TO AMEND SECTION 50-5-15, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, SO AS TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION FOR THE TERM “SOUTHERN COBIA MANAGEMENT ZONE”; AND TO AMEND SECTION 50-5-2730, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CERTAIN FEDERAL FISHING REGULATIONS
‘Southern Cobia Management Zone’ means all waters of this State south of 032° 31.0 N latitude, the approximate latitude of Jeremy Inlet, Edisto Island."
(2) cobia (Rachycentron canadum) located in the Southern Cobia Management Zone. Subject to the size limit established by federal regulation, possession</font id=“red”> of cobia caught in the Southern Cobia Management Zone is limited to one person per day, and no more than three per boat per day, from June 1 to April 30.</font id=“red”>It is unlawful to take and possess cobia in the Southern Cobia Management Zone from May 1 to May 31</font id=“red”>, and at any time federal regulations provide for the closure of the recreational cobia season in the waters of the South Atlantic Ocean."
SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
Thanks for all the clarity Jim but the law reads as it does. Now don’t get me wrong, we are on the same side on protecting the Cobia population in the Broad. My beef is with the bill and its wording. Why didn’t it say "take and posses cobia"CAUGHT “in the Southern Cobia Management Zone from May 1 to May 31”. As I stated, the DNR gentleman at the Charleston Boat Show said it was intentional . For the record, Ive never caught or fished for cobia in the broad river nor do I ever plan to. And as an individual with a doctorate and and a biology degree, I know that the wording was VERY intentional in a bill such as this. Good luck and as the good senator stated, “Ultimately this will come down to the experience and training of the DNR law enforcement officer - and the courts if the accused believes a mistake was made”.
Thanks for all the clarity Jim but the law reads as it does. Now don’t get me wrong, we are on the same side on protecting the Cobia population in the Broad. My beef is with the bill and its wording. Why didn’t it say "take and posses cobia"CAUGHT “in the Southern Cobia Management Zone from May 1 to May 31”.
Tridog, as a lawyer and interpreter of legalese, I can tell you that as written the law says what you want it to say. Using “and” rather than “or” means it will be interpreted as making it illegal only to catch AND possess. This allows you to catch a Cobia in PRS, and to possess one caught elsewhere as you travel through.
All things being equal, I would rather be on the water.
It sounds like a good management plan to me. I wish all other game and fish management plans made as much sense. I’ll grant that perhaps the legalese could have been worded more clearly, but to protect spawning females for 30 out of 365 days seems pretty reasonable to me.
Regarding whether this law is set up to entrap fishermen catching cobia in federal waters, then subsequently traveling through state waters on the way back in: The burden of proof is on the state. Most fishermen traveling to fish in federal waters have the means to electronically document that they were in federal waters. That doesn’t prove where they might have caught a cobia, but they don’t have to prove it. It is evidence that they were in federal waters though. The state has to prove that they caught the cobia in a protected zone to gain a conviction. That will be very difficult if the accused fisherman can document that he was in federal waters on the day of the citation.
Tridogs…in many/most instances, the SC Code of Laws Title 50 stays away from “catch” “caught” and other such terms in favor of “take” and so on. As danluginbill says, there was no intent to prevent catch and release within the special management zone as outlined. Ask any DNR officer and he/she will tell you they will not make a case unless they witness the act of take and possess within the SMZ.
I have discussed this at length with DNR from Director Alvin Taylor and Director of DNR Law Enforcement Col. Chisolm Frampton, down through the ranks to the line officers who will be patrolling the SMZ. Almost all are either friends or at least acquaintances of mine…and I can assure you in that circle, there is no officer poised ready to make a case against person transporting a legally-caught cobia through the SMZ. As stated before, DNR will likely issue warnings since there is so little time to notify the general population of the new law within the SMZ…except in cases of willful ignoring the law.
Thanks for following up Jim. Maybe the DNR gentleman I spoke with at the Charleston Boat show spoke out of turn. He did appear very young. I have family flying in to town late may and they want to fish for cobia out at the towers like we did last year.
its not a fishing pressure issue there are no cobia in the broad there hasn’t been bait the last few years either fisherman cant be wiping them out because no one is fishing for them SCDNR shouldn’t target fisherman on this issue if we weren’t funding the hatchery cobia would have been gone years ago
DNR is in process of posting the new regs at landings, etc. They’ve assured me they will write warnings unless they suspect blatant disregard or, of course, you goes out and gets your butt caught twice or more…lol.
Go point on burden of proof. I should point out that if you snap a pic with and iPhone, it gives lat/long coordinates of where the picture was taken along with a lot of other metadata. pretty good way to prove where you caught the fish.
All things being equal, I would rather be on the water.