I don't think recreational fisherman harm the trout population one bit within legal limits. Conversely......I will say that guides that fish croaker absolutely annihilate trout. They do this sometimes with a trip in the morning and a trip in the afternoon. Bait stands hold croaker to accommodate guide supply. Recreational fisherman then get them if they have any left. The croaker bait supply for a guide is almost a given. That guaranteed arsenal of croakers greatly enhance the guide's continued success.
Finally, The guides know exactly where the fish are congregated; they are there almost daily and their network shares information among their circles for overall success. That's business. It is commercial fishing.....with a twist. This means that a guide can feasibly kill 5 trout a day per paying customer (3 by law in other waters). When you consider each party/trip may have a four person boat that compounds the catch/kill number. It is legal. But anyone can see how hard that is on the trout population. Just my .02 worth. I digress......

 

I don't think recreational fisherman harm the trout population one bit within legal limits. Conversely......I will say that guides that fish croaker absolutely annihilate trout. They do this sometimes with a trip in the morning and a trip in the afternoon. Bait stands hold croaker to accommodate guide supply. Recreational fisherman then get them if they have any left. The croaker bait supply for a guide is almost a given. That guaranteed arsenal of croakers greatly enhance the guide's continued success.
Finally, The guides know exactly where the fish are congregated; they are there almost daily and their network shares information among their circles for overall success. That's business. It is commercial fishing.....with a twist. This means that a guide can feasibly kill 10 trout a day per paying customer (3 by law in other waters). When you consider each party/trip may have a four person boat that compounds the catch/kill number. It is legal. But anyone can see how hard that is on the trout population. Just my .02 worth. I digress......

10 trout per day per paying customer??? This is the most uneducated ill-informed information ever. You can’t catch 10 trout per person anywhere on the Texas coast. Secondly, croaker don’t immediately mean you catch a ton of fish. Thirdly, croaker are not reserved for guides. Get to the bait shop earlier if they aren’t there when you arrive.

If you’re gonna post as if things are facts, you better make sure you have facts. And if guides help customers, legal Texas anglers, catch their daily limits by whatever legal means they can then they aren’t annihilating trout. They are catching their legal limits. Better take that up with your conservation people if you don’t like that.

 

Solely dependent on how many recreational fishermen are using a common resource.
You cannot convince me that more doesnt matter

 

Thanks for sharing how you see things.

Increasing pressure by individual fishermen collectively contributes to population decline, IMO

history has numerous examples

And in each instance, there likely was a mindset that individuals themselves cant negatively impact the resource …. that is, until the impact is apparent

 

I said this on a different thread, but the problem is the TPWD not the fisherman. They have caved to political pressures to appease the public and not fix what is clearly a mismanagement of the trout fishery with the slot, hence the decline from increased fishermen and the fish not having enough broodfish for recruitment replacement.

 

Most people I speak to agree that the trout population has been helped tremendously by the post freeze limit reductions. Some of those same people say that recreational fisherman make no impact at all on trout populations. I don't see how anyone could agree to both statements. The way I see it is if the limit reductions helped the population then one has to agree that rod and reel does in deed have an impact.

 

Trout populations were hurt by the freeze.
Trout populations have rebounded.
Man did neither of those things to affect one way or another.

Never ever in the history of limits has lowering the recreational limit led to more fish....enough to raise the limit. Lowering limits leads right to more lowering of limits. It never goes back up. The only time we see a swing is when they change a commercial impact or improve an environmental catalyst for the fishery.

Now people will say that lowering the limit post freeze helped them rebound. Bull puckey..... no more freezes helped them rebound. God made those fish to do exactly what they did..... rebound. They always do if we stop taking away their habitat and degrading their habitat.

 

So in your opinion if the limit would have stayed at 5 we would have seen the same rebound just as fast? What if it was still 10? Same outcome?

 

Yep....Mother Nature is in charge. The recent limit changes are not based on the science of creel surveys and trout numbers data collected by TPWD. The recent limit changes are 100% from public pressure. TPWD have been reporting that trout numbers are healthy and at same numbers as years past.....only public pressure is pushing the limit changes.

The fish are there....just harder to catch as they are displaced from where we like to catch them..... displaced due to habitat degradation and commercial/industrial operations.

The limit changes are a result of public pressure.....and are not justified by TPWD own findings.

Tpwd's own data does not support the recent limit changes.

 

1. Do you fish for fun, for trophy fish, or tournament style? The trip will be customized to what you want. Some want to fish for fun or learn a technique or how to target a species. Some want a personal best trophy. I strongly recommend taking pictures and measurements and releasing the catch. The big ones are NOT good to eat. Fiberglass reproductions or aluminum trophy cutouts make much better and longer lasting mounts than skin mounts. Tournament fishing can be hardcore highly competitive and intense for the goal to win. Lets communicate in advance to manage all the expectations for the most enjoyable trip for your group.

This is just a public note of your website and your commitment to conservation and protecting the good 'uns! I fully agree with you!

 

I will add... one of these kinds of pictures is celebrated daily allllllll over social media....high fives all around. The other is a rare event which causes full blown panic suddenly sky is falling and we must change to save the resource. The pictures are of the exact same thing. Why the different reactions?

 

Exact same thing? Really?

C’mon Grem, you know better — one lets fish “do their thing” (as you say) , over the course of the season — the other puts an immediate kibosh on current stock#s and future spawning (which rightfully demands action to preserve stock)

Fish kill by anglers Vs kills by rare events seem different (yes?) — one immediately debits our fishery with a hundreds of thousands withdrawal (and immediately stops incremental interest benefits via loss of future spawns) Vs individual , incremental withdrawals of legal limits, by anglers, over the course of a season

 

The general statement that recreational fishermen can not affect the population is nonsense. That statement implies that we don’t need recreational limits.

 

Tpwd needs to focus their time and energy into habitat restoration. The loss of grass oysters mangroves etc. have the largest impact on all fish populations. Shutting down the oyster boats in mesquite and San Antonio bay areas was one of the best things they’ve done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

With fewer spots that hold decent amounts of fish, those areas get hit harder. If people fish those spots and keep their limits each trip, how can that not affect the population? How much does it affect it? No one will ever really know. Even back in the good ole days you could tell after days of hitting a good spot there were fewer fish there. With so many other options you just didnt think about it the same as we do now days. I feel its a fish responsibly mentality. Say if you have a honey hole and you go everyday, maybe not kill a limit each trip. They are way more fun to catch then they are to eat. Mother Nature is definitely the big determining factor. Im sure a dolphin will eat more trout, redfish and flounder in one day than your average fisherman can eat in a year. At the end of the day you can call it however you want to. If I go fish today and kill 1 trout, I affected the population. That is a fact. If you fish a school of 100 trout a couple times a week and keep your limits everyday, there will eventually be less than a 100 trout in that school of fish. Does Mother Nature replace those fish the same day they are killed? Im not here to try and tell anyone they are right or wrong just throwing what I know out there.

Bert

 

What I'm about to say is based on 50 years of fishing. I think the current NUMBERS of recreational fishermen have a huge impact on the fish populations. In the Sabine area where I fish, in the 70s and 80s, I rarely ever saw more than a half dozen boats, besides me, and limits of trout (25 back then) were easy. Nowadays, I can barely find a parking spot at the ramp and boats are wall to wall everywhere the trout hang out, like at the jetties. It's hard to scratch out a limit of keeper fish anywhere. That's why I've basically quit trout fishing. Now I fish for those undesirable species like bull reds and sharks.

 

If recreational fisherman dont impact the resource then why does TPWD close season on flounder in November? Why do they prohibit fishing certain places (deep refuge areas) during hard freezes. Why do they have a season for Red Snapper and AJ?
Certain freshwater fish on certain bodies of water have restricted bag limits and then increased back to higher more liberal limits

 

Fair points to consider in this discussion whether recs have a meaningful impact on a resource

 

Here are some other fair points to consider.

Flounder limits have gotten very tight very quickly. Then to full closure. Do yall really think that is in response to over harvest by recreational rod and reel fisherman? Or because we have had terrible environmental conditions not supportive of flounder spawning and not conducive to successful recruitment....

Not to mention the snapper debacle by the feds. How are the flounder supposed to make it offshore to spawn at all Oct-Dec??????? Ask any offshore fisherman how thick thr snapper are during that prime flounder time. The flounder get annihilated during their spawn by the over population of snapper.

Then there are the shrimpers....ever seen a shrimpers by catch. EVERYTIME they pull their nets.....EVERYTIME.

If you have never really analyzed a shrimpers by catch on the deck of that boat then you shouldnt really comment here. If this describes you then educate yourself. I guarantee you would very much change your view immediately. If you saw one bycatch cull on the deck of a shrimp boat..... now add up how many times they cull like that and add up all the shrimp boats.....

Here's a hint...one shrimpers cull by catch one time is more than most of yall have ever had in your boat in your lifetime.... ONE!!! Pls go see for yourself.....

Do they ever give the commercial guys tighter game fish restrictions? Or just the recs???? Think about it....

Do they stop the dredging of the ship channels during the flounder run? Ever seen how many flounder are blown thru the dredge? Why close just the recs but not stop the habitat degradation???

 

Grem, really enjoy most of your posts As a respected guide who willingly shares great info here, which is appreciated…

here’s a a followon question to your position “recs have NO meaningful impact on trout population”

are you saying individual conservation efforts can NOT make a meaningful difference if there’s broad rec buyin (given the growing numbers pursuing a common resource)?

Most here agree that environmental factors have biggest negative impact — which is out of individual rec fisherman control

 

Yep. When the limit was ten trout the very average weekender rec (not the expert recs) would catch 2-3....

When they changed the limit to 5 the average rec still catches 2-3....

When they changed the limit to 3 the average rec still catches 2-3....

And when they change the limit back to 5 the average rec will still catch 2-3...

And when they go to 3 coastwide for Texas (it's coming due to public pressure)......the average rec will continue to catch 2-3.....

 

TPWD changes these limits based on public pressure. Their own data sets do not support these changes.

TPWD has offered to change redfish limits back to 5 per day at least twice. Their numbers support this. The public shot it down wanting to keep it to three .... every time it has been proposed.

They work for the state and for the anglers and for the resource. But ultimately the money comes from the people. So they give the people what they want.

They will propose changes based on their numbers......and give the people what they are screaming for anyway. Even if they data does not support it.

Fish kill pics during the freeze are very emotional and disturbing.... but those couple days of sad fish kill pics on those rare events are no different than dock kill pics celebrated daily on social media. Why the difference? Because one can garner support for tighter limit changes.

Tighter limits lead right on to the next tighter limits. 25-10-5-3 to closed days coming soon....

Do not DO NOT support it. Catch and release all you want. Most of my customers do. I would say 80+% of my customers catch and release. But DO NOT support the limit changes.

 

Appreciate your reply…but see rec impacts differently on population decline & conservation

Good to have 2coolers discuss given the large user base

1. Where does avg rec catch = 2-3 come from?

historically, the notion was 95% of trout were caught by 5%.

today, times are different based on most recs I know. Recs are more capable based on vids, technology, networks, increase use of night lights, etc….they can catch their limit & likely exceed (and release).

2. And you’re right, Limits typically don’t increase after a reduction, as TPW is quite aware of increasing pressure based on increasing license sales (they know environmental impacts will continue , coupled with increased rec impact)…

3. and you’re right, too, that habitat improvement /continued commercial monitoring would be helpful.

4. As a guide, I’m a bit surprised to hear that individual rec conservation would have no meaningful impact. I would agree if most recs didn’t catch or has low catch rates. Today, most recs are more capable than you give them credit, imo

 

It's a good discussion for sure. And everyone will have their opinion based on their experiences.

For example.... the people YOU communicate with about fishing are likely good accomplished fisherman. Some of them may be on 2cool and social media around fishing groups. The people I communicate with.....and I guarantee I interact with more "fisherman" than you do by the nature of what I do..... those "fisherman" are NOT accomplished or good. That's why they are seeking to go with someone who knows how. They may only fish once or twice a year. They do not have luck on their own. By numbers they are the average rec.... your circle of fisherman are not average recs.....they know how and fish often. The majority of license sales are NOT the guys that know how. Most are occasional fisherman at best and don't have a lot of success. By numbers that occasional fisherman is the average rec.

So expand that. Most really good accomplished fisherman that can stroke those trout day in and day out don't fish the weekends. Stay with me here for this point. The good guys are not fishing weekends. The average rec is flooding the boat ramps on weekends.....with some mostly limited success.....

Now.... when does TPWD do their ramp surveys? On the weekend when there are more "fisherman". Their dock survey will tell ya that people are catching less. So they adjust the limits based on the average rec with limited success.

See how that can not be accurate representative of what is being caught? Just as TPWD is not going to survey the ramp after a Trout Master type tournament.....cuz those guys are experts.....not accurate.

Neither survey is representative or valuable.....yet that weekend average rec survey is all they have to go by.

So I give the above average recs here and pursuing the info on fishing formats and informative videos a lot of credit. They are in the minority.

Hear about the increased instances of bad behavior on the water and increased instances of terrible boaters and disrespectful fisherman? Those guys are not stroking the trout.....but more and more of them pressuring the fish with their boat. So the fish move and escape. Just as many fish as there have been but they are spooked away from where we want to catch them. We mistakenly take that as there are fewer fish. And more anglers.

It's skewed. But if you look at the whole the legal limit rod and reel impact is not killing fish off.....

It's habitat loss. I will give you an indisputable fact... tell me how the snook limits are affecting the numbers of snook in Galv or Sabine?

Laughable right? We don't have the habitat and environmental conditions to support that population on the upper coast. Lower coast however they can target snook every day. If they raise the snook limit from 1 to 50 is that going to negatively affect the snook population on the upper coast? Ridiculous... Simple really.

 

I said this on a different thread, but the problem is the TPWD not the fisherman. They have caved to political pressures to appease the public and not fix what is clearly a mismanagement of the trout fishery with the slot, hence the decline from increased fishermen and the fish not having enough broodfish for recruitment replacement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

At the end of the day its all opinion. If you poll all Texas guides with a guides license over 15 years I bet the numbers would still come back 50 / 50 that agree / disagree the impact made by rod and reel.

 

Yes of course there is a need for limits.
The question of the OP poll is: Can recreational fishermen, when following limits, create a negative impact on speckled trout pop?

The answer is no. Following the limits, recreational anglers cannot negatively affect the fish populations with rod and reel. And never have.

The point is that limits aren't hurting the fish numbers.....so why are limits the only thing getting tighter? No commercial restrictions are infinitely more taxing on the resource....and do the most long term damage. Habitat loss are infinitely more taxing on the resource....and do the most long term damage.

Yet people allow it and willingly give up their own fish limits.....as if they are helping. It's misguided.

 

Trout populations, just like every other fish, can be negatively impacted by over harvest. The legal limits can be too much given things like cold weather event, algal blooms, increased numbers of fishermen in a given area, etc. Bag and size limits are based on data collections and should be flexible given changes in the impacts of recreational fishing, habitat degradation, low spawning, etc.

 

There are the things we can control and the things we cannot control. We cannot control Mother Nature. We can choose to not keep as many fish as we once did. Keeping fish 110 percent affects the population. If there are 100,000 trout in the bay and one dies then there are 99,999 left. Then that one trout that was 15 1/8 inch long will get replaced in a couple years or however long it takes them to get that size. No one on here is 100 percent right or 100 percent wrong there are too many variables.

 

This is an excerpt from an article I found in Texas fish and game magazine

During the August through December tracking period, fishing licenses in Texas exploded. 32,717 more resident year-from-purchase all water licenses were sold than the previous year, a more than 50 percent spike. Resident freshwater fishing licenses were up over 23 percent, saltwater up nearly 15 percent. Total fishing packages and stamps were up about 24 percent.

“Our license year runs from September through August of each year…In license year 2020 there was a total of 1,561,867 fishing licenses sold compared to license year 2019, when 1,293,468 fishing licenses were sold. These numbers include all freshwater and saltwater fishing packages and endorsements combined,” said Brian Van Zee, a regional director for TPWD’s inland fisheries division.

“This was a record-breaking year in terms of the number of fishing licenses sold and it’s encouraging to see people getting outdoors and enjoying the great resources of the state. You might be able to say that people and families getting outdoors and spending more time together is one positive outcome"............
People showing up at the cleaning table or ramp with 2-3 fish doesn't necessarily represent the average weekend fisherman sucess rate. There are soooo many good fisherman who live on the bay, canal, bayou, water. I'd venture to say their sucess rate is higher and they catch fish under their lights. There are many many houses on the water and there's usually a boat hanging in the sling and lights on their piers.
I'll get real philosophical here. Law of averages. More people less to go around. Less people more to go around.

 

Consider this.... ONE trout will release 3 MILLION TO 20 MILLION EGGS PER YEAR! Just one trout .... ONE!!!!! So imagine their wasn't the overwhelming commercial impact and big money commerce gobbling up all the habitat. Would you say then it is reasonable to consider....that without the commercial impact and without environmental extreme rare events....ONLY recreational rod and reel.... that it is possible the trout can spawn and reproduce faster than rod and reel recreational limits can take them out?

Any reasonable per would agree.

But then comes the argument about recruitment being low. And the success of those eggs growing to maturity being low....

Ok I agree. Are those factors due to rod and reel? Or commercial and habitat loss?

AGAIN!!!! ONE trout will release 3 MILLION TO 20 MILLION EGGS PER YEAR! Imagine if the commercial impact could get out of their way....

How can anyone argue against that limits are the deciding factor given the above specific parameters....

Start with this in your calculator.... 4million to 20 million eggs per year for every trout in the water....then talk about the licenses sold as shown above.....then the daily limit.... the math will compound up quick.... you will see the massive massive discrepancy in the math. Now after your limits x licenses calculations where is the additional impact coming from? The discrepancy is massive yall.....