# Flounder Limit



## reeltrouble (Oct 3, 2007)

I say they change the flounder minimum size to 14 inches and change the bag limit from10 per person to 5 per person

I just don't understand what one person does with 40 flounder fillets at one time? (if you freeze them they just don't taste the same!) and how much meat do you really get from a 12 inch flounder, when you can pick the fish up to a light and see completely through it i think you should toss it back.


----------



## John B. (Oct 2, 2007)

honestly.... if i go and kill 10, i know what i'm what gonna do with 'em long before i catch 'em..... usually the ONLY time i'll limit out is about 4-5 days before thanksgiving..... turkey is over-rated....... have 10 stuffed flounder for thanksgiving dinner.

woooo... not too long!


----------



## Travis Gill (Oct 6, 2007)

I release alot of fish but when it comes to flounder I say Kill 'em All


----------



## fishingfromagunship (Oct 26, 2007)

Well, with my recent performance, I make up for every limit that the experienced guys get all of the time with my lackluster creel of 3-5 fish tops.:moon


----------



## reeltrouble (Oct 3, 2007)

what is the point? it is hard enough for some people (not me) to get a limit of nice flounder. when they do get a limit half are about 12 1/2 inches


----------



## reeltrouble (Oct 3, 2007)

I mean recreational limit (freespool)


----------



## John B. (Oct 2, 2007)

gotta fish big baits!!! oke.... the 6.25lber in my photo gallery was caught on an ly no bigger than a 1oz pyramid weight!


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

reeltrouble...do you know when a flounder becomes mature?

do you know the difference between a gulf flounder and a southern flounder?

do you know what the ratio of males are between females?

do you know which is larger the male or the female?

tight lines!


----------



## Matt Mcleod (Oct 3, 2007)

I actually agree. A 12" flounder is too small to keep, and I think the limit should be 5 fish. I think 15 sheephead is too much, it should be 5. I know there is only one time of year when we catch a bunch of sheepheadbut it's when the fish group up to spawn, not a good time to blood bath their asses like happens every spring. Same with the flounder in the fall, they go to the gulf to spawnbut a lot getkilled before they get there. I am not for killing less of everything, but with sheephead and flounder it should be less. I think snapper should be 4 fish a person with no closed seasons in state or federal.


----------



## bluffman2 (Nov 22, 2007)

> *Matt Mcleod (8/20/2008)*I actually agree. A 12" flounder is too small to keep, and I think the limit should be 5 fish. I think 15 sheephead is too much, it should be 5. I know there is only one time of year when we catch a bunch of sheepheadbut it's when the fish group up to spawn, not a good time to blood bath their asses like happens every spring. Same with the flounder in the fall, they go to the gulf to spawnbut a lot getkilled before they get there. I am not for killing less of everything, but with sheephead and flounder it should be less. I think snapper should be 4 fish a person with no closed seasons in state or federal.


i like the way you think!!!


----------



## konz (Oct 1, 2007)

This coming from a guy who's signature is "big fish little fish it doesn't matter they're all fish!" oke


----------



## Brant Peacher (Oct 4, 2007)

I agree with this too. 5 flounder per person would be fine. Im sure everyone has noticed that there has not been as many flounder in the last few years. 

Im sure alot of people will disagree with me on this but I wish they would put strict regulations on gigging flounder. Its extremely easy to gig a fish that doesnt move when you shine a light on it.


----------



## bluffman2 (Nov 22, 2007)

> *Brant Peacher (8/20/2008)*I agree with this too. 5 flounder per person would be fine. Im sure everyone has noticed that there has not been as many flounder in the last few years.
> 
> Im sure alot of people will disagree with me on this but I wish they would put strict regulations on gigging flounder. Its extremely easy to gig a fish that doesnt move when you shine a light on it.


i dont know if you have ever flounder gigged b4 but if you havent its something you should try...its not as easy as 1,2,3

you dont just go around shining and sticking flounder......

if ya ever want to go ill let you sit on the front of my floundering rig and see just how many you can get.....


----------



## Brant Peacher (Oct 4, 2007)

Ive gigged all my life and enjoy it.I just think with a little tighter regs we would see more flounder. Thats all!


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

i want to see a 5 fish creel with limit exceptions (ex...1 redfish or cobia per person)

minimum size limit 13 inches...the majority of fish become mature at 10 to 12 inches...ex...specks, flounder (males), white trout, pompano and spanish to name a few.

tight lines


----------



## dailysaw (Jan 22, 2008)

great info keep it comming!


----------



## crazyfire (Oct 4, 2007)

kill em all!!


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

i am with whalersailor...flounder are one of few fish that are still excellent frozen...the key to frozen fish as he stated is to freeze in water or vacum seal...then make sure first in is first out!

tight lines!


----------



## Death From Above (Sep 28, 2007)

> *reeltrouble (8/19/2008)*I say they change the flounder minimum size to 14 inches and change the bag limit from10 per person to 5 per person
> 
> I just don't understand what one person does with 40 flounder fillets at one time? (if you freeze them they just don't taste the same!) and how much meat do you really get from a 12 inch flounder, when you can pick the fish up to a light and see completely through it i think you should toss it back.


You obviously don't catch or eat much flounder:<UL><LI>40 filets makes a good fish fry. </LI><LI>Flounder freeze better than any fish out there. </LI><LI>There's sufficient size filets on a 12" flounder. They fry up crisper/firmer.</LI><LI>And who the hell has time to hold a fish up to a light? I can see light through a jumbo shrimp and a 16oz ribeye and I'm sure not going to throwthem away.</LI>[/list]


----------



## Ocean Man (Sep 27, 2007)

> *Matt Mcleod (8/20/2008)*I actually agree. A 12" flounder is too small to keep, and I think the limit should be 5 fish. I think 15 sheephead is too much, it should be 5. I know there is only one time of year when we catch a bunch of sheepheadbut it's when the fish group up to spawn, not a good time to blood bath their asses like happens every spring. Same with the flounder in the fall, they go to the gulf to spawnbut a lot getkilled before they get there. I am not for killing less of everything, but with sheephead and flounder it should be less. I think snapper should be 4 fish a person with no closed seasons in state or federal.


I also agree with everything said here. It's not good to hit them the hardest when they are spawning. The only thing I would add tothis is I think the Snapper limit should be the first 4 regardless of size to keep people from throwing back countless #'s of undersized fish that are going to die anyway.


----------



## Getsome (Sep 28, 2007)

With a family of 5, I would like to tell you that 5 flounder would feed us for 1 meal. Now factor in the expenses to go gigging for 1 trip and it would be cheaper for me to go to the fish market. Now as far as the size limit, I would agree with you with that. Sounds to me like you have gigging envy.


----------



## Drew Mixon (Oct 4, 2007)

matt is waving my flag on this issue. and wes, dont take to too personal. a lot of the morphology may not be all that relative. but, with regard to size and QUALITY egg production, larger is better. a 12" flounder may be able to produce eggs, but common studies show that older females produce up to 10X more.

in any event, i dont think it has anything to do with 'envy' of any sort. it has everything to do with protecting a resource. im sure DFA, MR and the other prolific giggers would actually say the same thing. without that resource, they have no game to chase. an increase in min size limits will certainly only benefit. and the giggers are the first ones to be able to do just that. they can control the size they gig. hook and line would see some mortality from deep hooked undersized fish, but overall an increase in average sizes would be the long-term outcome.

frozen fish are never as good as fresh. only my grandpa froze fish 'in water' (and probably in a milk carton). in the 21st century we use vacuum bags. (actually freezing in water does reduce the opportunites for freezer burn, but actively breaks down the moisture in the individual cells--causing cell walls torupture and thereby making a dry, tough food. 

i have fished(and gigged)sincethe days of walking down johnson beach with abroom handle gig, and a coleman lantern. those days are gone. how 'bout the days of posts on here of 40 fish nights? might be gone before we know it--if we dont regulatethe resources. i'll gladly support the rights of our giggers to keepa limit of 10 fish. but i'll also fully support efforts to reduce that limit and increase minimum sizes. for thebetterment of the resource.

cheers.

drew


----------



## Brant Peacher (Oct 4, 2007)

> *Drew Mixon (8/21/2008)*matt is waving my flag on this issue. and wes, dont take to too personal. a lot of the morphology may not be all that relative. but, with regard to size and QUALITY egg production, larger is better. a 12" flounder may be able to produce eggs, but common studies show that older females produce up to 10X more.
> 
> in any event, i dont think it has anything to do with 'envy' of any sort. it has everything to do with protecting a resource. im sure DFA, MR and the other prolific giggers would actually say the same thing. without that resource, they have no game to chase. an increase in min size limits will certainly only benefit. and the giggers are the first ones to be able to do just that. they can control the size they gig. hook and line would see some mortality from deep hooked undersized fish, but overall an increase in average sizes would be the long-term outcome.
> 
> ...




Well said Drew.


----------



## captwesrozier (Sep 28, 2007)

drew...none taken!

i am trying to find studies on flounder but with speckle trout over 65% of the hatchlings come from specks that are 10 to 22 inches long...with these fish having way less eggs tells me there eggs are more viable than a female which is say 6 lbs 26 inches long...so the amount of eggs produced does not mean a larger yield of hatchlings.

kind of like humans...women more fertile at a younger age but still produce eggs as they get older but not as fertile.

i have always said when catching a BIG flounder or Speck it is really better to keep...they are less likely to survive the battle...handling and releasing back into their envorinment. they r usually on their last 25% of their life.

the fish we should be releasing are the midrange fish. these fish i believe are more able to survive release back into the water


----------



## Murphy's Law (Sep 27, 2007)

I do pass up 12" 13"flounder so the size limit is of no concern to me but as stated above, For the money I spend to go hunt them WHEN I can get a limit of 10 I would love to be able to keep them. Tell me this, Why is every one pissed about the red snapper limit getting cut back over and over but yet could care less to give up the flounder bag limit. A flounder limit is a hell of alot harder to come by.


----------



## FlounderAssassin (Sep 28, 2007)

> *reeltrouble (8/19/2008)*I say they change the flounder minimum size to 14 inches and change the bag limit from10 per person to 5 per person
> 
> I just don't understand what one person does with 40 flounder fillets at one time? (if you freeze them they just don't taste the same!) and how much meat do you really get from a 12 inch flounder, when you can pick the fish up to a light and see completely through it i think you should toss it back.


the only part of what you said here that i can agree with is size. i will pass up a 12-13" flounder when i have none in the boat. make the size limit 14" and that will be just fine with me. but making the limit 5 per person...thats just as bad as the snapper regs. there are just as many flounder out there now. just have to be able to search and find them. i have over $1000 in my flounder set up...thats just the setup...not including the price of the boat. there are nights i go and come home empty handed and nights i go and get my limit of good fish. i dont mess with the fall run. too many boats fighting over beach for me. i do it through out the year and that makes me happy. like others have already said...flounder taste just as good frozen for 6+ months as they do fresh off the fish cleaning table.


----------



## Death From Above (Sep 28, 2007)

Reducing recreational flounder bag limits and size minimumsis useless as long was we have commercial shrimp boats sweeping up and killing billions ofjuvenile flounders as by-catch.


----------



## Murphy's Law (Sep 27, 2007)

> *Death From Above (8/21/2008)*Reducing recreational flounder bag limits and size minimumsis useless as long was we have commercial shrimp boats sweeping up and killing billions ofjuvenile flounders as by-catch.


:clap :clap :clap :clap


----------



## Drew Mixon (Oct 4, 2007)

> *murphyslaw (8/21/2008)*I do pass up 12" 13"flounder so the size limit is of no concern to me but as stated above, For the money I spend to go hunt them WHEN I can get a limit of 10 I would love to be able to keep them. Tell me this, Why is every one pissed about the red snapper limit getting cut back over and over but yet could care less to give up the flounder bag limit. A flounder limit is a hell of alot harder to come by.


that's sorta the point...there are tons and tons of snapper--yet the bag limit keeps getting reduced. but, as you pointed out, a flounder limit is harder to come by, so does is not hold true that flounder (in general) are harder to come by? if there is a lot of something, then make the bag limit sustainably higher. if something is 'harder to come by', then make the bag limit sustainably lower--in all hopes that the resource is shared and is allowed to prosper. seems we are doing the exact opposite with snapper, and leaving other species unchecked--as matt pointed out--flounder and sheephead.

here's another variable for the equasion--how 'bout the presumed increase of inshore boaters and anglers now, and the upcoming seasons? economy is in rough shape. fuel prices arent going to be sub-$3 ever again. wouldnt it stand to reason that all those (me included) anglers who used to fish offshore can no longer afford it, and will be putting more pressure on the inshore fishery? i know i plan to. i'll not spend my hard earned money to chase 2 red snapper (that tastes yucky to me, anyway), when i can spend a fraction of my time, money and fuel to catch a 'box full' of trout, redfish or flounder. i dare say that same sentiment will be shared by thousands of anglers around the state. $1000 for 'rigging'? we used to spend that on fuel in a weekend. times are changing. for a good many folks. the bay boat market is booming for a reason. offshore boats sit on lots all over the country. the pressure on the inshore fisheries in the gulf is just getting rolling. (and comparing what it costs for rigging, to the price of fish in the market--you are on the water for the wrong reasons. the only way to 'get ahead' in dollars vs. fillets is to eat a lot of netted mullet!!!!)

its not a soap box for me, honestly. but i am a long-time fan of sustainable limits--for both recreationals and commercials. flounder, trout, mullet, shrimp--whatever.

and oh Lord, dont get me started on the shrimpboat-rape of our bay systems. if i had case of handgrenades and some scuba gear...

wes, the latest numbers i took the time to readwere fromSouthern, and of inshore stocks--trout, redfish, flounder, croakers, the mid-range fish were indeedmade up thelargest numbers of prolific breeders. the 'older fish/less eggs' does stand true, but in the case of inshore species, thegeneral mortality of those fish precluded them from breeding stocks, for more than a season or two. thats just what i remember. i wouldnt bet thefarmon it, but it seems plausable enough.

cheers.

drew


----------



## johnboatjosh (May 19, 2008)

> *Death From Above (8/21/2008)*Reducing recreational flounder bag limits and size minimumsis useless as long was we have commercial shrimp boats sweeping up and killing billions ofjuvenile flounders as by-catch.


Amen!:bowdown

And as bad as I hate to disagree with anyone, I cannot agree with lowering the creel limit or size limit on flounder. I think we are currently maintaining a healthy flounder population and if the weather would cooperate I'd start putting a little bigger dent in it!:letsdrink


----------



## 155SprtFsh (Oct 2, 2007)

*I think we need to take a vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Ha!! Ha!!! Ha!!!*










*Does anyone pay attention towhere they POST anymore!!!!*

*I Beleive This Is INSHORE REPORTS - NOT General Chit Chat*

*What Is this FORUM Coming TOOOOOOO I almost hate posting*

*because all of the bull shitttttttttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:baby*

*IT'S ONLY MYOPINION AND THIS IS AMERICA!!!!!!*

*SO WEAR THE HATTTTT!!!!*


----------



## Murphy's Law (Sep 27, 2007)

When I said a flounder limit is a hell of alot harder to come by I did not mean they are being wiped out. If gigging for them you have weather, wind, water clarity and the fact that the fish can hide pretty damn good against you as well. Show me some numbers that say the flounder stock is decreasing, This is why I referred to the red snapper.


----------



## Flounderpounder (Oct 3, 2007)

Well here's my two cents worth (and we all know what pennies are worth these days):

1. The most important thing is to maintain a viable fishery. I'd hate to see it degrade. I'd also hate to see a knee jerk reaction that is unnecessary!

2.With all due respect (truly!), it's not a decision to be made based on what someone has spent toget into the sport, or how big one's family is.

3. If they banned shrimp boats tomorrow, I'd not lose any sleep over it (understatement).

4. None of us (that I know of!) are PHD marine biologists who have studied the issue. I'd love to hear the WFU experts take on the issue, but I bet they'd have to do a lot of research. Us deciding what is right for the fishery is sort of like us deciding if the Navarre Pass is environmentally sound or not.

5. They freeze and thaw out great (I use milk instead of water).

6. I also believe the pressure is increasing on the fishery, and is only going to get worse. Notice the increase in posts lately about people just getting into the sport?

7. I also voluntarily (usually) pass on the smaller fish.

8. I hope (either way) we are still sticking (or catching) and eating flounder many years from now!

:toast


----------



## GigABite (Dec 21, 2007)

It's just plain stupidity to think that there are just as many flounder out there now as in years past.When we would gogiggin' out on Lighthouse Beach and Ft. Pickens when I was a kid (70's), you _might_ see 4 or 5 other people out doing the same thing. Today, it would be a miracle to see less than 15-20 boats out giggin' during the fall run. I personally won't gig anything less than 16-18" - it's a personal choice and one that I feel may make sometiny difference. If we could all collectively have some sort of personal conservation creed, a difference could be made. But by readingsome of the replies to this post, I can see that many aren't willing to makeany sacrifices and act as though they'll starve unless they bring home any fish. 

Do any of you natives remember the acre sized schools of mullet that you could see coming down the beach a half mile away? That's something I can only describe to my kids nowadays. We can all sit here bitchin' and complaining about the limit on this and that, but there is a damn good reason for them. If we truly care for our resources and our sport, then we should be prepared to deal with some sacrifices. 

Flame away :letsdrink

Gig


----------



## tri-haul (Jun 4, 2008)

to put my two cents in, i've been fishing inshore pensacola bay for over 25 years, nd this year i've caught more flounder than ever. maybe its just luck of the draw, but i dont ever target flounder and its what i've caught the most of this year. sometimes keeping less doesnt mean there will always be more fish, it is a management process, ask anyone who has managed a big bass lake.


----------



## Five Prongs Of Fury (Apr 15, 2008)

> *johnboatjosh (8/21/2008)*
> 
> 
> > *Death From Above (8/21/2008)*Reducing recreational flounder bag limits and size minimumsis useless as long was we have commercial shrimp boats sweeping up and killing billions ofjuvenile flounders as by-catch.
> ...


I second the motion about the shrimp boats as well. The amount of fish taken recreationally is only a drop in the bucket compared to the amount that are taken as by catch. For those of you that say that you are seeing reduced amounts of fish,have you ever considered that you may fishing in the wrong spot(s). I have gotten more flounder collectively over the past 3 years than I have in the past 10 combined and I have been floundering since I was old enough to hold a gig so I am not new to this sport. With all do respect to the hook and line fisherman it is not as easy as putting a light in the water and gigging a fish. There are more variables involved in gigging than with a hook & line such as water clarity, wind, tide proper type of bottom and many more. As some of my fellow giggers will probably agree I challenge anyone to go out and just simply stick a light in the water and gig a fish. Try it, maybe you'll gain a little more respect for our sport as well as the limits that we have to abide by now!!! As for changing the limits I am completely against it, the goverment pushes us around enough already!!! :boo


----------

