what y'all make of this?

[mr crab]

Originally Posted by hchol

Bass fishermen have for years embraced a catch and release mentality that has had a tremendous positive impact on their fisheries. In fact, now you are looked down on if you show up at a freshwater boat launch with an ice chest full of large mouths. You might even get run off! I by no means like the goverenment telling me what I can and cant do, but if you run your fisheries into the ground you open the door for the Feds to come in and take control. Why do we saltwater fishermen have such a huge problem embracing a similar culture. I know trout are better eating than bass, they spawn different, and so on but it seems like the Bass guys figured out a LONG time ago that if you keep to many today there wont be any to catch tomorrow......pretty common sense if you ask me.

P.S. plenty of freshwater and also tarpon, bonefish, and permit guides make a great living practicing catch and release.

Feel free to release your fish if you want. I'll eat most of the ones I catch tho. I am not interested in buying my fish from h.e.b. just like I don't buy meat from them. My family takes great pride and expense in the fact that ALL our red meat , pork, fish, and most of our shell fish are personally harvested, butchered and cooked by us. That is a hunting and fishing heritage and lifestyle that my grandfather instilled in me as a young man. And one that was instilled in him by his father and so on. It is my responsibility to pass these values and and heritage on to my children. Yet this lifestyle is now considered "greedy" or labeled as a "game hog" or "resource raper". I will not condone this attitude. Why make me and my family feel guilty for harvesting what we will consume. Don't get me wrong.. it's not about "feeding my family" we spend far more money in our hunting and fishing pursuits than we would spend at a grocery store for the same amount of fish and meat. But that's not the point...this is our heritage. And when these limits on legal harvest keep decreasing it makes pursuing that lifestyle much less rewarding and will no doubt deter future generations from keeping those traditions alive. It's like I posted earlier about the snapper....lower the limit enough and most people won't be interested in spending the time or money to catch them. Now there is an overabundance of snapper that far less people than before are interested in pursuing and that overabundance is hurting other marine species(grey triggerfish by eating the eggs) You'd think we would have learned by the failure of that model. But the CCA continues to support lower and lower bag limits....Have you heard that the trout limit just dropped to 5 from Freeport to Brownsville? I see you are a fellow Texan...

[hchol]

Originally Posted by mr crab

Feel free to release your fish if you want. I'll eat most of the ones I catch tho. I am not interested in buying my fish from h.e.b. just like I don't buy meat from them. My family takes great pride and expense in the fact that ALL our red meat , pork, fish, and most of our shell fish are personally harvested, butchered and cooked by us. That is a hunting and fishing heritage and lifestyle that my grandfather instilled in me as a young man. And one that was instilled in him by his father and so on. It is my responsibility to pass these values and and heritage on to my children. Yet this lifestyle is now considered "greedy" or labeled as a "game hog" or "resource raper". I will not condone this attitude. Why make me and my family feel guilty for harvesting what we will consume. Don't get me wrong.. it's not about "feeding my family" we spend far more money in our hunting and fishing pursuits than we would spend at a grocery store for the same amount of fish and meat. But that's not the point...this is our heritage. And when these limits on legal harvest keep decreasing it makes pursuing that lifestyle much less rewarding and will no doubt deter future generations from keeping those traditions alive. It's like I posted earlier about the snapper....lower the limit enough and most people won't be interested in spending the time or money to catch them. Now there is an overabundance of snapper that far less people than before are interested in pursuing and that overabundance is hurting other marine species(grey triggerfish by eating the eggs) You'd think we would have learned by the failure of that model. But the CCA continues to support lower and lower bag limits....Have you heard that the trout limit just dropped to 5 from Freeport to Brownsville? I see you are a fellow Texan...

Mr Crab...the irony of your arguement is that if you want your heritage to continue you better start conserving the resource! Or your grandkids or great grandkids wont know it bc the feds will control it and restrict it. Learn Self preservation or the government will do it for you. Im all for leberal limits and i dont buy any of my fish from HEB either....

Oh yea and all you CCA haters out there...if it wasnt for CCA you wouldnt have a fishery left bc the commercial sector would control it....smells like a bunch of hypocrites in here...

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by hchol

Oh yea and all you CCA haters out there...if it wasnt for CCA you wouldnt have a fishery left bc the commercial sector would control it....smells like a bunch of hypocrites in here...

You just shook the hornets nest, should be worth 10 more pages

See y'all next week

[lil bubba]

I am no biologist by a long shot. I grew up shrimping and fishing in the marsh longer than i can remember. imo it soon won't be about limits up or down or big fish to worry bout being caught. There won't be any marsh left to support fish. As the marsh erodes away there is less place for the fish and shrimp forage to grow so you will have less and smaller fish. I don't think it takes a biologist to figure that out. It was said by mr. horst years ago that as our marsh begins to erode we will have a fish bonanza , then you will see it decline within a few years because it won't be able to support itself no more. Looks to me he knew what he was talking about. I think if all this fuss was put into fighting coastal erosion we may buy a few more years for what we have. You can increase or decrease limits all you want but at the rate we are losing marsh your kids or grandkids aren't going to have nothing anyway. rite or wrong just my opinion.......

[hchol]

Originally Posted by lil bubba

I am no biologist by a long shot. I grew up shrimping and fishing in the marsh longer than i can remember. imo it soon won't be about limits up or down or big fish to worry bout being caught. There won't be any marsh left to support fish. As the marsh erodes away there is less place for the fish and shrimp forage to grow so you will have less and smaller fish. I don't think it takes a biologist to figure that out. It was said by mr. horst years ago that as our marsh begins to erode we will have a fish bonanza , then you will see it decline within a few years because it won't be able to support itself no more. Looks to me he knew what he was talking about. I think if all this fuss was put into fighting coastal erosion we may buy a few more years for what we have. You can increase or decrease limits all you want but at the rate we are losing marsh your kids or grandkids aren't going to have nothing anyway. rite or wrong just my opinion.......

I Couldnt agree with you more!

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by lil bubba

I am no biologist by a long shot. I grew up shrimping and fishing in the marsh longer than i can remember. imo it soon won't be about limits up or down or big fish to worry bout being caught. There won't be any marsh left to support fish. As the marsh erodes away there is less place for the fish and shrimp forage to grow so you will have less and smaller fish. I don't think it takes a biologist to figure that out. It was said by mr. horst years ago that as our marsh begins to erode we will have a fish bonanza , then you will see it decline within a few years because it won't be able to support itself no more. Looks to me he knew what he was talking about. I think if all this fuss was put into fighting coastal erosion we may buy a few more years for what we have. You can increase or decrease limits all you want but at the rate we are losing marsh your kids or grandkids aren't going to have nothing anyway. rite or wrong just my opinion.......

There certainly is a good chance it could work out this way. I'm optimistic that fairly good fisheries can be preserved over the next 100 years as the marshes turn into open lakes and bays by:

1. Minimizing future loss of marshes and preserving marsh that used to be more brackish or even freshwater swamp.
2. Restoring, establishing, and preserving oyster reefs in the bays to provide valuable ecosystem services.
3. Managing salinity in the lakes and bays by controlling salinity flowing in from the Gulf and freshwater flows from rivers and freshwater swamps.

The big picture is to be more intentional about what levels of salinity are maintained in which regions. The "saltwater" line may end up further north than it is now and there may be some trade-offs between crawfish/bass/crappie habitat and crab/redfish/speck habitat.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

There certainly is a good chance it could work out this way. I'm optimistic that fairly good fisheries can be preserved over the next 100 years as the marshes turn into open lakes and bays by:

1. Minimizing future loss of marshes and preserving marsh that used to be more brackish or even freshwater swamp.
2. Restoring, establishing, and preserving oyster reefs in the bays to provide valuable ecosystem services.
3. Managing salinity in the lakes and bays by controlling salinity flowing in from the Gulf and freshwater flows from rivers and freshwater swamps.

The big picture is to be more intentional about what levels of salinity are maintained in which regions. The "saltwater" line may end up further north than it is now and there may be some trade-offs between crawfish/bass/crappie habitat and crab/redfish/speck habitat.

We can't afford anymore conversion to open water. Why do you think the Cameron-Creole and the weirs are such a point of contention? They didn't put those there for ducks or for fish. They put those there for the Marsh. If we lose too much more Marsh in Cameron parish, it will compromise all the infrastructure to the North. All that Marsh is important flood control. Without it, a major hurricane like Rita or Katrina would be devastating.

I hope they don't move the saltwater line further north. We've already lost many acres of valuable fresh water habitat.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

We can't afford anymore conversion to open water. Why do you think the Cameron-Creole and the weirs are such a point of contention? They didn't put those there for ducks or for fish. They put those there for the Marsh. If we lose too much more Marsh in Cameron parish, it will compromise all the infrastructure to the North. All that Marsh is important flood control. Without it, a major hurricane like Rita or Katrina would be devastating.

I hope they don't move the saltwater line further north. We've already lost many acres of valuable fresh water habitat.

I agree, and I did not mean to advocate allowing further losses. I was more hoping to point out that I don't think we've passed a point of no return, as one of the posts had suggested.

Protecting against storm surge is undoubtedly an essential reason to protect the marsh. But the general public has short memories, and you have to sell expensive ideas based on more than events that occurred 9 years ago.

There are a bunch of stakeholders whose focus varies among many short and long term interests. The more interests an expensive plan meets and the fewer perceived difficulties it presents to the common man, the more likely it will be to be accepted.

There are most likely going to be more hurricanes like Katrina and Rita in the next 50 years. But as the memories fade, places like Holly Beach and Rutherford Beach will again be built up with camps and homes as the memory of Rita becomes more distant. Lack of flood insurance will make getting loans harder, and for a time it'll be RVs under shades. But eventually, the mobile home numbers will rise, and then people will be again be building permanent structures, though probably not with federally guaranteed loans.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

There certainly is a good chance it could work out this way. I'm optimistic that fairly good fisheries can be preserved over the next 100 years as the marshes turn into open lakes and bays by:


3. Managing salinity in the lakes and bays by controlling salinity flowing in from the Gulf and freshwater flows from rivers and freshwater swamps.
.

They have these things called a wier or something like that, that does this very thing. Crazy ain't it

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

They have these things called a wier or something like that, that does this very thing. Crazy ain't it

A single level has proven less effective than hoped. I envision more of a staged salinity control system where salinity is gradually reduced from the highest areas (ship channel) to moderate levels (lake) to lower levels (marsh). There is too much flow between the lake and the Gulf for a single level structure (weir) to be effective because it ends up closed to many days each year.

Also, there is a management plan, but it has not really been followed. Opening and closing control structures should be based on the salinity and water levels on each side and the target levels on each side. You know, some measurement science to determine how much salt is flowing.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by lil bubba

It was said by mr. horst years ago that as our marsh begins to erode we will have a fish bonanza , then you will see it decline within a few years because it won't be able to support itself no more. Looks to me he knew what he was talking about. I think if all this fuss was put into fighting coastal erosion we may buy a few more years for what we have. You can increase or decrease limits all you want but at the rate we are losing marsh your kids or grandkids aren't going to have nothing anyway. rite or wrong just my opinion.......

I have been saying this for months on here, but no one believes it.

[awhellnaw]

why the hell yall out in this pain in the neck sun, when you could be fishing on this here nintendos. ya caint eat em but they sure is pretty. and they give u points too son. HOW MANY POINTS YOU GOT MR HCHOL??? HENRYBOY??????

[lsufish]

Originally Posted by awhellnaw

why the hell yall out in this pain in the neck sun, when you could be fishing on this here nintendos. ya caint eat em but they sure is pretty. and they give u points too son. HOW MANY POINTS YOU GOT MR HCHOL??? HENRYBOY??????

Is that a coherent sentence?

[awhellnaw]

Originally Posted by lsufish

Is that a coherent sentence?

dont talk down to me you hillbilly

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by hchol

Oh yea and all you CCA haters out there...if it wasnt for CCA you wouldnt have a fishery left bc the commercial sector would control it....smells like a bunch of hypocrites in here...

Not a hater here. GCCA did some good things in the 1980s and 1990s.

In the last decade, the organization has taken a turn for the worse and focused too much on angling restrictions, higher license fees, and contests to bring boatloads of cash back to TX for real conservation and restoration projects.

Calling that out is not hating or hypocrisy, just hoping to inform the public.

By your logic, one must hate blacks if one wants to cut welfare.

[hchol]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Not a hater here. GCCA did some good things in the 1980s and 1990s.

In the last decade, the organization has taken a turn for the worse and focused too much on angling restrictions, higher license fees, and contests to bring boatloads of cash back to TX for real conservation and restoration projects.

Calling that out is not hating or hypocrisy, just hoping to inform the public.

By your logic, one must hate blacks if one wants to cut welfare.

You just completely discredited yourself with that last comment...

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by hchol

You just completely discredited yourself with that last comment...

You concluded that we hate CCA because we want to stop giving them money. Where is the logical flaw?

[HenryBoy]

Originally Posted by hchol

Mr Crab...the irony of your arguement is that if you want your heritage to continue you better start conserving the resource! Or your grandkids or great grandkids wont know it bc the feds will control it and restrict it. Learn Self preservation or the government will do it for you. Im all for leberal limits and i dont buy any of my fish from HEB either....

Oh yea and all you CCA haters out there...if it wasnt for CCA you wouldnt have a fishery left bc the commercial sector would control it....smells like a bunch of hypocrites in here...

This was my last conservation trip..........a few shy of a limit, but not a bad day.

[noodle creek]

Originally Posted by hchol

Mr Crab...the irony of your arguement is that if you want your heritage to continue you better start conserving the resource! Or your grandkids or great grandkids wont know it bc the feds will control it and restrict it. Learn Self preservation or the government will do it for you. Im all for leberal limits and i dont buy any of my fish from HEB either....

Oh yea and all you CCA haters out there...if it wasnt for CCA you wouldnt have a fishery left bc the commercial sector would control it....smells like a bunch of hypocrites in here...

Already happening. Look at what CCA did to trout limits and tripletail limits, and that was without and evidence to support these decisions. We don't need the feds to regulate anything, another 10 years with CCA getting what they want we won't be able to keep anything.