Naples Pier banning all Treble hooks....Idiocy

NaplesYakster

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2014/apr/02/for-the-pelicans-city-council-bans-treble-hooks/

Only good fishing left at the pier invloves treble hooks and jigs (pompano, mackerel, etc)

cpr

Over pelicans, you got to be kidding me.

NaplesYakster

cpr wrote: »

Over pelicans, you got to be kidding me.

Welcome to the new Florida. I know we all come from all over and very few can call themselves natives but this is typical of the way localities are run up in the northeast. Making mountains out of molehills. Just wait till the bastards start writing these $500 fines to tourists who have no idea about how "deadly" treble hooks can be . Naples reputation plummet even more.

topwater

not getting into the reason for the ruling, but jigs and artificials still work with single hooks. the rigging is a pain in the *** since tackle manufacturers never include singles on jigs (even in areas that require single barbless like salmon fishing in washington state) but you will still be able to fish jigs if you so desire.

Turner River Terror

A guy snached a Tourist Gal in a boat last week with a Plug.
Yep , the boat should not have been right up to the Pier but that's all it took after the Nature Conservtory Pelican Folks crying was a Babe with a Zara Spook hanging from her arm...Bam. Shut it down.

rbmount

my question is- can a city law override a state law?

snookaffinity

In general, unless the state statute says it is ineffective if in conflict with any city ordinance, then the state statute has precedence and would invalidate the city ordinance.

[email protected] Special

snookaffinity wrote: »

In general, unless the state statute says it is ineffective if in conflict with any city ordinance, then the state statute has precedence and would invalidate the city ordinance.

Not true, a city can make any restrictions they want on a city owned and built pier as long as Ste regs aren't more restrictive. They ban shark fishing don't they????

snookaffinity

What I said is true. There are exceptions. I was speaking generally.

Generally, state statutes and state constitutions regulate the power of a city to enact ordinances. Usually city ordinances that directly conflict with a state statute are not allowed. In other words, state statute usually “preempts” cities from enacting ordinances that are in direct contradiction to the state law.

A recent Attorney General Opinion states: "The principle that a municipal ordinance is inferior to state law remains undisturbed. Although legislation may be concurrent, enacted by both state and local governments in areas not preempted by the state, concurrent legislation enacted by municipalities may not conflict with state law. If conflict arises, state law prevails. An ordinance which supplements a statute's restriction of rights may coexist with that statute, whereas an ordinance which countermands rights provided by statute must fail.

An example of non-restrictive statute:
After establishing a comprehensive scheme for prohibiting and punishing the dumping of litter, the statute provides that "[t]his section does not limit the authority of any state or local agency to enforce other laws, rules, or ordinances relating to litter or solid waste management."[8] Thus, the Florida Litter Law would not preempt the adoption or enforcement of local litter ordinances.

Darcy

snookaffinity wrote: »

What I said is true. There are exceptions. I was speaking generally.

Generally, state statutes and state constitutions regulate the power of a city to enact ordinances. Usually city ordinances that directly conflict with a state statute are not allowed. In other words, state statute usually “preempts” cities from enacting ordinances that are in direct contradiction to the state law.

A recent Attorney General Opinion states: "The principle that a municipal ordinance is inferior to state law remains undisturbed. Although legislation may be concurrent, enacted by both state and local governments in areas not preempted by the state, concurrent legislation enacted by municipalities may not conflict with state law. If conflict arises, state law prevails. An ordinance which supplements a statute's restriction of rights may coexist with that statute, whereas an ordinance which countermands rights provided by statute must fail.

An example of non-restrictive statute:
After establishing a comprehensive scheme for prohibiting and punishing the dumping of litter, the statute provides that "[t]his section does not limit the authority of any state or local agency to enforce other laws, rules, or ordinances relating to litter or solid waste management."[8] Thus, the Florida Litter Law would not preempt the adoption or enforcement of local litter ordinances.

Thers a litter law. ? Lol

NaplesYakster

Lol. Don't expect the state to lift a finger to make fishing more enjoyable especially with no "gain" in it for them.
Perceptions and Impressions are the only thing that seems to matter in this "plastic aritificial" rich downtown Naples.
Unfortunately, more and more seasonal rich people moving here are of the more bleeding heart camp vs some of the seasonal folk who are sportsmen.
It was a no brainer for the city council to vote for this,.

NaplesYakster

[email protected] Special wrote: »

Not true, a city can make any restrictions they want on a city owned and built pier as long as Ste regs aren't more restrictive. They ban shark fishing don't they????

Exactly true Ron. In fact, shark fishing was tolerated on the pier when it was done quietly and more of incidental catches as long as they were not brought up onto the pier. Then arrived some foul mouthed, disrespectful teens (not all of them though) and a few arrests or near arrests were made and now the pier guards usually wind up calling the cops when someone challenges them.

Same will happen with the treble hook deal. They'll tolerate for a while and then another tourist will get hooked and it'll be all over.

Tarpon20

Being born and raised in Naples and fishing the pier regularly my whole life its sad to see it the way it is now. Who cares about the treble hooks, you don't need them. Its not been the same since the state put a max slot on snook, when I was younger there were a group of older guys who only fished for big snook and my friends and I actually learned a great deal from them. They taught us how to wrap wire correctly, what baits were preferred depending on time, current, water clarity and so on. We spent every day of our summer hanging mackerel, threads and ladyfish straight down fishing for big snook. I caught my first snook over 20lbs when I was around 13 years old late at night on a ladyfish. The guys on the pier have no clue these days, mackerel, sharks, and jewfish are all trash and thats about all thats fished for now. Anybody can get a pink banana jig and catch pompano and mackerel and throw cut bait on the bottom for sharks. The kids down there now look up to clowns who think they know how to fish. Im calling it now that within a few years these types will have the pier closed from sunset to sunrise. Also shark fishing is not incidental when your using mono over 100lb or heavy wire with a jack carcass on the bottom, anything else that eats it would be incidental.

pjstevko

I was on the pier yesterday and asked the "pier attendant" about the new law and he stated it is being enforced as of last week. I also asked if there was a public meeting for the public to voice their concerns and he said there was but could not tell me the date the meeting was held. He stated that most people are just cutting off two of the hooks off their treble hooks to become compliant and he even carries around dykes in case no one knew about the new law.

I asked if I would be within the new law if I only removed one of the hooks off my treble hook since the defination of treble hook is three points, he said he didn't know the answer but wouldn't be surprised if I got a ticket for trying that "trick".

snookaffinity

I just read the ordinance. It prohibits the use of any lure or bait with two or more hooks sharing a single shank.

pjstevko

snookaffinity wrote: »

I just read the ordinance. It prohibits the use of any lure or bait with two or more hooks sharing a single shank.

Thanks for that sharing that info, that clears that up....