Home General Hunting
«134

Replies

  • Panhandler80Panhandler80 Posts: 8,237 Moderator
    I figured the anti spray crowd would be all over this.   
    "Whatcha doin' in my waters?"
  • wayviswayvis FloridaPosts: 137 Deckhand
    No doubt spaying is not good, but fish in Florida lakes have always had blisters and lesions on them. The question is does Big-O have more than in the past?
  • PinmanPinman Posts: 2,650 Captain
    Weeds take up "volume" where water could be stored. Water = the new oil.
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG
    I figured the anti spray crowd would be all over this.   
    Yeah...maybe...

    I'm waiting to hear one ....just one...*economicly * viable alternative to spraying....
    $100 - 200 an acre VS $12,000 - 18,000 an acre......  
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • PinmanPinman Posts: 2,650 Captain
    duckmanJR said:
    I figured the anti spray crowd would be all over this.   
    Yeah...maybe...

    I'm waiting to hear one ....just one...*economicly * viable alternative to spraying....
    $100 - 200 an acre VS $12,000 - 18,000 an acre......  

    My preference would be minimal spraying and maintaining trails via mechanical harvesting.  Kinda like they did on Lake O in the late 70's and 80's
  • joelunchbucketjoelunchbucket Posts: 452 Deckhand
    Limited spraying?

    Doing that would bring on the water lettuce and hyacinths that give rise to the tussocks! That’s about as good for waterfowl as spraying all the hydrilla. 

    Would be better if all the spraying was focused on the water lettuce and hyacinth and the only hydrilla that was sprayed was to open trails through or along it for navigation. Tussock removal is the only time where mechanical harvesting should be used because chemical treatment isn’t usually very effective except if your goal is to build up the muck. 
  • Big MakBig Mak Posts: 3,367 Captain
    edited December 2019 #8
    The very first thing that needs to happen is changing the laws that prohibit the return trip to the yard once the chemicals are mixed. That will immediately negate the need and environmental impact associated with DUMPING the remaining chemicals in the water once the spot treatments are carried out. Yes, you read that correctly. That is exactly what happens.
  • PinmanPinman Posts: 2,650 Captain
    Limited spraying?

    Doing that would bring on the water lettuce and hyacinths that give rise to the tussocks! That’s about as good for waterfowl as spraying all the hydrilla. 

    Would be better if all the spraying was focused on the water lettuce and hyacinth and the only hydrilla that was sprayed was to open trails through or along it for navigation. Tussock removal is the only time where mechanical harvesting should be used because chemical treatment isn’t usually very effective except if your goal is to build up the muck. 

    IDK  Lake O in the 70's - early 90's had Hydrilla, Hyacinths, Lettuce, Tussocks, Marsh cut off from main lake via mud berm.... and hundreds of thousands of ducks and fish. 2019 is an improvement? Its a desert out there.
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG
    Ducks move to the best available habitat.... WITH THE LEAST DISTURBANCE

    I could ( but won't )  tell you about a marsh that has thousands of ducks....because it is undisturbed. 



    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • OGBOHICAOGBOHICA floridaPosts: 210 Deckhand
    Remove the P out of household fertilizer as a start..replace the leaky sewage systems, stop spraying canal banks and areas needlessly being sprayed daily. Just yesterday driving along SR 27 the entire stretch has been nuked on both sides of the canal bank, the same canal that flows into area 2 and 3 and the sta's. Its a joke
  • Big MakBig Mak Posts: 3,367 Captain
    edited December 2019 #12
    duckmanJR said:
    I could ( but won't )  tell you about a marsh that has thousands of ducks....because it is undisturbed. 



    I think I know but will you tell me? PMs, phone calls, and texts are fine!

    PS. I promise not to disturb it!  ;)
  • bicyclistbicyclist FlardaPosts: 1,654 Captain
    Big Mak said:
    The very first thing that needs to happen is changing the laws that prohibit the return trip to the yard once the chemicals are mixed. That will immediately negate the need and environmental impact associated with DUMPING the remaining chemicals in the water once the spot treatments are carried out. Yes, you read that correctly. That is exactly what happens.

    I am not sure what you mean. Chemicals are not cheap and dumping them would be an expense.
  • Big MakBig Mak Posts: 3,367 Captain
    I know it's hard to believe Peter. It was shocking to each of our ears who were in attendance at a meeting a few months ago. All of us spoke up against it.

    I believe you're a smart guy and that you know how govt pork, govt contracts, and annual budgets work every year so I won't bore you with specifics. What I will tell you is that even with this criminal wastefulness, chems and chem treatments are vastly more affordable than any other control method.... He1l, I'm not even sure the entity that's actually paying the tab (ultimately it's someone else's money anyway, (taxes)) even realizes where all that money eventually gets pi$$ed down the drain. They may not even care. 

  • bicyclistbicyclist FlardaPosts: 1,654 Captain
    edited December 2019 #15
    Big Mak said:
    I know it's hard to believe Peter. It was shocking to each of our ears who were in attendance at a meeting a few months ago. All of us spoke up against it.

    I believe you're a smart guy and that you know how govt pork, govt contracts, and annual budgets work every year so I won't bore you with specifics. What I will tell you is that even with this criminal wastefulness, chems and chem treatments are vastly more affordable than any other control method.... He1l, I'm not even sure the entity that's actually paying the tab (ultimately it's someone else's money anyway, (taxes)) even realizes where all that money eventually gets pi$$ed down the drain. They may not even care. 


    Crazy. I have gov. spraying contracts for mainly restoration areas and there is no way one could be competitive AND waste chemicals. By and large these are all low bid contracts.
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,927 Captain
    edited December 2019 #16
    There are thousands of acres of water lettuce and hyacinth right next to a navigable waterway on the st johns. They dont spray this thousands of acress near the headwaters for some reason. To me if you sprayed and killed the source of the spreading then you might not have to spend hundreds of thousands spraying it on the navigable wayerway.

    What i see with my own eyes is them keeping a stock of invasives to maintain spraying programs. It would be so easy to completely decimate it but they just do spot jobs on the and ignore the source. Its a choked out mess that sees zero maintenance on it
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,927 Captain
    bicyclist said:
    Big Mak said:
    The very first thing that needs to happen is changing the laws that prohibit the return trip to the yard once the chemicals are mixed. That will immediately negate the need and environmental impact associated with DUMPING the remaining chemicals in the water once the spot treatments are carried out. Yes, you read that correctly. That is exactly what happens.

    I am not sure what you mean. Chemicals are not cheap and dumping them would be an expense.
    Would it shock you that a man might spend $1 to make $2?
  • bicyclistbicyclist FlardaPosts: 1,654 Captain
    edited December 2019 #18
    Reel Teal said:
    There are thousands of acres of water lettuce and hyacinth right next to a navigable waterway on the st johns. They dont spray this thousands of acress near the headwaters for some reason. To me if you sprayed and killed the source of the spreading then you might not have to spend hundreds of thousands spraying it on the navigable wayerway.

    What i see with my own eyes is them keeping a stock of invasives to maintain spraying programs. It would be so easy to completely decimate it but they just do spot jobs on the and ignore the source. Its a choked out mess that sees zero maintenance on it
    I would counter with completely impossible to decimate. BUT, you are correct in that playing smart does not seem to be in the playbook. Booms across some inlets that bring in exotics, use more bio control, etc. would help in reducing chemicals. Believe me, the state does not enjoy or want to spend many millions on exotic species eradication. They would love to spend the money elsewhere.

    On another note; check out this website and the list of species. How many are growing in your yard? How many did your HMO plant? Or for your city's "beautification"?


    There is a lot more education that  needs to be had in regards to exotic invasive species and the general public.


  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,927 Captain
    I live on a lake. The invasives were nuked by the county that were on the shoreline. Off that list looks like zero. My yard isnt all that special but there do seem to be some rogue ferns on the street. I personally have only planted vegetables on my property.

    The invasives i speak of are in impoundments with big pipes that flow into the river. Seems to be a really easy place to knock out thousands of acres of invasives.
  • Big MakBig Mak Posts: 3,367 Captain
    bicyclist said:
    Big Mak said:
    I know it's hard to believe Peter. It was shocking to each of our ears who were in attendance at a meeting a few months ago. All of us spoke up against it.

    I believe you're a smart guy and that you know how govt pork, govt contracts, and annual budgets work every year so I won't bore you with specifics. What I will tell you is that even with this criminal wastefulness, chems and chem treatments are vastly more affordable than any other control method.... He1l, I'm not even sure the entity that's actually paying the tab (ultimately it's someone else's money anyway, (taxes)) even realizes where all that money eventually gets pi$$ed down the drain. They may not even care. 


    Crazy. I have gov. spraying contracts for mainly restoration areas and there is no way one could be competitive AND waste chemicals. By and large these are all low bid contracts.
    Crazy indeed. Shocking for some to be sure, but I'm not positive I'm really all that surprised.

    There were 4 or 5 of us from this forum attended the meeting when it was revealed to us. Even the FWC bios were in dismay and didn't agree with all of the mechanics in a day in the life of a spray boat.

    I will agree that there is much to learn about Invasive plant control for the average Joe. It is a checkers game in the field and a chess game in the political arena. Some of it overlaps and most of it is preposterous.
  • bicyclistbicyclist FlardaPosts: 1,654 Captain
    Big Mak said:
    bicyclist said:
    Big Mak said:
    I know it's hard to believe Peter. It was shocking to each of our ears who were in attendance at a meeting a few months ago. All of us spoke up against it.

    I believe you're a smart guy and that you know how govt pork, govt contracts, and annual budgets work every year so I won't bore you with specifics. What I will tell you is that even with this criminal wastefulness, chems and chem treatments are vastly more affordable than any other control method.... He1l, I'm not even sure the entity that's actually paying the tab (ultimately it's someone else's money anyway, (taxes)) even realizes where all that money eventually gets pi$$ed down the drain. They may not even care. 


    Crazy. I have gov. spraying contracts for mainly restoration areas and there is no way one could be competitive AND waste chemicals. By and large these are all low bid contracts.
    Crazy indeed. Shocking for some to be sure, but I'm not positive I'm really all that surprised.

    There were 4 or 5 of us from this forum attended the meeting when it was revealed to us. Even the FWC bios were in dismay and didn't agree with all of the mechanics in a day in the life of a spray boat.

    I will agree that there is much to learn about Invasive plant control for the average Joe. It is a checkers game in the field and a chess game in the political arena. Some of it overlaps and most of it is preposterous.

    Couldn't agree more. Way too much treating the symptoms of a problem (pollution, seed sources, etc.) and ignoring or making the problem worse.
  • OGBOHICAOGBOHICA floridaPosts: 210 Deckhand
    I can show you a popular dump site that gets 4 oclock traffic at it. I bet if the ground samples were tested it would be shocking, its right behind the last powerbox heading into Clewiston from the S on the N side of the road
  • TGunnTGunn Posts: 1,919 Captain
    edited December 2019 #23
    duckmanJR said:
    I figured the anti spray crowd would be all over this.   
    Yeah...maybe...

    I'm waiting to hear one ....just one...*economicly * viable alternative to spraying....
    $100 - 200 an acre VS $12,000 - 18,000 an acre......  
    I’m waiting to hear of one...just one...instance where any floating vegetation ever kept anyone from going where they needed to go on Lake O for more than a single Saturday morning until 10am. 

    Floating vegetation’s lifespan when keeping somebody from getting to a fishing or hunting spot has the life span of approximately one Optimax 250XS or two Briggs Vanguards, whichever comes first. 

    You don’t know anything about the lake or the impact of the spraying; you’re just here to White Knight for the agencies that allow you to hunt heavily managed duck farms.

    If your old @ss ever makes it to Glades County I’ll mop off all the algae at every boat ramp with it. Might catch an elderly or mentally handicapped person abuse charge but I’ll take it!
  • TGunnTGunn Posts: 1,919 Captain
    Big Mak said:
    The very first thing that needs to happen is changing the laws that prohibit the return trip to the yard once the chemicals are mixed. That will immediately negate the need and environmental impact associated with DUMPING the remaining chemicals in the water once the spot treatments are carried out. Yes, you read that correctly. That is exactly what happens.
    But Gene...you heard the lady at the meeting.

    TRANSPORT ON THE HIGHWAY IS ILLEGAL!!!
  • TGunnTGunn Posts: 1,919 Captain
    edited December 2019 #25
    bicyclist said:
    Big Mak said:
    The very first thing that needs to happen is changing the laws that prohibit the return trip to the yard once the chemicals are mixed. That will immediately negate the need and environmental impact associated with DUMPING the remaining chemicals in the water once the spot treatments are carried out. Yes, you read that correctly. That is exactly what happens.

    I am not sure what you mean. Chemicals are not cheap and dumping them would be an expense.

  • PinmanPinman Posts: 2,650 Captain
    Reel Teal said:
    There are thousands of acres of water lettuce and hyacinth right next to a navigable waterway on the st johns. They dont spray this thousands of acress near the headwaters for some reason. To me if you sprayed and killed the source of the spreading then you might not have to spend hundreds of thousands spraying it on the navigable wayerway.

    What i see with my own eyes is them keeping a stock of invasives to maintain spraying programs. It would be so easy to completely decimate it but they just do spot jobs on the and ignore the source. Its a choked out mess that sees zero maintenance on it

    Manatees like to munch on Hyacinth. Not a lot of Manatees in Lake O. LOTS of Manatees in the St Johns.....hmmmm
  • OGBOHICAOGBOHICA floridaPosts: 210 Deckhand
  • TGunnTGunn Posts: 1,919 Captain
    edited December 2019 #28
    Joe has made it incredibly clear over the years that he and some of his buddies are more than happy to sell out other hunters and their hunting grounds for their own benefit. The Lake and anywhere in the Glades where you aren’t given a designated parking pole are always on the chopping block with them. 

    They get no quarter. 
  • Big MakBig Mak Posts: 3,367 Captain
    TGunn said:
    Big Mak said:
    The very first thing that needs to happen is changing the laws that prohibit the return trip to the yard once the chemicals are mixed. That will immediately negate the need and environmental impact associated with DUMPING the remaining chemicals in the water once the spot treatments are carried out. Yes, you read that correctly. That is exactly what happens.
    But Gene...you heard the lady at the meeting.

    TRANSPORT ON THE HIGHWAY IS ILLEGAL!!!
    That I did!
  • OGBOHICAOGBOHICA floridaPosts: 210 Deckhand
    Saw some new refill rigs the other day, looks like Applied is stepping their game up. Saw some out of state sprayers and even a few john boats w tanks on them. Saw a private 4 cyl airboat I wouldn't put a foot on looked so dangerous but was in spray action. BOHICA
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG
    TGunn said:
    duckmanJR said:
    I figured the anti spray crowd would be all over this.   
    Yeah...maybe...

    I'm waiting to hear one ....just one...*economicly * viable alternative to spraying....
    $100 - 200 an acre VS $12,000 - 18,000 an acre......  


    If your old @ss ever makes it to Glades County I’ll mop off all the algae at every boat ramp with it. Might catch an elderly or mentally handicapped person abuse charge but I’ll take it!



    That sounds like a threat Mr. Attorney...should I send a copy of this to the Fla bar association ?

    And to be clear....I have no fear at all of you....when you see me..make your move. 
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
Sign In or Register to comment.