SI North Jetty to close at night...

duckmanJR

As I said...just close it.
This is a key point...

At a minimum, how is the membership of the inlet district (property tax payers in this area of Brevard and Indian River County - http://www.sebastianinletdistrict.co...oundaryMap.pdf) given an opportunity to comment on those solutions prior to final vote on implementation?



The fact is....That *ONLY* residents of the district should be asked for their opinion....since it is their taxpayer dollars that will be impacted.

duckmanJR

Sushiwagon wrote: »

Duckman, I have a boat and normally fish offshore but my kids love to head to the inlet for a couple hours w.out the hassle of dragging the boat, cleaning it etc and fish. Your solution would screw a lot of folks that enjoy the great sport of fishing that dont have access to boats or just want a quick fix on their passion of fishing, myself included. Seems like an easy fix to me....if slinging sinkers is really punishable by up to 15 years in prison, find one of the idiot offenders and make an example and send him to prison see how quickly it stops!

That *sounds* plausible....but with almost 30 years in Law Enforcement...I can tell you with authority...it just does not work like that... You are talking spending large amounts of taxpayer dollars...tying up an already heavily burdened criminal justice system to prosecute...and than...the taxpayer pays for 15 years of being someones caretaker. NO THANK YOU!

Your children can fish miles of rocks..catwalks and beaches...or go thru "the hassel"...of launching the boat.

Occams razor.... The simplest solution...is usually the correct one.

Teej

duckmanJR wrote: »

As I said...just close it.
This is a key point...

At a minimum, how is the membership of the inlet district (property tax payers in this area of Brevard and Indian River County - http://www.sebastianinletdistrict.co...oundaryMap.pdf) given an opportunity to comment on those solutions prior to final vote on implementation?



The fact is....That *ONLY* residents of the district should be asked for their opinion....since it is their taxpayer dollars that will be impacted.

IMO, the property taxpayers are benefitting from the tourism that the fishing on the north jetty creates. That provides more dollars in sales tax revenue, bed tax for visitors and fishing license sales that directly fund the FWC. In short, local property owners pay less overall taxes than they would on their property because the jetty (or stadium or you name it attraction) supplements other tax dollars to go towards public services.

As well, IMO, the will of the property owners has likely evolved from when the charter to create the inlet was created that made the primary duty of Commission to ensure a navigable waterway for trade and commerce. Commerce at that time was likely commercial fishing, which is still important today but so is recreational fishing and the economic engine it fosters from both activities by boat and land.

In short, it may very well be likely that there are far more property owners that have an interest in the economics of the inlet and fishing from land around it. As well the public who frequents the area have a lot of local knowledge on what reactions or occurs when something related to it happens. In fishery terms, we call this effort shifting - close red snapper and folks fish for something else, they don't stop fishing. In the current situation, FWC has noted closing the jetty may shift people to the rocks - a more dangerous area (yet, possibly not the Inlet District's property/liability).

All of that is important stuff, again IMO. to wade through. In legal terms this is called "Scoping". You lay out the issue, the boundaries of the agencies involved a few mentioned solutions and you essentially give people an opportunity to provide their local knowledge to make the solution better. I understand that some government bodies prefer not doing things this elaborately (the federal way); even done properly, people often get the wrong idea that if they complain loud enough or with enough people their opinion wins the day.

We are a nation of laws AND we respect individual rights - combining those two for the public good is a challenging job.

duckmanJR

IMHO

Occams razor.... The simplest solution...is usually the correct one.

tunaman

This jetty is a proven hangout for picking up homosexuals, ask Duckman.

CountryBumpkin

I will make a prediction that the "final fix" for this will be to do what has been done in similar situations on bridges and catwalks in the state already.........when objects thrown from cars, etc. were becoming rampant.

Erect a very high barbed wire topped fence along the railing of the jetty that is facing the inlet.........leave the other side as is, and people can still fish the ocean side of the jetty.

Too bad that bad apples ruin it for everyone.........but the area has finally grown to "big city problems" and that is par for the course with how big cities handle it.

duckmanJR

CountryBumpkin wrote: »

I will make a prediction that the "final fix" for this will be to do what has been done in similar situations on bridges and catwalks in the state already.........when objects thrown from cars, etc. were becoming rampant.

Erect a very high barbed wire topped fence along the railing of the jetty that is facing the inlet.........leave the other side as is, and people can still fish the ocean side of the jetty.

Too bad that bad apples ruin it for everyone.........but the area has finally grown to "big city problems" and that is par for the course with how big cities handle it.

That might be viable....

mitziboy

duckmanJR wrote: »

That *sounds* plausible....but with almost 30 years in Law Enforcement...I can tell you with authority...it just does not work like that... You are talking spending large amounts of taxpayer dollars...tying up an already heavily burdened criminal justice system to prosecute...and than...the taxpayer pays for 15 years of being someones caretaker. NO THANK YOU!

Your children can fish miles of rocks..catwalks and beaches...or go thru "the hassel"...of launching the boat.

Occams razor.... The simplest solution...is usually the correct one.

I can guarantee you that someone launching a sinker into your boat would not get "15 years"... Pretty sure the charge would be shooting/throwing a deadly missle into occupied vehicle/vessel. They'd more than likely get off with a slap on the wrist with probation.

Remember quacky, I know the law just as good as you do :rotflmao

mitziboy

duckmanJR wrote: »

That *sounds* plausible....but with almost 30 years in Law Enforcement...I can tell you with authority...it just does not work like that... You are talking spending large amounts of taxpayer dollars...tying up an already heavily burdened criminal justice system to prosecute...and than...the taxpayer pays for 15 years of being someones caretaker. NO THANK YOU!

Your children can fish miles of rocks..catwalks and beaches...or go thru "the hassel"...of launching the boat.

Occams razor.... The simplest solution...is usually the correct one.

I can guarantee you that someone launching a sinker into your boat would not get "15 years"... Pretty sure the charge would be shooting/throwing a deadly missle into occupied vehicle/vessel. They'd more than likely get off with a slap on the wrist with probation.

Remember quacky, I know the law just as good as you do :rotflmao

mitziboy

Double post, he mad

sailfish2

Sounds like a bunch of women did the voting.

duckmanJR

mitziboy wrote: »

Double post, he mad

Very....

SouthFloridaAngler

Teej wrote: »

like people defecating on the jetty to claim fishing territory

Dude, I couldn't hold it any longer.

duckmanJR

Do they smear it on the rail? :rotflmao

saltybum

Kind of glad I live 30 miles north and no longer have the desire to drive down to the zoo. Plenty of snook in the surf all the way to Canaveral.

Osprey 225

I have been using the inlet for the last 30 years and this fisherman vs boater battle has been going on at least that long or longer. Don't know why only now is something being done,but I'm glad to see the issue brought out into the light.

duckmanJR

I like fishing in the river...so the only one I get mad at is the porpoises.

Teej

duckmanJR wrote: »

IMHO

Occams razor.... The simplest solution...is usually the correct one.

I get your turn on Occam's - among competing hypothesis (proposed solutions), the one with the fewest assumptions (simplest) should be selected. Yet, the true essence of Occam's is in relation to scientific study, that simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable; proving wrong an unlimited number of potential theories (complex solutions) rarely points to a scientific truth - there are just too many variables to link cause and affect.

Completely get your point though and in that light, it more likely means the government bodies will do as they are allowed - there may be no public or in the case of the Inlet District, stakeholder process at all. The Inlet District is an elected body of 5 commissioners - the electing of them is the public process. Once elected they are granted the power to make decisions related to the charge of office - like they did Wednesday night.

Personally, I prefer a more public process on the front end. It provides a level of transparency that decision makers are gathering information, weighing facts and gleaning a public statement of "rationale" for presentation at a mtg or on paper as to why they choose their final course of action. The process of developing the body of information for that rationale builds trust with the community being governed and it insulates the elected officials when accused of "winging it" on their own personal opinions or worse unknown, unseen, private lobbying.

Keep on Spoolin

Shutting down the jetty is a mistake, I hope everyone shows how they feel when it's time to pay to go there. I hate the fact someone got hurt, although punishing us all is a knee jerk reaction that I think should have had more thought put into it.

kodiakzach

duckmanJR wrote: »

I like fishing in the river...so the only one I get mad at is the porpoises.

I can understand why you want to see the jetty shut down. Must burn your old **** to launch that crappy boat of yours every day just to catch dink reds in the river, all the while the dudes on the jetty are poppin snook 3-5 times bigger than you.

Teej

kodiakzach wrote: »

I can understand why you want to see the jetty shut down. Must burn your old **** to launch that crappy boat of yours every day just to catch dink reds in the river, all the while the dudes on the jetty are poppin snook 3-5 times bigger than you.

While I TOTALLY DISAGREE with your post here, your previous bluefish post is funny as h***!!! Bah ha ha ha ha.....

"Take all Bluefish filets, and marinate in buttermilk. After marinating bluefish for 2 days take said fish and attach to cedar plank. Angle plank at 50 degs to low smoky fire and smoke for 8 hours. When fish is fork tender toss all of the bluefish in a garbage can and eat the plank.

Thats planked bluefish!"

Read more: http://forums.floridasportsman.com/showthread.php?229822-Charter-Tampa-Dunedin#ixzz4J8xTkI11

duckmanJR

Teej wrote: »

While I TOTALLY DISAGREE with your post here, your previous bluefish post is funny as h***!!! Bah ha ha ha ha.....

"Take all Bluefish filets, and marinate in buttermilk. After marinating bluefish for 2 days take said fish and attach to cedar plank. Angle plank at 50 degs to low smoky fire and smoke for 8 hours. When fish is fork tender toss all of the bluefish in a garbage can and eat the plank.

Thats planked bluefish!"

Read more: http://forums.floridasportsman.com/showthread.php?229822-Charter-Tampa-Dunedin#ixzz4J8xTkI11

Poor Zack is lashing out...I just pwned him on another forum and he is tantruming. :rotflmao

Ol'DirtyCaster

So I guess everybody's mad now? If this is the group that's going to be heard by the council, they'll shut it down for good. Betty Miller wants that. Her words "just temporary, for now".

duckmanJR

Teej wrote: »

I get your turn on Occam's - among competing hypothesis (proposed solutions), the one with the fewest assumptions (simplest) should be selected. Yet, the true essence of Occam's is in relation to scientific study, that simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable; proving wrong an unlimited number of potential theories (complex solutions) rarely points to a scientific truth - there are just too many variables to link cause and affect.

Completely get your point though and in that light, it more likely means the government bodies will do as they are allowed - there may be no public or in the case of the Inlet District, stakeholder process at all. The Inlet District is an elected body of 5 commissioners - the electing of them is the public process. Once elected they are granted the power to make decisions related to the charge of office - like they did Wednesday night.

Personally, I prefer a more public process on the front end. It provides a level of transparency that decision makers are gathering information, weighing facts and gleaning a public statement of "rationale" for presentation at a mtg or on paper as to why they choose their final course of action. The process of developing the body of information for that rationale builds trust with the community being governed and it insulates the elected officials when accused of "winging it" on their own personal opinions or worse unknown, unseen, private lobbying.

I understand that my use of Occams is in a more figurative sense. But you did understand that.

I agree that it should be scoped and solution vetted...but I understand the districts feeling and concerns.

Regardless of the solution that is decided on...someone will always feel their ox is getting gored...that is human nature.

duckmanJR

Ol'DirtyCaster wrote: »

So I guess everybody's mad now? If this is the group that's going to be heard by the council, they'll shut it down for good. Betty Miller wants that. Her words "just temporary, for now".

Not mad at all... I understand that nobody like anything "taken away"....and understand the districts untenable position if they do not act.

Teej

duckmanJR wrote: »

I understand that my use of Occams is in a more figurative sense. But you did understand that.

I agree that it should be scoped and solution vetted...but I understand the districts feeling and concerns.

Regardless of the solution that is decided on...someone will always feel their ox is getting gored...that is human nature.

:thumbsup

Net 30

Wonder why they only closed it for night fishing? I've seen just as many jackwads doing crap and slinging sinkers in the daytime as night.

Just one more example of the fishing in Florida swirling round & round the bowl and going down the crapper.

:stinkfish

vincent vega

Keep on Spoolin wrote: »

Shutting down the jetty is a mistake, I hope everyone shows how they feel when it's time to pay to go there. I hate the fact someone got hurt, although punishing us all is a knee jerk reaction that I think should have had more thought put into it.

This is not a knee jerk reaction. This stuff has been going on ever since I started fishing the inlet 25 years ago. I ve had bucktails, leads, plugs etc thrown at my boat on numerous occasions. Back when the filet table trees were still there I had a couple guys get mad at me for drifting through catching fish in the same area they were fishing. They started throwing bucktails at me and I expressed my displeasure and left to avoid injury. I headed back to the ramp to leave and they came out from hiding in the bushes and tried to ambush me. Fortunately I saw them in time and backed the boat hard away. Told them I called the police and they left long enough for me to load up and leave.

saltyreefer

I don't see a fix, especially at the tip of the jetty. What a shame!! I don't fish the north jetty but did when I was younger in the late 70's and 80's with my grandfather. It's a bad deal...

beachside321

Just a random thought... What about a "security guard" armed only with a cell phone to call the proper authorities should a problem arise? Charge an extra fee to go on the north jetty to pay the guard's wages... Just knowing someone is watching would cut down on a lot of this behavior I think. Obviously extra attention would be needed from FWC because if it takes 30 minutes for an officer to get there what's the point.