Ain’t gonna worry about these @ssclowns,they have agendas and personal reasons for picking the areas they close down…I would be willing to bet when we find who,what and why everyone is gonna schiet they britches.
The Feds have no law enforcement on these closing issues. They pay OUR DNR to do the enforcing. I’ve lost all respect for SCDNR management. There is simply no legitimate reason for our officers to go outside our state waters.
quote:There is also something here that is very dangerous to the MPA agenda... If you think about it, these 2 secret reefs actually PROVE a viable alternative to MPA's. Thus, as you are alluding to, if we create several more secret reefs, there is absolutely ZERO argument for having an MPA. It's because a phenomenon that ALL FISHERMAN understand as a BASIC PREMISE, that is "secrecy IS access control"... In other words, the fewer people that know about a spot, the less attention and fishing pressure it receives, the more it will thrive. SCDNR has PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt that secret reefs work, and this research implies that these are just as (if not MORE EFFECTIVE than MPAs)... They are rich with life RIGHT NOW... The are RICH with life NOT because they are MPAs, but because they are secret.
Originally posted by Island Boyquote:
Originally posted by natureboyThe DNR created these spots with OUR MONEY!!! and now we cant fish that in which we’re invested
If the reefs dnr created have become so productive that safmc needs to protect them… then safmc needs to build more reefs.
If you want more corn then plant more corn.
-Albemarle 248xf “Chella”
-Dolphin 18BC Pro
-Miscellaneous boats
However, let’s look into the future a bit and assume that these reefs do make it now into the realm of FEDERAL ‘no fishing zones’ which is what an MPA is. Let’s assume 5 years has passed after they are converted into MPAs. This is the double whammy… SAFMC will use Area 51\53 as a success story of MPAs. They will claim that they are productive BECAUSE they are MPAs. They will use them a
Another thing to remember… These reefs were created with STATE TAXPAYER MONEY and are proposed to be made into FEDERAL NO FISHING ZONES…
If the federal government wants to make FEDERAL no fishing zones, then let them put their</font id=“red”> money (not OURS!) where their mouth is… They’ve already zoned the “Charleston Deep Reef” that’s like 6 square miles (if memory serves me correctly). Use some of their (NOAA\NMFS) BILLION dollar a year budget to fill it up with “stuff”. They can do all of the reef building they want out there. There is no need to STEAL from the state.
And these environmentalist groups like PEW… Last I heard, PEW was sitting on a 4 BILLION dollar grant. If they care about fish so much, let them donate to the “Charleston Deep Reef”… Their checking account gets a million dollars in interest while the founder is taking a dump… There is absolutely ZERO reason why they can’t do their own reef building efforts. But they don’t, because they know they can STEAL from us…
And people Wonder why I like making red snapper ceviche while I’m fishing. The SAFMC can go fornicate with themselves. I have zero respect for anybody on the board. I will no longer assist with any data collection for SCDNR or will I do any Creel surveys at the landing. Time to break out the Jolly Roger.
.
PROUD YANKEE
Oyster Baron
NMFS = No More Fishing Season
“Back home we got a taxidermy man. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him”
I just want to point out that the SAFMC and NOAA have designated nearly all SC artificial reefs as SMZs at the request of SCDNR.
Here’s the list:
www.safmc.net/Library/FEP/AppendBFEPVolISAFMCManagedAreasJan2609.pdf
The main reason was to restrict commercial harvest on the reefs to the bag limit since the reefs were constructed for the purpose of enhancing recreational fishing.
It’s my understanding that Area 51 was constructed in 1998 for $55,000. I’m not sure of the source of the funding. Area 53 was constructed in 2003 for $48,000. The SAFMC provided 75% of the funding.
I hope this information is helpful.
Tom Swatzel
Executive Director
Council for Sustainable Fishing
www.Sustainablefishing.org
Tom, it is true that all reefs are “SMZ” which carry gear restrictions and NO COMMERCIAL fishing, but in this latest iteration, the “SPAWNING SMZ” is marked as NO RECREATIONAL FISHING. This is the way I read it. It’s unfortunate that we are not calling the new zones what they really are -MPA. This feels like trickery.
The spawning SMZs have the same bottom fishing prohibitions on all sectors as the MPAs.
Tom Swatzel
Executive Director
Council for Sustainable Fishing
www.Sustainablefishing.org
quote:Thanks for the clarification. This is what I suspected. The label "SMZ" is being used because it's not as offensive as the derogatory label "MPA". Unfortunately, when the government says, "All artificial reefs are already SMZs", this is VERY MISLEADING... This is NOT "business as usual". As you mention, the new SMZs are CLOSED TO RECREATIONAL fishermen, whereas the existing "SMZ" are not. Thus the new "Spawning SMZ" is identical to an MPA, and a LOT different than the "SMZ" designation on the other 40+ artificial reefs in SC.
Originally posted by CFSFThe spawning SMZs have the same bottom fishing prohibitions on all sectors as the MPAs.
Tom Swatzel
Executive Director
Council for Sustainable Fishing
www.Sustainablefishing.org
I fully expect the Council to completely ignore the fishermen, (the only ones that see what’s really happening out there) and grow their closed areas by expanding the ones they have. The next step will be complete MPA’s - no take bottom or trolling. Past performance is a good predictor of future events.
quote:
Originally posted by skinneejquote:Thanks for the clarification. This is what I suspected. The label "SMZ" is being used because it's not as offensive as the derogatory label "MPA". Unfortunately, when the government says, "All artificial reefs are already SMZs", this is VERY MISLEADING... This is NOT "business as usual". As you mention, the new SMZs are CLOSED TO RECREATIONAL fishermen, whereas the existing "SMZ" are not. Thus the new "Spawning SMZ" is identical to an MPA, and a LOT different than the "SMZ" designation on the other 40+ artificial reefs in SC.
Originally posted by CFSFThe spawning SMZs have the same bottom fishing prohibitions on all sectors as the MPAs.
Tom Swatzel
Executive Director
Council for Sustainable Fishing
www.Sustainablefishing.org
quote:
Originally posted by sellsfishAnd people Wonder why I like making red snapper ceviche while I’m fishing. The SAFMC can go fornicate with themselves. I have zero respect for anybody on the board. I will no longer assist with any data collection for SCDNR or will I do any Creel surveys at the landing. Time to break out the Jolly Roger.
.
PROUD YANKEEOyster Baron
NMFS = No More Fishing Season
“Back home we got a taxidermy man. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him”
Couldn’t have said it better myself… Screw em!