# We have some new trout rules in FL



## new2theflats

Thanks for the heads up. Hadn't heard about it.


----------



## permitchaser

So you can keep 50 trout? That sounds excessive


----------



## Smackdaddy53

permitchaser said:


> So you can keep 50 trout? That sounds excessive


Commercial


----------



## Smackdaddy53

TPWD is changing flounder regulations here. Pretty sad how they take our money and do shitty research to tell us what’s best for our fishery.


----------



## southerncannuck

Meanwhile our elected officials are 100% pushing for more development. More people. More buildings.....


----------



## BobGee

Smackdaddy53 said:


> TPWD is changing flounder regulations here. Pretty sad how they take our money and do shitty research to tell us what’s best for our fishery.


How do you know the research is shitty?


----------



## Capnredfish

BobGee said:


> How do you know the research is shitty?


History maybe. The gov also can’t seem to fix anything. They just allow. Forget it. This could go on forever. The real answer can be seen on Lonestar law show. All those illegal fish. Had to be real, it’s on TV


----------



## karstopo

I guess I don’t get why so many people get upset about limit changes. Does anyone, beside the commercial fishermen, need fish flesh make ends meet? 

Are the majority of people in it for the groceries or the recreation? 

Many sport fishermen here in Texas went completely nuts when TP&W recently lowered the speckled trout take from 10 to 5 on the upper coast. They have vowed to sell their $70k+ boats because it just isn’t worth it anymore with lowered limits. Huh? Tens of thousands in boats, fuel, and gear, those are some mighty expensive fillets even if you could keep 50 fish. 

The fun is in the finding and the catching. Conservative limits just help insure plenty of fish to find and catch for the future and future generations. What’s not to like about that?


----------



## Backcountry 16

It's all for not anyway if your in the red tide effected area of the summer of 2018 because you can't keep them still along with redfish or snook.


----------



## BobGee

Capnredfish said:


> History maybe. The gov also can’t seem to fix anything. They just allow. Forget it. This could go on forever. The real answer can be seen on Lonestar law show. All those illegal fish. Had to be real, it’s on TV


I think most of the people that do the research are pretty good and try to do the right thing. Things get political as it moves up the line.


----------



## BobGee

karstopo said:


> I guess I don’t get why so many people get upset about limit changes. Does anyone, beside the commercial fishermen, need fish flesh make ends meet?
> 
> Are the majority of people in it for the groceries or the recreation?
> 
> Many sport fishermen here in Texas went completely nuts when TP&W recently lowered the speckled trout take from 10 to 5 on the upper coast. They have vowed to sell their $70k+ boats because it just isn’t worth it anymore with lowered limits. Huh? Tens of thousands in boats, fuel, and gear, those are some mighty expensive fillets even if you could keep 50 fish.
> 
> The fun is in the finding and the catching. Conservative limits just help insure plenty of fish to find and catch for the future and future generations. What’s not to like about that?


Amen brother!


----------



## Zika

Some good improvements, but the commission yielded to a few loudmouth guides in the Big Bend. Still like the no guide/crew retention and lower size limits. Wished they would have implemented another winter closure in the Big Bend when the trout stack up in the rivers. But at least the new rules will help the stocks.


----------



## Capnredfish

I’m not complaining or praising. Just reporting. It won’t stop those that didn’t follow the last set of rules. Soon you will have to serve Gortons finest for a fish fry. Maybe not even that. I think the cod fisheries is also shut down or close to it. Give it another 10 years and all the wood pulp/plant cellulose farms producing fake meat will pollute the water enough to create 0 take.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

BobGee said:


> How do you know the research is shitty?


Would you survey a bunch of toddlers in preschool about gun laws? That’s basically how they got their numbers for more flounder restrictions. They surveyed people that don’t even target them and used gill nets.


----------



## lemaymiami

I know many areas of Florida needed the more restrictive trout rules - particularly areas hit by those terrible red tides... Down along the Everglades we have been doing just fine with no red tides and good healthy trout stocks so the new restrictions were not needed but that’s the way it goes I guess. There will be days when we’ll actually have trouble finding trout small enough to keep...


----------



## Drifter

I am all for not keeping fish. I 100 PERCENT AGREE WITH KARSTOPO, not to mention a few years of drawn down limits can really bring a fishery back. Up here people will catch as many brook trout as possible and keep them all and say they are invasive and your like, man, there is nothing else here, is it ok we like to fish for them or do you have to just kill everything. They literally sell fresh caught trout at the store for like 8 bucks.


----------



## Snakesurf

TPWD does gill nets surveys every year in Texas. These surveys are used to set the limits for saltwater species, but if they get a hold of a picture taken in Louisiana of five guys in a boat with limits of 24"+ trout, they will change the limits and regulations here in Texas the following year. That's how it is done in Texas, so please do not post those kind of pictures. LOL


----------



## GaG8tor

Drifter said:


> I am all for not keeping fish. I 100 PERCENT AGREE WITH KARSTOPO, not to mention a few years of drawn down limits can really bring a fishery back. Up here people will catch as many brook trout as possible and keep them all and say they are invasive and your like, man, there is nothing else here, is it ok we like to fish for them or do you have to just kill everything. They literally sell fresh caught trout at the store for like 8 bucks.


Invasive? HaHa I could be wrong but aren’t Brookies the only native species of trout in the US? I know in Georgia and most of Appalachia that’s the case.


----------



## Capnredfish

Drifter said:


> I am all for not keeping fish. I 100 PERCENT AGREE WITH KARSTOPO, not to mention a few years of drawn down limits can really bring a fishery back. Up here people will catch as many brook trout as possible and keep them all and say they are invasive and your like, man, there is nothing else here, is it ok we like to fish for them or do you have to just kill everything. They literally sell fresh caught trout at the store for like 8 bucks.


Hopefully that’s your own belief and not one you would impose on others. Again we do not solve the problem, just apply a bandaid. 



 We are not eating the seatrout in numbers that can’t be sustained. Its the environment. Same with cod. The warming trend is the issue for the cod. But I suppose you have to impose limits if the species is in decline. I’m a believer in solutions.


----------



## GaG8tor

I personally wish we had more restrictions on reds and trout in Georgia. Aside from a few light tackle and fly guides here the only objective for most folks is to limit out and stock the freezer. I’m surprised we have a fishery at all here anymore


----------



## RG Air

Trout is great for the table if you like spongy worm meat ... how about fillet from a 12 inch flounder?


----------



## Backcountry 16

The sea trout is like the redheaded step


RG Air said:


> Trout is great for the table if you like spongy worm meat ... how about fillet from a 12 inch flounder?


Agreed the trout is the redheaded step child of the sea.


----------



## 994

Can’t speak for how Texas or Georgia conducts their research, but I’ve assisted in the acoustic telemetry research and stock surveys for spotted sea trout in the Indian River Lagoon and can tell you it’s much more than just creel surveys. The good thing is, it’s a government agency so the research is public information, just search for FWC Research and it’s all there. The reduction, especially in terms of quantity of over slot fish kept, is needed at least here in the IRL. You don’t wait until a species totally collapses before you act.


----------



## Capnredfish

Spongy or not. Trout is not my favorite either. Not harvesting it is the same solution as sending pollution down the drain. Band aide, covered up, temporarily solved. We have to stop adding to what caused the problem and start reversing it. By not wanting the right to harvest, you may be making it easier for those with power to put a solution in place an easy way out.


----------



## BobGee

Capnredfish said:


> Spongy or not. Trout is not my favorite either. Not harvesting it is the same solution as sending pollution down the drain. Band aide, covered up, temporarily solved. We have to stop adding to what caused the problem and start reversing it. By not wanting the right to harvest, you may be making it easier for those with power to put a solution in place an easy way out.


Agreed. Bag limits are only a partial fix. If we can fix the habitat problems it’s hard to keep the critters back. They do just fine.


----------



## Frank Ucci

My greatest objection to all of these changes is that I am unable to go fishing without having an attorney on speed-dial to tell me what I can and cannot keep. Here in south Florida, the fishing regulations can change 5 times in one trip, based upon where I am in my boat at any given time of the day. The result is, I generally fish catch and release, which I believe is the true intent of all of these frequent changes in zones, slot sizes, and seasons for recreational anglers.


----------



## SomaliPirate

Brookies are native to the east but introduced in the Rockies. Cutthroat are native to the rockies and bows native to the northwest. Browns are european and introduced on this continent. Some trout guy confirm or refute?


----------



## windblows

These seem like reasonable changes to me. My only concern is the number of zones and more discrepancies between zones. For the guy who fishes every other month and DOES keep trout to eat, this is going to be tough to keep up with. I see a lot of not following regulations due to ignorance.


----------



## Zika

The rule changes typically go into effect on Jan. 1 and July 1. The latest regs are also available at tackle shops/sporting goods stores or can be downloaded from www.myfwc.com

Definitely won't dispute the habitat loss factor, especially for trout. They need healthy sea grasses to survive. The Big Bend coast has some of the most lush grass beds and undeveloped shoreline in the state. Yet many of us feel the quantity and quality of trout has diminished due to over harvest. There's also a major shift as federal regulations tighten and anglers sell offshore center consoles and transition in hybrid bay boats to fish both inshore and nearshore. And there's just too many people piling into the state every day.

Are these new rules a bandaid? I'd say more of a large gauze bandage. They will help reduce mortality and take. But they are only part of the big complex picture in the coastal ecosystem.


----------



## BobGee

SomaliPirate said:


> Brookies are native to the east but introduced in the Rockies. Cutthroat are native to the rockies and bows native to the northwest. Browns are european and introduced on this continent. Some trout guy confirm or refute?


Correct


----------



## lemaymiami

Put simply.. these rules are a fairly reasonable first step -even though I've already pointed out that they weren't needed in the Ten Thousand Islands area (and all the way across along the coast of the Everglades down to Key Largo...).

The first item is reasonable conservation measures so that we don't take too many and leave as many as possible of the very necessary breeding stock... Following that... are the much needed water quality changes (or improvements... since it will take years to reverse the damage already done - or at least mitigate it...). The last very necessary step along every shoreline in the entire state is to protect the food sources that are so vital to healthy fisheries... I brought this up with folks at CCA a few years back (I was specifically talking about protecting shrimp stocks in every bay up and down both coasts from any commercial harvest..). Can't say I got a very enthusiastic reception but protecting the food the fish need is only one of a lot of different issues we're all confronting... 

I gave Biscayne Bay as my first example.... If we banned any commercial shrimping in Biscayne Bay (from Broward county all the way down to Key Largo) - then did everything possible to restore seagrass beds to decent condition.... the Bay would come roaring back to life. In its prime, Biscayne Bay produced so many shrimp (that then made their way out to the ocean during what we call "shrimp runs"...) that pelagics and every inshore specie would stay for months around any ocean inlet to feed on the great bounty the shrimp provided... It was that way in the early seventies when I first came to Florida (1971 - back from my "senior trip" to a very bad place...). Things were in decline then - although most of us didn't know it... Our winter time spanish mackeral and others simply have no reason to stick around now as they migrate past south Florida (and yet we've got lots of them along the coasts of the Everglades - particularly from Cape Sable all the way across to Naples each year). The bonefish in Biscayne Bay would come roaring back along with speckled trout and all the other fish that feed on shrimp whenever they find them...

The net ban a few years back (early nineties) went a long way to protect the mullet that almost every game fish feeds on. Protection and restoration of other food sources for fish inshore would have a dramatic effect around the state... Of course all of this is inter-related and just making a start on as many of these issues as possible would be a great first step.

I'll get down off of my soapbox now....


----------



## Darkstar

windblows said:


> These seem like reasonable changes to me. My only concern is the number of zones and more discrepancies between zones. For the guy who fishes every other month and DOES keep trout to eat, this is going to be tough to keep up with. I see a lot of not following regulations due to ignorance.


Everyone should be using the Fish Rules App. It’s a great reference source and is automatically updated with new regs, gives you info based on your GPS location, and it’s free.


----------



## windblows

Darkstar said:


> Everyone should be using the Fish Rules App. It’s a great reference source and is automatically updated with new regs, gives you info based on your GPS location, and it’s free.


Completely agree, and I have the app. But I can tell you there is a large percentage of "anglers" on the water who don't even think about changing regulations, but maybe have some general sense of the regulations based on something someone told them 3 years ago or something. (See our thread Boat Ramp Article for plenty of examples.)


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Just trust the experts, they never falsify data or blatantly mislead the public in any way right? 
Once you lose it you never get it back, don’t be fooled. 
I am adamant about conserving our fisheries and absolutely do not keep fish very often and will be the first to speak my mind when I see people posting big trout they just killed for a fishing tournament or to attain some plaque for their wall. Just be aware that just because people are supposedly experts doesn’t mean they are not just doing as instructed by upper management. It’s all about money no matter what part of the coast you are fishing.


----------



## Capnredfish

Let’s not forget. People that do studies have to keep doing studies. Many, not all make a living at it. Keep the funding and studies coming.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Capnredfish said:


> Let’s not forget. People that do studies have to keep doing studies. Many, not all make a living at it. Keep the funding and studies coming.


Of course they do, can’t blame the workers any more than people that despise the oil and gas industry can hate me for making sure my wells keep producing at their peak efficiency.


----------



## Capnredfish

Maybe reverse the studies from always looking for the cause of depletion and never really finding it. Fish sticks are low so you vany have any. To doing a study on what needs to be done so you or we can keep more fish. Not that I would. Just saying. And we never get it back. There are two ways to attack many things in life. Find a cure for cancer or find a prevention. Just a thought.


----------



## crboggs

All this debate...but I have one very simple question..."Who the hell keeps a 15" trout anyways?"


----------



## Zika

There's too many who squeeze 14 7/8 in an effort to "catch a limit" on our coast. Many--but not all--sport Georgia tags on their boat trailers. The others are planning a fish fry for the church or give away bags of mushed filets to the neighbors.


----------



## Monty

southerncannuck said:


> Meanwhile our elected officials are 100% pushing for more development. More people. More buildings.....


That is what its all about. Florida's population doubled over the last 30 years and the next 3o will see it double again. More fishermen, more waterfront homes, more runoff, etc. In our county, our officials are busting their A___ to get more industrial development. They call it JOBS. But what it really does is brig new people into our county for the jobs as opposed to giving people already here jobs.


----------



## Monty

BobGee said:


> How do you know the research is shitty?


I heard the research largely consisted of "creel surveys." And surveys from fishermen -- "how many did you catch?" etc. And it wasn't that much. They 35% of the trout to be "breeding age -- 2 years old." Instead we have 20% breeding age in the big bend.


----------



## BobGee

Capnredfish said:


> Maybe reverse the studies from always looking for the cause of depletion and never really finding it. Fish sticks are low so you vany have any. To doing a study on what needs to be done so you or we can keep more fish. Not that I would. Just saying. And we never get it back. There are two ways to attack many things in life. Find a cure for cancer or find a prevention. Just a thought.


Our Louisiana friends are keeping 25 twelve inch trout. Which is actually a good thing. It keeps them off the redfish.


----------



## BobGee

Monty said:


> I heard the research largely consisted of "creel surveys." And surveys from fishermen -- "how many did you catch?" etc. And it wasn't that much. They 35% of the trout to be "breeding age -- 2 years old." Instead we have 20% breeding age in the big bend.


In FL I believe they use samples taken with nets. Not creel surveys. I don’t think I’ve been asked for a creel survey in years.


----------



## Drifter

GaG8tor said:


> Invasive? HaHa I could be wrong but aren’t Brookies the only native species of trout in the US? I know in Georgia and most of Appalachia that’s the case.


Not here, basically the Yellowstone Cutthroat and Mountain Whitefish are natives brookies are introduced. Im sure they are native somewhere.


----------



## BobGee

Drifter said:


> Not here, basically the Yellowstone Cutthroat and Mountain Whitefish are natives brookies are introduced. Im sure they are native somewhere.


Native East of the Mississippi.


----------



## Drifter

Capnredfish said:


> Hopefully that’s your own belief and not one you would impose on others. Again we do not solve the problem, just apply a bandaid.
> 
> 
> 
> We are not eating the seatrout in numbers that can’t be sustained. Its the environment. Same with cod. The warming trend is the issue for the cod. But I suppose you have to impose limits if the species is in decline. I’m a believer in solutions.


 I would impose it on other people so they don't ruin my fishing. That pretty much the definition of regulation. Sometimes its the environment sometimes its overfishing. But we can for sure fix the overfishing and the environment is a big question mark so do what we can now.


----------



## No Bait / Lures Only

Looks bad for trout fishermen, Louisiana still has high limits. Any lower limits n fishermen will stop going n buying licenses!


----------



## lemaymiami

Those "Catch and release" rules are for the gulf coast because of the red tide damage to fish stocks..... and they're in place until May...


----------



## jonterr

What's Ga got to do with it?
I'd be surprised if me coming to Fla 2, maybe 4 times a year, and following legal limits, has nearly as much effect on your fish woes near as much as the locals I see keeping way over slot reds and coolers of trout


----------



## Capnredfish

I haven’t eaten a trout in years. But more rules and not one fing solution yet burns my ass. We’ve been discussing this for years. As long as we have places to put bandaids we will keep applying them.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Capnredfish said:


> I haven’t eaten a trout in years. But more rules and not one fing solution yet burns my ass. We’ve been discussing this for years. As long as we have places to put bandaids we will keep applying them.


Most people will just accept whatever they are instructed to do without question. It’s kind of embarassing.


----------



## Net 30

crboggs said:


> All this debate...but I have one very simple question..."Who the hell keeps a 15" trout anyways?"


It surprises me that even on this site, you see coolers and live wells full of dead Trout & Reds nearly every week.

I've chartered in every coastal state (while entertaining clients) and I can tell you, most guides got pissed when you wouldn't keep your limit or at least a few fish for cleaning table pics. The worst states were TX, LA & NC.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Net 30 said:


> It surprises me that even on this site, you see coolers and live wells full of dead Trout & Reds nearly every week.
> 
> I've chartered in every coastal state (while entertaining clients) and I can tell you, most guides got pissed when you wouldn't keep your limit or at least a few fish for cleaning table pics. The worst states were TX, LA & NC.


Social media hero shots, they have to keep up with the rest of the guides or they won’t get “bread and butter” clients who don’t fish to learn anything, they hire a guide to catch a limit as fast and easily a possible. It’s gotten so bad that I’ve started to catch guides recycling photos from last year and posting them as if they caught them this week. It’s pretty sickening. I like to keep a few fish to eat now and then but I have my own restrictions and you won’t see a big sow trout in my cooler and I won’t keep fish every trip like most folks seem to think they have to do to measure the success of their trip.


----------



## MatthewAbbott

Net 30 said:


> It surprises me that even on this site, you see coolers and live wells full of dead Trout & Reds nearly every week.
> 
> I've chartered in every coastal state (while entertaining clients) and I can tell you, most guides got pissed when you wouldn't keep your limit or at least a few fish for cleaning table pics. The worst states were TX, LA & NC.


Only time I’ve fished Florida was with a guide in Destin. Even after repeatedly telling him we didn’t want to keep fish, both before and during the trip, he started throwing them in the box. He only stopped after we asked if he was keeping those for himself. 

I’ve noticed a big push as of late here in TX for CPR. These are mostly the guides who are wadding and throwing artificials though. The bait throwing meat haul guides are still doing their thing sadly.


----------



## MatthewAbbott

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Social media hero shots, they have to keep up with the rest of the guides or they won’t get “bread and butter” clients who don’t fish to learn anything, they hire a guide to catch a limit as fast and easily a possible. It’s gotten so bad that I’ve started to catch guides recycling photos from last year and posting them as if they caught them this week. It’s pretty sickening. I like to keep a few fish to eat now and then but I have my own restrictions and you won’t see a big sow trout in my cooler and I won’t keep fish every trip like most folks seem to think they have to do to measure the success of their trip.



I’ve seen the same “guide” pic at least 4 times on facesuck.


----------



## Str8-Six

Thank God Tarpon and Bonefish aren’t good table fare . Can you imagine if Tarpon tasted like Mahi? Oh the horror!


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Str8-Six said:


> Thank God Tarpon and Bonefish aren’t good table fare . Can you imagine if Tarpon tasted like Mahi? Oh the horror!


Them ********* would eat them if they could...


----------



## Drifter

MatthewAbbott said:


> Only time I’ve fished Florida was with a guide in Destin. Even after repeatedly telling him we didn’t want to keep fish, both before and during the trip, he started throwing them in the box. He only stopped after we asked if he was keeping those for himself.
> 
> I’ve noticed a big push as of late here in TX for CPR. These are mostly the guides who are wadding and throwing artificials though. The bait throwing meat haul guides are still doing their thing sadly.


my wife and I had the same thing on the outer banks. We explicitly told this guy we don’t kill fish and we were hestitant to fish with a non flyfish guy because we just wanted to catch and release false albies and didn’t have our boat. We fished some black bass at the start and he just starts keeping them. I had to be like, man I’m not paying for your experience so stop or we can go in. We ultimately went in. But I’m really good at being an ass for what I want.


----------



## lemaymiami

I'm just completing my 24th year full time on the water (I'll go seven days a week if I have customers...). Over time I've cut back and only fish the 'glades in daytime and Biscayne Bay at night.

On each trip my anglers make the call.. Are we catching and releasing or do you want to bring a few home for the table? That's my question (and for repeat customers I rarely ever have to ask since I'll know in advance what's desired). No, my anglers have never been able to keep my limit to add to their own. Any fish we're keeping I very carefully filet and package -no extra cost... If it's a tough day and we may not have more than a fish or two for the table - they go in the live well and at the end of the day I'll ask again -do you want to keep or release (this one or two...) since I know you actually have to have enough to make a dinner...

No I don't know what other guides do -except for one or two that are "catch and release" only (and I suspect that at least one of them is just too lazy to cut fish for his customers...). My opinion only...

What I won't do is keep fish that are just barely legal - I don't need the hassle and I never want to be caught with a short fish (figure I'd never hear the end of it..). Additionally I only keep trout that are at least 16" since you simply don't get enough meat off of a 15" trout...

I never worry in the slightest about my anglers keeping fish since I know that the FWC is pretty careful not to allow overfishing (and Everglades National Park has a few additional rules that have total limits a bit more stringent than the state's standards).

Lastly if you know anyone that's breaking the rules - turn them in... since they're stealing our future...


----------



## BobGee

lemaymiami said:


> I'm just completing my 24th year full time on the water (I'll go seven days a week if I have customers...). Over time I've cut back and only fish the 'glades in daytime and Biscayne Bay at night.
> 
> On each trip my anglers make the call.. Are we catching and releasing or do you want to bring a few home for the table? That's my question (and for repeat customers I rarely ever have to ask since I'll know in advance what's desired). No, my anglers have never been able to keep my limit to add to their own. Any fish we're keeping I very carefully filet and package -no extra cost... If it's a tough day and we may not have more than a fish or two for the table - they go in the live well and at the end of the day I'll ask again -do you want to keep or release (this one or two...) since I know you actually have to have enough to make a dinner...
> 
> No I don't know what other guides do -except for one or two that are "catch and release" only (and I suspect that at least one of them is just too lazy to cut fish for his customers...). My opinion only...
> 
> What I won't do is keep fish that are just barely legal - I don't need the hassle and I never want to be caught with a short fish (figure I'd never hear the end of it..). Additionally I only keep trout that are at least 16" since you simply don't get enough meat off of a 15" trout...
> 
> I never worry in the slightest about my anglers keeping fish since I know that the FWC is pretty careful not to allow overfishing (and Everglades National Park has a few additional rules that have total limits a bit more stringent than the state's standards).
> 
> Lastly if you know anyone that's breaking the rules - turn them in... since they're stealing our future...


So here’s a Montana story: it seems the guide was fishing the upper Madison in Yellowstone Park. The gentleman being guided had “been fly fishing for 20 years” (20 years x 1 week/year = a few months experience) and obviously didn’t need to learn anything. His wife, however, like many women, was interested in learning so the guide was working with her while her husband wandered off. Before he left, the guide explained that they were on a catch and release section and not to keep anything. When they met at the truck, the husband put several trout in the cooler. The guide didn’t mention anything about it. On the way out of the park the guide stopped at the gate and turned the guy in. Meanwhile his wife was in the truck laughing her butt off. A little off topic I know but I think you guys may enjoy the story.


----------



## Roux

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Them ********* would eat them if they could...


Mais ya, we would


----------



## BobGee

Roux said:


> Mais ya, we would


I’ve been told that the only fish you ever catch in Louisiana are the ones that never met a Cajun.


----------



## Roux

They've been living off the land and water around those parts for a long time. That said, fishing and hunting in S La is a huge deal for everyone. Life pretty much revolves around it.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Roux said:


> They've been living off the land and water around those parts for a long time. That said, fishing and hunting in S La is a huge deal for everyone. Life pretty much revolves around it.


My sis married one over 20 years ago, fished Sabine a lot with him and hunted hogs and deer in the piney woods. Good ol’ boys around there, not caught up in the ways of the world.


----------



## Roux

They've been living off the land and water around those parts for a long time. That said fishing and hunting in S La is a huge deal for everyone. Life pretty much revolves around it.


Smackdaddy53 said:


> My sis married one over 20 years ago, fished Sabine a lot with him and hunted hogs and deer in the piney woods. Good ol’ boys around there, no caught up in the ways of the world.


Im whats known as redbone, or born north of I-10, the misses was born in morgan city and lived her life til we met in Pierre Part. They are good people, and actually really good when it comes to being stewards of the land and waters. Now some of the native american tribes down there near houma and pointe aux chenes can be a little... not so good with conservation and what not. Fished Sabine a few times, they got some big trout out that way


----------



## lemaymiami

Louisiana does grow some fish (and their catch limits actually do reflect that...) and boy do y'all have some reds... Anytime I have an angler from Louisiana I don't even mention the redfish we have in the 'glades since ours are just babies compared to theirs...

I was told years ago that there's a difference between a zoo in that state and zoos anywhere else in the world... Most zoos have a brass plaque somewhere that gives you the scientific name of each specie - and a bit of info about where in the world they can be found... In Louisiana that brass plaque - is a recipe... Heck, I've even seen a recipe from there for mudhens (we call them coot...).


----------



## karstopo

When Texas recently went to 5 speckled trout statewide (it was 10 north of Sargent), the ones that got the most upset about the drop were the some of the guys that live on the water and fished all the time and always posted photos of a deck or cooler full of fish. 

What were they doing with all that fish? Can’t legally sell wild caught in Texas speckled trout. 10 2-3 pound trout will feed a bunch of people. Are you feeding the neighborhood? Do you eat fish every day, morning, noon and night? 

I really think all the fuss they made about the lowered limits was about them not getting all the multiples of attaboys and high fives on the local forums and social media. Five dead fish on the deck in those circles just doesn’t have the impact as 10. More people can pull off the limit of five than ten so that diminishes their “specialness”, I’m the fish god, hero of the bay and surf status. 

These guys pretty much confirmed it when they say “there’s no need for lowered limits, look at me, I have no problem catching 10 (and they usually list how many more they got than that and how little time it took.) 

They called the folks advocating for five “trophy hunters” and several worried openly on the forums how are the poor fishermen going to feed their families. 

Give me a break! The numbers don’t work on fish being economical for the table unless they are being caught in commercial level quantities. 

No, it was all about the bragging and their toadies that lap that garbage up. Trout were just numbers to them, reputation points, way to goes, your the man points. The state and anyone or any organization that was conservation minded, including CCA, that organization was a particular target of their venom, was really just standing in the way of their great glory and glorification of their godlike status on the forums. 

It was if the state and anyone advocating for a conservation minded approach to the fishery was threatening their manhood and their power. 

I was personally told on a forum “you can lick the saltwater off my nuts” by the ring leader and chief god for my daring to question the god’s stance on gill nets (“they never hurt anything”, his words, not mine) and other ridiculous points he tried to make about starving fishermen. 

I really don’t care what I’m called and the chief god and many more of his posse got banned from a forum (not on my suggestion), but there was no way to spin it that they were concerned about the fish, even if they tried in every convoluted way possible. 

I really think they imagined that since they and their kind post these endless dead fish photos, they must be the only ones that know how to catch fish like that. 

The truth is really that there are a lot of people that catch a lot of fish, catch big fish, know how to find fish, but just aren’t on social media and just only care to keep a couple for the table and most of what the catch goes right back into the water never seeing the lens of a smart phone or end up in a pile on the deck or cleaning table. I fish with several such people that have never ever post a single photo of anything, have caught 9, 10 and even 11 pound speckled trout, yet no one outside a couple of people know anything about. 

All these great, skilled conservation oriented but unknown fishermen to a person are for conservation minded fish limits. The serial dead fish all over the deck heroes, what do you really think they are all about? Can’t be conservation of the resource, can it? How do they spin that?


----------



## Smackdaddy53

karstopo said:


> When Texas recently went to 5 speckled trout statewide (it was 10 north of Sargent), the ones that got the most upset about the drop were the some of the guys that live on the water and fished all the time and always posted photos of a deck or cooler full of fish.
> 
> What were they doing with all that fish? Can’t legally sell wild caught in Texas speckled trout. 10 2-3 pound trout will feed a bunch of people. Are you feeding the neighborhood? Do you eat fish every day, morning, noon and night?
> 
> I really think all the fuss they made about the lowered limits was about them not getting all the multiples of attaboys and high fives on the local forums and social media. Five dead fish on the deck in those circles just doesn’t have the impact as 10. More people can pull off the limit of five than ten so that diminishes their “specialness”, I’m the fish god, hero of the bay and surf status.
> 
> These guys pretty much confirmed it when they say “there’s no need for lowered limits, look at me, I have no problem catching 10 (and they usually list how many more they got than that and how little time it took.)
> 
> They called the folks advocating for five “trophy hunters” and several worried openly on the forums how are the poor fishermen going to feed their families.
> 
> Give me a break! The numbers don’t work on fish being economical for the table unless they are being caught in commercial level quantities.
> 
> No, it was all about the bragging and their toadies that lap that garbage up. Trout were just numbers to them, reputation points, way to goes, your the man points. The state and anyone or any organization that was conservation minded, including CCA, that organization was a particular target of their venom, was really just standing in the way of their great glory and glorification of their godlike status on the forums.
> 
> It was if the state and anyone advocating for a conservation minded approach to the fishery was threatening their manhood and their power.
> 
> I was personally told on a forum “you can lick the saltwater off my nuts” by the ring leader and chief god for my daring to question the god’s stance on gill nets (“they never hurt anything”, his words, not mine) and other ridiculous points he tried to make about starving fishermen.
> 
> I really don’t care what I’m called and the chief god and many more of his posse got banned from a forum (not on my suggestion), but there was no way to spin it that they were concerned about the fish, even if they tried in every convoluted way possible.
> 
> I really think they imagined that since they and their kind post these endless dead fish photos, they must be the only ones that know how to catch fish like that.
> 
> The truth is really that there are a lot of people that catch a lot of fish, catch big fish, know how to find fish, but just aren’t on social media and just only care to keep a couple for the table and most of what the catch goes right back into the water never seeing the lens of a smart phone or end up in a pile on the deck or cleaning table. I fish with several such people that have never ever post a single photo of anything, have caught 9, 10 and even 11 pound speckled trout, yet no one outside a couple of people know anything about.
> 
> All these great, skilled conservation oriented but unknown fishermen to a person are for conservation minded fish limits. The serial dead fish all over the deck heroes, what do you really think they are all about? Can’t be conservation of the resource, can it? How do they spin that?


I agree with you except for the CCA part. That organization doesn’t give a damn about the speckled trout fishery or they wouldn’t put on the three month STAR tournament every summer advocating the forced killing and weighing in of 8# MINIMUM trout. They could tag and release like they do the redfish division. These organizations are driven by money first then the resource gets second once they are satisfied with their earnings.


----------



## karstopo

Smackdaddy53 said:


> I agree with you except for the CCA part. That organization doesn’t give a damn about the speckled trout fishery or they wouldn’t put on the three month STAR tournament every summer advocating the forced killing and weighing in of 8# MINIMUM trout. They could tag and release like they do the redfish division. These organizations are driven by money first then the resource gets second once they are satisfied with their earnings.


Yes, I see that the Star trout tournament CCA puts on is a bad idea and should change. I don't even like the live weigh tournaments for trout as I don't believe most of those fish survive for long. 

Maybe CCA will hear the plea and change that part of the event.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

karstopo said:


> Yes, I see that the Star trout tournament CCA puts on is a bad idea and should change. I don't even like the live weigh tournaments for trout as I don't believe most of those fish survive for long.
> 
> Maybe CCA will hear the plea and change that part of the event.


Same page man, it’s good to know there are still some people thinking for themselves!


----------



## lemaymiami

For y’all in Texas... hang in there -it’s tough changing habits and attitudes that have been in place for years and years. We went through it some years ago here in Florida. 

I can remember as a young mate on charter boats back in 1973 when we killed everything we caught - then used the piles of dead fish to book the boat for the next trip, day after day... 

I can also remember being the neighborhood hero when I always had fish to give away when I came back to being a “recreational”... Many that I knew sold their catches back then to “make expenses” even though it wasn’t particularly legal (but the rules were never enforced). I was one of them so I know what I’m talking about...

Keep working for reasonable conservation measures wherever you are - and fight against inshore netting wherever it occurs...

Your grandkids will appreciate it.


----------



## Big Fish

They need to decrease redfish limit next. 2 fish per person per day is hurting the fishery here in NE FL.

That being said I disagree with some of the sentiment on this thread that seems to be bashing the idea of keeping fish to eat. Fish are delicious! I love the idea of feeding my family fish that I harvest rather than supporting some super commercial ship or nasty fish farm.


----------



## lemaymiami

Absolutely - and if your state is on the ball they've factored in exactly what harvest can be made without hurting your fish stocks. That's why I have no problem assisting my anglers that want to take a fish or two home for dinner on any trip... (and I carefully cut and package those fish any day on the water - and that's in addition to the standard hours a trip runs).

If you're allowed two reds up in the north end of the state you're ahead of us down south where my anglers are only allowed one red per day (and we've been set up that way for years now...).


----------



## Zika

Big Fish said:


> They need to decrease redfish limit next. 2 fish per person per day is hurting the fishery here in NE FL.
> 
> That being said I disagree with some of the sentiment on this thread that seems to be bashing the idea of keeping fish to eat. Fish are delicious! I love the idea of feeding my family fish that I harvest rather than supporting some super commercial ship or nasty fish farm.


Big Fish, you are in the minority, but I agree with you. At the last adjustment of the redfish rules there was a major pushback against changing the number allowed in NE Florida. That sentiment prevailed, even though other areas were reduced because of pressure and lower stock assessments.


----------



## Big Fish

Zika said:


> Big Fish, you are in the minority, but I agree with you. At the last adjustment of the redfish rules there was a major pushback against changing the number allowed in NE Florida. That sentiment prevailed, even though other areas were reduced because of pressure and lower stock assessments.


I wouldn't doubt that the overall stock in NE Florida is strong, the issue with 2 fish is it depletes a creek quickly (although it will reload at some point). A school of fish moves into a small creek and once they are caught (and kept) they are gone until a new school moves in. Knocking it back to 1 fish will double the length of time it takes for that to happen. A lot of the time there may only be a small handful of fish in any given creek and it is quite possible to catch nearly every fish in that spot if using cut crab or mullet. A creek with 10 fish can nearly be cut in half by two guys in one AM. When the next boat comes in the afternoon 2 more guys decrease the amount of reds in that spot to only 2 fish.


----------



## Drifter

Zika said:


> Big Fish, you are in the minority, but I agree with you. At the last adjustment of the redfish rules there was a major pushback against changing the number allowed in NE Florida. That sentiment prevailed, even though other areas were reduced because of pressure and lower stock assessments.


 What is interesting is how when I come here and fish(FL), every single person I come in contact with refers to keeping the fish or asks me why I am not keeping which is interesting. In Montana, if you Flyfishing, thats not even a conversation point and in many places would be weird if someone took you Flyfishing and kept the fish.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Drifter said:


> What is interesting is how when I come here and fish(FL), every single person I come in contact with refers to keeping the fish or asks me why I am not keeping which is interesting. In Montana, if you Flyfishing, thats not even a conversation point and in many places would be weird if someone took you Flyfishing and kept the fish.


It’s not odd. There is nothing wrong with keeping fish for dinner but people can’t help themselves and are greedy. Just because a man goes fishing doesn’t mean he has to keep every legal fish but it seems like a lot of folks can’t regulate themselves and measure the success of a trip by how many fish they can kill for a social media photo. There’s a hell of a lot more saltwater than fresh...


----------



## Big Fish

Drifter said:


> What is interesting is how when I come here and fish(FL), every single person I come in contact with refers to keeping the fish or asks me why I am not keeping which is interesting. In Montana, if you Flyfishing, thats not even a conversation point and in many places would be weird if someone took you Flyfishing and kept the fish.


I grew up in New Mexico fly fishing and still trek to North Carolina several times a year to catch wild trout. I did not keep trout in New Mexico and I do not keep trout in North Carolina (except a stockie rainbow sometimes). You need to understand that comparing the "ethics" and "culture" of these two fisheries is nearly impossible. Where as a trout stream needs to be supported entirely by itself, our fishery is supported by the freaking ocean. The number of trout in a small stream calls for strict catch and release while our fishery in Florida has nearly a limitless amount of fish.


----------



## BobGee

Big Fish said:


> I grew up in New Mexico fly fishing and still trek to North Carolina several times a year to catch wild trout. I did not keep trout in New Mexico and I do not keep trout in North Carolina (except a stockie rainbow sometimes). You need to understand that comparing the "ethics" and "culture" of these two fisheries is nearly impossible. Where as a trout stream needs to be supported entirely by itself, our fishery is supported by the freaking ocean. The number of trout in a small stream calls for strict catch and release while our fishery in Florida has nearly a limitless amount of fish.


The problem is that our inshore fishery isn’t supported by the whole ocean; it’s supported by the marshes and nearshore grass beds which are still disappearing in Florida. So there are not a “limitless amount of fish”.


----------



## karstopo

Naw, any fish has boundaries and limitations particular to their own unique physiologies. Speckled trout can’t go anywhere in the ocean they wish and expect to survive for long. Too cold, too deep, wrong structure, too many predators. Here in Texas, speckled trout stay within a narrow home range so that fish from Baffin Bay are genetically identifiable from the ones in Galveston bay. Any fish can be over harvested. 

Harvest limits are necessary for the long term health of the resource. A line needs to be drawn and I would argue for any error on where it gets put to be in favor of the fish.


----------



## MatthewAbbott

Big Fish said:


> I grew up in New Mexico fly fishing and still trek to North Carolina several times a year to catch wild trout. I did not keep trout in New Mexico and I do not keep trout in North Carolina (except a stockie rainbow sometimes). You need to understand that comparing the "ethics" and "culture" of these two fisheries is nearly impossible.


Should have stopped here....


----------



## Smackdaddy53

karstopo said:


> Naw, any fish has boundaries and limitations particular to their own unique physiologies. Speckled trout can’t go anywhere in the ocean they wish and expect to survive for long. Too cold, too deep, wrong structure, too many predators. Here in Texas, speckled trout stay within a narrow home range so that fish from Baffin Bay are genetically identifiable from the ones in Galveston bay. Any fish can be over harvested.
> 
> Harvest limits are necessary for the long term health of the resource. A line needs to be drawn and I would argue for any error on where it gets put to be in favor of the fish.


Speckled Trout vary quite a bit in even smaller areas/conditions than that. Just about any trout caught on the King Ranch Shoreline grass beds will be more golden and have hundreds of spots and go just a few miles up into Baffin Bay and Alazan where there is very little grass and more sand, rocks and deeper water and the trout are silver and have very few spots. My buddy and I caught two trout 29 3/4” (First photo grassy area) and 30 1/2” (second photo sandy and rocky area around the corner) within these two areas in just a few hours of each other and they look completely different.


----------



## eightwt

Big Fish said:


> while our fishery in Florida has nearly a limitless amount of fish.


Well this should be good.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

eightwt said:


> Well this should be good.


That’s rich right there! There’s a hole in the bay floor where mature breeder fish come out by the millions. Hopefully the poachers don’t find it...


----------



## Zika

Those are some true sow trout, Smack.

We have similar situation in Florida's Big Bend. Fish caught around the barrier islands and sand tend to be silver, while the fish east that orient on the grass flats and tidal creeks are darker and/or gold and copper. That applies to trout and reds.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Zika said:


> Those are some true sow trout, Smack.
> 
> We have similar situation in Florida's Big Bend. Fish caught around the barrier islands and sand tend to be silver, while the fish east that orient on the grass flats and tidal creeks are darker and/or gold and copper. That applies to trout and reds.


The Baffin Bay area silver trout have a history. Decades ago Yarborough Pass was open to the Gulf of Mexico and many old timers tell stories of “Tide Runners” which were very large gulf trout in schools of hundreds of fish. They would sweep through the inshore areas once a year then head back out the pass but when Yarborough Pass closed up from hurricane erosion they got trapped and the genetics of these larger trout linger in that area hence the many many large trout coming from here year after year. A few legendary fishermen reported seeing huge schools of 28” plus trout back in the very back sand flats of Alazan Bay within a decade ago.


----------



## Big Fish

When comparing the amount of fish in a trout stream to the amount of fish in the St. Johns river at the junction of the intracoastal and the ocean the amount of fish we have is nearly limitless by comparison.


----------



## Big Fish

eightwt said:


> Well this should be good.


Kinda taking my statement out of context here. I was comparing the fishery of a trout stream to my fishery here in NE FL.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Big Fish said:


> When comparing the amount of fish in a trout stream to the amount of fish in the St. Johns river at the junction of the intracoastal and the ocean the amount of fish we have is nearly limitless by comparison.


The number of people fishing for them is probably fairly proportional as well. More people learning how “trendy” inshore fishing is every day, more boats being sold, more homes being built, more tournaments popping up etc. Exponentially growing actually.


----------



## Big Fish

karstopo said:


> Naw, any fish has boundaries and limitations particular to their own unique physiologies. Speckled trout can’t go anywhere in the ocean they wish and expect to survive for long. Too cold, too deep, wrong structure, too many predators. Here in Texas, speckled trout stay within a narrow home range so that fish from Baffin Bay are genetically identifiable from the ones in Galveston bay. Any fish can be over harvested.
> 
> Harvest limits are necessary for the long term health of the resource. A line needs to be drawn and I would argue for any error on where it gets put to be in favor of the fish.


I think you got lost in the message I was trying to make here. You focused too strongly on my argument that my fishery has nearly a limitless amount of fish when compared to a mountain trout stream (which is completely true). If you would read my posts earlier in this thread you would see that I was actually calling for cutting the redfish limit in my area in half.


----------



## Big Fish

Smackdaddy53 said:


> The number of people fishing for them is probably fairly proportional as well. More people learning how “trendy” inshore fishing is every day, more boats being sold, more homes being built, more tournaments popping up etc. Exponentially growing actually.


I don't know man, many of the streams in North Carolina have to be stocked several times a year or there would be no fish to catch.


----------



## BobGee

Wh


Big Fish said:


> I think you got lost in the message I was trying to make here. You focused too strongly on my argument that my fishery has nearly a limitless amount of fish when compared to a mountain trout stream (which is completely true). If you would read my posts earlier in this thread you would see that I was actually calling for cutting the redfish limit in my area in half.


 When people talk about “limitless” amounts of fish the first thing I think of is the limitless herds of buffalo we used to have.


----------



## Big Fish

BobGee said:


> Wh
> 
> When people talk about “limitless” amounts of fish the first thing I think of is the limitless herds of buffalo we used to have.


Ok buddy. Your mind must be a depressing place. 

You do realize that the eradication of buffalo was a tactic utilized to weaken and kill Indians right? I mean I guess if the US military began a "war on redfish" and indiscriminately killed all the redfish they could our stocks would suffer.

Besides I never said limitless, I said nearly limitless. Also, as I said before, when taken in context I was saying that in comparison to a TROUT STREAM our fishery has NEARLY a limitless amount of fish. 

Man we have some bleeding hearts on here. There is so much virtue signaling going on I don't know what to do.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Big Fish said:


> Ok buddy. Your mind must be a depressing place.
> 
> You do realize that the eradication of buffalo was a tactic utilized to weaken and kill Indians right? I mean I guess if the US military began a "war on redfish" and indiscriminately killed all the redfish they could our stocks would suffer.
> 
> Besides I never said limitless, I said nearly limitless. Also, as I said before, when taken in context I was saying that in comparison to a TROUT STREAM our fishery has NEARLY a limitless amount of fish.
> 
> Man we have some bleeding hearts on here. There is so much virtue signaling going on I don't know what to do.


MERRY CHRISTMAS!


----------



## eightwt

Big Fish said:


> Kinda taking my statement out of context here.


Was merely thinking there might be some discussion expressed on your thought. 

Your comment made me think of a couple of Wyoming fish biologists that practically begged us to keep limits of fish from a particular local creek to enhance fish size.


----------



## BobGee

Big Fish said:


> Ok buddy. Your mind must be a depressing place.
> 
> You do realize that the eradication of buffalo was a tactic utilized to weaken and kill Indians right? I mean I guess if the US military began a "war on redfish" and indiscriminately killed all the redfish they could our stocks would suffer.
> 
> Besides I never said limitless, I said nearly limitless. Also, as I said before, when taken in context I was saying that in comparison to a TROUT STREAM our fishery has NEARLY a limitless amount of fish.
> 
> Man we have some bleeding hearts on here. There is so much virtue signaling going on I don't know what to do.


Well I guess I better agree that in comparison to a small trout stream in NC the ocean has a nearly limitless amount of fish... first time I’ve ever been called a bleeding heart. Maybe that’s in comparison to something, too.


----------



## Big Fish

eightwt said:


> Your comment made me think of a couple of Wyoming fish biologists that practically begged us to keep limits of fish from a particular local creek to enhance fish size.


If I remember correctly the reason New Zealand is such a destination for fly fishing is due to the size of their trout. They have some seriously HUGE trout there. I also think that is due to a surprisingly small population of trout in their creeks. So perhaps there is some merit to that line of thought.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Big Fish said:


> If I remember correctly the reason New Zealand is such a destination for fly fishing is due to the size of their trout. They have some seriously HUGE trout there. I also think that is due to a surprisingly small population of trout in their creeks. So perhaps there is some merit to that line of thought.


Probably not a bunch of guys hauling them around in a livewell for half a day, handling them like firewood then chunking them in the nearest boat ramp right next to the cleaning table. Probably not killing them for ugly skin mounts or filleting them after social media photos either. New Zealand is probably not accessible to as many googans as our local waters. The thing all these dudes try to justify boxing a trophy fish is “well it’s about to die anyway” or “it’s at the end of it’s life cycle anyway”.
People need to think a little past themselves and we could all have some very nice fish to catch on a more regular basis. Regulate yourselves!


----------



## BobGee

eightwt said:


> Was merely thinking there might be some discussion expressed on your thought.
> 
> Your comment made me think of a couple of Wyoming fish biologists that practically begged us to keep limits of fish from a particular local creek to enhance fish size.


There’s no doubt small acidic trout streams can get overrun with small fish. They just can’t grow a lot of food. Big high pH tailwaters in MT and CO grow lots of bugs and they’re overrun with big trout. The Bighorn and Missouri for example.


----------



## Big Fish

Smackdaddy53 said:


> Probably not a bunch of guys hauling them around in a livewell for half a day, handling them like firewood then chunking them in the nearest boat ramp right next to the cleaning table. Probably not killing them for ugly skin mounts or filleting them after social media photos either. New Zealand is probably not accessible to as many googans as our local waters. The thing all these dudes try to justify boxing a trophy fish is “well it’s about to die anyway” or “it’s at the end of it’s life cycle anyway”.
> People need to think a little past themselves and we could all have some very nice fish to catch on a more regular basis. Regulate yourselves!


Ya I was just making a comment to @eightwt regarding a statement he made about freshwater trout. Not talking about specks. New Zealand trout are technically invasive and have a small population due to extremely poor spawning conditions within their streams. That fact coupled with the perfect water temperature for all year long bug hatches makes for giant trout (again we are talking freshies here). 

I don't really keep large speckled trout (over 20") and if I do its only because my trebles ripped up their gills or something like that. Now I am one of those guys who "(hauls) them around in a livewell for half a day" in a tournament and then release them "at the nearest boat ramp" after the weigh in. Do I think that all of those fish make it? Nope, but some do. That does suck but I do love winning $$ fishing so im ok with that until the time we don't weigh in like that anymore.


----------



## Big Fish

BobGee said:


> There’s no doubt small acidic trout streams can get overrun with small fish. They just can’t grow a lot of food. Big high pH tailwaters in MT and CO grow lots of bugs and they’re overrun with big trout. The Bighorn and Missouri for example.


Ya. I used to fish the San Juan in New Mexico when I lived there. TONS of trout and huge ones at that. The constant release of perfect temp water from the dam sure made for some fat and healthy trout.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Big Fish said:


> Ya I was just making a comment to @eightwt regarding a statement he made about freshwater trout. Not talking about specks. New Zealand trout are technically invasive and have a small population due to extremely poor spawning conditions within their streams. That fact coupled with the perfect water temperature for all year long bug hatches makes for giant trout (again we are talking freshies here).
> 
> I don't really keep large speckled trout (over 20") and if I do its only because my trebles ripped up their gills or something like that. Now I am one of those guys who "(hauls) them around in a livewell for half a day" in a tournament and then release them "at the nearest boat ramp" after the weigh in. Do I think that all of those fish make it? Nope, but some do. That does suck but I do love winning $$ fishing so im ok with that until the time we don't weigh in like that anymore.


As long as you get paid! What kind of tower boat do you run?


----------



## Big Fish

Smackdaddy53 said:


> As long as you get paid! What kind of tower boat do you run?


I know you are being facetious but we run a jet drive tunnel tower boat for redfish and usually a maverick 18 hpxv for slam tournaments. Its not about getting paid, its about the competition, teamwork, and the adrenalin rush of fighting "the one". If these tournaments were MLF style I would be down for that, no reason to bring them to the scales in that case.


----------



## Smackdaddy53

Big Fish said:


> I know you are being facetious but we run a jet drive tunnel tower boat for redfish and usually a maverick 18 hpxv for slam tournaments. Its not about getting paid, its about the competition, teamwork, and the adrenalin rush of fighting "the one". If these tournaments were MLF style I would be down for that, no reason to bring them to the scales in that case.


Facetious is my middle name. Yeah I wish more guys would run inshore tournaments like the MLF format.


----------

