MINWR Petition For Catch and Release

Cavanaugh68Cavanaugh68 Posts: 326 Deckhand
edited August 7 in Conservation Front #1
I wanted to share this info for those of you to either sign it, or not. I know opinions vary on this as well. What do we have to loose to see where it leads too. I feel like this is a meeting half way point. So the entire lagoon would not be CPR and not all species either. The CNSS would remain the same and the refuge would be CPR.

A colleague started this and here is what he said. Please sign this and let's see in five years how the fishing is.

Catch and release possibly coming to Mosquito Lagoon!

"Last night was the second meeting of the MINWR staff with the permitted fishing guides. At the first meeting, they stated they would NOT be implementing catch and release. This was not well received by the guides, as the over 20 in attendance were all in agreement that catch and release was the right choice. Last night at the second meeting, to everyone’s surprise, they changed their stance and decided to consider making the lagoon catch and release for reds and trout. Layne Hamilton, the superintendent, cited the overwhelming unanimous support from the guides at both meetings as the reasoning for the change of position and consideration.

The fishing guides are only a small portion of the stakeholders who care about the lagoon. Many more of you all see the need for catch and release to protect what little is left of the lagoons fish stocks. Mosquito Lagoon is without a doubt the least developed and healthiest portion of the system remaining, and thankfully the area where possible protection of the fish can occur by the decision of one person, Layne.

This would ONLY apply to the MINWR and would not include the Canaveral National Seashore, guides and recreational anglers who fish in the Oak Hill area would still be able to harvest fish for their clients if they so choose. This would also not apply to black drum, mangrove snapper, flounder, sheepshead, etc.

The proposed plan would be a 5 year moratorium on harvest of reds and trout, to be reviewed every 5 years based upon progress to the restoration of the IRL system.

We cannot immediately stop the pollution entering the lagoon, but this is one small victory that we the people can accomplish to help protect what remains of the lagoons unique fish stocks that once made this a world famous fishery.

Please sign and share this petition, it’s critical that we show the refuge that many people support this management change, not just the small group of fishing guides."




«13

Replies

  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,217 Captain
    edited August 8 #2
    They're making duck hunting harder and now gonna go to all catch and release for fishing? Was there a news release about this meeting or was it private?

    I see nothing on their website about this meeting.
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,217 Captain
    edited August 8 #3
    Layne Hamilton is no friend of sportsman either. She went behind the back of everyone and tried to remove the final 2 weeks of waterfowl season from the hunt program without notifying anyone. Once the public got wind of it we had to go, to Atlanta and DC, over the head of refuge managers to have their bosses correct their egregious error. I would be very cautious of anything led by her. Especially after the actions of the refuge towards sportsman.
  • Cavanaugh68Cavanaugh68 Posts: 326 Deckhand
    edited August 7 #4
    We, got notices a while ago about a meeting. I did not attend either one due to I pretty much agree with what you say about her. I figured it was a meeting for more smoke to be blown up our you know what.

    I have for years now been trying to get them to help with the waters and they just fed you a bunch of BS you wanted to hear. I email them with a question and hardly ever get an answer back. I now are emailing the big bosses in Atlanta too. Just bypass the MINWR staff.

    I don't Know anything about the hunts here or how they are handled. I thought this meeting was to tell the guides that in 2028(since that is now when commercial harvest ends) the program will be ending. Meaning no more guides out there. However in 2028 we would have just said "We were not properly notified of the closing and we need ten more years :( !" LOL Just like the commercial harvesters did. I am not worried about it if they did, that is a decade to go so I will cross that bridge then.

    Apparently the refuge(Layne) wanted input from the guides on the waters. this paragraph above in my opening statement is from another guide who did attend and started the petition. I am just sharing it. I personally think it would be great for the Mosquito Lagoon to be catch and release. Would make this a lot friendly to fish for everyone.

    Here is a letter I received about the meeting. Not sure who got one.
    IMG.pdf 696.5K
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,217 Captain
    I'm not a guide so I wouldn't have gotten that.

    I think this should go for public comment first before the refuge starts a petition to change their own rules. I may be in the minority, but I say let FWC handle our fish populations. This just seems like another reckless action by them. 
  • Cavanaugh68Cavanaugh68 Posts: 326 Deckhand
    The problem with FWC doing this is they lump the entire area into stats. Meaning, they say there are more fish than ever from Sebastian to Jacksonville. The Mosquito Lagoon needs to have a separate statistical sheet on it. It is such a diverse and unique fishery here.

    Now as far as them asking the public first. What I heard is they are allowed to so call "micro manage" things without public approval or congressional consent. I guess since they are saying the entire refuge and national park fall under the Department of Interior they(The MINWR and CNSS) can make and set some things that are small without asking congress to make major laws. They also said they are not making every species catch and release just redfish and seatrout. That and this would ONLY apply to the refuge waters and boundaries. Not the north end where Canaveral has jurisdiction. So say if you fished Orange Island, then you can keep fish there.

    You would have to look at a map and see where the boundaries are at.

    They did this same micro thing back when they banned fish cleaning on refuge property. The MINWR said no more fish cleaning within their land but the CNSS they will not do that. So almost the same thing.

    I mean the petition was only started a few hours ago, midday and already is almost to 200 signatures. Also the refuge did not start the petition another fishing guide did. I support it 100%.

    I am curious. Why would you think that making it CPR reckless? Especially with the way the shape the waters are in here and the few fish that are left.
  • Cavanaugh68Cavanaugh68 Posts: 326 Deckhand
    Reel Teal said:
    I'm not a guide so I wouldn't have gotten that.

    I think this should go for public comment first before the refuge starts a petition to change their own rules. I may be in the minority, but I say let FWC handle our fish populations. This just seems like another reckless action by them. 
    I remember one of the LEO staff at the refuge telling me once that they can make certain rule changes without public opinion or input. She said like if they all the sudden make a no parking zone or change a traffic pattern or change a speed limit add a new stop sign. There is I guess a "broad  term law" in CFR or US Title Code that allows them to do this. But to be exact, that I do not know.

    Now on a side note, I have always asked them why are redfish allowed to be harvested there to begin with? Since there is a federal law that says no harvest of red drum on federal waters. Now I know the MINWR and CNSS are federally run areas. So never really clear on that one.

    Here is off FWC Site:

    Florida Regulations: (Harvest in federal waters prohibited)


  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,217 Captain
    edited August 7 #8
    I think its reckless bc they often do things out there with no data, no science, just hey this might work and they go do it. Have they even done stock assessments? Do they know how many fish are being kept? What's the intended goal of the moratorium?

    Everything that goes wrong they say it's not their fault etc. They have even given up on managing parts of the refuge because "it's too difficult "Its the same old tune every time.

     FWIW I do release a lot of trout and redfish, fish mostly the gulf now since it's not so cloudy and the fish are there. Makes me sad to see the state of affairs in the lagoon. With that said, no one is going to stop the pollution, its affecting their impoundments and waterfowl numbers as well. Yet the fisherman want to flood those impoundments and destroy them like the lagoon is dying. As the lagoons have declined so has the food and habitat for lots of things. Making it catch and release only bc it feels good is bad management. Let those who wish to release them release them. 

    Idc where it's at either. It's a death by a thousand cuts. You definitely need a pocket lawyer to fish in florida now lol 
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 9,046 Admiral
    We, got notices a while ago about a meeting. I did not attend either one due to I pretty much agree with what you say about her. I figured it was a meeting for more smoke to be blown up our you know what.

    I have for years now been trying to get them to help with the waters and they just fed you a bunch of BS you wanted to hear. I email them with a question and hardly ever get an answer back. I now are emailing the big bosses in Atlanta too. Just bypass the MINWR staff.

    I don't Know anything about the hunts here or how they are handled. I thought this meeting was to tell the guides that in 2028(since that is now when commercial harvest ends) the program will be ending. Meaning no more guides out there. However in 2028 we would have just said "We were not properly notified of the closing and we need ten more years :( !" LOL Just like the commercial harvesters did. I am not worried about it if they did, that is a decade to go so I will cross that bridge then.

    Apparently the refuge(Layne) wanted input from the guides on the waters. this paragraph above in my opening statement is from another guide who did attend and started the petition. I am just sharing it. I personally think it would be great for the Mosquito Lagoon to be catch and release. Would make this a lot friendly to fish for everyone.

    Here is a letter I received about the meeting. Not sure who got one.





     
    I told you last year that commercial fishermen would get another 10 years.
    Feds promised us traditional use would continue when they made the refuge..

    Sometimes you just have to hold their feet to the fire.
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • Cavanaugh68Cavanaugh68 Posts: 326 Deckhand
    ANUMBER1 said:
    We, got notices a while ago about a meeting. I did not attend either one due to I pretty much agree with what you say about her. I figured it was a meeting for more smoke to be blown up our you know what.

    I have for years now been trying to get them to help with the waters and they just fed you a bunch of BS you wanted to hear. I email them with a question and hardly ever get an answer back. I now are emailing the big bosses in Atlanta too. Just bypass the MINWR staff.

    I don't Know anything about the hunts here or how they are handled. I thought this meeting was to tell the guides that in 2028(since that is now when commercial harvest ends) the program will be ending. Meaning no more guides out there. However in 2028 we would have just said "We were not properly notified of the closing and we need ten more years :( !" LOL Just like the commercial harvesters did. I am not worried about it if they did, that is a decade to go so I will cross that bridge then.

    Apparently the refuge(Layne) wanted input from the guides on the waters. this paragraph above in my opening statement is from another guide who did attend and started the petition. I am just sharing it. I personally think it would be great for the Mosquito Lagoon to be catch and release. Would make this a lot friendly to fish for everyone.

    Here is a letter I received about the meeting. Not sure who got one.





     
    I told you last year that commercial fishermen would get another 10 years.
    Feds promised us traditional use would continue when they made the refuge..

    Sometimes you just have to hold their feet to the fire.
    I know you said that. I also knew this too. But it was the excuse that commercial fishermen said they were not properly notified that this would be ending is what made all of us upset. I have neighbors here in Oak Hill who are here two months out of the year that do not fish. They even knew it was coming to an end. Either way does not matter now.

    So will you say that in 2028 it is over then? Just curious.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 9,046 Admiral
    ANUMBER1 said:
    We, got notices a while ago about a meeting. I did not attend either one due to I pretty much agree with what you say about her. I figured it was a meeting for more smoke to be blown up our you know what.

    I have for years now been trying to get them to help with the waters and they just fed you a bunch of BS you wanted to hear. I email them with a question and hardly ever get an answer back. I now are emailing the big bosses in Atlanta too. Just bypass the MINWR staff.

    I don't Know anything about the hunts here or how they are handled. I thought this meeting was to tell the guides that in 2028(since that is now when commercial harvest ends) the program will be ending. Meaning no more guides out there. However in 2028 we would have just said "We were not properly notified of the closing and we need ten more years :( !" LOL Just like the commercial harvesters did. I am not worried about it if they did, that is a decade to go so I will cross that bridge then.

    Apparently the refuge(Layne) wanted input from the guides on the waters. this paragraph above in my opening statement is from another guide who did attend and started the petition. I am just sharing it. I personally think it would be great for the Mosquito Lagoon to be catch and release. Would make this a lot friendly to fish for everyone.

    Here is a letter I received about the meeting. Not sure who got one.





     
    I told you last year that commercial fishermen would get another 10 years.
    Feds promised us traditional use would continue when they made the refuge..

    Sometimes you just have to hold their feet to the fire.
    I know you said that. I also knew this too. But it was the excuse that commercial fishermen said they were not properly notified that this would be ending is what made all of us upset. I have neighbors here in Oak Hill who are here two months out of the year that do not fish. They even knew it was coming to an end. Either way does not matter now.

    So will you say that in 2028 it is over then? Just curious.
    Well, if it's not an industrial sewage dump at that time we will hold the feds feet to the fire again..

    BTW, whiles the refuge is under feds state waters rules remain in effect.
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • spanglerspangler daBurgPosts: 831 Officer
    edited August 9 #12
    I'm not sure where I stand on this, so I won't be signing that petition.  It's a clear loss of access.  No question about that.  Mostly, not sure it's smart or even makes sense for MINWR.  I think others should think twice too.  MINWR seems to be bent on removing access. 

    5 year batches?  Based on what?  Nah

    On the other hand, I do see value and probably necessity in establishing marine sanctuaries.  We've gotta be really smart about it though.  Maybe MINWR would make a good location for one.  Let's see some rationale.  Not push regulations because of emotion.  Has anyone read the reasons for signing?

    Has anyone read the petition?

    It talks about how poor the water quality is at MINWR.  It cites the cause as "pollution from human wastewater, fertilizer and herbicide use, and toxic chemicals from NASA and Patrick Airforce Base, as well as many other smaller influences". 

    Ok, so... the solution is stop fishermen from keeping redfish and trout?? :shrugs

    Why would you want to make a preserve in a place with poor habitat?

  • CountryBumpkinCountryBumpkin Fla. Piney WoodsPosts: 1,332 Officer
    Welcome back Drew, how come the only time you ever come here to post about anything is if it would somehow favor your business interest?
    I'd be all for the MINWR approved guides being C&R only, with the caveat that they had to then abide by that rule everywhere else also. How would that be? Ready to only cater to C&R clients always & forever?
    You would be putting some skin in the game for what you're getting in return. You know just like how the federal permitted charter guys have to abide by federal rules even in state waters, when the federal rules are more restrictive. ;)
    Might ought to be careful what you wish for when trying to get change you think is going to work in your favor......as has been hashed out here many times before. :):smile:

    I say......I say son.......new & improved my tail feathers.

  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 9,046 Admiral
    Welcome back Drew, how come the only time you ever come here to post about anything is if it would somehow favor your business interest?
    I'd be all for the MINWR approved guides being C&R only, with the caveat that they had to then abide by that rule everywhere else also. How would that be? Ready to only cater to C&R clients always & forever?
    You would be putting some skin in the game for what you're getting in return. You know just like how the federal permitted charter guys have to abide by federal rules even in state waters, when the federal rules are more restrictive. ;)
    Might ought to be careful what you wish for when trying to get change you think is going to work in your favor......as has been hashed out here many times before. :):smile:
    lol
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,217 Captain
    edited August 8 #15
    spangler said:
    I'm not sure where I stand on this, so I won't be signing that petition.  It's a clear loss of access.  No question about that.  Mostly, not sure it's smart or even makes sense for MINWR.  I think others should think twice too.  MINWR seems to be bent on removing access. 

    5 year batches?  Based on what?  Nah

    On the other hand, I do see value and probably necessity in establishing marine 'preserves'.  We've gotta be really smart about it though.  Maybe MINWR would make a good location for one.  Let's see some rationale.  Not push regulations because of emotion.  Has anyone read the reasons for signing?

    Has anyone read the petition?

    It talks about how poor the water quality is at MINWR.  It cites the cause as "pollution from human wastewater, fertilizer and herbicide use, and toxic chemicals from NASA and Patrick Airforce Base, as well as many other smaller influences". 

    Ok, so... the solution is stop fishermen from keeping redfish and trout?? :shrugs

    Why would you want to make a preserve in a place with poor habitat?

    It helps the charter captains business. Theres used to be a guy out of Kennedy point in a blue maverick that used to yell at people on the water when he had a client. It's their water not yours. The fact that layne Hamilton had a meeting with guides and had overwhelming support for catch and release is not surprising. Those same guides will catch the same fish 7,8,9 times a year. A prominent captain did a study that was published in Florida today about 8 plus years ago where he caught the same redfish 7 times in 1 year. Its fish harassment.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 9,046 Admiral
    edited August 8 #16
    Reel Teal said:
    spangler said:
    I'm not sure where I stand on this, so I won't be signing that petition.  It's a clear loss of access.  No question about that.  Mostly, not sure it's smart or even makes sense for MINWR.  I think others should think twice too.  MINWR seems to be bent on removing access. 

    5 year batches?  Based on what?  Nah

    On the other hand, I do see value and probably necessity in establishing marine 'preserves'.  We've gotta be really smart about it though.  Maybe MINWR would make a good location for one.  Let's see some rationale.  Not push regulations because of emotion.  Has anyone read the reasons for signing?

    Has anyone read the petition?

    It talks about how poor the water quality is at MINWR.  It cites the cause as "pollution from human wastewater, fertilizer and herbicide use, and toxic chemicals from NASA and Patrick Airforce Base, as well as many other smaller influences". 

    Ok, so... the solution is stop fishermen from keeping redfish and trout?? :shrugs

    Why would you want to make a preserve in a place with poor habitat?

    It helps the charter captains business. Theres used to be a guy out of Kennedy point in a blue maverick that used to yell at people on the water when he had a client. It's their water not yours. The fact that layne Hamilton had a meeting with guides and had overwhelming support for catch and release is not surprising. Those same guides will catch the same fish 7,8,9 times a year. A prominent captain did a study that was published in Florida today about 8 plus years ago where he caught the same reddish 7 times in 1 year. Its fish harassment.
    I agree, all those type of guides want is less competition..

    less competition = more $$$ i n their pocket, the hell with Joe Lunchbucket..
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • Cavanaugh68Cavanaugh68 Posts: 326 Deckhand
    Welcome back Drew, how come the only time you ever come here to post about anything is if it would somehow favor your business interest?
    I'd be all for the MINWR approved guides being C&R only, with the caveat that they had to then abide by that rule everywhere else also. How would that be? Ready to only cater to C&R clients always & forever?
    You would be putting some skin in the game for what you're getting in return. You know just like how the federal permitted charter guys have to abide by federal rules even in state waters, when the federal rules are more restrictive. ;)
    Might ought to be careful what you wish for when trying to get change you think is going to work in your favor......as has been hashed out here many times before. :):smile:
    Thanks! Just do not get on here a whole lot to say anything. This forum is nothing close to the way it was years ago. So I just read a lot but hardly ever comment, like many now do. Pick and choose too say your battles.

    I felt this was very important. This will benefit rec anglers too you know. There are few fish left here, anyone who fishes the Mosquito Lagoon will tell you and others this. That is a survey in a way. Or should we just kill the last whale then "try" and do something about it?

    The last time I fished the refuge waters, whether with or without a client, was back in January maybe? Can not even remember. I mostly been fishing Ponce Inlet area. NSB area. So to say this will benefit me is not quite true.

    We at first suggested to make guides "only" too CPR. We said this would set a good example to the public. I  mean come on. They are just talking about the refuge side, not all fish either. No one wants to meet half way. Most want to see the entire area from Ponce to Sebastian CPR.

    I have been CPR or C & R for charters for over a decade now. So yes the rest of my life, yes, I would and do make them C&R.

    Look sign it, don't sign it. Your call.

    Funny thing is two or three people on here say no not signing it. When you see the petition now it is almost to a 1000 signatures now. Clearly people feel strongly on this.
  • Cavanaugh68Cavanaugh68 Posts: 326 Deckhand
    ANUMBER1 said:
    Reel Teal said:
    spangler said:
    I'm not sure where I stand on this, so I won't be signing that petition.  It's a clear loss of access.  No question about that.  Mostly, not sure it's smart or even makes sense for MINWR.  I think others should think twice too.  MINWR seems to be bent on removing access. 

    5 year batches?  Based on what?  Nah

    On the other hand, I do see value and probably necessity in establishing marine 'preserves'.  We've gotta be really smart about it though.  Maybe MINWR would make a good location for one.  Let's see some rationale.  Not push regulations because of emotion.  Has anyone read the reasons for signing?

    Has anyone read the petition?

    It talks about how poor the water quality is at MINWR.  It cites the cause as "pollution from human wastewater, fertilizer and herbicide use, and toxic chemicals from NASA and Patrick Airforce Base, as well as many other smaller influences". 

    Ok, so... the solution is stop fishermen from keeping redfish and trout?? :shrugs

    Why would you want to make a preserve in a place with poor habitat?

    It helps the charter captains business. Theres used to be a guy out of Kennedy point in a blue maverick that used to yell at people on the water when he had a client. It's their water not yours. The fact that layne Hamilton had a meeting with guides and had overwhelming support for catch and release is not surprising. Those same guides will catch the same fish 7,8,9 times a year. A prominent captain did a study that was published in Florida today about 8 plus years ago where he caught the same reddish 7 times in 1 year. Its fish harassment.
    I agree, all those type of guides want is less competition..

    less competition = more $$$ i n their pocket, the hell with Joe Lunchbucket..
    You know that there are guides who keep fish and guides who just recently went CR that even agree with making it CR. Because they realize the decline of the catch ratio out here.

    Also I would like to know who is saying no to signing this and whether or not they even have fished her lately. On the Mosquito Lagoon itself, not close to it but inside the MINWR?
  • Cavanaugh68Cavanaugh68 Posts: 326 Deckhand
    Reel Teal said:
    spangler said:
    I'm not sure where I stand on this, so I won't be signing that petition.  It's a clear loss of access.  No question about that.  Mostly, not sure it's smart or even makes sense for MINWR.  I think others should think twice too.  MINWR seems to be bent on removing access. 

    5 year batches?  Based on what?  Nah

    On the other hand, I do see value and probably necessity in establishing marine 'preserves'.  We've gotta be really smart about it though.  Maybe MINWR would make a good location for one.  Let's see some rationale.  Not push regulations because of emotion.  Has anyone read the reasons for signing?

    Has anyone read the petition?

    It talks about how poor the water quality is at MINWR.  It cites the cause as "pollution from human wastewater, fertilizer and herbicide use, and toxic chemicals from NASA and Patrick Airforce Base, as well as many other smaller influences". 

    Ok, so... the solution is stop fishermen from keeping redfish and trout?? :shrugs

    Why would you want to make a preserve in a place with poor habitat?

    It helps the charter captains business. There used to be a guy out of Kennedy point in a blue maverick that used to yell at people on the water when he had a client. It's their water not yours. The fact that layne Hamilton had a meeting with guides and had overwhelming support for catch and release is not surprising. Those same guides will catch the same fish 7,8,9 times a year. A prominent captain did a study that was published in Florida today about 8 plus years ago where he caught the same redfish 7 times in 1 year. Its fish harassment.
    See this is what I mean. Kennedy Park Point  is no where near the Mosquito Lagoon. 17 miles or so...
    That can make or break a fishing area.
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,217 Captain
    edited August 8 #20
    Its literally just a few miles from refuge waters. Those guys do run north of the titusville bridge and dont use those ramps bc of traffic. Remember this was many years ago, not yesterday. That ramp isn't in existence any more to my knowledge since the hurricane so I'm sure those guides didnt quit the business and went to launch their boat somewhere else. The refuge does have waters in the IRL. So I guess they will have 2 sets of recreational regulations for their minimal officers to patrol?

    I've fished the south lagoon 5 times after duck hunting this winter. Then I went back to the west coast bc, the water conditions suck and aren't improving. Most of my good kayak flats I used to launch at are sand. Unfortunately I like to fish, so after scouting this winter and fall i will be out there again after hunting. No more reds and duck lunches if this goes through. I also dont stay out there and catch 15 reds a day for pictures. Usually if catch one to keep I'll fish a little longer then go home. It's not about bragging for me and I dont need clients. Just want some fresh fish not named tilapia or farmed salmon.

    I can almost guarantee if they go to catch and release in the refuge, it will always stay that way. 

    The more I think about this 2 species management, it makes me wonder how the refuge managers still have their jobs. Have they stated what the goal of the new rule would be?



  • Rich MRich M Posts: 1,121 Officer
    The 1,000 guys who signed the petition don't have a clue what they are asking for.  

    The only way to increase numbers of fish or ducks is to fix the habitat.  Get some weed beds and you'll have fish, get some different weed beds and you'll have ducks.  So much for new rules for everything.  It all revolves around weed beds.

    Why would the refuge be talking to guides about fishing regulations anyway?  That's BS.
  • spanglerspangler daBurgPosts: 831 Officer
    edited August 8 #22
    Not that it matters, but I don't live there or visit often.  My grandparents lived on the river in cocoa and i was there often as a kid.  I've fished there in the last year, from the shore, driving around minwr.  Didn't catch anything.  Doesn't change my mind about this at all (maybe I just had a bad day).  But you probably don't ask that question to people willing to sign the petition.  For all we know, you've got folks in oregon signing it because they think something should be done about pollution everywhere lol  anyone can get a petition filled up nowadays with fb... especially when worded the way that one is.

    How bout a petition for doing something about the "pollution from human wastewater, fertilizer and herbicide use, and toxic chemicals from NASA and Patrick Airforce Base, as well as many other smaller influences".

    or was that just a tactic? so it can be said, "Clearly people feel strongly on this."  Shameful. 

    I've humored you so, please humor me, elaborate on how a 5 year recurring moratorium on a couple of species is in the lagoon is common sense management?

    I'll say it again, this is how that petition reads,

    The lagoon has a problem with pollution!  Therefore, we need to stop people from keeping redfish and trout!

    That doesn't even make sense.  Try again..





  • Rich MRich M Posts: 1,121 Officer
    What might be defensible would be a survey - do you want C&R?, do you not want C&R. 

    That way everyone who doesn't want it has a voice too.
  • Cavanaugh68Cavanaugh68 Posts: 326 Deckhand
    Reel Teal said:
    spangler said:
    I'm not sure where I stand on this, so I won't be signing that petition.  It's a clear loss of access.  No question about that.  Mostly, not sure it's smart or even makes sense for MINWR.  I think others should think twice too.  MINWR seems to be bent on removing access. 

    5 year batches?  Based on what?  Nah

    On the other hand, I do see value and probably necessity in establishing marine 'preserves'.  We've gotta be really smart about it though.  Maybe MINWR would make a good location for one.  Let's see some rationale.  Not push regulations because of emotion.  Has anyone read the reasons for signing?

    Has anyone read the petition?

    It talks about how poor the water quality is at MINWR.  It cites the cause as "pollution from human wastewater, fertilizer and herbicide use, and toxic chemicals from NASA and Patrick Airforce Base, as well as many other smaller influences". 

    Ok, so... the solution is stop fishermen from keeping redfish and trout?? :shrugs

    Why would you want to make a preserve in a place with poor habitat?

    It helps the charter captains business. Theres used to be a guy out of Kennedy point in a blue maverick that used to yell at people on the water when he had a client. It's their water not yours. The fact that layne Hamilton had a meeting with guides and had overwhelming support for catch and release is not surprising. Those same guides will catch the same fish 7,8,9 times a year. A prominent captain did a study that was published in Florida today about 8 plus years ago where he caught the same redfish 7 times in 1 year. Its fish harassment.

    Reel Teal said:
    Its literally just a few miles from refuge waters. Those guys do run north of the titusville bridge and dont use those ramps bc of traffic. Remember this was many years ago, not yesterday. That ramp isn't in existence any more to my knowledge since the hurricane so I'm sure those guides didnt quit the business and went to launch their boat somewhere else. The refuge does have waters in the IRL. So I guess they will have 2 sets of recreational regulations for their minimal officers to patrol?

    I've fished the south lagoon 5 times after duck hunting this winter. Then I went back to the west coast bc, the water conditions suck and aren't improving. Most of my good kayak flats I used to launch at are sand. Unfortunately I like to fish, so after scouting this winter and fall i will be out there again after hunting. No more reds and duck lunches if this goes through. I also dont stay out there and catch 15 reds a day for pictures. Usually if catch one to keep I'll fish a little longer then go home. It's not about bragging for me and I dont need clients. Just want some fresh fish not named tilapia or farmed salmon.

    I can almost guarantee if they go to catch and release in the refuge, it will always stay that way. 

    The more I think about this 2 species management, it makes me wonder how the refuge managers still have their jobs. Have they stated what the goal of the new rule would be?



    Around 12 miles from that boat ramp to the nearest refuge enforced waters. Which would be either Black Point or Haul Over Canal. And yes Kennedy is still open from what their website says.

    I agree the waters need to be fixed as well. That is a whole separate issue and while we or they are working on that let us try to save or protect what fish are left to fish for. I am really amazed some do not see this clearly. There are many other species to keep and other areas to fish other than the refuge. That I don't understand either why people think this is all there is to fish, the refuge.

    This is a last ditch effort to help save and or protect what little fish are left. So as a hunter if you went from seeing 500 ducks a year to seeing 5 you say "go ahead and kill the last 5?"

    Honestly, I hope it does stay CPR for ever, not going to lie to you. I could care less about keeping a fish, whether I am a guide or not. The place I live is loaded with a ton of anglers from the north who want quality fishing and do not want to keep fish either. They want that word, "sport fishing" to come back. I have no issues with someone keeping fish, just not here.
  • Cavanaugh68Cavanaugh68 Posts: 326 Deckhand
    Rich M said:
    The 1,000 guys who signed the petition don't have a clue what they are asking for.  

    The only way to increase numbers of fish or ducks is to fix the habitat.  Get some weed beds and you'll have fish, get some different weed beds and you'll have ducks.  So much for new rules for everything.  It all revolves around weed beds.

    Why would the refuge be talking to guides about fishing regulations anyway?  That's BS.
    The 1141 people who signed it. Yes, again the habitat needs to be fixed but that will be at least 20 to 30 years. So in the mean time save what is left. So you are saying just keep depleting until it is fixed or the waters are wiped out completely?

    They asked the guides due to they/we/me are out here daily and no the waters and see what goes on. They ask people at ramps too. They actually never started the conversation with us, we started it with them. The meeting was to be about input in general and almost every guide there said they want CPR.
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,217 Captain
    The ducks left the refuge for other places bc of a lack of management. So did all their other birds. Look at what black point wildlife drive has become.

    The fact that you want to catch and release only redfish and trout and let all the other be harvested shows this is only about business and has nothing to do with the fishery.

    Trust me, you ask layne hamilton for a restriction and she will be behind you 200%.
  • Cavanaugh68Cavanaugh68 Posts: 326 Deckhand
    spangler said:
    Not that it matters, but I don't live there or visit often.  My grandparents lived on the river in cocoa and i was there often as a kid.  I've fished there in the last year, from the shore, driving around minwr.  Didn't catch anything.  Doesn't change my mind about this at all (maybe I just had a bad day).  But you probably don't ask that question to people willing to sign the petition.  For all we know, you've got folks in oregon signing it because they think something should be done about pollution everywhere lol  anyone can get a petition filled up nowadays with fb... especially when worded the way that one is.

    How bout a petition for doing something about the "pollution from human wastewater, fertilizer and herbicide use, and toxic chemicals from NASA and Patrick Airforce Base, as well as many other smaller influences".

    or was that just a tactic? so it can be said, "Clearly people feel strongly on this."  Shameful. 

    I've humored you so, please humor me, elaborate on how a 5 year recurring moratorium on a couple of species is in the lagoon is common sense management?

    I'll say it again, this is how that petition reads,

    The lagoon has a problem with pollution!  Therefore, we need to stop people from keeping redfish and trout!

    That doesn't even make sense.  Try again..





    I think there are numerous petitions out already on the pollution here. Different subject. We all agree it is in peril.

    And yes, people all over the USA are signing this and should be. This  a USFWS/DOI Refuge which is federal and not a local government matter. What about all the snow birds who are legal property owners here that fish here when they visit. They have every right to say their opinion and sign this if they choose too.

    Spangler start a petition about the pollution and you will get signatures including mine. But I think that with the amount of coverage it gets it is already known.
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,217 Captain
    edited August 8 #28
    You are also wrong on where refuge waters startFollow the green line for their "refuge boundary". They often use that buffer to restrict activities on the refuge.


  • Cavanaugh68Cavanaugh68 Posts: 326 Deckhand
    Rich M said:
    The 1,000 guys who signed the petition don't have a clue what they are asking for.  

    The only way to increase numbers of fish or ducks is to fix the habitat.  Get some weed beds and you'll have fish, get some different weed beds and you'll have ducks.  So much for new rules for everything.  It all revolves around weed beds.

    Why would the refuge be talking to guides about fishing regulations anyway?  That's BS.

    Reel Teal said:
    The ducks left the refuge for other places bc of a lack of management. So did all their other birds. Look at what black point wildlife drive has become.

    The fact that you want to catch and release only redfish and trout and let all the other be harvested shows this is only about business and has nothing to do with the fishery.

    Trust me, you ask layne hamilton for a restriction and she will be behind you 200%.
    I agree with you on the management here.

    And no we do not want catch and release on Reds and Trout only. They said they might do a few species only, not all. We wanted everything to be CPR and the refuge said maybe reds and trout to leave other species for keep.

    It is a trickle effect. The more fish to catch the more people in general are happy. Follow where the $$$ goes when a visitor comes to Florida to fish.

    We have been asking her for CPR since she took office here. She said No No No No No. FWC says more fish then ever here. Finally enough people called her, complained and wrote letters about the lack of fish they are finally thinking of doing this now.
  • Cavanaugh68Cavanaugh68 Posts: 326 Deckhand
    edited August 8 #30
    Reel Teal said:
    You are also wrong on where refuge waters startFollow the green line for their "refuge boundary". They often use that buffer to restrict activities on the refuge.


    Ok I am talking about major water access. Not Peacocks Pocket and small puddles, but yes you are correct. But the main refuge body is known on the east side of Haulover.
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,217 Captain
    I can agree with you there on the major body of water aspect. But after many discussions with them those cuts down there they do in fact consider "theirs".

    We will see what happens with this. I dont think this change would be a "small one". I cant see this not going to the public before it's set in stone. I think they learned their lesson last fall about that.



«13
Sign In or Register to comment.