And a very big thanks to you sir.

Hope y'all are happy when the waterway gets shut down due to a possible spawn and your not allowed to fish in it for 30 days...... Hope your happy and pay your fine when you take a weekend fishing trip and during that time they decide to call a "gator gar" ban for 30 days and as you pack up to head home with your gar you got the first day of your trip you get pulled over and fined for it being in possession of illegal harvested gar...... Stupid regulation and you people that voted for it made a mistake

You are exaggerating the scope of the law. No water body is being "closed", flood events on flood controlled rivers last 4 to 5 day and you can fish, just not for spawning alligator gar. I'll gladly put up with that minor inconvenience to be able to show these fish to my grand kids.

You sir need to reread it. Waters can and will be closed for up to 30 days depending if a select few people determine its "spawning conditions" no notice has to be givin before the shut down.

Yes, the Executive Director has the power to close it for 30 days if he so chooses, based on suggestions from the same Biologists that your bowfishing community keep quoting. You wouldn't be in favor of this if the proposal was for 7 days, 3 days, or one. You are just trying to find something to argue about now since every point has been shot down with logical arguments.

Please educate yourself and look at the graphs of historic river levels on the Trinity. Tell me the last time the river stayed in moderate flood stage for 30 days. The answer is never. Show me the last time it stayed in flood stage for more than a week. Then show me the number of times it has reached flood stage during temperatures conducive to spawning behavior since the 1940's. Bring something to the table to have an intelligent argument about. I considered all these factors before I made my decision on the proposal. Did you? If y'all would just do a little research and not be opposed to listening to what anyone else has to say, you may find that you are stressing out of something that isn't going to have any effect on your "sport".

TBA was strongly against the one a day limit as well. They are two for two against regulations TPWD has requested. When asked to propose alternative regulation their only answer is to question is to say none.

Slim you are wrong about the river NEVER being up for more than 30 days I have seen it stay up for 3 months at a time and never fall over 2 to 3 feet , and rain everyday but this doesn't happen a lot but it does happen

By up, do you mean moderate flood stage, as in 45 feet? That's what this whole discussion was about.

It stayed high for several months a few years back, that one of the ones you are referring to Kirk? If I remember correctly that was right around when i was starting to get my feet wet.


The wording was too vague and this is not what the fish needed. I went to Palestine and spoke against it, but it was not enough. They need public education and their habitat preserved, not regulations that aren't going to protect them from the real threats which are destruction of habitat and a public that does not appreciate them for what they are.

Every time I listened to them speak about the proposal they were referencing moderate flood stage to be required for spawning. We can debate whether or not fish spawn outside of a moderate flood stage, but that is how they are defining it. So since they are basing closures on that, the river would have to reach 45 feet for a closure to happen. I don't think in our history it has ever stayed at 45 feet for 30 days, but I am curious to know more if you are claiming it has. Again, When you look at historical levels back to 1940 it is pretty interesting how few times it has reached that height during the correct temperatures, and yet everyone is still so worried about it affecting them.




I agree with everything you said....but here is my problem. We won't/can't save their habitat. All we can do is continue to preserve what we have. The damage has already been done. We can try to educate people all we want, but there will ALWAYS be people that won't appreciate these fish, and they are the reason we need regulations.

You are right, this isn't what the fish needed, but at least it is better than what we had before. It certainly isn't going to hurt their numbers, and it isn't going to have any significant affect on our angling, so I have to wonder why you are still so opposed to it. I truly believe that there are better ways to regulate them, but I will take a step in the right direction over no step at all.