Hunting - Fishing - Lone Star Outdoor News

State wildlife authorities are considering ways to let anglers keep more of a species of snook.

Two snook species inhabit Texas coastal waters: common snook and fat snook. Texas Parks and Wildlife’s goal is to increase the take of fat snook, which grow to a maximum size of about 23 inches.

“A little change in the regulations we think would be beneficial to anglers and allow them to keep more snook,” said Tonya Wiley, a TPW fisheries outreach specialist based in Dickinson. “Now how we do that and what we do is what we determine in the scoping meetings.” An initial proposal is to widen the slot limit by lowering the minimum length. The new slot would be 22 to 28 inches, instead of 24 to 28 inches.

Meetings for gathering public comment are set for Jan. 12 in Dickinson, Jan. 13 in Corpus Christi and Jan. 14 in Port Isabel.

Although changing the slot limit has been proposed to the public, other ideas are also up for discussion, Wiley said. Another option is managing the two species separately, Wiley said. That might be difficult because the two species are difficult to differentiate, Wiley said. Identification problems could be overcome with increased education and identifying pictures in TPW’s Outdoor Annual.

“Right now, we’re just kind of throwing the ball out there and getting everybody’s feedback,” Wiley said.

Wiley did not have data to accurately describe the size of the snook population (including both species) but said Texas has a “good population of them down south.”

The snook population has increased for the past several years, Wiley said, citing gill net surveys conducted by TPW.

Creel surveys show an extremely low harvest rate. Since 1982, only 33 snook have been recorded in creel surveys — where TPW workers at public boat ramps record the fish anglers bring in. Compare that with about 190,000 redfish and almost 720,000 speckled trout over the same time period The disparity could be interpreted as representing an abysmal snook population, but other factors should be weighed. Snook have a limited range and low relative abundance in general compared with redfish and trout.

They are not as numerous as their more popular cousins, redfish and speckled trout. Snook, which live in warm water, are usually only found as far north as Matagorda Bay.

Experts disagree on how widening the slot limit will affect the snook populations.

Wiley said it would not drastically affect them.

Richard Kline, a snook researcher at the University of Texas at Austin, agreed.

“On first thought, I would say it’s not going to do much to harm the population,” Kline said.

But making a firm determination is difficult, Kline said, because of the lack of data. Little is known about how fat snook and common snook compete. Taking out more fat snook could benefit common snook, which grow bigger and are generally of greater appeal to anglers, Kline said.

Lowering the minimum length limit could also increase the harvest of male common snook. Both species change sex as they mature. Younger fish are generally male, and older fish are generally female.

Taking more male common snook would not hinder the species’ ability to maintain its population, Kline said.

Nicky Runnels, president of the Rio Grande Valley Chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association, does not want the regulation changed.

“I just don’t think people catch enough of them down where we are,” he said.

He said Texas does not have high numbers of snook like Florida does, and “lowering the slot wouldn’t help.”

Some anglers know how to catch them, but average recreational anglers catch them “out of luck,” Runnels said.

“It’s not something you see at the docks a lot,” he said.

Gilbert Vela, a fishing guide based in Port Isabel, said lowering the minimum length limit 2 inches will not have TPW’s desired impact.

“There’s no way that we are opening the door for fat snook captivity or being able to keep fat snook,” he said.

Fat snook do not often grow that big, Vela said.

“They don’t meet 22 inches,” he said. “In my books, they just don’t.”

What the change would do is increase the harvest of common snook, he said.

Wiley will take comments at the scoping meetings, but people may also call or e-mail her to voice their opinions or find more information. Most calls after TPW announced the meetings in late December were inquisitive, she said.

No one has adamantly opposed lowering the minimum, she said. Callers have said they want TPW to manage the species separately, increase the bag limit or do nothing.

TPW did nothing with snook until 1987, when they were designated a game fish. Then, the state implemented a slot limit of 18 to 30 inches with a bag limit of five fish, a possession limit of 10, and the only legal means of harvesting them was with rod and reel. Until then, the fish were unregulated.

The regulations became stricter again in 1990, when the slot limit became 20 to 28 inches, with bag and possession limits of three and six, respectively.

The current slot limit of 24 to 28 inches was implemented in 1996. Since then, the bag limit has been one fish, and the possession limit has been two.