Home General Hunting

Lake O and "burned fish" article...

24

Replies

  • MRichardsonMRichardson Posts: 10,326 AG
    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......  
    Dumping toxins into the water at the rate they do is not acceptable no matter how cheap it is.

    FWC lies about the oversight issue.  Me and many others have seen how the spray contractors operate.  It is not anywhere close to professional or within the guidelines that FWC continues to assert is practiced when they know it is not.
    I have never seen live bones, but I know that they are often used by rich people to decorate the interior.
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG

    I will agree that there is much to learn about Invasive plant control for the average Joe. 




    There sure is.... 
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG
    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......  
    Dumping toxins into the water at the rate they do is not acceptable no matter how cheap it is.

    FWC lies about the oversight issue.  Me and many others have seen how the spray contractors operate.  It is not anywhere close to professional or within the guidelines that FWC continues to assert is practiced when they know it is not.

    Oversite and timing have been identified as large issue... 
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • MRichardsonMRichardson Posts: 10,326 AG
    FWC ignored public input on this for a long time.  Now they "get it."

    Yeah, now they are faced with undeniable evidence.  But they knew all along. Their decision to ignore competent and  honest information will not fare well for their public image in the future. This spraying thing goes far beyond hunters and fishermen.  Once it gets into the arena of soccer moms as well as more active envrionmentally-minded stakeholders, they are screwed. There have a been a very few news stories on it but the most recent ones seem to be coming more and more frequently.  If it lights off, FWC is going to get pummelled in the court of public opinion.  Thus Director Sutton's very interesting comments at the Dec meeting. They know what's coming.
    I have never seen live bones, but I know that they are often used by rich people to decorate the interior.
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG
    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......  
    Dumping toxins into the water at the rate they do is not acceptable no matter how cheap it is.

    FWC lies about the oversight issue.  Me and many others have seen how the spray contractors operate.  It is not anywhere close to professional or within the guidelines that FWC continues to assert is practiced when they know it is not.
    Yes...Oversite and timing are identified as issues in invase plant management as it regards habitat...

    There are also difference is programs within the agency itself.... AHRES has a small budget...but with directed projects and direct oversite...with good results.

    IPM has a large budget but the "culture" is focused on eradication...or "maintenance" in their words....
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG
    FWC ignored public input on this for a long time.  Now they "get it."

    Yeah, now they are faced with undeniable evidence.  But they knew all along. Their decision to ignore competent and  honest information will not fare well for their public image in the future. This spraying thing goes far beyond hunters and fishermen.  Once it gets into the arena of soccer moms as well as more active envrionmentally-minded stakeholders, they are screwed. There have a been a very few news stories on it but the most recent ones seem to be coming more and more frequently.  If it lights off, FWC is going to get pummelled in the court of public opinion.  Thus Director Sutton's very interesting comments at the Dec meeting. They know what's coming.
    If we are discussing fish lesions....the "science" is that is stress related.....it is not caused by chemicals.

    But hey, science is boring....emotion is where it's at in todays social media world.  
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG
    edited December 2019 #38
    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......  
    Dumping toxins into the water **** at the rate they do ****  is not acceptable no matter how cheap it is.


    Could you elaborate on what the rate is ? 

    Could you speak as to what the effacacy is in a Chemical VS mechanicle harvest scenario is ?? ....

    Just a hint...there have been projects on both Toho and Kissimmee....this summer...and data...   
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,927 Captain
    Chemicals wouldnt cause stress? I mean chemicals in the air we breathe and walk through causes stress on our bodies.

    Do you have anything to read on this matter?
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG
    Oh...and back to fish lesions....recent BASS tournament data...920 fish landed and weighed...not 1 lesion...

    Is the "activist" in the OP article to be believed...or is he forwarding an emotion driven agenda.... 
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,927 Captain
    I think timing is very important JR. When was the last spray? Did the fish come from that area? You know science. Looking at fish being weighed in is anecdotal at best. 

    Do fish never heal from skin lesions or are they permanent?
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,927 Captain
    Why do fish get lesions?

    Fish can get lesions if they are injured in a net
    or trap, or are bitten by another animal. Fish
    may also get lesions from stress, algae, fungi,
    bacteria, parasites, Pfiesteria toxins, and
    changes in weather or diet, or polluted water
    (such as water with sewage or runoff from
  • wayviswayvis FloridaPosts: 137 Deckhand
    If stress is causing this conditions, then I would ask what is causing the stress. As I said in my above post I have seen lesions on fish since the 60's. As most things with nature one or two years can be worst than others and can be localized. The questions to the science should be is spaying causing the stress due to habitat changes such as low oxygen levels due to dying vegetation or some other factors. 
  • TGunnTGunn Posts: 1,919 Captain
    edited December 2019 #44
    duckmanJR said:
    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. 
    Don't care.  You're a piece of garbage and I won't skirt the law or any punishment for my actions.  I'll square up with the Bar or whoever else and take any necessary lumps.  Won't matter because you'd never in a million years disclose that you'd hunt here; there would be a line of guys waiting make your truck tires look like a porcupine with knives and screwdrivers.

    You and your buddies at UWF should be ashamed of describing yourselves as an advocate for all of Florida's waterfowlers when all you did was push your own selfish agendas with the money of the people you were screwing on the Lake and in the Glades.

    The only positive thing I have to say about you is, at least you've never denied it when we call you out on it.  
  • bicyclistbicyclist FlardaPosts: 1,654 Captain

    A few archives. Just to show what we don't have because of exotic aquatic species management. For better or for worse?

    Some photo archives. Really pretty cool. Lots of old schools physical removal, I guess prior to chemicals. Did not appear to work well then.





    Water hyacinth blocking Anderson Creek branch ( south end Lake O) 1917








  • TGunnTGunn Posts: 1,919 Captain
    Oh look, here's Joe running all the interference and making up every argument he can to support spraying where he doesn't hunt.


    Nothing new, move along.
  • OGBOHICAOGBOHICA floridaPosts: 212 Deckhand
    TM goodwin the lipstick on the pig now for FWC with regards to duck hunting. Does it ever get nuked?
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG
    That was easier than I thought... Trolling up the weak minded is one of my very worst qualities...but at least you make it fun Tommy boy.

    You have no idea where or who I hunt with on lake O.... 
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG
    bicyclist said:

    A few archives. Just to show what we don't have because of exotic aquatic species management. For better or for worse?

    Some photo archives. Really pretty cool. Lots of old schools physical removal, I guess prior to chemicals. Did not appear to work well then.





    Water hyacinth blocking Anderson Creek branch ( south end Lake O) 1917








    We do not approve of you posting anything that goes against our collective confermational bias Peter....stop that LOL ! 
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • MRichardsonMRichardson Posts: 10,326 AG
    edited December 2019 #50
    duckmanJR 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......  
    Dumping toxins into the water **** at the rate they do ****  is not acceptable no matter how cheap it is.


    Could you elaborate on what the rate is ? 

    Could you speak as to what the effacacy is in a Chemical VS mechanicle harvest scenario is ?? ....

    Just a hint...there have been projects on both Toho and Kissimmee....this summer...and data...   
    The standard should be "don't dump toxic chemicals into the water," those that choose to do so carry the burden of proof.  However, in this case, due to the known abuses, lying and questionable relatinship between FWC/sprayers, we are in a situation where any reasonable fair-minded person would question their research and determination on the matter. Chemical dumping has a history of being "legal/non-impacting" at the time it was done and later found to be damaging.  There's a movie out about this subject currently, I think. Chemicals, not specifically FWC/spraying.

    If we decide that dumping toxic chemicals into our lakes/rivers is okay because it's the cheaper way to manage invasive plants (which I do not disagree with) then I should be able to toss my used batteries and motor oil in the ground out back because it's far cheaper for me.  Sometimes you just have to suck it up and do things the right way until you can figure out a cheaper "right way."  The estimates FWC quotes are ridiculous, btw.  Designed to over-exaggerate mechanical methods to influence opinion and consideration.
    I have never seen live bones, but I know that they are often used by rich people to decorate the interior.
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG
    Reel Teal said:
    Chemicals wouldnt cause stress? I mean chemicals in the air we breathe and walk through causes stress on our bodies.

    Do you have anything to read on this matter?
    It has been studied...since it garners attention. 

    As someone already posted...lesions in fish go back many decades.....way before widespread spraying of aquatics.
    If you are looking to find a boogyman with chemicles...you will. 
    That is a given.

    The EPA and DEP probably have some deep research since they must do the data sheets for every chemical used.

      

    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG
    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.
    Gene,

    If we are to have meaningful input and discussion...we need honesty and full discloseure.
    You know we speak to some of the same people and know their feelings...that we share.

    BUT

    You know that the "dumping" you are refering to is tank washout...which is mandated by the Feds. It is FRACTIONAL amounts of product...since the boss's don't enjoy waste...it effects the bottom line.

    FWIW ...I do not like it either. It is a terrible "optic"...that reinforces incorrect perceptions. 
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,927 Captain
    duckmanJR said:
    Reel Teal said:
    Chemicals wouldnt cause stress? I mean chemicals in the air we breathe and walk through causes stress on our bodies.

    Do you have anything to read on this matter?
    It has been studied...since it garners attention. 

    As someone already posted...lesions in fish go back many decades.....way before widespread spraying of aquatics.
    If you are looking to find a boogyman with chemicles...you will. 
    That is a given.

    The EPA and DEP probably have some deep research since they must do the data sheets for every chemical used.

      

    duckmanJR said:
    Reel Teal said:
    Chemicals wouldnt cause stress? I mean chemicals in the air we breathe and walk through causes stress on our bodies.

    Do you have anything to read on this matter?
    It has been studied...since it garners attention. 

    As someone already posted...lesions in fish go back many decades.....way before widespread spraying of aquatics.
    If you are looking to find a boogyman with chemicles...you will. 
    That is a given.

    The EPA and DEP probably have some deep research since they must do the data sheets for every chemical used.

      

    You said stress causes lesions and chemicals do not. Said its been proven by science. I just asked where. 

    Are you stating that because skin lesions existed on a fish in the 1960s that skin lesions on a fish in 2019 could not be from chemicals bc they werent spraying across the state with chemicals? I want some more of your science please.
  • Reel TealReel Teal Posts: 3,927 Captain
    edited December 2019 #54
    Cyclist is the extremist.

    Just because we dont want tons of chemicals in the water he drums up his scrapbook from when absolutely nothing widespread was being done about invasives. Nobody said to let them spread all over. Using that same logic one could say duckman and cyclist are advocates for killing every single piece of aquatic flora in the state.
  • TGunnTGunn Posts: 1,919 Captain
    duckmanJR 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.

    You know that the "dumping" you are refering to is tank washout...which is mandated by the Feds. It is FRACTIONAL amounts of product...since the boss's don't enjoy waste...it effects the bottom line.

    No, it's not "washout."  Your continued ignorance of what happens here and blind defense of what happens here despite that ignorance is comical.
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG
    duckmanJR 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......  
    Dumping toxins into the water **** at the rate they do ****  is not acceptable no matter how cheap it is.


    Could you elaborate on what the rate is ? 

    Could you speak as to what the effacacy is in a Chemical VS mechanicle harvest scenario is ?? ....

    Just a hint...there have been projects on both Toho and Kissimmee....this summer...and data...   
    The standard should be "don't dump toxic chemicals into the water," those that choose to do so carry the burden of proof.  However, in this case, due to the known abuses, lying and questionable relatinship between FWC/sprayers, we are in a situation where any reasonable fair-minded person would question their research and determination on the matter. Chemical dumping has a history of being "legal/non-impacting" at the time it was done and later found to be damaging.  There's a movie out about this subject currently, I think. Chemicals, not specifically FWC/spraying.

    If we decide that dumping toxic chemicals into our lakes/rivers is okay because it's the cheaper way to manage invasive plants (which I do not disagree with) then I should be able to toss my used batteries and motor oil in the ground out back because it's far cheaper for me.  Sometimes you just have to suck it up and do things the right way until you can figure out a cheaper "right way."  The estimates FWC quotes are ridiculous, btw.  Designed to over-exaggerate mechanical methods to influence opinion and consideration.
    Matt... many things can be toxic...Asprin...Alcohol... Everything is related to use and rate of application.

    As far as the numbers....they are numbers that are actual...not estimates.  The real money is on transportation off site...the past summers projects where the vegitation was dumped at lake edge were much more reasonanle....
    300 + acres @ $800,000 put it at about $2700 an acre....but then we had a nutrient sink of N & P at the lake edge...and getting some of the heavy load of that out of the system should be a goal. 


    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • bicyclistbicyclist FlardaPosts: 1,654 Captain
    edited December 2019 #57
    Reel Teal said:
    Cyclist is the extremist.

    Just because we dont want tons of chemicals in the water he drums up his scrapbook from when absolutely nothing widespread was being done about invasives. Nobody said to let them spread all over. Using that same logic one could say duckman and cyclist are advocates for killing every single piece of aquatic flora in the state.
    I know what inaction can accomplishment (we are tropical and these plants grow VERY quickly) and I don't want the past to be ignored. I wholeheartedly agree that too many chemicals are used to treat the symptoms of problems that are ignored and I think that the long-term use of chemicals is horrible and unsustainable. I also believe they need to be used in order to stem the tide of exotics. This goes for waters and uplands. Management plans usually address all these issues and sometimes are not adhered to.

    I am aware of the use of chemicals in north Florida on native species such as Nuphar (Spaderdock) and American lotus. Which is just crazy.

  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG
    TGunn said:
    duckmanJR 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.

    You know that the "dumping" you are refering to is tank washout...which is mandated by the Feds. It is FRACTIONAL amounts of product...since the boss's don't enjoy waste...it effects the bottom line.

    No, it's not "washout."  Your continued ignorance of what happens here and blind defense of what happens here despite that ignorance is comical.
    Yes...comical is someone who is trying to push an agenda...  You should use that law degree to mount a suit against the state and it's contractors. 
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG
    Reel Teal said:

    Chemicals wouldnt cause stress? I mean chemicals in the air we breathe and walk through causes stress on our bodies.

    Do you have anything to read on this matter?
    It has been studied...since it garners attention. 

    As someone already posted...lesions in fish go back many decades.....way before widespread spraying of aquatics.
    If you are looking to find a boogyman with chemicles...you will. 
    That is a given.

    The EPA and DEP probably have some deep research since they must do the data sheets for every chemical used.

      

    You said stress causes lesions and chemicals do not. Said its been proven by science. I just asked where. 

    Are you stating that because skin lesions existed on a fish in the 1960s that skin lesions on a fish in 2019 could not be from chemicals bc they werent spraying across the state with chemicals? I want some more of your science please.

    See, this is "confirmational bias" ...  YOU are saying that I said that chemicles do or did not cause lesions...which CLEARLY...I did not. 

    I said they are stress related...stress can be from many factors.... A mishandled fish with slime coat rubbed off...water temprature extreems....attack from another fish / bird / gator

    But...You want to link it to chemicles...because it is easy and redily saleable to the public...

    And...You want me to provide links for you...Do your own research and you can prove me wrong. 
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • duckmanJRduckmanJR Posts: 20,736 AG
    Reel Teal said:

    Just because we dont want tons of chemicals in the water 

    Do you have the actual numbers for this....or are we to accept hyperbole as a standard metric... as long as it helps the narrative  
    There are many roads to travel
    Many things to do.
    Knots to be unraveled
    'fore the darkness falls on you
  • Big MakBig Mak Posts: 3,374 Captain
    Joe, what was intimated to all of us was absolutely not miniscule tank washout! It does not matter how much chemical is left after a "pre-defined grid" was sprayed during a scheduled treatment. The tanks get dumped/ emptied/ washed on the lake because they cannot transport the chemicals back to their facility on the road. That is the fact. It matters not to me what you think. Those of us there know what was said.

    I guess Skip was being honest all these years when he claimed to have watched them dump their tanks before returning to the ramp....
Sign In or Register to comment.