Come on you sound like my daughter? Always, every time, forever, you can't be serious. If there is that big of a problem where you fish then I need to come down there with some guys in green because it's way out of hand.
Tony, I'm not trying to make exaggerated claims. I'm not saying there is a huge pile of fish every time I go out, but there is evidence left in varying amounts the majority of the time. Whether it be Gar culled during tournaments, people showing up with boats covered in blood with no fish to show, or fish left at the ramp/floating down the river. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all bowfishermen are like that. I'm not even saying it's the majority. I'm saying it is a major problem, and if the bowfishermen want their image to change then maybe it would be best to take care of the problem on their side of the fence before they try to change the view on ours.
I'll buy that. Bad interpretation and application by people that are using emotions to make rules.
You view it as a knee jerk/emotional decision, when in reality it was a conservative measure to ensure we could maintain the current recruitment and harvest rates. I'm going to try to explain this the best I can, so please read this carefully. When managing any type of wildlife, the allowable harvest rate has a direct correlation to recruitment, or the number of individuals that survive to maturity/being harvestable. The more recruitment you have, the higher the harvest rate can be. For example, think about the different hunting seasons we have and how they correspond to the reproductive cycles of the animals. Texas Parks and Wildlife has established those seasons to allow maximum recruitment, which allows maximum harvest. Make sense? So, you can take data on the number of breeding individuals each year, and the number harvested each year, and from that they can determine limits, etc. They also don't expect everyone to get a limit, kind of like the same way that airlines overbook flights, since not everyone is going to show up. They also put laws in place to ensure that harvest rates are consistent, and that there are no statistical anomalies, or outlying factors that can skew that data to one extreme or the other. Okay, you know the study that you keep referencing about how we are below the maximum harvest rate? That study provided a lot of useful information, and was performed well. It gave accurate data that gave us insight our harvest rates, and what is maintainable. So, a limit of one gar per day keeps us under the maximum harvest rate, lets say, 99% of the time. I have not actually calculated it out, but you get the idea. The other 1% (an active, significant spawning situation) would be considered a statistical anomaly TO that study. In other words, by allowing harvest during that time, it could render results of the previous study that you mentioned completely useless since the harvest rate could be much higher than the original study showed. As a Biologist who has been trained for, and practiced a lot of research, I wouldn't consider the new law an emotional/knee jerk reaction. I would call it minimizing the number of variables/outliers/anomalies so that we can have confidence in the previous study, and an accurate understanding of our recruitment and harvest rates. That's the best I can explain it. There is no conspiracy here. If you really think about it, it benefits both rod and reel and bowfishermen by ensuring that all the data y'all helped obtain during that study can be used, and not be voided because of a variable being thrown into the equation. Honestly, and I really mean this, I hope what I just explained makes you feel better about the decision that was made.
This was brought on by the t-shirt comment. There are some instances where it holds water. Is it the most efficient method? Not likely. Can it make a difference? If applied correctly yes. Take Lake Conroe and Lake Jacksonville Grass Carp removal for instance. The R&R guys did a bang up job on Conroe too, I might add. I still wish we could have had a BBQue with us all together though. I don't believe we bowfishermen make enough difference to the rough fish population to ever be detrimental or effective to give that shirt or saying any salt, but then again, a shirts a shirt and sayings are sayings.
I'm not saying that bowfishing can't be utilized to manage carp populations in certain situations, and especially when it comes to triploid grass carp since they don't reproduce. And you are correct, bowfishermen and R&R fishermen did a great job on Conroe to help bring the population down to and optimal level. What I AM saying is that bowfishermen can't justify killing a bunch of common carp and dumping them in a hole in their backyard by saying that they are detrimental to our lakes, or making it sound like they actually have an affect on the population even if they were. I am morally opposed to killing for the sake of killing, with no other purpose. You aren't, and that's fine. But I'm sick of hearing bowfishermen tell people that they kill rough fish to help the environment, when in reality it's a way out of having to explain the wasteful killing that goes on here. If a bowfishermen feels like they have to lie to feel justified, what does that say? Say it like it is, that's all I'm asking for.
I thought a study showed more than that? I have one from Lake Guerrero that shows more than that, but as you say it's not relevant to Texas. I believe that what it shows is that the alligator gar are opportunistic feeders and that they will feed on what ever is most abundant and easy to catch. So my theory is that in low water times, such as you mention, which occurs in the upper reaches of most of our rivers, the gar can have an impact on game fish populations.
The study I saw of Falcon I'm pretty sure was 8%, and though they said that few fish had stomach contents, I don't know if they actually showed the data for the number. Feel free to post up the study if you have it, since I don't have time to dig it up. I think Falcon is the 6th lake in Texas that we have stomach content data on. The average between all of the others was between 3-5%. I know about the study you are talking about in Mexico, and you are right. I think the average was over 50%. Go back and look at that study and you will see that a lot of those fish didn't have any stomach contents, just like falcon. It would be interesting to see how the numbers lined up between the two different studies. However, Take a look at other available food sources on that lake.
My point on Falcon was that we shouldn't jump to conclusions, and use hearsay as fact to drum up points for one side or the other. Like I said, maybe they are eating more bass, maybe they aren't. But I posted some facts in my previous post that would definitely cause Bass numbers and quality to drop. I think the last electrofishing survey done also showed a lower abundance of bait fish than usual. Did you know that the Mexico side is basically unregulated? There is actually a quite large commercial fishery over there. I was surprised to find that out, and it kinda makes me wonder why we spend so many tax dollars stocking it.
I've said it before....Lakes should be managed individually for Gar. If they are overpopulated, raise the limit! I have no problem with that.
Slim, I don't think we are arguing anymore. We're sharing our different opinions and I think that is a good thing. Of course it always takes some tit for tat before we really start having a conversation. I wonder why that is? Yes, we kill for sport and it's a bloody sport. There is no denying that. Yes, our morals allow for it, for whatever reason, but lets don't pretend that it carries over to deer hunting or other sports which we also enjoy, including some R&R fishing.
Unfortunately, I feel like a large amount of the tit for tat is my words being twisted into saying something that we both know I didn't mean. I enjoy debating these topics, but I don't enjoy having to go back and clarify a lot of things that I say because I feel like other readers may not understand what I meant.
I would like to extend my apologies if I ever made any comment insinuating that bowfishermen were deer poachers or anything of that sort. I know others on here have made comments like that, and it's not right. I do have concerns as to what message we are sending to our kids when we don't utilize our kills for a legitimate purpose, but I don't believe that bowfishermen are the same ones that go out and night with a spotlight and shoot deer.
One more punch. So do you assume that all these deer hunters are wasting venison when all you see is the picture of them and the carcass? You can't eat all them horns anyways right?
I hope you are being sarcastic. I'm not asking for people to post up pictures of meat on the grill, or of them cleaning gar. I just like hearing people say that they saved the meat. Makes me feel better, and gives me assurance that there are more people eating them then I think. Not to mention, I see how many deer show up at the processing facility. You know, a brisket from a steer is one of the worst cuts of meat there is. If you sliced a piece of and tried to grill it, you would be very dissapointed. However, if you cook it right it's a wonderful thing. Both Gar and Carp can be cooked to something not only edible, but enjoyable. I think most people just don't put the time or research into doing it right.
One last note, to help everyone understand me...I don't want gar placed under a 20 year protection plan, which I think was mentioned by a previous poster, or anything like that. That would be stupid. Gar have been hunted for thousands of years as a food source. To have a healthy fishery, there must be an apex predator. Besides Alligators, Gar don't have very many predators once they reach a certain age besides humans. I am all for management, harvest, and utilization of our resources.