Cool thanks! Will read tonight.

Interesting read. My conclusions

1. Bowfishing for them may be harder than many perceive:

"Although the number of comprehensive bowfishing studies is
currently limited, data indicate overall bowfishing harvest rates for
all species may be higher than typical sport fisheries (Quinn 2010).
However, harvest rates of alligator gar from Trinity River bowfishing
tournaments were significantly lower than other species, and
may be representative of a relatively inefficient angling method for
this species."


2. They are most vulnerable to bow fishing when spawning:

"Studies on movement and habitat use of these fish
(Ferrara 2001, Sakaris et al. 2003) and anedotal accounts by anglers
suggest that vulnerability to bowfishing may be highest during the
spawning period in the spring, when surfacing activity by alligator
gar is more common. We believe tournament dates adequately
represented times when alligator gar were the most vulnerable to
bowfishing."


3. The population appears stable to the researcher, but that is not based on any firm data (nothing cited)
and the focus of the paper is not on population, but is simply on the efficiency of bow fishing for this species:

"Alligator gar are distributed primarily in Gulf coastal rivers in
the southeastern United States (Sutton 1998, Sakaris et al. 2003).
This species has experienced declines throughout much of its
range, mainly due to habitat degradation (Robison and Buchanan
1988, Simon and Wallus 1989, Etnier and Starnes 1993, Sakaris et
al. 2003) and, to a lesser extent, from commercial and sport fisheries
(Mendoza et al. 2000, as cited in Aguilera et al. 2002). However,
populations in Texas appear stable. As the largest freshwater fish
in Texas, interest in this species has increased among recreational
anglers, especially those targeting the Trinity River for large fish.
As a result, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) implemented
a daily bag limit of one fish, imposed on 1 September 2009,
as a proactive measure to protect alligator gar from overharvest
and to allow time to collect more data on the species and fishery.
Despite the observed increase in interest, directed angler effort and
harvest of alligator gar in Texas is not well understood."

done

Yes, most vulnerable during the spawn, but that is also when the study reflects that it took an average of 50 hours. Other times, when not as vulnerable, it could take even longer. So, exactly how vulnerable are they?

We need to clarify something. This study did not take place during a significant spawn. During the correct time of year for a major spawn, yes. But the spawning events that that the commission is speaking of DO NOT take place every year. We would not see closures every year. Look at the USGS trinity river data from the last 20 years and look at how many times the river has reached flood stage. Those are the times that there would be closures.

I stand my ground. It's not needed. You know how many years I've tried to catch a flood on a weekend when I can actually go? Many, and we have to watch the same sites you mentions to see where the flood is at. It rises and falls so quick, that if it don't hit on Thur or Friday your s.o.l. Unless you drive further south to try and get ahead of the fall, but when you end up in Riverside, you just undertook a huge amount of area to try and fish.

Let's also clarify, that the flood they say is required for a spawn, is what I would call a "hatch". They are looking for a flood event that is approx. 5 days in duration. This is the amount of time they say it takes to spawn, hatch and get gone when the water recedes. That my friends is rare.

I agree, but if these flood events are so rare, and difficult to come by, how is this going to hurt your bowhunting? You say "It's not needed", but is it really going to hurt your sport at all? Why are you so opposed?

Also, everyone keeps stating that hunting gar during a spawn is not as easy as everyone says. Are you saying that you have never had the opportunity to hunt them while they are spawning?

Let's be realistic. A flooding event is going to be uncommon. If it does flood, it's only going to be for a 3-4 day period at most. So every few years, if we are lucky, we might have a closure to gar harvest for a few days. Explain to me how this is going to hurt your sport.

It was a little hard to hear, but I believe the new regulation just passed.
A big thanks for all those that signed the petition!

Slimjim, give up just one gun for now. 5 yrs from now we're gonna come take another one. See how it works?

Tony,

The difference between you and me is this: I believe that the Texas Parks and Wildlife as well as our commissioners are committed to the conservation of all native species for future generations to enjoy. You obviously don't. I listened to your speech, and it was well prepared and presented. However, commissioner Duggins also told you that after future research, we may increase the daily bag limit if it is feasible. They were very clear that this proposal is being put into place until further research indicates otherwise.

My opinion is that the true "knee jerk" reaction came from all the bowhunters that were opposing this. You were at the meeting, and they described in detail how the proposal would be implimented. In a nutshell, there are about three months out of the year where temperatures/rainfall are correct for spawning events. By their definition, the river must have moderate flooding for a spawn to take place. If moderate flooding occurs, it will only be for 3-5 days at most. This is an extremely rare event, so rare that if this proposal had been put in place in late 2007, we would have never seen a closure up to this point. I'm at a loss for words here. I'm sorry if you feel like this is going to affect your sport. It just baffles me that there are people out there that make money by guiding gar hunts, yet they are opposed to a regulation that is preserving not only the fish, but their business for future years.

I made it very clear in the speech I gave in Huntsville that I thought there were better ways to regulate this, but that I firmly approved the current proposal if they were no other viable options. You seem to think I'm not happy with the proposal passing, but I am. I hope that further research indicates healthy sustainable populations, but if it doesn't then I hope they pass more strict regulations. I asked them why Gar are not considered game fish. The answer I got? Because people like to hunt them with a bow. You can't tell me that they don't care about bowfishermen.

I appreciate the debate, I really do and your right. This may in fact never happen. However, we believe and so does the science, that we are not putting this species in decline. The fact is, the commission did not listen to the science and made an emotional decision. I'm sure it was discussed and cussed, but the fact it remains, it is not needed. I'm sure a lot of this is a moral issue and I can not defend that. Are they looking out for this species, I'm sure of it, but they think that every time we kill one we are one step closet to extinction.

Why make a rule, that is not necessary, that ties up funds and game wardens. Tell me, as a rod and reel fishermen you can argue that you are not "attempting to take" an alligator gar, if you put a jug line or baited hook in the water during a closure? As a bowfisherman, I can tell you what I'm shooting at and be 100% sure it's not an alligator gar before I draw my bow. How do you police that?

I'm not going to deny the fact that there were emotions involved in the decision making process, the same as you and I have emotions related to this issue. It's nearly impossible to make a decision without them. You are correct, there is ONE study that has been done that says our current populations and harvest rates are in check. Remember, though, that this study did not take place during an active spawn. I was told by one of the Biologists at the Huntsville meeting that the best estimate of our harvest rate is between 1-4%. That is as accurate as we can safely estimate. What if one of the bowfishing tournaments had taken place during a spawn while this study was done? How do you think that would have affected the data? I think you should be glad that didn't happen! The fact is that the commission decided they didn't have data affirming that allowing harvest during spawning events would not be harmful to the population. All their data indicates sustainable harvest during normal conditions, NOT spawning conditions. Because spawning events are rare and we don't have any harvest data from them, we can't safely assume that harvest over active spawning activity isn't harmful. That is why the decision was made. We can't say for a fact that this proposal was needed, but we also can't use data that doesn't correlate to these spawning events in order to justify NOT implementing the proposal. Hopefully my point is clear.



As far as tying up funds and Game Wardens, I'm sure the commission has a better understanding of our budget than we do. It further affirms the fact that they have determined this to be a worthwhile endeavor if they are willing to appropriate funds. I don't see how this is going to cost much, but maybe it will. Who knows. As far as tying up Game Wardens, they are out there doing their job anyway. It's not like we have to hire more for this proposal. At most, it would be 4-5 days out of every few years they may need to patrol an area more heavily.



There are MANY laws that are left up to our Game Wardens to determine whether or not they see evidence of illegal activity or not. This isn't a new issue. I can go through and come up with a few if you need me to, but I think we both know that. That is probably the most stressful part of their job. Unfortunately, this is just a necessary part of enforcing our laws. Our Game Wardens have been trained to be reasonable on issues such as this, and I believe they will be. They know that R&R fishermen can't determine what bites their hook. I personally don't think anyone is going to be fined for catching one during one of these closures as long as it is released. The difference, which I have stated before, is that we have that option. You don't.

In the end, you do realize that the commissioners won't be the ones deciding if there are closures, right? That will be left up to the Executive Director, who will be given notice from our Biologists if they deem it necessary-the same Biologists that conducted all the research studies both you and I have been referencing.

It has been fun debating this issue, but I'm ready to be done. I want you to know that I respect you and your opinions, just as I hope you respect me and mine. I hope that you aren't too terribly worried about this issue, since it really isn't going to have any significant effect on our fishing activities. Who knows, maybe after a few closures they will decide that we are overpopulated and raise the daily limit, just as commissioner Duggins said.

So is there a link to what EXACTLY was passed?


Or is it one of those you have to pass it to see what's in it BS laws?

They went over it in pretty good detail at the meeting. I'm sure they will post the audio/notes.