Here's another topic that may spark some arguments, but I'd like to hear more opinions on it. I'm talking about speckled trout size limits. Currently they have to be a minimum of 15" and a max of 25" with one per person per day over 25". I agree that there has to be limits on fish or we'd really have a problem on the coast, but I don't particularly agree with the limits that are in place now. It seems to me if the reason for the limits is to keep a healthy supply of fish in the bays then why are we taking perfect breeding size fish out of the bays? I have managed several hunting ranches across Texas and harvesting mature bucks only will destroy the amount and quality of deer on that particular ranch. Spikes have to be removed before they breed more small deer or even worse...don't breed at all. What I'm getting at is if we only take 15" or larger we are leaving a ton of smaller fish out there that may be breeding the females before the bigger fish do. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow fisherman to keep a few of the smaller fish to even the odds rather than only removing 15" and bigger?
I have fished the bays of south Louisiana several times where the limit is 12" and you can keep 25 per person. This is a totally different environment down there but really 12" - 15" is the best eating fish if that's what you're looking for. Anything over 20" the meat gets kinda mooshy to me, plus I'd rather see that big fish have a better chance to breed than these little 12" trout.
I'm not professional or anything and I'm not saying I know the facts, just my thoughts and I'm looking for other opinions to either change my thoughts or confirm. What are your thoughts?

Some of us remember no limits. None.
Your reasons are valid, but it will fall on deaf ears at TP&W. They'll give you tons of data telling you what they're doing is right.

What will help more is the 5 fish limit here now.

I think help.
Watching the armada of shrimp slinging Potlickers kill 200 short trout to get their 40 legals makes you wonder why bother at all with length limits but I think the 5 will cut that down quite a bit.

Most size limits in fisheries management are based on the idea of a percentage of maturity by a given age, where they can expect that most fish of that size have had a chance to breed at least once.

Their goal is 'maximum sustainable yield', rather than maximum size fish. In the myopic view of fisheries managers, it's better to have lots of smaller fish that barely have a chance to reproduce, rather than having some big fish with proven genetics keep on growing and breeding to make more big babies.

I'd be in favor of a reverse slot for many types of fish. For argument's sake, make the limit on speckled trout 5 fish under 15", with a bonus tag on your license for an over 25" fish.

Uncle Zeek-I think you are right on target with your opinion. Keep 5 under 15" but there would need to be a minimum of 12" on there as well.

Actually no, if we had a reverse slot, the point would be that you could keep 5 fish under 15". If an individual thought that keeping 5 9-10" trout was worthwhile, more power to him. The 15-25"+ fish would have to be released so they could keep breeding.

I am not sure it is about the fish at all but about the $$$$ that are brought into the state. Not many anglers would spend the dollars to catch 5 under 15" especially the anglers using guides.

Does anyone know why your allowed 10 on the upper coast vs just 5 on the lower?

I love your thought process and question. It's a little different with fish and genetics as compared to deer. Small trout tend to be young trout... it's very rare to find a 5 year old trout thats 16" even males that age will be a little larger, but its mainly the females that grow to above 25".

Also, while a big female has a bigger volume of eggs, and certainly the genetic DNA to produce bigger fish, the small fish in the population account for much larger amount of egg production as a group compared to the smaller population of big fish. And, there's no way to know if the 17 inch fish is a future 32 incher or not... it's not like they are spikes... just know way to know. Also, as with most bucks, they have to live to 5 to have their full rack potential. Most fish contain enough big fish potential that if they live old enough they would get big.

As far as reduced limits and if they are helping... we just need to look at the gaftop population, most people release gaftop and they are very numerous and the population is probably growing. With that said, in the better estuaries like Galveston, there is going to be certain amount of predation from natural sources and if we didn't take them then flipper would. I would love to see what an area would be like if it was catch and release, just like what all the best bass lakes have gone too. Not sure we'll see that happen in our time though... Probably has to get worse before it gets better. A very large percentage of released fish survive.

In higher fishing pressure areas most of the larger fish are not being counted in the creel surveys because they are being released. So now many people aren't seeing the big fish number increase except those that fish specifically for them.

There's also a very few that are actually eating their catch themselves.. most of the guys I know are releasing almost all there fish and just keeping a couple to eat. (There are some that sustain themselves off of what they catch, and if they are doing that within the law, then they should be allowed that). We also know a lot of guys that load the boat and either let them get freezer burned or give them away to people as gifts... all of which is their right to do so. But a lot of those gift fillets are also never cooked and just become freezer burned... no of which is actually manageable.

To me its a community thing, how do we elevate the coolness of releasing ten fish compared to the deck pics, it's the catching we all love. Let's figure out how to maximize everyones' experience of that.

I KNOW the 5 fish limit greatly helped the lower laguna, the average size is better, and trout are much more plentiful.

I now hope we get the same results in Seadrift, might help if we ever see a game warden not during duck season.

bump to what patt goff just said !

The reality is that if more people practiced catch-n-release then there would be more fish. It stings a little when I browse this site and see a lot of trout hung up on boards to show off their catch success and to make money off of it. Like Troutsupport.com said most of those fish are not getting eaten. Being a fisherman myself, I know there is a "macho" instinct, especially with men, to showing off your catch. Trout are delicious fried up, but if you are not going to eat them then why keep them?

Just my thoughts. I know they are argumentative, but felt like I had to post.

If there was any doubt about being a total jerk, you have dispelled it with this comment. Go back to your crying about how bad Wal Mart outboard oil is, it's more in line with your imagined "expertise". "shrimp slinging Potlickers" indeed!

As a 70 year old disabled Viet Nam veteran, I wish I could still cast artificials all day like I could years ago, and not have to resort to being a "shrimp slinging Potlicker".

I'm not 70 and I wasn't in Viet Nam but my feelings were wounded once.

I would still be a shrimp slinging potlicker if Gulp shrimp didn't work just as well.