Possible changes to trout limits

[Night Wing]

I don't target speck trout so going from a 10 fish to a 5 fish bag limit wouldn't concern me. If there is one thing I'd like to see, I wish TPW would raise the minimum length limit from 15" to 16".

[Hirsch]

Why not simply catch you limit of one species and move on to the next. Trying to skirt the law takes more energy. If you cannot afford to fish you sure cannot afford the lawyer or the fine.

I would be happy to swallow the more restrictive BAG LIMIT, if they compensated by easing the rediculous possession limit. Why should people who live on the coast be able to catch and keep all they want for their freezer (no limit on possession), and I (who is bringing the new money into the coastal area) am limited to 2 days catch until I return home and then come back. That's the really stupid part of the law. People who can't due to distance, put their days catch directly into their freezer are limited TWICE. As long as I abide by the daily BAG LIMIT, I should be able to keep as many BAG LIMITS as I spend days fishing on each fishing trip. So to get around it, am I supposed to go to a friends home and deposit my fish in his freezer and hope I don't get caught?? Double jeopardy and unequal treatment under the law and if challenged in court would probably overturn the law. Here is the other wrong part of the Possession limit idea. Say I come to Corpus, fish for 3 days and limit each day. If I cook one of the days fish for dinner, then I can catch and keep 3 limits, because I just kept 2. What is the difference if I catch and cook or just take home frozen. Last if I were to also catch a bunch of Pompano and Whiting and croaker, and sand trout and filleted all of them, how is a game warden going to tell which fillets were which?? Is it an essentially uninforceable law??

[BENNY]

I would be happy to swallow the more restrictive BAG LIMIT, if they compensated by easing the rediculous possession limit. Why should people who live on the coast be able to catch and keep all they want for their freezer (no limit on possession), and I (who is bringing the new money into the coastal area) am limited to 2 days catch until I return home and then come back. That's the really stupid part of the law. People who can't due to distance, put their days catch directly into their freezer are limited TWICE. As long as I abide by the daily BAG LIMIT, I should be able to keep as many BAG LIMITS as I spend days fishing on each fishing trip. So to get around it, am I supposed to go to a friends home and deposit my fish in his freezer and hope I don't get caught?? Double jeopardy and unequal treatment under the law and if challenged in court would probably overturn the law. Here is the other wrong part of the Possession limit idea. Say I come to Corpus, fish for 3 days and limit each day. If I cook one of the days fish for dinner, then I can catch and keep 3 limits, because I just kept 2. What is the difference if I catch and cook or just take home frozen. Last if I were to also catch a bunch of Pompano and Whiting and croaker, and sand trout and filleted all of them, how is a game warden going to tell which fillets were which?? Is it an essentially uninforceable law??

So for 3 days of fishing on the coast by yourself, 10 trout, 6 redfish, 10 flounder, 10 black drum and 10 sheepshead isn't enough fish? Not including the whiting and sand trout and pompano mentioned above. I've never understood the joy of cooking old frozen fish anyway. Fish to fish...keep a few for the grease and come back and get more when you are hungry.
If your intention is to take home your possession limit every time you visit the coast for a couple of days, then sorry man, I think you are part of the problem and I welcome the 5 trout rule, especially for you.

[hipshot]

FoldCatOne, the problem is that too many people abuse the limits. You might be honest about how many days you fished, but far too many won't. This isn't supposition, it's supported by history. The TPWD warden stops a guy with seven limits in his ice chest. He, and his friends, state they've been fishing for a week. The GW can't prove otherwise on scene. The suspect will have no problem finding some fellow scofflaws to lie for him in court -- it happens all day every day. Too much trouble to enforce reliably.

[texan4ut]

I would be more in favor of a closed season or a reduction of the limit for a paticular month ot months, much like the flounder limit reduction for NOV. That would allow those folks like me that are 3+ hours away to choose not to come down when the limit is restricted or a closed season, and could come down when the limit is 10 per day. This would also limit locals that are close and can fish in some cases everyday and take home a limit. Wouldn't effect the catch and release guys at all. Just my 2 cents

[BigGabe63]

I am all for it. I grew up in the Lower Laguna madre and still fish it regularly. I think if it is needed to secure our ecosystem then it is needed. The 5 trout limit has not affected the LLM at all and I don't think it will anywhere else. If anything I would think a Guide would enjoy this because they only have to get their clients 5 trout instead of the 10. I for one hardly keep the fish I catch. I go fishing because I enjoy it and enjoy the peace and quiet of being on the water. If I have a hinkering for some fish I go to HEB or Red Lobster.

[let's go]

I just received an e-mail from someone involved with the scoping process. His thoughts were that they need to raise the minimum length to 16" and reduce the bag limit to 5 from East Matagorda on south.

His thoughts are based on the fact that adding the inch will alllow those prolific young spawners an extra season to reproduce. Also, the difference between the weight of of 15" trout and a 16" trout is fairly significant. It is the point in their growth where they tend to thicken up. Total weight of fillets from 5 16-17" trout will be fairly close to that of 10 15"ers. Makes sense to me.

As for the 5 fish limit being extended all along the middle coast, the long term fishery surveys conducted by TPWD have shown a steady decline in trout populations for these areas for 10+ years. Galveston and Sabine have not shown the same amount of decline and should be left alone so long as the surveys don't show a serious decline. I disagree with that in that if the changes were put in place on the upper coast before there's a problem then the chances of having a problem are reduced. Why not shoot for an excellent fishery instead of simply a sustainable one?

One argument that I hear fairly often from the pro meat-haul faction is that it doesn't matter how many fish we save through tighter limits because red tide or freezes will get them anyway. A certain percentage of fish will survive whatever Mother Nature throws at them. If you have a healthy and thriving fishery there will be more fish left to repopulate. If you have a weak fishery it can be decimated by such occurrences to the point where repopulation can take much longer if it occurs at all.

Redfish are the perfect example of this. As Kayak Kid made mention, there weren't a whole lot of redfish back in the late 70's and early 80's. The population was in real trouble, then came the freeze of 83 and redfish took a huge hit. If it weren't for the tighter regulations and the newly formed GCCA getting behind the establishment of the redfish hatcheries I seriously doubt we would be enjoying the incredible redfishing we all enjoy today.

I'll gladly trade a few fillets in the freezer for a flat full of tailing reds and healthy schools of trout roaming the drop-offs.

[Pete A.]

I'm for it and have fished the coast since I was able to drive in '72 and did some of the "ice-chest" hauls. I remember days just off Texas City Dike keeping lots & lots of "schoolies". They are quite tasty at the 12-14" range.

This year mys sons, 17 &13 finally started to make some good catches of mostly Reds. I got to tell it is hard to explain to a 13 year old that his 3# 19" red is too small. But he is ok with it and understands.

So if 5 per day does it for trout great but keep the 15" size and I'd like to see the only 1 over 28" changed. Possibly say 3 tags per license like we do with deer. Doesn't matter which day as long as total per year is controlled. IMHO the single over 28" is a control issue by guides with no basis in study.

Better TPWD enforcement of catchs on private lighted piers is alos in order. 2 weeks ago we were at a public pier and caught 50+ trout but release all but 3 as rest were under 15". I believe this is the norm and don't believe at night private piers follow any rules; just run it in the house and fillet.

Pete A.

[let's go]

Just to help keep you legal and not confuse anyone else, it is one trout over 25" not 28". The reasoning is pretty simple and was indeed based on science. A healthy population has a certain percentage of fish in all age brackets. The upper end of the population was suffering, thus the regulations. I'm not really sure what makes you think that was pushed through by guides in particular. More big fish left in the population means more chances for everyone to experience the thrill of catching one of those all too rare beauties.

[Yaklash]

They should reduce the limit to 7 1/2 instead of 5. That way some of the guides can still make a living.

Half a fish? LOL!

[Pete A.]

I agree that I got the 25 & 28 mixed up, my bad.

I disagree with the typical "if this then that" analogy of only 1 per day. I tire of the utopian statments like "experience the thrill of catching one of those all too rare beauties". Please, sounds like a quote form "A River Runs Through it" or out of an Orvis brochure.

The deer herd does not suffer more or less if the limit is reached in a day or a full season. Just how many are bagged per year. That is why the tag like a redfish would be useful. Then those of us who don't get lots of those "rare beauties" but hit a good day could keep a couple. Would then also limit the total per year of the 50 trips a year regulars.

Establish how many 25" per year can the resource withstand to maintain a healthy fishery then let that number be harvested. One per day is too arbitrary to be a result of a meaningful study.

Pete A.

[Kayak Kid]

Let's Go,
I glossed over the red fish deal due to my lack of knowledge about the subject. Please fill us in on what exactly caused the red fish population to explode to what it is today as I believe its most pertinent to the subject at hand.

Also, you might give one of your knowledgeable diatribes and explain to us how paying a guide their ridiculous fees to catch a few pounds of fish is lacking any semblance of fiscal responsibility. It make a lot more economical sense to pay a guide their big fees in order to learn from them how to catch more fish your self.

[Kayak Kid]

Let's Go,
Please do not make an attempt to educate those few who do not understand the 'romance' of fishing. Most will never comprehend. Perhaps a simple suggestion to read a bit of Henry David Thorou might open their eyes to a new dimension of the sport..........As well as that of hunting.

[let's go]

Sorry Pete, but those big trout are rare and beautiful. And catching one should be a thrill.

If catching a 28 or 30" trout means nothing more than a bigger fillet on your plate, perhaps you should go to the catfish farm.

[Mr. B]

I agree that I got the 25 & 28 mixed up, my bad.

I disagree with the typical "if this then that" analogy of only 1 per day. I tire of the utopian statments like "experience the thrill of catching one of those all too rare beauties". Please, sounds like a quote form "A River Runs Through it" or out of an Orvis brochure.

The deer herd does not suffer more or less if the limit is reached in a day or a full season. Just how many are bagged per year. That is why the tag like a redfish would be useful. Then those of us who don't get lots of those "rare beauties" but hit a good day could keep a couple. Would then also limit the total per year of the 50 trips a year regulars.

Establish how many 25" per year can the resource withstand to maintain a healthy fishery then let that number be harvested. One per day is too arbitrary to be a result of a meaningful study.

Pete A.

Why do you feel the need to keep such large trout. You show your skills and if you catch them take a photo and return it to fight again. Keep you limit of smaller ones for eating if need be but let the trophy trout go. Far more impressive to catch and release the them

[let's go]

Let's Go,
I glossed over the red fish deal due to my lack of knowledge about the subject. Please fill us in on what exactly caused the red fish population to explode to what it is today as I believe its most pertinent to the subject at hand.

In the most simple terms, they were over fished commercially. Gill nets were the tool of choice and were extremely effective on redfish in shallow water. I can recall not being able to go into many of our back lakes due to the damn nets stretched everywhere. Imagine how easy it would be to stretch a net across the opening to a marsh lake and then herd all of the reds from that lake into the trap. Or stretching one across a shallow flat and catching every red that crosses.

All of that put the population in trouble, but the kicker was when the "blackened redfish" craze started up. If you don't already know this, reds don't spawn until they reach around 30-32". At that point they leave the bays and congregate in large schools offshore. Those large schools of spawners became the target of purse seiners to feed the blackened redfish market. Spotter planes were used to locate the breeding schools and then the purse seine boats converged to wipe out the entire school. So the juveniles were getting hammered in the bays and the adults were getting taken out by the thousands offshore.

It isn't hard to understand where that led. The first step was forming the GCCA, next was passing legislation to make them gamefish, then it was getting rid of gill nets and establishing the hatcheries to lend nature a hand at fixing what we had screwed up. The results are that I can go out most anywhere on the Texas coast in most any conditions and find redfish. It has been an amazing turnaround.

I don't agree with everything CCA does, but I will always support them based solely on the fact that without that organization we probably wouldn't have any redfish today.

[Pete A.]

Mr. B "Why do you feel the need to keep such large trout".

Why do you feel a need to judge what legal fish I or another would have? If we are within the law then it should be "live & let live".

I've caught trout this size before and hope to again, they are great fighters and delicious.

But if you guys want to put some sort of religious like status on these fish then there's no discussion. Hard to get between a man and his religion.

Pete A.

[rayb]

If money is your concern, please don't start deer hunting, the cost per pound will kill you. Most super markets have a seafood section where fish is pretty cheap.

[BigGabe63]

If money is your concern, please don't start deer hunting, the cost per pound will kill you. Most super markets have a seafood section where fish is pretty cheap.

This is exactly how I feel. I don't understand how some don't consider a trip successful unless they have a stringer full of fish and freezer with fillets than more often than not go to waste. We have picture phones and waterproof digital cameras. Take a pic and let that fish go. Now I am not trying to tell someone what they should do but if somethin is needed to ensure that I will be able to take my son and possibly grandchildren fishing in my later years then I am all for it. Like I have said before I hardly ever keep fish and I consider a trip successful by the fish I catch but not keep. I love to eat both fried and blackened fish but if I have a hinkering for some then I go to a restaurant or H.E.B. it is cheaper.

[Yaklash]

Let's Go,
I glossed over the red fish deal due to my lack of knowledge about the subject. Please fill us in on what exactly caused the red fish population to explode to what it is today as I believe its most pertinent to the subject at hand.

I ain't no Let's Go, but the points in favor for the redfish population comeback were the banning of netting in Texas first (followed by most if not all other Gulf Coast states), the reduction of the purse limits, the creation of a slot limit & limit of 2 per year over the slot (protecting the brood stock by limiting the number of them one could take while they are stacked up in the surf like sitting ducks during the spawn), I think there might have also been something put in place having to do with trot-lines and redfish, and the creation of breeding ponds that pump 25 to 30 million redfish fingerlings into Texas' bay systems. I read recently, however, that the stocking program accounts for no more than 10% of fish caught in gill-net surveys in Galveston Bay system and barely 1% in Aransas (on fish 4 years old or younger). It would appear that the lack of nets would be the largest contributer with the slot limit being the other.

[let's go]

Also, you might give one of your knowledgeable diatribes and explain to us how paying a guide their ridiculous fees to catch a few pounds of fish is lacking any semblance of fiscal responsibility. It make a lot more economical sense to pay a guide their big fees in order to learn from them how to catch more fish your self.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for the day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."

You can pay one of the meat-haul guides who will put you on a limit while sitting on their "hole" and go home with a sack of fillets and very little knowledge of how or why those fish were caught. But hey, you've got a few good meals out of it. There are apparently a bunch of folks who are okay with that or there wouldn't be so many guides who cater to that customer.

Or you can go with a guide who will not only teach you technique for how to catch fish, but also work at explaining why the fish are where they are and the signs that led to those fish. With that you can then have more success when venturing out on your own. Personally, I see a lot more value in knowledge than I do in being handed a meal.

As much as I enjoy putting customers on a big day of catching fish, I get a bigger kick out of hearing "I learned more today than I have in years of trying to figure it out on my own." Or when I take an old-timer like Kayak Kid and they say, "I've been fishing Galveston all my life and you just showed me places I've never been." To me that's what it's all about.

[EPerez]

I don't understand why people are so stuck on eating their limit in trout anyhow. They are pretty tasty but so are flounder, redfish, black drum, croaker, sheephead, shark, whiting, etc...

Speckled Trout are beautiful fish... The other day after cleaning one I looked at its carcass and almost felt a little regret about killing it. Now, I'm no tree-hugger(trout-hugger?) and that fish tasted pretty good (not as good as the flounder I had a couple weeks ago) but I think every time I kill a fish then cut it up I feel a healthy sense of loss. I think a lot of people lose that sense of connection... I'm probably over thinking this

[justletmefish]

I don't understand why people are so stuck on eating their limit in trout anyhow. They are pretty tasty but so are flounder, redfish, black drum, croaker, sheephead, shark, whiting, etc...

Speckled Trout are beautiful fish... The other day after cleaning one I looked at its carcass and almost felt a little regret about killing it. Now, I'm no tree-hugger(trout-hugger?) and that fish tasted pretty good (not as good as the flounder I had a couple weeks ago) but I think every time I kill a fish then cut it up I feel a healthy sense of loss. I think a lot of people lose that sense of connection... I'm probably over thinking this

I only feel that way about deer and 15" trout, but backstrap is delicious and trout is the best tasting fish for me except red snapper, and I have not tried ling though I hear it is the best. but the only one I had on my line got off 5' from the boat. but for trout the 15" are just too small and yes they are a beautiful species.

[karstopo]

I don't understand why people are so stuck on eating their limit in trout anyhow. They are pretty tasty but so are flounder, redfish, black drum, croaker, sheephead, shark, whiting, etc...

Speckled Trout are beautiful fish... The other day after cleaning one I looked at its carcass and almost felt a little regret about killing it. Now, I'm no tree-hugger(trout-hugger?) and that fish tasted pretty good (not as good as the flounder I had a couple weeks ago) but I think every time I kill a fish then cut it up I feel a healthy sense of loss. I think a lot of people lose that sense of connection... I'm probably over thinking this

No, that was well said. I too feel regret sometimes for harvesting fish instead of letting them go. My bunch like to eat fresh fish, but since I typically prepare and cook it, they don't get any of mine unless I keep the fish. Trout and redfish seem to have "smart" eyes and a soul. Flounder, on the other hand, have eyes from another world. I recently have vowed never to keep any trout over 24" and only keep two or three fish at a time, enough for my brood for one fresh meal.

[FoldCatOne]

"So for 3 days of fishing on the coast by yourself, 10 trout, 6 redfish, 10 flounder, 10 black drum and 10 sheepshead isn't enough fish? Not including the whiting and sand trout and pompano mentioned above. I've never understood the joy of cooking old frozen fish anyway. Fish to fish...keep a few for the grease and come back and get more when you are hungry.
If your intention is to take home your possession limit every time you visit the coast for a couple of days, then sorry man, I think you are part of the problem and I welcome the 5 trout rule, especially for you."

Easy to say, IF you live close to the coast. A HELL OF A LOT more difficult if you live 3 hours away. Thank you anyway for making the rule JUST FOR ME. Would you enjoy the comment if I said I hoped you lost your job in this economy?? You spend your money and your time in the way you want and keep your hands, rules, laws off of mine. I think the rules about possession limits should be enforced EQUALLY and should either apply to both or not apply at all.


"FoldCatOne, the problem is that too many people abuse the limits. You might be honest about how many days you fished, but far too many won't. This isn't supposition, it's supported by history. The TPWD warden stops a guy with seven limits in his ice chest. He, and his friends, state they've been fishing for a week. The GW can't prove otherwise on scene. The suspect will have no problem finding some fellow scofflaws to lie for him in court -- it happens all day every day. Too much trouble to enforce reliably."

So because they can't rely on my honesty I should be TREATED DIFFERENTLY than someone who lives on the coast and can fish whenever and where ever they they want as often as they want. What stops you from fishing this morning getting your limit taking them home and going fishing again in the evening in a different place and taking a second limit home?? HONESTY - OH I GET IT YOU ARE HONEST, I AM NOT!!! People who live close to the coast CARE ABOUT THE RESOURCE, THOSE OF US WHO DON'T LIVE CLOSE TO THE COAST DON'T CARE. What stops someone with a lighted pier and a family to feed from taking legally hundreds of trout per year?? NOTHING!!

MAYBE WE SHOULD MAKE A LAW THAT YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO CATCH A TOTAL OF 30 TROUT PER YEAR (the same as I might in 3 trips to the Coast a year), and after that all your fishing for trout has to be catch and release. Do the same for Reds and Black Drum, and Flounder, HELL MAKE IT THE SAME FOR ALL GAMEFISH (and yes make flounder a game fish). They don't allow you to shoot more deer than I can or turkeys. Lets make it all EVEN.