Tripletail Size and Creel limit changes

[Spunt Drag]

Originally Posted by Goose

Obviously, you do not know him that well....He is liberal by the generoisty and abundant donations/time he gives to conservation programs/organizations! He is however, very conservative in principles, actions, values, and most importantly in conservation.

So you agree that tripletail populations are being hurt by anglers overfishing and keeping juvenile fish before they reach sexual maturity i.e. able to spawn and produce more fish?

[eman]

Biologist stated today that no evidence that creel reduction would help or hurt ( just like The Specks) CCA comes right after and asked for limits on commercial and recreational fishing for Triple tail.
Didn't know that there was a commercial fisheries for triple tail???

[jpeff31787]

Originally Posted by eman

Biologist stated today that no evidence that creel reduction would help or hurt ( just like The Specks) CCA comes right after and asked for limits on commercial and recreational fishing for Triple tail.
Didn't know that there was a commercial fisheries for triple tail???

I've seen them on the menu before, but I can't remember where

[Top Dawg]

So the CCA is fighting against us? Shocker

[BROWN FIN]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

So the CCA is fighting against us? Shocker

Hummmmm.....Sounds like the norm.


BROWN FIN

[Spunt Drag]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

So the CCA is fighting against us? Shocker

Yea the Ducks Unlimited of the gulf.

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by Spunt Drag

Yea the Ducks Unlimited of the gulf.

That's what u got

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

Will Drost has simple basic science!

He is a big trout wade fisherman who just enjoys catching big trout and CPR...
He also has no problem with smaller limits because he lives on the lake with a wharf with lights, so anytime he wants trout to eat,he can turn a light on and get a mess of fish.

He is a good person but he is a liberal as they get when it comes to conservation!

We should of never had a 15 trout limit Never ....and when Biologist said no...he still pushed for it!

Also i have spoke with several WLF biologist and the slot of two over 25 or 24 ( what ever it is) is the dumbest of all, Trout are not bass!

I have been stopped several times and had big trout in the icechest and never asked about the two over what ever...No one cares about that and I dont think anyone even thinks about ot or follows it..

You think a guide is going to measure trout that big lmao

"you're" definition of liberal is not "write" here


He may be a liberal, but not in this "since", he would be better labeled as conservative in this case

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by "W"

Will has a strong voice and people listen. I dont know how much he is involed with our ship channel errosion but he could do great things to protect what land we have left and use his power for that.

Lets save our land mass 1st and not worry about a fish very few target much less catch

Trust me, he isn't going to have much pull in that fight. There has been a lot of talk about rocking the entire ship channel to reduce erosion. Just about the only way you are going to stop erosion on the ship channel is with rocks. National Marine Fisheries Service is completely against it, and completely against rocking the coast, because they say it will ruin fisheries habitat.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Trust me, he isn't going to have much pull in that fight. There has been a lot of talk about rocking the entire ship channel to reduce erosion. Just about the only way you are going to stop erosion on the ship channel is with rocks. National Marine Fisheries Service is completely against it, and completely against rocking the coast, because they say it will ruin fisheries habitat.

Soooo no land on ship channel is better than land??

[Smalls]

That's the logic of the NMFS. They think rock is no good for fish, so they don't want it. All they are concerned with is fisheries and fish habitat. So, logically speaking, one could make the argument that they are against Rock because it protects the land, but if that land is lost, it creates more water for fish to live in.

Bit of a stretch, but who's to say its not the truth.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Smalls

That's the logic of the NMFS. They think rock is no good for fish, so they don't want it. All they are concerned with is fisheries and fish habitat. So, logically speaking, one could make the argument that they are against Rock because it protects the land, but if that land is lost, it creates more water for fish to live in.

Bit of a stretch, but who's to say its not the truth.

Did they ever hear about a concrete structure that destroys fishing




"Weirs"???

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by "W"

Did they ever hear about a concrete structure that destroys fishing




"Weirs"???

I see what your getting at but weirs are different. You still get water flow behind them. If they were to put rocks from one end to the other on the ship channel there won't be much water flow behind them. I agree though something needs to be done that land is going quick with all the ship traffic.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Montauk17

I see what your getting at but weirs are different. You still get water flow behind them. If they were to put rocks from one end to the other on the ship channel there won't be much water flow behind them. I agree though something needs to be done that land is going quick with all the ship traffic.

Actually they had a meeting on June 1st ( i believe)

But spoke with guys that said the weirs have not lived up to the plan and have "NOT" improved the marsh

Before and after picks of the marsh shows a healthier marsh with out water control

The talk was what now to do with the weirs and if it was feasible to have remove


( again I was not there just what i was told my several that went)

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by "W"

Actually they had a meeting on June 1st ( i believe)

But spoke with guys that said the weirs have not lived up to the plan and have "NOT" improved the marsh

Before and after picks of the marsh shows a healthier marsh with out water control

They talk was what now to do with the weirs and of it was feasible to have remove


( again I was not there just what i was told my several that went)

Once the damage is done from saltwater intrusion I would think it would be almost impossible to reverse. Just like where I grew up fishing around pecan island. Saltwater started killing the freshwater marsh then they dammed up most of the canals. Marsh continues to die...

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by "W"

Actually they had a meeting on June 1st ( i believe)

But spoke with guys that said the weirs have not lived up to the plan and have "NOT" improved the marsh

Before and after picks of the marsh shows a healthier marsh with out water control

The talk was what now to do with the weirs and if it was feasible to have remove


( again I was not there just what i was told my several that went)

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, COMPLETELY WRONG!!!! How is it that you are allowed to spew such crap? They should lock you up. Here's a first hand account of that meeting: The shrimpers actually agreed with the management of the weirs! They are finally going to work with everyone on the future management. Where in the hell did you get before and after pictures anyway? I've done an abundance of research on the marshes of the Sabine/Calcasieu and Mermentau basins, and overall, the marshes are in better shape now than 30 years ago. And that includes the marshes behind the weirs.

You need to get your facts straight.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I847 using Tapatalk 2

["W"]

Originally Posted by Smalls

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, COMPLETELY WRONG!!!! How is it that you are allowed to spew such crap? They should lock you up. Here's a first hand account of that meeting: The shrimpers actually agreed with the management of the weirs! They are finally going to work with everyone on the future management. Where in the hell did you get before and after pictures anyway? I've done an abundance of research on the marshes of the Sabine/Calcasieu and Mermentau basins, and overall, the marshes are in better shape now than 30 years ago. And that includes the marshes behind the weirs.

You need to get your facts straight.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I847 using Tapatalk 2

Hey i said i was not there!! This is from the crabbers that went

They said the (who ever they is) that the weirs have done nothing for that marsh

["W"]

Also Smalls your saying the Marshes in Mermentau below catfish locks are better than 30 years ago???

And they have Zero weirs right??

[Montauk17]

Originally Posted by "W"

Also Smalls your saying the Marshes in Mermentau below catfish locks are better than 30 years ago???

And they have Zero weirs right??

Totally different animal....that area gets a huge influx of freshwater almost year round.

["W"]

Originally Posted by Montauk17

Totally different animal....that area gets a huge influx of freshwater almost year round.

Ok lets talk about his statement of Sabine

Zero weirs and as his statement Marshes are better than 30 years ago