On the SC DNR Website, it states that Black Sea Bass can be kept (5 per day, 13" minimum TL). In federal waters, this species can NOT be kept. Here’s the issue: I think both the General Gordon and Whitewater Reef are inside state waters.
I know the ones I usually catch at Whitewater are of the 10 inch annoying variety, but let’s say I get into some larger ones. Can I keep 5? Is Whitewater in SC waters?
Let’s say I go out to the Ross, clearly in Federal waters. On the way back in to the May River, I stop at Whitewater. I catch 5 keeper Black Sea Bass. I get stopped at the dock by DNR. How can I prove I caught them in state waters?
What keeps the irresponsible fisherman from tearing them up at the Ross or farther offshore, and telling DNR they caught them inside the state line?
If anybody could offer some knowledge on this I would appreciate it. It’s pretty confusing!
i know for a fact that they assume the fish in the box were caught in whatever waters you are in at the time. Example: we were heading offshore out of venice. too much fog to go offshore in the morning, so we caught a few 17" reds inshore while we waited. went offshore and got some snappers etc. we were stopped on the way in 1 mile into federal waters and the fish were confiscated and we were fined. obviously the reds were caught inshore because of the size, but because we were in federal waters it was illegal to possess no matte where they were caught. so if you catch the BSB inshore and dont go into federal waters, you should be fine. jsut dont catch them and go into fed waters.
Sorry guys…ALWAYS</font id=“maroon”> refer to SAFMC closures for the final word. DNR has always echoed the feds for enforcement due to cooperative agreements. This is from the “horse’s mouth”:
The recreational fishing season for black sea bass closes after Labor Day.
The S.C. Department of Natural Resources said the annual catch limit for black sea bass has been reached in Southeastern states.
Black sea bass fishing will be prohibited beginning at 12:01am on September 4, 2012. The fishery is scheduled to remain closed until June 1, 2013.
In 2006, black sea bass in the southeastern region were determined to be overfished and have continued to experience overfishing. In response, DNR implemented a plan to end overfishing, allowing black sea bass population to begin rebuilding. This 10-year plan requires annual catch limits of 309,000 pounds for the commercial sector and 409,000 pounds for recreational anglers.
“Black sea bass is in better shape today because of the measures taken to rebuild stocks and the sacrifice of fishermen,” said Mel Bell, Director of the S.C. Department of Natural Resources Office of Fisheries Management commented on the status of black sea bass. “Six years into the rebuilding plan we see significant evidence that black sea bass is on the rebound. It is a difficult time, but we are well on our way to a sustainable fishery that will ultimately support the best possible access for fishermen.”</font id=“maroon”>
'Cuda… That makes sense bro. Thanks for the heads up!!
Wildlife… Thanks for sharing that man! However, Bear with me. I’ve heard you are quite the expert on things like this and I appreciate your response. I’m hoping Cracker will chime in too. Let me start by saying that I am an advocate for government involvement in fishing regulations. They may not make the best decisions and at times they may be commercially and politically influenced, but I still like to hope they are doing it for the recreational industry and species’ best interest. Regarding my original question, hear me out:
If SC DNR always echoes the Feds… why bother with this confusion? It translucently states that in 2006 they knew that there was an issue with the BSB population. Alright, its 2012. Why in the world does it still state in both the regulation print issue and the online service that BSB can be retained in state waters? 5 per day, 13" TL. I heard the argument today that… they haven’t had time to update it. BS! SC is a huge fishery. No way would a regulation like that change and them not update their website immediately. If it’s been in limbo for 6 years, why even express that catch limit in their print issue? Also… Red Snapper is closed. Has been closed for a while. In the print issue and online service, they both state that possession is prohibited. What gives? Closing Red Snaper is a federal consideration, and SC apparently follows suit. They make that perfectly straighforward. If BSB is constantly in limbo, and SC always mirrors the federal regs… then it should be stated as such. In the language used in both publications it makes you think that there is a difference between state and federal waters. I’ve been around this game for long enough to know that there IS a clearly defined line on most nautical charts showing the seperation of state and federal territorial waters. In Florida when I was down there it used to be 3 nautical miles from the beach on the Atlantic side and 3 leagues from the beach on the gulf side (roug
Well, you may want to edit out the part about me saying they were incapable of designing a tricky scheme… LOL but other than that yea. I think that would be great. Thanks man!
Just so y’all know, here’s the section of South Carolina law (Title 50) that deals with the agreement to track the federal regs. Thanks to xxmadfirexx for sending this…I could not remember the code section:
South Carolina Code 50-5-2730. Federal fishing regulations declared to be law of State
South Carolina Code > Title 50 > Chapter 5 > 50-5-2730 - Federal fishing regulations declared to be law of State
Current as of: 2009
Check for updates
Unless otherwise provided by law, any regulations promulgated by the federal government under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (PL 94-265) or the Atlantic Tuna Conservation Act (PL 94-70) which establishes seasons, fishing periods, gear restrictions, sales restrictions, or bag, catch, size, or possession limits on fish are declared to be the law of this State and apply statewide including in state waters.</font id=“maroon”>
I will send this thread to Mel Bell and ask for his input Salt Weapon, but remember, South Carolina law mandates DNR print the Hunting & Fishing Rules and Regulations annually. These H&F Rules & Regs state only state law, not the ever-changing federal regulations. There is no possible way South Carolina could implement closures based on federal quotas on dates when those quotas are met…dates are too volatile.
In addition, as I’ve done time and time again, I point out SCDNR has NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY to set seasons and bag limits with the exception of black bass on Lake Murray</font id=“maroon”>. Everytime, you, the angler, is confused, it points to the injustice of state legislators retaining this “power” for votes from their constituents. South Carolina is now the only state in the nation where the legislature sets game and fish laws. All 49 other states’s game & fish/dnr agencies have regulatory authority to set seasons, bag & creel limits…both regularly and for emergencies.</fon
Below is a followup to my email to Mel Bell this morning. I also copied Robery Boyles, Deputy Director of DNR’s Marine Resources Division. Note my suggestion for a link on the DNR site as well as a blurb in the Rules & Regs pertaining to paralleling the federal seasons & closures. At any rate, perhaps we can help reduce the confusion.
quote:Good morning Jim,
As always, thanks for your continued and enthusiastic support of the DNR and our mission. Your posted comments sum up the facts nicely. This does bring up a good point. While we have been wording our Rules and Regulations pertaining to the federally managed species pretty much this same way for as long as I can remember, perhaps we have overestimated the fishing publics ability to get the points you made regarding simultaneous closure of our waters and state waters for some fisheries. It would seem we might need to revisit the wording of our R&Rs as well as our news releases when fisheries close to make things clearer. I think your technological fix suggestion is a good one to consider as well. Give me a second to think about this today and Ill get back with you on perhaps adding something to what youve already said. I would not do this myself, but if you wished to weigh in any more on how/why we regulate BSB and other federally managed species the way we do in state waters perhaps that might be useful. Although youve already done a nice job of explaining the basic facts.
Talk to you soon.
Thanks much.
mb
From: Jim Goller [mailto:wildlifesc@embarqmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 9:00 AM
To: Mel Bell
Cc: Robert H. Boyles, Jr.
Subject: Need a favor, Mel…Jim Goller
Hi Mel,
I need a favor. Please read this forum thread on Charleston Fishing (Beaufort/HHI) and see if you can shed any light on it. I post as wildlifesc, so you can see my latest post quoting Title 50. The i
Here’s the latest from Mel Bell. DNR has kicked this around and will make some changes for clarity.
quote:Jim,
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We are always interested in ways that we can improve the accessibility and clarity of marine fisheries regulatory information for the public. ■■■■■■■■ in this area directly from the public is very valuable to us. As you can see from the emails, weve had some internal discussions today and are working on some improvements. The printed Rules and Regulations booklet and the version of that now accessible on our website are obviously fixed for this year. We do have a separate link on our website under Regulations that takes folks to a table for just saltwater fisheries size/bag limits, etc. This specific site can be updated, and we will work through our website folks in Columbia to make the state waters closures clearer when federal waters close for any federally managed species. http://www.dnr.sc.gov/regs/saltwaterfish.html
Since the federally managed fisheries that have closed in the past due to reaching Allowable Catch Limits (ACL) have been prosecuted almost exclusively in federal waters the confusion about state waters closing simultaneously has never been an issue before. It took the closing of the recreational black sea bass fishery for the first time in 2011 to bring this to light. Black sea bass are extremely important to our fishermen, and although they are caught primarily in federal waters, legal size fish (13) are certainly becoming more and more available in state waters as the stocks rebuild. The simultaneous closure of federal and state waters for this fishery is important for overall stock management, tracking of total landings, and for regulatory enforcement. Sea bass and fishermen move back and forth at will across the three mile line, so having two different sets of rules/r
Wildlife, I can’t thank you enough for taking the time and energy to follow through on this endeavor.
I found it rather humorous that DNR threw an inconspicuous jab right back at my post, after I modestly laid claim on the fact that I thought developing an elaborate ruse to ticket more fisherman was over their heads; “perhaps we have overestimated the fishing publics ability to get the points you made”… touche, DNR. Anyway, back to my argument.
I disagree with the declaration that there is no way they can keep up with the regulations because the dates are too volatile. It’s a website. Assuming they have an IT specialist, or even a basic web moderator available in their offices, updating a website should take around 10 minutes. If they expect the recreational fisherman to keep up with the rules, if they intend on enforcing them, they should have no issue with doing the same. The print issue can obviously not be recalled and edited, but the website should never once be out of date. It’s as simple an analogy as a flashing road marker denoting a construction zone on a roadway. It is the State’s responsibility to inform me that the speed limit on the route I take to work has now been reduced from 55 to 45. In no court would the state win a citation scuffle if warning was not given. Now, I don’t expect SC to buy airtime on the radio and post warnings at every boat landing informing me that the regulations in relation to BSB have been altered. We, as recreational fisherman, have a degree of responsibility in this as well. At minimum, I believe we should be under the basic requirement of referring to the Rules & Regs issue. I even think that the DNR website should stand alone as supreme legislature in our regards. The Rules & Regs printed pamphlet should refer us to the website for final word. The government wants to hold our hand? Let them! That’s the quickest avenue to exposing incompetance anyway. If they are doing their job and updating the current mandate, then they should have no problem defending a citation.
quote:I disagree with the declaration that there is no way they can keep up with the regulations because the dates are too volatile. It’s a website. Assuming they have an IT specialist, or even a basic web moderator available in their offices, updating a website should take around 10 minutes.[</font id=“size2”></font id=“maroon”>/quote]
You may have missed my point here, Salt Weapon. DNR cannot track the feds closures & quotas in a printed document like the annual rules and regs because the federal regs are dynamic and change often. SCDNR’s Annual Hunting & Fishing Rules & Regulations are mandated to be distributed on or before July 1 each year. If a federal closure ensues after that date, DNR cannot reprint the document as that would be cost prohibitive. My point to Mel Bell was to enhance and update the DNR web site to track the feds so that we anglers could have a source for the latest pertinent to our sport/species pursued.</font id=“size2”>
Here is what I answered to the post: </font id=“size2”>
quote:There is no possible way South Carolina could implement closures based on federal quotas on dates when those quotas are met…dates are too volatile.</font id=“size2”></font id=“maroon”></font id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”>
This was my statement to Mel,: </font id=“size2”>[quote]Its my thought that with the volatility of this subject, the H&F Rules & Regs might asterisk black sea bass and other species affected referring folks to track the feds for the latest information. Perhaps a special button or link on the DNR web site to current status might h
Wildlife, I understand the reiterated points you referred to. I’m glad that something might actually be accomplished because of this. I’m relieved that you comprehend the issue that I was attempting to shed light on. Action needed to be taken, and initially I was simply searching for an answer… maybe through our banter we’ve accomplished something larger. How cool would it be to see an asterisk next to BSB on the online regulation knowing that this forum grossly contributed to it’s advent? It’s a small win, but a necessary one.
Thanks again for relaying the issue at hand to those who make the decisions. If there, at anytime, rises a circumstance to voice concern or frustration with the way in which SC stands alone by running a peer-controlled DNR… please let me know. I think someone like myself would be beneficial for our side to fight for what’s right. It’s ludicrous that the state towers over a department in such a way, and I would love to stand up for it given the opportunity. Indeed, a delicate balance it is. I appreciate your benevolence in this, and it’s been a pleasure!
Aye Bo… whatchu think bout dem black sea bass thingmajiggers? We loud to keep them sumbeeches ur not? Dey said dey was closed way out der in the ocean, but how bout round dees parts? I’s thinking they be mighty fine in the oil, but I just can’t decide if theys legal ur not, know wutta mean? I reckon somebody arta make dem rules a bit clearer, if it wuz me. Heck we arta be able to catch any dern fish we see! That there government, they’s prolly the dern ones who made it so confusin to begin with, huh? Shooooo weee. Anyways, Yall behave our der. GO Cats yeeee haw!
Really want to stir the pot, ask why the commercial and recreational size limits aren’t the same! You think it would be bigger for commercial since they get out there all the time, but for some reason, their limit is 2" less…
Thanks