texasfishingforum.com logo
Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
TraeMartin, Power-Pole CS, T-Rigger, JoeGoes, EcKo
119150 Registered Users
Top Posters(All Time)
hopalong 120,575
TexDawg 119,517
Bigbob_FTW 94,886
John175☮ 85,892
Pilothawk 83,260
Bob Davis 81,480
Mark Perry 72,287
Derek ðŸ 68,312
JDavis7873® 67,416
Forum Statistics
Forums59
Topics1,037,829
Posts13,935,240
Members144,150
Most Online39,925
Dec 30th, 2023
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Which one happens first? #12754320 05/14/18 01:18 PM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 605
S
sliding by Offline OP
Pro Angler
OP Offline
Pro Angler
S
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 605
With the rapid advancement of sonar technology and smart trolling motors and so on, which happens first. A reduction of bag limits or a “ban” on future technology. I think that nothing will happen until the cost involved allows everyone access to the technology. What do you think?

Re: Which one happens first? [Re: sliding by] #12754338 05/14/18 01:29 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,049
K
KidKrappie Online Content
TFF Guru
Online Content
TFF Guru
K
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,049
Reduction of bag limits but I am not even sure that will happen honestly. Too much money involved with all of the new technology to ban it.

Re: Which one happens first? [Re: sliding by] #12754420 05/14/18 02:07 PM
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 62
Anejo Offline
Outdoorsman
Offline
Outdoorsman
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 62
A ban on "future technology" sounds like Ted Kazinski's manifesto, completely un-American. Managing fish stocks will be done by bag limits and seasons far into the future unless we're all speaking Russian or Chinese.

Last edited by Anejo; 05/14/18 02:08 PM.

International Sportfisherman-Champion 220 Bay- Reserva Tequila Sipper
Re: Which one happens first? [Re: sliding by] #12754435 05/14/18 02:15 PM
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 635
C
Chris Richardson Online Content
Pro Angler
Online Content
Pro Angler
C
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 635
Why does it seem like everyone's answer to added fishing pressure is bag limit reduction? My solution would be to stock the lakes with MORE fish! Tawakoni is a perfect example in regards to hybrid and striper.

#1 combined hybrid/striper stocking in the state, also supplemented by TSA
#1 or #2 guide/recreational harvest in the state (*Texoma may be higher)
#1 combined hybrid/striper fishery in the state

Win,Win,Win

Fertile East Texas lakes have massive baitfish populations that can sustain much larger gamefish populations than we currently see.

Re: Which one happens first? [Re: sliding by] #12754455 05/14/18 02:24 PM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 605
S
sliding by Offline OP
Pro Angler
OP Offline
Pro Angler
S
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 605
I also think that it will be a bag management issue. However, you will not see drastic reductions until the cost of said technology becomes affordable for the general weekend fisherman or woman. At that point, then unfortunately, the guides will be the most effected. I would assume that they would just change their approach and run multi species trips.

Re: Which one happens first? [Re: sliding by] #12754474 05/14/18 02:35 PM
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,136
S
Skunked Again Fishing Offline
Extreme Angler
Offline
Extreme Angler
S
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,136
Interesting question. Golf did that with technology; limiting the speed at which the golf ball can leave the clubface (at a given swing speed). Car racing, baseball, etc... I'm sure, also limits technology advantages. Fishing is headed down that path too.

However, I believe the bag limit is imposed from data collected balanced vs conservation needs, and are adjusted to meet those goals (yearly basis??). I'm not sure if technology plays a part in bag limits. So the bag limit encompasses all inputs such as technology, technique, #anglers, numbers kept, etc...


One 10-pounder is better than ten 1-pounders; but 100 1-pounders is ok too!
If this kind of stuff floats your boat, be a subscriber to my youtube Channel: www.youtube.com/SkunkedAgain
Get exclusive information by following SkunkedAgain Facebook page: www.Facebook.com/SkunkedAgain
Re: Which one happens first? [Re: Chris Richardson] #12754496 05/14/18 02:54 PM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 605
S
sliding by Offline OP
Pro Angler
OP Offline
Pro Angler
S
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 605
Originally Posted By: Chris Richardson
Why does it seem like everyone's answer to added fishing pressure is bag limit reduction? My solution would be to stock the lakes with MORE fish! Tawakoni is a perfect example in regards to hybrid and striper.

#1 combined hybrid/striper stocking in the state, also supplemented by TSA
#1 or #2 guide/recreational harvest in the state (*Texoma may be higher)
#1 combined hybrid/striper fishery in the state

Win,Win,Win



Fertile East Texas lakes have massive baitfish populations that can sustain much larger gamefish populations than we currently see.


TSA does an awesome job and it shows on Tawakoni. Wish more lakes had organizations like them. The difference between stripers / hybrids and say whites and crappie is the fact that the latter are spawn replishment only, once established. To supplement the spawn by stocking would require new hatcheries to support it, I would assume. Then you get into the whole funding issue and round and round we go.

Re: Which one happens first? [Re: sliding by] #12754636 05/14/18 03:59 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,049
K
KidKrappie Online Content
TFF Guru
Online Content
TFF Guru
K
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,049
Originally Posted By: sliding by
[quote=Chris Richardson]Why does it seem like everyone's answer to added fishing pressure is bag limit reduction? My solution would be to stock the lakes with MORE fish! Tawakoni is a perfect example in regards to hybrid and striper.

#1 combined hybrid/striper stocking in the state, also supplemented by TSA
#1 or #2 guide/recreational harvest in the state (*Texoma may be higher)
#1 combined hybrid/striper fishery in the state

Win,Win,Win



Fertile East Texas lakes have massive baitfish populations that can sustain much larger gamefish populations than we currently see.


Well that would definitely be the best option but that also costs a lot of money. Lowering the bag limits doesn't cost them a dime....

Re: Which one happens first? [Re: sliding by] #12754704 05/14/18 04:32 PM
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 5,413
T
TCK73 Offline
TFF Celebrity
Offline
TFF Celebrity
T
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 5,413
I'm not sure on this one, I really don't think there will be a ban on technology. I don't really catch any more fish with my ipilot than I did before it, I just don't lose 3-4 anchors per year in trees.

Re: Which one happens first? [Re: sliding by] #12754861 05/14/18 05:52 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 27,532
Uncle Zeek Offline
aka "Dad"
Offline
aka "Dad"
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 27,532
Originally Posted By: sliding by
which happens first. A reduction of bag limits or a “ban” on future technology.


I think that this is a false dilemma.

Technology: The only technology that I foresee being banned is that which has a direct environmental impact, such as two-cycle engines, or lead sinkers/lures. In each of those examples, there are alternatives available, such as cleaner-burning four stroke motors, or tungsten weights.

But as far as improved electronics, trolling motors, and the like go - I don't see any reason that they would be banned for recreational fishing (perhaps tournament fishing might limit the use of some technology?)

Bag limits: unless the use of better tech were to drastically affect fish populations, there would be no reason to reduce bag limits. I've had some 100+ and even 200+ days catching sandbass, but no matter how many I caught that day, only 25 went home with me, and the rest were released for another day. To my knowledge, most guides operate the same way.

Unless you are suggesting that better technology will allow fishermen to retain more fish than they would under current limits, there is no reason to think that better tech should mean lower bag limits. I can go fishing without a trolling motor and easily catch 50+ sandbass in a day, and keep my limit if I wish. Even if I use better tech so I can catch more fish, I don't get to keep any more than I did by fishing on the anchor.

So, false dilemma as posed.


"Decency is not news; it is buried in the obituaries --but it is a force stronger than crime" ~ Robert A. Heinlein
Artim Law Firm, PLLC
Estate planning & tax attorney
2250 Morriss Road, Suite 205, Flower Mound, Texas 75028
972-746-0758 mobile
zac@artimlegal.com
Re: Which one happens first? [Re: Uncle Zeek] #12755035 05/14/18 07:30 PM
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,049
K
KidKrappie Online Content
TFF Guru
Online Content
TFF Guru
K
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,049
Originally Posted By: Uncle Zeek
Originally Posted By: sliding by
which happens first. A reduction of bag limits or a “ban” on future technology.


I think that this is a false dilemma.


Bag limits: unless the use of better tech were to drastically affect fish populations, there would be no reason to reduce bag limits. I've had some 100+ and even 200+ days catching sandbass, but no matter how many I caught that day, only 25 went home with me, and the rest were released for another day. To my knowledge, most guides operate the same way.

Unless you are suggesting that better technology will allow fishermen to retain more fish than they would under current limits, there is no reason to think that better tech should mean lower bag limits. I can go fishing without a trolling motor and easily catch 50+ sandbass in a day, and keep my limit if I wish. Even if I use better tech so I can catch more fish, I don't get to keep any more than I did by fishing on the anchor.

So, false dilemma as posed.


The new technology we have now allows more people to go out and catch limits on a daily basis. This is where the bag limit comes into play. In general, it is easier than it ever has been to always bring home a limit where in the past without all of the technology that was not the case.

An example I can think of is when I fish for crappie. The windy days for me are tough as I don't have a spot lock TM and I either don't fish or just catch what I can. If I had the spot lock TM, I could go out no matter the wind and catch my limit.

Re: Which one happens first? [Re: sliding by] #12755064 05/14/18 07:42 PM
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,568
M
Mckinneycrappiecatcher Online Content
TFF Celebrity
Online Content
TFF Celebrity
M
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,568
No matter how good the technology is, 10% of the fisherman will catch 90% of the fish, you have to be good at using the technology first, and you have to have the right gear, lures, etc to make them bite. I don’t think anything will change, as fish numbers are pretty dang high and most people won’t get a limit, even then, fish like sandbass and crappie breed like rabbits and will never go away.

Re: Which one happens first? [Re: Uncle Zeek] #12755192 05/14/18 09:07 PM
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,136
S
Skunked Again Fishing Offline
Extreme Angler
Offline
Extreme Angler
S
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,136
Originally Posted By: Uncle Zeek
Originally Posted By: sliding by
which happens first. A reduction of bag limits or a “ban” on future technology.


I think that this is a false dilemma.

Technology: The only technology that I foresee being banned is that which has a direct environmental impact, such as two-cycle engines, or lead sinkers/lures. In each of those examples, there are alternatives available, such as cleaner-burning four stroke motors, or tungsten weights.

But as far as improved electronics, trolling motors, and the like go - I don't see any reason that they would be banned for recreational fishing (perhaps tournament fishing might limit the use of some technology?)

Bag limits: unless the use of better tech were to drastically affect fish populations, there would be no reason to reduce bag limits. I've had some 100+ and even 200+ days catching sandbass, but no matter how many I caught that day, only 25 went home with me, and the rest were released for another day. To my knowledge, most guides operate the same way.

Unless you are suggesting that better technology will allow fishermen to retain more fish than they would under current limits, there is no reason to think that better tech should mean lower bag limits. I can go fishing without a trolling motor and easily catch 50+ sandbass in a day, and keep my limit if I wish. Even if I use better tech so I can catch more fish, I don't get to keep any more than I did by fishing on the anchor.

So, false dilemma as posed.


For you, I agree it is a false dilemna; but, I think for the 10% who catch their limit 90% of the time, the new technology won't affect you. What I think it will do is make that 10% number go higher to 15%, 20%, so on. Now, there are more people taking home the 25 fish, even though it didn't change your take home at all. Over time, it will deplete the population. But bag limits are based on population polls on a regular basis; so it's all encompassing of technology, fishing pressure, and so on.


One 10-pounder is better than ten 1-pounders; but 100 1-pounders is ok too!
If this kind of stuff floats your boat, be a subscriber to my youtube Channel: www.youtube.com/SkunkedAgain
Get exclusive information by following SkunkedAgain Facebook page: www.Facebook.com/SkunkedAgain
Re: Which one happens first? [Re: sliding by] #12755275 05/14/18 09:48 PM
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,699
J
JCBfromTHF Offline
TFF Celebrity
Offline
TFF Celebrity
J
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,699
They aint going to limit technology that's for sure! I could see them reducing bag limits and I am all for it.

They aint going to up their stockings either. History has shown just the opposite in fact that's why organizations like TSA and RHSA have been established because TP&W aint doing their part like they use to.

Re: Which one happens first? [Re: sliding by] #12755780 05/15/18 03:26 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,700
R
RANDY WOOD Offline
TFF Team Angler
Offline
TFF Team Angler
R
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,700
I also believe this is a false delemma.

As long as TPW keeps current stockings of all fish at current levels then our limits don’t need to be changed.
With a rod and reel I can’t catch them any faster. They seem to be gaining on us at PK..

Only one thing has ever come close to wiping out the fishing at PK. That’s Golden Alga.
PK and all the Brazos lakes lost almost all there fish in 2001.
As far as I know not one Sand Bass or Crappie was ever restocked on the Brazos. Yet they thrive!
Unless we start shocking or fishing with nets the rod and reel will never clean out our lakes.

There a lot of people I know who have the best electronics money can buy. They can’t catch fish.


Leader of the CORN BREAD MAFIA and the Captain of Team Family Style
2008 TSA Team of the Year

817-999-1922


Page 1 of 2 1 2
Previous Thread
Index
Next Thread

© 1998-2022 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3