# New TPWD Regs



## TOOEXTREME (Jun 23, 2004)

Fellow anglers please take a few minutes to fill out the survey at the following link: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/public_comment/proposals/201403_fishing.phtml

If you trout fish or gig flounder, this will impact you. TPWD is proposing: Trout (5 per day limit, 5 in Possession) This changes from (10 Limit 20 in Possession) For non angler friends, this means if you fish at the coast Saturday and Sunday, you can only have 5 Trout in possession per licensed individual. It almost makes it not worth going. I am willing to bet mom and pop bait stands are going to take a hit.

50% reduction in limit seems unreasonable unless there is some crisis I am not aware of

Perhaps lower the limit to 8 per day 16 in possession. There has to be a reasonable middle ground.

Flounder: No gigging extended two weeks into December


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

Conservation Crossfire/Fisheries Issues Section has plenty of threads on this, most were all started here and moved which is what will probably happen to this one. The debate is over on different options, the commission will vote yes or no on the options on the table only.


----------



## Gerald S (Jul 2, 2009)

TOOEXTREME said:


> For non angler friends, this means if you fish at the coast Saturday and Sunday, you can only have 5 Trout in possession per licensed individual. It almost makes it not worth going....


There is so much more to fishing than keeping. If you add up what you spend to fish, it makes zero cents to go fishing if your only reward is what you were able to keep.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

Just to clarify.. the 5 trout limit is only proposed for the middle/lower coast. Everything south of Sargent.


----------



## Redfish Rick (Aug 27, 2004)

*meeting times set*

The next round of public hearings on these issues are set:

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/newsmedia/releases/?req=20140219b

All meetings at 7PM


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

Im Headed South said:


> Conservation Crossfire/Fisheries Issues Section has plenty of threads on this, most were all started here and moved which is what will probably happen to this one. The debate is over on different options, the commission will vote yes or no on the options on the table only.


that link that the OP posted is a forum asking for public opinion that started on feb 21 and is closed on march 26.


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

Meetings are madantory paper trails...the ''proposal is a done deal already'', You might as well except the fact''THIS WILL TAKE PLACE''. my $.02


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

Yeah, another round of meetings discussing the same issues seems redundant to me.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

I don't doubt that for a second V Bottom... but at least I'll go on the record, for whatever it's worth. 

I don't understand what the point of killing the possession limit is.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

There is a 5-year "sunset provision" attached to the trout regs...

I wonder, what are the terms of that provision?


----------



## BullyARed (Jun 19, 2010)

Soon, there will be half fish a day limit!


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

jampen said:


> There is a 5-year "sunset provision" attached to the trout regs...
> 
> I wonder, what are the terms of that provision?


it means that you can just look into the sunset anytime you want to think about keeping fish...

because after all this "just keep 5" movement is done with... there will be people screaming for just keep 2... and then we'll have seasons just like amberjack and snapper.


----------



## nagel67 (Oct 28, 2012)

Has anyone fished East matagorda lately? Where there used to be plenty of fish there are very few now. Most of it is over fishing. For example Back before 2010 we would almost limit everytrip but lately its a all day grind feast just to catch 5. Another question is when do you ever limit out if you arent under birds? I think this will only affect guides and the only thing it will affect them is that they will move up to galveston bay and leave east matagorda alone hopefully.



TOOEXTREME said:


> Fellow anglers please take a few minutes to fill out the survey at the following link: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/business/feedback/public_comment/proposals/201403_fishing.phtml
> 
> If you trout fish or gig flounder, this will impact you. TPWD is proposing: Trout (5 per day limit, 5 in Possession) This changes from (10 Limit 20 in Possession) For non angler friends, this means if you fish at the coast Saturday and Sunday, you can only have 5 Trout in possession per licensed individual. It almost makes it not worth going. I am willing to bet mom and pop bait stands are going to take a hit.
> 
> ...


----------



## TOOEXTREME (Jun 23, 2004)

*Trout limits*


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

The new trout proposal limit cut is from Sargent down to the Land Cut, if I read it correctly. Looks like trout need a break from the perception, that the coast is a seafood market.


----------



## TOOEXTREME (Jun 23, 2004)

Trouthappy said:


> The new trout proposal limit cut is from Sargent down to the Land Cut, if I read it correctly. Looks like trout need a break from the perception, that the coast is a seafood market.


Maybe they need to stop all the tournaments on Baffin, it seems that every weekend they are pounding Baffin. I am sorry I posted the thread here it should have been some other forum on this site.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

I just wish people would learn to catch fish so they'd realize there's nothing wrong with the trout population. 

I guess the trout could always end up like the drum in Baffin last year... Starving to death from lack of food due to their over population. But at least... People can only keep 5.


----------



## KeithR (Jan 30, 2006)

nagel67 said:


> Has anyone fished East matagorda lately? Where there used to be plenty of fish there are very few now. Most of it is over fishing. For example Back before 2010 we would almost limit everytrip but lately its a all day grind feast just to catch 5. Another question is when do you ever limit out if you arent under birds? I think this will only affect guides and the only thing it will affect them is that they will move up to galveston bay and leave east matagorda alone hopefully.


Yea, me and partner limited two days last weekend in east matagorda. Plenty of fish if you know how to catch.


----------



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

KeithR said:


> Yea, me and partner limited two days last weekend in east matagorda. Plenty of fish if you know how to catch.


X2


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

KeithR said:


> Yea, me and partner limited two days last weekend in east matagorda. Plenty of fish if you know how to catch.


x3


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Personally, I think I have been to the last of the "scoping" meetings that I am ever going to go to. The imput from fisherman is just a charade and the powers that be have made up their minds before they ever happen. 

Were are now one fish freeze away from a two trout limit or less.


----------



## Tetonguy (Jun 23, 2013)

My 2 cents: I'm fine with the proposed 10 trout filets per man limit; if I need more than that, I'll go to HEB.

I would like to see two changes though. (1) Do it now, don't wait till September. (2) Increase the min. trout length to 18 inches. That way, the 10 filets will be more substantial, but more importantly, we're likely to get two, not one, Spring spawning cycle out of those 15 - 17 inch fish that end up in grease today.

I'm happy for those folks who indicate they "know how to fish" and their easy limits are indicative of a plentiful trout fishery. But even you might give some thought to the scary projected population growth of the State over the next 10 - 15 years. There is no reason to believe the proportion of those new folks that are going to want to fish, will be any different than the portion of today's population that fish the coast. In other words, if you think the bays are crowded now ......... IMHO, we'd be smart to take steps now to make the fishery even better and get ahead of the curve.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

TOOEXTREME said:


> It almost makes it not worth going.


If the # of fish you can kill is one of your primary objectives, you might want to step back and re-evaluate why you are even out there in the first place...Jus Sayin


----------



## SeaY'all (Jul 14, 2011)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> If the # of fish you can kill is one of your primary objectives, you might want to step back and re-evaluate why you are even out there in the first place...Jus Sayin


Fishing shouldnt be about catching a limit. We catch enough to eat and have a good time.

5 trout per man is perfectly fine.


----------



## pickn'fish (Jun 1, 2004)

SeaY'all said:


> Fishing shouldnt be about catching a limit. We catch enough to eat and have a good time.
> 
> 5 trout per man is perfectly fine.


 "Don't measure your pleasure in pounds and inches," Bob Stephenson Jr.


----------



## Bosshawg (Jun 1, 2012)

*New regs*

All for it. The new regs wont do anything but help. If everyone is out there for the sport of it and only keeps the few fish for a meal like everyone on here preaches they do, noone should be affected. Keep your tip up!!


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

Yep....every single person that is out there fishing today will catch a limit of 10 trout. That happens every single day of the year. Every day....10 trout caught by every person that fishes.

Yeah right....as I've said before there are a LOT of people that couldn't catch 10 trout if you put a gun to their head....and they may never !

I sure as hell don't catch 10 trout every time I go...LMAO !


----------



## wellconnected (May 30, 2005)

I am sure I will take a lot of heat for this and I know it has been said many, many times. I truly think that if there is an issue, it does not fall on the fault of the recreational angler. I have fished from shamrock cove to the landcut for the last 35 years. There have been many changes during this time period but more in line of "shifts". I do not believe we catch any less fish than we did in the 80's. Quality has gone down some but not much. Maybe my areas have not had the impact of some. Personally I do not care if they bring the limit down to 5 or not. I do not fish for the meat. 

Now for the bad. If there is an issue, I truly believe it is due to the overall increasing number of fishing guides. I know many guides during peak fishing times during the summer running 2-3 trips per day all with limits of 40-50 trout per trip. Something is seriously wrong with this picture. Can you limit the time a professional works, probably not. So how do you fix the the problem?

Now for the worst part. I fish with whatever bait works for the time period including lures, shrimp, mullet, and croaker. I especially love fishing with both lures and croaker I am lazy what can I say..lol). Back in the day we caught our trout with lures during the morning and redfish in the afternoon with live shrimp that we pushed up by hand in front of our cabin. The use of croaker just makes it too easy for the guides to catch limits and run 2-3 trips a day. I truly believe that a larger number of guides could not put their clients on fish without the use of croaker. 

So my answer.....I will with much reluctance say to make croaker a game fish. As much as I have enjoyed using them, overall I would just need to work a little harder than I did before (and everyone else). I think this would be a win - win for the entire recreational fishing industry. One single thing that could fix many, many issues.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

You guys that think croakier are some kind of trout attractant tickle me. Did it ever occur to you that no matter how effective they are as a bait you have to know where to "serve" them up? Go pick a random spot and throw crackers at it and see if the fish just show up.


----------



## POCLANCE (Apr 5, 2006)

*Trout limit*

I understand this for people that fish everyday, but what about the people that only fish 6 times a year. Why not treat it like deer hunting. Total bagged/caught for the year? Add trout tags to the fishing license. Everyone is allowed to catch only so many per year. Each tag could be in 5 trout increments.


----------



## wellconnected (May 30, 2005)

trouthammer said:


> You guys that think croakier are some kind of trout attractant tickle me. Did it ever occur to you that no matter how effective they are as a bait you have to know where to "serve" them up? Go pick a random spot and throw crackers at it and see if the fish just show up.


During the summer months you can pretty much chunk a croaker in any sand pocket from pure oil to the boat hole and catch trout. Trust me guides know how to "serve" them up and their spots are not "random". 10% of the fisherman catch 90% of the fish. The TPWD are too busy trying to worry about the 90% of fisherman who do not catch much.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

wellconnected said:


> During the summer months you can pretty much chunk a croaker in any sand pocket from pure oil to the boat hole and catch trout. Trust me guides know how to "serve" them up and their spots are not "random". 10% of the fisherman catch 90% of the fish. The TPWD are too busy trying to worry about the 90% of fisherman who do not catch much.


That is where you would throw an artificial as well...and well said on the 10%/90% but isn't that where our society is headed? Punish the successful so the not so successful have it better. Never thought our state hunting/fishing resource conservation authority would get infected though....


----------



## wellconnected (May 30, 2005)

trouthammer said:


> That is where you would throw an artificial as well...and well said on the 10%/90% but isn't that where our society is headed? Punish the successful so the not so successful have it better. Never thought our state hunting/fishing resource conservation authority would get infected though....


Unfortunately artificial lures will not produce the same results as croaker/live bait during the hot summer months in most cases. If you eliminated croaker and kept the limit the same, I do not believe the "true" 10% (for the most part) will be penalized. Overall trout numbers and quality I believe will come up. A nice bi-product of making croaker a game fish would be seeing them grow to a mature size and have a "run" once again. On another side note, it is a shame to see up to 50 percent of them die in the live well when they are weak and have not been properly transported after capture.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

Blah,blah and blah. Here we go again. Croaks are not on the agenda! Stick to the matters at hand.


----------



## wellconnected (May 30, 2005)

capt. david said:


> Blah,blah and blah. Here we go again. Croaks are not on the agenda! Stick to the matters at hand.


Actually making an intelligent decision IS on the agenda! People should look at ALL the circumstances leading to the issue and decide whether bringing the trout limit to 5 is the answer!


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

wellconnected said:


> Unfortunately artificial lures will not produce the same results as croaker/live bait during the hot summer months in most cases. If you eliminated croaker and kept the limit the same, I do not believe the "true" 10% (for the most part) will be penalized. Overall trout numbers and quality I believe will come up. A nice bi-product of making croaker a game fish would be seeing them grow to a mature size and have a "run" once again. On another side note, it is a shame to see up to 50 percent of them die in the live well when they are weak and have not been properly transported after capture.[/QUOTEwhat is your profession?


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

capt. david said:


> Blah,blah and blah. Here we go again. Croaks are not on the agenda! Stick to the matters at hand.


Exactly. Limits and the growing number of people on the water are the problem.

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


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

trouthammer said:


> That is where you would throw an artificial as well...and well said on the 10%/90% but isn't that where our society is headed? Punish the successful so the not so successful have it better. Never thought our state hunting/fishing resource conservation authority would get infected though....


It's not about punishing the successful, it's about controlling the wasteful and greedy.


----------



## wellconnected (May 30, 2005)

The Last Mango said:


> what is your profession?


I own a telecom/datacom business with offices in Corpus and Houston (I live in Corpus Christi).


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

railbird said:


> It's not about punishing the successful, it's about controlling the wasteful and greedy.


Thats what it is, brilliant. Guys that can catch ten and legally keep 10 are wasteful and greedy. brilliant


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

trouthammer said:


> Thats what it is, brilliant. Guys that can catch ten and legally keep 10 are wasteful and greedy. brilliant


When there are guide outfits running six boats with six people on each boat and they keep 360 trout a day all Summer for the yuppies to take back up north to freezer burn...yup, that is wasteful and greedy. Tell me it does not happen and I will call you a liar. This is what gives croaker fishermen a bad name. 
Why is is all about LIMITING OUT to so many folks? Some of us really don't care about keeping every **** fish we keep, we catch and release when we have plenty fish in the freezer and keep a few select fish when we need some. Just because I can legally keep ten trout a day does not mean I will drag ten 24 7/8" sows back to my Jeep all winter either but hell yeah I could! I would rather watch those breeders swim away and keep a few 17-20" trout now and then for cooking. Many trips my buddies and I will release everything! That concept eludes some people because they think dragging the biggest stringer back every trip so they can measure peckers with piles of fish pictures later. 
You preaching at railbird is pretty ridiculous if you knew how much he fishes and the quality and numbers of trout he releases.

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


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

Smack if you and Rail are catching that many fish when you go, why is there a need to change the limit to 5? For a full three months one guide service is running 6 boats everyday,catching 60 trout per boat?June 1- August 31 I am guessing? Really!!


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

The thing that disturbs me is this move was not backed by data. Which means they are now managing our fishery with politics in mind instead of biology. 

Anyone who has been fishing on the coast for any length of time can see an alarming trend downward in limits. Mark my words this is not over. In a few years there will be a "Just keep two" movement. After all it will be good for everyone and if you really want to eat what you catch go to HEB and buy chit raised Tilapia.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

Speaking of wasteful and greedy....

Corpus croaker pic


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

I will attend the mtg since I missed the scope hearings. This is a done deal imo.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> When there are guide outfits running six boats with six people on each boat and they keep 360 trout a day all Summer for the yuppies to take back up north to freezer burn...yup, that is wasteful and greedy. Tell me it does not happen and I will call you a liar. This is what gives croaker fishermen a bad name.
> Why is is all about LIMITING OUT to so many folks? Some of us really don't care about keeping every **** fish we keep, we catch and release when we have plenty fish in the freezer and keep a few select fish when we need some. Just because I can legally keep ten trout a day does not mean I will drag ten 24 7/8" sows back to my Jeep all winter either but hell yeah I could! I would rather watch those breeders swim away and keep a few 17-20" trout now and then for cooking. Many trips my buddies and I will release everything! That concept eludes some people because they think dragging the biggest stringer back every trip so they can measure peckers with piles of fish pictures later.
> You preaching at railbird is pretty ridiculous if you knew how much he fishes and the quality and numbers of trout he releases.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


I call bullchit....if you honestly think EVERY guide boat is limiting out EVERY person EVERY day all summer long you're either delusional, retarded, or under the influence.

Also, sooner or later, control freaks like yourself will want to infringe on you about something...it's just a matter of time. You'll be singing a different tune then. :biggrin:

You guys act like EVERY person that hits the water along the entire Texas coast is limiting out every day....that isn't rue, and will never be true. Good grief !


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

netboy said:


> Speaking of wasteful and greedy....
> 
> Corpus croaker pic


greedy? I guess you know how many people were on that trip?

how exactly is it wasteful?

maybe the entire purpose of that photo was to stir up idiots on the internet by about...10 people one day.


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

wellconnected said:


> I own a telecom/datacom business with offices in Corpus and Houston (I live in Corpus Christi).


Exactly what I thought, thanks for the reply


----------



## "Skinny Dipper" (Jul 9, 2012)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> When there are guide outfits running six boats with six people on each boat and they keep 360 trout a day all Summer for the yuppies to take back up north to freezer burn...yup, that is wasteful and greedy. Tell me it does not happen and I will call you a liar. This is what gives croaker fishermen a bad name.
> Why is is all about LIMITING OUT to so many folks? Some of us really don't care about keeping every **** fish we keep, we catch and release when we have plenty fish in the freezer and keep a few select fish when we need some. Just because I can legally keep ten trout a day does not mean I will drag ten 24 7/8" sows back to my Jeep all winter either but hell yeah I could! I would rather watch those breeders swim away and keep a few 17-20" trout now and then for cooking. Many trips my buddies and I will release everything! That concept eludes some people because they think dragging the biggest stringer back every trip so they can measure peckers with piles of fish pictures later.
> You preaching at railbird is pretty ridiculous if you knew how much he fishes and the quality and numbers of trout he releases.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


Agreed!! See plenty of pics on here at the ramp with 75 fish laid out on the deck. I seriously doubt all of those fish are going to get eaten.


----------



## netboy (Dec 12, 2006)

Kyle 1974 said:


> greedy? I guess you know how many people were on that trip?
> 
> how exactly is it wasteful?
> 
> maybe the entire purpose of that photo was to stir up idiots on the internet by about...10 people one day.


Didn't single anyone out as a friend sent me that pic via email.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

Nope, I never stated one time in my post that EVERY guides clients are limiting out EVERY day did I? But I suppose you have not read reports from the past summers and seen what I am referring to? You guys can play dumb all you want but this nonsense happens. I have also seen first hand how East Matagorda Bay guides will virtually "clean out" the bay after fishing it hard for two weeks or so then have to fish West Matagorda Bay for a while until the fish move in and regroup then they go back. You can tell by the reports and fishing the bay your self when this happens. The supply of fish is not endless! I understand people are runnning a business but for the love of fishing I wish they would think less about meat hauling and more about quality. I swear some of you act like the difference between taking home an ice chest full of fillets and catching and releasing a few fish is life and death for your family. 
We used to exchange kind PMs and I figured we may fish together one day but now I am having second thoughts.

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


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

"When there are guide outfits running six boats with six people on each boat and they keep 360 trout a day all Summer for the yuppies to take back up north to freezer burn...yup, that is wasteful and greedy. Tell me it does not happen and I will call you a liar"
This is what you stated! I still say BS!!!!


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Nope, I never stated one time in my post that EVERY guides clients are limiting out EVERY day did I? But I suppose you have not read reports from the past summers and seen what I am referring to? You guys can play dumb all you want but this nonsense happens. I have also seen first hand how East Matagorda Bay guides will virtually "clean out" the bay after fishing it hard for two weeks or so then have to fish West Matagorda Bay for a while until the fish move in and regroup then they go back. You can tell by the reports and fishing the bay your self when this happens. The supply of fish is not endless! I understand people are runnning a business but for the love of fishing I wish they would think less about meat hauling and more about quality. I swear some of you act like the difference between taking home an ice chest full of fillets and catching and releasing a few fish is life and death for your family.
> We used to exchange kind PMs and I figured we may fish together one day but now I am having second thoughts.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


Smack, if you're that thin skinned, and sensitive that we can't have a difference of opinion and get past it I feel sorry for you.

This isn't a war, you need to realize that people can disagree without taking great offense to it. It's called "agreeing to disagree".

Carry on....

Bo


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

With everyone claiming 10% of fishermen take 90% of the fish, how can you say that is not greed? These new regulations only effect the most efficient "takers". Many of you have already admitted the change will only effect 10% of the fishermen coast wide, but that's a very large part of the total take. 

With 100's of boats every day heading to the landcut starting next month, the trout population will get unsustainable pressure for about 100 days. The new regulations will remove the incentive to run 80 miles for an easy limit. Most guides will stay close to home knowing they can easily catch 5/person a few miles from the ramp. 

The argument that the only people arguing for this change "can't fish" is absurd!


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> When there are guide outfits running six boats with six people on each boat and they keep 360 trout a day all Summer for the yuppies to take back up north to freezer burn...yup, that is wasteful and greedy. Tell me it does not happen and I will call you a liar. This is what gives croaker fishermen a bad name.
> Why is is all about LIMITING OUT to so many folks? Some of us really don't care about keeping every **** fish we keep, we catch and release when we have plenty fish in the freezer and keep a few select fish when we need some. Just because I can legally keep ten trout a day does not mean I will drag ten 24 7/8" sows back to my Jeep all winter either but hell yeah I could! I would rather watch those breeders swim away and keep a few 17-20" trout now and then for cooking. Many trips my buddies and I will release everything! That concept eludes some people because they think dragging the biggest stringer back every trip so they can measure peckers with piles of fish pictures later.
> You preaching at railbird is pretty ridiculous if you knew how much he fishes and the quality and numbers of trout he releases.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


You just go ahead and close your eyes and ears and let them have their way because it suits you. But don't come around bellyaching when they do something that doesn't suit you. Now to FACTS.

You keep saying (in a previous post) that we have more people fishing etc. Fact, since the early 2000s fishing pressure has leveled of and slightly declined. TPWD has both license sales and creel studies and are on record with this FACT. 
Fact, TPWD in ironically the Frequently asked Questions on this issue has said we are NOT overfishing and present levels of landings ARE SUSTAINABLE. But go ahead and ignore facts since you unlike the TPWD scientist know more.

Now to Guides and all the fish they take. Again WE ARE NOT OVERFISHING even if you believe your ridiculous assertion about guides. You also better get your science to TPWD because their numbers on how many fish will not be taken as a result of this proposal are way off. Do you realize 70% of fishermen catch 2 or fewer fish and do you have any idea how small the percentage of fishermen is that can catch more than 5?
Just a little logic in your arguments might help. You do realize you are saying the snowbirds are slaughtering the fish with guides during the summer. I thought they came down in the late fall to get away from snow but again you got the facts.

As far as how many trout you release. I am 100% confident I release more than you. You are on this internet board to much to seriously fish so I am confident of my math....


----------



## tspitzer (Feb 7, 2013)

there is alot of good ideas on 2Cool--5 fish limit sounds to me like a DONE DEAL>

Some site about a year or so ago posted something like a a package of tags for trout each person would get say 150 tags per year to fill -the tags would have to have your name and DL # on them--this seems a wild type plan to me but it is something to think about- --it could have say 100 17 to 20 inch and 50 over 20--this would stop folks for sharing limits on boats----just a thought-not mine-- but it would be a FIX


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

They need to increase the limit on redfish to say like 5/day. I'd bet $ that specks are on their menu. I couldn't get away from the reds last Fall. Time to thin the herd.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

railbird said:


> With everyone claiming 10% of fishermen take 90% of the fish, how can you say that is not greed? These new regulations only effect the most efficient "takers". Many of you have already admitted the change will only effect 10% of the fishermen coast wide, but that's a very large part of the total take.
> 
> With 100's of boats every day heading to the landcut starting next month, the trout population will get unsustainable pressure for about 100 days. The new regulations will remove the incentive to run 80 miles for an easy limit. Most guides will stay close to home knowing they can easily catch 5/person a few miles from the ramp.
> 
> The argument that the only people arguing for this change "can't fish" is absurd!


How about this true FACT. 70% of all fishermen catch 2 or less fish per outing. Does that tell you how many bad fishermen there are out there? You want to talk about greedy. You have expressed zero interest in this regulation other than to protect your sacred land cut. You have admitted you want this so the Corpus folks will not burn the gas to come to "your water". Talk about selfish and greed. You should tell TPWD that they need to make a qualification to the statement we are NOT overfishing and say we are in the land cut . Bring your studies....
Simple question though. if it is that bad and it is overfishing why are people coming back? The fish should be gone or overfished by now don't you think? Selfish interest and greed exposed....

If this is such a good deal and supported by science and not politics why isn't it a good deal for the Upper coast?


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

Wow, TP&W can start showing that meat haul photo with their traveling slide show.



Blk Jck 224 said:


> They need to increase the limit on redfish to say like 5/day. I'd bet $ that specks are on their menu. I couldn't get away from the reds last Fall. Time to thin the herd.


Maybe if we cut the trout limit to three, we won't be able to get away from the trout?


----------



## mmcclure9 (Dec 19, 2011)

i agree with smack and rail. it needs to be done. more people are fishing than ever and the conditions for the fish have deteriorated. we may not need a lower limit now, but if we keep plugging along like we are, something will have to give. Ive never got my 10 fish limit, and dont really care to honestly. I keep just enough to keep a small stash in the freezer for a rainy day. the excuse that I see that bothers me the most is, "but I can only go 6 times a year." I love to go duck/dovehunting, but cant go but maybe once a year. But I dont cry about not being able to shoot more. As for the guides its hard to try and mess with someones lively hood, but I dont think lowering the limit will make people decide to not hire one anyways.


----------



## railbird (Jan 2, 2009)

trouthammer said:


> How about this true FACT. 70% of all fishermen catch 2 or less fish per outing. Does that tell you how many bad fishermen there are out there? You want to talk about greedy. You have expressed zero interest in this regulation other than to protect your sacred land cut. You have admitted you want this so the Corpus folks will not burn the gas to come to "your water". Talk about selfish and greed. You should tell TPWD that they need to make a qualification to the statement we are NOT overfishing and say we are in the land cut . Bring your studies....
> Simple question though. if it is that bad and it is overfishing why are people coming back? The fish should be gone or overfished by now don't you think? Selfish interest and greed exposed....
> 
> If this is such a good deal and supported by science and not politics why isn't it a good deal for the Upper coast?


First off, I made 3 trips last year to my cabin, one was spring break. Second Tpwd does protect trapped or concentrated fish during a freeze event, but they for years have looked the other way during the spring migration. If wanting to protect an entire migration from overfishing is selfish, then by all means call me selfish. I take kids along who like to fish under the lights in the landcut, the keeper to undersized rate is about 1:40 down there after that 100 day stretch. That should tell you how much of a hit the trout take every spring.

Our bays will see unpresidented pressure over the next 20 years with the population explosion being predicted. Tpwd is trying to stay ahead of the curve, what you are advocating is to wait until it's too late to recover so 10% of the fishermen state wide can continue to TAKE!


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

netboy said:


> Didn't single anyone out as a friend sent me that pic via email.


since I'm the one that took that photo, you did single me out a little bit.....

you made the comment, now support the opinion,.

how is it wasteful and greedy?

there were 8 of us on a 3 day trip. And I can tell you the sole purpose of that photo was to stir up **** on message boards.

after 3 years, I'm glad it still works.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

If you live in Flower Bluff, does that mean it was a Land Cut meat haul? Night fishing or croakers? Just curious.


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

It looks to me like TP&W is doing a good job at keeping every one blind to the real problem. Ya'll are blaming guide's, croaker, and greedy fishermen that want to keep there limits, but the real problem is the water. Between the water pollution on the upper coast, and the lack of fresh water inflow on the lower coast, in 20 years there's not gonna be and fish alive to catch.


----------



## Rippin_drag (Sep 2, 2008)

With the limit at 5 for a couple years i think the Matagorda system, especially East, will benefit greatly from it. Its not horrible now, just now what it was about 5-7 yrs ago.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

Trouthappy said:


> If you live in Flower Bluff, does that mean it was a Land Cut meat haul? Night fishing or croakers? Just curious.


All day time in the LC. Roughly a 50/50 split of croakers and live shrimp. It was 5 adults and three kids. Kids didn't use croakers and caught a lot of fish with shrimp.

We rarely catch any keeper size trout at our cabin at night time.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

We did some of that years ago in the LC during Easter, the wind was howling. Stayed in Steve Qualia's cabin near the south end. Caught about 40 trout and one big drum, just walking and pitching jigs during the day. Didn't keep any, they were all tagged and released.


----------



## Agdud07 (Jan 31, 2012)

I think the number of Tournaments run today also has an affect as well. How much, hard to say. But the ones I have fished or been around for the mostpart pull a lot of fish. And alot of these tournaments are getting huge.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

Sharkcum , the bays are cleaner than they ever have been.


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

capt. david said:


> Sharkcum , the bays are cleaner than they ever have been.


I guess that's why every boat ramp I put in at has a sign saying not to eat the fish.
Houston/Galveston Area
Questions & Answers

Clear Creek in Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston and Harris counties

Chemical of Concern:
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Persons should not consume any species of fish from these waters.
Houston Ship Channel and all contiguous waters north of the Fred Hartman Bridge, State Highway 146 including the San Jacinto River below the Lake Houston dam

Chemicals of Concernioxins, Organochlorine pesticides, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
For all species of fish and blue crabs, adults should limit consumption to no more than one, 8-ounce meal per month.
Women of childbearing age and children under 12 should not consume any fish or blue crabs from this area.
Upper Galveston Bay and all contiguous waters north of a line drawn from Red Bluff Point to Five-Mile Cut Marker to Houston Point

Chemicals of Concernioxins and Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
For all species of catfish, spotted seatrout and blue crab, adults should limit consumption to no more than one, 8-ounce meal per month.
Children under 12 and women of childbearing age should not consume spotted seatrout, blue crabs or any catfish species from this area.
Galveston Bay and all contiguous waters including Chocolate Bay, East Bay, Trinity Bay and West Bay

Chemicals of Concern: Dioxins and Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
For all species of catfish, adults should limit consumption to no more than one, 8-ounce meal per month.
Children, and women who are nursing, pregnant or who may become pregnant should not consume catfish from these waters.


----------



## capt.dave (Jan 3, 2007)

I'm fine with a 5 fish limit on specks. Not sure why the proposal wasn't extended all the way up the coast, which eliminated Galveston and Sabine. I will say that if this goes through, it's only a matter of time before it's the entire coast. 

Just in my opinion, but I don't see a 5 fish limit really having that much affect on most people. I know a few guides who wouldn't have a problem with it. It's just an easier limit for them. They also have the option to target redfish more often. The people I see most affected are the in-land anglers who come down to the coast only a handful of times per year. Due to their limited access, a lot of these folks come down with the wack and stack mentality. I don't blame them for this, but they won't be able to keep as many fish as they used to. A lot people (myself included) that fequent the coastal fisheries have plenty in the freezer, so we only keep a few fish here and there anyways. Also, as stated previously, most people couldn't catch a one man limit even if their life depended on it. 

As for the number of fishermen. I have only been fishing the Galveston Bay complex since the mid 90's. Although my observations are somewhat limited due to the time span, I have definitely seen an increase in fishermen. I mean, there are a few reefs in east and west bay that I used to fish occasionally. 10 years ago, these areas would maybe have 3-5 boats on them on a Saturday morning. Present day, it's more like 20-30 boats on them. 

As for croakers. I'm more in having a reduced limt. I could care less about method chosen. However, you can't argue that in early summer, dredging croaker is close to an idiot proof way of catching some fish. Just go to East bay in June and hit some of the more popular reefs. You will see 50 plus boats doing it, because it's effective. If all these people were forced to use artificials, the catch numbers would decrease.


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

Sharkcum You need to do a little more research. Ban of speckled trout and redfish only in the far upper bay!


----------



## sharkchum (Feb 10, 2012)

capt. david said:


> Sharkcum You need to do a little more research. Ban of speckled trout and redfish only in the far upper bay!


 I think you may need to do more research. You said you have been fishing Galveston bay since the 90's, well I've been fishing it since the 70's, my dad started fishing it in the 40's, and my grandpa started fishing it in the 20's, and I can tell you the bay is not better than it was 20 years ago. I deal with T.C.E.Q. on a daily basics and I know for a fact that the water gets worse every year. Here's a few more facts for you to ponder, or you can just keep blaming, guide's ,limits, croaker, and rollover pass like everyone else. 
1. Four trillion gallons of wastewater flow into Galveston Bay each year from sewers, industrial facilities and roads.

2. Over the past 60 years, more than 45,000 acres of Galveston Bayâ€™s wetlands have been lost. Habitat destruction poses the greatest threat to the Bayâ€™s fish and wildlife.

3. In 2007, Texas discharged over 13 million pounds of toxic chemicals into waterways including Galveston Bay. More than 87,000 pounds of those toxics were cancer-causing chemicals like arsenic, chromium and lead.

4. In 2009, officials issued 41 health advisories due to polluted water at Galveston beaches that was too dangerous to swim in or drink from.

5. Galveston Bay is plagued by steadily increasing runoff pollution from industry, roads, agriculture, and septic tanks. Urban development near the bay has only made this problem worse.

6. Half of the nationâ€™s chemical production occurs within the Galveston watershed, which has led to multiple chemical and petroleum spills in the Bay within the last decade. And because many municipalities donâ€™t safely dispose of pesticides, acids, paints, and solvents, theyâ€™re dumped in the bay as well.

7. Since the 1950s, most of the sea grass beds in Galveston Bay have been lost, damaging marine life habitats. Agricultural runoff and septic system drainage contribute to excessive algae growth that shades the grass and sucks oxygen from the water.

8. More than 25,000 acres of freshwater wetlands around Galveston Bay were lost due to development in recent years. The bay loses more than 2,500 acres of freshwater wetlands per year.

9. Toxic compounds like pesticides, PCBs and dioxins threaten the safety of seafood caught in the bay, putting the $4 billion Galveston Bay economy at risk.,

10. Thirty-two waterways in the Houston-Galveston area are impaired because of dangerously high bacteria levels. The 80,000 failing septic systems in the area are a major source of this bacteria.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

I just get the grease good & hot !....been eating fish out of the G-Bay complex all my life, and it hasn't affected me...:spineyes:

Blue Bell's sure as hell not good for me either....but I still eat it


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

"You said you have been fishing Galveston bay since the 90's"
Shark Pull those reins and get off your high horse. I said that? PCB's were never a problem till the dredging of the ship channel. In the 50's those factories dumped all their waste into the water. I have run EPA workers all along those plants in the channel to sample any discharge the saw back in the 90's. I am not even going to get into the argument of how long I have fished!!


----------



## rusty2009 (Mar 5, 2010)

Has any of yall ever hired a Bass fishing guide. They are all catch and release. Why can't we make saltwater guides catch and release only. So us non professionals can catch and keep a few fish. If I go with a guide Bass fishing I expect catch and release.


----------



## mmcclure9 (Dec 19, 2011)

rusty2009 said:


> Has any of yall ever hired a Bass fishing guide. They are all catch and release. Why can't we make saltwater guides catch and release only. So us non professionals can catch and keep a few fish. If I go with a guide Bass fishing I expect catch and release.


thats almost as bad as the I dont live close to the water so I should be able to keep 10 excuse. So youre saying since they are good at what they do, they and their pocket books should be punished so the people who cant catch fish (like me) can catch more. im just determined to get better and start catching them.


----------



## Logan (Aug 7, 2009)

*this*



capt.dave said:


> I'm fine with a 5 fish limit on specks. Not sure why the proposal wasn't extended all the way up the coast, which eliminated Galveston and Sabine. I will say that if this goes through, it's only a matter of time before it's the entire coast.
> 
> Just in my opinion, but I don't see a 5 fish limit really having that much affect on most people. I know a few guides who wouldn't have a problem with it. It's just an easier limit for them. They also have the option to target redfish more often. The people I see most affected are the in-land anglers who come down to the coast only a handful of times per year. Due to their limited access, a lot of these folks come down with the wack and stack mentality. I don't blame them for this, but they won't be able to keep as many fish as they used to. A lot people (myself included) that fequent the coastal fisheries have plenty in the freezer, so we only keep a few fish here and there anyways. Also, as stated previously, most people couldn't catch a one man limit even if their life depended on it.
> 
> ...


said perfectly


----------



## rusty2009 (Mar 5, 2010)

mmcclure9 said:


> thats almost as bad as the I dont live close to the water so I should be able to keep 10 excuse. So youre saying since they are good at what they do, they and their pocket books should be punished so the people who cant catch fish (like me) can catch more. im just determined to get better and start catching them.


 The Bass fishing guides charge just as much saltwater guides it is just common practice to do catch and release. It's just most bass fisherman hire a guide to learn to fish not fill their freezers.


----------



## tspitzer (Feb 7, 2013)

i live in Lubbock and get to fish the coast alot due to business travel- a five fish limit will not stop me from going and spending my hard earned money-i have learned that there are other good eating fish in the Bay--i keep a few trout and yes if i have to use BAIT i will--. A four day Fishing Trip for me is expensive.So I Like to bring some home!!
Motel-4 night 400.00
gas Pick up and boat--about 400.00
bait lures-ice-BEVERAGES-food--200.00
it easy to see that i spend at least 1000.00 every trip not counting a boat payment every month-and vacation days from Work--- I personally feel it is worth it--i would rather be on the coast where I grew up than any place I have ever been----Life is to short to sweat the small stuff-like guides-greedy fisherman-and A HOLES---As I said early the decision as been made-we are going to have to live with it--if you want to fill your coolers-head east one state--they keep alot of fish in LA.


----------



## glennkoks (Jun 24, 2009)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> They need to increase the limit on redfish to say like 5/day. I'd bet $ that specks are on their menu. I couldn't get away from the reds last Fall. Time to thin the herd.


Limits only go one way. Down. By 2020 the limit will be 2 or less, and after that point they will have a season on Trout like they do on snapper narrowed down to a number of days.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

I guess the only question I have is... Why 5? 

7? 8?

There doesn't seem to be any scientific data supporting the need so why a 50% reduction in potential take? 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mmcclure9 (Dec 19, 2011)

rusty2009 said:


> The Bass fishing guides charge just as much saltwater guides it is just common practice to do catch and release. It's just most bass fisherman hire a guide to learn to fish not fill their freezers.


that maybe in bass fishing, and I too hire guides to learn stuff. But id assume a lot of people would stop using guides cause they are used to keeping fish. Again an assumption plus its comparing apples n oranges.


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

mmcclure9 said:


> i agree with smack and rail. it needs to be done. *more people are fishing than ever* and *the conditions for the fish have deteriorated*. we may not need a lower limit now, but if we keep plugging along like we are, something will have to give. Ive never got my 10 fish limit, and dont really care to honestly. I keep just enough to keep a small stash in the freezer for a rainy day. the excuse that I see that bothers me the most is, "but I can only go 6 times a year." I love to go duck/dovehunting, but cant go but maybe once a year. But I dont cry about not being able to shoot more. As for the guides its hard to try and mess with someones lively hood, but I dont think lowering the limit will make people decide to not hire one anyways.


Its is so crazy how people say things and have zero facts. You give them facts (see my post above) and it is like they just don't want to see or hear them.

Lets start with the first bolded words above and remember TPWD does keep track of license sold and they do creel studies at the dock. Let's see what Robin Riechers, Director of Coastal Fisheries has said to the commission on this very subject:

"Just to look at total fishing licenses sold, in the red line there, and itâ€™s on your left-hand side there or right-hand side â€'â€' Iâ€™m sorry â€'â€' and fishing efforts on your right-hand axis. Basically, the take home message here is that our fishing effort rose through the 1980s and basically *capped off in about 2000 and weâ€™ve been relatively stable, with a slight down trend since then*"

But keep on using that excuse for why you can not catch fish....too many fishermen

Now to the second bolded part of your sentence, about the conditions deteriorating. Whatever those terrible conditions are we are not overfishing and the levels of catching are "sustainable". Here is from the FAQs:

"Are spotted seatrout overfished?
No. TPWD gill net, bag seine and harvest data indicate they are not overfished. Fishing pressure and landings are different for each bay, with some bays higher than others. Spotted seatrout are the most sought after species by anglers in Texas inshore waters, but the landings are currently at a *sustainable level*."

I will say it again. I will pay for billboards and any form of advertising to get limits reduced to 5 IF and WHEN the science says we need to do. Until then it is a shame those who think this will increase their ability to catch fish will try and do so by limiting unnecessarily those who can catch ten. The funny part is you will still battle to catch 2 or three. We are only talking about a small population increase even using their modeling. And in scheme of things mother nature and the up and down normal cycles will go on regardless of this change. Just asked them in the LLM where they are coming of of two terrible years in a row for landings despite limits being at 5 for 6 years....


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

Kyle 1974 said:


> I guess the only question I have is... Why 5?
> 
> 7? 8?
> 
> ...


The answer I heard for that question when it was posed to a TPWD biologist was that so few people caught 7 or 8 trout per trip that there wouldn't be much effect at all with increasing the spawning biomass. In their opinion cutting the limit to 5 would have biggest bang for the buck so to say and it will only effect retention by 13% while increasing spawning biomass by 16% and nearly all of those gains are realized in the first 5 years. That's the science behind the 5 as I understand it.


----------



## Dane-gerous (Jul 15, 2011)

Anyone see Clowney's 40 time today...Scary fast


----------



## capt. david (Dec 29, 2004)

Easier to count by 5's then 7's or 8's!


----------



## capt.dave (Jan 3, 2007)

trouthammer said:


> Its is so crazy how people say things and have zero facts. You give them facts (see my post above) and it is like they just don't want to see or hear them.
> 
> Lets start with the first bolded words above and remember TPWD does keep track of license sold and they do creel studies at the dock. Let's see what Robin Riechers, Director of Coastal Fisheries has said to the commission on this very subject:
> 
> ...


Please note, I'm only looking for information to become more educated on the subject. So below are a few statements I have in regards to the license information you posted.

Ok, so what you are saying is that the number of licenses sold in the year 2000 is greater than the amount sold in year 2013? Or is it at least very comparable in number? Is that counting fishing licenses in general or actual saltwater stamp endorsements?

What about all the people that purchased "super combo licenses" that automatically received the saltwater endorsement regardless if they actually fished saltwater. What about lifetime license holders, who receive the same endorsements as the super combo holders but aren't factored into actual licenses sold? Guess what I'm trying to say is, do you think there is a possibility that the number of people fishing the bay systems has actually increased, even if the actual number of license holders is comparable?

What about boaters vs. bank fishermen? What is the total number of registered boats with TPWD for 2013 as compared to 2000? Does this data correlate with actual fishing licenses sold? If there are indeed more boats on the water, wouldn't that indicate more fish being caught; at least assuming that fishing via boat provides more access than land or pier.

How about waders and kayakers? I see numbers of kayakers now fishing the bay systems, which seemed almost non-existent even 10-15 years ago. A lot of these kayakers were either bank fishermen, waders or simply skipped bay fishing due to the limited access.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

Populations only go one way, up. There will be another 10 million people in Texas before we know it. Many of them fishing the same few bays we have today. And not one new acre of bay being created. By the year 2100 there will probably be a daily bag limit of two hardheads.


----------



## Im Headed South (Jun 28, 2006)

Texas added nearly 2 million people in population since 2010, half of the top 10 fastest growing city's in the US are in south Texas, the billions of dollars brought in by the eagle ford has trickled down to high school drop outs making 80k driving oil and sand trucks and dirt farmers making millions per year, Texas custom boat builders have had waiting list for the last 5 years up to 18 months long but none of that means there are more people on the water than there was 10 years ago? Give me a break.


----------



## jampen (Oct 12, 2012)

Quit cryin...Go fishin


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

Im Headed South said:


> Texas added nearly 2 million people in population since 2010, half of the top 10 fastest growing city's in the US are in south Texas, the billions of dollars brought in by the eagle ford has trickled down to high school drop outs making 80k driving oil and sand trucks and dirt farmers making millions per year, Texas custom boat builders have had waiting list for the last 5 years up to 18 months long but none of that means there are more people on the water than there was 10 years ago? Give me a break.


A south texas boat builder told me their sales were up significantly with the eagle ford boom so I think that's a valid point.

The only thing is, oil booms are called booms for a reason. I don't think the extrapolated population graphs are realistic for an oilfield driven economy.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

Even if the Eagleford dries up, there will be plenty of trout potlicking going on in South Texas, with all those new boats.

Like Shannon says:

"Even without the data, it seems logical that fishing pressure rises as the
population rises - maybe not at the same rate, but it rises.
Consider this: The last time the statewide trout bag limit was changed - going from 20 to 10 per day - was in 1984. The population of Texas was 16 million.
Today, Texas population is just more than 26 million."


----------



## trouthammer (Jan 24, 2009)

capt.dave said:


> Please note, I'm only looking for information to become more educated on the subject. So below are a few statements I have in regards to the license information you posted.
> 
> Ok, so what you are saying is that the number of licenses sold in the year 2000 is greater than the amount sold in year 2013? Or is it at least very comparable in number? Is that counting fishing licenses in general or actual saltwater stamp endorsements?
> 
> ...


I don't have the slide Robin was referring to but it was presented to the Commissioners back when lowering limits was first put on the table in 2010. He references license sold so I assume he was narrowing it to saltwater as again the topic was lowering limits for trout. I also know they move around to public places when they do their creel studies which ask a number of questions like where you fished, what you used and what you caught.

Think of it this way. They have really wanted to lower limits for some time and if they could manipulate the data to support that view i am sure they would. If those numbers have changed it would be part of their report on the issue.

I have been at it for quite sometime and yes certain weekends seem like the water is crowded but thinking back I can't really say it is any worse than 10 years ago. Also do not let it get lost in the shuffle that regardless of the amount of pressure/fishing effort they are clearly saying our off take is sustainable.


----------



## mmcclure9 (Dec 19, 2011)

trouthammer said:


> Its is so crazy how people say things and have zero facts. You give them facts (see my post above) and it is like they just don't want to see or hear them.
> 
> Lets start with the first bolded words above and remember TPWD does keep track of license sold and they do creel studies at the dock. Let's see what Robin Riechers, Director of Coastal Fisheries has said to the commission on this very subject:
> 
> ...


I never blame too many fisherman as the reason I can't catch fish. If you will read my post above, you'll see that I admit that I don't catch fish, but that I'm determined to get better. So nice try with that one. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that we have been receiving less freshwater inflow from the inland. We are in a statewide drought. Water conditions are getting worse. And you're right. I don't have facts that there are more people on the water. But it's common sense. As more people move here, more people will fish. So while it may be currently sustainable, it can't be sustainable in the future. I want my son to be able to enjoy what I am enjoying now.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

I think the argument with freshwater requirements taking precedent is that an unhealthy bay may not be able to sustain the population of fish we currently have. Much less more fish from reduced take. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

mmcclure9 said:


> I never blame too many fisherman as the reason I can't catch fish. If you will read my post above, you'll see that I admit that I don't catch fish, but that I'm determined to get better. So nice try with that one. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that we have been receiving less freshwater inflow from the inland. We are in a statewide drought. Water conditions are getting worse. And you're right. I don't have facts that there are more people on the water. But it's common sense. As more people move here, more people will fish. So while it may be currently sustainable, it can't be sustainable in the future. I want my son to be able to enjoy what I am enjoying now.


So you want to wait until you can't catch fish to try to correct the problem? 
Really people? Blaming the oilfield for the regulations? Ridiculous at best.

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


----------



## mmcclure9 (Dec 19, 2011)

Smackdaddy53 said:


> So you want to wait until you can't catch fish to try to correct the problem?
> Really people? Blaming the oilfield for the regulations? Ridiculous at best.
> 
> http://www.fishingscout.com/scouts/SmackDaddy


no. I stated earlier that I agreed with you and rail. We have to start now. I'm for the regs


----------



## Ducksmasher (Jul 21, 2005)

sharkchum said:


> Ya'll are blaming guide's, croaker, and greedy fishermen that want to keep there limits, but the real problem is the water. Between the water pollution on the upper coast, and the lack of fresh water inflow on the lower coast, in 20 years there's not gonna be and fish alive to catch.


This is the TRUTH.


----------



## The Last Mango (Jan 31, 2010)

Here's the deal , 25 years ago there were 100x amount of license Bay Shrimp boats working the bays and catching plenty, now there are less than 1x shrimpers left barely catching squat. Shrimp are an "annual" life span of less than 16 months . 
My point, our Bays in Texas have changed, no more fresh water. Putting limits on fish when science tells you that the species is striving doesn't change anything.
Why are trout, reds etc. still striving when there are less shrimp to eat? Take away your steakhouse and you settle for Whataburger, still makes a turd


----------



## justletmein (Feb 11, 2006)

Doesn't really matter if bad water, overfishing, croakers, or freezes are to blame. Reducing the limits to compensate for whatever the "real" problem is seems like a good move to me. I have 3 sons who love to fish and will be teaching their kids to fish, so having a healthy fishery for them all is important to me... I don't care if I have to throw a few extra back from time to time now.


----------



## Kyle 1974 (May 10, 2006)

So the meat haul picture gets posted again. A few people talk trash. Even those from WPP post it up in their site. Talk about it being wasteful and greedy yet no one can explain why. 

This is what's wrong with fisherman managing the fishery. Mainly just emotion driven opinions with no facts, details, or clear explanations. Just people wanting to push their agenda in everyone else. 

What's ironic is that photo still could have been done with a 5 fish daily limit.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

Kyle 1974 said:


> So the meat haul picture gets posted again. A few people talk trash. Even those from WPP post it up in their site. Talk about it being wasteful and greedy yet no one can explain why.
> 
> This is what's wrong with fisherman managing the fishery. Mainly just emotion driven opinions with no facts, details, or clear explanations. Just people wanting to push their agenda in everyone else.
> 
> What's ironic is that photo still could have been done with a 5 fish daily limit.


Hey, hey, hey.....don't let the facts get in the way !!!!!!!


----------



## Fishdog (Jun 22, 2004)

Jeez, I don't have time to read all the messages in this thread but I'll just state that I don't have any problem whatsoever with a 5 trout limit. I support it. I also think one of the biggest reasons for the decline in trout populations on the mid-coast over the years is what I believe is an INCREASING porpoise population. They tear the ***** out of trout moving into the bay systems through choke points.

So I'd say decrease the trout limit to 5 a day ........ and increase the porpoise limit to 1 a day. That'll about do it. What do porpoise taste like anyway? The Japanese love 'em. I'm sure they know the right parts to eat to make you horny as hell.


----------



## justletmein (Feb 11, 2006)

Fishdog said:


> Jeez, I don't have time to read all the messages in this thread but I'll just state that I don't have any problem whatsoever with a 5 trout limit. I support it. I also think one of the biggest reasons for the decline in trout populations on the mid-coast over the years is what I believe is an INCREASING porpoise population. They tear the ***** out of trout moving into the bay systems through choke points.
> 
> So I'd say decrease the trout limit to 5 a day ........ and increase the porpoise limit to 1 a day. That'll about do it. What do porpoise taste like anyway? The Japanese love 'em. I'm sure they know the right parts to eat to make you horny as hell.


Save the trout, kill a Dolphin!


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

glennkoks said:


> Limits only go one way. Down. By 2020 the limit will be 2 or less, and after that point they will have a season on Trout like they do on snapper narrowed down to a number of days.


 Every time I hear somebody say that, all I can think about is the 3-duck, no-canvasback, etc. duck seasons....


----------

