They won't be happy until you can keep only one, placed gently on some ferns in a wicker creel,

And TPW didn't close any of the protected deep water areas. They went through the trouble to give themselves the power and then did nothing.

Is there any real proof that barge traffic killed the fish? More likely the cold did and the barges just moved the dead trout around.

Can you define "real proof" ? Anecdotal evidence is probably the best we'll get. Fish bunkered down in the ICW deep to get away from the shallow cold water. Barges churning up said water in the ICW along with the cold stunned fish.

lazuras_dc said:

---

Can you define "real proof" ? Anecdotal evidence is probably the best we'll get. Fish bunkered down in the ICW deep to get away from the shallow cold water. Barges churning up said water in the ICW along with the cold stunned fish.

---

I get the theory. I'm just not 100% sold it was the culprit. Probably didn't help though. I'm thinking that was going to be a bad kill no matter if the ICW was closed or not.

docb said:

---

lazuras_dc said:

---

Can you define "real proof" ? Anecdotal evidence is probably the best we'll get. Fish bunkered down in the ICW deep to get away from the shallow cold water. Barges churning up said water in the ICW along with the cold stunned fish.

---

I get the theory. I'm just not 100% sold it was the culprit. Probably didn't help though. I'm thinking that was going to be a bad kill no matter if the ICW was closed or not.

---

Not really scientific proof but there were large numbers of trout & reds with mud gunking up their gills which is supposedly caused by the cold fish hunkered down on the bottom getting forced deeper into the mud by the barge wakes and basically drowning.

What would 5 to 3 do? How about 5 to zero? Wouldn't barge traffic fall into your commercial category?

If fisherman don't impact the numbers why are there so many trout caught just under the limit vs over? It has tracked the minimum slot since size limits were imposed.

TarponChaser said:

---

docb said:

---

lazuras_dc said:

---

Can you define "real proof" ? Anecdotal evidence is probably the best we'll get. Fish bunkered down in the ICW deep to get away from the shallow cold water. Barges churning up said water in the ICW along with the cold stunned fish.

---

I get the theory. I'm just not 100% sold it was the culprit. Probably didn't help though. I'm thinking that was going to be a bad kill no matter if the ICW was closed or not.

---

Not really scientific proof but there were large numbers of trout & reds with mud gunking up their gills which is supposedly caused by the cold fish hunkered down on the bottom getting forced deeper into the mud by the barge wakes and basically drowning.

---

I'm not opposed to closing the ICW and next time I hope we do it. But I'd be willing to bet a lot of fish get mud in their gills when they freeze to death laying sideways in the mud.

FWIW, we've had our place on the Upper Laguna for about 15 years. No oyster. Seagrass hasn't changed much if at all. The biggest thing I've noticed during that timeframe is that:

1) A few years prior to the freeze, my trout catches decreased.

2) A few years prior to the freeze, the number of boats on the water has increased dramatically. It's not unusual to be drifting the flats outside the neighborhood (Tropic Isles) and see upward of 20 boats drifting or anchored up.

IMHO, the numbers are down where I fish because the trout end up in an ice chest. Secondary to that is cold water over the last few years.

SanAntoneAg said:

---

FWIW, we've had our place on the Upper Laguna for about 15 years. No oyster. Seagrass hasn't changed much if at all. The biggest thing I've noticed during that timeframe is that:

1) A few years prior to the freeze, my trout catches decreased.

2) A few years prior to the freeze, the number of boats on the water has increased dramatically. It's not unusual to be drifting the flats outside the neighborhood (Tropic Isles) and see upward of 20 boats drifting or anchored up.

IMHO, the numbers are down where I fish because the trout end up in an ice chest. Secondary to that is cold water over the last few years.

---

I'm pretty sure you are exactly right.

I take an "all hands on deck" approach. Restrictions on limits is one tool.

But @sgrem is 100% correct about habitat loss being the main driver. I've fished West Bay down to Drum Bay a lot in the last 20 years since I moved back to Texas in 2003. In that time the water quality and habitat has improved greatly but there are also a lot of screw ups. One of my favorite spots used to be the north shoreline south of the spoil islands that separate the ICW from the bay. For years it was bare mud & sand but Ike flushed the bay and sea grasses came back. For years it was amazing. Gin-clear and shin-deep grass flats that were full of tailing reds. Then a few years ago (after Harvey) dredging operations in the ICW dumped a lot of their spoil material all over those grass flats and now that grass is almost completely gone.

Unless the wind was pumping from due south this is about what it was typically like:
https://instagr.am/p/BiAyn7pnebH

tcc66 said:

---

What would 5 to 3 do? How about 5 to zero? Wouldn't barge traffic fall into your commercial category?

If fisherman don't impact the numbers why are there so many trout caught just under the limit vs over? It has tracked the minimum slot since size limits were imposed.

---

It was a joke mocking them taking trout limit from 5 to 3 when the average angler only catches 2 anyway....

In years past during freeze events they have closed deep water areas where the trout stack up to fishing.....yet the barges still run the deep water of the icw eliminating that refuge.....just another example of hitting the recreational angler and not bigger impactors.

Point is that given proper habitat.....and following legal limits....there is nothing rod and reel could do to make any measurable impact.

Rod and reel is not the root cause of the decline....and won't have any measurable improvement.... focus efforts where it will have measurable improvements proportionally. But they don't they ONLY hit the recreational angler and nothing else.

I'm surprised fishing pressure hasn't been mentioned.

As far as habitat, the few times I ever go anymore I see tons of bait and tons of small trout.

RAB87 said:

---

SGrem said:

---

Yep....then went to 10 to save the trout....
Then 5 to save the trout.....
Then 3 to save the trout....
Catch and release is hanging out around the corner.

Until they focus on the real impactors they just gonna keep kicking the recreational fisherman. But rod and reel is not causing the decline.....nor will it affect the recovery.....as they have proven with their ever tightening limits with no change....

---

This exactly. Bigger impacters are loss of oyster/grass habitat and water quality degradation.

---

This.

Water quality is the biggest driver to the issues in the bay system, and almost all of that can be traced back to the fact that we effectively channelize rivers and do everything possible to prevent flooding over land that was created by those annual floods. Lord knows how many metric tons of silt and freshwater are dumped into the bay systems - or not put into the marshlands from rivers that dump directly in the gulf - that nature did not design to be dumped into those systems.

It's also why marsh lands are receding - they require that balance of nutrients and freshwater from the river systems and the brackis water from the bay systems to survive. You get one too far out of whack, the entire system begins to fail.

This leads to huge fluctuations in bay salinity, which always ends up with negative effects. Areas that were once covered in sea grass are no longer covered in sea grass. It doesn't help that Joe Bob and Suzy Mae need to run their flats boats in 2" of water and create strips of dead grass that promotes undermining of neighboring grass beds. But hey - she can get her big ole fake cans and thong bikini on instagram, and that is what matters.

TPWD's criminal management of the oyster beds is a contributing factor as well. Barge traffic doesn't help, neither does the ICW or things like the new channel in the Brazos and Colorado.

Weather related events are part of the natural cycle, they happend for thousands of years before we ever started F'ing up everything we touched. Species bounce back from those events, but they have a much harder time bouncing back when their homes are destroyed and they have no habitat or food chain to thrive in and on.

Thanks for clarifying. I've been fishing the Laguna Madre/Baffin since 1994 and the POC area since 1975. We've moved south to avoid the crowds but they're following us and my wife is not interested in moving to Port Mansfield.

We have many of the same challenges up and down the coast but also have unique challenges based on our areas. The numbers of 3-6# trout south of Corpus Christi Bay pre freeze were as good as I've ever seen but the trophy class fish were down significantly for us. The fishing has rebounded from the freeze here faster than north of us. Another big freeze event (always includes a super low tide) and we're in for another reset with this substantial increase in barge traffic.

I'm also very frustrated that they place this recovery effort solely at the feet of the recreational fisherman.

I need to go fishing with you. You seem like an intelligent gentleman.

Habitat destruction/degradation is at the crux of most major species declines. As you say, these animals are made to thrive and bounce back from rare catastrophic events. The rub comes in when there is nowhere to bounce back to or we destroy their nurseries by contamination or elimination of food species.

We are also making the catastrophic events more frequent through means of overharvesting (mostly commercial) and pollution. We are failing at conservation on a massive scale because we don't care to make space for the animals.