16 minute read
Pike on the Edge
by DOUG PIKE :: TF&GSenior Contributing Editor
Fishing Pictures: Too Much of a Good Thing
IT’S TOO LATE TO BE FIRST TO gripe about this – it won’t even be my rst time – and this time probably won’t be the last time I or anyone else of like mind says, “I’ve seen more than enough photos of dead sh to last a lifetime.
I love to sh. I love to eat sh. I even love to share pictures of sh before I release them.
I like social media (but not to the point of obsession with it). And I like seeing sh pictures now and then, but I do prefer that some time passes—like days or even a week —between “now” and “then.”
I am not a fan of shermen who insist on sharing images of dead sh every time they stack a few.
“Here’s our limit from today. Looks like our limit from this past week, I know, but we were somewhere else throwing something else that day. Follow me for tomorrow’s picture of dead sh on the front deck.” ese men and women are thrilled to share their success—and to be fair, I remember being a young angler and wanting all my friends to know when I had good days—but they don’t realize the consequences of doing so incessantly.
It’s exactly that, the nonstop sharing, that bugs me. Parades of dead sh pictures are an o -pu ing byproduct of modern technology.
When guys my age shared pictures, we had to remember the camera, remember lm, actually catch some sh, shoot the pictures, get the lm developed, pick out the best prints, then carry those photographs in our pockets or wallets until we’d bumped into everyone on our “share” list.
Now, anywhere at any time, we can deal sh pictures to the entire world even though 99.99 percent of the world’s shermen don’t care about or want to see them.
Recreational shermen, especially newcomers to the ock, get a temporary pass. It’s all new to them. ey haven’t yet caught enough limits or large sh to realize they’re going to catch many, many more of both in their lifetimes. ey feel compelled to share, the same way I’ll probably feel when I nally catch my rst clown knife sh (which I intend to make happen within the next year alongside DOA’s Mark Nichols).
“First” anything on a personal sh list warrants a picture. “Biggest” is also a valid photo opportunity. e picture I don’t care much to see is the one in which the shermen reveal the “most” they ever caught of a particular species.
I grew up in an era where there weren’t limits on most species of sh. We could catch all we wanted, hundreds on the right day. But there was never quite so much enthusiasm around the cleaning table as there had been behind those bent rods. And that led, in far too many cases, to tragic waste.
Another reason I’d prefer fewer, but more interesting sh(ing) pictures on social media is that seeing so many of them knocks the lustre and interest o all of them. Where we nd ourselves now, a sh picture…is just another sh picture.
Professional guides tend, because it’s good for business – to post more pictures than even the most egotistical recreational anglers. A pro’s livelihood, his or her paycheck, depends on le ing the public know they’re good at what they do. I get that. It’s marketing.
But too many pictures of limits could mislead potential customers into thinking that a speci c guide never has slow days, which we all know to be untrue and tarnishes the profession, not just an individual.
If I had to choose between a guide who boasts of stacking sh every day or one who doesn’t promise anything except a hundred percent e ort from start to nish, I’d go with the guy who’s commi ed to the work and not blowing smoke up my skirt about the outcome.
Fishing guides are among the hardestworking people on the planet. ey have no need to lie to anyone.
I’ve studied websites, Facebook, and Instagram and found a key di erence between the postings of men and women I know to be excellent at their jobs — and what’s posted by those who either are just ge ing started or haven’t yet go en good. e best submissions are pictures that tell stories of the experience, usually someone with a bent rod or holding a single, noteworthy sh while still in the boat or wading a shallow shoreline. If the good ones do present the occasional stringer shot, it’s likely because they wanted to schmooze the clients, to make them “famous” for the day. at’s good for business.
Keep sending me sh pictures and keep posting sh pictures. at’s good for the resources, because it keeps us all interested in being on the water. Only maybe put a li le more thought into those photos than just how you’re going to line up the bodies on the board.
Most shermen, myself included, genuinely enjoying seeing how you did. I just prefer also to get a glimpse of how you did it.
Email Doug Pike at ContactUs@fi shgame.com
HE BLUE WATERS of the Gulf of Mexico are a mysterious zone that in recent years have provided great white shark and orca sightings and catches of huge bluefin tuna.
Recent actions by federal officials are making major changes to things happening to fisheries in this area, so we thought it was important to get you updated.
Mako shark populations are not doing well in much of the Atlantic region, including in the Gulf of Mexico in comparison to other shark species. As of July 5, 2022, U.S. fishermen may not land or retain Atlantic shortfin mako sharks. The shortfin mako shark retention limit is zero in commercial and recreational Atlantic highly migratory species fisheries.
According to the 2017 stock assessment, shortfin mako sharks are overfished and subject to overfishing. Summary stock assessment information can be found on Stock SMART.
NOAA Southeast Fishery Science Center staff members work with the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas to assess
the status of shortfin mako sharks in the Atlantic.
SHORTFIN MAKO SHARKS
APPEARANCE: • Shortfin mako sharks have very pointed snouts and long gill slits. • They have dark blue/gray backs, light metallic blue sides, and white undersides. • Shortfin mako sharks can be differentiated from longfin mako sharks. Compared to shortfin mako sharks, longfin mako sharks have much longer pectoral fins and larger eyes, a different body shape, and the underside of their snout is darker.
BIOLOGY: • Shortfin mako sharks grow slowly, reach up to 13 feet long, and can live more than 30 years. • They are not able to reproduce until about eight years old (approximately six feet) for males and 19 years old (approximately nine feet) for females. They have a three-year reproductive cycle and a gestation period of approximately 18 months. • Mating occurs from summer to fall. Eggs are fertilized internally and develop inside the mother.
• Females bear live pups, which are approximately two feet long when born. is large size at birth helps reduce the number of potential predators and enhances the pup’s chance of survival. • Mean li er size is 12, and up to 30 pups have been reported, though scientists have only examined a handful of li ers. • Short n mako sharks are aggressive predators that feed near the top of the food web on marine sh such as blue sh, sword sh, tuna, marine mammals, and other sharks. • ey have few predators, mainly larger sharks that may prey on smaller short n mako sharks.
WHERE THEY LIVE: • O the East Coast, Atlantic short n mako sharks are found from New England to Florida, in the Gulf of Mexico from Florida to Texas, and in the Caribbean Sea. • ey are highly migratory and can travel across entire oceans.
GULF BLUE MARLIN
Since the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, a group of federal representatives have continued to assess and develop recovery strategies for injured marine resources.
Referred to as e Open Ocean Trustees, their most recent plan is a result of past collaborative work and stakeholder input, which aims to restore those a ected resources. is strategic Plan will guide restoration of priority sh and water column invertebrates.
Atlantic blue marlin, which are over shed and over shing is still taking place, have been identi ed as a priority species. e restoration guide will target the following issues: • reats to blue marlin • Restoration opportunities for the species • Consideration of data gaps • Characterizing and reducing recreational shing post-release mortality impacts • Development of means to reduce uncertainty in restoration, including providing best practices to shing communities to reduce impacts • Identi cation of larval distribution mechanisms, important habitats, and in uences on recruitment
Post-release mortality rates for Atlantic blue marlin have also been identi ed by the agency as an area to further investigate. e National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) even raised the possibility of estimating a post-release mortality percentage in recreational shing by using satellite tags.
If this moves forward, it’s likely the agency would include a calculated percentage for Atlantic blue marlin mortality in the recreational shery, which would be used to reduce the current landing cap of 250 marlins (blue and white together).
We’ve come a long way in marlin management from the days of Ernest Hemingway pictured here with a big catch.
FLOWER GARDENS GROWTH
NOAA is expanding Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary from approximately 56 square miles to approximately 160 square miles to protect additional important Gulf of Mexico habitat. e move builds on the sanctuary’s rich 30-year history of scienti c studies and public review of the preservation of this special place. e reef caps of East and West Flower Garden Banks are dominated by high coral and coralline algae cover, providing habitat for multitudes of reef sh and invertebrates. (G.P. Schmahl/NOAA) e expansion adds 14 additional reefs and banks that provide important habitat for recreationally and commercially important sh, such as red snapper, mackerel, grouper and wahoo, as well as threatened or endangered species of sea turtles, corals and giant manta rays. e expansion extends existing sanctuary protections to these new areas to limit impact of activities such as shing with bo omtending gear, ship anchoring, oil and gas exploration and production, and salvage activities on sensitive biological resources. “Adding these ecologically signi cant reefs and banks will protect habitats that contribute to America’s blue economy and drive ecological resilience for much of the Gulf of Mexico region’s thriving recreation, tourism, and commercial shing,” said retired Navy rear admiral Tim Gallaudet, PhD, assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and deputy NOAA administrator.
Located 115 miles o the coasts of Texas and Louisiana, NOAA designated East and West Flower Garden Banks as Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary in 1992.
In 1996, Stetson Bank, located 80 miles o the Texas coast, was added to the sanctuary through Congressional action. e three banks, encompassing approximately 56 square miles, include the northernmost coral reefs in the continental United States, deep-water reef communities and other essential habitats for a variety of marine species. NOAA and our partners recently gave the reefs in this sanctuary the highest score in an assessment of U.S. coral reef health.
Expansion of the sanctuary emerged as one of the top priority issues during a review of the sanctuary’s management plan in 2012. e 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, which resulted in the largest o shore marine oil spill in U.S. history, also accelerated interest in expansion, with government scientists and non-governmental organizations urging additional protections for marine life and essential Gulf habitat.
EXAS HAS A RICH history of producing big bucks with remarkable antlers. e Boone and Crocke Club lists it 11th among the leading states in total record book entries with 767. Texas also has four of the top six ranked counties nationwide.
B&C recognizes only free-ranging deer taken by fair chase. Rankings are determined by net scores a er deducts for lack of symmetry.
Many of these Texas giants have been killed since the advent of protein feeders, antler restrictions and other modern deer management tools. However, some were taken long before
Tit became cool to let the young guys walk and well before the birth of this magazine. Among the state’s biggest nonstory by MATT WILLIAMS typicals is the famous “Brady Buck.” Scoring 284 3/8 B&C. is incredible McCulloch County 47-pointer was taken way back in 1892 on the Ford Ranch near Melvin.
PHOTO: B&C
The Brady Buck
B&C’s Records of North American Whitetail Deer, Sixth Edition, indicates the deer was killed by an “unknown” hunter. However, legend has it the animal was found dead by the ranch manager. Supposedly, it was shot by deer hunter Je Benson who subsequently lost the blood trail. e Brady Buck still ranks as Texas’s No. 1 non-typical of all time. It’s also No. 14 in North America.
Interestingly, Texas’s No. 2 non-typical also met with a mysterious death. at magni cent 39-pointer was found dead near Junction in 1925. It scores 272 B&C.
Texas’s top three typicals are 20th Century bucks, all of which grew up with South Texas addresses. Tom McCulloch shot the leading typical in 1963, a Maverick County 14-pointer scoring 196 1/8 B&C. e No. 2 typical is a McMullen County 17-pointer shot in 1906 by Milton George and the No. 3 deer (192 2/8) was shot in 1903 by Basil Dailey in Frio County.
It takes a true stud to rack up the 170nch minimum score required of B&C alltime record book typicals. All-time B&C non-typicals must score 195 B&C.
Texas has more than 300 typical entries. Interestingly, only a handful of them were killed in eastern Texas. e biggest of these is a anksgiving Day whopper killed 22 seasons ago by Je Capps of Etoile. e Capps buck is a 10-pointer that ranks No. 24 among Texas typicals with a score of 183 2/8 B&C.
Capps shot the deer at Ryan’s Lake Hunting Club in Angelina County, a lease not necessarily noted for producing giant whitetails. Annual dues at the time was a meager $175. e previous East Texas record typical was shot in 1984 in Polk County by Charlie Albertson. e Albertson Buck nets 174 7⁄8 B&C.
With the passage of time, several other outstanding bucks from East Texas may have go en swept under the rug. However, Clyde Weaver won’t soon forget the amazing 10-pointer he shot o a li le 125-acre spread near Whitehouse in 2005.
Weaver’s buck nets 170 2/8 B&C. It was the Smith County record typical until 2016, when Bryan O’Neal of Quitman bagged an enormous 12-pointer that nets 178 B&C.
Another East Texas giant typical not many people know about is the Rick Rogers buck taken in Nacogdoches County in 2000. Rogers shot his 12-pointer roughly two weeks before Capps shot his buck.
He didn’t say much about it for fear the landowner of his 2,300-acre lease might jack up the price of dues. If not for a Texas Big Game Awards Program paper trail, I probably wouldn’t have known a thing about this 183-inch bruiser, which was never entered in the B&C book.
East Texas has produced dozens of other outstanding bucks over the years, including a number of 200-plus-inch Pope and Young trophies by Grayson County archers. Easily the most famous is the Je Duncan Buck, a 26-pointer a ectioniately known to locals as “Big Boy.” Duncan was participating in a $35 draw hunt on the 11,000-acre Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge in 2001, when he arrowed a massive double drop tine buck that scores 225 7/8 inches. It ranked as the Texas state record archery kill until 2012, when A.J. Downs of Conroe brought down a San Jacinto County 27-pointer that nets 256 7/8 B&C.
Another 2001 free-ranging bruiser that folks may have forgo en about is David Krajca’s 24-pointer. At 222 1/8 B&C, it’s the top buck ever reported from Ellis County south of Dallas and ranks 32nd among Texas non-typicals.
A ca le rancher at the time, Krajca killed the deer on a 160-acre farm that lines the banks of the Trinity River. He acquired hunting rights to the property on a labor trade-out agreement with the landowner. As slick eight-pointers go, Estaban Gonzalez of Alto shot East Texas’s biggest ever in 2002. ere’s a great story behind this 166-inch bruiser, too.
Gonzalez killed the deer on 500 acres in Cherokee County. e land belongs to Freddy Wallace, also of Alto. Wallace, Gonzalez’ employer at the time, said the young man asked for permission to go hog hunting in hopes of ge ing some meat for his mother to use in a batch of hot tamales.
Amazingly, Gonzalez managed to kill the buck despite a badly misplaced shot. Wallace said Gonzalez aimed at the shoulder of the buck, but the 9mm bullet struck the animal in the head, killing it instantly. e long list of Texas’s bragging-sized bucks from long ago goes on and on. Here are a few more worth recalling: • Steven O’Carroll, 1991, Shackleford County 13 pointer, 190 2/8, No. 2 TBGA Typical of All-Time, No. 4 statewide. • Earl Smith, 1960, Trinity County 27 pointer, 215 3/8 • Earl Smith, 1965, Trinity County 25 pointer, 193 3/8 • Tyler Fenley (12 years old), 1999, Angelina County 28 pointer, 198 6/8 • William Brown, 1967, Frio County 27 pointer, 259, No 5 Texas all-time • Raul Rodriguez, 1966, Frio County 30 pointer, 247 7/8, No. 7 Texas all-time • John Campbell, 1947, Zavala County 32 pointer, 244 2/8, No. 9 Texas all-time • Tom Cole, 1997, Hunt County 29 pointer, 240 2/8, No. 10 Texas all time ese and many more of Texas’s biggest bucks are listed in B&C’s Records of North American Whitetail Deer, Sixth Edition. Nearly 700 pages, the hardback lists more than 17,000 white-tailed deer, 300 photographs and much more. It costs $60, boonecrocke .org. «
PHOTO: COURTESY ESTABAN GONZALEZ
Estaban Gonzalez’ East Texas record.
