will the trout population. I don't think if you raised the limits to 20 it would make much difference for the rank amateurs their catches still would be the same. Whereas the guides and the people on boards like these who have put in the time and money can limit out frequently. I agree, that nature will take care the population of trout, the mass of people running around burning shorelines cutting through flats, idleling through fishing zones and all the other potlickers just makes catching more difficult. Sorry about the meandering of this post but just some thoughts.


----------



## [email protected]

trouthammer - I have been a proponent of regionalized regs for a long time. Put the dressing on the wound! 

As regards current angler success; never discount the run up in efficiency. With today's boats, electronics, tackle, and coastwide available of a variety of live baits nearly year round, we are better at gettin' 'er done than ever before.

Anomalies - I have sat through many hours of state-of-the-fishery presentation by TPWD Coastal Fisheries senior staff and literally hundreds of hours of discussion with Ecosystem Leaders. They do not view the fisheries of the mid-late 90s as an anomaly. They attribute the rise in population to the net ban more than anything. 2001-2006 saltwater fishing participation grew nearly 25% in Texas according to US Fish and Wildlife Service, American Sportfishing Association and TPWD. I do not believe it would be a stretch to say rod and reel anglers in Texas now take as many seatrout as the nets did back in the day.


----------



## glennkoks

[email protected], If you wan't to objectively look at the data throw out the two worst years and the two best years and you will get a better idea of the true "average". It is very close to the .70-.80 range. Statewide the trout fishery is in good shape with a few "trouble spots".

Im not saying that you cant hurt them with rod and reel. Im just saying that with the numbers I am seeing from TPWD's surveys indicate there is no need for any knee jerk reactions and any downturns are well within the historic range. And as Clint pointed out they don't even survey the gulf.

What is the point of spending thousands of dollars of our tax dollars making spring and fall gill net samplings if we are going to ignore the data and manage our fishery by public opinion and political interest?

First it was the commercial fisherman and their nets destroying the industry. Then it was that horrible bycatch from the shrimpers and their trawls of death. Now it's those nasty guides catching all of my fish. Well in Texas the commercial fisherman is "extinct" the shrimper is a "vanishing animal" and the fishing guide is about to be put on the "endangered list". Trout they are doing fine.


----------



## glennkoks

cruss, you make excellent points as well. It seems that the majority of the old timers that have been around a while understand the natural variation involved with any fishery. It's the young guys buying their first 60,000 dollar El Pescador with a 200 hp Merc complete with the 300 dollar custom rod and and reel and latest electronic fish finder that could not catch a fish in a bathtub that whine the most about a lack of fish.


----------



## [email protected]

Glennkoks - I do not believe discarding the worst and best values in any set of data would constitute sound statistical analysis. The data is what it is. 

I have never advocated knee-jerk reactions. TPWD does not seem to be reacting to a fisheries management situation in knee-jerk fashion. They have been proceeding very carefully in my opinion. But we're all entitled to an opinion.

TPWD does not survey the Gulf of Mexico, you might want to take that up with them. Indeed there are times when the trout are thick in the surf and there are times when you cannot seem to find even one. Just a guess on my part; expanding population survey efforts to the Gulf would likely provide a data set that would not prove much more than is already known. You might want to clarify that with long-term surf anglers. Billy Sandifer might be a good source of reference.

The reason commercial fishing for spotted seatrout was eliminated in Texas was to maximize the socio-economic benefit that could be derived from the resource with the long term goal of future sustainability. That is the charge levied upon TPWD by the legislature. Recreational fishing provides greater socio-economic benefit, or at least that's what our legislature believes.

Reducing shrimping effort through buy-back seems to have worked out well for all parties. Besides, the cost of catching wild shrimp and the collapse of the price due to farm-raised and imported product seems to have rendered that whole discussion moot at best. TPWD says shrimping effort, Gulf and bay, even among current licensees, is but a fraction of what it used to be. That shrimping as a livelihood is vanishing should be no mystery.

You believe the trout are doing just fine, the data says they could be doing better. If this were not so I doubt TPWD would be scheduling scoping sessions. My interest in this matter arises solely from the desire to see better trout fishing in mid-coast bays and a management plan that will allow my grandchildren to enjoy what I have been blessed to enjoy, the kind we had 10-15 years ago, and I am not alone in this.


----------



## ankledeep

Been fishing POC for the last 20 years as a week end warrior. 1st 15 years were wonderful. Last 5 years have been pretty tough. The fishing pressure over the last 10 years in POC has exploded. God help us if the Sanctuary subdivision ever takes off. Something has to give.


----------



## glennkoks

[email protected] wrote: Glennkoks - I do not believe discarding the worst and best values in any set of data would constitute sound statistical analysis. The data is what it is. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the data says we are right smack dead in the middle of our historical range (if you don't cherry pick the data). Yes trout fishing could be better but it could and has been alot worse.

And your children and grandchildren will have good years for catching trout and bad years. Just like it was for your grandfather his son and you. Like farming it is and always will be cyclical. But at this rate your offspring will not be able to legally eat a trout because at the current pace it will be catch and release only in a few years.


----------



## railbird

Clint Sholmire said:


> Hey Hitler ( I mean Railbird) It seems to me that you are ok with something being changed as long as it doesn't pretain to you or your ways. Why is it that if someone has fish in the freezer that they are "GREEDY SOB'S " but you didn't think is was that way until your power went out and you lost all those redfish that you killed and waisted? Make up your mind! It would seem to me that you don't care about what other poeple want to do with their resourse as long as they see it your way! (Again sounds like Hitler). I would suggest that if you want anyone to take what you have to say serious then you might want to concern yourself with what others want also.I think in the past you have had some good things to say, but you lost me with that crappy hook statement. That was just stupid. SORRY All I can say is if we as a group want to see our state bay waters stay healthy then we all need to come together for the greater good and not for special intrest. I am a true lover of the sport and don't need to be told how I should handle my self according to you or anyone else that just has an opinion on how they would do it. Good luck and hope you can find some way of actually having some kind of fun!!


Oh great capt. clint, Its tough when someone is willing to dissagree with your opinion i guess...lol... Oh, and by the way, I am having fun poking holes in all the keep 10 arguments.

Are you (being a galveston bay fishing guide) honestly trying to say you would not benefit from a central/lower coast downward change in limits to 5, while yours remains at 10? I would say your regional argument is as selfish as any I've heard. As for my statement about hooks, I will choose which hooks i use based on my goals on a given day. As for you I doubt I or anyone on this board sleeps better knowing you approve of my fishing methods. But if I had neighbors who fished all the time, I would much rather they follow my advice than yours on the subject of conservation when it comes to fishing.

Call me hitler for daring to disagree with you, if name calling is all you have, try to come up with something a bit more in line with the discussion. If I stepped on your toes with some of my statments, well good, because i am hoping to make others think about their actions, you and the others blindly arguing for status quo will never learn. Unfortunately some will learn too late.


----------



## glennkoks

Lets look at the legal limits in a few other states:
LA 25 with a 12" limit
Miss. 15 with a 14" limit
Ala. 10 with a 14" limit
GA 15 with a 15" inch limit
S.C. 10 with a 14" limit
Virginia 10 with a 14" limit
FL 6 or 7 depending on region
N.C. 7

A five fish limit is out of line with reality and will probably start to hurt the coastal economy.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote glennkoks: But at this rate your offspring will not be able to legally eat a trout because at the current pace it will be catch and release only in a few years. 

Well glenn, I certainly hope not. You might want to google Florida's spotted seatrout regs, though. Their management plan includes no-keep seasons, tight slots, and very restrtive bag limits compares Texas. I believe that if we manage our fisheries in conservative fashion we can stave off the need for such measures in our waters.

It is obvious to me that you come from a fishing background and have a strong passion for our spotted seatrout resoource. I respect that - I really do. I was a guide here at Seadrift from 1999 until 2009 running an average of about 100 days per year. I witnessed many changes in our fishery during that time. It is my sincere belief that the management plan for mid-coast bays needs some tweaking. One good freeze of the magnitude of 1983 will put lots of folks in this community out of business and will reduce the local economy for a long time. I began asking my clients to keep only five trout in 2005. My daily goal for them was to catch two limits and take a few home if they wanted fish. I would often encourage that we try to catch some redfish if they wanted more. That plan never hurt my business.


----------



## [email protected]

Here's the Florida regs cut and pasted from FWC website:

Species Size Season Bag limit Remarks
Spotted Seatrout  ​T ​Not less than 15" or more than 20" (statewide) except one fish over 20" per person​​Nov. & Dec.​S. Region Feb. N.E. and N.W. Regions (see regional definitions below) ​4 per harvester per day​South Region 5 per harvester per day N.E. and N.W. Regions ​May possess no more than 1 over 20"; included in the regional bag limit. See regional definitions below.​​
Note: The daily bag is 4 and 5 fish depending region.
The slot size is 15-20 inches. Only one per day over 20 inches.
Closed season (no-keep) varies by month by region.


----------



## TailHunter3

My expectation for TPW is to understand that Texas is a world leader and should be in front of the management of coastal resources. Texas sets the standard and doesn't follow the other states.

A fish is worth so much more in the water than in a freezer.



glennkoks said:


> Lets look at the legal limits in a few other states:
> LA 25 with a 12" limit
> Miss. 15 with a 14" limit
> Ala. 10 with a 14" limit
> GA 15 with a 15" inch limit
> S.C. 10 with a 14" limit
> Virginia 10 with a 14" limit
> FL 6 or 7 depending on region
> N.C. 7
> 
> A five fish limit is out of line with reality and will probably start to hurt the coastal economy.


----------



## TailHunter3

EJ- Thanks for your responses and all of your effort on this issue. Your last few posts on this topic were professional and shows you have done your homework. And, thanks for attending those meetings for those of us inland who can't make it. I attended some of the scoping meetings years ago when TPW was first exploring the issue. For those that are using the term "knee-jerk" reaction, they haven't been following the issue over the last several years to know that much discussion has occurred. Please represent me and the others to let TPW know that there is much support to improve coastal resources here in Texas.


----------



## BAMF32

TailHunter3 said:


> Good story... A couple of interesting facts...
> 
> 1/3 of the fish taken from bays come from quided trips.
> 
> Only 4 % of the fishing public in the lower Laguna caught 5 or more trout. It more than doubled after the limit to 5 to 10%.
> 
> Some bays are definitely seeing declines. But, all bays see up and downs. A reduction to 5 per day shows to improve the health of the fishery and reduce the up and down cycle.
> 
> It sure seems like if you love the coast and are interested in improving it that moving to 5 for all bays systems is the right thing to do.


My point EXACTLY. Well said.


----------



## BAMF32

glennkoks said:


> [email protected] wrote: Glennkoks - I do not believe discarding the worst and best values in any set of data would constitute sound statistical analysis. The data is what it is.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> And the data says we are right smack dead in the middle of our historical range (if you don't cherry pick the data). Yes trout fishing could be better but it could and has been alot worse.
> 
> And your children and grandchildren will have good years for catching trout and bad years. Just like it was for your grandfather his son and you. Like farming it is and always will be cyclical. But at this rate your offspring will not be able to legally eat a trout because at the current pace it will be catch and release only in a few years.


My grandfather did not have the following:
60 mph boats
60 gal gas tanks
corkies and assassins
Lots and Lots of Croakers for bait
$300 fishing rods
$500 reels
Internet
A trout tournament out of the harbor EVERY weekend
Lights
Generators
Fishing DVD's for sale on how to target the speck (I ordered mine today)
best guides in the history of fishing

No doubt these things have made it easier to catch fish not to mention the incredible fishing pressure there is on the resource now because everyone seems to have a boat these days.


----------



## boom!

BAMF32 said:


> My grandfather did not have the following:
> 60 mph boats
> 60 gal gas tanks
> corkies and assassins
> Lots and Lots of Croakers for bait
> $300 fishing rods
> $500 reels
> Internet
> A trout tournament out of the harbor EVERY weekend
> Lights
> Generators
> Fishing DVD's for sale on how to target the speck (I ordered mine today)
> best guides in the history of fishing
> 
> No doubt these things have made it easier to catch fish not to mention the incredible fishing pressure there is on the resource now because everyone seems to have a boat these days.


He did have gill/sein nets and no limits though. Quite a few more shrimp boats as well.


----------



## glennkoks

[email protected], Florida sounds conservative compared to us except for the tons of spotted seatrout harvested yearly by commercial fishermen. In fact every other state with the exception of Alabama still commercially harvests trout. That makes the Texas regulations far and away the most conservative.

BAMF32, Your grandfather may have the following:... But he did have the ability to set miles of gill net or drag seine and was unlimited in what he could keep. Our fathers had the legal ability to do infinitely more damage to the resource than what we do. And they did. Rod and reelers although more in number can't do nearly the damage.


----------



## [email protected]

Quote: glennkoks - _"Florida sounds conservative compared to us except for the tons of spotted seatrout harvested yearly by commercial fishermen."_

Well I have been researching commercial regs and landings for spotted seatrout in Florida. I have located the current regs on the FWC site that specify commercial harvest three months of the year by cast net and rod and reel only, no entangling nets, seines or trawls. Landings have been a bit harder to find. The closest I can come to modern era data is a comparison shown in a report published by the University of Florida that compares commercial landings before and after the net ban in 1995.

Average annual landings for 1992-94 are described as 859,000 pounds with a dockside value of $1,047,000. The same data for 1996-98 is given as 80,000 pounds with dockside value of $146,000. Commercial landings decreased 91% following the net ban and is cited as the chief reason spotted seatrout have rebounded along the portions of the Florida coast that hold favorable spawning habitat.

Sound familiar?

I will make some phone calls tomorrow. Maybe I can obtain more recent data.

As regards socio-economic benefit that can be derived from a fishery, even if you used the average annual dockside value of 1992-94 prior to the net ban, I would hazard a guess that rec anglers here in Texas spend that much between POC and Rockport on any busy summer weekend.


----------



## [email protected]

glennkoks - I did some more digging and here is what I found on the FWC website for commercial landings of spotted seatrout in 2010 - preliminary report.

Total pounds landed - 48
Trips - 3
Price/lb - $2.14
Dockside value - $102

If this is indeed the actual landings for 2010 I would conclude that the commercial effort for spotted seatrout in Florida, even though still legal, just doesn't amount to much. Source: http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=19224


----------



## glennkoks

[email protected], Im seeing a pattern here of only using part of the data. In 2009 commercial landings for spotted seatrout in Florida were 61,923 with a value of 130,118 dollars. 

As you mentioned 2010 is preliminary. Clearly the reports are not in. 

Thats not counting the hundreds of thousands of pounds harvested commercially from other states. Which makes Texas by far and away the state with the most restrictive regulations concerning sea trout.

We have beat this subject to death. I will have my say at the meetings and you will have yours. Im simply going to stress the lack evidence to support regulation changes. The data indicates fish stocks are "in good shape" and their is no biological support for changing the current regulations.

Its been a good debate even if I don't agree with your stance.


----------



## TailHunter3

All this data is great, but old fashioned common sense supports lowering the trout limit.

It is against the grain for man to tread lightly but that is what we must do.

Let the other states have more liberal limits and allow for Commercial harvest. If Texas tightens its belt, it will continue to dominate and have a world class coastal fishery. The positive economic results will follow! People from all over will continue to come to Texas waters to catch world class speckled trout, redfish and flounder. It will surely grow the economies in coastal communities here in Texas and others in the business. Future growth will have nothing to do with number of bags of fillets.


----------



## gater

*No problem*



railbird said:


> I suspect clint and other upper coast guides would like management to be regional by the bay system, leaving the upper coast at 10 and mid and lower coast at 5. Wouldn't that bring all the meat haulers to galveston and trinity bays to hire guides instead of middle and lower coast. Now that I think about it, the upper coast guys should start lobbying as fast as they can to pass such a regulation.
> 
> Oh, but wait all that extra pressure on galveston by the meat haulers will deplete the population and require lower limits in a few years. I guess statewide is the only good solution for the long haul.


The lower coast croaker guides would love a five limit. Then they could run four trips a day instead of two.

Gater


----------



## gater

*New proposals*

Lets do it like this:

1. Increase the guides license to $2500.00 per year

2. Put a minimum size limit on croaker of 10 inches

3. have a slot from 14-20 inches with two allowed over 25 inches

4. The best idea of them all is to disregard 1-3 and keep it at ten

Regional management is an option, we don't have a problem on the upper coast because our guides don't rape the resource, and we have have plenty of freshwater and saltwater inflow and a big estuary.

It's too early to tell how much an effect the 5 fish limit has had in the LLM, it will take a few more years to tell if it has done any good.

Gater


----------



## roundman

*TPWD** wants input about conservation measures **http://galvestondailynews.com/story/202258* *By Amanda Casanova*
*The Daily NewsPublished January 3, 2011DICKINSON - The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department will seek public input about conserving spotted seatrout in a series of meetings this month.*

*Catch rates of spotted seatrout, which are a popular inshore catch, have slipped around 50 percent along parts of the coastline.*

*"Recent concerns over declines in catches, particularly in the mid-coast bays, have led some anglers to question whether current management strategies are sufficient," said Art Morris, fishery outreach specialist for the department. *

*Solutions could include reducing the bag limit to five, increasing the minimum size limit or setting times to fish for trout.*

*"Spotted seatrout are the No. 1 fish landed in Texas inshore waters," Morris said. "As a result, spotted seatrout are a high-profile species that garner a lot of attention from anglers."*

*In Galveston Bay, the spotted seatrout population is slightly below the long-term average, he said. However, in 2007 the fish population reached a record high.*

*There will be seven public comment meetings in Texas this month.*

*+++*

*On The Web*

*WHAT: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department spotted seatrout public meeting*

*WHEN: 7 p.m. Wednesday*

*WHERE: Dickinson Marine Lab, 1502 Pine Drive*

*DETAILS: Residents can submit comments to Art Morris at 361-825-3356 or art.morris(at)tpwd.state.tx.us. ,,, """ imo, this wording makes me think they will go with 5 a day, leave the size limits and drop the idea of setting times to fish for trout, ?*


----------



## mustfish

I'm sure this has already been said but...Not everyone is catching their limit! I have fished hard since I retired in April 2010 and have caught "Maybe" three limits of Specks. And have never had my passenger(boat) limit. Been skunked many times. Some got it....Some don't!! The bag limit of 5 trout is fine with me. I'd be lucky to catch that many!!


----------



## Cool Hand

I'm all for the five trout limit.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters

make croaker a gamefish

pick a peak spawning month and close the whole coast


----------



## capt. david

make croaker a gamefish! it is a bait that is effective 3 months out of a year. peak spawning months, trout spawn april- august. lmao


----------



## Gilbert

retards


----------



## flounderdaddy

This whole thing is SAD! Anyone that is on the water a lot realizes that there is not a shortage of trout or redfish. We are fixing to get screwed by a few people that have an agenda. Tired of keep 5 thing. If that is what people want to do then do it. Leave the limit alone. Make croaker a gamefish and then move on.


----------



## capt. david

croaker as a gamefish is not on the genda or the PROBLEM! in fact i know more trout are taken on soft plastics througout the year than live croaker! give the croaker issue a rest.


----------



## flounderdaddy

More larger fish are taken on croaker than plastic.


----------



## capt. david

flounder you know that for a fact? lmao not true!


----------



## Big Fish

If you look at the bays that have the biggest issue (Aransas ans San Antonio) it doess not take the head cashier at Walmart to figure out the problem. It is all of the potlicking croaker soaking guides out of Rockport and Seadrift. Go to Conn Brown, Cove Harbor, the county boat ramp in Seadrift or Charlies on a Friday or Saturday in May, June, July etc... You will see one guide boat after another leaving the dock loaded with croaker.


----------



## CoastalOutfitters

capt. david said:


> make croaker a gamefish! it is a bait that is effective 3 months out of a year. peak spawning months, trout spawn april- august. lmao


I made my point so as to keep the limit at 10, i could care less if you soak bait or need to, to earn a living, there are other issues with croakers beside this limit debate.

It makes perfect sense to let the fish spawn a whole month , the folks with the fisheries degrees can pick which one, again like I said to keep the limit at 10 .


----------



## TailHunter3

I wonder if there are so many more fish in Galveston because of all the news reports on the fish are poluted and people quit either keeping them or catching them? I think all of those Houstonians quit fishing in Galveston and started fishing in San Antonio Bay??? And, the ones who still eat them are not only catching so many because no one else is fishing there that they are also feeling the affects of eating so much polution that a side affect is to come on here to state that the limit should stay 10 without any science that 10 is the right number?


----------



## capt. david

coastal i agree with you about keeping the limit at ten. don't know what your issues are with croaks? i am strongly against any close season for any fish! david tailhunter what? with that post you are eating something other than fish!!!!!!! that is the most absurd post out of all on this thread! congrats.


----------



## flounderdaddy

I can promise you that during the croaker season that there are more big trout caught with croaker than on plastic. NOT even close.


----------



## capt. david

flounder I KNOW what gets caught on croaks in galveston bay! don't know where you fish. i also know people that throw arties all year and do just as well as those with croaks. big trout is not the issue. only keep 1 over 25inches anyway. your name flounderdaddy has me thinking you fish for them. do you use finger mullet to catch them?


----------



## TailHunter3

Captain David-

After reading all the other posts, I wanted something more retarded or "absurd" than all of the other ones (like the croaker responses). So, I was totally going for most retarded/most absurd award. Sounds like I succeeded?

Anyway, I think there is strong sentiment in the Galveston area to leave it at 10. I think we have some strong support in the mid-coast region (where I fish) to reduce to 5.

So, I have to switch positions and move to supporting a regional approach. We already have a regional bag limit of 5 down South. We should just move the line further North and include East Matty to Mexico. Galveston and Sabine stay at 10.

Besides, I think there is a higher level of education of the average fisherman fishing the mid coast than Galveston hence the difference in opinions. ooops! There I go again. I am totally kidding... Sorry, not in the mood for all the seriousness this topic brings.



capt. david said:


> coastal i agree with you about keeping the limit at ten. don't know what your issues are with croaks? i am strongly against any close season for any fish! david tailhunter what? with that post you are eating something other than fish!!!!!!! that is the most absurd post out of all on this thread! congrats.


----------



## TailHunter3

On an annual basis, nothing beats the effectiveness of plastic on big trout. The debate of banning croaker as a bait is old, tired and a losing one.



flounderdaddy said:


> I can promise you that during the croaker season that there are more big trout caught with croaker than on plastic. NOT even close.


----------



## capt. david

tail if you have read all my post related to this i am all for regionalization for the bays that warrant the need! imo lowering the limit is not a fix too the problem for the bays having declining trout populations. it is just a band-aid effect. passes being opened from the gulf to those bays and also the needed influx of freshwater needs to be addressed. david


----------



## sweenyite

It ain't broke, don't fix it. Just keep ten.


----------



## sweenyite

Every time they try to "fix" something, everyone ends up miserable.


----------



## Jeepmanmike

Isn't the whole point of fishing to actually catch fish, anything that increases the number of times I hook up the better, 5 fish is plenty.


----------



## TailHunter3

How about we change it to 5 for a set number of years, say 5 years, and then compare the data "before and after" to determine if it did anything?

What is the worst that could happen?


----------



## 1sicpup

TailHunter3 said:


> How about we change it to 5 for a set number of years, say 5 years, and then compare the data "before and after" to determine if it did anything?
> 
> What is the worst that could happen?


This would'nt be bad except we know we will never raise limits again.
Redfish limits are proof of this.


----------



## tran cat daddio

Protect the resource!!!! 5 fish 15-18" makes for a perfect fish fry!!!


----------



## RonnieS

TPWD has done a great job of managing the rescources of Texas. 
More deer than ever.
Better fishing than ever.
Excellent waterfowl numbers.
I trust them better than anyone here.


Save the whales/polar bears/seals/ ,kittens-------You can't fix stupid !

Leave it alone and let TPWD decide.


----------



## big john o

Gilbert said:


> retards


I think Gilbert said it best......


----------



## trouthammer

TailHunter3 said:


> How about we change it to 5 for a set number of years, say 5 years, and then compare the data "before and after" to determine if it did anything?
> 
> What is the worst that could happen?


They have those numbers for mansfield and there has been NO increase based on the studies. They have seen a one inch increase in the size of the average trout caught but TPWD attributes that to culling since you can only keep 5.
Also once it is cut to 5 I will give 100 to one odds we never get back to ten regardless of population numbers.


----------

