Home General Hunting

FWC Spraying Paused

13»

Replies

  • GoldHunterGoldHunter GainesvillePosts: 231 Deckhand
    TGunn said:
    That was a cute rant you went on...

    ...except...

    ...I never said I hunted Orange.    I was fishing it.   

    Now that you’re backpeddling like a one legged clown on a unicycle, and it’s clear that your “Little to no spraying” party-line standard response is false, care to tell us all how many different herbicides were being used on Orange st the time?

    The bottom was full of muck sediment from years of herbicide treatment, just like a bunch of other spray lakes are now.  
     I continue to find it amusing that you continue to ‘confirm’ that bodies of water were not oversprayed or mismanaged by simply asking people who were in charge of managing them at the time. 

    You’re one of the foxes in the henhouse, and you and your buddies keep telling us ‘nobody in here burn us chickens!’

    Oh, good one, did you think of that yourself or steal it from another comedian?  And I’m not sure why you’d say I’m backpedaling unless it’s the 1998 thing.  But if that’s all you got, go for it.  Hunting, fishing, it doesn’t really matter if the lake was a catastrophe does it?  And you never answered the question, if it was that much of a catastrophe then why is it that you kept on fishing there and “just about wore out a Mercury 9.8 and a 14' Alumacraft there during those years in the 90s”?  Geez, if the place I’m fishing is such a “catastrophe” and I’m not catching anything, then I’d like to think I’m smart enough to go somewhere else.  Or maybe that’s just me.

    If you knew much about Orange Lake, then you’d know that in a number of places the muck is well over 20 feet thick (considerably more in some spots).  Organic matter that thick has been collecting on the bottom for decades if not centuries, long before there were any invasive plants out there, not to mention spray boats.  Just telling the facts. 

    And while I agree that spraying of invasive plants has and is contributing to that layer of organic muck, not doing anything also contributes to that muck layer as those plants constantly slough off dead material as they grow.  Over the course of a year they will lose as much organic matter as the mass and weight of the plant itself.  Seems to me the better choice is to kill the plant and have that material fall to the bottom one time rather than not kill the plant and still have that same amount of dead material going to the bottom each and every year that plant is alive.  Am I going too fast for you here?

    I find it amusing you continue to rely on hearsay and people that seem to believe there is a secret conspiracy to kill all aquatic vegetation on all the lakes in this state.  But keep going with that if that’s what gets you up in the morning.

    I’m not interested in engaging in a d*** measuring contest with you about Orange Lake or what has or hasn’t been done out there.  We obviously have our own opinions and differences on cause and effect.  Mine is based on over 50 years of experience being on the lake, real science, and discussing it and learning from the biologists and people that are actually doing the work.  And they are heavily invested in this because they are hunters and fishermen themselves with families, and like you want to have places for their own kids to hunt and fish in the future.  Your opinions appear to be based on unproven theory, hearsay, confirmation from like-minded friends, and an obvious distrust of anyone in Government, or more specifically, the FWC.

    I’m sure you’ll have some snappy comeback about how I don’t know what the **** I’m talking about, or how I’m on the take (someone else’s opinion of me), or I’m just an ignorant duck hunter that can’t see the forest for the trees.  Well, have at it.  As I said, we have our differences.  We'll just have to agree to disagree and I’m fine with that.


  • Big MakBig Mak Posts: 2,836 Captain
    All I know is the current methods and thinking are not working. In fact, I think it's hurting more than helping. SOMETHING has to change and I think more people are beginning to question the wisdom of saturating so much of our water witha never ending bombardment of poisons. That's why you're seeing this pause.

    While I may not be a scientist, I know what my eyes have seen, and they see unbridled destruction, with very little actual habitat restoration. You can't endlessly nuke a lake that no longer has the natural cleansing capabilities that it historically had when water was allowed to percolate unobstructed down the peninsula in a natural fashion, and expect anything to improve.  Without an aggressive, legitimate demucking and replanting program to replace the "unwanted" weeds, we are doomed to see more failure.

  • H20dadH20dad Posts: 1,729 Captain
    Big Mak said:
    All I know is the current methods and thinking are not working. In fact, I think it's hurting more than helping. SOMETHING has to change and I think more people are beginning to question the wisdom of saturating so much of our water witha never ending bombardment of poisons. That's why you're seeing this pause.

    While I may not be a scientist, I know what my eyes have seen, and they see unbridled destruction, with very little actual habitat restoration. You can't endlessly nuke a lake that no longer has the natural cleansing capabilities that it historically had when water was allowed to percolate unobstructed down the peninsula in a natural fashion, and expect anything to improve.  Without an aggressive, legitimate demucking and replanting program to replace the "unwanted" weeds, we are doomed to see more failure.

    There is no wisdom. None. In anything that they do. It’s all political manipulation and they are just pawns. 

    Billions and billions of dollars to restore a swamp. 
  • TGunnTGunn Posts: 1,919 Captain

    not doing anything also contributes to that muck layer as those plants constantly slough off dead material as they grow.  Over the course of a year they will lose as much organic matter as the mass and weight of the plant itself.  Seems to me the better choice is to kill the plant and have that material fall to the bottom one time rather than not kill the plant and still have that same amount of dead material going to the bottom each and every year that plant is alive.  Am I going too fast for you here?


    Yeah.  Better to spray the plant and kill it.  Kill all of it!  With chemicals! Then do it over and over and over. Seems to be working; certainly everyone here would agree.  

    You're not going too fast.  You're going just right and I hope folks are taking notice which side of the fence you're on.


  • Walker DogWalker Dog Posts: 2,155 Captain
    The side of common sense isn't a bad side to be on. Its always entertaining to peek over the fence and watch the show though. 
  • TGunnTGunn Posts: 1,919 Captain
    The side of common sense isn't a bad side to be on. Its always entertaining to peek over the fence and watch the show though. 
    Are you back from another failed attempt at trying to set water on fire near Moore Haven or the Pearce Canal?  The FWC/SFWMD Brain Trust here missed you.
  • FreeLinerFreeLiner Posts: 1,573 Captain
    TGunn said:

    not doing anything also contributes to that muck layer as those plants constantly slough off dead material as they grow.  Over the course of a year they will lose as much organic matter as the mass and weight of the plant itself.  Seems to me the better choice is to kill the plant and have that material fall to the bottom one time rather than not kill the plant and still have that same amount of dead material going to the bottom each and every year that plant is alive.  Am I going too fast for you here?


    Yeah.  Better to spray the plant and kill it.  Kill all of it!  With chemicals! Then do it over and over and over. Seems to be working; certainly everyone here would agree.  

    You're not going too fast.  You're going just right and I hope folks are taking notice which side of the fence you're on.


    You have to kill the phosphate sinks first in order to make  phosphates so that the phosphate sinks can work.  So yeah you have to kill all the plants. Every. Last. One. 
  • H20dadH20dad Posts: 1,729 Captain
    FreeLiner said:
    TGunn said:

    not doing anything also contributes to that muck layer as those plants constantly slough off dead material as they grow.  Over the course of a year they will lose as much organic matter as the mass and weight of the plant itself.  Seems to me the better choice is to kill the plant and have that material fall to the bottom one time rather than not kill the plant and still have that same amount of dead material going to the bottom each and every year that plant is alive.  Am I going too fast for you here?


    Yeah.  Better to spray the plant and kill it.  Kill all of it!  With chemicals! Then do it over and over and over. Seems to be working; certainly everyone here would agree.  

    You're not going too fast.  You're going just right and I hope folks are taking notice which side of the fence you're on.


    You have to kill the phosphate sinks first in order to make  phosphates so that the phosphate sinks can work.  So yeah you have to kill all the plants. Every. Last. One. 
    I like the algae along the coasts.  Maybe they should start spraying it too!
  • Walker DogWalker Dog Posts: 2,155 Captain
    TGunn said:
    The side of common sense isn't a bad side to be on. Its always entertaining to peek over the fence and watch the show though. 
    Are you back from another failed attempt at trying to set water on fire near Moore Haven or the Pearce Canal?  The FWC/SFWMD Brain Trust here missed you.
    Never been there, so you tell me. Just enjoying the entertainment provided by the antics of you and your buddies. Even if its only laughs, at least you bring something to the forum. Thanks!
  • FreeLinerFreeLiner Posts: 1,573 Captain
    H20dad said:
    FreeLiner said:
    TGunn said:

    not doing anything also contributes to that muck layer as those plants constantly slough off dead material as they grow.  Over the course of a year they will lose as much organic matter as the mass and weight of the plant itself.  Seems to me the better choice is to kill the plant and have that material fall to the bottom one time rather than not kill the plant and still have that same amount of dead material going to the bottom each and every year that plant is alive.  Am I going too fast for you here?


    Yeah.  Better to spray the plant and kill it.  Kill all of it!  With chemicals! Then do it over and over and over. Seems to be working; certainly everyone here would agree.  

    You're not going too fast.  You're going just right and I hope folks are taking notice which side of the fence you're on.


    You have to kill the phosphate sinks first in order to make  phosphates so that the phosphate sinks can work.  So yeah you have to kill all the plants. Every. Last. One. 
    I like the algae along the coasts.  Maybe they should start spraying it too!
    The cure is to plant hydrilla in the ocean and then spray that after it fixes the algae.
  • navigator2navigator2 Posts: 22,479 AG
    TGunn said:

    not doing anything also contributes to that muck layer as those plants constantly slough off dead material as they grow.  Over the course of a year they will lose as much organic matter as the mass and weight of the plant itself.  Seems to me the better choice is to kill the plant and have that material fall to the bottom one time rather than not kill the plant and still have that same amount of dead material going to the bottom each and every year that plant is alive.  Am I going too fast for you here?


    Yeah.  Better to spray the plant and kill it.  Kill all of it!  With chemicals! Then do it over and over and over. Seems to be working; certainly everyone here would agree.  

    You're not going too fast.  You're going just right and I hope folks are taking notice which side of the fence you're on.


    Tommy, in Goldhunter's defense I hunted the hell out of Orange for over a decade. My first trip was with a friend (around 2000) and it was dried up as a puddle. It had PILES of ducks on it. Only locals and a friends of locals even knew about how good it could be.  I didn't return until around 2004, the lake had filled previously and the floating islands were just starting to break up. The hunting for the next 8 years was stellar when not spectacular. The irony of it all is that FS magazine posted an article about it. HUNT ORANGE! No decoys needed!  We were not happy campers.

    Gold was in close contact during that period with the local FWC aquatics manager. Thanks in part to Gold's input, and the common sense of that manager (he is gone now) they only sprayed about 30% of the lake when needed. (The north end, around Margarie Rawlings Ramp, a strip from Haegy Barre out around Fish Island, and some airboat trails back in PG Run.  Around 2011 or 12, Orange dried up to a puddle. Hunting was still good when you could get to where you needed to be, but there was less acreage to hunt so it got shot out pretty quick and was crowded. 

    That's when the fatal mistake occurred. The FWC had another change to burn baby burn. Did they? Oh hell no. When the rains returned the floating invasives and willows sprung out of the muck and ruined the lake so bad ducks just skipped it. Every shoreline was choked out, no hydrilla could grow. Even if you tried to launch, you could get trapped out there when the wind changed direction.  

    In my opinion Orange will never see it's glory days until most of the lake is demucked and/or burned. It is unique and not like your stomping grounds at Lake O.  

    I'm fully aware of what goes on most lakes and rivers, there's no bigger opponent of indiscriminate spraying than me, I've seen it completely destroy what used to be some of the best hunting places. It's gotten so bad I've turned to fishing rather than dealing with the madness. However, Gold isn't your enemy. Just my two cents.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Sign In or Register to comment.