A unique website dedicated to fishing information from Florida's Northern Big Bend. This includes the area from the Econfina River west to the Apalachicola River
Salty Gator wrote:Did anyone go to the trout workshop?
I did. The thing I remember most was discussion on closing during winter and the fish are in the rivers. As I remember, the discussion leaned toward closing. One charter capt. made the point, in his opinion, that trout will take a heavy loss even with proper catch and release techniques.
That captain may be correct, but
A) will fewer people fish if they can't keep?
B) will the loss be heavier than every one of those boats taking a 5 man limit, plus the normal loss of catch and release on the non-keepers?
Those are the questions that should be asked about a Feb closure.
I say do whatever the science calls for. Including commercial decrease. Is anyone making a living on selling trout?
Ducks, turkeys, flats fishing. Who has time for golf?
If the changes are adopted at the May meeting, it would go to a final public hearing in July. Usually takes at least a month for law to go into effect once approved, according to FWC public affairs. So likely early fall.
"Sun rise and sun sets. Since the beginning, it hasn't changed yet." Little Feat
guthooked wrote:I disagree with not reducing the commercial harvest. COMPLETELY DISAGREE!!!!!
As for myself, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if the did away with harvesting a plus 20 fish.
It also wouldn't bother me if they closed the season in JAN and FEB. Too damn cold for me anyway.
5 fish down to 3 is a big move, maybe 4?
It was my understanding that commercial harvest of trout comprises only 2% of overall harvest. This is also shown in the link provided by limitless. Given 98% of the harvest is recreational it makes sense to me that regulations focus on recreational limits.
Here is the text from the link...Seatrout is one of Florida’s most popular inshore fisheries. Although the seatrout fishery is primarily recreational (averaging 98% of harvest statewide), the species also supports small, regional commercial fisheries throughout the state. These commercial fisheries have minimal impact on populations but are an important economic resource to those that harvest them. Because of the limited scale of the commercial fishery, this presentation will focus on management of the recreational component of the fishery.
Not always a fan of commercial regs, but if it doesn't impact the fishery I dont agree that we should limit them and their impact their livelihood.
STMU wrote:
It was my understanding that commercial harvest of trout comprises only 2% of overall harvest. This is also shown in the link provided by limitless. Given 98% of the harvest is recreational it makes sense to me that regulations focus on recreational limits.
...
Not always a fan of commercial regs, but if it doesn't impact the fishery I dont agree that we should limit them and their impact their livelihood.
If that data is correct, then no, they should not change the commercial regs.
Anyone have a source on that?
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Three-fourths of the Earth's surface is water, and one-fourth is land. It is quite clear that the good Lord intended us to spend triple the amount of time fishing as taking care of the lawn. ~Chuck Clark
I'd like to see trout classified as a game fish. Limits stay as are, or reduced to 4 no less. A January-February closure, IMHO would be great for the fishery.
I think I am probably lumped in with a lot of people of I'm all aboard on being proactive in managing the fishery for the future and am okay with the proposed regulations. I am at the same time with a few of you on being concerned on no changes to the commercial regs. I don't understand how keeping a limit of trout once or twice a month (as I would say if average recreational saltwater fisherman has a chance to go) but a commercial fisherman going most likely daily with a 75 per person bag doesn't hurt the population. I understand the argument for not wanting to hurt their means of work, but if you limit the recreational regs, less people are buying boats, hooks, bait, fishing rods, reels, fuel, ice, and everything else we use statewide hurts the economy and those businesses probably more than economic impact of cutting commercial regs. I think the offshore with the red snapper and all the constant changes (even mid season) like with amberjack or grouper has left a bad taste in my mouth with the commercial vs rec regs.
Does anyone know for sure if there is a commercial fishery on the west coast of Florida? If not, and they are only getting 1%, then we need to look ourselves and not blame this on the comms....this isn’t the same as red snapper
Catholic girl pray for me, you’re my only hope for heaven
willfishforfood wrote:I think I am probably lumped in with a lot of people of I'm all aboard on being proactive in managing the fishery for the future and am okay with the proposed regulations. I am at the same time with a few of you on being concerned on no changes to the commercial regs.
No doubt that the recreational fisherman probably have impact on the fishery. We're on the same team here I personally have tried to do my part from going years ago going from catching my limit, to limiting my catch. However, if there truly is a concern with stock numbers, there should be a lower of limit across the board.
I personally have tried to do my part from going years ago going from catching my limit, to limiting my catch. However, if there truly is a concern with stock numbers, there should be a lower of limit across the board.
