FWC Trout Limit 5 to 3 Update

[Scoop Sea]

I noted that some folks were discussing the FFWCC's (FWC) staff proposal of reducing the trout limit in our area from 5 to 3, however, I didn't see any updates. In turn, below is an update for you all, with some added personal opinion from myself. I was made aware of the proposed change less than two weeks ago, but I took the time to research the proposal, the background data being used to validate the proposal, do some on the ground in person research with fishermen and folks in fishing related businesses, etc, and for lack of better words, armed myself to speak truthfully and factually at the Commission meeting last week. Needless to say, this took some late nights and burned up more of my free time than I wanted, but trout fishing is vital to my neck of the woods (Wakulla) and some fights are worth fighting. Furthermore, I'm a firm believer that data should drive decisions, not emotions, when dealing with our resources.

A lot of folks seemed to be complaining about the proposal, but the public input data produced by the FWC Staff during their presentation did not show a major outcry from the public. This was due to two reasons: One, the surveys, and workshops the FWC staff conducted before they made the proposal to the Commission did not actually have the new proposed rules addressed, basically just surveys-workshops about trout fishing in general (so there wasn't good input on the proposals) and Two, even when folks recently learned about the new proposed rules, a good majority took to social media, the water cooler etc to complain rather than contacting the FWC staff themselves.

For the NW Zone (the area we all predominantly fish), the FWC staff provided a skewed presentation to the Commissioners to help justify their rule proposal. That's my opinion, BUT, I base that off of facts relative to the research I did on the data FWC staff utilized. First, the staff advised that the data was from a "stock assessment finalized in 2019 with data coming in all the way through 2017". On the outside looking in (for example: Commissioners relying on staff) that sounds fairly solid, i.e. that's pretty updated info. But in reality, the last stock assessment conducted by FWRI (part of the FFWCC) and published was from the 2016 Stock Assessment and that data actually stopped in 2015, so the data behind the proposal was really four years old and wasn't as "up to date" as the staff's presentation would make it appear.

Three analytical models were used in the 2016 stock assessment, yet staff used the info from only the model that showed an issue with the trout SPR (spawning potential ratio is what they look at and the Commission has 35% as the targeted SPR). One model had the SPR in our area below 30, while the others had the range above the targeted 35%, with one model having it around 65%. The model that had the range in the 60's happens to be the model created by FWC and this model uses actual catch-input. So, instead of using the model they (FWC) developed, staff used a different model. That's alright in theory, but all models should be considered and utilized to allow for a full picture of the stock.

22 folks showed up at the Commission Meeting to speak on this issue, only 2 from Wakulla County, the majority were from over in the Taylor County area. Quite a few guides showed up and spoke out against the proposal, however, I was surprised to hear two guides, both of which were against the rule change actually propose a 4 fish limit. I later asked them why that was and they replied: "we figured there was nothing we could do about the change going to 3 so we were just trying to make the best of it".

From what I saw at the meeting, the Commission was very receptive to evaluating the facts above when I spoke on them and they were very receptive to hearing the public's input on this matter, including each of the guides that spoke. I suspect each Commissioner does not have a chance to read every iota of data presented in reports provided to them by staff, etc. so public input and facts being presented appear to go a long way with them.

Commissioner Sole set the table after the public comment period by stating that from the data he had read, etc he couldn't understand why the proposal was coming forward. This seemed to bolster the other Commissioner's to discuss their opinions on the data validity relative to what they heard during the public comment period, the need for possibly redefining the NW Zone boundaries, the need for having greater public input, the need for better data, etc. In the end, the Chairman advised staff that they would not be making a motion to adopt the proposed rules that the staff presented them. In turn, they discussed having staff find means to get more input from the public, working with the stakeholders more, looking at ways to get better data, and looking to possibly set up a new Zone in the Panhandle.

In the end, this was a huge win for the common man IMHO. I will say this in closing: lots of folks are quick to judge the Commission and say they don't stand a chance against them, etc, yet I would tell you my experience was completely the opposite. I witnessed engaged citizens addressing the Commission, bringing forth facts, and making sound arguments. Likewise, I witnessed a Commission that was willing to listen to the public, evaluate the facts brought forth, go the complete opposite direction of what staff had proposed, and in the end, directed staff to try and find ways to work closer with the public while they try and protect our resources.

Tight lines....

[Srbenda]

Great fact-based update.

Thanks

[doomtrpr_z71]

Good to hear, I saw on Facebook myself, you have my curiosity up now about the models.

[tallykenj]

Good info. Thanks.

[doomtrpr_z71]

Looking at the data, it makes zero sense to change the limits since the goals are met and the Gulf Management council considers the 35% SPR very conservative, they use 20%