# Proposed changes to trout regs (13" to 14" min)



## RCobb (Aug 26, 2015)

DNR to Host Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Rule Making for Saltwater Fishing Regulations
Brunswick, Ga. (8/25/2015) 
The Coastal Resources Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will host public hearings on proposed amendments to the Rules of  Georgia Department of  Natural Resources/Coastal Resources Division, Chapter 391-2-4, Saltwater Fishing Regulations. 

*Over the past three years, staff with the Coastal Resources Division has discussed management of spotted seatrout with the 10-member Finfish Advisory Panel (FAP). These discussions led to a recommendation from a majority of FAP members that the Board of Natural Resources take action to increase the minimum size from 13 inches to 14 inches. *This increase in the minimum size will allow spotted seatrout two spawning seasons before they can be legally harvested leading to greater reproductive output from each year class. The expected results of this action are higher abundance of spotted seatrout, more larger fish in the population and greater resiliency of the population to extreme environmental conditions such as winter freezes and droughts.  

“Spotted seatrout are one of the most popular fish for Georgia’s saltwater anglers.  The goal of management is to insure that there is the highest possible abundance of seatrout each year while also satisfying the expectations of anglers,” said Spud Woodward, director of the Coastal Resources Division.  “To accomplish this we use harvest regulations that require the release of fish so they can grow to larger size and participate in spawning.  Studies show that over 90% of hook-caught spotted seatrout survive after release. So, anglers can be confident in the conservation benefits of our saltwater fish harvest regulations.”  


Information on proper handling techniques 


Public  hearings  on  the  proposed  amendments:

Monday September 28, 2015

Mighty Eighth Air Force Museum

175 Bourne Ave

Pooler,  Georgia 31322

6:00 PM



Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Stellar Conference Center

144 Stellar Dr

Brunswick, Georgia 31525

6:00 PM

Written public comments are also welcome and should be legible, concise and limited to the proposed rule change. To ensure their consideration, written comments must be received by close of business on Friday, October 2, 2015.  


Please address written or email comments to
Doug Haymans
Coastal Resources Division
One Conservation Way
Brunswick, GA  31520

Following the comment period, The Board of Natural Resources will consider the proposed rule on October 28, 2015 at 9:00 AM at its Board Room located at 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, SE, Suite 1252, Atlanta, Georgia.


----------



## Nautical Son (Aug 26, 2015)

You guys that live down there better get to that meeting or get railroaded....Y'all have a voice, let it be heard....I have heard they are going to have a 1 fish upper slot size as well...Notice they don't mention that in the press release...Ask David Newlin about it, he's on that panel and is about the only real expert on it....


----------



## Southernhoundhunter (Aug 26, 2015)

David Newlin and John Rogers are the only ones who voted to leave the regulations the same. I was told by both of these individuals that it's a done deal. They just have to do a public hearing for legalities.


----------



## Southernhoundhunter (Aug 26, 2015)

This change is going to prompt many anglers to carry a smaller soft cooler in the boat.


----------



## patrickonasis (Aug 26, 2015)

Anyone know somebody that installs hidden compartments like in the cars they use to smuggle drugs in?


----------



## oldenred (Aug 26, 2015)

Southernhoundhunter said:


> They just have to do a public hearing for legalities.



That is what all of these meetings are for. They don't care what we have to say. Their minds were made up long before any thought of a public meeting take place.


----------



## Southernhoundhunter (Aug 26, 2015)

I talked extensively to a biologist at one of the meetings and the phrases "we think" and "we believe" came up a lot. I asked why would you consider changing regulations when the scientific data shows an extremely healthy fishery that has gotten stronger over the past few years. Her response was extremely vague. One biologist at the meeting stated that Spud Woodward said DNR does not have to have scientific data or public support to make a decision or change. The meeting I attended had 50+ people there and not one supported any change whatsoever.


----------



## killswitch (Aug 26, 2015)

oldenred said:


> That is what all of these meetings are for. They don't care what we have to say. Their minds were made up long before any thought of a public meeting take place.



Exactly !!


----------



## sea trout (Aug 26, 2015)

Do 14 inchers have another spawning cycle over 13 inchers
How old is a 13inch Georgia seatrout and how old is a14inch Georgia seatrout?????????

I was not born or raised or have ever lived on the coast and in fact I don't get to spend the time there that I wish, so pardon my elementary knowledge. But I assumed 13 and 14 year old seatrout are less than a year old. And only a month or 2 apart.
So please don't slap me for being wrong just teach me so that I can learn.
I did not think that 13 or 14 seatrout were spawning eggs to be fertilized.

Someone explain to us the age size and reproduction of a seatrout on the Georgia coast so that I, and maybe others, can understand more the scientific data behind a regulation change.

Thanks!!!!


----------



## doomtrpr_z71 (Aug 26, 2015)

From what I read they'd be in the same year, year 5 for 14in, year 4 or 5 for 13in.


----------



## sea trout (Aug 26, 2015)

doomtrpr_z71 said:


> From what I read they'd be in the same year, year 5 for 14in, year 4 or 5 for 13in.



Thanks!!
And wow that's a lot older than I thought they were!!!


----------



## doomtrpr_z71 (Aug 26, 2015)

Here's the nwrc profile on sea trout, interesting read but definitely look at the dates on the research, though thus is what they show as current. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/species_profiles/82_11-004.pdf&ved=0CBsQFjAAahUKEwiYtambpMjHAhVXEpIKHTWwD9c&usg=AFQjCNHA-QwRENvklHL9I09zgFtJwrloVg&sig2=iEDqwH4ka1HQH-T59xh2kg


----------



## BigRedObsession (Aug 26, 2015)

I'll be the odd man out here and say i support the change. I also think they should drop the limit to 10 per angler while they are making some changes.


----------



## Riplukelee (Aug 27, 2015)

Gonna have to agree with bigredobsession on this one. Way to many shorts swimming around out there. Imagine if we had a plenty of keepers. Just sayin


----------



## creekrocket (Aug 27, 2015)

I'm all for the change. I can push out a poot more worthy than a 13" trout filet or a 14" filet for that matter. Too many little fish being killed. Limit of small fish isn't squat, and most people on here think they've done something when they limit out like this. And it's not just people on this forum, but everywhere. 
Scratch your head or butt and ask yourself why you think other states have a better fishery(speaking on limits and sizes alone here)? 
So yeah, I'll be the 3rd A hole here and say 'yah'  the proposal.


----------



## Uptonongood (Aug 27, 2015)

Question: what does the data from South Carolina and Florida fisheries research so in regards to age/size for female spotted seatrout at first successful spawning?  How does the Georgia data gathered from the late 1970's until today compare with those studies?

What does the data indicate for current sport fishing pressure on spotted seatrout in Georgia? Does the creel sampling over the past 30 years show any changes or trends?

What is the projected number of coastal fishermen over the next 10 to 20 years?  Can these numbers be extrapolated from general population change estimates for the state of Georgia and the coastal Georgia region?

These are very simple questions and they are the key to making changes in minimum size regulations.  Spud knows this, he was a trained fisheries biologist.  He is also a politician who will do what he is told by the Commissioner of the DNR who will do what the politicians in the Georgia House tells him what they want.

Personally, Georgia should have set the spotted seatrout minimum size at 14 inches 30 years ago.  They didn't because of politicians and lack of courage.  In most states, you manage the politics and not the biology.


----------



## dark horse (Aug 27, 2015)

Count me in support as well, a 13 inch trout is REALLY small.  I personally don't keep trout under 14 as there is just very little there to filet.  People against this change are the same folks salivating at the thought of keeping 20 reds per boat in a couple weeks when the first year fish hit that 14 inch mark.


----------



## Steyr (Aug 27, 2015)

I am for a 14 inch trout reg... and 12 inch on sheepshead.

If a sheepie is not 12 inches we throw them back and have been since 1975.

Off topic, but as many reds as we have now they need to place the 27 inch reg
 back into play from 24...giddy up !


----------



## doomtrpr_z71 (Aug 27, 2015)

So why bother with 14, why not 16? That would separate the age by a year.


----------



## Jimmy Lee Armel (Aug 27, 2015)

I see no negative here. I won't argue about having to catch a bigger fish


----------



## sea trout (Aug 27, 2015)

Id be against the new reg.
You guy's who are for it are very understandable and correct in your reasons...awesome!
My argument is still the same, like some of y'all already know I live almost 5 hours away and only get to go to the Ga coast a few times a year. Sea trout freeze good for me n my family and with the 15 trout limit and 13inch size limit we get to freeze some and have a few outstanding meals all year.
That reason may be a small fry in the basket of fries but it's very important to us!!!!
Fish on and good luck to all y'all regardless!!!!!!
And we don't keep 13 inch trout anyway on my boat. They measure 13 on the hash we throw em back quickly. When they're 13 and an 8th or 1/4 up then we put em in the cooler.
I don't expect everyone to think that makes a huge difference, but aboard my vessel that is a lot of trout being released.


----------



## Southernhoundhunter (Aug 27, 2015)

Anyone know what the fine is for keeping undersize trout?


----------



## oldenred (Aug 27, 2015)

I will say this is a good change. Not only does this give them an extra spawning cycle but with every spawning cycle it also drastically increases the amount of eggs they produce. I'm typically not for most changes but this is a good one imo.


----------



## Uptonongood (Aug 27, 2015)

sea trout said:


> Id be against the new reg.
> You guy's who are for it are very understandable and correct in your reasons...awesome!
> My argument is still the same, like some of y'all already know I live almost 5 hours away and only get to go to the Ga coast a few times a year. Sea trout freeze good for me n my family and with the 15 trout limit and 13inch size limit we get to freeze some and have a few outstanding meals all year.
> That reason may be a small fry in the basket of fries but it's very important to us!!!!
> ...



If you are catching mostly fish just under the current length limit it is one indication of  the fishing pressure on the fish and the effect of the current regulation.  In other words, when that fish hits 13 inches, it's in someone's cooler immediately.  It is imperative in fisheries that you protect your brood stock if you want your fishery to continue.  In deer management, you protect your does and button bucks, right?  Same principle.  

The rationale that someone spends a lot of money to come to the coast and should thus be able to take more fish home is not justification to  keep a size limit too small to protect a fishery.  And your point has been raised before in discussion by managers and it is a political, not a biological point.

I want to be fair in my comments.  If you are truly adamant about keeping the 13 inch minimum size limit regardless of benefiting the fishery, here is what you do.  You and 10 of your friends contact your state representative and explain your argument.  If your rep has enough juice, he or she will throw a wrench into the entire process.  Folks have been hampering good biology doing this for years across the nation and in Georgia.


----------



## Uptonongood (Aug 27, 2015)

Southernhoundhunter said:


> I talked extensively to a biologist at one of the meetings and the phrases "we think" and "we believe" came up a lot. I asked why would you consider changing regulations when the scientific data shows an extremely healthy fishery that has gotten stronger over the past few years. Her response was extremely vague. One biologist at the meeting stated that Spud Woodward said DNR does not have to have scientific data or public support to make a decision or change. The meeting I attended had 50+ people there and not one supported any change whatsoever.



Well, there have been an awful lot of sportsman's tax dollars spent from the mid-1970's to the present on research for sport fish in coastal Georgia, primarily on red fish and spotted sea trout.  What conclusions were drawn by the life history studies and creel surveys from a biological management standpoint?  Where is all of that data?  What did it show?  Was any of it ever published in a professional journal or presented at a professional meeting such as the Georgia Chapter of the American Fisheries Society?  

Or were the research designs so flawed that none of the data is usable as implied by the biologist referenced here?


----------



## sea trout (Aug 27, 2015)

Uptonongood;9676347 here is what you do.  You and 10 of your friends contact your state representative and explain your argument.  If your rep has enough juice said:
			
		

> No i won't contact my representative. I beleive Y'all that live down there have a better knowledge of whats goin on.
> My argument is based on my own intentions and my greed. I am not smart enough to take an intellegent side on this issue until I've read or heard more facts.
> 
> The ones who support the regs change have listed some great reasons!!! I agree with those reasons even though greedy but law abiding me will come home with less fish during a trip to the coast.
> ...


----------



## Southernhoundhunter (Aug 27, 2015)

My reason for not supporting this measure is simple. I only fished 4 days last year. Other obligations kept me from fishing more. 3 of those days, we had 3 limits of trout. The other day was filled with 12 keepers and 75+ throwbacks. I've only been twice this year and killed the fish one day (can't remember numbers) and the other day we got blown off the water but still managed 8 trout with numerous throwbacks. This past Saturday, Sunday and Monday a friend of mine limited out 3 days in a row. In the fall, you can go to any point or creek mouth in Sunbury and limit out in a few hours.

My point is, if there is a problem with our trout population, the fishing would drop off. If you can't go catch a mess of fish when the weather is right on our coast then you probably are doing something wrong.


----------



## BigRedObsession (Aug 27, 2015)

Id rather keep 10 16-18" trout than 15 13" any day of the week.


----------



## baronsmith98 (Aug 27, 2015)

I'm in favor of it. The average trout size here is laughable at times and maybe this will help increase the larger population. Not much meat on a 13-14" trout anyways


----------



## sea trout (Aug 27, 2015)

Good point Southernhoundhunter, there is alway's an abundance of trout every fall.
Everyone makes some great points


----------



## Uptonongood (Aug 27, 2015)

Sorry to folks if I seem a bit edgy on this thread.  CRD has struggled for many years under the "This is the way we've always done it and we're not going to change it now." mindset.  There were literally hundreds of thousands of sportsmen's dollars totally wasted on research that had absolutely no value and They KNEW it.  

I really hate government and politicians, they thrive on waste.


----------



## Southernhoundhunter (Aug 27, 2015)

Your average trout size in Georgia is never going to be what it is to the north or south of us. Our fishery isn't equipped for it. To the surprise of many folks on here, I would support a year to year trout change based on the harshness of the winter. You can manage this fishery however you want but one extreme winter can do more than any amount of fishing pressure can do. I am just simply not for changing something that doesn't seem to be in peril. I also realize that in Liberty and Mcintosh (where I fish) that we probably only have 10% of the fishing pressure as Chatham county and probably less than half of the fishing pressure as Glynn county.


----------



## Nautical Son (Aug 28, 2015)

Southernhoundhunter said:


> I talked extensively to a biologist at one of the meetings and the phrases *"we think"* and *"we believe"* came up a lot. I asked why would you consider changing regulations when the scientific data shows an extremely healthy fishery that has gotten stronger over the past few years. Her response was *extremely vague*. *One biologist at the meeting stated that Spud Woodward said DNR does not have to have scientific data or public support to make a decision or change*. The meeting I attended had 50+ people there and not one supported any change whatsoever.




The bold text indicates the exact problem with the speckled sea trout population in GA. I'm 47 yrs old, I have fished the waters around Savannah for as long as I was old enough to hold a pole in my hand....The SST population in GA is more determined by how cold it is over the winter than it is the size or quantity of fish being caught.....
The CRD has used flawed data for many years to make us regular fishermen bow down to the special interest groups, and commercial fishing guys....First it was reds, then shrimp, then black sea bass and red snapper....Now it's trout.....

15 years ago I could go out at Sunbury, catch a cooler full of shrimp in 2-3 hours...I used a 1/2" mesh net even then, I bet it will take me 4 hours or more to do that now...

I don't have the solution, but I have brains enough to realize the data they are using is not current, is not accurate, and should not be used to make a change that is going to make a lot of folks start looking for places to hide short fish.....Personally, unless the 13" fish swallows the hook, he goes back until he reaches 15". I give my trout to my aunt as payment for boat storage anyways...

Oldenred !!!! Tell them about the size limit on lemon sharks.. ( I have those pics somewhere)


----------



## oldenred (Aug 28, 2015)

Heck I still got the video!




Nautical Son said:


> The bold text indicates the exact problem with the speckled sea trout population in GA. I'm 47 yrs old, I have fished the waters around Savannah for as long as I was old enough to hold a pole in my hand....The SST population in GA is more determined by how cold it is over the winter than it is the size or quantity of fish being caught.....
> The CRD has used flawed data for many years to make us regular fishermen bow down to the special interest groups, and commercial fishing guys....First it was reds, then shrimp, then black sea bass and red snapper....Now it's trout.....
> 
> 15 years ago I could go out at Sunbury, catch a cooler full of shrimp in 2-3 hours...I used a 1/2" mesh net even then, I bet it will take me 4 hours or more to do that now...
> ...


----------



## Doboy Dawg (Aug 29, 2015)

*DNR ~Public Meetings*

These DNR Public input meetings are the biggest waste of taxpayers money the DNR in the state of Georgia does.  They really don't give a CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored what the public input is one way or another.  These rules and regulations will be decided by politicians in closed meetings in Atlanta.  Their decisions will be based on what NOAA wants. 

Because the state politicians want all the federal dollars they can get.

Another poster had it correct all these meetings are is to inform the sheeple,  This is what we have decided to do and you are going to like it or not.  

What we need next is a Sea Trout Stamp and a Sea Trout Tax to fund a study on Sea Trout mating and spawning rituals. Coupled with a Sea Trout Slot Limit and a Sea Trout Yeti Cooler size limit.  Then Georgia can have a Sea Trout vanity license plate coupled with a Sea Trout ad volorum tax.  No boat shall be allowed in Georgia Coastal waters without a Sea Trout decal not less than 14" in length.


----------



## doomtrpr_z71 (Aug 29, 2015)

The thing that stands out to me is all the research is older than 30 years.


----------



## Uptonongood (Aug 29, 2015)

doomtrpr_z71 said:


> The thing that stands out to me is all the research is older than 30 years.



You noticed that, eh? 

The key to scientific research is replication and verification, without it it's just an opinion.


----------



## doomtrpr_z71 (Aug 29, 2015)

Uptonongood said:


> You noticed that, eh?
> 
> The key to scientific research is replication and verification, without it it's just an opinion.



And randomization as well


----------



## wellwood (Aug 29, 2015)

I have fished all over and GA has the smallest trout I have ever seen. You rarely catch a big toad down here. I think the change will help.


----------



## Uptonongood (Aug 29, 2015)

There are some really big trout in coastal Georgia, folks don't know the technique or have the patience to catch them.  Think "deep water with structure and live bait fish".


----------



## perryrip (Aug 29, 2015)

*Trout Reg Change*

I agree with Uptonogood. Where's the data? I've been fishing down here since 99 and I can't see that the trout fishery has drastically changed to the degree justifying a new creel and length limit. Nowhere that I've seen has DNR presented any current relevant data to show a population problem, nor peer reviewed science that changing the length and numbers would produce an improved population. Managing the trout population through the approach of using outdated data, SIP input, and "I think this will work" is knee jerk management. If the trout limits need to be changed show current peer reviewed scientific data to support it. Otherwise leave it alone.


----------



## Southernhoundhunter (Aug 30, 2015)

One of the biologist also told me that they were basing their survey numbers from people who weren't even specifically targeting trout and from people fishing from public fishing piers. That is flawed data to start with.


----------



## Southernhoundhunter (Aug 30, 2015)

perryrip said:


> I agree with Uptonogood. Where's the data? I've been fishing down here since 99 and I can't see that the trout fishery has drastically changed to the degree justifying a new creel and length limit. Nowhere that I've seen has DNR presented any current relevant data to show a population problem, nor peer reviewed science that changing the length and numbers would produce an improved population. Managing the trout population through the approach of using outdated data, SIP input, and "I think this will work" is knee jerk management. If the trout limits need to be changed show current peer reviewed scientific data to support it. Otherwise leave it alone.



Their current net surveys are saying quite the contrary to what they are proposing. The trout numbers are in great shape with the past few warm winters. Those words came out of a biologists mouth.


----------



## Uptonongood (Aug 30, 2015)

You all are in the position to ASK the CRD biologists just what they are basing their recommendations on.  They work for YOU.  Ask them to explain to YOU how did do their sampling for trout and fishing pressure.  Have them explain to YOU how they designed their studies.  Ask THEM what the differences are between the Savannah, the Ogeechee, the Altamaha, and the St. Mary's River systems and how that affects the estuaries between those river mouths.  YOU can expect answers and if you don't get them, raise heck.  

If a biologist told you something in a private conversation, make them repeat it in a public setting, on the record.


----------



## Southernhoundhunter (Aug 30, 2015)

Uptonongood said:


> You all are in the position to ASK the CRD biologists just what they are basing their recommendations on.  They work for YOU.  Ask them to explain to YOU how did do their sampling for trout and fishing pressure.  Have them explain to YOU how they designed their studies.  Ask THEM what the differences are between the Savannah, the Ogeechee, the Altamaha, and the St. Mary's River systems and how that affects the estuaries between those river mouths.  YOU can expect answers and if you don't get them, raise heck.
> 
> If a biologist told you something in a private conversation, make them repeat it in a public setting, on the record.



You just raised up another issue...the net surveys were done in Wassaw and I believe either Doboy or Altamaha sound. That leaves a ton of grey area.


----------



## Uptonongood (Aug 30, 2015)

Each of those systems I identified has very distinct differences.  Each probably has different productivity on the coast.  Have they been studied in depth as individually?  How do they compare?

Next question, and this is a crucial question, do ANY of these expert biologists regularly fish the coastal areas?  If the answer is "no" then they cannot have a true feel for the fisheries and they are not in contact with fishermen.


----------



## BIGSTICKIN (Aug 31, 2015)

*New trout regs.*

First of all I am against any changes at all, if its not broke don't fix it. From all the information I've seen the larger the trout produce many many times more eggs than the small ones, so doesn't it stand to reason to keep the small ones and throw back the bigger ones.  If the DNR can come up with some good concrete reasoning for a change I would support a slot maybe 12" to 18". BTW if you cant get a good size filet off a 12" or 13" trout you need some lessons in cleaning fish.


----------



## brailediver (Aug 31, 2015)

We have no problem catching bigger Trout here at Tybee. Maybe some persons do not know where to go to get them. If CRD said to me that water was wet, I would have to do my own research to prove it. It is like the "massive problem" with commercial harvest of Red Drum. No data to support it.
 Just a few "guides" that had a problem with it.
 It has also been proven that slot limits are not effective.
 It is also interesting to note that the larger a population of fish will consume most baitfish populations pretty fast leaving a large population of smaller fish.
More food= larger fish.
Less food= smaller fish.
More CensoredCensored from a bunch of bozo's that have no idea what good science is.

I vote NO for any changes until a LONG timeline of research proves otherwise.


----------



## jasper181 (Aug 31, 2015)

Im all for the change, unlike then snapper regs this is on I agree with.


----------



## bhdawgs (Aug 31, 2015)

I see no problem with raising it to "14.  In Florida, "15 is the limit and a 5 trout per day bag limit.  

Ask the locals down there and they will tell you the trout fishing is better than it has ever been due to the limits imposed.


----------



## Uptonongood (Sep 1, 2015)

Interesting read, how do these growth rates and length at maturity compare with Georgia?
https://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/mrri/insh_fish/seatrout.pdf


----------



## Uptonongood (Sep 2, 2015)

Here's another little bit of info.  How does this compare with findings of the Georgia coast research?

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/SpottedSeatrout/SpottedSeatrout.html


----------



## Uptonongood (Sep 2, 2015)

And Georgia:

http://coastalgadnr.org/sites/uploa...rout/Seatrout info document 6_23_14_FINAL.pdf


----------



## Southernhoundhunter (Sep 2, 2015)

My favorite part of Georgia's report is that a 2 year old trout is between 11 and 19 inches. That is extremely scientific right there. Really getting down to specifics


----------



## Uptonongood (Sep 2, 2015)

Southernhoundhunter said:


> My favorite part of Georgia's report is that a 2 year old trout is between 11 and 19 inches. That is extremely scientific right there. Really getting down to specifics



Since sea trout spawn from spring to late summer, the likely explanation is fish hatched early in the spawning season get a jump on  growth over fish hatched at the end of the season.  They've had four or five months of good temps and plenty of chow.  This means the early spawned fish are ahead of the game in growth in their second year.

The percentage of sport caught 13 inch fish in the fishery indicates the level of pressure on that size group.  Move the minimum length to 14 inches, give it a year, and you'll probably catch the same number of fish, they'll just be an inch bigger.  Plus, the 14 inch or larger fish will produce more eggs than a 13 inch spawner and two to three years after increasing the minimum size you'll see more fish in your cooler.

I think.

Both South Carolina and Florida, in my opinion, have preceded Georgia in managing their coastal sport fisheries.  Georgia CRD is now trying to correct earlier errors in previous studies which set the minimum length too  small.


----------

