Tweet
100% for it.
-
-
For it.Comment
-
Against it-no scientific data showing a de3crease needed, so it's just a "Be a Conservationist" bullchip deal.
I agree with Sandy-where's my old 5 red limit and was 16" (or was it 18"?). The State NEVER gives back what it takes away.
Anyone ever been given anything back that the Gov took away? Think if Beto the Faux Mexican was elected-he'd take away your semi-auto rifles."Hey Hillary, regarding the Benghazi Attack on 9/11-we'll just blame it on that movie, not my total lack of security. By the way, what's so significant about 9/11 anyway-was that a date my buddy Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground blew up a government building?" asked Obama to Hillary. BEAUTIFY AMERICA, RUN OVER A LIBERAL, THEN BACK UP AND SEE IF HE'S DEAD.Comment
-
Its virtue signaling.
They'd be better served by limiting the number of days a month " dumb butts " are allowed to run out on the bays in jet skis (scourge of the bay) and botes.Comment
-
Went to a scoping meeting before TPWD jacked around with the flounder limits. Someone brought up the fact that no limits ever get increased after they are lowered. The TPWD representative said , well we have been trying to give back (increase) the limits on reds, but you all don't want them back. No sure who "you all" referred to, I'm guessing CCA?Comment
-
I'm for it overall. I think there's been a lot of pressure on the larger fish. While smaller fish (numbers) have remained stable and that's all their graph shows. Remember guys, we can catch and release all day long.. you don't have to stop fishing at 5.. just can't keep any more. Will there be mortality due to releasing fish from catch and release... yes a little during the hotter months but cooler months there's a pretty high recovery rate.Comment
Comment