TPWD Taking Public Comment on Proposed Shad Collection Rules

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) is seeking public comment on proposed changes to the regulations on the possession and sale of gizzard and threadfin shad collected from public waters, which would require persons who collect or possess shad in excess of certain limits to obtain a permit.

TPWD currently issues permits for the sale of nongame fishes taken from public waters, which includes gizzard and threadfin shad sold as live, frozen, or prepared bait. Some permittees also collect live shad from public reservoirs for sale or as part of management services provided to private pond owners to increase the abundance of prey fishes in a pond and improve the growth and size of fish such as largemouth bass.

Shad are also collected by private landowners to stock as prey in their private lakes. These persons are currently not required to obtain a permit because no sale is involved, but the proposed changes would require persons who use containers exceeding 82 quarts in volume for collection and possession of shad from public fresh waters to obtain a $60 permit to possess or sell nongame fish.

A permit would continue to be required if the shad collected are sold or exchanged for anything of value regardless of the container size used, but no permit would be required if the shad are used only as bait on the water body where they were collected, or if a licensed fishing guide possesses and furnishes the shad as bait to customers as part of the guide’s services.

Collection of shad, especially threadfin shad, has resulted in substantial quantities being harvested from some reservoirs in the state, according to Ken Kurzawski, TPWD Inland Fisheries Director of Information and Regulations. Although the impacts on fishes in the reservoirs where these activities occur appear to be minimal at this time, requiring a permit for activities that can result in substantial harvest will allow the department to more fully monitor these activities to ensure their sustainability.

The department is also proposing additional minor changes to the permits such as providing for up to eight persons to be named on a permit as assistants and incorporating procedures into the permit requirements for reducing the spread of invasive aquatic species such as zebra mussels.

Proposed rules are available for review in the Dec. 23, 2016 issue of the Texas Register.

Public comment may be made online; by phone or email to Ken Kurzawski at (512) 389-4591, ken.kurzawski@tpwd.texas.gov; or in person during the TPWD Commission meeting on Jan. 26 at 9 a.m. at 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744.

how many shad are "collected" by the thousands of cormorants which are protected for no reason whatsoever...

What about the Tilapia netters?

+1 all because they're a "migratory species"

Money is all you need to say it's about.

Neither species should be collected from public fisheries for sale to stock private waters. Period.

The spread of potentially extremely harmful pathogens (such as LMBHV, KHV, CCVD, ESC, and many others) is just one of many dangers involved in such activity.

Of concern is also the spread of undesirable exotic species found in these waters (ie. zebra mussels, hydrilla, hyacinth, salvinia, tilapia, etc.)

Of less, but still real, concern is the potential over-utilization of a public resource by private entities

These concerns are not an issue for these species if properly farm raised in a controlled environment.

Won't be long before we will need a license to breath. Yep without it you can no longer use air that belongs to the state. People will be running a hose pipe across the Red River and stealing Oklahoma air.

I generally agree with Fishbreeder that harvesting anything out of our lakes, excepting dinner table fare, well it opens up all sorts of odd biological possibilities. Kudzu, Johnson Grass, fire ants and other intruders come to mind.

No, this will NOT affect many, if any of us. If anyone is out there collecting shad for personal fishing purposes, as long as the amount is less than 82 quarts, no permits are required. 82 quarts? That is a common available size for larger coolers; so, I suppose that is the 'why' behind that particular number.

And, the use of a volume measurement is owing to the fact that putting a head count on individual shad swimming around is not practical, uncountable really so TPWD will go by container volume instead.

TPWD goes on to say that these new rules (there are several) will only affect 10 or so small businesses statewide.

I'm all in. I'd go a bit farther. Net a bunch of shad from a lake with tilapia and accidentally pick up a few, drop them in a private pond, a flood occurs, they end up in a south Texas lake? One year later, you'd have 10,000 tilapia.

Brad

IMO shad should not be taken from one lake and used for bait in another for the exact reasons you list.

It's about the money, and just another form of (fee) taxation.
If it would go toward stocking the lakes fine, but most likely it's to help pay for all those office workers and bonuses.
They have a hard time enforcing the laws already, and adding another makes no sense unless you look at the reason I stated above.

Jimbo, no, I don't think this one has to do with revenue collection. If they are correct and it only affects 10 or so small operations, I believe the fee is about $60, so 10 X 60 = $600.

I think this one has more to do with simple management of our resources, possibly issues related to the spread of disease, and so forth.

Generally, though, with most government agencies, I totally agree with your sentiment . . . that they are just looking for opportunities to regulate and tax.

Brad

I agree, this (so far) doesn't seem like a money grab at all.

How would you obtain this permit? Can I purchase this and other special lisence and permits at the same places I buy a hunting and fishing lisence? Or do I have to order by mail or online?

This seems to be an issue that is not that big of a deal. It is hard for me to envision any sport fisherman using anywhere near 82 quarts of shad at a time. I don't think many cat fisherman would be placed under a hardship due to this limit.

Just to clarify, the new rule would regulate the use of containers exceeding 82 quarts, not 82 quarts of shad.

"would require persons who use containers exceeding 82 quarts in volume for collection and possession of shad from public fresh waters to obtain a $60 permit to possess or sell nongame fish."

82 quarts is only 20.5 gallons.
For fishing, who can (in their automobile) land transport "Shad" in a livewell that is only 20.5 gallons small??
Most Shad capable bait tanks are 25, 30, even 40 gallons.
that would only transport a little more than a couple dozen shad, and that wouldn't make it through the day in a 20.5 gallon tank.

I have a wonderful 20 gallon Sunshine tank that I use for shad. I also have 2 - 30 gallon sunshine bait tanks, a 50,30, 17 gallon Kodiak tanks. More tanks than I need, I just don't want to get rid of them.

Since you can't transport Shad out of Lewisville up to Texoma anymore, I don't try to transport bait by truck (just get their early, or use artificials).

Doesn't this kind of go back to the drain your livewells when you leave the lake and all live bait must be commercially bought with proof of receipt? Or whatever the law really is? Commercial fishing has a license,commercial non game also. Leave the landowners alone. If they bring home something bad into their lake,they will take responsibility for it and handle it,or quit doing it. I never heard of anyone bringing shad home alive from a lake to stock your own. Now I have heard of bringing perch home...

Looks like a solution looking for a problem to me. Seriously, let's see some hard data on the impacts that TPWD wishes to mitigate with this new tax on fishermen.

Anytime any government entity opens a subject up for "Town Hall" discussion, they have already decided what's going to happen and it's just a feel good dog & pony show for those who believe their opinions matter to the rule makers.

Hate over-regulation but this makes sense.
Cormorant issue needs to be addressed as well. They are like giant wolf packs on CC, and in no way seem part of the natural ecosystem.

Not always the case, research grayson county and them trying to open up a rifle deer season there, the bowhunters came out in force at the town hall against it and stopped it.

They need to forget this idea...bad Public relations move...all it will really do is give TPW employees more opportunity to harass the average citizen that otherwise is hurting/bothering nobody. If they just realize they are giving themselves the appearance of being the gesthapo...maybe the would forget this bunch of hairbrained ideas...it reminds me that they once wanted to regulate the collection of skunk scent...really? Anyone brave enough should be allowed to do it without being hassled by the TPW. I hope y'all are listening TPW...stop the hairbrained ideas...you look like idiots enough without these senseless regulations.

I agree wholeheartedly...they believe they can gain fee income with no additional cost burden. But their is a cost to senslesss regulation...public perception...only negative here.

No this is just the first step in the process to restricting any/all shad gathering activities.

Furthermore, if it only affects 10 or so small operation, then find another way to deal with them and not affect 100,000 or more after implementation...just saying KISS method is better than this proposal!

Haha....they migrate up and down the bank.

Don't y'all just love TPWD sometimes????

Where and when?

Unfortunately, Cormorants have been a federally protected species since 1918 when they were included in the original Migratory Bird Treaty between the United States and Canada. Since then, Mexico, Japan and Russia have become parties to the treaty. So unless the Feds get involved, we're stuck with them

Bump

Cormorants only take the old and weak.

As an old fart i remember tpwd telling that many years ago. Bass clubs raised hell so they did a study to prove they only ate trash.

The results were so disturbing bass groups had to file suit to get them to release the results.

When they go through a cove, they clean it out.

Taking publicly owned fish and putting them in private waters is a form of theft of public property, mild form maybe, but still, those fish belong to the public. There should be a $ amount paid for those shad that are taken to private water. The $ should go back into the public treasury. If a permit fee is the way to do it, then fine, set a permit fee and enforce it.

This is similar to high fencing private property to keep the publicly owned deer trapped inside so they can then sell those deer.

Extremely small % of folks take fish from public waters and "steal" them. So punish all of us? LLoyd5 great job. You must be a Bernie fan.

Do what? Where in the world did you get that?

You want to tax everyone because a few people take advantage of a resource.

What is punishing about that? You would only have to pay if you were taking shad from public waters for private water stocking. Everyone pays for a fishing license to maintain public water ecosystems. People who relocate shad are just taking money out of that pot, right?

No, not everyone purchases a fishing license to fish. People who fish inside the Texas state parks are allowed to fish without purchasing a fishing license. I do not agree with this policy. Let everyone purchase a fishing license. Everyone 17 and older. The state is loosing lots of money on weekends and holidays with this policy. Then asking for donations.

this is just another pay the state more money scheme , just like when rick perry was governor and he raised the price of fishing and hunting license saying all the money was going to go to the parks and wildlife dept. to build fish hatcheries and fund wildlife stocking and all the good [censored] we want to hear , only after all his [censored] was implemented our trustworthy politicians voted to run the money into the general fund so they can squander it off to their stupid [censored] that has nothing to do with what they said it would be used for.

Absolutely agree....It's mandatory to have this BS session....Your opinion doesn't matter... I believe they have made up their minds already. It's just a Paper Trail....got to have that!!

So if all water must be drained from a vessel and minnows released into the waters one is fishing before leaving, unless one has a receipt for the minnows from a merchant. Then how could anyone legally leave a body of water transporting shad in water to use in another resale or not? It seems to me this practice contradicts current laws and should be considered illegal.

Now, now, Jimbo. Here's what the announcement states:

"....requiring a permit for activities that can result in substantial harvest will allow the department to more fully monitor these activities to ensure their sustainability". See?

Oops! Wait....if the goal is to MONITOR activities (specifically by requiring the permit and thereby knowing who's doing the larger scale operations), how come they are charging $60? I'm sure there are administrative costs to having that permit system, so let's say they need $5 to cover that. Boom, done. Now they can monitor those who are collecting shad in 82+ quart containers and all is well because legit harvesters do have a permit just the same, right? Nooo, TPWD needs your $60! Can you spell "tax"?

I do not like this, but not because I wish to protect a few commercial operators. (The state claims about 10 are affected.) Shad are difficult to keep alive, and hard to catch at times. Numerous, true sport-only guys make a bait-trip just to catch shad to hold overnight for a planned fishing trip the next day. A bunch of those guys have already purchased round specialty bait tanks larger than 82 quarts to increase bait survival until they use it up. Those tanks were expensive. Now they'd have to get rid of it and buy a smaller one, or pay $60 per year. This, all because they do a few big trips each year where they gather bait one day to use on the same lake the next day. I DO NOT go for the typical TPWD-lazy "If you have a tank larger than 82 quart then you must be in business" mentality of this proposed rule. You're essentially guilty of possessing one container vs. another - even if there were only 20 shad it it! Really? I don't even own a typical shad tank, but I should be free to own whatever size I would like for my private fishing IF I FEEL INCLINED to do so.

The concern is stated to be the commercial use of the resource. Then let them make a regulation addressing just that. Leave the sportsman alone. Don't make an enthusiastic sportsman who fuels the economy via his purchases (boat, expensive tank, etc.) into a criminal simply because he holds a few pounds of shad in a large tank instead of a smaller one.