Thanks Fogman I have a trip scheduled for three days in September and wanted to stay on top of it.
I am fine with the new rule except for June and September. I was catching fish schooling on June 26th and I am almost positive all of those fish swam away and lived. I also catch a lot of striper at the end of August on freelines when the surface starts to cool. Since the striper club was the driving force behind this rule could you try and get them to keep it for July and August only?
Wellcraft V-20 sportfish with a 200 Evinrude
quote:
Originally posted by steelytomI am fine with the new rule except for June and September. I was catching fish schooling on June 26th and I am almost positive all of those fish swam away and lived. I also catch a lot of striper at the end of August on freelines when the surface starts to cool. Since the striper club was the driving force behind this rule could you try and get them to keep it for July and August only?
Steely,
I beleive that would be an excellent topic for the MSC club to evaluate and see if it would be possible to lobby the DNR to amend the rule later… I don’t know how likely that would be or how much trouble. If memory serves me correctly, MSC and most of the members of a panel they put together to propose this rule were in favor of July/August. It was the urging of striper guides (one in particular) that swayed the DNR to propose the rule for June and September as well. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.Wellcraft V-20 sportfish with a 200 Evinrude
Actually, September was originally included, because that is the month in which records showed the highest frequency of heat stress-related die-offs occurred.
In addition, the rule has just been implemented. It is much too early to lobby DNR to change it. DNR will be conducting creel & net surveys to determine the law’s effect on the lake’s striper population. I would expect a minimum of 3 years before they might react. In the meantime, a legislator might be convinced to strike the month of June prior to any study results, but it’s unlikely.
Unfortunately, DNR cannot set nor rescind regulations. Only the SC legislature can do that. I believe S.C. now is one of the last two, or possibly the very last state where lawmakers make the regulations, not the state certified fishery & game biologists. Another reason to lobby for DNR to get state-wide regulatory authority.
Thanks for setting me straight on that Jim.
Now your point about taking the authority away from the legislature and giving it to the DNR biologists where it belongs is something we could really get behind. Not just for the striper fishing, but for all hunting and fishing regulations.
quote:
Originally posted by wildlifescUnfortunately, DNR cannot set nor rescind regulations. Only the SC legislature can do that. I believe S.C. now is one of the last two, or possibly the very last state where lawmakers make the regulations, not the state certified fishery & game biologists. Another reason to lobby for DNR to get state-wide regulatory authority.
Have we, as a club, ever made an attempt a getting that changed? Entrusting the legislature with fisheries management is ludicrous.
So I finally sat down and actually read through the law. I have to say, I’m inclined to think JimIslander’s point is really persuasive. When I first saw his post, I thought perhaps that definition was restricted to a different chapter or otherwise was inapplicable. However, the law clearly applies this definition to all of Chapter 13 and defines “take” as follows: ‘Take’ means to catch, capture, gather, wound, kill, harvest, or remove, but does not include a catch and immediate release.
The prohibition against fishing for more than five stripers is: “On Lake Murray and the middle reach of the Saluda River it is unlawful to possess more than five striped bass a day. From June first through September thirtieth, it is unlawful to take, attempt to take, or possess more than five striped bass a day.”
The whole issue turns on what it means to “attempt to take” a fish. DNR claims this basically means fishing for them – what a layperson would think “attempt to take” means. However, the statute clearly defines “take” as not including a catch and immediate release.
Under the plain language of the statute “take” does not include a catch and immediate release. Thus, you cannot violate the “attempt to take” language unless you are trying to do something other than catch and immediately release.
However, I don’t think DNR is not without some arguments.
1)It seems like their interpretation fits clearly within the intention of the law. While I don’t think the law as written is exactly what they meant, I think the DNR interpretation better carries out the intent of the statute. Again though, is that enough to overcome the plain language?
-
You could make an argument that “attempt to take” is itself a specific term which is NOT defined. “Attempt to take” is thus left undefined and falls to the common understanding. This would completely fly in the face of tons of other statutes (criminal law, for example) so I doubt this would fly. But I guess this argument could be made.
-
There is a presumption that
Just so everyone knows: SCDNR has already won an “attempt to take” case. So, y’all can speculate and hypothesize as much as you want but, in the end, the legislation has been tested and validated. If you choose to do your own test, please let us know how it goes.
edited to add: Don’t forget that a Striped Bass violation carries a 14 point hit to your fishing / hunting license.
quote:Jack, No we have not. I have discussed this with DNR folks and it is going to take a grassroots effort from the citizens of the state to wrest the power and authority away from the Legislature. I wish that I had the bandwidth to get in front of every fishing and hunting club in the state and pitch this effort. Perhaps, as a club, we can start a petition drive and have our members reach out to other sportsmen and outdoor recreation organizations to bring the initiative to a vote in the future. I am open to any and all ideas to help put the authority with the folks that have their finger on the pulse of the natural resources of SC.
Originally posted by crabjackquote:
Originally posted by wildlifescUnfortunately, DNR cannot set nor rescind regulations. Only the SC legislature can do that. I believe S.C. now is one of the last two, or possibly the very last state where lawmakers make the regulations, not the state certified fishery & game biologists. Another reason to lobby for DNR to get state-wide regulatory authority.
Have we, as a club, ever made an attempt a getting that changed? Entrusting the legislature with fisheries management is ludicrous.
quote:
Originally posted by dernflatlanderJust so everyone knows: SCDNR has already won an “attempt to take” case. So, y’all can speculate and hypothesize as much as you want but, in the end, the legislation has been tested and validated. If you choose to do your own test, please let us know how it goes.
edited to add: Don’t forget that a Striped Bass violation carries a 14 point hit to your fishing / hunting license.
Just because I’m curious, what case was it? I’d like to read it.
For the record, I hope DNR wins just because it is clear what the law meant to be. But I would also like to see future game and fish (and really all) laws drafted more effectively.
Don’t know case #. It was stressed at Tuesday night’s MSC breifing. I don’t have time to search for it now.
quote:
For the record, I hope DNR wins just because it is clear what the law meant to be. But I would also like to see future game and fish (and really all) laws drafted more effectively.
The ONLY way to get game & fish laws drafted more effectively is to have the professionals at DNR do it like in almost every other state. Our legislators are very happy with the power they hold, and it will not be easy to wrest game & fish law authority away from them. Most professional “statehouse” folks say it will never happen. The only way is through us…the voters. Unfortunately, hunters & anglers are the minority and growing smaller each year. Other voters could give a tinker’s (**() about game and fish laws. Only an intense public education program on the benefits of modern natural resource regulation, coupled with a huge grass roots movement to give control to DNR would have any chance at all.
quote:Well, I'll I've got to say is: Let's GIT-R-DUN! If Florida can get enough petition signatures to get a constitutional referendum, and pass a ban on gill nets, I'm certain that South Carolina could generate enough support to put natural resource control where it belongs.
Originally posted by wildlifescquote:
For the record, I hope DNR wins just because it is clear what the law meant to be. But I would also like to see future game and fish (and really all) laws drafted more effectively.
The ONLY way to get game & fish laws drafted more effectively is to have the professionals at DNR do it like in almost every other state. Our legislators are very happy with the power they hold, and it will not be easy to wrest game & fish law authority away from them. Most professional “statehouse” folks say it will never happen. The only way is through us…the voters. Unfortunately, hunters & anglers are the minority and growing smaller each year. Other voters could give a tinker’s (**() about game and fish laws. Only an intense public education program on the benefits of modern natural resource regulation, coupled with a huge grass roots movement to give control to DNR would have any chance at all.
If anybody knows how to find the “attempt to take” case please post it or PM me. I’ve searched the judicial opinions and the ALJ decisions and haven’t turned up anything.
I don’t know how many members of the interweb debate team you’ll find with this group, especially since we’ve endorsed the management plan for Lake Murray. I do not know which case was referred to at the meeting, but I know of a case that was made on the Saluda River during the closed period last year. Possibly that’s the one. I will not invest any of my time on the search.