[Stumpgrinder1]

If its true that the overwhelming majority of fisherman lack the wherewithal to catch more than 2 or 3 trout in a trip I just cant understand the angst about making the legal limit 3 fish. Unless you need the glory pic to post on facebook I see no compelling reason to kill more than 3 a day per person.

Look guys , we have precious little control over habitat loss . The buy back programs of shrimping licenses that happened 20 years ago have radically reduced commercial pressure and 6 million people live in the greater Houston area and growing by the hour. What we can control is us. We should do that.

If you need limits to be higher for ulterior motives, Im sorry for thinking like I do but it probably wont change my mind.

 

[Sgrem]

Make no mistake here......They ARE going to change the limit to 3. They are ONLY changing it due to public pressure. The surveys do not support the need to change it and show a great healthy population of trout similar to years past when limits were ten.

Think about that.....

Limits could be zero for me. The vast majority of my customers have been catch and release for most of a decade. And my wife can't eat seafood. So keeping fish affects me none. I have none in the freezer and haven't had a fish in my freezer in over a decade.

I'm just letting yall know that the tighter limits are not supported by the data. The only thing driving this is public pressure....NOT any sudden need to save the fishery.

 

[SaltwaterParadise]

there will be a need to lower eventually due to:

Environmental impacts will continue
Trends of increasing pressure will continue

 

[Stumpgrinder1]

Fish stocks are like money to me. The more I have in the bank, the better I like it.

Especially when anybody can come make a withdrawal from the public account and the line of people at the pay window gets longer by the minute .

 

[Sgrem]

Yep agreed. So as a fisherman I take very very very few withdrawals. I leave em all in savings.

 

[Sgrem]

So here it is yall. This is the Texas Parks And Wildlife gill net survey results.
Swings back and forth but since they normalized their methods there has been ZERO significant lasting decline in numbers over the last 35 years. Now how is that possible?

I know yall don't want to believe it but I am not making it up.
The graph shows limits going from 25, to 10, to 5, to 3.....and has changed nothing.

The trout are there yall. Just not where you want to catch them.

 

[sideshow]

Does it happen to mention what age class the fish are in all the surverys?

 

[sideshow]

It not about wanting to believe it or not. If people keep less trout we will have a better fishery...how could we not? Make less withdrawals from the atm you have more money in the bank. I get not wanting the gubbamint telling you what to do its just more about having more trout to catch one day that are in the 20-25 inch range and maybe having a legit shot at a 28-30 incher here and there.

 

[Sgrem]

We are allllllll welcome to keep as few as you want. How many you fileted recently? Some guys want big trophy horns....some want meat. They can still share the same campfire without one telling the other what to shoot.

I know a guy that fishes occasionally....maybe averages 4 times a month.....has four over 28" trout this year already. Dude knows how to target em.

And for the guys targeting 25" plus trout the limits wouldn't matter. In general they are a culture of catch and release.

 

[TheGoose]

I only voted yes because it did not stipulate what the limits are/were/should be. For example, if limits were 25 vs 5 etc.

I believe that a 5 trout limit can be sustained indefinitely.

 

[SaltwaterParadise]

View attachment 4639528 So here it is yall. This is the Texas Parks And Wildlife gill net survey results.
Swings back and forth but since they normalized their methods there has been ZERO significant lasting decline in numbers over the last 35 years. Now how is that possible?

I know yall don't want to believe it but I am not making it up.
The graph shows limits going from 25, to 10, to 5, to 3.....and has changed nothing.

The trout are there yall. Just not where you want to catch them.

thanks for sharing, Grem

Agree the graph shows sustainable numbers over the years

However, The graph includes the effects of limit reductions over the years, in an attempt to sustain the population. And we should hear from a game biologist to say for sure, but I suspect Without limit changes over the years, the rec effects would have worsened/sustained the dips….

no One here is arguing rec effects are the major cause of population decline — but there is a negative rec effect on the population that requires management / limit changes

you are stating: Don’t support limit changes is another point that’s difficult to understand

At some point, limit changes are necessary as environmental impacts & increased pressure will continue

 

[Stumpgrinder1]

When did robust annual stocking programs start ? Honestly, I cannot recall.

 

[Camper_bob]

Make no mistake here......They ARE going to change the limit to 3. They are ONLY changing it due to public pressure.

...snip

I'm just letting yall know that the tighter limits are not supported by the data. The only thing driving this is public pressure....NOT any sudden need to save the fishery.

I've been watching this discussion with great interest and curiosity, and I have an honest question: Where is the "public pressure" you speak of coming from? It seems unlikely it's coming from the general fishing community. Unless maybe they are the ones not catching (of which I am one), and thus think there aren't enough out there (of which I am NOT one, I'm confident they're out there, I just need to learn how to find them)? And I'm not sure the general public gives a hoot how many trout there are or how many are kept?

Personally I'm lucky if I get to go fishing at the coast more than twice a year (probably less than a week total fishing days per year in the salt), and I usually catch at least one trout each time out. So the limit doesn't matter much to me either. I'm going to generally go for whatever the data suggests to support the long-term health of any given fishery, so if decisions are being made that go against that data, then I'm personally likely to disagree with that.

 

[Sgrem]

thanks for sharing, Grem

Agree the graph shows sustainable numbers over the years

However, The graph includes the effects of limit reductions over the years, in an attempt to sustain the population. And we should hear from a game biologist to say for sure, but I suspect Without limit changes over the years, the rec effects would have worsened/sustained the dips….

no One here is arguing rec effects are the major cause of population decline — but there is a negative rec effect on the population that requires management / limit changes

you are stating: Don’t support limit changes is another point that’s difficult to understand

At some point, limit changes are necessary as environmental impacts & increased pressure will continue

I'm saying absolutely 100% do not support limit changes regulations....ever. Until the commercial impacts regulations and environmental impact regulations are limited exponentially more then recreational limit changes.

Why are the rec limit changes the only ones they look at changing? Why do we have to volunteer and raise money for reefs and marsh restoration? Why do the commercial impactors and those degrading the habitat not have any further restrictions to help the resource?

I know we need limits....that's why I have educated thousands and thousands to catch and release....a regular practice on my boat. (People can keep whatever their limit allows but they can also choose to catch and release.) But why is their no movement on any other fronts?

Don't support limit changes without equal or greater limits on commercial impactors and habitat degraders.

And if the graph shows the effects of limit changes where does it show the effects of the crowds of people and all the magical better equipment that some are claiming the fish can't hide from? The answer is it doesnt....the graph shows that there have been no changes. I understand your limit change correlation but it seems limit changes lead right to stricter limit changes with no change in the fish.

 

[Sgrem]

I've been watching this discussion with great interest and curiosity, and I have an honest question: Where is the "public pressure" you speak of coming from? It seems unlikely it's coming from the general fishing community. Unless maybe they are the ones not catching (of which I am one), and thus think there aren't enough out there (of which I am NOT one, I'm confident they're out there, I just need to learn how to find them)? And I'm not sure the general public gives a hoot how many trout there are or how many are kept?

Personally I'm lucky if I get to go fishing at the coast more than twice a year (probably less than a week total fishing days per year in the salt), and I usually catch at least one trout each time out. So the limit doesn't matter much to me either. I'm going to generally go for whatever the data suggests to support the long-term health of any given fishery, so if decisions are being made that go against that data, then I'm personally likely to disagree with that.

Exactly right. The general fishing population, general public if they know anything about fishing or not, the CCA, various bay foundation groups.....is the public pressure for changes....NOT supported by the data.

 

[Stumpgrinder1]

I'm saying absolutely 100% do not support limit changes regulations....ever. Until the commercial impacts regulations and environmental impact regulations are limited exponentially more then recreational limit changes.

Why are the rec limit changes the only ones they look at changing? Why do we have to volunteer and raise money for reefs and marsh restoration? Why do the commercial impactors and those degrading the habitat not have any further restrictions to help the resource?

I know we need limits....that's why I have educated thousands and thousands to catch and release....a regular practice on my boat. (People can keep whatever their limit allows but they can also choose to catch and release.) But why is their no movement on any other fronts?

Don't support limit changes without equal or greater limits on commercial impactors and habitat degraders.

I worked in the biggest fish house in Galveston my senior year in high school ( 77/78) there have been major restrictions put on the commercial sector. Big time, career changing , put species totally off limits and families out of work changes.

Im not saying there cant be more progress but everybody has skin in the game already. As to industry, Ive lived the environmental changes made in the last 30 years from the inside. Huge ,multi billion dollar investments in cleaner practices have been made by heavy industry around these parts.

The recreational sector has not made sacrifices in a silo by themselves

 

[Sgrem]

We are talking about trout limits.
Yes other species. I get that....Goliath grouper comes to mind. Lol
But what commercial changes have been made to support trout numbers health.

 

[prairiedog]

I'm saying absolutely 100% do not support limit changes regulations....ever. Until the commercial impacts regulations and environmental impact regulations are limited exponentially more then recreational limit changes.

Why are the rec limit changes the only ones they look at changing? Why do we have to volunteer and raise money for reefs and marsh restoration? Why do the commercial impactors and those degrading the habitat not have any further restrictions to help the resource?

I know we need limits....that's why I have educated thousands and thousands to catch and release....a regular practice on my boat. (People can keep whatever their limit allows but they can also choose to catch and release.) But why is their no movement on any other fronts?

Don't support limit changes without equal or greater limits on commercial impactors and habitat degraders.

And if the graph shows the effects of limit changes where does it show the effects of the crowds of people and all the magical better equipment that some are claiming the fish can't hide from? The answer is it doesnt....the graph shows that there have been no changes. I understand your limit change correlation but it seems limit changes lead right to stricter limit changes with no change in the fish.

Couldn't agree more! On another note same has happened with the ducks and habitat disruption, flyways have had to shift with the changes made to the habitat. Hunt the same way you did 30 years ago and you just ain't gonna harvest what you did back then. Gear has advanced to help the waterfowl hunters ensure better success but if you ain't where they are at it doesn't matter.

 

[Stumpgrinder1]

We are talking about trout limits.
Yes other species. I get that....Goliath grouper comes to mind. Lol
But what commercial changes have been made to support trout numbers health.

Gamefish status. You cannot legally sell trout in Texas and you cannot get trout on a menu in a restaurant.
Just like redfish . Why flounder havent been placed on this list baffles me

 

[Camper_bob]

I worked in the biggest fish house in Galveston my senior year in high school ( 77/78) there have been major restrictions put on the commercial sector. Big time, career changing , put species totally off limits and families out of work changes.

Im not saying there cant be more progress but everybody has skin in the game already. As to industry, Ive lived the environmental changes made in the last 30 years from the inside. Huge ,multi billion dollar investments in cleaner practices have been made by heavy industry around these parts.

The recreational sector has not made sacrifices in a silo by themselves

This seems the most logical to me. I know environmental impact restrictions have increased on industry in the area (designed to protect habitat for the entire area if not specifically trout). I have seen specific areas being restricted to oyster harvest (helping to protect natural habitat for all species). Seems to me there are more players in this game being restricted in the name of habitat and species protection than just the rec fishermen.

That being said, I hate to see the impact of rec fishermen being overstated, if it is in fact being overstated. Seems lowering rec limits would be the "path of least resistance", and would impact the fewest people. But it feels a lot more like "political theater" to me. A way for someone to say "look, we did something", without accountability for the specific impact. Given the 3-hr news cycle any more, people will forget about it in as much time, and the "accountability" part won't matter except to that small population directly affected.

I think the most difficult part of all of this would be the balance between a robust and thriving economic environment and a robust and thriving natural environment.