Corpusfishing.com

[topdog15]

That was certainly due to guides fishing being considered "socially unacceptable" My main issue is why do you need ten trout a day? Of course, the majority of us don't catch ten trout a day. Guided trips, on the other hand, are far more successful usually. I have done the fisheries surveys at the boat ramps. Believe me, they bring in a lot of fish. Besides, even a fish eating pig such as myself can't even eat ten trout.
_________________
"Ya'll must eat a lot of fish"

[oldsaltyone]

Yes, TD, social issues was the reason for cutting guides limits, not scientific evidence.

I catch maybe 2 or 3 limits of trout per year. They are very well taken care of and frozen for my family and friends to enjoy. It's nice to be able to freeze a few when the catching is good. Personally, I don't believe fish in the freezer is wasting anything if they are eaten. I'm no game hog, just a country boy that likes to slam a few on the cleaning table every now and then. If I thought for one minute I was harming the trout fishery by keeping a full limit of 10, I wouldn't do it. I love fishing that much.

[mudshark]

Hey All,
One thing no one is thinking about but.... back in the late 70's and early 80's there were several devastating hard freezes that killed nearly all the trout and redfish. I made many trips from Midland (500 miles+) and came back empty handed! This did not stop me from going to the beach as I simply love it there. The hard work TPW did through study and restocking restored the fishery to what it is today well that and years of mild winters!! A couple of hard freezes could make this all a mute point. Any one remember those years after the freezes? What we have done appears to have worked great enjoy it like it is cause Mother Nature could change it in a flash. That is unless this global warming is a reality and it does not freeze again but that would need to be a whole new thread!!!
Craig
_________________
Craig H. Harris

[Tyler]

[Big Ed]

Top Dog,
I have not seen "studies" about removing large numbers of fish from the population. However, as per croaker fishing depleating the croaker resource, I do disagree with your statements. One of the problems I have is whether the total number of croaker sold as bait each year is a significant portion of the croaker population. It is my opinion that the total number of croaker sold is an infintesimal percentage of the croaker population. As a biologist I'm sure that you are familiar with the terms "harvest" and "sustainable harvest". As anyone involved in wildlife managment knows, there is normally some number of any species that can be removed (harvested) from the environment that will have absolutly zero effect on the total population of that species. Your blanket statement that harvesting less of a species will result in an increase of that species is not necessarily true. At some point (number of a species harvested) your statement becomes true, however this is where there is room for disagreement. At what point does the number of croaker sold as bait affect the total croaker population? At what point does the number of trout caught affect the total trout population? I know that you and I both want to protect the fisheries buat are in relatively minor disagreement on how to do this.
_________________
Big Ed
San Antonio

"A word to the wise ain't necessary. It's the stupid ones who need advice.", Bill Cosby

[The Trash Heap]

Hope TPWD has been monitoring this string, for some of the observations and suggestions have merit, while the majority of them show the need for more public education. Shrimp don't spawn in the upper bays, for example.

No one has commented on the fact that due to budget restraints (using the term advisedly) the amount of gill-netting TPWD does to monitor the fisheries is limited to minimal random sampling and hence forces the agency biologists to rely more than most of us would prefer on stretching statistical analyses to back up the legal limits. That good scientific info is necessary to carry on the argument by both sides is a no-brainer, so we either convince the Legislature to fork over more cash for the net sampling and/or use one of the previous posted suggestions - guide inventory. In the latter situation, each guide VOLUNTARILY fills out a form after each trip and signs it. Blanks on the form might include bait type, numbers of clients, catch (both kept and released), and general customer satisfaction with the trip and, of course, the catch limits. This is very similar to a formal TPWD creel survey occasionally (again, because of budget restraints) conducted already. TPWD collects the forms and gets both statistcally valid data and an opinion poll at the same time. It still needs the money from the Leg to do the math, of course.

If this seems onerous, compare this to the situation where even more intense monitoring requirements are imposed to keep a popular but limited fishery sustainable. For example, if you keep a king salmon on a guided trip on the Kenai River in Alaska, the guide has to sign the fisherman's license to verify it, keep a record him/herself, and likely meet a AF&G biologist doing a creel survey and collecting fish scales at the dock. This comes in addition to using sonar to keep track of each individual salmon entering the river. Would you rather have that kind of oversight and expense, or just the guide inventory? Let's hear from guides about this question, since they bear a lot of the responsibilty for its success. If they offer to do it, I'm betting the Leg would fork over the extra cash to crunch the data.
_________________
The Trash Heap Has Spoken!
NNYYAAAHH!!!

[Ryk2506]

Well, I may as well get in on this. I don't have any scientific data about fish reduction or population threats, but I can tell you the feeling that the overabundance of guides have given the average fisherman at the dock and on the water.
I came into Nueces Bay causeway ramp last week, had 3 or 4 keepers in the box, good day for me. A boy, not a a teenager yet, was there with his dad loading up, he askes me how I did, and then showed me his slot red. Man, he was proud as punch, and I could feel that, that's what we do, take our kids out and let them develop into sportsmen.
Then, the guide pulls up in his 22 foot Haynie with the oxygen bottle bait well in the back, carrying a load of executive types with the new Academy shirts and big 'ol foreign legion hats. They start hanging the haul up on the hooks at the dock. The boy had gone over there to clean his red, but they sort of took over and he came back to the pavement with it, not as proud as he had been. The cameras were out, baggies were being filled, carcasses were being dumped to float by the ramp. I can't say why, but it just is hard to be happy for them.....maybe it's starting to feel like what happened to deer hunting, only the well off will be able to afford it someday.
I tell you what, I'm for whatever we can do to make it better for the kids coming up, if it's regulating guides, croakers, or limits, but something needs to start to happen. If you don't believe this, go on down to Nueces Bay causeway about 2 or 3 in the afternoon and take a look at the slaughter floating around the ramp. That'll open your eyes.

[Permit]

Thank you Ryk2506, I couldn't agree with you more.
_________________
CONSERVATION IS KEY

[topdog15]

As to the comment on not enough gill netting taking place for TPWD to make accurate predictions on fish populations: In statistics, there is a term known as the central limit theorem. This says that once a certain number of samples are reached (30), then the statistical differences become so small with more sampling, it is not necessary. TPWD has biologists well-trained in these statistical methods, and that is how they determine the number of gill net samples that should be done. Besides, as lethal as those things are, why wouldn't you use the minimum number of samples allowed under statistical rules?
_________________
"Ya'll must eat a lot of fish"

[justletmein]

[the troutman]

This has been an interesting thread, definetely differing views on the issues. One thing is for sure, there will always be those who strive to protect the resource and those who only choose to use it. No wrong on either side, just different views on life which probably goes much deeper than fishing.
_________________
Later,

The Troutman

Love em and leave em, otherwise known as Catch and Release!

[Permit]

you nailed it troutman.
_________________
CONSERVATION IS KEY

[The Trash Heap]

topdog 15, my MS was in Fisheries. Although my worst grade was in Statistics, I learned enough to consider it difficult to discern year-to-year trends when, because the specific sampling locations are selected randomly, the same locations may not be re-sampled for years. This leaves holes in the data that may nonetheless allow you to infer statistically-significant trends for whole bay systems after many years have gone by, but leave you in the dark about site-specific and recent booms or busts. For example, TPWD might well have adequate resources and aggregate data to support regulations in the Upper Laguna Madre, but still not be able to say if those are the best regs for Deadman/Kates Holes or Nighthawk because those could be selectively overfished in the years that may intervene before they are sampled, not 30 times, but only twice.

Besides, figures lie notoriously. A statistician could truthfully stand with one bare foot on a hot griddle and another on a block of ice and tell you on the average he was comfortable.
_________________
The Trash Heap Has Spoken!
NNYYAAAHH!!!

[BaitBoy]

I don't know about any of you, but when I was a kid back in the 50's and early 60's we could catch a slew of eating size croaker. In the sum total of 91 through 2000 I caught one eating size croaker. ONE eating size croaker. And many of you know I fished down there quite often through those years. Soemthing does not add up with what I'm reading and what I was seeing.

[TW]