| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rebecca of Sunnybrookfarm
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 3974
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
hahahaha!!!!
you guys are awesome.....this is one of the healthiest and most civilized discussions I've seen on a message board in a while....
that is speaking volumes that total strangers can agree on a controversial topic, and management is missing the mark.....
happy Friday folks!
becky
_________________
| Central Scrutinizer wrote: | | Thanks for the Memories, Ranger Rick. |
| ziacatcher wrote: | | However I bet if you were fishing naked Ranger Rick would have a problem with that |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Oil Field Trash II
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 1560
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ltorna1 wrote: | I was waiting for this one!  What took you so long? Page 5?! |
just being fashionably late 
I actually caught the 27th fish from the left on artificial though. just for the record. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
speckled.trout
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 30 Aug 2012
Posts: 1190
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rebecca of Sunnybrookfarm wrote: |
that is speaking volumes that total strangers can agree on a controversial topic, and management is missing the mark.....
happy Friday folks!
becky |
How is management missing the mark, didn't management tell the commission after the last "Just keep 5" scoping meetings a couple of years ago they would keep an eye on the trout population? looks like that is what they are doing, unfortunately there is a lot of outside influence from special interest groups to make changes for their own benefit.
What I think is really funny is the fact a lot of people posting on this thread have no idea what a good trout population or a bad trout population is as far as that goes 20 years ago they didn't even know where the Laguna Madre was.
ST |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kingz
Member White Shrimper Boot Club
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 995
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oil Field Trash II wrote: | | ...I actually caught the 27th fish from the left on artificial though. just for the record... |
.
| speckled.trout wrote: | | ...funny is the fact a lot of people posting on this thread have no idea what a good trout population or a bad trout population is as far as that goes 20 years ago they didn't even know where the Laguna Madre was... |
Welcome to the I-net, not everyone was as fortunate as us...G |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TroutSlayer
Flour Bluffian in training
Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jetty Bandit wrote: | Theoretically, a changed limit to 5 fish would have people more focused on keeping trout 20-25 inches (healthy breeding candidates), as opposed to trout below 20 inches.
I don't think that's a good idea. |
You are right and along those same lines TPWD admits in the LLM they have problems with people culling their stringers to get better fish and I don't mean catch and release. They are dumping fish once they have bigger and better ones. You get more weight/meat out of 5 that way is the thinking I guess.. What really angers me is TPWD has a euphemism for it. They call this unethical practice "high grading".
_________________
Wish I Were in Baffin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
speckled.trout
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 30 Aug 2012
Posts: 1190
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
.
| speckled.trout wrote: | | ...funny is the fact a lot of people posting on this thread have no idea what a good trout population or a bad trout population is as far as that goes 20 years ago they didn't even know where the Laguna Madre was... |
Welcome to the I-net, not everyone was as fortunate as us...G[/quote]
Sorry I can't speak for "us" only "me" and yes I was fortunate enough to see the highs and low of the Laguna Madre since I can remember. that's a
long time.
ST |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drake
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 1338
Location: Arkansas
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:37 am Post subject: Trout Limits |
|
|
This discussion is very similar to the discussion that went on around how to make Bayou Meto NWMA a better experience for everyone. The fed solution was to limit the number of shells you could carry in. The folks that hunted everyday it had no impact on, they could shoot. The stumble bums from St Louis and Louisville etc that shoot once a year killed fewer ducks. Now they pay 2x as much to hunt a "field lodge" where they can shoot till they melt a barrel and if daylight doesnt give out kill 6. Giving the birds no where to rest and imprint.
Why would anyone think that a guide is going to allow this to take away from the experience they sell to thier customers. Instead of a box full of 17 - 20" males it is going to be 5 x # of fishermen. More of which will be prime breeding females.
This sounds a lot like a solution looking for a problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bassfreeks
Pony Mullet
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 76
Location: Riviera, Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Guides should be stewards of our resources. As for Capt. Sally and me, we are conservationists. We encourage our clients to keep five trout and release all over 25". But we also understand the thrill of catching that first big trout and the feeling of satisfaction and excitement an angler gets catching a trout like that.
The last thing we would ever do is rain on a clients parade by making them feel guilty about keeping a fish that is legal to keep by Texas law.
As far as the debate about dropping the trout limits along the Texas coast, I feel if the science is there to support it, then I'm all for it. If it's just political due to a vocal minority group of activists, then I feel it sets a dangerous precedent.
I fear it's the latter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crhfish
Member White Shrimper Boot Club
Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 574
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It seems to me that if this was in fact based on science then the reduction in the limits would not be 50%. Thats a pretty drastic cut and to do something that big you would think the science would be clear. Why not cut it to 8 or 7? Why 5? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tyler
Site Admin
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Posts: 12865
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crhfish wrote: | | It seems to me that if this was in fact based on science then the reduction in the limits would not be 50%. Thats a pretty drastic cut and to do something that big you would think the science would be clear. Why not cut it to 8 or 7? Why 5? |
As far as the fish limit going to 8 instead of more drastic 5. From my work with the spotted trout sea group about ten years ago, most people don't catch five much less ten (except for the guides) so limiting to 8 doesn't have much affect on the numbers of trout.
Last edited by Tyler on Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oil Field Trash II
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 1560
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tyler wrote: | | crhfish wrote: | | It seems to me that if this was in fact based on science then the reduction in the limits would not be 50%. Thats a pretty drastic cut and to do something that big you would think the science would be clear. Why not cut it to 8 or 7? Why 5? |
As far as the fish limit going to 8 instead of more drastic 5. From my work with the spotted trout sea group about ten years ago, most people don't catch five much less ten (except for the guides) so limiting to 8 doesn't have much affect on the numbers of trout.
|
you're forgetting the most important part. The tshirts and caps have already been printed for "just keep 5".
maybe I'll start a movement that says "keeping 8 is great" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rebecca of Sunnybrookfarm
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 3974
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| speckled.trout wrote: | How is management missing the mark, didn't management tell the commission after the last "Just keep 5" scoping meetings a couple of years ago they would keep an eye on the trout population? looks like that is what they are doing, unfortunately there is a lot of outside influence from special interest groups to make changes for their own benefit.
ST |
I stand corrected, and thanks for catching that, it isn't management, who's just doing their job, but the Commission pushing these changes.....
becky
_________________
| Central Scrutinizer wrote: | | Thanks for the Memories, Ranger Rick. |
| ziacatcher wrote: | | However I bet if you were fishing naked Ranger Rick would have a problem with that |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
speckled.trout
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 30 Aug 2012
Posts: 1190
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rebecca of Sunnybrookfarm wrote: | | speckled.trout wrote: | How is management missing the mark, didn't management tell the commission after the last "Just keep 5" scoping meetings a couple of years ago they would keep an eye on the trout population? looks like that is what they are doing, unfortunately there is a lot of outside influence from special interest groups to make changes for their own benefit.
ST |
I stand corrected, and thanks for catching that, it isn't management, who's just doing their job, but the Commission pushing these changes.....
becky |
Hey becky you still a little off, it it's not the Commission pushing these changes, it's the outside influence of the special interest groups.
As with the first go around, as you know.
Have a good one Buddy...
ST |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Drake
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Posts: 1338
Location: Arkansas
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:46 am Post subject: Trouts |
|
|
| Unfortunately I think Becky is talking about lobbiests (sp?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Central Scrutinizer
Full Grown Flour Bluffian
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Posts: 3583
Location: Flour Bluff
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Remember all, the way the scoping/regulatory process works. You still have time to voice your opinion on the issue at the upcoming meetings (Rockport on the 13th, Port Isabel on the 19th, and CC on the 20th), and if you can't make any of those, there are links to make your voice heard via email/internet.
It is by no means a done deal, either way ("keep 5" or "stay at 10' for trout, or 2 more weeks of lower bag limits of flounder in Dec).
Just know that the Public Hearing are a place where you can get your opinion on the official record, but it's not an open forum for debate at this time. Once the hearings are over, the Commission will receive reports from around the State and render judgement on the proposed rule changes. Could they ultimately go against public will, sure. But if you don't let it be known what your opinion is (be it for or against), they have that much less information to guide their decisions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
