Personally, I hate them, but I care more about eating trout than growing trophies. Especially up here on the northern coast where the influx of freshwater from the rivers isn't particularly conducive to growing giant trout. I still don't fully grasp how the CCA and just a handful of other folks were able to somehow turn the most common, most easily accessible, and most popular saltwater fishery in Texas waters into a trophy fishery with essentially zero input from the public.
When the limits dropped to 5 several years ago I didn't love it, but due to many years of floods and fresh water inundation Sabine had fallen off quite a bit. It wasn't all that easy to get a 10-fish limit anymore anyway, and dropping the limit felt like a reasonable, and even necessary step to help the fishery. But the last 3 years Sabine has fished better than is has in over a decade. Make no mistake, this was almost entirely the result of an improvement in salinity, and had little to do with any conservation effort. If a change had to be made last March, Sabine could've easily handled raising the limit back to 10 fish. The fact that it takes me 3 fishing trips in Texas waters to keep enough trout to feed my family one meal is mind-blowing, especially when I'm catching more trout per trip over the last three years than I've caught in a decade. I have a couple of great bank spots that are easy to fish in Texas, or else the limits wouldn't even be an issue. you better believe than anytime we launch a boat we're driving that extra mile over the bridge into Lousiana and keeping their limits. I'd love to see the lake come to some sort of balance... say add Texas' 3 fish limit to Lousiana's 15 fish limit and split the difference and make the limit 9 all over the lake. You could do the same with the length limit and average it at 14. But that's a pipe dream, considering our limits on the northern coasts were somehow decided by a bunch of south texas guides.
Having said all that, I'm pretty certain that in the next five years I'll catch my personal best trout, and then probably break it a few more times afterwards. And that WILL be cool. The fish will get somewhat bigger in the lake, even with the lousiana limits being taken on the other side of the lake. But it's not worth it (to me personally, but also about 95% of the anglers I talk to up here) for what it'll cost to get to that point. If the lower coast wants to stick to a 3-trout limit and make a trophy fishery, that's all good! Trophy fishing is a bigger deal down there, and the environment is a lot better for growing bigguns. But even still, the average fisherman should get a say in it.
Anyway, if you disagree with every word I said, that's fine. Tell me your opinion. I want to hear from both sides. I know it's possible that there's a different mindset from one part of the coast to the other, and also possible that neither mindset is wrong. If that's the case then great, but it's still dumb to have such different areas managed by the same rules and limits.
When the limits dropped to 5 several years ago I didn't love it, but due to many years of floods and fresh water inundation Sabine had fallen off quite a bit. It wasn't all that easy to get a 10-fish limit anymore anyway, and dropping the limit felt like a reasonable, and even necessary step to help the fishery. But the last 3 years Sabine has fished better than is has in over a decade. Make no mistake, this was almost entirely the result of an improvement in salinity, and had little to do with any conservation effort. If a change had to be made last March, Sabine could've easily handled raising the limit back to 10 fish. The fact that it takes me 3 fishing trips in Texas waters to keep enough trout to feed my family one meal is mind-blowing, especially when I'm catching more trout per trip over the last three years than I've caught in a decade. I have a couple of great bank spots that are easy to fish in Texas, or else the limits wouldn't even be an issue. you better believe than anytime we launch a boat we're driving that extra mile over the bridge into Lousiana and keeping their limits. I'd love to see the lake come to some sort of balance... say add Texas' 3 fish limit to Lousiana's 15 fish limit and split the difference and make the limit 9 all over the lake. You could do the same with the length limit and average it at 14. But that's a pipe dream, considering our limits on the northern coasts were somehow decided by a bunch of south texas guides.
Having said all that, I'm pretty certain that in the next five years I'll catch my personal best trout, and then probably break it a few more times afterwards. And that WILL be cool. The fish will get somewhat bigger in the lake, even with the lousiana limits being taken on the other side of the lake. But it's not worth it (to me personally, but also about 95% of the anglers I talk to up here) for what it'll cost to get to that point. If the lower coast wants to stick to a 3-trout limit and make a trophy fishery, that's all good! Trophy fishing is a bigger deal down there, and the environment is a lot better for growing bigguns. But even still, the average fisherman should get a say in it.
Anyway, if you disagree with every word I said, that's fine. Tell me your opinion. I want to hear from both sides. I know it's possible that there's a different mindset from one part of the coast to the other, and also possible that neither mindset is wrong. If that's the case then great, but it's still dumb to have such different areas managed by the same rules and limits.
Comment