I do hope to be able to go to at least part of the meeting, although the couple I attended in the past were frustrating, and I could see nothing accomplished. If I could go for just one day, what day would you suggest.
I have e written the council about reef building programs over the years as well. the best bang for our buck will be to lobby our politicians to scatter around the thousands of yards of lime stone they are about to remove from dredging the harbor and shipping channel. It really is a golden opportunity! Is one massive reef better than alot of smaller ones in different water depths?
“If we ever forget that we’re
one nation under God,
we will be a nation gone under.” - Ronald Reagan
hydro, I can say definitively that that won’t happen. The plans are finalized and the least cost way for them to deposit them is in the reefs adjacent to the channel as shown. We asked about moving material perhaps even inshore and basically a 3rd party would have to foot the bill completely and the process of moving it to a private barge was prohibitive to them as well. For example, they can’t be expected to wait for a barge to arrive when they have material to move. Again, I don’t represent the COE but have sat in 3 meetings on the subject during the planning stage.
1966 13’ Boston Whaler w/ Merc 25 4 stroke “Flatty”
www.eyestrikefishing.com #predatorsstriketheeye
Optiker, what you say makes sense. A project such as the deepening will be terribly expensive, and things will have to click on time to keep costs in line.
Does that prohibit DNR or private groups from moving forward with an aggressive reef program? They know how to build reefs as well as any state.
Realfin, I have no idea. I think its a completely separate issue. My personal opinion, is that DNR probably would support building many more reefs. I guess the concern for any agency would be making sure the material is clean and not a hazard to navigation, and of course cost.
1966 13’ Boston Whaler w/ Merc 25 4 stroke “Flatty”
www.eyestrikefishing.com #predatorsstriketheeye
Another article from TX regarding reef building within state waters. They are also doing the reef building in conjunction with red snapper studies and deploying many different types of reefs within the same reef complex.
Enjoy!
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/business/article_5c172c66-664b-11e7-a28a-a369559ea09e.html
If cost is the main problem in building reefs, would there be enough support among salt water fishermen to increase license fees from $10 to whatever it takes to pay for the reefs?
quote:
Originally posted by RealfinIf cost is the main problem in building reefs, would there be enough support among salt water fishermen to increase license fees from $10 to whatever it takes to pay for the reefs?
The only problem with adding $10 to license, unless strictly monitored by the public(tough to do), we would be lucky to get $1 towards reefs.
I would rather have an option to donate towards a reef program, or have the ability to place privately funded reefs.
You could split it with buddies, you could split multiple reefs with different buddies so that you have different sets of reef numbers to fish.
SCDIVER, is there any reason all of the above can not be done?
The licensed was upped to $10 precisely for reef building. There are a couple of issues with this:
- When the reef program gets income, they just steal other non-income budget from it and spend it on something else. In other words, you get a “net neutral” effect. Let’s say that the program was funded with $100K this year and $50K (50%) of that came from license sales. Let’s say we upped the price and now $80K comes from license sales. You would expect that the new budget is $130K. Instead, they steal away the original $30K, and now the budget is still $100K, but now it’s 80% funded by license sales.
- Our SC reefs are just pissing in the wind as long as they are made public knowledge. Only secret reefs would provide the benefit that we desire. DNR published a research study several years ago and they estimated > 250K trips to our 40+ artificial reefs. Currently, they are not “fish factories”. They are only “fisherman factories”. They don’t provide real “habitat” per se as much as they provide fishing opportunities for people that don’t have good numbers. Thus, the right thing to do is to hid 50% of them and make 50% public so you meet both goals. Until they change this fundamental paradigm, we are just pissing into a powerful fan…
Skinneej, your point is well made, and well taken. A coupla counterpoints:
-
Apparently, it is common for governments to move money from one cause to another, especially after some time has passed since the laws allowing for the collection of fees has passed. However, one could ask if the legislation could be written to be so restrictive as to make moving the funds impossible to do. For example, a requirement that all funds taken in and all funds spent be a matter of public record to be published on a regular basis.
-
There is some question whether the un-published reefs would be legal when they are built with public dollars. The solution to that would be to have so many reefs that they would dilute the pressure on each one. Obviously, that would take a lot of time and money.
Being from AL I can say that being ableto build a personal reef was awesome. They do control what you can use for it. A potential issue here is the impact for shrimpers too.
Just out of curiosity, how would an individual go about getting enough material to make a reef successful out there? One chunk of concrete at a time?
quote:
Originally posted by RealfinJust out of curiosity, how would an individual go about getting enough material to make a reef successful out there? One chunk of concrete at a time?
Buy a reef cone and deploy it, or hire a service to do it for you. In some parts of the county, you buy a couple cones and they will deploy it where you want it as a part of the fee. They just wait until they get enough cones sold and drop them on a trip. Capitalism.
quote:Yes, I believe that the laws could be written as you say, but someone would have to spearhead that.
Originally posted by RealfinSkinneej, your point is well made, and well taken. A coupla counterpoints:
Apparently, it is common for governments to move money from one cause to another, especially after some time has passed since the laws allowing for the collection of fees has passed. However, one could ask if the legislation could be written to be so restrictive as to make moving the funds impossible to do. For example, a requirement that all funds taken in and all funds spent be a matter of public record to be published on a regular basis.
There is some question whether the un-published reefs would be legal when they are built with public dollars. The solution to that would be to have so many reefs that they would dilute the pressure on each one. Obviously, that would take a lot of time and money.
As far as a critical mass of reefs. It doesn’t take much. One solitary reef cone, a few chicken coops, concrete pipe, etc. Alabama has something over 20,000 reef permits applied for. I don’t know of any law requiring DNR to publish reefs. They can just publish the 100 sq mile designated zone and build it up from there. If you find it, you can fish it. If you can’t, keep looking!