Possible changes to trout limits

[fish dirty]

Foldcatone,Sounds like it would be cheaper for you to just go to the fish market if the drive is such a problem.Dont get your panties in a wod,most people on here are just serious fishermen who want someting for their children to catch in the future.Dont get me wrong,I keep fish to but thats not the reason I go.

[let's go]

FCO, you do realize that many of the things you quoted in your pricing of a trip to the coast aren't necessities? I have made many trips further south where I simply camp out or sleep in my truck. When money has been tight I go on the cheap, eating sandwiches and paddling a kayak instead of running a boat. Those have been some of my best and most memorable trips. All I'm out is the cost of gas and some basic food/drinks that I can split that with a buddy. I can make a weekend trip to POC (2.5 hrs away) or Aransas Pass (3 hrs) for about $50, have a blast and bring home plenty of fish if I were to choose to do so. It's all about the choices.

[BENNY]

But Benny you seem to ignore the fact that it is Trout not crappie that are threatened. And yes, I would be happy for you to be able to have realistic possession limits on Bass, Crappie, catfish or whatever. I am not trying to restrict you, you are trying to restrict me. Since TROUT are the species that is threatened, WHY NOT GO WITH AN ANNUAL TOTAL CATCH OF 50 TROUT PER ANGLER?? WOULDN'T THAT HELP THE TROUT RECOVER MORE?? WOULDN'T THAT BE WHAT WOULD HELP THE FISHERY MOST?? OF COURSE THAT WOULD SPREAD THE HURT EQUALLY AND THAT ISN'T IN YOUR BEST INTERESTS IS IT??

You are missing my point, which is we have to abide by what the experts (TPW) tell us is the best way to protect the species. In this case it looks to be a 5 trout limit from Matagorda or so, south. So now you have some options..go for the weekend and bring home 10 trout on the coastal bend or south of there, or go to the upper coast for the same period and bring home 20. Here's a better idea..bring a buddy and double that. It doesn't matter what the "limits" are on any species, they will always be unfair to some, mainly due to when and where people fish and hunt. Putting an annual total on a species isn't going to change that.

[vincent]

Personally I don't like it for different reasons...I think it will put too much pressure on waters East of Matagorda...F.T.....I love the 1 over 25" rule and I've already seen a significant increase in those size fish during the winter. I can't speak for south texas, I can never find many keeper trout in the rockport/corpus area except ocassionally, but then again I really don't target them when I'm there....if you want more trout in corpus....start eating dolphin....just sayin.....

[dmanars]

I dont mind if they change the limit to preserve. I go fishing to be out and do what I love. I like catching them more than eating them. I spend my share of money when i head to the coast. Not to mention the gear I have. I dont go fishing to put food on the table or support my family with a fishing pole. Dont get me wrong, Ill throw a red or trout on the grill if I catch one. If I just like eating fish Id go buy it already fillet and cleaned. If it helps the environment Im all for it.

[EPerez]

I don't know if I completely agree with the idea "if you want to eat fish just go to the store." I think if a person wants to fish for his or his family's plate then that is his right... Just don't target species that are under such pressure... If you're so hungry for fish you shouldn't be so picky about what type you get to bring home.

And i've known some poor people who really do supplement their protein by fishing and they keep all sorts of fish (species that is, still legal sizes) that I probably wouldn't. But then again I like Papadeaux's...

[osochuck]

.if you want more trout in corpus....start eating dolphin....just sayin.....

i witnessed a trout & mullet massacre today, flipper was killing it

[Kingz]

For the record, I'd support lowering the limits and raising the minumum, ASAP...G

[c-dawg]

Does the article not state that this is not a TP&W proposal but one championed by some anglers? That being said, if the science is there then I'm all for it. When I go to the coast, I eat as much fish as I can while I am there and try to bring a few home. If I am down for 5 days, I only keep fish to take home from the last two days as I have found that I can freeze those fish and have them keep very well if frozen in water with a little salt. If I couldn't bring any fish home I would still come down for the fun and beauty of the experience. Besides, as far as I am concerned, a black bass tastes as good as a trout, and if you squint your eyes just right a carp looks just like a red and fights just as hard........well almost.

[Hirsch]

If true all the more reason to reduce the daily and possession limit to protect the resource.

And a real hint for all who fish and hunt. As the economy goes further and further in the tank, expect more and more people to retain more and more fish and game. The pressure on the resources is likely to increase due to the unrealistic money printing of our current and unfortunately recent past governments. Inflation and high unemployment is a given for the foreseeable future. Where the trips by "out of towners" will decrease the fishing pressure some, the take by locals will increase exponentially.

[Jedi]

Limits don't matter to me, because I don't eat fish. I enjoy catching them and spending time on the water. I do on occasion bring home some fish for someone I know that doesn't fish, and they ask me to bring them some. I support any limit TPWD imposes to help a species of fish. As a few have said earlier on this thread, if they don't set limit we won't be able to catch ANY fish. If saltwater fishing is your game move to the coast,and if crappie,bass or any other freshwater species is your move to where they are.

[karstopo]

We all fish for different reasons. I do believe FCO has a point. I think there could be a way to accommodate out of towners like FCO with the x amount of fish in a year type of license. Maybe a three day license and no more than 2 or 3 of those per year. That way, out of towners feel that they have taxation with representation and coastal tourism benefits. I'm sure the conservation folks could make the numbers work.

[let's go]

Glad there was a possession limit...or these guys might never have stopped.

http://www.austinbassfishing.com/cgi-bi ... 89185857/0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I still wonder what they would say if I gathered up 9 of my friends, went to their favorite lake for the weekend and kept a hundred largemouth bass and five hundred white bass? I just find it odd that bass fisherman are so adamant about catch and release, yet want to come to the coast to fill the freezers.

[FoldCatOne]

"I don't know if I completely agree with the idea "if you want to eat fish just go to the store." I think if a person wants to fish for his or his family's plate then that is his right... Just don't target species that are under such pressure... If you're so hungry for fish you shouldn't be so picky about what type you get to bring home."

Oh I am not picky as to fish I like to eat - you can be assured in that. Some I fry, some I bake and many end up in my really superb Cioppino. The comment about "don't target species that are under such pressure" begs the question - UNDER PRESSURE FROM WHOM?? Surely not under pressure from me and my 3-4 trips to the coast each year. I have also heard that there is a significant mortality of trout from the all important catch and release. I'll make a safe bet that those of you who practice catch and release KILL more trout in a year than I take home. The best idea for the benefit of the species would be a max number of trout you can catch per year AND A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU KEEP EACH FISH YOU CATCH REGARDLESS OF ITS SIZE. That way you eliminate the killing of the trout from improper catch and release and really preserve the species.

BTW, I take on all laws that are applied unequally, and possession limits are applied unequally. I also find it more than mildly amusing that those of you who would restrict the number I might catch and keep are so silent on a restriction of the number anyone can catch in one year. Would that not be the absolute best for the trout?? What most of you want is to be allowed to fish as you please and also tell others what they can do. For you its a win win situation. Sort of like I never want/can to catch and keep more than 5 trout per day (or 3 or whatever) and I want everyone else to abide by my rules/desires. How many of you just say to yourselves, HMMM, I've caught enough trout for this year, I think I will only fish for Croakers and whiting for the rest of the year?? Or do you keep right on going out and using the same tactics that most likely will produce trout?? How many of you will keep Sand Trout, Croakers, Spot Croaker, Whiting even if you were to catch them?? Not that many, because I have yet to see a picture of a nice stringer of those fish posted on this board. I do see lots of trout and reds and flounder. Shouldn't you be utilizing those other fish too - or are they just for Tourists (Tourist Trout??)??

[let's go]

The reason no one has addressed your proposal is because it is a bit ridiculous. You want to FORCE me to keep the first 50 trout I catch each year no matter the size? Seriously? You do realize that the biggest trout of the year are caught in the winter right? My first 50 trout in a good year would all be top end fish. Oh, and then there's the fact that I DON"T WANT TO KEEP THEM (figured I'd yell back at you since you keep yelling at us).

What you fail to get is that the vast majority who fish the coast regularly do not go home with an ice chest full of fish just because they can. Most of the folks I know keep a few for dinner and maybe another meal later in the week if they keep any at all. I seriously doubt I kept 20 trout last year, yet you want me to keep 50...now that makes sense. The limit isn't some sort of goal to be reached in order to consider yourself a successful fisherman.

The other issue would be implementation and enforcement of that sort of regulation. Yes it works with deer, but these are fish that are put in an ice chest or on a stringer. Do you propose that we have 50 trout tags? So we have to fill out these tags and attach them to the trout on our stringers?

Have you noticed that you're the only one yelling about how unfair this is to YOU while others are discussing the health of the resource? Interesting.

And regarding the mortality rates of catch and release you might want to do a little research on the subject. Many studies have been done that show properly handled trout do just fine. And I promise you I don't release trout that aren't in good condition. The argument that "they're going to die anyway" is old, played out and perpetuated by folks with a meat haul mentality.

[Hirsch]

Have you noticed that you're the only one yelling about how unfair this is to YOU while others are discussing the health of the resource?

Do you think he really cares? I don't. I think he cares only about his wants and desires with total disregard to others.

Most of us grow up and realize that life is not and cannot be totally fair. Laws are written for the good of the whole and everyone cannot always be pleased. We all learn to adapt if we choose to mature. More importantly we have to live with the consequences of our choices. Based on his reference to the Navy Lodge I would almost bet he is a retired Sailor or Marine. If so then most likely he lived near the coast and chose to move inland after he retired. It is certain he has lived on several coasts and knew a bit about them in making his choice of a retirement home.

[Stalkin Spots]

FoldCatOne, I would like to make a point that nobody else has addressed. You seem to be ranting under the flawed misconception that people who live on the coast fish every day, and put fillets in the freezer every day that they fish. Speaking from my own experience with family and friends, this simply is not the case. I have an uncle who lives 1/2 mile from the bay and does most of his fishing at Lake Corpus Christi. The husband of one of my cousins begs me to come down every time he sees me so he has an excuse to go fishing. For those like Let's Go, Slowride, Vincent, Benny, Sam, George, Tombo, NaplesJohn, 5moreminutes and many others who are blessed enough to go often, if you read many of there fishing reports you would see that although they may go often and more often than not catch several fish, they are not always KEEPING fish.

Like you, I don't live as close to the coast as I would like, but I'm not pi$$ed at those who do..... I'm envious. My wife is younger than I and about 30 years from retirement, but we have already decided that we will retire on the coast one day and join the ranks of those mentioned above. In the meantime, we go as often as we can and many of our trips are spent in a tent roughing it. Even when we do go it seems that I rarely get to fish these days as I am either tending to my 4 year old Princess, who discovered this year that she likes to fish, or I am teaching my 13 year old son what I know about kayaking and fishing. And to tell you the truth, I wouldn't trade those experiences for freezer full of fresh trout fillets.

BTW, I too fully support a reduction of the bag limits.....

[karstopo]

Wasn't there a song " I fought the law and the law won". FCO, if catching and keeping enough fish is so important to you move to the coast. There are no laws preventing you from that. I know people who moved to Colorado to be close to mountains. I like to elk hunt, but as an out of state resident the simple tag is 10 times the cost of the tags for a resident of Colorado. Is that fair? Sure, it is what the state of Colorado considers fair. I don't elk hunt very much because of the various costs. If it was so important to me, then I would pick up stakes and high tail it there. Life is about choices. Laws attempt to level the playing field, but most of the time someone comes up short.

[karstopo]

The only "fair" system is where nobody gets to fish at all.

[FoldCatOne]

Stalkin Spots - if you cared to read what I have posted, I have not disagreed much with the lowering of BAG LIMITS, just the changing of POSSESSION LIMITS so that they apply EQUALLY to all. In fact I have proposed an even more stringent annual limit on what is supposed to be a threatened species. Since none of the "enlightened members" are willing to agree, I guess they are only willing to limit the catches of others. And BTW, for every one of the "enlightened members" there are literally hundreds, maybe thousands of coastal fishermen who take significant numbers of trout on a daily or at least weekly basis. In fact there are a whole bunch of guides who ply their trade up and down the coast who pride themselves on getting limits of fish as quickly as possible for the fishermen so they can take them back to the dock and go about other things they have to do, such as maybe another charter in the afternoon. I doubt there are as many "enlightened fishermen" on the coast as is preached here. There are from reports you frequently read on the coastal fishing boards, a significant number of fishermen who could care less what the size and bag limits are and they do it day after day after day until they get caught. Many of these fishermen don't even bother to purchase licenses. So please, until the coastal fishermen clean up their acts, stop trying to say I should be willing to take less, especially since my 3-4 trips per year impact the health of the trout fishery in a miniscule way.

Sometimes you get the feeling that the attitude is please come to our RESORT TOWN and SPEND MONEY so our economy can prosper and we can live our lives as we choose, and then please get your ass back to where you live and leave us alone.

Good Bye - enjoy your pontificating and making yourself feel good as to what a great steward of the resource that you are. Gone off to another subject.

[Ms addicted]

Sheesh.

[saltykat]

Seems FCO has some issues that go way beyond this thread. 50 trout per year, really are you serious? Like others have said if you like fishing the coast so much move. Crappie and white bass are much more plentiful and the limits are much higher fill your freezer with them and you don't have to make the drive to the coast and spend all your money. Other than FCO just about everybody else is in favor of doing what is best for the fishery.

[Stalkin Spots]

Stalkin Spots - if you cared to read what I have posted, I have not disagreed much with the lowering of BAG LIMITS, just the changing of POSSESSION LIMITS so that they apply EQUALLY to all.

Wow, you took what I have said and really honed in on that last sentence. I have read every one of your posts and you keep coming back to the unfairness of it all that the coasties have freezers overflowing with fresh caught trout and you can only keep 2 bag limits each time you go. Had you bothered to read my post you would have deduced that what I was saying is that your 50 fish per year limit would not matter to most FISHERMAN because most probably do not keep anywhere near that number.

And BTW, for every one of the "enlightened members" there are literally hundreds, maybe thousands of coastal fishermen who take significant numbers of trout on a daily or at least weekly basis. In fact there are a whole bunch of guides who ply their trade up and down the coast who pride themselves on getting limits of fish as quickly as possible for the fishermen so they can take them back to the dock and go about other things they have to do, such as maybe another charter in the afternoon. I doubt there are as many "enlightened fishermen" on the coast as is preached here. There are from reports you frequently read on the coastal fishing boards, a significant number of fishermen who could care less what the size and bag limits are and they do it day after day after day until they get caught. Many of these fishermen don't even bother to purchase licenses. So please, until the coastal fishermen clean up their acts, stop trying to say I should be willing to take less, especially since my 3-4 trips per year impact the health of the trout fishery in a miniscule way.

You seem to be drawing a lot of generalizations about people along the coast. Do you have any actual facts to back your statements up? I don't know what boards you are visiting, but I'm sorry to tell you what you are describing are NOT fisherman. NO law you write is not going to alter the behavior of someone who already breaks the ones you have. Why on earth would you expect a "fisherman" who doesn't even bother to purchase a license to follow ANY bag / possession limits. And finally, I would challenge that for every one of the guides you mention above there are 2 (if not more) that encourage their client's to practice catch and release.

[Birdsnest]

I don't like raisins in the yams.

[Hirsch]

I don't like raisins in the yams.

My family will not let me eat the yams!!!