3 trout

Yeah, I'm glad to see the commercial limit. Maybe I get the personal restriction for guides. I'm not really on board with the rest. Where I fish (mostly St Joe bay, 30+ days a year) I don't see scarcity.

On some other post pottydoc observed that if there are going to be limits to a fishery, FWC should start with the total elimination of the commercial fishery, and then take it from there. I think that's a great idea.
 
The FWC even admits its above the rating set by the fishery council, it just is below their goal of 35% spawning stock. I don't have a problem with the removal of the 20+ inchers but I don't see a need to reduce the limit from 5. I truly believe it should be slotted to smaller fish say 13-19 since there are so many shorts.
 
They change some stuff just to act like there proactive .... kind of like all the manatee zones in the Indian River ... the problem is I haven't seen a manatee that could read so they wind up everywhere 😂
 
More bull pucky from FWC. No science, no evidence, no nothing to back up the need to change the limits anyplace that wasn’t hit really hard by the red tide. Just like the new limits they’re gonna put on black fin tuna, and lowering the redfish limit to one a few years ago. The only thing decent in the new regs is the change preventing the guides and crew from keeping fish (why was this ever legal?), and the lower commercial limit. Cutting out the one fish over 20” is fine, also, but why lower it to 19”?
 
Last edited:
I know that, Art. But it’s way higher than that in a lot of fisheries. Like ARS, for example. The commercials get a wider limit, longer season, and more of the catch shares for a fish that’s supposedly endangered. There’s also nothing to back up that overfishing is occurring with sea trout. Much less an outright slaughter. Commercial limit aside, there’s zero reason to reduce the size, or bag limit, much less have a closed season for trout in most of the State. Just more b s from the FWC. They pay fisheries biologist a bunch of money to study the populations, and then ignore what they say.
 
I know that, Art. But it’s way higher than that in a lot of fisheries. Like ARS, for example. The commercials get a wider limit, longer season, and more of the catch shares for a fish that’s supposedly endangered. There’s also nothing to back up that overfishing is occurring with sea trout. Much less an outright slaughter. Commercial limit aside, there’s zero reason to reduce the size, or bag limit, much less have a closed season for trout in most of the State. Just more b s from the FWC. They pay fisheries biologist a bunch of money to study the populations, and then ignore what they say.
They paid warnell at uga nearly a quarter million to look at Tate's hwll forest and the oysters in aplachicola bay and were given 10 recommendations. The fwc didn't like the recommendations and did the opposite of the recommendations.
 

asc

Senior Member
ARS commercial TAC = 45.6 %
ARS rec TAC = 55.4%


I can go on about cobia, tripletail, mahi, gag grouper, snook, redfish, hog snapper, etc...
 
Top