Handguns
Subscribe
Home› East Central General Fishing & The Outdoors
Digital Now Included!
Current Subscribers Click Here.
Current Subscribers Click Here.
All Florida Sportsman subscribers now have digital access to their magazine content. This means you have the option to read your magazine on most popular phones and tablets.
To get started, click the link below to visit mymagnow.com and learn how to access your digital magazine.
Replies
Knowing what I do about FWC and their manpower situation...and going forward...Just not viable. Add in, that having security in hours of darkness (12 hours) ...even at minimum wage... that is going to be a lot of $$ Is everyone going to want to pay $10 to fish?
I do like the idea of the big fence inlet side.....probably needs to go as far as the very NE corner at the tip to keep conflict with boaters at bay.
Many things to do.
Knots to be unraveled
'fore the darkness falls on you
This fishery might get a chance to breathe now.. Which is not a bad thing..
The Inlet District doesn’t own the ocean. A key element in this “issue” is that the Inlet District built the jetty with taxpayer money under their charter to maintain a navigable waterway. What evolved was that folks wanted to fish on that jetty. Managing a safe public space for that isn’t the Inlet District’s primary charge so an agreement was developed with the Park and the FWC that they can use the Inlet District’s property BUT they have to maintain public order. The agreement DOES NOT have an element that says the Inlet District is held harmless if the Park and FWC don’t maintain public order. Bottom line, the taxpayers of the Inlet District are at risk of having to pay and IMO the Inlet District Commissioners are doing their fiduciary duty to force a dialogue with the Park and FWC to address that.
Doesn’t mean its not happening. FWC and the Inlet District have received numerous complaints.
Understand your logic, boaters gain from this so they must be behind this. Disagree though. Having followed this for several months it was the activity on the jetty, like threatening other fishermen with knives, slashing of tires and other activities that had many people saying it’s not safe out there at night or I wouldn’t take my kid there at night. That prompted cameras and new signage of conduct to go up. The apparent straw that broke the camel’s back (as was explained at the mtg) is that a boater had line and lead cast at him from the jetty, while he was untangling it the jetty angler (whether knowingly or unknowingly) set the hook and severed the kid’s finger to the point it needed emergency attention. The parent called FWC and EMS to meet his son at the dock and the report came back to the Inlet District as another incident and as I’ve heard (total hearsay) the parent threatened to sue so it drove the “issue” home of potential taxpayer culpability at the Inlet District.
And even though it pains me to agree with Duckman in regards to fencing the area off, it seems to be a viable solution to keep the Inlet Authority from being sued.
It baffles me that an agreement of this magnitude between (Park and FWC) was made without an Indemnification clause.
That may be where this whole temporary night closure thing is going.
Actually, the FWC makes things easy and anonymous nowadays....think of it like a neighborhood crime watch program. Concerned locals are a good way to alter a bad culture. Just don't instigate, leave that to the pros.
http://myfwc.com/contact/wildlife-alert/
Call 888-404-FWCC
If you suspect a fish, wildlife, boating, or environmental law violation, report it to the FWC's Wildlife Alert Reward Program: 888-404-FWCC (3922).
Cell phone users can reach us at *FWC or #FWC, depending on your service provider.
Report violations online
If your information results in an arrest, you may be eligible for a reward of up to $1,000. See Reward Categories for details.
Report violations via text message.
Most cell phones allow users to send text messages directly to an email address. You can text [email protected]; standard usage fees may apply. [NOTE: while the text address looks like an email address, it does work texting to it]
Will not really fix the issue....only will keep the district secure against a suit.
The issue is *STILL* what is being done. Fwc many time has no one available to handle a call at the inlet for various reasons.
FWC is not like S.O. where there are MANY Deputies..they will routinely not be in position to do things in a timely way...
The ONLY reason the issue saw FWC presence was because *an Ambulance* was required.
Many things to do.
Knots to be unraveled
'fore the darkness falls on you
So, how do you get some jokers to stop lobbing lead at boaters? You shut the joint down. Easy Peasy.
The jokers won't follow the laws or even show common decency - why show any back? ANY injury is too many.
Montauk Steve is on the Ft. Pierce south jetty laughing his **** off
09-08-16 THURSDAY: THE BITE IS HEATING UP!
"THIS MORNING AT 4:59 A.M. A PERSON OR PERSONS WILLFULLY DAMAGED THE WEB CAM AND SECURITY CAMERAS BY CUTTING THE MOUNTS AND LINES. IF ANYONE HAS ANY INFORMATION REGARDING THIS INCIDENT, PLEASE LET US KNOW. THIS TYPE OF INCIDENT IS EXACTLY WHY THE NORTH JETTY WILL BE CLOSING FROM DUSK TO DAWN IN A FEW WEEKS. THE WEB CAM SERVICE AND FISHING ON THE NORTH JETTY IS A PRIVILEGE ENJOYED BY MANY. IT WOULD BE A SHAME FOR A FEW VANDALS TO RUIN THIS FOR THE MANY REPSONSIBLE ANGLERS WHO FREQUENT THE JETTY. "
:willynilly
The scumbags that are causing the trouble wont go away...our society has turned to crap.
Theres almost "a look" that many of these trouble makers have, and you see it everywhere today.
So much BS goes on up on the Jetty that is really isn't a safe place, and that's not taking in to consideration the danger to boaters.
therEs 10,000 feet of shore at the inlet for fishing....
CLOSE THE JETTY/SAVE A BOATER
like a mall cop?....yeah great idea
Nobody gets that the purpose of the inlet is for navigation.
FACT: The entire inlet needs to be closed to fishing. On the jetty and inside the inlet between the jetties too.
Just last week after snook season started, I saw a boat drifting the inlet with lines out, and would not move out of the way of 3-4 jet skiers who were shredding out on their way to Monster Hole. One of the jet skiers almost got hung up in the guys lines.
That inlet needs to be kept clear for navigation.
Yes, exactly, a mall cop. I think places like Black Dog, Big Rob's, Whitey's, Long Point and other businesses who rely on the "boatless inlet trash" for a good portion of their business would prefer anything over closing the jetty.
Maybe if a mall cop was there, the inlet cam would still be working? I think that's an example of what's to come. What's to stop people from hurling leads from the south jetty? Or the tide pool? Or catwalks? Retaliation toward innocent boaters because of the jetty closing is a real possibility.
Is your suggestion is to eventually close the inlet entirely to fishing? "Excuse me sir, you can enter the park, but I'm going to have to hold on to those fishing poles." People talk about government getting too big...
I have yet to hear from any inlet regulars who fish the north jetty on this issue. It's just like any political issue, the people with money (or the lawyers) are the ones who get heard.
The antics that go on at the inlet are well known. If you can't deal with them, don't go there. The true hazards to navigation come from the boats that are anchored, not dodging land launched missiles. I hate fishing the inlet and dealing with the idiots there (most of which are in boats), so I fish elsewhere.
I would agree that people fishing on the tip of the north jetty presents a navigational hazard. My company has had to replace lower units on boats because of fishing line being wrapped in the prop then shredding the seals. It is necessary to skirt that north jetty when returning on an outgoing tide. That is more of a daytime issue anyways.
I support the idea of a tall "overpass style" fence on the south side of the north jetty. Yes you will have idiots trying to find ways around it. That's where the mall cop comes in.
MAKE THE NORTH JETTY GREAT AGAIN!
As a person who has been following this issue for awhile (and started this thread to educate others)...this is NOT the situation. As well, the Inlet Commission, to my knowledge, has not debated any action to close the jetty altogether.
As noted earlier in this thread (pg1 or pg2) - the Inlet District is not in the business of managing fishing on the jetties - they own the jetties because they are necessary elements to ensure a navigable waterway (the Inlet District's primary mission). The Park, FWC and Inlet District have a Memorandum of Understanding that allows usage of the jetties for fishing (I suspect the FL Dept. of Transportation has an MOU with the Park and FWC for fishing from the catwalks under the State Rd A1A bridge).
The MOU essentially says, you can use the jetties but the Park must manage the area with FWC to ensure public safety/order.
Now the "problem" arises when a landowner (like say for example someone in a neighborhood with a swimming pool and no fence around it) is informed that public safety issues are occurring on their property (as example, kids are reported using the pool because they can get access). If the landowner does nothing to address the public safety issue they have a potential level of culpability should someone pursue an issue (again, as example, a kid drowned in the pool). The "BIG" problem is that the Inlet District is YOU - the taxpayer; everyone who owns a property in the special district area has a millage % that funds the Inlet District to maintain a navigable waterway.
Putting all that together - it means, the Inlet District has been informed numerous times (and many on this thread have reiterated, safety issues at the jetty, particularly at night). To protect the taxpayers from having to fund the defense and potentially a large monetary damage award, they (rightfully so IMO) felt they needed to act - so an initial step was to fund cameras to assist the Park and FWC to keep order. The next step it appears is temporarily shutting the jetty down at night while a new, more effective MOU with the Park and FWC is (potentially) developed.
Finally, in regards to the security guard, that's $$$. How does the Inlet District explain to the property tax base that they're spending that money, annually I might add, for something that isn't their primary mission? As well, to my knowledge, the Park currently CANNOT add an extra fee or redirect funds for a guard. The Park is a state agency and can only spend what the legislature gives them each year according to the budget they submitted. While it seems possible that the Park could put in that budget request and look for funding in future legislative appropriations - that's down the road. Possibly another reason why - a temporary closure at night is being considered until a new, more fucntional MOU is developed.
I agree, I spend 3 nights a week at the inlet. These issues have always been there, and always will be.
I can't say that's not fair, yet I would suggest looking at it in a different perspective. Two components to ponder first.
One, the commissioners change, they are elected officials. As I was told (hearsay), the Commission lost a lawsuit many, many years back to a landowner south of the inlet. The lawsuit as I'm told was related to the latter of their two primary duties - maintaining a navigable inlet and bypassing sand past the inlet in the amount the State says the inlet is capturing per year so as not to be a cause of erosion to beaches downstream on the littoral sand drift of east coast FL beaches. If you look at the Inlet District's webpage you'll see they have a RESOURCES page and a partnership with F.I.T to provide data on understanding sand flow; a hook to hang their "rationale" to the judge, one might say regarding the decisions they make on that part of their mission.
Second, as I recall the Exec Director reporting at the Special Meeting, it has only been in the last two years that complaints to the Inlet District rose sharply regarding public safety - people not feeling safe there, particularly at night.
So, the perspective I propose to ponder is this.
Consider you are an elected Inlet District commissioner. You, by law, have a fiduciary duty to uphold the charter of the Inlet District and act on behalf of the best interests of the district constituency.
You know, these things:
a) previous commissioners failed to insulate the district from a sand by-pass lawsuit and cost the constituency to pay more taxes to cover the damage award.
b) you have documented reports presented to you of public safety problems on your property.
c) Upon one of your colleagues asking your staff attorney - what is our level of risk to our constituency? The attorney essentially says -
....well, now that you are "informed" (i.e. in a court of law, easily provable) there's a public safety problem, you have a spectrum of risk. Do nothing you're at high risk of losing AND risk of high damages (you failed to act responsibly). Put up cameras, a notch lower on risk but can you prove to a court that they were in any way effective to curb the public safety problem (yes, if Park and FWC used them for greater enforcement; no, if they're simply a hopeful deterrent "you're being watched"). Further on the spectrum is a temporary night closure and demanding a new MOU with the parties responsible for public safety. This is greater insulation of risk to taxpayers, particularly since the record of what you're "informed" about shows most complaints of public safety are at night. You keep moving across the "risk of losing a lawsuit" spectrum to - shut it all down, day and night.
What do you do?
Remember, you have four other elected colleagues and it takes three votes to pass a measure AND you should have a clear rationale on how what you decide to do lives up to your fiduciary duties to:
a) uphold the charter of the Inlet District and;
b) act on behalf of the best interests of the district constituency.
Here's a link to the charter you have to uphold:
http://www.sebastianinletdistrict.com/aboutus_file.jhtml?id=1&file=Charter.SID.pdf
Here's a map of all the people who's best interest you have to look out for:
http://www.sebastianinletdistrict.com/aboutus_file.jhtml?id=1&file=SIDBoundaryMap.pdf
Finally, keep in mind that the Park and FWC signed an MOU with you stating they would ensure public safety. They are your partners and know you are the property owner at greatest risk of damages.
That's one way to deal with Cameras...If you are that element.
I believe I will see one of the inlet commissioners tomorrow at a lagoon council meeting...I will ask him about this new development...
Many things to do.
Knots to be unraveled
'fore the darkness falls on you
Send the **** yankees home!