So where can we read the scientific data by which Rep. Goldfinch used to draft this amendment to 50-5-1705???
Look, I understand that we need catch limits even though I do not fish for or eat the species identified in this issue. I’m just saying that more enforcement of the laws that we already have would go farther than writing new laws. More officers on the water to check for out of date registrations would eliminate 1/3 of the “spot fleet” immediately.
And FWIW not everyone can escape the obamacare disaster just by paying their premium every month. I had a personal policy for 8 yrs and last october I recieved a letter from my carrier stating they were closing up shop (due to new regulations). I was forced to go purchase a new policy @ almost double the cost and about 1/2 of the coverage.
And no, I dont want you to “kiss my big ole butt”.
kiss my big ole butt…and don’t do me any more favors.
Intelligent retort, I see why you spot and whiting fish.
Mark
Pioneer 222 Sportfish Yamaha F300
Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal? I wouldn’t go so far as to call a dog filthy but they’re definitely dirty. But, a dog’s got personality. Personality goes a long way.
“Life’s tough…It’s even tougher if you’re stupid” John Wayne
So where can we read the scientific data by which Rep. Goldfinch used to draft this amendment to 50-5-1705???
</font id=“quote”></blockquote id=“quote”>
Don’t know, why don’t you ask him. He goes by Yellowbird on here and his office is right off the bypass in MI.
Mark
Pioneer 222 Sportfish Yamaha F300
Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal? I wouldn’t go so far as to call a dog filthy but they’re definitely dirty. But, a dog’s got personality. Personality goes a long way.
“Life’s tough…It’s even tougher if you’re stupid” John Wayne
look…We’ve gotten WAY off track here. And I’ll take my share of the blame for that. I have no problem with limits where warranted. But I have not seen one shred of evidence that the recreational catch of these fish in the waters of SC has ANY impact on the sustainability of the resource. THAT’s what I have a problem with. just creating a new law and new regulations because it sounds good to some, is not a step forward.
Show me the evidence, and I may be all for it. Doubt he can do it.
look…We’ve gotten WAY off track here. And I’ll take my share of the blame for that. I have no problem with limits where warranted. But I have not seen one shred of evidence that the recreational catch of these fish in the waters of SC has ANY impact on the sustainability of the resource. THAT’s what I have a problem with. just creating a new law and new regulations because it sounds good to some, is not a step forward.
Show me the evidence, and I may be all for it. Doubt he can do it.
As I said, ask him. Met the man once, didn’t know me from Adam and loaned me his metal detector to find something. Seems to be a pretty stand up person, I’m sure he’ll make every bit of data he has available to you for the decision. He’s been very active on here in the fight of the SAFMC and other fishing rights.
Mark
Pioneer 222 Sportfish Yamaha F300
Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal? I wouldn’t go so far as to call a dog filthy but they’re definitely dirty. But, a dog’s got personality. Personality goes a long way.
“Life’s tough…It’s even tougher if you’re stupid” John Wayne
I’m sure he’s read this. but he should have presented that data, if he has it, in the Sun News article they did on this, instead of the flippant remarks that X# of fish is enough. That’s why I doubt he has it.
This bill was originally proposed by DNR with a limit of 40 in order for the state to comply with the ASMFC management plan for these species, particularly spot which it is my understanding are at an all time low and if trends don’t improve could be shut down entirely coast wide sort of like weakfish but worse. BRDs (Bycatch Reduction Devices) in shrimp nets have significantly reduce, although not eliminated, bycatch of these species. There were public hearings held in the state about a year and a half ago explaining the situation,guess ya’ll missed them. ASMFC also oversees the management of about 20 other species that are harvested primarily state vs. federal waters.
This is all fine and dandy, but it won’t really matter to us until North Carolina stops the inshore trawling. I am still for us reducing the daily flounder bag. 20 fish per angler is a lot of flatties, even though most can never catch that many in a season. As for Rep. Stephen Goldfinch, he is a very good man and one who will do what it takes to sustain the fisher for everyone, as he is a fisherman himself, and he does not want to do anything to hurt the recreational or commercial fishing opportunities here in SC. He goes by yellabird on here, and he will be happy to talk to you about the issue. Rep. Goldfinch is a very intelligent man, who does think critically on the issues he votes on whether they are big or small to each individual person. I can personally attest to his best interest for Georgetown, Charleston and the rest of SC. I wish he could help NC, though, because there is the actual root of the shortage of spots, whiting and croaker compared to many years in the past because of the inshore trawling. That is a sad, sad situation up there. One more thing is that I too wish the flounder bag was reduced. Few will ever catch a limit in a day, but the MI and Pawleys limits have helped already. Look at the catches this year compared to the past. Good Lord it would help up in LR and Cherry Grove. But, toddn, talk to Rep. Goldfinch. I am sure you will be pleasantly surprised at his answers to your questions.
Just as an additional update. Effective July 1, 2014 the new flounder limit (all species combined) in SC is 15 per person/30 per boat max. So load the boat up with kids but you can still only keep 30.
I’m all for flounder regs personally. If I fish alone I will seldom take home more than five fish unless I have someone wanting some fresh fish. Five nice sized flounder is a pile of meat. If we fish a small group we only keep what we think is enough for the group and their families. I personally like it more geared towards the gigging crowd who I see doing the most damage to the flounder population. I’ve caught twenty flounder in a day on several occasions but I don’t think I’ve ever hook and lined twenty keepers in one day. The bag can def be lowered.
Oh, I agree, John boy. There have been days of 50+, especially in early May, but there it’s usually a 1:10 keep to short ratio at best. I’m glad there is a 15 per person limit now. I didn’t know that. Again, on the flounder, if you look up in NC, the pound netters and gill netters have a huge negative impact, but some say it is their livelihood, and I don’t know for sure, but I do know that the gill nets do not discriminate and many redfish, trout and flounder are killed by them and have to be discarded as bycatch. Pretty sad.
The days of keeping every fish you catch are gone. While we may not agree(I don’t in many cases), we should realize that catch limits are the first knee-jerk reaction. If you don’t like it, then exercise your rights and voice opposition…that’s the only way things will change.
IMHO, 50 whiting a day is plenty.
“Never argue with an idiot…he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.”
50 whiting/spots/croaker are plenty for a lifetime. If there is scientific evidence that the population is in decline…Regulate them!!! I know some folks are upset about the limit of 50 but the number isnt the issue.
Im trying to say that I think its absurd to pass more regs when the state doesnt have enough manpower to enforce the laws we have!!! I grew up in Surfside and have fished Murrells Inlet as long as I can remember. Between the addition of more rental jet-skis, Kayaks, paddleboards, pontoon boats, etc. and the seemingly growing number of morons, MI is Out of Control on the weekends. DNR needs at least 1 boat on the water and one officer at the ramp every weekend from memorial day to labor day.
Toddn, I’ll be more than happy to discuss this with you, but would prefer to do it over the phone or in person. We lose lots of nuances over forums that are important to the conversation. I will say this for those following this thread: The limit isn’t 50 per boat, but is instead 50 per person, with NO boat limit. If you have 4 people on a boat, that’s 200 spot. CCA was the impetus behind this push and DNR supported it. This is not some non-sensical SAFMC environmentalist babble. This is state (not federal) sponsored smart legislation. If you wanted the feds to impose their draconian rules on SC, all we had to do is nothing. Remember that Spot migrate. Fish with no limits are asking for SAFMC intervention and a fight, that quite frankly, we can’t win. Yes, I did propose a year around BSB season, as a means of testing a Constitutional question over federalism and state’s rights. We won that battle, and I hope, that will give us precedent to win another. But don’t ever believe that the feds aren’t trying to grab these powers from SC. I was voted into office to make difficult decisions, and in my opinion, 200 spot IS ENOUGH when you’re other option is a potentially closed season via SAFMC and the Feds. If I’ve lost your vote over this, your other option is an Democrat artist, that in all likelihood loves what the federal government is doing with your fishery. I actually fish…a lot. Good luck with her.
I will retract most of my former comments. I did not articulate my position very well, and I take all the blame for that. but it does irritate me to see ANY restrictions on the recreational anglers in SC that will not make any difference whatsoever in the sustainability of these fish. I am not against commercial fishing AT ALL, but our measly recreational catch here does not amount to a drop in the bucket to the catches that take place in our northern neighbors waters. Until that is addressed, recreational catch limits are a waste of time.