should red and drum limits be changed?
 

way back when the gill net ban happened and they were reducing limits because of overfishing bruhaha was going on the GCCA and politicians agreed that drum had to be protected the same as redfish or the restuarants would quickly deplete the drum stocks as well by selling them as "blackened redfish" in all the restuarants. all just in case it "might" happen since you cant tell the difference after its cooked.

they also said at that time, the 5 fish limit was only temporary and the redfish limits would be doubled and the drum limits would be removed once the redfish stocks returned to normal healthy state. well the redfish stocks are at record levels of overpopulation yet they will never honor what they said to get those regulations passed.

im not a greedy fisherman but I dont hunt so I do depend a lot on putting fish in the freezer to make groceries or go hungry. many days I just eat potato stew with no meat.

there is absolutely no reason why they cant double the red limit to 10 and reduce the size to 14" as well as remove all restrictions from drum. most people don't keep any sized drum anyways and I would much prefer reds that are 14-15" long then those over 18" because the small ones are better eating.

they only know how to take things away from us with new regulations but they will never give anything back in the form of increasing limits on things that no longer need strict oversight and protection like reds and the drum that never did and never will need protection.

its high time drum limits are removed completely and the red limits are increased to at least 10 a day and the size limits on them reduce to 14" but I doubt they will ever do it.

I think you are probably right. LDWF has lots of data that likely better inform these questions, but to my knowledge, they have been unwilling to release this data to enable a better informed discussion.

CCA has been pushing tighter redfish restrictions in other states, so they would probably oppose loosening the regulations in Louisiana. The LWC has been generally unwilling to move in directions opposed by CCA.

Louisiana has lots of redfish and drum, that's for sure. What's less known is how much black drum negatively impact oyster populations and how hard it is for oyster reseeding operations to establish new oyster reefs in the face of oyster predation by adult drum.

Reds No, 5 reds are plenty plus a Red fish takes years to reach a mature age to spawn, most females don't spawn until they are over 25inchs long

Black Drum on the other hand, it's not a sport fish and we should have no limit on them at all

Drum should be no limit under 27" and 5 over 27

Redfish should be 10 under 27" and 3 over 27"

I don't know about that. The recent removal of slot limits on black bass on 5 lakes ought to be an indication that WLF can go back and change its limits/restrictions.

The problem occurs when politics become involved. I'm not going to get into all of the CCA stuff because I really don't know what they are and aren't fighting for or against behind closed doors, but if MG is right about them fighting for reduced limits in other states, I don't forsee them doing anything but that here.

Using only life history tidbits to establish limits is less than scientific. One should be able to show that a limit is needed to ensure sufficient females reach spawning age. Since redfish became protected in federal waters, the number of replacement breeders needed each year is much, much smaller. The breeding stock would be maintained with much smaller escapement rates than occurring at the present time. Fecundity rates would actually be higher if there were fewer mature redfish, allowing the sexually mature redfish to eat better, maintain healthier weights, and thus produce more eggs. Redfish that are hungry (due to overpopulation) do not produce nearly as many eggs.

The red limit seems fine to me

Blacks should be 10-15 under 27" 12" min
And you should revive a 10$ bounty for anyone over 35"
Use em as fertilizer or something. Maybe that would help oysters out.


Spiral Out

Redfish and Drum also eat a ****ton of crabs....... thats a reason crab stocks are down.

How can I say yes we're I'm heard all da way to the top. I know for the req. guy for shore. But no one seems to hear me.
It pisses me of that I catch so many big dogs and can only keep one. Just as stupid as iligal pot.

Real Talk Rat Dog ;)


Spiral Out

Ratdog post a pick of you holding one of those big reds

Hey from the Hill's of Cuero SO. TX..

Commercial harvest of Drum is Primarily used to Make Artificial CRABMEAT...

And filler when making stuff crabs that are made breaded and sold in stores.. More Artificial crabmeat than REAL CRABMEAT..

I don't catch a lot of Drum.. There is Only a 16" min., no max. and 10 per/ fishermen if My memory is not failing me..

Big drum eat a tremendous amount of oysters.

drum limits are the same as redfish in LA

Why ruin a good thing by being greedy and ignorant? 5 fish per man is plenty, no telling how many fish are freezer burnt in your freezer right now.

Why is insisting that harvest restrictions be based in sound science "greedy and ignorant"?

Why not permit increased harvest levels as long as they are sustainable?

Why allow overpopulated black drum to continue causing harm by preventing oyster reef restoration?

Why allow both red drum and black drum to continue their negative impact on commercial crabbing?

We're careful not to lose fish to freezer burn. We have one bag of fish left in the freezer, and my mom has a couple bags of fish we caught in her freezer.

I never thought I would agree with W but on this I totally agree.

Big black 90% have worms.
Big reds abound. Small reds abound. As fare as age imperial data shows the smaller a fish is harvested the sooner it's species breeds.
3 years is a bit presumptions with out good data. And the growth rate is high for reds.
They all eat a lot and to say a fish with high matabolizm eating alot grows slow well I guess that type don't know didly about fish and should not be in this game of regulation.

When I catch large drum and reds @ 5-6 each a day and can only keep one then something is wrong. I'm not fishing the nurserys like most I see but off shore and up to 3 miles out. So I have a different view of the older fish compared to the babies. And to have a higher catch rate on small fish does not allow for maturity. Go figure kill a bunch of babies and nothing gets big?

It's a big messed up scam like the pot crap. Something that was used for centuries and now the Feds got involved and your life is ruined and you catch two big fish and your life is screwed by the paramilitary water police.

I can eat for three days on one fish it never hits the freezer. And if I could get 2 then I would freeze on day one and eat near a week. I'm not greedy just have a different view of food.


By the way I don't fish reds during breeding season.and I suggest no one should. As I never cought a red with eggs I can say I never stoped a fish from breeding.

I say leave if like it is. 5 redfish is plenty of meat for one person. As for keeping more than one over 27".....why kill the breeding stock when the smaller ones taste way better. I love to catch the big ones but see no need to kill them. Personally I like to go out and catch 20-40 redfish in a day. If we raise limits and lower stocks that would be a thing of the past.

I say leave it the same. The fishery is really thriving. I agree with Montauk about the ones over 27" let the breeding stock swim. I much rather catch plenty between 18"-24" than just a few over 27" just for thw fight.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk