# Georgia's redfish population



## gafshr (Mar 6, 2020)

There is a lot of concern about the redfish numbers in Georgia.  There is a pretty good discussion going around on social media on this topic from recreational anglers and guides trying to push for some type of change.  I personally have been catching my share but its getting tougher and tougher to find them especially the big schools of 23 to 30" fish which would essentially be the next big group of bull red breeders.  

Good video and lots of useful info






Link to the change South Carolina made I. 2018.

https://www.wrdw.com/content/news/C...-South-Carolina-changes-July-1-486850941.html


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 6, 2020)

There are many more sound ways to do fish stock assessments other than anecdotal angler experiences.  Louisiana uses a combination of fishery independent netting operations run by LDWF and quasi-scientific creel surveys of angler harvest.  Some other scientists and I also pioneered an approach of weighing and measuring a bunch of fish each year and computing a condition index which is a measure of plumpness.  Fish tend to be skinny when populations are large relative to their food supply and fatter when populations are smaller relative to their food supply.

If the fish are skinny, then preserving more "stock" won't help much since the real problem is not enough for them to eat.  Fat, happy fish have much higher fecundity rates than skinny, hungry fish.  Twice as many skinny breeders won't produce as many age zero fish as offspring as fewer fat fish with high fecundity rates.

It is a common error in fisheries management to focus on preserving stocks of one species when the bigger problem is really preserving their food sources and habitat.  Someone needs to do some real science to accurately quantify the situation in Georgia.


----------



## jdgator (Mar 6, 2020)

They need to start by looking at the health of the oyster bars. Those are kinda the canary in the coal mine. I'm convinced GA has lost a lot of oysters to change in water quality over the past few years.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 6, 2020)

jdgator said:


> I need to start by looking at the health of their oyster bars.



We did an 8 year study in a Louisiana estuary relating the health of oyster reefs to the plumpness of various inshore species - specks, reds, drum, and gafftops.   Oyster reefs contribute to primary production in the estuary as a whole by filtering the water and allowing for more light penetration.  Overall food production increases.  But drum and specks rely on the oyster reef habitat more strongly than redfish.  Redfish can find adequate habitat and food even in years when the oyster reefs are depleted - at least in the estuary we studied (Calcasieu).  In the absence of the reefs, redfish were thriving either by hitting the marshes (crabs, shrimp, age zero fish of many species) or open gulf waters (shrimp, crabs, older mehnaden).  

But we were able to compare and correlate our plumpness data to every available environmental factor: oyster population, salinity, temperature, and LDWF stock assessments of just about every population in the estuary.  Without all the LDWF data to compare to, our plumpness data would have been much less valuable.


----------



## jdgator (Mar 6, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> We did an 8 year study in a Louisiana estuary relating the health of oyster reefs to the plumpness of various inshore species - specks, reds, drum, and gafftops.   Oyster reefs contribute to primary production in the estuary as a whole by filtering the water and allowing for more light penetration.  Overall food production increases.  But drum and specks rely on the oyster reef habitat more strongly than redfish.  Redfish can find adequate habitat and food even in years when the oyster reefs are depleted - at least in the estuary we studied (Calcasieu).  In the absence of the reefs, redfish were thriving either by hitting the marshes (crabs, shrimp, age zero fish of many species) or open gulf waters (shrimp, crabs, older mehnaden).
> 
> But we were able to compare and correlate our plumpness data to every available environmental factor: oyster population, salinity, temperature, and LDWF stock assessments of just about every population in the estuary.  Without all the LDWF data to compare to, our plumpness data would have been much less valuable.



Very interesting. Thank you for sharing this. Also, what about the health of eelgrass beds? My intuition is that they are another bellwether indicator of system health.


----------



## Fletch_W (Mar 6, 2020)

gafshr said:


> There is a lot of concern about the redfish numbers in Georgia.  There is a pretty good discussion going around on social media on this topic from recreational anglers and guides trying to push for some type of change.  I personally have been catching my share but its getting tougher and tougher to find them especially the big schools of 23 to 30" fish which would essentially be the next big group of bull red breeders.
> 
> Good video and lots of useful info
> 
> ...



The person in that video said he rode up on a family with kids who kept their limit, and were throwing back illegal fish, and were following the rules... so he could "educate" them... is this a joke? Dude couldn't catch a single redfish on his own, then sees a family catching redfish without any problem, so he decides they need to be "educated"... 

... then says he's normally anti-government but says government needs to get involved because he, the expert, isn't catching as many redfish as he thinks he should be catching, while the other family doesn't seem to be having a problem catching them...

you can't make this stuff up folks. 

Tight lines!


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 7, 2020)

jdgator said:


> Very interesting. Thank you for sharing this. Also, what about the health of eelgrass beds? My intuition is that they are another bellwether indicator of system health.



They are usually considered such in ecosystems where they are prominent.  There tends to be a lot more seagrasses in FL and GA than in LA.  In Louisiana a combination of greater turbidity and smaller tidal ranges combine to have far fewer seagrasses.  In most LA locations with water shallow and clear enough to support grasses, the salinity is much lower so you have marsh grasses rather than seagrasses.


----------



## GLS (Mar 7, 2020)

The redfish limit needed to be reduced 25 years ago.  Another example of the "tragedy of the commons"  where some folks think it's their divine right to take what they can, legally or not..  Gil


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 7, 2020)

GLS said:


> The redfish limit needed to be reduced 25 years ago.  Another example of the "tragedy of the commons"  where some folks think it's their divine right to take what they can, legally or not..  Gil



In the past 30 years, Georgia has tightened redfish harvest rules four times including reducing the number, implementing a slot, tightening the slot, and eliminating commercial harvest.

The average redfish harvest in Georgia is estimated to be 0.2 redfish per trip.


----------



## GLS (Mar 7, 2020)

As long as I can remember Florida anglers came into Georgia because of limits in Florida and they crossed the St. Mary's going south with lots of Georgia fish.  The average harvest per trip is meaningless because as was once said  "10% of the anglers catch 90% of the fish."  20-25 years ago folks I know were trying to get the limit cut below 5.  I have personally experienced fish hogs ruining surrounding drops by taking fish out of a tidewater saltwater pond in the marsh by the five gallon bucketfuls.  Reds are location specific and don't migrate like Spanish and other pelagics and only leave the area once  they reach spawning size.  It's become too many people taking too many fish.  Gil


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 7, 2020)

GLS said:


> As long as I can remember Florida anglers came into Georgia because of limits in Florida and they crossed the St. Mary's going south with lots of Georgia fish.  The average harvest per trip is meaningless because as was once said  "10% of the anglers catch 90% of the fish."  20-25 years ago folks I know were trying to get the limit cut below 5.  I have personally experienced fish hogs ruining surrounding drops by taking fish out of a tidewater saltwater pond in the marsh by the five gallon bucketfuls.  Reds are location specific and don't migrate like Spanish and other pelagics and only leave the area once  they reach spawning size.  It's become too many people taking too many fish.  Gil



Did you immediately report violations you saw?  Tighter limits won't help if violators don't honor them and are not reported.

Further, there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that over harvest is occurring.  All the available stock assessments show the redfish population is fine.


----------



## gafshr (Mar 7, 2020)

The scientific data that will be required to make a change or dont make a change is being collected.  The CRD at dnr in Brunswick has a team that is netting and tagging fish to collect data.  



LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Did you immediately report violations you saw?  Tighter limits won't help if violators don't honor them and are not reported.
> 
> Further, there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that over harvest is occurring.  All the available stock assessments show the redfish population is fine.


----------



## gafshr (Mar 7, 2020)

Unfortunately you did not understand the point he was trying to get across.  Also the point of me starting this entire post.  



Fletch_W said:


> The person in that video said he rode up on a family with kids who kept their limit, and were throwing back illegal fish, and were following the rules... so he could "educate" them... is this a joke? Dude couldn't catch a single redfish on his own, then sees a family catching redfish without any problem, so he decides they need to be "educated"...
> 
> ... then says he's normally anti-government but says government needs to get involved because he, the expert, isn't catching as many redfish as he thinks he should be catching, while the other family doesn't seem to be having a problem catching them...
> 
> ...





Fletch_W said:


> The person in that video said he rode up on a family with kids who kept their limit, and were throwing back illegal fish, and were following the rules... so he could "educate" them... is this a joke? Dude couldn't catch a single redfish on his own, then sees a family catching redfish without any problem, so he decides they need to be "educated"...
> 
> ... then says he's normally anti-government but says government needs to get involved because he, the expert, isn't catching as many redfish as he thinks he should be catching, while the other family doesn't seem to be having a problem catching them...
> 
> ...





Fletch_W said:


> The person in that video said he rode up on a family with kids who kept their limit, and were throwing back illegal fish, and were following the rules... so he could "educate" them... is this a joke? Dude couldn't catch a single redfish on his own, then sees a family catching redfish without any problem, so he decides they need to be "educated"...
> 
> ... then says he's normally anti-government but says government needs to get involved because he, the expert, isn't catching as many redfish as he thinks he should be catching, while the other family doesn't seem to be having a problem catching them...
> 
> ...


----------



## GLS (Mar 7, 2020)

When I went back to the spot, there was evidence of trampled grass and rings were where they sat on the buckets, leaving litter behind and the fish were gone.   Weeks afterward,  my fishing partner later heard talk from braggarts who caught the fish.  It was pointless to file a complaint when the number of fishermen present and fish caught were unknown.   This was over 10 years ago and the fish never recovered in that spot again.  We had been seen fishing the shallow pond by a man in an ultralight who told a guide whose clients looted the hole.

It's good to hear that the DNR is now conducting the scientific study.  Years ago a local group of guides and anglers met with the folks in Brunswick in an effort to seek a reduction in redfish limits and were told they couldn't without a "study".  There was no funding available for a "study" in the foreseeable future at that time.    Gil


----------



## Cumberlandjg (Mar 8, 2020)

I’ve been encountered by a game warden once over the past 6 years and I go quite frequently. Maybe a better presence would discourage some of the illegal harvesting. More state resources takes more money so thats never an easy thing.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 8, 2020)

gafshr said:


> The scientific data that will be required to make a change or dont make a change is being collected.  The CRD at dnr in Brunswick has a team that is netting and tagging fish to collect data.



I hope so.  But I wonder if they are just assessing redfish stocks or if they are collecting data needed to determine if the ecosystem can support a significant increase in the stocks.  Doubling the cattle on a pasture won't produce more beef without the grass needed to feed them.

Reviewing the primary production data for Georgia inshore and nearshore waters suggests that the region is much less fertile in 2020 than it was in 1990.  This means the same water may not be able to feed as many redfish as in the past.  One way to get a handle on that question is to measure lengths and weights for lots of fish.  If the redfish are underpopulated and plump, this suggests the population can be increased and there will be enough forage.  If the redfish are underpopulated and skinny, tighter harvest restrictions is like adding more cattle to a pasture full of skinny cattle with insufficient grass.

Harvest regulations for species near the top of the food chain usually amount to dividing a fixed pie among stakeholders.  A preferable approach would be to figure out how to make a bigger pie.  Just like more grass can produce more beef, there are ways to increase the available forage for the redfish in the ecosystem.  More forage means more redfish.


----------



## Bream Pole (Mar 8, 2020)

Its sad.  I had a friend that by far was the best fisherman I have ever known.  However he was an outlaw.  I remember one trip he and two others caught 180 reds.  Limit was 5 per person.  I can remember as a child reds and trout at the Ga Coast were plentiful, but few owned boats, a 35 hp motor was the largest made, and the pressure was not there.  The grass flats in the gulf in Fla were teeming with trout.  There were no limits and a trip to the pan handle would net a couple of guys 100-150 trout. There were no limits.  A good trip today might be 25. Not sure how many can keep. I started asking myself, how many fish do I need?  In fresh and salt, I limit myself to a meal or two even if state limits are higher. Fishing is the fun part and I have no problem releasing. I wonder how long the whiting will last with people catching 100+ and keeping them.


----------



## jfish (Mar 9, 2020)

I fish as much as many more than most on the coast.  The following statements are from the last 10yrs of my data.  The limits for reds and trout need to be tightened a little.  Not for eternity but for 2-3yrs.  Two years ago the coast had a banner year for both species.  Flounder too for that matter.  If the limits were tightened for a couple of years the numbers now would be unreal.  If it had been done for a banner spawn year like two years ago it could now be lifted some.  Off shore numbers of black sea bass and the elusive red snapper prove this. Although it has been longer time for reversal on limits for them.  They now are a nusiance.

Reds back say around late 90's early 2000 were so abundant.  We rarely caught trout so to speak.  Always caught reds where we now trout fish.  Caught them fishing bass tournaments up the Altamaha.  Now... not so much.  You really have to target specific places, bars, creeks, etc.  They are no longer in the numbers they once were.  Now that doesnt mean you cant get them.  Its just not the same.  What most dont realize is reds will be in the same area over and over and over.  Catch same fish sometimes twice in one day kinda thing.  Hence why we release 99% of them.  More would do that they would still be numbers like I said above.  

Take this for example.  5 fish per person and as Scott stated above family of four.  Thats 20 fish.  That is WAY to many to leave one bed, bar, point, etc.  Basically that area is or has been fished out after a few times of that happening.  Then multilply that by 10 and the river may seem fished out after time.  

Same thing is wrong also with trout.  The huge limit of 15 is WAY WAY to many per person.  I see boats with 3-6 people each spring on the beach.  Do the math.  Way to many fish to leave at once.  Per boat limits are a must I think and most of my coastal friends feel the same.  Slots for both species need to be implemented for certain.

Just my opinion.  We fish to enjoy and that doesnt mean keeping fish every trip.  if more would realize that also the numbers would be so awesome for the GA coast.


----------



## GLS (Mar 10, 2020)

One consideration with any potential limit change would be number of fish per boat.  This type of limit is utilized in quota quail hunts on certain WMA properties that have a specific limit per gun, but with a cap on total for the party which is often limited to 3 guns.  It is also applied with certain pelagic species.    This would prevent the example in an earlier post wherein there were 4 family members in a boat with 20 fish.  Gil


----------



## BirdDogRoy (Mar 10, 2020)

I do not agree with what Captain Scott says in the video. I spend a lot of time fishing up and down Georgia's coast and we are blessed with a great population of redfish, but at the end of the day you are still fishing and doesn't guarantee you will find fish. I hear a lot complaining and griping about not finding fish in the video and that's how it goes somedays. Work hard and cover water and you will find fish. Also, no reason to go "educate" someone when they have done nothing wrong. I say congrats to the guys with young boys in the boat filling the cooler. That sounds like a great day on the water. I would love to know your theory that the whole creek only holds 100 redfish... come on.  

Also, just because our bordering states have changed their limits doesn't mean its the right thing to do and that it is necessary. We need the DNR to conduct studies on OUR coast in order to decide on what is best for OUR fishery. 

I spend many days on the water and don't hardly even see another boat, be thankful for that. From what I hear about places such as Charleston, it could be much worse.


----------



## boatbuilder (Mar 10, 2020)

Just my personal opinion but I think they Need to tighten the limits.

Trout limits too.


----------



## boatbuilder (Mar 10, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> I hope so.  But I wonder if they are just assessing redfish stocks or if they are collecting data needed to determine if the ecosystem can support a significant increase in the stocks.  Doubling the cattle on a pasture won't produce more beef without the grass needed to feed them.
> 
> Reviewing the primary production data for Georgia inshore and nearshore waters suggests that the region is much less fertile in 2020 than it was in 1990.  This means the same water may not be able to feed as many redfish as in the past.  One way to get a handle on that question is to measure lengths and weights for lots of fish.  If the redfish are underpopulated and plump, this suggests the population can be increased and there will be enough forage.  If the redfish are underpopulated and skinny, tighter harvest restrictions is like adding more cattle to a pasture full of skinny cattle with insufficient grass.
> 
> Harvest regulations for species near the top of the food chain usually amount to dividing a fixed pie among stakeholders.  A preferable approach would be to figure out how to make a bigger pie.  Just like more grass can produce more beef, there are ways to increase the available forage for the redfish in the ecosystem.  More forage means more redfish.



Do we really want to make the water more fertile? 

The bass fishing in West Point has declined since atlanta started fixing the sewer overflows.


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 11, 2020)

boatbuilder said:


> Do we really want to make the water more fertile?
> 
> The bass fishing in West Point has declined since atlanta started fixing the sewer overflows.



Sewer overflow is pollution, but not every source of nitrogen and phosphorus is pollution.  Overly tight environmental regulations on N and P are hurting Georgia's fishery productivity in lots of places.

The big difference between the Louisiana gulf fishery and Georgia's salt water fishery is Louisiana waters are fertilized by all the agricultural runoff coming down the Mississippi River, which has not been reduced significantly by environmental regulations.  Unfortunately, the N and P flowing into Georgia's nearshore waters have been significantly reduced by environmental regulations.

It is well known that fisheries production increases with N and P levels up to a point above which it begins to decline.  Louisiana waters are near the peak of the response, so cutting N and P levels would hurt, but significantly increasing them would also likely reduce production.  In contrast, Georgia waters are nowhere near the peak of fishery response to N and P levels, so the response of the fisheries to N and P would certainly be positive and approximately proportional to the additional fertilizer.

If you want more cattle on the same pasture, you have to fertilize the grass.  No, don't let raw sewage into the water upstream, but let in a lot more N and P.  You can't have fisheries production return to what it was in the 1990s without fertility and primary production levels returning to what they were in the 1990s.


----------



## boatbuilder (Mar 11, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Sewer overflow is pollution, but not every source of nitrogen and phosphorus is pollution.  Overly tight environmental regulations on N and P are hurting Georgia's fishery productivity in lots of places.
> 
> The big difference between the Louisiana gulf fishery and Georgia's salt water fishery is Louisiana waters are fertilized by all the agricultural runoff coming down the Mississippi River, which has not been reduced significantly by environmental regulations.  Unfortunately, the N and P flowing into Georgia's nearshore waters have been significantly reduced by environmental regulations.
> 
> ...



the problem is the increase in BOD. The fertilizer runoff is why the gulf has the dead zone. There are also other problems like red tide and stuff.

If you want to fish some fertile water that is on the edge of eutrophication you should sneak onto a golf course but I would not want to eat anything.


----------



## boatbuilder (Mar 11, 2020)

Good fishing on golf courses the creek in the sea island golf course has a lot of redfish


----------



## GLS (Mar 11, 2020)

Poking around the net I found this 2016 book, Missing Redfish, detailing the population decline of Gulf Coast reds long before Prudhomme's Blackened Redfish craze.  Poor science, mismanagement, over harvesting lead to the decline, but banning of netting (other than Mississippi' s limited harvest) and reduction of recreational limits caused a rebound according to the author.  According to the author, 25% of the catch was commercial and 75% recreational.  ( I don't know if book distinguishes that commercial offshore netting would snag the breeding fish as opposed to inshore harvesting the sexually immature fish.) https://gulfseafoodnews.com/2016/02/28/missing-redfish-documents-blackened-history-of-gulf-icon/    Also found were articles relating to the reduction of limits in SC which were based on studies of a declining fish population.  If we don't learn from the history of SC's redfish issues, we are doomed to repeat them.  As for Louisiana, it is losing marsh habitat, crucial to marine life, at a staggering rate daily.  Gil


----------



## LittleDrummerBoy (Mar 11, 2020)

boatbuilder said:


> the problem is the increase in BOD. The fertilizer runoff is why the gulf has the dead zone. There are also other problems like red tide and stuff.



The purported "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico is one of those environmental hoaxes that environmentalists are using to try and control people.  It's a temporary area of water with low oxygen at the bottom of a relatively small percentage of the Gulf for a couple weeks in the summer.  Very little actually dies, and the impact on fisheries is very small.  https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.5366.pdf 


Red tides are possible, but unlikely with the N and P levels that the Georgia coast had in the 1990s.  Most Georgia fisherman would be happy to get the benefits of Louisiana-type fisheries production for the same downside Louisiana experiences.  Georgians are giving up a lot of improved fishing by believing the lies of extremist environmentalists.


----------



## boatbuilder (Mar 11, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> The purported "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico is one of those environmental hoaxes that environmentalists are using to try and control people.  It's a temporary area of water with low oxygen at the bottom of a relatively small percentage of the Gulf for a couple weeks in the summer.  Very little actually dies, and the impact on fisheries is very small.  https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1306/1306.5366.pdf
> 
> 
> Red tides are possible, but unlikely with the N and P levels that the Georgia coast had in the 1990s.  Most Georgia fisherman would be happy to get the benefits of Louisiana-type fisheries production for the same downside Louisiana experiences.  Georgians are giving up a lot of improved fishing by believing the lies of extremist environmentalists.




Edit. After rereading what I posted I realized it was rude

This is not dubious like global warming. It is basic stuff.

The limiting factor is OXYGEN.

Water can only hold so much of it and cold water will hold more.

When you dump too many nutrients into a body of water it will feed the  critters until they use up all the oxygen.


And just adding fertilizer to a pasture will not Drastically increase how many cows you can keep. It helps to a point if you need it to replace what was diminished but there are other factors too.

I am no fan of the obnoxious earth nazis but we do not need more nutrient rich ag runoff.
it is pollution too


----------



## GLS (Mar 11, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Reviewing the primary production data for Georgia inshore and nearshore waters suggests that the region is much less fertile in 2020 than it was in 1990.  This means the same water may not be able to feed as many redfish as in the past. .



Please provide us your source of attribution.  Thanks.  Gil


----------



## GLS (Mar 11, 2020)

LittleDrummerBoy said:


> Red tides are possible, but unlikely with the N and P levels that the Georgia coast had in the 1990s.  Most Georgia fisherman would be happy to get the benefits of Louisiana-type fisheries production for the same downside Louisiana experiences.  Georgians are giving up a lot of improved fishing by believing the lies of extremist environmentalists.


Considering Louisiana has 3 million acres of coastal wetlands (40% of the Continental US's) compared to Georgia's 400,000 acres, it would take a lot of fertilizer to bring us up to Louisiana's levels of fish.  We can't afford the downsides of Louisiana's issues for any alleged improvement of catch rates.  I lived through the heavily polluted Savannah River and it's impact of pollution on our fisheries with ships clearing ballast in our waters and industry polluting its waters.  At one time, trout and bass caught within the tidal plume of the Savannah River through Thunderbolt to the Skidaway River were unfit to eat because of the oil contamination of ship's discharges.   I'm not speaking of heavy metal content, I am speaking of fish that tasted like they swam through an engine crankcase.  Gil


----------

